The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2020 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Note: Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. 1.Community Survey Results 2.Roundtable B.7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: TRUTHINTAXATION MEETING (Pledge of Allegiance) C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS D.CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 23, 2020 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 17, 2020 3.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 27, 2020 4.Approve 2021 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office 5.Approval of Telecommuting Policy 6.Ordinance XXX: Approve Code Omnibus Amendment Addressing the 1) Definition of Street; 2) Administrative Duties; 3) Administrative Septic Variances; 4) Earthwork Fee 7.Resolution 2020XX: Carver County COVID Support 8.Approve Engagement Agreement with Moss & Barnett E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda) AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2020CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:30 P.M. WORK SESSIONNote: Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.Community Survey Results2.RoundtableB.7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: TRUTHINTAXATION MEETING (Pledge of Allegiance)C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 23, 20202.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 17, 20203.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 27, 20204.Approve 2021 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office5.Approval of Telecommuting Policy6.Ordinance XXX: Approve Code Omnibus Amendment Addressing the 1) Definition ofStreet; 2) Administrative Duties; 3) Administrative Septic Variances; 4) EarthworkFee7.Resolution 2020XX: Carver County COVID Support8.Approve Engagement Agreement with Moss & BarnettE.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda) F.OLD BUSINESS G.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Public Meeting on the Proposed 2021 Budget H.NEW BUSINESS I.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS J.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS K.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION L.ADJOURNMENT M.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. Anyone seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required to complete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available at https://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior to the meeting. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Tequila Butcher, 590 West 79th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Community Survey Results Section 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: BACKGROUND The City has administered a community survey every three years since 2005. The National Community Survey has been the instrument that has been used, and was again used in 2019. This instrument is administered by the National Research Center Inc. in collaboration with the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). This survey seeks to evaluate community livability through measures of "community characteristics," "governance," and "participation." The data collected is used in comparison with results from past years, and through national benchmark comparisons from other participating cities similar to Chanhassen. Generally, the survey has been administered in the late fall into the winter. Results are then compiled into reports early in the following year. Those results are then typically presented to Council that spring. The most recent survey has not yet been presented to Council due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and subsequent deprioritization. The latest survey was mailed and data was collected between November 13 and December 27 of 2019. A sample of 1,700 random households were selected to receive the survey. In addition to the mailed survey, an online "optin" survey was also provided for residents to participate who were not selected in the random sample. This optin survey was promoted through the City's various communications channels. The City received 548 returned surveys for a 33% response rate from the randomly sampled mailed survey. The average response rate for these surveys is between 25%40%. 143 optin responses were received. Typically, the results are reported in the spring following the survey, but the presentation was delayed due to the pandemic. RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 7, 2020SubjectCommunity Survey ResultsSection5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.1.Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: BACKGROUNDThe City has administered a community survey every three years since 2005. The National Community Survey hasbeen the instrument that has been used, and was again used in 2019. This instrument is administered by the NationalResearch Center Inc. in collaboration with the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). This surveyseeks to evaluate community livability through measures of "community characteristics," "governance," and"participation." The data collected is used in comparison with results from past years, and through national benchmarkcomparisons from other participating cities similar to Chanhassen.Generally, the survey has been administered in the late fall into the winter. Results are then compiled into reports early inthe following year. Those results are then typically presented to Council that spring. The most recent survey has not yetbeen presented to Council due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and subsequent deprioritization.The latest survey was mailed and data was collected between November 13 and December 27 of 2019. A sample of1,700 random households were selected to receive the survey. In addition to the mailed survey, an online "optin" surveywas also provided for residents to participate who were not selected in the random sample. This optin survey waspromoted through the City's various communications channels. The City received 548 returned surveys for a 33%response rate from the randomly sampled mailed survey. The average response rate for these surveys is between25%40%. 143 optin responses were received. Typically, the results are reported in the spring following the survey, but the presentation was delayed due to thepandemic.RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS: 2019 Community Survey Presentation Community Livability Report NCS DashboardChanhassen Supplemental Online Survey Results NCS Technical Appendices NCS Survey Trends Chanhassen, MN Key Findings 2019 The NCS™is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA About The NCS Community Livability Community Characteristics Governance Participation Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Govern- ment Private sector Facets of Community Livability Safety Mobility Recreation and WellnessEconomy Quality of Community Overall Natural Environment Built Environment Community Engagement Education and Enrichment The NCS & Chanhassen Participant in The NCS since 2005 2005, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019 Scientific sample of 1,700 households 548 returned surveys; of these, 107 completed online 33% response rate ±4% margin of error Online opt-in option; 143 responses National Benchmark Comparisons 2019 National Benchmark Comparisons 82 received similar ratings 48 received higher ratings 2 received lower ratings 2019 Ratings Compared to 2016 95 received similar ratings 1 received higher ratings 36 received lower ratings Education and Enrichment Community EngagementMobility Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Built EnvironmentSafety Economy Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Key Focus Areas Residents feel safe in their community. Key Finding #1 Safety in Chanhassen Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen Safety in neighborhoods Safety in downtown/ commercial area Percent excellent/good or very safe/somewhat safe Higher than the benchmark 97% 99% 99% City Safety Services About 9 in 10 residents positively rated… Police Fire Ambulance/ EMS Fire prevention Crime prevention Percent excellent/good Higher than the benchmark Safety in Chanhassen About 9 in 10 respondents… Did NOT report a crime Percent yes Higher than the benchmark Mobility ratings are high, yet mobility- related services are declining. Key Finding #2 Mobility Ratings Higher than Benchmarks Ease of travel by car Overall ease of travel Availability of paths and walking trails Public parking Ease of walking Snow removal 90% 89% 87% 85% 79% 79% Percent excellent/good Trends in Mobility Services 2016 Service 2019 86%Snow removal 79% 79%Sidewalk maintenance 74% 78%Bus or transit services 72% 78%Street lighting 69% 80%Street cleaning 69% 67%Street repair 56% Percent excellent/good Alternate Modes of Transportation 58% Walked or biked instead of driving 43% Carpooled instead of driving alone 26% Used public transportation instead of driving Percent at least once a month Residents praise Recreation and Wellness opportunities and support initiatives to improve City parks and mental wellness. Key Finding #3 Recreation and Wellness Fitness opportunities Recreational opportunities Availability of affordable quality health care Availability of preventive health services Health and wellness opportunities City parks Health services Percent excellent/good Higher than the benchmark At least 8 in 10 residents gave high marks to… Mental Health Care About 2 in 3 residents assigned positive reviews to… Availability of affordable quality mental health care Higher than the benchmarkPercent excellent/good City Parks Percent at least once a month 90%91%93%94% 2010 2013 2016 2019 Residents that visited a City park Higher than the benchmark Trends from 2016 to 2019 90% 84% Health and wellness opportunities Percent excellent/good 75% 68% 91% 84% Health services Recreation centers or programs Special Topics Repair and Refurbishment of City Park Equipment, Structures and Playground Strongly support 42% Somewhat support 37%Somewhat oppose 13% Strongly oppose 9% General Improvements to Community Parks Strongly support 40% Somewhat support 38%Somewhat oppose 12% Strongly oppose 11% Importance of Strategic Planning Areas 69% 74% 75% 78% 79% 87% 96% Community and social supports Recreation and cultural opportunities Cooperation between governments Healthy community Economic development Education Safe community Percent essential/very important Sources of City Information 4% 16% 28% 21% 29% 44% 42% 66% 25% 38% 32% 45% 47% 40% 45% 25% 71% 46% 41% 34% 24% 16% 13% 9% The local government cable channel Talking with City officials City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) City Council meetings and other public meetings Word-of-mouth The City newsletter –Chanhassen Connection Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Major source Minor source Not a source Importance of Mental Wellness Initiatives in Chanhassen Percent essential/very important 44% 48% 65% 71% Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A Mental Illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues Information about available mental health- related resources Conclusions Residents feel safe in their community Mobility ratings are high, yet mobility-related services are declining Residents praise Recreation and Wellness opportunities and support initiatives to improve City parks and mental wellness Questions? Thank you! National Research Center, Inc. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 • nrc@n-r-c.com www.n-r-c.com 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Chanhassen, MN Community Livability Report 2019 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About .............................................................................................. 1 Quality of Life in Chanhassen ........................................................... 2 Community Characteristics ............................................................... 3 Governance ..................................................................................... 5 Participation .................................................................................... 7 Special Topics .................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ................................................................................... 13 1 About The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the “livability” of Chanhassen. The phrase “livable community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 548 residents of the City of Chanhassen. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 4% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Government Private sector 2 Quality of Life in Chanhassen Almost all residents rated the quality of life in Chanhassen as excellent or good. This rating was higher than the national benchmark (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover). Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety, Natural Environment, and Economy as priorities for the Chanhassen community in the coming two years. Ratings for most facets of community livability were positive and similar to other communities across the nation, with the exception of Mobility and Recreation and Wellness, where reviews were higher than those observed elsewhere. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Chanhassen’s unique questions. Excellent 54% Good 41% Fair 5% Poor 1% Overall Quality of Life Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Mobility Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Built Environment Safety Economy Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important 3 Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Chanhassen, 95% rated the city as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents’ ratings of Chanhassen as a place to live were higher than ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the city as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality. Ratings for Chanhassen as a place to raise children, the city’s overall image or reputation, its overall appearance, and neighborhoods as a place to live were exceptional and above average, with about 9 in 10 residents assigning positive reviews. Similar to comparison communities, about 7 in 10 residents gave high marks to Chanhassen as a place to retire. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. Overall, at least 6 in 10 respondents reviewed most aspects of Community Characteristics positively and ratings were similar to or higher than other benchmark communities. Evaluations of most aspects within Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Mobility, and Recreation and Wellness were outstanding and higher than the national benchmarks. Other areas where above-average ratings were observed included overall education and enrichment opportunities, K-12 education, and availability of affordable quality child care/preschool. Within the facets of Economy and Built Environment, most aspects were on par with comparison communities; reviews of variety of housing options, overall economic health, and employment opportunities were higher than the national benchmarks. While scores for Economy and Built Environment were similar to or higher than the national averages, downward trends in ratings from 2016 to 2019 were concentrated within these two facets (such as new development in Chanhassen, availability of affordable quality housing, employment opportunities, and cost of living) (see Trends over Time report provided under separate cover). 90%94%95%90% 70% Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmarkPercent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 62% Good 34%Fair 4% Poor 1% Place to Live The National Community Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics 69% 92% 84% 82% 87% 83% 85% 67% 84% 61% 89% 75% 97% 97% 92% 77% 85% 90% 55% 74% 79% 87% 89% 99% 97% 74% 70% 63% 75% 68% 72% 65% 87% 76% 72% 70% 52% 51% 68% 49% 75% 48% 60% 72% 99% Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance Neighborliness Social events and activities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Child care/preschool K-12 education Adult education Cultural/arts/music activities Religious or spiritual events and activities Education and enrichment opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Fitness opportunities Recreational opportunities Food Health care Preventive health services Mental health care Health and wellness RECREATION AND WELLNESS Place to work Place to visit Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living Business and services Vibrant downtown/commercial area Overall economic health ECONOMY Public places Housing options Affordable quality housing New development in Chanhassen Overall built environment BUILT ENVIRONMENT Air quality Cleanliness Overall natural environment NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Traffic flow Public parking Travel by car Travel by public transportation Travel by bicycle Ease of walking Paths and walking trails Overall ease of travel MOBILITY Safe downtown/commercial area Safe in neighborhood Overall feeling of safety SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark 5 Governance How well does the government of Chanhassen meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Chanhassen as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. About 8 in 10 residents gave favorable evaluations to the overall quality of services provided by the City; while this rating was on par with national averages, it decreased from 2016 to 2019. About 4 in 10 respondents were pleased with services provided by the Federal Government. Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Chanhassen’s leadership and governance. About 8 in 10 residents assigned high marks to the overall customer service provided by Chanhassen employees, which was similar to other comparison communities and remained stable from 2016 to 2019. About 6 in 10 positively rated all other aspects of government performance. These ratings were similar to the national benchmarks, yet declined from 2016 to 2019. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Chanhassen. Broadly, a majority reviewed most government services positively and ratings tended to be similar to those observed in other communities. The highest-rated services included police, fire, ambulance/EMS, sewer services, City parks, and public libraries, with 9 in 10 residents assigning positive scores. Reviews for crime prevention, animal control, utility billing, code enforcement, City parks, and health services were exceptional and higher than the national benchmarks. Within Mobility, evaluations of traffic enforcement, snow removal, sidewalk maintenance, and bus or transit services were above average. However, most ratings for services that decreased from 2016 to 2019 were mobility-related, including reviews of street repair, street cleaning, street lighting, snow removal, and bus or transit services. 62%65%59%64%63%68%68% 85% 42% Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming resident involvement Confidence in City government Acting in the best interest of Chanhassen Being honest Treating all residents fairly Customer service Services provided by the Federal Government Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmarkPercent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 27% Good 54%Fair 16% Poor 2% Overall Quality of City Services The National Community Survey™ 6 Figure 2: Aspects of Governance 84% 94% 70% 84% 72% 74% 79% 77% 79% 87% 80% 79% 95% 68% 79% 65% 51% 86% 89% 74% 70% 62% 74% 67% 80% 84% 57% 69% 69% 56% 76% 87% 93% 95% 89% 34% Public information COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Special events Public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Health services Recreation centers Recreation programs City parks RECREATION AND WELLNESS Economic development ECONOMY Cable television Code enforcement Land use, planning and zoning Utility billing Power utility Sewer services Storm drainage BUILT ENVIRONMENT Open space Natural areas preservation Drinking water Yard waste pick-up Recycling Garbage collection NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Bus or transit services Traffic signal timing Sidewalk maintenance Snow removal Street lighting Street cleaning Street repair Traffic enforcement MOBILITY Emergency preparedness Animal control Fire prevention Crime prevention Ambulance/EMS Fire Police SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark 7 Participation Are the residents of Chanhassen connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. Similar to other communities in the U.S., about 7 in 10 respondents gave excellent or good scores to the sense of community in Chanhassen; yet, this rate declined from 2016 to 2019. Almost all residents (96%) indicated they would recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asked, which was higher than in comparison communities. About 9 in 10 respondents planned to remain in the community for the next five years, and 4 in 10 had contacted City employees; these rates were on par with the national benchmarks. The survey included over 30 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Levels of Participation varied widely across the different facets, making the benchmark comparisons, as well as comparisons to Chanhassen over time, useful for interpreting the results. About 9 in 10 respondents had purchased goods or services in Chanhassen, participated in physical activity, or talked to or visited with neighbors, while 3 in 10 used public transportation instead of driving; these ratings were all on par with communities nationwide. Compared to municipalities across the country, more residents in Chanhassen recycled at home, visited a City park, and voted in local elections, with 9 in 10 residents reporting these activities. Additionally, respondents in Chanhassen were less likely to report a crime, observe a code violation, and be under housing cost stress than those in other communities. Fewer residents reported working in Chanhassen compared to other communities in the country. In 2019, more respondents reported campaigning for an issue, cause, or candidate than in 2016; however, fewer residents had walked or biked instead of driving or participated in religious or spiritual activities. 96%89% 40% Recommend Chanhassen Remain in Chanhassen Contacted Chanhassen employees Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat likely, yes) Comparison to national benchmark Excellent 27% Good 44% Fair 26% Poor 3% Sense of Community The National Community Survey™ 8 Figure 3: Aspects of Participation 94% 93% 79% 76% 99% 93% 84% 15% 20% 88% 96% 22% 35% 16% 21% 61% 38% 71% 81% 92% 86% 56% 40% 98% 79% 58% 43% 26% 96% 26% Voted in local elections Read or watched local news Watched a local public meeting Attended a local public meeting Done a favor for a neighbor Talked to or visited with neighbors Participated in a club Volunteered Contacted Chanhassen elected officials Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attended a City-sponsored event Participated in religious or spiritual activities Used Chanhassen public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT In very good to excellent health Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Visited a City park Used Chanhassen recreation centers RECREATION AND WELLNESS Work in Chanhassen Economy will have positive impact on income Purchased goods or services in Chanhassen ECONOMY NOT under housing cost stress Did NOT observe a code violation BUILT ENVIRONMENT Recycled at home Conserved water NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled instead of driving alone Used public transportation instead of driving MOBILITY Was NOT the victim of a crime Did NOT report a crime SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, more than once a month, always/sometimes) Comparison to national benchmark 9 Special Topics The City of Chanhassen included five questions of special interest on The NCS, with topics related to park improvements, strategic planning areas, sources of City information, and mental wellness initiatives in Chanhassen. About 8 in 10 residents strongly or somewhat supported a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually to fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures, and playgrounds; 4 in 10 strongly supported it. Only 1 in 10 respondents strongly opposed the tax levy. Figure 4: Repair and Refurbishment of City Park Equipment, Structures and Playgrounds To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax? About 8 in 10 community members strongly or somewhat supported a property tax increase to make general improvements to community parks, with 4 in 10 strongly supporting it. Only 1 in 10 respondents strongly opposed the property tax increase. Figure 5: General Improvements to Community Parks The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax? Strongly support 42% Somewhat support 37%Somewhat oppose 13% Strongly oppose 9% Strongly support 40% Somewhat support 38% Somewhat oppose 12% Strongly oppose 11% The National Community Survey™ 10 Residents rated how important various strategic planning areas were to the overall quality of life in Chanhassen. About 9 in 10 respondents felt that a safe community and education were essential or very important to the overall quality of life; over half felt these were essential. Roughly 8 in 10 felt that a healthy community, economic development, cooperation between governments, and recreation and cultural opportunities were essential or very important, and 7 in 10 felt similarly about community and social supports. Figure 6: Importance of Strategic Planning Areas Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. 16% 28% 28% 34% 35% 52% 69% 52% 47% 46% 45% 43% 34% 27% 27% 22% 23% 20% 20% 12% 4% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% Community and social supports Recreation and cultural opportunities Cooperation between governments Economic development Healthy community Education Safe community Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important The National Community Survey™ 11 When asked about sources utilized for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services, at least 3 in 10 residents said they used each source as a major or minor source of information. The City website, local media outlets, and the City newsletter were utilized most, while the local government cable channel was the least-used source. Figure 7: Sources of City Information Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. 4% 16% 28% 21% 29% 44% 42% 66% 25% 38% 32% 45% 47% 40% 45% 25% 71% 46% 41% 34% 24% 16% 13% 9% The local government cable channel Talking with City officials City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) City Council meetings and other public meetings Word-of-mouth The City newsletter –Chanhassen Connection Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Major source Minor source Not a source The National Community Survey™ 12 About 7 in 10 residents felt that providing information about available mental health-related resources was an essential or very important way to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen, while two-thirds felt similarly about providing mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues. Less than half of respondents felt that providing mental health presentations to the public and roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders were essential or very important mental wellness initiatives in Chanhassen. Figure 8: Importance of Mental Wellness Initiatives in Chanhassen The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. 14% 16% 31% 36% 30% 32% 34% 35% 38% 36% 25% 22% 18% 15% 10% 7% Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues Information about available mental health-related resources Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important 13 Conclusions Residents feel safe in their community. About 9 in 10 residents felt that safety was an essential or very important focus for the Chanhassen community in the coming two years. Almost all residents (97%) assigned positive scores to the overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen, which was higher than the national benchmarks. Additionally, almost all residents felt safe in their neighborhoods (99%) and in the downtown/commercial area (99%) (higher than the nation). Out of all City services, police, fire, and ambulance/EMS were given some of the most positive reviews. Assessments of crime prevention and animal control were outstanding and higher than the national averages. At least three-quarters of respondents positively rated police, fire, fire prevention, ambulance/EMS, and emergency preparedness; these ratings were on par with comparison communities. Fewer Chanhassen community members reported a crime in the 12 months prior to the survey than community members in other municipalities in the U.S. About 9 in 10 residents felt that a safe community was essential or very important to the overall quality of life in Chanhassen. Mobility ratings are high, yet mobility-related services are declining. Overall, reviews for Mobility were exceptional and higher than elsewhere in the nation. At least 8 in 10 community members gave high marks to the overall ease of travel, ease of travel by car and by walking, public parking, availability of paths and walking trails, and snow removal, while more than half positively rated traffic flow on major streets, ease of travel by bicycle and by public transportation, sidewalk maintenance, and bus or transit services. These ratings were outstanding and higher than the national benchmarks. Similar to comparison communities, over half of residents walked or biked instead of driving, 4 in 10 carpooled instead of driving alone, and one-quarter used public transportation instead of driving. However, reviews of street repair, street cleaning, street lighting, snow removal, sidewalk maintenance, and bus or transit services declined from 2016 to 2019. While evaluations of these services were similar to or higher than the national averages, the decrease in ratings may highlight an area of opportunity for Chanhassen. Residents praise Recreation and Wellness opportunities and support initiatives to improve City parks and mental wellness. At least 8 in 10 community members gave high marks to fitness and recreational opportunities, availability of affordable quality health care and preventive health services, health and wellness opportunities, City parks, and health services; these ratings were exceptional and higher than the national benchmarks. More Chanhassen residents (94%) reported visiting a City park than residents in comparison communities across the country. However, evaluations of health and wellness opportunities, recreation centers or programs, and health services declined from 2016 to 2019. About three-quarters of residents felt that a healthy community and recreational and cultural opportunities were essential or very important to the overall quality of life in Chanhassen. About 8 in 10 residents strongly or somewhat supported a tax levy to fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures, and playgrounds, and strongly or somewhat supported a property tax increase to make general improvements to a number of City parks, such as Lake Anne Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center. Evaluations of the availability of affordable quality mental health care were outstanding and above average, with two-thirds of residents assigning positive reviews. At least two-thirds of respondents felt that providing information about available mental health-related resources and providing mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues were essential or very important to address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Additionally, just under half of residents felt that providing mental health presentations to the public and providing roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders were essential or very important initiatives to address mental wellness. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Chanhassen, MN Dashboard Summary of Findings 2019 1 Summary The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) 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 research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Chanhassen’s performance in the eight facets of community livability with the “General” rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The “Overall” represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Chanhassen’s community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. Within Community Characteristics, assessments for most facets tended to be above national averages. In the pillar of Governance, ratings for Mobility and Recreation and Wellness tended to be higher than the national benchmarks, while the remaining facets were on par with comparison communities. Levels within the pillar of Participation tended to be similar to the national benchmarks, with the exception of Safety, Natural Environment, and Built Environment, where levels were above average. Figure 1: Dashboard Summary Community Characteristics Governance Participation Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Overall 31 21 0 10 35 1 7 26 1 General 6 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 Safety 2 1 0 2 5 0 1 1 0 Mobility 8 0 0 4 4 0 0 3 0 Natural Environment 3 0 0 0 6 0 1 1 0 Built Environment 1 4 0 2 4 1 2 0 0 Economy 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 Recreation and Wellness 6 1 0 2 2 0 1 4 0 Education and Enrichment 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 Community Engagement 0 5 0 0 8 0 1 10 0 National Benchmark Higher Similar Lower The National Community Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 2 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive General Overall appearance ↔ ↑ 90% Customer service ↔ ↔ 85% Recommend Chanhassen ↔ ↑ 96% Overall quality of life ↔ ↑ 94% Services provided by Chanhassen ↓ ↔ 82% Remain in Chanhassen ↔ ↔ 89% Place to retire ↔ ↔ 70% Services provided by the Federal Government ↔ ↔ 42% Contacted Chanhassen employees ↔ ↔ 40% Place to raise children ↔ ↑ 95% Place to live ↔ ↑ 95% Neighborhood ↔ ↑ 94% Overall image ↔ ↑ 90% Safety Overall feeling of safety ↔ ↑ 97% Police ↔ ↔ 89% Was NOT the victim of a crime ↔ ↔ 96% Safe in neighborhood ↔ ↔ 99% Crime prevention ↔ ↑ 87% Did NOT report a crime ↔ ↑ 93% Safe downtown/commercial area ↔ ↑ 99% Fire ↔ ↔ 95% Fire prevention ↔ ↔ 87% Ambulance/EMS ↔ ↔ 93% Emergency preparedness ↔ ↔ 76% Animal control ↔ ↑ 79% Mobility Traffic flow ↔ ↑ 77% Traffic enforcement ↔ ↑ 77% Carpooled instead of driving alone ↔ ↔ 43% Travel by car ↔ ↑ 90% Street repair ↓ ↔ 56% Walked or biked instead of driving ↓ ↔ 58% Travel by bicycle ↓ ↑ 74% Street cleaning ↓ ↔ 69% Used public transportation instead of driving ↔ ↔ 26% Ease of walking ↔ ↑ 79% Street lighting ↓ ↔ 69% Travel by public transportation ↔ ↑ 55% Snow removal ↓ ↑ 79% Overall ease travel ↔ ↑ 89% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ ↑ 74% Public parking ↔ ↑↑ 85% Traffic signal timing ↔ ↔ 57% Paths and walking trails ↔ ↑↑ 87% Bus or transit services ↓ ↑ 72% Natural Environment Overall natural environment ↔ ↑ 92% Garbage collection ↔ ↔ 84% Recycled at home ↔ ↑ 99% Air quality ↔ ↑ 97% Recycling ↓ ↔ 80% Conserved water ↔ ↔ 79% Cleanliness ↔ ↑ 97% Yard waste pick-up ↓ ↔ 67% Drinking water ↔ ↔ 74% Open space ↔ ↔ 70% Natural areas preservation ↓ ↔ 62% Built Environment New development in Chanhassen ↓ ↔ 60% Sewer services ↔ ↔ 89% NOT experiencing housing cost stress ↔ ↑ 79% Affordable quality housing ↓ ↔ 48% Storm drainage ↓ ↔ 74% Did NOT observe a code violation ↔ ↑↑ 76% Housing options ↔ ↑ 75% Power utility ↔ ↔ 86% Overall built environment ↓ ↔ 72% Utility billing ↔ ↑ 84% Public places ↓ ↔ 75% Land use, planning and zoning ↓ ↔ 51% Code enforcement ↔ ↑ 70% Cable television ↔ ↓ 34% The National Community Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 3 Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive Economy Overall economic health ↔ ↑ 89% Economic development ↓ ↔ 65% Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ ↔ 40% Shopping opportunities ↔ ↔ 52% Purchased goods or services in Chanhassen ↔ ↔ 98% Employment opportunities ↓ ↑ 61% Work in Chanhassen ↔ ↓ 26% Place to visit ↓ ↔ 70% Cost of living ↓ ↔ 51% Vibrant downtown/commercial area ↔ ↔ 49% Place to work ↓ ↔ 72% Business and services ↔ ↔ 68% Recreation and Wellness Fitness opportunities ↔ ↑ 82% City parks ↔ ↑ 94% In very good to excellent health ↔ ↔ 81% Recreational opportunities ↔ ↑ 87% Recreation centers ↓ ↔ 68% Used Chanhassen recreation centers ↔ ↔ 56% Health care ↔ ↑ 83% Recreation programs ↔ ↔ 79% Visited a City park ↔ ↑ 93% Food ↔ ↔ 76% Health services ↓ ↑ 84% Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables ↔ ↔ 86% Mental health care ↔ ↑ 67% Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity ↔ ↔ 92% Health and wellness ↓ ↑ 84% Preventive health services ↔ ↑ 85% Education and Enrichment K-12 education ↔ ↑ 92% Public libraries ↔ ↔ 95% Used Chanhassen public libraries ↔ ↔ 71% Cultural/arts/music activities ↔ ↔ 65% Special events ↔ ↔ 79% Participated in religious or spiritual activities ↓ ↔ 38% Child care/preschool ↓ ↑ 69% Attended a City-sponsored event ↔ ↔ 61% Religious or spiritual events and activities ↔ ↔ 87% Adult education ↔ ↔ 72% Overall education and enrichment ↔ ↑ 84% Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in community matters ↔ ↔ 70% Public information ↔ ↔ 80% Sense of community ↓ ↔ 71% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ ↔ 74% Overall direction ↓ ↔ 65% Voted in local elections ↔ ↑ 94% Openness and acceptance ↔ ↔ 63% Value of services for taxes paid ↓ ↔ 62% Talked to or visited with neighbors ↔ ↔ 96% Social events and activities ↓ ↔ 68% Welcoming resident involvement ↓ ↔ 59% Attended a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 20% Neighborliness ↔ ↔ 75% Confidence in City government ↓ ↔ 64% Watched a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 15% Acting in the best interest of Chanhassen ↓ ↔ 63% Volunteered ↔ ↔ 35% Being honest ↓ ↔ 68% Participated in a club ↔ ↔ 22% Treating all residents fairly ↓ ↔ 68% Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate ↑ ↔ 21% Contacted Chanhassen elected officials ↔ ↔ 16% Read or watched local news ↔ ↔ 84% Done a favor for a neighbor ↔ ↔ 88% 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Chanhassen, MN Supplemental Online Survey Results 2019 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About this Report ............................................................................. 1 Complete Survey Responses ............................................................. 2 1 About this Report As part of its participation in The National Community Survey™, the City of Chanhassen conducted a mailed survey of 1,700 residents. Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households in November 2019 and data were collected through December 2019 (see the report, The National Community Survey: Community Livability Report, Chanhassen, MN, 2019). The results from this main survey effort represent the most robust estimate of your residents’ opinions. After the above data collection period was underway, the City made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey during December 2019 and 143 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the community was aware of link on the City’s website; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to match the demographic characteristics of the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Chanhassen. The results of the weighting scheme for the opt-in survey are presented in the following table. Table 1: Chanhassen, MN 2019 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 13% 2% 8% Own home 87% 98% 92% Detached unit* 71% 90% 86% Attached unit* 29% 10% 14% Race and Ethnicity White 93% 93% 92% Not white 7% 7% 8% Not Hispanic 98% 94% 93% Hispanic 2% 6% 7% Sex and Age Female 52% 65% 51% Male 48% 35% 49% 18-34 years of age 21% 18% 17% 35-54 years of age 52% 59% 55% 55+ years of age 27% 23% 28% Females 18-34 10% 15% 8% Females 35-54 27% 37% 28% Females 55+ 14% 13% 14% Males 18-34 11% 6% 11% Males 35-54 25% 21% 26% Males 55+ 13% 8% 13% * U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2017 5-year estimates The National Community Survey™ 2 Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Responses excluding “don’t know” Table 2: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Chanhassen as a place to live 43% N=61 53% N=75 3% N=4 1% N=1 100% N=141 Your neighborhood as a place to live 59% N=78 33% N=43 7% N=9 2% N=3 100% N=133 Chanhassen as a place to raise children 56% N=72 39% N=51 4% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=128 Chanhassen as a place to work 39% N=26 34% N=23 18% N=12 8% N=6 100% N=67 Chanhassen as a place to visit 24% N=30 35% N=44 34% N=43 7% N=9 100% N=127 Chanhassen as a place to retire 22% N=21 47% N=46 22% N=22 9% N=8 100% N=97 The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 42% N=55 52% N=69 5% N=6 1% N=2 100% N=132 Table 3: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 55% N=75 39% N=54 6% N=8 1% N=1 100% N=137 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 40% N=52 47% N=62 11% N=15 2% N=3 100% N=132 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 49% N=65 42% N=55 8% N=11 1% N=1 100% N=132 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 14% N=19 48% N=63 30% N=40 8% N=10 100% N=132 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 35% N=46 40% N=53 19% N=24 6% N=8 100% N=131 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 28% N=35 55% N=68 15% N=18 2% N=3 100% N=124 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 31% N=38 56% N=68 12% N=15 0% N=0 100% N=121 Sense of community 25% N=32 49% N=64 21% N=27 6% N=7 100% N=131 Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen 36% N=47 51% N=67 9% N=12 4% N=5 100% N=132 Table 4: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks 61% N=81 32% N=42 4% N=6 3% N=4 100% N=134 Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years 65% N=84 25% N=32 5% N=7 4% N=5 100% N=128 The National Community Survey™ 3 Table 5: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 88% N=115 10% N=13 2% N=2 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=131 In Chanhassen's downtown/commercial area during the day 83% N=109 14% N=18 3% N=4 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=131 Table 6: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 17% N=22 46% N=59 32% N=41 6% N=7 100% N=129 Ease of public parking 23% N=28 47% N=58 23% N=28 7% N=9 100% N=123 Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen 28% N=35 57% N=72 13% N=16 2% N=3 100% N=126 Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen 12% N=8 32% N=20 20% N=13 36% N=23 100% N=64 Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen 28% N=28 39% N=39 27% N=27 6% N=6 100% N=99 Ease of walking in Chanhassen 25% N=31 52% N=63 19% N=23 4% N=5 100% N=121 Availability of paths and walking trails 41% N=51 45% N=56 13% N=16 1% N=1 100% N=125 Air quality 47% N=55 52% N=60 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=116 Cleanliness of Chanhassen 50% N=63 46% N=58 3% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=126 Overall appearance of Chanhassen 33% N=41 59% N=74 8% N=10 1% N=1 100% N=126 Public places where people want to spend time 21% N=27 46% N=57 26% N=32 7% N=8 100% N=124 Variety of housing options 17% N=19 38% N=44 38% N=44 7% N=8 100% N=116 Availability of affordable quality housing 15% N=14 24% N=23 39% N=37 22% N=21 100% N=95 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 37% N=44 39% N=47 18% N=21 7% N=8 100% N=121 Recreational opportunities 30% N=37 51% N=63 18% N=22 2% N=2 100% N=124 Availability of affordable quality food 22% N=28 53% N=66 17% N=21 8% N=10 100% N=126 Availability of affordable quality health care 26% N=30 53% N=61 16% N=18 4% N=5 100% N=114 Availability of preventive health services 27% N=30 48% N=53 21% N=23 3% N=4 100% N=110 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 13% N=7 38% N=22 24% N=14 25% N=14 100% N=57 Table 7: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 17% N=11 48% N=30 30% N=19 5% N=3 100% N=62 K-12 education 40% N=37 47% N=44 9% N=9 3% N=3 100% N=93 Adult educational opportunities 19% N=15 48% N=36 26% N=20 7% N=5 100% N=76 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 10% N=12 42% N=47 40% N=44 7% N=8 100% N=111 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 29% N=24 52% N=43 11% N=9 7% N=6 100% N=82 Employment opportunities 12% N=9 52% N=37 27% N=19 9% N=6 100% N=71 Shopping opportunities 8% N=10 39% N=46 40% N=47 12% N=15 100% N=117 The National Community Survey™ 4 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Cost of living in Chanhassen 7% N=8 41% N=49 40% N=47 12% N=14 100% N=118 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen 14% N=17 57% N=68 25% N=30 4% N=5 100% N=119 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 4% N=4 30% N=35 48% N=57 19% N=22 100% N=119 Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 4% N=5 40% N=44 41% N=45 15% N=16 100% N=110 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 10% N=11 49% N=55 38% N=43 4% N=4 100% N=112 Opportunities to volunteer 20% N=16 51% N=41 26% N=21 4% N=3 100% N=81 Opportunities to participate in community matters 18% N=17 47% N=43 25% N=23 9% N=8 100% N=91 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 12% N=12 39% N=36 22% N=21 26% N=24 100% N=92 Neighborliness of residents in Chanhassen 27% N=32 40% N=47 31% N=36 3% N=3 100% N=119 Table 8: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 26% N=31 74% N=87 100% N=118 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 74% N=87 26% N=31 100% N=118 Household member was a victim of a crime in Chanhassen 96% N=113 4% N=5 100% N=119 Reported a crime to the police in Chanhassen 89% N=104 11% N=13 100% N=118 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 74% N=86 26% N=31 100% N=117 Contacted the City of Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 45% N=53 55% N=64 100% N=118 Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 70% N=82 30% N=36 100% N=118 Table 9: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Chanhassen? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services 6% N=7 12% N=13 46% N=54 36% N=43 100% N=117 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 21% N=25 46% N=54 24% N=27 9% N=10 100% N=117 Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 3% N=3 22% N=26 46% N=53 29% N=33 100% N=114 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen 8% N=9 13% N=15 11% N=13 69% N=80 100% N=116 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=2 3% N=4 73% N=84 22% N=26 100% N=116 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 6% N=7 2% N=2 17% N=20 75% N=87 100% N=116 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 12% N=13 12% N=13 19% N=21 58% N=67 100% N=115 Walked or biked instead of driving 10% N=12 18% N=21 29% N=34 43% N=50 100% N=116 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 8% N=9 9% N=10 21% N=24 62% N=71 100% N=114 Participated in a club 4% N=5 4% N=4 12% N=14 80% N=91 100% N=114 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 37% N=42 33% N=38 28% N=32 3% N=3 100% N=115 Done a favor for a neighbor 12% N=14 32% N=37 43% N=50 13% N=15 100% N=116 The National Community Survey™ 5 Table 10: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 1% N=2 3% N=3 30% N=35 66% N=77 100% N=116 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=2 2% N=2 26% N=30 70% N=81 100% N=115 Table 11: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services 42% N=35 46% N=38 10% N=8 2% N=2 100% N=83 Fire services 63% N=40 36% N=23 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=64 Ambulance or emergency medical services 48% N=28 49% N=28 3% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=57 Crime prevention 33% N=24 54% N=39 10% N=8 3% N=2 100% N=73 Fire prevention and education 45% N=26 50% N=29 3% N=2 2% N=1 100% N=57 Traffic enforcement 17% N=14 61% N=52 17% N=14 6% N=5 100% N=86 Street repair 9% N=9 32% N=33 42% N=43 17% N=18 100% N=103 Street cleaning 15% N=15 54% N=55 24% N=25 6% N=6 100% N=101 Street lighting 14% N=15 51% N=54 22% N=23 12% N=13 100% N=105 Snow removal 25% N=26 56% N=58 17% N=17 3% N=3 100% N=104 Sidewalk maintenance 16% N=16 51% N=48 26% N=25 6% N=6 100% N=94 Traffic signal timing 8% N=8 37% N=38 43% N=45 12% N=12 100% N=103 Bus or transit services 23% N=7 39% N=12 33% N=10 5% N=2 100% N=31 Garbage collection 28% N=29 51% N=53 16% N=16 5% N=5 100% N=103 Recycling 25% N=26 52% N=54 16% N=16 7% N=7 100% N=103 Yard waste pick-up 29% N=19 44% N=28 15% N=9 12% N=8 100% N=64 Storm drainage 12% N=9 56% N=43 25% N=19 7% N=6 100% N=78 Drinking water 24% N=25 57% N=59 12% N=13 6% N=6 100% N=104 Sewer services 26% N=22 63% N=53 10% N=9 1% N=1 100% N=84 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 23% N=23 65% N=66 12% N=12 1% N=1 100% N=102 Utility billing 22% N=22 63% N=63 15% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=100 City parks 49% N=49 46% N=46 4% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=100 Recreation programs or classes 23% N=17 50% N=36 21% N=15 6% N=4 100% N=72 Recreation centers or facilities 14% N=12 30% N=26 37% N=31 18% N=15 100% N=84 Land use, planning and zoning 8% N=6 34% N=28 47% N=39 11% N=9 100% N=82 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 15% N=9 47% N=28 26% N=16 12% N=7 100% N=60 Animal control 19% N=8 60% N=27 19% N=9 2% N=1 100% N=45 Economic development 9% N=7 49% N=38 30% N=23 12% N=9 100% N=77 Health services 23% N=18 61% N=50 16% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=81 Public library services 52% N=43 46% N=38 3% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=84 The National Community Survey™ 6 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Public information services 21% N=14 59% N=40 19% N=13 1% N=1 100% N=68 Cable television 5% N=3 11% N=7 28% N=17 55% N=33 100% N=60 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 23% N=9 53% N=22 24% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=42 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 28% N=24 33% N=29 31% N=27 8% N=7 100% N=87 Chanhassen open space 21% N=22 36% N=36 37% N=37 6% N=6 100% N=101 City-sponsored special events 21% N=19 56% N=50 18% N=16 5% N=4 100% N=89 Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 29% N=24 55% N=45 13% N=10 3% N=2 100% N=81 Table 12: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Chanhassen 23% N=23 61% N=61 15% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=101 The Federal Government 10% N=8 37% N=30 42% N=33 11% N=9 100% N=80 Table 13: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 12% N=11 44% N=42 36% N=35 8% N=8 100% N=96 The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 11% N=10 46% N=43 36% N=34 7% N=7 100% N=94 The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement 13% N=10 39% N=31 36% N=28 12% N=10 100% N=79 Overall confidence in Chanhassen government 11% N=10 49% N=44 33% N=30 6% N=6 100% N=90 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 14% N=13 51% N=47 25% N=23 10% N=10 100% N=94 Being honest 15% N=13 46% N=40 36% N=32 2% N=2 100% N=87 Treating all residents fairly 17% N=14 45% N=36 33% N=27 4% N=4 100% N=80 Table 14: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 61% N=63 26% N=27 11% N=11 2% N=2 100% N=103 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 32% N=33 47% N=48 12% N=12 9% N=9 100% N=102 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 55% N=56 29% N=29 14% N=14 2% N=2 100% N=100 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 41% N=42 31% N=31 27% N=27 1% N=1 100% N=101 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 24% N=24 42% N=42 26% N=27 8% N=8 100% N=102 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 41% N=42 35% N=35 20% N=20 4% N=4 100% N=102 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 43% N=44 42% N=43 12% N=12 2% N=2 100% N=101 Sense of community 37% N=37 41% N=41 21% N=21 1% N=1 100% N=101 The National Community Survey™ 7 Table 15: Question 14 To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax? Percent Number Strongly support 45% N=46 Somewhat support 37% N=38 Somewhat oppose 9% N=10 Strongly oppose 8% N=9 Total 100% N=102 Table 16: Question 15 The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax?? Percent Number Strongly support 43% N=43 Somewhat support 35% N=35 Somewhat oppose 12% N=12 Strongly oppose 9% N=9 Total 100% N=100 Table 17: Question 16 Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Cooperation between governments 32% N=30 42% N=40 25% N=24 1% N=1 100% N=95 Economic development 33% N=32 45% N=43 20% N=19 3% N=3 100% N=97 Education 64% N=64 22% N=22 13% N=13 1% N=1 100% N=99 Healthy community 27% N=26 49% N=48 23% N=23 1% N=1 100% N=98 Recreation and cultural opportunities 23% N=23 45% N=43 29% N=28 3% N=3 100% N=97 Safe community 73% N=72 25% N=25 1% N=1 1% N=1 100% N=98 Community and social supports 20% N=20 51% N=50 27% N=26 2% N=2 100% N=98 The National Community Survey™ 8 Table 18: Question 17 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. Major source Minor source Not a source Total City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) 76% N=75 18% N=18 6% N=6 100% N=99 Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) 25% N=24 57% N=55 18% N=17 100% N=97 The local government cable channel 3% N=3 26% N=26 71% N=70 100% N=99 The City newsletter – Chanhassen Connection 34% N=34 37% N=37 28% N=28 100% N=99 City Council meetings and other public meetings 26% N=25 46% N=45 28% N=28 100% N=99 Talking with City officials 17% N=17 37% N=37 46% N=45 100% N=99 City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) 62% N=60 28% N=27 10% N=10 100% N=98 Word-of-mouth 30% N=29 52% N=51 17% N=17 100% N=97 Table 19: Question 18 The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders 16% N=14 33% N=30 38% N=35 14% N=13 100% N=93 Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A 16% N=14 40% N=37 29% N=27 15% N=14 100% N=92 Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues 30% N=28 34% N=31 23% N=22 13% N=12 100% N=93 Information about available mental health-related resources 33% N=31 34% N=32 21% N=20 13% N=12 100% N=95 Table 20: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 0% N=0 0% N=0 2% N=2 14% N=14 84% N=83 100% N=100 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen 0% N=0 1% N=1 26% N=25 55% N=55 19% N=19 100% N=100 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=1 11% N=11 38% N=38 34% N=34 17% N=17 100% N=100 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 0% N=0 11% N=11 32% N=32 44% N=44 13% N=12 100% N=99 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=4 9% N=9 25% N=25 28% N=28 33% N=33 100% N=99 Vote in local elections 0% N=0 0% N=0 7% N=7 26% N=26 67% N=66 100% N=99 The National Community Survey™ 9 Table 21: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 20% N=20 Very good 46% N=46 Good 27% N=27 Fair 7% N=7 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=99 Table 22: Question D3 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: Percent Number Very positive 10% N=10 Somewhat positive 28% N=28 Neutral 49% N=48 Somewhat negative 12% N=12 Very negative 1% N=1 Total 100% N=98 Table 23: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 72% N=71 Working part time for pay 13% N=13 Unemployed, looking for paid work 1% N=1 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=3 Fully retired 11% N=11 Total 100% N=100 Table 24: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Chanhassen? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 23% N=22 Yes, from home 14% N=14 No 63% N=61 Total 100% N=98 The National Community Survey™ 10 Table 25: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? Percent Number Less than 2 years 17% N=17 2 to 5 years 13% N=13 6 to 10 years 25% N=26 11 to 20 years 17% N=17 More than 20 years 27% N=27 Total 100% N=100 Table 26: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 86% N=103 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 14% N=17 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 0% N=0 Total 100% N=120 Table 27: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 8% N=10 Owned 92% N=109 Total 100% N=120 Table 28: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 1% N=1 $300 to $599 per month 3% N=2 $600 to $999 per month 2% N=1 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 20% N=17 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 51% N=45 $2,500 or more per month 24% N=21 Total 100% N=88 Table 29: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 48% N=44 Yes 52% N=48 Total 100% N=92 The National Community Survey™ 11 Table 30: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 90% N=89 Yes 10% N=10 Total 100% N=99 Table 31: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 9% N=8 $25,000 to $49,999 4% N=4 $50,000 to $99,999 20% N=18 $100,000 to $149,999 21% N=19 $150,000 or more 47% N=42 Total 100% N=90 Table 32: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 93% N=92 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 7% N=7 Total 100% N=98 Table 33: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 2% N=2 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% N=2 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 97% N=94 Other 3% N=3 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. The National Community Survey™ 12 Table 34: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=3 25 to 34 years 15% N=21 35 to 44 years 30% N=43 45 to 54 years 25% N=35 55 to 64 years 21% N=30 65 to 74 years 5% N=7 75 years or older 2% N=3 Total 100% N=142 Table 35: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=61 Male 49% N=59 Total 100% N=120 Table 36: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 82% N=81 Land line 4% N=4 Both 14% N=14 Total 100% N=99 The National Community Survey™ 13 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=“). Table 37: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Chanhassen as a place to live 43% N=61 53% N=75 3% N=4 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=141 Your neighborhood as a place to live 59% N=78 33% N=43 7% N=9 2% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=133 Chanhassen as a place to raise children 55% N=72 38% N=51 4% N=5 0% N=0 3% N=4 100% N=132 Chanhassen as a place to work 20% N=26 17% N=23 9% N=12 4% N=6 49% N=65 100% N=132 Chanhassen as a place to visit 23% N=30 34% N=44 33% N=43 7% N=9 4% N=5 100% N=132 Chanhassen as a place to retire 16% N=21 35% N=46 16% N=22 6% N=8 27% N=35 100% N=132 The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 42% N=55 52% N=69 5% N=6 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=132 Table 38: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 55% N=75 39% N=54 6% N=8 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=137 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 40% N=52 47% N=62 11% N=15 2% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=132 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 49% N=65 42% N=55 8% N=11 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=132 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 14% N=19 48% N=63 30% N=40 8% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=132 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 35% N=46 40% N=53 19% N=24 6% N=8 1% N=1 100% N=132 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 27% N=35 51% N=68 14% N=18 2% N=3 6% N=8 100% N=132 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 29% N=38 52% N=68 11% N=15 0% N=0 8% N=11 100% N=132 Sense of community 25% N=32 49% N=64 21% N=27 6% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=131 Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen 36% N=47 51% N=67 9% N=12 4% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=132 Table 39: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks 60% N=81 32% N=42 4% N=6 3% N=4 1% N=1 100% N=135 Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years 65% N=84 25% N=32 5% N=7 4% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=128 The National Community Survey™ 14 Table 40: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 88% N=115 10% N=13 2% N=2 1% N=1 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=131 In Chanhassen's downtown/commercial area during the day 83% N=109 14% N=18 3% N=4 0% N=0 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=131 Table 41: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 17% N=22 46% N=59 32% N=41 6% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=129 Ease of public parking 22% N=28 46% N=58 22% N=28 7% N=9 2% N=3 100% N=126 Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen 28% N=35 57% N=72 13% N=16 2% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=126 Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen 6% N=8 16% N=20 10% N=13 18% N=23 49% N=61 100% N=126 Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen 22% N=28 31% N=39 21% N=27 4% N=6 21% N=26 100% N=125 Ease of walking in Chanhassen 25% N=31 50% N=63 19% N=23 4% N=5 3% N=4 100% N=125 Availability of paths and walking trails 41% N=51 45% N=56 13% N=16 1% N=1 1% N=1 100% N=126 Air quality 45% N=55 49% N=60 1% N=1 0% N=0 5% N=7 100% N=123 Cleanliness of Chanhassen 50% N=63 46% N=58 3% N=4 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=126 Overall appearance of Chanhassen 33% N=41 59% N=74 8% N=10 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=126 Public places where people want to spend time 21% N=27 45% N=57 26% N=32 6% N=8 1% N=2 100% N=126 Variety of housing options 15% N=19 35% N=44 35% N=44 7% N=8 8% N=10 100% N=126 Availability of affordable quality housing 11% N=14 18% N=23 29% N=37 16% N=21 25% N=31 100% N=126 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 35% N=44 38% N=47 17% N=21 6% N=8 4% N=4 100% N=126 Recreational opportunities 29% N=37 50% N=63 18% N=22 2% N=2 1% N=2 100% N=126 Availability of affordable quality food 22% N=28 53% N=66 17% N=21 8% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=126 Availability of affordable quality health care 24% N=30 48% N=61 14% N=18 4% N=5 9% N=12 100% N=126 Availability of preventive health services 24% N=30 42% N=53 18% N=23 3% N=4 12% N=16 100% N=126 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 6% N=7 18% N=22 11% N=14 11% N=14 54% N=67 100% N=124 Table 42: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 9% N=11 24% N=30 15% N=19 2% N=3 49% N=60 100% N=122 K-12 education 31% N=37 37% N=44 7% N=9 3% N=3 22% N=26 100% N=119 Adult educational opportunities 12% N=15 31% N=36 17% N=20 4% N=5 36% N=42 100% N=118 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 10% N=12 39% N=47 37% N=44 7% N=8 7% N=8 100% N=119 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 20% N=24 36% N=43 8% N=9 5% N=6 31% N=36 100% N=119 The National Community Survey™ 15 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Employment opportunities 7% N=9 31% N=37 16% N=19 5% N=6 40% N=47 100% N=118 Shopping opportunities 8% N=10 38% N=46 40% N=47 12% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=119 Cost of living in Chanhassen 7% N=8 41% N=49 40% N=47 11% N=14 1% N=1 100% N=119 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen 14% N=17 57% N=68 25% N=30 4% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=119 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 4% N=4 30% N=35 48% N=57 19% N=22 0% N=0 100% N=119 Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 4% N=5 38% N=44 39% N=45 14% N=16 5% N=6 100% N=116 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=11 46% N=55 36% N=43 3% N=4 5% N=6 100% N=119 Opportunities to volunteer 13% N=16 35% N=41 18% N=21 3% N=3 32% N=38 100% N=119 Opportunities to participate in community matters 14% N=17 36% N=43 20% N=23 7% N=8 23% N=28 100% N=119 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 10% N=12 30% N=36 17% N=21 20% N=24 22% N=26 100% N=119 Neighborliness of residents in Chanhassen 27% N=32 40% N=47 31% N=36 3% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=119 Table 43: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 26% N=31 74% N=87 100% N=118 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 74% N=87 26% N=31 100% N=118 Household member was a victim of a crime in Chanhassen 96% N=113 4% N=5 100% N=119 Reported a crime to the police in Chanhassen 89% N=104 11% N=13 100% N=118 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 74% N=86 26% N=31 100% N=117 Contacted the City of Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 45% N=53 55% N=64 100% N=118 Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 70% N=82 30% N=36 100% N=118 Table 44: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Chanhassen? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services 6% N=7 12% N=13 46% N=54 36% N=43 100% N=117 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 21% N=25 46% N=54 24% N=27 9% N=10 100% N=117 Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 3% N=3 22% N=26 46% N=53 29% N=33 100% N=114 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen 8% N=9 13% N=15 11% N=13 69% N=80 100% N=116 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=2 3% N=4 73% N=84 22% N=26 100% N=116 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 6% N=7 2% N=2 17% N=20 75% N=87 100% N=116 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 12% N=13 12% N=13 19% N=21 58% N=67 100% N=115 Walked or biked instead of driving 10% N=12 18% N=21 29% N=34 43% N=50 100% N=116 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 8% N=9 9% N=10 21% N=24 62% N=71 100% N=114 Participated in a club 4% N=5 4% N=4 12% N=14 80% N=91 100% N=114 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 37% N=42 33% N=38 28% N=32 3% N=3 100% N=115 Done a favor for a neighbor 12% N=14 32% N=37 43% N=50 13% N=15 100% N=116 The National Community Survey™ 16 Table 45: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 1% N=2 3% N=3 30% N=35 66% N=77 100% N=116 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=2 2% N=2 26% N=30 70% N=81 100% N=115 Table 46: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police/Sheriff services 33% N=35 36% N=38 8% N=8 2% N=2 22% N=23 100% N=106 Fire services 38% N=40 22% N=23 1% N=1 0% N=0 40% N=42 100% N=105 Ambulance or emergency medical services 26% N=28 27% N=28 1% N=1 0% N=0 46% N=48 100% N=105 Crime prevention 23% N=24 37% N=39 7% N=8 2% N=2 30% N=32 100% N=105 Fire prevention and education 25% N=26 28% N=29 2% N=2 1% N=1 45% N=46 100% N=104 Traffic enforcement 14% N=14 50% N=52 14% N=14 5% N=5 18% N=19 100% N=104 Street repair 9% N=9 32% N=33 41% N=43 17% N=18 1% N=1 100% N=105 Street cleaning 15% N=15 53% N=55 24% N=25 6% N=6 3% N=3 100% N=105 Street lighting 14% N=15 51% N=54 22% N=23 12% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=105 Snow removal 25% N=26 56% N=58 17% N=17 3% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=104 Sidewalk maintenance 15% N=16 46% N=48 24% N=25 6% N=6 10% N=10 100% N=104 Traffic signal timing 8% N=8 36% N=38 43% N=45 11% N=12 2% N=2 100% N=105 Bus or transit services 7% N=7 12% N=12 10% N=10 2% N=2 70% N=74 100% N=105 Garbage collection 28% N=29 50% N=53 15% N=16 5% N=5 2% N=2 100% N=105 Recycling 25% N=26 51% N=54 15% N=16 7% N=7 2% N=2 100% N=105 Yard waste pick-up 18% N=19 27% N=28 9% N=9 8% N=8 39% N=41 100% N=105 Storm drainage 9% N=9 41% N=43 18% N=19 5% N=6 26% N=28 100% N=105 Drinking water 24% N=25 56% N=59 12% N=13 6% N=6 2% N=2 100% N=105 Sewer services 21% N=22 50% N=53 8% N=9 1% N=1 20% N=21 100% N=105 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 22% N=23 63% N=66 11% N=12 1% N=1 3% N=3 100% N=105 Utility billing 21% N=22 61% N=63 14% N=15 1% N=1 3% N=3 100% N=103 City parks 47% N=49 44% N=46 4% N=4 0% N=0 5% N=5 100% N=104 Recreation programs or classes 16% N=17 34% N=36 15% N=15 4% N=4 31% N=33 100% N=105 Recreation centers or facilities 12% N=12 25% N=26 30% N=31 15% N=15 19% N=20 100% N=104 Land use, planning and zoning 6% N=6 27% N=28 37% N=39 9% N=9 22% N=23 100% N=105 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 9% N=9 27% N=28 15% N=16 7% N=7 43% N=45 100% N=105 Animal control 8% N=8 26% N=27 8% N=9 1% N=1 57% N=60 100% N=105 Economic development 6% N=7 36% N=38 22% N=23 9% N=9 27% N=28 100% N=105 Health services 18% N=18 47% N=50 13% N=13 0% N=0 22% N=23 100% N=105 The National Community Survey™ 17 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public library services 41% N=43 37% N=38 2% N=2 0% N=0 20% N=21 100% N=105 Public information services 13% N=14 39% N=40 12% N=13 1% N=1 35% N=36 100% N=105 Cable television 3% N=3 7% N=7 16% N=17 31% N=33 43% N=45 100% N=105 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 9% N=9 21% N=22 10% N=10 0% N=0 60% N=62 100% N=104 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 23% N=24 28% N=29 26% N=27 7% N=7 17% N=18 100% N=105 Chanhassen open space 21% N=22 35% N=36 35% N=37 6% N=6 4% N=4 100% N=105 City-sponsored special events 18% N=19 48% N=50 15% N=16 4% N=4 15% N=15 100% N=105 Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 22% N=24 42% N=45 10% N=10 2% N=2 23% N=24 100% N=105 Table 47: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Chanhassen 23% N=23 60% N=61 15% N=15 1% N=1 1% N=1 100% N=102 The Federal Government 8% N=8 29% N=30 33% N=33 9% N=9 21% N=21 100% N=100 Table 48: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 11% N=11 42% N=42 35% N=35 8% N=8 4% N=4 100% N=100 The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 10% N=10 43% N=43 34% N=34 7% N=7 7% N=7 100% N=100 The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement 10% N=10 31% N=31 28% N=28 10% N=10 21% N=21 100% N=100 Overall confidence in Chanhassen government 10% N=10 44% N=44 30% N=30 6% N=6 11% N=11 100% N=100 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 13% N=13 47% N=47 23% N=23 10% N=10 7% N=7 100% N=100 Being honest 13% N=13 40% N=40 32% N=32 2% N=2 13% N=13 100% N=100 Treating all residents fairly 14% N=14 36% N=36 27% N=27 4% N=4 20% N=20 100% N=100 Table 49: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 61% N=63 26% N=27 11% N=11 2% N=2 100% N=103 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 32% N=33 47% N=48 12% N=12 9% N=9 100% N=102 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 55% N=56 29% N=29 14% N=14 2% N=2 100% N=100 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 41% N=42 31% N=31 27% N=27 1% N=1 100% N=101 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 24% N=24 42% N=42 26% N=27 8% N=8 100% N=102 The National Community Survey™ 18 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 41% N=42 35% N=35 20% N=20 4% N=4 100% N=102 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 43% N=44 42% N=43 12% N=12 2% N=2 100% N=101 Sense of community 37% N=37 41% N=41 21% N=21 1% N=1 100% N=101 Table 50: Question 14 To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax? Percent Number Strongly support 45% N=46 Somewhat support 37% N=38 Somewhat oppose 9% N=10 Strongly oppose 8% N=9 Don't know 1% N=1 Total 100% N=103 Table 51: Question 15 The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax?? Percent Number Strongly support 43% N=43 Somewhat support 35% N=35 Somewhat oppose 12% N=12 Strongly oppose 9% N=9 Don't know 2% N=2 Total 100% N=102 Table 52: Question 16 Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Cooperation between governments 30% N=30 40% N=40 24% N=24 1% N=1 5% N=5 100% N=100 Economic development 32% N=32 44% N=43 19% N=19 3% N=3 1% N=1 100% N=98 Education 64% N=64 22% N=22 13% N=13 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=99 Healthy community 27% N=26 48% N=48 23% N=23 1% N=1 2% N=2 100% N=99 Recreation and cultural opportunities 23% N=23 44% N=43 28% N=28 3% N=3 2% N=2 100% N=99 Safe community 73% N=72 25% N=25 1% N=1 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=98 Community and social supports 20% N=20 50% N=50 26% N=26 2% N=2 2% N=2 100% N=99 The National Community Survey™ 19 Table 53: Question 17 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. Major source Minor source Not a source Total City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) 76% N=75 18% N=18 6% N=6 100% N=99 Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) 25% N=24 57% N=55 18% N=17 100% N=97 The local government cable channel 3% N=3 26% N=26 71% N=70 100% N=99 The City newsletter – Chanhassen Connection 34% N=34 37% N=37 28% N=28 100% N=99 City Council meetings and other public meetings 26% N=25 46% N=45 28% N=28 100% N=99 Talking with City officials 17% N=17 37% N=37 46% N=45 100% N=99 City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) 62% N=60 28% N=27 10% N=10 100% N=98 Word-of-mouth 30% N=29 52% N=51 17% N=17 100% N=97 Table 54: Question 18 The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders 15% N=14 31% N=30 36% N=35 13% N=13 6% N=6 100% N=99 Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A 15% N=14 38% N=37 27% N=27 15% N=14 5% N=5 100% N=98 Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues 29% N=28 32% N=31 22% N=22 12% N=12 5% N=5 100% N=98 Information about available mental health-related resources 32% N=31 33% N=32 20% N=20 12% N=12 3% N=3 100% N=98 Table 55: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 0% N=0 0% N=0 2% N=2 14% N=14 84% N=83 100% N=100 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen 0% N=0 1% N=1 26% N=25 55% N=55 19% N=19 100% N=100 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=1 11% N=11 38% N=38 34% N=34 17% N=17 100% N=100 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 0% N=0 11% N=11 32% N=32 44% N=44 13% N=12 100% N=99 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=4 9% N=9 25% N=25 28% N=28 33% N=33 100% N=99 Vote in local elections 0% N=0 0% N=0 7% N=7 26% N=26 67% N=66 100% N=99 The National Community Survey™ 20 Table 56: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 20% N=20 Very good 46% N=46 Good 27% N=27 Fair 7% N=7 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=99 Table 57: Question D3 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: Percent Number Very positive 10% N=10 Somewhat positive 28% N=28 Neutral 49% N=48 Somewhat negative 12% N=12 Very negative 1% N=1 Total 100% N=98 Table 58: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 72% N=71 Working part time for pay 13% N=13 Unemployed, looking for paid work 1% N=1 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=3 Fully retired 11% N=11 Total 100% N=100 Table 59: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Chanhassen? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 23% N=22 Yes, from home 14% N=14 No 63% N=61 Total 100% N=98 The National Community Survey™ 21 Table 60: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? Percent Number Less than 2 years 17% N=17 2 to 5 years 13% N=13 6 to 10 years 25% N=26 11 to 20 years 17% N=17 More than 20 years 27% N=27 Total 100% N=100 Table 61: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 86% N=103 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 14% N=17 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 0% N=0 Total 100% N=120 Table 62: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 8% N=10 Owned 92% N=109 Total 100% N=120 Table 63: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 1% N=1 $300 to $599 per month 3% N=2 $600 to $999 per month 2% N=1 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 20% N=17 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 51% N=45 $2,500 or more per month 24% N=21 Total 100% N=88 Table 64: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 48% N=44 Yes 52% N=48 Total 100% N=92 The National Community Survey™ 22 Table 65: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 90% N=89 Yes 10% N=10 Total 100% N=99 Table 66: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 9% N=8 $25,000 to $49,999 4% N=4 $50,000 to $99,999 20% N=18 $100,000 to $149,999 21% N=19 $150,000 or more 47% N=42 Total 100% N=90 Table 67: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 93% N=92 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 7% N=7 Total 100% N=98 Table 68: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 2% N=2 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% N=2 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 97% N=94 Other 3% N=3 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. The National Community Survey™ 23 Table 69: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=3 25 to 34 years 15% N=21 35 to 44 years 30% N=43 45 to 54 years 25% N=35 55 to 64 years 21% N=30 65 to 74 years 5% N=7 75 years or older 2% N=3 Total 100% N=142 Table 70: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=61 Male 49% N=59 Total 100% N=120 Table 71: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 82% N=81 Land line 4% N=4 Both 14% N=14 Total 100% N=99 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Chanhassen, MN Technical Appendices 2019 The National Community Survey™ The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses .......................................... 1 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 21 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................. 30 Appendix D: Survey Materials ......................................................... 36 The National Community Survey™ 1 Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses Responses excluding “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Chanhassen as a place to live 62% N=335 34% N=183 4% N=22 1% N=3 100% N=544 Your neighborhood as a place to live 60% N=328 34% N=183 5% N=29 0% N=2 100% N=542 Chanhassen as a place to raise children 67% N=326 28% N=135 4% N=18 2% N=7 100% N=486 Chanhassen as a place to work 33% N=108 38% N=124 23% N=75 5% N=17 100% N=325 Chanhassen as a place to visit 26% N=136 43% N=222 26% N=136 4% N=21 100% N=514 Chanhassen as a place to retire 29% N=113 41% N=159 22% N=86 8% N=30 100% N=387 The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 54% N=291 41% N=222 5% N=27 1% N=3 100% N=544 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 60% N=327 37% N=204 3% N=15 0% N=2 100% N=547 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 53% N=287 36% N=196 9% N=49 2% N=11 100% N=543 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 51% N=278 41% N=223 7% N=38 1% N=4 100% N=543 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 28% N=150 45% N=242 21% N=113 7% N=38 100% N=544 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 37% N=190 47% N=242 14% N=74 2% N=10 100% N=516 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 38% N=183 46% N=225 15% N=73 2% N=8 100% N=489 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 37% N=181 53% N=260 10% N=49 1% N=4 100% N=495 Sense of community 27% N=145 44% N=234 26% N=136 3% N=18 100% N=533 Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen 45% N=240 46% N=246 9% N=47 1% N=7 100% N=540 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks 71% N=381 25% N=134 2% N=13 2% N=11 100% N=539 Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years 68% N=365 21% N=115 5% N=27 6% N=31 100% N=538 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 88% N=473 11% N=61 1% N=6 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=541 In Chanhassen's downtown/commercial area during the day 86% N=457 12% N=66 1% N=4 1% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=532 The National Community Survey™ 2 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 24% N=129 53% N=288 18% N=95 5% N=30 100% N=542 Ease of public parking 38% N=204 46% N=249 12% N=67 3% N=16 100% N=535 Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen 43% N=230 48% N=258 7% N=38 3% N=14 100% N=540 Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen 22% N=59 33% N=91 26% N=72 19% N=51 100% N=272 Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen 25% N=101 49% N=198 20% N=80 6% N=26 100% N=405 Ease of walking in Chanhassen 37% N=192 42% N=220 16% N=86 5% N=24 100% N=522 Availability of paths and walking trails 52% N=272 36% N=186 11% N=56 2% N=11 100% N=525 Air quality 55% N=290 42% N=222 3% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=529 Cleanliness of Chanhassen 53% N=290 44% N=241 3% N=14 0% N=1 100% N=546 Overall appearance of Chanhassen 44% N=239 47% N=254 8% N=45 1% N=8 100% N=547 Public places where people want to spend time 31% N=164 44% N=236 21% N=115 4% N=21 100% N=536 Variety of housing options 22% N=109 52% N=255 19% N=94 6% N=28 100% N=486 Availability of affordable quality housing 12% N=49 37% N=155 35% N=149 16% N=68 100% N=421 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 41% N=217 40% N=212 16% N=82 3% N=13 100% N=525 Recreational opportunities 38% N=199 49% N=256 11% N=57 2% N=12 100% N=523 Availability of affordable quality food 34% N=185 42% N=230 18% N=97 6% N=31 100% N=543 Availability of affordable quality health care 34% N=168 49% N=240 15% N=72 2% N=11 100% N=491 Availability of preventive health services 35% N=163 50% N=232 12% N=56 2% N=11 100% N=462 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 22% N=55 45% N=111 22% N=54 10% N=26 100% N=245 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 25% N=67 44% N=119 23% N=63 8% N=23 100% N=272 K-12 education 45% N=170 47% N=179 6% N=23 2% N=6 100% N=379 Adult educational opportunities 21% N=74 51% N=185 24% N=86 4% N=16 100% N=361 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 18% N=86 46% N=220 30% N=140 6% N=28 100% N=473 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 37% N=145 50% N=193 11% N=45 2% N=6 100% N=389 Employment opportunities 18% N=55 43% N=134 32% N=99 7% N=22 100% N=310 Shopping opportunities 13% N=71 39% N=207 35% N=188 13% N=71 100% N=538 Cost of living in Chanhassen 7% N=38 44% N=237 37% N=199 11% N=61 100% N=535 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen 19% N=103 49% N=263 24% N=130 7% N=40 100% N=537 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 12% N=66 37% N=199 32% N=173 19% N=101 100% N=539 Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 16% N=78 44% N=221 27% N=137 13% N=66 100% N=503 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 17% N=86 51% N=254 28% N=140 4% N=20 100% N=500 Opportunities to volunteer 21% N=80 53% N=198 24% N=92 2% N=7 100% N=378 Opportunities to participate in community matters 20% N=83 51% N=212 24% N=99 6% N=25 100% N=420 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 21% N=95 41% N=187 28% N=126 10% N=43 100% N=450 Neighborliness of residents in Chanhassen 27% N=145 48% N=259 22% N=116 3% N=19 100% N=538 The National Community Survey™ 3 Table 7: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 21% N=114 79% N=429 100% N=543 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 76% N=411 24% N=133 100% N=543 Household member was a victim of a crime in Chanhassen 96% N=524 4% N=20 100% N=544 Reported a crime to the police in Chanhassen 93% N=503 7% N=40 100% N=543 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 79% N=431 21% N=112 100% N=544 Contacted the City of Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 60% N=324 40% N=220 100% N=544 Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 84% N=456 16% N=88 100% N=544 Table 8: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Chanhassen? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services 6% N=34 12% N=66 37% N=200 44% N=240 100% N=540 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 24% N=131 37% N=201 32% N=174 7% N=38 100% N=544 Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 7% N=38 25% N=138 39% N=209 29% N=157 100% N=542 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen 9% N=47 18% N=97 12% N=63 62% N=336 100% N=542 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=7 4% N=22 56% N=305 39% N=209 100% N=543 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 5% N=30 3% N=15 18% N=98 74% N=401 100% N=543 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 9% N=50 14% N=75 20% N=108 57% N=312 100% N=544 Walked or biked instead of driving 8% N=43 18% N=97 32% N=174 42% N=227 100% N=542 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 3% N=17 10% N=54 22% N=121 65% N=352 100% N=544 Participated in a club 4% N=22 6% N=34 11% N=61 78% N=425 100% N=542 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 41% N=224 37% N=202 18% N=97 4% N=22 100% N=544 Done a favor for a neighbor 16% N=89 28% N=153 44% N=238 12% N=64 100% N=544 Table 9: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=2 2% N=8 18% N=99 80% N=433 100% N=542 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=2 1% N=7 14% N=74 85% N=460 100% N=543 Table 10: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services 42% N=184 47% N=205 10% N=45 1% N=3 100% N=437 Fire services 53% N=207 43% N=168 4% N=16 1% N=2 100% N=394 Ambulance or emergency medical services 47% N=161 46% N=156 7% N=23 0% N=0 100% N=340 Crime prevention 36% N=132 51% N=190 10% N=38 3% N=10 100% N=370 Fire prevention and education 39% N=133 49% N=168 12% N=43 0% N=1 100% N=345 Traffic enforcement 30% N=131 46% N=200 19% N=80 5% N=21 100% N=433 Street repair 14% N=75 41% N=213 30% N=154 15% N=75 100% N=517 Street cleaning 22% N=110 47% N=241 25% N=128 6% N=32 100% N=512 The National Community Survey™ 4 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street lighting 20% N=107 49% N=255 23% N=122 7% N=38 100% N=520 Snow removal 33% N=172 46% N=242 14% N=75 6% N=32 100% N=521 Sidewalk maintenance 23% N=106 52% N=242 21% N=100 5% N=21 100% N=469 Traffic signal timing 12% N=64 44% N=233 29% N=154 14% N=74 100% N=525 Bus or transit services 26% N=64 45% N=112 18% N=45 10% N=24 100% N=246 Garbage collection 36% N=183 48% N=242 13% N=64 4% N=18 100% N=507 Recycling 34% N=174 46% N=236 15% N=76 5% N=26 100% N=512 Yard waste pick-up 25% N=87 42% N=143 20% N=68 13% N=46 100% N=343 Storm drainage 19% N=87 55% N=253 19% N=88 7% N=30 100% N=459 Drinking water 27% N=140 47% N=242 18% N=96 8% N=40 100% N=518 Sewer services 32% N=147 57% N=263 11% N=50 0% N=1 100% N=462 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 33% N=175 53% N=278 12% N=65 1% N=7 100% N=524 Utility billing 30% N=155 53% N=272 15% N=76 1% N=6 100% N=509 City parks 53% N=270 41% N=212 5% N=28 0% N=2 100% N=512 Recreation programs or classes 27% N=101 52% N=195 17% N=63 5% N=17 100% N=376 Recreation centers or facilities 22% N=94 45% N=191 20% N=86 12% N=49 100% N=420 Land use, planning and zoning 13% N=55 38% N=160 31% N=131 18% N=76 100% N=422 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 24% N=82 46% N=156 22% N=73 8% N=27 100% N=338 Animal control 27% N=76 52% N=149 17% N=50 4% N=12 100% N=287 Economic development 19% N=78 47% N=195 26% N=108 9% N=37 100% N=417 Health services 30% N=126 54% N=231 15% N=62 1% N=5 100% N=425 Public library services 52% N=237 43% N=198 5% N=23 0% N=1 100% N=459 Public information services 27% N=96 53% N=189 18% N=66 2% N=7 100% N=357 Cable television 12% N=43 22% N=83 21% N=80 45% N=169 100% N=375 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 21% N=57 55% N=146 18% N=48 6% N=17 100% N=268 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 25% N=111 37% N=166 26% N=115 13% N=57 100% N=449 Chanhassen open space 22% N=107 48% N=233 23% N=114 7% N=34 100% N=488 City-sponsored special events 29% N=128 50% N=220 18% N=81 3% N=11 100% N=440 Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 36% N=151 49% N=210 12% N=51 3% N=12 100% N=425 Table 11: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Chanhassen 27% N=139 54% N=278 16% N=82 2% N=12 100% N=512 The Federal Government 5% N=25 37% N=172 43% N=200 15% N=68 100% N=464 Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 12% N=56 50% N=241 29% N=141 9% N=44 100% N=482 The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 15% N=73 50% N=246 25% N=124 10% N=47 100% N=490 The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement 18% N=73 41% N=169 31% N=124 10% N=41 100% N=407 Overall confidence in Chanhassen government 17% N=81 47% N=230 28% N=135 9% N=43 100% N=489 The National Community Survey™ 5 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Generally acting in the best interest of the community 18% N=89 45% N=220 28% N=137 8% N=41 100% N=488 Being honest 21% N=85 48% N=194 25% N=102 7% N=27 100% N=408 Treating all residents fairly 23% N=92 44% N=176 26% N=102 7% N=27 100% N=397 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 60% N=324 28% N=150 10% N=56 2% N=9 100% N=539 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 31% N=164 47% N=251 20% N=106 3% N=15 100% N=536 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 46% N=245 42% N=224 12% N=65 0% N=2 100% N=536 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 33% N=177 46% N=245 20% N=110 1% N=6 100% N=538 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 26% N=138 41% N=220 30% N=162 3% N=19 100% N=539 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 31% N=167 38% N=207 26% N=139 5% N=26 100% N=539 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 45% N=240 42% N=226 12% N=66 1% N=6 100% N=537 Sense of community 30% N=164 45% N=245 22% N=117 2% N=13 100% N=539 Table 14: Question 14 To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax? Percent Number Strongly support 42% N=225 Somewhat support 37% N=193 Somewhat oppose 13% N=66 Strongly oppose 9% N=45 Total 100% N=530 Table 15: Question 15 The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax? Percent Number Strongly support 40% N=210 Somewhat support 38% N=201 Somewhat oppose 12% N=61 Strongly oppose 11% N=57 Total 100% N=529 Table 16: Question 16 Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Cooperation between governments 28% N=140 46% N=228 23% N=115 2% N=9 100% N=492 Economic development 34% N=177 45% N=232 20% N=105 1% N=3 100% N=517 Education 52% N=275 34% N=180 12% N=63 1% N=7 100% N=525 Healthy community 35% N=185 43% N=226 20% N=106 2% N=9 100% N=526 The National Community Survey™ 6 Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Recreation and cultural opportunities 28% N=145 47% N=246 22% N=117 3% N=17 100% N=526 Safe community 69% N=364 27% N=143 4% N=22 0% N=0 100% N=529 Community and social supports 16% N=84 52% N=271 27% N=138 5% N=24 100% N=518 Table 17: Question 17 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. Major source Minor source Not a source Total City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) 66% N=350 25% N=134 9% N=46 100% N=530 Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) 42% N=222 45% N=239 13% N=70 100% N=530 The local government cable channel 4% N=21 25% N=131 71% N=377 100% N=530 The City newsletter – Chanhassen Connection 44% N=236 40% N=212 16% N=83 100% N=531 City Council meetings and other public meetings 21% N=112 45% N=238 34% N=179 100% N=528 Talking with City officials 16% N=83 38% N=203 46% N=244 100% N=529 City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) 28% N=148 32% N=168 41% N=218 100% N=534 Word-of-mouth 29% N=155 47% N=248 24% N=130 100% N=533 Table 18: Question 18 The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders 14% N=67 30% N=146 38% N=182 18% N=88 100% N=483 Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A 16% N=77 32% N=156 36% N=176 15% N=75 100% N=483 Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues 31% N=151 34% N=168 25% N=126 10% N=49 100% N=494 Information about available mental health-related resources 36% N=181 35% N=175 22% N=109 7% N=37 100% N=501 Table 19: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 0% N=2 1% N=5 2% N=8 15% N=81 82% N=444 100% N=540 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen 0% N=1 2% N=9 26% N=138 44% N=239 28% N=154 100% N=541 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=7 13% N=70 38% N=205 34% N=182 14% N=75 100% N=539 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=5 7% N=40 28% N=148 41% N=217 23% N=126 100% N=535 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 2% N=13 14% N=75 24% N=127 27% N=147 33% N=177 100% N=539 Vote in local elections 3% N=19 3% N=14 10% N=52 29% N=158 55% N=295 100% N=537 The National Community Survey™ 7 Table 20: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 27% N=146 Very good 54% N=289 Good 17% N=91 Fair 2% N=10 Poor 0% N=2 Total 100% N=539 Table 21: Question D3 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: Percent Number Very positive 10% N=53 Somewhat positive 30% N=160 Neutral 48% N=255 Somewhat negative 12% N=65 Very negative 0% N=1 Total 100% N=535 Table 22: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 71% N=381 Working part time for pay 9% N=49 Unemployed, looking for paid work 1% N=7 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 4% N=20 Fully retired 15% N=82 Total 100% N=538 Table 23: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Chanhassen? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 13% N=71 Yes, from home 12% N=66 No 74% N=395 Total 100% N=532 Table 24: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? Percent Number Less than 2 years 17% N=92 2 to 5 years 18% N=97 6 to 10 years 20% N=109 11 to 20 years 23% N=123 More than 20 years 22% N=118 Total 100% N=539 The National Community Survey™ 8 Table 25: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 71% N=389 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 28% N=152 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 1% N=4 Total 100% N=545 Table 26: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 13% N=70 Owned 87% N=474 Total 100% N=544 Table 27: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 2% N=11 $300 to $599 per month 5% N=27 $600 to $999 per month 6% N=34 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 16% N=87 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 42% N=223 $2,500 or more per month 28% N=147 Total 100% N=529 Table 28: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 56% N=297 Yes 44% N=238 Total 100% N=535 Table 29: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 82% N=440 Yes 18% N=98 Total 100% N=538 The National Community Survey™ 9 Table 30: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 3% N=14 $25,000 to $49,999 9% N=48 $50,000 to $99,999 20% N=105 $100,000 to $149,999 22% N=117 $150,000 or more 46% N=241 Total 100% N=525 Table 31: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 99% N=530 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1% N=7 Total 100% N=537 Table 32: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 5% N=26 Black or African American 0% N=2 White 95% N=510 Other 1% N=5 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 33: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 1% N=8 25 to 34 years 19% N=103 35 to 44 years 24% N=131 45 to 54 years 27% N=146 55 to 64 years 13% N=69 65 to 74 years 9% N=46 75 years or older 6% N=33 Total 100% N=537 Table 34: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=274 Male 49% N=261 Total 100% N=535 The National Community Survey™ 10 Table 35: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 83% N=448 Land line 7% N=37 Both 10% N=54 Total 100% N=538 The National Community Survey™ 11 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 36: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Chanhassen as a place to live 61% N=335 34% N=183 4% N=22 1% N=3 0% N=2 100% N=546 Your neighborhood as a place to live 60% N=328 34% N=183 5% N=29 0% N=2 1% N=3 100% N=544 Chanhassen as a place to raise children 60% N=326 25% N=135 3% N=18 1% N=7 11% N=58 100% N=544 Chanhassen as a place to work 20% N=108 23% N=124 14% N=75 3% N=17 40% N=218 100% N=542 Chanhassen as a place to visit 25% N=136 41% N=222 25% N=136 4% N=21 5% N=29 100% N=543 Chanhassen as a place to retire 21% N=113 29% N=159 16% N=86 5% N=30 29% N=156 100% N=543 The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 53% N=291 41% N=222 5% N=27 1% N=3 0% N=2 100% N=546 Table 37: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 60% N=327 37% N=204 3% N=15 0% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=547 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 53% N=287 36% N=196 9% N=49 2% N=11 0% N=0 100% N=543 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 51% N=278 41% N=223 7% N=38 1% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=543 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 27% N=150 44% N=242 21% N=113 7% N=38 0% N=2 100% N=546 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 35% N=190 44% N=242 14% N=74 2% N=10 5% N=28 100% N=544 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 34% N=183 41% N=225 13% N=73 1% N=8 10% N=56 100% N=545 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 33% N=181 48% N=260 9% N=49 1% N=4 9% N=51 100% N=546 Sense of community 27% N=145 43% N=234 25% N=136 3% N=18 1% N=8 100% N=541 Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen 44% N=240 45% N=246 9% N=47 1% N=7 1% N=5 100% N=545 Table 38: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks 71% N=381 25% N=134 2% N=13 2% N=11 0% N=1 100% N=540 Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years 67% N=365 21% N=115 5% N=27 6% N=31 1% N=6 100% N=544 Table 39: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 88% N=473 11% N=61 1% N=6 0% N=1 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=541 In Chanhassen's downtown/commercial area during the day 85% N=457 12% N=66 1% N=4 1% N=4 0% N=0 2% N=8 100% N=540 The National Community Survey™ 12 Table 40: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 24% N=129 53% N=288 18% N=95 5% N=30 0% N=0 100% N=542 Ease of public parking 38% N=204 46% N=249 12% N=67 3% N=16 1% N=5 100% N=540 Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen 42% N=230 48% N=258 7% N=38 3% N=14 0% N=2 100% N=542 Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen 11% N=59 17% N=91 13% N=72 9% N=51 50% N=272 100% N=544 Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen 19% N=101 36% N=198 15% N=80 5% N=26 25% N=138 100% N=543 Ease of walking in Chanhassen 35% N=192 40% N=220 16% N=86 4% N=24 4% N=22 100% N=544 Availability of paths and walking trails 50% N=272 34% N=186 10% N=56 2% N=11 4% N=20 100% N=544 Air quality 54% N=290 41% N=222 3% N=16 0% N=0 3% N=14 100% N=543 Cleanliness of Chanhassen 53% N=290 44% N=241 3% N=14 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=546 Overall appearance of Chanhassen 44% N=239 47% N=254 8% N=45 1% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=547 Public places where people want to spend time 30% N=164 43% N=236 21% N=115 4% N=21 2% N=11 100% N=547 Variety of housing options 20% N=109 47% N=255 17% N=94 5% N=28 10% N=54 100% N=540 Availability of affordable quality housing 9% N=49 28% N=155 27% N=149 12% N=68 23% N=126 100% N=547 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 40% N=217 39% N=212 15% N=82 2% N=13 4% N=19 100% N=544 Recreational opportunities 37% N=199 47% N=256 10% N=57 2% N=12 4% N=21 100% N=544 Availability of affordable quality food 34% N=185 42% N=230 18% N=97 6% N=31 1% N=3 100% N=546 Availability of affordable quality health care 31% N=168 44% N=240 13% N=72 2% N=11 10% N=56 100% N=547 Availability of preventive health services 30% N=163 43% N=232 10% N=56 2% N=11 15% N=83 100% N=546 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 10% N=55 20% N=111 10% N=54 5% N=26 55% N=299 100% N=544 Table 41: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 12% N=67 22% N=119 12% N=63 4% N=23 50% N=270 100% N=542 K-12 education 31% N=170 33% N=179 4% N=23 1% N=6 30% N=161 100% N=540 Adult educational opportunities 14% N=74 34% N=185 16% N=86 3% N=16 33% N=179 100% N=540 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 16% N=86 41% N=220 26% N=140 5% N=28 13% N=69 100% N=543 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 27% N=145 36% N=193 8% N=45 1% N=6 28% N=153 100% N=542 Employment opportunities 10% N=55 25% N=134 18% N=99 4% N=22 43% N=230 100% N=540 Shopping opportunities 13% N=71 38% N=207 35% N=188 13% N=71 1% N=4 100% N=542 Cost of living in Chanhassen 7% N=38 44% N=237 37% N=199 11% N=61 1% N=3 100% N=539 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen 19% N=103 49% N=263 24% N=130 7% N=40 1% N=6 100% N=542 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 12% N=66 37% N=199 32% N=173 19% N=101 0% N=2 100% N=541 Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 15% N=78 41% N=221 26% N=137 12% N=66 6% N=34 100% N=537 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 16% N=86 47% N=254 26% N=140 4% N=20 8% N=42 100% N=543 Opportunities to volunteer 15% N=80 37% N=198 17% N=92 1% N=7 30% N=164 100% N=542 Opportunities to participate in community matters 15% N=83 39% N=212 18% N=99 5% N=25 23% N=123 100% N=543 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 17% N=95 34% N=187 23% N=126 8% N=43 17% N=92 100% N=543 Neighborliness of residents in Chanhassen 27% N=145 48% N=259 21% N=116 3% N=19 1% N=4 100% N=543 The National Community Survey™ 13 Table 42: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 21% N=114 79% N=429 100% N=543 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 76% N=411 24% N=133 100% N=543 Household member was a victim of a crime in Chanhassen 96% N=524 4% N=20 100% N=544 Reported a crime to the police in Chanhassen 93% N=503 7% N=40 100% N=543 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 79% N=431 21% N=112 100% N=544 Contacted the City of Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 60% N=324 40% N=220 100% N=544 Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 84% N=456 16% N=88 100% N=544 Table 43: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Chanhassen? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services 6% N=34 12% N=66 37% N=200 44% N=240 100% N=540 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 24% N=131 37% N=201 32% N=174 7% N=38 100% N=544 Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 7% N=38 25% N=138 39% N=209 29% N=157 100% N=542 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen 9% N=47 18% N=97 12% N=63 62% N=336 100% N=542 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=7 4% N=22 56% N=305 39% N=209 100% N=543 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 5% N=30 3% N=15 18% N=98 74% N=401 100% N=543 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 9% N=50 14% N=75 20% N=108 57% N=312 100% N=544 Walked or biked instead of driving 8% N=43 18% N=97 32% N=174 42% N=227 100% N=542 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 3% N=17 10% N=54 22% N=121 65% N=352 100% N=544 Participated in a club 4% N=22 6% N=34 11% N=61 78% N=425 100% N=542 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 41% N=224 37% N=202 18% N=97 4% N=22 100% N=544 Done a favor for a neighbor 16% N=89 28% N=153 44% N=238 12% N=64 100% N=544 Table 44: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=2 2% N=8 18% N=99 80% N=433 100% N=542 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=2 1% N=7 14% N=74 85% N=460 100% N=543 Table 45: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police/Sheriff services 34% N=184 38% N=205 8% N=45 1% N=3 19% N=99 100% N=536 Fire services 39% N=207 31% N=168 3% N=16 0% N=2 27% N=143 100% N=537 Ambulance or emergency medical services 30% N=161 29% N=156 4% N=23 0% N=0 37% N=197 100% N=537 Crime prevention 25% N=132 36% N=190 7% N=38 2% N=10 31% N=163 100% N=533 Fire prevention and education 25% N=133 32% N=168 8% N=43 0% N=1 35% N=187 100% N=532 Traffic enforcement 25% N=131 38% N=200 15% N=80 4% N=21 18% N=98 100% N=531 Street repair 14% N=75 40% N=213 29% N=154 14% N=75 3% N=19 100% N=535 Street cleaning 21% N=110 45% N=241 24% N=128 6% N=32 4% N=21 100% N=533 The National Community Survey™ 14 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Street lighting 20% N=107 48% N=255 23% N=122 7% N=38 2% N=13 100% N=533 Snow removal 32% N=172 45% N=242 14% N=75 6% N=32 3% N=15 100% N=536 Sidewalk maintenance 20% N=106 45% N=242 19% N=100 4% N=21 12% N=64 100% N=532 Traffic signal timing 12% N=64 43% N=233 29% N=154 14% N=74 2% N=12 100% N=537 Bus or transit services 12% N=64 21% N=112 8% N=45 5% N=24 54% N=288 100% N=534 Garbage collection 34% N=183 45% N=242 12% N=64 3% N=18 5% N=27 100% N=535 Recycling 32% N=174 44% N=236 14% N=76 5% N=26 4% N=24 100% N=535 Yard waste pick-up 16% N=87 27% N=143 13% N=68 9% N=46 36% N=194 100% N=537 Storm drainage 16% N=87 48% N=253 17% N=88 6% N=30 14% N=74 100% N=532 Drinking water 26% N=140 45% N=242 18% N=96 7% N=40 4% N=20 100% N=539 Sewer services 27% N=147 49% N=263 9% N=50 0% N=1 14% N=76 100% N=538 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 32% N=175 52% N=278 12% N=65 1% N=7 2% N=13 100% N=537 Utility billing 29% N=155 51% N=272 14% N=76 1% N=6 5% N=29 100% N=538 City parks 50% N=270 40% N=212 5% N=28 0% N=2 4% N=24 100% N=536 Recreation programs or classes 19% N=101 36% N=195 12% N=63 3% N=17 30% N=160 100% N=537 Recreation centers or facilities 18% N=94 36% N=191 16% N=86 9% N=49 22% N=115 100% N=535 Land use, planning and zoning 10% N=55 30% N=160 24% N=131 14% N=76 21% N=115 100% N=537 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 15% N=82 29% N=156 14% N=73 5% N=27 37% N=199 100% N=537 Animal control 14% N=76 28% N=149 9% N=50 2% N=12 47% N=250 100% N=537 Economic development 15% N=78 36% N=195 20% N=108 7% N=37 22% N=120 100% N=537 Health services 24% N=126 43% N=231 12% N=62 1% N=5 21% N=112 100% N=536 Public library services 44% N=237 37% N=198 4% N=23 0% N=1 15% N=79 100% N=538 Public information services 18% N=96 35% N=189 12% N=66 1% N=7 33% N=178 100% N=535 Cable television 8% N=43 15% N=83 15% N=80 32% N=169 30% N=162 100% N=537 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 11% N=57 27% N=146 9% N=48 3% N=17 50% N=267 100% N=534 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 21% N=111 31% N=166 22% N=115 11% N=57 16% N=86 100% N=534 Chanhassen open space 20% N=107 44% N=233 21% N=114 6% N=34 9% N=46 100% N=534 City-sponsored special events 24% N=128 42% N=220 15% N=81 2% N=11 17% N=88 100% N=528 Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 29% N=151 40% N=210 10% N=51 2% N=12 20% N=103 100% N=528 Table 46: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Chanhassen 26% N=139 52% N=278 15% N=82 2% N=12 5% N=27 100% N=538 The Federal Government 5% N=25 32% N=172 37% N=200 13% N=68 13% N=72 100% N=536 Table 47: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 10% N=56 45% N=241 26% N=141 8% N=44 10% N=55 100% N=538 The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 14% N=73 46% N=246 23% N=124 9% N=47 9% N=47 100% N=537 The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement 14% N=73 32% N=169 23% N=124 8% N=41 24% N=129 100% N=536 The National Community Survey™ 15 Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall confidence in Chanhassen government 15% N=81 43% N=230 25% N=135 8% N=43 9% N=48 100% N=537 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 17% N=89 41% N=220 25% N=137 8% N=41 9% N=50 100% N=538 Being honest 16% N=85 36% N=194 19% N=102 5% N=27 24% N=128 100% N=536 Treating all residents fairly 17% N=92 33% N=176 19% N=102 5% N=27 26% N=139 100% N=536 Table 48: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 60% N=324 28% N=150 10% N=56 2% N=9 100% N=539 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 31% N=164 47% N=251 20% N=106 3% N=15 100% N=536 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 46% N=245 42% N=224 12% N=65 0% N=2 100% N=536 Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 33% N=177 46% N=245 20% N=110 1% N=6 100% N=538 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 26% N=138 41% N=220 30% N=162 3% N=19 100% N=539 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 31% N=167 38% N=207 26% N=139 5% N=26 100% N=539 Overall economic health of Chanhassen 45% N=240 42% N=226 12% N=66 1% N=6 100% N=537 Sense of community 30% N=164 45% N=245 22% N=117 2% N=13 100% N=539 Table 49: Question 14 To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax? Percent Number Strongly support 42% N=225 Somewhat support 36% N=193 Somewhat oppose 12% N=66 Strongly oppose 8% N=45 Don't know 2% N=11 Total 100% N=541 Table 50: Question 15 The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax?? Percent Number Strongly support 39% N=210 Somewhat support 37% N=201 Somewhat oppose 11% N=61 Strongly oppose 10% N=57 Don't know 2% N=12 Total 100% N=541 The National Community Survey™ 16 Table 51: Question 16 Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Cooperation between governments 26% N=140 43% N=228 22% N=115 2% N=9 8% N=42 100% N=534 Economic development 33% N=177 44% N=232 20% N=105 0% N=3 3% N=16 100% N=533 Education 52% N=275 34% N=180 12% N=63 1% N=7 2% N=8 100% N=533 Healthy community 35% N=185 42% N=226 20% N=106 2% N=9 1% N=6 100% N=532 Recreation and cultural opportunities 27% N=145 46% N=246 22% N=117 3% N=17 2% N=8 100% N=534 Safe community 68% N=364 27% N=143 4% N=22 0% N=0 1% N=5 100% N=534 Community and social supports 16% N=84 51% N=271 26% N=138 5% N=24 3% N=14 100% N=532 Table 52: Question 17 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. Major source Minor source Not a source Total City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) 66% N=350 25% N=134 9% N=46 100% N=530 Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) 42% N=222 45% N=239 13% N=70 100% N=530 The local government cable channel 4% N=21 25% N=131 71% N=377 100% N=530 The City newsletter – Chanhassen Connection 44% N=236 40% N=212 16% N=83 100% N=531 City Council meetings and other public meetings 21% N=112 45% N=238 34% N=179 100% N=528 Talking with City officials 16% N=83 38% N=203 46% N=244 100% N=529 City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) 28% N=148 32% N=168 41% N=218 100% N=534 Word-of-mouth 29% N=155 47% N=248 24% N=130 100% N=533 Table 53: Question 18 The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders 12% N=67 27% N=146 34% N=182 16% N=88 9% N=50 100% N=533 Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A 14% N=77 29% N=156 33% N=176 14% N=75 9% N=49 100% N=532 Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues 28% N=151 31% N=168 24% N=126 9% N=49 8% N=40 100% N=534 Information about available mental health-related resources 34% N=181 33% N=175 20% N=109 7% N=37 6% N=32 100% N=534 Table 54: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 0% N=2 1% N=5 2% N=8 15% N=81 82% N=444 100% N=540 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen 0% N=1 2% N=9 26% N=138 44% N=239 28% N=154 100% N=541 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=7 13% N=70 38% N=205 34% N=182 14% N=75 100% N=539 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=5 7% N=40 28% N=148 41% N=217 23% N=126 100% N=535 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 2% N=13 14% N=75 24% N=127 27% N=147 33% N=177 100% N=539 Vote in local elections 3% N=19 3% N=14 10% N=52 29% N=158 55% N=295 100% N=537 The National Community Survey™ 17 Table 55: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 27% N=146 Very good 54% N=289 Good 17% N=91 Fair 2% N=10 Poor 0% N=2 Total 100% N=539 Table 56: Question D3 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: Percent Number Very positive 10% N=53 Somewhat positive 30% N=160 Neutral 48% N=255 Somewhat negative 12% N=65 Very negative 0% N=1 Total 100% N=535 Table 57: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 71% N=381 Working part time for pay 9% N=49 Unemployed, looking for paid work 1% N=7 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 4% N=20 Fully retired 15% N=82 Total 100% N=538 Table 58: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Chanhassen? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 13% N=71 Yes, from home 12% N=66 No 74% N=395 Total 100% N=532 Table 59: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? Percent Number Less than 2 years 17% N=92 2 to 5 years 18% N=97 6 to 10 years 20% N=109 11 to 20 years 23% N=123 More than 20 years 22% N=118 Total 100% N=539 The National Community Survey™ 18 Table 60: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 71% N=389 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 28% N=152 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 1% N=4 Total 100% N=545 Table 61: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 13% N=70 Owned 87% N=474 Total 100% N=544 Table 62: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 2% N=11 $300 to $599 per month 5% N=27 $600 to $999 per month 6% N=34 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 16% N=87 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 42% N=223 $2,500 or more per month 28% N=147 Total 100% N=529 Table 63: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 56% N=297 Yes 44% N=238 Total 100% N=535 Table 64: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 82% N=440 Yes 18% N=98 Total 100% N=538 The National Community Survey™ 19 Table 65: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 3% N=14 $25,000 to $49,999 9% N=48 $50,000 to $99,999 20% N=105 $100,000 to $149,999 22% N=117 $150,000 or more 46% N=241 Total 100% N=525 Table 66: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 99% N=530 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1% N=7 Total 100% N=537 Table 67: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 5% N=26 Black or African American 0% N=2 White 95% N=510 Other 1% N=5 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 68: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 1% N=8 25 to 34 years 19% N=103 35 to 44 years 24% N=131 45 to 54 years 27% N=146 55 to 64 years 13% N=69 65 to 74 years 9% N=46 75 years or older 6% N=33 Total 100% N=537 Table 69: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=274 Male 49% N=261 Total 100% N=535 The National Community Survey™ 20 Table 70: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 83% N=448 Land line 7% N=37 Both 10% N=54 Total 100% N=538 The National Community Survey™ 21 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Chanhassen chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Chanhassen’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Chanhassen’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Chanhassen’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Chanhassen’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Chanhassen residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Chanhassen’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Chanhassen’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% The National Community Survey™ 22 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 71: Community Characteristics General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark The overall quality of life in Chanhassen 94% 23 433 Higher Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen 90% 44 341 Higher Chanhassen as a place to live 95% 39 378 Higher Your neighborhood as a place to live 94% 14 309 Higher Chanhassen as a place to raise children 95% 21 369 Higher Chanhassen as a place to retire 70% 118 349 Similar Overall appearance of Chanhassen 90% 43 340 Higher Table 72: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen 97% 20 350 Higher In your neighborhood during the day 99% 20 347 Similar In Chanhassen's downtown/commercial area during the day 99% 11 315 Higher Mobility Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 89% 9 274 Higher Availability of paths and walking trails 87% 17 310 Much higher Ease of walking in Chanhassen 79% 50 304 Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen 74% 39 303 Higher Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen 55% 39 236 Higher Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen 90% 4 302 Higher Ease of public parking 85% 2 232 Much higher Traffic flow on major streets 77% 10 330 Higher Natural Environment Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen 92% 26 276 Higher Cleanliness of Chanhassen 97% 13 283 Higher Air quality 97% 7 245 Higher Built Environment Overall "built environment" of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 72% 49 265 Similar Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 60% 118 290 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 48% 89 299 Similar Variety of housing options 75% 28 278 Higher Public places where people want to spend time 75% 60 259 Similar Economy Overall economic health of Chanhassen 89% 25 271 Higher Vibrant downtown/commercial area 49% 135 248 Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen 68% 103 273 Similar Cost of living in Chanhassen 51% 96 267 Similar Shopping opportunities 52% 166 291 Similar Employment opportunities 61% 41 308 Higher Chanhassen as a place to visit 70% 106 286 Similar Chanhassen as a place to work 72% 83 353 Similar Recreation and Wellness Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen 84% 36 266 Higher Availability of affordable quality mental health care 67% 15 235 Higher Availability of preventive health services 85% 10 239 Higher Availability of affordable quality health care 83% 14 258 Higher Availability of affordable quality food 76% 26 245 Similar Recreational opportunities 87% 27 291 Higher The National Community Survey™ 23 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 82% 32 257 Higher Education and Enrichment Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 84% 52 268 Higher Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 87% 42 206 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 65% 118 288 Similar Adult educational opportunities 72% 53 245 Similar K-12 education 92% 44 269 Higher Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 69% 33 258 Higher Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 68% 96 264 Similar Neighborliness of Chanhassen 75% 19 260 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 63% 110 291 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 70% 93 274 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 74% 105 265 Similar Table 73: Governance General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Chanhassen 82% 109 403 Similar Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 85% 60 369 Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 62% 112 387 Similar Overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 65% 108 312 Similar Job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement 59% 71 315 Similar Overall confidence in Chanhassen government 64% 64 272 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 63% 68 272 Similar Being honest 68% 48 263 Similar Treating all residents fairly 68% 44 269 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 42% 78 252 Similar Table 74: Governance by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Police/Sheriff services 89% 96 428 Similar Fire services 95% 114 366 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 125 328 Similar Crime prevention 87% 51 351 Higher Fire prevention and education 87% 45 283 Similar Animal control 79% 25 319 Higher Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 76% 63 277 Similar Mobility Traffic enforcement 77% 30 355 Higher Street repair 56% 114 360 Similar Street cleaning 69% 102 315 Similar Street lighting 69% 78 317 Similar Snow removal 79% 36 267 Higher Sidewalk maintenance 74% 24 308 Higher Traffic signal timing 57% 93 262 Similar Bus or transit services 72% 25 230 Higher Natural Garbage collection 84% 161 334 Similar The National Community Survey™ 24 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Environment Recycling 80% 152 342 Similar Yard waste pick-up 67% 205 266 Similar Drinking water 74% 129 299 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 62% 96 254 Similar Chanhassen open space 70% 57 241 Similar Built Environment Storm drainage 74% 109 333 Similar Sewer services 89% 32 305 Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility 86% 24 187 Similar Utility billing 84% 14 234 Higher Land use, planning and zoning 51% 122 296 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 70% 16 374 Higher Cable television 34% 193 201 Lower Economy Economic development 65% 67 282 Similar Recreation and Wellness City parks 94% 20 312 Higher Recreation programs or classes 79% 96 313 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 68% 173 276 Similar Health services 84% 27 222 Higher Education and Enrichment City-sponsored special events 79% 48 283 Similar Public library services 95% 38 322 Similar Community Engagement Public information services 80% 43 285 Similar Table 75: Participation General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 71% 60 303 Similar Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks 96% 33 283 Higher Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years 89% 51 277 Similar Contacted Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 40% 220 320 Similar Table 76: Participation by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Did NOT report a crime to the police 93% 2 263 Higher Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 96% 5 272 Similar Mobility Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 26% 79 216 Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 43% 124 251 Similar Walked or biked instead of driving 58% 118 260 Similar Natural Environment Made efforts to conserve water 79% 148 245 Similar Recycle at home 99% 8 259 Higher Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen 76% 4 254 Much higher NOT experiencing housing costs stress 79% 28 258 Higher Economy Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen 98% 64 257 Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 40% 47 259 Similar Work inside boundaries of Chanhassen 26% 219 258 Lower The National Community Survey™ 25 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Recreation and Wellness Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services 56% 128 239 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 21 268 Higher Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 86% 68 248 Similar Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 92% 19 253 Similar In very good to excellent health 81% 13 253 Similar Education and Enrichment Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services 71% 52 248 Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen 38% 146 205 Similar Attended City-sponsored event 61% 69 262 Similar Community Engagement Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 21% 146 241 Similar Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in- person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 16% 146 255 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen 35% 142 265 Similar Participated in a club 22% 161 245 Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 96% 20 255 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 88% 22 250 Similar Attended a local public meeting 20% 137 264 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 15% 192 234 Similar Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 84% 141 258 Similar Vote in local elections 94% 4 260 Higher Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Chanhassen’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 5-year estimates. Adams County, CO .................................................. 487,850 Airway Heights city, WA ............................................. 8,017 Albany city, OR ........................................................ 52,007 Albemarle County, VA.............................................. 105,105 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 17,716 Alexandria city, VA .................................................. 154,710 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 20,341 Ames city, IA ........................................................... 65,005 Ankeny city, IA ........................................................ 56,237 Ann Arbor city, MI ................................................... 119,303 Apache Junction city, AZ........................................... 38,452 Arapahoe County, CO .............................................. 626,612 Arlington city, TX .................................................... 388,225 Arvada city, CO ....................................................... 115,320 Asheville city, NC ..................................................... 89,318 Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,733 Ashland town, MA .................................................... 17,478 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,554 Aspen city, CO ........................................................... 7,097 Athens-Clarke County, GA ....................................... 122,292 Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 61,462 Augusta CCD, GA .................................................... 136,103 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 357,323 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 916,906 Avon town, CO .......................................................... 6,503 Avon town, IN ......................................................... 16,479 Avondale city, AZ ..................................................... 81,590 Azusa city, CA .......................................................... 49,029 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,689 Baltimore city, MD ................................................... 619,796 Baltimore County, MD ............................................. 828,637 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 51,505 Bay Village city, OH .................................................. 15,426 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 76,205 Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 49,082 Bedford town, MA .................................................... 14,105 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 139,014 Bellingham city, WA ................................................. 85,388 Bend city, OR........................................................... 87,167 Bethlehem township, PA ........................................... 23,800 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 35,293 Billings city, MT ....................................................... 109,082 Bloomington city, IN ................................................ 83,636 Bloomington city, MN ............................................... 85,417 The National Community Survey™ 26 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 220,859 Bonner Springs city, KS .............................................. 7,644 Boulder city, CO ...................................................... 106,271 Bowling Green city, KY ............................................. 64,302 Bozeman city, MT .................................................... 43,132 Brentwood city, TN .................................................. 41,524 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 38,016 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 59,246 Brooklyn Center city, MN .......................................... 30,885 Brooklyn city, OH ..................................................... 10,891 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 64,283 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 24,625 Buffalo Grove village, IL ........................................... 41,551 Burlingame city, CA .................................................. 30,401 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................... 196,716 Cambridge city, MA ................................................. 110,893 Canandaigua city, NY ............................................... 10,402 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,517 Cañon City city, CO .................................................. 16,298 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,352 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 173,679 Carlsbad city, CA ..................................................... 113,147 Carroll city, IA ............................................................ 9,937 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 20,235 Cary town, NC ........................................................ 159,715 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 57,274 Cedar Hill city, TX .................................................... 48,149 Cedar Park city, TX .................................................. 70,010 Cedar Rapids city, IA ............................................... 130,330 Celina city, TX ............................................................ 7,910 Centennial city, CO.................................................. 108,448 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 245,160 Chandler city, TX ....................................................... 2,896 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 25,108 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 59,234 Chardon city, OH ....................................................... 5,166 Charles County, MD ................................................ 156,021 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 173,236 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 46,487 Chattanooga city, TN............................................... 176,291 Chautauqua town, NY ................................................ 4,362 Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 335,594 Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 399,962 Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 16,214 Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 112,794 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................................... 45,024 Clinton city, SC .......................................................... 8,538 Clive city, IA ............................................................ 17,134 Clovis city, CA ......................................................... 104,411 College Park city, MD ............................................... 32,186 College Station city, TX ........................................... 107,445 Colleyville city, TX .................................................... 25,557 Collinsville city, IL .................................................... 24,767 Columbia city, MO ................................................... 118,620 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 132,236 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 5,054 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 52,905 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 128,160 Concord town, MA.................................................... 19,357 Conshohocken borough, PA ........................................ 7,985 Coolidge city, AZ ...................................................... 12,221 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 62,342 Coral Springs city, FL............................................... 130,110 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 24,053 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 56,224 Cottonwood Heights city, UT .................................... 34,214 Coventry Lake CDP, CT .............................................. 2,932 Creve Coeur city, MO ............................................... 18,259 Cupertino city, CA .................................................... 60,687 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,929 Dakota County, MN ................................................. 414,655 Dallas city, OR ......................................................... 15,413 Dallas city, TX ...................................................... 1,300,122 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,657 Darien city, IL .......................................................... 22,206 Davenport city, FL ...................................................... 3,665 Davidson town, NC................................................... 12,325 Dayton city, OH ...................................................... 140,939 Dayton town, WY .......................................................... 815 Dearborn city, MI ..................................................... 95,295 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 22,022 Del Mar city, CA ......................................................... 4,338 DeLand city, FL ........................................................ 30,315 Delaware city, OH .................................................... 38,193 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 23,342 Denton city, TX ....................................................... 131,097 Denver city, CO....................................................... 678,467 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 214,778 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,536 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 13,421 Dover city, NH ......................................................... 30,901 Dublin city, CA ......................................................... 57,022 Dublin city, OH ........................................................ 44,442 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,066 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 257,232 Durham County, NC ................................................ 300,865 Dyer town, IN .......................................................... 16,077 Eagan city, MN ........................................................ 66,102 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................................ 27,773 Eau Claire city, WI ................................................... 67,945 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 63,660 Eden town, VT ........................................................... 1,254 Edgewater city, CO .................................................... 5,299 Edina city, MN ......................................................... 50,603 Edmond city, OK ...................................................... 89,769 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 41,309 El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 24,982 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA ................... 31,409 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 166,228 Elmhurst city, IL....................................................... 46,139 Englewood city, CO .................................................. 33,155 Erie town, CO .......................................................... 22,019 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 6,248 Euclid city, OH ......................................................... 47,698 Fairview town, TX ...................................................... 8,473 Farmers Branch city, TX ........................................... 33,808 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,440 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 81,235 Farmington town, CT ............................................... 25,596 Fate city, TX ............................................................ 10,339 Fayetteville city, GA.................................................. 17,069 Fayetteville city, NC................................................. 210,324 Ferguson township, PA ............................................. 18,837 Fernandina Beach city, FL ......................................... 11,957 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 71,575 Forest Grove city, OR ............................................... 23,554 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................. 159,150 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 72,990 Frederick town, CO .................................................. 11,397 Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 230,964 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 13,039 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 34,691 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 67,417 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 49,706 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 21,059 Germantown city, TN ............................................... 39,230 Gilbert town, AZ ...................................................... 232,176 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 31,783 Glen Ellyn village, IL ................................................. 27,983 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 51,891 The National Community Survey™ 27 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 47,066 Golden city, CO ........................................................ 20,365 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 21,208 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 74,953 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,576 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 7,964 Grand Rapids city, MI .............................................. 195,355 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 36,687 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,893 Greeley city, CO ...................................................... 100,760 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 90,347 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 62,782 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 15,397 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 28,587 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 16,215 Haltom City city, TX ................................................. 44,059 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,216 Hamilton town, MA .................................................... 7,991 Hampton city, VA .................................................... 136,255 Hanover County, VA ................................................ 103,218 Harrisburg city, SD ..................................................... 5,429 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 53,064 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,025 Hastings city, MN ..................................................... 22,620 Henderson city, NV ................................................. 284,817 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 24,545 High Point city, NC .................................................. 109,849 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,796 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ....................................... 105,264 Homer Glen village, IL .............................................. 24,403 Honolulu County, HI ................................................ 990,060 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,416 Horry County, SC .................................................... 310,186 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 1,709 Huntley village, IL .................................................... 26,265 Huntsville city, TX .................................................... 40,727 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 13,836 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 22,644 Independence city, MO............................................ 117,369 Indio city, CA ........................................................... 86,867 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 73,415 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 235,648 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 35,629 Jackson city, MO ...................................................... 14,690 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 158,989 James City County, VA ............................................. 73,028 Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,567 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................ 437,038 Jerome city, ID ........................................................ 11,306 Johnson City city, TN................................................ 65,598 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 20,172 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 62,373 Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 75,833 Kansas City city, KS ................................................. 151,042 Kansas City city, MO ................................................ 476,974 Keizer city, OR ......................................................... 37,910 Kent city, WA .......................................................... 126,561 Kerrville city, TX ....................................................... 22,931 Key West city, FL ..................................................... 25,316 King City city, CA ..................................................... 13,721 Kingman city, AZ ...................................................... 28,855 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 86,772 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,659 Knoxville city, IA ........................................................ 7,202 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 9,160 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 17,062 Laguna Niguel city, CA ............................................. 65,429 Lake Forest city, IL .................................................. 18,931 Lake in the Hills village, IL ........................................ 28,908 Lake Zurich village, IL .............................................. 19,983 Lakeville city, MN ..................................................... 61,056 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 151,411 Lakewood city, WA ................................................... 59,102 Lancaster County, SC ............................................... 86,544 Lansing city, MI ...................................................... 115,222 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 32,104 Larimer County, CO ................................................. 330,976 Las Cruces city, NM ................................................. 101,014 Las Vegas city, NM ................................................... 13,445 Lawrence city, KS..................................................... 93,954 Lawrenceville city, GA .............................................. 29,287 Lehi city, UT ............................................................ 58,351 Lenexa city, KS ........................................................ 52,030 Lewisville city, TX .................................................... 103,638 Lewisville town, NC .................................................. 13,516 Libertyville village, IL................................................ 20,504 Lincolnwood village, IL ............................................. 12,637 Lindsborg city, KS ...................................................... 3,313 Little Chute village, WI ............................................. 11,006 Littleton city, CO ...................................................... 45,848 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 88,232 Lombard village, IL .................................................. 43,776 Lone Tree city, CO ................................................... 13,430 Long Grove village, IL ................................................ 7,980 Longmont city, CO ................................................... 91,730 Lonsdale city, MN ....................................................... 3,850 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 18,031 Los Altos Hills town, CA .............................................. 8,490 Loudoun County, VA ............................................... 374,558 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 20,319 Lower Merion township, PA ...................................... 58,500 Lynchburg city, VA ................................................... 79,237 Lynnwood city, WA .................................................. 37,242 Manassas city, VA .................................................... 41,379 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,698 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 55,427 Mankato city, MN ..................................................... 41,241 Maple Grove city, MN ............................................... 68,362 Maplewood city, MN ................................................. 40,127 Maricopa County, AZ ............................................ 4,155,501 Marin County, CA .................................................... 260,814 Marion city, IA ......................................................... 38,014 Mariposa County, CA ................................................ 17,658 Marshfield city, WI ................................................... 18,326 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 37,902 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 66,178 Maui County, HI ...................................................... 164,094 McKinney city, TX.................................................... 164,760 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 33,211 Mecklenburg County, NC ...................................... 1,034,290 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 33,661 Menomonee Falls village, WI .................................... 36,411 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 24,768 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 41,903 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 91,917 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,259 Mesa city, AZ .......................................................... 479,317 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 92,187 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 443,007 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 18,951 Middletown town, RI ................................................ 16,100 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,958 Milford city, DE ........................................................ 10,645 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 37,556 Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 411,452 Minnetrista city, MN ................................................... 7,187 Missouri City city, TX ................................................ 72,688 Moline city, IL .......................................................... 42,644 Monroe city, MI........................................................ 20,128 Montgomery city, MN ................................................. 2,921 The National Community Survey™ 28 Montgomery County, MD ...................................... 1,039,198 Monticello city, UT ..................................................... 2,599 Montrose city, CO .................................................... 18,918 Moraga town, CA ..................................................... 17,231 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,446 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 23,873 Morro Bay city, CA ................................................... 10,568 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 20,922 Murphy city, TX ....................................................... 20,361 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 146,431 Napoleon city, OH ...................................................... 8,646 Nederland city, TX ................................................... 17,284 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 30,429 Nevada City city, CA ................................................... 3,112 Nevada County, CA .................................................. 98,838 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 70,317 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 22,440 New Concord village, OH ............................................ 2,561 New Hope city, MN .................................................. 20,909 New Orleans city, LA ............................................... 388,182 New Ulm city, MN .................................................... 13,249 Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,745 Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,775 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,085 Niles village, IL ........................................................ 29,823 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 59,807 Norcross city, GA ..................................................... 16,474 Norfolk city, NE ........................................................ 24,352 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 245,752 North Mankato city, MN ............................................ 13,583 North Port city, FL .................................................... 62,542 North Yarmouth town, ME .......................................... 3,714 Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 38,473 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 55,378 Novi city, MI ............................................................ 58,835 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 29,095 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 52,229 Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 39,950 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................ 629,191 Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 151,685 Olympia city, WA ..................................................... 49,928 Orange village, OH ..................................................... 3,280 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 59,161 Orleans Parish, LA ................................................... 388,182 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,649 Oswego village, IL.................................................... 33,759 Ottawa County, MI .................................................. 280,243 Overland Park city, KS ............................................. 186,147 Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 24,879 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 53,119 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 82,356 Palo Alto city, CA ..................................................... 67,082 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA .................................... 13,591 Papillion city, NE ...................................................... 19,478 Paradise Valley town, AZ .......................................... 13,961 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 8,167 Parker town, CO ...................................................... 51,125 Parkland city, FL ...................................................... 28,901 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 70,607 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 498,136 Payette city, ID .......................................................... 7,366 Pearland city, TX ..................................................... 113,693 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,424 Pflugerville city, TX .................................................. 58,013 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................ 15,580 Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,793 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,747 Plano city, TX ......................................................... 281,566 Platte City city, MO..................................................... 4,867 Pleasant Hill city, IA ................................................... 9,608 Pleasanton city, CA .................................................. 79,341 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 76,258 Polk County, IA ....................................................... 467,235 Pompano Beach city, FL .......................................... 107,542 Port Orange city, FL ................................................. 60,315 Port St. Lucie city, FL .............................................. 178,778 Portland city, OR ..................................................... 630,331 Powell city, OH ........................................................ 12,658 Powhatan County, VA ............................................... 28,364 Prince William County, VA........................................ 450,763 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 25,452 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 109,122 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 9,217 Queen Creek town, AZ ............................................. 33,298 Raleigh city, NC ...................................................... 449,477 Ramsey city, MN ...................................................... 25,853 Raymond town, ME .................................................... 4,497 Raymore city, MO .................................................... 20,358 Redmond city, OR .................................................... 28,492 Redmond city, WA ................................................... 60,712 Redwood City city, CA .............................................. 84,368 Reno city, NV .......................................................... 239,732 Richland city, WA ..................................................... 53,991 Richmond city, CA ................................................... 108,853 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,466 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 93,317 River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,256 Riverside city, CA .................................................... 321,570 Roanoke city, VA ...................................................... 99,572 Roanoke County, VA ................................................ 93,419 Rochester city, NY ................................................... 209,463 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 70,764 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 66,420 Roeland Park city, KS ................................................. 6,810 Rohnert Park city, CA ............................................... 42,305 Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 20,013 Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 23,474 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 35,867 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 35,624 Round Rock city, TX ................................................ 116,369 Royal Palm Beach village, FL ..................................... 37,665 Sacramento city, CA ................................................ 489,650 Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 28,257 Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 62,877 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,390,966 San Jose city, CA ................................................. 1,023,031 San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 93,493 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 59,935 Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 198,134 Santa Fe city, NM ..................................................... 82,980 Santa Fe County, NM .............................................. 147,514 Sarasota County, FL ................................................ 404,839 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 30,011 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,427 Schertz city, TX ........................................................ 38,199 Scott County, MN .................................................... 141,463 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 239,283 Sedona city, AZ ........................................................ 10,246 Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 16,387 Shakopee city, MN ................................................... 40,024 Sharonville city, OH .................................................. 13,974 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 64,840 Shawnee city, OK ..................................................... 30,974 Sherborn town, MA .................................................... 4,302 Shoreline city, WA .................................................... 55,431 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 26,432 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 16,809 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,585 Silverton city, OR ....................................................... 9,757 Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 170,401 The National Community Survey™ 29 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,773 Snoqualmie city, WA ................................................ 12,944 Snowmass Village town, CO ........................................ 2,827 Somerset town, MA .................................................. 18,257 South Jordan city, UT ............................................... 65,523 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 30,090 Spearfish city, SD ..................................................... 11,300 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 165,785 Springville city, UT ................................................... 32,319 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 13,952 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,730 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,819 St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,294 St. Lucie County, FL ................................................ 298,763 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,224 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,520 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 86,886 Suisun City city, CA .................................................. 29,280 Summit County, UT .................................................. 39,731 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 151,565 Surprise city, AZ...................................................... 129,534 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 18,655 Tacoma city, WA ..................................................... 207,280 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 17,643 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 110,722 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 178,339 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 71,795 Texarkana city, TX ................................................... 37,222 The Woodlands CDP, TX .......................................... 109,608 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 51,355 Tinley Park village, IL ............................................... 57,107 Tracy city, CA .......................................................... 87,613 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 10,819 Tualatin city, OR ...................................................... 27,135 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 401,352 Tustin city, CA ......................................................... 80,007 Twin Falls city, ID .................................................... 47,340 Unalaska city, AK ....................................................... 4,809 University Heights city, OH ....................................... 13,201 University Park city, TX............................................. 24,692 Urbandale city, IA .................................................... 42,222 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,425 Ventura CCD, CA ..................................................... 115,218 Vernon Hills village, IL .............................................. 26,084 Vestavia Hills city, AL ............................................... 34,003 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 8,679 Vienna town, VA ...................................................... 16,474 Virginia Beach city, VA............................................. 450,057 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 68,516 Warrensburg city, MO .............................................. 19,890 Washington County, MN .......................................... 250,979 Washoe County, NV ................................................ 445,551 Washougal city, WA ................................................. 15,241 Wauwatosa city, WI ................................................. 47,687 Wentzville city, MO................................................... 35,768 West Carrollton city, OH ........................................... 12,963 West Chester township, OH ...................................... 62,804 Western Springs village, IL ....................................... 13,187 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 38,604 Westlake town, TX ..................................................... 1,006 Westminster city, CO ............................................... 111,895 Westminster city, MD ............................................... 18,557 Wheat Ridge city, CO ............................................... 31,162 White House city, TN ............................................... 11,107 Wichita city, KS ....................................................... 389,054 Williamsburg city, VA................................................ 14,817 Willowbrook village, IL ............................................... 8,598 Wilmington city, NC ................................................. 115,261 Wilsonville city, OR................................................... 22,789 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 23,386 Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,037 Winnetka village, IL ................................................. 12,504 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 40,799 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 67,648 Woodinville city, WA ................................................. 11,675 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................ 163,227 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 93,182 York County, VA....................................................... 67,196 Yorktown town, IN ................................................... 11,200 Yorkville city, IL ....................................................... 18,691 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,978 The National Community Survey™ 30 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Chanhassen funded this research. Please contact Assistant City Manager Jake Foster at JFoster@ci.chanhassen.mn.us if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered 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, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: • Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. • Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. • Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. • Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting 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. • 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. • Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. • Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. • Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. • Weighting the results 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 play a 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 his or 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 for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any 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 The National Community Survey™ 31 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 vary, with 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 firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Chanhassen were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Chanhassen was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Chanhassen households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Chanhassen boundaries were removed from consideration. To choose the 1,700 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single- family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects 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. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was publicized and posted to the City of Chanhassen website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover. The National Community Survey™ 32 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients The National Community Survey™ 33 Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on November 13, 2019. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The survey was available in English. Both cover letters included a URL through which the residents selected for the mail survey could choose respond online rather than by mail. Completed surveys were collected over the following seven weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on December 13, 2019 and remained open for two weeks. About 3% of the 1,700 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1,649 eligible households that received the survey, 548 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 33%. Of the 548 completed surveys, 107 were completed online. Additionally, 143 residents completed the online opt-in survey; results of the opt-in survey can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results report provided under separate cover. Table 77: Survey Response Rate Overall Total sample used 1,700 I=Complete Interviews 545 P=Partial Interviews 3 R=Refusal and break off 1 NC=Non Contact 0 O=Other 0 UH=Unknown household 0 UO=Unknown other 1,100 NE=Not eligible 51 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 33% Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.1 The margin of error for the City of Chanhassen survey is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (548 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. 1 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. The National Community Survey™ 34 All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC used SurveyGizmo, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into system so respondents are automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). Survey Data Weighting Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation online opt-in (non-probability) surveys, the demographics of each dataset were separately compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Chanhassen. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match the Census. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), sex, and age. No adjustments were made for design effects. Results for the opt-in survey have been provided under separate cover. Table 78: Chanhassen, MN 2019 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 13% 10% 13% Own home 87% 90% 87% Detached unit* 71% 70% 71% Attached unit* 29% 30% 29% Race and Ethnicity White 93% 95% 94% Not white 7% 5% 6% Not Hispanic 98% 99% 99% Hispanic 2% 1% 1% Sex and Age Female 52% 53% 51% Male 48% 47% 49% 18-34 years of age 21% 7% 21% 35-54 years of age 52% 36% 52% 55+ years of age 27% 57% 28% Females 18-34 10% 4% 10% Females 35-54 27% 21% 27% Females 55+ 14% 27% 14% Males 18-34 11% 2% 11% Males 35-54 25% 15% 25% Males 55+ 13% 30% 13% * U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 5-year estimates Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. 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 A. However, these responses have been The National Community Survey™ 35 removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The data for the opt-in survey are presented separately in the report titled Supplemental Online Survey Results. The National Community Survey™ 36 Appendix D: Survey Materials Dear Chanhassen Resident, We would appreciate your help. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about our community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor City of Chanhassen Dear Chanhassen Resident, We would appreciate your help. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about our community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor City of Chanhassen Dear Chanhassen Resident, We would appreciate your help. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about our community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor City of Chanhassen Dear Chanhassen Resident, We would appreciate your help. It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about our community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor City of Chanhassen Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Novemb er 2019 Dear City of Chanhassen Resident: Please help shape the future of Chanhassen! You have been randomly selected to participate in the 2019 Chanhassen Community Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number being surveyed. Your feedback will help Chanhassen make decisions that affect our City, now and into the future. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely anonymous. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/chanhassen2019survey Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all residents just a few weeks from now. If you have any questions about the survey please call 952-227-1100. Thank you for your time and participation! Your voice matters! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor November 2019 Dear City of Chanhassen Resident: Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded to the 2019 Chanhassen Community Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.) Please help shape the future of Chanhassen! You have been randomly selected to participate in the 2019 Chanhassen Community Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number being surveyed. Your feedback will help Chanhassen make decisions that affect our City, now and into the future. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely anonymous. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: https://bit.ly/chanhassen2019survey Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected households only. The City will conduct a separate survey that is open to all residents just a few weeks from now. If you have any questions about the survey please call 952-227-1100. Thank you for your time and participation! Your voice matters! Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor The City of Chanhassen 2019 Community Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Chanhassen as a place to live ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Chanhassen as a place to raise children ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Chanhassen as a place to work .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Chanhassen as a place to visit ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Chanhassen as a place to retire .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Chanhassen ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Chanhassen ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Chanhassen’s downtown/commercial area during the day ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Chanhassen .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Chanhassen ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Chanhassen ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Chanhassen .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Chanhassen ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Chanhassen ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Chanhassen.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen .............. 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Chanhassen ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water ................................................................................................................................1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Chanhassen (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ..............................1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in Chanhassen ...................................................................................1 2 Reported a crime to the police in Chanhassen ........................................................................................................1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ....................................................................................1 2 Contacted the City of Chanhassen (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ................................1 2 Contacted Chanhassen elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ........................1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Chanhassen? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Chanhassen recreation centers or their services ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Attended a City-sponsored event ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving........................... 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Chanhassen ......................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ................................................... 1 2 3 4 The City of Chanhassen 2019 Community Survey Page 3 of 5 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police/Sheriff services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Power (electric and/or gas) utility ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health services ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ..... 1 2 3 4 5 Chanhassen open space ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City-sponsored special events ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Chanhassen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Chanhassen .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming resident involvement ..... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Chanhassen government ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Chanhassen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in Chanhassen ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of Chanhassen (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Chanhassen ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of Chanhassen ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 14. To fund the repair and refurbishment of existing City park equipment, structures and playgrounds, the City is considering a permanent tax levy of $250,000 annually that would cost approximately $22 per year, per household. To what extent would you support or oppose this tax?  Strongly support  Somewhat support  Somewhat oppose  Strongly oppose  Don’t know 15. The City is considering a ballot question that would ask residents to approve a property tax increase of approximately $5 per month for a home valued at $430,000 in order to make general improvements to a number of community parks (e.g., Lake Ann Park, Bandimere Park, Lake Susan Park, and Chanhassen Recreation Center). To what extent would you support or oppose this property tax?  Strongly support  Somewhat support  Somewhat oppose  Strongly oppose  Don’t know 16. Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following strategic planning areas are to the overall quality of life in the City. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Don’t know Cooperation between governments ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Education ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Healthy community ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation and cultural opportunities ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Safe community ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Community and social supports ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 17. Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. Major Minor Not a source source source City website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 Local media outlets (newspapers, radio, local television stations) .......................................................... 1 2 3 The local government cable channel ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 The City newsletter – Chanhassen Connection ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 City Council meetings and other public meetings ................................................................................. 1 2 3 Talking with City officials ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 City communications via social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) ........................................ 1 2 3 Word-of-mouth ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 18. The City is considering ways to help address mental wellness in Chanhassen. Please rate how important, if at all, it is for the City to provide each of the following. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Don’t know Roundtable discussions on mental health for community members and stakeholders ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Mental health presentations to the public, with specific agenda and Q&A ....... 1 2 3 4 5 Mental illness/wellness trainings to help identify and provide support to individuals with mental health issues.............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Information about available mental health-related resources ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 The City of Chanhassen 2019 Community Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Chanhassen ............... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is:  Excellent  Very good  Good  Fair  Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:  Very positive  Somewhat positive  Neutral  Somewhat negative  Very negative D4. What is your employment status?  Working full time for pay  Working part time for pay  Unemployed, looking for paid work  Unemployed, not looking for paid work  Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Chanhassen?  Yes, outside the home  Yes, from home  No D6. How many years have you lived in Chanhassen?  Less than 2 years  11-20 years  2-5 years  More than 20 years  6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in?  One family house detached from any other houses  Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium)  Mobile home  Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home...  Rented  Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)?  Less than $300 per month  $300 to $599 per month  $600 to $999 per month  $1,000 to $1,499 per month  $1,500 to $2,499 per month  $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household?  No  Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older?  No  Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.)  Less than $25,000  $25,000 to $49,999  $50,000 to $99,999  $100,000 to $149,999  $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?  No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino  Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.)  American Indian or Alaskan Native  Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander  Black or African American  White  Other D15. In which category is your age?  18-24 years  55-64 years  25-34 years  65-74 years  35-44 years  75 years or older  45-54 years D16. What is your sex?  Female  Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number?  Cell  Land line  Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Chanhassen, MN Trends over Time 2019 1 Summary The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) 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 research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2019 ratings for the City of Chanhassen to its previous survey results in 2005, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Additional reports and technical appendices are available under separate cover. Trend data for Chanhassen represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than six percentage points between the 2016 and 2019 surveys, otherwise the comparisons between 2016 and 2019 are noted as being “similar.” Additionally, benchmark comparisons for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks, regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging survey methodologies. Overall, ratings in Chanhassen for 2019 generally remained stable. Of the 132 items for which comparisons were available, 95 items were rated similarly in 2016 and 2019, 36 items showed a decrease in ratings and one showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: • Most aspects for Community Characteristics remained stable over time. Twelve measures decreased from 2016 to 2019, with the majority concentrated within Built Environment and Economy. Other decreases within this pillar include ease of travel by bicycle, health and wellness opportunities, availability of affordable quality child care/preschool, and opportunities to participate in social events and activities. • Within Governance, ratings decreased from 2016 to 2019 for the overall quality of services provided by the City of Chanhassen and for most aspects of government performance, such as the overall direction the City is taking and the value of services for taxes paid. Declines were also observed in residents’ scores for Mobility, Natural Environment, and Built Environment, among others. • Compared to 2016, more residents reported campaigning for an issue, cause, or candidate in 2019, but fewer had walked or biked instead of driving, participated in religious or spiritual activities, or felt a strong sense of community in Chanhassen. The National Community Survey™ 2 Table 1: Community Characteristics General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Overall quality of life 93% 94% 97% 97% 96% 94% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Overall image NA NA 96% 93% 95% 90% Similar NA NA Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Place to live 95% 96% 98% 99% 97% 95% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Neighborhood 90% 91% 92% 94% 96% 94% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Place to raise children 94% 96% 98% 98% 98% 95% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Place to retire 50% 54% 75% 70% 74% 70% Similar Lower Lower Much higher Similar Similar Similar Overall appearance 80% 82% 94% 95% 93% 90% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Table 2: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Safety Overall feeling of safety NA NA NA 97% 97% 97% Similar NA NA NA Higher Higher Higher Safe in neighborhood 96% 97% 99% 98% 99% 99% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Safe downtown/commercial area 99% 98% 99% 98% 99% 99% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Mobility Overall ease of travel NA NA NA 90% 90% 89% Similar NA NA NA Higher Higher Higher Paths and walking trails NA NA 90% 90% 90% 87% Similar NA NA Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Ease of walking NA 75% 87% 83% 85% 79% Similar NA Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Travel by bicycle 70% 73% 85% 81% 83% 74% Lower Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Travel by public transportation NA NA NA 66% 59% 55% Similar NA NA NA Similar Higher Higher Travel by car 67% 72% 87% 92% 90% 90% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Public parking NA NA NA 87% 88% 85% Similar NA NA NA NA Much higher Much higher Traffic flow 51% 61% 77% 83% 81% 77% Similar NA NA Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher The National Community Survey™ 3 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Natural Environment Overall natural environment NA NA 94% 97% 95% 92% Similar NA NA Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Cleanliness NA NA NA 97% 96% 97% Similar NA NA NA Much higher Much higher Higher Air quality 90% 89% 92% 96% 97% 97% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Built Environment Overall built environment NA NA NA 83% 82% 72% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar New development in Chanhassen NA NA 81% 66% 69% 60% Lower NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Affordable quality housing 36% 43% 61% 63% 61% 48% Lower Lower Similar Much higher Higher Higher Similar Housing options NA NA 78% 79% 74% 75% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Higher Higher Public places NA NA NA 80% 83% 75% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Economy Overall economic health NA NA NA 90% 94% 89% Similar NA NA NA Much higher Much higher Higher Vibrant downtown/commercial area NA NA NA 55% 53% 49% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Business and services NA NA 73% 74% 73% 68% Similar NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Cost of living NA NA NA 53% 61% 51% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Shopping opportunities 39% 43% 50% 51% 54% 52% Similar Much lower Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Employment opportunities 38% 41% 39% 53% 68% 61% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Much higher Higher Place to visit NA NA NA 74% 79% 70% Lower NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Place to work NA 70% 69% 80% 82% 72% Lower NA Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Recreation and Wellness Health and wellness NA NA NA 92% 90% 84% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Higher Mental health care NA NA NA 77% 71% 67% Similar NA NA NA NA Much higher Higher Preventive health services NA NA 80% 88% 89% 85% Similar NA NA Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Health care 68% 77% 79% 89% 88% 83% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Food NA NA NA 75% 78% 76% Similar NA NA NA Similar Higher Similar Recreational opportunities 74% 82% 83% 87% 87% 87% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Fitness opportunities NA NA NA 90% 88% 82% Similar NA NA NA NA Higher Higher The National Community Survey™ 4 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Education and Enrichment Education and enrichment opportunities NA NA NA 87% 88% 84% Similar NA NA NA NA Higher Higher Religious or spiritual events and activities NA NA 83% 89% 85% 87% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Similar Similar Cultural/arts/music activities 40% 45% 54% 65% 67% 65% Similar Much lower Much lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Adult education NA NA NA 78% 73% 72% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar K-12 education 82% 87% 93% 95% 94% 92% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Child care/preschool 53% 65% 65% 78% 79% 69% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Community Engagement Social events and activities NA NA 73% 70% 75% 68% Lower NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Neighborliness NA NA NA 78% 80% 75% Similar NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Openness and acceptance 55% 62% NA 64% 64% 63% Similar Similar Similar NA Similar Similar Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA 70% 72% 75% 70% Similar NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Opportunities to volunteer NA NA 73% 79% 75% 74% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Table 3: Governance General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Services provided by Chanhassen 79% 82% 91% 91% 90% 82% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Customer service 77% 84% 89% 89% 89% 85% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Value of services for taxes paid NA 62% 63% 69% 71% 62% Lower NA Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Overall direction 64% 67% 76% 79% 77% 65% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Welcoming resident involvement 61% 65% 62% 67% 72% 59% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Similar Higher Similar Confidence in City government NA NA NA 75% 75% 64% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Acting in the best interest of Chanhassen NA NA NA 74% 76% 63% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Being honest NA NA NA 76% 79% 68% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA 74% 78% 68% Lower NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 49% 46% 46% 44% 47% 42% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar The National Community Survey™ 5 Table 4: Governance by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Safety Police 80% 82% 87% 95% 88% 89% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Fire 94% 92% 96% 98% 94% 95% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Ambulance/EMS 90% 91% 95% 96% 94% 93% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Crime prevention 77% 75% 90% 92% 89% 87% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Fire prevention 84% 83% 91% 93% 93% 87% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Animal control 71% 72% 77% 84% 79% 79% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Emergency preparedness NA NA 80% 82% 81% 76% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Higher Similar Mobility Traffic enforcement 67% 71% 76% 81% 79% 77% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Similar Higher Street repair 44% 53% 58% 67% 67% 56% Lower Similar Higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Street cleaning 68% 65% 78% 79% 80% 69% Lower Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Street lighting 61% 66% 73% 77% 78% 69% Lower Similar Higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Snow removal 78% 74% 81% 82% 86% 79% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Sidewalk maintenance 73% 76% 81% 82% 79% 74% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Traffic signal timing 45% 52% 60% 68% 57% 57% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Bus or transit services 63% 63% 65% 82% 78% 72% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Much higher Higher Natural Environment Garbage collection 87% 89% 93% 92% 89% 84% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Recycling 86% 84% 92% 92% 89% 80% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Yard waste pick-up 68% 68% 84% 81% 82% 67% Lower Similar Similar Much higher Similar Similar Similar Drinking water 51% 53% 70% 79% 78% 74% Similar Much lower Much lower Higher Similar Similar Similar The National Community Survey™ 6 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Natural areas preservation NA NA 78% 79% 75% 62% Lower NA NA Much higher Higher Similar Similar Open space NA NA NA 80% 75% 70% Similar NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Built Environment Storm drainage 74% 70% 82% 82% 82% 74% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Sewer services 78% 82% 86% 90% 93% 89% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Similar Higher Similar Power utility NA NA NA 85% 88% 86% Similar NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Utility billing NA NA NA 86% 83% 84% Similar NA NA NA Similar Similar Higher Land use, planning and zoning 50% 46% 64% 65% 66% 51% Lower Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Code enforcement 69% 70% 73% 75% 73% 70% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Cable television 44% 46% 46% 48% 37% 34% Similar Lower Lower Lower Similar Lower Lower Economy Economic development 61% 64% 68% 74% 79% 65% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Recreation and Wellness City parks 92% 91% 96% 97% 94% 94% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Recreation programs 84% 83% 90% 85% 82% 79% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Recreation centers 70% 68% 83% 84% 75% 68% Lower Similar Similar Much higher Similar Similar Similar Health services 82% 83% 86% 92% 91% 84% Lower Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Higher Education and Enrichment Special events NA NA NA 83% 85% 79% Similar NA NA NA Similar Higher Similar Public libraries 91% 91% 94% 96% 94% 95% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Community Engagement Public information 73% 76% 86% 85% 85% 80% Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar The National Community Survey™ 7 Table 5: Participation General Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Sense of community 67% 70% 80% 77% 80% 71% Lower Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar Recommend Chanhassen NA NA 98% 97% 97% 96% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Higher Higher Remain in Chanhassen NA NA 93% 95% 93% 89% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Similar Similar Contacted Chanhassen employees 57% 52% 48% 41% 44% 40% Similar NA NA Much lower Similar Similar Similar Table 6: Participation by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Safety Did NOT report a crime NA NA NA 86% 87% 93% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Higher Was NOT the victim of a crime 92% 95% 97% 94% 94% 96% Similar NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Mobility Used public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA 89% 23% 26% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Carpooled instead of driving alone NA NA NA 38% 44% 43% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA 60% 65% 58% Lower NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Natural Environment Conserved water NA NA NA NA 78% 79% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Recycled at home 95% 94% 98% 96% 98% 99% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Higher Higher Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation NA NA NA 80% 77% 76% Similar NA NA NA NA Much higher Much higher NOT under housing cost stress NA NA 73% 76% 78% 79% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Similar Higher Economy Purchased goods or services in Chanhassen NA NA NA 98% 97% 98% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 25% 28% 20% 28% 34% 40% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Similar Similar Work in Chanhassen NA NA NA 28% 27% 26% Similar NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Recreation and Wellness Used Chanhassen recreation centers 62% 63% 57% 59% 54% 56% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Visited a City park 93% 93% 90% 91% 93% 93% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Higher Higher Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables NA NA NA 88% 86% 86% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar The National Community Survey™ 8 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2019 rating compared to 2016 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity NA NA NA 89% 90% 92% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar In very good to excellent health NA NA NA 78% 83% 81% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Education and Enrichment Used Chanhassen public libraries 82% 86% 81% 77% 72% 71% Similar NA NA Much higher Similar Similar Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities NA NA 50% 53% 44% 38% Lower NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA 61% 64% 61% Similar NA NA NA NA Higher Similar Community Engagement Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate NA NA NA 15% 14% 21% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Contacted Chanhassen elected officials NA NA NA 15% 15% 16% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Volunteered 40% 41% 36% 40% 34% 35% Similar NA NA Much lower Similar Similar Similar Participated in a club NA NA 22% 25% 23% 22% Similar NA NA Much lower Similar Similar Similar Talked to or visited with neighbors NA NA NA NA 96% 96% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA NA NA NA 86% 88% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Attended a local public meeting 30% 28% 18% 17% 21% 20% Similar NA NA Much lower Similar Similar Similar Watched a local public meeting 39% 40% 22% 18% 10% 15% Similar NA NA Much lower Lower Lower Similar Read or watched local news NA NA NA 90% 85% 84% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Voted in local elections 93% 87% 87% 93% 88% 94% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Similar Higher CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Roundtable Section 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager File No: DISCUSSION 1. Strategic Planning Consultant CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated November 23, 2020 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the City Council minutes dated November 23, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated November 23, 2020 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 23, 2020 City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 23, 2020 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Jake Foster, Kate Aanenson, Charlie Howley, Jerry Ruegemer, and Matt Kerr PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the Interim City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 13, 2020 2. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 12, 2020 3. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 9, 2020 4. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 2020 5. Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated October 13, 2020 6. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 22, 2020 7. Award Consultant Contract for 2021 Street Improvement Project 20-05 8. Adopt Snow and Ice Removal Policy Update All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: An audience member commented on the upcoming city code amendment regarding storage of boat and trailers and recreation vehicles in the driveway. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Lt. Lance Pearce provided an update on call for service numbers for the month of October and comparisons to January through City Council Summary – November 23, 2020 2 October of 2019. Chief Don Johnson provided updates on staffing, calls for service and training during October for the Fire Department. CONSENT AGENDA: 9. RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHANHASSEN FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION. Councilwoman Coleman pulled this item to recuse herself from the vote. Resolution #2020-64: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approves the attached resolution and amended by-laws of the Chanhassen Fire Relief Association effective January 1, 2021. All voted in favor except for Councilwoman Coleman who recused herself from the vote due to a conflict of interest. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Heather Johnston provided an update on Metronet, the fire department is doing a Toys for Tots donation, the request of naming a part of Highway 5 in memory of Prince, but in fact the highway is already named for a legislator Augie Mueller, and asked for feedback from council members on putting a memorial sign in Prince’s honor on Audubon Road. CORRERSPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The council meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Jake Foster, Kate Aanenson, Charlie Howley, Jerry Ruegemer, and Matt Kerr Mayor Ryan: Good evening again everyone. Thank you for joining us tonight. Due to the increase in COVID numbers we have decided to conduct our city council meetings via Zoom for the time being. While I am in the council chambers along with a few of the members of city staff, our 4 council members are joining us via Zoom and since we are operating in this fashion I will be taking roll call votes throughout the meeting. For the record we have all of our council members present tonight so our first action is our agenda approval. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? Please respond with yeah or nay. Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: Nay. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Nay. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Councilwoman Coleman: Nay. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: Nay. Mayor Ryan: And Mayor Ryan nay. We will proceed with the published agenda. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the Interim City Manager’s recommendations: Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 2 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 13, 2020 2. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 12, 2020 3. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 9, 2020 4. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 2020 5. Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated October 13, 2020 6. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 22, 2020 7. Award Consultant Contract for 2021 Street Improvement Project 20-05 8. Adopt Snow and Ice Removal Policy Update All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Ryan: It is not going to be discussed tonight. It was at the Planning Commission I believe last week but if you would like to, it is going to come to council, is it our next meeting? December 7th or 14th. Audience: Okay I’ll pay more attention. Mayor Ryan: That’s okay, you’re always welcome so if you want to make a comment whether you’re in favor or not in favor, welcome your comments now. Audience: Well I’m in favor at least parking one trailer or recreational vehicle in the driveway. We all want…so I can understand people not wanting garbage out in front of their homes so I think there’s a financial impact…so that’s all I really had. I had some reasons behind it but that’s my… Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Well thank you for coming forward and like I said this public comment we will be taking this up, I just don’t know if it’s December 7th or 14th but thank you for coming and providing your feedback and it will be part of the consideration when we discuss it as a council. Audience: I’m sorry for side tracking. Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 3 Mayor Ryan: No, that’s what visitor presentations are for so you didn’t sidetrack us at all but if you wouldn’t mind signing in as well that would be great so thank you for coming tonight, we appreciate it. And there are no other residents here for visitor presentations so next up we have our fire department and law enforcement update. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Ryan: Do we have Lieutenant Pearce joining us via Zoom? Lt. Lance Pearce: I am present Mayor. Mayo r Ryan: Oh there you are. Hello sir. Lt. Lance Pearce: How are you doing this evening? Mayor Ryan: Doing well. How are you? Lt. Lance Pearce: Doing good. Mayor Ryan: Alright well if you want to provide your update that would be great. Lt. Lance Pearce: Madam Mayor and council I’m going to present the data from October’s activity. Total calls for service we had 872. Looks like almost half of our activity was traffic of those. 224 traffic stops. We had 36 property damage crashes. 6 personal injury crashes and those were due to the unusual amount of snow we received last month. I’m sure that was memorable for everybody and then we also had 5 DUI arrests out of that traffic activity as well. A few of the matrix I’ve been tracking for council. The domestics and the domestic assaults are both up slightly from previous months. Mental health is trending down and then frauds and thefts and trending up significantly. In the last 2 weeks we’ve noticed a spike in theft of mail from your mailbox specifically and earlier this week I did put out another social media prevention message on the City website. Should have gone out on the sheriff’s office website as well and then I also put some focused patrol and approved some additional overtime this last week in the hopes that we could catch whoever’s doing this. It’s concentrated in the downtown area so we’re putting some additional efforts towards that. And so what I did also I looked at our total activity and compared January through October of 2019 compared to January through October of 2020 and our total activity is only down 1.9 percent compared to last year so my guess is total activity for the year will be pretty comparative to what it was last year. And the only additional item I have is, over the weekend we did not have any calls for service for reported violations of the Governor’s Executive Order that went into effect Friday. Mayor Ryan: Great, thank you Lieutenant. Lt. Lance Pearce: And if anybody has any questions. Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 4 Mayor Ryan: Perfect thank you. Council are there any questions for Lieutenant Pearce? I guess I’ll go around so I know for certain. Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I guess the only question I’ve got is when you say there were no calls for service for the Executive Order. What exactly are we enforcing on that? Are you going after people not wearing masks or just gathering or what exactly are you enforcing? Lt. Lance Pearce: Well what we’re looking for is voluntary compliance from the public and so I think that’s what we’re getting right now at all since that order went into effect on Friday. Obviously that’s, the Executive Order has a number of different components to it and so it depends on specifically what you’re asking. What we’re asking from the public is because of the impact of COVID-19 and we’ve all been living through this for months now that we’re hoping that people will read the order. It’s been on social media. It’s been on the regular media. It’s on the internet that hopefully people will abide by that to allow us to hopefully get past all of the restrictions that are currently in place. Councilman McDonald: Okay thank you. I have no further questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman McDonald. Councilwoman Tjornhom any questions, comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Not at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Councilwoman Coleman: None from me thank you. Sorry the husband’s on a fire call right now. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: No questions here. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. It’s fun to see the little guy so. Lt. Lance Pearce I don’t have any questions either. Thank you for the report and really appreciate you staying on top of those numbers that we’ve asked for specific attention so thank you for bringing those back to your monthly reports. Lt. Lance Pearce: Thank you very much. Mayor Ryan: Have a good night. Lt. Lance Pearce: Thank you very much. Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 5 Mayor Ryan: Chief you’re up please. Chief Don Johnson: Mayor, Council this is our monthly report with stats from October. Staffing remains 44 paid on call firefighters with one on extended leave. November has held some challenges for us with quite a few staff being exposed, as I’m sure everybody understands in their personal lives so we’ve been working really hard with Jake and making sure we’re following all protocols for COVID in regards to exposures and just want to thank my staff, as much as council. These are citizen servants and with all that’s going on in the responsibility we have in the community coupled with what they’re dealing with in their family lives, they’re still here to respond. They’re still doing their job on a daily basis. With our schedule they’re still filling in for each other when we’re pulling people off to serve with quarantine so I’m exceptionally proud of our staff and what they’re able to do with all that’s going on right now. With that October we responded to 84 calls which is back to about our normal service level. I’m happy to say that those continue to trend our general alarms down using a day staff only model and our expanded duty crew. 41 of those were rescue and EMS calls as Lieutenant Pearce talked about we had 7 motor vehicle accidents in the month of October. We had 5 responses for structure fires. This small brush fire involving some juveniles that were started a fire in a very grassy remote area. We had one cooking fire and 3 structure fire responses with one residential fire on Highland Drive. A mutual aid to Long Lake and a mutual aid to Excelsior and we responded to one unauthorized burning call. With our duty crew staffing we’ve been able to ramp up our on shift training versus just pending on these Monday nights and I would like to be here stating our accomplishments in that area of reducing our overall training costs but unfortunately we’ve been forced to find this through COVID. I would like to reiterate that through some of those methods that we’re able to keep our staff from transmissions at work so kudos to the training staff for finding suitable and needed online training for staff but then limiting our hands on experiences to the duty crews that are assigned. Met with Superintendent Kevin Crooks of the public works and utilities in regards to the response mitigation plan for the west water treatment. As you know there is chlorine stored out there and part of the federal guidelines require you to meet and talk about response there. Out of that we’re planning an emergency drill sometime next year involving their staff members to train on things out there so we’ll make that that gets out so there’s no surprises. It’s a great opportunity to kind of combine in a functional exercise for emergency management. I had the opportunity on November 5th to participate with a virtual tour of the fire station for some students, young students in Spain. This was set up by one of our previous firefighters who has a mother in law that is an actual teacher in Spain so kind of a neat experience to do a station tour and use Zoom to meet with some elementary kids and show them a fire truck and fire gear and some of those things that we’ve really missed out on this year during Fire Prevention Week and get some of those experiences so we’re talking about potentially keeping that relationship up on at least an annual basis. It was a lot of fun. And then on November 5th, and then this is printed as November 21st from when I published this report but actually it turned into November 20th we assisted with the home games. We had to make a last minute change when they went from Saturday to Friday night but we, the Athletic Director Collin Bond had a lot of nice things to say about the fire department. We Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 6 appreciate being there but with the level of injury with both protecting the fans and players it’s an honor for us to serve and we’ve been doing that at least since I’ve been here over 7 years and so that continues and Go Storm. Great job. We assisted with the tank removal, part of the Fire Marshal’s responsibility at the old Marathon site so the tanks came out of the ground there which was a welcomed site for development and hope for some regeneration in that area. With that I can stand for questions. I’d say one thing, I kept myself a note and I’m glad I did. With Thanksgiving coming up nationally fires are based on food and cooking so I know some of us may be scaling back but if you are cooking, especially using turkey fryers please make sure that those aren’t on your decks and that they’re safely away from your homes but unattended cooking has some significant results so we wish everyone a happy gathering in whichever way they’re attempting to do that but please be safe with your cooking. And then secondary I was on the phone with another resident that called my office over the weekend. Unfortunately didn’t get a hold of anyone but had some concerns about several of his neighbors burning leaves so I’d like to reiterate as long as we’ve here is in Chanhassen you cannot burn your leaves. They have to be disposed of by bringing them down to a site or having your hauler take them away. Neighbors don’t really like to have smoke in the area. It generates calls for us and generates some concerns with the citizens so that’s my plug for tonight. I stand for questions. Mayor Ryan: Alright, thank you. Thank you for the friendly reminder on the burning of leaves as well. I’ll go around. Councilman McDonald any questions for the Chief? Councilman McDonald: No questions for the Chief at this time. Thanks Chief. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Councilwoman Coleman: No questions, thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: No questions. Mayor Ryan: And I don’t have questions either and I meant to say this before we began when Lieutenant Pearce was still on. I know a year ago in November at one of our November meetings we had your whole fire department and we had members from law enforcement and we took part of the beginning part of our meeting, since it’s the month of thanks. We took the time to recognize all of your team for their tremendous work and support and service to the city of Chanhassen so while we can’t have the council chambers full of the fire department and the Carver County sheriff’s office I just want to again express our thanks and gratitude for your service to the community and Lieutenant Pearce I hope you’re still on and listening. If not I’ll Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 7 send him an email but I just wanted to again acknowledge how much we appreciate all that you do for us. Oops, there you are. Just want to again acknowledge how much we appreciate all that you do for Chanhassen so, and I know with the holidays coming up, with Thanksgiving and Christmas and the few family events that a lot of time it’s your team that gets pulled away from the dinners and family time and serving our community and so we appreciate that, you know that commitment and that sacrifice that you provide on behalf of our residents so thank you very much. Lt. Lance Pearce: Thank you Mayor I’ll pass that onto my staff. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you Lieutenant. Thank you Chief. CONSENT AGENDA: 9. RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHANHASSEN FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION. Mayor Ryan: With no old business and no public hearings we’ll move onto new business and we removed consent agenda item number 9 to new business. I’m not sure who is going to, I know Julia brought this forward. If you want to share your question or comment on why you wanted to pull this off the consent and put it on the main agenda that would be great. Councilwoman Coleman. Councilwoman Coleman: Thank you Madam Mayor. As I had mentioned earlier my husband is a firefighter and so this item will directly impact me personally and our family so just out of an abundance of caution I did not want to personally vote on this item so I removed it from the consent agenda so no questions or anything like that. Just recusing myself from this vote. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you Councilwoman Coleman. Ms. Johnston if you want to provide or Chief, I’m not sure who’s going to provide an update on this item. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor, council members I can give a brief overview of the item and we actually have the Fire Relief Presidents here as well, Matt Kutz is here so this is an item that you get every 3 years and so it’s actually helpful that Councilmember Coleman pulled this so that we could give a little bit of an overview. Every 3 years the council considers as part of it’s budget process an increase to the firefighter relief pension and so what we do is we look at the KFS cities and what the increases over the past 3 years have been. We’ve generally rounded up if you will to just account for sort of the fact that we don’t make this an annual action and so to accommodate for that piece and what this means for the City from a payment standpoint because there is an actuary required contribution amount and that’s based on a whole bunch of things and I could talk pensions for a month but I won’t. I will keep it to the short version even though I get excited about pensions. Is really the basic thing, the mortality, the length of service, things like that that are all brought in together to really come up with what you’re required contribution is and the other big piece of it is investment returns so we get an actuary to actually give us what that contribution is. There should be just a minimal contribution impact in terms of, and that is Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 8 incorporated in our budget document so we make about a $50,000 contribution and so based, and we’ll get confirmation of that from the actuary when they do at that at the end of the year and that will become part of our CAFR but we don’t impact additional, impacts beyond what has already been taken into account in the budget document. I can stand for any questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Ms. Johnston. I will go around and ask if there are any questions. Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Councilwoman Coleman: No questions, thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: No questions. Mayor Ryan: And I don’t have any questions either and so with that thank you for the explanation Ms. Johnston. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor I should have said the Relief President is here because they did vote unanimously to agree to what the City’s budget recommendation is as well so I just wanted to make sure that for folks who are in the public who maybe didn’t read the item that that speaks. Sorry. Mayor Ryan: Did you want to, okay. I just want to make sure I provided you the opportunity if there was anything that you wanted to add to the report. I will take the head shake as a no. Alright with that is there a motion from any of our council members? Councilman McDonald: Madam Mayor I’ll make the motion. Mayor Ryan: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I would propose the motion that the City Council approves the attached resolution and amended by-laws of the Chanhassen Fire Relief Association effective January 1, 2021. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 9 Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman Campion. With a valid motion and a second I will take a roll call. Resolution #2020-64: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approves the attached resolution and amended by-laws of the Chanhassen Fire Relief Association effective January 1, 2021. All voted in favor except for Councilwoman Coleman who recused herself from the vote due to a conflict of interest. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor, council members I actually have several items today so the first is really an update on Metronet. I know there’s been a lot of interest and we’ve gotten additional inquiries from citizens as to that process and how that’s moving along. We haven’t yet gotten a draft franchise from Metronet but we have talked to an attorney who deals with these issues and we think that there are several things that we can do to start the process moving and so we will begin to do that. Some of those require council action. Some do not. The retaining of the attorney will require council action so we thought it might help us keep the process moving if we brought that to council at a future meeting. Also there are things that publishing are interested in seeking an additional franchise so we can do that without council action and so we are just, our read on council is do you want us to move forward on this to make sure that we give options to our residents on their cable and other internet options and so we plan on moving that forward. Number two. Sorry. Mayor Ryan: May I ask council, do you have any questions about Metronet? Okay. Heather Johnston: Number two just to let folks know that the fire department is doing a Toys for Tot donation and so we have a drop off for that as well. There’s lots of information on our website but I’d thought I’d take the opportunity since we had a bunch of fire folks here today, a bunch of fire items tonight to add that one to the list. And then number 3. The third item is really related to the conversations on the Prince sign. I wanted to just provide an update on that. Actually in preparation for this update for you all I did go back and look at the August 24th, re- watched the August 24th hearing when Mr. Finn came and proposed, made his proposal for changing street signs and council has since, he did during that presentation he actually mentioned Augie Mueller which for, I think didn’t really register with us because Augie Mueller was not a Carver County legislator but represented other counties so I think at the time that that Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 10 presentation was made staff did not realize that there a part of Highway 5 that was actually for Augie Mueller. We have since heard from his niece I believe with a concern. There are no signs up currently. We have kind of raised this issue to the legislators. Obviously that, the Highway 5 designation is something that is for the legislature itself to sort through. With respect to the local roads I think we have some to, we’ve gotten a bunch of feedback as you all know from residents about whether we should change it or not change it and may be the best course of action which is actually consistent with Mr. Finn’s comments from August 24th would be to do a memorial sign and not officially change the name of that. We don’t have, we can get, move forward and get estimates for that. I think Mr. Finn indicated he thought he would be able to do, to find funding for that but in terms of additional information other than the Augie Mueller piece we don’t actually have much more than was provided in the background absent additional guidance from the council so. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Ms. Johnston. I think the question here council and we’ll just go around and have a quick conversation about it is, you know if council in light of this new information that one Highway 5 already has a designation honoring Augie Mueller who was instrumental in getting Highway 5 to be a highway all the way out to Waconia and I’m not sure who if on council from the niece but it was a very emotional plea. Her family felt a little offended if I could use that word that we would consider renaming it and taking that away from her family because it’s something special to her family but as we know that that, that designation comes from the legislature so I know that it’s in their hands in terms of whether or not they want to move forward with it but I just wanted to bring that since our last meeting this was what was brought forward when it got put, I believe it was in the Star Tribune and then in the Villager second about the renaming of Highway 5 and then in terms of Audubon, I think a number of us, although we did as council receive positive comments you know from what I heard, the overwhelming majority was some of the challenges associated with actually change the name Audubon to something else because of what has been required. Homeowners, business owners to the process and expense to go through the name change and so when Heather was looking and reviewing the meeting that’s when she realized that we had discussed at another meeting having a memorial sign recognizing Prince’s contributions and memory and putting that sign up along the road so I think tonight what Ms. Johnston is looking for us, for direction from council is are we comfortable getting more information on a memorial sign that could be placed on Audubon and then if the legislature decides to do something then you know obviously they have that prerogative because that’s out of our jurisdiction. So when I go around if you could, if you questions of course present those. Any thoughts or additional comments but really looking for direction if you’re comfortable with moving forward with a memorial sign or if you still prefer a name change. So I’ll just go around here. Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: Yes Madam Mayor. I actually received an email and I thought it was his nephew and that was the first time I became aware that Highway 5 it’s from the split down with 212 all the way up to I believe it’s just past Audubon was what he told was the designation so I passed that information along. I agree that that part of it would be up to the legislature to decide what they want to do so I’m perfectly fine with putting that in their hands. I like the Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 11 option of doing the memorial signs on Audubon because of the impact it could have on the entire road and at least that way there is a recognition of Price and his contribution to the community and I think that that would be, I would support going forward with looking at a memorial sign. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman McDonald. Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes I’m in agreement with Councilman McDonald. I am all for moving forward and investigating the potential of having a memorial sign in Prince’s honor. Mayor Ryan: Wonderful. Thank you Councilwoman. Councilwoman Coleman? Councilwoman Coleman: I’m completely on the same page Madam Mayor. I agree that this kind of changes the scenario quite a bit and in favor of looking further into a memorial sign and again I will plug potentially purple if we can. Mayor Ryan: That is on the list. Charlie’s hard at work. Thank you Councilwoman Coleman. Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: Similar. I think the memorial sign given the extra background is the best path to proceed down. Mayor Ryan: Alright perfect, thank you Councilman Campion and I agree with the memorial sign and council I think too in addition to the sign we can’t forget that we have an entire neighborhood, The Park that new development where I believe there’s 8 roads in there that we approved all of those, those names that are named after Prince. His family. Some of his songs and they got approval in order to do that they had to get approval from the family so there is definitely homage being paid in his name and roads are named after him within the city of Chanhassen so I wanted to point that out as well so I think Ms. Johnston you have direction from council to pursue the memorial sign so thank you for bringing that back to us. And thank you for I know you and Mr. Foster have been working hard on the Metronet. This was one of our council priorities this past year that we hear from residents. I think we could all say if there’s one consistent message that we heard is the questioning of options and fiber and so I appreciate you pursuing that, and or I know they came to the City but really looking into that and coming back with a franchise agree if there’s the next step so thank you for looking into that and please pass along our thanks to Mr. Foster as well. Anything else in terms of administrative? CORRERSPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Ryan: Before we adjourn I would just like to wish my fellow council members, all city staff and all of our residents a very happy and safe Thanksgiving. Certainly a lot even in difficult times have a lot to be thankful for so just want to wish you and your family well and a very happy Thanksgiving. With that is there a motion to adjourn. Chanhassen City Council – November 23, 2020 12 Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The council meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Kate Aanenson, Charlie Howley, Jerry Ruegemer, Kelly Strey, Chief Don Johnson, and Matt Kerr EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING DISCUSSION. Chief Don Johnson reviewed highlights of the Carver County Emergency Management Program, what the City has done with emergency preparedness in response to Phase 2 of the pandemic and continued with discussion of the Continuity of Services Plan. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification of the City Council’s involvement in enacting the different phases of the plan. Heather Johnston thanked Chief Don Johnson for his effort in preparing the information for this. Councilman McDonald asked about who’s in charge during incidents. Mayor Ryan thanked staff for taking on this item for the after action review. BUDGET FOLLOW UP. Kelly Strey reviewed background of previous budget meetings and asked for feedback before the two December meetings when the budget will be adopted and the affect on property owners. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on the money projected for stormwater pond clean up. Heather Johnston discussed the Ehlers and Association rate study regarding if housing slows. Kelly Strey continued discussion of funding for future street projects. Mayor Ryan asked about the status of improving Market Boulevard. Charlie Howley explained that he is in discussions with Carver County on upgrading Galpin Boulevard. Councilman Campion asked about looking at neighboring KFS cities for what they have done with naming rights. Kelly Strey discussed the affects of using bonding for larger projects, use of the CARES funding Act, the addition of an IT position in 2021 or 2022, and financial management policies. Heather Johnston discussed changes to the snowplowing policy, and other direction staff has heard from council members. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 17, 2020 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated November 17, 2020 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 17, 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Connie and Joe Perttu 681 Sierra Trail MJ and Al Olson 7461 Windmill Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BOATS, TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick asked for clarification on the duration of time items can be stored on the property. Commissioner Reeder asked about hard surface coverage and storage on the side yard next to the driveway. Commissioner Noyes asked about side yard setback requirements. Commissioner Randall asked about enforcement. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Joe and Connie Perttu, 681 Sierra Trail discussed their support for this code amendment because they store their boat and trailer on their driveway currently during the summer. Mary Olson, 7461 Windmill Drive expressed concern with people pushing the boundaries with this ordinance amendment. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. After commissioner comments the following motion was made. Von Oven moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 2020. Planning Commission Summary – November 17, 2020 2 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on actions taken by the City Council at their October 26, 2020 and November 9, 2020 meetings and items for future Planning Commission agendas. Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Connie and Joe Perttu 681 Sierra Trail MJ and Al Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Weick: Just a quick review of the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. This is a Zoom meeting and we are getting I think good at it. Please be patient with us as we work through different types of phone and other methods of communicating. Please, to the commission members please do not hold conversations, chats or instant messages outside of this meeting with each other. All of our discussions must be public and on the public record. Again we have one item on tonight’s agenda. Staff will present the item. Planning Commission will have a chance to ask questions or clarifications of staff. We don’t have an applicant right? Aanenson: No, we’re the applicant, yep. Weick: Right. And after staff’s presentation and questions we will have a public hearing. We will summarize any emails that have been sent in and they will be read for the record. I believe those are summarized for us in the presentation. Anyone present in chambers may come forward and for their opinion of this item for the record. And we will also take telephone calls and a number will come up on the screen at the appropriate time if you are watching. At that time we will close the public once we’ve heard from everybody and everybody will be heard. We’ll close the public hearing and at that time the Planning Commission can comment and consider motions and a vote. This evening again we have one item. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BOATS, TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 2 Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. I think it might be helpful too tonight that if after we make our presentation that we take the public comment before we go around the Planning Commission because the public hearing might be a lot of genesis of some of the questions so. Weick: So your presentation directly into, okay. Aanenson: Yeah unless that’s something that is a burning question that we missed on that but I think that might help in the summary there too so. As you mentioned Chair the Planning Commission just makes recommendations so this item does go to the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So this, the genesis for this code amendment was based on the fact that there’s been some residents who have expressed a desire to store boats and trailers or recreational vehicles on their property. …history in our staff report goes back, the history goes back to the 70’s. 1972 and it said all storage had to be in the back yard and then that was modified to put it into a side yard. As we pointed out over time some of those lots in those PUD’s only have a 5 foot, 7 foot setback, side yard setback so it doesn’t always accommodate. And then in 1986 the storage of vehicles, again as I mentioned moved to the side yards. Again this ordinance has been in place for a number of years. I think people are kind of used to it and but there has been a lot of push to say you know, why can’t we put them in the driveway so what this amendment proposes to do is kind of look at all sides and come up with a potential solution. So the proposed solution is really look at one boat trailer or recreational vehicle be located within the driveway limits just storage the maximum of these two items in the outdoors. Adoption performance would mitigate any impact to the driveways so if you look through there’s 6 main criteria that were identified as concerns. And potentially those have changed you know. The storage area, and that storage area, one of the things we want to make that was identified is the storage area that it didn’t go over, because we wanted to make sure there’s sight lines if someone’s backing up that they can see around the neighbor’s driveway. You know whether it’s an RV or a large sailboat so that was one of the issues that was addressed. And then in addition to that the second was, has to do with the side yard setbacks, the 5 yard setback. We talked about that. It’s no, that’s kind of been the more prevalent one especially in the PUD’s so, but that flexibility of that and then whether or not there was hard cover so looking at how much hard cover would be added if you tried to enforce that sort of thing so right now people that are parking on their side or in their rear yard, typically that’s where you see the RV’s. They’re not always on hard surface and sometimes people put the rock on the side to accommodate that sort of need so those are some of the issues that we looked at too. And then the four was the size. Again an RV is a lot different than maybe a fishing boat. Looking at that sort of thing again. Looking at the setbacks to make sure that that’s being accommodated so you’re not creating a sight line. In addition to that you know there are a number of subdivisions that are governed by a homeowner’s association. Those homeowner’s association also regular outdoor storage but the City does not enforce those sort of things so this did not supersede that. Any HOA would have preference over that. So again staff believes that the limits, the indirect limits creating those vehicles would be in the front line. Addressed some of the concerns regarding sight lines and the hard cover and the like so just outdoor storage in general. Again people in the summer, they’re in, they’re out and some of it for the staff is that if you get a complaint you go out there and then Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 3 the neighbor says well I had it out for a couple days and it’s back in. Sometimes it’s a little hard to enforce to stay on top of those kind of issues. So many other cities permit outdoor storage in the driveway and prohibition again as I mentioned is difficult so the proposed changes would kind of make a more common practice within the city and still allow some outdoor storage. So as a part of this exercise MacKenzie Young-Walters on our staff who wrote this ordinance surveyed a number of other cities and looked at what they do and everybody, it’s kind of all over the map. Some don’t allow any. Some say seasonally and the number. Typically limits for the number of vehicles. The type of vehicles. The length of the vehicles. The height of the vehicles. Curb setbacks. Demonstration of viable alternatives so if you have nowhere else to put it then you could put it in the driveway. And then the required side setback. Again typically there must be, meet the building setbacks so, so it wouldn’t project if the garage is the, or the fence is the furthest point going forward then it couldn’t exceed that so then the number of vehicles. Some had no limit and some had limits on the numbers of vehicles and then permitted surface. Whether or not that was improved surface or unimproved. Again that’s one of the things that we run up against to. A lot of times people are parking them on the side yard want to put some sort of improved surface for them so that came into play so again while this is good anecdotal information every city kind of reflects their unique attributes. Whether there’s a lot of lakes in the community like we have in Chanhassen have a number of lakes and along for that so this proposed change would allow trailer and boat or recreational vehicle be stored in the driveway. It limits the property the storing a maximum of trailed boats or recreational vehicles. So if you had a, maybe a camper with a snowmobile trailer, you know fishing boat with some other type of trailer, looking at those sort of things as being part of the two. So includes boats and trailers and provision requiring stored items to be clean, well kept and operable condition. So and that’s the same process we do if there’s unlicensed vehicles stored in your driveway. Those are also, those would get a letter from code enforcement on that too if it’s unlicensed or inoperable so as not to be junky. So again prohibit the storing of extraneous materials within the recreational vehicles so again to be kept in slightly. You know maybe there’s like a topper on, or the like so the proposed code amendment represents a change to the highly visible long standing city ordinance so we really wanted to make sure that we raised awareness of this. We put an ad in the paper. It’s been out on our Facebook and then we wanted to make sure that we had the opportunity for a lot of feedback to provide comment on a number of social media platforms. So we did received some feedback. I’m not going to try to read the whole thing so but we did receive I would say it’s 60/40, 50/50 it’s pretty close so the first comment came in before we met tonight so it wasn’t actually formalized yet so…that person may want to speak. So the next one would be from Grover, Jeff Grover against the proposed changes. Many people have too many cars in their driveway already and so then there’s the Jeff and Barb Piesheck against the changes. If not enforced maybe it could look awful. People…relatives, friends maybe they might store their boats there so it’s kind of different like when you store maybe a docking rights it has to be in your name. The boat, you can’t be leasing out your storage space. I guess that’s kind of what that concern might be there so then the comment from Ms. Simpler, enforcement difficult to comply with, unfair enforcement. Difficult to comply with existing and we would concur with that. I mean it is hard right now to enforce you know if someone sends us, a typical process is we would send out a letter that says you’re in violation. You get so many days to rectify the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 4 situation and maybe the boat’s moved but not for long and then it comes back so, so then McRyan’s support the change… Steven Brown…damaging landscaping. That’s another problem we talked about. If you have shrubs or trees or something and you’re not going to get your storage in the side yard so they are not looking… Mary Jane Olson. Against the policy change. Already complained that there’s a lot of driveway storage in neighborhoods that can change the property values and aesthetics. And that’s the one complaint we get right now when someone’s having maybe a graduation party or wedding group and they don’t want to have to do their group to have to look at the outdoor storage. Then…someone supports ordinance. Change to allow boats, trailers, recreational vehicles be stored in the driveways even in the summer. Then Jeffrey Williams absolutely not. Each one has some…regarding this. Chanhassen…should the ordinance change so our property values, you could add garbage cans to out of sight too. We do try to enforce that. That’s another that is difficult to enforce. People put them out in the morning. Go to work late that night so that is, they don ‘t pick up the next morning. That one too we’re supposed to be behind. That’s one we do enforce. To go back to the other comment about long time to change. This is something if the council did choose to act on it that we would really do a large media launch on this and talk what the rule change would be. If it didn’t change you know talk about we didn’t or the council didn’t change it to make sure that people understand that. Doug Peterson, don’t see a modification with staying in place at this time in relations to outside storage. Allen Nickolai, the less government intervention the better. Pete Keller enforce the current ordinance. It’s meant to keep our neighborhoods looking nice. Krissy Erwall. Outdoor storage in the winter sure. Outdoor storage if used, outdoor storage junk in back yard and we do get that complaint too. Sometimes people put an RV or boat in the back yard and that can also be unsightly. Sometimes someone’s back yard might be somebody’s side yard so. And then the last one we got today was from Alan Goshen. I personally think that if the resident wants to store their boat and trail, RV in their driveway, that’s perfectly fine. I prefer to see the alternative of putting them on the grass next to the house. I’d like to see the residents move at least to the side of their house if the driveway allows for it these objects move to the side of the house as much as their driveway allows and again that’s sometimes the length of the side yard isn’t large enough then that’s something we could take into consideration then that maybe they shouldn’t have it there so these are all factors that we thought about too. You know maybe it doesn’t make sense so with that we went through, I’d take any questions on the ordinance itself before we open up the public hearing but what I would recommend then is opening it up for comments but before we do that I’d be happy to answer just any general questions that the Planning Commission, just general questions on the ordinance and then we would, yep. Weick: Yeah the public will be just in a minute. I’m going to open it for Planning Commissioners if there’s any specific that you would like clarified about the code change with Kate we can do that at this time. And I think I’ll give people a chance. I’ll start. Can you clarify the before and after position on duration so long things can be stored on the property? Aanenson: Well the duration, there is no limit on that. Weick: There is not, okay. I just wanted it clarified. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 5 Aanenson: So right now if it’s on the site so, that’s the way they’re supposed to be. So if you take it out of the lake it’s supposed to be in your side yard. Sometimes people say they’re going to go out again in a couple of days so that’s kind of that chase that we’re always making and that’s where the complaints come in. It’s like well why do I have to put it away when I’d be out again in 2 days. Weick: And we’re not proposing a change to that policy moving forward? Aanenson: Right. What we’re saying is you could have it parked in the driveway, yep. Weick: Right, okay. Any other, any questions or clarifications specifically on the code? Reeder: Mr. Chairman what’s our position on the hard surface? Weick: We do not have a requirement. Aanenson: Correct. We do not have a requirement that that be on hard surface. I think some people are reticent to take them off the driveway because they don’t want to park it in the grass so therefore often they’ll put rock or patio blocks or the like to get a hard surface on the side or the rear yard so they’re not parked on the grass. And it’s easier to get it out in the spring. Weick: So there’s no, there were no requirements for hard surface before or after? Aanenson: Correct except that we would assume that the driveway would be the hard surface. Weick: I’m sorry, yeah. Aanenson: No worries. Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. Is there any requirements related to setback from the property line from a neighbor’s property? Aanenson: No. That’s a good question. So right now if you’re in your side yard setback there is none so I think that sometimes is a rub depending on the location. So the proposed ordinance says you have to, you can’t be over that property line. The sight line. Currently if you put it in your side yard that’s the one thing that there’s no natural setback from. If you were to put any other structure, a deck or something like that there would be a setback because was viewed back in the 70’s as temporary and has never evolved from that. It could be a while for the winter. Weick: But there’s a front yard setback for the driveway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 6 Aanenson: It goes with this one correct and that’s for sight line purposes, correct. Reeder: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Reeder. Tell me again what you just said about the side yard and the front yard. Aanenson: So there could be a front yard setback. So limiting that. The storage. The length of a vehicle would be affected so they’re not exceeding the front yard setback. But currently today if you wanted to park a boat in your side yard there is no setback. So if you had 10 feet and your boat width was 9 ½ and you could fit it in there, that would be permitted. Reeder: In the front yard. Weick: In the side yard. Reeder: Side yard. Aanenson: Yep. Reeder: But what is being proposed you could put it in the front yard in the side yard setback. Aanenson: No. Just in the driveway on the front yard setback. Reeder: I’m sorry, I can put my boat beside my driveway in the setback or not under the proposed? Aanenson: The proposed allows you to put it on your driveway. So you’re on a hard surface. You’re on your driveway so it’s easier for you to get it in and out to use. Not having to back it up, put it into your side yard. Reeder: So you’re saying you cannot put it in the side yard. Aanenson: The goal is to allow you to put it in your driveway, correct. Weick: I’ll give it a shot. As it stands today you can put a trailer, RV, boat in your side yard if it does not protrude past the front of your house so it can’t stick out past the front of your house and it can go as close to, there is no setback rule so it can go as close to your side yard property line as long as you don’t go over that, right? So if you have 10 feet on your side yard, Kate’s point was you could put a 9 ½ foot trailer there wide but you couldn’t put a 10 ½ trailer because you’d be into your neighbor’s property at that point. With the new proposal that doesn’t change. So you can still store trailers and RV’s that way or you can put them in your driveway. The setback for the driveway is from the street so there is a, every property has a front yard setback. It’s usually 10 feet and I’m guessing ish so you cannot encroach, so you couldn’t park your RV or trailer within that 10 feet of the street roughly, and don’t quote me on that but it’s roughly 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 7 feet. So you couldn’t have it real close to the street where people couldn’t see potentially if they were pulling out of their driveway or something. If a neighbor was pulling out or if there was a sidewalk, you can’t block the sidewalk. Aanenson: So the language that we’re proposing is on page 11 of the staff report and so what we’re saying is that, just as you said Chairman, it allows you the additional opportunity to park it in your driveway but so what we struck out is the old, it used to say you could only put it in your side and rear. That’s the only place it could be stored. So now we’re giving the flexibility to put it on your driveway. We’re not saying you can add additional hard cover and put it on your side yard. If you want to continue to use your side yard because that’s obviously out of sight, that’s your choice but it does allow you the opportunity to store it on your driveway. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. Weick: Yeah. Reeder: Why are we not allowing it in the side yard setback next to the driveway? Aanenson: In the front yard? Reeder: In the front yard. Sitting next to the driveway where mine is. Aanenson: Well we felt it was probably more sight aesthetic when you’re pushing it closer to someone else’s property in the front yard as opposed to behind the house where you don’t have the line of sight. So I think part of the challenge there too is, by default it creates what you can store on your driveway. So if you put your RV and your additional off to the side in the front and you can still put 2 or 3 cars in there so it’s, having a boat or trailer there it’s limiting the capacity so it’s kind of a capacity issue. So it comes down to aesthetics too. Reeder: The problem is if you put your boat or trailer in your driveway you can’t get your out of the garage. Aanenson: Correct. That’s what I’m talking about it’s a capacity issue, right. Reeder: So essentially you’re not allowing them to store it in the driveway. Weick: There’s going to be potential limitations with several different types of properties. There could be driveway limitations. There certainly could be side yard limitations. We have a lot of different types of property designations that have very small side yards and side yard setbacks. That’s a limitation right? They can’t put trailers on the side of their house because it’s not wide enough. And unfortunately those conditions exist. I think we’re doing our best to try and talk about proposing something that you know potentially helps, you know helps the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 8 situation. Certainly if we’re not helping it then we should consider that as well. But yeah it certainly isn’t going to solve it for every home and for every situation. Von Oven: Just another clarification point I guess. Where do, where would personal watercraft fall under this definition? Is that a boat? Is it a recreational vehicle or is it not covered by this language? Aanenson: The way…boat or a trailer in the city code. Von Oven: Okay so we would say a pwc is a boat? Aanenson: Yes. Von Oven: Okay got it. And then this is a really dumb question but I’m going to ask it anyway. Because boats and trailers are called out separately, if one has a boat on a trailer is that two? Does that now make the maximum that they are allowed to store? Aanenson: No. Von Oven: So a boat trailer combination is one. Aanenson: Correct, that is assumed. The same as a snowmobile and a snowmobile trailer. That would be, yep. Or it could be a trailer with some canoes on it. That would be considered the one. Von Oven: Got it, okay thank you. Weick: Commissioner Randall it looked like you were trying to say something before. Randall: I had the exact same question. I do have a question about enforcement. Who determines if a vehicle is operable or not and how is the code enforced? Aanenson: Yeah so that’s how we’re enforcing vehicles right now. So typically those are complaint basis. Maybe it hasn’t moved all summer and so that would just be an inquiry. Or maybe it’s been sitting there for 2 or 3 years and hasn’t moved so that would be complaint driven. Randall: Okay. Aanenson: Just to be clear I said that in the beginning too. We don’t have the staff to go around and driving looking for those kind of things so just like any other, trash being left out or something, those are all complaint driven. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 9 Weick: Anyone else right now for Kate? Okay great, we will have a chance again to talk. Do not worry but at this time I would like to open the public hearing portion. Kate did summarize the emails and/or calls we received prior and thank you Kate for that. That was very helpful. At this time anyone present who would like to come forward and offer an opinion on this item please do so. Just state your name and address for the record and then I would ask that you, there’s plastic over the microphone and just talk as loud as you can so everyone can year you. Joe Perttu: Testing? Keep the mask on? Weick: That’s your choice. That’s fine. Joe Perttu: Good, good. Thank you for the opportunity to talk. My name is Joe Perttu. This is my wife Connie. We live at 681 Sierra Trail in Chanhassen. 681 Sierra Trail so we overlook Kerber Pond and it’s funny to me that the person that actually created a lot of these complaints isn’t even here right now I mean to address why you know he felt like it was his duty to complain because obviously this is complaint driven. That’s the way that I was told that after 15 years of living here that we have to move our boat off the driveway. I had some notes here I was taking. Can you continue to talk? Connie Perttu: Well I mean our’s has always been in the winter, we have a storage place for it in the winter but in the summer you know it’s like, we have like a 3 wide driveway but a 2 car garage so in that third area is where it’s stored. Joe Perttu: And it’s improved. It’s tarred. Connie Perttu: And we have a, you know it’s always clean in perfect shape and has a cover on it and everything too. I mean it’s never been an issue there. Joe Perttu: Also I’d like to add that in the winter time we do store it somewhere else so it’s not on the driveway. I understand the situation where people don’t want all kinds of clutter. I think we all are here to make sure the city stays beautiful and we’re not over using it with old rickety junk that doesn’t work so I mean I think the establishment does some guidelines of that car ought to be usable or off the driveway for at least a portion of the summer. I think we can all agree that that’s reasonable, right. So for me it’s a financial issue too. Like I say when, if I was not able to keep my boat on the driveway I mean it costs me about $400 to have it stored for the summertime and it’s far less convenient to use and you know recreational vehicles are, they’re to be used and hopefully you can get them out without having to take a drive for 10 minutes or so. I want to make sure that you understood that I have improved property. Improved surface. Again 3 stalls. We have that third stall for this particular purpose. To park a boat and we happen to be one of those homes that do not have enough of a side yard. It’s not like I have a cruiser boat that is ready for the ocean here. We’re talking about a 19 foot boat. Just a regular fishing boat but it’s like 9 ½ feet wide at the base of the trailer and I’ve got like a 9 foot 8 inch side yard and it ain’t going in there that’s for sure so thank you for your patience but I just wanted to let Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 10 you know there’s financial impacts to these families that would have to move their vehicles off the driveway and I find it nonsensical. Again we’ve been here for 15 years and we have a very nice home and none of our neighbors are complaining about my boat on the driveway so. Connie Perttu: I just have one quick question on this as well. Is there a limit to how many cars can be in the driveway? Are those conditions of the cars that are there? Are there any of those codes? Aanenson: No. Connie Perttu: I’m just curious, okay. Aanenson: So just to be clear this is allowing, this ordinance amendment allows to keep your boat in your driveway. Connie Perttu: Yeah, right. Just checking to see… Weick: And cars are not included. Aanenson: Cars are not included. Connie Perttu: How many cars someone wants in their driveways. Aanenson: That would be a nuisance if they’re blocking or sight lines, yep. Connie Perttu: Got it. Joe Perttu: Thank you for your time. Weick: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to come forward. Just please state your name and address and talk loudly into the microphone if you can. Mary Olson: Hi, I’m Mary Olson. I live at 7461 Windmill Drive. Weick: Welcome. Mary Olson: I’ve lived in Chanhassen at this current location 26 years. We were one of the neighborhoods that had the covenants where we had our own bylaws and for the most part everybody followed them and they over the years have kind of gotten lax. Disappeared. People have moved, moved out, never saw the covenants and I get that but we’re very concerned about our neighborhood and the way that it looks and I understand it’s an issue trying to get around and enforce this but I think it’s very important because we already have a lot of people that are taking advantage of it or you wouldn’t be getting the complaints and I appreciate the way that you guys Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 11 are handling it with your boat and you have a nice boat and you have it clean and you keep it in a hard surface area and, but not everybody is that responsible and we currently have people, you talked about the garbage bins. They’re not just left out overnight. They’re there every day, every night, always because that’s where they keep them and there’s the recycling bin. The garbage bin. The yard waste bin. Then we’re now going to let them have 2 boats. Most of them have 3 vehicles so those vehicles are going to end up in the street so that they can come and go and I’m just very concerned about the people, unfortunately we’re not all responsible and you always have the ones that push it and I’m not saying we need to complaint about everybody and everything that they do. We have to get along. I understand that but there also has to be some way to kind of push responsibility on the ones that take advantage and that’s my concern. Thank you. Weick: Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come forward may do so at this time. I don’t know if we want to show the phone number as well. We have the phone number up as well. We’ll just give that a minute. I’ll take that time to say thank you to everyone who took the time to come in this evening and meet with us, especially with the health issues and everything like that. I can speak for the entire Planning Commission when I say that I don’t believe that there’s a more important voice than the voice we hear from neighbors and residents on issues, especially issues like this. It’s something that we were talking about earlier and we all, you know we all have opinions but it’s so important to hear everybody’s opinion and to really weigh that heavily. Especially if we’re thinking about making a code change. So thank you and thank you to everybody who emailed or called in prior as well. With that the phone’s not ringing so I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s matter and open it up now for commissioner discussion and comments and/or motions. Skistad: Commissioner I would just like to confirm that I believe that there’s covenants already in the neighborhood that this does not supersede the covenant so if a neighborhood has bylaws set up they still follow their bylaws so I just wanted to, that’s just a point of clarification. Aanenson: That would be correct, yep. Weick: As we’re thinking about this I jotted a couple notes that I ask the commissioners to think about. You know it’s a big decision to make a code change obviously and I would say consider you know in your opinion do you feel like we’re improving the situation or the physical appearance of the city. I think that’s an important thing. That’s something I was considering as I was reading through this is, you know we want to be sure that we’re not doing something that is detrimental to the overall appearance so I would ask you to keep that in mind as well. You know that being said I think you can make, I mean I’ve seen boats and RV’s stored around the city in a lot of different ways. I’ve seen them look really good in driveways. I’ve seen them look not so great in driveways. I’ve seen them look really great in the side yard and I’ve seen cases where I’m like wow, I wouldn’t want to look at that in my side yard right so I think that that scale can go either way as far as aesthetics are concerned. I’m just kind of thinking out loud but hopefully that helps as you think about this item. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 12 Von Oven: I know in the report it said we don’t have the staff to proactively monitor. Do we have stats on in a given year how many, I don’t even know what to call this but how many front yard boat related complaints we receive that we then react to and try to deal with? Is that a weekly thing? Is that a monthly thing? Is that everyday? Aanenson: Not everyday. I would say there’s probably one every week or two for sure, yeah. Audience: With different people or? Aanenson: Yes. Yeah. Weick: Maybe as people are thinking about this and thinking about if they want to read a motion or not, I will, I’ll walk through what are kind of the six areas that were laid out in the report and as I understand it what the revision to the code would include. The first was driveway. Right now we do not permit RV’s or boats and trailers in the driveway. Under the code amendment we would allow up to one in the driveway. As it’s written. Aanenson: Up to two. Weick: Up to two as it’s proposed. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay, thank you. Kind of was wrong on that. For side yard setbacks there’s no side yard setback other than what the property line that exists today and that would continue. We do not have any requirements for the surface to be finished underneath the vehicle or the trailer and that would move forward except the understanding that a driveway is finished, that’s an assumption. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: There’s no change, there are no size requirements today and there’s no change to that. This is one I probably need your help on Kate. The number of vehicles, as I understand it right now is unlimited. Just RV’s and boats and trailers. Aanenson: Two. Weick: It is two today? Aanenson: No, now that’s unlimited you’re correct. Weick: It is unlimited and it would be going to a maximum of two. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 13 Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay. And then there’s no change to the duration. Aanenson: And then just to clarify again, you kind of said this but this is to Commissioner Reeder’s comment. So you can still park in the side yard but you can’t go past the front yard setback. So if you still choose to put it in your side yard, some people have hard surface on the side…but you can still continue but you can’t move it to the front of the house and put it in the side yard. It can’t extend past of the house. Weick: Which is no different than today. Aanenson: That’s exactly right so that wouldn’t change. So you could still continue to put it on the side. Von Oven: So just to clarify Commissioner Reeder is currently breaking the law. Weick: Don’t make this more difficult. So on the first thing I’m going to kind of throw out maybe the first curve ball to this but when you think about the driveway I’m just posing a question to my fellow commissioners. Would it make sense to limit the number of vehicles in the driveway? Does that make any difference at all in your opinions? In other words it’s one thing, you know one RV or trailer in the driveway and then somewhere else. That would be your two instead of two in the driveway. I don’t know. I’m just asking that question. Von Oven: I’m glad you asked the question actually because I was under the understanding that that’s the way the code is currently written. So if I’m page 11, Section 4, Part A, one impacted vehicles in the driveway and then I read it to say Part B says they can also be stored over there but somewhere along here there’s a maximum of two. So Part 4(A) to me says that only one can be in the driveway. Aanenson: That’s how it’s written, that’s correct. Von Oven: Okay. So I believe that from the way I read it there is a one vehicle, boat trailer limit in the driveway and then if I have another one and I want to throw it in the back or on the side yard as long as it doesn’t protrude into my neighbor’s yard then that’s okay so I think that limit actually already exists. Weick: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Maybe that’s where I remember it from. Okay. Audience: Are we allowed to speak at all? Weick: We’ve closed the public portion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 14 Reeder: Mr. Chair? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: I think we’re not solving the whole problem that I see here. There are in my estimations a number of recreational vehicles, boats or whatever on the side yard in the front yard now and at same time we’re trying to deal with the problem that there are people parking in the driveway. I would argue that there are a similar number of people that are parking on the side yard in the front of the house and there are houses that have no side yard possible to on their side of the house so I think that we should allow whatever number we agree on to be parked also in the side yard in the front yard. Weick: If I could just get clarification on that. You really mean front yard. You don’t mean side yard, you mean the front yard. Aanenson: All the way to the property line. Reeder: I mean in front of the house in the side yard. Off the driveway. Do you understand? Weick: I guess yeah. And I think that would be, I mean today that’s not permitted and I think it would not be permitted in the new code either. Aanenson: Right and that’s what he said. Reeder: With that I would suggest that we should change it and I might offer that amendment because I think you’re only solving part of the problem that staff is trying to deal with. They will be able to get rid of all the non-conforming vehicles that they have that are now also on the side of the driveway in the front. Weick: Okay. Any other thoughts on that point from Commissioner Reeder from other Commissioners. Von Oven: I think I would maybe offer a different opinion. I think while there’s probably no perfect code amendment that is going to solve this problem perfectly in every single person’s best interest, I was really impressed by everything that this hit on the way through. Everything from not making people create more paved surfaces so that we live in a concrete jungle but limiting the number of vehicles that could actually be put in the driveway to one when it comes to these boat and trailers and RV’s. I think expanding it to say go ahead and put everything in the front yard whether it’s on the side of the front yard or in the driveway or in the middle of the front yard I think that creates a little more mayhem for, I forget who said it but the people who are not really conforming. The people who don’t have things kind of put together and they want it on display in the front yard so I would not, I would not be in favor of expanding it to the rest of Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 15 the front yard. I think the whole point of all of this is trying to keep things in your own yard. Out of the view of your neighbors but we’re going to allow one in the driveway. You know if I think about how many calls we’re getting a year and now I’m just going to make up statistics because we don’t know but if we’re getting a call a week right, what are the chances that all 52 of those are for somebody’s boat that is on the side of the driveway versus in the driveway right, so I disagree that we’re not going to be solving any of the problem. I think this actually will solve a lot of the problem. It’s still going to leave something to be desired but I’d be open to ideas of how to perfectly solve this so I am in favor of what’s being proposed here. I know there will be some push back but I think, if I think about the best way to allow what we should be allowing people to do on their property without creating mayhem in the front yard, I think this is a nice balance that along the way as this goes to City Council might there be an amendment to it that makes it even better? Maybe but I think it’s a really, really good start. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: And I would second what he said. I agree with him. I thought MacKenzie did a fabulous job writing this up and listed all the issues and it was very clear overall why we’re looking at the changes and some of the best ways to go about that. Aanenson: If I may Chairman, I think one of the things we talked about internally is this is a big change and so we want to, you can start an ordinance on a certain date so we anticipate maybe this is the summer. We started at the end of the summer, we spend some time because there are people that are non-conforming and have been for a while. So to, so we could start that adoption at a later date but spend the summer educating people the direction, the general direction that you choose to go and try to get compliance and conformance and explain all that. Noyes: Chairman, Commissioner Noyes. I would also agree with Commissioner Von Oven. I think the word that he used that I think really kind of epitomizes this is balance. This isn’t going to be perfect but I think we’ve got to balance the needs of the people who have the boats and the RV’s and whatever to store with the views of the neighbors in that neighborhood. There’s many more people that are not storing things in their yard than there are and some of those people are not real happy about you know their neighborhood having a different look because of all of this but I also think we’ve got to make sure that we have solutions for people that do have these things and I think the way it’s set right now is I think that balance is struck pretty well and would be against expanding this so that the front yard was included in it. I think that would start to really kind of change what we’re trying to do here and I think push the balance too far in one direction so that’d be my comment. Weick: Thank you. Randall: Commissioners I also feel the same way. I feel maybe some comments about the balance. These were really good. People that know me know that I believe in personal property rights. However there are, this is a good balance. It allows for people to still have these items in Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 16 their driveway. It’s just not wanting to accumulate to the point where it becomes a problem so I think it’s a good balance for the neighbors that have to look at this stuff and also to that these people who want to have these items also. That’s all I’ll say. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Randall. Sounds like we’re working towards a decision which is nice. I think balance is hard. We’re taking the harder route having to get to this point. I think it’s easier to say all or nothing you know, those are easier things to do. I think it’s much more difficult to try and reach a balance. And I will admit I struggle. In one minute I think awesome and then in the next minute I think what are we creating but I think at the end of the day there’s a situation that already exists here and I think we’re, I think we’re trying to help. I do. Von Oven: So here’s what I would offer for folks who may not know. So we’re the Planning Commission and as you said right we have the opportunity to take what MacKenzie has created and move it forward to City Council but we’re not the end all to be all. So at the end of the day the City Council has to vote on this and as much as I think we have an important role to play, I think people pay a lot more attention when things go to City Council than when they come to Planning Commission so it’s my hope that if we as a council approve this, or recommend this tonight and it goes before City Council it will get a bit more attention and it’s also my hope that people will offer potential amendments to even make this better. I’m fine personally with it as it is but as a city we might be able to group think our way to a slightly even better motion so with that I would offer a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. And do we have a second? Randall: I’ll second that. Weick: A fervent second from Commissioner Randall. Before we vote I give anyone a chance to offer any last opinion for the record. I would say that I don’t believe we are suggesting any changes to what’s been written and proposed by staff. I guess that’d be one of the purposes that we have which is, is there anything that we found that we would like to see added or changed from the new code as it’s written and so I think we’re by offering this motion we’re saying you know we’re good with this code kind of moving past this step in the process. So we have a valid, anyone else? That was really rude. Is there anyone else that would like to make comment about the item before we vote? Reeder: Mr. Chair? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: I’m going to vote for this motion because I do agree with staff that this moves in the right direction. My thought was that it could move even a little further but I think that’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 17 something that we could take up maybe several years after we see how this change goes. And just for the record I wasn’t proposing that we put vehicles all over the front yard. I was only suggesting that the area between the driveway and the side yard setback next to the driveway could be used to allow somebody to be able to fully use their driveway for what it was intended for cars, and also get their recreational vehicle in a place that they could use it so I will support it but I think it could go further. Weick: Thank you. And to Commissioner Von Oven’s point as with all the comments that have been made tonight. They are part of the record. That record is reviewed by City Council in detail and that point could be one you know that is reviewed and possibly added at the City Council level so thank you for that. Anyone else with comment before we vote? And hearing we’ll do a roll call vote. Von Oven moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: So the item will move forward to City Council with a unanimous recommendation of 6 in favor, zero against. Again thank you to everybody on the commission, staff, residents who came tonight to voice their opinion as well as those residents who emailed and called in prior to this meeting. That is the most important part of this. This isn’t difficult and I do feel comfortable that we’ve passed something to City Council with good research and good opinion so thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And Kate do you have a City Council update? Aanenson: While I’m looking for that I was also going to give you an update on your next coming agenda. We actually have 3 items on the next agenda. We’ve got a rezoning for a piece of property that wants to do a PUD. We have a subdivision. I think we talked about that before. Deer Haven on Yosemite and then the final one is the, this auto repair business at 101 and Lyman Boulevard so it’s a 10 day. Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our staff worked really hard to get really nice architecture on that and so they did resubmit. They asked to be tabled so I think it’s a much better drawing. So City Council update. Here we go. So the Bluff Creek, the Bluffs at Lake Lucy there was a restriction on Saturday work hours so that was modified and then they approved the preliminary and final plat for the Berrospid. That one that you saw. The City Council did approve that. There was some discussion on that. I think a little bit more than Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 17, 2020 18 maybe even so the owner of that property actually does a lot of commercial development so he was very knowledgeable on actually had done to the watershed district. Very knowledgeable on the stormwater containment and that was really the driving… He originally was going to do two lots but the complex water treatment that was done so he’s used to installing those so I think that was a great conversation so that project will be proceeding forward. And so as I mentioned we have 3 items on your agenda then for your last meeting of the year, December 1st and we already have a couple of projects in the queue for January so that’s all I had Chairman. There’s open discussion after close the meeting regarding potential commission vacancies and what to look for in making new commissioners so we’ll discuss that when we close the meeting. Weick: Tonight? Aanenson: Yes. Just for a couple minutes, yep. So if everybody stays online. Weick: I don’t know if you heard that but please stay online but with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 27, 2020 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated October 27, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Park and Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated October 27, 2020 Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 27, 2020 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Haley Schubert, Sandy Sweetser, Jim Peck and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Scanlon STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Rec Director; Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor: and Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jerry Ruegemer added item number 3 under reports regarding Lake Ann Park playground presentation. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Priya Tandon provided a brief overview of the Halloween Party that was held on Saturday, 24th. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated September 22, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. YOUTH ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS. Terry Kemble, 3160 West 82nd Street, administrator for the Chanhassen Athletic Association (CAA) and Lenny Checheris, 2411 Hunter Drive spoke to the history of CAA and the associated sports. Commissioner Kutz asked about registration for CAA. Commissioner Peck asked if the CAA gets kids from the Minnetonka School District, and CAA’s involvement with the Legion baseball program. Jonathan Tudor with the CC United Soccer program explained the goals and purpose of the CC United Soccer program. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – October 27, 2020 2 REPORTS: 2020 PICNIC SEASON EVALUATION. Priya Tandon reviewed the evaluation of the 2020 picnic reservation season. Commissioner Tsuchiya asked if the City did any kind of enforcement on the 25 person limit on picnic reservations. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM REVIEW. Jodi Sarles explained how the City of Chanhassen scholarship program has worked since it’s inception in 2009. Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the recommendation outlined in Item number I-2 regarding the 2021 Park and Recreation Scholarship Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. LAKE ANN PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT UPDATE. Jerry Ruegemer showed pictures of the before and after progress of the Lake Ann Park playground equipment replacement. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS. None. Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Submitted by Jerry Ruegemer Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Haley Schubert, Sandy Sweetser, Jim Peck and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Scanlon STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Rec Director; Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor; and Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jerry Ruegemer added item number 3 under reports regarding Lake Ann playground presentation. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Boettcher: Do we have anything Jerry? Ruegemer: Not tonight. Boettcher: No Halloween Party? Ruegemer: That was last week. Priya certainly can share. Tandon: Sure we can do a brief overview of the Halloween Party. Given I guess the extreme cold it went very well. We got a lot of positive feedback from families and kids so that was awesome. Jodi and Mary were there and Jerry was there helping out and Commissioners Sweetser and Shubert and Erpelding also helped out. Ruegemer: Matt was there with family. Tandon: Yep, so helping out the day of the event. Overall went very smoothly. A lot of positive feedback. We had 22 businesses and organizations either donate or partner at the event helping out as well and then the Chaska High School Key Club, Chanhassen High School Key Club, and Students Today Leaders Forever service organization from Chanhassen school also Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 2 helped out. So overall a lot of help with the event. It was a group effort. Very cold but it went pretty well. Boettcher: Did you get a rough count did you say on people? Tandon: Yeah we did. So we had about 200, 150 to 200 at a time and then we did four waves of that. Boettcher: So still had at least some type of a party then. Tandon: Yes, yes. Boettcher: Alright thank you Priya. Anything else? VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Boettcher: Next item we have visitor presentations. I believe we’ll wait with that until we get to the new business under youth associations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Boettcher: Any additions, changes, corrections need to be made? Hearing none motion to approve. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated September 22, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. YOUTH ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS. Boettcher: And we’ll go right into the new business. Jerry you want to introduce the topic? Ruegemer: I sure can. So just as kind of our brainstorming that we had in August and September, we had kind of talked about wanting to become really kind of familiar and have our youth associations come in. Give some presentations and talk about their associations and what sports they offer. What population they serve. Just a history of Chanhassen and the area community so we’re really lucky to have CAA here tonight, the Chanhassen Athletic Association and CC United Soccer so we’re excited. They both have really long lasting history in our communities and serving our residents in Chan and around the area as well so their groups really go back to the 70’s and 80’s when their associations and soccer clubs got started so they do have a long rich history serving our community so, so really I think it will be informative tonight for the council, or council. For the commission to hear. I was at the council meeting last night. Just Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 3 to hear kind of first hand really what great service they have so we’ll kind of start with CAA and then we’ll move over to CC United Soccer so Terry and Lenny the floor is yours. Boettcher: And if of you would for record state your name and address. Terry Kemble: Terry Kemble, 3160 West 82nd Street. I’m the administrator for the Chanhassen Athletic Association. Lenny Checheris: And my name is Lenny Checheris. If you can spell I’ll give you a cookie. C- h-e-c-h-e-r-i-s. Boettcher: Did you tell him about me and cookies? Seriously. Lenny Checheris: 2411 Hunter Drive. Boettcher: Alright thank you. Lenny Checheris: So I thank you for inviting CAA here. Terry asked me to speak because for some reason she says she doesn’t like public speaking, I’ll BS on that. She’s never had short of words but she asked me to just kind of go over some of the history of CAA. You know I’ll introduce myself. I’m Lenny Checheris. I’m the Baseball President…League Director. I’ve been with CAA since 2001. I’m sorry, 2011. 2011 so I have two boys that have been involved with CAA since they were youngsters and now one is in high school. I have a 13 year old who continues to play baseball and will continue to do so for the next couple of years, but a little history. I’m just taking some of the notes. The history of CAA. Terry and I were talking earlier tonight and we were trying to figure out how long CAA’s been around. She said she was in middle school so that would make me in diapers so it’s somewhere around 1970. About 1970 and it’s been a robust program for many years. I know baseball really took off because I witnessed my next door neighbor with baseball. It seemed like it just took off from there. This was probably 2006 or ‘07 and we’ve been able to form several teams throughout, you know we’ve had issues as it relates to numbers. We’ve got competing factors. We’ve got kids have to make a decision to play soccer or baseball because they align if I remember correctly. Ruegemer: All the ages groups. Lenny Checheris: And the older age groups and some kids decided to play soccer. Some decided to play lacrosse, baseball and they, our program numbers throughout the last 8 years have seen some fluctuation. Terry printed everything up for you so you guys can take a look at it but through CAA we offer baseball, softball which is under the Diamond Sports umbrella. We offer basketball. We offer soccer. Volleyball is no longer part of our umbrella under CAA. Club has taken most of the kids. Terry Kemble: Yes. The high school coaches recommend. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 4 Lenny Checheris: Yeah so you know and that’s what CAA is really competing with is our club teams now. We’ve lost several teams, members to even at the younger ages now. They’re marketing to 10 and 11 year old kids to play club for the better experience and more competitive experience and most people are finding that it’s really not. The fun is really at CAA. But you know all in all we have a dedicated group of volunteers at CAA that really are passionate about the sport. You know this year was an anomaly as COVID took hold of nearly everything in our lives but we, when it started out in March. I think it was March 13th when they closed the schools or something happened on that day. I can’t remember. You know we were meeting, certainly weekly because we had already formed teams. We didn’t know what we were going to do. Once pardon my French all hell broke loose in May we started meeting several times a week and by the end of, Governor Walz was supposed to give us some information on May 1. It was postponed to May 14th. Once again postponed and we had to make a decision so parents and families could go on with their lives. We couldn’t hold them on and tell whether we were playing baseball or not playing baseball. We don’t know. It wasn’t fair to them so we decided to end the league this year. Or end the season I should say on May 26th and June 1st we opened it back up but we were only, we were the sanctioning body for teams that were independent of CAA so they needed our insurance. We left them play. We formed most of the teams formed again because we cancelled the season. It was a huge mess but it was really neat to see that out of all the teams that we postponed or cancelled the season two kids didn’t show back up and in fact we had 3 other kids that joined which was really neat because people were scared. I mean everybody was scared at that time about COVID and we put in safety measures. We did a really good job, we had wonderful persons that tackled, we did a tremendous job providing sanitization at all the fields. She just did a great job so you know we had a great season. All the kids had fun. You know it was an abbreviated season but it was still a lot of fun. But you know getting back to the other sports. I know Bill on the basketball side is, he’s just going through it. He doesn’t know if we’re one COVID case away from cancelling the season and fingers are crossed that it doesn’t happen that way. I know all of the basketball programs throughout the city have safety protocols in and are very sensitive to making sure that no one gets sick with COVID and if they do they just, what is the process? I was talking to Bill about it. If a kid gets, they isolate him. Terry Kemble: They have to stay home for 2 weeks. Lenny Checheris: But at these tournaments they’re not going to be as robust as they once were. Two people per kid are allowed in the gymnasium which you know baseball usually you’re outside right. You can socially distance really well. Soccer took a hiatus this year because obviously it was unprecedented times. We use that word ad nauseam but they decided not to play because they’re younger. I’m sorry, CAA soccer decided to take a hiatus this year. Younger children. Parents were a little bit more concerned. There was more concern from the parents so they decided not to play this year but as you can see the numbers are still robust within our community and our sports. We have kids that not only encompassing Chanhassen but also Victoria, Carver and some from Minnetonka there that are involved in our program because Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 5 it’s a lot better, quote unquote better program that what Minnetonka can provide because they don’t offer the competitive tournament teams that everybody clamors for… So we use all of the fields within Chanhassen. We use Lake Ann which is by far my favorite field to watch baseball at. I mean there’s a buzz when kids are there and we’re able to have our baseball games there and this year and instead of traveling so much a lot of baseball was played at Lake Ann. We have Lake Susan which is shared with the high school and Minnetonka. Bandimere. All those parks. What was that Sunset Ridge there’s one and there’s just quite a few parks. You guys are great. You maintain them for us. They look great and I think you fold into the mix the Dugout Club and boy they’ve really, they were instrumental at putting lights up at Lake Susan. The City Council really helped us out. Gave us a solid and helped us fund it and we raised money for it and obviously the plans for other things like restrooms at Lake Ann instead of Porta Potties. Those are kind of long term ideas. I’m off the board by then but you know but I think that’s really kind of the direction certainly Diamond Sports is going. You know the facilities as it relates to basketball that use all of the schools around here and so forth. There’s a couple of notes. One thing about certainly for baseball because I’m at the mercy of baseball, I mean it’s a feeder sport to town or high school but also the Red Birds. How many kids from Chanhassen are on the Red Birds? Terry Kemble: We’ve looked at 5 or 6 now. Lenny Checheris: Yeah there’s just, you know and it’s just these kids really just want to play ball and it wouldn’t be possible if we didn’t have such beautiful fields here in Chanhassen and you go from the small fields to the little bit bigger fields to the full sized fields and we can service them all. There was one other thing I was going to bring up. You know we have some head winds coming up I think I mentioned earlier as it relates to club baseball. If you’re familiar with club soccer. People believe it’s a better experience. You know it’s more competitive and candidly it’s not. These kids really get a great coaching from volunteer parents that coach baseball and it’s something that we’re going to have to really look at. Back up about 10 years ago softball, once you hit 12 years old you’re off to club and it used to be housed in here didn’t it up until they were like 14. Until high school. Now they’re going younger and younger and pulling these really high level softball players and recruiting them so the growth projections as it relates to baseball we don’t know. It’s been flat for the last couple of years which is better than the decline that we’ve had in the last several and that’s, we’re just grateful that the kids keep coming out and they’re having fun playing ball and the price is reasonable. CAA offers scholarships for those in need so if you don’t have the money to play there’s scholarships available and so it’s very inclusive as it relates to play and you know if the coaches candidly make calls if the kids don’t come back. They find out why aren’t you playing? If they say hey I don’t want to play baseball anymore. I sucked at it or it’s too slow for me, I’m playing lacrosse. God bless you. Go do something else but if it’s because of money we make sure that they’re playing baseball or softball. So it’s really a brief synopsis of our program. Is there anything about soccer because it’s been kind of soft. You’re going to talk about real soccer. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 6 Terry Kemble: So the youth soccer program we compete with Jonathan and then the City also has a soccer program too so when I first started in CAA there was probably 700-800 kids in the program in the fall and now it’s gone down to say 200 because there’s just so many different options to play in the fall and a lot of kids decide to play traveling soccer now because Jonathan has a really great program. My daughter played it 3 years. Kutz: Do you advertise for your programs like I’ve heard of you but I’m trying to think like where we could have signed up to play? How would we have gotten an email saying hey. Lenny Checheris: Honestly you wouldn’t have because that has been our dilemma. It’s been word of mouth. We have now hired a marketing director for our baseball program. Diamond Sports Program and that’s really something that because Google provides you, if you’re A 501C league, Diamonds Sports is. CAA baseball/softball, they will provide you X amount of dollars to market and that’s been a rub that we’ve had for quite a while so we’ve had people that would actually say hey I’ll champion this and nothing got done and we are of course a volunteer organization and we spend quite a bit of time trying to generate more numbers for kids or more for the program because it exposes kids to baseball. Candidly this year I think we’ve got the right person to really deal with it. Terry Kemble: We also use that Peach Jar… Kutz: Yes, that’s where I’ve heard. That’s where I found, you jogged my memory now. Terry Kemble: We used to supply flyers and send them home with every child in their packets but they don’t do the packets for that Peach Jar has actually saved us a lot of time and money. Kutz: So like the City they do the 3 and 4 year olds and the 5 and 6 year olds but that’s kind of where you guys stop right? Sarles: Right. Kutz: In comes you guys, you know that might be an opportunity to work…saying hey here we go. Lenny Checheris: Where are you from I’m sorry? Sarles: I run the Rec Center. Lenny Checheris: The Rec Center, okay. Terry Kemble: Jodi and I worked together a lot when I ran the softball program. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 7 Sarles: And we do, I mean we basically tell people when they ask where do we go from here, you know because the kids have aged out and needs more competition. We send them all to CAA or over here to the CC United. Lenny Checheris: Yes sir. Peck: I’ve got several questions. I’m Jim Peck and...but I’m a baseball freak. Lenny Checheris: Well good. We’re in good company. Peck: I’ve been doing baseball for 58 years. One of my questions is the northern third of Chanhassen is not in the East Carver County or East Carver School District. Do you get any kids out of that or do they all end up in the Minnetonka system because that’s where they go to school? Lenny Checheris: Jim you know we have quite a few kids that we’ve been able to pull from that corridor but eventually, and the reason being is because they tell us, they’re qualified to play anybody within 112. St. Hubert. All of the parochial schools within our association boundaries are eligible to play. That area, and I think you’re talking like just north of. Peck: Well it’s not very far. It’s about 6 blocks north. Lenny Checheris: Right. A lot of kids playing from, who go to school in Minnetonka play for Chanhassen. Peck: But as they get old they stay at Minnetonka because they don’t have much option from what I can tell. Lenny Checheris: Correct. We’ve had one kid who’s in my older boy, my 16 year old boy’s class that is a Minnetonka kid that’s choosing to go to Chan. Peck: My second question is you don’t, you don’t do anything with the Legion programs? That’s a separate entity? Lenny Checheris: It is a separate entity but we are certainly a feeder program for them. Peck: My next question is your numbers from the last 6 years to not last year which you went up some, are about half. Do you think that’s partially due to travel baseball? Lenny Checheris: I do not. What I do think it is, is the competing sports like lacrosse is really looking at 2013-2014, that was I’m trying to do the math. Peck: Yeah lacrosse is not on here so I can’t relate to the numbers. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 8 Terry Kemble: We don’t have lacrosse. Lenny Checheris: No we don’t have lacrosse under our umbrella. Peck: But you have lacrosse in Chanhassen. Lenny Checheris: Oh yes we do. Peck: So it’s competition. Lenny Checheris: Yep. Ruegemer: City Lacrosse, Minnetonka Lacrosse… Peck: Because I deal a lot with travel ball and that’s fine. It’s here to stay. I’ve got a couple theories you pay me I’ll tell you how good your kid is. Your kid can’t play very well because I want your money. That’s going on a lot. Lenny Checheris: That’s it, you know and to your point that’s really what’s happening at club areas right now that we’re struggling with. We had one kid who was rostered on a club team at the Millers and played in the summer and in the fall but then for the following 2020-’21 summer he was cut because guess what they got a better kid in his position. Tsuchiya: Or he got too old. Lenny Checheris: No, no, this kids is an 11 year old kid. Peck: This kid might not have. Lenny Checheris: Yeah so he joined our program. Peck: And a child that comes from a family that doesn’t have very much wherewithal monetarily, we’re not interested in his unless he’s really, really good and then we’ll scholarship him on the other kid’s dime. That’s exactly what’s going on. So I commend you that you’ve got it going and you’ve got a lot of kids playing and it’s fun for them. They’ve got to enjoy it. If they don’t enjoy it and not having fun they shouldn’t be doing it. They should do something else whatever that may be. Lenny Checheris: Correct. Peck: Thank you. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 9 Lenny Checheris: You’re welcome. Any other questions? Kutz: Just briefly we talked about baseball and softball. Where are you guys play the basketball at? Lenny Checheris: Throughout, we’re sprinkled through all of the schools around here. Rec Center. Terry Kemble: Mostly the high school. Lenny Checheris: Pioneer Ridge. Chaska Middle School East and West. Terry Kemble: Victoria. But the school district charges a lot of money for us to play in their facilities. We’re very fortunate that the City of Chan doesn’t charge us for field usage. Lenny Checheris: Yeah and kudos to whoever it is… The field when it’s ready to play ball they’re landscaped properly. They’re, we’ve got enough infield dirt. You know it takes once it’s there we still have to maintain it of course as an association but the initial start up man if you could take a picture of that it looks beautiful so commend the park board for taking care of the fields so well. Boettcher: The one thing you touched on was about baseball and the number is going down for different reasons but you hear it all the time about, especially high school sports. Parents are getting their kids out of football because it’s too dangerous so they want to get them over to baseball and you mentioned it briefly and the kids say it’s too boring. Like I try to watch the games like the World Series again tonight I’ll be watching it but you know when somebody’s standing up there and he has to undo his strap, like please when I played Babe Ruth and Junior League I mean I wasn’t very good by any means but I was there. I mean we loved it. Now apparently kids look as it’s too time consuming. You say some are going over to lacrosse so when you lose someone do you do like an exit review, you know what did you like? What did you like type of thing. Lenny Checheris: Yeah I think I touched on that a little bit. We do. For baseball in particular. I don’t know about basketball or soccer but you know we reach out to the families and figure out what’s up. What’s wrong? Was it the coaching? Oh no not the coaching. Was it anything else? I just didn’t want to play ball anymore. I wanted to play lacrosse and it’s like as long as he’s doing something and not playing video games I’m alright with it right, but if it’s, you know we had a couple of people certainly throughout COVID that struggle financially and we supported them regardless what we had in our coffers. We have to take care of the kids and make sure they keep coming back. Peck: Sometimes when a player’s 10 years old he’s really playing because his dad’s forcing him to play and he really doesn’t want to. There’s a little more of that than you really get to know. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 10 Lenny Checheris: There is some of that. Peck: Not a lot but there’s some. Lenny Checheris: Yeah you know and to your point I think you’ve got some really engaged dads who lived vicariously through their kids and wish their kids were something that they weren’t you know and you can tell. You can tell the kid’s heart’s not in it. You’ve been what did you say, coaching 58 years. You’ve seen it all then so. Peck: I don’t think it’s as bad now as it might have been 10 years ago. I think that’s backed off a little bit with a lot of education. Lenny Checheris: I think it has but the truth of the matter is baseball, you have to have passion for that sport. Diamond Sport. Any diamond sport. Softball can get boring too but you just have to have passion about whatever you’re doing. I have a son that plays baseball and downhill skis. Well he has a passion for both and you know hockey could be someone’s passion or soccer could be someone’s passion or baseball but eventually what I’m noticing now especially with my older boy, he was the first year he’s not playing basketball since he was 5. He’s in high school now. He’s focused on football and baseball so you know kids gravitate to what they feel they’re best at. Peck: In bigger schools they get so much pressure to play whatever 14 months a year that they can key on football or whatever if they don’t play year round… Lenny Checheris: And that’s the thing with my older boy. He’s really training. He’s a pitcher and he’s training his pitching and hitting and winter long which is kind of breaks my heart because he’s played basketball since he was a kid. You know he had, gymnasiums get a little stuffy and stinky and hot but it was still fun. The passion was there. You know everybody gets excited. A lot of noise and I miss it so. Ruegemer: Any other questions from the commission? Boettcher: I have one more but it’s in regards to the basketball. I’ve been on the commission now this is my 9th year. We’ve heard a lot of presentations, is it Todd? Ruegemer: Neils? Boettcher: Neils came in and we talked about we did the lights at Susan. The dugouts. The scoreboards and stuff. The basketball I can’t remember anyone coming in for CAA talking about basketball so I was kind of surprised when I looked at this and I see the numbers for participation actually more than baseball but it’s something that’s like a well kept secret. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 11 Lenny Checheris: You know it’s a well oiled machine. Terry Kemble: My husband runs it. Boettcher: There’s no problems with it? Lenny Checheris: Well and to be fair I mean he really has, a really stuffed program where kids, there were very few cuts this year right if any? Terry Kemble: I don’t know. Lenny Checheris: Alright but that’s just a rumor mill that not very many kids get cut but they’re trying to be a lot more inclusive and he really does a great job. That’s a lot of work. Terry Kemble: It’s probably never been brought up because we don’t use the city facilities for that but we use the school district’s so that’s probably why it’s never been presented. Boettcher: Any other questions for anyone? Lenny Checheris: Thanks for having us. Terry Kemble: …and what we should have talked about is, in normal years we host large tournaments for baseball and baseball and it brings a large number of people to the community and they go out to the restaurants. They stay in the hotels. You know they go to the grocery stores and I don’t know if the City, maybe Jerry probably does because we do a lot with him but I don’t know if the City people realize how much CAA brings to the community. Lenny Checheris: Yeah it’s true. You know we had a baseball tournament which generates a great deal of money for the program but it also generates a lot for the restaurants and the hotels. Terry Kemble: The basketball tournament is the largest in the state. I said it’s the largest one in the state and Sandy used to help us with that. Schubert: Oh basketball? Terry Kemble: Yes. Ruegemer: So just so the commission knows too and in probably February of this year I started working with Jackson…older kids with baseball. We kind of starting developing kind of an economic model to kind of gauge and track per team how much money is, what are we talking about here so we were kind of putting together some information to kind of try to measure that and have kind of a benchmark for year to year to kind of try to chart that so I was kind of working on that. I still have it and it’s going to be a goal for 2021 to kind of hoping we’ll be Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 12 back to 80 percent normal, who knows but that is something that certainly I have interest in to present. I think it would it be helpful for our commission also for City Council as talking points I guess for economic so that could really tie into a lot of things. With future funding and field improvements for lighting or soccer improvements, that type of thing so based on…we certainly want to support our business community. Council’s very in tune with that so that’s kind of one of the reasons why we started to talk about that…but we’ll dust that off and we’ll get it kind of moving again so. Thank you both. Appreciate you coming in. Jonathan with CC United. Jonathan Tudor: Good evening. My name’s Jonathan Tudor, T-u-d-o-r for those of you have not seen my last name around for a while. I’m the Director of Coaching at CC United Soccer. I’m figuring out more and more, and I apologize for a lack of preparation tonight. I changed by email address about a month ago and we’ve been trying to figure out people that don’t have my new email so I got a call yesterday that says hey, there’s a meeting and it was pretty vague but I put some things together on the club and if you’ve got any questions afterwards I’ll be only too happy to chit chat some more about it. CC United is like the community based program. I’ve been privileged to be a part of community sub programs for the last, close to 30 years. Both myself, I worked for my dad at Tonka United and we were there for, my dad was there for probably 20 years and then he came over to us and I was his assistant at Tonka United and then CC United which was Chan Chaska Soccer Club back then which was some 16 years ago asked me to come over and help their program and I’ve been very, very fortunate to have a lot of good experiences over the year. Currently our club we have about 650 competitive players. We have about 1,100 in the rec. We are 40 percent gen in our total programs. We are a District 112 club so we cover the cities of Chaska, Chan and Carver and Victoria. The field usage that we get from the City of Chan, we’re fortunate to get Bandimere and they’re definitely overused in the fall program City Center. We absolutely and I apologize batter it up a little bit. We were there every day, every moment this year with our COVID requirements we struggled. Our season kind of came to a close in March and we were told basically, like everybody else it’s been a very unsure time and obviously the safety of every family that’s part of the program has been our highest priority. But we came back slowly and they had a guideline where we could only have 9 kids at practice but I’d have to mark out grids for them and that was very entertaining and they had to sit 5 yards apart and coaches with masks and spray bottles and we did that for a couple of months and it was very, very creative and I think the positive thing about COVID that I hope has happened is it’s kind of, it’s brought about something that’s missing. You know we get lost in what we want from youth sports I feel currently and I think COVID kind of brought it back on track. We just want to see our kids play. We want our kids to be outside and want them to be away from the screen. We want them to be active. We want them to be engaged and missing that more than anything I think was absolutely huge for whatever sport they play. Whatever activity they do just having the ability to go and interact. I’ve got two kids. My oldest played through the CC United program and is currently in college. I never really understood kind of the value of youth sports until I became a parent coach and I think that, who’s been a parent coach? Alright. I think the beauty of becoming a parent coach and being there with your kids and seeing them at some part in the journey or Sandy helping out with her kids…just being a part of it I think is such a fantastic thing. You know you’re privileged to see, to be on this journey with Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 13 them that they seem to have, one of our coaches pointed out at what point do the smiles stop on the team pictures and it’s usually about 13 when competition gets a little bit too serious and we focus on something else but like I said I think the COVID situation brought into what we actually want from this sport. As a community organization, like I said we’re fortunate to get the facilities. We’re in the July the 4th parade. We’re fortunate there. Last year’s, was it last year’s July the 4th parade the club actually lost money by going in the parade because all the kids turned up with their soccer balls and put them on the back of the float and I thought they were to be given away so I was kicking these balls into the crowd and by the time we finished our loop there were like 12 crying children so it…the club very well with everybody getting these new soccer balls. We had a picture of all these kids being pulled around on the back of these cars you know. Who knew soccer would make your kid miserable. You know we focus, CC United is a community based club. We focus on the attachment phase and we’re very committed to community development. How we batten that up is that, we don’t recruit. We don’t, we have no flyers absolutely anywhere. We solely care about the kids that come out from District 112 from the start to the finish. You know there’s no phone call. There’s no advertisements in any magazines. There’s no Facebook page that says come here. We have a very respectful approach to other people’s community because I believe that if we take one player from another program like say Eden Prairie it creates a negative effect in that Eden Prairie program that affects somebody else’s soccer experience so just having an open conversation with them and finding out why you here? You know what do you want out of this? What are you hoping to get that you’re not getting and it’s, if it’s not happy where they’re at and they’re making sure that the kids are responsible and the parents are responsible and they reach out and do the right thing. But like I say we are very committed to the development of the kids in this. The attachment thing I think is the most important phase in anything that the children do. It’s that part that they get to like and I think to be a part of the attachment thing it has to be local. It has to be cost effective and they have to be doing it with their friends. At the club we’re very, very conscious on putting people with friends in our rec program. It’s all friend based. When they get up to 11 years old then we take into account friendships and drives and things like that just so that we keep them connected. Our goal, and baseball’s probably the same, it’s not what happens now. It’s by the time they hit 18 that they still want to come and swing a bat and hit a ball and if you’ve got kids that come back and they’re playing and you’ve given them that I think that is more priceless than any state tournament that you could ever, ever win. In our program we have a large amount of parent coaches. The last successful year we had which was previous as far as the full season, we had 429 coaches and 380 were parents. And the reason why we strive to get parents coaches is it keeps the cost low. We don’t have to pay for parent coaches. Without the increased fees to get them to come in but we make sure that the pressures are that they’re well trained and these people would be absolutely lost without, because basically when you become a parent coach you have to do your background check and your safe…and concussion training. It’s a long requirement of safety precautions that we ask our parents to do and they’re on top of that. We ask them to come in 3 times a month to come and do coach training and then they’ve got their own training and they’re assessed on the field ongoing so we do hold them accountable but we want them to be a part of the program and they too see the joy in being a parent coach. On a personal note I think that youth sports lost it’s purpose a little bit. I think we’re losing the Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 14 purpose of the name and the game and I’ve had a little bit chance to work with the cities to get the kids back in the game. You know it shouldn’t be about playing for an elite team or a showcase team. It should be about playing for a team and it should be about the sport and the sport’s name should surpass anything else. Some of the greatest soccer clubs in the world are just called their name. There’s no academy or league or showcase that goes with it because we want them to play for the name not the game. We’ve proven in the club that even when we keep our kids together they can achieve. Last year we had a group of 18 year old girls that stayed together and play right through the program and out of a 16 player squad, 14 are playing college. 6 of them are playing Division 1 college. Two of them are playing at the U so that from a community club that doesn’t search players is phenomenal achievement. It is an absolute phenomenal achievement and I think in my position I’m just privileged to have lots of memories of chasing Karl’s dad. You know trying to keep up with him for many years. He’s probably still playing age who knows what now. Tsuchiya: 66. Jonathan Tudor: Oh my goodness. He’s defied age. You know and being a part of Sandy’s kids and everywhere I go I see these memories of kids and it’s not about the state tournament. It’s about the years of practice and being around the group and keeping connected with the group and where they go and grow up and when they come back into the community with their own kids and make me feel twice as old so. The future of our club. We’re trying to provide every single site. We’re trying to provide an attachment for the kids in the community but we also recognize it’s about development. It’s about development of an ability to play a sport. We’ve added Annie Kutz who is the former Assistant Director of Coaching for Minnesota Youth Soccer to our staff. We’ve got Cole O’Connor as our goal keeper coach who was the Minnesota United Soccer Coach and we’ve recently just added a position for Katie Clark who was the Chanhassen Girls High School coach. She’s going to be Director of Women’s Sporting Attachment Phase so Katie’s going to be in charge of any female experience within the club. If you’ve noticed despite the girls hauling the slide up the side on sports participation it’s a male dominated coaching world and we want to get those moms involved. We want to get that balance because I think playing, I think having a girl playing for a female coach I think is priceless and can provide a lot more moving forward for them in their longevity. That’s a lot of information there. Like I say we are struggling right now with our neighbors. Our neighbors in Minnetonka, we recognize that the borders cross and Chanhassen runs into Minnetonka just as Minnetonka runs into Chanhassen but they’re crossing a few boundaries and we’re having a few difficulties with them. They are a recruiting club and there are different beliefs and directions to us but it is making it a challenge with their current stance and mail out’s and things like that so we’re trying to work together. We welcome any help to be able to work together to provide an opportunity for all kids to play in any community. So we are looking at that. The thing I think we need from the City of Chan is the fields are fantastic and we’re sad that they weren’t used as much as they were the previous year. They were always well kept and they’re as accessible as ever and I understand the importance of pulling the trigger when the rain comes. We could use some working together maybe to get some goals out there on Bandimere because are still, they’re the oldest things that Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 15 we have. I’d invite Cole’s probably got 3 or 4 goals on him that tells you how old they actually are so any questions? That’s about everything that our club is, you know we are year round program now. Now developing the District 112 dome. We utilize that. We utilize space in Eden Prairie. We’re trying not to push our kids into you must play soccer year round. It is the belief of myself and the club’s direction that kids should multi sport. They should play hockey, basketball, football, baseball, whatever that they want. They shouldn’t be pressured into one sport and what we have at the club is called an open door policy where our kids can just email a coach and go practice with that team. So if they’ve got baseball on Mondays and that’s when their team is practicing, if there’s a team practicing on Tuesday they can go play with them and just say to that coach and say hey I trained with that team just to keep my team in so we’re not trying to force our kids to play soccer. What we’re trying to do is to get them to understand what their goals are. What do you want to do with your soccer? How good do you want to be? If you just want to play with your friends that’s fine. If you want to push then you need to be accountable to those goals and that’s the big thing we focus on in the club and this year I’m very excited to have the staff to it. We have an office just down by Paisley Park and I’m very excited to see what the next few years hold for the club so. Ruegemer: Does the commission have any questions for Jonathan? Sweetser: Jonathan are we still one of the larger clubs with kind of…? Jonathan Tudor: We used to be but the change in the soccer dynamic and I don’t know what it’s like in other sports but other community clubs emerging to survive so for example there’s just been Woodbury and Dakota Red merged to form a club called Salvo which loses their community name which I don’t know how they do it and still get community fields but now they’re trying to get Lakeville in there too. Burnsville has merged with Apple Valley. Minnetonka merged with Hopkins and Plymouth so they’ve got their programs so it’s survival all over the place. Tsuchiya: Wayzata? Peck: Plymouth’s Wayzata. Jonathan Tudor: Yes Wayzata Soccer Club merged with Plymouth to form PSA and then Tonka merged with PSA to form the fusion. Soon we’ll all be just one big club. You know that’s the kind of thing that we’re fighting against because we are an attachment based club. We want the kids to have the experience but like saying, the challenge just lately is, I think some clubs have lost focus on their grass roots which is the kids…and you’ve got to prioritize them in every way. They’re the ways that are going to keep your club going and growing so. Ruegemer: Thank you Jonathan. Anything else? We appreciate your guys coming in tonight and sharing your stories and we applaud your passion for the community and really provide the opportunities for the kids so thank you for that. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 16 Jonathan Tudor: Thank you. Ruegemer: You’re welcome to stay if you’d like to but you’re certainly welcome to go eat tonight. Take care. REPORTS: 2020 PICNIC SEASON EVALUATION. Boettcher: I don’t see anything listed here under old business. You didn’t have anything additional Jerry? Ruegemer: No. Boettcher: We go onto item I, Reports. First one is 2020 Picnic Season Evaluation. Priya this looks like it’s your’s. Tandon: Yep, thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you commissioners. So this year’s 2020 picnic reservation season was significantly shorter than previous seasons, as you can imagine due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on gathering size so this year paid picnic reservations totaled 32. We normally have around 120 so obviously very down just due to the cancellations and restrictions on gathering size. So the paid picnic reservations ran from July 21st through October 3rd compared to May 1st to October 1st or so which it normally is. And these 32 reservations generated about $3,000 in revenue compared to the $15,000 that we normally bring in. And many other picnics and small gatherings take place weekly at all the locations but reservations aren’t made so that’s an option for people as well. So just going over some background like I said, the typical picnic reservation season was May 1st through October 1st but this year the first portion of that picnic season fell under the Stay at Home Minnesota order in phases 1 and 2 of the State’s Safe Reopening plan and so the Stay at Home or Stay Safe they really encouraged no social gatherings and that increased to 10 so it didn’t make sense to have a lot of those picnics because a lot are larger company picnics or family reunions that by nature have more than 10 people and cost of those groups cancelled their events on their own so we just kind of didn’t open the picnic season. And then the other point there is yeah typically most picnic shelter reservations throughout the years are for groups over 25 people so that’s kind of why we kind of waited til the guideline of 25 people in a social setting to reopen those picnic reservations. So for 2020 like I said 32 paid picnic reservations brought in a total of $3,000 revenue. To remain compliant with the CDC and State Safety Guidelines the capacity for all picnic shelter reservations was limited to 25 people and that was based off of the social setting classification as part of the State’s Safe Reopening Plan. Not the outdoor entertainment classification which is that 250 number so that’s why we went with the 25 people. The revenue typically is around $15,000 compared to the $3,000 this year just again with COVID. If you see there are a few attachments that detail the number of reservations. The number of people. Kind of a total throughout those reservations and then the revenue as well. Unfortunately 2020 isn’t really comparable to any of the previous years because of by nature it’s 2020 as you can kind of Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 17 see by the graphs there. Everything down but consistent with other seasons. Most popular site was the Klingelhutz Pavilion at Lake Ann which was then followed by the Lakeside Pavilion at Lake Ann which was then followed by Lake Susan. And there is a breakdown that kind of details that each pavilion, how many residents made reservations. Was it school district? Non- residents and those were pretty consistent with previous years but just very, very scaled down in number. And we did have over 700 picnickers that were parts of picnics that were under reservation so that was cool to see. At the end of the picnic season an evaluation was sent out to those who made picnic shelter reservations and the information collected was largely positive. The big comments and suggestions included fees, especially for the lower capacity of people and hope for some sort of online reservation system or request form so we’ll review that for next year. And yeah overall I guess we’re pleased that we had the picnic facilities to offer to people especially as they look for ways to maybe social distance for a gathering with family. You know especially the Klingelhutz is pretty big and wide open and so people could come with their groups of family and spread out so it was a nice thing that we were able to offer, and that’s about it. Anyone have any questions? Boettcher: Anyone have any questions for Priya? We’ve still got something with a shorten year and a weird year and hopefully the last year like that. Tandon: There were a lot more weddings and celebrations of life this year than I think maybe previous years just because we were one of the spaces that were open and outdoors for people to use so that was kind of nice to see. Tsuchiya: Priya I was wondering with the 25 person limitation, did you guys do any kind of enforcement on that? Tandon: We did not. So every reservation we made we really asked people to follow the spirit of the Executive Order and make sure they are limiting capacity and kind of did our best to make sure that they were at the 25 person limit prior to making the reservations so there were no surprises at then end, like oh. My group has 100 people, you know. We tried to make it very clear from the beginning and I think people understood. Tsuchiya: Okay so more of an honor system. Tandon: Yeah. Ruegemer: Just so the commission knows, I mean the phone rang all summer long and had we had higher capacity of our 25 people we could have made our $15,000 and probably more because Priya was constantly taking phone calls and Jodi same thing with, you know if we had increased capacity at the Rec Center as well we could have been booking rooms all day long but obviously we’re following the CDC guidelines and the Department of Health guidelines so we know our parks were being extremely used this summer as it was kind of a place where you could go together as Priya said so I think our community feels extremely lucky and fortunate that Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 18 our facilities were open. Our playgrounds were open. Skate park was open. Our beaches were open. Our picnic facilities were open so we at least have some positivity in the cruddy year that 2020 has been with that so I think people were extremely appreciative of that and as Priya touched on it we had just cancellations upon cancellations from you know birthday parties to graduation parties and family reunions so you can see in the numbers we were down on our revenue projections but I think that’s across the board for everybody right so we’re hoping for a strong rebound in 2021 and hopefully once we get the vaccine and things start getting hopefully back to normal we’re hoping for 70, 80 percent or 90 percent next year so fingers crossed but you know Priya and Jodi and Mary they all did a great job of informing people of what they can and can’t do and providing safe protocol in place to get people involved and make sure that we’re going in the right direction for our facilities so thank you. Boettcher: Alright thank you. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM REVIEW. Boettcher: This looks like Jodi. Sarles: Thank you Chair Boettcher and commissioners. I’m not sure if you’ve uncovered it or not but we have had a scholarship program here, a formalized one in the City of Chanhassen since 2009. It’s on our website. We offer it to anybody here. Under our current program applicants can receive up to $100 per person per year with a family maximum of $350. We have a few minimum co-payments so it’s 20 percent for that program so if they were to come and go to one of the playground programs they would have to pay that first 20 percent and then the park and rec covers the 80 percent there. So we have some exclusions currently. So a lot of Mary’s trips, overnight trips. We’ve got punch cards were one. Day camp. Sports unlimited and Sky Hawks camps, shelter and facility, personal training and then the competitions and that. Each recipient may use that for a total of up to 4 programs annually and then only 3 of those can be summer programs. So since 2009 we’ve granted $4,000 in scholarship funds so it’s not, for that time period that’s a fairly low number. But as we’re looking at it and we kind of decided to do an investigation and see how other areas are doing. What we’re doing differently. What can we do to include more activities so we decided to kind of shift how we offer our programs. Change that percentage so folks will pay for 50 percent instead of 20 percent but then with that switch we include things like punch cards. Make a purchase of punch cards. Now punch cards are like cash and they would have to stay here in house but they could use it for their family and that would offer a lot more options for people to use that money. Also we would include those Sky Hawks and Sports Unlimited camps who did remove kind of the $10 programs and less. Just that is a lot of the administrative fees and everything to get people, it makes sense with those and they can use that for more programs annually with a limit of 3. We allow that for all ages. Some area programs were just for ages 18 and under but we felt it was important to continue to offer it for everyone. You know for all people’s health so if you kind of look around a couple of the attachments are what we will put out for 2021. Got to remember those dates in my head here so it’s just basically, it is for just residents of the City of Chanhassen. Can’t have any outstanding Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 19 balances of course and then the kind of program scholarships will be awarded as resources allow. So if all of a sudden got inundated and everybody was taking a gymnastic class and we kind of ran through the entire season for our year with that, that gives us the flexibility to pull back some of that. The dollars that we would be covering. A lot of area programs either have a scholarship fund so they’re doing different programs and things to try to generate funds with that. Some of them are like memorial funds. That’s what Chaska has is a memorial fund. And so this one we’re basically kind of covering that cost for the folks so we are going to still not include things like day camps and field trips. Adult sports, personal training, birthday party facility rentals, those sort of programs but we did include those other programs such as the Rec Center punch cards and also the attachment is the upgraded scholarship application form so if you do have neighbors, friends, people you know that are looking to participate and don’t think they can we should sure love to have them here. We don’t want to exclude anybody for any of our programs so. Do you have any comments on the scholarship program or things you’d like to see added or changed? Kutz: So are you…dollar amount fee or is it just whatever it ends up being? Sarles: We’ve set a maximum for $1,000 I think it was per quarter and that was set in 2009 so we’ve used $4,000 so we’re doing okay with that one for now. Sweetser: And that’s just based on the number of applicants. Sarles: Correct. And kind of looking at this we were also anticipating that we may be seeing additional applications for folks right now with this COVID phase so wanted to make sure we can take care of people and provide them those activities that they can do in the city here. Boettcher: So when you go through the vetting process I mean do you ask the tough question, I mean if somebody asks for assistance do you say can we see your mom and dad, two kids, do you get to that degree or how is it, I mean that’s always the tough question. Sarles: Right. Boettcher: You don’t always ask that but. Sarles: So kind of on our program we really don’t want to keep people’s personal information here. That was one of the things so we do ask if you’re receiving a form of public assistance and these are how many people are in your household and also if there’s any hardships that we should know about and then your annual income estimate so that’s kind of the questions we ask. We do not make them provide us with any statements from the State or anything that they’re receiving you know free and reduced lunches with the school district. Ruegemer: And that’s basically kind of based on their answers with that. We’re kind of taking people at their word on that so obviously they do have an annual income. We can see what Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 20 people are making and how many kids and people they’re supporting within their family so you can kind of see the number of years that we’ve been doing, we don’t get a lot of people generally asking for assistance so I don’t view this as a wide spread problem and I guess we have, like the associations tonight have really kind of looked at this as it’s really our goal to include our public in our recreation programs. We don’t financial barrier to be a problem so we’ve always absorbed annual costs and it hasn’t been a large sum of money through the years. You know we have a lot of in kind things that we can just provide for our staffing and we don’t have a lot of money going out that we can’t cover or absorb within the revenue phase of these programs so. Obviously Jodi and Priya talk about this. We have to anticipate part of this too. The associations kind of touched on it tonight but people lose their jobs or furloughed and we do have a lot of needs out there potentially so if people have enough courage I guess to ask, we want to make, we really want to navigate them through that easy process for them and I don’t think we’ve ever turned anybody down at all so it’s going to be easy for people to get their kids involved. I guess in my mind and I think in staff’s mind it really is a confidence booster. It’s something positive for people whether it be their kids or a parent, they can provide for their family and that’s a positive light within a tough situation so we’re all on board with this and hope the commission is as well. Tsuchiya: Does any of this proposal need a motion? Ruegemer: We should have a motion on that yeah. Sarles: It’s not written but it would be to accept the recommendations for a 2021 scholarship program. Boettcher: Would someone like to make a motion? Tsuchiya: I’ll make a motion. I would move that the recommendation that staff has outlined in item number I-2 be adopted. Is that sufficient Jerry? Ruegemer: Yep. Boettcher: Alright we have a motion. Is there a second? Sweetser: Second. Boettcher: Motion and a second. Any other discussion? Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the recommendation outlined in Item number I-2 regarding the 2021 Park and Recreation Scholarship Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 21 LAKE ANN PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT UPDATE. Boettcher: Thank you Jodi. Very good. Jerry you’ve got I-3. Ruegemer: I do. Boettcher: With a presentation. Ruegemer: So obviously we did not have an opportunity to get out to Lake Ann Park to visit the new playground equipment this year with darkness and cold and snow but I just wanted to put together just a brief, it’s nothing over the top. I just wanted to kind of show the commission tonight kind of a start to finish in pictures the progress and finished product at Lake Ann so. Just want to kind of go through that here real quick with the commission so we know that the Lake Ann Beach, we took that playground equipment down right after Labor Day. Right after the beach season closed. We knew that the beach was extremely busy this year with COVID, so we wanted, we didn’t want to interrupt the kind of flow of that so we waited until school kind of started after the Labor Day weekend until we took that down so. So we took down the old equipment and kind of got the process started so the commission will probably remember the playground cost was around $50,000 for that replacement of the concrete border. There was kind of a combo bid between Power Hill Park and Lake Ann Park so that was $40,000 in total so we kind of split that out so we figured about $18,000 for the border. We’ll see some pictures of that here coming up as well with that and the interior wood fiber. We kind of got rid of the pea gravel. You know a lot of times we’ll do the poured in place for the community park structures. That’s kind of the surface for that so that was basically $1,800 for a total of $69,800 for that so this playground replaced the original, well not the original but a playground from 1992 so 28 years old. That playground was so it was time. It was getting tired with that. The border was getting tired so we’ll just kind of go through that itself. So you can kind of see on the left hand side, that was the original structure since 1992 with that and we’ll kind of go through and the crew was starting to assemble the project. You can see the leaves so that was probably in late September for that. For kind of the starting of that project so take a picture of that and we’ll kind of work through the process here. So this is kind of the beginning of the project. Everything was fenced for safety and there was throughout the course of the day the crew would get done working and they would button up everything for the night so people wouldn’t get in there. So kind of the removal process here. So we took out the wood border for that and then one of our skids here, Bobcats then pulled out the old piping and concrete footings out with that and basically kind of started with a clean slate. This is the concrete company, Tietz Construction was down there so the container was expanded to make it a little bit more room down there as well so you kind of see how they form the concrete. The concrete border for that. Has some different angles of that so obviously concrete was poured all the way around the structure itself so you kind of see it from different angles what it looked like so that’s kind of the start of that. I think this was done 1 or 2 days before they poured. So that’s when the concrete was pouring. You can kind of see the concrete…so our crew comes in and starts to kind of lay out the decking and the support posts for the playground equipment itself so if you can kind of see the orange dots kind Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 22 of painted in the dirt, you kind of see that? That is where it’s, the posts were basically laid out so the insulation could happen so the rental machine is called a Dingo so we used to do a lot of the digging with a Bobcat attachment and then 2 foot auger. We’d work with it down and ripe out the dirt. This has got a lot smaller footprint. Little bit easier to navigate through that container with that. You’ll see some additional pictures so everything gets done. I see one, that’s JJ holding that but holding up laser level so we can get exact depth on that so, with that so we can kind of go from side to side so. Our crew you see them holding the level with that and you can kind of see that auger bit that goes down to a certain depth and then pulls out the dirt and then that’s kind of an exact depth based on height of the pole and a number of different factors of kind of how that has to be constructed. So again old and new, same angle. This is a complete product. This is done probably about the first week or two in October out at Lake Ann so you can see the wood fiber, kind of the base material that’s in there so Adam and crew usually leave about 3 inches over the winter time. We’re letting it kind of compact with moisture, rain, play, everything kind of settles down and then they’ll come back at a later time and then kind of top dress it again to make sure they’ve got their safety depth and stuff for that around all areas of the playground itself so old versus the new for that. You can kind of see the different angles of the new playground equipment itself. I think the last shovel of wood fiber and there were already kids playing on it so we know that this will be a very welcomed site come next spring and summer. Early summer with the beach reopens back up again but park maintenance staff did a great job of getting it completed and kind of buttoned up here prior to the winter season so it’s ready to go. If those commissioners who have kids or grandkids that want to go down and play, have at it. It’s really a nice addition to Lake Ann so questions? Tsuchiya: I’m just curious Jerry, what happens to the old equipment? Is it recycled or donated? Ruegemer: Usually by the time, usually it is kind of outlived it’s usefulness so a lot of times you know when I first started working here a lot of times we would put it on public auction but now just kind of through liabilities of old equipment and that sort of thing it’s basically just recycled and destroyed. Boettcher: You said it was 28 years old. Ruegemer: 28 years old, yep. Installed in 1992. Boettcher: Because what is it, normally isn’t it 25? Ruegemer: 20-25, yeah. This is really kind of a first generation epoxy poles and kind of a lot of the stuff was old redwood and wood type of structures that kind of were that first generation. And then we kind of evolved through the course of time so now you don’t see wood borders anymore. It’s all kind of poured in place concrete now so we’re really kind of looking at really a longevity thing so they do last the number of years. Obviously we have a significant investment in these playground pieces so we just want everything to last so I will not be around when this one is replaced again. Hopefully. Park and Recreation Commission – October 27, 2020 23 COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS. None. Boettcher: I did notice one thing today. I drove by Lotus Lake boat landing and it looked like one of the residents that lives right by the landing had cleared some timber or someone came in and did a landscape service. There was a bunch of firewood stacked on the sidewalk. Is that to be given away or do you know anything about it? Ruegemer: I don’t know anything about that. Boettcher: It was all I could do to not stop and load it back in my Jeep. As soon I would if someone would come out, but it’s right where the restroom usually is. It’s right out here on the sidewalk and they even have it stacked by size. The bigger diameter here to the smaller. Ruegemer: Easy for pickens huh? Boettcher: That’s what I thought. I mean like I said it was really tough. Sarles: We don’t know how you get home tonight but if it goes away. Ruegemer: In the dead of the night go load up. Boettcher: I mean you wouldn’t have to worry about Emerald Ash Borer. It’s close for transporting it. Alright seeing no other business anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Submitted by Jerry Ruegemer Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Approve 2021 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the 2021 contract for policing services with the Carver County Sheriff's Office.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The cost of the 2020 policing contract was $1,898,795 and the 2021 Policing contract cost will be $1,898,795. BACKGROUND Attached to this report is the proposed 2021 Contract for Police Services with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. The City of Chanhassen contracts for fulltime equivalents (FTEs) as well as participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. The proposed contract for 2021 will include 15 sworn officers and 8 vehicles divided into the following structure: PERSONNEL COSTS 9 FTE Patrol Deputy (2184 hours) = $1,012,815 2 FTE Sergeants (2184 hours) = $258,912 1 FTE Sergeant (2080 hours) = $131,488 1 FTE Liaison Lieutenant (2080 hours) = $148,564 1 FTE Investigator (2080 hours) = $107,475 1 FTE School Resource Deputy (2080 hours) = $107,475 1 CSO (26 hours) = $1,121 VEHICLE COSTS CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 7, 2020SubjectApprove 2021 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's OfficeSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4.Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the 2021 contract for policing services with the Carver County Sheriff's Office.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe cost of the 2020 policing contract was $1,898,795 and the 2021 Policing contract cost will be $1,898,795.BACKGROUNDAttached to this report is the proposed 2021 Contract for Police Services with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office.The City of Chanhassen contracts for fulltime equivalents (FTEs) as well as participation in the Southwest MetroDrug Task Force. The proposed contract for 2021 will include 15 sworn officers and 8 vehicles divided into the following structure:PERSONNEL COSTS9 FTE Patrol Deputy (2184 hours) = $1,012,8152 FTE Sergeants (2184 hours) = $258,9121 FTE Sergeant (2080 hours) = $131,4881 FTE Liaison Lieutenant (2080 hours) = $148,5641 FTE Investigator (2080 hours) = $107,4751 FTE School Resource Deputy (2080 hours) = $107,4751 CSO (26 hours) = $1,121 VEHICLE COSTS 5 Patrol Vehicles = $121,790 1 Investigator Vehicle = $2,359 1 Lieutenant Vehicle = $933 1 School Resource Vehicle = $5,863 TOTAL COST = $1,898,795 The contract does not provide for overtime, which may be required to backfill deputy shifts during vacations or other leave periods, or to provide staff for court appearances. Overtime is charged based on actual use. The City of Chanhassen employs two parttime CSOs, but because of the parttime schedule and the natural turnover in that position there are times when no city staff coverage is available. To account for these gaps in coverage we contract for a small allotment of Carver County CSO hours to assist when necessary. These hours will be charged upon actual use. In addition to the contract amount, the City of Chanhassen has historically participated in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force (SWMDTF). For 2021, the cost of participation is $2,100, which has been the same rate since 2005. These costs are paid directly to SWMDTF. DISCUSSION In October 2020, the Carver County Sheriff's Office indicated that it would be maintaining the cost of the 2021 contract at the 2020 contract levels because union negotiations had not been completed. In the future, the contract will be based on the prior year's settled contract to provide better predictability for contract cities. In the event either party does not continue the arrangement, there may be a payment to make up the difference between projected and actual wages in the contract year. In addition, Carver County has changed the way Police State Aid distribution is calculated, resulting in a $35,000 decrease in revenue to the City of Chanhassen. This revenue is used to offset the cost of the policing contract. Finally, the Carver County Sheriff's Office will be exploring the use of bodyworn cameras for its deputies. Staff considers this technology to be included in the equipment under the contract. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached contract with the Carver County Sheriff's Office for policing services in 2021. ATTACHMENTS: 2021 CarverChan Policing Contract Page 1 of 8 CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERVICES Chanhassen THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and between the County of Carver, through its Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter, "County"), and the City of Chanhassen (hereinafter, the “City"), and, collectively known as the "parties". WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a contract with the County whereby the County will provide police services within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the County agrees to render such services upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 authorizes governmental units in the State of Minnesota to enter into agreements with any other governmental unit to perform on behalf of that unit any service or function which that unit would be authorized to provide for itself; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 436.05 allows the sheriff of any county to contract for the furnishing of police service to a municipality; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, and 436.05; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties as follows: ARTICLE I PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to secure police services for the City in the manner as hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE II 1. POLICE SERVICES. The County agrees to provide police service within the corporate limits of the City to the extent and in the manner set forth below: 1.1 Police services to be provided under this contract shall encompass those police duties and functions within the City’s corporate limits of which the Sheriff and duly assigned deputies shall exercise all the police powers and duties of city police officers as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 436.05. 1.2 The County shall solicit City input related to assignment of personnel before making assignments. The County shall give thoughtful consideration to the City’s input and shall retain the full and unrestricted right to assign personnel as necessary. Page 2 of 8 1.3 The County shall pay for all training costs associated with assigned personnel to maintain POST licensure and any other agency authorized training. 1.4 At a minimum, the County shall provide the City with monthly, quarterly, and annual reports including but not limited to calls for service by offense type, hour of the day, and day of the week. Such reports shall include an arrest summary, traffic citation summary, and verbal warning summary. Additionally, the County shall provide quarterly and annual reports showing the contract costs and actual staffing hours worked for all contract positions. 1.5 The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the discipline of deputies, and other matters of incident to the performance of such services and control of personnel so employed shall be and remain in and under control of the County. 1.6 The rendition of services shall include the enforcement of Minnesota State Statutes and the municipal ordinances of the City. 1.7 At the City’s request, the County (i.e., Sheriff’s contract manager or designee) shall meet with the City to discuss any questions, concerns, or requested modifications to the type of services provided, or manner in which such services are provided. In the event a dispute arises between the parties concerning services provided pursuant to this agreement, the County shall in good faith discuss a plan with the City; however, the County retains the sole discretion in determining modification of the delivery of services to address the dispute (e.g., reassignment of personnel, types of patrol, level of service available). 1.8 The police services will be provided to the City for the selected number of contracted hours and/or full time equivalent (FTE) personnel. Such services shall not include situations in which, in the opinion of the County, a police emergency occurs which requires a different use of the personnel, patrol vehicle, equipment, or the performance of special details relating to police services. It shall also not include the enforcement of matters which are primarily administrative or regulatory in nature (e.g., zoning, building code violations). ARTICLE III SPECIAL EVENT OR ADDITIONAL SERVICES. If the City desires additional police services over and above the hours and/or FTE’s contracted for in this Agreement, the City shall contact the Sheriff’s Office contract manager or designee noted in this Agreement. The County will invoice the City for these additional services and the City shall make payment pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 471.425, subd. 2(a). Page 3 of 8 ARTICLE IV COOPERATION AMONG PARTIES. It is hereby agreed that the parties and all of their officials, personnel, agents and employees shall render full cooperation and assistance to each other to facilitate the provision of the services selected herein. ARTICLE V 1. PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT. a). The County shall provide all necessary labor, supervision, vehicle, equipment, and supplies to maintain and provide the police services selected herein. All County property and equipment used in rendering services under this Agreement is, and shall remain, County property. b). The City shall provide outdoor storage within the corporate limits of the City for patrol cars used for providing services pursuant to this Agreement. 2. OFFICE SPACE. Police services shall be conducted out of office space selected and provided by the City that is sufficient to provide for the office needs of the assigned personnel. 3. FINANCIAL LIABILITY. The City shall not be responsible or liable for the payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to personnel employed by the County to perform services under this Agreement. It is agreed that all personnel shall be employees of the County and the County shall be responsible for providing worker's compensation insurance and all other benefits to which such personnel shall become entitled by reason of their employment with the County. 4. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. Each party shall be liable for its own acts to the extent provided by law and hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other, its personnel and employees against any and all liability loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney’s fees which its personnel and employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason for any act or omission of the party, its agents, servants or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this contract. Liability of the City and County shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, and other applicable laws. It is further understood that Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, Subd. 1a applies to this Agreement. To the full extent permitted by law, actions by the parties pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, Subd. 1a(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other party. Page 4 of 8 Each party agrees to promptly notify the other party if it knows or becomes aware of any facts or allegations reasonably giving rise to actual or potential liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including attorney’s fees, involving or reasonably likely to involve the other party, and arising out of acts or omissions related to this Agreement. (a) This Agreement to indemnify and hold harmless does not constitute a waiver by either party of immunities from, or limitations on liability provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04. For purposes of determining total liability damages, the parties are considered a single governmental unit and the total liability shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single governmental unit as specified in State Statutes, section 3.736 or section 466.04, Subdivision 1. 5. INSURANCE. The County agrees that all insurance required to adequately insure vehicles, personnel and equipment used by the County in the provision of the selected services will be provided by the County. ARTICLE VI 1. TERM. The term of this contract shall be January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. The term of this Agreement may be extended for up to an additional sixty (60) days under the same terms and conditions, provided the parties are attempting in good faith to negotiate a new Agreement. Unless otherwise terminated in accordance with Article VI, section 3 of this agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the parties’ entering into a new written Agreement, or on the sixtieth (60 th) day, whichever occurs first. 2. NOTICE. 2.1 If either party does not desire to enter into a contract for police service for 2022, such party shall notify the other party in writing by July 1, 2021. 2.2 The City, if electing to terminate or discontinue contracted services, or decrease contracted police services, shall pay all unpaid personnel costs (e.g., OT and annual carryover), as determined by the County. 2.3 On or before June 1, 2021, the County shall notify the City of the proposed budget for the police contract for the following calendar year. The proposed budget will be evaluated through the normal City budget process. Page 5 of 8 2.4 Notice under the above provisions shall be sent to: Commander Mike Wollin Carver County Sheriff’s Office 606 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 952-361-1857 mwollin@co.carver.mn.us Office: 952-361-1857 Cell: 952-220-7926 ARTICLE VII MENU OF POLICE SERVICES 1. POLICE STAFFING OPTIONS 1.1 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) PERSONNEL OPTION 1.1.1 FTE personnel are Full Time Employees dedicated to the contract community. The FTE deputies compensated time includes regular assignment duties, training, holidays, vacation, sick leave and other benefited time. The FTE deputy position is not automatically backfilled when the deputy is away from assignment for the above types of compensated time. The FTE deputy costs include: salary, benefits, supervision, administration, training, clerical support, insurance, and county overhead. The FTE costs do not include additional hours which are necessary for court or filling a shift for a compensated day off. The first eighty (80) hours the deputy is gone from the community while on military leave will not be backfilled. The Sheriff’s Office will backfill the position or credit back the time for military leave after the first 80 hours. The first eighty (80) hours a deputy is gone from the community on FMLA leave will not be backfilled; it will be treated like sick leave. The Sheriff’s Office will backfill the position or credit back the time for FMLA after the first 80 hours of FMLA is completed. If the City requests coverage for compensated days off noted above, it is recommended the City set aside a contingency for additional hours. Additional hours for deputies will be billed at $68.42. The SouthWest Metro Drug Task Force will invoice $2,100 separately. Hours worked on a designated holiday will be billed at double the FTE’s hourly pay rate per the collective bargaining agreement(s). City of Chanhassen Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952-227-1119 hjohnston@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Page 6 of 8 1.2 PERSONNEL COST The County agrees to provide police services within the corporate City limits. Costs are set forth as follows: Deputy 9 FTE (2184 hours) $1,012,815 Sergeant 1 FTE (2080 hours) $131,488 Sergeant 2 FTE (2184 hours) $258,912 Investigator 1 FTE (2080 hours) $107,475 SRO 1 FTE (2080 hours) $107,475 Lieutenant 1 FTE (2080 hours) $148,564 CSO 26 hours $1,121 1.3 VEHICLE COST Patrol Vehicle 5 $121,790 SRO Vehicle 1 $5,863 Investigator vehicle 1 $2,359 Lieutenant 1 $933 1.4 TOTAL POLICE SERVICES $1,898,795 2. PAYMENT. The County shall invoice the City for one half of the total contracted amount of the current year police staffing option cost hereunder, or $949,397.50 to be paid on or before June 30 of the current contract year. The County shall invoice the remaining half, or $949,397.50 to be paid on or before November 30 of the current contract year. The City shall promptly pay such invoiced amounts in accordance with applicable law. By April 1, 2021, the County shall provide the City a reconciliation of the previous year’s actual costs for calendar year 2020. Payment by the County, depending on actual costs, shall be paid within 30 days. 3. MINNESOTA STATE POLICE AID. The County, upon receiving Minnesota State Police Aid, shall reimburse the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute, section 69.011 for all eligible contract staff. 4. POST REIMBURSEMENT. The County, upon receiving continuing education reimbursement, shall reimburse the city pursuant to the MN Administrative Rules, Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, Chapter 6700, part 6700.1800. Page 7 of 8 ARTICLE VIII 1. DATA. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated in any form for any purposes by the activities of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, or the appropriate Rules of Court and shall only be shared pursuant to laws governing that particular data. 2. AUDIT. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, Subdivision 5, the parties agree that the State Auditor or any duly authorized representative at that time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc. which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures related to this Agreement. All such records shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years from the date of termination of this Agreement. 3. NONWAIVER, SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABLE LAWS. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the parties of any statute of limitation or exceptions on liability. If any part of this Agreement is deemed invalid such shall not affect the remainder. The laws of the State of Minnesota apply to this Agreement. 4. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by the parties hereto. Page 8 of 8 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and by the authority of its governing body on this __ day of ______________. SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ Mayor SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ City Manager IN WITNESS THEREOF, the County of Carver has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair and attested by its Administrator pursuant to the authority of the Board of County Commissioners on this day of ___________________, _____________ COUNTY OF CARVER: SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ CHAIR, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ SHERIFF Attest SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Approval of Telecommuting Policy Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Richard Rice, IT Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves the attached City of Chanhassen Telecommuting Policy." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Prior to the COVID19 event there were only a few City staff that worked from home, most only on an occasional basis. When the decision to lockdown the city occurred, efforts were quickly made to both accommodate and equip staff to work remotely in order to maintain City services. A formal telecommuting policy was deemed necessary to ensure all City staff who are approved to work remotely had clear direction about work expectations and responsibilities. The attached telecommuting policy was developed with the assistance of the League of Minnesota Cities, and various other metro area cities. The policy defines the remote worker approval process and employee requirements for telecommuting. RECOMMENDATION The City Council approves the attached City of Chanhassen Telecommuting Policy. ATTACHMENTS: Teleworker Policy Telecommuting Working Aggreement CITY OF CHANHASSEN | Tele-Worker Policy City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Tele-Worker Policy Policy Overview The purpose of this policy is to establish a set of guidelines under which city staff may work remotely during emergencies, when other circumstances prohibit the use of their normal city workspaces, or under a special circumstance when it is beneficial to the employer and employee. The public nature of the city’s work requires a physical presence in most cases. Remote work is not appropriate for all city employees and no city employee is entitled or guaranteed the opportunity to work remotely. Conditions of this policy include:  All teleworking arrangements must have prior department approval and ensure that quality public services are maintained, which may include authorization by the City Manager as detailed in the Emergency Operations Plan. All long-term teleworking arrangements must have final approval by the City Manager. Temporary arrangements must be approved by the department head (e.g., inclement weather, project-based work).  Duties, obligations, responsibilities, and conditions of employment with the City of Chanhassen remain unchanged including salary and benefits.  Those who are teleworking must comply with all state and federal laws, bargaining agreements, and City policies, procedures, and processes that apply to all employees. Failure to comply may result in the loss of teleworking privileges and/or disciplinary action.  Teleworkers must comply with state and federal employment laws that apply to all City employees including, but not limited to, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which regulates payment of overtime for exempt and non-exempt employees.  The teleworker is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate workspace that is protected from any danger or hazards and that can accommodate any required equipment and is set up to limit interruptions so employee can focus on work tasks.  Teleworking arrangements must be scheduled in a manner that ensures appropriate on-site coverage under normal working conditions. CITY OF CHANHASSEN | Tele-Worker Policy Supervisors Responsibility Supervisors shall be responsible for monitoring the teleworker and ensuring this policy and the Teleworking Guidelines are followed. Supervisors shall ensure work product is measurable for performance evaluation purposes and the quality of public services is not compromised. Employee Responsibility Employees understand teleworking is not a benefit or a right but a privilege and agree to the terms and conditions of the Teleworking Agreement. 1. Procedures a. An employee shall request teleworking privileges from his/her supervisor. b. The employee and the supervisor begin the process of determining suitability according to the “Employee Eligibility Criteria” and other applicable sections in the Teleworking Guidelines. c. The MIS Department is contacted to ensure telephone, voice data, electronic equipment, and/or software is available and can support the teleworker’s needs. The IT Manager must approve the technology requirements before final approval for teleworking is given d. Employee and supervisor agree to teleworking terms, complete the “Teleworking Agreement.” The form is then forwarded with the request for departmental approval according to department procedures (i.e., next level of supervision or division director). e. The City Manager shall be responsible for final authorization of all long-term teleworking arrangements. Teleworking agreements can be modified or terminated at any point, based on business needs. 2. Employee Eligibility Criteria Supervisors should assess requests for teleworking on a case by case basis considering at a minimum the following criteria: a. The needs of the department and the City b. The employee’s duties and responsibilities c. Expectations for future performance by the employee and how performance will be measured. d. Positive or negative effects on quality customer service. CITY OF CHANHASSEN | Tele-Worker Policy e. Positive or negative effects on the department and the City as a whole. f. Availability of electronic equipment and software, including access to documents required for work. g. Availability of adequate equipment and workspace at the alternative work site. h. Demonstrated work skills, such as time management, organization skills, self- motivation, and the ability to work independently. i. Individual department or division parameters. 3. Remote Workspace The employee is responsible to provide a suitable workspace to accommodate the ability to reasonable perform their assigned work. The workspace should meet the following criteria: a. The teleworking location should comply with building code and be free of health and safety hazards and/or obstructions. b. The teleworker will be responsible for all costs related to improvements in the home necessary to ensure an adequate and safe workspace, including appropriate ergonomic office furniture. Home utility costs (e.g., water, heat, electricity, internet service fees, furniture, etc.) will not be reimbursable by the City. c. The teleworker must take appropriate steps to minimize damage to city-owned equipment at the home work site and ensure that it is not used by any unauthorized person. d. The teleworker must provide sufficient internet bandwidth to support the work to be performed. The teleworker is responsible for any costs associated with providing sufficient internet bandwidth. The City may temporarily issue mobile hotspots if such equipment is available. 4. Vehicles, Equipment and Supplies The City will provide eligible employees the necessary computing equipment and software to perform their remote work. Teleworkers must follow the Computer Use Policy when using this equipment. Laptops or other city computing equipment will be configured for a secured connection to the City network. The City does not provide internet bandwidth. For employees who use city-owned vehicles the employee should follow the use of city vehicles policy. CITY OF CHANHASSEN | Tele-Worker Policy 5. Terms and Conditions a. The supervisor and the employee must develop, agree to, and sign the Teleworker Agreement and obtain approval according to this policy before teleworking begins. A final copy of the agreement will go to the employee, supervisor, and Assistant City Manager to place in his/her personnel file. b. All terms and conditions of employment according to city policy will remain consistent while teleworking, including salary, benefits, and job classification. c. In the event of a work-related injury while teleworking, the employee is directed to notify the supervisor and complete all necessary reports for reporting an accident/incident. d. The work schedule and hours of work shall be consistent with the requirements as agreed upon with the employee’s supervisor. During agreed upon core hours, the employee shall be available for consultation with his/her supervisor or other City staff. An employee shall inform the supervisor of any major absences from the teleworking location during the core hours. e. Employees who are teleworking from their home location must determine adequate arrangements for child or dependent care to maintain a professional working environment. f. To reduce the liability to the City and the employee, business meetings and client visits to the employee’s home are prohibited. g. To limit security issues, teleworkers will not be allowed to access the City networks through personal equipment. City of Chanhassen Telecommuting Working Agreement Employee Info 1. Remote work location: Employee residence Other (Specify) Employee Name Street Address City State Zip Telecommuting will benefit the City of Chanhassen by: Schedule 2. Teleworking schedule On a weekly basis M Tu W T h F Occasional basis On a monthly basis (regular commuting days e.g., 1st Tu): 3. Core hours Equipment 1. City of Chanhassen equipment (if any) provided for use at remote work locations: Description Approved by IT (if applicable) 5. Databases and information systems the employee will have access to from remote work location (if any): 6. Non-City of Chanhassen equipment, software and data permitted to be used. Items Contacts 7. Frequency and type of contact between employee and supervisor on teleworking days will be: 8. Employee will monitor telephone calls from the remote work location and will respond to calls as if at permanent work location. Yes No. If no, Employee will call the permanent work location at least times per day. 9. Conditions/expectations/performance measures/agreed upon by the employee and supervisor: My signature below indicates that I have read and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as described in the City of Chanhassen Telecommuting Policy I agree that this employee may telecommute with the conditions identified in the City of Chanhassen’s telecommuting policy. Employee Signature Date: Signature of City Manager: Date: Department Head Signature: Date: Dept Head / Supervisor: Date: Teleworking Terms As a City of Chanhassen Teleworker, I understand and agree to the following: 1. I agree to perform services for the City of Chanhassen as a teleworker. I understand that teleworking is voluntary and may be terminated at any time, by City of Chanhassen or me, with or without cause 2. I agree that my duties, obligations, responsibilities and conditions of employment with Chanhassen remain unchanged. My salary, retirement, benefits, and City sponsored insurance coverage remain unchanged. 3. I agree to follow the City of Chanhassen Computer Use policy when using any City provided equipment, software, data, and supplies, in my alternative work location. 4. I agree to designate an alternative workspace, subject to the approval of my supervisor. The workspace will accommodate any equipment to be used in my work and I will protect the workspace from any hazards and dangers that could affect the equipment and me. 5. In the event of equipment malfunctions, I agree to notify my supervisor immediately or return to my permanent work station. If the malfunction precludes me from working on my teleworking work assignment, I understand that I will be assigned other work and/or work location pending the repair of my equipment. If City owned equipment malfunctions, the City will take expedient action to complete the repairs or provide alternate equipment. 6. With advance notice, I agree that City representatives can make on site visits to my remote work location. This visit may be necessary to inspect or investigate an injury, theft, loss, or tort liability related to teleworking. 7. I agree that business meetings and client visits to my home are prohibited. 8. I understand I will be liable for injuries to third persons and members of my family at my home/work location. 9. I agree that my remote workspace is considered an extension of my City of Chanhassen workspace and therefore I am governed by the provisions of workers’ compensation. If I have a job-related accident during my teleworking hours, I will report it to my supervisor immediately and complete the required reports. 10. I agree that any software, products, documents, reports, or data created as a result of my work-related activities are owned by City of Chanhassen. 11. I agree to return any City-owned equipment, software, products, documents, and data if I stop teleworking, leave my employment with City of Chanhassen, or take an extended leave of absence. 12. I agree to protect the privacy and confidentiality of data when transporting the data to and from my remote work location and using the data at my remote work location. I understand that I must follow the provisions of the MN Government Data Practices Act, other data privacy legislation, and City of Chanhassen data privacy policies when transporting the data or working at my remote work location. 13. I agree to comply with all applicable laws and City of Chanhassen policies, including the City of Chanhassen Policy on Teleworking. I understand that failure to comply may result in loss of teleworking privileges and discipline 14. I understand that my remote working will be allowed, assuming a same level of service as if I were physically present on the work site. As such, I will be responsive to phone calls and emails in a timely manner, as well as make myself available to participate in meetings remotely. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Ordinance XXX: Approve Code Omnibus Amendment Addressing the 1) Definition of Street; 2) Administrative Duties; 3) Administrative Septic Variances; 4) Earthwork Fee Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate Planner File No: PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 of the Chanhassen City Code." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On August 24, 2020 staff briefed the City Council on a large number of proposed code amendments. Some of those amendments did not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code and therefore did not need to go before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The following amendments to Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 are proposed: Remove Specified Administrative Duties and Structure Amend Street Definition Correct Earthwork Fee Reference Administrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System Setbacks A brief summary of these items is provided below and a full staff report for each proposed amendment is provided as an attachment. DISCUSSION Remove Specified Administrative Duties and Structure Issue Summary Currently, several sections in City Code prescribe organizational structure and duties of city officers. The duties of city officers are also prescribed in statute. Specifically, the duties of the City Manager can be found in Minnesota Statute, section 412.651. The provisions in City Code do not reflect the current organization and may in some cases conflict with statute. Proposed Solution The City Attorney has reviewed these provisions and has recommended that provisions stipulating the internal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 7, 2020SubjectOrdinance XXX: Approve Code Omnibus Amendment Addressing the 1) Definition of Street; 2)Administrative Duties; 3) Administrative Septic Variances; 4) Earthwork FeeSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION"The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 of the Chanhassen CityCode."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 24, 2020 staff briefed the City Council on a large number of proposed code amendments. Some of thoseamendments did not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code and therefore did not need to go before the PlanningCommission for a public hearing. The following amendments to Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 are proposed:Remove Specified Administrative Duties and StructureAmend Street DefinitionCorrect Earthwork Fee ReferenceAdministrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System SetbacksA brief summary of these items is provided below and a full staff report for each proposed amendment is provided asan attachment.DISCUSSIONRemove Specified Administrative Duties and StructureIssue SummaryCurrently, several sections in City Code prescribe organizational structure and duties of city officers. The duties of cityofficers are also prescribed in statute. Specifically, the duties of the City Manager can be found in Minnesota Statute,section 412.651. The provisions in City Code do not reflect the current organization and may in some cases conflictwith statute. Proposed Solution The City Attorney has reviewed these provisions and has recommended that provisions stipulating the internal organization of the City be removed. Staff believes it is appropriate to remove these sections of City Code to provide clarity in reflecting the current organization; eliminate confusion; and allow for flexibility in adapting the internal organization structure to meet current city needs. Amend Street Definition Issue Summary The City recently became aware that its policy of treating unimproved roadway rightofway as a street creating a front yard setback is not supported by the definitions within the City Code. In cases where the roadway rightofway will never be improved, this is desirable as it removes unnecessary restrictions from properties and reduces the need for the city to process and grant variance requests. In cases where the roadway rightofway will be improved, this is problematic and it allows for the construction of structures and fences in locations that could interfere with future roadway sight lines, harming public safety, or in locations that are detrimental to neighborhood aesthetics. Proposed Solution Staff is recommending that the definition of street be amended to include roadway rightofways in which a future roadway will be constructed. This change will prevent improvements constructed along currently vacant rightofways from negatively impacting future roadways and neighborhoods. Correct Earthwork Fee Reference Issue Summary Section 736(c) states that the fees for earthwork permits are established by Section 739; however, they are actually established by Section 740. Proposed Solution Staff proposed amending Section 736(c) to correctly reference Section 740. Administrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System Setbacks Issue Summary The City has had several properties with failing septic systems needing to request a variance from the City Council from the city’s septic setback requirements. Often these variance requests are time sensitive and the City, applicant, and other regulatory agencies agree that the variance must be granted to allow continued use of the property in an environmentally responsible manner. As more of the City’s aging septic systems begin to fail, staff expects an increase in these types of variances. Proposed Solution Staff is proposing allowing the City Building Official to approve deviations from the Chapter 19 setbacks in situations where there are no viable alternative locations and the system meets all other requirements. Staff is also proposing that the city be allowed to place conditions on these approvals to mitigate the impact of the reduced setbacks, and that a formal variance procedure be established for situations not meeting the criteria for an administrative approval. RECOMMENDATION A full discussion of these items can be found in the attached staff reports. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to make the proposed changes to Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 7, 2020SubjectOrdinance XXX: Approve Code Omnibus Amendment Addressing the 1) Definition of Street; 2)Administrative Duties; 3) Administrative Septic Variances; 4) Earthwork FeeSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION"The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 of the Chanhassen CityCode."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 24, 2020 staff briefed the City Council on a large number of proposed code amendments. Some of thoseamendments did not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code and therefore did not need to go before the PlanningCommission for a public hearing. The following amendments to Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19 are proposed:Remove Specified Administrative Duties and StructureAmend Street DefinitionCorrect Earthwork Fee ReferenceAdministrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System SetbacksA brief summary of these items is provided below and a full staff report for each proposed amendment is provided asan attachment.DISCUSSIONRemove Specified Administrative Duties and StructureIssue SummaryCurrently, several sections in City Code prescribe organizational structure and duties of city officers. The duties of cityofficers are also prescribed in statute. Specifically, the duties of the City Manager can be found in Minnesota Statute,section 412.651. The provisions in City Code do not reflect the current organization and may in some cases conflictwith statute.Proposed SolutionThe City Attorney has reviewed these provisions and has recommended that provisions stipulating the internalorganization of the City be removed. Staff believes it is appropriate to remove these sections of City Code to provideclarity in reflecting the current organization; eliminate confusion; and allow for flexibility in adapting the internalorganization structure to meet current city needs.Amend Street DefinitionIssue SummaryThe City recently became aware that its policy of treating unimproved roadway rightofway as a street creating afront yard setback is not supported by the definitions within the City Code. In cases where the roadway rightofwaywill never be improved, this is desirable as it removes unnecessary restrictions from properties and reduces the needfor the city to process and grant variance requests. In cases where the roadway rightofway will be improved, this isproblematic and it allows for the construction of structures and fences in locations that could interfere with futureroadway sight lines, harming public safety, or in locations that are detrimental to neighborhood aesthetics.Proposed SolutionStaff is recommending that the definition of street be amended to include roadway rightofways in which a futureroadway will be constructed. This change will prevent improvements constructed along currently vacant rightofwaysfrom negatively impacting future roadways and neighborhoods.Correct Earthwork Fee ReferenceIssue SummarySection 736(c) states that the fees for earthwork permits are established by Section 739; however, they are actuallyestablished by Section 740.Proposed SolutionStaff proposed amending Section 736(c) to correctly reference Section 740.Administrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System SetbacksIssue SummaryThe City has had several properties with failing septic systems needing to request a variance from the City Councilfrom the city’s septic setback requirements. Often these variance requests are time sensitive and the City, applicant,and other regulatory agencies agree that the variance must be granted to allow continued use of the property in anenvironmentally responsible manner. As more of the City’s aging septic systems begin to fail, staff expects an increasein these types of variances.Proposed SolutionStaff is proposing allowing the City Building Official to approve deviations from the Chapter 19 setbacks in situationswhere there are no viable alternative locations and the system meets all other requirements. Staff is also proposing thatthe city be allowed to place conditions on these approvals to mitigate the impact of the reduced setbacks, and that aformal variance procedure be established for situations not meeting the criteria for an administrative approval.RECOMMENDATIONA full discussion of these items can be found in the attached staff reports. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to make the proposed changes to Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 19. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Remove Specified Administrative Duties and Structure Amend Street Definition Correct Earthwork Fee Reference Administrative Approval of Deviations from Septic System Setbacks 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 7, BUILDING AND BUILDNG REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 19, WATER, SEWERS, AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Street means a public right-of-way or a private right-of-way occupied by a roadway or in which a future roadway will be constructed. (1) (7.5) (12) (18) (20) Section 2. Section 2-16 to Section 2-17 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-16 – 2-17. – Reserved. Section 3. Section 2-19 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-19. – Reserved. Section 4. Section 7-36(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (c) Earth work of more than 50 but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period may be approved by the city staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7-40 of this Code. Upon receipt of a completed application, the city staff shall review the application within ten working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the City Council. Section 5. Section 19-69 to Section 19-95 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-69 - Administrative Approval of Deviations from this Article 1) The City Building Official may administratively approve a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article if the following criteria are met: a) The proposed subsurface sewage treatment system is a Type 1 septic system. b) The proposed subsurface sewage treatment system meets all other State, County, and City requirements. c) The Building Official upon consultation with the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, City Engineer, local watershed, and other applicable agencies 2 determines that there are no viable alternative locations or configurations meeting the requirements of this article. 2) As part of the approval of a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article, the City Building Official may place conditions on the approval deemed necessary to minimize the extent or impact of the deviation from this article. 3) If the City Building Official does not approve a deviation from the standards of this article or the applicant objects to the conditions placed upon an approved deviation, the applicant may apply for a variance. Such variances shall be subject to the process detailed in Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3 of the Chanhassen City Code. Secs. 19-70 – 19-95. – Reserved. Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December, 2020 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Ordinance XXX published in the Chanhassen Villager on [insert date]) g:\plan\city code\2020\2020-06 various\attachment 1 omnibus ordinance_december_7.docx CITY OT CHANHASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM TO:City Council FROM:Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Andrea McDowell-Poehler, City Attomey DATE: December 7.2020 SUBJ: Repeal Sections 2-16,2-17 and2-19 ofCity Code Section 2-16 of the City Code establishes specific departments and officers, but does not align with Minnesota Statule. SUMMARY Currently there are several sections in City Code that prescribe organizational structure and duties ofcity officers. The duties of city oflicers are also prescribed in statute. Specifically, the duties of the City Manager can be found in Minnesota Statute, section 412.651. The provisions in City Code do not reflect the city's current organization and may in some cases conflict with statute. Sec. 2-16 - Departments and officers established. Sec. 2-17 - Organization structue: requires an organizational chart for all positions in a department to be established by resolution and set forth in the city's classification and compensation program. Sec. 2-19 - Offices of City Clerk and City Manager consolidated: Consolidates the offices ofthe City Clerk and City Manager, requiring the City Manager to perform all of the statutory duties of the offlrce of the City Clerk. During a review ofthe Code provisions, it was noted that these sections were out of date and not reflective ofthe current organization. Staff asked the City Attomey if these provisions were needed. It was recommended that intemal organizational provisions be removed from the City Code to allow flexibility in managing resources. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MAAKET BOULEVARD . PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 ISSUE RELEVANT CITY CODE BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Section 2- l6 was added by ordinance 78 on January 21. 1985, and last amended on January 12, 2004. Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.651 outlines the duties of the City Manager as follows: 412.651 CITY MANAGER; POWERS AND DUTIES Subdivision 1. Generally. The city manager shall have the powers and duties set forth in the following subdivisions Subd. 2. Enforcement. The city manager shall see that statutes relating to the city and the laws, ordinances and resolutions ofthe city are enforced. Subd. 3. Appointment of personnel. The city manager shall appoint upon the basis of merit and fitness and subject to any applicable civil service provisions and, except as herein provided, remove the clerk, all heads of departments, and all subordinate officers and employees; but the appointrnent and removal ofthe attomey shall be subject to the approval ofthe council. Subd. 4. Confrol. The city manager shall exercise control over all departments and divisions ofthe administration created under Optional Plan B or which may be created by the council. Subd. 5. Council meetings. The city manager shall attend all meetings ofthe council with the right to take part in the discussions but not to vote; but the council may in its discretion exclude the city manager fiom any meetings at which the manager's removal is considered. Subd. 6. Recommend ordinances and resolutions. The city manager shall recommend to the council for adoption such measures as the city manager may deem necessary for the welfare ofthe people and the efficient administation of the affairs of the city. Subd. 7. Advise; annual budget. The city manager shall keep the council fully advised as to the financial condition and needs ofthe city and the city manager shall prepare and submit to the council the annual budget. Subd. 8. Administrative code. The city manager shall, when directed to do so by the council, prepare and submit to the council for adoption an adminisrative code incorporating the details of administrative procedure, and from time to time the city manager shall suggest amendments to such code. 2 Chanhassen City Council Issue Paper: Administrative Duties December 14,2020 Page2 Chanhassen City Council Issue Paper: Administrative Duties December 14,2020 Page 3 SuM. 9. Additional duties. The city manager shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the statutes relating to Optional Plan B cities or required by ordinance or resolutions adopted by the council. History: 1949c l19s81; 1973 c 123 art2 s I subd2; 1986c444 Section 2-17 was added by ordinance 78 on January 21, 1985. The organization chart for the city may be published in city documents. Section 2-19 was added by ordinance 63 on February 18, 1977 . Currently, the Deputy City Clerk/Offrce Manager holds all of the certifications required for the City Clerk and performs those duties, including the administration ofelections. Eliminating this provision would allow for clarification ofthe responsibility for performing the duties of this position. Staff believes it is appropriate to remove these sections of City Code to provide clarity in reflecting the current organization, eliminate confusion, and allow for flexibility in adapting the intemal organization structure to meet current city needs. ALTERNATIVES l) Repeal Sections 2-16,2-17 and 2-19 ofthe City Code. 2) Repeal Sections 2-16,2-17 and 2- 19 of the City Code and add a specific reference to Section 2-l 8 to MN Statutes, section 412.651 . 3) Do nothing. Staff recommends Altemative 1 which would repeal Sections 2-16,2-17 and 2-19 of the City Code. g:Vlan\city code\2020u020{6 vrious\administrative dutics\issue p4er adminisrstive duties.docx J RECOMMENDATION CruMCHANIIASSIN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM FROM: TO City Council MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner December 7, 2020 Roadway Right-o f-Way Definition DATE: SUBJ: The way the City's definitions of right-of-ways are structured means that unimproved right-of- ways do not trigger front yard setback requirements. SUMMARY The City recently became aware that its policy of treating unimproved roadway right-of-way as a street creating a front yard setback is not supported by the definitions within the City Code. In cases where the roadway right-of-way will never be improved, this is desirable as it removes unnecessary restrictions from properties and reduces the need for the City to process and grant variance requests. In cases where the roadway right-of-way will be improved, this is problematic as it allows for the construction of structures and fences in locations that could interfere with future roadway sight lines, harming public safety, or in locations that are detrimental to neighborhood aesthetics. Staff is recommending that the definition of street be amended to include roadway right-of-ways in which a future roadway will be constructed. This change will prevent improvements constmcted along currently vacant right-of-ways from negatively impacting future roadways and neighborhoods. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 1-2 - Rules ofconstruction and definitions: Building setback line means a line on a lot, generally parallel to a lot line, high water mark, shoreline or roadway right-of-way line, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by Chapter 20. The building setback lines delimit the area in which buildings and other regulated structures are permitted subject to all applicable provisions of Chapter 20.(20) 77OO I.IARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55517 ISSUE PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 Planning Commission Roadway fu ght-of-Way Defi nition December 14,2020 Page 2 Lot, corner means a lot abuuing upon two or more streets at their intersection, or upon two parts ofthe same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. (20) Lot, double frotrtage means a lot which fronts upon two parallel streets, or which fronts upon two streets which do not intersect at the boundaries ofthe lot. On a double frontage lot, both street lot lines shall be deemed front lot lines. Lot line means a line ofrecord bounding a lot which divides one lot from another lot or from a roadway right-of-way or any other public space. Lot line, front means the lot line separating a lot from a roadway right-of-way. In the case ofa comer lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street. (20) Right-of-way means a strip of land intended to be occupied by a roadway, sidewalk, trail, and/or other utilities or facilities. A right-of-way includes the land between the right-of-way lines, whether improved or unimproved. "Right-of-way" includes arterial, collector and local streets. (l) (7.5) (12) (18) (20) Roadway means that portion ofthe right-of-way improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoulder. (12) ( l8) (20) Street means a public right-of-way or a private right-of-way occupied by a roadway. (l) (7.5) (12) (18) (20) BACKGROIJNI) The City's historic policy was to treat unimproved right-of-way as a street and require property's abutting it to adhere to the front yard setbacks required for comer and/or double frontage lots; however, while consulting with the city attomey about a lot frontage variance, staff was informed that the City Code does not support this policy. Essentially, since the City defines a street as a right-of-way occupied by a roadway and a roadway as an improved surface, unimproved right-of-ways do not trigger front yard setbacks. In most cases, not having these right-of-ways create front yards is a good thing as it provides homeowners with increased flexibility and reduces the number of variance requests that the City receives; however, there are cases where requiring properties along unimproved right-of-ways to maintain a front yard setback is in the public interest. Issue I : Front Yord versus Rear and Side Yard Setbacl<s In many zoning districts, the front and rear yard setbacks are the same; however, the City allows many accessory structures to encroach into a property's rear yard or subjects them to different standards. For example, pools can only be placed within the rear yard and are subject to a 10-foot setback and sheds between 140 and 399 square feet may be placed 10 feet from a rear lot line but ANALYSIS Planning Commission Roadway Right-of-Way Defi nition December 14,2020 Page 3 must meet the full front yard setback. Additionally, fences may be 6'6" high in the rear yard but have more restrictive height limits within front yards and sight distance triangles. Most zoning districts require a l0-foot side yard setback, and in some cases, structures can encroach within five feet ofa side yard lot line. Required side yards are much smaller than front yards because they are typically located between similar uses, i.e. two single-family homes, and are not public facing. These yards allow many encroachments and fences ofup to 6'6" in height. These yards' setbacks are treated differently due to the public facing nature offront yards and in order to ensure clear sight lines along roadways. Staffbelieves that it is important that front yard setbacks be maintained along all existing and future streets. Issue 2: Unimproved Right-of-llay There are two reasons why a property might boarder an unimproved roadway right-of-way. The most common is that a parcel is located in an older neighborhood, for example Carver Beach or Red Cedar Point, where roadway right-of-ways were dedicated but the roads were never constructed. Usually subsequent development pattems in and around these neighborhoods have rendered those right-of-ways obsolete and City has no plans to ever construct a road in the area. In these cases, the City has no interest in treating the associated right-of-way setback as a front yard setback and usually encourages owners petition for the right-of-way to be vacated. In other cases, the unimproved right-of-way was dedicated to accommodate future development and the City plans to construct a roadway once the planned development comes to fruition. In cases where a proposed suMivision controls the full right-of-way width required to construct a road serving a future development, the City requires that the proposed subdivision construct a roadway stub to the boarder of the undeveloped parcel. In these situations, the right-of-way is improved and the existing ordinance would require a front yard setback; however, in cases where a proposed subdivision only controls a portion, typically half, ofthe required right-otway width, the roadway cannot be constructed until the adjacent parcel develops. Since the right-of-way is not improved, it does not meet the definition ofa street and the front yard setback cannot be applied. This can lead to property owners constructing fences within future sight disunce triangles or accessory structures within 5 to l0 feet of the future roadways. Staffbelieves the definition of street should be amended to include right-of-ways in which a future roadway is planned. Issue 3: Vocating Unused Right-of-Way In the case of unimproved right-of-ways where the City has no plans to install a future right-of- way, the City's historic policy of treating it as a street often led residents to request that the City vacate the unused right-of-way. When a right-of-way is vacated, it is returned to the adjacent property owners within the plat from which the right-of-way was obtained. Since vacating the right-of-way removed the front yard setback, it often allowed the resident to construct an improvement on their property without a variance. [n some cases, the additional property the Planning Commission Roadway Right-of-Way Defrnition December 14,2020 Page 4 homeowner acquired through the vacation provided enough additional lot area that a lot cover variance was no longer required. From the City's perspective, vacating unused right-of-way is usually desirable as it creates more orderly property lines and once the land retums to private ownership, it becomes taxable. Despite these benefits, it is the City's policy not to actively pursue the vacation of unused right-of-way but to wait for property owners to request the vacation. This policy has been adopted due to the costs associated with vacating right-of-way (i.e. obtaining a survey, legal description ofarea to be vacated, public notice, and document recording fees) and the potential to create ill will by increasing property owners' taxes. While the desire to remove a front yard setback created by an unimproved right-of-way can encourage residents to request a vacation, staff does not believe that the definition of street should be amended to include all unimproved roadway right-of-way. The benefits to vacating the unused right-of-way does not justiry creating a counter-intuitive definition that could place a burden, i.e. the costs ofa vacation and/or variance, on property owners. l) Do nothing. It is rare that someone wants to build within a required setback fronting a future roadway. 2) Amend the definition of street to include right-of-ways in which future roadways will be constructed. This would ensure setbacks along future roads are maintained. 3) Amend defrnitions to include all roadway right-of-way. This would require properties to meet front yard setbacks along all roadway right-of-ways, regardless ofifa road will ever be constructed. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 1-2.-Rules of Constmction and definitions g:\plan\city code\2020\2020-06 various\$reet definition\streel definilions.docx ALTERNATIVES RECOMMEI{DATION Staffrecommends Altemative 2. This option would apply front yard setbacks to any roadway right-of-way where a street was present or planned, but would allow homeowners increased flexibility in locating structures adjacent to unnecessary right-of-way. .Srree, means a public right-of-way or a private right-of-way occupied by a roadway or in which a future roadway will be constructed. ( I ) (7.5) ( l2) ( 18) (20) CITY OT CIIANHASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM FROM: TO City Council MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner December 7, 2020 Earthwork Permit Fee DATE: SUBJ: Section 7-36(c) states that applicants must submit the fee required by Section 7-39; however, Section 7-40 is the section that discusses fees. BACKGROUND In May of 1990, the City Council adopted ordinance 128 which created regulations for excavating, mining, filling and grading. This ordinance stipulated the requirements for applying for and receiving grading permits. As part ofthe permitting requirements, a fee was established; however, the ordinance references the wrong section when stating the fee requirements. This enor appears to be a result ofa staffoversight in the drafting of ordinance 128. RELEVANT CITY CODE Chapter 7- Building and Building Regulations, Article II.- Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading: This article established the requirements for apply for and receive earthwork permits. Incorrect references can lead to confi.rsion and, in extreme cases, even legal challenges as the city is often bound by the literal text of the City Code. Staffb€lieves that reference errors should be corrected whenever they are found to improve the navigability and functionality ofthe Code. l) Amend the City Code to conectly reference the fees section. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.1110 77OO I'4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN . MINNESOIA 55317 E t fl[S \T ISSUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES Chanhassen City Council Earthwork Permit Fee Issue PaPer December 14,2020 Page 2 RECO MMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative I . The proposed Code Amendments would read as follows: Sec. 7-36. - Processing of earth work permit applications. (c) Earth work of more than 50 but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period may be approved by the city staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7Jq 40 of this Code. Upon receipt of a completed application, the city staff shall review the application within ten working days and shall notiry the applicant ofthe decision by mail. The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the City Council. g:\ph\.iry co&\lozoeo2Go5 Ei@$..ittrorl f..!..tlheo.t f...docr 'l DATE: CITY OT CIIAI'IHASSXI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM TO:City Council MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner December 7, 2020 Administrative Approval of Septic Variances FROM: SUBJ: ISSUE Over the last few years, the City has had several properties with failing septic systems needing to request a variance from the City Council from the City's septic setback requirements. often these variances requests are time sensitive and the City, applicant, and other regulatory agencies agree that the variance must be granted to allow continued use ofthe property in an environmentally responsible manner. Staffis proposing that the Code be amended to allow the administrative approval ofdeviations from Chapter 19's septic system setbacks in certain cases to expedite the review and approval of septic system variances. There are number oflarge lot septic properties in the southem portion of the City where the majority ofthe property meets the Chapter 19 and Chapter 20 criteria for a bluff. It has been the City's experience that when the septic systems on these properties fail there is not always a suitable altemate location available. In these cases, the property owner is required to seek a variance; however, since many ofthe applicable standards are located in Chapter 19, there is not a specified variance process. Staffs practice has been to utilize the framework provided in Chapter 20 and require the variance to appear before the City Council for a final determination. Due to the fact that problems with septic systems are often discovered upon sale ofthe home, the 60-day timeframe required by the variance process places a significant burden on both the current and future homeowner. Since septic systems are a necessary component of ahome without access to fte City's sanitary sewer system and since their placement is dictated by soil, slope, and other design concems, the City and other regulatory agencies are often in agreement with the applicant that the requested variance is necessary. For these reasons, staff is proposing to amend Chapter 19 to allow the City's Building Official to approve deviations from the Chapter l9 setbacks in situations where there are no viable altemate locations and the system meets all other requirements. Staffis also proposing that the City be allowed to place conditions on these approvals to mitigate the impact ofthe reduced setbacks, PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 11OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO 8OX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 553]7 SUMMARY Planning Commission Administrative Approval of Septic Variances December 14, 2020 Page 2 RELEVANT CITY CODE Chapter 19, Article IV, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems: This article adopts Carver County's Chapter 52 "Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems" by reference subject to amendments for the purpose of permitting and regulating septic systems within the city. Chapter 20, Article II, Division I "Generally" and Division 3 "Variances": These divisions establish the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, establish its authority to hold public hearings and decide on variances, and stipulate the process for reviewing variances and the circumstances in which they may be granted. Issue I: Lack of Clear Process Requested deviations from the section ofthe City Code governing subsurface sewage treatment systems are complicated by the fact that there is no clearly outlined process for granting a variance. Staffs practice has been to use the variance process, procedure, and findings offact established by Chapter 20, Article II, Divisions 1 and 3 of the City Code; however, these divisions only empower the Planning Commission to decide on variances from the provisions contained within Chapter 20. Since the non-structural nature ofseptic mounds and drain fields mean that the setback provisions contained in Chapter 20 do not apply, the Planning Commission can only hold a hearing and then make a recommendation to the City Council, which must then decide on the variance. Although Chapter 20's variance process does not technically apply to Chapter l9 variances, it does provide a clear and fair framework for accepting and reviewing applications, notifoing the community, and deciding on the appropriateness of allowing deviations from Chapter 19's standards. Staffbelieves that it is important that applicants seeking a variance go through a clear, consistent, and fair process. For that reason, Chapter 19 should either be amended to allow for administrative deviations with an option to appeal through Chapter 20's process or to establish Chapter 20's process as the mechanism for granting variance's from Chapter 19. Issue 2: Time Sensitive Nature of Requests Since septic system variance requests are not covered under Chapter 20, Article II, Division l, they can only be approved or denied by the City Council. Due to the time needed for interjurisdictional review, public hearing notices, and the spacing between Planning Commission and City Council meetings, it typically takes around 60 days to resolve a request for a variance from the City's septic system standards. By comparison, a request from a variance from Chapter 20 ofthe City Code can typically be resolved in around six weeks, unless it is appealed to the and that a formal variance procedure be established for situations not meeting the criteria for an administrative approval. ANALYSIS Planning Commission Administrative Approval of Septic Variances December 14, 2020 Page 3 City Council, and a permit for a septic system meeting City Code can tlpically be reviewed and issued in around two weeks. The relatively lenglhy process for granting a septic system variance is important because variance requests from the septic system standards are more likely than other variance requests to be time sensitive. Often times the need for a new septic system is discovered when the system is found to be failing during a compliance inspection. Failing septic systems can result in untreated wastewater seeping into the groundwater or ending up in surface water resources. Due to the potential environmental consequences ofa failing system, it is in the City's interest to ensue that a system can be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. An additional time-related concem can come from the fact that compliance inspections are a required part ofthe sale of property with a septic system, and many times addressing a failing system becomes part ofthe real estate transaction. This means that potential buyers often either require that a seller install a new system before closing or establish an escrow to cover the cost of a new system. In both cases, the involved parties want to know what type of system will be allowed and where it can be located in order to move forward with their transaction. Staff has received complaints that the time and uncertainty involved with the variance process has caused the costs ofreplacing septic systems to exceed established escrows. While the City is not responsible for or obligated to work within the timetables and project parameters established by private agreements between residents, staff does recognize that the difficult position that a lengthy and uncertain variance process can place homebuyers and sellers in. Finally, since septic system compliance inspections cannot be done during frost conditions and systems cannot be installed during the winter, it is challenging for a resident to leam that a system is failing, select a contractor, put together an application, go through the sixty day variance process, and have a new system installed within a single construction season. With many other variance requests, having to wait out the winter before starting a project is merely inconvenient, but in the case ofa failing septic system that delay could lead to environmental degradation or require the homeowner to spend a significant amount ofmoney have the septic system's tanks pumped until the new system can be installed. For these reasons, staffbelieves that a faster mechanism for reviewing and approving septic system v.fiances would be in the interest of both the City and its residents. Stafls preference would be for allowing the administrative approval of deviations from the City's septic system standards in certain prescribed circumstances. This approach would allow staffto process these types ofrequests in two to three weeks, similar to the review period for other administrative permits, rather than the 60 days currently required. Issue 3: Unique Nalure of Requesls In addition to their more time sensitive nature, septic system variance requests differ from many other variance requests because they address an indisputable need and the design and placement ofthese systems is heavily regulated. For example, when the Cily receives a variance request Planning Commission Administrative Approval of Septic Variances December 14, 2020 Page 4 from a resident looking to place a shed within their property's required setback, the City has to determine: 1) if the size of the shed is reasonable; 2) if there are altemative locations for the shed that are allowed by Code; 3) ifa different design of the shed could meet Code; 4) ifanother action (like expanding an existing garage) would provide similar use ofthe property; and, 5) if the proposed shed would be out ofcharacter with the neighborhood. These types ofquestions are all designed to help the City determine if a property owner is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. If the City is not satisfied with the responses to the above questions, it can deny the applicant permission to place a shed on their property and the applicant can still have reasonable use ofthe property without negatively affecting the environment. By comparison, all property's need a mechanism to safely process waste. If a property does not have access to the City's sewer system and its septic system is found to be failing, a new septic system must be installed. The design of septic systems are regulated to ensure they firnclion as intended and can treat the amount of waste generated by a given house, and the siting ofthese systems often depends on a myriad of factors such as the location of undisturbed soils, slope, etc. It has been staffs experience that on properties requesting variances from the City's septic system setbacks there is often only one location on the property that can accommodate a new septic system. Given the fact that septic systems are necessary components ofhomes not served by City sewer and that in order to properly treat waste they have very specific siting requirements, staff believes that in most cases the variance process represents an unnecessary level of review. For this reason staffis proposing that ifthe City, relevant external agencies, and the septic designer all agree that a proposed system design and location represent the only viable configuration for the system that the City Building Official be allowed to gmnt an administrative deviation from the Chapter 19 setbacks. Staffis proposing to add three subsections to the article ofthe City Code that regulates subsurface sewage treatment systems. The first proposed subsection would read as follows: 1) The City Building Official may administratively approve a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article if the following criteria are met: a. The proposed subsurface sewage treatrnent system is a Type I septic system' b. The proposed subsurface sewage treatment system meets all other state, county, and City requirements. c. The building offrcial upon consultation with the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, City Engineer, local watershed, and other applicable agencies Issue 4: Proposed Criterio and Process Planning Commission Administrative Approval of Septic Variances December 14, 2020 Page 5 determines that there are no viable altemative locations or configurations meeting the requirements of this article. This section would establish the circumstances in which City staffcould administratively approve a deviation from Chapter l9's standards. It would specifically limit the authority to Type I systems, the prefened and most common type of systems, and would not allow the systems to deviate from any other regulation. This means that ifa proposed septic system did not meet the requirements of the City's zoning code, it would still need to go through Chapter 20's variance process. The final provision requires that City staffconsult with all other agencies with regulatory authority over septic systems, and states that deviations can only be approved if all of these entities agree that there are no altemative locations or configurations that would meet the requirements of Chapter 19. The second proposed subsection would read as follows: 2) As part of the approval of a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article, the City Building Official may place conditions on the approval deemed necessary to minimize the extent or impact of the deviation from this article. Similar to how the City has the ability to impose reasonable conditions on variances, this section would allow the City to place conditions on administrative approvals to lessen the impact ofthe approved deviation. Potential examples of conditions could be screening if a mound was being constructed near a property line, minimum revegetation provisions ifa system was encroaching into a bluffimpact zone, protection of mature trees, or requiring specific construction techniques to lessen the impact on sensitive environmental areas. The third proposed subsection would read as follows: 3) If the City Building Official does not approve a deviation from the standards of this article or the applicant objects to the conditions placed upon an approved deviation, the applicant may apply for a variance. Such variances shall be subject to the process detailed in Chapter 20, Article II, and Division 3 of the Chanhassen City Code' This section would formally establish an appeals and variance process for situations where staff cannot or will not approve a deviation from Chapter 19's standards or where the applicant feels that conditions required by staff are unduly onerous. The process referenced is the current process that staff uses to evaluate all septic system variance requests. Staffbelieves it is important to establish a clear process for appealing staffdecisions or requesting variances beyond what the ordinance would empower staff to approve administratively. Staff believes that the proposed amendment to Chapter 19 would allow for a more timely review and approval of the most commonly requested septic system variances without compromising integrity ofthe adopted septic system standards or welfare ofthe community. Planning Commission Administrative Approval of Septic Variances December 14, 2020 Page 6 l) Do nothing. 2) Amend the City Code to establish a process for granting variances from Chapter 19, Article IV. 3) Amend the City Code to reconcile the City Code's subsurface sewage treatment systems section's amendment references. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative 3. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. t9-69 - Administrative Approval of Deviations from this Article l) The City Building Ofiicial may administratively approve a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article if the following criteria are met: a) The proposed subsurface sewage treatment system is a Type I septic system. b) The proposed subsurface sewage treetment system meets all other State' County, and City requirements. c) The Building Official upon consultation with the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, City Engineer, local watershed, and other applicable agencies determines that there are no viable alternative locations or conligurations meeting the requirements of this article. 2) As part of the approval of a subsurface sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of this article, the City Building Oflicial may place conditions on the approval deemed necessary to minimize the extent or impact of the deviation from this article. 3) If the City Buitding Official does not approve a deviation from the standards of this article or the applicant objects to the conditions placed upon an approved deviation' the applicant may apply for a variance. Such variances shall be subject to the process detailed in Chapter 20, Article II, and Division 3 of the Chanhassen City Code. Secs. 19-70 - 19-95. - Reserved. Secs. l9-69-19-95. - Reserved ALTERNATIVES g:\plutity cod.\2020\20!Go6 wioo.\r.Fi. .l!ii, wiret Bic .dtnD !ti..r. doc; CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Resolution 2020XX: Carver County COVID Support Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the attached resolution supporting additional efforts by Carver County to ameliorate the economic impacts of the pandemic on small businesses." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY Carver County has set aside funds to address the impacts of the ongoing COVID19 pandemic. The County has requested input from cities as to what the priorities should be for use of those funds. The attached resolution recommends prioritizing support to small businesses that continue to be disproportionately impacted economically by the pandemic. DISCUSSION The Council supported use of CARES funds for Economic Development grants to small businesses in cooperation with the Carver County Community Development Agency (CDA). When additional funds were available, the City Council recommended additional resources for small businesses. This resolution is consistent with that policy direction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: COVID Impact Support Resolution 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 7, 2020 RESOLUTION NO: 2020-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE USE OF CARVER COUNTY’S CARES ACT FUNDS FOR SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT WHEREAS, the CARES Act provided federal funds to the State of Minnesota, which the Legislature and the Governor distributed to local governments throughout Minnesota to deal with the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, small businesses have experienced disproportionate negative impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, approximately 86 percent of all businesses within the county employ less than 20 people; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen staff worked with the Carver County Community Development Agency on the Small Business Emergency Assistance Fund to help stabilize businesses through this economic crisis; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen recognizes the importance of small businesses to our local economy; and WHEREAS, the CARES funding allocated to the City of Chanhassen expired on November 15; and WHEREAS, guidance from the United States Treasury for State, Territorial, Local and Tribal Governments outlined in their Frequently Asked Questions indicated that a small business may receive a grant from a unit of local government for payment of costs associated with operation of local businesses; and WHEREAS, Carver County is seeking input on priorities from local jurisdictions within its boundaries related to relief from impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, that the City supports additional efforts by Carver County to ameliorate the economic impacts of the pandemic on small businesses; 2 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this 7th day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Approve Engagement Agreement with Moss & Barnett Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8. Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the engagement agreement with Moss & Barnett for legal representation in the matters relating to MetroNet's request for a cable franchise and any other cable communications issues as may be directed by the City." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND City staff has had preliminary meetings with MetroNet to discuss their intent to enter into a franchise agreement with the City of Chanhassen to provide cable video services. Staff recommends retaining legal representation with cable communications expertise to protect the City's interests. The firm of Moss and Barnett has extensive experience providing legal representation for cable communications franchise agreements and other issues throughout the United States and Minnesota. Brian Grogan would serve at the City's primary attorney, and has served as such by drafting the original franchise agreement with Mediacom, as well as the renewal agreement. The Engagement Agreement, and a list of Moss and Barnett clients are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the engagement agreement with Moss and Barnett. ATTACHMENTS: Engagement Agreement Moss & Barnett Cable Television Clients 6618233v1 ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT This Engagement Agreement sets forth the agreement between the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (“City”) and Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association (“Moss & Barnett”), concerning legal representation to address MetroNet’s request for a cable franchise and other cable communications issues as may be directed by the City. For purposes of this representation, Moss & Barnett understands that its client is the City not any of its individual officers, agents or employees or any other entity. A. The scope of the engagement is to assist the City in connection with the cable franchise process necessary to grant a competitive cable franchise and other related cable communications services as directed by the City. Moss & Barnett’s 2020 hourly rates for communications work on behalf of municipal clients ranges from $205/hour for paralegal work to $535/hour for senior shareholder work. Moss & Barnett generally finds that the average hourly rate for municipal franchise renewal work is approximately $295/hour. Moss & Barnett estimates fees related to a complete competitive franchising process may be $18,000 depending upon the level of cooperation from the applicant and the level of opposition from the incumbent cable operator, Mediacom. Please note that Minnesota law allows the City to seek full reimbursement from the applicant cable operator for the fees and costs incurred to process the competitive cable franchise. Moss & Barnett’s billing rates are subject to change from time to time, generally in January of each year. B. Moss & Barnett will represent the City with Brian Grogan as the primary attorney responsible for all services. While other professionals at Moss & Barnett may perform services on the City’s behalf in connection with the services referenced above; it is understood and agreed that Brian Grogan will not be removed or replaced as the primary and responsible attorney for all services without the prior written consent of the City. Moss & Barnett will use its best judgment to determine the most economical use of its attorneys and its staff personnel. C. The City will receive an itemized statement of its account from Moss & Barnett on a monthly basis, which summarizes the services rendered, and the costs and expenses incurred on the City’s behalf. Moss & Barnett reserves the right to increase the hourly rates of any attorneys and staff. Such increases will, however, not be implemented without the prior approval of the City. Time is billed by the one-tenth of an hour, which is the minimum time charged for any service. Billed time includes all time spent on the City’s behalf in connection with the matter referenced above, including conferences, telephone calls, drafting and reviewing of documents and memoranda, preparing and reviewing of correspondence, negotiations, legal research, interoffice conferences, and travel to and from locations away from the office. 2 6618233v1 D. The City will reimburse Moss & Barnett for all reasonable and necessary costs and expenses which we incur on the City’s behalf. These costs and expenses include charges for subcontractors working on the City’s behalf, photocopying, delivery and messenger services, WESTLAW and mileage. E. The periodic statement of account which the City will receive from Moss & Barnett will include a brief description of activity on the matter. We do not itemize all specific services rendered on a particular date. The City will contact Moss & Barnett in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of its statement if the City has a question regarding any charges on its statement. If Moss & Barnett does not hear from the City, it will assume that there are no questions or problems. F. All balances on the City’s account are due thirty (30) days after the date of the statement. Interest at the legal rate shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the City’s account from the due date. G. Moss & Barnett is a general service law firm that the City recognizes has represented, now represents, and will continue to represent numerous clients nationally and internationally, over a wide range of industries and businesses and in a wide variety of matters. Given this, without a binding conflict waiver, conflicts of interest might arise that could deprive the City or other clients of the right to select this firm as their counsel. Thus, as an integral part of the engagement, the City agrees that Moss & Barnett may, now or in the future, represent other entities or persons, including in litigation, adverse to the City on matters that are not substantially related to (a) the legal services that we have rendered, are rendering, or in the future will render to the City under the engagement and (b) other legal services that we have rendered, are rendering, or in the future will render to the City (an “Allowed Adverse Representation”). The City also agrees that it will not assert that either (a) this firm’s representation of the City in any past, present, or future matter or (b) this firm’s actual, or possible, possession of confidential information belonging to the City is a basis to disqualify this firm from representing another entity or person in any Allowed Adverse Representation. The City agrees that any Allowed Adverse Representation does not breach any duty that this firm owes to the City. H. Moss & Barnett assures that its services will be accomplished in a timely manner and with the cooperation and assistance of the City. In this regard, the City agrees to designate a contact whom Moss & Barnett will contact and who will regularly review, discuss, and meet with Moss & Barnett regarding the services provided, the time for performance of the services, and to assist in arranging meetings, conferences, and other arrangements with City personnel to facilitate the performance of services by Moss & Barnett and to ensure that all information and issues required for review by the City are made available to Moss & Barnett. 3 6618233v1 The City designates Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager, as its contact person for this project. I. This Agreement may be terminated for any reason by either the City or Moss & Barnett upon giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other. If such notice is given to Moss & Barnett, it shall immediately cease work. All fees and costs incurred to the date of receipt of the notice will be paid to Moss & Barnett. Otherwise, there shall be no further liability to the City. J. Although Moss & Barnett is not required to do so, it is Moss & Barnett's policy to retain files for ten (10) full calendar years after a file has been closed. Files will thereafter be destroyed unless the City specifically directs us otherwise. If the City wishes all or a part of the City’s file returned to the City, please notify Moss & Barnett as soon as possible. All reasonable steps will be taken to preserve confidential communications and secrets from disclosure to third parties. K. This Agreement contains all the terms of the services and financial arrangement between the City and Moss & Barnett and can only be modified by a written document signed by both parties. MOSS & BARNETT, A Professional Association By: Name: Its: Dated: , 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA By: Name: Its: Dated: , 2020 Moss & Barnett's Representative Cable Television Clients Arizona Apache Junction Tucson Arkansas Fayetteville California Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colfax Cupertino Daly City Foster City Hillsborough Millbrae Milpitas Portola Valley Redwood City San Carlos San Mateo San Mateo County So. San Francisco Woodside Connecticut Ansonia Avon Baltic Beacon Falls Berlin Bethany Bozrah Branford Bridgeport Bristol Burlington Canton Chester Clinton Colchester Danbury Darien Deep River Department of Public Utility Control Durham Derby Easton East Granby East Haven East Lyme East Windsor Enfield Essex Fairfield Farmington Franklin Granby Girswold Greenwich Groton Guilford Haddam Hamden Hartland Jewette City Killingworth Killingly Ledyard Lisbon Madison Middlebury Milford Montville Naugatuck New Britain New Canaan New Haven New London North Branford North Haven North Stonington Norwalk Norwich Old Saybrook Orange Oxford Plainfield Plainville Plymouth Preston Prospect Putnam Redding Ridgefield Seymour Shelton Somers Sprague Stafford Stamford Stratford Sterling Stonington Suffield Union Voluntown Wallingford Waterbury Waterford West Bethel West Haven Weston Westport Wilton Windsor Locks Wolcott Woodbridge Florida Lake Mary Georgia GA Municipal Assoc. Illinois Champaign Chicago Decatur Farmer City Lake County Loves Park Macon County Marseilles Oak Park Ottawa Paris Stockton Sullivan Urbana Indiana Lake County Richmond Iowa Asbury Bellevue Carroll Cedar Falls Centerville Coralville Des Moines Maquoketa Onawa Orange City Sigourney Spencer Storm Lake Iowa League of Cities (approx 50 cities) Kansas Lawrence Kentucky Danville McCracken County Monticello Morehead Paducah Princeton Sturgis TBNK Versailles Minnesota Albert Lea Alexandra Apple Valley Austin Belle Plaine Benson Bloomington Braham Caledonia Cambridge Cannon Falls Chanhassen Chaska Crosslake Dodge Center Duluth Eagan East Bethel Eden Prairie Edina Elgin Fairfax Faribault Farmington Fergus Falls Forest Lake Fridley Ghent Goodview Grand Rapids Granite Falls Hastings Henderson Hopkins Ideal Township Inver Grove Heights Isanti Ivanhoe Jordan Lake City Lakeville Le Sueur Lilydale Litchfield Luverne Mankato Maplewood Marshall Mazeppa Medina Melrose Mendota Mendota Heights Milaca Minneapolis Minneota Minnetonka Minnetrista Montevideo Mora Mound New Prague Northfield North Mankato Oak Grove Olivia Orono Park Rapids Paynesville Pine City Pine Island Pipestone Plainview Princeton Prior Lake Red Wing Richfield Rochester Rosemount Rush City Rushford St. Charles St. Cloud St. James St. Louis Park St. Paul Sartell Sauk Centre Sauk Rapids Savage Shakopee Slayton South St. Paul Springfield Spring Grove Spring Valley Staples Sunfish Lake Taconite Tracy Victoria Waconia Wadena Waite Park Wayzata Wendell West St. Paul Willmar Winnebago Winona Woodbury Worthington Michigan Acme Township Bingham Township Blair Township East Bay Township Elmwood Township Garfield Township Green Lake Township Long Lake Township Peninsula Township Traverse City Missouri Liberty Moberly Montana Missoula Missoula County Nebraska Columbus Grand Island Hastings Kearney North Platte Ogallala Omaha Sidney Wilber Nevada Carson City Las Vegas North Carolina Caldwell County Fayetteville Greensboro Hudson Lenoir Sawmills North Dakota Fargo Ohio Ashtabula South Carolina Hilton Head Island Horry County Myrtle Beach Municipal Association of South Carolina South Dakota Aberdeen Rapid City Vermillion Watertown Yankton Texas Waco Utah Parowan Virginia Blacksburg Charlottesville Christiansburg Hampton Lexington Marion Norfolk Northumberland County Prince William County Richmond Roanoke (City & County) Stafford County Vinton Virginia Beach York County Washington Bellingham Federal Way Longview Port Townsend Seattle Spokane Spokane County Tacoma Wisconsin Beloit Boscobel Brookfield Carson Eau Claire Hull Kenosha Linwood Marshfield Menomonee Falls Mequon Milwaukee New Richmond Oshkosh Park Falls Park Ridge Plover Sharon Stevens Pt. Stockton Superior Walworth Waukesha Wausau Whiting Wisconsin Rapids Wyoming Rawlins CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 7, 2020 Subject Public Meeting on the Proposed 2021 Budget Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Kelly Strey, Interim Finance Director File No: BACKGROUND The TruthinTaxation process was first enacted by the legislature in 1988 to enhance public participation in Minnesota’s Property Tax System. Often called the TNT hearing, the Legislature amended the law in 2009 to provide some flexibility on requirements relating to publication of the notice, as well as the timing of the hearing. Local jurisdictions are required to set their “Maximum Levy” by September 30 each year. On September 28, the City of Chanhassen set its maximum levy at 2.77%for the 2021 tax year. Carver County sends draft property tax statements to taxpayers based on the maximum tax levy set by all taxing jurisdictions within the County. Local governments are required to hold a public meeting where testimony is allowed prior to adopting the final levy, which is scheduled for December 14 in Chanhassen. DISCUSSION The TNT hearing is intended for taxpayers to express opinions on the level of taxation. If a taxpayer has a question on a property valuation, the individual should contact the Carver County Assessor's office at (952) 3611960 or the Hennepin County Assessor's office at (612) 3483046. Taxpayers can also find information on property tax credit programs from the County Assessor or at the Minnesota Department of Revenue's website at https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/propertytaxprograms . RECOMMENDATION Receive public testimony. ATTACHMENTS: 2021 Truth in Taxation Hearing PowerPoint Presentation City of Chanhassen 2021 Budget Truth in Taxation Meeting December 7, 2020 Budget Calendar Feb 10 Council Work Session – Discuss Early 2021 Budget Estimates June 8 Council Work Session - Discussion of 2020 and 2021 Budget Aug 10 Council Work Session – Initial 2021 Budget Discussion Aug 24 Council Work Session – Detailed Budget Discussion Sept 14 Council Work Session – Max Tax Discussion Sept 28 Council Meeting – Set Preliminary Tax Levy Oct 12 Council Work Session – Special Revenue & Enterprise Funds Oct 12 Council Work Session – Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2021-2025 Oct 26 Council Work Session – Review of 2020 Utility Rate Study Nov 9 Council Work Session – Long-term Financial Planning Nov 23 Council Work Session – Budget Follow-up Dec 7 Council Meeting – Truth In Taxation (TNT) Hearing Dec 14 Council Meeting – Adopt 2021 Tax Levy and Budget About the Truth in Taxation Meeting •Process first enacted by the legislature in 1988 to enhance public participation in Minnesota’s Property Tax System •Amendments in 2009 provided some flexibility on requirements and timing of hearing •City sets “Maximum Levy” by September 30 – Chanhassen set max levy at 2.77% •County sends draft property tax statements to taxpayers based on the maximum tax levy set by all taxing jurisdictions •Local government required to hold public meeting where testimony is allowed prior to adopting the final levy •Final levy adoption is scheduled for December 14 NOTE: Questions on valuations should be directed to the Carver County Assessor at (952) 361-1960 Expenditures 2020 Final Budget 2021 Recommended Budget % Change from 2020 General Government $2,244,700 $2,341,800 +4.3% Law Enforcement/Fire $3,966,900 $4,034,000 +1.7% Public Works $2,745,000 $2,825,500 +2.9% Community Development $577,800 $597,100 +3.3% Park & Recreation $2,365,300 $2,287,800 -3.3% Total $11,899,700 $12,086,200 +1.6% 4 Revenues 2020 Final Budget 2021 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2020 Property Tax $9,161,833 $9,444,.000 +3.1% Licenses & Permits $1,128,600 $1,191,600 +5.6% Intergovernmental Rev.$442,000 $410,000 -7.2% Charges for Services $636,900 $518,900 -18.5% Fines & Penalties $116,500 $106,500 -8.6% Other Revenue $413,867 $415,200 +0.3% Total Revenue $11,899,700 $12,086,200 +1.6% 5 What factors change the budget for 2021? • $293,432 (2.5%) increase in levy • No increase in healthcare costs • Two percent (2%) cost of living/merit pay increase • Includes adjustments to police contract and police state aid • New technology fee for enhanced permit software • Planning intern funded by sign permit fee • Revenue estimate updates for shortfalls • New partnership for congregate dining • Streets & Parks Snowplowing policy savings ($19,000) Max Levy at 2.77% 2020 2021 Dollar Percent Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $9,181,833 $9,503,900 322,067 2.74% Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 728,523 930,000 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 353,000 Total Capital Levies 1,621,523 2,083,000 461,477 3.93% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 480,600 479,800 Library Referendum 457,412 Total Debt Levies 938,012 479,800 (458,212) -3.90% TOTAL TAX LEVY $11,741,368 $12,066,700 $325,332 2.77% Levy at 2.5% 2020 2021 Dollar Percent Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $9,181,833 $9,472,000 290,167 2.5% Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 728,523 930,000 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 353,000 Total Capital Levies 1,621,523 2,083,000 461,477 3.9% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 480,600 479,800 Library Referendum 457,412 Total Debt Levies 938,012 479,800 (458,212) -3.9% TOTAL TAX LEVY $11,741,368 $12,034,800 $293,432 2.5% Reference for Impact of Changes to the Levy Percent Change in the Levy Total Dollar Increase 0.1% $12,000 1.0% $120,000 Estimated Impact of Changes to the Levy on Sample Property Values 2020 Tax Levy + Ref Levy 2021 Prelim Levy 2.77% increase 2021 Proposed 2.5% increase Net Change from Prelim City Tax on $300,000 Home 642 641 638 -3 City Tax on $450,000 Home 997 995 991 -4 City Tax on $600,000 Home 1,382 1,382 1,377 -5 Note: Market value increases will vary on individual properties. This table does not reflect market value increases. Property Tax Distribution – All Jurisdictions Note: “Other” includes Metro Council, Metro Mosquito Control, Metro Transit District, Carver County CDA and Watershed Preliminary Levy Changes (Max Tax) - KFS Cities City Population Pay 2020 Pay 2021 Preliminary $ change % change Chanhassen 25,955 $ 11,741,368 $ 12,066,700 $ 325,332 2.77% Chaska 26,941 $ 10,350,385 $ 11,241,539 $ 891,154 8.61% Cottage Grove 36,399 $ 16,914,400 $ 17,589,285 $ 674,885 3.99% Elk River 24,567 $ 12,865,770 $ 13,510,920 $ 645,150 5.01% Inver Grove Heights 35,106 $ 24,810,277 $ 26,435,652 $ 1,625,375 6.55% Lino Lakes 21,117 $ 10,491,518 $ 11,141,815 $ 650,297 6.20% Prior Lake 25,735 $ 13,601,137 $ 13,965,457 $ 364,320 2.68% Rosemount 23,965 $ 12,967,538 $ 13,424,838 $ 457,300 3.53% Savage 30,713 $ 18,687,907 $ 20,026,872 $ 1,338,965 7.16% Shakopee 41,519 $ 20,380,500 $ 21,017,800 $ 637,300 3.13% Stillwater 19,748 $ 14,654,103 $ 15,042,589 $ 388,486 2.65% Average 28,342 $ 15,224,082 $ 15,951,224 $ 727,142 4.75% Preliminary Levy Changes (Max Tax) – Carver County Cities City Pay 2020 Pay 2021 Preliminary $ change % change Chanhassen $ 11,741,368 $ 12,066,700 $ 325,332 2.77% Chaska $ 10,350,385 $ 11,241,539 $ 891,154 8.61% Victoria $ 5,708,000 $ 6,415,543 $ 707,543 12.40% Mayer $ 1,226,160 $ 1,375,421 $ 149,261 12.17% Carver $ 3,038,375 $ 3,220,948 $ 182,573 6.01% Waconia $ 8,530,964 $ 8,608,629 $ 77,665 0.91% Watertown $ 2,545,000 $ 2,660,000 $ 115,000 4.52% Cologne $ 1,442,297 $ 1,530,089 $ 87,792 6.09% Norwood YA $ 2,935,657 $ 3,017,107 $ 81,450 2.77% New Germany $ 423,627 $ 446,153 $ 22,526 5.32% Hamburg $ 511,877 $ 583,419 $ 71,542 13.98% Average $ 4,404,883 $ 4,651,413 $ 246,531 6.87% Discussion Points •City Council considers final tax levy, CIP and fees on December 14 •Levy at 2.5% includes previously discussed reductions •Levy at 2.77% could add IT position mid-year or additional resources to Equipment Fund •Recommended One-Time uses •Compensation Study •Unplanned COVID-related expenses (including COVID paid sick leave) Thank you!