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 12 <br /> r <br /> Conclusions: <br /> The following community trends were clearly evidenced in this survey research: <br /> 1. City quality of life ratings were very solid in comparison with other Metropolitan Area <br /> suburban communities. Rural ambience and open space,location, and peacefulness were <br /> key positive attributes, while high taxes and high growth rates were a major negative. As <br /> residents look to the future,there was concern expressed about both growth and <br /> development, as well as property taxes. <br /> 2. City services were generally well-regarded. In one area, however, park and recreational <br /> facilities, residents were more critical,particularly about the limited nature of offerings. <br /> At present, a moderate property tax increase would be supported by a majority of <br /> residents for two purposes: completion of the neighborhood park system and/or <br /> expansion of the trail system. <br /> 3. Residents were very concerned about property taxes in this study, a common finding in <br /> other studies across the Metropolitan Area. But,even so, they proved supportive of <br /> certain increases for specific purposes: a new Teen Recreation Program Director and an <br /> appropriate-sized Community Center. <br /> 4. Mayor and City Council ratings, as well as City Staff ratings, were among the highest in <br /> the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Customer service ratings were very high among those <br /> who had contacted or visited City Hall and/or had knowledge about government <br /> activities. <br /> 5. Public safety issues were not as salient in Lino Lakes as in other communities. <br /> Residential crime was the overwhelming key public safety concern. In fact,a majority <br /> felt property crimes had increased in the community during the past five years. In light <br /> of current attitudes,an aggressive organizational effort of Neighborhood Watch Programs <br /> would be met with substantial residential interest. <br /> 6. Development preferences were clear within the residential sample. A quality restaurant <br /> and/or family-style restaurant led the list of priorities. A grocery store,walking trails,and <br /> retail stores rounded out the general consensus. Neighborhood commercial centers also <br /> enjoyed wide support. <br /> 7. The City, while doing a good job presently, needed to revisit its communications efforts. <br /> In particular, cable television programming should be updated and made more user- <br /> friendly. Additionally,the City may wish to proceed on the design of a website for <br /> computer literate residents. But, in light of the general popularity and effectiveness of the <br /> city newsletter, funds should not be diverted from this excellent publication to undertake <br /> n'DRL <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.