Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01/08/2019 - City Council Special
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 8, 2019 5:30 P.M. EAGAN ROOM—EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. JOINT MEETING WITH EAGAN’S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION IV. RECREATION FEE OPTION POLICY V. R-1S ORDINANCE REVIEW VI. RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Info Mem January 8, 2019 Eagan Special City Council Workshop III. JOINT MEETING WITH EAGAN’S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION Action to be Considered: No formal action is needed. Eagan’s legislative delegation has been invited to the workshop to dialogue with the Council regarding legislative issues of importance during the 2019 session. Facts: The City of Eagan is represented by: State Senators Jim Carlson, District 51, and Matt Klein, District 52; along with State Representatives Sandy Masin, District 51A; Laurie Halverson, District 51B; and Ruth Richardson, District 52B. It is the tradition of the City Council to meet with the legislative delegation at the first Council workshop in January. Invitations were sent on November 29, 2018 to each member of the delegation inviting them to attend the January 8 workshop. Morris Allen, Government Relations staff member for Congresswoman Angie Craig, reached out to the City and will be in attendance at the workshop on behalf of Congresswoman Craig. In keeping with the approach taken over the past two years, the City does not have specific legislative priorities. Rather, representatives of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC), and Metro Cities will be at the Council workshop to provide a brief update on the two or three primary issues each organization will be addressing in the coming legislative session on cities’ behalf. Specifically, each organization has been asked to speak to issues pertinent to Eagan. The following representatives will be in attendance at the workshop: o League of MN Cities: Gary Carlson, Intergovernmental Relations Director o Municipal Legislative Commission: Thomas Poul, Attorney, Messerli & Kramer o Metro Cities: Patricia Nauman, Executive Director The legislative policies for each organization can be found at the links below: o League of Minnesota Cities: www.lmc.org/page/1/legislative-policy-priorities.jsp o Municipal Legislative Commission: http://mlcmn.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/2019_MLC_Legislative_Program.pdf o Metro Cites: https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/assets/docs/LegislativePolicies/2019%20Legislative%20Policie s%20APPROVED%2011.29.18.pdf Attachments: (0) Agenda Information Memo January 8, 2019 Eagan Special City Council Workshop IV. DISCUSS STAFF PROPOSAL ON UPDATING RECREATION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO A FEE OPTIONS PROGRAM BASED Action for Consideration: Receive presentation from staff on possible program modification and update, then direct staff on policy related questions including: Should the program be updated to a fee options policy to allow for a broader range of support for residents to participate in recreation programs? What additional funding mechanisms are the Council interested in staff pursuing to create a financial sustainability for the fee options program? Are the limits of the program appropriate for the new program, being capped at $300 per individual? On Monday, November 18 staff discussed the details of their research and recommended changes with the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission. Updating the program will line up this program with a more equity based platform, allowing for a greater utilization of our recreation based programs by members of the community not currently able to participate. Attachments to this memo in the packet include research detail provided by staff and include the memo to APrC, comparison sheet of current program and proposed modifications, power point presentation for City Council Special Meeting, and comparison table of nine other metro area local governments and their scholarship program. Attachments: (4) IV-A Memo to APrC IV-B Comparison of current program and proposed changes IV-C Power Point Presentation IV-D Comparison table of similar cities and local governments Memo Agenda Item: Scholarship/Fee Option Policy Update To: Advisory Parks Commission Prepared by: Andrew Pimental, Director of Parks & Recreation Paula Nowariak, Recreation Program Manager Loudi Rivamonte, Recreation Supervisor Holly Champlin, Recreation Supervisor Date: November 7, 2018 The Current City of Eagan Scholarship Policy was reviewed and found to be out of date, so the following changes are being requested to be approved. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The current City of Eagan Scholarship Policy should be updated to meet the current needs of our community. • A change in policy is being requested in order to provide alternative and equitable financial assistance to participants in Eagan Recreation programs. • Recommendations have been based on a more equitable platform centered on data learned from GARE (Government Alliance on Race Equity), information gathered through community dialogues and staff experience utilizing the current policy. • Eagan is taking a leading role by providing an equitable structure for Recreation fees and policies. • The policy would encourage increased use of City programs and facilities. • The manageability and flexibility of the policy and structure can be administered throughout the department. • The outcome of this change is that every community member participates in recreation programs. • Staff is recommending a name change from Scholarship Policy to Fee Options Plan. • Staff is recommending the changes to the policy be implemented on March 1, 2019. • The new policy is as follows: o A Fee Option Plan for Eagan residents is available to provide alternative and equitable financial assistance to participate in Eagan Parks & Recreation sponsored programs. o The Fee Option Plan will initially include a $300 annual limit per individual (per year) with no household maximum. Page 2 o Additional funds may be requested with approval by the Parks & Recreation Director. o All participants requesting funds from the Fee Option Plan are required to complete an Income Verification Form. o Activities included in the Eagan Parks & Recreation sponsored programs are any activities with Rec Trac class/activity numbers generated throughout Recreation, Eagan Community Center, Eagan Civic Arena and Cascade Bay. • Funding: Same as current amount for general fund appropriate with additional supplementation by any or all of the following potential funding options: donate now option, sponsorships and/or partnerships. ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED • Staff is recommending the name of the program be changed from Scholarship Policy to Fee Options Plan. This will help the policy be more encompassing as there are a variety of ways to fund programs and a variety of needs for fee assistance. The outcome of this policy is to include all Eagan community members. Guidelines for who can apply will be prioritized to all residents of the City of Eagan with no age restrictions. • To review and recommend to the City Council a change in the Scholarship Policy. 12-18-18 Eagan Parks & Recreation Scholarship Policy Fact Sheet Background: • The current City of Eagan Scholarship policy is outdated and should be updated to meet the current needs of our community. • A change in policy is being requested in order to provide alternative and equitable financial assistance to participants in Eagan Parks & Recreation sponsored programs. • Recommendations have been based on a more equitable platform centered on data learned from GARE (Government Alliance on Race Equity), information gathered through community dialogues and staff experience utilizing the current policy. Topic Current Proposed Limits Pays 50% of the fee with a $300 annual limit per individual Covers class fees or a portion of class fee with an initial $300 annual limit per individual with additional fund requests approved by the Parks & Recreation Director. Household No household maximum No household maximum Additional funds may be requested with approval by P&R director Application Process Income based form Complete self-qualifying income verification form annually. Activities included Youth participation in Parks & Recreation sponsored programs including Cascade Bay Activities with a Rec Trac number which includes Recreation, ECC, Civic Arena, Cascade Bay Ages 18 and younger No age parameters Residency requirement Eagan Residents only Eagan Residents only Policy Name Scholarship Policy Fee Options Plan Funding General fund expense line item General fund expense line item; Donate Now option; sponsorships; and partnerships Parks and Recreation Recreation Division Paula Nowariak, Recreation Manager Loudi Rivamonte, Recreation Supervisor Holly Champlin, Recreation Supervisor “Scholarship” Program to “Fee Options” We are here today to discuss challenges with our current Scholarship program in the Recreation Division, and present an updated model to consider called “Fee Options Plan” Parks and Recreation is a department that provides equity and inclusion within the City via parks, free programs and events, however, within our core recreation based programs we have room for improvement. In addition, with the City’s participation in GARE and through community dialogues, recommendations for these changes are presented to council for direction. “Scholarship” Program to “Fee Options” Trends are showing that more cities and organizations are considering a “fee option” program. *Fee options: a choice in how much and methods utilized to make payment. Current scholarship program gaps were identified by staff based on a more equitable platform with analysis through an equity lens. Comprehensive Plan calls for additional equity and inclusion for Parks and Recreation. Current Program and Structure •Open to ages 18 & under living in Eagan, scholarship pays 50% of program fees with an annual limit of $300 per individual and no household maximum. •Self reported income based form is completed and the scholarship is approved as funds are available. •Not available to people living outside of the City of Eagan. Analysis of other Cities/Organizations •9 other similar sized organizations were analyzed for their scholarship program. •Many stated that they are in the process of evaluating their program. •Programs range considerations are based on who is served, financial contributions and limits, and funding mechanisms. •Data shows significant difference among different cities, based on their agency policy. Proposed Structure •Open to all residents of the City of Eagan •Activities with a Rec Trac number generated in Recreation, ECC, Civic Arena and Cascade Bay. •Individuals pay what they can for programs, fee option plan pays the remainder of the balance. •Individual max of $300 per year, no household maximum, and if funds remain, additional requests can be approved by the Parks & Recreation Director. Sustainability of Funding •Currently funded out of general fund, Department 30 budget. •We want to ensure funding is sustainable over time as the policy change is being considered. Sustainability of Funding Continued •Listed below are potential additional funding options identified through staff research: •Increase the line item within the budget over time as program grows to match demand? •Install a Deferred Revenue Fund, funded by a “DONATE NOW” button on Rec Trac software where people could self elect a donation? •Establish a Sponsorship program to support the Fee Option Plan? Policy Questions: Should the city update its scholarship policy to a more equitable based model, open to more residents and call it a Fee Options Plan? Should funding of this program be initiated through any of the following mechanisms: Additional budgeted funds Donate Now option Sponsorship opportunities Should the maximum per individual be set at $300 per year? Parks and Recreation Thank you Ci t y Max per part i ci pant Max per f ami l y Def i ned benef i ci ary Burnsville $60 per quar t er , $240 per year yout h Thr ee r i ver s 60% of f one pr ogr am per year adul t s and yout h Pl ymout h $200 yout h Eden Pr ai r i e no max any r esi dent Appl e Val l ey 1 pr ogr am per per son per br ochur e any r esi dent Woodbur y $150 any r esi dent Bl oomi ngt on no max any r esi dent Edi na per f ami l y $300 yout h r esi dent or at t ends school i n Edi na St Loui s Par k $160 any r esi dent Port i on of f ee covered 50% I ndi vi dual s- 60% of f - al so have up t o 60% of f based on t he % of t he school t hat i s f r ee or r educed l unch 75% wi t h a max di scount of $75 50% up t o 20% Ti er ed f ee schedul e based on i ncome Ti er ed f ee schedul e t i er 1=50% t i er 2 pay =75% 50% 50% Agenda Information Memo January 8, 2019, Special City Council Meeting V. R-1S ZONING REVIEW – CITY OF EAGAN Direction to be considered: To provide City staff direction regarding the R-1S Zoning Category. Facts: In denying a request for R-1S zoning in April 2018, the City Council expressed concern that the zoning category was being used primarily to add density without providing any corresponding benefit to the City. At the Joint APC/City Council Workshop on June 12, 2018, the City Council directed the APC to consider revisions to the R-1S ordinance. The APC discussed the R-1S ordinance at several workshops. The attached memo summarizes the APC’s discussion/work on the topic. Attachments: (1) V-1 Staff Memo Memo To: Dave Osberg, City Administrator From: Jill Hutmacher, Director of Community Development Date: January 3, 2019 Subject: R-1S Zoning Category History Several years ago, the City Council created the R-1S Residential Zoning District. The ordinance defines the purposes of the R-1S District as: To allow for varied housing styles and values within the City; To satisfy issues with existing single-family developments that do not meet standard R-1 bulk standards; and To allow for cluster-type development for infill developments when appropriate (due to topography, tree and wetland preservation, etc.) The table below summarizes current standards: Table 1: Current Bulk Standards Comparison R-1 R-1S Min Lot Size 12,000 SF 8,000 SF Max Building Coverage 20% 25% Min Side Yard Setbacks 10’ Dwelling/5’ Garage 6’ Dwelling/5’ Garage Background Over the years, several developments have been approved with all or a portion of the lots having R-1S zoning. Examples of these developments include: Dakota Path Stonehaven Addition Page 2 Summerbrooke Addition Tipperary Willow Ridge At Wescott In April 2018, the City Council denied a request for R-1S zoning for an infill development along Dodd Road because the proposed development did not meet any of the purposes identified in the ordinance. The City Council has expressed concern that the R-1S ordinance was being used by developers primarily to add density to developments without any corresponding benefit to the City. At the Joint APC/City Council Workshop on June 12, 2018, the City Council directed the APC to consider revisions to the R-1S ordinance. Subsequently, the APC discussed the R-1S ordinance at several workshops. Discussion In addition to the general discussion regarding the density issue, staff shared that there have been some instances where the R-1S bulk standards resulted in spatial issues with air conditioning units and/or window wells encroaching into the standard 5’ side-yard drainage and utility easements. Similarly, the existing R-1S (building footprint) lot coverage allotment of 25% has resulted in some homes - depending on the lot size - being larger than what R-1 Zoning would have allowed; thereby defeating the varied housing styles and values goal of the R-1S category. The commission discussed a number of approaches to achieving the stated goals while maintaining an efficient use of land/infrastructure and still providing a product that would be attractive to the market. At the request of the APC, staff provided information (Table 2) of real value comparison between R-1 and R-1S properties. Stonehaven Addition provided the best example as it contains both R-1 and R-1S homes built within a year of each other, approximately seven years ago. Data regarding Tipperary (100% R-1S) is limited as the vast majority of the homes were constructed in 2018 and their values/taxes will not be known until they hit the tax rolls in March 2019. Also, the average lot size in Tipperary is skewed because five of the 21 lots are over 14,000 SF in area due to the odd shape of the parent parcel. Page 3 Table 2: Comparison of R-1 and R-1S Lots Avg Lot Size Avg Home Size1 Avg Value - Building Building Value per SF Avg Value- Land Land Value per SF Avg Total Value Stonehaven R-1S 10,419 4,013 $402,055 $100 $112,139 $10.76 $514,194 Stonehaven R-1 14,431 4,710 $474,797 $101 $130,125 $9.02 $604,922 Tipperary R-1S 12,300 3,300 $334,500 $101 $97,500 $6.60 $433,000 1 Square footage includes garage Conclusion After considering a number of scenarios to address the concern of maximizing density, encouraging varied styles/values and avoiding the feeling of over-crowding and/or encroachments into easements, the APC arrived at consensus ordinance changes to bring forward to the City Council. Table 3 summarizes the proposed changes. Table 3: Suggested Modifications R-1S Existing R-1S Proposed Min Lot Size 8,000 SF 8,000 SF Max Building Coverage 25% 20% Min Side Yard Setbacks 6’ Dwelling/5’ Garage 10’ Dwelling/5’ Garage Max Building Footprint N/A 2,000 SF Policy Questions 1. Would the City Council like additional study on the topic? 2. Should staff work with the City Attorney’s office to draft an amendment to the R-1S Zoning Bulk Standards? Agenda Information Memo January 8, 2019 Eagan Special City Council Workshop VI. PRESENTATION OF 2018 COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Action to be Considered: No formal action is needed. Facts: Every two years, the City of Eagan engages an independent research firm to conduct a scientific survey of residents. The survey is designed to provide the City Council and staff with resident perspectives about community quality and government services. For the 2018 survey, the City once again partnered with National Research Center (NRC), because of its ability to not only gauge resident perceptions of the city, but also to make both regional and national comparisons with peer cities. NRC fielded a customized version of its National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™) last fall. The NCS™ was developed in partnership with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to provide cities with an affordable, high-quality method to access and interpret resident data. The NRC survey is the only citizen survey endorsed by ICMA and the National League of Cities, and it is used by a growing number of Minnesota communities including Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Woodbury, and Dakota County, along with more than 350 jurisdictions in 44 states. The 1,600 randomly-selected households each received three mailings in September 2018. In total, 448 surveys were completed, yielding a margin of error of +/- 5% a confidence interval of 95%. Strategic & Digital Marketing Specialist Crystal King from the Communications Department will give the presentation about the key findings of the survey and answer questions the City Council may have. Attachments: (1) VI-1 National Citizen Survey (NCS) 2018 Community Livability Report for Eagan VI-2 National Citizen Survey (NCS) 2018 Dashboard VI-3 Copy of presentation 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Eagan, MN Community Livability Report 2018 The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About .............................................................................................. 1 Quality of Life in Eagan .................................................................... 2 Community Characteristics ............................................................... 3 Governance ..................................................................................... 5 Participation .................................................................................... 7 Special Topics .................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ................................................................................... 16 1 About The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) report is about the “livability” of Eagan. The phrase “livable community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 448 residents of the City of Eagan. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Government Private sector 2 Quality of Life in Eagan Almost all residents rated the quality of life in Eagan as excellent or good. This rating was higher than those given in other communities across the nation (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover). Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety, Economy and Natural Environment as priorities for the Eagan community in the coming two years. It is noteworthy that residents gave above-average marks to the facets of Built Environment, Economy and Recreation and Wellness; ratings for all other facets were positive and similar to the national benchmark. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Eagan’s unique questions. Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Mobility Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Built Environment Safety Economy Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Excellent 51.8% Good 44.6% Fair 3.5% Poor 0.0% Overall Quality of Life 3 Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Eagan, virtually all residents rated the City as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents’ ratings of Eagan as a place to live were higher than ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the City as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Eagan as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Eagan and its overall appearance. At least 9 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the overall image and overall appearance of the city and Eagan as a place to raise children, and these ratings were higher than those observed in other communities across the nation. About 9 in 10 residents were pleased with their neighborhood as a place to live while 7 in 10 gave high marks to Eagan as a place to retire; these ratings were similar to the national benchmarks. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. Ratings were very strong and residents gave evaluations that were higher than the national benchmark for most aspects (29 of 41). No aspects were rated lower than the benchmark. At least 9 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the overall feeling of safety in Eagan, feeling safe in their neighborhood and in Eagan’s commercial areas, overall ease of travel, overall natural environment, cleanliness of the city, overall economic health of Eagan, shopping opportunities and K-12 education. When compared to 2016, ratings for Community Characteristics generally remained stable (for more information, see the Trends over Time report under separate cover). 94% 98% 96% 93% 70% Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmark Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 66% Good 33% Fair 1% Poor 0% Place to Live The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics 91% 82% 88% 87% 86% 77% 81% 67% 86% 87% 68% 91% 65% 89% 84% 92% 74% 56% 84% 86% 93% 93% 80% 88% 67% 78% 85% 92% 91% 78% 73% 77% 72% 73% 74% 65% 79% 88% 49% 97% 98% Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance Neighborliness Social events and activities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Child care/preschool K-12 education Adult education Cultural/arts/music activities Education and enrichment opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Fitness opportunities Recreational opportunities Health care Preventive health services Mental health care Health and wellness RECREATION AND WELLNESS Place to work Place to visit Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living Business and services Vibrant commercial areas Overall economic health ECONOMY Housing options Affordable quality housing New development in Eagan Overall built environment BUILT ENVIRONMENT Air quality Cleanliness Overall natural environment NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Traffic flow Travel by car Travel by public transportation Travel by bicycle Ease of walking Paths and walking trails Overall ease of travel MOBILITY Safe commercial areas Safe in neighborhood Overall feeling of safety SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark 5 Governance How well does the government of Eagan meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Eagan as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. In Eagan, 9 in 10 respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the overall quality of City services (which was higher than the national average) while about half were pleased with the services provided by the Federal Government (which was similar). Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Eagan’s leadership and governance. About 7 in 10 residents or more gave favorable reviews to each aspect of government performance and almost all of these ratings were higher than those given in other communities across the country. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Eagan. Service ratings across all facets were similar to or higher than the national benchmark. Residents were particularly pleased with the Built Environment: nearly all related items were rated positively by at least 7 in 10 respondents and these ratings were above average. Other services for which ratings were higher than the national benchmarks included police services, crime prevention, traffic enforcement, street repair, open space and economic development, among others. Most service ratings remained stable from 2016 to 2018; however, resident sentiment toward snow removal and City-sponsored special events declined. 78% 84% 69% 80% 81% 85% 49% Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming citizen involvement Confidence in City government Treating all residents fairly Customer service Services provided by the Federal Government Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmark Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 31% Good 58% Fair 10% Poor 0% Overall Quality of City Services The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Figure 2: Aspects of Governance 85% 93% 84% 70% 76% 85% 94% 86% 77% 78% 73% 69% 83% 83% 89% 94% 74% 73% 86% 54% 87% 76% 85% 84% 63% 64% 70% 73% 76% 90% 97% 97% Public information COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Special events EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Recreation centers Recreation programs City parks RECREATION AND WELLNESS Economic development ECONOMY Cable television Code enforcement Land use, planning and zoning Utility billing Power utility Sewer services Storm drainage BUILT ENVIRONMENT Open space Natural areas preservation Drinking water Recycling Garbage collection NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Bus or transit services Traffic signal timing Sidewalk maintenance Snow removal Street lighting Street cleaning Street repair Traffic enforcement MOBILITY Animal control Fire prevention Crime prevention Ambulance/EMS Fire Police SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark 7 Participation Are the residents of Eagan connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. About 7 in 10 residents gave excellent or good ratings to the sense of community in Eagan, which was similar to ratings given elsewhere. Virtually all residents would recommend living in Eagan to someone who asked (which was higher than the benchmark) and 9 in 10 planned to remain in the city for the next five years (which was similar). However, only 3 in 10 respondents had contacted the City of Eagan in the 12 months prior to the survey; this was a lower level than seen in other communities across the nation and a decrease from 2016. The survey included over 30 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Rates of Participation varied widely across the different facets, making the benchmark comparisons (as well as comparisons to Eagan over time) useful for interpreting the results. Overall, residents of Eagan participated in almost all activities at rates similar to those found in other communities across the country. Virtually all residents had purchased goods or services in the community and recycled at home in the 12 months prior to the survey, on par with the rest of the country. Most residents had not reported a crime, had visited a city park, participated in physical activity, interacted with their neighbors and voted in local elections. Residents reported lower rates than the national average in only one aspect of Participation: working in their own community (Eagan). Residents were less likely in 2018 than in 2016 to have read or watched local news, but more likely to have walked or biked instead of driving. 97% 91% 31% Recommend Eagan Remain in Eagan Contacted Eagan employees Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat likely, yes) Comparison to national benchmark Excellent 21% Good 51% Fair 25% Poor 4% Sense of Community The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Figure 3: Aspects of Participation 89% 78% 15% 15% 89% 31% 9% 61% 89% 89% 63% 36% 100% 76% 63% 96% 72% 78% 60% 41% 27% 86% 31% Voted in local elections Read or watched local news Watched a local public meeting Attended a local public meeting Talked to or visited with neighbors Volunteered Contacted Eagan elected officials COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attended a City-sponsored event EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity Visited a City park Used Eagan recreation centers RECREATION AND WELLNESS Work in Eagan Economy will have positive impact on income Purchased goods or services in Eagan ECONOMY NOT under housing cost stress Did NOT observe a code violation BUILT ENVIRONMENT Recycled at home Made home more energy efficient Conserved water NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled instead of driving alone Used public transportation instead of driving MOBILITY Did NOT report a crime SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, more than once a month, always/sometimes) Comparison to national benchmark 9 Special Topics The City of Eagan included a dozen questions of special interest on The NCS. Topic areas included the condition of streets, trails and sidewalks, water quality and City information sources, among others. About 8 in 10 residents rated “Eagan as a place to play” as excellent or good; 2 in 10 rated it as fair and very few rated it as poor. Figure 4: Eagan as a Place to Play Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Eagan: Eagan as a place to play Thinking about how frequently they had been bothered by airport noise in the past year, roughly half of residents said it bothered them at least a couple of times a month or more, and 2 in 10 noted that airport noise bothered them once a month or less. One-third of respondents were not bothered at all by airport noise. Figure 5: Airport Noise In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Eagan? – Been bothered by airport noise Excellent 38% Good 42% Fair 18% Poor 2% 2 times a week or more 26% 2-4 times a month 19% Once a month or less 21% Not at all 33% The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Nine in ten residents rated the quality of park maintenance in Eagan as excellent or good and another 1 in 10 rated it as fair; very few thought it was poor. Figure 6: Park Maintenance Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Eagan: Park maintenance Thinking about the services provided by the State Government, about 8 in 10 residents rated these as excellent or good, 2 in 10 rated them as fair and only 2% rated them as poor. Figure 7: Minnesota State Government Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? - Minnesota State Government Most residents (86%) gave excellent or good ratings to the overall job done by Eagan’s City Council, and 1 in 10 gave this a fair rating. Three percent of respondents rated it as poor. Figure 8: Job Done by Eagan City Council Please rate the following categories of Eagan government performance: Overall job done by the Eagan City Council Excellent 37% Good 53% Fair 10% Poor 1% Excellent 38% Good 42% Fair 18% Poor 2% Excellent 20% Good 66% Fair 11% Poor 3% The National Citizen Survey™ 11 About 8 in 10 residents positively rated the condition of neighborhood streets and the condition of city trails and sidewalks, while three-quarters were pleased with the quality of snow plowing on neighborhood streets. One-third awarded positive marks to the timeliness of snow plowing on neighborhood streets and 4 in 10 gave favorable evaluations to the quality of snow plowing on city trails and sidewalks. Residents were least likely to positively rate the timeliness of plowing on city trails and sidewalks, although half of residents still did so. Figure 9: Street, Trail and Sidewalk Condition and Snow Plowing Please rate the following: Almost all residents awarded favorable ratings to the dependability of the sanitary sewer and the water supply in Eagan. Thinking about the quality of Eagan’s lakes and ponds, about 7 in 10 residents rated this positively and another one-quarter rated Eagan’s lakes and ponds as fair. Figure 10: Eagan Water Please rate the following: 13% 15% 22% 22% 29% 24% 42% 44% 43% 51% 51% 60% 28% 27% 24% 20% 15% 14% 17% 14% 10% 7% 5% 2% Timeliness of plowing on city trails and sidewalks Quality of snow plowing on city trails and sidewalks Timeliness of snow plowing on neighborhood streets Quality of snow plowing on neighborhood streets Condition of city trails and sidewalks Condition of neighborhood streets Excellent Good Fair Poor 22% 65% 62% 46% 29% 34% 24% 5% 4% 7% 1% 0% Quality of Eagan’s lakes and ponds Dependability of water supply Dependability of sanitary sewer Excellent Good Fair Poor The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Residents were asked whether they utilized a number of resources as sources of information about the City of Eagan. At least three-quarters of residents used the Experience Eagan resident newsletter, Discover recreation activities catalog and the City website as major or minor sources of information. Roughly half used the SunThisWeek local newspaper, emails or phone calls from the City and Nextdoor as information sources. However, one-third or fewer used the City Facebook page, Twitter feed or Eagan Television as information sources. Figure 11: Sources of City Information Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events and services. 3% 6% 10% 17% 16% 17% 23% 38% 35% 39% 21% 19% 25% 29% 34% 34% 31% 37% 45% 43% 76% 75% 65% 54% 51% 48% 46% 25% 20% 18% Eagan Television (ETV) City of Eagan Twitter City of Eagan Facebook Nextdoor Calling the City of Eagan Emails from the City of Eagan SunThisWeek local newspaper City website (www.cityofeagan.com) Discover recreation activities catalog Experience Eagan resident newsletter Major source Minor source Not a source The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Thinking about how often they used each of the previously mentioned information sources, residents most frequently used the Experience Eagan resident newsletter, Discover recreation activities catalog and the City website. The frequency of use of each information source largely mirrored residents’ ratings of each as a major or minor source of information in the previous question. Figure 12: Frequency of Use of Information Sources Please indicate how often you use each source. 12% 4% 5% 10% 4% 20% 6% 5% 5% 2% 6% 10% 2% 10% 15% 12% 22% 28% 24% 13% 8% 13% 34% 11% 25% 16% 42% 43% 49% 84% 81% 69% 63% 58% 56% 51% 29% 24% 23% Eagan Television (ETV) City of Eagan Twitter City of Eagan Facebook Calling the City of Eagan Nextdoor Emails from the City of Eagan SunThisWeek local newspaper City website (www.cityofeagan.com) Experience Eagan resident newsletter Discover recreation activities catalog Almost daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly or less Never The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Residents indicated how likely or unlikely they were to engage with the City in a number of activities. Half or more of residents were very or somewhat likely to read the Experience Eagan newsletter, complete tasks online through the City website or receive information about City events and activities or City Council actions on social media. About 4 in 10 residents were likely to provide feedback on City initiatives through the City website or social media; however, fewer than 2 in 10 were likely to watch local programming produced by Eagan television. Figure 13: Likelihood of Engagement with City How likely or unlikely are you to do each of the following: 2% 13% 16% 23% 30% 33% 12% 24% 25% 27% 29% 32% 18% 24% 26% 18% 13% 16% 69% 39% 33% 32% 28% 19% Watch local programming produced by Eagan Television (ETV) on cable or online Provide feedback on city initiatives through the City website or social media Receive updates on City Council actions through the City website or social media Receive information on city events and activities through social media Complete tasks online through the City website Read each issue of the mailed Experience Eagan city newsletter (6 times a year) Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely The National Citizen Survey™ 15 When asked about their awareness and use of various City amenities, about 4 in 10 residents had used Cascade Bay, 3 in 10 had used Eagan Civic Arena and 2 in 10 had used the Blast Indoor Playground. About 1 in 10 residents or fewer had used the Trapp Farm Tubing Hill or ETV Channels 15, 20 or 16. Roughly half of residents were aware of each of these amenities or services but had not used them. Figure 14: Awareness and Use of City Amenities Please indicate whether or not you are aware of, and have used or accessed, the following amenities or services currently offered by the City of Eagan in the last 12 months: Finally, respondents were asked about their internet service. Slightly more than half of residents had fiber optic internet while 15% had either a cable modem or DSL connection. Six percent of residents had no internet or had a different type of internet connection than those listed, and only 3% had internet via satellite. Figure 15: Internet Service Providers What type of internet service do you have? 6% 8% 12% 22% 30% 39% 45% 44% 52% 52% 61% 53% 49% 48% 36% 25% 9% 8% ETV Channel 16 (Eagan’s government channel) ETV Channel 15 or Channel 20 (Eagan’s public access and community channels) Trapp Farm Tubing Hill The Blast Indoor Playground Eagan Civic Arena Cascade Bay Aware of and have used Aware of but have NOT used Not aware of 6% 3% 6% 15% 15% 55% Other Satellite None DSL Cable modem Fiber optic 16 Conclusions Eagan continues to be a great place to live. Virtually all residents gave positive ratings to their overall quality of life in the city and Eagan as a place to live, and at least 9 in 10 gave favorable marks to the overall image and overall appearance of the city and Eagan as a place to raise children. Almost all respondents would recommend living in the community to someone who asked; all of these ratings were higher than those given in other communities across the nation. Further, about 8 in 10 residents were pleased with Eagan as a place to play. Safety remains a priority for residents and is a community strength. As in 2016, residents in 2018 indicated that Safety would be an important area of focus for the City in the next two years. Ratings within this facet tended to be strong: nearly all residents gave excellent or good marks to feeling safe in their neighborhood and in Eagan’s commercial areas, and 9 in 10 favorably rated the overall feeling of safety in the city (an above-average rating). At least 8 in 10 respondents gave positive reviews to all Safety-related City services, and ratings for police, crime prevention and animal control were higher than the national benchmarks. High standards for the Natural Environment are being met. Residents also named Natural Environment as a priority for the City in the next two years and ratings within this facet also tended to be quite high. Nine in ten residents gave favorable reviews to the overall natural environment in Eagan, cleanliness of the city and air quality, and ratings for overall natural environment and cleanliness were above average. At least three-quarters of survey respondents awarded high marks to all Natural Environment- related services, and evaluations for open space and natural areas preservation were also higher than national comparisons. At least 7 in 10 residents had conserved water and made efforts to make their homes more energy efficient and almost all respondents had recycled at home. Thinking about water-related amenities, almost all residents gave favorable ratings to the dependability of the sanitary sewer and the water supply in Eagan. About 7 in 10 residents rated the quality of Eagan’s lakes and ponds as excellent or good and another one-quarter rated them as fair. Eagan’s economic health is seen as robust. Ratings for Economy in Eagan were exceptionally strong. All respondents had purchased goods or services in Eagan. At least 8 in 10 survey participants gave excellent or good marks to the overall economic health of the city, Eagan’s vibrant commercial areas, overall quality of business and service establishments, shopping opportunities, Eagan as a place to work and economic development. Two-thirds were pleased with employment opportunities and cost of living. All of these ratings were higher than those given in other communities across the country. Residents are pleased with their local government and engage with the City. Residents gave above-average ratings to many aspects of government performance and public trust. Nine in ten respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the overall quality of City services and about 7 in 10 or more awarded favorable marks to the value of services for taxes paid, overall direction of the City, the job City government does at welcoming citizen involvement, overall confidence in City government, treating all residents fairly and the customer service provided by the City. These ratings were all higher than those given in other communities. When asked about potential sources of information about the City of Eagan, at least three-quarters of residents said the Experience Eagan resident newsletter, Discover recreation activities catalog and the City website were major or minor sources of information, while roughly half said the SunThisWeek local newspaper, emails or phone calls from the City and Nextdoor were major or minor sources. Thinking about frequency of use, residents most often used the Experience Eagan resident newsletter, Discover recreation activities catalog and the City website. Finally, related to engagement with the City, at least two-thirds of residents were likely to read the Experience Eagan newsletter, complete tasks online through the City website or receive information about City events and activities or City Council actions on social media. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Eagan, MN Dashboard Summary of Findings 2018 1 Summary The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Eagan’s performance in the eight facets of community livability with the “General” rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The “Overall” represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Eagan’s community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. Eagan residents awarded above-average marks to almost all facets of Community Characteristics. Ratings for City services were similarly positive: the facets of Safety, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness and Community Engagement received ratings higher than the national benchmarks, while evaluations for Mobility, Natural Environment, Education and Enrichment and general aspects of Governance were on par with those seen in other communities. Levels of Participation were similar to the national comparisons. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas of community strength or areas that may merit more attention. Figure 1: Dashboard Summary Community Characteristics Governance Participation Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Overall 34 14 0 22 18 0 1 24 2 General 5 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 Safety 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 Mobility 6 1 0 3 5 0 0 3 0 Natural Environment 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 Built Environment 4 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 Economy 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 Recreation and Wellness 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 Education and Enrichment 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Community Engagement 0 5 0 5 1 0 0 8 0 National Benchmark Higher Similar Lower The National Citizen Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 2 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive General Overall appearance ↔ ↑ 96% Customer service ↔ ↔ 85% Recommend Eagan ↔ ↑ 97% Overall quality of life ↔ ↑ 96% Services provided by Eagan ↔ ↑ 90% Remain in Eagan ↔ ↔ 91% Place to retire ↔ ↔ 70% Services provided by the Federal Government ↔ ↔ 49% Contacted Eagan employees ↓ ↓ 31% Place to raise children ↔ ↑ 98% Place to live ↔ ↑ 99% Neighborhood ↔ ↔ 93% Overall image ↔ ↑ 94% Safety Overall feeling of safety ↔ ↑ 91% Police ↔ ↑ 94% Did NOT report a crime ↔ ↔ 86% Safe in neighborhood ↔ ↔ 98% Crime prevention ↔ ↑ 89% Safe commercial areas ↔ ↔ 97% Fire ↔ ↔ 97% Fire prevention ↔ ↔ 90% Ambulance/EMS ↔ ↔ 97% Animal control ↔ ↑ 83% Mobility Traffic flow ↔ ↑↑ 80% Traffic enforcement ↔ ↑ 83% Carpooled instead of driving alone ↔ ↔ 41% Travel by car ↔ ↑ 88% Street repair ↔ ↑ 69% Walked or biked instead of driving ↑ ↔ 60% Travel by bicycle ↔ ↑ 67% Street cleaning ↔ ↔ 76% Used public transportation instead of driving ↔ ↔ 27% Ease of walking ↔ ↑ 78% Street lighting ↔ ↔ 73% Travel by public transportation ↔ ↔ 49% Snow removal ↓ ↔ 70% Overall ease travel ↔ ↑ 92% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ ↑ 73% Paths and walking trails ↔ ↑ 85% Traffic signal timing ↔ ↔ 64% Bus or transit services ↔ ↔ 63% Natural Environment Overall natural environment ↔ ↑ 93% Garbage collection ↔ ↔ 84% Recycled at home ↔ ↔ 96% Air quality ↔ ↔ 88% Recycling ↔ ↔ 85% Conserved water ↔ ↔ 78% Cleanliness ↔ ↑ 93% Drinking water ↔ ↔ 76% Made home more energy efficient ↔ ↔ 72% Open space ↔ ↑ 77% Natural areas preservation ↔ ↑ 78% Built Environment New development in Eagan ↔ ↑↑ 84% Sewer services ↔ ↑ 94% NOT experiencing housing cost stress ↔ ↔ 76% Affordable quality housing ↓ ↑ 56% Storm drainage ↔ ↑ 86% Did NOT observe a code violation ↔ ↔ 63% Housing options ↓ ↑ 74% Power utility ↔ ↔ 87% Overall built environment ↔ ↑ 86% Utility billing ↔ ↑ 85% Land use, planning and zoning ↔ ↑ 76% Code enforcement ↔ ↑ 70% Cable television ↔ ↔ 54% The National Citizen Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 3 Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive Economy Overall economic health ↔ ↑ 92% Economic development ↔ ↑↑ 84% Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ ↔ 36% Shopping opportunities ↔ ↑↑ 91% Purchased goods or services in Eagan ↔ ↔ 100% Employment opportunities ↔ ↑ 68% Work in Eagan ↔ ↓ 31% Place to visit ↔ ↔ 79% Cost of living ↔ ↑ 65% Vibrant commercial areas ↔ ↑↑ 84% Place to work ↔ ↑ 87% Business and services ↔ ↑ 89% Recreation and Wellness Fitness opportunities ↔ ↑ 87% City parks ↔ ↑ 93% Used Eagan recreation centers ↔ ↔ 63% Recreational opportunities ↔ ↑ 86% Recreation centers ↔ ↑ 85% Visited a City park ↔ ↔ 89% Health care ↔ ↑ 77% Recreation programs ↔ ↔ 86% Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity ↔ ↔ 89% Mental health care ↔ ↑ 67% Health and wellness ↔ ↑ 86% Preventive health services ↔ ↑ 81% Education and Enrichment K-12 education ↔ ↑ 91% Special events ↓ ↔ 73% Attended a City-sponsored event ↔ ↔ 61% Cultural/arts/music activities ↔ ↔ 65% Child care/preschool ↔ ↔ 74% Adult education ↔ ↑ 82% Overall education and enrichment ↔ ↑ 88% Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in community matters ↔ ↔ 73% Public information ↔ ↔ 74% Sense of community ↔ ↔ 71% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ ↔ 78% Overall direction ↔ ↑ 84% Voted in local elections ↔ ↔ 89% Openness and acceptance ↔ ↔ 77% Value of services for taxes paid ↔ ↑ 78% Talked to or visited with neighbors ↔ ↔ 89% Social events and activities ↔ ↔ 73% Welcoming citizen involvement ↔ ↑ 69% Attended a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 15% Neighborliness ↔ ↔ 72% Confidence in City government ↔ ↑ 80% Watched a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 15% Treating all residents fairly * ↑ 81% Volunteered ↔ ↔ 31% Contacted Eagan elected officials ↔ ↔ 9% Read or watched local news ↓ ↔ 78% 2018 RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS JANUARY 8, 2019 CITY OF EAGAN •2nd year conducting the NCS •Scientific sample of 1,600 households •Mailed survey with online option •448 returned surveys; 28% response rate •5% margin of error THE NCS & EAGAN FACETS OF COMMUNITY LIVABILITY QUALITY OF COMMUNITY OVERALL SAFETY MOBILITY RECREATION & WELLNESSECONOMY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTEDUCATION & ENRICHMENT COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? OVERVIEW OF RESULTS Excellent 51.8% Good 44.6% Fair 3.5% COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were consistent for: Excellent 66% Good 33% Fair 1% Overall quality of life in Eagan Eagan as a place to live Overall image of Eagan •2018: 94% •2016: 92% Neighborhood as a place to live •2018: 93% •2016: 92% Eagan as a place to raise children •2018: 98% •2016: 95% COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2018 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Overall ease of travel 2018: 92% 2016: 88% Vibrant commercial areas 2018: 84% 2016: 83% Place to visit 2018: 79% 2016: 77% Recreational opportunities 2018: 86% 2016: 84% Cultural, arts & music events 2018: 65% 2016: 61% Neighborliness 2018: 72% 2016: 69% Openness & acceptance 2018: 77% 2016: 72% Opportunities to participate in community matters 2018: 73% 2016: 70% COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2018 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were consistent for: Safe in neighborhood 98% Safe in commercial areas 97% Overall economic health 92% Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Overall feeling of safety 2018: 91% 2016: 94% Availability paths & walking trails 2018: 85% 2016: 88% Overall natural environment 2018: 93% 2016: 96% Overall built environment 2018: 86% 2016: 88% New development in Eagan 2018: 84% 2016: 87% Shopping opportunities 2018: 91% 2016: 93% Employment opportunities 2018: 68% 2016: 73% Opportunities to volunteer 2018: 78% 2016: 79% COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2016 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2016 on availability of affordable quality housing. Poor Fair Good Excellent 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 2016 2018 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2016 on variety of housing options. Poor Fair Good Excellent 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 2016 2018 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Ratings were higher in 2016 on variety of housing options. Excellent 28% Good 46% Fair 21% Poor 5% 2018 Excellent 31% Good 54% Fair 14% Poor 8% 2016 GOVERNANCE OVERVIEW OF RESULTS How well does the government of Eagan meet the needs and expectations of its residents? GOVERNANCE Excellent 19% Good 59% Fair 18% Poor 3% Ratings were higher in 2018 for: Value of services for taxes paid GOVERNANCE Excellent 22% Good 58% Fair 16% Poor 4% Ratings were higher in 2018 for: Confidence in Eagan government GOVERNANCE Excellent 28% Good 55% Fair 13% Poor 3% Ratings were consistent for: Overall direction Eagan is taking GOVERNANCE Excellent 20% Good 66% Fair 11% Poor New this year: Overall job by Eagan City Council Overall quality of City services •2018: 89% •2016: 94% Welcoming citizen involvement •2018: 69% •2016: 73% Customer service •2018: 85% •2016: 89% GOVERNANCE Ratings were higher in 2016 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Police 2018: 94% 2016: 83% Ambulance/EMS 2018: 97% 2016: 94% Traffic enforcement 2018: 83% 2016: 82% Traffic signal timing 2018: 64% 2016: 63% Sewer services 2018: 94% 2016: 91% GOVERNANCE Ratings were higher in 2018 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark GOVERNANCE Ratings were consistent for: Fire 97% Animal control 83% Recreation programs 86% Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark GOVERNANCE Crime prevention Fire prevention Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Bus or transit service Drinking water Natural areas preservation Storm drainage Utility billing Land use, planning & zoning Economic development City parks Recreation facilities Parks maintenance Ratings were higher in 2016 for: Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Snow removal •2018: 70% •2016: 80% Code enforcement •2018: 70% •2016: 76% Special events •2018: 73% •2016: 81% Public information •2018: 74% •2016: 80% GOVERNANCE Ratings were higher in 2016 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW OF RESULTS Are the residents of Eagan connected to the community and each other? PARTICIPATION Excellent 21% Good 51% Fair 25% Poor 4% Ratings were consistent for: Sense of community Walked or biked instead of driving 2018: 60% 2016: 54% Used Eagan recreation centers 2018: 63% 2016: 61% Visited a City park 2018: 89% 2016: 87% Attended a local public meeting 2018: 15% 2016: 13% Voted in local elections 2018: 89% 2016: 85% PARTICIPATION Ratings were higher in 2018 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Used public transit instead of driving •2018: 27% •2016: 29% Attended a City- sponsored event •2018: 61% •2016: 63% Volunteered •2018: 31% •2016: 32% PARTICIPATION Ratings were higher in 2016 for:Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark MOVING FORWARD How can the City of Eagan put these findings into action? KEY FOCUS AREAS EDUCATION & ENRICHMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTMOBILITY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECREATION & WELLNESS BUILT ENVIRONMENTSAFETY ECONOMY Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Most important Consider telling our positive public safety story more. MOVING FORWARD MOVING FORWARD Safe in neighborhood 98% Safe in commercial areas 97% Fire services 97% Police services 94% Continue our efforts to balance growth & economic development with our commitment to the natural environment. MOVING FORWARD Recognize that the affordability and variety of housing options in Eagan continues to be an emerging issue for residents. MOVING FORWARD MOVING FORWARD safe, affordable housing affordability of housing affordable housing especially for elderly and/or disabled people affordable housing for seniors and those of low income more housing for old age residents –affordable lack of affordable starter homes expensive housing need more detached townhomes Housing was the most frequently mentioned response to the “most serious issue facing Eagan” question Use survey data to raise awareness of specific programs and services. MOVING FORWARD MOVING FORWARD Cascade Bay •Highlight Cardio Bay as a part of 50+ Senior programming Community Events •Consider events for the community beyond families with kids at the Community Center/Festival Grounds Trapp Farm Tubing Hill •Use Nextdoor to promote amenities like the tubing hill in other parts of the City Continue efforts to improve on customer service and citizen involvement results. MOVING FORWARD BENCHMARKS How does Eagan compare to communities across the country? NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS 56 aspects received similar ratings 57 aspects received higher ratings 2 aspects received lower ratings Over 500 communities in the National Research Center’s database TWIN CITIES BENCHMARK 97 aspects received similar ratings 17 aspects received higher ratings 1 aspects received lower ratings Cities and counties within the 11-county Twin Cities metro area with a population over 17,500 INCOME & POPULATION BENCHMARK 106 aspects received similar ratings 9 aspects received higher ratings 0 aspects received lower ratings Communities with populations between 70,000 & 100,000 with a median income between $55,000 & $80,000