B. 2010 Citizen Survey ResultsFinance
MEMORANDUM
Phone: 952.227,1140
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
CITY
nn�
CHMNSEN
FROM: Laurie Hokkanen, Assistant City Manage Xl
7700 Market Boulevard
DATE: August 9, 2010
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: 2010 Citizen Survey Results
Fax: 952.227.1110
BACKGROUND
Administration
• 99% feel "very" or "somewhat" safe in their neighborhood during the day.
Phone: 952.227.1100
Earlier this year the City Council selected the National Research Center to
Fax: 952.227.1110
conduct the City of Chanhassen citizen survey. The method and survey
Building Inspections
questionnaire was the same as used in 2005 and 2007.
Phone: 952.227.1180
• 75% rated the overall direction that Chanhassen is taking as "excellent" or
Fax: 952.227.1190
Between May 24 and June 21, 1,200 households were randomly selected to
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
participate in the survey. 496 surveys were returned, for a 43% response rate.
Engineering
The average response rate for these surveys is in the 25 -40% range. The margin of
Phone: 952.227.1160
error is plus or minus 4 %.
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
The full results are attached, but a few highlights are:
Phone: 952.227,1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
• 97% of residents rate the quality of life in Chanhassen as either "excellent"
or "good" (up from 2005 and 2007).
Park &Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
• 94% of residents rated the overall appearance of Chanhassen as "excellent"
Fax: 952.227.1110
or "good" (up from 82% in 2007 and 80% in 2005).
Recreation Center
• 99% feel "very" or "somewhat" safe in their neighborhood during the day.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
This number dr slightly to 95% after dark u from 2005 and 2007
P g Y (p )•
Phone: 952.227.1400
. 3% of residents responded that they were the victim of a crime in the past
Fax: 952.227.1404
12 months (down from 5% in 2007 and 8% in 2005).
Planning&
• 75% rated the overall direction that Chanhassen is taking as "excellent" or
Natural Resources
"good" (up from 67% in 2007 and 64% in 2005).
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
• Half (49 %) of residents have used the internet to conduct business with the
City (up from 40% in 2005).
Public Works
• 90% of residents visit a Chanhassen park at least 1 -2 times per year.
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
• 73% of residents have visited the City's website at least once in the past year.
Fax: 952227.1310
. 81% speak to their neighbors at least several times a month. This far exceeds
Senior Center
the national average.
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
' The term resident is used to describe the responses of the respondents. The scientific
www.ci.chanhassen,mn.us
methodology of the survey allows us to generalize the comments of the respondents to all
residents.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
August 9, 2010
Page 2
One of the advantages of working with the National Research Center is that it
allows us to compare ourselves to over 500 jurisdictions across the United States,
including 20 in Minnesota. Answers to each question on the survey are put into a
100 point scale, (0 being worst, 100 being best), and then cities are rated as above
the norm, similar to the norm, or below the norm. Benchmarks are grouped into
two categories — Community Characteristics (Q2) and Services (Q13). Of the
Community Characteristics benchmarks, the City rated above the national average
for 24 and similar to the national average for three. Of the 35 benchmarks for
Services, City rated above the norm for 34 benchmarks. The remaining
benchmark — Cable Television — rated below the national average.
The Survey also asked three questions designed by the City Council and staff:
Question 22a gave residents the opportunity to rate various forms of
communication from the City. The most effective forms of communication were
mailed communications (92 %), The Chanhassen Villager (91 %), and the City web
site (89 %). It is interesting to note that the City's Facebook page, which has been
operational for less than two years, was rated as very or somewhat effective by
48%.
Question 22b asked residents "Which do you think will be the single biggest issue
facing Chanhassen in the next 5 years ?" The most common answers were
property taxes (50 %) and property values (30 %). Other common answers were
traffic (9 %) and loss of jobs (7 %).
In Question 22c, residents were asked, "What do enjoy most about living in
Chanhassen ?" Answers were listed, and respondents could check all that applied.
The most frequent answers were location (60 %), Park and Trail system (54 %),
small town feel (53 %) and neighborhoods (50 %).
Residents were also asked an open -ended question, "If the City government could
change one thing to make Chanhassen a better place to live, now or in the future,
what change would you like to see ?" The responses that received 10% or more
are:
Response
Percent of
Respondents
Retail and Dining Opportunities
20%
Government performance, taxes
19%
Transportation: traffic, mass transit,
enforcement/planning
14%
Growth, planning, land use and development,
maintaining community character
13%
Recreation and cultural opportunities
11%
Economic Development and Jobs
GAAdmin\LH\Citizen Survey \2010\Results staff report.doc
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
August 9, 2010
Page 3
The full results, which are available on the City's website at
http: / /www.ci.chanhassen .mn.us /comm/survey.html come in three sections:
• Report of results
• Benchmark Report
• Report of Open -Ended Question
These survey results will be very helpful as the staff and council continue to
prioritize issues in the coming years. Staff will be making a presentation to the
council during Monday's work session to go over the results in more detail.
GAAdmin \LH\Citizen Survey\2010\Results staff report.doc
Citizen SurveyT
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, MN
2010
NATIONAL
RESEARCH
C E N T E R imc
3005 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
www.n -r -c.com • 303 - 444 -7863
IC MA
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
www.icnia.org • 202 - 289 -ICMA
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
CONTENTS
SurveyBackground ............................................................................... ..............................3
About The National Citizen SurveyTM .......................................................... ..............................3
Understanding the Results .......................................................................... ..............................5
ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................. ...............................
7
CommunityRatings ............................................................................. ...............................
9
OverallCommunity Quality ....................................................................... ..............................9
CommunityDesign .................................................................................. ..............................1
1
Transportation..................................................................................... .............................11
Housing .............................................................................................. .............................15
LandUse and Zoning .......................................................................... .............................17
EconomicSustainability ............................................................................. .............................20
PublicSafety ............................................................................................. .............................23
Environmental Sustainability ...................................................................... .............................29
Recreationand Wellness ........................................................................... .............................32
Parksand Recreation ......................................................................... ...............................
32
Culture, Arts and Education ................................................................. .............................34
Healthand Wellness ........................................................................... .............................36
CommunityInclusiveness .......................................................................... .............................37
Civic Engagement ...................................................................................... .............................40
Civic Activity ....................................................................................... .............................40
Informationand Awareness ................................................................. .............................43
SocialEngagement .............................................................................. .............................44
PublicTrust ............................................................................................... .............................46
City of Chanhassen Employees ............................................................ .............................49
FromData to Action .......................................................................... ...............................
51
ResidentPriorities ................................................................................... ...............................
51
City of Chanhassen Action Chart ............................................................. ...............................
52
UsingYour Action ChartTM ................................................................. ...............................
54
Policy Questions ............................................................................... ...............................
56
Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies ....................................... ...............................
57
Frequencies Excluding "Don't Know" Responses ....................................... .............................57
Frequencies Including "Don't Know" Responses ........................................ .............................69
Appendix B: Survey Methodology ..................................................... ............................... 85
Appendix C: Survey Materials ............................................................ ............................... 95
The National Citizen SurveyT"
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
SURVEY BACKGROUND
ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY"'
The National Citizen Survey" (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research
Center, Inc. (NRO and the International City /County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS
was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community
and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected
officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program
improvement and policy making.
FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY METHODS AND GOALS
Objectives Survey Assessment Methods
• Identify community strengths and 0 Multi- contact mailed survey
weaknesses 0 Representative sample of 1,200 households
• Identify service strengths and 496 surveys returned; 43% response rate
weaknesses 4% margin of error
• Data statistically weighted to reflect
Population
U
C
Immediate
• Provide useful information for:
• Planning
• Resource allocation
• Performance measurement
• Program and policy
evaluation
Long -term
• Improved services
• More civic engagement
• Better community quality of life
• Stronger public trust
The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as
issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were
measured in the survey.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY FOCUS AREAS
U
COMMUNITY QUALITY
.......... ..............................,
COMMUNITY
' Quality of life ..............................................
INCLUSIVENESS
Quality of neighborhood ENVIRONMENTAL
Place to live
SUSTAINABILITY
Sense of community
• ..... ..... • •
' ................................................
Racial and cultural acceptance
....... .......................... Cleanliness
Senior, youth and low- income
COMMUNITY DESIGN I. : Air quality
services
• ' • Preservation of natural areas '
..........
Transportation Garbage and recycling
...............................
Ease of travel, transit services, services
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
street maintenance ...........................................
:
.........................................
Housing ...
RECREATION
Civic Activity
Volunteerism
AND
Housing options, cost,
affordability WELLNESS
Civic attentiveness
Voting behavior
Land Use and Zoning Parks and Recreation
Social Engagement
New development, growth, Recreation opportunities, use
of and facilities,
Neighborliness, social and
code enforcement parks
programs and classes
religious events
Economic Sustainability
Employment, shopping and Culture, Arts and Education
Information and Awareness
retail, City as a place to work Cultural and educational
Public information,
opportunities, libraries,
publications, Web site
...... ............................... schools
...... ...............................
.............. ............................... • .
Health and Wellness
PUBLIC SAFETY Availability of food, health
....... ...............................
PUBLIC TRUST
services, social services
Safety in neighborhood and
Cooperation in community
downtown '• ............ ............................• °'
Value of services
Crime victimization
Direction of community
Police, fire, EMS services
Citizen involvement
Emergency preparedness
Employees
The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and
directly comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions.
Participating
households are selected at random and the household member who
responds is selected without
bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance
to participate with self -
addressed and postage -paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted
to reflect the proper
demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 496
completed surveys were
obtained, providing an overall response rate of 43 %. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen
surveys range from 25% to 40 %.
The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for the City of Chanhassen was developed in close
cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Chanhassen staff selected items from a menu of questions
about services and community problems and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for
mailings. City of Chanhassen staff also augmented The National Citizen SurveyTM basic service
through a variety of options including several policy questions and an open -ended question.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
4
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS
As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents' opinions about eight larger
categories: community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability,
recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust. Each report
section begins with residents' ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents'
ratings of service quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or
community feature as "excellent" or "good" is presented. To see the full set of responses for each
question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies.
Margin of Error
The margin of error around results for the City of Chanhassen Survey (496 completed surveys) k
plus or minus four percentage points. This is a measure of the precision of your results; a larger
number of completed surveys gives a smaller (more precise) margin of error, while a smaller
number of surveys yields a larger margin of error. With your margin of error, you may conclude
that when 60% of survey respondents report that a particular service is "excellent" or "good,"
somewhere between 56 -64% of all residents are likely to feel that way.
Comparing Survey Results
Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the
country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services
by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not frorn one
service to another in the City of Chanhassen, but from City of Chanhassen services to services like
them provided by other jurisdictions.
Interpreting Comparisons to Previous Years
This report contains comparisons with prior years' results. In this report, we are comparing this
year's data with existing data in the graphs. Differences between years can be considered
"statistically significant" if they are greater than six percentage points. Trend data for your
jurisdiction 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, prograrns or public information may have affected residents'
opinions.
Benchmark Comparisons
NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government
services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations
are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; 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 City of Chanhassen chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark
comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was
asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Chanhassen survey was included
in NRC's database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For
most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in
the benchmark comparison.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Chanhassen results were
generally noted as being "above" the benchmark, "below" the benchmark or "similar" to the
benchmark. For some questions — those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local
problem — the comparison to the benchmark is designated as "more," "similar" or "less" (for
example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code
enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the
benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of "much," (for example,
"much less" or "much above "). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of
Chanhassen's rating to the benchmark.
"Don't Know" Responses and Rounding
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 removed from the analyses presented in the body of the
report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an
opinion about a specific item.
For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer. When the total
exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select
more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not
total to exactly 100 %, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the
nearest whole number.
For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B: Survey
Methodology.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
6
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report of the City of Chanhassen survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of
residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of
local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other
stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and
to sustain services and amenities for long -term success.
Most residents experienced a good quality of life in the City of Chanhassen and believed the City
was a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the City of Chanhassen was rated as
"excellent" or "good" by 97% of respondents. Almost all reported they plan on staying in the City
of Chanhassen for the next five years.
A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study.
Among the characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were the overall image or reputation
of Chanhassen, the overall quality of the natural environment and the overall appearance of
Chanhassen. The three characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were employment
opportunities, shopping opportunities and opportunities to attend cultural activities.
Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 27
characteristics for which comparisons were available, 24 were above the national benchmark
comparison, three were similar to the national benchmark comparison and none were below.
Residents in the City of Chanhassen were somewhat civically engaged. While only 18% had
attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12
months, 95% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. Less than half had volunteered their time
to some group or activity in the City of Chanhassen, which was lower than the benchmark.
In general, survey respondents demonstrated strong trust in local government. A majority rated the
overall direction being taken by the City of Chanhassen as "good" or "excellent." This was higher
than the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of
Chanhassen in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. Nearly all rated their
overall impression of employees as "excellent' or "good."
On average, residents gave favorable ratings to almost all local government services. City services
rated were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 35 services for which
comparisons were available, 34 were above the benchmark comparison, none were similar to the
benchmark comparison and just one was below.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Chanhassen which examined the relationships
between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Chanhassen's services overall. Those key
driver services that correlated most strongly with residents' perceptions about overall City service
quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Chanhassen
can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about
overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the
Key Driver Analysis were:
• Sewer services
• Sheriff services
• Economic development
• Health services
• Public information services
For all of these services, the City of Chanhassen was above the benchmark and should continue to
ensure high quality performance.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
COMMUNITY RATINGS
OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY
Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the
natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National
Citizen SurveyTM contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of
Chanhassen — not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but
questions to measure residents' commitment to the City of Chanhassen. Residents were asked
whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Chanhassen to others.
Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of
Chanhassen offers services and amenities that work.
Almost all of the City of Chanhassen's residents gave high ratings to their neighborhoods and the
community as a place to live. Further, almost all reported they would recommend the community
to others and plan to stay for the next five years. Ratings have remained stable over time.
FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BY YEAR
U
C
The overall quality of life
in Chanhassen
Your neighborhood as a
place to live
Chanhassen as a place to
live
Percent "excellent' or "good"
2010
2007
2005
"/o
' /O
The National Citizen SurveyTM
0 1) /0 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 4: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY
Recommend living in
Chanhassen to
someone who asks
Remain in Chanhassen
for the next five years
)8%
'� 2010
Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely
FIGURE 5: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
10
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Comparison to benchmark
Overall quality of life in Chanhassen
Much above
Much above
Your neighborhood as place to live
Chanhassen as a place to live
Much above
Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who asks
Much above
Remain in Chanhassen for the next five years
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
10
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
COMMUNITY DESIGN
Transportation
The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents
by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly
and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only
require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and
policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel.
Residents responding to the survey were given a list of six aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of
"excellent," "good," "fair" and "poor." The availability of paths and walking trails was given the
most positive rating, followed by ease of walking and ease of car travel in Chanhassen. These
ratings tended to be much higher than the benchmark higher than years past.
FIGURE 6: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR
Ease of car travel in
Chanhassen
Ease of bus travel in
Chanhassen
Ease of bicycle travel in
Chanhassen
Ease of walking in
Chanhassen
Availability of paths and
walking trails
Traffic flow on major
streets
Percent "excellent" or "good"
The National Citizen SurveyTM
11
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 7: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
12
Comparison to benchmark
Ease of car travel in Chanhassen
Much above
Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen
Much above
Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen
Much above
Ease of walking in Chanhassen
Much above
Availability of paths and walking trails
Much above
Traffic flow on major streets
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
12
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Seven transportation services were rated in Chanhassen. As compared to most communities across
America, ratings tended to be very favorable; all were much above the benchmark. Ratings had
improved or remained stable over time.
FIGURE 8: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BY YEAR
N 2010
■ 2007
2005
Street repair
Street cleaning
Street lighting
Snow removal
Sidewalk maintenance
Traffic signal timing
Bus or transit services
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Street repair
Street cleaning
Street lighting
Snow removal
Sidewalk maintenance
FIGURE 9: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Traffic signal timing Much above
Bus or transit services Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
13
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing
attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single- occupied automobile. When
asked how they typically traveled to work, single- occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming
mode of use.
FIGURE 10: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR
06% 8%
Ridden a local bus within
Chanhassen 9%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent using at least once in last 12 months
FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen Much less
FIGURE 12: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE
i=
v
U
s
ti
v
0
Z
v
_
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Motorized vehicle by myself
Motorized vehicle with others
Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation
Walk
Bicycle
Work at home
Other
V 2010
■ 2007
2005
0 2010
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of days per week mode used
FIGURE 13: DRIVE ALONE BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone I Much more
The National Citizen SurveyTM
14
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Housing
Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few
options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single
group, often of well -off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of
affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and
apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the
community loses the service workers that sustain all communities — police officers, school teachers,
house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great
personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower incorne
residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own
quality of life or local business.
The survey of the City of Chanhassen residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of
affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing
was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 61 % of respondents, while the variety of housing options was
rated as "excellent' or "good" by 78% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing
availability was much better in the City of Chanhassen than the ratings, on average, in comparison
jurisdictions. The rating for the availability of affordable housing had increased over time.
FIGURE 14: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR
U
C
Availability of affordable
quality housing
Variety of housing options
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 15: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS
1 Comparison to benchmark
Availability of affordable quality housing Much above
Variety of housing options Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
15
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Chanhassen, the cost of housing as reported in
the survey was compared to residents' reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the
proportion of residents of the City of Chanhassen experiencing housing cost stress. About 27% of
survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household
Income.
FIGURE 16: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE"
Housing costs LESS
than 30% of income
73%
ousing costs 30%
MORE of income
27%
U
C
Note: This question was not asked in previous surveys.
FIGURE 17: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) Much less
The National Citizen SurveyTM
16
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Land Use and Zoning
Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention
given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is
appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences.
Even the community's overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement
functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well - planned community.
The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance
of the City of Chanhassen and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of
property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services
were evaluated.
The overall quality of new development in the City of Chanhassen was rated as "excellent" by 28%
of respondents and as "good" by an additional 54 %. The overall appearance of Chanhassen was
rated as "excellent" or "good" by 94% of respondents and was much higher than the benchmark.
When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the
City of Chanhassen, 2% thought they were a "major" problem. The services of code enforcement,
animal control, and land use, planning and zoning were much higher than the benchmark. Some
ratings showed an upward when compared to past years.
FIGURE 18: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" BY YEAR
U
C
Overall quality of new
development in
Chanhassen
Overall appearance of
Chanhassen
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 19: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Quality of new development in Chanhassen Much a bove
Overall appearance of Chanhassen Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
17
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 20: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR
20%
Population growth seen as
49%
too fast
54%
v
U
s
U
ti
N
C
O
Z
v
a�
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Population growth seen as too fast I Much less
2010
■ 2007
2005
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents
FIGURE 21: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
FIGURE 22: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS BY YEAR
11 2010
2% ■ 2007
To what degree, if at all, 2005
are run down buildings,
1
weed lots or junk vehicles
a problem in Chanhassen?
3%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent a "major" problem
FIGURE 23: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem I Much less
The National Citizen SurveyTM
18
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 24: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BY YEAR
Land use, planning and
zoning
Code enforcement
(weeds, abandoned
buildings, etc.)
Animal control
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 25: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Land use, planning and zoning Much above
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)
Much above
Animal control Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
19
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
The United States has been in recession since late 2007 with an accelerated downturn occurring in
the fourth quarter of 2008. Officially we emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, but
high unemployment lingers, keeping a lid on a strong recovery. Many readers worry that the ill
health of the economy will color how residents perceive their environment and the services that
local government delivers. NRC researchers have found that the economic downturn has chastened
Americans' view of their own economic futures but has not colored their perspectives about
community services or quality of life.
Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic
opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were the overall quality of business and
service establishments in Chanhassen and Chanhassen as a place to work. Receiving the lowest
rating was employment opportunities. Shopping opportunities improved over time.
FIGURE 26: RATINGS OF ECONOMICS USTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
U
C
Employment opportunities
Shopping opportunities
Chanhassen as a place to
work
Overall quality of
business and service
establishments in
Chanhassen
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 27: ECONOMICS USTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Employment opportunities I Much a bove
Shopping opportunities
Chanhassen as a place to work
Similar
Much above
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen I Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
20
0% 25 %" 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of jobs growth and retail growth on scale from "much
too slow" to "much too fast." When asked about the rate of job growth in Chanhassen, 67%
responded that it was "too slow," while 47% reported retail growth as "too slow." More residents in
Chanhassen compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth was too slow and fewer
residents believed that job growth was too slow.
Jobs growth (seen as too
slow
Retail growth seen as too
slow
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents
FIGURE 29: RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Retail growth seen as too slow M uch more
Jobs growth seen as too slow Much less
c
i=
v
U
s
U
N
c
O
Z
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Economic development
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 31: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Economic development Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
21
FIGURE 28: RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BY YEAR
FIGURE 30: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BY YEAR
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Twenty -one percent
of the City of Chanhassen residents expected that the coming six months would have a "somewhat"
or "very" positive impact on their family. The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on
their household income was higher than comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 32: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BY YEAR
What impact, if any, do
you think the economy
will have on your family
income in the next 6
months?
Percent "very" or "somewhat' positive
FIGURE 33: PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS
U
C
Comparison to benchmark
Positive impact of economy on household income I Above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
22
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
PUBLIC SAFETY
Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one
wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel
protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population,
commerce and property value.
Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and
environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide
protection from these dangers. Almost all gave positive ratings of safety in the City Chanhassen.
About 95% percent of those completing the questionnaire said they felt "very" or "somewhat" safe
from violent crimes and 89% felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from environmental hazards. Safety
ratings remained stable or improved over time.
FIGURE 34: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BY YEAR
Safety in your
neighborhood during the
day
Safety in your
neighborhood after dark
Safety in Chanhassen's
downtown area during
the day
Safety in Chanhassen's
downtown area after dark
Safety from violent crime
(e.g., rape, assault,
robbery)
Safety from property
crimes (e.g, burglary,
theft)
Safety from
environmental hazards
2010
■ 2007
2005
' /o
The National Citizen SurveyTM
23
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 35: COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS
v
The National Citizen SurveyTM
24
Comparison to benchmark
In your neighborhood during the day
Much above
Much above
In your neighborhood after dark
In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day
Much above i
In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark
Much above
Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
Much above
Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
Much above
Environmental hazards, including toxic waste
Much above
v
The National Citizen SurveyTM
24
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
As assessed by the survey, 3% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been
the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime,
100% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions fewer Chanhassen residents had
been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and more of Chanhassen residents
had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police.
FIGURE 36: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BY YEAR
During the past 12
months, were you or
anyone in your household
the victim of any crime?
If yes, was this crime
(these crimes) reported to
the police?
Percent "yes"
FIGURE 37: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Victim of crime I Much less
Reported crimes
Much more
The National Citizen SurveyTM
25
0% 25% 50% 75 %° 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
N
i=
v
U
s
U
ti
N
0
Z
v
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Residents rated seven City public safety services; of these, all seven were rated much above the
benchmark comparison. Fire services and ambulance or emergency medical services received the
highest ratings, while traffic enforcement and emergency preparedness received the lowest ratings.
The rating for crime prevention improved from 2007 to 2010.
FIGURE 38: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BY YEAR
2010
■ 2007 Sheriff services
2005
Fire services
Ambulance or emergency medical services
Crime prevention
Fire prevention and education
Traffic enforcement
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the
community for natural disasters or other emergency
services)
/°
3%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
26
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 39: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS
v
M
The National Citizen SurveyTM
27
Comparison to
benchmark
Sheriff services
Much above
Fire services
Much above
Ambulance or emergency medical services
Much above
Crime prevention
Much above
Fire prevention and education
Much above
Traffic enforcement
Much above
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural
disasters or other emergency situations)
Much above
v
M
The National Citizen SurveyTM
27
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 40: CONTACT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with
an employee of the Carver County Sheriff Good
Department within the last 12 months? 28%
Yes
�24%
Poor
6%
-Ilent
t o
What was your overall impression of your most
No recent contact with the Carver County Sheriff
76 Department?
FIGURE 41: CONTACT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with
an employee of the City of Chanhassen
Fire Department within the last 12 months?
Good
Fair
3%
Poor
0%
No
92%
rair
r19%
Yes
8%
Excel len
76%
What was your overall impression of your most
recent contact with the City of Chanhassen Fire
Department?
FIGURE 42: CONTACT WITH POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BENCHMARKS
V�
�
Comparison to
benchmark
Had contact with the Carver County Sheriff Department
Much less
M uch above
Overall impression of most recent contact with the Carver County Sheriff
Department
Had contact with the City of Chanhassen Fire Department
Much less
Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Chanhassen Fire
Department
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
28
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITX
Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall
cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do
not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment.
At the sarne time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties,
states and the nation are going "Green ". These strengthening environmental concerns extend to
trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open
spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable
and inviting a place appears.
Residents of the City of Chanhassen were asked to evaluate their local environment and the
services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as
"excellent" or "good" by 94% of survey respondents.
FIGURE 43: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY YEAR
Quality of overall natural
environment in
Chanhassen
Preservation of natural
areas such as open space,
farmlands and greenbelts
Air quality
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 44: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen I Much above
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts I Much above
Air quality I Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
29
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Resident recycling was greater than recycling reported in comparison communities.
FIGURE 45: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR
02010
■ 2007
2005
Recycled used paper,
cans or bottles from your
home
Percent using at least once in last 12 months
FIGURE 46: FREOUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Much more
The National Citizen SurveyTM
30
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Of the six utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, all six were higher than the
benchmark comparison. These service ratings trends were upward when compared to past surveys.
FIGURE 47: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES BY YEAR
Sewer services
Drinking water
Storm drainage
Yard waste pick -up
Recycling
Garbage collection
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 48: UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS
The National Citizen SurveyTM
31
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Comparison to benchmark
Sewer services
Much above
Drinking water
Abov
Storm drainage
Much ab
Yard waste pick -up
Much ab
Recycling
Much ab
Garbage collection
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
31
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
RECREATION AND WELLNESS
Parks and Recreation
Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its
business, traffic and hard work. Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents,
serving both to entertain and mobilize good health. The survey contained questions seeking
residents' perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community's parks and
recreation services.
Recreation opportunities in the City of Chanhassen were rated positively as were services related to
parks and recreation. Parks and recreation ratings have increased over time.
Resident use of Chanhassen parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness
and accessibility of those services. The percent of residents that used Chanhassen recreation centers
was about the same as the percent of users in comparison jurisdictions. Similarly, recreation
program use in Chanhassen was about the same as use in comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 49: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
Recreational opportunities
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 50: COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
U
C
Comparison to benchmark
Recreation opportunities I Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
32
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
i=
v
U
s
ti
v
0
Z
v
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
FIGURE 51: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
Used Chanhassen
recreation centers
Participated in a
recreation program or
activity
Visited a neighborhood
park or City park
ompanson o r:"%-, mar
Used Chanhassen recreation centers Similar
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent using at least once in last 12 months
FIGURE 52: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
C t b h k
Participated in a recreation program or activity
Similar
Visited a neighborhood park or City park I More
City parks
Recreation programs or
classes
Recreation centers or
facilities
7
5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 54: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
City parks Much above
Recreation programs or classes Much above
Recreation centers or facilities Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
33
FIGURE 53: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BY YEAR
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Culture, Arts and Education
A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like individuals
who simply go to the office and return home, a community that pays attention only to the life
sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring to business and themselves. In the case of
communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts
those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and
educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey,
residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational
activities.
Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 54% of
respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 76% of respondents.
Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were similar to the average of
comparison jurisdictions, while cultural activity opportunities much above the benchmark
comparison.
About 81 % of Chanhassen residents used a City library at least once in the 12 months preceding
the survey. This participation rate for library use was much higher than comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 55: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
U
C
Opportunities to attend
cultural activities
Educational opportunities
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 56: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Opportunities to attend cultural activities I Similar
Educational opportunities I Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
34
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 57: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
Used Chanhassen public
libraries or their services
Participated in religious or
spiritual activities in
Chanhassen
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent using at least once in the last 12 months
FIGURE 58: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services I Much more
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen I Similar
FIGURE 59: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BY YEAR
U
c
v
U
s
ti
v
c
O
Z
v
c
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Public schools
Public library services
2010
■ 2007
2005 0% 25% 50% 75%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 60: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Public library services
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
35
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Health and Wellness
Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees
and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary
responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster that well
being and that provide care when residents are ill.
Residents of the City of Chanhassen were asked to rate the community's health services as well as
the availability of health care, high quality affordable food and preventive health care services.
Among Chanhassen residents, 79% rated affordable quality health care as "excellent" or "good."
Those ratings were much above the ratings of comparison communities.
FIGURE 61: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR
Availability of affordable
quality health care
Availability of preventive
health services
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 62: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Availability of affordable quality health care M uch abo ve
Availability of preventive health services I Much above
FIGURE 63: RATINGS OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES BY YEAR
Health services
7
i
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 64: HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Health services Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
36
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
COMMUNITY INCLUSIVENESS
Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and
beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of
these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were
asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of
diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Chanhassen as a place to raise children or
to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population
subgroups, including older adults. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment
for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many.
More than nine in ten residents rated the City of Chanhassen as an "excellent" or "good" place to
raise kids and about three quarters rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. Most residents felt
that the local sense of community was "excellent" or "good." The availability of affordable quality
child care was rated the lowest by residents but was much higher than the benchmark. The ratings
for sense of community and Chanhassen as a place to retire improved from 2007 to 2010.
FIGURE 65: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BY YEAR
Sense of community
Availability of affordable
quality child care
Chanhassen as a place to
raise children
Chanhassen as a place to
retire
Percent "excellent" or "good"
The National Citizen SurveyTM
37
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 66: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS
v
The National Citizen SurveyTM
38
' Comparison to benchmark
Sense of community
Much above
Much above
Availability of affordable quality child care
Chanhassen as a place to raise kids
Much above
Chanhassen as a place to retire
Much above
v
The National Citizen SurveyTM
38
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors or youth) ranged from 84% to 89% with
ratings of "excellent" or "good."
FIGURE 67: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BY YEAR
Services to seniors
Services to youth
Percent "excellent' or "good"
FIGURE 68: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS
U
C
Comparison to benchmark
Services to seniors M uch above
Services to youth Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
39
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Civic ENGAGEMENT
Government leaders, elected or hired, cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run
effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Elected officials and staff require
the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and
commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most
and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the
community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged,
they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The
extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the
extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between
government and populace. By understanding your residents' level of connection to, knowledge of
and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and
educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans. Communities with strong
civic engagement may be more likely to see the benefits of programs intended to improve the
quality of life of all residents and therefore would be more likely to support those new policies or
programs.
Civic Activity
Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their
participation as citizens of the City of Chanhassen. Survey participants rated the volunteer
opportunities in the City of Chanhassen somewhat favorably. Opportunities to attend or participate
in community matters were rated similarly.
The rating for opportunities to participate in community matters was much above the benchmark
while the rating for opportunities to volunteer was similar.
FIGURE 69: RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
U
C
Opportunities to participate in community matters
Opportunities to volunteer
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 70: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Opportunities to participate in community matters Much above
Opportunities to volunteer Similar
The National Citizen SurveyTM
40
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting, volunteered time to a
group or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had
helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other
jurisdictions. Providing help to a friend or neighbor showed similar rates of involvement; while
attending a meeting, watching a meeting, volunteering and participating in a club showed lower
rates of community engagement.
FIGURE 71: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR'
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other
local public meeting
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other
public meeting on cable television, the Internet or
other media
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Chanhassen
Participated in a club or civic group in Chanhassen
3%
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
Percent participating at least once in the last 12 months
FIGURE 72: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to
s benchmark
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting M uch less
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable
television, the Internet or other media Much less
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Chanhassen I Much less
Participated in a club or civic group in Chanhassen
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
Much less
Similar
' Over the past few years, local governments have adopted communication strategies that embrace the Internet and new media. In
2010, the question, "Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television" was revised to
include "the Internet or other media" to better reflect this trend.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
41
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
City of Chanhassen residents showed the largest amount of civic engagement in the area of
electoral participation. Ninety -one percent reported they were registered to vote and 89% indicated
they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self - reported voting was much higher than
comparison communities.
FIGURE 73: REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR BY YEAR
Registered to vote
Voted in the last general
election
2010
■ 2007
2005
Percent "yes"
Note: In addition to the removal of "don't know" responses, those who said "ineligible to vote" also have been omitted
form this calculation. The full frequencies appear in Appendix A.
Registered to vote
The National Citizen SurveyTM
42
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
FIGURE 74: VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Information and Awareness
Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information
sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of
Chanhassen Web site in the previous 12 months, 73% reported they had done so at least once.
Public information services were rated favorably compared to benchmark data and had increased
over time.
FIGURE 75: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY YEAR
Read Chanhassen
Newsletter
Visited of Chanhassen
Web site
Percent using at least once in last 12 months
FIGURE 76: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Read Chanhassen Newsletter M uch more
Visited the City of Chanhassen Web site (at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) I Much more
FIGURE 77: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY YEAR
Cable television
Public information
services
Percent "excellent' or "good"
The National Citizen SurveyTM
43
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
FIGURE 78: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Social Engagement
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by
74% of respondents, while even more rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual
events and activities as "excellent" or "good."
FIGURE 79: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities to participate
in social events and
activities
■ Excellent
Good
Opportunities to participate
in religious or spiritual
events and activities
Note: This question was not
asked in previous surveys.
FIGURE 80: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Much above
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities I Above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
44
0% 15% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Residents in Chanhassen reported a strong amount of neighborliness. More than 64% indicated
talking or visiting with their neighbors at least several times a week. This amount of contact with
neighbors was much more than the amount of contact reported in other communities.
FIGURE 81: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS
About how often, if at all, do
you talk to or visit with your Less than several
immediate neighbors? times a month
19%
Just about everyday
30%
c
Several times a
month
17%
Note: This question was not asked in previous surveys.
34%
FIGURE 82: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week I Much more
The National Citizen SurveyTM
45
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
PUBLIC TRUST
When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to
surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and
residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to
improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents' opinions
about the overall direction the City of Chanhassen is taking, their perspectives about the service
value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition,
resident opinion about services provided by the City of Chanhassen could be compared to their
opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to
admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of
Chanhassen may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide.
A majority of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was "excellent" or "good."
When asked to rate the job the City of Chanhassen does at welcoming citizen involvement, 62%
rated it as "excellent" or "good." Of these four ratings, all were much above the benchmark.
FIGURE 83: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS BY YEAR
U
C
The value of services for
the taxes paid to
Chanhassen
The overall direction that
Chanhassen is taking
The job Chanhassen
government does at
welcoming citizen
involvement
Overall image or
reputation of Chanhassen
Percent "excellent" or "good"
2 For jurisdictions that have conducted The NCS prior to 2008, this change in the wording of response options may cause a decline
in the percent of residents who offer a positive perspective on public trust. It is well to factor in the possible change due to question
wording this way: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you
show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a decrease, community
sentiment is probably about stable.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
46
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 84: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS
v
M
The National Citizen SurveyTM
47
Comparison to benchmark
Value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen
Much above
Much above
The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking
Job Chanhassen government does at welcoming citizen involvement
Much above
Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen
Much above
v
M
The National Citizen SurveyTM
47
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
On average, residents of the City of Chanhassen gave the highest evaluations to their own local
government and the lowest average rating to the federal government. The overall quality of services
delivered by the City of Chanhassen was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 91 % of survey
participants. The City of Chanhassen's rating was much above benchmark. Ratings of overall City
services have increased over the last three years.
FIGURE 85: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY YEAR
U
C
Services provided by City
of Chanhassen
Services provided by the
Federal Government
Services provided by the
State Government
Services provided by
Carver County
Government
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 86: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS
The National Citizen SurveyTM
48
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Comparison to benchmark
Services provided by the City of Chanhassen
Much above
Services provided by the Federal Government
Similar
Services provided by the State Government
Much above
Services provided by Carver County Government
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
48
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
City of Chanhassen Employees
The employees of the City of Chanhassen who interact with the public create the first impression
that most residents have of the City of Chanhassen. Front line staff who provide information, assist
with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic
tickets are the collective face of the City of Chanhassen. As such, it is important to know about
residents' experience talking with that "face." When employees appear to be knowledgeable,
responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problerns may be
solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Chanhassen staff.
Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in-
person or over the phone in the last 12 months; the 48% who reported that they had been in
contact (a percent that is lower than the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate
overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. City employees
were rated highly; 89% of respondents rated their overall impression as "excellent" or "good."
Employee ratings were higher than the benchmark and were higher than or similar to past survey
years.
FIGURE 87: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS BY
YEAR
Had in- person or phone
contact with an employee
of the City of Chanhassen
within the last 12 months
Percent "yes"
FIGURE 88: CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS
U �
C
Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months
Comparison to benchmark
Much less
The National Citizen SurveyTM
49
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 89: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BY YEAR
Knowledge
7
5
Responsiveness
Courtesy
Overall impression
Percent "excellent" or "good"
FIGURE 90: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS
Comparison to benchmark
Knowledge Much above
Responsiveness
Courteousness
Much above
Much above
Overall impression I Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
50
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FROM DATA TO ACTION
RESIDENT PRIORITIES
Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents' opinions of local government
requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when
residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services — those
directed to save lives and improve safety.
In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is
called Key Driver Analysis (KDA). The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come
from asking customers to self- report which service or product characteristic most influenced their
decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior.
When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service,
responses often are expected or misleading — just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey.
For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an
airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in- flight entertainment predicts
their buying decisions.
In local government core services — like fire protection — invariably land at the top of the list
created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core
services are important. But by using KDA, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious,
but more influential services that are most related to residents' ratings of overall quality of local
government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality
government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring
and improvement where necessary — but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify
important services is not enough.
A KDA was conducted for the City of Chanhassen by examining the relationships between ratings
of each service and ratings of the City of Chanhassen's overall services. Those Key Driver services
that correlated most highly with residents' perceptions about overall City service quality have been
identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Chanhassen can focus on the
services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about overall service
quality. Because a strong correlation is not the same as a cause, there is no guarantee that
improving ratings on key drivers necessarily will improve ratings. What is certain from these
analyses is that key drivers are good predictors of overall resident opinion and that the key drivers
presented may be useful focus areas to consider for enhancement of overall service ratings.
Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the
Chanhassen Key Driver Analysis were:
• Sewer services
• Sheriff services
• Economic development
• Health services
• Public information services
The National Citizen SurveyTM
51
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ACTION CHART
The 2010 City of Chanhassen Action ChartTM on the following page combines three dimensions of
performance:
• Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available,
the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the national
benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red).
• Identification of key services. A black key icon (") next to a service box indicates it as a key
driver for the City.
• Trendline icons (up and down arrows), indicating whether the current ratings are higher or
lower than the previous survey.
Twenty -one services were included in the KDA for the City of Chanhassen. Of these, 20 were
above the benchmark and one was below the benchmark.
Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to
consider improvements to any key driver services that are not at least similar to the benchmark. In
the case of Chanhassen, no key drivers were below the benchmark. More detail about interpreting
results can be found in the next section.
Services with a high percent of respondents answering "don't know" were excluded from the
analysis and were considered services that would be less influential. See Appendix A: Complete
Survey Frequencies,
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
52
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 91: CITY OF CHANHASSEN ACTION CHART
Overall Quality of City of
Chanhassen Services
Community Design
Economic S
Sidewalk
i
development M
Maintenance �
Street S
Street '
cleaning r
repair
Street S
Snow '
lighting r
removal
Traffic signal
' timing ;
;
------------------
Environmental Sustainability
Drinking Recycling
' water
Garbage Sewer
collection services '
Preservation of Storm
natural areas drainage ;
Public Safety
Traffic Sheriff
enforcement services
- - - - - e. - - - - - - -
Recreation and Wellness ,
City Health
parks services
Library Recreation
facilities
.
Civic Engagement
Cable Public
television information
r
Legend
Above I Similar to Below
Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark
1 0*r Key Driver It Rating increase V Rating decrease
I® =. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
The National Citizen SurveyTM
53
Public Safety
Traffic Sheriff
enforcement services
- - - - - e. - - - - - - -
Recreation and Wellness ,
City Health
parks services
Library Recreation
facilities
.
Civic Engagement
Cable Public
television information
r
Legend
Above I Similar to Below
Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark
1 0*r Key Driver It Rating increase V Rating decrease
I® =. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
The National Citizen SurveyTM
53
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Using Your Action Chart"
The key drivers derived for the City of Chanhassen provide a list of those services that are uniquely
related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the
action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the
relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen
when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the City
of Chanhassen, NRC lists the key drivers derived frorn tens of thousands of resident responses from
across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key
drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC dataset. Where your locally derived key drivers
overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys. Similarly,
when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for
attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services.
As staff review key drivers, not all drivers may resonate as likely links to residents' perspectives
about overall service quality. For example, in Chanhassen, planning and zoning and police services
may be obvious links to overall service delivery (and each is a key driver from our national
database), since it could be easy for staff to see how residents' view of overall service delivery
could be colored by how well they perceive police and land use planning to be delivered. But
animal control could be a surprise. Before rejecting a key driver that does not pass the first test of
conventional wisdom, consider whether residents' opinions about overall service quality could
reasonably be influenced by this unexpected driver. For example, in the case of animal control,
was there a visible case of violation prior to the survey data collection? Do Chanhassen residents
have different expectations for animal control than what current policy provides? Are the rare
instances of violation serious enough to cause a word of mouth campaign about service delivery?
If, after deeper review, the "suspect" driver still does not square with your understanding of the
services that could influence residents' perspectives about overall service quality (and if that driver
is not a core service or a key driver from NRC's national research), put action in that area on hold
and wait to see if it appears as a key driver the next time the survey is conducted.
In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers
and we have indicated (in bold typeface and with the symbol "• "), the City of Chanhassen key
drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys. In general, key drivers below the
benchmark may be targeted for improvement. Additionally, we have indicated (with the symbol
v
those services that neither are local nor national key drivers nor are they core services. It is
these services that could be considered first for resource reductions.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
54
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FIGURE 92: KEY DRIVERS COMPARED
Service
City of
Chanhassen Key
Drivers
National Key
Drivers Core Services
• Sheriff services
✓
✓
✓
✓
Traffic enforcement
Street repair
• Street cleaning
• Street lighting
• Snow removal
• Sidewalk maintenance
• Traffic signal timing
Garbage collection
✓
° Recycling
Storm drainage
✓
Drinking water
✓
• Sewer services
✓
✓
° City parks
° Recreation centers or facilities
• Economic development
✓
Health services
• Public library
• Public information services
✓
.�
• Cable television
• Preservation of natural areas
• Key driver overlaps with national and or core services
° Service may be targeted for reductions it is not a key driver or core service
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
55
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
POLICY QUESTIONS
"Don't know" responses have been removed from the following questions.
Policy Question 1
Please rate how effective, if at all, each of
the following methods of communication
currently used by the City is at
communicating information to residents:
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Not at all
effective effective ineffective effective Total
Mailed communications from the City
36% 56%
7%
2%
100%
The City Web site -
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
33%
56%
8%
3%
100%
The Chanhassen Villager
53 %
38%
8 %
2%
100%
Chanhassen Cable Channel 8
6%
36 %
27%
31%
100%
E -Mail communications from the City
26%
50 %
12%
12%
100%
City of Chanhassen's Facebook Page
10%
38%
20%
33%
100%
The Chanhassen Connection (Newsletter)
27%
58%
11%
4%
100%
Electronic Message Sign at the Chanhassen
Library
21%
51%
16%
12%
100%
Policy Question 2
Which one of the following do you think will be the single biggest issue facing Percent of
Chanhassen in the next 5 years? respondents
Property taxes 50
Property values 30%
Traffic 9%
Loss of jobs 7%
Crime 2%
None of these /other 2%
Total 100%
Policy Question 3
What do you enjoy most about living in Chanhassen (Please select all that apply)
Percent of respondents
Location
Park and Trail System
Small town feel
Neighborhoods
60%
54%
53%
50%
39%
Lakes
Schools
28%
Downtown Chanhassen
28%
Proximity to family
21%
Other
4%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
The National Citizen SurveyTM
56
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
APPENDIX A: COMPLETE SURVEY
FREQUENCIES
FREQUENCIES EXCLUDING "DON'T KNow" RESPONSES
U
Question 1: Quality of Life
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Chanhassen as a place to live
64%
34%
2%
0%
100%
Your neighborhood as a place to live
63%
67%
34%
29%
31%
35%
7%
2%
23%
1 %
0%
7%
100%
100%
100%
Chanhassen as a place to raise children
Chanhassen as a place to work
Chanhassen as a place to retire
35%
40%
18%
7%
100%
The overall quality of life in Chanhassen
52%
45%
3%
0%
100%
Question 2: Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate
to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Sense of community
29% 50%
40% 54%
18%
2%
100%
Overall appearance of Chanhassen
6%
1 %
100%
Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen
28%
54%
16%
3%
100%
Variety of housing options
28%
50%
20%
3%
100%
Overall quality of business and service establishments in
Chanhassen
26%
47%
23%
5%
100%
Shopping opportunities
14%
37%
39%
11%
100%
Opportunities to attend cultural activities
14%
40%
35%
11%
100%
Recreational opportunities
33%
10%
30%
25%
50%
29%
46%
49%
16%
50%
21%
25%
1 %
12%
3%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Employment opportunities
Educational opportunities
Opportunities to participate in social events and activiti
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and
activities
Opportunities to volunteer
Opportunities to participate in community matters
31%
53%
16%
1 %
100%
23%
50%
24%
3%
100%
22%
48%
28%
2%
100%
Ease of car travel in Chanhassen
40%
46%
10%
4%
100%
Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen
23%
36%
22%
20%
100%
Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen
40%
45%
14%
1 %
100%
Ease of walking in Chanhassen
45%
42%
11%
2%
100%
Availability of paths and walking trails
53%
37%
9%
1 %
100%
Traffic flow on major streets
23%
54%
19%
4%
100%
Availability of affordable quality housing
16%
46%
32%
7%
100%
Availability of affordable quality child care
20%
45%
30%
5%
100%
Availability of affordable quality health care
30%
49%
18%
3%
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
57
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
v
u
s
ti
v
0
Z
v
a�
N
u
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Question 2: Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate
to Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair I Poor I Total
Availability of preventive health services
Question 3: Growth
29%
52%
17% 1
3%
100%
Air quality
Right
amount
42%
50%
7%
1 %
100%
Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen
78%
49%
45%
49%
6%
0%
100%
Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen
17%
50%
45%
4%
0%
100%
Question 4: Code Enforcement
To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a Percent of
problem in Chanhassen? respondents
Not a problem
Question 3: Growth
Minor problem
40%
Moderate problem
Please rate the speed of growth in
the following categories in
Chanhassen over the past 2 years:
Much
too
slow
Somewhat
too slow
Right
amount
Somewhat
too fast
Much
too fast
Total
Population growth
Retail growth (stores, restaurants,
etc.)
Jobs growth
0%
3%
78%
49%
16%
3%
0%
100%
100%
100%
7%
41%
3%
17%
51%
31%
2%
0%
Question 4: Code Enforcement
To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a Percent of
problem in Chanhassen? respondents
Not a problem
52%
Minor problem
40%
Moderate problem
6%
Major problem
2%
Total
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
58
Question 5: Community Safety
Please rate how safe or unsafe
you feel from the following in
Very
Somewhat
Neither safe
Somewhat
Very
Chanhassen:
safe
safe
nor unsafe
unsafe
unsafe
Total
Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault,
robbery)
68%
26%
4%
1 %
0%
100%
Property crimes (e.g., burglary,
theft)
35%
53 %°
9%
4%
0%
100 %°
Environmental hazards,
including toxic waste
64%
25%
9 %
2 %°
0%
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
58
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 6: Personal Safety
Please rate how safe or Very
Somewhat Neither safe
Somewhat
Very
unsafe you feel: safe
safe nor unsafe
unsafe
unsafe Total
In your neighborhood
Carver County Sheriff Department?
48%
28%
during the day
89%
10%
1 %
0%
0%
100%
In your neighborhood after
dark
57%
38%
3%
2 %
0%
100%
In Chanhassen's downtown
area during the day
86%
13%
1 %
0%
0 %0
100%
In Chanhassen's downtown
area after dark
1 49%
42%
6%
2%
0%
100%
Question 7: Contact with Sheriff Department
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the Carver County
Sheriff Department within the last 12 months? No Yes
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the Carver County
Sheriff Department within the last 12 months? 76% 1 24%
Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Sheriff Department
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the
Yes
100%
Total
Carver County Sheriff Department?
Excellent
Good
Fair Poor
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the
Carver County Sheriff Department?
48%
28%
19% 6%
Question 9: Crime Victim
During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of Percent of
any crime? respondents
No 97%
Yes 3%
Total 100%
Question 10: Crime Reporting
If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents
No
0%
Yes
100%
Total
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
59
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 11: Resident Behaviors
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if
ever, have you or other household members Once 3 to 13 to More
participated in the following activities in or 12 26 than 26
Chanhassen? Never twice times times times Total
Used Chanhassen public libraries or their
Just about everyday
30
Se veral times a week
34
Several times a month
1
services
19%
22%
32%
16%
11 %
100%
Used Chanhassen recreation centers
43%
27%
17%
7%
6%
100%
Participated in a recreation program or activity
51%
22%
18%
6%
4%
100%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park
10%
18%
29%
22%
21%
100%
Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen
92%
4%
1%
0%
2%
100%
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
82%
14%
4%
0%
0%
100%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or
other City - sponsored public meeting on cable
television, the Internet or other media
78%
15%
6%
0%
0%
100%
Read Chanhassen Newsletter
11 %
21%
48%
13%
8%
100%
Visited the City of Chanhassen Web site (at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us)
27%
30%
34%
5%
4%
100%
Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your
home
2%
3%
6%
15%
74%
100%
Volunteered your time to some group or activity
in Chanhassen
64%
15%
12%
4%
5%
100%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in
Chanhassen
50%
8%
13%
9%
20%
100%
Participated in a club or civic group in
Chanhassen
78%
10%
6%
3%
4%
100%
1 5%
1 14%
1 46%
19%
1 15%
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
1 100%
Question 12: Neighborliness
About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors
Percent of
(people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)?
respondents
Just about everyday
30
Se veral times a week
34
Several times a month
1
Less than several times a month
19
Total
100%
Question 13: Service Quality
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Sheriff services 37% 50% 9% 4% 100%
Fire services 51% 45% 3% 1 ° / O 100%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 51% 44% 3% 1 ° / O 100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
60
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
Question 13: Service Quality
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
l.nme prevention
.5470
DO - /0
7 %o
1 1 70
1UU70
Fire prevention and education
36%
55%
9%
0%
100%
Traffic enforcement
22%
54%
19%
5%
100%
Street repair
12%
46%
36%
7%
100%
Street cleaning
20%
59%
19%
3%
100%
Street lighting
22%
52%
22%
4%
100%
Snow removal
31%
50%
14%
4%
100%
Sidewalk maintenance
22%
59%
16%
2%
100%
Traffic signal timing
14%
46%
29%
11%
100%
Bus or transit services
21%
45%
24%
11%
100%
Garbage collection
32%
60%
7%
1 %
100%
Recycling
40%
52%
7%
1 %
100%
Yard waste pick -up
32%
51%
12%
4%
100%
Storm drainage
25%
57%
14%
4%
100%
Drinking water
26%
44%
24%
7%
100%
Sewer services
26%
61%
12%
2%
100%
City parks
54%
42%
4%
0%
100%
Recreation programs or classes
36%
54%
10%
0%
100%
Recreation centers or facilities
26%
57%
13%
4%
100%
Land use, planning and zoning
17%
47%
28%
7%
100%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc)
21%
51%
20%
7%
100%
Animal control
23%
54%
16%
7%
1 100%
Economic development
16%
53%
25%
6%
100%
Health services
29%
57%
13%
1 %
100%
Services to seniors
31%
52%
12%
4%
100%
Services to youth
32%
57%
11%
0%
100%
Public library services
52%
42%
6%
0%
100%
Public information services
29%
57%
14%
0%
100%
Public schools
46%
47%
7%
0%
100%
Cable television
14%
32%
31%
22%
100%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community
for natural disasters or other emergency situations)
22%
59%
17%
3%
100%
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands
and greenbelts
1 29%
1 48%
1 18%
4%
1 100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
61
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
v
U
s
U
v
0
Z
v
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Question 14: Government Services Overall
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 29% 62% 9% 1 1% 100%
The Federal Government
The State Government
Carver County Government
4%
42%
35%
19%
100%
4%
47%
39%
10%
100%
14%
63%
20%
3%
100%
Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity
Please indicate how likely or unlikely Very Somewhat Somewhat
you are to do each of the following: likely likely unlikely
Very
unlikely Total
Recommend living in Chanhassen to
someone who asks
73%
24%
1 %
4%
1 %
3%
100%
Remain in Chanhassen for the next five
years
70%
23%
100%
Question 16: Impact of the Economy
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in
the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:
Percent of
respondents
Very positive
Somewhat positive
Neutral
2%
18%
46%
Somewhat negative
Very negative
28%
6%
Total
100%
Question 17: Contact with Fire Department
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen
Fire Department within the last 12 months?
No
Yes
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen
Fire Department within the last 12 months? 92% 8%
Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the
City of Chanhassen Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Pool
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the
City of Chanhassen Fire Department? 76% 21% 3% 0%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
62
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
v
u
s
U
v
0
Z
_
N
u
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Question 19: Contact with City Employees
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of
Chanhassen within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any Percent of
others) ? respondents
No
52%
Yes
48%
Total
100%
Question 20: City Employees
36%
56%
7%
8%
2%
3%
What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of
Chanhassen in your most recent contact? Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Courtesy
Overall impression
50%
52%
56%
42%
6%
2%
100%
35%
7%
7%
100%
31%
9%
3%
100%
100%
50%
38%
7%
5%
Question 21: Government Performance
Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government
performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The value of services for the taxes paid to Chanhassen 13% 50% 32% 1 5% 100%
The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking 17% 59% 22% 2% 100%
The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming citizen
involvement 14% 48% 30% 8% 100%
Question 22a: Policy Question 1
Please rate how effective, if at all, each of
the following methods of communication
currently used by the City is at Highly Somewhat Somewhat Not at all
communicating information to residents: effective effective ineffective effective Total
Mailed communications from the Ci
The City Web site -
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
The Chanhassen Villager
Chanhassen Cable Channel 8
E -Mail communications from the Cif
City of Chanhassen's Facebook Pag(
The Chanhassen Connection (News
Electronic Message Sign at the Chan
Library
ty
36%
56%
7%
8%
2%
3%
100%
33%
56%
100%
53%
38%
8%
2%
100%
6%
36%
27%
31%
100%
y
26 %0
50%
12%
12%
100%
10%
38%
20%
33%
100%
etter)
27%
58%
11%
4%
100%
hassen
21%
51%
16%
12%
100 %
The National Citizen SurveyTM
63
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
v
u
s
ti
v
0
Z
v
N
u
0
Z
Quest 22 b: P o li cy Quest 2
Which one of the following do you think will be the single biggest issue facing Percent of
Chanhassen in the next 5 years? respondents
Property taxes
Traffic
Crime
Loss of jobs
Property values
None of these /other
Total
50%
9%
2%
7%
30%
2%
100%
Quest 22 c: P o li cy Quest 3
What do you enjoy most about living in Chanhassen (Please select all that apply) Percent of respondents
Park and Trail System
54%
Proximity to family
21%
Location
60%
Lakes
39%
Schools
28%
Neighborhoods
50%
Downtown Chanhassen
28%
Small town feel
53%
Other
4%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
Question D1: Employment Status
Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents
No 23
Yes, full -time 68
Yes, part -tim 9 %
Total 100%
Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute
During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest Percent of days
distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? mode used
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) by myself 83%
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) with other children or
adaIts 6%
Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 3%
Walk 2%
Bicycle 0%
Work at home 6%
Other 0%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
64
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D3: Length of Residency
How many years have you lived in Chanhassen? Percent of respondents
Less than 2 years
16
2 to 5 years
23%
6 to 10 years
22%
11 to 20 years
25
15
More than 20 years
Total
100%
Question D4: Housing Unit Type
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents
One family house detached from any other houses 75
House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 13
Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 12
Mobile home 0
Other 0%
Total 100%
Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own)
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent of respondents
Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 10%
Ow ned by you or so in this house with a mortg or free a nd clear 90%
Total 100%
Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost
52%
About how much is the total monthly housing cost for the place you live (including
48%
rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners"
Percent of
association (HOA) fees)?
respondents
Less than $300 per month
1
$300 to $599 per month
5%
$600 to $999 per month
12%
$1,000 to $1,499 per month
25%
$1,500 to $2,499 per month
39%
$2,500 or more per month
18%
Total
100%
Question D7: Presence of Children in Household
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents
No
52%
Yes
48%
Total
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
65
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
v
u
s
ti
v
0
Z
v
a�
N
u
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents
No 87
Yes 13
Total 100%
Question D9: Household Income
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 Percent of
persons living in your household.) respondents
Less than $24,999
3%
$25,000 to $49,99
11 %
$50,000 to $99,999
33%
$100,000 to $149,000
25%
$150,000 or more
28%
Total
100%
Quest D10: E
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 99 %
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1 %
Total 100%
Question D11: Race
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider Percent of
yourself to be.) respondents
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 %
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3%
Blac or African American 3%
Wh 93%
Oth 1 %
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
The National Citizen SurveyTM
66
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D12: Age
In which category is your age? Percent of respondents
18 to 24 yea rs
No
2%
25 to 34 yea rs
Yes
26%
35 to 4 yea rs
Ineligible to vote
23%
45 to 5 yea rs
Total
29%
55 to 6 yea rs
10%
65 to 74 years
Question D16: Has Cell Phone
6%
75 years or older
M R Do you have a cell phone?
4%
Total
No
100%
Question D13: Gender
What is your sex? Percent of respondents
Female 52%
Male 48%
Total 100%
Question D14: Registered to Vote
Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents
No 9%
Yes 90%
Ineligible to vote 1 %
Total 100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
67
No
11 %
Yes
87%
Ineligible to vote
2%
s
ti
Total
100%
v
Question D16: Has Cell Phone
0
Y
Z
M R Do you have a cell phone?
Percent of respondents
No
4%
Yes
96%
Total
100%
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
67
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D17: Has Land Line
Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents
No 26%
Yes 74%
Total 100%
Question D18: Primary Phone
If YOU have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary Percent of
telephone number? respondents
Cell
18%
Land line
66%
Both
15%
Total
100%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
68
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
FREQUENCIES INCLUDING "DON'T KNOw" RESPONSES
These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the "n" or total number of
respondents for each category, next to the percentage.
Question 1: Quality of Life
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good
Fair
Don't
Poor know Total
C hanhassen as a place to live
Your neighborhood as a place to live
Chanhassen as a place to raise children
Chanhassen as a place to work
Chanhassen as a place to retire
The overall quality of life in Chanhassen
64%
315
34%
166
2%
10
0%
1
0%
2
100%
494
63%
309
29%
143
7%
36
1 %
3
1 %
3
100%
494
57%
277
1 26%
129
2%
8
0%
0
15%
73
100%
487
17%
82
17%
84
12%
56
4%
18
50%
243
100%
483
22%
107
25%
124
11 %
56
5%
22
37%
181
100%
490
51%
254
45%
222
3%
16
0%
0
0%
2
100%
494
Question 2: Community Characteristics F
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Don't
Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
Sense of comm 29%
Overall appearance of Chanhassen 40%
Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen 26%
139 49% 238
194154% 262
18%
86
2%
9
2%
12
100%
484
6%
27
1 %
4
0%
0
100%
488
125
49%
240
14%
71
3%
12
8%
42
100%
490
Variety of housing options
25%
122
45%
219
18%
87
2%
12
9%
43
100%
484
Overall quality of business and service establishments in
Chanhassen
26%
127
46%
227
22%
111
5%
23
1 %
4
100%
492
Shopping opportunities
14%
67
36%
178
39%
190
11%
53
1 %
3
100%
490
Opportunities to attend cultural activities
12%
60
35%
174
31%
153
9%
46
12%
59
100%
492
Recreational opportunities
32%
157
48%
235
15%
74
1 %
4
3%
17
100%
487
Employment opportunities
5%
27
16%
77
27%
133
7%
32
45%
217
100%
487
Educational opportunities
24%
115
37%
178
17%
81
3%
13
20%
94
100%
482
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
23%
110
44%
217
23%
111
2%
9
8%
41
100%
489
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and
activities
25% 122 43%
212
13%
64
1%
3
18%
87
100%
488
The National Citizen SurveyTM
69
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 2: Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to
Chanhassen as a whole: Excellent Good
Don't
Fair Poor know Total
Opportunities to voluntee
Opportunities to participate in community matte
Ease of car travel in Chanhassen
17%
1 82
36%
177
18%
1 86
2%
1 9
1 27%
134
1 100%
1 488
17%
83
38%
182
22%
104
2%
8
22%
106
100%
484
40%
12%
194
56
46%
18%
223
89
10%
11%
47
53
4%
10%
17
48
1 %
49%
4
237
100%
100%
485
484
Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen
Ease of bicycle travel in Chanhassen
34%
163
38%
181
12%
57
1 %
5
15%
71
100%
477
Ease of walking in Chanhassen
44%
52%
212
255
41%
36%
200
176
11%
9%
53
43
2%
1 %
10
6
2%
2%
10
12
100%
100%
485
491
Availability of paths and walking trails
Traffic flow on major streets
23%
111
1 54%
266
19%
95
4 %
20
0%
1
100%
492
Availability of affordable quality housing
13%
63
37%
182
26%
126
6%
28
18%
1 89
100%
488
Availability of affordable quality child care
7%
35
16%
77
11%
53
2%
8
64%
314
100%
487
Availability of affordable quality health care
24%
113
38%
183
14%
69
2%
10
22%
106
100%
481
Availability of preventive health services
22%
107
40%
195
13%
64
2%
10
22%
107
100%
483
Air quality
40%
196
47%
230
7%
33
1 %
3
5%
23
100%
484
Quality of overall natural environment in Chan hassen
Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen
45%
219
48%
237
6%
28
0%
2
1%
3
100
489
50%
244
45%
222
4 %
21
0 %
1
1 %
3
100%
490
Question 3: Growth
Please rate the speed of growth in the
following categories in Chanhassen over the Much too Somewhat too Right Somewhat Much too Don't
past 2 years: slow slow amount too fast fast know
Total
Population gro 0% 1 2% 11 64% 312 13% 66 3% 1 13 18% 88 100% 491
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 6% 30 38% 187 46% 227 3% 14 0 2 6% 31 100% 4
% 91
jobs growth 8% 38 23% 114 14% 69 1% 5 0% 0 54% 265 100% 490
The National Citizen SurveyTM
70
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 4: Code Enforcement
To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots orjunk vehicles a problem in Chanhassen? Percent of respondents Count
Not a probl
Minor problem
Moderate problem
Major problem
Don't know
Total
46%
223
172
25
9
58
487
35%
5%
2%
12%
100%
Question 6: Personal Safety
Please rate how safe or unsafe you Somewhat Neither safe nor
feel: Very safe safe unsafe
Question 5: Community Safety
In your neighborhood during the day
89%
428
1 10% 50
1 38% 181
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel
from the following in Chanhassen:
Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe
Don't
know
Total
Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
68% 332
35% 169
26% 128
52% 255
4%
j 21
1%
4
18
0%
1 0%
0
0%
2
100%
487
9%
43
4%
2%
0
1 %
3
100%
487
Environmental hazards, including toxic
waste
61%
299 24%
f 116
8%
41
8 0%
1
5%
23
100%
488
Question 6: Personal Safety
Please rate how safe or unsafe you Somewhat Neither safe nor
feel: Very safe safe unsafe
Somewhat Very Don't
unsafe unsafe know Total
In your neighborhood during the day
89%
428
1 10% 50
1 38% 181
1 %
3
0%
1
0%
0
0%
1 100%
483
483
In your neighborhood after dark
57%
276
3%
13
2%
12
0%
0
0%
1
100%
In Chanhassen's downtown area
during the day
85%
410
12%
60
1 %
5
0%
1
0%
0
1 %
5
100%
481
In Chanhassen's downtown area
after dark
1 46%
219
39%
1 189
1 6%
1 27
2%
11
0%
1 1
7%
1 34 100%
1 481
The National Citizen SurveyTM
71
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 4: Code Enforcement
To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots orjunk vehicles a problem in Chanhassen? Percent of respondents Count
Not a probl
Minor problem
Moderate problem
Major problem
Don't know
Total
46%
223
172
25
9
58
487
35%
5%
2%
12%
100%
Question 6: Personal Safety
Please rate how safe or unsafe you Somewhat Neither safe nor
feel: Very safe safe unsafe
Question 5: Community Safety
In your neighborhood during the day
89%
428
1 10% 50
1 38% 181
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel
from the following in Chanhassen:
Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe
Don't
know
Total
Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
68% 332
35% 169
26% 128
52% 255
4%
j 21
1%
4
18
0%
1 0%
0
0%
2
100%
487
9%
43
4%
2%
0
1 %
3
100%
487
Environmental hazards, including toxic
waste
61%
299 24%
f 116
8%
41
8 0%
1
5%
23
100%
488
Question 6: Personal Safety
Please rate how safe or unsafe you Somewhat Neither safe nor
feel: Very safe safe unsafe
Somewhat Very Don't
unsafe unsafe know Total
In your neighborhood during the day
89%
428
1 10% 50
1 38% 181
1 %
3
0%
1
0%
0
0%
1 100%
483
483
In your neighborhood after dark
57%
276
3%
13
2%
12
0%
0
0%
1
100%
In Chanhassen's downtown area
during the day
85%
410
12%
60
1 %
5
0%
1
0%
0
1 %
5
100%
481
In Chanhassen's downtown area
after dark
1 46%
219
39%
1 189
1 6%
1 27
2%
11
0%
1 1
7%
1 34 100%
1 481
The National Citizen SurveyTM
71
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 7: Contact with Sheriff Department
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the Carver County Don't
Sheriff Department within the last 12 months? No Yes know Total
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the Carver County
Sheriff Department within the last 12 months? 76% 368 24% 115 1% 1 2 100% 486
Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Sheriff Department
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Don't
Carver County Sheriff Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the
Carver County Sheriff Department? 48% 55 28% 32 19% 22 6% 7 0% 1 0 100% 115
Question 9: Crime Victim
During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents Count
No 96% 466
Yes 3% 13
Don't know 1 % 5
Total 100% 484
Question 10: Crime Reporting
If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Count
No 0% 0
Yes 98% 13
Don't know 2% 0
Total 100% 13
The National Citizen SurveyTM
72
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 11: Resident Behaviors
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have
you or other household members participated in the
following activities in Chanhassen? Never
Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than
twice times times 26 times Total
Used Chan public libraries o r their services
Used Chanhassen recreation centers
Participated in a recreation program or activity
19% 95
22% 106
32% 156
16%
77
11%
54
100%
488
43%
211
27%
131
17%
83
7%
33
6%
31
100%
488
51%
247
22%
108
18 %
85
6%
27
4%
18
100%
484
Visited a neighborhood park or City park
10%
47
18%
85
29 %
141
22%
108
21%
101
100%
482
Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen
92%
447
4%
17
1 %
7
0%
1
2%
12
100%
484
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local
public meeti
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City -
sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet
or other media
Read Chanhassen Newsletter
Visited the City of Chanhassen Web site (at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us)
82%
401
14 %
66
4%
19
0 %
0
0%
1
100%
487
78%
380
15%
72
6%
32
0%
2
0%
2
100%
487
11 %
52
21%
102
48%
232
13 %4
61
8%
38
100%
486
27%
129
30%
145
34%
163
5 %
26
4%
19
100%
482
Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home
2%
8
3%
14
6%
27
15 %6
74
74%
358
100%
481
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Chanhassen
64%
306
15%
73
12%
60
4%
18
5%
25
100%
481
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen
50%
240
8%
39
13%
65
9%
42
20%
97
100%
483
Participated in a club or civic group in Chanhassen
78%
378
10%
46
6%
28
3%
13
4%
20
100%
487
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
1 5%
1 26
1 14%
1 71
1 46%
1 224
1 19%
1 95
1 15%
1 74
1 100%
490
The National Citizen SurveyTM
73
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 12: Neighborliness
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good
Fair
About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20
Percent of
26%
households that are closest to you)?
respondents
Count
Just about everyday
30%
146
Several times a week
34%
164
Several times a month
17%
81
Less than several times a month
19%
92
Total
100%
484
Question 13: Service Quality
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good
Fair
Don't
Poor know Total
Sheriff services
Fire services
Ambulance or emergency medical servi
Crime prevention
Fire prevention and education
26%
128
35%
171
7%
32
3%
14
29%
143
100% 487
100% 487
30%
146
27%
131
2%
9
0%
2
41%
199
26%
122
22%
106
2%
8
1 %
3
50%
240
100%
480
24%
117
40%
196
7%
32
1%
3
28%
137
100%
485
21%
18%
100
89
31%
44%
150
215
5 %
16%
24
75
0%
4%
0
19
43%
18%
206
86
100%
100%
479
483
Traffic enforcement
Street repair
12%
56
44%
212
34%
165
6%
31
4%
21
100%
484
Street cleaning
19%
92
56%
274
18%
90
3%
12
4%
19
100%
488
Street lighting
22%
105
51%
248
22%
107
4%
21
1%
6
100%
486
Snow removal
31%
149
49%
239
14%
68
4%
21
2%
11
100%
488
Sidewalk maintenance
19%
90
49%
236
13%
65
2 %
10
17%
83
100%
484
Traffic signal timing
14%
66
45%
1 217
28 %
137
1 11 %
53
2%
10
100%
484
Bus or transit services
9%
43
19% 92
58% 282
10 %
50
5%
22
57%
274
100%
481
Garbage collection
31%
152
6%
31
34
1 %
1 %
4
3
3%
4%
15
20
100%
100%
484
483
Recycling
38%
185
50% 241 7%
34% 163 8%
Yard waste pick -up
21%
103
39
3%
13
34%
167
100%
485
Storm drainage
Drinking water
21%
98
47% 224 12%
56
112
3%
7%
15
32
18 %
3%
84
1 16
100%
100%
476
487
25%
120
43% 207 23%
The National Citizen SurveyTM
74
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 13: Service Quality
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Chanhassen: Excellent Good
Don't
Fair Poor know Total
Sewer services
City parks
Recreation programs or classes
22%
108 53%
255
11 %
51
1 %
1 6
13%
1 62
100% 484
100% 483
52%
250 40%
193
4%
17
0%
0
5%
22
24%
116 36%
97 43%
173
7%
32
0%
0
34%
164
100%
486
Recreation centers or facilities
20%
208
10%
48
3%
14
24%
115
100%
482
Land use, planning and zoning
12%
58
33%
160
20%
96
5%
25
30%
143
100%
482
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc)
15%
71
35%
170
14%
68
5%
22
31%
151
100%
483
Animal control
16%
76
37%
181
11%
55
5 %
23
31%
151
100%
487
Economic development
12%
57
39%
191
19%
91
5 %
23
25%
123
100%
485
Health services
23%
107
44%
207
10 %
48
1 %
5
23%
109
100%
475
Services to seniors
11 %
54
19%
90
4%
21
2%
7
64%
307
100%
480
Services to youth
20%
95
35%
169
7%
33
0%
1
38%
184
100%
482
Public library services
Public information services
Public schools
Cable televisio
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community
f or natural disasters or other e mergency situations)
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and
greenbelts
46%
223
37%
178
5%
25
0%
0
12%
57
100%
483
22%
104
43%
206
11%
50
0%
1
25%
118
100%
480
30%
144
31%
147
5%
22
0%
2
35%
166
100%
480
10%
49
23%
112
23 %
110
16%
78
27%
131
100%
480
11%
53
31%
145
9%
41
2 %d
7
48%
229
100%
476
24%
113
39%
187
14%
68
4%
17
19%
89
100%
1 474
Question 14: Government Services Overall
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
The Federal Government
The State Government
Carver County Government
28%
136
59%
285
8%
40
0%
2
3%
17
100%
480
3%
16
36%
171
30%
142
16%
77
14%
69
100%
475
4%
17
41%
197
34%
162
8%
40
12%
59
100%
475
12% 58
55%
265
17%
83
3%
13
13%
60
100%
479
The National Citizen SurveyTM
75
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
each of the following: Very likely likely unlikely unlikely know Total
Recommend living in Chanhassen to someone who
asks 73% 350 24% 116 1 % 5 1 % 6 1 % 4
R in C f t h e n fiv years 67 326 23 109 4 18 3 15 3 15
100% 481
100 483
Question 16: Impact of the Economy
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you
think the impact will be:
Percent of
respondents
Count
Very positive
Somewhat positive
Neutral
Somewhat negative
Very negative
Total
2%
9
18%
87
223
46%
28%
134
6%
27
100%
481
Question 17: Contact with Fire Department
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen Fire I Don't
Department within the last 12 months? No Yes know Total
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen Fire
D epa r t m e n t wi t h e l ast 12 m 92 1 444 8 40 0 0 100 485
Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City Don't
of Chanhassen Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City
of Chanhassen Fire Department? 1 76% 1 31 1 21 % 8 3% 1 0% 0 0% 0 100% 40
The National Citizen SurveyTM
76
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 19: Contact with City Employees
Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months Percent of
(including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? respondents Count
No 52% 254
Yes 48% 232
Total 100% 486
Question 20: City Employees
Please rate the following categories of Chanhassen government
performance: Excellent Good
Fair
Poor
Don't
know
Total
What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of
Chanhassen in your most recent contact?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't
know
=
Total
Knowledge
Responsi
Courtesy
Overall impression
50%
117
42%
97
6%
14
2%
4
0%
0
100%
1 232
52%
119
35%
82
7%
15
7%
15
0%
0
100%
232
56%
130
31%
73
9%
21
3%
8
0%
0
100%
232
50%
117
1 38%
89
7%
16
1 5%
1 10
0%
0
100%
232
Question 21: Government Performance
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 Chanhass
The overall direction that Chanhassen is taking
12%
1 56
45%
219
29 %
140
4%
21
10%
48
100 %
485
15 %
10%
74
48
52%
34%
256
163
20%
21%
96
100
2 %
6%
9
29
11%
30%
52
144
100%
100%
487
484
The job Chanhassen government does at welcoming citizen
involvement
The National Citizen SurveyTM
77
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 22a: Policy Question 1
Please rate how effective, if at all, each of the following
methods of communication currently used by the City is Highly Somewhat Somewhat Not at all Don't
at communicating information to residents: effective effective ineffective effective know
Total
Mailed communica from the City
The City Web site - www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
34% 164 52%
254 6% 31
206 6% 28
2%
8
6%
28
100%
486
24%
118
42%
2%
12
25%
122
100%
486
The Chanhassen Villager
47%
228
34%
163
7%
35
1 %
7
10%
50
100%
483
Chanhassen Cable Channel 8
3%
14
18 %
87
14%
66
16 %
75
50%
241
100%
484
E -Mail communications from the City
11%
52
20%
98
5%
23
5%
24
59%
285
100%
481
City of Chanhassen's Facebook Page
3%
14
11 %
53
6%
28
10 %
46
70%
336
100%
478
The Chanhassen Connection (Newsletter)
20%
96
43%
210
8%
38
3%
16
26%
125
100%
484
Electronic Message Sign at the Chanhassen Library
16%
80
39%
1 188
12%
60
9%
43
24%
116
100%
487
Question 22b: Policy Question 2
Which one of the following do you think will be the single biggest issue facing Chanhassen in the next 5 years?
Percent of respondents
Count
Property taxes
Traffic
Crime
Loss of jobs
Property values
None of these /other
Don't know
Total
42%
7%
2%
180
31
8
6%
25
25%
108
2%
7
16%
67
100%
426
The National Citizen SurveyTM
78
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question 22c: Policy Question 3
What do you enjoy most about living in Chanhassen (Please select all that apply)
Percent of respondents Count
Park and Trail System
Don't know
Proximity to family
Location
Lakes
Schools
Neighborhoods
Downtown Chanhassen
Small town feel
Other
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
54%
1 %
21%
267
5
101
60%
293
39%
191
28%
136
50%
244
140
28%
53%
258
20
4%
Question D1: Employment Status
Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents Count
No
Yes, full -time
Yes, part -time
Total
23%
68%
9%
100%
112
331
44
487
The National Citizen SurveyTM
79
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute
During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the Percent of days mode
ways listed below? used
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) by myself
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) with other children or adults
Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation
Walk
Bicycle
Work at home
Other
83%
6%
3%
75%
2%
13%
0%
12%
6%
0%
0%
0%
1
100%
491
Question D3: Length of Residency
How many years have you lived in Chanhassen?
Percent of respondents
Count
Les than 2 years
2 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
More than 20 years
T
16%
23%
22%
25%
15%
100
77
111
110
121
71
491
Question D4: Housing Unit Type
Which best describes the building you live in?
One famil house detac from any other house
House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome)
Building with two or more apartments or condominiums
Mobile home
Other
Total
The National Citizen SurveyTM
80
Percent of respondents Count
75%
370
13%
62
12%
58
0%
0
0%
1
100%
491
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent /Own)
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent of respondents Count
Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment
Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear
Total
10%
90%
49
428
100
47
Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost
No 52% 256
Yes 48% 231
Total 100% 487
z
.1,
Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count
y No 87% 426
N
v Yes 13% 63
Total 100% 489
i
The National Citizen SurveyTM
81
Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost
About how much is the total monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property
tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)?
Percent of
respondents
Count
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
Total
1 %
6
5 %
24
12%
54
25%
115
39%
182
18%
86
100%
468
1 ,
u
Question D7: Presence of Children in Household
—
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents Count
No 52% 256
Yes 48% 231
Total 100% 487
z
.1,
Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count
y No 87% 426
N
v Yes 13% 63
Total 100% 489
i
The National Citizen SurveyTM
81
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D9: Household Income
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in Percent of
your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) respondents Count
Less than $24,999
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,000
$150,000 or more
Total
3%
11 %
13
49
148
114
124
450
33%
25%
28%
100%
Question D10: Ethnicity
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents Count
No, not S panish, Hispanic or Latino 99% 485
Yes, I con sider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1 % 4
Total 100% 490
Question D11: Race
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents Count
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% 3
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% 15
Black or African American 3% 13
White 93% 456
Other 1 % 6
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
The National Citizen SurveyTM
82
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D13: Gender
What is your sex? Percent of respondents Count
75 years or old 4% 19
Total 100% 485
Question D12: Age
In which category is your age? Percent of respondents
Count
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
2%
26%
8
128
23%
110
142
29%
10%
48
6%
31
Female
Male
Total
52%
48%
100%
251
234
485
Question D14: Registered to Vote
Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count
No 9% 42
Yes 88% 430
Ineligible to vote 1 % 4
Don't know 2% 11
Total 100% 488
The National Citizen SurveyTM
83
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Question D16: Has Cell Phone
Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents Count
Question D15: Voted in Last General Election
Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents Count
No 11% 53
Yes 86% 423
Ineligible to vote 2% 10
Don't know 1 % 4
Total 100% 489
No 4% 21
Yes 96% 470
Total 100% 492
Question D17: Has Land Line
Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents
26%
74%
100%
Count
127
No
Yes
Total
z
365
492
Question D18: Primary Phone
If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Count
Cel l
18%
63
Land line
66%
227
1, Both
52
15%
N' Total
100%
343
V
The National Citizen SurveyTM
84
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
APPENDIX B: SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS) was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate,
affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues.
While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid
results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS that
asks residents about key local services and important local issues.
Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such
provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The NCS is
designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local
residents. The NCS permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions
also speak to community trust and involvement in community - building activities as well as to
resident demographic characteristics.
SURVEY VALIDITY
The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction 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
jurisdiction. 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 jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random
selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire
population. A non - random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or
from households of only one type.
■ 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.
Z ■ Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or
staff member, thus appealing to the recipients' sense of civic responsibility.
■ Providing a self- addressed, postage -paid return envelope.
Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials.
■ Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to
E weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population.
The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey
reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are
influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents' expectations for
The National Citizen SurveyTM
85
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
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 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 with objective characteristics of the community
(e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has
investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well- conducted
surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great
accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do
reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or
morally sanctioned activities). For self- reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments
can be made to correct for the respondents' tendency to report what they think the "correct"
response should be.
Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and "objective" ratings of
service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC's own
research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in
communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street
repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly,
the lowest rated fire services appear to be "objectively" worse than the highest rated fire services
(expenditures per capita, response time, "professional" status of firefighters, breadth of services and
training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents
think about a community and what can be seen "objectively" in a community, NRC has argued that
resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC
principals have written, "If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash
U haul is lousy, you still have a problem."
SURVEY SAMPLING
"Sampling" refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the
City of Chanhassen were eligible to participate in the survey; 1,200 were selected to receive the
survey. These 1,200 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing
units within the City of Chanhassen boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a
United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes. Since some of the zip codes
that serve the City of Chanhassen households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the
jurisdiction, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction
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.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
86
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
To choose the 496 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of
households known to be within the City of Chanhassen. Systematic sampling is a procedure
whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate
amount of items is selected. Multi- family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type
of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single - family housing units.
FIGURE 93: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS
The National Citizen Survey"
City of Chanhassen, MN 201
0 Survey Recipient
c
v
U
s
U
ti
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
f the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
v
_
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
87
:, •, •:
•
r • #i�•,:, d
• ■
r Mss
• �� r�
�'` • 1.7�•
�
+ i ti •
0 Survey Recipient
c
v
U
s
U
ti
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
f the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
v
_
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
87
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
in response to the growing number of the cell -phone population (so- called "cord cutters "), which
includes a large proportion of young adults, questions about cell phones and land lines were added
to The NCS` questionnaire. According to recent estimates, about 12 percent of all U.S. households
have a cell phone but no landline. By 2010, researchers predict that 40 percent of Americans 18 to
30 years old will have only a cell phone and no landline. Based on survey results, Chanhassen has
a "cord cutter" population greater than researchers' predictions.
FIGURE 94: PREVALENCE OF CELL -PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS IN CHANHASSEN
Overall 25%
55+ I 1 9%
35 -54 I � 16%
18 -34 I 55%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting having a "cell phone" only
s . Paul J. Lavrakas, Charles D. Shuttles, Charlotte Steeh, and Howard Fienberg, "The State of Surveying Cell Phone Numbers in
the United States: 2007 and Beyond," Public Opinion Quarterly 71, no. 5 (2007), 840 -854.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
88
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
SURVEY ADMINISTRATION
Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning May 17, 2010. 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 have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey.
Completed surveys were collected over the following five weeks.
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
U
C
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. The confidence interval for the City of Chanhassen survey is no
greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire
sample (496 completed surveys).
A95% 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 jurisdiction is between 71 % and 79 %. This source of
error 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.
For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup
is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10
percentage points
SURVEY PROCESSING (DATA ENTRY)
Completed surveys received by NRC 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; NRC staff
would choose randornly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset.
Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an
electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of "key and verify," in which
survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were
evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of
quality control were also performed.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
89
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
SURVEY DATA WEIGHTING
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000
Census estimates and the 2006 -2008 American Community Survey for adults in the City of
Chanhassen. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate
percent of those residents. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were
also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics.
The variables used for weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type, and sex and age. This
decision was based on:
• The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these
variables
• The saliency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups
• The historical use of the variables and the desirability of consistently representing different
groups over the years
The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger
population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and
comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2)
comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic
characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best
candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the
community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race
representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration
will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable.
A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate
weights. Data weighting can adjust up to 5 demographic variables. Several different weighting
"schemes" may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data.
The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family
dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi- family
dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents
an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each
resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for
Y example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be
U weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers.
The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
90
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Chanhassen Citizen Survey Weighting Table
Characteristic Population Norm' Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home
10% 18%
90% 82%
10%
90%
Own home
Detached unit
77%
56%
75%
Attached unit
23%
44%
25%
Race and Ethnicity
White alone, not Hispanic
92%
93%
92%
Hispanic and /or other race
8%
7%
8%
Sex and Age
Female
52%
58%
52%
Male
48%
42%
48%
18 -34 years of age
29%
13%
28%
35 -54 years of age
51%
46%
52%
55+ years of age
19%
40%
20%
Females 18 -34
16%
8%
16%
Females 35 -54
26%
26%
26%
Females 55+
10%
23%
10%
Males 18 -34
13%
5%
13%
Males 35 -54
26%
20%
26%
Males 55 +
1 10%
17%
10%
v
° Housing from 2000 Census, all else 2006 -2008 ACS
The National Citizen SurveyTM
91
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report.
Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale
The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community
quality is "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor" (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over
other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to
strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen
surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss
when crafting The National Citizen SurveyTM questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and
residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the
advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer
an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC
has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on
average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions
among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings.
EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree -
disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or
community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor
of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered).
"Don't Know" Responses
On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A.
However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the
report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an
opinion about a specific item.
Benchmark Comparisons
NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the
principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen
surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by
ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of
L benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered.
ti The argument for benchmarks was called "In Search of Standards." "What has been missing from a
local government's analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply
when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results
1. from other school systems..."
NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government
services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are
intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively
integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted.
The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but
also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Scholars who
specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. &
The National Citizen SurveyTM
92
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of
citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271 -288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr,
S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An
application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public
Administration Review, 64, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refined
regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC's proprietary
databases. NBC's work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service
delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western
Governmental Research Association.
The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; 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 Role of Comparisons
Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. jurisdictions use the comparative
information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans,
to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government
performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse
rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up "good" citizen
evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if "good" is
good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a
jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That
comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be
asked; for example, how do residents' ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service
in other communities?
A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service — one that closes most of its
cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low — still has a problem to fix if the
residents in the community it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to
ratings given by residents to their own objectively "worse" departments. The benchmark data can
help that police department — or any department — to understand how well citizens think it is
doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing
what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction
with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to
U respond to comparative results.
jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range
from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire
database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given
region or population category). Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the
business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction
circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide
services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the
highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride
and a sense of accomplishment.
Comparison of Chanhassen to the Benchmark Database
The City of Chanhassen chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark
comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was
The National Citizen SurveyTM
93
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Chanhassen Survey was included
in NRC's database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For
most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in
the benchmark comparison.
Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Chanhassen results were
generally noted as being "above" the benchmark, "below" the benchmark or "similar" to the
benchmark. For some questions — those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local
problem — the comparison to the benchmark is designated as "more," "similar" or "less" (for
example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code
enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the
benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of "much," (for example,
"much less" or "much above "). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of
Chanhassen's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered "similar" if it is within the
margin of error; "above," "below," "more" or "less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's
rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and "much above," "much below," "much
more" or "much less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is
more than twice the margin of error.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
94
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
APPENDIX C: SURVEY MATERIALS
The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households
within the City of Chanhassen.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
95
Dear Chanhassen Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate
in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of
Chanhassen. You will receive a copy of the survey next
week in the mail with instructions for completing and
returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this
important project!
Sincerely,
A.
Thomas A. Furlong
Mayor
Dear Chanhassen Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate
in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of
Chanhassen. You will receive a copy of the survey next
week in the mail with instructions for completing and
returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this
important project!
Sincerely,
A.
Thomas A. Furlong
Mayor
Dear Chanhassen Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate
in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of
Chanhassen. You will receive a copy of the survey next
week in the mail with instructions for completing and
returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this
important project!
Sincerely,
A.
Thomas A. Furlong
Mayor
Dear Chanhassen Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate
in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of
Chanhassen. You will receive a copy of the survey next
week in the mail with instructions for completing and
returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this
important project!
Sincerely,
A.
Thomas A. Furlong
Mayor
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
0
CITY a�F
CHMHASSEN
7700 %a,ket Evou:evar,^ May 2010
PO Box 147 y
Chan asses. l,1N 55311
Dear Chanhassen Resident:
Administration The City of Chanhassen wants to know what you think about our community and
PImre:952.22'. "C0 municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in
Fax:952227.1110 Chanhassen's 2010 Citizen Survey.
Building Inspections Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers
Pnor.e: 552.227,1
Fore:9222�119�,9 will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should
find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful.
Engineering Please participate!
P7ore: 952,227." 00
Fax:9i2.227.11I0 To get a representative sample of Chanhassen residents, the adult (anyone
18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday
Phure: 952.22
Fi 522 7. "40 should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter.
Fax,952.227.1110 Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to
Park & Recreation answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid
�5cne:952.227.1122 envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous.
Fax: 952.227,111 Q
Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your
Recreation Center household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you
23'0CCJ1ter33uevard have any questions about the Citizen Survey, please call 952 - 227 -1118.
whore: 952.227.1430
Fax: 9522W,1404
Please help us shape the future of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time and
Planning& participation.
Natural Resources
Phone: 952227.1130 Sincerely,
�ax: "' C
Public Works
1591 Pa: ,\ Road
Pfone: 952.227.'300
Fax 952.227,1313 Thomas A. Furlong
Senior Center Mayor
Pyre 952227, "25
Fax: 952227.1110
Web Site
,v vv xi.eaa1assen,mn,us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
O
CITY OF
CNANHASSEN
7700 Ma°ket Bou:evarc
PO Box 141
June 2010
Channassur, �r1N 5531 l
Dear Chanhassen Resident:
Administration
a� 952221. 1 . 'X
About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If
Fax: 952.227.1110
you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to
discard this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a
Building Inspections
chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The City of
Pnsre 932.227.1-"
Chanhassen wants to know what you think about our community and municipal
F ax: 952 227.119 „
government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of
Chanhassen Citizen Survey.
Engineering
P: ore: 952221. "00
Fax. 9522227.1110
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers
will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should
Finance
find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful.
Phore:952 ?27,"40
Please participate!
Fax: 952.227.1110
To get a representative sample of Chanhassen residents, the adult (anyone
Park &Recreation
18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday
Pncne 952.221.112
should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter.
X 6 2
Fax: 952 227.1110
Recreation Center
Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to
23"00CJiter3X'Dard
answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid
Wn3re:952.227.14CC
envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous.
Fax: 952 227.14'04
Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your
Planning&
household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you
NaturalResaarces
have any questions about the Citizen Survey, please call 952 - 227 -1118.
Phoie° 952,227.1130
°ax: 952.227. C
Please help us shape the future of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time and
Public Works
participation.
1591 Park Road
Phone; 952227. "300
Sincerely,
Fax 952.227.1313
4.-
A
Senior Center
Rare: 952.227," 25
Fax: 952.227.1 110
Thomas A. Furlong
Mayor
Web Site
, NvA , �.ci.cnAassen mn.as
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
The City of Chanhassen 2010 Citizen Survey
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
Your neighborhood as a place to live ........................ ............................... 1 2
Chanhassen as a place to raise children .................... ............................... 1 2
Chanhassen as a place to work ................................. ............................... 1 2
Chanhassen as a place to retire ................................. ............................... 1 2
The overall quality of life in Chanhassen ................... ............................... 1 2
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Chanhassen as a whole:
Excellent Good
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fair
4
4
4
4
4
4
Poor
5
5
5
5
5
5
Don't know
Senseof community .................................................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall appearance of Chanhassen ........................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall quality of new development in Chanhassen . ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Variety of housing options ........................................ ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Chanhassen .....
1
2
3
4
5
Shopping opportunities ............................................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities to attend cultural activities .................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Recreational opportunities ........................................ ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Employment opportunities ........................................ ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Educational opportunities ......................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities .......................
1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual
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
Ease of car travel in Chanhassen ............................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Ease of bus travel in Chanhassen ............................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Ease of bicycle travel 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
Traffic flow on major streets ...................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of affordable quality housing .................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of affordable quality child care ............... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of affordable quality health care ............. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of preventative health services ................ ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Airquality ................................................................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Quality of overall natural environment in Chanhassen .............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall image or reputation of Chanhassen ............... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Chanhassen over the past 2
years:
Much Somewhat
Right Somewhat
Much
Don't
too slow too slow
amount
too fast
too fast
know
Population growth .......................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
6
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc .) ............................ 1 2
3
4
5
6
jobsgrowth ..................................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
6
Page 1 of 5
X h ' e National Citizen Survey"
4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Chanhassen?
O Not a problem O Minor problem O Moderate problem O Major problem O Don't know
5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Chanhassen:
Very Somewhat Neither safe
Somewhat
Very
Don't
safe safe nor unsafe
unsafe
unsafe
know
Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ..................... 1 2 3
4
5
6
Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft ) .............................. 1 2 3
4
5
6
Environmental hazards, including toxic waste ................ 1 2 3
4
5
6
6. 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 your neighborhood after dark ...... ............................... 1 2 3
4
5
6
In Chanhassen's downtown area during the day ............. 1 2 3
4
5
6
In Chanhassen's downtown area after dark .................... 1 2 3
4
5
6
7. Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the Carver County Sheriff Department
within
the
last 12 months?
O No 4 Go to Question 9 O Yes 4 Go to Question 8 O Don't know 4 Go to Question 9
8. What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Carver County Sheriff Department
O Excellent O Good O Fair O Poor
O Don't know
9. During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?
O No 4 Go to Question 11 O Yes 4 Go to Question 10 O Don't know 4 Go to Question 11
10. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police?
O No O Yes O Don't know
11. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated
in the
following activities in Chanhassen?
Once or
3 to 12
13 to 26 More than
Never twice
times
times
26 times
Used Chanhassen public libraries or their services .... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Used Chanhassen recreation centers ......................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Participated in a recreation program or activity ......... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Visited a neighborhood park or City park .................. ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Ridden a local bus within Chanhassen ...................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public
meeting................................................................. ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City - sponsored
public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media............ 1 2
3
4
5
Read Chanhassen Newsletter .................................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Visited the City of Chanhassen Web site
(at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) .............................. ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home .............................. 1 2
3
4
5
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Chanhassen .............. 1 2
3
4
5
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Chanhassen .................... 1 2
3
4
5
Participated in a club or civic group in Chanhassen .. ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
Provided help to a friend or neighbor ....................... ............................... 1 2
3
4
5
12. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20
households that are closest to you)?
O Just about every day
O Several times a week
O Several times a month
O Less than several times a month
U
U
L
0
z
0
0
N
0
0
N
O
N
U
0
Z
L
Page 2 of 5
The City of Chanhassen 2010 Citizen Survey
13. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Chanhassen:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know
Sheriffservices ...................................................... ...............................
Fireservices .......................................................... ...............................
Ambulance or emergency medical services ........... ...............................
Crimeprevention .................................................. ...............................
Fire prevention and education .............................. ...............................
Trafficenforcement ............................................... ...............................
Streetrepair .......................................................... ...............................
Streetcleaning ...................................................... ...............................
Streetlighting ........................................................ ...............................
Snowremoval ....................................................... ...............................
Sidewalk maintenance .......................................... ...............................
Trafficsignal timing .............................................. ...............................
Bus or transit services ............................................ ...............................
Garbage collection ................................................ ...............................
Recycling.............................................................. ...............................
Yardwaste pick -up ............................................... ...............................
Stormdrainage ...................................................... ...............................
Drinkingwater ...................................................... ...............................
Sewerservices ...................................................... ...............................
Cityparks .............................................................. ...............................
Recreation programs or classes ............................. ...............................
Recreation centers or facilities ............................... ...............................
Land use, planning and zoning ............................ ...............................
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) ........................
Animalcontrol ..................................................... ...............................
Economic development ........................................ ...............................
Healthservices ..................................................... ...............................
Services to seniors ................................................. ...............................
Servicesto youth ................................................... ...............................
Public library ser vices ........................................... ...............................
Public information services ................................... ...............................
Publicschools ....................................................... ...............................
Cabletelevision .................................................... ...............................
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for
natural disasters or other emergency situations) ...............................
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and
greenbelts.......................................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1
2
3
4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
14. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following?
15. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following:
Very
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
The City of Chanhassen ............................................
............................... 1
2
3
4
5
The Federal Government ..........................................
............................... 1
2
3
4
5
The State Government ..............................................
............................... 1
2
3
4
5
Carver County Government
...................................... ............................... 1
2
3
4
5
15. 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
16. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think
the impact will be:
O Very positive O Somewhat positive O Neutral O Somewhat negative O Very negative
Page 3 of 5
X h ' e National Citizen Survey"
17. Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen Fire Department within the
last 12 months?
O No 4 Go to Question 19 O Yes 4 Go to Question 18 O Don't know 4 Go to Question 19
18. What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Chanhassen Fire Department
O Excellent O Good O Fair O Poor O Don't know
19. Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Chanhassen within the last 12 months
(including police, receptionists, planners or any others)?
O No 4 Go to Question 21 O Yes 4 Go to Question 20
20. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Chanhassen in your most recent contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know
Knowledge................................................................. ..............................1 2 3 4 5
Responsiveness.......................................................... ..............................1 2 3 4 5
Courtesy................................................................... ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
Overallimpression .................................................... ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
21. 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 citizen involvement ............................. ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
22. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions:
a. Please rate how effective, if at all, each of the following methods of communication currently used by the City is at
communicating information to residents?
Highly Somewhat
Somewhat Not at all
Don't
effective effective
ineffective effective
know
Mailed communications from the City ...... ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
The City Web site — www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ...................... 1 2
3 4
5
The Chanhassen Villager .......................... ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
Chanhassen Cable Channel 8 ................... ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
E -Mail communications from the City ....... ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
City of Chanhassen's Facebook Page ........ ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
The Chanhassen Connection (Newsletter) ............................... 1 2
3 4
5
Electronic Message Sign at the Chanhassen Library .................. 1 2
3 4
5
b. Which one of the following do you think will be the single biggest issue facing Chanhassen in the next 5 years?
OProperty Taxes O Loss of jobs
O Don't know
O Traffic O Property values
O Crime O None of these /other
c. What do you enjoy most about living in Chanhassen? (Please select all that apply)
O Park and Trail System O Schools
O Other
O Proximity to Family O Neighborhoods
O Don't know
O Location O Downtown Chanhassen
O Lakes O Small Town feel
d. If the City government could change one thing to make Chanhassen abetter place to live, now or in the future,
what change would you like to see?
Page 4 of 5
The City of Chanhassen 2010 Citizen Survey
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. Are you currently employed for pay?
O No 4 Go to Question D3
O Yes, full time 4 Go to Question D2
O Yes, part time 4 Go to Question D2
D2. During a typical week, how many days do you
commute to work (for the longest distance of
your commute) in each of the ways listed below?
(Enter the total number of days, using whole
numbers.)
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van,
motorcycle, etc...) by myself.......... days
Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van,
motorcycle, etc...) with other
children or adults ........................... days
Bus, Rail, Subway or other public
transportation .. ............................... days
Walk.................. ............................... days
Bicycle............... ............................... days
Work at home .... ............................... days
Other................. ............................... days
D3. How many years have you lived in Chanhassen?
O Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years
O 2 -5 years O More than 20 years
O 6 -10 years
D4. Which best describes the building you live in?
O One family house detached from any other houses
O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a
duplex ortownhome)
O Building with two or more apartments or
condominiums
O Mobile home
O Other
D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home...
O Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment?
O Owned by you or someone in this house with a
mortgage or free and clear?
D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged
65 or older?
O No O Yes
D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total
income before taxes will be for the current year?
(Please include in your total income money from all
sources for all persons living in your household.)
O Less than $24,999
O $25,000 to $49,999
O $50,000 to $99,999
O $100,000 to $149,999
O $150,000 or more
Please respond to both questions D10 and D11:
D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?
O No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino
O Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic
or Latino
D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to
indicate what race you consider yourself to be)
O American Indian or Alaskan Native
O Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander
O Black or African American
O White
O Other
D12. In which category is your age?
O 18 -24 years O 55 -64 years
O 25 -34 years O 65 -74 years
O 35 -44 years O 75 years or older
O 45 -54 years
D13. What is your sex?
O Female O Male
D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction?
O No O Ineligible to vote
O Yes O Don't know
D6. 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)?
O Less than $300 per month
O $300 to $599 per month
O $600 to $999 per month
O $1,000 to $1,499 per month
O $1,500 to $2,499 per month
O $2,500 or more per month
D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household?
O No O Yes
D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did
you vote in the last general election?
O No O Ineligible to vote
O Yes O Don't know
D16. Do you have a cell phone?
O No O Yes
D17. Do you have a land line at home?
O No O Yes
D18. If you have both a cell phone and a land line which
do you consider your primary telephone number?
O Cell O Land line O 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
Page 5 of 5
2 \\ 77
f U) 0
) = E
0
E
2
\
k 0
m =
§
G
pa--
�
\
;2--
$ % \
k 0
m =
C>
///
pa--
�
CITY OF
Citizen SurveyT
CHANHASSEN, MN
2010
LC -4,
NATIONAL
RESEARCH
C E N T E R ,N4,
3005 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
www.n- r -c.com • 303 - 444 -7863
Benchmark Report
1CMA
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
www.ic ma.org • 202- 289 -ICMA
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
CONTENTS
Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons ........................................ ..............................1
ComparisonData ....................................................................................... ..............................1
Putting Evaluations onto the 100 -point Scale .............................................. ..............................2
Interpretingthe Resu Its .............................................................................. ............................... 3
National Benchmark Comparisons ........................................................ ..............................4
jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons ...................... .............................13
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE BENCHMARK
COMPARISONS
COMPARISON DATA
U
C
NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government
services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations
are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; 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 jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the
table below.
Jurisdiction Characteristic
Percent of Jurisdictions
Region
West Coast'
West'
North Central West'
North Central East'
South Central
South 6
Northeast West'
Northeast East
16%
20%
10%
13%
7%
26%
3%
4%
Population
45%
Less than 40,000
40,000 to 74,999
20%
75,000 to 149,000
17%
150,000 or more
19%
' Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii
2 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico
s North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota
° Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin
Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas
6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland,
Delaware, Washington DC
7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey
8 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
PUTTING EVALUATIONS ONTO THE 100-POINT SCALE
Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1
representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale
where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence
interval around an average score on the 100 -point scale is no greater than plus or minus three
points based on all respondents.
The 100 -point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each
response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example,
"excel lent" =100, "good" = 67, "fair" = 33 and "poor" =0. If everyone reported "excellent," then the
average rating would be 100 on the 100 -point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor ", the
result would be 0 on the 100 -point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of "excellent" and
half gave a score of "poor," the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of
a teeter totter) between "fair" and "good." An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an
average rating appears below.
Example of Converting Responses to the 100 -point Scale
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
U
C
5% 13% 44% 38%
0 33 67 100
°; Poor Fair Good 7- Excellent
The National Citizen SurveyTM
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
Response
option
Total with
"don't
know"
Step1: Remove the
percent of "don't
know" responses
Total
without
"don't
know"
Step 2:
Assign
scale
values
Step 3: Multiply
the percent by
the scale value
Step 4: Sum
to calculate
the average
rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
36%
=36- (100 -5)=
=42- (100 -5)=
=12= (100 -5)=
=5- (100 -5)=
38%
100
67
=38 %x 100 =
=44% x 67 =
38
30
4
0
72
42%
44%
12%
13%
33
= 13 °1ox33 =
Poor
Don't know
5%
5%
0
=5 %x0 =
5%
-
Total
100%
100%
1
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
U
C
5% 13% 44% 38%
0 33 67 100
°; Poor Fair Good 7- Excellent
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC's database, and there
are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available,
three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction's rating on the 100 -
point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction's rating among
jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions
that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction's average
rating to the benchmark.
Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Chanhassen's results were
generally noted as being "above" the benchmark, "below" the benchmark or "similar" to the
benchmark. For some questions — those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local
problem — the comparison to the benchmark is designated as "more," "similar" or "less" (for
example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code
enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the
benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of "much," (for example,
"much less" or "much above "). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of
Chanhassen's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered "similar" if it is within the
margin of error; "above," "below," "more" or "less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's
rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and "much above," "much below," "much
more" or "much less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is
more than twice the margin of error.
This report contains benchmarks at the national level.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Overall Community Quality Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Overall quality of life in
Chanhassen 83
Your neighborhood as place to live 85
Chanhassen as a place to live 87
10
387
259
331
135
134
Much above
5
Much above
9
7
Much above
Recommend living in Chanhassen
to someone who asks
90
86
Much above
Remain in Chanhassen for the next
five years
7
Much above
Community Transportation Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Ease of car travel in
Chanhassen
74
3
247
Much above
Ease of bus travel in
Chanhassen
54
37
179
Much above
Ease of bicycle travel in
Chanhassen
75
5
246
Much above
Ease of walking in
Chanhassen
76
12
246
Much above
Availability of paths and
walking trails
81
2
136
199
Much above
Traffic flow on major streets
65
4
Much above
Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Ridden a local bus within
Chanhassen 8 12 9 151 Much less
u Drive Alone Benchmarks
s
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Average percent of work commute
trips made by driving alone 83 19 131 Much more
z
v
_
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
4
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
i=
v
U
s
U
N
Transportation and Parking Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Street repair
54
65
64
69
67
54
58
78
386
269
285
244
249
192
198
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
Street cleaning
37
Street lighting
22
Snow removal
21
Sidewalk
maintenance
7
Traffic signal timing
Bus or transit
services
29
50
Housing Characteristics Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Availability of affordable
quality housing 57 13 277 Much above
Variety of housing options 68 5 127 Much above
Housing Costs Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Experiencing housing costs stress
(housing costs 30% or MORE of
income) 27 109 129 Much less
C Population growth seen
Z as too fast 20 194 214 Much less
`a Nuisance Problems Benchmarks
v
N Chanhassen Number of jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
N
v Run down buildings, weed lots and
junk vehicles seen as a "major"
o problem 2 180 204 Much less
ti
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyrM
5
Built Environment Benchmarks
Chanhassen average
Number of jurisdictions for
Comparison to
rating Rank
Comparison
benchmark
Quality of new development
in Chanhass
69
12
213
Much above
Overall appearance of
Chanhassen
77
13
297
Much above
C Population growth seen
Z as too fast 20 194 214 Much less
`a Nuisance Problems Benchmarks
v
N Chanhassen Number of jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
N
v Run down buildings, weed lots and
junk vehicles seen as a "major"
o problem 2 180 204 Much less
ti
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyrM
5
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
v
u
s
v
0
Z
v
a�
N
u
0
9
Z
ti
it
Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Land use, planning and zoni 58 10 263 M uch above
Code enforcement (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc.) 63 6 320 Much above
Animal control 64 27 288 Much above
Economic
development 59 26 255 Much above
Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Retail growth seen as
too slow 47 54 214 Much more
Jobs growth seen as too
slow 67 148 217 Much less
Personal Economic Future Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Positive impact of economy on
household income 20 59 211 Above
Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
In your neighborhood during
the day
In your neighborhood after dark
In Chanhassen's downtown area
during the da
In Chanhassen's downtown area
after dark
Violent crime (e.g., rape,
assault, robbery)
97
5
288
Much above
Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks
5
Chanhassen
average rating
Rank
Number of Jurisdictions
for Comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Employment opportunities
Shopping opportunities
Chanhassen as a place to work
Overall quality of business and service
establishments in Chanhassen
46
51
65
65
53
129
46
19
267
256
260
121
Much above
Similar
Much above
Much above
Economic
development 59 26 255 Much above
Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Retail growth seen as
too slow 47 54 214 Much more
Jobs growth seen as too
slow 67 148 217 Much less
Personal Economic Future Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Positive impact of economy on
household income 20 59 211 Above
Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
In your neighborhood during
the day
In your neighborhood after dark
In Chanhassen's downtown area
during the da
In Chanhassen's downtown area
after dark
Violent crime (e.g., rape,
assault, robbery)
97
5
288
Much above
87
5
284
Much above
96
5
245
25
251
Much above
I
Much above
Much above
84 7
91 9
The National Citizen SurveyTM
6
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
i=
u
s
v
0
Z
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Property crimes (e.g., burglary,
theft) 80 8 250 Much above
Environmental hazards,
including toxic waste 88 4 132 Much above
Crime Victimization and Reporting Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Victim of
crime 3 216 217 Much less
Reported
crimes 100 1 215 Much more
Public Safety Services Benchmarks
Number of
Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Sheriff services
Fire servi
Ambulan or emergency medica services
Crime preventio
Fire prevention and educa tion
Traffic enforcem
Emergency preparedness (services that
prepare the community for natural disasters
or other emergency situations)
73
73
49
375
310
Much ab
Much ab
Much ab
Much above
82
82
44
299
74
10
285
76
15
229
Much above
65
32
309
Much above
66
23
153
Much above
Contact with Sheriff and Fire Departments Benchmarks
Number of
Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Had contact with the Carver County
Sheriff Department 24 5 5 Much less
Overall impression of most recent contact
with the Carver County Sheriff
Department 72 6 19 Much above
Had contact with the City of Chanhassen
Fire Department 8 5 5 Much less
Overall impression of most recent contact
with the City of Chanhassen Fire
Department 91 2 13 Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
7
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
N
i=
u
s
v
0
Z
v
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Recycled used paper, cans or
bottles from your home 98 4 200 Much more
Utility Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Sewer services
Drinking water
Community Environment Benchmarks
24
89
25 4
253
Chanhassen
average rating
Number of Jurisdictions
Rank for Comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Quality of overall natural environment
in Chanhassen
Preservation of natural areas such as
open space, farmlands and greenbelts
Air quality
79
68
78
6
11
9
134
Much above
Much above
Much above
139
189
48
203
Much above
Recycling
Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Recycled used paper, cans or
bottles from your home 98 4 200 Much more
Utility Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Sewer services
Drinking water
70
24
89
25 4
253
Much above
63
Above
Storm drainage
68
6
307
Much above
Yard waste pick-
up
71
48
203
Much above
Recycling
77
25
290
Much above
Garbage
collection
75
71
316
Much above
Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Recreation
opportunities 72 30 266 Much above
Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Used Chanhassen recreation
centers 57
79
170
Similar
Participated in a recreation
program or activity 49
88
204
Similar
Visited a neighborhood park or
City park 90
51
211
More
The National Citizen SurveyTM
8
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
i=
u
s
v
0
Z
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Parks and Recreation Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
City parks
84
75
5
280 Much above
304 Much above
238 Much above
Recreation programs or
classes
9
49
Recreation centers or
facilities
69
Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Opportunities to attend
cultural activities 52 117 262 Similar
Educational opportunities 67 49 197 Much above
Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Used Chanhassen public libraries
or their services 81 34 183 Much more
Participated in religious or spiritual
activities in Chanhassen 50 57 91 Similar
The National Citizen SurveyTM
9
Cultural and Educational Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for
rating Rank Comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Public schools
Public library
services
79 14 221
82 18 278 1
Much above
Much above
Community Health and Wellness Access and Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for
rating Rank Comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Availability of affordable
quality health care I 69
Availability of preventive
health services 69
3 207
3 102
Much above
Much above
Health and Wellness Services Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for
rating Rank ' Comparison
Comparison to
benchmark
Health
services
71 8 176
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
9
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Services to
seniors 70 19 263 Much ab ove
Services to
youth 73 5 236 Much above
Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Opportunities to participate in
community matters 63 30 1- Much above
Opportunities to volunteer 65 65 129 Similar
Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks
Number of
Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Attended a meeting of local elected officials
or other local public meeting 18 202 211
Watched a meeting of local elected officials
or other public meeting on cable television,
the Internet or other media 22 157 165
v
v Volunteered your time to some group or
s
activity in Chanhassen 36 152 21 2
Participated in a club or civic group in
Chanhassen 22 85 102
Provided help to a friend or neighbor 95 44 101
Much less
Much less
Much less
Much less
Similar
Comparison to
benchmark
Much more
Much more
Z
° Voter Behavior Benchmarks
L Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for
rating Rank Comparison
N Registered to vote 90 35 222
u Voted in last general
election 87 20 222
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
10
Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks
Chanhassen average
Number of Jurisdictions for
Comparison to
rating
Rank
Comparison
benchmark
Sense of community
69
26
267
Much above
Availability of affordable
i
quality child care
60
4
202
Much above
Chanhassen as a place to
raise kids
88
6
319
Much above
Chanhassen as a place to
retire
67
53
298
Much above
Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Services to
seniors 70 19 263 Much ab ove
Services to
youth 73 5 236 Much above
Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Opportunities to participate in
community matters 63 30 1- Much above
Opportunities to volunteer 65 65 129 Similar
Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks
Number of
Chanhassen Jurisdictions for Comparison to
average rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Attended a meeting of local elected officials
or other local public meeting 18 202 211
Watched a meeting of local elected officials
or other public meeting on cable television,
the Internet or other media 22 157 165
v
v Volunteered your time to some group or
s
activity in Chanhassen 36 152 21 2
Participated in a club or civic group in
Chanhassen 22 85 102
Provided help to a friend or neighbor 95 44 101
Much less
Much less
Much less
Much less
Similar
Comparison to
benchmark
Much more
Much more
Z
° Voter Behavior Benchmarks
L Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for
rating Rank Comparison
N Registered to vote 90 35 222
u Voted in last general
election 87 20 222
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
10
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
v
u
s
v
0
Z
v
a�
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
Use of Information Sources Benchmarks
Number of
Chanhassen
Jurisdictions for
Comparison to
average rating Rank
Comparison
benchmark
Read Chanhassen Newsletter 89 46
148
Much more
Visited the City of Chanhassen Web site (at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) 73 12
122
Much more
71
26 100
Above
Cable television 46 121 170 Below
Public information
services 71 7 259 Much above
Opportunities to participate in social
events and activities
65
22 129
Much above
Opportunities to participate in
religious or spiritual events and
activities
71
26 100
Above
Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks
Chanhassen
Number of Jurisdictions
Comparison to
average rating
Rank
for Comparison
benchmark
Has contact with neighbors at
least several times per week
64
8
117
Much more
Public Trust Benchmarks
Chanhassen
Number of Jurisdictions
Comparison to
average rating
Rank for Comparison
benchmark
Value of services for the taxes paid to
Chanhassen
57
51
338
Much above
The overall direction that Chanhassen
is taking
64
20
277
Much above
Job Chanhassen government does at
welcoming citizen involvement
56
38
294
Much above
Overall image or reputation of
Chanhassen
82
6
243
Much above
The National Citizen SurveyTM
11
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Courteousness
Chanhassen
8
Number of Jurisdictions for
Comparison to
10
average rating
Rank
Comparison
benchmark
Services provided by the City of
328
Much above
Chanhassen
73
18
369
Much above
Services provided by the Federal
Government
44
69
227
Similar
Services provided by the State
Government
49
230
Much above
36
Services provided by Carver
County Government
63
2
113
Much above
Contact with City Employees Benchmarks
Chanhassen Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to
average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark
Had contact with City
employee(s) in last 12 months 48 204 244 Much less
Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks
Chanhassen average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to
rating Rank Comparison benchmark
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Courteousness
80
8
291 M uch a bove
286 Much a bove
235 Much a bove
77
10
80
11
Overa I I
impression
78
8
328
Much above
U
C
N
C
N
U
t
U
N
C
O
Z
v
cn
a�
N
U
J
C
O
Z
v
L
The National Citizen SurveyTM
12
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
The National Citizen SurveyTM
13
Valdez, AK ............................... ..........................4,036
Newport Beach, CA.......... ...............................
70,032
Auburn, AL ............................. .........................42,987
Palm Springs, CA.................... .........................
42,807
Gulf Shores, AL ........................ ..........................5,044
Palo Alto, CA.................... ...............................
58,598
Tuskegee, AL .................... ...............................
11,846
Poway, CA ....................... ...............................
48,044
Fayetteville, AR ....................... .........................58,047
Rancho Cordova, CA........ ...............................
55,060
Little Rock, AR ....................... ........................183,133
Redding, CA..................... ...............................
80,865
Avondale, AZ .......................... .........................35,883
Richmond, CA.................. ...............................
99,216
Casa Grande, AZ ..................... .........................25,224
San Francisco, CA........... ...............................
776,733
Chandler, AZ ......................... ........................176,581
San Luis Obispo County, CA.........................
247,900
Cococino County, AZ ............ ........................116,320
San Rafael, CA.................. ...............................
56,063
Dewey - Humboldt, AZ ............. ..........................6,295
San Ramon, CA ...............................................
44,722
Flagstaff, AZ ............................ .........................52,894
Santa Barbara County, CA.............................
399,347
Florence, AZ ........................... .........................1
7,054
Santa Monica, CA............. ...............................
84,084
Gilbert, AZ ...................... ...............................
109,697
South Lake Tahoe, CA...... ...............................
23,609
Goodyear, AZ ..................................................
18,911
Stockton, CA ......................... ........................
243,771
Kingman, AZ ........................... .........................20,069
Sunnyvale, CA................ ...............................
131,760
Marana, AZ ............................. .........................13,556
Temecula, CA................... ...............................
57,716
Mesa, AZ ............................... ........................396,375
Thousand Oaks, CA........ ...............................
117,005
Peoria, AZ ....................... ...............................
108,364
Visalia, CA........................ ...............................
91,565
Phoenix, AZ .......................... ......................1,321,045
Walnut Creek, CA.................. .........................
64,296
Pinal County, AZ ................... ........................179,727
Calgary, Canada ............................................
878,866
Prescott Valley, AZ ................. .........................25,535
District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada ..............
103,654
Queen Creek, AZ ..................... ..........................4,316
Edmonton, Canada......... ...............................
666,104
Safford, AZ ............................... ..........................9,232
Guelph, Ontario, Canada ..............................
114,943
Scottsdale, AZ ........................ ........................202,705
Kamloops, Canada............ ...............................
77,281
Sedona, AZ ............................. .........................10,192
Kelowna, Canada ............................................
96,288
Surprise, AZ ............................ .........................30,848
North Vancouver, Canada ...............................
44,303
Tempe, AZ ............................. ........................158,625
Oakville, Canada............ ...............................
144,738
Yuma, AZ . ............................... .........................77,515
Prince Albert, Canada....... ...............................
34,291
Yuma County, AZ .................. ........................160,026
Thunder Bay, Canada..... ...............................
109,016
Agoura Hills, CA ..................... .........................20,537
Victoria, Canada..................... .........................
78,057
Bellflower, CA ........................ .........................72,878
Whitehorse, Canada......... ...............................
19,058
Benicia, CA ............................. .........................26,865
Winnipeg, Canada.......... ...............................
619,544
Brea, CA .. ............................... .........................35,410
Yellowknife, Canada ........ ...............................
16,541
Brisbane, CA ............................ ..........................3,597
Arapahoe County, CO ...................................
487,967
Burlingame, CA ...................... .........................28,158
Archuleta County, CO .......................................
9,898
Carlsbad, CA ........................... .........................78,247
Arvada, CO.................... ...............................
102,153
Chula Vista, CA .............. ...............................
173,556
Aspen, CO.......................... ...............................
5,914
Claremont, CA ........................ .........................33,998
Aurora, CO..................... ...............................
276,393
Concord, CA .......................... ........................121,780
Boulder, CO ....................................................
94,673
v
s
Cupertino, CA ......................... .........................50,546
Boulder County, CO....... ...............................
291,288
Davis, CA . ............................... .........................60,308
Breckenridge, CO............... ...............................
2,408
Del Mar, CA ............................ ..........................4,389
Broomfield, CO................ ...............................
38,272
Dublin, CA ............................. .........................29,973
Castle Rock, CO ..............................................
20,224
o El
Cerrito, CA .......................... .........................23,171
Colorado Springs, CO .... ...............................
360,890
T
Elk Grove, CA ......................... .........................59,984
Craig, CO........................... ...............................
9,189
Z
Galt, CA ... ............................... .........................19,472
Crested Butte, CO .............. ...............................
1,529
°
La Mesa, CA ............................ .........................54,749
Denver (City and County), CO ......................
554,636
Laguna Beach, CA ................... .........................23,727
Douglas County, CO...... ...............................
175,766
Livermore, CA ......................... .........................73,345
Durango, CO.......................... .........................
13,922
Lodi, CA .. ............................... .........................56,999
Eagle County, CO............. ...............................
41,659
Y Long
Beach, CA ..................... ........................461,522
Englewood, CO................ ...............................
31,727
u
Lynwood, CA .......................... .........................69,845
Fort Collins, CO............. ...............................
118,652
Menlo Park, CA ...................... .........................30,785
Frisco, CO.......................... ...............................
2,443
. 2
Mission Viejo, CA ................... .........................93,102
Fruita, CO ............................... ..........................
6,478
Z
Morgan Hill, CA ..................... .........................33,556
Georgetown, CO................ ...............................
1,088
Mountain View, CA ................ .........................70,708
Golden, CO...................... ...............................
17,159
The National Citizen SurveyTM
13
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Grand County, CO .................. .........................12,442
30,966
Grand Junction, CO ................ .........................41,986
Greenwood Village, CO ......... .........................11,035
11,910
Gunnison County, CO ............ .........................13,956
26,316
Highlands Ranch, CO ............. .........................70,931
79,413
Hot Sulphur Springs, CO .......... ............................521
10,468
Jefferson County, CO ............. ........................527,056
1,131,184
Lakewood, CO ................ ...............................
144,126
Larimer County, CO ............... ........................251,494
32,732
Lone Tree, CO...........,...,.., ......... ........................4,873
36,417
Longmont, CO ........................ .........................71,093
344,765
Louisville, CO ......................... .........................18,937
921,482
Loveland, CO ......................... .........................50,608
45,658
Mesa County, CO ........... ...............................
116,255
Montrose, CO ......................... .........................12,344
88,769
Northglenn, CO ...................... .........................31,575
38,291
Parker, CO .............................. .........................23,558
Pitkin County, CO ................... .........................14,872
10,890
Salida CO ............................... ..........................5,504
13,177
Silverthorne, CO ...................... ..........................3,196
20,074
Steamboat Springs, CO ............ ..........................9,815
150,624
Sterling, CO ............................ .........................11,360
Summit County, CO ............... .........................23,548
443,343
Thornton, CO ......................... .........................82,384
40,601
Vail CO .... ............................... ..........................4,531
14,351
Westminster, CO ................... ........................100,940
24,090
Wheat Ridge, CO .................... .........................32,913
76,939
Coventry, CT ........................... .........................11,504
34,854
Hartford, CT ........................... ........................121,578
15,925
Manchester, CT ....................... .........................54,740
10,689
Wethersfield, CT ..................... .........................26,271
18,147
Windsor, CT ........................... .........................28,237
30,180
Dover, DE ............................... .........................32,135
79,334
Belleair Beach, FL .................... ..........................1,751
85,781
Bonita Springs, FL ................... .........................32,797
131,510
Brevard County, FL ................ ........................476,230
Cape Coral, FL ..................,..., ..,...,......,......,...102,286
15,351
Charlotte County, FL .............. ........................141,627
Clearwater, FL ........................ ........................108,787
Collier County, FL .................. ........................251,377
876,156
Cooper City, FL ....................... .........................27,939
128,094
Coral Springs, FL .................... ........................117,549
50,731
Dania Beach, FL ...................... .........................20,061
Daytona Beach, FL .................. .........................64,112
31,275
Delray Beach, FL ..................... .........................60,020
36,145
Destin, FL ............................... .........................11,119
Duval County, FL ................... ........................778,879
198,682
Escambia County, FL .............. ........................294,410
12,998
Eustis, FL .. ............................... .........................15,106
7,144
Gainesville, FL ........................ .........................95,447
336
Hillsborough County, FL ........ ........................998,948
1,306
Jupiter, FL ............................... .........................39,328
Kissimmee, FL ......................... .........................47,814
Lee County, FL ....................... ........................454,918
46,403
Martin County, FL .................. ........................126,731
185,787
Melbourne, FL ........................ .........................71,382
21,291
Miami Beach, FL ..................... .........................87,933
17,247
North Palm Beach, FL ............. .........................12,064
34,469
North Port, FL ......................... .........................22,797
Oakland Park, FL .............. ...............................
30,966
Ocala, FL . ............................... .........................45,943
Oldsmar, FL ...................... ...............................
11,910
Oviedo, FL ....................... ...............................
26,316
Palm Bay, FL ..................... ...............................
79,413
Palm Beach, FL ................. ...............................
10,468
Palm Beach County, FL ..............................
1,131,184
Palm Beach Gardens, FL ... ...............................
35,058
Palm Coast, FL .................. ...............................
32,732
Panama City, FL ................ ...............................
36,417
Pasco County, FL ............ ...............................
344,765
Pinellas County, FL ......... ...............................
921,482
Pinellas Park, FL ............... ...............................
45,658
Port Orange, FL ................ ...............................
45,823
Port St. Lucie, FL ............... ...............................
88,769
Sanford, FL ....................... ...............................
38,291
S arasota, FL ...................,:.....,: .........,......,:.......52,715
Seminole, FL ..................... ...............................
10,890
South Daytona, FL ............ ...............................
13,177
St. Cloud, FL ..................... ...............................
20,074
Tallahassee, FL ............... ...............................
150,624
Titusville, FL ........................... .........................40,670
Volusia County, FL ......... ...............................
443,343
Walton County, FL ........... ...............................
40,601
Winter Garden, FL ............ ...............................
14,351
Winter Park, FL ................. ...............................
24,090
Albany, GA ...................... ...............................
76,939
Alpharetta, GA ................. ...............................
34,854
Cartersville, GA ................ ...............................
15,925
Conyers, GA ..................... ...............................
10,689
Decatur, GA ..................... ...............................
18,147
Milton, GA ....................... ...............................
30,180
Roswell, GA ..................... ...............................
79,334
Sandy Springs, GA ............ ...............................
85,781
Savannah, GA ................. ...............................
131,510
Smyrna, GA ............................ .........................40,999
Snellville, GA.........., .......... ...............................
15,351
Suwanee, GA .......................... ..........................8,725
Valdosta, GA .......................... .........................43,724
Honolulu, HI .................................................
876,156
Maui, HI ......................... ...............................
128,094
Ames, IA ........................... ...............................
50,731
Ankeny, IA ............................. .........................27,117
Bettendorf, IA.........,......,.. ...............................
31,275
Cedar Falls, IA .................. ...............................
36,145
Davenport, IA ......................... .........................98,359
Des Moines, IA ............... ...............................
198,682
Indianola, IA ..................... ...............................
12,998
Marion, IA ............................... ..........................
7,144
Sheldahl, IA ........................... ...............................
336
Slater IA ............................. ...............................
1,306
Urbandale, IA ......................... .........................29,072
Waukee, IA ............................. ..........................5,126
West Des Moines, IA ........ ...............................
46,403
Boise, ID ........................ ...............................
185,787
Moscow, ID .....................................................
21,291
P ost Falls, ID .................... ...............................
17,247
Twin Falls, ID ................... ...............................
34,469
Batavia, IL ............................... .........................23,866
The National Citizen SurveyTM
14
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
U
C
Centralia, IL ............................ .........................14,136
Ocean City, MD................. ...............................
7,173
Clarendon Hills, IL ................... ..........................7,610
Prince George's County, MID .........................
801,515
Collinsville, IL ......................... .........................24,707
Rockville, MID .................................................
47,388
Crystal Lake, IL ....................... .........................38,000
Takoma Park, MD ............ ...............................
17,299
DeKalb, IL ............................... .........................39,018
Saco, ME .......................... ...............................
16,822
Downers Grove, IL ................. .........................48,724
Ann Arbor, MI ................ ...............................
114,024
Elmhurst, IL ............................. .........................42,762
Battle Creek, MI................ ...............................
53,364
Evanston, IL ............................ .........................74,239
Delhi Township, MI ......... ...............................
22,569
Freeport, IL ............................. .........................26,443
Escanaba, MI.................... ...............................
13,140
Gurnee, IL ... ............................... .......................28,834
Flushing, MI ....................... ...............................
8,348
Highland Park, IL .................... .........................31,365
Gladstone, MI..................... ...............................
5,032
Lincolnwood, IL ...................... .........................12,359
Howell, M1 ........................................................
9,232
Naperville, IL ......................... ........................128,358
Jackson County, MI ........ ...............................
158,422
Normal, IL ............................... .........................45,386
Meridian Charter Township, MI.......................
38,987
Oak Park, IL ............................ .........................39,803
Novi, MI........................... ...............................
47,386
O'Fallon, IL ............................. .........................21,910
Oakland Township, MI..... ...............................
13,071
Palatine, IL... .................... - ......... ......,:.....65,479
Ottawa County, MI . ......... .......... ....,.....
238,314
Park Ridge, IL .......................... .........................37,775
Petoskey, MI....................... ...............................
6,080
Peoria County, IL ................... ........................183,433
Rochester, MI ................... ...............................
10,467
Riverside, IL ............................. ..........................8,895
Sault Sainte Marie, MI ...... ...............................
16,542
Sherman, IL .............................. ..........................2,871
South Haven, MI ................ ...............................
5,021
Shorewood, IL .......................... ..........................7,686
Troy, MI ........................... ...............................
80,959
Skokie, IL . ............................... .........................63,348
Village of Howard City, MI. ...............................
1,585
Sugar Grove, IL ........................ ..........................3,909
Blue Earth, MN................... ...............................
3,621
Wilmington, IL ......................... ..........................5,134
Carver County, MN .......... ...............................
70,205
Woodridge, IL ......................... .........................30,934
Dakota County, MN ....... ...............................
355,904
Fishers, IN ............................... .........................37,835
Duluth, MN .....................................................
86,918
Munster, IN ............................. .........................21,511
Fridley, MN .....................................................
27,449
Arkansas City, KS .................... .........................11,963
Hutchinson, MN............... ...............................
13,080
Chanute, KS .......................................................
9,411
Mankato, MN ................... ...............................
32,427
Fairway, KS .............................. ..........................3,952
Maple Grove, MN ............ ...............................
50,365
Gardner, KS ............................. ..........................9,396
Maplewood, MN .............. ...............................
34,947
Lawrence, KS .......................... .........................80,098
Mayer, MN ...........................................................
554
Lenexa, KS .............................. .........................40,238
Medina, MN ......................................................
4,005
Merriam, KS ............................ .........................11,008
Minneapolis, MN ........... ...............................
382,618
Mission, KS .............................. ..........................9,727
North Branch, MN .............................................
8,023
Olathe, KS ........................................................
92,962
Olmsted County, MN ....... ...............................
124,277
Overland Park, KS .................. ........................149,080
Prior Lake, MN ................. ...............................
15,917
Roeland Park, KS ...............................................
6,817
Scott County, MN............. ...............................
89,498
Salina, KS . ............................... .........................45,679
St. Cloud, MN .................. ...............................
59,107
Wichita, KS ............................ ........................344,284
St. Louis County, MN ..... ...............................
200,528
Bowling Green, KY ................. .........................49,296
Washington County, MN ...............................
201,130
Daviess County, KY ................ .........................91,545
Woodbury, MN ...............................................
46,463
Jefferson Parish, LA ................ ........................455,466
Blue Springs, MO ............................................
48,080
New Orleans, LA ................... ........................484,674
Branson, MO...................... ...............................
6,050
Orleans Parish, LA ................. ........................484,674
Clay County, MO........... ...............................
184,006
Andover, MA .......................... .........................31,247
Creve Coeur, MO............. ...............................
16,500
Barnstable, MA ....................... .........................47,821
Ellisville, MO .....................................................
9,104
Bedford, MA ....................................................
12,595
Grandview, MO ..............................................
24,881
Burlington, MA ....................... .........................22,876
Independence, MO........ ...............................
113,288
Cambridge, MA .............. ...............................
101,355
Joplin, MO ....................... ...............................
45,504
Needham, MA ........................ .........................28,911
Lee's Summit, MO............ ...............................
70,700
Shrewsbury, MA ..................... .........................31,640
Liberty, MO...................... ...............................
26,232
Worcester, MA ....................... ........................172,648
Maryland Heights, MO ....................................
25,756
Baltimore County, MD ........... ........................754,292
Maryville, MO.................. ...............................
10,581
College Park, MD ................... .........................24,657
O'Fallon, MO................... ...............................
46,169
Gaithersburg, MD ..... ......... ........ ...........52,613
Platte City, MO.,.,... ......... ......... ...............
3,866
La Plata, MD ............................ ..........................6,551
Raymore, MO................... ...............................
11,146
Montgomery County, MD ...... ........................873,341
Richmond Heights, MO ..... ...............................
9,602
The National Citizen SurveyTM
15
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Starkville, MS .......................... .........................21,869
Corvallis, OR ...................................................
49,322
Billings, MT ............................ .........................89,847
Eugene, OR.................... ...............................
137,893
Bozeman, MT ......................... .........................27,509
Gresham, OR ................... ...............................
90,205
Missoula, MT .......................... .........................57,053
Hermiston, OR................. ...............................
13,154
Asheville, NC .......................... .........................68,889
Jackson County, OR ....... ...............................
181,269
Cary NC .. ............................... .........................94,536
Keizer, OR........................ ...............................
32,203
Charlotte, NC ......................... ........................540,828
Lane County, OR............ ...............................
322,959
Concord, NC .......................... .........................55,977
Multnomah County, OR. ...............................
660,486
Davidson, NC .......................... ..........................7,139
Portland, OR .................. ...............................
529,121
Durham, NC..........,...,..,...,.., .. ........................187,038
Tualatin, OR ....................................................
22,791
High Point, NC ....................... .........................85,839
Borough of Ebensburg, PA.. ...............................
3,091
Hudson, NC ............................. ..........................3,078
Cranberry Township, PA .. ...............................
23,625
Kannapolis, NC ....................... .........................36,910
Cumberland County, PA ................................
213,674
Mecklenburg County, NC ...... ........................695,454
Ephrata Borough, PA ........ ...............................
13,213
Mooresville, NC ...................... .........................18,823
Kutztown Borough, PA....... ...............................
5,067
Wilmington, NC ..................... .........................90,400
Lower Providence Township, PA.....................
22,390
Winston - Salem, NC .......................................
185,776
Peters Township, PA ......... ...............................
17,556
Wahpeton, ND ........................ ..........................8,586
Philadelphia, PA.......... ...............................
1,517,550
Cedar Creek, NE ....................... ............................396
State College, PA.............. ...............................
38,420
Kearney, NE ............................. ........................27,431
Upper Merion Township, PA...........................
28,863
La Vista, NE ...................... ...............................
11,699
East Providence, RI................. .........................
48,688
Dover, NH .............................. .........................26,884
Newport, RI .....................................................
26,475
Lebanon, NH .......................... .........................12,568
Greenville, SC.................. ...............................
10,468
Lyme NH . ............................... ..........................1,679
Mauldin, SC..................... ...............................
15,224
Willingboro Township, NJ ...... .........................33,008
Rock Hill, SC ...................................................
49,765
Alamogordo, NM .................... .........................35,582
Sioux Falls, SD ............... ...............................
123,975
Albuquerque, NM .................. ........................448,607
Johnson City, TN .............. ...............................
55,469
Bloomfield, NM ....................... ..........................6,417
Nashville, TN ................. ...............................
545,524
Farmington, NM ..................... .........................37,844
Oak Ridge, TN ................. ...............................
27,387
Rio Rancho, NM ..................... .........................51,765
White House, TN ............... ...............................
7,220
San Juan County, NM ............ ........................113,801
Arlington, TX.................. ...............................
332,969
Carson City, NV ...................... .........................52,457
Austin, TX....................... ...............................
656,562
Henderson, NV ............... ...............................
1 75,381
Benbrook, TX ................... ...............................
20,208
North Las Vegas, NV .............. ........................115,488
Bryan, TX ......................... ...............................
34,733
Reno, NV ............................... ........................180,480
Coppell, TX...................... ...............................
39,958
Sparks, NV .............................. .........................66,346
Corpus Christi, TX .......... ...............................
277,454
Washoe County, NV..,......, ....... ......,...,..........339,486
Dallas, TX.....,..,...,....... ...............................
1,188,580
Beekman, NY .......................... .........................11,452
Denton, TX....................... ...............................
80,537
Canandaigua, NY .............. ...............................
11,264
Duncanville, TX ............... ...............................
36,081
New York City, NY ............... ......................8,008,278
E Paso, TX ..................... ...............................
563,662
Village of Rye Brook, NY ......... ..........................8,602
Flower Mound, TX ........... ...............................
50,702
Blue Ash, OH ......................... .........................12,513
Fort Worth, TX................ ...............................
534,694
Delaware, OH ........................ .........................25,243
Georgetown, TX............... ...............................
28,339
Dublin, OH ............................ .........................31,392
Grand Prairie, TX............ ...............................
127,427
Hudson, OH ........................... .........................22,439
Houston, TX................ ...............................
1,953,631
Kettering, OH ......................... .........................57,502
Hurst, TX.......................... ...............................
36,273
Lebanon, OH .......................... .........................16,962
Hutto, TX............................ ...............................
1,250
Orange Village, OH ................. ..........................3,236
Irving, TX........................ ...............................
191,615
Sandusky, OH ......................... .........................27,844
McAllen, TX................... ...............................
106,414
Springboro, OH ...................... .........................12,380
Pasadena, TX.................. ...............................
141,674
Sylvania Township, OH .......... .........................44,253
Plano, TX........................ ...............................
222,030
Upper Arlington, OH .............. .........................33,686
Round Rock, TX ..............................................
61,136
Westerville, OH ...................... .........................35,318
Rowlett, TX ......................................................
44,503
Broken Arrow, OK .................. .........................74,839
San Marcos, TX................. ...............................
34,733
Edmond, OK ........................... .........................68,315
Shenandoah, TX................. ...............................
1,503
Oklahoma City, OK ............... ........................506,132
Southlake, TX................... ...............................
21,519
Stillwater, OK ........... ......... .......................39,065
Sugar Land, TX ....... ......... ..........................
63,328
Albany, OR ............................. .........................40,852
The Colony, TX................ ...............................
26,531
Bend, OR . ............................... .........................52,029
Tomball, TX........................ ...............................
9,089
The National Citizen SurveyTM
16
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Farmington, UT ....................... .........................12,081
6,465
Riverdale, UT ........................... ..........................7,656
Sandy City, UT ........................ .........................88,418
79,524
Saratoga Springs, UT ........... ...............................
1,003
Springville, UT ........................ .........................20,424
Washington City, UT ............... ..........................8,186
231,969
Albemarle County, VA ............ .........................79,236
33,847
Arlington County, VA ............ ........................189,453
20,362
Blacksburg, VA ....................... .........................39,357
3,836
Botetourt County, VA........,.., ....... ....................30,496
Chesapeake, VA ..................... ........................199,184
32,066
Chesterfield County, VA ........ ........................259,903
Hampton, VA ......................... ........................146,437
50,052
Hanover County, VA ............... .........................86,320
38,708
Hopewell, VA ......................... .........................22,354
1,631
James City County, VA ............ .........................48,102
75,203
Lexington, VA .......................... ..........................6,867
193,556
Lynchburg, VA ........................ .........................65,269
143,560
Newport News, VA ................ ........................180,150
Northampton County, VA ....... .........................13,093
20,559
Prince William County, VA .... ........................280,813
61,704
Radford, VA ............................ .........................15,859
Roanoke, VA ........................... .........................94,911
10,146
Spotsylvania County, VA ......... .........................90,395
Stafford County, VA ................ .........................92,446
82,317
Staunton, VA ........................... .........................23,853
Virginia Beach, VA ................ ........................425,257
Williamsburg, VA ................... .........................11,998
38,426
Chittenden County, VT .......... ........................146,571
13,437
Montpelier, VT ......................... ..........................8,035
26,809
Auburn, WA ........................... .........................40,314
53,011
Bellevue, WA ......................... ........................109,569
19,646
Bellingham, WA ..................... .........................67,171
Clark County, WA .................. ........................345,238
18,251
Federal Way, WA ................... .........................83,259
Gig Harbor, WA ................. ...............................
6,465
Hoquiam, WA ......................... ..........................9,097
Kent, WA .......................... ...............................
79,524
King County, WA ........ ...............................
1,737,034
Kirkland, WA .......................... .........................45,054
Kitsap County, WA ......... ...............................
231,969
Lynnwood, WA ................ ...............................
33,847
Mountlake Terrace, WA ... ...............................
20,362
Ocean Shores, WA ............. ...............................
3,836
Oly mpia, WA .............................. ......................42,514
Pasco, WA ........................ ...............................
32,066
Redmond, WA ........................ .........................45,256
Renton, WA ...................... ...............................
50,052
Richland, WA ................... ...............................
38,708
Snoqualmie, WA ................ ...............................
1,631
Spokane Valley, WA ......... ...............................
75,203
Tacoma, WA .................. ...............................
193,556
Vancouver, WA .............. ...............................
143,560
Columbus, WI ......................... ..........................4,479
De Pere, WI ...................... ...............................
20,559
Eau Claire, WI .................. ...............................
61,704
Madison, WI .......................... ........................208,054
Merrill, WI ........................ ...............................
10,146
Milton, WI ............................... ..........................5,132
Ozaukee County, WI ........ ...............................
82,317
Racine, WI .............................. .........................81,855
Suamico, WI ............................ ..........................8,686
Wausau, WI ...................... ...............................
38,426
Whitewater, WI ................ ...............................
13,437
Morgantown, WV ................... .........................
26,809
Cheyenne, WY ................. ...............................
53,011
Gillette, WY ..................... ...............................
19,646
Laramie, WY ........................... .........................27,204
Teton County, WY ............ ...............................
18,251
The National Citizen SurveyTM
17
Citizen SurveyT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN
2010
Report of Open -ended Question
LC -4,
NATIONAL
RESEARCH
C E N T E R ,N4,
3005 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
www.n- r -c.com • 303 - 444 -7863
ICMA
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
www.ic ma.org • 202- 289 -ICMA
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
CONTENTS
SurveyBackground .............................................................................. ............................... 1
About The National Citizen SurveyTM .......................................................... ..............................1
Understanding the Results .................................................................... ..............................2
About Closed -ended and Open -ended Questions ....................................... ..............................2
Verbatims .................................................................................................. ............................... 2
Verbatim Responses to Open -ended Questions .................................... ..............................4
If the City government could change one thing to make Chanhassen a better place to live, now
or in the future, what change would you like to see? .................................. ..............................4
Retail and dining opportunities ............................................................. ..............................4
Government performance, taxes ........................................................... ..............................5
Transportation: traffic, mass transit, traff ic enforcement / planning .......... ..............................6
Growth, planning, land use and development, maintaining community character ...............7
Recreation and cultural opportunities (rec center, community center, library) .....................9
Infrastructure issues (roads, water, internet, etc) .................................... ..............................9
Economic development and jobs ......................................................... .............................10
Code enforcement, animal control ....................................................... .............................10
Education, schools, youth opportunities ............................................... .............................11
Quality of life, sense of community, volunteer opportunities, diversity .............................. 11
Lawenforcement, police ..................................................................... .............................12
Don't know ......................................................................................... .............................12
Other.................................................................................................. .............................12
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
SURVEY BACKGROUND
ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY'"'
The National Citizen Survey"' (The NCST) is a collaborative effort between National Research
Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City /County Management Association (ICMA).
The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and
comparable results across The National Citizen Survey'm jurisdictions. Participating households are
selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple
mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- addressed and postage
paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of
the entire community.
The National Citizen Survey'" customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation
with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Chanhassen staff selected items from a menu of questions
about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for
sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of
Chanhassen staff also determined local interest in a variety of add -on options to The National
Citizen Survey'm Basic Service.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS
ABOUT CLOSED -ENDED AND OPEN -ENDED QUESTIONS
Questions can either be asked in a closed -ended or open -ended manner. A closed -ended question
is one where a set of response options is listed on the survey. Those taking the survey respond to
each option listed. Open -ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select
their response. Instead, respondents must "create" their own answers and state them in their own
words. The verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using codes. An 'other" category is
used for responses falling outside the coded categories. In general, a code is assigned when at least
5 -10% of responses will fit the code.
Advantages of an open -ended question include:
• Responses are not prompted, allowing respondents to provide answers that are not anticipated or
well known.
• This type of question tends to capture response options that come to mind most quickly.
• The final result can be richer, since verbatim responses are included in an appendix, giving you and
others a chance to "hear" the voice of respondents in their own words.
• There is a smaller risk of missing important dimensions.
VERBATIMS
Respondents were asked to record their opinions about Chanhassen in the following question:
■ If the City government could change one thing to make Chanhassen a better place to live, now or in
the future, what change would you like to see?
The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the
following table with the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments
from residents covered more than a single topic, the first two topics mentioned by a resident was
categorized and counted for the table below. Those verbatim responses are grouped by the first
topic listed in each comment whenever a respondent mentioned more than a single topic. Verbatim
comments that contain more than one topic nevertheless appear only once (in the category of the
first topic listed), however the analysis in the following table counts the first two topic areas given
by all respondents who listed more than one.
U
C
Results from the open -ended question is best understood by reviewing the table of frequencies that
summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
If the City government could change one thing to make Chanhassen a better place to live, now Percent of
or in the future, what change would you like to see? Respondents
Retail and dining opportunities
Government performance, taxes
Transportation: traffic, mass transit, traffic enforcement/planning
20%
19 %
14%
Growth, planning, land use and development, maintaining community character
13%
Recreation and cultural opportunities (rec center, community center, library)
11 %
Infrastructure issues (roads, water, internet, etc)
6%
Economic development and jobs
6%
Code enforcement, animal control
6%
Education, schools, youth opportunities
6%
Quality of life, sense of community, volunteer opportunities, diversity
5%
Law enforcement, police
4%
Don't know
3%
Other
9%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one category.
U
C
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
The following pages contain the respondents' verbatim responses as written on the survey and have
not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas.
IF THE CITY GOVERNMENT COULD CHANGE ONE THING TO MAKE
CHANHASSEN A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE,
WHAT CHANGE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE?
Retail and dining opportunities
• A shopping area like they have in Maple Grove or St. Anthony village.
• Add more restaurants.
• Add more retail stores, we have to go to EP to shop.
• Allow more restaurants in Chanhassen.
• An Asian grocery store with lots of produce and meat and fish. Other than that it is a good place to
live. But the winter is so cold.
• Another grocery store such as Rainbow also - A Jo Ann's
• Availability of a retail store.
Better restaurants.
Better restaurants.
Better retail.
Better shopping areas.
Better shops & restaurants. 2. Better schools (you compete w /MTKA) (make Chanhassen -their own
school district!) 3. Lower taxes! 4. Make Hwy 5 a major thorough fare w/ no lights - this hwy (41) are
too unsafe.
• Bring in more business & shopping, which hopefully could help lower property taxes. A shopping
mall would be great in this area.
• Build a Panera's.
• Get some good restaurants in town! The talk in town is that the city is so difficult to work with that
business give up and go to other cities. I know I drive to Eden Prairie a lot to eat out. Chanhassen is
missing out on those tax dollars.
• Have better thought out retail development. Building materials, landscaping and tenant mix are very
poor in comparison to Eden Prairie.
• Improve quality of businesses downtown.
• Make it easier for restaurants & retailers to build -make it easier for residents to add on to house.
Permit issues are to demanding. Is there a need for a police force? Make HWY 5 crossing more
passable.
• More adult restaurants we tend to always go in to Eden Prairie to dine.
• More family dine -in restaurants & more take out/fast food too! Wish we didn't have to go to Eden
Prairie for variety.
• More family type restaurants, more shopping (non - grocery, non - target).
• More fine dining choices.
• More high end restaurants in the area !
• More legal retail to keep owners here. Keep up the great work!
• More mom & pop /small family owned bar or restaurants. Rey Azteka is a shining example.
• More restaurant options.
• More restaurant sit down style.
• More restaurants & shopping south of Hwy 5.
• More restaurants.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
• More restaurants /shopping.
• More retail & restaurant development to draw people from surrounding communities.
• More retail shops. 2. More restaurants. 3. Movie theaters (larger).
• More retail stores & restaurants.
• More retail.
• More retail.
• More shopping availability - We need more than target!
• More shopping, closer.
• More shopping, restaurants, development! That increases property value which is horrible right
now.
• More shopping -other than cub - (Burleys) too expensive no other query. Would like to shop local
rather than EP.
• The western suburban have no good ladies clothing store - neither does Ridgedale. I have to shop
by catalog - sometimes that's not the best. I don't drive out of my area any more so I don't get to
other shopping areas.
• Walmart, built in area.
• We do not have enough restaurants!
• Wider variety of retail and restaurants. Find myself going to Eden Prairie for these tasks.
• Would like more shopping options but not the traffic associated with it so, that is a deleme, right?
• Would like to have a Country Buffet restaurant here.
Government performance, taxes
■ Be more friendly. A lot of depts aren't responsive to phone calls, Follow -ups, or Fol low-th roughs.
Some employees like to use their power over the local citizen.
■ Control city expenditure - yearly budget.
■ Fewer rich, spoiled people on council. More people & young kids making choices!
■ Hire or train current city staff to recognize that individual property owners have rights, and that city
employees should leave their personal values at home.
■ I answered "I don't know" to a lot of questions because I stopped following what the counsel does.
While generally competent, the counsel has proven unnecessarily intrusive at times or favored a
small number of individuals to the detriment of the larger community.
■ 1 would like the city to make sure there are enough staff resources in the future to ensure that the
city is able to be "Practice" in the planning for the future (Trails, Roadways, Developments zoning,
etc) and not minimize staff levels and become a "Reactive" city.
Improve property taxes - too high patrol and issue speeding tickets on more residential roads.
Keep taxes (property) down!
U Keep taxes down, control spending on schools.
Keep taxes reasonable.
Kepp - T & M Furlong as Mayor.
Less negative attitude toward Chanhassen residents who are paying the Chanhassen city government
o employees salaries via high taxes. (2) Chanhassen employees leave the impression they truly do not
Z wish to help a resident. Even Bloomington (Hennepin County) have a better attitudes towards their
T residents.
• Listen to what residents want for the neighborhood. Don't spend foolishly.
• Lower property tax rate.
• Lower property taxes to relate to the current value of our homes.
• Lower property taxes!
• Lower property taxes.
• Lower property taxes.
• Lower taxes!
• Lower taxes, better police visibility and coverage, different cable provider.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
• Lower taxes.
• Lower taxes.
• Lower taxes.
• Lower taxes. Fix pot holes.
• Make city officials and employees accountable for moneys spent. Make sure contracts are fulfilled to
specifications.
• Make sure city employees fulfill their job responsibilities re homeowners abusing wild life areas.
They need to go on the lot to see abuse.
• Manage overall tax structure better, property and school being of most concern.
• More awareness and attention to property tax rates, and using the money very carefully as if it we
your own. There are tough economic times ahead. We all have to pull in our budgets and together
our belts and prepare for challenging finances.
• More communication.
• More responsiveness to home owners by the city council & planning commission.
• Promote lower property taxes.
• Property taxation must go down when property value real market value declines. Residents have
been selling homes and repurchasing homes for less money & taxes than paid on previous homes
owned in Chanhassen. I have had only one complaint in the last few years when a portable toilet
was not provided at a City Park, problem was corrected.
• Reduce property taxes.
• Reduce taxes, more restaurants.
• Reduce taxes.
• Run government budget economically. We tax payers think you gov't people don't understand the
stresses and strains on our household budgets. We want you to tighter your belts like we've had to.
• Taxes are high since decline of property values. More communication around volunteer
opportunities is community.
• Taxes too high! Need to cut grass shorter on the new Chan N.S. Baseball field.
• Taxes.
• The street assessment would be paid for by the city with an amount added to the city portion of the
tax bill each year so we wouldn't have to pay a large assessment when your street is repaired - Look
at Minnetonka for suggestions!
• Vote more democrats in office.
Transportation: traffic, mass transit, traffic
enforcement /planning
• Address the traffic issues on Barber blvd - not monitored, much speeding and traffic on Powers blvd.
• Be forward thinking regarding growth of roadway systems to accommodate spread of new suburbs
traveling to major highways.
• Better bus system- weekend service & closer park & rides.
• Better local public transportation not everyone drives, yet they need to get around!
• Better traffic enforcement on Lake Susan Hills drive. (East) People drive 40 -50 mph past my house
every day.
• Better traffic flow - including traffic signal timing, construction, pot holes etc - better snow removal in
the winter time too -at intersections mainly -would cut down on accidents.
• City planners are crazy about stop lights. Way to may in a city of this size. One cannot travel with
stopping several times (and wasting fuel), many times when no other vehicle is coming.
• Continue to enforce speeding on Lake Lucy Rd.
• Downtown connection (Bus) to southwest light rail if /when built!
• Fix the traffic issues - stoplights non -stop on Hwy 5. The loop that was extended off 494 has now
made Chan and EP a terrible place to drive.
• Have better public transport options to get to /from Min /St. Paul.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
■ Have pedestrian traffic movement over hwy 5, another walk over.
■ 1 would like an overpass for Hwy 5 at 101. Churches should not be allowed to have huge amounts
of acreage tax free.
■ Improve walk ability, downtown. More green space.
■ Improve walking within downtown — i.e. better sidewalks etc.
■ Light rail to Carver County less money spent on parks every 5 blocks & work on street repair.
■ Make the stoplights on Highway 5 more efficient, they're awful! A meter telling drivers how fast
they should drive to hit all the green lights would be a good idea!
■ More daily /weekend bus transportation.
More parking, some business places are hard to reach - cramped in.
More stop signs or lights at busy intersections. Powers blvd is much too long of a stretch & speed is
a major problem.
■ More transit.
■ Not so many stop lights to get through Chanhassen.
■ Our community has no sidewalks. Children walk, run, bike in the street. Have to walk in the street
to get to any park, or walking path.
■ Planning a larger "Lake Lucy Rd" sign at the west connection with highway 41. Several friends have
had difficulty trying to see the small sign, especially at night.
■ Please evaluate the timing of the stop light of Hwy 5 and Market blvd. I wait for over 5 minutes at
times and there is no traffic! Thanks.
■ Public transportation to major areas in metro (i.e. light rail) to help w/ growing traffic issues &
environment. Continue to educate families of educ. Opportunities for their children (i.e. Spanish
immersion) so they can be plan for & make the right decisions ahead of deadlines.
■ Put a traffic light on powers or stop sign - or Hopkins or Victoria. Bring something other than fast
food to Chan down town Quit putting signs up bragging about if being the best place to live -look at
the ponds and paths in Chan - embarrassing.
■ Require sidewalks in all housing developments.
■ Slower traffic on #5 and some what slower in neighborhoods.
■ Some way to slow traffic going mainly west on Lake Drive. Speed going east can also be too fast.
■ Southwest village transit to run during the weekend.
■ Speed bumps in residential neighborhoods. For some reason people drive very fast in our
neighborhood and I've never seen any enforcement of the speed limit. I've seen kids almost get run
over if they are riding bikes in the neighborhood. (we live on Bighorn Dr.).
■ Timing of stoplights both on main street and going from downtown area on to Hwy 5. Hypiedly
wait at 101 +5 for at least 5 minutes in the morning to turn on to Hwy 5 to get to work.
Y ■ Traffic law enforcement. Better understanding of community needs.
u Traffic lights that are all green at once, not just every other block - too much stop & go
on Hwy 5.
■ Wider streets in downtown.
■ Would like to take a bus more often but there isn't service in middle of the day. The trolley was
o great when it was here for the summer. Plan on taking southwest to twins games. Wish there were
7 more buses on bus service to St. Paul. (Museum), Como Park etc.
Growth, planning, land use and development, maintaining
community character
• Be very careful about land use development & very selective about which businesses are allowed.
• Being sure that new development will not negatively affect the water supply which can become low
in summer. Restrict water usage of businesses with lawns.
• Better city planning - Do not need retail (strip malls) at every stop light or hwy 5: with signs that
light up. I do not want to live in Las Vegas -The movie theater/Walgreens /library/halls what's next?
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
■ Better pricing and more homes for sell. When I recently got here. It was very hard for my family to
find an affordable home or I wouldn't mind buying an expensive home, if there were more options
in the housing market. I think it's too expensive for the quality of homes it sells.
■ Better /more well thought out planning -very hap- hazard & uncoordinated.
Chan was quaint until the "Strip Mall" era. The entrance of Eckankar The 1 st taints the original Chan
town look, the 2nd. A lost opportunity to use the land for something better.
Cheaper houses and internet; more jobs availability.
Community input in planning process.
■ Due to bad economy -would like to see more rental places, getting too expensive to live here. More
Pt. Jobs would be helpful & flex ability for kids to get jobs. Lot of places won't hire 1 6y olds they
want 18yr old- not fair to kids!
■ Encourage affordable housing /diverse housing.
■ 1 love living here. I think we need more senior housing.
■ Improve the availability of housing for families with 3 or more children with middle or low income.
Eden Prairie and Chaska offer twice the opportunity and value for housing for renters; many people
loose jobs or income and have no place to turn in Chanhassen for quality housing that they qualify
to live in. The rental options are dumps.
■ Keep development slow - -- I don't want to live in a place like Apple Valley way overdeveloped! I
would sooner drive to EP to shop! Love green space & country feel it is why we live here!
■ Keep the small town feel.
■ Keep the small -town atmosphere. Don't let roads /traffic get out of hand.
■ Less growth. Maintain natural beauty of the area. Use money wisely to maintain what we have not
expand too rapidly. A pool?
■ Make a more like a city then a suburb, with an actual downtown and more pedestrian - friendly.
■ More affordable apartment options - Chanhassen seems high compared to other cities. Mountain
bike trail. Help get light rail to Eden Prairie.
■ More affordable housing for low - to middle class, or retired people.
■ More affordable housing for young families.
■ More affordable housing.
■ More affordable housing.
■ More affordable living facilities. I live next door to an apartment complex with underground parking
- could I go there in the event of a Tornado warning /watch? Let us know!
■ More low income housing to help struggling families in the area.
■ More senior housing & family restaurant.
■ More single family housing under $400k.
■ Preservation of crop land.
u Reconstruct downtown so that it feels and looks like a town and not one big strip mall.
■ Revise residential zoning laws to preserve the personality of existing neighborhoods. Minimum lot
sizes should be determined by the area, not a "one size fits all ".
■ Slow down growth /expansion to remain small.
o Sometimes charge comes at a cost. I think Chanhassen is a great place to live. The small town feel in
Z a large metropolitan holds a lot of appeal to me. Given the current economic conditions everyone is
feeling and facing, the goal of the city should be to focus on maintaining the status quo w/o great
impact financially to its citizens. I'd like to see Chanhassen set apart from other suburban cities.
Thank you for asking for my feedback.
• Stay the course on planned growth.
■ Stay the course with zoning /planning parks /trails, maybe promote more restaurant and high end
U retail.
o Stop urban sprawl - big boxes.
Z This city has been blessed with many great Mayors. I hope the city will plan well for future growth
due to the New Freeway. The city has so many parks, rolling hills, and endless miles for bikers.
The National Citizen Survey'r"
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
However many bike trails need researching which would help bikers use the trails rather than
dangerous roads - "Do not use" that R rough surface - especially electric bikes which R B- coming
popular.
Recreation and cultural opportunities (rec center, community
center, library)
A better bigger community center with a lot of weight & exercise equipment.
■ A public, outdoor swimming pool would be a fantastic addition to Chanhassen. To swim in an
outdoor pool you have to leave the community.
■ Add a pool to the Chan Rec Center! I have a membership at Chaska Community Center because of
this.
■ Add a recreation club w/ membership dues & more class options; similar to Chaska?
■ Add more for recreation like Chaska rec. Schools.
■ An improved recreation center - the exercise equipment is old, it is very small and really only used
for basketball & private meetings.
■ Better community center.
■ Build a center for the arts or have prince donate "Parsley Park" to the city!
• Complete development of unfinished trails (Bluff Creek Blvd). More gas station.
■ Continue community programs & events — i.e. Memorial day services; 4th of July; fire fighter open
house; the neighborhood watch; night out events.
■ Enhance the Rec. Center. A better fitness facility, a city pool, better mirror the Chaska comm.
Center.
■ Even more bike trails (paved). More upscale shopping, like an arbor lakes would be nice.
■ 1 would love for us to have a community center similar to the one in Chaska with indoor skating,
swimming, gym, etc.
■ Improved rec center /community center.
■ More equipped library (bigger space, more materials). A fitness center with many sports available.
■ More trails!
■ Offer more activities interspersed in the community encourages residents to walk or bicycle rather
then drive (to encourage physical activity in daily life and encourage a feeling of neighborhood
communities). (I sent the Mayor of Chanhassen an article about this 1 -2 years ago, and received no
response).
■ Please add more recreational activities such as sport events, volunteer opportunities.
■ Recreation center that is comparable to Chaska's.
U
■ Recreation opportunities in the form of the limited rec center and no municipal golf course hurt the
city and it's image.
u ■ We have 3 small children that love the outdoor splash pad in St Louis park. We would recommend
L having a splash pad /outdoor pool that was for use by the public at no cost.
Infrastructure issues (roads, water, internet, etc)
• Wireless internet (like Chaska)
• We have had repeated water shortages in the summer due to poor well sizing & placement. The city
continues to issue new permits when water service has to be rationed to existing residents. Bad
management!
• Sweep streets more often - especially 17 -50 bikes don't get flat tires.
• Street improvement (Paying)
• Quality of water (tastes gross).
• Patch up the streets that are in poor shape.
• More cable TV options, find a way to lower property taxes. They are too high for the area!
• More cable opportunities -not tied to just one. Community center similar to Chaska - Community
outdoor pool. More places for youth (bowling, pizza)
The National Citizen SurveyTM
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
• Have had many issues with Mediacom. Think it would be nice if we could have water that did not
need to be softened. Water has ruined fixtures.
• Got a new cable co.
• Get rid of Mediacom as cable provider.
• Fixing the ruts in the road better. (esp. On 101).
• Fix the potholes when called - Hate being ignored. Fix sinking street / gutter in front of my house -
causing damage to my vehicles - Hate being ignored!
• Encourage quest to expand high speed internet availability and speeds in Chanhassen, so media
com will have some competition.
• Dump media com cable (easily the worst company I've ever dealt with)
• Clean up the weed in Lotus lake - It is choking the lake and in some cases could make the lake
unsafe and unhealthy.
• City owned internet & cable.
Economic development and jobs
• City government needs to be more willing to work with new businesses. Per several discussions, our
city government makes it very difficult to want to do business in Chanhassen. Our residents deserve
more businesses and services (and places for Chanhassen residents to work). This doesn't mean
franchises only.
■ Fewer automotive businesses. Better planning for Emerald Ash Boret.
■ Find a way to attract & retain new businesses that will remain as a mainstay in to city, not here
today & gone tomorrow, at a reasonable rate of overall growth.
■ Have a office to help people get work. Country or State.
■ Have an increase of professional jobs. Have community activities & areas for teens. Have police
actually investigate crime rather than hand out parting tickets.
■ Let more businesses come into our city limits - especially around the new 212 hwy. !! More
activities or a place of business for teenagers! (i.e.: Bowling alley, game rooms,) not much for them
except movie theatre.
■ Lighten up on small business /design roadways & parking lots, so you can go to and from retail
businesses make building codes the same for everybody and also do not use outside consulting
firms waste of money.
■ Make downtown Chanhassen more business friendly, invite more retail shops, give a "Facelift" to
the existing town market shops.
■ More decent paying jobs for college educated, young people.
■ More employment opportunities.
■ More job /employment opportunities.
■ Property values up and more jobs!
■ Recruiting & creating a lot more job openings in the government services transit or bus services
frequently even on Saturdays from home to downtown Chanhassen.
Code enforcement, animal control
• Address the 25% hardcover rule and provide or allow for some leeway.
• Ask the bldg. Insp. To relax and work with the builders.
• Better management of homes in dis- repair (New Perce Duplex homes & St. homes in substantial dis-
repair - garage doors /roofs fully apart, Lawns not moved, etc.)
• Enforce property rules (excess junk, long grass). If not an ordinance, something for barking dogs.
• Enforcement of park rules -also dog faces being cleaned up. Walking paths are full of dog faces -some
people bag it and then just throw it in someone's yard.
• Gravel drive ways to not be considered hard cover so when residents want to improve (i.e.)
(additions) not forced to make more hard cover. Isn't Green the way to go, wake up!
The National Citizen SurveyTM
10
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
• Homes that are abandoned need to be kept up with curb appeal. Some in this area are bad. And two
on frontier & 78th area that is lived in but looks like a junk yard / why can't the city talk to them!
Make them clean it up!
• just a comment: The new( ?) lights for the fields @ Lake Ann are ridiculously bright. City code?
• Keep dogs off sidewalks, trail & street. Owens let them poop all over.
• Less restrictions on residential land uses fences, decks, hard cover.
• The trail from Carver Beach to the Fox chase neighborhood is in need of log cut up /clean up. It used
to be kept so nicely. Now it is neglected and even dangerous. Plus the DNR pushed a dead deer
over the edge of the road into the Woodland area (instead of removing it). It is such a lovely trail
along lotus lake - but in dire need of attention. Thank you.
• Way too many junk vehicles in driveways & yards in my neighborhood.
Education, schools, youth opportunities
• Continue to invest in our future. Education kids. Take care of our environment as close grows. This
is an attention to clear. We need to keep it an attraction /benefit.
• I'd like to see more for teens to do.
• More activities /programs for high school area citizens.
• The community would be more cohesive if all the students were aligned within the same school
district. Right now the town is split between Chan high and Minnetonka high, and the support \news\
is not reflective of that.
• The school's spending an incredible amount of money (Ball fields @ Chanhassen H.S.) and then
complaining about not having enough money. Spend responsibly please!
Quality of life, sense of community, volunteer opportunities,
diversity
■ A more welcoming atmosphere.
• Chanhassen will start to become a aging community just like other suburbs before them - They need
to continue to make it affordable to live here now and in the future so the people that live here will
continue to live here.
■ Cheaper
■ Diversity, more affordable housing, public transportation.
■ Improving cultural /racial diversity understanding. As an African- American living in Chanhassen, I
feel unwanted, not understood, & suspected.
■ Make this place that everybody want to live.
U
■ More volunteer opportunities for people in Chanhassen to help other.
■ Much more aggressive enforcement of quality of life issues. Solicitors without permits should all be
u cited, weeds, junked vehicles enforcement. Get rid of eye sores. It sets the tone that larger issues
L wont be tolerated.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
11
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
Law enforcement, police
• Deputy sheriff office in our city not Chaska, only - follow -up of long time problems difficult to
explain to new police officer when called - example -flat tire- recurring problem - suspicious tenant in
Condo. Where my auto is parked! 1341 lake drive west Condo # 202.
• It's own police department.
• More police patrols in neighborhoods!
• More police patrols of neighborhood. (2) Attract more restaurants.
• More police visibility in certain neighborhoods and /or locations to decrease crime and possibly
enforce less gang (illegal alien) activity.
• Police officers!
• Police pulling over distracted drivers. (cell phones etc.)
• Too dangerous to walk 'downtown' by Byerlys & the library & Main Street in general.
Don't know
• Can't think of any.
• Don't change a thing!
• Don't know - haven't I lived here long enough.
• Don't know.
• Don't know.
• Don't know.
■ 1 am content now.
■ 1 have worked in Chan for the past 4yrs & have currently moved here. So far I am very happy with
everything.
■ I'm satisfied with Chanhassen as it is.
■ It seems things are going well - am excited that Chanhassen dinner theatre remains here.
■ Just keep doing exactly what you are doing - I recently heard an update from Mayor Furlong as the
service center & continue to remain very impressed @ the Mayor & his staff & all their hard work on
our behalf - Thank you very much!
■ No suggestion. This a fine place to live. My family is here.
■ No suggestions. Thank you.
■ To keep doing the excellent job for our future!
■ Unsure.
■ We're very satisfied, thank you.
■ When you are rated the 2nd best city in the nation. What can I say but excellent.
Other
• A place to dump yard waste - brush instead of the environmental center (because you have to pay).
This has been included through taxes in previous towns we've lived in.
• All garbage collection should be on the same day for the neighborhoods. Vendors must cooperate.
Streets look unkempt for days with trash on curbs for different vendors. Highway 5 road noise is
extremely loud!
• Bigger post office, get fire station out of downtown slow up traffic on powers (entire length). Turn lot
into a more user friendly road with E.P. (2 best cities in MN share. Worst road in MN)
• Burning bans, they create too much air pollution.
• Churches should not tie up huge amounts of acreage (Westwood & Eckankar) - big tax revenue loss.
I'd like to see some upscale retail shopping in the future.
• City should not allow telephone company equipment and resulting fan noise in the middle of
residential areas.
• Every thing.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
12
City of Chanhassen 1 2010
■ Follow the lead of Toronto, Montreal, and 200 other municipalities in Canada, including the entire
provinces of Ontario and Quebec and ban the use of 2,4,0 herbicide. At least have the city stop
using it. The fumes make life unbearable for those of us with chemical sensitivity. Every year I dread
the arrival of spring and the chemical attack. This city would be ideal, even with dandelions, were it
not for the hypocritical poisoning of our air in our 'Green' community. Please, ban it now!
■ Have a place do take our tree (Yard waste) trimmings to.
■ Have the DMV office and the longer library (open) time.
■ If we report to office need for maintenances (only done) day per week if at all. More attention to apt.
Complexes i.e. Cleanliness of bldg poor availability to contact offices & maintenance personal by
residents. Difficult to find office open daily or at all. Maintenance available 1 day per week wanted
18 days for repair of leaking bath vanity drains week at present smoke a lawn beeping waited 9 days
for repair of laundry washer -still waiting! any emergency calls we are charged 50.00 for each as we
don't make call takes the 1 st notification to office of a need regardless of how long we have to wait
for repairs.
■ Isn't there a local business that could have done this survey? We like to support local businesses
whenever possible.
■ More posting of community events at the street level (we don't read the newspaper). It would be
nice to have one country-ish bar. We always have to go to other cities to go to any bars. Overall
wonderful place to live!
■ Need city phone book for new residents.
■ Perhaps more services for full time single parents.
■ Preserve all of the things checked above in 22.C.
■ Renovate the parking lot at market square. It's a mess.
■ Smile!!
■ Some way to save our ash trees. Implement city -wide low cost high speed internet, like Chaska,
make an arrangement with Chaska community center to be able to pay resident rather than non-
resident fees for using their pool.
■ Stop increasing water bills.
■ Stop using sand for snow /ice control in the winter. Less salt as well, on local neighborhood roads.
Not needed - We live in MN. Only use on collectors and above and in other special places.
■ The collection of Christmas trees & old apple Ames - hazardous waste.
■ The power of HOA'S are ridiculous! Outrageous taxes -not appealing considering it's the #1 or 2
place to live under 20,000 PPL. Lazy admin.
■ To clean out more ponds.
■ Variances should be free.
■ Weather is really bead.
The National Citizen SurveyTM
13