The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2021 0407 CCSA REG ITEM 09BCITY OF MOORPARK,  CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of April 07, 2021 ACTION Unanimous Consensus to Receive and File the Survey Results. BY B.Garza. B. Consider results of 2020 of National Community Survey. Staff Recommendation: Receive and File. (Staff: Troy Brown) Item: 9.B. MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Troy Brown, City Manager DATE: 04/07/2021 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider Results of 2020 National Community Survey SUMMARY The City recently received the results of the 2020 National Community Survey (NCS) conducted in late 2020 by the National Research Center, Inc. This is the first time the City has participated in the NCS. The survey was sent to 2,700 Moorpark households in November 2020. A total of 501 completed surveys were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 19%. The “confidence interval” (margin of error) is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The results have been weighted to reflect the demographic profile of the community. There are four 2021 NCS reports: 1) Community Livability Report 2) Comparison of Demographic Subgroups 3) Supplemental Online Survey Results 4) Technical Appendices The survey also compares Moorpark resident’s overall satisfaction with city services against cities of a similar size across the country. This information is helpful in understanding how residents in similarly sized cities compare to Moorpark residents. Overall results are very positive, despite the global pandemic and other external economic factors facing respondents. Item: 9.B. 178 Honorable City Council 04/07/2021 Regular Meeting Page 2 DISCUSSION Report of Results – Highlights from 2020 Community Livability Survey: Quality of Life: Overall quality of life in Moorpark: 88% excellent or good Moorpark as a place to live: 92% excellent or good Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks: 95% very or somewhat likely Governance: Overall customer service by Moorpark employees: 89% excellent or good Quality of services provided by the City of Moorpark: 76% excellent or good Treating residents with respect: 77% excellent or good Economy: Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark: 57% excellent or good Moorpark as a place to work: 49% excellent or good Cost of living in Moorpark: 39% excellent or good Mobility: Ease of public parking: 81% excellent or good Street cleaning: 80% excellent or good Street lighting: 80% excellent or good Community Design: Your neighborhood as a place to live: 93% excellent or good Well-designed neighborhoods: 77% excellent or good Overall appearance of Moorpark: 77% excellent or good Utilities: Storm water management: 82% excellent or good Garbage collection: 88% excellent or good Affordable high speed internet access: 65% excellent or good Perceptions of Safety: Respondents feeling of safety in Moorpark: 96% excellent or good In neighborhood during the day: 98% very or somewhat safe In downtown during the day: 95% very or somewhat safe Natural Environment: Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark: 89% excellent or good Air quality: 86% excellent or good Cleanliness of Moorpark: 86% excellent or good Parks and Recreation: Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities: 88% excellent or good Recreation programs and classes: 82% excellent or good Availability of paths and walking trails: 75% excellent or good 179 Health and Wellness: In good to excellent health: 97% excellent or good Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark: 76% excellent or good Availability of affordable quality mental health care: 30% excellent or good Education, Arts and Culture: Public library services: 80% excellent or good Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts: 62% excellent or good K-12 education:84% excellent or good Inclusivity and Engagement: Moorpark as a place to raise children: 96% excellent or good Sense of community: 79% excellent or good Making all residents feel welcome: 78% excellent or good SURVEY OVERVIEW Residents positively evaluated aspects of the quality of life in Moorpark, particularly those pertaining to families. Almost all respondents rated Moorpark as an excellent or good place to raise children, while around 8 in 10 gave high marks to the overall sense of community. Both of these ratings were above national benchmark comparisons. Residents gave ratings for a number of Moorpark’s economic indicators that were lower than both the national and peer community averages. Less than one-quarter of respondents gave vibrancy of downtown/commercial areas and employment opportunities favorable marks while 3 in 10 assessed overall economic development, shopping opportunities as excellent or good. About 9 in 10 residents expressed either support for the City investing in more sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, as well as more trails and greenways. However, despite the overwhelming positive natural environment ratings, only about one-third gave positive marks to water resources, which could indicate a possible area of focus for the City. In an effort to garner as much participation as possible, the City made available a web- based survey which participants accessed through a link on the City’s website. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey during December 2020 and 97 surveys were received. The data collected was outside of the random sampling of Moorpark households and it is unknown who in the community was aware of the link, and where respondents to the survey may reside. Therefore, a level of confidence in the representation of the web-based responses cannot be estimated. The complete results of the web-based survey are included as a supplemental to the NCS. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with delivery of this 2020 National Community Survey. 180 Honorable City Council 04/07/2021 Regular Meeting Page 4 COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE This action does not support a current strategic directive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the 2020 National Community Survey reports. Attachment 1: National Community Survey – 2020 Community Livability Report Attachment 2: National Community Survey – 2020 Comparisons of Demographic Subgroups Attachment 3: National Community Survey – Supplemental Online Survey Results Attachment 4: National Community Survey – Technical Appendices 181 Moorpark, CA Community Livability Report 2020 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1 182 Contents About The NCS™ ............................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Results .......................................................................................................................... 2 Facets of Livability ............................................................................................................................ 4 Quality of Life ................................................................................................................................... 6 Governance ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Economy ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Mobility .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Community Design .......................................................................................................................... 13 Utilities ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Safety ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Natural Environment....................................................................................................................... 18 Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 19 Health and Wellness ...................................................................................................................... 20 Education, Arts, and Culture ............................................................................................................ 22 Inclusivity and Engagement ............................................................................................................. 24 Special Topics ................................................................................................................................. 28 183 About The NCS™ The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the “livability” of Moorpark. The phrase “livable community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions considering ten central facets of a community: • Economy • Mobility • Community Design • Utilities • Safety • Natural Environment • Parks and Recreation • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts and Culture • Inclusivity and Engagement The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 501 residents of the City of Moorpark. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 4% for all respondents and the response rate for the 2020 survey was 19%. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Government Private sector 184 Overview of Results Moorpark is a great place to live, especially for families. Community members positively evaluated aspects of the quality of life in Moorpark, particularly those pertaining to families. Almost all respondents rated Moorpark as an excellent or good place to raise children, while around 8 in 10 gave high marks to the overall sense of community. Both of these ratings were above the national benchmark comparisons. K-12 is another area where Moorpark performed strongly, with about 80% of respondents giving it high marks. Similarly, 8 in 10 community members indicated Moorpark had well-designed neighborhoods while almost all positively rated the overall feeling of safety in the city. These ratings surpassed those in comparison communities. The Economy may be an area of opportunity for Moorpark. Residents gave ratings for a number of Moorpark’s economic indicators that were lower than both the national and peer community averages. Less than one-quarter of respondents gave vibrancy of downtown/commercial area and employment opportunities favorable marks while around 3 in 10 assessed overall economic development, shopping opportunities, as excellent or good. Moorpark’s overall economic health and the city as a place to visit or work were also identified as areas of opportunity, with around 40% of residents positively rating these aspects. However, despite the overall lower economic outlooks, 95% of respondents expressed strong support for investment in amenities like more dining opportunities, and more small, independent, or locally owned businesses. The reported rates of residents feeling pessimistic about the overall economic state of Moorpark was more severe than the national average, but it is important to consider the possible impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. It is possible that Moorpark residents will feel more hopeful about the city’s economic outlooks in the coming years. Please note that the national benchmarks are based on averages of pre-and post-COVID-19 assessments. The Natural Environment is appreciated by residents, though water resources could be a future area of focus. About 9 in 10 residents expressed either support for the City investing in more sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, as well as more trails or greenways. 7 in 10 residents rated Moorpark’s open space as excellent or good, while about 80% gave the cleanliness of the city, the air quality and yard-waste pick up similarly strong marks. In addition, the preservation of natural areas received 80% positive ratings, putting the city above both the national and custom benchmarks in the latter category. However, despite the overwhelming positive natural environment ratings, only about one-third gave positive marks to water resources, which could indicate a possible area of opportunity for Moorpark. 185 Ease of Mobility contributes to the overall quality of life in Moorpark. About 6 in 10 community members rated the ease of travel by public transportation as excellent or good in Moorpark, while about 8 in 10 favorably rated public parking, street cleaning, and street lighting. These ratings were all higher than national averages. In addition, about 7 in 10 residents supported extended transportation services like new or expanded bus routes, more frequent bus services for existing routes, rideshare programs with Uber/Lyft, and more park-n-rides for access to public transportation. Further, 80% of residents responded positively to the idea of more rail options in the City. While community members rated public transportation services in Moorpark extraordinarily well, less than one-quarter indicated they had used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving in the last 12 months. An important consideration when assessing this score is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s willingness and need to use public transportation. The global pandemic has dually necessitated social distancing practices when available, as well as resulted in more people working from home. The aforementioned factors may be why Moorpark fell below the national average. It is possible that more residents’ will use public transportation services in the coming years as the COVID-19 virus is brought under control. 186 Facets of Livability Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of quality to help guide City staff and officials with decisions on future resource allocation and strategic planning areas. When competition for limited resources demands that efficiencies or cutbacks be instituted, it is wise not only to know what facets are deemed most important to residents’ quality of life, but which among the most important are perceived to be of relatively lower quality in your community. It is these facets of community livability – more important facets perceived as being of lower quality – to which attention needs to be paid first. QUALITY LOWER SIMILAR HIGHER IMPORTANCE HIGHER • Economy SIMILAR • Community Design • Utilities • Natural Environment • Parks and Recreation • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts and Culture • Safety LOWER • Mobility • Inclusivity and Engagement 187 FIGURE 1: QUALITY OF FACETS OF LIVABILITY- SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall economic health of Moorpark ↓ 47% Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark ↔ 60% Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas ↔ 69% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark ↔ 78% Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark ↑ 96% Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark ↔ 89% Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ↔ 88% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark ↔ 76% Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↔ 62% Residents' connection and engagement with their community ↔ 66% FIGURE 2: IMPORTANCE OF FACETS OF LIVABILITY- SUMMARY Percent essential or very important Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall economic health of Moorpark ↑ 92% Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark ↓ 64% Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas ↔ 76% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark ↔ 80% Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark ↔ 91% Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark ↔ 85% Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ↔ 80% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark ↔ 76% Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↔ 71% Residents' connection and engagement with their community ↓ 71% 188 Quality of Life Measuring community livability starts with assessing the quality of life of those who live there, and ensuring that the community is attractive, accessible, and welcoming to all. FIGURE 3: QUALITY OF LIFE IN MOORPARK FIGURE 4: QUALITY OF LIFE IN MOORPARK - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall image or reputation of Moorpark ↔ 76% The overall quality of life in Moorpark ↔ 88% Moorpark as a place to live ↔ 92% FIGURE 5: RECOMMEND MOORPARK - SUMMARY Percent very or somewhat likely Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks ↔ 95% Remain in Moorpark for the next five years ↔ 87% 87% 95% 92% 88% 76% Remain in Moorpark for the next five years Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks PERCENT VERY or SOMEWHAT LIKELY Moorpark as a place to live The overall quality of life in Moorpark Overall image or reputation of Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 41% Good 47%Fair 12% Poor 0% OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN MOORPARK 189 Governance Strong local governments produce results that meet the needs of residents while making the best use of available resources, and are responsive to the present and future needs of the community as a whole. FIGURE 6: GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES 41% 76% 72% 89% 77% 72% 51% 55% 61% 71% 60% 60% 53% 52% Quality of services provided by the Federal Government Quality of services provided by the City of Moorpark Public information services Overall customer service by Moorpark employees Treating residents with respect Treating all residents fairly The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement Informing residents about issues facing the community Being open and transparent to the public Being honest Generally acting in the best interest of the community The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark The overall direction that Moorpark is taking Overall confidence in Moorpark government PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 12% Good 41% Fair 37% Poor 11% OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN MOORPARK GOVERNMENT 190 FIGURE 7: GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall confidence in Moorpark government ↔ 52% The overall direction that Moorpark is taking ↔ 53% The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark ↔ 60% Generally acting in the best interest of the community ↔ 60% Being honest ↔ 71% Being open and transparent to the public ↔ 61% Informing residents about issues facing the community ↔ 55% The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement ↔ 51% Treating all residents fairly ↔ 72% Treating residents with respect ↔ 77% Overall customer service by Moorpark employees ↔ 89% Public information services ↔ 72% Quality of services provided by the City of Moorpark ↔ 76% Quality of services provided by the Federal Government ↔ 41% 191 Economy Local governments work together with private and nonprofit businesses, and with the community at large, to foster sustainable growth, create jobs, and promote a thriving local economy. FIGURE 8: ECONOMIC HEALTH 21% 39% 49% 57% 16% 40% 31% 17% 35% 34% 47% Economy will have positive impact on income VERY OR SOMEWHAT POSITIVE Cost of living in Moorpark Employment opportunities Moorpark as a place to work Moorpark as a place to visit Shopping opportunities Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark Economic development Overall economic health of Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK 6%16%55%19%5% Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Negative Very negative What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Excellent 7% Good 41% Fair 39% Poor 14% OVERALL ECONOMIC HEALTH OF MOORPARK 192 FIGURE 9: ECONOMIC HEALTH - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall economic health of Moorpark ↓ 47% Economic development ↓ 34% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark ↔ 57% Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark ↓ 35% Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ↓↓ 17% Shopping opportunities ↓ 31% Moorpark as a place to visit ↓ 40% Moorpark as a place to work ↔ 49% Employment opportunities ↓ 16% Cost of living in Moorpark ↔ 39% FIGURE 10: ECONOMIC IMPACT - SUMMARY Percent very or somewhat positive Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ 21% 193 Mobility The ease with which residents can move about their communities, whether for commuting, leisure, or recreation, plays a major role in the quality of life for all who live, work and play in the community. FIGURE 11: MOBILITY IN MOORPARK FIGURE 12: USE OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES 80% 80% 81% 69% 53% 61% 70% 61% 79% 66% 52% 74% 42% 60% Sidewalk maintenance Street lighting Street cleaning Street repair Traffic signal timing Traffic enforcement Bus or transit services Ease of walking in Moorpark Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark Ease of travel by car in Moorpark Ease of public parking Traffic flow on major streets Overall quality of the transportation system PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK 63% 46% 17% Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving USED IN PAST 12 MONTHS Excellent 13% Good 47% Fair 30% Poor 10% OVERALL QUALITY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN MOORPARK 194 FIGURE 13: MOBILITY IN MOORPARK - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark ↔ 60% Traffic flow on major streets ↔ 42% Ease of travel by car in Moorpark ↔ 74% Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark ↔ 52% Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark ↔ 66% Ease of walking in Moorpark ↔ 79% Ease of public parking ↑ 81% Bus or transit services ↔ 61% Traffic enforcement ↔ 70% Traffic signal timing ↔ 61% Street repair ↔ 53% Street cleaning ↑ 80% Street lighting ↑ 80% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ 69% FIGURE 14: USE OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES - SUMMARY Percent who did this in past 12 months Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving ↔ 17% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ↔ 46% Walked or biked instead of driving ↔ 63% 195 Community Design A well-designed community enhances the quality of life for its residents by encouraging smart land use and zoning, ensuring that affordable housing is accessible to all, and providing access to parks and other green spaces. FIGURE 15: COMMUNITY DESIGN 52% 52% 30% 55% 51% 77% 57% 53% 93% 77% 69% 46% 26% Code enforcement Land use, planning, and zoning Availability of affordable quality housing Variety of housing options Public places where people want to spend time Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Well-designed neighborhoods Well-planned commercial growth Well-planned residential growth Overall quality of new development in Moorpark Your neighborhood as a place to live Overall appearance of Moorpark Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 18% Good 51% Fair 25% Poor 6% OVERALL DESIGN OR LAYOUT OF MOORPARK'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS 196 FIGURE 16: COMMUNITY DESIGN - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas ↔ 69% Overall appearance of Moorpark ↔ 77% Your neighborhood as a place to live ↔ 93% Overall quality of new development in Moorpark ↔ 53% Well-planned residential growth ↔ 57% Well-planned commercial growth ↓ 26% Well-designed neighborhoods ↔ 77% Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community ↔ 51% Public places where people want to spend time ↓ 46% Variety of housing options ↔ 55% Availability of affordable quality housing ↔ 30% Land use, planning, and zoning ↔ 52% Code enforcement ↔ 52% 197 Utilities Services such as water, gas, electricity, and internet access play a vital role in ensuring the physical and economic health and well-being of the communities they serve. FIGURE 17: UTILITES FIGURE 18: UTILITES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark ↔ 78% Affordable high-speed internet access ↔ 65% Power (electric and/or gas) utility ↔ 82% Garbage collection ↔ 88% Drinking water ↔ 84% Sewer services ↔ 88% Storm water management ↑ 82% Utility billing ↔ 78% 82% 78% 88% 84% 88% 82% 65% 78% Utility billing Storm water management Sewer services Drinking water Garbage collection Power (electric and/or gas) utility Affordable high-speed internet access Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 24% Good 54% Fair 19% Poor 3% OVERALL QUALITY OF THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN MOORPARK 198 Safety Public safety is often the most important task facing local governments. All residents should feel safe and secure in their neighborhoods and in the greater community, and providing robust Safety-related services is essential to residents' quality of life. FIGURE 19: SAFETY IN MOORPARK 86% 89% 96% 71% 91% 84% 95% 98% 67% 77% 90% 94% 91% From fire, flood, or other natural disaster From violent crime From property crime In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day In your neighborhood during the day PERCENT VERY or SOMEWHAT SAFE Emergency preparedness Fire prevention and education Fire services Ambulance or emergency medical services Animal control Crime prevention Police/Sheriff services Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 55% Good 41%Fair 4% Poor 0% OVERALL FEELING OF SAFETY IN MOORPARK 199 FIGURE 20: SAFETY-RELATED SERVICES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark ↑ 96% Police/Sheriff services ↔ 91% Crime prevention ↑ 89% Animal control ↑ 86% Ambulance or emergency medical services ↔ 94% Fire services ↔ 90% Fire prevention and education ↔ 77% Emergency preparedness ↔ 67% FIGURE 21: FEELINGS OF SAFETY- SUMMARY Percent who feel very or somewhat safe Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating In your neighborhood during the day ↔ 98% In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day ↔ 95% From property crime ↔ 84% From violent crime ↔ 91% From fire, flood, or other natural disaster ↔ 71% 200 Natural Environment The natural environment plays a vital role in the health and well-being of residents. The natural spaces in which residents live and experience their communities has a direct and profound effect on quality of life. FIGURE 22: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FIGURE 23: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark ↔ 89% Cleanliness of Moorpark ↔ 86% Water resources ↓↓ 32% Air quality ↔ 86% Preservation of natural areas ↑ 76% Moorpark open space ↔ 74% Recycling ↔ 73% Yard waste pick-up ↔ 88% 76% 88% 73% 74% 86% 86% 89% 32% Yard waste pick-up Recycling Moorpark open space Preservation of natural areas Air quality Water resources Cleanliness of Moorpark Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 43% Good 45%Fair 9% Poor 2% OVERALL QUALITY OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN MOORPARK 201 Parks and Recreation "There are no communities that pride themselves on their quality of life, promote themselves as a desirable location for businesses to relocate, or maintain that they are environmental stewards of their natural resources, without such communities having a robust, active system of parks and recreation programs for public use and enjoyment." - National Recreation and Park Association FIGURE 24: PARKS AND RECREATION FIGURE 25: PARKS AND RECREATION - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ↔ 88% Availability of paths and walking trails ↔ 75% City parks ↔ 84% Recreational opportunities ↔ 69% Recreation programs or classes ↔ 82% Recreation centers or facilities ↔ 75% Fitness opportunities ↔ 70% 70% 75% 82% 69% 84% 75% 88% Fitness opportunities Recreation centers or facilities Recreation programs or classes Recreational opportunities City parks Availability of paths and walking trails Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 45% Good 43%Fair 11% Poor 1% OVERALL QUALITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN MOORPARK 202 Health and Wellness The characteristics of and amenities available in the communities in which people live has a direct impact on the health and wellness of residents, and thus, on their quality of life overall. FIGURE 26: HEALTH AND WELLNESS 97% 64% 53% 59% 73% 76% 30% In good to excellent health PERCENT EXCELLENT, VERY GOOD or GOOD Availability of affordable quality food Availability of affordable quality mental health care Availability of preventive health services Availability of affordable quality health care Health services Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK 35%45%17%3%1% Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Would you say that your health in general is: Excellent 26% Good 50% Fair 18% Poor 6% HEALTH AND WELLNESS OPPORTUNITIES IN MOORPARK 203 FIGURE 27: HEALTH AND WELLNESS - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark ↔ 76% Health services ↔ 73% Availability of affordable quality health care ↔ 59% Availability of preventive health services ↔ 53% Availability of affordable quality mental health care ↓ 30% Availability of affordable quality food ↔ 64% FIGURE 28: PERSONAL HEALTH - SUMMARY Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating In good to excellent health ↔ 97% 204 Education, Arts, and Culture Participation in the arts, in educational opportunities, and in cultural activities is linked to increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and enhanced enjoyment of the local community. FIGURE 29: EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE 52% 84% 41% 80% 53% 62% 38% 32% Adult educational opportunities K-12 education Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool Public library services Community support for the arts Opportunities to attend special events and festivals Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 13% Good 49% Fair 26% Poor 12% OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION, CULTURE, AND THE ARTS IN MOORPARK 205 FIGURE 30: EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↔ 62% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ↓ 32% Opportunities to attend special events and festivals ↔ 53% Community support for the arts ↓ 38% Public library services ↔ 80% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ↔ 41% K-12 education ↔ 84% Adult educational opportunities ↔ 52% 206 Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling of belonging; residents who feel invited to participate within their communities feel more included, involved, and engaged than those who do not. FIGURE 31: INCLUSIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT 96% 79% 59% 58% 54% 67% 78% 69% 78% 65% 70% 76% 71% 66% Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Taking care of vulnerable residents Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Making all residents feel welcome Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Moorpark as a place to retire Moorpark as a place to raise children Neighborliness of Moorpark Sense of civic/community pride Sense of community Residents' connection and engagement with their community PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 16% Good 50% Fair 26% Poor 7% RESIDENTS' CONNECTION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR COMMUNITY 207 FIGURE 32: INCLUSIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Residents' connection and engagement with their community ↔ 66% Sense of community ↑ 79% Sense of civic/community pride ↔ 71% Neighborliness of Moorpark ↔ 76% Moorpark as a place to raise children ↑ 96% Moorpark as a place to retire ↔ 70% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ↔ 65% Making all residents feel welcome ↔ 78% Attracting people from diverse backgrounds ↔ 69% Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds ↔ 78% Taking care of vulnerable residents ↔ 67% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ↔ 54% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ 58% Opportunities to participate in community matters ↔ 59% 208 FIGURE 33: RESIDENTS’ PARTICIPATION LEVELS 71% 92% 39% 99% 83% 96% 97% 21% 27% 22% 15% 26% 34% Shop online Share your opinions online Use or check email Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. Access the internet from your cell phone Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer PERCENT A FEW TIMES A WEEK OR MORE Voted in your most recent local election Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Attended a local public meeting Contacted Moorpark elected officials to express your opinion Contacted Moorpark for help or information PERCENT YES IN LAST 12 MONTHS Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK 209 FIGURE 34: RESIDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN LAST 12 MONTHS- SUMMARY Percent who had done each in last 12 months Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Contacted Moorpark for help or information ↓ 34% Contacted Moorpark elected officials to express your opinion ↔ 15% Attended a local public meeting ↔ 22% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ↔ 27% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark ↓ 26% Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ↔ 21% Voted in your most recent local election ↑ 92% FIGURE 35: RESIDENTS’ GENERAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY- SUMMARY Percent who report doing each at least a few times a week Comparison to benchmark 2020 rating Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer ↔ 97% Access the internet from your cell phone ↔ 96% Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. ↔ 83% Use or check email ↔ 99% Share your opinions online ↔ 39% Shop online ↑ 71% 210 Special Topics FIGURE 36: LIKELIHOOD OF SHOPPING AND DINING IN MOORPARK How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? 26% 26% 39% 32% 30% 41% 56% 80% 73% 29% 32% 26% 36% 39% 35% 33% 15% 22% 25% 23% 19% 19% 18% 17% 8% 4% 4% 21% 19% 17% 12% 13% 7% 3% 2% 1% More transportation options on nights and weekends More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on- demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) More nightlife opportunities More national chain restaurants More large franchise businesses More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) Increased safety and security More unique dining opportunities More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely 211 FIGURE 37: LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR MOORPARK INVESTMENTS Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: 11% 18% 21% 22% 28% 35% 25% 24% 33% 44% 61% 22% 34% 48% 48% 44% 37% 50% 53% 46% 47% 36% 26% 23% 20% 18% 19% 19% 15% 17% 11% 7% 2% 40% 25% 11% 12% 9% 9% 10% 7% 9% 2% 1% New electric scooter sharing programs New bicycle sharing programs More city-sponsored rideshare programs More park-n-rides for access to public transportation More frequent bus service for existing routes More bicycle lanes New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. New or expanded bus routes More rail options More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways More trails and greenways Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose 212 Moorpark, CA Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups 2020 ATTACHMENT 2 213 About the Demographic Comparisons The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. Communities conducting The NCS can choose from a number of optional services to customize the reporting of survey results. Moorpark’s Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups is part of a larger project for the City and additional reports are available under separate cover. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by age, gender, race/ethnicity, housing tenure (rent or own) and housing unit type (detached or attached). 214 Understanding the Tables For most of the questions, one number appears for each question. Responses have been summarized to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all responses (not a single number) for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by selected respondent characteristics. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. As subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant. Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The “Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but no statistical tests were done for the overall rating. For each pair of subgroups ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different. For example, in Table 1 on the following page, respondents age 35 to 54 (B) and 55 and over (C) gave significantly higher rating to their likelihood of remaining in Moorpark for the next five years than those age 18 to 34 (A), as denoted by the “A” listed in the cell of the ratings for those 35-54 and 55+. This was also true of women (A) over men (B); and homeowners (B) over renters (A). 215 TABLE 1: QUALITY OF LIFE Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat likely) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 85% B C 74% 73% 74% 79% 73% 83% A 75% 77% 74% 82% 76% The overall quality of life in Moorpark 84% 87% 90% 85% 91% 86% 90% 80% 90% A 88% 86% 88% Moorpark as a place to live 93% 90% 95% 92% 93% 90% 97% A 90% 93% 93% 92% 92% Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 97% 92% 96% 94% 96% 94% 96% 95% 95% 95% 92% 95% Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 78% 90% A 90% A 91% B 82% 86% 88% 78% 90% A 87% 86% 87% TABLE 2: GOVERNANCE Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall confidence in Moorpark government 50% 56% 50% 50% 55% 49% 58% 44% 54% 53% 50% 52% The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 53% 52% 55% 55% 51% 52% 57% 57% 52% 48% 70% A 53% The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 64% 59% 58% 60% 60% 58% 64% 48% 63% A 58% 66% 60% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 63% 60% 57% 58% 63% 56% 67% A 68% 57% 59% 62% 60% 216 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Being honest 79% C 71% 64% 68% 74% 68% 78% A 74% 70% 72% 67% 71% Being open and transparent to the public 60% 66% 57% 59% 65% 61% 65% 58% 62% 62% 60% 61% Informing residents about issues facing the community 54% 55% 56% 53% 58% 55% 56% 55% 55% 52% 64% A 55% The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 50% 55% 46% 48% 55% 51% 51% 54% 50% 50% 54% 51% Treating all residents fairly 74% 73% 67% 69% 75% 72% 72% 68% 73% 71% 72% 72% Treating residents with respect 80% 78% 75% 75% 79% 80% 75% 77% 77% 76% 80% 77% Overall customer service by Moorpark employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 94% C 86% 83% 87% 88% 88% 86% 89% 86% 86% 90% 87% Public information services 76% 70% 71% 70% 75% 71% 75% 63% 75% A 73% 70% 72% The City of Moorpark 80% C 78% 70% 77% 75% 75% 78% 76% 76% 75% 78% 76% The Federal Government 47% C 43% 33% 44% 37% 35% 52% A 42% 40% 42% 38% 41% 217 TABLE 3: ECONOMY Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat positive) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall economic health of Moorpark 47% 43% 52% 44% 52% 41% 58% A 53% 45% 46% 52% 47% Economic development 44% B 29% 34% 36% 32% 24% 53% A 41% 32% 32% 41% 34% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 67% B 51% 57% 58% 55% 53% 64% A 60% 56% 57% 56% 57% Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 53% B C 26% 33% 35% 35% 31% 42% A 34% 35% 36% 33% 35% Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 18% 16% 18% 18% 17% 15% 21% 26% B 14% 16% 22% 17% Shopping opportunities 43% B C 26% 30% 33% 29% 27% 40% A 40% B 29% 28% 43% A 31% Moorpark as a place to visit 35% 38% 48% A B 38% 44% 40% 41% 39% 41% 38% 46% 40% Moorpark as a place to work 51% 42% 57% B 51% 47% 48% 51% 39% 53% A 53% B 37% 49% Employment opportunities 21% 15% 13% 19% 13% 15% 17% 24% B 13% 16% 15% 16% Cost of living in Moorpark 39% 40% 39% 38% 41% 36% 44% 34% 41% 39% 39% 39% Economy will have positive impact on income 21% 22% 20% 20% 23% 19% 26% 20% 21% 22% 19% 21% NOT under housing cost stress 49% 66% A 56% 50% 68% A 60% 54% 30% 68% A 69% B 26% 58% 218 TABLE 4: MOBILITY Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 71% B C 56% 57% 58% 63% 54% 71% A 60% 60% 59% 63% 60% Traffic flow on major streets 46% 40% 42% 46% 38% 35% 54% A 37% 44% 43% 41% 42% Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 86% B C 73% 67% 77% 70% 69% 83% A 71% 75% 74% 73% 74% Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 59% 51% 46% 51% 53% 42% 64% A 51% 52% 52% 51% 52% Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 72% C 68% 57% 61% 70% 64% 67% 79% B 62% 67% 61% 66% Ease of walking in Moorpark 85% 77% 77% 77% 81% 76% 83% 86% B 77% 79% 78% 79% Ease of public parking 78% 84% 79% 86% B 74% 79% 82% 70% 84% A 82% 77% 81% Bus or transit services 75% 72% 63% 75% 66% 69% 71% 79% B 65% 70% 71% 70% Traffic enforcement 77% B 63% 73% B 72% 67% 66% 77% A 66% 71% 68% 73% 70% Traffic signal timing 78% B C 56% 53% 61% 61% 55% 72% A 54% 63% 60% 62% 61% Street repair 53% 55% 50% 54% 52% 51% 57% 58% 51% 51% 57% 53% Street cleaning 87% 78% 79% 81% 80% 80% 81% 78% 81% 81% 80% 80% 219 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Street lighting 78% 84% 78% 74% 88% A 77% 85% 78% 81% 79% 82% 80% Sidewalk maintenance 67% 75% 65% 71% 67% 68% 72% 76% 67% 69% 70% 69% Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 34% B C 10% 12% 17% 16% 12% 27% A 28% B 13% 14% 24% A 17% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 73% B C 42% C 30% 56% B 32% 41% 54% A 49% 45% 42% 55% A 46% Walked or biked instead of driving 75% C 67% C 50% 65% 61% 60% 69% 63% 63% 65% 56% 63% TABLE 5: COMMUNITY DESIGN Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 69% 68% 69% 66% 73% 68% 70% 60% 72% A 72% B 60% 69% Overall appearance of Moorpark 83% C 76% 73% 76% 77% 75% 79% 84% B 74% 75% 81% 77% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 90% 96% 93% 92% 92% 93% 83% 96% A 95% B 84% 93% Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 58% 53% 49% 56% 48% 48% 60% A 45% 55% 53% 51% 53% 220 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Well-planned residential growth 52% 56% 62% 56% 60% 57% 57% 50% 60% 59% 51% 57% Well-planned commercial growth 19% 26% 30% A 25% 26% 22% 31% A 34% B 23% 23% 33% A 26% Well-designed neighborhoods 74% 80% 77% 77% 77% 76% 78% 73% 78% 79% 72% 77% Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 48% 54% 49% 46% 57% A 47% 57% 54% 50% 53% 45% 51% Public places where people want to spend time 53% C 47% 39% 44% 49% 46% 46% 42% 47% 48% 39% 46% Variety of housing options 57% 58% 51% 52% 59% 54% 56% 46% 58% A 58% B 47% 55% Availability of affordable quality housing 25% 39% A C 24% 26% 36% A 26% 35% 23% 33% 28% 36% 30% Land use, planning, and zoning 69% B C 40% 53% B 53% 48% 46% 59% A 44% 52% 50% 52% 50% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 49% 56% 58% 48% 49% 58% 51% 53% 54% 49% 53% 221 TABLE 6: UTILITIES Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 71% 79% 81% A 76% 82% 80% 76% 75% 79% 76% 85% A 78% Affordable high-speed internet access 58% 58% 48% 52% 59% 55% 54% 70% B 49% 52% 60% 54% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 91% B C 81% 77% 79% 87% A 82% 84% 84% 82% 81% 87% 82% Garbage collection 92% 90% 89% 91% 89% 90% 91% 83% 92% A 91% 87% 90% Drinking water 86% 79% 81% 82% 80% 80% 85% 73% 84% A 83% 78% 82% Sewer services 91% 92% 89% 90% 92% 92% 90% 89% 92% 91% 91% 91% Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 72% 90% A 87% A 82% 87% 83% 86% 79% 86% 86% B 77% 84% Utility billing 74% 71% 75% 71% 76% 75% 72% 69% 75% 70% 84% A 73% 222 Table 7: Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 100% B C 94% 95% 97% 95% 96% 95% 97% 95% 96% 95% 96% Police/Sheriff services 91% 92% 91% 93% 90% 91% 93% 89% 92% 90% 97% A 92% Crime prevention 92% 91% 88% 91% 90% 90% 91% 87% 91% 91% 89% 90% Animal control 87% 84% 79% 86% B 78% 81% 87% 80% 84% 81% 86% 83% Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 91% 94% 94% 93% 93% 93% 94% 93% 92% 97% 93% Fire services 91% 97% A 97% A 96% 95% 97% 93% 91% 97% A 96% 94% 95% Fire prevention and education 67% 83% A 79% A 77% 80% 82% B 72% 69% 81% A 81% B 68% 78% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 66% 66% 63% 66% 65% 68% 62% 59% 67% 70% B 53% 65% In your neighborhood during the day 96% 99% 99% A 98% 98% 98% 99% 96% 99% A 98% 99% 98% In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 97% 95% 94% 94% 96% 95% 95% 97% 94% 95% 94% 95% From property crime 82% 86% 84% 83% 87% 83% 87% 82% 85% 85% 82% 84% From violent crime 83% 94% A 93% A 90% 93% 93% 88% 92% 91% 91% 93% 91% From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 71% 73% 70% 69% 74% 69% 76% 66% 73% 71% 74% 71% 223 TABLE 8: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 88% 89% 89% 91% 86% 85% 94% A 83% 91% A 90% 84% 89% Cleanliness of Moorpark 93% B C 84% 84% 86% 87% 86% 86% 89% 85% 86% 87% 86% Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 22% 36% A 34% 34% 31% 31% 34% 34% 31% 32% 33% 32% Air quality 79% 88% A 88% A 84% 88% 86% 84% 85% 86% 85% 87% 86% Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 73% 76% 78% 76% 76% 75% 80% 61% 81% A 77% 73% 76% Moorpark open space 67% 74% 79% A 75% 73% 74% 76% 66% 77% A 75% 72% 74% Recycling 74% 76% 69% 72% 74% 77% B 64% 72% 73% 72% 77% 73% Yard waste pick-up 71% 82% A 88% A 81% 82% 85% B 74% 58% 87% A 86% B 60% 81% 224 TABLE 9: PARKS AND RECREATION Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 93% 87% 86% 91% B 83% 86% 91% 84% 89% 90% B 82% 88% Availability of paths and walking trails 80% C 77% C 68% 74% 77% 75% 75% 78% 74% 76% 71% 75% City parks 96% 91% 91% 94% 89% 93% 90% 87% 94% A 93% 90% 92% Recreational opportunities 71% 72% 65% 69% 69% 66% 75% A 73% 68% 70% 67% 69% Recreation programs or classes 70% 84% A 80% 79% 79% 82% B 73% 69% 82% A 80% 74% 79% Recreation centers or facilities 79% 78% 81% 78% 81% 81% 75% 69% 82% A 79% 80% 79% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 77% C 71% 64% 67% 75% 72% 67% 76% 68% 71% 68% 70% 225 TABLE 10: HEALTH AND WELLNESS Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, excellent/very good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 81% 77% 72% 74% 79% 75% 78% 77% 76% 77% 74% 76% Health services 82% C 75% C 64% 76% 69% 68% 82% A 72% 74% 73% 74% 73% Availability of affordable quality health care 73% C 62% C 47% 60% 59% 58% 62% 73% B 54% 60% 57% 59% Availability of preventive health services 47% 62% A C 45% 50% 57% 53% 52% 49% 54% 58% B 38% 53% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 32% 35% 23% 30% 31% 26% 35% 20% 34% A 34% 22% 30% Availability of affordable quality food 83% B C 57% 58% 65% 63% 61% 69% 80% B 59% 61% 72% A 64% Would you say that in general your health is: 90% B C 81% C 72% 82% 78% 81% 78% 83% 79% 82% 74% 80% 226 TABLE 11: EDUCATION, ARTS, AND CULTURE Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 71% C 67% C 51% 67% B 57% 57% 70% A 73% B 59% 60% 70% 62% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 42% B C 30% 26% 34% 29% 32% 32% 33% 31% 33% 29% 32% Community support for the arts 45% C 39% 30% 38% 38% 36% 41% 49% B 34% 38% 36% 38% Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 21% 52% A 38% 35% 49% A 41% 39% 32% 44% 46% B 28% 41% K-12 education 80% 86% 86% 83% 86% 83% 87% 82% 85% 85% 82% 84% Adult educational opportunities 48% 53% 54% 54% 49% 56% 47% 49% 53% 54% 49% 52% Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 60% 53% 49% 59% B 47% 54% 54% 58% 52% 54% 50% 53% Public library services 79% 73% 70% 76% 70% 75% 71% 80% 71% 72% 77% 73% TABLE 12: INCLUSIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Residents' connection and engagement with their community 68% 68% 63% 61% 73% A 69% 61% 70% 65% 65% 69% 66% Sense of community 82% 78% 78% 80% 78% 80% 76% 73% 81% 82% B 70% 79% Sense of civic/community pride 73% 73% 68% 71% 73% 74% 68% 75% 70% 73% 66% 71% 227 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Neighborliness of residents in Moorpark 78% 79% C 70% 72% 80% 74% 77% 74% 76% 79% B 66% 76% Moorpark as a place to raise children 100% B 94% 97% 98% 95% 96% 96% 98% 96% 97% 95% 96% Moorpark as a place to retire 78% B 66% 68% 69% 70% 66% 76% A 70% 70% 71% 64% 70% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 62% 65% 69% 62% 70% 71% B 55% 60% 67% 68% B 57% 65% Making all residents feel welcome 86% C 77% 74% 77% 80% 78% 78% 71% 80% A 78% 80% 78% Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 74% 65% 68% 67% 71% 73% B 61% 61% 71% 70% 64% 69% Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 82% 77% 77% 76% 82% 81% B 73% 84% 77% 77% 81% 78% Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 79% C 67% 58% 66% 69% 58% 80% A 68% 66% 68% 65% 67% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 58% 54% 51% 58% 50% 56% 52% 59% 53% 54% 55% 54% Opportunities to volunteer 57% 52% 67% B 59% 58% 60% 55% 45% 63% A 59% 55% 58% Opportunities to participate in community matters 57% 58% 60% 60% 57% 60% 56% 50% 61% 57% 65% 59% 228 TABLE 13: PARTICIPATION Percent rating positively (e.g., yes in the last 12 months) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Contacted the City of Moorpark (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 33% 35% 34% 32% 36% 31% 39% 19% 39% A 36% 29% 34% Contacted Moorpark elected officials (in- person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 6% 17% A 18% A 12% 17% 15% 14% 10% 16% 17% B 8% 15% Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 21% 22% 24% 21% 24% 20% 25% 13% 26% A 26% B 12% 22% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 26% 27% 27% 27% 26% 25% 28% 20% 29% A 31% B 14% 27% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark 13% 35% A C 24% A 24% 28% 32% B 12% 22% 27% 30% B 13% 26% Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause or candidate 23% 17% 23% 22% 18% 16% 29% A 14% 23% A 25% B 8% 21% Voted in your most recent local election 93% 92% 90% 92% 91% 95% B 85% 93% 91% 92% 91% 92% 229 TABLE 14: ONLINE ENGAGEMENT Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once every few weeks) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 96% 100% C 95% 96% 98% 97% 98% 93% 98% A 99% B 91% 97% Access the internet from your cell phone 100% C 98% C 91% 97% 95% 94% 99% A 94% 96% 97% B 92% 96% Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 92% C 90% C 69% 88% B 76% 82% 85% 91% B 80% 83% 83% 83% Use or check email 100% C 100% C 97% 99% 99% 98% 100% 98% 99% 99% B 97% 99% Share your opinions online 41% C 46% C 29% 43% B 33% 35% 46% A 47% B 36% 38% 40% 39% Shop online 67% 78% A C 65% 72% 70% 72% 69% 61% 74% A 73% 65% 71% 230 TABLE 15: COMMUNITY FOCUS AREAS Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall economic health of Moorpark 86% 94% A 95% A 90% 95% A 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% 90% 92% Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 71% B 57% 68% B 69% B 58% 56% 79% A 68% 63% 62% 70% 64% Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 60% 77% A 85% A 73% 79% 71% 84% A 73% 76% 75% 76% 76% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 70% 78% 91% A B 78% 83% 77% 87% A 81% 80% 80% 81% 80% Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 85% 92% A 94% A 91% 92% 92% 90% 93% 91% 92% 89% 91% Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 89% 83% 85% 88% 82% 82% 91% A 81% 87% 85% 86% 85% Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 78% 81% 80% 77% 83% 79% 81% 83% 79% 80% 78% 80% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 87% B C 71% 74% 79% 72% 72% 84% A 86% B 72% 74% 81% 76% Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 75% 69% 71% 78% B 63% 68% 77% A 75% 70% 71% 73% 71% Residents' connection and engagement with their community 75% 69% 71% 74% 68% 66% 81% A 70% 72% 73% 67% 71% 231 TABLE 16: QUESTION 13 How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? (Percent rating as "very" or "somewhat likely"). Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) More unique dining opportunities 90% 96% A 96% A 94% 96% 95% 94% 94% 95% 96% 91% 94% More national chain restaurants 60% 71% A 72% A 67% 70% 65% 75% A 75% 66% 66% 76% A 68% More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses 94% 98% C 93% 95% 96% 97% B 92% 95% 95% 96% 93% 95% More large franchise businesses 68% 72% 67% 67% 72% 65% 77% A 72% 69% 69% 71% 69% More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) 86% B C 76% 70% 78% 74% 74% 80% 86% B 73% 75% 79% 76% More nightlife opportunities 81% B C 65% C 52% 68% 60% 61% 73% A 68% 63% 65% 62% 64% Increased safety and security 96% B 86% 89% 96% B 81% 88% 93% 90% 89% 88% 95% A 89% More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on-demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) 83% B C 45% 55% 64% B 49% 51% 72% A 70% B 54% 54% 67% A 58% More transportation options on nights and weekends 77% B C 46% 50% 62% B 45% 49% 66% A 63% 52% 51% 66% A 55% 232 TABLE 17: QUESTION 14 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: (Percent rating as "strongly" or "somewhat support"). Age Sex Race/ethnicity Rent or own Detached or attached Overall 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race Rent Own Detached Attached (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways 94% 91% 88% 91% 91% 91% 91% 95% 90% 89% 96% A 91% More trails and greenways 100% C 97% 95% 97% 97% 97% 97% 99% 96% 97% 99% 97% More bicycle lanes 60% 79% A 75% A 76% B 68% 71% 75% 66% 74% 73% 72% 73% New bicycle sharing programs 54% 49% 53% 63% B 38% 47% 62% A 60% B 49% 48% 63% A 52% New electric scooter sharing programs 31% 34% 34% 39% B 26% 29% 42% A 48% B 28% 29% 46% A 33% New or expanded bus routes 93% B C 73% 70% 80% 72% 73% 85% A 89% B 71% 73% 85% A 76% More frequent bus service for existing routes 91% B C 66% 67% 82% B 60% 69% 79% A 78% 70% 69% 79% 72% More city-sponsored rideshare programs 84% B C 63% 65% 76% B 59% 65% 77% A 85% B 62% 66% 75% 68% New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. 73% 74% 77% 77% 72% 72% 80% 80% 73% 76% 70% 75% More park-n-rides for access to public transportation 79% B 63% 73% 75% B 65% 66% 79% A 74% 69% 67% 78% A 70% More rail options 87% B 74% 81% 84% B 74% 78% 84% 79% 79% 78% 84% 79% 233 Moorpark, CA Supplemental Online Survey Results 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 234 Contents About the Open Participation Online Survey ..................................................................................... 1 Complete Responses to Online Open Participation Survey ................................................................. 1 Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Question ................................................................................ 22 235 About the Open Participation Online Survey As part of its participation in The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™), the City of Moorpark conducted a mailed survey of 2,700 residents. Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households in November 2020 and data were collected through December 2020 (see the report, The National Community Survey: Community Livability Report, Moorpark, CA, 2020). The results from this main survey effort represent the most robust estimate of your residents’ opinions. After the above data collection period was underway, the City made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey during December 2020 and 97 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the community was aware of link on the City’s website; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. 236 Complete Responses to Online Open Participation Survey The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. For questions that included a “don’t know” response option, two tables for that question are provided: the first that excludes the “don’t know” responses, and the second that includes those responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Moorpark as a place to live 39% N=37 49% N=47 10% N=10 2% N=2 100% N=96 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=51 40% N=38 3% N=3 4% N=4 100% N=96 Moorpark as a place to raise children 45% N=39 46% N=40 8% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=87 Moorpark as a place to work 11% N=7 31% N=20 31% N=20 28% N=18 100% N=65 Moorpark as a place to visit 9% N=8 19% N=18 40% N=37 32% N=30 100% N=93 Moorpark as a place to retire 21% N=18 40% N=35 25% N=22 14% N=12 100% N=87 The overall quality of life in Moorpark 29% N=28 55% N=53 14% N=14 2% N=2 100% N=97 Sense of community 16% N=15 48% N=45 28% N=26 8% N=7 100% N=93 Table 2: Question 1 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Moorpark as a place to live 39% N=37 49% N=47 10% N=10 2% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=96 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=51 40% N=38 3% N=3 4% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=96 Moorpark as a place to raise children 41% N=39 42% N=40 7% N=7 1% N=1 8% N=8 100% N=95 Moorpark as a place to work 8% N=7 22% N=20 22% N=20 19% N=18 30% N=28 100% N=93 Moorpark as a place to visit 8% N=8 19% N=18 39% N=37 32% N=30 2% N=2 100% N=95 Moorpark as a place to retire 19% N=18 37% N=35 23% N=22 13% N=12 8% N=8 100% N=95 The overall quality of life in Moorpark 29% N=28 55% N=53 14% N=14 2% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=97 Sense of community 16% N=15 47% N=45 27% N=26 7% N=7 2% N=2 100% N=95 237 Table 3: Question 2 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 2% N=2 27% N=24 48% N=43 23% N=21 100% N=90 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 3% N=3 38% N=33 37% N=32 22% N=19 100% N=87 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 9% N=8 43% N=40 35% N=32 13% N=12 100% N=92 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 8% N=7 54% N=50 25% N=23 14% N=13 100% N=93 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 49% N=47 44% N=42 7% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=96 Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 29% N=27 51% N=47 17% N=16 3% N=3 100% N=93 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 34% N=32 52% N=48 11% N=10 3% N=3 100% N=93 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 14% N=13 54% N=49 22% N=20 9% N=8 100% N=90 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 3% N=3 37% N=34 40% N=37 20% N=19 100% N=93 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 9% N=8 44% N=39 33% N=29 15% N=13 100% N=89 Table 4: Question 2 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 2% N=2 25% N=24 45% N=43 22% N=21 6% N=6 100% N=96 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 3% N=3 35% N=33 34% N=32 20% N=19 7% N=7 100% N=94 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 9% N=8 43% N=40 34% N=32 13% N=12 2% N=2 100% N=94 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 7% N=7 52% N=50 24% N=23 14% N=13 3% N=3 100% N=96 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 49% N=47 44% N=42 7% N=7 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=96 Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 28% N=27 49% N=47 17% N=16 3% N=3 2% N=2 100% N=95 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 33% N=32 50% N=48 10% N=10 3% N=3 3% N=3 100% N=96 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 14% N=13 51% N=49 21% N=20 8% N=8 6% N=6 100% N=96 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 3% N=3 35% N=34 38% N=37 20% N=19 4% N=4 100% N=97 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 8% N=8 41% N=39 30% N=29 14% N=13 7% N=7 100% N=96 238 Table 5: Question 3 without "don't know" responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 51% N=48 35% N=33 11% N=10 4% N=4 100% N=95 Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 50% N=47 32% N=30 10% N=9 9% N=8 100% N=94 Table 6: Question 3 with "don't know" responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 50% N=48 34% N=33 10% N=10 4% N=4 1% N=1 100% N=96 Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 49% N=47 31% N=30 9% N=9 8% N=8 2% N=2 100% N=96 Table 7: Question 4 without "don't know" responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 86% N=83 7% N=7 4% N=4 2% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=96 In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 70% N=66 19% N=18 6% N=6 3% N=3 1% N=1 100% N=94 From property crime 42% N=40 42% N=40 10% N=10 6% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=96 From violent crime 68% N=64 23% N=22 5% N=5 3% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=94 From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 18% N=17 43% N=41 18% N=17 15% N=14 6% N=6 100% N=95 Table 8: Question 4 with "don't know" responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 86% N=83 7% N=7 4% N=4 2% N=2 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=96 In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 69% N=66 19% N=18 6% N=6 3% N=3 1% N=1 2% N=2 100% N=96 From property crime 41% N=40 41% N=40 10% N=10 6% N=6 0% N=0 1% N=1 100% N=97 From violent crime 67% N=64 23% N=22 5% N=5 3% N=3 0% N=0 1% N=1 100% N=95 From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 18% N=17 43% N=41 18% N=17 15% N=14 6% N=6 1% N=1 100% N=96 239 Table 9: Question 5 without "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Moorpark community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Making all residents feel welcome 13% N=12 44% N=39 31% N=28 11% N=10 100% N=89 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 13% N=11 35% N=29 27% N=22 25% N=21 100% N=83 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 14% N=11 46% N=37 26% N=21 15% N=12 100% N=81 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 12% N=7 42% N=25 30% N=18 17% N=10 100% N=60 Table 10: Question 5 with "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Moorpark community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Making all residents feel welcome 12% N=12 40% N=39 29% N=28 10% N=10 8% N=8 100% N=97 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 11% N=11 30% N=29 23% N=22 22% N=21 14% N=14 100% N=97 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 11% N=11 38% N=37 22% N=21 12% N=12 16% N=16 100% N=97 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 7% N=7 26% N=25 19% N=18 10% N=10 38% N=37 100% N=97 Table 11: Question 6 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 10% N=10 34% N=33 30% N=29 25% N=24 100% N=96 Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 1% N=1 20% N=19 44% N=42 35% N=33 100% N=95 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 1% N=1 12% N=11 35% N=33 52% N=48 100% N=93 Employment opportunities 1% N=1 7% N=5 37% N=26 55% N=39 100% N=71 Shopping opportunities 2% N=2 24% N=23 37% N=35 37% N=35 100% N=95 Cost of living in Moorpark 4% N=4 32% N=31 47% N=45 17% N=16 100% N=96 Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 8% N=8 54% N=52 30% N=29 8% N=8 100% N=97 240 Table 12: Question 6 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 10% N=10 34% N=33 30% N=29 25% N=24 1% N=1 100% N=97 Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 1% N=1 20% N=19 43% N=42 34% N=33 2% N=2 100% N=97 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 1% N=1 11% N=11 34% N=33 49% N=48 4% N=4 100% N=97 Employment opportunities 1% N=1 5% N=5 27% N=26 40% N=39 27% N=26 100% N=97 Shopping opportunities 2% N=2 24% N=23 37% N=35 37% N=35 0% N=0 100% N=95 Cost of living in Moorpark 4% N=4 32% N=31 46% N=45 16% N=16 1% N=1 100% N=97 Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 8% N=8 54% N=52 30% N=29 8% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=97 Table 13: Question 7 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 5% N=5 22% N=21 34% N=33 39% N=38 100% N=97 Ease of public parking 32% N=31 43% N=42 18% N=17 7% N=7 100% N=97 Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 16% N=16 52% N=50 23% N=22 9% N=9 100% N=97 Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 4% N=2 33% N=16 25% N=12 38% N=18 100% N=48 Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 9% N=7 35% N=27 31% N=24 26% N=20 100% N=78 Ease of walking in Moorpark 20% N=19 43% N=40 25% N=23 12% N=11 100% N=93 Well-planned residential growth 14% N=12 32% N=27 30% N=25 24% N=20 100% N=84 Well-planned commercial growth 2% N=2 16% N=14 30% N=26 52% N=46 100% N=88 Well-designed neighborhoods 11% N=10 54% N=50 24% N=22 11% N=10 100% N=92 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 14% N=11 35% N=28 28% N=22 24% N=19 100% N=80 Public places where people want to spend time 6% N=6 26% N=24 29% N=27 39% N=36 100% N=93 Variety of housing options 5% N=5 39% N=36 40% N=37 16% N=15 100% N=93 Availability of affordable quality housing 3% N=2 23% N=17 34% N=25 40% N=29 100% N=73 Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 5% N=4 41% N=34 33% N=27 22% N=18 100% N=83 Overall appearance of Moorpark 15% N=14 54% N=52 25% N=24 6% N=6 100% N=96 241 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Cleanliness of Moorpark 30% N=29 53% N=51 14% N=14 3% N=3 100% N=97 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 3% N=2 23% N=17 36% N=27 39% N=29 100% N=75 Air quality 20% N=19 61% N=57 16% N=15 2% N=2 100% N=93 Availability of paths and walking trails 24% N=22 40% N=37 28% N=26 9% N=8 100% N=93 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 18% N=15 30% N=25 36% N=30 17% N=14 100% N=84 Recreational opportunities 12% N=11 43% N=39 30% N=27 14% N=13 100% N=90 Availability of affordable quality food 12% N=11 41% N=38 32% N=30 15% N=14 100% N=93 Availability of affordable quality health care 6% N=5 42% N=32 36% N=28 16% N=12 100% N=77 Availability of preventive health services 10% N=7 39% N=28 34% N=24 17% N=12 100% N=71 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 11% N=4 8% N=3 32% N=12 50% N=19 100% N=38 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 4% N=3 21% N=17 35% N=28 41% N=33 100% N=81 Community support for the arts 7% N=5 28% N=21 40% N=30 25% N=19 100% N=75 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 16% N=6 13% N=5 45% N=17 26% N=10 100% N=38 K-12 education 18% N=13 51% N=36 24% N=17 7% N=5 100% N=71 Adult educational opportunities 7% N=4 38% N=21 31% N=17 24% N=13 100% N=55 Sense of civic/community pride 13% N=12 42% N=38 31% N=28 13% N=12 100% N=90 Neighborliness of residents in Moorpark 17% N=16 46% N=44 32% N=30 5% N=5 100% N=95 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=8 33% N=29 35% N=31 23% N=20 100% N=88 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 9% N=8 31% N=28 40% N=36 20% N=18 100% N=90 Opportunities to volunteer 13% N=9 43% N=31 33% N=24 11% N=8 100% N=72 Opportunities to participate in community matters 13% N=11 36% N=30 32% N=27 19% N=16 100% N=84 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% N=13 34% N=27 39% N=31 11% N=9 100% N=80 242 Table 14: Question 7 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 5% N=5 22% N=21 34% N=33 39% N=38 0% N=0 100% N=97 Ease of public parking 32% N=31 43% N=42 18% N=17 7% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=97 Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 16% N=16 52% N=50 23% N=22 9% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=97 Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 2% N=2 17% N=16 13% N=12 19% N=18 50% N=48 100% N=96 Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 7% N=7 28% N=27 25% N=24 21% N=20 19% N=18 100% N=96 Ease of walking in Moorpark 20% N=19 41% N=40 24% N=23 11% N=11 4% N=4 100% N=97 Well-planned residential growth 12% N=12 28% N=27 26% N=25 21% N=20 13% N=13 100% N=97 Well-planned commercial growth 2% N=2 15% N=14 27% N=26 48% N=46 8% N=8 100% N=96 Well-designed neighborhoods 11% N=10 54% N=50 24% N=22 11% N=10 1% N=1 100% N=93 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 11% N=11 29% N=28 23% N=22 20% N=19 17% N=16 100% N=96 Public places where people want to spend time 6% N=6 25% N=24 28% N=27 37% N=36 4% N=4 100% N=97 Variety of housing options 5% N=5 37% N=36 38% N=37 15% N=15 4% N=4 100% N=97 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=2 18% N=17 26% N=25 30% N=29 25% N=24 100% N=97 Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 4% N=4 35% N=34 28% N=27 19% N=18 14% N=14 100% N=97 Overall appearance of Moorpark 15% N=14 54% N=52 25% N=24 6% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=96 Cleanliness of Moorpark 30% N=29 53% N=51 14% N=14 3% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=97 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 2% N=2 18% N=17 28% N=27 30% N=29 23% N=22 100% N=97 Air quality 20% N=19 59% N=57 16% N=15 2% N=2 3% N=3 100% N=96 Availability of paths and walking trails 23% N=22 39% N=37 27% N=26 8% N=8 3% N=3 100% N=96 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 16% N=15 26% N=25 31% N=30 15% N=14 13% N=12 100% N=96 Recreational opportunities 11% N=11 41% N=39 28% N=27 14% N=13 6% N=6 100% N=96 Availability of affordable quality food 11% N=11 40% N=38 31% N=30 15% N=14 3% N=3 100% N=96 Availability of affordable quality health care 5% N=5 33% N=32 29% N=28 13% N=12 20% N=19 100% N=96 Availability of preventive health services 7% N=7 29% N=28 25% N=24 12% N=12 27% N=26 100% N=97 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 4% N=4 3% N=3 13% N=12 20% N=19 60% N=58 100% N=96 243 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 3% N=3 18% N=17 29% N=28 34% N=33 16% N=15 100% N=96 Community support for the arts 5% N=5 22% N=21 31% N=30 20% N=19 23% N=22 100% N=97 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 6% N=6 5% N=5 18% N=17 10% N=10 60% N=58 100% N=96 K-12 education 14% N=13 38% N=36 18% N=17 5% N=5 25% N=24 100% N=95 Adult educational opportunities 4% N=4 22% N=21 18% N=17 14% N=13 43% N=41 100% N=96 Sense of civic/community pride 13% N=12 40% N=38 29% N=28 13% N=12 5% N=5 100% N=95 Neighborliness of residents in Moorpark 16% N=16 45% N=44 31% N=30 5% N=5 2% N=2 100% N=97 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 8% N=8 30% N=29 32% N=31 21% N=20 9% N=9 100% N=97 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 8% N=8 29% N=28 37% N=36 19% N=18 7% N=7 100% N=97 Opportunities to volunteer 9% N=9 33% N=31 25% N=24 8% N=8 24% N=23 100% N=95 Opportunities to participate in community matters 11% N=11 31% N=30 28% N=27 16% N=16 13% N=13 100% N=97 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 13% N=13 28% N=27 32% N=31 9% N=9 18% N=17 100% N=97 Table 15: Question 8 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Contacted the City of Moorpark (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 43% N=42 57% N=55 100% N=97 Contacted Moorpark elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 68% N=65 32% N=30 100% N=95 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 54% N=52 46% N=45 100% N=97 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 44% N=42 56% N=54 100% N=96 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark 61% N=59 39% N=38 100% N=97 Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause or candidate 67% N=65 33% N=32 100% N=97 Voted in your most recent local election 4% N=4 96% N=92 100% N=96 Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 88% N=85 12% N=12 100% N=97 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 64% N=61 36% N=35 100% N=96 Walked or biked instead of driving 31% N=30 69% N=67 100% N=97 244 Table 16: Question 9 without "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Public information services 18% N=15 43% N=36 27% N=23 12% N=10 100% N=84 Economic development 1% N=1 23% N=18 33% N=26 43% N=34 100% N=79 Traffic enforcement 13% N=11 53% N=46 21% N=18 13% N=11 100% N=86 Traffic signal timing 6% N=6 51% N=49 26% N=25 17% N=16 100% N=96 Street repair 7% N=7 38% N=36 36% N=34 19% N=18 100% N=95 Street cleaning 20% N=19 57% N=54 20% N=19 3% N=3 100% N=95 Street lighting 19% N=18 59% N=57 15% N=14 7% N=7 100% N=96 Sidewalk maintenance 14% N=13 54% N=50 24% N=22 9% N=8 100% N=93 Bus or transit services 5% N=2 40% N=16 23% N=9 33% N=13 100% N=40 Land use, planning, and zoning 4% N=3 36% N=27 32% N=24 29% N=22 100% N=76 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 8% N=6 45% N=33 26% N=19 21% N=15 100% N=73 Affordable high-speed internet access 6% N=5 36% N=31 28% N=24 31% N=27 100% N=87 Garbage collection 35% N=34 50% N=48 11% N=11 3% N=3 100% N=96 Drinking water 24% N=22 53% N=49 20% N=18 3% N=3 100% N=92 Sewer services 24% N=22 59% N=54 14% N=13 2% N=2 100% N=91 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 21% N=18 52% N=44 20% N=17 6% N=5 100% N=84 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 11% N=11 38% N=36 21% N=20 30% N=29 100% N=96 Utility billing 6% N=6 53% N=49 27% N=25 14% N=13 100% N=93 Police/Sheriff services 42% N=38 45% N=41 7% N=6 7% N=6 100% N=91 Crime prevention 36% N=31 51% N=43 8% N=7 5% N=4 100% N=85 Animal control 22% N=15 55% N=38 16% N=11 7% N=5 100% N=69 Ambulance or emergency medical services 31% N=17 46% N=25 15% N=8 7% N=4 100% N=54 Fire services 44% N=35 49% N=39 5% N=4 1% N=1 100% N=79 Fire prevention and education 25% N=17 35% N=24 26% N=18 13% N=9 100% N=68 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 16% N=11 31% N=21 31% N=21 22% N=15 100% N=68 245 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 19% N=17 56% N=50 15% N=13 10% N=9 100% N=89 Moorpark open space 25% N=23 51% N=47 14% N=13 10% N=9 100% N=92 Recycling 17% N=15 48% N=41 23% N=20 12% N=10 100% N=86 Yard waste pick-up 30% N=25 46% N=39 18% N=15 6% N=5 100% N=84 City parks 37% N=34 51% N=47 10% N=9 3% N=3 100% N=93 Recreation programs or classes 22% N=16 38% N=27 26% N=19 14% N=10 100% N=72 Recreation centers or facilities 22% N=17 42% N=32 21% N=16 14% N=11 100% N=76 Health services 11% N=7 41% N=25 33% N=20 15% N=9 100% N=61 Public library services 17% N=12 37% N=26 28% N=20 18% N=13 100% N=71 Overall customer service by Moorpark employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 20% N=18 56% N=50 18% N=16 7% N=6 100% N=90 Table 17: Question 9 with "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public information services 15% N=15 37% N=36 24% N=23 10% N=10 13% N=13 100% N=97 Economic development 1% N=1 19% N=18 27% N=26 35% N=34 19% N=18 100% N=97 Traffic enforcement 11% N=11 47% N=46 19% N=18 11% N=11 11% N=11 100% N=97 Traffic signal timing 6% N=6 51% N=49 26% N=25 16% N=16 1% N=1 100% N=97 Street repair 7% N=7 37% N=36 35% N=34 19% N=18 2% N=2 100% N=97 Street cleaning 20% N=19 56% N=54 20% N=19 3% N=3 2% N=2 100% N=97 Street lighting 19% N=18 59% N=57 14% N=14 7% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=97 Sidewalk maintenance 13% N=13 52% N=50 23% N=22 8% N=8 4% N=4 100% N=97 Bus or transit services 2% N=2 16% N=16 9% N=9 13% N=13 59% N=57 100% N=97 Land use, planning, and zoning 3% N=3 28% N=27 25% N=24 23% N=22 21% N=20 100% N=96 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 6% N=6 34% N=33 20% N=19 15% N=15 25% N=24 100% N=97 Affordable high-speed internet access 5% N=5 32% N=31 25% N=24 28% N=27 10% N=10 100% N=97 Garbage collection 35% N=34 49% N=48 11% N=11 3% N=3 1% N=1 100% N=97 Drinking water 23% N=22 51% N=49 19% N=18 3% N=3 5% N=5 100% N=97 246 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sewer services 23% N=22 56% N=54 14% N=13 2% N=2 5% N=5 100% N=96 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 19% N=18 46% N=44 18% N=17 5% N=5 13% N=12 100% N=96 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 11% N=11 37% N=36 21% N=20 30% N=29 1% N=1 100% N=97 Utility billing 6% N=6 51% N=49 26% N=25 13% N=13 4% N=4 100% N=97 Police/Sheriff services 39% N=38 42% N=41 6% N=6 6% N=6 6% N=6 100% N=97 Crime prevention 32% N=31 44% N=43 7% N=7 4% N=4 12% N=12 100% N=97 Animal control 15% N=15 39% N=38 11% N=11 5% N=5 29% N=28 100% N=97 Ambulance or emergency medical services 18% N=17 26% N=25 8% N=8 4% N=4 44% N=43 100% N=97 Fire services 36% N=35 40% N=39 4% N=4 1% N=1 19% N=18 100% N=97 Fire prevention and education 18% N=17 25% N=24 19% N=18 9% N=9 30% N=29 100% N=97 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 11% N=11 22% N=21 22% N=21 15% N=15 30% N=29 100% N=97 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 18% N=17 53% N=50 14% N=13 10% N=9 5% N=5 100% N=94 Moorpark open space 24% N=23 48% N=47 13% N=13 9% N=9 5% N=5 100% N=97 Recycling 15% N=15 42% N=41 21% N=20 10% N=10 11% N=11 100% N=97 Yard waste pick-up 26% N=25 40% N=39 15% N=15 5% N=5 13% N=13 100% N=97 City parks 35% N=34 49% N=47 9% N=9 3% N=3 3% N=3 100% N=96 Recreation programs or classes 16% N=16 28% N=27 20% N=19 10% N=10 26% N=25 100% N=97 Recreation centers or facilities 18% N=17 33% N=32 17% N=16 11% N=11 21% N=20 100% N=96 Health services 7% N=7 26% N=25 21% N=20 9% N=9 36% N=34 100% N=95 Public library services 13% N=12 27% N=26 21% N=20 14% N=13 26% N=25 100% N=96 Overall customer service by Moorpark employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 19% N=18 52% N=50 16% N=16 6% N=6 7% N=7 100% N=97 247 Table 18: Question 10 without "don't know" responses Please rate the following categories of Moorpark government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 8% N=7 48% N=42 31% N=27 14% N=12 100% N=88 The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 7% N=6 35% N=29 29% N=24 30% N=25 100% N=84 The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 13% N=11 30% N=25 34% N=28 22% N=18 100% N=82 Overall confidence in Moorpark government 9% N=8 29% N=27 39% N=36 23% N=21 100% N=92 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 14% N=12 33% N=29 38% N=33 16% N=14 100% N=88 Being honest 17% N=13 36% N=28 32% N=25 14% N=11 100% N=77 Being open and transparent to the public 15% N=12 33% N=26 35% N=28 16% N=13 100% N=79 Informing residents about issues facing the community 13% N=11 33% N=27 25% N=21 29% N=24 100% N=83 Treating all residents fairly 20% N=14 36% N=25 30% N=21 14% N=10 100% N=70 Treating residents with respect 21% N=17 47% N=38 21% N=17 11% N=9 100% N=81 Table 19: Question 10 with "don't know" responses Please rate the following categories of Moorpark government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 7% N=7 45% N=42 29% N=27 13% N=12 6% N=6 100% N=94 The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 6% N=6 31% N=29 25% N=24 26% N=25 12% N=11 100% N=95 The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 12% N=11 26% N=25 29% N=28 19% N=18 14% N=13 100% N=95 Overall confidence in Moorpark government 8% N=8 28% N=27 38% N=36 22% N=21 4% N=4 100% N=96 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 13% N=12 30% N=29 34% N=33 15% N=14 8% N=8 100% N=96 Being honest 14% N=13 29% N=28 26% N=25 11% N=11 20% N=19 100% N=96 Being open and transparent to the public 13% N=12 27% N=26 29% N=28 14% N=13 18% N=17 100% N=96 Informing residents about issues facing the community 12% N=11 28% N=27 22% N=21 25% N=24 13% N=12 100% N=95 Treating all residents fairly 15% N=14 26% N=25 22% N=21 10% N=10 27% N=26 100% N=96 Treating residents with respect 18% N=17 40% N=38 18% N=17 9% N=9 16% N=15 100% N=96 248 Table 20: Question 11 without "don't know" responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Moorpark 16% N=15 44% N=40 32% N=29 8% N=7 100% N=91 The Federal Government 3% N=3 23% N=21 45% N=41 29% N=26 100% N=91 Table 21: Question 11 with "don't know" responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Moorpark 16% N=15 42% N=40 31% N=29 7% N=7 4% N=4 100% N=95 The Federal Government 3% N=3 22% N=21 43% N=41 27% N=26 5% N=5 100% N=96 Table 22: Question 12 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Moorpark community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 63% N=59 32% N=30 5% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=94 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 26% N=25 35% N=33 33% N=31 6% N=6 100% N=95 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 39% N=37 38% N=36 22% N=21 2% N=2 100% N=96 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 58% N=53 28% N=26 14% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=92 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 58% N=56 29% N=28 8% N=8 4% N=4 100% N=96 Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 43% N=41 31% N=30 24% N=23 2% N=2 100% N=96 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 31% N=29 43% N=40 23% N=21 3% N=3 100% N=93 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 21% N=20 37% N=35 38% N=36 4% N=4 100% N=95 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 24% N=23 38% N=36 32% N=30 6% N=6 100% N=95 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 23% N=22 41% N=39 33% N=31 3% N=3 100% N=95 249 Table 23: Question 13 without "don't know" responses How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total More unique dining opportunities 81% N=78 16% N=15 2% N=2 1% N=1 100% N=96 More national chain restaurants 28% N=26 27% N=25 19% N=18 26% N=24 100% N=93 More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses 74% N=70 20% N=19 3% N=3 2% N=2 100% N=94 More large franchise businesses 25% N=23 37% N=34 18% N=17 20% N=19 100% N=93 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) 36% N=34 39% N=37 16% N=15 9% N=9 100% N=95 More nightlife opportunities 31% N=29 30% N=28 15% N=14 24% N=22 100% N=93 Increased safety and security 48% N=43 37% N=33 7% N=6 8% N=7 100% N=89 More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on- demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) 18% N=16 33% N=29 22% N=20 27% N=24 100% N=89 More transportation options on nights and weekends 19% N=15 31% N=25 20% N=16 31% N=25 100% N=81 Table 24: Question 13 with "don't know" responses How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total More unique dining opportunities 81% N=78 16% N=15 2% N=2 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=96 More national chain restaurants 28% N=26 27% N=25 19% N=18 26% N=24 1% N=1 100% N=94 More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses 74% N=70 20% N=19 3% N=3 2% N=2 1% N=1 100% N=95 More large franchise businesses 24% N=23 35% N=34 18% N=17 20% N=19 3% N=3 100% N=96 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) 35% N=34 39% N=37 16% N=15 9% N=9 1% N=1 100% N=96 More nightlife opportunities 30% N=29 29% N=28 15% N=14 23% N=22 3% N=3 100% N=96 Increased safety and security 46% N=43 35% N=33 6% N=6 7% N=7 5% N=5 100% N=94 More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on-demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) 17% N=16 31% N=29 21% N=20 25% N=24 6% N=6 100% N=95 More transportation options on nights and weekends 16% N=15 27% N=25 17% N=16 27% N=25 14% N=13 100% N=94 250 Table 25: Question 14 without "don't know" responses Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways 38% N=35 50% N=46 9% N=8 3% N=3 100% N=92 More trails and greenways 58% N=54 33% N=31 8% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=93 More bicycle lanes 42% N=39 33% N=30 16% N=15 9% N=8 100% N=92 New bicycle sharing programs 14% N=12 37% N=31 23% N=19 25% N=21 100% N=83 New electric scooter sharing programs 14% N=12 16% N=14 21% N=18 49% N=42 100% N=86 New or expanded bus routes 19% N=15 54% N=43 21% N=17 6% N=5 100% N=80 More frequent bus service for existing routes 21% N=16 50% N=39 22% N=17 8% N=6 100% N=78 More city-sponsored rideshare programs 19% N=14 40% N=29 31% N=22 10% N=7 100% N=72 New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. 27% N=22 44% N=36 16% N=13 13% N=11 100% N=82 More park-n-rides for access to public transportation 20% N=15 53% N=40 19% N=14 8% N=6 100% N=75 More rail options 38% N=29 43% N=33 13% N=10 6% N=5 100% N=77 Table 26: Question 14 with "don't know" responses Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways 37% N=35 48% N=46 8% N=8 3% N=3 3% N=3 100% N=95 More trails and greenways 56% N=54 32% N=31 7% N=7 1% N=1 3% N=3 100% N=96 More bicycle lanes 41% N=39 31% N=30 16% N=15 8% N=8 4% N=4 100% N=96 New bicycle sharing programs 13% N=12 33% N=31 20% N=19 22% N=21 12% N=11 100% N=94 New electric scooter sharing programs 13% N=12 15% N=14 19% N=18 44% N=42 9% N=9 100% N=95 New or expanded bus routes 16% N=15 45% N=43 18% N=17 5% N=5 17% N=16 100% N=96 More frequent bus service for existing routes 17% N=16 41% N=39 18% N=17 6% N=6 19% N=18 100% N=96 More city-sponsored rideshare programs 15% N=14 30% N=29 23% N=22 7% N=7 25% N=24 100% N=96 New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. 23% N=22 38% N=36 14% N=13 12% N=11 14% N=13 100% N=95 More park-n-rides for access to public transportation 16% N=15 42% N=40 15% N=14 6% N=6 21% N=20 100% N=95 More rail options 31% N=29 35% N=33 11% N=10 5% N=5 18% N=17 100% N=94 251 Table 27: Question D1 without "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 97% N=93 1% N=1 1% N=1 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=96 Access the internet from your cell phone 92% N=88 3% N=3 3% N=3 1% N=1 1% N=1 100% N=96 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 68% N=65 16% N=15 6% N=6 1% N=1 9% N=9 100% N=96 Use or check email 95% N=90 3% N=3 2% N=2 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=95 Share your opinions online 29% N=27 6% N=6 12% N=11 23% N=22 30% N=28 100% N=94 Shop online 26% N=25 11% N=10 41% N=39 21% N=20 1% N=1 100% N=95 Table 28: Question D1 with "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Don't know Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 97% N=93 1% N=1 1% N=1 1% N=1 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=96 Access the internet from your cell phone 92% N=88 3% N=3 3% N=3 1% N=1 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=96 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 68% N=65 16% N=15 6% N=6 1% N=1 9% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=96 Use or check email 95% N=90 3% N=3 2% N=2 0% N=0 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=95 Share your opinions online 28% N=27 6% N=6 11% N=11 23% N=22 29% N=28 2% N=2 100% N=96 Shop online 26% N=25 11% N=10 41% N=39 21% N=20 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=95 252 Table 29: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 32% N=31 Very good 48% N=46 Good 19% N=18 Fair 1% N=1 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=96 Table 30: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 9% N=9 Somewhat positive 19% N=18 Neutral 48% N=46 Somewhat negative 19% N=18 Very negative 5% N=5 Total 100% N=96 Table 31: Question D4 How many years have you lived in Moorpark? Percent Number Less than 2 years 8% N=8 2 to 5 years 14% N=13 6 to 10 years 22% N=21 11 to 20 years 14% N=13 More than 20 years 43% N=41 Total 100% N=96 253 Table 32: Question D5 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 92% N=89 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 7% N=7 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 1% N=1 Total 100% N=97 Table 33: Question D6 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 9% N=9 Own 91% N=88 Total 100% N=97 Table 34: Question D7 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $500 per month 1% N=1 $500 to $999 per month 9% N=9 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 9% N=9 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 11% N=10 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 14% N=13 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 17% N=16 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 13% N=12 $3,500 or more per month 26% N=25 Total 100% N=95 254 Table 35: Question D8 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 68% N=65 Yes 32% N=31 Total 100% N=96 Table 36: Question D9 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 68% N=65 Yes 32% N=31 Total 100% N=96 Table 37: Question D10 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 2% N=2 $25,000 to $49,999 7% N=6 $50,000 to $74,999 4% N=4 $75,000 to $99,999 12% N=11 $100,000 to $149,999 33% N=30 $150,000 or more 42% N=39 Total 100% N=92 Table 38: Question D11 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 82% N=77 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 18% N=17 Total 100% N=94 255 Table 39: Question D12 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 5% N=5 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 89% N=84 Other 10% N=9 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 40: Question D13 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 4% N=4 25 to 34 years 15% N=15 35 to 44 years 11% N=11 45 to 54 years 15% N=15 55 to 64 years 32% N=31 65 to 74 years 19% N=18 75 years or older 3% N=3 Total 100% N=97 Table 41: Question D14 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 46% N=44 Male 54% N=52 Identify in another way 0% N=0 Total 100% N=96 256 Table 42: How did you hear about this survey? How did you hear about this survey? Percent Number The City’s website 3% N=3 The City’s social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) 26% N=25 Received an email from the City 22% N=21 In a City newsletter or utility bill 3% N=3 Received a postcard or letter from the City 1% N=1 Nextdoor 2% N=2 In my Facebook feed 20% N=19 Saw it on a video of a public meeting or at a meeting I attended 0% N=0 Saw it on the City's cable channel 0% N=0 Saw it in a newspaper article or ad (hard copy or online) 3% N=3 Saw a flyer or poster about it 0% N=0 Heard about it from a family member, friend or neighborhood 11% N=11 Heard about it from a business or social organization in my community 0% N=0 Polco’s weekly email 0% N=0 Polco social media post 1% N=1 On my Polco feed 1% N=1 Other 6% N=6 Total 100% N=96 257 Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Question The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as entered in the web survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by alphabetical order. How did you hear about this survey? If you selected an "other" way, in what other way did you hear about this survey? • google • It was in my Google news feed • Mentioned in neighborhood Facebook page • Moorpark Patch site • online local news source • Text message • Twitter 258 Moorpark, CA Technical Appendices 2020 ATTACHMENT 4 259 Contents Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses .......................................................................................... 1 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ............................................................................................. 22 Comparison Data .................................................................................................................................... 22 Interpreting the Results ......................................................................................................................... 22 National Benchmark Comparisons ......................................................................................................... 23 Custom Benchmark Comparisons – Similar Populations 30,000 to 45,000 .......................................... 35 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................................................................. 45 Survey Validity ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Selecting Survey Recipients .................................................................................................................... 46 Survey Administration and Response .................................................................................................... 48 Confidence Intervals ............................................................................................................................... 50 Survey Processing (Data Entry) .............................................................................................................. 50 Survey Data Weighting ........................................................................................................................... 51 Survey Data Analysis and Reporting ...................................................................................................... 52 Appendix D: Survey Materials ......................................................................................................... 53 260 Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. For questions that included a “don’t know” response option, two tables for that question are provided: the first that excludes the “don’t know” responses, and the second that includes those responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Moorpark as a place to live 55% N=276 37% N=185 6% N=30 2% N=8 100% N=498 Your neighborhood as a place to live 54% N=268 38% N=189 7% N=34 1% N=3 100% N=494 Moorpark as a place to raise children 66% N=297 31% N=140 3% N=13 1% N=3 100% N=453 Moorpark as a place to work 17% N=56 32% N=106 34% N=112 17% N=57 100% N=331 Moorpark as a place to visit 14% N=64 27% N=128 39% N=183 21% N=100 100% N=475 Moorpark as a place to retire 36% N=156 34% N=148 21% N=92 9% N=41 100% N=436 The overall quality of life in Moorpark 41% N=200 47% N=229 12% N=60 0% N=1 100% N=489 Sense of community 34% N=169 45% N=219 16% N=79 5% N=24 100% N=491 Table 2: Question 1 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Moorpark as a place to live 55% N=276 37% N=185 6% N=30 2% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=498 Your neighborhood as a place to live 54% N=268 38% N=189 7% N=34 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=494 Moorpark as a place to raise children 60% N=297 28% N=140 3% N=13 1% N=3 9% N=46 100% N=499 Moorpark as a place to work 11% N=56 21% N=106 22% N=112 11% N=57 34% N=167 100% N=498 Moorpark as a place to visit 13% N=64 26% N=128 37% N=183 20% N=100 4% N=20 100% N=495 Moorpark as a place to retire 31% N=156 30% N=148 19% N=92 8% N=41 12% N=59 100% N=495 The overall quality of life in Moorpark 41% N=200 47% N=229 12% N=60 0% N=1 0% N=1 100% N=490 Sense of community 34% N=169 44% N=219 16% N=79 5% N=24 1% N=6 100% N=497 261 Table 3: Question 2 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 7% N=29 41% N=184 39% N=176 14% N=62 100% N=451 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 13% N=59 47% N=208 30% N=134 10% N=45 100% N=446 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 18% N=88 51% N=251 25% N=122 6% N=30 100% N=491 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 24% N=114 54% N=256 19% N=92 3% N=12 100% N=474 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 55% N=268 41% N=201 4% N=19 0% N=2 100% N=490 Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 43% N=214 45% N=226 9% N=44 2% N=12 100% N=496 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 45% N=213 43% N=206 11% N=54 1% N=3 100% N=477 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 26% N=117 50% N=227 18% N=81 6% N=26 100% N=451 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 13% N=61 49% N=223 26% N=118 12% N=54 100% N=456 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 16% N=73 50% N=235 26% N=123 7% N=35 100% N=465 Table 4: Question 2 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 6% N=29 37% N=184 35% N=176 12% N=62 10% N=48 100% N=499 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 12% N=59 42% N=208 27% N=134 9% N=45 10% N=47 100% N=494 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 18% N=88 51% N=251 25% N=122 6% N=30 1% N=4 100% N=495 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 23% N=114 51% N=256 19% N=92 2% N=12 5% N=24 100% N=498 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 55% N=268 41% N=201 4% N=19 0% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=490 Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 43% N=214 45% N=226 9% N=44 2% N=12 1% N=3 100% N=499 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 43% N=213 42% N=206 11% N=54 1% N=3 4% N=17 100% N=494 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 23% N=117 45% N=227 16% N=81 5% N=26 10% N=48 100% N=499 262 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 12% N=61 45% N=223 24% N=118 11% N=54 7% N=35 100% N=490 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 15% N=73 48% N=235 25% N=123 7% N=35 6% N=29 100% N=494 Table 5: Question 3 without "don't know" responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 57% N=284 38% N=188 3% N=14 3% N=13 100% N=499 Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 64% N=311 23% N=111 7% N=36 6% N=27 100% N=485 Table 6: Question 3 with "don't know" responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 57% N=284 38% N=188 3% N=14 3% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=499 Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 62% N=311 22% N=111 7% N=36 5% N=27 3% N=14 100% N=498 Table 7: Question 4 without "don't know" responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 85% N=427 13% N=65 2% N=8 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=500 In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 65% N=322 30% N=146 4% N=20 1% N=4 0% N=1 100% N=492 From property crime 46% N=226 38% N=186 12% N=58 3% N=17 0% N=2 100% N=488 From violent crime 64% N=316 27% N=135 8% N=38 1% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=493 From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 29% N=142 42% N=206 14% N=68 11% N=54 4% N=18 100% N=487 Table 8: Question 4 with "don't know" responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 85% N=427 13% N=65 2% N=8 0% N=1 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=500 In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 64% N=322 29% N=146 4% N=20 1% N=4 0% N=1 2% N=8 100% N=499 263 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total From property crime 45% N=226 37% N=186 12% N=58 3% N=17 0% N=2 2% N=10 100% N=498 From violent crime 63% N=316 27% N=135 8% N=38 1% N=3 0% N=1 1% N=4 100% N=498 From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 29% N=142 42% N=206 14% N=68 11% N=54 4% N=18 2% N=9 100% N=497 Table 9: Question 5 without "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Moorpark community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Making all residents feel welcome 33% N=149 45% N=204 17% N=78 4% N=20 100% N=451 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 20% N=83 49% N=202 22% N=92 9% N=38 100% N=415 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 27% N=112 52% N=218 15% N=63 7% N=28 100% N=420 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 16% N=53 51% N=173 25% N=83 8% N=28 100% N=338 Table 10: Question 5 with "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Moorpark community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Making all residents feel welcome 30% N=149 41% N=204 16% N=78 4% N=20 10% N=49 100% N=499 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 17% N=83 41% N=202 19% N=92 8% N=38 16% N=80 100% N=494 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 23% N=112 44% N=218 13% N=63 6% N=28 15% N=74 100% N=494 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 11% N=53 35% N=173 17% N=83 6% N=28 32% N=158 100% N=496 Table 11: Question 6 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 12% N=59 45% N=223 32% N=158 11% N=56 100% N=496 Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 5% N=25 30% N=148 40% N=199 25% N=123 100% N=496 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 2% N=10 15% N=75 41% N=202 42% N=205 100% N=491 Employment opportunities 1% N=4 15% N=50 46% N=156 38% N=128 100% N=338 Shopping opportunities 3% N=16 28% N=140 43% N=213 26% N=127 100% N=496 Cost of living in Moorpark 4% N=20 35% N=175 41% N=201 20% N=100 100% N=495 264 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 26% N=130 50% N=246 19% N=95 4% N=22 100% N=493 Table 12: Question 6 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 12% N=59 45% N=223 32% N=158 11% N=56 0% N=2 100% N=499 Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 5% N=25 30% N=148 40% N=199 25% N=123 1% N=3 100% N=499 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 2% N=10 15% N=75 40% N=202 41% N=205 1% N=7 100% N=499 Employment opportunities 1% N=4 10% N=50 31% N=156 26% N=128 32% N=161 100% N=500 Shopping opportunities 3% N=16 28% N=140 43% N=213 26% N=127 0% N=0 100% N=496 Cost of living in Moorpark 4% N=20 35% N=175 40% N=201 20% N=100 1% N=3 100% N=498 Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 26% N=130 49% N=246 19% N=95 4% N=22 1% N=5 100% N=498 Table 13: Question 7 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 6% N=32 36% N=178 26% N=129 32% N=157 100% N=496 Ease of public parking 26% N=126 54% N=263 16% N=76 4% N=17 100% N=483 Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 26% N=128 48% N=235 20% N=100 6% N=28 100% N=492 Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 12% N=26 40% N=90 32% N=71 17% N=37 100% N=224 Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 16% N=52 50% N=169 21% N=71 13% N=44 100% N=335 Ease of walking in Moorpark 29% N=136 50% N=233 16% N=77 5% N=22 100% N=468 Well-planned residential growth 17% N=72 40% N=171 30% N=128 12% N=52 100% N=423 Well-planned commercial growth 5% N=20 21% N=87 36% N=153 38% N=161 100% N=422 Well-designed neighborhoods 24% N=114 53% N=250 18% N=86 5% N=23 100% N=474 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 12% N=49 39% N=158 34% N=140 15% N=60 100% N=408 Public places where people want to spend time 9% N=42 37% N=174 33% N=154 22% N=102 100% N=472 265 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Variety of housing options 12% N=57 43% N=202 30% N=141 15% N=69 100% N=468 Availability of affordable quality housing 8% N=33 22% N=91 36% N=147 34% N=137 100% N=407 Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 10% N=41 43% N=178 33% N=134 15% N=60 100% N=413 Overall appearance of Moorpark 21% N=104 56% N=275 19% N=95 4% N=21 100% N=495 Cleanliness of Moorpark 38% N=184 48% N=237 12% N=60 2% N=8 100% N=489 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 7% N=27 25% N=97 32% N=123 36% N=139 100% N=387 Air quality 33% N=163 53% N=259 12% N=60 2% N=11 100% N=492 Availability of paths and walking trails 28% N=135 47% N=230 17% N=81 8% N=41 100% N=488 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 18% N=85 52% N=240 23% N=107 7% N=31 100% N=463 Recreational opportunities 19% N=86 51% N=233 23% N=108 7% N=33 100% N=460 Availability of affordable quality food 14% N=70 49% N=237 29% N=142 7% N=33 100% N=482 Availability of affordable quality health care 11% N=42 48% N=186 31% N=121 10% N=37 100% N=386 Availability of preventive health services 10% N=35 43% N=153 34% N=121 14% N=48 100% N=357 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 4% N=9 26% N=57 38% N=83 32% N=69 100% N=217 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 3% N=12 29% N=131 41% N=181 28% N=123 100% N=446 Community support for the arts 4% N=15 34% N=127 43% N=162 19% N=73 100% N=377 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 7% N=18 34% N=80 40% N=96 19% N=44 100% N=238 K-12 education 35% N=128 49% N=181 13% N=46 3% N=11 100% N=366 Adult educational opportunities 10% N=30 42% N=126 38% N=114 10% N=29 100% N=298 Sense of civic/community pride 20% N=90 52% N=238 25% N=115 4% N=17 100% N=461 Neighborliness of residents in Moorpark 28% N=135 48% N=231 20% N=98 4% N=20 100% N=484 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=38 46% N=201 36% N=161 9% N=41 100% N=440 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 10% N=44 43% N=192 34% N=150 13% N=57 100% N=444 Opportunities to volunteer 12% N=41 46% N=158 33% N=115 8% N=29 100% N=342 Opportunities to participate in community matters 10% N=36 49% N=182 33% N=122 9% N=32 100% N=372 266 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 21% N=83 44% N=171 25% N=99 9% N=36 100% N=389 Table 14: Question 7 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 6% N=32 36% N=178 26% N=129 32% N=157 0% N=1 100% N=497 Ease of public parking 26% N=126 53% N=263 15% N=76 4% N=17 2% N=10 100% N=493 Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 26% N=128 47% N=235 20% N=100 6% N=28 1% N=6 100% N=497 Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 5% N=26 18% N=90 14% N=71 7% N=37 55% N=270 100% N=494 Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 11% N=52 34% N=169 15% N=71 9% N=44 31% N=153 100% N=489 Ease of walking in Moorpark 28% N=136 48% N=233 16% N=77 5% N=22 4% N=19 100% N=487 Well-planned residential growth 15% N=72 35% N=171 26% N=128 11% N=52 14% N=67 100% N=491 Well-planned commercial growth 4% N=20 18% N=87 31% N=153 33% N=161 15% N=72 100% N=494 Well-designed neighborhoods 23% N=114 51% N=250 17% N=86 5% N=23 4% N=19 100% N=493 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 10% N=49 32% N=158 28% N=140 12% N=60 17% N=85 100% N=493 Public places where people want to spend time 9% N=42 36% N=174 31% N=154 21% N=102 4% N=19 100% N=491 Variety of housing options 12% N=57 41% N=202 29% N=141 14% N=69 5% N=25 100% N=493 Availability of affordable quality housing 7% N=33 18% N=91 30% N=147 28% N=137 18% N=87 100% N=494 Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 8% N=41 36% N=178 27% N=134 12% N=60 16% N=78 100% N=491 Overall appearance of Moorpark 21% N=104 55% N=275 19% N=95 4% N=21 0% N=1 100% N=496 Cleanliness of Moorpark 38% N=184 48% N=237 12% N=60 2% N=8 0% N=1 100% N=490 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 5% N=27 20% N=97 25% N=123 28% N=139 22% N=108 100% N=494 Air quality 33% N=163 52% N=259 12% N=60 2% N=11 1% N=3 100% N=495 Availability of paths and walking trails 27% N=135 46% N=230 16% N=81 8% N=41 2% N=8 100% N=495 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 17% N=85 49% N=240 22% N=107 6% N=31 6% N=29 100% N=492 267 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Moorpark as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Recreational opportunities 17% N=86 47% N=233 22% N=108 7% N=33 7% N=34 100% N=494 Availability of affordable quality food 14% N=70 49% N=237 29% N=142 7% N=33 1% N=6 100% N=487 Availability of affordable quality health care 9% N=42 38% N=186 24% N=121 8% N=37 22% N=107 100% N=494 Availability of preventive health services 7% N=35 31% N=153 25% N=121 10% N=48 27% N=132 100% N=489 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 2% N=9 12% N=57 17% N=83 14% N=69 56% N=277 100% N=494 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 2% N=12 27% N=131 37% N=181 25% N=123 9% N=45 100% N=490 Community support for the arts 3% N=15 26% N=127 33% N=162 15% N=73 23% N=112 100% N=489 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 4% N=18 17% N=80 20% N=96 9% N=44 51% N=247 100% N=485 K-12 education 26% N=128 37% N=181 9% N=46 2% N=11 26% N=129 100% N=495 Adult educational opportunities 6% N=30 25% N=126 23% N=114 6% N=29 40% N=197 100% N=495 Sense of civic/community pride 18% N=90 48% N=238 23% N=115 3% N=17 7% N=34 100% N=495 Neighborliness of residents in Moorpark 27% N=135 47% N=231 20% N=98 4% N=20 2% N=11 100% N=495 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 8% N=38 41% N=201 33% N=161 8% N=41 10% N=52 100% N=492 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 9% N=44 39% N=192 30% N=150 12% N=57 10% N=49 100% N=493 Opportunities to volunteer 8% N=41 32% N=158 23% N=115 6% N=29 31% N=151 100% N=493 Opportunities to participate in community matters 7% N=36 37% N=182 25% N=122 7% N=32 25% N=121 100% N=493 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 17% N=83 35% N=171 20% N=99 7% N=36 20% N=98 100% N=487 Table 15: Question 8 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Contacted the City of Moorpark (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 66% N=327 34% N=170 100% N=497 Contacted Moorpark elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 85% N=421 15% N=72 100% N=493 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 78% N=385 22% N=112 100% N=497 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 73% N=363 27% N=132 100% N=495 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark 74% N=367 26% N=127 100% N=494 268 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause or candidate 79% N=390 21% N=102 100% N=492 Voted in your most recent local election 8% N=41 92% N=455 100% N=496 Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 83% N=413 17% N=83 100% N=496 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 54% N=269 46% N=225 100% N=494 Walked or biked instead of driving 37% N=184 63% N=313 100% N=497 Table 16: Question 9 without "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Public information services 12% N=48 60% N=239 25% N=99 3% N=12 100% N=397 Economic development 6% N=24 28% N=111 41% N=159 25% N=98 100% N=392 Traffic enforcement 18% N=83 51% N=236 22% N=102 8% N=37 100% N=458 Traffic signal timing 13% N=62 48% N=228 26% N=123 13% N=64 100% N=478 Street repair 12% N=57 41% N=199 31% N=151 16% N=79 100% N=486 Street cleaning 26% N=126 54% N=262 16% N=77 4% N=18 100% N=482 Street lighting 25% N=123 55% N=271 15% N=76 4% N=22 100% N=491 Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=81 52% N=250 23% N=110 7% N=35 100% N=478 Bus or transit services 14% N=30 57% N=127 22% N=49 8% N=17 100% N=224 Land use, planning, and zoning 10% N=33 40% N=132 33% N=110 16% N=54 100% N=328 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=35 43% N=155 33% N=118 15% N=53 100% N=361 Affordable high-speed internet access 14% N=63 40% N=178 26% N=117 19% N=86 100% N=444 Garbage collection 39% N=192 51% N=252 9% N=46 1% N=3 100% N=493 Drinking water 36% N=170 46% N=217 15% N=69 4% N=19 100% N=474 Sewer services 36% N=171 55% N=259 9% N=42 0% N=1 100% N=473 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 29% N=121 55% N=231 13% N=56 2% N=10 100% N=418 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 26% N=128 56% N=271 12% N=59 6% N=28 100% N=486 Utility billing 19% N=91 54% N=259 20% N=93 7% N=35 100% N=479 Police/Sheriff services 47% N=221 45% N=210 5% N=24 3% N=15 100% N=472 269 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Crime prevention 40% N=181 51% N=232 9% N=40 1% N=4 100% N=457 Animal control 25% N=92 58% N=216 12% N=46 5% N=19 100% N=373 Ambulance or emergency medical services 43% N=152 50% N=175 6% N=22 1% N=2 100% N=350 Fire services 52% N=221 43% N=182 4% N=19 0% N=1 100% N=423 Fire prevention and education 32% N=103 46% N=147 18% N=58 4% N=13 100% N=321 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 18% N=56 47% N=148 28% N=88 7% N=21 100% N=313 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 28% N=121 48% N=207 19% N=82 5% N=22 100% N=432 Moorpark open space 31% N=140 43% N=195 22% N=98 4% N=18 100% N=452 Recycling 27% N=124 46% N=206 19% N=88 8% N=34 100% N=452 Yard waste pick-up 33% N=138 48% N=202 17% N=73 1% N=6 100% N=419 City parks 43% N=203 49% N=230 7% N=32 1% N=5 100% N=470 Recreation programs or classes 23% N=90 55% N=212 18% N=70 3% N=11 100% N=383 Recreation centers or facilities 22% N=86 58% N=229 18% N=71 3% N=12 100% N=398 Health services 13% N=43 60% N=198 23% N=75 4% N=13 100% N=330 Public library services 19% N=72 55% N=212 21% N=83 5% N=21 100% N=387 Overall customer service by Moorpark employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 30% N=127 57% N=236 11% N=47 1% N=6 100% N=417 Table 17: Question 9 with "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public information services 10% N=48 49% N=239 20% N=99 2% N=12 19% N=95 100% N=491 Economic development 5% N=24 23% N=111 33% N=159 20% N=98 20% N=96 100% N=488 Traffic enforcement 17% N=83 48% N=236 21% N=102 7% N=37 7% N=33 100% N=491 Traffic signal timing 13% N=62 47% N=228 25% N=123 13% N=64 2% N=11 100% N=489 Street repair 12% N=57 40% N=199 31% N=151 16% N=79 1% N=7 100% N=493 Street cleaning 26% N=126 53% N=262 16% N=77 4% N=18 2% N=11 100% N=492 270 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Street lighting 25% N=123 55% N=271 15% N=76 4% N=22 0% N=1 100% N=492 Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=81 51% N=250 23% N=110 7% N=35 2% N=12 100% N=489 Bus or transit services 6% N=30 26% N=127 10% N=49 4% N=17 55% N=268 100% N=492 Land use, planning, and zoning 7% N=33 27% N=132 23% N=110 11% N=54 32% N=156 100% N=483 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 7% N=35 32% N=155 24% N=118 11% N=53 26% N=124 100% N=485 Affordable high-speed internet access 13% N=63 36% N=178 24% N=117 18% N=86 9% N=46 100% N=490 Garbage collection 39% N=192 51% N=252 9% N=46 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=493 Drinking water 35% N=170 44% N=217 14% N=69 4% N=19 4% N=18 100% N=492 Sewer services 35% N=171 53% N=259 9% N=42 0% N=1 4% N=18 100% N=491 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 25% N=121 47% N=231 11% N=56 2% N=10 15% N=73 100% N=491 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 26% N=128 55% N=271 12% N=59 6% N=28 1% N=7 100% N=493 Utility billing 19% N=91 53% N=259 19% N=93 7% N=35 3% N=13 100% N=492 Police/Sheriff services 45% N=221 43% N=210 5% N=24 3% N=15 5% N=23 100% N=494 Crime prevention 37% N=181 47% N=232 8% N=40 1% N=4 7% N=35 100% N=492 Animal control 19% N=92 44% N=216 9% N=46 4% N=19 24% N=118 100% N=491 Ambulance or emergency medical services 31% N=152 35% N=175 4% N=22 0% N=2 29% N=144 100% N=494 Fire services 45% N=221 37% N=182 4% N=19 0% N=1 14% N=68 100% N=491 Fire prevention and education 21% N=103 30% N=147 12% N=58 3% N=13 35% N=169 100% N=490 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% N=56 31% N=148 18% N=88 4% N=21 35% N=168 100% N=480 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) 25% N=121 43% N=207 17% N=82 5% N=22 11% N=52 100% N=484 Moorpark open space 29% N=140 40% N=195 20% N=98 4% N=18 7% N=35 100% N=487 Recycling 26% N=124 43% N=206 18% N=88 7% N=34 7% N=32 100% N=485 Yard waste pick-up 28% N=138 42% N=202 15% N=73 1% N=6 14% N=66 100% N=485 City parks 42% N=203 48% N=230 7% N=32 1% N=5 3% N=13 100% N=483 Recreation programs or classes 19% N=90 44% N=212 15% N=70 2% N=11 21% N=101 100% N=485 271 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Moorpark. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Recreation centers or facilities 18% N=86 48% N=229 15% N=71 3% N=12 16% N=76 100% N=474 Health services 9% N=43 41% N=198 16% N=75 3% N=13 32% N=153 100% N=482 Public library services 15% N=72 44% N=212 17% N=83 4% N=21 20% N=97 100% N=484 Overall customer service by Moorpark employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 26% N=127 49% N=236 10% N=47 1% N=6 14% N=67 100% N=484 Table 18: Question 10 without "don't know" responses Please rate the following categories of Moorpark government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 10% N=41 50% N=210 31% N=129 9% N=37 100% N=417 The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 11% N=46 43% N=183 34% N=145 13% N=55 100% N=430 The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 11% N=40 40% N=149 35% N=128 14% N=53 100% N=371 Overall confidence in Moorpark government 12% N=51 41% N=180 37% N=164 11% N=48 100% N=443 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 12% N=54 47% N=206 30% N=132 10% N=43 100% N=435 Being honest 16% N=60 55% N=202 21% N=78 8% N=29 100% N=369 Being open and transparent to the public 15% N=55 46% N=167 27% N=97 12% N=42 100% N=361 Informing residents about issues facing the community 14% N=56 41% N=166 28% N=112 17% N=69 100% N=402 Treating all residents fairly 21% N=77 50% N=186 20% N=72 9% N=32 100% N=367 Treating residents with respect 26% N=99 51% N=198 18% N=70 5% N=18 100% N=385 Table 19: Question 10 with "don't know" responses Please rate the following categories of Moorpark government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 8% N=41 43% N=210 26% N=129 8% N=37 15% N=75 100% N=492 The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 9% N=46 38% N=183 30% N=145 11% N=55 12% N=58 100% N=488 The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 8% N=40 30% N=149 26% N=128 11% N=53 24% N=119 100% N=490 Overall confidence in Moorpark government 10% N=51 36% N=180 33% N=164 10% N=48 10% N=50 100% N=493 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 11% N=54 42% N=206 27% N=132 9% N=43 11% N=57 100% N=492 272 Please rate the following categories of Moorpark government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Being honest 12% N=60 41% N=202 16% N=78 6% N=29 25% N=121 100% N=490 Being open and transparent to the public 11% N=55 34% N=167 20% N=97 9% N=42 27% N=131 100% N=492 Informing residents about issues facing the community 11% N=56 34% N=166 23% N=112 14% N=69 18% N=88 100% N=491 Treating all residents fairly 16% N=77 38% N=186 15% N=72 7% N=32 25% N=125 100% N=493 Treating residents with respect 20% N=99 41% N=198 14% N=70 4% N=18 21% N=101 100% N=486 Table 20: Question 11 without "don't know" responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Moorpark 18% N=85 57% N=267 21% N=97 3% N=16 100% N=466 The Federal Government 7% N=28 34% N=146 41% N=177 18% N=77 100% N=427 Table 21: Question 11 with "don't know" responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Moorpark 17% N=85 54% N=267 20% N=97 3% N=16 6% N=29 100% N=495 The Federal Government 6% N=28 30% N=146 36% N=177 16% N=77 13% N=66 100% N=494 Table 22: Question 12 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Moorpark community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall economic health of Moorpark 59% N=287 34% N=163 7% N=32 1% N=4 100% N=487 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Moorpark 23% N=113 41% N=199 32% N=154 4% N=20 100% N=487 Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 27% N=133 48% N=237 21% N=105 3% N=15 100% N=490 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 43% N=208 38% N=185 18% N=88 1% N=7 100% N=488 Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 61% N=301 30% N=147 8% N=37 1% N=5 100% N=491 273 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Moorpark community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 34% N=168 51% N=248 14% N=66 1% N=6 100% N=488 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 28% N=137 52% N=249 19% N=93 1% N=4 100% N=483 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 28% N=134 48% N=235 22% N=106 3% N=12 100% N=488 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 27% N=131 44% N=217 27% N=130 2% N=11 100% N=488 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 21% N=105 50% N=244 27% N=132 2% N=9 100% N=490 Table 23: Question 13 without "don't know" responses How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total More unique dining opportunities 80% N=393 15% N=72 4% N=19 2% N=9 100% N=492 More national chain restaurants 32% N=157 36% N=178 19% N=95 12% N=60 100% N=491 More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses 73% N=358 22% N=111 4% N=21 1% N=3 100% N=493 More large franchise businesses 30% N=147 39% N=189 18% N=85 13% N=64 100% N=485 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) 41% N=197 35% N=168 17% N=80 7% N=35 100% N=480 More nightlife opportunities 39% N=186 26% N=123 19% N=91 17% N=81 100% N=481 Increased safety and security 56% N=259 33% N=152 8% N=36 3% N=12 100% N=460 More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on- demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) 26% N=109 32% N=132 23% N=97 19% N=81 100% N=420 More transportation options on nights and weekends 26% N=107 29% N=122 25% N=103 21% N=87 100% N=418 Table 24: Question 13 with "don't know" responses How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total More unique dining opportunities 79% N=393 15% N=72 4% N=19 2% N=9 1% N=3 100% N=495 More national chain restaurants 32% N=157 36% N=178 19% N=95 12% N=60 1% N=3 100% N=494 More small, independent, locally owned or "mom and pop" businesses 72% N=358 22% N=111 4% N=21 1% N=3 0% N=2 100% N=496 274 How likely or unlikely would you to be to shop and dine in Moorpark if the following amenities were added? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total More large franchise businesses 30% N=147 38% N=189 17% N=85 13% N=64 1% N=7 100% N=492 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee shops, dry cleaner, etc.) 40% N=197 34% N=168 16% N=80 7% N=35 2% N=10 100% N=490 More nightlife opportunities 38% N=186 25% N=123 18% N=91 16% N=81 3% N=15 100% N=496 Increased safety and security 53% N=259 31% N=152 7% N=36 3% N=12 7% N=32 100% N=492 More accessible transportation and parking options (e.g., local bus service, on-demand rideshare, bicycle, etc.) 22% N=109 27% N=132 20% N=97 17% N=81 14% N=70 100% N=490 More transportation options on nights and weekends 22% N=107 25% N=122 21% N=103 18% N=87 15% N=72 100% N=490 Table 25: Question 14 without "don't know" responses Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways 44% N=208 47% N=220 7% N=34 2% N=9 100% N=472 More trails and greenways 61% N=297 36% N=173 2% N=8 1% N=6 100% N=484 More bicycle lanes 35% N=166 37% N=176 19% N=89 9% N=40 100% N=472 New bicycle sharing programs 18% N=73 34% N=143 23% N=96 25% N=106 100% N=419 New electric scooter sharing programs 11% N=50 22% N=95 26% N=116 40% N=177 100% N=437 New or expanded bus routes 24% N=84 53% N=188 17% N=59 7% N=25 100% N=357 More frequent bus service for existing routes 28% N=92 44% N=143 19% N=63 9% N=28 100% N=327 More city-sponsored rideshare programs 21% N=72 48% N=164 20% N=70 11% N=39 100% N=345 New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. 25% N=101 50% N=203 15% N=61 10% N=42 100% N=407 More park-n-rides for access to public transportation 22% N=80 48% N=175 18% N=64 12% N=43 100% N=361 More rail options 33% N=129 46% N=182 11% N=44 9% N=36 100% N=392 275 Table 26: Question 14 with "don't know" responses Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Moorpark investing in each of the following: Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total More sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways 43% N=208 45% N=220 7% N=34 2% N=9 3% N=16 100% N=488 More trails and greenways 61% N=297 35% N=173 2% N=8 1% N=6 1% N=6 100% N=490 More bicycle lanes 34% N=166 36% N=176 18% N=89 8% N=40 4% N=19 100% N=491 New bicycle sharing programs 15% N=73 29% N=143 20% N=96 22% N=106 15% N=71 100% N=490 New electric scooter sharing programs 10% N=50 19% N=95 24% N=116 36% N=177 11% N=54 100% N=491 New or expanded bus routes 17% N=84 38% N=188 12% N=59 5% N=25 27% N=134 100% N=491 More frequent bus service for existing routes 19% N=92 29% N=143 13% N=63 6% N=28 33% N=164 100% N=490 More city-sponsored rideshare programs 15% N=72 34% N=164 14% N=70 8% N=39 29% N=143 100% N=488 New rideshare partnership programs with Uber/Lyft, etc. 21% N=101 42% N=203 12% N=61 9% N=42 17% N=82 100% N=489 More park-n-rides for access to public transportation 16% N=80 36% N=175 13% N=64 9% N=43 26% N=127 100% N=489 More rail options 26% N=129 37% N=182 9% N=44 7% N=36 20% N=98 100% N=490 Table 27: Question D1 without "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 91% N=445 6% N=27 1% N=5 0% N=1 3% N=13 100% N=491 Access the internet from your cell phone 91% N=447 3% N=17 1% N=7 1% N=6 3% N=14 100% N=490 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 66% N=325 8% N=38 9% N=43 2% N=10 15% N=74 100% N=490 Use or check email 86% N=426 10% N=51 2% N=12 0% N=2 1% N=4 100% N=494 Share your opinions online 16% N=78 8% N=38 14% N=67 13% N=62 48% N=229 100% N=475 Shop online 19% N=95 13% N=65 38% N=187 23% N=110 7% N=33 100% N=491 276 Table 28: Question D1 with "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Don't know Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 90% N=445 5% N=27 1% N=5 0% N=1 3% N=13 1% N=3 100% N=495 Access the internet from your cell phone 91% N=447 3% N=17 1% N=7 1% N=6 3% N=14 1% N=3 100% N=493 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 66% N=325 8% N=38 9% N=43 2% N=10 15% N=74 0% N=2 100% N=492 Use or check email 86% N=426 10% N=51 2% N=12 0% N=2 1% N=4 0% N=1 100% N=495 Share your opinions online 16% N=78 8% N=38 14% N=67 13% N=62 47% N=229 3% N=14 100% N=489 Shop online 19% N=95 13% N=65 38% N=187 22% N=110 7% N=33 0% N=1 100% N=492 Table 29: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 35% N=176 Very good 45% N=222 Good 17% N=83 Fair 3% N=13 Poor 1% N=4 Total 100% N=498 Table 30: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 6% N=28 Somewhat positive 16% N=77 Neutral 55% N=271 Somewhat negative 19% N=92 Very negative 5% N=27 Total 100% N=495 277 Table 31: Question D4 How many years have you lived in Moorpark? Percent Number Less than 2 years 10% N=52 2 to 5 years 15% N=73 6 to 10 years 12% N=62 11 to 20 years 23% N=117 More than 20 years 39% N=195 Total 100% N=499 Table 32: Question D5 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 75% N=373 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 24% N=120 Mobile home 1% N=3 Other 1% N=5 Total 100% N=501 Table 33: Question D6 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 24% N=120 Own 76% N=379 Total 100% N=500 278 Table 34: Question D7 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $500 per month 1% N=7 $500 to $999 per month 6% N=31 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 8% N=40 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 7% N=35 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 17% N=85 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 22% N=106 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 12% N=58 $3,500 or more per month 26% N=127 Total 100% N=488 Table 35: Question D8 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 63% N=315 Yes 37% N=182 Total 100% N=497 Table 36: Question D9 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 68% N=339 Yes 32% N=158 Total 100% N=497 279 Table 37: Question D10 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 4% N=21 $25,000 to $49,999 9% N=42 $50,000 to $74,999 12% N=58 $75,000 to $99,999 14% N=66 $100,000 to $149,999 19% N=88 $150,000 or more 42% N=199 Total 100% N=474 Table 38: Question D11 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 74% N=366 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 26% N=126 Total 100% N=492 Table 39: Question D12 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=3 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 7% N=32 Black or African American 1% N=6 White 84% N=411 Other 13% N=61 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 280 Table 40: Question D13 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 4% N=19 25 to 34 years 20% N=102 35 to 44 years 17% N=83 45 to 54 years 23% N=117 55 to 64 years 18% N=90 65 to 74 years 12% N=60 75 years or older 6% N=29 Total 100% N=500 Table 41: Question D14 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 56% N=279 Male 44% N=218 Identify in another way 0% N=1 Total 100% N=499 281 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Moorpark chose to have comparisons made to the entire database and a subset of similar jurisdictions from the database (communities with similar populations of 30,000 to 45,000). Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Moorpark’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Moorpark’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Moorpark’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Moorpark’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Moorpark residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Moorpark’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Moorpark’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% 282 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 42: Quality of Life Quality of Life Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 76% 136 354 Similar The overall quality of life in Moorpark 88% 111 441 Similar Moorpark as a place to live 92% 70 384 Similar Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 95% 46 296 Similar Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 87% 109 289 Similar Table 43: Governance Governance Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Moorpark government 52% 124 283 Similar The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 53% 205 327 Similar The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 60% 123 392 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 60% 110 286 Similar Being honest 71% 45 277 Similar Being open and transparent to the public 61% 22 46 Similar Informing residents about issues facing the community 55% 27 51 Similar The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 51% 155 329 Similar Treating all residents fairly 72% 56 281 Similar Treating residents with respect 77% 9 46 Similar Overall customer service by Moorpark employees 89% 74 381 Similar Public information services 72% 110 292 Similar Quality of services provided by the City of Moorpark 76% 182 403 Similar Quality of services provided by the Federal Government 41% 76 264 Similar 283 Table 44: Economy Economy Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Moorpark 47% 204 281 Similar Economic development 34% 248 291 Lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 57% 179 285 Similar Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 35% 41 45 Lower Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 17% 238 262 Much lower Shopping opportunities 31% 245 302 Lower Moorpark as a place to visit 40% 255 299 Lower Moorpark as a place to work 49% 254 364 Similar Employment opportunities 16% 282 316 Lower Cost of living in Moorpark 39% 152 279 Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 21% 233 270 Similar Overall economic health of Moorpark 47% 204 281 Similar 284 Table 45: Mobility Mobility Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark 60% 238 286 Similar Traffic flow on major streets 42% 234 339 Similar Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 74% 75 315 Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 52% 48 251 Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 66% 124 315 Similar Ease of walking in Moorpark 79% 92 316 Similar Ease of public parking 81% 22 248 Higher Bus or transit services 61% 45 246 Higher Traffic enforcement 70% 129 363 Similar Traffic signal timing 61% 58 275 Similar Street repair 53% 141 358 Similar Street cleaning 80% 43 316 Higher Street lighting 80% 25 336 Higher Sidewalk maintenance 69% 67 315 Similar Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 17% 133 231 Lower Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 46% 65 263 Similar Walked or biked instead of driving 63% 107 271 Similar 285 Table 46: Community Design Community Design Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas 69% 88 276 Similar Overall appearance of Moorpark 77% 162 347 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 40 316 Similar Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 53% 162 301 Similar Well-planned residential growth 57% 19 49 Similar Well-planned commercial growth 26% 44 49 Lower Well-designed neighborhoods 77% 6 50 Higher Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 51% 34 44 Similar Public places where people want to spend time 46% 242 271 Lower Variety of housing options 55% 106 289 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 30% 189 313 Similar Land use, planning, and zoning 52% 97 306 Similar Code enforcement 52% 170 373 Similar Table 47: Utilities Utilities Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark 78% 17 46 Similar Affordable high-speed internet access 65% 21 43 Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility 82% 86 200 Similar Garbage collection 88% 68 342 Similar Drinking water 84% 72 309 Similar Sewer services 88% 19 311 Higher Storm water management 82% 17 336 Higher Utility billing 78% 129 245 Similar 286 Table 48: Safety Safety Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 96% 27 362 Higher Police/Sheriff services 91% 48 429 Higher Crime prevention 89% 16 359 Higher Animal control 86% 39 327 Higher Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 120 330 Similar Fire services 90% 89 369 Similar Fire prevention and education 77% 133 292 Similar Emergency preparedness 67% 167 288 Similar In your neighborhood during the day 98% 29 355 Similar In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 95% 101 329 Similar From property crime 84% 9 60 Similar From violent crime 91% 13 60 Similar From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 71% 37 46 Similar Table 49: Natural Environment Natural Environment Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 89% 46 287 Similar Cleanliness of Moorpark 86% 64 312 Higher Water resources 32% 37 42 Much lower Air quality 86% 78 260 Similar Preservation of natural areas 76% 28 265 Higher Moorpark open space 74% 33 255 Higher Recycling 73% 246 347 Similar Yard waste pick-up 88% 63 276 Similar 287 Table 50: Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 88% 13 46 Similar Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 121 317 Similar City parks 84% 59 319 Similar Recreational opportunities 69% 154 301 Similar Recreation programs or classes 82% 67 320 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 75% 83 288 Similar Fitness opportunities 70% 159 267 Similar Table 51: Health and Wellness Health and Wellness Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 76% 96 279 Similar Health services 73% 93 240 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 59% 174 274 Similar Availability of preventive health services 53% 190 256 Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care 30% 189 251 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 64% 179 261 Similar In very good to excellent health 97% 9 266 Similar 288 Table 52: Education, Arts, and Culture Education, Arts, and Culture Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 62% 131 272 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 32% 167 294 Similar Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 53% 155 288 Similar Community support for the arts 38% 13 27 Similar Public library services 80% 26 319 Higher Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 41% 63 265 Similar K-12 education 84% 47 269 Higher Adult educational opportunities 52% 132 252 Similar Table 53: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and Engagement Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Residents' connection and engagement with their community 66% 17 46 Similar Sense of community 79% 30 312 Higher Sense of civic/community pride 71% 18 46 Similar Neighborliness of Moorpark 76% 23 272 Similar Moorpark as a place to raise children 96% 16 381 Higher Moorpark as a place to retire 70% 126 365 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 65% 69 305 Similar Making all residents feel welcome 78% 6 46 Similar Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 69% 8 46 Similar Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 78% 6 46 Similar Taking care of vulnerable residents 67% 7 46 Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 54% 218 276 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 58% 236 279 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 59% 196 285 Similar 289 Table 54: Participation Participation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Contacted Moorpark for help or information 34% 274 339 Similar Contacted Moorpark elected officials to express your opinion 15% 137 270 Similar Attended a local public meeting 22% 127 276 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 27% 61 247 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark 26% 244 278 Lower Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 21% 151 259 Similar Voted in your most recent local election 92% 2 46 Higher Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 97% 11 46 Similar Access the internet from your cell phone 96% 1 46 Similar Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 83% 10 46 Similar Use or check email 99% 1 46 Similar Share your opinions online 39% 9 46 Similar Shop online 71% 1 46 Higher 290 Table 55: Focus Areas Importance Items Percent essential or very important Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Moorpark 92% 3 260 Higher Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark 64% 220 260 Lower Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas 76% 162 260 Similar Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark 80% 30 46 Similar Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 91% 68 260 Similar Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 85% 86 260 Similar Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 80% 29 46 Similar Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 76% 129 259 Similar Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 71% 216 260 Similar Residents' connection and engagement with their community 71% 224 260 Similar 291 Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Moorpark’s comparisons are listed on the following page. Adams County, CO Airway Heights city, WA Albemarle County, VA Albert Lea city, MN Alexandria city, VA Allegan County, MI American Canyon city, CA Ankeny city, IA Ann Arbor city, MI Apache Junction city, AZ Arapahoe County, CO Arlington city, TX Arvada city, CO Asheville city, NC Ashland city, OR Ashland town, MA Ashland town, VA Aspen city, CO Athens-Clarke County unified government (balance), Auburn city, AL Aurora city, CO Austin city, TX Avon town, CO Avon town, IN Avondale city, AZ Azusa city, CA Bainbridge Island city, WA Baltimore city, MD Baltimore County, MD Basehor city, KS Batavia city, IL Battle Creek city, MI Bay Village city, OH Baytown city, TX Beaumont city, CA Bellingham city, WA Bend city, OR Bethlehem township, PA Bettendorf city, IA Billings city, MT Bloomington city, IN Bloomington city, MN Boise City city, ID Bonner Springs city, KS Boulder city, CO Bowling Green city, KY Bozeman city, MT Brookline CDP, MA Brooklyn Center city, MN Brooklyn city, OH Broomfield city, CO Brownsburg town, IN Buffalo Grove village, IL Burlingame city, CA CaÃ±on City city, CO Cabarrus County, NC Cambridge city, MA Canandaigua city, NY Cannon Bea ch city, OR Cape Coral city, FL Carlsbad city, CA Cartersville city, GA Cary town, NC Castle Rock town, CO Cedar Hill city, TX Cedar Park city, TX Cedar Rapids city, IA Celina city, TX Centennial city, CO Chandler city, TX Chanhassen city, MN Chapel Hill town, NC Chardon city, OH Charles County, MD Charlotte County, FL Charlottesville city, VA Chattanooga city, TN Chautauqua town, NY Chesterfield County, VA Clayton city, MO Clearwater city, FL Clinton city, SC Clive city, IA Clovis city, CA College Park city, MD College Station city, TX Colleyville city, TX Collinsville city, IL Columbia city, MO Commerce City city, CO Conshohocken borough, PA Coolidge city, AZ Coon Rapids city, MN Coral Springs city, FL Coronado city, CA Corvallis city, OR Cottonwood Heights city, UT Coventry Lake CDP, CT Cupertino city, CA Dacono city, CO Dakota County, MN Dallas city, OR Dallas city, TX Danvers town, MA Danville city, KY Darien city, IL Davidson town, NC Dayton city, OH Dayton town, WY Dearborn city, MI Decatur city, GA DeLand city, FL Delaware city, OH Denison city, TX Denton city, TX Denver city, CO Des Moines city, IA Des Peres city, MO Destin city, FL Dothan city, AL Dover city, NH Dublin city, CA Dublin city, OH Duluth city, MN Durham city, NC Durham County, NC Dyer town, IN Eagan city, MN Eagle Mountain city, UT Eau Claire city, WI E den Prairie city, MN Eden town, VT Edgewater city, CO Edina city, MN Edmond city, OK Edmonds city, WA El Cerrito city, CA El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA Elgin city, IL Elk Grove city, CA Elmhurst city, IL Englewood city, CO Erie town, CO Escambia County, FL Estes Park town, CO Euclid city, OH Farmers Branch city, TX Farmersville city, TX Farmington Hills city, MI Fate city, TX Fayetteville city, GA Fayetteville city, NC Ferguson township, PA Fernandina Beach city, FL Flower Mound town, TX Forest Grove city, OR Fort Collins city, CO Franklin city, TN Frederick town, CO Fremont city, CA Frisco town, CO Fruita city, CO Gahanna city, OH Gaithersburg city, MD Galveston city, TX Gardner city, KS Germantown city, TN Gilbert town, AZ Gillette city, WY Glen Ellyn village, IL Glendora city, CA Glenview village, IL Golden city, CO Golden Valley city, MN Goodyear city, AZ 292 Grafton village, WI Grand Rapids city, MI Grand Traverse County, MI Greeley city, CO Greenville city, NC Greer city, SC Gunnison County, CO Haltom City city, TX Hamilton city, OH Hamilton town, MA Hampton city, VA Hanover County, VA Harrisburg city, SD Hastings city, MN Henderson city, NV High Point city, NC Highland Park city, IL Highlands Ranch CDP, CO Homer Glen village, IL Honolulu County, HI Hopkinton town, MA Hoquiam city, WA Horry County, SC Hudson town, CO Huntley village, IL Huntsville city, TX Hutchinson city, MN Hutto city, TX Hyattsville city, MD Independence city, IA Independence city, MO Indio city, CA Iowa City city, IA Issaquah city, WA Jackson city, MO Jackson County, MI Jefferson Parish, LA Jerome city, ID Johnson City city, TN Johnston city, IA Jupiter town, FL Kalamazoo city, MI Kansas City city, KS Kansas City city, MO Kent city, WA Kerrville city, TX Key West city, FL King City city, CA Kingman city, AZ Kirkland city, WA Kirkwood city, MO La Mesa city, CA La Plata town, MD La Vista city, NE Lake Forest city, IL Lake in the Hills village, IL Lake Zur ich village, IL Lakeville city, MN Lakewood city, CO Lakewood city, WA Lancaster County, SC Laramie city, WY Larimer County, CO Las Cruces city, NM Las Vegas city, NM Las Vegas city, NV Lawrence city, KS Lawrenceville city, GA Lehi city, UT Lenexa city, KS Lewisville city, TX Libertyville village, IL Lincolnwood village, IL Lindsborg city, KS Little Chute village, WI Littleton city, CO Livermore city, CA Lombard village, IL Lone Tree city, CO Long Grove village, IL Longmont city, CO Lonsdale city, MN Los Alamos County, NM Los Altos Hills town, CA Loudoun County, VA Louisville city, CO Lower Merion township, PA Lynchburg city, VA Lynnwood city, WA Manassas city, VA Manhattan Beach city, CA Manhattan city, KS Mankato city, MN Maple Grove city, MN Maplewood city, MN Maricopa County, AZ Marin County, CA Ma rion city, IA Mariposa County, CA Marshalltown city, IA Marshfield city, WI Martinez city, CA Marysville city, WA Maui County, HI McKinney city, TX McMinnville city, OR Mecklenburg County, NC Menlo Park city, CA Menomonee Falls village, WI Mercer Island city, WA Meridian charter township, MI Merriam city, KS Mesa city, AZ Mesquite city, TX Miami city, FL Middleton city, WI Middletown town, RI Milford city, DE Milton city, GA Minneapolis city, MN Minnetrista city, MN Missoula County, MT Missouri City city, TX Moline city, IL Monroe city, MI Montgomery city, MN Montgomery County, MD Monticello city, UT Montrose city, CO Moraga town, CA Morristown city, TN Morrisville town, NC Morro Bay city, CA Moscow city, ID Mountlake Terrace city, WA Murphy city, TX NA Naperville city, IL Napoleon city, OH Needham CDP, MA Nevada City city, CA Nevada County, CA New Braunfels city, TX New Brighton city, MN New Concord village, OH New Hope city, MN Newport city, RI Newport News city, VA Newton city, IA Niles village, IL Noblesville city, IN Norcross city, GA Norfolk city, NE North Mankato city, MN North Port city, FL North Yarmouth town, ME Northglenn city, CO Novato city, CA Novi city, MI Oak Park village, IL Oakdale city, MN O'Fallon city, IL Oklahoma City city, OK Olmsted County, MN Orland Park village, IL Orleans Parish, LA Oshkosh city, WI Oswego village, IL Overland Park city, KS Paducah city, KY Palm Beach Gardens city, FL Palm Coast city, FL Palo Alto city, CA Palos Verd es Estates city, CA Panama City Beach city, FL Papillion city, NE Paradise Valley town, AZ Park City city, UT Parker town, CO Pasco city, WA Pasco County, FL Payette city, ID Pearland city, TX Peoria city, IL Pflugerville city, TX Philadelphia city, PA Pinehurst village, NC Piqua city, OH Pitkin County, CO Plano city, TX Platte City city, MO Pleasant Hill city, IA Pleasanton city, CA Plymouth city, MN Port Orange city, FL Port St. Lucie city, FL Portage city, MI Portland city, OR 293 Powell city, OH Powhatan County, VA Prairie Village city, KS Pueblo city, CO Purcellville town, VA Queen Creek town, AZ Raleigh city, NC Ramsey city, MN Raymore city, MO Redmond city, OR Redmond city, WA Redwood City city, CA Reno city, NV Richfield city, MN Richland city, WA Richmond city, CA Richmond Heights city, MO Rio Rancho city, NM River Falls city, WI Riverside city, CA Roanoke city, VA Roanoke County, VA Rochester city, NY Rock Hill city, SC Rockville city, MD Roeland Park city, KS Rohnert Park city, CA Rolla city, MO Rosemount city, MN Rosenberg city, TX Roseville city, MN Round Rock city, TX Royal Palm Beach village, FL Sacramento city, CA Sahuarita town, AZ Sammamish city, WA San Carlos city, CA San Diego city, CA San Francisco city, CA San Jose city, CA San Marcos city, TX Sangamon County, IL Santa Fe city, NM Santa Fe County, NM Santa Rosa County, FL Savage city, MN Schaumburg village, IL Schertz city, TX Scott County, MN Scottsdale city, AZ Sedona city, AZ Sevierville city, TN Shakopee city, MN Shawnee city, KS Shawnee city, OK Shoreline city, WA Shoreview city, MN Shorewood village, IL Sierra Vista city, AZ Silverton city, OR Sioux Falls city, SD Skokie village, IL Snoqualmie city, WA Snowmass Village town, CO Somerset town, MA South Bend city, IN South Jordan city, UT South Portland city, ME Southlake city, TX Spearfish city, SD Springville city, UT St. Augustine city, FL St. Charles city, IL St. Cloud city, MN St. Croix County, WI St. Joseph city, MO St. Louis County, MN St. Lucie County, FL State College borough, PA Steamboat Springs city, CO Sugar Land city, TX Suisun City city, CA Summit County, UT Sunnyvale city, CA Surprise city, AZ Suwanee city, GA Tacoma city, WA Takoma Park city, MD Tempe city, AZ Temple city, TX Texarkana city, TX The Woodlands CDP, TX Thousand Oaks city, CA Tigard city, OR Tinley Park village, IL Tracy city, CA Trinidad CCD, CO Tu alatin city, OR Tulsa city, OK Tustin city, CA Twin Falls city, ID Unalaska city, AK University Heights city, OH University Park city, TX Urbandale city, IA Vail town, CO Vernon Hills village, IL Victoria city, MN Vienna town, VA Virginia Beach city, VA Walnut Creek city, CA Warrensburg city, MO Washington County, MN Washoe County, NV Waunakee village, WI Wauwatosa city, WI Wentzville city, MO West Carrollton city, OH West Chester township, OH West Des Moines city, IA Western Springs village, IL Westerville city, OH Westlake town, TX Westminster city, CO Westminster city, MD Wheat Ridge city, CO White House city, TN Wichita city, KS Williamsburg city, VA Willowbrook village, IL Wilmington city, NC Wilsonville city, OR Windsor town, CO Windsor town, CT Winter Garden city, FL Woodbury city, MN Woodinville city, WA Wyandotte County, KS Wyoming city, MI Yakima city, WA York County, VA Yorktown town, IN Yorkville city, IL Yountville city, CA 294 Custom Benchmark Comparisons – Similar Populations 30,000 to 45,000 Table 56: Quality of Life Quality of Life Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation of Moorpark 76% 17 39 Similar The overall quality of life in Moorpark 88% 11 49 Similar Moorpark as a place to live 92% 8 43 Similar Recommend living in Moorpark to someone who asks 95% 8 37 Similar Remain in Moorpark for the next five years 87% 12 36 Similar Table 57: Governance Governance Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Moorpark government 52% 33 39 Similar The overall direction that Moorpark is taking 53% 15 47 Similar The value of services for the taxes paid to Moorpark 60% 18 35 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 60% 9 34 Similar Being honest 71% 5 7 Similar Being open and transparent to the public 61% 5 7 Similar Informing residents about issues facing the community 55% 25 39 Similar The job Moorpark government does at welcoming resident involvement 51% 12 34 Similar Treating all residents fairly 72% 3 7 Similar Treating residents with respect 77% 10 41 Similar Overall customer service by Moorpark employees 89% 16 37 Similar Public information services 72% 23 46 Similar Quality of services provided by the City of Moorpark 76% 9 32 Similar Quality of services provided by the Federal Government 41% 33 39 Similar 295 Table 58: Economy Economy Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Moorpark 47% 30 34 Similar Economic development 34% 38 36 Lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Moorpark 57% 28 35 Similar Variety of business and service establishments in Moorpark 35% 7 7 Lower Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 17% 34 33 Lower Shopping opportunities 31% 41 39 Lower Moorpark as a place to visit 40% 36 37 Lower Moorpark as a place to work 49% 37 41 Similar Employment opportunities 16% 43 40 Lower Cost of living in Moorpark 39% 27 34 Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 21% 36 33 Similar Overall economic health of Moorpark 47% 30 34 Similar 296 Table 59: Mobility Mobility Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark 60% 38 36 Similar Traffic flow on major streets 42% 36 41 Similar Ease of travel by car in Moorpark 74% 12 38 Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Moorpark 52% 10 32 Similar Ease of travel by bicycle in Moorpark 66% 18 38 Similar Ease of walking in Moorpark 79% 14 37 Similar Ease of public parking 81% 4 33 Higher Bus or transit services 61% 6 28 Similar Traffic enforcement 70% 21 43 Similar Traffic signal timing 61% 5 33 Similar Street repair 53% 17 44 Similar Street cleaning 80% 8 42 Higher Street lighting 80% 4 39 Higher Sidewalk maintenance 69% 9 37 Similar Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 17% 19 31 Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 46% 11 33 Similar Walked or biked instead of driving 63% 17 33 Similar 297 Table 60: Community Design Community Design Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas 69% 14 33 Similar Overall appearance of Moorpark 77% 22 41 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 5 38 Similar Overall quality of new development in Moorpark 53% 29 40 Similar Well-planned residential growth 57% 5 7 Similar Well-planned commercial growth 26% 7 7 Lower Well-designed neighborhoods 77% 2 6 Higher Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 51% 4 6 Similar Public places where people want to spend time 46% 34 33 Lower Variety of housing options 55% 18 36 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 30% 33 39 Similar Land use, planning, and zoning 52% 16 39 Similar Code enforcement 52% 21 44 Similar Table 61: Utilities Utilities Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark 78% 5 7 Similar Affordable high-speed internet access 65% 5 7 Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility 82% 13 25 Similar Garbage collection 88% 9 42 Similar Drinking water 84% 12 34 Similar Sewer services 88% 4 37 Similar Storm water management 82% 2 35 Higher Utility billing 78% 24 34 Similar 298 Table 62: Safety Safety Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 96% 4 41 Higher Police/Sheriff services 91% 8 44 Similar Crime prevention 89% 4 42 Higher Animal control 86% 5 38 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 17 37 Similar Fire services 90% 12 40 Similar Fire prevention and education 77% 20 35 Similar Emergency preparedness 67% 22 36 Similar In your neighborhood during the day 98% 6 42 Similar In Moorpark's downtown/commercial area during the day 95% 15 39 Similar From property crime 84% 1 8 Higher From violent crime 91% 1 8 Similar From fire, flood, or other natural disaster 71% 7 7 Similar Table 63: Natural Environment Natural Environment Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 89% 4 36 Higher Cleanliness of Moorpark 86% 9 36 Higher Water resources 32% 6 6 Lower Air quality 86% 14 32 Similar Preservation of natural areas 76% 4 30 Higher Moorpark open space 74% 3 31 Higher Recycling 73% 35 43 Similar Yard waste pick-up 88% 10 37 Similar 299 Table 64: Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 88% 1 7 Higher Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 20 38 Similar City parks 84% 5 34 Similar Recreational opportunities 69% 19 36 Similar Recreation programs or classes 82% 7 36 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 75% 7 35 Similar Fitness opportunities 70% 22 32 Similar Table 65: Health and Wellness Health and Wellness Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 76% 10 33 Similar Health services 73% 19 28 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 59% 32 36 Similar Availability of preventive health services 53% 33 35 Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care 30% 30 31 Lower Availability of affordable quality food 64% 33 35 Similar In very good to excellent health 97% 2 32 Similar 300 Table 66: Education, Arts, and Culture Education, Arts, and Culture Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 62% 26 33 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 32% 43 37 Lower Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 53% 37 36 Similar Community support for the arts 38% 6 7 Similar Public library services 80% 34 35 Similar Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 41% 27 34 Similar K-12 education 84% 10 33 Higher Adult educational opportunities 52% 18 33 Similar Table 67: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and Engagement Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Residents' connection and engagement with their community 66% 2 7 Similar Sense of community 79% 5 38 Higher Sense of civic/community pride 71% 2 7 Similar Neighborliness of Moorpark 76% 4 33 Similar Moorpark as a place to raise children 96% 3 43 Higher Moorpark as a place to retire 70% 14 42 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 65% 11 37 Similar Making all residents feel welcome 78% 1 7 Similar Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 69% 3 7 Similar Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 78% 2 7 Similar Taking care of vulnerable residents 67% 1 7 Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 54% 33 35 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 58% 35 36 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 59% 31 36 Similar 301 Table 68: Participation Participation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Contacted Moorpark for help or information 34% 39 40 Similar Contacted Moorpark elected officials to express your opinion 15% 10 32 Similar Attended a local public meeting 22% 14 35 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 27% 2 32 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Moorpark 26% 33 33 Lower Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 21% 19 32 Similar Voted in your most recent local election 92% 1 7 Higher Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 97% 2 7 Similar Access the internet from your cell phone 96% 1 7 Similar Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 83% 3 7 Similar Use or check email 99% 1 7 Similar Share your opinions online 39% 2 7 Similar Shop online 71% 1 7 Much higher 302 Table 69: Focus Areas Importance Items Percent essential or very important Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Moorpark 92% 1 33 Similar Overall quality of the transportation system in Moorpark 64% 34 33 Similar Overall design or layout of Moorpark's residential and commercial areas 76% 20 33 Similar Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Moorpark 80% 6 7 Similar Overall feeling of safety in Moorpark 91% 10 33 Similar Overall quality of natural environment in Moorpark 85% 11 33 Similar Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 80% 6 7 Similar Overall health and wellness opportunities in Moorpark 76% 16 33 Similar Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 71% 34 33 Similar Residents' connection and engagement with their community 71% 31 33 Similar 303 Communities included in custom comparisons The communities included in Moorpark’s custom comparisons are listed below, with their population according to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS). Apache Junction city, AZ ............................................ 38,452 Beaumont city, CA ....................................................... 43,641 Bettendorf city, IA ........................................................ 35,293 Bozeman city, MT ........................................................ 43,132 Brooklyn Center city, MN ............................................ 30,885 Buffalo Grove village, IL .............................................. 41,551 Charlottesville city, VA ................................................ 46,487 College Park city, MD .................................................. 32,186 Cottonwood Heights city, UT ..................................... 34,214 Delaware city, OH ........................................................ 38,193 Dublin city, OH ............................................................. 44,442 Edmonds city, WA ....................................................... 41,309 Elmhurst city, IL ........................................................... 46,139 Englewood city, CO ..................................................... 33,155 Gahanna city, OH......................................................... 34,691 Germantown city, TN .................................................. 39,230 Glenview village, IL ...................................................... 47,066 Haltom City city, TX ..................................................... 44,059 Huntsville city, TX ........................................................ 40,727 Issaquah city, WA ........................................................ 35,629 Laramie city, WY .......................................................... 32,104 Littleton city, CO .......................................................... 45,848 Lombard village, IL ...................................................... 43,776 Lynnwood city, WA ...................................................... 37,242 Manassas city, VA ........................................................ 41,379 Manhattan Beach city, CA .......................................... 35,698 Mankato city, MN ......................................................... 41,241 Maplewood city, MN .................................................... 40,127 Marion city, IA .............................................................. 38,014 Martinez city, CA .......................................................... 37,902 McMinnville city, OR .................................................... 33,211 Menlo Park city, CA ..................................................... 33,661 Menomonee Falls village, WI ...................................... 36,411 Meridian charter township, MI .................................... 41,903 Milton city, GA .............................................................. 37,556 Moline city, IL ................................................................ 42,644 Moorpark city, CA ........................................................ 36,060 Northglenn city, CO ..................................................... 38,473 Oswego village, IL ........................................................ 33,759 Richfield city, MN ......................................................... 35,993 Rohnert Park city, CA .................................................. 42,305 Rosenberg city, TX ...................................................... 35,867 Roseville city, MN ......................................................... 35,624 Royal Palm Beach village, FL ..................................... 37,665 San Marcos city, TX ..................................................... 59,935 Schertz city, TX ............................................................ 38,199 Shakopee city, MN ....................................................... 40,024 Sierra Vista city, AZ ..................................................... 43,585 St. Charles city, IL ........................................................ 32,730 State College borough, PA ......................................... 42,224 Summit County, UT ..................................................... 39,731 Texarkana city, TX ....................................................... 37,222 Twin Falls city, ID ......................................................... 47,340 Urbandale city, IA ......................................................... 42,222 Westerville city, OH ..................................................... 38,604 Wheat Ridge city, CO .................................................. 31,162 Winter Garden city, FL ................................................ 40,799 304 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Moorpark funded this research. Please contact PJ Gagajena of the City of Moorpark at PJGagajena@moorparkca.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: • Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. • Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. • Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. • Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. • Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. • Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. • Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. • Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. • Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. 305 The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Moorpark were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Moorpark was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Moorpark households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Moorpark boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of the four Districts. 306 To choose the 2,700 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was publicized and posted to the City of Moorpark website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.) 307 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients Survey Administration and Response Selected households received mailings beginning on November 9, 2020. For 1,200 households, the first mailing was a postcard announcing the upcoming survey with a link to complete the survey online. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Manager inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey, and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. For 1,500 households, the first mailing was a postcard with a link to complete the survey online, followed one week later by a reminder postcard with a link to the survey. The second postcard also asked respondents not to complete the survey a second time. The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings included a URL through which the residents could choose to respond online. The mailings also contained paragraphs in Spanish instructing participants to complete the Spanish version of the survey online. The City of Moorpark chose to augment their administration of The NCS with several additional services, including demographic subgroup comparisons and custom benchmark comparisons. The results 308 of the demographic subgroup comparisons have been provided under separate cover while the custom benchmark comparisons can be found in Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on December 14, 2020 and remained open for two weeks. About 2% of the 2,700 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,641 households that received the survey, 501 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 19%. Of the 501 completed surveys seven were completed in Spanish and 345 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by District; response rates by District ranged from 11% to 24%. The response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 1 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 97 residents completed the online opt-in survey. Table 70: Survey Response Rates by District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overall Total sample used 682 648 584 786 2,700 I=Complete Interviews 137 141 140 78 496* P=Partial Interviews 2 0 0 1 3 R=Refusal and break off 0 0 0 0 0 NC=Non Contact 0 0 0 0 0 O=Other 0 0 0 0 0 UH=Unknown household 0 0 0 0 0 UO=Unknown other 537 498 434 673 2,142 NE=Not eligible 6 9 10 34 59 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 21% 22% 24% 11% 19% *An additional two survey responses were collected but were returned without a District so these responses are not reflected in the above table that display response rates by District. 1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions for more information: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx 309 Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.2 The margin of error for the City of Moorpark survey is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (501 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC uses Polco, an online public engagement tool designed primarily for local governments, to collect online survey data. The Polco platform includes many features of online survey tools, but also includes elements tailored to the civic environment. For example, like NRC’s mailed surveys, surveys on Polco are presented with the City name, logo (or other image) and a description, so residents understand who is asking for input and why. Optionally, Polco can also verify respondents with local public data to ensure respondents are residents or voters. More generally, an advantage of online programming and data gathering is that it allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. 2 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. 310 Survey Data Weighting The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Moorpark. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were age, gender, housing type, housing tenure (rent or own), race, ethnicity, and District. No adjustments were made for design effects. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. Table 71: Moorpark, CA 2020 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 25% 9% 24% Own home 75% 91% 76% Detached unit 75% 81% 75% Attached unit 25% 19% 25% Race and Ethnicity White 77% 74% 80% Not white 23% 26% 20% Not Hispanic 71% 84% 74% Hispanic 29% 16% 26% Sex and Age Female 51% 52% 56% Male 49% 48% 44% 18-34 years of age 32% 5% 24% 35-54 years of age 43% 35% 40% 55+ years of age 26% 60% 36% Females 18-34 15% 4% 17% Females 35-54 22% 21% 20% Females 55+ 13% 27% 18% Males 18-34 16% 1% 7% Males 35-54 21% 14% 19% Males 55+ 13% 33% 18% District District 1 26% 28% 27% District 2 26% 28% 27% District 3 24% 28% 25% District 4 24% 16% 21% * U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 5-year estimates 311 Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. 312 Appendix D: Survey Materials 313