My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/01/1996 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1990 - 1998 Park Board Packets
>
1996 Park Board Packets
>
04/01/1996 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 1:27:20 PM
Creation date
7/9/2021 11:06:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
04/01/1996
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DEC i`=i Cii i t<:C'_ii]I_l c'= c�. F 1 _ _TA i 4 'Gr, 1 G 1 <br /> MAJ MIN NON DKR <br /> 120 . One story, owner occupied townhomes <br /> for seniors? 41% 3896 1296 8% <br /> Under state law, the Fridley HRA may levy a small property tax to <br /> support its redevelopment program. <br /> 121. Would you be willing to pay an YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55% <br /> additional $4 to $5 per year in NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38% <br /> property taxes to support these DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .7$ <br /> programs? <br /> 122 . Are you or members of your house- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26V <br /> hold considering moving from your NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73%; <br /> current residence? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .It <br /> IF "YES, " ASK: <br /> 123 . Would you consider buying YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71% <br /> newly constructed residential NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .28% <br /> property in Fridley if it met DON'TKNOW/REFUSED. . . . .It <br /> your needs? [N=129] <br /> There has been some discussion about requiring all property <br /> owners that have gravel driveways in Fridley to construct hard <br /> surface driveways. <br /> 124. If property owners were given FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . .17W <br /> three or four years to improve FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38% <br /> their driveways, would you favor OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16!' <br /> or oppose imposing this as a City OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . .20t <br /> requirement? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .10t <br /> Do you feel strongly that way? <br /> Currently, the City has to demonstrate that a vehicle is unli- <br /> censed or inoperable before it may be removed from residential <br /> property. The City is also required to give the owner up to 20 <br /> days to remove the vehicle before the City can remove it . By <br /> contrast, the City of Minneapolis will tag and remove vehicles <br /> from private property with only three days' notice. <br /> 125,. Would you favor or oppose changing FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62% <br /> our ordinance in a manner that OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35W <br /> allows the City Code enforcement DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .3t <br /> officer or police to remove junk <br /> vehicles with three days' notice? <br /> IF "NO, " ASK: <br /> r\ <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.