CC WS PACKET 11032022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Balancing performance and importance Every jurisdiction must balance limited resources while meeting resident needs and striving to optimize community livability. To this end, it is helpful to know what aspects of the community are most important to residents and which they perceive as being of higher or lower quality. It is especially helpful to know when a facet of livability is considered of high importance but rated as lower quality, as this should be a top priority to address. To help guide City staff and officials with decisions on future resource allocation, resident ratings of the importance of services were compared to their ratings of the quality of these services. To identify the services perceived by residents to have relatively lower quality at the same time as relatively higher importance, all services were ranked from highest perceived quality to lowest perceived quality and from highest perceived importance to lowest perceived importance. Some services were in the top half of both lists (higher quality and higher importance); some were in the top half of one list but the bottom half of the other (higher quality and lower importance or lower quality and higher importance); and some services were in the bottom half of both lists. Services receiving quality ratings of excellent or good by 82% or more of respondents were considered of “higher quality” and those with ratings lower than 82% were considered to be of “lower quality.” Services were classified as “more important” if they were rated as essential or very important by 79% or more of respondents. Services were rated as “less important” if they received a rating of less than 79%. This classification uses the median ratings for quality and importance to divide the services in half. The quadrants in the figure below show which community facets were given higher or lower importance ratings (right-left) and which had higher or lower quality ratings (up-down). Facets of livability falling closer to a diagonal line from the lower left to the upper right are those where performance ratings are more commensurate with resident priorities. Facets scoring closest to the lower right hand corner of the matrix ( higher in importance and lower in quality) are those that may warrant further investigation to see if changes to their delivery are necessary to improve their performance. This is the key part of this chart on which to focus. Facets falling in the top left hand corner of the chart (lower in importance but higher in quality) are areas where performance may outscore resident priorities, and may be a consideration for lower resource allocation. Overall economic healthOverall quality of the transportation systemOverall design or layout of residential and commercial areasOverall quality of the utility infrastructureOverall feeling of safetyOverall quality of natural environmentOverall quality of parks and recreation opportunitiesOverall health and wellness opportunitiesOverall opportunities for education, culture, and the artsResidents' connection and engagement with their communityPlease rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to St. Anthony Village as a whole.(% excellent or good)Overall economic healthOverall quality of the transportation systemOverall design or layout of residential and commercial areasOverall quality of the utility infrastructureOverall feeling of safetyOverall quality of natural environmentOverall quality of parks and recreation opportunitiesOverall health and wellness opportunitiesOverall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Residents' connection and engagement with their community Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the St. Anthony Village community to focus on each of the following inthe coming two years.(% essential or very important)Facets of livabilityResident perceptions of quality and importance for each of the facets of community livability provide an overview ofcommunity strengths and challenges that are useful for planning, budgeting and performance evaluation. The chartsbelow show the proportion of residents who rated the community facets positively for quality and the priority(importance) placed on each. Also displayed is whether local ratings were lower, similar, or higher than communitiesacross the country (the national benchmark). 70%80%90% Importance 70% 80%QualityCommunity design Economy Education, arts, and culture Health and wellness Inclusivity and engagement Mobility Natural environment Parks and recreation Safety Utilities Median Median vs.benchmark* 7