2024 City of Irving Resident Survey Report by City of Irving

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Irving conducts a biennial Resident Survey, initiated in 2006, to gauge residents' satisfaction with quality of life and city services, informing decisions on service levels, budget allocation, and future planning. In 2024, the city partnered with Elite Research to administer the survey, using both a randomized sample and open-call method. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. Collected survey data was cleaned by removing incomplete, duplicate, and careless/inattentive responses, resulting in 5,011 valid respondents for the ﬁnal analysis. The survey results were weighted to correct imbalances in the core set of demographics by ZIP code, age, gender, ethnicity, race, and home ownership as compared to census population statistics for the City of Irving.

Highlights

Improved methodology to better capture feedback more representative of residents of the City of Irving. The sample targeted a representative group of residents based on census data and housing type. The survey was also open to all city residents. Multiple eﬀorts across communication platforms were made to connect to both the sample and city residents in both English and Spanish. Additional surveys were collected via in-person outreach at community events and advertisements in various places/publications. These combined eﬀorts provided the opportunity to have more representative results.

Results are generally marginally below 2022 Irving standards and are comparable to the regional average benchmark standards. The ratings for the general characteristics of Irving dropped slightly compared to 2022, but residents still highly rate Irving as a place to live (66%) and work (66%). Irving is an above average place to work as determined by the regional average benchmark but falls below the regional average benchmark comparison as a place to live and raise children As previous results were not weighted, longitudinal analysis may diﬀer.

Repeated trends throughout the survey results. Generally, residents from zip codes 75038, 75039, and 75063 more highly rate city services and characteristics than residents from 75060, 75061, and 75062. Residents of one year or less tend to rate the city higher than do residents who live in the city for longer spans. Males generally rate city services higher than females do. White respondents tend to be the most critical, and Asian and Hispanic residents tend to most favorably rate the city.

Residents identified street/sidewalk maintenance, homelessness, economic development, housing, and code enforcement as the top five areas of emphasis for city leadership over the next two years. Residents provided feedback regarding the five services needing the most emphasis from city leadership over the next two years. Highly rated areas tend not to be service priorities. Library services and fire services are some of the highest rated service areas by percentage of “Excellent” and “Good” ratings, but they are the two least selected service areas requiring emphasis from city leadership (Fire service: 2.5%; Library 4.8%).

General Characteristics and Development

Results from the General Characteristics and Development survey sections present Irving as a good place to live and work. Residents feel comfortable, but less certain regarding it as a place to raise children

Resident satisfaction with the variety of housing options (43%) and employment opportunities (56%) were both above regional average standards. The variety of dining/restaurant (61%) and retail/shopping (40%) establishments both failed to meet the regional average benchmarks. More than 80% of respondents living in Irving less than 1 year rated the variety of restaurants as “Excellent ”/“Good” , but ratings decreased the longer residents had lived in Irving. Similarly, the longer residents had lived in Irving, the lower they tend to rate the variety of retail or shopping establishments (Less than 1 year: 63.8%; More than 20 years: 28.4%). There is a division in employment variety and availability by zip codes, where residents of 75063, 75038, and 75039 highly rated employment opportunity (between 67% -75%), and more poorly rated employment opportunity (between 41% -52%) in 75060, 75061, and 75062 zip codes. Shorter tenured Irving residents tended to rate housing options better than long-term residents.

Public Safety

Irving residents rated their perceptions of safety in various situations. Results revealed that almost all residents feel safe during the day walking in their neighborhood (94%) and visiting parks (93%), but safety ratings for the same activities in the evening decrease by 15%-30%. Males and females have similar ratings for feeling safe doing activities during the daytime, but in the evening, males feel safer walking in their neighborhood (85.0%) and visiting parks (71.8%) than females do (walking in their neighborhood: 72.9%, visiting parks: 54.6%). Irving residents generally feel protected from property crimes (71%) and violent crimes (78%), which align to the regional high benchmarks in each of these categories. Renters generally feel safer from violent crimes (80.6%) and property crimes (74.4%) than owners do (violent crimes: 76.7%; property crimes: 68.9%). Older residents tend to feel safer than younger residents from property crimes, but residents of all ages similarly rate feeling safe from violent crimes.

Quality of City Services

Residents rated the quality of services provided by the city, consisting of city parks, library, arts and culture, traﬃc and transportation, solid waste, and code enforcement services.

The Parks and Recreation ratings generally approximated the regional average benchmarks. A greater proportion of residents from 75039 rated the maintenance and landscaping of city parks as “Excellent”/ “Good” (81.1%) compared to residents from all other zip codes. The lowest rated parks function was the quality of facilities at city pool/aquatic center. Residents from 75039 rated city pool/aquatic center facilities the highest (62.1%), residents from 75062 rated pool facilities the lowest (40.6%), and approximately half of residents from all other zip codes rated the pool facilities as “Excellent”/“Good”.

More than three-fourths of residents from 75039 rated walking trails as “Excellent”/“Good” (76%), nearly two thirds of residents from 75063 rated walking trails highly (64%), and approximately half of the residents of all other zip codes rated them “Excellent”/ “Good. Respondents living in Irving less than 5 years rated recreation center program higher than respondents living in Irving for more than 5 years. Residents of 75039 had the highest ratings for recreation center programs available (69.5%), while residents of 75062 had the lowest ratings for recreation center programs available (55.9%). Approximately 60% of respondents from all other zip codes rated recreation center programs “Excellent”/“Good”

Ratings for all library service items improved compared to 2022 levels and are above the regional average benchmarks. Residents from 75061 (86.0%) and 75063 (86.8%) have the highest ratings for quality of Irving

library services while three-fourths of residents from all zip codes rated the quality of services provided at the library as “Excellent” or “Good”. Nearly all respondents living in Irving less than a year rate library services as “Excellent ”/“Good” (96.3%) Females rated in-person/virtual education programs oﬀered by the library more highly (77.8%) than males (69.6%). Residents aged 25-29 and those older than 65 most highly rated library books/material availability compared to residents of other ages.

Traffic and transportation was the second lowest rated service area overall with only 45% of residents indicating “Excellent”/“Good” ratings. The condition of traffic signs and roadway striping were the most highly rated traffic and transportation component (54%), while the quality of street maintenance (filling of potholes, etc.) was the lowest (28%). Despite receiving relatively low overall ratings compared to other Irving services, six out of the eight elements in this service area surpassed the regional average benchmark levels, with only the condition of major streets and street maintenance falling below the regional average. A greater proportion of residents in 75063 more highly rated the condition of major streets (not including highways) (50.6%) as an aspect of traffic and transportation services than did residents of all other zip codes.

Compared to 2022, solid waste service satisfaction improved in all six areas of evaluation. Essential waste services such as bulk waste pick up, hazardous waste disposal, and residential trash collection were all at or within 3% of the regional average benchmarks. The lowest rated solid waste service was education related to recycling (51%). The highest rated areas were the residential trash collection and brush/bulk waste pickup (74% each). Residential trash collection is a top five priority for 10% of the residents, but the longer residents have lived in Irving, the less of a priority trash collection was (Less than 1 year: 16.9%, 15 years: 12.7%, 6-10 years: 12.4%, 11-20 years 9.4%, More than 20 years: 6.4%). Residents of less than 1 year more highly rate all elements of solid waste service than longer tenured residents, except for recycling where residents of more than 20 years have the highest ratings for residential curbside recycling (74.6%).

Code enforcement rates were in the bottom third of city services, but all seven elements are rated at or above the regional average benchmarks. Residents in 75038, 75039, and 75063 more highly rate the exterior appearance of single-family homes, multi-family homes, and commercial/retail buildings than residents in 75060, 75061, and 75062. A greater proportion of residents of 75039 rated regulation of mowing/cutting of weeds/grass on private property, as related to their specific neighborhood in Irving, more highly than residents of 75060, 75061, and 75062. When split by gender or home ownership status, there are minimal differences in the ratings of code enforcement elements.

City Performance

The survey included participant ratings for the overall quality of services provided by the City of Irving, Dallas County, the State of Texas, and the federal government Residents rated the City of Irving the highest for the quality of services provided, with 62% considering them “Good” or “Excellent”, compared to the other government bodies. Residents rated the city 30 percentage points higher than the U.S. Government, 20 percentage points higher than the State of Texas, and 15 percentage points higher than Dallas County for satisfaction with the overall quality of services

The percentage of respondents who rated the quality of services provided by the city as “Good” or “Excellent” decrease with longer residency (Less than 1 year: 70.1%; 1-5 years: 67.7%, 6-10 years: 65.9%;

11-20 years: 57.9%, More than 20 years: 57.0%). Hispanic residents rated the city’s quality of services more positively (68.6%) than white residents (58.8%).

Service Priorities

Residents identified the top five priorities for city leadership over the next two years as street/sidewalk maintenance, homelessness, economic development, housing, and code enforcement. Street/sidewalk maintenance (47%) and homelessness (37%) were selected nearly twice as often as all other emphasis areas. Additionally, at least one in five residents selected economic development (25%), housing (20%), and code enforcement (20%) as areas of service priorities. Participants from 75060 (41.2%) and 75061 (45.1%) were more likely to select homelessness as a priority than residents from 75038 (31.1%), 75039 (26.2%), and 75063 (31.2%). Longer-term residents (20+ years) and females (45.7%) were also more likely to prioritize homelessness than shorter-term residents and males (30.6%). Over one-third (33.5%) of new residents (less than one year in Irving) prioritized economic development, compared to less than a fourth (23.5%) of those living in Irving for more than year. Respondents with higher education levels were also more likely to prioritize economic development.

OVERVIEW

The City of Irving Resident Survey has been conducted every other year since 2006 to provide residents with an opportunity to rate the quality of life and city services in Irving. The primary goal is to better understand residents’ satisfaction, as well as what is working well and what needs improvement. The information collected is used to inform decisions related to service levels, budget allocation, and future planning. In 2024, Elite Research collaborated with the city as the ﬁrst outside vendor to administer the survey

Irving hosts this biennial survey to help measure its eﬀorts in meeting the vision and the mission of the city. By participating, residents have the opportunity to voice their opinions and contribute to the betterment of the community.

Vision: Irving will be the model for safe and beautiful neighborhoods, a vibrant economy, and exceptional recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities.

Mission: Deliver exceptional services and promote a high quality of life for residents, visitors, and businesses.

The 2024 Resident Survey was administered by Elite Research. The survey was designed to collect responses from all residents of the City of Irving while also maintaining a randomized sample method similar to prior surveys. The random sample was representative of both single-family and multi-family homes. The survey was additionally available in both English and Spanish. Questions were included for all respondents to rate the quality of life, city services, and amenities in Irving.

The results and key ﬁndings from the 5,011 valid responses in the Resident Survey gauge satisfaction levels with current city services including public safety, transportation, utilities, parks and recreation, and more. By understanding the issues and services that residents prioritize for future city development and resource allocation, the city gathers insights into how to improve services, infrastructure and community engagement. By ensuring the data gathered is inclusive, the city hopes to capture perspectives from all demographic groups to address disparities and promote equity across the community.

METHODOLOGY

Design of the 2024 Resident Survey

Over the course of two weeks, Elite Research and the city’s Innovation and Performance Oﬃce met with several city departments to obtain feedback and suggestions for the 2024 survey instrument. The number of questions where residents could provide an open-ended response were increased from 2 in previous years to 16 in 2024 This change aimed to gather more valuable feedback from residents regarding areas that might need improvement. The 2024 survey instrument was reviewed to ensure each question was framed in direct, unambiguous, and simple language.

The survey begins with five required resident profile questions to ensure residency within Irving, followed by 121 rated statements, allowing up to 16 open-ended responses for residents to expand on ratings that were considered poor. The survey concludes with 8 demographic questions (Appendix A) and a final question asking if residents would be interested in participating in a focus group based on their responses.

The rating scales varied from “Very Poor” to “Excellent ” or “Not Safe” to “Very Safe” with a “No Opinion” response provided for most statements. An additional rating scale is used to rate frequency and does not include an average or neutral option. Ratings of “No Opinion” and blank responses were excluded from the analysis, as this is best practice (Appendix C). Respondents were also asked to rank their top service priorities.

Selecting Survey Recipients

The sample was stratiﬁed by ZIP code to make it more representative of the population while allowing for statistical comparisons (Table 1). A proportional number of random households were selected from each ZIP code to match the percentage of the city ’s population in each. Weighting estimates are applied based on U.S. Census data. 1 The ﬁndings within this report are provided with weighting.

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents by ZIP Code

The survey was conducted by collecting responses to the 2024 Resident Survey (Appendix A) distributed to 22,132 randomly selected City of Irving single-family contacts provided from the city’s Utilities department An additional list of 10,000 randomly selected City of Irving multi-family contacts were also invited to 1 ://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/design_and_methodology/2022/acs_design_methodology_ch11_2022.pdf

Note. *10 respondents from ZIP code 75019 are included. Table shows the weighted results. N = number of respondents, % = percentage of respondents.

respond Of the 32,132 contacts included in the original sample, 31,329 had at least one email address (98%) and 17,192 (54%) had a telephone number. Over 3,000 contacts had delivery errors, either as bounced or undeliverable emails and phone numbers, reducing the invited sample to 28,323.

Participation in the survey was voluntary, and respondent data were deidentiﬁed prior to analysis.

Conducting the Survey

Survey responses were collected between April 2, 2024, and May 1, 2024.

To maximize responses, data were collected via an online survey using a proprietary tool called PsychData (psychdata.com).

All potential respondents with an email address received an initial invitation to participate in the survey via email, followed by at least two additional email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. Those with undeliverable emails or who did not respond to reminders were added to the text message sample for additional contact eﬀorts via phone or a Short Message Service (SMS) text survey link. Additionally, city and Elite Research staﬀ attended various events to champion the survey and gain increased response through the open-call:

 The Total Eclipse of the Park events hosted at both Levy Event Plaza and Heritage Park

 A pickleball tournament hosted at Mustang Park Recreation Center

 A Music in the Park event organized by the Parks and Recreation department

 The Irving Independent School District Annual Resource Fair

The open survey was also advertised in various places or publications, including:

 City of Irving website

 Elite Research website

 April City Spectrum/City Spectrum Article A14

 Irving Independent School District Newsletter

 Digital displays & kiosks

 City’s social media platforms (X, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn)

The city received responses from 6,435 participants via the online survey, phone interview, or SMS text. Examination of the data showed that 346 of the responses clicked the survey link but did not answer any questions, and an additional 27 responses were save and return connections, leaving 6,062 responses Of these, 2,972 were from the invited sample, resulting in an invited sample response rate of 10.5% (2,972/28,323) Based upon the sample size and Irving’s total adult population (more than 17 years old), the survey results have a conﬁdence level of 95%, which is customary for surveys The margin of error is less than 1.4% for the City of Irving and 5.1% for each ZIP code. Therefore, the results of the survey can be generalized with 95% conﬁdence that the actual score of the city’s entire population would be within 1.4% of the reported results

Data Processing

To ensure survey responses were valid for analysis, validity checks were performed on all responses The data cleaning, validity check, and coding process was performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics software. Invalid response removal included:

 Incomplete Responses: 986 respondents who clicked the survey link did not answer at least 25% of the survey questions and were removed from further analysis. The drop-oﬀ rates after the ﬁrst quarter of the survey were less than 1.4% per page, typical for online survey collection.

 Duplicate Responses: Duplicate responses were identiﬁed by matching contact ID, name, email, and IP address across responses. For survey participants identiﬁed as having multiple responses, the most completed response was kept for analysis. Seven (7) duplicate respondents were removed.

 Non-Variance in Responses: If respondents show no variance across multiple matrix item sets, there is strong justiﬁcation for removing them due to careless or inattentive answering 2 Responses from nine (9) respondents across all matrix questions showed no variance and were removed from further analysis.

 Took Survey Too Fast: Research suggests removing responses where the respondent took less than two seconds to answer each survey question. Responses at this rate may be indicative of careless and inattentive answering.2 Items that were intended to not be answered as part of skip logic based on prerequisite questions were not treated as missing. Of the 6,062 respondents who started the survey, nine (9) were identiﬁed as taking the survey too fast and were removed from analysis.

 Under the Age Requirement: 17 participants were under the age of 18 and were removed from further analysis.

After the data validation process, responses from 5,034 participants were determined to be valid, resulting in a validity rate of 83% Among these, 23 respondents indicated they were visitors, not residents, and were removed This left a ﬁnal valid sample of 5,011 respondents for analysis.

2 Huang, J., Curran, P., Keeney, J., Poposki, E., & DeShon, R. (2012). Detecting and deterring insuﬃcient eﬀort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8

Weighting the Sample

Imbalances in public response surveys exist between the survey sample and the population due to characteristics related to responses of targeted segments, nonresponses, and general participant characteristics. Typically, a core set of demographics are used to adjust the dataset to correct these imbalances, including sex, age, race, ethnicity, and geographic regions. Reliable population benchmarks are readily available from the federal government to adjust the response rates from the sample to reﬂect the population. This is called weighted descriptive analysis, or weighting.

These core demographic variables or descriptive statistics summarize the characteristics of a data set. Weighting data ensures the ﬁnal data represent the population of the city by weighting the survey responses to reﬂect population characteristics. The population characteristics (i.e., control variables) used for weighting the data were the same items listed in Table 2: ZIP code, age, gender, ethnicity, race, and home ownership. As shown, the 2024 Resident Survey responses cover segments of the target population in proportions that do not exactly match the proportions of those segments in the population itself.

For this report, response rates were weighted using the raking method to make the respondent sample reﬂective of the population. The raking weighting methodology is one of the most prevalent methods for weighting public response surveys. 3 Raking adjusts the response weights so the marginal distribution of speciﬁed variables (i.e., control variables) for the weighted survey sample most closely represents the desired population. 4

Appendix B displays weighted and unweighted frequencies and percentages for the respondent demographic characteristics. Appendix C displays the weighted frequencies and percentages for each item in the survey by rating type, while Appendix D displays the weighted percent of positive responses by ZIP code.

Appendix E displays the weighted number of responses for each item, the percentage of “No Opinion” selected, and the weighted percent of positive responses by invited sample versus open call

Analyzing the Data

The survey results are predominantly reported as the percent positive responses to each statement. The percent positive is an aggregate of the top two most positive responses to each statement (i.e., the combination of “Excellent” and “Good” responses, or “Very Safe” and “Safe” responses). Detailed results for all the scale choices for each item are displayed in Appendix D.

The survey and results are divided into twenty (20) sections by service area/department: General Characteristics, Government Type, Development, Safety, Police, Animal Services, Fire Services, Library Services, Irving Arts & Culture, Parks & Recreation, Maintenance & Appearance, Code Enforcement, Solid Waste Services, Water Utilities, Traﬃc & Transportation, Public Transportation, Communication Tendencies, Information Sharing & Transparency, Engagement, and Resident Priority Areas

3 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a494

4 https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d293bbee5bf7be7fb3/weighting-methods.pdf

Table 2: Frequencies and Percentages of Respondent Characteristics for the Population, Unweighted and Weighted Sample

Age Group

Note. * The ten respondents from ZIP code 75019 are included in this ZIP code. ** Total Irving population over 17 years of age

Benchmarking

Benchmark data from select cities are included where similar items were available (Appendix F) This data, aggregated from Resident Surveys, includes the lowest, average, and highest scores from Arlington, Dallas, Denton, Mesquite, McKinney and Plano. These cities were selected for their similarity to Irving in location, population, service delivery, and city amenities. Benchmarking allows Irving to evaluate its performance relative to comparable cities and is used to help inform budget allocation and strategic planning decisions

Longitudinal Analysis

Longitudinal analysis involves studying the city’s Resident Survey data over time to track changes and consistencies, providing insights into trends, patterns, and the effects of interventions or policies (Appendix G). This report compares 2024 survey data to results from 2016 onward to capture recent and significant trends. Longitudinal comparisons with this year ’s data should be interpreted with caution as 2024 results include the open call sample and are weighted, while prior years were not. Therefore, statistically significant changes for year-to-year comparisons are those that are five or more percentage points above or below the comparative data.

Limitations/Constraints

Using surveys to understand the local population's needs and preferences has limitations, particularly related to ZIP code subgroups, participant responses, question structure, timing, technology, and survey fatigue. One constraint was the representation of various ZIP code subgroups compared to the overall generalization to the entire city population as some ZIP codes had a greater response rate than others. This response rate diﬀerence by ZIP code made the margin of error for generalization of the ﬁndings by each ZIP code less than 5%, but not as low as the city population which was less than 1.4%

Participant responses and self-selection also pose limitations. The survey relies on voluntary participation, which often attracts individuals with strong opinions or speciﬁc interests. This can lead to overrepresentation of certain viewpoints while underrepresenting others, particularly those of marginalized or less vocal subgroups.

Similarly, technological barriers for online surveys can exclude those without internet access or those who are not tech-savvy. This can lead to underrepresentation of certain populations, such as older adults or low-income groups, in the survey results.

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Sample descriptives and frequencies are provided for the weighted respondent characteristics (Appendix B). The largest group of respondents have lived in Irving for more than 20 years (35%) and the next largest have lived in Irving for 1-5 years (25%). More than 40% of respondents reported being employed within Irving city limits (43%), while 37% indicated they are employed outside the city limits

Years Lived in Irving

Slightly more females (49%) than males (47%) completed the survey. The largest ethnic/racial group of respondents are White (39%). The next largest groups of respondents are Asian (18%), Hispanic (18%), multi-racial (12%), and Black or African (8%). Additionally, most respondents are younger than 44 years old (55%) The following age groups represent approximately 10% of the sample each: 18-24, 25-29, 3034, 35-39, 40-44, and 45-49

Age Groups (Years)

More than two-thirds of respondents live in singlefamily homes (68%) and 63% of all respondents own and occupy their homes. One-third of respondents have a bachelor’s degree (33%) and more than onefourth of respondents have graduate degrees (28%). The majority of participants have no children age 18 or younger living at home (54%). Comparable groups of respondents indicated having one child (16%) and two children (16%) under age 18 living in their homes.

Number of Children Age 18 or Younger Living at Home

FINDINGS

General Characteristics

The ﬁrst section of the survey addresses key quality of life components that speak to the desirability to live, work, visit and raise children in Irving These items gauge perceptions regarding the city’s mission to “deliver exceptional services and promote a high quality of life for residents, visitors, and businesses.” Residents generally rate the quality of life highly in Irving, and yet these ratings tend to fall below the regional average benchmark averages as well as 2022 Irving resident survey levels. Approximately two-thirds reported Irving as an “Excellent” or “Good” place to live (66%) and work (66%). Just more than half of residents agreed that Irving was a “Good” or Excellent” place to raise children (56%), while slightly more than one-third of respondents highly rated Irving as a destination to visit (37%). Resident ratings for Irving as a place to work (66%) exceeded the regional average benchmark (61%). However, ratings for all other quality of life items fell below the regional average benchmarks, but above the regional low benchmark Respondents from the 75038, 75039, and 75063 generally rated more positively (Appendix D)

General Characteristics Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages.

General Characteristics Scores by Activity

City as a place to live

City as a place to work

City as a place to raise children

City as a destination to visit

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

City

Government Type

Residents rated their satisfaction with diﬀerent levels of government (state, local, and federal) These ratings are relatively consistent with 2022 Irving benchmarks, though slightly lower. Resident satisfaction (percentage of “Excellent”/”Good” responses) generally decreases for the quality of services as governing body size increases. Compared to 2022, there are similar ratings for the City of Irving and State of Texas. More than 60 percent of the respondents rated the City of Irving as “Excellent/Good” (62%), which is at least 20 percentage points higher than other government types. Residents from the 75038, 75039, and 75063 ZIP codes rated the City of Irving more positive.

Residents most highly rate the City of Irving (62%) with all other government types rated signiﬁcantly lower. The State of Texas (42%) received higher ratings than did Dallas County (38%). The City of Irving (62%) exceeded the regional low benchmark of 60%. Irving resident ratings for the US Government (32%) were similar to the regional average (33%). There are no benchmarks for the state/county governments.

Type Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Government Type Scores by Activity

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages. Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

City

Government

Development

Development items evaluate key features of Irving as a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Residents rated the variety of restaurants, retail shopping establishments, employment opportunities, and housing options. The majority of residents gave high ratings to the variety of dining or restaurant establishments (61%) and employment opportunities (56%). Less than half of the residents rated the housing options (43%) and retail/shopping establishments (40%) as “Excellent” or “Good”. The development ratings for the variety of employment opportunities and housing options exceed the thresholds for benchmarked regional averages but are below the regional high standards.

The variety of dining/restaurant and retail/shopping establishments are both below the established regional average benchmarks. Respondents who rated at least one characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions through open-ended comments The most common themes from the comments were the need for more retail and grocery stores (33.2%), the need for more dine-in restaurants (21.8%), the need to update or renovate Irving Mall (11.8%), and the need to increase aﬀordable housing and apartment options (10.6%) (Appendix H).

Development Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Development Scores by Activity

Variety of dining or restaurant establishments

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Safety

Public safety is an integral component to the quality of life for residents and plays a major role in the city ’s vision to be “…the model for safe and beautiful neighborhoods, a vibrant economy, and exceptional recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities.” Overall, residents are highly satisﬁed with public safety and more so than the regional benchmark averages. Generally, resident ratings improved or were consistent with 2022 ratings and residents from 75063 and 75038 had greater safety ratings than residents from other ZIP codes (Appendix E).

Safety Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Walking in your neighborhood during the day

Walking in your neighborhood in the evening

Visiting city parks during the day

Note. Combined "Very Safe"/"Safe" percentages

Visiting city parks in the evening

property crimes

violent crimes

fire, flood, or other natural disaster

Similar to 2022, Irving residents’ rating of walking in their neighborhood during the day received the highest safety rating with 94% feeling “Very Safe” or “Safe”, followed by visiting Irving parks during the day (93%), both of which were much greater than regional benchmark averages.

The majority of Irving residents also feel “Very Safe” or “Safe” from ﬁre, ﬂood, or other natural disaster (91%), violent crimes (78%) and property crimes (71%), with feelings of safety from property crimes improving by 8% since 2022. These categories all exceed regional benchmark averages. The lowest level of safety was reported when visiting Irving parks in the evenings (63%), leaving room for improvement. However, this item was rated greater than regional benchmark averages as well

Safety Scores by Activity

Walking in your neighborhood during the day

Visiting Irving parks during the day

From fire, flood, or other natural disaster

Walking in your neighborhood in the evening

From violent crimes (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)

From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)

Visiting Irving parks in the evening

Note. Combined "Very Safe"/"Safe" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Very Safe"/"Safe" percentage.

Police

The Police Department enhances public safety in the community by actively addressing crime and disorder, enforcing traffic laws, responding to calls for police services, and engaging the community by forming sustainable relationships. Residents value the police, as half to twothirds rate all dimensions of their service as “Good” or “Excellent”. The highest level of satisfaction among residents is for the Irving Police Department ’s response times (65%). Similar proportions of residents highly rate police traffic enforcement (59%), community engagement/educational programming (59%) and crime prevention (58%). Residents least highly rate the police visibility in retail areas (52%) and neighborhoods (51%). The combined ratings significantly exceed the regional average benchmark scores in each of these six components. Residents in 75060 and 75062 have lower levels of satisfaction with Police Department responses times than residents in 75061, 75063, 75038 and 75039 (Appendix D)

Police Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Police Scores by Activity

Satisfaction with Irving Police Department response times

Effort to enforce traffic

Quality of community engagement and educational programming provided by Irving Police Department

Effort to prevent crime

Visibility of police in retail areas

Visibility of police in neighborhoods

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages. Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Animal Services

The Animal Services division plays a crucial role in protecting the welfare of residents, wildlife, and pets. The majority of Irving residents appreciate and are satisﬁed with the quality of all measured components of Animal Services. Residents most highly rate the quality of service provided at the Animal Care Campus as nearly two-thirds rate the services as “Excellent” or “Good” (64%). These ratings exceed the regional average benchmark (45%) and are a signiﬁcant improvement over the 2022 Irving resident survey results (58%). Residents rated the quality of stray animal control (52%) just below the regional average threshold (53%), while the satisfaction with Animal Services priority calls response times (57%) exceeds the regional average threshold (55%).

The qualitative responses noted concern over the number of feral cats in the area. Residents complained about the smell and the potential for disease. They requested that city leadership ﬁnd a way to reduce the number of feral cats in the neighborhoods. The quality of service provided at the Animal Care Campus was rated highest at 64% excellent/good.

of stray animal control in your neighborhood

of service provided at the Animal Care Campus

with Animal Services response times to priority calls

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Satisfaction with Animal Services response times to priority calls

Quality of service provided at the Animal Care Campus

Quality of stray animal control in your neighborhood (cats, dogs, etc.)

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Quality

Satisfaction

Animal Services Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Animal Services Scores by Activity

Fire Services

The Fire Department provides vital emergency services to protect the health and livelihood of residents and resources. Irving residents highly value services provided by the Irving Fire Department. More than three-quarters of residents rate all aspects of ﬁre services as “Excellent” or “Good”. The city exceeds all regional averages and is close to reaching the levels required for high benchmark ratings. Residents most highly rate the quality of ﬁre services (89%) and the quality of Irving ambulance services (89%), both of which were improvements compared to the 2022 Irving resident survey results. Those in the 75039 and 75063 ZIP codes had lower ratings than the other ZIP codes (Appendix D).

Fire Services Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Quality of Irving fire services Fire Service Scores by Activity

Quality of Irving ambulance services

Quality of community engagement and educational programming provided by the Irving Fire Department Satisfaction with Irving Fire Department response times

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Library Services

The Irving Public Library provides access to information and educational programs to promote lifelong learning and the enjoyment of reading Residents rate library services highly, with combined “Excellent”/”Good” ratings increasing by 2-4 percentage points compared to the 2022 City of Irving results. Residents rated the quality of library services, variety of educational programming, and the availability of physical and digital materials. The majority of residents rated these aspects as “Excellent” or “Good”, with the quality of service receiving the highest rating (82%). Both the quality of library services and availability of library materials were rated above the regional average but below the high benchmark levels. Residents rated the variety of in-person and virtual educational programs the lowest (74%), but this was more than twice the regional high benchmark of 34%. Respondents who rated at least one characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions through open-ended comments. A common theme in the comments was residents requesting more children’s activities at the library (Appendix H)

Library Services Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Quality of service provided at the city libraries

Variety of in-person and virtual educational programs offered by the library

Availability and selection of physical and digital library books and materials

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Library Services Scores by Activity

Quality of service provided at the city libraries

Availability and selection of physical and digital library books and materials

Variety of in-person and virtual educational programs offered by the library

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Irving Arts & Culture

The Irving Arts and Culture department serves residents and attracts visitors through the support and development of artistic opportunities Residents rated the variety of Irving Arts Center programs and exhibits highly, with more than three-fourths rating them as “Excellent” or “Good” (76%). Two-thirds of residents rated the Department of Arts and Culture’s quality of services as “Excellent ” or ”Good” (67%), a slight decrease from 73% in 2022 but still above the regional average benchmark of 65%. Ratings for quality of service were similar across ZIP codes, with respondents living in 75063 giving the highest (70.3%) and 75060 the lowest (63.9%) (Appendix D).

Arts & Culture Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Quality of service provided by the Department of Arts and Culture

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Parks & Recreation

The Parks and Recreation department enhances quality of life by providing leisure opportunities that promote wellness, socialization, and entertainment. Residents rated the quality of parks and recreation elements similarly to regional benchmark averages and slightly lower than Irving ’s 2022 survey ratings. The majority of respondents rated all recreational components as “Excellent” or “Good”, with the highest ratings for maintenance and landscaping of city parks (71%) and the lowest for the quality of city pool and aquatic centers (53%).

Quality of service provided by the Department of Arts and Culture Variety of Irving Arts Center programs and exhibits

Arts & Culture Scores by Activity

Notably, the city pool and aquatic centers were the only category to exceed the regional high benchmark (47%). The quality of walking trails (65%), variety of programs available at recreation centers (61%), and variety of special event opportunities (68%) all exceeded regional averages. The maintenance and landscaping of city parks (71%) was just below the regional average of 75%, but well above the regional low benchmark (59%). Ratings for the quality of facilities at city parks (64%) fell below the regional low benchmark of 69%.

Respondents who rated at least one characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions through open-ended comments. Suggestions included upgrading Irving parks to be more aesthetically pleasing and to oﬀer more amenities (Appendix H).

Parks & Recreation Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Parks & Recreation Scores by Activity

Maintenance and landscaping of city parks

Variety of special event opportunities (e.g., Fourth of July, Music on Main, etc.)

Quality of walking trails throughout the city

Quality of facilities at city parks (pavilions, playgrounds, picnic tables)

Variety of programs available at recreation centers

Quality of facilities at city pool/aquatic centers

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Maintenance & Appearance

Signiﬁcant maintenance eﬀorts are required to uphold high standards in the upkeep and appearance of residential properties, business properties, sidewalks and major highways. Irving residents gave moderate ratings to the city ’s maintenance and appearance, with the majority selecting ratings below “Excellent” or “Good”. The categories with the highest percent of respondents rating as “Good” or “Excellent” were the maintenance and upkeep of residential properties (43%), business properties (48%), and sidewalks (36%), though all were below regional averages and Irving’s 2022 survey ratings New to 2024, litter removal received 47% “Good” or “Excellent” ratings on streets/sidewalks and 46% on major highways, both above regional benchmark averages. Litter removal on residential streets and sidewalks was rated more favorably by residents in 75039 compared to those in 75062 (Appendix D). Respondents who rated any characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions Bins were referenced 254 times in their comments (Appendix H)

Maintenance & Appearance Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Maintenance and upkeep of residential properties

and upkeep of business properties

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Maintenance and upkeep of business properties

Removal of litter on residential streets and sidewalks

Removal of litter on major highways

Maintenance and upkeep of residential properties

of sidewalks

and sidewalks

Maintenance & Appearance Scores by Activity

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Code Enforcement

The Code Enforcement department conducts outreach, education, and enforcement in both residential and commercial-zoned districts to improve the quality of life, neighborhood conditions, and overall visual appearance of the community. Most residents rate the city highly (“Excellent” or “Good”) for each of code enforcement’s assessed areas. Of the rated statements, residents rated the exterior appearance of single-family homes the highest (62%), followed by the regulation of signs in medians and walkways (60)%. The majority of residents were pleased with the regulation of parking in yards (55%), regulation of mowing/cutting weeds/grass on public property (55%), and the exterior appearance of commercial/retail buildings (51%). Approximately half of residents rated the exterior appearance of multi-family homes (49%) and the regulation of junk/debris (49%) as “Good” or “Excellent”.

Ratings for Code Enforcement dropped slightly compared to Irving’s 2022 survey ratings While all Code Enforcement ratings met or exceeded the regional averages, satisfaction with the exterior appearance of single-family homes, appearance of multi-family homes, and regulation of signs in medians/walkways all met or exceeded the regional high benchmarks.

Residents who rated poorly reported they feel as if code violation complaints are ignored by the city, and would like to see an increase of code violation enforcement (Appendix H).

Code Enforcement Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

of parking in yards

Regional Low Regional Average Regional High Irving 2022 Irving 2024

of signs in medians and walkways

Code Enforcement Scores by Activity

Exterior appearance of single-family homes

Regulation of signs in medians and walkways

Regulation of parking in yards

Regulation of mowing/cutting of weeds/grass on private property

Exterior appearance of commercial/retail buildings

Exterior appearance of multi-family homes

Regulation of junk/debris on private property

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Solid Waste Services

The Solid Waste Services department provides essential solutions to ensuring a clean and sustainable future for businesses, residents, and visitors. As the city does not directly provide these services to those in apartments, the results displayed below are presented for respondents who selected “Duplex”, “Single-family home”, or “Townhome” to describe where they live. At least 69% of residents rated brush and bulky waste pickup, residential trash collection, landﬁll services, curbside recycling, and hazardous waste disposal as “Good” or “Excellent ” . The majority of residents rated all solid waste services as “Excellent” or “Good”, but ratings for four of the six elements of solid waste services fell below the regional average benchmark levels. Notably, all six solid waste services items were more highly rated in 2024 than in 2022.

Solid Waste Services Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Solid Waste Services Scores by Activity

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Water Utilities

The Water Utilities department and the Municipal Drainage division are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, educating the community about water conservation and use, and managing the city’s stormwater drainage infrastructure. Irving residents generally rated Water Utilities positively (“Good”/”Excellent”), but their ratings often fall at or below regional averages and below Irving’s 2022 survey ratings. Residents most highly rate the reliability of their water service (78%) matching the regional high benchmark level. The quality of community engagement/educational programs related to water conservation (53%) and quality of stormwater drainage (57%) both fall below regional averages. Ratings for the reliability of water services were similar across ZIP codes. However, higher ratings for the quality of stormwater drainage came from the 75060 and 75063 ZIP codes (Appendix D).

Water Utilities Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Water Utilities Scores by Activity

Reliability of your water service

Quality of community engagement and educational programs related to water conservation

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages. Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Quality of stormwater drainage

Quality of community engagement and educational programs related to water conservation

Reliability of your water service

Quality of stormwater drainage

Traﬃc & Transportation

The Traffic and Transportation department maintains the city’s essential infrastructure to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services throughout the city. Ratings for Irving traffic and transportation are similar to the regional average benchmarks for most areas of assessment.

Roughly half of the traffic and transportation items received similar ratings to Irving’s 2022 survey, while the other half received slightly lower ratings. Residents most highly rated the condition of traffic signs and roadway striping (54%), the adequacy of placement/number of streetlights (52%), and the quality of traffic signal timing (51%). Respondents were least satisfied with the quality of street maintenance (28%), which fell significantly below the regional low benchmark of 50%. Residents rated the condition of major streets (excluding highways) at 42% “Good” or “Excellent”, higher than the 36% rating for minor streets.

Ratings for the City of Irving’s traﬃc and transportation have decreased or remained stable compared to 2022 results Respondents who rated any characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions. Residents reported concern about potholes in the streets and ongoing construction projects, which make them feel unsafe driving around town (Appendix H)

Traffic & Transportation Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Traffic & Transportation Scores by Activity

Condition of traffic signs and roadway striping

Adequacy of placement and number of streetlights

Quality of traffic signal timing

Quality of street sweeping

Quality of traffic management during rush hour

Condition of major streets (not including highways)

Condition of neighborhood and minor street

Quality of street maintenance (filling of potholes, etc.)

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Public Transportation

The goal of public transportation is to increase access to the commercial, residential, and recreational components of the city. Residents rated the quality of the various types of public transportation (DART’s rail and bus services, Trinity Railway Express services) as well as the overall ease of travel via public transportation.

The majority of residents reported no household members utilized DART/TRE public transport in the past 12 months (51%). Additionally, 38% to 42% of respondents had “No Opinion” when asked to rate the quality of DART, TRE, and public transportation overall. The presented ﬁndings exclude the percentage of those without an opinion. The subset of respondents using public transport and expressing their opinions on public transportation generally value the service, but the lack of utilization and opinions tell another important part of the story.

The majority of residents who had an opinion positively rated the quality of DART/TRE as “Excellent” or “Good”. Similarly, the majority of residents who indicated their opinion positively rated the quality of DART bus (51%), DART rail (58%), and Trinity Railway Express (66%) services as “Excellent” or “Good”. The quality of DART bus and Trinity Railway Express services are rated above regional averages, while DART rail services fall below the regional average of 64%. Less than half of residents rated the ease of travel by public transportation positively (46%), but this is still higher than the regional average (39%). Residents in the 75039 ZIP code rated the ease of travel by public transportation as “Excellent ” and “Good” at the highest percent (61%) when compared to other ZIP codes (Appendix D).

Public Transportation Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages.

Respondents who rated any characteristic as “Poor ” or “Very Poor ” were invited to provide suggestions through open-ended comments Suggestions included the need for additional routes in neighborhoods to encourage use of public transportation. More than 20% of respondents who provided a comment stated that nothing could be done to encourage use of public transportation (23%) Based on respondents who left comments, a higher percent from ZIP codes 75039 (25.8%), 75060 (19.3%), and 75061 (17.7%) felt that if the safety and security procedures of public transportation were improved, they would be more inclined to use the services.

Public Transportation Scores by Activity

Quality of Trinity Railway Express services in city

Quality of DART rail services in city

Quality of DART bus services in city

Ease of travel by public transportation in city

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Communication Tendencies

The city provides a wide variety of communication material published and shared through diverse channels aimed at different audiences. The Communications department prioritizes informing residents and capturing feedback about key initiatives, programs, services, and amenities provided by the city. Longitudinal comparisons are not presented, as previous iterations of the survey presented findings in terms of degree of usefulness, while the current findings indicate the percentage of residents utilizing each communication tendency. Appendix C displays the percentages in each of the frequency of use categories.

The city’s website continues to be the most prevalent communication tool for the city, with 90% of residents reporting use. The City of Irving cable channels are the next most utilized media channel, as 72% report watching or accessing their content. The majority of residents also reported streaming City Council or other public meetings online (63%), engaging with city website listservs (63%), and reading the “City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News” weekly email newsletters (56%). At least 25% of residents report using each of the communication media, with the lowest usage reported for and the “City Briefs” utility bill insert (39%) and City of Irving video content (25%). Usage rates for city ’s social media, City Spectrum, and weekly email newsletters all remain above the high regional benchmark levels. There was a signiﬁcant increase in use of city cable channels compared to 2022 and the website usage remained nearly identical to the previous review. City video content, city weekly email newsletters, City Spectrum (monthly print newsletter), and the “City Briefs” (utility bill insert) are the only communication tendencies below the high regional benchmark levels. All other communication tendencies exceed regional high standards.

Note. Combined "Daily”, “Weekly”, “Monthly”, “A Few Times Per Year”, “Yearly" percentages

City of Irving website

City of Irving cable channels

Streaming City Council or other public meetings online

City website listservs

“City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News”

City of Irving social media

City Spectrum (Monthly print newspaper)

“City Briefs” (Utility bill Insert)

City of Irving video content

Communication Tendencies Utilization

Utilized Never Utilized

Note. Utilized is the combined "Daily”, “Weekly ” , “Monthly ” , “A Few Times Per Year”, “ Yearly" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Utilized" percentage.

Information Sharing & Transparency

The city facilitates ongoing communication through numerous forums and avenues with the goal to inform, listen, and respond to residents. The exchange of information, news, and feedback is an essential mechanism to maintaining healthy communities. Residents rated the city in regard to sharing information and being transparent in several areas. Presented results combine “Excellent” and “Good” ratings to compare to regional benchmarks and the city’s previous surveys.

Resident ratings for opportunities to oﬀer feedback has decreased, starting in 2020 (64%), dropping in 2022 (56%), and continuing to decline in 2024 (49%). Current results place the city in line with regional averages for most of the information sharing and transparency comparisons. The City of Irving was similar to or exceeded the regional average benchmarks for being open and transparent to residents, informing residents about city issues/news, providing a variety of news and information topics to residents and creating opportunities to oﬀer feedback.

Information Sharing & Transparency Regional Benchmark & Year Comparisons

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages

Providing a variety of news and information topics to residents

Providing residents opportunities to offer feedback

Using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information

Residents most highly rated the city for using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information (61%). This signiﬁcantly exceeds the regional high benchmark of 45%. The city received the lowest marks for being responsive to resident questions or concerns (46%), which was signiﬁcantly lower than the regional average of 66%. Regardless, approximately half of all residents or more rated the city “Excellent” or “Good” for all transparency and information sharing items.

Information Sharing & Transparency Scores by Activity

Using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information

Providing a variety of news and information topics to residents

Informing residents about issues and news related to city

Providing residents opportunities to offer feedback

Being open and transparent to the residents

Being responsive to resident questions or concerns

Note. Combined "Excellent"/"Good" percentages Items ranked from highest to lowest "Excellent"/"Good" percentage.

Engagement

The City of Irving oﬀers a wide variety of amenities and services to residents and visitors. Respondents reported how frequently they engaged with or utilized speciﬁc city services, facilities, and amenities Results were initially analyzed according to the frequencies of daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly visits. Displayed results indicate the percentage of those using each particular amenity or service regardless of whether use was daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.

Diﬀerent services and amenities are designed to be used with varying frequencies by residents. Results reveal that annual use increased in 2024 compared to 2022 Irving utilization for all engagement activities with data from both years. Reported percentages indicate the increase in percentage from 2022 rates. There was higher use of Irving recreation centers (17%), pool/aquatic centers (16%), dog parks (12%), Irving Arts Center (8%), public libraries (7%), Toyota Music Factory (6%), trail system (6%), and Irving parks (4%). Additionally, Irving residents’ rates of engagement for all services signiﬁcantly exceed the regional averages and highs. Irving community engagement is more than double the regional benchmarks for attending local meetings, utilizing 911 emergency services, visiting recreation/aquatic facilities, and visiting a dog park.

Nearly all respondents report that they have visited an Irving park in the past year (90%) Additionally, 75% visited an Irving public library, 73% visited the Toyota Music Factory, and 71% visited the Heritage/Downtown district The majority of respondents also visited an Irving recreation center (65%), utilized the Irving trail system (61%), the Irving Arts Center (56%), an Irving pool/aquatic center (50%), or attended an event at the Irving Convention Center (50%) in the past year Less than 40% of respondents visited an Irving museum (36%), visited an Irving dog park (37%), attended a local public meeting in person (37%), or utilized 911 emergency services in Irving (39%).

Note. Combined "Daily”, “Weekly”, “Monthly”, “Annually" percentages

Engagement Utilization

Attended a local public meeting in person

Attended an event at the Irving Convention Center

Utilized 911 emergency services in Irving

Utilized DART or TRE public transport in Irving

Utilized the Irving trail system

Visited an Irving dog park

Visited an Irving museum

Visited an Irving park

Visited an Irving pool/aquatic center

Visited an Irving public library

Visited an Irving recreation center

Visited the Heritage/ Downtown district

Visited the Irving Arts Center

Visited the Irving landfill

Visited the Toyota Music Factory

Note. Combined "Daily”, “Weekly”, “Monthly”, “Annually" percentages Items

"Utilized" percentage.

Resident Priority Areas

Respondents were asked to rate the top five service areas that need the most emphasis from city leadership over the next two years Residents identified the top five priorities as street/sidewalk maintenance, homelessness, economic development, housing, and code enforcement (noted by at least 20% of the respondents). Street and sidewalk maintenance were combined due to their similar context. Newer residents are not as concerned about street and sidewalk maintenance. A lesser proportion of residents living less than a year in Irving selected sidewalk or street maintenance as a priority (38%) compared to residents living in Irving for more than one year. At least 43% of respondents from all other ranges of years in Irving greater than one year selected street or sidewalk maintenance as a priority.

After ranking their priority areas, respondents were asked to describe how the city can improve in their ranked areas as an open-ended response. Themes derived from the responses (Appendix I) include improving and repairing city infrastructure, such as sidewalks, streets, and buildings (20.4%); increasing social services and community resources, such as domestic violence and homeless shelters (13.6%); supporting economic development efforts, such as helping local businesses stay afloat (7.9%); providing residential trash and recycling bins instead of placing trash out in bags on the street (7.7%); and addressing the need for affordable housing and increasing housing upkeep, particularly for abandoned homes (7.4%)

Service Areas Requiring Emphasis from City Leadership

Street/Sidewalk Maintenance

Economic Development Homelessness

Code Enforcement Housing

Parks and Recreation

Planning and Zoning

Residential Trash Collection

City Communications

Arts and Culture

Wastewater/Sewer Services

Note. Percentage of respondents who selected the area as a top ﬁve priority Items ranked from highest to lowest percentage.

ABOUT US

City of Irving

The City of Irving, Texas, is conveniently located in the heart of Central Texas, within the Central Time Zone, and just minutes away from the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport - the country’s fourth busiest airport.

The Innovation and Performance Office is dedicated to improving government efficiency and effectiveness through well thought out, collaborative approaches based on best practices and national standards that promote a higher level of service and enhance overall quality of life.

Email. lhale@cityoﬁrving.org Website. www.cityoﬁrving.org

Address: 825 W. Irving Blvd. Irving, Texas 75060

Elite Research

Elite Research, LLC is an Irving, Texas based market research, process optimization, evaluation, and statistical consulting ﬁrm. They are certiﬁed as a WBENC Women Business Enterprise (WBE), a Historically Underutilized Business (HUB), and an SBA Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

As a global provider of research and statistical consulting they provide expert support to academic researchers, government entities, nonprofits, researchers in the private sector and corporations in all facets of the research process, including the sampling, design, collection, analysis, reporting, implementation, and optimization of findings. Over thirty consultants and staff provide expertise in research design, programming, analysis, data management, survey development, sampling methodologies, web-based surveys, data collection plans, technical writing, and statistical analysis.

Phone. (972) 538 - 1374

Email. info@eliteresearch.com Website. www.eliteresearch.com

Address. 9901 Valley Ranch Pkwy. E., Ste. 2035, Irving, TX 75063

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

1. What is your ZIP code?*

 75060

 75061

 75062

 75063

 75038

 75039

 75019

Other ____________

6. Please rate the following:

2. Are you a.... (check all that apply)  Resident  City Employee  Visitor

 Business Owner

3. How long have you lived in Irving?*

 Less than 1 year

 1-5 years

 6-10 years

 11-20 years

 More than 20 years

4. Which best describes where you live?*

 Apartment  Duplex  Single-family home  Townhome

5. Do you rent or own your home?*

 Own (Owner Occupied)  Own (Renter Occupied)  Rent

Irving as a place to live

Irving as a place to raise children

Irving as a destination to visit

Irving as a place to work

7. Please rate each of the following development characteristics as they relate to Irving:

of housing options

8. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

9. Please rate the following aspects of community services in Irving:

Maintenance and landscaping of city parks

Quality of facilities at city parks (pavilions, playgrounds, picnic tables)

Quality of facilities at city pool/aquatic centers

Quality of walking trails throughout the city

Variety of programs available at recreation centers

Variety of special event opportunities (e.g., Fourth of July, Movies/Music on Main, etc.)

Quality of service provided at the Irving libraries

Variety of in-person and virtual educational programs oﬀered by the library

Availability and selection of physical and digital library books and materials

Quality of service provided by the Department of Arts and Culture

Variety of Irving Arts Center programs and exhibits

10. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

For the following items, please rate the items using the scale below, Daily to Never.

11. How frequently do you utilize each of the following sources to receive information about the City of Irving?

City of Irving website

City website listservs (email subscriptions, i.e. Public Meeting Notices, Road Construction Updates, Special Events, etc.)

City of Irving social media (@TheCityofIrving on Instagram, X, Nextdoor, Facebook, and LinkedIn)

City of Irving video content (@TheCityofIrving on YouTube, videos posted on social media and the website)

City of Irving cable channels

City Spectrum (Monthly print newspaper)

“City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News” (Weekly email newsletters)

“City Briefs” (Utility bill Insert)

Streaming City Council or other public meetings online

12. If not listed above, are there other ways or platforms through which you would prefer to receive information about the City of Irving?

For the following items, please rate the items using the scale below, Excellent to Very Poor.

13. Please rate how well the city does at the following:

Being open and transparent to the residents

Being responsive to resident questions or concerns

Informing residents about issues and news related to Irving

Providing a variety of news and information topics to residents

Providing residents opportunities to oﬀer feedback

Using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information related to Irving

14. If rated poor or very poor, what aspects of resident engagement would you like to see from the city?

15. Please rate the below aspects of the maintenance and appearance of Irving:

Maintenance and upkeep of residential properties

Maintenance and upkeep of business properties

Maintenance of sidewalks

Removal of litter on residential streets and sidewalks

Removal of litter on major highways (ex: 183, PGBT/161, 114, Loop 12)

16. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

17. Please rate the below aspects of ﬁre services in Irving:

Quality of Irving ﬁre services

Quality of Irving ambulance services

Quality of community engagement and educational programming provided by the Irving Fire Department

Satisfaction with Irving Fire Department response times

18. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

19. Please rate the below aspects of police services in Irving:

to prevent crime

Eﬀort to enforce traﬃc

Visibility of police in neighborhoods

Visibility of police in retail areas

Quality of community engagement and educational programming provided by the Irving Police Department

Satisfaction with Irving Police Department response times

20. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

For the following items, please rate the items using the scale below, Very safe to Very unsafe.

21. Please rate how safe you feel:

Walking in your neighborhood during the day

Walking in your neighborhood in the evening

Visiting Irving parks during the day

Visiting Irving parks in the evening

From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)

From violent crimes (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)

From ﬁre, ﬂood, or other natural disaster

22. If rated unsafe or very unsafe, please describe your rating to assist the city in improving services:

For the following items, please rate the items using the scale below, Excellent to Very Poor.

23. Please rate the below aspects of animal services in Irving:

Quality of stray animal control in your neighborhood (cats, dogs, etc.)

Quality of service provided at the Animal Care Campus

Satisfaction with Animal Services response times to priority calls (aggressive dog, animal bite, etc.)

24. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

25. Please rate the quality of the following aspects of solid waste services:

Brush and bulky waste pickup

Household hazardous waste disposal

Residential trash collection

Residential curbside recycling

Services provided at the landﬁll

Educational programming related to recycling

26. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area

27. Please rate the following aspects of water utility services in the following areas:

Quality of stormwater drainage

Quality of community engagement and educational programs related to water conservation

Reliability of your water service

28. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

29. Please rate the following aspects of traﬃc and transportation services in the following areas:

Condition of major streets (not including highways)

Condition of neighborhood and minor street

Condition of traﬃc signs and roadway striping

Quality of street maintenance (ﬁlling of potholes, smoothing bumps, etc.)

Quality of street sweeping

Quality of traﬃc signal timing

Quality of traﬃc management during rush hour

Adequacy of placement and number of streetlights

30. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

31. Please rate the following aspects of public transportation services in the following areas:

Ease of travel by public transportation in Irving

Quality of DART rail services in Irving

Quality of DART bus services in Irving

Quality of Trinity Railway Express services in Irving

32. If rated poor or very poor, please provide an example how the city can improve in this area:

33. What could the City of Irving implement that would encourage you to utilize public transportation more often?

34. Please rate the quality of the following items related to YOUR speciﬁc neighborhood in Irving. For this survey, your neighborhood represents the 1 mile surrounding your home in any direction:

Exterior appearance of single-family homes

Exterior appearance of multi-family homes (apartments, condominiums, etc.)

Exterior appearance of commercial/retail buildings

Regulation of junk/debris on private property

Regulation of mowing/cutting of weeds/grass on private property

Regulation of parking in yards

Regulation of signs in medians and walkways (e.g., garage/estate sale signs)

35. If rated poor or very poor, please describe how the City can better improve services in these areas:

36. Selecting from the items below, please rank the ﬁve services areas that need the most emphasis from city leadership over the next two years:

Animal Services

Arts and Culture

Code Enforcement

City Communications

Economic Development

Fire Services

Homelessness

Housing

Library Services

Litter Control

Parks and Recreation

Planning and Zoning

Police Services

Recycling

Residential Trash Collection

Sidewalk Maintenance

Street Lighting

Street Maintenance (potholes, condition of pavement)

Storm Drainage

Traﬃc Signals

Water Utility Services

Wastewater/Sewer Services

37. Please describe how we can improve the services you identiﬁed as your priority areas above:

38. How frequently has anyone in your household done one of the following in the past 12 months?

Attended a local public meeting in person

Attended an event at the Irving Convention Center

Utilized 911 emergency services in Irving

Utilized the Irving trail system

Utilized DART or TRE public transport in Irving

Visited an Irving dog park

Visited an Irving park

Visited an Irving recreation center

Visited an Irving pool/aquatic center

Visited an Irving public library

Visited the Irving Arts Center

Visited an Irving museum

Visited the Irving landﬁll

Visited the Heritage/Downtown district

Visited the Toyota Music Factory

39. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided by each of the following:

City of Irving

US Government

State of Texas

Dallas County Government

The following questions are included to help ensure that the survey respondents are a representative sample of Irving residents.

40. Are you:

 Male

 Female

 Non-Binary

 Prefer to self-describe: ____________________

41. What is your age?

42. How many children age 18 or younger live at your home? _________

43. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? (Please select all that apply)

American Indian or Alaska Native – For example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Nome Eskimo Community

Asian – For example, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

Black or African – For example, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somalian

Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin – For example, Mexican or Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Columbian, Honduran, Salvadoran

Middle Eastern or North African – For example, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan

Native Hawaiian or Other Paciﬁc Islander – For example, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese

White – For example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French

Some other race, ethnicity, or origin, please specify: ___________________________________________________

44. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? +

 Some High School

 High School or GED

 Some College

 Bachelor's Degree

 Graduate Degree

 Trade School

45. If you are currently employed, do you work within the city limits of Irving?

 Yes

 No

 Not Employed

46. If you received a postcard invitation in the mail, please enter your Invitation Code so that your input can be included in the survey results. ___________________

47. Are you interested in a focus group? If you would be willing to participate in a focus group sponsored by the City of Irving to discuss some of the issues addressed in this survey, please provide your contact information.

Name: _____________________________________________

Phone: _____________________________________________

Email: ______________________________________________

Thank you for completing Irving’s 2024 Resident Survey! Your feedback will be used to continuously improve the quality of services we provide to all residents.

Appendix B: Respondent Characteristics

Weighted and unweighted frequencies and percentages of demographic characteristics of respondents. N = number of respondents, % = percentage of respondents

* The ten respondents from ZIP code 75019 are included in ZIP code 75063.

Home Owner Status

Age Group

A ppendix C: Results Frequency

Tables show weighted results (invited sample plus open call) N = number of respondents, % =

respondents.

Informing residents about issues and news related to Irving

Providing a variety of news and information topics to residents

Using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information related to Irving

of litter on major highways (ex: 183, PGBT/161, 114, Loop 12)

with Irving Police Department response

of stray animal control in your neighborhood (cats, dogs, etc.)

of service provided at the Animal Care Campus

with Animal Services response times to priority calls (aggressive dog, animal bite, etc.)

Streaming City Council or other public meetings online

City website listservs (email subscriptions, i.e. Road

Construction Updates, Public Meeting Notices, etc.)

City of Irving social media (@TheCityofIrving on Instagram, X, Nextdoor, Facebook, and LinkedIn)

City of Irving video content (@TheCityofIrving on YouTube, videos on social media and the website)

City of Irving cable channels

City Spectrum (Monthly print newspaper)

“City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News” (Weekly email newsletters)

“City Briefs” (Utility bill Insert)

A ppendix D: Select Results By ZIP Code

Shown as a percent of positive responses (Excellent/Good, Very Safe/Safe, Use) The ten respondents from ZIP code 75019 are included in ZIP code 75063 Tables show weighted results (invited sample plus open call) N = number of respondents, % = percentage of respondents.

of in-person and virtual educational programs offered by the library

Availability and selection of physical and digital library books and materials

Quality of service provided by the Department of Arts and Culture

Informing residents about issues and news related to Irving

Using multiple tools and formats for residents to receive news and information related to Irving

listservs (email subscriptions, i.e. Public Meeting Notices, Road Construction Updates, etc.)

City of Irving social media (@TheCityofIrving on Instagram, X, Nextdoor, Facebook, and LinkedIn)

City of Irving video content (@TheCityofIrving on YouTube, videos posted on social media and the website)

Spectrum (Monthly print newspaper)

“City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News” (Weekly email newsletters)

“City Briefs” (Utility bill Insert)

Appendix E: Sample Type

Shown as a percent of positive responses (Excellent/Good, Very Safe/Safe) Tables show weighted results N = number of respondents (invited + open call), % No Opinion = the percent of the number of respondents (N) who selected “No Opinion” on each item.

(e.g., Fourth of

City Council or other public meetings online

City website listservs (email subscriptions, i.e. Public Meeting Notices, Road Construction Updates, Special Events, etc.)

City of Irving social media (@TheCityofIrving on Instagram, Nextdoor, Facebook, etc.)

City of Irving video content (@TheCityofIrving on YouTube, videos posted on social media and the website)

of Irving cable channels

Spectrum (Monthly print newspaper)

“City Spectrum Digital” and “Neighborhood News” (Weekly email newsletters)

“City Briefs” (Utility bill Insert)

Scale: Utilized

A ppendix F: Regional Comparisons

Select results from six comparable regional cities (Arlington, Dallas, Denton, Mesquite, McKinney, Plano) where similar questions were available. Values shown as a percent of positive responses (Excellent/Good, Very Safe/Safe, Use). COI 2024 are weighted results (invited sample plus open call). Low is the lowest value reported from the six regional comparison cities High is the highest value reported Average is the average percentage of the regional comparison cities that had a reported value.

Appendix G: Select Results by Year

Results presented in the following tables reflect comparable survey questions from 2016 to 2024. Values are shown as a percent of positive response ratings of Excellent/Good, Very Safe/Safe, and Use 2024 are weighted results (invited sample and open call). Longitudinal comparisons should be interpreted with caution, as 2024 results include open call sample and are weighted, while prior years utilized only a random sample and did not weight the results to align with population demographics. In the table below, the highest year column is the difference between 2024 and the highest percentage from the prior years (2016 – 2022). Likewise, the lowest year column is the difference between 2024 and the lowest percentage from the prior years (2016 – 2022). Negative values indicate that that the current year (2024) decreased from the highest or lowest year, respectively. Positive values indicate that that the current year (2024) increased from the highest or lowest year, respectively. Zero percent (0%) indicate that 2024 was the highest or lowest year.

Appendix H: Qualitative Results

To analyze the qualitative results, Elite Research read through each comment and coded the responses into categories according to themes present in the individual’s answer. A single comment could be coded into multiple categories depending on how many themes are present. For example, a respondent might note the need to repair city infrastructure while also noting the need to reduce public disturbances. The following sections presents themes with resident and council priority areas and include samples of direct data for each question. The city’s Innovation and Performance Oﬃce can provide thematic analysis for the other areas of the report upon request. It is important to note that each percent represents the percentage of respondents who answered the qualitative question rather than the percentage of total survey respondents.

Development

Total Sample. In Question 7 of the survey, participants were asked to rate four specific development characteristics as they relate to Irving on a scale of Excellent to No Opinion. The four characteristics were the variety of dining or restaurant establishments, variety of retail or shopping establishments, variety of employment opportunities, and variety of housing options. Question 8 asked them to provide an example of how the city can improve if the participant rated one of the characteristics as “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ”. The most common themes that emerged were the need for more retail and grocery stores (33.2%), the need for more dine-in restaurants (21.8%), the need to update or renovate Irving Mall (11.8%), and the need to increase affordable housing and apartment options (10.6%). Responses also called leaders to make decisions or ask questions targeted for the needs of North Irving or South Irving, as the needs for either are vastly different (2.7%).

Invited Sample and City Open Call. The individuals invited to participate in the survey shared the same major categories as the open call for responses from the city, but the invited sample considered updating the Irving Mall (12.4%) to be a higher priority than increasing aﬀordable housing and apartment options (7.6%), while the open call responses suggested that increasing aﬀordable housing (12.3%) should be a higher priority than updating the mall (11.4%).

ZIP Codes. Although the major categories present in the responses across the ZIP codes remained the same, there were a few differences in priority levels. While the responses from the other ZIP codes were more equally distributed across the top categories, most responses from 75060 were fixated on additional retail and grocery stores (34.6%) and more dine-in restaurants (30.6%). The responses from 75062 indicated that updating the Irving Mall (17.8%) was a higher priority for the area than adding more dine-in restaurants (15.2%). The responses from 75063 indicated that increasing affordable housing and apartment options (9.5%) was a higher priority for the area than updating the Irving Mall (6.1%).

The following quotes are directly from the data and are representative of what the respondents considered “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ”.

 While Irving boast several restaurants, the quality of those restaurants are lower compared to compare towns (Dallas, Plano, Frisco). Most restaurants are chain-restaurants. High quality and healthy options are far lower. Also missing out of several stores that are in high demand in upscale or sought after neighborhoods like Central Market, Trader Joe's and similar.

 Irving has become more of a “dead city” with businesses constantly shutting down and then small businesses being put in place that continue the cycle. Employment is mostly just business, mechanics, machinery, etc. and most travel out of Irving into the Dallas area for work which is a commute. Along with this I don’t see money going into or towards making the community better or visually better. I feel like Irving is slowly fading instead of being a city with vibrancy that attracts people to the area

 Years ago The Irving Mall was quite good; now it's a disgrace. And Kohl's is average. We have to go into Dallas for any kind of decent shopping for clothing, shoes, etc.

 Irving Mall is the primary retail shopping center near 183. It is outdated and the retail stores and dining is limited. The Shops at Legacy is a good example of what Irving needs. The retail and dining experience there is awesome. The TMF in Las Colinas has un-maximized potential but it's better than what West and South Irving has currently.

 Housing in Irving is just very expensive, even for lower-end apartments. We need more aﬀordable housing options (and homeless shelters).

 You need to ask questions that relate to which side of irving you live on. Living on the Southside doesn't have the same types of places as the northern side. While I do love the Southside of Irving there are far less options than on the north side of irving.

 South Irving seems to be forgotten. I've noticed many business and restaurants have moved to North Irving which i understand... people want to spend where it looks nice and where they are comfortable shopping/dining. Why not ﬁx South Irving up? Have it cleaned up. Have people WANT to care about their city. Lots of apartments around to accommodate the many people in Irving but also comes more trash on the streets, junk cars, liquor stores, washaterias... just overall not happy with our "look".

Maintenance & Appearance

Total Sample. In question 15, individuals were asked to rate various aspects of the maintenance and appearance of Irving, including the maintenance and upkeep of residential properties, maintenance and upkeep of business properties, maintenance of sidewalks, removal of litter on residential streets and sidewalks, and removal of litter on major highways. Question 16 asked them to provide an example if they rated a particular area as “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ”. Most responses (27.1%) reﬂected the need to repair or upgrade city infrastructures, such as roads, sidewalks, buildings, or playgrounds. Twenty-three percent (23.2%) of responses asked the city to improve and increase the cleaning process, such as increasing trash pick-up frequency. Almost twelve percent (11.6%) of responses called for the city to consistently issue and enforce code violations as they do not feel like their complaints are being properly handled. Eight percent (8.1%) responses stated that yards needed to be cleaned and maintained, including making sure residents mow their yard or the city mows the yard for abandoned homes. Five percent (5.2%) of responses asked that the city increase and improve parking options, as there are often too many cars parked on the street which causes safety concerns for other drivers and pedestrians.

Invited Sample and City Open Call. There were no major diﬀerences in the text responses invited sample versus the city open call.

ZIP Codes. Based on their responses, the top priorities for 75060 and 75062 were the same as the total sample. For the remaining ZIP codes, Increase and Improve Parking Options was not in their top ﬁve categories. For 75061, the responses demonstrated a higher concern for the upkeep of local businesses (6%) than increasing parking options (5.5%). Responses in 75063 showed very little concern for the parking options (0.3%), but focused more on improving maintenance crew standards and frequency (4.9%). Responses in 75039 were similar with parking options having a frequency of 1.1% and maintenance crew standards having a frequency rating of 10.1%. In 75038, providing shelter for the homeless population (4.5%) stood out higher than the parking options (3.5%).

The following quotes are directly from the data and are representative of what the respondents considered “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ” .

 Better attention to potholes and irregularities in sidewalks. More streetlights on major streets. McArthur and Northgate intersection.

 Too many homes, apartments, and business properties are deteriorating. It is safer to walk in the streets than many sidewalks.

 Cleaning the city needs much needed attention. Too much trash, mowing that needs to be done and the residents should not be allowed to have trashy front yards, cars all on the yard.

 Code compliance needs to do better. People are always breaking the rules regarding trash and bulky items. Not fun to see a toilet sit on a curb for a few days.

 As more and more single-family homes become rental properties, the yards in residential neighborhoods are not maintained. Tall weeds, leaves never raked, vehicles filling driveways. on the streets and even on the yards. Homes where there are two car garages are either using the garage as a bedroom or have filled it with so many things that cars are always outside and some homes in our neighborhood have as many as six vehicles parked every evening in the driveway, in the street and even on the weeds. Walking our streets is such a mixed look. Passing one house you see a groomed yard with flowers blooming in groomed flower beds. Then next door is a house with weeds or clover standing 12 - 18 inches high or the yard buried at least partially by the leaves from weeks or months ago. Sidewalks are often blocked by trucks or work trailers or cars that sit unmoved for days.

 Houses and yards in neighborhoods littered with trash and too many cars (several obviously not working) parked in the streets. Visibility for drivers and pedestrians blocked by huge residential vehicles. Improve city code to address how many vehicles can be registered at an address.

Code Enforcement

Total Sample. Question 34 of the survey asked respondents to rate diﬀerent aspects of code enforcement in their speciﬁc neighborhood, such as the exterior appearance of single-family homes, multi-family homes, and commercial/retail buildings, and the regulation of junk/debris, mowing/cutting grass, parking in yards, and signs in medians and walkways. Question 35 then asked individuals who rated at least one characteristic as “Poor” or “Very Poor” to describe how the city can better improve services through an open-ended comment. The top priority for respondents who provided comments was addressing the number of cars or trailers parked in the yard or street, with 19% voicing their concerns. Almost fourteen percent (13.9%) would like to see more enforcement overall, and twelve percent (12.0%) said that there needs to be a focus on the appearance or maintenance of front or back yards. Around ten percent (10.1%) reported issues with grass or weeds being overgrown, and over six percent (6.6%) voiced their concern with the exterior appearance of single-family homes.

Total Sample Invited Sample

Invited Sample and City Open Call. The invited sample and the city open call had the same number one priority as the total sample, which is addressing the number of cars or trailers parked in the yard or street. The invited sample had all the same top five priorities as the total sample but prioritized them differently, with the appearance or maintenance of front or back yards being their second priority, followed by issues with grass or weeds, then more overall enforcement, and finally the exterior appearance of single-family homes. The city open call had the same top four priorities as the total sample but their top fifth concern was with the exterior appearance or condition of multi-family homes (6.3%), as opposed to single-family homes (6.1%).

ZIP Codes. The responses from ZIP codes 75060 and 75062 had the same top ﬁve priorities as the total sample. The responses from 75061 had the same top four priorities but prioritized the exterior appearance or condition of multifamily homes (7.1%) over single-family homes (6.6%). The appearance or maintenance of front or back yards was the top priority for ZIP codes 75063 (14.9%) and 75038 (15.9%), and 75039 had both more enforcement overall and the exterior appearance or condition of multifamily homes as their top priorities (19.0% each).

Number

Traﬃc & Transportation

Total Sample. Question 29 of the survey asked for individuals to rate aspects of traffic and transportation services, such as the condition of streets, quality of street maintenance, and adequacy of placement of streetlights. Question 30 asked individuals to provide an example of how the city can improve any area they rated as “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ”. Over 50 percent (51.6%) of responses called for the city to repair street pavement and potholes. Thirteen percent (12.9%) suggested to add more street lighting, as well as to fix the current street lighting that already exists. For 12.4% of responses, they noted a need to improve traffic light timing because they often experienced inconsistent or delayed traffic light changes. Five percent (5.4%) stated that the city needed to increase and improve street sweeping procedures, because they feel as though they never see street sweepers nor does it seem like there is any, as they still notice trash along the street. Around 3 percent (3.2%) of responses suggested the need for increased traffic management, particularly during rush hour

Invited Sample and City Open Call. The city open call had the same top priorities as the total sample, whereas the invited sample did not have Increase Traffic Management (2.3%) as their fifth priority. Instead, their fifth top concern was Manage and Time Construction Projects Efficiently (3.8%).

ZIP Codes. While the responses from 75060 and 75062 reflected the same top priorities as the total sample, the remaining ZIP codes varied on their priorities. Responses from 75061 showed that they considered improving the traffic light timing (15%) a higher priority than improving street lighting (13.4%). Their responses also indicated that they consider that there is too much construction happening concurrently (3.2%) as one of their top priorities, which was a different priority than the other ZIP codes. Responses from 75063 indicated that they consider the efficient management and timing of construction projects (4.8%) a higher priority than increasing traffic management (3.5%). For ZIP codes 75038 and 75039, responses indicated that both considered improving traffic light timing (16.3% and 17.4%) as a higher priority than improving street lighting (6.4% and 5.2%). 75038 responses also showed a higher priority for improving signage by making it bigger or brighter (4.3%). 75039 responses also showed a higher concern over the management and timing of construction projects (4.3%) than over increasing traffic management (2.6%).

The following quotes are directly from the data and are representative of what the respondents considered “Poor ” or “ Very Poor ” .

 Many of our streets are not level. They are up and down hills. Esters is very bad. MacArthur is very bad. Las Colinas Blvd is very bad. These are just a few examples of the horrible condition of our streets in Irving Las Colinas.

 Wow, where to begin.... The condition of the streets in Irving are the number 1 complaint I hear and have heard since 2010 when I moved here. As far as traffic management during rush hour, non existent. The traffic signal timing is way too long in most cases. And the "flashing yellow left turn arrow" is the worst, it needs to go away and go back to Red Arrow for Stop and Green Arrow for Go. People get that, with the yellow flashing it just causes problems because most folks don't get what to do.

 What streetlights? Don’t seem to be many in side streets, only on main roads.

 We have street lights but they are never on when dark and it is hard to see the roads without putting on your bright headlights blinding other drivers on other side of road. The lights worked years ago but today seems there are no street lights on or not bright enough to see

 You keep tearing up all these streets before you've ﬁnished with the one you've already torn up. I can hardly get home anymore. The intersection at Macarthur and Northgate is 'ﬁnished' but somehow still terrible - potholes everywhere. The green light on the east bound side of Union Bower and Loop 12 (next to the Jack in the Box) is way too short. If you hit that right as it turns red, it's about 4-5 minutes before it turns green again and only a few cars can get through.

 Streets need improvements. Never see a street sweeping crew

 Street sweeping does not seem to happen on a consistent basis on residential streets outside of Las Colinas. Street lights seem to be inadequate especially for the number of people wandering around after dark who, I hope, would be less likely to commit crimes if better lighting was more available to reveal their actions.

Public Transportation

Total Sample. In Question 33, individuals were asked to identify what the City of Irving could implement to encourage them to utilize public transportation more often. Most responses (23.2%) stated that there is nothing COI could do to encourage them to use public transportation; they would not use it regardless due to needing to have a car for work or not feeling comfortable with public transportation in general. Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) of responses stated that the city could improve the safety and security procedures for public transportation, as they currently felt unsafe utilizing the services. Fifteen percent (15.2%) suggested that the city could expand the service area to encourage them to use the service more, such as adding more routes in neighborhoods or oﬀering more locations as destinations. Six percent (6%) stated that they would be more inclined to use the services if it was easier to access the transit stops, such as making it wheelchair accessible. Another nearly six percent (5.8%) suggested that the city could improve how they distribute information and the material on their website or apps to make it clear what public transportation services are available.

Invited Sample and City Open Call. While the top categories from the invited sample responses reﬂected that of the total sample, the city open call responses demonstrated the priority of improving the reliability and convenience of the public transportation system (6.9%) and improving cleanliness and functionality (6.7%).

ZIP Codes. Responses from 75062 reﬂected the same priorities as the top ﬁve from the total sample. Responses from 75060 prioritized the need for improving cleanliness and functionality of public transportation (6.7%). Responses from 75061 demonstrated the need for improving the reliability and convenience of the public transportation system (6.4%). The responses from 75063 suggested that their number one priority was expanding the service areas and providing more routes in neighborhoods (17.6%). They also prioritized expanding the operating schedule for public transportation (6.9%), which was much lower in other ZIP codes. The responses from 75039 indicated that their top two priorities are improving safety and security procedures (25.8%) and expanding the service area (20.6%).

The following quotes are directly from the data and are representative of what the respondents felt would encourage use of public transportation.

 We don't use public transportation so I have no opinion at this time.

 When I worked in downtown Dallas, I could take the train but chose not to for personal safety concerns. I would have considered it if riding with someone else. I have thought of taking the train to DFW airport, but not sure of the route and timing.

 When I was working I used Trinity Rail to get to Dallas and DART rail to get around Dallas to my job site. However, my last two years of working, I stopped riding the trains because of "thugs". Panhandlers were on the Trinity Rail and I usually had to stand in the morning - no seats available. An extra car could have helped. Dallas City DART trains were full of hoodlums. Folks had boom boxes, smoked on the trains, started ﬁghts. I didn't feel safe.

 With the massive growth of the DFW area, rather than build more ( crazy) highways, I think we need to invest in expansive public transportation between the suburbs and Dallas and the suburbs and FW. If I could easily commute to work via public transit to Dallas, I would. But we do not have this yet.

 Streetcars on MacArthur to key destinations. Permanent physical transportation infrastructure like streetcar rails signals a city’s commitment to public transit and would stimulate growth along the route while serving residents’ current needs to move along this key artery

 Make it more convenient to reach the train station and also make it more frequent.

 Encourage residents to use transit systems by giving more information and how they could utilize the existing systems, navigating just through google map would not motivate anyone to use transit in sweltering hot or cold mornings

 Educate on availability and ease of travel. I don't know where the public transportation goes, how much it costs, the timing, basically anything on how to utilize it.

Appendix I: Service Priority Areas

Respondents were asked to select from the items below and rank the ﬁve service areas that need the most emphasis from city leadership over the next two years Sidewalk and street maintenance were combined for presentation due to their similar context. The top service priorities were selected by at least 15% of the respondents and included street/sidewalk maintenance, homelessness, economic development, housing, code enforcement, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, and police services.

Service Areas Requiring Emphasis from City Leadership

Improve the Services by Priority Areas (Qualitative)

Total Sample. In Queston 36, individuals were asked to select five service areas that need the most emphasis from city leadership over the next two years. The options included various services such as animal services, city communication, library services, recycling, and water utility services. Question 37 asked for suggestions on how the five areas they selected could be improved. Most responses (20.4%) suggested the need to improve and repair city infrastructure, such as sidewalks, streets, and buildings. Fourteen percent (13.6%) suggested that the city needs to increase the number of social services and community resources provided, such as domestic violence and homeless shelters. Nearly eight percent (7.9%) of responses suggested the need for the city to support economic development efforts, such as helping local businesses stay afloat. Over seven percent (7.7%) of responses requested residential trash and recycling bins instead of putting trash out in bags on the street. For 7.4% responses, they suggested the need for affordable housing, as well as increased housing upkeep, particularly for abandoned homes.

Invited Sample and City Open Call. The city open call responses matched the top categories present in the total sample, but the Invited Sample responses showed a higher concern for enforcing inspections and code violations (7%) than increasing aﬀordable housing (6%).

ZIP Codes. Responses from ZIP codes 75060, 75061, and 75062 demonstrated a higher concern over enforcing inspections and code violations than the other ZIP codes, with all three having a frequency response of ~8% (8.9%, 8.3%, and 8.1%). Increasing police presence (6.2%) and providing residential trash and recycling bins (10.8%) both had a higher frequency of responses from 75063 than any other ZIP code.

The following quotes are directly from the data and are representative of what the respondents felt could improve their priority service areas.

 When potholes are repaired, there is always a lumpy finish. I expect the finish should be as smooth as the original road. You should not feel a bumpy finish when driving over the road.

 Work to level the streets and remove the up-and-down hills. Figure out a way to remove the heavy sulfur smell from our water.

 You need to do something to replace the domestic violence shelter that we once had. This should be addressed in this survey.

 You need to start converting vacant building into homeless shelters and vocational training facilities. You then need to attract a different sort of job market into the area that will not be devastated by AI or other technological marvel. The last two are a bit harder to figure out but I would suggest fining the companies that go over schedule on the construction projects. The traffic light timing is filler, you can retime you way out of the kind of traffic this city has.

 Well, I think that more people from the city should be out in the streets and in the neighborhoods to see what is really going on and what things look like. South Irving just needs a good cleaning up in the streets, sidewalks and in the neighborhoods. The businesses need to be supported when they need city services and not made to feel like they’re not a priority.

 Would prefer to have trash receptacles to keep appearance and debris control better in neighborhoods.

 You guys need to pay MORE ATTENTION to the south area of the city. Reduce multifamily residences and invest in providing or helping low-income families to own a home. There are many beautiful close-knit families in South Irving, but they need advice and help to own a home. Middle and H.S. in the South area also need some better attention.