The URL can be used to link to this page

C Citizen Survey Discussion CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us (! MEMORANDUM - TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Laurie Hokkanen, Assistant City Manager.J.dJ...... FROM: DATE: June 6, 2007 ~. RE: 2007 Citizen Survey Results BACKGROUND Earlier this year the City Council selected the National Research Center to conduct the City of Chanhassen citizen survey. This method and survey questionnaire was the same as used in 2005. Between March 14 and March 28, 1,200 households were randomly selected to participate in the survey. Of those 1,200, 57 were returned as undeliverable. 513 surveys were returned, for a 45% response rate. The average response rate for these surveys is in the 25-40% range, which indicates that Chanhassen residents took this survey very seriously. The full results are attached, but a few highlights are: . 94% of residents 1 rate the quality of life in Chanhassen as either "excellent" or "good". (same as 2005) . 89% of residents feel "very" or "somewhat" safe from violent crimes. (up slightly from 87% in 2005) . 97% feel "very" or "somewhat" safe in their neighborhood during the day. This number drops slightly to 88% after dark. (fairly constant from 2005) . 6% of residents responded that they were the victim of a crime in the past 12 months. (8% in 2005) . 93% responded that they had visited a Chanhassen park in the past year. (constant from 2005) . 93% read The Chanhassen Connection. (up from 82% in 2005) . 40% watched a public meeting, while 28% attended a meeting. (fairly constant from 2005) . 86% have used the Chanhassen library in the past year. (up from 82% in 2005) . Residents gave an average rating of 63 (on a scale of 100) when asked if they receive a good value for the taxes they pay. (up from 58 in 2005) · Half (49%) of residents have used the internet to conduct business with the City. (up from 40% in 2005) I The term resident is used to describe the responses of the respondents. The scientific methodology of the survey allows us to generalize the comments of the respondents to all residents. G:\Admin\LH\Citizen Survey\2007\Results staff report.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chamning downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. One feature of this survey was that it allows us to compare ourselves to over 500 jurisdictions across the United States. Answers to each question on the survey are put into a 100 point scale, (0 being worst, 100 being best), and then cities are rated as above the norm, similar to the norm, or below the norm. Below is a synopsis of where the city ranks in each category. In 2005, the City ranked similar to the norm in 32 activities. Most of those ratings improved to above the norm in 2007. The full listing is attached to this report. Above the Norm As a place to live Neighborhood as a place As a place to raise to live children Sense of community Job opportunities Access to affordable quality child care Overall quality of life Overall appearance Air quality Recreational opportunities Access to affordable Ease of car travel health care Ease of bicycle travel Ease of walking Safety from violent crime Safety from property Safety from fire Safe in neighborhood cnmes during the day Safe in neighborhood after Safe in downtown during Safe in downtown after dark the day dark Safe in parks during the Safe in parks after dark Crime prevention day Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Amount of public parking City parks Range/variety of Accessibility of parks recreation programs Accessibility of recreation Appearance/maintenance Appearance/maintenance centers of parks of recreation centers Recycling services Storm drainage Code enforcement Economic development Health services Services to seniors Services to youth Public schools Responsiveness of city employees Traffic Enforcement Fire Services Street Repair AmbulancelEMS Services Fire Prevention and Police Services Education Bus/transit services Recreation Public library services programs/classes Street cleaning Street lighting Traffic signal timing Public information Municipal courts serVIces Land use/planning/zoning Animal control Services to low income people Garbage collection Variety of library Sewer services materials Courtesy of city Overall direction of city Ease of Bus Travel employees Knowledge of city Overall impression of city City government listens to employees employees citizens Receive good value for City welcomes citizen taxes paid involvement G:\Admin\LH\Citizen Survey\2007\Results staff report.doc Similar to the Norm Access to quality Openness and acceptance Recreation affordable housing centers/facilities Yard waste pick-up Below the Norm A place to retire Opportunities to attend Shopping opportunities cultural activities Drinking water Cable television The Survey also asked three questions designed by the City Council and staff. Question 16a asked residents about their opinions on new retail development in the City. 53% of residents responded that they would like a regional mall to be built along the new Hwy 212, 31 % would not like to see a mall built, and 16% did not have an opinion. In the second statement, residents were asked if retail expansion should be focused in the downtown and not on Hwy 212. 46% of residents agreed with this statement, 24% did not agree or disagree, and 30% disagreed. The third statement asked if retail should be limited to the current amount and not build a regional mall. 29% of residents agreed that a mall should not be built, 17% did not agree or disagree, and 54% disagreed. In Question 16b, residents were asked about the size of the mall, if it were to be built. The largest group of residents (34%) preferred a medium mall, defined as two department stores and specialty stores. 25% of residents responded that they do not support the development of a mall in Chanhassen. In Question 16c, residents were asked about the importance of various City initiatives. More than 2/3 of residents stated that it was essential or very important to keep the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre in the City (72%) and improve lake water quality (73%). Approximately half stated that increasing park space (44%), increasing law enforcement services (47%), and lowering property taxes (59%) was either essential or very important. Residents were also asked an open-ended question, "What do you think will be the single biggest problem facing the City of Chanhassen over the next 2-3 years?" Response Percent of Respondents Controlled Growth 34% Traffic and Road Conditions 19% Taxes 13% Economic and Retail Development 9% Environmental Issues, water quality, parks 7% Schools 6% Affordable Housing 2% Other 9% Don't Know / Nothing 1% G:\Admin\LH\Citizen Survey\2007\Results staff report.doc The full results, which are available on the City's website at http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.uslinside/counci I.html or http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/commlsurvey.html , come in four sections: . Summary report . Report of results . Report of normative comparisons . Report of Geographic Subgroup comparisons (new report, asked residents whether they live north or south of highway 5.) These survey results will be very helpful as the staff and council continue to prioritize issues in the coming years. Staff will be making a presentation to the council during Monday's work session to go over the results in more detail. G:\Admin\LH\Citizen Survey\2007\Results staff report.doc CITY OF. CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard' Chanhassen, MN 55317 . T: (952) 227-1118' www.cLchanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ~ a National Citizen SurveyTM National Research Conter, Inc. 3005 St. . Boulder, CO 80301 . T: (303) 444-7363' F: (303) 444-1145' vVWW.n-f-C.com The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Survey Background .......... .... .... .... ....... ........ ....... .... .... ....... ........ ... ............... ..... 1 About The National Citizen Survey ™ ....... ........................................ ............... ................... 1 Understanding the Results.................................................................................................. 1 Profile of Chanhassen ...... ... .... ........ ....... ....... ........ .... .... ........... .... ................. ... 3 Community Life.. ... .... ........ .......... ....... .... ....... ............. ............ ....... ........... .... ... 4 Quality of Life.................................................................................................................... 4 Ratings of Community Characteristics ................... .......... ....... ......... .......... ........... .............. 4 Perceptions of Safety...... .... ...... ..... ........ ..... ...... ........ .... ......... ................ ............. ...... ........... 4 Community Participation ........ ...... .... .... ... ........ ..... ... .... ......... .... ...... ...... ... ........ .... ........... ... 4 Local Government ..... .... ... ................... .... .... ... ... ............ ............. ..................... 5 public Trust....................................................................................................................... 5 Service Provided by Chanhassen........ ......... .............. ..................... .... ......... ...... .................. 5 The City of Chanhassen Employees .... ......... ................. .......................... .......... ......... ......... 5 Additional Questions ...... ...... ........ ... ............ ....... ... ............ .... ....... ........ ... .... .... 6 ~ .~ iij U g rJ "' ~ ~ (; i_~ z >- n .~ ~~ <.oJ ~ ~ () T2 ~ z .!~ ;..... Summary Report The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey SURVEY BACKGROUND About The National Citizen SurveyTM The National Citizen SurveyTM ([he NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Understanding the Results . Survey Administration Following the mailing of a pre-survey notification postcard to a random sample of 1,200 : households, surveys were mailed to the same residences approximately one weel~ later. A reminder letter and a new survey were sent to the same households after two weel~s. of the mailed postcards, 57 were undeliverable due to vacant or "not found" addresses. Completed surveys were received from 513 residents, for a response rate of 45%. Typically, the response rates obtained on citizen surveys range hom 25% to 40%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey of 1,200 residents is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The results were weighted to reflect the demographic profile of all residents in the City of Chanhasse~. (For more information on the survey methodology, see Appendix B in the Report of Results. A copy of the survey materials can be found in Appendix C of the Report of Results.) s1 Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asl~ed to record their opinions about service and 't l't'" 11 t"" 1 " "f ." " " (EGFP) wh'l t' 1 communI y qua I y IS exce en, goon, aIr or poor . I e symme rIca scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasl~s, we have found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlil~e satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). ~. ;.; (5 u VJ ~) (,> cc: o t~ z 0>, .n ",.", ill C ~ ~ u fV r, tiJ Z Summar)' Report 1 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Survey Backqround Putting Evaluations onto a 1 DO-Point Scale Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Lil~ewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If the average rating for quality of life was "good," then the result would be 67 on a 100-point scale; "fair" would be 33 on the 100-point scale. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 3 points based on all respondents. .fl Q o ~ -g a; . t;) Q.> cc: ,2 ,d z >. .Q .~ ;;- ~ ~ u I z Summa9.: Report 2 ~j oS .~ c3 ~t; "'.J 0) ,/} ;!) ,,- "'- ,,~- 0 :7;} Z >- .n -, ":>- Q) ~ ~ I ~ () ".~ c. .0 m z The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey PROFILE OF CHANHASSEN As assessed by the survey, about 37% of Chanhassen residents have lived in the community for more than 20 years and 73% are over age 34. Another 7% are over age 64. Eighty-eight percent are currently employed; 7% rent; 93% own and 76% live in detached single family homes. Over 95% of Chanhassen residents have at least some college and 86% have annual household incomes above $50,000. One percent of Chanhassen residents reported that they are Spanish, Hispanic or Latino and 94% said they are White or Caucasian. Summary Report 3 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey COMMUNITY LIFE The National Citizen SurveyTM contained many questions related to the life of residents in the community. Survey participants were asl~ed to rate their overall quality of life, as well as other aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen. They also evaluated characteristics of the community, and gave their perceptions of safety in the City of Chanhassen. The questionnaire assessed use of the amenities of the community and involvement by respondents in the civic and economic life of Chanhassen. Quality of Life when asl~ed to rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen, 35% of respondents thought it was "excellent." Only 0% rated overall quality of life as "poor." chanhassen as a place to raise children received an average rating of 81 on a 100-point scale. : Ratings of Community Characteristics In 2007, the highest rated characteristics of Chanhassen were air quality, recreational opportunities, and overall appearance. The average rating on a 100-point scale given to air quality in 2007 was 73 compared to 72 in 2005. Perceptions of Safety when evaluating safety in the community, 89% of respondents felt "somewhat" or "very safe" from violent crimes in Chanhassen in 2007, compared to 87% in 2005. In their neighborhood after darl~, 88% of survey participants felt "somewhat" or "very safe" in 2007, compared to 89% in 2005. ~~ In 2007, as assessed by the survey, 5% of households reported that at least one member had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. In 2005,8% of households had reported that at least one member had been a crime victim. of those who had been the victim of a crime in 2007, 72% had reported it to police. .9.~ Qj () 7> ~J ,,' C> cc: Community Participation Participation in the civic, social and economic life of Chanhassen during the past year was assessed on the survey. Among those completing the questionnaire, 41 % reported volunteering in the past year. ~ o \~ z >> .::> ::1 "?,';- ~ U) 2) ~ (3 ~ (3 z l-- Summary RCEort 4 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey LOCAL GOVERNMENT Several aspects of the govemment of the City of Chanhassen were evaluated by residents completing The National Citizen SurveyTM. They were asl~ed how much trust they placed in their local govemment, and what they felt about the services they receive from the City of Chanhassen. Those who had any contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year gave their impressions of the most recent encounter. Public Trust when asked to evaluate whether they were pleased with the overall direction tal~en by the City of Chanhassen, residents gave an average rating of 66 on a 100-point scale in 2007, compared to a rating of 65 in 2005. Service Provided byChanhassen The overall quality of services provided by the City of Chanhassen was rated as 67 on a 100-point scale in 2007, compared to 65 in 2005. The City of Chanhassen Employees Impressions of the City of Chanhassen employees were assessed on the questionnaire. In 2007, those who had been in contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year (52%) rated their overall impression as 73 on a 100-point scale, compared to an average rating of 69 received in 2005. ~ .?~ fJ o -~ t;) 2 (5 ~ ~ '>-. ill ,:> J} ~~ (3 ~ .2 (:j ~ ."!\ 1--- Summary Report 5 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS Four additional questions were asl~ed by the City of Chanhassen as listed below. The results for these questions are also available in the Report of Results. Question 16a: Policy Question 1 The City completed a retail market study that showed Chanhassen businesses successfully meet day-to-day shopping needs, and a regional mall along with the new Highway 212 in the City of Chanhassen would be viabl.e and expand the retail opportunities in our city. The City Council would like to know the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I would like a regional mall built along the new Highway 212 I would like the City to focus retail expansion in the downtown area and not along the new Highway 212 ---- -- I would like to limit retail to the amount currently found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mall Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total 14% 17% 100% 29% 24% 16% 10% 100% 24% 20% 21% 25% 29% 100% 16% 13% 17% 25% ~ Question 16b: Policy Question 2 Medium Large I do not (two (multiple support the Small department department No development (specialty stores and stores and preference of a regional stores specialty specialty in terms of mall in only) stores) stores) scale Chanhassen Total ~ " ~ "m ,j) ~ o ~~ z >> .n What size mall, if at all, would you like to see developed in Chanhassen? (select only one) 22% .;>, l 10% 34% 9% 25% 100% .~ () ~ (3 >''; z .') '- Summary Report 6 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ;\ddit!on21 Questions Question 16c: Policy Question 3 How important, if at all. is it to you to have the City do the Very Somewhat Not at all following? Essential important important important Total Keep the Chanhassen Dinner Theater in the City 39% 33% 20% 7% 100% Increase the amount of park space 18% 100% 31% 38% 13% Increase law enforcement services 13% 34% 41% 11% 100% Lower property taxes 32% 27% 34% 7% 100% Improve lake water quality 29% 44% 24% 4% 100% Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. Question 16d: Policy Question 4 North of Highway 5 . South of Highway 5 Total Which of the following best describes where you live? 40% 100% 60% ~ ....:. .~ 1) () T5 ro Q) ;~ G c c; <~ z '" .:: .~ (~ r ~ C Q 12 ;;f;" " ,- SUl1lma~lort 7 CITY OF . CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard' Chanhassen, MN 55317 . T: (952) 227-1118 . wW\>V.cLchanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen, Minnesota 7 ~ .. National Citizen SurveyTM National Research Center, Inc. 3005 30i!\ St. . Boulder, CO 80301 . T: (303) 444-7863' F: (303) 444-1145' WVJw.n+c.com The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Survey Background ... ....... .... ........ ... ... ..... ..... ...... .... ....... ........... ......... ..... ...... .... 1 About The National Citizen Survey ™ ..... .................................... ............................ ............ 1 Understanding the Results ... ............. ... .... ...... ......... ... ..... .... ........ ........ ....... ...... 2 Survey Administration........................................................................................................ 2 Survey Validity................................................................................................................... 2 Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale ....................................................4 "Don't Know" Responses.................................................................................................... 5 Putting Evaluations Onto a 100-Point Scale ...................................................................... 5 Interpreti.ng' Comparisons to Previous Years .......................................................................5 Community Life.. .......... ........... .... .............. ....... .... .... ......... ......... ....... .... ... ....... 6 Quality of Life................................................... .................................................................. 6 Ratings of Community Characteristics in Chanhassen......................................................... 8 Perceptions of Safety........................................................................................................ 14 Community Participation .... ................. .... ..... .... ........ ... .... .... .... ......... ..... ... ... ........ .... ........ 16 Local Government ......... ............... ..... ..... ..... ....... ........ .... ....... ........... .... ......... 18 Public Trust .............. ................. ...... ...... ...... ........ ...... ...... .................... ....... ................ ..... 18 Service Provided by Chanhassen. ..... .......... ........... ...... ............ ....... ...... ........ ....... .............. 20 The City of Chanhassen Employees ..................... ............................................................. 29 Additional Questions ..... ........ ... ........... .... ............... ....... .... ...... ...... ... ....... ...... 31 Appendix A: Frequency of Responses to All Survey Questions...................... 33 ~ Appendix B: Survey Methodology .................................................................. 46 Sampling.......................................................................................................................... 46 Survey Administration...................................................................................................... 46 Response Rate and Confidence Intervals ...........................................................................46 Weighting and Analyzing the Data. ........................ ...... ..................... ......... ...... ................. 47 ...:: .;2 1) () ill ~o j) cc Appendix C: Survey Materials ....................................................................... 49 ,,~ (; fi 2: >. ..0 ."" o 2: .?- v; ~ o 2i o ~ z .~, ;..... Report of Results The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey SURVEY BACKGROUND About The National Citizen Survey ™ The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Chanhassen staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Chanhassen staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen SurveyTM Basic Service. ~ ~~ 1) () ~ ..~) 8 ~) & 2: o ~-; Z >, .n .~)' " ~ ~ o ('J ..~~ o [\} Z It! Report of Results 1 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Survey Administration Following the mailing of a pre-survey notification postcard to a random sample of 1,200 households, surveys were mailed to the same residences approximately one weel~ later. A reminder letter and a new survey were sent to the same households after two weeks. of the mailed postcards, 57 were undeliverable due to vacant or "not found" addresses. Completed surveys were received from 513 residents, for a response rate of 45%. Typically, the response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey of 1,200 residents is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The results were weighted to reflect the demographic profile of all residents in the City of Chanhassen. (For more information on the survey methodology, see Appendix B. A copy of the survey materials can be found in Appendix C.) Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can we be confident that the results from our sample are representative of the results we ~ould have gotten had we administered the survey to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? <5 l';. To answer the first question, we use the best survey research practices for the resources spent to assure that the results from the sample reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: ~~. 6 () "<5 rG "> & 1. Using a mail-out/mail-bacl~ methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. 2. Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction. 2 o Tl z 3. Over-sampling attached units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. >. !:l ':!. .::,...... l ~ n ~ ::-: ~) '- Rcport of Rcsults 2 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey UnderstandinG the Results 4. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedurel. 5. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. 6. Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranl~ing elected official or staff member. 7. Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid retum envelope. 8. Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials. 9. Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. ~ The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to . surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents' expectations for service quality playa role as well as the "objective" quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asl~ed to r~cord her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident's report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g. reporting tolerant behaviors toward "oppressed groups," lil~elihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of altemative modes of travel to worl~ besides the single occupancy vehicle), her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, lil~e a vote), her confidence that she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. ~ 8 How closely survey results come to recordi'ng the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g. driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g. voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g. feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g. family abuse or other 11 ;;; i: 2 o ~:,J z >. .D ;;0- Q) '" ~ 2l () /'\ '\i Z 1 The birthday method requests that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. .!\ '- Report of Results 3 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Undcrslandinq the Results illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents' tendency to report what they thinl~ the "correct" response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and "objective" ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC's own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be "objectively" worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, "professional" status of fire fighters, breadth of services and training provided). Whether some research confirms or disconfirms that relationship between what residents thinl~ about a community and what can be seen "objectively" in a community, we have argued that resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be:ignored bygovemment administrators. Elsewhere we have written, "If you collect trash three times a day but residents thinl~ that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem." Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale g The scale on which respondents are asl~ed to record their opinions about service and 't l't'" 11 t"" d " "f ." " "(EGFP) Th' 1 h communI y qua 1 y IS exce en, goo, aIr or poor . IS sea e as important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity is one we did not want to dismiss because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasl~s, we have found that ratings of almost every local govemment service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlil~e satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). ~ <3 ';:3 oj !.f) <1> 0::: '2' o t~ z >> .!:::l "> ::;; :> J} .- i:1 (3 .9 e; z RCJlorl of Results 4 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Undcrstandin9 the Results "Don't Know" Responses On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't l~now." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For two of the items related to crime victimization and crime reporting, "don't l~now" responses were not removed. These questions were not evaluative; rather, respondents were asl~ed if they or any member of their household had been a victim of a crime within the last year. If they were, they were then asl~ed whether the crime had b~en reported to police. . Putting Evaluations Onto a lOO..Point Scale Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Lilwwise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If the average rating for quality of life was "good," then the result would be 67 on a 100-point scale; "fair" would be 33 on the 100-point scale. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 3 points based on all respondents. Interpreting Comparisons to Previous Years ~ This report contains comparisons .with prior years' results. In this report, we are comparing 2007 data with 2005 data in the graphs. In the graphs, there are two separate representations labeled by year. The table following a graph contains 2007 data only, and is labeled accordingly. Differences between years can be considered "statistically significant" if they are greater than 5 percentage points or 3 points on a 100 point scale. ~ U T5 t"" o !/) {1> /...~ .... "f;:; z >- ..Q ";>- G) ~ to OJ ld () ~ ,...... z c '" Report of Results 5 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey COMMUNITY LIFE The National Citizen SurveyTM contained many questions related to the life of residents in the community. Survey participants were asl~ed to rate their overall quality of life, as well as other aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen. They also evaluated characteristics of the community, and gave their perceptions of safety in the City of Chanhassen. The questionnaire assessed use of the amenities of the community and involvement by respondents in the civic and economic life of Chanhassen. Quality of Life when asl~ed to rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen, 35% of respondents thought it was "excellent." Zero percent rated overall quality of life as "poor." Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Chanhassen Good 59% Fair 6% 14 J.~ 6 () ill ~h (> 0;:: (5 7~ z 1) .~ :> ~ 11 (3 ~ '0 <- ..:' Report of Results 6 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life The average rating of overall quality of life on a 100-point scale was 75 in 2005. In 2007, the rating was 77. Chanhassen as a place to raise children received an average rating of 77 on a 100-point scale in 2005, compared to 81 in 2007. Other ratings can be seen in the charts below. 2007 Quality of Life Ratings Average rating on a 100-point Excellent Good Fair Poor Total scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? 47% 49% 4% 0% 100% 81 How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 43% 48% 9% 0% 100% 78 How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? 48% 48% 4% 0% 100% 81 ..................................................................................................... .............................................................mm....................................................................................... m........ ..........................................._...... How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to work? 23% 47% 23% 6% 100% 62 How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to retire? 20% 34% 32% 14% 100% 53 --- ---- How do you rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassel)? 35% 59% 6% 0% 100% 77 Chanhassen as a place to live Neighborhood as a place to live Chanhassen aOs a place to raise children Chanhassen as a place to work Chanhassen as a place to retire Overall quality of life in Chanhassen ~ ~; (5 73 8 Ul 2 ~ <5 :f~ z >- .n :1. "1)' :> v) ~ C5 Figure 2: Quality of Life Ratings o 60 80 70 10 20 30 40 50 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. S .2 ,6 z ^' !-- Rc('ort of Rcsults 7 1IlJ2007 IS) 2005 90 100 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life Ratings of Community Characteristics in Chanhassen In 2007, the highest rated characteristics of Chanhassen were air quality, recreational opportunities, and overall appearance. The average rating on a 100-point scale given to air quality in 2007 was 73 compared to 72 in 2005. Average ratings given to all the characteristics are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Figure 3: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Sense of community 112007 1S12005 Openness and acceptance Overall appearance of Chanhassen Opportunities to attend cultural activities Shopping opportunities Air quality 73 72 71 Recreational opportunities 64 Job opportunities o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 19 2007 Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Please rate each of the following Average rating on a 100- characteristics as they relate to point scale (100=Excellent, Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Q=Poor) -;:~ o () Sense of community 20% 50% 26% 3% 100% 62 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 13% 49% 32% 7% 100% 56 _~______.____._.__.____..m.,...._.____...___._._...__.__..___._.___.__..._............_____...____.__..___...__._m..______._.___.______._.____...____._.._.__ Overall appearance of Chanhassen 24% 59% 16% 2% 100% 68 "g >-j ~ C> 'r~ z Opportunities to attend cultural activities I 39% 41% 13% 100% 46 ~_._------------ Shopping opportunities 8% 35% 42% 15% 100% 45 -.-.--.........-.--........-....----..--.-.---..------....--.-....-...-.-----.--.--......------........--...-..-----....----..-----_.._-----_._---_.._-~--------- Air quality 31% 58% 10% 1% 100% 73 Recreational opportunities 32% 50% 16% 2% 100% 71 __"".,,__""""''''''_______.____._._.__...._ ..."._"._~._........____..______..___..._..._.___.._._.....~..""."...._.._.................,______......___......."........_.._._._._._m_.""__._...... Job opportunities 5% 35% 44% 15% 100% 44 6% '" .n m ~ u r.::; ~ o T:l z Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. ~ ;..... Report of Results 8 ~. ~ ii) () ~ 'I~ ~J IJ) ~ c o ~ Z '" J:l "S' ~ ~ Q ~ C5 i 05 z '\' t: The City of ~hanhassen Citizen Survey Community Ufe Access to affordable quality housing Access to affordable quality child care Access to affordable quality health care Figure 4: Characteristics of the Community: Access 112007 t12005 66 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 100 2007 Characteristics of the Community: Access Average rating on a 1 OO-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 44 58 66 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Access to affordable quality housing 9% 34% 38% 19% 100% ~,----,-~ Access to affordable quality child care 12% 53% 32% 3% 100% Access to affordable quality health care 23% 54% 20% 3% 100% ----_..~----~- Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. ReI!ort of Results 9 ~ {i" n () {.3 c;) 2 2 (;> "!\1 2: "., .t:) ":>-, ~ r? .) <D ~ u '" 75 2: ~ The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Ufe Figure 5: Characteristics of the Community: Mobility Ease of car travel Ease of bus travel Ease of bicycle travel Ease of walking o 10 20 30 40 50 60 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 2007 Characteristics of the Community: Mobility Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Ease of car travel in Chanhassen 27% 45% 19% 9% 100% Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen 13% 43% 25% 19% 100% -- Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen 26% 47% 20% 7% 100% Ease of walking in Chanhassen 28% 46% 20% 5% 100% ---- Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. 66 66 70 112007 02005 80 90 100 Average rating on a 1 OO-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 64 50 64 66 Report of Results 10 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey_ Community Life when asl~ed about potential problems in Chanhassen, the three concerns rated by the highest proportion of respondents as a "major problem" in 2007 were taxes, too much growth, and traffic congestion. In 2007 29% rated taxes as a "major problem" compared to 35% in 2005. Figure 6: Ratings of Potential Problems in Chanhassen 2% Weeds 2% Unsupervised youth Traffic congestion Taxes Run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles Noise 0% Graffiti 1% Lack of growth ~ 8 Too much growth '0 ~j Q) ;;) L€ Drugs r;,; .0 'f;) z ""' .n Crime '?r .? v) ~ u ~ .2 C) z 2% 2% 12% 13% 112007 ISJ 2005 3% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents Rating as a "Major problem" 100% ::p '- Report of I<esults 11 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life In 2007, the rate of population growth in Chanhassen was viewed as "too fast" by 49% of respondents, while 1% thought it was "too slow." Figure 7a: Ratings of Population Growth by Year in Chanhassen Too fast Too slow 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of respondents 20% Note: Responses of "about right" were omitted. Figure 7b: Ratings of Retail Growth by Year in Chanhassen Too fast 44% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of respondents 10% 20% 80% 80% [J 2007 [J 2005 90% 100% [J 2007 [J 2005 90% 100% Note: Responses of "about right" were omitted. ,) .s Figure 7c: Ratings of Jobs Growth by Year in Chanhassen .ill ;::; o 53% -ili tj) &: Too fast t"J <5 Too slow ~~~~~~~~~~ 50% 7~ z i)' ')>.., Q.) '" ~ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of respondents 70% ~ n 80% [J 2007 [J 2005 90% 100% Note: Responses of "about right" were omitted. ~ z <l~ ,C >- l~e~ of Results 12 Ai 6 u -~) r'3 0? 2 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life In 2007, 28% of respondents felt the impact of the economy would be positive on their family income in the next 12 months, while 27% felt it would be negative. In 2005, 25% of respondents felt the impact of the economy would be positive. Figure 8a: 2007 Perceptions of Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be... Very negative 3% Somewhat negative 24% Somewhat positive 22% Figure 8b: Comparisons of Perceptions of Economy by Year Positive 28% ~ Negative 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of respondents n: Z ~ Note: Responses of "neutral" were omitted. ;" .n :f ->-, ~ ~ c c j:i U ~ 75 z j---.-.v .2007 Ii] 2005 70% 80% 90% 100% Report of Results 13 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Comrnunity UfE: Perceptions of Safety when evaluating safety in the community, 89% of respondents felt "somewhat" or "very safe" from violent crimes in Chanhassen in 2007, compared to 87% in 2005. In their neighborhood after dark 88% of survey participants felt "somewhat" or "very safe" in 2007, compared to 89% in 2005. In 2007, as assessed by the survey, 5% of households reported that at least one member had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. In 2005,8% of households had reported that at least one member had been a crime victim. Of those who had been the victim of a crime in 2007, 72% had reported it to police. Figure 9: Ratings of Safety from Various Problems in Chanhassen by Year Violent crime Property crimes Fire 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of respondents feeling "very" or "somewhat" safe Figure 10: Ratings of Safety inVarious Areas in Chanhassen by Year ~ In your neighborhood during the day .~ Q; u In your neighborhood after dark '(") t'0 ;;) ~ In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day o ~ In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark "., .:::l In Chanhassen's parks during the day ;; ;:,~.... f;) c~ In Chanhassen's parks after dark I1 u 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ~ z ,g ;.... Percent of respondents feeling "very" or "somewhat" safe Report of Results 14 ~ ~ 3 'T5 t\, u; & o :fl z >> ..0 '>-. 0) .> '5 v) ~ c ~ z () ,- The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life Figure 11: Percent of Respondents' Households That Were Victim of a Crime in the Last 12 Months by Year No Household Member Was a Crime Victim 94% Household Member(s) Was a Victim of Crime Don't Know 112007 [32005 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of respondents Figure 12: Percent of Respondents' Households That Were Victim of a Crime Who Reported the Crime by Year Did NOT Report the Crime .2007 6J 2005 Reported the Crime 74% Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of respondents Report of Results 15 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community LifE, Community Participation Participation in the civic, social and economic life of Chanhassen during the past year was assessed on the survey. The proportion of respondents engaging in various activities is shown in the chart below, with comparisons made between 2007 and 2005. Among those completing the questionnaire in 2007,41 % reported volunteering in the past year compared to 40% in 2005. Voter status was also estimated, and is shown on page 17.2 Figure 13: Percent of Respondents Engaging in Various Activities in Chanhassen in the Last 12 Months by Year Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services Used Chanhassen recreation centers Participated in a recreation program or activity Visited a Chanhassen park Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen g Read City of Chanhassen Newsletter <'.J 8 -0 2 t/:l ~ 7: o .f~ z >. n Used the Internet for anything Used the Internet to conduct business with Chanhassen Purchased an item over the Internet 94% 95% :; 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents engaging in activity once or more ">- 1) ;>- .? v, ~ n (5 (:'1 Z 2 In general on a survey, a greater proportion of people will report having voted, than actual voting records verify. " Report of Results 16 ~ }} v "t'"j ~\; I.J ~ I.~." ~\} ~ ;,., .n ~ ':>-, '1) ;>- ~~ Vi Q ~ C s .~~ 75 ~ c.~ ;..... The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Community Life Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Did you vote in the last election? Are you likely to vote in the next election? Figure 14: Voter Status and Activity by Year EJ 2007 02005 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of respondents responding "Yes" 100% Re.l?ort of Results 17 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey LOCAL GOVERNMENT Several aspects of the government of the City of Chanhassen were evaluated by residents completing The National Citizen SurveyTM. They were asl~ed how much trust they placed in their local government, and what they felt about the services they receive from the City of Chanhassen. Those who had any contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year gave their impressions of the most recent encounter. Public Trust when asl~ed to evaluate whether they were pleased with the overall direction tal~en by the City of Chanhassen, residents gave an average rating of 66 on a 100-point scale in 2007, compared to a rating of 65 in 2005. I receive good value for taxes I pay Pleased with the overall direction the City is taking Chanhassen welcomes citizen involvement ~ The City government listens to citizens .~~ 1.) :.3 Figure 15: Ratings of Public Trust by Year &2007 lS12005 69 o . 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Strongly agree, O=Strongly disagree) ';:; ~ t/~ U> cr.: 2 o ~;~ -'. >. n "> 0.) ~~ VI .~ (3 ~ 75 z ." '- l~eEorl of Results 18 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Local Government 2007 Public Trust Ratings Strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=Strongly agree, O=Strongly disagree) Please rate the following statements: I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes Ipay 17% 45% 18% 15% 6% 100% 63 ,--_.__.__._---_...__.~--~-_._---_._..__._._-~-_.._._.---_..__.._..._.__.._---_.__.__._---~._-_._-_.__.__._..._--------- I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 17% 49% 16% 14% 3% 100% 66 Somewhat Strongly disagree disagree Somewhat agree Total The City of Chanhassen government welcomes citizen involvement 100% 23% 42% 24% 8% 3% 69 ~ The City of Chanhassen government listens to citizens 62 100% 15% 40% 29% 10% 6% ~. Q) () Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. ~ !.t~) 22 n <> :i; z ;0.. .n :i . '~'"' tJ; .> :::; (1) ~ (] ~] .~i m z .~) ;,- Report of Results 19 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Locol Govornrnent Service Provided by Chanhassen The overall quality of services provided by the City of Chanhassen was rated as 67 on a 100-point scale in 2007, compared to 65 in 2005. Ratings given to specific services are shown on the following pages. Figure 16: Overall Quality of Services Provided by the City of Chanhassen Good 62% Excellent 20% ~ -:s 2;) U -0 2 o ~,;') &: 2 ~ z "., J., ">, ')) ~$ v; Q :?t () t-:) ~ /'\ 76 ~ .~) '- Report of Results 20 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Locsl Govornrncnt On average, residents of Chanhassen gave the highest evaluations to their own local govemment and the lowest average rating to the federal govemment. Figure 17: Rating of Overall Quality of Services Provided by Various levels of Government by Year The City of Chanhassen 112007 1S12005 67 The Federal Government The State Government o 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 2007 Overall Quality of Services: City of Chanhassen, Federal Government and State Government <5 5, .,S TI u Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided by... Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Chanhassen 20% 62% 16% 2% 100% ...... . .... .. ... .......... ...... ............................................................ .............................................................. .......................... .........m................................................................................... The Federal Government 3% 43% 41% 14% 100% Average rating on a 100- point scale (100=Excellent,0=Poor) 67 45 50 The State Government 4% 48% 41% 7% 100% .'t; Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. !f} ~ ;J 3 :~:;! Z '" .a ';:::", G> .> ~ 11 () ~;S ~ z ~ Report of Results 21 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey LOC2! Govomment Police services Fire services Ambulance/EMS Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Figure 18: Quality of Public Safety Services by Year 112007 (J 2005 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 2007 Quality of Public Safety Services Average rating on a How do you rate the quality 1 OO-point scale of each of the following (100=Excellent, services? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total O=Poor) Police services 26% 57% 14% 3% 100% 68 ___.__.______..._._....w..__.mmm_m_______.__.________....__..__.._~_...__._________.__...___._._.______._...._.__._......__....______...._______.__..___._____........__. Fire services 41 % 52% 6% 1 % 100% 77 ~ Ambulance/emergency medical services 36% 55% 8% 1 % 100% 76 64 ~ Crime prevention 19% 56% 22% 3% 100% ...................................................................................................................................m.......................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................. Fire prevention and education 25% 58% 16% 1 % 100% 69 62 d T> Traffic enforcement ,-", J; ;1) 0::: ,-~; 20% 51% 24% 5% 100% Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. (5 ~;.; z ;0., .n .~ c: rJ5 ~ () n Z Rcport of Rcsults 22 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Local Government Figure 19: Quality of Transportation Services by Year Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Amount of public parking Bus/transit services o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) :5 .s .~. <5 () -E:5 ~ t>> o c:. 2007 Quality of Transportation Services How do you rate the quality of each of the following services? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street repair 9% 44% 33% 14% 100% --- Street cleaning 16% 49% 28% 7% 100% - Street lighting 15% 51% 26% 8% 100% Average rating on a 100- point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 49 58 58 64 Snow removal 24% 49% 21% 6% 100% 112007 l:!I2005 90 100 Sidewalk maintenance 18% 58% 19% 5% 100% 63 Traffic signal timing 10% 42% 32% 16% 100% 49 -- Amount of public parking 18% 57% 24% 2% 100% 63 ........................................................................................................mm.................. Bus/transit services 23% 40% 24% 13% 100% 57 _.._._._.__.~rl_.._____._._..__.___._._...__..._._____,~.___.____________,_~_____~_..___..__._._,...___._,__..,~ 2 :~ Z "" ..Q Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. Z"f >>, o '" ~ o l:! (.) 2 .s: o z o ~ Re~f Results 23 c5 E ~ OJ U "f.) tB il! U) ~ ~ of; Z ~,)o., .!0 '::::.... tj) ;; w ~ :l?4 U ~ ." '- The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey _ Local Govcmment Figure 20: Quality of Leisure Services by Year City parks Recreation programs or classes Range/variety of recreation programs and classes Recreation centers/facilities Accessibility of parks Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities Appearance/maintenance of parks Appearance of recreation centers/facilities Public library services Variety of library materials III 2007 C 2005 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) Report of Results 24 t ~ u .~ N z The City of Chanha~sel1 Citizen Survey Local Govornment 2007 Quality of leisure Services How do you rate the quality of each of the following services? City parks Recreation programs or classes Range/variety of recreation programs and classes Excellent Good Fair Poor Total 42% 49% 8% 1% 100% 28% 55% 15% 3% 100% .... . ................................................. ........._~......... ..........................m....................................~~............~...... Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 77 69 27% 22% 3% 100% Recreation centers/facilities 67 .. ..... ......... .................. ................................................................................................................m............m....m~..... .. .... ........... ....... ......... ................................ 61 __..__.______._______._._....._..._._..~....___._.__...___._______________._...___._____._..__._._______._._....__......nn..._._...___._._...._.._..____~ 76 7% 48% 22% 100% 46% 25% 69 73 ~ -IT} 1) () ~ ~ t/) {1) iX c o ;;j z >, .:::l 'P ">- ')) ;> ~ Report of Results 25 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Local Govornment Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services How do you rate the quality of each of the following services? Figure 21: Quality of Utility Services by Year o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 2007 Quality of Utility Services 112007 1;]2005 90 tOO Average rating on a 100- point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 75 .-...-.--...---- 72 61 Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Garbage collection 36% 53% 9% 2% 100% .-_..._.._-,---_._-~~--_._._-------_...._-----,--~~---.--...-----.-..--.-.-----. Recycling 36% 48% 11 % 5% 100% --~.- Yard waste pick-up 26% 42% 21 % 11 % 100% ,; .5 1:1 Jj () '::> ill !f) &: ~ .9 ,0 z '" .n Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services 15% 15% 55% 24% 6% 100% 38% 25% 21% 100% 60 49 18% 63% 17% 1% 100% 66 Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. 'ft)""' > ~$ v; r 3 1J C ::: i !i. "' -- RCErt of Rcsults 26 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Local Government Figure 22: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services by Year Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement Animal control Economic development 112007 ~ 2005 61 o 10 30 60 90 100 70 80 40 50 20 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 2007 Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services How do you rate the Average rating on a 100- quality of each of the point scale (100=Excellent, following services? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total O=Poor) Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 17% 53% 23% 6% 100% 60 __"________..____.___.____._.__.~._____._~,____~..__._____.___.~__mm~._.m___.'_.__.___.__..,_.._._.._____._~,.___~._,__~"____m_____.____m Animal control 18% 54% 21% 7% 100% 61 Economic development 11 % 53% 29% 7% 100% 56 Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. ~ .~ Qi () 11% 35% 38% 16% 100% 47 ""E) \3 u) a: o \~ z >, :;:; .~ ~ ;:} (f) ~ G 2 .~? t;:; ;:: :;l~ ;- Report of Results 27 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Locsl Government Figure 23: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services by Year Health services Services to seniors Services to youth Services to low-income people Public information services Municipal courts Public schools Cable television o 10 60 70 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 20 30 40 50 fl2007 li] 2005 80 90 100 2007 Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services How do you rate the Average rating on a 100- quality of each of the point scale (100=Excellent, following services? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total O=Poor) Health services 23% 61% 16% 1% 100% 68 ~ Services to seniors 23% 50% 21% 5% 100% Services to youth 18% 51% 24% 7% 100% Services to low-income people 12% 33% 35% 20% 100% Public information services 21% 55% 22% 2% 100% ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Municipal courts 19% 56% 22% 3% 100% -~~.~....----_.._--~-_.__..._---_.__._---_._._.._.~_.._---..._.~_.~_. Public schools 30% 57% 10% 3% 100% Cable television 9% 37% 27% 26% 100% Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. .}j" o () ~ g 0) ,;) (~ ;;\; o ~ "" !:i 64 60 45 65 64 71 43 ."" Q) > '3 VI c ~ o ~ z 4.~ f:; Re~orl of Results 28 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Locai Government The City of Chanhassen Employees Impressions of the City of Chanhassen employees were assessed on the questionnaire. In 2007, those who had been in contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year (52%) rated their overall impression as 73 on a 100-point scale, compared to an average rating of 69 received in 2005. Figure 24: Percent of Respondents Who Had Contact with a City of Chanhassen Employee in 2007 HAD Contact in Last 12 Months 52% Did NOT Have Contact in Last 12 Months 48% ~ .~ <5 () 7; 1) v) ;1> a: (5 ~~:l z >- ::;, .;:........ Q) 2: t.r~ :~ G '" z ::1,'; '- RCllOrl of Rcsults 29 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Loca! Govornment Figure 25: Ratings of Contact with the City of Chanhassen Employees by Year Knowledge 78 112007 !;] 2005 Responsiveness Courtesy Overall Impression o 30 90 100 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) ~ 2007 Ratings of Contact with City of Chanhassen Employees Average rating on a 1 OO-point scale (100=Excellent, O=Poor) 73 75 Courtesy 49% 39% 9% 3% 100% 78 ...m.. . ...... ........................................... ... ....... ................... ....................._... ..... .. ............... . .................... . ................. ............................_.......... .. .. .. ..... ... .. .......... ............................_...... Overall Impression 39% 45% 12% 4% 100% 73 _.__n_n.._~~...w...m_._....mn.m.._...~_____...__._mw._.n........_......._._~_._........_....._.~______._._..._.__._....___._...__.....__....______._________._.__._.__ Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. What was your impression of employees of the City of Chanhassen in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 36% 49% 12% 3% 100% Responsiveness 45% 41% 9% 5% 100% ~ 3 "f; (\1 ~; ~ o '~~j -or >- .'::t .~ 2: ^~~ ,,, ~ G .2 'B z ~ Report of Results 30 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS Four additional questions were asl~ed by the City of Chanhassen. The results for these questions are displayed below. Open-ended results can be found under separate cover. Question 16a: Policy Question 1 The City completed a retail market study that showed Chanhassen businesses successfully meet day-to- day shopping needs, and a regional mall along with the new Highway 212 in the City of Chanhassen would be viable and expand the retail opportunities in our city. The City Council would like to know the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Somewhat agree agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total I would like a regional mall built along the new Highway 212 29% 24% 16% 14% 17% 100% -_._-_._._-_.._----_._._..__.~._--------------------_.--_..._----_._..__._--_._..._---_._--_.~_.~--~ I would like the City to focus retail expansion in the downtown area and not along the new Highway 212 21% 25% 24% 20% 10% 100% I would like to limit retail to the amount currently found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mall 16% 13% 17% 25% 29% 100% ~ Question 16b: Policy Question 2 Medium Large I do not (two (multiple support the Small department department No development (specialty stores and stores and preference of a regional stores specialty specialty in terms of mall in only) stores) stores) scale Chanhassen Total .2'~ h) U What size mall, if at all, would you like to see developed in Chanhassen? (select only one) 100% "{j 8 rfJ cc r: 0- 10% 34% 22% 9% 25% ;:; Z >- c::l '6; ~ :> iJ) ~ ~ u ;2 .~ '0 z: Report of Results 31 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ;\ejcliliona! OUGstions Question 16c: Policy Question 3 How important, if at all, is it to you to have the City do the Very Somewhat Not at all following? Essential important important important Total Keep the Chanhassen Dinner Theater in the City 39% 33% 20% 7% 100% Increase the amount of park space 13% 31% 38% 18% 100% _.....A.__.._~_.~~.p_,~_.__~_._._____.,_,...____..._.._._"_~___"_,,_,_~__~__,~_~__,,_,__,,_,,,__,,,__,_,_,_,_.._._____m.___........__.....m....m._m.......____,__.....___._____ Increase law enforcement services 13% 34% 41 % 11 % 100% Lower property taxes 32% 27% Improve lake water quality 29% 44% Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. 34% 24% 4% 100% 7% 100% Question 16d: Policy Question 4 North of Highway 5 South of Highway 5 Total Which of the following best describes where you live? 60% 40% 100% -~ o u F g Q) ~ ~:j ',:7' ;., !:j ."" Q) > ~ ,- Q ~ () 2 ,g m -'- fi.\ f-- Report of Results 32 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ApPENDIX A: FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES TO ALL SURVEY QUESTIONS This appendix displays the complete distribution of responses to questions in 2007. The don't l~now responses are shown, where applicable. Question 1: Quality of Life Ratings Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? 49% 4% 0% 0% 100% 47% How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 43% 48% 9% 0% 0% 100% ... ...... ........................................H...... ................................ How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? 42% 42% 4% 0% 12% 100% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to work? 24% 12% 3% 49% 100% 12% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to retire? 23% 21% 10% 34% 100% 13% How do you rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen? 0% 0% 100% 35% 59% 6% ~ Q) u -g hi I" U> :::r: t: o :~~~ Z '" '"" '"" ~ ~? ,,; ~ G " m z ;1) ;..... RCJlort of Rcsults 33 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey /\ppendix /\: Survoy FroquenclGS Question 2: Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole Don't Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Sense of community 19% 49% 26% 3% 100% 2% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 11 % 43% 28% 6% _......_._.___._.___~_____..___.__..__.____..m...__.._____._.____.___.._______."__.__~~.________~_______""...,,_..."............"..._...___..., Overall appearance of Chanhassen 24% 58% 16% 2% -----..---.-- Opportunities to attend cultural activities .................................................................................................................................. Shopping opportunities Air quality 12% 100% 0% 100% 5% 35% 11% 16% 100% 0% 100% 3% 100% 33% 8% 42% 15% 35% 30% 56% 1% 9% Recreational opportunities 31% 49% 15% 2% 3% 100% Job opportunities 3% 20% 26% 9% 42% 100% Access to affordable quality housing 7% 29% 32% 16% 16% 100% ................................................. .m................. ....................................................................... ......m........................... .................... ......._...... .... ..... .............................w........ ... Access to affordable quality child care 6% 25% 15% 1 % 53% 100% ---~._._~_._._..._.._--_._._._--_.~_._.._--_._--_._---._--~-_._------_._.._~-_._----~---_......_--_.__.~--~------..--.----.--- Access to affordable quality health care 19% 46% 17% 3% 15% 100% Ease of car travel in Chanhassen Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen 27% 6% 1% 53% 100% 100% 45% 19% 9% 20% 12% 9% Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen 22% 39% 17% 5% 17% 100% -...-....---..-.................-.-........--.....-..------.-------------..-..--....----.-..--.-.----..-.----.....-..-....--.._--_....._~-_._-~--_._._--- Ease of walking in Chanhassen 28% 45% 20% 5% 2% 100% Question 3: Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Chanhassen over the past two years ., .s Much too slow Much too fast Don't know Total Somewhat too fast Somewhat too slow Right amount ~ () Population growth 0% 1 % 46% 35% 10% 9% 100% ..._..__...._._...........__...._..__.._.._._.~-_...~..__.._-----_._....------.-.--.....-..-..---.---------....-......-....--..-...-.---....................._~--~._...........__.....__._........._..._...__..__._.._._.-................- Retail growth (stores, restaurants etc.) 9% 33% 42% 8% 4% 4% 100% ..-....--....--...-....-.-...-.--.....--.-....----..-...--....------.._...._-_.._---_........__.~~_..__._-_...._...."._..."....__.__.-...-."..."......"...............--.---.---...--............-...--- Jobs growth 2% 19% 18% 1 % 0% 60% 1 00% 73 ;;] ~t cc 73 c.: o :fJ Z "" :::> '>-, (J .> '5 v; C3 ~ n ~ L .~\ f- RCF-ort of Rcsults 34 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey /\ppenclix /\: Survoy Frequoncics Question 4: To what degree are the following problems in Chanhassen Not a Minor Moderate Major Don't problem problem problem problem know Total Crime 19% 45% 26% 2% 8% 100% ...........................................M......... ..... ........... ................ Drugs 14% 28% 23% 6% 29% 100% _.______.____.____....____....____....__.._..__......___._.___m_._____.....__.______..__...___......____.________._..___...._..__..____._.___..__..__.. Too much growth 30% 24% 28% 11 % 6% 100% ~_._~_ ___.____~_~_________.___~R Lack of growth 64% 17% 7% 2% 10% 100% Graffiti 58% 28% 3% 0% 11 % 100% Noise 44% 9% 4% 100% 40% 2% Run. down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles .1% 4% 100% 50% 39% 6% Taxes 19% 20% 30% 28% 3% 100% Traffic congestion 25% 35% 28% 11% 1% 100% Unsupervised youth 31% 37% 16% 4% 12% 100% ..............................................................h...... Weeds 45% 37% 8% 2% 8% 100% Question 5: Please rate how safe you feel from the following occurring to you in Chanhassen Neither safe nor unsafe Very safe Very unsafe Don't know Total Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe ~ Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Fire 14% 11% 3% 100% 52% 4% 1% 34% 7% 12% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 100% 100% 22% 48% 46% 35% A} l) "tJ t'G v> 22 r,:; o ~ '" n .~~ ~t d l'd o ~ 51 t'J ~ RCJ.>ort of Rcsults 35 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey i\ppenciix i\: Survoy Frequencies Question 6: Please rate how safe you feel: Neither safe nor unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total Very safe Somewhat unsafe Somewhat safe In your neighborhood during the day 82% 15% 2% 1% 1% 0% 100% .... ........................................... ... ...... .. ....................... In your neighborhood after dark 46% 41% 5% 5% 1% 1% 100% ................................................................... ................................................................ In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day 81% 14% 2% 0% 0% 3% 100% .. ............................... In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark 40% 41% 7% 3% 0% 8% 100% .............. ............................ .................... ..m...................... In Chanhassen's parks during the day 70% 20% 3% 1% 0% 6% 100% .................. ...........-...... In Chanhassen's parks after dark 15% 36% 12% 13% 2% 22% 100% Question 7: During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? No Yes Don't know Total During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 94% 5% 0% 100% Question 8: If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 1~ ;.;") o No Yes Don't know Total 23% 72% 5% 100% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? ~ "g 'lJ c, ::)) X ~2 o :fJ ;;: ~ .~ ;; JJ 3.3 ~ () ~ 0:1 "-- ~ RC{lOrt of Rcsults 36 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey /\ppencEx t\: Survey Frequendes Question 9: In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members done the following things in the City of Chanhassen? More Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 than 26 Never twice times times times Total Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 14% 24% 33% 19% 10% 100% Used Chanhassen recreation centers 37% 25% 21% 11% 7% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 50% 23% 16% 7% 4% 100% Visited a Chanhassen park 7% 19% 31% 23% 19% 100% ...............H..... . ................................. ....m...........-.................... ......................................... ......................................... ............................................................. Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen 91% 5% 2% 1% 2% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected: officials or other local public meeting 72% 21 % 7% 0% 0% 100% ---....-..--.------.... ---....-----.--....-...--...-.--.--...----.-........-...........--.-.---_..__._-_._-_..._-_..._----~ Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 60% 25% 13% 2% 0% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 4% 9% 78% 100% 6% 2% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 59% 20% 12% 3% 6% 100% .____....___..._._.........__~_____....._..___...........___..__........______.____....._.__.___..__.__..____......____...___.__..._mU.._____._..._..........._. Read City of Chanhassen Newsletter 7% 13% 43% 16% 21 % 100% --_...-._---- Used the Internet for anything 5% 1 % 3% 5% 87% 100% Used the Internet to conduct business with Chanhassen 51% 22% 16% 2% 9% 100% Purchased an item over the Internet 11% 12% 19% 24% 100% 35% ~ 4l o () -;3 3 '" ~ c c> '~;,1 -', ~ '" !:;) '", w '" ~ ,- ~ (5 ?:2 ~ '" '" Q f-- RCJ:!5lrl of Results 37 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey /\ppendix t\: Survoy Frequencios Question 10: How do you rate the quality of each ofthe following services in Chanhassen? Don't Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Police services 23% 100% Fire services 30% Ambulance/emergency medical services Crime prevention Fire prevention and education 22% 16% 18% Traffic enforcement 18% Garbage collection 36% 50% 13% 3% 11% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 53% 9% 2% 1% 100% Snow removal 38% 5% 1% 26% 34% 5% 0% 39% Recycling 35% 46% 10% 5% 3% 100% Yard waste pick-up 20% 32% 16% 9% 22% 100% .n . ..................................M . .......... ..................................... .. ... ....................................... . .m....................... .. Street repair 9% 44% 32% 14% 2% 100% .._,_._.__m~..__......._..,.......~...._._...._..~_.__'_m.._.._._..__.....__._.._n_~__.'__...._.....__......_m___._.___...................._..._m..._...._....._..m._..__~.._....._.___.._...___..__...................-.---..--- Street cleaning 16% 48% 28% 7% 1 % 100% Street lighting 15% 51% 26% 8% 1% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 24% 15% Traffic signal timing Amount of public parking Bus/transit services 10% 17% 10% 45% 18% 3% 41% 11% 1% 45% 21% 5% 19% 30% 12% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Storm drainage 14% 50% 21% 5% 10% 100% ...._.......__..._.....m_m.__....mm.......__.__._.......__.........__,_..____............._.....................__........_..__.....................,............_-..................----....-................--................-......-......---.-...---......---- Drinking water 14% 37% 24% 21% 4% 100% 49% 21% 6% 49% 16% 4% 0% 16% 41% 31% 16% 54% 22% 2% 18% 11% 6% 2% 5% 56% Sewer services 56% 16% 1% 11% 2% ~ City parks 16% 41% 48% 8% 1% 100% 100% ~2 Recreation programs or classes 21 % 41 % 11 % 2% 25% 100% ___.~_._._._.___..___.._._A___.A_A___..____.____.__________.A..._.____._________.._._______.___~..A_~___...__...._-- Range/variety of recreation programs and classes 21% 37% 17% 2% 22% 100% " v \~ 8 " ~ Recreation centers/facilities Accessibility of parks Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities .... .............................................. Appearance/maintenance of parks 19% 38% 28% 31% 2 <':) 'Dl z >> .n '0' '" J1 Appearance of recreation centers/facilities 24% Land use, planning and 10% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 13% i1 () .9 70 -> <- ;11 Animal control 14% 39% 21% 6% 50% 8% 2% 43% 17% 2% 54% 13% 1% 15% 2% 10% 2% 47% 14% 30% 32% 1% 13% 14% 14% 42% 18% 5% 22% 42% 16% 6% 22% Report of Results 38 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey I\ppenciix 1\: Survoy Frequencios Question 10: How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen? Economic development . .. .......................................H......... Health services Services to seniors Excellent Good Fair Poor 9% 45% 25% 6% Don't know Total 15% 100% 18% 100% 63% 100% 42% 100% 72% 100% 18% 50% 13% 1% Services to youth 9% 11% 19% 8% 2% 30% 14% 4% Services to low-income people 3% 9% 10% 6% Public library services 44% 40% 8% 0% 8% 100% -- Variety of library materials 31% 42% 13% 3% 12% 100% ------~ ._---_..._~------_._,_._-- Public information services 16% 43% 17% 2% 22%' 100% -~--- Municipal 7% 19% 8% 1% 65% 100% Public schools 20% 37% ' 7% 2% 35% 100% ---_.._~_.._._--_.-~.__............._...__._---_......_....._......-.-........-.... ....._.__.~_.._._~___~_.__mm____.._.__.___._.......__._.._._m__...___.............._.___..._...........___~___._. Cable television 7% 27% 20% 19% 28% 100% Question 11: Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by... Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Chanhassen 20% 60% 15% 2% 4% 100% ...............................M........ .... .....................-....................... The Federal Government 2% 38% 36% 12% 12% 100% The State Government 4% 43% 11% 100% 36% 6% Question 12: Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months? ' No Yes Total ,; E Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months? 48% 52% 100% ~~. (3 -0 ill Question 13: What was your impression of the employees of the City of Chanhassen in your !/) & most recent contact? ,- o ~;,j z >, !:2 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 36% 48% 12% 3% 1% 100% Responsiveness 45% 41% 9% 5% 0% 100% . ........................................................................-......... ...................................................... Courtesy 49% 39% 9% 3% 0% 100% Overall Impression 39% 45% 12% 4% 0% 100% "6)' .;> '5 iJ) 1~ C5 N:S .2 '70 z ,1~ ;..... Report of Results 39 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey f\ppencEx !\: Survey FrequenCies Question 14: Please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Neither Strongly Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Strongly Don't agree agree disagree disagree disagree know Total I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes I pay 16% 43% 17% 14% 5% 4% 100% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 16% 47% 16% 13% 3% 5% 100% _..._.__________.__w.__._n________n.___.____.__._.___._~__.___..._..~_.___.._._____.______n_____.__.__.______.._..______._ The City of Chanhassen government welcomes citizen involvement 18% 34% 20% 6% 2% 19% 100% The City of Chanhassen government listens to citizens 12% 30% 22% 8% 5% 24% 100% Question 15: What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Very negative Total Somewhat negative ~~ What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 6% 22% 45% 24% 3% 100% ~i~ n () ~ .{') r::; ,>) d: c () z >, .J::) .~.... v 2: ::J tI) 03 li () .;i '0 z ('L: Report of Results 40 f\ppencHx /\: Survoy Frequencles The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Question 16a: Policy Question 1 The City completed a retail market study that showed Chanhassen businesses successfully meet day-to-day shopping needs, and a regional mall along with the new Highway 212 in the City of Chanhassen would be viable and expand the retail opportunities in our city. The City Council would like to know the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I would like a regional mall built along the new Highway 212 I would like the City to focus retail expansion in the downtown area and not along the new Highway 212 . .....................M.......... I would like to limit retail to the amount currently found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mall Neither agree Strongly Somewhat nor Somewhat Strongly agree agree disagree disagree disagree Total 29% 24% 16% 14% 17% 100% 21% 25% 24% 20% 10% 100% 16% 13% 17% 25% 29% 100% Question 1Gb: Policy Question 2 Medium Large I do not (two (multiple support the Small department department No development (specialty stores and stores and preference of a regional stores specialty specialty in terms of mall in only) stores) stores) scale Chanhassen Total What size mall, if at all, would you like to see developed in Chanhassen? (select only one) 10% 34% 22% 9% 25% 100% ~ .8 (,) (5 -[) t-,,,:; ;;; U> X 2: o :7~~ z ""' n '>. .~ v) ~ a; ~ () h ,1.; Z Report of Results 41 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey !\apencnx r\: Survoy Frequencies Question 16c: Policy Question 3 How important, if at all, is it to you to have the Very Somewhat Not at all Don't City do the following? Essential important important important know Total Keep the Chanhassen Dinner Theater in the City 38% 32% 20% 7% 3% 100% .......................................................H........ Increase the amount of park space 12% 30% 37% 18% 3% 100% Increase law enforcement services 39% 5% 100% 13% 33% 10% Lower property taxes Improve lake water quality 31% 28% 7% 3% 27% 42% 33% 23% 2% 4% 100% 100% Question 16d: Policy Question 4 North of Highway 5 South of Highway 5 Total Which of the following best describes where you live? 60% 40% 100% Question 17: Do you live within the City limits of the City of Chanhassen? Do you live within the limits of the City of Chanhassen? No 9% Total 100% Yes 91% Question 18: Employment Status '-> s .~ Q) o No 12% Total 100% Yes 88% Are you currently employed? T2 ill S x Question 18a: Usual Mode of Transportation to Work What one method of transportation do you usually use (for the longest distance of your commute) to travel to work? 92% o 'fj z "., .:::; Motorized vehicle Bus, Rail, Subway, or other public transportation Walk Work at home 4% 0% 3% .~ ;'{. ~ c- o ~ t5 Other 0% ;2 :;~ Q Z Total 100% E Report of I~esu]ts 42 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey f1.ppencLx /\: Survoy FrOCjtJcnClf::}S Question 18b: Drive Alone or Carpool No Yes Total If you checked the motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) box in 18a, do other people usually ride with you to or from work? 90% 10% 100% Usual Mode of Transportation to Work, Including Carpooling Motorized vehicle, no others (SOV) ~----~--, Motorized vehicle, with others (MOV) Bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation Walk Usual mode of transportation to work 83% 9% 4% 0% Work at home Other Total 3% 0% 100% Question 19: Length of Residency Less than 2 years How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? 16% 2 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years 26% 22% 24% Total 13% 100% d E 3 T> Question 20: Type of Housing Unit Which best describes the building you live in? i J> 2 One family house detached from any other houses 76% ................. ..................................................................................._.........................mm................................................................. ........ ..... on .............._...... One family house attached to one or more houses 16% ..___..__.__._._.___...__._____._.______...___.__.____~....___.___.______._~___.....__...._..__..____.__.........__.___m_.__...__.____.__~_____._~_ Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 8% o Z b' '"" (J) ;:> J} Other Total 0% 100% '- fl () .2 ?; z ~ '- Report of Results 43 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Appenciix /\.: Survoy Froquencios Question 21: Tenure Status Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? Owned by you or someone in this house Total Is this house, apartment, or mobile home... 93% 100% 7% Questions 22 to 25: Household Characteristics No Yes Total Do any children age 12 or under live in your household? 63% 37% 100% ~__.....___m_..___.._____~~____._~.""_______rl_'___,_"".___m_____.''________._______._,,____.''___,.. _____.__.__..____.~ ...._..___M__..___.......____.____...........__... Do any teenagers ages 13 through 17 live in your household? 74% 26%' 100% Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Does any member of your household have a physical handicap or is anyone disabled? 91% 9% 100% 95% 5% 100% Question 26: Education What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? 12th Grade or less, no diploma 1 % -.-----..---......---...--.--..........-----..-...-..--.......---.-~._..._--_.._..._--_.~._.._-_.._-_._-_._.-..-.._..._._---_...-.-........--.----.....----.-...-...-..------..---... High school diploma 4% Some college, no degree 15% Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) 10% .... .............. .....................................................................mm.............._...... Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) 46% -------.--.---.---.----....--.--------.--.-.------......--_._._-~-----~----~_._.-------_..._..._-~.~-_. Graduate degree or professional degree 25% Th~1 100% ~ ~ ;:) (5 F 75 Question 27: Annual Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? I'"~ ", If} J: Less than $24,999 3% ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-...... $25,000 to $49,999 11 % ...............................................................................................................................................................-......... $50,000 to $99,999 36% _.._.~__w._.........~_.~.__~_w.__._.__n.._..~..~~n~.~w~~_~ww__mwn_.___.~_.,._w_~_~"_,,~__w__w,,.__.w....w~.....__...._~.w.____w..."...____...____......." $100,000 or more W% 23 :i;~ 2:. '" .n .~~ .?- v) G3 :0 () ~ z Total 100% ;!) '- Report of Results 44 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey t\ppcncllx /A: Survey Frequencies Question 28: Ethnicity Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? No 99% Total 100% Yes 1% Question 29: Race What is your race? American Indian or Alaskan native Asian or Pacific Islander Black, African American Percent of Respondents 1% 5% 1% 94% White/Caucasian Other Total may.exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one category. 2% Question 30: Age 18 to 24 years ... ...... ........ ... ................._ .............................................................mmmmmmmmmmmm.........._ 25 to 34 years _._------_.,--~---------- 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years .... ........-.................................................- 65 to 74 years In which category is your age? 2% 25% 27% 31% 8% 4% 75 years or older Total 3% 100% ~ .s Question 31: Gender (f o 'r) K v; ;'!\ Female 51% Male 49% Total 100% What is your gender? t'::; ;:> is z: ""' .0 Questions 32 to 34: Voter Status and Activity "?S .> ~ No Yes Don't know Total Are you registered to vote in yourjurisdiction? 8% 91% 1% 100% Did you vote in the last election? 13% 87% 0% 100% Are you likely to vote in the next election? 4% 93% 3% 100% E () ~ z RCJ?ort of Results 45 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ApPENDIX B: SURVEY METHODOLOGY The National Citizen SurveyTM was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The National Citizen SurveyTM that asl~s residents about l~ey local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarl~s for jurisdictions worl~ing on performance measurement. The National Citizen SurveyTM is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local reside~ts. The National Citizen Survey ™ permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speal~ to community trust and involvement in cominunity-building a~tivities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. Sampling Approximately 1,200 households were selected to participate in the survey using a stratified systematic sampling method.3 An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method.4 Survey Administration Selected households rec~ived three mailings, one weel~ apart, beginning March 14,2007. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder ,~ letter and another survey and postage-paid return envelope. Completed surveys were ~g collected over the following 5 weel~s. 8 '7.) Response Rate and Confidence Intervals of the 1,143 eligible households, 513 completed the survey providing a response rate of 45%. Approximately 57 addresses sampled were "vacant" or "not found.5" In general, the response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. The sample of households was selected systematically and impartially horn a list of residences in the ;:j (~ c> :7:,~ '":7" 12 .~ .;;. ~ .. ~ :) 3 Systematic sampling is a method that closely approximates random sampling by selecting every Nth address until the desired number of households is chosen. 4 The birthday method is a process to remove bias in the selection of a person within the household by asking the "person whose birthday has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys but leaving selection of respondent to household members will lead to bias. 5 "Eligible" households refer to addresses that belong to residences that are not vacant within the City of Chanhassen. (:) ,5 <- ~ Report of Results 46 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey t\ppendix B: Survoy Methcdo!ogy United States maintained by the U.S. postal service and sold to NRC through an independent vendor. For each household, one adult, selected in an unbiased fashion, was asked to complete the survey. The sample drawn for Chanhassen used USPS data to approximate the geographic boundaries of the jurisdiction, though some households just outside the city limits may have received surveys. The survey completers who technically do not reside in the jurisdiction may choose to respond to the survey because they feel an affiliation with the jurisdiction and its services. Local govemments often have a sphere of influence - providing in-jurisdiction services that perimeter-residents use or even providing services outside the jurisdiction boundaries. In theory, in 95 cases out of 100, the results based on such samples will differ by no more than 5 percentage points in either direction horn what would have been obtained had responses been collected horn all Chanhassen adults. This difference is also called a "margin of error.6" This difference from the presumed population finding is referred to as the sampling error. For subgroups of responses, the margin of sampling error is larger. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of the public may introduce other sources of error. For example, the failure of some of the selected adults to participate in the sample or the difficulty of including all sectors of the population, such as residents of some institutions or group residences, may lead to somewhat different results. Weighting and Analyzing the Data The surveys were analyzed using the SPSS statistical pacl~age. Frequency distributions and average (mean) ratings are presented in the body of the report. ~ The demographic characteristics of the sample were compared to those of the City of Chanhassen as reflected in the information sent by staff to National Research Center, Inc. When necessary, survey results were statistically adjusted to reflect the l~nown population profile. 8 Generally, two variables are used in a weighting scheme. Known population characteristics are compared to the characteristics of survey respondents. Characteristics chosen as weighting variables are generally selected because they are not in proportion to what is shown in a jurisdiction's demographic profile and because differences in opinion are observed between subgroups of these characteristics. The two socioeconomic characteristics that were used to weight the survey results were gender/age and housing unit type. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics, although the percentages are not always identical in the sample compared to the population norms. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. 75 ~s v') ~ <> ~;~ z :>, D ~'; '"" m ;> )? ~o b (!.) 2 u r. ;z: 6 The margin of error was calculated using the following formula: 1.96 . square root (0.25/400). This margin of error is calculated in the most conservative way. The standard error was assumed to be the greatest for a binomial distribution: 50%/50%. c Re~ort of Results 47 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey /\ppcndlx B: Survoy ~18thodDlonY Weighting Scheme for the City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Respondent Unweighted Weighted Survey Characteristics Population Norm7 Survey Data Data Tenure ~------ Rent Home 10% 9% 7% Own Home 90% 91% 93% Ethnicity Non-Hispanic Hispanic 99% 99% 1% 98% 2% 1% Race White/Caucasian Non-White 95% 94% 92% 5% 6% 8% 51% 59% 51% 49% 41% 49% 27% 11% 27% 58% 54% 58% 15% 35% 15% Gender Female Male Age 18-34 35-54 55+ g ~1] C) T~ OJ If) &: 2 o ~:,.~ ../" E .~:' ;;. ~~ v, C3 ~ () '" (6 z 7 Source: 2000 Census :.1) Rc{!orl of I~csults 48 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ApPENDIX C: SURVEY MATERIALS The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Chanhassen. All households selected for inclusion in the study were first sent a prenotification postcard informing them that they would be receiving a questionnaire within the following weel~. A weel~ later, a cover letter and survey were sent, with a postage paid return envelope. T woweel~s later a second cover letter and survey were sent. The second cover letter asl~ed that those who had responded not do so again, while urging those who had not yet returned their surveys to please do so. ~ .8 Qj o <if u> '" ct .9 ~:j z >. J:} '5;' .> ~ ~~ o ;:; '" z ~ Report of Results 49 = 'V roQ) 00> 1jl:2g' U. t '" - 0 .0 O~~<(Q;~ ~[ia..a..~'E o..~~ ~d; i:i: 0.. = 'V roQ) 00> 1jl:2 g' Uo -e~t)ClL..:" Oroo<(Q)Z [l[ia..a..:2~ O:1i)cn 5E rr:=> !D~ "C r- M r- Cti "C M > 10 Cti 0) 10 > 10 "S z: 0) 10 0 ::2: "S z: 00 0 ::2: .~I .... r-c 00 0) .~I Q) c .>or:: -q-O) r- 0) rn .....~ .>or:: -q- en ::2: X ctl rn ..... en o .s= ::2: X ctl 0 ooc: 0 .s= 0 ojg 000 c: r- Oo ctl r- a...c..> .s= f:::a... c..> 'iij Q) o;;!; 1jl:2g' Uo t:: ~ 1;; 0 ...: oroo<(Q)z [l[ia..a..:2"" Q:u;oo sE rr:=> !D~ = 'V ro 1Il 00> 1jl:2g' U . t "'-0 .0 o::l:g<(liiz [l[ia..a..:2~ 0:1i)(f) 5E rr:=> !D~ .~I .... c ~!;;~ ~:; ~ ::2:0.s= oOOC: ooctl f:::a...c3 .~I "E ctl > 0) "S o 00 Q) f'. g ~~~ ctl X ctl ::2:0.s= oOOC: oojg f:::a...c..> r- ..... C') 10 10 z: ::2: "E ctl > 0) "S o 00 r- M 10 10 z: ::2: .:- r::: Q) "0 'w Q) 0:::: r::: Q) Cf) Cf) ca ..r::: r::: ca ..r::: o Q)-....."OCf) ..... 0 X r:::'- ca Q)_..r::: c. r::: ". ..... .- >> ..r::: u ~ >>.......... .- 0 "". .- ~ ~:E3: c.Q)::3~Cf) o ..r::: Cf) c.::3 .......... EO) E Q) r::: .......r::: ou'- 0::3..... C. "Oo'Q....(i) r:::.o o..r::: ca ca >>_ .... .... c. 0 1i3 >>0 Cf) ~ Q)ur:::Q) ~2:cagu .....::3 ur::: u Cf) Q) ::3 ca Q) >.... > - .-....."0 Q) r::: Q) Cf) ca Cf) u r::: Q) Q)'- r::: r::: N.... ._ Q) :B -:5 ::3 Q) u = .- 0 .0 3:3:>> Cf) Cf) ca::3::3=..llo::: ..r::: 0 o.ca r:::_. "OE>-E~O ->> t-Q) or:::' Q) '0 ..r::: r::: .... Q) 0 Q) :5 ...; c. Cf) r::: Cf) .- ::3 ca Cf) r::: 0) C o ca.- r::: ca ..r::: r::: ..r::: .- 1:: ....car:::~Eo ::3 caQ)::3c. o ..r:::Q)1iiE >- .5 0 3: .... ._ .... ca Q) o .:- r::: Q) :E Cf) Q) 0:::: r::: Q) Cf) Cf) ca ..r::: r::: ca .c o Q)-....."o Cf) ..... 0 x r:::'- ca Q)_..r::: c. r:::""..... .- >> ..r::: u ~ -- .......... .- 0 ,...., ""'.- ~ ~:s3: c.Q)::3~Cf) o..r::: Cf) c. ::3 .......... EO) E Q) r::: .......r::: oU'- 0::3..... C. "Oo'Q....(i) r:::.o o..r::: caca>>_.... .... c. 0 1i3 >>0 Cf) - Q)ur:::Q) ~2:cagu .....::3 ur::: u Cf) Q) ::3 ca Q) >.... > - .-....."0 Q) r::: Q) Cf) ca Cf) Q) u.5 r::: N ~ .5 Q):+J ..r::: Q) .- - ..... ::3 .0 u.~.~ ~ ~~::3=..llo::: ..r::: 0 0 ca r:::_. "OE>-E~t5 '0>> t-.~ ..r:::r:::cQ) 0 Q) 0 Q):5 ...; a. Cf) r::: Cf) .- ::3 ca Cf) r::: 0) C o ca.- r::: ca ..r::: r:::..r::: .- 1:: ....car:::~Eo ::3 caQ)::3c. o ..r:::Q)1iiE >- .5 0 3: ....._ .... ca Q) o dl >> (i) .... Q) u r::: Cf) -..:i .pt dl >. ~ Q) u r::: Cf) -..:i pt 0) r::: o i:: ::3 LL c:( Cf) ca .... E 0 0>> ..r:::ca t-~ 0) r::: o i:: ::3 LL c:( Cf) ca .... E 0 0>> ..r:::ca t-~ ..... r::: Q) "0 'w Q) 0:::: r::: Q) Cf) Cf) ca ..r::: r::: ca ..r::: o Q)-....."OCf) ..... 0 x r:::'- ca Q)_..r::: c. r:::""..... .- >> ..r::: u ~ __ .......... .- 0 ,...., ""'.- ~ ~:E3: c.Q)::3~Cf) o ..r::: Cf) c. ::3 .......... EO) E ..... ~ ou.5 0::3..... c. "Oo'Q....(i) r:::.o o..r::: ~ ca >>- .... c. 0 1i3 >> 0 Cf) - Q)ugQ) "0 2: ca:+J U 2::3 ur::: u Cf) Q) ::3 ca Q) >.... > - .-....."0 ~r:::~~ca Q) .- r::: N ~ .5 Q):+J ..r::: Q) .- - _ ::3 .0 u.~.~ ~ Cf) Cf) ca::3::3=..llo::: ..r::: 0 0 ca r::: -. "OE>-E~t5 '0 >> t- .~ ..r::: r::: c Q). 0 Q) 0 Q):5 ...; a. Cf) r::: Cf) .- ::3 ca Cf) r::: 0) C o ca.- r::: ca ..r::: r::: ..r::: .- 1:: ....car:::~Eo ::3 caQ)::3c. o ..r:::Q)1iiE >- .5 0 3: .... ._ .... ca Q) o .:- r::: Q) :E Cf) Q) 0:::: r::: Q) Cf) Cf) ca ..r::: r::: ca ..r::: o Q)-....."o Cf) ..... 0 x r:::'- ca Q)_..r::: c. r:::....- .- >> ..r::: u ~ >>.......... 1:: 0 Q) c',- ca 2::+J 3: c.Q)::3~Cf) o ..r::: Cf) c.::3 .......... EO) E Q) r::: _..r::: OU'- 0::3- C. "Oo'Q....(i) r:::.o o..r::: ca ca >>~ .... .... c. 1i3 >> 0 Cf).E Q)ur:::Q) ~2:cagu -::3 ur::: u Cf) Q) ::3 ca Q) >.... > - .- - "0 Q) r::: Q) Cf) ca Cf)Q)ur::: r::: N ~'-.5 Q):B-:5::3 Q) u =.- 0 .0 3:3:>> Cf) Cf) ca::3::3=~ ..r::: 0 0 ca r:::_. "OE>-E~t5 ->> t-Q) or:::' Q) '0 ..r::: r::: .... Q) 0 Q):5 ...; c. Cf) r::: Cf) .- ::3 ca Cf) r::: 0) C o ca.- r::: ca ..r::: r::: ..r::: .- 1:: ....car:::~Eo ::3 caQ)::3c. o ..r:::Q)1iiE >- .5 0 3: ....._ .... ca Q) o dl~ . ::3 -..:i LL c:( ptCf) ca .... E 0 '- ~~ t-~ >. Q) .... Q) u r::: Cf) dl ~ ::3 LL c:( Cf) ca .... E 0 0>> ..r:::ca t-~ ~ Q) .... Q) u r::: Cf) -..:i pt CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2007 Dear Chanhassen Resident: The City of Chanhassen wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Chanhassen's 2007 Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Chanhassen residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important - especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey, please call 952-227-1118. Please help us shape the future of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, /LA. .~ Thomas A. Furlong Mayor The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downlown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2007 Dear Chanhassen Resident: About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to discard this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The City of Chanhassen wants to know what you think' about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Chanhassen residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important - especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey, please call 952-227-1118. Please help us shape the future of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, ILA.~ Thomas A. Furlong Mayor The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2007 CITIZEN SURVEY Please complete this tionnair a birthday. The adult's year of birth pinion for each question. Yo 1. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: Excellent How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? .................................1 ~Hoit"doy6I.rraie0 your~neigtiborhoo({as "aplaceto)lve? "." How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? .................1 )-to\v~doyou rate Cha'nhass'ena's~a place 'to\vork?: .:~:::':..::. ...:~::.':,:::.:::~ 1'" How do rate Chanhassen as a to retire? ..............................1 Don't know 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Shopping opportunities..........................................................................1 ~ir'quality':. :.:::.'. :.:..... ....,.,.......... ..,....: .": .:. ::..: :'.:........ ::.:::. ..:.::: ::.:.:::,..:..... .1.n~:,~.~. ,.. Recreational opportunities ..................................................... ......... .......1 !Jqb 9Ppo~unities':: :'::: ..::::.:.... ...:: :'.,: :;:. :'..:'.:. ::.::..... ......:. :'::.::.:. :;: ,:.,.......... :.: ..1 : ".~:~". Access to affordable quality housing .....................................................1 [Access'lo'affordable' quaiity 0Clilla'ca[~~;::":;:::: ,..,.:. ..:..:..:::. ...:: :,:::: ..:::::, .:::: j ,:... Access to affordable quality health care................................................1 Ll;ase'of car traVeO" 'Qh'SD hasse'~.:... ..: :,:::.::. ,.".: ,.. ;,;'.;:::.,.:.:~.::...:... ....: .:.:C:":::, n.' Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen.........................................................1 :I;~seOf bicycle tr~y~ljrt'<:;hallhass~n...,..:,."..,...,:. :~...:..,.....,..,. ....,.. .",,:1 ::.:~:' .. Ease of walking in Chanhassen ............................................................1 Good 2 Fair 3 Poor Don't know 4 5 2 2 2 2~ 2 .. "2".' 2 , :.;':,,~ 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Chanhassen over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much too slow too slow amount too fast too fast Pop~ICltion..gr()':Ym""..,.,.,.,',..',......."..,..,..................",...,....1 ... ................ ...2 ....3 .4. 5 l~eiail 9r9vVtti (stores; re.sta.l.Jrant~.~j~)::,.".:.:.. ,.... ... ::'..,.:...}f.:'..: ..' .. .2... ~ ' ',. 4 ' Jobs growth ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 .b";_~~~~()r:'~I~i~i'.:~r:'~~'.Y~y~~._._ Page 1 of5 . ..... ................................ The City of Chanhassen 4. To what degree, if at all, are the following problems in Chanhassen: Nota problem Crime..... ................................................. ............................. ..................1 Minor problem 2 :~~:K~~~;!:~6Zth':::::: :::::::::::~:::::::::::: :::::"::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::~:::::~:::::;: +.. Weeds..... ............ ............. ........ .... ...................... .... ....................... ... ......1 5. Please rate how safe you feel from the following occurring to you in Chanhassen: Very Somewhat Neither safe safe safe nor unsafe Yiolentcr,irn~J~:g'~.~f1P~! .~~~c,t,u.lt, r()~.~.E:lr,y)'''''''''''''':''::''.:,1 "&.,,,,' ...,..2. .,."'p",,. 3 ~Pr.9pertycrimes (e.g.. burglary, theft) ..........;......:.;.,.:.,..~.J .~., "" 2 3 " Fire .................................................................................. 1 2 3 6~ Please rate how safe you feel: Very safe In your neighborhood during the day............................... 1 fin' you~.neighbOrhood after dark' :~:::....:.::..::..:.:: .:: ~.:~.::.:.:::r: In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day............. 1 [in Chcinhassen's"downtown area after, da;:k.;~~:..::.:.:...::::. 1" .. In Chanhassen's the ............................ 1 Somewhat safe 2 Neither safe nor unsafe 3 2 3 .. Z ", ."...~~~3... 2 3 Moderate problem 3 3 Somewhat unsafe 4 4 4 Somewhat unsafe 4 4 ,~'~N~ N,'^', ,',',',',',~ ""'~;;;,::,:~~::i~:j~~(:;:r:wr '" 4 Major problem 4 4 Very unsafe 5 . ..."..,5,.. 5 Very unsafe 5 5 Don't know 6 "6 6 ., -, -'-'-~ Don't know 6 "6 6 .6 6 13 to 26 times 4 4 4 7. During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? o No ~ Go to question #9 0 Yes ~ Go to question #8 0 Don't know 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? o No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 3 to 12 times 3 (3 3 3. 3 3 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Chanhassen? More than 26 times 5 o .5 ..: OJ 1: OJ U .r. f: ra OJ Ul OJ 0:: 0; c: o ~ Z " o o ":I o o N @ Once or twice 2 ""z" 2 i"'"'' 2 Never Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services ..............................1 [Used 'thanha'ssen' recreati.o6. c~~ter~~:~~:..,::.,:..,.:.:. :::.:..:.:,:...:::.:~~:::..:} .::::1 ~~'.:. . Participated in a recreation program or activity .....................................1 :VIsited a' neighborhoocforCity' paif:~~;:~:~:::~':: ,:':'. ::',: .~~:.. :,:..:: .:.: :::,: .::':: ::. .1'::==:<:<- Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen..................................................1 ad a meeting of local electec(offlCials or ottier'ioca eetiI19.....:..................... ............".............. .:........,.................. Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television.............................................................1 :RecyCled ,used paper, cans or"bottlesfromyour home. :.......,. ..,..~:::. .:<.:1.' Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen ..............1. [Read Gflafitiassen : Newsletter ....;. ',' ,... ,."...:... .::..., .......,., ,...........:...:.. ::::.1" Used the Internet for anything ...............................................................1 ;Used.ttie' Internet' tocon~uctbusin:esswith Ghanhass~i1..'.:..:.::::.,:.,:~:.I: q' .' Purchased an item over the Internet .....................................................1 5 2 .Z 2 Z 2 :2 2 3 .. ..3.., 3 4 5 " ......'"3. .'m",..... ~ "",,'" ,.,. " "4'" ".." ,,,,,..."t"",""~' '5' ,.."......w...., ~i,:,i,i :.:'.'::: ~: :;;;; ,... ,,~;:;~:~:j:;~;;::::;I:)/Z:l:,~, ~;/ U~~~%};;t~;&L:: :"" ,,:;;~,~::L~:~:_:; 3 4 5 b~ National Citizen SurveyTM 5 ~ >- OJ ~ :J en c: OJ ~ U 0; c: .2 ro z OJ .r. I- Page 2 of 5 The ofChanhassen Poor 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Fair Poor Don't know 3 4 5 4 5 12. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? o No ~ Go to question #14 0 Yes ~ Go to question #13 13. What was your impression of employees of the City of Chanhassen in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) ~~ National Citizen SurveyTM Page 3 of 5 U .5 .: Ql C Ql U .s::; e <0 Ql '" Ql ~ m c: .2 ro z r-- o o ~ ...- o o C\I @ ~ >- Ql ~ :J en c: Ql N ., G m c: o ~ Z Ql .s::; f- The ofChanhassen 14. Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most clearly represents your opinion: Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Don't aqree aqree nor disaqree disaqree disaqree know I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes I pa ...................................................................... 1 15. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: o Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 16. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. The City completed a retail market study that showed Chanhassen businesses successfully meet day-to-day shopping needs, and a regional mall along the new Highway 212 in the City of Chanhassen would be viable and expand the retail opportunities in our city. The City Council would like to know the level to which you a'gree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly agree I would like a regional mall built along the new Highway 212........... 1 kettle ci' .,. . focusretaii expansionlil the mm , ' town long thel'}~If.IHigh\Nay21?~~~......~..~.,. I would like to limit retail to the amount currently found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mall.................... 1 Somewhat aqree 2 Neither agree Somewhat Strongly nor disaqree disaaree disaaree 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 b. What size mall, if at all, would you like to see developed in Chanhassen? (select only one) o Small (specialty stores only) o Medium (two department stores and specialty stores) o Large (multiple department stores and specialty stores) o No preference in terms of scale o I do not support the development of a regional mall in Chanhassen c. How important, if at all, is it to you to have the City do the following? Essential 1 Very imoortant 2 Somewhat Not at all imoortant imoortant 3 4 t.i E: ..: OJ 1: OJ U .t:: e III OJ rt) OJ c:: cti c .2 iii z .... o o N I ~ o o N @ d. Which of the following best describes where you live? o North of Highway 5 o South of Highway 5 e. What do you think will be the single biggest issue facing the City of Chanhassen over the next 2-3 years? ~ >- OJ c: ::J Ul C OJ N ., (j cti c o ~ Z OJ .t:: I- ~~ National Citizen SurveyTM Page 4 of 5 The ofChanhassen 17. Do you live within the City limits of the City of Chanhassen? . o No 0 Yes 18. Are you currently employed? o No -+ Go to question #19 o Yes -+ Go to question #18a 18a.What one method of transportation do you usually use (for the longest distance of your commute) to travel to work? o Motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, motorcycle etc...) o Bus, Rail, Subway, or other public transportation o Walk o Work at home o Other 18b.Jf you checked the motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) box in 18a, do other people (adults or children) usually ride with you to or from work? o No 0 Yes 19. How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? o Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years o 2-5 years 0 More than 20 years o 6-10 years 20. Which best describes the building you live in? o One family house detached from any other houses o House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) o Building with two or more apartments or condominiums o Mobile home o Other 21. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home... o Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? o Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? 22. Do any children 12 or under live in your household? o No 0 Yes 23. Do any teenagers aged between 13 and 17 live in your household? o No 0 Yes 24. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? o No 0 Yes 25. Does any member of your household have a physical handicap or is anyone disabled? o No 0 Yes 26. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (mark one box) o 12th Grade or less, no diploma o High school diploma o Some college, no degree o Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) o Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) o Graduate degree or professional degree 27. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) o Less than $24,999 o $25,000 to $49,999 o $50,000 to $99,999 o $100,000 or more 28. Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? o No 0 Yes 29. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be) o American Indian or Alaskan native o Asian or Pacific Islander o Black, African American o White/Caucasian o Other 30. In which category is your age? o 18-24 years 0 55-64 years o 25-34 years 0 65-74 years o 35-44 years 0 75 years or older o 45-54 years 31. What is your sex? o Female 0 Male 32. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? o No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 33. Did you vote in the last election? o No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 34. Are you likely to vote in the next election? o No 0 Yes 0 Don't know <.i .E ..: Ql 1: Ql U .c ~ III Ql '" Ql c:: c;; c: o ~ Z r-- o o ~ .... o o N @ ~ >. Ql c:: :l en c: Ql N :;::l (} c;; c: o ~ Z Ql .c: f- b~ National Citizen SurveyTM I Page 5 of 5 '(ij al 0 '<t -c::::Cl ()~ allllCll 0 t III Vi 0 ..:z OCllO-<eal 1Il- () c.. -c :!::: ~ c..SE c..ViCf) 0.... .= ::J ro ~ LL. .~I t- ~ LO LO :z: ::2: -c m > Q) "5 o al ~~~ Ca ,.... ~ ::2:~jg OalC:: OOCll ~I:l...B CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard' Chanhassen, MN 55317. T: (952) 227-1118 . www.cLchanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ~ .. National Citizen SurveyTM National Research Center, lne. 3005 30lh 81. . Boulder, CO 80301 . T: (303) 444-7863' F: (303) 4<14-1 145' www.n-r-c.com The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Survey Background .... ...... ........ .... ........ .......... .... ........ .... ... ........... .... .... ... ......... 1 About The National Citizen Survey TM .......................... ................. ..................... ................. I Understanding the Normative Comparisons .................................................... 2 Comparison Data............................................................................................................... 2 Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale .................................................... 3 Putting Evaluations onto a IOO-Point Scale ....................................................................... 3 Interpreting the Results. .... ................... ......... .... ............................ ........ .... ....... .... ....... ....... 4 .Com parisons ..................................................................................................... 5 Appendix A: List of Jurisdictions Included in Normative Comparisons ......... 19 Appendix B: Frequently Asked Questions about the Citizen Survey Database ........................................................................................................ 34 ci E .~. ?ij () .~ m t>'" & 2: o ~-~ z >> J:l ZE ."" (;) > J1 El () If f;j Z I~ RCEort of Normativc ComJ!arisons The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey SURVEY BACKGROUND About The National Citizen Survey ™ The National Citizen SurveyTM (fhe NCS TM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the Intemational City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-add!,essed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the e:t:ltire community. The National Citizen Survey ™ customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Chanhassen staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Chanhassen staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen Survey ™ Basic Service. <5 .5 (): o (.) .~3 t"D f,J ", ~ ((; ~ z >- n >. (.}) ;> ~? v) s () ~ 0} ;;:; <i\ ReEort of Normative Comparisons 1 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey UNDERSTANDING THE NORMATIVE COMPARISONS Comparison Data National Research Center, Inc. has collected citizen surveys conducted in over 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Responses to thousands of survey questions dealing with resident perceptions about the quality of community life and services provided by local government were recorded, analyzed and stored in an electronic database. The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region ... ............. .......................~...... West Coast1 16% .._.~__._.._._.._._._._m_m___.__..._...~..__..__..~_______.___._..~..__._...._...___._____._____.._.____.____..__..._..---.-..--..--..--.-...-------~.--.- Wese 21 % North Central Wese 12% North Central 12% .. ........ ........H...... ............................._...... ... South Central5 9% _.._--_......_---_.._---_.._..__......._~-_..._..__.._..._..._---_._--------_.~_._._----_.._----_._.........._-_._._----_.---....-....---- South6 25% Northeast Wesf 3% Northeast East8 2% Population ~~ Less than 40,000 38% .~. 40,000 to 74,999 75,000 to 149,000 21% 17% 8 "6 V t/> 5: 24% 150,000 or more o o :~~; 2 '" .:} )"" ?!. ~ 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii 2 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin 5 Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC 7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 6 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine fl () T5 z E Report of Nomlative Comparisons 2 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey L.ocal GOV8rnment Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asl~ed to record their opinions about service and community quality is "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor" (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the u.s. The advantage of familiarity is one we did not want to dismiss because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasl~s, we have found that ratings of almost every local govemment service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to he positive (that is, above the scal~ midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlil~e satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). Putting Evaluations onto a lOO...Point Scale ~.~ Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 4 representing the best rating and 1 the worst, many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Lil~ewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If the average rating for quality of life was "good," then the result would be 67 on a 100-point scale; "fair" would be 33 on the 100-point scale. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 3 points based on all respondents. 8 & (~) cr:. t:' Ji 5' .~) '" ~ :~~ (.) '", ;;: Report of Normative Comparisons 3 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Local Govemment Interpreting the Results Comparisons are provided when similar questions are included in our database, and there are at least five other jurisdictions in which the question was asl~ed. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction's rating on the 100-point scale. The second column is the ranl~ assigned to your jurisdiction's rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asl~ed. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asl~ed a similar question. Fourth, the ranl~ is expressed as a percentile to indicate its distance from the top score. This ranl~ (5th highest out of 25 jurisdictions' results, for example) translates to a percentile (the 80th percentile in this example). A percentile indicates the percent of jurisdictions with identical or lower ratings. Therefore, a rating at the 80th percentile would mean that your jurisdiction's rating is equal to or better than 80 percent of the ratings from other jurisdictions. Conversely, 20 percent of the jurisdictions where a similar question was asl~ed had higher ratings. Alongside the ranl~ and percentile appears a comp~rison: "above the norm," "below the " ""1 h " Th' I t' f" b " "b I " ""1 t" norm or Slml ar to t e norm. IS eva ua Ion 0 a ove, e ow or slml ar 0 comeS fro:r'n a statistical comparison of your jurisdiction's rating to the norm (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asl~ed). Differences of no more than 3 points on the 100-point scale between your jurisdiction's ratings and the average based on the appropriate comparisons from the database are considered "statistically significant," and thus are marl~ed as "above" or "below" the norm. when differences between your jurisdiction's ratings and the national norms are less than 3 points, they are marl~ed as "similar to" the norm. The data are represented visually in a chart that accompanies each table. Your jurisdiction's percentile for each compared item is marl~ed with a blacl~ line on the chart. ~ ;,;' v u '"i3 W m if} ~ 2 T~ z >, n .~ ::; VI '" fl u C) :'.,l 4:_ .~) '- Rcport of Normativc ComEarisons 4 .~ ~ 8 ""(5 V i;i) ~ 73 /, .~:~ z >- .n .~ ;> :; U) ~ C5 z .- '- The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey COMPARISONS Figure 1: Quality of Life Ratings Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o How do you rate How do you rate Chanhassen as your a place to live? neighborhood as a place to live? How do you rate How do you rate How do you rate Chanhassen as Chanhassen as the overall a place to work? a place to retire? quality of life in Chanhassen? How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? City of Chanhassen Rating Quality of Life Ratings Number of Jurisdictions for Rank Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? 91%ile 251 Above the norm 81 23 How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 78 How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? 81 94%i1e Above the norm 10 147 92%ile Above the norm 16 183 How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to work? 62 How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to retire? 53 How do you rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen? 77 78%i1e Above the norm 21 93 159 34%i1e Below the norm 106 91%ile 235 Above the norm 22 __~ort of Normative Comparisons 5 Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions Chanhassen Chanhassen Rati ng Rank for Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Sense of community 62 28 135 80%i1e Above the norm --- Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 56 47 114 60%i1e Similar to the norm ------------- Overall appearance of Chanhassen 68 36 164 79%i1e Above the norm ---~--- ~~~----~~- Opportunities to attend cultural activities 46 97 141 32%i1e Below the norm Shopping opportunities 45 87 136 37%ile Below the norm --------_..._-------_.._--~~-_._-_._-_._._._._._.._-_.----_....-.-----_._-_._~_._-----------_..__._--_._-_._-- Air quality 73 7 73 92%ile Above the norm Recreational opportunities Job opportunities ~.> 5::: ::;,) i;j u '7.) ~J r/) ~ ;:; .t~,~ z ;.)0., D >" i)) ,~ vI g " ~, <- The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey COrnp3rlSOnS Figure 2: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Sense of community Openness and acceptance Opportunities to attend cultural activities Shopping opportunities Air quality Recreational Job opportunities opportunities Overall appearance of Chanhassen 71 15 146 -- 161 90%i1e Above the norm 44 39 76%ile Above the norm Report of Normative Com]?arisons 6 ,5 E 4i Q (.) 75 is ~ c c-' ~:2 Z "., D "6 ;- ~ a3 :Bl n ~ fG z .E The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Gornp8risons Figure 3: Characteristics of the Community: Access and Mobility Access to affordable quality housing Access to affordable quality housing Access to affordable quality child care Access to affordable quality health care Ease of car travel in Chanhassen Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen Ease of walking in Chanhassen Access to affordable quality child care Access to affordable . quality health care Ease of car Ease of bus travel in travel in Chanhassen Chanhassen Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen Ease of walking in Chanhassen Characteristics of the Community: Access and Mobility City of Number of City of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm 44 178 61%ile Similar to the norm 71 58 96 86%ile Above the norm 14 66 98%i1e Above the norm 3 87 64 128 Above the norm 96%i1e 6 50 76 72%i1e Above the norm 22 64 92%i1e Above the norm 11 124 66 119 86%ile Above the norm 18 Report of Normative Comparisons 7 U Ei: .~. (3 () Tj il ~ c o rJ Z '" n .~ :> (~ :~ U (..I ~ .~) c_ The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Ccrnpatisons Figure 4: Ratings of Safety from Various Problems Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Fire Ratings of Safety From Various Problems City of Chanhassen Rating City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Number of Jurisdictions for Rank Comparison Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Fire 90%i1e Above the norm 84 14 130 78%ile 97%i1e Above the norm Above the norm 69 83 29 5 129 129 Report of Nomlative Comparisons 8 ~ :D 25 7.> ~ ,/) o (Y' (; ~,:~ z >, D ~' Jl (3 ro z .~) The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Cornparisons Figure 5: Ratings of Safety in Various Areas Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o In your In your neighborhood neighborhood during the day after dark City of Chanhassen Rating In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark In Chanhassen's parks during the day In Chanhassen's parks after dark 94 82 95 82 92 66 In In Chanhassen~ Chanhassen~ downtown area downtown area during the day after dark In Chanhassen's parks during the day Ratings of Safety in Various Areas Number of Jurisdictions Rank for Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile 2 99%ile 157 12 94%i1e 180 1 100%i1e 127 5 147 97%ile 12 91%ile 128 17 88%i1e 128 In Chanhassen's parks after dark Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Above the norm Above the norm Above the norm Above the norm Above the norm Above the norm Report of Nomlativc Comparisons 9 ~ .~. Q () T~ ~ 0" (i> cc: c o q: z .f: ~-J .~~ ~ l~ G ,- (5 rv Z The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Cornpar!sons Figure 6: Quality of Public Safety Services Police services Fire services Ambulance/EMS Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Crime prevention Quality of Public Safety Services City of Chanhassen Rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Above the norm City of Chanhassen Percentile 68 330 68%i1e Police services 105 Above the Fire services 77 74 250 71%i1e norm Ambulance/emergency Above the medical services 76 66 204 68%i1e norm ------------ ~~.._,~-,-- ----- Above the Crime prevention 64 39 156 76%i1e norm Fire prevention and Above the education 69 35 127 73%i1e norm -- Above the Traffic enforcement 62 35 195 83%i1e norm Report of Normative Comparisons 10 . Street repair 49 ___.______....________.__.__.___._____ m____..__.m.N_m____._.._....__~_.'.n_....._..__n_.___....._....._.........__.. _________..___.._.____________________.....__.___ Street cleaning 58 69 180 62%ile Above the norm __.__.___n.__._...__._____...__._......__......._......______.__._______.__.....___..__mn.______._m__._____.______._.______......_....____..._._____._________.________. Street lighting 58 62 190 68%ile Above the norm Snow removal 64 46 183 75%ile Above the norm ~ 13 U ~ ^' t;~ d: Ci o ~) z >> ..0 ';' "ij ;> ~ ~ :3 :"J Z ~ The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ConlparisDns Figure 7: Quality of Transportation Services Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Street repair. Street Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk Traffic signal Amount of Bus/transit cleaning maintenance timing public parking services City of Chanhassen Rating Quality of Transportation Services Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Above the norm Rank City of Chanhassen Percentile 107 62%i1e 276 Sidewalk maintenance 92%i1e 63 14 160 Above the norm Traffic signal timing 49 25 . .... ............................................................................................................................ Amount of public parking 63 2 ................................................ ..... ....... .... ..................................................... Bus/transit services 57 35 100 76%i1e Above the norm 99%ile Above the norm 86 72%ile Above the norm 120 Report of Normative Comparisons 11 I ~') !~ Iv? The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Cornp2risors Figure 8: Quality of Leisure Services i ~ u l-l o U) ~ [~ 'B ~ ~~ HI ~]~ ~ ~ ~] i: ~ ~ r~ J ~ i i ' ~i r -B ~i ~.m II Quality of Leisure Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rank for Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm City parks 77 16 188 92%i1e Above the norm Recreation programs or classes 69 37 207 83%i1e Above the norm Range/variety of recreation programs and classes 67 23 102 78%i1e Above the norm Similar to the Recreation centers/facilities 61 60 144 59%i1e norm Accessibility of parks 76 16 117 87%ile Above the norm ---,--------,---- Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities 69 17 80 80%ile Above the norm ~ w~ o () "f; 2) ;jJ o "'- ::"..; Appearance/maintenance of parks 193 o 'f~~ z >> ,", 73 37 ~i Appearance of recreation centers/facilities Public library services 87 217 70 80 20 21 ^, ,...: Variety of library materials 15 71 85 81%i1e Above the norm 78%ile 91%i1e Above the norm Above the norm 84%i1e Above the norm o Z E '- Report of Normative Comparisons 12 Reicycling n__.____"._n_.__~...._. ..__.__..____.._.____m ...m__~__'__'~__ Yard waste pick-up 61 67 116 43%ile Similar to the norm ----~--_._---_._,._-,-_.__._.__._-_._-~------------_.-.----.-----.-...---.-.----.-----.-.-..--.-.----...-- Storm drainage Drinking water C\ ~ c,j () -~ f.0 Ul :.1> a::: o .~:.; >. n )~ 'j) 0> ~ :Zi () -- o 13 z The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Cornparlsons Figure 9: Quality of Utility Services Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services pick-up City of Chanhassen Rating Quality of Utility Services Number of Jurisdictions for Rank Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Garbage collection 80%ile Above the norm 246 191 49 . .. ....................................... 52 75 72 73%ile Above the norm 60 190 84%i1e Above the norm 31 49 155 28%i1e Below the norm 112 Sewer services 28 148 82%i1e Above the norm 66 Report of Normative Comparisons 13 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) _._-~ Animal control ~ .~ ;jj () F .~ C) v) 2 'N o .~~ z ;0-, !:l >~ (1) '" v) F .~ () ;! 25 8 z The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey CornpDnsons Figure 10: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement (weeds,abandoned buildings. etc) Animal control Economic development Quality of PlanninOg and Code Enforcement Services City of Number of City of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Land use, planning and zoning 70%i1e Above the norm 45 146 47 60 61 92%i1e 80%ile Above the norm Above the norm 18 37 205 180 Economic development 83%ile Above the norm 24 137 56 RCF-ort of Normativc Comparisons 14 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Health services 68 9 ---- Services to seniors 64 38 Services to youth 60 28 Services to low-income people 45 .............................................................M .................................................._ Public information services 65 Public schools Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o ~ {l'j 2] 'U t\, C-) !/> ~ Municipal courts <5 t} z 0>- n Cable television :~ ~" :> J1 .Q () ~ ~ Z (t} Cornp2risons Figure 11: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services Health services Services to Services to Services to Public seniors youth low-income information people services Municipal courts Cable television Public schools Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services City of Number of City of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm 89 91%ile Above the norm 156 76%i1e Above the norm 129 79%ile Above the norm 27 73%i1e Above the norm 95 20 88%ile Above the norm 165 64 71 74 144 89%i1e 97%ile Above the norm Above the norm 3 17 43 21%i1e Below the norm 78 98 ----.!~Eort of Normative Comparisons 15 ~ ~ " '-' -iJ n; ~} !)) 2 :s: .~ Z >. D .~ ;;. ::; V) ~ iJ (3 r" F (5 M Z (.\ '- The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Con1p.sJisors Figure 12: Overall Quality of Services Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Services provided by the City of Chanhassen Services provided by the Federal Government SerVices provided by the State Government City of Chanhassen Rating Overall Quality of Services Number of Jurisdictions for Rank Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Services provided by the City of Chanhassen Services provided by the Federal Government Services provided by the State Government 78%ile Above the norm 49 222 67 45 45 116 62%i1e Similar to the norm 86%i1e Above the norm 18 118 50 Report of Normative Comparisons 16 ~ ^' :"J :....; '2 :2 r,j z ,.t) '- The Ci!y of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Cornparisons Figure 13: Ratings of Contact with City Employees Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o Knowledge Courtesy Overall Impression Responsiveness Ratings of Contact with the City Employees City of Chanhassen Rati ng Number of Jurisdictions for Rank Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm Knowledge 73 38 166 78%i1e Above the norm --,------.---.--...--.-.-------.-.---.-..----- --_._--_._-_._----_._.._-----_.._.__._-~.._.__._._~- Responsiveness 75 12 168 93%ile Above the norm .---......-...-.-.--.--...........--...-----.-....---....--.-...-.......---.-...--..-...---..--.--.-.-..-------.....-..-...---.--.--..---.-......--.--------.---...--.- Courtesy 78 6 126 96%i1e Above the norm ----- Overall Impression 73 25 201 88%i1e Above the norm ReJ;'orl of Normative Comparisons 17 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Ccn1parisons Figure 14: Ratings of Public Trust Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes I pay The City of Chanhassen The City of Chanhassen government welcomes government listens to citizen involvement citizens I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking City of Chanhassen Rating Ratings of Public Trust Number of Jurisdictions Rank for Comparison City of Chanhassen Percentile Comparison of Chanhassen Rating to Norm c> I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes I pay 63 45 174 75%i1e Above the norm I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 66 22 144 85%i1e Above the norm ----~---~.._--~---_._-_._--_.__._------_._--~~--------.--.-----.--.-.-----.------.--.---.-.-- The City of Chanhassen government welcomes citizen involvement 69 21 152 87%ile Above the norm ~~ Y} () t3 r:; 1) ~:) cf o ",;::; (,; Z The City of Chanhassen government listens to citizens 15 134 .>- !:l ";:..-.... g: ~ 90%ile Above the norm 62 ~ u o ~ z Report of Normative Comparisons 18 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ApPENDIX A: LIST OF JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN NORMATIVE COMPARISONS ~ Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Homer AK 3,946 . .. ...... .... ......m......._...~...... ........m.. ..................................................................................................................................... mmmmmm.........................mm.................... ..... . ...... ... ..........mmm........................_mm. Auburn AL 42,987 _~_.._...________~___..__m_....___.__._..__._________.~________.________.__.._.___.__.__.._.__._.._.___~ Phenix City AL 28,265 Fayetteville AR 58,047 Fort Smith AR 80,268 ...................................... ................................... ....................................-............ .... ...................................... ........................................-.......... Hot Springs AR 35,613 ----.----..-- ----~_._----_._.._._---_.._-------_._~~--------_._._----------- Little Rock AR 183,133 Siloam Springs AR 10,000 Chandler AZ 176,581 .. ..........................................................................- ..........................-..........-............. ................................- ...............-................. . . ......... .... ........ .................................-............... Flagstaff AZ 52,894 -.-....-..--.----------.~._---~.~~-----...--..--------..--.--.-.--.-----------.-...----..-.-.-------.------- Gilbert AZ 109,697 Mesa AZ 396,375 Peoria AZ 108,364 .. .... .................... ... .... . .. . . . .. .............................m......_.................mm .. .............................................. .. ............................................................................... Phoenix AZ 1,321,045 ----~._--- --~._-------_..__._-_._----_.~------_..__._-_.._-_..._.-.----....-...--- Safford AZ 9,232 Scottsdale AZ 202,705 Sedona AZ 10,192. ..-.................................. ..................... ........................_.................... ..................................._........................_.......-............. ..... .......... .......... ............................................................-......... . Tempe AZ 158,625 .. mm......................................................................... ......................................................... .............................................. . . ....... .. ..... ..... ... .... ................... Tucson AZ 486,699 Antioch CA 90,532 Arcadia CA 53,054 . ... ........m............... .....m................................... ........... ............................................................................_............ . . . . .... ... .... .............. ................................... . Bakersfield CA 247,057 ___________n__...~__.___n_____..____._______.____.____._~_~_.._..___.__._.___.__...._____._____._._.......__..______.__..._._ Bellflower CA 72,878 Benicia CA 26,865 Berkeley CA 102,743 Capitola CA 10,033 '~.__.n_...___.__._..___._m__.~_'_.._~__.__..__n..____.__...___..____________.....m__.___""'mn.____"mn_._..._..__.._.__....m_.__".__.__._.__.____~____._..__. Carlsbad CA 78,247 .~....__..._.__.____._..._....___..._.._.._...__._.___.____..._........~______...__.__...__.......____..___...__..m_.._"'m._..._.._.~.._...____.._..___.._._..__....._......__m...____..___.....___...__.._ Chula Vista CA 173,556 Claremont CA 33,998 o ~ ~t> ^' "' ~ o 7,] z :..-..., n .>> .J) 2: ~ c (D ~ o .~ ro z E Report of Nomlative CODlEarisons 19 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdictions in Comparisons <.5 .s Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Concord CA 121,780 Coronado CA 24,100 _._._-~._--~-----~-_.__.~_._--_._._._----- ._-~--_._------- Cupertino CA 50,546 . ............................_...... . ........................................... ......................................._............. .... ..... ..............._m...... ................. ..... ....................._....... .. Cypress CA 46,229 __._.,."...~......._...____......_._...___._.__.___._..._........___...._._......__.__,__..__._...__...._..____....~__...__.,___.....,.n_.._____........_........_....___~..._.~..~_.._______m'.__......__.___._...__......_...___._ EI Cerrito CA 23,171 _.......__.__._________.___._._m_____.__.........._________m._.._._......__.__..__~__~_..._.__....____._.._..._...........__...~......-_..._...._._._._~....~m..._.m.........._..._.~_._ ..mmm.n....w.._........~___. Encinitas CA 54,014 Fremont CA 203,413 ... .... ...... ........................................ ... ...................... .............. . .. .................................................. CA 165,196 CA 41,464 .._.__.___~_.._..____..____..__.._..... .__.....____......_.._.....n_____._..~.....___ CA 19,488 CA 44,605 CA 54,749 .. ................................ .. ........................................ .............................................-........ ..... ...... ................................... .. ... ........ ........................................ CA 79,345 CA 73,345 ..__..._-----~.~-_._-_...._--~......_-_. ... --~-~-_...._~ Lompoc CA 41,103 Long Beach CA 461,522 .............. ..........................................-......... . ........................................... ....- ...................-....... .. ............ ...................................... ......... ................................................. Los Alamitos CA 11,536 Los Gatos CA 28,592 ____..___~.._.. _~~___.~.....___,__.._~__w.......~_____________~...___..__ Menlo Park CA 30,785 Monterey CA 29,674 _._............_.~....______...__.__........__.._m...__._.._..__._.____.~....__..~~.._...~_._.....____~_____.._~._._..__~_....~___...._.~..____........._.__..... Morgan Hill CA 33,556 _._...~......_......__.._......_~_n_._.___..___............_.._..._....._~.._..__...... .......n___....._....._....._.._......~_~..._.._.__.....n.......__.._............ ............_....._m._..____.._......_.___._... Mountain View CA 70,708 Novato CA 47,630 ......................................n.............. . .........................................n.... .............................._ .................................. ................................................... ......................._........ Oceanside CA 161,029 ................................... . .... .................................... CA 170,358 .._...__..___..........__..._n____.............._...__.._.._........._._._....___...__._.._.~.. CA 42,807 CA 58,598 . .... .... ................. ........................................................................... Pasadena CA 133,936 ..................................................... . Pleasanton CA 63,654 __..._ _____.____.____..~..__.n._...____....._____...._..__..._...._.......___..__......__..__... Pomona CA 149,473 -----~- Poway CA 48,044 Redding CA 80,865 .............................................- ................................................-..-........ .. . .... . .... ......................... .................................. .... ............... ...... . ..... ...... ........................................................................................... Ridgecrest CA 24,927 _.._......~_._.____n....__.___.___.__.__.n._~_..___.____..__.________._.._______..____.__ Riverside CA 255,166 Rosemead CA 53,505 Garden Grove Gilroy Hercules Highland La Mesa Lakewood Livermore .~ (5 o Q) ,,> C> 0::: Oxnard Palm Springs Palo Alto " 'f~ z ;>. n .~ b3 ~ () ;,> ~ .!.- Report of Nomlativc Comparisons 20 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey JurisdicUOhS in Cornparisons <5 .s Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Sacramento County CA 1,223,499 San Francisco CA 776,733 -~~~-~-, -'--~---- San Jose CA 894,943 ..............................--............ San Luis Obispo County CA 247,900 ._____wm_~.__._.nn'._'....._..____.___~____..._...'...m....'~mm~_.'__.n___.......___._...,.,_........._..._....._,..._____.,~...__._m_._._........................._.__................... San Mateo CA 92,482 _._,___.,_...___,_....,....._...,___.____..'____.m_~..___,_._.,____,_,..._.._,....._.._....__._..__._~.......~......_._.._..._.,.,_._.............___......................,......._.........._m.m San Ramon CA 44,722 Santa Barbara County CA 399,347 ................................................. Santa Clara CA 102,361 Santa Clarita CA 151,088 ,..,____"_,__,__._..._..._,_...______..____.'..m_..'._.__~__..._,...,_"',._.....,.__.,..._...._...._..._,.._._......._...~,._.____"_"___ Santa Monica CA 84,084 Santa Rosa CA 147,595 Simi Valley CA 111,351 Solana Beach CA 12,979 South Gate CA 96,375 _____ _,___~_~A.__ Sunnyvale CA 131,760 Temecula CA 57,716 Thousand Oaks CA 117,005 Torrance CA 137,946 , ------~~-~ Visalia CA 91,565 Walnut Creek CA 64,296 _~~____.__.________~_~___nN_."__".___"...__~______._____________________~_ Yuba City CA 36,758 -_._---~-_._.._...._._---_._....__._._--_.._------_._-_.._._--~,---~_.._._---_..__._-_...__.._._. Archuleta County CO 9,898 Arvada CO 102,153 ........ onmm .............................................................._.............. Boulder CO 94,673 ......... .................................................... .....m.... ..................................................................................................._..................... . Boulder County CO 291,288 _._.._._._~---_.__._.__...._..-...._._--_._-----_......-._---_._._-_._._-~-~--_...._-------~-_..._.._-_._-_.._-....---.--....- Broomfield CO 38,272 Castle Rock CO 20,224 ............................................................. Denver (City and County) CO 554,636 . ........... ........ ..................................................- .............................................................................................. Douglas County CO 175,766 ~..~---~_._~..._---_.._-_..._.__._..._--_._-~- ~-~~.~,--~.~~~_.._,.._~~_..._._~-_._..,.~_.._-_.,..._--_..~.- Durango CO 13,922 Englewood CO 31,727 Fort Collins CO 118,652 .. ...................................... Fruita CO 6,478 ~~~.._.._.____._.._......_._.._.u_..._~_~.~,__~_.~__~___..______.. .~_~__..._.___._.._..__...~__"'"'~_~ Golden CO 17,159 Greeley CO 76,930 <5 t5 ,{3 OJ ","} ~ '"2 g ~ Z :,., D '"" Q 2 :::> (f) jJ () t~ r' 25 '"2 z: 4,) Rcport of Nomlativc Comparisons 21 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Juriscliction" in Cornparlsons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population <5 .s CO 70,931 CO 527,056 CO 23,197 . ........................................................... Lakewood CO 144,126 --_.__._----_..__._........_..__....._----_..~-~_._.__._-_.._-.--".-..-....-.....--."..---...--.---.............--......-..........-_...._..._-_..__......__.._._--~---_..,_.~.._-- Larimer County CO 251,494 --_..._._-------~-_..__.__.__._._.._-----_.._..._._-_.._---_...._._-_..._--_._----_._----_..__._.._.._.._--~- Littleton CO 40,340 Lone Tree CO 4,873 ... ............................................. . ................................ Longmont CO 71,093 Louisville CO 18,937 ----------_._----_.,..._-_._----_.,--"_._-_._-~,._---------,._"._._-~~._~_..._..._-------,-,-_._-,--_.- Loveland CO 50,608 Northglenn CO 31,575 .. ..............................................,............ ............................................................-....... ....... ....... ...... .......... .. ... .... .... ................. .... ............................... Parker CO 23,558 .................................................. ........................................ ................................... ..................................... .................................................... .. Thornton CO 82,384 Vail CO 4,531 '-~-- CO 100,940 CO 32,913 ................................................................-..............-.............. ........................................................... .......... ............................................... .. ..... ... ........................ CT 121.578 CT 54,740 -------~.~------_._~~---_.~ CT 25,671 CT 28,063 -.-..------------------.----.........---...... West Hartford CT 63,589 ...-...-....-.......-.-..-...---..--.-...-.-...----.-------------~---_._._-_._-_.._-_..__....._.__..._--_.._---_._-~--- Wethersfield CT 26,271 Dover DE 32,135 .............. ........................................................................................................................ ........................................ ... ....... .................................. . ..... ...... ..... ............... ...... . ....... .............. ...... .. ............. ............................................ Newark DE 28,547 . ..... ................................................... ...................................................................... Altamonte Springs FL 41,200 __.__..___.__..__..____._.___h______.__.___.__..____.______.__..___._____.___~___~._ Boca Raton FL 74,764 Bonita Springs FL 32,797 . . .. ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................... ........................................................ .................................................................................. Bradenton FL 49,504 ....... ......................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... Brevard County FL 476,230 -~..__. .._---~~-~.~-_._..._.._-_._-~._--~------~...._.- Broward County FL 1,623,018 --- Cape Coral FL 102,286 Clearwater FL 108,787 . .. ... ... .......... ................................ ......................... .... ............ ............................................... ......... ........................................ ..... ................................ .. .. ... . ... ................ ...... .. . . ... ............-......... Cooper City FL 27,939 _...._.__._-_..__..._...._-_._..._.__....._-_.._......_._-_.~.-..-..---..--..---.-...-.---.----..-----.---..........-......-.....-......--.---....-------.---...........-.--.-.....-..--..----....-.....---.....---...-.-- Coral Springs FL 117,549 Dania Beach FL 20,061 Highlands Ranch Jefferson County ---~_.~- Lafayette Westminster Wheat Ridge .....................-................................ Hartford Manchester New London Vernon .s 15 u '73 g "' ~ ,~ o ,'.) z. >, n Z'> '6> 2: ,? v) ~ () ~ 2: ~ Rc.l'ort of Normative ComEarisons 22 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurjse](ctions in Cornparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population ~ Daytona Beach FL 64,112 Deerfield Beach FL 64,583 Delray Beach FL 60,020 Duval County FL 778,879 --_..._-----------------_._----_....~_..._-_._._._._--._.._..-_._------_.._-_..__..._~----~_._._...._"~,..,'--,....."._-_..._-~.._._.._.._.- Fort Lauderdale FL 152,397 -....--.-.-.----..---.-.------.---.........-.--.----.-.-.-----.-------.--..-.--.-----..~-._-------_._.-------- Jacksonville FL 735,617 Kissimmee FL 47,814 Melbourne FL 71,382 ... ... ....... .................. ........................................... Miami FL 362,470 ~--_._---_..__._-----:----_.._---_._-._---_._._-_._----.-..--.-----.----.-- Miami Beach FL 87,933 Miami-Dade County FL 2,253,362 . ............... ................................. ....... ..............-............................... ...... .. .... .. ... ...... ..............................................~... ........................................... Ocoee . FL 24,391 .............................._......._~..... . .. .... ............................m............................... m............~....m ......m............................................~... ............... ............. .............................. Oldsmar FL 11,910 Orange County FL 896,344 -,~-_.- Orlando FL 185,951 Oviedo FL 26,316 ............................._._....... ... .... ..... ......... .......m~ ...... ...... ....m ........................... ...... ...... ....... ................. ............................................................._....m . ...... .......... .... ....... ...... ... .................... .............................................. ................ Palm Bay FL 79,413 Palm Beach County FL 1,131,184 -,._..~,_...._-_._...... Palm Coast FL 32,732 Pinellas County FL 921,482 -....-.--.-.-----.----.-----.-- ----_._--~--_..._~-_._--~._.__._-----_._-- Pinellas Park FL 45,658 --_...__.~-_.__....~._......__._-_._-_.._-_._._--_.__._--~..---....-.-...-....-..--.--.-..------.----...----.-.-.-.....----_._._._.._-~---- Port Orange FL 45,823 Port St. Lucie FL 88,769 ..........................................................................................- FL 52,715 .................................. ........................-.....-............ ................ ....................................... Seminole FL 10,890 _._._-_._--_._--_._~----_._-------_.__._._-_..._._----._---_.._-_.__._.~----_._.._-----_._-----~----- South Daytona FL 13,177 -~-~----~--_. St. Petersburg FL 248,232 ............. ...... .. ........................................................ ................ ... ............... .. ..... .. ..........................................................-. ............................................................. .. ........................................................... .. Tallahassee FL 150,624 .................. ........................-..... ...... .................. ................. ..........................._....... ..... ................ ...... .......................................... ..................................-....... ............................................................... Titusville FL 40,670 ~-_........_---_._._---"-".._._---_._._-_.__.._-_._----._._..._.~_.__._-_.._-_......-_._.__._------_._.__.....--------_._----~----_.__. Volusia County FL 443,343 ~~~._--------------_..._---'-~-_...__..._._. Walton County FL 40,601 Atlanta GA 416,474 .. ................................ . . ........... ........................................................................._........~ .................. .~.........~...._....... ...................-......-............ ....... ................................ .........................- .......................................................... Cartersville GA 15,925 ..-".-.-...-...-....-..........--...--...--.-.-.................--...--.........----...------...-.....---.-.---.-..-----------..-......-.....---.......-...-..---..-------- Columbus GA 185,781 Decatur GA 18,147 Sarasota ....:. ~ <5 U F m "" G> cc o .~;} Z ;'" .:::> '6) ~ ii (5 ~"0 r, Z Rcport of Normativc Comparisons 23 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdictions in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population ~ Douglas County GA 92,174 Macon GA 97,255 ------- Milledgeville GA 18,757 . .... ..........................._....._ ............................._... ..............................................._........... . . ......... .................................................. .. ....... .................................._...... 0 Savannah GA 131,510 -.......----....-.....-........----.-----..-...,.......-.--..---..._...._--_..__.._.._-_._._~.._-_....__...._..._-_....._.._._~-_....__._.._..__....._...._._._-_..-..-._.__.._.._~--_.._.._..._-_._- Honolulu HI 876,156 ~_.._-----_..--_......__..........._............._._....._--- .........._~......... ........_........_.._...~_...._..........................._.......~-_.............._----.........--.-........................--................--.... Adams County IA 4,482 Ames IA 50,731 .. ..... . ....... ............ .........................-....... .. .... .....................................~...... .... . ..... ..............~........... . .. .... ........ .............- . .. ....................-...... Ankeny IA 27,117 ...................................................................... ............... .......................-......... ......... .......................... Bettendorf IA 31,275 .~------~-_.._----_._._---_.._._-_...._---_..._..._----_....-----_._._-_.__._~.._---_._--_..- Cedar Falls IA 36,145 Cedar Rapids IA 120,758 . ......... ........................................ . Clarke County IA 9,133 Des Moines IA 198,682 Des Moines County IA 42,351 Fort Dodge IA 25,136 Fort Madison IA 10,715 . ... ....... ..................... . . ... ..... ... . ..... . ...... ................... ...................................... .... .....................................-.........- ........................................-...... Indianola IA 12,998 Iowa County IA 15,671 ~_._--~----_._------ Louisa County IA 12,183 Marion IA 7,144 -.-.--.--.---------.-------.--...---..--..-.----------.~---_.._._--------_._._-_._--_._------~------- Newton IA 15,579 _._........_.m_....___._~...._._...._....__......_....._.__._.__m_.__m_._____...__._.._____.___....._..___..___m_.._.....m..._.____.___.___......_........_..___..__.__....._.__..____ Polk County IA 374,601 Sheldahl IA 336 . .................................-....-.-. .... ........................................................................ . ... ......................-.......... . ..... .................................................................................... .................................................. . . ............................................ Urbandale IA 29,072 .. .... ...................................h.................. .... ........... ....................h.........~....... ... ................................. Waukee IA 5,126 _._...._---~--_._~-_._,-~_._---_._-_.~~~-_._------~_._......-..,.,-...--..........---.....---.....-------.-.---..- West Des Moines IA 46,403 Lewiston ID 30,904 ... ...... ......... ..... . ........................................... .................................................................................. .. .......... ..................................................................................... . . .............._...~....... . ....... ...... .... ..... ..........- Moscow ID 21,291 ............................................................................................................... Twin Falls ID 34,469 --_._--_._-_.._._..._----~_._.__._-_.~._-_.~_.~-_._---~--_._-_._.__.._-_.....~.._....__....-_........_--_._--~._..~-_._",........._,,--,..- Addison Village IL 35,914 Batavia IL 23,866 Decatur IL 81,860 .. ............................... DeKalb IL 39,018 ---.------.-------------.-- ----_._...._---_._---_._---_..__...__..~-_._-_.._--_._..--- Downers Grove IL 48,724 Elmhurst IL 42,762 8 .~ f;) l1> 0:: r-..;i (5 .~~~ 2: '" n .~ > ~ ~ u c (0 z I<cport of Nomlativc Comparisons 24 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdictions in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population ,~ Evanston IL 74,239 Highland Park IL 31,365 Homewood IL 19,543 . ..............................................._ ............................................. ..m.............................m..... ... ................................. .................................................... . ...................._........... Naperville IL 128,358 -_._--_.__...~._----_.__.__.._-_.._._._~.._._._~~.-._----.-----.--.--....-----.....--.--....---..--..--.--...---.__...._----- O'Fallon IL 21,910 ____.__.___..___.....___...._..___.............__....__________....__...__.__________m.__....__.__.....___............_m.......__.._.....................___n___________ Park Ridge IL 37,775 Peoria IL 112,936 ....................................... . .........................................................-....... ............................ Skokie IL 63,348 St. Charles IL . 27,896 --.-----~..l'-"-".,'-....,-.--.-..-.----.---..-.....,....,......_..n__'_...__._._~_~_."_.._________.__.._.~____..,..__---....-.-------.~-...-.-.-----. Streamwood IL 36,407 Urbana IL 36,395 ... ............................. Village of Oak Park IL 52,524 ............................................ ....................................... Wilmette IL 27,651 Fishers IN 37,835 Fort Wayne IN 205,727 Gary IN 102,746 . ....................................................... ............. ........................................... ...... ....................................- ..............................-..-......... ........................................ ... .. . ...... .................-.................... Marion County IN 860,454 Munster IN 21,511 Calgary INT 878,866 District of Saanich,Victoria INT 103,654 _._.._,,___...._..._.....__~__....."'................._.m_.______....._.___...__.__.____.."'_._~~.._._"_.,,..._____.._...__....._........_...._......__....._.___...__.___.__.~______ Kamloops INT 77,281 _..._.._.___.._......_._._._.._.m..___............. ...__....._..._._____...._..___..__.......__..__._._...._~__..._._.___.____.m............_............... .....__.._........._....._............ North Vancouver INT 44,303 Prince Albert INT 34,291 ............................... Thunder Bay INT 109,016 . .... ..................................................... Winnipeg INT 619,544 -........----..------....------...-......-..-.-..--.--...-..--------..---..--..---..-...--........----........----.-............-...--------..-.....__._-_.~..~_..... Lawrence KS 80,098 Lenexa KS 40,238 ...............................-...... .. .. . ...... ............................... ............. ................................... .............-.-...............................................-............. .. .... ........ ................................ Merriam KS 11,008 .........................-............. ..... ................. .................................................. ............................................--.................. .. ................................................. Olathe KS 92,962 ----.--..------..---.-.--..-.--.------.....---------.----..__._----_..._._--_._-~-----_._-_._-_._----_.._------ Overland Park KS 149,080 Salina KS 45,679 Shawnee KS 47,996 ...... . ................................................ ... ....... ....... ...................................................... ... ..... ..... ............................. . .. ...... ............. ............................-.............. Wichita KS 344,284 ._..___..___.._.....___.._..._.._.~_..~_.._.._...._..._.__._.._A...__A..__..__.____,_,_~~._.___.__..."..____~_.A.._.._______.._._....._.._A_''''...A___.__..._....__....___..._._.__.._._m.._____~..___...__...~ Ashland KY 21,981 ~--_..__.._-------- Bowling Green KY 49,296 -ill iii U 'T5 n "' tt> 0:: ~t:i (; 'f.~ z >, n """ C) :> ~ ~ () '",,, " z tl) '- Report of Normative Com~'lris()ns 25 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisr.Jicttons in Cornp:>risons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population t; ::: Daviess County KY 91,545 Lexington KY 260,512 ~~-- -,,---------- Jefferson Parish LA 455,466 ........................................ .................................................... . .............-................................. Orleans Parish LA 484,674 -.------..----.--.----..--------...-----...-..---------_..~-----_. Andover MA 31,247 -..-----..--------------........----.-----.---..------.--_._._._-_.._---_._--_._---_._---~_._-----_._--_.._...._-_.._--_.~- Barnstable MA 47,821 Boston MA 589,141 Brookline MA 57,107 ................................................................................................. Worcester MA 172,648 -----_._._.-.._----_.._-----------_._._.__.._-_.._--~-.-..--.-------...---..........--..--........--.------- Greenbelt MD 21,456 Rockville MD: 47,388 .........-............................ ..............................--.......... . ... ......................................................-.................... Rockville MD 47,388 ...... ................................................................................................................... ... ................................... Saco ME 16,822 Ann Arbor MI 114,024 --_..._--_._~~_.~~'. Battle Creek Ml 53,364 Delhi Township MI 22,569 .................................. ......... ....................................-....... ... .... ..... ..................... ......................................-.. Detroit MI 951,270 East Lansing MI 46,525 ~~~-~~_.__._.- Grand Rapids MI 197,800 Kentwood MI 45,255 _._-_......__..-..-._._--_..._-----_............._--_..._-~--......---...----..---.......--.-...........--.-..--,.---.-.-..-.-....-....----.........-... Meridian Charter Township MI 38,987 ---------..--..-----.....-.---..--...---..---.--.......-.-._..._..__..._-_..._.._---_.....__._._-_...._._-._~.._-_.__.........--..-----..----.-.----..- Muskegon MI 40,105 Novi MI 47,386 ....................................- .........................................................................................................................................-......-....-......-........ .. .................................................-... Ottawa County MI 283,314 . . ............................................................. . Port Huron MI 32,338 ._..__.._.._....m__....m...n..__.___...._._.__....___~____..__................._........... ...._.._..~_......_..__....__..~._. ..._....__..___.._____.__...._._.._................._......_.._.....__.______.___ Rochester Hills MI 68,825 -_..- MI 80,959 . ...... . . ............... ...............................................-...... MN 44,942 .. ...... ....................................................................................- ...................................... Blue Earth MN 3,621 .-----.----..-...------..-.---..---......-.-..---.--.....-._-_......__._-----_._._...~_._-~..._._------ Burnsville MN 60,220 Carver County MN 70,205 Dakota County MN 355,904 ........................................................... Duluth MN 86,918 --.----....-.-----.-...---.-....---...-.-....---.---.-.-..--..-.........-.--.--..----------.......-.---....-.--.---....--.---._....__........__......_..__.~--~---_._------_.- Eagan MN 63,557 Fridley MN 27,449 .~ 1) u -~ !.) ~ Troy .. ............................................................... Blaine :;::~ Z }~> ;:f ~>"\ ~ ~ c ~ U .2 '0 ~ "-- Report of Normative Comparisons 26 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Juriscjictions in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population g Golden Valley MN 20,281 Grand Forks MN 231 Hutchinson MN 13,080 .................................................... ..... ... ...........__.....__ ............................................................... ..........._.................._........... . ......... .... ........................... .... ........... .....................mm.......... ................................. Mankato MN 32,427 _._m_......_.._.m...._'......__._m.m_....__.~.~_._..m_m_m...,_~_.._..._..._.._..._~__._._._m~........._.._..._._.,.....___.__..._....._.....__~.___....~_.___......_........__.......m Maplewood MN 34,947 __..._....__..._______........_..__.__.._____................._......____.__......_._........_.___......... ............._m...........___._......_...___....._ ...._........_.__...___._..__.______..______._____ Minneapolis MN 382,618 Minnetonka MN 51,301 Plymouth MN 65,894 ...........................................-...... . ................. ................-............ ............. ............................_....... ... Polk County MN 31,369 _.._..._._..._-_._--~---~~._---_.._......-...._._-------_....-..----.---.-..---.-.-----.-..-...---------.-.--...---.--...-.---------.-.------- Richfield MN 34,439 Roseville MN 33,690 .. ............ .........................-....... . . ............ ....... ................... .................... ..... .... .....-............................................. Scott County MN 89,498 . ..................................... St. Clair Shores MN 827 St. Cloud MN 59,107 .~___m St. Paul MN 287,151 Washington County MN 201,130 ...... ....... .......................................... ......................................................... ... .. ...... .... .... ... .............. ............ ................................. ..........n...... ..............._...... ..... . ........ .................... Ballwin MO 31,283 Blue Springs MO 48,080 ~.._---_._-~_... .._--_._-~_.~ Columbia MO 84,531 Ellisville MO 9,104 _.........___________m__......__..._..,,__.____...,,__..................__.__..........._.........._._....._____.._..__._...~.............._..._....____._.__...._____._..._._..__.._......____._...._~ Grandview MO 24,881 --....--..--...------..---..----------........--...--...-..--..--..-..--.--.--.-...---.....-..-.... ....--...........--.-...-..--,-....-------.---.--..-.- Independence MO 113,288 Joplin MO 45,504 Kansas City MO 441,545 .....,......,........................................................................ ............................................. ........................................ ..................................................... .................. .................................. ..................................................-...... Kirkwood MO 27,324 _._............_-_._----_._._._-------_...--_._.._--_.............--.-.........--....--..------...------.-...-....-...-..--.-.-.--------~.__......_----_..._-_._.- Lee's Summit MO 70,700 Maryland Heights MO 25,756 ............................................................................................................................ .... .... . .. ......................................................... . . ...................... ......................................................................... Maryville MO 10,581 ........ ........................................... .......................................................................................................- ................................................................................................................................................................... .. .. ........... ....................... O'Fallon MO 46,169 --_._--_........_..__._._..__...__.._------_.~------_.__._.------.--...----...-..---...----.-....--.--..--...--......-..-.....------.-..-.-- Platte City MO 3,866 ----- .._--- Platte County MO 73,791 Saint Joseph MO 73,990 ............. ............................................ ......................................................- ...........................................................................................- ................-............. . ... ... . .... ... ......... .................. Saint Peters MO 51,381 ---..-....-.---.-...----------.-..-..--.---.-..-----------.-..-...-...------...-.-...---...----..-....-....-----------....-...-....-..-.-"'.-.-.-..------ Springfield MO 151,580 Biloxi MS 50,644 li CJ v "(5 8 ~; x ;? o '7J z >, .0 ':;,;;", '1; 2: ~ ~ () 9 <5 z f.~ Relmrt of Nomlative Comparisons 27 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdictions in Cornpsrisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population -~ MS 26,200 Starkville MS 21,869 ~-"---^'--'--- -~-----~~ Bozeman MT 27,509 .. ..........................................."........ no Yellowstone County MT 129,352 _..._.__.____._...._______.......___........_________....__.___________._.__.__..______.__..._...._.____..____._____......._..........__.__._...m_.___'_'___'__'___ Cary NC 94,536 ---.--....-.--....--................--...--.......-..--....---------......---~..._.__...__._._-_._---_._----_.__........,..._--_.__...._---.....-- .."........-....-....--...........--.----------.- Charlotte NC 540,828 Durham NC 187,038 ................................. .............................................."...... Greensboro NC 223,891 ... ......................................... Hickory NC 37,222 -_.~---------_._...._----_..__._~._._--_.~_._------_.-.-----------.----...--------.-----------.----- Hudson NC 3,078 ~---~ Knightdale NC 5,958 .. ........ ............................. ......... ......... .......................... Rocky Mount NC 55,893 ............... ....................................... ..... ..... ... .. .. ..........................-.........................................................................- ........................................... ..... ............................... . ......... ...................................................... Wilmington NC 90,400 ----~.. Grand Forks ND 49,321 ~--- Kearney NE 27,431 Dover NH 26,884 . ..... ....................................................................... ................................................................ Merrimack NH 25,119 Salem NH 28,112 _._._~--~_. ..~-,----_.. Hackensack NJ 42,677 Medford NJ 22,253 -...-................-.-.---.....-.--.--..-...------..-...-.-.-_._.__..._------_......__...._-_.__._-----~-_.__.._...-..-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-..-----..--- Willingboro Township NJ 33,008 .....__....._.....__.._.._.._............._............._......__..__...._........._.___._...__...._____.._...._.._..._..__..__................_..._.....__......._.m_._...___.....__...._......____.___........___......._~................................._........_..... Alamogordo NM 35,582 Albuquerque NM 448,607 . ... .... .... ..... ......... ... ................................................................................................. . .. . ....... ... ...................................................... ..................................................................... ......................... ... ... ...................................... Bloomfield NM 6,417 .........................................~.~ ......... ....................................................................................... ..............................m.... . . .... ...... ...... ..........................................................~...... . ......... ................... Los Alamos County NM 18,343 _........_._._......._._.._.._......_----_._._._-_...__._~---------------..----.--.-.--.-.-.------..-..-----.---- Rio Rancho NM 51,765 Taos NM 4,700 ..... ..................................... ................................................ ..................................~.... .. ...............................-....... ............ ....... ............................................................................... . ....... ......... .............. ........~....... Carson City NV 52,457 .. ..... .......... ..... .......................................................................................................................... Henderson NV 175,381 _......._.._..__..._.._____...__..__..._._....___._...__.__..__....._______..._.._....____....___.~___._._.__..__......._.._.._.m_..__...__.........._............_...~..___.._..___....._ North Las Vegas NV 115,488 ---------_.. Reno NV 180,480 Sparks NV 66,346 ... ........... . .. ... ............~ ..................................................................................m_............ .........................._.......... . ... . ............................ ........................_........... . ......................................_....... .. . ........ . ......... ............. Washoe County NV 339,486 -.-----..-.......-.--.....-.........-.---.......---..------._......._---_.._-----_._---_._._--~-_....__._---_...._--_....------..--.-. Genesee County NY 60,370 New York City NY 8,008,278 " ~ .~:> ~~" "" ~ 1? o ',:::; ,;} Z >, .,;) ';;:"" OJ ;:;. ,0 1j () .~ 7) z Report of Normative Comparisons 28 The City of Chanhas~en Citizen Survey Jurisclictlons in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population g Rochester NY 219,773 Rye NY 14,955 ----,---"._-~~----~------~,~-----_.._._.._-- ~_._._-_._~--_.- Watertown NY 26,705 Akron OH 217,074 -.--.---..........-...------.-..--._._.__0._..__.---.-.-_________._____..______~_______.__.___~....._.._._..__--.----...-~--.__...--.-.-_._~ Cincinnati OH 331,285 -..-....----.-.............---........--..-----.----.-.----....--....-------..--.....----.------....-.---.---..-.------....-..-..--....---,.---...---...-.-------.---..--- Columbus OH 711,470 Dayton OH 166,179 ... ............................._... . ..... ... ..................................................... . . . m................... .................................".......... Dublin OH 31,392 . ..... ...................... ........................................................................-............... ..... . ....................................................... Fairborn OH 32,052 .._.._"'__.._n_.__..__.____.._.___..__~____..__.___._._____.._._..______....____...____.___.__._.__...________._.___._____.___.m........__.___.____. Huber Heights OH 38,212 Hudson OH 22,439 Kettering OH 57,502 .. ............-........................................... . . ....... ...... ....... ........................ ..... ... ..... ..............................-......... ............................................ Sandusky OH 27,844 Shaker Heights OH 29,405 --_.~---- Springfield OH 65,358 '--"-~ Westerville OH 35,318 ............. ...........................-........... ..... ....................-.......-............ . .............................................. ..................................................................... ..... .... ................. Broken Arrow OK 74,839 Edmond OK 68,315 --~~~~---_.. ._~--~~- Oklahoma City OK 506,132 ..._~-~ Stillwater OK 39,065 --_...._._-----_..__._------_...._-_._-~_.._._--_.._-~_.._.-..-....--.-..----.--.------..-...- Albany OR 40,852 ---.--.----.--.-.....----------.---.-.-..--...----...----------------_._------~-_._._--_._- Ashland OR 19,522 Corvallis OR 49,322 Eugene OR 137,893 ... ...................................................... Gresham OR 90,205 _._------~---_..._---_.__._._...__._-------_._._----_.-_._-_.__..._..._--_.._._-_.~-_._--_.__.._._.._...._--_._.......--.-......--.-.....-.-----.. Jackson County OR 181,269 --.....- Lake Oswego OR 35,278 .................................................. Multnomah County OR 660,486 ............................................................................ . . ........................................ Portland OR 529,121 .~..-._- ..._-~._--._------_...._.._-_._-_._---_.._- Springfield OR 52,864 Borough of Ebensburg PA 3,091 Ephrata Borough PA 13,213 Lower Merion Township PA 59,850 __m_._...____.__..__._.__..._...____.____.......___.___________~.._.____.___.._.____._.._..._....._..._____..._..._...__....___--..-........----.-.--...-. Manheim PA 4,784 Philadelphia PA 1,517,550 '5 U 'g o tf) (j cc o '7~ z >. n .~~ ~~ '"t; OJ l:t () c Q ~ Report of Normative Comparisons 29 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey JuriscJictions in Comparisons N~ Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population State College PA 38,420 Upper Merion Township PA 28,863 -~~~~-_.- -.-.-.-..- ----~.._._- East Providence RI 48,688 Newport RI 26,475 ___.._._____m___~._____.________.____.__.._____._...__________..____.__..._.._._.__.__._.__..___.m_......._..._...__._____.__...___....m.._..~__.__..__._. Columbia SC 116,278 _____....___._m......__._.....___....___......____...___m..____.._......_...m_..__....____...._.....__...._...__ ................_....._.._m. .--.---.............--.......----.......--.--.---..---.----.-- Mauldin SC 15,224 Myrtle Beach SC 22,759 Pickens County SC 110,757 . .. ................................-.................. . ................................... . SC 49,765 ___............_...____._.._..................__....__.__..___.._.........._....._...........______m.......______..__.____._...._.._._._..__.__......__.____..__.__.____._______...._..__.__._.._.._._--......---------- SC 164,614 SD 24,658 ................................... TN 23,923 TN 41 ,842 TN 173,890 ---~-_._--- TN 650,100 TN 27,387 TX 332,969 TX 656,562 ---------- Bedford TX 47,152 Benbrook TX 20,208 ~._..__._---_._--_..__.~_.._- _._----~_._. . ----_._---_._------------_.._---------_._--~-_.__._- Carrollton TX 109,576 .._.h_...._.._____.___._..._...._____.__m_m...__..__.....__.._.._....._.._....m_____.._......._.._..____.......m_____..___.________........._..m..H_...~_........._....._____...._______..____, College Station TX 67,890 Corpus Christi TX 277,454 ......................-........... .. . ..................................... .................................... Dallas TX 1,188,580 ..................................................._....................... ... ............................................... ..........................._.......... . .. ................................H........ Denton TX 80,537 _._-_...._-_.~---~-_._._--~-~-~.._------_._--_..__.._._.-~-_....._-_._--_.__.._-~..----_.._-----_.........._...._-----.....----.........--. DeSoto TX 37,646 EI Paso TX 563,662 Fort Worth TX 534,694 ............................._..... .....................__............ ........................................_H..................m.... . .. .......m..................... .............................._............. . ..... ............................................... .. ................................ Garland TX 215,768 .......____......__..____..___m..__...____.______.._..__________.._.__._..________...__._~..........._....__.__...m..m..._._m____._..__m______. Grand Prairie TX 127,427 TX 191,615 Lewisville TX 77,737 . . ....................................H....._....... ... .m...................................._._... ...................._._....... Lubbock TX 199,564 _..._..._.__..._-----"-_.._._---.---~----_.__._---_.----.-.----.-.----..---.-..---.-..--..------.-.-.....--.--------.-..-..--..----..- Lufkin TX 32,709 McAllen TX 106,414 Rock Hill York County Aberdeen Cookeville Franklin Knoxville Memphis Oak Ridge Arlington Austin fi 1) () ~ '0 8 "~ <.1> cr: 'i~~ --,. "., n '6)' >- ~ ~ o c ~ z ^' Report of Normative Comparisons 30 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdiction:; in CornpDrisons ~ State 2000 Population TX 54,369 TX 52,913 --------~--------""-----_.,-~-,~~_._,--- TX 13,935 ........... . . ....... ,...................._......~....... . ........................H....... ...... ............................................................................._....... . .... . .... .. ........._...... Nacogdoches TX 29,914 _._.____.____...__.__~____.__.____.__.__...___._____..._...n______._...__..._~__.._......__..__.n"_'~.~._.._~_....._........_.~~_.....~___....."_.___.._"_,._._.__~,~.~~~..____~._____.. Pasadena TX 141,674 ._.__._..._........._--_....~..._..__._..._-_...........__...""..._..........._--..--..-...----......-..--.----.......--.---......-..-.....-...-.----._..._..._._....__..._._-~._....._._-_-.._-_..__._.._....._.__................-....-..-....-------... Piano TX 222,030 Round Rock TX 61,136 ...m............................... Sugar Land TX 63,328 ...................................-....... ... ................................................... ............................................................................. ............ ................... ....................................................... .............................-...... Temple TX 54,514 _....____._____...__.___._.~....._.....~__.........___~__.__.___....._........__.._._h....'__.__...._...._...._._.___.____._.._..__.___...._.....___....._.,_~..___..._.___...__h The Colony TX 26,531 Victoria : TX 60,603 .... ................................................... . Farmington UT 12,081 Ogden UT 77,226 Riverdale UT 7,656 ~.~-~_._-~~....~ Washington City UT 8,186 West Valley City UT 108,896 Albemarle County VA 79,236 Arlington County VA 189,453 _._--_...._--~-~. Bedford County VA 60,371 Blacksburg VA 39,357 ----_.~--- -_...._--_.__.._._~...._.__..__._---_.__.._..._----_.__._---.........._~-~._.._._. Botetourt County VA 30,496 _._.___.__..._._.___m..m-.._........._......_..._____..........__......_................mm_......._.__,...___._....__.._____...___.._____......._@.._.......~_..m....._~_._.......__.__._._.__._..__.___~____._.____._ Chesapeake VA 199,184 Chesterfield County VA 259,903 .. ............................................................... ...........................................,.................. ..................................................-............. Hampton VA 146,437 ,................---...... ........... .... ........................-....... ...... ................................ .. ...... ................ .............................-.. ... .. ...... ..................................- .............. .........................................._............ Hanover County VA 86,320 ____._m___~__________._______.____......._~_...__....._.__.__.._m__._'.__'___"_"_ .....____.__.....___ Hopewell VA 22,354 James City County VA 48,102 .........................................-.. ........................................- ...............................- .........................................-...-....... Lynchburg VA 65,269 ............................................................................. ..................................... ...........................................................-................ Newport News VA 180,150 --~~-_.._-------------_...._.._--------_..__....._-_..__.---..-......-...--..--....-.-...--.--------.-- Norfolk VA 234,403 --...--.--.- -_.._---~-_.^._._-~._~~---~ VA 13,093 VA 280,813 ........................................................................................ VA 197,790 -.----.--.-----------..-----.--------.---.----..--.---~ VA 85,778 VA 92,446 Jurisdiction Name McKinney Missouri City Mount Pleasant .~. 8 .~ ;;) 2 (:) .7~.~ z >- -" .?*' ;;. s (f) Northampton County Prince William County ................................................................-......- Richmond 1i u Roanoke County .~ "j z Stafford County Report of Normative Comllarisons 31 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisdictions in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population ~ 23,853 425,257 11,998 146,571 .....w.~._~_,~.~.~~...,.~"_____...~._."_.__.._______.._.___.....____ 109,569 _.._._----_._-~._..__..._._..__.........__.~_...__._...__._.-....... 30,150 79,524 1,737,034 45,054 ,._..."...._______.n____..__,___",,,.__,,___.,__ 231,969 33,847 12,268 ................................... 3,836 42,514 .--.----- WA 32,066 WA 45,256 . ... ................................. ................................................................................................... Renton WA 50,052 Richland WA 38,708 Seattle WA 563,374 Tacoma WA 193,556 _....__._-_.._.__._--~_.._-".__._----_._..~_._----_.._------ ----..---...---..--.--.--....-........--.-------..-- University Place WA 29,933 __.._....m___.._..._...._____....._..._._.._....__.........___________.~._____~___..........____.._._...__.._..____....._..._.__..._..._..___._.m______,,__~__ Vancouver WA 143,560 Walla Walla WA 29,686 .. ................................. .................................................................. ................................................................ ....................... .................... ..... . ..............................................- ................................................................................................. Appleton WI 70,087 ... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................-...... . Eau Claire WI 61,704 _____.n.__.__._..._._.______.........______._.__._._____._____~_..._..._....___...._..~.~_~__n.._.........~___.._n._..___.._.____....p~_~_ Janesville WI 59,498 Kenosha WI 90,352 . ... .......................................................................................... ... .... .... . ..... . . .. ........... ........ ............................ ....................... Madison WI 208,054 ....... ................................................................ WI 15,832 _._________n.......n._.__.,..._,."._.....p.__,_.._._....._.._._...n___n___....~.,_ WI 5,132 _._,-~-~~-~ WI 82,317 WI 8,686 . ............ ...... .... .... .... ... ......................................................... WI 27,368 ------~_._-_.~-_.._-_.,_._._.._--_..._----_..._._--- WI 12,170 WI 38,426 Staunton VA Virginia Beach VA ~~~'~--_. Williamsburg VA Chittenden County VT _......~._.~_.__..__...._,,__._.._..._._~..,,__......_.._.............._..n....______m___._...n'.._~p..._._.m.__...~_._._......_._.....,,___.._... Bellevue WA .........._._....._........__._......_.._..._~ ..........--.......-...........--........-..-....--..-.----.----...--...........".....---....... ....."..._-_.~-_._...~......__..._. Bothell .WA Kent W A King County W A ..................................................................................... Kirkland WA _......_....._------_...-..~----_....._...__._-_._-~-~_._--_.... Kitsap County WA : Lynnwood .....................-............ Marysville ..................................................... Ocean Shores WA WA Olympia WA WA Pasco Redmond ~1 o o T~ ~.~ o [t 10 c o ',::;; Ii >, !:> Marquette County ._-_....__.__. Milton ~ ~ ~ Ozaukee County Suamico .. 1t () Superior Village of Brown Deer .~ 76 Z Wausau Re~ort of Nomlative Comparisons 32 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Jurisrlictions in Comparisons Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Wauwatosa WI 47,271 Whitewater WI 13,437 ,-----,----~-~- '--"'^"--'--'--"'-~--- Winnebago County WI 156,763 .. ................................... .. ................................................................... .......................................... Morgantown WV. 26,809 _.___~_._..___._H.._.____'.__n_.____...__....___.___,____.._______.........___._._.__..._~_,__.__._....~n'..._.__.__..__.___._..__..__..____.__.......m.._.___...,mm_n__..__.._........___ Cheyenne WY 53,011 -_._...._--_.~._------_.._._.._---_._._...._~_._----_..--_._-_._----_._.._--_._---~._.._._._._-_.__.._-----------..-----......---......--.-..........----............. Gillette WY 19,646 Laramie WY 27,204 Teton County WY 18,251 <; E (l.) i;j () "5 ;':.) <'.J "" ct '70 c:.: o r;J z >- n >- ?~ ~ fl u o m "'- \1) RCEort of Normative ComJ,>arisons 33 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ApPENDIX B: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CITIZEN SURVEY DATABASE What is in the citizen survey database? NRC's database includes the results from citizen surveys conducted in over 500 jurisdictions in the United States. These are public opinion polls answered by hundreds of thousands of residents around the country. We have recorded, analyzed and stored responses to thousands of surVey questions dealing with resident perceptions about the quality of community life and public trust and residents' report of their use of public facilities. Respondents to these surveys are intended to represent over 50 million Americans. What kinds of questions are included? Residents' ratings of the quality of virtually every ldnd of local govemment service are included - from police, fire and trash haul to animal control, planning and cemeteries. Many dimensions of quality of life are included such as feeling of safety and opportunities for dining, recreation and shopping as well as ratings of the overall quality of community life and community as a place to raise children and retire. ~ What is so unique about National Research Center's Citizen Survey database? It is the only database of its size that contains the people's perceptions about govemment service delivery and quality of life. For example, others use govemment statistics about crime to deduce the quality of police services or speed of pot hole repair to draw conclusions about the quality of street maintenance. Only National Research Center's database adds the opinion of service recipients themselves to the service quality equation. We believe that conclusions about service or community quality are made prematurely if opinions of the community's residents themselves are missing. n ~ What is the database used for? Benchmarl~ing. Our clients use the comparative information in the database to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions, to measure local govemment performance. We don't lmow what is small or tall without comparing. Tal~ing the pulse of the community has little meaning without lmowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. So many surveys of service satisfaction tum up at least "good" citizen evaluations that we need to l~now how others rate their services to understand if "good" is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always.lose to fire. We need to -is 2 v) ~ a:: o ~5 z "., .n :~ .)>, Q) '" ~ ~ G c; c Z Report of Normative Comparisons 34 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey FAQ asl~ more important and harder questions. We need to lmow how our residents' ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities. So what if we find that our public opinions are better or - for that matter - worse than opinions in other communities? What does it mean? A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service-one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low-still has a problem to fix if its clients believe services are not very good compared to ratings received by objectively "worse" departments. National Research Center's database can help that police department - or any city department - to understand how well citizens thinl~ it is doing. Without the comparative data from National Research Center's database, it would be lil~e bowling in a toumament without l~nowing what the other teams are scoring. We recommend that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data to help managers lmow how to respond to comparative results. <i E Aren't comparisons of questions from different surveys like comparing apples and oranges? . It is true that you can't simply tal~e a given result from one survey and compare it to the result from a different survey. National Research Center, Inc. principals have pioneered and reported their methods for converting all survey responses to the same scale. Because scales responses will differ among types of survey questions, National Research Center, Inc. statisticians have developed statistical algorithms, which adjust question results based on many characteristics of the question, its scale and the survey methods. All results are then converted to the PTM (percent to maximum) scale with a minimum score of 0 (equaling the lowest possible rating) to a maximum score of 100 (equaling the highest possible rating). We then can provide a norm that not only controls for question differences, but also controls for differences in types of survey methods. This way we put all questions on the same scale and a norm can be offered for communities of given sizes or in various regions. p~ v () How can managers trust the comparability of results? Principals of National Research Center, Inc. have submitted their worl~ to peer reviewed scholarly joumals where its publication fully describes the rigor of our methods and the quality of our findings. We have published articles in public Administration Review, Joumal of Policy Analysis and Management and Goveming, and we wrote a bool~, Citizen Surveys: How to do them, how to use them, what they mean, that describes in detail how survey responses can be adjusted to provide fair comparisons for ratings among many jurisdictions. Our worl~ on calculating national norms for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence hom the Westem Govemmental Research Association. F (3 ~ t/) 2: ~ 0-'" n "t' t~ ^' 31 C5 '0 ~' 2 ;~ Rcport of Normativc Com:{larisons 35 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard' Chanhassen. MN 55317 . T: (952) 227-1118' www.cLchanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ~ - National Citizen SurveyTM National Research Center, Inc. 300530':\ St. . Boulder, CO 80301 . T: (303) 444-7863' F: (303) 444-1145' www.fj-r-c.com The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Survey Background ... ....... .... ..... ... ............... ... ...... ............... ..... .... .... ....... ......... 1 About The National Citizen Survey ™ ... ............... ........ ............................. .......................... I Understanding the Results ............... ........ .... ... ............... ..... ........ ... ........ .......... 2 "Don't Know" Responses. ...... ......... ........................................ ............ .... ..... ....................... 2 Putting Evaluations onto a IOO-Point Scale .......................................................................2 Understanding the Tables................................................................................................... 2 Comparisons..................................................................................................... 4 ~ () <0 () 75 t\, v> 22 n s?: C~ Z >, n .~, ~ #~?- VI 11 () r:J Cl 75 ..,. E 1- ~ort of Geographic Suhgroup Com1?arisons The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey SURVEY BACKGROUND About The National Citizen Survey ™ The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) amI the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The National Citizen SurveyTM was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While sta~dardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized versio.n of The National Citizen SurveyTM that asl~s residents about l~ey local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarl~s for jurisdictions worl~ing on performance measurement. The National Citizen SurveyTM is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen Survey ™ permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speal~ to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. ~ The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen Survey ™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Chanhassen staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries we used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Chanhassen staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options for The National Citizen S TMB.S. urvey aSlC ervlCe. {'.J () 75 <;.-1 ;; (j) u: ?:'; .2 "" .Q One of the add-on options that Chanhassen chose was to have crosstabulations of evaluative questions 1-15 by geographic areas, as defined by zip code in question 16c. .~ ;>- ~ -- ^' ~ o .2 OJ <- ^., Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons 1 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS "Don't Know" Responses On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't l~now." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A of the Report of Results. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in this report. In other words, the tables display the responses horn respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Putting Evaluations onto a lOO..Point Scale Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 4 representing the best rating and 1 the worst, many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Lil~ewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If the average rating for quality of life was "good," then the result would be 67 on a 100-point scale; "fair" would be 33 on the 100-point scale. ~ Understanding the Tables In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. Usually this number is the rating on a 100-point scale. Sometimes this scale was not appropriate to use. In these cases we have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who reported a crime, or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was "about right." For a few questions, we have shown the full set of responses: these include the question about respondents' perceptions about the economy. 51 i5 () 75 Anova and chi square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups. A "p-value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "real." where differences were statistically significant, they are marl~ed in gray. t..") c; ct (', o ~ '" .n "?':- ;; ~ ii i'! () C:) (} :v ~- ,~) i- Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons 2 The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Underst8ndjng the Results The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (513 completed surveys). For each area (North of Highway 5 or South of Highway 5), the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 7% since sample sizes were approximately 300 for those living North of Highway 5 and 199 for those living South of Highway 5. g w~. Q) () 73 r-.J ~ ", .2 ~j .:... ::,.., .n ~F. .~~ ;> ~ ] t5 .~ Q Z >'!) ;'A." ~orl of Gcog~hic Suhgroup Comparisons 3 >- Q) > '"' ::l W ~ Q) N .... ... U ~ Q) '" '" C'$ ~ CU ~l >-' .... u Q) ~ {f) z o. {f) - ~ <( (L ~ o u CI) Lf) ~ :>. CI) .c:: ctl ~ ~ .c:: III .~ i I CI) oil'-- It) J:l J: tOIl'-- I'-- .;: - u 0 I el III .c:: I CI) .... "0 ::I "0(;- .... 0 ]V III ('. en CI) CI) J:l > 01= C ::I .- 0 ~I ~:>. Lf) .2 "0(;1 :>. C ~ ctl I <lI ~ 0 CI) .c:: ....... .c:: .~ I c .... J: Nlo to "t - tOltO I'-- 0 - ~ .c 0 1 <lI .~ .c:: I ~ t:: .c:: 0 I ~ z III CI) .c:: 01 .... C - :;; 0 ctl .c:: 0:: u CI) ctl - Ql :::i ~ - .E 0 c ~ .9 iii c ::I '0. 0 0 .-.. ~ .... ::I ('. 0 0 c I ('. 0 :>... Q) ('.1 j a.. 0 III ('-. .... II .... C Q) :g 0 .... 0 .::: :c "E 1Il'- U C1).... 0 ('. ~Iiij ..!!1 III III ('. .... Q) ~ o CI) Q) Q) 1Il .... ID _::I ~ 'n; 0 .... .c:: U utT U :: ~ () ro .... x III 01 0 c.. 0 0 o c W CI) c .... ' .... .... .... .- II , E'- Q)lro Q) Q) Q)I~ 0 o ~ ullIl U U U ._ 0 u.2 ..!!1 ro ro ro ro - ~ c.. c.. - ...... ....'0 0. "0 0. 0 Q) ctl_ ro 0 ro ltl ~I~ ro .c:: 1Il 0 .... .c:: 1Il 1Il U ~ ltl .... ltl ltl ltl,ltl 1Il Ql C 0 C C ci:J .... ;c Q) J:l Q) Q) 5: I ~ c E 1Il .c:: 1Il 1Il '0 1IllCl 1Il 1Il 1Il ltl 0. ::I ltl' .- ltl ltl ltl .... I C .c::i~ .c:: .c:: .c:: Q) 0 c c c > 0 CI) :ill .... ltl ltl ltl 0 ...... .c:: .c::1:J .c:: .c:: .c:: Q) ltl .... () g, () () () :5 Ql C C3 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0 ....j.... .... .... .... .... ~ ~I~ ~ ltl ro ltl 01 'u .... .... .... .5 Ql :J I :J :J :J :J :J ~ 010 0 0 0 0 III :>.! :>. :>. :>. :>. :>. ctl 010 0 0 Q) Ql 0 0 01 0:: "0'"0 "0 "C "0 "0 :: I :: ltl :: :: :: :: .... Q) 010 0 0 0 0 > I'I I I I I <{ I ':.)U1 'J~)~tF;J q~.)1e8~;GC1IBUOnt?N fq ::.;1 l?f',JnS UOZY8 f2U0n(~N r.1lil >- Q) > ~ ::l rn c: Q) N .... ..... U c: Q) '" '" ~ ~ ~ ..c:: U ...... o ~I ~I I :::s o >- Ol .... Ol ..l: == III Ol .c ';: to) III Ol "C 'lii ('0. Ol Ol .c ,~ Ol- e .~ .2 ~ Q) ..l: - .... o ..l: ,!:! ..l: ~ ~ e :::s E E o o Ol ..l: - .... o III to) ;; III ';: Ol - to) III .... III ..l: o It) >- III == ..l: ,~ :I: .... o ..l: - :::s o en It) >- III == ..l: Ol :E .... o ..l: 1:: o Z III III e Ol III III III ..l: e III ..l: o o - Ol - III Qj .... >- Ol ..l: - III III III to) ;; .!!! Ol ....- Ol 0 -..l: :il == ; III ..l: to) Ol e .~ .2 :E Ol ..l: - .... o ..l: to) III Ol Ol - III .... Ol III III oS! D. Ol u c: III a. ~ Ol c: U :::l U E III E -g o III to) I en Ol~ Ol c: ~155 Olla. (/)10 C") co co -.;t LO co -.;t -.;t co 0'> (0 (0 LO co -.;t -.;t en 1l c: :2: Ol 1:5 gJ III ~ ~ c: .a ~ s o u _ "C o c: Ol Ol u :::: c: III III 0 L- _ III en Ol Ol a. :+J a. 'c III :J ro 1:: L- 0 Ol a. > a. o 0 I I enl ~ c: :::l 1:: o a. a. o ~I~ 'iil ~ g- CT t51~ N t-- o t-- o ..... 0'> LO -.;t -.;t LO co LO (0 t-- t-- -.;t -.;t LO co Q) L- Ol III c: u 'w :::l ;g o ..l: ..l: U en ~I~ 1l rolro 'c ~I ~ :J Q) Q) 5 :c:c a. en III III a. ',~_ "C "C o c: g g ro :J III III 5 1:: 0 0 ~ 8.. .... ...... III a. ~ 0 u .c Q) 0 0:: -, en en en en Q)IQ) gig <(1<( -.;t t-- LO co co M -.;t co ...... L- o o 0- Il o ~ c: ~ Qj u x W II o ~ I ~ ~ ~ i m ~I~'I~ c: ~ .s::.U)mC~"E ~ ~ I..l:c: 'I ~ gj '0 ro ffi IllO..l: 9- :J..l:..l:c:C:O CTulu=~~ ~ c:;.5: I ~ U III III ~ "N jg .5: 5 'E > 1ll1Q) Ol ~ jg ~ I 13 ~ .~ III L- en I :>. ro Iii o III :J I'~ '> L- _u.c.c> U) '+- '+- '+- '+- Q) en 0 010 0 OJ Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) ~ u en en en en Q) u III III I III III > <( w w w w <( 'aUj ';01uo8 4:2Je8S8Cj iEUCnL'r,~ I\q >,u/~).'\.lns t;07ni8 lpuOllCN PQl Yl i:: o !Il 'I: ~ ='1. e "l)c, ill~ ~l "00' 0' aJ! ~ Q) II) ... >- Q) III J: ;: ;: J: :l III 0) ~ 0 Q) J: 0 .. .c LO 1:lt. .;:: .... LO jm U 0 III J: Q) - "C ::s tI ('. 0 Q) Q) en .c .~ 0 0)- III C ::s 0 .- 0 ;:>- II) ....... .2 >- 0 :g III t ;: 0 Q) J: III J: 0) ~ ~ c.:: J: 0 0 - t- ..- .... 0 .... '<t LO 0 .s:: J: .!::! 1:: J: 0 3= z ... Q) > 0 J: C ~ Q) III 0 III ... III C) .s:: .... c 0 III J: III () 0) C C ;; III III 0:: Q) .;:: 0 0) Q) - III U g'~ I .- III ;: Q) 1: 0>- =N I CJ) .E- ';:: Q) ~ I~ "5 >- ;Co 0 OJ .0 > C Q) ~ ;.. ;:l .- J: U J:- ID en en ~ III c: en CJ) ..... OJ 0 c: c: .~ ... III :;:; ... 0) ... III .... ::s U .... .... (f) 0 III en c: c "C It; ..... 0 ~ c: OJ If; Q) Q) '" 'C Q) "C '" en ~ ("j Co c: ~ o. III Q) 0 ~ ..c: .... a. C Q) 0 ~ J: ~ ~ en ..c: '-/ - Q) U 0 .... Q) .... ..c: .... ..... - CJ) ~ ..c: 0 0 III c: ~ c: ... >- .2 0 0 Q) .... 0 ... III ro CJ) .... :e U III CJ) 0 Q) S 'Iii en a. OJ a:: a. ..... .0 0 ~ 01 Q) 0 .... c.. 0:: ..., c.. >- (l) ;.- '"' ::l en !:: (l) H .... ..... U [f) ~ E VJ ~ ~ (~ ,..t: Go !:: i" ~ 0 ,..t:u () ...... o >- ..... U (l) ~ c CI) CIl CIl CI:l .s:::. c: CI:l .s:::. U c: CIl E CI) :c o ~ ll. iU +J c: CI) +' o ll. - o CIl Cl c: +J CI:l 0:: (', CI) ,~ II) >- CI:l ::l ~ o .s:::. >- ,~ e J: m CI) - .s:::. 0 ~ :5 CIl ::l CI) 0 .c (I) ';: CJ CIl CI) 'tJ +' CIl CI) .c Cl c: '~ .2 :2 CI) .s:::. +' - o .s:::. CJ .s:::. ~ II) C>> 11)111) I I , I II) >- CI:l ~ .s:::. ,~ J: Cb ~ m - o .s:::. t:: o Z c CI) CIl CIl CI:l .s:::. c CI:l .s:::. U .E Cl c: '~ .2 :2 CI) .s:::. +' CI) ~ CI:l iU +' CI:l ~ ai CI) ~ Cl CI) 'tJ +' CI:l .s:::. ~ o I- II) CO CO CO N CO ..- CO rn CI) ~ I~ ~ c: ,~ ~ o rn- - ..Q 'tJ CI) Q) 3: I I I I COICO CO ..... ..- 0 ..... CO Ul Cl .s:::. ,~ ~ .s:::. 32 e ~ '5 Cl 0 .0 .s:::. ~ c g ~ 3: EO:;::: 0 Q) rn IE Q) 'tJ ,~ g> g ~ ~ '6 5 u Ci I- ...J <.:>IZID:: I I ~ !I ~ ,~I o ~ I ~ j jlJ E Q) :c o ~ c.. ~ o 'iij' :2: II o E Q) :c o ~ c.. co 15 Z II o o :s Q) ro u Ul - C '0 c.. I o o ..- co c: o Cl ,~ ro ~ Q) Cl co ~ Q) > <( '8UI > rJ~U0J lpJeZ;S9C! jEucqcN :\q .~i /8/\.iliS Uf.~~~!H8 ~2lJOnt'N oQl '" .: o '" '\:1 ~ Ql ~ '" ;:: 0 '" 'k ::I '" 0 II) >- >- CIl l\:l ~ 3:: CIl ~ ~ .~ 3:: Ll') CO N III ::I: CO . CD CO CIl .... .0 0 ';: ~ I..l .... III ::I CIl 0 "C tIJ 'ti ('0. CIl CIl .0> tl)= c II) '~ >- .E l\:l "0 3:: .... ~ C) CIl Cl ~ .c ::I: V 0 V .... CO I"- CO .... .... 0 0 .c ~ III .!:! t E ~ 0 CIl ~ z :c 0 ~ a. III ::I 0 ';: C l\:l > ::I E 0 >- 0 0 ~ .... >- Cl ~ .... C ~ ';: 1lI l\:l ~ Ul tIJ ::I C .... I..l ::I 0 I..l ~ 0 III tl) CIl tl) > C C II .. .~ 0 l\:l .E .2f 0:: ~ 1lI J c Ul CIl CIl ~ ~ III .... III CIl E~ > II Q) o c 0 > ~ l\:l 0 1-0 :::.c ..- ;::l CIlO - rn ~ CIl c ro <1l ::I I..l N 0 Ul .... ..... , >- - .... . C U CIl '0 .... C l\:l C. III I <1l 0 If> 3:: 0 If> c.s 0 ..- ..c ~ 1lI C CIl C c.s ..c .... 0 l\:l III U ~ CIl Cl ..... CIl ~ I.~ c 0 III :;::; 1lI C l\:l "C 0 ~ CIl I..l >- CIl U ii: _ 1::: Cl .!jIg 1lI <1l .... ..c CIl OJ 5 ct .... > ~ u:: <( ':'.h11 'JG1UG8 q'J.1ceSGCj F,~UOn\:\N :\q .<il/vA.inS U02m:.:.) \8UOnCN S41 >- Il.l ... '"' ::l en c:: Il.l N .... ..... U c:: Il.l III '" ~ ..r:: c:: ~ ..r:: U ...... o C U Il.l E5 III n:l CIl ... <C III ::l o .t: n:l > C z- CIl ... n:l (/) .... o III Cl .~ (jj CIl LL .... o III Cl C :;:; n:l 0:: ('0. CIl .~ ::l o >- CIl ... CIl .c 3: III CIl .c "t: u III CIl "C .... III CIl .c Cl c .~ .2 :E CIl .c .... .... o .c .~ .c ;: It) >- I'll 3: .c .2' :I: 'V ..- .... Cl) CO o .c .... ::l o (/) It) >- n:l 3: .c Cl :I: .... o .c ~ o Z LO Cl) ('I') CO (jj ~ ::l o >- ~ I'll III 3: o .c CIl .... I'll ... CIl III I'll CIl a:: I~ ,"0 'CIl .c ..... ..l<: ..... ro Cl "0 C ..... 'C 0) ::l 4:: "0 ro ro ro ..l<: 0) 0) ..... ..... ..... ro ro ro g> ~ C C 'C 0) 3: 3: ::l 4::100 "0 ro 1: 1: "0 "013: 3: g g 0 .g ~ ~I'~-~ ~ .c 5l 5l .~ '~I~ l{l c c c "2 ~ ~Iro ro o 0 .c .c >-1 >-10 0 c c c c -1- - >- ro "0 0) .s ..- CO ('I') CO N Cl) ('I') co N Cl) I"- co >- ro "0 0) .c ..... Cl C 'C ::l "0 III ..l<: ..... ro 0- III -C 0) III III ro .c c ro .c o c I~ ro In C ::l ~ 0) > II o ai '+- I~ ~ 0) > II o o S ..l<:1"* ..... U ro In "0 ..... ..... .5 0)10 4::10- ro I o In 0 ..l<: ..- rolro 0- c -~ I' ~ 5l .5 In ..... ro,~ .c I' 0) ~Ig .c ..... o 0) c > -<C I 'JUj . JGrY)~) q~JE8'5:)a it:;uon.e~~ /q UG'~~glJ ;cuoq-CN GLLL !I .....l:l ::l Wm () .:E Pool el "0/)' o III o ....... ~ ., ~ 0 ., ;:J .t 0 r.t) ~ >- >- ] CIl CO ~ :;: Q) .c .c :;: .22 ~ ~ :I: 0 III 0 (0 CIl - LO (01 .c 0 -!:I .;: .c I ;; U ... Ul 0 III ;:J ..- t.l CIl 0 .... "C en -!:i ... ~ III ('. CIl CIl -6ti .c .~ 0 0)- III C r.t) 0 .~ ...... >- 0 g CO .... :;: .. .g .c 0 Q) .22 ~ .~ III .c :I: 0 (0 ~ ... .... (0 t--, .... 0 I 0 .c .c u 1:: :c 0 I z CIl ~ E 0) I'c c I~ t:: 0 ' .c C- - I; CIl 0:: 0 I~ "C .s 18- c u CO 'S: I~ C 0> 0 0 .c .c +- ...... 3: CO "C "C N 0 'E c: .c ro +- 0> ai 0 1Il :> ::l E 0 .c 'C CIl L- U E ::l ('. - 0> 0 .;: 0 .~ 1Il >. U c: o E 0.1:;:; 0> I 0> U c: .c 'S: 0 ...... 0> I >. 0 L- c: ...... 0> ro "C 3: I L- 0> >- 0 1:: 1Il "C Q) ::l 0 0 > 0 0. "" >. 0> .c ;::I L- 0> en 0> en 1Il L- 0> ::l C 3: 0> 0 Q) E .c H ..... iii 'c 0> .... U U .c 1Il 1: 0> 0 C 0 1Il .c E 0> 3: Q) 2- '" 1Il '" 0> 1: CO > 0> ...c W E 0> c: "C CO 3: 'C c: ...c ...... u 0 ...... 0. U 1Il 1Il ro 1: 1Il ...... 0> 0 C- ...... L- C 0> ('. 1Il - .cO> ro 0 ..... ......E 3: ...... U C)'C c: c: U 1Il- 0> Q) 'C >'1 0> u ~ L- ::l c: >. 0> Cl ro :!:: c.. ! '~Ul > J01U08 lp.W;)SG?-j 1EUOn.8~,~ :\q \.<g fO/\.inS UG'Zn!~) 1f2UOnCN sql t- > ;. ;::l en s:: QJ N ..... ..... U s:: QJ '" '" CIl i3 ell ..c:: () '+- o C U QJ ..c:: ~ II) >- CI:l ~ .c ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 I ,0 ~ ~ I:t' 0' 0" 0" 0' ,- ,- C') '<t N 1"- '0 co <0 I.C') 0) ..- N .c .... :J ; o en II) >- CI:l ~ .c .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :I: U, ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ... CO <0 '<t 0) "- C') o J:: 1:: o Z 1II Cll .c .;;: o 1II Cll "0 .... 1II ('. Cll Cll .c .::: Ol- I: :J .- 0 ~>- .ECll - ... o Cll -.c ~~ .... - o .c .~ J:: :l: 1II Cll E I: Cll E <C ~ I: :J E E o (J - o Cll 1II :> "0 '0 .c Cll 1II :J o .c ... Cll .c .... o ... ('. o 1II :J.~ 0::: >-> Cll+:: > 0 CI:l CI:l .cO! ~ 1:. ... .- Cll ~ > 0 Cll- :=;E uiCll Cll.c E.... .- I: .... .- >-"0 I: Cll CI:l.... E [ ~'i3 0'- .c~ ....0.. :J 1II o ... .c Cll CI:l.c uiE .c Cll c E o E N .... .... 1II ~ Cll .c .... I: lfl Cll U 02: I :gl o!:: ! 0> J:: - lfl ..... ..... o 0> - lfl I: 0> 0> oc 0 ~ I: g oQ 1il o~ 0> :0 ..... :J U 0.. ~ I: I: 0> 0> lfl. lfl lflllfl rolro .c .c I: I: ro ro ~ I' ~ 0> 0> lfl lfl :JI:J I: a 000 oS; 0> Q) - 0> I ~ I Ol ~ I~ ~ I"~ o~ I~ ~ lro ro IU U I~ ~ 0> 0> 0> E .c .c .2 15 (5 "- ~ 0 (; g oS; lfl lfl >. n ro ro E ro "0 00 a ..... I:!E!E ~ a :g a a :3 E lfl "0 "C :;:: ~ ro 0> 0> - Ol J:: 1:5 1:5 a a I: 0> 0>.Q a. ~Q)Q)O I:~CJroro lfl a..... U U I: :g l1~.Q.Q ~ ~ ~j~~m: ~ lfl lfl I: I: g- ca::J~~c. ro J:: .Q 0> 0> o~ I: ro 0> 0> "C "0 ~ U E E :g 0> CJ .Q ro ro :J 1il ro ro "co> "Co> ] 0.. "C I: "C J:: U 00 0> 0> I: U >- ~ ~ :g 2 g :fi c.. :> i:i: < > a:: ~ '<t 0) ~ o C') 0) ~ o '<t 0) ~ o <0 0) I I ~I ~I 0)1 I I I I I ~I 0)' col I 1 I i I I lfl .c i~ E N ..- - lfl ..!!1 1 o~ 0> U I: I: 0> a ~ I~ ~ Ii I> ::; I:;:; 03: I lil l:l lo~ 0>'Q)1g> offi E 100, :J O>'ro Ol.Q C Ol I: _ - I: 0;:: U 0> 0> ~ :J .c lfl >,"C-_ I: I: ..... I: ro a 0> 0> ..... U ~ -g ~ :; EI8. ~ ~ ,g1:3 ID ID 1:1..... ~ ~ i II ~ _ _ ro t .cIa ~Ig. ~IO:: I I: 0> lfl lfl ro .c I: ro .c CJ o~ >- - os; n ro - 0.. ..... :J 2 a - ..... I 0> Ol "iii 0> I ~ E 0> a1z lfl I: a 0> - lfl 0> I lfl E I ro 0_ .c - I: :; ~ g, CJ ]1'0 "-i~ 2 " C3 I: "C :J ro ~I~ "C "C 0> 0> lfl lfl :J :J :'\q ,<)1 ;\~;/\.ins U~'}7!V8 ~'2un~lCj\J eql .~ JI ~ ~~ o Ql o ........ o t: o Ql ~ >- Q) :> ;.. ;:l en c:: Q) N ..... .... U c:: Q) '" '" (';l ...t:: c:: (';l ...t:: U ...... o ~I r5 ll) >- ra ::l ;: o .c >- 0) ~ ::J: Cll _ .c 0 ;: .c III - Cll ::l .c 0 '0;: en l.l III Cll 'C - III Cll .c 0) r:: '3: .E :E Cll .c - - o .c III ,~ 0) .c r:: 3: :;:; ra 0::: Cll l.l '~ Cll en - o >- =: iij ::l a ". Cll .~ co co ll) >- ra ;: .c .!2l ::J: ~ - o .c 1:: o Z ". III Cll l.l '~ Cll III 0) r:: '3: .2 :E Cll .c - - o .c l.l ra Cll - o ~ iij ::l C" Cll .c - Cll - ra ... ::l o >- o 'C ;: o ::J: III Q) l.l '~ Q) III Q) ,~ (5 a.. III Q) u '~ Q) III Cll '- u:: '<t I"- co I"- III Q) u '~ Q) Ii >- u r:: Cll 0) '- Q) E Q) - Q) l.l r:: ..!!! ::s .c E <( ..- co co '<t N I"- I"- co N en en I"- co LO LO co r:: o :0:- r:: Q) > Q) '- c.. Q) E ';::: u r:: ,2 ro u ::s 'C Q) '"0 "E r:: c.. ffi Cll ,2 7 r:: ~ U T5 g ~ ~ '0.. ~.E l.l 0)2 > r::Cll Cll r:: ~ Q) 0) .u '-l.llUU;: c.. !E l.c >. ~ lUl(ij 1fi ~ u:: ~I(!) 0::: >- en '<t en '<t i ,~I.~ ,~ ~ 0.. lU :E 0 Q) ~ _,2> E '- u ~ Q) u r:: Cl ~ I'~ c ;; '(ij - E ~ ox: ,2> - III lU l.l ~ !E '"0 lU ,- '- (f) f- OJ Q) Q) Q) '- '- Ci5iCi5 I - Q) Q) '- Ci5 ;: o r:: (f) ..- N ..- I"- co co co '<t LO LO 0 ..- co LO co LO ~ I :g I ~ III I ~ ,~ Q) I '- ::sQ)ClQ) c..~ ~ ro '0 'm om ~ r:: '- Cl lU '"0 r:: ~ E :i: III '- r:: ~lali5 - r:: ::s o E <( co I"- fJl ~ o .E ~ N '""" ~ -tt o <l> o ....... o 1: o <l> ~ III Q) III III lU 13 '- o III E lU '- Cl e c.. r:: o :0:- lU Q)" '- l.l Q) 0::: '8U; > .J01U08 WJJ:;~.:Y:;;')CJ 1EUO~18(~ /q ,<'i ^~/'\.lns UC7!"W) iEUQ!V2j~ ()ql co I"- III Q) l.l '~ Q) III '- Q) ;: Q) (f) III ox: '- lU c.. >. ~ U ~ 'i:: nl ('. ~ ell II) .~ >- ::I III ;: 0 .s:: ::l >- .~ 0 ell ~ ... J: ~ 0 m ~ I"- m (") ..... co ell CD CD II) ~ I"- CD CD CDICD - .s:: 0 ("<') ;: 1 .s:: I 1/1 - ell ::I I .c 0 nl '0:: en I ~ (.) ~. 1/1 0 Q) ell I 0 "C - I ..... 1/1 0 ell t "t: .c I I 0 C) c II) Q) .~ p::; >- 0 III '0 ;: .s:: - .~ ell co ..... CD I"'" CD ..... (") CD II) (") .s:: J: CD I"- CDICD ~ co I"- CD CD I"- - - - 0 0 .s:: .s:: .!:! 1:: 1/1 0 C) .s:: Z c ~ :0:; III 0:: ell (.) .~ ell ('. en - 1/1 0 ell (.) >- .~ ~ Ri ell I ::I 1/1 ....... 0 C) .... I 0 c [ 0 .~ 0... .2 II U 0 :E I ..... ,.j I Q) e <Il III iii ~ Q) .s:: III ; rn I Iii - III i .E: - ltl (.) 0 I ;g X (3 I.~ I LU >- .s:: "C III :J II Q) (.) e ~ .c I 0 .. III ltl I:::: "C I 0 1-0 ell '(3 Q) ..... ;::l - III I '~ ....... en 0 E Jg c I Q) ltl III I!:!:::: 0 I I ro s:: >- .... III ~IIII "C Q) ~ rn .... ....1.... e 1 U N Ri 0 Q) ltl Q) ltl Q)I III ..... 1: 0. 1: rn .c .... .... , ..... U ::I 0. C ltl I 0..1 c ell .... Q) ~ C" C III (.) olu '2 iii a' '0 s:: Q) 0 Q) 0 Q)I III III 0. () ~ c ellle N "C 0. ro Q) I QJ ,~ .s:: ~ 0 (.), 0 Q) u 0 '" - ltl '(3 ~ ffil~ "C Q) 1- Q) 'C '~ 0 '" 23 ell Q) ltl C Ie E III Q) ~ 0. - .... ltl III ~ e ltl ltl ~ IQ) Q) ..... Q) ..... ..c III u !:!:::: ~ Q) ~ I[ 0 (.) ltl III ltl c: ,.. ... Q) III .... (.) Ellrl rn ..... III (.) .~ E ~ .... .... ltl Q) .E: e -I~ .... c c C ::I .... Q) 0. Q) 0 .c: 0 ~IU 0 0 ..... .... ltl .... c '2 ..... .~ Q) e:- III c 0 e .... .... .€IO e E III :J III :.;::; 1:: 0 rn >- .?;- Q) 0 0 Q) Q) 0 ~ ltl III U ltl Q) elQ) u III >- .2 e:- E :J (5 'w .E: 0 Q) ~ ~ Q) I Q) 0.. ~ ..... "C .~ :f! 0 0 .:; ~ "C 'C e u; (.) 8[.2 0 0 0 ltl .... U C ;: ltl .Q :c :c e'e cD .E Q) ..... ..... ..... .... .... .E ro .c: Q) > ltllltl e III III III III @ 0 .E: (.) Iii Q) U 0 -- 1U 'w 'w rolro III Q) _ E Q) Q) Q) 0. III ..... Q) :J >- rn J: Q) III III ltl 0 .c: u u u .2 ..... .2 :~ .2 Q) ltl rn .... Q) Q) Q)'Q) "C Q) ,~ 15 ..... '~ .~ .~ Q) QJ 0.10. ro ::c ::c ::c ::c .... ~ e (.) u (.) e "C 'C e Q) ltl Q) (.) (.) 0.10. ltl 0 e (.) Q) Q) Q) Q) :J ltl :J :J :J ltl > 0:: 0:: <( <( <(1<( ...J u <(.LU :r: en CI) CI) 0... > 0... :2: 0... U <( I I >Kq~YjJ tpJt~8SGC::l !t~UOneN r'\q ~''ii. /'<J/'df1S UGZ!V8 !8UG~teN (L~l '~Ul '..F)";U88 lp"lC;:;'$O?J jEucqe\l Aq ;<i,;.;\V:'\.lns U87n!8 i81.V)~V7~~ en.H. CIl Lt) ... CIl Lt) CIl >- ... >- ~ ca CIl :: :: ~ ca III ~ :: :: .~ ~ CIl ~ III .~ .c :J: 0 CIl M 1.0 0 1.0 .;: '<t .c :J: - 1.0 t-- t-- ex) t-- 0 0 ';: - III 0 0 CIl ~ III ~ "C - CIl ::l - 1ii ('. 0 "C ::l 1ii ('. 0 CIl CIl en en .c .~ CIl CIl Cl- .c ,~ e: ::l Cl- .- 0 Lt) e: ::l ::>- >- .~ 0 .2 >- Lt) ca .2 :E :: >- :E ca ~ :: CIl .~ ~ ~ CIl ~ :J: 0 .~ - N ~ III - - 1.0 - :J: N '<t t-- T""" ~I ell 0 0 - t-- t-- t-- t-- CIl ~ 0 - >- ~ 0 0 t:: ~ 0 .~ .c C. ~ 0 t:: 3: z ~ E 3: 0 w z >- III :!::: CIl e ell U CIl >- ~ VJ VJ 0 - - VJ ~ C. III .~ III - 0 .s::: e: E E - e 0 W 0 III E ... ca .s::: N >- ::l - U :!::: 0 e: T""" U >- 0 - - U 0 1Il ~ .5 >- .!!! - Cl - .~ e: e: C3 CIl CIl .s::: 'S; CIl - - III 0 III ca .s::: .5 ca ca - :J: "- - ~ CIl e: e: 0 Q) 0 e: 0 Q) >- U ca :;:; CIl 0 ~ >- 0.. - U ca 0 - :; 0 E - .... 0.. III 0 0 e.. E Q) Cl 0 0 >- e: >- 0- n. CIl :t:: :;:; :!::: II - e U ca U ('. 0 0 III III n:: ell- +" e: ~ .s::: ~o e: - _ca j!! 0 .~ - -- 1:: .~ o e: Q; 0 - - III 0 0 u >< e.. III u ell 0 0 - III CIl- LU ~ e: "E >-e: II ... 0 0 ~ n. u 0 o ell 0 U _0 ;.. CIl e..~ ~ ::l "C en e Q) E CIl 0 c::: .s::: t: CIl ro Q) e.. 0 - u .~ .... e.. 0 VJ CIl ..... 0 .... e: - U e 0 0 e (11 ~ ('. .s::: 'Iii '0 c::: c e.. Q) 0 .... VJ :: III I .~ Q)~ CIl 0 '" VJ ... 0 '" c.. - - e.. ~ <'J Ie e T""" ~ (l e: 0 Q) .5 III !o._ ';' E "U C"' e: ~ 0 eN e ... 0 e ...c:: r' 0 ::l VJ '00 0 '-" roT""" c.. 1Il U 0 VJ Cl "U - 1Il >- Q) Q) e ..... III VJ Q) e .... :;:; 0 .s:::.!!! .... III Q) Q) c.. "- ca > E ~ :>- ::l CIl 0 :: Cl '00 >- ..... O~ "U CIl U "E e: VJ >-- - Q) 0 Q) ro Cl CIl.5 Q) ca ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ c.. t: .... ~ >.s::: 3: 0 VJ :l Q) Q) lIl:t:: Q) e Q) 0 > > J: :: 0- ~ c:: u 0 <( I ':)Ul >19luc..):J t.pJE~)S8d p:~uOnBN /~q ~'u/,~l\.H1S U9"Z.IH8 !8U01tCN eql fIl ;::: 0 '" '1: ('. ~ Q) .=: It) >- ::J r:l 0 ~ >- ..c: Q) .!2' ... to 0 Q) J: ..- l to to to ..c: - ~ 0 Ul..... III ..c: u Q) .oJ ;S .0 ::J 0 'i: UJ ~ CJ -6ti III 0 Q) Q) "C 0 .oJ III ...... Q) 0 .0 t Cl It) 0 C .~ >- Q) I'll ~ .S2 ~ :e ..c: .!2' Q) J: 10 0 C") to r- to ..c: - .oJ 0 - 0 ..c: ..c: 1:: CJ 0 :c z .oJ 3: III ::J ... l- I Cil .~ I Q) :c ..... OJ OJ ::J Ie: III a.. l:.i:: .!!! - $ "C 0 .!!! ~ III - OJ Cl e: e: e: c Q) Q) e .. I If) E - r:l ,If) Q) C/) It: 111 > II III >- e: <5 0 .oJ III III > ai c c.. ..r::: .E: Q) 0 Q) E e: If) ..... If) - Q) e: OJ Q) Q) 0 N Q) III .oJ X >-I~ N >- r:l ro :;::; .oJ - C31~ '0 c, III e: c Cl Q) Q) Q) 0 0 C If) ..r:::IE - ..... .~ If) If) en ro ::::10 e: II >- .S2 ..r::: III 1.2 Q) 0 Q) e: ..r::: Q) ~ 0 :> :e ro -I~ ;.. ..r::: :s ::l 5'e - en Q) 0 e: Q) ..c: "- :;:: Q) Q) Iii c .oJ 0 lrl E E CJ <lJ Q) >- .!:: e: e: If) N .oJ :!: "C ..... ..... .... e .... r:l 0 Q) Q) U ... > > Q) Q) ~ 0 0 '0 C III ..r::: Q) OJ OJ c.. - I <l.l r:l ... > C e: 0 en Q) .E 0 Q) Q) 0 en c: Q)I~ If) ..- C<l Q) If) ..c: -Sllll ro III C ::l Iii -Sl~ ..c: c C<l e: 0 ..c: > .~ 111 ro U "C ..c: OJ 0 "C.O 0 c: ..... ~ 0 0 ~I'O "- C OJ 0 ..... Q) !5 :0- Q) U .~ - OJ Q) U ro ..... <l.l (J E I Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) ..... ro ..r::: ..r::: > I-il- l- <C ':)U! 'F)1UG8 lpJe~)-S3d leuC~,leN i~q ;.<il!\;J/UnS Uf.Y:;n~J iBUOilCN C;:.~l 001 11) ~ '1: 1II >- ~ cu ra g! .0 ~ .;:: .s:: 0 .~ ~ ~ 1II 0 cu J: 0 "C .... 0 ;:11 ti (". 0 ..- 0, .s:: ~ cu cu .... i~ .0 .~ =' Ol- 0 I: =' en .- 0 ~ >- .2cu 11) III - ... >- "" o cu .....s:: ra ~~ ~ .s:: .... .~ ~ .... 0 0 J: 0 0 .s:: .... ..- 0 0 :2 .s:: Q) ~ t:: ~ 0 Z cu .s:: .... I: >- cu E E 0 0 I: 0 0 I: 0 W :;. cu 'E .s:: .... ~ a; .... 0 ....0 1II ='- 0= I: >-~ 0 ;; 1:.... C. o 0 cu cu ra 0 > c. ... ra E cu ll. .s:: .- _cu =.s:: ~.... ..lIl:: >-1: E:c 0.... I: =' o 0 0>- >- cu 0 OJ ~c t: .... (". ;::l ..lIl:: 1II en I:.s:: .- .... C .s:: I: OJ ..... 0 .~ ::l E .... 0 U >-CD (f1 0)( I C c I OJ 0 "C cu I '" cj;; ~I: I '" 'C I r::l n I: ..c 9 ra , o~ I ~16 ~ , cu I ..cU .;' I~ ii'i U 0 el ~I ra 0 0) ..... c. 0) C. I: 0 E > ii'i ...... :;:; c Ow III Ill. ..... .s:: .s:: ell .... 0 ~ ~ ~I- u ra ro .s:: c. 0) .... 0) C1J' ~ ~ E "5 E ~I III ..c 0) 0 0) 0 0) '0 ~ > U) Z U) >.1- I '~Ul '..i01LVYJ lp)P~)SGd 1euonCN Aq ..~i/8Ains UD7!V8 !eU()~ICl\ eql >- aJ ~ ~ =' en c:: aJ .~ .... u c:: aJ '" '" c<l ~ c<l .J:: () ..... o cl ... ! ~I .J:: ~ u; ('0. CI) CI) .e .~ Ol- e: ::J .- 0 ;:>- ~~ o CI) .....c: CI) ;: ~en .... CI) o.e .c: .;:: o 0 .- en .c:CI) 3:"C .... =l:l: e: o :;: en CI) ::J o >- .~ "0 Q. ... e: CI) CI) ::- CI) en ;> E en g ~~.:.: -e:o .2cu... en .c: CI) enu..:.:: CI)....= ~0:E ::J~::Jen en .- 0 ... enu;:e: CI) CI)_ CI) en .c: .- E en...OCl) Cl)e:e:... e:.- ::J ~ .- N 0 en ~.... U 01 .eN >-e: e: >-:=: '3: CI) ~ u 0 en;>CI)_ en.c:.c:- cu 01.....2 .c::i: . CI) e: >- .c: cu;::=:... .c:CI)O.c: Ue:...... ... CI) ::J'3: cu .c: 0 .c:"'e:CI) ... 01'- CI) "Ce:enc, CI) CI) ;: 0._ cu o iii :=: .!!! .c:=5"C ~CU1::5 cu E 0 CI) ~iii ~~ >-e:OCl "CO_CU ::J 'c,'iij ::J U;~a:;0 "'CU"'>- CI) CI) .c: ':':"C.c:0 :u e: ... .- ECU"C.c: ~e:;: =~ltlO ~CI)Q.><,::: CI) CI) CI) ... e: CI) > ltl Cl"C CI) "Ce:e:- CI)'- ltl CI) a:; ~..!!!~ c.0~ E.c: .- o en > o ~~ ~"9"C .- 0- U...::J CI) I 0 .c: ~ ;: ...."C ....Lt) 0>- .c:ltl~~~ ...;: 00 N 0') 5'E, V It) to CI):i: Lt) O~ .c:::-~~~ 1:: i: to t- N OOlVIt)t- Z:i: Ol e: o Iii ..... o e: "C e: CO CO CI) ... CO e: N ;: ..- 0 N C >. ~ CO 0 ~ "C ..c: CI) Cl ..c: I ..... ,S ~ e: e: 0 CI) '~ :5 CO 0. X CI) Cl e: o Iii 'iij =: ..... '5 ~ .e "C "C "C :; :; :; 000 ~ ~ ~ N ..- N fa' Iii ~ E ..c: Cl I ~ CI) e: CI) ..c: ..... Iii e: o '0, Cl)1 ~I '5 .e o e: "C e: CO e: 0). en en CO ..c: e: CO ..c: t.> .S "C e: ::J .E >. ~ e: 0) ... ... :;.... ::J CO o ..c: .... ~ e: 0) 5 E E 0 CO ~ 0) Cl :5 .S ro ... o .... -0) 0) ... Cl CO .2:- Cl e: o ... o ... o ::J o >- 0) ... CI) .c: ;: en CI) .e .;:: o en CI) "C U; ('0. 0) CI) .e .~ Ol- e: '3: .!2 :E CI) .c: ... .... o .c: .~ .c: 3: Lt) >- ltl ;: .c: ~ .2'~~~~~~ J: ~ &, ..- 0 t- 0 ..- N N ..- N ..- N =l:l: e: o :;: en CI) ::J o >- o "0 Q. ... o 0) Qj .!!!. ('0. e: CI) en en ltl .c: e: ltl .c: U e: "C CI) Q. o Qj > CI) "C ala; en e: o 0 ...>- O)e ~o ::J o >- :E ::J o ;: en Iii B E .E 'iij 2 Iii .E .... e: e: ~ 0) o .?;- .... -g '0, C3 ~ 0 ~ 0) 0 g. CO :5 .... ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 .... e: 0) o ... 0) a. iii ... cu :t: iii E CI) N '(ij ... ltl .c: 3: en ~ o Ii 10 I! Ie: I~ . ... o >: Ui c: .... o e: en 0) 0) E ... t:: .E CO en 0. >. 0) ...."C 0) Iii 0 0 '0 ~ e: ~ ~ ~ _en_ E ~.... - ::J 0) ~ g 1ii"C Clo.O~ EO)iiio"Co (/) :2: -l Z f- .... o .c: ... ::J o CI) Lt) >- ltl ;: .c: .2' ~ ~ ~ &'I~ .c: 1:: o Z o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N 0') NI~ e: 0) en en CO ..c: e: CO ..c: t.> .S en 0) ... o 1ii >. .... Iii '0 CI) 0. III "C e: CO :3 c ... 0) 0) .E Iii E III 0 0. III 0 ..... Q) o > III 0) E "C $ ~ .S t o 0. 0. ::J III Iii E Iii e: o '0, 0) ... CO ..... o .... e: 0) E t:: CO 0. 0) "C 0) c.. .... ::J .s '~Ul '.JfY4U9:J If)JCGS0C:.11Ei.Y.iQCN /q ;'U(~~,\.:ns li(rZn!~ j81JGnC~~ cQl aJ ~ '" .:: I 0 III ('0. J '1:: nl Q) It) .~ S >. I 0 ::s III U 0 ~ >. J: el Q) .~ ~I~I~ ~ ::R .. J: 0 Q) ~ ~1:R N gl 1m J: - -.r ~ 0 i III J: I If.l~ I Q) ... 1 tl .c ::s I .:E 0 I ';: en tJ 0 I III Q) 0 't:l Q.l ... I 0 III [ ...... Q) I 0 .c 1:: Cl c: It) 0 .~ >. Q.l III ~ g ~ .E J: Cl ~ ::R ::R ::R ::R Q) J: 0 0 0 0 J: ...- O'l CD C") ...- ... - C") LO LO -.r C") - 0 0 J: J: 1:: 0 0 :c z 3: C") :;t c: 0 :;:; ('0. III Cl Q) c: ::s .~ a >. .2 .~ :E "5 Q) a. J: ... -Q) 0 Q) 't:l L- Cl >. ro .... (3 2:- Cl Q) c: J: e ... Q) >. 0 - > C3 III L- J: Q) a 0 J: :;... >- - Q) .... .5 ro , ::s J: 0 L- :;= ;::l >. Q) Q) en - E 0 ro Q) l/) I::: .... Q) 0 Q) a Q) ~ J: ro 0 ~ N I- a. .~ ..... ..... .!!! L- l/) Cl U Q) .::t:. Q) c: c: L- l/) :;::; I::: ~ c: rol_ ~ ro is a. c: L- Q) ... Q) m '" III 'OlE l/) '" c: :J 1:: C'<l :!:: Q) C Q) l/) CT ...t:: l/) 0 Q) L- Q) I::: ..; l/) :J L- X Q) "'C C'<l c: ro a .E ro Iii c: ...t:: III J: E - a U 1:: c: c: >. :;= a. 0 ro ro Q) t l/) ...... J: Q) :;= Q) Q) ~ 0 Q. t) J: .!!! a. .::t:. >- E - a .!!! ...... .... Q) Q) Q) L- a U :: J: l/) l/) a. Q) - - ro ro L- > c: 0 a Q) Q) a. Q) Q) Q) L- 0 ~ J: Q) L- L- :;= a. L- Q)I" " a E Q) ~ ..5 ..5 ...J c.. ':)Uj 'YJ1U08 lfJJESSOCi1CUG!1L'N :'\q ;'<il.l~:;/uns U02H() !8UGJS\i sql