Loading...
PRSR INFORMATION 01-02-1997 `� MEMORANDUM y of lk , � River TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan /A DATE: January 2, 1997 SUBJECT: Trail Fees and Park and Recreation Fees Attached is a list which shows how some selected cities fund their trail systems. Methods of funding include utilizing park and recreation fees, using a separate trail fee, negotiating on a project by project basis with the developers and having developers dedicate land for trails and prepare it for construction. Several communities include trails as part of their transportation system and the developers pay for them just like they would roads, sidewalks, and utilities. Also included are the park and recreation fees for those selected cities, and a summary of the park and recreation fees collected as part of the recently completed application fee survey. • TRAIL FEES Apple Valley: In urban areas construction costs are assessed to the newly created lots along with the assessment for streets and utilities. In rural areas where trails are planned but not ready for construction an escrow is collected to cover estimated costs. Burnsville: Cost for trails comes out of park fees. Lakeville: If a subdivision abuts a designated trail, the developer pays 5/8 of the cost to construct the trail. Residential subdivider pays $225 per dwelling for trail, required whether or not developer is required to build trails. Plymouth: Cost for trails comes out of park fees. Anoka: Negotiated with the developer, no set trail fees. Maple Grove: Cost comes out of park fees. If the trail is identified as part of the trail system, developer dedicates lands and prepares (graded and seeds) it. • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Park and Trail Fees January 2, 1996 Page 2 • Eden Prairie: Trails not in a park are considered part of transportation system - developer pays for trail just like they would for roads. Trails within parks paid with park fees. Woodbury: No set policy, most trails are paid with park fee, some developers pay for trails negotiated through PUD agreement. Ramsey: Considered part of transportation system and funded by developer like they would for roads and other improvements. PARK& RECREATION FEES Apple Valley: Land - park dedication 10% of land area for residential Cash - 10% of land value (current assessment $20,000 per acre) Burnsville: Land - 10 acres per 1000 residents - residential total development area X.05 - commercial Cash - requirement from land dedication X cost per acre - res. • requirement from land dedication X cost per acre - com. Lakeville: Land - 10%-20% of land area depending on# of units - res. 5% of gross area - com/ind. Cash - $900 per dwelling - res. 5% market value of unimproved land - com/ind. Plymouth: Cash - $1300 per unit - res. $4050 per acre - com/ind. Anoka: Land - dwelling unit /acre amount of land dedicated 0 -1 5% 2 - 3 10% 4 - 5 12% 6 - 7 14% 8 - 12 16% 13 - 16 18% • industrial - 5% of gross area / commercial- 3% gross area Park and Trail Fees January 2, 1996 Page 3 • Anoka cont. Cash - $400/ unit single family residential $329/ unit duplex $365/ unit townhouse $258/ unit mobile home $253/ unit multi-family market value of 5% gross area - ind. market value of 3% gross area - com. Maple Grove: Cash - $ 845 per unit - res. $ 3600 per acre - com. $ 2775 per acre - ind. Eden Prairie: Cash - $1400 per unit - res. • $4500 per acre - com/office/ind.. Woodbury: Land - 10% residential and commercial Cash - $ 100 per lot - single family residential $ 800 per dwelling - multi family residential $ 2000 per acre - com/ind. Ramsey: Cash - $ 600 per lot - rural res. $ 825 per lot - urban res. $ 4300 per acre - com. $ 2100 per acre - ind. • Park and Trail Fees January 2, 1996 Page 4 The following fees were taken from the application fee survey completed in December 1996: CITY PARK DEDICATION FEES Residential/Commercial/Industrial APPLE VALLEY res 10%land value-com/ind 5%land value BLAINE res$620-comm$1860/ac.-ind$1630/ac. BROOKLYN PARK SFD$800-Townhouse$600-Apt$600-comm$2900/ac.-ind$1800/ac. COON RAPIDS $384 SFD-$238/unit multi-$326/unit dup-$286 townhouse-$1152/ac.comm/ind DAYTON $450/lot res-5%land area or$1,000/ac.comm LAKEVILLE LAND res-10%-20%depending on#of units-comm/ind-5%gross area CASH $900/dwelling-5%market value of unimproved land comm/ind MAPLE GROVE $845/unit-$3600/ac.comm-$2775/ac.ind PLYMOUTH res$1300/unit comm/ind$4050/ac. RAMSEY res$600/lot rural, $825/lot urban-comm 5%market value or$4300/ac.-ind 5%market value or$2100 per ac. ROGERS $560/lot or 10%gross area- res-$1800/ac.-comm-$1400/ac.-ind SAVAGE $750/dwelling or 10%of land SFD-$555/dwelling or 10%of land MULTI-$4200/ac.or 7%land comm.-$2450/ac.or 7%land ind WOODBURY CASH $1,000per lot SFD-$800 unit multi-$2,000/ac.comm/ind LAND • ZIMMERMAN 10%res&comm/ind 7.5%land area or market value SFD-12%2 fam-15%multi-comm/ind 5%land area or market value ELK RIVER $550/unit res-$1750 per ac. comm AVERAGE FEE $729/UNIT* * Based on 40 acre parcel plated into fourteen 2%2 acre lots • rk.,/ AK. MEMORANDUM y of R• iver TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Alice Heinecke, Executive Secretary DATE: December 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Additional Information for 1/2/97 Meeting Attached is some additional information for your review for the January 2, 1997, special Park and Recreation Commission meeting. You should have already received your packet which contained a copy of a 1989 survey conducted by Decision Resources Ltd. This additional information includes a copy of the Executive Summary from Decision Resources which summarizes the results of the 1989 survey, and a copy of the minutes from the February 5, 1990, City Council meeting where this summary was presented. • Please review this additional information and bring it, along with the previous packet, to the meeting on January 2, 1997. III ii 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Y 1 1 R esources ..Ltd..: . . EXECUTIVE '.SUMMARY This study contains the results of as survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the, City-of, Elk River. Survey ' 'responses were gathered by ' professional interviewers between December 14 and December 27,.. 1989 . The average interview of city. . residents took twenty-seven minutes. Random samples such-`as this one yield results projctab1e to the entire universe of Elk River residents within + 5. 0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. Elk River can best be described as a growing exurban area undergoing substantial transition. , While many of the results found ` in this study conform to the patterns' -of other cities,': in the "high growth corridors, " there are also some characteristics which suggest a changing community. The complexion of the community varies, from a blue collar small -town to a more white collar enclave In many ways, the newcomers are impacting median education levels, average household income levels, as well as altering expectations about city services. . INV The average family has lived in Elk River for 10.5 years eight percent of the sample reported moving to Elk.River during, the past two years, while twenty-two percent had resided' . there for over twenty years. , Eighty-three percent of the respondents also reported they had no plans for the_`next decade to move from the community. ' "Nine percent did, however, 'mention an intention to move on during the next five `years, ' ;reflective of the rate of arrivals during _a much _shorter two year period: . If these ,numbers. remain unchanged, - in-migration. will exceed out-migration' by almost four-to-one. Household composition varied across the city. Fourteen percent of the sample reported seniors in residence,' while -fifty - "_ three ercent had-school-aged children or re-`schoolers Eighteen P g P percent: rented their :current- households- ,-,':;The- average " age of residents '_ was: 39.8 years old about one third of:-the city was under the age :-of 35; thirty percent,; 35-44. years old, and""one third was over 45 , - Over one-half of :;thee"residents _are in..the 25 44 year age`;-group. The workforce in Elk River was remarkably,homogeneous- Blue '_ Collar .,_households - compose _,the :largest'<segment, ; at r thirty five percent`. . `Professional-Technical and Owner=Managed"' households together contribute :another thirty three' percent ' "Retirees were lip fifteen percent:-. ---..- Clerical-Sales and scattered occupations''` - account for'_the remainder Fifty-three percent of the residents reported no `colle a ex P erience, with ent y-seven Pe s cent were 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis,' Minnesota;55416 • (612) 920-Q337-', college graduates. Fifty-eight percent of the married households reported both spouses working outside of the home. The average yearly household income in Elk River was projected to be $35,200. 00, about $4, 300.00 less than the Metropolitan Area suburban median. Elk River residents reported working across the Metropolitan Area and the central portion of the state. About forty percent of the sample reported either they or their spouse worked in the city. The western Hennepin County suburbs were a destination of seventeen percent of the households. Anoka County drew another .. twelve percent. Southern Hennepin County suburbs were the - job sites of seven percent of the'- households. Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Dakota County, Sherburne County, and Wright County also drew, smaller numbers. On average, the Elk River commuter 'takes twenty minutes to get to work; but, even so, almost one-third report drive times of over thirty minutes. Indicative of the distances, another one-third of the commuters would take a ten percent pay cut to work at a similar job in. Elk River. The city residents are clearly outdoors minded in their recreational pursuits. The most popular endeavor was hiking or walking, undertaken by forty-five percent of the households on at least a weekly basis. In fact, one-quarter of the households reported walking or hiking on an almost daily schedule. Bicycling was the second highest ranked leisure time pursuit. Forty-one percent of the households bike at least weekly, weather permitting. Nature walks scored third at twenty-seven percent. All three of these activities suggest a strong demand for trails as a key component of any park and recreation plan. The next set of most popular recreational activities suggest other aspects of a comprehensive park system. Swimming was enjoyed at least weekly by twenty-nine,. percent of, the city's households. Fishing attracted, during the appropriate season, twenty-eight percent of the households at least weekly. And, avid golfers at least weekly, weather permitting`'-- could be found in twenty-one ' percent of the households. , Area -pools, docks, and golf courses need to be reviewed for their adequacy in meeting ' the needs of the citizenry: both currently and. in - °the '. future. The Park and Recreation _system was =examined in some detail. Overall, ' residents are much 'less satisfied than their peers in , other communities. Only.,, seventy percent of the sample- rated the park and recreational facilities ' as - "excellent ' ;yor "good. " . Twenty-four ' "percent- rated_ „them--as- "only fair” . or. "poor.'" This - approval= rating is " almost twenty:-, -percent= less- than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm:;. Certainly, current residents do` not feel, the 'park-system is adequately:: meeting their needs Even,so, _ usage of the park and``recreational facilities , was extremely °:high, 'at ninety percent ...of,"the::`: city's -households Orono Park attracted the largest:number._of residents; last ' year:- , - eighty-six percent of the -households{contain'at ;least one'.'-member - who visited that park during the past twelve months. Lions Park 411 ranked second at a usage rate of sixty-six percent. Facilities. located at the schools drew visitors from fifty-one percent of the households in Elk River. Handke Outdoor Ice Arena and the softball complex attracted members of about forty percent of the households in the city during the past year. Woodland Trails Park, virtually undeveloped, was visited by only ten percent of the sample's households. While Orono Park is the pre-eminent facility in the park system, Lions Park and school-based . offerings also serve large segments of the community. Park visitors were queried about the types of recreational facilities they used, most frequently. Most respondents reported passively walking around the park they visited. But, the swimming beach was used on at least an occasional basis, by sixty percent of the households in the city. Softball fields and play equipment served about forty percent of the households. The picnic pavillions, sliding hills, and soccer fields possessed a smaller, but significant audience within Elk River. In comparison with other communities, Elk River residents use the park and recreational facilities in atypically high numbers: The City received kudos for its maintenance and upkeep of the park facilities. Eighty-eight percent approved of the city's efforts, while only eight percent expressed disapproval. As for unmet needs, only trails were mentioned frequently enough, at 4 seven percent, to warrant further study. The residents were asked their opinion of a more extensive trail system to' link the city's neighborhoods. The concept was favored by a large seventy-six percent majority. .However., when the subject of property;, tax increases to pay for its development' was :-raised, half of the support changed opinions: _a forty percent to thirty-eight percent negative verdict occurred. There would be substantial difficulty, consequently, in 'passing a referendum at this time. A nearly similar - pattern emerged on the question of a downtown river walk.'4 'Seventy-three,:percent; favored the concept. But, if property " tax :increases would be required to fund the construction,- a.:forty-four; percent to thirty-seven percent plurality emerged .in favor of ".the" prod ect This project would .be viable at the polls, ,but;.a highly effective and aggressive campaign would be needed to carry._the day. Residents :felt strongly, - °however, ;about the characteristics •should serve both pedestrians bicyclists. Seventy 'P = : i of any trail .,s stem in, v Seventy-six percent felt t - .,,system nty ' percent wanted to see; the -recently_;';purchased abandoned railroad corridor . developed :°into' a -component_of the system And, surpr singly, one-half of the residents, would -grant the, an easement if thee.: Aft trail - system ran_`"by theirproperty.:� Reinforcing _these,;results,` lip trails were also narrowly ;designated the 'priority for ' development, edging:',smaller neighborhood- parks and outdistancing larger community playfields concept, then,; is highly 3 popular; financing is the major sticking point. Participation in recreation programs was also at a relatively high level. Thirty-two percent of the households reported children participating in a youth program _ during the past year. The most popular program was soccer, a result unique to this community. Satisfaction with youth programs was virtually unanimous. By ten-to-one, residents also felt that current offerings met the needs of their households. Youth programs, then, are both well utilized and well regarded. A similar pattern emerged' in the evaluation of adult recreational . programs. Twenty percent of,the sample .`reported participation during the past twelve months. Softball was, the most popular ;program. '. Dissatisfaction with any offering was almost non-existent. And, seventy-six percent of the residents felt that the programs met their needs. This is- one of ' the strongest evaluations the researchers have found to date. It should be no surprise that a two-to-one majority, sixty-one percent to thirty percent, favor a joint agreement with the School District for providing, programs rather than the City offering programs on its own. Consistent with the high regard of local recreational programs, only eleven percent of the sample reported household ` members travelled elsewhere •to recreate. This "leakage" is gik between one-half and one-third the norm. Anoka County sports programs seemed to be the out-of-town draw. But, even so, almost eighty percent of the users of out-of-Elk River programs . would transfer to city-sponsored offerings if they were comparable. These results, however, should not be construed as . indicating that residents used Elk River facilities -exclusively: sixty-one percent of the sample reported visiting other county parks 'during the past year.. And, a fifty-one percent to thirty-two percent majority feel that Sherburne County should develop a regional park system to augment other_ nearby 'facilities. While.-venturing to facilities at other locations, then, residents clearly prefer their local facilities to other offerings. A series • of :facilities:which could be, added to the park system was listed-;=to' gauge' residential .interest. A-nature trial with explanatory sign posts,'engendered the most interest, with seventy-four percent indicating members of, their households,would, be "very likely"' or ."somewhat ;likely"->to use ..it - An :_ outdoor swimming pool-drew an interested level of sixty-five percents' A, nature • area with ;an' educational interpretive center ranked .next; with, sixty-six percent of the households : expressing , interest. And, play equipment was.the ..fourth most popular. . facility at forty-four-:percent likelihood to= be_,used`= -.These preferences are clearly consistent -with the household ,,y recreational-_ ,patterns discussed earlier _� Attitudes toward the value of a park and recreational system are - very strongly held. Seventy-four 'percent.of the go citizenry felt that .a od city spark. and recreational system would ,increase 4 the value of their property; only fifteen percent saw no it relationship. An important component in any future park bond referendum elections will be the explicit linkage of this economic self-interest with the parameters of the proposal. Residents were asked their views of a park development package to acquire land and develop park facilities across the community. They were told that the average $80.000 home in Elk River would see a ,property tax increase of about $40. 00 for fifteen years to cover the costs of construction. By a" forty- nine percent to twenty-nine percent margin, residents supported the. ' proposal; ' .but, the support score is' still short ' of a conclusive majority. Even more worrisome, strong support and strong opposition, the most likely referendum voters, were evenly matched at fourteen percent. . The benefits to the community as a whole was cited as the major reason for support; opponents fixated on the property tax costs. While the referendum might be passed in an election with a sufficiently high turnout, a very aggressive campaign would be mandatory. gg P g ry• I Residents were also asked their opinions of a proposal to acquire land along the Mississippi River for park development. Sixty-five percent supported the concept. But, repeating the earlier pattern, when property tax increases were mentioned; a thirty-eight percent to thirty-six percent plurality developed against the project. A referendum to fund this land acquisition • project would be very difficult to win at the polls. The problem of geese in Lions .Park, a 'well-publicized issue, was assessed. ' A fifty-five percent majority of residents rated the issue as either "a minor problem" or "not a ';problem." Only fourteen percent of the sample saw it as "very serious. " While the geese may a nui y sance, - they are not viewed as a burning problem requiring immediate attention. Residents :were, very' pleased with the quality of life in _ Elk River. Ninety-four` percent rated it as either "excellent" or "good," with thirty-seven percent rating it as the former. . The most popular ' aspects of the community were its small , town -` ambience, convenient. location in the Metropolitan Area, the rural and open- locale,_ and its quiet and peaceful atmosphere. : ;Two major concerns;; were mentioned with some- "frequency: ,;; growth- -,. related issues,;"- such, as traffic and `the; pace of development; and 1 poor shopping..;' A significant eighteen `percent of. the - sample reported that =-there .".was "nothing" they disliked - about „, the community. ; Elk ,River" ranks in" the _top quarter among:.communities in the Metropolitan Area on its ;.residential ":satisfaction.' Elk River citizens". proved to be fiscally conservative on`.tax matters, but not ;:dogmatically, anti-tax. :_Fifty-four percent of - ,. - _ the sample would "-favor an -increase, in ..city`: property ;:taxes_ to ? maintain services" at their current levels. Forty eight percent • saw 5. Elk River property taxes .as "about V average" in comparison _ with other-"- communities, only nine, �;percent-� felt ',they ',were "" "excessively high°:." When_ asked what percentage of their property" 5 taxes go to city government, the median response among those who offered an answer was fifteen percent. But, thirty-four percent of the sample, a little higher than the norm, were unable to even venture a guess. Fifty-eight percent of the sample correctly said that the city's tax rate had increased during the past few years. While more information about the cost-efficiency of city services should be provided to residents, citizens seem to have a fairly accurate view of the tax climate in Elk River. Communications patterns revealed that most residents, eighty-six percent, " rely upon the "Elk River; Star" for information _ about , City government and its activities. The "grapevine" was relied upon by ten percent, at the norm for most communities. Only twenty-four, percent of the residents reported their households currently received cable television hence, the telecasting of city council meetings could potentially reach only one-quarter of the city. But, the projected audience for occasional . viewership would be about one-third of those households, or eight percent citywide. The City may wish to consider the publication of a newsletter on a regular basis to augment the local newspaper. While communication channels are very strong, this vehicle would provide an excellent means to inform the citizenry about on-going activities and programs. In addition, insertion of the newsletter into the "Elk River Star" would effectively reach almost ninety percent of the residents. The City was felt to be "about right" in its enforcement of l city codes. Fifty-nine percent awarded that rating, but thirty percent indicated that the enforcement was "not tough enough. " Particularly troublesome to these residents was the code enforcement on first, loose animals, and second, messy yards.. The City may wish to re-examine its enforcement procedures, particularly as they 'apply to dogs running loose. City services were rated unevenly by the residents of Elk River.-., Police protection, fire protection, and the City Library were awarded strong approval scores of approximately eighty percent. Sewers and water was viewed favorably by, fifty-four percent" of, the residents; sixteen percent disapproved All of these evaluations are consistent with norms established in ree s however, e en much lower evaluationsandm ch-lowerneg ativescoresthan usual: snow plowing ` was approved = of _ by sixty-nine percent : ' "and disapproved of' by thirty percent; street maintenance was viewed favorably; by sixty-seven percent' and unfavorably by thirty-four: percent.;." and, street,lighting was rated as '."excellent"- or "good" by fifty seven-percent:, and rated only fair or poor by a high thirty-nine percent The City was wish to review these three services', for problems and potential :improvements.' _ , City , ;staff served an unusually large number of residents- directly ' 'Forty-six percent, about .twentypercent :`higher .10 the norm, had ; "quite. a-lot"._ or. "_some" first. hand`contact. with the City staff. : Evaluations,'= however, were weaker than usual --_ Fifty-nine percent the City staff as either "excellent" or 6 "good, " while thirty-two percent said they were "only fair" or • "poor. " The source of many of the lower ratings was the feeling that staff was stretched too thinly: that the city required more staff to deal effectively and efficiently with the growing population. In view of the large number of staff interactions with residents, the City may wish to examine the judicious addition of additional personnel. While City government posted strong_ . ratings from the citizens, there was a diffused feeling of alienation from government decision-making. Fifty-three percent of the residents thought they knew -"a great deal" or "a fait amount" about the work of the Mayor and City Council. Evaluations of their jobs were remarkably strong: . seventy-six percent approved, of their work, while fifteen percent disapproved. The five-to-one approval-to-disapproval rating is particularly impressive. But, when queried about their ability to impact the way things are run in the community, thirty-two percent felt they could not. Numbers in � the high twenty percent range are considered troublesome; above thirty indicates a serious; problem. But, this feeling is certainly not directed against the current office holders and specific actions; it is more generalized in nature. Other studies have indicated that the publication of a regular could alleviate much of these tensions. Waste , management is a major issue facing many communities. S Fifty-three percent of the residents of Elk River were currently separating recyclable materials from the rest of their garbage. If the City were to establish a drop-off point collection system, forty-six percent of the households would take their recyclables to those sites. . A ',pick-up -`system for already separated recyclables would attract participation from a projected`:. fifty- four percent of the households. Basing garbage hauling fees on the volume of trash generated by a household was viewed as a very effective means of encouraging recycling; eighty-six percent of the sample favored that` proposal. But, if it becomes necessary, a fifty-two percent majority.:would support a mandatory recycling ordinance with fines for non-compliance. . And, . to encourage more efficiency in refuse hauling,,- a fifty-two percent majority would favor ' the designation: of a group of haulers, each serving' one • area exclusively: The latter finding is.. unique among all of the � P studies completed to date. ; Residents of Elk ;River'_are clearly concerned about solid waste management and are'-- supportive - of - foster more activities'.in the community. efforts to Residents were asked about a Community, Center. for Elk River.; When queried'-about' facilities in a center, respondents 'cited', in rank order, a, ;teen .center, "a "senior citizens .center, a community room, and";a;gymnasium; however, over fifty ;percent of-the: sample could " not answer the, question.- Taken as a-°group, three:of the facilities _.cited point to a need for meeting spaces within -Elks , River. r Seventy-four - . percent of the residents ;.support x the construction" of a Elk River Community Center, ..�eighteen, percent ;' opposed it. As long as the cost stayed around a $40. 00 yearly increase in property taxes, majority support could be maintained. But, even at that figure, there is a core of twenty-three percent of the residents who would not vote for any tax increase for the construction of a center. Fifty-eight percent of the sample also thought it was a good idea to attach a new City Hall to the Community Center combining the construction of both facilities. City residents seem, then, to endorse the idea of a City Center complex, combining administrative facilities with meeting : . rooms and other facilities for the public. Fourteen- different facilities for possible inclusion in a community center were read to each interviewee. ;'Over° eighty percent supported the inclusion of a teen center.. Over seventy percent favored a large community room, a- senior citizens center, and group meeting rooms. Over sixty .` percent were supportive of an exercise and fitness room, an indoor running/walking facility, a gymnasium, and an arts and crafts room. An indoor ice skating rink, an indoor swimming pool, racquetball courts, a community theatre, a nursery school/day, care facility,- and an aerobics and dance room split the citizenry and provoked high levels of opposition. Support, then, tended to build around indoor meeting facilities, and to a lesser extent, passive !'dry" - individual recreational and wellness facilities. Residents were also asked to choose their top two priorities • from the list. Four facilities were chosen by at least- ten percent of the sample: in rank order, a teen center, a senior drop-in center, a large community room, and group meeting rooms. The teen and senior centers were chosen by over one-quarter of the sample as their top priorities. Opposition to any of _the facilities was also measured. Four facilities were opposed by more than five percent of the residents: an indoor ice skating rink, an indoor swimming pool, , an aerobics and dance room, and _ racquetball courts Only the first facility, however, reach an opposition level which is worrisome. Overall, then, Elk- River. `_ citizens have a clear hierarchy of facilities in mind for their' communit y center. A community center would draw users from sixty-six s percent of the city's households. Fifty-nine percent of the households reported at least one member who would visit on a weekly basis or more " There is a : clear �. demand in the community for the facilities and services that a community center could supply On' the subject;: of operrating costs, residents split on-,a pay as-you go system y-nine :-.percent oppose -.the =ci.ty x subsidization' of operating costs, even if user =`-fees increase, forty-four percent favor a city subsidy. Fifty-eight ercent' of.. the sample;would not be impacted by, a moderate daily fee; twenty five percent' felt it depended on the size ' of 'y' the fee, oni,y fourteen percent `felt their usage' would significantly::,', decline, --0 Forty-one percent 3 of the sample would pay -$100< yearly for a family membership. But, ;when, informed about comparable-ti costs? in the area, .-' forty-four percent- of the respondents ,. :indicated a „ $ willingness to pay $150.00 per year for a family membership. Any • marketing effort for memberships must stress comparable fees. If built, the Community Center will be assured of a very high user rate. Amid the demographic changes Elk River is undergoing, there is a high degree of citizen contentment. But, needs are also changing; already a consensus exists for a change in direction on parks and recreational offerings. And, a City which has served its residents well in the past may find itself hard pressed to meet future needs. There is a clear need for more meeting spaces in Elk River. Expanded parks and recreational opportunities will also gain more support: it is only a question of time _until a majority coalition exists for further action, even if ' property taxes increase. During this period of time,' then .` it will be critical to` establish courses of actions and priorities that not only satisfy current needs but anticipate future wants. While this may be challenging, it also provides an opportunity for innovation and creativity. Based upon the past, the citizenry clearly feels that the City is well-equipped`to meet the future. 411 _ _ _ , _ . 9 • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT PARKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MUSIC ROOM MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990 Members Present: Mayor Tralle, Councilmembers Schuldt, Kropuenske, Holmgren and Dobel Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lori Johnson, Finance Director; Dick Fursman, Economic Development Coordinator; Phil Hals, Street/Park Superintendent; Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Russ Anderson, Fire Chief; Sandy Thackeray, City Clerk; Tim Keane, City Attorney 1. Call Meeting to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Tralle. 2. Consider 2/5/90 City Council Agenda Item 4.1, Consideration of Amendment to Developers Agreement for • Deerfield III, Outlot A, was added to the agenda. It was the consensus of the City Council to approve the agenda as amended. 3. Presentation on Community Survey by Decision Resources Mayor Tralle introduced William Morris and Diane Traxler from Decision Resources. Mr. Morris indicated that he would be presenting the summary of the survey taken in Elk River by highlighting some of the major findings. Mr. Morris indicated that people emphasized that they liked the ex-urban nature of Elk River, or the fact that Elk' River was not actually part of the metropolitan area and, in fact, carried a more small time atmosphere. Mr. Morris indicated that when people were asked what they liked least about the City the two major answers were the growth of Elk River and the poor shopping facilities in Elk River. Mr. Morris indicated that one area that was looked at in detail by the survey was park and recreational facilities. He indicated that citizen's satisfaction with the existing facilities was somewhat lower than that of other areas. Mr. Morris indicated that 24% of the residents are not satisfied with the park and recreational facilities in Elk River and that this indicates that park and recreational facilities will be a critical issue for the community over the next few years. He indicated that as a result of this, it may be necessary to take a look into the future and plan what types of facilities the City may want or need in the next decade. • 1 City Council Minutes I 1 Page 2 February 5, 1990 • Mr. Morris indicated that the most popular recreational activities that the people are doing in Elk River are hiking and walking, and that the second highest rating was bicycling. Mr. Morris stated that these types of activities are definitely pointing toward trail type of facilities. Mr. Morris reviewed the City Services portion of the Survey. He indicated that some of the issues which were of concern to citizens were street lights and loose dogs. He further indicated that lack of communication between the City and the residents was also an issue. He suggested that a newsletter is an excellent way to communicate with the residents. Mayor Tralle questioned whether the newsletter could be sent in conjunction with the Elk River Star News. He stated that the Elk River Star News reaches residents other than just Elk River residents and felt that it may be beneficial for the City newsletter to also reach other residents surrounding the City of Elk River. Mr. Morris indicated that a portion of the Survey was in regard to a Community Center being built in Elk River. He indicated that the residents were asked what type of activities they would like to see in a Community Center. He stated that the four major answers revolved around a community room, group room, teen center, and senior center. The City Council discussed uses for the Community Center. Councilmember Holmgren questioned whether a teen center and a senior center located in the same building would be compatible. Mr. Morris indicated that if this were the case, the design of the building would be centered around this aspect in order to accommodate both the teens and the seniors. The Council discussed the need for a teen center. The type of teen center was discussed by the Council. Ms. Traxler indicated that if the City should decide on using the Community Center as an area for teens, serious consideration should be given to allowing the teens to decide what type of activities could take place in the teen center. She indicated it would be necessary to get the teens involved in the planning stage of the teen center. Mr. Morris indicated that the majority of the residents favored the idea of attaching the Community Center to the City Hall. The last portion of the Survey that Mr. Morris discussed was in relation to garbage and recycling. He indicated that according to the survey, many of the Elk River residents were already recycling and further that if the City initiated recycling, 93% of the residents indicated that they would become involved and participate in the recycling. In summary, Mr. Morris indicated that people within Elk River are fairly confident and happy with the community. He indicated that there is a major need for more meeting space within the community and also a major need for more communications between the residents and the City of Elk River. The Council thanked Ms. Traxler and Mr. Morris for this summary. 4.1 Deerfield III Agreement