3.	Public Survey
To identify the key issues on the minds of West Hill residents and businesses regarding governance preferences, we conducted a statistically valid survey of West Hill households.  The survey assessed the community’s preference of the governance alternatives as well as its satisfaction with present delivery of services, affinity towards surrounding cities, and residents’ demographics.
Survey Preparation and Data Collection 
PRR employed a survey methodology designed to reach the broadest, most representative sample of households, providing the needed information in the most cost-effective manner.  This methodology involved the following steps:
1.	Identifying households within West Hill;
2.	In conjunction with the West Hill Community Advisory Panel (CAP), developing a brief survey addressing the above-mentioned issues;
3.	Pre-testing the surveys through a sample of up to 45 respondents (as identified by CAP members);
4.	Revising the survey, based on feedback from the pre-test;
5.	Administering the survey by mail to a statistically valid sample of  2,167 West Hill residents; and 
6.	Entering, cleaning, and analyzing the data.
Sample 
PRR mailed surveys to 2,365 randomly identified residents in the census tracts within West Hill.  On March 19, 1999, the US Postal service returned 198 surveys as undeliverable.  By the closing date (May 5, 1999), 343 completed surveys were returned to PRR, a response rate of 16%.  Given the West Hill estimated population of 14,000, a sample of 343 gives a ± 5.2 per cent margin of error.   Stated differently, this means that, even if the survey had been mailed to the entire population of West Hill, there is a 95 percent probability that the pattern of responses to each question would be the same as this sample of 343, give or take 5.2 percent. 
Data Processing and Analysis
Data processing consisted of sorting and organizing returned surveys; coding and entering quantitative responses; performing response range checks on quantitative variables in order to check for miscoded variables; and finally cleaning the data file.  We conducted our statistical analyses using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
Statistical techniques employed include simple frequency analysis of all variables.  In addition, we examined associations between independent (socio-demographic) variables and dependant variables using stratified (cross-tabulated) frequency tables; testing for significance using the Cramer’s V statistic. 
To examine the correlation between respondents’ satisfaction with and evaluation of importance of a series of public service and community elements, a gap analysis was performed.  For each element, a mean satisfaction score and a mean importance score were determined, and the difference between the two reported.  Further details about this technique are provided in the Results section on page 11.
Because the sample did not reflect the area's s ethnic and age proportions, adjusted analyses were performed on key governance outcomes.  For each variable in question (for example, ethnicity), weights were assigned to reflect the true population distribution. Ethnicity adjustment was achieved by dividing the sample into four ethnic groups—African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Caucasian, and "other"—and weighting to conform to the 1995 Estimated Census.  For example, Caucasians were over-sampled; Caucasians’ responses were weighted at less than one for the adjusted analysis.  Age adjustment was achieved by dividing the population into three groups: 44 years of age and younger, 45 to 64, and 65 years of age and older.  As surveys were mailed to the head of households, the true population was considered to be adults 20 years of age and older; the sample, therefore, was weighted to conform to the above-19-year-old age distribution reported in the 1990 Census.  The purpose of weighting is discussed further in the Results section on page 11.
Sample Characteristics
Three hundred forty-three people returned completed surveys.  The majority of respondents were Caucasian (76%) and male (65%).  The respondents were typically older (38% were over sixty-five years of age). Nearly all owned their home (95%) and were registered to vote (97%), while very few (4%) owned a business in West Hill.  All neighborhoods were represented: the Skyway and Lakeridge neighborhoods tied for the largest representation in the sample (each with 30%).  
The distribution of socio-demographic elements in the sample population, shown in Table 1, differs in several ways from the general population, as described in the 1990 United States Census.  The sample population is skewed towards male gender, Caucasian ethnicity, over 65 year age category and homeowners.  When we made adjustments through statistical weighting, none proved to alter conclusions.  Although comparison information about neighborhood representation was not available, we used an examination of respondent’s census tract as a substitute for neighborhood and determined that adequate geographic representation was achieved.  

Table 1: Characteristics of West Hill Survey Sample (N=343)** and the West Hill Population, as described in the 1990 Census
	Sample	Census	
	%	N	%	
Gender:                                                         Male	65%	203	50%	
Female	35%	140	50%	
				
Ethnicity:                 African American (Black)	10%	32	30%*	
Asian/Pacific Islander	11%	34	18%*	
Caucasian (White)	76%	243	49%*	
Other	3%	9	3%*	
				
Age Category:                            Under 44 years	28%	95	52%	
45 to 64 years	34%	113	29%	
65 years and over	38%	125	19%	
				
Neighborhood:                                Bryn Mawr	25%	81	n.a.#	
Campbell Hill	6%	20	n.a.	
Earlington	7%	24	n.a.	
Lakeridge	30%	98	n.a.	
Panorama View	1%	5	n.a.	
Skyway	30%	98	n.a.	
Don’t Know	1%	3	n.a.	
				
Census Tract:                                             260.01	52%	180	41%	
260.02	16%	55	15%	
261.00	32%	108	44%	
				
Home Owners (vs. renters)	95%	323	69%	
				
West Hill Business Owners	4%	14	n.a.	
				
Registered Voters	97%	329	n.a.	
				
Residency in West Hill:				
5 years or less	17%	56		
6 years or more	83%	276		

* 1995 estimated Census data     20 to 44 years of age    # n.a. not available from Census data
** ‘N’ indicates the total number of survey respondents
Results and Discussion
Satisfaction With and Importance of Selected Public Service and Community Elements
Satisfaction
Respondents were asked about their level of satisfaction with a series of public service and community elements: water, sewer/septic, storm water/drainage, library, parks and recreation, police department, fire/emergency medical, road and sidewalk construction/maintenance, schools, tax rate, community image, and the ability to finance public works.  Respondents reported their satisfaction with each element  as high, medium, or low, or claimed no opinion.  The distribution of responses to this question is shown in Table 2.
Respondents are particularly satisfied with the fire and emergency medical services in West Hill (66% indicated a high satisfaction level) as well as the library (43% indicated high satisfaction).  Respondents are notably dissatisfied, however, with road and sidewalk maintenance/construction (46% indicated low satisfaction), and with West Hill’s image (39% indicated low satisfaction).
The large number of people indicating no opinion, or not indicating anything for the “ability to finance public works” (43%), may indicated that some respondents were not comfortable with their knowledge of the area’s financial position, or it might reflect a general lack of understanding of the term.
Table 2: Respondents’ Satisfaction with Public Service and Community Elements of West Hill (N=343)
Public Service and Community Elements	Satisfaction		
	High	Medium	Low	No opinion or missing	
Water system	40%	43%	11%	6%	
Sewer/septic system	38%	40%	14%	8%	
Storm water/drainage	24%	41%	26%	9%	
Library	43%	35%	7%	15%	
Parks and recreation	17%	37%	24%	22%	
Police department	38%	44%	11%	7%	
Fire/Emergency Medical	66%	21%	2%	12%	
Road and sidewalk construction/maintenance	13%	33%	46%	8%	
Schools	20%	35%	15%	30%	
Tax rate	15%	49%	23%	13%	
Community image	11%	41%	39%	9%	
Ability to finance public works	6%	31%	21%	43%	

Importance
Respondents were also asked about how important the same series of public service and community elements would be in influencing their decision about West Hill governance.  Similar to satisfaction, they evaluated the importance of each element as high, medium, or low, or claimed no opinion.  The distribution of responses is shown in Table 3.  
Respondents are particularly concerned about the police department (84% rated high importance), the fire and emergency medical services (83% indicated high importance), and the tax rate (63% rated high importance). Public utilities are also considered important, with water system and sewer/septic system rated at 63% and 59%, respectively.  Schools, storm water/drainage, road and sidewalk construction/maintenance, and community image are also important, with at least 50% of respondents indicating these elements as highly important.  Respondents are least concerned about parks and recreation (41% indicated high importance). 
Table 3: Respondents’ Rating of Importance of Public Service and Community Elements when Considering West Hill’s Future Governance (N=343)
Public Service and Community Elements	Importance		
	High	Medium	Low	 No opinion or missing	
Water system	63%	26%	4%	7%	
Sewer/septic system	59%	29%	4%	8%	
Storm water/drainage	55%	32%	5%	8%	
Library	48%	30%	9%	13%	
Parks and recreation	41%	35%	10%	14%	
Police department	84%	10%	1%	5%	
Fire/Emergency Medical	83%	10%	1%	6%	
Road and sidewalk construction/maintenance	50%	35%	6%	9%	
Schools	55%	20%	7%	18%	
Tax rate	63%	25%	4%	8%	
Community image	50%	35%	5%	10%	
Ability to finance public works	38%	36%	6%	20%	

Gap Analysis
Examination of the differences between levels of satisfaction and degrees of importance for each of the elements points towards areas of service which exceed, meet, or do not meet community expectations.  Average satisfaction and importance ratings were determined for each of the elements by assigning the number 3 to a “high” response, 2 to a “medium”, and 1 to a “low” response.  No opinion and missing responses were not included in the analysis.  The “gap”, or the difference between satisfaction and importance, was calculated by subtracting the importance score from the satisfaction score.  The more negative the resulting gap score, the less likely the service element meets expectations.  Figure 1 illustrates the average satisfaction, importance, and gap scores for each element.
Figure 1: Satisfaction vs. Importance of Public Service and Community Elements in West Hill (N=343)

The largest (most negative) gap scores are for community image and road and sidewalk maintenance/construction, followed by tax rates, storm water/drainage, police, water, and sewer/septic.  
As noted above in the Importance section, respondents indicate that the police department, fire/emergency medical services, tax rate, water system, and sewer/septic system are all highly important considerations for West Hill’s future governance.  Of these, they want continuing satisfactory performance of the fire/emergency medical services as West Hill’s governance changes, along with an improvement over current circumstances in the tax rate, police, and water and sewer/septic systems.  Additional important elements include community image, road and sidewalk maintenance/construction, and storm/water drainage; residents’ current low satisfaction levels with these elements, when compared against the elements’ perceived importance, indicates that these are additional opportunities for improvement as West Hill’s governance changes. 
On the other end of the spectrum, the Skyway Library exceeds respondents’ expectations; as future governance shifts in West Hill, special attention should be paid to maintaining the successful elements of the library.  The positive gap score for ability to finance public works may be a reflection of the low “satisfaction” and relatively low “importance” response rate for this element.  Given low response rate (20%) compared to other questions and the complex nature of the question which requires and understanding of West Hill’s tax base relative to other areas, it is difficult to interpret this result.
Future Governance Options
Respondents’ Choices
We asked respondents a series of questions related to future governance options.  If they had to choose today, the majority of respondents (66%) chose stay as it is over annexing to another city (30%).  Incorporation was very unpopular; only 14 people (4%) chose it.  If staying as it is were not an option, respondents again overwhelmingly chose annexation (84%) over incorporation (16%).  When asked to which city their neighborhood should annex, just over half (52%) chose Renton.  Less than one-third (29%) chose Seattle, and 13% chose Tukwila.  Only 6% had no preference.  When we turned the question around, asking to which city the neighborhood should NOT annex, Renton again emerged as the least unpopular, i.e. best, annexation choice.  One quarter of respondents (25%)indicated that they would not want to annex to Renton, while fully half argued against both Seattle and Tukwila.  Table 4 summarizes respondents’ future governance preferences.
Table 4: Respondents’ Future Governance Preferences for West Hill (N=343)
Question	%	N	
			
Best Choice for Future:                                   Annex	
30%	
97	
Incorporate	4%	14	
Stay as is	66%	217	
			
If “Stay as is” were not an option:                Annex	
84%	
266	
Incorporate	16%	51	
			
Annex to Which City:                                    Renton	
52%	
173	
Seattle	29%	95	
Tukwila	13%	42	
No preference	6%	21	
			
Do not annex to: *                                           Renton	
25%	
85	
Seattle	48%	166	
Tukwila	50%	171	
No objections to any city	10%	36	

Neighborhood
Effects of city choice and neighborhood, as shown in Table 5, turned out to be real, but small: Earlington residents, for example, favored Renton over Seattle more strongly than other neighborhoods.  Skyway residents also favored Renton over Seattle, but least strongly.  Looking at city choice by neighborhood showed that the ranking of choice cities was not affected.  In each neighborhood, as overall, the first choice was clearly Renton.  Seattle was either second or tied with Tukwila; in the case where it tied with Tukwila, the number of people answering the question was small, making generalization difficult. 
Table 5: Respondents Preferred City for Annexation by West Hill Neighborhood
		Which West Hill Neighborhood	Total	
		Bryn Mar	Campbell Hill	Earlington	Lakeridge	Panorama View	Skyway		
Renton	Count
% Within Which West Hill Neighborhood	43
53.8%	12
63.2%	15
62.5%	53
57.6%	2
40.0%	42
43.8%	167
52.8%	
Seattle	Count
% Within Which West Hill Neighborhood	22
27.5%	4
21.1%	4
16.7%	26
28.3%	1
20%	35
36.5%	92
29.1%	
Tukwila	Count
% Within Which West Hill Neighborhood	9
11.3%	3
15.8%	4
16.7%	8
8.7%	1
20%	12
12.5%	37
11.7%	
No Preference	Count
% Within Which West Hill Neighborhood	6
7.5%		1
4.2%	5
5.4%	1
20%	7
7.3%	20
6.3%	
Total	Count
% Within Which West Hill Neighborhood	80
100%	19
100%	24
100%	92
100%	5
100%	96
100%	316
100%	

We then asked respondents to indicate the reasons behind their choice annexation city.  Table 6 shows the reasons for choosing each city, ranked in order from most popular to least popular.  
Table 6: Reasons Why West Hill Respondents Indicated a City as Best Annexation Choice (by indicated city)
Renton (N=173)	Seattle (N=95)	Tukwila (N=42)	
Reason	%	Reason	%	Reason	%	
1.	Identify with city	76	1.	Identify with city	73	1.	Police department	68	
2.	Parks/recreation	64	2.	Fire/EMS	63	2.	Tax rate	62	
3.	Library	56	3.	Public utilities	62	3.	Finance public works	62	
4.	Police department	51	4.	Library	58	4.	Parks/recreation	60	
5.	Fire/EMS	50	5.	Police department	57	5.	Fire/EMS	60	
6.	Public Utilities	42	6.	Parks/recreation	52	6.	Community image	57	
7.	Community image	32	7.	Community image	51	7.	Public utilities	49	
8.	Roads/sidewalks	26	8.	Roads/sidewalks	40	8.	Roads/sidewalks	46	
9.	Tax rate	24	9.	Public works	38	9.	Identify with city	27	
10.	Public works	20	10.	Tax rate	24	10.	Library	16	

For both Renton and Seattle, the first and second choice cities, identification with the city emerges as the most popular reason.  It appears the choice is based in large part on the intangible feeling of “identity.”  The least popular city choice, Tukwila, does not resonate with people’s concept of a city with which they identify.  Renton highlights, when compared with Seattle and Tukwila, also include its parks and libraries.  The police department, fire/emergency medical services, public utilities and tax rate, all identified as important when respondents considered West Hill’s future governance, are not overwhelmingly popular reasons for choosing Renton—chosen by a range of 24% to 51%.
The survey also provided for respondents to write in other reasons why they chose a particular city.  All write-ins indicated schools as a reason; nine percent of people who chose Renton wrote in schools, one percent for Seattle, and three percent for Tukwila.  Since respondents feel that schools are important enough to write in on the “other” space provided, it is important to clarify within the community that the school system will remain the same, regardless of future governance.
Role of Socio-demographic Factors
Using a statistical test for association, further analyses was conducted on key governance variables to see whether the respondent’s gender, age category, ethnicity, census block, neighborhood, or length of residence in West Hill had any relation to the preferences he or she disclosed.  These analyses, described in more detail in the following section,  suggests a possible relationship between the following socio-demographic elements and governance preferences:
•	Ethnicity on annexation city;
•	Age on best choice for West Hill’s future and annexation city;
•	Length of residence on best choice for West Hill’s future and annexation city; and
•	Neighborhood on annexation city.
However, we found no relation between a respondent’s governance choices and gender, home ownership, business ownership, voting registration, or census tract.
Ethnicity:
A potential relationship appeared between a respondent’s ethnicity and annexation city choice.  For example, Caucasian respondents’ choices mirrored the overall distribution: 59% for Renton, 23% for Seattle, and 13% for Tukwila.  However, 66% of African Americans chose Seattle as the best choice for annexation, with Renton coming in second (29% of African Americans’ choice).  Similarly, Asian/Pacific Islanders were more likely to choose Seattle (44%) over Renton (35%).  Too few respondents indicated American Indian or Latino ethnicity to be able to make generalizations about these groups.
We performed an adjusted analysis to take into account the under-representation of African Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders.  We gave additional weight to responses of under-represented groups to yield a distribution mirroring the overall population in terms of ethnicity.  One might assume that the weighted, or adjusted, response reflects the true population.  Ultimately, adjusting for ethnicity yielded results essentially the same as the unadjusted results for the key future governance options questions, as shown in Table 7:
Table 7: Key Governance Preferences, Frequencies Weighted to Represent the True Ethnicity Distribution for West Hill (N=343)
Question	Adjusted for Ethnicity	Original    
 (Unweighted)	
			
Best Choice for Future:                                   Annex	
29%	
30%	
Incorporate	6%	4%	
Stay as is	65%	66%	
			
If “Stay as is” were not an option:                Annex	
80%	
84%	
Incorporate	20%	16%	
			
Annex to Which City:                                    Renton	
45%	
52%	
Seattle	38%	29%	
Tukwila	11%	13%	
No preference	5%	6%	

Age
With one exception, the majority of respondents in every age category considered staying as it is the best choice for the future of the West Hill area (among 24-35 year-olds, stay as it is ties with annexation).  The older a person is, the more likely he or she is to choose stay as it is.  Examination of annexation city choice by age shows Renton as first choice in all age categories; although the strength of choosing Renton varied among age categories, no trend was evident.
To take into account the under-representation of younger age groups (under 65 years of age), adjusted analyses was performed again.  Extra weight was given to responses of under-represented age groups to yield a distribution mirroring the overall population.  This weighted, or adjusted, response could be assumed to reflect the true population.  Ultimately, adjusting for age yielded results essentially the same as the unadjusted results for the questions about annexation versus incorporation.  Annexation city of choice was essentially the same as well, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Annexation City Choice, Frequencies Weighted to Represent the True Age Distribution for West Hill (N=343)
Annexation City Choice	Adjusted for Age	Original (Unweighted)	
			
Renton	53%	52%	
Seattle	28%	29%	
Tukwila	12%	13%	
No preference	6%	6%	

Length of Residence
Length of residence in West Hill and respondent’s age are inter-related; a young person cannot have lived in West Hill longer than he or she has been alive.  Therefore, it is difficult to tease apart the effects of age versus those of length of residence.  Like the older respondents, people who have lived longer in West Hill are more likely to choose staying as it is as the best choice for West Hill’s future.  Half of the people who have lived in West Hill  for 5 years or less choose annexation as the best choice, with only 40% choosing to stay as it is; the majority of West Hill residents of 6 years or more choose to stay as it is.   Similarly, 49% of residents of 5 years or less choose Seattle as the best annexation city, making Seattle the first choice of this group.  Renton is selected as the best choice by 36%.  Residents of 6 years and more consistently choose Renton as the best choice.     
Because we have no information on length of residence for the general population, adjusted analysis cannot be performed.  However, based on the age-adjusted analysis, it is expected that an adjusted analysis would not yield different results than that indicated by the survey.
Conclusions
A statistically valid survey of West Hill residents suggests that the majority want West Hill to continue being governed as it is presently.  However, faced with choosing between annexation and incorporation, the community overwhelmingly favors annexation.  This preference is seen regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, or residential neighborhood.
The West Hill community chooses Renton first for annexation, again, regardless of gender, age, or residential neighborhood.  However, African American and Asian/Pacific Islander residents choose Seattle over Renton.  Adjusted analysis was performed, whereby weights were assigned to reflect the true population distribution.  Still, analysis adjusted for ethnicity indicates that Renton remains the community’s first choice.  Community members prefer Renton foremost because they identify with that city.   The majority (about 60%) also mention its library, parks and recreation as strong points, while just over half cite the good police department, fire department, and emergency medical services.
West Hill residents identify the police department, fire department, emergency medical services, and the tax rate as primary factors influencing their decision regarding West Hill’s future governance; parks and recreation are ranked relatively unimportant.  The disparity between satisfaction with and importance of factors suggests areas where respondents’ expectations are not being met.  These areas include community image, road and sidewalk construction/maintenance, tax rate, storm water drainage, police department, water system, and sewer/septic system.  Improving perceptions of service quality in these areas as part of a governance change may build support for making a change.