Roswell Survey

City of Roswell, Georgia 2010 Resident Survey

Report of Results January 2011

Prepared by:

3005 30th Street • Boulder, CO 80301 • 303-444-7863 • www.n-r-c.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary..................................................................................... 1 Survey Background .................................................................................... 4 Survey Purpose..................................................................................................................... 4 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 4 Understanding the Results ..................................................................................................... 4

Report of Results.......................................................................................8 Quality of Life and Community .............................................................................................. 8 Quality of Life ..................................................................................................................... 8 Public Trust ......................................................................................................................... 9 Safety in Roswell Neighborhoods ....................................................................................... 11 Reasons for Living in Roswell.............................................................................................. 12 Challenges and Opportunities Facing the City of Roswell .................................................... 12 City Services ...................................................................................................................... 15 Overall Quality of Services ................................................................................................ 15 Quality of City Services...................................................................................................... 16 Importance of City Services ................................................................................................ 19 Balancing Quality and Importance ..................................................................................... 21 Priorities for City Services ................................................................................................... 23 Communication with Citizens .............................................................................................. 25 Contacting City Employees ................................................................................................ 25 Availability of Information .................................................................................................. 26 Sources of Information....................................................................................................... 27 City Web Site .................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A: Respondent Demographics....................................................... 31 Appendix B: Complete Set of Responses to Survey Questions........................33 Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions .............. 44 Appendix D: Crosstabulations by Respondent Sociodemographics....................69 Survey Instrument Development ......................................................................................... 77 Sample Selection............................................................................................................... 77 Survey Administration ........................................................................................................ 77 Weighting the Data ........................................................................................................... 77 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 79

Appendix F: Jurisdictions Included In Benchmark Comparisons .......................80 Appendix G: Survey Instrument ................................................................86 Report of Results

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Appendix E: Survey Methodology............................................................... 77

TABLE OF FIGURES

Report of Results

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Roswell, 2010 ........................................................................................8 Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life in Roswell Compared Over Time .................................................................8 Figure 3: Public Trust Ratings, 2010..........................................................................................................10 Figure 4: Public Trust Ratings Compared Over Time...................................................................................10 Figure 5: Safety in Neighborhood at Night ................................................................................................11 Figure 6: Safety in Neighborhood at Night Compared Over Time ...............................................................11 Figure 7: Reasons for Living in Roswell ......................................................................................................12 Figure 8: Biggest Issues Facing Roswell in Next Two Years ..........................................................................13 Figure 9: One Thing Would Change about Roswell Government.................................................................14 Figure 10: Overall Quality of Services in Roswell .......................................................................................15 Figure 11: Overall Quality of Services in Roswell Compared Over Time ......................................................15 Figure 12: Quality of City Services, 2010 ..................................................................................................17 Figure 13: Quality of City Services Compared Over Time ...........................................................................18 Figure 14: Importance of City Services, 2010 ............................................................................................19 Figure 15: Importance of City Services Compared Over Time .....................................................................20 Figure 16: Balancing Quality and Importance ...........................................................................................22 Figure 17: Level of Preferred Property Taxes to Cover Gap Between Costs and Revenue ................................23 Figure 18: Respondent Preference for Reduction of Service .........................................................................24 Figure 19: Contact with City Employees Compared Over Time ...................................................................25 Figure 20: Ratings of City Employees (by Those who had Contact)...............................................................25 Figure 21: Ratings of City Employees (by Those who had Contact) Compared Over Time..............................25 Figure 22: Satisfaction with Availability of Information about City Services ....................................................26 Figure 23: Satisfaction with Availability of Information About City Services Compared Over Time ...................26 Figure 24: Ways to Improve Availability of Information ...............................................................................26 Figure 25: Sources of News about Roswell ................................................................................................27 Figure 26: Sources of News About Roswell Compared Over Time ...............................................................28 Figure 27: Frequency of Accessing Information Provided by the City ............................................................29 Figure 28: Access of City Web Site............................................................................................................30 Figure 29: Access of City Web Site............................................................................................................30 Figure 30: Ease of Finding Desired Information on Web Site .......................................................................30 Figure 31: Respondent Length of Residency ...............................................................................................31 Figure 32: Respondent Housing Unit Type .................................................................................................31 Figure 33: Respondent Housing Tenure.....................................................................................................31 Figure 34: Respondent Educational Attainment ..........................................................................................31 Figure 35: Respondent Race.....................................................................................................................32 Figure 36: Respondent Ethnicity ................................................................................................................32 Figure 37: Respondent Age ......................................................................................................................32 Figure 38: Respondent Gender.................................................................................................................32 Figure 39: City of Roswell 2010 Resident Survey Weighting Table ...............................................................79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Survey Background and Purpose The City of Roswell contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a community wide resident survey. The 2010 Roswell, Georgia Resident Survey provides residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the City of Roswell as well as service delivery and their satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not and share their communication preferences.

This is the second iteration of a survey of Roswell, Georgia residents.

Methods A total of 2,300 randomly selected Roswell, Georgia households were mailed the 2010 Roswell, Georgia Resident Survey. Of the 2,192 eligible households who received the survey, 588 responded to the 2010 survey, giving a response rate of 27%. The survey instrument itself appears in Appendix G: Survey Instrument.

Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender, race, ethnicity, housing unit type and housing tenure were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire City of Roswell (For more information see Appendix E: Survey Methodology). The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points around any given percentage point.

Comparisons are made between 2010 responses and those from 2007, when available. The 2010 results also were compared by demographic characteristics. In addition, the City of Roswell elected to have results compared to those of other jurisdictions around the nation and to jurisdictions of similar population size (70,000 to 131,000). These comparisons are made possible through NRC’s national benchmark database, which contains resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions, including cities and counties.

Summary of Results Quality of Life and Community

When asked to indicate their reasons for living in the City of Roswell, most commonly residents selected location, followed by neighborhoods, schools and parks.

Several aspects of the City government were evaluated by 2010 survey respondents. Ratings generally were positive, with a majority of residents rating each item as “good” or “excellent.”

These ratings also were much higher than those given in other jurisdictions across the country and in communities of similar population size.

When asked to identify the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years, residents most commonly remarked about traffic and lights. Other common themes were: Report of Results Page 1

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Residents continue to rate the quality of life and community in Roswell with favorable ratings.

Almost all respondents in 2010 rated the overall quality of life in Roswell and the safety of their neighborhoods at night with high marks, similar to 2007 ratings and much above the national average and when compared to ratings given in jurisdictions of similar population size.

crime; budget issues; illegal immigrants; and the economy. When describing in their own words the one thing they would change about the City of Roswell Government, residents most commonly mentioned communication and increasing citizen involvement, and that they would not change anything.

City Services In general, City services were rated positively. About 8 in 10 residents rated the overall quality of services provided by Roswell government as “good” or “excellent,” higher than in other jurisdictions across the nation and in communities of similar size.

Six of the sixteen services included on the 2010 survey received “good” or “excellent” ratings by about 9 in 10 respondents: parks grounds, garbage pickup, fire protection, parks facilities, curbside recycling and the Recycling Center.

Twelve of the sixteen services rated by 2010 respondents received ratings that were much above the national benchmark and one was rated above the national average. When compared to jurisdictions of similar population size, 12 services were rated much above average and the rating for the ease of bicycling in the city was above average. Traffic signal timing was rated below the population size average rating.

When asked to rate the importance of each city service, a majority of respondents rated each as “very important” or “essential,” except for online payments such as paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines and the ease of bicycling in the city. Services considered to be of higher importance, but rated as lower quality were: traffic flow, street maintenance, storm drainage and traffic signal timing. These may be areas for opportunity for the City of Roswell.

Residents were asked to indicate how much more per month, if anything, they would be willing to pay to address a gap between revenue and the cost to provide services. One scenario was to maintain current City services and the other to increase City services (both scenarios excluded sanitation and water services). For each scenario, about 6 in 10 respondents said they would be willing to pay at least $1 or more per month in property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services. When residents were asked to indicate which single service area they would be willing to reduce, if the City had to do so, no single service area garnered a significant percentage of responses and about two in five said they would not be willing to reduce any services.

Most residents are satisfied with the availability of information about City services. The City web site and the Roswell Neighbor newspaper were most commonly used by residents to obtain information about the City of Roswell. While the City’s Web site saw a spike in use from reports given in 2007, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, television news and the Revue and News newspaper were reportedly used less in 2010 than in 2007.

The City Web site received favorable ratings from those who had accessed it in the previous 12 months.

Of those who reported contacting a City employee within the previous 12 months, most gave “good” or “excellent” ratings when asked to rate their impression of the employee in their most recent contact.

Report of Results Page 2

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Communication with Citizens

In Conclusion Residents think favorably of the quality of life and community and the safety of neighborhoods in Roswell.



Residents choose Roswell because the location, neighborhoods, schools and parks.



Ratings of public trust generally were positive in 2010.



Residents think traffic/lights, crime, budgeting, illegal immigrants and the economy/jobs are the most pressing issues in the next two years.



Residents would like to see improvements in Roswell Government communication with citizens and increasing citizen involvement.



City services were rated positively, though traffic flow, street maintenance, storm drainage and traffic signal timing could be areas of opportunity for the City in the next few years.



A majority of residents said they would be willing to pay additional taxes, if the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services.



Most residents are satisfied with the availability of information about City services.



The City Web site and City employees received favorable ratings in 2010.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.



Report of Results Page 3

SURVEY BACKGROUND Survey Purpose The City of Roswell, Georgia contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a community wide resident survey. The 2010 Roswell, Georgia Resident Survey serves as a consumer report card for Roswell by providing residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the city, as well as the community’s amenities, service delivery and their satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation.

The focus on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services helps council, staff and the public to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking community opinions about the core responsibilities of Roswell city government, helping to assure maximum service quality over time.

This type of survey gets at the key services that local government controls to create a quality community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before customers defect to competition or before other problems from dissatisfied customers arise.

This is the second iteration of the City of Roswell, Georgia Resident Survey.

Methods The 2010 survey was mailed to a total random selection of 2,300 households within the city limits of Roswell. A total of 1,400 households received the survey mailings in October 2010.

Due to a lower response rate than in 2007, an additional 900 households were sampled in November. Households received three mailings: a prenotification postcard and two survey packets mailed a week apart.

Completed surveys were collected over a 12-week period. Households had the option of mailing in their completed survey or completing it online. About 5% of the surveys were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,192 eligible households, 588 completed the survey (57 of which were completed via the Web option), providing an overall response rate of 27%.

Understanding the Results © 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

For the most part, frequency distributions (the percent of respondents giving each possible response to a particular question) are presented in the body of the report. In addition, the “percent positive” is reported for some questions in the report body tables and charts. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe”).

On many of the questions in the survey, respondents gave an answer of “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix B: Complete Set of Responses to Survey Questions and is discussed in the body of this Report of Results Page 4

report if it is 20% or greater. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.

For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in multiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.

Precision of Estimates It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (588 completed surveys). Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise. Generally the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus five percentage points for samples of about 400 to 10 percentage points for samples as small as 100, and for smaller sample sizes (i.e., 50), the margin of error rises to 14%.

Comparing Survey Results Over Time Because this survey was the second iteration of the resident survey, the 2010 results are presented along with past ratings when available. Differences between percentages reported in the body of the report can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than six percentage points. Trend data for Roswell represent important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time especially represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions.

Comparing Survey Results by Demographic Subgroups Select survey results were compared by demographic characteristics of survey respondents (see Appendix D: Crosstabulations by Respondent Sociodemographics).

Jurisdictions use the comparative information provided by benchmarks to help interpret their own resident survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions, and to measure local government performance. It is not known what is small or large without comparing. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” resident evaluations, it is necessary to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good enough or if most other communities are “excellent.”

Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair as street maintenance always gets lower ratings than fire protection. More illuminating is how residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities and to resident ratings over time.

Report of Results Page 5

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Comparing Survey Results to Other Jurisdictions

A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service – one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes, and keeps the crime rate low – still has a problem to fix if the residents in the city rate police services lower than ratings given by residents in other cities with objectively “worse” departments.

Benchmark data can help that police department – or any City department – to understand how well residents think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. Resident opinion should be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, population demographics, personnel, and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results.

NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted. These integration methods have been described thoroughly in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, and in NRC’s first book on conducting and using resident surveys, Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).

Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on NRC’s work [e.g., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of resident satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, 331-341]. The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC’s proprietary databases.

Comparison of Roswell to the Benchmarking Database Jurisdictions to which Roswell is compared can be found in Appendix F: Jurisdictions Included In Benchmark Comparisons. National and population size benchmark comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Roswell survey are included in NRC’s database and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked, though most questions are compared to more than five other cities across the country or of similar population size to Roswell.

Report of Results Page 6

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Jurisdictions in NRC’s benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to all jurisdictions in the database or to a subsets of jurisdictions (within a given region or population category such as Front Range jurisdictions), as in this report. Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents.

Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources, and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored, and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride, and a sense of accomplishment.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the Roswell’s results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark.

For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, watching Roswell City TV). In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much more”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of Roswell’s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “above,” “below,” “more,” or “less” if the difference between Roswell’s rating and the benchmark is greater than the margin of error; and “much above,” “much below,” “much more” or “much less” if the difference between your Roswell’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error.

Report of Results Page 7

REPORT OF RESULTS Quality of Life and Community The 2010 Roswell Resident Survey contained a set of questions related to quality of community life in the city, including reasons for living in Roswell, overall quality of life in the city, safety and ratings of Roswell government.

Quality of Life Residents continue to rate the overall quality of life in Roswell with favorable ratings, with 95% reporting it as “good” or “excellent,” similar to 2007. Five percent gave a rating of “fair” and none of the 2010 respondents said the overall quality of life in the city was “poor.”

Comparisons of Roswell’s ratings for overall quality of life were made to all jurisdictions in the benchmark database as well as jurisdictions of similar population size (for a complete list of cities and counties to which Roswell ratings were compared, see Appendix F: Jurisdictions Included In Benchmark Comparisons). Roswell’s ratings were much above the national benchmark and much above average when compared to ratings given in jurisdictions of similar population size.

Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Roswell, 2010 P lease rate the ov erall quality of life in the City of Roswell.

Good 54%

Fair 5%

Excellent 41%

Poor 0%

95%

Overall quality of life in the City of Roswell

94% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2010 2007

100%

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Report of Results Page 8

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life in Roswell Compared Over Time

Public Trust Several aspects of the City government were evaluated by 2010 survey respondents. Ratings generally were positive. Seven in ten reported that the value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell was “good” or “excellent.” Approximately two-thirds gave similar ratings for the degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community and the job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed. About 6 in 10 rated the job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement and at listening to citizens as at least “good.” Note that about a quarter of respondents said “don’t know” when asked to rate the job Roswell government does at listening to citizens. Results presented in the body of the report are for those who had an opinion. (See Appendix B: Complete Set of Responses to Survey Questions for a full set of responses including “don’t know” responses.)

Compared to the national and population size benchmarks, Roswell ratings typically were much higher than average (see Figure 3).

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

While the addition of the “positive” response categories in 2010 (“excellent” plus “good”) yielded lower numbers than in 2007 (“strongly agree” plus “agree;” see Figure 4), the two different scales have limited direct comparability. Across significant use of the two different scales, NRC has found the following to be generally true: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a decrease, community sentiment is probably about stable. This is underscored by Roswell’s strong performance against the benchmark database.

Report of Results Page 9

Figure 3: Public Trust Ratings, 2010

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

National comparison

Population 75,000 to 100,000 comparison

The value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell

17%

54%

26%

4%

100%

much above

much above

The degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community

15%

51%

27%

7%

100%

above

much above

The job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed

18%

47%

29%

6%

100%

much above

above

The job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement

16%

44%

31%

9%

100%

much above

much above

The job Roswell government does at listening to citizens

14%

44%

33%

9%

100%

much above

much above

Please rate each of the following categories as they relate to the City of Roswell.

Figure 4: Public Trust Ratings Compared Over Time 70%

The value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell

86%

The degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community

66%

The job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed

65%

86% 2010 (excellent/good)

75% 60%

The job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement

85%

2007 (strong agree/agree)

58%

The job Roswell government does at listening to citizens

84% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: The response options for the public trust question changed from “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree” or “strongly disagree” in 2007 to “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor” in 2010. This change in the wording of response options may cause a decline in the percent of residents who offer a positive perspective on public trust.

It is well to factor in the possible change due to question wording this way: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a decrease, community sentiment is probably about stable.

Report of Results Page 10

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Safety in Roswell Neighborhoods A question on the survey measured residents’ feelings of safety in their neighborhoods at night.

Most survey respondents felt safe in their neighborhoods at night, similar to 2007. More than half said they felt “very safe” and about 4 in 10 said “somewhat safe.” Only one percent reported feeling “very unsafe” in their neighborhoods at night.

When compared to the national and population size benchmarks, ratings of neighborhood safety at night were much above the average.

Figure 5: Safety in Neighborhood at Night How safe or unsafe do you feel in your neighborhood?

Somewhat safe 39%

Somewhat unsafe 3%

Very safe 56%

Very unsafe 1%

Figure 6: Safety in Neighborhood at Night Compared Over Time

96%

How safe or unsafe do you feel in your neighborhood at night?

2010 2007

96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% © 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Percent reporting "somewhat safe" or "very safe"

Report of Results Page 11

Reasons for Living in Roswell When asked to indicate their reasons for living in the City of Roswell, most commonly residents selected location (69% of respondents). About 46% said they live in Roswell because of the neighborhoods and about a third selected schools (36%), parks (36%) or being close to family and friends (32%). The least common response was culture/entertainment (11%).

Figure 7: Reasons for Living in Roswell Why did you choose to live in the City of Roswell?

Location

69%

The neighborhoods

46%

Schools

36%

Parks

36%

Close to family and friends

32%

Jobs

18% 15%

Size History

13%

Shopping

13%

Culture/entertainment

11% 12%

Other 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of respondents

Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.

Challenges and Opportunities Facing the City of Roswell

Fifty percent of respondents mentioned traffic/lights as an issue facing the City over the next two years. About one in six wrote in comments that could be grouped into the following categories: crime; budget/revenue/spending; illegal immigrants; economy/jobs (including declining property values and foreclosure). One in ten or fewer listed each other issue. About a quarter of respondents gave “other” responses that could not be categorized into a common theme. These responses appear verbatim in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions.

Report of Results Page 12

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Survey respondents were asked to identify the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years by writing in their responses. Residents also were given the opportunity to write down what one thing they would change about the City of Roswell Government.

Figure 8: Biggest Issues Facing Roswell in Next Two Years What do you think are the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years?

Percent of respondents

Traffic/lights

50%

Crime

17%

Budget/revenue/spending

15%

Illegal immigrants

14%

Economy/jobs (including declining property values and foreclosure)

14%

Growth (too much, thoughtful)

12%

Taxes

10%

Maintain city streets (cleaning, maintenance, beautification, improvements, additions)

10%

Schools/education

8%

More business friendly

8%

Abandoned/empty buildings

6%

Safety/security

6%

Development

5%

Over crowding/over population

5%

Transportation

5%

Environmental issues (need more green space)

4%

Housing

4%

Infrastructure

4%

Services (re-evaluate, maintain)

4%

Redevelopment

3%

Zoning/code enforcement

3%

Water/sewage (location of tower, cost etc.)

3%

Need to be more pedestrian friendly (trails & sidewalks)

3%

Revitalization

3%

Deterioration/decay

3%

Need more parks & recreation (maintenance)

2%

Maintain small-town feel

2%

None Percents add to more than 100, as respondents could name up to three issues.

24% 1%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Other

Report of Results Page 13

When asked what one thing they would change about Roswell Government, responses were spread across a number of topics. As in 2007, most commonly mentioned were communication and increasing citizen involvement (by 12% of respondents in 2010). A similar proportion (11%) said they would not change anything. About one in four respondents wrote in “other” responses that could not be categorized into a common theme. These responses appear verbatim in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions.

Figure 9: One Thing Would Change about Roswell Government What is the one thing you would change about the City of Roswell Government?

Percent of respondents Communication/increase citizen involvement

12%

Change in infrastructure/ City officials

7%

Efficiency

6%

Traffic problems (speed traps)

4%

Taxes

4%

Business friendly

4%

Police, too much focus on traffic not enough on crime

3%

Replace Mayor

3%

City codes/ permits enforced (zoning)

2%

Slow down growth/building

2%

Revitalization/redevelopment

2%

Police, bad attitude

2%

Issues of east vs. west Roswell

2%

Bills/fees

2% 23%

Nothing, doing a good job

11%

Don't know

10%

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Other

Report of Results Page 14

City Services In addition to rating the overall quality of services provided by Roswell government, residents were asked to rate the quality and importance of 16 services provided by the city. In general, ratings were positive, with a few opportunities for improvement.

Residents also were asked to indicate their willingness to pay for maintaining or increasing services levels in the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services. Respondents also were asked to identify which service areas they would be willing to reduce, if a reduction was necessary.

Overall Quality of Services A majority of Roswell residents rated the overall quality of services provided by Roswell government as “good” or “excellent.” About one in five gave a “fair” rating and three percent reported it as “poor.” Ratings were lower than in 2007, but much above the national average and above the benchmark when compared to ratings given in jurisdictions of similar population size. At least some of the change over time could be attributable to the revised question wording; in 2007, the emphasis was on government performance in delivering services, while in 2010, the question focused on service quality.

Figure 10: Overall Quality of Services in Roswell P lease rate the ov erall quality of serv ices prov ided by Roswell gov ernment.

Excellent 21%

Good 57%

Poor 3% Fair 19%

Figure 11: Overall Quality of Services in Roswell Compared Over Time 2010

78%

2007

86% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Note: In 2007, the question was worded as “How would you rate the overall performance of the Roswell city government in delivering services to its residents?” and in 2010, the wording was “Please rate the overall quality of services provided by Roswell government.”

Report of Results Page 15

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

The overall quality of services provided by Roswell government

Quality of City Services Six of the sixteen services rated on the 2010 survey received “good” or “excellent” ratings by about 9 in 10 respondents: parks grounds (93% reporting “good” or better), garbage pickup (92%), fire protection (92%), parks facilities (90%), curbside recycling (88%) and the Recycling Center (88%). While the ease of walking in the city (55%), the ease of bicycling in the city (53%) and traffic signal timing (44%) received less favorable ratings, resident evaluations for those two have improved since 2007. Traffic flow was rated least positively, with about a third reporting it as “good” or “excellent.”

Twelve of the sixteen services rated by 2010 respondents received ratings that were much above the national benchmark: parks grounds, fire protection, garbage pickup, curbside recycling, recycling center, ease of paying utility bill, police protection, online payments, code enforcement, street maintenance, ease of walking in the city and traffic flow. Park facilities were rated above the national average; storm drainage and the ease of bicycling in the city were rated similar to the national benchmark.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

When compared to jurisdictions of similar population size, twelve services were rated much above average: code enforcement, curbside recycling, the ease of paying utility bill, ease of walking in the city, fire protection, garbage pickup, online payments, parks facilities, police protection, recycling center, street maintenance and traffic flow. The ease of bicycling in the city was above average when compared to other jurisdictions of similar size, storm drainage was rated similarly and traffic signal timing was rated below the population size average rating.

A comparison to cities of similar population size was not available for park grounds.

Report of Results Page 16

Figure 12: Quality of City Services, 2010

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

National comparison

Population 75,000 to 100,000 comparison

Parks grounds

45%

48%

7%

0%

100%

much above

not available

Fire protection

43%

49%

8%

1%

100%

much above

much above

Garbage pickup

52%

40%

5%

3%

100%

much above

much above

Parks facilities

45%

45%

9%

1%

100%

above

much above

Curbside recycling

56%

32%

9%

3%

100%

much above

much above

Recycling Center

47%

41%

11%

2%

100%

much above

much above

Ease of paying utility bill

35%

50%

13%

2%

100%

much above

much above

Police protection

35%

50%

12%

3%

100%

much above

much above

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

27%

53%

14%

5%

100%

much above

much above

Storm drainage

18%

55%

21%

5%

100%

similar

similar

Code enforcement

23%

48%

23%

6%

100%

much above

much above

Street maintenance

19%

50%

26%

5%

100%

much above

much above

Ease of walking in the city

18%

37%

31%

14%

100%

much above

much above

Ease of bicycling in the city

19%

34%

28%

19%

100%

similar

above

9%

35%

36%

19%

100%

much below

below

Traffic signal timing

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Traffic flow 6% 26% 41% 27% 100% much above much above Note: A large percentage of respondents answered “don’t know” to the following services: “Recycling Center,” “Code Enforcement,” “Ease of bicycling in the city,” and “Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines).” A complete set of frequencies can be seen in Appendix B: Complete Set of Responses to Survey Questions.

Report of Results Page 17

Figure 13: Quality of City Services Compared Over Time 92%

Parks grounds

92% 95%

Fire protection

92%

Garbage pickup

90%

Parks facilities

88%

Curbside recycling

87%

Recycling Center

85%

Ease of paying utility bill

85% 85%

Police protection Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

2010 2007

81% 73%

Storm drainage

71%

Code enforcement

69% 66%

Street maintenance 55%

Ease of walking in the city

43% 53%

Ease of bicycling in the city

33% 45% 38%

Traffic signal timing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

32% 38%

Traffic flow

100%

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Note: “Traffic signal timing” and “traffic flow” were combined as one item in 2007; “police protection” was worded as “police services” and “fire protection” was worded as “fire/EMS services” in 2007.

Report of Results Page 18

Importance of City Services When asked to rate the importance of each city service, a majority of respondents rated each as “very important” or “essential,” except for online payments such as paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines (49%) and the ease of bicycling in the city (40%).

Almost all respondents said fire protection and police protection were “essential” or “very important.” Most gave a similar importance rating for the following services: garbage pickup (96%), traffic flow (94%), street maintenance (94%), storm drainage (93%) and traffic signal timing (88%).

When comparisons to 2007 were available, importance ratings typically remained stable over time. However, the ease of bicycling in the city saw a slight decrease from 2007 to 2010.

Figure 14: Importance of City Services, 2010 Very Somewhat Essential important important

Not at all important

Total

Fire protection

82%

17%

1%

0%

100%

Police protection

82%

17%

1%

0%

100%

Garbage pickup

67%

29%

4%

0%

100%

Traffic flow

47%

47%

5%

0%

100%

Street maintenance

46%

48%

5%

0%

100%

Storm drainage

50%

43%

7%

0%

100%

Traffic signal timing

41%

47%

11%

1%

100%

Curbside recycling

47%

38%

14%

2%

100%

Parks facilities

28%

53%

18%

1%

100%

Parks grounds

27%

54%

18%

1%

100%

Recycling Center

33%

44%

21%

1%

100%

Code enforcement

27%

49%

22%

2%

100%

Ease of walking in the city

22%

41%

34%

4%

100%

Ease of paying utility bill

22%

36%

37%

5%

100%

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

16%

33%

44%

7%

100%

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Ease of bicycling in the city 16% 24% 44% 16% 100% Note: About a quarter of respondents said “don’t know” to “Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines.”

Report of Results Page 19

Figure 15: Importance of City Services Compared Over Time Fire protection

99% 99%

Police protection

99% 98% 96%

Garbage pickup

95%

Traffic flow

95% 88%

Street maintenance

93%

Storm drainage

88% 90%

Traffic signal timing

85%

Curbside recycling

2010 2007

81%

Parks facilities

81%

Parks grounds

77%

Recycling Center

75%

Code enforcement

62% 68%

Ease of walking in the city

58%

Ease of paying utility bill Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

40% 47%

Ease of bicycling in the city

100%

P ercent reporting "v ery important" or "essential"

Note: “Traffic signal timing” and “traffic flow” were combined as one item in 2007; “police protection” was worded as “police services” and “fire protection” was worded as “fire/EMS services” in 2007.

Report of Results Page 20

Balancing Quality and Importance Most government services are considered to be important, but when competition for limited resources demands that efficiencies or cutbacks be instituted, it is wise not only to know what services are deemed most important to residents’ quality of life, but which services among the most important are perceived to be delivered with the lowest quality. It is these services – more important services delivered with lower quality – to which attention needs to be paid first.

To identify the services perceived by residents to have relatively lower quality at the same time as relatively higher importance, all services were ranked from highest perceived quality to lowest perceived quality and from highest perceived importance to lowest perceived importance. Some services were in the top half of both lists (higher quality and higher importance); some were in the top half of one list but the bottom half of the other (higher quality and lower importance or lower quality and higher importance) and some services were in the bottom half of both lists.

Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of satisfaction (see Figure 16: Balancing Quality and Importance). Services were classified as “more important” if they were rated as “very important” of “essential” by 83% of respondents or more. Services were rated as “less important” if were rated as “very important” of “essential” by fewer than 83% of respondents.

Services receiving a “good” or “excellent” rating by at least 83% of respondents were considered of “higher quality.” If fewer than 83% of respondents gave a “good” or “excellent” rating, the services was considered “lower quality.”

Services which were categorized as higher in importance and higher in quality were: fire protection, police protection, garbage pickup and curbside recycling.

Traffic flow, street maintenance, storm drainage and traffic signal timing were services rated higher in importance and lower in quality.

Those services rated lower in importance and higher in quality were: parks grounds, parks facilities, the Recycling Center and ease of paying utility bill.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Services that rated lower in importance and lower in quality were: code enforcement, ease of walking in the city, online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines) and ease of bicycling in the city.

Report of Results Page 21

Figure 16: Balancing Quality and Importance Lower quality

Higher quality

Higher importance

110% 100%

Street maintenance

Traffic flow

Police protection Fire protection Garbage pickup

Storm drainage

90% Traffic signal timing

Curbside recycling

80%

Code enforcement

Parks grounds Parks facilities Recycling Center

Lower importance

70% Ease of walking in city 60%

Ease of paying utility bill

50% 40% 30% 30%

Online payments Ease of bicycling in city

40%

50%

60%

70% 80% 90% A v erage quality rating ( P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent")

100%

110%

120%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Importan ce rating ( P ercent reporting " v ery important" or " essential" )

120%

Report of Results Page 22

Priorities for City Services Those responding to the survey were asked to indicate how much more per month, if anything, they would be willing to pay for two scenarios, in the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services: to maintain the current City services and to increase City services (both scenarios excluded sanitation and water services). Responses were similar between the two scenarios (see Figure 17): about 6 in 10 respondents said they would be willing to pay at least $1 or more per month in property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services.

Thirty-eight percent reported that they would be willing to pay $1 to $3 more per month to maintain current services, while slightly fewer (31%) were willing to pay that amount to increase services. One in ten were willing to pay another $4 to $6 to maintain the current service levels, while 17% were willing to pay that amount to increase service levels. For each scenario, about 1 in 10 respondents were willing to pay $7 or more per month. Approximately two in five respondents said they would not be willing to pay any additional taxes .

Total

maintain the current City services, excluding sanitation and water services

42%

38%

11%

6%

3%

100%

increase City services, excluding sanitation and water service

43%

31%

17%

6%

3%

100%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Figure 17: Level of Preferred Property Taxes to Cover Gap Between Costs and Revenue In the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost More of providing services, how much more $1-$3 $4-$6 $7-$10 than $10 per month, if anything, would you be Nothing/$0 per per per per willing to pay to‌ per month month month month month

Report of Results Page 23

Residents were asked to indicate which single service area they would be willing to reduce, if the City had to do so. No single service area garnered a significant percentage of responses and about two in five said they would not be willing to reduce any services. About one in five said they would be willing to cut service levels for code enforcement, about one in six said recreation programs (14%) and environmental programs (13%) and eight percent said they would cut fire safety education programs.

Figure 18: Respondent Preference for Reduction of Service If the City had to reduce serv ice lev els, which, if any, of the following serv ice areas would you be willing to reduce?

Code enforcement (City's response time to citizen's complaints/violations)

19%

Recreation programs

14%

Environmental programs

13% 8%

Fire safety education programs Police school resource officers, DARE and other crime prevention programs

5%

Park maintenance

1%

Street and roadway maintenance

1%

None of the above

39% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

P ercent of respondents

Report of Results Page 24

Communication with Citizens A set of questions on the survey was dedicated to the City’s communication with residents, how residents felt about information sources available to them, which sources they used, their frequency of accessing information provided by the City and questions about the City’s Web site.

Contacting City Employees About two in five respondents reported having had contact with a City of Roswell employee within the 12 months prior to the administration of the survey, less than in 2007 and when compared to the national and population size average.

Of those who reported contacting a City employee within the previous 12 months, most gave “good” or “excellent” ratings when asked to rate their impression of the employee in their most recent contact. Respondents rated their overall impression similarly to evaluations given in 2007. Where comparisons were available, Roswell’s ratings of City employees were much above ratings provided in other jurisdictions across the country and of similar population size.

Figure 19: Contact with City Employees Compared Over Time Have you had a personal contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months?

2010

42% 53% 0%

20%

40%

2007

60%

80%

100%

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Figure 20: Ratings of City Employees (by Those who had Contact)

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

National comparison

Population 75,000 to 100,000 comparison

Knowledge

52%

39%

8%

1%

100%

not available

not available

Responsiveness

52%

36%

7%

4%

100%

much above

much above

Helpfulness

56%

29%

10%

5%

100%

much above

much above

Courtesy

60%

29%

7%

4%

100%

much above

much above

Professionalism

56%

34%

7%

4%

100%

not available

not available

What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Roswell in your most recent contact?

Figure 21: Ratings of City Employees (by Those who had Contact) Compared Over Time 2010

86% 86%

Overall impression 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2007 100%

P ercent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Note: Employee “knowledge,” “responsiveness,” “helpfulness,” “courtesy,” “professionalism” were added to the survey in 2010.

Report of Results Page 25

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Overall impression 53% 33% 9% 5% 100% much above much above Note: This question was asked only of those who reported having contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months.

Availability of Information About 9 in 10 residents reported satisfaction with the availability of information about City services, which was similar to 2007. Of those who reported dissatisfaction, many (70%) suggested that more direct mailings would improve the availability of information about Roswell City services; 4 in 10 thought there should be more information on the City’s Web site.

About one in six thought there should be printed materials available at City buildings and more public meetings.

Figure 22: Satisfaction with Availability of Information about City Services How satisfied are you with the av ailability of information about City serv ices?

Somewhat satisfied 50% Somewhat dissatisfied 8% Very satisfied 41%

Very dissatisfied 1%

Figure 23: Satisfaction with Availability of Information About City Services Compared Over Time 91%

How satisfied are you with the availability of information about City services?

88% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2010 2007

100%

P ercent reporting "somewhat satisfied" or "v ery satisfied"

Figure 24: Ways to Improve Availability of Information If you said “ somewhat” or “ v ery” dissatisfied, which of the following, if any, do you think are ways the City should improv e the av ailability of information?

More direct mailings

70%

More information on the City's web site

37%

Print materials at public buildings More public meetings

15%

None of the above

5% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P ercent of respondents

Note: This question was asked only of those respondents who were somewhat or very dissatisfied with the availability of information.

Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.

Report of Results Page 26

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

18%

Sources of Information Survey participants were provided a list of information sources about the City to mark the top two main formal sources they used. The City Web site was cited as the top source by the most respondents (42%) and was the most mentioned source overall as the top one or two source (59%); followed by the Roswell Neighbor Newspaper.

While the City’s Web site saw a spike in use from reports given in 2007, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, television news and the Revue and News Newspaper were reportedly used less in 2010 than in 2007.

Figure 25: Sources of News about Roswell Percent of respondents What are your two main formal sources, other than your family and friends, of information about the City of Roswell. Mark a Percent of times 1 next to the source you most often rely on Second mentioned as a information for news about the City and mark a 2 next to Top information top (1 or 2) the source you rely on second most often. source source source* City web site (www.roswellgov.com)

42%

17%

59%

Roswell Neighbor Newspaper

23%

18%

41%

The Roswell Current Newspaper

11%

8%

19%

Atlanta Journal Constitution

9%

7%

16%

Television news

8%

7%

15%

Revue and News Newspaper

5%

7%

12%

The Beacon Newspaper

6%

6%

12%

City e-newsletter (Roswell Connections)

6%

6%

12%

Radio news

4%

3%

7%

Roswell City TV (RCTV)

2%

4%

6%

Nixle Notification System

1%

1%

2%

Roswell's Facebook page

1%

1%

2%

Twitter

1%

0%

1%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

*Percents add to more than 100, as respondents could name up to two sources.

Report of Results Page 27

Figure 26: Sources of News About Roswell Compared Over Time City web site (www.roswellgov.com)

41% 45%

Roswell Neighbor Newspaper 19%

The Roswell Current Newspaper

2010

16%

Atlanta Journal Constitution

15%

Television news

2007

40% 24%

12% 19%

Revue and News Newspaper

12%

The Beacon Newspaper

12%

City e-newsletter (Roswell Connections)

7% 11%

Radio news

6%

Roswell City TV (RCTV)

11%

2%

Nixle Notification System

2%

Roswells Facebook page Twitter

59%

29%

1% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P ercent of Times Mentioned as a Top ( 1 or 2) Source

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Percents add to more than 100, as respondents could name up to two sources.

Report of Results Page 28

When asked how many times, if ever, in the previous month residents had watched the Roswell City TV (RCTV), received a message on Facebook from Roswell or read a notice in their utility bill, most reported never receiving a message on Facebook and many said they had not watched RCTV. About three in five reported reading a notice or information in their utility bill once a twice a month.

Figure 27: Frequency of Accessing Information Provided by the City How many times, if ever, in the last Once or twice Once a 2-6 times a month have you‌ a month week week Never

Daily

Total

82%

13%

4%

2%

0%

100%

Received a message on Facebook from Roswell

96%

2%

1%

1%

0%

100%

Read a notice/information in your utility bill

39%

57%

2%

1%

1%

100%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Watched Roswell City TV, RCTV

Report of Results Page 29

City Web Site Survey respondents were asked how often, if ever, they had accessed the City’s Web site in the month prior to completing the 2010 survey. Just over half reported accessing it once or twice in the prior month, few used it on a regular basis and two in five said they had not used it in the last month. The frequency of Web site use was similar to use in 2007 and when compared to use in jurisdictions across the nation and more than in jurisdictions of similar size. When asked to rate the ease of finding information on the City’s Web site, 8 in 10 gave favorable ratings.

Figure 28: Access of City Web Site How often, if ev er, hav e you accessed the City's web site ( www. roswellgov .com) in the last month?

Once a week 2-6 times a week 4% 0% Once or twice a month 56%

Daily 1%

Never 39%

Figure 29: Access of City Web Site 2010

61%

How often, if ever, have you accessed the City's web site (www.roswellgov.com) in the last month?

2007

67% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P ercent who accessed site at least once

Figure 30: Ease of Finding Desired Information on Web Site If you hav e used the City's web site in the last 12 months, please rate the ease of finding the information you were looking for.

Good 59%

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Fair 18% Poor 2% Excellent 20%

Report of Results Page 30

APPENDIX A: RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables and charts on the following pages of this appendix.

Figure 31: Respondent Length of Residency About how long have you lived in Roswell?

Percent of respondents

Less than 1 year

11%

1 to 5 years

29%

6 to 10 years

19%

11 or more years

40%

Total

100% Figure 32: Respondent Housing Unit Type In which type of housing unit do you live?

Percent of respondents

Detached single family home

66%

Condominium or townhouse

15%

Apartment

19%

Total

100% Figure 33: Respondent Housing Tenure Do you own or rent your residence?

Percent of respondents

Own

75%

Rent

25%

Total

100% Figure 34: Respondent Educational Attainment Percent of respondents

0-11 years

1%

High school graduate

6%

Some college, no degree

18%

Associate's degree

5%

Bachelor's degree

42%

Graduate or professional degree

28%

Total

100%

Report of Results Page 31

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

What is your level of education?

Figure 35: Respondent Race What is your race?

White/European American/Caucasian

Percent of respondents 84%

Black or African American

8%

Asian or Pacific Islander

3%

American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut

1%

Other Responses may total more than 100% as respondents could select more than one response.

7%

Figure 36: Respondent Ethnicity Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?

Percent of respondents

Yes

12%

No

88%

Total

100% Figure 37: Respondent Age Which category contains your age?

Percent of respondents

18-24

2%

25-34

25%

35-44

18%

45-54

25%

55-64

14%

65-74

8%

75 +

8%

Total

100% Figure 38: Respondent Gender What is your gender?

Percent of respondents 52%

Male

48%

Total

100% Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Female

Report of Results Page 32

APPENDIX B: COMPLETE SET OF RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the percent of respondents as well as the number of respondents.

Question 1 Why did you choose to live in the City of Roswell? (Please check all that apply.)

Percent of respondents

Count

32%

190

The neighborhoods

46%

272

Shopping

13%

74

Size

15%

87

Location

69%

402

History

13%

75

Parks

36%

212

Culture/entertainment

11%

66

Jobs

18%

103

Schools

36%

210

12%

68

Other Percents may total more than 100% because respondents were allowed more than one answer.

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Close to family and friends

Report of Results Page 33

Question 2 Please rate each of the following categories as they relate to the City of Roswell.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Total

40%

232

53%

308

5%

31

0%

0

1%

5

100%

577

The value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell

16%

88

50%

284

24%

137

4%

20

6%

36

100%

565

The job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement

13%

74

36%

204

25%

143

7%

40

19%

108

100%

569

The job Roswell government does at listening to citizens

10%

58

32%

181

24%

135

7%

37

27%

152

100%

563

The job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed

16%

92

43%

241

26%

148

6%

33

9%

49

100%

564

The degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community

13%

76

45%

255

24%

136

6%

33

12%

68

100%

568

The overall quality of services provided by Roswell government

20%

114

53%

304

18%

101

3%

17

6%

36

100%

571

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

The overall quality of life in the City of Roswell

Report of Results Page 34

Question 3 - Quality The following are services provided by the City of Roswell. For each service, please first rate the quality of the service and next rate the importance of each service.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Total

49%

281

37%

217

4%

26

3%

15

7%

40

100%

579

Curbside recycling

49%

280

28%

160

8%

45

3%

17

12%

71

100%

574

Recycling Center

33%

183

29%

160

8%

43

1%

7

30%

166

100%

558

Street maintenance

19%

107

49%

281

25%

143

5%

30

2%

12

100%

573

Storm drainage

16%

89

48%

271

19%

105

4%

25

13%

71

100%

561

Traffic signal timing

9%

53

35%

199

36%

205

18%

106

2%

11

100%

575

Traffic flow

6%

36

26%

149

41%

232

27%

152

1%

4

100%

572

Police protection

33%

191

47%

275

12%

68

3%

16

5%

30

100%

581

Fire protection

36%

208

41%

238

6%

37

0%

3

16%

94

100%

580

Code enforcement

17%

95

34%

194

16%

92

5%

26

29%

164

100%

572

Parks grounds

42%

241

45%

258

7%

40

0%

2

5%

31

100%

573

Parks facilities

42%

242

42%

242

8%

48

1%

5

7%

38

100%

575

Ease of bicycling in the city

13%

75

24%

136

19%

110

13%

75

31%

175

100%

570

Ease of walking in the city

16%

92

34%

195

28%

161

13%

74

9%

49

100%

571

Ease of paying utility bill

32%

184

46%

264

12%

71

2%

9

8%

44

100%

573

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

12%

68

24%

132

7%

36

2%

12

54%

296

100%

544

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Garbage pickup

Report of Results Page 35

Question 3 - Importance The following are services provided by the City of Roswell.

For each service, please first rate the quality of the service and next rate the importance of each service.

Essential

Very important

Somewhat important

Not at all important

Don't know

Total

Garbage pickup

66%

349

29%

154

4%

19

0%

1

1%

7

100%

529

Curbside recycling

45%

240

37%

193

13%

70

1%

8

3%

17

100%

529

Recycling Center

31%

157

41%

211

20%

102

1%

7

7%

37

100%

513

Street maintenance

46%

240

48%

250

5%

27

0%

1

0%

2

100%

521

Storm drainage

49%

255

41%

216

7%

35

0%

1

3%

18

100%

524

Traffic signal timing

41%

219

47%

249

11%

57

1%

4

1%

3

100%

532

Traffic flow

47%

247

47%

248

5%

28

0%

0

0%

2

100%

525

Police protection

81%

430

16%

87

1%

8

0%

0

1%

4

100%

529

Fire protection

80%

424

17%

90

1%

6

0%

0

2%

8

100%

529

Code enforcement

25%

129

45%

235

21%

108

2%

11

7%

35

100%

518

Parks grounds

26%

140

53%

280

17%

92

1%

4

2%

12

100%

528

Parks facilities

27%

139

51%

267

17%

90

1%

6

4%

19

100%

521

Ease of bicycling in the city

14%

76

22%

118

40%

210

15%

77

9%

46

100%

527

Ease of walking in the city

21%

110

39%

208

33%

172

4%

20

3%

17

100%

526

Ease of paying utility bill

21%

111

35%

182

35%

187

5%

25

4%

22

100%

527

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines)

12%

61

25%

127

34%

170

5%

25

23%

117

100%

500

Question 4 Percent of respondents

Count

Very satisfied

38%

224

Somewhat satisfied

47%

274

Somewhat dissatisfied

7%

43

Very dissatisfied

1%

6

Don't know Total

6%

37

100%

585

Report of Results Page 36

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

How satisfied are you with the availability of information about City services?

Question 4a If you said "somewhat" or "very" dissatisfied to question 4 above, which of the following, if any, do you think are ways the City should improve the availability of information? (Please check all that apply.)

Percent of respondents

Count

More public meetings

15%

7

More direct mailings

70%

35

More information on the City's web site

37%

19

Print materials at public buildings

18%

9

5%

3

Count

None of the above Percents may total more than 100% because respondents were allowed more than one answer.

This question was asked only of those reporting "somewhat" or "very" dissatisfied in question 4.

Question 5

Top Information Source

Second Information Source

Percent of Times Mentioned as a Top (1 or 2) Source*

42%

17%

59%

561

6%

6%

12%

561

Roswell's Facebook page

1%

1%

2%

561

Roswell City TV (RCTV)

2%

4%

6%

561

Twitter

1%

0%

1%

561

The Roswell Current Newspaper

11%

8%

19%

561

Roswell Neighbor Newspaper

23%

18%

41%

561

6%

6%

12%

561

Revue and News Newspaper

5%

7%

12%

561

Atlanta Journal Constitution

9%

7%

16%

561

Nixle Notification System

1%

1%

2%

561

Television news

8%

7%

15%

561

3%

7%

561

What are your two main formal sources, other than your family and friends, of information about the City of Roswell. Mark a 1 next to the source you most often rely on for news about the City and mark a 2 next to the source you rely on second most often.

City web site (www.roswellgov.com) City e-newsletter (Roswell Connections)

The Beacon Newspaper

Radio news 4% *Percents add to more than 100, as respondents could name up to two sources.

Have you had a personal contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months?

Percent of respondents

Count

No

58%

327

Yes

42%

238

100%

565

Total

Report of Results Page 37

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Question 6

Question 6a What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Roswell in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.)

Excellent

Good

Fair

Don't know

Poor

Total

Knowledge

51%

129

39%

98

8%

19

1%

4

1%

2

100%

252

Responsiveness

51%

127

36%

88

7%

18

4%

10

2%

4

100%

248

Helpfulness

55%

138

29%

72

10%

26

5%

12

1%

2

100%

249

Courtesy

60%

149

29%

72

7%

17

4%

9

0%

1

100%

248

Professionalism

55%

138

34%

86

7%

16

3%

9

0%

1

100%

250

Overall impression 53% 131 33% 82 9% 23 4% 11 0% 1 100% 248 This question was asked only of those who reported having contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months.

Question 7 How often, if ever, have you accessed the City’s Web site (www.roswellgov.com) in the last month?

Percent of respondents

Count

Never

39%

224

Once or twice a month

56%

323

Once a week

4%

24

2-6 times a week

0%

3

Daily

1%

4

Total

100%

578

Question 7a If you have used the City's Web site in the last 12 months, please rate the ease of finding the information you were looking for.

Percent of respondents

Count

Excellent

20%

70

Good

59%

207

Fair

18%

64

Poor

2%

8

Don't know

0%

0

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Total 100% 349 This question was asked only of those who reported having used the City's Web site in the last 12 months.

Report of Results Page 38

Question 8 How many times, if ever, in the last month have you‌

Once or twice a month

Never

Once a week

2-6 times a week

Daily

Total

Watched Roswell City TV, RCTV

82%

461

13%

71

4%

21

2%

9

0%

2

100%

563

Received a message on Facebook from Roswell

96%

527

2%

11

1%

3

1%

7

0%

1

100%

549

Read a notice/information in your utility bill

39%

221

57%

322

2%

12

1%

8

1%

4

100%

567

Question 9 How likely or unlikely would you be to use each of the following information sources to receive communications from the City of Roswell?

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Total

The City's web site (www.roswellgov.com)

53%

292

28%

151

10%

53

9%

51

100%

547

The City's e-newsletter (Roswell Connections)

31%

170

36%

194

18%

98

15%

79

100%

541

Email

38%

200

30%

160

13%

69

18%

96

100%

525

Social networking web sites (i.e., Facebook, Twitter)

11%

60

12%

63

28%

145

49%

258

100%

526

Roswell City TV, RCTV

8%

41

17%

88

26%

137

50%

264

100%

531

Utility bills

31%

166

36%

194

16%

87

18%

96

100%

543

Direct mail

40%

220

33%

180

14%

74

13%

71

100%

545

Nixle email/text notification service

11%

58

13%

66

22%

116

54%

286

100%

526

Question 10 How safe or unsafe do you feel in your neighborhood at night?

Percent of respondents

Count

56%

329

Somewhat safe

39%

230

Somewhat unsafe

3%

18

Very unsafe

1%

8

100%

585

Total

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Very safe

Report of Results Page 39

Question 11 In the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services, how much more per month, if anything, would you be willing to pay to‌

Nothing/$0 per month

$1-$3 per month

maintain the current City services, excluding sanitation and water services

42%

232

38%

increase City services, excluding sanitation and water service

43%

230

31%

$4-$6 per month

$7-$10 per month

More than $10 per month

214

11%

63

6%

33

3%

15

100%

557

167

17%

92

6%

33

3%

17

100%

539

Total

Question 12 If the City had to reduce service levels, which, if any, of the following service areas would you be willing to reduce? (Please select only one.)

Street and roadway maintenance

Percent of respondents

Count

1%

5

19%

93

8%

37

Environmental programs

13%

62

Recreation programs

14%

70

Code enforcement (City's response time to citizen's complaints/violations) Fire safety education programs

Park maintenance

1%

3

Police school resource officers, DARE and other crime prevention programs

5%

26

39%

187

100%

484

Percent of respondents*

Count

Traffic/lights

50%

244

Crime

17%

81

Budget/revenue/spending

15%

73

Illegal immigrants (Hispanic population)

14%

66

Economy/jobs (included declining property values and foreclosure)

14%

66

Growth (too much, thoughtful)

12%

56

Taxes

10%

48

Maintain city streets (cleaning, maintenance, beautification, improvements, additions)

10%

50

8%

40

None of the above Total

Schools/education

Report of Results Page 40

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Question 13 What do you think are the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years?

Question 13 What do you think are the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years?

Percent of respondents*

Count

More business friendly (might be redundant with development, up to you)

8%

38

Abandoned/empty buildings

6%

28

Safety/security

6%

31

Development

5%

24

Over crowding/over population

5%

25

Transportation

5%

24

Environmental issues (need more green space)

4%

21

Housing

4%

18

Infrastructure

4%

17

Services (re-evaluate, maintain)

4%

21

Redevelopment

3%

14

Zoning/code enforcement

3%

13

Water/sewage (location of tower, cost etc.)

3%

17

Need to be more pedestrian friendly (trails & sidewalks)

3%

15

Revitalization

3%

15

Deterioration/decay

3%

13

Need more parks & recreation (maintenance)

2%

11

Maintain small-town feel

2%

9

24%

114

1%

3

Other None *Percents add to more than 100, as respondents could name up to three issues.

Question 14

Percent of respondents

Count

Communication/increase citizen involvement

12%

38

Nothing, doing a good job

11%

34

7%

23

Efficiency

6%

18

Traffic Problems (Speed Traps)

4%

13

Taxes

4%

12

Business friendly

4%

14

Police, too much focus on traffic not enough on crime

3%

9

Replace Mayor

3%

8

City Codes/ Permits Enforced (Zoning)

2%

6

Slow down growth/building

2%

8

Revitalization/redevelopment

2%

7

Police, bad attitude

2%

7

Issues of east vs. west Roswell

2%

6

Change in infrastructure/ City official

Report of Results Page 41

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

What is the one thing you would change about the City of Roswell Government?

Question 14 What is the one thing you would change about the City of Roswell Government?

Bills/fees

Percent of respondents

Count

2%

7

Other

23%

70

Don't Know

10%

32

Question 15 About how long have you lived in Roswell?

Percent of respondents

Count

Less than 1 year

11%

63

1 to 5 years

29%

171

6 to 10 years

19%

113

11 or more years

40%

236

100%

583

Total Question 16 In which type of housing unit do you live?

Percent of respondents

Count

Detached single family home

66%

Condominium or townhouse

15%

89

Apartment

19%

109

100%

584

Total

386

Question 17 Do you own or rent your residence?

Percent of respondents

Count

Own

75%

441

Rent

25%

146

Total

100%

587

Question 18 Percent of respondents

Count

0-11 years

1%

4

High school graduate

6%

35

18%

103

Associate's degree

5%

29

Bachelor's degree

42%

244

28%

164

100%

579

Some college, no degree

Graduate or professional degree Total

Report of Results Page 42

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

What is your level of education?

Question 19 What is your race?

Percent of respondents

White/European American/Caucasian

Count

84%

490

Black or African American

8%

47

Asian or Pacific Islander

3%

20

American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut

1%

8

7%

41

Other Responses may total more than 100% as respondents could select more than one response.

Question 20 Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?

Percent of respondents

Count

Yes

12%

69

No

88%

496

100%

565

Total Question 21 Which category contains your age?

Percent of respondents

Count

18-24

2%

10

25-34

25%

144

35-44

18%

106

45-54

25%

144

55-64

14%

83

65-74

8%

48

75 +

8%

46

Total

100%

582

Question 22 What is your gender?

Percent of respondents

Count

52%

299

Male

48%

280

Total

100%

579 Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Female

Report of Results Page 43

APPENDIX C: VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS Following are verbatim responses to open-ended questions on the survey. Because these responses were written by survey participants, they are presented here in verbatim form, including any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. Within each question the responses are in alphabetical order.

Crime  

 

                              



Apartments/Crime Biggest is men loitering all over along Roswell Rd by apt southern skillet Burglaries Control crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime : gangs Crime along the Holcomb Bridge Corridor

  

  

            

    

  

 

    



Crime in certain areas (e.g. Manchester at Mansell) Crime increasing - moving up from Atlanta Crime increasing (economy).

Crime on the west side of 400 Crime protection Crime stem rub from low income housing.

Crime under control Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime.

Crime/safety Crime-gangs Crimes by his panics overload police and threaten safety Crime-too many low income apartment complexes.

Drug addiction Drug related crime.

Drugs Drugs Drugs Drugs off the streets to include DUI Drugs off the streets to include DUI. Gangs Gangs Gangs Gangs.

Gangs.

Gangs/crime

Report of Results Page 44

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Question 13: What do you think are the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two years?

   



Gangs/drug trafficking/handguns Growth of crime.

Increase in crime Increase in crime Increase in gang crimes Keeping crime at bay Keeping crime down.

Loitering More crime

Development  Bringing more small business to Roswell to  

  

    

 

 Taxes                    

fill vacant stores Business development Business district maintenance Businesses needed-No shopping in Roswell except grocery stores & drug stores loosing tax dollars due to this Commercial development Community development/improvement Development Development Development Development Development Development of HWY 9 Development.

Development/helping failing geographic areas

Collecting taxes Fear of increased taxes Get more accurate tax assessments High tax and cost of living.

High taxes Higher property taxes.

Higher taxes Hold the line on taxes Increase in city taxes.

Increase in taxation.

Increase in taxes Increased taxes Keeping taxes down Keeping taxes down Keeping taxes down for citizen Keeping taxes low Keeping taxes low Keeping taxes low Keeping taxes low.

Lower housing market which should reduce taxes

  

 

    

  

 

    

                   

Prostitution Stopping crime along Roswell road and East/South of Hwy 92 Suspend non-essential projects and events The drug/crime corridor @ Holcomb Bridge & 400 Too many apartments being filled with too much crime

Development/Improvements Development/redevelopment Downtown development Economic development.

Economic development.

Economic growth & development Economic growth.

Encouraging economic development Maintaining business development New development.

No businesses Planning for new development Property taxes-need high-density development to keep low Redevelopment Viable shopping areas

Lowering taxes.

Over taxation Property taxes.

Real property taxes Reducing taxes Reducing taxes Reducing Taxes Revenue generation on property tax increase Tax increase, 3. Safety.

Tax rate increases (potential of) Taxation Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes and permits Taxes are too high - reduce taxes Taxes are too high!

Taxes going up Taxes, 3. Foreclosures.

Taxes, 3. Growth.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

   

Report of Results Page 43

Taxes, 3. Immigrants - illegal.

Taxes.

Taxes.

  

Taxes.

Taxes.

To not increase taxes

          

 

Illegal Immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants to be deposited Illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants-loitering & rid Roswell of Spanish only businesses Illegal immigration Illegal immigration Illegal immigration Illegal immigration Illegal immigration Illegal immigration Illegal Immigration.

Illegal immigration-crime Illegal people.

Illegal population.

Illegals Illegals Illegals Illegals living in the community Immigrant population Immigrants - illegal.

Immigration Immigration Immigration Immigration Enforcement Immigration/Mexican population Increased Spanish population - lock of English Mexican population.

Rising number of illegal aliens The many his panics lower property values and city's ability to attract investments To many illegal immigrants moving in Too many illegal Mexicans

   

Easing traffic on highway? 3. Street repair Enforcement of traffic laws.

Fixing traffic on Holcomb Bridge.

Flow of traffic/coordination of eights, etc.

Illegal Immigrants                                        

Controlling influence of illegal aliens Crime and Hwy 9 area of Mexicans loitering Daily workers/illegal immigration.

Dealing with crimes by illegal immigrants Emigration Empty commercial properties.

Environment illegal immigration Getting rid of the all-too-many Hispanics Growth.

Hispanic popular explosion Hispanics Hispanics Ilegal immigrants Illegal Illegal Illegal residents Illegal "Aliens" Illegal & immigrants.

Illegal Aliens Illegal aliens Illegal aliens Illegal Aliens Illegal aliens Illegal aliens Illegal aliens & the drain the have on city & county services Illegal aliens removed Illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens.

Illegal Allens Illegal die us.

Illegal from foreign countries Illegal immigrant population Illegal immigrant problems.

Illegal immigrants Illegal Immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants Illegal immigrants

                        

Traffic/lights   

Additional traffic Congestion Congestion of traffic on Holcomb bridge/400

Report of Results Page 44

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

  

                                        

Growth- traffic Heavy traffic Heavy traffic.

Improve traffic flow in & around Roswell Improving traffic flow Increased traffic density Increased traffic.

Keep up with traffic patterns/volume Managing traffic More traffic.

More traffic.

Reducing traffic congestion on Holcomb bridge road west of GA-400.

Roads/traffic Rush hour traffic flow Solving traffic bows Street congestion Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic

                                                     

Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

           

Report of Results Page 45

                        

Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic - Consider round-a-bouts instead of lights Traffic - Holcomb bridge is impossible Traffic - need wider streets for traffic flow Traffic & roads Traffic (growth) Traffic along Holcomb Bridge.

Traffic along Holcomb Bridge/92 Traffic build-up on main roads-especially at each hour Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic congestion Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion at 400 & Holcomb Bridge Traffic congestion.

Traffic congestion.

Traffic congestion.

Traffic congestion. 3. Information Traffic control

                                                  

Traffic control Traffic enforcement in residential areas Traffic enforcement.

Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow & lights Traffic flow (Holcomb Bridge) Traffic flow / signal timing Traffic flow control in main corridors Traffic flow during rush hour Traffic flow during rush hours Traffic flow issues Traffic flow on Rt 9 & Holcomb bridge rd Traffic flow!

Traffic Flow.

Traffic flow.

Traffic flow. Red lights too long Traffic flow/congestion Traffic flow/safety.

Traffic flow-lights could be set or monitored better Traffic from outside of the city Traffic Gridlock Traffic growth Traffic increase Traffic Increase Traffic issues Traffic issues Traffic issues Traffic jams Traffic levels on Holcomb Bridge @ 400 Traffic light synchronization and coordination agencies.

Traffic management Traffic management.

Traffic near GA 400 Traffic off main Rd Traffic on Canto Street.

Traffic on connecting roads Traffic on Holcomb bridge Traffic on Holcomb bridge road/dev along it bridge road.

Traffic on Holcomb ridge Traffic on Holcombe bridge

Report of Results Page 46

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                         

                       

Traffic on roads such as Holcomb bridge Traffic patterns improve traffic signal timing poor in Holcomb bridge rd.

Traffic problems Traffic problems on Holcomb Bridge.

Traffic problems.

Traffic rang-ups Traffic signals Traffic slow.

Traffic still.

Traffic to GA 400 Traffic volume Traffic!

Traffic, Re-vitalization Traffic, uncontrolled growth, illegal aliens Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

                     

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic.

Traffic/congestion Traffic-by far! & with that, timing of lights!

Traffic Traffic-Road Widening Of Old Alabama Traffics Volume of traffic & roads not expandable to accommodate Worse city ever to drive in

Redevelopment Alpharetta HWY corridor Filling up empty strip shopping centers to increase property taxes revenue Getting rid of small town mentality & fill up empty "for Rent" stores Re development of empty store blunts Re development of underutilized retail controls Rebuilding areas that have declined in value Rebuilding business (lots of empty stores).

Redesign Redevelop the historic downtown Redevelopment Redevelopment Re-development Redevelopment - more business retention Redevelopment (Save green space) Redevelopment of blighted areas Redevelopment of business districts, Balance budget, Get rid of dead weight in city government Redevelopment of city.

Redevelopment of hwy 9 Use of development of existing empty store fronts, (business) etc. - I go to East Cobb.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                  

Environmental issues (need more green space)     

Air quality Development/destruction of natural habitats Environment Environmental Environmental degradation

Report of Results Page 47

       

Environmental issues.

Environmental tread Environmental/green development Keeping Roswell beautiful Loss of natural beauty.

Maintaining the level of environment (cleanness) Support for services for increasing # of residents Unused retail space, Traffic, Enviroment

Over crowding/over population                   

And in force the code of older rental housing and apartments Apartment violations Code enforcement Code enforcement Code enforcement Code enforcement.

Code enforcement.

Code enforcement.

Congestion Congestion Congestion due to increase population Crowding Do not allow new construction!

More population Over populated apartment complex Over population Over population Over population.

Over population.

                  

Overcrowding.

Overpopulation Population Population control.

Population Growth Population growth Population Growth Population growth Population growth.

Population increases Population.

Quality of life - Balanced zoning Too many in a single family home Zoning (signs cell towers) Zoning issues Zoning of commercial property Zoning.

Zoning/code enforcement Zoning/planning.

       

Water (Enforce real stream/river buffers) Water and sewer Water management Water mgmt.

Water rates.

Water sewer Water treatment systems.

Water/server

Water/sewage (location of tower, cost etc.)       

Availability of water.

Conservation, water concerns.

Excessive water/sewer charges Increase in water sewage payments Sewage treatment plant.

Water Water - not enough facilities for increased use

Maintain city streets (cleaning, maintenance, beautification, improvements, additions) Atlanta road - need for four lanes Bad roads Bad roads Bar traffic on can ton rd for alive at 5.

Better inter sections (near river).

Bettered designed roadway flow.

Cleaning up Hwy 9 between Hwy 92 & the paves.

Continue road maintenance-reduce funds to schools.

Expansion of road network Get rid of the reversible lane of Atlanta st.

Holcomb Br/400 junction

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

          

Report of Results Page 48

                                       

Holcomb bridge/400 exchange-completely horrible during rush hour House rd 140 Hwy 9 from the river to Hwy 92/Holcomb br. Rd. Hwy redevelopment from magnolia Improve (Hi 9) - has become much less- in recent year (Atlanta St. to Hall Bridge) when will improvement & change happen there.

Improved streets Improving roadways/traffic flow Improving/widening house Rd. Maintenance of roads Potholes Reducing size of Bureau pkwy.

Road & sewer maintenance Road maint.

Road maintenance Road maintenance Road maintenance.

Road maintenance.

Road maintenance.

Road maintenance.

Road rehabilitation Road repairs Road upkeep.

Roads keeping up with population expansion Roads to accommodate traffic Roads.

Roads.

Speed cushions in pass through neighborhoods like land or lakes to control those who travel Speed of street maintenance.

Street & bridge improvements Street & road maint Street & road maintenance Street & roadway maintenance Street and roadway maintenance/flow Street lights Street maintenance Street maintenance Street maintenance.

Street maintenance.

Street maintenance/construction Street repair Street surfacing.

Streets poor. No sidewalks. No bike lanes The street's on Hwy #9 Traffic and street improvements traffic flow (Holcomb Bridge), illegal immigrants, road maintenance

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

    

Abandoned/empty buildings      

Abandoned centers with empty store/business Bringing business to the empty shopping centers.

Business foreclosures-empty build up crime increases.

Businesses closing/leaving empty bldgs.

Commercial real estate vacancies/defaults Eliminating empty storefronts/big box stores.

Report of Results Page 49

                          

Empty building Empty commercial properties.

Empty commercial stores & buildings.

Empty retail centers-declining neighborhoods Empty shopping center Empty shopping centers Empty shopping centers & houses Empty shopping centers.

Empty store fronts Empty store fronts Empty storefronts, in vacant buildings Empty stores Empty strip malls Empty strip malls/stores.

Empty/vacant shopping centers Getting Holcomb bridge vacant space (retail) rented How to sell empty homes Pealing with empty big boxes & strip melees Too many new builds with so many empty buildings.

Unused retail space Vacant & commercial space Vacant buildings (especially along Holcomb bridge east of 400) Vacant buildings along this same area from merlins south on highway 9.

Vacant businesses Vacant commercial properties Vacant office bldgs Vacant strip

Need to be more pedestrian friendly (trails & sidewalks)           

Areas outside of downtown Roswell need sidewalks, people are going to walk along the major roads, put sidewalks for safety and so the areas don't look lucky with beaten down little foot paths!

Bigger sidewalks (near river) Ease of walking.

Finishing and connecting all the city's sidewalks Make city Hi 9 - walking More side works/bike paths More walk able Redeveloping/finding use for all of the vacant commercial space in Roswell Side walks.

Side walks.

Sidewalks that are wide enough on both sides of the road and in good condition

Revitalization Clean up parts of Highway 9 Cleaning up / revitalization of areas such as Frazier St. Cleaning up run down areas in and around downtown Roswell Cleaning up the area near the Roswell Cemetary East Roswell off 400-west is plan to reutilize Improving commercial facade along Hwy 9 Redoing the more rundown sections of the city Re-vitalization Revitalization of certain areas of Roswell Revitalization of empty shopping centers

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

         

Report of Results Page 50

        

Revitalize field of declining business area Revitalize the run down shopping centers Revitalizing alphabets Hwy. Revitalizing areas.

Revitalizing dumpy areas/apartments.

Revitalizing retail stores on hwy 9 into downtown, (+ business) + encouraging higher end stores to move to Roswell.

Revitalizing the city.

Revitalizing vacant shopping centers & attractive new businesses.

Upgrade business district between canton St. To Holcomb bridge rd on highway?

Schools/education

City support of centennial high school.

Continued improvement st. schools.

Education funding outback's Education.

Education/middle schools Falling education standards Good schools Good schools High school over crowding!

Keep school standards Keeping our schools at the current quality levels or improving them Keeping schools/improving school standards/test scores Kid to teacher ratios-improving school system within city of Roswell.

Need for new schools, teachers Over crowded schools.

Over crowding in schools Over crowding in schools Overcrowding in schools Overpopulation Quality decrease in schools Quality of schools Quality of schools.

School issues.

School over crowding.

School overpopulation School system keeping a top grade rating.

School system, no. of students vs. Schools.

School/classroom sizes Schools Schools Schools Schools - maintaining excellence schools over crowding

Transportation      

Better public transportation Better the transportation issue Public transport accessibility.

Public transport.

Public transportation & lack then of.

Transport (MARTA)

     

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                                

Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation

Report of Results Page 51

  

Transportation Transportation (Need true alternatives).

Transportation services.

 

Transportation.

Transportation/public transportation.

Need more parks & recreation (maintenance)            

Aging park buildings.

Bike & walking paths-greener living & Heal their living Connell E Roswell to W Roswell Complete bike trail.

Increasing parks/facilities comparable to neighboring cities Over use of parks Park facing Park maintenance Park maintenance.

Parks Parks expansion.

Preserving parks.

Recreation.

Housing              

Abundance of low cost housing Aging homes/subdivisions Apartments Housing - apartments-affordable Housing "affordable" Housing market Increase of rental properties Lack of affordable hsg Lack of higher density residential for seniors.

Low income housing Low-end housing Maintain lower class housing areas!

Multi family housing (Too many people in small apts & homes who are not related Need of more high rise multi family housing

Infrastructure City maintenance.

Crowding/infrastructure Drainage improvements Flooding Infra structure on hwy 9 Infra structure up keep Infra structures capability of handling population growth.

Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure - drains, etc Infrastructure maintenance Infrastructure maintenance (roads, bridges, etc.)

Infrastructure upgrades/updates.

Infrastructure.

Maintaining the infrastructure Maintenance-streets, parks, etc.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                 

Report of Results Page 52

Planning Stormwater Drainage

Budget/revenue/spending                                             

Allocating the budget Balance budget Balanced budget Balanced budget Balanced Budget Balanced Budget Balanced budget Balanced budget.

Balancing budget balancing the city budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget (Taxes) Budget balancing Budget deficit.

Budget deficits.

Budget issues Budget revenue Budget Shortfall Budget.

Budget.

Building revenue City budget Control city spending Control spending Controlling Spending Controlling Staffing & Expenditures Cost containment Cost Control Cost over runs Declining tax base Declining tax base-too many exempt.

Do more with less Don't spend it if you don't have it Excess spending - Reduce spending Fewer people paying taxes.

Finance.

Finances Finances.

                                     

Funding Funding for special projects.

Holding costs Hopefully declining revenue as my taxes are currently under appeal!

How to balance the budget.

Income Less taxes more efficient! 3. Fewer employees!

Living w/ Existing revenue Living within its budget Loss of revenue (economy) Making sure it is within budget Managing within a budget Meeting budget without taxes Meeting Budget.

Money.

No raises @ Roswell city councilmen, members.

Only do what we can afford to do.

Over spending of maintaining nature areas (OKBO rarely used.)

Reduced revenue due to economy Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue coming in and money going out Revenue shortfalls Revenues Shrinking tax base Spending Spending cuts Street maintenance costs Stretching the budget Tax base.

The ability to responsibly manage finances The purchasing of real estate, with out an immediate need Using reserves to finance daily operations or routine maintenance Wastage of tax dollars

Report of Results Page 53

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

 

Services (re-evaluate, maintain)                         

Becoming fiscally responsible while not increasing taxes Declining tax base Expensive govt. Services vs. out sourcing Falling services.

Financial resources w/o being a burden on citizens Fiscally prudent funding of essential services like police and fire Increased services and population Keeping services superior as city grows Limit social services.

Maintain essential services Maintain services, & tax base Alpharetta hwy.

Maintaining and or increasing service level Maintaining level of service to its citizens Maintaining same level of services without raising taxes Maintaining services Maintaining services on reduced property taxes.

Maintaining services while not increasing taxes Maintaining services with de ding revenue sources.

More people needing assistance Not increasing services Resume to maintain services Rising cases for city programs Rising costs of city services.

Services Services.

More business friendly

Additional retail zoning Attract more small business Attracting business Attracting business to vacant areas Attracting new business without letting the same type of business open near a competitor Attracting new businesses Brining more businesses to the city Business planning-new businesses coming in Continuing to support local businesses Creation of environment to attract employed businesses Develop a strong business presence Fewer employees!

Get rid of dead weight in city government Growing the business tax base How to bring in more business Improving relations with businesses Increase business Increasing revenue by being more developer friendly Keeping businesses alive.

Lack Of Income From Sales Tax (Need To Be More Business) Business Friendly Lack of new business - a bordered offer space so lack of tax & coming Recruiting new business to the area Recruiting new businesses.

The anti business & development in Roswell

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                       

Report of Results Page 54

Growth (too much)                             

Balance between growth Business development more growth Control development Developing in the right way Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth - Controlled vs. Uncontrolled Growth & how to manage it/control it. 3.

Finding the money to fund services.

Growth & related issues (traffic, crime, etc) Growth control Growth/infrastructure Handling population growth Lack of a viable growth vision Lock of growth in east Roswell Maintaining a comfortable suburban atmosphere (low density development) Maintaining growth No more apartments town homes & condos!

No more apartments.

No more stores No new development - empty retail space.

                       

Over building residential single family home Over development Over development (residential) Over development industrial around neighborhoods. 3. Keeping the small town feel.

Over development of commercial property Over development of shopping centers along Holcomb bridge rd Over growth-too many large populations buildings.

Over population.

Overcrowding due to growth Over-Development - both commercial & residential Preventing large development Proper planning for growth Quality business growth Rapid expansion of humans & businesses Rapid Growth Regulating growth Restrict # of apartments Stop building "stop malls" The vacancy rate @ strip malls-do not allow new construction!

Too much commercial growth Too much growth of apartments and multistory buildings Uncontrolled & unnecessary building Uncontrolled growth Zoning to build more commercial

Economy/jobs (included declining property values and foreclosure)

Attracting more businesses and jobs to Roswell Attracting more commerce.

Attracting new businesses and residents to expand the tax base organically.

Attracting new businesses.

Business Expansion Business presence in city.

Business.

Businesses and commerce.

Continued declining home values Declining incomes & need for city services.

Declining property values Decrease in tax revenues due to foreclosures Decrease property values.

Decreased revenue.

Decreasing home values & correcting property taxes.

Decreasing property values Economy.

Employment opportunities

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                 

Report of Results Page 55

                              

Encouraging Redevelopment (Be More Friendly) Business Friendly For closures/rental properties.

Foreclosures Foreclosures of homeowners Foreclosures on residential homes Foreclosures.

General economy.

Helping the city economy Home prices Home values dropping.

Home valves Housing depreciation Housing prices decreasing - but taxes staying up Housing slump-foreclosures empty home Housing/home equity Improving Home Valves.

Job creation Job creation Job loss Jobless citizens will be more. WIA is a program that supports citizens that lost their jobs by paying 5000 00 toward their education. Fulton county [with all the taxes we are paying] does not accept applicant while Forsyth (my previous living area), Cobb county, Gwinnett and a lot of other counties are accepting applicant. [It is our bad luck we came to Roswell!]

Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs (to increase funds) Jobs shortest Jobs.

Jobs.

Jobs/economy.

Lack of businesses.

Local economy of Roswell (business commerce) Local economy.

Local small business.

Loosing tax from business (relocating out of town).

Losing local business due to economy.

Loss of business Loss of job Lowered property vales Luring new businesses to take over empty spaces.

Need to attract mid-to-large sized IT business.

No more MFDU's (apts).

Pay clacks going down.

Property values Property values Property values Property values and undeveloped/completed subdivision Property values decline Property values decreasing Rising taxes on de-valued housing.

Small businesses going elsewhere.

Supporting local businesses

Report of Results Page 56

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

                   

         

Taxpayer unemployment The lack of employment To create jobs in the city of Roswell is very important to everybody Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment impact on crime.

Unemployment.

Unemployment.

Unemployment.

Value of homes impact on tax rev

Deterioration/decay

    

Alpharetta - eye sore W/all the down/pay-check places Blight Cleaning up low income housing near historic Roswell Creeping deteriation of central town.

Doing something about Frasier street area.

Eyesore areas Inability to separate from Fulton County Increase in depressed areas Neighbor decay between Alpharetta hwy & Norcross St. No balance of business on Alpharetta HWY. Decayed area between Holcomb Bridge & Warsaw rd.

Old areas such as old hole. Bridge Rd run danger of becoming like sandy springs did - low rent, gang violence, etc.

Oxbo road @ Roswell road (slum) Run-down older commercial areas Too many run down arrears.

Traffic flow, 2. Road repairs, 3. Depressed midtown area (hwy 9 between Holcomb bridge & Magnolia).

Vacant and run-down commercial areas

Safety/security                

Adding police presence to area.

Citizen protection.

Having enough policemen to handle Latino population.

Keep our citizens safe Maintain safe environments.

Maintain the level of police protection Police Police protection Protect citizens and property.

Public safety.

Safe environment - all neighborhoods Safe neighborhood.

Safety Safety Safety Safety

             

Safety Safety (enforce mat) Safety (Make more safe environment).

Safety.

Safety.

Safety.

Safety.

Safety.

Security Security Security (more disciplined) police Security.

Street signs & lighting in neighborhoods (create safe environment The streets are really dark at nights.

Driving is very hard at nights

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

          

Maintain small-town feel  

Excursion the charm of Roswell Having Roswell remain a quaint little town & family friendly

Report of Results Page 57

Other                                 

Keeping Roswell a top place to live in Keeping Roswell small town feeling.

Keeping the small town feel.

Maintain a feel -true city.

Maintaining downtown Roswell Maintaining historic feel.

Maintaining Roswell's small town appeal.

Maintaining the family friendly image Not letting Roswell "quality of life" deteriorates.

Trying to keep Roswell Quaint Access to Roswell.

Arrogant bicyclists as traffic hazards Attracting newcomers to move into the Roswell area.

Balance of low income and high income Becoming another Sandy Springs Better communication w/residents.

Bicycle Riders in Traffic.

Bill boards.

Building library @ forts & Holcomb Bridge Changing demographics City government.

City's response time to citizens complaints/violations.

Cleanliness of Chattahoochee river Communication.

Community involvement.

Competition with Alpharetta as the best place to live in futon county Completing Improved Planned Developments Completing the gratifications prospects Consultant growth Cost of living Creating entertainment & social environment to retain younger citizens Creating opportunities for people of color to thrive and advance.

Creation of Milton County (1 support it!)

Cut government aid to AFDC families Day workers Demographic transition.

Drawbacks of being in Fulton county (cost of works, taxes) Drought Ease of bicycling Educating immigrants Ensure that all Ethnk groups are represented concerning issues affecting citizens of Roswell.

Fighting Felton co for use of our taxes ($) fuel prices,

      

                        

Fulton County Government Govt. Matter touch with citizens desires.

Gus prices Health fairs Hire an urban planner from this century.

Hispanics business.

If you want to encourage biking, figure out a be way because they cause congestion & traffic problems as bike lanes are for narrow and they ride side by side in can lanes Income Patent city staff. 3. Self - serving council members.

Increase in surface.

Increase in undesirable black population.

Increase recycling exposure.

Inflation as it relates to costs Influx of different cultures.

Influx of lower income people.

Information Jere Wood Keeping non-motorized vehicles off the roadways.

Lack of assistance from Fulton county-icsever system is horrible.

Library (& computer) facilities for East Roswell, "Eastside pkwy" Listen.

Loitering Long-term bond issuance.

Loss of revenue due to Cobb co. & Alpharetta.

Maintaining standards Managing tarsal flow.

Martin's landing dam.

Milton County (YES) More trauma centers Move rental cars on # 9.

Need for more bike lanes New library Not enough out sourcing of Roswell's services

Report of Results Page 58

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

         

                 

None    

Not looking at the structure of Sandy springs.

Over-reaching homeowner associations.

Parking Phone transportation Police # fire issues Police & fire communications system Police overkill on violations.

Political polarization Pollution Postal service Privatization of services Promoting the farmer's market/eco-friendly things.

Quality of neighborhood/new residents.

Rebuilding on to street myrtle Recreation.

Recycling issue Reduce speedy ticket fines Relationship w/Fulton County.

Removal of current mayor.

               

Self-serving council members Slum lord Stupid people who vote Tall buildings The Gov't officials maintaining honesty to its citizens The need to appraise property by Roswell, not by county.

Timely completion of existing projects To paint funds around Islands entrances at shopping centers and at corners of turners (safety) Too much construction Under funded projects Unsafe conditions for bike riders Up keep of business.

Use golf carts "Daytime" in all Roswell.

Using police force as city revenue.

Wasting money on stupid roadway walk Xenophobia/Intolerance

Have no idea!

I have no idea Not an issue but we love the park system!

Not sure

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.



Report of Results Page 59

Question 14: What is the one thing you would change about the City of Roswell?            

                      

An informed people are a cooperative people!

Be more responsive to citizens input on proposal projects.

Become more truthful about what is going on.

Communicate objectives and results regularly good/bad.

Communication on traffic and city improvements - seems like decisions are made before informing the public.

Communication to residents.

Complete transparency with respect to further development.

Continued/consistent communication with Roswell residents all the time not just during elections.

Corruption and lack of transparency Could the city council people be more pre active about meeting citizens hearing concerns/ideas have meetings in the different neighborhoods with the people who live there.

Don't know enough about RCG to comment having said that communication on meetings & results, What is going on, etc. That is easy for me to receive and read -that's what we need.

Hard to answer...overall I think the city government does the job it's supposed to be doing. Continue to keep a very open two-way dialogue with the citizens via various channels - timely communication is the key, whether the news is good or bad. I don't t I do like the website although it can be a bit frustrating to find things.

Higher priority towards transparency on what the city council is walking on.

I don't think the city does a good job at informing citizens of all the programs, services events that it has to offer. Mostly all of the services like-ID tuft, Car seat checks, etc.

Inform us more about city plan, long term and short term.

Lacking in approachability & access.

Listen more to voters/people.

Listen to the citizen's/resident's concerns re: traffic woes & do something about them. I've been here 9 years & nothing has changed or happened.

Listen to the people & not developers & big money interest!

Make it easier (and more attractive) for citizens to get involved.

Make it easier for a citizens to report a complaint.

Make it more transparent.

Mayor should be more visible.

More & bettor communications-None of the city elected officials have taken advantage of city mailings to communicate with us. (30+ yr resident).

More community involvement.

More info on who the people are and what position they hold.

More meetings for residents to offer ideas More meetings regarding redesign.

More transparency- I didn't receive this survey of my residence- it came to my office address - Roswell.

More update-to-date information on website.

More visable and ongoing info regarding projects that are being contemplated and/or initiated Posting a monthly calendar Re: meeting & events on the website in a calendar format.

Provide better education to the community about safety around bicyclists and bike lanes.

The website is frequently frozen or very slow to load.

We need to see the faces of the officials in power more often.

Traffic Problems (Speed Traps)    

Better traffic lights, less construction.

Eliminate speed traps. Gives the city a bad name.

Eliminate the prosecution of victimless crimes (speeding, etc) Everything is pretty good. Wouldn't change anything completely. Try to fix traffic somehow!

Report of Results Page 60

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Communication/increase citizen involvement

             

Faster repair on damage & coordinate traffic lights.

Flow of traffic root. Lites too longs quantity of lots too short for traffic flow.

I think we could use a more pro-active police force for traffic control violations (such as blocking intersections and failing to yeild)given our severe traffic conditions.

Improve traffic, reduce taxes.

Make Alpharetta one way north and mimosa/crabapple one way south More responsive to traffic situations.

Photo traffic light enforcement.

Police traffic traps Priorities - traffic, street light synchronization is a huge problem during rush hour.

Several friends myself included, all received traffic tickets in July/Aug - bogus, or exasperated traffic tickets. This is not the way to increase revenue. I'm glad the police are visible, but seem to be under pressure to make quotas.

Stop using traffic enforcement to increase coffers.

Traffic flow at Holcomb Bridge and GAHOO intersection.

Who ever runs the traffic enforcement (Not law but signal lights, no turns on light at crabapple etc.)

Work on losing the title of being a city of "speed traps" quit using police & ticket quotas to supplement city budget.

City Codes/ Permits Enforced (Zoning)     

Taxes            

Code enforcements need to be reviewed. Some are ridiculous and seem to be a way for the city to increase its revenue base. In many cases they do not assist with residential quality/safety of property.

Enforcing local codes.

Set a side land, for commercial, office, etc in advance & avoid court & attorney fee's by more reasonable zonings.

The red tape that you have to go through over and over to get approval for a project. Even when it is already approved the constant work stop demands and requests for re-approval. This includes residential and private school expansion.

The way code enforcement reacts to violations in a daily basis that occurs every day.

Use a commonsense approach to code enforcement which does not drive business out of community or from considering doing business in Roswell.

Abolish city taxes Dependance on "city" property taxes. Other cities around us don't have "city" taxes, only "county".

Eleaper taxes to deniers.

I would allow school taxes to be reassigned to private schools.

Less city taxes.

Lower taxes Lower taxes Lower taxes.

Lower taxes. Lower fire & police. Too many! Too much! Give out good driver rewards. More commendations. Less tickets for lane charges more friendly help signs/welcome signs.

Move to reduce property taxes/school tax for seniors.

Please lower of taxes?

Reduce Roswell city taxes.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.



Slow down growth/building    

Amount of apartment complexes around neighborhoods.

Home the council reduce the level of development in the city we don't need a shopping center near each school.

Moritorium on new builds.

Must have a better vision about our growth & how to keep our small town feel.

Report of Results Page 61



Smart growth/urban reducing sprawl.

Efficiency            

    

 

Cannot believe Roswell is considering building a natatorium. The maintenance costs will be higher than anticipated at a time when we're trying to cut expenses as a city.

Caution more than change. I w/d caution officials not engage in special interests that don't benefit the masses.

Cut by 50% Cut cost - reduce Gov't.

Cut spending.

Cut spending.

Find ways to reduce taxes rather than increasing them. We don't need all the fluff.

Fiscally responsible seen parks & the sports budgets of chunk taken out that goes to city w/no line item descriptions yet are parks/facilities have not been renovated to keep up w/neighboring cities.

Follow the structure of Sandy springs to reduce taxes by at least 25% and provide better services!

Go as green & lean as you can.

Gout is the first place to cut. Be more efficient. Sorry, but some people have to loose there jobs. Pay police & teachers, they are important.

I would get rid of nonessential personnel to reduce the negative impact on our lives. There is a misprioritization that a reduction personnel would not only solve the budget but would decrease unnecessary interference in our lives I would eliminate all non-essential expenditures, like the city employee who provides environmental programming in the schools. In these times, every expenditure should be evaluated, just like I do before I spend my income. That kind of thing is fine in t

Living within budget cut services to stay within budget.

Make it more efficient with less employees!

Move with less? Efficiency recycle frequency could be biweekly yard trash could be biweekly except pane storm & fall leaves.

Speak straight; no prevarication. We all know times are tough & not likely to improve in 2011. All families are reducing their expenditures! The city; the same.

Stop wasting money on frivolous things - stay within the bounds of revenue - even if it means cutting services - we don't need fire works, night baseball games, or other sports cut library hours cut free art shows or change cut art in the park or make sure vendors pay for services. No more "city" cars stay within our budget do not bankrupt us!

Truly see if tax money is being used appropriately. Do the govt officials really need to be paid as much as they are There are many service people - teachers, police, officers, firemen/women, ems and nurses doing as much good for the community, if not more who get paid far less for their hard work!

Try to find more ways to save money.

Change in infrastructure/ City official

    

All conciliation (Mayor included).

Bring some real change to the city council, so we can focus on growing into the 21st century.

Change city council elections to be by district.

City Council Should Be Elected By District.

Continuity on city council. City council needs to govern based on what the majority believes is in the best interest of our city.

Council members elected by area.

Decrease size of Roswell Government.

Downsize city payroll.

Elect officials that are committed to fiscal responsibility & legalizing alcohol sales on Sundays. (tax revenues would help fund municipal improvements).

Follow through with election promises.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

    

Report of Results Page 62

                   

Form council districts instead of every city council member being "At large" - Roswell's population has out grown the current system of representation.

Get rid of all the "conservatives' who simply pander to the lowest common denominator to get elected like Betty Price.

It's city administrator.

Limit term of mayor to two terms.

Limit terms of elected officials.

Make it less of a good old boy network.

Mayors are in power far too long.

No term limits.

Put in term limits on mayor & council members.

Reduce or fire incompetent Gov't staff.

Reduce size of Gov't.

Reward & retain long term employees.

Spenders are in charge - remove them.

Term limits Term limits for all elected official 2 terms only.

Term limits for all.

Term limits for elected officials.

Term limits on city officials.

To many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Too "old boys club" attitude - sometimes.

Revitalization/redevelopment        

Finally make improvement in commercial business along Alpharetta hwy.

Get rid of blighted areas like Hazier street. No more apartments! City is over rum with transient that does not want to be part of the community and set down roots.

I would like to see efforts to make HWY 9 (from the Chattahoochee river up to cantor street) look more like canton street (cute historic look etc.)

Less politics and really looking what can help Roswell rejuvenate redo the rundown sections of town.

Roswell is a fantastic city!

More shops in down town Roswell & Develop the Roswell mill area even more.

Ncourage more businesses to fill the empty stores- do not build any new shopping centers-reuse the old ones.

Needs to work harder and faster to deal with waning areas along HWY 9, etc. to redevelop and maintain. Make it easier for large businesses to build offices, etc. in Roswell like in Alpharetta (will help with tax money as well).

To remain diligent about keeping Alpharetta hwy looking attractive. Very unattractive at the present time!

     

Arrogance of the police to long term residents.

Change attitude of police.

Employees who answer calls to 770-640-4100 (police) should always be courteous and cooperative toward callers with legal and reasonable requests. Save the "third-degree" treatment for perpetrators, not victims of crimes.

I would change how the police are giving out tickets. I have not had one yet, but it seems like a police state when they are always hanging around like they do!

Phone operators of police no emergency number is rude and abrupt. Callers with legitimate concerns should be treated with respect and courtesy.

Police dept. Are too aggressive for non violent offenses. Many bad experiences with the Roswell police, never guilty and never charged, treated badly during incident. At least four times.

Report of Results Page 63

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Police, bad attitude

 

Police officers not being sarcastic with an attitude. Had to go to the chief of police to file a complaint for an accident my son had that was not writer up at first was given an attitude until they realized the problem Town hall meeting exposure of elected official. Better police force. The few times. I have had to deal with them they were rude! They don't even wave to citizens on street when waved to or speak kindly when approve. The police in my experience are rude to the citizens of road.

Police, too much focus on traffic not enough on crime  

      

focus more on crime than street violation Have the police spend less time trying to catch speeders at noon on Hwy 92 and all the other names and more time addressing crime. I realize this is revenue, but Sunday morning, someone going 8 miles over the speed limit is less important then breaking a law Roswell Police Officers using Entrampment methods around city (i.e. Speeding up behind car and Tailgating you within 2 feet of car for no reason) Instead of police camping out watching who comes and goes at apt., They can do something more productive. (like being around where people need them more).

Police dept - too much incentive to ticket people for minor offenses - should be concerned with real crime & real DUI'S. Police dept. needs to go after DUI & MIP cases rather than hiding in the bushes on riverside Dr. Waiting for people to make a rolling stop. Come on!

Police too zealous in enforcing speed limits.

Scale back on the number of police officers & save tax dollars. Too many set up in tandem for speed traps-especially on side roads-never on 400-& only in the upper income area.

The way you have your police stationed out in trips to try and catch people without seatbelts. Don't you thing they could spend. Their time being more productive. This is just another variant to a speed trap.

Roswell has turned into forest park.

Too may policeman giving speeding tax instead of protecting citizens.

                 

Agree to encourage business, bring it into Roswell instead of constantly losing it to Alphabets, Sandy springs etc.

Attract high end business.

Be more progressive, Be more new business friendly.

Be more responsive to growing tax base with new businesses moving in to town.

Become more developer friendly.

Create a business friendly environment so that we stop losing businesses to Alpha Retta.

Find creative ways to help fill vacant stores that have been empty for years!

Helping small business grow, promote the culture and deliver on promises.

Lare more businesses Make it more attractive for small business to come into Roswell or expand their present business.

More prudent on approving strip malls. More effort of selecting good small & large business. Improve bike riding traffic rules especially during morning & evening.

Need business in Roswell. East side cleaned up.

Need to be more business friendly.

Not business friendly. Alpharetta Hwy and HBR are visual and economic disasters. Business community knows Govt is not small business friendly.

Overall Roswell city taxes are too high and it appears they will go higher due to declining tax base. City has been too 'unfriendly' to businesses. There needs to be new, creative ideas from city government leadership or new leadership.

Privatize more services.

Provide incentives for businesses to stay open. A lot of great places can't stay open due to economy.

Reduce some of the impossible ordinances in place which make new businesses such as restaurants, bars and music places impossible to open.

Report of Results Page 64

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Business friendly



To allow private people to establish business and schools and create job.

Issues of east vs. west Roswell        

A government that's more committed in involving east Roswell.

Be even more inclusive of East Roswell area - Jere woods has done a good job of it - but.

I pay taxes to Roswell - with an Alpharetta address - I don't have info on changes in Roswell Gov't - no newspaper, etc - I live on the East side of Roswell - there is no improvement in the area.

I sense a little east west division and don't know why. Change districts to reduce this if necessary.

More inclusion of east Roswell (east of GA 400); including the flow of traffic on Holcomb Bridge!

No perceived division between east and west Roswell.

Roswell west needed to be look at because we have been neglect.

The east/west Roswell split rather than working together for the benefit of all Roswell citizens.

Bills/fees         

A water us age billing for my wife and I was more than double our normal consistent usage. More than physically possible, yet we still had to pay for it. Also don't build things like turn around at grimes bridge rd/ nor cross. What a waste of funds. Almost ridiculous Be able to pay garbage once a month instead of once every two months-easier for people to budget.

Fine fees, traffic ticket fines.

How utility bills are determine every month.

Lorering cost of recreation.

More time for payment of rubbish bills currently about 10 days before de longest!!!

Move to receive utility bill on-line.

Utility billing is contusing- why is there a $20 spike in sewer bus from, I hill to the next?

Would like the option to schedule garbage and property tax payments with my Visa for future dates, so I don't have to hold onto the bill aand remember to call the payment in when it is due.

Replace Mayor

     

Other        

Elect a new mayor.

Elect a new Mayor.

Get rid of Jere wood & most of the city council.

I would remove the bumbling book of a mayor who supported the redevelopment/tower project of 400 & Holcomb Bridge.

Neighboring Keep Jeri wood as major. Remove people who are catering to non-us citizens and illegal.

The mayor The mayor for hunting in martin's landing how pitiful is that?

The mayor, Jere Wood The mayor.

The mayor.

Annex more property into city if it would provide more tax revenue.

Change to Milton city & consolidate into one Gov't agency!

City government should concentrate on jobs for us citizens. Illegal immigration has increased unemployment in our city.

Control over HOA's.

Council meetings: Council members should stop "political speeches" before voting on an issues. Some are too verbose as to what or how they have voted in the past. People are wanting concise, direct comments when votes are taken on a subject for why they are attending the meeting.

Culture & focus on people.

Demolish that huge government services building that many of the Roswell employees work in on community circle c'mon, don't need that building.

Do not buy real-estate with tax payer money. (Old post office)

Report of Results Page 65

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

   

      

                   

     

Do not employ illegal people!

Do whatever it took to enforce and/or write laws to rid Roswell of our increasing "ILLEGAL" immigration issue 50 Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stand on the corners like prostitutes in Roswell major problem getting worse every day.

Establish school system-take schools away from Fulton city good.

Fire station closer to Far East end of Roswell Haynes Bridge & old Alabama.

Fix man made flooding.

Get rid of Hispanics!

Grant to Hispanic immigrants were to get a driver's license the opportunity to read in Spanish DDS. Have people who are willing to make real efforts towards Roswell breaking from Fulton co & becoming Milton.

I get the impression that the City of Roswell cares very little for the poor and a whole lot for the rich. As one who makes plenty of money and grew up in a well-off family in Roswell, I am not saying this because I am one of the poor. Rather, it sadden too much emphasis on environment.

I have lived here for 5 years, I think that Roswell should only be from 400W. Everything east of 400 another town. I love the recreation program but when my kids have a game at ERRC and I'm driving from MT. Park to a game at 6 pm it could take me 45 minutes to get there.

I would try and change the violence to non-violence without harming anyone.

Incorporate with Milton County Increase promotion visibility of programs services. Alpharetta is still better known.

Invoice only tax paying citizens of Roswell to be able to use the parks, recs & schools.

Less or no billboard permits-very unappealing.

Maintaining Roswell's character. Don't allow commercial buildings in the style of that square, building on Canton St. And, control signage throughout Roswell - not just in the historic area. make sure all streets signs indicating the names of streets that provide no outlet, be marked as "no outlet". My neighborhood in Crabapple Walk has two streets with no outlet: Birchwood Lane and Ashton Drive.

More decisive.

More emphasis on education.

More ethnic diversity.

More focus on residents of city of Roswell; focus on residents needs & desires not just political agendas for next election!

More police More pro active stance on eliminating the invasion of illegal immigrants.

More progressive solutions to cultivate a cleaner, more cultured, and educated suburb, asking too much?

More protection for individual homeowners from commercial encroachment-Our sudden is exhibit 'A' when government favors developers over homeowners.

More speed on historic Roswell plan (implementation).

Move sidewalks away from the street at least 5! Walking with your children or dog is not safe, in Roswell Due to cars traveling next to you, Two feet away, going 40 mills per hour.

No more questionnaires!

No more subdivisions instead create neighborhoods with connecting roads so traffic can flow through to more than one main road this will help prevent traffic and give us drivers more options to go in different directions. Review existing Subdivision to se Allow competition For Garbage Services.

Not very function until its functions.

Outlaw Roosters and farm animals in the neighborhoods.

Outreach to "privge" areas of city.

Postal service.

Promote family neighborhoods over business.

Put the police in areas patrolling busy and heavy populated and not wasting time parked on side streets.

Report of Results Page 66

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

 

             

    

State the goal to be the best city in the nation.

Stop any R rated shops coming in as that place next to do not on Hi. Bridge Rd makes Hiw 9- a pretty street- inviting like carton st. struggle with the same issue that other city cov't struggle and your motiviation seems to be self serving vs. for the good of the city.

Take over dot responsibility within city limits.

Thank small town, with a big personality. Get home value up!

That all city government officials and our citizens would acknowledge that god is the one who established government and in turn seek his wisdom in all the affairs at our great city.

The born ban. We need to be able to born things as long as we get a permit.

The city of Roswell government needs to be more concerned with its residents than with being business friendly.

The mix up with my address, I live in Roswell and have a Alpharetta address. When calling for service.

The address is a major problem. Utilities, etc.

The only request I can make is not to increase the costs of services. I like to receive a local newspaper, but I do not.

Tightening up on loitering day laborers.

To be apart from Fulton County.

Unconstitutional trash ordinance.

Understand that most (of us) hear no desire to be a larger city (we could move back into the city (Atlanta) if that were our wishes. We need more traffic avenues to accommodate the current population concentrate on services & amenities to serial your citizens, rather than catering to the desires of corporation trying to grow the city.

Very disappointed in road maintenance in our subdivision. We had water pipes replaced and they only paved half of the road. And this was several years ago and still not fixed!

Voting rights for resident aliens ("Green card") Walking at night is pretty unsafe. The streets are very dark. More lighting & police patrol required.

Why can't canton street be used for only cars many small towns have no truck signs except for delivery times- Hwy 9-is to tally accessible for then traffic!

Why doesn't the city have a public safety volunteer program similar to Alpharetta, They provide valuable services to police & fire without great cost to the city. (Fire corp. Program).

Nothing, doing a good job

              

Basicly well fun.

Can't think of a thing.

Can't think of anything.

Can't think of anything. Attended 2 public meetings this year. Very impressed with mayor wood, city council members, planning commission members.

Doing a great job, keep it up! Possibly use more volunteer-driver committees.

Doing a great job. from what I know, I would not change anything. It appears to be running smoothly.

Have been happy W/Gov't. For most part. Didn't like the mayors effort to build gigantic, problematic development a couple years ago hear 400.

I don't actually have a single issue!

I don't of anything. You guys doing a great job.

I would not change anything.

I wouldn't change anything.

I'm a happy camper for 31 years It is fine with me.

It's pretty good as is!

No opinion/suggestion.

No recommendations No significant changes.

No specific gripe.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

   

Report of Results Page 67

  

No specific recommendation.

None - keep it small.

Not much - I like it.

Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing comes to mind.

Nothing really Nothing significant. We have good people doing pretty much the right things now.

Nothing!

Nothing... Keep republicans in keep crime out!!!

Personally I like our current government - I think Jere Wood does a good job and really does have Roswell's best interests at heart.

Seems to be working okay to me.

That is hard to say since & believe Roswell does a fairly good job.

V. little- appears well run.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

               

Report of Results Page 68

APPENDIX D: CROSSTABULATIONS BY RESPONDENT SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS Ratings for select survey questions are compared by respondent characteristics in this appendix. Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences (p ď‚Ł .05).

Question 2 by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

Tenure Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

Overall quality of life in the City of Roswell

95%

95%

94%

95%

98%

92%

96%

95%

94%

96%

91%

95%

The value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell

57%

75%

73%

70%

63%

57%

78%

78%

71%

72%

62%

70%

The job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement

51%

66%

61%

60%

65%

50%

71%

63%

61%

62%

55%

60%

The job Roswell government does at listening to citizens

53%

58%

62%

58%

76%

47%

62%

60%

58%

60%

49%

58%

The job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed

56%

69%

66%

65%

81%

55%

67%

68%

65%

67%

57%

65%

The degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community

66%

67%

66%

67%

51%

60%

75%

70%

67%

67%

62%

66%

The overall quality of services provided by Roswell government 80% Percent reporting "good" or "excellent"

78%

77%

78%

73%

72%

80%

83%

79%

79%

74%

78%

Report of Results Page 69

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Age Please rate each of the following categories as they relate to the City of Roswell.

Question 3 (quality) by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure The following are services provided by the City of Roswell. For each service, please first rate the quality of the service and next rate the importance of each service.

Age

Length of Residency

18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

Garbage pickup

90%

92%

96%

93%

85%

90%

94%

Curbside recycling

72%

91%

94%

88%

53%

89%

Recycling Center

75%

89%

95%

87%

57%

Street maintenance

71%

68%

69%

69%

Storm drainage

77%

70%

75%

Traffic signal timing

43%

49%

Traffic flow

37%

Police protection

76%

Fire protection

11 or more years

Tenure

Own

Rent

Overall results

96%

93%

94%

86%

92%

92%

92%

88%

93%

59%

88%

90%

82%

95%

88%

92%

68%

87%

74%

67%

74%

68%

70%

68%

71%

69%

73%

75%

76%

84%

68%

74%

73%

74%

73%

41%

45%

49%

49%

48%

40%

45%

45%

44%

45%

31%

31%

33%

42%

36%

38%

25%

33%

31%

36%

32%

89%

87%

85%

72%

77%

90%

90%

85%

87%

76%

85%

88%

95%

92%

92%

92%

89%

89%

95%

92%

94%

85%

92%

Code enforcement

80%

72%

64%

72%

80%

73%

80%

64%

71%

70%

73%

71%

Parks grounds

94%

91%

94%

92%

92%

92%

93%

92%

92%

94%

87%

92%

Parks facilities

90%

89%

92%

90%

92%

88%

93%

91%

91%

92%

82%

90%

Ease of bicycling in the city

55%

52%

54%

53%

49%

59%

52%

49%

53%

54%

51%

53%

Ease of walking in the city

58%

55%

54%

55%

44%

66%

54%

51%

55%

56%

51%

55%

Ease of paying utility bill

77%

88%

89%

85%

69%

84%

86%

90%

85%

87%

77%

85%

82%

80%

82%

81%

67%

84%

85%

80%

82%

81%

78%

81%

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines) Percent reporting "good" or "excellent"

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Overall results

Report of Results Page 70

Question 3 (importance) by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure Age 18 to 34 years

Garbage pickup

Length of Residency

35 to 54 years

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

100%

95%

94%

96%

97%

97%

95%

Curbside recycling

84%

87%

82%

85%

82%

84%

Recycling Center

84%

74%

74%

77%

86%

Street maintenance

97%

94%

94%

94%

Storm drainage

98%

92%

91%

Traffic signal timing

92%

86%

Traffic flow

95%

Police protection

98%

Fire protection

11 or more years

Tenure Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

96%

96%

96%

97%

96%

82%

87%

85%

85%

83%

85%

74%

72%

80%

77%

75%

84%

77%

95%

93%

95%

95%

94%

94%

98%

95%

93%

92%

96%

95%

91%

93%

91%

98%

93%

90%

89%

88%

84%

90%

91%

88%

87%

94%

88%

95%

93%

95%

98%

91%

97%

95%

95%

94%

97%

95%

98%

99%

98%

100%

98%

98%

99%

98%

99%

97%

99%

98%

99%

98%

99%

100%

98%

97%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

Code enforcement

80%

72%

77%

76%

80%

75%

74%

76%

75%

72%

86%

75%

Parks grounds

89%

81%

76%

82%

76%

84%

82%

81%

81%

81%

81%

81%

Parks facilities

85%

82%

76%

81%

74%

79%

81%

84%

81%

81%

80%

81%

Ease of bicycling in the city

45%

41%

35%

40%

56%

42%

44%

34%

41%

38%

49%

40%

Ease of walking in the city

62%

65%

61%

63%

61%

70%

59%

59%

63%

62%

65%

62%

Ease of paying utility bill

65%

51%

62%

58%

50%

65%

61%

55%

59%

56%

65%

58%

Online payments (e.g., paying traffic tickets, red light violations, court fines) 61% Percent reporting "very important" or "essential"

41%

51%

49%

42%

60%

53%

40%

50%

43%

66%

49%

Report of Results Page 71

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

The following are services provided by the City of Roswell. For each service, please first rate the quality of the service and next rate the importance of each service.

Question 4 by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure Age How satisfied are you with the availability of information about City services

18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

How satisfied are you with the availability of information 87% 94% 91% about City services?

Percent reporting "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied"

Overall results

91%

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

86%

91%

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

94%

93%

Tenure Overall results

92%

Own

Rent

93%

86%

Overall results

91%

Question 6 by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure

Have you had a personal contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months?

Percent who had contact

33%

35 to 54 years

45%

Length of Residency

55+ years

45%

Overall results

42%

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

27%

39%

6 to 10 years

35%

11 or more years

51%

Tenure Overall results

42%

Own

Rent

45%

35%

Overall results

42%

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Age 18 to 34 years

Report of Results Page 72

Question 6a by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Roswell in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.)

Age 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

Tenure Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

Knowledge

90%

89%

94%

91%

100%

90%

95%

90%

92%

90%

92%

91%

Responsiveness

89%

86%

91%

88%

100%

86%

92%

89%

90%

88%

91%

88%

Helpfulness

85%

83%

88%

85%

100%

77%

93%

86%

86%

86%

82%

85%

100%

84%

91%

89%

100%

85%

93%

89%

89%

89%

94%

90%

96%

87%

92%

90%

100%

89%

90%

89%

90%

89%

92%

90%

Overall impression 85% 83% 93% 86% 100% 77% 95% 89% 87% 87% Percent reporting "good" or "excellent" This question was asked only of those who reported having had contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months.

84%

86%

Courtesy Professionalism

Question 7 by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

55+ years

Length of Residency Overall results

How often, if ever, have you accessed the City's web site (www.roswellgov.com) in the last month?

71% 67% 44% 61% Percent reporting accessing the City's Web site at least once in the last month

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

65%

65%

6 to 10 years

65%

11 or more years

55%

Tenure Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

61%

63%

56%

61% Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Age

Report of Results Page 73

Question 7a by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure Age 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

If you have used the City's web site in the last 12 months, please rate the ease of finding the information 75% 80% 84% 79% 80% 79% 84% you were looking for.

Percent reporting "good" or "excellent" This question was asked only of those who reported having access the City's Web site in the last month.

78%

Tenure Overall results

80%

Own

Rent

79%

79%

Overall results

79%

Question 8 by Age, Length of Residency and Housing Tenure Age How many times, if ever, in the last month have you...

Watched Roswell City TV, RCTV

18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

Tenure

11 or more years

Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

18%

19%

18%

0%

17%

24%

21%

18%

14%

31%

18%

4%

4%

3%

4%

8%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

0%

4%

Read a notice/information in your utility bill 58% 61% Percent reporting at least once in the last month

65%

61%

48%

50%

65%

70%

61%

68%

39%

61%

Received a message on Facebook from Roswell

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

18%

Report of Results Page 74

Question 9 by Age, Length of Residency and Housing Tenure Age How likely or unlikely would you be to use each of the following information sources to receive communications from the City of Roswell?

Length of Residency

18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

55+ years

Overall results

The City's web site (www.roswellgov.com)

84%

88%

65%

81%

The City's e-newsletter (Roswell Connections)

72%

69%

59%

Email

65%

74%

Social networking web sites (i.e., Facebook, Twitter)

31%

Roswell City TV, RCTV

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

85%

80%

87%

67%

57%

74%

64%

69%

44%

27%

11%

24%

31%

21%

25%

Utility bills

55%

70%

Direct mail

75%

73%

Nixle email/text notification service 27% Percent reporting "somewhat likely" or "very likely"

26%

11 or more years

Tenure

Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

77%

81%

82%

79%

81%

69%

65%

68%

67%

68%

67%

74%

61%

74%

68%

72%

57%

69%

28%

38%

14%

16%

24%

23%

24%

23%

25%

23%

28%

28%

21%

24%

17%

45%

24%

71%

66%

55%

57%

69%

76%

67%

69%

58%

66%

74%

74%

71%

77%

67%

75%

73%

71%

80%

73%

17%

24%

24%

31%

22%

17%

23%

22%

28%

24%

Question 10 by Age, Length of Residency and Household Tenure 35 to 54 years

How safe or unsafe do you feel in your neighborhood at night?

92% 96% Percent reporting "somewhat safe" or "very safe"

Length of Residency

55+ years

97%

Overall results

96%

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

81%

96%

97%

11 or more years

99%

Tenure Overall results

96%

Own

Rent

98%

89%

Overall results

96%

Report of Results Page 75

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Age 18 to 34 years

Question 11 by Age, Length of Residency and Housing Tenure In the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services, how much more per month, if anything, would you be willing to pay to...

Age 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

Maintain the current City services, excluding sanitation and water services

57%

59%

59%

58%

50%

64%

52%

62%

58%

51%

57%

48%

59%

58%

Increase City services, excluding sanitation and water services Percent reporting at least $1 per month

Length of Residency 11 or more years

Tenure

Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

60%

59%

58%

61%

58%

57%

57%

57%

57%

57%

Question 12 by Age, Length of Residency and Housing Tenure

Street and roadway maintenance

Age 18 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

Length of Residency

55+ years

Overall results

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

Tenure Overall results

Own

Rent

Overall results

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

1%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

37%

14%

10%

19%

13%

19%

23%

18%

19%

20%

17%

19%

Fire safety education programs

2%

10%

8%

7%

3%

6%

8%

10%

8%

10%

1%

8%

Environmental programs

6%

14%

18%

13%

8%

14%

9%

15%

13%

15%

6%

13%

13%

17%

13%

15%

23%

11%

10%

17%

15%

14%

14%

14%

Park maintenance

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

2%

1%

Police school resource officers, DARE and other crime prevention programs

4%

4%

8%

5%

0%

8%

3%

6%

5%

6%

3%

5%

None of the above

38%

39%

39%

39%

53%

39%

42%

33%

39%

32%

56%

38%

Total Percent of respondents

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Code enforcement (City's response time to citizen's complaints/violations)

Recreation programs

Report of Results Page 76

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

If the City had to reduce service levels, which, if any, of the following service areas would you be willing to reduce? (Please select only one.)

APPENDIX E: SURVEY METHODOLOGY Survey Instrument Development General resident surveys, such as this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the city, their satisfaction with City amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the City and their assessment of City service delivery. The resident survey instrument for Roswell was developed by starting with the version from the previous implementation in 2007. A list of topics was generated for new questions; topics and questions were modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2010 questionnaire. In an iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final three-page questionnaire was created.

Sample Selection For the 2010 survey, a total of 2,300 residents were randomly selected within the city to receive survey mailings. To ensure households selected to participate in the survey were within the City of Roswell boundaries, the latitude and longitude of each address (among the 2,300) was plotted to determine its location within the city. Addresses that fell outside of the city boundaries were removed from the sample. Attached units within the city were oversampled to compensate for detached unit residents’ tendency to return surveys at a higher rate. An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. (The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys.)

Survey Administration The Roswell Resident Survey was administered by mail in October and November of 2010.

This was the second iteration of the survey. Data for the previous survey was collected by mail in December 2007.

All households received three mailings, one week apart. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The other two mailings contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid envelope.

About 5% of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,192 households that received the survey, 588 respondents completed the survey, 57 of which were completed via the Web option, providing an overall response rate of 27%.

Weighting the Data The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Census estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics.

Report of Results Page 77

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

A total of 1,400 households received the survey mailings in October 2010. Due to a lower response rate than in 2007, an additional 900 households were sampled in November 2010.

Residents were provided the option to complete the mailed questionnaire and return it in a postage paid envelope or to complete the survey online. Completed surveys were collected over a 12-week period.

The variables used for weighting were respondent age, gender, race, ethnicity, housing unit type and housing tenure. This decision was based on:   

The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables The magnitude of differences of opinion among these subgroups The weighting done in prior years

The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The percentage of residents with demographic characteristics that are least similar to the percentages in the Census and the demographic categories of residents whose opinions are most different from each other are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable.

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the figure below.

Report of Results Page 78

Figure 39: City of Roswell 2010 Resident Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm1 Unweighted Data

Weighted Data

Housing Own home

74%

83%

75%

Rent home

26%

17%

25%

Detached unit

65%

75%

66%

Attached unit

35%

25%

34%

White

82%

87%

82%

Not white

18%

13%

18%

Hispanic

14%

5%

12%

Not Hispanic

86%

95%

88%

White alone, not Hispanic

73%

84%

75%

Hispanic and/or other race

27%

16%

25%

Race and Ethnicity

Sex and Age

1

18-34 years of age

29%

9%

27%

35-54 years of age

43%

44%

43%

55+ years of age

28%

48%

30%

Female

51%

53%

51%

Male

49%

47%

49%

Females 18-34

14%

5%

13%

Females 35-54

23%

24%

22%

Females 55+

15%

23%

16%

Males 18-34

15%

4%

13%

Males 35-54

21%

19%

21%

25%

15%

Males 55+ 13% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data Analysis

Chi-square and ANOVA tests of significance were applied to breakdowns of selected survey questions by respondent characteristics. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they are marked with grey shading in tables in Appendix D: Crosstabulations by Respondent Sociodemographics.

Report of Results Page 79

© 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Completed questionnaires were checked for accuracy by National Research Center, Inc (NRC). staff. The data were then entered, and the results analyzed by NRC staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, frequency distributions are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix B: Complete Set of Responses to Survey Questions.

APPENDIX F: JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN BENCHMARK COMPARISONS Listed below are the jurisdictions included in the National comparisons provided for the City of Roswell followed by the 2000 population according to the U.S. Census. At the end of this section are listed the jurisdictions included in the population size comparison.

Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons

Agoura Hills, CA .....................................20,537 Alamogordo, NM ....................................35,582 Albany, GA .............................................76,939 Albany, OR .............................................40,852 Albemarle County, VA ............................79,236 Alpharetta, GA ........................................34,854 Ames, IA .................................................50,731 Andover, MA...........................................31,247 Ankeny, IA ..............................................27,117 Ann Arbor, MI .......................................114,024 Arapahoe County, CO ...........................487,967 Archuleta County, CO ...............................9,898 Arkansas City, KS.....................................11,963 Arlington County, VA ............................189,453 Arvada, CO ...........................................102,153 Asheville, NC ..........................................68,889 Aspen, CO ................................................5,914 Auburn, AL..............................................42,987 Auburn, WA............................................40,314 Aurora, CO ...........................................276,393 Austin, TX .............................................656,562 Avondale, AZ ..........................................35,883 Baltimore County, MD ..........................754,292 Barnstable, MA........................................47,821 Batavia, IL ...............................................23,866 Battle Creek, MI ......................................53,364 Bedford, MA............................................12,595 Beekman, NY ..........................................11,452 Belleair Beach, FL......................................1,751 Bellevue, WA ........................................109,569 Bellflower, CA.........................................72,878 Bellingham, WA......................................67,171 Benbrook, TX ..........................................20,208 Bend, OR ................................................52,029 Benicia, CA .............................................26,865 Bettendorf, IA ..........................................31,275 Billings, MT.............................................89,847 Blacksburg, VA........................................39,357 Bloomfield, NM ........................................6,417 Blue Ash, OH..........................................12,513

Blue Earth, MN ......................................... 3,621 Blue Springs, MO.................................... 48,080 Boise, ID............................................... 185,787 Bonita Springs, FL ................................... 32,797 Borough of Ebensburg, PA ........................ 3,091 Botetourt County, VA.............................. 30,496 Boulder County, CO ............................. 291,288 Boulder, CO ........................................... 94,673 Bowling Green, KY ................................. 49,296 Bozeman, MT ......................................... 27,509 Branson, MO ............................................ 6,050 Brea, CA ................................................. 35,410 Breckenridge, CO ..................................... 2,408 Brevard County, FL ............................... 476,230 Brisbane, CA ............................................. 3,597 Broken Arrow, OK .................................. 74,839 Broomfield, CO ...................................... 38,272 Bryan, TX ................................................ 34,733 Burlingame, CA....................................... 28,158 Burlington, MA ....................................... 22,876 Calgary, Canada.................................... 878,866 Cambridge, MA..................................... 101,355 Canandaigua, NY .................................... 11,264 Cape Coral, FL ...................................... 102,286 Carlsbad, CA........................................... 78,247 Carson City, NV ...................................... 52,457 Cartersville, GA....................................... 15,925 Carver County, MN................................. 70,205 Cary, NC................................................. 94,536 Casa Grande, AZ..................................... 25,224 Castle Rock, CO...................................... 20,224 Cedar Creek, NE .......................................... 396 Centralia, IL ............................................ 14,136 Chandler, AZ ........................................ 176,581 Chanhassen, MN..................................... 20,321 Chanute, KS .............................................. 9,411 Charlotte County, FL ............................. 141,627 Charlotte, NC........................................ 540,828 Chesapeake, VA.................................... 199,184 Chesterfield County, VA........................ 259,903

Report of Results Page 80

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

List below are the jurisdictions included in the national benchmark comparisons provided for the City of Roswell followed by its 2000 population according to the U.S. Census.

Dublin, CA ............................................. 29,973 Dublin, OH ............................................ 31,392 Duluth, MN ............................................ 86,918 Duncanville, TX ...................................... 36,081 Durango, CO .......................................... 13,922 Durham, NC ......................................... 187,038 Duval County, FL .................................. 778,879 Eagle County, CO ................................... 41,659 East Providence, RI.................................. 48,688 Eau Claire, WI......................................... 61,704 Edmond, OK ........................................... 68,315 Edmonton, Canada................................ 666,104 El Cerrito, CA .......................................... 23,171 El Paso, TX ............................................ 563,662 Elk Grove, CA ......................................... 59,984 Ellisville, MO ............................................ 9,104 Elmhurst, IL ............................................. 42,762 Englewood, CO ...................................... 31,727 Ephrata Borough, PA ............................... 13,213 Escambia County, FL............................. 294,410 Escanaba, MI........................................... 13,140 Eugene, OR........................................... 137,893 Eustis, FL ................................................. 15,106 Evanston, IL............................................. 74,239 Fairway, KS ............................................... 3,952 Farmington, NM...................................... 37,844 Farmington, UT....................................... 12,081 Fayetteville, AR ....................................... 58,047 Federal Way, WA.................................... 83,259 Fishers, IN............................................... 37,835 Flagstaff, AZ ............................................ 52,894 Florence, AZ ........................................... 17,054 Flower Mound, TX .................................. 50,702 Flushing, MI .............................................. 8,348 Fort Collins, CO.................................... 118,652 Fort Worth, TX ...................................... 534,694 Freeport, IL ............................................. 26,443 Fridley, MN ............................................ 27,449 Fruita, CO ................................................. 6,478 Gainesville, FL ........................................ 95,447 Gaithersburg, MD ................................... 52,613 Galt, CA.................................................. 19,472 Gardner, KS .............................................. 9,396 Georgetown, CO ...................................... 1,088 Georgetown, TX...................................... 28,339 Gig Harbor, WA........................................ 6,465 Gilbert, AZ............................................ 109,697 Gillette, WY ............................................ 19,646 Gladstone, MI ........................................... 5,032 Grand County, CO.................................. 12,442 Grand Junction, CO ................................ 41,986 Grand Prairie, TX .................................. 127,427 Grandview, MO...................................... 24,881

Report of Results Page 81

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Cheyenne, WY ........................................53,011 Chittenden County, VT..........................146,571 Chula Vista, CA .....................................173,556 Clark County, WA .................................345,238 Clay County, MO ..................................184,006 Clear Creek County, CO............................9,322 Clearwater, FL .......................................108,787 Cococino County, AZ............................116,320 College Park, MD....................................24,657 Collier County, FL .................................251,377 Collinsville, IL .........................................24,707 Colorado Springs, CO ...........................360,890 Columbus, WI ...........................................4,479 Concord, CA .........................................121,780 Concord, NC...........................................55,977 Conyers, GA............................................10,689 Cooper City, FL .......................................27,939 Coppell, TX .............................................39,958 Coral Springs, FL ...................................117,549 Corpus Christi, TX .................................277,454 Corvallis, OR...........................................49,322 Coventry, CT ...........................................11,504 Craig, CO..................................................9,189 Cranberry Township, PA .........................23,625 Crested Butte, CO .....................................1,529 Creve Coeur, MO....................................16,500 Crystal Lake, IL ........................................38,000 Cumberland County, PA........................213,674 Dakota County, MN ..............................355,904 Dallas, TX...........................................1,188,580 Dania Beach, FL ......................................20,061 Davenport, IA..........................................98,359 Davidson, NC ...........................................7,139 Daviess County, KY.................................91,545 Davis, CA................................................60,308 Daytona Beach, FL ..................................64,112 De Pere, WI ............................................20,559 Decatur, GA ............................................18,147 DeKalb, IL ...............................................39,018 Del Mar, CA..............................................4,389 Delaware, OH.........................................25,243 Delhi Township, MI ................................22,569 Delray Beach, FL .....................................60,020 Denton, TX..............................................80,537 Denver, CO...........................................554,636 Des Moines, IA......................................198,682 Destin, FL................................................11,119 Dewey-Humboldt, AZ ...............................6,295 District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada.......103,654 Douglas County, CO .............................175,766 Dover, DE ...............................................32,135 Dover, NH ..............................................26,884 Downers Grove, IL ..................................48,724

Lee's Summit, MO .................................. 70,700 Lenexa, KS .............................................. 40,238 Lexington, VA ........................................... 6,867 Liberty, MO ............................................ 26,232 Lincolnwood, IL ...................................... 12,359 Little Rock, AR ...................................... 183,133 Livermore, CA......................................... 73,345 Lodi, CA ................................................. 56,999 Lone Tree, CO .......................................... 4,873 Long Beach, CA .................................... 461,522 Longmont, CO ........................................ 71,093 Louisville, CO......................................... 18,937 Loveland, CO.......................................... 50,608 Lower Providence Township, PA ............ 22,390 Lyme, NH ................................................. 1,679 Lynchburg, VA ........................................ 65,269 Lynnwood, WA....................................... 33,847 Lynwood, CA .......................................... 69,845 Maple Grove, MN................................... 50,365 Marana, AZ............................................. 13,556 Marion, IA................................................. 7,144 Maryland Heights, MO ........................... 25,756 Maryville, MO ........................................ 10,581 Mauldin, SC ............................................ 15,224 Mayer, MN .................................................. 554 McAllen, TX.......................................... 106,414 Mecklenburg County, NC ..................... 695,454 Medina, MN ............................................. 4,005 Melbourne, FL ........................................ 71,382 Menlo Park, CA....................................... 30,785 Meridian Charter Township, MI .............. 38,987 Merriam, KS ............................................ 11,008 Merrill, WI .............................................. 10,146 Mesa County, CO ................................. 116,255 Mesa, AZ .............................................. 396,375 Miami Beach, FL ..................................... 87,933 Milton, GA.............................................. 30,180 Minneapolis, MN .................................. 382,618 Mission Viejo, CA ................................... 93,102 Mission, KS ............................................... 9,727 Missoula, MT .......................................... 57,053 Montgomery County, MD ..................... 873,341 Montpelier, VT.......................................... 8,035 Montrose, CO ......................................... 12,344 Mooresville, NC...................................... 18,823 Morgan Hill, CA...................................... 33,556 Morgantown, WV ................................... 26,809 Moscow, ID ............................................ 21,291 Mountain View, CA ................................ 70,708 Mountlake Terrace, WA .......................... 20,362 Multnomah County, OR........................ 660,486 Munster, IN............................................. 21,511 Muscatine, IA.......................................... 22,697

Report of Results Page 82

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Greenville, SC .........................................10,468 Greenwood Village, CO..........................11,035 Guelph, Ontario, Canada ......................114,943 Gulf Shores, AL .........................................5,044 Gunnison County, CO.............................13,956 Gurnee, IL ...............................................28,834 Hampton, VA ........................................146,437 Hanover County, VA ...............................86,320 Hartford, CT ..........................................121,578 Henderson, NV .....................................175,381 Hermiston, OR ........................................13,154 High Point, NC........................................85,839 Highland Park, IL.....................................31,365 Highlands Ranch, CO..............................70,931 Hillsborough County, FL .......................998,948 Honolulu, HI.........................................876,156 Hopewell, VA .........................................22,354 Hoquiam, WA...........................................9,097 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO ..............................521 Howell, MI................................................9,232 Hudson, OH ...........................................22,439 Hurst, TX.................................................36,273 Hutchinson, MN .....................................13,080 Hutto, TX ..................................................1,250 Indianola, IA............................................12,998 Irving, TX ..............................................191,615 Jackson County, MI ...............................158,422 Jackson County, OR ..............................181,269 James City County, VA ............................48,102 Jefferson County, CO.............................527,056 Joplin, MO ..............................................45,504 Jupiter, FL................................................39,328 Kamloops, Canada ..................................77,281 Kannapolis, NC .......................................36,910 Keizer, OR ..............................................32,203 Kelowna, Canada ....................................96,288 Kettering, OH..........................................57,502 Kirkland, WA ..........................................45,054 Kissimmee, FL .........................................47,814 Kitsap County, WA................................231,969 Kutztown Borough, PA ..............................5,067 La Mesa, CA ............................................54,749 La Plata, MD .............................................6,551 La Vista, NE.............................................11,699 Laguna Beach, CA ...................................23,727 Lakewood, CO ......................................144,126 Lane County, OR...................................322,959 Laramie, WY ...........................................27,204 Larimer County, CO ..............................251,494 Lawrence, KS...........................................80,098 Lebanon, NH ..........................................12,568 Lebanon, OH ..........................................16,962 Lee County, FL ......................................454,918

Peoria County, IL .................................. 183,433 Peoria, AZ............................................. 108,364 Peters Township, PA ............................... 17,556 Petoskey, MI ............................................. 6,080 Philadelphia, PA ................................ 1,517,550 Phoenix, AZ ....................................... 1,321,045 Pinal County, AZ................................... 179,727 Pinellas County, FL ............................... 921,482 Pinellas Park, FL...................................... 45,658 Pitkin County, CO................................... 14,872 Plano, TX .............................................. 222,030 Platte City, MO ......................................... 3,866 Port Orange, FL....................................... 45,823 Port St. Lucie, FL ..................................... 88,769 Portland, OR ......................................... 529,121 Post Falls, ID ........................................... 17,247 Poway, CA .............................................. 48,044 Prescott Valley, AZ.................................. 25,535 Prince William County, VA ................... 280,813 Prior Lake, MN........................................ 15,917 Queen Creek, AZ...................................... 4,316 Radford, VA ............................................ 15,859 Rancho Cordova, CA .............................. 55,060 Rapid City, SD ........................................ 59,607 Raymore, MO ......................................... 11,146 Redding, CA ........................................... 80,865 Redmond, WA ........................................ 45,256 Reno, NV .............................................. 180,480 Renton, WA ............................................ 50,052 Richmond Heights, MO ............................ 9,602 Richmond, CA ........................................ 99,216 Rio Rancho, NM ..................................... 51,765 Riverdale, UT............................................ 7,656 Riverside, IL .............................................. 8,895 Roanoke, VA........................................... 94,911 Rochester, MI.......................................... 10,467 Rock Hill, SC .......................................... 49,765 Rockville, MD......................................... 47,388 Roeland Park, KS....................................... 6,817 Round Rock, TX ...................................... 61,136 Rowlett, TX ............................................. 44,503 Saco, ME................................................. 16,822 Salida, CO ................................................ 5,504 Salina, KS................................................ 45,679 San Francisco, CA ................................. 776,733 San Juan County, NM............................ 113,801 San Luis Obispo County, CA ................. 247,900 San Marcos, TX ....................................... 34,733 San Rafael, CA ........................................ 56,063 Sandusky, OH......................................... 27,844 Sandy City, UT........................................ 88,418 Sandy Springs, GA .................................. 85,781 Sanford, FL.............................................. 38,291

Report of Results Page 83

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Naperville, IL ........................................128,358 Nashville, TN ........................................545,524 Needham, MA.........................................28,911 New Orleans, LA...................................484,674 New York City, NY.............................8,008,278 Newport Beach, CA ................................70,032 Newport News, VA ...............................180,150 Newport, RI.............................................26,475 Noblesville, IN ........................................28,590 Normal, IL...............................................45,386 North Branch, MN ....................................8,023 North Las Vegas, NV .............................115,488 North Palm Beach, FL..............................12,064 North Port, FL..........................................22,797 Northampton County, VA........................13,093 Northern Tier Coalition Community Survey, PA .................................................................... NA Northglenn, CO ......................................31,575 Novi, MI..................................................47,386 Oak Park, IL ............................................39,803 Oak Ridge, TN ........................................27,387 Oakland Park, FL.....................................30,966 Oakland Township, MI............................13,071 Oakville, Canada...................................144,738 Ocala, FL.................................................45,943 Ocean City, MD ........................................7,173 Ocean Shores, WA ....................................3,836 O'Fallon, IL .............................................21,910 O'Fallon, MO..........................................46,169 Oklahoma City, OK...............................506,132 Olathe, KS...............................................92,962 Oldsmar, FL ............................................11,910 Olmsted County, MN ............................124,277 Olympia, WA..........................................42,514 Orange Village, OH ..................................3,236 Ottawa County, MI................................238,314 Overland Park, KS .................................149,080 Oviedo, FL ..............................................26,316 Ozaukee County, WI...............................82,317 Palatine, IL ..............................................65,479 Palm Bay, FL ...........................................79,413 Palm Beach County, FL ......................1,131,184 Palm Beach Gardens, FL..........................35,058 Palm Beach, FL........................................10,468 Palm Coast, FL.........................................32,732 Palm Springs, CA.....................................42,807 Palo Alto, CA ..........................................58,598 Panama City, FL ......................................36,417 Park Ridge, IL ..........................................37,775 Parker, CO ..............................................23,558 Pasadena, TX.........................................141,674 Pasco County, FL...................................344,765 Pasco, WA...............................................32,066

Teton County, WY .................................. 18,251 The Colony, TX....................................... 26,531 Thornton, CO ......................................... 82,384 Thunder Bay, Canada............................ 109,016 Titusville, FL ........................................... 40,670 Tomball, TX .............................................. 9,089 Troy, MI .................................................. 80,959 Tualatin, OR ........................................... 22,791 Tuskegee, AL .......................................... 11,846 Twin Falls, ID.......................................... 34,469 Upper Arlington, OH .............................. 33,686 Upper Merion Township, PA .................. 28,863 Urbandale, IA ......................................... 29,072 Vail, CO.................................................... 4,531 Valdez, AK................................................ 4,036 Vancouver, WA .................................... 143,560 Victoria, Canada ..................................... 78,057 Village of Howard City, MI ....................... 1,585 Virginia Beach, VA................................ 425,257 Visalia, CA .............................................. 91,565 Volusia County, FL................................ 443,343 Wahpeton, ND ......................................... 8,586 Walnut Creek, CA ................................... 64,296 Walton County, FL .................................. 40,601 Washington City, UT................................. 8,186 Washington County, MN ...................... 201,130 Washoe County, NV ............................. 339,486 Waukee, IA ............................................... 5,126 Wausau, WI ............................................ 38,426 Western Eagle County Metro Recreation District, CO................................................................NA Westerville, OH...................................... 35,318 Westminster, CO .................................. 100,940 Wethersfield, CT ..................................... 26,271 Wheat Ridge, CO.................................... 32,913 White House, TN...................................... 7,220 Whitehorse, Canada................................ 19,058 Whitewater, WI....................................... 13,437 Wichita, KS ........................................... 344,284 Williamsburg, VA.................................... 11,998 Wilmington, IL .......................................... 5,134 Windsor, CT ........................................... 28,237 Winnipeg, Canada ................................ 619,544 Winston-Salem, NC............................... 185,776 Winter Garden, FL .................................. 14,351 Winter Park, FL ....................................... 24,090 Woodbury, MN ...................................... 46,463 Woodridge, IL ......................................... 30,934 Worcester, MA...................................... 172,648 Yellowknife, Canada ............................... 16,541 Yuma County, AZ ................................. 160,026 Yuma, AZ................................................ 77,515

Report of Results Page 84

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Santa Barbara County, CA .....................399,347 Santa Monica, CA....................................84,084 Sarasota, FL .............................................52,715 Sault Sainte Marie, MI .............................16,542 Savannah, GA .......................................131,510 Scott County, MN....................................89,498 Scottsdale, AZ .......................................202,705 Sedona, AZ .............................................10,192 Seminole, FL ...........................................10,890 Shenandoah, TX ........................................1,503 Sherman, IL ...............................................2,871 Shorewood, IL ...........................................7,686 Shrewsbury, MA......................................31,640 Silverthorne, CO .......................................3,196 Sioux Falls, SD ......................................123,975 Skokie, IL ................................................63,348 Smyrna, GA.............................................40,999 Snellville, GA ..........................................15,351 Snoqualmie, WA .......................................1,631 South Daytona, FL ...................................13,177 South Haven, MI .......................................5,021 South Lake Tahoe, CA .............................23,609 Southlake, TX ..........................................21,519 Sparks, NV ..............................................66,346 Spokane Valley, WA ...............................75,203 Spotsylvania County, VA .........................90,395 Springboro, OH.......................................12,380 Springville, UT ........................................20,424 St. Cloud, FL............................................20,074 St. Cloud, MN .........................................59,107 St. Louis County, MN ............................200,528 Stafford County, VA.................................92,446 Starkville, MS ..........................................21,869 State College, PA.....................................38,420 Staunton, VA ...........................................23,853 Steamboat Springs, CO..............................9,815 Sterling, CO ............................................11,360 Stillwater, OK..........................................39,065 Stockton, CA .........................................243,771 Suamico, WI..............................................8,686 Sugar Grove, IL .........................................3,909 Sugar Land, TX ........................................63,328 Summit County, CO ................................23,548 Sunnyvale, CA.......................................131,760 Surprise, AZ ............................................30,848 Suwanee, GA ............................................8,725 Tacoma, WA .........................................193,556 Takoma Park, MD ...................................17,299 Tallahassee, FL ......................................150,624 Temecula, CA..........................................57,716 Tempe, AZ ............................................158,625 Temple, TX..............................................54,514

Jurisdictions Included in Custom Benchmark Comparison List below are the jurisdictions included in the custom benchmark comparisons (jurisdictions of similar population size) provided for the City of Roswell followed by its 2000 population according to the U.S. Census.

McAllen, TX.......................................... 106,414 Melbourne, FL ........................................ 71,382 Mesa County, CO ................................. 116,255 Miami Beach, FL ..................................... 87,933 Mission Viejo, CA ................................... 93,102 Mountain View, CA ................................ 70,708 Naperville, IL ........................................ 128,358 Newport Beach, CA ................................ 70,032 North Las Vegas, NV............................. 115,488 Olathe, KS............................................... 92,962 Olmsted County, MN............................ 124,277 Ozaukee County, WI .............................. 82,317 Palm Bay, FL ........................................... 79,413 Peoria, AZ............................................. 108,364 Port St. Lucie, FL ..................................... 88,769 Redding, CA ........................................... 80,865 Richmond, CA ........................................ 99,216 Roanoke, VA........................................... 94,911 San Juan County, NM............................ 113,801 Sandy City, UT........................................ 88,418 Sandy Springs, GA .................................. 85,781 Santa Monica, CA ................................... 84,084 Savannah, GA ....................................... 131,510 Scott County, MN ................................... 89,498 Sioux Falls, SD ...................................... 123,975 Spokane Valley, WA ............................... 75,203 Spotsylvania County, VA......................... 90,395 Stafford County, VA ................................ 92,446 Sunnyvale, CA ...................................... 131,760 Thornton, CO ......................................... 82,384 Troy, MI .................................................. 80,959 Visalia, CA .............................................. 91,565 Westminster, CO .................................. 100,940 Yuma, AZ................................................ 77,515

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

Albany, GA .............................................76,939 Albemarle County, VA ............................79,236 Ann Arbor, MI .......................................114,024 Arvada, CO ...........................................102,153 Bellflower, CA.........................................72,878 Billings, MT.............................................89,847 Boulder, CO............................................94,673 Broken Arrow, OK...................................74,839 Cambridge, MA.....................................101,355 Cape Coral, FL.......................................102,286 Carlsbad, CA ...........................................78,247 Carver County, MN .................................70,205 Cary, NC .................................................94,536 Clearwater, FL .......................................108,787 Cococino County, AZ............................116,320 Concord, CA .........................................121,780 Coral Springs, FL ...................................117,549 Davenport, IA..........................................98,359 Daviess County, KY.................................91,545 Denton, TX..............................................80,537 Duluth, MN.............................................86,918 Evanston, IL.............................................74,239 Federal Way, WA ....................................83,259 Fort Collins, CO ....................................118,652 Gainesville, FL ........................................95,447 Gilbert, AZ ............................................109,697 Grand Prairie, TX ..................................127,427 Hanover County, VA ...............................86,320 Hartford, CT ..........................................121,578 High Point, NC........................................85,839 Highlands Ranch, CO..............................70,931 Lawrence, KS...........................................80,098 Lee's Summit, MO...................................70,700 Livermore, CA .........................................73,345 Longmont, CO ........................................71,093

Report of Results Page 85

APPENDIX G: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Š 2011 National Research Center, Inc.

The following pages contain the survey instrument.

Report of Results Page 86

2010 City of Roswell, Georgia Resident Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Thank you.

1.

Why did you choose to live in the City of Roswell? (Please check all that apply.)  Close to family and friends  The neighborhoods  Shopping

 Size  Location  History

 Parks  Culture/entertainment  Jobs

 Schools  Other

2. Please rate each of the following categories as they relate to the City of Roswell.

Excellent The overall quality of life in the City of Roswell .................................................... 1 The value of services for the taxes paid to Roswell .............................................. 1 The job Roswell government does at welcoming citizen involvement ................. 1 The job Roswell government does at listening to citizens ................................... 1 The job Roswell government does at keeping citizens informed ........................ 1 The degree to which the City acts in the best interest of the community .......... 1 The overall quality of services provided by Roswell government....................... 1

Good 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Fair 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Poor 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Don’t know 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3. The following are services provided by the City of Roswell. For each service, please first rate the quality of the service and next rate the importance of each service.

Quality Importance Don’t Very Somewhat Not at all Don’t Excellent Good Fair Poor know Essential important important important know Garbage pickup....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Curbside recycling.................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling Center ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Street maintenance ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow.............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Police protection ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Fire protection ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Parks grounds.......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Parks facilities ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycling in the city.................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in the city ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of paying utility bill........................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Online payments (e.g., paying traffic 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 tickets, red light violations, court fines) . 1 4. How satisfied are you with the availability of information about City services?  Very satisfied

 Somewhat satisfied

 Somewhat dissatisfied

 Very dissatisfied

 Don’t know

4a. If you said “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied to question 4 above, which of the following, if any, do you think are ways the City should improve the availability of information? (Please check all that apply.)  More public meetings  More direct mailings  More information on the City’s web site

Roswell Resident Survey

 Print materials at public buildings  None of the above

Page 1 of 3

5. What are your two main sources of information about the City of Roswell? Mark a 1 next to the source you most often rely on for news about the City and mark a 2 next to the source you rely on second most often. (Please mark only one “1” and one “2”.) ____City web site (www.roswellgov.com) ____City e-newsletter (Roswell Connections) ____Roswell’s Facebook page ____Roswell City TV (RCTV) ____Twitter

____The Roswell Current Newspaper ____Roswell Neighbor Newspaper ____ The Beacon Newspaper ____Revue and News Newspaper

____ Atlanta Journal Constitution ____Nixle Notification System ____Television news ____Radio news

6. Have you had a personal contact with a City of Roswell employee within the last 12 months?  No  GO TO QUESTION #7  Yes  GO TO QUESTION #6a 6a. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Roswell in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.)

Excellent

Knowledge ....................................................................1 Responsiveness .............................................................1 Helpfulness ...................................................................1 Courtesy........................................................................1 Professionalism.............................................................1 Overall impression.......................................................1

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

7. How often, if ever, have you accessed the City’s web site (www.roswellgov.com) in the last month?  Never  GO TO QUESTION #8  Once or twice a month  Once a week  2-6 times a week  Daily 7a. If you have used the City’s web site in the last 12 months, please rate the ease of finding the information you were looking for.  Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor 8. How many times, if ever, in the last month have you…

Never Watched Roswell City TV, RCTV............................................................. 1 Received a message on Facebook from Roswell ..................................... 1 Read a notice/information in your utility bill ....................................... 1

Once or twice a month 2 2 2

Once a week 3 3 3

2-6 times a week 4 4 4

Daily 5 5 5

9. How likely or unlikely would you be to use each of the following information sources to receive communications from the City of Roswell?

Very likely The City’s web site (www.roswellgov.com)...........................................................1 The City’s e-newsletter (Roswell Connections) .....................................................1 Email..........................................................................................................................1 Social networking web sites (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) ...........................................1 Roswell City TV, RCTV .............................................................................................1 Utility bills.................................................................................................................1 Direct mail ................................................................................................................1 Nixle email/text notification service......................................................................1

10. How safe or unsafe do you feel in your neighborhood at night?  Very safe  Somewhat safe  Somewhat unsafe

Somewhat likely 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Somewhat unlikely 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Very unlikely 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

 Very unsafe

11. In the event that the City needs to increase property taxes to cover the gap between City revenue and the cost of providing services, how much more per month, if anything, would you be willing to pay to…

Nothing/$0 per month

maintain the current City services, excluding sanitation and water services................................................................................. 1 increase City services, excluding sanitation and water service ............. 1 Roswell Resident Survey

$1-$3 per month

$4-$6 per month

$7-$10 per month

More than $10 per month

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5 Page 2 of 3

12. If the City had to reduce service levels, which, if any, of the following service areas would you be willing to reduce?

(Please select only one.)  Street and roadway maintenance  Code enforcement (City’s response time to citizen’s complaints/violations)  Fire safety education programs  Environmental programs  Recreation programs  Park maintenance  Police school resource officers, DARE and other crime prevention programs  None of the above 13. What do you think are the three biggest issues facing the City of Roswell over the next two (2) years?

1. ____________________________________________ 2. ____________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________ 14. What is the one thing you would change about the City of Roswell Government? ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Demographics Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only.

15. About how long have you lived in Roswell?  Less than 1 year  1 to 5 years  6 to 10 years  11 or more years 16. In which type of housing unit do you live?  Detached single family home  Condominium or townhouse  Apartment 17. Do you own or rent your residence?  Own  Rent 18. What is your level of education?  0-11 years  High school graduate  Some college, no degree  Associate’s degree  Bachelor’s degree  Graduate or professional degree

19. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.)  White/European American/Caucasian  Black or African American  Asian or Pacific Islander  American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut  Other 20. Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?  Yes  No 21. Which category contains your age?  55-64  18-24  25-34  65-74  35-44  75 +  45-54 22. What is your gender?  Female  Male

Thank you very much! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502

Roswell Resident Survey

Page 3 of 3