Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
7.-15.1. PRSR 06-11-1997
MEMORANDUM �y of TO: Park and Recreation Commission EIK River FROM: Phil Hals, Street/Park Superintendent DATE: June 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Agenda Memo 7. Discussion of Hillside 5th Park Enclosed please find the information provided by the area residents. I am unsure if the proposed tot lot and basketball court will fit on the site as they suggest. I hope to have time to do some field measuring before the meeting to verify. Be prepared for a lively discussion as I anticipate seeing the whole neighborhood in attendance. • 8. Discussion of Skateboard Issues Attached is an information page from Michelle at Community Recreation. She will also be on hand for an open discussion at the meeting. 10. Discussion of ALC This discussion will be a recap of the information shared with the Planning Commission. I would suggest that the Commission forward a recommendation regarding this issue with the City Council, since they will be discussing it with the school board in the future. 11. Review Park Information Handout Throughout the year we have numerous requests for park information at the Chamber of Commerce and at City Hall. Please look over the enclosed copy and come prepared with any comments or corrections you may have to offer. • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 •Elk River, MN 55330 •TDD &Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 • 12. Discussion on Decision Resources Executive Summary Please review the enclosed document and have any comments or questions available so that they may be forwarded on to Decision Resources before their formal presentation on 6/16/97. 13. Discussion of Park Bond Issues I will have the remaining equipment cost estimates available as handouts for the June 11th meeting. 14. Set Meeting Date for Master Park Plan Approval with City Council The Park and Recreation Commission will need to formally call a meeting for 7/21/97 to review the Master Park Plan with the City Council before the plan is finally adopted. 15.1. Queen Street Park The city owns an outlot on Riverview Drive and Queen Street that • provides neighborhood access to the Mississippi River. Please consider what types of park uses might be applied for this area. s:council/park&rec/agmm • 1� • CHARLES GILLIAM 11018 196TH AVENUE NW ELK RIVER,MN 55330 May 30, 1997 Phil Hals Street/Park Superintendent City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River,MN 55330 Dear Phil: Thanks for the helpful information that you gave me on the phone Wednesday. I have met with the other home owners in the area and we have come up with a scenario for the development of the park area that we feel puts us all in a win-win situation. We will all be attending the June 11 Park Commission Meeting at 7:00 • p.m. at Elk River City Hall. I have enclosed several copies our proposal; could you please pass this information along to the appropriate people so that we can discuss them at the meeting? Also, if possible,we would appreciate it if we could be part of the agenda rather than relying on the `open mic' scenario you described. We really hope that we can come up with a park plan that we all can live with (and near) and thereby avoid any hard feelings that could ensue. Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further help to you. Sincerely, Chuck Gilliam,et • 241-8040 ., e.d.1 (ngrp'4so‘ gAvate.),,,_) • PROPOSAL Property owners of Hillside Estates 5th Edition are committed to working to find a plan that realizes the most appropriate use of the park area on the south side of the addition near 196th Avenue NW and its surrounding wetlands. We feel we bring to the board a good perspective on the potential uses of this park and would like to present the following: The section of park behind the cul-de-sac on 196th Avenue NW has a small,upward sloping, irregular shape that would make it difficult to accommodate any organized recreational sports (such as baseball). Residents of the area are concerned that the wonderful ecosystem that is present could be damaged if this part of the park is developed into an urban playground area. Maintaining the natural beauty of this area in such a way that the park could be enjoyed as an outdoor laboratory where people of all ages could walk trails and observe the dozens of varieties of animal and bird species along with the incredible diversity of plant life would be an appropriate use of this part of the park. Nature trails could have plants and trees identified and tagged to provide an educational setting at a low cost. Area school students could use the area to directly learn about conservation and biology. A list of the many different species of animals, amphibians and birds that have been seen in the area this spring is attached. Leaving this area an open green space with bike and hiking trails would allow residents to have a naturally beautiful park to congregate on in an area where trees and open expanses of • grass are quickly disappearing. This open green space would also allow area residents to have a space where they could play informal games of football, soccer, or Frisbee. This type of activity is compatible with the surrounding environment and would have the smallest impact on the two surrounding wetland areas. As of May 23rd Lot#3 on the plat map of Hillside Estates 5th addition had not been sold. The flat area behind this lot is away from most of the nature preserve and is in an open area that has already been bulldozed and the trees and brush cleared away. This area would be appropriate for playground and recreational equipment because it is in an area where the plant and animal ecosystem would be far less impacted by recreational activity. If the decision to develop this part of the park could be made now, potential buyers of Lot#3 would know what they are getting and would be able to make an informed decision whether or not they would like to live there. This dual use of the park area would utilize both its natural beauty and at the same time give area residents a recreational outlet by keeping the one end of the park natural while finishing the end that has been cleared for development already. As rapidly as public wild areas are being eaten up by urban renewal,it is our responsibility to use the utmost care when planning the use of these areas. We feel this is a plan that has a balanced perspective and is a win-win scenario for all parties concerned. • Thank you for your consideration. „ , / Y..� et it li e Q / 5. I '..1.4, "r A L / / v y i, (_ f `l 7�i �/ c Q Q 1 - 1 :.7 7 * al / 4 ` , oy J .S 1,4:. •o� .fI,1G t r', I- • ( / i w< / ...15 Q 0 \ t: oP \47.L,.____ __.,___::\ziir._ .1j..4 / c IcL91 ,n a• s. \ ...A. ,.._.....4_ et . i sc 6 4,i, 1 1 4,-10411.. Y Q � o � s 3 � � b cz1 .a1; 1 ` ,, s cp 41J S of .4 ty OL . `.„9 - L X24, L 0*. ox 0 . ; I&iii --ves ----;Y✓ ^ —� -_ J `4• v:a y 6-- e 4. ittue.„....„, __o ___ ,06..____ . ....._ e 4 . .c in e- ,......,.. �..r� 4 �z •► — -- • t. , re 4 r, rj lrItlei(—cl --. q. ,Ade • /: 7 i1%1; __ . = 7 , r 1.i► k.N)• i yr 4 \-'te t- rei - frapilLVIL,At_X.... ”"Wilrj,-, - iier 1.// -e . •LT ;I , it 41.117' W -- •<•■•e- - — II Z I 4 .1 .1 I Z • s 4 ,„ If I. 41 . - - *ii .7.: is 16' : L . _.., . • illitiannIEMEEK. • _WOO" OQ1� 10 vi 1 r, • • The following is a list of wildlife observed east of the pond in early spring, 1997,Hillside Estates 5th Addition. Many of these species were also observed raising young in this area. Birds Indigo Buntings White-throated sparrows Cardinals Bluejays Rose-breasted Grosbeaks Gold Finches Catbirds Cowbirds Yellow Warblers Morning Warblers Wood Ducks Canada Geese Mallard Ducks Hairy Woodpeckers Downy Woodpeckers Pileated Woodpeckers Coopers Hawk • Common Crows House Finches Bluebirds Black-capped Chickadees Ring-necked Pheasants Mammals Deer Hoary Marmots Mink Grey Squirrels Red Squirrels Raccoon Amphibians Tree Frogs Leopard Frogs Painted Turtles Garter Snakes • 0,. iii *- 4 i 5. •: r C.A1C II 7 c . i , , '5 : air ,. : '77 \ , .40ft 4 ::LOcATION ! 1 Ab:AIN Iv, - , ._Ira ill talt NOIRE 4 —'--litm 7 ma raw:. 11111.1rtili g‘3 *LW F aor PI*\,,gegili■ r:r V 'Art VOSS, il — I4...,,w ,..-_,.- r:. i . , .....111- CY d 4 ,.iiv slue n _ iZ T`f1� ' -w���'.' .1:' .:,- - - ----4094,1111161Als ' 1111 . ��® / • th . � r _''moo � ,irr- �,_,:���Z��:�. �_ . �� i ; :. �,. �� +�►mod to a* 0'1 we' "ft : : , mi ,., v..-, dotal_ mr: AIM* *Of • ,H r iklopigto wo,,DE L . ,a° ao o �g ���� �, ' co � '�Q� 4wrjitims�� , ■Ia mom owmix. .int igai - .0 41. 44. 1 !1t rw , � _�iiiiiiiiiialb nit me WIN SSW .414 ..E17 .. . ,r li •` ELF , i �'0tr3.;m- Wit= mss. `„I!!*111 /t. .IIIN s vi iiir ka • i \.\::::, Wormy . FAR :c, ` is �� ft! �E Krum, i. :� LOCATION N ` • City of , � T Elk , River MAP 13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: ITEM r1 Elk River,MN 55330 1 vrryy 1 i i . i i i (4* I i . i i .... r_____.nil i i i i .:•, .i --1-, I i i i i i • , 3 i i ~ �C t. •r IJk_____,--. i i MI I lr r0 11 1 - Is • j 4,,,, IIP 1=---=-1!: i , /�oi�► -.fir ' ; - D Ei �w�` _ �' i � �" 1..... 1 LEGEND 1 , 1 Non-City Owned City Owned ® ® 1 1. Orono Park/Ball Field Complex A. Babcock State Wayside Rest ;" 1 ' , 2. Lion's park B. School Campus i t 3. Woodland Trails Park C. Elk River Country Club i 4. Ridgewood East Park D. Pinewood Golf Course '� 1 55. Oak Knoll Athletic Complex E. County Fair Grounds i 6. Moldenhauer park F. Kelly Farm . , 1 7. Jackson&Main St.Park r k i 8. Baldwin Park ( z_ 9. Railr9oad Trail '- ; sF 10. Deerfield 4th Park City of 1 - 11. Barrington Park ``L Elk River ,- 0� 1/4 1/2 1 MILE MAP B-1.3 . EXISTING PARK SITES 12 CE ID :2413521 JUN 05 '97 9 :03 No .005 P .02 w4 14p • FundRaising Event EST. 1997 Concert at Lion's Park Date: Open at this time Time: 1-10pm Music (bands playing in the bandshell): 4-10pm Various activities throughout the day to include some or all of the following: skateboarding • concessions volleyball, etc. water slide bonfire Fund Raising Efforts: concession sales t-shirt sales The Elk River Skateboarders, Inc. have been contacted by Jackie from the Chamber of Commerce to be involved in their 4th of July event. We are working toward having this fund raising event as a part of the 4th of July celebration at Orono Park. This would alter some of the activities planned but would allow great marketing and the crowd would be there for other activities as well. The plan outlined above is an alternate to being involved with the 4th of July event. We have discussed this event with the Chief of Police. His concerns are 1 . Security and 2. "After dark" activities. We would need to schedule officers if we have this event and either the organization would need to absorb this cost or the City Council could approve covering the expense since this is not currently in the budget. We feel the "after dark" activities would not be as big of an issue at Lion's Park since there is additional lighting available near the hockey area and it doesn't get completely dark until after 9:30pm. 30N3AV NOSA3V1 01 '.BAH 01 —. US t40' 10 .11— H1elON c ce I o • t PARKING Z W J t• O iiJ W J J `" �P LANSING ° < _ . .z . �QP QQ• m o d V f.••.•_ . • W CO W 0�T QQt Ce Qi • N • en rYH o L.L.1 OJ �0 •• < ‹L y N W +. p a • I u a; r t.cD a O F- r < �- a O yJj J a V) a C7 jQ Z Og H ° m W Z o < Y a. O O J W O ~ ►%< �Jy a W = '.t WON • S O: Z < = 0 �Q c r Z Y = 5 0 • Ix Q u '^ �' Y W D. m W ▪ �Nsi%41▪ : •"t i a < a _ g s .. O W J y u ED O J W -- -- — �— : ar+ta b aJ O w a 9NIlY11S 3J[ h J W u • W _ 0 y44,CI o, Y J H ANIS A3100H / • a • C fa CV 1.-7 .‘-- CO II as a) Lo cn 7-6 O O a ) C — O C >+ p R NO >• >. a 0 en ct E 2 E 03 03 Lo- CL o Ce Q O _E N i Q .O .O m N oa d 0 Q. Q O O O E a. , m C ea a3 'O t6 O >. a v! O O 'E c6 Z OL SZ•p Z L t p _0 N �' = R CO m `p O 3 3 , 03 o 0 O M 3 J -- Y J w C13 03 rn o O d O O m 0 N "0 L N a) m 0 Ca L y CO L U U ` �. CO CC C( . CU U U f6 "0 ea m a, C6 +J .— Ca M "Q ._ C CCS f6 fQ L 'O (L p CV CT a) "� 0 Ca lL (Q CV R. C C Q C D •.0'-. •2L CU 0 CD - 0 O` 00 C�CCf O` E C N (Ci d ca O 0 y`Nr a) CO o ' C O o • 3 L ,- L 3 N O L O Cl) O - C C 7 0 N O Ca a) F- CO CV CO d CO LL CO F- CO CO LL co 0 a) < 7 LL F- CO co 00 �1 ON LA .P. W h ∎.. l • ° —I7a> JDC) 07 8 acl DSDX 00 • p 0 O m o-73 y N y. N " N v CD O CII .a - T N O N C1 y .< N CD -q nQ' y N O N• O ' O 2. C. W CA n < y CO c 69 a, CD C° 7`G 0� (D co N m C ° 0 0@ S) CC] �Qp N N N _ C tC1 O _ d O. �p Z z CD g 8 ,a O -w (D 3 N O A a N su " 11111Milj a ! Q C ° ma m tiff`G v S O N r 8?IC co o CD 0/ cl gI = '"\ 1�0 0, g t; D CS O C/J —I 77 77 Fp XT m O N N = O S -, 7 K a. m 1O• O y Q ?� CO 7 N S ° O W ?. CS ID m N 7 0 CC iV m CD co C CD 4'` N Vi j CD 41, W TJ 0 0 U9 -Oft0 rn 0 /1T 0 -L1 - ,! . ♦:•1.! G o �� O D II: .: z in `„ r ' O m ■ � m w 0 • 1 �fD' • j 1 1 1 ( H !46 / 1 j I i i 1 1 1 j I i I . 1 1 j ,; 1 1 i P. 1 j 1 i 1 i g 3 F i • PI + t j ii ► 11011 L j _ I ...-Vk .... UP a 14 1101 i ' „4. y 4n ♦ 11 j / q:.:7 •• 1 _-D E` X .�;,J=-- 1 LEGEND ® 1 Non-City Owned 1 1 City Owned ® 1 1 1. Orono Park/Ball Field Complex A. Babcock State Wayside Rest 2. Lion's park B. School Campus t 3. Woodland Trails Park C. Elk River Country Club Y j 4. Ridgewood East Park D. Pinewood Golf Course r '��'� j 5. Oak Knoll Athletic Complex E. County Fair Grounds t'y j 6. Moldenhauer Park F. Kelly Farm 1 ;: 1 7. Jackson&Main St.Park r _ \ 11 8. Baldwin Park ( ?, 9. Railr9oad Trail n :: 10. Deerfield 4th Park City of IIP 11. Barrington Park Elks r ..-L 1 ����1 0 1/4 1/2 1 MILE MAP B-1.3 . EXISTING PARK SITES 12 -I at mmvow > _ o cocovrncoAw Map Key o- Q 0 co , " ca 03 v F.)-1 � c�i, creage n• -a rr T. (-) -pmfnooz wo w KOJ * CO cD N O j ; C Q Q o) fD o g n 0 o7 f 0 0 ,G ; %) o o 7 ' <p O N m m ° d▪ d 2. d = 5 0 0 3 8 s d D 0 c v * E m 7- y OO M o `� N <D of 7 o-. .y. yr 7 M 0 � 0a N - ; too v -0 ice a F n `G O of o) (D a 3 y - n "' d o f ic- a -u m w 3 0 X et CD X 3 C/) XXXXXX X XX XXXXX -arking X X X X X XXX 'estrooms w -icnic Shelters X X X XXX icnic Tables r andshell X X X 'avilion X X X x X X X x layground Equipment X x X x x Maintenance Building v -u v r `ond/Lake/River • x X XXX x Wooded X X Wetland x x ;oat Launch x ishing Pier X x x ishing X wimming Beach X X XXX Trails-Hiking/cc skiing X X X kating/Hockey o+ x ootball co w occer cn oftball N N Baseball X X X N :asketball X N w Volleyball co Tennis orseshoes X X istorically Significant X X X Sliding Hill 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-corners. 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. 71% 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 eighty-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 respondents opinions of sampled about the inclusion of various P P P 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 IP 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 Pe,c,, 19 8 9 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court ELK RIVER CITY SURVEY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Parks and Recreation/ . City Issues Study • Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Elk River to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential ; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . ... 8% you lived in Elk River? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 26% SIX TO TEN YEARS 16% . 11 - 20 YEARS 27% 21 - 30 YEARS 11% OVER THIRTY YEARS 12: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS3% the future do you expect to live 2 - 5 YEARS 6% in Elk River? 6 - 10 YEARS 9% OVER TEN YEARS 15% a REST OF LIFE (VOL. ) 58% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10% 3 . How-would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 37% life in Elk River -- excellent, GOOD 57% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR. 4% POOR 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 4 . What do you like most about living in Elk River? DON'T KNOW, 5%; SMALL TOWN, 26%; LOCATION, 24% ; SCHOOLS, 3%; PEOPLE, 14%; RURAL/OPEN, 16%; QUIET/PEACEFUL, 6%; NEIGHBOR- HOOD, 3%; EVERYTHING, 4%. 5. What do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW, 11%; NOTHING, 18%; TAXES, 5%; GROWTH, 18%; LOCATION, 61; POOR SHOPPING, 15%; SCHOOLS, 2%; TOO SMALL, 5%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 3%; POOR ROADS, 4%; HIGHWAY 101, 3%; CITY SERVICES, 4% ; POLLUTION, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%. I would like to read to you a list of recreational activities. For each one, tell me how often you engage in that activity. . Do• • you or any members of this household engage in the activity four times a week or more often, once a week, once or twice a month, 0 several times each year or not at all. For seasonal activities, please tell me how often you or household members participate 148 • during the season. Remember, we are interested in the number of tines you or other household members participate, not attend as an observer. • • 4+ TIMES ONCE 1-2 SEVERAL NOT WEEKLY WEEK MONTH YEAR • AT ALL 6. Softball games? 5% 10% 3% 1.0% 72% 7 . Basketball? 6% 6% ' 6% 9% 74% 8 . Bicycling? 23% 18% 12% 9% 37% 9 . Racquetball? 1% 3% 2% 5% 88% 10 . Hockey? 3% 7% 3% 7% 80% 11. Golfing? 7% 14% 9% 14% 56% 12. Hunting? 4% 7% 10% 24$ 56% 13 . Volleyball? 2% 6% 5% 10% .78% 14 . Jogging? 7% 9% 5% 5% 75% 15. T-Ball games? 1% 4% 1% 2% 92% 16. Baseball games? 6% 5% 5% 5% 80% 17 . Cross-Country Skiing? 2% 6% 6% 12% _ 75% 18 . Snowmobiling? 2% 9% 8% - 12% -- 69% 19. Swimming? 10% 19% 15% 15% 40% 20. Nature Walks? 11% 16% 19% 13% 41% 21. Tennis? 4% 8% 9% 10% 70% 22 , Hiking or walking? 25% 20% 16% 10% 29% •z 23 . Soccer? 5% 8% 2% 8% 77% 24 . Fishing? 10% 18% 15% 18% 39% 25 . Exercising in a gym or health spa? 3% 8% 9% 5% 75% 26. Canoeing? 1% 2% 8% 15% 74% 27 . Waterskiing? 2% 5% 8% 15% 70% 28 . Indoor ice skating? . 1% 3% 6% 10% 80% 29 . Outdoor ice skating? 3% 9% 11% 16% 61% 30. Overall, would you rate the park EXCELLENT 9% and recreational facilities in GOOD 61% Elk River as excellent, good, ONLY FAIR 19% fair, or poor? POOR 5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% I would like to read to you a short list of the parks located in Elk river. For each one, please tell me if you or members of . this household have visited that park during the past year. YES NO D.K. 31. Orono Park 86% 12% 2% 32 . Lions Park • 66% 32% - 2% illik 33 . Woodland Trails Park 10% 82% 8% III 34 . Handke outdoor Ice Arena 41% 56% 4% 35. Outdoor facilities located at the schools, such as football, • baseball, and soccer fields, and 149 . ' YES NO D.K. tennis courts 51% 45% 0% • 36. Softball complex 34% 61% 5% IF THE RESPONDENT REPORTS VISITING AT LEAST ONE PARK, ASK: As you know, there are several types of recreational facilities in the city's parks . I would like to read to you a brief list of those facilities. For each one, please tell me if you or members of your household have used that facility during the past few • months. For those you have used, could you tell me whether the use was frequent or only occasional. For seasonal activities, just consider usage during the appropriate time of the year. NOT FREQ OCCN D.K. 37. Picnic Pavilions 27% 13% 48% 2% 38 . Soccer Fields 67% 11% 10% It 39. Baseball Fields 60% 10% 19% 1% 40. Tennis Courts 64% 7% _18% 1% 41 . Swimming, Beach 29% 25% • 35% 1% 42. Softball Fields 54% 16% 19% 1% 43 . Play equipment 46% 18% 24% 2% 44 . Horseshoe pits 74% 4% 11% 1% 45. Fishing pier 64% 8% 17% 1% 46. Sliding hills 58% • 11% 19% 2% 47. Just walking around 16% 42% 31% 1% 48. Outdoor skating rinks 53% 10% 25% 2% 49 . How would you rate the upkeep and EXCELLENT 26% maintenance of the 'park facilities GOOD 62% in Elk River -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR 7% only fair, or poor? POOR 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% 50 . Are there any facilities not currently in Elk River parks that you or members of your family would use, if they were there? What are they? DON'T KNOW, 21%; NONE, 50%; TRAILS, 7%; BALLFIELDS, 2%; OUT- DOOR POOL, 3%; ICE ARENA, 1%; ROLLERSKATING RINK, 2%; TOILETS, 2%; PLAY EQUIPMENT, 3%; SPA/HEALTH CLUB, 3%; TENNIS COURTS, 1%; SCATTERED, 6%. • Would you favor or oppose a trail FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 38% system linking the neighborhoods FAVOR/OPPOSE 22% throughout the city? (IF FAVOR/DON'T KNOW 16% "FAVOR" ASK: ) Would you still. . OPPOSE 18% favor it if it required a tax DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% ) 110 increase to develop the system? • 150 - 52 . If a trail system were built, PEDESTRIANS 12% • should it primarily serve pedes- BICYCLISTS 2% trians, primarily serve bicy- BOTH 76% clists, or serve both? DON'T FAVOR 8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2t 53 . Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR 70$ conversion of the abandoned OPPOSE 15% railroad corridor, recently DON'T KNOW/REFUSED15% purchased by the city, into a component of a trail system? If the trail were to run by YES 50% your property, would you be NO 29% willing to grant the city of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED '21% Elk river an easement to that part of your land? • Park systems usually contain three major components: smaller neighborhood parks, larger community playfields, and trails. Which of these three components SMALLER NEIGH PARK. . . . 28t do you feel should be the top LARGER COMM PLAYFIELD20% priority for development in Elk TRAILS 32$ River during the next few years? OTHER (VOL) 1$ ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 12% 411 ' NONE OF THE ABOVE 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% 56. Have any members of this house- YES 32% hold participated in any youth NO 66% recreational programs during the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% past year? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #56, ASK: 57. Which ones? • SOFTBALL, 3%; PRE -SCHOOL, 1% ; SOCCER, 6%; THREE OR MORE, 7%; BASEBALL, 2% ; HOCKEY, 2% ; SWIMMING, 2%; BASKETBALL, 3%; T--BALL, 2%; GYMNASTICS, 2% ; SCATTERED, 4$. 58 . Were you satisfied or dis- SATISFIED 29% satisfied with the pro- DISSATISFIED 2% gram(s) ? BOTH (VOL) 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0$ 59. In general, do you feel that the YES 61% youth recreational programs of- NO 7% fered meet the needs of your NO CHILDREN. . . . . . ... . . . 21% household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 10% • IF "NO" IN QUESTION #59, ASK: 151 60. What additional youth recreation opportunities would • you like to see offered? V ° -* „ lCZ-T SPORTS, 1%; SCATTERED, 2%; DON'T KNOW, 4%. 61. Have any members of this house- YES 20% hold participated in any adult NO 78% recreational programs during the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% past year? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #61, ASK: 62. Which ones? SOFTBALL, 5%; VOLLEYBALL, 2%; COMMUNITY EDUCATION, 1%; • SOCCER, 1%; THREE OR MORE, 1%; SWIMMING, 1% ; TENNIS, 1%; EXERCISE, 2%; BOWLING, 1%; SCATTERED, 4%. • 63 . Were you satisfied or dis- SATISFIED 18% satisfied with the pro- DISSATISFIED 1% gram(s) ? BOTH (VOL) _ 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 64 . In general, do you feel that the YES 76% adult recreational programs of- NO 6% fered meet the needs of your DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 19% household? IF "NO" IN QUESTION #64 , ASK: 65. What additional adult recreation opportunities would you like to see offered? TENNIS, 1% ; VAR3-i 'Y SPORTS, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%; DON'T KNOW, 2%. Vgr"."S 66. During the past year, have you or YES 11% any members of this household NO 87% participated in any recreational DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% programs offered by counties or other cities outside of Elk River? IF "YES", ASK: 67 . Which ones and offered by whom? ANOKA COUNTY SPORTS, 2%; BLAINE SOCCER, 1% ; NEW HOPE YMCA EXERCISE CLASSES, 1%; VOLLEYBALL, 1% ; SOFTBALL, 1% ; MAPLE GROVE NATURE WALKS, 1%; HOCKEY, 1%; SCATTERED, 3%. 68 . If it/they were offered in YES 8% Elk River, would you be like- NO 2% ly to undertake it here? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% 152 69 . Have you or any members of this YES 61 % household visited Hennepin NO 38% County, Wright County, or Anoka DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% • County regional parks during the past year? 70. Do you feel that Sherburne County YES 51% should develop a county regional NO • 32% park system, or do neighboring DON'T KNOW/REFUSED17% counties provide adequate facilities for county residents? 71 . Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 44% development of a downtown FAVOR/OPPOSE 16% river walk for recreational FAVOR/DON'T KNOW 13% use? (IF "FAVOR" , ASK: ) Would OPPOSE 21% you still favor it if a tax DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5% increase were required to fund construction? I would like to read you a list of facilities which could be added to the park system. For each one, please tell me how likely it would be that you• or members of your household would use it -- very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely. If you don't know, just say so. VERY SMWT NOT TOO NOT D. K. 0111 72 . Sand volleyball courts? 10% 26% 22% 40% 2% 73 . Play equipment? 19% 25% 15% 39% 1% 74 . Horseshoe pits? 5% 21% 23% 51% 1% 75 . Basketball courts? 10% 22% 19% 48% 1% 76. Archery ranges? 8% 15% 20% 55% 2% 77 . Cross country ski course? 17% 27% 14k 40% 1% 78 . Outdoor swimming pool? ' 31% 34% 8% 26% 2% 79 . Nature area with an ed- ucational interpretive center? 29% 37% 15% 18% 1% 80. Nature trail with explana- tory sign posts? 33% 41% 11% 14% 1% 81 . Are there any other recreational facilities you feel should be a high priority for development? (IF "YES" , ASK: ) What are they? DON'T KNOW, 14%; NONE, 63%; TEEN CENTER, 2% ; BIKE TRAILS, .4% ; CHILDREN, 2%; NATURE TRAILS, 2% ; EXERCISE/HEALTH CLUB, 2% ; SWIMMING POOL, 2%; TENNIS COURTS, 1%; CLEAN UP ORONO BEACH, 1%; NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, 1%; ICE RINK, 1% ; SCATTERED, 4%. As you may know, the city and School District cooperate to provide several recreational programs. In the future, as the III city grows, two options are available: the City could enter into a joint agreement with the School District or could offer . 153 II, programs on its own. 82 . Which option would you most pre- JOINT AGREEMENT 61% • fer: a joint agreement with the ' ON ITS OWN 30k School District OR offering pro- NEITHER (VOL) 3% grams on its own? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% • 83 . Do you agree or disagree with the STRONGLY AGREE 29% following statement: "A good AGREE 45% Elk River park and recreation DISAGREE 12% system will increase the value of STRONGLY DISAGREE 3% my property. " (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 11% • and do you feel strongly that way? Changing topics. . . . 84 . Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR 54% crease in city property taxes if OPPOSE 36% it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10t services at their current levels? 85. How would you rate property taxes EXCESSIVELY NIGH 9% in Elk River in comparison with COMPARATIVELY HIGH. . . . 23% those of other communities: ABOUT AVERAGE 48% excessively high, comparatively COMPARATIVELY LOW 10% high, about average, or compara- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED11% . tively low? - )• As you may know, property taxes are divided between the city of Elk River, Sherburne County, and the local school district. 86. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT 15% you pay, about what percentage do 10% TO 20s" 31% you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30% 11% ment? (READ CATEGORIES, IF 31% TO 40% 5% NEEDED) 41% TO 50% 4% 51% TO 60% 0% OVER SIXTY PERCENT 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 34: 87 . During the past few years, has INCREASED 58% the CITY'S tax rate increased, DECREASED 2% decreased, or remained about the REMAINED ABOUT SAME. . . 24% same? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 16% 88 . What is your principal source of information about City government and its activities? • NONE, 1%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 59%; "ELK RIVER STAR, " 27$; OTHER PEOPLE, 10$; TELEVISION, 2%. .89. Does your household currently YES 24% receive cable television? NO 76% • DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 154 • IF "YES" IN QUESTION p89, ASK: . • • 90. If City Council Meetings were VERY FREQUENTLY televised on cable television, how OCCASIONALLY 5% frequently would you watch these NEVER 14% broadcasts -- very frequently, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% occasionally, or never? 91. Do you feel that the city is too TOO TOUGH 3% tough, about right, or not tough ABOUT RIGHT 59% enough in enforcing the City Code NOT TOUGH ENOUGH 30% on such nuisances as animal con- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% trol, unsightly yards, junk cars, and noise? IF "TOO TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #91, ASK: 92 . Why do you feel that way? . LOOSE ANIMALS, 15%; THREE OR MORE PROBLEMS, 4%; JUNK CARS, 3%; MESSY YARDS, 6%; EXCESSIVE NOISE, 1%; SCATTERED, 3%. _ 93 . Other than voting, do you feel YES 61% that if you wanted to, you could NO 32% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% of Elk River runs things? IIII would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, Please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.K. 94 . Street maintenance? 8% 59% 25$ 9% • 0% 95 . Snow plowing? 10% 59% 23% 7% 1% 96. Street lighting? 7% 50% 27% 12% 4% 97 . Police Protection? 19% 63% 10% 2% 5% 98 . Fire Protection? 19% 62. 8% 0% 11% 99. Sewers and water? 8% 46% 13% 3% 31% 100. City library? 20% 54% 13% 2% 11% 101 . Do you feel that the current five FIVE MEMBER 42% member City Council satisfac- SEVEN MEMBER 38% torily represents you, or would INDIFFERENT (VOL) 12% a seven member Council better DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% • serve you? . . 155 • 102 . How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT 11% you had with the Elk River City SOME 35% staff -- quite a lot, some, or VERY LITTLE 54% very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 103 . From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT 8% how would you rate the job per- GOOD 51% formance of the City Staff -- ONLY FAIR 27% excellent, good, only fair, or POOR 5% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% 104 . How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL 6% about the work of the mayor and FAIR AMOUNT 47% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE 46% fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 105 . From what you know, do you ap- STRONGLY APPROVE 10% prove or disapprove of the job SOMEWHAT APPROVE 66% the mayor and City Council are SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE10% doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. . . . 5% And do you feel strongly that DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10% way? The city could undertake an expansion and development of its park system. Land would be acquired and park facilities would be constructed across the community. It is estimated that about two million dollars would be required to complete this first phase of _411. parks development. A bond referendum would be required to fund this project. To cover these costs, the average $80, 000 home in Elk River would have a property tax increase of about $40. 00 per year for fifteen years. 106. Would you support or oppose this STRONGLY SUPPORT 14% bond referendum for parks expan- SUPPORT 35% sion and development? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE 15% RESPONSE) And do you feel strong- STRONGLY OPPOSE . 14% ly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED22% IF POSITION IS GIVEN IN QUESTION I106, ASK: • 107 . Why do you feel that way? DON'T KNOW, 9%; GOOD FOR CITY, 15%; COST/TAXES, 14% ; LOW PRIORITY, 2%; DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, 3% ; NOT NEEDED, 11%; GOOD FOR CHILDREN, 5%; NEEDED, 17%; SCATTERED, 2%. • 108 . Would you favor or oppose a city FAVOR/YES 36% program to acquire land along the FAVOR/NO 11% Mississippi River for development FAVOR/UNSURE 18% as parks? (IF "YES" , ASK: ) Would OPPOSE 27% you still favor it if a property DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% • tax increase were required to fund the program? 156 • 109 . How serious do you feel the prob- VERY SERIOUS 14% lem of geese in Lion's Park is SOMEWHAT SERIOUS 17% • -- very serious, somewhat seri- MINOR PROBLEM 21% ous, a minor nuisance, or not a NOT A PROBLEM 34% problem at all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED14% There has also been some discussion about a new Community. Center complex. 110. If a Community Center were constructed, what facilities do you feel is important to include? DON'T KNOW, 38%; NONE, 14%; TEEN CENTER, 11%; SENIOR CENTER, 7%; GYM/SPORTS, 7%; RACQUETBALL COURTS, 3%; ICE RINK, 1%; COMMUNITY ROOM, 7% ; THEATRE, 2%; CLASSROOMS, 2% ; CITY OFFICES, .2%; SWIMMING POOL, 4%; TENNIS COURTS, 1%; SCATTERED, 4%. I would like to read you a list of facilities that could be. included in a community center. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose its inclusion in a community center._ STR SMW SMW STR D. K. FAV FAV OPP OPP REF. 111. An indoor ice skating rink? 10% 37% 30% 20% 3% • III 112 . An indoor swimming pool? 16% 36% 23% 23% 3% 113 . An exercise and fitness room? 23% 43% 14% 14% 5% 114 . A gymnasium? 21% 39% 20% 17% 3% 115. Racquetball courts? 14% 39% 21% 18% 8% 116 . Large community room for banquets, parties, meetings, and other rental purposes? 30% 46% 9% 12% 4% 117 . Group meeting rooms? 26% 48% 12% 11% 3% 118 . A teen center? 44% 37% 7% 9% 4% 119 . A senior citizens center? 39% 38% 11% 9% 4% 120. An indoor running/walking facility? 24% 41% 19% 14% 3% 121. A community theatre 15% 40% 24% 17% 4% 122. A nursery school/day care facility? 17% . 35% 23% 21% 5% 123 . An arts and crafts room for instructional programs and classes? 19% 41% 21% 16% 4% 124 . An aerobics and dance room? 14% 38% 27% 17% 4%. I would like to briefly re-read that list of potential facilities for a community center. (READ LIST BELOW) 125. Please tell me which ONE you most strongly favor for • inclusion? 410 126. Which facility do you consider second in importance? 127. Is there a facility that you would PARTICULARLY oppose including in a center? 157 MOST SEC OPP • An indoor ice skating rink? 5% 5% 8t An indoor swimming pool? 5g 6% 6% An exercise and fitness room? 6% 4% 2% Racquetball courts? 4% 3% 5% Group meeting rooms? 6% 60 2t An arts and crafts room? 2$ 7$ 3t A gymnasium? 5t 5% 3$ A senior citizens drop-in center? 11% 12% 30 An aerobics and dance room? 1% 2% 6$ An indoor running/walking facility? 6% . 4% 4% Large community room? 7% 7g 3% A community theatre? 3% 4% 4% A teen center? 21% 13% 2% A Day care/nursery school facility? 4$ 4% 5% All equally 4% 5% • 9% None 7% 9t 23% • Don't Know/Refused 5% 6% 14% 128 . Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 23% construction of a Community FAVOR 51% Center in Elk River? (WAIT OPPOSE 12% . FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE 6% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% A bond referendum would be required to pay for its construction _ . and partial operating costs, User fees would also underwrite the operation of the community center to some extent. 129. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 23% pay in additional property taxes $25 26% to support the construction and $50 19% partial operation of an Elk River $75 7$ Community Center? (START WITH A $100 5% RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FROM s°1 $125 2% TO ;8) Let's say, would you be $150 1% willing to pay $ per year? $175 1% (MOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 17% DEPENDING ON ANSWER. ) The City currently has saved funds for the construction of a new City Hall. If a community center were built. . . . 130. Would you favor or oppose attach- FAVOR 58% • ing the new City Hall to the OPPOSE 22% Community Center and combining DON'T CARE (VOL) 12% the construction of both facil- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% ities? Based on our previous discussion of the facilities which could be offered in the center, please tall me how many members of this _%• household would probably. . . . 158 131 . Visit the Community Center on a 0, 41% ; 1, 16%; 2 , 23%; frequent, at least weekly, basis? 3 , 101; 4 , 7%; 5, 3$. 132 . Visit the Community Center on a 0, 45%; 1, 26$; 2 , 21% ; occasional, perhaps monthly, basis? 3, 5% ; 4 , 3%; 5, 1%. If a community center were built, the City would have two .choices on charging user fees . First, the City could subsidize the operation of the center through general tax revenue and keep user fees low. Or, second, the City could require the facility to be self-sufficient, requiring much higher user fees. 133 . Which course of action would you SUBSIDIZE 44% favor -- should the City subsi- DON'T SUBSIDIZE 49% dine operating costs through gen- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% eral tax revenues or not? 134 . Would the charge of a moderate YES 14% fee for a daily pass to use NO • 58% facilities, such as an ice arena, DEPENDS ON FEE 25: swimming pool, and arts and DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% crafts rooms, significantly de- crease your use of those facil- ities, or not? The City might also offer household memberships to recreational facility users. Members would have unlimited access to all facilities. • 135 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 22% pay yearly for a family member- $50 22% ship? Let's say, would you be $100 23% willing to pay $ ? (DEPEND- $150 11% ING ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $200 4% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) How $250 1% about $ ? $300 2$ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 16% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees. The family membership at the YMCA costs $620 yearly, while U.S. Swim and Fitness membership costs $328. Cities tend to charge less. Eden Prairie charges its families $150 yearly while Brooklyn Center yearly family membership fees are $228. • 136 . Would you pay $150. 00 for a one YES 44% year household membership to the NO 42% Elk River Community Center? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED14% . . Let's talk about recycling for a moment. . . . 137. Do you currently separate recy- Y 'S 53% clable materials from the rest NO 45% of your garbage? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 111 159 138 . If drop-off points were estab- lished instead, how VERY L�iCELy. , . , . , . , , , . 52$ you be to take your recyclablesd NOTyAT ALLTLIKELY to these sites -- very likely, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED� � ' . 12% • somewhat likely, or not at all 2 likely? 139 . If the City were to pick-up separ- VERY LIKELY ated recyclables, how likely would SOMEWHAT LIKELY 69t you be to participate in that pro- NOT AT ALL LIKELY 25,- gram -- very likely, somewhat DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% likely, or not at all likely? To encourage recycling, a proposal has been made to base garbage hauling charges on the volume of trash a household generates . Households which recycled would pay less than similar households which do not.' 140. Would you favor or oppose this FAVOR approach? OPPOSE 864 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6g Another proposal would be the passage of a mandatory- recycling ordinance. Residents who did not separate recyclables from their trash would be liable for fines. 141. Would you favor or oppose this FAVOR approach? OPPOSE 399t DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 9% . • As you may know, many refuse haulers serve Elk River. This arrangement has permitted citizens to choose their own haulers and contract directly with them. But it has also created significant overlap between the haulers and increased noise and congestion on city streets. If the city were to designate haulers, it is estimated that hauling charges would decline ten to fifteen percent on the average. 142 . Of the following three proposals, PROPOSAL A which do you most favor: 15% A. The . City designates one hauler PROPOSAL C 26% to serve the entire city; 26% B. The City designates a DON'T CARE (VOL) 51; group of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% haulers, each serving one area of Elk River exclusively; C. The present system. Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to .youngest. . . . 143. Persons over 65? 0, 86%; 1, 9%; 2, 5% -la • 160 144 . Adults over 18, including yourself? 0, 10%; 1, 10%; 2, 67%; 3+113% 145. High school aged? 0, 87%; 1, 11% ; 2 , 2% 146. Junior high aged children? 0, 89%; 1, 9% ; 2, 2% 147 . Elementary school children? 0, 685; 1, 17% ; 2 , 14% ; 3 , 1% 148. Pre-schoolers? 0, 77%; 1, 17% ; 2, 4% ; 3 , 2% 149 . Which of the following best des- SINGLE FAMILY DWELL. . . 82% cribes your current residence? DUPLEX 2% (READ OPTIONS n1 - r7) APARTMENT 13% CONDOMINIUM IN OTHER: MULTIPLE HOUSEHOLD BUILDING 1% TOWNHOUSE 2% MOBILE HOME • 2% OTHER 0% REFUSED 0% 150. Do you own or rent your present OWN - 82% residence? RENT 18% REFUSED 0% 151. What is your occupation, please? • PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 17%; OWNER-MANAGER, 16%; CLERICAL- SALES, 13% ; BLUE COLLAR, 24%; RETIRED, 14%; SCATTERED, 14%; REFUSED, 1% . 152 . What is the occupation of your spouse, if applicable? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 13%; OWNER-MANAGER, 15% ; CLERICAL- SALES, 11% ; BLUE COLLAR, 23%; RETIRED, 8t; SCATTERED, 10% ; NOT APPLICABLE, 21%. 153 . In what city do you work? • ELK RIVER, 33% ; MINNEAPOLIS, 6% ; BP-BC-MG, 5% ; P-C-NH, 5% ; ANOKA COUNTY, 9% ; WRIGHT COUNTY, 2% ; SHERBURNE COUNTY, 2% ; RAMSEY COUNTY, 2%; SOUTH HENNEPIN, 4%; NOT APPLICABLE, 24% ; SAINT PAUL, 2% ; SCATTERED, 9%. 154 . How about your spouse? ELK RIVER, 22%; MINNEAPOLIS, 6%; BP-BC-MG, 5%; P-C-NH, 8%; • ANOKA COUNTY, 7%; WRIGHT COUNTY, 2%; SHERBURNE COUNTY, 1%; RAMSEY COUNTY, 2%; SOUTH HENNEPIN, 4%; NOT APPLICABLE, 37% ; SAINT PAUL, 1%; SCATTERED, 7%. • 161 • 155. About how long does it usually LESS THAN FIVE 15% take you to commute to work -- 5 - 15 MINUTES 14% • less than five minutes, five to 15 - 30 MINUTES 22% fifteen minutes, fifteen to 30 - 60 MINUTES 21% thirty minutes, thirty minutes OVER 60 MINUTES 3% to one hour, over one hour? NOT APPLICABLE 25% 156. If it is applicable to you, would YES 24% you be willing to work at a simi- NO 26% lar job in Elk River for ten per- DEPENDS 6% cent less salary to avoid your DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 19% commute to work? NOT APPLICABLE 25% 157. What is your age, please? 18 - 24 6% 25 - 34 29% 35 - 44 29% 45 - 54 15% 55 - 64 8% 65 AND OVER 12% • 158 . What is the last grade of LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. . 8% education you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE35% VO-TECH SCHOOL 10% SOME COLLEGE 21% COLLEGE GRADUATE 21% POST-GRADUATE 6% . 159. Which of the following categories BELOW $12 , 500 3$ includes your 1989 total pre-tax $12, 501-$25, 000 15% household income. Please stop me $25, 001-$37, 500 27% when I read the right one. $37 , 501-$50, 000 18% OVER $50, 000 16% REFUSED 21% 160. Gender of respondent. MALE 48% (DO NOT ASK. ) FEMALE 52% Thanks very much for your time. Good-bye. 161. Zone. ONE 26% TWO 31% THREE 24% FOUR 19% -111 . 162 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P02 MAY 20 'S7 09:47 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. ELK RIVER CITY SURVEY 3128 Dean Court Parks and Recreation/ • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 City Issues 1997 Study FINAL VERSION Hello, I 'm _ of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Elk River to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions . I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be report- ed. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . 10% you lived in Elk River? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 24% SIX TO TEN YEARS 23% 11 - 20 YEARS 17% 21 - 30 YEARS 11% OVER THIRTY YEARS • 14% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 32% life in Elk River -- excellent, GOOD 57% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 10% POOR 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% • 3 . What do you like most about living in Elk River? DON'T KNOW, 6%; LOCATION, 28%; RURAL, 12%; SCHOOLS, 2%; SMALL TOWN, 28%; PEOPLE, 12%; QUIET, 7%; NEIGHBORHOOD, 5%; SCATTERED, 2% . 4 . What do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW, 8%; NOTHING, 13%; GROWTH, 31%; SCHOOLS, 6%; LACK OF SHOPPING, 7% ; TAXES, 8%; LOCATION, 5%; CITY SERVICES, 7%; LACK OF RESTAURANTS, 3%; TRAFFIC, 7°%; CRIME, 2%; NOTHING TO DO, 4%; SCATTERED, 2% . 5 . Overall , would you rate the park EXCELLENT 10% and recreational facilities in GOOD 46% Elk River as excellent, good, ONLY FAIR 29% fair, or poor? POOR 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% I would like to read to you a short list of the parks located in Elk river. For each one, please tell me if you or members of this household have visited that park during the past year. YES NO D.K. • 6 . Orono Park 76% 23% 2% 1 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P03 MAY 20 '97 09:47 YES NO D.K. 0 7 . Lions Park 63% 36% 1% 8 . Woodland Trails Park 22% 75% 3% 9 . Handke Outdoor Ice Rink 36% 62% 2% 10 . Outdoor facilities located at the schools, such as football, baseball, soccer fields, and 44% 2% tennis courts 54% 4g44% 3% 11. Oak Knoll Park? 17% IF THE RESPONDENT REPORTS VISITING AT LEAST ONE PARK, ASK: 12 . How would you rate the upkeep EXCELLENT 15% and maintenance of the park GOOD 1 66% facilities in Elk River -- ONLY FAIR excellent, good, only fair, POOR 2% or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% 13 . Are there any facilities not currently in Elk River parks that you or members of your family would use, if they were there? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? DON' T KNOW, 65%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 6%; BIKE PATHS, 12% ; POOL, 9%; PLAYGROUND, 4%; TENNIS COURTS, 2%; SCATTERED, 2% . 411 14 . Would you favor or oppose a trail FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 53% system linking neighborhoods FAVOR/OPPOSE throughout the city? (IF FAVOR/DON'T KNOW 8% "FAVOR" ASK: ) Would you still OPPOSE 21% favor the trail system if a trail DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10% ran adjacent to your property? Park systems usually contain four major components: smaller neighborhood parks, larger areawide parks, larger community playfields, and trails . 15 . Which of these four components SMALLER NEIGH PARKS33% do you feel should be the top LARGER AREA PARKS 20% priority for development in Elk LARGER COMM PLAYFIEL14% River during the next few years TRAILS 1% -- smaller neighborhood parks, OTHER (VOL) larger areawide parks, larger ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 3% community playfields, and trails? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% % 16 . Have any members of this house- YES/YES 1 144% hold participated in any youth YES/NO recreational programs during the NO/YES 8% past year? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) NO/NO And, have any members of this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% household participated in any • adult recreation programs during the past year? 2 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 PO4 MAY 20 '97 09:48 The City may ask residents to vote on a bond referendum to devel- op and expand Park System facilities. I would like to read you a list of components which could be included in the proposal . For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support a property tax increase for it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for it. If you have no opinion, just say so. . . . (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 17 . A park for skate boarding and in-line skating? 9% 33% 26% 23% 10% 18 . An OUTDOOR swimming pool, con- taining a gradual depth entry, slides, and diving board? 22% 37% 18% 17% 7% 19 . Outdoor ice skating and hockey 130 32% 26% 22% 9% rinks? 20 . Swing sets, playground equipment, and hard surfaced courts for neighborhood parks? 21% 50% 12% 12% 6% 21 . Paving of neighborhood trail links 17% 37% 22% 15% 10% across the community? 22 . Lighting, dug outs, concession stand, and parking lot for the city' s Youth Athletic Complexes? 11% 40% 20% 16% 15% 23 . A mountain bike trail system for Hillside Park? 12% 33% 26% 17% 13% 24 . Permanent restrooms and shelters at the larger community parks? 26% 49% 12% 8% 5% 25 . An Interpretive Center at Wood- land Trails Park? 8% 28% 26% 15% 24% 26 . Rehabilitation of the area at Handke School commonly known as "Handke Pit?" 15% 34% 17% 13% 22% 27 . Development of Riverwalk Trail in the Downtown Area? 24% 35% 17% 15% 10% 28 . Purchase of additional land for parks and trails? 15% 40% 19% 14% 12% Funding for the bond referendum components we have just discussed would require a property tax increase . 29 . Which of these three statements STATEMENT A 18% best describes your feelings? STATEMENT B 63% A. I would vote AGAINST almost STATEMENT C any tax increase for park and NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) . . . .2% recreational facilities develop- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% ment . B . I would vote FOR a tax in- crease under some conditions, but AGAINST it under other conditions . C. I would vote FOR almost any • tax increase for park and recrea- tional facilities development. 3 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P05 MAY 20 '97 09:49 IF "B" IS CHOSEN, ASK: • 30 . Under what conditions would you vote for a tax increase .for park and recreational facilities development? DON'T KNOW, 23% ; JUSTIFIED NEED, 24%; SMALL INCREASE, 14%; MORE TRAILS, 14%; MORE PLAYGROUNDS, 7%; MORE PARKS, 7%; NEED MORE INFO, 10%. Suppose the City of Elk River proposed park and recreational facilities development which you considered to be a reasonable approach. The proposal would be placed on a referendum ballot for approval by the voters. In order to fund construction, residents would be asked to approve a property tax increase for a fifteen year period. 31 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 20% see your property taxes increase $10 . 00 to fund this construction? Let ' s $20 . 00 18% say, would you be willing to see $30 . 00 10% your YEARLY property taxes in- $40 . 00 crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM $50 .00 6% 4% STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $60 . 00 1 44% DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about DON'T KNOW 3% $ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED • Moving on. . . . 32 . Do you agree or disagree with the STRONGLY AGREE 36% following statement : "A good 23% Elk River park and recreation DISAGREE system will increase the value of STRONGLY DISAGREE 10% my property. " (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED13% and do you feel strongly that way? Changing topics . . . . I would like to read you a list of a few city services . For each one, Please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent , good, only fair, or poor? Please keep in mind that the City of Elk River is not responsible for county or state parks, highways, and other facilities . EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 33 . Maintenance and repair of city 5% 43% 36% 16% 1% streets? 34 . Snow plowing? 12% 52% 23% 11% 2% 35 . Street lighting? 5% 53% 25% 13% 5% 36 . Sewers and water? 7% 53% 9% 2% 29% 37 . Drainage and flood control? 8% 58% 14% 6% 15% 38 . Animal control? 8% 59% 16% 8% 10% 411 39 . Police services? % 1% 3% 40 . Fire protection? 19% 66% 1119% 63% 8% 1% 10% 4 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P06 MAY 20 '97 09:49 EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R S41 Elk River City Library? 18% 54% 15% 6% 8% Let' s talk about public safety issues for a moment . . . . % 42 . Have you had direct contact with YES 5544% the Elk River Police Department NO during the past three years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 20% 43 . Which of the following issues is VIOLENT CRIME 21% of greatest concern to you? PROPERTY CRIME (READ LIST AND ROTATE) Violent TRAFFIC SAFETY 17% crime, such as robbery, assault, JUVENILE CONCERNS 35% and rape; property crime, such as NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) . . . . 2% burglary, theft, and vandalism; SOMETHING ELSE (VOL) . . . 2% traffic safety, such as DWI, g y` DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% speeding, bicycles, and pedes- trians; or, juvenile issues, such as curfew, underage drinking, and smoking? 91% 44 . Do you favor or oppose the Elk FAVOR 91% River Police department continuing OPPOSE to provide DARE -- Drug Abuse DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% Resistance Education -- training • in local schools? 45 . Do you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 48% struction of a pedestrian bridge FAVOR/OPPOSE over Highway 169 near School FAVOR/DON'T KNOW 9% Street? (IF "FAVOR, " ASK: ) Would OPPOSE 27% you still favor it if a tax in- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED10% crease were required to fund con- struction? As you may know, there has been some discussion about a new Community Center. 46 . If a Community Center were constructed, what facilities do you feel are important to include? DON' T KNOW, 32%; SWIMMING POOL, 27%; MEETING ROOMS, 5%; FITNESS CENTER, 11%; TEEN CENTER, 18% ; THEATER, 2% ; SENIOR CENTER, 4%; SCATTERED, 2% . I would like to read you a list of facilities that could ldlbeme if included in a community center. For each one, please you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose its inclusion in a community center. i 5 6129295166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P07 MAY 20 '97 09:50 STR SMW SMW STR D.K. FAV FAV OPP OPP REF. III 47 . An indoor swimming pool? 36% 33% 15% 12% 6% 48 . An aerobics, exercise, and 26% 47% 12% 896 7% fitness room? 49 . A gymnasium? 35% 42% 11% 7% 5% 50 . Large community room for banquets, parties, meetings, and other rental purposes? 30% 43% 14% 8% 6% 51 . Group meeting rooms? 20% 44% 22% 9% 5% 52 . A teen center? 42% 39% 8% 5% 6% 53 . A senior citizens center? 26% 43% 15% 9% 7% 54 . A community theater? 18% 32% 28% 13% 9% 55 . An arts and crafts room for instructional programs and classes? 15% 48% 19% 11% 8% 56 . Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 38% 43% construction of a Community 9% Center in Elk River? (WAIT OPPOSE 9% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE o strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% A bond referendum would be required to pay for its construction and partial ophascenterrtoesomeoexdentso underwrite the operation of the community • 57 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 18% pay in additional property taxes $10 . 00 15% to support the construction and $20 . 00 18% partial operation of an Elk River $30 .00 7% Community Center? (START WITH A $40 . 00 5% RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FROM #1 $50 . 00 4% TO #8) Let ' s say, would you be $60 . 00 willing to pay $ per year? DON'T KNOW 12% (MOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN REFUSED DEPENDING ON ANSWER. ) How about $ per month? 58 . Which do you feel should be a EXPANSION OF PARK/REC.22% higher priority -- (ROTATE) -- CONSTRUCT COMM CENTER. 58% expansion of park and recreational BOTH EQUALLY (VOL) 11% facilities OR construction of a NEITHER (VOL) Community Center? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% Now, let ' s talk about retail shopping in Elk River. . . . 59 . Excluding groceries, what do you consider to be your princi- pal retail shopping location? DON'T KNOW, 4%; TARGET, 54%; NORTHTOWN, 8%; ELK RIVER CENTER, RIDGEDALE, 3%; MENARD' S, 2%; SCATTERED, 3% . IIICENTER, 6 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229P08 MAY 20 '97 09:50 60 . What types of retail businesses or services, not currently 410 in Elk River, would you like to see attracted to the commun- ity? DON'T KNOW, 26%; WAL-MART, 17%; RESTAURANTS, 275 l SPORT- ING GOODS, 4%; CLOTHING STORES, 11%; BEST BUY, PARTMENT STORES, 8%; MENARD' 5, 2%; SCATTERED, 2% . 61 . What retail sales promotions, if any, would influence you to shop more often in Elk River? DON' T KNOW, 73%; LOWER PRICES, 4%; LARGER SELECTION, 6%; MORE SALES, 3%; BETTER ADVERTISEMENTS AND COUPONS, 12% ; DEPARTMENT STORE, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%. 62 . How often do you shop in Downtown WEEKLY/MORE OFTEN 33% Elk River -- weekly or more often,. TWICE/MONTHLY 17% twice per month, monthly, about MONTHLY quarterly, infrequently, or never? ABOUT QUARTERLY 5% 17% NEVER 14% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% IF RESPONDENT SHOPS IN DOWNTOWN, ASK: 63 . What types of goods or services tend to be the reason for your shopping in Downtown Elk River? • DON'T KNOW, 4%; BAKERY, 14%; HARDWARE STORES, 12% ; DRUG STORE, 30%; BANKING, 10%; GROCERIES, 16% ; AUTO STORE, 5%; SPORTING GOODS, 4%; RESTAURANTS, 3%; SCATTERED, 3% . 64 . Are toeElkyRiverttoninducehyoue made in to shop there more Downtown wn often? Downtown (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What would they be? DON'T KNOW, VARIETY, BETTER ACCESSOR4%RESTAURANTS,RI AL'KS9s; MORE RETAIL 3%; DEPARTMENT STORE, 2%; SCATTERED, 3% . As you may know, there has been some discussion about merging the Cities of Elk River and Otsego. AWARE 61% 65 . Prior to this survey, were you UNAWARE 37% aware of the proposal to merge the two cities? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 66 . From what you have heard or seen, STRONGLY FAVOR 24% do you favor or oppose the merging FAVOR 17°s of Elk River and Otsego? (WAIT OPPOSE 7% FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE 410 that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .42% 7 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P09 MAY 20 '97 09:50 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . • Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest . . . . 67 . Seniors over 65? NONE 85%ONE 7% TWO 8% 68 . Adults between 18 and 64 NONE 12% 12% years old? TWO 63% THREE OR MORE 14% 69 . School aged children? NONE E 54% 5544% TWO 21% THREE OR MORE 8% 81% 70 . Pre-schoolers? ONE 15% TWO OR MORE 5% 71. Do you own or rent your present OOE 75% 25% residence? REFUSED 0% • IF "OWN, " ASK: 72 . Which of the following cate- UNDER $75, 000 6% gories would contain the $75, 000-$150, 000 70% approximate value of your OVER $150, 000 21% residential property -- under DON'T KNOW 1% $75, 000 , $75, 000-$150, 000, or REFUSED 2% over $150, 000? 73 . What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 18%; OWNER-MANAGER, 18% ; CLERICAL- SALES, 11%; BLUE COLLAR, 37% ; RETIREES, 13%; SCATTERED, 5% . 74 . What is your age, p lease? 18 - 24 S%25 - 34 22% 35 - 44 34% 45 - 54 19% 55 - 64 8% 65 AND OVER 13% REFUSED 1% • 8 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 229 P16 MAY 20 '97 ©9:51 • 6% 75 . What is the last grade d of formal HIGH THAN OHIGH SCHOOL. . 6% education you completed? VO-TECH/TECH COLL 17% • SOME COLLEGE 18% COLLEGE GRADUATE 27% POSTGRADUATE REFUSED 0% 76 . Gender of respondent . MALE 48%FEMALE 52% 25% 77 . Ward. ONE 25% TWO 23% THREE 24% FOUR • • • 9 ITEM 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. Changes in the City's Net Tax Capacity could significantly change the amount of tax impact. 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. HR is Homestead Residential C/I is Commercial Industrial • • 3/4/97 PARKBOND.XLS ,.'' • . _ 4...i,N\ i ,144k, NI r owl 1 1 ,..,„ , ... 4 i. IN i ? B, Apiro, r.7 mss , .. V cm COUNTY 8USNESS CENlfl L W FO COURT •(,()._ mot '' C MOUSE �i� - !3i E.- \ H r _-. _-..------- - _ I > maw 1 < g; % =_ �g Mat 'N., ,'LOCATION ; 1 .�M�s .� ',ERG•J! .•40YL 4 jCI: Willw AA piNtia. NENV00 x�\lir wlilting , it 1 144P4q :`COF COURSE ��■o �_ ________ _ _ ,.._ •I • I T 1 U '____ _._...______,_ _____ __ _ _ . ��. :ua�!wM� dims ff eisranmiummi Imbe rpniwiTI :134t, 1 .,,, g RIF 11111ft, ...._11111Wk AM rillaw .7 IL rtIgre ...' tat- o� ir ®, :tea ma r. trt o III 111 ItiiiiIisl w, , ------- ______ ______,----> r . . ,..., ,p,,,,,,,,,„.., 7,.. 1 , , , , ,,c./ A., . t LOCATION N MAP City of �ElK River 13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: ITEM 1S ■ Elk River,MN 55330 S\LNTEBO -Alt 411 t EST. 1997 ELK RIVER PARK AND REC. COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 11, 1997, 7:00 I. NEW INFO A. School Board meeting 1. Made no decision on skateboarding on school property a. Reason for not saying no: Think we should be allowed b. Reason for not saying yes: If they approved, • there would be a liability issue 2. Concerns a. Vandalism b. Behavior c. Injuries B. Gathering of local Skateboarders meeting 1. Thursday June 12, 1997, at 7:00 at Community Ed. 2. Purpose: Get more people informed and involved and to inform them that they need to be more considerate and objective so we don't "shoot ourselves in the foot" II. SET EVENTS: A. June 14th "TOUCHED" concert at ER Arena 1. Sell T-shirts and other items 2. Distribute flyers and information B. July 4th celebration at Orono Park 1. Jacky at the Elk River Chamber of Commerce contacted us 2. Setting up a skateboard demo in parking lot at 6:00 • I 3. Sell T-shirts and other items 4. Distribute flyers and information • C. Otsego Family Fun Day July 12, 1997 1. Skate Demos at 1:00 and 4:30 2. Sell T-shirts and other items 3. Distribute flyers and information 4. Interviews with visiting radio station III. Possible Events: A. Elk River Skateboarders Inc. Skate Fest 1. City Council said to discuss it with Park and Rec. and police chief 2. Talked with police chief Tom Zerwas a. Said Lion's Park would be his recommended location 3. ERSI would like to have it on Friday July 11, 1997 from 1:00 to 9:30 B. Things at Skate Fest 1. Music: Live Bands and other music 2. Food 3. Volleyball and possibly other activities 4. Skateboarding on ramps set up in parking lot or in • outdoor ice rink if paved by then and if possible C. Why 1. To raise money 2. FUN 3. Raise public awareness 4. Gain support D. Needs 1. Park and Rec. Commission's support IV. THE NEAR FUTURE A. Continue planning and promoting events B. $$-FUNDRAISE-$$ C. Need to build ramps for demos = $$$$ D. Increase public awareness and support S -DRAFT- 20 May 1997 Community Center/Youth Center Background: Much has been discussed and written about a community center or a youth center for the District 728 area over the past 5-7 years. The City of Elk River commissioned a committee to study the issue several years ago, the City is currently negotiating with the Minnesota Sports Federation regarding bonding for a facility which would have gyms and a running track, and more recently there has been talk of a Boy's and Girl's Club.The City of Rogers has undertaken a serious study of adding a swimming pool and auditorium to the future Junior High to be constructed in Rogers. While one or more of these concepts may one day be reality, the reality is that in the short term-the next 12-18 months to perhaps up to the next five years, there may be no"Community Center" constructed in District 728. Consider: The taxpayers have already invested money in permanent school facilities in District 728. It would take well over$200 million to replace the public school facilities we currently have in Elk River alone. Proposal: For the interim period until such time as a community center is constructed by any of the above scenarios, why not invest several thousand dollars a year(versus several million dollars), and provide a public space that is universally available for the general public's casual use--rather than for specifically organized special interest groups. Take a currently existing public school and fully maximize its use for the good of the general public. For example, select VandenBerge Jr. High (because it has both multiple gymnasiums and a swimming pool), and develop a • calendar for the school for the year. Such a center could be open on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays, with extended hours to midnight or beyond if desired. A food concession with pizza and/or other foods would probably be needed, as would an area to accommodate a large number of video games, darts, pool tables, etc. Special events could be scheduled and promoted, as well as regularly scheduled t Community Education and Community Recreation activities such as open gyms, open swimming, afterclass enrichment programs, etc. The elements needed at such a center, schedule for the year, hours of operation, marketing ideas and plan, would ideally be planned with input from youth and families that would be using the facility. Such a proposal should not be only a school district-run facility. It should have broad community financial and emotional support, and multiple agencies should have an investment in it's success. Among the possible players: District 728 Community Education, Community Recreation, the City of Elk River, churches and church youth groups, local service and fraternity organizations, the business community, youth in the community, families. Concerns about the schedule at the facility: 1. Continue to assure that all K-12 VandenBerge school functions take place and are scheduled as #1 priorities. 2. Determine a schedule for the proposed center. (vacate other general uses of specified spaces during these times) For example community uses that have historically been at the site may be scheduled for another building instead. Possible steps in the process: 1. Bounce the concept off several possible partners. ' 2. Secure School Board support for the concept. • 3. Determine the mission, goals and purpose of the facility. 4. Determine the specifics of hours of operation, content of the program, marketing plan, etc. 5. Determine proposed operating budget. 6. Secure financial commitments to run the center. 111 7. Evaluate the impact and refine the concept. 8. Determine continuance of the center. • • S