Shorewood 2011 Report FINAL
3005 30th St • Boulder, CO 80301 • 303‐444‐7863 • www.n‐r‐c.com
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey
Report of Results
December 2011
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1
SURVEY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 6
Quality of 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
Public Information .................................................................................................................. 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
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: Crime(s) 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 Chart™ ....................................................... 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
List of Tables
Table 1: Aspects of Quality of Life ............................................................................... 6
Table 2: Community Characteristics ............................................................................ 9
Table 3: Aspects of Community Character ................................................................... 12
Table 4: Community Safety ..................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Community Participation ............................................................................. 15
Table 6: Aspects of Spring Clean-up Drop Off Program ................................................... 19
Table 7: 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 1
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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 2
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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 3
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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 4
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 Jurisdictions
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
NRC’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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 5
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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 6
Survey Results
Quality of Life and Community
The 2011 Shorewood Resident Survey 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.
Table 1: Aspects of Quality of Life
Please rate each of the
following aspects of quality
of life in Shorewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
National
comparison
Populations under
10,000
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% 7% 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 45% 51% 3% 1% 100% Much above Much above
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 7
Figure 1: Ratings of Aspects of Quality of Life
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
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.
96%
69%
92%
97%
97%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
The overall quality of life in Shorewood
Shorewood as a place to retire
Your neighborhood as a place to live
Shorewood as a place to raise children
Shorewood as a place to live
Percent"excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 8
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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 9
Table 2: Community Characteristics
Please rate each of the
following characteristics as they
relate to Shorewood as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
National
comparison
Populations
under 10,000
comparison
Air quality 42% 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% 27% 16% 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 10
Figure 2: Ratings of Community Characteristics
54%
57%
57%
60%
63%
67%
67%
69%
69%
69%
70%
70%
72%
73%
74%
75%
80%
82%
82%
86%
90%
91%
93%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Availability of affordable quality housing
Availability of affordable quality child care
Ease of walking in Shorewood
Sense of community
Ease of access to shopping opportunities
Availability of paths and walking trails
Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood
Opportunities to participate in community matters
Variety of housing opportunities
Opportunities for senior/older adult activities
Opportunities to participate in social events and
activities
Traffic flow on major streets
Opportunities to attend Southshore Community
Center activities
Availability of open space
Opportunities to volunteer
Opportunities to attend family‐oriented
events/activities
Recreational opportunities
Overall appearance of Shorewood
Ease of car travel in Shorewood
Educational opportunities
Overall image/reputation of Shorewood
Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood
Air quality
Percent "excellent" or "good"
SShorewood, MN
Compari
Generally
years of ag
characteri
Questions C
Neighbo
When ask
Shorewoo
they talk t
(28%). O
When com
similar am
responden
Abo
imm
live
N Citizen Surv
isons by Dem
, those who h
ge and househ
istics of the co
Compared by Re
orliness in
ked how frequ
od residents sa
to or visit with
ne-quarter sai
mpared to res
mount of conta
nts reported m
out how often,
talk to or visit
ediate neighbo
e in the 10 or 2
that are close
vey 2011 Repor
mographic S
had lived in Sh
holds with an i
ommunity tha
espondent Char
Shorewoo
uently they talk
aid they had co
h their immed
id they have c
idents in othe
act with their
much less cont
Fi
Ju
if at all, do yo
t with your
ors (people wh
20 households
est to you)?
rt of Results
Subgroups
horewood for
income of les
n did their co
racteristics).
d
ked or visited
ontact with th
diate neighbor
contact less th
er jurisdiction
neighbors. H
tact with their
igure 3: Con
st about every
19%
Severau
ho
more than 20
s than $50,00
ounterparts (se
d with their im
heir neighbors
rs several time
han several tim
s across the n
However, whe
r immediate n
ntact with N
y day
l times a week
29%
0 years, men,
00 gave lower
ee Appendix C:
mmediate neig
s just about ev
es a week (29
mes a month.
nation, Shorew
en compared t
neighbors.
Neighbors
k
those with ch
r ratings to the
: Responses to S
ghbors, about
very day. Thr
9%) or several
wood resident
to other small
Severa
m
2
Less t
time
hildren under
e different
Select Survey
one-fifth of
ee in 10 said t
l times a mon
ts reported a
l communities
al times a
month
28%
han several
s a month
25%
Page 11
18
that
nth
s,
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 12
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: Aspects of Community Character
To what extent do you agree or
disagree, if at all, that each
statement below describes the
City of Shorewood?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know Total
Shorewood is a safe community
with a low crime rate 65% 28% 6% 1% 0% 0% 100%
The City offers the best schools 46% 27% 10% 2% 1% 13% 100%
Shorewood provides and protects
open space 29% 45% 13% 2% 1% 10% 100%
Shorewood has tight‐knit
neighborhoods 20% 37% 27% 7% 3% 6% 100%
Figure 4: Ratings of Aspects of Community Character
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).
61%
82%
85%
93%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Shorewood has tight‐knit neighborhoods
Shorewood provides and protects open space
The City offers the best schools
Shorewood is a safe community with a low crime rate
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 13
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
Please rate how safe or
unsafe you feel...
Very
safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither
safe
nor
unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe Total
National
comparison
Populations
under 10,000
comparison
In your neighborhood
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
89%
91%
92%
95%
97%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)
In your neighborhood after dark
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)
In your neighborhood during the day
Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
SShorewood, MN
Only 8%
those who
The rate o
that repor
10,000. R
Asked only o
Compari
Renters, w
neighborh
full set of
Compared b
w
h
N Citizen Surv
of respondent
o were a crime
of crime victim
rted by residen
Reporting crim
of those who rep
isons by Dem
women and th
hoods and from
responses by
by Respondent
During the pas
were you or an
household the
crim
If yes, was
(these crimes
the po
vey 2011 Repor
ts reported ha
e victim, thre
mization in Sh
nts in other ju
mes was simila
ported being a v
mographic S
hose with a ho
m crime than
demographic
Characteristics.
st 12 months,
nyone in your
victim of any
me?
this crime
s) reported to
olice?
rt of Results
aving been a v
ee-quarters sai
horewood, as
urisdictions ac
ar when comp
Figure 6: Cr
Figure 7: C
victim of a crime
Subgroups
ousehold incom
were homeow
subgroups ca
.)
N
92
N
23
victim of a crim
id they had re
reported by r
cross the natio
pared to both
rime Victim
Crime(s) Rep
in the last 12 m
me of less tha
wners, men an
an be found in
No
2%
No
3%
me in the 12 m
eported the cr
respondents, w
on and in thos
benchmarks.
mization
ported
months.
an $50,00 wer
nd those with
n Appendix C: R
months prior
rime or crime
was much low
se with popula
re less likely t
h higher house
Responses to Sel
Y
8
Yes
77%
to the survey
s to the police
wer or lower t
ations of less t
to feel safe in
ehold incomes
lect Survey Que
Yes
8%
Page 14
y. Of
e.
than
than
their
s. (A
estions
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 15
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 5: Community Participation
In the last 12 months, about how many
times, if ever, have you or other
household members participated in the
following activities in Shorewood? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total National
comparison
Populations
under 10,000
comparison
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% 4% 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 16
Figure 8: Frequency of Participation in Community Activities
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
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).
19%
24%
27%
30%
30%
31%
36%
61%
87%
94%
95%
96%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in
Shorewood
Used Southshore Community Center
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in
Shorewood
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or
other Shorewood‐sponsored public meeting
Participated in a recreation program or activity
Visited the Shorewood Web site (at
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
Visited a park in Shorewood
Provided help to a friend or neighbor
Read the Shore Report –the city newsletter
Recycled used paper, cans, bottles or cardboard
from your home
Percent who reported having participated in the last 12 months
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 17
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
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
0%
60%
0%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
7%
7%
8%
10%
23%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
All of these
None of these
Skateboarding Camp
Youth Cooking Classes
Safety Camp
Art/Paint Classes
Garden Fair
Movie in the Park
Kayaking
Tennis at Badger
Oktoberfest
Free Fridays in Freeman
MCE Summer Rec Program
Arctic Fever
Music in the Park
Percent of respondents
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 18
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
Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
0%
14%
1%
4%
14%
17%
18%
18%
22%
26%
38%
80%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
All of these
None of these
Volleyball court
Multi‐use building
Picnic shelter
Baseball field
Tennis court
Picnic tables / grills
Warming house
Ice skating area
Playground equipment
Paths / trails
Percent of respondents
SShorewood, MN
Forty-thre
program i
program.
drop-off s
that the co
and 7% sa
If you HAV
rate each o
Ease of use
Convenien
Cost of dis
Asked only o
Compari
Younger r
participate
and those
Respondent
N Citizen Surv
ee percent of
in the last 12 m
At least half g
ite location an
ost of disposin
aid it was “poo
Figure 1
T
VE used the Sp
of the followin
e
nce of drop‐off
posing of item
of those who rep
isons by Dem
residents (18-
ed in Shorewo
with a longer
t Characteristics
In the last 12
or other hou
participated
Spring Clea
vey 2011 Repor
respondents s
months. Thos
gave “excellen
nd 37% said t
ng of items wa
or.”
11: Participa
Table 6: Asp
ring Clean‐up
ng aspects.
site location
ms
ported having pa
mographic S
34), renters a
ood's Spring C
r tenure in the
s).
months, have y
sehold membe
in Shorewood
an‐up Drop Off
rt of Results
said they had p
se who had pa
nt” ratings to t
that each of th
as “excellent”
ation in City
pects of Spri
Drop Off prog
articipated in the
Subgroups
and those livin
Clean-up Drop
e city (see App
Yes
43%
you
ers
d's
f
participated in
articipated we
the ease of use
hese aspects w
or “good,” 19
y’s Spring C
ng Clean-up
ram, please
e City's Spring Cl
ng in the city f
p Off program
pendix C: Respo
n the City’s Sp
ere asked to ev
e of the progr
were “good.” T
9% thought th
Clean-up Dro
p Drop Off P
Excellent
57%
52%
31%
Clean‐up Drop Of
for 10 years o
m than were o
onses to Select S
pring Clean-u
valuate variou
ram and the co
Three-quarter
he cost for dis
op Off Prog
Program
t Good Fai
37% 5%
37% 9%
43% 19%
ff program in the
or less were le
older resident
Survey Question
No
57%
up Drop Off
us aspects of th
onvenience of
rs of residents
sposal was “fai
gram
ir Poor To
% 1% 10
% 1% 10
% 7% 10
e last 12 months
ess likely to ha
ts, homeowne
ns Compared by
Page 19
he
f the
felt
ir”
otal
00%
00%
00%
s.
ave
ers
y
SShorewood, MN
Service
Responde
individual
City empl
Overall
Residents
rated the o
These rati
t
N Citizen Surv
es Provid
nts were aske
services prov
loyees.
l Quality o
gave high ma
overall quality
ings were abo
Overall, how
the quality of s
in the City o
vey 2011 Repor
ed in Sho
ed to rate the
vide by the Ci
of Service
arks to the ove
y of services a
ve both the n
Figure
would you rat
services provid
of Shorewood?
rt of Results
orewood
overall quality
ty and special
es
erall quality o
as “excellent”
ational benchm
e 12: Overal
Goo
63%
e
ed
y of services p
l districts and
f services pro
or “good,” 14
mark and the
ll Quality of
d
%
provided in Sh
the quality of
ovided in the C
4% felt it was
small city ben
f City Servic
horewood, th
f their most re
City of Shorew
“fair” and 6%
nchmark.
ces
Excellent
17%
Po
6
he quality of 3
ecent contact
wood. Seven i
% said “poor.”
Fair
14%
oor
6%
Page 20
6
with
in 10
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 21
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).
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 22
Table 7: City Services
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in Shorewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
National
comparison
Populations
under 10,000
comparison
Fire district's response to calls 59% 39% 2% 1% 100% Much above 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 23
Figure 13: Ratings of City Services
39%
44%
45%
48%
51%
57%
58%
60%
60%
62%
67%
68%
72%
73%
74%
76%
77%
79%
79%
80%
80%
81%
82%
84%
87%
87%
88%
88%
88%
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
96%
98%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Cable television
Street maintenance/repair
Street resurfacing
Street lighting
Services to low‐income people
Code enforcement
Road condition
Street cleaning/sweeping
Land use, planning and zoning
Building inspections
Animal control services
Emergency preparedness
Traffic enforcement
Storm drainage
Street signage and street markings
Services to seniors
Snowplowing on city streets
Preservation of natural areas such as open space
Services to youth
Police visibility in the community
Police education and crime prevention
Applying salt/sand on icy streets
Sidewalk/trail maintenance
Fire district's visibility in the community
Southshore Community Center overall
Police services overall
Sanitary sewer services
Southshore Community Center program or classes
Park and recreation programs or classes
Police response to calls
Ambulance or emergency medical services
Fire district's education and prevention
Fire district services overall
Shorewood parks
Public schools
Fire district's response to calls
Percent "excellent" or "good"
SShorewood, MN
Compari
Overall, r
likely to g
shorter pe
Respondent
Code En
In addition
much of a
of respond
problem a
T
ru
o
N Citizen Surv
isons by Dem
residents havin
give positive ra
eriod of time a
t Characteristics
nforcement
n to rating the
problem, if a
dents viewed
and one-third
To what degre
un down buildi
or junk vehicles
Shorew
vey 2011 Repor
mographic S
ng lived in Sho
atings to most
and younger r
s).
t
e quality of co
at all, run dow
these as a “ma
said these cod
Fig
N
e, if at all, are
ings, weed lots
s a problem in
wood?
rt of Results
Subgroups
orewood for m
t City services
residents (see
ode enforceme
wn buildings,
ajor” or “mod
de enforceme
gure 14: Cod
ot a problem
35%
s
more than 10
s than were th
Appendix C: R
ent, responde
weed lots or j
erate” problem
nt issues were
de Enforcem
years and tho
hose who had
Responses to Sele
ents were give
junk vehicles
m, half thoug
e “not a probl
ment Issues
Min
Major problem
3%
ose over 34 ye
d lived in Shor
ect Survey Ques
en the opportu
were in Shore
ght these were
lem.”
or problem
50%
Moderate
13%
m
ears old were
rewood for a
stions Compare
unity to rate h
ewood. Only
e a “minor”
problem
%
Page 24
less
d by
how
16%
SShorewood, MN
City Wa
Forty-six p
Those wh
Nearly all
“excellent
half (48%
If you HAV
aspects.
Dependab
Quality (e.
Cost
Asked only o
Quality (e.g
Depen
N Citizen Surv
ater
percent of res
o reported ha
(94%) felt th
t.” Three-quar
) said that the
VE municipal w
ility of service
g., taste of wat
of those who rep
Is your wat
the
Co
g., taste of wate
dability of servi
vey 2011 Repor
spondents rep
Fig
aving municip
he dependabili
rters believed
e cost of City w
water, please ra
ter)
ported that their
Figure 16
er supplied by
e City?
0%
ost
er)
ice
rt of Results
ported that the
gure 15: Wat
al water servi
ity of the serv
d that the quali
water was “ex
Table 8: Asp
ate each of the
r water is supplie
6: User Ratin
Yes
46%
25%
Pe
eir water was
ter is Suppli
ice were asked
vice was “exce
ity or taste of
xcellent” or “g
pects of City
e following
ed by the City
ngs of Aspec
4
50%
ercent "excellen
supplied by t
ied by City
d to rate sever
ellent” or “goo
f the water wa
good.”
y Water
Excellent
49%
31%
9%
cts of City W
48%
%
nt" or "good"
the City.
ral aspects of
od,” with half
as “good” or b
t Good Fai
46% 6%
47% 15%
39% 40%
Water
No
54%
78%
75%
the service.
reporting it w
better and abo
ir Poor To
% 0% 10
% 7% 10
% 12%10
94%
100%
Page 25
was
out
otal
00%
00%
00%
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 26
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
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.
7%
19%
27%
69%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Concerned about city water quality
Some other reason
Too expensive to connect
No connection available
Percent of respondents
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 27
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 Chart™ 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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 28
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™
Overall Quality of City of Shorewood Services
Legend
Above Benchmark Similar to
Benchmark Below Benchmark
Key Driver
Community Design
Civic Engagement
Street
maintenance
Road condition
Code
enforcement
Snowplowing
Land use and
zoning
Applying salt on
icy roads
Sidewalk/trail
maintenance
Recreation and Wellness
City parks
Public schools
Cable
television
Public Safety
Traffic
enforcement
Fire district
services overall
Police services
overall
Street
lighting
Street cleaningStreet signage
Environmental Sustainability
Preservation of
natural areas
Sanitary sewer
services
Storm
drainage
SShorewood, MN
City Em
Half of sur
prior to th
across the
Those wh
or more o
knowledg
Where co
interaction
What was
the emplo
Shorewoo
contact? (R
characteris
Courtesy
knowledge
Responsive
Timeliness
Follow‐up
Overall im
Asked only o
N Citizen Surv
mployees
rvey responde
he survey. Thi
country and
o reported ha
of those who h
ge, responsiven
omparisons we
ns much highe
your impressi
yee(s) of the C
d in your most
Rate each
stic below.)
e
eness
pression
of those who rep
Have you
person or
with an em
City of Sho
the past
vey 2011 Repor
ents said they
is is similar to
much less tha
Figur
aving had cont
had contact ga
ness, timeline
ere available t
er than the na
T
on of
City of
t recent
Ex
ported having ha
u had any in‐
phone contact
mployee of the
rewood within
12 months?
rt of Results
had in-person
o the amount o
an that reporte
re 19: Conta
tact with an em
ave “excellent
ess, follow-up
to the benchm
ational and sm
Table 9: Emp
xcellent Goo
51%39%
42%46%
42%45%
42%42%
36%44%
43%41%
ad contact with
Yes
54%
t
n
n or phone co
of contact rep
ed in jurisdict
act with City
mployee were
” or “good” ev
p and their ove
marks, Shorew
mall city bench
ployee Inter
d Fair Poo
%7%4%
%9%3%
%7%6%
%10%6%
%13%7%
%9%6%
a City employee
ontact with a C
ported by resi
tions with pop
y Employee
e asked to rat
valuations to t
erall impressi
wood residents
hmarks.
ractions
or Total
%100%M
%100%M
%100%M
%100%M
%100%
%100%M
e in the last 12 m
City employee
idents in other
pulations of le
es
te their interac
the employee
on of the inte
s rated their e
National
comparison
Much above
Much above
Much above
Much above
NA
Much above
months.
No
46%
e in the 12 mo
r jurisdictions
ess than 10,00
ctions. Eight i
’s courteousn
eraction.
employee
Population
under 10,00
compariso
Much abov
Much abov
Much abov
NA
NA
Much abov
Page 29
onths
s
00.
in 10
ness,
ns
00
on
ve
ve
ve
ve
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 30
Figure 20: Ratings of Employee Interactions
85%
80%
84%
87%
88%
90%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Overall impression
Follow‐up
Timeliness
Responsiveness
Knowledge
Courtesy
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 31
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.”
Table 10: Government Performance
Please rate the following
categories of Shorewood
government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
National
comparison
Populations
under 10,000
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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 32
Figure 21: Ratings of Government Performance
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: City Administration Performance
Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of
Shorewood Administration. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Quality of the City's Web site (www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)13%65% 21% 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%
53%
53%
56%
59%
62%
67%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Shorewood's elected officials' consideration of what
people like me think
Shorewood's government as an example of how best to
provide services
The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood
Running Shorewood's local government in the best
interest of residents
Opportunities to participate in City government
decisions
The overall direction Shorewood is taking
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 33
Figure 22: Ratings of City Administration Performance
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).
57%
62%
63%
69%
70%
78%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Transparency and accountability
Information about City plans and programs
Response to resident complaints and concerns
Public meetings about City plans
Online services available on the City's Web site
Quality of the City's Web site
(www.ci.shorewood.mn.us)
Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 34
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
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). Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction,
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%
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 35
Figure 23: Ratings of Importance of Potential Improvements
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.)
21%
28%
47%
52%
67%
76%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Expand recreational and social programs for all ages
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures,
additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts)
Municipal drinking water system improvements (i.e.,
expansion, additional treatment)
Expand trails and walkways
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake
water quality)
Road improvements (i.e., reconstruction, resurfacing)
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 36
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 Park and Recreation Projects
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. Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Programs for seniors and older adults 5% 20% 41% 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
7%
8%
12%
14%
18%
19%
25%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
New tennis courts at Badger Park
Additional basketball courts
Lights on tennis courts
Updated skate park facilities
New recreational/Community Center programs
Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park
Programs for seniors and older adults
Percent "essential" or "very important"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 37
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%).
Table 14: Support for or Opposition to City Initiatives
To what extent do you support or oppose each of the
following in Shorewood?
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose Total
Increasing recycling options for residents 41%48%8% 3% 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
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).
50%
76%
78%
82%
89%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City,
rather than multiple haulers
Increasing environmental education and public
awareness programs
Encouraging more community gardening (i.e., growing,
harvesting and distributing produce, flowers, etc.)
Providing organic material collection (yard and food
waste)
Increasing recycling options for residents
Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support
SShorewood, MN
Public
About fou
issues and
they were
Compari
Residents
household
operations
Respondent
H
d
a
N Citizen Surv
Informat
ur in 10 respon
operations in
e “not well inf
Figur
isons by Dem
who had lived
ds with childre
s than were o
t Characteristics
How informed
do you conside
about local gov
and operation
Shore
vey 2011 Repor
tion
ndents said th
n the City. On
formed.”
re 26: Level o
mographic S
d in the City f
en under 18 w
ther residents
s).
or not informe
er yourself to b
vernment issue
ns of the City of
wood?
rt of Results
hat they felt “v
ne-third said t
of Awarene
Subgroups
for 10 years o
were less likel
s (see Appendix
Moder
Slightly inf
32%
ed
be
es
f
very” or “mod
they were “slig
ess about Cit
or less, those w
y to feel infor
x C: Responses t
rately informed
39%
formed
%
derately” infor
ghtly” inform
ty Issues and
who rent their
rmed about lo
to Select Survey
d
rmed about lo
ed and one-qu
d Operation
r homes, 18-3
ocal governme
y Questions Com
Very
N
ocal governme
uarter felt tha
ns
34 year olds a
ent issues and
mpared by
informed
4%
Not well inform
25%
Page 38
ent
at
and
med
SShorewood, MN
Almost all
access at h
modem (5
and less th
Asked only o
more than o
N Citizen Surv
l respondents
home were ask
52%) or DSL
han 6% said th
of those who rep
one response.
Do you have
Internet
None of thes
Othe
Dial‐u
Satellit
Cell phone/PD
DS
Cable modem
vey 2011 Repor
(96%) report
ked to identif
(45%), one-q
hey accessed t
Fig
Fi
ported that they
e access to the
t at home?
0%
2%
3%
5%
0%
se
er
up
te
DA
SL
m
rt of Results
ted having acc
fy all of the typ
quarter access
the Internet th
gure 27: Inte
igure 28: Typ
y have Internet a
Yes
94%
e
26%
25%
cess to the Int
pes of access t
ed the Interne
hrough the oth
ernet Acces
pe of Intern
access at home. T
45%
50%
Percent of res
ternet at hom
they had. Abo
et through the
her sources lis
ss at Home
net Access
Totals may exce
52%
7
spondents
e. Those who
out half repor
eir cell phone
sted.
eed 100% as resp
No
6%
75%
o had Internet
rted using a ca
e or PDA (26%
pondents could s
100%
Page 39
able
%)
select
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 40
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, do you use the following sources
to gain information about the City of Shorewood? Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total
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%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.lmcc‐tv.org) 0% 1% 13% 86% 100%
Figure 29: Use of Information Sources
14%
18%
30%
40%
46%
48%
64%
75%
87%
91%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Web
site
Social networking sites
Local Cable Government Access Stations
Email messages
The Laker newspaper
Excelsior Bay Times newspaper
The City's Web site
Sun Sailor newspaper
Word of mouth
Shore Report newsletter
Percent who reported having used each in the last 12 months
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 41
Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables below.
Question D1
How many years have you lived in Shorewood?Percent N
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?Percent N
One family house detached from any other houses 86% 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
Do you rent or own your home? Percent N
Rent 9% 56
Own 91% 553
Total 100% 609
Question D4
Do any children 18 or under live in your household?Percent N
Yes 40% 245
No 60% 363
Total 100% 608
Question D5
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older?Percent N
Yes 24% 146
No 76% 461
Total 100% 608
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 42
Question D6
In which category is your age? Percent N
18 to 24 years 0% 2
25 to 34 years 12% 74
35 to 44 years 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 household.) Percent N
Less than $24,999 5%29
$25,000 to $49,999 11%59
$50,000 to $99,999 24%134
$100,000 to $149,999 19%108
$150,000 to $199,999 14%78
$200,000 to $249,999 8%47
$250,000 to $299,999 6%35
$300,000 or more 12%65
Total 100%554
Question D8
What is your gender? Percent N
Female 52%309
Male 48%286
Total 100%594
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 43 Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions The 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 of life in Shorewood. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNShorewood as a place to live 53%32144%2673% 160%10%0100%606Your neighborhood as a place to live 58%35134%2097% 411%80%0100%608Shorewood as a place to raise children 51%30635%2092% 150%112%74100%605Shorewood as a place to retire 23%14133%19718% 1087%4219%116100%604The overall quality of life in Shorewood 45%27251%3083% 181%30%0100%602
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 44 Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Shorewood as a whole. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNSense of community 14%8444%26432% 1946%363%19100%597Overall appearance of Shorewood 21%12561%36816% 991%71%3100%602Variety of housing opportunities 12%7547%28622% 1345%3013%79100%604Ease of access to shopping opportunities 19%11343%26230% 1797%451%4100%603Recreational opportunities 27%16450%30317% 1002%143%20100%601Educational opportunities 36%21541%24711% 662%910%62100%599Opportunities 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 activities11%6829%17116% 972%1242%251100%600Opportunities to attend Southshore Community Center activities 17% 102 32% 191 15% 88 4% 25 32% 190 100% 597 Opportunities to volunteer 13%7540%23817% 1012%1129%171100%596Opportunities to participate in community matters13%7743%25322% 1323%1919%112100%592Ease of car travel in Shorewood 25%14956%33716% 962%130%2100%598Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood 21%12940%24119% 11611%669%54100%606Ease of walking in Shorewood 23%14233%19926% 15816%981%8100%605Availability of paths and walking trails 28%17037%22522% 13410%603%17100%606Traffic flow on major streets 12%7357%34326% 1584%241%6100%604Availability of affordable quality housing 7%4333%19926% 1589%5225%148100%599Availability of affordable quality child care 6%3514%8511% 645%2764%379100%589Availability of open space 21%12843%25820% 1224%2212%74100%604Air quality 40%24348%2916% 351%35%32100%605Quality of overall natural environment in Shorewood41%24650%2998% 471%51%7100%604Overall image/reputation of Shorewood 33%20354%3269% 560%33%19100%606
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 45 Question 3 To what extent do you agree or disagree, if at all, that each statement below describes the City of Shorewood? Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Total Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Shorewood is a safe community 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%27827%16610%632% 131%413%80100%604Shorewood provides and protects open space 29% 176 45% 271 13% 77 2% 13 1% 6 10% 63 100% 605 Question 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)? Percent N Just about every day 19%113Several times a day 29%175Several times a month 28%168Less than several times a month 25%151Total 100%606 Question 5 To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Shorewood?PercentNNot a problem 32%194Minor problem 46%279Moderate problem 12%73Major problem 3%16Don't know 7%41Total 100%603
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 46 Question 6 In the last 12 months, have you or other household members participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program?PercentNYes 41%249No 55%331Don't know 4%24Total 100%604 Question 7 If you HAVE used the Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program, please rate each of the following aspects. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNEase of use 57%14437%935% 141%10%0100%251Cost of disposing of items 30%7541%10318% 467%184%10100%251Convenience of drop‐off site location 52%13137%939% 241%40%1100%251Asked only of those who reported having participated in the City's Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program in the last 12 months. Question 8 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel… Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total PercentNPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNFrom violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 74% 451 21% 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% 34733%2016%382% 130%20%2100%603
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 47 Question 9 During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?PercentNYes 8%48No 91%553Don't know 1%6Total 100%606 Question 10 If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police?PercentNYes 77%35No 23%10Don't know 0%0Total 100%45Asked only of those who reported being a victim of a crime in the last 12 months.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 48 Question 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? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Used Southshore Community Center 70%42224%1474%26 1%41%3100%603Participated in a recreation program or activity64%37922%13111% 64 2%92%10100%594Visited a park in Shorewood 13%7828%16632% 19213%8013%79100%597Attended 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 newsletter5%2910%6264% 38213%777%45100%595Visited 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 2% 13 8% 46 21% 127 65% 386 100% 593 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Shorewood 73% 430 14% 84 7% 42 3% 17 3% 20 100% 593 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Shorewood 70% 417 7% 40 6% 36 6% 34 11% 65 100% 592 Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood81%4878%476%34 3%172%14100%600Provided help to a friend or neighbor 6%3725%15245% 27114%879%55100%603
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 49 Question 12 Please select which of the following programs or activities, if any, you or other household members have participated in overthe last 12 months. (Please select all that apply.) Percent N Oktoberfest 7%39Art/Paint Classes 2%11Garden Fair 2%10Free Fridays in Freeman 7%40Kayaking 4%21Safety Camp 2%10Tennis at Badger 4%25Youth Cooking Classes 1%5Skateboarding Camp 0%1Music in the Park 23%135Movie in the Park 3%19Arctic Fever 10%62MCE Summer Rec Program 8%45All of these 0%0None of these 60%356Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 50 Question 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.) Percent N Playground equipment 38%228Picnic tables / grills 18%107Picnic shelter 14%82Tennis court 18%108Volleyball court 1%8Baseball field 17%104Paths / trails 80%484Multi‐use building 4%22Warming house 22%130Ice skating area 26%155All of these 0%2None of these 14%86Totals may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one response.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 51 Question 14 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNFire district's response to calls 24%14316%941% 40%159%356100%599Fire district's education and prevention 23%13630%1814% 270%242%247100%593Fire district's visibility in the community 31%18236%21111% 622%1121%127100%593Fire district services overall 25%15030%1794% 210%241%241100%594Police response to calls 27%15924%1454% 261%843%258100%596Police education and crime prevention 15%8931%1809% 542%1443%252100%589Police visibility in the community 25%14546%27015% 872%1413%76100%592Police services overall 24%14342%2459% 511%624%143100%588Ambulance or emergency medical services 18%10416%942% 121%763%375100%592Animal control services 6%3815%908% 443%1868%397100%588Traffic enforcement 12%6845%25716% 926%3621%121100%574Street maintenance/repair (i.e., filling potholes)5%3237%22036% 21419%1112%15100%592Street cleaning/sweeping 8%5048%28530% 1798%486%33100%595Street resurfacing 6%3538%22334% 19919%1114%25100%593Street lighting 8%4737%22134% 20115%925%32100%593Street signage and street markings 14%8259%35222% 1284%221%9100%593Snowplowing on city streets 25%14748%28718% 1054%245%31100%593Applying salt/sand on icy streets 21%12554%32115% 913%166%36100%590Road condition 8%4650%29331% 18410%572%11100%590Sidewalk/trail maintenance 17%9851%29814% 792%1017%100100%585Storm drainage 10%5651%29916% 956%3517%101100%586Sanitary sewer services 17%9852%3068% 491%722%127100%588Shorewood parks 31%18554%3225% 310%29%53100%592Park and recreation programs or classes 13%7628%1675% 311%353%313100%590Southshore Community Center program or classes9%5622%1294% 230%364%379100%589Southshore Community Center overall 10%5824%1394% 251%362%365100%591
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 52 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNBuilding inspections 6%3624%14213% 775%3252%306100%592Land use, planning and zoning 4%2426%15415% 875%3249%291100%589Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 3% 20 26% 151 15% 91 6% 36 49% 290 100% 588 Services to seniors 5%3020%1187% 401%867%397100%594Services to youth 8%4726%1528% 451%658%341100%591Services to low‐income people 3%175%325% 283%1984%491100%587Public schools 45%27033%1942% 141%519%111100%594Cable television 5%2722%13220% 11623%13331%182100%590Emergency 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?PercentNExcellent 17%98Good 62%367Fair 14%82Poor 6%35Don't know 2%13Total 100%595
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 53 Question 16 Is your water supplied by the City? PercentNYes 45%272No 54%324Don't know 1%7Total 100%603 Question 17 If you HAVE municipal water, please rate each of the following aspects. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNQuality (e.g., taste of water) 31%8346%12415% 397%191%2100%267Dependability of service 47%12544%1176% 150%03%9100%266Cost 9%2337%9737% 9811%306%17100%265Asked only of those who reported that their water is supplied by the City Question 18 If you DO NOT have municipal water, please indicate why not. (Please select all that apply.)PercentNNo connection available 66%210Too expensive to connect 26%82Concerned about city water quality 7%22Some other reason 18%58Don't know 5%16Asked 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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 54 Question 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). Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts) 4% 26 21% 126 48% 285 19% 115 7% 43 100% 595 Expand trails and walkways 18%10831%18833% 20013%774%25100%599Expand recreational and social programs for all ages 3% 18 16% 94 49% 288 23% 137 9% 52 100% 590 Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake water quality) 20% 119 45% 267 25% 151 6% 35 3% 20 100% 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% 103 14% 82 100% 593 Question 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. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N New recreational/Community Center programs2%1314%8336%21836%21811%66100%598Additional basketball courts 2%106%3322%13057%33914%87100%600Programs for seniors and older adults 4%2617%10335%21029%17615%88100%604New tennis courts at Badger Park 1%55%2926%15851%30917%102100%603Lights on tennis courts 3%178%4628%17247%28614%84100%605Lights on ball fields at Freeman Park 4%2113%8134%20637%22012%74100%604Updated skate park facilities 2%1310%5933%20042%25114%82100%604
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 55 Question 21 To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following in Shorewood? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total PercentNPercentNPercent N PercentNPercentNPercentNHaving 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%23045%2718%45 3%156%37100%598Encouraging 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 Have you had any in‐person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Shorewood within the past 12 months?PercentNYes 54%331No 46%278Total 100%608
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 56 Question 23 What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Shorewood in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N knowledge 41%13445%1499% 283%103%9100%330Responsiveness 41%13645%1477% 236%191%4100%329Follow‐up 30%9837%12111% 356%1917%57100%329Courtesy 51%16839%1287% 224%120%1100%330Timeliness 41%13541%13410% 326%193%11100%331Overall impression 43%14241%1369% 306%200%1100%331Asked 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 government performance. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNThe value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood7%4242%25732% 1956%3513%76100%604Opportunities 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% 43 30% 180 22% 132 11% 67 30% 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%4147%28522% 1354%2320%119100%602
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 57 Question 25 Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of Shorewood Administration. ExcellentGoodFair PoorDon't knowTotalPercentNPercentNPercent NPercentNPercentNPercentNResponse to resident complaints and concerns7%4326%15614% 866%3447%283100%601Public meetings about City plans 7%4233%19714% 854%2242%250100%597Transparency and accountability 5%3226%15717% 1037%4044%265100%597Information about City plans and programs7%4136%21119% 1117%4232%188100%594Quality 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 site5%3130%18014% 822%1049%291100%593 Question 26 How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operationsof the City of Shorewood?PercentNVery informed 4%22Moderately informed 39%232Slightly informed 32%193Not well informed 25%149Total 100%596 Question 27 Do you have access to the Internet at home?PercentNYes 94%569No 6%38Total 100%606
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 58 Question 28 Please indicate whether you have Internet access through each of the following. (Please select all that apply.)PercentNDSL 44%243Cable modem 51%280Satellite 5%26Dial‐up 3%14Cell phone/PDA 25%141Other 2%10None of these 0%0Don't know 2%9Asked 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, do you use the following sources to gain information about the City of Shorewood? Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total 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 Website (www.lmcc‐tv.org)0%1%13%86%100%Word of mouth 6%29%52%13%100%Email messages 3%10%27%60%100%Social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)1%4%12%82%100%
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 59 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). Aspects of Quality of Life by Respondent Demographics Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Shorewood. Length of residencyHousing unit type Rent/ownRespondent gender10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall 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% 97% 97% 97% 96% 97% 97% 98% 96% 97% Shorewood as a place to retire 83% 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% 100% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 60 Aspects of Quality of Life by Respondent Demographics Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Shorewood. Respondent ageChildren 18 or underAdults 65 or olderHousehold income18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More 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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 61 Community Characteristics by Respondent Demographics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Shorewood as a whole. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Sense of community 67%59%54%60%60% 62%60%58%60%60%66%54%60%Overall appearance of Shorewood 84%81%81%82%81% 89%82%83%82%82%84%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 activities79%69%62%70%69% 78%70%77%70%70%78%62%70%Opportunities to attend family‐oriented events/activities80%77%70%76%76% 75%76%75%76%76%80%71%76%Opportunities for senior/older adult activities84%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 matters71%70%65%69%69% 66%69%66%69%69%70%67%69%Ease of car travel in Shorewood 83%80%81%82%81% 88%82%89%81%82%86%76%81%Ease of bicycle travel in Shorewood 73%66%61%67%65% 81%67%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 Shorewood95%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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 62 Community Characteristics by Respondent Demographics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Shorewood as a whole. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Sense of community 62%61%59%60%66%57% 60%64%59%60%57%62%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 activities52%78%68%70%79%64% 70%69%71%70%66%67%78%66%70%Opportunities to attend family‐oriented events/activities65%81%72%76%84%69% 76%76%76%76%67%80%83%67%75%Opportunities for senior/older adult activities28%79%69%69%81%64% 69%69%69%69%68%70%80%57%69%Opportunities to attend Southshore Community Center activities 45%75%77%73%75% 71% 72% 78%70%72%74%73%77%66%73%Opportunities to volunteer 72%73%75%74%75%73% 74%75%73%74%68%73%74%75%73%Opportunities to participate in community matters61%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 Shorewood98%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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 63 Aspects of Community Character by Respondent Demographics To what extent do you agree or disagree, if at all, that each statement below describes the City of Shorewood? Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Shorewood is a safe community with a low crime rate91%94%96%94%95% 87%94%76%95%94%95%93%94%Shorewood has tight‐knit neighborhoods 68%57%55%60%61% 56%60%50%61%60%64%55%60%The City offers the best schools 89%83%82%85%84% 88%85%84%85%85%85%85%85%Shorewood provides and protects open space89%82%76%82%81% 90%82%86%82%82%85%79%82%Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree Aspects of Community Character by Respondent Demographics To what extent do you agree or disagree, if at all, that each statement below describes the City of Shorewood? Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall 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 space89%84%78%82%86%79%82% 78%84%82%79%88%80%82%83%Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 64 Participation in City's Spring Clean-up Drop Off Program by Respondent Demographics In the last 12 months, have you or other household members participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program? Length of residencyHousing unit type Rent/ownRespondent gender10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall 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 Participation in City's Spring Clean-up Drop Off Program by Respondent Demographics In the last 12 months, have you or other household members participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program? Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall In the last 12 months, have you or other household members participated in Shorewood's Spring Clean‐up Drop Off program? 28% 43% 47% 43% 39% 46% 43% 41% 44% 43% 44% 37% 48% 43% 43% Percent of respondents reporting they had participated in the last 12 months
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 65 Community Safety by Respondent Demographics Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel... Length of residencyHousing unit typeRent/ownRespondent gender10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)95%95%95%95%96%85% 95%82%96%95%92%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 waste93%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 Community Safety by Respondent Demographics Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel... Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 91% 96% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 84% 96% 97% 98% 95% From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)78%91%90%89%91%88%89% 93%88%89%81%90%92%90%89%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%92%91%95%89%91% 92%91%91%82%88%94%97%92%Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 66 Community Participation by Respondent Demographics In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Shorewood? Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Used Southshore Community Center 25%29%37%30%26% 53%30%26%30%30%33%25%30%Participated in a recreation program or activity41%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 newsletter93%95%97%95%96% 87%95%83%96%95%95%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% 98% 88% 96% 73% 99% 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% 27% 27% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Shorewood21%34%35%30%31% 23%30%15%31%30%26%32%29%Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood14%23%20%19%18% 21%19%10%20%19%21%16%19%Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92%95%96%94%95% 88%94%77%96%94%92%96%94%Percent who reported having participated in the last 12 months
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 67 Community Participation by Respondent Demographics In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Shorewood? Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Used Southshore Community Center 23%20%45%30%21%37%30% 50%24%30%43%37%25%20%30%Participated in a recreation program or activity39%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 newsletter90%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% 97% 96% 96% 99% 96% 96% 92% 98% 97% 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% 29% 36% 26% 30% 36% 28% 30% 24% 25% 35% 31% 30% Participated in a club or civic group in Shorewood2%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 last 12 months
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 68 City Services by Respondent Demographics Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Fire district's response to calls 100% 99% 95% 98% 97% 100% 98% 100% 97% 98% 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% 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% 75% 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%
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 69 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Southshore Community Center program or classes 95% 84% 84% 88% 85% 97% 88% 100% 86% 88% 93% 78% 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 86% 72% 79% 79% 78% 87% 79% 91% 78% 79% 81% 76% 79% Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 70 City Services by Respondent Demographics Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Fire district's response to calls 100% 98% 97% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 99% 98% 97% 100% 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% 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% 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%
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 71 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Park and recreation programs or classes 100% 89% 85% 88% 90% 86% 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% 79% 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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 72 Overall Quality of City Services by Respondent Demographics Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood? Length of residencyHousing unit type Rent/ownRespondent gender10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood? 87% 77% 75% 80% 79% 83% 80% 86% 79% 80% 83% 77% 80% Percent "excellent" or "good" Overall Quality of City Services by Respondent Demographics Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood? Respondent ageChildren 18 or underAdults 65 or olderHousehold income18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall 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% 79% 80% 80% Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 73 Importance of Potential Improvements by Respondent Demographics 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). Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts) 37% 25% 18% 27% 25% 49% 27% 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 ages24%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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 74 Importance of Potential Improvements by Respondent Demographics 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). Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional shelters, lighting for tennis courts) 40% 25% 26% 27% 36% 21% 27% 22% 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% 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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 75 Importance of Potential Park and Recreation Projects by Respondent Demographics 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. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall New recreational/Community Center programs18%17%18%18%16% 31%18%29%17%18%25%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 Projects by Respondent Demographics 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. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall New recreational/Community Center programs18%16%21%18%20%17%18% 18%18%18%26%20%21%11%19%Additional basketball courts 19%8%6%9%11%7%9% 6%9%9%6%5%14%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%30%21%16%19%20%Updated skate park facilities 15%13%14%14%17%12%14% 15%13%14%24%15%11%13%14%Percent "essential" or "very important"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 76 Level of Support for City Initiatives by Respondent Demographics To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following in Shorewood? Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City, rather than multiple haulers 60% 45% 44% 50% 48% 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 77 Level of Support for City Initiatives by Respondent Demographics To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following in Shorewood? Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Having a single trash hauler contracted by the City, rather than multiple haulers 52% 47% 54% 50% 52% 48% 50% 49% 50% 50% 58% 49% 48% 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 "somewhat" support
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 78 Government Performance by Respondent Demographics Please rate the following categories of Shorewood government performance. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood59%60%50%56%55% 67%56%55%56%56%67%46%57%Opportunities to participate in City government decisions63%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% 59% 59% 63% 59% 51% 60% 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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 79 Government Performance by Respondent Demographics Please rate the following categories of Shorewood government performance. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall The value of services for the taxes paid to Shorewood 38% 59% 59% 57% 58% 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% 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"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 80 City Administration Performance by Respondent Demographics Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of Shorewood Administration. Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall Response to resident complaints and concerns78%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 programs62%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 site72%72%62%70%68% 80%70%88%68%70%74%66%70%Percent "excellent" or "good" City Administration Performance by Respondent Demographics Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of Shorewood Administration. Respondent age Children 18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall Response to resident complaints and concerns58%65%61%63%68%59%63% 60%64%63%56%65%69%60%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 programs66%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 site60%71%73%70%74%66%70% 68%70%70%56%72%73%66%70%Percent "excellent" or "good"
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results Page 81 Level of Awareness about City Issues and Operations by Respondent Demographics How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operations of the City of Shorewood? Length of residency Housing unit type Rent/own Respondent gender 10 years or less 11‐20 years More than 20 years Overall Detached Attached Overall Rent Own Overall Female Male Overall How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operations of the City of Shorewood? 31% 49% 49% 43% 44% 37% 43% 21% 45% 43% 41% 44% 42% Percent "very" or "moderately" informed Level of Awareness about City Issues and Operations by Respondent Demographics How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operations of the City of Shorewood? Respondent age Children18 or under Adults 65 or older Household income 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 years or older Overall Yes No Overall Yes No Overall Less than $50K $50K to less than $100K $100k to less than $200K More than $200K Overall How informed or not informed do you consider yourself to be about local government issues and operations of the City of Shorewood? 14% 40% 53% 42% 35% 47% 43% 49% 40% 43% 40% 43% 41% 44% 42% Percent "very" or "moderately" informed
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 82
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
Airway Heights, WA ............................................ 6,114
Alamogordo, NM .............................................. 30,403
Albany, GA ........................................................ 77,434
Albany, OR ........................................................ 50,158
Albemarle County, VA....................................... 98,970
Alpharetta, GA .................................................. 57,551
Ames, IA ............................................................ 58,965
Andover, MA ....................................................... 8,762
Ankeny, IA ......................................................... 45,582
Ann Arbor, MI ................................................. 113,934
Apple Valley, CA ................................................ 69,135
Arapahoe County, CO ..................................... 572,003
Archuleta County, CO ....................................... 12,084
Arkansas City, KS ............................................... 12,415
Arlington County, VA ...................................... 207,627
Arvada, CO ...................................................... 106,433
Asheville, NC ..................................................... 83,393
Ashland, OR ...................................................... 20,078
Ashland, VA ......................................................... 7,225
Aspen, CO ........................................................... 6,658
Auburn, AL ........................................................ 53,380
Auburn, WA ...................................................... 70,180
Aurora, CO ...................................................... 325,078
Austin, TX ........................................................ 790,390
Avondale, AZ ..................................................... 76,238
Baltimore County, MD .................................... 805,029
Baltimore, MD ................................................ 620,961
Barnstable, MA ............................................... 215,888
Batavia, IL ......................................................... 26,045
Battle Creek, MI ................................................ 52,347
Bedford, MA ..................................................... 13,320
Beekman, NY .................................................... 14,000
Belleair Beach, FL ................................................ 1,560
Bellevue, WA .................................................. 122,363
Bellingham, WA ................................................ 80,885
Beltrami County, MN ........................................ 44,442
Benbrook, TX .................................................... 21,234
Bend, OR ........................................................... 76,639
Benicia, CA ........................................................ 26,997
Bettendorf, IA ................................................... 33,217
Billings, MT ..................................................... 104,170
Blacksburg, VA .................................................. 42,620
Bloomfield, NM ................................................... 8,112
Bloomington, IL ................................................. 76,610
Blue Ash, OH ..................................................... 12,114
Blue Earth, MN ................................................... 3,353
Blue Springs, MO .............................................. 52,575
Boise, ID .......................................................... 205,671
Borough of Ebensburg, PA .................................. 3,351
Botetourt County, VA ....................................... 33,148
Boulder County, CO ........................................ 294,567
Boulder, CO ....................................................... 97,385
Bowling Green, KY ............................................ 58,067
Bozeman, MT .................................................... 37,280
Branson, MO ..................................................... 10,520
Brea, CA ............................................................ 39,282
Breckenridge, CO ................................................ 4,540
Brevard County, FL ......................................... 543,376
Brisbane, CA ........................................................ 4,282
Broken Arrow, OK ............................................. 98,850
Brookline, NH ...................................................... 4,991
Bryan, TX ........................................................... 76,201
Burlingame, CA ................................................. 28,806
Burlington, MA ................................................. 24,498
Cabarrus County, NC ....................................... 178,011
Calgary, Canada ........................................... 1,230,248
Cambridge, MA ............................................... 105,162
Canandaigua, NY ............................................... 10,545
Cape Coral, FL ................................................. 154,305
Carlsbad, CA .................................................... 105,328
Carson City, NV ................................................. 55,274
Cartersville, GA ................................................. 19,731
Carver County, MN ........................................... 91,042
Cary, NC .......................................................... 135,234
Casa Grande, AZ ................................................ 48,571
Cedar Creek, NE ..................................................... 390
Cedar Falls, IA ................................................... 39,260
Cedar Rapids, IA .............................................. 126,326
Centennial, CO ................................................ 100,377
Centralia, IL ....................................................... 13,032
Chambersburg, PA ............................................ 20,268
Chandler, AZ ................................................... 236,123
Chanhassen, MN ............................................... 22,952
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 83
Charlotte County, FL ....................................... 159,978
Charlotte, NC .................................................. 731,424
Chesapeake, VA .............................................. 222,209
Chesterfield County, VA .................................. 316,236
Cheyenne, WY................................................... 59,466
Chittenden County, VT.................................... 156,545
Chula Vista, CA ................................................ 243,916
Clark County, WA ............................................ 425,363
Clay County, MO ............................................. 221,939
Clayton, MO ...................................................... 15,939
Clear Creek County, CO ...................................... 9,088
Clearwater, FL ................................................. 107,685
Cococino County, AZ ....................................... 134,421
Colleyville, TX .................................................... 22,807
Collier County, FL ............................................ 321,520
Collinsville, IL .................................................... 25,579
Colorado Springs, CO ...................................... 416,427
Columbus, WI ..................................................... 4,991
Commerce City, CO ........................................... 45,913
Concord, CA .................................................... 122,067
Concord, MA ..................................................... 17,668
Concord, NC ...................................................... 79,066
Conyers, GA ...................................................... 15,195
Cookeville, TN ................................................... 30,435
Cooper City, FL .................................................. 28,547
Coral Springs, FL .............................................. 121,096
Coronado, CA .................................................... 18,912
Corpus Christi, TX ............................................ 305,215
Corvallis, OR ...................................................... 54,462
Corvallis, OR ...................................................... 54,462
Coventry, CT ....................................................... 2,990
Craig, CO ............................................................. 9,464
Cranberry Township, PA ................................... 16,066
Crested Butte, CO ............................................... 1,487
Crystal Lake, IL .................................................. 40,743
Cumberland County, PA.................................. 235,406
Cupertino, CA .................................................... 58,302
Dakota County, MN ........................................ 398,552
Dallas, TX ..................................................... 1,197,816
Dania Beach, FL ................................................. 29,639
Davenport, IA .................................................... 99,685
Davidson, NC..................................................... 10,944
Daviess County, KY ............................................ 96,656
Davis, CA ........................................................... 65,622
Daytona Beach, FL ............................................ 61,005
De Pere, WI ....................................................... 23,800
Decatur, GA ...................................................... 19,335
DeKalb, IL .......................................................... 43,862
Del Mar, CA ......................................................... 4,161
Delaware, OH .................................................... 34,753
Delray Beach, FL ............................................... 60,522
Denton, TX ...................................................... 113,383
Denver, CO ...................................................... 600,158
Des Moines, IA ................................................ 203,433
Destin, FL .......................................................... 12,305
Dewey‐Humboldt, AZ ......................................... 3,894
District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada ................ 108,265
Dorchester County, MD .................................... 32,618
Dover, DE .......................................................... 36,047
Dover, NH ......................................................... 29,987
Dublin, CA ......................................................... 46,036
Dublin, OH ........................................................ 41,751
Duluth, MN ....................................................... 86,265
Duncanville, TX ................................................. 38,524
Durango, CO ..................................................... 16,887
East Providence, RI ........................................... 47,037
Eau Claire, WI.................................................... 65,883
Edmond, OK ...................................................... 81,405
Edmonton, Canada ......................................... 782,439
El Cerrito, CA ..................................................... 23,549
El Paso, TX ....................................................... 649,121
Elk Grove, CA .................................................. 153,015
Ellisville, MO ....................................................... 9,133
Elmhurst, IL ....................................................... 44,121
Englewood, CO ................................................. 30,255
Ephrata Borough, PA ........................................ 13,394
Escambia County, FL ....................................... 297,619
Escanaba, MI ..................................................... 12,616
Estes Park, CO ..................................................... 5,858
Eugene, OR ..................................................... 156,185
Eustis, FL ........................................................... 18,558
Evanston, IL ....................................................... 74,486
Fairway, KS .......................................................... 3,882
Farmington Hills, MI ......................................... 79,740
Farmington, NM ............................................... 45,877
Farmington, UT ................................................. 18,275
Fayetteville, AR ................................................. 73,580
Federal Way, WA .............................................. 89,306
Fishers, IN ......................................................... 76,794
Flagstaff, AZ ...................................................... 65,870
Florence, AZ ...................................................... 25,536
Flower Mound, TX ............................................ 64,669
Flushing, MI ........................................................ 8,389
Forest Grove, OR .............................................. 21,083
Fort Collins, CO ............................................... 143,986
Fort Worth, TX ................................................ 741,206
Fredericksburg, VA............................................ 24,286
Freeport, IL ....................................................... 25,638
Fridley, MN ....................................................... 27,208
Fruita, CO .......................................................... 12,646
Gainesville, FL ................................................. 124,354
Gaithersburg, MD ............................................. 59,933
Galt, CA ............................................................. 23,647
Garden City, KS ................................................. 26,658
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 84
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, NC ................................................. 104,371
Highland Park, IL ............................................... 29,763
Highlands Ranch, CO ......................................... 96,713
Hillsborough County, FL ............................... 1,229,226
Hillsborough, NC ................................................. 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, NC ................................................. 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
Jefferson County, CO ...................................... 534,543
Jerome, ID ......................................................... 10,890
Johnson County, KS......................................... 544,179
Joplin, MO ......................................................... 50,150
Jupiter, FL .......................................................... 55,156
Kalamazoo, MI .................................................. 74,262
Kamloops, Canada ............................................ 86,376
Kannapolis, NC .................................................. 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 85
McAllen, TX ..................................................... 129,877
McDonough, GA ............................................... 22,084
McKinney, TX .................................................. 131,117
McMinnville, OR ............................................... 32,187
Mecklenburg County, NC ................................ 919,628
Medford, OR ..................................................... 74,907
Medina, MN ........................................................ 4,892
Menlo Park, CA ................................................. 32,026
Meridian Charter Township, MI ....................... 39,688
Meridian, ID ...................................................... 75,092
Merriam, KS ...................................................... 11,003
Merrill, WI ........................................................... 9,661
Mesa County, CO ............................................ 146,723
Mesa, AZ ......................................................... 439,041
Miami Beach, FL ................................................ 87,779
Midland, MI ...................................................... 41,863
Milton, GA ......................................................... 32,661
Minneapolis, MN ............................................ 382,578
Mission Viejo, CA .............................................. 93,305
Mission, KS .......................................................... 9,323
Missoula, MT .................................................... 66,788
Montgomery County, MD ............................... 971,777
Montgomery County, VA .................................. 94,392
Montpelier, VT .................................................... 7,855
Montrose, CO ................................................... 19,132
Mooresville, NC ................................................ 32,711
Morgantown, WV ............................................. 29,660
Morristown, TN ................................................ 29,137
Moscow, ID ....................................................... 23,800
Mountain View, CA ........................................... 74,066
Mountlake Terrace, WA .................................... 19,909
Multnomah County, OR .................................. 735,334
Munster, IN ....................................................... 23,603
Muscatine, IA .................................................... 22,886
Naperville, IL ................................................... 141,853
Nashville, TN ................................................... 601,222
Needham, MA ................................................... 28,886
New Orleans, LA ............................................. 343,829
New York City, NY ........................................ 8,175,133
Newport Beach, CA ........................................... 85,186
Newport News, VA ......................................... 180,719
Newport, RI ....................................................... 24,672
Noblesville, IN ................................................... 51,969
Normal, IL ......................................................... 52,497
Norman, OK .................................................... 110,925
North Branch, MN ............................................ 10,125
North Las Vegas, NV ....................................... 216,961
North Palm Beach, FL ....................................... 12,015
Northglenn, CO ................................................. 35,789
Novi, MI ............................................................ 55,224
O'Fallon, IL ........................................................ 28,281
O'Fallon, MO ..................................................... 79,329
Oak Park, IL ....................................................... 51,878
Oak Ridge, TN ................................................... 29,330
Oakland Park, FL ............................................... 41,363
Oakland Township, MI ...................................... 16,779
Oakville, Canada ............................................. 165,613
Ocala, FL ............................................................ 56,315
Ocean City, MD ................................................... 7,102
Ogdensburg, NY ................................................ 11,128
Oklahoma City, OK .......................................... 579,999
Olathe, KS ....................................................... 125,872
Oldsmar, FL ....................................................... 13,591
Olmsted County, MN ...................................... 144,248
Olympia, WA ..................................................... 46,478
Orange Village, OH.............................................. 3,323
Oshkosh, WI ...................................................... 66,083
Ottawa County, MI ......................................... 263,801
Overland Park, KS ........................................... 173,372
Oviedo, FL ......................................................... 33,342
Palatine, IL ........................................................ 68,557
Palm Bay, FL .................................................... 103,190
Palm Beach County, FL ................................ 1,320,134
Palm Beach Gardens, FL ................................... 48,452
Palm Coast, FL ................................................... 75,180
Palm Springs, CA ............................................... 44,552
Palo Alto, CA ..................................................... 64,403
Panama City, FL................................................. 36,484
Park City, UT ....................................................... 7,558
Park Ridge, IL .................................................... 37,480
Parker, CO ......................................................... 45,297
Pasadena, TX ................................................... 149,043
Pasco County, FL ............................................. 464,697
Pasco, WA ......................................................... 59,781
Peachtree City, GA ............................................ 34,364
Peoria County, IL ............................................. 186,494
Peoria, AZ ........................................................ 154,065
Peters Township, PA ......................................... 21,213
Petoskey, MI ....................................................... 5,670
Philadelphia, PA ........................................... 1,526,006
Phoenix, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632
Pinal County, AZ .............................................. 375,770
Pinellas County, FL .......................................... 916,542
Pinellas Park, FL ................................................ 49,079
Pitkin County, CO .............................................. 17,148
Plano, TX ......................................................... 259,841
Platte City, MO ................................................... 4,691
Pocatello, ID ...................................................... 54,255
Port Huron, MI .................................................. 30,184
Port Orange, FL ................................................. 56,048
Port St. Lucie, FL ............................................. 164,603
Portland, OR ................................................... 583,776
Post Falls, ID ...................................................... 27,574
Poway, CA ......................................................... 47,811
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 86
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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 87
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, NC ............................................... 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, NC .............................................. 106,476
Wind Point, WI .................................................... 1,723
Windsor, CO ...................................................... 18,644
Windsor, CT ...................................................... 28,237
Winnipeg, Canada ........................................... 694,668
Winston‐Salem, NC ......................................... 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
Airway Heights, WA ................................................................................................................................................ 6,114
Andover, MA ........................................................................................................................................................... 8,762
Ashland, VA ............................................................................................................................................................. 7,225
Aspen, CO ............................................................................................................................................................... 6,658
Belleair Beach, FL .................................................................................................................................................... 1,560
Bloomfield, NM ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,112
Blue Earth, MN ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,353
Borough of Ebensburg, PA ...................................................................................................................................... 3,351
Breckenridge, CO .................................................................................................................................................... 4,540
Brisbane, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,282
Cedar Creek, NE ......................................................................................................................................................... 390
Clear Creek County, CO .......................................................................................................................................... 9,088
Columbus, WI ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,991
Coventry, CT ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,990
Craig, CO ................................................................................................................................................................. 9,464
Crested Butte, CO ................................................................................................................................................... 1,487
Del Mar, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,161
Dewey‐Humboldt, AZ ............................................................................................................................................. 3,894
Ellisville, MO ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,133
Estes Park, CO ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,858
Fairway, KS .............................................................................................................................................................. 3,882
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 88
Flushing, MI ............................................................................................................................................................ 8,389
Georgetown, CO ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,034
Gig Harbor, WA ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,126
Gladstone, MI ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,973
Gulf Shores, AL ........................................................................................................................................................ 9,741
Hillsborough, NC ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,087
Hoquiam, WA.......................................................................................................................................................... 8,726
Hot Sulphur Springs, CO ............................................................................................................................................ 663
Howell, MI .............................................................................................................................................................. 9,489
Hudson, CO ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,356
Kutztown Borough, PA ............................................................................................................................................ 5,012
La Plata, 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
Ocean City, MD ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,102
Orange Village, OH.................................................................................................................................................. 3,323
Park City, UT ........................................................................................................................................................... 7,558
Petoskey, MI ........................................................................................................................................................... 5,670
Platte City, MO ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,691
Purcellville, VA ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,727
Rehoboth Beach, DE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,327
Richmond Heights, MO ........................................................................................................................................... 8,603
Riverdale, UT .......................................................................................................................................................... 8,426
Riverside, IL ............................................................................................................................................................. 8,875
Riverside, MO ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,937
Roeland Park, KS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,731
Salida, CO ................................................................................................................................................................ 5,236
Scarborough, ME .................................................................................................................................................... 4,403
Shenandoah, TX ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,134
Sherman, IL ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,148
Shorewood, MN ...................................................................................................................................................... 7,307
South Haven, MI ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,403
Sugar Grove, IL ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,997
Tuskegee, AL ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,865
Valdez, AK ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,976
Village of Howard City, MI ...................................................................................................................................... 1,808
Wahpeton, ND ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,766
Westlake, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. 992
Wilmington, IL ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,724
Wind Point, WI ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,723
Woodland, WA ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,509
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 89
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 (USPS), updated every three months, usually provide the best representation of all
households in a specific geographic location. NRC used the USPS 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
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 90
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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 91
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 Weighting Table
Characteristic Population Norm1 Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 9% 4% 9%
Own home 91% 96% 91%
Detached unit2 87% 83% 87%
Attached unit2 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
2 American Community Survey 2005‐2009
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 92
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.
Shorewood, MN Citizen Survey 2011 Report of Results
Page 93
Appendix F: Survey Materials
A copy of the survey materials appear on the following pages.
Dear Shorewood Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Christine Lizée Mayor Dear Shorewood Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Christine Lizée Mayor Dear Shorewood Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Christine Lizée Mayor Dear Shorewood Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous survey about the City of Shorewood. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Christine Lizée Mayor
Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Shorewood Resident:
The City of Shorewood wants to know what you think about your community and local government. 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 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.com/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,
Christine Lizée
Mayor
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.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 government 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.com/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,
Christine Lizée
Mayor
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey
Page 1 of 5
Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday.
The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most
closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only.
1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Shorewood.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Shorewood as a place to live ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
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
Sense of community .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
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
Air quality ........................................................................................................... 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)?
Just about every day
Several times a week
Several times a month
Less than several times a month
Page 2 of 5
5. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Shorewood?
Not a problem Minor problem Moderate problem Major problem 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?
Yes Go to question 7 No Go to question 8 Don’t know Go to question 8
7. If you HAVE used the Spring Clean-up Drop Off program, please rate each of the following aspects.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t k
Ease of use .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
now
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… Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't
safe safe nor unsafe
From violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6
unsafe unsafe know
From property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6
From environmental hazards, including toxic waste ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
In your neighborhood during the day .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6
In your neighborhood after dark ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?
Yes Go to question 10 No Go to question 11 Don’t know Go to question 11
10. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police?
Yes No 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?
Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than
Never twice times times
Used Southshore Community Center ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
26 times
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.)
Oktoberfest Kayaking Skateboarding Camp MCE Summer Rec Program
Art/Paint Classes Safety Camp Music in the Park All of these
Garden Fair Tennis at Badger Movie in the Park None of these
Free Fridays in Freeman Youth Cooking Classes 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.)
Playground equipment Tennis court Paths / trails Ice skating area
Picnic tables / grills Volleyball court Multi-use building All of these
Picnic shelter Baseball field Warming house None of these
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey
Page 3 of 5
14. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Shorewood.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Fire district’s response to calls ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
Fire district’s education and prevention ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Fire district’s visibility in the community ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Fire district services overall ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Police response to calls ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Police education and crime prevention ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Police visibility in the community ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Police services overall ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Ambulance or emergency medical services ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Animal control services ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic enforcement ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Street maintenance/repair (i.e., filling potholes) .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Street cleaning/sweeping ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Street resurfacing .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Street lighting .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Street signage and street markings ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Snowplowing on city streets ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Applying salt/sand on icy streets ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Road condition ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Sidewalk/trail maintenance ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Storm drainage ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Sanitary sewer services ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Shorewood parks ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Park and recreation programs or classes ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Southshore Community Center program or classes .................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Southshore Community Center overall ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Building inspections ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Land use, planning and zoning ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
Services to seniors ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Services to youth ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Services to low-income people .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Public schools .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Cable television .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for
natural disasters or other emergency situations) ................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Preservation of natural areas such as open space and greenbelts ................... 1 2 3 4 5
15. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided in the City of Shorewood?
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
16. Is your water supplied by the City?
Yes Go to question 17 No Go to question 18 Don’t know Go to question 19
17. If you HAVE municipal water, please rate each of the following aspects.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Quality (e.g., taste of water) ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
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.)
No connection available Some other reason
Too expensive to connect Don’t know
Concerned about city water quality
Page 4 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).
Very Somewhat Not at all Don't
Essential important important important know
Park improvements (i.e., updated play structures, additional shelters, lighting
for tennis courts) ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Expand trails and walkways ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Expand recreational and social programs for all ages ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental improvements (i.e., diseased trees, lake water quality) .................... 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
Very Somewhat Not at all Don't
is to you or other household members.
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?
Yes Go to question 23 No 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 Good Fair Poor
Knowledge ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
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.
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
The City of Shorewood 2011 Resident Survey
Page 5 of 5
25. Please rate the following categories of performance of the City of Shorewood Administration.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Response to resident complaints and concerns ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Don't know
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?
Very informed Moderately informed Slightly informed Not well informed
27. Do you have access to the Internet at home?
Yes Go to question 28 No Go to question 29
28. Please indicate whether you have Internet access through each of the following. (Please select all that apply.)
DSL Cable modem Satellite Dial-up Cell phone/PDA Other None of these 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
The Laker 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
Word of mouth ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4
Email messages ............................................................................................................. 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?
Less than 2 years 11-20 years
2-5 years More than 20 years
6-10 years
D2. Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other houses
House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a
duplex or townhome)
Building with two or more apartments or condominiums
Other
D3. Do you rent or own your home?
Rent Own
D4. Do any children 18 or under live in your household?
Yes No
D5. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65
or older?
Yes No
D6. In which category is your age?
18-24 years 45-54 years 75 years
25-34 years 55-64 years or older
35-44 years 65-74 years
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.)
Less than $24,999 $150,000 to $199,999
$25,000 to $49,999 $200,000 to $249,999
$50,000 to $99,999 $250,000 to $299,999
$100,000 to $149,999 $300,000 or more
D8. What is your gender?
Female 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