HomeMy WebLinkAboutOshkoshCitizenSurveyFinalReport20160
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Citizen Survey 2016
4/30/2016
1
City of Oshkosh
Citizen Survey 2016
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
2016. This report will analyze the results of this survey and provide insight into the perspectives
of the citizens on a variety of issues. The 2016 Oshkosh Citizen Survey included twelve primary
sections and multiple sub-sections, along with a question requesting general demographic data as
well as an opportunity for comments from the respondents. Three-hundred and ten (310) 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 four following possible rating options: 1.) excellent, good, fair and poor 2.)
very important, somewhat important, no opinion, somewhat unimportant, and very unimportant
3.) strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree/disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree
and no opinion or 4.) daily, weekly, occasionally, seasonally, and annually or less. The survey
was sent to 1,500 properties chosen randomly from the residential parcels provided from a data
base of utility customers in the City. The 310 responses constitute a 20.7 percent response rate
which is lower than the norm for citizen surveys. The survey response was 17.0 percent return in
2009, 22.5 percent return in 2010, 16.5 percent in 2011, 17.8 percent in 2012, 19.5 in 2013, 21.9
percent in 2014 and 20.6 percent in 2015. The relationship between sample size and precision of
the survey instrument at a 95 percent confidence rate frequently used in surveys is shown below.
The 310 responses create a margin of error of approximately 5.4 percent. A level of 5 percent is
considered acceptable for most survey results. The confidence rate is 94.6 percent.
Sample Size Margin of Error
100 10%
300 5.5%
400 5.0%
800 3.5%
2
Question 1 & 2: Please indicate how frequently, if ever, you utilize the following City
services. Please check the box that comes closest to your opinion for each of the
following questions.
The Oshkosh survey’s Questions 1 and 2 specifically address frequency of city services
and rating the quality of life in Oshkosh. The answer options for question one in the 2015 survey
regarding the frequency of city services were Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Seasonally, Annually and
Never. The only change in these answers for 2016 was an additional No Response option. This
may cause a slight comparative analysis issue but not one significant enough to cause for
concern.
Frequency of City Services Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally Annually Never
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 6.6 5.6 7.0 29.6 11.3 39.9
Lake Shore Golf Course 1.0 1.3 2.6 9.2 9.9 76.0
Pollock Aquatic Center .3 2.3 3.3 12.5 9.8 71.8
Leach Amphitheatre .3 1.6 7.2 32.8 22.3 35.7
Oshkosh Public Museum .3 .7 4.3 12.6 43.4 38.7
Senior Services Center 1.0 6.3 8.0 5.3 12.0 67.4
Public Library Services .7 14.2 22.8 13.2 19.2 29.8
Police Services 1.7 .3 4.7 6.4 24.3 62.5
Fire Protection and Prevention Services .7 1.4 .3 2.0 14.2 81.4
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) .7 .3 1.4 1.7 11.2 84.7
Building Permits and Inspections .3 1.4 0 4.1 22.2 72.0
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 1.0 1.7 1.3 5.0 9.4 81.6
City Parking Facilities 4.0 9.0 12.3 14.3 14.0 46.5
Oshkosh Community Media Services 1.7 6.0 4.7 6.4 9.7 71.5
Transit System 2.0 9.3 4.7 3.3 6.7 74.0
Recycling Collection Services 4.0 63.9 17.2 3.0 5.0 7.0
Refuse Collection Service 2.6 66.0 7.1 10.0 3.9 10.4
Leaf and Brush Pick up .7 10.2 13.9 56.4 7.6 11.2
One comparative change to point out between last year’s survey and this year’s would be
the change in reported use for the Lake Shore Golf Course. It seems that the seasonal use has
gone down since last year. While the percentage of those who never used it remained
unchanged, it appears that the golf course had visitors on a more regular basis in this year’s
survey. The reported use of the city’s transit system also decreased slightly since last year.
It is important to note that the results of the survey may not necessarily be representative
of the entire population. For example, the frequency of use of the aquatic center seems to be
3
misrepresented because the majority of the respondents stated they never use it but are also aged
60 or older.
The bike and pedestrian trails are used more often than the golf course but all are used
seasonally. Additionally, parking facilities are used at a much higher rate than the transit system.
However, these answers also may or not be representative of the entire population due to the
respondents’ ages.
The quality of life reported in Oshkosh also rose slightly between last year’s and this
year’s answers. The perception of Oshkosh being environmentally friendly rose slightly as well.
None of the answers showed a significant difference between the two years, and as a whole,
citizens seem quite satisfied with the city, its services, and the overall quality of life offered.
How would you rate:
Excellent
%
Good
%
Fair
%
Poor
%
No Opinion
%
Oshkosh as a place to live? 22.3 51.5 23.0 3.2 0
Feeling a part of the community? 12.1 43.5 33.0 8.5 2.9
Your neighborhood as a place to live? 31.2 44.5 18.5 5.8 0
Oshkosh as a place to raise children? 18.8 52.6 22.0 1.6 4.9
Oshkosh as a place to retire? 14.9 36.7 28.9 14.0 5.5
Community openness and acceptance of diversity? 9.8 42.0 27.5 11.1 9.5
The overall quality of life in Oshkosh? 14.0 56.7 26.1 2.9 .3
Oshkosh as an environmentally friendly city? 11.1 51.0 27.8 5.2 4.9
Oshkosh as a place to work? 13.4 46.4 25.2 6.5 8.5
The direction Oshkosh is moving for the future? 6.2 36.4 38.0 12.8 6.5
Affordability of living in Oshkosh? 9.1 44.0 34.9 11.4 .7
The availability of entertainment/events? 17.0 46.7 26.8 5.6 3.9
The quality of entertainment/events? 16.7 42.2 30.1 5.6 5.6
4
Question 3: Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark by
checking the box that most accurately represents how you feel.
The third question in the City of Oshkosh 2016 Citizen Survey addresses the safety
that community members feel in their neighborhood at night. The question asks “Please rate
how safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark by checking the box that most
accurately represents how you feel.” Respondents to this question have the option of
selecting from one of the following answers: Very Safe, Safe, Neither Safe or Unsafe,
Unsafe, Very Unsafe, and Don’t Know. Based on the 2016 results that have been gathered,
citizens in Oshkosh have responded to the survey with the following results: 23.8% feel
“Very Safe”, 47.6% “Safe”, 17.6% “Neither Safe or Unsafe”, 9.1% feel “Unsafe”, 1.6%
“Very Unsafe”, 0.3% Don’t Know, and 0.6% had No Response (See Table
3.1). In 2015 the same responses to this question received the following results: 26% felt
“Very Safe”, 52% were “Safe”, 14% felt “Neither Safe or Unsafe”, 7% “Unsafe”, and 1%
felt “Very Unsafe”. What can be determined most notably from the results of the 2016
Citizen Survey, and how it compares to 2015, is that there is a slight decrease in the percent
of the population that feels either Very Safe or Safe in their neighborhood at night. While
the cumulative percent of the Very Safe and Safe respondent percentages is still over 70%,
there is a noticeable shift moving in the direction that some citizens feel either “Unsafe” or
“Very Unsafe”. Table 3.1
In addition to the results of
the survey that were discussed
above, Question 3 was also
tabulated to determine citizen
feedback based on gender, age,
location within the city, income,
5
highest education level completed, and race. The following sections will explain those
results.
3a. Safety results based on Gender
Of the 307 total responses to question #3, the survey results were able to determine
the gender of 299 of those participants, with one response provided in the “Other” category
(See Table 3.2). Of those, 152 were male and 147 were female. Like the survey results from
2015, it can be determined that, overall, male respondents feel generally safer than their
female counterparts. This is determined as 39 males felt “Very Safe” and 74 males felt
“Safe”, versus the 31 females who responded to “Very Safe” and 68 who were “Safe”. In
comparison to the overall results from question 3 there is a decrease in the number of male
and female respondents who either responded to this question as feeling “Very Safe” or
“Safe” which suggests that more participants are responding to other options. Furthermore,
when comparing it to the survey results from 2015, the gap between male and female
respondents is closing which shows that almost the same number of men and women are
providing similar responses.
Table 3.2
Safety * Gender Crosstabulation
Count
Gender
Total Male Female Other
Safety Very Safe 39 31 0 70
Safe 74 68 0 142
Neither Safe of Unsafe 23 31 0 54
Unsafe 13 14 1 28
Very Unsafe 2 3 0 5
Don't Know 1 0 0 1
Total 152 147 1 300
6
3b. Safety results based on Age
In addition to gender, respondents were also analyzed for how they answered
question 3 in regards to the age group that they are a part of. The following age groups were
used in this survey: 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 or Older (Table 3.3). Based on these
results it can be determined that over 50% of total respondents by age answered that they felt
either “Very Safe” or “Safe”. While there were additional age categories created for this
year’s survey, results seemed to improve from 2015 and overall more respondents in the
2016 Citizen Survey generally feel “Very Safe” or “Safe”.
Table 3.3
Safety * Age Crosstabulation
Age
Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or Older
Safety Very Safe 5 13 8 17 29 72
Safe 7 14 21 25 75 142
Neither Safe of Unsafe 5 3 5 12 28 53
Unsafe 2 1 4 6 14 27
Very Unsafe 0 0 1 1 3 5
Don't Know 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 19 31 39 61 150 300
3c. Safety results based on Location
Survey results were also analyzed for location where the respondent lived within the
City of Oshkosh. Responses to this question are broken down into three categories. Those
are: “North of the Fox River”, “South of Fox and East of I-41”, and “South of the Fox and
West of I-41”. Based on the feedback that was provided there was representation from each
area where a majority of the total respondents felt either “Very Safe” or “Safe”. One item
that did stand out in this particular crosstab was that of the “Unsafe” and “Very Unsafe”
responses, 28 of the 33 calculated selected the “North of the Fox River” selection (see table
3.4).
7
Table 3.4
Safety * Location Crosstabulation
Location
Total North of Fox River
South of Fox/East
of I-41 South of Fox/West of I-41
Safety Very Safe 19 22 31 72
Safe 55 51 36 142
Neither Safe of Unsafe 27 18 8 53
Unsafe 23 4 1 28
Very Unsafe 5 0 0 5
Don't Know 0 1 0 1
Total 129 96 76 301
3d. Safety results based on Income
When considering income for question 3, there were six separate ranges that
respondents could of provided answers to in the 2016 Oshkosh Citizen Survey. These
income levels started at “Less than $24,999” and ended at “$150,000 or more” (Table 3.5).
In staying consistent with other crosstabs that were evaluated, a majority of the respondents
answered this question as feeling either “Very Unsafe” or “Safe” and their income didn’t
necessarily seem to have an overwhelming impact on their responses. In comparing this
year’s survey results to those completed in 2015, and interesting note that is worth
mentioning relates to citizens in income ranges “Less than $24,999” and “25,000 to
$49,999”. These respondents reported that they feel “Unsafe” at a total count of 8 and 7,
which is double that of last year’s survey where they responded with a total count of 4 and 3.
8
Table 3.5
3e. Safety results based on Highest Education Level Achieved
The next crosstab to evaluate, relating to the Safety in Neighborhoods, analyzed
results to the survey on the basis of highest educational level achieved. Respondents to this
question are categorized on the following: “Less than High School”, “High School/GED”,
“Associate Degree/Some College”, “Bachelor’s Degree”, and “Master’s Degree or Higher”.
This year’s survey added the additional category, “Less than High School”, which was new
when comparing the survey to 2015, but the change did not seem to directly impact numbers
in any direction. What was interesting from this cross tabulation were the results of those
that answered as feeling “Unsafe”. Of the 5 that answered this question as feeling “Unsafe”,
3 of those had a “Master’s Degree or Higher” (see Table 3.6).
Table 3.6
9
3f. Safety results based on Race
The last crosstab to be evaluated for question #3 determined how safe the
respondents felt based on race. For the 2016 survey respondents had the option of selecting
from one of the following categories: “White”, “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander”,
“Hispanic or Latino”, “Two or More Races”, “Asian”, or “Some other Race” (Table 3.7).
While the results were overwhelmingly submitted by “White” respondents there seemed to
be no disparity between these results and those of the entire survey. It is worth noting that all
of the respondents who answered as feeling “Unsafe”, a total of 5, were all “White”.
Table 3.7
Question 4: Victim of a crime in the past 12 months?
Question 4 asks in the 2015 Oshkosh Citizens Survey if the respondent, or anyone in
his/her household, has been victim of a crime in the past 12 months. The response could
either be “yes” or “no.” Overall, of the 296 responses, 43 were yes, they were a victim of a
crime, and 253 were no, they were not. 14.5% of the respondents were victim of some sort
of crime. The type of crimes were not included in the scope of the survey, but the 14.5%
“yes” rate is in line with the 2013 Department of Justice rates of criminal victimization in
regards to overall property crimes (13.1%).
10
4a. Victims of Crime: Gender
There were 296 responses to this
question, 149 male, 146 female, 1 who did not
identify a gender in any way. There was no
difference between males versus females as
victims since each gender has 21 “yes”
responses. 4b, 4c, and 4d. Victims of Crime: Age, Income, and Location
The age of victims with the
highest “yes” response rate was
those victims 60 or older (18 of 43
responses) and the median income
was nearly tied between $25,000-
$49,999 (10 responses) and
$50,000-$74,999 (9 responses). The location with the highest incident of crime was also
north of the Fox River at 20 out of the 43, followed by areas south of the Fox River and west
of I-41 at 16 out of 43.
4e. Victims of Crime: Higher Education Level
The highest incidents of crime occurred with victims holding higher degrees of
education. 29 victims had either Bachelor’s degrees (14) or Master’s degrees (15). In sum,
67% of the victims had education levels greater than high school and/or an associate degree.
11
4f. Victims of Crime: Race
97.6% of the crime victims identified as “white.” There was only 1 victim of the 43
victims who identified with a race other than Native American, Pacific Islander, Hispanic,
Latino, or mixed.
Question 5: If “Yes” was the crime reported?
The number of responses to this question seems to be consistent with the 2015 survey
results and continues to be very low. There were 46 responses to this question.
Respondents indicated “Yes” (48%), “No” (47%), and “Don’t know” (.07%). The results
are similar to 2015 and 2016, with the only difference being a few more “yes” answers an
increase in “no” and less “no response.” This could indicate that more victims of crime are
reporting the acts.
Q5: Table 1 - Number of Responses
Yes No Don’t Know No Response
2015 19 12 3 275
2016 22 21 3 263
12
5a. Crime reported based on gender
26% of males and 22% females answered “Yes” to reporting a crime. Males (30%)
were more likely to not report the crime compared to females (15%).
Q5: Table 2 - Number of Responses/Gender
Male Female Other No Response to
gender
Yes 12 10 0 0
No 14 7 0 0
Don’t Know 0 2 1
5b. Reporting crime by age
The responses are broken down into 6 age range categories; 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59,
60 or older, as well as no age given. Ages 60 and older were more likely to report a crime
with the highest number of “yes” responses at 22%.
Q5: Table 3 - Number of Responses/Age
Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or
older
No response
to age
Yes 2 1 2 7 10 0
No 2 2 5 4 7 1
Don’t Know 0 0 1 1 1 0
Q5: Chart 1 - Number of responses by Age
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
18‐29 30‐4039‐5049‐6059 or older
Yes
No
Don't Know
13
5c. Reporting crime by location
Respondents living north of the Fox River are more likely to report a crime with 30%
of those responding to the question reporting yes. 22% of those living in this area answered
no to reporting the crime. Those living south of the Fox River and east of US41 responded
yes to reporting a crime at .04% and 13% responded no. Finally, and south of the Fox River
and west of US 41 13% responded yes to reporting a crime and 11% responded no.
Q5: Table 4 - Number of Responses/Location
Location North of the Fox
River
South of the Fox
River/East of US 41
South of the Fox
River/West of US 41
No
Response
Yes 14 2 6 0
No 10 6 5 0
Don’t Know 1 2 0 0
5d. Reporting crime by Income
43 responded to the question pertaining to their income. The age group with the highest
number of responses was those with an income of $25,000-$49,999 with 14% responded yes to
reporting a crime and the same 14% in that age group responded no they did not report.
Q5: Table 5 - Number of Responses/Income
Income Less than
$24,999
$25-
49,999
$50,000-
$74,999
$75,000-
$99,999
$100,000-
$149,999
$150,000
or more
Yes 1 6 4 4 4 1
No 3 6 4 0 5 2
Don’t Know 0 1 0 1 0 1
5e. Reporting crime by Education Level
46 responded to this question with the highest percentage of reporting a crime being those
individuals with Masters Degrees or higher at 20%.
Q5: Table 6 – Number of Responses/Education Level
Highest Ed.
Level
Less than
High
School
High
School/GED
Associate
Degree/Some
College
Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree or
Higher
No
Response
Yes 3 3 7 9 0
No 6 6 4 4 1
Don’t Know 1 0 1 1 0
14
5f. Reporting a crime by Race
44 of the 45 or 98% of the respondents to this question are white. 49% responded yes to
reporting a crime and 44% responded no.
Q5: Table 7 - Number of Responses/Race
Race White Some other Race
Yes 22
No 20
Don’t Know 2 1
15
Question 6 - Importance of Services
Citizen sentiment as it relates to the importance of various city services is obtained
through question 6 of the survey instrument. In this question, respondents are asked to rank how
important 30 citywide services are to them. The services are categorized into the following
seven areas: (1) Community Services, encompassing seven services; (2) Parks, encompassing
four services; (3) Economic Development, encompassing five services; (4) Refuse and
Recycling, encompassing three services; (5) Protective Services, encompassing three services;
(6) Road Maintenance, encompassing seven services; and (7) Storm Water Management,
encompassing one service. The survey question asks respondents to identify whether the service
is very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, not important, or if they have no
opinion on the service. The following graph shows how each service was ranked by importance.
Results from the survey question provide city officials with insight into areas that citizens
feel are most important and least important. City officials and members of management can use
this information to determine whether and to what extent benefits of the services are being
effectively communicated to the public, and decide whether program design changes will
improve service benefit and impact to the public. The information can also serve as the basis for
reprioritization of services and commitment of public funding to strengthen programming having
greater public impacts.
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ne
i
g
h
.
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
.
Mu
s
e
u
m
Co
m
m
.
M
e
d
i
a
Ci
t
y
B
l
d
g
s
.
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
Bi
k
e
&
P
e
d
.
T
r
a
i
l
s
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ec
o
n
.
D
e
v
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
.
En
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
d
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
Le
a
f
/
B
r
u
s
h
C
l
e
a
n
.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Re
f
u
s
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
EM
S
Fi
r
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Sn
o
w
/
I
c
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
s
/
S
i
g
s
.
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
/
S
w
e
e
p
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
.
S
y
s
.
Q6. Importance of Service (Overall)
Overall
16
By category, Protective Services had the most services with the highest rankings, with
Police Services within that category ranked the highest at 98.04% among all respondents. Police
Services was also the highest ranked among all 30 services. Following close behind Police
Services were EMS (97.06%), Street Repairs (97.01%), Fire (96.07%), and Snow & Ice Removal
(95.72%). The table below shows the top 10 ranked services.
By category, Parks had two services ranking among the lowest of all 30 services, with the
Aquatic Center receiving a favorable ranking of 69.87% and the Golf Course receiving a
favorable ranking of 47.52%. Community Media under the Community Services category
received the lowest importance ranking of 46.49%. In 2015, Permits and Inspection services
ranked the fourth lowest at 69.1%, but it improved to the sixth lowest in 2016 at 72.61%.
Neighborhood revitalization dropped from 75.3% in 2015 to 71.85% in 2016.
98.04%
97.06%97.01%
96.07%95.72%
95.39%94.74%94.43%
93.40%93.05%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
Po
l
i
c
e
EM
S
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
Fi
r
e
Sn
o
w
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
s
Re
f
u
s
e
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Top 10 Most Important Services in 2016
(Percentages shown for 2016 Only)
2016
2015
17
In the category of Community Services, Library services ranked the highest in
importance at 87.13%, while Community Media ranked the lowest at 46.49%. Of particular note
were the high number of respondents that had no opinion on Community Media (59 respondents,
or 19.73%) and Neighborhood Revitalization (34 respondents, or 11.26%). This would seem to
suggest that subsets of the population do not know enough about the services in these areas, so
efforts to better promote these services may improve their overall ranking.
In the category of Parks, City Parks ranked the highest in importance at 86.80%, while
the Golf Course ranked the lowest at 47.52%. The Golf Course and the Aquatic Center received
a high number of no opinion responses, so more public information on the services in these areas
may improve future rankings.
71.85%71.33%69.87%
47.52%46.49%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
Ne
i
g
h
.
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
.
Mu
s
e
u
m
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Co
m
m
.
M
e
d
i
a
5 Least Important Services in 2016
(Percentages shown for 2016 Only)
2016
2015
No.Community Services Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Community Media 139 101 59 299 46.49%10
2 Museum 214 76 10 300 71.33%9
3 Neighborhood Revitalization 217 51 34 302 71.85%7
4 City Buildings 221 74 7 302 73.18%7
5 Transit 236 50 13 299 78.93%10
6 Senior Center 241 46 17 304 79.28%5
7 Library 264 33 6 303 87.13%6
No.Parks Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Golf Course 144 134 25 303 47.52%6
2 Aquatic Center 211 70 21 302 69.87%7
3 Bikes & Pedestrian Trails 240 56 8 304 78.95%5
4 City Parks 263 35 5 303 86.80%6
18
In the category of Economic Development, Enforcement of Codes received the highest
ranking of importance at 78.15%, while Permits and Inspection services received the lowest
ranking at 72.61%. Overall, the entire category received a fair number of no opinion responses,
so perhaps more information concerning the services could be made available to the public.
In the category of Refuse and Recycling, Recycling received the highest ranking of
importance at 95.39%, while Leaf and Brush Pickup received the lowest ranking in the category
at 90.52%. Very few respondents offered no opinion or no response on the services, so the
impact of the services to the public seems clear.
In the category of Protective Services, Police Services received the highest ranking of
importance at 98.04%, while Fire received the lowest ranking at 96.07%. Very few respondents
offered no opinion or no response on the services, so the impact of the services to the public
seems clear.
In the category of Road Maintenance, Street Repairs received the highest ranking of
importance at 97.01%, while Parking Facilities received the lowest ranking at 78.74%. Very few
respondents offered no opinion or no response on the services, so the impact of the services to
the public seems clear.
No.Economic Development Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Permits & Inspections 220 60 23 303 72.61%6
2 Economic Development 221 43 34 298 74.16%11
3 Housing 235 48 20 303 77.56%6
4 Land Use Planning 237 41 27 305 77.70%4
5 Enforcement of Codes 236 45 21 302 78.15%7
No.Refuse and Recycling Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Leaf and Brush Pickup 277 27 2 306 90.52%3
2 Refuse Collection 288 10 7 305 94.43%4
3 Recycling 290 13 1 304 95.39%5
No.Protective Services Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Fire 293 12 0 305 96.07%4
2 EMS 297 7 2 306 97.06%3
3 Police Services 300 6 0 306 98.04%3
19
In the category of Storm Water Maintenance, which includes only one service by the
same name, Storm Water Maintenance services received an importance ranking of 93.40%.
Very few respondents offered no opinion or no response, so the service’s impact to the public
seems clear.
No.Road Maintenance Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Parking Facilities 237 60 4 301 78.74%8
2 Sidewalks 262 40 3 305 85.90%4
3 Street Maint. & Sweeping 271 33 0 304 89.14%5
4 Street Lighting 281 20 1 302 93.05%7
5 Traffic Signs and Signals 288 16 0 304 94.74%5
6 Snow & Ice Removal 291 13 0 304 95.72%5
7 Street Repairs 292 9 0 301 97.01%8
No.Storm Drainage Systems Total
Positive
Total
Negative
No
Opinion Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Storm Drainage Systems 283 16 4 303 93.40%6
20
Question 7 - Quality of Services
Citizen sentiment as it relates to the quality of various city services is obtained by
question 7 of the survey instrument. In this question, respondents are asked to rank how they
perceive the quality of 30 citywide services. Similar to Question 6, the services are categorized
into the following seven areas: (1) Community Services, encompassing seven services; (2) Parks,
encompassing four services; (3) Economic Development, encompassing five services; (4) Refuse
and Recycling, encompassing three services; (5) Protective Services, encompassing three
services; (6) Road Maintenance, encompassing seven services; and (7) Storm Water
Management, encompassing one service. The survey question asks respondents to identify
whether the service is of excellent quality, good quality, fair quality, poor quality, or if they don’t
know. The following graph shows how each service was ranked by quality.
Results from the survey question provide city officials with insight into areas that citizens
feel are high or low in quality. City officials and members of management can use this
information to determine whether and to what extent benefits of the services are being effectively
delivered to the public, and decide whether program design changes will improve the quality of
services being provided. The information can also serve as the basis for reprioritization of
services and commitment of public funding to strengthen programming having greater public
impacts.
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ne
i
g
h
.
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
.
Mu
s
e
u
m
Co
m
m
.
M
e
d
i
a
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ci
t
y
B
l
d
g
s
.
Bi
k
e
&
P
e
d
.
T
r
a
i
l
s
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ec
o
n
.
D
e
v
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
.
En
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
d
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
Le
a
f
/
B
r
u
s
h
C
l
e
a
n
.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Re
f
u
s
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
EM
S
Fi
r
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Sn
o
w
/
I
c
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
s
/
S
i
g
s
.
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
/
S
w
e
e
p
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
.
S
y
s
.
Q7. Quality of Service (Overall)
Overall
21
By category, Refuse and Recycling had the most services with the highest quality
rankings, with Recycling services within that category ranked the highest at 97.98% among all
respondents. Recycling services was also the highest ranked among all 30 services. Following
close behind Recycling services were Traffic Signs and Signals (96.62%), Refuse Collection
(96.27%), Street Lighting (94.24%), and Sidewalks (92.52%). The table below shows the top
10 ranked services.
By category, all five services in Economic Development ranked the lowest among all 30
services, with Permits & Inspection services receiving the highest ranking at 53.77% and
Economic Development services ranking the lowest at 44.14%. Permits and Inspection services,
and Economic Development, saw modest improvement compared to 2015. Housing, Land Use
Planning, and Enforcement of Codes saw a slight decline.
97.98%96.62%96.27%
94.24%92.52%
91.55%91.53%
90.54%90.27%90.24%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
s
Re
f
u
s
e
C
o
l
l
.
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
St
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
.
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
.
Sn
o
w
/
I
c
e
Re
m
o
v
e
Le
a
f
/
B
r
u
s
h
Cl
e
a
n
.
Top 10 Highest Quality Ranked Services
(Percentages shown for 2016 Only)
2015
2016
22
In the category of Community Services, City Buildings received the highest ranking for
quality at 89.3%, while Community Media received the lowest ranking in the category at
56.23%. Of particular note were the number of respondents who didn’t know anything about
Community Media (125 respondents, or 42.09%), Neighborhood Revitalization (180
respondents, or 61.22%), Senior Center (112 respondents, or 37.71%), and Transit (75
respondents, or 25.51%). This would seem to suggest that subsets of the population do not know
enough about the services or have any experience with the services, so efforts to better promote
these services may improve their overall ranking.
In the category of Parks, City Park services received the highest ranking for quality at
91.5%, while the Golf Course received the lowest ranking in the category at 54.11%. A
significant number of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything about the Golf
Course (131 respondents, or 44.86%) or the Aquatic Center (99 respondents, or 33.67%), so City
officials should strive to promote these services better.
53.77%
47.60%
45.52%44.29%44.14%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
In
s
p
e
c
t
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
La
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
En
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
d
e
s
Ec
o
n
.
D
e
v
.
5 Lowest Quality Ranked Services
(Percentages shown for 2016 Only)
2015
2016
No.Community Services Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Community Media 167 5 125 297 56.23%12
2 Neighborhood Revitalization 180 18 96 294 61.22%15
3 Senior Center 183 2 112 297 61.62%12
4 Transit 210 9 75 294 71.43%15
5 Museum 235 5 56 296 79.39%13
6 Library 257 3 36 296 86.82%13
7 City Buildings 262 6 24 292 89.73%17
23
In the category of Economic Development, Permits and Inspection services received the
highest ranking for quality at 53.77%, while Economic Development services received the
lowest ranking in the category at 44.14%. A significant number of the respondents indicated that
they did not know anything about all of the services, or provided no response, so City officials
should strive to promote these services better.
In the category of Refuse and Recycling, Recycling services received the highest ranking
for quality at 97.98%, while Leaf and Brush Pickup received the lowest ranking in the category
at 90.24%. A fairly small number of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything
about all of the services, or provided no response, so it would appear that city workers are
performing these services very well.
In the category of Protective Services, Police services received the highest ranking for
quality at 90.54%, while EMS received the lowest ranking in the category at 83.67%. A fair
number of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything about the services, or
provided no response, so the city may want to provide a little more information to the public to
improve public awareness of the services they are providing.
No.Parks Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Golf Course 158 3 131 292 54.11%17
2 Aquatic Center 192 3 99 294 65.31%15
3 Bikes & Pedestrian Trails 237 8 49 294 80.61%15
4 City Parks 271 5 20 296 91.55%13
No.Economic Development Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Economic Development 128 7 155 290 44.14%19
2 Enforcement of Codes 128 38 123 289 44.29%20
3 Land Use Planning 132 23 135 290 45.52%19
4 Housing 139 22 131 292 47.60%17
5 Permits & Inspections 157 19 116 292 53.77%17
No.Refuse and Recycling Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Leaf and Brush Pickup 268 6 23 297 90.24%12
2 Refuse Collection 284 1 10 295 96.27%14
3 Recycling 291 3 3 297 97.98%12
24
In the category of Road Maintenance, Traffic Signs and Signals received the highest
ranking for quality at 96.62%, while Street Repairs received the lowest ranking in the category at
64.97%. The low ranking for Street Repairs may be more a reflection on the lack of funding for
infrastructure improvements than on workmanship itself, but this may warrant more study. A
fairly small number of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything about Parking
Facilities, or provided no response, so providing more public information about this service may
improve public awareness.
In the category of Storm Water Maintenance, which includes only one service by the
same name, Storm Drainage Systems received a ranking of 79.52%. A relatively small number
of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything about the service, so providing
more public information about this service may improve public awareness.
No.Protective Services Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 EMS 246 0 48 294 83.67%15
2 Fire 250 0 47 297 84.18%12
3 Police Services 268 5 23 296 90.54%13
No.Road Maintenance Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Street Repairs 191 99 4 294 64.97%15
2 Parking Facilities 233 15 48 296 78.72%13
3 Snow & Ice Removal 269 28 1 298 90.27%11
4 Street Maintenance & Sweeping 270 21 4 295 91.53%14
5 Sidewalks 272 13 9 294 92.52%15
6 Street Lighting 278 14 3 295 94.24%14
7 Traffic Signs and Signals 286 7 3 296 96.62%13
No.Storm Water Maintenance Total
Positive
Poor
Quality
Don't
Know Totals % Positive No
Response
1 Storm Drainage Systems 233 27 33 293 79.52%16
25
Question 6 and 7 Summary
The following graph shows the spread between respondents’ perceptions of importance
compared to their perceptions on quality of the 30 citywide services that are provided. In
essence, it shows the gap between what the public expects to have versus what they believe
actually exists.
Comprehensive data sets were also compiled by age, education, gender, and income, but
reporting on that data would have added considerably to the length of this report. We
recommend city officials drill down into that data to identify target groups that city officials can
focus on in its efforts to promote awareness and expand services. A quick summary of our
notable findings among that data are as follows:
All income groups were fairly well represented;
Over 80% of all respondents were 40 years of age or older;
Nearly half of all respondents were 60 years of age or older;
Over 40% of all respondents possessed a Bachelor’s degree or better;
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents possessed some college education, a Bachelor’s
degree, or better;
For the most part, male and female perceptions on importance and quality were fairly
similar; and
Minorities were greatly underrepresented in the survey.
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ne
i
g
h
.
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
.
Mu
s
e
u
m
Co
m
m
.
M
e
d
i
a
Ci
t
y
B
l
d
g
s
.
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
Bi
k
e
&
P
e
d
.
T
r
a
i
l
s
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ec
o
n
.
D
e
v
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
.
En
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
d
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
Le
a
f
/
B
r
u
s
h
C
l
e
a
n
.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Re
f
u
s
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
EM
S
Fi
r
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Sn
o
w
/
I
c
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
s
/
S
i
g
s
.
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
/
S
w
e
e
p
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
.
S
y
s
.
Q6 & Q7 -Comparison of Importance to Quality
Importance
Quality
26
Questions 8 & 9 - Budget Priorities
Questions 8 and 9 in the Oshkosh Survey asked the citizens of Oshkosh to allocate and
deallocate funds to eight programs/ services the city offers. The nine services are the following:
Community Services, Economic Development, Refuse and Recycling, Finance and
Administration, Police Protection, Fire Suppression and Prevention, Parks, Storm Water
Management and Road Maintenance. Last year, 2015, the amount of responses equaled 248 for
question eight and 234 for question nine. While this year, 2016, there were 266 responses for
question eight and 232 for question nine. Overall response rates for the survey totaled 309 while
the overall total from 2015 was 309. This shows the survey has relatively unchanged, and the
amounts of citizens who have answered the responses have virtually unchanged as well.
Budget Surplus
Question eight of the survey asked participants to allocate a hypothetical surplus of one
million dollars amongst the nine categories which were given. The top three programs/ services
were: Road Maintenance, Police and Protection, and Storm Water Management. The bottom
three in the budget surplus category included: Finance and Administrative Services, Refuse and
Recycle, and Fire Suppression and Prevention. Road Maintenance and Storm Water
Management continue to rank in the top three choices over the last three years, and continue to
be a point of emphasis for the citizens. Police Protection and Economic Development rank round
out the top four when looking at the mean average from all categories. When examining the
previous years, a common theme is the top four choices have not changed, they have remained to
be: Road Maintenance, Police Protection, Storm Water Management and Economic
Development.
27
Figure 1: 2016 Budget Surplus Allocations
Reviewing previous years and how citizens allocated their budget surplus, one can
conclude that roads and maintenance are continually rising through-out the years. However, the
other top choices are continually going down from 2012 – 2014. This is especially true from the
stand point for storm drainage. In 2012, citizens allocated $250,000 to storm drainage, and by
2014 -2015, allocations were under $148,000. Whereas police services and economic
development have roughly stayed the same over the span from 2012-2015. What should be noted
about question eight is how closely tied it is with question nine.
Budget Deficit
Next in the Oshkosh Citizen Survey, respondents were given a hypothetical situation
where one million dollars needed to be cut from the same nine programs and services from
question eight. Just like 2015, the top choice for the budget deficit cut is in finance and
administration. Following finance and administration is economic development, community
services and parks. These top four choices have followed similar paths from previous years
ranging from 2012 – 2015.
Table 2: Budget Deficit Allocations
329.26, 33%
105.75, 11%
89.37, 9%
86.98, 9%
127.43, 13%
30.38,
3%
43.64,
4%
102.19, 10%
84.99, 8%
1: Roads
2: Storm Water
3: Parks
4: Fire Sup.
5. Police
6: Finance and Admin.
7: Refuse/ Recy.
8: Econ. Dev.
9: Com. Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
28
From the 2012 – 2015 survey the numbers have only gone up for cutting finance and
administrative services. For example in 2015, the citizens wanted to hypothetically cut $250,000
while this year it increased to $251,000, slight increase, however, in from the 2012-2014 surveys
in was in the low $240,000 range. Finance and Administration continues to be the category over
the last five years where citizens want to make the largest cuts, and this is a point of importance
which should be recognized. This can be interpreted in a variety of ways. First, finance and
administration is a service which has no direct visual impact on the community, thus cutting is an
easy solution because there is no visual impact. Whereas road maintenance storm water
management, police protection, and fire suppression not only have physical impacts, they also
have relatively positive connotations in the Oshkosh community. Secondly, citizens value their
police and roads and feel if they cut those budgets, they may feel more unsafe, and roads become
worse than they currently are. This a powerful message largely because when the citizens
demonstrate their importance/ where they see value, the City of Oshkosh should take note. What
also should be noted is how economic development was the second choice for having the most
cut out of its budget at $171,500. This is interesting because economic development was one of
the top four choices for the budget surplus section. What this shows is the citizens of Oshkosh
see some value in economic development; however, they are not fully willing to be on board
with full funding/ increasing its capacity. Like years past, road maintenance ranked as the
61.99, 6%
85.28, 9%
113.49, 11%
57.88, 6%
53.27, 5%
251.25, 25%
77.03, 8%
171.48, 17%
128.37, 13%
1: Roads
2: Storm Water
3: Parks
4: Fire Sup.
5. Police
6: Finance and Admin.
7: Refuse/ Recy.
8: Econ. Dev.
9: Com. Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
29
category least likely to see a reduction in their budget. There was an overall decrease in the mean
allocation for the bottom three areas, road maintenance, police protection and fire suppression.
All three were either $61,000 or under.
30
Question 10: Do you feel that the City of Oshkosh does enough to keep and attract young
professionals such as having a vibrant downtown and quality neighborhoods, creating
gathering spaces and events, mentoring and networking opportunities, etc.?
Of the 271 respondents to this question, the responses were almost evenly split between
yes and no. 136 responded yes and 135 responded no.
According to the cross tabulation survey for the city of Oshkosh, attracting young
professionals among gender is fairly even. For instance, those that have participated in the survey
thought that Oshkosh did in fact attract young professionals in the area. However this majority is
pretty slight, the sum total is 130 votes yes, and 128 votes no, while 32 chose not to respond in
this given survey.
Among the age cross tabulation among older people, the majority of those believe that
Oshkosh is a good area to attract younger professionals, while the minority believes that
Oshkosh may not be a great area to attract young professionals.
Among the Marital Status cross tabulation, those that are married believe that Oshkosh is
a good city to attract young professionals. While a smaller percentage believes that it is not.
Those that used to live in the City of Oshkosh, specifically among those aged 20+ Years,
do believe that Oshkosh is a good city to attract young professionals. While a smaller percentage,
aged 20+, believes that it is not.
Among the own/rent cross tabulation, those that own or rent are more likely to state that
they believe the City of Oshkosh attracts young professionals. While a smaller percentage of
those that own or rent believes that it does not.
Among the children cross tabulation, those that have no children believe that the City of
Oshkosh does, in fact, attract young professionals. While this belief drops off deeply with one,
two, or three children. While a smaller percentage of those that have children do not believe that
Oshkosh is a good city to attract young professionals.
Among the location cross tabulation, those North of Fox River believe that Oshkosh
attracts young professionals, while the same number of those North of Fox River believe that it
does not. Those South of Fox River and East of I-41 are in the majority believe that Oshkosh
does not attract young professionals, while a smaller minority believe that it does attract young
professionals. Those South of Fox and West of I-41 are in the majority believes that Oshkosh
does attract young professionals while those in the minority do not believe so.
31
Among the income distribution cross tabulation, those with the income bracket in the
“less than $24,999” believe that Oshkosh does attract young professionals. Those that are in the
“$25,000-$49,999” do not believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals. Finally, those in the
“50,000-$74,999” are evenly split on whether Oshkosh does or does not attract young
professionals.
Among the income distribution cross tabulation, those with the income bracket in the
“$75,000-$99,000” believe that Oshkosh does attract young professionals. Those in the
“$100,000-$149,999” are evenly split 13 all. Finally, in the “$150,000 or more” category,
overwhelmingly those that are in this particular income bracket do not believe that Oshkosh is a
great area to attract young professionals. However, in total, most did think that Oshkosh attracted
young professionals.
Among the employment cross tabulation, those employed full time believe that Oshkosh
does not attract young professionals, while a smaller percentage of those that are employed part
time and are self-employed slightly believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals. In the
continuation of the employment status cross tabulation, those that are “presently employed”
believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals, while students also believe this. Those that are
retired do not believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals.
Among the “profession” cross tabulation, those that are “homemakers” do believe that
Oshkosh attracts young professionals. In the “management professionals” cross tabulation, those
in these professions believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals, largely b ecause they are
in management positions and professionals. Those in the “service occupation” believe Oshkosh
attracts young professionals. Continuing this cross tabulation, those that are in “production and
transportation field” do not believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals, however just
barely. Finally, those in the “other professionals” cross tabulation, those that were in this
particular profession believed that Oshkosh attracted young professionals.
Among the “highest education level” cross tabulation, those that are in the “less than high
school,” “high school/GED,” “Associate Degree/Some College” believes that Oshkosh attracts
young professionals. Those with a Bachelor’s Degree do not, while those with a “Master’s
Degree or Higher” believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals.
32
Among the race cross tabulation, Whites (race) believe that Oshkosh attracts young
professionals. While among all other races, they believe that Oshkosh attracts young
professionals.
Finally, among the diversity coordinator and gender cross tabulation, a majority of those
among males and females do not believe that a diversity coordinator is necessary, while a smaller
percentage does believe a diversity coordinator is a good idea.
33
Question 11: What general area(s) of the City of Oshkosh do you feel needs the most attention in terms of investment, rehabil itation, or
redevelopment? Please provide suggestion using common neighborhood names, street names, or landmarks. What do you think needs to be done?
Su
r
v
e
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
No
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
L
o
w
e
r
T
a
x
e
s
St
r
e
e
t
s
/
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
/
c
u
r
b
s
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
Pa
r
k
s
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Ri
v
e
r
w
a
l
k
/
R
i
v
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Ol
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Lo
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
UW
O
s
h
k
o
s
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
A
r
e
a
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
B
u
s
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
Ar
t
s
/
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
No
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Ea
s
t
S
i
d
e
We
s
t
S
i
d
e
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Do
w
n
T
o
w
n
Shoreline just south and east of main street
bridge. 1 x
Fix streets- Washington Avenue, Ceape
Street. 2 x
Continuing to invest in schools. Young
families still interested in more schools
than other social programs.
3
x
Oshkosh Avenue, South Park Avenue, not
Main Street. 4 x
Repair bad roads- Remove old buildings
such as old K-Mart/Sears on Koeller. Do
something with unused business and
buildings.
5
x x
We need better developed park system.
Also easier access to hiking/building trails
with a bigger system if those developed.
For investment, more needs to be done on
fixing storm drainage/water control
everywhere. Any site rainfall of more than
1” floods too many streets causing
homeowners issues.
6
x x
Old houses on Wisconsin, Jackson and
other streets in the neighborhood. Street
lights on Wisconsin Street and road
maintenance on the same.
7
x x x
34
Buckstaff and Miles Kimball Buildings on
Main Street. Pearl St/Division St. Old
Hotel and surrounding one. Inner City
YMCA immediate area. Sawyer
St/Oshkosh Ave surrounding area.
Teardown and re-develop areas with
housing/apartments, parking etc.
8
x x
Keep up the way they have been. 9
Main St., build a mall on Northside of
Oshkosh (Jefferson, Broad, Parkway,
Division, North Evans Street).
10
x x
South Side of Oshkosh. 11 x
Streets like Otter, Merrit, Oregon/Jackson
Streets could be redeveloped. Could use
another dog park on South Side of
Oshkosh.
12
x x
East side-You already know the
problems!! Ask police department. 13 x x
Open the public section of the Pioneer Inn
property use by the public. 14 ?
Downtown is fairly nice but could be much
better. River walk is nice. Knockdown
Buckstaff building. It’s really an eyesore.
Gets drunks off the river walk that pass out
next to the bridge. They scare some people
and will upscale people away. Make
downtown area between the Civic Center
and Burger king a mall. Walking and
biking only no cars. Clean up the
storefronts and make more upscale.
15
x x x x x
Streets!! 16 x
Get rid of Buckstaff building and so
something nice by the Pioneer area. 17 x
South Main Street from bridge to South
Park, North Main Street from New York to
Snell, Old Buckstaff building, Wisconsin
Street from New York to Smith Ave.
18
x
Stop the expansion of Section 8 housing.
Much more careful screening and high
requirements prior to receiving public
assistance/workforce.
19
x x
The river area could be developed into a
vibrant area. 20 x
35
Central city. 21 x
Northeast. 22 x x
New North Main Street from Murdock to
New York. Roundabouts-people need to
Yield.
23
x x
More street replacement on Lake St.,
Bayshore Drive, Rosalie St and
Washington St, (West of Bowen).
24
x
I would like to see more walking/biking
paths and more vibrant arts culture. 25 x x
East and North Streets. 26 x
Area by Merrill Elementary and middle
schools. Roads are terrible there and
houses and buildings are very rundown.
27
x x
Area between the river and Merritt and
From Main to Hazel is bad. A lot of
elements needs to be removed or elevated
and maintenance needs to be done.
28
x
New York Avenue improvement- side
streets. 29 x
Ongoing maintenance for downtown,
gathering places-street maintenance. 30 x x
Remove low income housing. Replace
Northside ghettos. 31 x x x
Would love to see more health options.
Safe bike lanes, community health and
wellness opportunities.
32
x
Downtown-more active businesses. Build a
river walk. 33 x x
Vacant business-Walmart, Sears.Kmart.
Let’s get a Kohl’s store. 34 x x
Restaurants and shopping development so
people wouldn’t feel need to go to
Appleton for that.
35
x
Streets should be repaired, especially in the
neighborhoods surrounding near the UW
Oshkosh campus.
36
x x
Curbs and gutter on all city streets more
roundabouts. 37 x
Road need to repair which street from the
Virgin Mobile Center which is Main
Street. Start from there to Murdock Street.
38
x
36
Sewer improvement on East Side. Road
Improvements on neighborhood’s streets
especially east of Sawyer Street to the lake.
39
x x
Safer biking trails within the city. 2. Put
more streets on a diet like Murdock. 3.
Upgrade all sidewalks.
40
x x x
Repair North Main Street, Snell Road at
Jackson St. and Vinland Road. 41 x
Wisconsin St between New York and
Bent. Main Street between Murdock and
New York.
42
x
Make people clean up yards and maintain
homes. (Ceape, Otter,Waugoo, Bay Broad,
Boyd, School Street area).
43
x
None of it. 44
Too many streets to mention; clean up
Buckstaff , Lamico sites. 45 x
Ohio St to Lake, 12th Street to River. 46 x
Northeast Side /Old hospital. 47 x x
Streets on East Side are Terrible. 48 x x
West Side Oshkosh Ave. area. Michigan
between South Park and 9th. 49 x x
We live at the corner of Hrevey and
Bowen. Since we have moved in, the area
seems to have gotten a little insecure. I
wouldn’t allow my wife to walk to the gas
station that is a block away after dark.
50
x
East Side-Old homes, poorer neighborhood
by railroad. Fix up houses or tear down. 51 x x
Main St. New York to Murdock. All
streets with potholes- way too many. 52 x
College area. Slum housing-repair and
clean up! 53 x x
Main Street between Murdock and New
York needs street repairs and some other
roads around that area. There are a lot of
abandoned buildings along main St. and on
the South Side.
54
x x x x
River East: The amount of money we pay
in taxes every year, the city did a very poor
job with maintaining these roads, now you
55
x
37
can’t drive over some of them. Mr. Roholff
knows which ones they are.
Neighborhoods near downtown. 56 x x
Continue to develop river frontage towards
tourist businesses. 57 x
Streets rebuilt not just repaved. 58 x
Washington Street, Otter Street Waugoo
Street. 59 x
East side of Oshkosh need updating
(Ceape, Otter, Wugoo, Broad and School). 60 x x
Try to impose older neighborhoods area
around campus North Main Street,
Parkway, Old South Side neighborhoods.
61
x x x x x
Street repair-Grand Parkway to Irvine.
New York, Jackson to Main Street,
Wisconsin, Murdock to New York.
62
x x
Street repair. 63 x
Better storm water management to prevent
street and home flooding. 64 x
Not sure-we live West of Hwy 41. 65
Neighborhoods older with rented out older
homes, upkeep of them. 66 x
Many streets need repair on the Northeast
Side of town. 67 x x x
Road repairs. 68 x
Enforce the slumlord rentals property to be
kept up and curb appeal. 69 x
Most city streets that are bad and run down
housing and neighborhoods that need the
most attention.
70
x x x
Need to develop South Side of Riverfront
by Morgan’s, the Pioneer Inn Properties.
Need to put something on the old Walmart
Property.
71
x x x
By the lake area around the library. The
neighborhoods could use rehab apartments,
reasonable rents. Job opportunities for
young professionals.
72
x x x
Need a parking ramp in the area of Leach
Amphitheatre-Convention Center. 73 x
38
Too high of taxes. Get old homes fixed up
especially North Side. 74 x x
Major corporations need to move
downtown. 75 x
Parks, zoo, family friendly friends. 76 x x
Main Street. No more bars and get rid of
the regulations that stopped cart deli.
Lunch wagons do not belong to the bars.
77
x x x
South Main Street-Riverfront and pioneer
redevelopment. 78 x x x
Pioneer-Absolute crime what happened to
this property. Buckstaff-get it down and
done. All neighborhoods from Ceape to
Washington between the tracks and Bowen
St. Old Walmart Area-fill it.
79
x x
Side streets by Main Street Park Way, New
York. I shouldn’t feel like I’m off roading
when I drive the north part of town.
80
x x x
Continue improving our downtown and
river front. There is a lot of potential with
our lakefront-the previous location of the
pioneer Inn for example. Create a network
of bike trails.
81
x x x x
Get rid of town motel downtown Pearl area
tear down dilapidated homes by city
center, white house across from Carey
Insurance.
82
x x
We are a city surrounded by water, but use
it so inefficiently! 83 x x
Roads suck! 84 x
No matter what attempts are made to
improve the downtown, until the crime/low
income housing is addressed, people will
not come to the downtown.
85
x x x
We need more stores and restaurants on
the north part of town. 86 x x
Broad/Grand/Ceape/Otter/Waugoo/School-
Rehab? JC Penny area-Redevelopment,
Pioneer Coastal area-redevelop.
87
x x x x
Street repair on Northeast Side. Otter,
Waugoo, Broad. 88 x x x
39
Neighborhoods on the East Side between
the river and the lake and South Side
between Oregon and Lake.
89
x x x
Some of your parks aren’t up to code and
neglected. Downtown restaurants are
improving but shops aren’t trendy or
interesting.
90
x x
Pioneer Inn, Buckstaff area an eyesore.
Needs a vision. North Main Street is in
horrible disrepair, Washington Ave. Some
streets needs to be fixed.
91
x x x x
The riverfront/old lots from factories,
Backstaff, Pioneer inn, Morgan Doors and
empty lots west of Jackson by the river.
92
x
Fix roads on Northeast side of town. 93 x x x
South Main St. Needs help updating.
Oshkosh Ave needs to be cleaned up. 94 x x x
Make area of South Bowen Street safer. I
won’t walk my dog there. 95 x
Road repair/reconstruction throughout city
increase parking availability in downtown. 96 x x
Fix downtown area streets off main roads. 97 x x
I feel that the downtown could use a little
more attention. I don’t know what but just
needs more people to be downtown. Some
of the low-income housing neighborhood
need to be cleaned up (properties/people).
98
x x x x
Former Pioneer Inn, Buckstaff property. 99 x
Need to retain small and large businesses,
attract new manufactures. Increase retail
on both sides of the river.
100
x
For a city this size, there needs to be more
police officers and fire fighters. Too much
money is being put on river development.
101
x
Keep up roads in poorer sides of town.
(East of Main St). Keep bad areas from
getting worse.
102
x
The old ugly housing. 103 x
Waugoo, Otter Street area is in desperate
need of new roads. The roads have pot
holes and are in bad condition.
104
x
40
Too many to list. 105 x
Main street/downtown need to make it a
happening place like the 70’s & 80’s 106 x x
People want to walk downtown with lots
of shops and good feelings. Why does
Neenah get all the growth like Kohl’s and
other shopping stores? We can’t good
restaurants or stores like JC Penney’s.
Oshkosh use to be the place to shop now it
is Neenah and Appleton.
107
x x
Main St needs repair. 108 x x
Near eastside appears a majority of older
homes that are rentals that are neglected.
Run down streets needs to be improved
mostly at Sawyer and 500 E block. Even
though I do not live there I would be
willing to pay for it through taxes.
109
x x x
The area surrounding the university needs
to be cleaned up – landlords maintaining
homes and garbage/trash in yards and
streets. We need more up and coming
business to attract young professional and
places for them to go after work that are
not just bars. More recreational clubs and
leagues along with awareness these places
and programs.
110
x x x x
Buckstaff is an eyesore and dangerous.
Pioneer Inn marina property is also an
eyesore and an embarrassment. Aviation
Plaza is underdeveloped along with other
river properties such as Morgan Doors, etc.
111
x
Do something with vacant stores and street
repairs. 112 x x
Frankly much of the east and north side
should be bulldozed and lots combined
with nice, new and quality homes.
113
x x x
Mt Vernon, Parkway, Merit, Broad,
Buckstaff teardown, Ceape, Otter, Waugoo
– mostly east of the tracks
114
x
Redo and resurface Main St all the way to
the north end. Fix Wisconsin Ave road
which is in terrible condition.
115
x x
41
Housing for young professionals that are
affordable yet in good safe neighborhoods. 116 x
Lower taxes 117
Close Main St downtown area and make it
a pedestrian walking park area which
makes it more user friendly and attractive.
118
x x
River frontage and dumpy buildings on
intersection of Oshkosh Ave and Fox St.
Buildings are in disrepair especially the
junk shop named Oshkosh Novelties.
119
x x
Downtown Main so people can walk
downtown from business to business and
feel like a gathering spot. Downtown to
split up.
120
x x
We took the job here because Oshkosh
seemed like an awesome place to live and
not because of the streets. That is all we
hear about is streets. We think the quality
of life things need work. Seems like they
could use it and have been pretty neglected
to our eye. When city does decide to do
something do it well and not part way.
Focus on attracting new professional
people instead of appeasing old-school
folks. We would like to see the parks, boat
launch, museum, library, and the Grand
etc. get fixed up and healthy.
121
x x x x
Downtown area needs to be revitalized and
used more. Remodel some of the older
buildings and update them.
122
x
N. Jackson St seems to be lacking
something. I believe there is a large white
house and plenty of valuable acre of land
to could be used as a halfway house. It is
on a transit route I think.
123
x
Would like to see the city float a bond
issue to get all of our city streets done or
increase a city tax to move forward. They
did it for the Packers. Why can’t we do it
for our streets?
124
x
Pioneer. All parks dog friendly. Bigger
and better convention center on lake. 125 x x x
42
Affordable modern housing on or around
Main St. Develop old Buckstaff building.
College housing is old and dangerously
outdated. IT infrastructure is only Time
Warner in the city - offers poor speed and
high prices.
126
x x x x
Downtown Main St!! The Northside is
much neglected and is getting amazingly
ghetto. What a shame! No more low
income housing projects housing projects.
What are we to do attract the ghetto?
127
x x x x x
Road work in many locations. 128 x
Fix the potholes and sink holes in streets. 129 x
By this survey is a joke as there is not of
success. That is tax dollars. I feel Oshkosh
needs to focus on police/fire and? Services
and then focus on different.
130
x
University housing/slumlords 131 x x
The city streets are an embarrassment and
user friendly bus schedules. 132 x x
Southside storm water problems. Please
continue upgrading storm router
management systems as fast as possible.
133
x x
All the streets are in need of repair. 134 x
The reconstruction was very poorly
planned on Main St. The street is way too
narrow due to poorly planned – too wide
sidewalks. Because of the narrow Main St.
it is difficult to get out of the car for fear of
getting hit by traffic.
135
x x
The areas around Merritt, Broad, etc. 136 x
Northeast side – Parkway, Jefferson and
Vermont area. 137 x x
Resurface roads – not filling in pot holes-
Ceape St –Otter St-Bowen St-Merrit Ave –
Washington
138
x
Closing the prison. The biggest mistake
Oshkosh has even made was allowing the
prison to be built here. As a lifelong
resident of Oshkosh I have witnessed the
degradation of many neighborhoods since
139
x
43
the prison was built. There have been drug
houses (dealers) and attempted murders on
the block on live caused by those moving
up from Milwaukee.
Pioneer marina, Oshkosh on the water is an
eye sore when entering river by boat. Force
owner to cleanup by owner – purchase
property.
140
x x
1. North Main St – redevelop/invest. 2.
Train tracks east to Lake Winnebago,
south of New York Ave to river –
continued/improved support for
neighborhood revitalization program.
Police services as #2 continued presence
and increase force #’s 4. Entire eastside
roadwork /reconstruction needed 5.
Development at Menominee Park.
141
x x x x
None if you spend tax dollars from
working people to fix the non-working
people’s house that investment will lose
every time people that do not work for
their house will not take pride in it and
maintain it.
142
Pick a road – any road – fix it 143 x
Get the Milwaukee low income trash out
of the Northside. 144 x x
Fox River waterfront. 145 x
Merrill school area. 146 x x
Less regulation for new business to come
to Oshkosh too many obstacles. 147 x
Northside of town – housing and streets.
Education. Get rid of prison. 148 x x x x x
Northside. 149 x
All the poor neighborhoods, side streets
need to be plow, parks need fixing, schools
need to bring God and the bible back and
take away teaching languages and beliefs
of foreigners
150
x x x x
Parkway – more UWO cops visible. 151 x x
44
Streets on Northeast side. 152 x x x
Keep improving waterfront. Figure out
Pioneer property. Make good use of this. 153 x x x
UW housing neighborhood needs property
and appearance improvements. Area
fromJackson to Main and Irving to New
York needs more police presence.
Lighting, lawn and property line
maintenance enforcement. Litter and trash
cleaned up by residents regularly.
154
x x x x
Finally loud and violent filthy music with
swearing being played. Nothing for little
children to hear horrible.
155
x
The central city neighborhoods, both
college housing and housing in general, are
deteriorating. Code violations requiring
compliance as opposed to “sighting” (i.e.
police patrol or use of community service
officers).
156
x x x
City east of Main St south of New York to
the lake and river. 157 x x x
Riverwalk. Market rate apartments. Cut off
any service possible to the towns
(Algoma,Vinland,etc). Create new housing
stock in the city – enforce code even in
poor neighborhoods – exacerbate.
158
x x x
We need more boat launches and more
parking at the current launches. Also we
need more bike lanes of streets.
159
x x x
Main St to Evans St and Irving St to Ceape
St 160 x x
Downtown and central city/ UW Osh area
still needs work. I compare to Neenah and
they are much smaller than Oshkosh. We
are doing much better downtown.
161
x x
Parkway Ave. Broad St. Waugoo Ave.
Otter Ave. 162 x
Some streets are awful – Algoma Blvd,
Grand St – to name a few. Get something
other than affordable housing on our
beautiful river. Such crappy streets and we
reward that department by building them
the Taj Mahal!
163
x x x
45
Entrances to city from I 41 – corridors
44,21,76,45. Outer fringes of Main St and
downtown area. Fringe areas of UW Osh
campus.
164
x x x
Older eastside neighborhoods could use
spring cleanup type program – a dumpster
to get rid of things like broken windows
and larger items than cannot go into the
normal trash bin.
165
x x
Development – find ways to attract keep
professionals – softball/baseball diamonds
need upgrade.
166
x x x
Infrastructure – roads and sewers needed in
the city. 167 x x
City corners need to be shoveled for us
who are disabled – very poor job or simply
not done.
168
x
By land air and sea the center of our city is
an embarrassing eyesore. The ugly rusty
train bridge should at least be painted –
sticking up in the air is an eyesore. Also
the city ruined a nice zoo with a wolf park.
169
x x x x
JC Penny area. Also to the right of
Rogan’s Shoes. Old K-Mart building.
Need a Kohl’s.
170
x x
I think a general cleanup of the whole city.
It does not look inviting – many areas it
looks cold and drab – look at the old
Pioneer area – look at the empty buildings
– rundowns and empty lots – junky
looking old Morgan area – no shopping
stores, Penny’s and Younkers gone. We
shop in Appleton and Fond du Lac.
171
x x
The north side of town appears very un-
kept houses appear in ruins and it is well
known the south side is more clean,
friendly and the place to raise a family.
172
x x
Downtown Main St is too narrow – needs
to be wider. The crime rate is going up in
many more area of town. The eastside of
town needs to be cleaned up of all those
people committing crimes. More law
enforcement is needed for that.
173
x x
Streets in all areas. They are terrible 174 x
46
This question asked for specific neighborhoods, streets or landmarks that were in need of attention. The question also asked
for suggestions on what should be done. 183 people responded with comments about several areas of Oshkosh including the North
Side (10%), South Side (4%), East Side (8%), West Side (1%), Main Street (16%), and Down Town (11%).
More support education public schools.
Higher standards economic development
along the river, downtown, in our parks.
175
x x x x x x
Developing south Main St and the Pioneer
area. 176 x x
Eastside between Ceape and New York
Ave and Washington St. 177 x
Downtown is a gathering for gangsters,
criminals and young powers. 178 x x
Ruined Main St., Waste of Waterfront. 179 x x x
Main Street-Murdock to Ceape. South
Main St-6th to South Park, Pioneer Area. 180 x x
We don’t need more debt. 181
Eastside. 182 x
Downtown-Main Street. 183 x x
Totals 356
% of the people who responded
% of the people who responded 3% 44% 25% 3% 38% ### 1% 13% 50%
% of the x's 356 1% 23% 13% 2% 20% 9% 0% 7% 26%
% of the x's
Streets in need of repair named in survey.
47
The wide range of responses were broken down into 8 categories including; no changes, public works, parks, schools,
buildings, safety, public transportation, and business.
Public works received the most comments with 44% of the responses. Public works included comments about Streets,
sidewalks, curbs, roundabouts, storm drainage, water control, and streetlights. Streets named in the survey included; 21, 44, 45, 76,
12th St, 6th St, 9th St, Algoma Blvd, Bay, Bayshore Dr, Bent St, Bowen St, Boyd, Broad, Ceape St, East St, Evans St, Grand
Parkway, Grand St, Hazel St, Irving St, Jackson St, Jefferson, Lake St, Main St, Merritt, Michigan, Mt. Vernon, Murdock St, New
York Avenue, North Main St, North St, Ohio St, Oregon, Oshkosh Ave, Otter, Parkway, Pioneer, Rosalie St, Sawyer St, School St,
Snell Rd, South Main St. South Park Ave, Vermont, Vinland Rd, Washington Ave, Washington St, Waugoo, and Wisconsin St.
The second largest response with 38% of the people responding was regarding buildings throughout Oshkosh. Comments
included topics about old buildings, low-income housing, and the UW Oshkosh campus area. The Buckstaff and Pioneer Inn
buildings were mentioned several times.
Comments relating to parks totaled 25% and included comments about the shoreline and riverfront or River walk.
17% of the people responded that they would like to see an increase in neighborhood safety.
Businesses were ranked next with 13% of the respondents. Businesses included industry, shopping, restaurants, arts and
cultural opportunities.
Schools and no changes or lower taxes were tied at 3% of the respondents.
Only 1 person responded with a comment about public transportation or busses.
48
Question 12: Support for Creating a Diversity Coordinator Position
Question 12 is new this year and looked at the communities’ opinion as to whether or not
the City of Oshkosh needed to add a Diversity Coordinator Position. Over all the community was
not supportive of this additional position. Eighty-eight respondents were either supportive or
somewhat supportive whereas, one hundred and thirty three were somewhat unsupportive or not
supportive at all.
The gender cross tabulation showed that females were more supportive than males, but
still overall both genders were unsupportive. Older citizens ages 50+ were among the most
unsupportive. The income distribution showed that citizens that make less than $24,999 were
evenly matched among supportive and unsupportive. $25,000-$49,000 tended to be more
unsupportive and neutral. $50,000-$74,999 was largely neutral or unsupportive. $75,000-
$99,999 was largely unsupportive and 100,000 and greater were evenly matched as to supportive
or unsupportive. The more educated the citizens show a greater reluctance to be supportive of the
new position.
To get a clearer picture you have to look at the survey responses racial makeup. Only 7
of the total respondents were a race other than white. It is hard to question the need for diversity
when you yourself are not diverse.
Based on the 118 comments posted the top reasons that the citizens did not support this position
were:
1. Need: “Do not need this expense. Just police presence and crime prevention to build trust
in the community.”
2. Cost: “My thoughts are that the diversity concept should be in the job description of all
positions not generating another salaried and benefits position to add to administrative
cost.”
3. Other things needed first: “I would much rather see these resources invested in road
repair or construction. I don’t feel it is the role of the city to coordinate diversity. “
4. A general misunderstanding of what the position would be: “Touchy feely good. Just
more Crap!”
49
Question 13 – Additional Comments
The City of Oshkosh likes to add an open dialogue section where residents can provide
additional comment to any survey question or with regards to common concerns or issues. A
total of 113 comments were provided providing 142 distinct discussions. In total only 36% of all
survey takers had additional comments. Overall, additional commentary was varied but
constructive in nature. To analyze the results, three different forms of analysis were conducted,
past performance, relationship to strategic plan, and frequency comparison.
Past Performance:
A series of common themes over the past five years are identified below. It should be
noted that the ongoing occurrence of these common themes suggest continued desire by the
residents to see improvement of considerations. It is important to note that the common themes
begin to shift towards the need for park system improvements and City functionality and away
from high taxes and development of bike/walk paths. The strength of these characteristics are
still high, but not seen as a common theme from year to year. This shift in priority trends may
because of the shift in city priorities of the change in survey respondents.
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
City
Functionality
Park System
Relationship to Strategic Plan:
Reviewing overall frequency of a comment as it relates to past years is an important tool
to understanding the mood or character of a community. while the exercise presents some
interesting results, it does lack in its relationship to formally adopted plans and policies at the
City of Oshkosh. This section reviews the same comments derived from Question 13 but relates
them directly to the 2015-2016 City of Oshkosh Strategic Plan’s five individual buckets. The
five buckets are: Support Economic Development, Continue to Strengthen our Neighborhoods,
Improve and Maintain our Infrastructure, Improve our Quality of Life Assets, and Develop an
50
Effective, High Performing Government. Of the 142 total comments, only 6.3%, nine total, could
not be directly related to one of the five strategic goals. External Priority Goal number four,
Improve our Quality of Life Assets, reached the top of the list with 23.9% (34 of 142) of all
comments. The table and chart below visualize these characteristics. This higher percentage
suggests that the City of Oshkosh should continue to invest in quality of life based assets
including, cultural and active community developments.
Of lower significance in the comment sector of the survey was continuing to strengthen our
neighborhoods (11.3% of comments. An interesting point to note is that many of the comments
outlined in external priority goals three and four may have reduced the volume towards number
two. Results suggest that each priority goal should be critically assessed with regards to
community relevance.
EXTERNAL PRIORITY GOALS
INTERNAL
PRIORITY
GOALS
I II III IV V
Support
Economic
Development
Continue to
Strengthen
our
neighborhoods
Improve and
Maintain our
Infrastructure
Improve
our
Quality
of Life
Assets
Develop an
Effective,
High
Performing
Government
N/A
TO
T
A
L
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
# 28 16 28 34 27 9
142 142 142 142 142 142
% 19.7% 11.3% 19.7% 23.9% 19.0% 6.3%
19.7%, 28
11.3%, 16
19.7%, 28
23.9%, 34
19.0%, 27
6.3%, 9
Support
Economic
Development
Continue to
Strengthen our
neighborhoods
Improve and
Maintain our
Infrastructure
Improve our
Quality of Life
Assets
Develop an
Effective, High
Performing
Government
N/A
Comment Frequency
51
Frequency Comparison:
The third comparison format is an overall frequency of comments chart. The below chart
shows the overall number of comments based upon what topic was discussed. The 142
comments outlined in the above analyses have been further broken down to 33 different
components and ranked from most frequent to least frequent. Not surprisingly,
business/economic growth, parks, roads and public safety rounded out four of the top five. The
role of government was questions quite often and suggests that the City needs to look internally
to assess the quality of services provided and see whether or not changes need to be made.
13 13
12 12
10
8
7 7
6
5
4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
/
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
…
CO
M
P
L
A
I
N
T
S
-CI
T
Y
…
RO
A
D
S
PA
R
K
S
PO
L
I
C
/
S
A
F
E
T
Y
/
C
R
I
M
E
N/
A
TA
X
E
S
SC
H
O
O
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
CI
T
Y
F
E
E
S
/
C
H
A
R
G
E
S
SN
O
W
P
L
O
W
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
BU
D
G
E
T
IN
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
BI
K
E
/
T
R
A
I
L
S
PO
S
I
T
I
V
E
C
I
T
Y
…
EV
E
N
T
S
GR
E
A
T
C
I
T
Y
T
O
L
I
V
E
…
NE
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
…
ST
R
E
E
T
D
E
P
T
…
EN
T
E
R
T
A
I
N
M
E
N
T
I-41
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
RI
V
E
R
SE
N
I
O
R
S
/
R
E
T
I
R
E
M
E
…
JO
B
S
BU
S
R
O
U
T
E
S
PE
R
M
I
T
S
FI
R
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
CO
M
M
O
N
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
MU
S
E
U
M
SU
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
OS
H
K
O
S
H
M
E
D
I
A
DI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Frequency of Comments
52
Question 14 – Analysis of Final Survey Results in 2016 with the Demographics of the City
The following survey demographics were requested from the participants and compared
to the census data from 2010 for the City of Oshkosh.
Type of
Demographic
Demographic
Breakdown
Survey
Responses
Survey Response
Percentages
2010 US Census
Percentages
Gender
Total
Age
Total
Marital Status
Total
Lived in
Oshkosh
Total
Own/Rent
53
Total
No. of Children
Total
Location
Total
Income
Total
Employment
Status
Total
Profession
54
Total
Highest
Education Level
Master’s Degree/
Total
Race
Total
Gender – The sample replying to the survey is representative of the population in
Oshkosh.
Age- The near majority of the respondents at 49.7% are 60 years of age or older.
55
Marital Status – The percentage of married respondents 64.8% in relationship to the
census population data overall is quite high.
Lived in Oshkosh – The percentage of respondents that have lived in Oshkosh for 20+
years is at 78.7%, which demonstrates a long term commitment to the community.
Own/Rent – The percentage of respondents that own their own home in Oshkosh were
91.7 of the total respondents which is much higher than the census data indicates.
No. of Children – The highest percentage of respondents to the survey 80.6% have no
children.
Location in the City - The percentage of survey respondents on both sides of the river
are relatively unequal.
Income – The annual incomes of the respondents show the majority of them fall in the
three lowest income ranges.
Employment Status – There is a high level of responses that are either employed full
time or part time totaling 52% of the respondents. 40.3% of the respondents are retired.
Profession – There was a high level of no responses which may be indicative of there not
being a category representing the survey respondents. There does appear to be a high
number of responses from those with management and professional at 31.1%.
Highest Education Level – The higher level of education among respondents seems to
have gone into the Bachelor’s degree 26% and the Master’s degree 15% categories. A
significant amount of all respondents has at least some college education at 66.3%.
Race – The city of Oshkosh is predominantly white with a percentage of 97% of the
respondents with very little racial diversity in the city.
56
Appendix A – Internet Survey Results- 2016 – 74 Responses
1. Frequently of utilization of the following City services – percentages.
Frequency of City Services Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally Annually Never
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 10.8 16.2 2.7 32.4 10.8 25.7
Lake Shore Golf Course 0 4.1 2.7 13.5 4.1 70.3
Pollock Aquatic Center 2.7 2.7 4.1 20.3 9.5 56.8
Leach Amphitheatre 1.4 5.4 8.1 47.3 16.2 20.3
Oshkosh Public Museum 0 0 8.1 21.6 35.1 29.7
Senior Services Center 0 1.4 10.8 4.1 8.1 70.3
Public Library Services 2.7 23.0 18.9 13.5 14.9 25.7
Police Services 1.4 1.4 1.4 10.8 21.6 56.8
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 1.4 0 0 6.8 9.5 75.7
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 1.4 0 0 8.1 6.8 77.0
Building Permits and Inspections 0 0 4.1 9.5 21.6 60.8
Enforcement of Property
Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 1.4 0 5.4 8.1 17.6
64.9
City Parking Facilities Building 5.4 6.8 17.6 20.3 10.8 33.8
Oshkosh Community Media Services 4.1 5.4 9.5 8.1 12.2 55.4
Transit System 5.4 4.1 10.8 6.8 2.7 66.2
Recycling Collection Services 2.7 62.2 16.2 6.8 2.7 5.4
Refuse Collection Service 2.7 63.5 2.7 2.7 5.4 18.9
Leaf and Brush Pick up 1.4 4.1 14.9 40.5 6.8 28.4
2. How Oshkosh Citizens feel about their City results –percentages:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No
Opinion
Oshkosh as a place to live? 9.5 52.7 28.4 6.8 0
Feeling a part of the community? 4.1 35.1 36.5 18.9 2.7
Your neighborhood as a place to live? 12.2 50.0 23.0 10.8 1.4
Oshkosh as a place to raise children? 10.8 37.8 33.8 8.1 6.8
Oshkosh as a place to retire? 4.1 27.0 31.1 21.6 10.8
Community openness and acceptance of diversity? 2.7 31.1 33.8 24.3 5.4
The overall quality of life in Oshkosh? 5.4 45.9 36.5 9.5 0
Oshkosh as an environmentally friendly city? 2.7 35.1 48.6 6.8 4.1
Oshkosh as a place to work? 4.1 37.8 36.5 16.2 2.7
The direction Oshkosh is moving for the future? 5.4 24.3 35.1 25.7 6.8
Affordability of living in Oshkosh? 2.7 33.8 39.2 20.3 1.4
Availability of entertainment/events? 13.5 31.1 32.4 16.2 4.1
The quality of entertainment/events? 17.6 28.4 31.1 17.6 2.7
3. How safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark - percentages.
Very Safe Safe Neither Unsafe Very Unsafe Don’t Know
17.6 47.3 13.5 12.2 5.4 1.4
57
4. Were you or anyone in your household the victim of a crime – percentages.
Yes No
8.1 89.2
5. If “Yes”, did you report all of these crimes- percentages.
Yes No Don’t Know
5.4 2.7 91.9
6. Importance of services – percentages.
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Somewhat
Unimportant
Very
Unimportant
No Opinion/
Neutral
Community Services
Support for Neighborhood Revitalization Programs 24.3 45.9 10.8 5.4 5.4
Oshkosh Public Museum 23.0 37.8 14.9 5.4 9.5
Oshkosh Community Media Services 12.2 32.4 21.6 12.2 10.8
Public Library Services 37.8 28.4 14.9 6.8 2.7
Senior Services Center 27.0 37.8 6.8 12.2 6.8
Transit System 36.5 37.8 5.4 9.5 1.4
Appearance of City-Owned Buildings 28.4 47.3 9.5 6.8 0
Parks
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 24.3 43.2 13.5 9.5 0
Lake Shore Golf Course 5.4 24.3 18.9 18.9 23.0
Appearance of City Parks & Greenways 39.2 40.5 4.1 2.7 0
Pollock Aquatic Center 18.9 43.2 10.8 12.2 5.4
Economic Development
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 25.7 37.8 14.9 4.1 6.8
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 32.4 43.2 6.8 4.1 4.1
Building Permits and Inspections 25.7 35.1 17.6 4.1 8.1
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 31.1 37.8 10.8 5.4 5.4
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Services 21.6 37.8 16.2 4.1 9.5
Refuse and Recycling
Leaf and Brush Pick up 24.3 51.4 8.1 2.7 4.1
Recycling Collection Services 37.8 41.9 5.4 2.7 2.7
Refuse Collection Service 41.9 32.4 4.1 2.7 9.5
Protective Services
Police Services 60.8 21.6 5.4 2.7 0
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 62.2 23.0 4.1 0 0
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 63.5 23.0 4.1 0 0
Road Maintenance and Construction
City Parking Facilities 16.2 33.8 28.4 5.4 6.8
City’s Sidewalk System 43.2 27.0 13.5 5.4 1.4
Removal of Snow and Ice From City Streets 67.6 13.5 2.7 4.1 1.4
Traffic Signs and Signals 55.4 27.0 2.7 4.1 1.4
Street Lighting 50.0 29.7 6.8 2.7 1.4
Street Maintenance and Sweeping 45.9 33.8 6.8 2.7 1.4
Street Repair 64.9 21.6 1.4 2.7 0
Storm Drainage
Storm Drainage Systems 54.1 27.0 6.8 2.7 0
58
7. Quality of service –percentages.
Excellent
Quality
Good
Quality
Fair
Quality
Poor
Quality
Don’t
Know
Community Services
Support for Neighborhood Revitalization Programs 4.1 23.0 36.5 6.8 9.5
Oshkosh Public Museum 14.9 37.8 18.9 1.4 6.8
Community Media Cable TV, Radio, Internet Services 9.5 23.0 29.7 2.7 14.9
Public Library Services 25.7 31.1 16.2 2.7 4.1
Senior Services Center 17.8 25.7 14.9 6.8 13.5
Transit System 9.5 31.1 17.6 8.1 12.2
Appearance of City-Owned Buildings 6.8 37.8 25.7 4.1 1.4
Parks
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 8.1 39.2 14.9 6.8 10.8
Lake Shore Golf Course 4.1 23.0 12.2 6.8 33.8
Appearance of City Parks & Greenways 12.2 35.1 24.3 5.4 2.7
Pollock Aquatic Center 16.2 35.1 17.6 1.4 9.5
Economic Development
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 1.4 23.0 23.0 5.4 27.0
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 2.7 16.2 33.8 6.8 18.9
Building Permits and Inspections 5.4 23.0 25.7 8.1 17.6
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 5.4 20.3 31.1 10.8 12.2
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Services 5.4 18.9 32.4 6.8 14.9
Refuse and Recycling
Leaf and Brush Pick up 18.9 39.2 13.5 2.7 4.1
Recycling Collection Services 23.0 41.9 10.8 1.4 2.7
Refuse Collection Service 21.6 33.8 13.5 1.4 8.1
Protective Services
Police Services 31.1 33.8 6.8 4.1 2.7
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 31.1 35.1 9.5 0 4.1
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 35.1 36.5 5.4 0 2.7
Road Maintenance and Construction
City Parking Facilities 5.4 29.7 29.7 8.1 6.8
City’s Sidewalk System 9.5 43.2 21.6 2.7 1.4
Removal of Snow and Ice From City Streets 23.0 18.9 23.0 13.5 1.4
Traffic Signs and Signals 20.3 33.8 18.9 5.4 1.4
Street Lighting 13.5 32.4 24.3 8.1 1.4
Street Maintenance and Sweeping 16.2 25.7 25.7 9.5 2.7
Street Repair 4.1 18.9 27.0 28.4 1.4
Storm Drainage
Storm Drainage Systems 10.8 28.4 25.7 12.2 2.7
59
8. and 9. – Budgeting Priorities - Dollars
Community Services 184,615 100,744 83,871
Economic Development 134,333 181,124 -46,791
Refuse and Recycling 73,087 85,032 -11,945
Finance and Administration 67,529 238,312 -170,783
Police Protection 94,435 135,856 -41,421
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 91,636 102,595 -10,959
Parks 133,333 140,960 -7,627
Storm Water Maintenance 107,404 122,427 -15,023
Road Maintenance 283,442 129,190 154,252
10. Do you feel that the City of Oshkosh does enough to keep and attract young professionals such as
having a vibrant downtown and quality neighborhoods, creative gathering spaces and events, mentoring
and networking opportunities, etc.?
Yes No No
Response
9.5 36.5 54.1
11. What general area(s) of the City of Oshkosh do you feel needs the most attention in terms of
investment, rehabilitation, or redevelopment? Please provide suggestions below using common
neighborhood names, street names or landmarks. What do you think needs to be done?
12. The City of Oshkosh is currently studying the feasibility of creating a Diversity Coordinator
position. The purpose of the position would be to address issues and identify solutions to make Oshkosh
a more inclusive and welcoming community. How supportive would you be for the creation of such a
position?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Neutral Somewhat
Unsupportive
Not
Supportive
6.8 10.8 10.8 4.1 16.2
Question 14 – Analysis of Survey Demographic Results
Survey Survey
Results %
Gender Male 19 25.7
Female 16 21.6
Other 1 1.4
Missing 38 51.4
Year Born 18 to 29 7 9.5
30 to 39 8 10.8
40 to 49 9 12.2
50 to 59 6 8.1
60 or older 5 6.8
60
Missing 39 52.7
Marital Status Married 23 31.1
Not Married 13 17.6
Missing 38 51.4
Time Lived in 5 or less 1 1.4
Oshkosh 6 to 20 9 12.2
>20 26 35.1
Missing 38 51.4
Own or Rent Own 30 40.5
Rent 8 8.1
Missing 38 51.4
Number of None 23 31.1
Children 1 4 5.4
2 7 9.5
3 or More 2 2.7
Missing 38 51.4
Place of North of Fox 12 16.2
Residence South of Fox/East of 41 14 18.9
South of Fox/West of 41 9 12.2
Missing 39 52.7
Income Under 24,999 2 2.7
25k to 49,999 7 9.5
50k to 74,999 7 9.5
75k to 99,999 10 13.5
100k to 149,999 6 8.1
Over 150k 2 2.7
Missing 40 54.1
Employment Employed Full Time 24 32.4
Status Employed Part Time 3 4.1
Self Employed 1 1.4
Presently Unemployed 1 1.4
Student 1 1.4
Retired 5 6.8
Missing 39 52.7
Occupation Homemaker 1 1.4
Service Occupations 4 5.4
Sales 5 6.8
Education 1 1.4
Professional Management 10 13.5
Farming, Fishing, or Forestry 0 0
Construction, Maintenance 1 1.4
Production/Transportation 2 2.7
Other 8 10.8
Missing 42 56.8
Education Less than HS 0 0
HS/GED 5 6.8
Associates/Some College 10 13.5
Bachelors 10 18.9
Masters or higher 6 8.1
Missing 39 52.7
Race White 32 43.2
61
Native Hawaiian 0 0
Hispanic or Latino 0 0
Asian 0 0
African-American 0 0
American Indian 1 1.4
Two or More Races 0 0
Other 1 1.4
Missing 40 54.1