The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 4187 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 4187 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUDGET CHANGE TO PAY THE EXPENSES RELATED TO A COMMUNITY SERVICES SURVEY TO BE CONDUCTED BY DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the community services survey is needed to determine resident priorities related to current and future service levels; and WHEREAS, Decision Resources, LTD has submitted a proposal to conduct a survey at a cost of $5,800; and WHEREAS, the expenses related to the survey is not a 1992 budgeted item and thereby necessitates a budget change to cover the costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council in and for the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the following budget change: Transfer of $5,800 from Contingency Fund 100-4190-703 to City Hall Professional Services Fund 100-4120-30~ Adopted this 10th day of February, 1992. ATTEST: (SEAL) Decision Resources Ltd. SURVEY FINDINGS City of Mounds View Residents Methodoloctv ° This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 251 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between August 13, 1992, and August 17, 1992. The average interview ook fourteen minutes. Tn general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of residents of the City of Mounds View within + 6.3 percentage points in .95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demo_crraphics: Residents were asked a very short number of background questions. The median residential langevity was 11.2 years; but, sixteen percent had arrived in the city during the past two years, while twenty-nine percent had lived there over twenty years. The average age was 42.5 yea rs old; twenty-eight percent were under 35 years old, while twenty-six percent were over 54 years old. Gender differences were also encountered: fifty-four percent of the respondents were female, while forty-six percent were male. Geographically, the four precincts ranged from twen- ty-nine percent of the sample, residing in Precinct Three, to twenty percent, res.iding in Precinct Two. New Police Department.Buildinq Referendum: Forty-three percent of the sample favored the construction of a new Police Department Building and related City Hall im- provements; thirty-two percent opposed the new construction. Less than two year residents were more apt to be somewhat suppor- tiveo A large swing group, twenty-five percent, were undecided. At this time, a.majority, then, do not favor even in concept the proposal. Residents were read a series of facts about Police Depart- ment and City Hall needs. Forty-one percent reported they would be more likely to support the new construction in light of the fact that the current police facilities do not offer privacy for youth and people involved in sensitive crimes, such as rape, domestic and child abuse. This was particularly impactful among less than two year residents, 18-34 year olds, and Precinct 2 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 •(612) 920-0337 d.:: _. -==- -- -. : L _..--- _----. . .. .:s..: =_..:t - --=-L=^-----... =::.s. residents; it was a negative for support among over 65 year olds. Thirty-nine percent were more apt to support the proposal far new construction given that City Hall does not meet current state and federal standards for handicapped accessibility. Less than two year and 11-20 year residents were positively impacted by this observation. Other arguments were somewhat less persuasive. Twenty-eight percent were more favorably moved when told the current police facilities does not have interrogation room, and suspects and victims cannot be properly separated during questioning. Less than five year residents, 18-24 year olds, and Precinct 2 resi- dents were more likely to be supportive in this case. Twenty- three percent were more apt to be much more supportive when informed the heating system in City Hall is faulty and not eco- nomically efficient to operate; twenty-one percent were similarly motivated whe,n told the City Hall has insufficient space to adequately meet the growing public demand for services and meet- ing space. The latter argument favorably impacted less than two year residents and 25-34 year olds. Clearly, the two key argu- ments in favor of the new facilities would be privacy and handi- capped accessibility. A fifty percent majority would be willing to see their property taxes increased by $20°00 yearly to fund the construc- tion of a new Police Department Building and related City Hall improvements.: But, thirty percent of the residents reported they were willing;to pay "nothing" and twenty-one percent were unsure about their willingness to pay; 45-54 year olds and Precinct One residents were most likely to fall into the former group. Any bond issue raising the average yearly property tax above $20.00 would require a highly aggressive campaign to assure passage. A dead heat resulted in reaction to a specific construction proposale Farty-four percent were willing to support a 2.1 million dollar Police Department Building and related City Hall improvements package; but, forty-five percent opposed it. Strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters by two-to-one. Precinct 4 residents and less than two year residents were most likely ta be supportive; over ten year residents and over 45 year olds were much more likely to be "strongly opposed." Under these circum- stances, the chances of passing a referendum this large would seem remote. The inclusion of a community meeting room in a building package would have a negative impact. Only twenty-fiv percent were more likely to support the package with this addition; but, thirty-eight percent stated they were less likely to do soo 3-10 year residents and men were mvre likely to support a bond issue with this inclusion. Over 45 year olds and Precinct 3 residents were much less likely to do soe In this already hostile elector- al environment, a larger scale project including a community room would not aid in the passage of the proposal. 2 fs City-Contracted Haulinq: By a fifty-four percent to thirty-nine percen t verdict, residents supported the City negotiating a contract with one hauler to serve the entire communitye Strong opposition, howev- er, was somewhat greater than stronq support. Opponents, in fact, were adamant about retaining the current private-choice system. 3-5 year residents, 18-34 year olds, and Precincts 2& 3 residents mare often favored the City negotiating a contract. 55-64 year olds and Precinct 4 residents were most often "strong- ly opposed." Wetlands Preservation: Fifty-five percent favored in concept the City purchasing all privately-owned wetlands to provide surface water storage and preserve wildlife habitats and vegetation. Thirty-three percent opposed this expendituree 25-34 year olds and Precincts 3& 4 residents were most likely to support his initiative, while Precinct 1 residents were more likely ta oppose it. However, when informed of the cost and property tax implications, opinions drastically switched: sixty-five percent would oppose a property tax increase for this purpose, while twenty-five percent favored it. S'cand pat supporters in light of the costs were most apt to be 25-34 year olds`and 6-10 year residents. Opponents to this expenditure included over ten years, 35°64 year olds, and Pre- cincts 1& 3 residents. In fact, eighty-two percent favored the continuation of the current approach: negotiating with develop- ers to turn over property at no cost to the City for storm water retention and habitat and vegetation preservation. 18-24 year olds, 11-20 year residents, and Precinct 3 residents were partic- ularly supportive of the current approach. Nuisance Ordinances: Forty-eight percent considered nuisance ordinance violations to be "very serious" or "somewhat serious" in Mounds View. Fifty-two percent did not regard it as a serious issue. 18-24 & 45-54 year olds, 11-20 year residents, and Precinct 1 residents tended to view this problem more seriously. Even so, fifty-eight percent would favor the City strengthening its Nuisance Ordinance and increasing enforcement of code violations. Thirty-five percent oppased this change in the law. 18-24 year olds, 6-10 year residents, and Precinct 1 residents were most enthusiastic about strengthening enforcement procedures, Of those supporting a change, sixty-eight percent were still favorable even if it would require the hiring of an addi ional City staff persone Only over twenty year residents were more likely to defect over the costs of an additional staff person. At a minimum, the City should review its current ordinances for the possibility of strengthening their impact. 3 y-=- - . -''i i: ___ .._ ._,_.s _- --..__ ...- . ---- . . '---` `- I . I_ _ rr.:-. k'°--Y Information Sources: The major information source about City Council delibera- tions and decisions was the Bulletin Newspaper. Farty-four percent mainly relied upon its reporting, while twenty-six per- cent cited it as a secondary source of information. It was particularly important to over 65 year olds. The City Newsletter ranked next, primarily relied upon by twenty-five percent. 35-44 year olds and Precinct 2 tended to be its target audience. The Focus Newspaper followed at sixteen percent. 55-65 year olds showed a partiality to this publicationa Overall, both news- papers were cited more often than the city newsletter as a source of information. Word-of-mouth was an information source for thirty-three percent of tlie community; it was the principal source for six percent of the residents. Of tho,se using the "grapevine," only twenty-eight percent had ever called City Hall for verification or clarification of the information they had received through informal channels. And, only nineteen percent were either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to use a 24-hour "Hot Line" for clarification or verification. Clearly, those utilizing the grapevine" were not interested in using formal channels to evaluate its content or accuracy. The preferred way for the City to communicate with its residents was a mailed newsletter, mentioned by forty-five per- cent. PreciT cts 3& 4 residents expressed greater preferences for this approach. Newspapers were cited next at sixteen per- cent. Telephone calls from City Staff and City Council members were suggested by seven percent, while more meetings were key for four percent. Like most suburban communities, a mailed newslet- ter has the greatest potential for impacting residents. Citv Survevs° Eighty-nine percent supported the use of statistically valid random sample telephone surveys to seek out opinions and views on key issues. In fact, forty-six percent strongly supported their use. 18-24 year olds and over 65 year olds, as well as Precincts 1& 3 residents were particularly supportive of the use of sur- veys. Only eight percent were opposed to this methodology. Conclusions° Mounds View residents were wary of eztpenditures leading to moderate property tax increases. They did no possess enough information about a new Police Department Facility to pass a bond referendum. Instead, residents reacted to the tax implications rather than the neede To be successful at the polls, a major communications effort would be required. They approved of the idea of purchasing wetlands, but not if it required a significant 4 property tax increase to do so. They would support the City contracting with one hauler, but only if cost savings resulted. Mounds View residents were not reflexively anti-tax; but, need would have to be clearly established in order to gain majority support for any property tax hikes. 5 z- '_==---' : '-- t - " • r -- _."_ M_._ _.•r: .,__ :'..:1 e--- __ ;rr'S " <<- DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Mounds View Residential Second Issues Study August, 1992 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltde, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Mounds View to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing our community. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how many years have TWO YEARS OR LESS.....16% you lived in Mounds View? THREE TO FIVE YEARS...17% SIX TO TEN YEARSe...e.16% ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS>.a22% OVER TWENTY YEARS..e.o29% The City has been discussing the need to construct a new Police Department facility and upgrade the Department's exis ting space for use by other City Departments and the public. 2. Would you favor or oppose the con- struction of a new Police Depart- ment Building and related City Hall improvements? (WAIT FOR RE- SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVORe......013% FAVOR..a..e...........300 OPPOSE...00. ........180 STRONGLY OPPOSE.....e.14o DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe000250 2 would now like to read you a list of facts regarding the Police Department and City Hall needs. For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support the construction, some- what more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support the construction. If it has no impact on you, just say so.... MML SML NOI SLL MLL DKR 3. The current police facility does not have interrogation room, and suspects and victims cannot be properly separated during question- ing. 28 0 39% 16 0 4% 7 0 7% 4. The current police facility does not offer privacy for youth and people involved in sensitive crimes, such as rape, domestic, and child abuse. 41% 340 11% 30 7% 4% 5. The heating system in City Hall is faulty and not economically effic- ient to operate. 230 37% 12% 10% 70 11% ad' ' .--'--. .--. -._ . r- '- --. _ :.s-'_. _ :>c-i-.`-' . C.'3c' - --.._-_., r.•:'r MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 6o The City Hall has insufficient space to adequately meet the grow- ing public demand for services and meeting space. 210 310 180 ll0 120 80 7. The City Hall does not meet cur- rent state and federal staradards for handicapped accessibility. Moving on.... 39 0 32% 10% 6% 7 0 6% No decisions have been made by the City; only preliminary discus- sions are taking place. If a plan were adopted, residents would be asked to approve a property tax increase for a twenty year period to cover the issuance of construction bonds. 8. How much would you be willing to see your yearly property taxes in- crease to fund this proposal? Let's say, would you be willing to see your yearly property taxes in- crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON ANSWER) How about per year? (REPEAT PROCESS) NOTHING....e.....o..e.30% 2ovoo....a.........e.2 o 40.00.....o......,..e12o 60.00 ...............e.6o 80.00 .................20 100.00 ..............>.1% 120.00.a...ee.........1% DON'T KNOWe...........210 REFUSED ................20' One plan under consideration would cost approximately 2.1 milliori dollars. Voters would be asked to approve an increase in proper- ty taxes of about $47.00 per year on the average $85,000 home for a period of 20 years. 9. Would you favor or oppose this bond referendum for a new Police Department Building and related City Hall improvements? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- ly that way? 10. If the new construction included a community meeting room which could be used by residents for banquets and receptions, would you be much more likely to support the bond referendum, somewhat more likely, neither more nor less likely, some- what less likely, or much less likely to support it? Changing topics.... STRONGLY FAVOR........14% FAVOR ..............e..30% OPPOSE ................180 STRONGLY OPPOSE.......270 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....110 M[JCH MORE LIKELY.......8% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY..17% NEITHER ee............32% SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY..14% M[JCH LESS LIKELY....e.24% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....50 Due to a recently enacted state law which requires everyone to dispose of their solid waste in an environmentally safe manner, the Mounds View City Council is studying the organized collection F i i Y .. _. r . :=_ _ ....___._ r =:,: . r. ; of solid waste in the community. Suppose the City were to negotiate a contract with a single hauler which all residents were required to use that includedo the option of curbside or garage pick-up at the same cost; volume-based charges not to exceed the lowest costs current- ly charged by any current hauler; and, a bag rate option of $2.50 per 30 gallon bag with no monthly rate.... llo Would you support or oppose this STRONGLY SUPPORT.o....22% negotiated contract with one SUPPORT........a......320 hauler serving the entire city? OPPOSE ................140 WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE.....:.25% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....70 IF "OPPOSE" OR "STRONGLY OPPOSE," ASKo 12. What method of waste collection do you prefer? NO ANSWER, 4%; CURRENT SYSTEM, 41%; PRIVATE, 13%; CHOOSE OWN, 260; LIKE COMPETITION, 160. The City of Mounds View currently has a wetlands Ordinance which restricts the uses a property owner may have in a wetlande A recent proposal involving the construction of single family homes impacted a wetland area. As a result, a request was made that the City of Mounds View purchase all privately owned wetland areas in the community as an effart to preserve them. • 13. Would you favor or oppose the City purchasing all privately-owned wetlands to provide surface water storage, and preserve wildlife habitats and vegetation? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVORovoe.°o.28% FAVOR .................27% OPPOSEe.e .............18% STRONGLY OPPOSE.......15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12a It is estimated that the cost of buying all 105 acres of private- ly owned wetlands at fair market price would be approximately 9.5 million dollars, or $90,000 per acre. In order to fund these purchases, a significant property tax increase would be needede 14. Would you favor or oppose a pro- STRONGLY FAVOR....e....9% perty tax increase to fund the FAVOR.......°o.evo....16% buying of privately-owned wet- OPPOSE.....e...e..e26o lands? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE.......39% you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe..a10o The current City development approach has been to negotiate with developers to turn over property at no cost to the City for storm water retention and the preservation of wildlife habitats and vegetation at or above pre-development levels. 3 L:- -__-._. ._ 15. Do you favor the continuation of STRONGLY FAVOR.......e38% this approach? (WAIT FOR RE- FAVOR ...............e.44o SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that OPPOSE .................60 way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..,..8% Moving on again.o.. The City has a Nuisance Ordinance which prohibits such things as the parking of unlicensed automobiles in yards, unkept yards with tall grass and noxious weeds, the storage of junk,and debris in yards, and unsafe.or unsanitary structural conditions. Due to a lack of staff, the City currently handles such viola- tions on a"complaints only" basis. The current City Code is also vague on this issue and may not withstand court challenges. 16e Do you feel that violations such VERY SERIOUSee.e..po..l5% as junk cars, junk and debris in SOMEWHAT SERIOUSee..o.330 yards, and structural deficiencies NOT TO SERIOUSe......40% in buildings are a very serious NOT AT ALL SERIOUS....12% problem in Mounds Vi.ew, somewhat DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...ov0o serious, not too serious, or not at all a serious problem? 17. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR........280 strengthening its Nuisance Ordin- FAVORooa..o>.o.00..o.e30% ance and increasing enforcement of OPPOSE......sa..00....25% code violations? (WAIT FOR RE- STRONGLY OPPOSE.......10% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDa..o.70 way? IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: 18e Would you still favor in- YES....a......a.....ee68% creased enforcement if it NO ....................220 would require the hiring of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..e.10% an additional City staff per- son? Considering another topic.... The City is interested in learning how it can better communicate important information to the residents of Mounds View. 19. Of the following sources of information, which do you mainly rely upon to learn about City Council deliberations and actions? (READ LIST) 20. Which is you second most relied upon source? (READ LIST) 21. Is there a third source of information that you use? (READ LIST) 4 L _c '--."' n:*r, '. I (. _ _ r. :=._I _ rc`-- _ -_......<_s..._.__ . ._i F...._._ ..+...`s:_ -'....:aJ THE BULLETIN NEWSPAPER THE CITY NEWSLETTER CABLECAST OF COUNCIL MEETINGS THE COMMUI TITY BULLETIN BOAF2D ON HIGHWAY 10 THE FOCUS NEWSPAPER WORD-OF-MOUTH FROM OTHER PEOPLE None of the Above Don't Know/Refused FIRST 44 0 25% 6% 0 4% 0 16% 6% 0 0% 0 1% 0 IF "WORD-OF-MOUTH" IS SELECTED IN 19-21, ASK: c _ u''x;,=s: SECND 260 18% 10% 9% 0 23 0 12% 2% 0 2% 0 THIRD 10% 130 9% 0 14% 17% 150 10% 11% 22. Have you ever called City YES.e...00e.00...o°o.e28% Hall to verify or clarify NO.........a.........0620 any information you received DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.000l00 by word-of-mouth from other people? 23. How likely would you be to use a City of Mounds View 24- hour telephone information Hot Line" to verify and/or clarify "word-of-mouth" in- formation, if one were in- stalled -- very likely, some- what likely, not too likely, or not at all likely? 24e Would you support or oppose the City of Maunds View using statis- tically valid random sample tele- phone surveys, such as this, in the future to seek out opinions and views on key issues facing the community? (WAIT FOR RE- SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? VERY LIKELY..........,.60 SOMEWHAT LIKELY..a..e.13o NOT TOO LIKELY...e..,.300 NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....41% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% STRONGLY SUPPORT.e....46% SUPPORT ...............43% OPPOSE..........o.e,...4% STRONGLY OPPOSE......0.4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 25. If you could choose, how would you prefer the City to commu- nicate with you on issues being considered by the City Council? NO ANSWER, 120; NEWSLETTER, 27%; TELEPHONE, 70; MAIL, 18%; FOCUS, 4%; CABLE, 30; BULLETIN, 6%; AS IS, 6%; SURVEY, 4%; NEWSPAPER, 60; MEETINGS, 40; VOTING, 20; SCATTERED, 2%0 Now, just a few more questions for background purposes.... 26. What is your age, please? 5 18-24......e.........oe8o 25-34.e ...............20% 35-44vee .............e29% 45-54 .................180 55-64 ................>15% 65 AND OVER.>..<..ee..11% r --=- - v : Thank you very much for your time. 27. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALEoe...00.ae.oe.o.>o46% FEMALE.......o..e.ao..54% 28. Region of the City (DO NOT ASK) PRECINCT ONE..........250 PRECINCT TWO...e.....a20o PRECII ICT THREE........290 PRECINCT FOUR.........26% 04/07/2005 10:37 6129261069 DECISION KtSUUK tS rryu s r z , o: ,-- Il 1 ` . c..: (jt it .S b: "1_( a 3 l a ox v-u.b r: "?... 1-- 'iOC C. r L)at: ../4"" a roxn : 1; ,`" 'i.+ u j ct and Co e ats: 7"ofaI pages: (izaclud ng co e p e) De xs on Re ou'c s, ,td. 28 :C7ean. Cour 11 S n ea olzs, Min soia 55416 laone: (5Y2} 9ZO p337 :'Ax, (6r2) 920 1069 a 04/67/20a5 10:37 6129201069 llt l5luN KtSUUKVt u p GT TpN RESQURCES LTD. 3128 Dca,n Cota..r.'E Minne polis, Minn sata 55416 City of Mounds View Resa.dcn,taaJ. Su vey FINAL M rch 2005 NcJ.]_a, I'm o: l7 ca.sion Resources, L L•de, a polling irm ocatcd in Minneapolis. We ha re been retained by the City of Mounci View o sp ak with a random sample af residents about issue f cing the community. This survey is bei,ng Cond.U,C Gd, b cau,se '. Cit Coun il and City Staff are interested in 'p'tzx' opa_nion,s a,t.d. suggestions about current and futw: Gzty, x,Gd,s - I aa.r L to assure you th t al1 a,xzd,iva.dual, r sponses will be held s Lric 1 carifidential; o.:ly sizmrnaries of the entire sazn J.e wil, be reported. 1. .ppxoxima ly how ma,xa,y, y, ars have y,ou ived in Mounds V.w? LESS 'HfiN TWQ XF.ARS . .. 7 TWO TO FIVE YF T S.....19 5 YX TC5 TE T XFARS , . . . . . 7 ` ELEVEN 'z'Q 2 O .'E.1 RS . . . . 2 6 21 TO 3 0 YF,F,RS ....... 1 2 4s OVFR 30 YEARS..e._....19 DON'T KNOW/RF'USED.....0 Tow would you ratC Lhe qu lity p C LLENT .............244s li,f, in Mounds Va.ew -- excell,e a,:, GOOD ..................6 good, only fai.r, or poor? 02 Ti Y FAZR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 PObR..................1 DON' T,iNOW/R I'US D_ . . . _ 0 Wha do you l.ilce most, a.l nythin.g, about livirag a. Mourids Vi2w? UNSUR, 5; T,OCA'ZON, 31 ; F TLY/FRI NDS, 1 0; N 2GT,BOR- HOOD/HOUSE, 17g; SMAZ,L C0!1M.UNITY, 8; CLOSE TO Si,T,OPPING 01 PQRTUNIT ES, 5; QUI T, 7; OP N SP CES, $; SCHOOLS, 6; GITY SERVICES, 2; P FtKS, 2,, SAI', 2?; SCATT RED, 1 `& . Wh.a, c1a you, li]s lea,s L- , if az.yt ing, abQU, li ring in Mounds Vi e cv? UNSUR, 8; NOTIYiNG, 30; CITX GOVERNMEN:C DOESN'T .LIST N, 6 5; T1aX Sr 1 1; NO CZ'Y ENTER REA, 2; NO'I3ING TO DO, 4 5; N D MORF T3USINFSS S, ; CRTNE, 4.; POOR kZO,I DS, °s; RAFFZC, 6 s; RUNl70WN RO ERTT,S, 445; TQO Mr7CH GROW'TI, ; TOU MUCfi LOW ZNCOM HOLJSING, 6°;; SCATTERED, 7`. N oving o,.... 04/07/2005 16:37 6129201069 DECISION RESOURCES rHa ua 5. Ar G}.,r, any typeti of retail ox' s x'a.c businesses you wouJ.d. iJte o see available a.x Mounds VieUr? (IF "YES, " AS: ) Wh.t types? U TSURF i N0 12 RFT,A,zL, 3 "$IG $Q" $TOR,F.S 4 GT OC RY STOR, 1 C; DISCOLTNT 'I3 G BOX" S:ORE, 3; RES'AU- 1 I'TS, 18 5; S CtiALTY uTO Z S, :g; S:PFC.L,TY S F V'ICE SUSI- NESSES, 2; T.I.G IIARDUdARF STORF, 2; SCAT''RED, ?. 6. Does Maunds va.cw curr ntly poss ss Y'5 ...................784s an adequate m:z af housing to nee NO. . 1 1 the n d,s o' a11 res,d nts, such I OZV' T KNOW/REFUSEb e...1 1 as y,oung families, ma uring fa,ma- 1.ies, singlcs, empty nEst xs, ancl etirees? IF "NO," 1.-.STC: (N=3) 7. What i:ypes of hou.sa.ng would yotx like to sGC more of .x, the community? U TSt7R ,; f32 GI ZNCOM I dUS TNG, 9; AFFORDI BT E IOUS:LNG, 7; SENIOR HOUSZNG, 1$9s; SINGLE AI.T,.LY FipM:S, Z34s; STARTER HOM S "OR YOUNG .'AMI,T.T S, 2 s; OW TNCOMF HOUSING, 6; UPSCT.LE TdWNHpM S/CONbII+ZNI- UMS, 7; SCAmTER,F.,p, 2. 8. Iavc yau or zn,mbers a:E your h,QUSe, YES. . , e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 hoJ.d used the Mound,s View ;8ridges NO . ....... ......e...80 Gol Coux'se in tkl p st i.tao y axs? DON''S KNOia/R'USED. .. e. 1 There h,ave be, a numbcx of da.scussioras about : cdev lap:i.ng the Go f Cour e property •L•or oth r uses _ One Q L•he maj o.r purposes for •l:he redcvelopmen wou].cl b to .r cluce p operty axes, i.t he Mayar. and Ca.L'y Cour cil de.Ymine '}a,is cou.a,d be ac 7,i.ev2d. 9. Wau1d yo a. favor az oppose the r,c- STRO T LY F.;VOR. ....,..36 d velopme,r,lt of 'l:k e Moun.ds View 'AVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,7 J3rxdges Golf Course' (WA T 'OR OT'POSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 1 0 RESFONSE) no you f.eel stxongly STRONGLY O:PPOSE......1Q tk,a'L° w.,r'? DON' m KNOW/R'USED. ... 1 74s 10. Tf t}, Moun,d.s Vie a Dridges Golf. Course had ;o be subsida.zed az,nu- ally rom Lk e Ci y, ' s Gcn.eral k'und to kc p it operata.ng, would yau favox or oppase sGlling the px'o- perty for, edev lopmea'L'? (W7,-,IT O k2 R SPONSE) Da you ,fEel st:ongly, that w.y? 2 STRONGZY F,1,VOR........38 FAVOR .................75 Q:POSE.._.„....._....11 S TROI TGLX 01'PO: . . . . . . . 1 0 DON' T KN0 1/RE'USED . . . ,1 6 S 04/07/2005 10:37 6129201069 DECISIDN RESUUK tS 1 1. What i th. GoJ.:C Cour. sc wc.r. c s,:C- suppor:ing and. d..d no L :cqv..,r. a. subsidy from the City's General und, would you favor or oppos s:l.l..x g the pxopexty or rcdcv.- opmen? (GI TT FOR R.5PON5) Da ou feel strongly hat way? 12_ 13. rHU u4 STRQNGLY FAVOR........20 FAVOR .................19 OPPOSE....,---..e.....20 S'RON LY OPPOSE.e.....17 DON' T KNOW/REFUS,F_,T . - • - 74 Tow would you iate the gen xal XCELL FNT .............17 conc ition and appearance of pro- GOOD ..................59 per ies in your neighborhood -- O LY FAT,R..---.-•---••19 e scellent, good, or,.y .fa,a..r, ox POOI.. . . . . . . . ... . _ . . . . . . .4 poor? DON' T KNOCn/t'USED ..... 7 Which ONE c f the fo,l.o ai.n.g :i.mprovem.nts o County Highway 10 do you considex' tv be of he gre test benefit iOS:C S CN T edestri.a.r.x cr.'osswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 `. . . . . 1 3 ra.a.J.ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1 °s . . . . 1 1 Ligh ing .................................7.....13 T aridscap.n.g .................... ......... ----.8g Mon.uzn nt sign at th ci.y' s borciers - - - - - .1 . . . , . . 34 zm,ro ed appe.r. a,nce of busin.ess s . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . .1 7_v k aligning i,n,tcxsec ions ta 90 d.Egrees...6.....10 Renaming x,gM.way 10....................11..... 4 1.LT. Q J'AL....... .........................e...,3$ NQN O' TI 3E A]30V . > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 v e . . . . 1 O $ nON'T KNOW/R FUS D........ ..............7,°0.13° 1. Whiclz ONF do ynu con.sider to b o;C he secaz d, grea est benef.t? (RE R 1.'D LTST I' NEC SSAR'Y'; TaELET TIRSm CHOIC,` RO'1.TE L I S T. ) 15. T o you fa,or dr oppose the Ga.:y, `s STR NG.LY 'AVO Z.. ......_g v,se of emi,,ent domaa.n o take 'AVOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8g pxoperty a,'L' air ma..rket valu :Cor OPPQS,F_„ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 redevelo ment pur.poses? (wA,Z` T^'OR STl ONGLY Q P S.......42 R 51 ONSE ) I7o yau. L'eel stxongly DON' T KNQW/REFUSED ._,. 1 4 g that way? The Ca.'ty of Mounds Va,ew is p sid rin.g I'uture r. cs dentia.J, raad GCOristructidn proj cts. 'k r2 wou7.d be an assessment cast or i.zn acted p; operty owners, s r ad ov r a tera-y, ear pe.r, i.od, of a,pprdxima e y $2, 500 to 3, 000 per ]ousehold, in addi.ion to a, g n,eral ci,:y,-wide ta,x incx ase. . 1 G. Wov.l.d you :Cav'or or. C ppos a road STRONG.L Y FAVOl. ......_ 1 1 econstructio, roject in youx '.A.VOR ...............e.19°s ar.? (WAiT FOR R S'ONSE) Do you O POS...............21 fe 1, stron.gly that way? ST12pNGLY OP OS.......40g DbN' ' f NbW/RFk'U ED. . . . . 9 s 3 04/07/2005 10:37 61292a1069 DECISION RESOUK S rHUt 7. or road reconstruct on, would you CbNC E ..............6 r er CONCR T cu b a d gra.t r OR BZ'Z'I7MTN US . . . . . . . . . . . . BI'I'iJMZNOUS - - .A.S FLA,L' - - curb anc. NO FRE'E.NC . - - - • - - - . Z2$ g ta.e, if the cast to resid.en NE'i ER. . . . . . . . . - • - - - . .9 w r abouL same? DpN'T KNOW/i2E'[JSED.....7$ 1.8. Do yoia. 1 t.e Czty a.s tao augh, Ta0 TOUGI3. . . . a . , . . . . . . .3 ab ut ig1 or not toug. ex.aug. z ABQUT RIGHT...........58 enforc ng he City Cade on such NC7'' 'QUGH FIrTOUGH. _....33g nuisances as jurzk ca s, m ssy 7(7N''S KNOW/REFUSED.....7 yard, weeds o aii grass, and outside staragc? TF' "TOO TOVGH" OR "NQ'T 'TOUGH ENOUGI3, " 1SK : (T7=.43 ) 19. Why do you c el ha way? UNSURE . , ; I ESSX X.S , 2 8 ,JYJNK CARS , 2 8 ' ; lZLIN- DOWN HQTJSES, 9; 'X'a0 S kZZC'Z'/.A.V O J 7ERS .T Ol', $; xoMES wz rxx r x x coz vzaz.za s, .g; D ovGx CONSEQT]'ENC S, 9; 'Z`., G Z.A.SS A 7A WEED, 3; SCAT-- TERPD, %. 20 . would you a ro d oppos the CYt STRO tGLY ',A.VO.. . . - - - . .5 passi g an orcixn.nCe Gk at would F.A'70R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Zimiti he numbex' a v hicl s OPPOSE..... .......18 pa lced on a res.dezxta.a. lot? (VJAIT STRONGLY Qk OS.......23 EOR RESP NS) Da you fee strongl DON'' .1VdW/REF'tT 17.....9g that w.x? o`rizzg ox . . . . 21. Wou d you avor ar oppose a. in FAVQ, .................42$ r ase in he cz y po ion o yotia.r OPPOS ................46 pro erty t.xes if cost-o-3.a.ving DON' T Ii iOW/RE'USEIJ. ...3 ta 3.x creases t rere n2eded to mai- tain sexva.ces a th ix curren leve. 7 22, 'G ou1d Xou avor or oppose a educ- k'kl.vOR .................28 iazx i.n city serva,Ce if the G.ty OPPbBE . . . . . . . - - - . . . . 55 oxtion of aux propert t.es can D N''X' VO/REFUSEJ, ...17 b eduGed? IF "'„11,VOR, ASK: (N=17.3) 23. What se-viGes wou d you be willing to s e cut to keep y ur prapertx axes fram inc ea ing or ta red.uc your pxoperty- ta es UNSUk, 48; ONE, 11$; ACROSS ' HOARD, 3; PARKS ND iFCRE,A,'S`IO T,. 7 .ADMZNIST A.T ON, 9; SZ'REET$, 3; PbLIC, i; SNOW R N10 TA.,, 9% GC?T.,F+ G'OURSE 3; S T'I'ERFsD, 1 . C 04/07/2005 10:37 6129201069 DECISION KtSUUKLtS rHU A p oposal was recently ma,d.e to reqv.a.xe a r fercndum whe x v r Moun,cls View i.'nded ta ra,a.se their pax'tion o 'Lh.0 year y .r.oper- ty, ax by fivc percent. 1 special 'Lcction re'x ndum, if rz ces- sar.X in non-el.cction years, CQS s the Ca.ty of Maun.ds view abau 6,000.00 to conduct. 24. zf you co.l.d choose the city, pr- p x ty tax percEn,ta,g incr se l:h,a wou].d trigg r a r c:rend.um elec- j,pr, would it be a't ' . GHOO E R.ANbOM S''1,'Z'ING Pdi TT; MOVE Ui> OR DOWN Ta PENDING C7N E5PON5) I3ow abau ' RF EAT PROCESS) LESS `'IIAN 5, . _ . . . . . . .30 IV PERC Nm......,...35 r.N PERC NT...........17 FIFTEEN P R,C iT . . e . . . . . 1 % IORE 'I3AN 15 . . _ _ . . . . . . 3 poNim KNOW............11 l,FUSED . . . . . . , . . . . . . o _ 1 25. Wh n ,Y,au consider the prdper' XCELL NT.•.....--'.. 56 t x s ou pay, a,d t.e qu lity of G OD ................ city ser r.ces y, ou xeaeive, woul. ONZ i F1.a.R. .-....._,. e.. 26 yau ra c 'r,e gcl e,r,a, value of city PODR, -$ s rvices as cxcel.J.e z l., good, only DON' T KNOW/RFFUSED. ....54s fair, o paor' 25. H:ow woulcl you r te the maun ol EXCELL,E VT.-•..•---... poJ.a.cc pa,t,r, o:i.J.:i.g i, y, au,r. n igh GOOb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 5 borl7oacl -- excell nt, good, an.x ONT Y 'A R .............24 fair or poor? POOR ...................7 DON'T KNOW/R FUSED._...2$ 2i . PJ.a.sc l-.cJ.:l. n w,i.h o.e o: t),c :('o:l.l,ow.x,g y, ou consider to be tk e grcates. pv,b.li.c sa:E:y, p.roblGm .x Mo a.r d,s Vi w. I xo. :C e1. L•hat none a' Y e issues are seriaus in Mouncls VYew, 7ust ay so. GREAT SECONb 7'uvenile cr_im, sv,ck .s vandalism. . .30. . . . . . _ 17 Violent crime ......................_1$........1 Traffic safety, suGh, a. d un7z driving or speed.n.g' • - - - - . . . , . • • 2 0 . . . , . . . 1 7 I rugs.....-------•----...---•,......7......._9 Gangs.-------• ......-------•-•---2-......_3 sUSa.nGSS crimes, such as sh.op- lifting and chc k 'aud.........6 s........3 Residentia.]_ c;rames, such as b a,a:gJ.ary .nd theft. . . .. . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . .22g ALL FQUA.L .......................«....4........ NON OF 'TE 1 6V'E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 1 7_ DON''iNOW/R FUS b ...................5.......17_ 28. wh,.ch do you consi,d,ca: L°o be the secon.d. znajar concern. Ac ain, if you f Gl. ,one apply, 1,Gas say sa. Tuxn,a.x g to parks axa.d xecr ation.... 5 04/07/2005 10:37 6129201069 DECISION RESOUR S rHUt 29. O er ll, how wpu d you ra,tc the EXCFT LENT....._...,.e.21 CY ty's par_k a.nd eCrea JaO op- Gop ..................49g po tunties -- C llent, good, QNT X IR .............15 qn.ly, f ir, or poor? POOR ..................31 pON'T KNOW/REFUSED..a.13 IF A RESPpNSE IS GTV N, ASK: (N=347) 3Q. Why do you feel Cha w y? UNSURE, 4; WE MA7NTAINF.p, 20; N ED B mTER M TNT NANCE, 6$; MQ ECREATZON ROGRRMS ANb EVFNTB, 8; GDOb LOCAT O S, 22; NICE P YGRbUN AREAS, 4; GO n PRdG 2AMS FOR AL ES, 10; GbdD FROGRAMS FOR CHTLD- REN, 8; N E MORE RFC ATIpN CTZI JFS, 3; OR A.RT{S AND NATURA.i t1R AS, 7; NICF P1,RK, 7; GOqD COMMUNZ'.Y. CENTF;I, 24s; SCATT RET], 4. 31 . Are he e any cha.x.ges or improvements, xou would znake ta L•he Mpu,lds Vi w park anc reC;re tiorx Sy-stem? ( TF "YFS, " ASK: ) Wh.a,: re hey? UNSUR, 9v N0, 634s; IORE BA.LLFI LI S, 24s; MORE PT_,AYGROUND QU2PMk;N, 3$;. MOl. .RICS, 2; MORE TRAILS, 2$;; I 1E 1 3Em'FR MA N'E1 IANCF, 5; NORE PROGRAMS FOR CHILDR N, 5 k; IMPROV PZCNIC ARE.S AND }2ESTROQMS, 2; SCAT7'RED, 7v. 32. Of th follow ing ive pptions, C OTC A,...d....._....7 which ON a.s the .MOST importazz GHOICE 8 ..............21 aspect of :he Mounds v,ew par.]s and CFIOTCE C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26;; ecr ation system to yQU? (R0'ATE) C IOI F D ..............16 7) Buildings, such as park CI 07;CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 shelt rs? CdMl3II AmI N. . . . . . . . . . . .6 8) l ygxounds? NONE....---- •----,....8 C) Tra,l.s? DON' :C KNQW/R FUSED. . . . .6?s D) Rec.r.eation programs? F) A k}1etiC ieJ.e s? 33. lao yQU th xa.ls Mounds View shou]_d M.I INTA:CNING. . , . . . . , . . .6$ f,ocus an ma,intaa.n.ing exisi;ing park A,nDING NEW. . . . . . . . . . . . 7qs and recrea.ian :CaciJ.iti s and ser- I30TH EQUA,LLY. . . . . . . . . , g vic s or acldi.ng n.w fa,cilit:es a,nd NFITF I R. , _ . . . . . _ . . d . . . . 3 p,rogra,zns to meet th city's DOI 1' KNpW/REFUS b. .... 7 chan.ging ,popuJ.atior? 3a. Wpu1d y,ou avor or o pos a smoke- ST tpNGLY F7aVOR........36$ f:ee d sigxzatiox, of the p rks in FAVq ............. .16 th,e Ci y of Mounds Vi w? (tiVAI; 'oR O PpS. _ . „ . o . . . . . . . 1 g$ RESPON$F) Dp you feel. str,o igly, STRpNGLY OPPQSE......21 that wa.? b0 1'T K iOW/R FLTSFD, . . . .8 04/07/2065 10•37 6129201069 DECISION RESUUKL S rHU uo 35. Have you or members of your household used the Mounds View ommun.ty Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) C 1hat type of activity did you use it for'? N0, 50; BANQU AN'b 1 T NG, 1 4s; S OR`S A T 7 GY'M SPACE, OT2NG, 15; T'YTN SS A1 A, 3` V N'"S AN17 SHOV 7S, 3; CI3ILDREN'' S P tbGRAMS AND G,?SS S, 6; SF i.T.QR ;ROGR IMS, 2; SCA'T.ER:D, 7. Moving on...... 36. what is yaux px:i.nc pa saurce of information abput Moun.ds View City Goverx zn n,1 .nd i'S activit.ies? NONE, 5; T.OCZ L IV'G ISPAP 2, 3 v; :TV TEWSL TT R, 25; WORD OF MO[7TF3, 94s; M,A..T.T,INGS, 5; W BSTTE, 2; C.F E 'ELE- VTSION, 13; STAR TRTBUN/'IONFER RESS, 2; SCATTEFtE17, 9s. 37. How tao'u1c1 you prefe o re eive informa.t:i.o, abottt Mounds Va.w Ci y Governm r' anci its ctiv.i.ta.s? UNSURF, 3%; LOCAL T;WSP7IP R, 3045; C.T.'Y T WSL TT I, 28; W RD O+' MOL7T I 4$s NIAILTNG'S 10z°s WFBSIT 2 E-NT 1,T.L, 5; C.L mEL FVISTON, 1.; S'Za„l. TRTBUNE/PIONFFR PRESS, 2`; SCI TTER b, 3 . 3$ a I7o you h re access 'o the Intexz,et HONl bNLX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 at home? (WATT FOl R S1 dNS) J o tadRK ON Y . . . . . . . . . . .. . .4 you, have access 'l:o the Zrxt rriet at Bp'H. . . . .. . . . . . . _ . . . . .34g work? NET.T.I,ER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 DON'T KN W/RFFUSED...._0 ZF "Y S ASK: (N=7.,81 ) 39. T ave ou acce s d the Ca,ty's YES ...................35 web site? NO . ....... ..........65 k DON'' KNQW/R FUSED.....0 IF "Y S, " I..SK: (N=99 ) 40. Iow would Xo rate th EXCFLLENT ..............6 w b sit -- excel.lent, GOOD.........._......63 godd, only a.:r, or ONL'Y F,ZR. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 poor,' QOR..o ................34s DOI' T K VpW/REFC?SED . . . . $; W h.ve da.scussed many a,ssues 'acing th.c City o:C Mounds View an,d. many of th servi, prov.i.ded to .r,esidents, but .h2re may also bG issu s that we hav not touched on,. Wh tk er we d,a.scussed it ox not.... 7 04/67/2005 10:37 6129201069 DECISION KtSUUKLtS rHU 41. What aa yau hink is the MOS xzouS issue fa,cz.g ounds View taday? NSU, 21; NONE, 6; HZGH TflXES, 15; BUDG T CUTS, 3; CRTME, 10; N Eb MQR BUS.T.NFSSFS, 3 r RUNDOWN P OFE m ES, 5$; T d MUC GROWTH, 5g; 00 MUCH 0 INCOM HOUSiNG, ; STREET M ZN ENA CF, 4; TRAF TC CdNGESTION, 6; .L C URSE .T.SSUE, 3; NOTHT G TO D0, ; SCHOO UNDZNG, 4; CITY GOV RNM N DpES'T LISTEN, 3; SCATTEREb, 5. he survey in which Xou are p rticipat g i.s a'L'elephone survey o a random samp o 400 residents, Many, suburb n commun ttics conauct random t lep.ane Surveys in Qx'c.e .o insure they h,a,x from ,xz unbiased and ,e res ntative crpSS-SGC'ibri of residen,'L'. The cos l: is more exp xls.ve than other Xpes o surveys, su,ch as maa..-outs or insea ts a.n newspapexs a,nd city publicat ox s . This surv y af 0 ,r.csidents costs 9 10,200.d0. 42. Giv z he trade-Q:: betv reen b.as STRONGLY YFS. -. e......7_9 a.d cbst, do you think th. C.t,r of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ov.nas View should ond.,c surveys N e..............._.14g o;F 'rhis typ i.n t17e futu,r.? (WATT STRO TGT,Y N'0...........15 5 FO:f, RESPONSE) Do you fCC.l strongly T ON' T KNdC T/REFUSFI7. ....7v tkzat w y? Now, T`d 1a.ke o .sk xou some c{u stions a,bou yard wastc. ... 43. Do yc u or m mbers ot .his hou,se- 'Y S-•,...............73° hald hav r spon.s:i.bility 'o a NO ....................27 yarc? DON' T KNOW/REF'US D. .... Q4s ZF "YES," ASK: (N 291) When, i ever,, c10 yav, use the yard wa,ste site in Mounds View? ba ,you us the sa,: in.... Y S NO DI{R 4 . 'he 5px'irig 5 454 1 4s 45. The Su,znmer? 69 1 g6 . The Fa,1.1? 6Q 38 1 If t e yard waste site ;, Mou ds 'View w re ca.osed, wk ich o th Fol],owing a,l.erna ives, a.f any, would y, ou likcly usc' 7_ would go to the Ramsey Cov.y sites in 7,j,rden 7.ills or Sho eview. B. z would s l;art composta.ng in, m bacl yaxd. 49e 1 wauld pay my trash haul.r tQ ake it awa,y, . 3 YES NO DKR 55 38 7 k 35 59 5 35 59 6 04/07/2005 10:37 6129201a69 DECI5IUN KtSUUK tS r ut 1 50. Should h yard was tc si L•c in BE CLOS......._.....2 Mounds View be clos d, b BE MOV D...... ......1 moved, or stay where it is? STAY W R IT IS......73 DON'T KNbW/R FUSED._.e25 Now, just a few more questions For demographic purposes.... Could you pl ase teJ.l, zn h.oca ma.n,y,' peap. a.n cach o; th, o l.owa.ng a,ge c,r, ov.ps J.a.rc j.n your hausehald. 51. Persons 65 Qr ov:r? S2. Adul s v,n.d.cY.' 65? 53. Ch,oa1.-aged childxen,? 54. Pre-sGhoolers'? S5. Do ;au own p.r a: ent your pxcs nt x'esxdenc? S6. Which o 'rhe follawi g best describcs our cu:.rent residc c? R AD L,IST 1 -5) 57 , T7o ypu or any xCtember o;C your hous hold cu.,r,x ntly ppeY'te a. home-based Y a,siness ;om your Maun.ds tTiew i sidenc 4 NON ..............•---74g ON'._._...e........_..15 TWO QR MQRE...........11 NQNE ................ 1$ oN•--,..............20 TWO,.e ................52v TT 1'E OR !tOR - . - . . . . . .1 1 NONE............._...71 ONF... ...............14 w0..... ...........13 THR OR MOI--------•-3 NON ..................88 ONE ...................10?s mW0 OR MOR............Z$ OWN ...................71 ENT .................2g° R FUS D................p SING E FAMZLY HOM....64 APA t'MFNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 4s OWNHOUSEICO OMINTUM. 'I 0 M1INUFAC'URED HOME . . . , , . 7 SOME;C INC Er,SE. . . . . . . . O J ON' T KNpW/2,EFUSED . . . . , 0 Y S ...................11 Nd....................$$ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1 58_ Which o,f. L-hese ca L°egori,cs conta,ns 1$-2 ..................3 our curr nt agc? 25-34e ............. ..14g 35-4 1................z7. 45W54 .................23 55-64„_..:........e..e 17 65 A 7 OVER._........,21 s F2'USFD . . . . . . . . . . e . . . , a 1 Rs 59. G x d r 0 1'.t1 Id L:1 e . . . . . . . a . . . . . e e . . '!k O U FM1 L.o.,,.......a...5Z C' .,, ...-- -- "'— -- "----- — -. +-.._ .. e. t.w_.e---'-s"._.'=---. _- i. . _ '— '-- ---= '__.: --"'--" -_- City To: From: Item No. 6 Type f Business: WK WK. Work Session; PH. Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; C8: Council 8usiness of Mounds View Staff Report Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Backgroundo In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perform a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the Cifiy Council agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to I '- i_. '--,r__".... .._c_, _.,. __ - . __, __._:..=r. __.. =1 . see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council thought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: In 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed questions that they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Exhibit A. Staff has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project proposal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perform a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an additional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data to obtain a better undersfianding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This data can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting to perform a Community Survey. RespectFully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works 1.:.- = EXNI IT A February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also)_ 3. Why do you use the Park(s)? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees 5 7 Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? Which Park do you use the most? Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: SurFace Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails Hiking/Walking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding Baseball, Softball, Open Play c - ' _...---.. . r. `.. _ . . _ ' _". ..--.'• _. ..._._ J. . ,...._"'.: 0 Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other 9. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings 10. What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 11. Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? 0 Item No. 6 Type of Business: WK WK.• Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: From: Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Background: In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perform a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. n 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the City Council agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to l_ - -; , ... . _ ' ' !_- -:; Y;, .. .. i.. _.._e..,._-_ 1 ° — .. ts---- see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council fihought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: In 2002, the questions that Exhibit A. Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Staff has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project proposal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perForm a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an additional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data to obtain a better understanding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This dafia can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting to perform a Community Survey. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also) 3. Why do you use the Park(s)? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipmenfi Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? 5. Which Park do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails Hiking/Walking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding i. . __ _ _ . . . ,_------ —=------ —___a_—_._.. ,. a l Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other 9. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings 10. What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 11. Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? r'.:-. ..: "". "' Item No. 6 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; C8: Council eusiness City of Mounds View Staff Report To: From: Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Background: In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perForm a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a fielephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the City Cnuncil agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to w t s-`;_ ah.,:r.s',;.. -..-._.. _W __ :..y=i_a _w. F 1 see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council thought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: In 2002, the questions that Exhibit A. Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Staff has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project proposal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perForm a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an additional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data to obtain a better understanding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This data can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting to perform a Community Survey. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works EXHIBIT A February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also)_ 3. Why do you use the Park(s)? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? 5. Which Park do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails Hiking/Walking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other 9. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings 10. What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 11. Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? i __ 1 i r , - Item No. 6 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH. Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; C8: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: From: Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Background: In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perform a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the City Council agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to i - _ __ ' . _ _. -3'..: : d see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council thought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: In 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed questions that they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Exhibit A. Staff has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project propasal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perform a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an addifiional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data to obtain a better understanding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This data can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting to perform a Community Survey. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works EXHIBIT A February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also)_ 3. Why do you use the Park(s}? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? 5. Which Park do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails HikingNValking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding 0 10 Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other Whafi do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 11. Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? Item No. 6 Typ of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; C8: Council 8usiness City of Mounds View Staff Report To: From: Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Background: In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perform a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the City Council agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commissi n to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to I • . -- - - •--- - - .— - ---- - - - `' - . ... p._,.'" = --= - - -_--- -- -- 4. :s - -_. see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council thought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: I n 2002, the questions that Exhibit A. Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Staff has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project proposal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perForm a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an additional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data to obtain a better understanding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This data can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting to perform a Community Survey. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works I EXHIBIT A February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also)_ 3. Why do you use the Park(s)? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? 5. Which Park do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: SurFace Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails HikingNValking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding I. ' . . .. . .. .. .. I..'iN.-.- . . .. - -".. 1 ..._— i , ' - ' 3- f ---- --' — '. .. ' - -----` - . . . -;'.. . _c:. _--.._ _;.._-r:. '-J. .. :.-r_ - -°=r. . _r .__ Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other 9. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings 10. What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 11. Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? 4. _ _ . . _ . . r ax'- - . r . _ _ _ . . d., _ . _ . . _ _ __"_ '. _ .__ i Item No. 6 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; C8: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: From: Item Title/Subject: Meeting Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Community Survey April 7, 2003 Background: In March of 1988 the City of Mounds View contracted with Decision Resources, Ltd. to perform a Community Survey. The survey covered the following nine (9) topics: 1. Residential Demographics 2. Quality of Life 3. Taxes and Spending 4. City Services 5. City Government and Staff 6. Development and Growth 7. Solid Waste Management 8. Parks and Recreation Issues 9. City Communications The survey conducted by Decision Resources involved a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds View. A total of 112 questions were included in the survey. A copies of the survey results have been placed in each of the City Council's "In" baskets at City Hall. In 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission worked on developing a Comprehensive Park Plan. At that time, the Commission felt that the City should determine what the community wants and needs are with regard to park amenities. On April 2, 2001, Public Works presented a staff report to the City Council asking for their direction regarding the development of a"Comprehensive Park Plan". The staff report cited an option of conducting a formal public survey of the community to determine what their current and future needs and desires are for the City's parks. At the Work Session, the City Council agreed with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create approximately 10 questions with the rationale behind each question. It should also be noted that the Mayor commented that he would like to r.... : see that the questions identify either individual parks or the park system in general. The Mayor felt that most people take "ownership" of the park that is closest to them and they may want amenities or changes that logically or environmentally cannot be done. The Council thought that 10 questions from each of the City's commission could be incorporated into the parks survey, to create a"livable community survey" - with the understanding that a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of preparation, care and time. The Council agreed that the Parks and Recreation Commission could proceed with the development of their questions and rationales for them. Discussion: In 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and developed questions that they would like to include in a survey. These are attached as Exhibit A. StafF has included in the 2003 Budget, under Central Services of the General Fund, $7,500 to do a Community Survey (Account: 100-4160-3030). Staff has contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to inquire details of performing a Community Survey. Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a project proposal outlining the scope of work and associated costs of a typical survey. This has been attached for Council's review. The proposal would be to perform a City Needs Assessment, pose fifty (50) questions to 400 random Mounds View residents, write up the analysis, and present the data. The cost would be $9,800 an additional charge of $135 would be assigned for each question over 50). Any over run of the budgeted amount could be derived from a separate account. One possible account would be the Park Dedication Fund. City Councils across the metro area have used survey data fio obtain a better understanding of the views, values, and needs of the residents of their city. This data can be utilized when considering expansion of City services. It is equally, or perhaps more, valuable when Cities need to make tough budget decisions on what items to cut and what programs to eliminate. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction whether the City Council is interested in contracting fio perform a Community Survey. RespecfiFully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works L ._:s-l: __'_ . _ " ._"'_"' '__=_'."Y`.:: l_.- .. __ ._ _ . __ 1 ,. ..., .».Ss...._ . ... . =__' ' _ _ I EXHIBIT A February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Summer Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Walk Drive Bike All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also)_ 3. Why do you use the Park(s)? Walking Biking Child Summer Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. In General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Park and Recreation features: Identification/Signage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features would you like to see occur? 5. Which Park do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged)? 8. How would you rate the following: Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails Hiking/VValking Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding t . r_ r=. --:__--- -- ----= -- - ----- ---- a .a-G .: i'. 10 11 Golf Course Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hockey Rinks Pleasure Rinks Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? Do you want a Skate Park in Mounds View? d _ ._ _ l Backman, Aaron From: Sent: To: Subject: Ulrich, Kurt Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:24 AM Backman, Aaron FW: Community Survey Aaron, Did you happen to run this by the EDC? If so, what were their comments on the questions? Thanks. -Kurt Original Message----- From: Ericson, Jim Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:03 PM To: Ulrich, Kurt Subject: Community Survey Kurt, I taxed my memory and came up with the following regarding the April 7 community survey discussion with the Council. They discussed this issue only briefly, beginning at 8:52 pm and ending at 8:59 pm, taking less than ten minutes to review Greg's voluminous report and to review what the next steps should be. They tabled any action (wouldn't have acted anyway because it was a worksession) until the Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission had an opportunity to review the old questions and offer up any new ones. I did present the old survey to the Planning group however none had any suggestions for additional questions, perhaps knowing that each additoinal questions would cost money. Roger suggested we use the water bill to ask the residents questions.... The Council wanted to wait until after May before taking up the issue again... That's my recollection, supplemented in large part by my notes. James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 (phone) City of Mounds View 763-784-3462 (fax) 2401 Highway 10 jime(a rcmnet.orq <mailto:lime(c rcmnet.orq> (e-mail) Mounds View, MN 55112 http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us (web) UACES: AR Communities: Economic Development: Community Surveys TT.1 , IJN:LF+.n r G I' aHr:a.N1A, S JI!I i.o,.n:;,i'uii,.,V tc.:, i+ rE.'. Local Economv Retail Trade Tourism Development Attractin _Retirees DemoA raphics and Mi rgation Economic Impact Analysis Communit Survevs Community Economic Profiles AR Communities Home Nc 1 Ta slcs J ,i i Naws r Page 1 of 1 Fubli nfrans Jobs S aarch CuntcacJ Us I i i f i I i I . . r - .';, . ;.' J.i,. r r niiy a Pv:F Surveys are the next best thing to mind-reading. the Extension Service can help you design, conduct, and assess surveys to know what's on the minds of your neightbors and make plans to help better their lives. Community surv ys are a tool to get people involved to better understand their community and what can be done to improve lacal conditions. Community surveys can be used for a multitude of purposes some of which are to: Identify community needs and establish priorities. identify housing needs. V Determine where people shop and what it would take to get them to shop locally. Identify local business or industry needs to develop programs to retain local businesses. Estimate the economic impact of festivals on the local community. For more information please contact your local countv Extension aqent or contact Dr. Wayne Miller, Extension Economist - Community Development (501) 671-2072. Hot Topics • News • Publications • Jobs • Search • Faculty / Staff • Links Aqriculture ^ Businesses & Communities • Families • Home and Garden • Kids AR Us Natural • Counties • U A E X Home University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture • Cooperative Extension Service 2301 South University Avenue • Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 OO 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 USA UA Cooperative Extension Service Phone (501) 671-2000 Fax (501) 671-2209 C000eratinq Statement • EEO Statement • Disclaimer • Privac Statement Last Date Modified 10/18/2002 Webmaster http://www.arcommunities.org/econ_dev/Economic/surveys.asp 10/24/2003 Register of Surveys - Corrllnunity Water Supply Survey, E. Questionnaire Design and Dat... Page 1 of 3 ly; 1b,CHT S'4lfsf/ r' L° t ti tic! Cl earing Hc u+ W y f a .° R Home J About SCH Lu:>inc s Stn rey.; iteqi:>ier Reference Material Site Information Search About this Register 0 Alternative Data Sources Con[cl iniorin.iior O:iurveys by 7iilc: 0 Surveys by Agency A Q C D E F G fI I J ft L M N O P Q R S T ll V W X Y Z All Community Water Supply Survey, Year Ending June 2001 Contents Overview Qu_ali Framework A. General Information B. User Requirements,_Survey Objectives, and Budget C. Alternative Sources of Data D. Data Outputs E. Questionnaire_Desiqn and Data Collection *"k You are here kk* E1 Questionnaire(s) E2 How questions will be used E3 Data collection methods E4 Respondent choices E5 Questionnaire testing E6 Consultation with businesses E7 Traininq of staff F._Respondent Load. G,. Population / Frame. H. Sample Des n I. Estimation, and Ana1• E. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection E1 Questionnaire(s) Please provide copy (copies) of questionnaire(s). (E1) Information relating to this item is not released on tlus Register. For further inforination, please contact the person listed in the "Contact Inforinatron" on the Overview" page. Return to top. http://www.sch.abs.gov.at/SCH/A 1610103.NSF/0/FD8CFFF5073D6881 CA2569DD008... 10/24/2003 Register of Surveys - Community Water Supply Suivey, E. Questionnaire Design and Dat... Page 2 of 3 E2 How questions will be used Are there any questions not used directly in the principal data outputs specified in D1? If yes, how are these questions used? (E2) None Return to.top E3 Data collection methods What is (are) the method(s) of collecting the data (eg self-completion, telephone interviewing, face to face interviewing, etc)? Why was it (were they) chosen? (E3) Note. If more than one method will be used, the agency should indicate the extent to which it expects each method to be used, eg 5% of responses by fax and the remaining responses by phone. Data will primarily collected through a mass mailout of survey to each community, with telephone followups where information in unclear. Return to tOp E4 Respondent choices If only one method is stated in E3, above, what consideration has been given to offering respondents a choice in how they provide their answers (eg phone, fax, mail)? (E4) Surveys can be sent bacic via fax, e-mail, or mail Return to_t_op E5 Questionnaire testing What testing of the questionnaire(s) has (have) taken place? (E5) Note. Should include a brief description of the testing, ie, when, number of respondents, methodology, and major findings. Testing of the form will occur in late January 2001. The survey was sent to Tallaganda (1 town), Yanalumla (2 towns), and Eurobodalla (20 towns) shires. I followed the survey with a phone call asking what they thought of the survey, ease of filling out etc. Most comments dealt with minor corrections to the information request, such as time periods given to better reflect reality. Return to_ _to E6 Consultation with businesses http://www.sch.abs.gov.au/SCH/A1610103.NSF/0/FD8CFFF5073D6881 CA2569DD008... 10/24/2003 Register of Surveys - Community Water Supply Survey, E. Questionnaire Design and Dat... Page 3 of 3 What consultations have taken place, other than testing, with businesses or business associations regarding availability of data items and data collection methods? (E6) Note. Refers to activities other than testing. The project utilises extensive consultation with state and local goveinment agencies Return to to E7 Training of staff What training of staff who have dealings with respondents has taken place or is planned? (E7) Noie. Should include: interviewers; staff involved in follow-up activities; and staff involved in answering queries from respondents. None planned Return to to http://www.sch.abs.gov.au/SCH/A1610103.NSF/0/FD8CFFF5073D6881 CA2569DD008... 10/24/2003 Telecoinrnunications and Corporate Minnesota A — --, : T'HE NIJBERT H, HUN]PHR Y (NSTITUTE Q PUBL,IC AF A[t S ? Page 1 of 8 Telecommunications and Corporate Minnesota Survey Fi.i cl..oul..,more_about lhe roj.e..ct. Coi ta.cts a.n_d__Feed_bacl< m Approximately how many people does your organization employ in Minnesota? Choose the type of industry that best describes your company: Do you consider your company to be a: private organization ' public organization r , What is your position in the organization ? Position: please select non profit/non governmental (NGO ) if other, please specify Of the follovuing, what do you believe are the three most important business related http://www.hl h.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/edweb/survey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecoinmunications and Corporate Minnesota Page 2 of 8 issues for your organization today ? Number the top three with "1 " indicating the most important or fill in the blank at other if your choice is not on the list ! Te%communications and Transportation Thinking of your organization's location, how close is the nearest: Of the following, which do you believe would be the most important factors in a decision to relocate/expand your current operations? http://www.hhh.uinri. edu/centei•s/slp/proj ects/edweb/survey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecommunications and Coiporate Minnesota Page 3 of 8 Number the top three with "1 " indicating the most important or fill in the blank at other if your choice is not on the list ! Of the following, which do you believe would be the the primary advantages of the current location your organization? Number the top three with "1 " indicating the most important or fill in the blank at other if your choice is not on the list ! m The following questions asks about communication equipment that is used in your organization. Do you use desktop Computers (IBM or Macintosh compatible) at your place of http://www.l l ll. urrul. edu/centers/slp/proj ects/edweb/survey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecormnunications and Corporate Minnesota Page 4 of 8 ao yes oes your company have an internal networlc such as a local area nerivorlc (LAN) . C' },es r file and data exchange ? If applicable, please choose the connection type you use in your company? please select - Transportation_and Employ_ee Schedu/es Does your company offer remote work options? Please respond by answering questions in the table below and if the response to any question is "yes", please estimate the number of employees currently participating. 1 m Does your organization have a written policy that allows employees to telecommute? Please checl< one of the following responses and proceed to the indicated box. no (continue with question 11) http://www.hhh. umn. edu/centers/slp/proj ects/edweb/survey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecommunications and Corporate Mimiesota Page 5 of 8 r no,_but we practice t.e.lecommuting_ witho.ut a w_ ritten_ polrcy._.._(ntinue..._with_._question. yes_ (continue with question....:1;3,. No Telec_or muting P_rogram What are the reasons your organization does not currentiy offer telecommuting? Please check as orsany as three reasons from the following table or write in your own choice in the space provided. Please respond to the following statement by selecting the best response. My organization plans to ma{<e telecommuting available to employees... please select l ttp://www.hhh. umn. edu/centers/slp/proj ects/edweb/survey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecommunications and Corporate Minnesota Page 6 of 8 1 Which of the following factors would make it more likely that your company would make telecommuting available to employees? Please check all that apply. Thank..you,please go_to the_._SU_B_MI.T__button_and._the comme_nts section at the._end of this_page ! T leco nmutin Prog°am o How long has your telecommuting program existed? r years months. In the blank, please estimate the percentage of employees who telecommute: Why has your organization implemented telecommuting? Select as many as three reasons. To increase employee productivity Achieve real estate savings Save money on utilities Attract employees n http://www.hhh.umn. edu/centers/slp/proj ects/edweb/suivey/teleco.htm 10/24/2003 Telecommunications and Corporate Minnesota ulRetain employees Boost elnployee morale aIncrease job satisfaction among employees To achieve a competitive employee benefits package 1— Other (please describe) Page 7 of 8 1 Please assess the results of your telecommuting program by selecting one of the responses for each statement below.. Since implementing telecommuting, the oreanization has ... total office space increased employee productivity reduced employee productivity decreased employee turnover reduced parking space costs reduced building occupancy costs reduced employee absenteeism addressed labor shortage issues labor costs com letel _ disagree neutral agrec com letel X disa ree a ree J a In general, do you think telecommuters (when working outside the office ) are..... ? please select 3 1 http:Uwww.l ilh. umn. edu/centers/slp/proj ects/edweb/suivey/tel eco.htm 10/24/2003 K_ :._ _ r----.. . _ _-- - --- - n _ _ _. The Application of Local Economic Development Incentives in Georgia Specifically, what types of incentives are being offered by local entities in Georgia? As shown in Table 5, indush•ial development bonds, tax incentives and Quicic Starl are the most repoirted incentives offered. On the other hand, few communities reported waiving regulations or providing utilities at little or no cost. TABLE S. P RCENT RESPOND NTS R PORTiNG US OT PARTICULAR INCEN'IIVESN=148 Percent Of Respondents Whose Community Has Offered Th'rs Incentive In The Past Indushial development bonds 75.0% Tax incentives 74.3 Quicic Start 73.6 State grants and loans offered through local entity 669 Training or education programs 61.5 Expedited peimitting 61.5 Reduced cost land 58.8 Low interest or deferred payment loans 50.0 Federal grants and loans offered through local entity 46.6 Commitment of additional local goverrunent services 41.2 Local grants or subsidies 40.5 Waiver or reduction of required fees or assessments 40.5 No cost land 40.5 ICAPP (Intellectual Capital Partnership Program) 25.0 High technology infrastructure (e.g. broad band access) 23.0 Utilities at little or no cost 19.6 Waiver of regulations 18.9 In addition to the above, s uvey respondents indicaled that they also offered lease- free buildings, and other assistance in locating properties, u cluding housing. Finally, one-quarter of respondents indicate that they normally chaige a financing fee when offering incentives, although most are willing to waive or reduce the fee as an incentive in itself. Of those charging a fee, most are a one-time up-fiont fee, with most reporting it as 1/8'' of 1 percent. Communities without economic developers, rural counties and communities outside the Atlanta metropolitan area and those from Tier 1 or 2 counties tend to be less lilcely to charge a financing fee. Respondent comments reflected some caution in regard to incentives in some instances. As one respondent noted: "We choose not to offer tax abatements and everyone agrees that our local efforts have worked and until they don't work or we lose a big project, 27 Y. ._ _ __ _ The Application of Local Economic Development Incentives in Georgia we will probaUly not change the way we do business." Another respondent who offered incentives was also cautious, "Incentives are important Uut should be "closing" aids and should not "drive" project. Incentives granted must be commensurate and balanced and equally available to new indushy and e sting industry expansions." Finally, closer to the other end of the spectrum is the belief that, "Many people do not lilce them [incentives] but almost every company of any size expects them. Economic development is a very competitive business. If your community does not offer reasonable incentives there will Ue several competing communities which will." The site visits and telephone interviews on the topic of incentives affirmed the data fi om the survey. All of the interviewees believe that economic incentives are essential for an effective economic development sri ategy at the local level. In fact, most stated you could not even get into the competition unless you were prepared to offer incentives. Some of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 comm mities said they were caught short on some occasions when a company would contact them for a statement of the incentives availaUle in their comrriunities. Their failure to have examptes of packages they could offer restilted in the company not contacting them again. All of the econoinic development professionals believe that the incentive package has to be tailored to the prospective company's needs but tempered by the 1'units af the community and the potential benefits from attracting the company. Some of the inteiviewees seemed somewhat confused as to the legal constraints state laws impose on their developing an incentive pacicage. Some interviewees believe additional training worlcshops for development professionals would assist them in more effectively designing theu• incentive pacicages. State level "help lines on legal issues" would also be important. Once again, the more resource limited communities, Tier 1 and Tier 2, felt this was a problem. Tier 3 communities either had the resources to get the answers to legal issues when they needed them or they had staff that tuiderstood the issues. An example oP an incentive strategy is a Tier 1 community in which the county bought a building that was empty due to another business leaving town. The incentive the community put together was a three year lease-purchase agreement with the new business. The building has tlu ee partitions. For the fu•st year, the company's tax incentives permitted them to pay no property taxes. The second year, the company has to pay something but that amount depends on how much of the three partitions they use. And then, the amount the 28 I. . __ ,. L -- - _--- - — -- • , -- .- _a : t7 _._- _ . . i.--- --- - ' — -_. -= _ - - -- The Application of Local Economic Development Incentives in Georgia company has to pay increases incrementally after the third year, the lease is up and the company can opt to buy the building or chose to negotiate another lease. One Tier 1 inteiviewee committed that sometimes incentives are not the lcey factor in a company deciding to come into a commiuuty. This person believes that "quality of life" factors, or even the particular preferences of lcey personnel in the company deciding on a new location may determine the site. When incentive pacicages are comparable, factors other than incentives become lcey considerations. This same corrununity had a new internet company that requested a$35 million up front cash incentive to locate in the community. The company said it had a potential for creating 350 jobs. The coinmunity passed on this opportunity for good reasons, both economic and legal. Another example of a Tier 1 incentive program was the package provided to a new 180 employee incoming call center. The most important characteristic of the incentive shategy was tax exemptions. Property tax cost reductions were made and job tax credits BEST legislation) were offered. The company required (and received) fiber optic cable wiring. The company has become a good community citizen. As another example, one Tier 2 community put together an incentive pacicage that had both state and local components. This example demonstrates the interdependency of the local and state agencies and programs. To get the company to locate in the community the local industrial authority sold a building to the company at a loss; gave the company land and then bought an additional 23 acres; provided the engineering and surveying; and leased an office for the company site team. The county prepared the site. A state REBA grant provided additional land purchases, MEAG provided the utilities, and Quicicstart and East Cenh•al Technical College provided the training and relocation retaining respectfully. The interviewee felt the incentives were necessary to get the deal and the deal has been positive for the community. To date, this project has created approximately 950 jobs. Evidence of what may be called "third wave" incentives were evident in the site visits as well. For example, the importance of developing partnerships was frequently mentioned and emphasized as a rype of incentive to relocating businesses. It seems, however, that conun mities may not always view these activities as actual incentives, but rather as the way in which they do business." 3+7 Item No: 02 Meeting Date: 12/01/03 Type of Business: WS of Moc nds I/iew Staff R To: Honorable Mayor and City Cou cil / From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator -- ( Item Title/Subject: Review Community urvey Questions Attached is a list of fifty-one proposed community survey questions for your consideration. The list was developed by reviewing previous questionnaires with staff and commissions. Many of the questions are taken from previous surveys and, therefore, can be compared to results from previous surveys. Additional park and recreation questions have been added, as well as a question regarding variable rate sanitary sewer. Please review the questions and let me know your comments. i . . : _ . . .._ __ __________ COMMUNITY SURVEY 1. Approximately how long have you lived in Mounds View? 2. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you moved to Mounds View? 3. How would you rate the quality of life in Mounds View — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 4. Over the next five years, do you expect the qualifiy of life in Mounds View to decline, remain about the same, or improve? 5. What do you .ife MOST about living in Mounds View? l, : 6. If you were moving to another city, what factor would be most import to you in selecting your new place of residence? 7. How would you rate Mounds View on that — excellent, good, only fair or poor? 8. If it were needed to maintain city services at their current level, would you favor or oppose an increase in city property taxes? 9. Do you consider property taxes in Mounds View to be excessively high, relatively high, about average, or comparatively low? Below is a list of changes in city services, which could be made in the future, to avoid increases in taxes or special assessments. For each one, please tell me if you would favor that change as an alternative to higher taxes, or if you would oppose that change even if it meant higher taxes. 10. Increase the time it takes police to respond to a non-emergency call to save funding more positions? 11. Increase the time it takes to plow city streets after a snowstorm? 12. Decrease the amount of funds spent on the maintenance and upkeep of city parks? 13. Reduce the amount of street maintenance undertaken each year? 14. Reduce the frequency of inspections and response time to complaints about violations of city residential codes? is Y .w. . _.._ Below is a list of a few services provided by the City or County. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as exceilent, good, fair, or poor. 15. Park Maintenance 16. Snow Plowing 17. Police Protection 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Fire Protection City Street Maintenance Animal Control Waste and Storm Water Control Water for Residential Use If "FAIR" or "POOR" in questions 15-22, Ask each one: 26. 27. 29. 23. Why did you rate as (Only fair/poor)? 24. Have you or any members of this household had contact with the Mounds View City staff during the past year? 25. From what you have seen or heard, how would you rate the job performance of the Mounds View City staff — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Do you feel that the amount of police patrolling in your neighborhood is too little, about right, or too much? If the City were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it to be? What is the location of your principal retail shopping area? Have you visited Mounds View City Hall during the past twelve months? I L:_. _-----' t . - - --° - For each of the following characteristics, please rate the Mounds View City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only fair or poor. 33. 34. 30. 31. 32. Convenience of City Hours? Cour esy of the staff? Efficiency of the staff? Of the following three proposals, which do you most favor: A. B. C. The City contracts with one hauler to serve the entire city. The City contracts with a group of haulers, each serving one area of Mounds View exclusively. The present system. In general, do you feel that the condition and upkeep of city streets is a serious problem in Mounds View, a minor problem, or no problem at all? 35. Do you feel that the City if too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code regarding residential property maintenance for weed control, outdoor storage, junk cars, animal control, and noise? 36. Resident are currently charge a flat rate of $ per quarter for sanitary sewer service. Would you be in favor of changing to rate which will change depending on usage? Yes or No. 37. 38. 39. How would you rate the park and recreation facilities in Mounds View — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? In general, do you usually spend you leisure time in outdoor activities, weather permitting, or indoor activities? In the part year, have you or any member of your household participated in a city-sponsored recreation program? 40. Could you tell me about how often you and other members of your household have used the park and recreational facilities in Mounds View during the part year, weather permitting? 41. What is your principal source of information about city government and its activities? G f : . _ _ :. r:. ,-- :--- _i -a,.=. R : ._ ...._ .._.._._ .,. _,t . _ . 42. Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with your level of information about city government and its activities? 43. Does your household currently receive the "New Brighton Bulletin?" (If YES" ask: DO you generally read that newspaper?) 44. Other than voting, do you feel that if you want to, you could have a say about the way the City of Mounds View runs things? 45. Do you recall receiving the Mounds View City Newsletter? If so, do you or any members of your household regularly read it? 46. About how often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? If you answered yes: A. What season do you use the parks most — Winter, Spring, Summer, or Fall? B. How do you get to the Park(s) — Walk, Drive, or Bike? C. What kind of activities to you engage in? D. For each of the following Mounds View Recreation features, please rate the following excellent, good, only fair, poor, don't know/refuse? Identification/Signage Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Area Trees Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighting Hiking/Walking Trails Bike Trails Cross County Skiing Sledding Nature Study Golf Course u _ ::: . -----!-- c . : : . , :, ---=_ -. _ ----- - —--- -- ------- _ 1 47. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? Yes or No 48. In which of the following Recreation activities do you participate? Please respond yes or no) Golf Course Handball Basketball Volleyball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Sledding Cross County Skiing 49. In the past two years have you used the Mounds View Community Center? Yes or No 50. What additional features would you like to see at the Community Center? 1 --.:s. ___=1__.___.— . L .,_ . >'.'f^65- -- - -''._.__________, i::_' ----- -' - -, E .--- ----- 51. What do you use ihe Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings Other Backman, Aaron From: Susan Church [susanc@ewald.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:15 PM To: aaronb@ci.mounds-view.mn.us Subject: Contacts - community surveys Aaron Here is the list that Rebecca sent me. She indicated that her company has worked with Decision Resources. Decision Resources, Inc. Contact: Bill Morris 3128 Dean Ct. Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone: 612-920-0337 Another possible option is Anderson, Neibuhr & Associates. They do some marketing research. Anderson, Neibuhr & Associates Contact: Marsha Neibuhr Northpark Corportate Center, Ste. 200 6 Pine Tree Dr. Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: 651-486-8712 Maxfield also does some market studies, but I believe they focus mainly on housing. Hope this helps. Susan Church EDAM 1 A.—_-- G_'...f-. .s --.._ .-'-' - ..._. 5—': _.-c.-_-- l-''-z i . :.-. a. . - r _ ' - -- w -'— ---.: . _... - -- . _ . .------ .. ' - Park and Recreation Committee Meeting Agenda December 18, 2003 6:30 P.M. Roll Call 2. Approval of November 20, 2003 Meeting Minutes: Unfinished Business: a) Facility Guide Update- The park trail / sidewallc map has been updated. The Golf Course data is currently being developed to be included in the brochure. It is anticipated that this will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and comment at their January meeting. b) YMCA Executive Committee Meeting — Any update from the Deceznber 8, 2003 meeting? c) Park Usage Survey / Data Collection — Review revised collection foim. Develop a data collection process. d) Community Survey — This was placed on the Decennber 1, 2003 City Council Worlc Session agenda for discussion. At this time the City Council is considering a fifty (50)-question survey. The City Administrator is currently revising the survey to reflect the City Councils comments. The Parlc and Recreation should review the questions in the proposed survey, review the original eleven questions submitted, and provide a recommendation to the City Administrator for any revisions. Attached is a copy of the draft survey that was reviewed by City Council on December 1, 2003 along with the original eleven questions. e) Garbage Collection Fund — City Administrator, Kurt Urich will be attending this meeting and providing an update. fl Field Use Fees —A $10 user fee will be applied to all fields that a reservation is sought. This excludes any schools in Independent School District #621 and the YMCA. This will be added to the 2004 City Fee Schedule and will be approved by City Council in Januaxy of 2004. g) DNR Grant Information — See report section below. 4. New Business: a) Ice Rink Update. b) Recommend Chairperson, Select a Vice-Chaizperson, and Secretary for 2004 c) Approve meeting dates for 2004 Commissioner/Staff Reports k__.- - - - - = In,:.i.....r`".: E :...._.___.=' _ .:..>_...."-.-t `'_-; .__ s :.i {.._=_ , . = COUNTY ROAD H PATHWAY — FROM EDGEWOOD DRIVE TO 7HE WEST CITY LIMITS On October 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6118 rejecting ali current bids, authorizing Staff to re-advertise for bids, and establish a new bid date for the County Road H Sidewalk Project. A bid date of January 8, 2004 was established. The City will be receiving bids for two segments: From Silver Lake Road to the West City Limits and from Silver Lake Road to Knollwood Drive. These were set up as two completely separate bids. The City Council will have the option of awarding the contract for either bid or rejecting the bids and not awarding a contract. Information pertaining to the County Road H sidewalk status will be included in the January/February issue of the Mounds View Matters. Staff anticipates presenting this to the City Council for action on January 26, 2004. PATHWAY PROJECT — ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION The City's Pathway Plan was discussed at the February 3, 20Q3 City Council Work Session. In addition to the pathway along County Road H from Edgewood Drive to the west City limits, the City Council identified four pathway segments they would consider to be a priority. These were: Along the north side of County Road H2 - from County Road 10 to Program Avenue. Along the east side of Edgewood Drive - from County Road H2 to Edgewood Middie School. Along the north side of County Road 10 - adjacent to the wetland area located just southeast of Waigreen's store. Along the south side of County Road 10 — from Woodale Drive to the south, connecting into the existing trail. The two segments along County Road 10 were completed in the fall of 2003 as a change order to the County Road H2 Project. Staff would like to discuss the first two segments with the City Council. Staff has investigated both sites and found that the roadway segments were excessive in width. This, coupled with the narrow boulevards and current obstructions, would make the installation of a sidewalk or pathway in these areas problematic for both the City and the adjacent residents. Staff is recommending that the City install pedestrian walkways along these segments at the time the streets are scheduled for major maintenance. This would allow for the option of changing one or both curblines to accommodate a pathway. This would provide the best long-term solution for the City and the people who use and live along these street segments. In lieu of constructing these two segments, Staff is presenting the option of pursuing the construction of a pathway along Silver Lake Road from County Road H to County Road 10. The County has scheduled a mill and overlay for this segment of Silver Lake Road in 2004. Although the County project will not involve or disturb the boulevard areas, it still would be advantageous to coordinate a new sidewalk/pathway with the repaving of the street. 2003 Sfreet Improvement Project Sidewalks There are three additional sidewalk/pathway segments located within the area proposed for the 2003 Street Improvement Project Area. These are: Groveland Road — from County Road I to County Road 10 Knollwood Drive — from County Road H to County Road H2 Woodcrest Drive — from Knollwood Drive to Silver Lake Road Staff would like direction from the City Council on these potential segments. They are included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the City Council wishes to construct these segments, it would be advantageous to do so as part of the adjacent street project. r i . COUNTY ROAD 10 RECONSTRUCTION AND REVITALIZATION i'LAN — IMPLEMENTATION PHASE On September 26, 2002, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5824 formally adopting the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Plans as prepared by URS Corporation. The next step in the process is to develop an implementation plan. On October 20, 2003 Staff met internally to develop a strategy for implementation. This item has been placed on fhe January 5th Work Session Agenda. Dan Solar, Traffic Engineer, and Ken Haider, Public Works Director for the County will be in attendance. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain direction from the City Council as to what they see as a priority in implementing the County Road 10 Plan. As previously discussed with the City Council, one of the first steps will be to hire an engineering firm to survey the corridor and develop a pathway alignment throughout its length on both sides. Other questions that will be posed to the City Council are: When should the emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) devices be installed in each traffic signal?" These allow emergency vehicles to safely navigate through the signalized intersections without conflict from opposing lanes of traffic. What intersections does the City Council see as a as higher priority?" The plan calls for several intersections to be upgraded and the geometrics to be changed. The goal of the January 5th meeting is to have a fair understanding between the City Council and County as to what the general implementation plan should be. Staff will then send out requests for proposals (RFP's) to have an engineering firm start assisting both the City and the County on implementation of the various items. DNR REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRAILWAY GRANT OPPORTUNITIES On December 3, 2003, Staff attended an open house meeting to discuss the Department of Natural Resources' 2004 Local Trailway Grant Program. Application must be in by February 27, 2004. The maximum grant amount is 100,000. The project must be completed by December 31, 2005. Given the criteria for a successful application, the only possible project the City couid apply for is the pathways along the County Road 10 corridor. Trailways less than ten (10) feet in width are not eligible for grant monies. Staff recommends that the City apply for both federal and local grants for the pathways along the County Road 10 corridor. In order to be a successful applicant, Staff will need to make a case of these pathways providing a connection between residential and commercial sites and other regional nature sites such as Rice Creek and the proposed regional nature park to be located on the TCAAP site. LAKESIDE LIONS PARK Several new changes may be occurring to the Lakeside Lions Park: Gazebo The Lions Club is providing funds to construct a gazebo in the Lakeside Lions Park. It is proposed to be 39 feet in diameter with a two-tiered roof with louvered cupola and a 25 year shingled roof with tongue & groove pine roof deck. It is proposed to be built in the open space near the south end of the ball field. The estimated cost is $53,691.80. Fishing Pier The DRN has a program entitled, "Fishing in the Neighborhood" (FIN). As part of this program, the DNR has dedicated a grant to the Lakeside Lions Park for constructing a floating fishing pier. The pier would be 104 feet in length and have a"T" section on the end. The estimated cost is $22,000. The DNR Grant is for $12,200. The remaining $10,000 would need to be raised from several sources, some of which may include: Spring Lake Park Lions, Fridley Lions, and donations. The Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission is in support of this project. The DNR will also be stocking the lake this spring with large mouth bass and black crappies. Parking Lot Upgrade The Parking lot at Lakeside Lions Park is in extremely poor condition. To explore the costs of upgrading it and expanding it slightly, the reconstruction of this parking lot will be added to the bid for the 2003 Street Project. Once bids are received, the cities of Spring Lake Park and Mounds View can decide if this is a project worth pursuing. At this time, no commitment has been made by either city to this project. n_-- - — _ --z _ . _._.., ---- . r --_- - -- ---j F --- ----- s 1 6. Request for future agenda items/other business Possible Items for January 22°d Agenda Parks Needs Analysis — Review Status of category A items, Prepare for the purchase and implementation of the category B and C items. t:-, = 1 ? - - - --' - r_ _--. _ - .____-_-- ' ` . v.- =---____ .. . . . :.- .- - '-- - Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2003 Meeting Called to order: 1. Roll Call: Present: Kroeger, Kunz, Mandoza, Edmond, Long, Silvis, Kunza, McIntyre, Steeves, Lee Absent: Dazenski 2. Approval of October 23, 2003 Meeting Minutes: Motion to approve as drafted: Silvis 2"d: Edmond No discussion Motion passed unanimously 3. Unfinished Business: a.) Parlcs Needs Analysis — The final version of the Parks Needs Analysis has been incorporated into the City's draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The proposed 2004 Budget has also been revised to include the recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commissioners pertain to the Parlcs Needs Analysis. There are three major Parks related items that were identified as being financed by the Park Dedication Fi.u1d: Groveland Parlc Building Design 20,000), Skate Parlc ($55,000), and the items associated with the 2004 Parlc Rehabilitation Program ($34,633). No action needed at this tiine. Staff wanted to point out the two major items for 2004; Groveland Park Building Design and Slcate Park. The City Council did question $20,00 for the building design. It may be substantially less than that if the same design as Hillview is used. Money is in the 2004 budget, the Conzmission could malce revisions prior to making any recozrunendations to the City Council on expenditure of funds. b.) No Smolcing in City Parlcs — The City`s legal counsel stated that some cities are restricting smolcing in their parlcs, however the authority to do so is unclear. Marta McIntyre the City of New Brighton's smoking ban in City Parks. Attached is a copy of their Tobacco Free Park Policy. Also attached is an article from Allen Powell of the Pioneer Press regarding New Brighton's Tobacco Ban Policy. Commissioner Mandoza sl.unmarized New Brighton's policy. Cards are handed out and signs were erected. They have not received any legal challenges. New Brighton is willing to talk to the Comm ission if they wish to. Commissioner Edmond question why this is an issue the Commission is pursuing. The Commission was requested by a resident to look into this issue. N- : '_, k.,_<; n.__— 1:-- - = - ' • - : '"- — =--- . , .. , c .- - :—, _ _,_`-._--'- !' --" Commissioner Kunza stated that the reason New Brighton pursued this issue was because of health reasons- second hand smolce, and controlling litter. Commissioner Edmond thought there are a lot of other health issues; car exhaust... Edmond stated that smokers axe tax payers and questioned how the Commission can tell them how to recreate. No further action will be taken at this time. c.) Facility Guide Update- The parlc trail / sidewalk map has been updated. The Golf Course data is currently being developed to be included in the brochure. It is anticipated that this will be presented to the Parlcs and Recreation Commission for review and comment at their January meeting. The paxk trail / sidewallc inap has both current AND existing trails and sidewalk. d.) YMCA Executive Committee Meeting A meeting has been scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2003 at 2:30 PM Commissioner ICunz who is assigned to this committee will not be able to attend. Commissioner Kunza will fill in. e.) Parlc Usage Survey / Data Collection - Review collection form. Develop a data collection process. Commissioner Mandoza developed the fornl Add time recorded, ren ove time frames (10 to noon, noon to 2, 2 to 4) Have three observation times per sheet. Each with its own time and date. People at the Park" add pre-school, K-6, and teens. Add a section to the bottom for "Notes". Add to check park facility: BBQ's, Rinlcs, Sliding Change the check off to recording the number of individuals. Get rink usage data from the YMCA. Add "Day". Add name of observer. Commissioners to observe / record What parks to observe? No exact plan was set. Observe for about one year. f.) Community Sun ey - This has been placed on the November 3, 2003 City Council Worlc Session agenda for discussion. It was tabled at that meeting to be discussed at the December 1, 2003 Worlc Session. At this time the City Council is considering a fifty (50)-question sun ey. Given that, the Parks and Recreation Commission may want to consider prioritizing the eleven questions previously recornmended and submitted to be included in the survey. Attached is a copy of those eleven questions. Council is loolcing at the eleven questions submitted by the Corrunission as well as the 112 questions from the original survey from 1988. 2 fr_.' __ . . . _..iu ... .`y-"'g . L"_`__. ____'___ V_.a-,._ _. .".::"" '.__ C -.:_' Conunissioner Kunza asked what type of data are we looking for: Data on what we have now and what we may want to have in the future. Commissioners when through the list and noted their top four questions; Silvis #2, 3, 4, 8 Long #2, 4, 8, 9 Kroeger #l, 3, 4, 10 Kunz #5, 7, 9, 11 Edmond # 1, 4, 8, 10 Kunza #3, 6, 9, 10 Mandoza # 1, 3, 4, 5 The data collection sheets may answer some of these questions. Use the survey to iind out what amenities residents want in their parks. The survey company that will be hired by the City will re-organize and re- phrase the questions. These questions will be asked over the telephone; They need to be as simple as possible. Are we leading with these questions? Should there be an open-ended question? Commissioner Kroeger Summaxized: We want to lcnow what people thii lc about what we have now and what they thinlc we could do better. Commissioner's assignment is to review the survey questions again. g.) Garbage Collection Fund Commissioner Mandoza contacted City Administrator, Kurt Ulrich. Mr. Ulrich is checking into this issue. Lee will invite Mr. Ulrich to the next meeting. h.) Field Use Fees - Attached is the Park building and field usage permit. Also attached is the Park Amenity List. The former YMCA Coordinator informed the City that the $5 user fee for Greenfield Baseball field was being collected, however, it was not added to the 2003 Fee Schedule. It will be officially added for the 2004 Fee Schedule. Originally started with Green field Parlc baseball field. Coznmissioner Mandoza discussed including the soccer field. The YMCA contacted other cities to discuss charging field use fees; Arden Hills $30 per day, Shoreview $12 per hour, Spring Lalce Park $50 per use, New Brighton is looking into this issue. Leagues, and YMCA activities do not pay cun-ently. This fee would be for additional use or use by non-leagues, non-YMCA activities. The funds collected from this fee structure «ill benefit these facilities. Motion to recommend adding a$10 field use fee to the 2004 fee schedule: Mandoza 2°d: Edmond 3 v_;_,. . ti . . _ ' I -- v--=- ------'---- °'_=:r: .--- . _ . . . . "' __._.. _.,Y„ =+3 D15CUSS1011: Teams may want to negotiate. It should be cash payment only. This will be applied to all fields where a reservation is being made. YMCA activities and school district #621 are exeinpt. Notify all organizations about the fee change. Motioned amended to exclude any schools in Independent School District #621 and the YMCA. It will be applied to all fields that a reservation is sought. The will YMCA send out letters to all organizations who have historically used these fields. Revised Motion passed unaniix ously There was a discussion about reserving fields in advance — contrary to current policy. This would be in addition to regularly scheduled practices. The Commissioners reviewed the Parlc Building and Field Usage Permit. The YMCA just wanted support from the Commission for conducting this policy. The Commission agreed with the YMCA. i.) Grant Tnformation - At this time, Staff is only aware of t11e Department of Natural Resources Local Gra.nt Program. Attached is a copy of 2004 Grant Application Letter. DNR offer several types of grant. Staff will be attending an open house on December 3, 2003 to get more information on these grants. No action needed at this time. j.) Purple Loostrife - Insect treatment status Insects (beetles) will be available in the spring of 2004. Staff will harvest mature beetles in May or June of 2004 and relocate them in 4. problem areas. Boy scouts / girl scouts may get involved New Business: a) County Road H Sidewalk Project Update — The City is re-bidding the portion from Silver Lake Road to the west City limits on January 8, 2004. Staff «ill be bringing this to the City Council at the second meeting in January (January 26, 2003) for action. 5. Commissioner/Staff Reports Commissioner Silvas attended the Lalceside Lions Parl< Meeting on November 19, 2003. At the meeting, they discussed the possibility of adding on a fishing pier. The DNR has offered a grant of $12,200. The total cost is $22,000. The remaining may come from other sources, r _ . . _ I v - . _` _ _ . _ donation, etc. The Conunission discussed City funding sources; Park dedication. Motion to recommend expenditure of $6,000 from Park Dedication Fund as matching funds for a fishing pier: Motion: Silvas 2°d: Kunza Motion passed unanimously The Lions have already funded a 39-foot diameter gazebo to be constructed within the Lakeside Lions Parlc in 2004. It will be located to the west of the existing shelter. There is a possibility of adding the reconstruction of the parking lot to the City's street project in 2004. Staff will add it to the bids as a bid alternate. Once the bids are received the two cities can decide if they want to proceed. YMCA had their Halloween Party on October 30, 2003. About 300 people were in attendance. Commissioner Kroeger recognized a person attending the meeting. It was Commissioner Edmonds son. The City's web site might be vulnerable to having email addresses being taken off and added to junic email lists. Staff will investigate. 6. Request for future agenda items/other business Possible Items for December 18th Agenda Facility Guide Comrnunity Survey Garbage Collection Fund Grant Information Motions to Council Ice Rink update Next regular scheduled meeting will be December 18, 2003. Motion to adjourn: Motion: Long 2°d: Mandoza Motion passed unanimously Respectfully submitted by: Greg Lee 5 z -- : .«.---' . t.._-.. - i --=- _- .=" i ' liem No: 02 Meeting Date: 12/01/03 Type of Business: WS of Mounds t/iew Staff R To: Honorable Mayor and City Cou c'I From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator item TitlelSubject: Review Communit urvey Questions Attached is a list of fifty-one proposed community survey questions for your consideration. The list was developed by reviewing previous questionnaires with staff and commissions, Many of the questions are taken from previous surveys and, therefore, can be compared to results from previous surveys. Addifional park and recreation questions have been added, as well as a question regarding variable rate sanitary sewer. Please review the questions and let me know your comments. j _--- - •--------. .__ _ _.. - ._ t _ "'--''?l r -., - - - 1- - - COMMUNITY SURVEY 1. Approximately how long have you lived in Mounds View? 2. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you moved to Mounds View? 3. How would you rate the quality of life in Mounds View — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 4. Over the next five years, do you expect the quality of life in Mounds View to decline, remain about the same, or improve? 5. Whaf do you life MOST about living in Mounds View? 6. If you were moving to another cifiy, what factor would be most import to you in selecting your new place of residence? 7. How would you rate Mounds View on that — excellent, good, only fair or poor? 8. If it were needed to maintain city services at their current level, would you favor or oppose an increase in city property taxes? 9. Do you consider property taxes in Mounds View to be excessively high, relatively high, about average, or comparatively low? Below is a list of changes in city services, which could be made in the future, to avoid increases in iaxes or special assessments. For each one, please tell me if you would favor that change as an alternative to higher taxes, or if you would oppose that change even if it meani higher taxes. 10. Increase the time it takes police to respond to a non-emergency call to save funding more positions? 11. Increase the time ii takes to plow city streets after a snowstorm? 12. Decrease the amount of funds spent on the maintenance and upkeep of city parks? 13. Reduce the amount of street maintenance undertaken each year? 14. Reduce the frequency af inspections and response iime to complaints about vialations of city residential codes? Below is a list of a few services provided by the City or Couniy. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, fair, or poor. 15. Park Maintenance 16. Snaw Plowing 17. Police Protection 18. Fire Protection 19. City Street Maintenance 20. Animal Control 2. Waste and Storm Water Control 22. Water for Residential Use If "FAIR" or "POOR" in questions 15-22, Ask each one: 23. Why did you rate as (Only fair/poor)? 24. Have you or any members of this household had contact with the Mounds View City staff during the past year? 25. From what you have seen or heard, how would you rate the job performance of the Mounds View City staff — excel(ent, good, only fair, or poor? 26. Do you feel that the amount of police patrolling in your neighborhood is too little, about right, or too much? 27. If the City were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it to be? 28. What is the locaiion of your principal retail shopping area? 29. Have you visited Mounds View City Hall during the past twetve months? z.;:; . _, :.. . . • . _ r . .- - - -- = IP_ ' " ." _.-. _ - _ _ . . , - .. . - _ s ' - _' ' For each of the following characteristics, piease rate the Mounds View City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only fair or poor. 30. Convenience of City Hours? 31. Courtesy of the staff? 32. Efficiency of the staff? 33. Of the following three proposals, which do you most favor: A. The City contracts with one hauler to serve the entire city. B. The City contracts with a group of haulers, each serving one area of Maunds View exclusively. C. The present system. 34. In general, do you feel that the condition and upkeep of city streets is a serious problem in Mounds View, a minor problem, or no problem at all? 35. Do you feel that the City if too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code regarding residential property maintenance for weed control, outdoor storage, junk cars, animal control, and noise? 36. Resident are currently charge a flat rate of $ per quarter for sanitary sewer service. Would you be in favor of changing to rate which will change depending on usage? Yes or No. 37. How would you rate the park and recreation facilities in Mounds View — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 38. In general, da you usually spend you leisure time in outdoor activities, weather permitting, or indoor activities? 39. In the part year, have you or any member of your household participated in a city-sponsored recreation program? 40. Could you tell me about how often you and other members of your household have used the park and recreational facilities in Mounds View during the part year, weather permitting? 41. What is your principal source of information about ci#y government and its activities? I . _ . C"a:, ` _ _' _. '=a+':. L,_ -. . -__". 14 . ___ : C 42. Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with your level of information about city government and its activities? 43. Does your household currently receive the "New Brighton Bulletin?" (If YES" ask: DO you generally read that newspaper?) 44. Other than voting, do you feel that if you want to, you could have a say about the way the City of Mounds View runs things? 45. Do you recall receiving the Mounds View City Newsletter? (f so, do you or any members of your household regularly read it? 46. About how often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? If you answered yes: A. What season do you use the parks most — Winter, Spring, Summer, or Fall? B. How do you get to the Park(s) — Walk, Drive, or Bike? C. What kind of activities to you engage in? D. For each of the following IUlounds View Recreation features, please rate the following excellent, good, only fair, poor, don't knowlrefuse? Identification/Signage Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Area Trees Rinks (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space SurFace Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighting Hiking/Walking Trails Bike Trails Cross County Skiing Sledding Nature Study Goff Course I - _ . _, i ___, "'..,=__. 1......----- --- --°---•------ - ._.. _--- =-=- --=-3.. !? T__`" I -- 47. Would you support a bond issue for the development of items within the Park(s)? Yes or No 48. in which of the fol{owing Recreation activities do you participate? Please respond yes or no) Golf Course Handball Basketball Volleyball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Ampi-theater Skateboard Park Lawn Bowling Swimming Sledding Cross County Skiing 49. !n the past two years have you used ihe Mounds View Community Center? Yes or No 50. Whai additional features would you like to see at the Community Center? r . . a _. . - Y-= -- _ .. . . r_. .-------- ._. =- 51. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings Other r- T y, _ _ _ y :..a;. --- _ = Y_ _ .__ - ---, . . . _ .. February, 2003 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions: 1. How often during the year do you use the Mounds View Parks? Please specify: Sutniner Winter Spring Fall All of the Above 2. How do you get to the Park(s)? Wallc Drive Bilce All of the Above How close are you to a Park(s)? (Please specify the Park(s) also) 3. Why do you use the Parlc(s)? Wallcing Biking Child Surruner Activities/Playground Family Organization Recreation Sports Other 4. Tn General, what do you think of the availability and condition of the Mounds View Paxlc and Recreation features: Identification/S ignage Walking and Bike Paths Buildings Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Trees Fields (Softball, Soccer, Baseball) Rinlcs (Hockey and Pleasure) Open Space Nature Study How would you rate its features and condition? What other features ould you lilce to see occur? 5. Which Parlc do you use the most? 6. Would you support a bond issue for the development of itezns within the Parlc(s)? 7. Do you want a Golf Course in Mounds View (privatized / enlarged}? 8. How would you rate the following: Surface Play Areas (Football, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Open Play Fields) Lighted yes or no Marked Nature Trails Hilcing/Wallcing Trails Bike Trails Cross Country Skiiing Sleding Golf Course k _ _ F, _:.7 - : _ - — - — - -- - - - - --. -:s!: _ :>-_ s Handball Basketball Volley Ball Shuffle Board Horseshoe Pits Playground Equipment Picnic Areas Shelter Buildings Hocicey Rinlcs Pleasure Rinlcs Ampi-theater Slcateboard Parlc Lawn Bowling Swimming Pool Other 9. What do you use the Community Center for? Exercise Equipment Banquet Center Gym Meetings 10. What other features would you like to see at the Community Center? 1 l. Do you want a Skate Parlc in Mounds View? i _ .. .: 4`__`_ . "_ _ —. • _ i d 2004 Meeting Dates for Parks and Recreation Commission Meetings will be generally set for the forth Thursday of the month and will start at 6:30 PM January 22, 2004 February 26, 2004 March 25, 2004 April 22, 2004 May 27, 2004 June 24, 2004 July 22, 2004 August 26, 2004 September 23, 2004 October 28, 2004 November 18, 2004 (Third Thursday in November) December 16, 2004 (Third Thursday in December) 1 ion Pnor/ti1n.' .,r es our es Lt . 1 l OI DSV I EW RES I DENT,I AL SL 2 dEY .. . r . undertaken for . T-IE C I TY OF MOLlNDSV I Eii I il March. 1999 s' ; . . . . . . .. . ,, . : . VOL_lN'E Q lE: . SL'EY H I Gf I GHTS AND ANALYS I S . . 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 •(612) 924-0337 . R i'EY OVERty I E141 Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results of this study to the City of Mounds View. This section provides a brief introduction to the specifications of the survey and a guide to the organization of the written analysis. While the most statistically sound procedures have been used to collect and analyze the information presented herein, it must always be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions. They are designed ta measure public opinion within identifiable limits of accuracy at specific points in time. This survey is in no way a prediction of opinions, perceptions, or actions at any future point in timee After all, in publi policy analysis, the major task is to impact these revealed apinions in a constructive fashion. The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D. 4 Morris; the Proje t Director overseeing all phases of the i research and analysis was Ms. Diane 7raxler. Research Design This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds Viewo Survey responses were gathered on March 21-28, 1988. The average interview took twenty-three minutes. All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a randomly generated sample of the city. In generala random 1 i samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire I universe of Mounds View residents within + 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Interviews were conducted by Decision Resources Ltd., ersonnel from telephone banks in Saint Paul, Minnesota. trained p j' Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were F independently validated for procedure and content by a Decision Resources, Ltd., supervisor. Completed interviews were edited I and coded at the campany's headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Statistical analysis and cross tabulations were produ ed by the company's direct job entry access facility to the University of Minnesota CYBER Computer System. r¢,a aiza ion f tue Sltuidy The results of this study are presented in the following order: . The A YSIS consists of a written report of the ma or findings. The results contained herein were also presented verbally to the client. The Al S1fIONWfAIRE reproduces the survey instrument as it was used in the interviewing process. This section also includes a response frequen y distribution for each question. Last is the [ pU'T which includes all statistically f significant cross tabulations and any multivariate statistical analysesa F qny urther questions the reader may have about this study which are not answered in this report should be directed to either Dr, Morris or Mso Traxler. 2 pNE1LYS I S k . f' . : . 3 i rF 1 TAB E OF CONTENTS Sectian One: Resideratial Derographics ......................Page b Residential Longevity Prior Residence and Motivation for Move * Out-Migration Home Ownership - Househald Composition * Age Workforce - Income Residential Areas Sec ion T o: Auali y of Life .............................Page 17 Quality_ of Life Rating"* Positive and Negative Attributes of Mounds: View - General Direction of the Community * Community Pride * Movement Out of Mounds View * Alienation c,ection Three: Taxes airod Spending......o .................Page 27 Tax Increase to Maintain Services - Per eption of Property Taxes - Budget Cuts versua Tax Lncreases.* Property Tax Share of City Section Four: City Serv ices....o............ e...........Page 35 General City Services Evaluations - Police Patrolling City as Social Service Provider * The Condition of City Streets City Codes *.Storm Water Management and Storm Sewer s - Secition Five: Cit y 6ov errament arod Staff . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 49 Knowledge about.City Government City Staff City Hall aectaon Sax: DevelopwneBnt aAnd BrOwth ....... .............Page 56 Preferred Development - Pace of Development - Dilapidation Deveiopment along Highway 10 * Principal Shopping Area * General. Shopping Behavior Section Seven. 5o1id b aste Manage ee: ..............Page b3 Current Recycling City Curbside Pick-Up Composting * r Refuse Haulers - " Section Eightt Parks a.Recreation Issexes:'......:.e.....Page 71 Evaluation.of the Park_and Recreation System Leisure. Time Activities City-Sponsored.Recreational:Programs * Frequency,of Fa ilitiea Usage. Completion of the Park_ System:t Principal Source of Recreation Information *. Muni ipal. Golf;Course.*`WetT,ands.Preservation Ramsey. County.Library Services: . Pa e 86SectionNine: City.Co anzcatio»s ... .: ..........'... g Primary,;Source of City Government Informatiorr - Satis- faciion ivith City Communications Th e "New Brighton. BulTetin" "The Focus" * 7he "Mounds V'iew City News- 3 ` . . . letter". * Cable Television . 4 i t E I 1 . SECTIDN DN i ES I T I AL DE210 RAP I CS i . . . _ y ' , . ', . • '. a.: . . . _ - . . . ..-. . . . . . • . t . ' . .' .. ' . . ' ' . , . ,. , i , '. . . .. . ' , ` . 5 I RESIDENTIAL DEM06RAPHICS Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions in order to first, establish a community profile, and second, to Iidentify large subgroups within the city which might exhibit different behavior from their peerso The composite also permits Icomparison of the sample with the actual census s atistics on the eommunity and validation of the sample. This section will discuss the community at large, with attention to both the past growth patterns of Mounds View as well as speculations about its future. By comparing ihe current composition of the city's citizenry with l potential future trends, extrapolations about policy demands can I be systematically deduced. Residential Lonqev_itY: I Residents were first asked: Approxsinately Mioa lor9g ave you lived i n Maurndl s'V i ea? About one-third of the sample reported moving to Mounds View i during the past two years: LESS THAN TWD YEARS.......so............ 14% Z -- 5 YEARS ............................... 21% 6 -- 10 YEARS .................o............ 15% o .......................... 29Y. 11 20 YEARS. 21 30 YEAR5. 12' OVER THIRTY YEARS .......................... 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 0% A little over one-fifth had resided in the city for over twenty years. Median longevity was about 10.5 years. Although not experiencing the population changeover of many other areas, 4 Mounds View has certainly not stagnated as have many inner ring suburbs. 6, :Y. =- _ _ z. -=., ._ _ , ,m . : . - . It is possible to roughly profile the waves of in-migration i which have characterized the city: Less than two year residents tended to he: Moved from out of the state I Job reasons caused move I - Less than five year future residents I- Renters Pre-schoolers in the households I . * 18-34 year olds The renters, in particular, are "transients," planning to move in f the near future. i 7wo-to-five year residents were: Moved from New Brighton and rest of Ramsey j County Renters Pre-schoolers in the households 25-34 year olds Singles 50,000-60,000 yearly household incomes I Unlike the previous group, this wave of residents choose deliberately to move to Mounds View. . Six-to-ten year residents tended to be a mix. Eleven-to-twenty year residents were: Moved from Hennepin County suburbs and Minneapolis Moved for school reasons or liked the area Plan to stay at least six more years School aged children contained in households 35-54 year olds f Over 40,000 yearly household in omes During the late 1960's and through the 1970's, the school distri t played a key role in attracting families to the caty. Twenty-one-to-thirty year residents were: r Moved from Minneapolis t # Moved to be near family j t 55-64 year olds The mass Minneapolis exodus hit Mounds View in late 1950's and I 7 i extended into the next decade. Over thirty year residents included: Mounds View natives Planning to remain for the rest of their lives Seniors in the households Over 55 year olds 10,000-Z0,000 yearly household incomes This nine percent of the population represents the "settlers" of the community. The patterns suggest that Mounds View was one of the earliest suburbs in its ring to experience the large influx from the core cities. After that time, movement was largely confined to lateral shifts from neighboring suburbs. As a city, it is still able to attract young families; the major problem is keeping them iri Mounds View. Prior Residence and Motivation for Move: Mounds View, because of its geographical location, has been able to attract peaple from bath core ities; in many ways, it is more of a Hennepin County suburb than a Ramsey County. onee To f urther explore this result, respondents were askede In hat ciity and/or staite was your i iait {prior residence located? Mounds View has pulled phenomenally well from all directions: MOUNDS VIEW NATIVE ......................... 5% SAINT PAUL...e...e........... e............ 13% MINNEAPOI_IS.°o..a......• ................ 19% REST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY .................... 9Y. NEW BRIGHTON ......................... e.....7'/. REST OF RAMSEY COUNTYa .................... 8Y. ANOKA COUNTY...,.a......•...•........... 20% REST OF MINNESOTA.......e ................. 12% OUT OF STATE.o°o....... oe..,... o........... 9% The core cities account for only thirty-two percent of the prior E n -, _ _ _ _ _ homes of residents. Other suburban areas produced forty-four percent of the current households. Outstate and other parts of the country9 twenty-one percent. Mounds View has not only succes5fully provided starter homes for families departing the Twin Cities, but has become the location of choice by many suburban residents. Although the I i influx of suburbanites reached its zenith about four years ago, even today a large number make inter-suburban moves into the city. Respondents were also asked why they choose Mounds View: 9:ould yo a itell n e o o- tr.o reas ns i why you aoove d to Mourrds Viea? The chief attraction was affordable housing: I DON'T KNOW....a,.....aa..... ae.,...< e..o... b% AFFORDABLE HOUSING...e ..............>... 35Y. JOB LOCATION........o.......... e.......... 20% 012% NEAR FAMILY ....................••••••-••• CONVENIENT LOCATION.o ..................... 10% LIKED AREA ................................. 8•/. I QUALITY OF SCHOOLS .............e........... 6% TO LEAVE TWIN CITIES......................4% i Job location and convenience to the core cities were almost as popular reasons as the affordability of housing. But, as w@ shall see, the lack of "better" housing is a cause of the movement away from the community of many young families. Out-Miqration: The other side of mobility, prospective out-migrationa was assessed through: iAs tl ings x r+ stands M oM long in the futur do you expect to live in Mounds Viea? About thirty percent of the residents tend ta move in the next 9 N _- - =- - I ,•'. - t . _-. .. ._.cs___"' — -- _ .:.'m.r :._- _': t.f. ..2C...'L- ., .. . .. " _ - .._ _=1 ' . _ __"' ' 3 M _ . _ five years, typical of many suburban areas: LESS THAN TWO YEARS....e........ e>.•...0 10% Z- 5 YEARS ...............o.............° e17% b - 10 YEARS .............e................. 8'/. OVER TEN YEARS.e .......................... 16% REST OF IFE (VOL.) ...............•.•..... 31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.e.....•...........•.•. 17'/. The number of households indicating an impending move within twenty-four months is larger than the norm. Prospective movers tended to be: Renters 18-35 year olds Dver 60,000 yearly household ancomes Marginal comments pointed to housing "up-grades" as the major reason for moving from Mnunds View. It should also be noted that households with pre-schoolers were much less likely to repart an impending move from the city -- implying that the quality of schools is a major fa tor in remaining in the community. Home Ownership: . Mounds View residents were asked: po yo a rrp r rent yo nr presen iresidexace? Nearly eighty percent of the residents owned their current residences: OWN....................................... 79'/. RENT...................................... 21% REFUSED.................................... 0% Home owners tended to be: Over 35 year olds Marr ied Two wage-earner households Over 40,000 yearly incomes Precinct 1 residents Renters were more frequently: 10 ir..- _ - - ----- i H 1 x L= _r---- Under 35 year olds Single Under 30,000 yearly household incomes Precinct 3 residents There are very distinct social and ecanomic differences between he two groups. Respondents were also asked about their current residences: I ilhictw of Ihe f'ollowing best destribes your reside*ce? 7b°1. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING...-•••••° „ 17% APARTMEN7......e...a......••••-••°••°•'° .. 2,/ TOWNHDUSE/CONDOMINIUM .............•-'°•....4'/. MOHILE HOMEae.......e.e....• o••• " .....,,. 1% OTHEFdoee......e.... e.o.e......•••• , 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.......••••••-••••°" '"' Townhouses and candominiums, like single family dwellings, were owned by the resident. Apartments, naturally, were rented. Mobile homes. however, were split between owners and renters. NouSehold Comp,osition: Ea h resident was asked a group of questions about their households. They were instructedt Cou 1 d yt u. p 1 ease tel l iwe hoa any people irw each of he following age graups li r in you r Ihousetaold_ Let's start oldlest to younges s and Ibe sure to ca un t yourself. Older f amily members were ascertained first: Ace there at y persons over the age of 65 livarr nn ihis residen ce? iwelve percent of the households reported at least one member over the age of sixty-five: 12'/ YES ............................... .......88% N0. ......,.....••-°' ,...0% DON'TOKNDW/REFUSED s.....°....°.... This percentage is somewhat higher than the norm for the 11 i Metrcpolitan Area suburbso Next, s hool-aged children: Are there any seihool—aged chaldreu livang in this hou old Nearly forty per ent of the respondents reported school-aged I I children living in their homes: 37% YES .......................................63Y. NO. ,0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo........o..•.........° Mounds View has an exceptionally high percen age of households cantaining school children. IFinally pre-schoolers were assessed: i Are there arry pre—sclioo 1 ers in th i s res i der ce? i Qver twenty percent af the households reported pre-schoolers: YES..........a........••••••••-.... e...o..22'/. a.78'/. DON'T.KNOW/REFUSED..e .............••••••••°` This proportion is only several percentage points below such young family "boom areas" as Eagan. I Mounds View is a unique mix of older residents and yaung families. Clearly, the existing housing mix and the quality of the school system play a key role in attracting the latter. Hut whether it will be able to maintain this dynamic equilibrium, or Ias affordable housing becomea available in Anoka County and elsewhere, begin a rapid aging process, is hard to tell. For the t thou h, the demographic mix is one of the most desirable presen r 9 in the suburbs. Aqe: Mounds View residents were askeda 12 s _ _ s'° :' - f: r =__'_ .._I ' :__ "'_' '._ , .. ' _ L _L'•__ _ ..____ . _., = — _.s.—'' — f,lhat is your ages please? The median age was found to be 40 years old: 000ao9% lg_24,,,,......e....... may be very difficult o generate support or enthusiasm for. I Instead, each issue may need to be approached uniquely9 guided by its peculiarities and impact on the various groups composing the municipality. Incarne: To ascertain household income levels, respondents were asked: Can you tell +e approxi ately at is ithe level of inca e for all e bers of your Ihou sehold efore any axes? Is the to al a al ineo e: The median household incame was approximately 34,500: 0.3'/. BELOW 10,000.ao........ e...•••••• " ' „ 9% 10,001-20,000°0.........•••••.-'°'"'..., 25'/. 20 001-30 00O...e....... o............ . 18'/. 30r001-40s040 ................••°° " '..,, 20Y. 40,401-50904U ..............a........ . BY. SO,001-bO,000.e ....................... a.. 6% OVER 60,000.....e ...............••••'...., 3Y. DON'T KNOW ................................8% REFUSED ............................... I Owner/Managers and Professional/Technicals helped inflate the community average. In addition, fifty-eight percent of the i married households reported that both spouses worked outside the home, also raising income levels. The Mounds View median income I level is about 4,500 below the metropolitan area suburban norm. jResidential Arease For detailed analysis, Mounds View was broken down into four areas, following precinct lines. During the reminder of this report} attitudinal and behavioral differences between precincts will be examined and commented upon. i 14 i r "' _' -'.... !°c_.'ss ."-: _ _- _ lo= _ _ .. __ :z.«. _ _ -?,—._. . -"--'-- -- - '- ' - " - i„G'"'-.__ - - -- - t' i Summary and Conclusions: Mounds ^View is a very heterogeneous community, reflecting the rich diversity of urban areas much more than the neighboring suburbs. It has eharacteristics of both the more mature suburban areas and the "boom" growth areas. The community contains more than the average number of seniors as well as a very high re-schoolers. With its lar e base of affardable percentaqe of p 9 housing, it will continue to attract young familiest howevers with its lack of "up-scale" housing it will also lose many of thes households as they seek more amenitieso It would appear that both the locat on and history af the community have contributed ta make it one of the more unique areas in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Areae The city has a blend of both Blue Collar and White Collar households. The former group is the largest occupation set in the city; the latter group when all the occupations included therein are added together, constitutes a majority. Most married ouples work. As a result, the average income, while lower than the norm, is much higher than the demographic mix suggests. Mounds View draws its residents from a variety of sources. Its latest influx is composed of many short- termers who came tn the city in search of a location close to their jobs. But, there are also large numbers of young families moving from other suburbs who choose the ommunity because of its housing and school qua].ity. The retention of many of these people within the community seems to be a greater problem than attracting new- comers. Mounds View, in comparison with rnany other communities, 15 faces a unique set of problems. It is much further along the life cycle" than many of its neighborso Declining school populations, residential aging, and open space planning are I definitely not problems Mounds View mu t addresso However, I infrastructure and taxes/services are key questians. The challenge for the future is two-fold: maintaining those aspects of the community which attract new residentsn and convincing the population that prudent investments will be necessary ta keep the quality of life high during the tim s ahead Unless both tasks I are successful, Mounds View could easily lose its attractiveness jand fa e a myriad of serious obstacles in the future. i I 16 BILINC .- S7!I I I ]ji 1371 .:'. 1. C(tUriT dNOK4 CO, HOnDI I)71 ]I II -' ' _' '___ y' "'_ WIIK "p _""__— ' ' ' '__' .. "_ _ I!RCMSEr ' '..-' p•°.... . . . I . II . a ,;,s, , I f TN msp Io la plenniny purposa ordy +d hould nol in' _VI IMI • i al " a II ( b uwd wl era poelu 9 / i m wemenl le reQulr Q a i , alo. i / ul y : I ""i'riY i I I aw' e wo' woo' wo' I I u I I BIaiHE I YIW s 4 !1 I1ppAM RVf P / ' .. L .. .. • ...._.. .. 1 L' N / o ; / ( 3 zld ` I W Q ` •11D N _ a _ 1 _ u — S I. =1.- • •" • i - i--- -....,£ If - — i -- - - , P R EC I V R' ' ooei M+iq __ o :. i . r l'-_ _. , I-. I II I SnCM oDO • O D ' , 0 P F Co, T L . e.. o > g wecW a- .o o II SPRING I g . s LuCE • Q o _ 5 '' 1 K° onrv PoIAK Y g 1 I z `" / o r---' IIIi ,{ JI o.— GI 'l. '^ NiL v Er _ n0 0 i'i aa:v[w D. NiLt' 5 i esxveoo w i + = I o .. , I~ O xwODD rvf a,° r, o " 5 2 Arc r _ I T i w c ,,,P:.'':. Nl q _rMt..00n _ r na : rtrvt 7z-'_icie- ..I.__ PoaD • I" R I _ _ ' ii u'i _ _ COVNTY I o Y::' ' 1\ Cb J \/ 1 C. es I I: r r _,. ' o g — — - ` _, iI — o o g I i eI I n \ SC.w I !i LIC L NC 8 i "_ _._" II— // I \ t uII DRONSd ° Onw[ I_ J nnues w l uwvl.' J 5 ` f 1 _ ' l ' a_ 4 B o eawsw ;r+M ' I ' E l \ i / / ` I . \ t ,J L ue[nT __evL_ r' oli ^ I I la : \ ./°~ 4 s IIYOiin [f _ i. ` > ti S ' ZCT3-- •I I I I .i. - - I_1 -- _ nceo _ :? Y_ `` J L' M• V lJ. J `' ' -- n'-L .._._ - DR W,S. °,g ; ; ,l , ECINCT 4 = G o o °:I q I IClCµV1EM_ AVE I NI C{( l If1YI V[=I Z l • IPI GE _ _ _,_1J _ a NNLE LnM[I 1 O x -- ° w, - - - ir — ILL I 1 51 11NG V fM I NC y 1 S i I • I _ I _ u - • - " '_ ' ` ' : \ _ _ 1 -- --- -- ` "' COUM FO D . u l :R.i> +s I I /"\ . y. - " • NCM BRIGNiOH ` I M O IJNDS v Ew E LECT10 1 PRECItVCT MA Precinct Boundaries Legislative District Rn, ndarv Y / C...i ' _ I __ Rt• \ I ro. cw Ia. cd I I I W T6hG Rp O D C „ DDO a i F . 1 . . . .. ' • ' . , .. . ' . . . SECTIOM FIVE';:.. :' : ; : . . p . _ CITY 6DVERNMENT AND STAFF:.' : . r ' . : , . ' - , . . v' . :. , _. . - . . I . - t . t! .f .. . i • , _ i'. '- , . - . . . 7 '. •.: .•: - . '` . . . . t r M. • • . . . . r _ . . . . . e• . .. ' . ... ' • t? .. .. . . . . : 49 , .. : CI7Y GOVERNMENT AND STAFF I Mounds View residents were asked a series of questions about their impressions of the elected officials who represent them and the ity staff which serves them. In both cases, the ratings by citizens were generally good. Knowledge about City Government A pair of questions were asked about the Mayor and City Council. As a first indicator of citizen awareness, respondents were queried: Let's talk about Mounds Viea City 6overt nt for a fe`+ •inutes. lahen any people think about their local I qoverT ent, they think of the elected officials who represent the._.. I HoM uch do you feel you knoti+ about the work of the Mayor and City Council a great deal, a fair awount, or very 1 i Itt 1 e? • Thirty-four percent reported possessing more than minimal information: GREATDEAL ...............................0.5% i FAIR AMOUNT ...............................29% I VERY LITTLE......e ....................... 063% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................3% Groups having higher levels of information included: Planning to stay for life Over ten year residents Retirees Groups admitting to much lower levels of information: Less than two year residents Planning to stay less than two years Renters 18-34 year olds Under 20,000 yearly income households SO j The overall information level of Mounds View residents is at about the suburban norm. Buts it divides along household type, Icommunity longevity, and age lines. Next, residents were asked to evaluate City government: . J Fro r+hat you knoa, do you approve or disapprove of the jo6 the Mayor and City Council ar doing? (WF IT FOR gpp1',,E) And do you feel s rangly that aay? Sixty-eight percent approved of the actions af the Mayor and Council: STRONGLY APPROVE.oe... .................. i5'/e 50MEWHA7 APPROVE....e ..................... 54% SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE.o....o.............•. 5'/• STRONGLY DISAPPROVE ........................ 3. DON'T KNDW/REFUSED ................e...eo.. 24% The overall approval rate is somewhat low in omparison to other suburbs, but can be accounted for by uninformed rather than disapproving responses. Groups even more supportive of the Mayor and Council included: Planning to stay b-20 years 55-64 year olds Less than 20,000 yearly income households One troublesome finding is that individuals having greater knowledge of the actions of the Mayor and City Coun il tended to be more disapproving. Although as a group, those expressing disapproval tended to be scattered across the municipality. City Staff: Residents were asked two questions about their dealing with City Staff. First, the amount of actual personal interaction was assessed: S1 cz c _. , . . _ _ _ Have you or any ie bers of,this house- hold Ihad cantact c+ith the Mounds View City staff during the past year? IRbout ane-third of the residents reported contact, which is exactly the suburban norm: YES ..............................o........ 33% NO....o ................................... 58'/. IDON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..............o..........9% Groups having more contact with the staff included: 11-20 year residents Planning to stay 6-10 years 35-44 year olds 40,000-50,000 yearly income households Groups reporting higher levels of no contact: Less than two year and over thirty year residents i * Renters 18-24 & 55-64 year olds Clerical/Sales households 20,000-30,000 yearly income households I More contaet appears to characterize the intermediate longevity i group in the ommunityo • I Next, residents were asked: 1 Fro ahat you have seen or heard, hoa would you rate the job perfor ance of the Mounds Vier+ Ci y staff — excellent, good, only fair, or poor? The City Staff received an approval rating of sixty-seven percent; this figure lies on the high side of the norm for other suburban areas: EXCELLENT ..................................8•/. GOOD....................o................. 59% j ONLY FAIR ..................................9'/. POOR.e...... • ° 3/' DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ........................22% Similarly, twelve percent rated the staff unfavarably, less than average for most communities. Reported recent contact did not 52 j=_. ___ _ _. _ _ . _ . _ .. _ . . . __ .-_--- =_____ ubstantially impact evaluations. The City Staffa then, must be viewed as a positave factor in the eyes of most residents, I Cit Hall: . j Residents who had been to City Hall recently were asked a Iseries of questions about the staff and facilities. To divide the sample, interviewees were queried: i-9ave you 'V1S1tE"d Mounds View City Hall during the past i r+elve onths? A large fifty-two percent reported visiting during tl e past yeara YES.....o....a ..........................•. 52% ND...o.oe.........e ....................... 49% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................0% Groups reporting larger per entages of visits: I* Over twenty year residents Planning to stay at least six years Home owners i + 35-44 8 over 55 year o 1 d s Retirees Over 60,000 yearly income households i These individuals were then asked to judge various aspe ts of the I structure and its operationse For each of the folloaing character- istics, please rate the Mounds Viea City Hall facility or staff as excel- lent, good, anly fair, or poor.._. 1 On every aspect, City Hall received very high grades: Carwenience of City Hall hours? Hy a ratio of eight-to-onea respondents were satisfied with the eonvenienee of hoursa EXCELLENT..o...e,oeaoo.sooe,oa,a.00aovo o,.9'/. GOOD..••°"......... o.......... o... a.m... o. 37/ ONLY FAIR.. m.. .4% POOR,aa..a ................................. 2% IDON'T KNOW/REFUSED......a.....e............ 0% 5 No change in schedule appears necessary. 4laiting ti e for service? 1 By a ratio of fifteen-to-one, respondents were satisfied iwith the length af their wait for service: EXCELLENTo.e.o..........o .................18% I GOOD.o..•• ................................28°/ ONLY FAIR. •2 POOR.......................................1% IDON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................2% The service operation does not appear to impose unusually long waiting times. Courtesy of the staff? By a similar fifteen-to-one ratio, the staff was rated icourteous: EXCELLENT .............a................... 20% GOOD ......................................z7% ONLY FAIR ..................o...............2% POOR.....................................e.1X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..a ......................1% J There appears to be no image problem for city hall personnel. Efficiency of the staff? By nine-to-one, the staff was rated very efficient: i EXCELLENT....e...........> ................ 14% GOOD..o.e• ................................ 31% ONLY FAIR. .4% POOR.......................................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ..................e...2% The staff, then, on two criti al dimensions -- courtesy and efficiency -- was given very high marks. Cleanlir ss of the buildie g? All respondents having an opinion rated the facilities as clean: 54 s __ _ _ __ T _ 1 -- - -- -_ .--------___._ ____ s - ---_.. _ . - _-. EXCELLENT .................................23% GOOD ..................................0...28% I ONLY FAIR............ o ................••••. O/ POOR. .O% DON'T KNDW/REFUSED....e......e......e...... 1X Housekeeping and staff appears to be doing an excellent job in maintaining the facilities. IOverall, then, the citizens familiar with City Hall have general praise for the operatiqn of the building and the I provision of services. Summary and Conclusions: Residents of Mounds View give their City Staff very strong grades. One-third of the residents have had interaction with I members of the staff and over one-hal have been to City Hallm In general, they were -Favorably impressed. The staff, then, id I, doing an ex ellent job in maintaining a positive image of the city. Some problems, though, were found in the evaluation of the Mayor and City Council. Their job approval rating was somewhat below suburban norms; but, more problematic is the fact increased knowledge about their activities heightened disapproval. City policy-makers may need to examine in some detail their communications with residents to insure that some aspects are not creating problems. They also need to better inform residents of their actionse Given the satis-Faction of most Mounds View residents with city services and staff, lack of a definite image rather than policy speci-fics may be the key to the lawer ratingse l j. . . SECT I ON S I X.. .. - : . . , : . J- . , . .. _ , . . DEVELOPl ffENT AND GF20i TH. . . Y r.: . ,. . . „ ; : , . r 4 • • , i. u r , . rN I J 1 l F. .: .. . . J . . ' . _ _ . . . . ' . 11 • . : ' .. ' t_ i i' t r ` - ' ; . 56 " . _ ,:: '' II. _ .:: i _ ..r-'s> . : _. . r-- _--"-'--- - - I DEVELOPMEN7 AND GROWTH The views of Mounds View residents on economic development issues facing the city were examined through a series of questions. Three general areas were assessed: preferred development, dilapidation, and retail shopping behavior. Although no majority consensus emerged, there is a lear tilt toward the attraction of job-producing industries. Preferred Development: Interviewees were asked: If the Ciity r+ere to attract ore devel- op ent, what kind r+ould ynu prefer it to e? Industrial, followed by residential, were the most frequent responses: DON'T KNOW ................................ 17% SHOPS...................................,.. 13% RESIDENTIAL ............................... 18% OFFICE......e ............................. 13Ye INDUSTRIAL ................................ 26% NDNE. ............................... 3% RECREATIONAL ............................... 3% OTHER........................... o.......... 3% 5everal groups of citizens tended to cluster behind various alternatives: 5hopping facilities were important to 2-5 year residents. Commercial was a favorite of 50,000-60,000 yearly income households. Industrial development was more welcomed by #30,000-40,000 yearly income households. ft e eoneer-n for residential development reinforces earlier r spnn s ab ut the need for more "up-scale" housing within the 57 v_. !-- '..:_ - . _, . E_: ..- - - --. _.. _ ___._. ,"'_. ._.. ... c=3--- -'-. community. Pace of Develo ment: In some communities, many residents -eel that development has progressed too quickly, and as less than adequately planned. To test the feelings of Mounds View residents, respondents were askeda Do you feel that the pace of co rser- I cial and industrial develop ent in the city has been too rapid, about right, or not fast enough'? IAlmost two-thirds af the sample felt the pace of development was about righte T00 RAPID .................................12% ABOUT RIGHT.e .............................65% NOT FAST ENOUGH,.....o ....................20% DON'T KNDW/REFUSED ...............e......... 4% There were no significant differences between community subgroups. Residents appear to feel that the City has moved in a careful, yet deliberate manner. Dilapidation: To determine the "eye sores" residents see in Mounds View, the question was asked: Are there any dilapidated or sub- standard areas of the city in ahich you r+ould particularly favar re-devel- op en? I hat are they? IAlmost eighty percent af the respondents felt there were none: DON'T KNOW.....e .......................... 10% NONE ......................................78% TRAILERSa ..................................2% APARTMENTS .................................2'/. I COUNTY ROAD .,I.' ......................., ..,. 2% HIGHWAY 10e. :...1% HOUSES.........a ........................... 2% SCATTERED AREAS.......a. ................. 3% NORTHERN PART OF CITY ......................2% 5A i ... .- n. . > .. „ yz-._.... - ..:.-___' _ -: .:= :. .- : I .. _ ... ..._ . . . . _. t Answers tended to be fractionalized, focus of concern. providing hints of no major Development along Highway 10: The disposition of the lands along the Highway 10 corridor Ihas been an issue fa ing the community for some time. To measure the extent of consensus among Mounds View residents, interviewees were asked: Of the follor+ing types of development, rrhich ONE aould yo nnst favor along he 1-ligh+ay 10 corridor betaeen County Road I and Spring Lake Park? Although retail shopping was the narrow plurality choice, the almost even distribution of answers suggests no consensus is present: RESIDENTIAL ...............................19% RETAIL SHOPPING ...........................23% OFFICE BUILDINGS ..........................17'1. INDUSiRIAL.....>..o .....................:.lb% ALL EQUALLY (VOL) .........................18% DDN'T CARE fVOL).....,..e..ee ..............2'1. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.......e....e..........oe5% Each choice, though, did have groups which ba ked it more Strongly. 18-z4 year olds opted for residential development, while renters supported shopping establishments. Office buildings was favored by residents planning to stay b-10 years, 35-44 year olds, and professional/technical households. The support for industrial development was scattered across th city, i while over 55 year DiljS and retirees supported any type of construction. In sum, the City might wish to consider mixed purposes for the site, or just proceed in the absence of a firm 1 preference by the voterso 59 j _-_.._ _ _ -, b.t'. _ Y`-- =?. =. -=*'- - . -i --_a..._..s.e n-. ":eG=._. ..' - t::'Z _..'-'-._. ;`.t—:i il _.: __ _ < : _ . z F_- - --- -- -- - `-- --- _ _-_ `__. y 1_____ _ _ r - _: : =-': - - _ _ : „ , _ _ F -` - `- i Principal 5hopping Area: Respondents were asked: Jhat is the lacation of your princi- pal re ail shopping area? A majority of residents cited Northtown Mall: NONE.......................................2% MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE ........................Z3% NORTHTOWN .................................51% OTHER....a ......................o..e..o....2% ROSEDALE ...............e.................. 15% NEW BRIGHTONe............o ...............vo4% NEWMARKET ................ ................4% Mounds View Square attracted roughly ane-quarter of the city. Several of the mall had established market segments within Mounds View: Mounds View Square was the choice of under 30,000 yearly income households, and precinct 2 residents Northtown Mall was the favorite of under 209 00 yearly income households Rosedale attracted over 50,000 yearly income households Mounds View, through Mounds View Square, was retaining the loyalty of a definite segment of the city population: moderate to lower income and precinct two residents. General Shopping Behaviors Interviewees were asked to estimate the praportion af their shopping undertaken within the city: Overall, about hor+ uch af your retail purchases do you wake in Mounds Viea -- virtually all, ost, some, or little to none Less than one-quarter of the residents reported making most or all of their retail purchases in Mounds View: 60 s(__ VIRTUALLY ALL ..............................67. MOST...................e...e.............. 17% SOME.......oe .............>............... 4b% LITTLE TO NONE ............................31Y. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...e ..................... 0% Mounds View loyalists included: Less than two year residents Renters Under 20,000 yearly household incames Agaar, the same pattern seen in the segment frequenting Mounds View Square is seen in those shopping primarily in the city. Shoppers who made only some or little of their purchases in Maunds View were queried: Could you tell ee one or tao reasons rrhy you don't shop ore in Mounds Viea? I Lack of inerchandise variety and absence of larger stores were the main rationale for going elsewhere: 1 NOREASDN.....,m.......oe......oe........ 026% NO STORES.....a ........................... 281 NO SELECTION ..............................35% PREFER OTHER AREAS ..................o......8% COST.......o ............................... 2% SHOP WHERE WORK ............................1% Apparently, the stores that currently serve Mounds View are able to attract only two types of buyers, residents who value convenience and cl.oseness ta home, and lower income residents. A key direction for the future should be the attraction of more.and diverse, stores carrying an array of inerchandise at various price levels. SummarY and Conclusians: On the course of future eeanomie development most residents would favor two directions: the attractinn of jobs-producing industries and the constructian of more "up-scale" homes. These bl h`_._-_--=- - - - = -- -= _ ---- _ - t----- two thrus ts would tend to arrest the turnover and exodus in the community. But, beyond these marginal shafts9 r spondents are> for the most part, con ent wa h the dire tions pursued to date and the pace of accomplishm nt. A rather low number of city residents reported shapping in Mounds View, as a result of the lack of choice in merchandise and establishments. In fact, a plurality of the sample favored fa ilities to the Highway 10 corridor. attracting shopping I Although the data suggests that most people view this as an I annoyance instead of a major problem, diversification of the retail shopping base in the city should be considered a long term I priority. In addition to providing added revenues to finance residential services, more re tail establishme its wauld certaii7ly increase long vity among city renters and might even convert mare to becoming home owners. I 62 1, , . . . , . . , . ' . .y. . , : j, _ , .. . F , i. i . . . ' ' y. ' . ' .. . . . . . . .. . . • . _ , .. . Ir' r 5 .r ` , t ' . : c . 4.i. , - t l. } • r y r 7 ' r t t . 4 . . . f" ti . ' . - _) _ ' . s F o_ 1. i i ' f 7 ' y . t ; S.r . t ^S i -.( 14 . . .. r . . ' • L ` T1 , . . . ` ' . y c' . • . I : i• ; '. Ir' i r . .. . .. . 1 ' I 1 C ' , I I A - I 1. { r . S z GtUES I NNAIRE' , z ` ' '. s i ( ( ' :-. v s t ` Y 7 x r.' J . _ .'.: 4: . II 1 i i S i:' Y' s , . 1 .' f .a „ 1 l 1 'r 1c t _ . ' _ . . ' t h , 7 h r { n+ .. , F . i , i. .. ' _ .: 1 t p 5 '} ' i ,-r ' t 1 't t i S .. _ ... i . - , ti : ' h : i ' 1 . {,: ` ..' { . r l I 1 t' ' ' ` .. ; :} 4i. . . .t = r r J y f a r 1 J t . • 1 :1 .', . . 5 ..' 1r 1 I — ...- : _ . 1 '' l: a 1J 4 9't ': W 41 -., t ( _ .! fr 4 _ 'r 3. r - :. -. . A ` o . i + _ I .t .. i t , . L- F 1^ '_ '.- ' ' . y... I . t } f y[ r „ ! i, r h { r t I x ( i .t ' f S ' :. f .k .t '1. f C 1 ! i y .' G ( I1 r t [ 7 . 4 i I t • , t c, 1 k'' _ y ; R t . f r i r - , " ri 4- - F ' 4 i _ - E. . l n L l. a L 1 . , _ i t) ..f , 1 r 1 Y .., l 1. SC 5 J . I.r Y f . ' r 4 t , - F 1 Y " TS v/4 ' ! f ' L i . y ; ^ } ' .ii y t f_ .. J [ F'- L c 7 ' 1 t P t h . S . : I / N" k ` ,t t { — r' . u , G " r f A f } J .., } / - y' ..} _ . " , = L - n I 1 ..- . i ' " ; aL i-1 M1' t -f'r LJ , J IK . J) t. + . . a , t ... s y } ,_ n " . _ - . r ', . , M L r ' . -t : ., -. :. . i _ y r i ,- s l : r . r ., . i . .i . i I f . i _ +r : r.- . w5 ti : S ,s :., i1 ' i . . . .r s. , . r-_r. :..... ,..: i ,. -,-.;: , ... y:..: i ... t.,c. . . .:. ,., , - .. , m.•.. 1 .. `" rr t i F . 7 y i-S r , r z .- i t _ i 1 .. -r - : Y , 'r i t ' t i r t i -_ - r i v i i 'ii v . r ; - x i , r . . . ` . ` . . n a -_ u : -. y r . 4 . _ ir. ` i t N " r i t . .. I k;. r 1 - . h k i r y, : !.: t' t' . I F : ," r . r i ( 4 _ ) r - rc .. - - a r r' : r;r ; F : m 1t y. - 7 4 i . J . -.., t 4 . i - . { I i y y) t Y 1 ' - { Z ):. . i } F i } 1 . 4 '1 . ( Z-Ut . 1 . 4--° :. i s :. : 5 ! , 5 f - r < ,'r f _ : t. .. .. , .. . .. . _ . 3 . .'. . . . .. _ ,..5 . . . . .. . . . a..--- ---- --- -------------= --'------- - - , . DECISION RESOURCES, LTDa i 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 j I i i MOUNDS VIEW CITY SURVEY City Services/Policies/Demos of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwideHello, I'm _______ polling firm. We've been retained by the City of Mounds View to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The 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 eonfidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how long have you lived in Mounds View? 2. 3. LESS THAN TWO YEARS...14% 2 - 5 YEARS...........21% b - 10 YEARS..........15Y. 11 - 20 YEARS.........29% Z1 - 30 YEARS.........12% OVER THIRTY YEARS......9% DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED.....0'/. In what city and/or state was your immediate prior residence located? MOUNDS VIEWt 5% ST. PAU.L: 13'/e MPLSe 19% REST HENNEPIN: 9% OUT OF STATE: 9% REST OF MINN: 12% ANOKA C0: 20% NEW BRIGHTONe 7% REST OF RAMSEY: e% Could you tell me one or two reasons why you moved to Mounds View? DON'T KNOW: b% JOH: 20X HOUSING: 35% LOCATIONa 10% SCHODLS: b% LIKED AREA: 8% FAMILY NEAR: 12% LEAVE 7WIN CITIES: 4% 4. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to live in Mounds View? LESS THAN TWO YEARS...101. 2 - 5 YEARS...........17'/. 6 - 10 YEARS...........8% OVER TEN YEARS........16'/. REST OF LIFE (VD.)...31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....17% 1 5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............Zg•• life in Mounds View -- excellent GOOD..e ............... b4°l. good, only faira or poor? ONLY FAIR ..............7% PODR ...................2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% a 0 b. Over the next five years, do you DECLINE........o......6% expect the quality of life in REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME.55'/. Mounds View to decline, remain IMPROVE.........a.....33% about the same, or improve? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% i I _ _____ _ ____ _ _ __ . _ :_ I l 7. What do you like MOST about living in Mounds View? DON'T KNOW: 11% LOCATION: 37% SCHOOLSn 7% QUIET: 9% PEOPLE: 7% NEIGHBORHQOD: 11X EVERYTHING: 6% SMAL: 6% CLEAN: 2% WELL--RUN: 4% 90 What do you like LEAST about livi g in Mounds View? DON'T KNOW; 23% NOTHING; 24% GROWTH: 5Y. PIPELINE: 4'/. ROADS: b'/ NOISE: 4% LOCATION: 7% BLIGHT: 5% HWYo 10: 4% CITY GOV: 5% TAXES: 2% CITY SERVICES: 7% OTHER: 4% 9. Do you think that things in Mounds RIGHi' DIRECTION.......82% View are moving in the right di- WR NG TRACK.>..........9% rection or do you feel they have DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED.....9'/. gotten off on the wrong track? IF "WRONG TRACK" IN QUESTION #9, ASK: 10. Why do you feel that way? SPRAWL: 1% GOVERNMENT: 3% PLANNING: 4% OTHER: 1% 11. How much pride do you take in the GREAT DEAL............23% City of Mounds View as a place to QUITE A LOT...........44% live -- a great deal, quite a lot, 50ME ..................2'6% some, or very little? VERY LITTLE..,.........4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 12. If you had the chance, would you YES ...................32% like to move away from your NO ....................64% residence in Mounds View? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..:..4% IF "YE5" IN QUESTION #12, ASK: 13. Why would you like to move? UPGRADE: 18% CLIMATE: 2% RETIRE: 3% JOB: 2% MOVE TO COUNTRYc 4% OTHER: 3% 14. Where would you like to move? IN70 MINN/ST. PAUL.....2% WITHIN MOUNDS VIEW.....bY. ANDTHER SUBURB........13Y. FURTHER FRDM DDWNTOWN..4% OUT OF MINNESO7A.......7% DON'T KNDW/REFUSED.....2% 15. If you were moving to another city, what factor would be most important to you in seleeting your new place of residence? DON'T KNOWe 14% LOCATION: 18% CLIMATE: 5X BETTER HOUSE: 15% JOB: 10% SCHOOLS: 11% AREAe i1X SMALL TOWN: b% COST: 9% IF RESPONSE GIVEN IN QUESTION #15, ASK: 2 rr - -- ' -' - -- ---- -_- =- - _, . ._ .. __..: -- - - . .._ _ . v I I u f F ib. How would you rate Mounds EXCELLENT.........••••15Y• View on that -- excellent, GOOD ..................41'/. goad, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIRo............14% POOR ...................7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% 1 17. If it were needed to maintain FAVORo ...............e377. city services at their current OPPOSE ................48% level, would you favor or oppose DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....15% an increase in city property taxes? 18. Do you consider property taxes in EXCESSIVELY HIGN.......6% Mounds View to be excessively RELATIVELY HIGHa......19% high, relatively high, about ABOUT AVERAGE.........55% average, or camparatively low? COMPARATIVELY LOW......7. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13% I would like to read you a list of changes in city services which could be made to avoid increases in taxes or special assessments. For each one, please tell me if you would favor that change as an alternative to higher taxes, or if you would oppose that change even if it meant higher taxes. 19. 20. Increase the time it takes police to respond to a non- emergency call to save funding more positions? Increase the time it takes to plow city streets after a snow storm? FAVOR OPPOSE 36% 38% 57% 56Y. D.K./REF. H% b•/. 21. Decrease the amount of funds spent on the maintenance and upkeep of city parks? 33% 58X 9• 22. Reduce the amount of street maintenance undertaken each year? 26Y. 65% 9% 23. Reduce the frequency of inspeetions and response time to camplaints about violations of c i ty resident i al cr des? 38'/. 46% 16'/. As you may know, property taxe are divided between the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, and your local public school district. R-- -- =____. .----- -- -- ___ k_..___....-- — -- _ . z; s. a r : _ . . ._ _ , - - —_--- --- - - = - -= a.Y> : _ __ 1: t i Y 24. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT...... /. you payv about wt at percentage do 10% TO 20%....e.•.....27% you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30%0........... 1 . ment2 31% TO 40%............04% 41% TO 50Y ..............5% 51% TO b% .............0% bl% TO 70%......... ,..1% OVER SEVENTY PERCENT...O% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....40% I would like to read you a list of a few services provided by the City or County. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. EXC GOOD C]NLY POOR D.K./ FAIR REF. 25. Park Maintenance 18% 6b% 13'/. 3% OY• 26. Snow Plowing 23% 56Y. 16% SX 0% 27. Pol iee Protection 24% 61'/ 7% 1'/• 7 28 Fire Protection 19% 62Y. 4% 1X 13% 29. City Street Maintenance 30. Animal Control 31. Waste and Storm Water Control 32. Water for Resi- dential Use 10% 9% 7% 14% 58% 25Y. 54Y. 18% 59% 15% 8% O% 12% 9 % 10% 9% 62'/ 13 % 10% Z'• IF "DNLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #25-32, ASK FOR EACH ONE: 33. Why did you rate ___ as (only fair/poor)? ANIMALS: 10% HAD WATER: 11% FLOODS: 6Y. POTHOLES: 5% SLOW RESPONSE: 9% ANIMALS-FLOODS-STREETS: 10% DIRTY: 3% STREETS-FLOODS-WATERe bY. OTHER COMBO: SY. Let's talk about Mounds View City Government for a few minutes. When many people think about their local government, they think of the elected offi ials who represent them.... 34. How much da you feel you know GREAT DEAL .............5'/• about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT..........a29Y. City Council -- a great deal, VERY LIiTLE..e........63% a fair amount, or very little? DDN'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% c j . . . ' .. . . . . . .. . . " _ _ _ I _N_ ' ' _ i.ii't ...z f " : ._ __._'". _ 'J',. _.`Ijy'_._ ._I ._. -_. ._-.._ ___.a' __ _._ ... .__—_" ` . ___" -- t. _- _ " I . n L _.:. r 35. From what you know, do you approve S7RONGLY APPROVE.,.e..15% or disapprove of the job the Mayor SOMEWHAT APPROVE......54% and City Council are doing? (WAIT SOMEWHAT DISAPPR VE....5% j FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVEs...3% strongly that way? DON'T KNOWIREFU5ED....24% t 36. Have you or any members of this YES.......:: e::::::. 33% household had contact with the NO......,e .58% Mounds View City st aff during DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% the past year? 1 37. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT ..............e% how would you rate the job per- GOOD ..................59% i formance of the Mounds View City NLY FAIR ..............9% staff -- excellent, good, only PDOR...oe ..............3% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....22% 38. Do you feel that the amount of T00 LITTLE............15% police patrolling in your neigh- ABOUT RIGHT...........BO% borhood is too little, about TOO MUCH ...............4'f. l right, or too much? DON'T KNDW/REFUSED.....1% IF "TOO LITTLE" IN QUESTION #38, ASK: 39. Would you favor or oppose FAVOR..........°mo.....9% the hiring of more poli e OPPOSE......e...e......5% officers to expand patrols, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% even if it meant an in- crease in property taxes? ILet's talk about economi development•in Mounds View.... 40. If the City were to attract more development, what kind j would you prefer it to be? DON'7 KNOW: 17% SHOPS: 13% RESIDENTIAL: 191. OFFICE: 13% INDUSTRIAL: 26% NONE: 3% RECREATIONAL: 3% OTHER: 3Y. 41. Do you feel that the pace of TOO RAPID .............127. eommercial and industrial devel- ABOU7 RIGHT...........65'/. opment in the city has been too NDT FAST ENOUGH.......20% rapid, about right, or not fast DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% enough? 42. Are there any dilapidated or sub-standard areas of the city in which you would particularly favor re-develapment? (IF YES," ASK:) What are they? DON'T KIVDW: 10% NONE: 78% TRAILERSe 2% APTS: 2X CO I: 2'/. HWY. 10: i% HOUSES; 2% MISC. AREAS: 3% NORTH AREA: 2% 5 j r i 1+ I 43. Of the following types of devel- RESIqENTIAL...........19% opment, which ONE would you RETAIL SHOPPING,......23% most favor along the Highway 10 OFFICE BUILDINGS......17% corridor between County Road I INDUSTRIAL............16'l. and Spring Lake Park? ALL EQUALLY (VOL).....18% READ CHOICES #1-#4) DON'T CARE (VOL).......2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% 44o What is the location of your principal retail shopping area? NONE: 2% MOUNDS VIEW SQUAREs 23% NORTHTOWN: 51% OTHER: 2% ROSEDALE: 15% NEW HRIGHTON: 4% NEW MARKET: 4% 45. Ove all, about how much of your VIRTUALLY ALL.........,b% retail purchases do you make in MOST ..................17% Mounds View -- virtually all, SOME ..................46% most, some, or little to none? LITTLE TO NONE........31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...e.0% IF "SOME" OR "LITTLE TO NONE," ASK: 46. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you don't shop more in Mounds View? NO REASON: 26% NO STORES: 28% NO SEL CTIONe 35% PREFER OTHER: 8% COSTn 2% SHOP WHERE WORK: 1% 47s Have you visited Mounds View City YES.ms,.o.,o.oao.ema..52`/. Hall during the past twelve NO..o .................49% months? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....OY. IF "YES" IN QUESTION #47, ASK: For each of the following charaeteristics, please rate the Mounds View City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EXC GOOD ONLY POOR D.K./ FAIR REF. 48. Convenience of City Hall hours? 9% 49. Waiting time for service? 18% 50. Courtesy of the staff? 20% 51 Eificiency of the staff? 14% 52m Cleanliness of the building? 23% 371. 4% 2% OY. 28% 2% 2'7% 2% 31% 4% 2B% O% 1% 2% 1% 17. 1% 2% o% 1% y.. -: ' _. ' . . . - .. _ .r:. : '. .' _ " '"r-°c . "' . _ i . _ . . . _ . " . ' jtLGr:'if...)_ .i^ zi...r....__ "i __:i -«:" .".' .. .. __. __` -" =crb__=1_ ___r_._ .— _.i_.w_ 4 Ramsey County will soon require all residents to separate recy- clables from their trash. The City of Mounds View is currently reviewing alternatives to comply with the county requirement. N 53. Do you currently separate recy- clables from the rest of your garbage? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #53, ASKs YES ...................37% N ................o...b3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDoomam0% Which of the following materials do you recycle? 54. Glass? 55. Newspapers and cardboard? 56. Metal and aluminum? IF RECYCLING ANY MATERIALS, ASKa YES NO b% 31% 2b% 12% 30% 7% 57. How and where do you recycle them? D.K. REF. O% O% O e i oi. oi ST. PAUL: 2% PAPER DRIVES: 2% 7-11: 7% CHURCH: 2% GROCERY STORES: 9% COMBO: B% PICK-UP: c% OiHER: b% Recycling will start in the Spring. One way to meet the county requirement is for the City to establish a curbside pick-up of separated recyclable materials. Households would be asked to separate recyclables from the rest of their trash and haulers would carry them away. . 58. If the City instituted a pick-up VERY LIKELY...........59Y. system, how likely would you be SOMEWHAT LIKELY......026'/. ta use it -- very likely, some- NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....12% what likely, or not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% 59. If you could save about fifteen YES.......e...........871. percent on your garbage hauling NO.e ................... s% bill by participatang in the pro- DON'T KNDW/REFUSED.....5% grama would you do so? b0. Do you currently compost your waste yard materials? IF "YES," ASK: ble What compost Slt@ do you use? YES ...................47% NOe ...................49% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...a.6'/. BACKYARDt 22% MOUNDS VIEWa 15% ARDEN PARK: 8% OTHER: 3% As you may know, several refuse haulers serve Mounds View, This 1 arrangement has permitted citizens to choose their own haulers and contract directly with them. But, it has also created significant overlap between the haulers and increased noise and L _., : r. .. :: 1'a . '- —.. _. . Fs: :_ - - — - congestion on city streetso 62. Of the following three proposals, which da you most favor: A. 7he City contracts with one hauier to serve the entire city. B. The City contracts with a group of haulers, each serving one area of Mounds View exclu- sively. C. The present system. PROPOSAL A.....,......16% PROPOSAL 8............20% PROPOSAL C.....a...o..50% DON'T CARE (VOL).......2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12% Traditionally, the City has provided residents with basie ser- vices, such as police and fire protection, and street mainten- ance. Some cities also provide social services to their resi- dents, such as Chemical Abuse Programs, Counseling, Day Care, and Senior Services. 63. Would you favor ar oppose the City of Mounds View expanding its current service provision to include social services? YES ...................49Y. NO ....................431. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% 64. In general, do yau feel that the SERIOUS PROBLEM........b% condition and upkeep of city MINOR PROBLEM.........64% streets is a serious problem in NO PROBLEM............34% Mounds View, a minor problem, DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe....0'/ or no problem at all? IF "SERIOUS," IN QUESTION #64, ASK: b5. Why do you feel that way? POTHOLES: 4X SILVER LAKE RD: bb. Do you feel that the City is too tough about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code regarding residential property maintenance for weed control, outdoor storage, junk cars, animal control, and noise? 1% OTHERt lY T00 TOUGH ..............2% ABOUT RIGHT.e.........60`/. NOT TOUGH ENOUGH......3Z% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....b% IF "T00 TOUGH" OR "NOT TDUGH ENOUGH" IN QUE5TION #66, ASK: bie Why do you feel that way? ANIMALS: 3% JUNK CARS: b% YARDS: 11% COMBO: 8% HOUSES: 2% 700 PICKY: 2% OTHER: 2% 68. How erious do you feel the VERY SERIOUSm........o11Y. problem of storm water manage- NOT TQO SERIOUS.......34% ment is in Mounds View -- very N07 A PROBLEM.ao......43'/. serious, not too serious, or DON'T KNDW/REFUSEDo....7% not a problem at all? 8 1 Currently, the City uses a system of ponds to cor trol the run-off from storms. 69. Would you favor or oppose the construction of storm water sewers in the city? (WAIT OR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVDR........il% FAVOR .................24% OPPOSE ................27% STRONGLY OPPOSE.......19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...o19% Although no formal proposals have been made, if the city were to l construct storm sewers, it would require the passage of a bond r ef er endum . 70. How much more would you be willing to pay in property taxes to sup- port construction of storm sewers? START WITH RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FR M ##1 - #7) Let's say would you be willing to pay ____ per year? iMOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN/REPEAT) NOTHING ...............37% 25...e ............... 11% 50...0 ............... 15% 75 ..............e.....SY. 100 ...................67. l25 ...................2% 150..a ................2'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....23% 71. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT .............29% reational facilities in Mounds GOOD ..................58% View -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR ..............8% fair, or poor? POOR ...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% 72. In general, do you usually spend OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES....7Q% your leisure time in outdoor INDOOR ACTIVITIESe.....8% activities, weather permitting, BOTH ................'..20% or indoor activities? ND LEISURE TIME........0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1'/. 73. Are you more apt to participate UNORGANIZED...........71% in unorganized recreation, such ORGANIZED.........•...12'/. as bicycling, walking, picnics, BOTH EQUALLY..........15Y. or skating, or in organized NEITNER ................0% recreation, such as team sports? D N'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 74. In the past year, have you or any YES..........e.......e27Y. member of your household partici- NO ....................69% pated in a city-sponsored recre- DON'T KNOW/REFU5ED.....3% ationai program? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #?4, ASKe 75. Do you feel that the regis- tration fees are excessively high, comparatively high, about average, comparatively low, or very low2 IF "'NO" IN QUESTION #74, ASK: 9 i EXCESSIVELY HIGH.......0% COMPARATIVELY HIGH.....1% ABOUT AVERAGE.........29% COMPARATIVELY LOW.e....4% VERY LOW.......o....... 11. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% z=_ v- C E .. . r ,. :.. , .-_.l'_ . .. '.,': _:- _- ....-. ..-. ._,__-.. ..... L_ I"" __' ' _ ____-__. _ t. ..' ' ' " _ '_ '. . . "'_ .. _ .__ _ IF "NO" IN QUESTION #74 ASK: 76. Could you tell me one ar two reasons why you haven't? NO REASON: 45% NO TIME: 18% NO INTEREST: 8% NO KIDS: 4% GO ELSEWHERE: 12% AGE-HEALTH: 8% UNAWARE: 4% 77. Could you tell me about haw often ALMOST DAILY............3% you and other members of your SEVERAL TIMES PER WEEK.22'/. household have used the park and ONCE PER WEEK,.........15% 1 recreational facilities in Mounds SEVERAL TIMES PER MONTHI6% View during the past year, weather ONCE PER MONTH..........5% permitting? fREAD CHOICES #1 - SEVERAL TTMES PER YEARoZS'/. 7 NOT AT ALL .............12Y. 1 AON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2'/. IF "DNCE PER WEEK" OR MORE IN QUESTION #77, ASK: 78. What kinds of activities do you engage in? WALKING: 8% PLAYGROUND: 8% SKATING: 2% BALL: 10% TENNIS: 2% COMBO-4+: 5Y. OTHER: 3% IF "SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR" OR "NOT AT ALL" IN QUESTION #77, ASK: . 79. Is there some particular reason why your household does not use the park and recreation system more frequently? NO REASON: 68% NO TIME: 11% NO INTEREST: 4% NO KIDS: 2% GO ELSEWHERE: 7% AGE-HEALTH: 5'/. NOT AWARE: 2% 80. Would you favor or oppose a bond FAVOR .................41% referendum to upgrade and com- OPPOSE ................45'/. plete the Mounds View Park UNDECIDED .............il% System? REFUSED....s...-••••••- 3% 81. What is your principal sour e of information about City recreational programs and opportunities? NONE: B% PEOPLE: 7% NEWSLET7ER: 48% BUL ETINa 11% FLYERSa 8% PAPERS: 18% OTHER: 1% B2. Would you favor or oppose the FAVDR .................46% City developing and operating OPPOSE....a.....•..... 44% a regulation nine-hole golf DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% course? 63. Whether you favor the project YES ...................51% or not, would you and/or members NO ....................47% of this household be likely to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1. use the golf course? r 10 I 1 p 84. Should the city attempt to pre- PRESERVE....00e.e.a.o.70% serve wetlands in Mounds View or ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT.12'1. should it encourage development BOTH (VOL)........00..10% on those lands? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% IF "PRESERVE" IN QUESTION #84, ASKe 85. Would you favor or oppose a FAVOR...........e....•5?'/• property tax increase to OPPOSE ................147. permit the city to purchase DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo....5% the wetlands for preserva- tion? As you may know, Ramsey County will be constructing a county library in Mounds View. In addition to a collection of books that residents may borrow, the lihrary will also cantain an information service and provide other basic reader services. I would like to read you a list of features the library could contain. For each one, please tell me how likely it is that you or members of your household would use that service. Would you say it is very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely? VERY SOME NOT AT D.K./ LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY REF. Bb. Video cassettes for loan? 39% 87. Story Hour and 5ummer Reading programs for children? 18% 8B. Reader Advisory Service for recommending books? 14% 89. Meeting Rooms? b 90. Space for quiet study? 16% 91. Craft programs for children? 16% 92. Puppet shows? 17 93. "Book Talks" by local authors and and reviewers? 1 94. Homebound Services to deliver books to shut- 1 T15? 10%• 1 il 36'/. 21 Y. 32'/. 15'/ 32% 21% 17% 35% 1 E1 s ZS% 61% 53% 79% 52% 63'/. bb% 53% 73% C Y OX 1 s O% O% O% O% 2% 1% r __ __ : _ r.. — — C._ . ; a . S _ _ T_.. .. ' _"_ . t '="„°—_._ -__.__'. I ti 95. What is your principal source of information about city government and its activities? NONE: 9% PEOPLEs 5% NEWSLETTER: 38% BLJLLETIN: 15% TV: 3X PAPER: 27% OTHER: 4% 96. Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with your level of information about city govern- ment and its activities? 97. Does your household currently receive tha "New Brighton Bulletin"? (IF "YES," ASKa) Do you generally read that newspaper? SATISFIED.........o...B3'/. DISSATISFIED..........12% DON'T KNOWIREFUSED.,...4% RECEIVE/READ..........74% RECEIVE/DON'T READ.....9% DON'T RECEIVE..00.....15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% f98. Does your household currently RECEYVE/READ..........bl% receive "The Focus"? (IF "YES," RECEIVE/DON'T READ....16% A5K:) Do you generally read D N'T RECEiVE.........18% Ithat newspaper? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% 49a Other than voting, do you feel YES ................:..71% that if you wanted to, you could NO ....................19% have a say about the way the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% City of Mounds View runs things? i 100. Do you recall receiving the Moundsview City Newsletter"? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #100, ASK: 101, Do you or any members of your household regularly read it? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #101, ASK: ' 102. Do you tend to keep it around for later referenee or toss it after you have read through it? YES ...................86'/. NO....a ...............11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe....3% YES ...................80% NO.....................b% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% KEEP I7' AROUND........43'1. TOSS IT ...............25% BOTH/DEPENAS ON ISSUE.I2Y. DON'T KNDW/REFUSED.....1% 103. Are there any changes or impravements in the °format or the coverage e hich you would like to see? NONE: 65% COMMUNITY EVENTS: 3% COUNCIL SUMMARIES: 3% 1 4. Does your hausehold currently reeeive cable television? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #104, ASK: YES.,..o......<....... 43% NO....................57% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe....0% s. . ._Y, ._ _ ._"'_', r._t__.. _ =" ____.. f-s,_'c'_'. _"'-f i..-_._ ..__ ._.._i-'_;:,. ...'i__._..._.- - 145. City Council Meetings are televised on cable tele- vision. How frequently do you watch these broadcasts very frequently, occa- sionally, or never? VERY FREQUENTLY........2Y. OCCASIONALLY..........10% NEVER .................31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "VERY FREQUENTLY" OR "OCCASIONALLY" IN QUE5TION #105 ASK: 106. Are there any changes or improvements in the broadcasts that you would like to see? NONE: 7% CITY INFOt 1'/. BETTER SOUND: 2% Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... 107. Do you own or rent your present residence? 10 o Which of the -following bes C describes your residence? READ CHOICES) OTHER: OWNo..o ...............79% RENT ..................21% REFUSEDo...e...o.......0% SINGLE FAMILY DWELL...7b'/. APARTMENTo........e...17% TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM..2% MOBILE HOME............4% OTHER ..................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your householdo Let's start oldest to young- est, and be sure to count yourself. 104. Are there anY persons over the age of 65 living in this residence? 110. Are there any schoo-aged child- ren living in this household? 11,. Are there any pre-s hoolers in this residence? 11. What is your age, please? READ CATEGORIES) YES ...................12% NO....................BB'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% YES ...................37% NO....................63% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% YES ...................22% ND ....................78% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 18-24.........e........4% 25-34 .................27'1. 35-44 .................28% 45-54.........o.......16% 55-64 .................12% 65 AND OVER............7% REFUSED........e.......i% 13 ' C; ' _ ... . , . .c,_r _F --. . 1 Fy_ "' . :"' . ..., 1...-. v. ' - '- '-'-- '--- - - '... . _ . I f \ 1 i- 113. What is the occupation of the head of this household? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL: 23% OWNER-MANAGER: 16% CLERICAL-SALES: 14% BLUE COLLARs 31% RETIRED: 11% SCATTERED: 4% REFUSED: 3% 114. What is your present marital SINGLE ................15Y. status, please? Are you pre- MARRIED ...............73% sently single, married, divorced DIVORCED ...............9% or widawed? WIDOWED........... ...3% REFUSED......o.........0% IF "MARRIED" IN QUESTION #115, ASK: 115. Do both spouses work outside YES ...................42% the home? NO ....................28% D N'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% llbe Can you tell me approximately . BELOW 10,000..........3% what is the level of income for 10,001-20,000........9% all members of your household 20,001-30,000.......25% before any taxes? Is the total 30,01-40,004....e..18% annual income: $40,001-50 000.......20% fREAD CHOICES #1-#7) 50,001-bO,000........B% OVER #60,000...........6% DON'T KNOW .............3% REFUSED................8'/. 117. Sex (HY DBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) MALE ..................51% FEMALE ................49'1. ZONES: i : 24'!. 2: 21% 3: 28% 4m z7% 14 Declslon Resour es Lt . 1 . i . a l '` `? I . V I EW RES I DENT I AL Sl rilEY IMDUIDS ur ertaken for . 1 Tr-iE C I TY OF MOUINDSV I EN i i March. 1988 t : : - V IN'E ONE : : SLRVEY M IGI IGHTS AND ANALYSIS ' . i I: 3128 Dean Court • Minnea olis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-0337P s . .s, t m _ . : -- ---- --- ---. ._ --— -- - --- x— 5 R't'EX O'VERV' I EW Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results of this study to the City of Mounds Viewo This section provides a brief introduction to the specifications of the survey and a guide to the organization of the written analysis. While the most statistically sound procedures have been used to collect and analyze the information presented herein, it must always be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions. They are designed to measure public opinion within identi iable limits of accuracy at specific points in timee This survey is in no way a prediction of opinians, perceptians, or actions at any future point in time. After all, in public policy analysis, the major task is to impact these revealed opinions in a constructive i fashion. The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D. I Morris; the Project Director overseeing all phases of the i research and analysis was Ms. Diane Traxler. Research Design This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 402 randomly selected residents of the City of Mounds Viewo 5urvey responses were gathered on March 21-28, 1988< 7he average interview toak twenty-three minutes. All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a I randomly generated sample of the citye In general, random 1 samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of riounds View residents within + 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Interviews were canducted by Decision Resourcesv Ltd., trained personnel from telephone banks in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were i independently validated for procedure and cantent by a Decision i F2esources9 Ltd., sup rvisor. Completed interviews were edited and coded at the company's headquarters in Minneapolis Minnesota. Statistical analysis and cross tabulations were produced by the company's direct job entry access facility to the University of Minnesota CYBER Computer System. r aQni aait ion mf ttae S uidy The results of this study are presented in the following order: The A VYA_YSI consists of a written report of the major findings. The results contained herein were also presented verbally to the client. The Qr S1fION1 NAIRE reproduces the survey instrument as it was used in the interviewinq process. This section also includes a response frequency distribution for eacY question. Last is the C Ol1 PUT which includes all statistically t significant cross tabulations and any multivariate statistical analyses. R Any further questions the reader may have about this study t which are not answered in this report shauld be directed to either Dr. Morris or Ms. Traxler. 2 r \ I 1LYS I s y I' .. . . . : , . . _ . 3 t i r l:l :' ' i l-_;j' ection One: Residen ial IDewographics .....................Page 6 Residential Longevity # Prior Residence and Motivation for Move Out-Migration Home Ownership - Household Compositian * Age Workforce * Income * Residential Areas Sec ion Two: Aualiity af Life .............................Page 17 Quality of Life Rating - Positive and Negative Attributes of Mounds View General Direction of the Community Community Pride - Movement Out of Mounds View Alienation 14 sc ction Three: Taxes ar d Spending ........................Page 27 Tax Increase to Maintain Services * Perception of Property Taxes - Budget Cuts versus Tax Increases Property Tax Share of City ' Section Four: Ci y Serrrices.o...a ........................Page 35 General City Services Evaluations * Police Patrolling City as Social Service Provider * The Condition of City Streets City Codes Storm Water Management and Storm Sewers ion Five: City 6ove rrr n and S aff ..................Page 49 Knowledge about City Government * City Staff * City Hall Scc aon Six: Developwneenit aAnd 6r0iwtfhn< . . . . . . . . e . . , . . . . . . . o .Page 56 Preferred Development # pace of Development - Dilapidation Development along Highway 10 * Principal Shopping Area - General 5hopping Behavior a iti n Sevena Solid tlalas e Manage erw :.. ............e,..Page 63 Current Recycling City Curbside Pick-Up Composting * Refuse Haulers Section Eigh:. Parlks amid Recreatian Issu es :..............Page 71 Evaluation of the Park and Recreation System - Leisure Time Activities - City-Sponsored Recreational Programs - Frequency of Facilities Usage * Completion of the Park System - Principal Source of Recreation information * Municipal Golf Course Wetlands Preservation Ramsey. County Library 5ervices Sec iorw Nirne: City Co nications........a ...............Page 86 Primary Source of City Government Informatio rr* Satis- faction with City Communications The "New Brightoni, , Bulletin" "The Focus" The "Maunds View City News- letter" * Cable Television 4 _ f i . y SECT I ON Of J' ! RES I DEI T I AL DE.N06RF P I CS l ' r. , _ . y - Y: . . . i_ . . . . . I 5 I _. w - _ ._. . . . r -- . . a RESIDEN7IAL DEMOGRAPHICS Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions in order to first, establish a community profile, and second, to identify large subgroups within the city which might exhibit different behavior from their peers. The composite also permits comparison of the sample with the actual census statistics.on the community and validation of the sample. This se tion will discuss the community at large, with attention to both the past growth patterns of Mounds View as well as speculations about its future. By comparing the current composition of the city's citizenry with I potential future trends, extrapolations about policy demands can be systematically deduced. Residential Lonqev_itY: I Residents were first asked: Approxn nately Ihow lorag Ihave you lived a n McooYradl s'V i ew 2 About one-third of ti e sample reported moving to Maunds View i during the past two years: LESS THAN TWO YEARSae .....................14% 5 YEARS ..............................021% b -_10 YEARS ..............................15% 11 20 YEARS. .29'/. 21 - 30 YEARS .............................12% OVER THIRTY YEARS.....e .................... 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....e..e...e........oe.oa0% A little over one-fifth had resided in the city for over twenty years. Median longevity was about 10.5 years. Although not experiencing the population changeaver of many other areass Mounds View has certainly not stagnated as have many inner ring suburbso b kV --__,.:c..::. 1.._._ _... . 1:+_ b:i` _ .. _ : i It is possible to roughly profile the waves of in-migration which have characterized the citys Less than two y ar residents tended to be: Moved from out of the state Job reasons caused move Less than five year future residents Renters Pre-schoolers in the households 18-34 year o 1 d s The renters, in particular, are "transients," planning to move in the near future. Two-to-five year residents weree Moved from New Brighton and rest of Ramsey i County Renters Pre-schoolers in the households i * 25-34 year olds Singles 50,000-60,000 yearly household incomes 1 Unlike the previous group, this wave of residents choose deliberately to move to Mounds View. Six-to-ten year residents tended to be a mixe Eleven-to-twenty year residents weree Moved from Hennepin County suburbs and Minneapolis Moved for school reasons or liked the area Plan to stay at least six more years School aged children contained in households 35-54 year olds Over 40,000 yearly household incomes During the late 1960's and through the 1970's, the school district played a key role in attracting families to the city. Twenty-one-to-thirty year residents were: Moved from Minneapolis Moved to be near family 55-64 year olds The mass Minneapolis exodus hit Mounds View in late 1950's and 7 I. : :_ __ _ _ __ __ _ __: ___ _ w _ __ __ , . _ . _ extended into the next decade. 1 Over thirty year residents included: Mounds View natives Planning to remain for the rest of their lives Seniors in the households i* Over SS year oids 10,000-20,000 yearly household incomes IThis nine percent of the population represents the "settlers" of the community. i The patterns suggest that Mounds View was one of the earliest suburbs in its ring to experience the large influx from the core cities. After that time, movement was largely confined i to lateral shifts from neighboring suburbs. As a city, it is still able to attract young families; the major problem is keeping them in Mounds View. Prior Residence and Motivation for Move: Mounds View, because of its geographical location, has been able to attract people from both core cities; in many ways, it is more of a Hennepin County suburb than a Ramsey County one. To further explore this result, respondents were asked: In what ca ty and/or sta e +as yaur we dli+t prior resideir cQ lncataed? Mounds View has pulled phenomenally well from all directions: MOUNDS VIEW NATIVE .........................5°1. SAINT PAUL..ve...a ........................ 13% MINNEAPOL_IS.e.e.a.ea.e.,.e...o............ 19% REST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY.a .................. 9% NEW BRIGHTON.. o ...................° 7% RES7 OF RAMSEY .COUNTY e • 8`• ANOKA COUNTY.o....o.e ................ 0....20% REST OF MINNESOTA.o .................... 0..12% OUT OF STATE...a....oee ............. eve....9% The core cities account for only thirty-two percent of the prior 9 i k --- _. - ...<i , _.. r._ :;,. _. --- ---- . _ _ . . i - i homes of residents. Other suburban areas produced forty-four percent of the current householdso Qutstate and other parts of the country, twenty-one percent. Mounds View has not only successfully provided starter homes 4 for families departing the Twin Cities, but has become the i location of choice by many suburban residents. Although the I influx of suburbanites reached its zenith about four years ago, even taday a large number make inter-suburban moves into the city. Respondents were also asked why they choose Maunds View: ul rou itell n e o or wo reasons wlhy you oved to 1our ds Viea; The chief attraction was affordable housinge DON'T KNOW.......e..........e .............ob% AFFORDABLE HOUSING..00 .............a.....035% i JOB LOCATION ..............................20% NEAR FAMILY ..............e................ 12% CDNVENIENT LOCATION..........e....e......e10'/. LIKED AREA .................................e% QUALITY OF SCHOOLS ................e........b% TO LEAVE TWIN CITIES ................e......4% Job location and convenience to the core cities were almost as 1 popular reasons as the affordability of housingo But, as we shall see, the lack of "better" housing is a cause of the movement away from the community of many young familieso I Out-Miqrations The other side of mobility, prospective out-migration, was assessed through: As tM irngs r e+ staind, Iho long ixn the futur o rou expec ito 1 ive in lMounds V' i e+w? About thirty perCent o' the residents tend to move in the next five years, typical of many suburban areas: LESS THAN TWO YEARS .......................10'/. 2 - S YEARS ...............................17% b - 10 YEARS ............................e..8% OVER TEN YEARS ...........................16% REST OF LIFE (VOL.>......a ................ 31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......a ............... e.17% The number of households indicating an impending move within twenty-four months is larger than the narmo t Prospective movers tended to be: Renters 18-35 year olds Over 60,000 yearly household incomes Marginal comments pointed to housing "up-grades" as the major reason for moving from Mounds Viewe It should also be noted that households with pre-schoolers were much less likely to report an impending move from the city -- implying that the quality of schaols is a major factor in remaining in the communityo Home Ownership: Mounds View residents were asked: po yorr oaarn r -ent yo nr presen+ esideruce2' Nearly eighty percent of the residents owned their current residencese OWN..................................... ee79'/. RENT..e ................................... 21'/e REFUSED...........................e........ 0% Home owners tended to be: Over 35 year olds Married 7wo wage-earner households Over 40,000 yearly incomes Precinct 1 residents Renters were more frequently: 10 llnder 35 year o 1 ds 5ingle Under 30,000 yearly household incomes Precinct 3 residents There are very distinct social and economic differences between the two groups. Respondents were also asked about their current residences: WfhicN f itihe following bes describes your iresi enice? SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING .................o..7b'/. APARTMENT....a............ e.e ............. 17% TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM ......................2% MOBILE HOME..e ............................. 4% OTHER.vo.e...e..o .......................... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................0% Townhouses and condominiums, like single family dwellings, were owned by the resident. Apartments, naturally, were rentedo Mobile homeso however, were split between owners and renters. Household Comeosition: Each resident was asked a group of questions about their householdse They were instructed: Could ymu,x please tell iwe haw any e opl irw act of ithe follo wing age groups 1 i v i xw youir Ihouseh o 1. Let' s start oldlest ito you rx7es t, and e sure ito cour it yourself _ Older f amily members were ascertained first: A re thiere aray persox rs over the age of 65 flivnrr n ithis resi ernce? Twelve percent of the households reported at least one member over the age of sixty-five: YES......o.....e .......................... 12% NO...e...e.e......., oe°o..o..a,..o....0...88% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDeooe,00 a=•== a....0% 1 This percen'tage xs somewhat higher than the norm for the 11 Metropolitan Area suburbs. 1 Next, school-aged children: Are there any sclheool-aged childrem living in his household'? Nearly forty percent of the respondents reported school-aged 1 children living in their homes: YES..... 00a .................... o...o,..o. e37% O. . 63% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED............a......•..... 0% IMounds View has an exceptionally high percentage of households containing school children. i Finally, pre-schoolers were assessede Are here a ny pre-scM oolers in this res i er°GCe2 i Over twenty percent of the households reported pre-schoolerse YES...a .............. e................. oa.22% NO..................................... e.a78% DON'T KNOW/RE USED ......................... p•/. 7his proportion is only several percentage points below such i young family "boom areas" as Eagan. Mounds View is a unique mix of older residents and young families. Clearly, the existing housing mix and the quality of the school 5ystem play a key role in attracting the latter. But whether it will be able to maintain this dynamic equilibrium, or as affordable housing becomes available in Anoka County and elsewhere, begin a rapid aging process, is hard to tell. For the thou h the demographic mix is one of the most desirable present, g in the suburbs. Aqe o Mounds View residents were asked: 12 x .. .._ . . - ._ "- G,. __._ - 1 ,< , 1 at is your ages please? The median age was found to be 40 years oldt 18-24,a...e .............. eevo.....eee...o..9% 25-34 .......................e.....o....... 27% 35-44 .....................................28% 45-54 ...............e..................... 16% 55-64.a ................................... 12X 65 AND OVER ..............................0.7'/. REFUSED..........................o.....e...l% 25-44 year olds constitute a majority of the residents. The age I distribution also suggests that the turn-over of "starter homes" from "empty nesters" to young families is not a problem. Workforce: This study indicates a narrow white collar majority across Mounds View. Professional/Te hnical, Owner/Manager, and Clerical/Sales households together account for over ane-half of the sampleo However, the largest occupational group are Blue Collar workers at thirty-one percento Respondents were asked: hat is occupation of the head bf h i s Iho se ho 1 d? Overall: PROFESSIONAL/T CHNICAL ....................23% OWNER/MANAGER...........e....a............ lb% CLERICAL/SALES.........e .................. 14% BLUE COLLAR ....................e.......... 31% RETIRED....e .............................. 11Y. SCATTERED ..................e............... 4% REFUSED.....o............ e ................. 3% Since blue collar and white collar employees have different expectations about city services and markedly dissimilar attitudes toward taxing and spending, the city may find itself split on many issues. In fact, the quest for a consensus may be made quite difficult in Mounds View, given the current population I ciemographics. Coherent and rational long-term, broad policies 13 T_ : ___ ____ .._s _= _ _ _. . N w.. . _ ._ _ ________- ___ _ _. _._ may be very difficult to generate support or enthusiasm for. 1 Instead, each issue may need to be approached uniquely guided by its peculiarities and impact on the various groups composing the municipality. Income: To as ertain househald income levels, respondents were asked: Can you tell iwe approxi ately w+hat is he le+rel of inco e for all e+ers tif your Ihou sehold efore any axes? Is the ito al armual incowe: The median household income was approximately 34,5000 BELOW 10,000 ............................. 03'/. 10,001-20,000 ............................ 9'/. 20,001-$30,000 ........................... 25'/. 30,01-40,OOO.e ......................... 18'/. 40,001-50 OOU........e .................. 20'/• S O y O O S ' E O y O O O . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . B % OVER 60,000 ..............e................ 6% DON'T KNOW.••...,......° a,e ............... 8% i REFUSED...... Owner/Managers and Professional/Technicals helped inflate the community average. In addition, fifty-eight percent of the married households reported that both spouses worked outside the homes also raising income levels. The Ihounds View median income level is about 4,500 below the metropolitan area suburban norm. Residential Areass For detailed analysis, Mounds View was broken down into four areas, following precinct linese During the reminder nf t"115 report, attitudinal and behavioral differences between precincts will be examined and commented upono i 14 Z _ _ "'- ___' . Pi -Yi.... ._____e l::.r_ . . =i Iu,x:. w =.,_ L,..:' _ -'— —.c._-_.,. 4: i« _. - =-" '.s _ .. i N Summary and Conclusions: Mounds View is a very heterogeneous community, reflecting the rich diversity of urban areas much more than the neighboring suburbs. It has characteristics of both the more mature suburban areas and the "boom" growth areas. 7he community contains more than the average number of seniors as well as a very high percentage of pre-schoolers. With its large base of affordable housing, it will continue to attract young familiesi however, with its lack of "up-scale" housing it will also lose many of these households as they seek more amenities. It would appear that both ihe location and history of the community have contributed to make it one of the more unique areas in the 7win Cities Metropolitan Area. The city has a blend af both Blue Collar and White Collar households. The former group is the largest occupation set in the city6 the latter group, when all the occupations included therein are added together, constitutes a majority. Most married couples work. As a result, the average income, while lower than the normr is much higher than the demographic mix suggests. Mounds View draws its residents rom a variety of sources. Its latest influx is composed of many short-termers wha came to the ity in search of a lo ation close to their jobs. But, there are also large numbers of young families moving from other suburbs who choose the community because of its housing and 5choal qua].itye The retention of many of these people within the community seems to be a greater problem than attracting new- comers4 Mounds View, in compari.san with many other communities, 15 r. .-_. .. . i I iY;-.. '.-.--.z. - . i - . ' - '=- . G:- ,-- '.. _:. . - - faces a unique set of problems. It is much further along the life cye.le" than many of ii;s neighbarso Declining school populations, residen ial aging9 and apen space planning are definitely not problems Mounds View must address. However, infrastructure and taxes/services are key questions. The challenge for the future is two-fold: maintaining those aspects of the community which attract new residents, and convincing the population that prudent investments will be necessary to keep the quality of life high during the times ahead. Unless both tasks are successful, Mounds View could easily lose its attractiveness and face a myriad of serious obstacles in the future. 16 j 1371 . I.' _ I. Cou«T ANOKA CO, uono BI HC 1771 .... q [IIK D I _ 17 I_.... '. 1'""' I!aEMSEY ..- CO , . I _ "_"... -"___ —'_'_— 4 "s I II I TN mep le la p1anN p . e,,,,i v_, N I Purpo e orJy nd Mou d nol el °II ! 6 uwd wMre pr elq a m+w monl I roqutr d. ol0;1 ' o I" W ol "," ,' ; i" I i i , tw' o wo' 000' wo' I u I M ! I BLOINC 11 4iW , I1HpAH 11Vk P ' . 1 .. ..._ _ ....... .. 1 1 N . / QI _ _.-.--- - _ -_ - -: - 2 , , i W a " iI no y a I W[ 5 i P R E I . 1" 1 I .- __ ', 1 r :. A opMT p11iaC 10 Ij ` i II rJ i.i : I SnCU o00 _, 0 0 l J i .. . I 5 P F C T` . e., JI , vac•, 1n• o "M.a., ol SPRING I LI.KE * o I gIPMK ` p - /S) g w DRiV I ' ° - 1 W . o : . HIlLV1EW RO D /i 4'I ICM D. Ji:,«, ;!, -- -- -- -- o..oo I— p= s Ca W000I .. / RIV[ i ,. .w,° r} o „ 52 Af s I,°, _ rv c— z j cp:,n I J ^liu iN[wY--., s ; - - oo y:—c_c,c = G pII JNIV( li .. CWNTf SI .—_ wO D 3 .. 1. I ... .. ^ - C .. ce3; o ' u M V, `\ /` II ' i 4 pJ'e aG Sr. ^ r o o I _ r > I' a e ( I > ( _ a i -°° —°" s I 5 I ; I n 1pH5C•H Un .qllC LANCa __ ___: , , i /' BryON;On Darv[ L. B1 ' PUN$qN ,,' _ 5 \ ; ( -. _ • , i e 5 o , W B WSa IN M ` I I ' : I _l I - - 4 _J — --' ; , , ` LL NBEIIT _'_VE._ T'I r o I I{{, o -- I E C I C T 3_ o,, . ; 4, ; ; I, I`I ncno + )L' -H.2.. V LJ1 - - J _—J n'-I--II.-.- °- --1 - — - - - -- _ I.- - - -- — oa; a sl . A O I !I >I g ECINCT 4 J I, iClWrvi[w vE ° IC4f^v'Srl v[ WId . - i< = o , i -- - --L-- ¢ 1 Inmcc ... ..... 1' `" ., n oce nr.c a pI wJUU IC __OHwE . ....`. II - (wo.f 1!_ ;, ---_ oo .i I oon..c oe I z A. -;a- 0 QI a ,I :,, W , o y 0 wooDCn[5,.^- „ ' L il all' - I I ol o i ocrvi L+9 G_^? i UL.J ORIVC ¢ PP PW vE a > —, i s n • __-- — — 4' 1,51111NG V fM l M[ I S . I ; a 4 `, ',--;.:: - - I W / I ., . I j L. J ' H . -- -- ----- ------_/ f ' - ., .. . - .. ._ cI COUNIY . I fl0 0 w II II Ra II II II s If`,` yyy''''-- ;.---" ` I ._ \ . .,.. _ __ _...... II , ra / \ ry[11 BRIGMTON I / i ir'P.a I 1 MOIJNDS VIEW \ E LECTIC]h! ' ` a , P R E C 1 N C T M P ----- - ----____-_- : 2 - Precinct Boundaries 1 U 7 Legislative District ''`"'. Boundary DDO 1 I F i i 1 i i 1 1 J. _ . . . . SECT I ON T1,10 IAL I TY OF IL I FE 17 s _ _ - _ `' .: :r:... , -._ ' -_ QUALITY OF LIFE Every municipality has distinctive characteristics which define it in the minds of residents. To determine what citizens feel is special and, conversely, not so special, about Mounds View, a series of open- and closed-ended questions were asked. The responses show that residents are generally content with their city. However, there are several major differences in perceptions, which have a bearing on the futuree 7his section will attempt to identify both consensus and difference as they exist within Mounds View. I Quality of Life Rating: Respondents were asked: pilora iwouuIl rou ra e ithe qu al'n y o1F 1 ife nrn uyu s ''ie4w —xce Yern t s yooell, rrnIl ifair. a r oo+r? A solid ninety-two percent rated the quality of life either excellent or good: EXCELLENT.e ............................ e..28% GOOD..................................e...b4'/. ONLYFAIR ................e......,.......... 7% POOR.e.o..,e.o..e.< ........................ 2% DOIV'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................0'/. The overall rating is on a par with other suburbs; in fact, it is on the high end of the scale. But, the proportion of good ratings to excellent ones is somewhat high, indicating that there is some raom for improvement. Groups more flattering in their evaluations included: Over twenty year residents Planning to stay for rest of life 55-64 year olds 18 ICriticsincluded: Planning to stay less than two years A large amount of the motivation to leave Mounds View revolves around increasing the quality of those individuals' lives. Optimism about the future was tapped into by the query: Over itwn t f ive years, do yo u I exp it it n q ual i ty s f 1 i1F in 0"lounds iew tm e lir es ree ai n abou it the sawe• a r na np ove? IMost residents felt it would remain about the same, if not improve: DECLINE.o.....a ........................... e8% RErIATN ABOUT THE SAME ..............e.e....55% IMPROVE...........o ....................... 33'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...............e.........4'/. Decline was foreseen by 45-54 year olds. Improvement was chosen most frequently by over 65 year olds, and 10,000-20,000 yearly income households. There is very little concern about the way things are generally going in Mounds View. Positive and Neqativ_e Attributes of Mounds View: Mounds View residents were asked a pair of questions to determine what positive and negative characteristics about their city most impacted them. First, favorable characteristics were assesseds WNhat m a o u 1 i Ike Y a orxt 1 a v a ng n n Ih1muY s'1!' i ew? The overriding choice of residents was the location occupied by the community -- on er.pressways with easy access to the Twin Cities and the general region: 19 i _ ., DON'T KNOW ................................11% LOCATIONee...o .......................e....37% NEIGHBORHOOD .........................a.e.,11'/. QUIET......................................9% SMALL SIZED COMMUNITY ......................8'/. SCHOOL QUALITY.....o ....................... 7% FRIENDLY PEOPLE ............................7% WELL-FtUN CITY.......a ...................... 4% CLEAN CITY.....o............e..........,e..2'/. Location was the overwhelming hoice of 25-34 year olds and those planning to stay b-10 years. Mour ds View, then, is viewe as a suburb located to facilitate the ease of travel t work and shop. Respondents were then asked a related question: I Ihat do you liYce ILEAST about living in IMou rr s 'VieN'? No problems affecting large portions of the community were found: DON'T KNOW...........e..........a.........23Y. NOTHING ...................................24% LOCATION .............e.ee°e..e.,........... 7% POOR CITY SERVICES ...................e.....7% POOR ROADSo ..........................e.....b'/. GROWTH.....................................5% CITY GOVERNMENT ............................SY. NOISE......................................4% WILLIAM5 PIPELII E .......................'...4% HIGHWAY 10 .................................4'/. TAXES......................................2'/. SCATTERED ..................................4% The number of "Boosters" -- people who found "nothing" they disliked about Mounds View -- was high in comparison to other communities. That figure indicates a high degree of satisfaction with the way things are going in the city. In many ways, the dislikes are the converse of those items listed as positives by others. Location proved to be a strong net positive, even if some were upset with ite Blight and older housing tend to be cnrrelatede Highway 10 and road conditions are by-products of the physical location of the community. The transportation system near the city is a clear asset for Mounds 20 v - View; however, making certain that residential areas are not detrimentally impacted by this proximity is a policy area of f concern for city decision-makers. General Direction of the CommunitY: To examine the reaction of residents to change, interviewees were asked: Do you itlh a in c t at h i rm s i n Mo rx ds u'ierr ar aaoa in¢ in the riglhi direci ion or da +u iFeel ithey a e e o tero of F y on Ih uw r ng track? i i A strong majority felt that the city was headed in the right direction: RIGHT DIREC7ION .......................ee..82Y. WRONG TRACK ............................e...9'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....................a... 9% fhore concern was expressed by 45-54 year olds. To probe the reasons for discontent, respondents who felt that things were going in the wrong direction were asked: I dlo aa,x feel ithait +ay'? Better planning seemed to be the major suggestion: PLANNING.o ................................. 4% CITY GOVERNMEIVT ..................a......... 3'/e CITY SPRAWLoe....e ................... e.....1% SCATTERED ..........................e.......1'/. The need for more comprehensive and rational use of remaining space should be examined by poli y-makers. CommunitY Pride° To measure one aspect of the sense af community, residents I were asked: 21 N-HoM rn.u lhe pride do yov italk in h i itar Ih'6a+aua ls Wi e w s a p 1 ac to fli r -- a a rea t dl afl. a rilt a Yoit, so e, a ur ve ry 1 iittle? Roughly two-thirds of the respondents took either a great deal or quite a lot of pride in Maunds View: GREAT DEALe ...............................23% QUITE A LOT ...............................44°/ SOME..e ................................... 26Y. VERY LITTLE ................................4Y. DON'T KNOW/R FUSED ..................a......2'/. ComPared with other suburban communities, Mounds View ranks somewhat low. Groups expressing higher levels of pride included: Over twenty year resider ts Planning to stay over five years Over 55 year olds Owner/Manager and Retiree households 20,000-3G,000 yearly household incomes Groups evidencing lower levels of community pride: Less than five year residents Planning to stay less than five years Renters Professional/7echnical households Over 50,UUU yearly household incomes t The City has not effectively integrated newer residents into the community. Movement Qut of Mounds View: Residents were asked a short series of questions about their commitment to staying in Mounds View and the type of alternatives they would entertain. First, respondents were asked: f ymu diac itN e ehance, wo ul youi like a iaov au,uay frawi youir residlence in Pburads VYiew A rather high thirty-two percent indicated -they would move: 22 w - - _ . . : . .__ YES..e ......................... o.......... 32% I NO ..............a........•-'... e..o,,..... 64'/, p N'T KNOW/REFUSED.......... 4% Residents more likely to move included: Less than two year residents Planning to stay less than five years Renters 18-24 year olds iYounger residentsa then, expressed a greater interest in moving from their current housing. IPotential movers were then asked: I Ihy Weoa l rou 1 ilke ita awve? i The major reason was to upgrade the type o-f housing they were living ine N T APPLICABLE......e................... b8'/. UPGRADE TYPE OF HOUSING .................e.18% MOVE TO COUNTRY.....e..e....a.,.......... 4'/• RE7IREi'1ENT.a ................. e............. 3Y CLIMATE....e.,e ......................... a..2'/. JOB-RELATED REASONS ........................2% SCATTERED...,.e ............................ 3'/. Younger families, as well as renters, tended to seek better housing. The prospective location for a move was determined by: WMher w uIldl you 1 i Ike ito a ooie'? The vast bulk of citizens would prefer to move within the city, if it were possible: NOT APPLICAHLE ............................68'/. INTO MINN/STa PAUL .....................o.eo2'/. WITHIN MOUNDS VIEW .......................e13Y> ANOTHER SUBURHe ...................se...,...4% FURTHER FROM DOWNTOWN.e................... 7'/. OUT OF MINNESOTA...........e........... e.e.2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe.........o....e....e..4% A major policy concern for city decision-makers is the 1 development of a better mix of housing, particularly in the 23 j F _ . . - --.-_ - _ ._' r' _' _ ' . - _'_ ' ..- .- = _ _. . .: __ :__ . _:_.__ . _ _ _-..: i . c. ..__. second" or "third" home categor•y. 1 Leaving those who would like to move if it were possible, I the next two questions queried all respondents about the factors which would go into their choice of housing lacation. First, they were asked: I If you wuex-e e+ovir ito ar Il er city, what fac or r,uld e ao os impo ant o r u in selectir g gou r uzzerw place of r i den ce? The location of the community and the presence af better housing were the two major factors: I DON'T KNOW..,......°a.....eoe ............. i4% LOCATION ......................e...........18% BETTER QUALITY OF HOUSING ...............e.1S'/. AREAe.,e.oe..........,o ...................11% SCHOOLS.e..e,........e .................... 11% JOB OPPORTUNITIES .........................10% HOUSING COSTS............e...e........>..., 9% SMALL TOWN ................a...e............6'/. C IMATE .................e.....a............5% In comparison with other suburbs, Mounds View residents place a higher priority on better quality I-ousing and area'ambiance than most other suburbanites. Finally, residents aaere asked: iIHlow woruIl l yo x x-ate R'1o ur s 'Vie w on Ihat —:1 yent, goocl„ ongy fair, or p or? A majority rated the city good or ex ellent on the factor they cited: I EXCELLENToo...e............e..e..........a15Y. GOOD..,........oe ......................... 41% ONLY FAIR .............a............o......14% POORo.ee..a ............................... 07'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ........................10% ISchools and area ambiance were rated very highly in Mounds View. Location was considered good by most residents mentioning it as a I 2 + major decision-making factor, Climate and job opportunities, Ihowever, tended to be rated much lower. In general, though, most residents feel that the community meets high standards an the factors which matter most to them in the choice of a home. Alienation• Lack of connection between a citizen and the events occurring in a city can prove to be disasterous in the long run. Not only does it mal<e for an uninterested and unmotivated populacey it also breeds the possibility of electoral disarray. Dne index used to determine the degree of alienation is the question: t er vo ings do y feel t a if yo a to, yo coul ave a say ab e way he Ca y f Mounds iew raas itlhings? 1 Negative responses usually lie between twenty and thirty percent. Mounds View residents actualiy placed below this range: IYES ................e.................. 0oo.71Y. NO...................................... a.i9'/ i DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..o ..................... 10'/, At nineteen percent, rlounds View is the most connected city that the researchers have surveyed. I Groups feeling out of the loop included: 6-10 year residents Planning to stay 2-10 years 18-24 year olds Over 50,000 yearly household incomes Although the City may wish to target special communications yefforts at these groups, the overall. result suggests a very low l level of disenchantment. 25 k k . i Summary and Conclusions: Mounds View residents rate tl-ie quality of life in their city very high, They are comfortable with the direction things appear to be moving in, and feel confident that they can impact City decisionsy if necessary: Although somewhat short on community pride, Mounds View residents contain an unusually large group of civic boosters. The geographic location of Mounds View provides a great appeal to prospective residents. Many current home owners and renters were attraCted here in part because of the easy access to the rest of the Metropolitan Area, They also came because of the affordable housing. Hut, the housing mir, also presents a long range problem, as maturing families move to larger homes to accommodate their expansion, Aside from this housing issue, the city residents perceive no overwhelming problems. The mood, then, in Mounds View is confidence in the future. People have no major prablems with general city policies and few amplaints about serious deficiencies. As a maturing community, Mounds View begins this part of its "life cycle" in a truly enviable position. 26 r _ _ __ . i' z I I I l ..; 1 y r. . i i ' I, TA r .. tj 3 . F 1..' . g SECTION THREE XES AND SPENIDII 7 . I:., ' ' - _ _ .> tt. . J k_;,,..:- ' 'c " _____ -- - - ._..___ - _ -:. - . . ., S_ _ - _,.rz..- - — _.__—_ ?_". .a - — - i. . . _ u- _ N TAXES AND SPENDING Mounds View residents were asked a series of questions about their preferences on a number of city budget balancing alternatives and projects requiring expenditures. Both tax increases and selected service cuts were offered, as means of balancing city budgets. In additian, perceptions about the current property tax burden and the city's share were ascertained. Generally, it was found that Mounds View residents were predisposed against property tax hikes, but were also unwilling to see mast services cut. In an era of fiscal tightening, policy makers will need to undertake significant educational campaigns in order to help the cammunity develop a consensus. Tax Increase to Maintain Servicese A standard index af the tax climate in a municipality asks residents to consider a tax increase to maintain current city services. Respondents were asked: If iit er xzeeded ta a ain ain city services ait their currerwt level s aouldl I o x iFawar or oppose an incrrease in c i ty r perity taxes? A plurality opposed the tax in rease: FAVOR.........< .......................e..e37% i OPPOSE..o.e....-• "........ e...e.....-••. 49'/. DON' T I<NOW/REFUSED . a 15'/. IGroups more strongly suppbrting the tax increase included: Planning to stay b-10 years , I 50,000-bG,000 yearly income households Precinct 1 28 ri Y .- IAdamant opposition arose among iB-24 and over 65 year olds. The burden af proof clearly lies on the proponents of tax increases under these circumstances. Perceetion of Proeert Taxes: 7o assess the perception of property taxes in Mounds View, residents were asked: Do you carusider properity axes in P9oun s 'Vie ito e excessively Ihigh, rela iv ly Ihig r a ou average, or coa p ra+tiv ly low? The majority of resident5 ranked property tax.es about average for a suburban communityo EXCESSIVELY HIGH...o ..............^°....... 6'/• RELATIVELY HIGH ...............e......... 19% AHOUT AVERAGE.....e....... ............... 55% COMPARATIVELY LOW .......................... 7% DpN'T KNOW/REFUSED ....................e... 13X Only Precinct 3 residents felt more often that taxes were excessive. "Relatively high" was the choi e of less than two year residents and those planning to stay 6-10 years. Comparatively low" was the choice of more 30,000-40,000 and Iover 60,000 yearly incame households, and Precinct 2 residents. The reluctance to sustain a tar. increase to preserve services does not have th perception of high property taxes as its source. Thia finding implies that the task facing tax hike proponents is significantly more omplicated in Mounds View than in other suburbs. I j Hudget Cuts versus Tax Increases: I Tn further examine the`question of service cuts versus tax Iincreases, citizens were read a list of possible reductions. 29 1 - -- _ Y.- _. Ic'__ .: ,""s.. - --u... E-;% . : . . _ . _ _ .._s . _;-`- . ,'-`"" : .,_ .-_.. 1 _ r=` -- -i`- — __::s:i Ni.i'f . e F i Initially, they were informed: I worrld 1 i Ike o read you a 1 ist of chan ges ir city services whict could Ibe wade ita avroid increases in axes or special assessioer s. Far eac one, please tell ae if you w o ld favor that chanqe as an alternative o higher taxes, c r if you woul oppose tha c ange ew n+ if i t oneanit hig er taxes. In only one case did a majority not oppose the service cut, and even there, a plurality still feit that the cut should not be made. Increas h i ne it itakes police to respornd to a non-ereergerncy call to save furading o re positions2 A healthy majority opposed the service reduction: FAVOR.....e .............. a.....e...a...... 36% OPPOSE.,.e .................. n............. 57% D N'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................8% Groups more in favor of the cut: Planning to stay b-10 years 18-24 year olds Professional/Technical househnlds Groups more opposed: 6-10 and over 30 year residents 45-54 year olds Under 10,000 and over 60,000 yearly income households In terms of ranking, this cut wauld create a lot of discontent among residents. Increase ithe ti e it itakes o plow city s kr ee ts af er a sr a s orr? Substantial opposition arose to this proposal: FAVOR.,....ee .......................... e..38% QPPOSEee.e .......................... ee.... 56Ye DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe ........................bY. Groups more in favor: j . . , _ : Planning to stay over 10 years Professional/Technical households Groups less in favor: Over 30 year residents Planning to stay 2-5 years Below 20,000 yearly income households I Unless absolutely essential, reductions in snow plowing should be avoidedo Decrease he a ount of fur s spent on tM e wainiternance and up keep of city parks? Park maintenance and upkeep also enjoyed a relatively high degree of support: IFAVDR.....e.<.......... e ............... e..33Y. 58% OPPOSE. ....e .................. DON'T KNaW/REFUSED ...............e......... 9% i Groups more strongly favaring the cuts included: Less than one year and 11-20 year residents 45-54 year olds I Groups more adamantly opposed: I 2-10 and over thirty year residents Planning to stay over 10 years i- 18-24 year olds A cut in park maintenance services would be very troublesome since a key opposition groups are resident5 committed to stay in the city. Reduce the awount of street sainten- ance underta Cen each year? Very substantial opposition arose to this proposals FAVOR..oe.....e ..................... e..... 26% DPPOSE.e.e .............................. e.b5% DDN'T KNOW/REFUSED......e................. 9'/• Groups even mor°e supportive included: Planning ta stay less than two years 50,000-b0,000 yearly income households 31 Y. ,. _ s ....: __: .: . : .: s..:_ -- =-____: : .-:=.a-=<.-:. . . .. . _ _ ' -. 1"" . . _. L._S . . . Groups opposed: Over 30 year residents 40,000-50,000 yearly incame households Unless absolutely necessary, any tampering with street maintenance projects should be avoided. Expectations tended to exceed performance somewhat, and cuts would only exacerbate these perceptions. Reduce the frequency of inspections and respons time o conaplain s about aolaitioras of city sic ential codes? A plurality opposed cutting this service, but the margin was j far smaller than in the other services tested: FAVOR......................e.............. 38% IOPPOSEo...e ............................... 46% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo.........e ............. ib% Groups more favorablee Over 65 year olds Over 60,000 yearly income households i i Groups more opposed: Over thirty year residents I # 55-64 year olds This service cut should be viewed as a possibilitye Wowever, even here, if undecideds should be converted to opponents, resistance could be created. With the ex eption of the reduction of the frequency of inspections and response time ta complaints about code violations, a substantial number of citizens are unwilling ta accept anY reductions in basic city services. Coupled with the fact that a substantial plurality opposed tax ir creases to even maintain city service levels, policy makers are presented with a dilemma. On the ane hand, resistance to tax hikes; on the other, 32 Ei I t opposition to service cuts. At a minimum, the City needs to start an informational process, to increase knowledge about fiscal realities and to help f acilitate some community consensus before budgetary concerns require "hard and fast" decisions. ProeertY Tax Share of the CitYe In many communities, residents express some confusion af the exact percentage of property tax monies which go to the citye Usually, the city proportion is overestimated, while the school district portion is underestimatedo To gauge the perceptians of Mounds View residents, respondents were asked: As you r ay Cnow, proper y axes are divi ed betr+een the Ci y of Mounds V'ieas Rar sey County, and yowr locaIl public schnol district. For each dollar of properity axes you pays about r+hat per entage do youi think goes to city gov err nent? The median response was 18.5 percentc UNDER TEN PERCENT .......................... 77, 107. TD 20'/ ................e.... e.......... e27'/e 21% TO 30'/...o ............................. 17% 31% TO 40%0 ................................ 4'/. 41% TO 50% ................................. 5'/. 51'/. TO 60%va ..............................° 0% bl% TO 70% ................................ elY. OVER SEVENTY PERCENT.....a..........•. • DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.......e.....e.......... 40% In addition to incorrect estimates, another problem arose in Mounds Viewa A very high percentage of residents were unable to make even a gross estimate of the city share of tax dollars. The City needs n better inform its citizens; it should redo ble efforts to distribute this information. At a minimum, with the increased awareness that City government is cost-e-ffective, a 33 E;= greater willingness to absorb essential tax increases might be forthcoming. In any case, though, the information, if used creatively, would provide an excellent starting paint for a discussion on community fiscal priorities. Summary and Conclusions: Mounds View residents are quite anti-tax in orientation. However, they are not willing ta see service reductions in mast areas to avoid higher taxes. Therefore, even thought tax increases would be a very hard sell in the community, they would not be an impossibility. Certainly, street maintenance and park upkeep are two service areas around which a judicious tax in- crease could be successful at the polls. There is also a great degree of ambiguity abaut the property tax share the City of Mounds View takes. In order to build a durable reservoir of good will toward the City, communications with residents need to spotlight this figure. In part, this tactic will show the City as a prudent spender of tax monies. Residents already do not feel that there total property tax burden is onerous; perhaps the City should move more aggressive to demonstrate that one reason for this state of af airs has been judicious and careful spending practices. 34 r. : :. _ _ _ . _ _____=x,.. , . , m .. .. . . . : : z . _- .-'." __ _ _ _ _ _ . . _' . -.:.. _ . . . .«' ' _'... .. '__' _ - __- . _ _ . I . _ , V x i F `' .. . . . j SECTION . FOL 2' . t CITY SERVICES ti , 4 •. . . . . . . ' . ... . . . , ' , . . . T . ' . . ' . . . . . , '. ' . . ' ' - . . . ' . . . . . t .. ' ' . . ' - . . . l 35 - . • . .-, z . - k ` I .` CITY SERVICES Mounds View residents were asked to evaluate the basic city services provided to them. They were also queried about possible I expansions of several services, to meet real or imagined needs. 1 In general residents were content with the services they were fcurrently receiving and tended to incline against any major changes from current operations or direction. I General City Services Eyaluationse Residents were asked their evaluations of the provision o eight services. They were instructed: I would like to read you a list of a fe services pro vided y the City or County_ For each ones please tell me r+hether you would rate the quality of he service as excellerwi, good, only j fair, or poor _ Four services were rated very highly -- park maintenance, snow plowing, police protection, and fire protection. The remainder received less enthusiastic, although still positive, ratings. Par c Maintenance f Eighty-four percent of the residents approved of the park maintenance services in Mounds View: EXCELLENT.......e.... e....... a........... e18'/. GOOD....................a..o.............. bb% V DNLY FAIR....-. e..e ....................... 13Y PDOR.......o.. 03% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.ae .....................° O'/° The excellent-to-good ratio is in line with other suburban 1 communities. 36 3 _ - . , ., ; . _. _,__ _ . ____ ___ - _____ 1 I Residents much more impressed included: Qver thirty year residents 50,000-60,000 yearly income households Residents less enthusiastic: Precincts 2 & 3 residents In general, park maintenance is viewed as one of the better services provided by the municipalityo gnor+ Plor+ing Seventy-nine pe cent approved of snow plowing in Mounds Viewo ......23% EXCELLENT....o ...................•'° o..... 56Y. GOOD...........ee ................... .,. 16Y. ONLY FAIR......va.o•-•••° " '°" ............. 5% POOR. ......... e....... DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED ....................... 0% A ain, the excellent-to-good ratio is at the norm for most 9 cities. Higher ratings were given bye Over 55 year olds Below 10,000 and 50,000-60,000 yearly income households Criticisms were more frequently expressed by Precinc 2 residents. This service, in general, was rated solidly for a metropolitan are suburb. Polic Protectiort Police protection was approved of by eighty-five per ent of the respondents: EXCELLENT ................................. 24% 61% G OD. .......................... ..... e7% ONLY FAIR .........................••.......1% POOR. o.,.. e............ e..... ••• _ 7'/> DON'TsKNOW/REFUSED....-.-•••••••••°" " °° 37 r--- : _.. r Again, the excellent-to-good ratio was typical Groups more -favor-ableo Planning to stay less than two years 18-24 8 over 65 year olds Precinct 4 residents Dissatisfaction was scattered. Clearly, citizens are quite satisfied with the police. Fire Proitection Eighty-one percent of the respondents approved of fire protection: EXCELLENT ......................... o....... 19'/. GOODeo....ee .............................. 62% ONLY FAIR .................................. 4% F'OOR. aao ........................••'°.. 13% DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED ........................ The excellent-to-good ratio was somewhat lower than the norm. More complimentary evaluations occurred amangc Less than two year residents 54,000-b0,000 yearly income households Precinct 4 residents lCritics, again, were scattered across the community. This service, like the preceding one, is solid for a metropolitan area. City Street Maintenarice Sixty-eight percent of the sample approved of the street maintenance going on in Mounds View: EXCELLENT ................................ 010% GODD......o...e ........................... 58% ONLY FAIRo ........................>....... 25% POOReee..,.o.voe..e.,o..,,. e........ e..•••• 8% D N'T KNOW/REFUSED.°a= a .............. 0'/• l However, thirty-three percent o- the sample expressed 5ome degree 38 r . L.'=.-, _ _ ._ : _ : -- . --- . "`'`- --, s.: 1. a . ! __: .. _ -.. _. r .. . -.._.. _ C i of dissatisfaction. Higher ratings were given by: Over twenty year residents Planning to stay over six years 55-64 year olds Criticism was expressed by: Less than one year residents Planning to stay less than five years Renters I t 18-24 year olds Professional/Technical households Since no particular area of the City was especially critical of street maintenance, correctives may be difficult to achieve. Aniwal Control Animal control was rated highly by sixty-three percent of I the sample: EXCELLENTe ................................. 9% GOOD...................................... 54% ONLY FAIR............e .................... 18'/. POOR.,e .................................... 12Y. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....................•••• 91• Dissatisfaction was expressed by thirty percento These results I reflect the negative ratings found across northern Ramsey Countye Higher ratings were granted by: Over 30 year residents 18-24 year olds 10,000-20,000 yearly income households CPoor ratings tended to be concentrated among: Planning to stay at least ten years Mounds View policy-makers may wish to re-examine their current animal control procedures. Maste and Stur Water Control Sixty-six percent of the interviewees wer satisfied with 39 i I .. .._ . . .. . - ._,._ . _;.... ... _ ._ _ . _.. Y- . _vy -. ; _... . . . ° - _ . . . ... . . . . .. . " . . _ _. . _ .. - - -- - - 1 ..--' ' "-' -"_ . :-.___ ._.._ . _. __ _.. . . _ i waste and storm water control: EXCELLENT..........e ...................... e7% GOOD...............................o...... 59% ONLY FAIR.vae...a ......................... 15% POORo.....e.........oe.a......e........... 10% I DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.mooeo.e.<.<..a....9% But, twenty-five percent of the sample was dissatisfied. Higher ratings were found among: 2-S and over 30 year residents Ranters Dissatisf ction was scattered across the community. The problem facing policy-makers on this issue is that major changes, such as the construction of storm sewers, are not supported by many residents. i ater for Residential Use 1 Seventy-six percent of the community approved of the water quality in Mounds View: EXCELLENT........ao......o...e............ 14% y GOOD.......e.....e ........................ b2% ONLY FAIR...o ................ e..........o.13Y. I POOR............••' e ...................... lOY. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. •2% ITwenty-three percent were less generous in their evaluations. Water quality enthusiasts included: Over 30 year residents Planning to stay b-10 years t 50,000-60,000 yearly income households Water quality dissenters werea Renters Planning to stay less than two years 20,000-30,000 yearly income households Precinct 2 residents These evaluations are in line with neighboring communitieso Residents tended o rate services lower for specific 40 a... .. . - - Y :;,• . : .. '.-: . r,. - ---- : .._. I.._--- ------- . .z — --. ..-- - _ r= : . .--=. _._. _ .. . . 03..._ .,_..__a-.. '.i_._.a_r'_'__ . _. .. _._. _ _ __ _ . __ Y t reasons. Snow plowing and fire protection were frequently eritieized for slow response times. Road maintenance was marked down for pot holes along city street5. Animal control seemed to be primarily a loose dog problemo Waste and storm water I management was deemed unsatisfactory because of the inability to I handle the spillovers from last year's floodo And, water quality, because it tastes bad! These represented specific criticisms by residents; however, they also represented a i minority of citizens. , The tabulation of criticism is shown belows ANIMALS.....e ............................. 10% BAD WATER ................................. 11% FLOODSovo....ae..e.....o ................... b% 5% POTHOLES. ......^............ a..a.a...... SLOW RESPQNSE TIME........e ................ 9'. ANIMALS-FLOODS-STREETS .................... 10% DIRTY/RUNDOWN......e ............. e........• 3% I STREETS-FLQODS-WATER .............. .b% OTHER COMBINATIONS ......................... 5Y. I l Overall, city service provision does not appear to be a serious problem in the eyes of most residents. I Police Patrollinq: To probe a bit more deeply the needs of citizens for expanded servicesa such as police protection, a series of i questions were asked which, at times, balanced services agains costs. To begin this part nf the investigation, residents were first asked: Do you feel that the a ount of police patrolling in your neighborhood as tao littles abaut right, or too iuch2 An overwhelming majority felt that the amount of patrolling in their neighborhood was just right: 41 T ...,... , T .-----_: -:;: ...r:i . . :as ; y T O LITTLE ................................15% ABOUT RIGHT....e,.....e ...................80% y TOO MUCH..e.....a°'.. 00...ee ............... 4Y. I DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. 1% Groups feeling there was too little includede Planning to stay 2-5 years Selow 20,000 yearly income households No specific area differences were detected. The fifteen percent who felt that patrolling was insuffi ient in their immediate area were then asked: iWould you f'avor or oppos the hiring of ore police officers to expand patrols, even if it eant an increase in properity taxes? By two-to-one, this small group would acCept a tax increase in i order to hire more police officers: NOT APPLICABLE...e.....e..o.....o..e......85% 1 FAVOR.. •9 I OPPOSE .....................................5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................2% t However, in spite of this show of support, the percentage of the population feeling that police protection is inadequate is rather small. CitY as Social Service Provider: Many cities across the Metropolitan Area are considering the expansion of their services to include various types of social programs. To gauge reactions in Mounds View, interviewees were askeds Trad"ationally, the City has provaded residents Nith basic servfces, such as aolice arnd fire protection, and street aintenance. Sowe cities also provide social services to their resi- dentss such as Che ical Abuse Prograns, Cou iselings Day Care, ard Senior 42 9n'+ i c s . i ould you favor or oppose the City of Mounds Viea expanding its current service provision to in clude social services? The residents split narrowly in favor of this service expansion: YES..,.,..o........ e..... .... o........ e.49% NO..,,o..e ................................ 43'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 8'/ Groups even more strongly in favor included: Less than two year residents Renters 18-34 year olds Clerical/Sales and Blue Ca11ar households Below 30,000 yearly income households j Groups much more against: I t 6-20 year residents 45-54 year olds Professional/Technical households Over 40,000 yearly income households 1 This issue split Mounds View, similar to other suburbs, along age, income, and longevity lines. Without a firmer consensus, policy-makers should proceed cautiously. i I The Condition of City Streets: I Residents were asked to rank the seriousness of the condition of streets in Mounds View: In general, do you feel that the con- dition and upkeep of city streets is a serious problem in Mounds Vie++s a inor proble, or no proble at all? A majority considered the problem to be minor: i SERIOUS PROBLEMe ........................... b% MINOR PRqBLEM.e,......,...e.......•...... 60% NO PROBLEMa .................•..•... 34% 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.e.o.........•....••••-•' Over one-third of the respondents did not see the condition of 43 I ==----- -=r--_- - 1. .____-_-` _ :._,.. k>_ " t z=:.-, '-_-- .. _ ,,:;,:.- .:I : _y_ _f, f city streets as a problem at allo These people tended to be over I 65 year olds, retirees, and over 50,000 yearly income i households. The small number of interviewees who felt the problem was i serious were then asked: URty do you feel that way? 1 potholes was the majar response, with very few specific sites frequently mentionede POTHOLES...e....e .......................... 4'/. SILVER LAKE ROAD.ae ...................... o.l% DTHERoo,e.o...asa0000,.e ................... 1'/. It should be kept in mind that even though a majority consider I the condition af roads a minor problem, a majority also would not support cuts in the street and road maintenance budgeto l CitY Codes° Interviewees were asked: I Du you feel that the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforting the City Code regarding res- iden ial property +aintenance for r+ee controls outdoor storages junk carss ani al cantrol, and noise? ISixty percent of the sample felt that enforcement was about right: TOO TOUGH ...............................•••2% ABOUT RIGHT.e ............................. 60% NOT TOUGH ENOUGHe .........................32'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.e...o....ae....o•..•.. 6% 1 Supporters of current code enforcement procedures tended to be: 18-24 and over 65 year olds Under 20,000 yearly ir came households Critics who did not feel enforcement was tough enough: Planning to stay b-10 years Over b0,000 yearly in ome households 44 E - , -z . _ ` _ __ y - __ . .__ ._ . . :._- '--- -- : ; . - - - - The source of any prnblems was ascertained by answers to the questions I Ihy do you feel that way? The condition of yards and the presence of junk cars was found to be galling: ANIMALS....o.e......... o ................... 3% JUNK CARS.o ........................•-•-•••. b'/. YARDS......e...ve....... o......... e....... 11Y. COMBINATION ........................••...•.• 8/. HOUSE5..................................... 2% T00 PICKY........evo ....................... 2% OTHERe ................oe........... 00eoo,..2Ye Although not a major objection for most residents, the City may wish to review and take further action against both of these problems. Storm Water Manaqement and Storm 5ewersc A series of questions were administered to both measure the extent of the perceived problem af storm water ru•n-off and the support for the construction of storm sewers. First, the problem was addresseds ou,r serious do you feel tt e proble of stor +ater wanage ent is in Mounds Viea -- very s rious, not too seriouss or not a problea at all? Most residents felt that storm water management was either not too serious of a problem or was not a problem at all: VERY SERIOUSee,e.................•...... 11Y. NOT T00 SERIOUS ........................... 39% NOT A PROHLEM ............................. 43Y. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 7'/ Residents from households with incomes over bOr000 tended to rate the issue more serious. Groups rating the issue as not a problem included: 45 L _ : . _ ' b: i .---'-" - _- :- -- -.=...:::, ,- ._ ; , _ - -- -- -------- I , p i 2-5 and 21-30 year residents Renters Households containing no children 18-24 and over 65 year olds 1:- ` ' ". Given these perceptions, the need for a new storm sewer system will also be very minor. To gauge support for a storm water sewer system, respondents were asked: Currently, the City uses a systew of ponds o control the runroff fros storms. Would yau favor or oppose the construc- tion of stor aater rs in the city? And do you feel strongly that r+ay2 Given the lack of problem perception, there is surprising suppori for the system, although not a pluralitya STRONGLY FAVCIR .......................e...11% FAVOR..a...... e ........................... 24% OPPOSE............a ....................... z7% STRONGLY OPPQSE ...............e.......•...19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ........................19% Groups registered high levels of support included: 10,000-20,000 & 50,000-b0,000 yearly income households t Planning to stay less than two years 18-24 year olds pponents were: 45-54 year olds 30,000-40,000 yearly income households Over 30 year residents I Precinct 1 residents Not only is there a plurality against the proposal, but those holding intense opinions -- the likely voters -- were opposed by nearly two-to-one. A referendum proposal would not be passaale at this point in time. However to assess reactions to a referendum, residents were 1 . .. _ . _ ..._ _ _ asked: Althou gt no foreal proposals have been adea if the city were to con- struct stor se«ers, it would require he passage of a bond referendu s s Hor+ uch ore +ould you be r+i 11 ing to pay in roperty ta es a support con- struc ion of storiw se r+ers2 Let's say, uld yau be r+i 11 ing to pay ____ per year? A strong thirty-seven percent refused to pay anythinge NOTHING .............................. e.... 37% 25 ..................o.............. . 11% 50...........a ........................... 15% I 75 ........................................ 5% 100.......... ' 6% 125o,e .................. e................. 2°1. 150a .....................o...ae........... 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo°ooa...m...........<.. 23% The high percentage of respondents who indicated a total lack of iwillingness to see their property taxes increased to fund the f project effectively dooms the proposal. Perhaps with a gr ater I educational effort, and more severe storms, a reversal in opinions could occur. But, failing these prospects, any effort i to pass a referendum appears lost from the outseto Summary and Conclusions: There is a uniformly goad evaluation of city services. Most peaple are pleased with the types of services that Mounds View has been providingo They also see no need for an expansion, particularly if a tax increase were required. Poli e patrolling, sCreet maintenance, and storm water management were all deemed effective enough to require no further enhancement. City cades, however, were felt by one-third of the populace nct to be strictly enough enforcede The two major concerns were f messy yards and junk cars, with loose animals and d'alapidated 47 E _ _--r._N..-r_T.3sm".:c_.. _._ .3..__ _ . ._ _`---.t"... L.r_ _ .... _ ..y. L_a_". . ._..-s=Jf _:_.+r " -".1:1E3..--;..i lc.-__:.._ ' 'v.'. : 1 housing mentioned as secondary problems. City policy-makers may i wish to review current procedures9 although major overhauls do I jnot appear warrantede The proposal for storm water sewers provoked a generally I i unfavorable reaction. Most residents dad not see a major problem I with the current system of ponding. They were also unenthusi- astic about constructing a new system, and less than happy with the prospects of a tax increase to finance the enterprise. At Ithis timev then, defeat of any electoral initiative would almost be certain. I I 48 r —_ _ _ _ : - = 1 . SECTION FIVE C I TY' 60VERNMENT AND STAFF . : 7 - _ - . . . . . . . . . . .: . . Y .. . . . . . • . t. - _ . . . . . ' . . . . . - , . . . i _ i . l .. -. v . ... . . . , .. ' _ . • ' 4 . . - . , . . 49 _ s . . . . . . f ft I CITY GOVERNMENT AND STAFF Mounds View residents were asked a series o-f questions about their impressions of the elected officials who represent them and the ity staff which serves them. In both cases, the ratings by citizens were generally good. Knowledge about City Government A pair of questions were asked about the Mayor and City Council. As a first indicator of citizen awareness, respondents were queriede Let's talk about Mounds View City 6overrwent for a feti+ inutes. i lhen any people think about their local goverr w enit, they think of tt e elected officials who represent the...- How uch do you feel you Cnoti+ about the +orlk of the Mayor and Ci ty Counc i 1 a great deals a fair awount, or very li tle? • Thirty-four information: percent reported possessing more than minimal GREAT DEAL......e .................. e.e.....5% FAIR AMDUNT .........................e.....29Y. 63Y I VERY LITTLE...e .......................... DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...............e...a.....3'/, 1 Groups having higher levels of information included: Planning to stay for life Over ten year residents Retirees Groups admitting to much lower levels of information: ess than two year residents Planning to stay less than two years Renters 18-34 year olds Under 20,000 yearly income households 50 3..:_ ______ _. . .._, _ - I • 6 The overall information level of Mounds View residents is at about the suburban norm. But, it divides along household type, community longevity, and age lines. Next, residents were asked to evaluate City government: Fro r+hat you knar+, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and Ci y Cuixncil are doing? t 1IT FOR SPO) pnd do you feel s rongly I hat way'? Sixty-eight percent approved of the actians of the Mayor and Councile STRONGLY APPROVE ...............••.••••.... 15% SOMEWHA7 APPROVE .......................... 5+% SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE ....................• " 3/. STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.......o.......•.....: 24 pON'T KNOW/REFUSED ....................... The overall approval rate is somewhat low in comparison to other suburbs, but can be accounted for by uninformed rather than I disapproving responses. Groups even more supportive of the Mayor and Council includedo Planning to stay 6-10 years 55-64 year oids Less than 20,000 yearly income households ne troublesome finding is that individuals having greater knowledge of the actions of the Mayor and City Council tended to be more disapproving. Although as a group, those expressing Idisapproval tended to be scattered across the municipality. i I City Staff• Residents were asked two questions about their dealing with City Staff. First, the amount of actual personal interaction was assesseda 51 I ie r_...__ -._ .:I -_' _s i' K,;;__...li ,.'xz.: Have you or any e ers of his hous- hold had contact a ith the Mounds View Ci y staff during the past year? About one-third of the residents reported contact, which is exactly the suburban norm: YES.............o......................... 33% Na, ....e ................... 58% DON'T.KNOW/REFUSED .............o........... 9% Groups having more contact with the staff included: 11-20 year residents Planning to stay b-10 years 35-44 year olds 40,000-50,000 yearly income households Groups reporting higher levels of no contact: Less than two year and over thirty year residents Renters 18-24 & 55-64 year olds Clerical/Sales households 20,040-30,000 yearly income households More ontact appears to characterize the intermediate longevity group in the community. • Next, residents were asked: Fro r+hat yau have seerw or heard, hor+ would you -ate the job perfor ance of the Mour s Vie+ City siaff — excellent. goods only fair, or poor'? Tt e City Staff received an approval rating of sixty-seven percent; this figure lies on the high side of the norm for other suburban areas: EXCELLENT,a...e.....,..o.o....e............ BY. GOOD...................................... 59% ONLY FAIR.......e .......................... 9'/. pOOR..a......soe..o...........<... e...,....3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe............e.......... 22% Similarly, twelve percent rated the sta-f unfavorably, less than average for most communitieso Reported recent contact did not 52 z_ • - _._____ ,— ______ . . _ . . - - substantially impact evaluations. The City Staff, then, must be viewed as a positive factor in the eyes of most residentsa City Hall• j Residents who had been to City Hall reeently were asked a series of questions about the staff and facilitieso To divide the sample, interviewees were queried: Have you visited Mounds Vie r City IHall during the past itr+elve onths? A large fifty-two percent reported visiting during the past yeart YES.a...e......00 .................... o,.a.52% NO.......e ........................... e....49'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....e ................... 0% Groups reporting larger percentages of visits: Over twenty year residents Planning to stay at least six years Home owner s 35-44 & over 55 year olds Retirees Over 60,000 yearly income households These ind'aviduals were then asked to judge various aspects of the structure and its operations: For each of the follor ing character- istics, please rate the Mounds Vie r+ City 1-lall facility or staff as excel- len, good, only fair, or poor_.._ On every aspect, City Hall received very high grades: Car ver ien ce of City Hall hours? Hy a ratio of eight-to-one, respondents were satisfied with the convenience of hours: EXCELLENTo.......,..oe ............. o.....e.9% GDOD....a ............................>.... 37% ONLYFAIR.......°a ......................... 4% POOR.............e................. e.......2% D N'T KNOW/REFUSED.o..e...a........., 0% 53 fs::=Y'-- _ ' . i_ _ : -_ — h _ ... .._ : - ' . - -._. .. _ yi y ::_. ..,. :..: i .'t+J No change in schedule appears necessary. Waiting ti e for serfrice? By a ratio of fifteen-to-one, respondants were satisfied Iwith the length of their wait for service: EXCELLENT .................................18Y. GOODo,.•-- e....o......e ................... 28% ONLY FA I R e . 2'/• POOR..................e.................... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo.ee......e..e.......e...2% IThe service operation does not appear to impose unusually l ang waiting times. Courtesy e f the staff? By a similar fifteen-to-one ratio, the staff was rated courteous: EXCELLENT .........................o.......20% iGOOD .....................e................ 27Y. I DNLY FAIR......e ........................... 2Y. PQOR..o .................................... 1St DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.........<..o°a.aa...e.l% I There appears to be no image problem for ity hall personnel. Efficiency of the staff? By nine-to-one, the staff was rated very efficient: EXCELLENT .................................14% GODD.....,°... e .................... e...... 31% ONLY FAIR.. •4• POOR...e....e ............................. el% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................2% The staff, then, on two critical dimensions -- courtesy and lefficiency -- was given very high marks. Cleagalisraes of tM ee building? All respondents having an opinion rated ihe facilities as clean: 54 scr _ r.:.• I`.. s_. .. _z ' _ _ . I-.z-.. . _ _ . -z,,...—. . E' .- _.' —__ . __. . I EXCELLENT .................................23% GOOD....aa..........o ..................... 28% ONLY FAIR..... ae ........................ e,. 0% POQRa .O% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..e ...................... 1 G Housekeeping and staff appears to be doing an excellent job in maintaining the facilitiese IOverall, then, the citizens familiar with City Hall have Igeneral praise for the operation of the building and the provision of servaces. Summary and Conclusionse Residents of Mounds View give their City Staff very strong grades. One-third of the residents have had interaction with members of the staff and over one-half have been to City Hall. In general, they were favorably impressed. The staff, then, id doing an excellent job in maintaining a positive image of the cityo Some problems, though, were found in the evaluation of the Mayor and City Council. Their job appraval rating was somewhat below suburban norms; but, more problematic is the fact increased knowledge about their activities heightened disapproval. City Ipalicy-makers may need to examine in some detail their communications with ressdents t4 insure that some aspects are not creating problems. They also need to t ett r inform residents of their actions. Given the satis-Factiori ofmost Mounds View residents with city services and staff, lack of a definite image r°ather than policy specifics may be the key to the lower ratings. 55 1..,____- _. _<._s. ...._ s -- •-- `----- ---- -_ . y , .s,- :•r l S r-. . SECT I ON S I X . . .. ri . , . DEVELOPMENT AND 6RO61TH i . _ _ : . . I . l' ' , . . . . • . a _ . , '. . . - . . 56 i_ __ r. r, ., y_ .. , . :: _-_ r- __ _ ,__ _ :._ : . . -- ... _ - - _. i , : .._._.- --- , _ . . I DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH The views of Mounds View resXdents on economic development issues facing the city were examined through a series of questions. Three general areas were assessed: preferred development, dilapidation, and retail shopping behavior. Although no majority consensus emerged, there is a clear tilt toward the attraction of job-producing industries. Preferred Development: Interviewees were as4<ed If the Ciity aere to attract ore devel- oP ent, what kind r+ould you prefer it to Ibe2 Industrial, followed by residential, were the most frequent responses: DON'T KNOWeoe°oo..°mee,,.o.o....oee.e..... 17% SHDPS..,........o..o ............. o...... ro.13'/, RESIDENTIAL ...............e............... 18'/. OFFICE....................e............... 13'/. INDUSTRIAL......e...........••••••-••••••. 26Y. NDNE......a ................................ 3Y. RECREAYIONAL ............................... 3% OTHERo.amo ................................. 3% Several groups of citizens tended to cluster behind various alternatives: Shopping facilities were important to 2-5 year residents. Commercial was a favorite of 50,000-60,000 yearly income households. Industrial development was more welcomed by 30,000-40,000 yearly income households. 1 The concern for residential development reinforces earlier responses about the need for more "up-scale" housing within the 57 y_ ..- _, - `-"= - - - --•----- -- -- - -• -- --= = _..._.. community. l; ___1"", __ t Pace of Develoemento In some communitzes, many residents feel that development has progressed too quickly, and is less than adequately planned. To test the feelings of Mounds View residents, respondents were asked: Do you feel that the pace of co er- cial andl industrial develop+ent in the ti y has been too rapid, about right, or not fast enou gh? Almost two-thirds of the sample felt the pace af development was about right: TOO RAPID .................................12% ABOUT RIGHT ...............................65% NOT FAST ENDUGH .........................e.20% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo ........................4% There were no significant differences between community subgroups. Residents appear to feel that the City has moved in a careful, yet deliberate manner. Dilapidation: To determine the "eye sores" residents see in Mounds View, the question was asked: Are there any dilapidated or sub- standard areas of he city in ahich you r+ould particularly favor re-devel- opw enit? 9 Jhat are they? Almost eighty percent o the respandents felt there were none: DON'T KNOW .........................o......10% NONE......................................78% TRAILERS.aoo.......o ....................... 2% APARTMENT5 .................................2% COUNTY ROAD "I" .......................,....02% HIGHWAY lO.......e ......................... i% HOUSES.......o........e .................... 2'/. SCATTERED AREAS ............................3% NORTHERN PART OF CITY.e....e ............... 2% 58 j{ __ .- _ iL> _. .t_ _ ` ._ . . __ . _ _. _ _-.' . =, .---._ ___.: _-:_ . . ': . . ___ .«..... _-__ . L. -... . .. _"._".. _'___ 1 I I. . . . ' . I I fracti a ized rovidin hints of no ma orAnswerstendedtobeon1 , p g ,] Ifocus of concern. Development along Highway 10: The disposition of the lands along the Highway 10 corridor has been an issue facing the community for some time. To measure the extent of consensus among Mounds View residents, interviewees I were asked: Of the follor ing ypes of development, rrhich ONIE r+ould yau nast favor along he 1-ligh r+ay 10 corridor etaeen County Road I and Spring La ce Park? Although retail shopping was the narrow plurality choiee, the almost even distribution of answers suggests no consensus is present: RESIDENTIAL.......e....o ..................19% RETAIL SHDPPING ...........................23% QFFICE BUILDINGS.....e .................... 17% i INDUSTRIAL...o .................e........:.lb% ALL EQUALLY (VOL> .........................18% DON'T CARE (VOL) ...........................2% IDON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................5% Each choice, though, did have groups wni n backed it more Istrongly. 18-24 year olds opted for residential development, while renters supported shopping establishments. Office fbuildings was favored by residents planning to stay b-10 years, 35-44 year olds, and professional/technical households. - The support for industrial development was scaitered across the c ity, while over 5S year olds and r tirees supported any type of construction. In sum, the City might wish to consider mixed purposes for the site, or just proceed in the absence of a firm 0 preference by the voters. 59 L _ 2; o: . Y _ Principal Shopping Area: Respondents were asked: bihat is t e location of your princi- pal retail shopping area? A majority of residents cited Northtown Malln I NONE........e....•' ........................ 2% MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE. •23 NORTHTOWN..o ..............e...............51% IfOTHER.•°' ................................ae% ROSEDALE . 15'/. NEW BRIGHTON ..............ao.e°o.oe...,.e.a4% NEW MARKETo...e......o...°oo°eoaaoea>aeo>e.4% Mounds View Square attracted roughly ane-quarter of the citya Several of the mall had established market segments within Mounds View: Mounds View Square was the choice of under 30,000 yearly income households, and precinct 2 residents Northtown Mall was the favorite of under 20,000 yearly income households i ' Rosedale attracted over 50,000 yearly income households Mounds View, through Mounds View Square, was retaining the loyalty of a definite segment of the city population: moderate O i to lower income and precinct two residents. General Shopping Behaviors Interviewees were asked to estimate the proportion of their shopping undertaken within the city: Overall, about hor+ wuch of your retail purchases do you wake in Mounds Vier+ — virtually all, iwosts some, or lit l ito none'? Less than one-quarter of the residents reported making most or all of their retail purchases in Mounds View: 60 I VIRTUALLY.ALLo ............................. b/. M05T...o. 17% I SOME......oa..e............ o .............. 46% LITTLE 70 NONE ................o • 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... . Mounds View loyalists included: Less than two year residents Renters Under 20,000 yearly household incomes Again, the same pattern seen in the segment frequenting Mounds I iew S uare is seen in those shopping primarily in the city. V q Shoppers who made only some or little of their purchases in Maunds Vaew were queried: Could you ell we one or tr+o reasons rrhy you don' shop or in Mounds Viee+? Lack of ine chandise variety and absence of larger stores were the main rtationale for going elsewhere: I NO REASDN...........a ..................... 26Y. NO STORES.o..a ............................ 28% NO SELECTION ............................. 35Y. PREFER OTHER AREAS ...............o.........8% COST..e..o ................ o................ 2% 5HOP WHERE WORK............e .............•• 1% i Apparently, the stores that currently serve Mounds View are able to attract only two types of buyers, residents who value I convenience and closeness to home, and lower income residents. A key direction for the future should be the attraction of more.and diverse, stores carrying an array of inerchandise at various price levels. SummarY and Conclusions: On the course of future economic development, most residents would favor two directions: the attraction of johs-producing industries and the construction of more "up-scale" homes. These bl E .. f . . . .. .. .._.. I " " . . U'. . - ..-. . -'- . .. I..-.. __. _ ..__ ___"_ two thrusts would tend to arrest the turnover and exadus in the community. But, beyond these marginal shifts, respondents are, far the most part, content with the directions pursued to date ar d the pace of accomplishment. A rather low number of city residents reported shopping in IMounds View, as a result of the lack of choice in merchandise and establishments. In fact, a plurality of the sample favored Iattracting shopping fa ilities to the Highway 10 corridor. i Although the data suggests that most people view this as an annoyance instead of a major problem, diversification of the retail shopping base in the city should be considered a long term I priority. In addition to providing added revenues to finance residential services, more retail establishme ts would certai ily increase longevity among city renters and might even convert more to becoming home owners. H 62 i . _ _ L ,_ _ < .. . _ a _ I . . . -. i SECT I ON SE'VEN . 1 ., . SOI_ I D WASTE MANA6El NT ,:'. . . . i . . '. ; . T . . ' ... . . - , . . . . .. , ' . I . ' .. . . a i t 1 1 1 • . . . - . . 1, ', ' . • . ' 1 1 , , , ' . . . y . f' . .. ' . . . ' : . . . . .. 63, . r ---- -- - -- - - ---------- - _— y 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT There has been much discussian and some action by county and state agencies on solid waste management. With the exhaustion ot land fills in the foreseeable future, and the natural reluctance of communities to permit the development of new sites within I their jurisdictions, the focus has turned to recycling. Maunds 1 View residents were asked a series of questions about their Ipresent recycling habits, and their reaction o proposals to facilitate further recycling. Not only are an impressive number I of residents already recycling, but some clear indications exist about how the City should proceed to further encourage careful disposal of garbage. Current Recycling: Respondents were asked: Ra sey County r+ill soon require all residents to separate recyclables fro their trash_ The City of Mounds Vier+ is curren tly irevier+ing al erna tives to cowpfly with the coun y -equireiwent. Do you curren tly separate recyclables frow ihe rest of your garbage? A fairly high thirty-seven percent separated recyclables: IYES..oma.00..e...ee°o.o.ae.......e..oa....37Y. NO.a,....oe,.o.va.a....o........o.e.,.o..eb3'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..........e...a..ee,a....0% f i Groups registering greater numbers of recyclers included: b-10 and 21-30 year residents , Precinct 1 residents Groups lagging behind: I; ._: ... . .c, ;_._ . . . ._ , :- -- ` , _ Less than two year residents Precinct 3 residents i By increasing the amount of information provided to new residents and targeting precinct 3 for additional appeals, the percentage of households recycling could be straightforwardly increased. Respondents who indicated they were currently recycling were lthen asked a series of three short questions about their specific behavior. First:_ lahich of the following iwaterials do you recycle? 61ass? Only one-sixth of the those recycling any materiais separ ated glass from their trash: YES ....................................... b'/ NO ........................o...e........... 31'/. DON'T KNOW ................................. 0% REFUSED............•• ..................... 007. Next: Newspapers and cardboard? i I Over three-quarters saved newspaper and cardboard: YES. o ............................ e... 267. NO.....a .................................. 1zY. DON'T KNOW............e .................... 0% I REFUSED ....................................% Finally: Metal ar alwir um? An impressive five-sixths separated out metal and aluminum: iYES..,e.a ............................. e...34% 7% N0. .........o ...................... DON'TBKNOW ................................. 0% REFUSED .................................... 0% I Since newspapers and metal proved to be the most popular i separated materials, the City may wish to concentra e their initial efforts, making the proper disposal of these materials 65 3`$z: 1::___..._.....-:>_._.? -__ . ._'__.., _-'--""- ._* -.: v-{ . .- _ '`: 3— --- .3>us.- even easier. In add'ation, some sort of informational campaign on separating glass products might prove helpful to the community. As a final aspect of current recycling practices, this group was asked: Hoa and where do yau recycle them? The "7-11" and grocery stores proved tn be the most convenient sites: 5T. PAUL..oe..a......... oe ................. 2% PAPER DRIVES ..........................0....2% 7-li..e,e ........................ oee....... 7% CHURCH,a,evee ..................... e........ 2% GRDCERY 5TORES.........a ............... a...9% COMBINATION..e......e ............. e........8% PICK-UPe.o ................................. 2Y. OTHER.........00 ........................... b% The "7-°11" was used by people to dispose of both metal and papers; grocery stores were the favorite drop-off point of inetal separatorso Since much of the current recycling takes place I through private initiative, a citywide program should find a very receptive audience. . City Curbside Pick=Up: To determine the interest in a city pick-up program of j recyclable materials, residents were asked two questions. The first assessed potential usage: Recy+larag Mill start in the Spring. pne way ito t the county requirc eent is for ithe Ci-y to establ ish a curb- wside pic c--u p of separated recyclable aterials. IHouset olds wiould Ibe asked o separate recyclables fr v the rest of their irash and M aulers aould carry thew araay . t If the City instituted a pick-up sys- te, ho«r li Cely r+ould you be to use it -- r ry likeYy, so ew at likelys or j no at all likely? 66 f. _ ___"'_, I__S =_' _ r; G`_.' - "' l: _ ' _'-"__"".-z_..a ir—> . ' - 3 . 1'=—_. —_= k -. _. 5 u I 7he answers project a forty-eight percent household usage rate: VERY LIKELYo.o ...............•...-•-...... 59% SOMEWHAT LIKELYe ...................... e... 26% PIOT AT ALL LIKELY ......................... 12'/• DON'T KNOW/REFUSED................°°..•°. 4'/° Groups very likely to use the program included: Over 65 year olds Retirees 18-24 year olds Professional/Technical households The latter two categories can be expected to produce larger amounts o- recyclables diverted from the waste streame Nexts an incentive program was tested: If you could save a6out fifteen per- cent orw yo u r garbage Ihauling ill by participating in the prograw, aould you do so? Residents are very interested: YES......e.......... a.o.a.oe..aoo.,..,.., e87% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ................... o.....5 Over thirty year residents were nearly unanimous in endorsing this proposal. Clearly, the optimal method for the city to comply with or exceed mandated recycling levels would be the institution of some financial reward system. Com ostinq: Another means to meet county mandated recycling levels involves composting at municipal facilities. Already, a significant number of households composte In response to the query: Do you currently ca post Yoe. I'rd reaste wiaterials? Almost fifty percent indicated they compost: 67 3.___ . ----- - .----. .. -. '' _=- ----------- --- ----- YES...o.o....... 00e..a ............. a...e.o47% NO. • a ...................... 49% DON' T oKNOW/REFUSED. . b'/• Composters tended to be: Over twenty year residents Planning to stay at least six years 45-54 year olds Precinct 1 residents Newer and younger residents tended not to bother. As a follow-up, composters were asked: Mhat co post site do you use? Almost half use municipal facilities, while the others compost in their yards: BACKYARD........o ........................ 22% MOUNDS VIEW/ARDEN PARK ....................23'/e OTHERo.ao...e....om.eao.,.o........e.e....o3X Information should be provided to home composters about municipal sites that could be used to dispose of any excess waste materials. In terms of both the disposal of recyclables and yard waste materials, Mounds View has already achieved an impressive level of compliance without instituting formal programs. Refuse Haulers: In order to streamline the refuse hauling system in I preparation for recycling programs, many municipalities are Iconsidering contraciing directly on behalf of their residents. To gauge the reaction of Mounds View citizens to such a proposal, Irespondents were asked: 68 As you way kno+. several refuse haul- ers serve R'{ounds Viea. This arrangesent has per,itted citizens to choose their oan aulers and contract directly r+ith ihe_ B ult, it has also created signi- ficant overlap betr+e n t e haulers and increased noise and congestion on city streets. Of the 'f011ONli three proposals, ahich do you iwast favor A. The Ci y contracts +ith one hauler to serve the n ire city. B_ The City contrac s with a group o f t au lers, each serving one area of tAo nrnds 'View+ exclusively_ C. The priesent system_ A majority favor retention af the status quo: PROP05AL A........ee.....o....a.,....... o.lb% PROP05AL B.e ..............................20% PROPOSAL C....ao .......................... 50'/. DON'T CARE (VOL> ...........................2% DON'T kNOW/REFUSED...........e..e....... 12% Proposal A was chosen by 50,000-60,000 yearly households. Proposal B was the favorite of: • Less than two year residents Planning to stay less than two years Clerical/Sales households 20,000-30,000 yearly income households Proposal C was the overwhelming choice of: Planning to stay at least ten years Precinct 2 residents income Prior to attempting any change in contractual relations with garbage haulers, the City will need to initiate a widespread an aggressive informational campaign. 5ummary and Conclusions: Mounds View residents already demonstrate a high level of recycling. Thirty-seven percent of the hauseholds stated they 69 s --= -- _3 : a::.. I ; _ . _ .._ _ _. - - , ----- - -`-- --- recycled some materials, usually newspapers and cardboard and/or r metal and aluminumm Priva'ce drop-of points in grocery stores or I7-11 onvenience stores were the most utilized sites. Composting is also quite extensive across Mounds View. Respondents, in any case, have already considerably complied with the coming mandates from Ramsey County. A City -sponsored pick-up system would find a fairly large audience. Forty-eight percent af the households could be projected as participants. Seniors, in particular, would take Iadvantage of this service. The proposed program, then, would greatly expand the numbers across the community who are separating recyclableso Adding a financial incentive, such as a savings on the garbage bill, would also greatly increase I participation. Short of mandating the trash hauler far each i resident, the city appears to have some leeway in meeting ear y target figures. • i J o i' . , . ,. I . . ' ,. . SECTIOI! EIGHT ,. PARICS ANU RECREAT I ON I tJES . i ' '+ . i .. . . .. . ` . . t': , 4 - _ t;: ; , . PARKS AND RECREATION ISSUES Residents were asked a series of questions about the parks and recreational facilities in Mounds View. The queries centered upon a set of issues: general rating of existing opportunities, recreational preferences, f acilities usage, support for future developments, and interest in various options at the proposed Ramsey County Library. In general, the parks and recreation evaluations were uniformly strong and reflected a"outdoors- manded" community. Evaluation of the Park and Re reation Systema Citizens were asked to rate the park and recreation facilities across Mounds Views j How would you rate park and recrea- It i ona 1 f ac i 1 i t i es i n Q'lo und s'V i ea -- excellen, good, only fair, or poor? Eighty-seven percent of Mounds View residents approved of the current facilitiese EXCELLENT .................................29% GOOD.........oe..e......e ................. 58% ONLY FAIR........a............e............8% POOR.......................................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ....................0....4'/. More flattering ratin s arose frome Planning to stay over ten years Less than two year residents Dver 50,000 yearly income households Only Pr°inct 3 residents were more critical in their judgments. i In comparison with other suburban communities, the rating is a very strong show of support for the park and re reation system, c n a par with mor spacious areas lake Eagan and Plymoutha I 72 I v - _.. _' - -vivxLr_ _ '___ -. . - .. f .- _ ._. . _ . L _ ._ , v.__._ _..rJ _ f`_.. . -_ _=-_.. . __". ".. _ y. i ' ' Leisure Time Activities: In order to measure the proportion of Mnunds View residents Iengaged in outdoor activities, respondents were askeds In general, do you usually spe*d your lei5ure tiise in outdoor activitiess aeather per ittings or indoor Iactivilties? Leisure time activities overwhelmingly tilted toward the ioutdoors. Seventy percent of the sample favored that tn indoor activities: IDUTDDOR ACTIVITIES.e ...................... 70'/. INDO R ACTIVITIES.e ..............•.°....•.20% EOTH..................................... O% NO LEISURE TIME. ...e.......•..........•.° QON'T KNOW/REFUSED......e ..............•... 1'/• I I Outdoor enthusiasts tended to be: Less than two year residents 1 - Planning to stay less than wo years 25-34 year olds Blue Collar households Indoor groups were: Over twenty year residents 55-64 year olds t Retirees I45-54 year olds tended to report they spend their leisure time in a balanced mix of both types of activities. As a rule, development of outdoor facilities and outdoor programming will best serve the needs of the general community. These opportunities are particularly important to new-comers. Residents were next asked if tney were more apt to I participate in individual recreational activities or team sports: 73 y i.- ,_ --_ . -,_ , i . _ _ -.- .- - ',-- . - _,: ---_.___...:._ __. _. .__ Are you nwre apt o par icipate in unorganized recrea tian, such as bicyc- ling. r+alking, picnics, or skating, or in organized recreation, such as tea s.ports? Unorganized activities were the overwhelming choice: UNORGANIZED ...............................71% ORGANIZED......a .......................... 12iL I HOTH EQUALLY ..............................15% NEITHER. •% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................2Y. Groups more enthusiastic about unorgariiaed activities included: Over twenty year residents 45-64 year olds Owner/Manager households 30,000-40,000 yearly income households Precinct 4 residents Only 18-24 year olds were more likely to opt for organized team sports. Future recreational development should be biased more toward unorganized activities. CitY Seonsored Recreational Proqrams: City-sponsored recreational programs were found to be relatively popular with Mounds View residents. Respondents were asked: In the past year, ave you or any eaber of your household participated an a city-sponsored recreational progra? Over one-quarter indicated participation: YES..e.o....... v0000.o°000ae000.ae.so.ao..27% NO.....................o........., e...e...b9% DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED .........................3% j Enrall es tended to be a cross-section of households containing I 1 children. Non-participants included: 74 a i I Over thirty year residents Planning to stay less than two years Renters No children in the household 18-24 & 45-54 year olds Retirees Under 30,000 yearly household incomes Usage seems to be highly slanted toward households containing children, and young and fairly affluent home owners. Residents asked: who had participated in the last years were then Do you feel that the registration fees are excessively high, co paratively highs abou average, co paratively lor+, ar very loN? No problem appears to exist with respect to registration fees in Mounds View: EXCESSIVELY HIGH .........................e.0% COMPARATIVELY HIGH.e ....................... 1% ABOUT AVERAGE.,..........o ................ 29'/. COMPARATIVELY LOW............o........•.... 4% VERYLOWe..e ............................... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 1% Similarly, non-participants were asked: Could you tell oe one or tr+o reasons e hy you aven't? Most respondents gave no answer, but time limitations and using the facilities of other communities were frequently mentioned: NO REASON,e..e .....................••••••- 45% NO TIME ..........................e........ 18% NO INTEREST ........................... • 8% I NO CHILDREN ...................o........ e...4% I GO ELSEWHERE..•,..< ............. e......,a. 12'/. AGE-HEALTH.o.. ° 8% UNAWARE.................................... 4% City recreation personnel may wish to obtain more information about the "leakage" to other communities, since it might be the result of unmet demand for certain types of teams or activities. 75 d Freguency of Facilities Usage: To ascertain the number of visits per year to the city's park and recreation facilities of the typi al Mounds View resident, interviewees were asked: Could yo u tell ne about hoa often you and other werbers of your hous hold have used i he park and recreational facilities in Mounds 'Vier+ during the past year, aeat er perwitting? The typical Mounds View residents uses park and recreational facilities several times each month: ALMOST DAILY.....a ......................... 3% SEVERA TIMES PER WEEK.....o .............. 22% ONCE PER WEEK..e........... e .........:.... 15% SEVERAL TIMES PER MONTH ...................16% OI 10E PER MONTH.e....<......... eo........... 5Y. SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR .................... 25'/. N07 AT ALL...........e....o ............... 12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDa.....e.......•....••.... 2'/' One-quarter of the city used the facilities at least several times each week, an impressively high utilization rate. Habitual u5ers tended to be: 11-20 year residents Planning to stay at least ten years Household contains children 35-44 year o 1 d s Precinct 2 residents Over b0 000 yearly income households Sporadic users were: Over twenty year residents Planning to stay 2-5 years t Household contains no children 45-54 year olds Habitual users were then asked: at kinds of ac i rities do you engage in? Softball/Baseball, walking, and playground ac ivities dominated the responses: 76 i =: --= - -- - - - .. _._._. r-.- ---- - . -- . - __ - __ - I WALKING..e ................................. 8% PLAYGROUND.....e ........................... 8'/. SKATINGo .......................... 2% SOF7BALL/BASEBALL.e........... e.......... 10'/. TENNISe.....e.a,.a...o....... a........... 0.2'/. COMHINATION-4 OR MORE ACTIVITIES...........5% OTHER...........,o ......................... 3% Sporadic and non-users were asked: Is there so e particular reason r+hy your household does not use the park and recreation syste ore frequently? Time limitations and engaging in activities outside the city were the main reasons offered: NO REASON .................................. bY4 NO7IME .....................o............. 11% NO INTEREST ................................ 4% NOKIDS .................................... 2% GO ELSEWHERE.....e ......................... 7% AGE-HEALTH .........................<....... 5'/ IVOT AWARE......a ........................... 2'/. Age and health were the reasons of elderly residents in the community. The responses clearly indicate that Mounds View residents I are among the most highly motivated outdoor recreation Ienthusiast5 in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. ComPletion of the Park SYstem: Interviewees were asked their reaction to a bond referendum Ito camplete the parks: I 6lould you favor or oppose a bond refererndu o upgrade and co plete the l7ounds 'Viea Park Systea The city residents narrowly split against this initiative: l FAVOF2........aevaa.oeo< oe000doaaosaesovooa4l% OPPOSE....o....,.. e....,....... vo......... 45Y j UNDECIDED ................................. 11% REFUSEDo . 3% 77 Supporters were moreahighly concentrated amange Less than two year residents Planning to stay less than two years Renters 18-34 year olds Professional/Technical ho seholds 20,000-30,000 yearly income households Precinct 3 residents Adamant opposition occurred among: i1-20 year residents 45-54 year olds The undecided element of the community: Over twenty year residents 55-64 year olds Retirees The passage of this bond referendum would require a very aggressive campaign. Voter identification, and get-out-the-vote activities wauld be required. To further insure paasage, some provisions for elderly residents would need to be included in the package. Although not impossible to pass, a successful contest would result only from a well-organized campaign effort. Princieal Source of Recreational Information: Residents were askede 1#-at is your principal source of infnraiaition about City recreational prograss arnd opportunities? The major source of information proved to be the city newsletter: NONE........oe.......e...ee ................ 8% PEOPLE .....................................7% NEWSLETTER ................................48% BULLETIN ...................a.............. 11% FLYERS...................................e.8% PAPERS...o ..............o..........e......18% OTHER.....e ................................ 1% The most effective communications effort would include newspaper inseris together with the city newsletter. 78 r __ . . _ :.. +;- _ .v : - 1 .-/ <._ _'' - _ r. <'-'. -_ _ ' " - - 1 ._ . __ - -'__ C" v J. k Municipal Golf Course: Reactions to a propo al for the City ownership and operation of a golf course were gauged through two queries. The first question inquired about support for the project: biould you favor or oppose the City developing and operating a regulation ryine-hole golf course? The residents split narrowly in favor of the endeavare FAVOR.a ..................... a....... a.e... 46Y. pPPOSE...e ................................ 44Y. IDON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe.o.......•...•.•.•..... 10% Groups with strong majorities in favor o1F the golf courseo 1 * Less than two year residents Owner/Manager households Over 60,000 yearly income households Groups with majorities in opposition: Over 55 year olds Reversing the traditional pattern, older citizens were apposed to the project. Usage of the facility was examined next: 1#ether you f'avor the pro j+ect or not, Mould you and/or meabers of this house- holc Ibe likely u us the golf course? A slight majority of households would be likely to use the coursea YES..................................... a.51% 47% NOo ............ e........ , 2/e DON'7 KNOW/REFUSED.......°oo...•..•...•... Interest was highest among: 35-44 year olds 11-20 year residents Owner/Manager and Clerical/Sales households Over 40,000 yearly income households Non-usage was highest among: 79 w_ _. L-. a "'.«_v'>._ _l ._t•---.. ._ 3:..._:::. ..F_ r. _- ._-'1_ _F-..'_•_;'c.._.'_.S:a.i ' __'..—s'c e'€. _ s= Over 30 year residents Over 55 year olds I Retirees 10,000-20,000 yearly income hauseholds I As long as the project would require no ta.x increase to fund development of the course, the size of the audience in Mounds View suggests that the undertaking would prove viable. F Wetlands Preservatione 1 The disposition of the wetlands in Mounds View was discussed l through the query: Should the city attespt to preserve weilarnds in Maunds Vie+ or should it encourage developwent on those lands? IA solid majority favored preserving the areas: PRESERVEoe...........o ....................70% ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT .....................12% BOTH (VOL) ................................10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................9% j Higher support for preservation was found among: . Planning to stay for at least ten years Owner/Manager households Over 50,000 yearly income households Dual income households IDevelopment was selected more frequently by: Planning to stay b-10 years A balanced approach was the choice of 21-30 year residents. Of course, to preserve the wetlands would require the City of Mounds View acquiring theme To investigate if sentiment changed when a tax increase to pay for the acquisitions was factored in, respondents favoring preservation were askeda Would you favor or oppos a property tax increase to per it the city to purchase the wetlands for preservation? v _ __ __ ___ _ _ . v_ . _s .:. ---- __ _ . _ :_._ i Again, a majority favored preservationr were needed: even if a tax increase 51% FAVOR. . 14% OPPOSE. . 5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .......................> L 9 A bond referendum to fund the acquisitions would be very likely to pass, if a credible campaign were organized in support of the measure. RamseY CountY LibrarY 5ervicese references about ancillary Residents were asked their p services to be included in the new Ramsey County Library. They were told: As you iway knnws Raws y County aill be constructir+g a county library in Mounds 'Vierr. In addition to a col- lection of ibooks that residents Aay borro ws the library will also contain an infor ation service and provide other basic reader services. I r+ould like to read you a list of features. the library could cantain. For each one, please tell ne hoti+ likely it is that you or bers of yo ur household uuld us that service. Would you say it is very likelys some hat likelys or r ot a+ all likely? The first service was also the most popular: 1/ideo cass ttes for loan? A projected use of thirty-eight percent wa5 estimated: VERY LIKELY....a.e ................. o...... 39% 90MEWHAT LIKELY...o.......• ............... 36'/. NOT AT ALL LIKELY......................•. 25° D N'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 0% Residents planning to stay b-10 years, 18-24 year olds, and over bOa000 yearly income househalds were particularly keen about the ability to take out video cassettese 81 e,___::U=.i:' _ ' <-: "J.: - -- . k..-! _. .. —'° - - I f il. Story o rr and Su er Reading pro- gra s for childr n2 Approximately nineteen percent of the househoid in Mounds View would avail themselves of a"Story Hour" opportunityo UERY LIKELY ................e.............. 18% SOMEWHAT LIK.ELY..........e..e ............. 21% NOT AT ALL LIKELY.e..e.00 e.....e......bl% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDeaee.,,.oaa...... 0% Less than five year residentsy rentersy households containing children, and 25-34 year olds were very interested in this serviceo Reader Advisory Servi for recom- ending books? The Reader Advisory Service had a projected usage of twenty percent: VERY LIKELY ...............................14% SOMEWHAT LIKELY ...........................32% I NOT AT ALL LIKELY .........................53% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................1% b-10 year residents and 45-54 year olds were extremely interested in the possibility of this service. I R Meeting Rooras? Meeting rooms appealed to only nine percent of households in Mounds View: VERY LIKELY ................................6% SOMEWHAi' LIKELY ...........................15% NOT AT ALL LIKELY...a ..................... 79% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...................e.....4% Interest was diffused across the population. the Space for quiet study? Quiet study space would be utilized by twenty-one percent of the families in Mounds View: 82 ta.:... ^_ :, _._.. .__ ..—______--_' .. ` . ... .___.. : . r.'..-_ _ . _-_--.. _-_ - __L ls.t_c..__ _ _ __, — _ . _ ' .._ =a+`i- I VERY LIKELY ...............a......:........lb% SOMEWHAT LIKELY..a ............... • 32• NOT AT ALL LIKELY .........................52% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..o .............. o....0% Less than two year residents, 35-44 year olds, Professional/Technical households, and Precinct 2 residents were much more interested than the norm. 1 l fi Ciraft progra s for chi ldren? Children's Craft Programs were rated desirable by eighteen percent of the households: VERY LIKELY.o..o..e.......... e............ 16% SOMEWHAT LIKELY.o ......................... 21% NOT AT ALL LIKELY......e .................. b3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...............a......... 0% Less than two year residents, renters, households containing childrena 25-34 year olds, and 30,000-40,000 yearly income households were quite keen about the programming. Puppet shows? Puppet shows would draw about seventeen percent of the households: VERY LIKELY..o ............................ 17% SOMEWHAT LIKELY ...........................17% NOT AT ALL LIK.ELY..e ............... e.....obb% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.e .......................0% Less than five year residents, renters, households containing children, 25-34 year olds, Professional/Technical households, and 30,004-40,040 yearly income households were most likely to camprise this audience. Book Ta1Mcs` by lacal authors and rev i errers? Book Talks draw a projected audience of eighteen percents 83 t=-_---:-?'.-:i -`_..-_. _-y_-i:.._ =-=1: - r-- " -'-_ K=- -' _ -- i-' -- '---.. VERY LIKELY...eo.ee.o.......o .............10% SOMEWHAT LIKELY...:,° :..............•....•35% NOT AT ALL LiKELY. .. .53Y. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.......e .................2% Professional/Technical households were the most interested in i this opportunity. A 1 i Ho ebound Services to deliver books o shutins2 Homebound Services would be used by twelve percent of the households: VERY LIKELYo ..............................10% SOMEWHAT LIKELYe......e......o............lb% NOT AT ALL LIKELY.o ..............e........73% DON'T KNDW/REFUSED..........oa.....e.......1% Lower income households and the elderly were the most interested in this service. Overall, video cassettes for loan would be the most appreciated service that the library could offer Mounds View residents. The least utilized services would be meeting rooms and homebound servi es. The remaining features have a very credible potential audience of approximately twenty percent; a rule for choosing among this group could be taking into account the audiences that are particularly interested in each facility and insuring a proper mix to maximize satisfaction across the community. Summary and Conclusians: Mounds View is one of the most outdoor-oriented communities the researchers have encountered. In addition, it is also heavily individualistic, with a pronounced bias toward unorgan- ized recreational pursuits. The park and recreation system 84 r., _, - - .. I 1 1 E receives an evaluation among the highest that suburban residents have conferred upon their community's offerings. Participation in City-sponsored activities and programs is also on the high side of the suburban norm. Mounds View is an amazingly active community! One issue that arises is the adequacy of current offerings. There would appear to be demand well in access of the programming currently offerede A fairly high twelve percent of the sample reported going elsewhere for recreational activities. Added research by the Parks and Recreation Department might spot the gaps" which are leading to this defection to other cities. Residents approach further developments carefully. They are split on a bond referendum to complete the park system and the construction and operation of a municipal golf coursea However, residents would be willing to support a tax increase to purchase and preserve the wetlands contained within the cit.y. Mild 'anterest was also evidenced in several ancillary services which the new Ramsey County Library could offer. The loaning of videa cassettes, in particular, was very popular. But services such as "Story Hours," Reader Advisory Service, quiet study alcoves, Craft Programs, puppet shows, and "Hook Talks" drew an audience of about twenty percent of the sample. There is, then, a pronounced feeling that the library should do more than just loan books. 85 f ... . • . . . . .. 1 :_ . .. .. . J... . . . . 7 , { . ' y , I .. . Y. l 4 ` S f 1 . ! I ' 1 +' l + , 5 ( . .. . 3 1 i , 1 ( 1 - i 5 ' _ r , ` i i ` i j - . 7 ? . . . y, t { - a .. 7 1 ' . t rt , - I '. - - . 1 1 v i, - .i . . . 4 J y r! SECTIQI k NI( i . f , '- r `, r : -s ' +/ ' ` '' :: i ; > ,, i r . 1 `- . : . .' i t ~`7 .` C. f i T C,R T I ` _ . , t -.. •. i ._ . - . i i i : -- ., -:.. "' ,: >' _ I P' . F 1 . _ ;- .. . 4 + ti:; K r : . i 1 - v r; .' i.. 5 S . ' f 1 V 1 '( ! _. ! ` 1 ..-. . . A .. i ...... . . i c i.f... ,. . _ _. r ... . . ..,... _ . . 1 1 K . .. = I f , V, • Y ;-.: . . . '..'. .::: ' .' ! 1 r' - t: t 'i.:; j' ''' Y i' f t._ \ ... . _, . ,. r . . -. . .^. r , i'. _ - >> r ft 1 - I 1 .t _ 1 L8 1 Z: ' .. .i . 1".' .- l { . , l. .. , 1 . ' 1'I i . . S 1 . p. tt iC, . . _ . , _ . . . _ ' f 5 T J l - ti'- . e L'_ L 1 1 1 _ t; t t . i -----=____. I - -, .,.-'--- -- --- L =''=' _ 1-:. _ _._.>, . I<_,_ . _' - -1 I- - - . _ - f I f F ti I CITY COMMUNICATIDNS Mounds View residents were asked a series of questions about the ways in which they obtain information about activities in the city. While there is general satisfaction with the present communications system, there are several deficiencies with respect to community integration: new-comers and renters, to a lesser extent are not part of the current system. The numbers indicate, though, that the focus should be placed primarily on the delivery systems, rather than content. Although some changes in repo'rted topics could be made, the expansian of the current communications network would appear to b the more pressing concern. PrimarY Source of CitY Government Information: To measure the types of communications vehicles used by residents in finding out about city government activities, respondents were asked: What is your principal source of i nfor ation about city gavernoent and its activities? The "Mounds View City Newsletter" was specifically mentioned by a large thirty-eight percent of the residents: NONE.................................o.....4% PEOPLE...........................e.e.......5% IVEWSLETTER ................................38% BULLETIN,e........a ....................... 15% TELEVISION ........................a........3% PAPER.....................................Z7% OTHER......e..o .........................o..4Y The "New Brighton Hulletin" and other loeal papers, when added to the reach of the newsletter, total fifty percent of the 87 responseso The group citing "newspapers" appeared confused about which newspaper they used, so the reach af the "New Brighton Bulletin" eould b even farther. There were few sources used exclusively by one group or anotheri that is, all o-f the sources mentioned in answers were almost equally used by the groups composing Mounds View. Unlike many other suburban communities, Mounds View has developed a concentrated communications system involving only several vehicles to reach a large number of residents. Satisfaction with CitY Communications: City residents were asked: Are you generally satisfied or dis- satisfied with your level of infor ation abou ci y goverr ent and i s activities? An exceptionally high eighty-three percent were satisfied: SATISFIED............ese............ e.....83% DISSATISFIED ..............................12'/e DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................4% Groups particularly pleased included over 30 year residents and over 55 year olds. Dissatisfaction was more evident among 45-54 year olds. Overall, Mounds View is perceived as doing an excellent job in communications with its residentso The "New Briqhton Hulletin"_ To further probe the effectiveness of local newspapers, residents were asked: Does your ousehold currently receive the 'Ne.r Hrighton Bulletin'? Do you generally read tha# ne.+spaper2 A very high seventy-four percent reported r eiving and reading the "New Brighton Hulletin"e 8B N - Y __ - ---_. .._J. .__ ° s __ _ ..:x: .._: .---::.... —>:;_. i - __ -- - - 1 1 E RECEIVE/READ.o......e .................. e..74% RECEIVE/DON'T READ .........................9% DON'T RECEIVE .............................15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..........e .............. 2% The overall reach af the newspaper was eighty-three percent -- a very solid figure for a suburban newspaper. New Brighton Hulletin" readers were especially numerous among: t Over twenty year residents Planning to stay at least six years 40,0 0-50,000 yearly income households Precinct 1 residents The paper was not likely to be received by: Less than two year residents Planning to stay less than two years Renters 18-24 year olds Owner/Manager households Llnder 34,000 yearly income households Precinct 3 residents Although generally effective as a communications device, the newspaper is not reaching new-comers or renters. A discussion with the newspaper company may be in order to discuss remedies for this current situation. The Focus"° A similar question was asked about the other prominent local newsp aper- : Does your household currently receave r ' The Focus'; Do you generally read that n wsp per2 A sizable sixty-one percent of the sample reported receiving and reading "The Focus": RECEIVE/READ ..............................61% RECEIVE/DON'T READ.....e........ ....... olb% DON'T RECEIVE .............................18% DOIV'T KNOW/REFUSED......o .................. 5% r. . - --- - v . _ _ : _ - - i . f 1 J 1 The overall rea h o F the paper was a high seventy-seven percent, indicating a somewhat larger non-readership rate. Readers of "The Focus" tended to be: Over twenty year residents Planing to stay rest of life Over 55 year olds A similar profile to the "New Hrighton Bulletin" readership. The paper was not received bye Less than five year residents Planning to stay.less than five years Renters 18-24 year olds Again, the households not receiving "The Focus" had a very similar profile to those not receiving the "New Brighton Bulletin." The City Council may, consequently, wish to discuss the fact with both local papers that new-comers and renters do not appear to receive them. The "Mounds View City Newsletter": To judge the effectiveness of the "Mounds View City Newsletter," residents were asked a series of four questions. To measure reach, interviewees were asked: Do you recall receiving the `Moundsview City Nerrsletter'? A startlingly high eighty-six percent reported receipt of the newsletter: YES........................................86% NO ..... ...................................11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDa .........................3% Groups indicating higher levels of receipts Over thirty year residents Planning to stay at least six years 45-64 year olds l 1 i r I l i Groups in which a majority were not receiving the "Mounds View City Newsletter": Planning to stay less than two years 19-24 year olds The Mounds View newsletter has the widest distribution of any city publication encountered by the researchers. Readership was estimated at eighty percent, again establish- ing a record among its peers. Respondents who recalled receiving the newsletter were asked: Do you or any e bers of your house- hold regularly read it? The fall-off between receipt and readership was a very low seven percent of the base: YES....................................... 80% NO......................................... 6% DON'T KNOW/ftEFUSED .........................0% Non-readers were more frequently 18-24 year olds. Again, this is a very impressive result for the publication! Retention of the publication for future use was examined thraugh the query: po you tend to kecp it around for later reference or toss it after you have read through it? Sixty-nine percent af the households receiving the newsletter kept it araund for future reference: KEEP IT AROUND .......................... e.43Y. 70SSIT---• ............................... 25% BOTH/DEPENDS ON ISSUE .....................12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....o ..............°.... 1% Hence, the newsletter is acting as a heavily and repeatedly relied upon source of information for many citizens. anallye readers were asl<edo 91 1 I i J' Are here any changes or i prove ents in he fnr at ar the coverage which you r+ould li to see? The inclusion of more information about community events and council actions were the only changes that were mentioned: NONEa..o ............................... e..65% MOREON COMMUNITY EVENTS ...................3% COUNCIL SUMMARIEB ..........................3% In essence, with so many readers seeing no need for change, the publication should be kept in its present form and content mix. But, with the image problems that the Council seems to have with followers of city activities, some thought should be given to re- evaluating the treatment of their activities. Cable Telev_ision: An augmentation of print communications is the electronic media. Cable television has been utilized in many areas across the country as a means of relating local government information to citizens. A pre-conditian for its effective use, however, is sufficient viewership. Td estimate the number of households on the system, respondents were asked: Does your household currently receive cable television2 Forty-three percent indicated they were hooked-up to the system: YES.........oe ............................ 43% NO.....m......e....e ...................... 57% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................0% Households stating higher percentages included: Less than two year residents Households not possessing cable television: 92 r—==. .----- __. . . _ . ... . -- 1 . _ . . . . . ... - . . I . _ . .. . .. . . . , , . . , ij . , . . . . . , : . • - . I. F'' . . . _ . .. . , . . . . .' ,. • . . .' . i_. . . ' ' ... . . . ' - , . . t . . . . ' . . . . f r ( 3 t . A.. t ' - .._. ' 1' i''' , ' QUES IONNAIRE 3 4. t r r . i S. i .. . { t . li . f 7 - . ' . 1:. 1 K (. h : . " _ :. . . _ . r . . ... F . - . .' y t I `` \ r r ' _ 1 ' i .):. rr 5 ' I ' i .,' / 11 , 1 f r),I' IT ' Y fl ii . . ..' .. . _'1" . . • fi ' 1 - i ! i j c s , f . S , , n -, y i A ' T I 1 1 G ` . F f i ' _ 4 , I L Y l l. ! ' ; 7 J ! 41 1 -! t r. i ; ! _ i 1 L -. i 7 i i _ j' -` f I 4 - _ 1 w _ - r r . i i , _ f 'z 7 i t sr` `. ' 1 i } ` i r , r ' ' ' - ' a `, a r { , , `i L a ' -. _ 3 -:: _. a. . t .., L . .. . _ L ' :, I . 1 .:' j . Y , t 4. 3_S ,—. _.:- 3" .-.'. .. ',. ...: . .... .: I. .._.'. . ,. _.. ._...'.`/.. 1...r . ..... . . . t . . f s. y 1 4: , ... . A . ... ..+ . . . . . .. . .. . .-. k ; r r _ - t. f Y t a l 1 4 i _. DECISION RESOURCES, LTDD MOUNDS VIEW CITY SURVEY 3128 Dean Court City Services/Policies/Demosf Minneapolis, Minnesnta 55414 1 i Hello, I'm __________ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm. We've been retained by the City of Mounds View to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The 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 reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how long have you lived in Mounds View? LESS THAN TWO YEARS...14% 2 - 5 YEARS...........21% 6 - 10 YEARS....o.....15% 11 - 20 YEARS.........29% 21 - 30 YEARS.........12Y. VER THIRTY YEARS......9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDao...0% 2. In what city and/or state was your immediate priar residence located? MOUNDS VIEW: 5% ST. PAU.L: 13% MPLS: 14% REST HENNEPIN: 9% OUT OF STATE: 9% REST OF MINN: 12% ANOKA CO: 20% NEW BRIGHTONe 7% REST OF RAMSEY: e% 3. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you moved to Mounds View? DON'T KNOW: b% JOBe 20Y HOUSiNGe 35'/. LOCATION: 10% SCHOOLS: b% LIKED AREAt 8% FAMILY NEAR: 12% LEAVE 7WIN CITIES: 4% i 4. As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS...10% the future do you expect to live 2- 5 YEARS...........17% I in Mounds View? b- 10 YEARS........a..8% OVER TEN YEARS........16% REST OF LIFE (VOL.)...31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....17% 1 5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............28'/. life in Mounds View -- excellent GOOD....e .............b4% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR....e........ 7 POORe........00,.......2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 6. Over the next five years, do you DECLINE ................8% expect the quality of life in REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME.55Y. Mounds View to decline, remain IMPROVE ...............33% about the same, or improve? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% 1 r _ s"' " r ' a _ I : ._- , J ._.."' "' ..__._ .__ ..— __ '"___. '"_"" I l a i r a' J..... -. — --. 7. What do you like MOST about living in Mounds View? DON'7 KNOWe 11% LOCATION: 37% SCHOQLS: 7% QUIET: 9% PEOPLE: 7% NEIGHBORHOODe 11% EVERYTHINGa 6% SMALLo 8'/. CLEAN: 2% WELL-RUNs 4% 8. What do you like LEAST about living in Mounds View? DON'T KNOW: 23% NOTHING: 24X GRqWTH: 5% PIPELINE: 4% ROADS: b'/ NOISEe 4% LOCATION: 7% BLIGHT: 5Y. HWY. 10: 4% CITY GOV: 5% TAXES: 2% CITY SERVICES: 7% OTHERe 4% 9. Do you think that things in Mounds RIGHT DIRECTION.......82% View are moving in the right di- WRONG TRACK............9% rection or do you feel they have DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% gotten off on the wrong track? IF "WRONG TRACK" IN QUESTION #9, ASKe 10. Why do you feel that way? SPRAWL: 1% GOVERNMENT: 3% PLANNING: 4% OTHERa 1'/. il. How much pride do you take in the GREAT DEAL......e..... 23% City of Mounds View as a place to QUITE A LOT.......o. 44'/. live -- a great deal, quite a lot, SOME ..................26% some, or very little? VERY LIT7LE............4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 12. If you had the chance, would you YES ...................32% like to move away from your NO.e...s............. 64Y. residence in Mounds View? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..:..4% IF "YES" IN QUESTION #12, ASK: 13. Why would you like to move? UPGRADE: 18% CLIMATE: 2Y. RETIRE: 3% JOB: 2% MOVE TO COUNTRY: 4'/. QTHER: 3% 14. Where would you like to move? INTO MINN/ST. PAUL.....2% WITHIN MOUNDS VIEW.....b% ANDTHER SUBURH........13% FURTHER FROM DDWNTOWN..4% OUT OF MINNESOTA.......7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 15. If you were moving to another city, what factor would be most important to you in selecting your new place of residence? DON'T KNOW; 14% LOCATION: 18% CLIMATE: 5% BETTER HOUSE: 15% JOHn 10% SCHOOLS: 11% AREA: 11% SMALL TOWN: 6% COST: 9% IF RESP NSE GIVEN IN QUESTION #15, ASK: 2 k t. .,. _ . - _, _ - • - - - i i 16. How would you rate Mounds EXCELLENT...e.e....... 15% View on that -- excellent, GOOD..........e....o..41'/. good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR .............14% POOR ................0..7% DON'T KNDW/REFUSED....1Q'/. 17a I- it were needed to maintain FAVOR.a..o............37% city services at their current OPPOSE..e....o......a.48% level, would you favor or oppose DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo...15% an increase in city property taxes? 18. Do you consider property taxes in EXCESSIVELY HIGH.......6'/. Mounds View to be excessively RELATIVELY HIGH.......19% high, relatively high, about ABOUT AVERAGE.........55% average, or comparatively low? CQMPARATIVELY LOWa.....7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13% I would like to read you a list of changes in city services which could be made to avoid increases in taxes or special assessments. For each one, please tell me if you would favor that change as an alternative to higher taxes, or if you would oppose that change even if it meant higher taxes. 19. Increase the time it takes police to respond to a non- emergency call to save funding more positions? I a a 20. Increase the time it takes to plow city streets after a snow storm? FAVOR PPOSE D.K./REF. 36'/. 38% 57% S6% 8% b'/. 21. Decrease the amount of funds spent on the maintenance and upkeep of city parks? 33% 58% 9% 22. Reduce the amount of street maintenance undertaken each year? 26% 65% 9% 23. Reduce the frequency of inspections and response time to complaints about violations of city residential codes? 38% 46% 16% As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Maunds View, Ramsey County, and your local public school district. 3 s-°= : ,.. . . -- . . . . . 1 _ --. < i ------ -.. ' —"- —'— -- - -- '--.. _. -'- — - . __ -- _- .R_ c:s..^----- _ -- - k 24, For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENTa....27' you pay about what percentage do 10% TO 20%............ 17/• you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30%.:::::::::e: 31 % TO 40'/.. . . .4% ment? S% 41% TO 50Y........... 51% TO b0% .............0% 61% TO 70%......... ..1'/. OVER SEVENTY PERCENT...O% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....40'/. I would like to read you a list of a few services provided by the City or County. For each one, please tell me whether y{al oul d rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only poor. EXC GOOD ONLY POOR DREF. FAIR 25. Park Maintenance 18% bb'/. 137. 3% O% 26. Snow Plowing 23% 56Y. ib% 5% O% 61'/. 7% 1 % 7% 27. Police Protection 4• P tection 19% 62'/. 4% 1% 13% 28. Fire ro 29. City Street Maintenance O. Animal Control 31. Waste and Storm Water Control 32. Water for Resi- dential Use 10% 58X 25Y. 9Y. 54'/. 18% 7% 59% 15% 14% 62% 13% 8% 0% 12% 9% 10'/. 9 • 10% Z'• IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN GIUESTIONS #25-32, ASK FOR EACH ONE: 33. Why did you rate ____________ as (only f air/poor)? ANIMALS: 10% 6AD WATER: 11% FLOODS: bY. POTHOLES: 5% SLOW RESPONSE: 9% ANIMALS-FLOODS-STREETS: 10% DIRTY: 3% STREETS-FLOODS-WATER: b% OTHER COMBOs 5'/+ Let's talk about Mounds View City Government for a few minutes. When many people think about their local government, they think of the elected officials who represent them...• 34. How mu h do you feel you know GREAT DEAL .............5'/ about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT....o....b City Council -- a great deal, VERY LITTLE......... a f air amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 4 35. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE......15% or disapprove of the job the Mayor SOMEWHAT APPROVE.e....54% and City Council are doing? (WAIT SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE....S% FOR RESPONSE) And da yau feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE....3Y. strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....24% 36. Have you or any members of this household had contact with the Mounds View City staff during the past year? YES........o..........33% NO ....................58% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% 37. From what you have seen ar heard, EXCELLENT ..............8% how would you rate the job per- GOOD ..................59% j formance of the Mounds View City ONLY FAIR ..............9% staff -- excellent, good, only POOR....o....o.........3% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....22% 38. Do you feel that the amount of T0 LITTLE............15% police patrolling in your neigh- AHOUT RIGHT...........80% borhood is too little, about TOO MUCH ...............4% right, or too much? D N'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% d IF "TOO LITTLE" IN QUESTION #38, ASK: 39. Would you favor or oppose FAVOR ..................9% the hiring of more police OPPOSE .............0...5% officers to expand patrols, DON'T KNOW/REFIJSED.e...2% even if it meant an in- crease in property taxes? l Let's talk about economic development in Mounds Viewoevo 40. If the City were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it to be? DON'T KNOW: 17% SHOPS: 13% RESIDENTIAL: 18% FFICE: 13% INDUSTRIAL: 26'/. NONE: 3Y. RECREATIONAL: 3% OTHER: 3% 410 Do you feel that the pace of TOO RAPIDe............12% commercial and industrial devel- ABOUT RIGHT...........65% opment in the city has been too NOT FAST ENOUGH.......20% rapid, abaut right, or not fast DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% enough? 42. Are there any dalapidated or sub-standard areas of the city in which you would particularly favor re-development? (IF YES," ASK:) What are they? DON'7 KNDWs 10% NONE: 78% TRAILERSe 2% APTS: 2% CO I: 27. HWY. 10: 1% HOUSES: 2% MISC. AREAS: 3% NDRTN AREA: 2% 5 c - ..: - _._ ---: . .-=--- t..:..,..._ . .: : ` - - — --- . . _ _ — - I i l 43. Of the following types of devel- RESIDENTIALo..........19% opment, which ONE would you RETAIL SHOPPING.......23% most favor along the Highway 10 OFFICE BUILDINGS......17% corridor between County Road I INDUSTRIALo..a.o......lb% and Spring Lake Park? ALL EQUALLY (VOL).....18% READ CHOICES #1-#4) DON'T CARE (VOL).......2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% 44. What is the location of your principal retail shopping area? NONE: 2% MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE: 23% NORTHTOWN: 51% OTHER: 2% ROSEDALE: 15X NEW BRIGHTON: 4% NEW MARKET: 4% 45. Overall, about how much of your VIRTUALLY ALL...oe.....b% retail purchases do you make in MOST........e.........17% Mounds View -- virtually all, SOME...o.a............46% mast, some, or little to none? LITTLE TO NONE........31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "SOME" OR "LITTLE TO NONE," ASK: 46. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you don't shop more in Mounds View? NO REASON: 26% NO STORES: 28'/. NO SELECTION: 35% PREFER OTHER: 8% COST: 2'/. SHOP WHERE WORK: 1% 47. Have you visited Mounds View City YES ...................52% Hall during the past twelve NO...o ................49% months? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YE5" IN UESTION #47, ASK: For each of the following characteristics, please rate the Mounds View Gity Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EXC GOOD ONLY PpOR D.K./ FAIR REF. 48. Convenience of City Hall hours? 9% 49m Waiting time for service? 18% 50. Courtesy of the staff? 20% 51. Efficiency of the staff? lk% 52. Cleanliness of the building? 23% 37% 4% 28% 2% 2'7% 2% 31% 4% 8 i 2% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0 a 1 s I Ramsey County will soon require all residents to separate recy- clables from their trash. The City of Mounds View is currently reviewing alternatives ta comply with the county requirement. 53. Do you currently separate recy- YES ................e..37% clables from the rest of your NO ...................ab3% garbage? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES" IN QUESTION #53, ASK: O Which of the following materials do you recycle? YES NO D.K. REF. 54. Glass? b% 55. Newspapers and cardboard? 26% 56. Metal and aluminum? 30% IF RECYCLING ANY MATERIALS, ASKa 31 % 0'/. O% 12% O% O% 7% 0% O% 57. How and where do you recycle them? ST . PAUL : 2% PAPER DR I VES : 2% 7-1 1: 7% CHIJRCH a 2•1. GROCERY STORES: 9% COMBOe 8% PICK-UP: 2% OTHER: b% Recycling will start in the Spring. One way to meet the county requirement is for the City to establish a curbside pick-up of separated recyclable materials. Households would be asked ta separate recyclables from the rest of their trash and haulers would carry them away. 58e If the City instituted a pick-up VERY LIKELY...........59% system, how likely would you be SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......2b'/. to use it -- very likely, some- NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....12% what likely, or not at all likely? DON'T KNDW/REFUSED.....4% 59. If you could save about fifteen YES ...................87% percent on your garbage hauling NO..va..a ..............8% bill by participating in the pro- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% gram, would you do so? 60. Do you currently compost your YES.....o .............47% waste yard materials? NO ..................e.49% DON'T KNOWIREFUSED.....6% IF "YES," ASKs bl. What compost site do you use? BACKYARDt 22% MOUNDS VIEW: 15% ARDEN PARK: 8% OTHER: 3% As you may know, several refuse haulers serve M unds View. This arrangernent has permitted citizens to choose their own haulers and contract directly with them. But, it has also created significant overlap betw2en the haulers and increased noise and i i i l congestion on city streets. 62. Of the following three proposals, which do you most favor: A. 7he City co tracts with one hauler to serve the entire city. 8. The City contracts with a group of haulers, each serving one area of Mounds View exclu- sively. C. The present system. PROPOSAL A............16% PROPOSAL 8............20% PRqPOSAL C.....o.....50% DON'T CARE (VOL).......2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12% Traditionally, the City has provided residents with basic ser- vices, such as police and fire protection, and street mainten- ance. Some cities also provide social services to their resi- dents, such as Chemical Abuse Programs, Counseling, Day Care, and Senior Services. 63. Would you favor or oppose the City of Mounds View expanding its current service provision to include social services? YES ................e,.49% NO....................43% DON'T KNOWIREFUSEDo....8% 64. In general, do you feel that the SERIOUS PRQBLEM..o.....b% condition and upkeep of city MINOR PROBLEM...... 60% streets is a serious problem in NO PROBLEM............34% Mounds View, a minor problem, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% or no problem at all? IF "SERIOUS," IN QUESTION #64, ASK: 65. Why do you feel that way? POTHOLES: 4% SILVER LAKE RD: bbe Do you feel that the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code regarding residential property maintenance for weed control, outdoor storage, junk cars, animal control, and noise? 1% OTHER: 1% TOO TOUGH ..............2% ABOUT RIGHT...........60% NOT T UGH ENOUGH......32% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% IF "T00 TOUGH" R "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #66, ASKa 67. Why do you feel that way? ANIMALS: 3Y. JUNK CARS: 6% YARDS: 11% COMHO: 8% HOUSES : 2% TOO P I CKY : 2% OTHER : 2'/. 68. How serious do you feel the VERY SERIOUS..........11% problem of storm water manage- NOT TOO SERIOUS.......39% ment is in Mounds View -- very NOT A PROBLEM.e.......43% seriaus, not too serious, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% not a problem at all? r --- n - - ---- - -- - -- -- -- -- --- _ , _ -____ '_e_.__..__ _- v :__-.=...w: : .. .___ -4 _ _ ,_ . ' ; ' - ;i u 1 1 Currently, the City uses a system of ponds to control the run-off from storms. 69. Would you favor or oppose the construction of storm water sewers in the city? tWAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVORo..o....11% FAVOR..o ..............24% OPPOSE..........a.....27% STR NGL.Y OPPOSE.......19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....19% Although no formal proposals have been made, if the city were to construct storm sewers, it would require the passage of a bond referendum. 70. How much more would you be willing to pay in property taxes to sup- part construction of storm sewers? START WITH RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FROM #1 - #7) Let's say would you be willing to pay ____ per year? tMOVE TO NEXT CH ICE UP OR DOWN/REPEAT) NOTHING ...............37% 25 ...................11% 50 ...................15% 75 ....................5Y. lO.......e........... b% 125 .................0.2% 150 ...................2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....23% 71. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT .............29% reational facilities in Mounds GOOD ..................58% View -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR ..............8% fair, or poor? POOR ...................1'/. DON'T KN W/REFUSED.....4% 72. In general, do you usually spend OUTDOOR AC7IVITIES....70% your leisure time in outdoor INDOOR ACTIVITIES......8% activities, weather permitting, BOTH.m.........a...... 20% or indoor activities? NO LEISURE TIME........0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 73e Are you more apt to participate UNORGANIZED...........71% in unorganized recreation, such ORGANIZED .............12% as bicycling, walking, picnics, HOTH EQUALLY..........15% or skating, or in organized NEITHERe ...............0% recreation, such as team sports? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2Y. 74. In the past year, have you or any YES......o..e.........27% member of your household partici- NO..e ................. b9'/. pated in a city-sponsored recre- DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDe....3% ationai program? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #74, ASK: 75. Do you feel that the regis- EXCESSIVELY HIGH.......OY tration fees are excessively COMPARATIVELY HIGH.....1% high, comparatively high, ABOUT AVERAGE.eo......29% about average, comparatively COMPARATIVELY LOW...e..4% low, or very low? VERY LOW.o........s..e.l% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF "NO" IN QUESTION #74, A5Ka 9 t _ G - _ _ _ ___ _ f _ _:__ ; _ – - - -- - - _ ::.=—• ----- G3+`i: __' __. .___. -:y __ ___. _' _ -___ ` I I 1 IF "NO" IN QUESTION #74 ASK: 76o Could you tell me one or two reasons why yDU haven't? NO REASON: 45% NO TIME: 18% NO INTEREST: 8% NO KIDS: 4% GO ELSEWHERE: 12% AGE-HEALTH: 8'/. UNAWARE: 4% 77. Could you tell me about how often ALMOST DAILY.......e...3'1. you and other members of yaur SEVERAL TIMES PER WEEK• 15% household have used the park and ONCE PER WEEK.........- recreational facilities in Mounds SEVERAL TIMES PER MONTHI6'/. View during the past year, weather ONCE PER MQNTH..........5'/. permitting? (READ CHOICES #1 - SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR.25% 7 NOT AT ALLe...e........ 12'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2'/. IF "ONCE PER WEEK" OR MORE IN QUESTION #77, ASKs 78o What kinds of activities da you engage in? WALKING: 8Y. PLAYGROUND: 8% SKATING: 2X HALLs 10% TENNIS: 2'/. COMBO-4+: 5% OTHER: 3% IF "SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR" OR "NqT AT ALL" IN QUESTI(]N #77, ASK: 79. Is there some particular reason why your household does not use the park and recreation system more frequently. NO REASON: 68Y. NO TIMEa 11% NO INTERES7: 4'/ NO KIDS: 2% GO ELSEWHERE: 7% AGE-HEALTH: 5Y. NOT AWARE: 2% ' I a..41'. 80. Would you favor or oppose a bond FAVOR.....•° e'..,..... 45% referendum to upgrade and com- OPPOSE...... plete the Mounds View Park UNDECIDED .............11% REFUSED. .............3Y. System? .. 81. What is your principal source of information about City recreational programs and opportunities? NONE: 8% PEOPLE: 7% NEWSLETTER: 48% BUL ETIN: 11% FLYERS: 8X PAPERS: 18% 07HERe 1% g2. Would yau favor or oppose the City developing and operating a regulation nine-hole golf course? FAVOR .................46'/. OPPOSE...........0....44% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% 83. Whether you favor the project YES............ e......51% or not, would you and/or members NO ....................47% of this household be likely to DON'T KNOW/.-REFUSED.....2'/• use the galf aurse? 10 Y' . .. _ . _ . . .... . .. _ . ' _ . " I _ _ J :; .. . . _ . . . . _" _ s._ai:a:..S2'•. Ei'.....-- " - .._ ,_ -. .. . . ...: . . .... . _ 84. Should the city attempt to pre- PRESERVE ..............70% serve wetlands in Mounds View or ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT.12% should it encourage development BOTH (VOL)............10% on tho5e lands? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% IF "PRESERVE" IN QUESTION #84, ASK: 85. Would you favor or oppose a FAVOR.....,......e....51% property tax increase to OPPOSE.oa.....o.......14'/. permit the city to purchase DON'T KNOW/REFUSEDo....5°1. the wetlands for preserva- tion? As you may know, Ramsey County will be constructing a county library in Mounds View. In addition tn a collection of books that residents may borrow, the library will also contain an information service and provide other basic reader services. I would like to read you a list of features the library could contain. For each one, please tell me how likely it is that you or members of your household would use that service. Would you say it is very likelyr somewhat likely, or not at all likely? VERY SfJME NOT AT D.K./ LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY REF. 86. Video cassettes for loan? 87. Story Hour and Summer Reading programs for children? 88. Reader Advisory Service for recommending books? 89. Meetang Rooms? 90. Space for quiet study? 91. Craft programs -For children? 92. Puppet shows? 93. "Book Talks" by local authors and and reviewers? 94. Homebound Services to deliver books to shut- i ns? 39'/. 36'/. 18% 21% 14% 32Y. 6 % 15'/ 1 bY. 32% 16% 21% 17% 17% 10% 35% 10% 11 16% 25% 61% 53% 79% 52% 63% 66% 53% 73% Y? O% • 1% O% O% O% O% 2% 1% r y_ . ;e ; < ,.:. - = -- -_ — _=, - • ;- : ' i 1 i 1 i 95. What is your principal source of information about city government and its activities? NONE: 9% PEOPLE: 5% NEWSLETTER: 38% BULLETIN: 15% TV: 3'/. PAPER: 27% OTHER: 4% 96. Are you generally satisfied or SATISFIED .............83'/. dissatisfied with your level af DISSATISFIED..........12% information ahout city gavern- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4Y. ment and its activities? 97. Does your household currently receive the "New Brighton Bulletin"? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you generally read that newspaper? RECEIVE/READ..........74% RECEIVE/DON'T READ.....9% DON'T RECEIVE.........15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2'/. 98. Does your household currently RECEIVE/READ....e..o.abl% receive "The Focus"? tIF "YES," RECEIVE/DON'T READ....ib% ASK:) Do you generally read DON'T RECEIVE.........18% that newspaper? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% 99. Other than voting, do you feel YES ................:..71% that if you wanted to, you could NO...o.............. 19% have a say about the way the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....LO% City of Mounds View runs things? 100. Do you recall receiving the Moundsview City Newsletter"? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #100, ASK: 101. Do you or any members of your household regularly read it? IF "YES" IN UESTION #101, ASK: YES ...................86'/. NO....................11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3'/. YES...................80Y. NO.....................6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 102. Do you tend ta keep it KEEP IT AROUND........43% iaround for later re ference TOSS IT ...............25% 1 0 toss it after you have BOTHIDEPENDS ON ISSUE.I2Y. read through it? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% I i f, i 103. Are there any changes or improvements in the format or the coverage vhich you would like to see? N NE: 65% COMMUNITY EVENTS: 3% COUNCIL SUMMARIES: 3% 194o Does your household currently reeeive cable television? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #104, ASK: 9 YES ...................43% NO....................57% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....oO% I 1 Se City Council Meetings are VERY FREQUEPVTLYo..00...z% televised on cable tele- OCCASIONALL.Y......o...IOY. vision. How frequently do NEVER...a.e..e.o.00...31% you watch these broadcasts DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% very frequently, occa- sionally, or never? IF "VERY FREQUENTLY" OR "OCCASiONALLY" IN QUESTION #105 ASK: lOb. Are there any changes or improvements in the broadcasts 1 that you would like to see? NONE: 7% CITY INFO: 1'/. BETTER SOUND: 2% 1 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.a.. 107. Do you own or rent your present OWN ...................79% residence? RENT.....,..o.........21% REFUSED........o.......0% 108. Which of the follawing best SINGLE FAMILY DWELL...76% describes your residence? APARTMENT .............17% READ CHOICES) TOWNHt7USE/CONDOMINIUM..2% MOBILE HOME........a...4% OTHER: OTHER...oa .............1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start aldest to young- est, and be sure to count yourself. 109. Are there anY persons over the age of 65 living in this residence? 110. Are there any schaol-aged hild- ren living in this household? 111. Are there any pre-schoolers in this residence? 112. What is your age, please? READ CATEGORIES) YES ...................12% NO....................88'/. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% YES ...................37% NOm........e........e.b3% DON'T KfVOW/REFUSED.,...0% YES ...................22% NO ...............0....78% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....°O% 18-24 ..................9% 25-34 ...............e.27% 35-44....0......0....28% 45-54 .................161. 55-64 .................12% b5 AND OVER............7% REFUSED...o............1% 13 ' E ::-9 --- - - . _.. , {= - - - ..1 -=Ct _ .., -°- ' --'=--=,s-_'- k--- _ = . '--.-+ I \ 1 I 113. What is the occupation of the head of this household? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL: 23% OWNER-MANAGER: 16% CLERICAL-SALES: 14% BLUE COLLAR: 31'/ RETIRED: 11% SCATTERED: 4% REFUSED: 3% 114s What is your present marital S%NGLE...........0.0..15% status, please? Are you pre- MARRIED........o......73% sently single, married, divorced DIVORCED ...............9% or widowed? WIDOWED....e...... ...3% REFUSED ................0% IF "MARRIED" IN UESTION #115, ASK: 115. Do both spouses work outside YES .............a.....42% the home? NO ....................28% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3'/. 1lb. Can you tell me approximately . HELOW 10,000..........3% what is the level of incame for $1Oa001-20,000........9% all members of your household 20,001-30,004.......25'/. before any taxes? Is the total 30,001-40,000.......18% annual income: 40,001-50,000.......20% READ CHOICES #1-#7) 50,001-b0,000........8% OVER 60,000...........6'/. DON'T KNOW .............3% REFUSED ................8'1. 117. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT A5K) ZONES: 1: 24% 2: 21% 3: 28% 4: 27% 14 MALE ..................51% FEMALE...e............49Y.