HomeMy WebLinkAboutOshkoshCitizenSurveyFinalReport20170
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Citizen Survey 2017
4/29/2017
1
Citizen Survey 2017
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
2017. This report will analyze the results of this survey and provide insight into the perspectives
of the citizens on a variety of issues. The 2017 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. Two-hundred and sixty-seven (267)
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 267 responses constitute a 17.8 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, 20.6 percent in 2015 and 20.7 percent in 2016. The relationship between
sample size and precision of the survey instrument at a 95 percent confidence rate frequently
2
used in surveys is shown below. The 267 responses create a margin of error of approximately 5.6
percent. A level of 5 percent is considered acceptable for most survey results. The confidence
rate is 94.4 percent.
Sample Size Margin of Error
100 10%
300 5.5%
400 5.0%
800 3.5%
3
Question 1: Please indicate how frequently, if ever, you utilize the following City
services. Question 2: Please check the box that comes closest to your opinion for each of
the following questions.
The Oshkosh Citizen Survey 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
2017 survey regarding the frequency of city services were Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Seasonally,
Annually, Never, and No Response. There were no changes to the options in these questions
from the previous 2016 survey.
Frequency of City Services Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally Annually Never
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 6.8 13.9 6.0 31.5 7.6 34.3
Lake Shore Golf Course 1.2 2.4 1.6 10.0 15.3 21.3
Pollock Aquatic Center 1.2 1.2 2.0 18.0 6.1 71.4
Leach Amphitheatre 0.4 1.6 1.2 34.6 16.7 45.5
Oshkosh Public Museum 0.4 1.6 3.2 14.8 39.2 40.8
Senior Services Center 2.0 5.7 8.9 8.1 8.1 67.2
Public Library Services 2.4 17.0 23.1 5.7 21.5 30.4
Police Services 2.1 0.4 0.8 5.1 25.4 66.1
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 1.7 0 0 3.0 12.7 82.6
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 1.3 0 0 2.1 11.9 84.7
Building Permits and Inspections 0.4 0 1.7 6.8 22.9 68.2
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 0.8 0.4 1.7 1.3 10.9 84.9
City Parking Facilities 2.9 11.2 20.7 8.7 17.4 39.3
Oshkosh Media 3.7 3.7 5.8 5.0 9.1 72.7
Transit System 0.4 2.4 4.1 2.4 6.1 84.5
Recycling Collection Services 2.8 72.0 14.8 4.4 1.2 4.8
Refuse Collection Service 2.8 87.3 1.6 3.6 0.4 4.4
Leaf and Brush Pick up 1.2 4.4 13.6 60.4 4.0 16.4
The biggest comparative change we noticed when looking at previous surveys was the
continuing downward trend for transit usage. It seems that every year there are less people
utilizing the public transit within the city of Oshkosh. This trend was also noted in last years
survey analysis.
Another downward trend we observed was that in the amphitheater usage. It is important
to note that the results of this survey may not necessarily be representative of the entire
population. However, the downward trend in the amphitheater may be something to note and
could be crossed referenced by observations of attendance from last year.
4
Recycling and refuse use within the city of Oshkosh saw an upward trend. Specifically,
recycling use had a 7% increase than the previous year. Refuse saw a significant increase of
19% compared to last year. Both of these increases could be related to a variety of factors
including more opportunities for refuse pick up.
Regarding the answer options for question two, individuals were able to choose from
Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and No Opinion. A trend worth noting is a slight downward trend
in community openness and acceptance of diversity. However, it may be unclear how
community openness and acceptance of diversity is being measured. What diversity is in the
mind of one person may not be the same in another so a suggestion in future surveys would be to
specify what ‘diversity’ means.
In terms of Oshkosh as a place to live, we did notice that individuals whose highest level
of education was high school or a GED thought Oshkosh was a good place to live more than
those who had an associate degree or higher. A question was added this year to see how
Oshkosh was seen as a place to start a business. While there were multiple ‘no opinion’
responses, a small percentage (just 5.1%) thought Oshkosh was an excellent place to start a
business.
How would you rate:
Excellent
%
Good
%
Fair
%
Poor
%
No Opinion
%
Oshkosh as a place to live? 19.3 55.5 20.9 3.9 0.4
Feeling a part of the community? 9.9 41.9 33.6 8.3 6.3
Your neighborhood as a place to live? 27.9 52.6 16.7 2.4 0.4
Oshkosh as a place to raise children? 19.0 49.6 17.9 4.4 9.1
Oshkosh as a place to retire? 11.8 36.9 30.2 14.1 7.1
Community openness and acceptance of diversity? 5.7 40.0 39.2 6.9 8.2
The overall quality of life in Oshkosh? 10.2 60.6 24.8 3.9 0.4
Oshkosh as an environmentally friendly city? 8.4 49.4 29.5 5.6 7.2
Oshkosh as a place to work? 9.2 51.4 21.7 8.8 8.8
The direction Oshkosh is moving for the future? 7.5 39.5 34.4 12.6 5.9
Affordability of living in Oshkosh? 9.4 42.1 34.6 13.4 0.4
The availability of entertainment/events? 13.8 52.6 25.3 7.1 1.2
The quality of entertainment/events? 12.5 47.5 30.2 5.9 3.9
Oshkosh as a place to start a business? 5.1 21.3 26.8 18.5 28.1
5
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 2017 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 2017 results that have been gathered, citizens in
Oshkosh have responded to the survey with the following results: 21.1% feel “Very Safe”,
50.8% “Safe”, 16.0% “Neither Safe or Unsafe”, 9.0% feel “Unsafe”, and 3.1% “Very Unsafe”
(See Table 3.1). In 2016 the same responses to this question received the following results:
23.8% felt “Very Safe”, 47.6% were “Safe”, 17.6% felt “Neither Safe or Unsafe”, 9.1%
“Unsafe”, and 1.6% felt “Very Unsafe”.
What can be determined most notably from the results of the 2017 Citizen Survey, and
how it compares to 2016, is that there is a slight decrease in the percent of the population that
feels either “Very 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 small shift moving in
the direction that some citizens feel “Very Unsafe” from 1.6% to 3.1% (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1
Safety
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Current
Percent
Valid Very Safe 54 21.0 21.1 21.1
Safe 130 50.6 50.8 71.9
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 41 16.0 16.0 87.9
Unsafe 23 8.9 9.0 96.9
Very Unsafe 8 3.1 3.1 100
Total 256 99.6 100 Missing No responses 1 0.4 Total 257 100
6
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,
highest education level completed, and race. The following sections will explain those results.
3a. Safety results based on Gender
Of the 257 total responses to question #3, the survey results were able to determine the
gender of 244 of those participants (See Table 3.2). Of those, 127 were male and 117 were
female. Like the survey results from 2016, it can be determined that, overall, male respondents
feel generally safer than their female counterparts.
This is determined as 31 males felt “Very Safe” and 59 males felt “Safe”, versus the 20 females
who responded to “Very Safe” and 67 who were “Safe”. The only difference from 2016 survey
was that the option “Other” was removed in this year survey. 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 2016, 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
Gender
Male Female Total
Safety Very Safe 31 20 51
Safe 59 67 126
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 23 14 37
Unsafe 9 13 22
Very Unsafe 5 3 8
Total 127 117 244
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
7
can be determined that over 48% of total respondents by age answered that they felt “Safe”
and 22% of total respondents felt “Very Safe”. Compared to the 2016 survey 50% of total
respondents answered “Safe” and “Very Safe” which is in compliance with previous year’s
results.
Table 3.3
Age
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
60 or
Older Total
Safety Very Safe 4 3 8 8 30 53
Safe 6 15 15 26 66 128
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 2 0 6 4 25 37
Unsafe 2 2 2 7 8 21
Very Unsafe 0 2 1 1 4 8
Total 14 22 32 46 133 247
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. These are:
“North of the Fox River”, “South of Fox and East of I-41”, and “South of the Fox and West
of I-41”. 50% of total respondents reported Oshkosh as a safe area to live. While 3% of total
respondents regarded it as a “Very Unsafe” area to live.
Table 3.4
Location
North of Fox
River
South of Fox
and East of I-41
South of Fox
and West of
I-41 Total
Safety Very Safe 13 14 25 52
Safe 51 33 42 126
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 17 14 6 37
Unsafe 11 8 2 21
Very Unsafe 2 4 2 8
Total 94 73 77 244
8
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” responses, 11 of the 21 calculated selected
the “North of the Fox River” selection (Table 3.4). While in 2016 survey results 23 of the total
28 respondents selected the “North of the Fox River”.
3d. Safety results based on Income
When considering income for question 3, there were six separate ranges that
respondents could have provided answers to in the 2017 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 “Safe” and their income didn’t necessarily seem to have an
overwhelming impact on their responses. In 2016 Survey results, 1% percent reported “Very
UnSafe” based on income while this year 3% percent reported “Very Unsafe”.
Table 3.5
Income
Less than
$24,999
$25,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
or more Total
Safety Very Safe 2 15 12 7 7 6 49
Safe 14 28 24 27 10 9 112
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 3 10 8 8 1 3 33
Unsafe 3 8 5 1 2 1 20
Very Unsafe 1 2 1 3 0 1 8
Total 23 63 50 46 20 20 222
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
9
Degree/Some College”, “Bachelor’s Degree”, and “Master’s Degree or Higher”. What was
interesting from this cross tabulation were the results of those that answered as feeling “Very
Unsafe”. Of the 7 that answered this question as feeling “Very Unsafe”, 3 of those had a
“Master’s Degree or Higher” and 2 of those had Associate Degree and 2 had Bachelor’s
Degree (see Table 3.6).
Table 3.6
Highest Education Level
Total
Less than
High
School
High
school/GED
Associate
Degree/Some
College
Bachelor's
Degree
Master’s
Degree
or
Higher
Safety Very Safe 0 13 11 16 13 53
Safe 3 31 36 29 28 127
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 0 13 10 8 6 37
Unsafe 0 7 6 2 6 21
Very Unsafe 0 0 2 2 3 7
Total 3 64 65 57 56 245
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 2017 survey respondents had the option of selecting from one of
the following categories: “White”, “Two or More Races”, 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 “Very Unsafe”, a total of 8, were all “White”.
10
Table 3.7
Race
Total White
Two or
More
Races
Some
other Race
Safety Very Safe 53 0 0 53
Safe 124 0 1 125
Neither Safe or
Unsafe 37 0 0 37
Unsafe 19 1 0 20
Very Unsafe 8 0 0 8
Total 241 1 1 243
Question 4: During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of
a crime?
Question 4 asks if the respondent or anyone in his/her household had been victim of a crime in
the past 12 months. Overall, of the 254 responses, 21 said they were a victim of a crime and 233
said they were not a victim of a crime. In 2016, 14.5% of the respondents were a victim of some
sort of crime. In 2017 the percentage of people that were victims of a crime dropped. The results
showed this year that 8.3% of respondents were the victim of a crime.
Victims of Crime: Gender
In the case of gender and victim of crimes, 60% of respondents that were victims of a crime were
male (12 out of 20). Females represented 40% of crime victims were female (8 out of 20). In
2016, the crime rates in gender were split 50% male and 50% female.
Victims of Crime: Race
94.7% of the crime victims identified as “white” (18 out of 19 responses). There was only 1
victim who identified with some other race. These findings are very similar to the 2016 survey
where 97.6% of respondents identified as “white”.
Victims of Crime: Education Level
The highest incidents of crime occurred with people with higher levels of education. 14 victims
had either Associate’s degrees (9), Bachelor’s degrees (1) or Master’s degrees (4). In sum, 70%
of the victims had education levels of an Associate’s degree or higher. This is similar to findings
in 2016, where 83.7% of the victims had levels of an Associate’s degree or higher.
11
Victims of Crime: Age, Income, and Location
Those in the age category of age 50-59 reported the highest victimization rate at 40% with 8 of
20 responses. The median income of victims was $50,000-$74,999 (7 out of 20 responses). The
location with the highest incident of crime was south of the Fox River and East of I-41 at 9 out of
the 20 respondents. These results differ from the 2016 results which showed victims in the age
category of 60 or older, income level between $25,000-$49,999, and area North of the Fox River
as the top categories.
Question 5: If “Yes” was the crime reported?
The number of responses to this question decreased compared to the 2016 survey results.
There were 25 responses to this question. Respondents indicated “Yes” (68%) and “No” (32%).
The results differ by about twenty responses from the 2016 survey. In addition, the 2017 survey
does not provide the participants with “don’t know” option. This could indicate that less victims
of crime are reporting the acts. Or this could indicate that there was less acts of crime occurring.
Q5: Table 1 - Number of Responses
Yes No Don’t Know No Response
2016 22 21 3 263
2017 17 8 N/A 232
5a. Crime reported based on gender
33% of males and 33% females answered “Yes” to reporting a crime. Males (25%)
were more likely to not report the crime compared to females (8%).
Q5: Table 2 - Number of Responses/Gender
Male Female Other No Response to
gender
Yes 8 8 0 0
No 6 2 0 0
Don’t Know N/A N/A N/A N/A
5b. Reporting crime by age
The responses are broken down into 5 age range categories; 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59,
and 60 or older. Ages 50-59 were more likely to report a crime with the highest number of
“yes” responses at 29%.
12
Q5: Table 3 - Number of Responses/Age
Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or
older
Yes 1 2 2 7 4
No 1 3 1 1 2
Don’t Know N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5c. Reporting crime by location
Respondents living south of the Fox River and east of I-41 are more likely to report a
crime with 25% of those responding to the question reporting yes. 12.5% of those living in
this area answered no to reporting the crime. Those living North of the Fox River responded
yes to reporting a crime at 21% and 8.3% responded no. Finally, and south of the Fox River
and west of US 41 21% responded yes to reporting a crime and 12.5% 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 5 6 5 0
No 2 3 3 0
Don’t Know N/A N/A N/A N/A
5d. Reporting crime by Income
24 responded to the question pertaining to their income. The age group with the highest
number of responses was those with an income of $50,000-$74,999 with 25% responded yes to
reporting a crime and the same 4.1% 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 2 3 6 3 0 2
No 1 2 1 2 1 1
Don’t Know N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5e. Reporting crime by Education Level
24 responded to this question with the highest percentage of reporting a crime being those
individuals with Associate Degree/Some College at 33%.
13
Q5: Table 6 – Number of Responses/Education Level
Highest
Ed. Level
High
School/GED
Associate
Degree/Some
College
Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree or
Higher
No
Response
Yes 4 8 1 3 0
No 1 3 1 1 2
Don’t
Know
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5f. Reporting a crime by Race
23 of the 24 or 96% of the respondents to this question are white. 65% responded yes to
reporting a crime and 30% responded no.
Q5: Table 7 - Number of Responses/Race
Race White Some other Race
Yes 15
No 7
Don’t Know N/A N/A
14
Question 6 - Importance of City 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
75.175.79
57.66
88.8984.4676.9279.3582.68
46.43
72.0574 76
6673.4972.3776
96.43
77.38
91.2496.8396.8391.7396.46
83
95.2294.4990.9189.2
97.59
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Mu
s
e
u
m
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
d
i
a
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Se
n
i
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
y
t
e
m
Ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
c
i
t
y
…
Bi
k
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
…
La
k
e
S
h
o
r
e
G
o
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
c
e
n
t
e
r
Ec
o
n
.
D
e
v
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
En
f
o
r
c
e
C
o
d
e
s
La
n
d
u
s
e
P
l
a
n
Qu
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
Po
l
i
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
F
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Fi
r
e
EM
S
Le
a
f
a
n
d
b
u
s
h
Re
f
u
s
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Sn
o
w
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
I
c
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
y
s
t
e
m
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
M
e
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
p
a
i
r
Importance of Service
Overall
15
reprioritization of services and commitment of public funding to strengthen programming having
greater public impacts.
By category, Protective Services had the most services with the highest rankings, with
Fire Services within that category ranked the highest at 96.8.% among all respondents. Following
close behind Street Repair were Fire (96.8%), EMS (96.8%), Trash/Refuse Collection (96.5%),
and Police (96.4%). 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 72.05% and the Golf Course receiving a
favorable ranking of 46.43%. The Golf Course, overall, received the lowest importance ranking.
In 2016, Permits and Inspection services were 72.61%. In 2017 it has fallen to 66.0% which
16
ranks third lowest. Community Media received 57.68%, while still low, it is a significant
improvement from last year’s 46.49%.
In the category of Community Services, Library services ranked the highest in
importance at 88.89%, while Community Media ranked the lowest at 57.66%. There were fairly
high numbers of no opinion responses in this category, relative to the others. 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.
Community Services Total Very
Important
Total Somewhat
Important
No
Opinion
Total % No
Response
Community Media 41 102 31 248 57.7 9
Neighborhood Revitalization 62 123 21 245 75.5 12
Senior Center 110 102 10 251 84.5 6
Transit 107 83 15 247 76.9 10
Museum 68 123 8 252 75.8 5
Library 134 90 3 252 88.9 5
City Buildings 73 123 6 247 79.4 10
17
In the category of Parks, City Parks ranked the highest in importance at 96.44%, while
the Golf Course ranked the lowest at 46.43%. The Golf Course and the Aquatic Center received
a fairly high number of no opinion responses, so more public information on the services in these
areas may improve future rankings. The Bike and Pedestrian Trails improved from 78.95%, to
82.68%.
Parks Total
Important
Total Somewhat
Important
No
Opinion
Total % No
Response
1 Golf Course 37 41 28 252 46.4 5
2 Aquatic Center 71 112 24 254 72.0 3
3 Bikes and Pedestrian 121 89 6 254 82.7 3
4 City Parks 118 109 3 251 96.4 6
In the category of Economic Development, Housing received the highest ranking of
importance at 76.0%, while Permits and Inspection services received the lowest ranking at
66.0%. 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.
Economic
Development
Total
Important
Total Somewhat
Important
No
Opinion
Totals % No
Response
1 Housing 77 113 13 250 76.0 7
2 Permits/Inspection 65 100 20 250 66.0 7
3 Econ Dev. 79 106 29 250 74.0 7
4 Land Use 82 104 247 72.37 10
5 Code Enforcement 77 106 11 249 73.5 8
In the category of Refuse and Recycling, Trash/Refuse Collection received the highest
ranking of importance at 96.43%, while Leaf and Brush Pickup received the lowest ranking in
the category at 91.73%. Very few respondents offered no opinion or no response on the services,
so the impact of the services to the public seems clear.
Refuse and
Recycling
Total
Important
Total Somewhat
Important
No
Opinion
Total % No
Response
1 Leaf/Bush Pick Up 138 95 3 254 91.7 3
2 Refuse Collection 200 45 1 254 96.5 3
3 Recycling 184 59 1 253 96.0 4
18
In the category of Protective Services, Fire Services and EMS received the highest
rankings of importance at 96.83%, while Police Services received the lowest ranking at 96.43%.
Very few respondents offered no opinion or no response on the services, so the impact of the
services to the public seems clear.
Protective
Services
Total
Important
Total Some
What Important
No
Opinion
Total % No
Response
1 Fire 226 18 0 252 96.8 5
2 EMS 226 18 0 252 96.8 5
3 Police Service 228 15 0 252 96.4 5
In the category of Road Maintenance, Street Repair (97.59%) supplanted Fire Services as
the highest ranked among all 30 services, while Parking Facilities received the lowest ranking at
77.38%. Very few respondents offered no opinion or no response on the services, so the impact
of the services to the public seems clear.
No. Road Maintenance Total
Important
Total Some
What important
No
Opinion
Totals % No
Response
1 Parking Facilities 66 129 10 252 77.4 5
2 Side Walks 108 102 3 253 83.0 4
3 Street Maint/Sweeping 131 91 0 249 89.2 8
4 Street Lighting 158 72 1 253 90.9 4
5 Traffic Signs 166 74 0 254 94.5 3
6 Ice Removal 185 54 0 251 95.2 6
7 Street Repairs 196 47 0 249 97.6 8
In the category of Storm Drainage Systems, which includes only one service by the same
name, Storm Drainage Systems received an importance ranking of 91.24%. Very few
respondents offered no opinion or no response, so the service’s impact to the public seems clear.
No Storm Drainage System Total
Important
Total Some
What Important
No
Opinion
Totals % No
Response
1 Storm Drainage 170 59 5 251 91.2 6
19
Question 7 - Quality of City 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 graph on the next page shows how each service was ranked in terms of positive
quality, and unknown 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.
20
21
The highest quality ratings overall. Refuse Collection had the highest quality rankings,
with that category ranked the highest at (48.2%) among all respondents. Following close behind
was Recycling services at (45.9%), Fire at (41.6%), EMS at (38.1%) Police at (37.4%), Leafe &
amp ; brush pick up (35%), and Library (29.6%). The table below shows the top 7 ranked
services.
22
By category, Refuse and Recycling had the most services with the highest quality
rankings, with Recycling services within that category ranked the highest at 93.9% positive
among all respondents. Recycling services was also the highest ranked among all 30 services.
Following behind Recycling services were Traffic Signs 77.5% positive, Refuse Collection
93.9% positive, Street Lighting 68.9% positive, and Sidewalks 58.4% positive.
23
By category, all five services in Economic Development ranked the lowest among all 30
services, with Permits & Inspection services receiving the highest ranking at 33.3% positive and
Economic Development services ranking the lowest at 24.2% positive. Housing at 26.7%
positive, Land Use Planning 27.3%, and Enforcement of Codes at 26.2%.
24
In the category of Community Services, City Buildings received the highest ranking for
quality at 51.2% positive, while Community Media received the lowest ranking in the category at
33.8% positive. Of particular note were the number of respondents who didn’t know anything
about Community Media (38.2%), Neighborhood Revitalization (32.9%), Senior Center (31.6%),
and Transit (30.6%). 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.
25
In the category of Parks, City Park services received the highest ranking for quality at
73.7% positive, while the Golf Course received the lowest ranking in the category at 37.2%
positive. A significant number of the respondents indicated that they did not know anything
about the Golf Course (52.9%) or the Aquatic Center (38%), so City officials should strive to
promote these services better.
26
In the category of Economic Development, Permits and Inspection services received the
highest ranking for quality at 33.3% positive, while Economic Development services received
the lowest ranking in the category at 24.2% positive. 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.
27
In the category of Refuse and Recycling, Recycling services received the highest ranking
for quality at 93.9% positive, while Leaf and Brush Pickup received the lowest ranking in the
category at 84.2% positive. 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.
28
In the category of Protective Services, Police services received the highest ranking for
quality at 84.8% positive, while EMS received the lowest ranking in the category at 77.9%
positive. 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.
29
In the category of Road Maintenance, Traffic Signs received the highest ranking for
quality at 77.1% positive, while Street Repairs received the lowest ranking in the category at
26.1% positive. 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.
30
In the category of Storm Drainage, which includes only one service by the same name,
Storm Drainage Systems received a ranking of 52.9% positive. 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.
31
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.
32
Questions 8 & 9 - Budget Priorities
Questions 8 and 9 in the Oshkosh Survey asked the citizens of Oshkosh to allocate and
unallocate funds to nine 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, Stormwater
Management and Road Maintenance. For 2016, the number of survey responses equaled 266 for
question eight and 232 for question nine. While this year, 2017, there were 215 responses for
question eight and 189 for question nine. Overall response rates for the 2017 survey totaled 267
while the overall total from 2016 was 309.
Budget Surplus
Question eight of the survey asked participants to allocate a hypothetical surplus of one
million dollars amongst the nine categories noted above. The top four programs that the
participants would elect to put the most money towards for 2017, in order of most importance,
were: Roads Maintenance (3% increase from 2016), Police Protection (7% decrease from 2016),
Parks (11% increase from 2016), and Fire Suppression and Prevention (10% increase from
2016).
Road Maintenance and Police Protection remain a top area of concern for the citizens of
Oshkosh, while Parks is a new area of interest, receiving an additional amount of $11,602.81
from 2016. Alternatively, Stormwater Management received a $17,815.71 decrease in money
33
allocation. It should be noted that Stormwater Management had been within the top three
categories for additional monies for the past three years. Parks, historically has been positioned
in the fifth spot (2016) and seventh spot (2015). This change in importance could be contributed
to the lengthening amount of time since the last severe flood occurrence and also because of
completed storm and road maintenance projects.
Reviewing previous years and how citizens allocated their budget surplus, it can be
concluded that attention to roads and maintenance continue to rise from year to year. However,
the other top choices are continually decreasing from 2012 – 2017. This is especially true
regarding Stormwater Management allocations. In 2012, citizens allocated $250,000 to
Stormwater Management while this year, it was at an all-time low of $105,750.00.
Economic Development continues to round out the top priorities. According to the
American Planning Association, green infrastructure, parks and open space are a community
necessity. By planning and managing urban parks as parts of an interconnected green space
system, cities can reduce flood control and stormwater management costs. Parks can also protect
biological diversity and preserve essential ecological functions while serving as a place for
recreation and civic engagement.
Of note, the increased interest in Parks funding ties in with question number six, which
focused on importance of services and question number nine, which focused on monies being
reduced from services.
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 identified
in question eight.
The top five programs that were chosen to receive the highest hypothetical budgetary cuts
in 2017 were: Finance and Administration, (17% increase from 2016), Economic Development,
(less than 1% difference from 2016) Community, (14.5% less of a decrease from 2016),
Stormwater, (15% increase from 2016) and Parks, (16% less of a decrease than in
2016). Stormwater, (-$15,376) and Finance and Administration (-$50,486) were the only two
categories that citizens identified as undergoing more cuts than in the previous year.
The lowest choice when it comes to budgetary cuts in 2017 were Police (9th) and Fire
(8th), followed by Roads(7th) and Refuse and Recycling (6th). These statistics reiterate that
34
funding for services that directly impact personal safety and primary infrastructure, demands not
only preservation in terms of the City’s budget, but prioritization as well. Consistently this data
reflects an unchanging opinion of the citizens of Oshkosh regarding their priorities.
Of the top five choices to receive more funding in question eight, Parks and Community
were also elected to have money unallocated from them. Parks and Community’s ranking to
receive additional funding were in third and fifth place respectively. Under the budget cutting
ranking, their numbers were reversed with Community being third to receive cuts and Parks
rounding out the bottom of the top five to undergo budgetary cuts.
This observation with the survey results, indicate that while ancillary services such as
Parks and Community are of substantial value, citizens identify strongly with preserving basic
services that have a direct impact on safety and basic infrastructure when it comes to budget cuts.
It is also important to note that 16% fewer surveys (189 responses) answered the question
regarding budget cuts than those responding to budget increase (215 responses).
Last year’s survey found an approximate 13% difference in response rate between the
two questions. This provides commonality in insight into the issues that confront administrators
regarding the sometimes painful decision making process regarding budget cuts.
35
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 257 respondents, 124 responded that yes Oshkosh does attract young professionals, while
106 responded with no it does not. There was a total of 27 respondents that did not respond to
this specific question. In 2016, there was a total of 271 respondents where 136 responded yes and
135 responded no. The yes category is up by 4% from last year, however 14 less people
responded to the question this year.
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, the majority is
slight. 119 voted yes, and 100 voted no, while 11 respondents chose not to respond in this given
survey. Again, last year’s responses are very similar to 2017’s responses. In 2016 130 voted yes
and 128 voted no, while 32 did not respond. The yes category has increased from two more to 19
more yes respondents this year.
Among the ‘Age’ cross tabulation, the majority believe that Oshkosh is a good area to
attract younger professionals. The minority which only included the age group of 50-59 believes
that Oshkosh may not be a great area to attract young professionals.
Among the ‘Marital Status’ cross tabulation, the majority of those that are married and
are not married believe that Oshkosh is a good city to attract young professionals. In the category
of Widowed it was an even split with 11 yes and 11 no.
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 only 99 out of 221 who
own or rent believe 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. Many of those that have two and three plus
children also believe this. While it is an even split of 7 yes and 7 no with families that have only
one child.
Among the ‘Location’ cross tabulation, those North of the Fox River and those South of
the Fox and East of 1-41 believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals. The majority of
36
those south of the Fox and West of I-41 believe that it does not, however 31 said yes while 33
said no, so there is only a two-person difference.
Among the ‘Income Distribution’ cross tabulation, those with the income brackets in less
than $24,999 through $74,999 believe that Oshkosh does attract young professionals. Those that
54%
46%
Attracting Young Professionals
2017
Yes
No
50%50%
2016
Yes
No
37
are in the $75, 000 to $99,999 do not believe that Oshkosh attracts young professionals. Those in
the bracket from $100,000 to $149,000 were split evenly with 9 yes and 9 no. Those in the
bracket of $150,000 also split evenly with 9 yes and 9 no.
Among the ‘Profession’ cross tabulation those that are Homemakers,
Management/Professional, Service Occupation, Production Transportation, and the Other
categories all believe that Oshkosh does indeed attract young professionals. While
Farming/Fishing/Forestry, Sale/Office, and Construction or Maintenance do not believe that
Oshkosh attracts young professionals, however just barely, the largest different is by 2.
Education is split evenly with 9 yes and 9 no.
Among the ‘Highest Education Level’ cross tabulation, those that are in the Less than
High School category only had a total of 3 respondents, with 1 voting yes and 2 voting no. In the
High School GED category 30 respondents voted yes and 28 voted no. In the Associate
degree/Some College category 41 voted yes, and only 20 voted no. In the Bachelor’s Degree
category 22 voted yes and 26 voted no. In the Master’s Degree or Higher category 27 voted yes
and 23 voted no.
Among the ‘Race’ cross tabulation, Whites (race) believes that Oshkosh does attract
young professionals. 120 Whites voted yes, while 98 voted no. In the category of Two or More
Races only one person voted no, and zero people voted yes, while in the Some Other Race
category only one person voted yes and zero voted no.
Finally, among the ‘Lived In Oshkosh’ cross tabulation those that have lived in Oshkosh
for 6-20+ years believe that the city of Oshkosh does a good job at attracting young
professionals. Those that have lived in Oshkosh 5 years or less believed that Oshkosh does not
do a good job at attracting young professionals.
38
Question 11 – What general area(s) of the City of Oshkosh do you feel needs the most
attention in terms of investment, rehabilitation or redevelopment? What do you think
needs to be done?
Question number 11 addresses, what general areas 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? Out of the 261 documented answers, 109 of the answers were either
not applicable or irrelevant to the question. 152 responses were recoded into 5 categories: roads/
streets, properties, parks, public services, and entertainment.
Overall, there were 182 remarks on the need for rehabilitation of streets, 10 remarks on
redevelopment of streets, and 4 remarks on investing in streets. Individually, Vineland Rd.
received 2 remarks for rehabilitation and 1 remark for investing in new sidewalk. Snell Rd. and
Jackson St. intersection received 1 remark for rehabilitation. Main St. received 20 remarks for
rehabilitation and 2 remarks for redevelopment. South main St. received 11 remarks for
rehabilitation and 2 remarks for redevelopment. Oregon St. received 8 remarks for rehabilitation.
Jackson St. received 7 remarks for rehabilitation. Jefferson St. received 2 remarks for
rehabilitation. Knapp St. received 3 remarks for rehabilitation. Franklin St. received 1 remark for
rehabilitation. Roosevelt St. received 1 remark for rehabilitation. Westhaven St. received 1
remark for rehabilitation. Murdock Ave. received 6 remarks for rehabilitation and 1 remark for
redevelopment. Frederick St. received 3 remarks for rehabilitation. 6th St. received 1 remark for
rehabilitation. Bowen St. received 5 remarks for rehabilitation and 1 remark for redevelopment.
Bower St. Received 2 remarks for rehabilitation. Bride St. received 1 remark for rehabilitation.
Irving received 3 remarks for rehabilitation. Harrison St. received 3 remarks for rehabilitation.
Bent St. received 2 remarks for rehabilitation. Hazel received 1 remark for rehabilitation. 7th St.
received 2 remarks for rehabilitation.9th St. received 7 remarks for rehabilitation and 1 remark
for redevelopment. Mt. Vernon received 1 remark for rehabilitation. 20th Ave. received 2
remarks for rehabilitation. 24th received 1 remark for rehabilitation. Broad St. received 3
remarks for rehabilitation. New York Ave. received 9 remarks for rehabilitation. Bayshore Dr.
received 1 remark for rehabilitation. Ceape received 4 remarks for rehabilitation. Otter received
4 remarks for rehabilitation. Central St. received 2 remarks for rehabilitation. Waugoo received 3
39
remarks for rehabilitation. Washington Ave. received 5 remarks for rehabilitation. Merritt
received 3 remarks for rehabilitation. Parkway received 1 remark for investment and 4 remarks
for rehabilitation. East Lincoln received 2 remarks for rehabilitation. Grand St. received 3
remarks for rehabilitation, Fulton received 1 remark for rehabilitation. Bower received 2 remarks
for rehabilitation and one remark for investing into added a fork. Congress Ave. received 1
remark for rehabilitation. Wisconsin St. received 4 remarks for rehabilitation. There was 1
remark for investing into adding a fork on Eastman. Railway crossings received 5 remarks for
rehabilitation. 29 unspecified responses for rehabilitation of roads/ streets.
The next category, properties, received 40 overall remarks for rehabilitation, 12 overall
remarks for investing, and 11 overall remarks for redevelopment. Rental properties received 3
remarks for investing, 7 remarks for rehabilitation, and 3 for redevelopment. University housing
received 2 remarks for investing, 9 remarks for rehabilitation, and 2 remarks for redevelopment.
The Kimbel Building received 2 remarks for redevelopment. The JC Penny’s lot received 1
remark for investing, 6 remarks for rehabilitation, and 1 remark for redevelopment. The Pioneer
Inn received 3 remarks for investing, 7 remarks for rehabilitation, and 2 for redevelopment. The
Havenwood area received 1 remark for investing and 1 remark for redevelopment. The North
side received 2 remarks for investment. The East side received 5 remarks for redevelopment. The
South-East side received 1 remark for rehabilitation. The South side received 4 remarks for
rehabilitation.
The next category, parks, received 21 overall remarks for rehabilitation, 17 overall
remarks for investing, and 6 overall remarks for redevelopment. A new waterpark received 1
remark in investing and 1 remark in rehabilitation. Pollock Pool received 1 remark for investing,
1 remark for rehabilitation, and 1 remark for redevelopment. Menomonie Park received 2
remarks for investing, 3 remarks for rehabilitation, and 2 remarks for redevelopment. There were
an additional 3 remarks for the rehabilitation of the Fox River near Menomonie Park. South Park
Park received 1 remark for investing and 1 remark for rehabilitation. Pioneer Playground
received 1 remark for redevelopment. The community garden received 5 remarks for investing
and 1 remark for rehabilitation. Planting trees in park areas received 3 remarks for investing, 1
remark for rehabilitation, and 1 remark for redevelopment. River/ lake unspecified received 2 for
investing, 7 for rehabilitation and 1 remark for redevelopment,
Parks unspecified received 2 remarks for investment and 3 remarks for rehabilitation.
40
The category public services received 5 overall remarks for rehabilitation and 6 remarks
for investing. Water/sewer received 2 remarks for investment. Architecture received 5 remarks
for rehabilitation. Public transportation to Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay received 1
remark for investment. The addition of a train received 1 remark for investment. The addition of
physicians’ offices to the North and East side received 2 remarks for investment.
The final category, entertainment received 14 overall remarks for investing and 14
overall remarks for rehabilitation. The Southeast side received 1 remark for investing in
entertainment. The East side received 1 remark for investing in shopping and 1 remark for
investing in restaurants. The North side received 2 remarks for investing in shopping and 2
remarks for investing in restaurants. The addition of a Kohl’s received 1 remark in investing.
Cultural entertainment received 5 remarks for investment. Downtown received 1 remark for
investing and 14 remarks for rehabilitation. Overall, question number 11 addressed, similar
issues for the year before such as an importance in the quality of streets/roads, the appearance of
housing/ building structures, and the concern for maintenance of parks. The minor factors that
came into play this year as compared to last year were, 5 remarks for rehabilitation for the
entrance signs into Oshkosh and 6 remarks for investment into police patrolling/safety.
41
Question 12 – The City of Oshkosh is looking at Revitalizing the area of South Main Street
from the Fox River down to South Park Avenue which is called “The Sawdust District”.
Please provide suggestions on what you would like to see developed in this area.
The answer to the question “The City of Oshkosh is looking at revitalizing the area of
South Main Street from the Fox River down to South Park Avenue which is being called “The
Sawdust District.” Please provide suggestions on what you would like to see developed in this
area” was answered by 55% of respondents asking for entertainment in the area. The next
highest response was for retail and shopping with 39% of respondents asking for this. Next
came a request for sports or amusement in the area. 40% of respondents were asking for this.
The next highest was hotels with 29% of respondents asking for this. Then came residential and
office areas with 19% and 17% of respondents asking for this respectively.
In the split between male and female respondents, both male and female respondents
were asking for entertainment in the area. 67 males and 75 females asked for this. The next
highest for males was for sports or amusement for men with 57 males asking for this. The next
highest for females was for retail or shopping with 52 females asking for this.
With regards to education, those asking for entertainment had a highest education level of
an Associate’s degree. For retail or shopping the highest education level was a High School
diploma. For sports or amusement the highest level of education was a Bachelor’s degree. For
Hotels the highest level of education was also a Bachelor’s degree. For those asking for hotels
the highest level of education was also a Bachelor’s degree. Finally for those asking for office
areas, the highest level of education was a Master’s degree. For all respondents, most of those
who asked for any of the six were married.
Lastly, many respondents asked that something be done to repair and revamp the Pioneer
Inn. This was asked by quite a number of respondents.
42
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 127 comments were provided providing 39 distinct discussions. In total only 52% 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 have shifted back
to high taxes.
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Poor Road
Conditions
Poor Road
Conditions
Poor Road
Conditions
Poor Road
Conditions
Poor Road
Conditions
Economic/Busin
ess Development
Economic/Busin
ess Development
Economic/Busin
ess Development
Economic/Busin
ess Development
Economic/Busin
ess Development
High Taxes City
Functionality
High Taxes High Taxes High Taxes
New
Leadership
Park System Development of
Bike/Walk Paths
Development of
Bike/Walk Paths
Development of
Bike/Walk Paths
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,
43
Improve and Maintain our Infrastructure, Improve our Quality of Life Assets, and Develop an
Effective, High Performing Government. Of the 127 total comments, only 11.8%, 15 total, could
not be directly related to one of the five strategic goals. External Priority Goal number four,
develop an effective high performing government, reached the top of the list with 31.4% (40 of
127) of all comments. The table and chart below visualize these characteristics. This higher
percentage suggests that the City of Oshkosh should look at improving efficiencies of
government.
Of lower significance in the comment sector of the survey was supporting economic
development with 9.4% (12 of 127) of comments. 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
TOTAL
COMMENTS
# 12 20 27 31 40 15
127 127 127 127 127 127
% 9.4% 15.7% 21.3% 24.4% 31.5% 11.8%
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 127 comments
outlined in the above analyses have been further broken down to 39 different components.
Surprisingly developing effective, high performing government received most comments among
respondents.
44
Topics # of Responses Topics # of Responses
Bus Service 4 Public Restrooms I
Streets 18 Railroad 3
City Parks 2 Beach 2
Youth Activities 10 Historical Preservation I
Development 22 Less Taverns I
Law Enforcement 11 Sawdust Days 2
Drug Problem 6 Large Garbage Pickup 3
New Leadership 12 Minority Communities I
Passenger Train 2 Legalize Marijuana I
Bridge Problem I Small Business Attention I
Less Student Housing I Dog Park I
Parking 4 Assist Low-Income People I
More Businesses 5 Education I
New Jobs 6 Winter Venues I
Wasteful Spending 9 Snow Plowing I
High Taxes 12 Stock Fish I
City Council 3 Campground I
Diversity 2 School Zone Signs I
Crime 4 Cross Walk Signs I
Rental Inspection Program 8
45
Question 14. Demographic Analysis of 2017 Oshkosh Survey Respondents
Type of
Demographic Demographic Breakdown
Survey
Response
s
Survey
Response
Percentage
s
2010 US
Census
Percentage
s
Gender Male 127 49.4 51.20%
Female 118 45.9 48.80%
Total 245 95.3 -
No Response 12 4.7 -
Total 257 100 100%
Age 18-29 14 5.4 26.8%
30-39 22 8.6 12.5%
40-49 32 12.5 12.80%
50-59 46 17.9 12.00%
60 or Older 134 52.1 17.30%
No Response 9 3.5 -
Total 257 100 81.40%
Marital Status Yes 157 61.1 49.90%
No 61 23.7 33.40%
Widowed 26 10.1 6.25%
No Response 13 5.1 -
Total 257 100 Lived in
Oshkosh 5 Years or Less 14 5.4 6.80%
6-20 Years 45 17.5 24%
20+ Years 188 73.2 67%
No Response 10 3.9 -
Total 257 100 97.80%
Own/Rent Own 230 89.5 55.10%
Rent 17 6.6 44.90%
No Response 10 3.9 -
Total 257 100 100%
No. of Children None 195 75.9 68.80%
One 18 7 14.20%
Two 21 8.2 10.60%
Three + 13 5.1 6.40%
No Response 10 3.9 -
Total 257 100 Location North of the Fox River 95 37 42.70%
South of the Fox River/East of US 41 73 28.4 37.60%
46
South of the Fox River/West of US
41 77 30 14.30%
No Response 12 4.7 -
Total 257 100 Profession Homemaker 103 40.1 2.20%
Management, Professional or related 20 7.8 15.40%
Service Occupation 16 6.2 9.70%
Farming, Fishing, Forestry 2 0.8 0.40%
Sales and Office 2 0.8 4.70%
Construction, Maintenance 104 40.5 2.20%
No Response 10 3.9 -
Total 257 100
Highest Ed Level Less than High School 3 1.2
High School/GED 64 24.9 36.10%
Associate Degree/Some College 65 25.3 6.60%
Bachelor's Degree 58 22.6 15.30%
Master’s Degree/ Higher 56 21.8 7.20%
No Response 11 4.3 -
Total 257 100 Race White 242 94.2 90.50%
Two or more races 1 0.4 1.70%
Some other race 1 0.4 -
No Response 13 5.1 -
Total 257 100
Gender – The sample replying to the survey is representative of the population in
Oshkosh.
Age- The majority of the respondents (52.1%) are 60 years of age or older.
Marital Status – Respondents marital status is not representative of the population of
Oshkosh, WI; the data is heavily skewed toward residents that are married (61.1%) in
comparison to the 49.9% statistics of the 2010 U.S. Census.
Lived in Oshkosh – The percentage of respondents that have lived in Oshkosh for 20+
years is at 73.2%, which suggests that residents are vested in the community.
Own/Rent – The percentage of respondents who participated in the survey and own their
own home is 89.5% of the total respondents, which is significantly above that of the 2010
U.S. Census (55.10%).
47
No. of Children – The largest percentage of respondents to the survey (75.9%) have no
children.
Location in the City - The largest group of respondents (37%) report that they reside
north of the Fox River, which is in keeping with data reported by the U.S. Census.
Income – Most significant is the number of respondents that reported their income in
excess of $150,000 (40.5%), which is 13 times higher than data from the U.S. census.
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 – Two categories accounted for over 80% of the respondents’ professions;
homemaker (41%) and construction/maintenance (40.5%), which is not representative of
the city’s population.
Highest Education Level –A significant amount of all respondents has at least some
college education at 69.7%. Only 26.1% of the respondent’s reported having a high
school education or less; the remaining provided percentage accounted for no response.
Race – The city of Oshkosh is predominantly white with a percentage of 97% of the
respondents with very little racial diversity in the city.
48
Appendix A – Internet Survey Results- 2017 – 43 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 4.7 11.6 14.0 23.3 9.3 37.3
Lake Shore Golf Course 0 2.3 2.3 4.7 4.7 86.1
Pollock Aquatic Center 0 4.7 2.3 16.3 4.7 72.1
Leach Amphitheatre 0 2.3 11.6 32.6 20.9 32.6
Oshkosh Public Museum 0 2.3 14.0 16.3 30.2 37.2
Senior Services Center 4.7 2.3 4.7 9.3 18.6 60.5
Public Library Services 2.3 25.6 7.0 20.9 16.3 28.1
Police Services 0 0 4.7 2.3 16.3 76.7
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 2.3 0 2.3 4.7 11.6 79.0
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 0 0 2.3 0 16.3 81.4
Building Permits and Inspections 0 7.0 4.7 7.0 16.3 65.1
Enforcement of Property
Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 0 7.0 0 11.6 9.3
65.1
City Parking Facilities Building 4.7 11.6 11.6 4.7 23.3 44.2
Oshkosh Media 9.3 9.3 7.0 7.0 14.0 53.5
Transit System 4.7 0 2.3 2.3 7.0 83.8
Recycling Collection Services 7.0 44.2 23.3 0 0 25.6
Refuse Collection Service 2.3 69.8 9.3 2.3 0 16.3
Leaf and Brush Pick up 0 2.3 14.0 41.9 14.0 27.6
2. How Oshkosh Citizens feel about their City results –percentages:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No
Opinion
Oshkosh as a place to live? 9.3 48.8 27.9 4.7 9.3
Feeling a part of the community? 9.3 37.2 30.2 14.0 9.3
Your neighborhood as a place to live? 20.9 41.9 23.3 4.7 9.3
Oshkosh as a place to raise children? 16.3 34.9 27.9 0 21.0
Oshkosh as a place to retire? 7.0 25.6 25.6 23.3 18.6
Community openness and acceptance of diversity? 14.0 23.3 25.6 18.6 18.6
The overall quality of life in Oshkosh? 4.7 53.5 27.9 4.7 9.3
Oshkosh as an environmentally friendly city? 9.3 34.9 27.9 11.6 16.3
Oshkosh as a place to work? 9.3 32.6 30.2 11.6 16.3
The direction Oshkosh is moving for the future? 9.3 25.6 14.0 37.2 13.9
Affordability of living in Oshkosh? 7.0 27.9 32.6 20.9 11.6
Availability of entertainment/events? 11.6 34.9 32.6 9.3 11.6
The quality of entertainment/events? 9.3 27.9 39.5 11.6 11.6
As a place to start a business? 0 20.9 27.9 14.0 37.2
3. How safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark - percentages.
Very Safe Safe Neither Unsafe Very Unsafe Don’t Know
18.6 39.5 18.6 11.6 18.6 11.6
49
4. Were you or anyone in your household the victim of a crime – percentages.
Yes No
11.6 76.7
5. If “Yes”, did you report all of these crimes- percentages.
Yes No Don’t Know
11.6 0 88.4
6. Importance of services – percentages.
Importance of City Services Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Somewhat
Unimportant
Very
Unimportant
No Opinion/
Neutral
Community Services
Support for Neighborhood Revitalization Programs 23.3 37.2 4.7 16.3 18.6
Oshkosh Public Museum 20.9 37.2 9.3 7.0 25.6
Oshkosh Media 7.0 25.6 27.9 11.6 27.9
Public Library Services 32.6 37.2 9.3 0 21.0
Senior Services Center 30.2 34.9 14.0 2.3 18.6
Transit System 30.2 30.2 9.3 7.0 23.3
Appearance of City-Owned Buildings 20.9 39.5 14.0 7.0 18.6
Parks
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 34.9 23.3 9.3 11.6 21.0
Lake Shore Golf Course 4.7 16.3 14.0 37.2 27.9
Appearance of City Parks & Greenways 30.2 39.5 14.0 0 16.3
Pollock Aquatic Center 11.6 34.9 18.6 4.7 30.3
Economic Development
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 14.0 44.2 14.0 4.7 23.3
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 27.9 27.9 20.9 7.0 16.3
Building Permits and Inspections 16.3 20.9 30.2 9.3 23.3
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 14.0 41.9 14.0 7.0 23.3
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Services 16.3 34.9 16.3 7.0 25.6
Refuse and Recycling
Leaf and Brush Pick up 25.6 27.9 16.3 7.0 23.3
Recycling Collection Services 39.5 32.6 4.7 2.3 21.0
Refuse Collection Service 44.2 37.2 0 0 18.6
Protective Services
Police Services 53.5 23.3 2.3 2.3 18.6
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 55.8 20.9 0 2.3 21.0
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 58.1 20.9 0 0 21.0
Road Maintenance and Construction
City Parking Facilities 11.6 37.2 25.6 2.3 23.3
City’s Sidewalk System 30.2 25.6 14.0 2.3 27.9
Removal of Snow and Ice From City Streets 48.8 27.9 2.3 0 20.9
Traffic Signs and Signals 37.2 37.2 7.0 0 18.6
Street Lighting 46.5 27.9 7.0 0 18.6
Street Maintenance and Sweeping 32.6 32.6 11.6 2.3 21.0
Street Repair 51.2 27.9 2.3 0 18.6
Storm Drainage
50
Storm Drainage Systems 48.8 25.6 7.0 0 18.6
7. Quality of service –percentages.
Quality of City Services Excellent
Quality
Good
Quality
Fair
Quality
Poor
Quality
Don’t
Know
Community Services
Support for Neighborhood Revitalization Programs 11.6 16.3 25.6 2.3 30.2
Oshkosh Public Museum 9.3 30.2 11.6 2.3 30.2
Community Media Cable TV, Radio, Internet Services 7.0 20.9 18.6 9.3 30.2
Public Library Services 11.6 34.9 18.6 0 27.9
Senior Services Center 11.6 23.3 11.6 0 53.5
Transit System 9.3 30.2 11.6 4.7 44.2
Appearance of City-Owned Buildings 2.3 30.2 27.9 7.0 32.5
Parks
Bike and Pedestrian Trails 14.0 34.9 14.0 2.3 36.9
Lake Shore Golf Course 4.7 9.3 16.3 2.3 67.4
Appearance of City Parks & Greenways 4.7 46.5 14.0 4.7 30.2
Pollock Aquatic Center 7.0 34.9 7.0 0 51.1
Economic Development
Economic Development Assistance to Businesses 0 25.6 11.6 4.7 58.1
Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing 4.7 30.2 14.0 4.7 46.5
Building Permits and Inspections 9.3 16.3 9.3 16.3 48.8
Enforcement of Property Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 9.3 16.3 18.6 9.3 46.5
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Services 9.3 16.3 18.6 9.3 46.6
Refuse and Recycling
Leaf and Brush Pick up 11.6 32.6 14.0 2.3 39.5
Recycling Collection Services 25.6 32.6 7.0 0 34.9
Refuse Collection Service 30.2 30.2 4.7 0 36.9
Protective Services
Police Services 25.6 16.3 16.3 2.3 39.5
Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) 20.9 16.3 7.0 2.3 53.5
Fire Protection and Prevention Services 25.6 16.3 7.0 0 51.1
Road Maintenance and Construction
City Parking Facilities 0 25.6 23.3 2.3 48.9
City’s Sidewalk System 2.3 27.9 27.9 7.0 34.9
Removal of Snow and Ice From City Streets 9.3 27.9 14.0 16.3 32.6
Traffic Signs and Signals 14.0 23.3 27.9 0 34.9
Street Lighting 16.3 18.6 25.6 4.7 34.9
Street Maintenance and Sweeping 9.3 23.3 23.3 11.6 32.5
Street Repair 0 14.0 30.2 23.3 32.5
Storm Drainage
Storm Drainage Systems 2.3 27.9 20.9 4.7 44.2
51
8. and 9. – Budgeting Priorities - Dollars
Extra $1
million
Reduce $1
million
Community Services 92,059 155,882
Economic Development 202,941 97,059
Refuse and Recycling 17,647 23,529
Finance and Administration 38,824 241,176
Police Protection 52,941 179,412
Fire Suppression/ Prevention 44,118 120,588
Parks 139,706 111,765
Storm Water Maintenance 94,117 50,000
Road Maintenance 317,647 12,963
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
30.2 30.2 39.5
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 looking at revitalizing the area of South Main Street from the Fox River
down to South Park Avenue which is being called “The Sawdust District”. Please provide suggestions on
what you would like to see developed in this area. Number of Responses.
Office Area Entertainment/Dining Retail Hotels Sports/Parks Residential
8 18 14 9 16 8
Question 14 – Analysis of Survey Demographic Results
Survey Survey
Results %
Gender Male 13 30.2
Female 11 25.6
Other 2 4.7
Missing 17 39.5
Year Born 18 to 29 1 2.3
30 to 39 7 16.3
40 to 49 5 11.6
50 to 59 2 4.7
60 or older 8 18.6
Missing 20 46.5
Marital Status Married 19 44.2
52
Not Married 6 14.0
Missing 19 41.9
Time Lived in 5 or less 3 7.0
Oshkosh 6 to 20 6 14.0
>20 16 37.2
Missing 18 41.9
Own or Rent Own 23 53.5
Rent 2 4.7
Missing 18 41.9
Number of None 13 30.2
Children 1 3 7.0
2 6 14.0
3 or More 2 4.7
Missing 19 44.2
Place of North of Fox 14 32.6
Residence South of Fox/East of 41 4 9.3
South of Fox/West of 41 5 11.6
Missing 20 46.5
Income Under 24,999 0 0
25k to 49,999 4 9.3
50k to 74,999 6 14.0
75k to 99,999 5 11.6
100k to 149,999 8 18.6
Over 150k 2 4.7
Missing 18 41.9
Employment Employed Full Time 14 32.6
Status Employed Part Time 2 4.7
Self Employed 1 2.3
Presently Unemployed 0 0
Student 1 2.3
Retired 6 14.0
Missing 19 44.2
Education Less than HS 0 0
HS/GED 5 11.6
Associates/Some College 6 14.0
Bachelors 10 23.3
Masters or higher 5 11.6
Missing 17 39.5
Race White 23 53.5
Native Hawaiian 0 0
Hispanic or Latino 0 0
Asian 0 0
African-American 0 0
American Indian 0 0
Two or More Races 0 0
Other 1 2.3
Missing 19 44.2