Loading...
04-08-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 8, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - March 25, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 04- 02) Applicants: Karin Muchemore, Jay Tirpak, Raymond Anderson, and Fred Reiter Address: 3124,3138,3142, and 3146 Quail Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the parcels of land in order to redraw the property lines to more accurately reflect the perceived property lines. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business A. Presentation of Golden Valley Resident Survey Results - Cheryl Weiler, City Communication Coordinator. B. Discussion of definition of walls, fences, and structures - Planning Commission Member, Bob Shaffer. V. Adjournment . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday March 25, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Dire iOr Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Wittman. n, g and etary Lisa I. Approval of Minutes- March 11, 2002 PI Eck stated that the last sentence in the fourth area are zoned either Business and Professi should read... properties in the s "or" (not "and") Industrial. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by approve the minutes from March 11, motion carried unanimously to above correction. II. Continued Informal Pu Conditional Use Permit (CU-94) Applicant: Address: Care Services Avenue North, Suite 211, Golden Valley, MN nal Use Permit would allow for an adult day care on property in the Industrial zoning district. Purpose: sent to discuss this proposal, so the public hearing was put for the applicant to arrive. III. ublic Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 08- 06) Applicant: Alan Chazin, Alan Chazin Homes, Inc. and. David and Deanna Jorstad Address: 240 Meadow Lane North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the parcel of land in order to create a new lot for a new home. Olson referred to a site map and pointed out the location of the property. He stated that the proposal is to split the property into two lots, which would both end up being 10,000 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25, 2002 Page 2 . square feet in area and would have the required 100 feet of frontage. He stated that the existing home on west side of the property would require a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations because the property was granted a variance in January, 1956 to be built 23 feet from the property line. However, the home that was actually built did not conform to the variance approved. Eck questioned why the survey shows the same driveway on both Olson stated that he would like the applicant to explain how tha that the applicant hasa few different options that he is consid Pentel opened th hearing. s of property. rk and stated Rasmussen asked how it is discovered that a property is setback lines. Olson discussed the Board of Zoning Ap that the City didn't require surveys until 1980. He c1arifi request for a variance from the Subdivision Regula'ff esfrom the ures and stated proposal is a not from the Zoning Code. . Alan Chazin, applicant, 11685 Cedar Pass, driveway issues and discussed the joint use property line and planting some shrubs would like to leave the options open f work best. He stated that he is tryi property as much as possible. , Minnesota, addressed the e d' way or possibly moving the riveways. He stated that he new owner could decide what would rve the trees and the topography of the Pentel asked if Poplar Driv Grimes stated that the Su because it is the narrowe onsidered the front of the newly created lot. side of the lot would be the official front but the house could face any direction. g. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public Eck asked' Commission could approve a variance from the Subdivision Regulations known issue of the driveway situation. Grimes stated that the Zonin ode s that there has to be room for a driveway on each lot. He stated that he t an advantage to the City to share driveways because there are fewer curb cuts th ould have to be made and there are fewer trees that would have to be removed. He stated that the owners could have an easement put on the encroaching driveway. . McAleese asked which condition of the Subdivision Regulations the Planning Commission would be approving a variance from. Grimes stated that all proposed subdivisions are supposed to meet all three of the variance conditions and that this proposal does meet all of the conditions for a variance from the Subdivision Regulations. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25,2002 Page 3 . MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the applicants request for a subdivision of the parcel of land in order to create a new lot for a new home and to also grant the requested variance from the Subdivision Regulations. II. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-94) Applicant: International Health Care Services . Address: Purpose: 2525 Nevada Avenue North, Suite 211, Go The Conditional Use Permit would allo center on property in the Industrial ,MN The applicant was now present to discuss his prop Olson referred to a site map and showed the I the questions brought up at the March 11, 20 first question was how many clients woul stated that according to the Minnesota required to prove that there are 40 sq including employees. This 40 squ space occupied by furniture an required to provide an area th th roperty. He add ressed g Commission Meeting. The e the center at one time. Olson Human Services the applicant is pace for each person in the center, not include restrooms or 25% of the e stated that the applicant is also used as private space for the clients. Rasmussen asked what private space and eXQ ai social services to clie pace means. Olson read the State definition of a it is a space for providing personal hygiene services or 'scussed was the issue of the site having adequate parking Ison showed the Commission an aerial photo and stated that equate space for parking on the south side of the building and that ndition of approval that all vans dropping wheelchair-bound ave to do so on the south side of the building. The last question Olson discussed was the issue of the center being required to install separate restrooms from the shared facilities that are already in the building. He stated that the Department of Human Services would require them to install, in their own suite, separate men's and women's restrooms with a signaling system. He suggested that this would also be a condition of approval and stated that with the all of the conditions mentioned Staff is recommending approval. . Hoffman asked if the Department of Human Services requirements would affect the amount of space they would have. Olson stated that it would. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25, 2002 Page 4 Michael Tobak, applicant, 2525 Nevada Avenue North, Suite 211, Golden Valley stated that he has had a code analysis done and according to his architect it should satisfy the City and State requirements. He stated that they would be putting both a men's and women's restroom in their suite and that the Department of Human Services has said they can use an office across the hallway as a private space as long as it is not used as an office during the day care hours. He stated that the type of clients they would be serving would be people who are capable of self-preservation suc scaping on their own if there should be a fire or other emergency. IV. Pentel opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no hearing. sed the public Pentel stated that the applicant has satisfied all the Co Eck stated the answer as to how many clients been answered, but it sounds like the State r o e site at one time hasn't ts would solve that issue. McAleese stated that the issue that con restrooms with the other tenants in th approval would solve those issues s the traffic and the sharing of the t the conditions added to the CUP MOVED by Groger, seconded request for a Conditional U property in the Industrial nd motion carried unanimously to approve the ich would allow for an adult day care center on -- Short Recess -- s of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City oning Appeals and other Meetings V. resentation of Capital Improvement Program, 2002 to 2006 - Don Taylor, City Finance Director Taylor distributed copies of an analysis comparing what was proposed for 2002, in the previous Capital Improvement Program compared to their current status in the 2002- 2006 Capital Improvement Program. He discussed a new form of financing for traffic improvements at General Mills Boulevard, Highway 55 and Boone. He discussed the tax abatement bonds on the new General Mills building that would be used to fund these traffic improvements. Pentel asked if those funds would be used to finance just those street improvements, or if the money would benefit the whole City. Taylor stated that the money would just be used to finance the street improvements. Eck asked if the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25, 2002 Page 5 . projects weren't planned yet, how the City determines how much they would cost. Taylor stated that they are working with preliminary plans and that the biggest issue is the right-of-way. Taylor discussed the public education program to educate residents about sump pumps discharging into sanitary sewer lines and therefore being treated. He stated that the City has received huge sewer treatment bills, partly because of th p pump issues. Pentel asked if the City has an ordinance regarding sump pump 0 the sanitary lines. Taylor stated that there is not an ordinance right now, u ucation program and an enforcement program should really help. ounts they came out of Taylor stated that whatever &Ill Pentel referred to the Golden Valley Open Space Syste weren't on it. Taylor stated that they could be added, Rasmussen asked if the sale of assets goes b originally, or if the money goes back into the fund the City took it from is where it goes bac . Pentel asked if the enterprise fund is Taylor stated that yes it was and t fees, Brookview fees, motor veh' asked why the Capital Improve Brookview would go down. metro area has gone do stated that Staff wanted to re the City charges for services. nds are generated from water and sewer fees and the recycling program. Pentel gram assumes that the money earned from ined that the use of golf courses all across the a re is still the expense of maintenance. He eful about working capital and expenditures, Taylor discussed It program and statEJi estimated th replacement fund and the pavement management orne of the street projects come in under what has been lot. some of the plans that the Park and Recreation Department has as the music in the park program, a pond at Scheid Park and Adeline Lane. Rasmussen asked if the City uses money available from the County to do some of the streetscaping mentioned in the Capital Improvement Program. Taylor stated that the City has used those funds in the past and that they would be looking into that possibility some more. .' Pentel asked if the North Wirth TIF district was closed out. Taylor stated it was closed in April of 2001, but that if there are projects in progress they can still be done, but no new contracts or projects were allowed in that that district after April 2001. , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 25, 2002 Page 6 . MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Capital Improvement Program as submitted. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 PM. . . .. ; . . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) .lley To: Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of the Lots at 3124,3138, 3142, and 3146 Quail Avenue North - Karen Muchemore, Jay Tirpak, Raymond Anderson, and Fred Reiter, Applicants From: Subject: Date: April 2, 2002 Background Karen Muchemore (3124 Quail), Jay Tirpak (3138 Quail), Raymond Anderson (3142 Quail), and Fred Reiter (3146 Quail), are requesting that the property lines between their four properties be redrawn to correct several building and driveway encroachments, and to more adequately reflect the perceived property lines for each lot. Qualifications as a Minor Subdivision The four lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of an existing, recorded plat, create no more than four lots, and do not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicants have submitted the required information. to the City that al.lows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision The Woodlawn Park addition was platted in 1947. The building and driveway encroachments were recently discovered when two of the applicants had property surveys completed for remodeling projects on their property. It is unclear how the encroachments occurred. Possibly, the developer of this subdivision decided to revise the property lines from the approved plat when the homes were built in the late 1940s, but neglected to properly follow through with the required city subdivision procedures. The City did not required as- built surveys until about 1980. The new lot lines for this minor subdivision reflect where the homeowners perceived their lots lines to be. Since this minor subdivision is located on an existing platted street with access to utilities, the application is pretty straight forward. The properties do not lie within a floodplain. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, PE has reviewed this minor subdivision and has found it to be acceptable, with the exception of the need for additional easements to be shown on the Final Plat (a memo regarding these easements is attached for your review). The site plan . . . submitted by the applicants have all of the required information as stated in City Code Section 12.50. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft. in area, have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line, and meet building setback requirements. With the exceptions (noted below) for the frontage at 3138 Quail and building setback requirements for 3142 Quail, these lots will meet those requirements: 3124 Quail Avenue North: The home at 3124 Quail was built in 1948. Both the existing home and detached garage at this property meet building setback requirements from the proposed new property line. The lot will have 86.03 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. 3138 Quail Avenue North: The home at 3138 Quail was built in 1948. Both the existing home and detached garage at this property meet building setback requirements from the proposed new property line. The lot will have 77 .2 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. This lot does not meet the minimum required frontage. 3142 Quail Avenue North: The home at 3142 Quail was built in 1948. The existing home does not meet the front yard setback requirement of 35 feet (it is only 34.5 feet from the property line along Quail Avenue North) or the north side yard setback requirement of 13.7 feet (it is only 7.9 feet at its closest point). Although, variances were granted in 1951 and 1983 for these setback requirements (the minutes from those meetings are attached for your review), our City Attorney, Allen Barnard, has advised staff that these variances become invalid once the circumstances for the granting of the variances has changed (in this case, the replatting of the lot). Mr. Barnard has advised staff to have the property owner at this address go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to request variances for the existing building after the subdivision has been approved by the City Council. The lot will have 91.6 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. 3146 Quail Avenue North: The home at 3146 Quail was built in 1948. The existing home at this property meets building setback requirements from the proposed new property line. The lot will have 111.8 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions: 2 . . . 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoninQ district. In this case, one of the lots does not meet the requirements for frontage in the Residential zoning district, and another lot does not meet building setback requirements. Therefore, a variance from this condition must be approved by the City Council in order for the minor subdivision to be approved. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City EnQineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there are already homes on each of the four lots. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City EnQineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for all of the homes. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to these homes. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the QrantinQ of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 5. If public aQencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision. the aQencies will be Qiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney due to dedication of certain easement. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subiect to Dark dedication requirements. The policy of the City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, there will be no new lots created by the minor subdivision. Therefore, no park dedication will be recommended. Variance Criteria from the Subdivision Code As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require a variance to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Code would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. 3 . . . The Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, and the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and how traffic conditions will be affected by the additional development in the subdivision. The City may prescribe conditions to the variance. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the variance request. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variance needed to permit the non-standard lots. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow this minor subdivision to eliminate the driveway and building encroachments. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Subdivision Code variance with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. Easements be shown on the Final Plat as outlined in the memorandum from Ron Christenson to Jeff Oliver dated March 28, 2002. 3. The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated March 20, 2002, shall become a part of this approval. Attachments: . Location Map . Meeting Minutes from 1951 and 1983 for the variances at 3142 Quail Avenue North . Memorandum from Ron Christenson to Jeff Oliver dated March 28, 2002. . Photographs of the four properties . Certificate of Survey for the four properties 4 P(~V1l1/~ 41'\1\ WlI')5i'O~ tIJ1 i",v. -re S q/I;J 115/ . recommendation to waive the side yard requirements as requested by John Lawton, 2936 Major Avenue~t;o alloltf construction of an attached garage.. c. The CO~Ulcil concurred in the Planning COlnmissionls action denying the petition to change the name of June Avenue N" to Ardmore Drive in Glendale Addition. d. Contracts have been let to regl"ade!J gravel and 'erect two bridges in Shangri-La Addition. Correspondence also included a letter from the Planning Com- mission of Crystal Village in reply to otwletter of May 18 regarding changing the name of our street from Xenia to Xenwoodo Crystal mentioned that they would be very glad to meet -vnth our Cornraission, but their Planning Corm:nission has recommended to the Co~~cil that streets east of Adair be the same as Hobbinsdale and west of Adair. the SifiiJlle as st" Louis Park.. . The next order of business was in regard to the request of Dr. Shimek at 200 ottawa Avenue S" for waiver of the front and rear yard setback requirements. Motion by Patterson~ seconded by Loughland9 carried, that the action on this re- quest be postponed tUltil a later date as Dr. Shimek was not present to explain his hardship. t..--MOtion. by Hetland.ll seconded byLY11Ch'ug~:t"ried, that the l"'e- quest of L" H. Smi th,~42QuailAvE:nlle If; 9 to vJai ve the side yard l"'equirements(beu-aTloired so that he can build his garage not closer' thiin' T'ft. from the north lot line 0 This reques.t 1IJa.s alloirJed taking into consideration that Mr" Smith had a bad drainage pr-o blem and that if he placed hi s garage farther back on the property it would act as a dam and inter- rupt the natural drainage" Also, Mr. Smith had a signed statement filed with the adrainistrative assistant from the Ot~er of the property on the north of his lot stating he .did :oot object; to this arrangement.. The Commission suggested that it would be a good idea for Mr. Smith to build his garage out of. non-combustible material. Mr. ViggoOlsen presented the plat for final approval on the property just north of the community store district north of Sixth Avenue and just 1Ilest of Winnetka Avenue" Motion by Lynch, seconded by Loughland, carried, that the plat be accepted with the following stipulations: That the street cornerehave a Dnnimmn 20ft. radius 0 That easements be provided for utilitieso Drainage easement be provided across Lot Noo 5. That streets be graded, maintained and accepted subject to the regulations of the VillagsG ! I :!: .i< Oetober 2, 1951 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meet- in,;:': of the Village Council of the Village of Golden Valley, Hinnesota, was duly held at tne Village Hall in said Village on Tuesday, the 2nd day of October, 1951, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. 'fhe follo't..ring members were present: Pinch, Putnam, Reiss, Stark, and the following were absent: Stasel. Acting Hayor Pin0h assluned the ch.airmanship in the absence .ofMayor Stasel. Motion by Reiss seconded by Putnam carried to approve t~'1e minutes of tl:1e september 18 meetinf~ as read. X I'ir. L. N. Smith,3U~2 Quail Avenue N. presented his requ6s t to construct a.fY"a:ttEcchedgar"atte 7 f't. from t h.,:; nort;h lot line. I"lotion by Putna.\'l1 seconded by Rei ss carried to con- cur in the Planning Commission's recommendation as outlined in their!letter of September 18 allowing Mr. Smith to erect his garage not closer than l' ft. from the north'lot line, and to authorize the building inspector to issue a building perm.j t. . The Acting Mayor annou..'1.ced tltat this Has the time and place to hold a hearing on the request of Enaco, Inc. to vacate Cross Lane in Nobla Grove. Affidavit was presented shmdng publication of a legal notice in the Hartl} :iennspin Post. Paul Enghal).ser spoke in favor of the vacation~ Messrs. Young~list, Rheinholz and Erland and others spoke in objection to the vacation. A petition bearing forty names was presented opposing t~e vacation. Letter from the Parle Board was read in Hhich they suggested that the Park Board would favor vacating Cross Lune on the basis that all of the street would become park property. Motion by futna~ seconded by Stark carried to reject the petition to vacate Cross Lane and to instruct the Village Sngineer to provide for proper drainage from the lots north of Cross Lane into the park property. Report was presented by the a&ninistrative assistant on assessors' pay in other suburban communities.. After discussion of other assessed valuations and payrnents made to assessors in other comrnt.mities, motion by Putnam seconded by Reiss carried to set the pay for the village assessor at ~10.00 per day for the 120-day assessment period and to authorize immediate payment for the year 1951. . I"lotion by Reiss seconded by Starl{ carried to approve the bond for ~lO,389.88presented by'Jack E.Welch Contracting Company and to authorize the proper officials to sign t~e contract for the construction of bridges in Shallgri-La.' ,r- ~ Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 August 9, 1983 . said he would really like to see what viable alternq'tives there so cost alternatives so a possible compatible compromise It 0 nized the present garage is inadequate b mith could be be reached. standards. the present proposal and ion of discussion, . es. eo to defer the proposal to the regular September Meetl . Second by Larry Smith and upon vote carried. 83-8-17 (M~p 4) Residential 3142 Quail ~venue North Raymond and 'Carolyn Anderson The Petition is for waiver of Section . front setback for 3.0 feet off the required 35 foot front setback to a distance of 32 feet from the front lot line at Quail Avenue to the proposed addition at its closest point. Mr. Anderson was present. Consent had been obtained from adjacent properties. 3A.06(l) Mr. Anderson explained that they had owned the home for approximately six years. They have planned extensive upgrading and in doing so wanted to improve the front entryway. Mr. Anderson said they had considered adding to the side of the house, however the surveyor found there had been errors made when platting the original subdivision and the side lot lines cannot be located for his house or others without extensive, expensive and lengthy proceedings. The Board discussed the effect on adjacent properties and Art Flannagan noted the street at this point curves, there is a difference in elevations between adjacent properties and in his opinion it appeared there would be no adverse effect on adjacent properties. Larry Smith noted that the house was approximately 30 years old, that the pro- posed entry was over the existing footings and well pit below and the proposed remodel would substantially upgrade the structure. Larry Smith moved to approve the waiver as requested, noting the hardship of previous survey errors, the lack of other reasonable alternatives and also the topography and street configuration. Second by Art Flannagan and upon vote carried unanimously. . . . . Hey Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: March 28, 2002 To: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer From: Ron Christenson, Engineering Tech. Subject: Review of Subdivision - 3124 Quail Ave. N. In reviewing the easements for the subdivision, I found that there is an existing five (5.0') along the rear lot lines of Lots 9 through 13. The is also a five foot (5.0') easement on either side of the common lot line between Lots 9 and 10. Some of the easements are shown on the plan provided by the Planning Department. There is no easement shown on the plan provided, for a five foot (5.0') easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 12 and 13. I checked in the vacation file in the East Wing and checked the vacation maps and found nothing to indicate that the easement was ever vacated. So I wonder why they are not shown. I also checked the location of the utilities coming into each lot, so they don't encroach on other lots. It would appear that they are OK. So the only question or concern that I would have is the easements that are no shown on the provided drawing. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Jeff - 3124 Quail Subd. Review.doc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , w . . . DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 City of Golden Valley Residential Survey FINAL NOVEMBER 2001 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Golden Valley to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. 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 you lived in Golden Valley? 2. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to live in Golden Valley? 3. How would you rate the quality of life in Golden Valley -- excel- lent, good, only fair, or poor? LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . .7% TWO TO FIVE YEARS... ..16% FIVE TO TEN YEARS... ..16% TEN TO TWENTY YEARS. ..28% 20 TO 30 YEARS. ..... ..16% OVER THIRTY YEARS... ..18% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . .0% LESS THAN TWO YEARS....6% TWO TO FIVE YEARS.....10% FIVE TO TEN YEARS.....12% OVER TEN yEARS...... ..25% REST OF LIFE.. ...... ..38% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% EXCELLENT.... ....... ..50% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47% ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..0% Many people talk about "quality" these days. They might say something is "high quality" or "low quality." I'd like you to think about the City of Golden Valley for a moment. 4. When you think about this community, what comes to mind, if anything, as being "high quality?" UNSURE, 6%; NEIGHBORHOOD/PEOPLE, 16%; LOCATION, 10%; CITY SERVICES, 13%; SCHOOLS, 8%; SAFE/POLICE, 10%; HOUSING, 3%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 10%; WELL MAINTAINED/CLEAN, 9%; SHOPPING/DOWNTOWN, 6%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 3%; NEW DEVELOP- MENT, 4%; NOTHING, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 1 . . . 5 . And, when you think about this community, what comes to mind, if anything, as being "low quality?" UNSURE, 13%; NOTHING, 36%; TRAFFIC, 9%; STREET REPAIR, 6%; NO GROCERY STORE, 7%; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 4%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 7%; SCHOOLS, 2%; RUNDOWN NEIGHBORHOODS, 5%; LACK OF RECREATION PROGRAMS, 4%; TAXES TOO HIGH, 2%; CrTY SERVICES, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%. 6. What do you think is the most serious issue facing Golden Valley today? UNSURE, 20%; TAXES, 12%; CRIME, 4%; GROWTH, 15%; SCHOOL FUNDING, 9%; TOO MUCH LOW INCOME HOUSING, 4%; TRAFFIC, 8%; LACK OF DEVELOPMENT, 11%; NOTHING, 3%; CITY SPENDING, 6%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 3%; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%. 7. Which of the following two state- ments comes closer to your feelings: (A) I call Golden Valley "home." (B) Golden Valley is just a place to live; I'd be just as happy elsewhere. STATEMENT A.. ....... ..82% STATEMENT B.. .... ... ..16% BOTH OF ABOVE....... ...1% NEITHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0% 8. How would you rate the strength of EXCELLENT.... ....... ..30% community identity and the sense GOOD.. ..... ...........49% of neighborliness in Golden Valley ONLY FAIR.... ....... ..17% -- excellent, good, only fair, or POOR.. ....... ..... .....2% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 9. To which of the following do you feel a closer connection to: A) The City of Golden Valley as a whole, B) Your neighborhood, or C) Your school district? STATEMENT A. . . . . . . . . . .28% STATEMENT B.. .........59% STATEMENT C..... ......12% NONE OF ABOVE... .......1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 10. Have you or members of your nouse- YES... ..... ..... ......50% hold attended other cities'festi- NO... ........... ......50% vals during the past two years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% IF "YES," ASK: (N=201) 11. Which festivals have you attended? HOPKINS RASPBERRY DAYS, 14%; DUK-DUK DAYS, 14%; AQUA- TENNIAL, 10%; CRYSTAL, 7%; FOURTH OF JULY, 4%; ROB- BINSDALE, 10%; OUT OF STATE, 5%; HOLLIDAZZLE, 5%; STATE FAIR, 2%; SAINT PAUL TASTE OF MINNESOTA, 6%; MINNEAPOLIS ACTIVITIES, 7%; OUT OF METRO, 9%; SCAT- TERED, 9%. 2 . . . 12. What events and activities did you and members of your household participate in or attend? UNSURE, 3%; PARADE, 28%; NOTHING, 12%; WALKING, 9%; CARNIVAL, 4%; FIREWORKS, 9%; SHOWS/ART, 9%; SHOP- PING, 2%; KID'S ACTIVITIES, 4%; EATING/DRINKING, 8%; MUSIC/CONCERT, 8%; SPORTING EVENTS, 4%; SCATTERED, 2%. 13. Would you support the City of Gol- den Valley using city funds to underwrite the costs of a city- wide festival? (WAIT FOR RE- SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? 14. All in all, do you think things in Golden Valley are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel things are off on the wrong track? STRONGLY SUPPORT... ...19% SUPPORT.............. .37% OPPOSE.. ......"...... .16% STRONGLY OPPOSE...... .16% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .12% RIGHT DIRECTION...... .85% WRONG TRACK........... .8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .7% I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a communi- ty. For each one, please tell me if you think Golden Valley cur- rently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. 15. affordable housing, defined by the Metropolitan Council as a single family home costing less than $162,000? 16. affordable rental units? 17. luxury rental units? 18. condominiums? 19. townhouses? 20. starter homes for young families? 21. "move up" housing? 22. higher cost housing? 23. senior housing? 24. parks and open spaces? 25. trails and bikeways? 26. service establishments? 27. retail shopping opportunities? 28. entertainment establishments? 29. dining establishments? 30. day care opportunities? MANY FEW/ABOUT MUCH LITT RIGHT 2% 5% 12% 8% 9% 1% 2% 15% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0% 42% 34% 13% 14% 16% 55% 20% 11% 32% 17% 35% 20% 41% 55% 43% 15% 47% 36% 47% 52% 57% 35% 63% 64% 39% 81% 53% 74% 55% 41% 56% 20% D.K. / REF. 10% 27% 29% 26% 19% 10% 15% 10% 28% 1% 11% 6% 2% 4% 1% 65% As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Golden Valley and various other units of local government. Thinking about the amount going to the City. . . . 3 . . . 31. Do you think the city portion of your property taxes, which funds City services in Golden Valley is very high, somewhat high, about av- erage, somewhat low or very low in comparison with nearby suburban communities? VERY HIGH........... ..10% SOMEWHAT HIGH. ...... ..21% ABOUT AVERAGE. ....... .46% SOMEWHAT LOW.. ...... ...4% VERY LOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .20% I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 32. Police protection? 47% 33. Fire protection? 43% 34. Recycling and brush pick-up? 43% 35. Storm drainage and flood control? 14% 36. Park maintenance? 30% 37. City-sponsored recreation programs? 21% 38. Animal control? 15% 39. Neighborhood Watch Programs? 26% 40. Communications, such as news- letters, cable television, media coverage and web site? 25% 48% 51% 47% 56% 60% 4% 1% 6% 1% 1% 3% 1% 5% 2% 13% 5% 5% 1% 3% 5% 4% 12% 4% 47% 54% 47% 12% 10% 10% 17% 17% 13% 55% 12% 4% 4% Now, for the next three city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained street and roads. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 394, Highway 55, Highway 100, County Road 156 or Winnetka Avenue, should not be considered. How would you rate .... EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R City street repair and maintenance? 24% 54% 17% 4% 1% Snow plowing? 37% 51% 8% 3% 1% Street lighting? 13% 46% 27% 14% 1% 41. 42. 43. 44. How would you rate Golden Valley city services in comparison with neighboring communities excel- lent, good,--only fair, or poor? 45. When you consider the property taxes you pay and the quality of city services you receive, would you rate the general value of city services as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 4 EXCELLENT.... ... .... ..28% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50% ONLY FAIR............. .8% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .12% EXCELLENT............ .20% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61% ONLY FAIR............ .13% POOR................ .'. .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...5% . . . 46. Would you favor or oppose an in- crease in city property taxes, if it were needed to maintain city services at their current level? FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47% OPPOSE.. .... ........ ..43% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ...10% The Golden Valley Fire Department is staffed with persons who live or work within six minutes of one of the three fire stations and receive special training over a two year period. They re- spond to fire calls, as needed, from their home or work and are paid for time spent training or at fire calls. 47. Prior to this survey, were you aware the Golden Valley operates a paid on-call fire department? Thinking about another topic. ... 48. Are there areas in Golden Valley where you would not feel safe walking alone at night? 49. Do you feel safe in your immediate neighborhood walking alone at night? 50. Do you generally feel safe in your home? 51. How would you rate the amount of police patrolling in your neigh- borhood -- too much, about the right amount or not enough? 52. How would you rate the amount of traffic enforcement by the police in your neighborhood -- too much, about right amount or not enough? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .0% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53% NO ................... 43% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .5% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81% NO ................... 17% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99% NO .................... 1 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .0% TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 % ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT....73% NOT ENOUGH.......... ..23% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .3% TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 % ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT.. ..72% NOT ENOUGH........... .22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . ..4% 53. IF "NOT ENOUGH" IN EITHER QUESTION #51 OR #52, ASK: (N=147) Would you support or oppose a property tax increase to fund more police officers for nei- ghborhood patrolling and traffic enforcement? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? Moving on. . . . . 54. Does your household currently par- ticipate in the curbside pickup of recyclables? 5 STRONGLY SUPPORT......23% SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% OPPOSE............... .22% STRONGLY OPPOSE..... ..15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94% NO ................... .6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .1% . . . Continuing. . . . The Golden Valley park system is composed of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails, and community ballfields. Of these facIlities, which have you or members of your household used during the past year? 55. 56. 57. YES NO DK. Community and/or neighborhood parks? 76% 24% 0% Trails? 62% 38% 0% Community ballfields? 33% 67% 1% 58. In general, do you feel that existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of you and members of your .household? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89% NO ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...4% IF "NO," ASK: (N=30) 59. What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City offer its residents? SWIMMING POOL, 23%; TRAILS/PARKS, 30%; BALLFIELDS, 13%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 10%; SCATTERED, 23%. 60. Have you or members of your house- YES. ...... .... ... .... .40% hold participated in any City NO.. .......... ... .... .59% park and recreation programs? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .2% IF "YES," ASK: (N=158) 61. Which ones? SOFTBALL/BASEBALL, SENIOR ACTIVITIES, 5%; MUSIC/DANCE, TION CLASSES, 3%; 3%. 34%; GOLF, 11%; SOCCER, 17%; 4%; KID'S ACTIVITIES, 7%; TENNIS, 8%; FITNESS, 4%; COMMUNITY EDUCA- SCATTERED SPORTS, 4%; SCATTERED, 62. Were you satisfied or dis- satisfied with your exper- ience? SATISFIED............ .99% DISSATISFIED. ......... .0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..1% 63. Does the current mix of City park and recreation programming meet the needs of your household? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..7% IF "NO," ASK: (N=27) 6 64. What program(s) do you feel are lacking? . NOTHING, 37%; POOL/WATER PARK, 15%; GYM/FITNESS CENTER, 7%; EVERYTHING, 11%; MEETING SPACES, 7%; SCATTERED, 22%. 65. Do you or members of your household currently leave the city for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? NONE, 46%; SWIMMING, 8%; LAKES/PARKS, 16%; BIKING, 4%; RUNNING/HIKING, 8%; ICE RINKS, 2%; SOCCER, 2%; CONCERT/THEATER, 3%; SOFTBALL/BASEBALL, 2%; WATCH GAMES, 2%; SKIING, 2%; COMMUNITY EDUCATION, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%. Many communities across the Metropolitan Area have either built or are considering the construction of Community Recreation Centers. Community Recreation Centers generally include facili- ties such as a fitness and weight training area, gymnasium, indoor competition swimming pool, walking and running track, public meeting space, an outdoor swimming pool and an outdoor water park for family fun. 66. From what you have heard or seen, would you support or oppose the construction and operation of a Community Recreation Center in the City of Golden Valley? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY SUPPORT....,.28% SUPPORT...... ... ......21% OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16% STRONGLY OPPOSE.......27% DON'T KNOW/REFDSED.....8% . 67. What facilities, if any, would you most like to see in a Community Recreation Center? UNSURE, 11%; NOTHING, 22%; POOL/WATER PARK, 37%; GYM/FITNESS CENTER, 14%; MEETING SPACES, 2%; WALKING/ RUNNING TRACK, 3%; ICE ARENA, 2%; CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES, 2%; SENIOR ACTIVITIES, 2%; BALL COURTS, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%. 68. What facilities, if any, would you oppose being included in a Community Recreation Center? UNSURE, 24%; NONE, 42%; POOL/WATER PARK, 9%; EVERYTHING, 13%; GYM/FITNESS CENTER, 7%; SCATTERED, 6%. If the City of Golden Valley were to construct and operate a community recreation center, public funds would be required to underwrite costs. While user fees would generate some revenue, the City would need to rely upon property taxes in order to fund the construction and partial operation of the Center. . 7 . . . 69. How much would you be willing to pay in additional property taxes to partially support the construc- tion and operation of a Golden Valley Community Center? How about $~ per month? (CHOOSE A RANDOM STARTING POINT, MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about $___ per month? Changing topics.... NOTHING..... ..........34% $3.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13% $6.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16% $9.00................ .12% $12.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% $15.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% $18.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% $21.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ..11% Currently the City of Golden Valley snow plows and maintains public sidewalks.... 70. 71. Do you currently have a public sidewalk on or adjacent to your property? Would you support or oppose the expansion of the sidewalk system in Golden Valley to offer more links into the trail system? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- ly that way? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% STRONGLY SUPPORT.... ..21% SUPPORT. " . . . . .. . . . . . .27% OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14% STRONGLY OPPOSE.......29% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .10% 72. Why do you feel that way? IF "OPPOSE" OR "STRONGLY OPPOSE, II ASK: (N=171) UNSURE, 2%; NO NEED, 80%; COST, 10%; PROPERTY IS- SUES, 6%; SCATTERED, 2%. IF " STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT, II ASK: (N = 19 2 ) 73. Would you still support the expansion of the sidewalk system if you or members of your household had to snow- plow and maintain the side- walk on your property? 74. Would you still support the expansion of the sidewalk system if a sidewalk was put on or adjacent to your property? 8 YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...6% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 % ALREADY HAVE ONE.... ..12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...7% 75. . How much would you be willing to pay in additional property taxes to fund the expansion of the side- walk system? How about $____ per month? (CHOOSE A RANDOM STARTING POINT, MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about $___ per month? Moving on.. . . 76. . 80. . Do you leave the City of Golden Valley on a regular or daily basis to go to work? IF "YES," ASK: (N=218) NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47% $2.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .14% $4.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10% $6.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% $8.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% $10.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% $12.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13% YES. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED. .26% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 77. In what city is your job located? MINNEAPOLIS, 35%; SAINT PAUL, 3%; VARIES/TRAVEL, 11%; REST OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 3%; ANOKA COUNTY, 3%; REST OF METRO, 4%; PLYMOUTH, 6%; EDINA, 5%; NEW HOPE, 6%; MINNETONKA, 4%; SAINT LOUIS PARK, 4%; REST OF HENNE- PIN COUNTY, 18%. 78. How many minutes does it take you to get to work? 79. How would you rate the ease of getting to and from work excellent, good, only fair or poor? How would you rate the ease of getting from place to place within the City of Golden Valley -- ex- cellent, good, only fair or poor? IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=32) FIVE MINUTES OR LESS...l% SIX TO TEN MINUTES....17% 11 TO 15 MINUTES. .....28% 16 TO 20 MINUTES. .....23% 21 TO 25 MINUTES......12% 26 TO 30 MINUTES. .....10% OVER 30 MINUTES........6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .3% EXCELLENT.. ...... .....51% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 % ONLY FAIR.. ...... .....16% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....l% EXCELLENT.. ...... .... .44% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47% ONLY FAIR............. .6% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....l% 81. Why do you feel that way? (PROBE FOR SPECIFIC STREET) HIGHWAY 55, 25%; HIGHWAY 100, 19%; WINNETKA AVENUE, 9%; GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, 6%; TURNER'S CROSSROAD, 6%; HIGHWAY 394, 6%; EVERYWHERE, 9%; SCATTERED, 19%. 9 . . . 82. Have you used public transporta- tion during the past two years? IF "YES," ASK: (N=70) 83. How would you rate your ex- perience -- excellent, good, only fair or poor? IF "NO," ASK: (N=329) 84. Would you use public trans- portation if there were more routes and destinations offered? IF "YES" ASK: (N=86) YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..~..O% EXCELLENT... .... ..... .27% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 46% ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . ~20% POOR. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .0% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...4% 85. Would you support or op- SUPPORT..... ... .... ...66% pose an expansion in OPPOSE... ........ .... .23% public transportation DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ..11% routes and destinations if it meant more buses on residential streets? IF "SUPPORT," ASK: (N=57) 86. Would you still support an expan- sion in public transportation routes and destina- tions if it meant more buses on your residential street? Changing topics.... 87. 88. Other than voting, do you feel that if you wanted to, you could have a say about the way the City of Golden Valley runs things? How much do you feel you know about the work of the Mayor and City Council -- a great deal, a fair amount, very little, or none at all? 10 SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 % OPPOSE............... .18% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ... .2% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59% NO ................... 3 5 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .6% A GREAT DEAL......... .12% A FAIR AMOUNT. ...... ..38% VERY LITTLE... .~.. ....42% NONE AT ALL........... .8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...1% . . . 89. From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: ~p=317) STRONGLY APPROVE. .....17% APPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48% DISAPPROVE..... ...... ..9% STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. ...6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ..21% 90. Could you tell me why you feel that way? UNSURE, 7%; NO PROBLEMS, 21%; GOOD JOB, 47%; POOR JOB, 4%; ISSUES, 10%; DON'T LISTEN, 9%; SCATTERED, 2%. 91. How much first hand contact have you had with the Golden Valley City staff -- quite a lot, some, very little, or none? 92. From what you have heard or seen, how would you rate the job per- formance of the Golden Valley City staff excellent, good, only fair, or poor? IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=336) QUITE A LOT. ...... .....8% SOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27% VERY LITTLE......... ..45% NONE. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2 2 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0% EXCELLENT........... ..17% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55% ONLY FAIR............ .10% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .16% 93. Could you tell me why you feel that way? UNSURE, 10%; NO PROBLEMS, 15%; GOOD JOB, 50%; HELP- FUL, 11%; COULD IMPROVE, 6%; POOR JOB, 6%; SCAT- TERED, 2%. Moving on...... 94. What is your principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities? NEW HOPE/GOLDEN VALLEY POST, 5%; NEWSPAPER, 12%; NEWSLET- TER, 43%; SUN, 10%; WORD OF MOUTH, 8%; MAILINGS, 5%; CABLE TV, 9%; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, 5%; INTERNET, 1%; SCATTERED, 3%. 95. How would you prefer to receive information about the City Council meetings, decisions and policies? UNSURE, 4%; NEW HOPE/GOLDEN VALLEY POST, 4%; NEWSPAPER, 8%; NEWSLETTER, 44%; SUN, 5%; WORD OF MOUTH, 2%; MAIL- INGS, 18%; CABLE TV, 5%; INTERNET, 7%; SCATTERED, 4%. 11 . . . 96. How would you prefer to receive information about the City of Golden Valley and its services? UNSURE, 2%; NEW HOPE/GOLDEN VALLEY POST, 2%; NEWSPAPER, 7%; NEWSLETTER, 51%; SUN, 3%; MAILINGS, 23%; CABLE TV, 2%; INTERNET, 7%; SCATTERED, 4%. 97. During the past year, did you receive the "Golden Valley City News," the City's bi-monthly news- letter? IF "YES," ASK: (N=364) YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91% NO .................... 7 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ....2% 98. Do you or any members of your yES................. ..95% household regularly read it? NO............... .....5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ... .0% 99. Do you sometimes clip the en- tire page or a specific ar- ticle for future reference, or do you throw it away or recycle after you have read it? 100. Do you or any members of your household receive and read the "New Hope-Golden Valley Post?" 101. Prior to this survey, were you aware that the City posts all pub- lic hearings and issues up for consideration by the City Council in local newspapers? SOMETIMES CLIP...... ..35% THROW AWAY/RECYCLE. . . .46% BOTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...1% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62% NO ...................36% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....l% 102. Does your household currently sub- yES......... ........ ..67% scribe to cable television? NO ......... ........ ..33% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=268) 103. How often during the past year have you watched Golden Valley City Council Meeting telecasts on Channel 16 -- frequently, occasionally, rarely or never? FREQUENTLy........... .14% OCCASIONALLy......... .31% RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23% NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. .. .0% The Community Bulletin Board is the scrolling, written information about happenings in the City that plays on Channel 16 between meeting replays. 12 . . . 104. Have you watched the Cornmun- YES... ....... ....... ..44% ity Bulletin Board on Channel NO............. .... ...56% 16 during the past year? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0% 105. During the past year, have you at- yES............ ..... ..22% tended a City Council Meeting in NO.... ..... ..... .....77% City Hall? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ... .1% 106. Do you have access to the Internet at home? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you have access to the Internet at work? IF "YES," ASK: (N=300) 107. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the City's website? IF "YES," ASK: (N=176) 108. Have you accessed the City's web site? IF "YES," ASK: (N=82) 109. How often do you visit the web site -- daily, weekly, monthly, less often or whenever needed? 110. Were you able to find what you were looking for? HOME ONLy........... ..26% WORK ONLy............. .8% BOTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42% NEITHER. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .25% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% DAILY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% WEEKLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 % MONTHLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 % LESS OFTEN........... .39% WHENEVER NEEDED..... ..42% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..5% 111. What information were you looking for? UNSURE, 10%; PARK AND RECREATION INFO, 15%; CITY COUNCIL INFO, 11%; PLANNING INFO, 21%; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 6%; GENERAL CITY INFORMA- TION, 16%; JUST LOOKING, 9%; CITY SERVICE INFO, 9%; SCATTERED, 5%. 112. What information would you like to see on the City of Golden Valley's web site? UNSURE, 33%; PARK AND RECREATION INFO, 2%; CITY COUNCIL INFO, 20%; PLANNING INFO, 7%; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 3%; GENERAL CITY INFORMATION, 13%; JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS, 4%; NOTHING, 11%; CITY SERVICE INFO, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%. 13 . . . I would like to read you a list of potential on-line servic- es which could be offered by the city. For each one, please tell me if you would be very interested in the service, somewhat interested, not too interested or not at all inter- ested in the service. VRI SMI NTI NAA DKR 113. On-line bill paYment service? 11% 21% 114. On-line program registration? 31% 33% 115. An e-mail service where you sub- scribe to be sent notification about city government topics that interest you? 30% 33% 15% 50% 9% 24% 2% 3% 12% 23% 2% IF "VERY INTERESTED" OR "SOMEWHAT INTERESTED," ASK: (N=187) 116. What topics would you be interested in receiving information on through this e-mail service? UNSURE, 12%; PARK AND RECREATION INFO, 10%; CITY COUNCIL INFO, 33%; PLANNING INFO, 26%; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 5%; GENERAL CITY INFORMATION, 11%; CITY SERVICE INFO, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 117. Persons 65 or over? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 % ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 % TWO OR MORE......... ..14% IF A SENIOR IS PRESENT, ASK: (N=116) 118. Have any household members participated in any senior programs offered by the City of Golden Valley? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24% NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=28) 119. How would you rate your experience -- excellent, good, only fair or poor? EXCELLENT............ .57% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 % ONLY FAIR.... . . . . . . . . . .0% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 120. Do you feel there are any programs lacking or missing? (IF "YES,"ASK:) What are they? UNSURE, 21%; NO, 79%. 14 . . . 121. Adults under 65? 122. School-aged children? 123. Pre-schoolers? 124. Do you own or rent your present residence? 125. What is your age, please? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 % TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56% THREE OR MORE....... ...4% NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73% ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 % TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 % THREE OR MORE.. ... .... .4% NONE. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89% ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 % TWO OR MORE........... .3% OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83% RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 % 18-24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% 2 5 - 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 13 % 35-44................ .20% 45-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22% 55-64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18% 65 AND OVER. ......... .24% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% 126. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 28%; OWNER-MANAGER, 14%; CLERICAL- SALES, 18%; BLUE COLLAR, 10%; RETIREES, 23%; SCATTERED, 8% 127. Gender. 128. Precinct 129. School District 15 MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48% FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52% PRECINCT 1........... .11% PRECINCT 2....... .....14% PRECINCT 3........... .13% PRECINCT 4............15% PRECINCT 5....... .....11% PRECINCT 6...... ......14% PREC INCT 7............. 9 % PRECINCT 8............14% ROBBINSDALE SD....... .61% HOPKINS SD........... .39% 1 . . . . ., 'D&e'lS'101t ~&StJURe&S, ,t,7[). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Golden Valley Residential Study Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Golden Valley. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers. across the community between December 8th and 28t\ 2001. The average interview took thirty-two minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Golden Valley residents within:l: 5.0 percentage points in95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Golden V alley had both the characteristics of a mature, generally stable community, but one with a significant element of transience, particularly among a segment of younger renters. The rnedian longevity of adult residents was 14.3 years. Seven percent of the sample reported moving to the city during the past two years, while eighteen percent had been there for overthree decades. In looking toward the future, the typical resident expects to remain in the community for another ten years, although sixteen percent envisioned leaving within the next five years. Twenty-nine percent of the households contained seniors; in fact, twenty-two percent ofthe households were composed entirely of seniors. Twenty-four percent of the households with seniors in residence repoJjed participation in senior programs offered by the City of Golden Valley. All oftheparticipantsr~ted their experiences positively andfelt that nO specific offerings were missing from the current array. Twenty-seven percent of the households contained school-aged children, while eleven percent contained pre-schoolers. Eighty-three percent owned their current residences, whereas eighteen percent rented. The average age of respondents was 51.3 years old. Fifteen percent of the sample fellinto the 18- 34 year age range, and twenty-four percentwere at least65 years old. Forty-two percent of the households were headed by up-scale White Collar job holders -'- Professional-Technical or Owner-Manager positions. Eighteen percent of the households were headed by Clerical-Sales people, while ten percent were headed by Blue Collar job holders. Twenty-three percent of the households within the >community were headed by retirees. . . . '- City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 Residents were classified according to the precinct in which they lived. Twenty-five percent resided in Precincts I or 2; twenty-eight percent lived in Precincts 3 or 4; twenty-five percent lived in Precincts 5 or 6; and, twenty-three percent lived in Precincts 7 and 8. Sixty-one percent resided in the Robbinsdale Public School District, and thirty-nine percent lived in the Hopkins Public School District. Women outnumbered men by four percent in the sample. Quality of Life Ratings: A solid ninety-seven percent rated the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" fifty percent rating it as "excellent," unchanged from the 1999 study. A small four percent posted "only fair" or "poor" ratings. Ratings, then, held constant during the two year period. "High Quality" and "Low Quality" Aspects of the Community: In thinking about "high quality" aspects of Golden V alley, sixteen percent pointed to "strong neighborhoods and nice people," while thirteen percent cited its "city services." The latter factor had almost doubled from its 1999 level of seven percent. Ten percent each classified "location," "safety and police," and "parks and recreation system" as "high quality.". Nine percent posted "well maintained and cleanliness," while eight percent cited "schools." Six percent nominated "shopping and the Downtown Area." In discussing "low quality" aspects of the city, thirteen percent were unable to respond to the < query. Thirty-six percent were "boosters" - residents who felt their were no "low quality" aspects of the community. This "booster" level is almost three times higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm, and represented an increase of seven percent since the. 1999 study. "Traffic congestion," at nine percent, as well as "lack of shopping opportunities, particularly a grocery store" and "City government," each .at seven percent, headed the list of aspects. Six percent mentioned "street repair," while five percent pointed to "rundown neighborhoods. " Community Identity: In choosing between two statements, eighty-two percent felt "I call Golden Valley home;" sixteen percent, stated "Golden Valley is just a place to live; I'dbe just as happy elsewhere." Similarly, in rating the strength of community identity and sense of neighborliness in the city, seventy-nine percent posted "excellent" or "good," and nineteen percent said "only fair" or "poor." These ratings were fairly constant in comparisonwith the 1999 study. Page 2 . . . " City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 In choosing which entity residents felt more closely connected to, fifty-nine percent indicated "[their] neighborhood." Twenty-eight percent pointed to the "City of Golden Valley.as a whole," and twelve percent cited "[their] school district." Fifty percent of the sample reported household members had attended other cities' festivals during the past two years. The most popular festivals proved to be "Hopkins Raspberry Days," "Duk-Duk Days," "Aquatennial," and "Robbinsdale'sCity Celebration." Activities undertaken included watching the parade, strolling through shows and art exhibits, viewing firework displays, eating and drinking, attending music concerts, and generally walking around. By a 56%-32% margin, residents would support the City of Golden Valley using city funds to underwrite the costs of a citywide festival. Issuesfacingthe Community and its Direction: In thinking about serious issues facing the city, fifteen percent pointed to "growth," the same level as in the 1999 stUdy. Twelve percent worried about "taxes," while eleven percent were concerned with "lack of development;" concern about the "lack of development" had more than doubled since the 1999 stUdy. Nine percent cited "school funding," and eight percent mentioned "traffic congestion;" problems with "traffic congestion" had also double since the 1999 stUdy. Eighty-fivepercent felt the city was moving in the "right direction," an increase of eight percent from the 1999 showing. Eight percent thought it was going "off on the wrong track," down six percent from three years ago. City Characteristics: When looking at their community, contented majorities of respondents reported there was "about the right number/amount" of condominiums, townhouses, "move-up" housing, higher cost housing, parks and open spaces, trails and bikeways, service establishments, retail shopping opportunities, and dining establishments. Pluralities felt the same way about affordable housing, affordable rental units, luxury rental units, senior housing, and day care opportUnities. On five characteristics, though, over forty percent felt there was "too little/few:" entertainment establishments, at fifty-five percent; starter homes for young families, at fifty-five percent; dining establishments, at forty-three percent; affordable housing, at forty-two percent; and, retail shopping opportunities, at forty-one percent. In the case of entertainment establishments, moreover, the numbers inthis category had increased by twelve percent from its 1999 level. Page 3 . . . " City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 Property. Taxes and City Services: On the issues of property taxes and city services, residents took a very cautious approach. They split - forty-seven percent to forty-three percent ~ in support of an increase in their property taxes ifit were needed to maintain city services at their current levels; in 1999, residents had split against a property tax increase by a forty-six percent to thirty-six percent margin. When asked about the property taxes in Golden Valley compared with nearby areas, thirty-one percent felt they were "high," while forty-six percent reported they were "about average;" "high" ratings had increased by five percent since the 1999 study. Seventy-eight percent rated Golden Valley city services as "excellent" or "good" in comparison with neighboring communities. Nine percent saw them as "only fair" or "poor," while twelve percent were unsure. Eighty-one percent considered the value of city services in terms of property taxes paid as. either "excellent" or "good," while fifteen percent rated it lower. Both of these results were consistent with the findings in the 1999 study; however, comparative service ratings had improved somewhat, with an increase in "excellent" ratings and a decrease in "good" ones. City Services Evaluations: City services evaluations were generally positive, with a few exceptions. Police protection, fire protection, recycling and brush pick-up, and park maintenance scored approval ratings of ninety percent or higher. Communications and snow plowing finished above the eighty percent threshold. Storm drainage and flood control, Neighborhood Watch Programs, and city street repair and maintenance exceeded the seventy percent approval level. Sixty-nine percent rated animal control positively, while sixty-eight percentsimilarly viewed City-sponsored recreation programs. Only street lighting failed to cross the. sixty percent approval line, but by just one percent. Three city service ratings had improved by at least five percent since the last study: fire protection, animal control, and city street repair and maintenance. One service,. however, registered a ten percent decline in its approval rating, street lighting; in fact, disapproval ratings had risen by thirteen percent. In most cases, however, these city service approval ratings were above or at the suburban norm. On a specific cityservice,niuety-four percent ofthe households in Golden Valley currently participated. in the curbside pickup .of recyclables. Page 4 . . . , City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 City Government and City Staff: Fifty-nine percent felt they could have an impact of the way things were run in Golden Valley; thirty-five percent thought they could not. Overall~ this level of empowerment was above the suburban area norm and the result was relatively unchanged from the 1999 study. Golden Valley residents, then, were feeling connected to their local decision-makers. Fifty percent reported having a "great deal" or "fair amount" of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council, up five percent from the 1999 level and nine percent from the 1994 level. A solid sixty-five percent either "strongly approved" or "approved" oftheir job, while only fifteen percent registered disapproval. This result continued the upward trend from the 1994 showing of fifty percent approval and the 1999 level of sixty-one percent approval. The inability to rate the job of the Mayor and City Council also declined from its highpoint of thirty percent in the 1994 study to its current level of twenty-one percent. Positive ratings were based upon the "perception of a good job" and "lack of city problems;" critics pointed to an "unwillingness to listen" and "disagreement with City Council decisions." Thirty-five percent reported having contact with the Golden Valley City Staff; this level of contact was relatively unchanged from the both the 1994 and 1999 levels. A strong seventy-two percent rated the staff as "excellent" or "good," while twelve percent rated them lower. Again, this result also continued an upward trend from favorable ratings of sixty percent in the 1994 study and sixty-nine percent in the 1999 survey; also, fewer respondents were unable to rate the City Staff than in previous studies -- dropping from twenty-six percent to twenty percent to its current sixteen percent. Positive evaluations were based on the "perception of a good job," "helpfulness," and "lack of problems in the community;" negative judgments were based upon "room for improvement" and "performance issues." Parks and Recreation Issues: Usage ofthevarious components of the park system varied markedly. During the past year, seventy-six percent of the households used community parks and/or neighborhood parks, down five percent in two years. Sixty-two percent used the city's trails. Thirty-three percent reported using the community balIfields. Eighty-nine percent felt the existing recreational facilities offered by the City met the needs of their household, while eight percent felt they did not. Among those deeming recreational facilities inadequate, "trails/parks," "swimming pool," "ballfields,"and "community center" were the suggested additions. Forty percent of the sample reported household members had participated in City park and recreation programs. The most popular programs were "softballlbaseball," "soccer," "golf," Page 5 . . . 'l City olGolden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 "music/dance," and "children's activities." Satisfaction with the offerings was virtually unanimous. Eighty-seven percent viewed the current mix of City park and recreation programming as meeting the needs of their households. Dissidents pointed to the "lack of a swimming pool and water park," "lack of a gymnasium and fitness center," and "general inadequacy of programs." Fifty-six percent said household members currently left the city for park and recreational facilities and activities elsewhere. The most popular were "lakes and parks," "swimming," "running and hiking," and "biking." This level of recreational "leakage" to other communities was at the suburban norm. By a narrow forty-nine percent to forty-three percent judgment, residents supported in concept the construction and operation of a Community Recreation Center in the City of Golden Valley. Intense feelings on both sides ofthe issue were about equaL When considering this type of facility, large numbers of residents urged the inclusion of a "swimming pool and water park," as well as a "gymnasium and fitness center." While a majority of residents could think of no facility they would oppose placing in a Community Recreation Center, small opposition to the two most popular features was noted. The typical Golden Valley resident would accept a property tax increase of $4.26 per month, or $51.12 per year, to partially support the construction and operationofa Golden Valley Community Center. A large thirty-four percent would accept no property tax increase for this purpose, but at the opposite end of the ta.x tolerance scale, twenty-eight percent would support a tax increase twice as large. Streets and Sidewalks: Eighteen percent of the sample current had a public sidewalk on or adjacent to their property. Bya narrow forty-eight percent to forty-three percent margin, residents supported the expansion of the sidewalk system to offer more links into the trail system. Opposition was based upon the perceived "lackofneed"and "overall costs." While seventy-one percent of the supporters would be steadfast even if they were responsible for snow-plowing and maintaining the sidewalk on their property, twenty-two percent changed their mind about the expansion and six percent became und~cided. Similarly, while seventy-eight percent of the supporters currently without sidewalks would remain committed even if the expansion placed a sidewalk on or adjacent to their property, fifteen percent switched to opposition and eight percent became undecided. Support for a tax increase to fund the expansion of the sidewalk.system proved very limited: the typical resident would accept a property tax increase of only $O.95per month, while a very large forty-seven percent would oppose any tax increase at all for this purpose. Page 6 . . . ... City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 Public Safety Issues: While forty-three percent reported there were no areas in the community where they would feel unsafe walking alone at night, fifty-three percent indicated there were such unsafe areas within the city. Eighty-one percent felt safe in their immediate neighborhood walking alone at night, while seventeen percent did not. And, ninety-nine percent reported they generally felt safe in their home. General satisfaction was noted in the evaluations of police patrolling in residential neighborhoods. Seventy-three percent thought there was "about the right amount" in their specific neighborhood, while twenty-three percent said "not enough" and one percent, "too much." Similar evaluations occurred with respect to the amount of traffic enforcement by police in residential neighborhoods: seventy-two percent thought it was "about the right amount" and twenty-two percent saw it as "not enough." Ona related public safety issue, a very high seventy percent knew the Golden Valley Fire Department operated as a paid on-call organization. Transportation Issues: Fifty- five percent left Golden Valley on a regular or daily basis to go to work, a decrease of five percent in two years. Twenty percent did not leave the community to go to work, up five percent during the interim, while twenty-six percent were currently unemployed or retired. Thirty-five percent of citizens leaving the city worked in Minneapolis, up seven percent in two years, while forty-three percent worked in Hennepin County suburbs. The typical commuter again took 15.5 minutes to get to work. Seventy-eight percent rated the ease of getting to work as either "excellent" or "good," while twenty-two percent rated it lower; lower ratings had increased by five percent during the two years. Similarly, ninety-one percent rated the ease of getting from placeto place within the City of Golden Valley as either "excellent" or "good," while eight percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." Critics pointed to "Highway 100," "Highway 55," and "Winnetka Avenue" as particularly troublesome. Eighteen percent ofthe sample reported using public transportation during the past two years. Among public transit users, seventy-three percent rated their experience favorably, while twenty- seven percent were more negative in their evaluations.. Only twenty..:six percent of the current non-users would take public transportation if there were more routes and destinations offered. Among these potential users, sixty-six percent would still support an expansion in routes and destinations even ifit meant more buses on residential streets, and fifty-three percent would still do so even if it mean more buses on their residential street. Page 7 .. . . . City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 Sources of Information about City Government: The City Newsletter was regarded as the principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities by forty-three percent; seventeen percent more of the residents cited this source than in the 1994 study and a negligible two percent more than in the 1999 study. The city newsletter has clearly consolidated its gains in public awareness and impact. Local newspapers, particularly the "New Hope-Golden Valley Sun," were regarded as the principal source of information about city government and activities by twenty-seven percent of the sample, down eight percent in two years and nineteen percent during the past eight years. Eight percent relied upon the "grapevine," while nine percent mentioned cable television and five percent each pointed to various "mailings" and "personal experiences." Forty-four percent preferredto receive information about City Council meetings, decisions and policies through the city's newsletter. . Seventeen percent preferred newspaper coverage, while eighteen percent pointed to mailings. Seven percent pointed to the futernet, while five percent mentioned cable television. Fifty-one percent preferred to receive informationabout the City of Golden Valley and its services through the city newsletter. Mailings were the choice of twenty-three percent, while newspaper coverage was posted by twelve percent. Seven percent also cited the futernet. fu assessing the reach of various communications channels, the "Golden Valley City News" newsletter registered a reach of ninety-one percent, an increase of six percent over the 1999 level and four percent over the 1994 level. Ninety-five percent of those receiving the city newsletter reported regularly reading it. Thirty-five percent sometimes clipped parts and kept them around for later reference, down five percent in two years, while forty-six percent tossed it after reading. Eighteen percent, though, reported saving or tossing the. issue depended upon its coverage. Another source of information, the "New Hope-Golden Valley Post," was received and read by sixty-two percent. Receipt and readership had slipped by fifteen percent since the 1994 study, but remained constant over the past two years. Prior to the survey, sixty-four percent of the sample reported awareness of the City posting all public hearings and issues up for consideration by the City Council in local newspapers. fu fact, an unusually large twenty-two percent also reported attending a City Council Meeting in Golden Valley City Hall. Sixty-seven percent of the surveyed households currently received cable television, an increase of thirteen percent sincethe 1999 study. Among subscribers, an impressive forty-five percent had "frequen~ly" or "occasionally" watched Golden Valley City Council Meeting telecasts during the past year. An additional forty-four percent also reported watching the Community . Page 8 .. . . . " City of Golden Valley Executive Summary March, 2002 Bulletin Board on Channel 16 during the past year. Seventy-six percent reported having access to the Internet from home or at work. In fact, sixty- eight percent had access from their homes. Among those having access to the Internet, fifty-nine percent were aware of the City's website, up twenty-eight percent from the 1999 level. Among those aware of the website, forty"-seven percent had actually accessed it - translating to twenty- one percent of the households across the community. The typical website visitor accessed the site less than once per month, was able to find what he/she was looking for, and tended to be concerned with information about parks and recreational offerings, planning information, general city information, and City Council information. Internet users would particularly like to see four items on the website - City Council agendas and decisions, planning information, and general information about the City and its operations. Residents with Internet access were asked about potential on-line services. Sixty-four percent reported they would be either "very interested" or "somewhat interested" in on-line program registration. Sixty-three percent would be "somewhat interested" in subscribing to an e-mail service providing notification about selected city government topics of interest, especially City Council meeting information, planning information, and general information on city operations. Conclusions and Implications: In conclusion, Golden Valley citizens remained very pleased with their community - city services, tax levels, City Staff and City Council. In almost every case, very favorable ratings were either stable or had improved from two years ago. Community identity and neighborliness remained at remarkably high levels for an inner"-ring suburban community. While residents expressed great satisfaction with their current park and recreation system, they were not overly enthusiastic about major augmentations, such as sidewalk connections to the trails or a community center facility. And, "boosterism," already extraordinarily strong, had dramatically increased. If there were a key concern, it centered around the issue of growth and re- development, not unusual for a first-ring suburb, with residents particularly interested in attracting more starter homes and entertainment establishments. But, beyond this issue, residents were markedly contented with their quality of life. Page 9 N.. .11:11' . ........IJ..::..... .., .:.::.....:~ .... ...... '.. .. ,. ..' eC",'l.SlO. n . .-. . . ." . . . ..' .".. . '. -..' . . . .....- .. .,.... ". .'. . ". ..' .' '. .... .. '. ". .. . ....i.:ReSol1fces...Ltd. . : . ~. ~. . .', . . . ,. ,". . . . Cityof'G9Id'en \Talley.,.:.,.'..... "; ~O?lF~cus...dro~p.su~~l1y. :' .~::: ',,: '" .'. ... . .". '.' .. . '" ;.". . ;..: :'- ~. . , I . . " . .. ; .. .' . I. . ,. '. ." . ."P[~.sent~(tto:'. .' '. _ ...' .. .' Th~ City.'ofGol~enVaney.. . .': . '..~ :".' f. '._ . ,.. '. '0.>"' ,'- " h .. .' ~. . .,.. .. ." .' '. 'Fo~~'?roup'$Ul1lm:arY . ':". . .:." ~ ',:" : ". ....". .. . '. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ~ ~ . ..... ,,-,. .': ]jecisi6*..R;~sources,- :Ltd~. :. . . Deceinoe:r2QOl .. '. ".' . . . , -, '. . .~ " ", . . .... " . . .: ",' ..... ..' ' . . . .' '.' . .. ~..' '. ." .".. . .... . .' .; -.- . ','.. -, ~ ":" .' , . . .....:: . .' . .;", '. . ". . . -, ",' .,,: . ~.' ". ".. . . . . ." . . 3128 p~nCourt · 'Minneapolis. MinnesotaS54i6 .. (612) 920-0337, . Fax (61'2)92.~1.66. . GOLDEN VALLEY FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY . 2001 Golden Valley Community Visioning Process Methodology: A series of six focus groups were conducted in September and October, 2001. Three groups were composed entirely of randomly selected residents. residing in pre-determined sections ofthe community. One focus group was composed of randomly selected Golden Valley business owners and managers. The fifth group was made up of eighteen randomly selected ninth through twelfth graders in the Hopkins and Robbinsdale Public School Districts. The sixth, and fmal, focus group was composed of pastors of city churches and directors of non-profit organizations in Golden Valley. All focus group sessions were held in a Meeting Room at City Hall. Participants were served appropriate refreshments and/or snacks in addition to being financially compensated for their time. The first residential focus group on September 13,2001, was constituted of eleven residents living south of Highway 55. The group on September 20,2001, had fourteen residents living north of Highway 55 and east of Douglas ])rive. The last focus group was made up of eleven residents living north.ofHighway 55 and west of Douglas Drive. Overall, there were eighteen men and eighteen women in the three residential focus groups. The typical participant had been in the city for about sixteen years. Each focus group lasted a little more than ninety minutes. . The religious/non-profit organizations focus group was held on October 3, 2001. It was composed of twelve Golden Valley church pastors and non-profit organization directors. Seven participants were pastors of churches in the city, while the remaining five were directors of a non-profit organization in Golden Valley. There were seven men and five women in the focus group. The average participant had worked in the city for about thirty years; but, only one participant lived in the City of Golden Valley. This focus group lasted about eighty-five minutes. The community businesses focus group was held on September 19, 2001. The group was comprised of ten Golden Valley business owners and managers. There were seven men and three women involved in this discussion. The average participant had worked in the city for about twenty years. Eight participants employed one-to-ten workers or staff, one member employedfifty-to-one-hundred people, and one discussant employed about one hundred and twenty-five people. Two of the owners and managers actually lived in the City of Golden Valley. The focus group session lasted about eighty minutes. . The focus group of city youth was held on October 23, 2001. The group was made up of eighteen Golden Valley teenagers. . Eight boys and ten girls participated in the discussion. The majority of participants had been in the city for their entire life. Eight participants were in ninth grade, four were tenth grade and six were in eleventh grade. Seven teenagers attended the Hopkins School District, while eleven attended the Robbinsdale School District. This focus . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions group discussion lasted over ninety minutes. In the analysis below, the findings from the three residential focus groups will be combined. The business focus group, the teenage discussion group, and the religious/non-profit are treated separately, since these are very distinctive audiences in terms of their perceptions and concerns. Residential Focus Group Findings: Changes in the City During the next Ten Years: Most participants did not expect to see a lot of change in the community during the next ten years. The main limiting factor to change was the lack of available land for further development. Participants felt there would probably be more younger families moving into the city; however, this projection was considered somewhat uncertain because of increasing property values, pricing housing beyond the usual "starter home" range. There was a fear among a number of participants that the City of Golden Valley would pursue subsidized or low-income housing, diverting these funds from "more important" purposes. Overall, residents proved to be very content with the demographic and economic make-up of the city, and had no expectation for major changes during the next ten years. Most Serious Issue Facing the City: "Traffic congestion" was the major issue identified in all three focus groups. In particular, the two groups living north of Highway 55 pointed to traffic congestion on city streets, such as Winnetka Avenue, Olympia Street, Duluth Street and Rhode Island Avenue. The residents on the other side of Highway 55 were troubled by the difficulty getting on and off the highways framing the city to the south, east and west. "Traffic speeding" was also raised in both groups living north of Highway 55, while "pedestrian safety" was brought up by the groups living south of the Highway. All these tied together in the theme that a perceived lack of patrolling and traffic control was leading to dangerous situations in neighborhoods for all residents, especially children. Other, less serious, issues brought up included air and water quality, taxes, flooding, growth, road construction and the need for a Community Center. As a side note, the September 20th focus group's first reaction to this question was to bring up the Robbinsdale School District. The consensus in the group was that the reputation and problems in the District would hUrt the city in two ways: declining property values and families with young children unwilling to move into the School District. . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions Sense of Community/Events and Festivals: Almost one-third of participants rated the current sense of community among city residents as "excellent," while another fifty percent thought it was "good." Clearly, there was a high level of contentment about the current sense of community in Golden Valley. Residents had numerous suggestions, however, for improving the sense of community: a Community Center, connect bike paths, larger library, municipal swimming pool and more community gatherings. It is interesting to note that the groups all agreed they have a stronger sense of community in their neighborhoods, but a weaker one in terms of connection with the city as a whole. Participants cited many factors for this, but chief among them were: two different school districts; and the major highways and city streets running throughout the city, essentially creating traffic barriers between neighborhoods. This issue led directly to a discussion of the need for more community events and festivals. Longtime residents remembered fondly the community festival the city used to have. Newer residents wanted "Duk-Duk Days" type of events for Golden Valley. A few other suggestions included city picnics, a carnival, an art fair or a farmer's market in the new Downtown area. Things to Dol Activities/Shopping: Overall, there was a high level of contentment with the array of leisure time options already available within the community. Participants agreed that if something were not available in Golden Valley, it was convenient and "hassle-free" to access a highway and be in the Ridgedale Area in five minutes or the Southdale Area in ten minutes. The one source of concern expressed in all the groups was the lack of a grocery store within the city. (It should be noted that most of the participants thought the Golden Valley Byerly's was actually located in Minneapolis! Further, the location was not considered convenient.) Some participants longed to have a replacement for "Jerry's," while others would be just as content to have a small convenience! grocery store to buy a few things during the week - and still go outside the city for major weekly grocery shopping. Other issues which arose at modest levels included the lack of specialty shops, few upscale restaurants, limited family sit-down restaurapts, and inadequate activities for teenagers. Ties to Surrounding Communities: Participants saw extensive ties to surrounding communities in their day-to-day lives. Some mentioned going to other cities' community events and festivals. Discussants with children mentioned placing their children in other cities' sports leagues and programs. All discussed going to surrounding communities, such as Saint Louis Park, Minnetonka, Plymouth and 3 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions Robbinsdale for daily activities such as work, shopping and dining out. The vast majority of participants saw themselves not only as Golden Valley residents, but residents of the first- and second-ring western suburbs. One senior in the second focus group pointed out numerous times that, for cost-effectiveness, Golden Valley and surrounding communities should be working together in partnership to deliver park and recreation programs, especially senior programming. Transportation Needs: Focus group members were generally not pleased with the current transportation system. However, almost all agreed this was a Metropolitan Area issue, not just a city issue. Residents lamented the lack of available routes on public transportation. All agreed it was easier to go to Downtown Minneapolis, but to go beyond, not just to Downtown Saint Paul but even the University of Minnesota, was a problem. Participants would like to see some public transportation between the western suburbs: both north-to-south and east-to-west. Some discussants thought the City should have an internal circulator bus route. This would not only make it easier for seniors to move around the city, but also for children to attend sports practices, church events, and other types of activities. It is interesting that not many people discussed adding more highway lanes; most were interested in getting cars off the highways, and several participants even suggested a light rail line in the HOV lane on 1-394. Appearance and Maintenance of Housing and Businesses: Generally, most participants thought the City of Golden Valley did a good job on insuring high maintenance and appearance standards in its housing and businesses. They agreed that the large majority of city residents took pride in the ownership of their house or condominium. They mentioned that many neighborhoods have an informal "code" among neighbors on what is acceptable and unacceptable on properties. Discussants thought the business areas in the city were well-kept and eye-pleasing, especially the Downtown Area. There was consensus in all three groups that perhaps the city should be looking more closely at the Strip Mall on the other side of Winnetka Avenue. Some saw an asymmetry between this mall and the New Downtown Center on the other side of the street. Several other suggestions were made, which included more flowers along boulevards and streets, more trees along the highways to reduce noise, and more vigilance around railroad bridges to stop graffiti. But, all of these issues were felt to be minor in comparison to the overwhelming feeling of the City's good job to date. 4 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions Life-Stage Housing: Focus group members did not think Golden Valley had a sufficient mix oflife-stage housing. All participants thought the city had a nice mix of "move-up" housing and higher cost housing. The groups split on the other two life-stages: one half thought a lack of starter homes was the most serious deficiency, while the other half thought senior housing was lacking. Those who saw gaps in starter homes pointed out the high cost of even the cheapest houses in Golden Valley, and worried about places for their children or grandchildren to stay in the city. Participants concerned about senior housing pointed to the quandary senior citizens are in: they are on fixed incomes with escalating property values and taxes, but cannot [md any senior housing opportunities in the city. If they can not afford to live in their current homes any longer, they have to move out of the city. These two issues - starter homes and senior housing - were felt to be key challenges facing the community in the future. CommunicationslTechnology: This topic proved to generate a significant amount of discussion. When asked to evaluate the communications from the city, all three focus groups made the same differentiation: information about the city and its services were highly valued and readily available; but, information about City Council decisions and activities were more problematic. Discussants felt issues before the Council were communicated in a reactive, versus pro-active, fashion. They were concerned about hearing about an issue after the Council had already made a decision. There was also some concern among group members in the September 20th focus group about the lack of readily available information regarding road construction projects in the city. - Turning to technology opportunities, about forty percent of participants would be interested in receiving an e-mailed newsletter from the city. Less than twenty percent would be interested in paying city bills on-line, while thirty-five percent would be interested in registering for recreational programs and applying for permits at the city's website. Park and Recreation Faciliti~s and Programs: City parks and facilities were rated overwhelmingly positive. Focus group members thought parks were plentiful, well-maintained and clean, and equipment was up-to-date. The trail system did not fare as well. Participants were troubled that the trail system does not connect together. One participant said hewas riding his bike and the trail just turned to grass in the middle of a . park! Many discussants felt connecting trails across the city would enhance the sense of community and increase children's and pedestrians' safety. A majority of participants thought 5 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions the city should proceed to analyze the feasibility of the construction of a Community Center with an indoor swimming pool. But, discussants pointed out the amount of a property tax increase for this type of construction could limit the support for a Community Center or constrain the types of facilities it included. " "' Recreational programs were thought to be somewhat lacking by participants. All three focus groups expressed concern about the amount of programs and activities for teens, in particular. A few discussants pointed to a lack of a comprehensive sports program in the city, especially football. Numerous parents mentioned they had their children in programs outside of the city. Some focus group members felt that a Community Center could be a focal point, to not only expand park and recreation facilities, but also create programs and activities in the City. Business OwnerslManagers Focus Group Findings: Future Business Plans: Only one of the ten businesses represented had plans to move out of the city during the next two years; in this case, the company was looking to downsize the amount of space they had. 'Three businesses had plans to expand or remodel their current business space during the next two years. Three companies had plans to increase the number of employees, while six thought they would have the same number of employees during the next two years. The one business owner who was moving out of Golden Valley to downsize his space was unsure how this would affect the number of employees he had. In general, in spite of a recession, the businesses overall reported a slight net increase in employment opportunities as well as some limited expansion projects. Most Serious Issue: According to the assembled business owners and managers, the most serious issue facing the city was crime. While they all felt safe in their own working environment, they had seen and heard of increases sin gang and drug activity. Two participants worked at businesses which had purse stolen in the middle of the work day. A second major issue was the current condition of roads and road construction projects. Two areas of road construction were cited: Highway 100 and Highway 55. Business owners and managers near Highway 100 were concerned about the impact the construction would have on their business. Similar concerns were raised by owners and managers who had heard ofa potential future expansion ofHighway.S5. Other secondary issues were brought up: the need for a grocery store along Highway 55, "eminent domain" policy and the need for activities and programs for teenagers in the community. 6 . .. . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions Future Economic Development Needs: Overall, participants were satisfied with economic development and redevelopment in Golden Valley. One business owner echoed the sentiments of the residents by suggesting the City needed a grocery store, like "Jerry's." Two participants felt the strip mall on the west side of Winnetka Avenue needed updating to look similar to the "new" area to its east. However, one business owner in that strip mall raised concerns about being forced to move out of the City if the mall is required to renovate, causing rent increases. Four participants felt Golden Valley needed more sit-down restaurants. They cited numerous examples of need to inconveniently take clients, vendors or colleagues outside the city for business lunches or dinners. Contact with City Hall: Contact with City Staff and the City Council was viewed very positively by the group. Five participants had actually interacted with city staff. All rated their interaction as at least "good," praising the performance and professionalism of the police and building inspectors. All the discussants reported no disagreements either with City Council actions or City regulations and ordinances. In general, business owners and managers were very pleased with City Government policies and City staff. Transportation: As mentioned earlier, two business owners lived in the city. The remaining eight owners and managers were scattered across the western suburbs: Crystal, Hopkins, Orono, Maple Grove, Saint Louis Park, Shorewood and Prior Lake. All of the participants rated their commutes in and out ofthe city as "good." They pointed out that because of Golden Valley's location, they always missed the worst of the traffic congestion heading into downtown Minneapolis. A few focus group members, though, felt the frontage road along Interstate 394 was dangerous because of poor signage. Others also mentioned poorly timed traffic signals on Duluth Street near Byerly's, creating congestion and a potentially dangerous situation for pedestrians. Maintenance and Appearance of Properties: Owners and managers overwhelmingly approved of the appearance and maintenance of businesses and homes in the City of Golden Valley. Two rated it as "excellent," while the remaining eight thought it was "good." They all felt that business owners and home owners in 7 . . . Decision Resources. Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions the City took tremendous pride in maintaining their properties. A few did point out, once again, that the strip mall on the west side of Winnetka should be renovated for aesthetic reasons. One business owner suggested the City provide low-interest business loans for significant repair and renovation of older businesses in the community. City Communications: Business owners and managers did not feel as well informed as residents. Two participants rated their current level information as "good," while three thought it was "poor." The rating of "poor" was given because of the perceived lack of timeliness in their communications from the city. The remainingfive could not rate the city's communication efforts because they had not received any city communications. They thought this might have occured because they leased their properties and perhaps City communications went to the property management company. However, they did want information from the City and stated that, since they did not live in the city and receive the the local newspaper, they needed the City communications to keep in touch with the community. Only four participants were aware of the City's webpage, with three of them having used it in the past. This was seen by several discussants as the key to upgrading the City's communications with businesses. They were interested in an expanded website and on- line newsletter which would allow them to explore for the information they needed at a convenient time. They also suggested implementing a system for contacting City Hall with concerns and issues through e-mail and having appropriate staff respond by telephone or e-mail. Non-Profit Organizations and Church Focus Group: Future Plans: Three pastors indicated their congregation had plans to expand and remodel their current church in the next few years. One pastor indicated his congregation may have to move out of the city in the next two years. He mentioned his congregation has grown so much, they no longer have room on their current land to expand the sanctuary to meet both current and future needs. Most Serious Issue: A myriad of issues was mentioned. Three participants felt the most serious issue was the decline of the Robbinsdale School District. Two participants were concerned about the lack of affordable housing in the community. Other issues brought up included over-development, lack 8 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions of public transportation, high taxes and increases in crime. A couple of pastors cited increased racial tension. They mentioned the growth of minorities in the city and how members of their congregations are reacting negatively to this growth. A non-profit organization director cited a 75% increase in the request for food and money, while seeing a decline in services provided to seniors. Her premise was the City of Golden Valley has attracted a growing number of younger people who cannot easily afford to live in the community and are living paycheck-to- paycheck. Sense of Community: Focus group members felt the sense of community among residents was "good." However, similarly to what residents pointed out, they felt people in Golden Valley were connected to their neighborhood rather than to the whole city. They went one step further, though, and mentioned that residents stay with "their kind." Discussants pointed out that many areas contained ethnic group enclaves that isolated themselves or are isolated from the whole city. Everyone in the focus group thought it would be a great idea for Golden Valley to have its own festival, such as "Duk-Duk Days." And, almost all thought the city should be pursuing the development of a Community Center to further bring the community together. Contact with City Hall: As a benchmark, focus group members rated their contact with city staff as "good." Three participants were somewhat critical of city staff because of problems with building inspectors. Among the issues raised by these three and others who had encountered building inspectors were poor personal attitudes of the city employees, inconsistency from one inspector to the next and a conflict between rules set forth by the State of Minnesota and those imposed by the City of Golden Valley. These three also indicated they had positive experiences with other city staff, but with building inspectors it was "hit or miss" depending on the day and the inspector. On a different note, three churches did mention the desire to have their recycling picked up by the city. Transportation: All of the participants were satisfied with their commute to and from work. Reasons voiced were similar to the business owners in the previously discussed focus group. Except for the one Golden Valley resident, group members commuted from the western and northern suburbs. However, in their interaction with congregation members and constituents, transportation issues were found to be a major problem in the city. They mentioned the public transportation system, 9 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions which can only take a person as far as downtown Minneapolis, a lack of weekend and evening buses, and an overall lack of routes throughout the City of Golden Valley. One pastor mentioned they had to close down their daycare center because they could not get their help to the church. She stated that since their personnel are not paid a lot of money, many cannot afford cars and need public transportation to get to work. Discussants suggested the City of Golden Valley should cooperate with surrounding cities and provide an inner ring bus service from north to south, instead of the current east to west service provided by the current public transportation system. Housing and Business Issues: The majority of focus group members felt the city had a good mix of housing types. However, three participants who work on the "front lines" of the issue felt the City of Golden Valley lacked starter homes for younger families and senior housing opportunities. The majority of discussants also felt the city needed quality sit-down restaurants. Much like the business owners/managers group, they mentioned numerous examples of leaving the city for a business lunch or dinner. Every participant rated the city as "good" on the appearance and maintenance of housing and businesses. In fact, 0 group member praised Golden Valley for its "no billboard" policy. Communications: Communications between the City of Golden Valley and churches/non-profits was not rated highly. Two rated the linkage as "good," while four rated it as "only fair," and four rated it as "poor." Two were uncertain because they had not received any city communications; in fact, none ofthese organizations or churches had received a newsletter from the city. Eight participants wanted a lot more information from the city, to feel "in the loop." Four discussants were willing to go out and find the information on their own when they needed it, if they had to do so. Two participants were awar~ of and had visited the webpage. Every participant was interested in receiving an e-mailed newsletter, while none were interested in completing financial transactions with the City on-line. Once again and similar to the businesses, members saw the Internet as the solution for improving city communications with churches and non-profit organizations. 10 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions Teen Focus Group: Future Plans: The teenagers were asked what, if any, plans they had made for their lives after high school. Five planned to attend college in the Twin Cities, while nine were looking to attend a college outside of Minnesota. Four were uncertain at this point what they were going to be doing after graduation. The focus group ended by asking the participants: "When you are grown up and ready to settle down, how likely would you be to live in Golden Valley - very likely, somewhat likely or not too likely?" Six stated they were very likely to remain in the city, while seven were somewhat likely to return. Only five stated they had no desire to live in the city after they graduated from high school. Most Serious Issue: Just short of a majority pointed to road construction and the resulting traffic congestion as the most serious issue facing the city. Highway 100 was the major focus, with some wondering if construction will be completed by the time they start college. Of interest, four participants actually drove and did not see construction and congestion as serious of an issue as those who had to ride with family or friends. Focus group discussants also reported pedestrian safety was a serious issue, especially along Highway 55 and around Meadowbrook School. Secondary issues pointed to included vandalism and graffiti in the parks, funding for schools, the need for more street lighting and lack of activities for teenagers. Safety: The teenagers were asked whether they felt safe in the city. Eight participants stated they felt "very safe;' while six felt "somewhat safe." Four indicated they felt "somewhat unsafe" in Golden Valley. The reasons for the lower ratings on safety were reporte,d neighborhood theft and vandalism, murders in Wirth Park and the terrorist attacks on September 11 th of this year. Sense of Community: Focus group members were asked if they felt most connected to the City of Golden Valley, their neighborhood or their school district. Predictably, ten teenagers pointed to their school district, while five pointed to their neighborhood. futerestingly, three did not feel connected to any of the three entities - they only felt a part of their immediate family. The group was. next asked if 11 " . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions they had attended other cities' festivals and twelve indicated they had. Among the most popular were "Duk-Duk Days," "Whiz Bang Days" and the Plymouth Fireworks Festival for the Fourth of July. All eighteen wanted the City of Golden Valley to hold its own festival. However, they were quickto point out the necessity of avoiding timing conflicts with annual festivities in nearby other cities. Activitiesffhings to Do: Focus group members rated the city very low on activities and things to do for their age group. Eleven rated it as "only fair," while five rated it as "poor." They pointed out that most of the time they have to go to another city to see a movie, go shopping or eat at nice restaurants. A few teenagers mentioned being kicked out of the parks by parents of younger children, while even more cited numerous examples of businesses kicking them out of the stores, store fronts or parking lots for loitering or skateboarding. The teenagers all agreed that if you don't live near the Downtown Area or don't have a driver's license, there is nothing to do in the community. The participants had many suggestions to improve the leisure time aspects of city life. All eighteen focus group members wanted a bowling alley, an indoor pool and a teen center. Eight participants wanted the city to build a skate park, while five wanted all of these things to be in a Community Center. Two discussants wanted the city to connect the trails and sidewalks so it would be easier for children to get around the city. They were extremely adamant about a youth/teen center, even going further and suggesting what should be in the teen center - venue for music and live bands, food and snack bar, coffee shop, arcade, dancing floor, and a sitting area to "hang out" with friends. Parks and Recreational Facilities and Programs: Fourteen participants regularly used the park and trail system in Golden Valley. As mentioned previously, they strongly urged the completion of the trail system's connection throughout the city. Three focus group members wanted the City to have patrols'on the trails, citing instances of drug usage and fights. The same number also wanted patrols in the parks to stop vandalism, graffiti and littering. Turning to recreational programming, sixteen had participated in city-sponsored recreation programs, while seventeen had taken part in school-sponsored recreation programs. All of the participants in city-sponsored programs had done so at much younger ages in activities such as ... . T -ball, Little League and softball. There were numerous suggestions for more programs to be offered by the city: a number were interested in field trips offered by the city, while others 12 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions suggested paint ball and "lock-ins" and all-night teen events. Smaller numbers wanted LaCrosse, badminton, music/singing classes and intramural sports for children who did not want to play sports in the schools. General Conclusions: The focus groups raised a number of key issues, which decision-makers may wish to consider as they plan for the future: . The most serious issue facing the community was felt to be road construction and traffic congestion. The problems appears to plague not only major thoroughfares, but also residential streets. Speeding in residential areas was also regarded as a problem and many focus group members urged more aggressive action in the discouragement of speeders. . While the sense of community among residents was regarded as generally positive, group members seemed to see a much stronger linkage to neighborhoods than to the city as a whole. Not surprisingly, teenagers linked far more strongly with their current school districts. As a result, members of all of the groups urged the establishment of a community festival to provide more civic unity, modeled after the festivities in nearby suburbs. And, participants also urged the City to consider the feasibility of the construction of a full-service Community Center facility to act as a focal point for the community. . Two key types of housing were thought to be missing from the community: one because of its simple lack of availability, the other due to market forces. The number of "Starter Homes" was viewed as insufficient to meet the needs of young adults who wish to move to the community or remain there as they leave their parent's homes. Similarly, the availability of Senior Housing was considered quite limited, causing older residents to remain in costly and unnecessarily large homes or move to another city. As redevelop- ment occurs, the City may wish to prioritize the provision of more of both types of housing. . Focus group members also saw a need for prioritizing the development of particular types of leisure time offerings in the city. The completion of the trail system to provide complete coverage of the various regions of the community and inter-connections between them was urged by all residential focus groups. More sit-down and family-style restaurants were thought to be needed. And, many participants saw the need for a wider array of offerings for teenagers, including both recreational and meeting areas.n 13 . . . Decision Resources, Ltd. Golden Valley Visioning Process 2001 Focus Group Sessions. . All of the focus groups saw public transportation needs. But, they considered it in the context of deficiencies in the Metropolitan Area system. While most viewed services to and from Downtown Minneapolis as acceptable, they felt that reaching other areas beyond as prohibitively difficult. In particular, may saw the need for more north-south routes in addition to the current east-west routes. Additionally, participants also felt a "circulator service" for the community and adjoining suburbs would prove viable. . Communications between the City and its residents, businesses, and intermediary institutions (churches and non-profits) was rated more marginally. While information about city services and ordinances were available, information about City Council policies and actions were felt to be both limited and outdated. As a potential supplement to the current system, high levels of interest were expressed about the use of the Internet as both a means of receiving information and contacting the City with requests or observations. Overall, contentment and satisfaction with the quality of life in the City of Golden Valley was found to be high. It was regarded as an attractive and eminently livable first-ring suburban community. City Government and Staff were viewed favorably for maintaining the current distinctiveness of the city and planning for the future to preserve it. And, most importantly, adult group members placed their emphasis on continuing the successful approaches of the past, with some modifications, rather than making a complete break. with it. 14 .' . '~ .. Golden Valley Visioning Research Project Focus Groups Sessions August, 2001 FOCUS GROUP SCRIPT General Session Questions l Introductions and Ground Rules ll. Discussion of Purpose of Focus Groups ffi. During the next ten years, what kinds of changes do you expect to see in Golden Valley? · Population and Diversity · Housing · Economic Development · Chmact&ofCommuniry N. What do you see as the most serious issues facing the community during the next ten years? V. Let's talk about where the Ciry of Golden Valley is currently and where it should be in ten years on the issue of"communiry," as a cohesiveness among residents. · Sense of Community Among Residents! 'New" and "Old" · Gathering Areas · ActivitieslThings to Do/Shopping · EventslFestivals · Ties to Bordering Communities and the Region · Transportation Needs VI. Now, let's talk about where the Ciry of Golden Valley is currently and where it should be in ten years in the development of strong neighborhoods. · Appearance and Maintenance ofHousingfCode Enforcement · "Life-Stage" HousingfStarter HomesIMove-Ups/Higher Cost/Senior Housing · Integriry of Neighborhoods · Neighborhood Gathering Spots · Neighborhood Retail and Business Establishments · Natural Areas VIT. Now, let's talk about how the City of Golden Valley is currently serving lifestyle and leisure needs and what it should be doing in ten years. · Communication with ResidentslUse of Technology · TrailslPedestrian connections · Park System Needs · Recreational Programs!Opportunities · Social Service Programs . ::. :f~ .' .r ..~ . .; Golden Valley Visioning Research Project Focus Groups Sessions August, 2001 VITI. Now, one final question, after our discussion this evening, what do you see as the major challenge policy-makers will need to address to insure that Golden Valley retains a high quality of life ten years from now? IX. ThankslAdjoununentlPayment of Incentives . . :l "?, '::- 'j 1 . 1 j I ,-: DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 'S\~~ 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FOCUS GROUP RECRUITMENT AUGUST 2001 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Golden Valley to conduct a focus group with ninth, tenth and ele~enth graders living the city. ** Do you have a ninth, tenth or eleventh grader in your household? (IF "YES," ASK:) Which one? NINTH GRADE.............1 TENTH GRADE.............2 ELEVENTH GRADE..........3 MULTIPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD IN THESE THREE GRADE LEVELS, CHOOSE ONE TO BALANCE THE FOCUS GROUP. We would like to invite your grader to participate in a focus group. The focus group will be held on Tuesday, October 23rd from 6:30 to 8:00pm. The session will take place at Golden Valley City Hall at 7800 Golden Valley Road. pizza and pop will be available and participants will be awarded $30.00 for their attendance. Would it be okay to ask your in this focus group? grader to participate IF "NO," SAY: Thank you for time. Good-bye. IF "YES," SAY: That's great! Is your child available? IF CHILD IS NOT AVAILABLE, ASK: When would be the best time to contact (him/her?) IF CHILD IS AVAILABLE: We would like to invite you to participate in a focus group. The focus group will be held on Tuesday, October 23rd from 6:30 to 8:00pm. The session will take place at Golden Valley City Hall at 7800 Golden Valley Road. Pizza and pop will be available and participants will be awarded $30.00 for their attendance. Would you be willing to attend this focus group? IF "NO," ASK: Thank you for your time. Good-bye. 1 . . 1 '} }..'o' 1" .. 1 .. .~ IF "YES": You will receive a confirmation with the location of the focus group through the mail. Could I please have your address. NAME: ADDRESS: Just to review, you have indicated a willingness to participate in the October 23rd focus group at Golden Valley City Hall. If you have any questions, please call (612) 920-0337 and ask for either Peter or Jennifer, the project managers. Thank you very much. Good-bye. 2 . . 1 ~ ~ .~ :.. ~W)PL,(, October 16, 2001 Dear Focus Group Participant: Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in the upcoming focus group on October 23M. Once again, the focus grolip will be held at Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road from 6:30PM to 8:00PM. Directions from Highway 55 are as follows: go north on Winnetka Avenue, turn right at first stoplight (Golden V alley Drive), take first left into City Hall parking lot. Pizza and pop will be available and you will receive $30.00 for your time. If you have any questions, please call Peter Leatherman or Jennifer Batteen at (612) 920-0337. Sin~~ Peter Leatherman Research Director Decision Resources, Ltd.