HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-21 City Council Work Session Meeting PacketAgenda
City Council Work Session
City of Edina, Minnesota
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
5:30 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.City Council Retreat Follow-up
IV.Joint Meeting: Community Health Commission
V.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the
public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli&cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: May 21, 2019 Agenda Item #: III.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Other
From:Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:City Council Retreat Follow-up Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
City staff will discuss follow up items from the March 14-15 City Council retreat, including proposals for Council
Connections and future town hall meetings.
A summary of the council retreat provided by the facilitator Sara Peterson is attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Summary of March 2019 Council Retreat
Council Connections Proposal
City Council Questions
SARA A. PETERSON, JD – MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
P | 812.822.2122 n C | 651.260.0273 n F | 812.205.2987
www.sarapetersonconsulting.com n saraannpeterson@gmail.com
City of Edina – Council Planning Summary
March 14-15, 2019 (Braemar Golf Course)
PARTICIPANTS
Elected Officials Staff & Facilitator
James Hovland, Mayor
Ron Anderson, City Council Member
Mary Brindle, City Council Member
Mike Fischer, City Council Member
Kevin Staunton, City Council Member
Scott Neal, City Manager
Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager
Casey Casella, City Management Fellow
Sara A. Peterson, Management Consultant
AGENDA
THURSDAY
4:45 Arrive & Settle In
5:00 Introduction
Review agenda, ground rules, and meeting
goals
5:10 Setting the Stage
Staff will present an overview re:
Budget & Work Plan Process
SWOT Analysis for Each Goal
Budget History & Forecast
Council will ask questions and discuss the
implications of the presentation for this
process.
6:30 Dinner
7:00 Exploring Priorities for 2020-2021:
Setting Priority Objectives & Strategies
Delve into each Idea to:
Set Council Priorities for 2020-2021
Develop Broad 2-Year Objectives for Each
Prioritize Strategies/Actions
8:45 Next Steps
9:00 Adjourn
We’ll stretch along the way as needed.
FRIDAY
10:15 Grab Coffee & Settle In
10:30 Brief Recap of / Reflection on Yesterday
10:40 Aligning Ethics, Engagement & Participation
Council members have asked for a formal Ethics Policy. At the same
time all are working for a more effective Council process. We’ll set
the stage for both, looking at:
How ethics policies intersect with Public Participation and
Community Engagement
How Council communications, processes and meeting purpose
affect all three
The values that should connect them all
Targeted questions, examples and review of existing values and
policy will frame the discussion. By the end, we will have a clear
direction for this work.
12:30 Lunch
1:30 Effective Financing of Edina Streets
Staff and consultants will present a review of Edina’s street
assessment approach and other approaches available to the City. By
discussing the pros /cons and underlying values inherent in each
approach, we will arrive at answers to:
Will we actively pursue a change in policy in the next 2 years?
If yes, what approach do we prefer, and what is a fair and
appropriate transition?
4:00 Wrap Up
Prioritize Themes and outline next steps
4:30 Adjourn
We’ll stretch along the way as needed.
Page 2 of 13
I. Setting the Stage
The retreat began with an overview of Edina’s planning and budgeting process, a quick grounding in its financial position, and
a presentation of senior staff perspectives related to City goal status. What follows are key elements from that presentation.
Overview of Process
Timeline 8/7 City Manager presents 2020-21 draft budget work plan and budget scenarios
2/26 ELT Retreat 8/20 City Manager presents budget draft to Council
3/14 Council Retreat 9/4 City Council adopts preliminary 2020 property and HRA tax levy and budget
6/1 Departments send budget requests 12/3 Public Hearing & option to adopt final property and HRA tax levy and budget
7/19 ELT reviews 2018-2019 budget draft 12/17 Deadline to adopt final property and HRA tax levy and budget
Consolidated Budget
Highlights
• Market and median values have risen since 2013
• Past tax levy growth:
o 2011-14, 1.8%/year average
o 2015-19, 6.4%/year average
• There is a significant amount of unfunded
maintenance needs
• Edina’s 10-year forecasting includes these
assumptions:
o Flat Revenue Growth (Permits: $4.5 million)
o Wages/Benefits/Staff Increases: 5%
o Other Costs: 3%
o Growth in Tax Capacity 2.77%
o Median Value Home: 1%
Edina Consolidated Budget $116M
Governmental Funds $71M
General Fund $43M
Debt Service Fund $8M
Construction Fund $10M
Special Revenue Funds, inc. HRA
Enterprise Funds $45M
Utility Fund $19M
Liquor Fund $13M
Park Enterprises $13M
Page 3 of 13
Staff Highlights of Goals
1
2
3
4
Page 4 of 13
II. Setting Priority Objectives & Strategies
Background
In 2017, the City Council retreat was designed to identify key themes that would drive Edina’s biennial budget. The meeting
resulted not only in themes for that cycle, but ones that have since been crafted into four evergreen goals for the City budget:
As a result, the 2019 retreat focused on priorities within those areas. By discussing priorities, Council Members essentially
provided staff with principled parameters for crafting the budget rather than focusing on the few that “we can afford.” Doing
so opens the door to a range of funding approaches and mechanisms for any given project, while ensuring that we do what is
right and needed for Edina.
Discussion & Direction
As discussion progressed, Council Members developed frames for prioritizing needs, applicable to each of the goals as follow:
• Focus on items that increase City resilience to change whether that be environmental, financial, technological, etc.
• Emphasize those items and efforts that benefit more than one goal when possible
• Continue focus on questions of equity – how everyone receives Edina’s highest and best service
With that as the starting point, the Council discussed each of the four goals, providing the following guidance to staff:
“Evergreen”
Objectives:
• Factors financial, societal and environmental costs (triple-bottom line) into projects and decision making;
• Allows more informed decision-making by incorporating lifecycle and maintenance costs;
• Optimizes financial resources by replacing equipment and vehicles at the most cost-effective time; and
• Meets our sustainability goals to ensure the City can continue to provide residents the highest quality of life.
Preliminary
Priorities:
• Develop a comprehensive approach to water, including storm water management, water quality and water
treatment
• Focus on sustainability and energy efficiency when assessing capital projects
• Focus on resilience when assessing and funding parks projects in the future
• Address City Hall deferred maintenance and upgrades because of its impact on energy efficiency, security,
effective function and service
Other
Considerations
• Given this framework, the fire station became a consideration under goal 2 rather than here
• Likewise, the art center ties to the Grandview project placed it in another category
Maintain physical assets and infrastructure.
• Streets & bridges
• Water/sewer/storm infrastructure
• City buildings
• City vehicles
• Other equipment
Page 5 of 13
“Evergreen”
Objectives:
• Recruits, trains, & retains a strong workforce.
• Utilizes effective technology & data systems
• Complies with legal and safety standards
• Ensures adequate response times
• Ensures equitable deployment of resources.
Preliminary
Priorities:
• Focus on employee quality of life, stress, mental health and work/life balance
• Pay particular attention to the needs of police and fire employees in response to increased complexity of work
• Focus on system integration resulting in 1) efficiency gains to both employees and residents, 2) increased data
capabilities (e.g., longer-term data, deeper analysis, increased predictive potential), and 3) further proactive step
in developing as a “Smart City”
Other
Considerations
• Looking for ways to bring better, faster, cheaper services to residents
• Developing a plan for the Cahill area
“Evergreen”
Objectives:
• Ensure plans and policies are relevant today and flexible for tomorrow
• Meet sustainability goals
• Connect neighborhoods, businesses and open spaces
• Support the continued high quality of life offered to residents and those who work in Edina
Preliminary
Priorities:
• Develop a comprehensive approach to housing across the life cycle, including next generation affordability
spanning 100-200% of AMI as well as workforce housing. The approach should be focused on single-family
residences (preservation and their ability to regenerate/revitalize Edina) while encompassing a full range of variety
and options
• Deepen commitment to and role-modeling of sustainable practices (e.g., recycling, education)
Other
Considerations
• Note need to resolve Grandview Public Works site issues before addressing art center under goal 1
• Note link between sustainability practices for new construction here and water discussed in goal 1
Maintain service-levels that best meet community needs.
• Public safety response (police/fire/medical)
• Code inspections & enforcement
• Street & utility maintenance
• Parks & recreation programs
• Strong workforce to effectively deliver services
• Effective systems to manage service delivery
Plan for connected and sustainable development.
• Residential and commercial development & renewal
• Connected neighborhoods, businesses, and open spaces
• Multi-modal transportation & living streets
• Affordable/workforce housing
Page 6 of 13
“Evergreen”
Objectives:
• Understand community needs
• Use inclusive engagement methods
• Communicate using multiple platforms
• Eliminate disparate impacts
Preliminary
Priorities:
See conclusions under “Aligning Ethics, Engagement & Participation” for preliminary priorities
Foster an inclusive and engaged community through:
• Community engagement
• City communications
• Boards and commissions
• Race and equity initiatives
• Volunteers
• Intergovernmental partnerships
Page 7 of 13
III. Aligning Ethics, Engagement & Participation
Council Members have asked for a formal Ethics Policy. At the same time, all are working for a more effective community
engagement process. We set the stage for both, looking at:
• How ethics policies intersect with Public Participation and Community Engagement
• How Council communications, processes and meeting purpose affect all three
• The values that should connect them all
This topic directly addresses “City Goal 4 : Better Together” efforts to “foster an inclusive and engaged community.” It also
intersects with “City Goal 2: Reliable Service” efforts requiring a “strong workforce to effectively deliver services.”
Discussion
The Council began this discussion by defining the problem it is trying to solve. The result of this portion of the discussion was
agreement that this is largely about managing expectations and perceptions related to Council behavior as individuals and as
a group. It is not about fixing emotions or the spread of inaccurate information.
Why have a policy? Where does it come into play? What are concerns?
Ensure we meet legal obligations
Demonstrate that we have and
consistently follow a code of conduct
and professionalism above and beyond
those legal obligations
Acknowledge the impact of perceptions
of our conduct regardless of intent, etc.
Interactions with the public, staff, each other
• How we treat individuals
• What, how and when we communicate
Community engagement processes
• Process clarity and consistency
• Our promises to the public
• Their expectations of us
Deliberative and decision-making meetings
• The structure of meetings/hearings
• Our conduct in and out of meetings
• Actual and perceived:
o Process fairness and respect
o Conflicts of interest
o Promises kept
We “stumble” when our interactions,
processes or conduct (regardless of
intent) aren’t perceived as:
Transparent
• Council work sessions
• Long/late Council meetings
Fair/Reliable
• Public ability to be heard
• Meetings with interested individuals
• Mid-process changes
• Changed decisions
Coordinated
• Different “answers” given to resident
questions from multiple city sources
including staff and elected.
In a city of approximately 52,000 residents, approximately 75% of whom are adults, Council and staff members estimate that
they hear from maybe 500-1,000 individuals over the course of a year. With this in mind, the Council then delved into its
assumptions about those who do/don’t engage. Importantly, the same descriptions to those we hear from could be applied
to those we don’t and vice versa. It is not simply a matter of who is willing AND able to “show up.”
Who DO we hear from? What do they want?
• Those directly affected
• Those who want to be heard
• Those in the habit of engaging
From their participation
• To influence the outcome
• To mitigate potential losses, fears
• To learn or gain information
From us
• Us to agree with them
• Do our job without negatively affecting “front door” issues:
o Property values
o Quality of life or lifestyle
o Safety
o Neighborhood conveniences
o The City’s brand or their personal identity
Who DON’T we hear from?
• Those who trust us to do our job as their representatives
• Those who do not trust, or have negative views of, the system
• Those who do not know about or understand the process
What constrains engagement?
• Age or ability
• Work or child commitments
• Transportation or income
• Schedule or duration of meeting
• Weather or time of day
• Experiences and perceptions
• Comfort or ability to interact in a formal public forum
• Technology access or ability
Make a plan
Do what we say we will do
Don’t change the rules
Make a decision
Tell people why
Page 8 of 13
Edina invests a significant amount of time and energy into these processes – as staff, elected officials and community
volunteers. In a typical year, this includes:
City Council
Time spent in meetings, general in the evening, include:
• 24 Regular Meetings = total 86 hours / 3.6-hour average per meeting
• 24 Work Sessions = total 36 hours / 1.5-hour average per meeting
• 24 HRA Meetings = total 36 hours / 1.5-hour average per meeting
• Board/Commission Interviews = total 30 hours
• As well as Special & Joint Meetings, Town Halls, Annual Commission, etc.
Each of these requires significant investment of staff and Council time in
preparation and follow up.
Advisory: City Boards & Commissions
Edina’s 10 advisories include 99 volunteers who
commit the following each year:
• 24-48 hours in public meetings (per person)
• 72 hours in related work
• As well as preparation
Staff support of each is also substantial, e.g.:
• 3,780 hours for the Planning Commission
• 708 hours for Parks & Recreation
• 276 hours for Energy & Environment
The Council then engaged in a discussion of participation in meetings/hearings of the Council and advisory bodies. We
clarified that we almost never promise to empower a group or process (i.e., cede final authority to them); that public
hearings are at most a consultation process; and that we involve or collaborate through advisory processes.
PROMISE We choose which promise to make depending on the specific situation.
1. We will work hard to inform
and listen every day.
2. We will consult
when appropriate.
3. We will communicate formal, defined processes
when we involve or collaborate. Where? INFORM 1 LISTEN OR CONSULT CONSULT OR INVOLVE OR COLLABORATE
Public Meetings
Council or advisory
meetings that are open
for public observation
Public Hearings
A meeting designated to
receive public comment
and testimony
Advisory Group Processes
Commissions, Boards, & Task Force work that can include public
meetings, public hearings or closed meetings depending on the
body involved, the work required and the process defined PURPOSE Make a decision
Provide transparency
Increase awareness of an
issue or proposal
Hear a report, speaker or
presentation
Meet legal requirements
Collect feedback on
positions
Create public ownership
Define issues and identify early warning signs
Identify values and understand different perspectives
Analyze alternatives and make recommendations DO NOT USE TO: Deal with complex or
controversial topics
Identify values
Gather feedback
Accomplish any of the
items listed as purpose of
advisory group meetings
Make binding decisions
1 Notice that the columns in the table above do not line up with those below. This is intentional to show that some meetings can vary. DEFINITIONS INFORM LISTEN CONSULT INVOLVE COLLABORATE
We give the
public
information
We listen to the
aspirations and
concerns of the public
We seek feedback on
drafts and proposals, then
share how the input
influenced the decision
We work with public to
ensure that their concerns /
aspirations are directly
reflected in the alternatives
developed
We work together to form
solutions and incorporate
advice/recommendations
into decisions to the
maximum extent possible. GOAL Provide the public balanced and objective
information to assist in understanding the
problem, alternatives, opportunities
and/or solutions.
Obtain public feedback on
analysis, alternatives
and/or decisions.
Work directly with the public
to ensure perspectives are
consistently understood and
considered.
Partner with the public in
each aspect of the decision
process, beginning to end.
Page 9 of 13
The Council engaged in a lengthy discussion of the purpose, timing, duration and process of decision-making particularly as it
relates to public hearings. They recognized that:
• Too much participation can be as problematic as too little
• The Council wants to understand the range of concerns, but does not need to hear each of them multiple times
• There is risk to process integrity if the last to speak is the one that is heard
• There is risk to process integrity if the advisory hearing is rendered moot by the Council hearing
• There is risk to perception of process integrity when a hearing is immediately followed by a decision without time for
deliberation
• There is value in residents hearing each other, not just the Council hearing residents
• Participation in public hearings needs to be meaningful for and respectful of residents, elected officials, and staff.
Successful participation means residents are able to participate in a meaningful way that respects their time and
constraints, and doesn’t necessarily mean that the meeting continues for as long as anyone wants to speak
They explored ideas such as:
• Relying more heavily on the public hearings conducted by advisory bodies
• Reporting on those hearings and follow-up research in more depth
• More explicitly treating the Council hearing as Part 2 of the advisory hearing – a follow up focused on changes to
proposals in response to the first part, questions answered from the first part, and perspectives that have changed,
again since the first part
This discussion also led to exploration of process transparency overall. This touched on the time/place and follow up of
Council work sessions. It also touched on ex parte Council communications with interested parties, and the difficulties that
can arise when different Council members provide different answers to resident questions.
Conclusion
In the end, the Council did not decide to change its process, but did remain open to further conversation on how to:
• Increase the efficiency of meetings and hearings overall
• Increase quality of communication with report outs from prior hearings or work sessions
• Increase process integrity by separating hearings from decisions into two meetings when practicable
Staff will delve into these items, exploring what may or may not be effective in the future. This could include process
timelines as well as deeper use of online solutions for community engagement and public participation in decision-making.
As discussion continued, the Council also began to re-discover some of its existing policy statements (appended to this
document) as a starting point for improved practice. All agreed that Council and staff should engage in a review of these
policies to bring up to date, fill gaps (e.g., developer communications; disclosure of meetings; differences between mayor,
member and staff), and include implementation expectations. This will likely require a workshop in the coming year.
The ultimate goal for all of this work is to:
• Align our intentions with the perceptions that our conduct creates
• Clearly communicate the principles, processes and promises behind decision-making and public participation in it
• Hold ourselves accountable to those principles, processes and promises
Page 10 of 13
IV. Effective Financing of Edina Streets
During this portion of the retreat, staff presented a review of Edina’s street assessment approach. The Council discussed
pros/cons and underlying values inherent in various approaches in order to address the agenda questions:
• Will we actively pursue a change in policy in the next two years?
• If yes, what approach do we prefer, and what is a fair and appropriate transition?
Background
With the following as background Council members asked whether the volume/pace of work per year was capped by the
financing mechanism. Staff responded that it was not. Rather, the pace is driven by utility constraints and is, thus, a reasonable
pace to expect going forward.
Local Streets Municipal State Aid Streets
• These streets are 100% assessed to the resident
• Over 23 years of street reconstruction Edina has completed
approximately 50% (80 of 164 total miles)
• Over the past 10 years, Edina has averaged $4.5 million in
assessments per year
• These streets are 20% assessed to the resident
• Over 18 years of street reconstruction Edina has completed
approximately 30% (13 of 41 total miles)
• Over the past 10 years, Edina has averaged $290,000 in
assessments per year
Discussion
The Council then discussed the pros and cons of the various financing options presented, touching on the following:
Pros Cons
Special
Assessments
Resident viewpoint
• Maintains the status quo, avoids transition concerns
• Users pay direct, actual cost, fair in the long-term
• Depending on tenure, may never have to pay
City viewpoint
• Stays out of general tax, keeping those rates down
• Actual cost means no need to estimate long-term
• Can assess otherwise tax-exempt property owners
Resident viewpoint
• Viewed as service covered in general tax, double-dip
• Not deductible for the homeowner
• Moving increases the risk of multiple assessments
• Amount is painful, often-unwelcome surprise, not a
benefit
City viewpoint
• Keeps property taxes lower
• Residents expect greater control over specifics
• Process requires public hearings
• Process appeals bring time and dollar costs
• Variability among courts brings uncertainty
Page 11 of 13
Pros Cons
Local Sales
Tax
• Requires visitors help pay for the improvements
• Puts initial decision in hands of voters
• Reduces conflict in the design process because
residents are not financially at risk (as demonstrated
by City’s experience with PACS)
• Not deductible for the homeowner
• Possible impact on 50th & France (unlikely given
Minneapolis tax across the street) and other shopping
areas
• Legislation must be specific, reduces flexibility of use
General
Property
Tax
• Tax is spread across more people so it’s easier for
residents to budget.
• Reduces conflict in the design process because
residents are not financially at risk (as demonstrated
by City’s experience with PACS)
• Cost is less transparent
• Cannot include visitors or tax-exempt property owners
Franchise
Fees
• More Control for the City – allows City to
differentiate rate by class of customer for
differential fees
• Reduces conflict in the design process because
residents are not financially at risk (as demonstrated
by City’s experience with PACS)
• Not deductible for the homeowner
Conclusion
By the close of the discussion, all Council Members agree that if they were starting from scratch, they would not choose the
current system. The overarching concern for all in considering any potential change is how to manage transition in an equitable
way, especially for those who have been assessed in the final years pre-transition. All agree that any transition plan should
simultaneously ramp down the current approach and ramp up any replacement that is approved as much as possible without
overly-burdening the implementation system.
If the current system were to change, most preferred a hybrid approach that included a partial assessment supplemented with
a local sales tax approach. Two of five Council members initially preferred an approach that started with sales tax legislation,
then moved to the hybrid above if that proved ineffective. Staff will investigate these options in greater detail and return to
the Council for further discussion during the coming two years.
Page 12 of 13
Appendix: Work to build from
City Council Guiding Principles
Working Together Effectively
We are all part of a team committed to the residents of Edina both today and in the future. To be effective we must come to meetings
with an open mind, think strategically about City issues and delegate details of implementations to staff. We will strive to maintain a
culture of trust, respect and candor as a Council and when working with staff.
Addressing Concerns of Residents
City staff is the first call for help for residents. We will refer residents who have concerns to appropriate City staff. If a resident has
contacted City staff but is still not satisfied, we will refer the resident to the City Manager and inform the City Manager of the concern.
Meetings Called by Residents
If we are invited to a resident meeting about an issue the Council has decided upon, we will explain how the Council arrived at the decision.
If we are invited to a resident meeting about an issue that will be before the Council in the future, we will keep an open mind and explain
that we are interested in their point of view, as well as others. We will make ourselves available to all parties on an equal basis, and we
will not advocate for a particular point of view. We will be circumspect about how we participate in the meeting, and we will not prejudge
the issue before the Council has had a change to deliberate.
Working with Boards and Commissions
We view our Boards and Commissions as vitally important resources to support out decision-making. We will communicate effectively
with Boards and Commissions and ensure they have the tools to do their work. We will give clear direction and take adequate time to
review the result of their deliberations. If we attend meetings of Boards and Commissions, we will do so only as an observer. If we attend
a meeting, we will strive for good communication among Council members and between Council members and staff.
Effective Meetings and Decision Making
• We will be consistent in policy and process.
• To be effective, we may need to slow down the process at times, look at the big picture and consider the strategic implications of
the decisions we make. We will encourage staff to focus on the big picture in their reports.
• We will respect our staff as valued resources and members of our team.
• We will honor our rules regarding public testimony and clearly communicate the rules to members of the public in attendance.
Guiding Principles were developed at a two-day retreat of the Edina City Council, the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager in May 2009.
Board & Commission Expectations
Conflict of Interest
Definition: any member who has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Board or Commission
action or if there is potential for the appearance of conflict of interest.
Members who have a conflict of interest must:
• Disclose the conflict of interest to the group, and
• Abstain from discussing or voting on the matter.
Gifts
• Members may not receive gifts from any “interested person” in conjunction with their Board or Commission duties.
• Boards or Commissions can recommend acceptance of general gifts through the City’s donation policy.
Respectful Behavior
Members should STRIVE TO:
• Treat people with courtesy, politeness and kindness.
• Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas.
• Listen to what others have to say.
• Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and
outcomes.
• Recognize and respect differences.
Members should AVOID:
• Speaking over or cutting off another individual’s comments.
• Insulting, disparaging or putting down people or their ideas.
• Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling,
demeaning, judging or patronizing comments.
• Violence or the threat of violence will not be tolerated.
• The Chair or the Staff Liaison can call for the removal of any anyone
who threatens or commits an act of violence.
Board & Commission Expectations are from the Edina Board & Commission Handbook.
Page 13 of 13
Code of Ethics
• I have been entrusted by the Edina City Council to perform my duties and services as a volunteer Board or Commission Member in
manner that is always in the best interests of the community of Edina.
• While honest differences of opinion may develop, I will work harmoniously with other Board or Commission members to assure
residents the services they require.
• I will invite all residents to express their opinions so I may be properly informed prior to making my decisions. I will make them
based solely upon the facts available to me. I will support the final decision of the Board or Commission.
• I must devote the time, study and thought necessary to carry out my duties.
• I understand that the Board or Commission members recommend policies, the City Council establishes policies and the staff is
responsible for administering the policies of the City Council.
• I understand that as a Board or Commission Member, I have no authority outside of the proper meeting of the Board/Commission.
• I understand that all Board/Commission meetings shall be open to the public, except as provided by law.
• I understand that it is my duty as a Board or Commission member to treat all residents, staff and fellow Board and Commission
members in a respectful and professional manner at all times.
• I will withdraw from discussions and decision-making actions in cases where I have a conflict of interest and I will disclose those
conflicts of interest when they arise.
Code of Ethics is from the Edina Board & Commission Handbook.
Community Engagement Principles
Relationships
• Make relationships foundational
• Strengthen relationships and build new ones
• Develop a trust between the City and residents
Inclusion
• Strive to provide meaningful engagement opportunities
• Invite underrepresented groups to participate
• Make all feel welcomed and valued
Equity
• Engage with residents where they are
• Remove barriers for participation
• Provide multiple options for participations
Accountability
• Make a plan
• Do what we say we are going to do
• Communicate how to participation influences decisions
These principles and values were presented to City Council on September 5, 2018.
The Council signified trust should be the foundation with the remaining 4
principles. The principles and values will foster an engaged community built on
trust by intentionally focusing on equity, diversity and inclusion.
In our work with residents, co-workers and other customers we:
These are the core values for City Staff
Integrity
• Proactively and openly share
information.
• Do what we say we are going to do.
• Are honest, ethical and transparent in
our actions
• Work for the common good and put the
interests of the City above our own.
• Wisely use City resources, money,
equipment and time.
Quality
• Do accurate, high-quality work.
• Take smart risks and look for
innovative solutions.
• Strive to provide the best long-
term value for our residents.
• Show initiative by continuously
improving our operations.
• Take pride in our work and in being
a leading organization.
Service
• Welcome, listen to and seek to
understand others.
• Strive to anticipate the needs of others
and to exceed their expectations.
• Look for opportunities to work with
others in solving problems.
• Seek out feedback and use it to improve
our work.
• Support one another and work
cooperatively.
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Administration Department
Better Together Edina
Date: May 21, 2019
To: Mayor & City Council
cc: Scott Neal, City Manager
From: MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator
Casey Casella, City Management Fellow
Subject:
Council Connections Proposal
Background
The City Council has asked staff to prepare an online platform to communicate with the community.
Conversations of having a platform for City Council to communicate with the community started at the
Council retreat. City staff used feedback from the City Council retreat held on March 14, 2019 to create
an example of what the Better Together Edina platform could offer council. Key advantages of using an
open public platform are:
The engagement tool is open any time
It doubles as an educational tool that is easily accessible
Council Members can post on the site and public comments can be turned off. Reaches more and
different demographics compared to in-person meetings
Two communication ideas were presented to Council at the April 16, 2019 work session. Staff gathered
Council feedback and has repositioned the proposal for Council consideration.
Recommendation
Use Better Together Edina: Council Connections as an inform-only page. This page would function like a
blog where Council can post and push out information to the public. No public comments would be
allowed on the posts.
Proposed Tool: News Feed
Allows Council to share information with the community (one-way)
Council can decide when and what they want to share
Ideas to post about:
o Council Comment
o Consent Agenda
o Events they attended
o Conferences
o Legislative
o Hot Topics – i.e. Hwy 62
Page 2
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
o Appreciation or congratulatory
o Plugs for upcoming events
Council sends information to the Administration Department. Items will
be posted within one business day.,
Items that can be attached are links, pics, videos, etc
Next Steps
With councils’ consent, staff will:
Finalize the Council Connections page on the Better Together Edina platform
Develop a communication plan to roll out the new tool to the public
Provide council with instructions for posting.
Questions for Council
City Council Work Session
May 21, 2019
Engagement Topic 1: Council Connections
Questions to be answered:
1. Is Council ready to move forward with Council Connect as proposed?
2. When does Council want to start?
Engagement Topic 2: Virtual Town Hall Meeting
• Question/Answer online written format
• Council and staff meet at City Hall
• Duration: 1 to 1.5 hours
• Late Night (8:00 – 9:30 pm)
Questions to be answered:
• Do Council Members want to schedule a virtual town hall?
• If yes, do all 5 Council Members want to participate together or in groups of 2-3?
• When? Possible dates: Last week in Oct 28-31 (all nights open)
Engagement Topic 3: In-person Town Hall
The next Town Hall Meeting for Nov. 16 at 10am at the Senior Center.
Question to be answered:
• Is there anything Council wants to change for the next Town Hall Meeting? Possible options:
o Council Members split up into multiple time/locations
o Change layout/format
Date: May 21, 2019 Agenda Item #: IV.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Reports / Recommendation
From:Jeff Brown, Community Health Administrator
Item Activity:
Subject:Joint Meeting: Community Health Commission Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None, discussion only.
INTRODUCTION:
The Community Health Commission (CHC) chair and vice-chair will update City Council on their 2019 work
plan progress, present possible items for inclusion in 2020 work plan, answer questions and receive suggestions
from Council.
Discussion items will include:
Youth access to e-cigarettes: City intervention strategies
Multi-unit housing smoke-free survey results: next steps
Quality of Life Survey: public health related questions
Housing and Health: City initiatives & CHC role
City & school district(s) relationship and collaboration
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2019 Community Health Commission Work Plan
2018 Multi-Unit Housing Smoke Free Report - Edina
Approved by Council 12/4/18 COMMUNITY HEALTH COMMISSION Commission: Community Health Commission 2019 Annual Work Plan Initiative #1 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☒☒☒☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☐ New Initiative ☒ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Q2 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Research and evaluate current regulations regarding secondhand smoke and tobacco use, specifically in multi-unit housing living situations and other public areas such as restaurant patios. Receive Edina Multi-Unit Housing Resident Survey from Bloomington Public Health regarding smoking preferences/behavior. ☒ Funds not available Lead Commissioners: Progress Report: Initiative #2 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☒☒☒☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility All of 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Study and report on possible city actions to reduce access and usage of vaping/e-cigarettes for youth. ☒ Funds not available Lead Commissioners: Progress Report:
Approved by Council 12/4/18 COMMUNITY HEALTH COMMISSION Initiative #3 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒☒☒☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility December 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Chair/co-chair a cross-commission committee (see partners) to complete requirement for Edina to receive the AARP City Designation. -Complete Walk Audit Tool Kit provided by AARP -October Senior Expo and Designation ☐ Funds not available Lead Commissioners: Partners: Community Health Commission [LEAD], Human Rights & Relations Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Transportation Commission Progress Report: Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Statement by City regarding firearm safety or gun violence Local opioid efforts, including Police led take-back programs City-wide mental health assessment Technology and health – social media, isolation, bullying
City of Edina
Multi-Unit Housing Resident Survey
September 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was made possible through funding from
the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership, Minnesota Department of Health
and the collaboration of:
City of Edina Health Commission
Bloomington Public Health
Association for Non-smokers Minnesota: Live Smoke Free Program
Minnesota Department of Health Office of Statewide Health Improvement Initiatives
Evaluation and Research Unit
WE WISH TO THANK THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT
Heritage Court/Premier Properties, LLC
Oaks Lincoln/Oaks Properties, LLC
Ponds of Edina/KCS Property Management
Oaks Braemar/Oaks Properties, LLC
The Durham/RMK Management
York Plaza/Stuart Company
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Scope of the Issue ......................................................................................................................................... 3
City of Edina profile ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Highlights from comparison of smoke-free vs. smoking-allowed properties ............................................... 6
Key findings .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Survey Results
Resident letter
Resident survey cover letter
Resident survey
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The multi-unit housing resident survey was conducted to learn about smoking in apartments, and
what residents think about secondhand smoke and smoke-free building policies.
In early 2018, Bloomington Public Health (BPH) and the Association for Non-Smokers (ANSR)
Minnesota’s Live Smoke Free program administered a survey to residents in to two types of
multi-unit housing properties in the City of Edina: those with a smoke-free policy (i.e. smoking
of tobacco is not allowed anywhere indoors) and those with a smoking-allowed policy. Questions
included:
o Basic demographics
o Whether residents allowed smoking in their units
o Frequency of secondhand smoke exposure
o Any smoking behavior changes as a result of or following a building-wide smoke-free
policy
o Support for a smoke-free property policy
o Support for citywide ordinance around smoking in multi-unit housing
Residents from smoke-free properties were asked to provide details about rules in place
for tobacco smoking.
When asked about smoking behavior, all residents had the option to indicate when a
question didn’t apply to them because they were nonsmoking or no one in their
household smoked.
Surveys were available in English only.
A total of 893 surveys were distributed and 458 were returned representing a 51% return rate.
Individual return rates were as follows:
Smoke-Free Properties: 50% return rate
Oaks Lincoln 48%
Oaks Braemer 50%
York Plaza 51%
Smoking-allowed properties: 54% return rate
Heritage 58%
The Ponds, 59%
The Durham 52%
3
Key findings include:
Majority of all respondents (97%) don’t allow smoking in their units even with a
smoking-allowed policy present.
Majority of respondents surveyed (94%) support a smoke-free building-wide policy.
Despite 97% of all respondents not allowing the smoking of tobacco products in their
units, (99% in smoke-free vs 93% in smoking-allowed properties), 46% of these
respondents are still exposed to secondhand smoke from all buildings. This includes 39%
in smoke-free vs. 64% in smoking-allowed buildings.
Negative health impact of secondhand smoke exposure were reported by 8% of
respondents.
Majority of respondents (91% in smoke-free properties and 90% in smoking-allowed
properties) indicated they would support a multi-unit housing smoking related citywide
ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The City of Edina has been a leader in reducing resident exposure to secondhand smoke and
protecting youth from tobacco products. In 2017, Edina was the first city in the state to set a high
standard for the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to young adults under the age of 21 by
passing a Tobacco 21 ordinance. This ordinance increased the tobacco sale age from 18 to 21.
The City of Edina also protects its residents from secondhand smoke by prohibiting smoking in
public parks and recreational spaces.
In February 2018, at the request of the Edina Health Commission, Bloomington Public Health
(BPH) and the Association for Non-Smokers Minnesota (ANSR) Live Smoke Free program
began outreaching to select multi-unit properties (both smoking prohibited and permitted) asking
to survey residents on the topic of smoke-free housing. The goal of the survey was to learn about
smoking in apartments, and what residents think about secondhand smoke and smoke-free
building policies. Bloomington Public Health (BPH) has long supported programs, partnerships
and policies that cultivate healthy, active communities. We collaborate with communities,
schools, worksites and healthcare providers to reduce the risk of chronic disease by targeting
poor nutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use for those who live and work in the City of
Edina.
SCOPE OF THE ISSUE
Research strongly demonstrates an association between tobacco use and chronic disease risk
factors. Scientific knowledge about the health effects of tobacco use has increased greatly since
4
the first Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was released in 1964.1 Since the publication of that
report, more than 20 million Americans have died because of smoking.2 The harmful effects of
tobacco do not end with the user. The US Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-
free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Since 1964, 2.5 million deaths have occurred
among nonsmokers who died from diseases caused or exacerbated by secondhand smoke
exposure. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke in adults and can
cause a number of health problems in infants, children, and older adults including asthma, Type
II diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity. An estimated 58 million Americans
remain exposed to secondhand smoke each year. The home is the primary source of secondhand
smoke exposure for children, and multi-unit housing residents are particularly vulnerable to
involuntary exposure in their homes.3 Many factors influence tobacco use. Risk factors include
race/ethnicity, age, education, and socioeconomic status. Significant disparities in tobacco use
exist geographically; such disparities typically result from differences among states in smoke-
free protections, tobacco prices, and program funding for tobacco control.3 Tobacco use is the
largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Each year, approximately
480,000 Americans die from tobacco-related illnesses. Further, more than 16 million Americans
suffer from at least one disease caused by smoking.4
CITY OF EDINA PROFILE
The City of Edina is located in the metro region of the state. The city’s population is estimated to
be 49,976 in 2016.5 Of this population it is estimated that 42,489 (85%) are non-Hispanic White,
1,092 (2.2%) are African American, 1,516 (3%) are Hispanic, and 3,521 (7%) are Asian.6
The City of Edina is estimated to contain 21,325 occupied housing units in 2016.7 Less than a
third of those units, 5,915, are occupied by households renting. It is estimated that households
that are White (not Hispanic) own 94.4 percent of the owner-occupied housing units and rent
75.3 percent of the renter-occupied housing units. There are significant racial differences in
household occupancy based on ownership or rental status.
METHODOLOGY
The project team, including the City of Edina Community Health Administrator, staff from
Bloomington Public Health, Association for Non-smokers Minnesota: Live Smoke Free Program
and the Minnesota Department of Health met in December 2017 and January 2018. The project
team determined criteria for who to survey and developed survey questions over two meetings.
1 DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89-8411
2 DHHS Office on Smoking and Health, January 2014
3 Healthy People 2020
4 DHHS Office on Smoking and Health
5 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S0101
6 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B03002
7 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502
5
Bloomington Public Health maintains a list of all multi-unit properties in Edina which includes
information about their smoking policies, number of units and if available, the number of
residents residing in those properties. Although the exact number of smoke-free properties is
unknown, our best data shows 47% of 53 properties contacted report having adopted a smoke-
free policy. A map was created using ArcMap in ArcGIS version 10.5 to visualize the
geographic distribution of multi-unit properties with and without smoking policies in Edina. The
project team then prioritized the 53 multi-unit properties based on their geographic distribution,
smoking policy type and number of residents to ensure the selected properties provided the best
representation of the city and then narrowed the selection to six. The property managers of the
six properties were contacted to ascertain their interest in participating in the survey process. Of
the initial six properties selected, four agreed to allow for the survey to occur and provide
assistance with the survey. The two properties that declined were replaced by two other
properties from the original pool of 53.
Property managers distributed paper copies of the survey with instructions for completion to all
households (one survey per unit). Residents received written instructions to return completed
surveys in a sealed envelope to the on-site manager or management office at which time they
would receive a $10 gift card. Property managers received a $50 gift card for their role in survey
dissemination and collection.8 Decisions regarding timeframe for survey distribution and
collection were left to property managers and what they felt was the best time to achieve the
highest return rate. In most cases, that meant surveys were distributed toward the end of the
month and returned the first of the month when rents were due. The average length of time from
survey distribution to collection was 7-14 days and occurred between April 2018 and July 2018.
Paper survey results were compiled by ANSR and entered into Survey Monkey. All survey data
was analyzed by BPH in Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS) version 24.
8 Gift cards were purchased from retailer that did not sell tobacco products.
6
HIGHLIGHTS FROM COMPARISON OF SMOKE-FREE VS. SMOKING-ALLOWED PROPERTIES
Demographics of survey respondents by property type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
It is estimated that the demographic makeup of renter in Edina include 75% non-
Hispanic White, 14% Asian, 4% African American, 4% Hispanic and 4% some other
race9.
The three smoke-free properties surveyed are similar demographically to renters in Edina.
The three smoking-allowed properties surveyed are demographically more diverse than
renters in Edina.
9 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502 Note due to rounding, totals are greater
than 100.
1%
11%4%
79%
4%
2%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
1%
34%
8%
53%
4%
1%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
7
Smoking rules set by respondents for their apartment
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
Housing cost was ranked first followed by proximity to work or school second and a
smoke-free policy third as what tenants considered when selecting a place to live by
respondents from both smoking-allowed and smoke- free properties.
o Overall, 71% of all respondents surveyed indicated a smoke-free policy was in
their top three consideration when selecting a place to live.
Top considerations from respondents in smoke-free properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 72% 19% 6% 97%
Proximity to work/school 10% 44% 26% 80%
Smoke-Free Policy 13% 35% 28% 75%
Transportation 1% 10% 24% 35%
Good school district 9% 7% 15% 31%
1%
99%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
7%
93%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
8
Top considerations from respondents in smoking-allowed properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 75% 16% 5% 96%
Proximity to work/school 12% 35% 32% 79%
Smoke-Free Policy 12% 26% 26% 64%
Good school district 11% 19% 10% 40%
Transportation 1% 15% 24% 40%
9
KEY FINDINGS
Majority of all respondents don’t allow smoking in their unit even with a smoking-
allowed policy present.
Respondents that do not allow smoking of tobacco in their units by property tobacco policy type
Several respondents who didn’t allow smoking in their unit indicated they had
secondhand smoke exposure
Respondents secondhand smoke exposure in their apartment who do not allow smoking of tobacco in their apartment by property
tobacco policy type
Majority of respondents surveyed support a smoke-free property policy
97%
99%
93%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
46%
39%
64%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
10
Respondents support for smoke-free property by property tobacco policy type
Majority of respondents indicated they would support a multi-unit housing smoking
related citywide ordinance
Respondents support for citywide smoke free ordinance for apartments by property tobacco policy type
93%
95%
91%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
90%
90%
91%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
11
NEXT STEPS
Upon survey completion and analysis, BPH and ANSR conducted face-to-face meetings with
property managers to share property-specific results, discuss policy changes and offer technical
assistance. For those properties with existing smoke-free policies, technical assistance was
provided to strengthen policy compliance in the form of consultation, policy review,
recommending strategies to increase resident engagement, and provision of tools like signage
and a resident letter which shared survey findings and reinforced policy specifics and
enforcement protocol. For first-time policy adopters, technical assistance provided included
educational resources (e.g., an FAQ document that addressed common questions residents may
have as to why the property is going smoke-free, how the policy will benefit residents, and an
explanation of policy enforcement, etc.); sample implementation tools (e.g., a resident letter
template that shared survey findings, the hazards of secondhand smoke, fire risk, and details
about the new smoke-free policy, a sample lease addendum, etc.); cessation resources for
residents; and ongoing consultation. With the completion of the final report, BPH staff will meet
with City of Edina staff to review the findings and evaluate the options for city policies. Our
findings highlight the importance of smoke-free policies to help protect all residents, especially
youth and those with low income status, from secondhand smoke exposure.
12
APPENDIX
13
SURVEY RESULTS
BPH distributed a total of 893 surveys, and 457 were returned representing a 51% return rate. In
smoke-free multi-unit properties, 580 surveys were distributed and 289 surveys were returned
(50%). In smoking-allowed multi-unit properties, 313 surveys were distributed and 169 surveys
were returned (54%). Five multi-unit properties had an individual return rate of 50% or greater.
Demographics
Race and Ethnicity. N=434
It is estimated that the demographic makeup of renter in Edina include 75% non-
Hispanic White, 14% Asian, 4% African American, 4% Hispanic and 4% some other
race10.
The three smoke-free properties surveyed are similar demographically to renters in Edina.
The three smoking-allowed properties surveyed are demographically more diverse than
renters in Edina.
Race and ethnicity for all respondents
10 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502 Note due to rounding, totals are greater
than 100.
1%
19%
5%
70%
4%
1%
American Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
White
Hispanic or Latino
Other
14
Race and ethnicity for respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
Of respondents to this survey, more respondents of color reside in smoking-allowed
properties compared to smoke-free. This could be due to costs, amenities, and other
factors.
Age. N= 456Age ranges for all respondents
1%
11%4%
79%
4%
2%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
1%
34%
8%
53%
4%
1%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
7%
51%12%
30%
18-25 26-55
56-65 Over 65
15
Age ranges for respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=288 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
Renters over 65 were less represented in responses from smoking-allowed properties. A
larger young adult population (18-25) was observed among respondents of smoking-
allowed properties.
Income. N= 437
The median income for households in Edina is estimated to be $91,84711.
The median of the respondents is within the $55,000 to $79,000 category, lower than the
median income for Edina households.
11 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1903
8%
44%
14%
34%
18-25
26-55
56-65
Over 65
4%
64%
8%
23%
18-25
26-55
56-65
Over 65
16
Income reported by all respondents
Income reported by respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=276 Smoking-allowed properties N=161
6%
11%
21%
25%
17%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000 $39,001-$55,000
$55,001-$79,000 $79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
6%
13%
23%23%
15%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000
$39,001-$55,000 $55,001-$79,000
$79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
6%
8%
17%
27%
21%21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000
$39,001-$55,000 $55,001-$79,000
$79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
17
The apartment that you live in
Tenure in apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
Children under 18 present in all respondents apartment N=458
29%
47%
12%
12%Less than
1 year
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than
10 years
25%
54%
10%
12%
Less than 1
year
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than
10 years
78%
22%
No Yes
18
Children under 18 living in respondent’s apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
Adults over 65 present in respondents apartment for all respondents n=455
84%
16%
No Yes
69%
31%
No Yes
67%
33%
No Yes
19
Adults over 65 present in respondents apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=288 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
Apartment unit smoking rules and exposure
Respondents smoking rules for their apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
A small percentage of respondents (7%) indicated they allowed smoking in their units on
smoking-allowed properties.
A small percentage of respondents (1%) indicated they smoked/allowed smoking in their
units on smoke-free properties.
64%
37%
No Yes
72%
28%
No Yes
1%
99%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
7%
93%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
20
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who don’t allow smoking in unit by property tobacco policy type12
Smoke-free properties N=286 Smoking-allowed properties N=156
In smoke-free properties, 39% of respondents who don’t allow smoking in their units
indicated secondhand smoke exposure. In smoking-allowed units, 56% of respondents
indicated exposure.
Despite not allowing smoking in their units, respondents are still largely exposed to
secondhand smoke potentially due to smoking in shared areas, adjacent units, and/or
outdoor areas that seep into individual units.
12 A few respondents who allow smoking in their individual units also smelled smoke from other
units. These responses have been eliminated from this ‘secondhand smoke’ exposure analysis.
2%
9%11%
17%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
7%
15%17%17%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
21
Willing to Use designated smoking areas. N=458
When asked whether they would use a designated smoking area if provided, 81% of all
respondents indicated that the question didn’t apply to them because they did not smoke
Respondents willing to use designated smoking area for all respondents
Respondents willing to use designated smoking area by property tobacco policy type for all respondents
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
From smoke-free properties, 81% were nonsmoking compared to 79% of respondents in
smoking-allowed properties.
81%
7%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
81%
7%11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
79%
6%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
22
Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure for residents who indicated they were non-smokers.
N=369
Half (50%) of the 81% of residents who indicated they were nonsmoking (when asked if
they would be willing to use designated smoking areas) reported secondhand smoke
exposure.
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for all respondents who indicated they were non-smokers.
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who indicated they were non-smokers by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=235 Smoking-allowed properties N=134
5%
13%14%18%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Everyday A few times a week A few times a month A few times a year Not at all
3%
10%13%17%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
9%
18%17%19%
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
23
Despite living in a smoke-free building, 43% of nonsmoking respondents indicated
secondhand smoke exposure. In smoking-allowed buildings, 63% of nonsmoking
respondents indicated exposure.
Respondents with secondhand smoke exposure who reported tobacco smoke nuisance to landlord by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=114 Smoking-allowed properties N=96
In smoke-free properties, 68% of respondents who indicated secondhand smoke
exposure did not report it to their landlord. In smoking-allowed properties, 78% of
respondents exposed did not report.
Of the respondents who reported secondhand smoke exposure, those with more frequent
exposure indicated they reported it to their landlord;
o 91% of respondents with at least weekly secondhand smoke exposure in smoke-
free properties reported secondhand smoke exposure to their landlord compared to
69% of respondents in smoking-allowed properties.
Some respondents that didn’t report smelling secondhand smoke in their apartment,
reported secondhand smoke exposure to their landlord; 5% in smoke free properties vs.
3% in smoking-allowed.
Reasons respondents provided for not reporting smoke
Respondents who smelled smoke but didn’t report it in smoke-free properties provided
reasons including;
o Had no idea it was a smoke-free property
o Could not pinpoint exact source of smoke
o Smoke was too infrequent or didn’t bother them enough to report it
Major reasons for not reporting in smoking-allowed properties included;
43%
48%
22%
13%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
54%
15%
26%
17%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
24
o Problem was insignificant
o Property allowed smoking, management wouldn’t do anything
o Others have already reported it
o They had countermeasures
In smoke-free properties, 17% percent of all respondents had countermeasures for the
smoke, compared to 28% of all respondents in smoking-allowed buildings.
o This percentage includes respondents who indicated they had no secondhand
smoke exposure.
o Countermeasures included laundry and cleaning supplies, air purifiers, odor
absorbers and door/window seals. Most respondents selected using multiple
countermeasures.
Respondents’ perceptions of the follow-up frequency on smoking violation or nuisance
reported to landlord
In smoke-free properties;
o Twelve out of 37 (32%) respondents who reported smoke (including a few who
didn’t indicate exposure) indicated that landlord responded to smoke complaints
always or most of the time.
o Twenty out of 247 (8%) respondents didn’t report smoke but indicated that
landlord responded always or most of the time to smoke complaints.
In smoking-allowed properties;
o Six out of 23 (26%) respondents who reported smoke (including a few who didn’t
indicate exposure) indicated that landlord responded to smoke complaints always
or most of the time.
o Nineteen out of 142 (13%) respondents didn’t report smoke but indicated that
landlord responded always or most of the time to tobacco complaints.
25
Respondents’ knowledge of smoking policy by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=116 Smoking-allowed properties N=109
Many respondents, 173/289 (60%) in smoke-free properties and 60/169 (36%), in
smoking-allowed properties selected multiple options which have been excluded from the
above charts.
Respondents’ perception of landlord’s policy enforcement.
In smoke-free properties (N=281);
More than half (71%) of respondents indicated they didn’t know how landlord enforced
policy.
Two percent of respondents didn’t think landlord enforced policy.
A few respondents (2%) indicated question didn’t apply because smoking was allowed in
the building.
In smoking-allowed properties (N=154);
More than half (51%) of respondents indicated they didn’t know how landlord enforced
policy.
Three percent of respondents didn’t think landlord enforced policy.
Six percent indicated question didn’t apply because smoking was allowed in the
building.
3%
19%
47%
3%
28%
0%20%40%60%
Smoking is allowed in
individual apartments
but not in shared…
Smoking is allowed in
some outdoors areas
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
inside the building
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
outdoors
Don’t know/not sure
20%
8%
29%
1%
41%
0%20%40%60%
Smoking is allowed in
individual apartments
but not in shared…
Smoking is allowed in
some outdoors areas
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
inside the building
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
outdoors
Don’t know/not sure
26
Health problems: Percent of respondents reporting a smoke related health problem
Of all respondents who responded (N=421), 36 of them (8%) indicated they believed
they or a family member had a health problem due to secondhand smoke exposure.
o This includes 22/288 (8%) of respondents from smoke-free properties and 14/169
(7%) of respondents from smoking-allowed properties.
Self-reported health problems include:
o allergies
o asthma
o headaches
o breathing problems
o cancer
Smoke-free policy experience and ordinance perception
Smoking behavior change since being in a smoke free property
In smoke-free properties (N=284);
All properties already have a no smoking policy.
Majority of respondents (86%) indicated question didn’t apply as no one living in my
apartment smokes tobacco.
Other respondents responded as shown in graph above N=35.
o Of these respondents, 31% indicated they had quit or tried to cut back due to
smoke-free policy in place at their property.
11%9%11%
69%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes, quit smoking
Yes, quit smoking cigarettes and now smoking e-cigarettes
Yes, tried to quit or cut back smoking
No, no changes in current smoking behavior
27
In smoking-allowed properties (N=165):
All properties have a smoking-allowed policy.
Three fourths (75%) of respondents indicated that no one living in my apartment smokes
tobacco.
A few, 12% indicated that question didn’t apply since property didn’t have a smoke-free
policy.
The remaining 13% of respondents indicated behavior changes:
o The majority, 81% indicated no change to their smoking behavior.
o Some indicated they quit smoking, 10% or tried to cut back on smoking, 10%.
Property wide smoking policy N=359
Of all respondents who responded, 93% indicated they would support a property wide
smoke-free policy.
o This includes 95% in smoke-free and 91% in smoking-allowed properties
o Only a few respondents (4%) in smoke-free properties indicated they opposed or
strongly opposed a property-wide policy compared to 8% in smoking-allowed
properties.
Support for a property wide smoke-free policy by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=284 Smoking-allowed properties N=165
95%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Support or strongly support
Oppose or strongly oppose
91%
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Support or strongly support
Oppose or strongly oppose
28
Citywide ordinance support N=359
Of all respondents who responded, 90% indicated they would support a city-wide smoke-
free multi-unit housing ordinance.
o This includes 90% in smoke-free and 91% in smoking-allowed properties.
Support for city-wide smoke-free multi-unit housing ordinance by property tobacco policy type for all respondents
Policy support by smoking behavior for all respondents
Note: Graphs show respondent who indicated they support or strongly support
property-wide and citywide policies/ordinance
90%
90%
91%
All respondents
Smoke-free properties
Smoking-allowed properties
50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
35%
71%
92%
82%
92%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Willing to use designated smoking area
Supports buildingwide smoke free policy
Supports a citywide smoke ordinance
NonSmoker Smoker
29
Consideration used to make housing choices
Housing cost was ranked first followed by proximity to work or school second and a
smoke-free policy third as what tenants considered when selecting a place to live by
respondents from both smoking-allowed and smoke free properties.
o Overall, 71% of all respondents surveyed indicated a smoke-free policy was in
their top three considerations when selecting a place to live.
Top considerations from respondents in smoke-free properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 72% 19% 6% 97%
Proximity to work/school 10% 44% 26% 80%
Smoke-Free Policy 13% 35% 28% 75%
Transportation 1% 10% 24% 35%
Good school district 9% 7% 15% 31%
Top considerations from respondents in smoking-allowed properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 75% 16% 5% 96%
Proximity to work/school 12% 35% 32% 79%
Smoke-Free Policy 12% 26% 26% 64%
Good school district 11% 19% 10% 40%
Transportation 1% 15% 24% 40%
30
Sociodemographic Differences for all Respondents
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who indicated they did not allow smoking in their units N=442
55%
42%
46%
55%
35%
46%
42%
65%
46%
50%
43%
50%
44%
55%
46%
40%
51%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
All Respondents
More than $100,000
$79,001-$100,000
$55,001-$79,000
$39,001-$55,000
$23,001-$39,000
$23,000 or less
Over 65
56-65
26-55
18-25
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African American
Asian or Asian American
Has Adults over 65
Has Children Under 18
31
32
33
34
35
36