Laserfiche WebLink
i I .. .._ . . .. . - ._,._ . _;.... ... _ ._ _ . _.. Y- . _vy -. ; _... . . . ° - _ . . . ... . . . . .. . " . . _ _. . _ .. - - -- - - <br />1 ..--' ' "-' -"_ . :-.___ ._.._ . _. __ _.. . . _ <br />i <br />waste and storm water control: <br />EXCELLENT..........e ...................... <br />e7% <br />GOOD...............................o...... <br />59% <br />ONLY FAIR.vae...a ......................... <br />15% <br />POORo.....e.........oe.a......e........... <br />10% <br />I <br />DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.mooeo.e.<.<..a....9% <br />But, twenty-five percent of the sample was dissatisfied. <br />Higher ratings were found among: <br />2-S and over 30 year residents <br />Ranters <br />Dissatisf ction was scattered across the community. <br />The problem facing policy-makers on this issue is that major <br />changes, such as the construction of storm sewers, are not <br />supported by many residents. <br />i ater for Residential Use <br />1 Seventy-six percent of the community approved of the water <br />quality in Mounds View: <br />EXCELLENT........ao......o...e............ <br />14% <br />y <br />GOOD.......e.....e ........................ <br />b2% <br />ONLY FAIR...o ................ <br />e..........o.13Y. <br />I POOR............••' <br />e ...................... <br />lOY. <br />DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. •2% <br />ITwenty-three percent were less generous in their evaluations. <br />Water quality enthusiasts included: <br />Over 30 year residents <br />Planning to stay b-10 years <br />t 50,000-60,000 yearly income households <br />Water quality dissenters werea <br />Renters <br />Planning to stay less than two years <br />20,000-30,000 yearly income households <br />Precinct 2 residents <br />These evaluations are in line with neighboring communitieso <br />Residents tended o rate services lower for specific <br />40