The URL can be used to link to this page

B Citizen Survey CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Bou levard 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 WIiW.ci. chan hassen. mn. us MEMORANDUM (j TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager_ J~9" June 15, 2005 ~"1 DATE: RE: 2005 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 was different from past surveys, in that the survey was conducted through the mail instead of over the phone. Between April 18 and May 16, 1,200 households were randomly selected to participate in the survey. Of those 1,200,39 were returned as undeliverable. 583 surveys were returned, for a 50% 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 rate the quality of life in Chanhassen as either "excellent" or "good" . 87% of residents feel "very" or "somewhat" safe from violent crimes. 96% feel "very" or "somewhat" safe in their neighborhood during the day. This number drops slightly to 89% after dark. 8% of residents responded that they were the victim of a crime in the past 12 months. 93% responded that they had visited a Chanhassen park in the past year. 82% read The Chanhassen Connection. 39% watched a public meeting, while 30% attended a meeting. 82% have used the Chanhassen library in the past year. 79% responded that the overall quality of services they receive from the City of Chanhassen is either "excellent" or "good". At 36%, location was the number one reason why residents enjoyed living in Chanhassen. 50% of residents prefer to receive information from the city by mail. 9% of residents responded that the City of Chanhassen was doing an "excellent" job in informing the public about issues, with 55% responding "good", 29% "fair", and 8% "poor"" The open ended question that asked what was the biggest issue facing the city in the next 2-3 years had as the top answers "controlled growth" (35%), "traffic and road conditions" (22%), and "taxes" (15%). . . . . . . . . . . . . The City ot Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails. and beautiful parks. A great place 10 live. work. and play One feature of this survey was that it allows us to compare ourselves to over 400 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. The full listing is attached to this report. As a place to live Overall ualit of life Recreational opportunities Ease of bic cle travel Safety from property cnmes Safe in neighborhood after dark Safe in parks during the da Snow removal City parks Accessibility of recreation centers Rec clin services Economic develo ment Services to youth Courtesy of city em 10 ees Sense of communit Access to affordable ualit child care Fire services Traffic enforcement Street li htin Recreation ro rams/classes Variety of library materials Sewer services Services to low income eo Ie Knowledge of city em 10 ees City government listens to citizens Above the Norm Neighborhood as a place to live Overall a earance Access to affordable health care Ease of walkin Safety from fire Safe in downtown during the da Safe in parks after dark Sidewalk maintenance Range/variety of recreation ro ams Appearance/maintenance of arks Storm draina e Health services Public schools Overall direction of city Similar to the Norm o enness and acce tance Ease of bus travel Ambulance/EMS services Street re air Traffic si al timin Recreation centers/facilities Garbage collection servIces Overall impression of city em 10 ees City welcomes citizen involvement As a place to retire Safet from violent crime Safe in neighborhood durin the da Safe in downtown after dark Crime prevention Appearance/maintenance of recreation centers Code enforcement Services to seniors Responsiveness of city em 10 ees Job 0 ortunities Police services Fire reventionleducation Street cleanin Bus/transit services Public library services Yard waste pick-up Animal control Municipal courts Receive good value for taxes aid Below the Norm A place to retire Opportunities to attend Shopping opportunities cultural activities Access to affordable Drinking water Cable television quality housing The full results, which are attached, come in four sections: . Summary report . Report of results . Report of open-ended question . Report of normative comparisons 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. The National CITIZEN SURVEyTM 2 DOS Summary Report for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN Submitted by: NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER,INC. 3005 30th Street. Boulder, CO 80301 tel. 303-444-7863 · fax. 303-441-1145 e-mail: ncs@n-r-c.com . www.n-r-c.com June 2005 URVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen SurvelM (The NCS TM) 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 week later. A reminder letter and a new survey were sent to the same households after two weeks. Of the mailed postcards, 39 were undeliverable due to vacant or "not found" addresses. Completed surveys were received from 583 residents, for a response rate of 50%. 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 II in the Report of Results. A copy of the survey materials can be found in Appendix III of the Report of Results.) Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor" (EGFP). While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, 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). The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Summary Report o Z ::::l ~ ~ ~ al ~ ~ ::::l VI . 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 (unlike 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 100-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 1 DO-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 1 DO-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 1 DO-point scale. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 5 points based on all respondents. The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Summary Report o Z ::J o a:: ~ ~ frj ~ ::J II) . OMMUNITY LIFE The National Citizen Surve/M contained many questions related to the life of residents in the community. Survey participants were asked 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 asked to rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen, 31% of respondents thought it was "excellent." Zero percent rated overall quality of life as "poor." Chanhassen as a place to raise children received an average rating of 77 on a 1 DO-point scale. . RATINGS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS IN CHANHASSEN The highest rated characteristics of Chanhassen were air quality, overall appearance of Chanhassen, and ease of walking. When asked about potential problems in Chanhassen, the three concerns rated by the highest proportion of respondents as a "major problem" were taxes, traffic congestion, and too much growth. The rate of population growth in Chanhassen was viewed as "too fast" by 54% of respondents, while 2% thought it was "too slow." . PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community, 87% of respondents felt "somewhat" or "very safe" from violent crimes in Chanhassen. In their neighborhood after dark, 89% of survey participants felt "somewhat" or "very safe." As assessed by the survey, 8% of households reported that at least one member had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 74% had reported it to police. The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Summary Report W ll.. .::J ~ Z :J ~ ~ 8 . . 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, 93% reported visiting a park in Chanhassen in the past year and 62% had used Chanhassen recreation centers. The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Summary Report W LL. .:J ~ z ::> ~ ~ 8 . OCAL GOVERNMENT Several aspects of the government of the City of Chanhassen were evaluated by residents completing The National Citizen Survey.TM They were asked 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 asked to evaluate whether they were pleased with the overall direction taken by the City of Chanhassen, residents gave an average rating of 65 on a 1 DO-point scale. . SERVICES PROVIDED BY CHANHASSEN The overall quality of services provided by the City of Chanhassen was rated as 65 on a 1 DO-point scale. . THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN EMPLOYEES Impressions of the City of Chanhassen employees were assessed on the questionnaire. Those who had been in contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year (57%) rated their overall impression as 69 on a 100- point scale. The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Summary Report I- z w ~ Z ~ w > o l!) ...J 6 .9 . DDITIONAL QUESTIONS Three additional questions were asked by the City of Chanhassen. The results for these questions are displayed below. Open-ended results can be found under a separate cover. Policy Question #1 How would you rate the job that the City of Chanhassen is doing in communicating issues to the public? Percent of Respondents excellent good fair poor 9% 55% 29% 8% Policy Question #2 What is your preferred method of receiving information from the City of Chanhassen? Percent of Respondents Mail 50% The Chanhassen Villager/Maple Leaf Newsletter 23% E-Mail 13% The Chanhassen Connection Newsletter 10% Visiting the City Web site 3% Chanhassen Cable Channel 8 1% Policy Question #3 What one thing do you like most about living in the City of Chanhassen? Percent of Respondents Location 36% Good community 21% Small town feel 18% Parks/Open Space 15% Schools 4% Other 6% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Summary Report VI Z o ~ w ::l 0' oJ < Z o E o o ex: . The National CITIZEN SURVEyTM 2 DOS Report of Results for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN Submitted by: NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 3005 30th Street. Boulder, CO 80301 tel. 303-444-7863 · fax. 303-441-1145 e-mail: ncs@n-r-c.com · www.n-r-c.com June 2005 Table of Contents Survey Background.......................... ................................................................................................. ............ 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM ..............................................................................................1 Understanding the Results..................... .......................................................................................... 2 Community Life............................................................................................................................................. 7 Quality of Life ... .... ............ ............ ..... ........ ................. .................................... ....... ........... ........ ... ..... 7 Ratings of Community Characteristics in Chanhassen.................................................................... 9 Perceptions of Safety................... ................. ........ .......................................... ......... ...................... 15 Community Participation ............ .... .................................... .......... ............ ................................ ...... 17 Local Government............................................. ......................................................................................... ..19 Public Trust ................................ .............. ..... ..................... .............................................. ....... ....... 19 Services Provided by Chanhassen .................... ................ ...................... ............ ......... .............. ...21 The City of Chanhassen Employees......................................................... ........ ........ .....................29 Additional Questions............................................................................ ....................................................... 31 Appendix I: Frequency of Responses to All Survey Questions .................................................................. 32 Appendix II: Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................... 45 Sampling............................................ ............................................................................................ 45 Survey Administration.. ..... ........ ...... ................ .... ........ ................. ............... .... ............... ........ ........45 Response Rate and Confidence Intervals ..................................................................................... 46 Weighting and Analyzing the Data ................................................................................................. 46 Appendix III: Survey Materials .... ........ ......... ......... .................................... ...... ...... ........... .................... .......49 URVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen Surve/M (The NCS TM) 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 Surve/M 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 reweighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Surve/M 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 Surve/M Basic Service. The National cmZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results o z ::> o a: ~ u ~ >- w ~ ::> V) . 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 week later. A reminder letter and a new survey were sent to the same households after two weeks. Of the mailed postcards, 39 were undeliverable due to vacant or "not found" addresses. Completed surveys were received from 583 residents, for a response rate of 50%. 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 II. A copy of the survey materials can be found in Appendix III.) 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 would 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? 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: 1) Using a mail-outlmail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. 2) Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction. The National CIl1zEN SURVEY™ Report of Results a z ::> ~ C) :.<: ~ ~ > ex: ::> Vl . 3) Over-sampling attached units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. 4) Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure 1. 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 ranking elected official or staff member. 7) Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return 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 reweight 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 asked to record 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," likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), her confidence that she can be honest without suffering any 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. The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results o Z ::J o a: C) :..: u <l: aJ ~ ~ ::J V) . negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording 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 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 think 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 think 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 by government administrators. Elsewhere we have written, "If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem." The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results Cl Z :::l ~ ~ u < co ~ ~ :::l V) . Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked 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 tasks, 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 (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). "Don't Know" Responses On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix I. 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 know" responses were not removed. These questions were not evaluative; rather, respondents were asked 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 asked whether the crime had been reported to police. The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results o Z :::l o '" ~ u ~ ~ ~ :::l V) . Putting Evaluations Onto a 100-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 1 DO-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 1 DO-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 1 DO-point scale. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 1 DO-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 5 points based on all respondents. The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results o Z ::J ~ ~ ~ ~ co >- w ~ ::J Ul . OMMUNITY LIFE The National Citizen Surve/M contained many questions related to the life of residents in the community. Survey participants were asked 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 asked to rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen, 31 % of respondents thought it was "excellent." Zero percent rated overall quality of life as "poor." All of the responses of residents who had an opinion about the overall quality of life in Chanhassen are shown in Figure 1 below. Other ratings can be seen in the figures on the following page. Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Chanhassen fair 6% excellent 31% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u. ..::J ~ Z :J ~ ~ 8 . Figure 2: Quality of Life Ratings 77 77 77 67 33 o Chanhassen as a Neighborhood as a Chanhassen as a Chanhassen as a Overall quality of place to live place to live place to raise place to retire life in Chanhassen children Figure 2b: Quality of Life Ratings excellent good fair poor How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? 37% 58% 4% 0% How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 42% 49% 9% 1% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? 39% 55% 6% 0% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to retire? 14% 37% 36% 14% How do you rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen? 31% 62% 6% 0% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results W LL .:J ~ z :::> ~ ~ 8 . RATINGS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS IN CHANHASSEN The highest rated characteristics of Chanhassen were air quality, overall appearance of Chanhassen, and ease of walking. When asked about potential problems in Chanhassen, the three concerns rated by the highest proportion of respondents as a "major problem" were taxes, traffic congestion, and too much growth. The rate of population growth in Chanhassen was viewed as "too fast" by 54% of respondents, while 2% thought it was "too slow." Figure 3: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities 72 67 33 o Sense of community Openness and acceptance Overall Opportunities Shopping appearance to attend opportunities of cultural Chanhassen activities Air quality Recreational Job opportunities opportunities The National cmZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u. .::J ~ z ::;) ~ ~ 8 . Figure 3b: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities excellent good fair poor Sense of community 14% 53% 27% 6% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 11% 44% 32% 12% Overall appearance of Chanhassen 21% 59% 19% 2% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 7% 33% 44% 16% Shopping opportunities 7% 32% 44% 17% Air quality 27% 63% 9% 1% Recreational opportunities 22% 52% 22% 5% Job opportunities 7% 32% 46% 16% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u.. .:l ~ z :;) ::E ::E o U CD Figure 4: Characteristics of the Community: Access 67 . . - - . - - - . - . - . . - . . . . - - . - - . . - . - - - - - . . - - - - - . . . . - - - - . . . . - - . . - - - . '60' . - - . . - - . . . 52 33 39 o Access to affordable quality housing Access to affordable quality child care Access to affordable quality health care Figure 4b: Characteristics of the Community: Access excellent good fair poor Access to affordable quality housing 5% 31% 41% 24% Access to affordable quality child care 12% 41% 39% 9% Access to affordable quality health care 18% 50% 26% 5% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u.. .::J ~ z :::> ::E ::E o U . Figure 5: Characteristics of the Community: Mobility 66 67 - - . - . . . . - - . . - - . . . . . . - - - . . - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - . . - - . 62- - . - - . . . - . . - . . . . . - . - - - - . - - - 58 33 o Ease of car travel in Chanhassen Ease of bus travel Ease of bicycle travel Ease of walking Figure 5b: Characteristics of the Community: Mobility excellent good fair poor Ease of car travel in Chanhassen 15% 52% 24% 9% Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen 9% 40% 33% 18% Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen 23% 46% 24% 6% Ease of walking in Chanhassen 28% 48% 18% 6% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u.. .:J ~ Z :J ~ ~ o u . Figure 6: Ratings of Potential Problems in Chanhassen Weeds Unsupervised youth Traffic congestion Run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles Taxes Jobs growth Retail growth (stores, restaurants etc.) Population growth Graffiti Lack of growth Too much growth Noise 3~% 60% Figure 7: Ratings of Rates of Growth in Chanhassen Drugs Crime 0% 40% Percent of Respondents Rating as "Major Problem" 80% 20% 0% 20% 540/'; 40% 60% Percent of Respondents "Note: Responses of "neither too fast nor too slow" were omitted. The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ . too slow lEI too fast 80% Report of Results 100% 100% w u.. .::J ~ z ::;) ~ ~ 8 . 25% of Chanhassen residents expected that the coming six months would have a somewhat or very positive impact on their family, while 28% felt that the economic future would be somewhat or very negative. Figure 8: 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 . . . . neutral 49% very positive 7% somewhat negative 24% very negative 2% somewhat positive 18% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u... .:1 ~ Z ::I ~ ~ 8 . PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community, 87% of respondents felt .somewhat" or .very safe" from violent crimes in Chanhassen. In their neighborhood after dark, 89% of survey participants felt .somewhat" or "very safe." As assessed by the survey, 8% of households reported that at least one member had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 74% had reported it to police. Figure 9: Ratings of Safety from Various Problems in Chanhassen Fire 87% Violent crime Property crimes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents Feeling "Very" or "Somewhat" Safe 100% Figure 10: Ratings of Safety in Various Areas in Chanhassen In your neighborhood after dark In your neighborhood during the day 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 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Respondents Feeling "Very" or "Somewhat" Safe w u. The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Re~ults ~ z ::> ::E ::E 8 . Figure 11: Percent of Respondents' Households That Were Victim of a Crime in the Last 12 Months Household Member(s) Was a Victim of Crime 8% Don't Know 1% No Household Member Was a Crime Victim 91% Figure 12: Percent of Respondents' Households That Were Victim of a Crime Who Reported the Crime Reported the Crime 74% The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Did NOT Report the Crime 26% Report of Results w u. .:J ~ z ::> ~ ~ 8 . 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. Among those completing the questionnaire, 93% reported visiting a park in Chanhassen in the past year and 62% had used Chanhassen recreation centers. Figure 13: Percent of Respondents Engaging in Various Activities in Chanhassen in the Past Year Purchased an item over the Internet Used the Internet to conduct business with Chanhassen Used the Internet for anything Read the Chanhassen Connection Newsletter Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen Visited a Chanhassen park Participated in a recreation program or activity Used Chanhassen recreation centers Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Respondents Engaging in Activity Once or More The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u. .::l ~ z ::> ::E ::E 8 . Voter status was also estimated2, with 93% saying that they had voted in the last election. Figure 14: Voter Status no yes Did you vote in the last election? 7% 93% Are you likely to vote in the next election? 3% 97% The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results w u.. .:J t; z ~ ::E ::E 8 2 In general on a sUNey, a greater proportion of people will report having voted, than actual voting records verify. . OCAL GOVERNMENT Several aspects of the government of the City of Chanhassen were evaluated by residents completing The National Citizen SurveyTM. They were asked 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 asked to evaluate whether they felt they received good value for taxes they pay, residents gave an average rating of 58 on a 100-point scale. Figure 15: Ratings of Public Trust 75 - - - - - - - - . - . . - - - . . - . - . - . - . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . - - . . . . - . . . . . . - . 50 25 o 65 67 I receive good value for Pleased with the overall Chanhassen welcomes The City government taxes I pay direction the City is citizen involvement listens to citizens taking The National C1TIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- z w :E z a: w > o -' l5 .9 . Figure 15b: Public Trust Ratings strongly somewhat neither agree somewhat strongly agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree I receive good value for the City of Chanhassen taxes I pay 9% 45% 20% 19% 7% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 14% 50% 20% 14% 2% The City of Chanhassen government welcomes citizen involvement 21% 41% 27% 9% 3% The City of Chanhassen government listens to citizens 14% 34% 31% 14% 6% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National crnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- Z W ~ Z 0:: W > o (!) -' 5 .9 . SERVICES PROVIDED BY CHANHASSEN The responses of residents with an opinion about the overall quality of services provided by Chanhassen are shown in Figure 16 below. These responses result in an average rating of 65 on the 100-point scale. Average ratings given to specific services are shown on the following pages. Figure 16: Overall Quality of Services Provided by the City of Chanhassen good 61% The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- Z w ~ Z IX w i5 l!) ~ . On average, residents of Chanhassen gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to the Federal Government. Figure 17: Rating of Overall Quality of Services Provided by Various Levels of Government 67 -....-.....- -....-................. "'_........ --.. ........... -.... ...-- .......... -- --..... -............. .--_..... -.. -- --..... _....-- 65 33 48 49 o City of Chanhassen Federal Government State Government Figure 17b: Overall Quality of Services: City of Chanhassen, Federal Government and State Government excellent good fair poor Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the City of Chanhassen? 18% 61% 19% 2% Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the Federal Government? 5% 44% 43% 9% Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the State Government? 5% 46% 42% 7% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CITIzEN SURVEY ™ Report of Results I- Z w ~ z a: w > o I.!) ...J l5 .9 fa Figure 18: Quality of Public Safety Services 78 76 33 67 o Police services Fire services Ambulance/EMS Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Figure 18b: Quality of Public Safety Services excellent good fair poor Police services 27% 54% 16% 4% Fire services 41% 53% 6% 0% Ambulance/emergency medical services 38% 52% 9% 1% Crime prevention 22% 55% 18% 5% Fire prevention and education 28% 56% 15% 1% Traffic enforcement 16% 51% 24% 10% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- z w ::E z IX w > o c:> ....J l) .9 . Figure 19: Quality of Transportation Services 66 67 . . " . . " . " . . " " 6"0 " " " " " " . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . - " . . '61 - . . . . - " . . . - . . . . " 61- . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 56 33 o Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow Sidewalk Traffic signal Amount of Bus/transit removal maintenance timing public services parking Figure 19b: Quality of Transportation Services excellent good fair poor Street repair 10% 34% 40% 16% Street cleaning 17% 51% 27% 5% Street lighting 13% 48% 29% 10% Snow removal 24% 54% 17% 5% Sidewalk maintenance 17% 56% 22% 5% Traffic signal timing 7% 38% 33% 23% Amount of public parking 14% 58% 23% 4% Bus/transit services 17% 46% 27% 11% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- z UJ ::i: z ~ UJ > o l!) -' 6 S fa Figure 20: Quality of Leisure Services 100 Average Rating (O=poor, 100=excellent) 77 76 76 67 68 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . 60' - - . . 33 o City parks Recreation Range/var of Rec Access 10 prgrms or rec cnlrs/fclilies parks classes prgrms/classes Access to Appe/mtce of App of rec Public libraryVar of library recreation parks cnlrs/fclties services malerials cntrs/fclities Figure 20b: Quality of Leisure Services excellent good fair poor City parks 39% 54% 7% 1% Recreation programs or classes 23% 61% 14% 2% Range/variety of recreation programs and classes 21% 57% 17% 5% Recreation centers/facilities 19% 50% 22% 9% Accessibility of parks 37% 54% 9% 0% Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities 28% 57% 13% 2% Appearance/maintenance of parks 31% 59% 8% 2% Appearance of recreation centers/facilities 26% 60% 12% 1% Public library services 40% 51% 7% 2% Variety of library materials 29% 47% 19% 5% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results f- z w ~ z a: w > o l!) ...J l5 .9 . Figure 21: Quality of Utility Services 100 Average Rating (O=poor, 100=excellent) 72 73 67 . . . - . - - - -59 - - - - - - . - - - 00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .63 - - - - - 33 o Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services pick-up Figure 21 b: Quality of Utility Services excellent good fair poor Garbage collection 31% 56% 11% 2% Recycling 35% 51% 12% 2% Yard waste pick-up 21% 46% 20% 12% Storm drainage 11% 62% 20% 6% Drinking water 13% 39% 27% 22% Sewer services 14% 63% 20% 3% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results f- z w ~ Z ~ w 1; 19 ...J 6 .9 . Figure 22: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services 67 - - . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - . . - - - - . - - - 60 - . . - - - - - - - . . . . . . - - . - - - - . - - - 58 55 33 o Land use, planning and Code enforcement zoning Animal control Economic development Figure 22b: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services excellent good fair poor Land use, planning and zoning 9% 40% 34% 16% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 14% 54% 24% 7% Animal control 16% 55% 21% 8% Economic development 10% 51% 32% 7% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- z w :IE: z ~ w > o 19 g . --' Figure 23: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services 70 67 66 66 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - 60- - - . . . - . - . . - - - - . -62- - - - - - - 6l) - - - . - - 33 o Health services Services to seniors Services to youth Services to low-income people Public information services Municipal courts Public schools Cable television Figure 23b: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services excellent good fair poor Health services 18% 64% 17% 1% Services to seniors 21% 60% 15% 4% Services to youth 15% 56% 24% 5% Services to low-income people 14% 33% 31% 22% Public information services 18% 55% 23% 4% Municipal courts 15% 55% 24% 6% Public schools 31% 50% 14% 4% Cable television 7% 37% 31% 25% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- Z W ~ Z IX: W > o 1..9 ....J l5 .9 . THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN EMPLOYEES Impressions of the City of Chanhassen employees were assessed on the questionnaire. Those who had been in contact with a City of Chanhassen employee in the past year (57%) rated their overall impression as 69 on a 100- point scale. Figure 24: Percent of Respondents Who Had Contact with a City of Chanhassen Employee Had contact in Last 12 Months 57% Did NOT Have Contact in Last 12 Months 43% The National (mzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- Z w ~ Z IX w > o (9 g . Figure 25: Ratings of Contact with the City of Chanhassen Employees 100 Average Rating (O=poor, 100=excellent) 33 75 67 o Knowledge Responsiveness Courtesy Overall Impression Figure 25b: Impression of Contact with Employees excellent good fair poor Knowledge 39% 44% 12% 5% Responsiveness 42% 38% 13% 8% Courtesy 46% 39% 11% 5% Overall Impression 38% 40% 16% 7% Note: "Don't Know" responses are removed The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results I- z w ~ Z ~ w > o l!) ...J 5 .9 . DDITIONAL QUESTIONS Three additional questions were asked by the City of Chanhassen. The results for these questions are displayed below. Open-ended results can be found under a separate cover. Figure 26: Policy Question #1 How would you rate the job that the City of Chanhassen is doing in communicating issues to the public? Percent of Respondents excellent good fair poor 9% 55% 29% 8% Figure 27: Policy Question #2 What is your preferred method of receiving information from the City of Chanhassen? Percent of Respondents Mail 50% The Chanhassen Villager/Maple Leaf Newsletter 23% E-Mail 13% The Chanhassen Connection Newsletter 10% Visiting the City Web site 3% Chanhassen Cable Channel 8 1% Figure 28: Policy Question #3 What one thing do you like most about living in the City of Chanhassen? Percent of Respondents Location 36% Good community 21% Small town feel 18% Parks/Open Space 15% Schools 4% Other 6% The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results Vl Z o ~ w ::l 0' ...J <: z o E o o <( . PPENDIX I: FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES TO ALL SURVEY QUESTIONS Question #1: Quality of life Ratings excellent good fair poor don't know Total How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to live? 37% 58% 4% 0% 0% 100% How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 42% 48% 8% 1% 0% 100% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to raise children? 34% 48% 5% 0% 13% 100% How do you rate Chanhassen as a place to retire? 11% 30% 29% 11% 19% 100% How do you rate the overall quality of life in Chanhassen? 31% 62% 6% 0% 0% 100% 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 14% 52% 26% 6% 3% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 9% 37% 27% 10% 17% 100% Overall appearance of Chanhassen 21% 58% 19% 2% 1% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 6% 29% 39% 14% 12% 100% Shopping opportunities 7% 31% 44% 17% 0% 100% Air quality 26% 62% 9% 1% 2% 100% Recreational opportunities 21% 51% 21% 4% 2% 100% Job opportunities 5% 23% 33% 11% 28% 100% Access to affordable quality housing 4% 26% 34% 20% 16% 100% Access to affordable quality child care 6% 19% 18% 4% 53% 100% Access to affordable quality health care 16% 42% 22% 5% 15% 100% Ease of car travel in Chanhassen 15% 51% 24% 9% 1% 100% Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen 4% 18% 15% 8% 55% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen 20% 39% 21% 5% 15% 100% Ease of walking in Chanhassen 27% 47% 18% 6% 2% 100% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... x o z W Q. Q. <{ . Question #3: Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Chanhassen over the past two years much too somewhat too right somewhat too much too don't slow slow amount fast fast know Total Population growth 0% 2% 38% 31% 15% 14% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants etc.) 7% 25% 47% 9% 5% 8% 100% Jobs growth 4% 19% 21% 1% 1% 54% 100% 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 17% 49% 22% 2% 11% 100% Drugs 14% 29% 18% 4% 35% 100% Too much growth 30% 23% 26% 12% 9% 100% Lack of growth 69% 12% 7% 2% 10% 100% Graffiti 56% 26% 5% 1% 13% 100% Noise 39% 37% 17% 4% 4% 100% Run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles 54% 32% 7% 3% 4% 100% Taxes 11% 18% 32% 32% 7% 100% Traffic congestion 17% 32% 32% 16% 2% 100% Unsupervised youth 26% 34% 14% 4% 22% 100% Weeds 48% 30% 10% 2% 11% 100% Question #5: Please rate how safe you feel from the following occurring to you in Chanhassen very somewhat neither safe somewhat very don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 53% 33% 10% 3% 0% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 24% 47% 14% 12% 2% 1% 100% Fire 44% 36% 16% 1% 1% 2% 100% The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ...... x o z w c.. c.. <C . Question #6: Please rate how safe you feel: very somewhat neither safe somewhat very don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total In your neighborhood during the day 80% 16% 3% 1% 0% 0% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 43% 45% 5% 6% 0% 1% 100% In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day 81% 15% 1% 0% 0% 2% 100% In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark 39% 42% 7% 3% 0% 8% 100% In Chanhassen's parks during the day 67% 22% 3% 1% 0% 7% 100% In Chanhassen's parks after dark 16% 32% 14% 14% 2% 22% 100% Question #7: During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of Respondents no 91% During the past twelve months, were you or anyone yes 8% in your household the victim of any crime? don't know 1% Total 100% Question #8: If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of Respondents no 26% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the yes 74% police? Total 100% The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... x .... o z W Q. Q. <3: . 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? once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 more than never twice times times 26 times Total Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 18% 23% 35% 14% 10% 100% Used Chanhassen recreation centers 38% 22% 24% 9% 7% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 50% 23% 16% 7% 4% 100% Visited a Chanhassen park 7% 19% 33% 23% 18% 100% Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen 94% 4% 1% 0% 1% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 70% 23% 5% 1% 1% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 61% 23% 13% 3% 0% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 5% 2% 6% 12% 74% 100% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 60% 18% 8% 7% 7% 100% Read the Chanhassen Connection Newsletter 18% 25% 39% 8% 9% 100% Used the Internet for anything 7% 2% 3% 4% 84% 100% Used the Internet to conduct business with Chanhassen 60% 18% 14% 3% 5% 100% Purchased an item over the Internet 17% 11% 37% 14% 21% 100% The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results .... x o z W 0.. ~ . Question #10: How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen? excellent good fair poor don't know Total Police services 24% 47% 14% 4% 12% 100% Fire services 30% 39% 4% 0% 26% 100% Ambulance/emergency medical services 23% 32% 6% 1% 38% 100% Crime prevention 17% 42% 14% 4% 23% 100% Fire prevention and education 19% 38% 10% 0% 33% 100% Traffic enforcement 14% 44% 21% 8% 13% 100% Garbage collection 30% 55% 11% 2% 2% 100% Recycling 34% 49% 12% 2% 3% 100% Yard waste pick-up 16% 36% 15% 9% 23% 100% Street repair 9% 33% 39% 16% 3% 100% Street cleaning 17% 49% 26% 5% 3% 100% Street lighting 13% 48% 28% 10% 2% 100% Snow removal 23% 53% 17% 4% 2% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 14% 45% 17% 4% 20% 100% Traffic signal timing 7% 37% 32% 22% 3% 100% Amount of public parking 13% 55% 22% 4% 7% 100% Bus/transit services 7% 19% 11% 4% 59% 100% Storm drainage 9% 52% 17% 5% 17% 100% Drinking water 12% 36% 25% 21% 6% 100% Sewer services 12% 55% 17% 2% 13% 100% City parks 37% 51% 7% 1% 4% 100% Recreation programs or classes 16% 43% 10% 2% 30% 100% Range/variety of recreation programs and classes 16% 42% 13% 4% 26% 100% Recreation centers/facilities 16% 41% 17% 7% 19% 100% Accessibility of parks 36% 51% 8% 0% 4% 100% Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities 24% 50% 11% 1% 14% 100% Appearance/maintenance of parks 29% 57% 8% 1% 4% 100% Appearance of recreation centers/facilities 22% 51% 10% 1% 15% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 8% 32% 27% 13% 19% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 10% 40% 18% 5% 27% 100% Animal control 12% 40% 15% 6% 27% 100% Economic development 8% 40% 24% 6% 23% 100% Health services 14% 51% 13% 1% 21% 100% Services to seniors 9% 25% 6% 2% 59% 100% Services to youth 9% 32% 14% 3% 42% 100% Services to low-income people 4% 11% 10% 7% 67% 100% Public library services 35% 44% 6% 1% 13% 100% The National CrnzEN SURVEY ™ Report of Results ..... x ..... c z W Q. Q. <( . Question #10: How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen? excellent good fair poor don't know Total Variety of library materials 24% 39% 16% 4% 17% 100% Public information services 13% 40% 16% 3% 28% 100% Municipal courts 4% 16% 7% 2% 71% 100% Public schools 19% 31% 9% 3% 38% 100% Cable television 5% 26% 22% 18% 29% 100% Question #11: Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by . . . don't excellent good fair poor know Total Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the City of Chanhassen? 17% 59% 18% 2% 4% 100% Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the Federal Government? 4% 40% 39% 8% 9% 100% Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the State Government? 5% 42% 39% 7% 8% 100% Question #12: Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months? Percent of Respondents no 43% Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee yes 57% of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months? Total 100% Question #13: What was your impression of the employees of the City of Chanhassen in your most recent contact? excellent good fair poor don't know Total Knowledge 38% 43% 12% 5% 2% 100% Responsiveness 41% 37% 13% 8% 1% 100% Courtesy 45% 38% 10% 5% 1% 100% Overall Impression 38% 39% 15% 7% 1% 100% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... x o z W 0. 0. <( . Question #14: Ple~se 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 8% 42% 18% 17% 7% 7% 100% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 13% 47% 19% 13% 2% 7% 100% The City of Chanhassen government welcomes citizen involvement 15% 29% 19% 6% 2% 29% 100% The City of Chanhassen government listens to citizens 10% 23% 21% 9% 4% 33% 100% Question #15: What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Percent of Respondents very positive 7% What impact, if any, do you think the somewhat positive 18% economy will have on your family income neutral 49% in the next 6 months? Do you think the somewhat negative 24% impact will be: very negative 2% Total 100% Question #16a: Policy Question #1 Percent of Respondents excellent 8% good 50% How would you rate the job that the City of fair 26% Chanhassen is doing in communicating issues to the public? poor 7% don't know 10% Total 100% ..... The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ~ o z W Q. Q. <( . Question #16b: Policy Question #2 Percent of Respondents Mail 50% E-Mail 13% Visiting the City Web site 3% What is your preferred method of receiving Chanhassen Cable Channel 8 1% information from the City of Chanhassen? The Chanhassen Connection Newsletter 10% The Chanhassen Villager/Maple Leaf Newsletter 23% Total 100% Question #16c: Policy Question #3 Percent of Respondents Location 36% Parks/Open Space 15% Small town feel 18% What one thing do you like most about Good community 21% living in the City of Chanhassen? Schools 4% Other 6% Total 100% Question #17: Do you live within the City limits of the City of Chanhassen? Percent of Respondents no 6% Do you live within the limits of the City of yes 94% Chanhassen? Total . 100% Question #18: Employment Status Percent of Respondents no 16% Are you currently employed? yes 84% Total 100% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... x .... o z w "- "- <{ . Question #18a: Usual Mode of Transportation to Work Percent of Employed Respondents Motorized vehicle 95% Bus, Rail, Subway, or What one method of transportation do you other public transportation 2% usually use (for the longest distance of your Walk 1% commute) to travel to work? Work at home 2% Other 0% Total 100% Question #18b: Drive Alone or Carpool Percent of Employed Respondents If you checked the motorized vehicle (e.g. no 92% car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) box in 18a, yes 8% do other people usually ride with you to or from work? Total 100% Usual Mode of Transportation to Work, Including Carpooling Percent of Employed Respondents Motorized vehicle, no others (SOV) 87% Motorized vehicle, with others (MOV) 7% Bus, rail, subway, or other Usual mode of transportation to work public transportation 2% walk 1% work at home 2% other 0% Total 100% Question #19: Length of Residency Percent of Respondents less than 2 years 16% 2-5 years 28% How many years have you lived in 6-10 years 24% Chanhassen? 11-20 years 22% more than 20 years 11% Total 100% The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results .... x .... o z w a.. a.. <: . Question #20: Type of Housing Unit Percent of Respondents one family house detached from any other houses 76% one family house attached Which best describes the building you live to one or more houses 15% in? building with two or more apartments or condominiums 9% other 0% Total 100% Question #21: Tenure Status Percent of Respondents rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? 11% Is this house, apartment, or mobile owned by you or someone in home... this house 89% Total 100% Question #22: Presence of Children in Household Percent of Respondents no 60% Do any children age 12 or under live in 40% your household? yes Total 100% Question #23: Presence of Teenagers in Household Percent of Respondents no 79% Do any teenagers ages 13 through 17 yes 21% live in your household? Total 100% Question #24: Presence of Senior Adults in Household Percent of Respondents no 91% Are you or any other members of your 9% household aged 65 or older? yes Total 100% ..... The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ~ o z w a. a. <( . Question #25: Presence of Persons with Disabilities in Household Percent of Respondents Does any member of your household no 95% have a physical handicap or is anyone yes 5% disabled? Total 100% Question #26: Education Percent of Respondents 12th Grade or less, no diploma 1% high school diploma 7% some college, no degree 17% What is the highest degree or level of associate's degree (e.g. AA, school you have completed? AS) 8% bachelor's degree (e.g. SA, AS, SS) 44% graduate degree or professional degree 24% Total 100% Question #27: Annual Household Income Percent of Respondents less than $24,999 3% How much do you anticipate your $25,000 to $49,999 11% household's total income before taxes $50,000 to $99,999 35% will be for the current year? $100,000 or more 51% Total 100% Question #28: Ethnicity Percent of Respondents no 98% Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? yes 2% Total 100% The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... x o z W Q. Q. <( . Question #29: Race Percent of Respondents American Indian or Alaskan native 1% Asian or Pacific Islander 3% Black, African American 1% White/Caucasian 95% Other 2% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one category. Question #30: Age Percent of Respondents 18-24 years 3% 25-34 years 24% 35-44 years 27% In which category is your age? 45-54 years 29% 55-64 years 9% 65-74 years 4% 75 years or older 4% Total 100% Question #31: Gender Percent of Respondents Female 50% What is your gender? Male 50% Total 100% Question #32: Voter Registration Status Percent of Respondents no 7% Are you registered to vote in your yes 92% jurisdiction? don't know 1% Total 100% The National CrnZEN SURVEY ™ Report of Results .... x .... o z W 0- 0- c{ . Question #33: Vote in Last Election? Percent of Respondents no 7% Did you vote in the last election? yes 93% don't know 1% Total 100% Question #34: Likely to Vote in Next Election? Percent of Respondents no 3% Are you likely to vote in the next yes 95% election? don't know 2% Total 100% The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results .... x E z W Q. Q. <( . PPENDIX II: SURVEY METHODOLOGY The National Citizen Surve/M 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 'Surve/M that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The National Citizen Surve/M is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen Surve/M permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities 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 Households received three mailings between the 11th and the 25th of April 2005. The first was a postcard notifying them they had been selected to participate in the City of Chanhassen 2005 Citizen Survey. The postcard was signed by the mayor. About a week later a survey was mailed with a cover letter also signed by the mayor. Approximately one week after the first survey was mailed, a second survey was mailed, with a cover letter asking those who had not yet 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. Report of Results The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ ..... ..... x a z w Q. Q. <( . participated to do so, while informing those who had already completed the survey not to do so again. RESPONSE RATE AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS Of the 1,161 eligible households, 583 completed the survey providing a response rate of 50%. Approximately 39 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 from a list of residences in the 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. 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 from what would have been obtained had responses been collected from 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 package. 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 5 "Eligible" households refer to addresses that belong to residences that are not vacant within the City of Chanhassen. 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 e"or was assumed to be the greatest for a binomial distribution: 500/0/50%. The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Results .... .... ~ o z W Q. Q. <( . Research Center, Inc. When necessary, survey results were statistically adjusted to reflect the known population profile. Generally, only two variables are used in a weighting scheme. Known population characteristics are compared to the characteristics of survey respondents. Generally, characteristics chosen as weighting variables are selected because they are not in proportion to ~hat is shown in a jurisdiction's demographic profile and because differences in opinion are observed between subgroups of these characteristics. The socioeconomic characteristics that were used to weight the survey results were housing unit type and gender/age. 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 next page. The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Results ..... ..... x o z W Q. Q. <( . Weighting Scheme for the City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey Respondent Unweighted Weighted Survey Characteristics Population Norm* Survey Data Data Tenure Rent Home 10% 11% 11% Own Home 90%. 89% 89% Ethnicity Non-Hispanic 98% 98% 98% Hispanic 2% 2% 2% Race White/Caucasian 99% 94% 94% Non-White 1% 6% 6% Gender Female 50% 56% 50% Male 50% 44% 50% Age 18-34 27% 14% 27% 35-54 58% 59% 57% 55+ 16% 27% 16% . Source: 2000 Census The National cmZEN SURVEY™ Reportof Results ...... ...... x o z W 0.. 0.. ~ . PPENDIX III: 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 week. A week later, a cover letter and survey were sent, with a postage paid return envelope. Two weeks later a second cover letter and survey were sent. The second cover letter asked that those who had responded not do so again, while urging those who had not yet returned their surveys to please do so. The National CrnZEN SURVEY 1M Report of Results ...... ...... ...... x is z W Q.. Q.. < . ~CD oct -g:2g> U. 'l:: :g u; 0,,:0 g.!!!O;:CCD= e!Uo..o..~.E Q.t;;(/) 0"- ~::l lD~ .~ e~ ts~ ~ == V <1lCD DO> -g:2g>U. t~t)g...:O g.!!! 0<1: CIl = e!Uo..o..~.E o..U;U) 0.... ~::l lD~ . .~~ ;::~ b~ ~ ~ CIl 0 ct -g~g>U. 1:~u;O...:O g.!!!O;:CCD= CDUo..o..:2.- ~U;(/) 5E ~::l lD~ l"- e;; 1.0 1.0 z: :E "E al 6> :s o CO CD ....... co. ~~m al >< en :Eojg oCOe:: OOal ~CLB .~I == V <1l CD 00> -g~ClU. 'l:: :g.'!lO,,:O g.!!!:g;:cCll= e!Uo..o..~.E o..~~ ~Q; u:: 0.. l"- e;; 1.0 1.0 z: :E -0 (ij > Q) :s o CO ~........ c ~~m al ,... en "",,><al ..:; o.c oCOe:: OOal ~CLB . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ -0 (ij > Q) :s o CO l"- e;; 1.0 1.0 z: :E Q5.......c ~~m ctS ~ ~ :Eo.c oCOe:: OOal ~CLB l"- e;; 1.0 1.0 z: :E "E al > CD :s o CO "Q)I"-g ~~en al ,... en :E~jg oCOe:: OOal ~CLB ~ c a.> "0 .00 a.> 0:: c a.> (/) (/) ctl ~ C ctl ~ () '+- o ~ C3 a.>'+-....."O(/) ..... 0 X c.- ctl a.>ctl~ a. c ..... .- >- ~ ()~ >-............ :e () a.> c'.- ctl c: +:; ~ a.a.>:::l~(/) o~(/)a.:::l .......... a.>E 0> E..... ~ R.~ O:::l.....'-'a. "Oo,o....<i5 c..c o~ ctl ctl >- '+- .... .... a. 0 .....>-0(/)- ctl a.> () g a.> ~C:m+:;g t):::la.>gctl a.>(/)>....> <i5 c .(i) ~ -g (/) a.> ().- c N ~ .~ a.> +:; ~ a.> .- - - :::l ..c ().~.~ g, (/) (/) ctl:::l:::l=~ ~OomC_. "OE>-E~t) ->- I-a.> o c - a.> -0' ~oc.- .... a.> a.>;;.....; a. (/) c (/) .- :::l ctl (/) C o>c o ctl.- c ctl ~ C ~ .- t ....ctlc~Eo :::l ctla.>:::la. o ~a.>1i5E >- .~ () ~ .... .- .... ctl a.> o -~ c a.> "0 .00 a.> 0:: c a.> (/) (/) ctl ~ C ctl ~ () '+- o ~ () 2 '0 X -g .!!2 m a.>ctl~ a. c - .- >- ~ ()~>-............ :e () a.> c'.- ctl c: +:; ~ a.a.>:::l~(/) o~(/)a.:::l .....- Eo> E a.> C .....~ R.- O:::l-'-' a. "Oo,o....<i5 c..c o~ ctl ctl >- _ .... .... a. 0 .....>-0(/)- ctl a.> () c a.> ~C:m2() .....:::l ()c () (/) a.> :::l ctl a.> >.... > a.> .- 1i:i "0 (/)c~cctl a.> a.>.- C N.... .~ a.> +:; ~ a.>.- -..... :::l ..c ().~.~ g, ~~:::l=~ ~ 0 0 m c -. "OE>-E~t) ->- I-a.> o c . a.> .0' ~oc.- .... a.> . a.>;;""'; a. (/) c (/) .- :::l ctl (/) C o>c o m.- c ctl ~ C ~ -- t ....ctlc~Eo :::l ma.>:::la. o ~a.>1i5E >- .~ () ~ .... -- .... ctl a.> o dl ~ :::l LL c:{ (/) ctl .... E 0 0>- ~ ctl 1-:2: ~ <i5 .... a.> () c U5 ~ ~ dl ~ :::l LL c:{ (/) ctl .... E 0 0>- ~ctl 1-:2: ~ <i5 .... a.> () c U5 ~ ~ ..... c a.> "0 .00 a.> 0:: c a.> (/) (/) ctl ~ C ctl ~ () '+- o >- ~ () .~ c .co .~ a.>a.>E:::l .....(/) 0 ~~a.>>- ._~~~ .2 c - c tctlcm ctl ~ .- ~ a. () ~ I- -. a.> ..... B'+-a.>.....;~ E ~ ~ .~ .0' 0.....- .... .- x c a. -g () a.>.c - ctla.>c:;c .... ~ >-..... ~ -.....a.>a.> ctl._ ':> .... 0 :::l [.."0 a. "OO:::lcE 2..c (/) ctl.- () ctl a.> 0>.!!2 a.> >-~ c~ a.>a.>.....+:;..... (/)c:,+-a.>~ c :::l 0 a.~ a.>(/)>-E~ ~ca.o(/) a.>o():::l (/)N()....O> ctl +:; ctl 0 C ~ .- '+- .- ()a.>(/)a. 32(/)>ca.> o :::l.- O~ ~o~+:;.... ~~~g.E :::lc_.ba.> oo=(/)() ~ C ~.~ C :;ctl:::l~ctl o 0..... > >- ~ >- -~ -g .... ctl a.> o ~ c a.> "0 .00 a.> 0:: c a.> (/) (/) ctl ~ C ctl ~ () '+- o ~ C3 a.> '+- ..... "0 (/) _ 0 x c .- m a.>ctl~ a. c ..... -- >- ~ ()~ >-.......- .- () ...." .- ~ ~:Z~ a.a.>:::l~(/) o~(/)a.:::l -- Eo> E a.> C +oJ ~ R.- O:::l-""'a. "Oo,o....<i5 c..c o~ m ctl >- '+- .... .... a. 0 10 >- 0 (/) '+- a.>()ca.> ~C:m2() -:::l ()c () (/) a.> :::l ctl a.> >.... > - --....."0 ~C~~ctl a.> a.>-- c c N.... ._ a.>;e_:5 :::l ~ ()-~.~ g, (/) (/) ctl:::l:::l=~ ~OOctlC_. "OE>-E~t) ->- I-a.> o c - a.> .0' ~oc .... a.> a.>:5.....; a. (/) c (/) -- :::l ctl (/) C o>c o m.- c ctl ~ C ~ -- t ....mc~Eo :::l ma.>:::la. o ~a.>1DE >- .E () ~ .... ._ .... m a.> o l-n ~ :::l LL c:{ (/) ctl .... E 0 0>- ~ctl 1-:2: >- a.> .... a.> () c i:7) ~ ~ >- a.> .... a.> () c en ~ ~ l-n ~ :::l LL c:{ (/) ctl .... E 0 0>- ~m I-~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 2005 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 2005 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, 7LA.~ Thomas A. Furlong Mayor The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quarl\y schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses. wioolll9 trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. --- -- , The National CITIZEN SURVEyTM zoo s Report of Normative Comparisons for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN Submitted by: NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER,INC. 3005 30th Street. Boulder, CO 80301 tel. 303-444-7863 . fax. 303-441-1145 e-mail: ncs@n-r-c.com · www.n-r-c.com June 2005 Table of Contents Survey Background.. ....................................... ............................ ...................... ............................................ 1 About The National Citizen SurvelM............................................................................................... 1 Understanding the Normative Comparisons.................................................................................... 3 Comparisons...................................... ........................................................................................................... 6 Appendix I: List of Jurisdictions Included in the Normative Comparisons .................................................. 22 Appendix II: Frequently asked Questions about The Citizen Survey Database ......................................... 29 URVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen Surve/M (The NCS TM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The National Citizen Surve/M 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 Surve/M that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The National Citizen Surve/M is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen Surve/M permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak 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 Surve/M 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 reweighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Surve/M 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 Report of Normative Comparisons The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ o z :::> o 0::: ~ ~ u <{ co i::i ~ :::> Vl . determined local interest in a variety of add-on options for The National Citizen Surve/M Basic Service. The National CrnZEN SURVEY ™ Report of Normative Comparisons o z ::> o ~ ~ ~ >- w ~ ::> Vl . UNDERSTANDING THE NORMATIVE COMPARISONS Comparison Data National Research Center, Inc. has collected citizen surveys conducted in about 400 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 Coase 19% Wese 21% North Central Wese 8% North Central East4 13% South CentralS 10% South6 22% Northeast Wese 4% Northeast East8 3% Population less than 40,000 32% 40,000 to 74,999 21% 75,000 to 149,000 20% 150,000 or more 27% 1Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii 2Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico 3North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota 4JJJinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin 50klahorna, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas 6West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC 7New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey BConnecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons o z ::> o '" ~ :..: u oct co ~ > '" ::> Vl . Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked 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 tasks, 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 (unlike 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 100-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. Likewise, 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 5 points based on all respondents. The National CmzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons o Z :J ~ ~ U <l: CD iii ~ :J V) . 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 asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction's rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The second is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. Third, the rank is expressed as a percentile to indicate its distance from the top score. This rank (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 asked had higher ratings. Alongside the rank and percentile appears a comparison: "above the norm," "below the norm" or "similar to the norm." This evaluation of "above," "below" or "similar to" comes from a statistical comparison of your jurisdiction's rating to the norm (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked). Differences of 3 or more 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 marked as "above" or "below" the norm. When differences between your jurisdiction's ratings and the national norms are less than 3 points, they are marked 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 marked with a black line on the chart. The National ClTIZEN SURVEY ™ Report of Normative Comparisons o z ~ o a: ~ u c1i ~ ~ => Vl . OMPARISONS Fi ure 1a: Quali of Life Ratin s Chanhassen as a Neighborhood as a Chanhassen as a place to live place to live place to raise children Chanhassen as a The overall quality place to retire of life in Chanhassen The National cmZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl .... ~ ~ ::E o U . Figure 1 b: Quality of Life Ratings City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Chanhassen as a place to live 77 46 256 82%ile above the norm Neighborhood as a place to live 77 14 115 89%i1e above the norm Chanhassen as a place to raise children 77 21 141 86%i1e above the norm Chanhassen as a place to retire 50 89 117 25%ile below the norm The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 75 58 200 72%i1e above the norm The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons 1Il Z o 1Il C2 <t c. ~ o u . Figure 2a: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Sense of community Openness and acceptance Overall appearance of Chanhassen Opportunities Shopping to attend opportunities cultural activities Air quality Recreational Job opportunities opportunities Figure 2b: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Sense of community 59 33 94 66%ile similar to the norm Openness and acceptance 51 43 75 44%ile similar to the norm Overall appearance of Chanhassen 66 35 116 71%ile above the norm Opportunities to attend cultural activities 43 85 103 18%ile below the norm Shopping opportunities 43 76 99 24%ile below the norm Air quality 72 4 45 93%i1e above the norm Recreational opportunities 64 41 120 67%i1e above the norm Job opportunities 43 55 146 63%ile similar to the norm The National cmZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons VI Z o VI ii1 ~ :::E 8 . Figure 3a: Characteristics of the Community: Access and Mobility Access to affordable quality housing 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 Figure 3b: Characteristics of the Community: Access City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Access to affordable quality housing 39 101 154 35%ile below the norm Access to affordable quality child care 52 25 66 64%ile similar to the norm Access to affordable quality health care 60 5 51 92%ile above the norm Ease of car travel in Chanhassen 58 20 99 81%ile above the norm Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen 47 17 46 65%i1e similar to the norm Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen 62 13 84 86%i1e above the norm Ease of walking in Chanhassen 66 12 74 85%ile above the norm The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons III Z o III ii! ~ ~ 8 . Figure 4a: Ratings of Safety from Various Problems Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, Property crimes (e.g., burglary, robbery) theft) Fire Figure 4b: Ratings of Safety From Various Problems City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 84 10 96 91%i1e above the norm Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 70 20 96 80%i1e above the norm Fire 81 7 95 94%i1e above the norm The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl C2 it ~ o u . Figure Sa: Ratings of Safety in Various Areas 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 In Chanhassen's Chanhassen's parks during the parks after dark day Figure 5b: Ratings of Safety in Various Areas City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm In your neighborhood during the day 94 24 107 79%ile above the norm In your neighborhood after dark 81 32 198 84%ile above the norm In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day 95 5 94 96%i1e above the norm In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark 82 6 123 96%ile above the norm In Chanhassen's parks during the day 92 9 99 92%i1e above the norm In Chanhassen's parks after dark 65 12 93 88%ile above the norm The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl C2 <( a. ~ 8 . Figure 6a: Quality of Public Safety Services Police services Fire services Ambulance/EMS Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Figure 6b: Quality of Public Safety Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Police services 68 172 364 53%i1e similar to the norm Fire services 78 119 285 . 59%i1e similar to the norm Ambulance/emergency medical services 76 103 187 45%i1e similar to the norm Crime prevention 65 26 108 77%ile above the norm Fire prevention and education 71 29 86 67%ile similar to the norm Traffic enforcement 57 77 170 55%ile similar to the norm The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl Q1 ~ :E 8 . Figure 7a: Quality of Transportation Services Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow Sidewalk Traffic signal Amount of Bus/transit removal maintenance timing public services parking Figure 7b: Quality of Transportation Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Street repair 46 155 257 40%ile similar to the norm Street cleaning 60 54 170 69%ile similar to the norm Street lighting 55 77 154 51%ile similar to the norm Snow removal 66 39 146 74%i1e above the norm Sidewalk maintenance 61 17 114 86%ile above the norm Traffic signal timing 43 56 85 35%ile similar to the norm Amount of public parking 61 4 57 95%i1e above the norm Bus/transit services 56 46 99 55%ile similar to the norm The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl ii2 it ~ o u . Figure 8a: Quality of Leisure Services (continued on next page) City parks Recreation programs or classes Range/variety of recreation programs and classes Recreation centers/facilities Accessibility of parks The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl ~ it ::E o U . Figure 8b: Quality of Leisure Services (continued from previous page) Accessibility of recreation centers/facUities Appearance/maintenance of parks Appearance of recreation centers/f acilities F\Jblic library services Variety of library materials Figure 8c: Quality of Leisure Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm City parks 77 24 176 87%ile above the norm Recreation programs or classes 68 76 202 63%ile similar to the norm Range/variety of recreation programs and classes 65 18 68 75%i1e above the norm Recreation centers/facilities 60 75 127 42%ile similar to the norm Accessibility of parks 76 11 80 88%ile above the norm Accessibility. of recreation centers/facilities 71 6 46 89%ile above the norm Appearance/maintenance of parks " 73 46 186 76%ile above the norm Appearance of recreation centers/facilities 70 8 53 87%ile above the norm Public library services 76 67 239 72%ile similar to the norm Variety of library materials 66 29 59 53%ile similar to the norm The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Ul Z o Ul 2 ~ ~ 8 . Figure 9a: Quality of Utility Services Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services pick-up Figure 9b: Quality of Utility Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating to Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Norm Garbage collection 72 103 233 56%ile similar to the norm Recycling 73 58 185 69%ile above the norm Yard waste pick-up 59 57 84 33%ile similar to the norm Storm drainage 60 36 152 77%ile above the norm Drinking water 47 114 144 22%ile below the norm Sewer services 63 57 129 57%ile similar to the norm The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl Q1 <l: a. ~ 8 . Figure 10a: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement Animal control Economic development Figure 10b: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Land use, planning and zoning 48 40 118 67%i1e similar to the norm Code enforcement 58 33 181 82%i1e above the norm Animal control 60 56 149 63%ile similar to the norm Economic development 55 28 99 73%ile above the norm The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl ii: ~ ~ 8 . Figure 11a: 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 Public schools Cable television Figure 11 b: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Health services 66 12 68 84%i1e above the norm Services to seniors 66 33 137 77%i1e above the norm Services to youth 60 25 124 81%i1e above the norm Services to low- income people 46 17 68 76%i1e similar to the norm Public information services 62 31 123 76%ile similar to the norm Municipal courts 60 17 60 73%ile similar to the norm Public schools 70 22 187 89%ile above the norm Cable television 42 47 61 25%ile below the norm The National OrrzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl 2 ~ ::E o U . Figure 12a: Overall Quality of Services City of Chanhassen Federal Government State Government Figure 12b: Overall Quality of Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Services provided by the City of Chanhassen 65 88 201 57%ile similar to the norm Services provided by the Federal Government 48 17 83 81%ile similar to the norm Services provided by the State I \ Government 49 12 83 87%ile above the norm Ul Z o Ul Q! ~ :::E 8 The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons . Figure 13a: Ratings of Contact with City Employees Knowledge Responsiveness Courtesy Overall Impression Figure 13b: Ratings of Contact with the City Employees City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm Knowledge 72 44 136 68%ile similar to the norm Responsiveness 71 35 143 76%i1e above the norm Courtesy 75 21 105 81%i1e above the norm Overall . Impression 69 54 170 69%ile similar to the norm The National CrnZEN SURVEY ™ Report of Normative Comparisons Ul Z o Ul C2 ~ ::E 8 . Figure 14a: Ratings of Public Trust I receive good value for Overall direction that the The City govt. welcomes The City govt. listens to the City of Chanhassen City of Chanhassen is citizen involvement citizens taxes I pay taking Figure 14b: Ratings of Public Trust City of Number of City of Comparison of Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Chanhassen Chanhassen Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm I receive good value for the City of Chanhassentaxesl pay 58 74 126 42%i1e similar to the norm Overall direction that the City of Chanhassen is taking 65 34 121 73%ile above the norm The City govt. welcomes citizen involvement 67 27 104 75%ile similar to the norm The City govt. listens to citizens 59 28 97 72%ile similar to the norm The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons Vl Z o Vl C2 ~ ::E 8 . ApPENDIX I: LIST OF JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN NORMATIVE COMPARISONS Homer AK 3,946 Auburn AL 42,987 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 Gilbert AZ 109,697 Mesa AZ 396,375 Phoenix AZ 1,321,045 Safford AZ 9,232 Scottsdale AZ 202,705 Sedona AZ 10,192 Tempe AZ 158,625 Tucson AZ 486,699 Antioch CA 90,532 Arcadia CA 53,054 Bakersfield CA 247,057 Berkeley CA 102.743 Claremont CA 33,998 Concord CA 121,780 Coronado CA 24,100 Cypress CA 46,229 EI Cerrito CA 23,171 Encinitas CA 54,014 Fremont CA 203,413 Garden Grove CA 165,196 Gilroy CA 41,464 Hercules CA 19,488 HiQhland CA 44,605 La Mesa CA 54,749 Lakewood CA 79,345 Livermore CA 73,345 Lompoc CA 41,103 Long Beach CA 461,522 Los Alamitos CA 11,536 Los Gatos CA 28,592 Menlo Park CA 30,785 Monterey CA 29,674 .... x o z W Q. Q. <( The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons . Mountain View CA 70,708 Novato CA 47,630 Oceanside CA 161,029 Oxnard CA 170,358 Palm Springs CA 42,807 Palo Alto CA 58,598 Pasadena CA 133,936 Pleasanton CA 63,654 Pomona CA 149,473 Poway CA 48,044 Redding CA 80,865 RidQecrest CA 24,927 Riverside CA 255,166 Rosemead CA 53,505 Sacramento County CA 1,223,499 San Francisco CA 776,733 San Jose CA 894,943 San Luis Obispo County CA 247,900 San Mateo CA 92,482 San Rafael CA 56,063 San Ramon CA 44,722 Santa Clara CA 102,361 Santa Clarita CA 151,088 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 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 Yuba City CA 36,758 Arvada CO 102,153 Boulder CO 94,673 Boulder County CO 291,288 Broomfield CO 38,272 Castle Rock CO 20,224 Denver (City and Countv) CO 554,636 DouQlas County CO 175,766 Englewood CO 31,727 Fort Collins CO 118,652 Golden CO 17,159 Greeley CO 76,930 Jefferson County CO 527,056 Lafayette CO 23,197 The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ...... x o z w a. a. <( .' Lakewood CO 144,126 Larimer County CO 251,494 Littleton CO 40,340 Longmont CO 71,093 Louisville CO 18,937 Loveland CO 50,608 Northolenn CO 31,575 Parker CO 23,558 Thornton CO 82,384 Vail CO 4,531 Westminster CO 100,940 Wheat Ridge CO 32,913 Hartford CT 121,578 Manchester CT 54,740 New London CT 25,671 Vernon 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 Boca Raton FL 74,764 Bonita Springs FL 32,797 Bradenton FL 49,504 Broward County FL 1,623,018 Collier County FL 251,377 Cooper Citv FL 27,939 Coral Springs FL 117,549 Deerfield Beach FL 64,583 Delray Beach FL 60,020 Fort Lauderdale FL 152,397 Jacksonville FL 735,617 Kissimmee . FL 47,814 Lee County FL 454,918 Miami FL 362,4 70 Miami Beach FL 87,933 Ocoee FL 24,391 Oranoe County FL 896,344 Orlando FL 185,951 Palm Bav 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 St. Petersburg FL 248,232 Tallahassee FL 150,624 The National CrnZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ...... x is z W Q. Q. <( fa Titusville FL 40,670 Walton County FL 40,601 Atlanta GA 416,474 Cartersville GA 15,925 Columbus GA 185,781 Douglas County GA 92,174 Macon GA 97,255 Milledgeville GA 18,757 Savannah GA 131,510 Adams County IA 4,482 Ames IA 50,731 Ankeny IA 27,117 Cedar Rapids IA 120,758 Clarke County IA 9,133 Des Moines County IA 42,351 Fort Dodge IA 25,136 Fort Madison IA 10,715 Indianola fA 12,998 Iowa County IA 15,671 Louisa County IA 12,183 Marion IA 7,144 Newton IA 15,579 Polk County IA 374,601 West Des Moines IA 46,403 Lewiston 10 30,904 Moscow 10 21,291 Twin Falls 10 34,469 Addison Village IL 35,914 Decatur IL 81,860 Downers Grove IL 48,724 Elmhurst IL 42,762 Evanston IL 74,239 Highland Park IL 31,365 Homewood IL 19,543 Park Ridge IL 37,775 Peoria IL 112,936 Skokie IL 63,348 St. Charles IL 27,896 Streamwood IL 36,407 Urbana IL 36,395 Village of Oak Park IL 52,524 Wilmette IL 27,651 Fort Wayne IN 205,727 Gary IN 102,746 Marion County IN 860,454 Lawrence KS 80,098 Overland Park KS 149,080 Shawnee KS 47,996 ...... The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ~ o z W Q. Q. <( . Wichita KS 344,284 Ashland KY 21,981 BowlinQ Green KY 49,296 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 Ann Arbor MI 114,024 Battle Creek MI 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 Port Huron MI 32,338 Rochester Hills MI 68,825 Troy MI 80,959 Blaine MN 44,942 Carver County MN 70,205 Dakota County MN 355,904 Duluth MN 86,918 Eagan MN 63,557 Golden Valley MN 20,281 Grand Forks MN 231 Mankato MN 32,427 Maplewood MN 34,947 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. Paul MN 287,151 Washington County MN 201,130 Ballwin MO 31,283 Columbia MO 84,531 Ellisville MO 9,104 The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ..... x o z W Q. Q. <( . Kansas City MO 441,545 Kirkwood MO 27,324 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 Pascagoula MS 26,200 Yellowstone Cou~ MT 129,352 Cary NC 94,536 Charlotte NC 540,828 Durham NC 187,038 Greensboro NC 223,891 Hickory NC 37,222 Hudson NC 3,078 Rocky Mount NC 55,893 WilminQton NC 90,400 Wilson NC 44,405 Grand Forks ND 49,321 Keamey NE 27,431 Dover NH 26,884 Merrimack NH 25,119 Salem NH 28,112 Hackensack NJ 42,677 Medford NJ 22,253 WillinQboro Township NJ 33,008 Albuquerque NM 448,607 Los Alamos County NM 18,343 Rio Rancho NM 51,765 Taos NM 4,700 Henderson NV 175,381 North Las Vegas NV 115,488 Reno NV 180,480 Sparks NV 66,346 Genesee County NY 60,370 New York City NY 8,008,278 Ontario County NY 100,224 Rochester NY 219,773 Rye NY 14,955 Watertown NY 26,705 Akron OH 217,074 Cincinnati OH 331,285 Columbus OH 711,470 Dayton OH 166,179 Dublin OH 31,392 Fairborn OH 32,052 Huber HeiQhts OH 38,212 The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ...... x o z W 0- 0- ex: . Kettering OH 57,502 Sandusky OH 27,844 Shaker Heights OH 29,405 SprinQfield OH 65,358 Westerville OH 35,318 Oklahoma City OK 506,132 Albany OR 40,852 Ashland OR 19,522 Corvallis OR 49,322 EUQene 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 SprinQfield OR 52,864 Lower Merion Township PA 59,850 Manheim PA 4,184 Philadelphia PA 1,517,550 State ColleQe PA 38,420 Upper Merion Township PA 28,863 Newport RI 26,475 Columbia SC 116,278 Mauldin SC 15,224 Myrtle Beach SC 22,759 Pickens County SC 110,757 Rock Hill SC 49,765 York County SC 164,614 Aberdeen SD 24,658 Cookville TN 23,923 Franklin TN 41 ,842 Knoxville TN 173,890 Memphis TN 650,100 Oak Ridge TN 27,387 Arlington TX 332,969 Austin TX 656,562 Bedford TX . 47,152 Carrollton TX 109,576 College Station TX 67,890 Corpus Christi TX 277 ,454 Dallas TX 1,188,580 Denton TX 80,537 DeSoto TX 37,646 Fort Worth TX 534,694 Garland TX 215,768 Grand Prairie TX 127,427 Lewisville TX 77,737 Lubbock TX 199,564 The National CITIzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ..... x ..... o z W Q. Q. <( . Lufkin TX 32,709 McAllen TX 106,414 McKinney TX 54,369 Missouri City TX 52,913 Mount Pleasant TX 13,935 NacoQdoches TX 29,914 Pasadena TX 141,674 Piano TX 222,030 Round Rock TX 61,136 SUQarLand TX 63,328 Temple TX 54,514 Victoria TX 60,603 Bountiful UT 41,301 OQden UT 77 ,226 West Valley City UT 108,896 Albemarle County VA 79,236 Bedford County VA 60,371 Blacksbum VA 39,357 Botetourt County VA 30,496 Chesapeake VA 199,184 Chesterfield County VA 259,903 Hampton VA 146,437 Hopewell VA 22,354 James City County VA 48,102 Lynchburg VA 65,269 Norfolk VA 234,403 Northampton County VA 13,093 Prince William County VA 280,813 Richmond VA 197,790 Roanoke County VA 85,778 Stafford County VA 92,446 Virginia Beach VA 425,257 WilliamsburQ VA 11,998 Bellevue WA 109,569 Bothell WA 30,150 Kent WA 79,524 Kitsap County WA 231,969 Lynnwood WA 33,847 Marvsville WA 12,268 Olvmpia WA 42,514 Redmond WA 45,256 Renton WA 50,052 Richland WA 38,708 Seattle WA 563,374 University Place WA 29,933 Vancouver WA 143,560 Walla Walla WA 29,686 Appleton WI 70,087 The National CmzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons .... )( o z w a. a. <( . The National CITIZEN SURVEY™ WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WY 61,704 59,498 90,352 208,054 15,832 5,132 27,368 12,170 38,426 13,437 156.763 27,204 Report of Normative Comparisons ..... ~ Cl Z w a. a. <( . ApPENDIX II: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CITIZEN SURVEY DATABASE Q: What is in the citizen survey database? A: NRC's database includes the results from citizen surveys conducted in about 400 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 Q: What kinds of questions are included? A: Residents' ratings of the quality of virtually every kind of local government 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 Q: What is so unique about National Research Center's Citizen Survey database? A: It is the only database of its size that contains the people's perceptions about government service delivery and quality of life. For example, others use government statistics about crime to deduce the quality of police services or speed of pothole repair to draw conclusions about the quality of street maintenance. Only NRC'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. Q: What is the database used for? A: Benchmarking. 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 government performance. We don't know what is small or tall without comparing. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. So many surveys of service satisfaction turn up at least "good" citizen evaluations that we need to know 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 ask more important and harder questions. We need to know how our residents' ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons .... .... x a z w 0.. 0.. <( . Q: 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: A police department that provides the fastest and most effiGient 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. NRC's database can help that police department - or any city department - to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data form NRC's database, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. We recommend that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. Q: Aren't comparisons of questions from different surveys like comparing apples and oranges? A: It is true that you can't simply take a given result from one survey and compare it to the result from a different survey. NRC 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, NRC 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 a common 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. Q: How can managers trust the comparability of results? A: NRC principals have submitted their work to peer reviewed scholarly journals where its publication fully describes the rigor of our methods and the quality of our findings. We have published articles in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and Governing, and we wrote a book, 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 work on calculating national norms for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. The National CmzEN SURVEY™ Report of Normative Comparisons ..... ..... x o z w a. a. <( . The National CITIZEN SURVEyTM 2 DOS Report of Open-Ended Question for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN Submitted by: NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER,INC. 3005 30th Street. Boulder, CO 80301 tel. 303-444-7863 . fax. 303-441-1145 e-mail: ncs@n-r-c.com . www.n-r-c.com June 2005 Table of Contents Survey Background.................................................................................................................... ....... ............ 1 About The National Citizen SurvelM...............................................................................................1 Understanding the Results............................................................................. .................................. 3 Verbatim Topic Areas..................................................................... ......... ......................................... 4 Appendix I: Verbatim Responses............. ........ ........ ......... ....... ....................... .......... ....................................5 URVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen Surve/M (The NCS TM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City and County Management Association (ICMA). The National Citizen Surve/M 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 Surve/M that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The National Citizen Surve/M is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen Surve/M permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak 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 Surve/M 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 reweighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Surve/M 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 The National CrnZEN SURVEY ™ Report of Open-Ended Question z o ~ :::l 0' o w o z W I Z W 0.. o . 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 Surve/M Basic Service. One of the add-on options that Chanhassen chose to include was an open-ended policy question. About closed-ended and open-ended questions: Questions can either be asked in a closed-ended or open-ended manner. A closed-ended question is one where a set of response options is listed on the survey. Those taking the survey respond to each option listed. Open-ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select their response. Instead, respondents must "create" their own answers and state them in their own words. The verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using codes. An "other" category is used for responses falling outside the coded categories. In general, a code is assigned when at least 5-10% of responses will fit the code. Advantages of an open-ended question include: . Responses are not prompted, allowing respondents to provide answers that are not anticipated or well known. . This type of question tends to capture response options that come to mind most quickly. . The final result can be richer, since verbatim responses are included in an appendix, giving you and others a chance to "hear" the voice of respondents in their own words. . There is a smaller risk of missing important dimensions. The National cmzEN SURVEY™ Report of Open-Ended Question z o ~ w ::l 0' o w o z W I Z w a. o . UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Verbatims Respondents were asked to record their opinions about Chanhassen in the following question: Q16d: What do you think will be the biggest single issue facing the City of Chanhassen over the next 2-3 years? The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area using codes. In the following table, a full set of frequencies is shown. Appendix I includes a full set of verbatim responses. Data from the open-ended question is best understood by reviewing the table of frequencies as well as the actual verbatim responses. The National CITIZEN SURVEyTM Report of Open-Ended Question z o ~ W :::l 0' Cl w Cl Z W I Z W 0.. o . Question #16d: What do you think will be the single biggest issue facing the City of Chanhassen over the next 2-3 years? Percent of Respondents Controlled growth 35% Traffic and road conditions 22% Taxes 15% Economic and retail development 8% What do you think will be the single biggest issue Schools 5% facing the City of Chanhassen over the next 2-3 years? Affordable Housing 5% other 5% Environmental issues/greenways/water quality 4% Total 100% The National CrnzEN SURVEY™ Report of Open-Ended Question z o ~ w ::l 0' o w o z W I Z w a. o .