[0:00] Um the next item is proclamations and [0:03] recognitions. And tonight we have a [0:06] virtual presentation um from our um [0:11] uh community survey [0:14] um organizer or um executor um at Polo. [0:18] And I don't know if our city assistant [0:21] city manager Renee Eisenb wants to [0:23] introduce this. And this is our first [0:25] look at the community survey results and [0:27] we do these every few years. So, did [0:29] that help for this journey? [0:30] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor City Council. [0:32] Tonight, we have Grace Arnison, a senior [0:34] project manager at Poco to present the [0:37] city's 2025 community survey results. [0:40] The city has been doing survey since the [0:42] late 1980 to measure resident [0:44] satisfaction levels with a variety of [0:47] services and program. and staff are [0:49] pleased to announce that once again we [0:51] received high marks in the survey with [0:53] 96% rating the quality of life as [0:56] excellent or good which places shortly [0:58] as the top city and 20 of our peer [1:00] cities. Uh so Grace has a short [1:03] presentation with time for questions [1:05] afterwards and then staff will be [1:07] bringing this back to the January 20th [1:09] city workshop for more discussion as [1:12] well. So with that I will turn it over [1:15] to Grace. [1:17] Thank you so much, Renee. [1:20] All right. [1:22] Well, thank you for having me. I'm very [1:24] happy to be here to present a summary of [1:26] the findings from Shore View's National [1:28] Community Survey. Before we thank, I do [1:31] want to extend my gratitude to Renee. [1:34] She was our primary contact throughout [1:36] the survey process and she provided [1:38] really helpful detail along every step [1:40] of the way. I also want to thank my [1:43] colleague Cindy Maize who is also on [1:45] this call. She was shore view man shore [1:47] view's project manager this year and did [1:49] the bulk of the work for this project. [1:52] So this presentation will cover quite a [1:54] bit but we'll have some time at the end [1:57] for questions. But first a little bit [1:59] about PCO and the surveys we administer. [2:02] So PCO is an online community engagement [2:05] platform providing local governments [2:07] with resident and employee feedback. [2:10] Hundreds of organizations nationwide use [2:12] PCO for strategic planning, budgeting, [2:15] and empowering resident voices. And PCO [2:18] merged with National Research Center [2:21] back in 2019. [2:23] NRC is best known for our benchmarking [2:26] surveys including sorry about that [2:29] including uh the NCS, CASOA, the [2:32] employee survey, and um the National Law [2:37] Enforcement Survey among others. Our [2:39] benchmark database is the largest of its [2:41] kind in the US, which I'll touch on in [2:44] just a few slides. And PCO also partners [2:47] closely with ICMA, NLC, as as well as [2:51] many other local government and academic [2:53] leaders. [2:58] So, I want to emphasize that there are a [3:00] few ways that these results can be used. [3:02] Most often, the communities we work with [3:05] use these data to track trends over [3:07] time, monitoring that resident opinion [3:10] and informing budgeting decisions along [3:12] with strategic planning. These results [3:15] also allow you to compare Shoreview's [3:17] results to those of other communities in [3:21] our benchmark database. And as we walk [3:23] through the findings today, I really [3:25] hope that they spark ideas of where you [3:27] might want to dig deeper. [3:32] So, briefly walking through the survey [3:34] instrument itself, it covers these 10 [3:37] facets of livability you see on the [3:39] screen here. And it is a standardized [3:42] five-page survey that's really designed [3:45] to help municipalities understand [3:47] resident opinions about their community [3:50] and the local government. The survey [3:52] itself focuses on the overall [3:54] livability. [3:56] Um however [3:59] uh we also have these facets which align [4:03] with um different departments in the [4:07] city so that you can really find your [4:09] results that relate directly to your [4:11] work. [4:15] So before we dive into the results I [4:17] want to provide a brief overview of the [4:19] survey methodology. This was Shore [4:22] View's second time conducting the NCS [4:24] with the first taking place in 2022. [4:27] And we began with our sampling process. [4:30] So, we purchased a list of USPS [4:33] households and using that list of [4:36] addresses, we overlaid GIS boundary [4:40] files provided by the city and removed [4:42] any addresses that were outside of our [4:44] city limits. From that list, the 3,000 [4:49] households to selected to take the [4:51] survey received mailings um that began [4:55] on August 28th and the survey remained [4:58] open for about 6 weeks. Now, the first [5:01] mailing was a postcard inviting [5:03] residents to take the survey, while the [5:05] second was a survey packet. The survey [5:07] packet contained a cover letter, a [5:10] postage paid return envelope, as well as [5:13] a paper survey. So, both the postcard [5:16] along with the cover letter did have a [5:18] link and a QR code if folks preferred to [5:21] take the survey online. [5:25] So, a total of 574 responses were [5:28] received, providing an overall response [5:31] rate of 19% and a margin of error of [5:34] about plus or minus 4%. I just want to [5:37] pause here and mention that our current [5:40] average for 2025 is a response rate [5:43] right around 11 to 12%. So, Shore View [5:46] is certainly an engaged community. [5:50] When we entered analysis, we compared [5:53] the demographic profile of the survey [5:55] respondents to the actual demographic [5:58] makeup of Shore View using the most [6:01] recent census and American community [6:03] survey data. and we weighted those [6:06] survey results. So waiting is a survey [6:09] research best practice and really helps [6:11] to improve the overall representative re [6:14] representativeness of your survey [6:16] results. [6:17] In addition to this random sample [6:20] survey, we also provided the city with a [6:23] link to the open participation survey [6:26] which is a communitywide version that [6:29] all residents were welcome to [6:31] participate in. We had that open for [6:34] about 2 weeks and 241 responses were [6:37] received total. But this presentation [6:40] and the report are primarily based on [6:43] those 574 responses from the random [6:46] sample mail-based survey. Um those open [6:50] participation results are included at [6:52] the end of the online report. [6:57] So, as I mentioned earlier, one of the [6:59] key benefits of participating in our [7:01] surveys is the ability to compare your [7:04] ratings with those ratings across the [7:07] nation. So, this allows jurisdictions to [7:10] see how their services and community [7:13] characteristics stack up against similar [7:15] services in other communities. And our [7:18] benchmark database currently has about [7:20] 400 communities in it. For this survey, [7:24] uh, Shore View received comparisons to [7:26] the full benchmark database, which I'll [7:28] refer to as the national benchmark, but [7:31] Shoreview also opted to compare uh to a [7:35] custom co cohort of communities that had [7:38] more similar characteristics. [7:40] So, I'll be referring to those as the [7:43] custom benchmark throughout the this [7:45] presentation. [7:48] So, now diving into the results from the [7:51] survey. [7:54] In the survey, we ask two questions that [7:56] ask directly about those 10 facets of [7:59] community livability that I mentioned [8:01] earlier. The first asks residents to [8:04] rate the quality of each and you can see [8:06] the resulting comparison to the national [8:09] benchmark in the chart here. Uh so [8:11] you'll see that parks and recreation [8:13] received the highest quality ratings and [8:16] scored above the national benchmark with [8:18] natural environment and safety following [8:21] closely behind. Facets with relatively [8:24] lower quality ratings included [8:26] inclusivity and engagement along with [8:30] mobility though these were in line with [8:32] the national benchmark. [8:36] The second question asks about those [8:39] same 10 facets of livability, but is [8:41] centered on how important residents [8:44] think it is for the community to focus [8:45] on each of these in the coming two [8:47] years. So here residents place the [8:51] highest priority on natural environment, [8:54] safety and parks and recreation [8:57] and education, arts and culture and [8:59] inclusivity and engagement were rated as [9:03] slightly lower priorities by comparison. [9:06] So we ask about both the quality as well [9:09] as the importance of these facets and we [9:12] use these uh to create a gap chart which [9:15] is on the next slide here. So, we use [9:18] this chart, which is also included in [9:21] the report to help identify areas that [9:23] are of relatively higher importance but [9:26] lower quality to residents. This is one [9:29] of many ways to interpret your data, but [9:31] it can really help surface areas where a [9:34] community might want to focus or [9:36] allocate resources in the coming years. [9:39] But one interesting thing here, as you [9:42] look at this chart, you'll notice that [9:44] several areas are higher in quality and [9:47] lower in importance, which typically [9:49] indicates strong satisfaction across the [9:52] community. [9:53] Similarly, many items that residents [9:56] rated as highly important were also very [9:59] high in quality, suggesting alignment [10:01] between community priorities and [10:04] performance. [10:08] So of the 121 survey items for which [10:12] residents provided evaluative weight [10:14] ratings, 88 were higher than the [10:17] national benchmark, 33 were similar and [10:20] we didn't have a single item that was [10:22] lower than the national benchmark. [10:25] Um here ratings are considered similar [10:28] if they are within 10 points of the [10:30] national average and higher or lower if [10:33] they are more than 10 points different [10:36] from the average. [10:40] In terms of those custom benchmarks I [10:42] mentioned earlier, Shore View was higher [10:45] in 43 items. ShView had 78 similar [10:50] ratings and no items were lower than the [10:53] custom benchmark. [10:58] Lastly, we have some trend data from [11:01] 2022 to 2025. Um, in terms of those [11:05] trends, there was one item that was [11:07] rated higher in 2025 and that was how [11:11] safe do you feel from property crime? [11:14] 112 were similar to 2022 and eight [11:18] received lower ratings. So the items [11:20] here that were trending downward [11:22] included the federal government, local [11:25] government treating residents with [11:27] respect, employment opportunity along [11:30] with several affordability centered [11:32] ratings which I'll touch on uh in a few [11:35] slides here. [11:38] So, moving now into the highlights of [11:40] our findings. I want to point out that [11:42] these are things that really stood out [11:43] to us as survey researchers, but there [11:46] is a lot of additional data in the [11:47] report that we won't cover today. Um, [11:50] but these are the things we found most [11:52] noteworthy in the results. [11:56] So, first, most residents experience a [11:58] high quality of life in Shore View. [12:03] About 97% of residents positively rated [12:06] Shore View as a place to to live, while [12:09] about 96% felt that the overall quality [12:13] of life in the city was excellent or [12:15] good, along with the overall image or [12:18] reputation of Shore View. Additionally, [12:21] over nine and 10 residents plan to [12:23] remain in the city for the next 5 years [12:25] and would recommend living in Shore View [12:27] if someone asked. All of these ratings [12:30] here were higher than the national [12:32] benchmark and remain consistent with [12:34] 2022 results. [12:39] Key finding two, residents appreciate [12:41] many aspects of the city's leadership [12:44] and governance. [12:48] So when asked about Shore View's [12:49] government performance, results were [12:52] largely positive, indicating widespread [12:54] satisfaction. [12:56] About 94% of residents rated the overall [12:59] customer service provided by Shoreview [13:01] employees as excellent or good. And [13:04] about uh 8 and 10 residents offered [13:07] positive ratings for the local [13:09] government, treating residents with [13:11] respect and being honest. [13:14] Nearly eight and 10 also rated the [13:17] government positively for generally [13:20] acting in the best interests of the [13:22] community. And about threearters of [13:24] residents rated the government [13:25] positively for treating all residents [13:27] fairly and expressed that they had high [13:31] overall confidence in Shore View's local [13:34] government. [13:35] More than seven in 10 respondents rated [13:38] being open and transparent to the public [13:40] positively while about 70% uh positively [13:44] rated how the government informs [13:46] residents about issues facing the [13:48] community. So, as you'll see in the [13:51] shading here, all of these items were [13:53] higher than the national benchmark um [13:56] with ratings for local government acting [13:59] in the best interests of the community [14:01] and openness and transparency exceeding [14:04] the custom benchmark along with a [14:07] resident's overall confidence in Shore [14:09] View government. [14:14] Residents also view Shore View as a very [14:17] safe community. [14:20] So nearly all residents about 98% [14:23] indicated that they feel safe in their [14:26] neighborhood during the day while about [14:28] 95% expressed feeling safe in the [14:30] downtown and commercial area. About 9 [14:34] and 10 felt safe from violent crime and [14:37] property crime with the latter [14:39] increasing since 2022 and scoring higher [14:42] than the custom benchmark. Both of those [14:45] items were also higher than the national [14:47] benchmark and about nine and 10 [14:50] residents indicated that they feel safe [14:52] from flood, fire or other natural [14:55] disaster. [14:59] In terms of safety services, nearly all [15:02] residents expressed satisfaction with [15:04] fire services, while about nine and 10 [15:08] positively reviewed ambulance and EMS [15:10] services, followed closely by sheriff [15:14] services and fire prevention and [15:16] education. [15:18] about 9 and 10, a little less um but [15:21] close there. Positively rated crime [15:24] prevention and animal control with both [15:26] of those items scoring higher than the [15:28] national benchmark. [15:33] Key finding number four, mixed economic [15:36] ratings reflect both strengths and [15:38] improvement across the city. [15:42] So when asked about the local economy, [15:45] about 86% of residents expressed [15:47] satisfaction with Shore View as a place [15:49] to work, higher than both the custom and [15:52] national benchmark. Roughly eight and 10 [15:56] rated the overall quality of business [15:58] and service establishments as excellent [16:00] or good, and a similar proportion valued [16:03] Shore View as a place to visit, which [16:05] was also higher than both the national [16:08] and custom benchmark. However, there [16:11] were several declining trends here and [16:14] they were largely related to [16:16] affordability. [16:18] Um, which is not too big of a surprise [16:20] and is really in line with some of the [16:22] national trends we're seeing. But about [16:24] seven in 10 residents positively rated [16:27] the availability of affordable quality [16:29] health care, which was higher than the [16:31] national benchmark but lower than in [16:33] 2022. [16:35] Roughly twothirds rated the availability [16:38] of affordable quality food positively [16:41] also a decline since 2022. [16:44] Um and child care was po uh availability [16:49] of affordable child care was positively [16:51] rated by a little less about 63%. [16:55] Although that was higher than the [16:56] national benchmark but again trending [16:58] downward since 2022. [17:02] About six and 10 residents positively [17:04] rated the variety of business and [17:06] service establishments along with [17:08] employee opportunities. These were [17:11] similar to the benchmark though [17:13] employment opportunities was declining [17:16] since 2022. [17:18] And lastly, the availability of [17:20] affordable quality housing while higher [17:22] than the benchmark at 45% was declining [17:26] since 2022 as well. [17:29] Number [17:31] five, parks and recreation is a strong [17:34] asset for Shore View residents. [17:38] So, these results are certainly [17:40] something to be proud of. As you'll [17:42] notice here, everything is higher than [17:44] the national and custom benchmark, and [17:47] nearly all residents expressed [17:49] satisfaction with city parks at 97% [17:53] excellent or good. and about nine and 10 [17:56] residents positively rated recreation [17:58] centers or facilities, the availability [18:01] of paths and walking trails, fitness [18:03] opportunities, recreation programs or [18:06] classes along with recreational [18:09] opportunities. So, um really applauding [18:12] the parks and recreation department [18:14] here. [18:17] Number six, readings suggest strengths [18:19] in mobility with lower scores for public [18:22] transportation. [18:25] So about nine and 10 residents were [18:28] satisfied with the ease of travel by car [18:30] along with the ease of public of public [18:34] parking in Shore View. Um these were [18:36] both higher than the national benchmark [18:39] and about eight and 10 were satisfied [18:42] with the traffic flow on major streets, [18:44] the ease of walking and ease of travel [18:47] by bicycle. All of these items were [18:50] higher than both the national and custom [18:53] benchmark. However, in contrast, only [18:56] about three in 10 indicated that they [18:59] were satisfied with the ease of travel [19:01] by public transportation, though this [19:04] was similar to the benchmark. [19:09] When asked about mobility services, over [19:11] eight and 10 residents were satisfied [19:14] with street cleaning, sidewalk [19:16] maintenance, snow removal, and street [19:18] lighting, while about eight and 10 were [19:21] satisfied with traffic enforcement. Um, [19:24] these were all higher than the national [19:25] benchmark as well. [19:29] So, in addition to our standard survey [19:32] questions, Shoreview asked several [19:34] custom questions that were unique to the [19:36] community. [19:38] The first asked, "From what you know, [19:40] how much do you approve or disapprove of [19:43] the job that the mayor and city council [19:45] are doing?" About six and 10 residents [19:48] said that they strongly or somewhat [19:50] approve of the job that the mayor and [19:52] city council are doing, with only about [19:54] 7% stating that they disapproved, while [19:57] 30% said they had no opinion or didn't [20:00] know. Compared to 2022, a higher [20:04] proportion strongly approved while a [20:07] relatively smaller share somewhat [20:08] approved. [20:13] We also asked about the quality of [20:15] election services following some recent [20:18] changes. And about seven in 10 residents [20:21] positively rated communications about [20:24] upcoming elections with 34% rating it as [20:28] excellent or good, 36% as good, and 17 [20:32] as fair. [20:35] About four and 10 also positively viewed [20:37] the absentee voting experience with 29% [20:41] rating it as excellent, 11% as good. Um [20:45] there was a larger proportion here of [20:47] course that didn't know about the [20:49] absentee experience at about 54%. [20:54] Lastly, about eight and 10 residents [20:56] were satisfied with the their election [20:59] day experience with 50% rating it as [21:02] excellent and 27% as good. We have just [21:07] uh 5% that indicated it was fair. [21:13] So residents were also asked how much [21:16] they support or oppose moving from a [21:18] private haller garbage collection system [21:20] to an organized system. These results [21:24] were really in line with what we saw in [21:27] 2022 as we asked this question in uh the [21:31] previous iteration as well. So just over [21:34] half of residents expressed support for [21:36] the change, including 25% who strongly [21:39] supported it and about 27% who somewhat [21:42] supported it. About 3 and 10 opposed the [21:46] change with 20% strongly opposing it and [21:51] about 11% somewhat opposed. Roughly 17% [21:56] indicated that they didn't know or [21:57] didn't have an opinion. And among those [22:00] who supported the change, the most [22:03] commonly cited reasons were lower lower [22:06] cost and reduced truck traffic. Um, in [22:10] those who opposed the change, they [22:12] frequently cited that they were [22:14] satisfied with their current hauler and [22:18] they like having the preference to be [22:19] able to choose their own hauler. [22:23] Residents [22:26] were also asked about barriers that [22:28] limit their ability to participate in [22:30] city meetings and other civic engagement [22:32] opportunities. We are covering the top [22:35] three barriers that emerged here. So the [22:38] mo most commonly cited barrier was lack [22:41] of time due to other commitments [22:44] followed by lack of awareness about [22:46] overall process or opportunities and [22:49] lastly difficulty about finding [22:52] information about opportunities for [22:54] participation. [22:58] And lastly, when asked about the city's [23:01] overnight parking rules, about 6 in and [23:04] 10 community members support the rules [23:06] with roughly 3 in 10 opposing. [23:12] So, a quick summary of conclusions here. [23:14] Residents experience a high quality of [23:17] life in Shore View. They express strong [23:20] confidence in city leadership and [23:22] governance. Residents also view Shore [23:24] View as a very safe community. Mixed [23:27] economic ratings reflect both strengths [23:30] and opportunities for improvement for [23:33] the city and ratings suggest strengths [23:36] in mobility with relatively lower scores [23:38] for public transportation. [23:43] Um, if you wish to dig deeper about any [23:45] of these items we covered, Shore View [23:48] currently has about 16,000 subscribers [23:51] on PCO and we have a lot of tools that [23:53] can help you um share different poll [23:56] surveys and create items for outreach. [24:00] So, if you have any interest, please [24:02] reach out. [24:04] With that, I will open up the room for [24:07] questions. Thank you so much. [24:13] any immediate questions come to mind. [24:18] >> Mayor, I see [24:21] uh that we're at a workshop on this in [24:23] January. So, I think I would hold off on [24:27] some of those until then, but I do have [24:29] a question about statistically [24:32] significant responses. I know we're [24:35] we're so full focused now and there's [24:38] areas where we take up a little [24:40] bit and areas where we dig down a little [24:41] bit which I'm assuming is statistical [24:44] noise that we shouldn't necessarily be [24:46] worried about but there are several [24:48] areas where you have nifty graphics to [24:51] show us something that goes beyond your [24:55] standard deviation what have you [24:58] just trying to distinguish between the [25:04] Grace, you're muted. [25:09] Oh, Grace, [25:10] you're muted. [25:13] >> Sorry about that. Um, I was having a bit [25:15] of a hard time hearing you there. Was [25:17] your question about statistical [25:19] significance from year to year or the [25:22] overall statistical significance? [25:25] >> Uh, just a change from year to year. [25:26] What should we distinguish uh from noise [25:30] versus what's serious things? [25:33] >> Yes, definitely. So, um I'm not sure of [25:36] the exact percentage, but we essentially [25:39] took the um total count of respondents [25:42] from 2022 and compared that to 2025. [25:47] And um anything that was higher than our [25:50] statistical significance threshold has [25:53] an indicator on the report that it is a [25:56] statistically significant change. So um [26:00] those will be indicated with either an [26:01] up or a down arrow on the report if they [26:04] reach that threshold. But those that [26:07] were just slightly changing and are [26:09] noise like you mentioned, those will not [26:11] have the um statistical significance [26:14] indicator next to them. Other [26:22] questions at this point? If not, we will [26:24] be looking at it again. I just had one [26:27] that popped out at me and that was um [26:30] the availability of affordable quality [26:32] healthcare. And I was looking at that [26:35] from an availability standpoint or an [26:37] affordability. And it seemed to me it [26:39] might, [26:41] you know, you have to look into, I [26:42] suppose, if there are comments specific [26:44] to that to to determine that. But um [26:47] because I was trying to think of [26:48] anything that changed in terms of [26:51] clinics opened or availability of you [26:55] know accessibility but I think it more [26:57] maybe has to do with that affordability [26:59] component that showed up with housing [27:01] daycare. [27:03] So we'll look into that more. [27:07] So with that, I didn't think we have no [27:09] more questions at this point and we will [27:10] be looking at the survey results again, [27:13] but this was a good opportunity to share [27:15] it with anybody who is interested um in [27:18] the meeting, but we'll be looking at [27:19] these more to see where there are [27:21] opportunities where we can improve or [27:23] learn more about what residents are. So [27:26] thank you very much, Grace. [27:28] >> Thank you very much. [27:29] >> Appreciate it. [27:36] Um so with that we'll move to our next [27:40] um item of business which is uh citizens [27:43] comments and this is in uh time of the [27:46] council Hey. Hey. Hey.