PRSR 06-16-1997 / A(
( 4 . 1 .
Item#
�ty of iv
E lk • MEMORANDUM
River
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Pat Klaers, City Ad trator
DATE: June 16, 1997
SUBJECT: Community Survey
Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of Decision Resources, Ltd., will be in
attendance at this June 16, 1997, City Council meeting for a presentation on
the results of the Community Survey. On May 21, 1997, Bill presented the
Park and Recreation Commission with the results of the survey as it relates
to outdoor recreation items and a community center. The survey raw data
results and my 5/22/97 memo on the survey were distributed to the City
• Council a few weeks ago. Recently the Executive Summary of the
Community Survey results as prepared by Decision Resources, Ltd., was sent
out to the Council.
As noted in the attached January 21, 1997, City Council and Park and
Recreation Commission minutes, the major focus of the Community Survey
was park and recreation and whether or not the public was willing to support
a bond referendum for certain park and recreation improvements.
Additionally, the survey was needed in order to ensure that the proposed
Master Park and Recreation Plan update was consistent with the desires of
the community. However, the survey also touched on a number of other city
issues and accordingly, this 6/16 presentation from Bill and Diane will be
more comprehensive in nature than just dealing with park and recreation
issues.
Some of the good news that comes out of the survey is an indication that the
public will support a public bond referendum for both outdoor recreation
items and for a community center. There are certain considerations that
must be dealt with in an appropriate manner in order for both issues to
ultimately be successful. Regarding the park and recreation situation, the
city needs to avoid including certain recreation activities and needs to
concentrate its proposal on the high priorities as identified in the survey and
• must keep the overall cost of the improvements at a reasonable level.
Regarding the community center, there is a big gap between what the people
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 •TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Community Survey Memo
June 16, 1997
Page 2
• want in a new facility versus what they are willing to pay. A lot of work
needs to be done in order to resolve this conflict and the public either needs to
be educated as to what they can receive for the amount they are willing to
pay or else the public needs to be convinced that a higher amount needs to be
approved in order to obtain the facility that is desired. It appears that much
more time and preparation is needed in order to pursue a community center
issue versus potentially going to the public this September for an outdoor
recreation issue. Both issues going forward at the same time on the same
ballot would not be beneficial for either request. One of the biggest surprises
contained within the survey results is the large support (and significant
increase since 1989) for community pools.
Since the joint meeting on January 21, 1997, the Park and Recreation
Commission has been working on defining what are the most important
improvements to include within the referendum. The Commission has also
been in contact with other communities in order to determine what
approaches have been successful in selling a bond referendum to the public.
Additionally the Commission is looking at the composition of a Citizen's
Committee to help guide this process forward towards a September 9, 1997,
vote. If the City Council agrees to pursue a public bond referendum on
• outdoor park and recreation issues, then Bill Morris from Decision Resources
will work with the Park and Recreation Commission to help structure the
bond package in order to make the total cost acceptable to the public and to
avoid components which will meet with negative votes from the public and to
include the appropriate elements within the proposal. A City Council
decision on whether or not to allow the Commission to proceed forward with
structuring a public bond referendum for September 9, 1997, does not need to
be made at this June 16th meeting, but the decision should be made by the
Council relatively soon so that appropriate preparations can be made. One of
the items that needs to be taken care of is the formal adoption of the updated
Master Park and Recreation Plan. This Plan is scheduled for a public
hearing before the City Council on July 21, 1997.
It is anticipated that the presentation of the Community Survey results will
take approximately an hour or slightly longer as questions come forward
from the Council and the public. In conjunction with the presentation will be
a discussion with the Park and Recreation Commission on its desire for a
public bond referendum on outdoor recreation issues and some of the
components the Commission desires to have included within the proposal.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL
• HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997
Members Present: Mayor Duitsman, Councilmembers Dietz,Thompson, Farber, and
Holmgren
Members Absent: None
Park and Recreation Commission Members Present: Dana Anderson, Dave Anderson,
Rolfe Anderson, Kent Madsen, John Kuester, Clair Olson, Lana
Huberty, and Ron Westrum
Planning Commission Representative: Bob Minton
Staff Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator;Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk;Terry
Maurer, City Engineer,Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant; Phil Hals,
Street/Park Superintendent;Tom Zerwas, Police Chief; Lori Johnson,
Assistant City Administrator; Dave Sellergren, City Attorney; Cliff
Skogstad, Building Official
1. Call Meeting To Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council
• was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Duitsman.
2. Consider Council Aaenda
Item 9.4.was moved to #7.3. on the agenda. Mayor Duitsman indicated he had
some other business to discuss.
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
3. Discussion with Park and Recreation on Possible Public Referendum Bond Issue
Park and Recreation Commission Chair Dana Anderson indicated that the Park
and Recreation Commissioners are supporting a park bond referendum. Dana
Anderson indicated that the idea of a park bond referendum has been discussed
for a number of years. He indicated that the city has been in an acquisition
mode in relation to parks and the Park and Recreation Commission feels it is time
to consider some major capital improvements and developments in the park
system. Dana Anderson indicated that in 1989 the city hired Decision Resources
to do a random survey about issues facing the city. The survey concentrated on
park and recreation activities and included questions about a community center.
Dana indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission felt that the
community center issue should not be included with the park bond referendum.
The Park and Recreation Commission Chair requested feedback from the City
Council regarding the park bond referendum. Dana Anderson indicated that the
• Park and Recreation Commission recently held a special meeting to discuss the
park and recreation needs of the city. He indicated that during the meeting the
Elk River City Council Meeting Page 2
January 21, 1997
• group developed a wish list and a draft timeline for the bond issue. Chair
Anderson reviewed the wish list and time line with the Council.
Mayor Duitsman indicated that the city will soon be looking at other issues such as
a community center and bonding for industrial development which will all affect
the tax rate of the city. Mayor Duitsman indicated that he felt a park bond
referendum was a good idea, however he did not feel the community center
and park bond referendum issues should be separate issues or that they should
be considered separate from other city needs. He stated that the idea of a
community center has to be defined by the citizens. Mayor Duitsman indicated
that the Minnesota Sports Federation has no bearing on whether the city
considers the need for a community center.
Dana Anderson indicated that his major concern is that the timeline will be too
long and the price too large if the community center is included in the bond
referendum. He felt that a park bond referendum would be able to move ahead
much faster alone and will show the citizens that the city is on a progressive track.
He further indicated that the park bond referendum could help address some of
the youth problems the city is experiencing. Dana Anderson commented that
the Park and Recreation Commission would like to move forward so as to work on
this issue during the summer. He further indicated that to include the community
center will draw out the process.
Councilmember Dietz stated that if the two issues were on the ballot together,
the park issue would get lost in the overwhelming cost of the community center.
• He stated that the Park and Recreation Commission's wish list considers all ages
of the community. He further indicated that people move into the community
and expect to have these types of amenities. He indicated that he felt the
citizens of Elk River would be open to a park bond referendum. Councilmember
Dietz stated that the Minnesota Sports Federation building will take care of part of
the community center issues.
Councilmember Farber indicated that he agrees with moving forward with the
park bond referendum. He further indicated that the citizens who move into the
city do expect these types of amenities. Councilmember Farber indicated that
the city is considering construction of an overhead bridge crossing Highway 169
which will include the need for a trail system to connect to the bridge. He further
stated that there is a shortage of trails and parks on the eastern side of the city.
Councilmember Holmgren stated that the wish list created by the Park and
Recreation Commission must be prioritized and specific improvements identified.
He further indicated that cost has not been discussed. He indicated that the
citizens of the city will need to be better informed prior to voting on the issue.
Councilmember Holmgren also indicated he would like to see the 1989 Decision
Resources survey updated.
Councilmember Thompson indicated he would like to see a more definite plan as
to how the project will be completed. He suggested including the question of a
community center in the survey to find out how citizens want to spend their
money. He further indicated that there is a need for parks on the east side of the
• city.
Elk River City Council Meeting Page 3
January 21, 1997
• The Council concurred that a survey should move forward now. Additionally, the
Council concurred that the community center and Park and Recreation issues
should be separate referendum questions which should be presented to the
public at two different times.
COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO DIRECT THE PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION TO GET A PROPOSAL FROM DECISION RESOURCES TO CONDUCT A
SURVEY OF A GROUP OF ELK RIVER CITIZENS AND TO INCLUDE IN THE SURVEY THE
QUESTION REGARDING A COMMUNITY CENTER. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The City Council recessed at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened in the Council Chambers at 6:55
p.m.
5. Consider Consent Agenda
COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
FOLLOWS:
5.1. AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM REQUEST FOR REZONING TO ANTENNA
OVERLAY DISTRICT, CASE NO. ZC 96-20- POSTPONED TO 2/18/97
5.2. AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
CASE NO. CU 96-26-POSTPONED TO 2/18/97
5.3. PAYMENT OF $1,727.52 TO SHERBURNE COUNTY AS A PARTIAL REBATE OF
INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THE PARKING LOT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-
APPROVED
•
5.4. MOTION AUTHORIZING BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ATTEND THE COLORADO
CHAPTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE-APPROVED
5.5. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THE BIDDING PROCESS FOR A TRACTOR
AND LIQUID MANURE SPREADER FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT-
APPROVED
5.6a. PAY ESTIMATE#10 TO GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$81,449 FOR WORK ON THE INDOOR ICE ARENA EQUIPMENT-APROVED
5.6b. PAY ESTIMATE #8 TO M.A. MORTENSON FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE ICE
ARENA PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $332,308-APPROVED
5.7. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY PLANNER AND TWO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE-APPROVED
5.8. RESOLUTION 97-4 OF SUPPORT FROM SPONSORING AGENCY IN THE MATTER
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENT OF 1997-
APPROVED
5.9. RESIDENTIAL LOT INVENTORY OF PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS- REVIEWED
5.10. JANUARY 6, 1997, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-APPROVED
5.11. CHECK REGISTER-APPROVED
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
6. Open Mike
No one appeared for this item.
•
1. Rest rooms 5 ea. $ 100,000
2. Shelters 7 ea. 210,000
3. Playgrounds 9 ea. 320,000
4. Paved trails 11 mi. 565,000
5. Riverwalk 150,000
6. Outdoor pool/Bath house 930,000
7. Athletic complex 360,000
8. Purchase additional land 100,000
2,735,000
•
S
Woodland Trails Park Warming House 100,000
2 - Open Shelters 45,000
1 - Rest Rooms 25,000
Orono Park 1 - Rest Rooms 25,000
Add Playground Equipment 50,000
Country Crossing 3rd Playground Equipment 25,000
1/2 Court Basketball 5,000
Mississippi Oaks Playground Equipment 30,000
1/2 Court 5,000
Lafayette Woods Playground Equipment 35,000
2 % Courts 10,000
Ridgewood East Add Playground Equipment 35,000
Deerfield IV Add Playground Equipment 20,000
Hillside 5th Playground Equipment 30,000
• 1/2 Court 5,000
Meadowvale Heights Playground Equipment 30,000
% Court 5,000
E. of 169 Park Playground Equipment 30,000
1/2 Court 5,000
Open Shelter 25,000
Total This Section 540,000
•
• Orono Softball Complex 1 - Rest Rooms 25,000
Oak Knoll Combination Shelter/
Concessions/Restroom in center 60,000
Cass Fields 4 - Lighted Fields 180,000
1 - Combination Shelter/
Concessions/Restroom 60,000
1 - Open Shelter 25,000
Total This Section 350,000
Funds to Purchase Park Land 100,000
Trail Babcock Park to Downtown 50,000
Riverwalk 100,000
Swimming Pool/Bath house 930,000
Phase II for Cass Fields 100,000
Total This Section 1,280,000
•
0 Trails Rail Road Trail 5.5 miles 275,000
169 to Proctor Link 1.0 mile 50,000
Country Crossing I 1/4 mile 15,000
Oak Knoll 1.0 mile 50,000
Woodland Trails 2.0 mile 100,000
Highway 10 1.5 mile 75,000
Total This Section 565,000
Grand Total 2,735,000
•
f:\shrdoc\offsite\street\p arksamt.do c
•
Park Bond ESTIMATED Tax Impact
• AVERAGE TAX INCREASE BASED
INTEREST ANNUAL TAX ON 1997 NET TAX CAPACITY
BOND ISSUE SIZE RATE TERM DEBT RATE 100,000 HR 100,000 C/I 500,000 C/I
$1,000,000 6.00% 15 110000 0.00926 11.85 27.77 198.07
$2,000,000 6.00% 15 205000 0.01725 22.08 51.75 369.13
$3,000,000 6.00% 15 300000 0.02524 32.31 75.73 540.18
NOTES:
Interest rate of 6.00% is used as an example only. The actual rate may vary substantially and could
significantly change the amount of tax impact.
All assumptions are based on 1997 data. Class rates for taxes payable in 1998 were changed by the
1997 Omnibus Tax Bill. This may result in a substantial shift of tax payments from one class to another.
The new NTC will not be available from the County for some time. The changes in class rates may
cause a notable change in the above estimates.
Average annual debt for each given bond issue is an estimate only. Bond structure, interest rate and
other factors will affect the actual annual debt. Bonds issues do not normally have equal annual
payments but are structured to fit the revenue stream and other factors of the issue.
The Term used for the estimates is 15 years. Depending on the size and structure of the issue, this may
decrease to 10 years. A 10 year term will increase the annual tax impact, or to keep the tax level the
same, the issue size would need to be decreased.
HR is Homestead Residential
C/I is Commercial Industrial
•
6/16/97
PARKBOND.XLS
N • •
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.
1111
The table below summarizes the opinions of sampled respondents about the inclusion of various
facilities in an Elk River Community Center:
Facility Support Oppose
Indoor Swimming Pool 69% 27%
Aerobics, Exercise, and Fitness Room 73% 20%
Gymnasium 77% 18%
Large Community Room 73% 22%
Group Meeting Rooms 64% 31%
Teen Center 81% 13%
Senior Citizens Center 69% 24%
Community Theater 50% 41%
Arts and Crafts Room 63% 30%
In comparison with the 1989 study, support for an indoor swimming pool had increased by
seventeen percent, while support for a gymnasium had risen by a similar percentage. Support for
group meeting rooms had declined by ten percent, while support for a senior center had •
decreased eight percent. But, even so, with the exception of the community theater, solid
majorities supported each facility for inclusion in a center.
In concept, eighty-one percent supported the construction of an Elk River Community Center,
while thirteen percent opposed it. Support had increased seven percent during the past nine
years. The typical resident, however, was willing to increase his/her property taxes by only
$19.70 to fund the construction of a Community Center.
In assigning a higher priority, fifty-eight percent felt the construction of a Community Center
should be pursued; twenty-two percent felt the expansion of park and recreational facilities
should be pursued, while eleven percent felt both should be weighted equally.
Retail Shopping in Elk River:
Excludin g groceries, fifty-four percent considered Target to their principal retail shopping
location. Elk River Center was mentioned by twenty-eight percent, and eight percent pointed to
Northtown. Three additions to the shopping array presently in the community were cited by
moderately high numbers: restaurants, at twenty seven percent; Wal-Mart, at seventeen percent;
and, clothing stores, at eleven percent. "Better advertising and coupons" was the most often
•
Page 6
• cited type of promotion which would influence residents to shop more often in Elk River.
Thirty-three percent reported shopping "weekly or more often" in Downtown Elk River. Thirty-
two percent did so twice monthly or monthly, and twenty-two percent shopped there
sporadically. Fourteen percent reported they never shopped the Downtown Area. The major
Downtown magnets were the Drug Store, Grocery Store, Bakery, Hardware Store, and Bank.
Possible inducements for attracting more residents to the area included"more retail variety" and
"more restaurants."
Otsego-Elk River Merger:
Sixty-one percent reported awareness of the proposal to merge the two cities of Otsego and Elk
River. While thirty-five percent supported the merger, twenty-four percent opposed it; but, forty-
two percent were unsure about their opinion on this issue. The merger proposal, then, has not
been discussed enough to cause great numbers of support or opposition to materialize.
Conclusions:
1. Elk River citizens were very pleased with their community. They were satisfied, for the most
• part, with past policies and actions. But, perceptions about the City, itself, have dramatically
changed; concerns have begun to reflect issues found in nearby growing communities: property
tax levels, growth rates, road congestion, and convenience of amenities.
2. Substandard evaluations of the park and recreational system were noted in this study. While
the community does not have a general consensus about priorities for the building of outdoor
recreational facilities, it would presently support a carefully constructed bond referendum for
neighborhood park improvements, trail links, and an outdoor swimming pool, requiring an
average property tax increase of$20.00-$25.00.
3. There was much enthusiasm for a full-service community center at present. In fact, with the
exception of a community theater, residents overwhelmingly supported every facility tested for
possible inclusion. A key problem, however, were the financial constraints placed upon the
project, wherein the typical residents was willing to accept a$19.70 annual tax increase. Clearly,
either a much more scaled-down proposal would need to be put before the voters, or a careful
information campaign outlining costs would have to be undertaken before a vote.
4. In light of the support for a bond referendum at this time which would be financially feasible,
we suggest the best course of action would be to proceed with a park bond proposal, and then
engage in concrete discussions with the city in preparation for a later election effort for the
community center. The list of citizen desires was much better aligned with their willingness to
pay increased taxes in the case of the outdoor recreational facilities. In order to secure the
S
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
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
YES NO D. K.
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
tennis courts 54% 44% 2%
11 . Oak Knoll Park? 17% 81% 3%
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 66%
facilities in Elk River -- ONLY FAIR 16%
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% .
14 . Would you favor or oppose a trail FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 53%
system linking neighborhoods FAVOR/OPPOSE 9%
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 18%
-- smaller neighborhood parks, OTHER (VOL) 1%
larger areawide parks, larger ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 3%
community playfields, and trails? NONE OF THE ABOVE 4%
DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
16 . Have any members of this house- YES/YES 14%
hold participated in any youth YES/NO 26%
recreational programs during the NO/YES 8%
past year? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) NO/NO 50%
And, have any members of this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
household participated in any
adult recreation programs during
the past year?
III
2
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
rinks? 13% 32% 26% 22% 9%
20 . Swing sets, playground equipment,
and hard surfaced courts for
neighborhood parks? 21% 50% 12% 12% 6%
21 . Paving of neighborhood trail links
across the community? 17% 37% 22% 15% 10%
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 11%
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
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,
. o
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 13%
to fund this construction? Let ' s $20 . 00 18%
say, would you be willing to see $30 . 00 19%
your YEARLY property taxes in- $40 . 00 10%
crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM $50 . 00 6%
STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $60 . 00 4%
DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about DON'T KNOW 10%
$ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 3%
Moving on. . . .
32 . Do you agree or disagree with the STRONGLY AGREE 19% •
following statement : "A good AGREE 36%
Elk River park and recreation DISAGREE 23%
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
streets? 5% 43% 36% 16% 1%
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%
39 . Police services? 19% 66% 11% 1% 3%
40 . Fire protection? 19% 63% 8% 1% 10%
4
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
40 41 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 54%
the Elk River Police Department NO 46%
during the past three years? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0%
43 . Which of the following issues is VIOLENT CRIME 20%
of greatest concern to you? PROPERTY CRIME 21%
(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, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
speeding, bicycles, and pedes-
trians; or, juvenile issues, such
as curfew, underage drinking, and
smoking?
44 . Do you favor or oppose the Elk FAVOR 91%
River Police department continuing OPPOSE 6%
to provide DARE -- Drug Abuse DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
Resistance Education -- training
in local schools?
0 45 . Do you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STILL FAVOR 48%
struction of a pedestrian bridge FAVOR/OPPOSE 7%
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 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.
5
STR SMW SMW STR D. K.
FAV FAV OPP OPP REF.
47 . An indoor swimming pool? 36% 33% 15% 12% 6%
48 . An aerobics, exercise, and •
fitness room? 26% 47% 12% 8% 7%
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%
construction of a Community FAVOR 43%
Center in Elk River? (WAIT OPPOSE 9%
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE4%
strongly that way? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 7%
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 .
57 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 18%
pay in additional property taxes $10 . 00 21%
to support the construction and $20 . 00 15% III
partial operation of an Elk River $30 . 00 18%
Community Center? (START WITH A $40 . 00 7%
RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FROM #1 $50 . 00 5%
TO #8) Let ' s say, would you be $60 . 00 4%
willing to pay $ per year? DON'T KNOW 12%
(MOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN REFUSED 1%
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) 7%
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, 28%; RIDGEDALE, 3%; MENARD' S, 2%; SCATTERED, 3% .
6
60 . What types of retail businesses or services, not currently
in Elk River, would you like to see attracted to the commun-
ity?
DON' T KNOW, 26% ; WAL-MART, 17%; RESTAURANTS, 27%; SPORT-
ING GOODS, 4%; CLOTHING STORES, 11%; BEST BUY, 5% ; DE-
PARTMENT STORES, 8%; MENARD' S, 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 15%
twice per month, monthly, about MONTHLY 17%
quarterly, infrequently, or never? ABOUT QUARTERLY 5%
INFREQUENTLY 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 there any additions or changes which could be made in
Downtown Elk River to induce you to shop there more often?
(IF "YES, " ASK: ) What would they be?
DON' T KNOW, 52%; CLOTHING STORE, 5%; MORE RESTAURANTS, 9%;
MORE RETAIL VARIETY, 23%; BETTER ACCESS, 4%; RIVERWALKS,
3%; DEPARTMENT STORE, 2%; SCATTERED, 3% .
As you may know, there has been some discussion about merging the
Cities of Elk River and Otsego.
65 . Prior to this survey, were you AWARE 61%
aware of the proposal to merge UNAWARE 37%
the two cities? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 2%
66 . From what you have heard or seen, STRONGLY FAVOR 11%
do you favor or oppose the merging FAVOR 24%
of Elk River and Otsego? (WAIT OPPOSE 17%
FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE 7%
that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . 42%
7
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 850
ONE 7
TWO 8%
68 . Adults between 18 and 64 NONE 12%
years old? ONE 12%
TWO 63%
THREE OR MORE 14%
69 . School aged children? NONE 54%
ONE 17%
TWO 21%
THREE OR MORE 8%
70 . Pre-schoolers? NONE 81%
ONE 15%
TWO OR MORE 5%
71 . Do you own or rent your present OWN 75%
residence? RENT 25%
REFUSED 0%
IF "OWN, " ASK: •
72 . Which of the following cate- UNDER $75, 000 60
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, please? 18 - 24 5%
25 - 34 22%
35 - 44 34%
45 - 54 19%
55 - 64 8%
65 AND OVER 13%
REFUSED 1%
8
75 . What is the last grade of formal LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. . 6%
education you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE27%
• VO-TECH/TECH COLL 17%
SOME COLLEGE 18%
COLLEGE GRADUATE 27%
POST-GRADUATE 5%
REFUSED 0%
76 . Gender of respondent . MALE 48%
FEMALE 52%
77 . Ward. ONE 25%
TWO 29%
THREE 23%
FOUR 24%
•
•
9