HomeMy WebLinkAboutOshkoshCitizenSurveyFinalReport2009
1
City of Oshkosh
Citizen Survey
Introduction
A survey of citizens in Oshkosh was undertaken by the Public Policy Analysis
class at the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh in cooperation with the City of Oshkosh
in the Spring of 2009. This report will analyze the results of this survey and provide
insight into the perspectives of the citizens on a variety of issues. The 2009 Oshkosh
Citizen Survey included six primary sections and multiple sub-sections, along with a
question requesting general demographic data as well as an opportunity for comments
from the respondents. Two hundred and fifty-five (255) surveys were returned and the
resulting data has been entered into a statistical analysis program. Depending upon the
nature of the question, individuals were asked to respond to each question based on three
following possible rating options: 1.) excellent, good, fair and poor 2.) very important,
somewhat important, no opinion, somewhat unimportant, and very unimportant or 3.)
strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree/disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree and no opinion. The survey was sent to 1,500 properties chosen randomly from
the 27,436 parcels provided from a data base by the City of Oshkosh. The 255 responses
constitute a 17 percent response rate which is lower than the norm for citizen surveys.
The relationship between sample size and precision of the survey instrument at a 95
percent confidence rate frequently used in surveys is shown below.
Sample Size Margin of Error
100 10%
300 5.5%
400 5.0%
800 3.5%
The 255 responses create a confidence level of approximately 6 percent. A level of 5
percent is considered acceptable for most survey results.
2
How Citizens of Oshkosh Feel About Their City – Section One
The following is an analysis of section one “How the citizens of Oshkosh feel
about their city” and its sub-sections. Graph 1 provides an overall view of how the
citizens of Oshkosh feel about their city. The original responses of excellent and good
were combined into a single category of “positive”, while fair and poor responses were
combined to form a category of “negative”. This may equalize some of the potential
variances resulting from personality differences and specific, temporary situations (a bad
day at the office, winter weather, etc.). By displaying the results in this manner, it seems
apparent that respondents generally feel “positive” about their city, except when asked
about the city’s future, the city’s appearance, and the city as a retirement option.
GRAPH 1
All Responses - Positive/Negative
188
123
103
200 196 181
104
138
172
6261
118
145
46 52 46
130
101
75
165
0
50
100
150
200
250
As a place to live
Sens
e
o
f
c
o
mmuni
t
y
Over
a
ll appearance of
t
h
e
c
ity
Overall
safet
y of
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
ts
Your ne
ighborhoo
d
a
s
a place
t
o
l
i
ve
As a place to raise children
As a place to reti
r
e
Com
m
u
nity
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss/accept
a
n
ce of
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
all qu
a
lity
o
f life
Direction mo
v
ing for the
future
Positive - "Excellent" or "Good"Negative - "Fair" or "Poor"
3
The following table shows the responses in more detail.
How Oshkosh Citizens Feel About Their City Results
Excellent Good Fair Poor
No
Opinion
As a place to live 31 157 57 4 6
Sense of community 4 119 100 18 14
Overall appearance of the city 8 95 115 30 7
Overall safety of residents 32 168 41 5 9
Your neighborhood as a place to live 61 135 43 9 7
As a place to raise children 47 134 39 7 28
As a place to retire 24 80 97 33 21
Community openness/acceptance of
people 8 130 77 24 16
Overall quality of life 15 157 71 4 8
Direction moving for the future 2 60 117 48 28
How Oshkosh Citizens Feel About Their City Results Summary
Positive Negative No opinion
As a place to live 188 61 6
Sense of community 123 118 14
Overall appearance of the city 103 145 7
Overall safety of residents 200 46 9
Your neighborhood as a place to live 196 52 7
As a place to raise children 181 46 28
As a place to retire 104 130 21
Community openness/acceptance of people 138 101 16
Overall quality of life 172 75 8
Direction moving for the future 62 165 28
Positive = Excellent or Good Negative=Fair or Poor
The following is an analysis of the above tables:
How would you rate Oshkosh as a place to live? There were 249 valid responses with
six responses indicating a non-answer to the question. Of the four rating options
available with 4 being excellent, 3 good, 2 fair, and 1 poor, on average the respondents
rated the City of Oshkosh a 2.14. This could be interpreted as an opinion that is slightly
above average or between good and fair denoting Oshkosh as a place to live. Overall, the
4
cumulative percentage results show that slightly over 75 percent of survey respondents
thought Oshkosh was an excellent or good place to live.
How would you rate the sense of community in Oshkosh? There were 241 valid
responses to the sense of community rating with 14 non-answers. The average response
for sense of community was 2.5 placing it half way between good and fair. Fifty-one
percent of the citizens thought that Oshkosh had a “positive” sense of community.
When cross-tabulating the data on sense of community with time lived in Oshkosh,
the following was noted:
There seems to be a statistically significant difference between people living in
Oshkosh in the short term, i.e., less than five years, versus those that have been
living in Oshkosh for 6-20 years. According to the data, the respondents living in
Oshkosh less than five years have a higher sense of community than the 6-20 year
respondents.
Opportunity for improvement exists when looking at home owners and sense of
community. Only 50 percent of home owners responded excellent or good
relative to sense of community.
It also seems citizens living north of the river feel less connected with community
than those living southeast and west of the river.
The distribution of respondents based on age shows that younger people (less than
45 years old) rate their sense of community higher than those over the age of 45.
How would you rate the overall appearance of the city?
There were 248 valid responses and seven indicating a non-answer to the
question. Using the original four rating options, 46 percent of respondents rated the
appearance of the city as “fair”. The ratings of “good” and “excellent” had a response rate
of 38 percent and 3 percent respectively, giving a combined “good/excellent” rating of 41
percent, while 58 percent felt “negative”.
It is important to point out that consideration should be given to the time of year
when this survey was administered. February tends to be a “dull” month in Wisconsin, in
which there are often dirty snow banks lining the streets and a lack of leaves on the trees
5
or flowers blooming. This may have had an impact on how respondents felt about the
city’s appearance.
When cross-tabulating some of the demographic data with the overall appearance of
the city, the following statistically significant correlations were found:
Those who have lived here for more than 20 years responded more positively
regarding the appearance of the city.
Relative to place of residence, it would seem those that live south of the Fox
River and east of the Highway 41 seem positive about the overall appearance of
the city.
The older the resident, the less positive they seem to feel regarding the appearance
of the city.
Those with a higher level of education responded more negatively about the
appearance. This could possibly be due to a greater sense of awareness and
caring regarding the aesthetics.
How would you rate the overall safety of the residents?
There were 246 valid responses and nine indicating a non-answer to the question.
Of the four rating options, “good” had the highest response rate of 68 percent, which far
out-weighed the responses of any other category. When converting the ratings into the
“positive/negative” scale, 81 percent of the respondents rated the safety of Oshkosh as
“positive,” while 19 percent rated it as “negative”. It is clear that respondents find
Oshkosh to be a safe place to live, work, and play. Considering that Oshkosh is also a
“college town,” which brings in a variety of activities, it would be helpful to examine any
areas that may need attention for improvement by correlating the feelings of safety with
the demographic information. This information would be beneficial for community
service/program providers as they develop their action plans for meeting the needs of the
community.
How would you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?
There were 248 valid responses to the neighborhood as a place to live question,
with seven non-answers. Of the valid responses, 196 respondents or 79 percent indicated
6
that their neighborhood was either a good or an excellent place to live on the
“positive/negative” combined rating.
How would you rate Oshkosh as a place to raise children?
There were 227 valid responses to the question asking about Oshkosh as a place
to raise children, with 28 non-answers. The demographic data indicates that 78 percent,
or 193 of the respondents, did not have children living at home so they may or may not
have recent experience with raising children in Oshkosh. Of the 227 valid responses, 80
percent indicated that it is a good or excellent place to raise children. This is the exact
same rating as that of how respondents rated their neighborhood as a place to live.
Comparing the respondent’s place of residence demographics with their response
to Oshkosh as a place to raise children shows no major impact on whether there is a
preferred area of the city in which to raise children. It may be worth determining what is
working well with this topic that could be utilized to improve other aspects of the City.
How would you rate Oshkosh as a place to retire?
There were 234 valid responses and 21 non-answers to this question. This
question appeared to hit a nerve with the citizens of Oshkosh. When asked to rate the
city as a place to live, 75 percent of respondents gave Oshkosh a “positive” rating,
however, when asked to rate the city as a place to retire, this rating fell to 45 percent.
The only other areas in this section with a lower “positive” rating were those regarding
the appearance of the city and the city’s direction for the future.
These survey results could be interpreted in several different ways. Some
residents may intend to retire elsewhere, so they may not feel Oshkosh is the best place to
retire. Younger individuals may not have any definite thoughts or considerations about
retirement locations. Weather may have also been a factor, as the survey was conducted
in the winter. This could sway a person’s opinion about whether or not they desire to
remain in the Midwest after retirement in which case the response may be more about
general location/climate as opposed to the specifics of the city.
When cross-tabulating some of the demographic data with the city’s appeal for
retirement, the following statistically significant correlations were found:
7
Widowers, while a small number of respondents, do indicate a more positive
perception of Oshkosh as a place to retire than those married or not married.
Newcomers and those who have lived in Oshkosh over 20 years are more positive
about it as a place to retire.
Those living south of the Fox River and west of Highway 41 indicate Oshkosh
would not be a choice necessarily for a place to retire as compared to those in
other areas of the city.
Interestingly, it seems people 45 and under viewed Oshkosh as a positive place to
retire versus those closer to retirement age.
How would you rate Oshkosh’s community openness and acceptance of people?
There were 239 valid responses and 16 non-responses to this question. One
hundred and thirty eight people or 58 percent feel that Oshkosh has a spirit of openness
and is accepting of people, but this was not an overwhelming majority. Forty-two
percent of the respondents gave the city a “negative” rating regarding its openness and
acceptance. These responses were very close to those of the question about Oshkosh’s
sense of community.
These results might be surprising to some, since Oshkosh is considered by many
to be a “university town” which may lead one to expect a more liberal and diverse
population base. This may be explained by the fact that the average age of the survey
respondent was about 20 years older, and possibly more conservative, than the average
age of Oshkosh citizens as recorded by the United States Census Bureau.
Cross referencing the data, there seems some statistical significance between
community openness and acceptance for the following demographic groups:
Those that have lived here for the shortest and longest amounts of time.
Place of residence, specifically those living in the north area, would seem to have
a greater impact on the view of openness and acceptance in the City of Oshkosh.
Contrary to popular belief, the less educated in Oshkosh see the city as more
accepting and open than those with a higher degree.
8
How would you rate the overall quality of life in Oshkosh?
There were 247 valid responses and eight non-answers to this question. Seventy
percent of respondents rated the quality of life in Oshkosh as “positive” by the combined
rating scale while 30 percent rated it as “negative”. Even though some respondents did
not answer this question or have an opinion, 6 percent felt that the quality of life in
Oshkosh was excellent.
As the number of children increases, the perception of the quality of life in
Oshkosh becomes more positive. Regardless of the demographic cross-tabbed with
quality of life, respondents consistently showed a positive rating.
How would you rate the direction Oshkosh is moving for the future?
There were 227 valid responses and 28 non-answers in rating the direction Oshkosh is
moving for the future. Twenty-seven percent feel “positive” about the direction of the
city as opposed to 73 percent who feel negative about it. When cross-tabbing the
demographics, the following are areas of interest:
People who have lived in Oshkosh less than five years are significantly more
positive about the city’s direction than those that have been residing here more
than six years.
Renters are indicating a more positive response regarding the direction of the city
as opposed to those who own property.
Citizens who live south of the Fox River and west rated the direction of the city
more negative than those in the north or east areas.
Those with a lower income seem more positive about the direction of the city.
Conclusion to Section One
Overall, one can conclude that Oshkosh citizens are very happy with the quality
of life in the city. Unfortunately, there needs to be some work done in the appearance of
the city, retirement life opportunities, and the future direction of the city. Graphs 2-6
show the responses grouped by rank.
9
GRAPHS 2 - 6
All Responses
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
As a place to live
Sens
e
o
f
c
o
mmuni
t
y
Over
a
ll appearance of
t
h
e
c
ity
Overall
safet
y of
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
ts
Your ne
ighborhoo
d
a
s
a place
t
o
l
i
ve
As a place to raise children
As a place to reti
r
e
Com
m
u
nity
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss/accept
a
n
ce of
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
all qu
a
lity
o
f life
Direction mo
v
ing for the
future
Excellent Good Fair Poor
"Excellent" Responses
31
4 8
32
61
47
24
8
15
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
As a place to live
Sens
e
of comm
unity
Over
a
l
l
a
p
p
earance of the c
i
t
y
Over
all safety of residents
Your
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
s
a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
l
i
v
e
As a place to
r
a
i
se childr
e
n
As a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o ret
i
r
e
Com
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
/
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
a
ll qu
a
l
i
ty of life
Direction
m
o
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
the f
uture
Excellent
10
"Good" Responses
157
119
95
168
135 134
80
130
157
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
As a place to live
Sens
e
o
f
c
o
mmuni
t
y
Over
a
ll appearance of
t
h
e
c
ity
Overall
safet
y of
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
ts
Your ne
ighb
orhoo
d
a
s
a place
t
o
l
i
ve
As a place to raise children
As a place to reti
r
e
Com
m
u
nity
o
p
e
n
n
e
ss/accept
a
n
ce of
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
all qu
a
lity
o
f life
Direction mo
v
ing for the
future
Good
"Fair" Responses
57
100
115
41 43 39
97
77 71
117
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
As a place to live
Sens
e
of comm
unity
Over
a
l
l
a
p
p
earance of the c
i
t
y
Over
all safety of residents
Your
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
s
a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
l
i
v
e
As a place to
r
a
i
se childr
e
n
As a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o ret
i
r
e
Com
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
/
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
a
ll qu
a
l
i
ty of life
Direction
m
o
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
the f
uture
Fair
11
"Poor" Responses
4
18
30
5
9 7
33
24
4
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
As a place to live
Sense
of com
munity
Over
all appe
aranc
e
of th
e city
Overal
l
s
a
f
e
ty of
resi
d
e
n
t
s
Your neigh
b
o
rhood
a
s
a place to
l
i
v
e
As a
p
l
a
c
e
to raise
children
As a place to retire
Com
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
/
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
Over
all qu
a
lity
o
f life
Direction mo
v
ing f
or the
future
Poor
12
City of Oshkosh Importance and Quality of Services
Section Two and Three
Importance of Services
It is apparent from the citizen response that almost all services have an
importance associated with them. It is not surprising that there are services that citizens
find important and are of excellent or good value. It may be that if a service is provided,
people inherently assign importance to them. Although this is not surprising, the
following services were rated very important by over ninety-percent of the respondents:
Police Services, Fire Protection and Prevention Services, and Emergency Medical and
Rescue Services. In addition, roughly 70 percent or more of the respondents found that
the following services were very important: Street Paving Maintenance and Repair,
Maintenance of the Storm Drainage System, and the Removal of Snow and Ice from City
Streets. These issues weigh heavily on the minds of the citizens of Oshkosh due to the
recent flood and intense snowfall this past winter.
There are three services that stand out that citizens ascribe a lower importance to
or have no opinion about. These services include: Lake Shore Golf Course, Pollock
Aquatic Center, City Cable, Radio, and Web Streaming Services. The reasoning behind
the lower importance to or no opinion of the Lake Shore Golf Course is unknown based
on the demographic information provided.
Of those surveyed, it is interesting to note that 78 percent of the respondents had
no children. This may have impacted the responses regarding the importance of the
Pollock Aquatic Center. It is also important to note 27 percent of the respondents were
over the age 65, however, based on the Oshkosh census only 11.9 percent of those
surveyed should be 65 or older. If these services are not seen as a priority to citizens,
further analysis should be conducted to determine the future allocation of funding for
these services.
A chart showing the overall responses to the Importance of Services questions is
shown on an 8 ½ by 14 sheet as well as in the table on the following page. A similar
chart and table are shown for the results of the Quality of Services question.
13
Importance of Services Very Im Some Im No Opin Some Un Very Un
Public Library Services 62.2 28.1 6.4 2.8 0.4
Emergency Medical and Rescue Services 92.3 6.9 0.8 0 0
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 92.8 6 0.8 0.4 0
Weekly Trash Collection 69.5 26.4 2.4 1.2 0.4
Pick‐up of Large Items and Brush 30.2 52.4 11.7 6.9 0.8
Police Services 91.1 7.3 0.8 0.8 0
Mowing, Maintenance and Appearance of Parks 37.5 50 9.3 3.2 0
Recycling Services 48.4 40.7 7.3 2.8 0.8
Current Level of Bagged Leaf Collection Service 16.9 51.2 22.2 8.1 1.6
Pollock Aquatic Center 22.4 34.3 31 7.8 4.5
City’s Sidewalk System 44.2 41 10.8 4 0
Mowing Right of Ways, Street Medians, Roadsides 24.1 51.8 16.1 8 0
Street Lighting 61 30.5 6.8 1.6 0
Removal of Snow and Ice from City Streets 75.8 19.8 3.2 1.2 0
Current Level of Loose Leaf Collection Service 20.7 50.4 19.9 8.1 0.8
Animal Control 28.3 42.9 19.4 8.1 1.2
Information about City Services and Activities 23.6 48.8 19.9 6.5 1.2
City Cable, Radio, and Web Streaming Services 18.4 37.4 27 13.1 3.7
Lake Shore Golf Course 12.6 18 39.7 15.1 14.6
Maintenance of the Storm Drainage Systems 76.4 15.2 6.8 1.6 0
City Support for Neighborhood Organizations 20.9 44.6 24.9 8 1.6
Building Permits and Inspections 24.5 46.5 22.4 6.1 0.4
Street Sweeping 19.3 50.6 18.1 10.4 1.6
Public Health Programs 50 35.1 11.7 2.8 0.4
Senior Center 34.7 38.4 19.8 5.4 1.7
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 41 26.8 25.9 4.2 2.1
Transportation Planning for Traffic 38.7 42.7 14.5 4 0
Regulation and Zoning for Land Use 27.5 43.3 25.9 3.2 0
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 39.2 41.2 16 3.6 0
Maintenance of the City‐owned Buildings 30 49 15.8 4.9 0.4
Transit Systems 42.5 36.8 14.2 5.7 0.8
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance 35 41.6 16.9 5.3 1.2
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 29.8 42.6 17.4 8.3 2.1
Promotion of Environmental Awareness to Citizens 24.2 43.5 16.5 9.7 6.1
Street Paving, Maintenance and Repair 76.4 21.2 2 0.4 0
Response to Citizen Complaints and Requests 57.1 34 8.1 0.8 0
City Parking Facilities 20.3 51.2 21.1 5.7 1.6
Weed Abatement 16.9 39.9 25.4 12.2 5.7
Rating - Very Important - Somewhat Important - No Opinion - Somewhat Unimportant - Very Unimportant
14
Quality of Services
Not only is it important to know the citizens’ opinions on the importance of the
services offered by the city, but the administrative staff also need to know if the citizens
feel the quality of service and the value of services is meeting citizens expectations. This
information is essential, as tax payers, citizens feel the services offered should be meeting
high quality standards.
Overall the survey showed that most of the services rank within the Excellent,
Good or Fair Ranges. This shows that the quality of services are meeting or exceeding the
residents’ expectations. The services ranked with the highest percentage in the excellent
area are the Senior Center, Public Library Services, Fire Protection and Prevention
Services, Emergency Medical and Rescue Services, and Weekly Trash Collection. It is
promising to see that most of the percentages in the poor category were low. The city
should take pride in this but should continue to strive to increase the excellent and good
areas and decrease the number of poor responses.
Residents feel that the following services have a poor value based on the survey
results: Street Paving, Maintenance and Repair, Maintenance of Storm Drainage Systems
and the Removal of Snow and Ice from City Streets. The survey may have been
impacted as the City of Oshkosh has recently recovered from the flood disaster and a
short time ago experienced a snowy winter.
The results of this survey should show the administrative staff what areas the
residents feel are meeting their expectations and what service areas need more attention
or further review. It may be beneficial to use this survey information along with
additional analysis of the survey during budgetary discussions and budget preparation.
15
Quality of Services Value Excellent Good Fair Poor
Public Library Services 50.2 43.4 6.0 0.4
Emergency Medical and Rescue Services 42.1 51.9 6.0 0
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 40.4 52.8 6.4 0.5
Weekly Trash Collection 36.1 50 10.2 3.7
Pick‐up of Large Items and Brush 15.9 42 30.5 11.5
Police Services 29.8 53.8 12.6 3.8
Mowing, Maintenance and Appearance of Parks 24.5 55.1 17.6 2.9
Recycling Services 19.5 55.9 20.3 4.2
Current Level of Bagged Leaf Collection Service 10.7 49.3 29.3 10.7
Pollock Aquatic Center 30.3 50 14.5 5.3
City's Sidewalk System 6.3 42.6 40.1 11
Mowing Right of Ways, Street Medians, Roadsides 8.4 57.7 26.8 7.1
Street Lighting 9.3 56.7 25.1 8.9
Removal of Snow and Ice from City Streets 8.9 33.6 34 23.5
Current Level of Loose Leaf Collection Service 7.6 36.5 39.8 16.1
Animal Control 10.7 50 30.3 9
Information about City Services and Activities 8.8 48.5 32.6 10.1
City Cable, Radio, and Web Streaming Services 15.2 41.1 34 9.6
Lake Shore Golf Course 11.4 48.8 33.3 6.5
Maintenance of the Storm Drainage Systems 2.7 23.9 35.1 38.3
City Support for Neighborhood Organizations 1.9 39.6 46.5 11.9
Building Permits and Inspections 2.4 38.2 30.9 28.5
Street Sweeping 12.2 43.9 35.9 8
Public Health Programs 10.9 60.3 25.6 3.2
Senior Center 39.2 44.9 13.9 1.9
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 4.8 34.4 38.4 22.4
Transportation Planning for Traffic 4.1 26.9 48.2 20.7
Regulation and Zoning for Land Use 2.5 24.7 49.4 23.4
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 4.3 28.6 46.5 20.5
Maintenance of the City‐owned Buildings 4.9 45.4 40 9.8
Transit Systems 11.1 58.8 23.1 7
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance 4.7 30.4 41.9 23
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 10.1 39.9 30.8 19.2
Promotion of Environmental Awareness Citizens 3.6 32.1 44 20.2
Street Paving, Maintenance and Repair 2 14.1 33.1 50.8
Response to Citizen Complaints and Requests 3.7 25.1 43.9 26.7
City Parking Facilities 4.3 39 46.8 10
Weed Abatement 3.7 35 42.3 19
16
Analysis of Importance and Quality of Services
Upon statistical analysis of the importance and quality of services, it was found
through the use of cross tabs that the following services are viewed by the citizens as very
important and excellent quality. Again it should be of no surprise that the following core
services were rated very important and excellent quality: Police Services, Fire Protection
and Prevention Services, and Emergency Medical and Rescue Services. In addition to
the anticipated results of the core services, it was also found that Trash Collection, and
Information about City Services and Library Services was also viewed as very important
and that respondents found them to be of excellent value.
The survey also revealed that the following services were rated as being very
important, however the quality was rated as fair to poor. Over seventy-percent of those
surveyed rated the following services as very important and poor quality: Street Paving
Maintenance and Repair (84.4 percent importance), Maintenance of the Storm Drainage
System (77.2 percent), Response to Citizen Complaints and Requests (74. percent),
Regulation and Zoning for Land Use (78.8 percent), and Transportation Planning for
Traffic (71.1 percent). These areas above would be areas in need of improvement since
they are considered important to the Citizens of Oshkosh and are not provided at the
appropriate level.
17
Budgeting Priorities – Section Four and Five
Section 4 listed eight areas of services provided by the city and asked citizens to
give dollar amounts to each service area as if the city had an additional $1 million dollars.
Services listed included cultural institutions, economic development, waste & recycling,
finance/revenue, police, fire, parks and transportation. Transportation ranked at the top
of the list followed by economic development, police and fire. Ranking last was
finance/revenue. These rankings are indicative of citizen opinion of where additional
money ought to go. The rankings could refer to service areas that may be deemed
problematic, important or worthy of additional funds. For example, analysis was done on
levels of additional funding for transportation by respondents’ answers to their
assessments of the quality of road-related services (transportation planning for traffic and,
street paving, maintenance and repair). The findings strongly suggested that the lower
their evaluation of the quality of these services, the higher their priority given to
transportation funding.
Budgeting Priorities
# Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
# 4 - Extra $1 million
Cultural Institutions 196 .00 50.00 8.3530 8.06639
Economic Development 196 .00 100.00 16.5112 16.28028
Waste Mgmt Recycling 196 .00 55.00 8.1769 7.65980
Finance and Revenue 196 .00 70.00 7.8177 9.33273
Police Protection 196 .00 55.00 13.7909 11.00577
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 196 .00 76.33 11.2608 10.76671
Parks 196 .00 71.43 8.1362 9.94566
Transportation: Roads 196 .00 100.00 25.9533 19.89758
# 5 - Reduce $1 million
Cultural Institutions 170 .00 70.00 16.6595 14.26000
Economic Development 171 .00 100.00 14.6848 14.71842
Waste Mgmt Recycling 170 .00 60.00 11.3993 9.63281
Finance and Revenue 170 .00 100.00 20.0287 18.14039
Police Protection 171 .00 50.00 5.9690 7.79828
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 171 .00 30.03 7.0140 7.83281
Parks 170 .00 90.00 16.9050 13.84124
Transportation: Roads 171 .00 100.00 7.1349 11.67019
18
Conversely, section 5 listed the same areas of service and asked the citizens to cut
$1 million from the budget. Citizens ranked finance/revenue, cultural institutions and
parks as the top three areas to receive cuts. Police, fire and transportation ranked in the
bottom three with regard to cutting finances.
By performing a cross-match of the rankings, it is not surprising that
finance/revenue ranked the lowest to receive any additional funding and the highest to
receive cuts. Parks also ranked low to receive additional funds while ranking high to
receives cuts. Transportation ranked high to receive additional funds and low to receive
cuts. The high ranking of economic development to receive additional funds was
surprising. However, when it came to cuts, economic development also ranked near the
top (4th). Perhaps this is indicative of the opinion that additional funds are needed in this
area to attract new jobs but that compared with vital services like police and fire
protection, and garbage pickup, economic development falls short.
19
Funding of City Services – Section Six
This section was designed to determine preferences for the manner in which city
services are funded, including satisfaction with the status quo. The specific question
asked of respondents and the responses are as follows:
Question Text: In addition to spending decisions, the funding of City services also needs
consideration. Currently, the City of Oshkosh funds services through a combination of
property taxes, state aid, state and federal grants, and fees and charges. Please answer
the following questions by checking the box that best represents your opinions:
Key:
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree/
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Opinion
I am satisfied with the
current mix of taxes, aids,
grants and fees
5.6 38.2 24.5 17.6 14.2 N/A
The City could reduce taxes
and maintain current
services by being more
efficient.
48.7 31.4 10.2 6.8 3.0 N/A
The City should focus on
reducing taxes by pursuing
grants (many of which
require local funding match)
27.2 44.2 18.3 8.5 1.8 N/A
The City should focus on
reducing taxes by increasing
service fees and charges.
7.4 19.9 20.3 28.6 23.8 N/A
Positive = Negative =
Based upon the answers of question 6a, there was no clear preference for the
current mix of taxes, aid, and grants as 43.8% of the responses were generally agreeable
to the current mix while 56.2% of the responses were generally disagreeable with the
current mix. Question 6b indicated a strong belief (80.1%) that the City could reduce
taxes and maintain service levels if they increased efficiency. Likewise, question 6c
indicated that citizens were generally agreeable (71.4%) to pursuing grants as away to
reduce taxes. The responses to question 6d indicate a strong opinion (72.7%) against the
City increasing service fees and charges in an attempt to reduce taxes. We also observed
20
that while the survey queried preference for the mix of funding sources, it failed to asked
opinions about the level of funding.
21
Comments - Section Seven
In reviewing the written comments, the following major themes were noted:
In the wake of last year's flooding, many people commented that the storm sewer
system needs attention.
Many commented that the city's roads need to better maintained, both in terms of
repair and snow removal.
There were many comments opposed to roundabouts.
Several residents expressed concern about economic development and the decline
of the downtown.
Several individuals commented that taxes are high. Most respondents who
provided written comments indicated they are not willing to pay higher
taxes. One respondent suggested that question #6 should have included an option
for "The city should focus on maintaining essential services, but should reduce
non-essential services like parks and museums and libraries to keep the increases
in property taxes to 2-3 percent per year." Another said, "I am amazed
that section 6 didn't include reduced services as an option....A reduction of
services is the only answer."
The ranking in section four and five were somewhat supported by the comments section
of the survey. Overall, the comments were negative in nature.
22
Analysis of Survey Results to Demographics of City – Section Eight
The following survey demographics were requested from the participants and
compared to the census data from 2005-07 for the City of Oshkosh. The column showing
population statistics Without Institutions was inserted to reflect the numbers of census
responses that come from institutions such as the correctional institutions and the campus
dormitories which were not included in the parcel base for this survey.
Surveys Surveys Oshkosh Without
Results % Census Institutions
Gender Male 126 51.4% 51.6%
Female 122 48.6% 48.4%
Missing 7 0.0% 0.0%
Year Born 18 to 65 171 73.0% 88.1% 83.0%
Over 65 66 27.0% 11.9% 17.0%
Missing 18
Marital Status Married 151 60.1% 39.7% 45.5%
Not Married 80 32.3% 53.5% 47.0%
Widowed 19 7.7% 6.8% 7.5%
Missing 5
Time Lived in
Oshkosh
5 or less 32 13.0%
6 to 20 68 27.5%
>20 149 59.5%
Missing 6
Rent or Own Own 206 83.3% 59.2%
Rent 41 16.7% 40.8%
Missing 8
Number of Children None 194 78.1% 72.2%
1 25 10.1% 27.8%
2 18 7.3%
3 8 3.2%
4 or more 4 1.2%
Missing 6
Place of Residence North of Fox 116 47.5% 56.4% 50.8%
South of Fox/East of 41 76 30.7% 31.6% 35.7%
South of Fox/West of 41 53 21.7% 11.9% 13.5%
Missing 10
Income <10K 8 3.5% 7.8%
10 to 15K 3 1.3% 7.3%
15 to 25K 32 13.9% 13.8%
25 to 35K 18 8.3% 13.2%
35 to 50K 49 20.9% 15.7%
50 to 75K 52 22.6% 21.6%
75 to 100K 34 14.3% 11.8%
100 to 150K 29 12.2% 6.8%
150 to 200K 5 2.2% 1.2%
23
>200K 2 0.9% 0.8%
Missing 23 100.0%
Median HHI $ 42,298
Mean HHI $ 51,647
Employment Status Employed 141
Student 7
Unemployed 14 5.8% 5.5%
Retired 80
Missing 13
Occupation Homemaker 6
Service Occupation 40 25.2% 23.5%
Sales and Office 31 19.5% 26.7%
Production, Trans, Material
Moving
16 10.1% 18.5%
Management, professional 65 40.3% 26.1%
Farming, fishing, forestry 2 1.3% 10.0%
Construction 7 3.8% 5.0%
Missing 88
Education Less than HS 6 2.5% 13.8%
HS 123 50.6% 62.5%
Bachelors 78 32.0% 16.7%
MA or higher 36 14.9% 7.0%
Missing 12
Gender – The sample replying to the survey is representative of the population in
Oshkosh.
Year Born – The response rate over 65 years of age was nearly three times the
population in the city. This may result in factors such as preference for senior
centers, preference for user fees over taxes, less children in the home and resultant
service needs, and fixed incomes of this population group with resultant views.
Marital Status – The percentage of married respondents to the census population
data is quite high which may result in different views on child related services,
public safety needs, and more vested interest in the community.
Years Lived in Oshkosh – The percentage of individuals that have lived in
Oshkosh for 5 years or less has the lowest percentage of survey responses with the
reverse for those who have lived in Oshkosh over 20 years. Longer term residents
may have more vested interest in the community overall.
Home Ownership or Rental – The percentage of individuals who own homes
has a higher response rate that the census data. Individuals who rent have a low
24
percentage of responses compared to the number of renters which may reflect a
lower vested interest in the community.
Children Under 18 in Household – The response of those which and without
children is reflective of the census data.
Location in City – The percentage of survey respondents on both sides of the
river seem to be equal.
Household Income Level – The lowest and highest income brackets are
disproportionately represented. This may create some bias by leaving out
opinions of those below $15,000 income level.
Employment Status – The survey results appears to represent the census data
although slightly higher.
Profession – With a high level of no responses, there may have not been
categories representing the survey respondents. There appears to be a higher
response rate from those in the management and professional areas.
Level of Education – The overall education level of respondents is higher than
the census data.
Internet Surveys
An opportunity for citizens who were not part of the randomly selected survey
base to complete the citizen survey was provided on the City of Oshkosh web page site.
Thirty-seven (37) citizens participated in this opportunity. While the results of these
surveys are not considered statistically significant for research considerations, they are
informative and are included in the Appendix A for consideration.
25
Summary
The citizen survey for the City of Oshkosh resulted in 255 responses from a randomly
selected base of 1500 citizens. This seventeen percent response rate, while considered
low for citizen surveys, is statistically significant even though it is slightly higher than the
normally accepted margin of error rate of a 5.0%. The results of the survey described in
the body of this report should aid the officials in the City of Oshkosh in helping to
determine the future priorities and direction of the city.
26
Appendix A - Internet Surveys
Question 1 - How Oshkosh Citizens Feel About Their City Results
Excellent Good Fair Poor
No
Opinion
As a place to live 4 19 9 5 0
Sense of community 1 15 19 2 0
Overall appearance of the city 2 7 17 11 0
Overall safety of residents 3 19 10 4 1
Your neighborhood as a place to live 6 16 11 4 0
As a place to raise children 5 15 15 2 0
As a place to retire 4 13 9 10 1
Community openness/acceptance of
people 1 8 21 6 1
Overall quality of life 2 19 12 4 0
Direction moving for the future 1 11 12 11 2
Question 1 - How Oshkosh Citizens Feel About Their City Results Summary
Positive Negative No opinion
As a place to live 23 14 0
Sense of community 16 21 0
Overall appearance of the city 9 28 0
Overall safety of residents 22 14 1
Your neighborhood as a place to live 22 15 0
As a place to raise children 20 17 0
As a place to retire 17 19 1
Community openness/acceptance of people 9 27 1
Overall quality of life 21 16 0
Direction moving for the future 12 23 2
27
Question 3 - Importance of Services - Percentage
Importance of Services Very Im Some Im No Opin Some Un Very Un
Public Library Services 70.3 18.9 10.8 0 0
Emergency Medical and Rescue Services 94.6 5.4 0 0 0
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 94.6 5.4 0 0 0
Weekly Trash Collection 67.6 29.7 0 2.7 0
Pick‐up of Large Items and Brush 40.5 37.8 16.2 5.4 0
Police Services 91.9 0 5.4 0 0
Mowing, Maintenance and Appearance of Parks 37.8 48.6 5.4 8.1 0
Recycling Services 54.1 35.1 5.4 5.4 0
Current Level of Bagged Leaf Collection Service 24.3 37.8 29.7 8.1 0
Pollock Aquatic Center 18.9 51.4 24.3 2.7 2.7
City’s Sidewalk System 37.8 48.6 8.1 5.4 0
Mowing Right of Ways, Street Medians, Roadsides 18.9 51.4 16.2 13.5 0
Street Lighting 56.8 35.1 8.1 0 0
Removal of Snow and Ice from City Streets 86.5 8.1 2.7 2.7 0
Current Level of Loose Leaf Collection Service 18.9 48.6 27.0 5.4 0
Animal Control 29.7 43.2 18.9 8.1 0
Information about City Services and Activities 35.1 43.2 16.2 5.4 0
City Cable, Radio, and Web Streaming Services 35.1 32.4 18.9 13.5 0
Lake Shore Golf Course 78.4 18.9 0 0 0
Maintenance of the Storm Drainage Systems 35.1 35.1 16.2 13.5 0
City Support for Neighborhood Organizations 35.1 29.7 13.5 21.6 0
Building Permits and Inspections 35.1 48.6 5.4 10.8 0
Street Sweeping 24.3 45.9 18.9 10.8 0
Public Health Programs 48.6 37.8 5.4 8.1 0
Senior Center 40.5 32.4 16.2 8.1 2.7
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 29.7 27.0 29.7 8.1 5.4
Transportation Planning for Traffic 35.1 54.1 8.1 2.7 0
Regulation and Zoning for Land Use 18.9 64.9 16.2 0 0
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 27.0 45.9 16.2 8.1 2.7
Maintenance of the City‐owned Buildings 35.1 45.9 13.5 5.4 0
Transit Systems 45.9 45.9 2.7 2.7 2.7
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance 29.7 43.2 13.5 10.8 2.7
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 29.7 32.4 18.9 18.9 0
Promotion of Environmental Awareness to Citizens 32.4 32.4 16.2 10.8 8.1
Street Paving, Maintenance and Repair 83.8 13.5 2.7 0 0
Response to Citizen Complaints and Requests 62.2 18.9 13.5 2.7 2.7
City Parking Facilities 27.0 29.7 29.7 10.8 2.7
Weed Abatement 16.2 32.4 32.4 10.8 8.1
Rating - Very Important - Somewhat Important - No Opinion - Somewhat Unimportant - Very Unimportant
28
Question 2 - Quality of Services - Percentage
Quality of Services Value Excellent Good Fair Poor
Public Library Services 45.9 35.1 5.4 2.7
Emergency Medical and Rescue Services 43.2 40.5 8.1 5.4
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 43.2 37.8 8.1 2.7
Weekly Trash Collection 35.1 37.8 18.9 8.1
Pick‐up of Large Items and Brush 29.7 24.3 18.9 24.3
Police Services 35.1 43.2 16.2 5.4
Mowing, Maintenance and Appearance of Parks 18.9 54.1 13.5 8.1
Recycling Services 21.6 35.1 32.4 8.1
Current Level of Bagged Leaf Collection Service 16.2 40.5 21.6 13.5
Pollock Aquatic Center 21.6 27.0 21.6 8.1
City's Sidewalk System 5.4 35.1 40.5 16.2
Mowing Right of Ways, Street Medians, Roadsides 10.8 27.0 40.5 8.1
Street Lighting 10.8 32.4 37.8 16.2
Removal of Snow and Ice from City Streets 5.4 24.3 29.7 40.5
Current Level of Loose Leaf Collection Service 13.5 35.1 27.0 21.6
Animal Control 13.5 32.4 29.7 13.5
Information about City Services and Activities 18.9 35.1 29.7 13.5
City Cable, Radio, and Web Streaming Services 29.7 27.0 27.0 2.7
Lake Shore Golf Course 10.8 27.0 13.5 13.5
Maintenance of the Storm Drainage Systems 5.4 21.6 21.6 45.9
City Support for Neighborhood Organizations 5.4 21.6 32.4 24.3
Building Permits and Inspections 5.4 8.1 40.5 29.7
Street Sweeping 8.1 37.8 40.5 10.8
Public Health Programs 16.2 40.5 21.6 13.5
Senior Center 21.6 37.8 18.9 10.8
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 5.4 16.2 35.1 21.6
Transportation Planning for Traffic 8.1 16.2 45.9 21.6
Regulation and Zoning for Land Use 5.4 13.5 40.5 21.6
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 5.4 21.6 32.4 27.0
Maintenance of the City‐owned Buildings 5.4 35.1 40.5 8.1
Transit Systems 10.8 48.6 21.6 10.8
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance 5.4 10.8 48.6 21.6
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 8.1 24.3 29.7 18.9
Promotion of Environmental Awareness Citizens 8.1 24.3 40.5 21.6
Street Paving, Maintenance and Repair 8.1 10.8 16.2 56.8
Response to Citizen Complaints and Requests 5.4 13.5 24.3 45.9
City Parking Facilities 5.4 10.8 45.9 24.3
Weed Abatement 5.4 16.2 29.7 24.3
29
Question 4 - Budgeting Priorities
# Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
# 4 - Extra $1 million
Cultural Institutions 20 10.00 800.00 147.0000 200.56762
Economic Development 17 3.00 1000.00 264.8824 257.05590
Waste Mgmt Recycling 18 10.00 250.00 90.8333 65.73677
Finance and Revenue 20 10.00 1000.00 120.5000 210.98079
Police Protection 21 15.00 1000.00 206.6667 198.29481
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 20 10.00 350.00 139.5000 74.70820
Parks 18 5.00 200.00 83.3333 60.31779
Transportation: Roads 26 90.00 1000.00 469.8077 287.75156
Question 5 - Budgeting Priorities
# Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
# 5 - Reduce $1 million
Cultural Institutions 21 50.00 500.00 160.7143 117.14612
Economic Development 19 10.00 1000.00 215.0000 246.64414
Waste Mgmt Recycling 18 50.00 1000.00 195.8333 223.48345
Finance and Revenue 20 75.00 1000.00 272.5000 221.52284
Police Protection 11 50.00 200.00 122.7273 59.63907
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 13 50.00 1000.00 246.1538 261.57499
Parks 21 10.00 500.00 162.3810 126.51699
Transportation: Roads 8 40.00 400.00 148.7500 120.02232
Question 6 - Funding of City Services
Key:
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree/
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Opinion
I am satisfied with the
current mix of taxes, aids,
grants and fees
13.5 35.1 13.5 29.7 8.1 N/A
The City could reduce taxes
and maintain current
services by being more
efficient.
37.8 29.7 5.4 5.4 18.9 N/A
The City should focus on
reducing taxes by pursuing
grants (many of which
require local funding match)
29.7 32.4 18.9 13.5 5.4 N/A
The City should focus on
reducing taxes by increasing
service fees and charges.
13.5 24.3 18.9 18.9 24.3 N/A
30
Question 8 - Analysis of Survey Results to Demographics of City
Surveys Surveys Oshkosh Without
Results % Census Institutions
Gender Male 18 48.6% 51.6%
Female 18 48.6% 48.4%
Missing 1 2.7% 0.0%
Year Born 18 to 65 34 91.9% 88.1% 83.0%
Over 65 3 8.1% 11.9% 17.0%
Missing 0 0
Marital Status Married 28 75.7% 39.7% 45.5%
Not Married 8 21.6% 53.5% 47.0%
Widowed 1 2.7% 6.8% 7.5%
Missing 0 0
Time Lived in Oshkosh 5 or less 6 16.2%
6 to 20 8 21.6%
>20 23 62.2%
Missing 0 0
Rent or Own Own 31 83.8% 59.2%
Rent 5 13.5% 40.8%
Missing 1 2.7%
Number of Children None 23 62.2% 72.2%
1 6 16.2% 27.8%
2 6 16.2%
3 2 5.4%
4 or more 0 0
Missing 0 0
Place of Residence North of Fox 12 32.4% 56.4% 50.8%
South of Fox/East of 41 16 43.2% 31.6% 35.7%
South of Fox/West of 41 8 21.6% 11.9% 13.5%
Missing 1 2.7%
Income <10K 2 5.4% 7.8%
10 to 15K 0 0 7.3%
15 to 25K 5 13.9% 13.8%
25 to 35K 2 5.6% 13.2%
35 to 50K 5 13.9% 15.7%
50 to 75K 10 27.8% 21.6%
75 to 100K 8 22.2% 11.8%
100 to 150K 3 8.2% 6.8%
150 to 200K 2 5.6% 1.2%
>200K 0 0 0.8%
Missing 1 100.0%
Median HHI $ 42,298
Mean HHI $ 51,647
Employment Status Employed 22 61.1
Student 0 0
31
Unemployed 10 27.8 5.5%
Retired 4 11.1%
Missing
Occupation Homemaker 4 13.8%
Service Occupation 6 20.7% 23.5%
Sales and Office 1 3.4% 26.7%
Production, Trans, Material
Moving
2 6.9% 18.5%
Management, professional 15 51.7% 26.1%
Farming, fishing, forestry 0 0 10.0%
Construction 1 3.4% 5.0%
Missing 8
Education Less than HS 1 2.8% 13.8%
HS 13 36.1% 62.5%
Bachelors 17 47.2% 16.7%
MA or higher 5 13.9% 7.0%
Missing 1