050597 CC WS AgP
~'t~
"A
.;;.,~
~..:;,
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MONDAY, MAY 5, 1997
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1.
CONVENE WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B . Review Agenda
-""',!""o,,,
2 .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
~ 4...i.J
. Land Use Section, Including Senior Housing
. Transportation Section
. Community Facilities Section, Including Water System Policies
Bring your Comprehensive Plan with to the meeting.
3 . ADJOURN
Date:
April 30, 1997
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Re:
Additional Material for May 5 Work Session
The work session agenda and memo from Brad Nielsen with an earlier draft of the water
section of the Comprehensive Plan has been mailed to you.
Attached hereto is a copy of Jerry O'Neill's Comprehensive Plan checklist provided at the
last work session. This can be helpful in your review. In addition, Jerry has identified
two issues he would like to discuss:
. How should a petitioned project be assessed when the petition involves less than 100%
of affected residents?
. Discuss ways to assure early citizen notification and input before Water Implementation
Plan projects are again considered.
Staff has been working with the City Attorney to revise the assessment ordinance to not
require up front trunk charges for new lots where water is not available. Work session
discussion will give further direction for revisions to be then presented to the City Council
for the next work session.
Supplv .Maps for:
~ NR-p II LV-23II LU-25 II LU-32 (paragraph 7) II CF-27
insert "Index Page"
NR-3
NR-5
NR-7
NR-7
.NR-8
NR-17
LU-l
LU-1
LTT ..
U-'t
LU-5
LU-5
LU-5
LU-6
LU-7
LV-9
LU-9
LU-9
LU-17
LU-21
LU-27
LU-28
LU-31
LU-32
LU-34
LU-35
LU-35
LU-36
TR-7
TR-7
TR-8
TR-8
Tn n
~.n-7
TR-17
#4 LookAt wildlife habitats
Wetlands, NR-ll #6, & NR-17 #6 Chanl!e (50 foot buffers)
#4 LookAt identify all vegetation
#5 Chanl!e cluster concepts
#19 & NR-17 #8 "New Ordnance"? WorkOn fertilizers
#7 WorkOn
#3 Chan!!e smaner lot size
#4 Work On variety in housing
# 11 Chan!!e senior housing
2nd paragraph Work On piece-meal subdivisions
4th paragraph WorkOn reexam zoning
6th paragraph Work On affordable housing
Lake Access Work On fire lanes
#2 1. WorkOn
#9 Chan!!e land cost
# 11 Work On density and lot size
# 13 Chan!!e cluster and PlJDs
Design Concept / PUDs Chanl!:e cluster
Low to Medium Chan!!e development cost
(see note) what about LU-9 #18
#s 1-15 WorkOn
Subdivision Regulations Update Work On
Inventory of Housing Plan WorkOn
3rd paragraph WorkOn lake access
#s 1-3 Work On
#s4 & 5 Chanl!:e cluster and PUD
#s7-16 WorkOn
#2 what does this mean?
#3 what does this mean?
# 14 Chan!!e cluster and PIJD
# 15 What has been done? garbage trucks
#2 & 5 (Parking) & 1-8 (Mass Transit) Workonire,"iew
#3 look at I work on
CF-3 #5 Chan!!e water system
CF-5 "Update - Water system Chan!!e
CF-6 Stormwater Management & Solid Waste (trucks) & last paragraph - overhead wires WorkOn
CF -12 # 15 '''hat has been done? recreation program study
CF -13 #8 1-4 What has been done? Public Utilities
CF -14 #s 1-3 What has been done? Energy
CF-19 thru CF-20 Chan!!e Water system
CF-39 #1 & #8 Chan!!e Water system
CF -39 #s 6 & 7 What has been done? water policies and capacity
CF -40 #9 Chanl!:e Water system
CF -40 # 19 Work On garbage districts
CF-40 #20 Workon underground wiring
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.net/shorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
29 April 1997
RE:
Community Facilities - Municipal Water
FILE NO.
405 (Comp Plan)
At the last study session at which City water was discussed, a majority of the City Council
expressed a desire to change direction with respect to expanding the existing municipal
water system. It was suggested that the Council review a previous draft of the Community
Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. This draft (see pages CF-5 and CF-16
through CF-20) is attached for your consideration. While you will no doubt wish to
modify it, it should serve as a good starting point for your further discussions of City
water.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or the
City Administrator prior to next Monday's study session.
cc: Jim Hurm
Larry Brown
AI Rolek
John Dean
Planning Commission
cc:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Community
F acili ties/ S ervi ces
Issues
~.-
9/93
Sanitary Sewer Vinually the entire communiry is served
by the municipal sewer system, or has sanitary sewer
availability. With minor exceptions future extensions to
the system will be paid for by private development.
Capaciry issues raised in the past have been resolved.
Recent drastic raIe increases by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission reinforce the need to control inflow
and infiltration into the existing system. Consequently,
repair and routine maintenance of the system will be a
prioriry in coming years.
Water System Despite an increased interest in the last
several years, the majority of residents do not feel that a
city-wide water system is desirable or economically
feasible aI this time. As a result, future planning must
analyze the capacity of the existing system and address
logical extensions for both existing and future
development.
Storm water Management While new development in
recent years has been required to address srormwater
runoff, many older pans of the community experience
drainage problems. The City has recently adopted a
program for funding storrnwater management projects.
In the past attention has been paid primarily to the
quantiry of storrnwater runoff. Environmental concerns
dictate that future storrnwater management also address
the quality of storrnwater runoff.
Parks and Recreation Having acquired most of the land
identified as being needed for a park system, considerable
planning has gone into the development of various parks.
Master pZans exist for all of the parks in Shorewood and
the Ciry has adopted a trail plan for the community. The
challenge for the future is to finance proposed park and
trail improvements.
Public Safety Sharing police and fire services with other
South Lake Minnetonka communities has proven to be
effective and economical, and Shorewood remains
committed to these joint use efforts.
CF-5
the system located in wet soils were televised, sealed and repaired with noticeable results in
decreased flows through lift stations. The City has now adopted an agressive sump pump
inspection program to identify and correct properties which currently pump or drain
stormwater into the sanitary sewer. The Ciry should continue to monitor and analyze data
from its lift stations and from the MWCC to identify problem sections of the system. These
sections should be televised, sealed and repaired.
In addition to reducing III, the City needs to establish a routine sewer maintenance program.
Manholes should be inspected on a periodic basis and sewers should be flushed at minimum
once every three years.
The City requires that all new development connect to the sanitary sewer system. Although
new on-site septic systems are prohibited, a small number of systems remain in existence.
These systems should be identified and, where feasible, required to connect. Regulations to
this effect aZready e.r:ist within the City Code.
Remaining new segments of the municipal system will be constructed and paid for as pan of
private development projects. Gravity sewer is to be encouraged, while lift stations are to be
allowed only when gravity service is technically and economically not feasible.
NOTE: Additional technical information as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
is contained in the Appendix of this Plan.
Municipal Water
Shorewood's municipal water system actually consists of five separate systems as shown on
the following page. Approximately 30 percent of the households in Shorewood are connected
to the system. In 1984 the City prepared a Comprehensive Water Study to serve as a guide
for the development of an overall system. The Study was updated in 1990, at which time the
City considered extending water throughout the community. Based upon a survey and public
meetings conducted in 1991, the City Council determined that the majoriry of Shorewood
residents did not suppon construction of a City-wide water system.
Since then the Ciry has explored the possibility of selling or turning over to other cities pans
of the system which operate at a deficit, particularly the Badger and Woodhaven systems.
While discussions continue with Tonka Bay regarding the Badger system, it appears that this
alternative is not financially feasible for the Woodhaven system. Consequently, the direction
at this time is to concentrate on the most efficient way to manage and operate the system as it
currentZy exists. The Ciry must also identify how the system should be upgraded and to what
extent it can be expanded.
It is important to review the Ciry's current policies on water system e.r:pansion.
1. Anyone can get water from any available source (i.e. private wells, small
centralized systems, connection to adjoining community system, connection to an
existing Shorewood system or extension of an e.r:isting Shorewood system).
CF-16
()
>n
I
1-4
-....l
~"""'('RIS1' I I
. - -- '1' '2:0:;':~'/"~~.-'
d to :f"~:~ 7 t
I ,--;--' I i 5. 11~_~'1"< \~/ ~/ ~
I ~I~ LQ. : I' )1\ ~rl ,
. ,/,) /(1 1 ~ (\llfI' I~ . I" .' ~
~\Jf - - r.r",~.)\ il.l ,&.,'fiIIJD~ I ; -(~~. '-.)
, L.' ,:1: \~~: ~ ~/. _. -- - - 'j- - -. _H_ - -'11t~j fjJ C, i._ ___
~ i / ~LI ~'" . \. !
\: l,~, \'........ -..,-- ".~ / I \ /
Ai k:i,(,,~~ ~ i~f~, : r~rm
2))),J/.:~~~~";(U "I;;~~ ~J\'-::i:~~.; -.) ,~~ '"fk~':-----('''
P' a'.r:;ahf LIT ~.lr':'L,::{.;.'HIY. ~i,:.,l./ .....
i __L_ :: t- I '1.,.II,'I.~~'~i"j"~' :.,',:........... / '-. "1'
-.. r - 1'. I'::' tit I.. t. . [" '" I __
--1- rr r-' .... .....T..--'-l-. ", _0 -- t C, ," - . - --- _, __ __ _ __ _ _ _' .= =_ ___
" =~~~u ~ ~.~~::/~r~j:;:,:,/\,::" :~.i~.~.:.!. --T~ ~':'; I
. -.----.,.~ ~.'\\I'):-.. ,~l......... 1_. ~. , \; I
". --'r-~-~:t:" .', --E' ~ i\\
I ~ =-J - -:-=~ ___ ;~. ~/__C~~.-=' ~ ~
L-~ ,~,J nl~~ o~~JJ-J~~IJj . !
-It~ I> : j "~u rr,kJ~= (__n__
~. ~.1~~~'~ ~\)\\
"'\ T ~ :/' ~"'-- ':' I '~-- 1.): WJ\;;-'; \
~ \T\~ T i 'Till':! l[j,'~l-<l" .0,
\ J ~ .tt1 :~ .l~_l] ~ -=i~':~.'J,"':!\~~!~ l:~~
I . ~~l- - - - --=h'\S. 7/ i ~
i ~Il U. l- I ~- '~~l'';.- ~ ~ ""
~ . \J __ I .::.s=-L '-- =\t( -, ~
>> ~ '~\. · - fI.7illi J ~. 0
Qi~ c:__u "1Ij,~~~":~ I~ i i
:;)\ iit~ I ~ ~ ~~ Cl
~ ml'(\ ~~.l; '. T ~ r OJ .- ~ /' II ~
li4 :>::J . - 'l\l-' ~~---'1. r ~ ~
\\ I t3.- r'~~ ~r LJ~~?j l;:: g i ,.
\\ I / I m'~L~" I T" '[Ilr~IJ;JI. 77;[;= ~ ~ ~
I ~ri~~~. .~,~ ~~: t" /;;~:~y I:?> ' ,
11 ~<)l"?lUil1~.. .;.h,-\: ~ ',/ /(>?_~ I '~JS ~
C'i' 1 __J. ~II;
~~~ \: bJlfO,r=1.+-1 - ~ .~ j / 'I(G\ [J]]]IIID
. "\~~',\~' :~'~~:~~!I i'~ 'lkoUT ~
~~... \ '... i ] rF n J ~ ~
-~~~W-~ ~~ 1
I : l:Y~r b.
-L~[~ -(', ( "~ I~\
~r~f2~t \ I~ ' ~ --'-1-~---
:u ~11 ~' ,;_. :': . ~ 0 ~ i I
==Efft:i:. ! ~\ ' DrUS ~~, I
.-~~.::::..",,-:,,~~..Jr1.rilli4J~~ ~ ~ :
_ c.r51---- '- . ~~" ( " ~ I
._..~~\ I~lri,:~,,_>'~~ gt--
~ iJ 1d:!.I" . ,)[ ~.. . . t::Jr. " I
>/ '\ -I ';/~J.\ 1.1 Gl(', \ . -?,'~.l '" I' i l) (f L. I _ '~-]'~
'~1~'~)~'1'~"::,:," I ~, .'r ..... .-i' I.,....,
(u -- .' I c: ,,::\, . A~\.'l" .: < / \ ""
1-__ __________1_\ ~ ... ~~.:~~~, \\ I ~~,~~ .)~ft".r i 1~...,.,..~,.~ ~~. ,y '.
f (t) </:.;::.::::: \ (Y I~o?i;' , 1m, -' .
(. / '. . I"":'~ I / Y , /
C )~>. '.i~;> ~Nml . ~ ~~~ ';U!;~l -I , .
u__~,~'i~.j~~.; ~~-"\~"}~~~~ ___.l
;;N J- ::-.1 ~ ~~, . ..}\{~~ l'v 1""'~1.-\_, ~ ~ \\ (J a t/) ! tA'
;:.:jl'l~' '7 ~....:V'.". ~ '. ~01: I \ '~'f ' I u 5'"
. , WJ<:;J:' ~'-~i' r I" ~11~ .:~\' ~\\ ~~ ---=
\~ )0. ~ .sS ~ ~i~~~~r.__~., '"iill- ~\ \\ c:r!/ II ~~rA
~~. :wi' \), r ... ~ I, ..:, '~)\l~~ ~\. \ \\ ~ i II I
:r~,,' m~~ ~~' l~~':~~ ....::(....'U~ ~~:l-[ ~~_I
Jl=~~~ \1,1 ~ ~ rr-.' . I .' ".' 1N.0,l.\ fT till.:.::Jir . ~__ ---.--f
--- -.... InIT. m=fi\!~C;::.., 1I J} 'l~ m.; -- (f-u-w~(\ i ~..*r~~. r ,
!~-~~ It ~;!~\;' '! 'fr ~\\ \ )\ f. . ~ S , ,
/111 1111111 ~
( I I III I'
I'IHI!U ..
.\ i i I ! II J;;
liil II fil
I I PI!. i!i
hi ni
HI "I
III i
'I .
.1
-p---.
II
'1'
I
I
i
n
...... .
M-
"<
~
M-
('D
~
C/'J
\.<
(/)
M-
('D
S
l---4
\0
\0
W
2. With the exception of commercial (nonresidentiaO and"multiple-family
residential propenies, no one will be required to connect to, or pay for, City water.
3" Anyone may extend and connect to City water, provided those who want it are
willing to pay 100 percent of the. cost.
4. Unless previously assessed, propenies connecting to the ex.isting system must
pay a connection charge (currently $4(00). Credit is allowed (currently up to $2(00)
where trunk or lateral lines must be extended.
While these policies have served adequately for new development, they have presented
problems when applied to requests for extensions to ex:isting residential areas. For example,
if in a neighborhood of 12 homes, three properry owners oppose the extension, the remaining
nine property owners must pay the total cost of the project. The other three pay a connection
fee to the City at such time as they choose to connect to the system.
The City has discussed the concept of requiring all new development capable of being served
by one of the five e.x.isting systems to connect to city water. This raises a number of issues:
. How large must a project be to be subject to this requirement?
. If watermain must be extended to serve the project, how is the extension paid
for?
In the past the biggest problem with the City's water system was lack of users. Ironically,
there are now ponions of the system which may be at or close to capacity. Before many of
the City's water issues can be resolved a determination must be made as to what is the
capacity of the existing systems. A study of the systems will be conducted in early 1994 to
determine how many connections each system can suppon. The study should also identify
ways in which the systems can be enhanced to provide additional capacity.
Following are issues identified to date for each of the five systems:
Amesbury _ This system consists of a single well serving 146 residential units.
Without a backup source, the system is near or at capacity. Interconnection to the
southeast area system is viewed as an imponant objective.
Southeast Area _ Having elevated storage and a water treatment plant, this system is
considered to be complete. It currently serves 366 propenies and has been extended
nonh, across Highway 7 to Excelsior Boulevard. Connected to the Amesbury system,
the system should have capacity to serve the east end of the community.
Woodhaven _ Despite serving only 20 propenies, the extension of this system is not
advisable, due to the single well and lack of a backup source. The City should
continue to explore the possibility of an interconnection with Er.celsior or Chanhassen
to enhance the reliability of the system.
CF-19
Badger - This system serves 47 residential units, plus City Hall and one commercial
property on County Road 19. It is interconnected to the Ton!w Bay water system
which has water treatment and elevated storage. Talk continues about Tanka Bay
taking over this system. If it proves to be feasible, the system should be studied to
determine to what extent it can be expanded. If such an arrangement is not feasible,
at minimum ,consideration should be given to automating the valve benveen the two
(
systems for firefighting purposes.
Boulder Bridge - This system is geographically positioned to serve some of the larger
remaining parcels on the west end of Shorewood. A proposed development of twenty-
four lots on one of those parcels, however, may use up the remaining capacity of the
system. Any junher extension of this system should be made only after detailed
engineering analysis determines the feasibility. The capacity study to be conducted
should identify any improvements which could be made to this system to add capacity.
One hundred and fony-four residents currently use this system.
While it is questionable whether Shorewood will ever have a community-wide water system,
the system which does exist must be managed, and even improved, as cost effectively as
possible. The juture of the system should be approached with the following objectives in
mind:
. All water extensions shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water
Study, dated July 1990, and the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of
State Public Health and Environmental Managers ("TenStates Standards ").
. Determine the capacity of the five water systems and establish potential service
areas.
. Where capacity exists, maximize use by requiring new developments to connect
to the system.
. Establish an equitable policy for assessment of costs for water e'Ctensions to
existing areas.
. Upgrade the system to enhance safety and reliability (e.g. construct a water
tower on the west end of the city, interconnect existing systems, etc.)
Stonn Sewer
In 1975 the City prepared a Comprehensive Storm Water Study which identified 16
subwatershed districts within the community (see following page). The Purgatory Creek
drainage district and pan of the Carson Bay district is located in the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed. The remaining 15 drainage districts are located within the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed. While the study proposed substantial reliance on natural drainage
systems, panicularly the preservation and use of wetlands, a number of areas were proposed
to be served by storm sewer. New development has, for the most pan, been required to
install storm water drainage facilities consistent with the 1975 study. Cenain areas which
CF-20
,,,"
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Department Heads
Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk
May 2, 1997
13G/IC-
Do ~ 1) 4-
,Quik
1991 Study of Proposed City Wide Water System
LDP"!
tc/)tOtl6
Deborah Borkon has asked that this document be provided to everyone for reference
material for the upcoming work session on May 5, 1997. If you plan to attend the work
session, please bring this document and the packet material to the meeting.
NOVEMBER 21, 1991
Quik
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab Number Page
Tab 1: Table of Contents
Tab 2: Findings and Recomendations
Tab 3: Detailed Findings
Questions 1,2,3 and 4 1
Questions 5,6 and 7 2
Questions 8 and 9 3
Questions 10,11 and 12 4
Questions 14 and 15 5
Questions 16,17 and 18 6
Question 19 7
Question 20 8
Question 21 9
Questions 22,23,24 and 25 10
Questions 26-27,28-30,31 11
Tab 3: Selected Cross Tabulations
QlIik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
I. Background
A city-wide water system was proposed as a part of a broader Shorewood
Capital Improvement Program. As a part of a complex effort to obtain voter input
to the Program, the city commissioned a research study to ascertain the
responses of citizens to the water system. Other efforts were also sponsored,
including an open meeting during which citizens could speak directly to
members of the City Council and the Mayor.
II. Proposal for Research Project.
The proposal for the research project is contained in the Appendices as the first
attachment and this proposal outlines the objectives for the research and the
activities and work plan. (Please see the First Appendix.)
III. Development of the Interview Guide
The development of the interview guide occurred in three stages.
1. The researcher met with all of the members of the City Council, the
Major, City staff and the City Administrator to determine the key
issues which were essential to include in the interview. After these
meetings, the first draft of the interview guide was prepared.
2. The draft interview guide was reviewed by all members of the City
Council, the Mayor and the City Administrator. Revisions were
suggested and incorporated into a second draft. This second draft
was pilot tested on five persons, using the telephone interview
process that would be used for the full sample.
3. Following the pilot test, revisions were suggested to the City
Council and City Administrator, based on suggestions from the
pilot test candidates and the interviewers using the instrument.
The third draft of the interview guide was prepared, precoded and
submitted to the City for final approval.
A copy of the finalized version of the interview guide is included in the Appendix
of this report. (See Second Appendix.)
1
';7~f~-~~'~~
:t' -:.,! ',-:
-:~:i
.: ::::~,;. ';-,jJ
Qllik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
I V . Sampling for the Project
After a discussion of sampling options, it was agreed that the sampling frame for
the survey would be all property owners paying property taxes within
Shorewood. Although the unit of sample would be households, since the
assessment would be levied against a household, the unit of response would
be all taxpaying adults who contributed to property taxes for the household.
This was decided because in the opinion of the Council, there were too many
households in which the adults were not of the same mind relative to this issue.
After much deliberation, the Council agreed that it could not come up with any
equitable decision rule by which to decided whose opinion in the household
should represent the whole household. Thus, all adults who qualified and
wanted to participate were asked to answer the survey questions.
The sample for the interview was selected using a PID Directory published by
Hennepin County in January, 1991. It was determined that every sixth name
should be drawn to create a random sample pool of approximately 500
households which could be contacted for the survey. A random start point for
the sampling was selected, and after that point, every sixth name was drawn
and written down on an index card. The name of the taxpayer was selected.
After these names had been selected, city staff looked up street address and
phone numbers for the sample. Out of this pool of approximately 500 names,
325 names were actually screened and used for the survey process.
Number of names which were screened/used 325
Names disqualified for lack of phone number
(not listed, not in voter's registration records) -56
Names disqualified for wrong/disconnected number -20
Names disqualified for other reasons
Not a property owner, dead, live on island -20
Names remaining 229
Numbers called repeatedly with no answer 47
Households which refused to answer the questions 44
Household included in the survey 138
Overall, the level of cooperation was excellent and the response per number of
eligible names was outstanding (60.2%).
2
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
V. Level of Error in a Sample of 200
There are three factors which affect the error in the percent response to any
given question. These are:
The sample size: as the sample size goes up, the size of error
goes down.
The confidence interval: the interval is traditionally set at two
different places in research. 95% (which means that the
researcher is taking the risk that the sample that was selected
would be likely to answer in the same way as any other random
sample selected from the same population 19 out of 20 times) or
99% (which means that the researcher reduces the risk, stating
that the sample that was selected would be likely to answer in the
same way as any other randomly selected sample from the same
population 99 out of 100 times.)
The higher the confidence interval, the larger the error is
calculated to be.
The percent of favorable responses to any given question. For
example, if the favorable responses are 50% and the unfavorable
responses are 50%, the error is the greatest because opinions are
evenly divided. If the favorable responses are 90% and the
unfavorable responses are 10%, the trend is much stronger and
the error is less.
These factors have been incorporated into a formula and when this formula was
computed for this survey, using the 95% confidence interval, the following
answers were obtained.:
Percent favorable responses 50%
Percent favorable responses 90%
error = +/- 6.9%
error = +/- 4.2%
It is important to recall that the error differs for every question depending on the
percent of favorable responses and cannot be assigned to the survey as a
whole. It is also important to recall that when looking at any subset of
respondents in which the sample is smaller than 200, that the error will
increase.
3
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
In looking at questions 14-17, the error could be assigned as follows:
Questions Favorable% Error Response Range
Q. 14: capital investment favorable=34.5% +/-6.6% 27.9- 41.1%
Q.15: conversion time frame favorable=63.0% +/-6.6% 56.4-69.6%
Q.16: property owner assess favorable=63.5% +/-6.6% 56.9-70.1 %
Q.17: overall reaction favorable=43.5% +/-6.9% 36.6-50.4%
VI. Representativeness of the Sample
There always is a problem in assuring that a smaller random sample really is
representative of the universe from which the sample is drawn. This can never
be known with certainty unless a 100% sample is drawn. However, there are
some ways that the data can be analyzed to see whether it is reasonable to
assume that this sample represents the property owners of Shorewood.
City Water Subscribers versus Well Water Users
The City staff had estimated that the proportion of households on city water as
compared to household with private wells was approximately 30% of all
households. The data on the sample showed that:
City water users
Private wells
70.5%
29.5%
This was very close to city staff estimates.
Gender
The responses were evenly split between men and women with the following
response:
Females
Males
48.2%
51.8%
Age
The average age of respondents was 47 years old.
4
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
Households by Zone
City staff estimated the number of households in each of the ten zones which
were used to locate the interview candidates for geographic location analysis
purposes. The following results were obtained:
City Staff Estimates Number of HH Percent
Zone of Numbers of HH in the Sample of HH in Sample
Zone 1 336 17 5.1%
Zone 2 186 11 5.9%
Zone 3 198 6 3.0%
Zone 4 68 4 5.9%
Zone 5 201 17 8.5%
Zone 6 126 15 11.9%
Zone 7 305 15 4.9%
Zone 8 153 6 3.9%
Zone 9 199 15 7.5%
Zone 10 374 32 8.6%
Totals 2,146 138 6.4%
Although it is literally impossible to obtain perfect correlation between zones
and the sample, unless a quota sampling system is used, the sample
approximates the zone household count. The two zones which appear to be
most undersampled are zones 3 and 8. One zone was oversampled, zone 6.
(See the Map at the end of the Appendix for the placement of the zones within
Shorewood city limits.)
VII. Major Questions and Findings
The City Council, Mayor and City Staff had several educated guesses
(hypotheses) which they wanted to test in the interview process. These
included:
City water versus well water: do city water users support the
change more than those households with private wells?
Affluent versus less affluent households: do more affluent
households support the change than less affluent households?
Newer residents versus long time residents: do more newer
residents of the City support the change than do long time
residents?
5
r~J
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
Zones: do the eastern zones of the city support the change more
than do the western zones?
Major investment in well recently as compared to no investment or
long ago investment: do households which have made a recent
major investment in their private wells oppose the change more
than those households which haven't?
Knowledge of and prior experience with city water: have
Shorewood citizens had enough previous experience with a city
sponsored water system to understand and know the benefits?
Each of these issues will be briefly addressed in the discussion below. For
more detail on the interview responses to the questions, see the Detailed
Interview Findings Report which immediately follows this section of the report.
City water versus well water
There were significant differences between these two groups of households.
The respondents to the survey were divided as follows:
City water users
Private well users
29.5%
70.5%
When a cross-tabulation was run on these data, showing the support for each of
the four issues detailed in Questions 14-17, a chi-square statistic showed
significant differences for all four questions between the two groups. City water
users are more likely to support the changes than are private well users.
City Water Well Water
Q. 14 Support 47.5% 29.1%
Oppose 45.8% 66.0%
Significance: .028
City Water Well Water
Q. 15 Support 47.5% 29.1%
Oppose 45.8% 66.0
Significance: .0062
6
. i~.~
.~ ~J
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
City Water Well Water
Q. 16 Support 81.4% 56.0%
Oppose 15.3% 41.8%
Significance: .0014
City Water Well Water
Q. 17 Support 61.0% 36.2%
Oppose 37.3% 61.0%
Significance: .0054
Affluent versus less affluent households
Shorewood is a city which has a mix of affluence among its dwellers. The self-
reported income for households in 1990 reflects this mix of affluence. The
mean income for the 138 households was $62,730. The median (the point at
which 50% of the respondents are below and 50% are above) was the
response category $60-69,999. There were two modal responses (categories
with the greatest number of respondents). These were:
$50,-59,999 25.1 % of all respondents
$90,000 or over 26.7% of all respondents
When income was cross-tabulated with the four opinion questions, Question 14-
17, there were no statistically significant differences among the income groups
although there did appear to be a tendency for lower income groups to be less
supportive of the changes. This was reflected in a chi-square of .08 for
Question 17. which approaches the range considered by researchers for
significant findings (.05 or less).
7
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
Newer residents versus long time residents
The length of time a resident had lived in Shorewood was predicted to be a
strong indicator of their attitude toward these changes because long time
residents were supportive of a more rural environment for Shorewood while
newer residents appeared to be seeking more urban amenities. The interview
respondents had lived in Shorewood an average of 13.4 years. However, there
were vast differences in the respondents. A full 25% of the respondents had
lived in Shorewood less than 3 years and the median length of time in
Shorewood was 8 years. The average was so high because some of the
respondents had Jived in Shorewood a very long time, skewing the average
upwards.
The beliefs about the differences in the two groups responses to the citywide
water system changes were supported through the data when cross-tabulations
were run on two groupings of residents, separated by the length of time they
had lived in Shorewood. One group had Jived in Shorewood ten years or less
and the other group had lived in Shorewood longer than ten years.
The group which had lived in Shorewood for the shorter period of time was
more supportive of the changes than the group which had lived in Shorewood
for a longer period of time. These differences were statistically significant for all
four questions as can be seen below:
Ten Years or Less More Than Ten Years
o. 14 Support 45.7% 22.1%
Oppose 50.5% 70.5%
Significance: .0019
Ten Years or Less More Than Ten Years
O. 15 Support 70.5% 54.7%
Oppose 26.7% 44.2%
Significance: .0079
8
~';!>Y>'-~.1
i ....!
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
Ten Years or Less
More Than Ten Years
Q. 16
Support
Oppose
Significance: .0007
75.2%
50.5%
21.9%
47.4%
Ten Years or Less
More Than Ten Years
Q. 17
Support
Oppose
Significance: .0007
56.2%
29.5%
41.9%
67.4%
Zones
In order to see if some parts of the city were more supportive of these changes
than were other parts, interview candidates were asked a series of questions to
help locate them within the city. The City was divided into ten zones. When the
chi-square statistic was applied to these ten groups and their answers to the
four opinion questions, there were no statistically significant findings. Very
likely, the size of the sample and the number of groups increased the chance
that there would not be significant differences. A larger sample would have
permitted a more powerful analysis. (See the Cross-Tabulation Tables Ten
through Fourteen, after the Detailed Interview Findings Report.)
9
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
November 21, 1991
Major Investment in Well Recently
Since the improvement or redrilling of a well can cost several thousands of
dollars, it was reasonable to expect that those households with a well which
had recently been improved at considerable cost might resist the cost of the
assessment for installing city water. However, when the persons who had
invested a significant amount of money in their wells (more than $200.) were
divided into two groups, those who had done this within five years and those
who had done this more than five years ago, the two groups did not differ
significantly in their responses to the four opinion questions. Once again, the
groups may have been too small for this difference to be picked up by the chi-
square statistic.
The total group size of those having made such an expenditure
was 66.
Those who made this investment within the past five years
numbered 38.
Knowledge of and prior experience with city water
Although it is reasonable to anticipate that those citizens who had never
experienced city water systems and their benefits would be more resistant to
changing from private wells to city water, this hypotheses was not tested since
so many of the respondents had indicated that they had been on city water at
some previous residence, if not at their current residence. Only 17.5% of the
respondents had never been on a city water system.
VIII. Issues and Recommendations
1. The changes in the city-wide water system are not broadly supported by
the property owners of Shorewood. This appears to be due to
resistance to the overall cost of the program. Other reasons for
resistance and/or support are:
Resistance:
Overall cost of the system
Well owners do not need a replacement
The water quality of wells is good
The taxes are already high in Shorewood
Support:
City water system should improve water quality
City water system would support city growth
The system would mean financial stability
10
Quik
The City of Shorewood
City Water System Interview Project
Summary Findings and Recommendations
. November 21, 1991
2. Many citizens in Shorewood already treat their water. Water quality
appears to be more of an issue than the city water system.
92.5% of all respondents soften their water
38.%% of all respondents treat their water for iron.
3. Many of the citizens appeared confused by the information they had
received. The issues involving the development of a city water system
were complex and the financial aspects were complicated. When
confronted with the need to express an opinion, it may have been easier
to say "no" than to say "yes" to something they didn't fully understand.
In addition, the residents of the City of Shorewood have mobilized strong
opposition to the city water system concept which has been proposed
several times in the past ten years. This tendency for citizens to react
rather than proact appears to be a pattern in Shorewood.
4. When considering city water in the future, the City should attend to the
fact that property owners would be more likely to support the system if:
the overall capital costs of the system were less
some accommodation were made for lower income
and fixed income households
a flexible conversion period were included in the plan
payment options existed, especially for low income
households.
5. The differences between certain groups of property owners within the
City of Shorewood are likely to increase rather than decrease. When
some critical mass is reached of newer city dwellers (recently moved in)
and city water users, the support for the city wide water system probably
will be stronger than the resistance against it.
The two groups, comprised of newer residents on city water and older
residents on well water, have different ideas of how a city should serve its
residents. The former expects modern and up to date services and the
latter wants the city to protect its right to privacy and independence.
These objectives may be at odds with each other.
1 1
. Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 . Do you own and pay taxes on any residential or business Of other
property located within the City of Shorewood.
Taxpavers %
Residential
Undeveloped Property
Residential & Business
Residential & Undeveloped
TOTAL
194
2
2
2
200
97.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
2. Within the past two weeks, have you read anything about the water
system changes which are being considered by the City Council of
Shorewood? Information has been published both by the City and the
local newspaper.
Taxpayers %
Read Packet from city
Read Newspaper
Read Packet & Newspaper
TOTAL
93
16
91
200
46.5
8.0
45.5
100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. Are you cUfrently hooked into the city water system or do you have your
own well?
T axpaver %
City Water
Well System
TOTAL
59
141
200
29.5
70.5
100.0
=============================================================
4. Have you ever lived in a house, either in another location within
Shorewood or in another city, which was connected to the city water
system?
Taxpaver
%
Yes, within Shorewood
Yes, in another city
No
TOTAL
1
105
35
141
0.7
74.5.
24.8
100.0
1
/
i~~:rg;;~
'~.i1
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
5. About how much did you spend during the last twelve months on your
current water system including services such as water softening, well
maintenance and repair, and electricity for the well pump? (WHOLE
DOLLARS ONLY UP TO $9998.
Out of 141 possible responses, there were 117 with an average of
$395.00 for the lasat 12 months. The other 24 either didn't know or
refused to respond.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
6. Do you think that last year's water costs were about average or were they
lower or higher than other previous years?
Taxpayers %
About average
Higher than average
Lower than average
No Answer
TOTAL
112
19
5
5
141
79.5
13.5
3.5
3.5
100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------~---------
7. During the time you have owned your well, have you ever made a major
investment in your well, that is more than $200, doing such things as
having the well redrilled or having the pump replaced? (INTERVIEWER:
IF THEY HAVE INVESTED SEVERAL TIMES, GATHER INFORMATION
ON THE MOST RECENT TIME.)
Taxpayer %
No, never 75 53.2
Yes 66 46.8
TOTAL 141 100.0
Year made the investment
1991 8 12.1
1990 5 7.6
1989 9 13.6
1988 8 12.1
1987 8 12.1
1986 5 7.6
1985 4 6.1
1983 3 4.5
1982 3 4.5
Before 1982 13 19.7
TOTAL 66 100.0
(can't on next page)
2
The City of Shorewood
Quik Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
Question 7 (con't) Average amount spent on well.
The average for the 66 taxpayers that did invest in their well was $1,662.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
8. Approximately how old is your well?
Out of 141 possible responses 127 did respond with an average age for
the well of 16 years. The other 14 either didn't know or didn't respond.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
9. Have you ever had the water in your well tested for purity?
Taxpayer 0/0
No
Don't Know
Yes
TOTAL
34
2
105
141
24.1
1.5
74.4
100.0
Y ear Tested
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1983
1982
Before 1982
Don't know
TOTAL
9 8.6
8 7.6
14 13.3
7 6.7
8 7.6
8 7.6
5 4.8
2 1.9
2 1.9
10 9.5
32 30.5
105 100.0
71 67.6
1 1 10.5
1 1 10.5
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
9 8.4
105 100.0
Test Results
Fine, O.K, etc.
Excellent, outstanding, etc.
High Iron content
Requires chlorine treatment
High Minerals
High Minerals but good
Don't know
TOTAL
3
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
. .
======================================================
1 O. Do you currently treat your water either to soften it or to remove iron or for
any other reason?(MAY INDICATE MORE THAN ONE.)
Taxpayer
%
Treat water to soften
Treat water to remove iron
Treat water for other purposes
Do not treat water
185
77
11
12
92.5
38.5
5.5
6.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
11. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the quality of your
water. Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?
Taxpayer
%
Very Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
TOTAL
102
66
16
16
200
51.0
33.0
8.0
8.0
100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
12. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with your current water
system. Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?
Taxpayer
%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
TOTAL
120
62
11
7
200
60.0
31.0
5.5
3.5
100.0
Reason for dissatisfaction with current water system
Somewhat dissatisfied
- a lot of work and money 6 33.3
-system getting oldlbad water pressure 3 16.7
Very Dissatisfied
- poor water quality due to iron content 5 27.8
-problems with hook-ups to city water 3 16.7
-the whole setup is a ioke in Shorewood 1 5.6
TOTAL 18 100.0
4
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
14. The City of Shorewood is considering converting the entire city to a
central water system.
The city's water service is operating at a deficit. The balance of the deficit
in the water fund is currently greater than $200,000. This deficit is
financed by City tax income. The deficit is expected to increase over the
next 20 years. The investment cost of a city-wide water system is
projected to be $13 mil/lion dollars. This investment would be paid back
by special assessments and water revenues over time. The water
system would then be expected to operate on a break-even basis,
reducing the need for tax support.
Do you support a capital investment in a new city water system or do you
oppose this expenditure?
Taxpayer 0/0
Support 69 34.5
Oppose 120 60.0
No OpinionJNeutral 11 5.5
TOTAL 200 100,0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
15. If a central water system is adopted, property owners on wells would be
asked to choose a hook-up time which is most convenient for them over a
five year period of time. Would you support this five year conversion
period from well water to city water or would you oppose it?
Taxpayer %
Support 126 63.0
Oppose 70 35.0
No opinion/neutral 4 2.0
TOTAL 200 100.0
5
(~~~
A~,',,_"';'~ oj
Ql1ik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
16. The cost of a central water system to the Shorewood, property owner who
is not currently hooked up to City water and not living on the islands
would be about $4800. This cost would be assessed over 15 years.
Would you support assessing a portion of the costs of the new water
system to all Shorewood property owners who are not connected to City
water or would you oppose it?
Taxpayer %
Support 127 63.5
Oppose 68 34.0
No opinion/neutral 5 2.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
17. In summary, considering all the aspects of the conversion to a centralized
water system, tell me if you support or are you opposed to the
conversion of the City to a central water system?
Taxpayer %
Support 87 43.5
Oppose 108 54.0
No opinion/neutral 5 2.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
18. How strongly do you support (or oppose) the decision. Would you say
you strongly or only somewhat support (oppose) the decision?
Taxpayer %
Strongly support 38 19.5
Somewhat support 49 25.1
Somewhat oppose 27 13.8
StronglY opoose 81 41.6
TOTAL 195 100.0
6
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-~-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
19. What is the main reason you support (oppose) the central water system.
Please explain your answer to the last question so that I can clearly
understand your reasons and relay them to the City. (INTERVIEWER:
PROBE TO CLARIFY. MAY INDICATE MORE THAN ONE REASON.)
Taxpayer o~
In support of
- better quality water/treat iron
- city water system is inevitable
- best for future growth
- better to be citywide than haphazard
like it is now
- would help community financially
- should have been done long ago
- it is important to eliminate deficit
- dissatisfied with my well
- expect future problems with my well
- public safety - fire control
- support as long as those on city
water do not pay more
- good investment for resale of home
- access and control of health hazards
-water rates too high in comparison
with others
Opposed to
- high cost of assesment and system
- have my own system, why should I
pay for a new one?
- taxes are already too high
- best water in Shorewood comes
from wells
- I oppose the assement-no ther reason
- financing proposed by city unrealistic
- Council makes up their mind without
the consent of taxpayers
- spent a lot of money on my well
- we do not have the industrial base
to support it
- Shorewood will not do a good job
putting in the system
- city has no need for system- not
dense enough
- a lot of people cannot afford it
- only if new politicians and business
managers in the city
- water system has been mishandled
for past ten years
7
26 13.0
16 8.0
13 6.5
11 5.5
1 1 5.5
7 3.5
6 3.0
6 3.0
6 3.0
4 2.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
2 1.0
1 0.5
44 22.0
41 20.5
9 4.5
7 3.5
7 3.5
6 3.0
5 2.5
4 2.0
4 2.0
4 2.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
3 1.5
2 1.0
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
Question 19 (can't)
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
20. What major changes, if any, would you like to see the City make in the
proposed central water system plan ?
Taxpayers 0/0
No changes to suggest 93 46.5
Would rather not see it done 22 11.0
Better explanation of costs of system 10 5.0
Lengthen the hook-up time 9 4.5
Make it available where it is needed 8 4.0
keep it out where it's not supported
Do not require well owners to switch 6 3.0
Monitor water quality/Federal guidelines 5 2.5
Spread current system deficit over 5 2.5
entire tax base
Improve the water quality 5 2.5
Clean up current system first 4 2.0
Reduce costs and improve service 3 1.5
Create set-back exemption for seniors 3 1.5
Make allowances for hardship cases 2 1.0
Reimburse those paying for system now 2 1.0
How long will we be inconvenienced? 2 1.0
Reduce the hook-up costs 2 1.0
Buy the service from someone else 2 1.0
Get current system users to make up deficit 2 1.0
Bring the price down 2 1.0
Merge with Excelsior and Chanhassen 2 1.0
for economy of scale
I hope I am included in the system 2 1.0
8
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
Question 20 (con't)
Suggestions-
Taxpayers
%
Reduce or eliminate interest if 2
paid in 15 years
Close up system and have people 2
put in wells everywhere
Wait for city population to rise 1
I will vote against those who vote for it 1
All citizens should pay for iron removal 1
Make those not hooked up pay for it 1
Credit for those who pay for it but 1
don't get it
Get staff and politicians with 1
experience in this area
Use old equipment/pipes as much 1
as possible to reduce costs
Reduce assement to $3500 - city 1
finance the rest of it
We would like to know where the 1
line will go
Everyone should pay assement, even 1
current users
Those who implement system within 1
a certain period should get a break
Put in water mains during road construction 1
Explain benefits to those already on 1
city water
Charge a fee based on usage not 1
based on ownership
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------~---------
21. How long have you lived within the City of Shorewood?
The average length of residency for the 200 respondents was 13.4 years.
9
~ifJ
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
22. Gender (DO NOT ASK)
Taxpayer %
Female 96 48.0
Male 103 51.5
No Answer 1 0.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
=============================================================
23. What year were you born?
Out of 197 responses the average age of the taxpayer was 47.0 years.
Three chose not to respond.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
24. Including yourself, how many adults live in your household?
Taxpayer %
One 20 10.0
Two 159 79.7
Three 19 9.3
Four 1 0.5
No Answer 1 0.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
25. For 1990, please tell me whether your total household income
before taxes was more or less than $50,000.
Taxpayer %
Over $50,000 139 69.5
Less than $50,000 47 23.5
I don't know 1 0.5
Refused 13 6.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
10
}~j
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
=============================================================
26. Tell me which one of these income categories best describes your total
household income before taxes for 1990.
Taxpayer 0/0
Less than $20,000 6 3.0
$20,000 to $29,999 9 4.5
$30,000 to $39,999 16 8.0
$40,000 to $49,999 12 6.0
$50,000 to $59,999 47 23.5
$60,000 to $69,999 13 6.5
$70,000 to $79,999 17 8.5
$80,000 to $89,999 5 2.5
More than $90,000 50 25.0
I don't know 1 0.5
Refused 24 12.0
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Questions 28 through 30 relate to geographic zones within Shorewood where
the interview candidate lived. (See Map at end of Appendices.)
Geographic Zone Taxpayer 0/0
Zone 1 24 12.0
Zone 2 16 8.0
Zone 3 10 5.0
Zone 4 4 2.0
Zone 5 27 13.5
Zone 6 22 11.0
Zone 7 24 12.0
Zone 8 9 4.5
Zone 9 18 9.0
Zone 10 46 23.0
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
31. There is one other issue on which City Council members would like you
to express your opinion. Please tell me whether you currently support or
oppose the use of the walking and biking trail in Shorewood by
snowmobiles in the winter time?
Taxpayer 0/0
Support 75 37.5
Oppose 108 54.0
No opinion/neutral 17 8.5
TOTAL 200 100.0
1 1
K:~~
Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Interview Project
Detailed Interview Findings Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time. Before I hang up, could you tell me if there are
any other adults living within your household who share responsibility
with you for the payment of property taxes?
Taxpayer %
Yes 104 52.0
No 32 16.0
No Answer 64 32.0
TOTAL 200 100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
INTERVIEWER: VERIFY THEIR NAME AND OBTAIN THEIR ADDRESS, IF
POSSIBLE, IF IT IS NOT ON THE CARD.
STAPLE THE CARD TO THIS INTERVIEW AND KEEP ALL INTERVIEWS FROM
THE SAME HOUSEHOLD PAPER CLIPPED TOGETHER.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
12
The City of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 10
Support/Oppose Questions Total Current water system Have you made a major Length of Shorewood residency
investment in your well?
City water Yell system Not recently Yithin 5 years 10 years or Over 10 years
less
[atal number of respondents 200 59 141 98 43 105 95
100.0% 29.5% 70.5% 69.5% 30.5% 52.5% 47.5%
Capi tal investment in a new city water system
Support 34.5% 47.5% 29.1% 26.5% 34.9% 45 7V ~ci'f<(
Oppose 60.0% 45.8% ~ft. 0'1'.4% 58.1% 50.5% 70.5%
No opinion/neutral 5.5% 6.8% 5.0% 4.1% 7.0% 3.8% 7.4%
rive year conversion period from wells to city water
Support 63.0% 78.0% 56.7% 58.2% 53.5% 70.5% 54.7";'
Oppose 35.0% 18.6% 41.8% 40.8% 44.2% 26.7% 44.2%
No opinion/neutral 2.0% 3.4% 1.4% 1.0% 2.3% 2.9% 1.1%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support 63.5% 81.4% 56.0% 57.1% 53.5% 75 . 2% 50.5%
Oppose 34.0% 15.3% 41.8% 41.8% 4 1. 9% 21. 9% 47.4%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% 3.4% 2.1% 1.0% 4.7% 2.9% 2.1%
research Quik, 11/91
The City of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October. 1991
Data Table 11
Support/Oppose Questions Total Current water system Have you made a major Length of Shorewood residency
investment in your well?
City water Yell system Not recently Within 5 years 10 years or Over 10 years
less
Tot a l mxnber of respondents 200 59 141 98 43 105 95
100.0% 29.5% 70.5% 69.5% 30.5% 52.5% 47.5%
Overall support/oppose centralized water system
Support 43.5% [,1 O'l( ~I, 2% 3;>.7% 44 ;>% 56.;>'l( &.~..s'l(
Oppose 54.0% 37.3% 61.0% 65.3% 51.2% 41.9% 67.4%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% 1. 7'1. 2.8% 2.0% 4.7% 1.9% 3.2%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9% 27.6% 15.2% 11.5% 23.8% 24.3% 12.9%
Somewhat support 22.4% 25.9% 21.0% 20.8% 21.4% 29.1% 15.1%
Somewhat oppose 16.3% 17.2% 15.9% 17.7% 11.9% 14.6% 18.3%
Strongly oppose 42.3% 29.3% 47.8% 50.0% 42.9% 32.0% 53.8%
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling in winter
Support 37.5% 30.5% 40.4% 42.9% 34.9% 32.4% 43.2%
Oppose 54.0% 66.1% 48.9% 46.9% 53.5% 61.0% 46.3%
No opinion/neutral 8.5% 3.4% 10.6% 10.2% 11. 6% 6.7% 10.5%
research Quik, 11/91
The City of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October, 1991
Data Table 12
Support/Oppose Questions Total Geographic zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10
Total number of respondents 200 24 16 10 4 27 22 24 9 18 46
100.0% 12.0% 8.0% 5.0% 2.0% 13.5% 11. 0% 12.0% 4.5% 9.0% 23.0%
Capital investment in a new city water system
Support 34.5% 4 1 . 7"1. 31.3% 40.0% 50.0% 22.2% 36.4% 41.7% 33.3% 38.9% 30.4%
Oppose 60.0% 50.0% 62.5% 50.0% 50.0% 70.4% 59.1% 58.3% 66.7% 55.6% 63.0%
No opinion/neutral 5.5% 8.3% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 7.4% 4.5% .0% .0% 5.6% 6.5%
Five year conversion period from wells to city water
Support 63.0% 70.8% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 63.0% 54.5% 66.7% 44.4% 61.1% 63.0%
Oppose 35.0% 29.2% 18.8% 40.0% 25.0% 33.3% 45.5% 33.3% 55.6% 38.9% 34.8%
No opinion/neutral 2.0% .0% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 3.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.2%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support 63.5% 75.0% 75.0% 90.0% 50.0% 40.7% 54.5% 62.5% 77.8% 66.7% 63.0%
Oppose 34.0% 25.0% 18.8% .0% 50.0% 51.9% 45.5% 37.5% 22.2% 33.3% 34.8%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% .0% 6.3% 10.0% .0% 7.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.2%
research Quik. 11/91
The City of Shorew~
Yater System Researc'
. 1991
---
f
Support/Oppose Questions Total Geographic zone
~ne Zone 2 Zone 3 Lone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10
Total number of respondents 200 24 8;; 10 4 27 22 24 9 18 46
100.0% 12.0% 5.Cr 2.0% 13.5% 11. 0% 12.0% 4.5% 9.0'1. 23.0%
overall support/oppose centralized water system F
Support 43.5% 50.0% .50.0% 70.0% 75.0Y- 29.6% .&).0% 45.8% 44.4'1. I 55.6'1. 28.3%
Oppose 54.0% -SP.Ul. 50.0% 3U.0/. 25.0% 59.3% 50.0% 54.2% 55.6% ~.& 69.6%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 5.6% 2.2%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9% 12.5% 12.5% 30.0% 25.0% 16.0% 22.7% 29.2% 11.1% 17.6% 17.8%
Somewhat support 22.4% 25.0% 37.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.0% 27.3% 16.7% 22.2% 41.2'1. 8.9%
Somewhat oppose 16.3% 25.0% 6.3% 10.0% 25.0% 24.0% 18.2% 8.3% .0% 5.9'1. 22.2%
Strongly oppose 42.3% 37.5% 43.8% 10.0% 25.0% 48.0% 31.8% 45.8% 66.7% 35.3% 51.1%
Use of walking/biking trails for snowmobiling in winter
Support 37.5% 20.8% 18.8% 10.0% 75.0% 18.5% 36.4% 50.0% 44.4% 50.0% 54.3%
Oppose 54.0% 75.0% 81.3% 80.0% 25.0% 66.7% 59.1'1. 45.8% 55.6% 38.9% 30.4%
No opinion/neutral 8.5% 4.2% .0% 10.0% .0% 14.8% 4.5'1. 4.2% .0% 11.1% 15.2%
research Quik, 1t/91
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research--October,1991
Data Table 14
Support/Oppose Questions Total Total household income
less than $50,000 to $60,000 to Over $90,000 I don't know Refused
$50,000 $59,999 $89,999
Total number of respondents 200 43 47 35 50 1 24
100.0% 21.5% 23.5% 17.5% 25.0% .5% 12.0%
Capital investment in a new city water system
Support 34.5% 27.9% 34.0% 51.4% 36.0% .0% 20.8%
Oppose 60.0% 69.8% 63.8% 40.0% 58.0% 100.0% 66.7%
No opinion/neutral 5.5% 2.3% 2.1% 8.6% 6.0% .0% 12.5%
Five year conversion period from wells to city water
Support 63.0% 55.8% 76.6% 65.7% 68.0% 100.0% 33.3%
Oppose 35.0% 44.2% 23.4% 31.4% 32.0% .0% 54.2%
No opinion/neutral 2.0% .0% .0% 2.9% .0% .0% 12.5%
Assessing a portion of costs to all property owners
Support 63.5% 51. 2% 70.2% 65.7% 72.0% 100.0% 50.0%
Oppose 34.0% 48.8% 29.8% 28.6% 28.0% .0% 37.5%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% .0% .0% 5.7% .0% .0% 12.5%
Overall support/oppose centralized water system
Support 43.5% 32.6% 46.8% 60.0% 50.0% .0% 20.8%
Oppose 54.0% 65.1% 51.1% 37.1% 50.0% 100.0% 70.8%
No opinion/neutral 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 2.9% .0% .0% 8.3%
Strength of overall support/opposition
Strongly support 18.9% 9.5% 19.6% 29.4% 18.0% .0% 21. 7%
somewhat support 22.4% 21.4% 21. 7% 32.4% 26.0% .0% 4.3%
Somewhat oppose 16.3% 14.3% 17.4% 23.5% 10.0% .0% 21. 7%
Strongly oppose 42.3% 54.8% 41.3% 14.7% 46.0% 100.0% 52.2%
(continued)
research Quik, 11/91
The City of Shorewood
Yater System Research--October,1991
Data Table 14
Support/Oppose Questions Total Total household income
less than $50,000 to $60,000 to Over $90,000 I don't know Refused
$50,000 $59,999 $89,999
Have you made a major investment in your well?
No t recent l y 69.5% 76.9% 68.8% 54.5% 65.5% 100.0% 77.8%
fJi thin last 5 years 30.5% 23.1% 31.3% 45.5% 34.5% .0% 22.2%
Average amount of investment for those wi th a
recent investment $1,720 $1,611 $1,195 $1,658 $2,200 $2,400
research Quik, 11/93
. '
rcs~~lr(h Quik
September 23, 1991
Jim Hurm, City Administrator
The City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Jim:
This letter is to document our discussions about a possible research study of the
citizens of Shorewood to ascertain their understanding of and, support for a new
water system for the City. In order to help the Council react to this research
proposal, I have outlined some key elements to the proposal in this letter. If you
would like a more detailed proposal, please let me know. I would also be
happy to speak with the Council about the proposal to explain aspects of it.
The proposal has three parts:
Goals for the study
Activities to be included in the study
Costs and Payment for the study.
In addition, I have designed this letter so that it could be used as a
Memorandum Of Understanding. If the Council should find that this proposal,
as outlined, would meet their needs, a representative of the City should sign the
designated place and a copy should be returned to me.
Goals for the Study:
Ascertain the reactions of random sample of property and home
owners to the proposed water system changes as outlined in an
educational packet and as discussed in the local media.
Determine the major differences between those property and
home owners who are most likely to support a new system and
those who are most likely to support any other alternative.
Possible differences to be explored include but are not limited to:
Current system user and current non-user
More affluent and less affluent property owners
Long time residents compared to newer residents
Discover the major pros and cons of the new system, from the
citizens' point of view.
AIIl r k e till JI IT lH JI' e n f () r IT r () ll' i lilT b /I J i 11 e:iS e s.
,- .
\: ". ."'
II
. .
The City of Shorewood
"c'.;:"QUlk \\:::':\."!" 'I:'. ,\!\;;:lc",,:.; Water System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
Provide timely feedback to the City following the distribution of
educational materials about the new system by completing
research before a public hearing which is scheduled 13 days later.
Activities Included In the Study:
Preparation:
Meetings with Council and key City staff to determine issues
of greatest interest for inclusion in the survey.
Discussion of sampling issues and screening issues i.e. is
the research a random sample or are citizens screened for
inclusion in the study
(Recommendation: random sample of 200 citizens (not
households) with each name contacted 5 times before
replacement and every adult in the household interviewed.
The sample of 200 permits some reliable analyses of
smaller subsamples such as all the property owners who
are currently hooked up to City water.)
A draft of the interview is composed for review by Council
and key City staff. Interview pilot tested on sample of 10
property and home owners.
Final draft of interview revised and approved by Council
and staff.
Interviewing:
The City of Shorewood mails out a flyer or letter to all
citizens explaining that our research firm may be contacting
them, encouraging their participation.
The City of Shorewood furnishes Research Quik with a
listing of all Shorewood citizens and their telephone
numbers. If numbers are unlisted, Shorewood mails
notices to all unlisted numbers drawn for the sample,
asking them to return a postage paid response form with
their telephone number on it so they can be included in the
survey.
The sample is selected and a master list is made using a
random starting point in the Shorewood list and an nth
number system.
,
..m.....
B1
\.;' :Quik \~.
: :......;'(.;;'-
\. ~ !';
The City of Shorewood
,''')'.: Water System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
The screening questions for the interview are agreed upon
and will probably include but are not limited to:
Selecting only householders and businesses which
own property in Shorewood, not renters.
Determining if the interviewee has reviewed any
written material on this topic and remailing them
new packets before interviewing them, if they have
not.
The telephone interviewers are trained based on pilot test
results to deal with special issues related to this study. Any
questions which interview candidates might ask
interviewers, and which are specific to the issue, will have
written answers developed. These answers are reviewed
and approved by City staff prior to the study.
Phone calling begins on October 24 and continues until
completed but not sooner than November 2nd. Interviews
are not longer than ten minutes each, on the average, and
do not include more than 5 open-ended questions.
Analysis and Reporting:
Interviews are pre-coded for data entry. Data entry is
completed (verified entry - double entry). The first report of
frequency distributions is ready by November 4 - this may
be in draft form due to the short turn-around time.
Research Quik furnishes the City a record of the number of
households contacted, the number of refusals, bad phone
numbers, disconnected phones, no answers and so on.
The summary findings are reviewed in at least one but no
more than two sessions with the City Council and selected
staff. Other analyses are conducted as requested. Key
points for inclusion in a summary report are discussed and
the Council/staff suggest a report outline.
A report is drafted for review by Council and staff.
Revisions are suggested and the draft is finalized.
A camera ready copy of the final report and a bound copy of
the report is given to the City of Shorewood for storage and
duplication.
~
m
The City of Shorewood
, Water System Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
,;!',.;:QUlk \l';'I~'-':i't ;'. '..
Costs and Payment:
Research Quik, Inc. can complete this study as specified in this brief working
paper for $3,300 plus local mileage expenses. The study charges may be paid
over three months with $1100. due immediately upon acceptance of this
proposal and the next two payments of $1100 due on November 1 and
December 1. Any changes in this work plan will result in a change in costs.
Jim, we are delighted that you thought to call us for an estimate on this very
interesting project and we thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please
feel free to suggest any revisions you would like to make to this project.
Sincerely,
Judith Marshik, President
JM/cs
The City of Shorewood accepts this project proposal and the project charge as
outlined in this letter.
SIGNATURE
Signed by:
. A representative of the City
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
4
.~ 'm
I\'''L-.:l\_i',Quik '.
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide . Final
October, 1991
Interview Number:
Household Number:
Interviewer Code: 1
2 3
Hello, my name is (first name) and I'm calling you from
Research Quik, Inc. We are currently conducting an opinion poll on behalf of
the City of Shorewood. Is this a convenient time for you to talk?
1 .*"*
Do you own and pay taxes on any residential or business or other
property located within the City of Shorewood.
Yes - Residential
Yes - Business
Yes - Other (Explain:
No (POLITELY TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW).
)
1)
2)
3)
4)
2. Within the past two weeks, have you read anything about the water
system changes which are being considered by the City Council of
Shorewood? Information has been published both by the City and the
local newspaper.
1) Yes - read packet from city. (PROCEED TO QUESTION 3)
2) Yes - read newspaper
3) Yes - read both
4) No (STOP INTERVIEW. ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.)
A. Have you received the packet mailed by the City this (last)
week which discusses water system alternatives?
1) Yes (RESCHEDULE APPT-READ BELOW)
I would like to interview you after you have had a chance to read
the materials included in the packet. Could you tell me what day
and time would be good for you?
Rescheduled for:
2) No
I would like to interview you after you have had a chance to read
the materials which have been prepared by the City. Please let
me verify your address and we will mail you a packet tomorrow
and then call you back after you have had time to review it Could
you tell me what day and time would be good for you?
Rescheduled for:
1
m
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
October, 1991
.',.;;, :.Quik .1..,
3. ** Are you currently hooked into the city water system or do you have your
own well?
1) City water (SKIP TO QUESTION 10)
2) Has own well
3) Doesn't know
4... Have you ever lived in a house, either in another location within
Shorewood .or in another city, which was connected to the city water
system?
1) Yes - within Shorewood
2) Yes - another city
3) No
9) SKIP
5. About how much did you spend during the last twelve months on your
current water system including services such as water softening, well
maintenance and repair, and electricity for the well pump? (WHOLE
DOLLARS ONLY UP TO $9998.
$_ _ _ _ Approximate amount they spent last year for current well
system.
9999) SKIP
6. Do you think that last year's water costs were about average or were they
lower or higher than other previous years?
1) About average
2) Higher than average
3) Lower than average
9) SKIP
7. During the time you have owned your well, have you ever made a major
investment in your well, that is more than $200, doing such things as
having the well redrilled or having the pump replaced? (INTERVIEWER:
IF THEY HAVE INVESTED SEVERAL TIMES, GATHER INFORMATION
ON THE MOST RECENT TIME.)
1) No, never
2) Yes
9) SKIP
a. 19 __ Year they made this investment
b. $_ _ _ _ Approximate amount of investment
2
~
~'w
'.;!. 'Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
October, 1991
8. ** Approximately how old is your well?
number of years old
98) (Check here if has no idea)
9. Have you ever had the water in your well tested for purity?
1)
2)
No
Yes (If so, what year and with what results
)
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
10. Do you currently treat your water either to soften it or to remove iron or for
any other reason?(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
a)
b)
c)
d)
Yes - soften
Yes - iron
Yes - other (explain
No
)
11. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the quality of your
water. Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?
1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Somewhat dissatisfied
4) Very dissatisfied
12. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with your current water
system. Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?
1)
2)
3)
4)
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied (Why
Very dissatisfied (Why
)
)
3
Ii
, ..
','::. ,.QUlk
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
October, 1991
13. From your reading of the materials distributed by the City, tell me briefly,
in your own words, what action regarding the water system you think the
City Council is considering?
(INTERVIEWER - WRITE DOWN VERBATIM WHAT THEY SAY)
INTERVIEWER READ:
These next three questions relate to different parts of the City's proposal.
14. The City of Shorewood is considering converting the entire city to a
central water system.
The city's water service is operating at a deficit. The balance of the deficit
in the water fund is currently greater than $200,000. This deficit is
financed by City tax income. The deficit is expected to increase over the
next 20 years. The investment cost of a city-wide water system is
projected to be $13 milllion dollars. This investment would be paid back
by special assessments and water revenues over time. The water
system would then be expected to operate on a break-even basis,
reducing the need for tax support.
Do you support a capital investment in a new city water system or do you
oppose this expenditure?
1) Support
2) Oppose
15. If a central water system is adopted, property owners on wells would be
asked to choose a hook-up time which is most convenient for them over a
five year period of time. Would you support this five year conversion
period from well water to city water or would you oppose it?
1) Support
2) Oppose
4
.' 1i
'. ,.:Quik
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
, October, 1991
16. The cost of a central water system to the Shorewood property owner who
is not currently hooked up to City water and not living on the islands
would be about $4800. This cost would be assessed over 15 years.
Would you support assessing a portion of the costs of the new water
system to all Shorewood property owners who are not connected to City
water or would you oppose it?
1 ) Support
2) Oppose
17. In summary, considering all the aspects of the conversion to a centralized
water system, tell me if you support or are you opposed to the
conversion of the City to a central water system?
1) Support
2) Oppose
18. How strongly do you support (or oppose) the decision. Would you say
you strongly or only somewhat support (oppose) the decision?
1) Strongly support
2) Somewhat support
3) Somewhat oppose
4) Strongly oppose
19. What is the main reason you support (oppose) the central water system.
Please explain your answer to the last question so that I can clearly
understand your reasons and relay them to the City. (INTERVIEWER:
PROBE TO CLARIFY.)
20. What major changes, if any, would you like to see the City make in the
proposed central water system plan ?
98) Has no changes to suggest
5
.~"
If~ ..:J
~
Quik I
.'
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
October, 1991
21. How long have you lived within the City of Shorewood?
_ _ Number of years
22. Gender (DO NOT ASK)
1) Female
2) Male
23. What year were you born?
Year born
24. ** Including yourself, how many adults live in your household?
1) One
2) Two
3) Three
25. ** For 1990, please tell me whether your total household Income
before taxes was more or less than $50,000.
1) More than $50,000 (SKIP TO QUESTION 27)
2) Less than $50,000
8} Doesn't know
9) Refused
26. -u Tell me which one of these income categories best describes your total
household income before taxes for 1990.
1}
2)
3}
4}
8)
9)
Less than $20,000
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
Doesn't know .
Refused
SKIP TO QUESTION
28
6
'... .m
~, Bi
,
"',':~;'.QUlk \'
Water
The City of Shorewood
System Research Project
Interview GuIde - Final
October, 1991
27.** Tell me which one of these income categories best describes your total
household income before taxes for 1990.
1) $50,000-59,999
2) $60,000-69,999
3) $70,000-79,999
4) $80,000-89,999
5) More than $90,000 a year
8) Doesn't know
9) Refused
28. ** Please tell me whether you live north or south of Highway 7?
a. North (ZONES - 1,4,7,8,9,10
b. South (SKIP TO QUESTION 30) - (ZONES 2,3,5,6)
29. ** Please tell me whether you live east or west of County Road 19?
a. East (then, do you live east or west of St. A/bans
Bay Road)
c. East - ZONE 1
d. West-ZONE 4
b. West (then tell me whether you live north or south of
Smithtown Road?)
c. North - ZONE 8 OR 10
d. South - ZONE 7 OR 9
( Then, do you live east or west of Eureka Road?)
e. East - ZONE 7 OR 8
1. West - ZONE 9 OR 10
_ _ FILL IN NUMBER OF ZONE WHERE THEY LIVE
(SKIP TO QUESTION 31)
30. ** Please tell me whether you live east or west of Mill Street?
a. East (then, do you live east or west of Covington Road or Silver
Lake ?)
c. East - ZONE 2 OR 3
d. West - ZONE 5
b. West - ZONE 6
FILL IN NUMBER OF ZONE WHERE THEY LIVE
7
.~..:
~>.:....a
(~\IIk
..
The City of Shorewood
Water System Research Project
Interview Guide - Final
October, 1991
#
31. There is one other issue on which City Council members would like you
to express your opinion. Please tell me whether you currently support or
oppose the use of the walking and biking trail in Shorewood by
snowmobiles in the winter time?
1) Support
2) Oppose
Thank you for your time. Before I hang up, could you tell me if there are
any other adults living within your household who share responsibility
with you for the payment of property taxes?
1) Yes (ASK TO SPEAK WITH THAT PERSON)
2) No (POLITELY TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW)
INTERVIEWER: VERIFY THEIR NAME AND OBTAIN THEIR ADDRESS, IF
POSSIBLE, IF IT IS NOT ON THE CARD.
STAPLE THE CARD TO THIS INTERVIEW AND KEEP ALL INTERVIEWS FROM
THE SAME HOUSEHOLD PAPER CLIPPED TOGETHER.
8
-:.~~-;..:.: ..= ~:'~~"~:..~::
..... ....
.. .
-,,"
~""'''U ,..."...
,c~-~
I,.---
--="
. '-"-;:=:=
..:::..::-@=
.. ~I..
. ~.- ...
MOUND
.' :./~~ \~
-:l'tlOllt
---.....
b-.
cff
~
;==-
,t:="
--
~oos.
-=.t.sSand
='=-
I. .s)f&CI' ~t...l,MO ~T. ----.__~
L. $...4CY I'SUMO T~ =: Scrc:y :=
'::.>>woT "'L....O c::... ;:::::; Island :::
-==- =::1 6 ;::=
_ --=--- ~ t=
-=- I\~ s~
-::::~~"=;::':."""~' .::= I~ ~ =E
- .., ~ -==: ~~phcay =
~~~~'~Qnd .
~.. ~~.-., _11~
~~. ...-- ~
~ ,. ..-~ == '2:.
-"""', .... ""'- ---
::' ~-- :::5 ~
j/ ~'" ~,,(j
J~"1:.~
"=
~
I'lIelps
aay
.:
:- '..-
./
I
J
I
I
.y.~--~
i
I
I.
. .
'.
~A? OF
SHOREWOOD
HENNEPIN COUNTY-
I
,
~
~
~1
il
~f
f.J
gf
~f
.~
!4
I
'\~~~~~~J:::~,~~$'.
'-.
SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS
ARE COLORED YELLOW
: 4-=:'
L-tf:.i"~
~1.-;;.7,.a
~ilr
"s<f~
-f..:
Af;::-
/.&:
.o!~':"
......
4'"
J~
~ P-oint
~>~ .
::::J
::::::::
Cres:::;;C:-
a.,,:.,,:
,---
I
I
Laxe hfinnetankt7
Upper Laxe
-
--'
~
~.
---- . - - --..-