My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12/02/1996 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1990 - 1998 Park Board Packets
>
1996 Park Board Packets
>
12/02/1996 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 3:59:12 PM
Creation date
7/9/2021 1:47:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
12/02/1996
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Public Hearing
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
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
,.� 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 3 <br /> and overpopulation was the paramount issue, high taxes were also a key concern about the future. <br /> Direction of the Community: <br /> A solid seventy-nine percent felt the City of Lino Lakes was generally headed in the right <br /> direction; fifteen percent,though,thought it was headed off on the wrong track. Critics pointed <br /> to overcrowding and a perceived lack of planning. In comparison with other high growth <br /> communities,this rating was exceptionally strong. <br /> Ninety-five percent rated the general appearance of their neighborhood as"excellent"or"good," <br /> while only five percent saw it as"only fair." Again,this is an exceptionally positive result <br /> overall,but the"excellent"rating--at forty-three percent--was somewhat lower than the <br /> Metropolitan Area norm. <br /> Sense of the Community: <br /> Seventy-two percent rated the general sense of community among Lino Lakes residents as"very <br /> strong"or"somewhat strong." Twenty-four percent saw it as"not too strong"or"not at all <br /> strong." This level of perceived strength was above the suburban norm. <br /> While forty-one percent felt most closely connected to their school district, a very solid thirty- <br /> seven percent indicated their strongest tie was with the City of Lino Lakes. Fifteen percent <br /> admitted a stronger tie to another community,while five percent reported developing no ties at <br /> all. <br /> Recreational Opportunities: <br /> Seventy-six percent rated the park and recreational facilities in Lino Lakes as"excellent"or <br /> "good." Twenty-one percent,though, saw them as"only fair"or"poor." This rating was ten <br /> percent lower than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Similarly, on the upkeep and <br /> maintenance of Lino Lakes City Parks, seventy-seven percent were positive while eighteen <br /> percent were more negative. In assessing recreational facilities they regularly left the community <br /> to use, two facilities stood out: trails and parks in other communities and the Shoreview <br /> Community Center. <br /> Residents were asked to evaluate three potential recreational offerings which could be developed <br /> in the city. In each case,a substantial majority favored the proposal in concept. By a sixty-two <br /> percent to thirty-two percent judgment,residents favored the construction of an outdoor athletics <br /> complex. By a sixty-four percent to twenty-nine percent verdict, residents supported the <br /> aDRL <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.