Dataset is the anonymized responses from the 2014 Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. Random surveys were sent to residents across our city to create an equal representation of at least 150 responses per Council District. Most answers are scored:
5- Very Satisfied
4- Satisfied
3- Neither
2- Dissatisfied
1- Very Dissatisfied
9- Don't Know
While Most Important ranked questions refer to the preceding questions services and items ordered by letter. Not all Ranking questions are required and might not equal total number of surveys.

This is a raw data from the 1371 responses of the mailed community survey in spring 2012 by our contracted vendor ETC Institute. Responses to questions are based upon following scoring:

Answers Provided as:
5 Very Satisfied
4 Satisfied
3 Neither
2 Dissatisfied
1 Very Dissatisfied
9 Don't Know

Final Report from vendor is attached.

Police Sectors

Police Precinct

The system of trails that are used for biking and hiking were initially captured using GPS techniques by the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Coordinator, Department of Parks & Recreation, along with friends of the mountain biking community. Trails were captured by physically riding a bike along these pathways. Inaccuracies of GPS data resulting from riding under tree canopies and from use of less-than-survey-accurate GPS devices were 'corrected' by City GIS staff (geographic information systems) by adjusting the trails to overlay identifiable features from the City's orthophotography. For example, the dirt of worn single-track pathways could be seen in less dense foliage and field areas. In many cases there was no way to see through the more densely forested areas, so the original GPS'ed information was not interpreted to match the orthophotography. It is believed that all trails and waypoints data meet the map accuracy standards required of the Department of Parks and Recreation.All final decisions about the mapped locations and attribution of Waypoints and Trails were under the purview of the City's trails superintendant.

The system of trails that are used for biking and hiking were initially captured using GPS techniques by the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Coordinator, Department of Parks & Recreation, along with friends of the mountain biking community. Trails were captured by physically riding a bike along these pathways. Inaccuracies of GPS data resulting from riding under tree canopies and from use of less-than-survey-accurate GPS devices were 'corrected' by City GIS staff (geographic information systems) by adjusting the trails to overlay identifiable features from the City's orthophotography. For example, the dirt of worn single-track pathways could be seen in less dense foliage and field areas. In many cases there was no way to see through the more densely forested areas, so the original GPS'ed information was not interpreted to match the orthophotography. It is believed that all trails and waypoints data meet the map accuracy standards required of the Department of Parks and Recreation.All final decisions about the mapped locations and attribution of Waypoints and Trails were under the purview of the City's trails superintendant.

The City needed geographical area definitions that were homogenous and non-political. The preexisting Neighborhoods feature class was defined to maintain homogenous areas of the City, but they were determined to be too discrete and numerous. Pertaining to size as well, it was believed that the geographical areas should not be so large, as to group together areas of the City that were dissimilar in character. Of particular importance, it was also a requirement that NSA geography was designed to permit analysis using Census data.

It was decided by the Planning Dept that adhering to Census Block Groups was the best approach. It was also determined that attempts to approximate the Planning Districts would also be beneficial. The approach to defining the NSAs was as follows: a) 2010 Census Block Groups were merged together to create each individual NSA, b) they were grouped in ways to maximize the ability to share boundaries with existing Planning Districts were ever possible. While most NSAs lie almost entirely within one Planning District, some NSAs are pretty equally split between two planning districts (notably D-1). In the case of D-1, PDR arbitrarily decided to put it with the other ‘Downtown’ NSAs.

The identification/naming of the NSAs was based upon the Planning Districts they most corresponded to, along with a sequential numbering assignment. Most NSA lie almost entirely within one Planning District, and where named from that Planning District. Names starting with "NO" are mostly in the North planning district; "NW" are mostly in the Near West planning district; "BR" are mostly in the Broad Rock planning district, etc... There’s no significance for the number following the planning district lettering used by NSAs (NO-1, NO-2, NO-3, etc). The number was just randomly assigned to further uniquely define the area subdivided within the Planning District, and has no relationship in terms to square area, population density, or anything.

The City needed geographical area definitions that were homogenous and non-political. The preexisting Neighborhoods feature class was defined to maintain homogenous areas of the City, but they were determined to be too discrete and numerous. Pertaining to size as well, it was believed that the geographical areas should not be so large, as to group together areas of the City that were dissimilar in character. Of particular importance, it was also a requirement that NSA geography was designed to permit analysis using Census data.

It was decided by the Planning Dept that adhering to Census Block Groups was the best approach. It was also determined that attempts to approximate the Planning Districts would also be beneficial. The approach to defining the NSAs was as follows: a) 2010 Census Block Groups were merged together to create each individual NSA, b) they were grouped in ways to maximize the ability to share boundaries with existing Planning Districts were ever possible. While most NSAs lie almost entirely within one Planning District, some NSAs are pretty equally split between two planning districts (notably D-1). In the case of D-1, PDR arbitrarily decided to put it with the other ‘Downtown’ NSAs.

The identification/naming of the NSAs was based upon the Planning Districts they most corresponded to, along with a sequential numbering assignment. Most NSA lie almost entirely within one Planning District, and where named from that Planning District. Names starting with "NO" are mostly in the North planning district; "NW" are mostly in the Near West planning district; "BR" are mostly in the Broad Rock planning district, etc... There’s no significance for the number following the planning district lettering used by NSAs (NO-1, NO-2, NO-3, etc). The number was just randomly assigned to further uniquely define the area subdivided within the Planning District, and has no relationship in terms to square area, population density, or anything.