Table 67.  Satisfaction with Overall Job the Town is Doing on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Issues.

Year	Mean	Very Dissatisfied  1	2	3	4	Neutral 5	6	7	8	Very Satisfied 9	% Above 5
10	7.68	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.3	9.8	4.0	21.0	31.5	32.3	88.8
08	7.46	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.7	11.4	7.7	25.9	27.9	26.1	87.6

The respondents were also satisfied with the job the Town is doing on issues related to environmental protection.  They were asked to consider the Town’s environmental efforts such as recycling, open space preservation, water conservation, and erosion control.  The respondents gave the Town high marks with a mean of 7.67 which has improved markedly from 7.04 in 2008 (Table 68).  There were 91.4% of the responses on the “satisfied” side of the scale and only 1.8% on the “dissatisfied” side indicating a strong level of support.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with environmental protection (Appendix S).  Again, due to the higher levels of satisfaction there were only 8 comments making it difficult to establish a central theme to the comments.

 

 

The next highest rated of the focus areas was how effective the Town Council was in working to keep Cary the best place to live, work, and raise a family.  This question did not use the satisfaction rating scale but a 9-point effectiveness scale ranging from very ineffective (1) to very effective (9).  The results were very positive and supportive of the Town Council with a mean of 7.65 (Table 69).  The mean has improved significantly from 2008 when it was 6.85.  There were 89.8% of the responses on the “effective” side of the scale and only 1.2% on the “ineffective” side.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with keeping Cary the best place to live, work, and raise a family (Appendix T).  There were only 4 comments given this year with no theme or focus among those comments.

 

 

The respondents indicated a somewhat higher level of satisfaction with the Town’s transportation efforts.  The respondents were asked to consider issues like widening roads, offering C-Tran bus service, synchronizing signal lights, adding bike lanes/greenways/sidewalks.  The mean improved slightly from 6.66 to 6.73 this year (Table 70).  There were 72.1% on the “satisfied” side of the scale and 8.1% on the “dissatisfied” side.  This represents a relatively good rating for what has been a contentious issue in the past.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with transportation (Appendix U).  The 31 total comments focused on issues including improving C-Tran, synchronizing lights, adding sidewalks, adding bike lanes, improving bus service, and construction concerns.

 

 

The respondents were asked to rate the job the Town is doing with planning & development.  They were asked to consider issues such as developing land use plans for specific areas, ensuring new development is high quality and compatible with existing development, and making sure the infrastructure can support growth.  The results show a significantly improved mean increasing from 5.93 to 6.73 this year (Table 71).  There were 75.8% on the “satisfied” side of the scale and 5.1% on the “dissatisfied” side.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with planning & development (Appendix V).  There were 19 total suggestions that focused on improving planning for growth especially long-term, slowing development, planning for schools, and strictness of zoning issues.

 

  

There were also positive results on the job the Town is doing with downtown revitalization.  The respondents were asked to consider issues such as adding a new park, renovating old Cary Elementary into an arts space, improving parking, and creating fresh streetscape.  The results indicated the respondents were generally satisfied with the Town’s downtown revitalization efforts (Table 72).  The mean improved from 6.55 to 6.64 with 71.4% responding on the “satisfied” side and 7.3% on the “dissatisfied” side.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with downtown revitalization (Appendix W).  There were 26 total comments which focused on not seeing results downtown and/or speed things up.  Other comments included waste of money, no charm, and need more businesses.

 

  

Finally, there was increased satisfaction with the job the Town is doing regarding school issues.  Although the Wake County School Board operates Cary’s public schools, the respondents were asked to consider the Town’s efforts such as banking land for schools, placing police in schools, locating park facilities adjacent to schools, and being an advocate for Cary citizens.  The results show a much higher level of satisfaction with the mean improving from 5.73 to 6.27 this year (Table 73).  There were 59.6% on the “satisfied” side of the scale and 9.5% on the “dissatisfied” side with 30.9% neutral.  The respondents who gave the Town a rating below 5 were asked what actions the Town could take to make them more satisfied with school issues (Appendix X).  There were 29 total comments that focused on ending reassignments, Cary starting their own schools, and concerns for year-round schooling.

 

 

Town Council Focus Areas Crosstabulations

 

The crosstabulations for the focus areas were conducted on groupings of age, education, housing type, income, voter status, voted in 2009 local elections, and years in Cary.  The crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with parks, recreation, and cultural programs are shown in Tables B400-B406.  The subgroups showing the lowest levels of satisfaction were from 0-1 year residents (6.96), $20,001-$30,000 income level (7.09), 56-65 age group (7.21), and apartment dwellers (7.36).  The highest level of satisfaction were from 18-25 age group (8.24), $50,001-$70,000 income level (8.07), and 2-5 year residents (8.00).

 

The crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with environmental protection are shown in Tables B407-B413.  The means were generally consistent and positive; however, a few areas did indicate lower levels of satisfaction.  These included the 56-65 age group (7.14), those with PhD/JD/MD (7.30), and townhouse/condo dwellers (7.42).  The highest levels of satisfaction were from 0-$20,000 income level (8.13), those with high school/some college (7.93), and over 65 age group (7.86).

 

The crosstabulations for the effectiveness of Town Council in working to keep Cary the best place to live, work, and raise a family are shown in Tables B414-B420.  The only subgroups indicating slightly lower effectiveness means were those with PhD/JD/MD (7.22), 56-65 age group (7.26), and $20,001-$30,000 income level (7.39).  The highest means were from those not registered to vote (8.24), 18-25 age group (8.10), and $50,001-$70,000 income level (7.95).

 

The crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with transportation are shown in Tables B421-B427.  Although most of the means were supportive, there were several subgroups with somewhat lower levels of satisfaction including those with PhD/JD/MD (6.04), 56-65 age group (6.26), and registered voters (6.50).  The highest satisfaction was from 18-25 age group (7.52), those not registered to vote (7.52), townhouse/condo dwellers (7.47), and $30,001-$50,000 income level (7.23). 

 

The crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with planning & development are shown in Tables B428-B434.  The subgroups were generally consistent in their levels of satisfaction.  The only areas demonstrating lower levels of satisfaction were those with PhD/JD/MD (6.30) and 56-65 age group (6.36).  The highest means were for those not registered to vote (7.50), $50,001-$70,000 income level (7.41), and $30,001-$50,000 income level (7.16).

 

The crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with downtown revitalization are shown in Tables B435-B441.  The levels of satisfaction were generally positive and consistent for the breakdowns.  The only subgroups showing lower levels of satisfaction were $20,001-$30,000 income level (6.17) and 56-65 age group (6.21).  The highest levels of satisfaction were for 18-25 age group (7.31), $50,001-$70,000 income level (7.25), and townhouse/condo dwellers (7.16).

 

The final crosstabulations for satisfaction with the job the Town is doing with school issues are shown in Tables B442-B448.  The means were generally consistent in the breakdowns.  There were several subgroups showing somewhat lower satisfaction means including those with PhD/JD/MD (5.48), and over $100,000 income level (5.96).  The highest levels of satisfaction were for townhouse/condo dwellers (7.35), $50,001-$70,000 income level (6.87), and $30,001-$50,000 income level (6.81).