priority - kcmo.govkcmo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kcstathealthycommunities... · priority...
TRANSCRIPT
PRIORITY
Reduce Illegal Dumping
INDICATORS 1. % of citizens satisfied
with cleanliness of city streets and public areas
2. Citywide and Neighborhood Litter Index
3. Illegal Dumping tonnage
4. Neighborhood Cleanups
5. Recycling tonnage
2
ASSESSING PROGRESS ON ILLEGAL DUMPING
Outcome Indicators (How are we doing?)
Output Indicators (What are we doing?)
Citizen satisfaction with cleanliness
Illegal dumping prosecutions
Litter index Illegal dumping prosecution
disposition rates
Tonnage of illegal dumping cleaned
Neighborhood clean-up events
Adopt-A-Street participants
Recycling tonnage/revenue
Recycling participation
3
CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH CLEANLINESS OF CITY STREETS AND PUBLIC AREAS
30% 36% 38% 33% 36% 38% 38%
46% 46%
32% 32% 32% 36% 34% 34% 34%
32% 33%
38% 32% 30% 31% 31% 28% 28%
22% 21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014Mid-Year
Satisfied/Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied
Positive Trend:
Source: Citizen Survey, 2005 through FY2014 Q2 4
2013 LITTER INDEX
1.69
1.47
1.59
1.47
1.50
1.50
1.39
1.46
1.47
1.44
1.45
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Target = <1.75
Positive Trend:
Source: Keep Kansas City Beautiful Litter Index 5
LITTER INDEX NEIGHBORHOOD BRIGHT SPOTS
Bridging the Gap Neighborhood
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Chouteau 1.66 1.38 1.38 1.06 1.62 1.53 1.36 1.38 1.50 1.07 1.21
Westside/ Downtown
1.66 1.59 1.46 1.55 1.73 1.27 1.36 1.26 1.59 1.40 1.40
Martin City 2.11 2.06 1.76 1.47 1.86 1.88 1.31 1.77 1.63 1.03 1.41
Source: Keep Kansas City Beautiful Litter Index 6
LITTER INDEX NEIGHBORHOODS TO MONITOR
Bridging the Gap Neighborhood
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Gashland 1.08 1.31 1.32 1.27 1.33 1.11 1.37 1.11 1.06 1.15 1.53
Birmingham Bottoms*
1.86 1.03 1.78 1.30 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.60 1.24 1.22 1.86
Old Northeast 1.90 1.87 2.26 1.43 1.58 1.23 1.57 1.67 2.09 2.10 1.82
CID/West Bottoms
2.20 1.93 1.82 1.62 1.98 1.34 1.53 1.58 1.82 1.88 1.74
Hickman Mills* 2.26 1.15 1.29 1.34 1.49 1.37 1.63 1.65 1.17 1.41 1.87
Blue Valley 2.52 2.38 2.45 2.67 1.93 1.42 1.45 1.67 1.58 1.87 2.09
* = Neighborhood was on “Bright Spot” list after 2012 results
Source: Keep Kansas City Beautiful Litter Index 7
CAMERA INVENTORY
Illegal Dumping Camera Status
19 Cameras currently installed
13 New cameras to be installed as replacements or at selective locations
16 Existing cameras stolen or vandalized since March 2013
8
ILLEGAL DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS BY EVIDENCE TYPE
6
29
59 58 2
30
52
2
5
11
4
3
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2011 2012 2013Calendar Year
Video
Eyewitness
Camera
Source: NHS Illegal Dumping Database
Positive Trend:
9
2013 ILLEGAL DUMPING DISPOSITIONS BY EVIDENCE TYPE
55% 29%
16%
Camera
Guilty or Bench Warrant
Not Guilty or Dismissed
Disposition Pending or Unknown
34%
10%
56%
47%
22%
34%
All Evidence Types
2012 Guilty Rates:
85% 80% 80%
Source: NHS Illegal Dumping Database 10
ILLEGAL DUMPING ABATEMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CLEAN-UPS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Neighborhood Clean-ups
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Additional tonnage collected throughspecial projects*Tons of illegal dumping collected
* Note: in FY12, SW began tracking collection separately for other activities (i.e. sweeps)
Positive Trend:
Source: Public Works-Solid Waste 11
RECYCLING REVENUE AND TONNAGE TRENDS
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
FY11 FY12 FY13
Re
cycl
ing
Re
ve
nu
e (
Cu
rbsi
de
)
Re
cycl
ing
To
nn
ag
e
(Cu
rbsi
de
an
d R
ecy
cle
Ce
nte
rs)
Curbside Revenues Recycling Tonnage
FY14 YTD Recycling Tonnage = 10,272 Source: Public Works-Solid Waste
Watch Trend
15
RECYCLING REVENUE PER TON
$32
$18
$7
$61
$34 $31
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
FY12 FY13 FY14 (To Date)
Revenue/Ton (Contracted Pick-up/Town & County)
Revenue/Ton (City Pick-up/Deffenbaugh)
Source: Public Works-Solid Waste
Watch Trend
16
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROFILE – WHO RECYCLES IN KC?
Residents who recycle weekly are more likely to:
• Have household income in the range of $60,000-$100,000+
• Be between 25-54 years old
• Own their home
• Want to receive information via city website
Source: Citizen Survey, FY2013
80% of residents indicate they use curbside recycling weekly
Residents who never recycle are more likely to:
• Have household income below $60,000
• Rent their home
• Want to receive information via city magazine by mail
17
CASE STUDY: RAT CONTROL TREATMENT REQUESTS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jan
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Oct
No
v
De
c
Jan
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Oct
No
v
De
c
2012 2013
Average requests in 2012/2013 = 1,020 annually Peak season is June/July through November
Source: Peoplesoft CRM (311 Service Request Database)
Watch Trend
18
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ILLEGAL DUMPING AND RAT CONTROL
Gregory and The Paseo Blue Hills
Points = Rat Control Treatment Requests, July-November 2012 and 2013 Heat Map = Illegal Dumping Service Requests 2012 and 2013
Source: KCMO Data Catalog (data.kcmo.org) 19
PRIORITY Emphasize the focus on
the customer across all City services; engage citizens in a meaningful dialogue about City services, processes, and priorities using strategic communication methods.
INDICATORS 1. % of citizens
satisfied with solid waste services
2. % of customers satisfied with 311 solid waste service request outcomes
20
CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH SOLID WASTE SERVICES
82%
79%
61%
83%
81%
60%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Trash collection services
Curbside recycling
Bulky item pick-up service
FY2013 FY2014 Mid-Year
Source: Citizen Survey, FY13-14 21
SOLID WASTE 311 MATRIX – MAY-DECEMBER 2013
Bulky Validation
Bulky Miss
Dead Animal
Illegal Dumping
Trash & Recycling
City
Recycling & Trash North
Trash & Recycling
South
SW Admin
Leaf and Brush Miss (WSD)
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
40% 60% 80% 100%
% o
f C
ust
om
ers
Sa
tisf
ied
% of Cases Closed in Designated Timeframe
Av
era
ge
Tim
eli
ne
ss
Average Satisfaction
Source: Peoplesoft CRM (311 Service Request System) and 311 Customer Survey 22
PRIORITY Ensure that any City or
shared community animal shelters meet industry standards and work with the community to address issues of pet population and responsible pet ownership
INDICATORS 1. Live release rate
from City animal shelter
2. Pets with licenses, tags, chips
23
OUTCOMES FOR ANIMALS IMPOUNDED AT SHELTER
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ma
y '1
1Ju
ne
'11
July
'11
Au
g '1
1S
ep
t '1
1O
ct '1
1N
ov
'11
De
c '1
1Ja
n '1
2F
eb
'12
Ma
r '1
2A
pr
'12
Ma
y '1
2Ju
ne
'12
July
'12
Au
g '1
2S
ep
t '1
2O
ct '1
2N
ov
'12
De
c '1
2Ja
n '1
3F
eb
'13
Ma
r '1
3A
pr
'13
Ma
y '1
3Ju
ne
'13
July
'13
Au
g '1
3S
ep
t '1
3O
ct '1
3N
ov
'13
De
c '1
3
Adopted Returned to Owner Transferred to Rescue Group Euthanized
90% live release = “no kill”
Source: PetPoint (Animal Shelter Mgmt System), via KC Pet Project
Positive Trend:
24
TAG-LICENSE-CHIP CAMPAIGN OUTCOMES
Service
Units sold by Spay Neuter KC in 2012 w/o TLC Campaign
(January – December 2012)
Units sold by Spay Neuter KC during
2013 TLC Campaign (January –
December 2013)
City License
1,810 4,020
Rabies 5,686 8,542
Chips 976 6,405
Source: Animal Health and Public Safety
2013 Goal = 10,000 combined License, Rabies and Chips
25
FREE RIDE HOME
Number of Animals taking advantage of Free Ride Home since January 2013
Source: Animal Health and Public Safety 26
SNAPSHOT COUNT OF PETS WITH LICENSES
Publicity campaign
2004
Introduction of 3-year license
2006
Fee increase of $3/year
2007
Nationwide downturn in licensing and adoption
2008
Enforcement campaign
2010
TLC Campaign
2012/13
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Cats
Dogs
10% of pets
Watch Trend
Source: Pet Data 27
LICENSE SALES BY LOCATION
6912 6106
11050 10013 11241 9189 9618 9322 10782 9200 9836 10558
3439 2470
3874 2621
3228 3701 2625 2223
2679 2026 1788
2895
10913 10819
13803
13251 12500
11356 10287
9249 9156
8811 8581 7179
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013(thruNov)
PetData
Shelter
Clinic
Source: Pet Data
Watch Trend
28
PETSMART PITBULL GRANT
• PetSmart grant ($100,000) covers cost of spay/neuter, vaccination and licensing services for “pitbull” breeds
• Of the almost 4,900 dogs impounded in 2012, 19% (910) were pitbulls.
• Goal is to reach 850 pitbulls with grant
• KCMO is contracting with three vendors to provide these services under grant
• Efforts are targeted in zip codes 64130 and 64132
• 36% (324) of the impounded pitbulls came from these zip codes
Vaccination clinics coming to 64130 and 64132 this spring/summer!
29
PRIORITY Prevent threats to public
safety and animal welfare via efficient and effective animal control response and operations.
INDICATORS 1. Response time for
complaints
2. % of customers satisfied with 311 animal control service request outcomes
30
RESPONSE TIME FOR ANIMAL CONTROL Positive Trend:
14.9 14.1
15.7
13.4 13.7 14.0 13.0
13.9 14.5 14.6 14.5 14.7
15.3
13.7 14.2 14.6 15.2 14.7 15.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Ma
y-1
2
Jun
-12
Jul-
12
Au
g-1
2
Se
p-1
2
Oct
-12
No
v-1
2
De
c-1
2
Jan
-13
Fe
b-1
3
Ma
r-1
3
Ap
r-1
3
Ma
y-1
3
Jun
-13
Jul-
13
Au
g-1
3
Se
p-1
3
Oct
-13
No
v-1
3
Median Response Time (Minutes - Dispatch to Arrival)
Target (<15 minutes)
Source: Tiberon System, KCPD 31
311 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE REQUESTS
Positive Trend:
82% 84% 86% 87% 85% 85% 84% 86% 87% 86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Mid-Year
Quality of Service Timeliness of Service
Source: 311 Customer Survey 32
311 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SERVICE REQUEST TYPE (MAY-DECEMBER 2013)
50%
79% 79% 86% 91% 93% 96% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Satisfaction with Quality of Service
Source: 311 Customer Survey
From May – December 2013, Animal At Large calls accounted for 41% of Animal Control service requests 33
ANIMAL CONTROL 311 MATRIX – MAY-DECEMBER 2013
Animal At Large
Animal Bite
Animal Control Admin
Animal Investigation
Barking Dog
Injury or Cruelty
Stray Animal Confined Wildlife
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
40% 60% 80% 100%
% o
f C
ust
om
ers
Sa
tisf
ied
% of Cases Closed in Designated Timeframe
Av
era
ge
Tim
eli
ne
ss
Source: Peoplesoft CRM (311 Service Request System) and 311 Customer Survey
Average Satisfaction
34
PRIORITY Emphasize the focus on
the customer across all City services; engage citizens in a meaningful dialogue about City services, processes, and priorities using strategic communication methods.
INDICATORS 1. Animal Control
Supervisor QA Survey Results
35
ANIMAL HEALTH SUPERVISOR QUALITY CONTROL
Satisfied 80%
Neutral 6%
Dissatisfied 10%
Don't Know/No Comment
4% Total of 285
cases randomly
reviewed by Animal Health
supervisors in 2013
Source: Animal Health notes in Peoplesoft CRM (311 Service Request System) 36
UPDATE ON STAFFING AND OFFICER TRAINING
• July 17 & 24, 2013: Animal Control Officers and Supervisors trained in evidence collection and report writing
• Summer 2013: Defensive driving training for Animal Control Officers
37
PRIORITY
Encourage active living and healthy eating via strategies in the KC Community Health Improvement Plan (KC CHIP)
INDICATORS 1. Citizen satisfaction
with City efforts toward active living
2. # of community gardens through Healthy Eating Active Living grant
3. Bike mode share
38
WHAT IS KC CHIP? • The Kansas City Community
Health Improvement Plan (KC CHIP) is a five-year community-wide strategic plan that focuses on the improvement of health in Kansas City
• Created though 10 interactive community meetings, engaging over 95 agencies (churches, neighborhoods, non-profits, hospitals, clinics and community health agencies)
Current Council Priority focuses on: Encouraging active living and healthy eating
KC CHIP targets six strategic issues: • Ensuring access to clinical
preventive services, illness care, and public health services/interventions
• Healthy equity and social determinants of health
• Ensuring a safe and healthy community environment
• Ensuring every child has a healthy start
• Encouraging active living and healthy eating
• Tobacco free living
39
CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH ENCOURAGING HEALTHY EATING, EXERCISE AND NON-SMOKING
51% 55%
33% 31%
16% 14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY2013 FY2014 Mid-Year
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Source: Citizen Survey, FY2013 - FY2014
Watch Trend
40
GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING (HEAL)
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our communities
• Identify and mobilize community resources to increase availability of supermarkets in underserved areas
• Improve availability of affordable healthier food options using activities such as farmers markets, urban agriculture
• Support creation and/or enhancement of places for physical activity
• Promote livable streets
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our organizations
• Work with employers, faith-based agencies and schools to implement policies/practices that promote access to healthy foods and beverages and physical activity
41
CORNER STORES INITIATIVE
• Working with two stores: Indiana Market (37th and Indiana) and Shayan’s EZ Shop (85th and Woodland) – stocking fresh produce
• Kickoff event was held in November, where neighbors could sample a recipe made from produce sold at the corner stores.
• Goal for 2014 is to add 2-3 stores through a neighborhood nomination process, which begins in January
42
COMMUNITY GARDENS THROUGH COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION GRANT (HEALTH DEPT)
CTG Goal for KCMO: 6 new gardens by end September 2013; 25 for all of Jackson County by September 2016
https://data.kcmo.org/Food/Community-Gardens-and-Farmer-s-Markets/smcx-sth3
Source: Health Department 43
URBAN AGRICULTURE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Health Economic • # pounds of food produced
by farm/garden • $ total value of food
produced
• # of CSAs linked to the farm/garden
• $ total value per sq ft of produce
• # of participants in CSAs linked to the farm/garden
• #, % total revenue generated from sale of food
• # of people engaged in farming/gardening on the farm/garden
• # hours of volunteer-time contributed to the farms/gardens
• # of total person-hours spent farming/gardening per year
44
URBAN AGRICULTURE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Social Ecological • # of farmer’s markets farms/gardens sell in • # of school students participating in food
system ecology programs
• # of youth participating in farming/gardening
• Energy/Water consumption
• # of total youth person-hours spent working on farm/garden per year
• #, % sq ft of land/lots that could potentially grow food that are used for growing food
• #, % of youth farm/garden trains in job skills
• Pounds of food waste processed for compost/collected
• #, % youth participating in programs who graduate from high school
• Sq ft of permeable surface in farm/garden
• #, % youth participating who report having at least one good relationship with an adult other than parent
• Lead levels in farm/garden’s soil
• #, % youth indicating positive attitude change and/or aspirations related to participation
• Habitat improvement/biodiversity/ecological connectivity measures 45
URBAN AGRICULTURAL ZONES
Ordinance #130983 to create Urban Agricultural Zone Advisory Commission will be introduced January 8th
• Advises the City on policies for Urban Ag Zones authorized by 262.900 RSMo
• Consists of 9 members appointed by Mayor
• Recommendations introduced no later than April 10, 2014.
46
OAK WOLF GARAGE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Update on restaurant spaces under Wolf Garage: Request for Proposal has been issued that gives preference to purveyors of healthy food options
47
GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING (HEAL)
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our communities
• Identify and mobilize community resources to increase availability of supermarkets in underserved areas
• Improve availability of affordable healthier food options using activities such as farmers markets, urban agriculture
• Support creation and/or enhancement of places for physical activity
• Promote livable streets
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our organizations
• Work with employers, faith-based agencies and schools to implement policies/practices that promote access to healthy foods and beverages and physical activity
48
HEALTHY VENDING IN CITY OF KCMO AND BEYOND City of Kansas City – Internal Efforts Toward Healthy Vending
The Health Care Trust voted unanimously in favor of including these criteria in a draft resolution being prepared by Health Department staff
Healthy Vending Sourcing Committee will begin meeting late January 2014
Efforts Toward Employer Healthy Vending
• Assisted Children’s Mercy Hospital with assessments of vending machines, a survey and development of criteria for new snack vending contract
• Goal for 2013 was 5 employers signed up; did not meet target. Goal for 2016 is 12.
• 2014: Changing strategies and updating toolkit to recruit more employers!
49
GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING (HEAL)
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our communities
• Identify and mobilize community resources to increase availability of supermarkets in underserved areas
• Improve availability of affordable healthier food options using activities such as farmers markets, urban agriculture
• Support creation and/or enhancement of places for physical activity
• Promote livable streets
• Advance policy, environmental, and system changes promoting healthy eating and active living in our organizations
• Work with employers, faith-based agencies and schools to implement policies/practices that promote access to healthy foods and beverages and physical activity
50
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR BIKING
Output Outcome
Infrastructure Development • Miles of facilities by type • Number of bike-friendly projects • Number of existing and new
bicycle parking spaces
Citizen perception • Safety in riding • Amount and connectivity of network • Quality of facility design and
maintenance • Number of bike parking spaces • KC as a bike-friendly city
Bike Traffic • Intersection counts (PW) • Other volume counts (Volunteers) • As share of commuters (ACS)
Safety outcomes • Crashes (MARC) • Fatalities (MARC) • Children receiving bicycling
education
Other Areas (Potential Case Studies) • Economic Impact • Health Impact • Tourism • Children and Youth
51
STREET OVERLAY 2013
• +3.4 lane miles of sharrows/11.4 lane miles total
• +3.6 lane miles of bike lanes/29.6 lane miles total
• 33% of 600 mile on-street system constructed
• 28% of 230 mile trail system constructed
Source: Public Works Department 52
BIKE MODE SHARE (ACS CENSUS) Positive Trend:
Source: ACS Census, via Public Works Department
1990 - 2000 2005 2010 – 2011 2012
.1% share of bicycle commuters 0.0% share of bicycle commuters .3% share of bicycle commuters .4% share of bicycle commuters
2011 2012
KC ranked #59 out of 70 largest cities in the US for share of bicycle commuters KC ranked #49 out of 70 largest cities in the US for share of bicycle commuters
2005 – 2012 2011 – 2012
1761.4% increase in bicycle commuting in KC 42.4% increase in bicycle commuting in KC
53
GREEN LANE PROJECT 2.0 APPLICATION
What is GLP?
• National initiative to help six US cities make their streets work better for everyone by engaging a multi-disciplinary network of leading cities to build better bike lanes.
What services will GLP provide KC?
• Technical, financial and strategic resources and opportunities to network with peers and international experts on study tours and gain national recognition as a leader in a rapidly evolving field.
What is the Focus City Selection Criteria?
• High profile protected bike lane project constructed 2014-15
• Strong political support
• Supportive and engaged city transportation staff
• Evidence of strong community support
• Evidence of support from business community
• Recent successes that demonstrate momentum 54
GREEN LANE PROJECT 2.0 APPLICATION
What is required of KC if selected as GLP city?
• Participate in monthly conference calls
• Recruit members for participation in study tours
• Produce report at end of 2014 and 2015
• Cover airfare for international study tours
What are the benefits of a focus city?
• At least 2 visits from GLP team experts to assess conditions and engage leaders
• Professional peer exchange on best practices for protected bike lanes
• Collaboration with country’s leading innovators
• Participation and travel scholarships to GLP domestic workshops
• Participation in international study tours to Netherlands and Denmark
• Access to modest grant funds
• Role in developing research priorities and projects
• National publicity and recognition as a leading city
55
BIKE KC SURVEY: 3 WORDS TO DESCRIBE CYCLING IN KANSAS CITY
Bike KC Survey
respondents = 589
56 Source: Bike KC Survey
yes, 500
no, 70
yes, 544
no, 26
BIKE KC SURVEY: BIKE OWNERSHIP/ABILITY
D O Y O U
O W N A B I K E ?
D O Y O U C U R R E N T L Y
R I D E ?
15
75
235
243
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Not confident
Somewhat confident
Confident
Very confident
Number of Respondents
How would you describe your bicycling abilities?
57 Source: Bike KC Survey
BIKE KC SURVEY: CYCLISTS LOCATIONS AND COMMUTES
64111, 79
64110, 53
64113, 47
64108, 30
64114, 29 64105,
25 64112,
21
All Other,
296
Respondents Home Zip
64108, 82
64111, 73
64106, 49
64105, 32
64116, 21
64110, 18 64112, 16
All Other, 265
Respondents Work Zip
71
137
169
182
0 50 100 150 200
1 mile or less
5-10 miles
10 plus miles
1-5 miles
Number of respondents
How far is your one-way commute to work/school?
58 Source: Bike KC Survey
BIKE KC SURVEY: ROUTE FACTORS
0 100 200 300 400 500
Someone to ride with
Low posted speed limits
Signed bike routes
Access to shared use trails
Most direct route
Wide driving lanes
Bike lanes and/or sharrow markings
Low traffic streets
What helps you determine a route for your bike trip? (select all that apply)
Source: Bike KC Survey 59
BIKE KC SURVEY: RIDERSHIP FACTORS
4
7
15
26
78
93
105
116
129
138
241
435
0 200 400 600
I understood the rules of the road better
There was a bike shop near me
I owned a bike
There was training for how to ride in traffic
I felt more confident riding on city streets
Police enforced traffic laws more
Cars slowed down
Destinations were closer to where I live
There were more bike racks to lock my bike
Intersections were safer
There were more shared use trails
There were more bike lanes and sharrows
I would ride my bike more often if: (select three)
Source: Bike KC Survey 60
BIKE KC SURVEY: KC POLICY PRIORITIES
60
172
251
255
313
391
487
0 200 400 600
Emergency access marking system on trails
Collect data on bicycle usage on regular basis
City sponsored encouragement events like Ride the Fountains…etc.
Roadway safety enforcement by KC PoliceDepartment
Public awareness and education efforts about newbicycle facilities and how to use them
Apply for federal/state grant programs to leveragelocal funds to construct new bike facilities
Include bike facilities in roadway improvementprojects
What should be KC’s policy priorities to support a bicycle friendly community? (select all that apply)
Source: Bike KC Survey 61
37% 40% 40%
36% 36%
44% 46% 53% 54%
32% 31% 30% 33% 33%
33% 31% 30% 28%
31% 29% 31% 31% 30%
23% 23% 18% 18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH BIKING/WALKING TRAILS
62
Source: Citizen Survey, 2005 – FY2014 Mid-Year
Positive Trend:
PRIORITY Emphasize the focus on
the customer across all City services; engage citizens in a meaningful dialogue about City services, processes, and priorities using strategic communication methods.
INDICATORS 1. % of citizens
satisfied with Health Dept services
2. % of customers satisfied with 311 service request outcomes for Health Dept
63
CITIZEN SATISFACTION: HEALTH DEPARTMENT SERVICES
50%
51%
56%
56%
57%
59%
52%
55%
64%
59%
62%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Protecting the public from exposure toenvironmental risks (air pollution,
lead)
Encouraging healthy eating and activeliving
Protecting the public from new orunusual health threats
Guarding against food poisoning
Communicating about public healthconcerns
Preventing the spread of infectiousdiseases
FY2013
FY2014Mid-Year
Source: Citizen Survey, FY2013- FY2014 Mid-Year 64
311 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: HEALTH SERVICES (MAY-DECEMBER 2013)
8 9 88
1 1 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Noise Control Food Protection Rat Control
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Source: Citizen Survey, 2005 – FY2014 Mid-Year 65
HEALTH DEPT 311 MATRIX – MAY-DECEMBER 2013
Food Protection
Noise Control
Rat Control
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% o
f C
ust
om
ers
Sa
tisf
ied
% of Cases Closed in Designated Timeframe
Av
era
ge
Tim
eli
ne
ss
Average Satisfaction
Source: Peoplesoft CRM (311 Service Request System) and 311 Customer Survey 66