Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/1996 Park Board Packet CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 6 :30PM **AGENDA** 1 . Call to Order and Roll Call 6 :30pm 2 . Approval of 11/4/96 Minutes - Deferred 6 :35pm 3 . Open Mike 6 :40pm 4 . ' Propose Time Limit Discussion 6 :45pm 5 . /Skate Board Parks 7 : OOpm 6 . Trails Update 7 :15pm ,/A. Trail Committee B. Progress Report ✓C. Marshan Trail Re-alignment 7 . ✓City Survey - Summary 7 :30pm 8 . ✓Birchwood/Park Grove Park - Petitions 8 : OOpm 9 . ✓North Metro Update 8 : 30pm 10 . /Recreation Update 8 :40pm 11 . Park Update 8 :50pm 12 . Friends of the Park Update 9 : OOpm 13 . ✓Friends Donation 9 : 10pm 14 . Old Business 9 :20pm 15 . New Business 9 :30pm 16 . Members Term Expirations (Amy and Pam) 9 :40pm 17 . Schedule Next Park Board Meeting 9 :50pm ^` 18 . Adjourn 10 : 00pm All times are approximate. Please call Sandie at 780-1885, Ext . 176, if you cannot attend this meeting. In response to our discussion regarding time management at our November 4, 1996 Park Board meeting, I have developed some .- guidelines which if approved by the Park Board will provide equitable time consideration for all items on our agenda and expedite our meetings. At the discretion of the chair of the Park Board, discussions regarding an agenda item may be limited to a set amount of time. 1. The set time may be equally divided between • opponents and proponents of an issue. 2. Discussion may be limited to the presentation of new information regarding an issue. 3. The time allotment for Board discussion of an issue may be limited. 4. Presenters of information may be limited to a single presentation concerning an issue. At the conclusion of the allotted discussion time: 1. the Board may vote on an issue and thus resolve it. 2. the Board may table the discussion until the end of that same meeting- if time permits later discussion. 3. the Board may table the discussion until the next meeting. 4. the Board may table the discussion and request more information. Jr Memorandum DATE: November 15, 1996 TO: Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Board FROM: Marty Asleson RE: Follow-up, Skate Board Parks CC: Mitch Rehbein The following information on skate board ramps was presented at the MRPA conference in Duluth this Fall. The attached information is the results of a two-year effort to build a facility in the City of Burnsville. The partners in this effort were the students of School District 191, School District 931 itself, and the City of Burnsville Parks and Recreation Department. Berkley Risk Management was also part of the conference presentation. I have attached their information as well. It seems that whenever this issue has been discussed at many different Park Board meetings of different cities, the answer has always been"this is a great idea", "but"...The "buts" are all of the reasons that were brought up at our meeting that involved liability and risk management. This group has dissected the problems and came up with ways to accomplish this vision. The group has had a set of plans designed by a professional architect who has signed-off on the construction details. These plans are available for $99.50. r1. J6*4� Risk Services, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota &ass every S94T =2 " 904vot F042 VW �v4� �vnfioC - a- ❖ MANAGING THE SKATEBOARDING RISK •:' The popularity of skateboarding is on the rise again. This is by no means a "new" activity, but, like many other recreational activities, it has undergone refinements and equipment and facility changes along with its upsurge in popularity. Unfortunately, along with this upsurge in popularity, risk management challenges also arise in those communities with active skateboarder populations. This advisory is intended to provide basic information to assist communities in making sound risk management and loss control decisions concerning this risk exposure, while addressing the desires and best interests of the community as a whole. The Issue The scenario is fairly consistent in most communities . . . an increasing skateboarder population begins using streets, sidewalks and parking lots to conduct their activity. Sometimes, these activities begin to interfere with the day-today public traffic and business operations in these areas and give rise to complaints to community leaders. Many community leaders respond by establishing ordinances which either partially or totally prohibit skateboarding activity in public areas. Feeling the pressure of no longer being able to skateboard legally in public areas, the skateboarding enthusiasts take their case to the community's elected officials. Quite often, this takes the form of the skateboarders and their supporters (usually their parents) coming as a group to a council or board meeting to plead for the community to build a skateboarding park so they will have someplace to go to conduct their activity. The pressure now shifts to the elected officials who, under the argument that providing a skateboarding facility will do away with the problem of the "illegal skateboarder~ and also provide a wholesome environment which will help to keep the skateboarders away from drugs, alcohol and other unwholesome materials and activities. MANAGING THE SKATEBOARDING RISK Page 2 Lets dispel the myths that have surfaced in the above scenario right away. First, providing a public skateboarding facility will not, in and of itself, provide a long-term solution to skateboarding in public areas where its not appropriate. Providing a designated skateboarding facility, especially when it first opens and is a novelty, will tend to concentrate skateboarders in one area. Those persons with more highly developed skateboarding skills will tend to gravitate to such facilities and those with less highly developed skills may find the facilities becoming crowded and go back to the streets, sidewalks and parking lots. Second, providing such facilities will not be a direct solution to keeping skateboarding enthusiasts away from other, unwholesome activities. If that were the case, the public facilities and programs already in place would have already accomplished this. Lets face it -- this is an area where parents, guardians, schools and the entire community need to become involved from the very start with parenting and guidance activities. Communities should not feel obligated to "be all things to all people" if what they are being asked to do goes beyond its ability to adequately manage, on a long-term basis, the risks involved in the best interests and safety of the public and citizens of the community as a whole. Rfsk Management Considerations With the rise in popularity of skateboarding activity, some communities have, indeed, found that it fits their overall recreation facility and program planning to provide one or more facilities for skateboarding activity. These communities have generally done a thorough job of investigating all of the parameters of providing such a facility and weighed the cost vs. benefit factors. By the way, "costs" take a variety of forms -- from the costs of materials and labor, to long-term maintenance costs, to supervision and administration costs (including potentially increased insurance costs), to costs of injury and loss in conjunction with facility operations. Its also a good idea to involve the skateboarding enthusiasts who want the facility in the "exploration" and planning process. This can help them to have some "ownership" in the process and gain additional understanding of all the planning factors involved. Due to the dynamic potential of skateboarding activity, we do not recommend that unsupervised, "passive" skateboarding facilities be provided. Don't forget, if a community operates any kind of facility on its property, it will be responsible for the proper use, operation and maintenance of that facility. Hence, providing a supervised facility that can be secured from unauthorized use when not in operation is appropriate for this dynamic activity. Another consideration related to this is that if an unsupervised facility is provided that has r. only limited challenges, it will not be used and may become an "attractive nuisance" liability exposure to the community. SMTeoao.YWS MANAGING THE SKATEBOARDING RISK Pape 3 In more of a list type of format, here are some other considerations as a community contemplates whether or not to provide skateboarding facilities . . . GENERAL ITEMS. 1. Can a determination be made as to how many persons will potentially use the facility. This is part of the cost vs. benefit equation. 2 What kind of skill levels will be required to use the facility? 3. What features will be included? (Half-pipes, bowls, ramps and projections, etc.) 4. What types of personal protective and safety equipment will be required? S. What total materials and labor costs will be generated to construct the facility? 6. What short-term and long-term maintenance costs will be generated? 7. What short-term and long-term costs will be generated to train and staff supervisory personnel? 8. What additional costs may be generated to insure the facility? MORE SPECIRC ITEMS. 1. To help prevent unauthorized use when not in operation or not being supervised, the facility will need to be enclosed with a minimum of security-type fencing of sufficient height. 2 A formal, documented maintenance program will need to be established and continued for the life of the facility. 3. Adequate planning of the facility "footprint' will be necessary to minimize conflicts between active users of the facility and spectators,passive users and others. 4. Special events using the facility, especially those that are considered "sanctioned" events sponsored by organized groups, will need to function only under specific insurance cover. This preferably should be provided by the organization(s) involved and name the community as an additional insured. A hold harmless and indemnification clause in favor of the community should also be included. Insurance companies providing this type of cover should be closely scrutinized for their financial stability and the value of the coverage provided. 5. Administration of use of the facility should include the use of waivers of liability signed by the users of the facility and their parent or guardian if under 18 years of age. Due to the limited acceptance of waivers by the courts, the waiver should be specifically constructed for this purpose by legal counsel with experience in this area of law. 6. The facility will need to post and enforce established rules and regulations to include, but not necessarily limited to: a) Operating hours and admission requirements. b) Possible age and skill level requirements. n c) Behavior requirements. SM1B r2o.VWS MANAGING THE SKATEBOARDING RISK Page 4 d) Requirements regarding the use of personal protective and safety equipment Cie: helmets, elbow and knee pads, gloves, proper foot-veer) e) Requirements concerning the fitness for use of skateboards and related equipment 7. Can ramps be cost effectively constructed to reflect appropriate design "standards" for use of materials that present the lowest potential ongoing maintenance cost? Have designs incorporated the use of impact absorption material around the perimeter fall areas of ramps, etc.? 8. Does the need for the facility outweigh the potential for injuries and liability claims and lawsuits that may emanate from the facility? Does the current legal climate for parks and recreation liability favor operation of such a facility 9. Can establishment of such a facility sustain a challenge for accessibility for use by disabled persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? 10. Have alternatives to the public entitys operation of the facility been fully explored? For example: a) is there an formally organized group or private individual that could more effectively operate the facility on private property? b) Could such a facility be operated appropriately if it were placed on public property, but operated by a formally organized group or private individual that has obtained appropriate insurance coverage and established a proper operations agreement with the community? ammo I L As can be noted from this advisory information, potential liability issues emanating from skateboarding activities in public entities tend to be more complex than they may appear on the surface. We caution any public entity that is considering providing such facilities and programs to consider them carefully and be comfortable with their ability to provide well managed facilities for the safety and well-being of everyone. If you would like more information concerning this advisory or odw risk management and loss confrol issues, please contact BERKLEY Risk Services, Inc. Loss Control Services 920 Second Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 6W24023 2(612)376-4200 FORMATION PROVIDED M THIS ADVISORY M MENDED FOR USE SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL AND GUIDELINE PURPOSES FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT AND LOSS CONTROL.PROGRAMS OF OUR CLIENTS. THE INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH ANY LAW, RULE OR REGULATION. NO /0N, WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, ARE GNEN AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED OR THAT ALL CONCEIVABLE EXPOSURES OR HAZARDS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THE ANAL RESPONSFBMJrY FOR CONDUCTING RISK MANAGEMENT AND LOSS CONTROL PROGRAMS RESTS WITH THE MiSURFD. SMTBM VVPS Burnsvil-le -- Ci-ty-..- Skate Park -Design Proposal- "Rs �"'•E 1 � f � rai I � � h � MN ti.IN 4 I 1 I rh w I a�d - .Sr Carll`6 Y :r IMI,�CI iI�"r 17 :4yi N' Ciu,��n'6o-r N a fGI rY!dr� ry i xI f 0 tl ^ C § ^ 4 4tll tlPti48k§CI y RI }5i 4M^ 41�'�R,i 1 ' I k, 4'f'.. pry II���.tli4YtiP.4i Wr'M 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview ...................................................1 Mission......................................................3 Burnsville Skate Park ................................4 Risk Management.......................................5 Operations .................................................6 Governance Revenue Operational Expenses Capital Improvements Financials - Table I....................................7 Summary ...................................................8 AppendixA ...............................................9 Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 11 OVERVIEW In late December, 19949 a group of students requested a meeting with Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor for the City of Burnsville, Dr. James Rickabaugh, Superintendent of Independent School District 191 and Dr. Richard N. Manley, President of Manley & Associates to discuss the feasibility of developing a centralized facility in which they could practice and develop their skills in skateboarding, inline skating and bicycling. At this and subsequent meetings, the following goals were established: * The facility would be designed and developed by individuals participating in these sports. * The facility would be built by raising funds and soliciting donations with no financial support requested from the City of Burnsville. * Students would utilize the knowledge and resources provided by the City of Burnsville, School District 191 and the private sector in the development of the Skate Park. ' * A plan would be developed and presented to the City of Burnsville for usage of city land for the Skate Park development. Accomplishments: * With the assistance of an engineer, students designed the Skate Park to include the requirements of inline skaters, skateboarders and bicyclists. These designs are currently being reviewed by a certified architect at the University of Minnesota. * The students held rock concerts that raised over $1,700.00. In each case, they accepted the responsibility for the total operations of the concert from site selection and event organization to promotion on the local rock radio station. * The students made presentations to local service organizations discussing the rational for the park and demonstrating their respective skill levels. This resulted in donations in excess of$2,200.00. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 1 r-. * The students .requested representatives from the communities surrounding Burnsville to participate in the development of the Park. Accordingly, the students who participated are from Lakeville, Prior Lake, Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan. * Individuals from the public and private sector offered their time and expertise in the development of the park, raising funds and promoting the concept. * Burnsville Skate Park, Inc., is registered as a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. * Based upon the final plan, a private contractor has offered to consider grading and laying the black top necessary for the park. * Independent School District 191 will consider allowing the students and volunteers to use the woodworking facilities to build the various structures. In reviewing the above accomplishments, the students demonstrated their willingness to educate individuals and citizens on the use and purpose of the ^ park, raise funds to support it, and request expertise and assistance in areas for which they have no knowledge or experience. This has resulted in the educational, public and private sectors pooling their knowledge to support the development of the Burnsville Skate Park. r-� Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 2 MISSION To provide a facility in which skateboarders, inline skaters and bicycle enthusiasts may practice and develop their skills in a safe and challenging environment. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 3 -OwlBURNSVILLE SKATE PARK The design of the Burnsville Skate Park was developed cooperatively by individuals active in the sport of inline skating, skateboarding and bicycling. Appendix A, is an illustration of the proposed facility that will encompass over 10,000 square feet and be located South of the current inline hockey rink. It will consist of various types of treated wood ramps that will be challenging to the novice as well as the expert. Some of the key features of the Park include: * Many of the ramps are movable, providing the flexibility and adaptability to keep individual users interested and involved in their chosen sports. * All skill levels, from novice to expert, were considered in the development of the ramp designs. * The plans are being reviewed by a Professor of Architecture at the University of Minnesota for structural and safety. * Masonite is being used since it is strong, durable and easily replaceable. It is projected that all masonite materials will be replaced on an annual basis. * The Parks proposed location would make use of existing parking facilities and lighting capabilities while keeping the practitioners of the sports in one location. * The location provides excellent accessibility for Burnsville residents. * A design that is able to accommodate 40 -50 participants at any one time. * The following security and safety considerations are part of the design: 1. The proposed area will be enclosed with an eight foot security fence. 2. The design allows personnel to easily inspect and repair the Park. 3. All ramps will be designed to accepted standards of the sport. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 4 RISK MANAGEMENT Although numerous risks can be identified for the development of a Skate Board Park, they usually can be categorized into two basic areas: 1. The exposure presented by youth using a skateboard ramp. 2. The uncontrolled nature of the participants. Accordingly, to reduce the risk exposure insurance underwriters have offered the following guidelines: * The facility will be fenced, thereby controlling accessibility. * The Skate Park will be supervised by an adult. * Competitive activities will not be allowed. * Ramps will be structurally sound and meet all applicable codes. * A formal documented maintenance program will be established and followed. * All entrants (or, if a minor, their parents) will be required to sign a waiver of liability/hold harmless agreement in favor of the Park and City of Burnsville. This will be prepared by legal counsel. * All participants will be required to wear appropriate safety equipment such as helmets, hand, elbow and knee pads and appropriate footwear. * All equipment will be inspected prior to entrance into the park. * Signs will be posted to address park rules and regulations. When followed, the above guidelines will greatly reduce the Skate Park's risk and corresponding exposure. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 5 ,..� OPERATIONS Governance The Burnsville Skate Park, Inc. is registered in Minnesota as a nonprofit corporation. Its primary purpose is to act as a governing board made up of parents and youth who are active in skateboarding, inline skating and bicycling. This group will be responsible for establishing operational, safety and financial policies for the Skate Park with assistance and guidance provided by the City of Burnsville. Revenue Table I, illustrates the multiple revenue streams that will be developed to support the activities of the Skate Park. Discussions with manufacturers and retail operators have been very supportive. The largest share of the revenue will appropriately come from Park users. Operational Expenses The following points were considered in preparing the Skate Park's operational expenses (Table I): * The Park would be in operation from May - September at the following times: May .....................................2:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. June - August........................9:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. September.............................2:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. * Part time salaries will be paid to the adults supervising the park. It is also expected that volunteer assistance will also be provided. * Resurfacing of the ramps will occur during the school year and be provided by students in the high school woodworking class. * A cellular phone will be purchased and used at the park for emergency purposes only. * Concessions and rental equipment will be sold at competitive margins. * First aid training will be provided for all attendants. Capital Improvement Table I, also outlines the Skate Park construction estimates. There will be no labor costs. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 6 TABLE I BURNSVILLE SKATE PARK, INC. Revenue User Fees $38,250.00 Donations $6,000.00 Concerts $4,000.00 Demonstrations $2,500.00 Advertising $6,000.00 Equipment Rental $7,650.00 Concessions $4.500.00 Total Revenue $68,900.00 Operational Expenses Salaries $8,568.00 Utilities $1,800.00 Concessions $3,150.00 Rental Equipment $6,400.00 Telephone $1,200.00 Maintenance $10,600.00 Liability Insurance $10,000.00 First Aid Training $1,254.00 Storage $1,200.00 Portable Rest Rooms $473.00 Total Operating Expenses $44,645-00 Income Before Capital Improvements $24,255.00 Capital Improvements Grading and Paving $5,417.00 Chain Link Fencing $10,000.00 Lumber and Masonite $2,634.00 Electrical $4,250.00 Cement Curbs $200.00 Other $254.00 Concessions &Equipment Stand $1,5500.00 Total Capital Improvements $24,, 52 5.00 Income After Capital Improvements $0.00 Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 7 SUMMARY The Burnsville Skate Park, Inc., is willing to assume the costs for the building, operations and management. This can be accomplished through the partnerships that have been developed through the public, private and educational sectors. Our customers -- the students-- will assure its long- term viability. Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 8 Burnsville Skate Park Proposal Page 9 Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate Ramp Diagram B JILL C OO ; 1 I H G I J K © M Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate Ramp . Halfpipe Use: Riders transfer from side to side launching them into the air Skill Level: Novice-Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 36 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 36 Pine - 2*4*16 Qty: 30 4*4*12 Qty: 12 Metal Pipe - 2" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 48' Burnsville City SkatePark : © Ramp : Mini Halfpipe Use: Riding the multiple lips and decks to perform various tricks Skill Level: Beginner - Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 36 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 36 Pine - 2*4*16 Qty: 55 - 4*4*8 Qty: 20 Metal Pipe - 2" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 54' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate © Ram : Radius Quarter Pipe Use: Skill Level: Beginner- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 4 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 4 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 35 Metal Pipe - 3" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 16' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate 0 Ramp :Large e Quarter Pipe Use: Skill Level: Novice-Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 3 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 3 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 25 Metal Pipe - 2" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 6' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate 0 Ramp : Small Quarter Pipe Use: Skill Level: Beginner- Novice u Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 2 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 2 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 20 Metal Pipe 2" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 6' -�urnsville City SkatePark : Estimate 0 Ramp •. Flat Bank Use: To gain speed and return riders into th, course Skill Level: Beginner- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 1 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 1 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 16 Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate © Ramp : small & Large g Launch Use: Launch Riders to perform tricks in the air Skill Level: Beginner- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 6 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 6 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 35 Metal Plate - 1/4" Thickness, 32' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate Ramp : Bank to Bank with Rail Quarter Combo Use: Multi trick options combining platform to ' rail transfers r ❑ t •. E.4 r ... Skill Level: Novice- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 4 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 4 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 25 Metal Pipe - 3" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 16' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate O Ramp : Pyramid with Rail Combo Use: Multi trick options combining platform to rail transfers Skill Level: Novice- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 3 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 4 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 20 Metal Pipe - 3" Dia. 1/8" Wall Thickness, 20' Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate Ram : Large Starting p 9 9 Ramp Use: Provide speed to start I f course runs 1 Skill Level: Novice- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 3 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 3 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 25 e Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate OK Ramp : small Starting Ramp Use: Provide speed to start course runs Skill Level: Beginner- Novice Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 2 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 2 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 20 Burnsville City SkatePark : Estimate 0 Ramp : Flat Bank Use: To gain speed and return riders into the course Skill Level: Beginner- Expert Materials Needed: Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 1 Plywood - 4*8 Qty: 1 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 16 Burnsville City SkatePark Estimate Ramp: Mini Halfpipe Use: Skill Level: Begener- Expert Materials Needed : Masonite - 4*8 Qty: 1 Plywood 4*8 Qty: 1 Pine - 2*4*8 Qty: 6 BURNSVILLE SKATE PARK FACILITY (EASE AGREEMENT 11L`O1/96 FRI 16:14 FA-X 612 452 5550 C K S & F 444 BtRNSVILLE U002 GROUND LEASE GROUND LEASE dated , 1996, by and between the CITY OF BURNSVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 100 Civic Center Parkway, Burnsville, MN 55337 ("Landlord"), and BURNSVYLLE SKATE PARK, INC., a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Tenant"). 1. GRANT OF LEASE. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the Landlord does hereby Lease to Tenant and the Tenant does hereby rent from the Landlord the land described in the attached Exhibit "A." ("Property"). 2. TERM. This Lease shall commence on the 1st day of June, 1996, and shall terminate on the Ist day of June, 1999, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the other terms of this Lease. The Landlord may terminate this Lease on January 1st each year during the term of the Lease by giving Tenant sixty (60) days advance written notice. 3. RENT. Tenant agrees to pay Landlord an annual rental of One Dollar ($1.00). Rent shall be remitted to Landlord by check, in advance, on or before the 1st day of March during each year during the term of this Lease. 4. CONSTRUCTION OFDdPROVEMENTS. Tenant agrees to construct an inline skating, skateboarding and bicycling facility("Skate Park"), at its own expense, on the Property in accordance with the plans to be approved by the City Engineer. The Skate Park must be enclosed with an eight foot high (minimum) security fence which must be locked during non- operational hours. Any plan changes must be approved in writing by the Landlord. The plans must also be reviewed and approved, at Tenant's expense, by a structural engineer registered with the State of Minnesota. Further, at Tenant's expense, prior to the opening of the facility, 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 11/.'01/96 FRI 16:14 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F BURNSVILLE Q 003 the Skate Park structure must be inspected by the structural engineer and a letter submitted to the City from the engineer certifying that the facilities were constructed in accordance with the approved plans. If the Skate Park is not complete and ready for occupancy by the 1st day of September, 1997, the Landlord may cancel this Lease. 5. LIEN'S BY TENANT. 5.01 The Tenant shall not create or allow any liens for labor or material on the Property, and all persons contracting with the Tenant for the erection, installation, alteration, or repair of any building or other improvements on the Property, and all materialmen, contractors, mechanics, and laborers, are hereby charged with notic:; :hat they must look to the Tenant and to the Tenant's interests only in the Property to secure the payment of any bill for work done or material furnished during the term of this Lease. ,.� 5.02 Tenant agrees not to enter into any contract with any person, firm, or corporation, or with any labor contractor for labor, service, or material in connection with any building or improvement to be placed on the Property or to be rebuilt thereon unless it shall be stipulated in and be a condition of such contract that no lien shall arise or be claimed on account of such contract or on account of any work done or material furnished under the contract. 5.03 Tenant agrees to provide evidence to Landlord that Tenant has raised sufficient funds to make all of the improvements in the Plans needed to provide a safe and secure facility prior to beginning construction. S. USE. The Property shall only be used for the Skate Park and uses incidental to that use. 7. COVENANT, REPRESENTATION, AND WARRANTIES. Tenant hereby .--� covenants, represents and warrants that during the term of this Lease (i) all of the improvements 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 2 111.01/96 FRI 16:15 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F BURNSy ILLE U 004 will be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the highest accepted standards of design construction and maintenance, and meet all applicable rules, regulations and codes at the time that the improvements are made and during the term of this Tease; (ii) the Skate Park will be supervised during all hours of operation by an adult; (iii)all persons using the Skate Park (or, if a minor, their parents or legal guardian) shall sign a waiver of liability and an agreement to hold harmless Tenant and Landlord; (iv) all waivers will be held by Tenant during the terms of this Lease and Tenant shall forward to Landlord monthly, a list of all participants at the Skate Park along with all waivers signed by the applicable participant; (v) all participants shall be required to wear appropriate safety equipment including, but not limited to helmets, hand, elbow and knee pads and appropriate footwear; (vi) signs will be posted at the entrance and such other places as are deemed appropriate, which state the Skate Park rules and regulations. All supervisors, employees and attendants at the Skate Park shall have first aid training and appropriate first aid supplies and materials shall be kept on the Property. A telephone shall be located at the Property for emergency use only. $. HOURS OF OPERATION. The Skate Park shall be open from May 1st through September 30th of each year during the following times: May: 2:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. June - August: 9:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. September: 2:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. The Landlord may require closure of the facility from time to time during community events. 9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. During the term of this Lease, Tenant may not, without the express written consent of Landlord, assign this Lease or any interest herein, or sublease all or any part of the Property. 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 3 11!.01/96 FRI 16:15 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F BURNSVILLE [a005 10. INDENZanCATION OF LANDLORD. Tenant shall indemnify and save harmless Landlord from and against all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, charges, and expenses, included reasonable attorney's fees, which may be imposed upon or incurred by or asserted against Landlord in respect of any use, nonuse, or condition of the Property created by Tenant or attributable to Tenant's use or manner of use of the Property. In the event that any action or proceeding shall be brought against Landlord by reason of any claim referred to in this paragraph, Tenant, upon written notice from Landlord, shall at Tenant's sole cost and expense resist or defend the same through counsel selected by Landlord. 11. INSURANCE. 11.01 Tenant agrees to keep all of the improvements on the Property and the machinery contained therein constantly insured with an insurance company or companies licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota acceptable to Landlord for not less than the replacement cost of the improvements. 11.02 Tenant agrees to protect and save Landlord from any claims for injuries to property or person, or death, resulting from accident or other happening on the Property, and to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 to protect both Landlord and Tenant. Landlord shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. Such insurance shall be written in a company or companies authorized to engage in the business of general liability in the State of Minnesota, and there shall be delivered to the Landlord customary certificates evidencing such paid-up insurance, which certificates are to be issued by the insurance companies and which certificates shall further provide that such liability insurance 34397.03 RNK:r11I01/96 4 11!101.96 FRI 16:16 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F ... BUR SVILLE fa006 may not be cancelled unless the Landlord is notified in writing ten (10) days prior to any such proposed cancellation. 12. UTE TMS. Tenant shall be responsible for the payment of all utility costs including water, gas, and electric. 13. CLEAN-UP AT END OF TERM. At the end of the term, the Tenant shall return the property to the Landlord in the same condition as it was in at the beginning of the term. 14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND POLICIES. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Property in any manner which would cause any violation of any laws and ordinances affectuig the Property, and shall comply with all laws and ordinances affecting the Property insofar as compliance becomes necessary by virtue of any act or neglect by Tenant in its use and occupancy of the Property. Tenant shall also comply with all City of Burnsville policies, including Youth Athletic Association Policy 3.075. Smoking shall be prohibited on the property. 15. MAINTENANCE. Tenant shall put, keep, and maintain all portions of the Property and Tenant's property, and all streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, passageways, and spaces adjacent thereto in a clean and orderly condition, free of dirt, rubbish, and unlawful obstructions. 16. DEFAULT. If Tenant shall default in its performance of or compliance with any of the terms, covenants and agreements under this Lease and such default shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of such default from Landlord (unless, in the case of any default which cannot with due diligence be remedied within such thirty (30) day period, a course of action to remedy the same shall be commenced by Tenant within such period and shall thereafter be prosecuted with diligence and continuity), or if Tenant shall be adjudicated 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 5 11./4)1/96 FRI 16:16 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S R F BURNSVILLE U007 a bankrupt or insolvent or make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, then, in the event of any such situation, Landlord may, at its option, lawfully enter into and upon the Property or any part thereof and repossess the same and evict Tenant and all persons claiming under and through Tenant, and remove any effects, forcibly if necessary, without being guilty of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies which may be available for arrears of rent or for Tenant's breach of covenant, and upon entry as aforesaid, this Lease shall terminate and wholly expire. 17. HOLDING OVER. Any holding over by Tenant or any assignee or subtenant of Tenant beyond the expiration of the term of this Lease shall give rise to a tenancy from month to month at the same rent payable during the last month of the term of this Lease and all other provisions of this Lease shall continue. 18. OWNERSHIP OF MPROVEMENTS. All improvements, additions, and fixtures made on the Property shall, at option of Landlord, remain on the Property at expiration of this Lease, and become the property of Landlord without any compensation to Tenant. 19. SUBORDINATION. The Landlord's interest in the Property shall not be subordinated to any mortgage. 20. NOTICES. All notices and other communications to be given hereunder by either party shall be in writing and shall be mailed, postage prepaid, by first class, certified, or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the other (and the date of any notice by certified or registered mail shall be deemed to be the date of certification or registration thereof), delivered or addressed to the parties as follows: r 34397.03 RNK:r17/01/95 6 11.01 '96 FRI 16:17 FAT 612 452 5550 C K S & F BURNSVILLE 1@008 AS TO TENANT: Mr. Richard N. Manley Richard N. Manley & Associates, Inc. 12400 Portland Avenue South Burnsville, MN 55337 AS TO LANDLORD: City of Burnsville 100 Civic Center Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 Attn: Mr. Tom Seesz or at such other address as either party may designate to the other by written notice in the manner provided above. 21. RECORDING. Tenant or Landlord, at their option, may record this Lease, or at Tenant's or Landlord's request, each party shall execute a short form of Lease for recording purposes. 22. CHA IGES. Neither this Lease nor any term or provision hereof may be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against which the enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge, or termination is sought. 23. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective .heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. 24. COUNTERPART. This Lease may be executed, for the convenience of the parties, in several counterpart originals, each of which is in all respects similar to the other and complete. 25. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS. The paragraph headings contained herein are inserted only for convenience of reference and are in no way to be construed as a part of this Lease or as a limitation on the scope of the particular paragraphs to which they refer. 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 7 11'/101/96 FRI 16:17 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F BURNSVILLE 0 009 26. LAWS APPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTION. This Lease shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN VVYI'NFSS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Lease as of the day and year first above written. LANDLORD: CITY OF BURNSVILLE BY: Elizabeth B. Kautz, Mayor BY: Gregory J. Konat, City Manager TENANT: BURNSVILLE SKATE PARK, INC. n BY: Its BY: Its STATE OF MINNE,SOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 , by Elizabeth B. Kautz, the Mayor, and by Gregory J. Konat, the City Manager, of the CITY OF BURNSVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 34397.03 RNK:0 1/01/96 8 11,'�01/96 FRI 16:17 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F BLTRNSFILLE lJU10 r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 by and by the and respectively of Burnsville Skate Park, Inc. a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KN rSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. 317 Ea.gandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 rRNK:srn 34397.03 RNK:r11/01/96 9 /xtrao/site/W-r y/skoleA.S70 \ \ \ \ z \\ \ �\ \ �\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 5 6 4 7 �\ / 35 / 31 34 12 32 30 10 27 33 \ 13 29 26 / 1 28 I 25 t 141 POSSIBLE \ f FUTURE \ BUS PARKING 24 23 - - - 15 ♦ —-_ 22 16 _ 17 21 20 19 / 18 ♦ _ / PROPERTY LINE City of CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX BURNSVILLE PROPOSED SKATE PARK ENGINEERING DIVISION Vl V V J 100 Civic Center Parkway EXHIBIT A �-^✓�� Burnsville, bx 55337 NO SCALE POLICY NUMBER 3.075 YOUTH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS I.POLICY STATEMENT A key goal of the Chys Ream ion and Enterprises Department fiuxxion is to provide a rich variety of recreational opportunities to city youth in the most efficient manner possible. To achieve this goal,the City will emphasize a partnership with-volunteer organizations to plan, organize, and implement youth recreational programs both as a means of containing service costs and as a method of ensuring a community-based program. 11 PROCEDURES The City may recognize any number of associations based on the availability of resources and determination of the benefit to the community by the Recreation and Enterprises Director. 1. To qualify as a recogrrii� City youth athletic association,the association must provide: • Youth sports program(s)open to all residents in their designated service area • A full array of sports programs for boys and girls involving all age and competition levels. r1 • Democratic procedures and elections that ensure input from the residents regardir g program input and policies. The Recreation and Enterprises Department staff shall receive a copy of the grotVs by-laws to help verify this point. • Verification of non-profit status.They shall provide the City with an annual financial report and a copy of any tax filings required by the state or federal governments. • Established grievance procedures which involve a City staff member as a non-voting observer.The City will observe in cases where City participation seems prudent. • Opportunity for a Recreation and Enterprises Department representative to participate(non-voting) in Board meetugs and attend monthly meetings as desired. 2. In return, qualifying associations will receive from the City- Priority use of City-owned facilities along with other established priority users. Use of City facilities needed to operate their programs at no charge or reduced rates as outlined in the fee policy. NOTE: The Ice Center is an exception to this in that no reduced rates are offered as outlined in the funding proposal when the second sheet of ice was built. Acknowledgment of the groups as providers of their respective sport offerings. As part of this,the City does not offer programs in these—areas,but refers residents to these organizations. 3. Youth athletic associations are valued partners to the City in providing organized recreational opportunities. Consequently, serious conflicts arising within or between associations and resident groups that threaten the quality of those recreational opportunities are of concern to the City. Policy Number 3.075 n Page 2 Barring a legal imperative to the contrary,the CiWs role in resolving such conflicts is limited to encouraging the association board and party in conflict to work through the problem,according to existing by-laws,with staff representatives providing facilitation and information,as required. III. RESPONSIB111TY The Recreation and Enterprises Department appoints staff to work with the various athletic associations to ensure the responsibilities are being met. Concerns from the general public are addressed by staff through the grievance procedure.This policy is subject to annual review and approval by the City Manager. IV.AUTHORITY Administrative implementation of policy. Submitted by /� Date ""Reviewed by Date v 2 This policy replaces Policy No. 3.075 dated May 10, 1993. J i;eIis ji__sit t•: t „� e.T� e�ii£.. siif 1 Ted X3tili2*ye[l Staff present W-- 4}i:it it:'�s!._+ i't. h ` '. j`1 tF:' a'. _- -'.� f fi `.4t a.is€E -tsa i1 uld ii i12 iir �Yfi\? as�'t- fi�llc���s rf �7tI I-p0Se of e =e tt-e is t( iddci,'ti IN ad pN a LLjitlpreh��►SIVE t: ai ti ;f , fIi ^, i„e; ;{.ail l�_;sL 4nr3 tis)Tfy IYieG>r to The park board. U -ers n. _'�-. -V 1�. �!___>._..i t3`t: {.. .-.- f v' �.` r.. �:,L J`-a .._) 1<_.. {- •- Y 'ik 4:it'WeC[It132 _ AiSj) the a 'a ail '�til:t .; = !I t t i-tv Z-'. k- 4 e ? Z ,t S i}t `:t 7 i?t-`t.. \x1_4l3'y",4x:.�t...s.. Ili•the Yfa.Tt.3wo+`"d ��f.'A Trail b .vdmg 'up l ays s" _ .. ) V. `gin t-: _ _� .ti OL i�CIISSI �t Ct;t��er €* .I.. `_ i_t ' �,�.�._ �? Y �zt) A_- ;: ii 1tt �t'e. the fi?l�OW3��:. u MW I -'Ise i?i t}i.�t l�! C !$7Zi }1 r'i17:i1€itJ lta_ w=A t t�Qit i1�7y 7 m qq.. qq ,,yy e � ;pry ,�J �yL. i •I y `f z i - 2 .'-1 new brid e on I+- - -?f_? l-�t ivee [`i'c-.Lalke and i9izf5,7;�i�i):Lake IDS�LC�.��`a� ' �, tCtl't43t'a i � tL y 3. fi=y iia `: Ca 1t4f t; pedeStrie i K`eC OIL the bridges. � . t s� Cf4 sti11I r.Iv Ou ItAA, -"¢_'�` �'s_er .'t;Dt Jkr l:�ii�8t� r 4fit. ciiSi-SvEi t�11 ::o! t t; il?iiL�7t f .f it1?li.Yj'�? t1� !jS4 �1° �SLB} 1S�li ,A MaYl)j WIJJ tF)- =0 tt t` ' t23 u, �.} q} ti.,b; t , 7'ino LaF S SO weIys3-v, t�'e Slat-II bfe, sting trot s+; 1i' 'n ?tirig ;ehetfiulcf for h � t j la� AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: November 21, 1996 TOPIC: Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan: Trail Issue BACKGROUND Northwest Associated Consultants has been working with the City of Lino Lakes on the revisions for the City Comprehensive Plan. One of the issues that needs to be resolved is trail alignment in reference to pedestrian and bicycle transportation to the City Center development at 35W and Lake Drive. The portion of the trail that is in question is the section that would extend north from the Shores of Marshan Development around n Marshan Lake. Please refer to figure 6.3 Park and Trail System Plan, Trail Section #18 . Trail Section 18 is intended to be located within a linear trail corridor that begins at Aqua Lane and runs north-northeast following the shoreline of Marshan Lake, the edge of the wetlands, and on the northern most segment, directly adjacent to or within the regional park. The intention of this trail was to present an opportunity to use the linear trail concept to its fullest potential and take advantage of views across Marshan Lake and the regional park. As we all know, the realities of trail development change when trails are proposed adjacent to existing properties. Please find attached copies of letters from Mr. Mike Winge who lives at 600 Marshan Lake, and Mr. Glen Rehbein who lives at 7374 Lake Drive. Both gentlemen are residents that live to the north of The shores of Marshan on Marshan Lake. The trail alignment would have to come very close to the backs of their houses because of the wetlands. Our Comprehensive Plan is not an exact document in terms of park and trail locations, but is intended to be flexible. The trail alignment from our Comprehensive Plan and the location where it would have to go to accomplish this segment is depicted on the enclosed Conceptual Land Use Plan. This segment of trail was always intended to be a long-term goal, before our Town Center plan was conceived. There are two short term solutions that would work for the Town Center. The first is obtaining trail easement through the Gethsemane Methodist Church to the North, West to Lake Drive and following the road easement to the north to Town Center. This would require a fairly wide creek crossing at Lake Drive. This is indicated by the dashed black line on "The City of Lino Lakes Trail Proposal" map. The trail would also most likely necessitate the removal of pine trees at Mr. Rehbeins property. This map was developed as part of a trail grant proposal to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The green areas indicated on the map are the trail grant proposal areas. The second option is indicated on this map. This is the green area that heads to the North from the School along 4th Ave. , through a light-industrial area and crosses Lake Drive at a future access point to Town Center. This trail would not have as difficult of a crossing at the creek, and could be worked into the light- industrial area that is scheduled for development in the near future. I believe that trail segment 1 in our Comprehensive Plan, the 4 .7 miles of transportation trail along Lake Drive should be looked at holistically including the interstate bridge crossing for pedestrians to the north. We are trying to pull together a trails committee meeting for next week to get their input on this matter. OPTIONS 1 . Recommend modifying the Comprehensive Plan to the green shaded area on the "City of Lino Lakes Park Trail Proposal" map. 2. Recommend modifying the Comprehensive Plan to the dashed line alignment in the "City of Lino Lakes Park Trail Proposal" map. This would abandon trail segment 18 along the west side of Marshan Lake, North of the Shores of Marshan, and merging it with trail segment 1 in our Comprehensive Plan via. an easement through the church. RECOHWNDATION 1 .and 2. For the very short-term, recommend the 4th Avenue alignment, and, a change on the east side for the 49 transportation '� trail. Memorandum DATE: November 19, 1996 TO: Marty Asleson FROM: Mary Kay Wyland W"(- RE: Marshan Lake Park Trail-Comp Plan CC: B. Wessel Following a recent Comprehensive Plan meeting,staff received correspondence from two residents concerning the proposed trail around Marshan Lake,particularly where it crosses their properties. I have attached copies of these letters for your information along with a copy of the proposed Land Use Map showing the proposed trail location and possible relocation. It has been suggested that the Park Board address these concerns and respond to the residents. It was also suggested that perhaps the trail could be realigned toward Lake Drive in this location. Again,this is a Park Board issue and is therefore being directed to you. We hope to complete the land use planning for Districts 1 and 2 by mid-January and would hope this could be on the December Park Board Agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enc: November 4, 1996 Mr. Brian Wessel City of Lino Lakes Community Development Director 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Brian: It has come to my attention that a hiking trail is being proposed on the West side of Marshan Lake, planned to end at the future City Center, or possibly continuing around the park to Birch Street. I have lived along Marshan Lake for 15 years and have many concerns with the idea of putting in a hiking trail along the lake. Much of the land between the lake and our house is bog or part of the lake itself, under high water conditions. This area would be extremely difficult, expensive and maybe under current regulations impossible to build on. The higher land is relatively close to my house and would destroy our privacy. r It is one thing to put in trails in new developments giving buyers the option of determining if they want the trail adjacent to their land, but it is much different to run a trail in an area that has been the private property of a homeowner for many years. I have concerns over the safety of my family and others who would.use this trail. The trail would be well away from other public areas making it difficult for the police to adequately patrol. It would provide someone access to the rear of our house and make it much easier to successfully break in unobserved. A much better solution would be to utilize the easements along Lake Drive. This area would be accessible for people to enter and exit the trail where they wish. To place the trail for long stretches with private property on one side and the lake on the other would be to invite people to trespass. Public walking trails can be a nice amenity if they are built in appropriate areas. If not, they can become a real problem for landowners and the public alike. Sinter , enn Rehbein 7374 Lake Drive 786-2426 NS1/ aY NORTHLAND October 24, 1996 Mr. Brian Wessel City of Lino Lakes Community Development Director, 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes,MN 55014 Dear Brian: It is my understanding that a hiking trail is being proposed for the West side of Marshan Lake, possibly terminating at the future City Center or continuing around the park to Birch Street. I have lived on Marshan Lake adjoining the park property for nearly 30 years and have concerns with this plan. The land along this side of the lake is all bog. In the spring the water behind my house is ,.� deep enough to launch a canoe and paddle from my lawn to anywhere on the chain of lakes. The rest of the year the bog is to wet to walk on. A trail thru this area would be very expensive to build, maintain and patrol. The only high ground is within 40 feet of our houses and I would vehemently oppose a trail across my lawn. The set back of the homes along Lake Drive between the South side of Gethsemane Church and the proposed commercial area at Lake and 35W would allow for a trail along Lake Drive and then dim the commercial area where it could rejoin the park. This would also be safer for the trail users,as the proposed trail is several hundred yards off the road and quite secluded. I understand that there is a meeting concerning this proposal on November 6th at 6:00 p.m. Please advise me if this meeting date or time changes. Sincerely, Mike Winge 600 Marshan Lake 464-5222 13733 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 USA Ph. (612) 464-5222 FAX: (612) 464-4714 (800) 721-1258 e f Larry and Kelley Swangstue 6301 Coyote Trail Lino Lakes, MN. 55014 Home Phone 484-6485 November 15, 1996 George Lindy Chairperson Park and Recreation Department 7204 Lake Drive Lino Lakes,MN. 55014 Dear Mr. Lindy, The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our thoughts regarding the new park which serves the Park Grove, Pineridge and Birchwood Acres developments. You haven't heard from us in the past. We have decided to jump into this melee and provide another perspective to this issue. We thank you in advance for taking the time to read and consider the comments we have expressed in this letter. From the time we had our house built the developer and our builder had referred to the land that was set aside for a park. We eagerly awaited the construction of the playground and the other facilities which were discussed in the surveys that have been sent to our home. We also donated proceeds from our garage sale to Friends of the Park. A few days before the playground was installed we met with Jeanne Kenow,Lino Lakes Community Services Officer, at a bike rodeo we arranged at Shenandoah Park. We discussed our excitement regarding the new park. Ms. Kenow told us that the new park would be a safe place for the kids to play because it would be in an area where a lot of houses would overlook it and it could be policed by the community. We were interested to learn about community policing from Ms. Kenow and realized how much safer the children would be while playing at our neighborhood park. You can imagine our disappointment when we discovered where the playground equipment was installed. The playground is tucked into the woods and hidden behind berms,built for the benefit of a few homeowners. This certainly flys in the face of the current theories of public safety where the community looks out for all those that reside there. If the placement of the playground was out in the open like most of us assumed it would be(including Ms. Kenow), we would be comfortable letting our seven-year-old ride her bike over with a friend and play. Because of the secluded placement of the playground we don't allow her to go there with her young friends. The people that urged you to place this playground in this location are a very organized group of individuals,but they are definitely a minority with their own agenda. We believe they have unduly influenced the decisions that have previously been made with regard to this park and continue to do so even though there is an overwhelming majority of people who want the things that we rated highly in our surveys. Lino Lakes doesn't need another failed park like Shenandoah Park on Arrowwood. At this park there is one picnic table and a grass infield which is rarely mowed. Sure,you don't have to worry about noise and traffic because no one uses it! This park is a failure. ram, There are 400+adults who signed petitions which lists what their priorities are for this park. There is a much smaller group of people who want different things for this park. They are concerned about all of the issues that are a part of a successful park including noise,traffic and people. However,they were aware of the location of the park when they purchased their property. To complain about it now seems ridiculous to us. We believe that the people that are adjacent to the park should be consulted regarding how to best resolve issues of noise,traffic and people,but the majority should rule as to what should be included in the park. The people who live adjacent to this park seem to favor the characteristics of rural living,however, everyone on both sides of this issue chose to live in a community which has bike paths that run through backyards;houses that are 30 feet from each other and an average of two or three kids per household. If you look at other neighborhoods that resemble ours,you will see parks,that are similar to the park, 400+people petitioned for here. Shoreview,for example, has a couple parks(Bucher and McCullough)that we enjoy very much. They offer lots of the amenities our 400+ rnAiority wants in our park and they fit in very nicely with their neighborhoods. Let's make sure that we don't make mistakes limiting park development and access to our new park because we are afraid people will use it. We have been waiting several years to use it! Sincerely, Kelley and Larry Swangstue cc: Mayor,John Landers cc: Sharon Lane cc:Joe Schmidt cc:Paul Montain cc: Betty Piper cc: Amy Donlan cc: Pam Taschuk cc:Editor,The Quad Press City of Lino Lakes Park Trail Proposal GREENWOOD LA. �----.1 PRAIRIE VIE P L U THOMAS ST. 77th ST. W. w � --- ____________________ \ 35W I 49 � LILAC sr Wargo Nature 49 �Q Center LA. N w MARCIA - MINNES❑TA q C❑RRECTI❑NAL r I � Fut re To Center G e or-g e w BRA ➢LEY ST. a FACILITIES a Z CONNIE i qRE Watch Q ;❑ > PP° Lake s 7atn a sT. 49 w MARVY ST o LEGEND Cen nidl Mid Ch ool APOLLO DR. w Marshan Proposed City Trail 400ma ORSHAM ti Existing City Trail ca w a E DR. C. L a k e Proposed County Trail St, J°eseph Church ys°°`°`�4 ELM sT Q 1997 City/School ....w.ONIV w Ile �i a Cooperative Rec Trail Q 3 o Z U 0 q Q K GE U a su FLOWE LA o Z Rto Future City.Trail Extension •�� SMO TR Y w 3 CD r a a .. -� j LA. a a O = _ > u u o Canoe La Regional Park Boundary *gym RED am FAI MONT ➢R. q CLOVE LA. U u a 3 PP w o a A. rea . - p � R-PA a e w 3 yw `p}2 DR .. oN 6A3T 3�d4 GREEN BR � N sNpw � ...,.<.,.. ICE CREEK — CHAIN [IF LAKES , w ULMER DR. pwC ,,,, _.,.,._ E o' > I CAR, a .,.. ST. 600 o scn�E sao 1—FIE' ca ¢ WILDFLOWE DR. u ] ra GLA STONE Y Exi ting.Pedestrian NDPIPE D=- REGIONAL P A R _ CIR. a Brid a (/\\ GLA STONE D _ RICe \ RESERVE �GLE�N VIEWAVE.w 1 \ >PP PI ARKI ViFW DR. Conceptual Land Use Plan P� 6 2 y ig 7 6 5 4 3 I 2 I 1 5 ] %A 1 6 0 11 A VP 5: 16 I S NORTH v 5 6 -- 7 T rf/ 131a 3 6 R - I � -0 i g 17 6 I I yj" I ' I � - L /,r��iett/�IT / •� I �ccF-are/ LAKES I a3 I L------- - --- r �y 4ti I QiF V CENTER n I _ /�• ^¢ Residential I / i + '• J�� Q (LDU)Low Density,Unsewered 0-1 Units per Acre (LDS)Low Density,Sewered 2-4 Units per Acre ..yee��5!'/�E� (MD)Medium Density 5-8 Units per Acre / S 11%=7iA - 8+ Units per Acre � Y4, � � ® (HD)High Density 7 - , Commercial • SU = (NC)Neighborhood Commercial 1 z 3 4 5 6 e s to n 1 - ® (LC)Limited Commercial z (GC)General Commercial . / uSN�R�s e 7 a sNpN MARSHAN 5 e a to Indukriad OF II 7 a 9 I I(g LAKE ® (LI)Light Industrial CI TN>40N It (GI)General Industrial —ELM-4fREET-- - I zo Wetland . 4 z 6�y, 2 Q r= - auhliclSemi Public 3 / ❑o❑ Conceptual Road Layout e a z. ; a 3�5 z Q' z '� _ o s ep ��!!t�,, Layout ® (PSP)Parks,Recreational Use,Schools,Churches zs •••«I Conceptual Trail L t A 6 222 •6 T �JIYSYI l� � Sffi Lf f CITY OF LINO LADES DISTRICT I - TOWN CENTER N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS NFNkcG COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Wessel / Mary Kay Wyland FROM: David Licht DATE: 18 November 1996 RE: Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan: Trail Issue FILE NO: 194.04 1 am writing as a follow up to our last Task Force meeting, and specifically the issue of the � trail location raised by Glen Rehbein and other members of his family. I presume you have proceeded to forward this matter to the Park Committee. I am hoping that they will address and resolve their position on this matter at their December meeting. We will need their recommendation to "finalize" this portion of the Comprehensive Plan. If necessary, I can possibly schedule to be at the Park Committee meeting if you believe such to be advisable. 10 . 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 �Y Memorandum DATE: November 22, 1996 TO: Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Board FROM: Marty Asleson RE: City Survey Mr.Bill Morris from Decision Resources will be at the meeting to present the results of the quality of life survey done this year. Bill will arrive at about 7:00. 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Lino Lakes. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between September 4 and 16, 1996. The average interview took twenty-seven minutes. In general,random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Lino Lakes residents within f 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Lino Lakes was found to be a relatively heterogeneous"fast-growing"outer-ring suburban community. The median longevity of adult residents was 6.5 years. Fifteen percent of the sample reported moving to the city during the past two years,while ten percent had been there for over two decades. Ninety-eight percent owned their residence,while two percent reported renting. Seven percent of the households contained senior citizens. Sixty-eight percent reported the presence of school-aged or pre-school children. The average age of adult respondents was 41.1 years old. Twenty-two percent reported ages under thirty-five years old,while thirteen percent were 55 years old or older. Women and men were equally represented in the sample. The occupational structure of the community reflected a split between up-scale White Collar households and Blue Collar households. Up-scale White Collar households --headed by holders of Professional-Technical or Owner-Manger jobs--comprised forty-six percent of the sample. Clerical-Sales households numbered fifteen percent, while Blue Collar households were twenty- four percent. Retirees were another nine percent of the respondents. Twenty-one percent of the sample reported working at home in a business or teleconferencing/telecommuting to work. Twelve percent of the households contained adult members who had sought full-time employment in the City of Lino Lake. The median household income in the community was $66,500.00,about$18,000.00 above the suburban norm. The location of the residence of each respondent was noted. Twenty percent lived in Precinct One,while thirty-five percent resided in Precinct Two. Precinct Three accounted for twenty- three percent of the respondents,and Precinct Four was an identical twenty-three percent of the sample. VDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 2 Quality of Life Rating: A strong ninety-three percent rated the quality of life in Lino Lakes as"excellent"or"good;" only seven percent rated it lower. This rating placed the community within the top quartile across the Metropolitan Area. When asked to recall what factors were most important in their decision to settle in Lino Lakes, twenty-eight percent pointed to the rural nature of the area and its open spaces. Convenient location was mentioned by nineteen percent, while good schools were key to eighteen percent. Thirteen percent viewed the housing stock as key. Strong neighborhood were critical to six percent,and four percent mentioned the peacefulness and quiet of the community. Like Most and Least about the Community: Rural ambience and openness was the most liked feature of the city. At twenty-six percent it far outdistanced all other responses. Convenient location ranked next highest at seventeen percent. Quiet and peacefulness, followed by good schools,ranked next, at twelve percent and eleven percent, respectively. Strong neighborhoods and"nice people"followed, at eight and seven percent, respectively. Smaller numbers mentioned feeling safe, housing stock,clean environment,parks and recreational opportunities, and small town ambience. Examining things liked least,two factors dominated everything else: high taxes was cited by twenty-three percent,while overpopulation and high growth was posted by twenty-one percent. City government and shopping opportunities ranked next,at nine percent and seven percent each. City services were a complaint by five percent. Smaller numbers pointed to crime,traffic congestion, overcrowded schools,poor location,and road conditions. But, it was also noteworthy that thirteen percent reported there was"nothing"they disliked about the community; this"booster" segment was well above the Metropolitan Area norm. The trade-offs between the pace of development,rural ambience and open space,high taxes, and high quality schools comprise the four corners of the"rectangle of controversy." Balancing these concerns will be the chief challenge for decision-makers during the next five years. Most Serious Issue Facing the City: Overpopulation and high growth rate was cited by forty-one percent as the most serious issue facing the City of Lino Lakes today. High taxes followed next at twenty-two percent. Crime and overcrowded schools were pointed to by eight percent and seven percent,respectively. Smaller numbers cited city government,city services, and the condition of roads. While high growth rate 2rDRL ,.� 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 3 and overpopulation was the paramount issue, high taxes were also a key concern about the future. Direction of the Community: A solid seventy-nine percent felt the City of Lino Lakes was generally headed in the right direction; fifteen percent,though,thought it was headed off on the wrong track. Critics pointed to overcrowding and a perceived lack of planning. In comparison with other high growth communities,this rating was exceptionally strong. Ninety-five percent rated the general appearance of their neighborhood as"excellent"or"good," while only five percent saw it as"only fair." Again,this is an exceptionally positive result overall,but the"excellent"rating--at forty-three percent--was somewhat lower than the Metropolitan Area norm. Sense of the Community: Seventy-two percent rated the general sense of community among Lino Lakes residents as"very strong"or"somewhat strong." Twenty-four percent saw it as"not too strong"or"not at all strong." This level of perceived strength was above the suburban norm. While forty-one percent felt most closely connected to their school district, a very solid thirty- seven percent indicated their strongest tie was with the City of Lino Lakes. Fifteen percent admitted a stronger tie to another community,while five percent reported developing no ties at all. Recreational Opportunities: Seventy-six percent rated the park and recreational facilities in Lino Lakes as"excellent"or "good." Twenty-one percent,though, saw them as"only fair"or"poor." This rating was ten percent lower than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Similarly, on the upkeep and maintenance of Lino Lakes City Parks, seventy-seven percent were positive while eighteen percent were more negative. In assessing recreational facilities they regularly left the community to use, two facilities stood out: trails and parks in other communities and the Shoreview Community Center. Residents were asked to evaluate three potential recreational offerings which could be developed in the city. In each case,a substantial majority favored the proposal in concept. By a sixty-two percent to thirty-two percent judgment,residents favored the construction of an outdoor athletics complex. By a sixty-four percent to twenty-nine percent verdict, residents supported the aDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 4 continued development and expansion of the trail system within Lino Lakes. And,by a sixty- nine percent to twenty-four percent margin, residents favored placing a higher priority on the completion of the neighborhood park system. When a prioritization was requested, sixty-seven percent favored completion of the neighborhood park system,while fifty-seven percent opted for the trail system. Community residents also indicated willingness to support a median of an $18.40 yearly property tax increase to fund the development of park and recreation facilities; however, twenty-eight percent of the community would support no property tax increase for this purpose. When asked about activities their household members engaged in on the city's trails, walking, running,or jogging was mentioned by sixty-three percent. Fifty-six percent biked on the trails, while about one-third reported rollerblading or rollerskating and nature and/or bird watching. Similarly,the city's rinks and shelters for informal skating or hockey during the winter drew forty-three percent of the households. When queried about the City's removing snow from all walking trails during winter months, fifty-one percent expressed opposition while forty-five percent were favorable. A narrow majority,then, favored the present policy of removing snow only from those trails used as paths to schools. A fifty-one percent majority opposed the City of Lino Lakes developing a municipal golf course. If one were developed,though, seventeen percent of the households were"very likely"to use it, while twenty-six percent were"somewhat likely"to do so. Twenty-nine percent of the households participated in city-sponsored park and recreation programs. Among participants,the baseball,hockey, soccer, swimming, and aerobics programs were most popular. An overwhelming eighty-nine percent rated the recreational programs as "excellent"or"good,"while eleven percent were more critical. Critics invariably pointed to a lack of organization as their bone of contention. Only four percent of the survey reported having to curtail participation in city-sponsored recreation programs because of child care needs. Of this small subsample,three-quarters indicated they would be more likely to participate if child care were provided. However, this latter quantity only represented three percent of the sample. A convincing eighty percent of the sample supported the City's hiring of a Teen Recreation Program Director, even if it cost taxpayers about$2.50 annually. Only fifteen percent expressed opposition to this new position. In considering the future, fifty-nine percent prioritized programmed activities over unprogrammed ones;thirty-four percent held the opposite preference. Forty-one percent reported at least"occasionally"using the Anoka County Regional Park in Lino Lakes. Seventy-one percent were aware that the Regional Park contained a golf course, Wargo ,z'DRL T 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 5 Nature Center,a swimming beach, fishing,and a hiking trail. Sixty-eight percent favored the City coordinating efforts and funds with Anoka County in the future development of additional trails; twenty-three percent expressed opposition to this intergovernmental cooperation. City Forestry Programs: Majorities gave high ratings to the effectiveness of current city forestry programs. Fifty-five percent rated the planting of trees along city boulevards as"excellent"or"good;"thirty-one percent were more critical. Sixty percent rated tree preservation efforts as"excellent"or"good," while nineteen percent considered them to be"only fair"or"poor." The Oak Wilt Program for disease control was rated highly by forty-seven percent and lower by ten percent; but, forty-four percent did not have enough knowledge to form a judgment. City Services: Among those offering opinions,snow plowing,police services,and fire services each posted approval ratings over ninety percent. At the next level of overall satisfaction, sewers and water, drainage and flood control,and animal control received between eighty and eighty-nine percent approval ratings. Only one city service received a lower approval rating: city street repair and maintenance at sixty-seven percent. But, even so,this rating was well above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Value of City Services: Thirty-one percent of the sample did not know the percentage of their property tax dollars going to the City of Lino Lakes. Among those offering an estimate,the median response was 21.3 percent. In considering the general value of city services in the light of property taxes paid,fifty- four percent felt they were"excellent"or"good." Forty-three percent saw them as"only fair"or "poor." This value rating placed Lino Lakes in the lower third quartile of suburban communities. In comparing city property tax levels with neighboring suburban communities, sixty-three percent regarded local property taxes as"very high"or"somewhat high,"while thirty-two percent felt they were"about average." Clearly,the value rating was being driven down by perceived high taxes,not by perceived inferior city services. Empowerment: Sixty-two percent felt they could have an impact on the way things were run in Lino Lakes; h thirty-four percent thought they could not. This level of efficacy was slightly above the suburban 2rDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 6 area norm. Lino Lakes residents,then, were feeling generally more connected to their local decision-makers. Mayor and City Council: Fifty-three percent reported having a"great deal" or"fair amount" of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council. Sixty-five percent either"strongly approved"or"approved"of their job,while sixteen percent registered disapproval. The over four-to-one approval-to- disapproval ratio was exceptionally strong. City Staff: Forty-five percent reported they had "quite a lot" or"some" first-hand contact with the Lino Lakes City Staff;this level of contact was higher than the suburban norm. A very solid seventy percent rated the staff as "excellent" or"good," while twenty-one percent rated them lower. The almost seven-to-two ratio of approval-to-disapproval was well above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Code Enforcement: Seventy-five percent of the sample felt the City of Lino Lakes was"about right"in enforcing the City Code. Sixteen percent,however, felt the City was"not tough enough,"while three percent felt it was"too exacting." Snow Plowing: Eighty-five percent rated the response time of City snow plowing efforts after a snow storm as "excellent"or"good." Only thirteen percent rated them as"only fair"or"poor." Similarly, eighty-seven percent rated the quality of City snow plowing as"excellent"or"good,"while twelve percent were more critical. These responses were among the strongest in the Metropolitan Area. Cat Ordinance: An overwhelming sixty-five percent opposed a cat ordinance requiring cats to be licensed and under the control of their owners at all times. Thirty percent supported such a feline requirement. r TrDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 7 Public Safety Problems: Fifteen percent of the sample reported there were areas in Lino Lakes where they would be afraid to walk alone at night. Of this subsample,sixty-three percent reported they were afraid to walk anywhere in the community alone at night. Twelve percent cited the trailer park,while nine percent each pointed to the area around the prison and city parks. Ninety-two percent felt safe and secure at night in their homes. And, eighteen percent had invested in a means of self- protection during the past two years; about one-half had purchased a security system,while about one-fifth had bought a weapon. Lino Lakes residents were asked to choose their two greatest public safety concerns from a list of six problems. Sixty-seven percent pointed to"residential crimes, such as burglary,theft,and vandalism." Twenty-seven percent picked"traffic congestion,"while somewhat behind, in third place, "drugs"was chosen by twenty-two percent. An average eleven percent observed that none of these concerns were serious in Lino Lakes. In commenting on the change in property crimes and crimes against people during the past five years,differing perceptions were noted. Fifty-seven percent felt crimes against property had "increased,"while thirty-three percent thought they had"remained about the same." But, fifty- three percent felt crimes against people in the community had"remained about the same,"while twenty-eight percent saw an"increase." A very solid eighty-two percent rated the amount of patrolling the police department did in their neighborhood as"about right." Fifteen percent felt it was"not enough,"and one percent regarded it as"too much." Sixty percent were aware of a neighborhood crime watch program in their neighborhood. Among those aware of neighborhood programs,sixty-one percent actually participated in the program. Among those unaware of crime watch programs in their neighborhood, sixty-eight percent indicated they would participate in organizing a neighborhood crime watch program in their area. Development Preferences: Thirty-one percent would most prefer the City of Lino Lakes to attract more commercial development. Retail development followed, at twenty-two percent, while thirteen percent would favor industrial development. Eight percent would like to see more retail development,while four percent specifically wanted restaurants. 9rDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey g Town Center Establishments: In reacting to a list of sixteen establishments which could be attracted to a Town Center, only two were rejected by a majority of respondents. Over eighty percent supported attracting a quality restaurant and a family-style restaurant. Between seventy percent and seventy-nine percent favored attracting a grocery store, an indoor recreation center, walking trails, and retail stores. Between sixty percent and sixty-nine percent favored a medical and dental clinic and senior housing. Majorities between fifty percent and fifty-nine percent supported day care facilities, a public plaza for socializing,professional services, and middle income housing. A forty-nine percent to forty-five percent judgment favored a fast-food restaurant. At the bottom of the preference list, fifty-three percent opposed townhouses, while sixty-two percent opposed low- income housing. Lino Lakes Community Center: Residents were asked to consider the types of facilities they would like to see included in a Lino Lakes Community Center,if such a facility were constructed. In assessing eleven potential facilities, all were supported by a majority of respondents. Over eighty percent favored the inclusion of a senior citizens' center and a teen center. Between seventy percent and seventy- nine percent supported an indoor family fun leisure-type swimming pool, a gymnasium, an exercise and fitness center, and a walking/running track. Between sixty percent and sixty-nine percent supported the inclusion of smaller meeting rooms, a trail head area for walking and cross country skiing, and a day care center. Fifty-eight percent favored the inclusion of racquetball courts,while a narrow forty-seven percent to forty-two percent judgment supported including large banquet rooms. In concept, seventy-eight percent favored the construction of a Community Center in the City of Lino Lakes. Only eighteen percent opposed its construction. When the topic of a property tax increase to fund construction of a facility, support dropped to sixty percent, while opposition rose to thirty-two percent. Similarly,the topic of lower property tax increases through private ownership of certain facilities --with potentially higher user fees --was discussed:by a seventy- three percent to twenty-two percent margin,residents supported this approach. Characteristics of the Community: Residents were read a list of fifteen characteristics of a community. They were then asked to indicate if they thought Lino Lakes had"too many or too much," "too few or too little,"or"about the right amount." Majorities or pluralities felt that Lino Lakes had"about the right amount"of eight characteristics: the number of people residing in the community, rental units, high cost housing opportunities,condominiums and townhouses, income diversity, parks and open spaces, 1011-4 2'DRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 9 low income housing opportunities, and open space. Similarly, majorities or pluralities felt that Lino Lakes had"too few or too little"of seven characteristics: racial diversity, senior housing opportunities, light manufacturing industry,heavy manufacturing industry, service and retail establishments,entertaining and dining establishments,and full-time job opportunities. Traffic Issues: Respondents were read a list of six potential traffic problems on residential streets: traffic speed, traffic volume, children playing,physical condition of the street,pedestrians walking in the roadway, and bicyclists in the roadway. In no case did more than fifteen percent regard any problem as a"major problem." In fact, at least fifty-three percent regarded each issues as"not a problem at all." Next,residents were read a list of six streets,highways,or intersections and asked about the traffic safety of each one. A strong fifty-seven percent rated Highway 49 and Birch Street as a "major traffic safety concern. Between twenty-six percent and thirty-one percent similarly regarded the Highway 49 and County Road J intersection,the Lake Drive and Main Street intersection, and the Lake Drive and 35W intersection. Twenty percent rated the 35E and County Road J intersection as a"major traffic safety concern," while thirteen percent felt the same way about Centerville Road. Twenty-eight percent felt there was a significant need for more public transportation near their neighborhood. Forty-one percent supported increased city funding for more traffic enforcement, but only twenty percent still favored it if a property tax increase were required to fund it. Condition of City Streets: Seventy-two percent rated the overall condition of city streets in Lino Lakes as"excellent"or "good." Otherwise,twenty-seven percent rated it as"only fair"or"poor." These ratings were higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Residents were informed about the current limits on street reconstruction practices by the Lino Lakes City Charter. Prior to the survey, forty-seven percent were aware of these City Charter provisions. By a fifty-six percent to twenty- five percent judgment, residents also favored a City Charter change to allow the City of Lino Lakes to establish a funding source for street reconstruction purposes. Transportation Issues: Seventy-nine percent of the sample reported leaving the City of Lino Lakes on a regular or daily r1 frDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 10 basis. Twenty-nine percent went to Minneapolis, while twenty-two percent drove to Saint Paul. Eight percent each went to Shoreview and Roseville. Ninety-four percent used a car,but only four percent were in a carpool. For eighty-five percent of these regular travelers, the reason for leaving the community was to go to the site of their employment. Principle Retail and Grocery Shopping Location: Forty-one percent reported their principal retail shopping location, excluding groceries,was Rosedale. Nineteen percent went to Northtown. The Shoreview Target Store attracted thirteen percent,while twelve percent similarly regarded the Maplewood Mall. Festival Supermarket in Circle Pines was the principle grocery store of forty-six percent of the sample. Twenty-two percent similarly regarded the Cub Store in White Bear Lake,while fourteen percent cited the Rainbow Store in Shoreview. Blaine supermarkets drew an additional eleven percent. If the City were to attract retail shopping and/or recreational opportunities to the I-35W Lake Drive interchange area, fifty-five percent reported they would be"very likely"to use it. In addition,thirty-one percent stated they were"somewhat likely"to do so. Neighborhood Commercial Centers: By a seventy-five percent to twenty percent verdict,residents favored the City of Lino Lakes attracting neighborhood commercial centers to the city. In fact,thirty-one percent"strongly favored"them. There was,however,no consensus about the ideal location. Organized Collection System: By a fifty-four percent to thirty-six percent judgment,residents supported the City of Lino Lakes adopting an organized collection system. However, intense opposition outnumbered intense support by almost two-to-one. Even so,majority support for an organized collection system has been a rare occurrence among Metropolitan Area suburbs and suggested that Lino Lakes may be one of the few communities with a working majority in its favor. Recycling and Yard Waste Disposal Services: Ninety-seven percent of the sample reported recycling household wastes. In fact, seventy-eight trDRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 11 percent did so on a weekly basis. The only suggestion for improvement in the curbside recycling pick-up program was the acceptance of more types of waste products, mentioned by seven percent. In discussing a specific program, fifty-one percent participated in Lino Lakes' Spring and Fall Recycling Days. Communications Channels: Ninety-four percent reported receiving the Lino Lakes"City Newsletter." Among those receiving the newsletter,ninety-seven percent regularly read it. Sixty-seven percent reported keeping it around for later reference. And, a striking ninety-one percent regarded it as either "very effective"or"somewhat effective"in keeping them informed about activities in the community, while eighty-eight percent similarly rated it in keeping them informed about city- sponsored recreation programs. Most residents,seventy-nine percent,would prefer to have the newsletter and recreation guide kept together rather than separated into two distinct publications.. While eighty-two percent of the sample reported owning a home computer or having access to one at work, a large sixty percent also had access to a modem. Even so,though, only nineteen percent of those with modem access were"very likely"to use it to obtain general information about the City of Lino Lakes. Fifty-one percent of the sample reported their households subscribed to cable television. Eighteen percent of the total community watched Local Government Access Channel 16 at least "occasionally;"similarly, sixteen percent of the total community watched Lino Lakes City Council and/or Planning Commission Meetings either"frequently" or"occasionally" on Cable Channel 16. Twenty-one percent of the cable subscribers would like to see more local programming and other community information on Channel 126,particularly local sports and more City Council Meetings. "The Quad Press"was regularly read by eighty-four percent of the sample. The two Metropolitan Area daily newspapers followed: sixty-three percent read the"Star-Tribune"and fifty percent read the"Pioneer Press." The"Forest Lake Press"was regularly read by twenty-two percent of the sample. Among newspaper readers, seventy-three percent regarded"The Quad Press" as their primary source of information about city government and activities. In general, sixty-one percent rated their level of information about city government and community activities as"excellent"or"good." However,thirty-nine percent saw it as"only fair" or"poor." While a comparatively good rating,there was room for improvement in raising community information levels. 2'DRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 12 r Conclusions: The following community trends were clearly evidenced in this survey research: 1. City quality of life ratings were very solid in comparison with other Metropolitan Area suburban communities. Rural ambience and open space,location, and peacefulness were key positive attributes, while high taxes and high growth rates were a major negative. As residents look to the future,there was concern expressed about both growth and development, as well as property taxes. 2. City services were generally well-regarded. In one area, however, park and recreational facilities, residents were more critical,particularly about the limited nature of offerings. At present, a moderate property tax increase would be supported by a majority of residents for two purposes: completion of the neighborhood park system and/or expansion of the trail system. 3. Residents were very concerned about property taxes in this study, a common finding in other studies across the Metropolitan Area. But,even so, they proved supportive of certain increases for specific purposes: a new Teen Recreation Program Director and an appropriate-sized Community Center. 4. Mayor and City Council ratings, as well as City Staff ratings, were among the highest in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Customer service ratings were very high among those who had contacted or visited City Hall and/or had knowledge about government activities. 5. Public safety issues were not as salient in Lino Lakes as in other communities. Residential crime was the overwhelming key public safety concern. In fact,a majority felt property crimes had increased in the community during the past five years. In light of current attitudes,an aggressive organizational effort of Neighborhood Watch Programs would be met with substantial residential interest. 6. Development preferences were clear within the residential sample. A quality restaurant and/or family-style restaurant led the list of priorities. A grocery store,walking trails,and retail stores rounded out the general consensus. Neighborhood commercial centers also enjoyed wide support. 7. The City, while doing a good job presently, needed to revisit its communications efforts. In particular, cable television programming should be updated and made more user- friendly. Additionally,the City may wish to proceed on the design of a website for computer literate residents. But, in light of the general popularity and effectiveness of the city newsletter, funds should not be diverted from this excellent publication to undertake n'DRL 1996 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey 13 r more experimental ways of communicating with the public. Overall,residents were satisfied with their quality of life in the community: their neighborhoods, their sense of safety, and their empowerment But, the impact of growth was being negatively experienced in the present as well as dreaded for the future. At the same time, residents were especially sensitive to property tax increases. The ultimate challenge facing City decision- makers will be the maintenance of its well-regarded services at reasonable costs during times of stress caused by the demands of community growth. 2rDRL b 1 G7Cybl bb DECI SI JN RF_tULIk5E5� l DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. LINO LAKES RESIDENTIAL, 3128 Dean Court QUALITY OF LIFE STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 AUGUST, 1996 Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Lino Lakes to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. This 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 TAIM TWC YEARS. . . 15% you lived in Lino Lakes? THREE TO FIVE YEARS— 31t SIX TO TEN YEARS. . . . . . 26% ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS. . . 19% OVER TWENTY YEARS. . . . . 10a DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% 2 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . .27% life in Lino Lakes -- excellent, GOOD. . . . . . 66% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .it DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .It 3 . Thinking back to when you moved to Lino Lakes, what factors were most important to you in selecting this community? DON'T KNOW, It; RURAL/OPEN, 28%; QUIET, 4%; LOCATION, 19%; SC!i00LS, 18%; SAFE, 2%; HOUSING, 13%; PEOPLE, 3%; ENVIRONMENT, 2%; NEIGHBORHOOD, 6%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 3%; SUBURBAN, 2%; SMALL TOWN, 1%. 4 . What do you like most about living in Lino Lakes? DON'T KNOW, 4%; RURAL/OPEN, 26%; QUIET, 12%; LOCATION, 17%; SCHOOLS, 11%; SAFE, 3t; HOUSING, 2%; PEOPLE, 7%; ENVIRONMENT, 4%; NE GHBORHOOD, 8%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 3%; SUBURBAN, 1%; SMALL TOWN., St . S . What do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW, 8%; TAXES, 23%; OVERPOPULATION/GROWTH, 21%; CRIME, 2%; LACK OF SHOPPING, 7%; NOTHING, 13%; TRAFFIC, 2%; SCHOOLS/OVERCRO`WDED, 1%; GOVERNMENT, 9%; CITY SERVIC- ES, 5%; LOCATION, 3%; ROADS, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. 1 6129296166 DECISIO RE S" T5: 6. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the community today? DON'T KNOW, 15%; TAXES, 22t; OVERPOPULATION/GROWTH, 41t; CRIME, 8tj SCHOOLS/OVERCROWDED, 7%-; GOVERNMENT, 3t; CITY SERVICES, 1%; ROADS, 1t; SCATTERED, 0. I. All in all., do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION. . . . . . .79t Lino Lakes are generally headed in WRONG TRACK. . . . . . . . . . .15k the right direction, or do you D06-T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .6k feel things are off on the wrong track? IF "WRONG TRACK, - ASK: (NA60) 8 . Please tell me why you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track. . . OVERCROWDING, 43k; POOR PLANNING, 57t. 9. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .43t appearance of your neighborhood GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52t -- excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . .51r poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . .0F6 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . 0% 10. Other than voting, do you feel YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6219 that if you wanted to, you could NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34% have a say about the way the City D09IT KWOW/REFUSED. . 4a of Lino Lakes runs things? 11 . How would you rate the sense of VERY STRONG. . . . . . . . . . .13% community identity among residents SC0fEWHAT STRONG. . . . . . .59k in Lino Lakes -- would you say it NCC TOO STRONG. . . . . . . .20% is very strong, somewhat strong, NOT AT ALL STRONG. . . . . .4%; not too strong, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .4% strong? 12 . Thinking about your ties to the CI"Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37t local area, do you feel most SCHOOL DISTRICT. . . . . . .41% closely connected to the City of ANOTHER COMMUNITY. . . . .15%, Lino Lakes, your school district, Nd"HING (VOL) . . . . . . . . . .5k or another community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .3% Let' s discuss recreational opportunities in the community. . . . 13 . How would you rate the park and EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .14% recreational facilities in Lino CMD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62% Lakes -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .18% fair or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% DCN'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .4% 2 6129296166 DECISION RESOL E -445 p04 i? OCT 01`96 15150 14 . How would you rate the upkeep EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14� and maintenance of Lino Lakes City GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63% Parke -- would you say excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .5% 15 . Do you or members of your household regularly leave the City of Lino Lakes to use leisure-time recreational facilities or programs in other cities? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What types of facilities or programs are you using elsewhere? DON'T KNOW, 52%; SKIING, 2%; SOFTBALL, 2%; COMMUNITY CENTER - SHOREVIEW, 14%; TRAILS/PARKS, 12%; SHOPPING, 4%; POOL, 5%; THEATERS, 3%; LAKES/BOATING, 5$; HEALTH CLUB, 1t; SCATTERED, 1% . The City of Lino Lakes is considering major improvements 46n three components of its park and recreation offerings. The improve- ments under consideration include an outdoor recreation facility, trail improvements, and neighborhood park improvements . But, to proceed with any of these three proposals would require a bond referendum and subsequent property tax increase to provide con `-struction funds. I would like to discuss each proposal with you and have you comment on each one. Let ' s talk about the outdoor athletic complex. . . The City of Lino Lakes is considering building an outdoor athle- tic complex, which would include soccer fields, baseball fields, and other multi-seasonal athletic facilities. 16 . Would you favor or oppose the de- FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . . 15% velopment of an outdoor athletic FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47% complex in Lino Lakes? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . .15% that way? _ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .7% As you may know, the City of Lino Lakes has been actively con- structing a comprehensive trail system for izs residents. So far, approximately nine miles of trails have been constructed. To complete and expand the trail system would require the passage of a bond referendum. If successful, residents of the City would see a property tax increase to provide funds for this purpose . 17. Do you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . . 21% tinued development and expansion FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43% of the trail system within Lino OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16s Lakes? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . . 13% feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 7% As you may know, the City of Lino Lakes currently operates neigh- borhood parks throughout the community. Many of these neighbor- hood parks are in different stages of development, offering varying levels of playground equipment and facilities . 3 6129296166 IDECISION RE 5 1 '®CT0'7 1 :5 IS . Would you favor or. oppose the City FAVOR STRONGLY. . . . . . . .26% of Lino Lakes placing a higher SOMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .43g r-1 priority on the completion of its SOMEWHAT OPPOSE- - - - - - -13% neighborhood park system? (WAIT STRONGLY OPPOSE. _ . _ . . .11% FOR- RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- DON'T KNOW/REFUS2D_ . . . .8% ly that way? We have discussed several park and recreational development projects. To review, (ROTATE ORDER) an outdoor athletics com- plex, neighborhood parks completion, aE well as the expansion and completion of the trail system. 19 . Which of these development projects, if any, would you give top priority? (READ LIST) 20 . Which of these development projects, if any, would you: give second priority? 16READ LIST, DELETING FIRST CHOICE) TOP SEC ATHLETICS COMPLEX. . . . . . . . . . . . .16%. . . . . . . .23% NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. . . . . . . . . . . .32% . . . . . . . .35% TRAIL SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .36%. . . . . . . .21% NONE (VOL. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%. . . . . . .14% MULTIPLE (VOL.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . .it DON'T IUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%. . . . . . . . .8% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .0%. . . . . . . . .0% 21 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . .28% see your yearly property taxes in- $20 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37% crease to fund the development of $40 . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% the park and recreation facilities $60 . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6!k you most favor? (START AT A $90 .00 . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .2% RANDOM TAX IRVEL) Let ' s say, $100.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% would you be willing to pay $ $120.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% per year? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE; DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% MOVE UP OR DONN DEPENDING ON REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0t ANSWER) How about $ per year? Moving on. . . . Which of the folloving activities, if Finy, do you and/or members of your household currently engage in on the trails in Lind Lakes? YES NO DKR 22 . Walking, running or jogging? 63% 3'7% 1% 23 . Biking? 56% 44% 1� 24 . Rollerblading or rollerskating? 33% 67% it 25 . Horse riding? 1% 98% 1% 26 . Nature and/or bird watching? 30% 69% 1k 27 . Snowmobile riding? 16% 84% ilk 28 . Cross-Country skiing? 19% 81% 11 4 - 6129296166 DECISION RESOIRSES Changing topics. . . . 29 . Would you favor or oppose the City FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . .12% of Lino Lakes developing a city FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32% golf course? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26% Do you feel strongly -that way? OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . .25% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 6% 30 . If the city were to develop a golf VERY LIKELY. . . . . . . . . . . 17°t course, how likely would you or SOMEWHAT LIKELY. . . . . . .26% members of your household be to NOT TOO LIKELY. . . . . . . . 19% use it -- very likely, somewhat NOT AT ALL LIKELY. . . . . 37% likely, not too likely, or not DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1t at all likely? Turning to other issues. . . . 31. Do you or members of your house- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43t hold use the city' s rinks and NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57% shelters for informal skating or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% hockey during the winter? Continuing. . . . 32 . In the past year, have you or any YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .291; members of this household partici- NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% pated in any city-sponsored park DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% and recreation programs? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=115) 33 . What program(s) have you or members of your households participated in? DON'T KNOW, 3%; BASEBALL, 44%; AEROBICS, 7%; SWIM- MING, 79k_;__1iQCKEY, 131;; SOCCER, 10%; TENNIS,__ 3%; ARTS AND CRAFTS, 8%; BASKETBALL, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%. 34 . How would you rate those EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27% programs -- excellent, good, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62% only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% IF "POOR, " ASK: (N=5) 35 . Why do you feel that way? UNORGANIZED, 100% . 5 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 445 P0?il� OCT"`6? ,95` 15:51 36. Are there any other city-sponsored recreational offerings or programs that you or members of your household would like to see established? (IF "YES, " ASK ) What would they be? DON'T KNOW, 92%; REC CENTER, 3%; GYMNASTICS, 1%; TEEN CENTER, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 37. During the past year, have you or NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96% members of your household had to YES/FREQUENTLY. . _ . . . . . .?.% curtail participation in city- YES/OCCASSIONALLY. . . . . .1°s sponsored recreational programs YES/ONLY RARELY. . . . . . . .2°c because of child care needs? (7F DON'T KNOW/R£FUSED. . . . .o% "YES, " ASK: ) Has this happened frequently, occasionally, or only rarely? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=18) 38 . would you be much more likely YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78% to participate if. child care NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22% were provided? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0% The City is considering hiring a Teen Recreation Program Direc- tor. This individual would be responsible for the development and operation of expanded teen-oriented programming. The cost to taxpayers for the hiring of this individual would be about $2.50 per year. 39 . Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . .33% City' s hiring of a Teen Recreation FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4'11; Program Director? (WAIT FOR RE- OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . . .6k way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0 There are two different programming approaches a Park and Recrea -t-ion Department can -follow. The first---is programmed offerings, such as league softball games, which the City operates and super- vises. The other is unprogrammed activity, such as hiking down a trail, in which the City simply provides the facility, without further city involvement . 40 . Of the two recreational approacs:- PROGRAMMED/STRONGLY. . . 18% es, which do you most prefer - - PROGRAIM14RD. . . . . . . . . . . .41% programmed activity or ur..pro- UNPROGRAMMED. . . . . . . . . . 16% grammed activity? (WAIT FOR RE- UNPROGRAMMED/STRONG. . . is* SPONSE) Do you feel strongly tifat DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 7% way? On another topic. . . . At present the C=ty of Lino Lakes on-Ty removes snow from trails that are walking paths to schools . Keeping in wind that expanded r` service would cost more. . . . 6 6129296166 DECISION'RES S M 445 P08/i ---WT 0 '�6 15:51 41 . Would you favor or oppose snow STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . . Sk removal from all walking trails FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37% during winter months? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . .24% that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5t Anoka County currently operates a regional park in Lino Lakes,. the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park. 42 . How often do you or members of FREQUENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% your household use the Anoka OCCASIONALLY. . . . . . . . . .34%- County Regional park -- frequent- RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34% ly, occasionally, rarely, or NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% never? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% 43 . Prior to this survey, were you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71t aware that the Regional. Park NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% contains a golf course, the Wargo DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% Nature Center, a swimming beach, fishing, and a hiking trail? 44 . Would you favor or oppose the City FAVOR/STRONGLY. . . . . . . .25% of Lino Lake coordinating efforts - FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43% and funds with Anoka County in the OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% further development of additional OPPOSE/STRONGLY. . . . . . . 11% trails? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do , DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .8% you feel strongly that way? Changing topics. . . . I would like to read you a list of city forestry programs. For each one, please rate its effectiveness as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. If you are unsure about a program, just say EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 45 . Planting of trees along city boulevards? 101; 45% 22% 9% 15% 46 . Tree preservation? 10% 50% 16% 3% 22% 47 . Oak Wilt program for disease control? 100 37% 8% 20 44% 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 tie service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. . . . EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 48 . Snow plowing? 22% 67% 7% 3% 2% 49 . Police services? 37% 57% 3% 1% 3% 50 . Fire protection? 29% 50 1% 0% 17% 7 6129296166 DECISION RESOLIRSES ?'OCT 07 ;_96 `15:52 EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 51. City street repair and maintenance? 8% 58% 22% 10%; 2% 52. Sewers and water? 71 55% 7$ 4% 28% 53 . Drainage and flood control? 8% 62o 7% 8% 16% 54 . Animal control? 6% 70% 8$ 8% 9% FOR EACH "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" RESPONSE, ASK: (N=191) 55 . Why did you rate as (only fair/poor) ? DON'T KNOW, 1%; POOR ROADS/POTHOLES, 50%; TAKES TOO LONG TO PLOW, 17%; ANIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS, 151;; FLOODING PROBLEMS, 10%; NEED MORE PATROLLING, 3%; LACK OF SEWERS, 5% . 56. How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT. . . . . . . . . . . . 8% you had with Lino Lakes City em- SOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% ployees -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . .47% very little, or none? -NONE. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0% 57 . From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% how would you rate the job per- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60% formance of the Lino Lakes City ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% employees - excellent, good, only POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . Ilt 58. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . Tk about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT. . . . . . . . . . .46°k City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . .40% fair amount, very little, or NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 nothing? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% 59 . From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE. . . . . . . 5% or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. . . . 8% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 20% 60 . Do you feel that the City is too TOO TOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% tough, about right, or not tough ABOUT RIGHT. . . . . . . . . . . 75% enough in enforcing the City Code NOT TOUGH ENOUGH. . . . . . 16% on such nuisances as animal con- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .7% trol, garbage disposal , junk cars, messy yards, and noise? 61 . How would you rate the response EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .23% time of City snow plowing efforts GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62% after a snow storm -- excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11% good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 2% 8 T107 '96 '15'52 6129296'165 DECISION RESOIJRSES 62 . And, how would you. rate the EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .19% quality of City snow plowing on GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .684r ,•� aspects such as clear street ONLY FA,IR. . . . . . . . . . . . .11% intersections and width of plowed POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% areas --excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .1% fair or poor? Some communities have cat ordinances that require cats be li- censed and under the control of their owner at all times. En- forcement of this ordinance will require the expenditure of tax payer dollars. 63 . Would you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT. . . . . . 12t City of Lino Lakes adopting such SOMEWHAT SUPPORT. . . . . . 18t a cat crdinance? (WATT FOR RE- SOMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . . . . 27% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . 38t way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 6% Turning to the issue of public safety in the community. . . . . 64 . Are there any areas in Lino Lakes YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15* where you would be afraid to walk NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84% alone at night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2% IF "YES, " ASK: (N=59) 65. What area particularly concerns you? TRAILER PARK, 12t; AROUND PRISON, 9%; EVERYWHERE, 63%; PARKS, 9%; SCATTERED, 9%. 66 . How about at night in your home -- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92!k do you feel safe and secure, or NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% not? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1k 67 . Have you invested in a means of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18t self=protection during the past NO. '_ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82% two years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% IF "YES, " ASK: (N=72) 68 . What have you invested in? DON'T KNOW, 6t; SECURITY SYSTEM, 49%; WEAPON, 211;; DOG, 13t; DEAD BOLT LOCKS, 13k. I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns . 69. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest concern in Lino Lakes? If you feel that none of these prob- lems are serious in Lino Lakes, just say so. (READ LIST) 9 6129296166 DECISION` RESOj: S '" 5 'F]1ii7 OCT 07 '967n`15:53 70 . Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining prob- lems are serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST CHOICE AND RE-READ LIST) FIRST SECOND Violent crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5`%. . . . . . . . .4% Traffic congestion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lit. . . . . . . . 16% Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% . . . . . . . . 14% Youth gangs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% . . . . . . . . . 9% Business crimes, such as shop- lifting and check fraud. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% . . . . . . . . 12t Residential crimes, such as burglary, theft, and vandal- ism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% . . . . . . . . 16% ALL EQUALLY. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%. . . . . . . . .4% NONE OF THE ABOVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%. . . . . . . .21% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%. . . . . . . . .5% 71. Do you feel that crimes against INCREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57% property in Lino Lakes have in DECREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% creased, decreased, or remained REMAINED THE SAME. . . . .33%_ about the same during the past DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .9% five years? 72. How about crimes against people, INCREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . .28% have they increased, decreased, or DECREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . . .it remained about the same during the REMAINED THE SAME. . . . . 53%, past five years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .18-4 73 . How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . .it patrolling the police department ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT. . . .82% does in your neighborhood -- would NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . 15% you say they do too much, about DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .3% the right amount, or not enough? 74 . A.re you aware of a neighborhood YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60% crime watch program in your NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40% neighborhood? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .it- IF "YES, " ASK: (N=239) 75. Do you participate in the YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61% program? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0% IF "NO, " ASK: (N=158) 76 . Would you participate in or- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68% ganizing a neighborhood crime NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25% watch program in your area DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .6% under the guidance of the Police Department? 10 6129296166 DECISION` S 4454RPI'2 '°i? OCT 07 '96"7i5s 53 ,e As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, and the local school districts. . . . 77. For each dollar of property tax LESS THAN 104. . . . . . . . . .74, you pay, about what percentage do 10-20 PERCENT. . . . . . . . .29% you think goes to city government? 21-30 PERCENT. . . . . . . . .26% 3 1-4 0 PERCENT. . . . . . . . . .St OVER FORTY PERCENT. . . . .3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 31% 78 . How do you feel about Lino Lakes EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% city property taxes in comparison GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51% with the services you receive from ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34% the City -- would you say it is an PQOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% excellent value, good value, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .3% fair value, or a poor value? 79 . How do you feel about Lino Lakes VERY HIGH. . . . . . . . . . . . .21% city property taxes in comparison SOMEWHAT HIGH. . . . . . . . .42% with those of other suburban ABOUT AVERAGE. . . . . . . . .32% communities -- do you feel they SOMEWHAT LOW. . . . . . . . . . .1% are very high, somewhat high, 'VERY LOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0$ about average, somewhat low, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . .4% very low? Changing topics. . . 80 . If the City of Lino Lakes were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it to be? DON'T KNOW, 20%; RESIDENTIAL, 8%; COMMERCIAL, 31%; INDUS- TRIAL, 13%; RETAIL, 22%; PARKS, 2%; RESTALIRANTS, 4%; SCATTERED, It. As you may know, the City of Lino Lakes has been considering the development of a Town Center. It would contain a community center, anchored by publ-ic-use buildings-such as a city halll -o-r police department. - I would like to read you a list of establishments .hat could be attracted to a Town Center. For each one, please _ell me if you would strongly support its placement in the Town Center, somewhat support it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose it being placed in a Town Center. If you have no opinion, just say so. . . . STS SMS SMO STO DKR 81. A grocery store? 38% 37% 11% 9% 6% 82 . A quality restaurant? 46% 37% 9% 4% 4% 83 . A family style restaurant? 48% 36% 8% 4% 4% 84 . A fast-food restaurant? 19% 30% 33% 12% 6% 85. Day care facilities? 17% 40% 23% 8% 13% '~- 86 . An indoor recreation center? 30% 47% 12% ?% 5% 11 6129296166 DECISION RESO Pi ii?"OCT 0?` '96 15.54' STS SMS SMO STO DKR 87. Walking trails? 27% 46% 13% 8% 61; 88 . A public plaza for socializing? 16% 37% 31% 94; 8% 89 . Retail stores? 41% 34% 15% 8% 3% 90 . A medical and dental clinic? 25% 43% 18% 7% 71; 91. Professional services, such as attorneys and CPAs? 19% 37% 27% 10% 9% 92 . Middle-income housing? 154; 35% 28% 111; 11% 93 . Low-income housing? 8$ 21% 40% 22% 9% 94 . Townhomes? 10% 31t 33% 20% 7% 95 . Senior housing? 21% 48% 16% 8% 8% 96 . Are their any other types of establishments which you would like to see included in a Town Center? DON'T KNOW, 92%; MOVIE THEATRES, 3%; HEALTH CLUB, 2t; LIBRARY, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. As I said, the City of Lino Lakes is also considering the con- struction of a Community Center. 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. If you have no opinion, just say so. (ROTATE) STF SMF SMO STO DKR 97 . An indoor family fun leisure- type swimming pool? 49% 28% 9% 8% 6% 98 . Large banquet rooms? 16% 31% 27% 15% 11% 99 . Smaller meeting rooms? 18$ 42% 21% 10% 10% 100. A gymnasium? 42% 30% 15% 9% 5% ---2,01. An--exercise and f itness center? 40% 30 12% 9% 5% 102. Racquetball courts? 21% 37% 21% 10 71; 103 . A senior citizens ' center? 34% 47% 9% 0 5% 104. A teen center? 39% 41% 1C% 6% 5% 105. Walking/Running track? 30% 43% 13% 9% 6% 106. Trail head area for walking and cross country skiing? 311; 35% 18% 10% 7% 107. Day care center? 26% 41% 14% 9% 10% 108 . Are there any other facilities you would like to see in a Community Center? DON'T KNOW, 96%; HOCKEY ARENA, 3% SCATTERED, 2%. 109. In general, do you favor or oppose STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . 27% the construction of a Community FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51% Center in the City of Lino Lakes? OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% s-� (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . 10% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5% 12 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES' _ -445 P14i17 If a new community center building were constructed, the issuance of construction bonds could require an increase in residential and commercial property taxes to cover their cost and interest . 110. Xnowing this, would you favor or STRONGLY FAVOR.- . . . . . : .21% oppose the building of a commu- SOMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .39t nity center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) SOMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . . . .12% Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . .20% DON-T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .9% Some of the proposed facilities in a Community Center, such as a swimming pool or fitness center, could be operated by a private company. Such an arrangement could mean higher user fees, but less of an increase in property taxes. ill. Would you favor or oppose having STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . .31% a private company involved in the SOMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .42% operation of the Community SOMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . . . . 10% Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . 12% you feel strongly that way? DON-T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 6% Moving on. . . . I would -now like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Lino Lakes currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ /MCH L-ITT RGHT REFD 112 . the number of people residing in the community? 16% 7% 75% 3% 113 . rental units? 7% 20% 53% 20% 114 . higher cost housing oppor- tunities? 18% 14% 61% 81; 115 . condominiums and townhouses? 184 17% 57% 9% 116 . racial diversity? 19, 62% 244; 13% 117. income diversity? 3% 24% 64% 9% 118 parks and open spaces? 10% 20% .69% 1% 119 . low income housing opportunity? 61; 33% 44% 17% 120 . senior housing opportunities? 1% 47% 38% 141; 121 . light manufacturing industry? 3% 62% 30% 6t 122 . heavy manufacturing industry? 4% 541; 34% 8% 123 , service and retail establish- ments? 1% 78"s 20% 2t 124 . entertainment and dining establishments? 2% 84% 13% 2% 125 . fulltime job opportunities? 0% 73% 17% 10% 126 . open space? 13% 22% 64% 1% I would like to read you a list of traffic issues. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a major problem, minor problem, 13 6129296166 DECISION `RES JRSES 445 P15i17'0CT 07"96 15:55 or not a problem at all on your residential street . If you have no opinion, just say so. . . . MAJOR MINOR NOTPR DKREF 127 . Traffic speeds? 15% 31$ 53% 2% 128 . Traffic volume? 12% 23% 64% it 129 . Children playing? 7% 17% 75% 1% 130 . Physical condition of the street? 10% 23% 66% 1% 131. Pedestrians walking in the roadway? 8t 14% 77% 1$ 132 . Bicyclists in the roadway? 8%- 17% 74°s 1% I would like to read you a list of streets, highways, or inter- sections. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a major traffic safety concern in Lino Lakes, a minor =raffic safety concern, or not a concern at all? MAJOR MINOR NOTSR DKREF 133 , Highway 49 and Birch Street? 57% 23% 16% 4% 134 Lake Drive and Main Street? 271; 34% 31% at- 135 . Lake Drive and 35W? 26% 33% 37% 5% 136 35E and County Road J? 20% 36% 39% 5$ 137. Highway 49 and County Road J? 31% 35% 31% 4% 138 . Centerville Road? 13% 35% 47% 5% 139 . Do you feel there is a significant YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28% need for more public transporta NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68% tion near your neighborhood? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5% 140 . would you support or oppose spend- SUPPORT/STIL'" FAVOR. . .20% ing increased city funds on more SUPPORT/NO. . . . . . . . . . . . 17% traffic enforcement? (IF "SUP- SUPPORT/DON''_ KNOW . . . .4% PORT, " ASK: ) Would you still favor OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55% t if a property tax increase were DON'T KNOW/RZFUSED. . . . .4% required to fund it? 141. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4t condition of city streets in Lino GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68% Lakes - - excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .25% fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1t The Lino Lakes City Charter limits the street reconstruction practices of the City. Under the Charter, the City may only use tax dollars for street reconstruction if one of two conditions are met : first, a citizen petitions the City for a specific road improvement AND a majority of the affected property owners sup- port the petition AND a referendum on the improvement is approved ^. in a citywide election; or second, the City Council initiates the 14 6129296166 DECISION RESOLRSES - 16i T 87 9E, 15:55` project AND the project is approved by a majority of the affected property owners AND a referendum is approved in a citywide elec- tion. The City is, however, 'allowed to perform limited main- tenance of streets, such as filling pot holes and seal coating. 142. Prior to this survey, were you AWARE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47% aware of these Charter provi- UNAWARE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52% sions? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .VV The initial step in road reconstruction is the development of a comprehensive plan that would prioritize roads for improvement. In order to implement this plan, a funding source would have to be established. 143 . Would you favor or oppose a City STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . .20% Charter change that would allow SOMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .36% the City to establish such a fund? SOMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . . . . 13% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . 12% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .18% 144. Do you leave the City of Lino YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79% Lakes on a regular or daily basis? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 219C DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .1% IF "YES, " ASK: (N=315) 145 . Where to? (OBTAIN CITY) ST. PAUL, 22%; SHOREVIEW, 8%; FRIDLEY, 4%; MINNEAPO- LIS, 29%; ROSEVILLE, 8%; FOREST LAKE, 2t; BLOOMING- TON, 3%; ARDEN HILLS, 2%; WHITE BEAR .LAKE, 0; MAPLEWOOD, 2%; NEW BRIGHTON, 2%; COON RAPIDS, 3%; VARIES/ALL OVER, 5t; GOLDEN VALLEY, 2%; BLAINE, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 146 . What--form of transportation do you generally use? (IF "AUTOMOBILE, " ASK: ) Is that a carpool? DON'T KNOW, 2%; CAR, 94% ; CAR POOL, 4% . 147 . Is your reason for leaving YES. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .85% the City to go to the site NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% of your job? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% 148 . Excluding groceries, what do you consider your principle retail shopping location to be? (NAME OF BOTH STORE AND LOCATION) DON'T KNOW, 6%; ROSEDALE, 41%; NORTHTOWN, 19%; NORTHWAY, 2%; WAL-MART - FOREST LAKE, 30; TARGET - SHOREVIEW, 13%; MAPLEWOOD MALL, 12%; MEGA MALL, 1%; WAL-MART - VADNAIS HEIGHTS, 4%; SCATTERED, 1% . 15 61292%166 DEC I S I ON RE 149. Where does your household regularly purchase groceries? (NAME OF BOTH STORE AND LOCATION) DON'T KNOW, 2%; RAINBOW - SHOREVIEW, 14%; FESTIVAL - CIRCLE PINES, 46%; CUB - WHITE BEAR LAKE, 22%; RAINBOW - BLAINE, 5%; CUB - BLAINE, 5%; FESTIVAL - BLAINE, It; CUB - VADNAIS HEIGHTS, 51k. 150. If the City were to attract retail VERY LIKELY. . . . . . . . . .55% shopping and/or recreational op- SOMEWHAT LIKELY. . . . . . 31k portunities to the I-35W Lake NOT TOO LIKELY. . . . . . . .7% Drive interchange area, how likely NOT AT ALL LIKELY. . . . . 5k would you be to use it -- very DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 2q; likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely? "Neighborhood commercial centers" are small outdoor malls usually containing a limited number of shops, professional offices, and/ or service establishments. Limited parking near the stores is usually available. 151 . Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . 31% of Lino Lake attracting neighbor- FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :44's hood commercial centers to the OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12% city? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . . 8% feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 6% 152 . Which of the following three lo- SITE A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25% cations would you prioritize most SITE B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34% highly for a neighborhood commer- SITE C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23%, cial center: (ROTATE LIST) ALL EQUALLY (VOL) . . . . . . 4% (A) 35E and Main Street; NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) . . . . 9% (B) Lake Drive and Main Street; DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 6% (C) Birch Street and Centerville Road? 153 . Do you work at home in a business YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.E o= teleconference or telecommute NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79% to work? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% 154 . Have you or any adult member of YES. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12t your household sought full-time NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87%- employment in the City of Lino DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1k Lakes? Moving on. . . . Currently, city residents select their own refuse haulers . The only rules the City of Lino Lakes sets are the company must be licensed and cruet offer a volume-based rate. City officials and staff are considering changing to an organized collection system. This is a system of refuse collection in which the City contracts n with a group of haulers, sets rates, establishes a level of ser- vice for all residents, and assigns haulers to each neighborhood. 16 6129296166 DECISION RESOl.1RSES `-qke -p01 iO4 OCT 07 196 16:02 The advantages to this system are expanded services and less truck traffic on neighborhhod roads. The disadvantage is the hauler assigned to your neighborhood may not be your current hauler. 155. Would you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT. . . . . . 11V City of Lino Lakes adopting an SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43t organized collection system? (WAIT OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . 17k that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 11t 156 . How often, if at all, does your EVERY WEEK. . . . . . . . . . . . 78% household recycle? (READ OPTIONS) EVERY OTHER WEEK. . . . . . 11% MONTHLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% QUARTERLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%- ONCE - TWICE PER YR. . . .0* NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3!k DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . It 157 . Are there any changes or improvements in the curbside recy clables pick-up program you would like to see? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) what are they? DON'T KNOW, 89k; PICK UP 2 WEEKS, 3%; ACCEPT MORE, 7%; SCATTERED, 2*. 158 . Last year, did you participate in YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51t the City of Lino Lakes ' Fall and NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48t �., Spring Recycling Days? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1t Moving on. . . . 159. Do you recall receiving the City YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94% newsletter during the past year? NO. . . . . . . . 6% DON-T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% IF "YES, " -ASK: (N=374)- 160 . Do you or any members of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97% household regularly read it? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31k DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .0% 161 . Do you tend to keep it around KEEP AROUND. . . . . . . . . . . 67% for later reference or toss TOSS IT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25k it after you have read ABOUT EQUAL (VOL. ) . . . . . 7a through it? DON-T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% 162 . How effective is the city VERY EFFECTIVE. . . . . . . . 35% newsletter in keeping you in- SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. . . . 561 formed about activities in NOT TOO EFFECTIVE. . . . . . 6% the city -- very effective, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE . . . 2t somewhat effective, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 2% effective, or not at all ef- fective? 17 6129296166 DEC I S I ON RESOJRSES' ``-448 P02i'4_`OCT`0'7 ''9 16:02 163 . How effective is the city VERY EFFECTIVE. . . . . . . .39% n newsletter in keeping you in- SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. . . .49% formed about city-sponsored NOT TOO EFFECTIVE. . . . . . 8% recreation programs -- very NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. . .2% effective, somewhat effec- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2t tive, not too effective, or not at all effective? 164 . Would you prefer having the SEPARATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17V newsletter and recreation TOGETHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%- guide separate or together? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5t 165 . Do you have a home computer or YES/YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60% access to one at work? (IF "YES" YES/NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% ASK) Does that computer have a YES/U'NSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% modem? NO ACCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2V IF "YES/YES, " ASK: (N=242) 166 . If the City of Lino Lakes VERY LIKELY. . . . . . . . . . . 19%- were to make general inform- SOMEWHAT LIKELY. . . . . . . 3 0 ation available on the Inter- NOT TOO LIKELY. . . . . . . . 22* net, how likely would you be NOT AT ALL LIKELY. . . . . 23% to access it - - very likely, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0% somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely? 167. Does your household currently YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51% subscribe to cable television? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 0%- IF "YES, " ASK: (N=203) 168 . Would you say you watch the FREQUENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . .5k _local government access than- OCCASIONALLY. . . . . . . . . . 30%- nel 16 frequently, occasion- RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36% ally, rarely, or not at all? NOT AT ALL. . . . . . . . . . . . 281; DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% 169 . Would you say you watch City FREQUENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . . .6t Council and/or Planning Com- OCCASIONALLY. . . . . . . . . .25% mission telecasts frequently, RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 occasionally, rarely, or not NOT AT ALL. . . . . . . . . . . . 36% at all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 1% 170 . Would you like to see more YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21% local programming and other NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73% community information on DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5t Channel 16? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=43) n 18 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 448 P03/04 OCT 07 '96 16:03 171 . Anything in particular? DON'T KNOW, 63%; SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS, 9%; CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, 12%; LOCAL SPORTS, 16%. Which of the following newspapers do you regularly read? YES NO DKR 172. The Star-Tribune 63% 37% 1% 173 . The Pioneer Press? 50% 49% 1% 174 . The Forest Lake Times? 221; 77% 1% 175 . The Quad Press? 84% 15% 1% 176 . Which of those newspapers is your primary source of informa- tion on city government and activities? DON'T KNOW, 5%; STAR TRIBUNE, 12%; PIONEER PRESS, 10%; QUAD PRESS, 731;; FOREST LAKE TIMES, 1%; SCATTERED, It . 177. In general, how would you rate EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% your level of information about GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57% city government and community ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .32% activities -- excellent, good, POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . It Changing topics. . . . Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . 178 . What is your age, please? 18-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 25-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21% 35-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43% 45-54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% 55-64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% 6.5_ AND OVER. . . . . . . . . . . .4% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let' s start oldest to youngest . . . 179 . First, persons over 65? 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 180. Other adults, including 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% yourself? 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83% 3 OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% 19 6129296166 DECISION REDS 448 PO4iO4 OCT 07 '96 16:03 181. School-aged children? 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41t ,,..� I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26% 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% 4 OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% 182 . Pre-schoolers? 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80% I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% 183 . Do you rent or own your present RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2t residence? OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% 184 . Are you single, married, widowed, SINGLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% or divorced? MARRIED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88% WIDOWED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% DIVORCED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4!k REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% 185. Are you or is any member of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% household a member of a private NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83% health club? UNSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% 186 . What is your occupation and the occupation of your spouse or partner, if appropriate? (CODED AS HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD] REFUSED, 5%; PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 26%; OWNER-MANAGER, 20%; CLERICAL-SALES, I5%; BLUE COLLAR, 24%; RETIREES, 9%; SCATTERED, 3%. 187. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $25, 000. . . . . . . . . .2% pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 000-$49, 999 . . . . . . .20V Does the income lie. . . (READ $50, 000-$7.4, 999 . . . . . . .29% CATEGORIES) $75, 000-$99, 999 . . . . . . .20% --___ $100, 000 & OVER. . . . . . .10% DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% 188. Gender (BY OBSERVATION) MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% 189 . PRECINCT PRECINCT 1. . . . . . . . . . . .20% PRECINCT 2. . . . . . . . . . . . 35% PRECINCT 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .23% PRECINCT 4. . . . . . . . . . . .23% 20 d AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: November 22, 1996 TOPIC: Birchwood Acres Petition Action BACKGROUND Petitions concerning Birchwood Acres Park were presented to the Park Board at the November meeting. The petition issues are included in the packet. Two of the issues were denied, and the other three were placed on the December Agenda for consideration. The issues that were denied are the hockey rink and the picnic shelter. The three remaining issues are a basketball court; ballfield; skinned/unskinned infield, and moving the backstop; and the volleyball court issue. Also please find enclosed copies of letters that were received concerning the park plan. OPTIONS 1. Act on the three remaining petition items 2. Refer back to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION Option 1 . Petition #1 "Birchwood Park" Basketball Court 8• -96 The Master Plan for"Birchwood Park (dated 74-96)does not include a basketball court. By signing this petition,,you are for having a 112 court basketball court,also usable as a hard court games area, in the location shown in"Concept C",where"Concept C"was presented by Brauer &Associates at the City of Lino Lakes June 27, 1996 park meeting. (Copies of"Master Plan"and "Concept C"attached for reference.) Petition Sponsors' Names Addresses Si na ures 1.Vicki Byrne 6372 Painted Turtle Rd. 2. Kaye Lucey 664 River Birch Pl. 3.Nancy Sandahl 478 Lonesome Pine Trail 4. Ken Nietfeld 661 River Birch PI. 5. Pat Gulden 6346 Red Hawk Trail. S' nature Street Address ` ry ¢,� C�2 o a J n signatures cont. on back side—> Petition #3--"Birchwood Park" Ballfield 8-1-96 The Master Plan for"Birchwood Park"(dated 74-96) includes a 10lx20'x10' backstop 80'from property lines,with a turf infield and no bases. By signing this petition,you are for having a groomed infield with bases, as well as having the backstop be no more than 50'from property lines,as shown in "Concept A". "Concept A"was presented by Brauer&Associates at the City of Lino Lakes June 27, 1996 park meeting. (Copies of"Master Plan"and "Concept A"are attached for reference.) Petition Sponsors' Names Addresses Signatures 1. Bruce Mayer 6351 Red Hawk Trail 2.Don Boespflug 6345 Red Hawk Trail J 3. Bruce Fisher 6396 Painted Turtle Rd. L 4. Mike Lucey 664 River Birch PI. 5. Bev Phelps 6393 Painted Turtle Rd. Si nature Street Address r Om IA S3 U n (AfyY L ( I cr_yj 4/j A;rICAL 66-1 cvaoc,� G L2:112 I 4"z &g(c- r, , signatures cont. on back side—> C? Petition #5 -"Birchwood Park"Ublleyball Court 8-1.96 The Master Plan for"Birchwood park"(dated 74-96) includes two volleyball courts Iodated in the southemindst_ar6a of the net-yet-acquired park land. By signing this petition,you are for having one sand volleyball court rather than two, located instead on the south eno of the area currently designated as Open Play Area. (Copy of"Master PlVin"attached for r6ference.) Petition S on§ors' Names Addresses Si e 1.Mike Mazanec 652 River Birch PI. 2. Dennis Gulden 6346 Red Hawk Trail 3. Chris Mayer 6361 Red Hawk Trail 4.Mike Grace 679 River Birch Pl. S.Teri Gave $381 Painted Turtle Rd. **�:**,��*****�**s,►**�********�****************,�*************s�*sus***: *,�****s************�* Si n t re Street Address L1 a < <- bd0*/ h- tl Z/- t1 y �iy� ;� 1 /1--k- JL,- (&Z- 6A s e-t-- (I-o4L signatures Cont. on back side—> 3� November 6, 1996 Mr. George Lindy & The Lino Lakes Park Board Lino Lakes City Hall 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear George and Park Board Members: I attended the Park Board meeting and watched some of it on television after arriving home on Monday, November 4. I have been a resident of Birchwood Acres since 1992. One of the main attractions to selecting our lot was its location to a neighborhood recreational park. We have since waited 4-1/2 years to finally have 1-1/2 amenities in our park (playground equipment and a backstop). I have two boys, ages 12 and 10, who have outgrown a playground and would rather play ball in the street on a nice hard surface than play in the park. I would rather see them in the park. I was just one of the people collecting signatures on the petitions. The procedure took a long time as we had to explain at almost every house why these things were not already in our park. Most people had no idea what was happening and were totally for getting whatever we could into the park now. The other big question was "Why wasn't the playground equipment located in a more open area instead of hiding it in the trees?" I have attended many, many meetings and feel our pleas for more items in the park fall upon deaf ears. I hear comments like "Why can't we use Country Lakes and possibly put the picnic shelter there?" "Can't residents put a basketball hoop up in their own driveway?" "Why are we moving so fast and trying to jam everything in the front part of the park?" "What if people want to come and use the park?" "What about parking?" And most of all, "That would be too noisy for the residents surrounding the park." It is almost as though this should not be a place for our noisy children. My answers to these statements follow: .-� Country Lakes Park has nothing of interest to me. As I recall an article from a past Quad, it said something about it being the worst beach in the area and not to bother going there. I will not allow my kids to go to Country Lakes by themselves. I feel it is too dangerous - it is too secluded and who knows what kind of trouble could be hanging out there. Also, it is a very long walk from our house. I want a place where neighbors can meet within our neighborhood and not have to cross busy streets. A small picnic shelter that the Lions Club is donating is all I want. Somewhere I can pack a lunch and walk to. This would also be a great place for daycare providers to bring their children, a place to have neighborhood meetings, and a place to have block parties. It was pointed out by one of the board members during the meeting that if residents wanted a basketball hoop, they could put them up on their own driveway. I do have a basketball hoop in my driveway. My driveway is also slanted a bit and balls are constantly rolling into the street. I am also being asked all the time to move the cars so that my kids can play. I see nothing wrong with a basketball hoop in the park - especially if we are willing to fund it. Many residents have swing sets in their backyards, but there are swings in the park. I do not, at all, feel we are moving too fast. After all, I have been in the neighborhood four years and as far as 1 am concerned, have nothing of use in our park. If and when we acquire the land to the south, we would like to see a hockey rink there. We need .� this to be on the master plan if we are to start fund raising. We feel this is an excellent location for a hockey rink as there is wetland surrounding the area and therefore lights will not be a burden on the surrounding neighbors. There is also potential parking from 62nd. With this on the master plan, potential lot purchasers will see that a hockey rink will be there someday and hopefully alleviate any upcoming opposition to a hockey rink. There is a lot of existing park land that sits empty waiting for the amenities requested by the people who signed our petitions. You can see, four of the five petitions finished in the top four of the survey the Park Board sent to the residents. And so what if people use our park - isn't that what it is for? I cannot think of any Lino Lakes parks that I would want to visit at this time. Shoreview, yes - they have nice parks. Why should our park suffer because the other parks may not have what our park does? It seems the Park Board is afraid to put anything into the parks for fear someone might use them. The parking is something else and I remember back a few months, we were told, "If it is a problem, we will deal with it then." I foresee only neighborhood residents using the park and an occasional car here or there does not constitute a parking problem to me. I would rather see parked cars on the streets than our kids. I sympathize with the residents surrounding the park to an extent. They all knew it was park land when they purchased their lots and each lot owner in the bordering developments contributed the same amount of money to the park. I think the Park .r November 6, 1996 Page 3 Board has been more than generous with the berms and the shrubs. Maybe a big fence would have been a better idea. Also, it seems most of the residents surrounding the park have landscaped into the park land (one even has a fire pit - is that legal?). think my neighbor would be quite upset if I landscaped into his yard. Also, being these residents have used park property as their own, I think each of the residents that contributed to the park should have their own piece of the park to do with what they want. After the meeting on Monday I felt the time we spent on the petitions was worthless, even though that was the procedure we were told to follow by the Park Board. If you want the 400 residents that signed the petitions at the next meeting, I will do my best to get them there - but who would have thought you would have to fight the Park Board to put in a park. Sincerely, Teri Gave 6381 Painted Turtle Road Lino Lakes, MN 55014 r 482-0576 cc:Marty Asleson Mayor John Landers Quad Community Press r-. =ti wit Nat Ms■ .A, Piper, x= y; ei • • • 4 - V _z. i I c #i. �� I ti i Fw iz s r�^�: tiz i IP '.yq,j tt i t x��e�4�t �< � ✓ tai°.rlg i r..'7j•*� +�.�- ivy .-. .,. ! °� '(� �' q 4 v 1, - o g t• tom, s• - v> ai rl e L S R 1 • 3 ax>. � Y y's 1 11 : 13 NOV 26, 1996 ID: REELL PRECI6IOH TEL NO: 1-612-464-3867 #0669 PAGE: 112 x Fax Cover Sheet Please Deliver to: Park & Rec Fax #: 784-7227 Company: Lino Lakes From: Sharon Lane, Reell Precision Mfg. Corp. Fax #: 1-612-484-3867 Phone: a a 1 _ Pages: 2 ` Message: u £ r NOU 26'96 12: 1'7 FR REELL PRECISION MFG 612 484 .e,6 7 TO 1,_4 7 r P.01 To: Martv Aslesen George Lindy Paul Montain Date: Nov. 26, 199b Pam Taschuk Joe Schmidt Betty Piper Amy Donlin From Sharon Lane Dear Marty and fellow Park Board Members, I will not be able to attend the Park Board meeting of Dec. 2, 1996. Therefore, I am offering my thoughts and input regarding some of our agenda items. Item No. 8, Birchwood/Park Grove Park issues: Basketball Court - I would support Half-Court Basketball, provided there is a good location for it. Volleyball Court - I also support this. Moving backstop - I would NOT support proving the back-stop. The. location of the backstop was discussed at length, and we considered many factors. I see no reason to re-hash this. Skinned vs. Unskinned infield - l suggest we do NOT skin the infield. There is not adequate parking to accommodate what would surely be it larger draw to a skinned infield, and therefore may deter neighborhood residents from using this. We can discuss this issue again in the future when the park has matured and we have some information on how the field is being used. Skinning the infield can be done at some later date if we decide to do so. Also, I would like to offer-my thoughts on the playground location, even though it is not listed specifically on our Agenda. I have received calls and letters (as have the rest of you) regarding concern about the playground location. Again, this location is something we discussed at length, and took many factors into consideration. I would not recommending moving it, but perhaps we can do some clearing to improve visibility and make it feel less secluded. Item No. 4, Proposed Time Limit Discussion: I strongly support a time limit. I also ask that once an individual has stated their position on a particular issue, they do not corne back up for more comments, because all this does is result in a"rebuttal" and debate between 2 or more opposing audience members. We have seen this go on for hours at our previous meetings. I think by k_ allowing this, we (the Park Board) have unwittingly contrihuted to division and ill feelings in a neighborhood, because we have provided a forum for folks to argue and verbally attack one another. Item No. 7, City Survey Because I knew I would be absent for this meeting, I attended the Nov. 215 Council meeting where Mr. Morris of Decision Resources presented the Survey results. 'I l;is Survey gives us much needed guidance for future decisions and direction, and I am so grateful to have this information. One thing I want to mention in particular is the City Newsletter. I want thank our Staff who have done such a great job with this. According to Mr. Morris, it is absolutely incredible how well our newsletter is being read, and used, by our residents. Our Recreational section is a large part of this Newsletter. Congratulations to Barry, Marty, Sandy, and everyone who have made this such a success. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. I will see you in 97, unless we have a need to meet before then! f. Memorandum DATE: November 19, 1996 TO: Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Board FROM: Marty Asleson RE: North Metro Partnership The North Metro Communities will be meeting again on the 21st of November to discuss the partnership proposal submitted to the City of Lino Lakes. Sharon Lane and Joe Schmidt will be attending this meeting. One of the biggest issues is the disparities between the dollars appropriated for recreation between North Metro Communities and the City of Lino Lakes. We have steadily grown with time,whereas North Metro has been staying the same,and basing their budget on anticipated revenues. Our revenues are deposited in a Special Revenue account. I have inclosed a comparison of Lino Lakes/North Metro demographics. I don't think there is any chance in the immediate sense for the North Metro communities to raise their budgets up to our level . Hopefully this can be done over a longer period of time. My only suggestion at this time is that we program recreation for them on a status-quo basis. I have asked them to think about in-kind help particularly in terms of office support. We will update you at the meeting. North Metro' -- - C t.V of Lino Lakes P'artn rship graphicsQer»o City 1,111 I-IM'SIP, . Lino Lakes Total 13,091 3,699 316 Centerville 2,173 717 3.03 Circle Pines 4,758 1,653 2.88 Lexington 2,254 842 2.75 Total 9,185 3212 2.89 Lino Lakes Note: Figures are based on ........ ... . ..... Total 13,097 20,200 25,000 Metropolitan Council Demo- graphic estimates. Centerville 2173 3250 3850 Circle Pines 4758 4750 4700 Lexington 2254 2350 2250 Total 9185 103,50 10800 Lino Lakes Total 3899 6$(t1f 9000 Centerville 717 1150 1450 Circle Pines 1653 1800 1900 Lexington 842 920 950 Total 3212 387t1 4300 0,60-M N MI .WN _.,. Lino Lakes $89,656 $100,490 $116,290 North Metro $16,426 $16,426 $16,426 L.L. W/O G.F. Prog $61,656 $76,490 $86,290 "I'v"21, r k Lino Lakes $6.84 $7.37 $8.31 $23 $23.29 $26.26 North Metro $1.79 $1.59 $1.52 $5.11 $4.24 $3.82 L.L. W/O G.F. Prog $5.01 $5.54 $5.98 $16.83 $18.66 $20.72 Fiscal Effort Per Capita 1995 7 6 5 m 4 00 3 2 1 0 ■Series2 Series 4,Lino Lakes W/O General Fdhd Dollars; 0 Series3 Series 2,Lino Lakes With General Fund Dollars; 0 Series4 Series 3, North Metro Communities Fiscal Effort Per Household 1995 100*41 $25 $20 A $15 $10 $0 1 ■Series5 Series 7,Lino Lakes W/O General Fund Dollars; 0 Series6 Series 5,Lino Lakes With General Fund Dollars; ®Series7 Series 9,North Metro Communities /o—N Fiscal Effort Per Capita 1996 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 14 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0 00 " ■Series5 1 0 Series6 Series 7,Lino Lakes W/O General Fund Dollars; 0 Series7 Series 6,Lino Lakes With General Fund Dollars; Series 6,North Metro Communities Fiscal Effort Per Household 1996 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0 00 11w, ■Series5 1 0 Series6 Series 6,Lino Lakes W/O General Fund M Series7 Programs;Series 6,Lino Lakes Programs With General Fund Programs;Series 6,North Metro Communities Fiscal Effort Per Capita 1997 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 p° $4.00 $2.00 a �E $0.00 ■Series5 1 0 Series6 Series 6,Lino Lakes W/o General Fund Programs;Series 6,Lino Lakes Programs With 0 Series7 General Fund Programs;Series 6,North Metro Comrnunities Fiscal Effort Per Household 1997 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 g $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 "' ■Series5 1 0 Series6 Series 6,Lino Lakes WIO General Fund Programs;Series 6,Lino Lakes With General ®Senes7 Fund Programs;Series 6,North Metro Communities ' / O . C I T Y O F LINOLAKES PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: 1 1/18/96 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Barry Bernstein, Recreation Program Supervisor SUBJECT: Recreation Recap I'm sorry that I could not present this information in person, but I am in sunny Las Vegas visiting my mother for Thanksgiving. I have listed below some items for your information. The Winter brochure is currently being sent out to residents and I hope you notice some new programs listed such as K-2 Youth Basketball, Self Defense Class for adults and the Away for a Day Trips are being offered in cooperation with North Metro Recreation. The theory behind this cooperative venture is that neither agency can not get enough participants alone to offer these trips. I will report back to you on how this experiment worked. Warminghouses At the present time, I have just about filled all the vacancies for positions this Winter. Last year at this time, I don't believe I had four people hired. It is anticipated that we will open for the season on December 23, 1996. Program update: Open Volleyball Our Open Volleyball program, that is held at Rice Lake School, is hurting on attendance. The school, in the past, has not programmed any activities on Fridays but is planning more and more events on Fridays now. r-r PARK, RECREATION, FORESTRY, & RECYCLING DEPARTMENTS 7204 Lake Drive• Lino Lakes,Minnesota• 55014 Phone:612-780-1885 • Fax:612-784-7227 1 I don't blame the school, but not having a consistent program will eventually eliminate this program. Five on five Player Basketball The Five on Five Basketball program has seen a large influx of teams this year. Last season we served seven teams. This year we are serving twelve teams. I had to become extremely creative in my gym space to accommodate all these teams. Aerobics The Aerobics program is as strong as ever. I give a lot of credit to our aerobics instructors, Thia Casanova and Myra Spijer for their commitment and dedication to this program over the past few years. I have had the same instructors ever since I arrived in Lino Lakes. Breakfast with Santa/Secret Holiday Shop Breakfast with Santa is once again one of our most popular special events. This program is now in conjunction with the Secrete Holiday Shop and is estimated to serving well over 250 people. Although two separate programs, these program gives kids an opportunity to meet Santa, make ornaments, decorate ginger bread cookies and even shop for the family without adults knowing what they bought! WOW! Santa needs helpers if any of you are available? If any of you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office at 780-3782, Ext. 178. Thank You for your time! LINO LAKES PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT "We are working hard, so you can play" REF:pbdec96 Northern States Power Company Community & Economic Development John E. Wertish 1700 East County Road E Northern States Power Company _''��unity Service Manager White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110 612 779-3105 White Bear Lake Area 612 779-3139 fax 1700 East County Road E White Bear Lake, Minnesota 5511"656 November 27, 1996 John Wertish Community Service Manager Marty and Barry City of Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation 7204 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Marty and Barry NSP is very interested in the communities we serve and is willing to help in anyway we can to help support activities and growth in your community. In the future please contact me for consideration of other opportunities for NSP to support your community activities. Sincerely, John Wertish i3. AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: November 20, 1996 TOPIC: Donation Approval, Friends of the Parks BACKGROUND Melissa Peterson From Birchwood Acres developed a nice fund-raising project for the park in their neighborhood. Melissa made a Food Amongst Friends cookbook that includes favorite recipes from the neighborhood residents. She has sold enough of these to provide for a donation of her choice. The intention was to provide an amenity that would be non-controversial in nature, so she selected a 2-5 year old piece of play equipment. I have included with this report a copy of her #1, and #2 choices. This has been taken to the Friends of the Parks for presentation and they have approved this contingent upon Park Board approval . The board needs to act on this in December since Melissa wants to capture 1996 prices. OPTIONS 1 . Approve the number 1 donation to the Friends of the Parks for installation at Birchwood Acres Park. 2 . Refer back to staff for further review. RECOMMENDATION Option 1, approve this request to fund. n oo ot Oc �Ou Care be-�� ct ,ncludol VAN DON 6-( °1� `� i4- ��J J be �o Sze - i u sed '(r� 0-�-c rn� anl� Lod-�i na � GAD ��`t"1`�✓1 CA�ovrl� �� ci�n ` (�ON �� ' �� � coin &KV , G .. i Kid Riders"' Spring Events . iIity Features and Durability,.make Riders`"`Events a Spring to Discover. Horse Specifications Designed for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 to 5 years Play structure size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.3 x 0.9m (1'x 3') Resilient surface area . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.7 x 4.6m (13'x 151 Weight 30 kg (67 lbs.) Pricing SP101-JM Yellow horse with blue seat . . . . . . . . . . . 5482 - 5: i01-DI Tan horse with red seat . . . . . . S482 SR101-JM , SR101-DI Whale ;''.; Independent Specifications Play Designed for children . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 to 5 years ''lay structure size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 x 1.2m (2' x 4') ,.e�ilient surface area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 x 4.9m (14'x 16') ght . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 kg (80 lbs.) r-racing SR104-M Blue whale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S523 SR104-1 Red whale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S523 �= • SR104-1 I SR104-M AN Specifications ; Designed for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 to 5 years Play structure size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.6 x 0.9m (2' x 3') Resilient surface area . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3 x 4.6m (12'x 15) Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 kg (80 lbs.) Pricing SR107-IM Red AN with blue rails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $523 SR107-MJ Blue AN with yellow rails . . . . . . . . . . . S523 v N - I. A resilient safety surface is required under and around all play events *M ; SR107-IM SR107-MJ , vr Independent Play Events Super Ride Specification; Designed for c Play structure Resilient surfa, Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . !may ,7J ILJ.�., Pricing 60719610 Red with Yellow Accents. . . . . . . . . . $450 b Bulldozer o�19610 Specifications Designed for children . . . . . . . . . . . 2 to 5 years Play structure size . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 x 0.9m (2' x 3') Resilient surface area. . . . . . . . . 4.3 x 4.6m (14 x 15') Weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 kg (85 lbs.) Pricing SR108-JM Yellow bulldozer with blue accent. . S482 a t , ' z SR108-JM I� Ir _ l+ �i A resilient safety surface is required under and around all play events. i v. i The LINO LAKES �", ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE presents: GREEN GROWTH A five-part Seminar 5erie5 for: City Council and 5taff Board and committee member5 Concerned citizen- What are the environmental i55ue5 facing Lino Lake5 a5 we approach the 215t Century? How can Strong environmental 5tandard5 attract"Green Enterpri5e" and enhance future development? Can careful planning pre5erve our precious natural re5ource5 for futuregeneration5? October 10-6:30 p.m. -Wargo Nature Center Sherri Buss,Coordinator for the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed Prc iect and Landscape Architect,gives an uplifting and encouraging overview of the processes for rehabilitating a complex urban watershed. November 14-6:30 p.m. -Firehall#2,7741 Lake Drive Hanna Dunevit4 Plant Ecologist with the Minnesota County Biological 5urveyof the Department of Natural Resources,will artfully speak on pre- settlement history of our area and our state's Natural Heritage Program.What are some of our best remaining assets and how do we go about pre serving them? December 12-6:30 p.m. Firehall#2,7741 Lake Drive Joan Gall!,Regional non-game Wildlife Specialist forthe Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,will give a breath taking slide presentation cal led"Taking Flight".5tay to discuss rare and excitinq resources with one of our state's foremost experts on non-game specie5--son1e of which may be in your own backyard.In addition,autographed copies of the following DNR books will be offered for sale after the presentation."Woodworking for Wildlife","Landscaping for Wild.life"and"Wild About Birds".These coffee table editions are perfect for Christmas giving. January 9-6:30 p.m. -Firehall#2,7741 Lake Drive David Engstrom,Chair of the Washington County Commissioners,spearheaded the movement to save our scenic neighborfrom the ills of urbanization.With their new,highly-acclaimed Comprehensive Plan,Washington County should now be able to maintain itsjewel-like integrity even with its proximity to the Metro area.Bob Engstrom,founder of the Robert Engstrom Development firm in Minneapolis,is a developer of true vision. He has pioneered and succeeded in producing one of the finest developments created around the open space,cluster zoning concept in Washington County.Both will discuss trends and favorable alternatives to sprawl and outmoded schools of thought on zoning. February 12-6.30 p.m.-Firehall#2,7741 Lake Drive Renay Leone,Executive Director for the Minnesota Land Trust,will talk about;ways in which the private sector can participate in assuring that wild and scenic areas as well as farmlands can be passed on tofuture generations.Lee Ronning,directorfor the Land 5teward5hip Project's 1000 Friends of Minnesota,will define"5u5tainahlity"and how we can achieve it.both will discuss how MGM balance growing urban demands with our responsibility to be good stewards of the land. iv 4S RV RIIS iv 4V It is a privilege thatde-,-pite.their often grueling schedules which talc them far and wide,our speakers found time t e�hare their outstanding ex,�e��;ise with t:he citizens of lino Lakes.