HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2003 Council Work SessionI
TO:Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Cliiiir McDennoU ;uid P:uks, 0|K:ii Space :uul 'I'niils Cointnissioii Mciu Ikts
FROM:
DA'IE:
Ron Mourse, City Adiniiiistralor
N ovcih Ikt 12, 2(M);i
SUBJECTF: Joint Workscssion —Council and P:uks, 0|)cn Space, and Trails Commission
Tlic Parks, Open Space and 'I'raiis Commission has requested that a copy ol its “Strategic Plan"
be included in the agenda packet (see attached) as die basis for providing the Council isidi an
ouUinc of the dirccUon in which die Park Commission is moving, and die issues .and priorities it
has idenlined. Aldiougli die Strategic Plan includes some long tenn go:ds and |>l;uis, it also
includes a number of specific projects. It is important that the Council and Park Commission
avoid getting bogge<l down in the deUiil of die Strategic Plan, such as the spccilic projects diat arc
planned, die level of funding for parks, etc., so much th.it diey miss diis opportunity to address
some of die deeper issues diat are important to die Council :uid die Park Conmiissioii working
togedier elTectively to meet the community ’s parks, o(>en sp.ice, and trails needs.
'Hiesc <lee|ier issues include whether the vision and goals of die Park Commission and die
Council regarding die parks system arc in synch; whcdier dierc is an accurate :md shared
uiulerstaiidiiig of die needs of the conmiunity, in terms of parks, open .space, .md trails; and
whedicr tlicrc is a shared understanding of die role of die Park Commission in relation to die
Council and our citi/.ens.
Although die first strategy listed for meeting the Conmiissioirs mission is to i<ientify recreation
and open space needs of die city and its residents, .ind die lirst item in the list of actions in
support of die mission is to evaluate current park, o|>eii space and trail options to determine if
conmiunity needs are licing met, the strategic plan docs not include an action plan for identifying
and prioritizing die needs of die community. A key element in aligning die vision iuid goiils of the
Park Commission and die Council regiirding parks, open space and trails is a shared
understanding of needs, and die level and priority of needs. A shared understanding of needs
and priorities will provide the I'nuiiework necessar>' to lie able to edectively address, ami make
decisions about, park issues, such as diosc in die Strategic Plan.
The most comprehensive infonnation we have about park, open space, and trail needs is the Park
Survey conducted in 1994. 'Fhe sunmuiry and conclusions sections of die survey, as well as a
tabulation of die responses to the survey questions, are attached. Aldiou^i a number of changes
have occurred in die City since the 1994 survey, we do not liavc updated information to indicate
whedicr die needs and priorities have changed since diat time. It would be helpful to spend some
time discussing how best to facilitate a shared understanding between die Council imd Park
Conmiissioii regarding park, open space and trail needs aiul priorities.
I
Park, Open Space and Trail Strategic Plan
(excerpts taken from City of Orono Community Management Plan)
Mission Statement;
To develop and implement a strategy fin- meeting the recreational needs ef
Orono's residents of all ages in an ^cient, economical manner.
To accomplish this the following strategies have been identified;
1 . Identify recreation and open space needs of the city and its residents
- location, type and Unction of
• parks
* open space areas
• trails
* recreational facilities
- prioritize and schedule improvements and maintenance of facilities
2. Identify potential future open space, park and trail requirements
- plan for acquisition of additional property
3. Prepare to act when opportunities arise
The following items need to be addressed to support the mission;
1 . Evaluate the current park, open space and trail options to determine if
community needs are being met.
- Address community needs relative to missing recreational facilities including a
dog park, hockey rink, skate park, tennis courts, softball, lacrosse and
soccer fields, etc.
- Develop a plan for trails to link area parks, open spaces and regional trails.
Address safety concerns by planning for trails along county roads.
2. Review the 15/20 year cycle for review, upgrade and improvement of
neighborhood parks.
3. Incorporate AD.A standards in new parks and park improvements
4. Identify and procure additional land for passive or active recreational needs
5. Review parks budget and identify other means of funding
6. Protect and preserve natural resources (Lake Minnetonka is a priority)
Park, Open Space and Trail Action Plan
l. Develop plan for obtaining assistance to support the Action Plan
- funding
- volunteer efforts
• collaboration with other organizations
2. Plan for new Hwy. 12 project
- trail at Cty. Rd. 6 - pedestrian access to Lurton property from south side
- ensure bridges have sidewalk/trails
-coordinate with City of Long Lake and Mn/DOT re. trail and park on south side
- save bam on Lurton property
3. Determine long-term needs for playfields to meet needs of residents' sports and coordinate
with appropriate agencies
- softball fields, lacrosse fields, soccer fields
- hockey rink, skate park
- tennis courts
4. Work with coordinating agencies to ensure Dakota Rail corridor becomes a regional trail.
5. Preserve all public access lanes to Lake Minnetonka
- implement plan to survey and mark comers
- notice to adjacent property owners of encroachments
6. Work with City agencies to ensure protection of water quality of Lake Minnetonka
- letter to Planning Commission addressing concern with variances
- boating safety issues
- contact MC>^ and LMCD to provide education of water quality issues
7. Plan for neighborhood park for area of Hwy. 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road.
8. Obtain agreement for acquisition of remaining residential lot within Hackbeny Park.
9. Review current park spaces to see if additional useage is warranted / change current use.
(i.e., dog park. Big Island, cross country skiing, etc.)
10. Improve mini and neighborhood parks.
- landscape around park signs
- add trees where needed
- weed control and eradication of buckthorn
- prioritize improvements listed in the "Improvement Plan for Parks'
1 1 . Implement plan for trails to connect parks, schools, re^onal trails and to address safety
concerns along county roads.
- work with governing agencies to coordinate trail additions
- identify road improvement projects to request trail additions
SURVEY OVERVIEW
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results
of this study to the City of Orono. 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
a]tfays be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions. They
are designed to measure public opinion within identifiable limits
of ijccuracy at specific points in time. This survey is in no way
a prediction of opinions, perceptions, 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
fashion.
The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D.
Morris; the Project Director overseeing all phases of the re
search and analysis was Ms. Diane Traxler.
Research Design
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400
randomly selected residents of the City of Orono. Survey re
sponses were gathered by professional interviewers across the
community between July 5 and 19, 1994.
The average interview took twenty-six minutes.
All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a
randomly generated sample of the City of Orono. In general,
random samples such as this yield results projectable to their
respective universe within +5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.
Interviews were conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd.,
trained personnel from telephone banks in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were independently
validated for procedure and content by a Decision Resources,
Ltd., supervisor. Completed interviews were edited and coded at
the company's headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Statisti
cal analysis and cross tabulations were produced by the company's
direct job entry access facility tc the University of Minnesota
VAX Computer System.
RECREATIONAL PURSUITS
Residents were asked about their household outdoor recrea
tional activities patterns. The two most popular activities
proved to be gardening and bird watching. On a more rigorous
level, exercise walking or jogging, bicycling, and hiking led the
list. Participation and/or observation was also examined for a
short set of team sports activities. Three games were found to
have a significant draw among city residents: softball or base-
ball, soccer or football, and outdoor ice skating. However, in
terms of recreational pursuits, Orono residents were most apt to
engage in solitary or family-oriented activities.
Summary and Conclusions;
residents tended to engage most often in. passive
outdoor recreational activities. Individualistic pursuits, such
as gardening and bird watching, attracted over sixty percent of
households. And, next ranked, but far below these other pur-
suits, bicycling and hiking each posted about thirtv percent avid participants.
Organized sports tended to draw far fewer enthusiasts. At
the top, softball or baseball had a twenty-one percent avid
audience. Outdoor ice skating and soccer/football remked in the
high teens for appeal. Hockey, basketball, and volleyball had smaller audience yet.
The recreational Interest profile of Orono residents sug
gests one major theme. There is an overwhelming orientation
toward unorganized activities and much participation in passive
recreation pursuits. Any la.-.d use or facilities planning by the
City should consider these very strong preferences.
I
I
PARKS AND RECREATION POLICIES
Orono residents were asked a series of questions about
policies concerning parks and recreational facilities. While
interest in the development of certain types of
facilities, such as trails, there was a stronger sensitivity to
property tax implications. In fact, the only type of tax-funded
recreational development posting less than one-third opposition
was nature preserves. And, clearly, reside.nts placed a stronger
P*^i®^ity on passive recreational facilities than on active ones.
Summary and Conelusionai
, ^ overwhelming majority of Orono residents were satisfied
with the current mix and number of parks and recreational facili-
ties in and around the community. Among the one-fifth of the
sample who supported additional facilities, the preferences
®3tpfC8sed included more trails, more playground equipment, and
more parks. However, when asked if the City should develop a
more extensive park system, sixty-six percent saw no need and
d66tned current facilities adequate; only twenty-six percent
disagreed.
In looking at park and recreational development efforts,
foj^by-two percent of the residents would place a priority on
preserving more natural land areas within the community. Twenty-
three percent prioritized developing additional passive park
facilities, while only thirteen percent ranked developing addi-
tional active park facilities at the top. And, a narrow majority
of residents would support a tax increase to fund either the
preservation of open space or the development of parks and re
creational facilities by the City. On average, »; $25.20 yearly
property tax increase for these purposes would be acceptable to
most residents.
In ranking recreational development, tax increases for
several objectives were supported by a majority of respondents.
Sixty-two percent would support a tax rise for nature preserves.
And, sixty-one percent felt similarly about nature walking and
bicycle trails. Fifty-six percent would favor a tax increase for
playground equipment for children, while fifty-three percent felt
the same way about paved walking and bicycle trails. Nature
observation areas were the other type of park facility endorsed
by a majority if tax increases were required.
Because of its location, Orono residents were more willing
to tolerate longer drive times to a park or recreational
facility. On average, residents were willinc to drive 16.2
minutes to a park or facility of interest to"them. In fact, ••
almost one-quarter of the city would travel for 21 to 30 minutes
to arrive there.
Strong support was evidenced for user fees to underwrite
iMlflli'ltfUi I .Hill I
and recover the cost of constructing and operating City parks and
recreational facilities. Sixty-four percent favored the concept;
in fact, forty percent "strongly" favored user fees. Thirty
percent opposed them, with eighteen percent expressing strong
opposition. On average, residents would like to see 43.8 percent
of the costs of construction and operation of a park or recrea
tional facility recovered in this fashion.
Seventy percent of the residents supported a trail system
linking parks and recreational facilities in the city. But, if a
property tax increase were required to do so, only thirty-six
percent were still supportive. Similarly, if "cross-country"
trails were constructed, fifty-seven percent supported them in
concept. Again, if increased property taxes were required,
support dropped to thirty-seven percent. In both cases, while
residents supported the concept of trails, a majority opposed the
tax implications.
The maintenance of Orono Park and Recreation Facilities was
generally well-rated, although significantly below Metropolitan
Area suburban norms. Seventy-three percent regarded the main
tenance as "excellent" or "good," while fifteen percent were more
critical in their evaluations. The average suburban approval
rate was eighty-nine percent -- sixteen percent higher than that
registered in Orono. Only one type of facility, however, regis
tered near-majority support for improvements among those having
an opinion at this time: rest rooms. Beaches, picnic areas,
skating rinks, playground ecjuipment, and the golf course were all
viewed as well-maintained.
In general, Orono residents were satisfied with the current
park and recreation facilities and opportunities both in and near
the community. On the question of further development, while
there was support noted for additional trails, tax considerations
perceptibly dimmed this enthusiasm. Instead, where more resi
dents appeared willing to place a moderate level of tax dollars
was on the preservation of land and open space in the community.
This outlook should not be surprising; it directly followed from
the rural ambience and peacefulness which were found to be the
key community values to most residents. Additionally, this
approach dovetailed with the concerns about growth and congestion
expressed by many residents. The major issue facing Orono deci
sion-makers is straightforward, although not simple: maintaining
a rural "oasis" in a time of fast-moving growth and development.
i ■
h ■
,
I
[ ■
i
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
City of Orono
Fishing
Swimming/Lakes
Swimming/Pools
Hiking
Bicycling
Golfing
X-Country Skiing
Snowmobiling
Nature Walks
Horseback Riding
Canoeing
Exercise Walking
Motor Boating
Sailing
Camping
Picnicking
Bird Watching
Gardening
Rollerskating
Archery
Playground Equipment
70
69
h zro.’
........' ‘
mmmmimmmm
43
sfi8S5«««>feeii:t?«!fi
'jHmm
80 1
Decision Resources, Ltd.
--------------------^wrtn^
ADEQUACY OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
City of Orono
Unsure
2%
Yes
80%
Scattered 10%
Parks 20%
Open Space 3%
Tennis Courts 6%
Play Equipment 20%
Ballfields 10%
Ice Arena 7%
-Trails 20%
- No Answer 6%
MIX ADEQUATE ADDITIONS
Decision Resources, Ltd.
*
1
r
DEVELOPMENT OF MORE EXTENSIVE PARK SYSTEM
City of Orono
i
n, V
!'. ^
.i ;• •■
" ' V. i \
• -i . -S. 4» *■
x<‘ -' . ». ■' V
*■ ■ i ■
BV»'t:
,•■'*35
Current Adequate
66%
Ki5&%
Should Develop
26%
Unsure
8%
:.
‘r*' • \ ‘ ' • ^ ■ ■ ■ , » Xf > <.a.. « ^ 'V:-^
■V,
4 . •- r ;w, ■■,
.. *•-*
Decision Resources, Ltd.
-•ifl
314 .
. . . ^ i,.-(Mir4irJi tumUuM
PRIORITY OF PARK AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
City of Orono
More Natural Land
42%
/
Active Facilities /
13% ''
Passive Facilities
23%
•^sBirsaai None of Above
8%
All Equally
15%
Decision Resources, Ltd.
..IJ
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR PARK/RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
City of Orono
Decision Resources, Ltd.
INCREASED TAXES FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
City of Orono
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Picnic
Beaches
Play Eq Nat Tris Out Basket
Pvd TrIs Out Tennis
Playfields Out Volley
Nature Obs Water Acc Nat Pres
Support 39 40 56 53 61 28 28 51 35 26 31 62
Oppose ■56 54 38 43 35 65 65 43 59 68 62 33
Unsure B 5 6 7 5 5 8 8 7 7 6 8 6
Decision Resources, Ltd.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
fl
it
1 (
U
fr
i
■ ' -'a*.
'' if
<«u.
1
Decision Resources, Ltd.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
ORONO RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
RECREATION AUDIT STUDY
July, 1994
Hello, I'm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of
Orono to speak with a random sample of residents about issues
facing the community. This survey is being conducted because
City Council and Park Commission members and City Staff are
interested in your opinions and suggestions about parks and
recreational needs in the future. 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 LESS THAN TWO YEARS....6%
you lived in the City of Orono? TWO TO FIVE YEARS. . . .16%
FIVE TO TEN YEARS. . .27%
TEN TO TWENTY YEARS...23%
20 TO 30 YEARS. . . . .13%
OVER THIRTY YEARS. . .16%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0%
2. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . .52%
life in Orono -- excellent, good, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . .3%
POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . .0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .1%
3. What do you like most about living in Orono?
NO ANSWER, 3%; RURAL, 31%; QUIET, 14%; SAFE, 3%; LOCA
TION, 7%; LAKE, 20%; PEOPLE, 5%; SCHOOL, 2%; HOUSE, 7%;
NATURAL BEAUTY, 4%; EVERYTHING, 3%; WELL-RUN, 2%.
4. And, what do you like least about living in Orono?
NO ANSWER, 17%; NOTHING, 9%; TAXES, 18%; ROADS, 8%;
TRAFFIC, 8%; GROWTH, 5%; HIGHWAY PROBLEM, 4%; COST OF
SERVICES, 2%; LOCATION, 6%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 7%; PEOPLE,
4%; NO SHOPS, 2%; CITY SERVICES, 5%; CITY REGULATIONS,
4%; SCATTERED, 5%.
I would like to read you a list of recreational activities. For
each one, tell me how often you and other members of your house
hold engage in that activity. Do you or any members of your
household engage in that activity, weather and season permitting,
almost daily, weekly, several times each month, monthly, several
times each year, or never. Again, for seasonal activities,
please tell me how often you or household members participate
during the season. Also, please remember we are interested in
the number of times you or other household members participate.
(ROTATE LIST)
i
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
fishing?
swinuning in lakes?
swinuning in pools?
hiking?
bicycling?
golfing?
cross-country skiing?
snowmobiling?
nature walks?
horseback riding?
canoeing?
exercise walking or
jogging?
motor boating?
sailing?
camping?
picnicking?
bird watching?
gardening?
rollerblading or roller
skating?
archery?
using children's play
ground equipment?
DAIL WEEK SEVR MONT YEAR NEVR DK/R
3%15%10%18%24%32%0%
9%19%12%16% 14%30%0%
6%17%6%13%13%45%1%
12%18%8%21%14%28%0%
10%21%11% 18%7%34%0%
5%19*.'6%14%10%46%0%
2%lOV 6%11%12%60%0%
2%6%4%6%8%75%0%
5%23%11%20%14%27%0%
1%2%2%2%5%69%0%
2%5%4%11%16%64%0%
28%35%6% 9%3% 10%1%
7%26%8%11%10%39%0%
1%5%2%4%9%79%0%
0%3%6%16%18%58%0%
3%12%14%26%16% 30%0%
41%13%3%4%6%34%0%
46%20%2% 5% 3%24%0%
2%12%4%4%2%75%1%
0%2%2%5%3%87%1%
4%11%7%11%3%65%0%
tell me how often you and Other
members of your household engage in that activity or go to ob
serve that activity. Do you or any members of your household
engage in or observe that activity, weather and season permit
ting, almost daily, weekly, several times each month, monthly,
several times each year, or never. Again, for seasonal activi
ties, please tell me how often you or household members partici
pate or observe during the season. And, please keep in mind we
are only asking about local amateur, school district, and/or
neighborhood games.
DAIL WEEK SEVR MONT YEAR NEVR DK/R
26.softball or baseball?4%17%3%9% 8%59%0%
27.volleyball?1%7%2%6%6%79%0%
28.hockey?3% 7%3% 8%
7%74%0%
29.outdoor ice skating?3%10%4%14%10%59%0%
30.soccer or football?3%14%4%8%Q%64%0%
31.tennis?2%9% 5%10%8%66%0%
32.basketball?2%8%3%8%6% 73%0%
33.Do you feel that the current mix
and number of parks and recrea
tional facilities in and around
the community meet the needs of
you and other members of your
household?
YES. . . . . . . . . . . .80%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . .18%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_..2%
teiMniiiiiiiLi
n
IF "NO," ASK:
34. What additional parks and recreational facilities would
you like to see offered residents?
NO ANSWER, 6%; MORS TRAILS, 20%; ICE ARENA, 7%;
BALLFIELDS, 10%; PLAY EQUIPMENT, 20%; TENNIS COURTS,
6%; BUY OPEN SPACE, 3%; MORE PARKS, 20%; OTHER, 10%;
35. Do you feel the City of Orono SHOULD DEVELOP. . . . .26%
should develop a more extensive ARE ADEQUATE. . . . . .66%
park system or do you feel that DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .8%
current facilities are adequate
for city residents?
The City could undertake a number of park and recreational devel
opment efforts.
36. Which of the following would you PRIORITY A. . . . . . . .42%
make the chief priority of the PRIORITY B. . . . . . . .13%
City of Orono_ _ (ROTATE) PRIORITY C. . . . . . .23%
A. Preserving more natural land SOMETHING ELSE (VOL)...1%
areas, such as wetlands, see- ALL OF ABOVE (VOL).... 15%
nic open spaces, and wildlife NONE OF ABOVE (VOL)....6%
habitats; DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .1%
B. Developing additional active
park facilities, such as ball
fields and playgrounds;
C. Developing additional passive
park facilities, such as walk
ing trails and flower gardens.
The preservation of open space or the development of parks and
recreational facilities by the City of Orono would probadsly
require a property tax increase. Suppose the City were to pro
pose parks and recreational development efforts along the lines
we have been discussing....
37. How much would you be willing to NOTHING. . . . . . . . . .36%
see your yearly property taxes $30.00. . . . . . . . . .19%
increase to fund the parns and $60.00. . . 11%
recreational development efforts? $90.00. . . . . . . . . . .8%
Let's say, would you be willing to $120.00. . . . . . . . . .5%
see your yearly taxes increased by $150.00. . . . . . . . . .1%
$ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING $180.00. . . . . . . . . .5%
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . .13%
ON ANSWER) How about $_ _ per REFUSED. . . . . . . . . .3%
year? (REPEAT PROCESS)
I would like to read you a list of park and recreation facilities
which could become part of a City of Orono Park System. In order
to fund the acquisition of land and the development of any facil
ities, though, an increase in property taxes would be required.
For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a moderate
II riirTtBrniilri J
property tax increase to fund its development. If you don't
know, just say so. (ROTATE LIST)
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Picnic areas and shelters?
Swimming beaches?
Playground equipment for children?
Paved walking and bicycling trails?
Nature walking and bicycling trails?
Outdoor tennis courts?
Outdoor basketball courts?
Nature observation areas?
Playfields, for soccer, football,
softball and baseball?
Public water access for boats
and/or canoes?
Outdoor volleyball courts?
Nature preserves?
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
10%29%25%31%5%
15%25%23%31%6%
20%36%15% 23%7%
24%29%18% 25%5%
25%36%13% 22%5%
10%18%31%34%8%
11%17%31%34%8%
18%33%17%26%7%
14%21%28%31%7%
10%16%24%44%6%
8%23%29%33%8%
26%36%11% 22%6%
Now, let's consider a park or recreational facility that you
would drive to....
50. On average, how mouiy minutes are LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES.9%
you willing to drive to a park or 5 TO 10 MINUTES. . . . .19%
recreational facility of interest 11 TO 15 MINUTES. . .18%
to you? 16 TO 20 MINUTES. . . .19%
21 TO 30 MINUTES. . .24%
31 TO 45 MINUTES. . . .2%
46 TO 60 MINUTES. . . .2%
OVER 60 MINUTES. . . . .3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .5%
Some communities charge user fees to underwrite and recover the
cost of constructing and operating City park and recreational
facilities. User fees could be charged to any resident or non
resident using an Orono Park System facility, such as a picnic
area, tennis, volleyball, or basketball courts, playfields,
trails, and public water accesses. Users could be charged a flat
fee for each use of the facility or a sticker could be required
for the appropriate seasonal usage.
51. In general, do you support or STRONGLY SUPPORT. . . .40%
oppose charging a user fee for SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . .24%
city-owned and operated park and OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . .12%
recreational facilities? (WAIT STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . .18%
FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .7%
that way?
4
52.
would you attempt to recover less
than twenty-five percent, twenty-
five percent to fifty percent,
fifty to seventy-five percent,
seventy-five percent to one-hun
dred percent, or more than one-
hundred percent of the costs?
Let's talk about pedestrian and bicycle trails_ _
53.Would you favor or oppose a trail
system linking parks and recrea
tional facilities within the com
munity? (IF "FAVOR," ASK:) Would
you still favor it if a property
tax increase were required to de
velop the system?
54.If a citywide trail system were
built, should it primarily serve
pedestrians, primarily serve bicy
clists, or serve both?
LESS THAN 25%. . . .
25% - 50%. . . . . . .
50% - 75%. . . . . . .
75% - 100%. . . . . .
OVER 100%. . . . . . .
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .28%
trails....
FAVOR/STILL FAVOR.... .36%
FAVOR/NO. . . . . . .. .22%
FAVOR/UNSURE. . . . .. .12%
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . .. .26%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..
PRIMARY PEDESTRIANS.. . .6%
PRIMARY BICYCLISTS..
BOTH. . . . . . . . . .
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..
The City of Orono's current trail system plan calls for trails
adjacent to the City's major local roadways. Another option for
trails would be siting them "cross-country," similar to the Luce
Line Trail.
55.Would you favor or oppose addi
tional trails going "cross-coun
try" similar to the Luce Line?
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel
strongly that way?
STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . .25%
FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . .32%
S£i-6p^sE;:;:::;m
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_ _11%
IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK;
56.Would you still support it
if a property tax increase
were required to develop
these trails?
YES. . . . . . . . . . . .65%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .4%
57.Would you still favor it if YES. . . . . . . . . . . .74%
the trail were to run by your NO. . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
property? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .7%
Moving on....
In general, how would you rate the EXCELLENT. . . . . . . .19%
maintenance of Orono Park and rec- GOOD. . . . . . . . . ..t.54%
reation facilities -- excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . .12%
good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . .3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_ _13%
i
I would like to read you a short list of Orono Park and Recrea
tion facilities. For each one, please tell me if you feel it
needs better maintenance or improvement.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Rest rooms?
Beaches?
Picnic areas?
Skating rinks?
Playground equipment?
Golf course?
Changing topics....
65.
70.
During the past twelve months,
have you contacted anyone working
for the City of Orono, whether to
obtain information, to get ser
vice, or make a complaint of anv
kind?
YES NO DKR
25%26%49%
19%40%42%
14%54%33%
14%31%56%
16%43%41%
9%46%46%
YES...47%
NO_ _
> 0 9
53%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_ _
' w w
.0%
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #65, ASK:
66.What was the nature of your most recent contact, that
IS, what information or service did you want?
NO ANSWER, 3%; TAX IJJFO, 7%; ZONING, 2%; BUILDING
INSPECTION, 15%; BURNING PERMIT, 5%; GENERAL INFORMA
TION, 24%; COMPLAINT, 12%; WATER-SEWER INFO, 10%;
RECYCLING INFO, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%.
67. What department or official did you contact first?
NO ANSWER, 20%; ASSESSOR, 3%; ZONING, 4%; PUBLIC
WORKS, 22%; INSPECTOR, 12%; POLICE, 11%; CITY HALL,
19%; COUNCIL, 5%; ADMINISTRAITON, 2%; OTHER, 2%.
63.In general, were you satis
fied with the service you
received?
YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED. . .5%
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #68, ASK:
69. Why were you dissatisfied?
NOTHING DONE, 77%; RUDE, 14%; DONE INCORRECTLY,
10%.
During the past year, have you
visited the Orono City Hall?YES............................................46%
NO..............................................54%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..........0%
IP "YES," ASK:
For each of the following characteristics, please rate the
Orono City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only
fair, or poor?
71. Convenience of City Hall
hours?
72. Waiting time for service?
73. Courtesy of the staff?
74. Efficiency of the staff?
IF -EXCELLENT" OR "POOR" IN CU3STI0NS #71-#74, ASK:
75. Do you recall which Department you were visiting?
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK>R
17%57%14%4%8%
22%57%10%2%9%
29%55%9%2%6%
22%50%16%3%9%
NO ANSWER, 30%; PERMIT, 28%; PARK AND REC, 1%;
PUBLIC WORKS, 4%; PLANNING, 9%; FRONT DESK, 10%;
POLICE, 5%; COUNCIL, 5%; OTHER, 8%.
76.What is your principal source of information about events
and activities going on in the Citv of Orono?
NO ANSWER, 5%; PEOPLE, 5%; PAPER, 28%; LAXSR, 9%;
SUN, 21%; NEWSLETTER, 5%; PIONEER PRESS, 16%; FROM
SCHOOL, 3%; MAILINGS. 3-1, OTHER, 2%.
Now, just a few more questions for statistical purposes....
77.On how large of a lot is your
present residence located *- less
than 1/2 acre, 1/2 acre to one
acre, one acre to two acres, two
acre to five acres, five acres to
10 acres, or over 10 acres?
LESS THAN 1/2 ACRE- -20%
1/2 TO ONE ACRES. . . .31%
ONE TO TWO ACRES. . . .21%
TWO TO FIVE ACRES. . .17%
FIVE TO 10 ACRES. . . .6%
OVER 10 ACRES. . . . . .3%
DON'T KNOH/REFUSED. . .2%
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
Be sure to include yourself.
78. First, persons 65 or over?NONE. . . . . . . . . . . .78%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . .10%
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . .12%
79. Adults under 65?NONE. . . . . . . . . . . .15%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . .12%
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . .59%
THREE. . . . . . . . . . .9%
FOUR OR MORE. . . . . . .5%
irtiatfii iSiwi
80.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
School-aged children
or pre-schoolers?NONE. . . . . . . . . . . .64%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
THREE. . . . . . . . . . . ..
FOUR OR MORE. . . . . . . .3%
IF CHILDREN ARE PRESENT ASK:
81. Do any of your children cur
rently participate in team
sports?
. . . . . . . . . . . .61%
. . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
-ON'T KNON/REFUSED. . .1%
What is your occupation and, if acclicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? “ occupation
SALS^^12%^’BLOT*roWAP^^Jn^ OWNI?.-.MANAGER, 37%; CLERICAL- SALES, 12%, BLUE COLLAR, 10%; RETIRED, 22%; SCATTERED,
What is your age, please?
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED)
Do you or any members of your
household currently have a met
ship in a private or public h<
club?
Do you or any adult members of
your household currently partici
pate on any organized sports
teams?
Has your household purchased a
Hennepin Paries sticker for using
the parks and trails system?
Is your current residence on a
lake?
88. Gender. (DO NOT ASK)
89. Region.
19-24. . . . . . . . .
25-34. . . . . . . . .
35-44. . . . . . . . .
45-54. . . . . . . . .
55-64. . . . . . . . .
£5 AND OVER. . . . .
FEFUSED. . . . . . .
YES. . . . . . . . . .
NO. . . . . . . . . .
lON'T KNOW/REFUSED.
VZS. . . . . . . . . .
NO. . . . . . . . . . .
ICN'T KNOW/REFUSED.
YZS . . . . . . . . . . .
NO. . . . . . . . . . .
ION • T KNOW/REFUSED.
YES. . . . . . . . . ..
NO. . . . . . . . . . . .
ICN •T KNOW/REFUSED..
VALE_ _ __ _ _
FEMALE. . . . . . . . .
F.ESCINCT ONE. . . . .22%
PRECINCT TWO. . . . .22%
PRECINCT THREE. . ..* .27%
PRECINCT POUR. . . .
8
i
■■ ■ I llAi—JlJAll'ti I a r liitmirwilrtnll j
i
*
CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the Orono City Council and Parks, Open Space, and Trails
Commission will meet in a joint work session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 13,2003 in
the (^no Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota. The purpose of the
meeting is to enable the Council and Commission to discuss mutual issues.
This meeting is open to the public.
/s/ Linda S.Vee
City Clerk
Posted at:
City Hall
Navarre Post Office
Long Lake Post Office
Crystal Bay Post Office
II .iilHanhiin iii-II J