04/01/1996 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• -' ' � � - - V L V V DEC I'.10H RE'=:i URI - -- -.� -E�= 84 . How much more in additional pro- NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23* perty taxes would you be willing $2 .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 to pay a year to support the cost $5.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20% of clean-up week? (SELECT A RAN- $7.50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% DOM STARTING POINT) Would you $10 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10$ support $ per year. (DEPENDING $12 .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% ON RESPONSE) What about $ per $15.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81; year. DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . . . . . .14% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% The City of Fridley has maintained a standard for street lighting that generally limits the placement of street lights to one every 1,200 feet. 85 . Knowing that an additional street FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47W light costs about $400 per year to OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . .47% operate, would you favor the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .6%- adoption of a new street lighting policy that reduces the distance between street lights? 86 . Do you feel that additional street YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39k lighting is needed on your street? NO. . . , . . . . . . . . . .60$ DON'TKNOW/REFUSED. . . . .It 87 . Would you be willing to pay an YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48W additional $4 to $5 per year in NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49% '^ property taxes to support addi- DON'T KNOW/RFFUSED. . . . .2$ tional street lighting? The City of Fridley has been spending about $500,000 per year for an annual street reconstruction program, whereby residential streets are systematically upgraded. As part of this program, asphalt curbs and gutters have been replaced with concrete curbs and gutters . Only the cost of the curbs and gutters has been assessed to property owners . The remainder of the cost has been paid for from the city and state funds . 88 . Has the street in front of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% property been upgraded in the last NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54t four years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 8% IF "YES, " ASK: 89 . Were you satisfied with the YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .914; quality of the work? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9W [N=191] DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0% IF "NO, " ASK: 90 . How could the quality of the work been improved? [N=17] .�11 NO ANSWER, 6%�; BETTER MATERIALS, 65%'; KEEP ON SCHEDULE, 6%; SMOOTHER SURFACE, 23t . 8