Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07Memorandum To: From: Copy: Date: Subject: Decision Resources administered the surveys in May and June by contacting approximately 400 randomly selected residential households and 294 randomly selected businesses within the community. The surveys were divided into sections designed to seek an understanding of the public's opinion regarding: The City Council, at their April 26, 2010 work session, reviewed the draft questions for the Residential Community and Business Community Surveys. With a few minor revisions City Council directed Decision Resources to proceed with the surveys. Honorable Mayor and City Council Steve Mielke, City Administrator Allyn Kuennen, Associate Planner August 12, 2010 2010 Residential and Business Survey Results. • quality of life I business environment • quality of City services • importance of City services • property taxes I value of services • financing of services I priorities • willingness to increase property taxes • communications • demographic questions questions questions - 34 questions 35 questions 62 questions 66 - 92 questions question questions 99 - 106 City of Lakeville Administration The results are accurate to within 4% and provide a statistically valid measure of the public's perceptions regarding taxes and budgeting, the quality and level of funding for City services, and the importance and prioritizing of City services. The results also provide a tool to assist the City Council in the decision making process regarding the financial and economic issues the City is currently working to address as it prepares the 2011 -2012 City budget. Attached are the executive summaries from Decision Resources, copies of both surveys that include the percentage results for each question and the power point presentation that Decision Resources will present to the City Council. Dr. Bill Morris and Mr. Peter Leatherman an from Decision Resources will present the attached results of the surveys and their cross tabulation analysis of the data at the August 16 City Council meeting. If you have any questions prior to the City Council meeting, please contact Allyn Kuennen at 952 - 985 -4424 or kuenne © k rilIen n. . City of Lakeville Business Executive Summary August 2010 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. Business Demographics: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2010 City of Lakeville Business Study The typical Lakeville business has been at its current site for nine years. Eleven percent are there two years or less, while 11% operated there for over twenty years. The typical Lakeville business also reports five full -time employees and 3. 4 part -time employees. But, 14% of these businesses have at least 15 full -time employees. In contrast, 15% are home-based businesses. Fifty- eight percent of Lakeville businesses are service enterprises, % are retail stores, and 14% are manufacturing operations. Forty - eight percent of the respondents are managers, are owners, and six percent, Presidents of their companies. Fifty -nine percent live in the City of Lakeville, while another 18% reside in other Dakota County com m .ties. The key reason for not residing in Lakeville is longevity in their home cities. Forty percent are current members of the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce, nine percent are past members, and are non-members. Business Environment: The main reasons for a business selecting Lakeville is "location," at 46%. Twelve percent are "home-based" businesses, while nine percent "bought an existing business." A very high 85% rate the business atmosphere in Lakeville as either "excellent" or "good." only 14% are more critical in their evaluations. "Location," again, is the most popular aspect liked by Lakeville businesses, posted by 48%. Twenty percent point to its "customer base," while 12% cite "friendly people," and 11%, "nicer community." An impressively high 51 report there is "nothing" they like least about the city. Twenty-four percent cite "high taxes," about 15% lower than the suburban business community norm. Five percent each point to "location" and "city signage rules." I • City Service Favorable Rating Fire of c i o . 99% Police protection 99% Upkeep and maintenance of parks 99% Animal control 97% Education programming provided by the Police and Fire Department 96% Storm drainage and flood control 96% Condition of city trails 96% Park and recreation programming 95% Snowplowing of city streets 95% corm pity celebrations 94% Traffic enforcement 94% Outdoor ice rinks 93% Park ranger program 91% Street sweeping 9l % Street lighting 91% Property maintenance enforcement I 9 % City of Lakeville I usi esas Executive Summary August, 2010 Only three percent report ns to move their businesses from the community in the next five years. Another four percent, though, reports it depends on factors outside the control of the City, like "lack of customers" and "lack of existing space." Only one percent of Lakeville businesses report their impending move is caused by "high taxes." City Service Ratings: When only the opinions of business owners/managers providing ratings of service are considered, the percentage of favorable ratings ranges between 81% and 99%. The table below arrays each service with the percentage of informed . respondents who rate it as either "excellent" or "good." 2 City Service Favorable Rating Snovv removal on city trails 89% Arts Center programming 89% Forestry program 89% Senior Center programming 89% Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches .. Mowing of boulevards 88% Building and inspection services Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails Qualityofdrinking water 84% Street maintenance .. repair r 2% Economic development and planning 81% City Service Essential Rating Importance Score Fire protection Police protection 88% 2 . Quality of drinking water 1 66% 3 i Snowplowing of city streets 62% City of Lakeville Business Executive Su . ary August 2010 The mean favorable percentage for all city services is 91.4% — about three percent higher than the mean favorable percentage awarded by city residents. Business owners/managers are actually more satisfied with city services than city residents. Importance of City Services: In the second column, the table below shows each service with the percentage of respondents who consider it to be "essential." The third column is an importance score based upon the rank in comparison with other services of the combines percentage of "essential" and "very important" ratings. 3 City Service Essential Rating o f Score Street maintenance and repair 61% 4 Storm drainage and flood control 58% Traffic enforcement 68% Street lighting 63% Property maintenance enforcement 27% Economic development and planning 30% 10 Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails 39% 1 Building and inspection services 12 Upkeep and maintenance of arks 22% 1 Mowing of boulevards 24% 14 Senior Center programming 15% 15 Education programming provided by the Police and Fire Department 22% 16 Street sweeping 27% 17 Animal control 11 18 Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches 13% 19 Snow ow removal on city trails I o 20 Park and recreation programming 9 To 21 Condition of city trails 14% 2 Community celebrations 18% 23 Arts Center programming 53% 24 Forestry program 8% 25 Park ranger program 7% 26 Outdoor ice rinks 9% 27 1 City of Lakeville Business Executive Summary August, 2010 City Service Cutaliminate Percentage Funding Priority Priority Fire protection 2% I Police protection 3% 2 Quality of drinking water 3% 2 Snowplowing of city streets 5% 4 Street maintenance and repair 5% 4 Street lighting 6% 6 Traffic enforcement Storm drainage and flood control 2% Senior Center programming 16% 'roper .y maintenance enforcement . % 10 Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails 17% 10 Animal control 18% 1.2 Community celebrations 19% 13 City of Lakeville Business Executive Sunimaty August 2010 The average essential rating given to the 27 city services ,is 34.5%, over 11% higher than the average awarded by city residents. The top four scoring services are awarded ratings of almost double the norm. City Taxes and Funding: Business managers and owners tend to feel their property taxes are "high" in comparison with nearby cities. Fifty -six percent view them as either "very high" or "somewhat high," while 1 8% consider them . o be "about aver age,' and 26% are "unsure." When only city property taxes are considered, 52% find them comparatively high, 20% see them as "about average," and 27% are "uncertain." y about three-to-one, 64% to 23 %, business owners/managers rate the value of city services compared with the taxes paid favorably. in general, businesses think the city share of their property taxes is 26.5%, well above the actual 15.0%. The table below shows each service with the percentage of es de .s who consider it to e a candidate for cutting or elimination, and a score, indicating its rank among all 27 services for preservation. 5 City Service Cut/Eliminate Percentage Funding Priority Economic development and planning 20% Street sweeping 21% Condition of city trails 21% 1 Building and inspection services 22% 17 Education ation ro ammi ro i l by the Police and Fire Department 23 % 18 Mowing of boulevards 23% 18 Snow removal on city trails 28% 20 Park a nd recreation ro ray mi 28% 20 Upkeep and maintenance ance V. parks 29% 22 Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches 29% 22 Arts Center programming 32% 24 Forestry program 32% 24 Park ranger program 35% 26 Outdoor ice rinks 37% 27 City of Lakeville Business Executive Summaiy August, , 20 The average "cut/eliminate" percentage given to the 27 city services is 19.0%. Only the bottom ranked services have "cut /eliminate" percentages almost double the norm. Business owners managers who wanted to increase funding for any service — 20% of the sample opposed a property tax increase to provide this additional funding. And, business owners /managers who wanted to maintain funding for any service also opposed a property tax increase by a 68%-I1% margin. In any case, a narrow 41%-38% plurality opposes service cuts even if it would reduce their current city property taxes. Communications: By far the most preferred sources of information about City Government and its activities are the "local newspaper," and the "City Newsletter," mentioned by 71% and 72 %, respectively. Next, the "City's website" is posted by 57%. 6 City Service R Impor- F Funding P Priority I Fire protection 9 99 Police protection 2 2 ME 4 9 99 Quality of drinking water 8 84 Snowplowing of city streets 4 4 4 8 9 9 Street maintenance and repair 4 4 4 8 8 82 Street lighting 8 8 6 14 9 91 Traffic en enforcement I IBIIIIIIEIIII 14 9 94 Storm drainage and flood. control 1 14 9 96 Property maintenance tenance en orceme .t 9 9 10 19 9 90 Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails 1 11 10 21 8 86 Senior Center programming 1 15 9 24 9 9 Economic development and planning 1 10 14 1 1 Building and inspection services 1 19 17 29 8 87 Animal control 1 18 12 30 9 97 Mowing of oul var 1 14 1 18 3 32 8 88 Street sweeping 1 17 1 15 3 32 9 91 ' l Education programming provided by the Police 1 16 1 18 3 34 9 96 ,� City of Lakeville Business Executive Sum .r August 2010 Concluding Thoughts: To create an overall budget priority ranking, the scores indicating the importance of a service and the funding priority are combined — the lower the overall score, the greater the desire of the public to protect that service's funding. The table below arrays the priority ranking for each service. 7 City Service Impor- Lance Funding - Priority Priority . Ranking : Score . Positive Rating Condition of city trails 22 15 37 Park and recreation programming 21 20 41 95 Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches 19 Arts Center programming 24 24 48 89 Snow removal on city trails 20 90 40 Forestry program NM 24 49 89 Park ranger program 26 26 l Outdoor ice rinks EMI= 54 City of Lakeville Business Executive Sununaly August, 2010 The top quartile of services — the first seven services boxed by a double -line border — should e prioritized to maintain funding at rr .. levels and/or make changes which will improve these services. The second quartile of services — the second seven services boxed by a double -lined border — should have funding reduced judiciously, if necessary. The third quartile — the third seven services boxed by a double-lined border — should be considered candidates for moderate or average funding cuts. The fourth quartile - the fourth seven services boxed by a double -lined border — are primary candidates for large cuts or service termination. Unique to Lakeville, business owners/managers view the City of Lakeville even more favorably than residents. Tax hostility is an issue, but not at the levels seen in other suburban business communities. Even so, the value of city services in terms of the city property tax level is among the highest in the Metropolitan Area. Over the years, the City of Lakeville made exceptional efforts to link with the business community — that partnership has resulted in a reservoir of goodwill toward the City enterprise. 8 >1. ' m mum > cn CD CO 0 > m mom C\1 U > +Ma co -05 — 0 IS =MOM 0 ' cid) E 0 0 co srp C M air R Fan # 6 - LLI CD 4ci 0 0 co 2- 0 U N r 0 ia) a) C) N 2 co 0 o D CD a) 0 L .. Co 0 mlis=i10 U O onki Q C 0 � r.rrr 0 C rrYrr� m = 0 a) E cL 45 E >, E o 75 0 T7) CD CD U C U z "M" u N 0 0 �£3 0 D 0 N co o 0 0 co) a) C 0 a) 41. N N U, U, U, cJ ■ cr) a z cn N X co a N N 0 C D M CD N C a) a - o a) 0 0 U) a) Cr U) 0 a) c cD C7) co c) > a.) Cl T MEM C\1 0 C (1) cin ci) cno 0 -.... >-, u cni'--= 7 u) 0 0 0) (13 Cl) E E (1. c ) -Y2 0 o c c c CDCi EP- cl+ E' c ,--:-.- E EE co cts 0-- 05 Clia,cDCZ 0024-.1.-C=mmmL-1.- -"Erti*:E'SME=I-ON-> --, La . L,.. La. CY) Olt 1-- 0 0 CZ a CD " - 1 1 .- -0 010 as cn o) zzi) o o -c1).0m00 -" 002L M-a88 ''...12E- eL -(2>T5 WZ = c>.-2cc m L. c — D " l- ) 1.,‘.41:" 02 (1) Z P c c s 4.- 4 E - m r - c(5 , , 15 mr/)2 mr::'F o 40 2 ' 0 5w= a 3.6, g 4 E - 5 2,96EscT,.. 7 5— 0 — ..T!a =0[1..,--6472-.17zc—ooccok....) /L-• c "65- c:,_ c.;= 4." CL C: D_' C7). c1012 0 4 Ft . *E:4928w 5: t @, _ -L--. 0 _ , c ,, 0 , 1 5 0 c c o zz: _ c a a: 0 c f ) 4 0 0 tl. 2 E 4t u) E _ 1E .17.- c 00 0 2 (t) - c ---- D,!:-1; (1) 0 ._ th ,_ 0 . ca op Q.. CO C CsJ 1 Q CO C Q Q Q CO (0 cD Q Q N . — —z-.c..cocimm---- ---E.,EPe5mE-00› cE.S. (1) (I) (i) - c u) 0) a (I) CD 4 •E'i >-, CO Cr).('77A) -0 20cccoo0=zic com_ — —0c moa m „...1 - r) Er) g liii 8 -, ` WWWWW 0:5 X YMYMIY • Q , -5245 Rom— —73a) aLL CD (2) „ ,......- „...._ _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 om2—c,ccoa)aw=0E9 ...- t 'ilE oo58oL-1-2)...--oEL-00,.—o>(Dc— �m� —� ''-'- c 0 — c 0'-11-0'm 4 E"E ic oocc<-= * >a) 0.,?, co Ono 75_ oc..c....,,,ow,0,....,_ 2HjoU F E C C .RFII F YWYf ,.... c: c� a) cL715 cr E , _ ___, - TITlF Y F E *MIYYIMR F ; [yam 2 a , ci) 0 Y iWWL ili 08: �� 4 , iYY iFFFFr WW 0 k YYYi C7) ...... ci) 1 - 1 .- E (22 0 Ea. 1) milimm IL 1..1. W ilYIaCIM = &-i cei a) o p ....e CI ao) C o uJ C a) o C 0 -J o - 1 -1- a) E 0 CD -C a +� � ±� � � x v I ������5��� y��1 � �` ^�� ~�� ~ ~�� � k �����« a) � y +° � %y�������f «& k© � � x� � �� � ^ . ^ . 0, _I _C � � � > � � e m � � CO ��. (c, � � CO a) a) > � � 8 E < so m so — CJ 0 r : 00 O a) .so rr < C 0 . 53 . a) r: r: 0 0 46 0 2 >IFN - 4 ..., II IMMO O N as *".3' " U CD LO N lc) Lin C\I C\I " 0 err a) 0 Is Zt 0 O C 0 A 1 0 T 1 0 0 cr 0 RP F a, C U) 0 no n-) (1) 0 4-1 ›... (1) . c 1..-_ o (f) CO co CI) E E co 075 9 2 (ti-E C mctra ,7 taca.„ or— te tii -c al m 05 ... .. ,- "+Ej 4 6 - 6 = i+ ,... as = t5 E t5 0 . 8 ,--. -- 8 0 0 2 cn C) 0 c 0.0 0 0 O cl g 80 ) f - c To 0 a...j 492 ° ,.... -1- 4 ) .... cp CD el" IT C Con ,.., _ ri r e., c: „., " 'E .></) 0 a .... 0) • CL c CO . c fl S: (r) a) E.— ( 75-- --L.)-- CD ... c 0 0 C: - " L a l 4 1.- 0 = - _--go iio w ET- E a o "6 < ci... 0 c 00 '6 ' 2 ° CD -- C - 5,. Ci) 0 . i.bli. E . 8. ai ,, . Cl) . 8.. ,,,.. CL (I) CZ) C\I Q Q CD CO C CD c‘i C U) CD C) 0 U) cc U) 0 FFP 0 4- 111111111111111111101 cits - 0 O a) U) (i) 0 0 U) CD C 0 U) 0 CD ci) Ctj 0 co co cD 0 Li_ N cD J) a) z - u) a) C) U, I N 0 o -2 " E I M 3 • ! E e w C) 7 U, IYYWWWY �i1P1 0 0 0_ a,) TD 0 D CO C 0 N 0 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota nesofa 55416 IF . NAME IS LISTED, ASK: Hello, may speak with IF NO NAME IS LISTED, ASK: May 1 speak with the owner or manager of .i s business this current site? CITY OF LAKEVILLE Business Study FINAL MARCH 2010 Hello, I'm of i ion Resources, Ltd., a statewide survey research firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained y the City of Lakeville le .o speak with a random sample of Lakeville businesses about issues facing the community. This survey is being taken because the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individ- ual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. Your business name will not be referred to . anywhere in . e results. Do you have a few minutes now to help us with this survey? 1. How long has your business been at LESS THAN ONE YEAR 3% ONE TO TWO YEARS 8% THREE TO FIVE . YEARS ... 18 SIX TO T EN YEARS 30% 11 TO 15 YEARS 22% SIXTEEN TO TWENTY YRS..7% OVER TWENTY YEARS 11% REFUSED 2.. Thinking back to when you moved to HOME -BASED USIN S ., 12 Lakeville, what factors were most LOCATION important to you in selecting the CUSTOMER BASE 8% city? AVAILABILITY OF SPACE 7% CLOSE TO HOME 8% BOUGHT EXISTING CORPORATE DECISION 8% GOOD SCHOOLS 2% SCATTERED 1% 3. How would you rate the business EXCELLENT 27% atmosphere in akevil. e -- ex- GOOD 58% cellent, good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR 11% POOR 3% DON'T KNOW / 'USE 1% 4. What do you like MOST, if any- thing, about having your busi- ness in Lakeville? 5. And, what do you like LEAST, if anything, about having your business in Lakeville? 6. Do you have any plans to move your YES 3% business from the City of Lake- NO 90% \Tulle in the next five years? DEPENDS (VOL.) DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3% IF "YES" OR "DEPENDS," ASK: (N=20) 7. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you are thinking about moving your business in the next five years? Turning to city services.. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% LOCATION 48% CUSTOMER BAS 20% NICE COMMUNITY 1 1% FRIENDLY PEOPLE 12% HOME -BASED 8% SCATTERED 1% UNSURE NOTHING LACK OF CUSTOMERS 4% NOT ENOUGH SPACE 2% HIGH TAXES 24% TRAFFIC CONGESTION 1% POOR ECONOMY 2% LOCATION 5 CITY SIGNAGE RULES POOR INTERNET 1% First, I would like to read you a list o a city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as xcellen , good, only fair, or poor? 8. Police protection 9. Traffic enforcement? 10. Fire Protection? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED NOT ENOUGH SPACE......15% LACK OF CUSTOMERS HIGH TAXES 35% BUILDING FOR SALE CITY SIGNAGE RULES. *..1% DOWNSIZING 10% POOR INTERNET EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 33% 4% o% 2% 3% 0% 1% EXC GOO FAI Poo DKR 11. Storm drainage and flood control? 15% 73% 3% 1% 8% 12. Upkeep and maintenance of parks? 21% 17% 13. Outdoor ice rinks? 8% 48% 3% 41% 14. Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? 13% 45% 3% 34% 15. Park and recreation programming? 11% 50% 3% 0% 36% 16. Senior Center programmin ? 32% 0% 56% 17. Arts Center programming? 43% 6% 0% 44% 18. Park ranger program? 33% 4% 0% 56% 19. Forestry program? 7% 34% 5% 0% 54% 20. Condition of city trails? 18% 49% 3% 0% 30% 21. Snow removal on city trails? 14% 42% 1% 37% 22. Animal control? 2% 0% 28% 23. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 13% 3% 0% 27% 24. Community celebrations, such as Pan ---o- -grog? 17% 1% 14% 25. Street lighting? 11% 78% 8% 1% 2% 26. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 9% 9% 0% 35% 27. Building and Inspection services? 10% 59% 9% 1% 21% 28. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 7% 71 7% 2% 13% 29. Economic development and planning? 7% 60% 13% 3% 18% 30. Quality of drinking water? 70% 12% 3% 4% Roadways in the City of Lakeville consist of both city and county streets. City streets are those found in residential neigh or- .00ds and also include major streets such as Ipava Avenue, Jac- quard Avenue, Flagstaff Avenue and Holyoke Avenue. County streets are the following major roadways: Cedar Avenue or County Road 23; Ken rood Trail or County Road 50; Dodd Boulevard or County Road 9; 185th Street or County Road 60, 215th Street or County Road 70; and Pilot Knob Road or County Road 31. Again, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the following services as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC Goo FAI Poo DKR 31. Snowplowing o city streets? 12% 83% 5% 0% 32. Street sweeping? 12% 76% 8% 3% 33. Street maintenance and repair? 75% 15% 3% 1% 34. Mowing of boulevards? 12% 71% 8% 3% 7% Now, I would like o re-read you that list of city services. For eac one, please tell me if you consider it be an essential city service, a very important city service, a somewhat important city service, or not a very important service at all. 35. Police protection? on 88% 10% 2% 0% 0% 3# Traffic enforcement? 68% 24% 1% 1% 37. Fire Protection? 88% 11% 0% 0% 0% 38. Storm drainage and flood control? 58% 36% 1% 39. Upkeep and maintenance of parks? 22% 48% 24% 3% 40. Outdoor ice rinks? 31% 39% 8% 41. Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? 13% 44% 33% 7% 2. Park and recreation programming? 9% 33% 8% 43. Senior Center programming? 15% 22% 14% 44. Arts Center programming? 5% 36% 31% 12% 17% 45. Park ranger program? 7% 29% 29% 13% 24% 46. Forestry program? 8% 29% 31 % 11% 21% 47. Condition of city trails? 14% 38% 32% 8% 9% 48. Snow removal on city trails? 13% 40% 27% 10% 11% 49. Animal control? 11% 27% 5% 6% 50. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 22% 43% 27% 4% 4% 51. Community celebrations, such as Pan-o-prog? 18% 37% 7% 3% 52. Street lighting? 63% 29% 7% 53. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 39% 33% 13% 8% 7% 54. Building and Inspection services? 16% 55% 24% 2% 4% 55. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 27% 14% 2% 2% Economic development and planning? 30% 18% 3% 57. Quality of inking water? 31% 2% 1% 58. Snowplowing of city streets? 62% 34% 2% 2% 0% 59. Street sweeping? 27% 4 % 27% 0% - 60. Street maintenance and repair? 61% 33% 3% 1 1% 61. Mowing of boulevards? 24% 42% 22% 6% Moving on ESS VRI SMI NOT K As you may know, business property tax revenues are divided among the State of Minnesota's fiscal disparities, the City of. Lake- ville, Dakota County, your local • public school district. 62. In comparison with nearby cities, do you think that the business property taxes in Lakeville are very high, somewhat high, about average, somewhat low, or very low? VERY HIGH SOMEWHAT HIGH 37% ABOUT AVERAGE 18% SOMEWHAT LOW 1% VERY LOW 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....26% 63. Do you consider the city portion VERY HIGH 16% of your business property taxes. to SOMEWHAT T HIGH 36% be very high, somewhat high, about ABOUT AVERAGE 20% average, somewhat low, or very low SOMEWHAT LOW 1% in comparison with neighboring VERY LOW 0% cities? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....27 64. When you consider the business . EXCELLENT . . 5% property taxes you pay and the GOOD quality of city services you re- ONLY FAIR 20% ceive, would you rate the general POOR 3% value of city services as excel- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . ■ 3 % lent, good, only fair, or poor? 65. For each dollar of business pro- 10 PERCENT OR LESS 3% perty taxes you pay, about what 11 TO 20% 21 percentage do you think goes to 21 TO 30% 27% city government -- ten percent or 31 TO 40% 21% less, 11 to 20 percent, 21 t o 30 41 TO 50% 5% percent, 31 to 40 percent . 41 to 50 OVER 50 PERCENT 2% percent o c over 50 percent? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. .. • 21 Now, for the final time I am going to read the list of city services. Given the current economic and financial environment, the city may have to make some additional tough choices in the next couple of years with respect to scaling back or eliminating certain city services. For each of the following please tell me if you would support increase in funding for the service, ce, keep the funding for the service at its current level, make .e eats in the funding for the service, or eliminate funding for the service. (ROTATE) 66. Police protection? 67. Traffic enforcement? 68. Fire Protection? 69. Storm drainage and flood control? 70. Upkeep and maintenance of parks? 71. Outdoor ice rinks? INC SAM CUT ELM DKR 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 87% 3% 2% 0% 3% 0% 83% 12% 0% 1% 2% 1% 8% 0% 1% 3% 3% 12% 72. Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? 73. Park and recreation programming 74. Senior Center programming? 75. Arts Center programming? 76. Park ranger program? 77. Forestry program? 78. Condition of city trails? 79. Snow removal on city trails? 80. Animal control? 81. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 82. Community celebrations, such as Pan -o- -grog? 83. Street lighting? 84. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 8. Building and Inspection services? 86. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 87. Economic development and planning? 88. Quality of drinking water? 89. Snowplowing of city streets? 9 0 . Street sweeping? 91. Street maintenance and repair? 92. Mo r, ng of boulevards? 93. Would you favor or oppose an increase in city business property taxes to provide that additional funding? IF "FAVOR," SK: (N=18) INC SAM CUT ELM DKr 2% 58% 28 11% 0% 9% 26% 2% 13% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 29% 3% 17% no 9% 28% 1% no 19% 2% 1% 0% 2% 21% 11 9% 16 2% 2% 3% 20% 8 %. 0% 72% 1% 2 8% o% 2% 0% 1 %.% 11% 3% 3% 1% 1% 7% 3% 8% 19% 1% 9% 87% 3 % 0% 3% 0 2% 0% 7% 20% 1% 8% 3% 0% 70% 20% 3% IF INCREASE FUNDING" FOR ANY SERVICE, ASK: (N=58) You stated you wanted to see (a /some) city service(s) re ceive additional funding... 8 FAVOR 31 OPPOSE DON'T NOW/ EFUS D 1 94. By what percentage would ONE PERCENT you be willing to in- crease your business property taxes to pro- vide funding for ser- vices you mentioned? TWO PERCENT 32% THREE PERCENT 42% FOUR PERCENT NINE PERCENT TEN PERCENT 11% IF "CURRENT LEVEL," ASK : (N=286) You stated you wanted to see (a/some) city service(s) re- ceive funding at the current level... 95. Would you favor or oppose an FAVOR 11% increase in city business OPPOSE 68% property taxes if it were DON'T KNOW/REFUSED- 21$ needed to maintain those city services at their current level? IF "FAVOR," ASK: (N=30) 96. By what percentage would ONE PERCENT 7% you be willing to in- • TWO PERCENT 30% crease your business THREE PERCENT 17% property taxes to main- FIVE PERCENT 23% tam h funding for ser- NINE PERCENT 10% vices you mentioned? TEN PERCENT • 3% FIFTEEN PERCENT 7% TWENTY PERCENT 3% 97. Would you favor or oppose cuts in STRONGLY FAVOR 11% city services if they would reduce FAVOR 30% your current CITY business pro- OPPOSE 29% perty taxes? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY OPPOSE 9% Do you feel strongly that way? DON'T .KNOW/REFUSED....22% Thinking about communications.. 98. How would you prefer to receive information about Lakeville City Government . .d its activities? (PROBE FOR THREE RE SPONSES) Moving on.. * . FIR SEC THI DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4% 6% NONE 1% %. *. *1% "MESSAGES"! /CITY NEWSLETTER 40%....21%....11% CITY'S WEBSITE 25%....20%....12% LOCAL NEWSPAPER 15%....29%....27 CABLE TELEVISION 2% 8% CITY MEETINGS 2% 2% CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 8% 5% 4% CITY STAFF/COUNCIL 0% 0% 1% OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS /MANAGERS 2% 9% E-MAIL 2% 1% MAILINGS 2% 1% AUTOMATED TELEPHONE CALLS 0% 2% 3% Now for demographic purposes, PRESIDENT could you tell me your position or OWNER 43% title in this Company? MANAGER 48% . SCATTERED TITLES .3% 100. How many full-time employees work NONE at this location? 1 -4 50% 5-9 1% 10-14 14% 15-19 7% 20 OR MORE 101. How many part-time employees or NONE . 34% at this location? 1-4 37% 5-9 11% 10-14 10% 15-19 2% 20 OR MORE 102. Is your business home- based? YES 15% NO . *8% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 0% 103. In what city do you live? IF "NOT IN L K V , " ASK: (N=121) 104. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you decided not to move Lakeville? 105. Is your business . current member of the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce? "NO," ASK:) Is your business me member of the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce? 106. What is your type of business _..._- retail, service, manufacturing or something else? LAKEVILLE R.N VIL E PRIOR LAKE FARMINGTON 3% MINNEAPOLIS APPLE VALLEY EAGAN 3% SCOTT COUNTY 2% ROSEMOUNT 2% REST OF DAKOTA Co 2% REST OF HENNEPIN CO...% SCATTERED 7% CLOSE TO FAMILY 10 GOOD LOCATION ALWAYS LIVED THERE. • 2 GOOD SCHOOLS LOWER TAXES 6% LIVED FOR LONG TIME...24% HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD..17% SCATTERED 2% YES NO /YES 9% NO /NO DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 0% RETAIL 18% MANUFACTURING 14% SERVICE SCATTERED 10% City of Lakeville Residential Executive Summary August 2010 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. Residential Demographics: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2010 City of Lakeville Residential Study The typical adult Lakeville residents lived in the community for 13.9 years. Sixteen percent have lived there for five years or less, while nine percent have lived in the city for over 30 years. The typical adult resident is also 46 years old. Sixteen percent post ages under 35 years old, while 1.0 are over 65 years old. Men and women evenly split the sample. Thirteen percent of the households contain seniors; in fact, eleven percent are composed entirely of people over 65 years old. Forty -seven percent of the households contain school -aged children or pre-schoolers. Eight percent rent their current residence. The typical owner-occupied home is valued at $250,000.00; fifty-one percent. of . e homes in the community are in the . $200,000 to $300,000 value range. Quality of Life: "Housing" and "schools" remain the major reasons for settling in the City of Lakeville. The search for "small town or rural ambience" is a secondary motive for locating in the community. When they moved to the city, "location" — nearness to areas that matter to the individual — rem airs the most often valued characteristic of the community. Aspects of the community ity which are also prized include "small town ambience," "strong neighborhoods," "good schools," and "quiet and peaceful." A very high 98% rate the quality of life in a eville favorably. This favorable rating is the highest in Metropolitan Area. in fact, 40% rate the quality of life as "excellent." When considering aspects of the city they like least, a record 40% report there is "nothing." This level of city boosters is also the highest in the Metropolitan Area. "High taxes," at 21%, leads the list of concerns, and increased five percent in three years. This level of concern, though, is lower than in other Metropolitan Area suburbs. "Grow h Crowd in " and "roads/traffic" are moderate concerns, but diminished during the past three years. I City Service Favorable Rating Fire protection 99% Community celebrations 98% Police protection 97% Upkeep and maintenance o parks 96% Education programming provided by the Police and Fire Department 96% Storm drainage and flood control 95% Condition of city trails Senior Center programming Park and recreation programming Arts Center programming Traffic enforcement Street lighting Mowing of boulevards • Street sweeping Snowplowing o city streets . Snow removal on city trails Park ranger program Property maintenance enforcement 88% • City of Lakeville . e ide t Executive Summary August, 2010 Eight percent have plans to move from the community within the next five years. Retirements ents are the major reason for departing, followed by the need to do vn i e and the search for warmer climes. City Service Ratings: When only the opinions of residents providing ratings of a service are considered, the percentage of favorable ratings ranges between 72% and 99%. The table below arrays each service with the percentage of informed respondents who rate it as either "excellent" or "good." 2 City Service Favorable Rating Importance Score Forestry program 86% MEM. Animal control 86% Traffic enforcement Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches 8 4% Snowplowing of city streets 1 Building and inspection services 83% Quality of drinking water Economic development and planning 82% Street maintenance and repair Quality of drinking water 82% Storm drainage and flood control Lighting to bicycle and pedestrian trails 77% Street lighting Street maintenance . and repair 7 Outdoor ice rinks 72% 1 City Service Essential Rating. Importance Score Police protection 81% MEM. Fire protection 78% Traffic enforcement 61% 3 Snowplowing of city streets 54% 4 Quality of drinking water % Street maintenance and repair 45% Storm drainage and flood control 38% Street lighting 33% City of Lakeville Residential Executive Summary August 2010 The mean favorable percentage for all city services is 88.6% — about four percent higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Importance of City Services: The table below shows each service with the percentage of respondents who consider it to be "essential" in the first column. Then, the second column provides an "importance score," which is the rank of the service's combined "essential" and "very important" ratings . 3 City Service E Essential Rating I Importance Score Economic development ent and planning 3 30% 9 9 Upkeep and maintenance of parks 1 1° t to Property maintenance enforcement 1 11% I II Building and inspection services 9 9% 1 12 Mowing of boulevards % % 1 13 Street sweeping 2 21% 1 14 Community celebrations 1 13% 1 15 City of f La evi Residential Executive e ` mmary August, 2010 The average essential rating given to the 27 city services is 23.4%. . The top eight scoring services are awarded ratings almost double the norm. City Taxes and Funding: The table below shows each service with the percentage of respondents who consider it to be "essential" and a score, which is its rank among all 27 services. 4 City Service Cut/Eliminate Percentage Funding Fire protection Police protection 2% 2 Traffic enforcement 3% 3 Snowplowing of city streets Quality of drinking water 3% 3 Street maintenance an repair 3° 3 Street lighting % Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails 10% Senior Center programming 10 % Economic development and planning 1,1% 10 Property maintenance enforcement 12% 11 Building and inspection services 2% 11 Education programming provided by the Police and Fire Department I .3% 13 Upkeep and maintenance of parks . 3 3 Storm drainage and flood control 13% 15 Animal al control 14% 16 Condition of city trails 14% 16 Park and recreation programming 17% 18 Community celebrations 17% 1 Mowing of boulevards 18% 20 Street sweeping 19% 21 Upkeep and aintenance of city beaches 19 22 Arts Center programming 27% 23 City of Lakeville Residential Executive ummry August 010 5 City Service Cut/Eliminate Percentage Funding Priority Snow removal on city trails 28% 24 Forestry program 35% 25 Park ranger program . 35% 25 Outdoor ice rinks 43% 27 • City Service m - tance ri rit Priority Ranking Score Positive Rating 1s 'Fire protection Fire I 2 1 3 i 99 Police protection 1 2 3 97 ,Traffic enforcement 3 3 6 92 City of Lakeville Residential Executive Summary August, 20 The average "cut/eliminate" percentage given to the 27 city services is 14.8%. . The bottom five ranked services have "cut/eliminate" percentages almost double the norm. Residents who wanted to increase funding for any service — 29% of the sample - narrowly favored a property tax increase to provide additional funding. But, among residents who wanted to maintain funding for any service, respondents opposed a property tax increase by a 58%-38% margin. In any case, a 63%-34% majority opposes service cuts even if it would reduce their current city property taxes. Coin,n un c ioi s: By far the most preferred sources of information atio about City Government and its activities are the "local newspaper," and the "City Newsletter," mentioned by 72% and 70%, respectively. Next, the "City's e s i e" is posted by 52%. Concluding Thoughts: To create an overall budget priority ranking, the scores indicating the importance of a service and the funding priority are combined — the lower the overall score, the greater the desire of the public to protect that service's funding. The table below arrays the priority ranking for each service. 6 • • City Service YJ 111111 - Lance #. +� 4 i Funding # # : Priority Priority Ranking Score T Rating Snowplowing o city streets s x L[r 3 7 89 Quality. of .rin ing water 5 3 8 82 i: Street maintenance and repair 6 3 9 90 Street lighting 8 7 15 Economic development and planning 9 10 19 82 Property maintenance enforcement 11 11 22 88 Storm drainage and flood control 7 15 22 95 Building and inspection services 12 11 83 Upkeep and maintenance of parks 10 13 97 Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails 17 8 Senior Center programming 22 8 30 93 Education programming provided by the Police and Fire Department 18 13 31 96 Animal control l 6 32 86 Community celebrations 15 18 33 98 Mowing of boulevards 13 20 33 89 Street sweeping 14 21 35 3 89 Condition of city trails 19 16 35 94 Park and recreation programming 21 18 39 92 Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches 20 Elm 42 84 Arts Center programming 92 Snow removal on city trails 24 24 8 88 Forestry program 50 86 Park ran program 27 25 2 88 City of Lakeville Residential Executive Summary August 2010 City of Lakeville Residential Executive Summary August, 20 10 Outdoor ice rinks City Service 8 The top quartile of services — the first seven services boxed by a double -line border — should be prioritized to maintain ain funding at current levels and/or make changes which will improve these services. The second quartile of services — the second seven services boxed by a double-lined border — should have funding reduced judiciously, if necessary. The third quartile -- the third seven services boxed by a double- lined border — should be considered candidates for moderate or average funding cuts. The fourth quartile — the fourth seven services boxed by a double-lined border — are primary candidates for large cuts or service termination. Any shaded cell indicates a positive service rating which is uniquely low and suggests a need for a more in-depth service review. In general, residents view the City of Lakeville very favorably. Tax hostility remains virtually unchanged ange from three years ago, but the value of city services in terms of the city property tax level increased. Lakeville elected officials and city staff possess a decisive advantage, one not commonly found in growing cities: solid performance evaluations of their past policies and continued confidence in their ability to plan for the future. cp r um cn 114.- >1% 1 I am .r�ET's,hx� C CO 0 ci-1../54 Cl) ION c CD CD CD C\I C\I I 1.0 (0 Cr) CI CI) 11"' 1 1 0 CD Cr) 0 0 0 as ( E LL 0 ID I CD CO LCD LO C LC) carc C) 0 0 0 CD C c: Ct 0 > INIENN1111 ■ NINONN scs cD Q c c\J CO (cs c\J CD cD z (7) 4 E' fa) a) w - 0 ikI � 0, 0 0 0 0, 0 0 pis 0, if IHflNAF 0 0 c�1 c� to to oi 4 ,1 4 LO too 0 r" to C CD 0 - 5 75 0 CD 0 u) +-J ci N N N 1 ■ 1 CD ■ a) E 4 65 ; 0 Co U a� (7) 4mma 1 c ‘:6 141111 19 ' c\1 m f au .l a� a� M 0 ✓ N 1 ct TIM Ale OD 0) C CD 'E x cz = co 4 '6 1- (..) z c) _...1 D O 0 F cD C 0 co D N 0 wr— D D 0 - c't1 a) 0 0 CC U, a) 0 U, at) >NE a iL ta) X = CD a Z CZ 0 0 minnwo cti — 0 CD 1""- CD Cq 0 E2 0 CC U) 0 0 Y WIVE90Y 0 0 a) cti . 11 Q ('4 C CO CD (‚4 C c)., i_cL) 'do 0 c h ) ,.. c ci ) E E E al 57 o c .E. ° . 8 )7 8.E clE' ' ...=, ,=. - aid as = 0 r: poE 0 ,9 > oi) c ao ( 7 ) 0 a) co ° c) 2 cp ) g 0 2 -c msaaziP - 5 C) 2 i-_-°2 0 0 g 8 12111 D a i 7 11 a :,.. " cl :- " cL ai t'l 46 0 7 :- F6 o 3 75 li ctri 3 c/2 05 2 0 .._ ,....) 5..1.........-_, /21 0 co . ,,,-,=i cm ,-.., 0 = , (,) _.-.1— 0 0) 0: 0...., eL c fa.'-- • c v.J /1 ( 2 C 04E 2 ,,.. tn i5 , 0 .i ? , 0 = c ° 2 2 cl,.. cz-§ a: c,, ._ 0 , c ,.. . 0 F— •. m 8E ., Co L s_ 0 2 0: ci) c: t 0 I5 c1 0 CD .::1,.. CO 0 c EIS.. oal II ENIIMii m (7) 8D f co (1.) 0 CD U CO -0 otma = U � 1+— 'J III w.111w•wr111 +Ej 0 4 E' — CD CO LU 0 14) I I c -la c 75 co u) co to ch cr) E E ti) cir5 c co c. c - E E ; Y ct - g.c Y M�NIY 6 �,,,�1�* • 111111111 t/�F cow , - E c a) 0 cz CD 0 CD ,,T 0)0)0)0 (5 -r-r-- t . ‘'') (3 M MO C a0t/5 a) CC .rD (-) ''' a" 1/4v 2 2 0 " cre C 7 6 '-'-' :3 —I —I u) -4.' 07:3 ,._ ,_ -0 0 oci] r , " n 0- — 0 > —„, „ , -40 0 ..., _ 1._ TD 45 r:A. 0 0 'IN AN 0 as 6 0'7 ,-- —, CD 4 -," 1 5 E C: (1.) f - N (D 5.- 0 CD ar 17 CZ 5U- =LT (D 0 C E.4.--i 6 7r) ,C (D 0 2 ,„C 0_4- CD' T� DWI . r c c F �� „,-- ct o.g.r. c.� c . C ..,,:-. E C r 9- 0 -g 0 2 --... ...,c.... 0 . iti 0 0 " - � 0 '1j 0 : 5 LU 2 Ef <li ..,_. CD ( D (7) 8 D ci.. CIO D 0 c\I C Q 0 CO 0 c4 O d” 0 N C CNA T CO CO tO T N CO N - - TORN M r- M N CO CO 0) X uJ 0 0 ( -lb+ - 4 ( 7 ) r LO N Q CD 0 C C CD C LL C 0 0 0 1 N CO D (0 D D N 0 cd cr Q 0 - 0 co scp 0 T IMM N D 0 C la) E o cD c) CD ( 7 ) C) ' cp c3 cp a U) CD 0 0 U) CD CT) cc C 0 0 a) 0 — 0 V a >11 v� gaimia r m >N OD 1- C, C\i a� U Lc) N M co =5 a) O co N O N D N Lc) T N a 0 0 O LO 0 r M 0 Co) 0 N 0 T 1 o � mil t j 7.) CI) L nsmtl C) O LT"' 0 0 CO 0 0 co 0 N C 0 r N to) 0 ben V 0 0 N CD 0 L LL c CO 0 0 O 0 D 4 N O D N L� O O N D O N C) :D C Cri CIP C CD 41 JIWWYiL C X �111� 0 0 cD 0 N �+4 wj 0 a O 0 U - 9 0 co 0 C: >, c: (xi .�. CD r\J 0 0 co D O N N D N 0 O D O N LO O O N N so) CD U —8 CIS 4 C: CD ' gg MOM (1 1:$ �_x.aawr D N T IMM 0 0 T D D oo CfJ D N 0 0 N O D N D O 0 0 N 1 0) C r �rrre ra) :q= (75 rrrrrrE TD >L% aj C/ ese C\J al) 1 12 Mti€63,8MORZ c�S 0 T co CD 0 71- N N D O N D C� CV D O N co o 0 0 U) 0 C 0 (7) 0 cu. 0 -92 Ow 00 EiTei co_ vJ 0 8D lip_ 4 6 D T.444111 Co Co cD Ct c-E,c,72 0)0 22 ,0 „___=,.._ m c . co 1=0 -- 0 cm cn 004 E' > cD L -04- mociom --asoccImm ---cmk.c.c› 0 E o o c Lu cc ,rc ,-. 1-1 -- o 0 (1 mzmLia- C - e) 0 0 t N ‘ CO JO 52 . : w DM Or:—L-moo *774: 0 00 CD Z 2 8 2-0"M CLMO 7 -12- 2r5Wc'e*EtTCWCm L4=CL. 0 c C D ,,..s.--- 00580,3 .- " C D -k-e o 2_ c 0 c oomwc ..... t 0200 0 _ll- 0 al c 0 9 r : E' c cp 0 0: < >(4 . Li m 0... c au- c cn c c °- 57 % F 0 .:) 0.012 :30+- I - '(3 cc1115- c , -,E _o tc. a 0 •Li- ci c 00 '6 I- 2 u) _ ..... _ D (5 - 5 co a) 0 0 . 0 C CL IMMI ratimNal "cTs CD 0 a) W U 0 LL v 0 co M 0 co CO CJ 0 0 Ct C 0 0 01/41 7S. 3 . cD ..c Li. Q) F- 0 N LO M C 1 0 N CO C 0 CD C 0 0 H- 0 0 0 0 co 0 co C 0 N C DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 3 e an Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 CITY OF LAKEVILLE Residential Study FINAL MARCH 2010 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Lakeville o speak with a random sample of es i dents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. D NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN TWO YEARS.... have you lived in Lakeville? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 13% SIX TO TEN YEARS 22% ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS 38% 21 TO 30 YEARS 16% OVER THIRTY YEARS REFUSED 0% 2. Thinking back to when you moved to LOCATION Lakeville, what factors were most SCHOOLS 21% important to you in selecting the HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD 22 city? RURAL/SMALL TOWN 19 NEAR JOB 13% NEAR 'A ILY /FRIENDS....9 SCATTERED 1% 3. How would you rate the quality of life in Lakeville -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXCELLENT GOOD 58% ONLY FAIR 2% POOR 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSFD 0% 4. What do you like MOST about living LOCATION 21% in Lakeville? SCHOOLS PEOPLE QUIET AND PEACEFUL. ... 2 SMALL TOWN AMBIENCE. .. OPEN SPACE 3% NEIGHBORHOOD 14% CITY SERVICES 3% SAFE SUBURBAN PARKS AND RECREATION 3 SCATTERED 1% 5 . What do you like LEAST about it? NOTHING 40% TAXES 21% GROWTH/CROWDING 12% ROADS/TRAFFIC 11% CITY GOVERNMENT LOCATION 2% NEED MORE SHOPPING SCATTERED 6% 6. Do you have any plans o move from YES 8% the City of Lakeville in the next NO 90% five years? DEPENDS (VOL.) 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% IF "YES" OR "DEPENDS," ASK: (N=39) 7. Could you tell me one or two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED reasons why you are thinking RETIRING 33% about moving in the next five WARMER CLIMATE 13% years? DOWNSIZING 21% HIGH TAXES 8% LARGER HOME JOB RELOCATION 8% OUT OF METRO AREA 8% SCATTERED 3% Turning to city services.. First, I would like to read you a list of city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOO AI o DKR 8. Police protection? 45 % 52% 0% 0% 9. Traffic enforcement? 23% 67% 1% 2% 10. Fire Protection? 38% 59% 1% 2% 11. Storm drainage and flood control? 16% 72 0% 7% 12. Upkeep and maintenance of parks? 25% 70% 4% 0% 2% 13. Outdoor ice rinks? 49% 19% 2% 26% 14. Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? 8% 64% 13% 1% 15% 15. Park and recreation o mmi,n 15% 64% 0% 15% 16. Senior Center programming? 9% 42% 0% 46% 17. Arts Center programming? 9% 62% 6% 24% 18. Park ranger program? 40% 6% 0% 52% 19. Forestry program? 38% 0% 52% EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 20. Condition of city trails? 80 0% 14% 21. Snow removal on city trails? 7% 57% 8% 1% 26% 22. Animal control? 6% . 12% 1% 6% 23. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 58% • 2% 1% 26% 24. Community celebrations, such as Pan 33% 63% 2% 0% 2% 25. Street lighting? 14% 10% 2% 26. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 18% 0% 23% 27. Building and Inspection. services? 2% 11% 2% 22% 28. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 2% 76% 10% L 12% 29. Economic development and planning? 2% 74% 2% 8% 30. Quality of drinking water? 12% 68% 2% 3% Roadways in the 'City of Lakeville consist of both city and county streets. City streets are those found in residential neighbor- hoods and also include major streets such as Ipava Avenue, Jac- quard Avenue, Flagstaff Avenue and Holyoke Avenue. County streets are the 'following major roadways: Cedar Avenue or County Road 23; Kenwood Trail or County Road 50; Dodd Boulevard or County Road 9; .75th I75th Street or County Road 60, 215th Street or County Road 70; . and Pilot Knob Road or County Road 31. Again, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the following services as excellent, ., good, only fair, or poor? 31. Snowplowing of city streets? 21% 68% 9% 2% 1% 32. Street sweeping? 13% 73% 10% 1 33. Street maintenance and repair? 22% 34. Mowing of boulevards? 10% 73% 10% 0% 6% Now, I would like to re-read you that list of city services. For each one, please tell me if you consider it be an essential city service, a very important city service, a somewhat important city service, or not a very important service at all. 35. Police protection? 36. Traffic is enforce e t ? 37. Fire Protection? EXC COO FAI POO DKR ESS VRI SMI NOT DKR 8% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% ESS VRI SMI NOT DKR 38. Storm drainage e a d flood control? 38% 51% 9% 0% 3% 39. Upkeep and maintenance of parks? 21% 1 1% 0% 40. Outdoor ice rinks? 33% 52% 3% 41. Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? 34% 1% 1% 42. Park and recreation programming? 9% 54% 36% 2% 43. Senior Center programming? 9% 49 % 37% 1% 5% 44. Arts Center programming? 3% 43% 2% 5% 45. Park ranger program? 2% 31% 14% 46. Forestry program? 3% 33% 13% 47. Condition of city trails? 61% 31% 2% 3% 48. Snow removal on city trails? 39% 3% 49. Animal control? 10% 61% 26% 2% 1% 50. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 60% 30% 1% 3% 51. Community celebrations, such as Pan-o-prog? .3% 24% 1% 52. Street lighting? 33% 60% 6% • 1% 1% 53. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 11% 57% 30% 1% 2% 54. Building and Inspection services? 67% 22% 0% 2% 55. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 11% 20% 1% 1% 56. Economic development and planning? 30% 58% 1% 0% 57. Quality of drinking water? 45% 52% 3% 0% 0% 58. Snowplowing of city streets? 2% 1% 0% 59. Street sweeping? 21% 54% 25% 0% 0% 60. Street maintenance and repair? 45% 0% 61. Mowing of boulevards? 2 % 1% 1% Moving on As you mar . . o r, property tax revenues are divided among the City o . akeville, Dakota County, and your local public school dis- trict. 62. In comparison with nearby cities, do you think that the property taxes in Lakeville are very high, somewhat high, about average, somewhat low, or very low? VERY HIGH 10% SOMEWHAT HIGH ABOUT V RAGE. 36% SOMEWHAT LOW VERY LOW 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8% 63. Do you consider the city portion VERY HIGH of your pope. y taxes to be SOMEWHAT HIGH very high, somewhat high, about ABOUT.AVERAGE 39% average, somewhat Low, or very low SOMEWHAT LOW 2% in comparison with neighboring VERY LOW 0% cities? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 64. 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? 65. For each dollar of property taxes you pay, about what percentage do you think goes to city government ---- ten percent or less, 11 to 20 percent, 21 to 30 percent, 31 to 40 percent 41 to 0 percent or over 50 percent? EXCELLENT 11% GOOD 71% ONLY FAIR 13% POOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 10 PERCENT OR SS....20% 11 TO 20% 32% 21 TO 30% 2% 31 o 40% 41 TO 50% 1% OVER 0 PERCENT 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . 12 Now, for the final time I am going to read the list of city services. Given the current economic a d financial environment, the city may have to make some additional tough choices in the next couple of years with respect to scaling back or eliminating cerain city services. For each of the following please tell me if you would support an increase in funding for the service, keep the funding for the service at its current level, make cuts in the funding for the service, or eliminate funding for the service. (ROTATE) 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Police protection? Traffic enforcement? Fire Protection? Storm drainage and flood control Upkeep and maintenance of parks Outdoor ice rinks? Upkeep and maintenance of city beaches? Park and recreation programming? Senior Center programming? Arts Center programming? Park ranger program? Forestry program? Condition of city trails? INC SAM CUT ELM DKR 1 % 1 l% 1% 92% 3% 0% % 1% 1% o 0 12% a 2% 86% 3% 0% l% 38% 2% 18% 1% 0% 1% 1% 83% 0% 0 2% 2 % 1% 2% 0% 57% 29% 8% 3% 1 INC SAM CUT ELM DKR 79. Snow removal on city trails? 1% 69% 26% 2% 2% 80. Animal control? 1% 85% 14% 0% 0% 81. Educational programming provided by the Police and Fire Department? 2% 13% 0% 2% 82. Community celebrations, such as Pan-o-prog? 82%, 16% 0% 83. Street lighting? 2% 93% 5% 0% 1% 84. Lighting along bicycle and pedestrian trails? 83% 0% 4% 85. Building and Inspection services? 84% 12% 0% 3% 86. Property maintenance enforce- ment? 86% 12% 0% 3% 87. Economic development and planning? 3% 86% 0% 0% 88. Quality of drinking water? 89% 2% 1% 1% 89. Snowplowing of city streets? 91% 3% 0% 1% 90. Street sweeping? 2% 19% 1% 91. Street maintenance and repair? 92% 3% 0% 0% 92. Mowing of boulevards? 2% 80% 17% 1% 1% IF "INCREASE FUNDING" FOR ANY SERVICE, ASK: (N=115) You stated you wanted to see (a /some) city service(s) re ceive additional funding... 93. Would you favor or oppose an o 53% increase i city property OPPOSE taxes to provide that addi- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3% tional funding? IF "FAVOR," ASK: (N=61) 94. By what percentage would ONE PERCENT you e willing to in- TWO PERCENT 31% crease your property THREE PERCENT 26% taxes to provide funding O PERCENT for services you men- FIVE PERCENT 17% tioned? TEN PERCENT 3% IF "CURRENT LEVEL," ASK: (N=399) You stated you wanted to see (a /some) city service (s) re- ceive funding at the current level.... 95 . Would you favor or oppose an FAVOR 38% increase i city property OPPOSE 58% • taxes if it were needed to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5% maintain those city services at their current level? IF "FAVOR," S K : (N=151) 96. Bv what percentage would ONE PERCENT 29% you e willing to in- TWO PERCENT 26% crease your property THREE PERCENT 14% taxes to maintain fund- FIVE PERCENT 2 ing for services you SEVEN PERCENT 3% . mentioned? TEN PERCENT 97. Would you favor or oppose cuts in .STRONGLY FAVOR city services if they would reduce FAVOR 28% your current CITY p.oper taxes? OPPOSE (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE 14% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Thinking about communications.. . 98. How would you prefer to receive information about Lakeville City Government and its activities . (PROBE FOR THREE RE SPONSES) Moving o.... FIR SEC TH1 DON'T KNOW / USE 1% 2% NONE 4%....10% "MESSAGES"/CITY NEWS LETTER 31%....20%....19 CITY'S W E F I ..f. E 20%....17%....15% LOCAL '��'`�{ NEWSPAPER CABLE 4%....12%....15% CITY MEETINGS 3% 2% 5% CITY STAFF/COUNCIL 0 % • 0% 1% FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS/WORD OF MOUTH. ..... 2 % 4%....14% E-MAIL 3% MAILINGS 3% 3 AUTOMATED TELEPHONE CALLS 3% Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young- 1 e and be sure to include yourself.... 99. First, persons 65 or over? 100. Adults under 101. School-aged children rid pre- schoolers? 102. What is your age, please? (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 103. Do you own or rent your present residence? (IF "OWN," ASK:) Which of the following categories con- tains the approximate value of your residential property -- under $200,000, $200,000-$300,000, $300,000-$400,000, $400,000- 00, 000, or over $500,000? 104. Gender. NONE 87% ONE TWO OR MORE 8% NONE 11% ON TWO THREE FOUR OR MORE 3% NONE 53% ONE 3 TWO 23% THREE OR MORE 11% 18 -24 2% 25 -34 14% 35-44 30% 45-54 24% 55-64 20% 65 AND OVER 1 0% RENT 8% OWN /UNDER $200,000....18% OWN/$200K-$300K 51% OWN/$300K-$400K 14% OWN/$400K-$500F 2% OWN/OVER $500,000 1% OWN/UNSURE 2% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3% MALE 0 FEMALE 50% 105. City Precinct. 106. School District. PRECINCT I PRECINCT 2 PRECINCT 3 PRECINCT 4 9% PRECINCT 5 PRECINCT 6 PRECINCT PRECINCT 8 9% PRECINCT 9 PRECINCT 10 9% PRECINCT 11 PRECINCT 12 10% PRECINCT 13 5% PRECINCT 14 10% ISD 194 ISD 192 ISD 196 * 19%