02-13-12 WS Agenda packetDecember 2011
NATIONAL
RESEARCH
C E N T E R INC.
3005 30th St • Boulder, CO 80301 • 303 - 444 -7863 • www.n -r -c.com
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................. ..............................1
SURVEYBACKGROUND ............................................................... ..............................3
SURVEYRESULTS ....................................................................... ..............................6
Qualityof Life and Community ....................................................... ..............................6
Participation in the Community ................................................................... ...............................
15
Services Provided in Shorewood .................................................................. ...............................
20
City Government and Administration Performance .......................................... ...............................
31
Potential Improvements and Initiatives .......................................................... ...............................
34
PublicInformation ................................................................................... ...............................
38
APPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ................................ ...............................
41
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................. ...............................
43
APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO SELECT SURVEY QUESTIONS COMPARED BY RESPONDENT
CHARACTERISTICS ............................................... ...............................
59
APPENDIX D: JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN BENCHMARK COMPARISONS .. ...............................
82
APPENDIX E: SURVEY METHODOLOGY .......................................... ...............................
89
APPENDIX F: SURVEY MATERIALS ................................................ ...............................
93
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ratings of Aspects of Quality of Life .................................. ..............................7
Figure 2: Ratings of Community Characteristics ............................. ...............................
10
Figure 3: Contact with Neighbors ............................................... ...............................
11
Figure 4: Ratings of Aspects of Community Character ...................... ...............................
12
Figure 5: Ratings of Community Safety ........................................ ...............................
13
Figure 6: Crime Victimization ................................................... ...............................
14
Figure 7: Crimes) Reported ..................................................... ...............................
14
Figure 8: Frequency of Participation in Community Activities ............ ...............................
16
Figure 9: Participation in Community Programs and Events ............... ...............................
17
Figure 10: Use of City Recreation Facilities ................................... ...............................
18
Figure 11: Participation in City's Spring Clean -up Drop Off Program........ .....
.....................
19
Figure 12: Overall Quality of City Services ................................... ...............................
20
Figure 13: Ratings of City Services ............................................. ...............................
23
Figure 14: Code Enforcement Issues ........................................... ...............................
24
Figure 15: Water is Supplied by City ........................................... ...............................
25
Figure 16: User Ratings of Aspects of City Water ........................... ...............................
25
Figure 17: Reasons for Not Having City Water .............................. ...............................
26
Figure 18: City of Shorewood 2011 Action ChartTM ........................ ...............................
28
Figure 19: Contact with City Employees ...................................... ...............................
29
Figure 20: Ratings of Employee Interactions .................................. ...............................
30
Figure 21: Ratings of Government Performance ............................. ...............................
32
Figure 22: Ratings of City Administration Performance .................... ...............................
33
Figure 23: Ratings of Importance of Potential Improvements ............. ...............................
35
Figure 24: Ratings of Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Projects ..........................
36
Figure 25: Level of Support for City Initiatives ............................... ...............................
37
Figure 26: Level of Awareness about City Issues and Operations ......... ...............................
38
Figure 27: Internet Access at Home ............................................ ...............................
39
Figure 28: Type of Internet Access ............................................. ...............................
39
Figure 29: Use of Information Sources ......................................... ...............................
40
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
List of Tables
Table
1: Aspects of Quality of Life ................................................ ............................... 6
Table
2: Community Characteristics .............................................. ..............................9
Table
3: Aspects of Community Character .................................... ...............................
12
Table4:
Community Safety ...................................................... ...............................
13
Table
5: Community Participation .............................................. ...............................
15
Table
6: Aspects of Spring Clean -up Drop Off Program .................... ...............................
19
Table7:
City Services ............................................................. ...............................
22
Table
8: Aspects of City Water .................................................. ...............................
25
Table
9: Employee Interactions .................................................. ...............................
29
Table
10: Government Performance ........................................... ...............................
31
Table
11: City Administration Performance .................................. ...............................
32
Table
12: Importance of Potential Improvements ............................ ...............................
34
Table
13: Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Projects .......... ...............................
36
Table
14: Support for or Opposition to City Initiatives ..................... ...............................
37
Table
15: Information Sources ................................................... ...............................
40
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Survey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
Executive Summary
Survey Background
The 2011 Shorewood, Minnesota Resident Survey provided residents the opportunity to rate the quality of
life in the city, as well as the service delivery and overall workings of local government. The survey also
gave residents a chance to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not and
share their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. This is the first general survey of
Shorewood residents that the City has conducted.
A randomly selected sample of 1,330 households were mailed the 2011 Shorewood Resident Survey. Of
these, 1,307 were delivered to occupied households. A total of 613 completed surveys were received, for a
response rate of 47 %, which is an excellent response rate. It is customary to describe the precision of
estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95% confidence level is
typically no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent based on
community -wide estimates.
Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender, tenure (rent versus own) and housing type
(single versus multi - family) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city.
The City of Shorewood's results were compared to results of surveys conducted by other jurisdictions
around the nation as well as to a subset of these jurisdictions that had a population size of less than 10,000.
These comparisons are made possible through National Research Center's (NRC's) national benchmark
database, which contains resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500
jurisdictions, including cities and counties. Survey results also were compared by demographic
characteristics of respondents.
Survey Results
Shorewood residents reported a high quality of life and were generally satisfied with various aspects of their
community. Nearly all believed that the City was an "excellent" or "good" place to live and raise children,
and that the overall quality of life in Shorewood was "excellent" or "good." When Shorewood ratings were
compared to ratings given by residents across the country (national benchmarks) and to residents in
jurisdictions of a similar population size (small city benchmarks), Shorewood's ratings were generally much
higher than both these benchmarks.
Nine out of 10 respondents agreed that the air quality, the quality of the overall natural environment, the
overall image of Shorewood and educational opportunities in Shorewood were "excellent" or "good."
Fewer, but still at least half, felt positive about Shorewood's sense of community, the ease of walking in the
city, and the availability of affordable quality child care and housing. Fifteen of the 18 community
characteristics that could be compared to the benchmarks had ratings that were much above or above the
benchmarks. Sense of community and ease of walking in Shorewood were similar to the national benchmark
and below or much below the small city benchmark.
A majority of respondents reported talking or visiting with their immediate neighbors at least several times
a month. However, when asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that "Shorewood had tight-
knit neighborhoods," only 57% of respondents agreed. More residents agreed that Shorewood was a safe
community with a low crime rate, the City offered the best schools and that the City provided and
protected open space.
Given that the highest proportion of respondents agreed that Shorewood is a safe community with a low
crime rate, it is understandable that they would report a high sense of safety in their neighborhoods and
Page 1
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
from various types of crime. When compared to the national and small city benchmarks, Shorewood's
safety ratings were much higher than those in these other jurisdictions.
Shorewood residents reported relatively low rates of participation in 12 specific community activities,
programs or events. Two - thirds or more reported never having participated in seven of the 12 activities.
Generally, this participation level was lower or much lower than the national and small city benchmarks.
Sixty percent of residents said they had not participated in any of the 12 Shorewood programs and events in
the year prior to the survey. Respondents were most likely to have used the various recreation facilities in
Shorewood.
Overall, residents gave high marks to the quality of City services, with 7 in 10 rating them as "excellent" or
"good" (above both benchmarks). Ratings for individual services also were scored highly. Twenty -six of the
36 services received "excellent" or "good" ratings from at least two - thirds of respondents. Of the 31
services that could be compared to the nation, 25 received ratings above or much above the benchmark,
four were similar and two were below or much below the benchmark. Of the 29 Shorewood services that
could be compared to the small city benchmark, 23 were rated above or much above, two received similar
ratings and four were lower or much lower than the benchmark.
A special analysis, called a key driver analysis, was conducted for the City of Shorewood to help focus
service improvement efforts on those services that most influence residents' perceptions (key drivers) about
overall City service quality. Three services were identified as key drivers of overall City service ratings,
meaning that if these services are rated highly, overall City service quality is more likely to be rated
positively as well. Shorewood's key drivers were: snowplowing on city streets, storm drainage and land
use, planning and zoning. The City may want to keep a watchful eye on these services to maintain their
favorable ratings and the correlated high rating for the overall quality of City services.
City employees received encouraging evaluations from residents with whom they had contact. Ratings for
interactions with City employees were much higher than the national and small city benchmarks. Most
aspects of the City government's performance also received positive marks from residents, with a majority
of ratings being above or much above the benchmarks. However, respondents believed that the City
government could do a better job at taking into consideration what people like them think.
When asked about the importance of potential improvements in Shorewood, respondents were more likely
to think that improving roads and the environment, expanding trails and walkways and improving the
municipal drinking water system should be the highest priorities. Other potential park and recreation
projects in Shorewood were viewed as less important.
Four out of the five potential initiatives in Shorewood were supported by three - quarters or more of
respondents. Increasing recycling options for residents received the most support, while having a single
trash hauler contracted by the City (instead of multiple haulers) received the least support.
In Summary
Overall, a majority of residents reported that they were happy with the quality of life and community in
Shorewood and the services provided in the City. Two - thirds of the ratings that could be compared to the
national benchmarks were much above or above ratings given by residents in other jurisdictions across the
country. While strong ratings were seen in most areas covered by the 2011 Shorewood survey,
opportunities to strengthen resident appreciation of local services, the City government and community
quality may be found in bolstering residents' sense of community, improving communication and showing
residents that elected officials care what they think. Additionally, focusing on ways to make Shorewood a
desirable place to retire, by increasing the availability of affordable quality housing and the "walkability" of
the City, for example, could impact resident's longevity in the City.
Pane 2
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
Survey Background
Survey Purpose
The City of Shorewood contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct its first
community -wide resident survey. The Shorewood Resident Survey serves as a consumer report card for
Shorewood by providing residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the city, as well as the
community's amenities, service delivery and their satisfaction with local government. The survey also gives
residents a chance to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to
communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation.
The focus on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services helps council, staff and the public
to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking community opinions about the
core responsibilities of Shorewood city government, helping to assure maximum service quality over time.
This type of survey addresses the key services that local governments provide to create a quality
community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many corporations to
monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before customers defect to competition
or before other problems from dissatisfied customers arise.
Survey Methods
A randomly selected sample of 1,330 residential addresses within or near the city boundaries was mailed
the 2011 Shorewood Resident Survey. Of these, 1,307 were delivered to occupied households. A total of
613 completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 47 %.
Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender, tenure (rent versus own) and housing type
(single versus multi- family) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city. More
information about the survey methodology can be found in Appendix E: Survey Methodology.
How the Results Are Reported
Either the full frequency distribution (the percent of respondents giving each possible response to a
particular question) or the "percent positive" is presented in the body of the report. The percent positive is
the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., "excellent" and "good," "strongly
agree" and "somewhat agree," "essential" and "very important ").
On many of the questions in the survey, respondents gave an answer of "don't know." The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix B: Responses to Survey
Questions and is discussed in the body of this report if it is 20% or greater. However, these responses have
been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other
words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from
respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100 %, it is due
to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.
Precision of Estimates
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or
margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus
four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (613). For comparisons
among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 5% for sample sizes of 400 to
Page 3
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100, and for smaller sample sizes (i.e., 50), the margin of error rises
to 14 %.
Comparing Survey Results by Demographic Subgroups
Select survey results were compared by demographic characteristics of survey respondents and are
discussed throughout the body of the report (a full set of these results can be found in Appendix C: Responses
to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics).
Comparing Survey Results to Other furisdictions
Jurisdictions use the comparative information provided by benchmarks 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. We do not know what is small or large without comparing.
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, we need to know how
others rate their services to understand if "good" is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or
peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left comparing its fire protection rating to its street
maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. How residents' ratings of fire
service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities is the real question.
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 city
it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents in other cities
to their own objectively "worse" departments. Benchmark data can help that police department — or any
city department to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Results may lead to a new
understanding of where services need improvement or where communications about services are lacking.
Citizen opinion should be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel, and
politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results.
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 innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of
surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted. These integration methods have
been described thoroughly in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, and in
NBC's first book on conducting and using citizen surveys, Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them,
what they mean, published by the International City /County Management Association (ICMA). Scholars who
specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on our work [e.g., Kelly, J. & 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 our proprietary databases.
Jurisdictions in NRC's benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from
small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to subsets of jurisdictions (in this report,
jurisdictions with 10,000 residents or fewer). Most commonly (also in this report), comparisons are made
to all jurisdictions. 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
Pane 4
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
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 Shorewood to the Benchmarking Database
National benchmark comparisons and small city (jurisdictions with a population size of less than 10,000)
benchmark comparisons have been included in the report when available. Jurisdictions to which Shorewood
was compared can be found in Appendix D: Jurisdictions Included in Benchmark Comparisons. Benchmark
comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Shorewood survey are included in NRC's
database and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked, though most questions are
compared to more than five other jurisdictions across the country.
Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Shorewood'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, residents contacting the City in the last 12
months). 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 Shorewood'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 Shorewood'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 Shorewood's rating and the benchmark
is more than twice the margin of error.
Page 5
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Survey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
Survey Results
Quality of Life and Community
The 2011 Shorewood Resident Surve\ gauged residents' perspectives about different aspects of quality of
life in Shorewood. Respondents also were asked to evaluate a number of characteristics of the community,
identify statements that best describe Shorewood and rate how safe they felt in and around the City.
Aspects of Quality of Life
Shorewood as place to live, raise children and the overall quality of life in the City was believed to be
"excellent" or "good" by nearly all respondents. Nine in 10 felt that their neighborhood was an "excellent"
or "good" place to live (92 %). Fewer, but still a majority, said that Shorewood was an "excellent" or "good"
place to retire (69 %); only 1 in 10 felt it was "poor."
It should be noted that about 20% of respondents selected "don't know" when rating Shorewood as a place
to retire. Percentages shown here and throughout the report body are for those who had an opinion. A full
set of responses to each survey question, including "don't know," can be found in Appendix B: Responses to
Survey Questions.
Shorewood's ratings for the different aspects of quality of life were compared to ratings given by residents
in other jurisdictions. Two comparison groups were used: all jurisdictions from across the nation that were
in the NRC database (the national benchmark) and those jurisdictions with a population size that was similar
(less than 10,000) to Shorewood (the small city benchmark). When compared to the nation and to
municipalities with populations fewer than 10,000, Shorewood residents gave much higher evaluations than
those living in other places.
Page 6
Table 1: Aspects
of
Quality
of Life
Please rate each of the
Populations
following
00i
of life in Shorewood.
Excellent Good
Fair
Poor
Total
comparison
comparison
Shorewood as a place to live
53% 44%
3%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
Shorewood as a place to
raise children
58%
39%
3%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
Your neighborhood as a
place to live
58%
34%
1 7%
1%
1 100%
Much above
Much above
Shorewood as a place to
retire
29%
40%
22%
9%
100%
Much above
Much above
The overall quality of life in
Shorewood
1 45%
51%
3%
1 1%
100%
1 Much above
Much above
Page 6
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Figure 1: Ratings of Aspects of Quality of Life
Shorewood as a place to live
Shorewood as a place to raise children
Your neighborhood as a place to live
Shorewood as a place to retire
The overall quality of life in Shorewood
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
i7%
17%
6%
Responses to select survey questions were compared by respondent demographic characteristics. Residents
living in the city for 10 years or less, those who rent their homes and younger respondents (age 18 -34) were
more likely to give favorable ratings to the city as a place to retire than were other residents. A complete
set of responses by respondent demographic can be found in Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions
Compared by Respondent Characteristics.
Pane 7
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Community Characteristics
Survey respondents were provided a list of 23 different characteristics of the community and asked to
evaluate the quality of each as they related to Shorewood as a whole. Half or more rated each community
characteristic as "excellent" or "good" (see Table 2 on the following page). The characteristics receiving the
most positive ratings included air quality (93 % "excellent" or "good "), the quality of the overall natural
environment (91 %), the overall image or reputation of Shorewood (90 %) and educational opportunities
(86 %). Sense of community (60% "excellent" or "good "), ease of walking in the City (57 %), availability of
affordable quality child care (57 %) and the availability of affordable quality housing (54 %) received the
lowest ratings.
Between 25% and 64% of respondent said "don't know" when rating each of the following characteristics of
Shorewood: opportunities for senior /older adult activities, opportunities to attend Southshore Community
Center activities, opportunities to volunteer, availability of affordable quality housing and availability of
affordable quality child care (see Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions for a full set of responses to each
question, including "don't know ").
Eighteen of the 23 community characteristics were available for comparison to the national and small city
benchmarks. Fifteen were much above or above the national or small city benchmark:
• opportunities to participate in community matters,
• air quality,
• quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood,
• overall image /reputation of Shorewood,
• educational opportunities,
• ease of car travel in Shorewood,
• overall appearance of Shorewood,
• recreational opportunities,
• traffic flow on major streets,
• opportunities to participate in social events and activities,
• variety of housing opportunities,
• ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood,
• availability of paths and walking trails,
• availability of affordable quality child care
• and availability of affordable quality housing.
Opportunities to volunteer were rated similar to both benchmarks. Sense of community and ease of
walking in Shorewood were similar to the national benchmark and below or much below the small city
benchmark.
Page 8
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Table 2: Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the
Populations
following
000
relate to Shorewood as a whole.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
comparison
comparison
Air quality
42%
I 51%
6%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Quality of overall natural
environment in Shorewood
41%
50%
8%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Overall image /reputation of
Shorewood
35%
55%
10%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
Educational opportunities
40%
46%
12%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
25%
57%
16%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Overall appearance of
Shorewood
21%
61%
17%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Recreational opportunities
28%
52%
17%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Opportunities to attend family -
oriented events /activities
21%
55%
22%
3%
100%
NA
NA
Opportunities to volunteer
18%
56%
24%
3%
100%
Similar
Similar
Availability of open space
24%
49%
23%
4%
100%
NA
NA
Opportunities to attend
Southshore Community Center
activities
25%
47%
22%
6%
100%
NA
NA
Traffic flow on major streets
12%
57%
26%
4%
100%
Much above
Much above
Opportunities to participate in
social events and activities
17%
53%
27%
3%
100%
Much above
Much above
Opportunities for senior /older
adult activities
20%
49%
28%
4%
100%
NA
NA
Variety of housing opportunities
14%
54%
26%
6%
100%
Much above
Much above
Opportunities to participate in
community matters
16%
53%
27%
4%
100%
Above
Above
Ease of bicycle travel in
Shorewood
23%
44%
21%
12%
100%
Much above
Much above
Availability of paths and walking
trails
29%
38%
23%
10%
100%
Much above Much above
Ease of access to shopping
opportunities
19%
44%
30%
7%
100%
NA
NA
Sense of community
15%
46%
33%
6%
100%
Similar
Below
Ease of walking in Shorewood
24%
33%
1 27%
16%
1 100%
Similar
Much below
Availability of affordable quality
child care
17%
40%
30%
13%
100%
Much above
Much above
Availability of affordable quality
housing
9%
44%
35%
12%
100%
Much above
Much above
Page 9
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Sure ev 2011 Report of Results
Figure 2: Ratings of Community Characteristics
Air quality
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood
Overall image /reputation of Shorewood
Educational opportunities
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
Overall appearance of Shorewood
Recreational opportunities
Opportunities to attend family- oriented
events /activities
Opportunities to volunteer
Availability of open space
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community
Center activities
Traffic flow on major streets
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities
Opportunities for senior /older adult activities
Variety of housing opportunities
Opportunities to participate in community matters
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood
Availability of paths and walking trails
Ease of access to shopping opportunities
Sense of community
Ease of walking in Shorewood
Availability of affordable quality child care
Availability of affordable quality housing
Page 10
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Generally, those who had lived in Shorewood for more than 20 years, men, those with children under 18
years of age and households with an income of less than 550,000 gave lower ratings to the different
characteristics of the community than did their counterparts (see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey
Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics).
Neighborliness in Shorewood
When asked how frequently they talked or visited with their immediate neighbors, about one -fifth of
Shorewood residents said they had contact with their neighbors just about every day. Three in 10 said that
they talk to or visit with their immediate neighbors several times a week (29°%) or several times a month
(28 %). One - quarter said they have contact less than several times a month.
When compared to residents in other jurisdictions across the nation, Shorewood residents reported a
similar amount of contact with their neighbors. However, when compared to other small communities,
respondents reported much less contact with their immediate neighbors.
Figure 3: Contact with Neighbors
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)?
Several times a week
29%
Just about every day
19%
Several times a
month
28°%
Less than several
times a month
25%
Pau(, 11
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Shorewood's Character
Four statements about the character of Shorewood were provided to respondents who were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each. Ninety -three percent of respondents
"strongly" or "somewhat" agreed that Shorewood was a safe community with a low crime rate. Eight in 10
agreed that the City offered the best schools (85% agreement) and that Shorewood provided and protected
open space (82 %). A smaller proportion of residents agreed that Shorewood had tight -knit neighborhoods
(61% "strongly" or "somewhat" agree). Ten percent, or fewer, of respondents disagreed with these
statements about Shorewood's character.
Table 3: ASUects of Communitv Character
Shorewood is a safe community
with a low crime rate
65%
28%
6%
1%
0%
100%
The City offers the best schools
53%
32%
12%
2%
1%
100%
Shorewood provides and
protects open space
32%
50%
14%
2%
1%
100%
Shorewood has tight -knit
neighborhoods
21%
39%
29%
8%
3%
100%
Figure 4: Ratings of Aspects of Community Character
Shorewood is a safe community with a low crime rate
The City offers the best schools
Shorewood provides and protects open space
Shorewood has tight -knit neighborhoods
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Residents living in the city for 10 years or less, females and those with children under 18 were more likely
to agree that Shorewood had tight -knit neighborhoods than were other residents (see Appendix C: Responses to
Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics for a full set of breakdowns).
Page 12
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
Safety in Shorewood
Shorewood resident assessed how safe they felt in their neighborhoods and from different types of crime
and hazards. They also were asked if they or any other household member had been a victim of a crime in
the last 12 months.
Overall, respondents reported a strong sense of personal safety in Shorewood, with 9 in 10 saying they felt
"very" or "somewhat" safe in their neighborhoods, during the day and at night, and from various types of
crime and environmental hazards. These ratings were higher or much higher than ratings given by residents
in other jurisdictions across the US and in those with population sizes of less than 10,000.
Table 4: Community Safety
Figure 5: Ratings of Community Safety
In your neighborhood during the day
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste
In your neighborhood after dark
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
17%
5%
YO
Pare 13
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Neither
safe
Populations
Please rate how safe or
Very
Somewhat
nor
Somewhat
Very
National
under 000
unsafe y ou
In your neighborhood
.
. .. . n
compariso
during the day
84%
14%
2%
0%
0%
100%
Much above
Above
From violent crime (e.g.,
rape, assault, robbery)
74%
21%
4%
1%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
From environmental
hazards, including toxic
waste
63%
30%
6%
2%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
In your neighborhood
after dark
58%
34%
6%
2%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
From property crimes
(e.g., burglary, theft)
41%
47%
8%
2%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Figure 5: Ratings of Community Safety
In your neighborhood during the day
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste
In your neighborhood after dark
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
17%
5%
YO
Pare 13
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Only 8% of respondents reported having been a victim of a crime in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of
those who were a crime victim, three - quarters said they had reported the crime or crimes to the police.
The rate of crime victimization in Shorewood, as reported by respondents, was much lower or lower than
that reported by residents in other jurisdictions across the nation and in those with populations of less than
10,000. Reporting crimes was similar when compared to both benchmarks.
Figure 6: Crime Victimization
During the past 12 months,
were you or anyone in your
household the victim of any
crime?
No
92%
1
Yes
8%
Figure 7: Crime(s) Reported
No
23%
If yes, was this crime
(these crimes) reported to
the police?
Yes
77%
Asked only of those who reported being a victim of a crime in the last 12 months.
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Renters, women and those with a household income of less than S 50,00 were less likely to feel safe in their
neighborhoods and from crime than were homeowners, men and those with higher household incomes. (A
full set of responses by demographic subgroups can be found in Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions
Compared by Respondent Characteristics.)
Page 14
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Participation in the Community
Several questions on the survey measured respondents' level of participation in a number of events and
activities in Shorewood. The community activities respondents most frequently participated in were
recycling used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard from their home (96% reported having done this at least
once in the last 12 month period), reading the Shore Report (95 %), providing help to a friend or neighbor
(94 %) and visiting a Shorewood park (87 %). Sixty -five percent of residents said they had recycled used
paper, cans, bottles or cardboard more than 26 times in the last 12 months. Volunteering their time to
some group or activity in Shorewood (27% had done this at least once in the last 12 months), attending a
meeting of a local elected official or other local public meeting (24 %) and participating in a club or civic
group in Shorewood (19 %) were the activities with the lowest rates of participation. For seven of the 12
activities listed, two - thirds or more of respondents said that they had never participated.
All of the activities were available for comparison to the benchmarks. Shorewood residents reported much
higher rates of participation in recycling used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard and reading the City
newsletter when compared to both benchmarks. Residents visited the City's website with similar frequency
when compared to jurisdictions across the US and visited more compared to jurisdictions with a population
size of less than 10,000. The frequency with which Shorewood respondents provided help to a friend or
neighbor and visited a park in Shorewood was similar to the national and small city benchmarks. Residents
reported lower or much lower rates of participation in all other activities when compared to the
benchmarks.
Table
last
5:
Community
Participation
12 months,
about In the
times, if ever, have you or
Shorewood? household members participated in the
following in
0
N
National
Populations
under 10,000
activities
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or
cardboard from your home
4%
2%
8%
21%
65%
100%
Much more
Much more
Read the Shore Report — the city
newsletter
5%
10%
64%
13%
7%
100%
Much more
Much more
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
6%
25%
45%
14%
9%
100%
Similar
Similar
Visited a park in Shorewood
13%
28%
32%
13%
13%
100%
Similar
Similar
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
39%
33%
23%
3%
2%
100%
Similar
More
Participated in a recreation program or
activity
64°%
22°%
11°%
2°%
2°%
100%
Much less
Much less
Watched a meeting of local elected officials
or other Shorewood - sponsored public
meeting on cable television, the Internet or
other media
69°%
21°%
8°%
2%
1%
100%
Much less
Much less
Participated in religious or spiritual
activities in Shorewood
70%
7%
6%
6%
11%
100%
Much less
Much less
Used Southshore Community Center
70%
24%
1 4%
1%
1 1%
100%
Much less
Much less
Volunteered your time to some group or
activity in Shorewood
73%
14%
7%
3%
3%
100%
Much less
Much less
Attended a meeting of local elected
officials or other local public meeting
76%
18%
4%
1%
0%
100%
Less
Much less
Participated in a club or civic group in
Shorewood
81°%
8%
6%
3°%
2°%
100%
Much less
Much less
Page 15
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Figure 8: Frequency of Participation in Community Activities
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard
from your home
Read the Shore Report —the city newsletter
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
Visited a park in Shorewood
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
Participated in a recreation program or activity
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or
other Shorewood - sponsored public meeting
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in
Shorewood
Used Southshore Community Center
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Shorewood
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood
Percent who reported having participated in the last 12 months
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
6%
YO
Respondents who had a longer tenure in Shorewood and older residents (age 55 +) tended to more
frequently use the Southshore Community Center and attend or watch public meetings of local elected
officials than did those who had lived in the city for a shorter period of time and those who were younger
(see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics).
Page 16
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Residents were asked to select all the specific Shorewood programs and events in which they had
participated over the last 12 months. Sixty percent of residents said they had not participated in any of the
programs or events listed on the survey. Music in the Park had the highest rates of participation, with 23%
saying they had attended in the last 12 months. Ten percent or fewer mentioned having participated in any
of the other programs or events.
Figure 9: Participation in Community Programs and Events
Music in the Park
Arctic Fever
VICE Summer Rec Program
Free Fridays in Freeman
Oktoberfest
Tennis at Badger
Kayaking
Movie in the Park
Garden Fair
Art /Paint Classes
Safety Camp
Youth Cooking Classes
Skateboarding Camp
None of these
All of these
Percent of respondents
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Page 17
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
When asked to select each City recreation facility they had used in the 12 months prior to the survey, 80%
of respondents said they had used the paths and trails in Shorewood. One -third reported using playground
equipment (38 %) and about one - quarter said they had used the ice skating area (26 %) or the warming
house (22 %). Less than 20% of respondents said they had used the other recreation facilities. Fourteen
percent mentioned that they had not used any of the City recreation facilities in the 12 months prior to the
survey.
Figure 10: Use of City Recreation Facilities
Paths / trails
Playground equipment
Ice skating area
Warming house
Picnic tables / grills
Tennis court
Baseball field
Picnic shelter
Multi -use building
Volleyball court
None of these
All of these
Percent of respondents
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Page 18
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu lt s
Forty -three percent of respondents said they had participated in the City's Spring Clean -up Drop Off
program in the last 12 months. Those who had participated were asked to evaluate various aspects of the
program. At least half gave "excellent" ratings to the ease of use of the program and the convenience of the
drop -off site location and 37% said that each of these aspects were "good." Three- quarters of residents felt
that the cost of disposing of items was "excellent" or "good," 19% thought the cost for disposal was "fair"
and 7% said it was "poor."
Figure 11: Participation in City's Spring Clean -up Drop Off Program
In the last 12 months, have you
or other household members
participated in Shorewood's
Spring Clean -up Drop Off
Yes
43%
Table 6: Aspects of S
Clean -u
u
Off
No
57%
Ease of use
57%
37%
5%
1%
1 100%
Convenience of drop -off site location
52%
37%
9%
19/8
100%
Cost of disposing of items
31%
43%
19%
7%
100%
Asked only of those who reported having participated in the City's Spring Clean -up Drop Off program in the last 12 months.
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Younger residents (18 -34), renters and those living in the city for 10 years or less were less likely to have
participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean -up Drop Off program than were older residents, homeowners
and those with a longer tenure in the city (see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by
Respondent Characteristics).
Page 19
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f Re
Services Provided in Shorewood
Respondents were asked to rate the overall quality of services provided in Shorewood, the quality of 36
individual services provide by the City and special districts and the quality of their most recent contact with
City employees.
Overall Quality of Services
Residents gave high marks to the overall quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood. Seven in 10
rated the overall quality of services as "excellent" or "good," 14% felt it was "fair" and 6% said "poor."
These ratings were above both the national benchmark and the small city benchmark.
Figure 12: Overall Quality of City Services
Good
63%
Overall, how would you rate ■
the quality of services provided
in the City of Shorewood?
.SX
Fair
14%
Poor
6%
it
17%
Page 20
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
City and Special District Services
The survey included a list of 36 services provided by the City or by special districts and residents were
asked to assess the quality of each. Twenty -six of the 36 services received "excellent" or "good" ratings from
two - thirds or more of respondents (see Table 7 on page 22). At least 90% of residents gave "excellent" or
"good" ratings to each of the following services, with one -third or more rating each as "excellent ":
• fire district's response to calls,
• public schools,
• Shorewood parks,
• fire district services overall,
■ fire district's education and prevention,
• ambulance or emergency medical services
• and police response to calls.
Street lighting (48% "excellent" or "good), street resurfacing (45 %), street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling
potholes, 44 %) and cable television (39 %) received the lowest ratings. About one in five residents said that
street lighting, resurfacing and maintenance /repair were "poor" and one -third felt that cable television
services was poor.
It should be noted that for 23 of the 36 services, between 21% and 84% of respondents selected "don't
know" when rating the quality. These included fire district's response to calls, fire district's education and
prevention, fire district's visibility in the community, fire district services overall, police response to calls,
police education and crime prevention, police services overall, ambulance or emergency medical services,
animal control services, traffic enforcement, sanitary sewer services, park and recreation programs or
classes, Southshore Community Center program or classes, Southshore Community Center overall,
building inspections, land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.),
services to seniors, services to youth, services to low- income people, cable television, emergency
preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations),
preservation of natural areas such as open space and greenbelts. A full set of responses to each question,
including "don't know," can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions.
Thirty -one of the 36 services could be compared to the national benchmark and 25 were given ratings above
or much above this benchmark. Fire district services overall, street signage and street markings, street
cleaning/ sweeping and street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes) received ratings similar to the
national benchmark. Two were rated much lower when compared to the nation: street lighting and cable
television.
Of the 29 services that could be compared to the small city benchmark, 23 were rated above or much above
the benchmark. Traffic enforcement and fire district services overall received similar ratings to the
benchmark. Four were given ratings lower or much lower than the small city benchmark: street lighting,
cable television, street cleaning /sweeping and street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes).
Page 21
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Table 7: City Services
Please rate the quality of each of the
f ollowing ...
Fire district's response to calls
Excellent
59%
Good
39%
2%
..
1%
100%
National
Much above
Populations
000
NA
Public schools
56%
40%
3%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Shorewood parks
34%
60%
6%
0%
100%
Much above
Much above
Fire district services overall
43%
51%
6%
1%
100%
Similar
Similar
Fire district's education and prevention
39%
52%
8%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Ambulance or emergency medical
services
48%
43%
5%
3%
100%
Above
Above
Police response to calls
47%
43%
8%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Park and recreation programs or classes
27%
60%
11%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Southshore Community Center program
or classes
26%
61%
11%
1%
100%
NA
NA
Sanitary sewer services
21%
66%
11%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Police services overall
32%
55%
11%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Southshore Community Center overall
26%
62%
11%
1%
100%
Much above
Much above
Fire district's visibility in the community
39%
45%
13%
2%
100%
NA
NA
Sidewalk /trail maintenance
20%
61%
16%
2%
100%
Much above
Much above
Applying salt /sand on icy streets
23%
58%
16%
3%
100%
NA
NA
Police education and crime prevention
26%
53%
16%
4%
100%
Much above
Much above
Police visibility in the community
28%
52%
17%
3%
100%
Much above
Much above
Services to youth
19%
61%
18%
3%
100%
Much above
Much above
Preservation of natural areas such as
open space and greenbelts
18%
61%
17%
4%
100%
Much above
Much above
Snowplowing on city streets
26%
51%
19%
4%
100%
Much above
Much above
Services to seniors
15%
60%
20%
4%
100%
Above
Much above
Street signage and street markings
14%
60%
22%
4%
100%
Similar
NA
Storm drainage
12%
62%
20%
7%
100%
Much above
Much above
Traffic enforcement
15%
57%
20%
8%
100%
Above
Similar
Emergency preparedness (services that
prepare the community for natural
disasters or other emergency situations)
16%
52%
26%
6%
100%
Above
Much above
Animal control services
20%
47%
23%
9%
100%
Much above
Much above
Building inspections
12%
50%
27%
11%
100%
Above
Much above
Land use, planning and zoning
8%
52%
29%
11%
100%
Much above
Much above
Street cleaning /sweeping
9%
51%
32%
9%
100%
Similar
Below
Road condition
8%
50%
32%
10%
100%
NA
NA
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned
buildings, etc.)
7%
51%
30%
12%
100%
Much above
Much above
Services to low- income people
18%
33%
30%
19%
100%
Above
Much above
Street lighting
8%
39%
36%
16%
100%
Much below
Much below
Street resurfacing
6%
39%
35%
20%
100%
NA
NA
Street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling
potholes)
6%
38%
37%
19%
100%
Similar
Below
Cable television
7%
32%
28%
33%
100%
Much below
Much below
Page 22
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Figure 13: Ratings of City Services
Fire district's response to calls
Public schools
Shorewood parks
Fire district services overall
Fire district's education and prevention
Ambulance or emergency medical services
Police response to calls
Park and recreation programs or classes
Southshore Community Center program or classes
Sanitary sewer services
Police services overall
Southshore Community Center overall
Fire district's visibility in the community
Sidewalk /trail maintenance
Applying salt /sand on icy streets
Police education and crime prevention
Police visibility in the community
Services to youth
Preservation of natural areas such as open space
Snowplowing on city streets
Services to seniors
Street signage and street markings
Storm drainage
Traffic enforcement
Emergency preparedness
Animal control services
Building inspections
Land use, planning and zoning
Street cleaning /sweeping
Road condition
Code enforcement
Services to low- income people
Street lighting
Street resurfacing
Street maintenance /repair
Cable television
Percent "excellent" or "good"
)8%
6%
6
Page 23
0% 2S% SO% 7S% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Overall, residents having lived in Shorewood for more than 10 years and those over 34 years old were less
likely to give positive ratings to most City services than were those who had lived in Shorewood for a
shorter period of time and younger residents (see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by
Respondent Characteristics).
Code Enforcement
In addition to rating the quality of code enforcement, respondents were given the opportunity to rate how
much of a problem, if at all, run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were in Shorewood. Only 16%
of respondents viewed these as a "major" or "moderate" problem, half thought these were a "minor"
problem and one -third said these code enforcement issues were "not a problem."
Figure 14: Code Enforcement Issues
r Minor problem
/ 50%
To what degree, if at all, are
run down buildings, weed lots
or junk vehicles a problem in
Shorewood?
Not a problem
35%
Moderate problem
13%
Pain 24
Major problem
3%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu lt s
City Water
Forty -six percent of respondents reported that their water was supplied by the City.
Figure 15: Water is Supplied by City
Is your water supplied by
the City?
No
54%
Yes
46%
Those who reported having municipal water service were asked to rate several aspects of the service.
Nearly all (94 %) felt the dependability of the service was "excellent" or "good," with half reporting it was
"excellent." Three - quarters believed that the quality or taste of the water was "good" or better and about
half (48% o) said that the cost of City water was "excellent" or "good."
Table 8: Aspects of Citv Water
Dependability of service
49%
46%
1 6% 1
0%
1 100%
Quality (e.g., taste of water)
Cost
31%
9%
47%
39%
15%
40%
7 0
12%
100%
100%
Asked only of those who reported that their water is supplied by the City
Figure 16: User Ratings of Aspects of City Water
Dependability of service
Quality (e.g., taste of water)
Cost
/o
Pae 2 5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Those who reported not having City water service were asked to indicate the reasons they did not subscribe
to the service. Most (69 %) said that there was no connection to municipal water available, one - quarter said
that it was too expensive to connect and one -fifth reported "some other reason." Seven percent of
respondents said that the reason they did not have City water was because they were concerned about the
water quality.
Figure 17: Reasons for Not Having City Water
No connection available
Too expensive to connect
Some other reason
Concerned about city water quality
Percent of respondents
Asked only of those who reported that their water is not supplied by the City. Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could
select more than one response.
Page 26
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Key Driver Analysis
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. The key drivers that are identified from this 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 City services. And core services are important. But by using
Key Driver Analysis, 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, 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 to understand what drives residents' opinions about
local government.
A Key Driver Analysis (KDA) was conducted for the City of Shorewood by examining the relationships
between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Shorewood's overall services. The key services
that correlated most highly with residents' perceptions about overall City service quality were identified;
these are the key drivers of resident opinion about the City. By targeting improvements in these key
services, the City of Shorewood can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing
residents' opinions about overall service quality.
The City of Shorewood 2011 Action ChartTM on the following page combines two dimensions of
performance:
• Comparison to the national benchmark. When a comparison is available, the background color of
each service box indicates whether the service is above the norm (green), similar to the norm
(yellow) or below the norm (red).
• Identification of key drivers. A black key icon next to a service box notes a key driver.
Since this is the first general resident survey for Shorewood, comparisons to previous survey results were
not available. Results from future Shorewood survey administrations will permit the addition of a third
dimension of performance to be included in the Action Chart -- arrows indicating whether results are
trending up or down.
Nineteen services were included in the KDA for the City of Shorewood. Three of these services were
identified as key drivers for the City: "snowplowing on City streets," "storm drainage" and "land use,
planning and zoning ". Each of the key drivers was rated much above the national benchmark.
Page 27
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider
improvements to any key driver services that are trending down or that are not at least similar to the
benchmark. In Shorewood, since all key drivers were much higher than the benchmarks, these are services
on which the City may want to keep a watchful eye to maintain favorable ratings of the overall quality of
City services. Measuring resident opinions in future years and comparing ratings to the baseline established
in this 2011 survey can help in this quality assurance process.
Services with a high percent of respondents answering "don't know" (i.e., more than 50 %) were excluded
from the analysis because they are expected to be less influential. See Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions
for the percent "don't know' for each service.
Figure 18: City of Shorewood 2011 Action Chart"
I
Overall Quality of City of Shorewood Services
--------------------------------
Community Design ;'
Recreation and Wellness
Snowplowing
Road condition
City parks
Code
Street
enforcement
maintenance
Public schools
Sidewalk /trail
Applying salt on
-
-,
maintenance
Icy roads
_-------- - - - -
Street
Land use and
lighting
zoning
Civic Engagement
Streetsignage
Street cleaning
Cable
I
television
'
Environmental Sustainability
Public Safety
Police services
Preservation of
natural areas
overall
Sanitary sewer
Fire district
services
services overall
Storm
Traffic
;
drainage
enforcement
Legend
Above Benchmark Similarto Benchmark Below Benchmark
4101" Key Driver ;
---------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - --
Page 28
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
City Employees
Half of survey respondents said they had in- person or phone contact with a City employee in the 12 months
prior to the survey. This is similar to the amount of contact reported by residents in other jurisdictions
across the country and much less than that reported in jurisdictions with populations of less than 10,000.
Figure 19: Contact with City Employees
Have you had any in-
person or phone contact
with an employee of the
City of Shorewood within
the past 12 months?
Yes
54%
a.
No
46%
Those who reported having had contact with an employee were asked to rate their interactions. Eight in 10
or more of those who had contact gave "excellent" or "good" evaluations to the employee's courteousness,
knowledge, responsiveness, timeliness, follow -up and their overall impression of the interaction.
Where comparisons were available to the benchmarks, Shorewood residents rated their employee
interactions much higher than the national and small city benchmarks.
Table 9: Emolovee Interactions
Courtesy
51%
39%
7%
4°,/ 100%
Much above
Much above
knowledge
42%
46%
9%
3% 100%
Much above
Much above
Responsiveness
42%
45%
7%
6°,/ 100%
Much above
Much above
Timeliness
42%
42%
10%
6°.✓ 100%
Much above
NA
Follow -up
36%
44%
13%
7% 100%
NA
NA
Overall impression
43%
41%
9%
1 6% 100%
1 Much above
Much above
Asked only of those who reported having had contact with a City employee in the last 12 months
Page 29
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Figure 20: Ratings of Employee Interactions
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Timeliness
Follow -up
Overall impression
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 30
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
City Government and Administration Performance
The 2011 survey asked respondents to rate different aspects of City government and City Administration
performance. It should be noted that for nearly all of these questions, between one -fifth and one -half of
respondents selected "don't know" when rating the performance of the City government and
administration.
Of those who had an opinion about the Shorewood government performance, two - thirds believed the
overall direction the City is taking was "excellent" or "good." Six in 10 felt that opportunities to participate
in government decisions (62 %) and running the City government in the best interest of residents was
"good" or better. Fewer, but still at least half, said that the other aspects of the government performance
were "excellent" or "good."
Ratings for the overall direction the City is taking and the value of services for the taxes paid were higher or
much higher than the national and small city benchmarks. Opportunities to participate in City government
decisions had higher ratings than the national benchmark, running the government in the best interest of
residents received similar ratings to the nation and elected officials caring what people think was rated
lower than the national benchmark. Comparisons to jurisdictions with a population size of less than 10,000
were not available for the three previously mentioned areas of performance. No comparisons were available
for ratings of " Shorewood's government as an example of how best to provide services."
Pagc 31
Table
10: Government
Performance
following Please rate the
Populations
Shorewood categories of
National
under 10,000
government performance.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
comparison
comparison
The overall direction
Shorewood is taking
8%
59%
28%
5%
100%
Much above
Much above
Opportunities to participate
in City government decisions
9%
53%
27%
11%
100%
Above
NA
Running Shorewood's local
government in the best
interest of residents
9%
50%
33%
8%
100%
Similar
NA
The value of services for the
taxes paid to Shorewood
8%
49%
37%
7%
100%
Above
Above
Shorewood's government as
an example of how best to
provide services
8%
45%
40%
7%
100%
NA
NA
Shorewood's elected officials'
consideration of what people
like me think
10%
43%
31%
16%
100%
Below
NA
Pagc 31
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Figure 21: Ratings of Government Performance
The overall direction Shorewood is taking
Opportunities to participate in City government
decisions
Running Shorewood's local government in the best
interest of residents
The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood
Shorewood's government as an example of how best to
provide services
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of what
people like me think
Percent "excellent" or "good"
When looking at the performance of the City Administration, ratings were slightly more favorable than
those given to the City government. Of those with an opinion, three - quarters said that the quality of the
City's Web site was "excellent" or "good" and 70% felt the online services available through the City Web
site were "good" or better. About two - thirds said that public meetings about City plans were "excellent" or
"good." Six in 10 rated the administration's response to resident complaints and concerns (63 %),
information about City plans and programs (62 %) and transparency and accountability (57 %) as at least
"good."
Table 11: Citv Administration Performance
Quality of the City's Web site (www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
13%
65%
21% 1
1%
100%
Online services available on the City's Web site
10%
60%
27%
3%
100%
Public meetings about City plans
12%
57%
25%
6%
100%
Response to resident complaints and concerns
14%
49%
27%
11%
100%
Information about City plans and programs
10%
52%
27%
10%
100%
Transparency and accountability
10%
47%
31%
12%
100%
Page 32
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Figure 22: Ratings of City Administration Performance
Quality of the City's Web site
(www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
Online services available on the City's Web site
Public meetings about City plans
Response to resident complaints and concerns
Information about City plans and programs
Transparency and accountability
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Newer residents, women, those 35 years and older and those with higher household incomes typically gave
more positive ratings to the City government performance than did their counterparts (see Appendix C:
Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics).
Page 33
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Potential Improvements and Initiatives
A number of survey questions were devoted to assessing resident perspectives about the importance of
potential projects and improvements in Shorewood, as well as their level of support for a variety of
initiatives.
Respondents were asked to think about the next five years and to rate the importance of potential
improvements for Shorewood, knowing that the City has $1.8 million in available funds. Road and
environmental improvements topped the list of the most important potential projects (76% and 67%
"essential' or "very important," respectively). About half felt that expanding trails and walkways and making
improvements to the City drinking water system were "essential' or "very important." Less than 30% of
respondents believed that park improvements (28 %) and expanding recreational land and social programs
for all ages (21 %) was important. Between one -fifth and one - quarter of residents said that improvements to
the municipal drinking water, parks improvements and expanding recreational land and social programs
were "not at all important."
Table 12: Importance of Potential Improvements
about Thinking
important, indicate how
following .
Shorewood,
(about million in available funds
li quor came from the sale of the
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction,
p. rtant
imp.
important
resurfacing)
27%
49%
22%
2%
100%
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased
trees, lake water quality)
21%
47%
26%
6%
100%
Expand trails and walkways
19%
33%
35%
13%
100%
Municipal drinking water system improvements
(i.e., expansion, additional treatment)
18%
29%
33%
20%
100%
Park improvements (i.e., updated play
structures, additional shelters, lighting for
tennis courts)
5%
23%
52%
21%
100
Expand recreational and social programs for all
ages
3%
18%
54%
25%
100%
Page 34
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urv ey 2 R epo r t o f R esu l ts
Figure 23: Ratings of Importance of Potential Improvements
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction, resurfacing)
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake
water quality)
Expand trails and walkways
Municipal drinking water system improvements (i.e.,
expansion, additional treatment)
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures,
additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts)
Expand recreational and social programs for all ages
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Renters, those living in attached housing units and those who had lived in the city for 10 years or less were
more likely to believe that the potential improvements in Shorewood were "essential' or "very important"
than were other residents. (A full set of responses compared by respondent demographics can be found in
Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics.)
Page 35
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
The importance of potential projects related specifically to parks and recreation also were evaluated. One -
third or more of respondents believed that each of the seven potential park and recreation projects was "not
at all important" and one - quarter or less said that each was "essential' or "very important." Those deemed
the most important were programs for seniors and older adults (25% "essential' or "very important "), lights
on ball fields at Freeman Park (19 %) and new recreation or Community Center programs (18 %). Less than
one -fifth of residents said that the other potential park and recreation programs were at least "very
important."
Table 13: Importance of Potential
about Thinking
important, how
Park
and Recreation
Projects
potential Shorewood .. . recreation projects
household is to you or other members.
Programs for seniors and older adults
Essential
5%
important
20%
.
..
41%
Not
impo Total
34% 100%
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
4%
15%
39%
42%
100%
New recreational /Community Center programs
2%
16%
41%
41%
100%
Updated skate park facilities
2%
11%
38%
48%
100%
Lights on tennis courts
3%
9%
33%
55%
100%
Additional basketball courts
2%
6%
25%
66%
100%
New tennis courts at Badger Park
1%
6%
32%
62%
100%
Figure 24: Ratings of Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Projects
Programs for seniors and older adults
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
New recreational /Community Center programs
Updated skate park facilities
Lights on tennis courts
Additional basketball courts
New tennis courts at Badger Park
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Pagc 36
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Respondent support for, or opposition to, five different initiatives in Shorewood was gauged. Four out of
the five initiatives were supported by three - quarters or more of respondents, with at least twice as many
"strongly" supporting each of these than "strongly" opposing them. Increasing recycling options for residents
received the most support (89% "strongly" or "somewhat" supporting this), while having a single trash
hauler contracted by the City received the least support (50 %).
'Fable 14: Support for or opposition
To what extent do you support or oppose each of the
Strongly
to cit Initiatives
Somewhat Somewhat
Strongly
following in Shorewood?
Increasing recycling options for residents
support
41%
support
48%
oppose
8%
oppose
3%
Total
100%
Providing organic material collection (yard and food
waste)
36%
46%
11%
7%
100%
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e., growing,
harvesting and distributing produce, flowers, etc.)
24%
54%
14%
8%
100%
Increasing environmental education and public
awareness programs
24%
52%
15%
10%
100%
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City,
rather than multiple haulers
21%
29%
21%
29%
100%
Figure 25: Level of Support for City Initiatives
Increasing recycling options for residents
Providing organic material collection (yard and food
waste)
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e., growing,
harvesting and distributing produce, flowers, etc.)
Increasing environmental education and public
awareness programs
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City,
rather than multiple haulers
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Residents with a longer tenure in Shorewood, homeowners and men were less likely to support most of the
City initiatives than were those who had lived in the city for a shorter period of time, renters and women
(see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent Characteristics).
Page 37
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Public Information
About four in 10 respondents said that they felt "very" or "moderately" informed about local government
issues and operations in the City. One -third said they were "slightly" informed and one - quarter felt that
they were "not well informed."
Figure 26: Level of Awareness about City Issues and Operations
Slightly informed
32%
How informed or not informed
do you consider yourself to be
about local government issues
and operations of the City of
Shorewood?
.M
Not well informed
25%
Very informed
4%
Moderately informed
39%
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
Residents who had lived in the City for 10 years or less, those who rent their homes, 18 -34 year olds and
households with children under 18 were less likely to feel informed about local government issues and
operations than were other residents (see Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by
Respondent Characteristics).
Page 38
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Almost all respondents (96 %) reported having access to the Internet at home. Those who had Internet
access at home were asked to identify all of the types of access they had. About half reported using a cable
modem (52 %) or DSL (45 %), one - quarter accessed the Internet through their cell phone or PDA (26 %)
and less than 6 % said they accessed the Internet through the other sources listed.
Figure 27: Internet Access at Home
Do you have access to the
Internet at home?
No
6%
Yes
94%
Figure 28: Type of Internet Access
Cable modem
DSL
Cell phone /PDA
Satellite
Dial -up
Other
None of these
Percent of respondents
Asked only of those who reported that they have Internet access at home. Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select
more than one response.
Page 39
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Residents were asked how frequently they used a list of 10 different information sources to get information
about the City. The Shore Report newsletter (91 %) and word of mouth (87 %) were the most frequently
used sources to gain information about the City. The Sun Sailor newspaper (75 %) and the City's Web site
(64 %) also were used by a majority of residents. Less than one -fifth of respondents said they had used social
networking sites (18 %) and the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commissions Web site (14 %) to get
City information.
Table 15: Information Sources
How frequently, if ever, .. you use the following sources
t o gain information about Shorewood
Shore Report newsletter
35%
35%
21%
9%
100%
Word of mouth
6%
29%
52%
13%
100%
Sun Sailor newspaper
19%
27%
29%
25%
100%
The City's Web site (www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
4%
14%
46%
36%
100%
Excelsior Bay Times newspaper
5%
1 13%
31%
52%
100%
The Laker newspaper
6%
16%
24%
54%
100%
Email messages
3%
10%
27%
60%
100%
Local Cable Government Access Stations (channels 8, 12, 20,
or 21)
0%
5%
25%
70%
100%
Social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,
etc.)
1%
4%
12%
82%
100%
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Web site
(www.Imcc- tv.org)
0%
1%
13%
86%
100%
Figure 29: Use of Information Sources
Shore Report newsletter
Word of mouth
Sun Sailor newspaper
The City's Web site
Excelsior Bay Times newspaper
The Laker newspaper
Email messages
Local Cable Government Access Stations
Social networking sites
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Web
site
Percent who reported having used each in the last 12 months
Page 40
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R
Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables below.
Question D1
Shorewood? How many years have you lived in
Less than 2 years
9%
53
2 to 5 years
13%
80
6 to 10 years
15%
90
11 to 20 years
31%
188
More than 20 years
32%
197
Total
100%
609
Question D2
Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other houses
Percent
86%
N
526
House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome)
10%
61
Building with two or more apartments or condominiums
3%
21
Other
0%
0
Total
100%
609
Question D3
D4
Yes
No
Total
ion D3
Yes
1 ►G7
Total
40% 245
60%
363
100%
608
24% 146
76% 461
100% 608
Page 41
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
ion D6
18 to 24 years
2 5 to 34 y ears
0%
2
12%
74
35 t o 44 y
13%
81
45 to 54 years
34%
205
55 to 64 years
20%
120
65 to 74 years
13%
79
75 years or older
7%
43
Total
100%
604
Question D7
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 househo
Less than ...
Percent
N
$25,000 to $49,999
48%
286
$50,000 to $99,999
100%
594
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $249,999
$250,000 to $299,999
$300,000 or more
Question D8
Female
52%
309
Male
48%
286
Total
100%
594
Page 42
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R
Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions
I7hc following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the "don't know" responses.
Question 1
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality
Shorewood. of life in
Shorewood as a place to live
Excellent
53%
321
...
44%
267
Fair
3%
16
Poor
0%
1
Don't know
0%
0
Total
100%
606
Your neighborhood as a place to live
58%
351
34%
209
7%
41
1%
8
0%
0
100%
608
Shorewood as a place to raise children
51%
306
35%
209
2%
15
0%
1
12%
74
100%
605
Shorewood as a place to retire
23%
141
33%
197
18%
108
7%
42
19%
116
100%
604
The overall quality of life in Shorewood
45%
272
51%
308
3%
18
1%
3
0%
0
100%
602
Page 43
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 2
Please rate each of the following characteristics as
Shorewood they relate to as a whole.
Sense of community
Excellent
Percent
14%
N
84
...
Percent
44%
N
264
Fair
Percent
32%
N
194
Poor
Percent
6%
N
36
D.
Percent
3%
N
19
Percent
100%
N
597
Overall appearance of Shorewood
21%
125
61%
368
16%
99
1%
7
1%
3
100%
602
Variety of housing opportunities
12%
75
47%
286
22%
134
5%
30
13%
79
100%
604
Ease of access to shopping opportunities
19%
113
43%
262
30%
179
7%
45
1%
4
100%
603
Recreational opportunities
27%
164
50%
303
17%
100
2%
14
3%
20
100%
601
Educational opportunities
36%
215
41%
247
11%
66
2%
9
10%
62
100%
599
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities
15%
92
48%
285
24%
143
3%
18
10%
62
100%
599
Opportunities to attend family- oriented
events /activities
18%
106
47%
285
19%
112
2%
15
14%
83
100%
601
Opportunities for senior /older adult activities
11%
68
29%
171
16%
97
2%
12
42%
251
100%
600
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community
Center activities
17%
102
32%
191
15%
88
4%
25
32%
190
100%
597
Opportunities to volunteer
13%
75
40%
238
17%
101
2%
11
29%
171
100%
596
Opportunities to participate in community matters
13%
77
43%
253
22%
132
3%
19
19%
112
100%
592
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
25%
149
56%
337
16%
96
2%
13
0%
2
100%
598
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood
21%
129
40%
241
19%
116
11%
66
9%
54
100%
606
Ease of walking in Shorewood
23%
142
33%
199
26%
158
16%
98
1%
8
100%
605
Availability of paths and walking trails
28%
170
37%
225
22%
134
10%
60
3%
17
100%
606
Traffic flow on major streets
12%
73
57%
343
26%
158
4%
24
1%
6
100%
604
Availability of affordable quality housing
7%
43
33%
199
26%
158
9%
52
25%
148
100%
599
Availability of affordable quality child care
6%
35
14%
85
11%
64
5%
27
64%
379
100%
589
Availability of open space
21%
128
43%
258
20%
122
4%
22
12%
74
100%
604
Air quality
40%
243
48%
291
6%
35
1%
3
5%
32
100%
605
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood
41%
246
50%
299
8%
47
1%
5
1%
7
100%
604
Overall image /reputation of Shorewood
33%
203
54%
326
9%
56
0%
3
3%
19
100%
606
Page 4-4
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
on 3
Shorewood is a safe community
19%
113
Several times a day
29%
175
Several times a month
28%
168
Less than several times a month
25%
151
Total
100%
606
with a low crime rate
65%
393
28%
170
6%
35
1%
5
0%
0
0%
2
100%
606
Shorewood has tight -knit
neighborhoods
20%
119
37%
222
27%
162
7%
45
3%
15
6%
38
100%
602
The City offers the best schools
46%
278
27%
166
10%
63
2%
13
1%
4
13%
80
100%
604
Shorewood provides and protects
open space
29%
176
45%
271
13%
77
2%
13
1%
6
10%
63
100%
605
Question 4
Just about every day
19%
113
Several times a day
29%
175
Several times a month
28%
168
Less than several times a month
25%
151
Total
100%
606
Question 5
To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Shorewood?
N ot . p
Percent
N
�
Min or p
Moderate problem
M a j or p
Page 45
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
tion 6
Ye
N
D know
Total
41%
249
55%
331
4%
24
100%
604
Question 7
Ease of use
57%
1 144
37% 1 93
5% 14 1% 1
0% 0 1 100% 1 251
Cost of disposing of items
30%
75
41% 103
18% 46 7% 18
4% 10 100 251
Convenience of drop -off site location
52%
131
37% 93
9% 24 1% 4
0% 1 100% 251
Asked only of those who reported having participated in the City's Spring Clean -up Drop Off program in the last 12 months.
unsafe
Question 8
Page 46
Somewhat
Neither safe
nor
Somewhat
I
Please rate how safe or unsafe
Very safe
safe
unsafe
unsafe
Very unsafe
Don't know
Total
you feel...
From violent crime (e.g., rape,
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N Percent
N
assault, robbery)
74%
4
124
4%
26
1%
4
0%
0
0%
0 100%
606
From property crimes (e.g.,
burglary, theft)
41%
249
47%
285
8%
51
2%
12
1%
3
0%
2
100%
603
From environmental hazards,
including toxic waste
60%
363
28%
171
5%
33
2%
11
0%
0
4%
24
100%
603
In your neighborhood during the
day
84%
505
14%
82
2%
12
0%
2
0%
0
0%
0
100%
602
In your neighborhood after dark
58%
347
33%
201
6%
38
2%
13
0%
2
0%
2
100%
603
Page 46
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
tion 9
Ypc
iv o
Don't know
Total
Question 10
Yes
No
Don't know
Total
Asked only of those who reported being a victim of a crime in the last 12 months.
8% 48
91% 553
1% 6
100% 606
77%
35
23%
10
0%
0
100%
45
Page 47
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 11
about In the last 12 months,
ever, have you or .. members
participated
Never
Once or twice
3 to 12 times
times
times
Total
Shorewood?
Used Southshore Community Center
70%
422 24%
147
4%
26
1%
4
1%
3
100%
603
Participated in a recreation program or activity
64%
379
22%
131
11%
64
2%
9
2%
10
100%
594
Visited a park in Shorewood
13%
78
28%
166
32%
192
13%
80
13%
79
100%
597
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
76%
448
18%
108
4%
26
1%
5
0%
1
100%
588
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or
other Shorewood - sponsored public meeting on
cable television, the Internet or other media
69%
408
21%
124
8%
46
2%
10
1%
4
100%
591
Read the Shore Report — the city newsletter
5%
29
10%
62
64%
382
13%
77
71 , o'
45
100%
595
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
39%
233
33%
197
23%
135
3%
19
2%
9
100%
594
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard
from your home
4%
21
1 2%
13
8%
46
21%
127
65%
1 386
100%
593
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Shorewood
73%
430
14%
7%
42
3%
17
3%
20
100%
593
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in
d40
Shorewood
70%
417
7%
6%
36
6%
34
11%
65
100%
592
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood
81%
487
8%
47
6%
34
3%
17
2%
14
100%
600
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
6%
37
25%
152
45%
271
14%
87
9%
55
100%
603
Page 48
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 12
Please select which of the following programs or activities, if any, you or other household members have participated in over the last 12
months. (Please select all that a
Oktoberfest
Art /Paint Classes
Percent
7%
N
39
2%
11
G F
2%
10
Fr Fridays in Fr
7%
40
Kayaking
4%
21
Safety Camp
2%
10
Tennis at Badger
4%
25
Youth Cooking Classes
1%
5
Skateboarding Camp
0%
1
Music in the Park
23%
135
Movie in the Park
3%
19
Arctic Fever
10%
62
MCE Summer Rec Program
8%
45
All of these
0%
0
None of these
60%
356
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Page 49
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 13
following Please select which of the ... recreational facilities, if any, you or other household members have used .
12 months. (Please select all that a
Playground equipment
Percent
38%
N
228
Picnic tables / grills
18%
107
Picn s h e lt e r
Tennis court
14%
82
18%
108
Volleyball court
1%
8
Baseball field
17%
104
Paths / trails
80%
484
Multi -use building
4%
22
Warming house
22%
130
Ice skating area
26%
155
All of these
0%
2
None of these
14%
86
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Page 50
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 14
Please rate the quality of each of the following
- - Shorewood.
Fire district's response to calls
Excellent
Percent
24%
143
Good
- -
16%
94
Fair
Percent
1%
4
Poor
- -
0%
1
Don't know
Percent
59%
356
L— Total
- -
100%
599
Fire district's education and prevention
23%
136
30%
181
4%
27
0%
2
42%
247
100%
S93
Fire district's visibility in the community
31%
182
36%
211
11%
62
2%
11
21%
127
100%
593
Fire district services overall
25%
150
30%
179
4%
21
0%
2
41%
241
100%
594
Police response to calls
27%
159
24%
145
4%
26
1%
8
43%
258
100%
596
Police education and crime prevention
15%
89
31%
180
9%
54
2%
14
43%
252
100%
589
Police visibility in the community
25%
14S
46%
270
15%
87
2%
14
13%
76
100%
592
Police services overall
24%
143
42%
245
9%
51
1%
6
24%
143
100%
588
Ambulance or emergency medical services
18%
104
16%
94
2%
12
1%
7
63%
375
100%
592
Animal control services
6%
38
15%
90
8%
44
3%
18
68%
397
100%
588
Traffic enforcement
12%
68
45%
257
16%
92
6%
36
21%
121
100%
574
Street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes)
5%
32
37%
220
36%
214
19%
111
2%
15
100%
592
Street cleaning /sweeping
8%
50
48%
285
30%
179
8%
48
6%
33
100%
595
Street resurfacing
6%
35
38%
223
34%
199
19%
111
4%
25
100%
593
Street lighting
8%
47
37%
221
34%
201
15%
92
S%
32
100%
593
Street signage and street markings
14%
82
59%
352
22%
128
4%
22
1%
9
100%
593
Snowplowing on city streets
25%
147
48%
287
18%
105
4%
24
5%
31
100%
593
Applying salt /sand on icy streets
21%
125
54%
321
15%
91
3%
16
6%
36
100%
590
Road condition
8%
46
50%
293
31%
184
10%
57
2%
11
100%
590
Sidewalk /trail maintenance
17%
98
51%
298
14%
79
2%
10
17%
100
100%
585
Storm drainage
10%
56
51%
299
16%
95
6%
35
17%
101
100%
586
Sanitary sewer services
17%
98
52%
306
8%
49
1%
7
22%
127
100%
588
Shorewood parks
31%
185
54%
322
5%
31
0%
2
9%
53
100%
592
Park and recreation programs or classes
13%
76
28%
167
5%
31
1%
3
53%
313
100%
590
Southshore Community Center program or classes
9%
56
22%
129
4%
23
0%
3
64%
379
100%
589
Southshore Community Center overall
10%
58
24%
139
4%
25
1%
3
62%
365
100%
591
Page 51
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Please rate the quality of each of the following
Excellent
N
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
L--Total
- - Shorewood.
Building inspections
Percent
6%
36
- -
24%
142
Percent
13%
77
- -
5%
32
Percent
52%
306
- -
100%
592
Land u se, planning a nd zoning
4%
24
26%
154
15%
87
5%
32
49%
291
100%
589
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.)
3%
20
26%
151
15%
91
6%
36
49%
290
100%
588
5%
30
20%
118
7%
40
1%
8
67%
397
100%
594
Services to seniors
Services to youth
8%
47
26%
152
8%
45
1%
6
58%
341
100%
591
Services to low- income people
3%
17
5%
32
5%
28
3%
19
84%
491
100%
587
Public schools
45%
270
33%
194
2%
14
1%
5
19%
111
100%
594
Cable television
5%
27
22%
132
20%
116
23%
133
31%
182
100%
590
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the
community for natural disasters or other emergency
situations)
6%
36
21%
119
10%
60
2%
13
61%
353
100%
581
Preservation of natural areas such as open space
and greenbelts
14%
81
48%
282
14%
79
3%
17
21%
123
100%
582
Question 15
Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood?
Percent
N
Page 5 2
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
16
Ye
N
D know
Total
45%
272
S4%
324
1%
7
100%
603
Question 17
Quality (e.g., taste of water) 31%
1 83 1 46% 1 124 1 15%
1 39 7% 19
1% 2 1 100% 1 267
Dependability of service 47%
125 44% 117 6%
15 0% 0
3% 9 100 266
Cost 9%
23 37% 97 37%
98 11% 30
6% 17 100% 265
Asked only of those who reported that their water is supplied by the City
5%
16
Question 18
If you D• NOT have municipal ..
No connection available
66%
210
Too expensive to connect
26%
82
Concerned about city water quality
7%
22
Some other reason
18%
58
Don't know
5%
16
Asked only of those who reported that their water is not supplied by the City. Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Page 5 3
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Thinking
Essential
Percent
2%
Question
19
N
83
important
Percent
36%
N
218
important
Percent
36%
N
218
Don't know
PercentTN
11%
66
Total
Percent
100%
about
how important, if at all, each of the following Essential
potential improvements is for Shorewood,
knowing that the City has $1.8 million in available
Additional basketball courts
important
10
important
33
important
130
Don't know
339
Total
87
funds (about
the liquor stores). Percent
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures,
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts) 4%
26
21%
126
48%
285
19%
115
7%
43
100%
595
Expand trails and walkways 18%
108
31%
188
33%
200
13%
77
4%
25
100%
599
Expand recreational and social programs for all
14%
84
100%
605
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
4%
21
13%
81
34%
206
ages 3%
18
16%
94
49%
288
23%
137
9%
52
100%
590
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees,
42%
251
14%
82
100%
604
lake water quality) 20%
119
1 45%
267
25%
1 151
6%
1 35
3%
20
1 100%
593
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction,
resurfacing)
26% 157
48%
284
22%
129
2%
13
2%
13
100%
595
Municipal drinking water system improvements
(i.e., expansion, additional treatment)
15% 91
25%
149
28%
167
17 0
103
1 14%
1 82
100%
593
Question 20
Thinking about
how important, if at all, each of the following
potential Shorewood park and recreation projects
is to you or other household members.
New recreational /Community Center programs
Essential
Percent
2%
N
13
important
Percent
14%
N
83
important
Percent
36%
N
218
important
Percent
36%
N
218
Don't know
PercentTN
11%
66
Total
Percent
100%
N
598
Additional basketball courts
2%
10
6%
33
22%
130
57%
339
14%
87
100%
600
Programs for seniors and older adults
4%
26
17%
103
35%
210
29%
176
15%
88
100%
604
New tennis courts at Badger Park
1%
5
S%
29
26%
158
51%
309
17%
102
100%
603
Lights on tennis courts
3%
17
8%
46
28%
172
47%
286
14%
84
100%
605
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
4%
21
13%
81
34%
206
37%
220
12%
74
100%
604
Updated skate park facilities
2%
13
10%
59
33%
200
42%
251
14%
82
100%
604
Page 54
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 21
Question 22
Page 55
Strongly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
To what extent do you support or oppose
support
support
oppose
oppose
Don't know
Tota I
I
each of the ...
f ollowing
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the
City, rather than multiple haulers
18%
110 26%
154
18%
111
26%
156
12%
70
100%
601
Providing organic material collection (yard and
food waste)
33%
196
43%
254
10%
59
7%
40
8%
47
100%
598
Increasing recycling options for residents
38%
230
45%
271
8%
45
3%
15
6%
37
100%
598
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e.,
growing, harvesting and distributing produce,
flowers, etc.)
20%
120
45%
270
11%
68
7%
41
17%
100
100%
599
Increasing environmental education and public
awareness programs
21%
128
45%
271
13%
77
8%
51
13%
76
100%
602
Question 22
Page 55
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 23
Shorewood What was your impression of the employee(s) of the
City of in your most recent contact? (Rate
each characteristic below.)
knowledge
Excellent
41%
134
Good
45%
149
Fair
9%
28
Poor
3%
10
Don't know
3%
9
Total
100%
330
Responsiveness
41%
136
45%
147
7%
23
6%
19
1%
4
100%
329
Follow -up
30%
98
37%
121
11%
35
6%
19
17%
57
100%
329
Courtesy
51%
168
39%
128
7%
22
4%
12
0%
1
100%
330
Timeliness
41%
135
41%
134
10%
32
6%
19
3%
11
100
331
Overall impression
43%
142
41%
136
9%
30
6%
20
0%
1
100%
331
Asked only of those who reported having had contact with a City employee in the last 12 months.
Question 24
Please rate the following categories of Shorewood
Excellent
... Fair
Poor
Don't know
Total
government performance.
The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood
Percent
7%
N Percent N Percent
42 42% 257 32%
N
195
Percent
6%
35
13%
76
100%
604
Opportunities to participate in City government
decisions
6%
38 38% 233 19%
117
8%
48
28%
170
100%
606
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of what
people like me think
7%
1 43
30%
180
22%
1 132
11%
1 67
30%
1 180
100%
602
Running Shorewood's local government in the best
interest of residents
7%
43
38%
230
25%
150
6%
37
23%
141
100%
602
Shorewood's government as an example of how best
to provide services
6%
36
33%
198
29%
175
5%
29
27%
165
100%
603
The overall direction Shorewood is taking
7%
41
47%
285
22%
135
4%
23
20%
119
100%
602
Page 56
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Question 25
Please rate the following categories of performance
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
[Total
of the City of Administration.
Shorewood
Response to resident complaints and concerns
7%
43
26%
156
14%
86
6%
34
47%
283
100%
601
Public meetings about City plans
7%
42
33%
197
14%
85
4%
22
42%
250
100%
S97
Transparency and accountability
5%
32
26%
157
17%
103
7%
40
44%
265
100%
597
Information about City plans and programs
7%
41
36%
211
19%
111
7%
42
32%
188
100%
594
Quality of the City's Web site
(www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
8%
45
38%
225
12%
73
1%
5
42%
249
100%
597
Online services available on the City's Web site
5%
31
30%
180
14%
82
2%
10
49%
291
100%
593
lion 26
Very informed
Moderately informed
Slightly informed
Not well informed
Total
Question 27
4% 22
39% 232
32% 193
25% 149
100% 1 596
Page 57
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
estion 28
DSL
C modem
Satellite
Dial -up
44%
243
51%
280
5%
26
3%
14
Cell phone /PDA
25%
141
Other
2%
10
None of these
0%
0
Don't know
2%
9
Asked only of those who reported that they have Internet access at home. Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response
Question 29
How frequently, if ever, .. you use the following sources to gain information about
Shorew
The City's Web site (www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
4%
14%
46%
36%
100%
Shore Report newsletter
35%
35%
21%
9%
100%
Sun Sailor newspaper
19%
27%
29%
25%
100%
The Laker newspaper
6%
16%
24%
54%
100%
Excelsior Bay Times newspaper
5%
13%
31%
52%
100%
Local Cable Government Access Stations (channels 8, 12, 20, or 21)
0%
5%
25%
70%
100%
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Web site (www.Imcc- tv.org)
0%
1%
13%
86%
100%
Word of mouth
6%
29%
52%
13%
100%
Email messages
1 3%
10%
1 27%
1 60%
100%
Social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)
1%
4%
1 12%
1 82%
100%
Page 5 8
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Survey 2011 Report of Results
Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions Compared by Respondent
Characteristics
Ratings for select survey questions are compared by respondent demographic characteristics in this appendix. Cells shaded grey indicate statistically
significant differences (p <_ .05).
Please rate each of the
Aspects
Length of
of
residency
Quality of Life by
� Wmicing
Respondent
unit type
Demographics
Rent/own
Res pondentgend er
following aspects of
quality of life in
10
years
11-20
More
than 20
V
I
Shorew
or less
years
years
Overall Detached
Attached
Overall
Rent
Own
Overall
Female
Male
O verall
Shorewood as a place to
live
99%
96%
96%
97% 97%
100%
97%
100%
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
Your neighborhood as a
place to live
89%
92%
95%
92%
92%
89%
92%
79%
93%
92%
91%
93%
92%
Shorewood as a place to
raise children
99%
97%
95%
97%
1 97%
97%
97%
96%
97%
97%
1 98%
96%
1 97%
Shorewood as a place to
retire
83%
1 65%
61%
69%
65%
93%
69%
89%
67%
69%
72%
66%
69%
The overall quality of life
in Shorewood
98%
95%
96%
96%
96%
100%
96%
1 100%
96%
1 96%
96%
1 96%
96%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 59
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 60
Respondent
Aspects
of
Quality
of Life
18
by Respondent
or
Demographics
older
.. income
Please rate each of the following
aspects
55
$501(to
00
.
of life in
Shorewood.
34
years
54
years
or
older
Overall
Yes
No
Overall
Yes
No
Overall
than
$50K
than
$100K
than
$200K
than
$200K
Overall
Shorewood as a
place to live
100%
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
96%
98%
97%
95%
99%
99%
94%
97%
Your neighborhood
as a place to live
82%
93%
94%
92%
90%
94%
92%
98%
90%
92%
86%
95%
91%
95°%
92°%
Shorewood as a
place to raise
children
100%
97%
96%
97%
98%
96%
97%
97%
97%
97%
91%
99%
96%
98%
97%
Shorewood as a
place to retire
97%
65%
67%
69%
71%
68%
69%
73%
68%
69%
74%
72%
71%
65%
70%
The overall quality
of life in
Shorewood
100%
97%
95%
97%
98%
95%
96%
95%
97%
97%
94%
99%
98%
95%
97%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 60
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the following
... as a whole.
Sense of community
Length
- o
67%
of
14 >
59%
by Respondent
residency
0 —
54%
60%
Demographics
Housing
60%
unit
62%
type
60%
Rent/own
58%
60%
Respondent
gender
60% 66% 54% 60%
Overall appearance of Shorewood
84%
81%
81%
82%
81%
89%
82%
83%
82%
82%
84% 1 80%
82%
Variety of housing opportunities
77%
67%
61%
69%
69%
65%
69%
69%
69%
69%
68%
69%
69%
Ease of access to shopping opportunities
63%
64%
61%
63%
60%
78%
63%
71%
62%
63%
66%
60%
63%
Recreational opportunities
84%
83%
74%
81%
82%
73%
81%
73%
81%
81%
81%
80%
80%
Educational opportunities
90%
90%
79%
86%
88%
77%
86%
73%
87%
86%
88%
83%
86%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
79%
69%
62%
70%
69%
78%
70%
77%
70%
70%
78%
62%
70%
Opportunities to attend family- oriented events /activities
80%
77%
70%
76%
76%
75%
76%
75%
76%
76%
80%
71%
76%
Opportunities for senior /older adult activities
84%
71%
57%
69%
66%
80%
69%
76%
68%
69%
78%
57%
69%
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community Center
activities
75%
75%
67%
72%
71%
80%
72%
70%
72%
72%
81%
63%
73%
Opportunities to volunteer
74%
73%
74%
74%
74%
75%
74%
72%
74%
74%
75%
73%
74%
Opportunities to participate in community matters
71%
70%
65%
69%
69%
66%
69%
66%
69%
69%
70%
67%
69%
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
83%
1 80%
81%
1 82%
81%
88%
1 82%
1 89%
81%
1 82%
86%
1 76%
81%
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood
73%
66%
61%
67%
65%
81%
67%
1 84%
65%
67%
69%
65%
67%
Ease of walking in Shorewood
58%
58%
54%
57%
55%
69%
57%
68%
56%
57%
57%
58%
57%
Availability of paths and walking trails
71%
68%
61%
67%
65%
80%
67%
75%
66%
67%
68%
67%
68%
Traffic flow on major streets
75%
73%
60%
70%
69%
72%
70%
74%
69%
70%
74%
66°%
70%
Availability of affordable quality housing
62%
54%
43%
54%
53%
57%
54%
49%
54%
54%
56%
50%
53%
Availability of affordable quality child care
63%
56%
50%
57%
59%
46%
57%
38%
59%
57%
60%
55%
58%
Availability of open space
77%
72%
68%
73%
74%
63%
73%
54%
74%
73%
78%
67%
72%
Air quality
95%
92%
92%
93%
94%
88%
93%
87%
94%
93%
92%
94%
93%
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood
95%
90%
89%
91%
92%
89%
91%
88%
92%
91%
94%
88%
91%
Overall image /reputation of Shorewood
91%
92%
86%
90%
90%
89%
90%
88%
90%
90%
90%
89%
90%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 61
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Community
Shorew Please rate each of the following characteristics as they
relate to as a whole.
Sense of community
Characteristics
Respondent
14
62%
rn
61%
Ln
59%
by Respondent
60%
Children
66%
Demographics
57%
or
60%
Adults
64%
65
older
59%
or
60%
57%
Ln M
62%
.. income
M
64%
59%
61%
Overall appearance of Shorewood
89%
80%
83%
82%
83%
82%
82%
80%
83%
82%
83%
86%
84%
77%
82%
Variety of housing opportunities
64%
78%
59%
69%
79%
61%
69%
66%
70%
69%
59%
63%
73%
74%
69%
Ease of access to shopping opportunities
48%
66%
65%
63%
66%
61%
63%
68%
61%
63%
61%
69%
63%
58%
63%
Recreational opportunities
78%
85%
76%
81%
84%
79%
81%
77%
82%
81%
68%
79%
83%
85%
80%
Educational opportunities
74%
93%
82%
86%
93%
81%
86%
79%
88%
86%
74%
86%
87%
92%
86%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
52%
78%
68%
70%
79%
64%
70%
69%
71%
70%
66%
67%
78%
66%
70%
Opportunities to attend family- oriented events /activities
65%
81%
72%
76%
84%
69%
76%
76%
76%
76%
67%
80%
83%
67%
75%
Opportunities for senior /older adult activities
28%
79%
69%
69%
81%
64%
69%
69%
69%
69%
68%
70%
80%
57%
69%
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community Center
activities
Opportunities to volunteer
45%
75%
77%
73%
75%
71%
72%
78%
70%
72%
74%
73%
77%
66%
73%
72%
73%
75%
74%
75%
73%
74%
75%
73%
74%
68%
73%
74%
75%
73%
Opportunities to participate in community matters
61%
73%
67%
69%
73%
66%
69%
66%
70%
69%
55%
68%
76%
66%
68%
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
93%
76%
85%
82%
81%
82%
81%
89%
79%
82%
79%,84%
85%,76%
81%
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood
77%
65%
67%
67%
70%
65%
67%
66%
68%
67%
66%
68%
67%
67%
67%
Ease of walking in Shorewood
64%
55%
57%
57%
53%
59%
57%
53%
58%
57%
59%
54%
55%
59%
57%
Availability of paths and walking trails
96%
63%
63%
67%
67%
67%
67%
64%
68%
67%
67%
70%
69%
61%
67%
Traffic flow on major streets
66%
72%
69%
70%
75%
66%
70%
71%
69%
70%
61%
67%
75%
71%
70%
Availability of affordable quality housing
59%
58%
46%
54%
63%
46%
54%
46%
56%
54%
39%
47%
63%
54%
53%
Availability of affordable quality child care
58%
59%
53%
57%
62%
52%
57%
40%
60%
57%
40%
41%
62%
72%
56%
Availability of open space
69%
77%
68%
73%
79%
69%
73%
72%
73%
73%
50%
73%
79%
77%
73%
Air quality
88%
96%
92%
93%
96%
92%
93%
88%
95%
93%
84%
94%
96%
94%
93%
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood
98%
92%
88%
91%
93%
90%
91%
89%
92%
91%
80%
94%
94%
92%
91%
Overall image /reputation of Shorewood
96%
92%
87%
90%
92%
88%
90%
87%
91%
90%
81%
93%
94%
88%
90%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 62
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Survev 2011 Report of Results
of Communitv Character
t
Shorewood is a safe community with a low c rime rate
Shorewood has tight -knit neighborhoods
The City offers the best schools
Shorewood provides and protects open space
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
As
91%
94%76-16
94%
95%
87%
94%
76%
95%
94%
95%
93%
94%
68%
5760%
rate
61%
56%
60%
50%
61%
60%
64%
55%
60%
89%
8385%
93%
97%
84%
88%
85%
84%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
89%
8282%
61%
60%
81%
90%
82%
86%
82%
82%
85%
79%
82%
of Communitv Character by Respondent Dem
Shorewood is a safe community with a low crime
rate
92%
93%
95%
94%
93%
94%
94%
94%
93%
94%
89%
93%
97%
92%
94%
Shorewood has tight -knit neighborhoods
49%
66%
56%
60%
65%
57%
61%
58%
61%
60%
55%
60%
64%
60%
61%
The City offers the best schools
87%
87%
82%
85%
92%
79%
85%
84%
85%
85%
76%
94%
83%
85%
85%
Shorewood provides and protects open space
89%
84%
78%
82%
86%
79%
82%
78%
84%
82%
79%
88%
80%
82%
83%
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
Page 63
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survev 2011 Report of Results
Participation in Citv's SDrin g Clean -uD DroD Off Program by Resnondent Demo
In the last 12 months, have
you or other household
members participated in
Shorewood's Spring Clean-
up Drop Off program? 31% 51% 49% 43% 45% 29% 43% 21% 45% 43% 43% 43% 43%
Percent of respondents reporting they had participated in the last 12 months
Partici
In the last 12 months, have you or other
household members participated in Shorewood's
Snring Clean -uo Dron Off nroeram?
Page 64
Percent of respondents reporting they had participated in the last 12 months
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Comm
Safetv by Respondent Demograuhics
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
95%
1 95%
95% 1
95%
96%
1 85%
95% 1
82%
96% 1
95%
92% 1
97%
95%
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
88%
87%
91%
89%
90%
83%
89%
80%
90%
89%
88%
90%
89%
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste
93%
91%
93%
92%
93%
91%
92%
93%
92%
92%
89%
96%
93%
In your neighborhood during the day
98%
97%
98%
97%
98%
96%
97%
96%
98%
97%
97%
98%
97%
In your neighborhood after dark
89%
93%
92%
91%
93%
80%
91%
79%
93%
91%
89%
94%
91%
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
Comm
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault,
Safetv by Resuondent Demographics
robbery)
91%
96%
95%
95%
96%
1 95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
84%
96%
97%
98%
95%
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
78%
91%
90%
89%
91%
88%
89%
930/
88
890/
810
900
920
900
890/
From environmental hazards, including toxic
waste
98%
92%
91%
92%
93%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
85%
95%
94%
92%
93%
In your neighborhood during the day
100%
97%
98%
98%
98%
97%
98%
97%
98%
98%
94%
97%
98%
99%
97%
In your neighborhood after dark
82%
94% 1
92%
91% 1
959/6
1 89%
1 91%
92%
1 91%
91% 1
82%
88% 1
94%
97%
92%
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
Page 65
Shorewood, MlV' Citizcn Suraev 2011 Report of Results
Community Participation
Lengt
by
Respondent
e ency
Demographics
Housing
unit
type
Rent
Respondent
about In the last 12 months,
you or other household members participated in the
f ollowing . eee
Used Southshore Community Center
0 0
25%
14 >
29%
0
37%
30%
4 1
•
26%
41
53%
>
30%
26%
•
30%
30%
33%
25%
30%
Participated in a recreation program or activity
41%
37%
30%
36%
36%
38%
36%
29%
37%
36%
41%
30%
36%
Visited a park in Shorewood
90%
88%
81%
87%
87%
87%
87%
88%
87%
87%
87%
87%
87%
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local
public meeting
14%
26%
32%
24%
24%
23%
24%
6%
25%
24%
23%
23%
23%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other
Shorewood - sponsored public meeting on cable television,
the Internet or other media
25%
30%
37%
31%
32%
21%
31%
22%
32%
31%
26%
34%
30%
Read the Shore Report — the city newsletter
93%
95%
97%
95%
96%
87%
95%
83%
96%
95%
95%
1 96%
95%
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
68%
63%
50%
61%
65%
32%
61%
37%
63%
61%
61%
61%
61%
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard from your
home
94%
98%
98%
96%
1 98%
1 88%
96%
73%
99%
1 96%
96%
97%
97%
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Shorewood
21%
32%
30%
28%
27%
31%
28%
19%
28%
28%
27%
1 27%
27%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Shorewood
21%
34%
35%
30%
31%
23%
30%
15%
31%
30%
26%
32%
29%
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood
14%
23%
20%
19%
18%
21%
19%
10%
20%
19%
21%
16%
19%
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
92%
95%
1 96%
1 94%
1 95%
88%
1 94%
77%
1 96%
1 94%
92%
96%
94%
Percent who reported having participated in the lost 12 months
Page 66
Shorewood, MN Citizen Suraev 2011 Report of Results
Community
Respondent
Participation
0
by Respondent
Children
Demographics
..
older
LM
.. income
In the last 12 months, about
ever, have you . ..
participated
Shorew
Used Southshore Community Center
00
23%
20%
45%
30% 21% 37%
30%
50%
24%
30%
43%
37%
—
'
25%
20%
30%
Participated in a recreation program or activity
39%
40%
30%
36% 52% 25%
36%
32%
37%
36%
34%
33%
39%
39%
37%
Visited a park in Shorewood
93%
94%
78%
87% 96% 81%
87%
77%
90%
87%
74%
92%
89%
88%
87%
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
5%
20%
33%
24% 18% 28%
24%
36%
20%
24%
26%
26%
20%
23%
23%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or
other Shorewood - sponsored public meeting on
cable television, the Internet or other media
16%
30%
36%
31% 25% 35%
31%
35%
29%
31%
32%
33%
29%
30%
31%
Read the Shore Report — the city newsletter
90%
96%
96%
95% 95% 95%
95%
97%
95%
95%
84%
98%
98%
96%
95%
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
59%
71%
49%
61% 73% 53%
61%
46%
65%
61%
33%
62%
69%
68%
61%
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard
from your home
96%
96%
97%
96% 1 97% 1 96%
96%
1 99%
96%
1 96%
92%
1 98%
97%
1 98%
96%
Volunteered your time to some group or activity
in Shorewood
14%
27%
32%
27% 30% 26%
28%
31%
26%
28%
20%
31%
25%
32%
27%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in
Shorewood
10%
32%
32%
1 29% 36% 26%
30%
36%
28%
30%
24%
25%
35%
31%
30%
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood
2%
18%
26%
19% 21% 17%
19%
23%
17%
19%
18%
19%
19%
18%
19%
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
91%
95%
94%
94% 94% 94%
94%
96%
94%
94%
87%
94%
97%
94%
94%
Percent who reported having participated in the lost 12 months
Page 67
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
City Services
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Shorew
Fire district's response to calls
by
Length
100%
Respondent
of
99%
residency
—
95%
Demographics
98%
Housing
97%
unit
100%
type
98%
Rent/own
100%
97%
98%
Respondent
gender
.
100% 96% 98%
Fire district's education and prevention
99 %
88%
87%
92%
92%
89%
92%
84%
92%
92%
97% 85%
92%
Fire district's visibility in the community
84%
87%
82%
84%
84%
86%
84%
77%
85%
84%
90% 1 78%
84%
Fire district services overall
98%
94%
89%
93%
93%
98%
93%
100%
93%
93%
95%
92%
93%
Police response to calls
93%
87%
90%
90%
89%
94%
90%
88%
90%
90%
91%
89%
90%
Police education and crime prevention
89%
77 %
7S%
80%
81%
70%
80%
64%
81%
80%
88%
70%
80%
Police visibility in the community
74%
82%
85%
80%
80%
82%
80%
67%
81%
80%
82%
78%
80%
Police services overall
89%
86%
86%
87%
86%
94%
87%
92%
87%
87%
90%
84%
87%
Ambulance or emergency medical services
93%
90%
91%
91%
91%
94%
91%
91%
91%
91%
94%
88%
91%
Animal control services
81%
61%
65%
68%
67%
72%
68%
56%
69%
68%
67%
69%
68%
Traffic enforcement
76%
67%
72%
72%
70%
81%
72%
79%
71%
72%
78%
66%
72%
Street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes)
50%
37%
43%
44%
43%
47%
44%
47%
43%
44%
45%
43%
44%
Street cleaning /sweeping
63%
55%
60%
59%
59%
61%
59%
47%
60%
59%
61%
57%
59%
Street resurfacing
49%
38 %
48%
45%
45%
47%
45%
39%
46%
45%
43%
48%
45%
Street lighting
46%
44%
53%
48%
47%
50%
48%
44%
48%
48%
48%
47%
48%
Street signage and street markings
73%
71%
79%
74%
74%
78%
74%
70%
75%
74%
72%
76%
74%
Snowplowing on city streets
74%
78%
79%
77%
76%
82%
77%
81%
77%
77%
77%
77%
77%
Applying salt /sand on icy streets
82%
78%
81%
81%
82%
74%
81%
75%
81%
81%
78%
84%
81%
Road condition
66%
49%
58%
58%
58%
62%
58%
68%
57%
58%
58%
58%
58%
Sidewalk /trail maintenance
85%
79%
80%
82%
81%
88%
82%
97%
80%
82%
84%
79%
82%
Storm drainage
80%
70%
68%
73%
72%
81%
73%
85%
72%
73%
73%
73%
73%
Sanitary sewer services
89%
86%
88%
88%
88%
87%
88%
87%
88%
88%
87%
88%
88%
Shorewood parks
98%
91%
92%
94%
93%
98%
94%
100%
93%
94%
94%
94%
94%
Park and recreation programs or classes
94%
85%
82%
88%
87%
89%
88%
88%
88%
88%
94%
78%
87%
Page 68
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in
Shorew
Southshore Community Center program or classes
Length
95%
of
84%
residency
0 0
84%
88%
I Housing
8S%
unit
97%
type
0
88%
Rent/own
100%
86%
0
88%
Respondent
93%
gender
78%
0
87%
Southshore Community Center overall
95%
82%
84%
87%
87%
90%
87%
83%
88%
87%
92%
80%
87%
Building inspections
66%
57%
62%
62%
61%
67%
62%
60%
62%
62%
67%
57%
61%
Land use, planning and zoning
68%
58%
56%
60%
60%
60%
60%
53%
61%
60%
65%
57%
60%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)
63%
54%
56%
58%
57%
64%
58%
61%
57%
58%
53%
61%
58%
Services to seniors
93%
69%
70 %
75%
74%
80%
75%
90%
74%
75%
81%
68%
76%
Services to youth
85%
77%
76%
79%
80%
77%
79%
67%
80%
79%
83%
74%
79%
Services to low- income people
56%
43%
52%
50%
53%
41%
50%
26%
55%
50%
42%
62%
51%
Public schools
99%
96%
94%
96%
96%
98%
96%
100%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
Cable television
37%
38%
41%
39%
39%
38%
39%
37%
39%
39%
40%
37%
39%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community
for natural disasters or other emergency situations)
71%
66%
67%
68%
68%
69%
68%
68%
68%
68%
67%
68%
68%
Preservation of natural areas such as open space and greenbelts
1 86%
1 72%
1 79%
1 79%
1 78%
1 87%
1 79%
1 91%
78%
1 79%
1 81%
1 76%
1 79%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 69
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Shorewood.
Fire district's response to calls
City Services
Responclentage
00
14
100%
Ln
CM
98%
by
Ln
97%
Respondent
98%
Children
97%
Demographics
18
98%
or
98%
97%
99%
98%
0
97%
U1
4-0-J. 4'
100%
4,
96%
98%
98%
Fire district's education and prevention
97%
93%
90%
92%
98%
88%
92%
92%
92%
92%
83%
93%
92%
94%
91%
Fire district's visibility in the community
88%
83%
84%
84%
86%
84%
84%
86%
84%
84%
85%
87%
82%
84%
84%
Fire district services overall
96%
94%
92%
94%
95%
93%
94%
89%
95%
94%
90%
97%
91%
95%
94%
Police response to calls
91%
87%
93%
90%
86%
91%
90%
91%
89%
90%
89%
91%
89%
90%
90%
Police education and crime prevention
87%
81%
78%
80%
83%
77%
80%
83%
79%
80%
71%
82%
82%
80%
80%
Police visibility in the community
85%
76%
84%
80%
75%
84%
80%
84%
79%
80%
80%
83%
79%
77%
80%
Police services overall
93%
84%
89%
87%
84%
89%
87%
90%
87%
87%
84%
92%
87%
86%
88%
Ambulance or emergency medical services
94%
87%
94%
91%
85%
94%
92%
94%
90%
91%
89%
93%
91%
90%
91%
Animal control services
91%
66%
64%
68%
70%
67%
68%
72%
66%
68%
68%
73%
64%
67%
68%
Traffic enforcement
77%
70%
73%
72%
75%
70%
72%
77%
70%
72%
71%
80%
67%
69%
71%
Street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes)
50%
43%
44%
44%
45%
43%
44%
49%
42%
44%
37%
51%
46%
40%
44%
Street cleaning /sweeping
76%
56%
60%
60%
58%
60%
59%
63%
58%
60%
52%
71 %
63%
48%
59%
Street resurfacing
57%
42%
46%
45%
44%
46%
45%
54%
43%
45%
37%
52%
47%
41%
45%
Street lighting
46%
47%
49%
48%
44%
51%
48%
49%
48%
48%
42%
47%
51%
45%
47%
Street signage and street markings
83%
72%
76%
75%
73%
75%
74%
80%
73%
74%
68%
80%
75%
71%
74%
Snowplowing on city streets
62%
73%
85%
77%
75%
79%
77%
85%
75%
77%
77%
79%
75%
77%
77%
Applying salt /sand on icy streets
93%
79%
79%
81%
83%
79%
81%
81%
80%
81%
69%
1 86%
84%
80%
81%
Road condition
73%
56%
56%
58%
58%
59%
58%
65%
57%
59%
50%
69%
55%
53%
57%
Sidewalk /trail maintenance
93%
84%
75%
82%
86%
78'x,
82%
75%
83%
82%
76%
81%
84%
80%
81%
Storm drainage
81%
74%
69%
73%
78%
70%
73%
73%
73%
73%
66%
75%
76%
71%
73%
Sanitary sewer services
97%
86%
86%
88%
87%
88%
88%
90%
87%
88%
79%
90%
92%
85%
88%
Shorewood parks
100%
94%
92%
94%
96%
93%
94%
92%
95%
94%
88%
95%
96%
94%
94%
Page 70
Shorewood, MN Citizen Suraev 2011 Report of Results
Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in Shorew
Park and recreation programs or classes
Responclentage
14
100%
CM
89%
85%
•
88%
Children
90%
18
86%
or
•
88%
91%
87%
•
88%
81%
88%
-_
89%
87%
87%
Southshore Community Center program or classes
100%
89%
86%
88%
86%
89%
88%
88%
88%
88%
94%
89%
85%
83%
88%
Southshore Community Center overall
100%
90%
84%
88%
86%
88%
87%
90%
86%
88%
83%
91%
87%
84%
87%
Building inspections
65%
64%
60%
62%
65%
60%
62%
73%
59%
62%
53%
61%
64%
59%
60%
Land use, planning and zoning
73%
64%
55%
61%
65%
58%
60%
62%
60%
60%
42%
70%
65%
61%
62%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,
etc.)
49%
61%
56%
58%
58%
57%
58%
56%
58%
58%
66%
59%
61%
47%
58%
Services to seniors
100%
86%
69%
76%
82%
74%
76%
71%
80%
76%
71%
74%
85%
79%
77%
Services to youth
91%
86%
69%
80%
81%
78%
79%
82%
1 79%
1 80%
63%
88%
78%
81%
79%
Services to low- income people
44%
66%
45%
52%
49%
51%
50%
63%
46%
51%
38%
52%
49%
79%
52%
Public schools
100%
98%
93%
96%
98%
95%
96%
93%
97%
96%
92%
97%
98%
95%
96%
Cable television
28%
40%
42%
39%
34%
42%
39%
51%
35%
39%
30%
52%
42%
31%
39%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the
community for natural disasters or other emergency
situations)
65%
71%
66%
68%
69%
67%
68%
71%
67%
68%
59%
81%
63%
66%
68%
Preservation of natural areas such as open space
and greenbelts
94%
78%
76%
79%
78%
80%
79%
80%
79%
79%
71%
80%
82%
77%
79%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 71
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Overall Oualitv of Citv Services by Resnondent Demo6rauhics
Overall, how would you
rate the quality of services
provided in the City of
Shorewood?
Percent "excellent" or "good"
87% 1 77% 1 75% 1 80% 1 79% 1 83% 1 80% 1 86% 1 79% 1 80% 1 83% 1 77% 1 80%
Overall Ouality of Citv Services
a
Overall, how would
you rate the
quality of services
provided in the
City of
Shorewood? 84% 80% 80% 80% 82% 78% 80% 83% 79% 80% 75% 86%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
79% 1 80% 1 80%
Page 72
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Importance of Potential Im
Respondent
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional
shelters, lighting for tennis courts)
37%
25%
1 18%
27%
1 25%
1 49%
27%
1 46%
26%
27%
33%
22%
27%
Expand trails and walkways
60%
52%
42%
52%
52%
51%
52%
52%
51%
52%
58%
44%
52%
Expand recreational and social programs for all ages
24%
17%
21%
21%
18%
40%
21%
38%
19%
21%
27%
15%
21%
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake water
quality)
68%
69%
65%
67%
65%
83%
67%
74%
67%
67%
73%
62%
68%
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction, resurfacing)
76%
77%
74%
76%
74%
86%
76%
85%
75%
76%
78%
72%
75%
Municipal drinking water system improvements (i.e., expansion,
additional treatment)
52%
50%
38%
47%
42%
80%
47%
72%
45%
47%
58%
35%
47%
Percent "essential' or "very important"
Page 73
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Im
of Potential Im
Respondent
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures,
additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts)
40%
25%
26%
27%
36%
21%
27%
22%
1 29%
27%
27%
27%
31%
26%
28%
Expand trails and walkways
56%
59%
41%
52%
61%
45%
52%
38%
56%
52%
40%
54%
56%
56%
53%
Expand recreational and social programs for all
ages
16%
18%
27%
21%
21%
20%
21%
27%
19%
21%
28%
26%
15%
20%
21%
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased
trees, lake water quality)
56%
68%
71%
68%
64%
70%
67%
1 69%
67%
67%
73%
64%
70%
67%
68%
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction,
resurfacing)
70%
76%
78%
76%
79%
73%
76%
80%
74%
76%
77%
78%
74%
74%
76%
Municipal drinking water system improvements
(i.e., expansion, additional treatment)
38%
46%
51%
47%
50%
45%
47%
51%
46%
47%
54%
48%
45%
44%
47%
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Page 74
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o f R
Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Proiects
cs
New recreational /Community Center programs
18%
17%
1 18%
1 18%
16%
1 31%
18% 1
29%
17% 1
18%
25%
1 11%
18%
Additional basketball courts
11%
6%
9%
9%
9%
7%
9%
5%
9%
9%
10%
7%
9%
Programs for seniors and older adults
21%
25%
28%
25%
22%
47%
25%
33%
24%
25%
32%
17%
25%
New tennis courts at Badger Park
7%
7%
6%
7%
6%
13%
7%
8%
7%
7%
9%
4%
7%
Lights on tennis courts
13%
10%
13%
12%
12%
15%
12%
11%
12%
12%
14%
11%
12%
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
20%
19%
20%
19%
17%
37%
19%
38%
18%
19%
25%
14%
19%
Updated skate park facilities
13%
13%
15%
14%
12%
26%
14%
26%
13%
14%
18%
10%
14%
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Proiects
ics
New recreational /Community Center programs 118% 116% 121% 118% 120% 1 17% 118% 118% 118% 118% 126% 120% 121% 111% 119%
Additional basketball courts
19%
8% 1
6%
9% 1
11%
7%
9%
1 6%
9% 1
9%
6% 1
5%
14% 1
8%
9%
Programs for seniors and older adults
7%
19%
37%
25%
20%
28%
25%
36%
21%
25%
42%
29%
20%
18%
25%
New tennis courts at Badger Park
5%
7%
7%
7%
8%
6%
7%
8%
6%
7%
7%
7%
8%
6%
7%
Lights on tennis courts
13%
13%
10%
12%
15%
10%
12%
10%
13%
12%
10%
12%
13%
15%
13%
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
30%
18%
18%
19%
24%
16%
19%
16%
20%
19% 1
30%
21% 1
16%
19%
1 20%
Updated skate park facilities
15%
13%
14%
14%
17%
12%
14%
15%
13%
14% 1
24%
15% 1
11%
13%
1 14%
Percent "essential' or "very important"
Page 75
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survev 2011 Report of Results
Level of SUDDort for Citv Initiatives
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City, rather than
t Demo6ra»hics
multiple haulers
60% 45%
1 44%
1 50%
48% 1 67%
50%
72% 48%
50%
58%
41%
49%
Providing organic material collection (yard and food waste)
87% 79%
79%
82%
81% 90%
82%
95% 81%
82%
86%
77%
82%
Increasing recycling options for residents
93% 89%
85%
89%
89% 93%
89%
96% 89%
89%
93%
86%
89%
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e., growing,
harvesting and distributing produce, flowers, etc.)
79% 80%
75%
78%
76% 89%
78%
80% 78%
78%
86%
69%
78%
Increasing environmental education and public awareness
programs
77% 75%
75%
76%
74% 85%
76%
79% 75%
76%
84%
68%
76%
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support
Page 76
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Survev 2011 Report of Results
Level of SADDort for Citv Initiatives
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the
t Demogra
City, rather than multiple haulers
52% 47%
1 54%
50%
1 52% 48%
1 50% 1 49%
50%
1 50%
58%
1 49%
48%
1 52%
51%
Providing organic material collection (yard and
food waste)
98% 83%
76%
82%
84% 81%
82% 79%
83%
82%
81%
83%
84%
83%
83%
Increasing recycling options for residents
93% 90%
87%
89%
91% 88%
89% 82%
91%
89°%
90%
84%
91%
93%
90%
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e.,
growing, harvesting and distributing produce,
flowers, etc.)
82% 77%
78%
78%
79% 78%
78% 78%
78%
78%
83%
77%
78%
76%
78%
Increasing environmental education and public
awareness programs
73% 74%
79%
76%
77% 75%
76% 79°%
75°%
76°%
80°%
77°%
80°%
69°%
76°%
Percent "strongly" or "somewhot" support
Page 77
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Survey 2011 Report of Results
Government Performance by Resuondent Demographics
The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood
59%
60%
50%
56%
1 55%
67%
1 56%
55%
1 56%
56%
1 67%
46%
57%
Opportunities to participate in City government decisions
63%
68%
56%
62%
62%
63%
62%
56%
63%
62%
68%
56%
62%
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of what people
like me think
58%
56%
46%
53%
52%
55%
53%
47%
53%
53%
60%
46%
53%
Running Shorewood's local government in the best interest of
residents
66%
62%
51%
1 59%
59%
1 63%
59%
1 51%
60%
1 59%
63%
57%
60%
Shorewood's government as an example of how best to
provide services
61%
52%
49%
54%
53%
55%
54%
44%
54%
54%
62%
46%
54%
The overall direction Shorewood is taking
81%
63%
58%
67%
67%
72%
67%
76%
67%
67%
75%
60%
67%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 78
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survev 2011 Report of Results
Government Performance by Respondent Demogranhics
The value of services for the taxes paid to
Shorewood
38%
59%
59%
57%
58%
1 55%
56%
58%
56%
56%
55%
57%
58%
55%
57%
Opportunities to participate in City government
decisions
62%
64%
61%
62%
63%
62%
62%
65%
61%
62%
51%
72%
62%
64%
63%
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of
what people like me think
31%
56%
54%
53%
56%
51%
53%
56%
52%
53%
44%
55%
55%
55%
53%
Running Shorewood's local government in the
best interest of residents
47%
65%
57%
60%
66%
1 55%
59%
61%
59%
60%
43%
68%
66%
59%
61%
Shorewood's government as an example of how
best to provide services
34%
59%
52%
54%
58%
51%
54%
57%
53%
54%
44%
59%
59%
55%
55%
The overall direction Shorewood is taking
78%
72%
61%
68%
75%
63%
67%
68%
67%
68%
60%
76%
73%
61%
69%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 79
Shorewood, MN Citizcn Survev 2011 Report of Results
Citv Administration Performance
t Demogra
Response to resident complaints and concerns
78%
57%
55%
63%
62%
67%
63%
77%
62%
63%
67%
58%
62%
Public meetings about City plans
69%
72%
66%
69%
69%
71%
69%
55%
70%
69%
73%
64%
69%
Transparency and accountability
61%
55%
56%
57%
56%
65%
57%
73%
56%
57%
63%
51%
57%
Information about City plans and programs
62%
63%
61%
62%
63%
58%
62%
38%
64%
62%
67%
58%
62%
Quality of the City's Web site (www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
77%
81%
73%
78%
77%
82%
78%
83%
77%
78%
78%
77%
77%
Online services available on the City's Web site
72%
72%
1 62%
70% 1
68%
80%
1 70%
88%
1 68%
70%
1 74%
1 66%
70%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Citv Administration Performance
t
Response to resident complaints and concerns 1 58% 1 65% 1 61% 1 63% 1 68% 1 59% 1 63% 1 60% 1 64% 1 63% 1 56% 1 65% 1 69% 1 60% 1 63%
Public meetings about City plans
61%
73%
67%
69%
73%
68%
69%
73%
68%
69%
55%
71%
77%
69%
70%
Transparency and accountability
66%
58%
56%
58%
58%
57%
57%
62%
56%
57%
53%
64%
62%
54%
59%
Information about City plans and programs
66%
61%
64%
63%
59%
64%
62%
70%
59%
62%
50%
69%
64%
64%
63%
Quality of the City's Web site
( www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
82%
77%
77%
78%
79%
77%
78%
83%
77%
78%
65%
81%
82%
73%
78%
Online services available on the City's Web site
60%
71%
73%
70%
74%
66%
1 70%
68%
1 70%
70%
56%
72%
1 73%
66%
1 70%
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Page 80
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be
about local government issues and operations of the City of
Shorewood?
Percent "very" or "moderately" informed
yourself to be about local government issues and
operations of the Citv of Shorewood?
Percent "very" or "moderately" informed
Page 81
Shorewood, MN Citizen Sun ev 2011 Report of Results
Appendix D: jurisdictions Included in Benchmark
Comparisons
Listed below are the jurisdictions included in the National benchmark comparisons provided for the City of
Shorewood followed by the 2010 population according to the U.S. Census. Listed at the end of this section
are the jurisdictions included in the small city benchmark comparisons (populations under 10, 000).
jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons
Abilene, KS . ............................... ..........................6,844
Blacksburg, VA ..................................................
42,620
Airway Heights, WA .................. ..........................6,114
Bloomfield, NM ...................................................
8,112
Alamogordo, NM ..................... .........................30,403
Bloomington, IL .................................................
76,610
Albany, GA ............................... .........................77,434
Blue Ash, OH .....................................................
12,114
Albany, OR ............................... .........................50,158
Blue Earth, MN ......................... ..........................3,353
Albemarle County, VA .............. .........................98,970
Blue Springs, MO ..................... .........................52,575
Alpharetta, GA ......................... .........................57,551
Boise, ID ..........................................................
205,671
Ames, IA .... ............................... .........................58,965
Borough of Ebensburg, PA ..................................
3,351
Andover, MA ............................. ..........................8,762
Botetourt County, VA .............. .........................33,148
Ankeny, IA . ............................... .........................45,582
Boulder County, CO ................ ........................294,567
Ann Arbor, MI ......................... ........................113,934
Boulder, CO .......................................................
97,385
Apple Valley, CA ....................... .........................69,135
Bowling Green, KY ............................................
58,067
Arapahoe County, CO ............. ........................572,003
Bozeman, MT ....................................................
37,280
Archuleta County, CO .............. .........................12,084
Branson, MO .....................................................
10,520
Arkansas City, KS ...................... .........................12,415
Brea, CA ............................................................
39,282
Arlington County, VA .............. ........................207,627
Breckenridge, CO ................................................
4,540
Arvada, CO .............................. ........................106,433
Brevard County, FL ................. ........................543,376
Asheville, NC ............................ .........................83,393
Brisbane, CA .............................. ..........................4,282
Ashland, OR ............................. .........................20,078
Broken Arrow, OK .............................................
98,850
Ashland, VA ............................... ..........................7,225
Brookline, NH ......................................................
4,991
Aspen, CO .. ............................... ..........................6,658
Bryan, TX ...........................................................
76,201
Auburn, AL ............................... .........................53,380
Burlingame, CA .................................................
28,806
Auburn, WA ............................. .........................70,180
Burlington, MA ........................ .........................24,498
Aurora, CO .............................. ........................325,078
Cabarrus County, NC .......................................
178,011
Austin, TX . ............................... ........................790,390
Calgary, Canada ..................... ......................1,230,248
Avondale, AZ ............................ .........................76,238
Cambridge, MA ...............................................
105,162
Baltimore County, MD ............ ........................805,029
Canandaigua, NY ...............................................
10,545
Baltimore, MD ........................ ........................620,961
Cape Coral, FL .................................................
154,305
Barnstable, MA ....................... ........................215,888
Carlsbad, CA............................ ........................105,328
Batavia, IL . ............................... .........................26,045
Carson City, NV .................................................
55,274
Battle Creek, MI ....................... .........................52,347
Cartersville, GA .................................................
19,731
Bedford, MA ............................ .........................13,320
Carver County, MN .................. .........................91,042
Beekman, NY ........................... .........................14,000
Cary, NC ..........................................................
135,234
Belleair Beach, FL ...................... ..........................1,560
Casa Grande, AZ ................................................
48,571
Bellevue, WA .......................... ........................122,363
Cedar Creek, NE .....................................................
390
Bellingham, WA ....................... .........................80,885
Cedar Falls, IA ...................................................
39,260
Beltrami County, MN ............... .........................44,442
Cedar Rapids, IA ..............................................
126,326
Benbrook, TX ........................... .........................21,234
Centennial, CO ................................................
100,377
Bend, OR ... ............................... .........................76,639
Centralia, IL .......................................................
13,032
Benicia, CA ............................... .........................26,997
Chambersburg, PA ............................................
20,268
Bettendorf, IA .......................... .........................33,217
Chandler, AZ ........................... ........................236,123
Billings, MT ............................. ........................104,170
Chanhassen, MN ...............................................
22,952
Page 82
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Charlotte County, FL ............... ........................159,978
Denver, CO ......................................................
600,158
Charlotte, INC .......................... ........................731,424
Des Moines, IA ................................................
203,433
Chesapeake, VA ...................... ........................222,209
Destin, FL ..........................................................
12,305
Chesterfield County, VA .......... ........................316,236
Dewey - Humboldt, AZ ............... ..........................3,894
Cheyenne, WY .......................... .........................59,466
District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada ................
108,265
Chittenden County, VT ............ ........................156,545
Dorchester County, MID ....................................
32,618
Chula Vista, CA ........................ ........................243,916
Dover, DE ..........................................................
36,047
Clark County, WA .................... ........................425,363
Dover, NH . ............................... .........................29,987
Clay County, MO ..................... ........................221,939
Dublin, CA .........................................................
46,036
Clayton, MO ............................. .........................15,939
Dublin, OH ............................... .........................41,751
Clear Creek County, CO ............ ..........................9,088
Duluth, MN .............................. .........................86,265
Clearwater, FL ......................... ........................107,685
Duncanville, TX ........................ .........................38,524
Cococino County, AZ ............... ........................134,421
Durango, CO ............................ .........................16,887
Colleyville, TX ........................... .........................22,807
East Providence, RI .................. .........................47,037
Collier County, FL .................... ........................321,520
Eau Claire, WI ....................................................
65,883
Collinsville, IL ........................... .........................25,579
Edmond, OI < ......................................................
81,405
Colorado Springs, CO .............. ........................416,427
Edmonton, Canada ................. ........................782,439
Columbus, WI ........................... ..........................4,991
El Cerrito, CA............................ .........................23,549
Commerce City, CO .................. .........................45,913
El Paso, TX .......................................................
649,121
Concord, CA ............................ ........................122,067
Elk Grove, CA ..................................................
153,015
Concord, MA ............................ .........................17,668
Ellisville, MO ............................. ..........................9,133
Concord, INC ............................. .........................79,066
Elmhurst, IL .......................................................
44,121
Conyers, GA ............................. .........................15,195
Englewood, CO ........................ .........................30,255
Cookeville, TN .......................... .........................30,435
Ephrata Borough, PA ........................................
13,394
Cooper City, FL ......................... .........................28,547
Escambia County, FL .......................................
297,619
Coral Springs, FL ...................... ........................121,096
Escanaba, MI .....................................................
12,616
Coronado, CA ........................... .........................18,912
Estes Park, CO .....................................................
5,858
Corpus Christi, TX .................... ........................305,215
Eugene, OR ............................. ........................156,185
Corvallis, OR ............................. .........................54,462
Eustis, FL ...........................................................
18,558
Corvallis, OR ............................. .........................54,462
Evanston, IL .............................. .........................74,486
Coventry, CT ............................. ..........................2,990
Fairway, I< 5 ..........................................................
3,882
Craig, CO .... ............................... ..........................9,464
Farmington Hills, MI ................ .........................79,740
Cranberry Township, PA .......... .........................16,066
Farmington, NM ...................... .........................45,877
Crested Butte, CO ..................... ..........................1,487
Farmington, UT .................................................
18,275
Crystal Lake, IL ......................... .........................40,743
Fayetteville, AR .................................................
73,580
Cumberland County, PA .......... ........................235,406
Federal Way, WA ..............................................
89,306
Cupertino, CA ........................... .........................58,302
Fishers, IN . ............................... .........................76,794
Dakota County, MN ................ ........................398,552
Flagstaff, AZ ......................................................
65,870
Dallas, TX ............................... ......................1,197,816
Florence, AZ ......................................................
25,536
Dania Beach, FL ........................ .........................29,639
Flower Mound, TX ................... .........................64,669
Davenport, IA ........................... .........................99,685
Flushing, MI .............................. ..........................8,389
Davidson, INC ............................ .........................10,944
Forest Grove, OR ..................... .........................21,083
Daviess County, KY ................... .........................96,656
Fort Collins, CO ....................... ........................143,986
Davis, CA ... ............................... .........................65,622
Fort Worth, TX ................................................
741,206
Daytona Beach, FL ................... .........................61,005
Fredericksburg, VA ............................................
24,286
De Pere, WI .............................. .........................23,800
Freeport, IL .......................................................
25,638
Decatur, GA ............................. .........................19,335
Fridley, MN .............................. .........................27,208
DeKalb, IL .. ............................... .........................43,862
Fruita, CO ..........................................................
12,646
Del Mar, CA ............................... ..........................4,161
Gainesville, FL .................................................
124,354
Delaware, OH ........................... .........................34,753
Gaithersburg, MID .............................................
59,933
Delray Beach, FL ...................... .........................60,522
Galt, CA .............................................................
23,647
Denton, TX .............................. ........................113,383
Garden City, KS .................................................
26,658
1'1�e S 3
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Gardner, KS .............................. .........................19,123
Geneva, NY .............................. .........................13,261
Georgetown, CO ....................... ..........................1,034
Georgetown, TX ....................... .........................47,400
Gig Harbor, WA ......................... ..........................7,126
Gilbert, AZ ............................... ........................208,453
Gillette, WY .............................. .........................29,087
Gladstone, MI ........................... ..........................4,973
Goodyear, AZ ........................... .........................65,275
Grand County, CO .................... .........................14,843
Grand Island, NE ...................... .........................48,520
Grand Prairie, TX ..................... ........................175,396
Green Valley, AZ ...................... .........................21,391
Greenwood Village, CO ............ .........................13,925
Greer, SC ... ............................... .........................25,515
Guelph, Ontario, Canada ........ ........................114,943
Gulf Shores, AL .......................... ..........................9,741
Gunnison County, CO ............... .........................15,324
Gurnee, IL . ............................... .........................31,295
Hampton, VA .......................... ........................137,436
Hanover County, VA ................ .........................99,863
Harrisonville, MO ..................... .........................10,019
Hartford, CT ............................ ........................124,775
Henderson, NV ........................ ........................257,729
Hermiston, OR ......................... .........................16,745
Herndon, VA ............................ .........................23,292
High Point, INC ......................... ........................104,371
Highland Park, IL ...................... .........................29,763
Highlands Ranch, CO ................ .........................96,713
Hillsborough County, FL ......... ......................1,229,226
Hillsborough, INC ....................... ..........................6,087
Honolulu, HI ............................ ........................953,207
Hopewell, VA ........................... .........................22,591
Hoquiam, WA ............................ ..........................8,726
Hot Sulphur Springs, CO ............ ............................663
Houston, TX ........................... ......................2,099,451
Howell, MI . ............................... ..........................9,489
Hudson, CO ............................... ..........................2,356
Hurst, TX ... ............................... .........................37,337
Hutchinson, MN ....................... .........................14,178
Hutto, TX ... ............................... .........................14,698
Indian Trail, INC ........................ .........................33,518
Indianola, IA ............................. .........................14,782
Irving, TX .. ............................... ........................216,290
Jackson County, MI ................. ........................160,248
Jackson County, OR ................ ........................203,206
James City County, VA ............. .........................67,009
Jefferson City, MO ................... .........................43,079
Marion, IA . ............................... .........................33,309
Jefferson County, CO .............. ........................534,543
Maryland Heights, MO ............ .........................27,472
Jerome, ID . ............................... .........................10,890
Maryville, MO .......................... .........................11,972
Johnson County, KS ................. ........................544,179
Mayer MN . ............................... ..........................1,749
Joplin, MO . ............................... .........................50,150
Jupiter, FL .. ............................... .........................55,156
Kalamazoo, MI ......................... .........................74,262
Kamloops, Canada ................... .........................86,376
Kannapolis, INC ......................... .........................42,625
Keizer, OR . ............................... .........................36,478
Kelowna, Canada .................... ........................106,707
Kettering, OH ........................... .........................56,163
Kirkland, WA ............................ .........................48,787
Kissimmee, FL .......................... .........................59,682
Kitsap County, WA .................. ........................251,133
Kutztown Borough, PA .............. ..........................5,012
La Mesa, CA ............................. .........................57,065
La Plata, MD .............................. ..........................8,753
La Vista, NE .............................. .........................15,758
Laguna Beach, CA .................... .........................22,723
Lakewood, CO ......................... ........................142,980
Lane County, OR ..................... ........................351,715
Laramie, WY ............................. .........................30,816
Larimer County, CO ................. ........................299,630
Lawrence, KS ............................ .........................87,643
League City, TX ......................... .........................83,560
Lebanon, NH ............................ .........................13,151
Lebanon, OH ............................ .........................20,033
Lee County, FL ......................... ........................618,754
Lee's Summit, MO .................... .........................91,364
Lexington, VA ............................ ..........................7,042
Liberty, MO .............................. .........................29,149
Lincolnwood, IL ........................ .........................12,590
Little Rock, AR ......................... ........................193,524
Livermore, CA .......................... .........................80,968
Lodi CA ..... ............................... .........................62,134
Lone Tree, CO .......................... .........................10,218
Long Beach, CA ....................... ........................462,257
Longmont, CO .......................... .........................86,270
Los Alamos County, NM ........... .........................17,950
Louisville, CO ............................ .........................18,376
Loveland, CO ............................ .........................66,859
Lower Providence Township, PA ......................25,436
Lyme NH ... ............................... ..........................1,716
Lynchburg, VA .......................... .........................75,568
Lynnwood, WA ........................ .........................35,836
Lynwood, CA ............................ .........................69,772
Lyons, IL .... ............................... .........................10,729
Madison, WI ............................ ........................233,209
Maple Grove, MN .................... .........................61,567
Maple Valley, WA .................... .........................22,684
Marana, AZ .............................. .........................34,961
Maricopa County, AZ ............. ......................3,817,117
Marion, IA . ............................... .........................33,309
Maryland Heights, MO ............ .........................27,472
Maryville, MO .......................... .........................11,972
Mayer MN . ............................... ..........................1,749
Pace 84
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
McAllen, TX ............................. ........................129,877
Calk Park, IL .......................................................
51,878
McDonough, GA ...................... .........................22,084
Calk Ridge, TN .......................... .........................29,330
McKinney, TX .......................... ........................131,117
Oakland Park, FL ...............................................
41,363
McMinnville, OR ...................... .........................32,187
Oakland Township, MI ......................................
16,779
Mecklenburg County, INC ........ ........................919,628
Oakville, Canada ..................... ........................165,613
Medford, OR ............................ .........................74,907
Ocala, FL ............................................................
56,315
Medina, MN .............................. ..........................4,892
Ocean City, MID ...................................................
7,102
Menlo Park, CA ........................ .........................32,026
Ogdensburg, NY ................................................
11,128
Meridian Charter Township, MI .......................39,688
Oklahoma City, OK ..........................................
579,999
Meridian, ID ............................. .........................75,092
Olathe, KS .......................................................
125,872
Merriam, KS ............................. .........................11,003
Oldsmar, FL .......................................................
13,591
Merrill, WI .. ............................... ..........................9,661
Olmsted County, MIN ......................................
144,248
Mesa County, CO .................... ........................146,723
Olympia, WA .....................................................
46,478
Mesa, AZ .. ............................... ........................439,041
Orange Village, OH ..............................................
3,323
Miami Beach, FL ....................... .........................87,779
Oshkosh, WI ......................................................
66,083
Midland, MI ............................. .........................41,863
Ottawa County, MI ................. ........................263,801
Milton, GA . ............................... .........................32,661
Overland Park, KS ................... ........................173,372
Minneapolis, MN .................... ........................382,578
Oviedo, FL .........................................................
33,342
Mission Viejo, CA ..................... .........................93,305
Palatine, IL ........................................................
68,557
Mission, KS . ............................... ..........................9,323
Palm Bay, FL............................ ........................103,190
Missoula, MT ........................... .........................66,788
Palm Beach County, FL ................................ 1,320,134
Montgomery County, MD ....... ........................971,777
Palm Beach Gardens, FL .......... .........................48,452
Montgomery County, VA ......... .........................94,392
Palm Coast, FL ...................................................
75,180
Montpelier, VT .......................... ..........................7,855
Palm Springs, CA ...............................................
44,552
Montrose, CO .......................... .........................19,132
Palo Alto, CA .....................................................
64,403
Mooresville, INC ....................... .........................32,711
Panama City, FL .................................................
36,484
Morgantown, WV .................... .........................29,660
Park City, UT ............................. ..........................7,558
Morristown, TN ....................... .........................29,137
Park Ridge, IL ....................................................
37,480
Moscow, ID .............................. .........................23,800
Parker, CO .........................................................
45,297
Mountain View, CA .................. .........................74,066
Pasadena, TX ...................................................
149,043
Mountlake Terrace, WA ........... .........................19,909
Pasco County, FL .............................................
464,697
Multnomah County, OR .......... ........................735,334
Pasco, WA .........................................................
59,781
Munster, IN .............................. .........................23,603
Peachtree City, GA ............................................
34,364
Muscatine, IA ........................... .........................22,886
Peoria County, IL .............................................
186,494
Naperville, IL ........................... ........................141,853
Peoria, AZ ........................................................
154,065
Nashville, TN ........................... ........................601,222
Peters Township, PA .........................................
21,213
Needham, MA .......................... .........................28,886
Petoskey, MI .......................................................
5,670
New Orleans, LA ..................... ........................343,829
Philadelphia, PA ........................................... 1,526,006
New York City, NY .................. ......................8,175,133
Phoenix, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632
Newport Beach, CA .................. .........................85,186
Final County, AZ ..............................................
375,770
Newport News, VA ................. ........................180,719
Pinellas County, FL ..........................................
916,542
Newport, R1 .............................. .........................24,672
Pinellas Park, FL ................................................
49,079
Noblesville, IN .......................... .........................51,969
Pitkin County, CO ..............................................
17,148
Normal, IL . ............................... .........................52,497
Plano, TX .........................................................
259,841
Norman, OK ............................ ........................110,925
Platte City, MO ......................... ..........................4,691
North Branch, MN ................... .........................10,125
Pocatello, ID ......................................................
54,255
North Las Vegas, NV ............... ........................216,961
Port Huron, MI ..................................................
30,184
North Palm Beach, FL .............. .........................12,015
Port Orange, FL .................................................
56,048
Northglenn, CO ........................ .........................35,789
Port St. Lucie, FL ..................... ........................164,603
Novi, MI .... ............................... .........................55,224
Portland, OR ........................... ........................583,776
O'Fallon, IL ............................... .........................28,281
Post Falls, ID ......................................................
27,574
O'Fallon, MO ............................ .........................79,329
Poway, CA .........................................................
47,811
1'a�e S 5
Shore« ood, MN Citizen SurN ev 2011 Report of Results
Prescott Valley, AZ ................... .........................38,822
Prince William County, VA ...... ........................402,002
Provo, UT . ............................... ........................112,488
Pueblo, CO .............................. ........................106,595
Purcellville, VA .......................... ..........................7,727
Queen Creek, AZ ...................... .........................26,361
Radford, VA .............................. .........................16,408
Rancho Cordova, CA ................ .........................64,776
Rapid City, SD ........................... .........................67,956
Raymore, MO ........................... .........................19,206
Redmond, WA .......................... .........................54,144
Rehoboth Beach, DE ................. ..........................1,327
Reno, NV .. ............................... ........................225,221
Renton, WA .............................. .........................90,927
Richmond Heights, MO ............. ..........................8,603
Richmond, CA ......................... ........................103,701
Rio Rancho, NM ....................... .........................87,521
Riverdale, UT ............................ ..........................8,426
Riverside, IL ............................... ..........................8,875
Riverside, MO ........................... ..........................2,937
Roanoke, VA ............................ .........................97,032
Rochester, MI .......................... .........................12,711
Rock Hill, SC ............................. .........................66,154
Rockford Park District, IL ........ ........................152,871
Rockville, MD ........................... .........................61,209
Roeland Park, KS ....................... ..........................6,731
Rolla, MO .. ............................... .........................19,559
Roswell, GA .............................. .........................88,346
Round Rock, TX ........................ .........................99,887
Rowlett, TX .............................. .........................56,199
Saco ME ... ............................... .........................18,482
Salida, CO ... ............................... ..........................5,236
Salina, KS ... ............................... .........................47,707
Salt Lake City, UT .................... ........................186,440
San Diego, CA ......................... ......................1,307,402
San Francisco, CA .................... ........................805,235
San Jose, CA ............................ ........................945,942
San Juan County, NM .............. ........................130,044
San Luis Obispo County, CA .... ........................269,637
San Marcos, TX ........................ .........................44,894
San Rafael, CA .......................... .........................57,713
Sandusky, OH ........................... .........................25,793
Sandy Springs, GA .................... .........................93,853
Sandy, UT .. ............................... .........................87,461
Sanford, FL ............................... .........................53,570
Santa Barbara County, CA ....... ........................423,895
Santa Monica, CA ..................... .........................89,736
Sarasota, FL .............................. .........................51,917
Sault Sainte Marie, MI ............. .........................14,144
Savannah, GA .......................... ........................136,286
Scarborough, ME ...................... ..........................4,403
Scott County, MN ................... ........................129,928
Scottsdale, AZ ......................... ........................217,385
Sedona, AZ ............................... .........................10,031
Seminole, FL ............................. .........................17,233
Shenandoah, TX ........................ ..........................2,134
Sherman, IL ............................... ..........................4,148
Shorewood, IL .......................... .........................15,615
Shorewood, MN ........................ ..........................7,307
Shrewsbury, MA ...................... .........................35,608
Sioux Falls, SD ......................... ........................153,888
Skokie, IL ... ............................... .........................64,784
Smyrna, GA .............................. .........................51,271
Snellville, GA ............................ .........................18,242
Snoqualmie, WA ...................... .........................10,670
South Daytona, FL .................... .........................12,252
South Haven, MI ....................... ..........................4,403
South Lake Tahoe, CA .............. .........................21,403
South Portland, ME .................. .........................25,002
Southlake, TX ........................... .........................26,575
Sparks NV . ............................... .........................90,264
Spokane Valley, WA ................. .........................89,755
Spotsylvania County, VA ......... ........................122,397
Springboro, OH ........................ .........................17,409
Springfield, OR ......................... .........................59,403
Springville, UT .......................... .........................29,466
St. Cloud, FL ............................. .........................35,183
St. Louis County, MN .............. ........................200,226
Stafford County, VA ................ ........................128,961
Starkville, MS ........................... .........................23,888
State College, PA ...................... .........................42,034
Steamboat Springs, CO ............ .........................12,088
Sterling, CO .............................. .........................14,777
Stillwater, OK ........................... .........................45,688
Stockton, CA ........................... ........................291,707
Suamico, WI ............................. .........................11,346
Sugar Grove, IL .......................... ..........................8,997
Sugar Land, TX ......................... .........................78,817
Summit County, CO ................. .........................27,994
Sunnyvale, CA ......................... ........................140,081
Surprise, AZ ............................. ........................117,517
Suwanee, GA ............................ .........................15,355
Tacoma, WA ............................ ........................198,397
Takoma Park, MD .................... .........................16,715
Tallahassee, FL ........................ ........................181,376
Temecula, CA .......................... ........................100,097
Tempe, AZ ............................... ........................161,719
Temple, TX ............................... .........................66,102
Teton County, WY .................... .........................21,294
The Colony, TX ......................... .........................36,328
Thornton, CO .......................... ........................118,772
Thousand Oaks, CA ................. ........................126,683
Thunder Bay, Canada .............. ........................122,907
Titusville, FL ............................. .........................43,761
Page 86
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Tomball, TX .............................. .........................10,753
Tualatin, OR ............................. .........................26,054
Tulsa OK .. ............................... ........................391,906
Tuskegee, AL ............................. ..........................9,865
Twin Falls, ID ............................ .........................44,125
Upper Arlington, OH ................ .........................33,771
Upper Merion Township, PA ... .........................28,395
Urbandale, IA ........................... .........................39,463
Valdez, AK .. ............................... ..........................3,976
Vancouver, WA ....................... ........................161,791
Vestavia Hills, AL ...................... .........................34,033
Victoria, Canada ....................... .........................78,057
Village of Howard City, MI ........ ..........................1,808
Virginia Beach, VA ................... ........................437,994
Visalia, CA ............................... ........................124,442
Volusia County, FL .................. ........................494,593
Wahpeton, ND .......................... ..........................7,766
Wake Forest, INC ...................... .........................30,117
Walnut Creek, CA ..................... .........................64,173
Walton County, FL ................... .........................55,043
Washington City, UT ................ .........................18,761
Washington County, MN ........ ........................238,136
Washoe County, NV ................ ........................421,407
Wausau, WI ............................. .........................39,106
Wentzville, MO ........................ .........................29,070
West Des Moines, IA ................ .........................56,609
West Richland, WA .................. .........................11,811
Westlake, TX .............................. ............................992
Westminster, CO ..................... ........................106,114
Wheat Ridge, CO ...................... .........................30,166
White House, TN ...................... .........................10,255
Whitehorse, Canada ................ .........................26,418
Whitewater Township, MI ......... ............................202
Wichita, KS .............................. ........................382,368
Williamsburg, VA ..................... .........................14,068
Wilmington, IL .......................... ..........................5,724
Wilmington, INC ...................... ........................106,476
Wind Point, WI .......................... ..........................1,723
Windsor, CO ............................. .........................18,644
Windsor, CT ............................. .........................28,237
Winnipeg, Canada ................... ........................694,668
Winston - Salem, INC ................. ........................229,617
Winter Garden, FL .................... .........................34,568
Winter Park, FL ........................ .........................27,852
Woodbury, MN ........................ .........................61,961
Woodland, WA ......................... ..........................5,509
Woodridge, IL .......................... .........................32,971
Worcester, MA ....................... ........................181,045
Yellowknife, Canada ................ .........................18,700
York County, VA ....................... .........................65,464
Yuma County, AZ .................... ........................195,751
Yuma, AZ ... ............................... .........................93,064
Jurisdictions Included in Small City Benchmark Comparisons
Abilene KS ..................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................6,844
AirwayHeights, WA ....................................................................................... ............................... ..........................6,114
Andover MA .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................8,762
Ashland VA .................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................7,225
Aspen CO ...................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................6,658
BelleairBeach, FL ........................................................................................... ............................... ..........................1,560
Bloomfield NM .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................8,112
BlueEarth, MN .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................3,353
Boroughof Ebensburg, PA ............................................................................. ............................... ..........................3,351
Breckenridge CO ........................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,540
Brisbane CA ................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,282
CedarCreek, NE .............................................................................................. ............................... ............................390
ClearCreek County, CO ................................................................................. ............................... ..........................9,088
Columbus WI ................................................................................................ ............................... ..........................4,991
Coventry CT .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................2,990
Craig CO ........................................................................................................ ............................... ..........................9,464
CrestedButte, CO .......................................................................................... ............................... ..........................1,487
DelMar, CA .................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,161
Dewey - Humboldt, AZ .................................................................................... ............................... ..........................3,894
Ellisville MO .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................9,133
EstesPark, CO ................................................................................................ ............................... ..........................5,858
Fairway KS ..................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................3,882
Pa 87
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Flushing MI ................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................8,389
Georgetown CO ............................................................................................ ............................... ..........................1,034
GigHarbor, WA .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................7,126
Gladstone MI ................................................................................................ ............................... ..........................4,973
GulfShores, AL ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................9,741
Hillsborough INC ............................................................................................ ............................... ..........................6,087
Hoquiam WA ................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................8,726
HotSulphur Springs, CO ................................................................................. ............................... ............................663
Howell MI ..................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................9,489
Hudson CO .................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................2,356
KutztownBorough, PA ................................................................................... ............................... ..........................5,012
LaPlata, MD ................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................8,753
Lexington VA ................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................7,042
Mayer MN ..................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................1,749
Medina MN ................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,892
Merrill WI ...................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................9,661
Mission KS ..................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................9,323
Montpelier VT ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................7,855
OceanCity, MD .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................7,102
OrangeVillage, OH ......................................................................................... ............................... ..........................3,323
ParkCity, UT .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................7,558
Petoskey MI .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................5,670
PlatteCity, MO .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................4,691
Purcellville VA ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................7,727
RehobothBeach, DE ...................................................................................... ............................... ..........................1,327
RichmondHeights, MO .................................................................................. ............................... ..........................8,603
Riverdale UT ................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................8,426
Riverside IL .................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................8,875
Riverside MO ................................................................................................ ............................... ..........................2,937
RoelandPark, KS ............................................................................................ ............................... ..........................6,731
Salida CO ....................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................5,236
Scarborough ME ........................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,403
Shenandoah TX ............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................2,134
Sherman IL .................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................4,148
Shorewood MN ............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................7,307
SouthHaven, MI ............................................................................................ ............................... ..........................4,403
SugarGrove, IL ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................8,997
Tuskegee AL .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................9,865
Valdez AK ...................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................3,976
Villageof Howard City, MI ............................................................................. ............................... ..........................1,808
Wahpeton ND ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................7,766
Westlake TX ................................................................................................... ............................... ............................992
Wilmington IL ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................5,724
WindPoint, WI ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........................1,723
Woodland WA .............................................................................................. ............................... ..........................5,509
page 88
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urvey 2 R epo r t o f R
Appendix E: Survey Methodology
Developing the Questionnaire
General citizen surveys, such as this one, ask recipients for their perspectives about the quality of life in the
city, their use of City amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the City and their assessment of City
service delivery. The citizen survey instrument for Shorewood was developed through an iterative process
that started with Shorewood staff reviewing sample surveys provided by NRC from other jurisdictions.
Relevant questions from the sample surveys were selected and a list of topics and ideas for new questions
was generated. New questions were created, all questions were prioritized and an optimal composition of
topics and questions were selected. Through this iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final
five -page questionnaire was created.
Selecting Survey Recipients
"Sampling" refers to the method by which survey recipients are chosen. The "sample" refers to all those who
were given a chance to participate in the survey. All households located in the city boundaries were eligible
for the survey. Because local governments generally do not have inclusive lists of all the residences in the
jurisdiction (tax assessor and utility billing databases often omit rental units), lists from the United States
Postal Service (LISPS), updated every three months, usually provide the best representation of all
households in a specific geographic location. NRC used the LISPS data to select the sample of households.
A larger list than needed was sampled so that a process referred to as "geocoding" could be used to
eliminate addresses from the list that were outside the study boundaries. Geocoding is a computerized
process in which addresses are compared to electronically mapped boundaries and coded as inside or
outside desired boundaries. All addresses determined to be outside the study boundaries were eliminated
from the sample; addresses exactly on the boundary can be included or excluded. While households
immediately outside city limits may not receive all of the same services (or at least the same level) as
residents, any survey recipients just outside the boundaries who chooses to participate are within a "sphere
of influence" of the City and likely utilize Shorewood services and amenities and can provide valuable
feedback.
A random selection was made of the remaining addresses to create a mailing list of 1,330 addresses.
Attached units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to
surveys than do those in detached housing units. Due to some unique geographic and street - naming features
of Shorewood, approximately 130 sampled households were sufficiently outside of Shorewood's boundaries
to not be considered part of the study (and therefore were not sent all three of the mailings).
An individual within each household was randomly selected to complete the survey using the birthday
method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the "person whose birthday
has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that
day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the
cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
Survey Administration and Response
Each selected household was contacted three times. First, a prenotification announcement, informing the
household members that they had been selected to participate in the Shorewood survey was sent.
Approximately one week after mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a survey containing a
cover letter signed by the mayor enlisting participation. The packet also contained a postage -paid return
Page 89
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire to NRC. A reminder
letter and survey, scheduled to arrive one week after the first survey was the final contact. The second
cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to
refrain from turning in another survey.
The mailings were sent in October 2011 and completed surveys were collected over the following six
weeks. About 2% of the 1,330 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the
postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1, 307 households, 613
completed the survey, providing a response rate of 47 %. This is an excellent response rate; average
response rates for a mailed resident survey range from 25% to 40 %.
95% Confidence Intervals
The 95% confidence interval (or "margin of error ") quantifies the "sampling error" or precision of the
estimates made from the survey results. A 95 % confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size,
and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be
found that is within plus or minus four percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in
the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may
introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation
and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the
survey (potentially introducing non - response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally
excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error).
While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four
percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample, results for subgroups will have
wider confidence intervals. Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise. For each
subgroup from the survey, the margin of error rises to as much as plus or minus 14 % for a sample size of 50
to plus or minus 5% for 400 completed surveys.
Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Mailed surveys were submitted via postage -paid business reply envelopes. Once received, staff assigned a
unique identification number to each questionnaire. 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; staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded
in the dataset.
Once cleaned and numbered, all surveys 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.
Weighting the Data
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census
and the 2005 -2009 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for adults in the city. Sample results
were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city.
Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to
the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics.
Page 90
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age and housing unit type. 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 differences of opinion among subgroups
• The historical profile created 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. Several
different weighting "schemes" are 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
they are accurately represented 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 example, a greater chance than single
family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation
of apartment dwellers.
The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the figure on the following page.
Shorewood, MN 2011 Resident Survey Wei6htina Table
Housing
Rent home
9%
4%
9%
Own home
91%
96%
91%
Detached unit
87%
83%
87%
Attached unit
13%
17%
13%
Sex and Age
Female
51%
59%
52%
Male
49%
41%
48%
18 -34 years of age
15%
5%
13%
35 -54 years of age
46%
39%
47%
55+ years of age
39%
56%
40%
Females 18 -34
7%
4%
7%
Females 35 -54
24%
24%
25%
Females 55+
19%
31%
20%
Males 18 -34
8%
1%
5%
Males 35 -54
22%
15%
23%
Males 55+
19%
25%
20%
1 Source: 2010 Census
z American Community Survey 2005 -2009
Page 91
S MN C i t iz e n Su 2 R epo r t o R esu l ts
Analyzing the Data
The electronic dataset was analyzed by NRC staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). For the most part, frequency distributions are presented in the body of the report. A complete set
of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions.
Also included are results by respondent characteristics (Appendix C: Responses to Select Survey Questions
Compared by Respondent Characteristics). Chi - square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to
these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A "p- value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a
5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater
than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent "real'
differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they
have been marked with grey shading in the appendices.
Page 92
S h o r e w oo d, MN C i t iz e n S urve v 2 R epo r t o f R
Appendix F: Survey Materials
A copy of the survey materials appear on the following pages.
Page 93
Dear Shorewood Resident,
Dear Shorewood Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate in an Your household has been selected at random to participate in an
anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will
receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with
instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in
advance for helping us with this important project! advance for helping us with this important project!
Sincerely,
34�0- L��'
Christine Lizee
Mayor
Dear Shorewood Resident,
Sincerely,
Christine Lizee
Mayor
Dear Shorewood Resident,
Your household has been selected at random to participate in an Your household has been selected at random to participate in an
anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will
receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with
instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in
advance for helping us with this important project! advance for helping us with this important project!
Sincerely,
C�A� L�-
Christine Lizee
Mayor
Sincerely,
C "". V " .—'
Lizee
Mayor
Presorted Presorted
City of Shorewood First Class Mail City of Shorewood First Class Mail
5755 Country Club Road US Postage 5755 Country Club Road US Postage
Shorewood, MN 55331 PAID Shorewood, MN 55331 PAID
Boulder, CO Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94 Permit NO. 94
Presorted Presorted
City of Shorewood First class Mail City of Shorewood First class Mail
5755 Country Club Road US Postage 5755 Country Club Road US Postage
Shorewood, MN 55331 PAID Shorewood, MN 55331 PAID
Boulder, CO Boulder, CO
Pennit NO. 94 Pennit NO. 94
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
(2 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • dtyha11 @d.shorewood.mn.us
Dear Shorewood Resident:
The City of Shorewood wants to know what you think about your community and local govermnent. That
is why you have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your answers will help the City government make
decisions that affect your conununity. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find
your answers useful. Please participate!
To get a scientifically reliable sample of Shorewood residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in
your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the
adult does not matter.
Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and
return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely
anonymous.
You may complete the survey online if you would prefer, at the following Web address:
www. n- r- c.com/survey /shorewood.htin (please be sure to type the address exactly as it appears).
Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small
number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Julie
Moore at 952- 960 -7906.
Thank you for your help and participation.
Sincerely,
ekxQ_ L'�Z�
Christine Lizee
Mayor
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
(2 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • dtyha11 @d.shorewood.mn.us
Dear Shorewood Resident:
About one week ago we sent you this survey that asks for your opinion about the City of Shorewood. If you
have already completed the survey and returned it, we thank you and ask you to disregard this letter. Do not
complete the survey a second time. If you haven't had a chance to get to the survey, please complete it
now. We are very interested in obtaining your input.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your answers will help the City govennnent make
decisions that affect your community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find
your answers useful. Please participate!
To get a scientifically reliable sample of Shorewood residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in
your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the
adult does not matter.
Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and
return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely
anonymous.
You may complete the survey online if you would prefer, at the following Web address:
www. n- r- c.coln/survey /shorewood.htm (please be sure to type the address exactly as it appears).
Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small
number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Julie
Moore at 952 -960 -7906.
Thank you for your help and participation.
Sincerely,
C ""_ L��,
Christine Liz&
Mayor
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident 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 Shorewood.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor Don't know
Shorewood as a place to live ............................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5 1
Your neighborhood as a place to live ................................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Shorewood as a place to raise children ............................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Shorewood as a place to retire ........................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
The overall quality of life in Shorewood .............................. ..............................1
2
3
4
5
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Shorewood
as a
whole.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor Don't know
Sense of community ........................................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall appearance of Shorewood ..................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Variety of housing opportunities ......................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Ease of access to shopping opportunities ........................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Recreational 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 attend family- oriented events /activities . ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities for senior /older adult activities ................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community Center 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 Shorewood ......................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood ................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Ease of walking in Shorewood ............................................. ..............................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 open space ................................................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Airquality ............................................................................. ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood ....... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Overall image /reputation of Shorewood ............................. ..............................1
2
3
4
5
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree, if at all, that each statement below describes the City
of Shorewood?
Strongly
Somewhat
Neither agree
Somewhat
Strongly
Don't
agree
agree
nor disagree
disagree
disagree
know
Shorewood is a safe community with a low crime rate ................. 1
2
3
4
5
6
Shorewood has tight -knit neighborhoods ...... ............................... 1
2
3
4
5
6
The City offers the best schools ...................... ............................... 1
2
3
4
5
6
Shorewood provides and protects open space ............................. 1
2
3
4
5
6
4. 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
Page 1 of 5
5. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Shorewood?
O Not a problem O Minor problem O Moderate problem O Major problem O Don't know
6. In the last 12 months, have you or other household members participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean -up Drop Off program?
O Yes4 Go to question 7 O No 4 Go to question 8 O Don't know4 Go to question 8
7. If you HAVE used the Spring Clean -up Drop Off program, please rate each of the following aspects.
8. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel...
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ...........................
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) .... ...............................
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste ......................
In your neighborhood during the day .............. ...............................
In your neighborhood after dark ..................... ...............................
Very
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
Easeof use ...................................................................
............................... 1
2
3
4
5
Cost of disposing of items .............................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Convenience of drop -off site location .........................
............................... 1
2
3
4
5
8. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel...
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ...........................
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) .... ...............................
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste ......................
In your neighborhood during the day .............. ...............................
In your neighborhood after dark ..................... ...............................
Very
Somewhat
Neither safe
Somewhat
Very
Don't
safe
safe
nor unsafe
unsafe
unsafe
know
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?
O Yes 4 Go to question 10 O No 4 Go to question 11 O Don't know 4 Go to question 11
10. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police?
O Yes O No 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 Shorewood?
Page 2 of 5
Once or
3 to 12 13 to 26
More than
Never
twice
times times
26 times
Used Southshore Community Center .................................. ..............................1
2
3 4
5
Participated in a recreation program or activity ................. ...............................
1
2
3 4
5
Visited a park in Shorewood ............................................... ...............................
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 Shorewood
- sponsored
public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media
..................1
2
3 4
5
Read the Shore Report — the city newsletter ...................... ..............................1
2
3 4
5
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at www. ci. shorewood .mn.us)
......................1
2
3 4
5
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard from your home
...................1
2
3 4
5
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Shorewood
...................... 1
2
3 4
5
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Shorewood ............................1
2
3 4
5
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood ............. ..............................1
2
3 4
5
Provided help to a friend or neighbor ................................. ..............................1
2
3 4
5
12. Please select which of the following programs or activities, if any, you or other household
members have participated in over
the last 12 months. (Please select all that apply.)
O Oktoberfest O Kayaking
O Skateboarding Camp
O MCE Summer Rec Program
O Art /Paint Classes O Safety Camp
O Music in the Park
O All of these
O Garden Fair O Tennis at Badger
O Movie in the Park
O None of these
O Free Fridays in Freeman O Youth Cooking Classes
O Arctic Fever
13. Please select which of the following Shorewood recreational facilities, if any, you or
other household members have used
over the last 12 months. (Please select all that apply.)
O Playground equipment O Tennis court
O Paths /trails
O Ice skating area
O Picnic tables / grills O Volleyball court
O Multi -use building
O All of these
O Picnic shelter O Baseball field
O Warming house
O None of these
Page 2 of 5
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey
14. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood.
Good
Excellent
Fire district's response to calls ............................................. ..............................1
Don't know
Fire district's education and prevention ............................. ...............................
1
Fire district's visibility in the community ............................. ..............................1
5
Fire district services overall ................................................. ..............................1
3
Police response to calls ........................................................ ..............................1
5 IL
Police education and crime prevention ............................... ..............................1
3
Police visibility in the community ........................................ ..............................1
5
Police services overall ......................................................... ...............................
1
Ambulance or emergency medical services ................. ...............................
1
Animal control services ....................................................... ...............................
1
Trafficenforcement ...................................................... ...............................
1
Street maintenance /repair (i.e., filling potholes) ................ ..............................1
3
Street cleaning/ sweeping ............................................. ...............................
1
Street resurfacing ............................................................... ...............................
1
Streetlighting ............................................................... ...............................
1
Street signage and street markings ..................................... ..............................1
3
Snowplowing on city streets ......................................... ...............................
1
Applying salt /sand on icy streets ......................................... ..............................1
3
Roadcondition ............................................................. ...............................
1
Sidewalk /trail maintenance ................................................. ..............................1
3
Stormdrainage ............................................................. ...............................
1
Sanitary sewer services ....................................................... ...............................
1
Shorewoodparks .......................................................... ...............................
1
Park and recreation programs or classes ............................. ..............................1
3
Southshore Community Center program or classes ..... ...............................
1
Southshore Community Center overall ............................... ..............................1
3
Buildinginspections ...................................................... ...............................
1
Land use, planning and zoning ............................................. ..............................1
3
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc. ) ..............................
1
Services to seniors ............................................................... ..............................1
3
Servicesto youth .......................................................... ...............................
1
Services to low- income people ........................................... ...............................
1
Publicschools ............................................................... ...............................
1
Cabletelevision ................................................................... ...............................
1
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for
5
natural disasters or other emergency situations) .... ...............................
1
Preservation of natural areas such as open space and greenbelts ...................1
5
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5 IL
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
15. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood?
O Excellent O Good O Fair O Poor O Don't know
16. Is your water supplied by the City?
O Yes 4 Go to question 17 O No 4 Go to question 18 O Don't know 4 Go to question 19
17. If you HAVE municipal water, please rate each of the following aspects.
18. If you DO NOT have municipal water, please indicate why not. (Please select all that apply.)
O No connection available O Some other reason
O Too expensive to connect O Don't know
O Concerned about city water quality
Page 3 of 5
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
Quality (e.g., taste of water) .........................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Dependability of service ...............................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Cost...............................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
18. If you DO NOT have municipal water, please indicate why not. (Please select all that apply.)
O No connection available O Some other reason
O Too expensive to connect O Don't know
O Concerned about city water quality
Page 3 of 5
19. Thinking about the next 5 years, please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following potential improvements is for
Shorewood, knowing that the City has $1.8 million in available funds (about half of which came from the sale of the liquor
stores).
22. Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Shorewood within the past 12 months?
O Yes 4 Go to question 23 O No 4 Go to question 24
23. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Shorewood in your most recent contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
Excellent
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Don't
Knowledge...............................................................................
Essential
important
important
important
know
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional shelters, lighting
..............................1
2
3
4
5
fortennis courts) ....................................................................... ..............................1
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Expand trails and walk ways .......................................................... ..............................1
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Expand recreational and social programs for all ages .................. ..............................1
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake water quality) ....................1
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction, resurfacing) ................ ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Municipal drinking water system improvements (i.e., expansion, additional treatment)
..1
2
3
4
5
20. Thinking about the next 5 years, please indicate how important, if at all, each
of the following potential Shorewood park and
recreation projects is to you or other household members.
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Don't
Essential
important
important
important
know
New recreational /Community Center programs .......................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Additional basketball courts ......................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Programs for seniors and older adults .......................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
New tennis courts at Badger Park ................................................ ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Lights on tennis courts .................................................................. ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park ............................................ ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Updated skate park facilities ........................................................ ..............................1
2
3
4
5
21. To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following in Shorewood?
Strongly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
Don't
support
support
oppose
oppose
know
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City, rather than multiple haulers .......
1
2
3
4
5
Providing organic material collection (yard and food waste) .. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Increasing recycling options for residents ............................... ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e., growing, harvesting
and distributing produce, flowers, etc.) .............................. ...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Increasing environmental education and public awareness programs ..................
1
2
3
4
5
22. Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Shorewood within the past 12 months?
O Yes 4 Go to question 23 O No 4 Go to question 24
23. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Shorewood in your most recent contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
24. Please rate the following categories of Shorewood government performance.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
Knowledge...............................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Responsiveness........................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Follow- up .................................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Courtesy...................................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Timeliness................................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
Overall impression ...................................................................
..............................1
2
3
4
5
24. Please rate the following categories of Shorewood government performance.
Page 4 of 5
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood .................. ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Opportunities to participate in City government decisions ............ ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of what people like me think ................1
2
3
4
5
Running Shorewood's local government in the best interest of residents ..................1
2
3
4
5
Shorewood's government as an example of how best to provide services .................1
2
3
4
5
The overall direction Shorewood is taking ..................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
5
Page 4 of 5
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey
25.
Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of Shorewood Administration.
Excellent Good Fair
Poor
Don't know
Response to resident complaints and concerns ............................. ..............................1
2 3
4
5
Public meetings about City plans .................................................... ..............................1
2 3
4
5
Transparency and accountability .................................................... ..............................1
2 3
4
5
Information about City plans and programs ................................... ..............................1
2 3
4
5
Quality of the City's Web site (www.ci. shorewood. mn. us) ............ ..............................1
2 3
4
5
Online services available on the City's Web site ............................ ..............................1
2 3
4
5
26.
How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operations
of the
City of
Shorewood?
O Very informed O Moderately informed O Slightly informed
O Not well informed
27.
Do you have access to the Internet at home?
O Yes 4 Go to question 28 O No 4 Go to question 29
28. Please indicate whether you have Internet access through each of the following.
(Please select all that apply.)
O DSL O Cable modem O Satellite O Dial -up O Cell phone /PDA
O Other O None of
these O Don't know
29.
How frequently, if ever, do you use the following sources to gain information about the City of Shorewood?
Always Frequently
Sometimes
Never
The City's Web site (www.ci. shorewood. mn. us) ............................ ..............................1
2
3
4
Shore Report newsletter ................................................................. ..............................1
2
3
4
Sun Sailor newspaper ..................................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
TheLaker newspaper ...................................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
Excelsior Bay Times newspaper ...................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
Local Cable Government Access Stations (channels 8, 12, 20, or 21) ...........................1
2
3
4
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Web site ( www .lmcc- tv.org) ................1
2
3
4
Wordof mouth ............................................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
Emailmessages ............................................................................... ..............................1
2
3
4
Social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.) .... ..............................1
2
3
4
30.
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions that you would like to
make regarding the City of
Shorewood
and /or
the City government's services and performance?
Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous
and will be reported in group form only.
D1. How many years have you lived in Shorewood? D6. In which category is your age?
O Less than 2 years O 11 -20 years O 18 -24 years O 45 -54 years O 75 years
O 2 -5 years O More than 20 years O 25 -34 years O 55 -64 years or older
O 6 -10 years O 35 -44 years O 65 -74 years
D2. Which best describes the building you live in?
O One family house detached from any other houses
O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a
duplex or townhome)
O Building with two or more apartments or condominiums
O Other
D3. Do you rent or own your home?
O Rent O Own
D4. Do any children 18 or under live in your household?
O Yes O No
D5. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65
or older?
O Yes O No
D7. 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 $150,000 to $199,999
O $25,000 to $49,999 O $200,000 to $249,999
O $50,000 to $99,999 O $250,000 to $299,999
O $100,000 to $149,999 O $300,000 or more
D8. What is your gender?
O Female O Male
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