Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316

2016
Citizen Satisfaction
Survey Report
For the City of Farmersville
Authors: Chandler Merritt, Tony Radar,
Jenifer Rodriguez & Tommy Walters

1

Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for
the City of Farmersville
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2
Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................................. 4
Results........................................................................................................................................... 11
Category 1: Perception of the City ............................................................................................ 11
Category 2: Perception of Safety............................................................................................... 18
Category 3: Perception of Accessibility, Environment, Housing, and Opportunities............... 22
Category 4: Perception of Day-to-Day Essentials..................................................................... 27
Category 5: Day-to-Day Activities............................................................................................ 43
Category 6: Perception of City Services.................................................................................... 46
Category 7: Objectives for Farmersville ................................................................................... 51
Category 8: Other Issues & Comments..................................................................................... 55
Summary & Conclusion................................................................................................................ 57
Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 60

2

INTRODUCTION
The 2016 Citizen Satisfaction Survey for the City of Farmersville is a collaborative effort
between the City of Farmersville and a group of students in the University of Texas at
Arlington’s College of Architecture, Urban Planning, and Landscape Architecture. The survey
was implemented to gauge the level of satisfaction and the perception of Quality of Life, Safety,
Accessibility, Environment, Government Services, Housing, Economy and Business
Opportunities among other characteristics in the city of Farmersville. Additionally it assesses the
activities of the residents and their participation in the community and other day-to-day actions.
Farmersville, Texas prides itself of being a Texas Treasure—a great place to live, work and do
business1
. It originated in 1849 and was named based on the chief occupation at a time. It was
incorporated in 1873 and has grown to 3,001 residents in 2010 and has approximately 1,300
households. Though never having utilized a survey of this type previously, Farmersville boasts
having a steady economy, family-friendly neighborhoods, low crime rates, growing diversity and
educational opportunities1
. Through implementation of this survey and analysis of the respondent
data, the City of Farmersville will be able to study its results and compare its perceptions along
with those of the residents and stakeholders to find areas of success as well as improvement.
This report contains several sections or categories with the first two being Methodology and
Respondent Profile & Demographics. The bulk of this report will detail the results of the survey
and is divided into sub-sections that reflect the various sections of the actual survey instrument
and include Perception of the City of Farmersville; Perception of Safety in Farmersville;
Perception of Accessibility, Environment, Housing & Opportunities; Perception of Day-to-Day
Essentials, Profile of Citizen’s Day-to-Day Activities; Perception of City Services; Citizen’s
Ideas of Objectives for Farmersville, and Other Issues & Comments. The report is finalized with
a Summary & Conclusion, and Appendix.
METHODOLOGY
The City of Farmersville markets itself as a Texas Treasure because it is different than the towns
that surround it. In order for a citizen satisfaction survey to measure the things that are important
to Farmersville, we met as a group with the City Manager, Ben White, to determine the specific
areas he wanted measured.
During this meeting we provided different examples of survey instruments that other cities had
used, which served as a launching point. Ultimately, one example survey was chosen and then
adapted to incorporate the issues important to Farmersville. Some specific areas for which
feedback was wanted involved Farmersville having their own electric grid as well as a city

1
Per “Farmersville, TX | A Texas Treasure,” a business and relocation guide published by the City of Farmersville
28 September 2016 found at the city’s website, farmersvilletx.com.

3

employee with the position of “Main Street Manager” both unique to Farmersville. Mr. White
also wanted to include each level of schools in the Farmersville Independent School District.
Since the intent of the survey was also to be a guide for future planning, a question was inserted
to gauge people’s desire for more recreation opportunities. With this question, there were
specific areas of recreation that each person could respond if with whether or not they had
interest. These items include a swimming pool, tennis court, racquetball/handball court,
basketball court, cardio workout facility, multi-purpose room and other.
One of the most important sections to Mr. White was a space for the citizens to provide for open-
ended responses and general comments. A section that included both was added to the survey.
The group also included a map of the city which was divided into six different sectors in order to
further analyze the responses to determine whether or not a correlation existed between the
responses and the location where the citizen lives. This created a point of confusion for some
respondents evident by several comments written on the completed surveys. Fortunately, there
were still 154 responses to the map sector question when the highest response in other areas of
the survey was 187.
The majority of responses were based on the Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the most
negative response and 5 being the most positive response. Section seven regarding day-to-day
activities was a series of yes-or-no questions where ‘yes’ was given a numerical value of two
while ‘no’ was given a one. Sections eight and nine of the survey required frequency responses
and responses were rated from 1 to 4, with 1 being not at all and 4 being the most often. Section
13 also required a change in the standard 1 to 5 format since it asked for an opinion of how vital
it was for the city to focus on certain areas. The possible responses included a scale from 1 to 4
with 1 being not important to 4 being essential.
The final section of the survey included various demographic questions, which allowed for
further analysis of any individual question. One question in this section asked about employment
status. Based on the collected responses, “Retired” should have been included as a choice as
there were several write-in responses and a large percentage of responses from people over 65
years of age.
Once the survey instrument was approved, it was translated into Spanish to become a bilingual
document. This was done to ensure that as many citizens’ opinions possible could be
considered. The final survey was then printed and mailed along with an English and Spanish
cover letter to all 1,300 utility customers, with an addressed prepaid postage envelope.
Additionally, the university students made efforts to promote survey response including
attending a meeting of the Farmersville chapter of the Rotary Club as well as weekend visits to
some of the more frequented restaurants in town. Surveys were distributed at the Rotary
meeting, whereas the visits to the restaurants were only promotional in nature.

4

The responses from the Rotary Club were immediately given to the students while all others
were either mailed or personally delivered to city hall. The results were picked up by the
students on a frequent basis.
Once the completed surveys were collected, they were entered into a spreadsheet by group
members. The spreadsheet was organized into sections corresponding with the survey for easier
data entry. Additionally, a spreadsheet was also created with comments on the various questions
to ensure consistency in the data entry process. The spreadsheet calculated the average of all
responses, counted all completed responses, and counted each time an individual response is
given. The open-ended responses were entered into a separate Word document.
When each survey was entered into the spreadsheet, the column number of the spreadsheet was
designated on the individual survey for data entry accountability. That column designator was
also listed on the table where the two open-ended responses were collected. The decision was
made to enter verbatim the responses written on the survey in the Word document for open
responses. This included any spelling or grammar errors as well as underlining or any other
designator. There were also respondents that wrote in comments to specific survey questions as
well as providing a numerical response. Those comments were also included in the Word
document along with a designator to which question they were responding.
After collection of all completed surveys, there were a total of six surveys that were not entered.
Two were exact copies of a previous survey. There were questions that were marked with an “x”
indicating a change in answer on the exact same questions. It appears that the two additional
responses were photocopies of the other with a few minor changes in the demographic section.
Since all three surveys were identical in all ways, it was only entered into the results once.
Another one of the rejected surveys was only completed on the front side of each page. None of
the questions on the back of the paper were answered so it was not considered to be a completed
survey. The other three had various issues. The texture of the paper was different than all other
surveys so they were apparent copies. They also had written in responses including numbers
down to -50. Although it was apparent that they were very disgruntled and their opinion needs to
be considered, their responses would have severely skewed results. All three surveys were
considered outliers and will be provided to Mr. White but not considered with the final
calculated results of this study.
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Section 17 of the survey consisted of how the city is demographically oriented. There were
many characteristics on which were surveyed, including but not limited to, employment status;
household income; age distribution; race; and geographic location within the city. All graphs in
this section are portrayed as a percentage of the total responding population of Farmersville to
ensure the most accurate analysis is being portrayed.

5

Participatory Activities
This area measured several themes and gave an impression of how active the citizen is within the
community. These questions included:
a. Recycle at Home
b. Purchasing Goods In City
c. Participate in Physical Activity
d. Read or Watch Local News
e. Voting in Local Elections
Each of these questions were rated on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being always, 4 being usually, 3 being
sometimes, 2 being rarely, and 1 being never.
In this category there was a range of
responses from 176 to 181 in each
category. As the results show,
approximately 92 percent of the
citizens in Farmersville do participate
in some form of recycling, while only
eight percent abstain completely from
recycling. Local purchasing shows to
be strong as only 69 percent of those
responses state they usually or always
purchase goods within the
61%
8%
1%
30%
Employment Status
Full Time Part Time
Unemployed ‐ Looking Unemployed ‐ Not Looking
50%
25%
16%
55%
61%
17%
44%
28%
30%
19%
15%
25%
34%
9% 7%
9%
4%
15%
4% 4%
8%
1%
7%
2%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Recycle at Home Local Purchasing Physical Activity Read or Watch
Local News
Vote in Local
Elections
Participatory Activities
Always
Usually
Sometemes
Rarely
Never

6

city. Physical activity suggests a somewhat balanced distribution with a slight favor for more
activity. Most citizens, 85 percent also responded that they usually or always watch local
news. Finally, almost 80 percent stated they usually or always vote in local elections while only
eight percent responded they never vote in local elections.
Employment
Next to discuss is employment status. The first question asked whether the respondent was
employed in a full time position, a part time position, or was unemployed and looking for work
versus unemployed and not looking for work. Of the 147 respondents, 61 percent were
employed full time and 30 percent were employed part time attaining an overall employment
status of 91 percent and a total of population within the workforce at 92 percent, with one
percent currently unemployed but actively looking for work.
After reviewing employment status, the locality of
employment was reviewed. This was
accomplished by simply asking those that were
employed as to whether they worked locally
within the City of Farmersville or whether they
worked somewhere outside the city of
Farmersville. Drilling down further, if a citizen
was employed they were asked as to whether they
citizen worked in their home or worked within the
city limits of Farmersville but outside the home.
Of the 162 respondents to this question, 68
percent of the respondents did not live within the
City of Farmersville while just over one quarter of
the respondents (27 percent) indicated they
worked and lived within the city limits.
Residency in Farmersville
Citizens were next asked about their tenure within
the city. The question was broken down in blocks
of years from 0-2 years to 20+ years. There were
177 respondents to this question and of those
approximately 72 percent of the Farmersville
citizenry has been living here for more than 11
years while the remaining 26 percent have been
living in the city less than ten years. It should be
noted that of those responding to the surveys two
percent (three respondents) do not currently reside within the city of Farmersville.
Yes ‐
Outside of
Home
27%
Yes ‐ At
Home
5%No
68%
Employment in Farmersville
Yes ‐ Outside of Home Yes ‐ At Home No
6%
9%
11%
19%
53%
2%
Number of Years In
Farmersville
0‐2 Years 2‐5 Years 6‐10 Years
11‐20 Years 20+ Years N/A

7

The next question was an attempt to
establish the totality of types of homes
within the City of Farmersville from the
citizen’s perspective vs. statistical
numbers which are kept by the Bureau
or the Census and/or City of
Farmersville staff. Our results show that
overwhelmingly the majority of
residences in the city of Farmersville are
single-family residences at 86 percent of
those responding out of 175 responding to this specific question. It should be noted the next
highest category of those responding was multi-family (apartments, duplexes, etc.) which came
in at eight percent. Only one percent of respondents stated they lived in mobile homes.
Falling closely in line with the residency classification was the next question regarding
ownership of the primary residence. Again, overwhelmingly most of those responding (176), 82
percent indicated they owned their residence within Farmersville while only 18 percent did not.
Rent and/or mortgage in Farmersville
seem to be somewhat evenly distributed.
While most, approximately 48 percent,
pay between $600-$1,500 per month,
while the lower end of rent/mortgage,
below $600, accounts for 29 percent of the
respondents, and 22 percent pay $1,500
per month or more.
Income
Annual household income was slanted
somewhat towards the lower income side
of the spectrum based on the categories
11%
18%
28%
20%
14%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Less than $300 a month
$300 ‐ $599
$600 ‐ $999
$1000 ‐ $1,499
$1,500 ‐ $2,499
$2,500 or more
Rent/Mortgage
86%
8%
1%
5%
Residency Classification
Single‐Family Multi‐Family Mobile Home Other
82%
18%
Residency Ownership
Owned Rented
16%
25%
29%
15% 15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1
Annual Household Income
Less than $25,000 $25,000 ‐ $49,999 $50,000 ‐ $99,999
$100,000 ‐ $149,999 $150,000+

8

presented to which the respondents could self-identify. It should be noted only 155 responses
were received for this question as people seemed less willing to provide their annual household
income. This highest response for an income bracket was $50,000-99,000 coming in at 28
percent of respondents. The upper income levels, $100,000 or above, accounted for 30 percent
of the population, while 41 percent of the population indicated an income level below $50,000.
Race
According to respondent self-
identification on race, the City
of Farmersville
overwhelmingly identifies as
white (over 92 percent), with
all other races (8 percent)
identifying as black African
American, Hispanic,
American Indian or Alaskan
Native, multi-racial, or other.
Age
Based on respondents, age
skews towards the older
echelons within the
community. Elderly
(ages 65 or older)
account for over 42
percent of the
population. The next
grouped tier down in age
from this would be those
from 35 to 64 which
accounts for almost half
(49 percent) or the
population. This leaves
only eight percent under
the age of 35. The data
does suggest
Farmersville does have
an increasing aging
population, and a trend
analysis over time
1%
0%
4%
1%
1%
92%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Race
Other White or Caucasian
Multi‐racial Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaskan Native
1%
7%
15% 15%
19%
24%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1
Age
18 ‐ 24 years 25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older

9

would be better suited to confirming this hypothesis versus the “snapshot” which is revealed by
this survey.
Gender
Of note was the higher-than-anticipated gap
between gender in the City of Farmersville. Where
one would typically expect a fifty-fifty split
between male and female, the results of this survey
show that Farmersville had a significantly higher
portion of respondents (nine percent) who were
female, thereby reducing the overall number of
male respondents to 41 percent. Again, this may be
related to those willing to respond to this survey and
not necessarily a true representation of the populace
at large. It would be recommended to review these
results against the federal census data provided by
the Bureau of the Census for a more definitive ratio.
Personal Communication
Personal communications also provided additional
insight into how Farmersville citizens currently
communicate within the city. Somewhat
surprising, almost 70 percent of the population
responded they only have a cell phone as a
primary tool used for communication versus an
additional landline at home. As to whether a
respondent had a cell phone and a land line versus
both was almost equally split at 13 percent and 18
percent, respectively.
Household Members
As would be somewhat expected
in connection with the age results,
most citizens in Farmersville do
not have children under 17 within
their household. Of the 176
persons who responded to this
question, 71 percent of these
households do not have children
within the household, while 28
percent do.
41%
59%
Gender
Male Female
69%
18%
13%
Personal Communication
Cell Phone Land Line Both
28%
71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Children Under 17
Yes No
48%
52%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
Adults 65 & Older
Yes No

10

Also, on a related noted, respondents were asked if there were adults in the household older than
the age of 65. Of the 176 respondents, 52 percent did not have a resident within the household
who was age 65 or older. The remaining 48 percent of respondents stated there was a member of
the household who was at least of the age 65.
Area of Residency in Farmersville
Finally, sector data was requested from each
of the respondents in order to better
understand where respondents were currently
living in order to ascertain if there were
respondents from certain areas where specific
issues or concern existed. This also gave the
team the ability to further break down data
into geographical subsets of the city and
further provide further analysis regarding
individual questions within the survey
instrument. Provided below, is a copy of the
diagram which was used on the survey
instrument for respondents to identify their
area of residency.
8%
40%
31%
9%
8%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Residency within Farmersville

11

RESULTS
CATEGORY 1: PERCEPTION OF THE CITY
Category one of the survey consisted of how the city is perceived. It was divided into three
different sections—quality of life, characteristics as they relate to Farmersville as a whole, and
how likely someone is to continue to live or recommend living in Farmersville.
1.1 - Quality of Life
Section one of the survey measured quality-of-life issues and consisted of seven statements for
which respondents rated Farmersville:
a. Farmersville as a place to live
b. Your neighborhood as a place to live
c. As a place to raise your children
d. As a place to work
e. As a place to visit
f. As a place to retire
g. Overall quality of life
Each of these questions were rated on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being excellent, 4 being good, 3 being
no opinion, 2 being fair, and 1 being poor.
For this section received responses ranged from 179 to 186. The residents rated the City of
Farmersville high on many of the quality-of-life issues. The average rating on Farmersville as a
4.03 3.96 3.87
3.08
3.52
3.68
3.92
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Place to Live Neighborhood Raise Children Work Visit Retire Quality of life
Quality of Life ‐ Average of Responses

12

place to live was 4.030 out of 5. Sixty-two out of the 186 responses, or one third of respondents,
rated Farmersville as an excellent place to live. 47.31 percent rated it as good. The overall
percentage of responses of 4 and above is 80.65 percent. The chart below shows the breakdown
of the responses regulating to Farmersville as a place to live.
The most important question in this section
was the overall quality of life, since that is
what municipal government often strives to
impact. The average score of the respondents
to this question was 3.921 out of 5.
There was a very small percentage, 1.64
percent, of the 183 respondents rated the
overall quality of life as being poor, while
78.14 percent rated it as being anywhere from
good to excellent.
The rating of the quality of life can be further
broken down using the information collected
in section 17 of the survey. As mentioned, the
city was divided into six geographical regions to help isolate the data to see if opinions varied
based on neighborhoods. In the area of overall quality of life, there was some variation in the
average responses to the quality of life question based on where people live. Sector 1, which is
the far northern end of Farmersville, rated the quality of life the highest with an average of 4.25,
while sector 6, the southeastern section, gave an average score of 3.71. The majority of
respondents appear to live in sector 2, which is everything north of Hwy 380 and west of Main
Farmersville as a Place to Live
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Quality of Life
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

13

Street, followed by sector 3, which is everything between Main Street and Summit and Highway
380 to Farmersville Intermediate School. These two sectors appear to be the most densely
populated areas of town.
Quality of life results show some variation when analyzed in light of the age of the respondent.
There were a large number of respondents that were over the age of 65 and only one respondent
that was in the age range of 18 to 24 years. Due to the fact that there was only one respondent in
that range, it was combined with the 25 to 34 age group. The results show that respondents
under the age of 35 and over 75 rated the quality of life of Farmersville higher than all others
with 4.214 and 4.414 averages, respectively. The 55 to 64 years age range rated the quality of
life the lowest with a 3.636 average.
4.25
4.06
3.90
4.08
3.83
3.71
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6
Quality of Life ‐ Based on Sector
4.21
3.76 3.89
3.64
3.98
4.41
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Under 35 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 and Above
Quality of Life ‐ Based on Age

14

Of the first section, Farmersville received the lowest rating as it relates as a place to work. This
question can also be tied to a question in the demographic section of the survey which asked if
people work in Farmersville. They were given three choices: yes, they work in Farmerville
inside of the home; yes, but they work inside Farmersville but outside of the home; or no, they
do not work in Farmersville. There were 179 respondents to this question about Farmersville as
a place to work and only 162 to the demographic question. Of the 162, 110 did not work inside
the City of Farmersville. These results may also be skewed due to the number of respondents
that were age 65 and older, which was 41.48 percent. Of the 179 respondents to the Farmersville
as a place to work, the results were evenly spread among all ratings.
Further analysis of these responses shows that the average rating to the question of Farmersville
as a place to work by those that do not work in Farmersville is a 2.715. There were only eight
respondents that work outside of the home in Farmersville and they rated it a 4.286 on average.
Those who work in Farmersville either outside inside the home rated Farmersville as a place to
work an average of 3.92.
1.2 – Characteristics of Farmersville as a Whole
The second section of category one asked the respondents to rate several characteristics of the
City of Farmersville as a whole. These areas include:
a. Feeling of safety
b. Ease of travel
c. Quality of overall natural environment
d. Overall “built environment” – buildings, parks, etc
e. Health and wellness opportunities
f. Economic health
g. Sense of community
Farmersville as a Place to Work
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

15

h. Image and reputation of Farmersville
In the areas of feeling of safety, ease of travel, and the quality of the built environment,
Farmersville scored relatively well, as the above graph shows. In each of these categories, the
majority of the respondents rated Farmersville an average of 4, indicating good. In each of these
categories the respondents rated Farmersville either a 4 or a 5 74.59 percent of the time for
safety, 76.11 percent for ease of travel, and 76.5 percent for natural environment.
There were three areas in this category where the respondents rated the city below the threshold
of a 3. These areas were health and wellness opportunities, educational opportunities, and
economic health. The average for these three areas was 2.696, 2.832, and 2.786 respectively.
3.78 3.77 3.78
3.21
2.70 2.83 2.79
3.54 3.46
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Characteristics of Farmersville as a Whole
Natural Environment
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Feeling of Safety
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

16

The economic health of the city was also reflected in the general comments portion of the survey
numerous times with comments such as, “But without businesses and available homes
Farmersville will continue to exist and struggle along. No income from commerce = nothing to
build with. Bonds won't do enough to provide assets we need.” Several of the general comments
made provide the opinion that there is little effort being made toward economic development.
This was also reflected in the numerical scores as there were more people who rated the city
below a 3 than above a 3. The breakdown is reflected in the below chart.
There were only nine respondents that rated the economic health of Farmersville to be excellent.
According to Collin County2
, in 2014 McKinney was ranked as the number one place to live in
America and Allen was ranked number four for best places to find a job in America according to
Money Magazine. Additionally, according to Collin County2
, the county was ranked as the tenth
best county to work in during a study done by Nerdwallet.com. The accolades for the economic
growth of the county are not reflected in the
opinions of the respondents of this survey.
It may reflect a missed opportunity by
Farmersville.
There were also quite a few negative
responses when it comes to education.
Once again, More than 50 percent of the
respondents rated the city either a 1 or a 2.
In a section of the survey to be discussed
later, respondents were asked to rate each
school from elementary to high school as well as educational opportunities for adults. The

2
Per Collin County’s website, http://www.collincountytx.gov/living/Pages/cites.aspx.
Economic Health
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Education Opportunities
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

17

educational opportunities for adults averaged a 2.169 response while all of the other schools
ranked no lower than a 3.209.
This gap may explain where the respondents feel like there may be an area for improvement.
There were also comments made in the general comments section in reference to the Collin
College sign that has been up for many years without any progress.
Within this same section of the
survey, respondents were asked
about the image and reputation
of the City of Farmersville. The
average score in this question
was a 3.465, with 30.43 percent
ranking Farmersville below a 3.
These results seem inconsistent
with the results from section one
describing the quality of life as
extremely positive, but the
reputation not being as high.
The general comments may also
provide some insight into this
area with responses from both
ends of the spectrum when it comes to growth, code enforcement, and the Muslim Cemetery.
3.221
3.448
3.209
3.326
2.169
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
Elementary Schools Intermediate
Schools
Jr High Schools High School Education for Adults
Education
Image and Reputation
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

18

1.3 – How Likely the Respondent is to Continue to Live in Farmersville for Five
Years or Recommend It
This section reflected extremely well on
the City of Farmersville. It consisted of
only two questions regarding how likely
the respondent would be to “continue to
live in Farmersville for five years” and
how likely the respondent was to
“recommend someone to live in
Farmersville.” The respondents were
asked to rate each as 5 for very likely, 4
for somewhat likely, 3 for no opinion, 2
for somewhat unlikely, and 1 for very
unlikely.
Concerning the question of how likely
they would be to continue living in
Farmersville for five years, 64.32
percent indicated that they are very
likely to stay. The average of all 185
responses was a 4.422. There were
only five responses received that
indicated that they were very unlikely
to continue to live in Farmersville for
five years. The responses were very
favorable that the respondents are
committed to living in the city.
The responses were only slightly less
positive when asked if they would
recommend others to live in
Farmerville. There were only six
respondents that stated that they were
unlikely to recommend Farmersville
and only 25 that indicated they were somewhat unlikely.
CATEGORY 2: PERCEPTION OF SAFETY
Public safety often consumes the largest percentage of a city’s budget. Farmersville is no
different. The police and fire departments consume a total of 43 percent of the city’s budget, and
their fire department is a volunteer organization. Therefore, it is imperative that the citizens of
the community feel safe. Farmersville does not disappoint, according to the survey results.
Recommend Living in Farmersville
Very Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
No Opinion
Somewhat
Likely
Very Likely
Live in Farmersville for 5 Years
Very Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
No Opinion
Somewhat
Likely
Very Likely

19

Farmersville Police Department consists of nine sworn officers and four reserves. The Police
Chief, Mike Sullivan, is head of the department which consists of the patrol division and
criminal investigations. Code enforcement and animal control are currently handled through a
single civilian position titled as a Public Safety Officer. The Farmersville Volunteer Fire
Department has a two paid employees, one firefighter, and Chief, Kim Morris. The department
has one Quint, two brush trucks, one rescue truck, and one tanker truck. Emergency medical
services are provided as a part of a coalition by American Medical Response. Dispatching
services are provided by the Collin County Sheriff’s Office at a cost that is listed in the police
department budget.
In the perception of safety portion of the survey, respondents were asked to rate how safe they
feel in Farmersville:
a. In your neighborhood during the day
b. In your neighborhood during the night
c. In public areas of Farmersville during the day
d. In public areas during the night
The responses were to be given on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being very safe, 4 being somewhat safe,
3 no opinion, 2 somewhat safe, and 1 being very unsafe. When all of the entries were entered,
the averages were all favorable.
The graph makes it appear as if there is a bigger discrepancy than there is in the raw numbers.
The averages for each of these areas are:
4.427
3.984
4.437
3.892
3.600
3.700
3.800
3.900
4.000
4.100
4.200
4.300
4.400
4.500
Safety During Day Safety at Night In Public Areas ‐ Day In Public Areas ‐ Night
Perception of Safety

20

Perception of Safety: Average of Responses
In your neighborhood during the day 4.427
In your neighborhood during the night 3.984
In public areas of Farmersville during the day 4.437
In public areas during the night 3.892
Further analysis of this data
shows that only nine
respondents felt either
somewhat unsafe or very
unsafe in their neighborhood
during the day and only five in
public places during the day.
On the contrary, 101 people
responded that they feel very
safe in their neighborhood
during the day and 71 in public
places during the day.
This reflects that 90.81 percent
of respondents feel somewhat
safe or very safe in their
neighborhood during the day.
91.80 percent also feel
somewhat safe or very safe in
public places during the day.
It is not uncommon to see a
decrease in the perception of
safety at night versus during
the day. Even though that
trend held true in this case,
76.76 percent of respondents
feel somewhat safe or very
safe in their neighborhood at
night and 74.59 percent feel
the same in public places at
night.
Safety in Your Neighborhood ‐ Day
Very Unsafe
Somewhat Unsafe
No Opinion
Somewhat Safe
Very Safe
Safety in Public Areas ‐ Day
Very Unsafe
Somewhat Unsafe
No Opinion
Somewhat Safe
Very Safe

21

Since the respondents were asked to determine their safety based on the neighborhood, further
analysis was done to determine if one sector of the city showed a striking difference in responses
than any other sector. When breaking down the responses of how safe people feel in their
neighborhood during the day, there was not a dramatic difference in responses. All responses
were between 4.286 and 4.583.
4.58
4.51
4.46
4.54
4.42
4.29
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
4.35
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.60
4.65
Safety in Neighborhood During the Day by Map Sector
Safety in Public Areas ‐ Night
Very Unsafe
Somewhat
Unsafe
No Opinion
Somewhat
Safe
Very Safe
Safety in Your Neighborhood ‐
Night
Very Unsafe
Somewhat
Unsafe
No Opinion
Somewhat
Safe
Very Safe

22

There was a larger variation in the results in the responses by sector at night than during the day.
Map sector 1, which was the far north area of town, and sector 4, which is the far eastern portion,
reflected a 4.417 and a 4.462 average, respectively. Sectors 3, 5, and 6 had the lowest averages
for feeling of safety with a 3.875, 3.75, and 3.714, respectively. These also have the lowest
scores on the responses to the overall quality of life. There is a possible correlation between the
responses on the perception of quality of life and the perception of safety because the graphs
look very similar when broken down by map sector.
CATEGORY 3: PERCEPTION OF ACCESSIBILITY, ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING,
AND OPPORTUNITIES
Category three of the survey consisted of how the city is perceived relative to accessibility,
environment, appearance, recreational/fitness opportunities and cost of living.
3.1 - Accessibility
Section 3.1 measured accessibility perceptions and asked respondents to rate the following seven
statements in relation to Farmersville:
a. Traffic flow on major streets
b. Ease of public parking
c. Ease of travel by car
d. Ease of travel by bicycle
e. Ease of walking
f. Availability of walking trails
4.42 4.28
3.88
4.46
3.75 3.71
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Safety in Neighborhood at Night by Map Sector

23

As shown in the chart titled “Characteristics of Farmersville as a Whole” on page 15 of this
report, accessibility overall is perceived very positively. Walking trails are obviously the
highlight of the accessibility portion of the survey with an average rating of 3.95. Travel by car,
traffic flow, and public parking are all perceived very positively as well. Of the accessibility
rating, walking and travel by bicycle were ranked the lowest of the six measurements with
average ratings of 3.53 and 3.40, respectively. These ratings are somewhat surprising when
considering street repair, street lighting, and sidewalk maintenance into account. These areas
will be discussed in depth later.
3.2 - Environmental
Section 3.2 measured environmental perceptions and asked respondents to rate the following
three statements in relation to Farmersville:
g. Air quality
h. Cleanliness
i. Overall appearance
As shown in the chart titled “Characteristics of Farmersville as a Whole,” the natural
environment, built environment, and image and reputations were perceived very positively.
These positive ratings again translate to positive measures with rearguard to air quality,
3.81 3.80
3.86
3.40
3.53
3.95
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
Traffic Flow Public Parking Travel by Car Travel by Bicycle Walking Walking Trails
Accessibility Perceptions

24

cleanliness, and appearance. Air quality is obviously the highlight of the environmental portion
of the survey with an average rating of 4.12. Cleanliness and appearance are perceived
positively as well with average scores of 3.65 and 3.62, respectively. Sixty-nine percent of
respondents ranked appearance and cleanliness at or above a 4. This does not correlate to the
citizens’ perception of code enforcement which received a rating average of 2.66 with 69 percent
of respondents rated code enforcement a 3 or below.
3.3 - Cost of Living and Housing Options
Section 3.3 measured perceptions of cost of living and housing options in Farmersville and asked
respondents to rate the following seven statements in relation to Farmersville:
k. Variety of housing options
l. Availability of affordable housing
o. Availability of affordable quality food
As shown on chart titled “Characteristics of Farmersville as a Whole,” economic health is second
lowest rated area with a rating of 2.786. This rating carries over to cost of living and housing
perceptions. Ratings in all areas are below 3 which translate to negative perceptions in these
areas. These areas are reflective of the overall perception of economic health already mentioned.
It is important to note that only 45 percent of the respondents rated the availability of affordable
quality of food favorable, while 47 percent had a negative opinion.
Only 17 percent of respondents have favorable opinions of the variety of housing in
Farmersville.
Only 21 percent of respondents have favorable opinions of the affordable housing.
4.12
3.65
3.62
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
Air Quality Cleanliness Appearance
Environmental Perceptions

25

3.4 - Environmental
Section 3.4 measured
perceptions of leisure
activities availabilities
and consisted of three
questions:
j. Public places where
people want to
spend time
m. Fitness
Opportunities
n. Recreational
Opportunities

3.33
2.73
2.54
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Public Places Fitness Opportunities Recreational Opportunities
Perception of Leisure Activities
Variety of Housing
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Affordable Housing
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Variety of Housing Affordable Housing Affordable Quality Food Economic Health
Cost of Living and Housing Perceptins

26

This fourth and final area of section three is the measure of leisure activity opportunities. The
highlight of this area was the 3.33 rating belonging to “public places where people want to spend
time.” 53 percent of respondents perceived this area as a positive for the city as shown below.
The lowest rating of this section was for recreational opportunities with a rating of 2.54.
Fitness opportunities received a
relativly negative perception with an
average rating of 2.73. Less than a
quarter (23 percent) of respondents had
favorable opinions of fitness
opportunities and almost half (49
percent) had negative opinions of
them.
Perception of recreational opportunities
was the worst in this area with an
average rating of 2.54. Only 27
percent of respondents had favorable
perceptions of recreational
opportunities while over half, or 55
percent, had negative perceptions of
recreational opportunities.
Public Places Where Poeple Want to Spent Time
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Fitness Opportunities
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

27

Recreational opportunities received a score of 2.54, again the lowest in this category. These
scores show the generally negative opionions of respondents and are echoed in many of their
comments. Fifty-five percent of the repondetns had a negative rating for recreational
opportunities, while only 27 percent had a favorble rating. At face value there apears to be
support for bond issues to improve on these areas. These areas that will be discussed later, in
greater detail.
CATEGORY 4: PERCEPTION OF DAY-TO-DAY ESSENTIALS
Category four of the survey consisted of primarily three areas: Education and Educational
Opportunities, Economic activity, Cost of Living & Economic Opportunities; and Sense of
Community
4.1 - Education and Educational Opportunities
Section 4.1 measured education and educational opportunity perceptions and asked respondent to
rate each of these five areas as they relate to Farmersville as a whole:
b. Quality of Elementary Schools
c. Quality of Intermediate Schools
d. Quality of Jr. High Schools
e. Quality of High Schools
f. Educational Opportunities for adults
Each of these areas were rated on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being excellent, 4 being good, 3 being no
opinion, 2 being fair, and 1 being poor.
Recreational Opportunities
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

28

Overall school ratings ranged from 3.21 to 3.45. The Elementary, Intermediate, Jr. High, and
High School scored 3.22, 3.45, 3.21, and 3.33 respectively. While these scores appear that the
community overall have a positive opinion of the schools further analysis indicates that
respondents with children have a higher degree of discontent than those respondents who do not
have children.
A small segment of respondents (nine people) did not indicate whether or not they had school-
aged children or not. These scores were significantly higher than the scores attained when
factoring in all respondents, indicating these scores may have skewed the data in upward manner.
In some cases these scores are almost a half a point higher than the total average per school.
3.22
3.45
3.21 3.33 3.30
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Elementary Intermediate Jr. High High School Overall
Overall School Ratings
3.60 3.80 3.67 3.67 3.68
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Overall School Ratings No Indication of Children

29

Ratings of respondents without children were again higher than average, however these scores
were much closer to the average than those who failed to indicate whether they had children or
not.
Ratings for schools for respondents with children were much lower than the average. In the case
of the Jr. High, the rating of 2.64 is more than a full half point lower than the total average. The
Intermediate school was the least impacted by respondents with children which drops from a
3.45 overall rating to a rating of 3.3 for respondents with children.
3.30
3.48 3.41 3.40 3.40
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Overall School Ratings No Children
2.95
3.30
2.64
3.08 2.99
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Overall School Ratings With Children

30

With the various school ratings placed in one chart it is clear that a disparity exist between
respondents with children versus respondents without children in school. Again, the Jr. High has
the highest disparity with more than a one point differential between the rating of respondents
with children and those respondents who did not indicate whether or not they had children.
Overall, ratings show the largest number of responses were by those who had no opinion or a
good opinion of schools.
2.95
3.30
2.64
3.08
2.99
3.22
3.45
3.21
3.33 3.303.30
3.48 3.41 3.40 3.40
3.60
3.80
3.67 3.67 3.68
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
With Children Overall No Children No Indication of Children
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

31

When comparing the overall ratings to overall ratings with children, it is clear to see that
respondents with children clearly had a more negative opinion of schools. The two largest
segments now are good and fair, with a dramatic decrease in the no opinion category. The poor
category grew by nine percent while the fair category grew by ten percent when compared to
overall ratings.
Educational opportunities for adults are clearly the lowest rated area of within the subcategory of
education with a rating of 2.17. Seventy respondents rated these opportunities as poor while 30
additional respondents rated it a fair. Good and excellent combined for a total of 17 respondents
while 61 respondents had no opinion. This low rating is somewhat surprising as Collin College,
formerly Collin County Community College, is about a twenty minute drive up State Highway
380 and is about 17 miles away.
Overall School Ratings with Children
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent
Educational Opportunities for Adults
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

32

4.2- Economic Activity, Cost of Living, and Economic Opportunities
Section 4.2 measured perceptions of economic activity, cost of living, and economic
opportunities and consisted of rating each of the following eight areas:
a. Availability of affordable quality child care
i. Employment opportunities
j. Variety of employment options
k. Availability of decent paying jobs
l. Shopping opportunities
m. Cost of living in Farmersville
n. Quality of business and service establishments
o. Downtown and commercial areas
Economic indicators had a range of variation from a low of 1.92 received by decent paying jobs
category to a high of 3.33 rating of the Downtown and Commercial area. The overall average
rating of this area is 2.58.
Economic ratings results show some variation when analyzed in light of the age of the
respondent. There were a large number of respondents that were over the age of 65 and only one
respondent that was in the age range of 18 to 24 years. Due to the fact that there was only one
respondent in that range, it was combined with the 25 to 34 age group. The results show that the
age range of 45 to 54 and the 75 and older age groups rated the economic activity and
opportunities of Farmersville higher than all others with a 2.69 and 2.78 averages, respectively.
The 55 to 64 years age range rated economic activity and opportunities the lowest, a 2.38
average.
2.97
2.04 1.93 1.92
2.46
2.87
3.11
3.33
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cost of Living, Economic Activity and Opportunities

33

While affordable quality childcare gained a relatively modest score of 2.97, it is important to
note the score of respondents most likely to have children in daycare rated it the lowest, at a 2.7.
At least one comment mentioned that there was only one childcare location in Farmersville.
Employment opportunities performed relatively poorly with averages ranging from 1.76 for the
55 to 64 age group to 2.27 for the 75 and older age group. Perhaps the most important rating is
that of the 35 to 44 age bracket which had a rating of 1.93.
2.57
2.39
2.69
2.38
2.61
2.78 2.71
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not Indicated
Economic Ratings by Age
2.93
2.70
2.93 2.94 3.05
3.21
3.00 2.97
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Affordable Quality Childcare

34

Variety of employment was again a relatively low performer with an average rating of 1.93. The
highest rating was 2.07 in the 45 to 54 age bracket while the lowest was 1.69 in the 55 to 64 age
bracket. Variety of employment was the second lowest score overall in this economic category.
Decent paying job was the lowest rated category in the economic area receiving an overall rating
of 1.92. Respondents gave several comments related to jobs and the need for additional
employment opportunities in the area.
2.00 1.93
2.19
1.76
2.10
2.27
2.08 2.04
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Employment Opportunities
1.71 1.74
2.07
1.69
2.05 2.17
2.00 1.93
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Variety of Employment

35

Cost of living received an overall rating of 2.86 which is in the middle of the pack of the
economic area. It is no surprise that the lowest rating of 2.63 was in the 35 to 44 age bracket.
Quality of business and service establishments received one of the better ratings in the economic
area with an overall rating of 3.11. The lowest ratings by age were those of groups ages 35 to 44
and 55 to 64 with ratings of 2.85 and 2.79, respectively. The highest rating by age were those of
groups ages 45-54 and 75 and older with ratings of 3.44 and 3.46, respectively. There was one
comment asking for restaurant scores to be posted online. One must assume the respondent was
referring to health scores.
1.79 1.81
2.07
1.79
1.95 2.03 2.00 1.92
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Decent Paying Jobs
3.46
2.63
2.78 2.69
2.88
3.03 3.08
2.86
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Cost of Living

36

Shopping received a rating of 2.45 overall. There were at least three comments indicating the
need of additional shopping opportunities.
The highest rated area of the economic section was that of the downtown and commercial areas
with an overall rating of 3.33. Comments referencing downtown indicate a desire to stop
spending money downtown, however the higher scores in this area would indicate the spending
may have a benifical impact.
3.14
2.85
3.44
2.79
3.10
3.46
3.08 3.11
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Quality of Business and Service Establishments
2.36
2.22
2.56 2.48
2.29
2.60
3.08
2.45
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Shopping

37

4.3 - Sense of Community
Section 4.3 Measured sense of community perceptions and consisted of seven areas for
respondents to rate:
b. Opportunities to attend cultural events
c. Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual activities
d. Opportunities to participate in social activities
e. Opportunities to volunteer
r. Opportunities to participate in community matters
s. Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds
t. Neighborliness of residents
Community ratings performed relatively well with all ratings averaging higher than 3.00, with
the exceptions of diversity and cultural/arts/music events which received ratings of 2.85 and
3.50
3.22
3.52
2.94
3.44 3.48
3.33 3.33
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
25 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 74 75 or older Not
Indicated
Overall
Downtown and Commercial
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Overall Ratings in Each Category

38

2.17, respectively. The overall rating for the entire category was 3.1. Again, there was only one
respondent that identified as being the age group of 18 to 24. Because of this, this response was
included in the 25 to 34 bracket.
The pie chart of respondents by age demonstrates that the vast majority of respondents were 55
years of age and older. Even if the group which did not indicate their age had indicated they
were all 54 years of age or younger the respondent’s over 55 years of age would still account for
57 percent of total respondents.
1
13
27
27
33
42
31
12
Respondents by Age
18 ‐ 24 years
25 ‐ 34
35 ‐ 44
45 ‐ 54
55 ‐ 64
65 ‐ 74
75 or older
Not Indicated

39

The bar graph of respondents by gender demonstrates that there is no valid bias based on gender.
In fact the average score between male and female differed by six hundredths of a point, with
males giving an average rating of 3.05 and females giving an average rating of 3.11 for the
community category.
Opportunities to participate in religious and spiritual activities were again the highest of
community measures. All age ranges rated this well over 3 with 45 to 54 and 75 or older leading
the way with ratings of 4.04 and 4.00, respectively. Of the respondents who identified an age
range, the lowest was 55 and 64 with a rating of 3.75.

By far, the poorest performing sector or community was that of opportunities to participate in
cultural, arts, and music events which received an overall rating of 2.17. The two age brackets of
25 to 34 and 35 to 44 both had a rating below two, at 1.93. When considering gender in the mix
females rated this sector at 2.19 which was slightly higher than the males rating of 2.08. The
3.86 3.93 4.04
3.75
3.90 4.00
3.20
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Religious or Spiritual Activities
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Ratings by Gender
Male Female Not Indicated

40

overall scores and the fact that none of the segments received a score of 2.5 indicates there may
be opportunities for improvement in this area.
Opportunities to participate in social activities received moderate ratings with an overall score of
3.02. Women rated this category a higher average than men. Women rated social activities at
3.14 while men rated it at 2.76. There were 43 respondents whom did not indicate a gender and
they gave social activities a relatively high rating of 3.4.
Opportunities to volunteer received an overall rating of 3.25. The age with the highest ratings
was 65 to 74 which received a rating of 3.44. Females have a slightly higher opinion of
opportunities to volunteer then men, with each receiving ratings of 3.29 and 3.14, respectively.
1.93 1.93
2.26
2.06 2.21
2.47
2.18
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Cultural/Arts/Music Events
3.14
3.00 2.89 2.84
3.14
3.00
3.33
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Social Activities

41

Opportunities to participate in community matters received an overall rating of 3.14. Again, the
older respondents had the most favorable opinion of the category. Those respondents ages 65 to
74 and 75 and older gave ratings of 3.34 and 3.33, respectively. The lowest ratings were given
by the youngest subgroups of 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 years of age. They each gave ratings of 2.93
and 2.92, respectively. When looking at this area by gender there was a virtual tie as the average
score for males 3.16, females 3.14, and unknown 3.12.
Perceptions of openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds
received and overall rating of 2.85. Unlike most categories, there was a significant difference
between the ratings when gender was a factor. Males rated diversity at 2.98 while females rated
diversity at 2.62. There was a full half point difference when factoring in age of the respondents.
The lowest rating was taken from the age group 55 to 64 and was 2.58 while the highest group
was 65 to 74 with a rating of 3.10.
3.08 3.00
3.33
3.03
3.44 3.42
3.25
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Volunteer
2.93 2.92
3.15 3.03
3.34 3.33
3.00
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Community Matters

42

Of the 152 respondents that provided an opinion, 78 had a negative opinion of poor or fair, while
74 had a positive opinion of good or excellent.
Neighborliness of residents received an overall positive rating of 3.41. Respondents aged 45 to
54 had an overall high rating of 3.69 while respondent ages of 65-74 had an overall rating of
3.62. Again there was a virtual deadlock between genders with males giving rating of 3.41 and
females giving a rating of 3.44. This overall rating is further exemplified by the amount of times
neighbors visited with each other and helped each other which will be covered in greater detail
later.
2.64 2.65
2.93
2.58
3.10 2.97 3.00
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Diversity
Diversity
Poor
Fair
No Opinion
Good
Excellent

43

CATEGORY 5: DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES
Category five of the survey consisted of day-to-day activities and participation within the City of
Farmersville. These categories consisted of items such as efforts to conserve water, making
home energy improvements, interactions with the police department, and interactions with the
City staff and Elected Officials. All graphs in this section are portrayed as a percentage of the
total responding population of Farmersville to ensure the most accurate analysis is being
portrayed.
5.1 - City Interaction
This area measures several themes and gives an impression of how active the citizen is within the
community. Areas which were rated by respondents included:
a. Efforts to Conserve Water
b. Made Efforts to Make Your Home More Energy Efficient
c. Observed A Code Violation or Other Hazard in Farmersville
d. Household Member the Victim of a Crime in Farmersville
e. Reported a Crime to the Farmersville Police Department
f. Stocked Supplies in Preparation for an Emergency
g. Contacted the City of Farmersville for help or information
h. Contacted Elected Officials to Express Your Opinion
3.21 3.24
3.69
3.13
3.62
3.43
3.27
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Neighborliness

44

Each of these questions were rated either yes or no. There was an average of 183 respondents
per question.
As one can see, the level of
participation varies somewhat
greatly depending on the specific
type of interaction being
referenced. Most respondents (92
percent) were actively
participating in attempting to
conserve water. Eighty-one
percent of respondents also made
efforts to conserve water. The
respondents also seemed to be
active in reporting code violations.
Many of these respondents have
also referenced code violations in
the write-in custom response
questions and other areas of the
survey. Farmersville could be
considered somewhat of a safe
place to live as 87 percent reported they had not been the victim of a crime. However, related to
that note, 71 percent stated they had reported a crime. The idea of being stocked up/supplied in
case of an emergency event is mixed with 45 percent reported they have stocked up for an event
and 55 percent stated they have not. Finally, there is the two questions regarding interaction with
either the city staff and/or the elected officials. Combining these two questions together, it
would seem the citizenry is more likely to interact with city staff than with the elected officials.
With Farmersville being a council/manager form of government, the citizens seem to be more
interested in discussing day-to-day city operations than longer term policy of the council.
Overall however, there were good response rates to all of these questions and will provide good
feedback for the staff and council of the City of Farmersville.
5.2 - City Participation
This area measures several themes and gives an impression of how participative the citizen is
within the community. These questions ask how often respondent has done the following:
a. Visited a neighborhood park or a city park
b. Used the Farmersville public library or their services
c. Attended a city sponsored event
d. Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving
e. Walked or biked instead of driving
7%
18%
28%
87%
71%
55%
18%
59%
92%
81%
72%
13%
29%
45%
81%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City Interaction
No Yes

45

f. Volunteered your time to some group activity in Farmersville
g. Participated in a club
h. Talked to or visited your immediate neighbor
i. Done a favor for a neighbor
Each of these questions were rated on a scale which ranges from most participative of two or
more times per week to least participative of not at all. There was an average of 183 respondents
per question for this section.
With the exception of doing favors for a neighbor, the respondents gave the impression they are
not very participatory within the Farmersville. In all categories, with the exception of doing
favors for a neighbor, respondents either have never participated or participated less than once
per week over 70 percent of the time. However, for doing a favor for a neighbor, this result was
reversed; as approximately 75 percent of respondents stated they had done a favor for a neighbor
either more than twice per week or 2 to 4 times per week.
11%
7% 5%
9%
15%
9%
12%
42%
18% 16%
14%
6%
14%
20%
11%
33%
43%
28%
52%
9%
23% 23%
11%
18%
28%
49%
28%
77%
49% 48%
66%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Visited A
Neighborhood
Park
Used
Farmersville
Public Library
Attended A City
Sponsored
Event
Walked or
Biked Instead of
Driving
Volunteered
your time to
group Activity
Participated in a
Club
Talked to or
Visited Your
Immediate
Neighbor
Done A Favor
for A Neighbor
City Participation
>2/Week 2‐4/Week <1/Week Not At All

46

5.3 – Public Meetings
There was also one single question
which asked respondents their
participation in any or all public
meetings These meetings might have
included city council meetings, advisory
boards, town hall meetings, or
neighborhood watch meetings.
As the data shows, the public meeting
attendance seems to be consistent other
responses in regards to total participatory
activities with the City of Farmersville.
Of those surveyed, over 70 percent of
respondents attended a public meeting
either once per year or less. Only 18
percent of those whom responded (182),
have attended meetings more than once
per quarter.
CATEGORY 6: PERCEPTION OF CITY SERVICES
Category six of the survey consisted of how city services are perceived. It was divided into three
different sections; quality of individual departmental services, customers service impressions for
departments which are primarily public facing and deal with the public on a day to day basis, and
performance ratings for the governmental services within the City of Farmersville.
6.1 – Departmental Quality
Section one measured departmental quality and included:
h. Police Services
i. Fire Services
j. Ambulance or Emergency Medical Services
k. Crime Prevention
l. Fire Prevention and Education
m. Traffic Enforcement
n. Street Repair
o. Street Lighting
p. Sidewalk Maintenance
q. Garbage Collection
>4/Year
18%
2‐4/Year
11%
1/Year
15%
Not At All
56%
Attended Public Meeting
>4/Year 2‐4/Year 1/Year Not At All

47

r. Recycling
s. Yard Waste Pickup
t. Storm Drainage
u. Drinking Water
v. Sewer Services
w. Utility Billing
x. Electrical Services
y. City Park
z. Land use, planning and zoning
aa. Code Enforcement
bb. Animal Control
cc. Economic Development
dd. Public Library
ee. Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts
ff. City sponsored special events
gg. Overall quality of services by the City of Farmersville

48

Many city services were rated at least good, however there were some city services which were
rated below fair. These were code enforcement and streets and street related maintenance
(streets, street lighting, and sidewalks). Streets was most notably the city department which
received the greatest negative feedback which equated to 46 percent of respondents rating streets
as poor. Related to streets (street lighting and sidewalks) both received either fair or unfavorable
marks. Based on this, it may be worth Farmersville reviewing and funding a comprehensive
streets review program to assess and evaluate as to whether funding should be apportioned in
order to address the perceived issues by the respondents. There were also multiple comments
made in the individual comments section specifically mentioning the poor condition of streets,
lack or sidewalks, and lack of street lighting on major streets within the city. A second area of
note would be code enforcement and the animal services department. These two departments
also received a less than favorable rating, both receiving over 40 percent for combined fair and
poor service ratings. Based on this, it may be worth Farmersville further reviewing its operations
for these two departments as well.
6.2 – Departmental Customer Service
Section two measures departmental customer service for primarily public facing departments and
includes
a. City Hall
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
City Services
Poor Fair No Opinion Good Excellent

49

b. Police Department
c. Fire Department
d. Public Works
e. Public Library
f. Code Enforcement
g. Animal Control
h. Parks and Recreation
i. Main Street Manger
j. Municipal Court
Though the results are somewhat normalized, there are a few areas which could be discussed.
First, City Hall, Public Safety (Police and Fire), and Public Works all receive exceptionally high
marks as compared to other departments. No other departments as a whole stands out, however
it should be noted that Municipal Court had a significant number of respondents which stated
there was no opinion. The assumption could be that few of the respondents regularly have
contact with the municipal court system.
5% 4%
0%
2% 1%
16%
18%
5%
10%
3%
8%
12%
6%
12%
5%
19% 18%
12%
8%
6%7%
14% 15%
17%
27%
24% 24% 24%
27%
48%
42% 43%
39%
45%
34%
26%
23%
38%
28%
23%
39%
28%
40%
23%
33%
14%
18%
20%
27%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
City Hall Police
Department
Fire
Department
Public WorksPublic Library Code
Enforcement
Animal
Control
Parks and
Recreation
Main Street
Manager
Municipal
Court
Departmental Customer Service

50

6.3 – Governmental Performance
Section three measured overall governmental performance and had respondents rate Farmersville
in the following areas:
a. Value of Services for Taxes
b. Overall Direction of Farmersville
c. Citizen Involvement
d. Confidence in City of McKinney
e. Acting in Best Interests of the Citizen
f. Honesty
g. Treating Residents Fairly
As with Section 2, most results were fairly evenly distributed between the available categories.
If an area of improvement could be identified, it might be in the area of citizen involvement with
their municipal government. Twenty-eight percent of respondents rated the citizen involvement
as far and 17 percent rated it as poor. Though these numbers are not significantly alarming,
opportunities for improvement might be available in this area. Another potential area of concern
would be the respondents’ belief that Farmersville is acting in the best interests of its citizenry.
Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) stated they believed the city acting in their interest
was either fair or poor.
18% 18%
17%
21%
24%
19%
16%
23%
25%
28%
25% 24%
14%
17%
16%
15%
20%
15%
14%
25%
24%
33%
30%
21%
24%
22%
23%
26%
10%
11%
13%
15% 15%
18%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Value of Services
for Taxes
Overall Direction
of Farmersville
Citizen
Involvement
Confidence in City Acting in Interests
of Citizen
Honesty Treating Residents
Fairly
Governmental Performance

51

CATEGORY 7: OBJECTIVES FOR FARMERSVILLE
Category seven of the survey consisted of how the city is perceived. It was divided into two
sections—one to rate the importance of various focuses for the City of Farmersville and one to
gauge community support for a bond for a recreation area.
7.1 – City Focuses
Section 1 asked the citizen to rate the importance for the Farmersville community to focus on
each of the following eight items during the next two years:
a. Overall feeling of safety in Farmersville
b. Overall ease of getting to the place you have to visit
c. Quality of overall natural environment in Farmersville
d. Overall “built environment” of Farmersville
e. Health and wellness opportunities in Farmersville
f. Overall opportunities for educational enrichment
g. Overall economic health of Farmersville
h. Sense of community
Each of these statements were rated on a scale from 1 to 4 with 4 being essential, 3 being very
important, 2 being somewhat important, and 1 being not at all important.
In this category we received between 178 and 180 responses. According to 55 percent of
respondents, the most essential focus for the City of Farmersville to have during the next two
years is the feeling of safety of the city. Additionally, 51.7 percent of respondents rated sense of
community and economic health as essential. The least important focuses for the city according
to respondents, is the built environment, where only 30.3 percent rated this as essential and 2.8
percent rated this as not at all important. Another rating low in level of importance is ease of
getting places, where 3.4 percent of respondents rated it as not at all important.
Looking at the mode, feeling of safety, education and enrichment opportunities, economic health,
and sense of community most frequently received a rating of 4 or essential. The other categories,
ease of getting around, natural environment, built environment, and health and wellness
opportunities most frequently received a rating of 3 or very important.

52

For adults 55 or older, feeling of safety had the highest average, 3.49, whereas adults under 55
gave an average rating of only 3.40 and tied for second most essential. For adults younger than
55, economic health was the most important focus with an average rating of 3.59.
The least important focus for adults over 55 was ease of getting places with a 3.19 average. For
adults younger than 55, health and wellness opportunities was rated the least important with an
average of 2.88. Overall, adults 55 and older on average rated all categories more highly than did
adults younger than 55. The average rating by adults younger than 55 was 3.2, whereas the rating
by adults 55 and older was 3.26.
The number of years living in Farmersville did not seem to play factor one way or another to the
averages.
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Feeling of Safety
Ease of Getting Places
Natural Environment
Built Environment
Health and Wellness
Education and Enrichment
Economic Health
Sense of Community
Objectives for Farmersville
Not at All Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential
3.49
3.19 3.15 3.05 3.17 3.33 3.32 3.373.40
2.91 3.01 3.12
2.88
3.26
3.59
3.40
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Feeling of Safety Ease of Getting
Places
Natural
Environment
Built
Environment
Health and
Wellness
Education and
Enrichment
Economic Health Sense of
Community
Focuses for Farmerville According to Age
55 or Older Younger than 55

53

7.2 – Bond Election
The second section of this category gauges citizens’ level of support for a bond election to pay
for either an indoor recreation center or outdoor recreation area and which amenities would be of
interest. This section contains the following statements and question:
a. Indoor recreation center
b. Outdoor recreation center
c. If an indoor or outdoor recreation center/area were created, which of the following
amenities would be of interest to you?
The first two statements were rated on scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being strongly support, 4
somewhat support, 3 being don’t know, 2 being somewhat oppose, and 1 being strongly oppose.
The question regarding amenities allowed respondents to select from among swimming pool,
tennis court, racquetball/handball court, basketball court, cardio/workout facility, multi-purpose
rooms, and allowed respondent to write in any other.
There were a total of 178 people who responded to the statement regarding an indoor recreation
center and 179 who responded to the statement regarding an outdoor recreation area. Overall
more than half of respondents (56 percent) indicated they would either somewhat support or
strongly support a bond election for an indoor recreation center. Sixty percent of respondents
either somewhat support or strongly support a bond election for an outdoor recreation center.
Nearly a quarter of respondents, 24 percent, either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose a bond
election for an indoor recreation center and 15 percent strongly oppose or somewhat oppose a
bond election for an outdoor recreation center.
It appears that residents younger than 55 are more supportive of a bond election for both an
indoor and outdoor recreation facility/area, with an average of 3.69 for an indoor facility and
3.88 for an outdoor area. Residents 55 and older responded with an average of 3.38 for an indoor
recreation facility and 3.57 for an outdoor recreation area. Please note that 12 respondents who
answered this question did not provide age demographic for this question.

54

The third statement to this question provided check boxes for respondents to mark the various
amenities for which they were interested. The two most popular amenities were a cardio workout
facilities and a swimming pool, receiving 96 and 95 votes respectively. The least popular options
was in the “Other” category, with only 23 votes. Write-in answers for “Other” can be found in
the Appendix Open-Ended Questions section. Of established options, a racquetball/handball
court was least popular receiving only 38 votes, followed by a tennis court with 40 votes.
The favored amenities does not vary much between respondents 55 years or older and those
younger than 55 as the top three amenities for respondents 55 years or older, in order, are cardio
workout facility, swimming pool, and multi-purpose rooms. For respondents younger than 55,
24
20
19
8
35
36
45
57
55
58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Indoor Recreation Center
Outdoor Recreation
Support of Bond Election for Recreation Center/Area
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Don't know Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose
21%
9%
9%
16%
21%
19%
5%
Indoor or Outdoor Recreation Center/Area Amenities
Swimming Pool
Tennis Court
Racquetball/Handball
Basketball
Cardio Workout Facility
Multi‐Purpose Room
Other

55

cardio workout facility and swimming pool are the two most desired. However, tying for third
place is multi-purpose room and basketball court.
CATEGORY 8: OTHER ISSUES & COMMENTS
Category eight contained two questions with write-in answers relating to the most important
issues Farmersville will face during the next five years as well as additional general comments.
The two questions were:
a. What is the single most important issue the City of Farmersville will face over the next
five years?
b. Please provide any additional general comments.
There were 140 responses to the first question which are provided verbatim in the Open-Ended
Questions section of the appendix. These responses were subjectively grouped according to the
following categories: Business & Economy, Education, Growth, Housing,
Leadership/Government, Safety, Roads & Infrastructure, Taxes & Utility Prices, and Water.
Answers that included more than one topic were grouped into multiple categories. Of the 140
responses there were 19 survey responses that did not identify any of the above mentioned
topics, and so they were grouped as “Other.”
The graph below demonstrates what respondents believe to be the most important issues that will
face Farmersville during the next five years.
47
20 19
36
44
36
11
45
15
17
31
46
39
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Desired Amenities by Age
Younger than 55 55 or Older

56

The most salient issue for Farmersville, according to respondents, is growth of the city followed
by roads and infrastructure, and business and economy. Of the established categories, leadership
and government, safety, and water are of the least concern.
The second question had 86 responses which are provide verbatim in the Open-Ended Question
section of the Appendix. These responses were grouped subjectively by topic and included
appearance & upkeep, business/commerce, development & growth, education, housing,
leadership & government, roads & infrastructure, positive feedback, safety, sidewalks, taxes &
utilities, and water. Responses that did not include any of these recurring categories were
grouped together as “Other.”
The most recurring category topics were: appearance & upkeep, roads & infrastructure, and
development & growth. Of the established categories, water and housing were the topics least
mentioned.
The graph below reflects the themes of general comments provided by respondents on this
survey.
27
13
40
16
5
19
6
29
10
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Most Important Issues for Farmersville Over Next Five Years

57

As shown in the graph, the greatest number of comments relate to appearance & upkeep and
roads & infrastructure. Relating to appearance & upkeep, respondents state that many buildings,
including homes, are in disrepair and that houses and yards are unkempt. Relating to roads &
infrastructure, respondents mention that roads need to be repaired, especially potholes. There is
mention to the need for a better sewer system and improved electricity.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Overall the city received a rating of 3.29. As the categorical results chart shows, six of the eight
major categories received ratings over three. The remaining two categories that did not score
above three are perception of day-to-day essentials and perception of day-to-day activities. The
lowest of the ratings was perception of day-to-day essentials with an overall rating of 2.8
followed closely by city government performance with a score of 2.92. The highest rating
overall was perception of safety with an overall rating of 4.18. Safety is followed by perception
of the city and City customer service respectively.
17
11
12
9
4
7
9
17
9
11
5
9
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
General Comments

58

Of the day-to-day essentials category respondents were especially critical of employment areas
including the availability of decent paying jobs, variety of employment options, and employment
opportunities. Education opportunities for adults and opportunities for cultural events were also
weak points with the day-to-day essentials category. City’s government performance struggled
in the areas of acting in the best interest of the community, confidence in government, and
welcoming citizens, with ratings of 2.78, 2.84, and 2.85 respectively. The highlights of this area
were honesty and treating residents fairly with scores of 3.06 and 3.1 respectively.
Safety received the highest scores across the board with 92 percent of respondents indicating
they either felt very safe or somewhat safe. Only 4 percent of respondents indicated they felt
somewhat unsafe and only 1 one indicated they felt very unsafe. Sectors one and four clearly
had the highest ratings in both the day and night, while sector six had the lowest ratings, however
sector six had a daytime safety rating of 4.29 and nighttime rating of 3.71.
While the team deems the overall results of the study in a positive light there are certainly areas
that may cause concern and need additional analysis. One of the areas that may necessitate
additional analysis is schools. While the overall ratings were relatively positive, when analyzing
the ratings of respondents with school age children there is certainly a contrast of opinion to
those whom do not have school age children. Additionally some comments particularly
concerned the Jr. High; it too received the lowest rating overall and the lowest rating of
respondents with school aged children.
The city too has all the normal concerns of other municipalities across the nation in the areas of
infrastructure. In speaking with staff it was apparent they are aware of street and utility issues
3.72
3.32
4.18
3.34
2.89
3.25
3.63
2.92
3.29
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Perception
of the City
Chrs. Of
Farmersville
as Whole
Perception
of Safety
Per. of
Acces., Env.,
Hou., and
Opp.
Perception
of Day‐to‐
Day Ess.
City Services City
Customer
Service
City
Government
Perfomance
Overall
Categorical Results

59

particularly water, waste water, and storm water utilities. These items presented themselves in
the comments as well.
While the survey results presented in this report are valuable, as the first survey implemented in
the city, it is paramount that it be used as a baseline for Farmersville. It will serve as an
important tool in future plans for improvement as it provides valuable insight regarding city
successes as well as areas for improvement. We would recommend that a similar survey be
implemented at least every three years. Results of future surveys should be compared with the
results provided herein.

28 March 2016
Dear Residents and Stakeholders,
It is an extraordinary time to be in Farmersville. We offer a community that truly is a Texas Treasure.
We are pivotal time in our City’s history when we may experience some moderate growth. As your city
government, we are asking for your input to improve our ability to serve you!
To ensure we are doing all we can to best serve you while we plan for the future, we have partnered
with the University of Texas at Arlington to conduct an anonymous Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Please
help us by taking a few minutes to fill out and return the enclosed survey.
 This survey is to be filled out by adult residents, utility consumers, land owners and business
owners of Farmersville.
 We encourage your participation in this survey—this is your opportunity to express your
opinions, thoughts, and ideas in an impactful way! The responses to this survey will help us
know where you want the City to focus in the future.
 Surveys will be distributed by the City of Farmersville and are also available at the City Hall’s
customer service lobby and drive through. Surveys can be returned by mail using the enclosed
envelope. Additionally surveys can be dropped off at the City Hall’s customer service lobby.
The deadline to turn in your survey is Friday, May 20th.
Again, we genuinely care about your thoughts and opinions. Thank you for participating in this survey.
Sincerely,
Benjamin L. White, P.E.
Farmersville City Manager

28 de Marzo de 2016
Estimados Residentes y Depositarios,
Ahora es un momento extraordinario para vivir en Farmersville. Ofrecemos una comunidad que
verdaderamente es un tesoro de Texas. Estamos en una época fundamental en la historia de nuestra
Ciudad, en la que podríamos experimentar un crecimiento moderado. Como gobierno de su ciudad,
estamos pidiendo su participación para mejorar nuestra habilidad de servirle.
Para asegurar que estamos haciendo todo lo posible para servirle mejor mientras planeamos para el futuro,
estamos trabajando en colaborado con la Universidad de Texas at Arlington para llevar a cabo una
Encuesta de Satisfacción de los Ciudadanos anónima. Por favor, ayúdenos al tomar unos minutos para
responder y devolver la encuesta que hemos incluido anexo a esta comunicación.
 La encuesta debería ser completada por residentes adultos, consumidores de servicios públicos,
dueños de terreno, y propietarios de negocios de Farmersville.
 Le animamos participar en esta encuesta—esta es su oportunidad para expresar sus opiniones,
pensamientos, e ideas en una manera muy efectiva. Las respuestas de la encuesta nos ayudarán a
conocer en qué debería enfocarse la Ciudad en el futuro.
 Las encuestas serán distribuidas por la Ciudad de Farmersville, y de igual manera estarán
disponibles en la sala de espera de servicio al cliente del ayuntamiento, y en la ventanilla para
auto. Una vez completadas las encuestas, se puede devolver a nosotros por correo postal usando
el sobre incluido. También se pueden entregar en la sala de espera de servicio al cliente del
ayuntamiento. La fecha límite para remitirnos las encuestas es el viernes 20 de Mayo de 2016.
Reiteramos genuinamente que apreciamos sus pensamientos y opiniones. Gracias por participar en esta
encuesta.
Atentamente,
Benjamin L. White, P.E.
Gerente de la Ciudad de Farmersville

Continue to next page. / Continuar en la próxima página.
Page 1 of 8
The City of Farmersville – 2016 Citizen Satisfaction Survey
La Ciudad de Farmersville – 2016 Encuesta de Satisfacción de los Ciudadanos
Please complete this survey if you are an adult resident, utility consumer, land owner or business owner in the
City of Farmersville. Select the response that most accurately represents your opinion for each question. The
responses are anonymous.
Favor de completar esta encuesta si usted es residente adulto, consumidor de servicios públicas, dueño de terreno, o
propietario de negocio en la Ciudad de Farmersville. Seleccione la respuesta que mejor represente su opinión en cada
pregunta. Las respuestas se mantendrán anónimas.
PERCEPTION OF THE CITY / PERCEPCIÓN DE LA CIUDAD
1. Please rate each of the following in regards to the Quality of Life in Farmersville:
Favor evaluar cada uno de los siguientes puntos relacionados con la Calidad de Vida en Farmersville:
Excellent
Excelente
Good
Bueno
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinion
Fair
Justo
Poor
Pobre
a. Farmersville as a place to live / Farmersville como lugar para
vivir
5 4 3 2 1
b. Your neighborhood as a place to live / Su vecindario como un
lugar para vivir
5 4 3 2 1
c. As a place to raise your children / Un lugar para criar a sus hijos 5 4 3 2 1
d. As a place to work / Un lugar para trabajar 5 4 3 2 1
e. As a place to visit / Un lugar para visitar 5 4 3 2 1
f. As a place to retire / Un lugar para jubilarse 5 4 3 2 1
g. Overall Quality of Life / Calidad de Vida en sentido general 5 4 3 2 1
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Farmersville as a whole:
Favor evaluar cada una de las siguientes características según su relación con Farmersville en sentido general:
Excellent
Excelente
Good
Bueno
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinión
Fair
Justo
Poor
Pobre
a. Feeling of safety / Sentimiento de seguridad 5 4 3 2 1
b. Ease of travel / Facilidad para viajar 5 4 3 2 1
c. Quality of overall natural environment / Calidad del ambiente
natural en sentido general
5 4 3 2 1
d. Overall “built environment” – buildings, parks, etc /
Infraestructura en sentido general – edificios, parques, etc.
5 4 3 2 1
e. Health and wellness opportunities / Oportunidades de salud y
bienestar
5 4 3 2 1
f. Educational opportunities / Oportunidades de educación 5 4 3 2 1
g. Economic health / Bienestar económico 5 4 3 2 1
h. Sense of community / Sentimiento de comunidad 5 4 3 2 1
i. Image and reputation of Farmersville / Imagen y reputación de
Farmersville
5 4 3 2 1

Page 2 of 8
3. Please indicate how likely you are to do each of the following:
Favor de indicar qué tan probable haría cada uno de los siguientes escenarios:
Very
Likely Muy
Probable
Somewhat
Likely
Un poco
probable
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinion
Somewhat
Unlikely
Un poco
Improbable
Very
Unlikely
Muy
Improbable
a. Continue to live in Farmersville for 5 years / Continuar
viviendo en Farmersville por 5 años
5 4 3 2 1
b. Recommend someone to live in Farmersville /
Recomendar a alguien que viva en Farmersville
5 4 3 2 1
PERCEPCTION OF SAFETY / PERCEPCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD
4. Please rate how safe you feel in Farmersville:
Favor evaluar qué tan seguro se siente usted en Farmersville:
Very
Safe
Muy
Seguro
Somewhat
Safe
Un Poco
Seguro
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinión
Somewhat
Unsafe
Un poco
Inseguro
Very
Unsafe
Muy
inseguro
a. In your neighborhood during the day / En su vecindario durante
el día
5 4 3 2 1
b. In your neighborhood during the night / En su vecindario durante
la noche
5 4 3 2 1
c. In public areas of Farmersville during the day / En areas públicas
de Farmersville durante el día
5 4 3 2 1
d. In public areas of Farmersville during the night / En areas
públicas durante la noche
5 4 3 2 1
PERCEPTION OF ACCESABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND OPPORTUNITIES
PERCEPCIÓN DE ACCESIBILIDAD, AMBIENTE, VIVIENDAS Y OPORTUNIDADES
Favor evaluar cada una de las siguientes características según su relación con Farmersville en sentido general:
Excellent
Excelente
Good
Bueno
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinión
Fair
Justo
Poor
Pobre
a. Traffic flow on major streets / El flujo de tráfico en las calles
principales
5 4 3 2 1
b. Ease of public parking / Facilidad de estacionmiento público 5 4 3 2 1
c. Ease of travel by car / Facilidad para andar en vehículo 5 4 3 2 1
d. Ease of travel by bicycle / Facilidad para andar en bicicleta 5 4 3 2 1
e. Ease of walking / Facilidad para andar a pie 5 4 3 2 1
f. Availability of walking trails / Disponibilidad de rutas ó caminos
para andar a pie
5 4 3 2 1
g. Air quality / Calidad de aire 5 4 3 2 1
h. Cleanliness / Limpieza 5 4 3 2 1
i. Overall appearance / La apariencia en sentido general 5 4 3 2 1
j. Public places where people want to spend time / Lugares públicos
donde las personas quieran pasar el tiempo
5 4 3 2 1
k. Variety of housing options /Variedad de opciones de viviendas 5 4 3 2 1
l. Availability of affordable housing / Disponibilidad de viviendas
económicas
5 4 3 2 1
m. Fitness opportunities / Oportunidades de gimnasio 5 4 3 2 1
n. Recreational opportunities / Oportunidades recreacionales 5 4 3 2 1
o. Availability of affordable quality food / Disponibilidad de
comida de calidad económica
5 4 3 2 1

Page 3 of 8
PERCEPTION OF DAY-TO-DAY ESSENTIALS / PERCEPCIÓN DE LAS NECESIDADES DEL DÍA A DÍA
Favor evaluar cada una de las siguientes características según su relación con Farmersville en sentido general :
Excellent
Excelente
Good
Bueno
No
Opinion
Ningún
Opinión
Fair
Justo
Poor
Pobre
a. Availability of affordable quality child care / Disponibilidad de
cuidado infantil de calidad accessible económicamente
5 4 3 2 1
b. Quality of Elementary schools / Calidad de las escuelas
primarias
5 4 3 2 1
c. Quality of Intermediate schools / Calidad de las escuelas
intermedias
5 4 3 2 1
d. Quality of Jr High Schools / Calidad de las escuelas secundarias 5 4 3 2 1
e. Quality of High School / Calidad de las escuelas preparatorias 5 4 3 2 1
f. Educational opportunities for adults (post high-school or
continuing education) / Oportunidades educacionales para adultos
(más allá de las escuelas preparatorias o educación continua)
5 4 3 2 1
g. Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music events /
Oportunidades para asistir a eventos culturales/de arte/de música
5 4 3 2 1
h. Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual activities /
Oportunidades para participar en actividades religiosas y
espirituales
5 4 3 2 1
i. Employment opportunities / Oportunidades de empleo 5 4 3 2 1
j. Variety of employment options / Variedad de opciones de empleo 5 4 3 2 1
k. Availability of decent paying jobs / Disponibilidad de trabajos
con pago decente
5 4 3 2 1
l. Shopping opportunities / Oportunidades para compras 5 4 3 2 1
m. Cost of Living in Farmersville / El costo de vida en Farmersville 5 4 3 2 1
n. Quality of business and service establishments / Calidad de
negocios y establecimientos de servicios
5 4 3 2 1
o. Downtown and commercial areas / Centro de la ciudad y áreas
comerciales
5 4 3 2 1
p. Opportunities to participate in social activities / Oportunidades
para participar en actividades sociales
5 4 3 2 1
q. Opportunities to volunteer / Oportunidades para prestar servicio
voluntariamente
5 4 3 2 1
r. Opportunities to participate in community matters /
Oportunidades para participar en los asuntos de la comunidad
5 4 3 2 1
s. Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds / La recepción y aceptación de la comunidad
hacia personas con distintos orígenes
5 4 3 2 1
t. Neighborliness of residents / Amabilidad de los residentes 5 4 3 2 1
DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES / ACTIVIDADES DEL DÍA A DÍA
7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following within the last 12 months:
Favor de indicar si usted ha realizado o no cada uno de las acciones siguientes durante los últimos 12 meses:
Yes / Sí No / No
a. Made efforts to conserve water / Realizó esfuerzos para conservar agua 2 1
b. Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient / Realizó esfuerzos para hacer su casa más
eficiente en el consumo de energía
2 1
c. Observed a code violation or other hazard in Farmersville (tall weeds, abandoned buildings, trash, etc) /
Identificó una violación de reglamento u otro peligro en Farmersville (hierbas altas, edificios
abandonados, basura, etc.)
2 1
d. Household member the victim of a crime in Farmersville / Un miembro de su casa siendo víctima de un
crimen en Farmersville
2 1
e. Reported a crime to the Farmersville Police Department / Reportó un crimen al Departamento de Policía 2 1
f. Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency / Almacenó recursos en preparación para una
emergencia
2 1

Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316

Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316

Ähnlich wie Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316 (20)

Final Report - Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for the City of Farmersville.050316