Loading...
4.0. SR 06-16-1997c~ty of MEMORANDUM Item# 4.1. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Ad~trator June 16, 1997 Community Survey Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of Decision Resources, Ltd., will be in attendance at this June 16, 1997, City Council meeting for a presentation on the results of the Community Survey. On May 21, 1997, Bill presented the Park and Recreation Commission with the results of the survey as it relates to outdoor recreation items and a community center. The survey raw data results and my 5/22/97 memo on the survey were distributed to the City Council a few weeks ago. Recently the Executive Summary of the Community Survey results as prepared by Decision Resources, Ltd., was sent out to the Council. As noted in the attached January 21, 1997, City Council and Park and Recreation Commission minutes, the major focus of the Community Survey was park and recreation and whether or not the public was willing to support a bond referendum for certain park and recreation improvements. Additionally, the survey was needed in order to ensure that the proposed Master Park and Recreation Plan update was consistent with the desires of the community. However, the survey also touched on a number of other city issues and accordingly, this 6/16 presentation from Bill and Diane will be more comprehensive in nature than just dealing with park and recreation issues. Some of the good news that comes out of the survey is an indication that the public will support a public bond referendum for both outdoor recreation items and for a community center. There are certain considerations that must be dealt with in an appropriate manner in order for both issues to ultimately be successful. Regarding the park and recreation situation, the city needs to avoid including certain recreation activities and needs to concentrate its proposal on the high priorities as identified in the survey and must keep the overall cost of the improvements at a reasonable level. Regarding the community center, there is a big gap between what the people 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 ° TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Community Survey Memo June 16, 1997 Page 2 want in a new facility versus what they are willing to pay. A lot of work needs to be done in order to resolve this conflict and the public either needs to be educated as to what they can receive for the amount they are willing to pay or else the public needs to be convinced that a higher amount needs to be approved in order to obtain the facility that is desired. It appears that much more time and preparation is needed in order to pursue a community center issue versus potentially going to the public this September for an outdoor recreation issue. Both issues going forward at the same time on the same ballot would not be beneficial for either request. One of the biggest surprises contained within the survey results is the large support (and significant increase since 1989) for community pools. Since the joint meeting on January 21, 1997, the Park and Recreation Commission has been working on defining what are the most important improvements to include within the referendum. The Commission has also been in contact with other communities in order to determine what approaches have been successful in selling a bond referendum to the public. Additionally the Commission is looking at the composition of a Citizen's Committee to help guide this process forward towards a September 9, 1997, vote. If the City Council agrees to pursue a public bond referendum on outdoor park and recreation issues, then Bill Morris from Decision Resources will work with the Park and Recreation Commission to help structure the bond package in order to make the total cost acceptable to the public and to avoid components which will meet with negative votes from the public and to include the appropriate elements within the proposal. A City Council decision on whether or not to allow the Commission to proceed forward with structuring a public bond referendum for September 9, 1997, does not need to be made at this June 16th meeting, but the decision should be made by the Council relatively soon so that appropriate preparations can be made. One of the items that needs to be taken care of is the formal adoption of the updated Master Park and Recreation Plan. This Plan is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on July 21, 1997. It is anticipated that the presentation of the Community Survey results will take approximately an hour or slightly longer as questions come forward from the Council and the public. In conjunction with the presentation will be a discussion with the Park and Recreation Commission on its desire for a public bond referendum on outdoor recreation issues and some of the components the Commission desires to have included within the proposal. SPECIAL 1VIEETING OF TI-IE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT TI-IE ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997 Members Present: Mayor Duitsman, Councilmembers Dietz, Thompson, Farber, and Holmgren Members Absent: None Park and Recreation Commission Members Present: Dana Anderson, Dave Anderson, Rolfe Anderson, Kent Madsen, John Kuester, Clair Olson, Lana Huberty, and Ron Westrum Planning Commission Representative: Bob Minton Staff Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant; Phil Hals, Street/Park Superintendent; Tom Zerwas, Police Chief; Lori Johnson, Assistant City Administrator; Dave Sellergren, City Attorney; Cliff Skogstad, Building Official 1. Call Meetinq To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Duitsman. 2. Consider Council Aqenda Item 9.4. was moved to #7.3. on the agenda. Mayor Duitsman indicated he had some other business to discuss. COUNCIl. MEMBER FARBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCIl. MEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Discussion with Park and Recreation on Possible Public Referendum Bond Issue Park and Recreation Commission Chair Dana Anderson indicated that the Park and Recreation Commissioners are supporting a park bond referendum. Dana Anderson indicated that the idea of a park bond referendum has been discussed for a number of years. He indicated that the city has been in an acquisition mode in relation to parks and the Park and Recreation Commission feels it is time to consider some major capital improvements and developments in the park system. Dana Anderson indicated that in 1989 the city hired Decision Resources to do a random survey about issues facing the city. The survey concentrated on park and recreation activities and included questions about a community center. Dana indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission felt that the community center issue should not be included with the park bond referendum. The Park and Recreation Commission Chair requested feedback from the City Council regarding the park bond referendum. Dana Anderson indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission recently held a special meeting to discuss the park and recreation needs of the city. He indicated that during the meeting the Elk River City Council Meeting January 21, 1997 Page 2 group developed a wish list and a draft timeline for the bond issue. Chair Anderson reviewed the wish list and time line with the Council. Mayor Duitsman indicated that the city will soon be looking at other issues such as a community center and bonding for industrial development which will all affect the tax rate of the city. Mayor Duitsman indicated that he felt a park bond referendum was a good idea, however he did not feel the community center and park bond referendum issues should be separate issues or that they should be considered separate from other city needs. He stated that the idea of a community center has to be defined by the citizens. Mayor Duitsman indicated that the Minnesota Sports Federation has no bearing on whether the city considers the need for a community center. Dana Anderson indicated that his major concern is that the timeline will be too long and the price too large if the community center is included in the bond referendum. He felt that a park bond referendum would be able to move ahead much faster alone and will show the citizens that the city is on a progressive track. He further indicated that the park bond referendum could help address some of the youth problems the city is experiencing. Dana Anderson commented that the Park and Recreation Commission would like to move forward so as to work on this issue during the summer. He further indicated that to include the community center will draw out the process. Councilmember Dietz stated that if the two issues were on the ballot together, the park issue would get lost in the overwhelming cost of the community center. He stated that the Park and Recreation Commission's wish list considers all ages of the community. He further indicated that people move into the community and expect to have these types of amenities. He indicated that he felt the citizens of Elk River would be open to a park bond referendum. Councilmember Dietz stated that the Minnesota Sports Federation building will take care of part of the community center issues. Councilmember Farber indicated that he agrees with moving forward with the park bond referendum. He further indicated that the citizens who move into the city do expect these types of amenities. Councilmember Farber indicated that the city is considering construction of an overhead bridge crossing Highway 169 which will include the need for a trail system to connect to the bridge. He further stated that there is a shortage of trails and parks on the eastern side of the city. Councilmember Holmgren stated that the wish list created by the Park and Recreation Commission must be prioritized and specific improvements identified. He further indicated that cost has not been discussed. He indicated that the citizens of the city will need to be better informed prior to voting on the issue. Councilmember Holmgren also indicated he would like to see the 1989 Decision Resources survey updated. Councilmember Thompson indicated he would like to see a more definite plan as to how the project will be completed. He suggested including the question of a community center in the survey to find out how citizens want to spend their money. He further indicated that there is a need for parks on the east side of the city. Elk River City Council Meeting January 21, 1997 Page 3 The Council concurred that a survey should move forward now. Additionally, the Council concurred that the community center and Park and Recreation issues should be separate referendum questions which should be presented to the public at two different times. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO DIRECT THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO GET A PROPOSAL FROM DECISION RESOURCES TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF A GROUP OF ELK RIVER CITIZENS AND TO INCLUDE IN THE SURVEY THE QUESTION REGARDING A COMMUNITY CENTER. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The City Council recessed at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened in the Council Chambers at 6:55 5. Consider Consent Aqenda COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: 5.2. 5.3. 5.4, $.6CI. 5.6b. 5.7. 5°8. 5.9, 5.10. 5.11. AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM REQUEST FOR REZONING TO ANTENNA OVERLAY DISTRICT, CASE NO. ZC 96-20 - POSTPONED TO 2/18/77 AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU ?6-26 - POSTPONED TO 2/18/97 PAYMENT OF $1,727.52 TO SHERBURNE COUNTY AS A PARTIAL REBATE OF INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THE PARKING LOT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROVED MOTION AUTHORIZING BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ATTEND THE COLORADO CHAPTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE - APPROVED AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THE BIDDING PROCESS FOR A TRACTOR AND LIQUID MANURE SPREADER FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - APPROVED PAY ESTIMATE #10 TO GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,449 FOR WORK ON THE INDOOR ICE ARENA EQUIPMENT - APROVED PAY ESTIMATE #8 TO M.A. MORTENSON FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE ICE ARENA PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $332,308 - APPROVED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY PLANNER AND TWO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE - APPROVED RESOLUTION 97-4 OF SUPPORT FROM SPONSORING AGENCY IN THE MAI-rER OF THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENT OF 1 ?97 - APPROVED RESIDENTIAL LOT INVENTORY OF PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS - REVIEWED JANUARY 6, 1 ?97, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APPROVED CHECK REGISTER - APPROVED COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Rest rooms Shelters Playgrounds Paved trails Riverwalk 5 ea. 7 ea. 9 ea. 11 mi. Outdoor poolfBath house Athletic complex Purchase additional land $ lO0,000 210,OO0 320,000 565,000 150,000 930,000 360,000 100,000 2,735,000 Woodland Trails Park Orono Park Country Crossing 3rd Mississippi Oaks Lafayette Woods Ridgewood East Deerfield IV Hillside 5th Meadowvale Heights E. of 169 Park Warming House 2 - Open Shelters I - Rest Rooms 1 - Rest Rooms Add Playground Equipment Playground Equipment ½ Court Basketball Playground Equipment ½ Court Playground Equipment 2 ½ Courts Add Playground Equipment Add Playground Equipment Playground Equipment ½ Court Playground Equipment ½ Court Playground Equipment ½ Court Open Shelter 100,000 45,0OO 25,000 25,000 50,000 25,000 5,000 30,000 5,000 35,000 10,000 35,000 20,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 5,000 25,000 Tot~This Section 540,000 Orono Softball Complex Oak Knoll Cass Fields i - Rest Rooms Combination Shelter/ Concessions/Restroom in center 4- Lighted Fields 1 - Combination Shelter/ Concessions/Restroom I - Open Shelter Total This Section 25,000 60,000 180,000 60,000 25,000 350,000 Funds to Purchase Park Land Trail Babcock Park to Downtown Riverw~lk Swimming Pool/Bath house Phase II for Cass Fields 100,000 50,000 100,000 930,000 100,000 Total This Section 1,280,000 Trails Rail Road Trail 169 to Proctor Link Country Crossing I Oak Knoll Woodland Trails Highway 10 5.5 miles 1.0 mile ¼ mile 1.0 mile 2.0 mile 1.5 mile 275 000 50 000 15 000 50 000 100 000 75 000 Total This Section 565,000 Grand Total 2.735.___~_000 f:Xshrdoc\offsite\street\parksamt.doc Park Bond ESTIMATED Tax Impact AVERAGE TAX INCREASE BASED INTEREST ANNUAL TAX ON 1997 NET TAX CAPACITY BOND ISSUE SIZE RATE TERM .DEBT RATE 100,000 HR 100,000 C/I 500,000 C/I $1,000,000 6.00% 15 110000 0.00926 11.85 27.77 198.07 $2,000,000 6.00% 15 205000 0.01725 22.08 51.75 369.13 $3,000,000 6.00% 15 300000 0.02524 32.31 75.73 540.18 NOTES: Interest rate of 6.00% is used as an example only. The actual rate may vary substantially and could significantly change the amount of tax impact. All assumptions are based on 1997 data. Class rates for taxes payable in 1998 were changed by the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill. This may result in a substantial shift of tax payments from one class to another. The new NTC will not be available from the County for some time. The changes in class rates may cause a notable change in the above estimates. Average annual debt for each given bond issue is an estimate only. Bond structure, interest rate and other factors will affect the actual annual debt. Bonds issues do not normally have equal annual payments but are structured to fit the revenue stream and other factors of the issue. The Term used for the estimates is 15 years. Depending on the size and structure of the issue, this may decrease to 10 years. A 10 year term will increase the annual tax impact, or to keep the tax level the same, the issue size would need to be decreased. HR is Homestead Residential C/I is Commercial Industrial 6/16/97 PARKBOND.XLS Decision Resources Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Elk River Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Elk River. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between April 21 and May 6, 1997. The average interview took twenty-three minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Elk River residents within ± 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: At present, Elk River's growth rate remained as high as the 1989 level. Thirty-four percent of the residents reported moving to the community within the past five years; eight years ago, an identical number were new-comers. Almost one-half of the residents have lived in Elk River for two-to-ten years, while forty-two percent lived there for more than ten years. The median residential longevity proved to be 9.0 years. Senior households composed fifteen percent of the community's residences. School-aged children could be found in forty-six percent of the households, while pre-schoolers resided in twenty percent. The average age of an adult resident was found to be 41.6 years old. In fact, thirty-four percent of the population lies in the 35-44 year age range. Married couples with school-aged children were again the typical household within the city. Seventy-five percent of the sample reported owning their current residence. The median home value was found to be $120,750.00. White Collar households were forty-seven percent, while Blue Collar households accounted for thirty-seven percent. Retirees were an additional thirteen percent. This occupational structure is reflected in the educational achievement of residents: thirty-two percent had graduated from college, while fifty percent had at least attended some college, if not graduated. Women outnumbered men by four percent in the sample. The Ward of residence of each respondent was noted. Twenty-five percent lived in Ward One, while twenty-nine percent resided in Ward Two. Ward Three composed twenty-three percent of 3128 Dean Court · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 · (612) 920-0337 · Fax (612) 929-6166 the sample, while Ward Four was twenty-four percent. Quality of Life: Elk River citizens were again generally contented with their community. Eighty-nine percent approved of the quality of life there; thirty-two percent, strongly so. This level of approval was somewhat above the current Metropolitan Area norm of eighty-six percent. When asked what they liked most about the community, residents pointed to two aspects: "location" was mentioned by twenty-eight percent, while "small town ambience" was key to the same number of respondents. Twelve percent each cited "nice people" and "rural areas." "Quiet/Peacefulness" was key to seven percent, while "strong neighborhoods" was posted by five percent. It was also the future protection of these values which provoked the most unrest in the citizenry. When asked what they liked least about Elk River, thirty-one percent mentioned "growth," up thirteen percent since the 1989 study. Eight percent mentioned "high taxes," while seven percent each cited "lack of shopping," "city services," and "traffic congestion." "Lack of shopping," however, had dropped from an earlier level of fifteen percent. Smaller numbers pointed to "schools," "location of the community," "lack of restaurants," "crime," and the "lack of things to do." "Boosters" -- those who dislike "nothing" about the community -- were thirteen percent, a five percent decrease since the 1989 study, but still ahead of the Metropolitan Area norm. Park and Recreation Facilities and Activities: When asked to rate the park and recreational facilities in the community, fifty-six percent felt they were "excellent" or "good," while thirty-eight percent deemed them "only fair" or "poor." Positive evaluations have declined by fourteen percent since 1989. Similarly in comparison with the Metropolitan Area norm, favorable evaluations in Elk River proved to be twenty-four percent lower than the average. Usership patterns varied from facility to facility. Seventy-six percent of the households reported visiting Orono Park during the past year, down ten percent from the 1989 study. Sixty-three percent had visited Lions Park, down three percent, and thirty-six percent had gone to Handke Outdoor Ice Rink, a decrease of five percent during the interim. Twenty-two percent had visited Woodland Trails Park, doubling the ten percent usership figure from 1989. Fifty-four percent of the households reported using the outdoor facilities located at the schools, while seventeen percent had gone to Oak Knoll Park. Park users were asked for an evaluation of the upkeep and maintenance of the park facilities: seventy-one percent rated it favorably, while eighteen percent were more critical. Page 2 Twelve percent of the respondents reported leaving Elk River to use bicycle paths elsewhere, while nine percent did so to use a swimming pool. Six percent reported leaving the community to go to a Community Center, while four percent used another community's playgrounds. But, a high sixty-five percent did not leave the City of Elk River to recreate elsewhere. Forty percent of the households in the community contained members who participated in youth recreational programs during the past year. Similarly, twenty-two percent contained participants of adult recreational programs. Future Plans: No consensus emerged on the top priority for recreational development during the next few years; this finding mirrored the lack of consensus found in the 1989 study. Thirty-three percent would prioritize smaller neighborhood parks, while twenty percent would place larger area parks at the top of the list. Eighteen percent would make trails the top priority, and fourteen percent felt the same way about larger community ballfields. Seventy percent favored the development of a trail system linking neighborhoods throughout the city. In fact, fifty-three percent would support a trail system even if it ran adjacent to their property. Park Bond Referendum: The table below indicates the amount of support and opposition for a property tax increase to fund the development of each recreational facility: Park System Facility Support Oppose Park for Skate Boarding and In-Line Skating 42% 49% Outdoor Swimming Pool 59% 35% Outdoor Ice Skating and Hockey Rinks 45% 48% Swing Sets, Playground Equipment, etc. 7 I% 24% Paving of Neighborhood Trail Links 54% 37% Lighting, etc., for Youth Athletics Complex 51% 36% Mountain Bike Trail System for Hillside Park 45% 43% Permanent Restrooms/Shelters 75% 20% Interpretive Center and Woodland Trails Park 36% 41% Page 3 Park System Facility Support Oppose Rehabilitation of"Handke Pit" 49% 30% Development of Riverwalk Trail 59% 32% Purchase of Additional Land 55% 33% Significant majorities were willing to support a tax increase for the following projects: Permanent restrooms and shelters at the larger community parks Swing sets, playground equipment, and hard surfaced courts for neighborhood parks An OUTDOOR swimming pool, containing a gradual depth entry, slides, and diving board Development of the Riverwalk Trail in the Downtown Area Purchase of additional land for parks and trails Paving of neighborhood trail links across the community Several proposals, though, proved to be much more controversial: A park for skate boarding and in-line skating Outdoor ice skating and hockey rinks A mountain bike trails system for Hillside Park An Interpretive Center at Woodland Trails Park Predisposition toward a Bond Referendum: While eighteen percent would "vote against almost any tax increase for park and recreational facilities development," eleven percent would be inclined to "vote for a tax almost any tax increase." Sixty-three percent were "persuadable," depending upon the "justification of the need," "size of tax increase," "inclusion of trails," and "development of more parks." The typical Elk River residents was willing to increase their property taxes by $22.00 yearly to fund park and recreational facilities development. Impact of a Good Park and Recreation System: Fifty-five percent agreed with the assertion that "a good Elk River park and recreation system will increase the value of my property." Thirty-three percent disagreed with this statement. There has been a decline in the perceived impact of park and recreational facilities since the 1989 study: in that previous survey, seventy-four percent agreed with the assertion. The "indirect impact on property values" argument for park improvements will not prove to be as effective an argument as it is in other communities. Page 4 City Service Ratings: Eighty-five percent rated police services as "eXcellent'' or "good,"while ~ighty-two percent felt the same way about "fire protection." Seventy-two percent awarded the Elk River City Library high ratings. Sixty-seven percent posted "excellent" or "good" ratings on animal control, sixty- six percent did so for drainage and flood control, and sixty-four percent felt similarly about snow plowing. Sixty percent gave "excellent" or "good" ratings for sewers and water; fifty eight percent did so for street lighting; and, forty-eight percent felt the maintenance and repair of city streets was "excellent" or "good." Since the 1989 study, ratings of city services had changed in both directions. Favorable ratings on the maintenance and repair of city streets dropped nineteen percent; high ratings on snow plowing dropped five percent; and, positive evaluations of the Library declined by an insignificant two percent. Favorable evaluations of street lighting increased three percent, while police services rose three percent and fire protection, by one percent. The change in opinions about street maintenance were in line with most communities across the State of Minnesota. Public Safety: Fifty-four percent reported direct contact with the Elk River Police Department during the past three years. Thirty-five percent reported their greatest public safety concern was "juvenile issues, such as curfews, underage drinking, and smoking." Twenty-one percent felt it was "property crime," while twenty percent saw it as "violent crime." Seventeen percent thought "traffic safety" was key. A solid ninety-one percent favored the Elk River Police Department continuing to provide DARE training in the local schools. Sixty-four percent favored in concept the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 169 near School Street. But, support dropped to forty-eight percent if a tax increase were required to fund its construction. Elk River Community Center: When asked to suggest facilities for inclusion in a community center, twenty-seven percent mentioned a swimming pool. Only four percent mentioned this amenity in the 1989 study. A teen center was posted by eighteen percent, up seven percent since the 1989 study. A fitness center was key to eleven percent. Smaller numbers would include meeting rooms, a senior Page 5 center, and a theater. The table below summarizes the opinions of sampled respondents about the inclusion of various facilities in an Elk River Community Center: Facility Support Oppose Indoor Swimming Pool 69% 27% Aerobics, Exercise, and Fitness Room 73% 20% Gymnasium 77% 18% Large Community Room 73% 22% Group Meeting Rooms 64% 31% Teen Center 81% 13% Senior Citizens Center 69% 24% Community Theater 50% 41% Arts and Crafts Room 63% 30% In comparison with the 1989 study, support for an indoor swimming pool had increased by seventeen percent, while support for a gymnasium had risen by a similar percentage. Support for group meeting rooms had declined by ten percent, while support for a senior center had decreased eight percent. But, even so, with the exception of the community theater, solid majorities supported each facility for inclusion in a center. In concept, eighty-one percent supported the construction of an Elk River Community Center, while thirteen percent opposed it. Support had increased seven percent during the past nine years. The typical resident, however, was willing to increase his/her property taxes by only $19.70 to fund the construction of a Community Center. In assigning a higher priority, fifty-eight percent felt the construction of a Community Center should be pursued; twenty-two percent felt the expansion of park and recreational facilities should be pursued, while eleven percent felt both should be weighted equally. Retail Shopping in Elk River: Excluding groceries, fifty-four percent considered Target to their principal retail shopping location. Elk River Center was mentioned by twenty-eight percent, and eight percent pointed to Northtown. Three additions to the shopping array presently in the community were cited by moderately high numbers: restaurants, at twenty seven percent; Wal-Mart, at seventeen percent; and, clothing stores, at eleven percent. "Better advertising and coupons" was the most often Page 6 cited type of promotion which would influence residents to shop more often in Elk River. Thirty-three percent reported shopping "weekly or more often" in Downtown Elk River. Thirty- two percent did so twice monthly or monthly, and twenty-two percent shopped there sporadically. Fourteen percent reported they never shopped the Downtown Area. The major Downtown magnets were the Drug Store, Grocery Store, Bakery, Hardware Store, and Bank. Possible inducements for attracting more residents to the area included "more retail variety" and "more restaurants." Otsego-Elk River Merger: Sixty-one percent reported awareness of the proposal to merge the two cities of Otsego and Elk River. While thirty-five percent supported the merger, twenty-four percent opposed it; but, forty- two percent were unsure about their opinion on this issue. The merger proposal, then, has not been discussed enough to cause great numbers of support or opposition to materialize. Conclusions: 1. Elk River citizens were very pleased with their community. They were satisfied, for the most part, with past policies and actions. But, perceptions about the City, itself, have dramatically changed; concerns have begun to reflect issues found in nearby growing communities: property tax levels, growth rates, road congestion, and convenience of amenities. 2. Substandard evaluations of the park and recreational system were noted in this study. While the community does not have a general consensus about priorities for the building of outdoor recreational facilities, it would presently support a carefully constructed bond referendum for neighborhood park improvements, trail links, and an outdoor swimming pool, requiring an average property tax increase of $20.00-$25.00. 3. There was much enthusiasm for a full-service community center at present. In fact, with the exception of a community theater, residents overwhelmingly supported every facility tested for possible inclusion. A key problem, however, were the financial constraints placed upon the project, wherein the typical residents was willing to accept a $19.70 annual tax increase. Clearly, either a much more scaled-down proposal would need to be put before the voters, or a careful information campaign outlining costs would have to be undertaken before a vote. 4. In light of the support for a bond referendum at this time which would be financially feasible, we suggest the best course of action would be to proceed with a park bond proposal, and then engage in concrete discussions with the city in preparation for a later election effort for the community center. The list of citizen desires was much better aligned with their willingness to pay increased taxes in the case of the outdoor recreational facilities. In order to secure the Page 7 passage of a community center having the facilities residents prioritized, it will be necessary to convince them of the need to spend over twice as much as their preferred tax increase for this project. Once residents understand the cost implications of their needs, a spirited campaign will be essential to secure approval of a specific community center proposal. In any case, though, given opposition levels to each project, an aggressive information and citizen-based persuasion campaign will be required for passage at the polls. 5. A major priority for economic development in the future should be the attraction of"family style" and/or "formal" restaurants to the community. Over one-quarter of the residents saw this as a gap. In fact, if they were attracted to the Downtown Area, restaurants could prove to be a magnet for more shopping activity. Page 8