4.0. SR 06-16-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cited type of promotion which would influence residents to shop more often in Elk River. Thirty-three percent reported shopping "weekly or more often" in Downtown Elk River. Thirty- two percent did so twice monthly or monthly, and twenty-two percent shopped there sporadically. Fourteen percent reported they never shopped the Downtown Area. The major Downtown magnets were the Drug Store, Grocery Store, Bakery, Hardware Store, and Bank. Possible inducements for attracting more residents to the area included "more retail variety" and "more restaurants." Otsego-Elk River Merger: Sixty-one percent reported awareness of the proposal to merge the two cities of Otsego and Elk River. While thirty-five percent supported the merger, twenty-four percent opposed it; but, forty- two percent were unsure about their opinion on this issue. The merger proposal, then, has not been discussed enough to cause great numbers of support or opposition to materialize. Conclusions: 1. Elk River citizens were very pleased with their community. They were satisfied, for the most part, with past policies and actions. But, perceptions about the City, itself, have dramatically changed; concerns have begun to reflect issues found in nearby growing communities: property tax levels, growth rates, road congestion, and convenience of amenities. 2. Substandard evaluations of the park and recreational system were noted in this study. While the community does not have a general consensus about priorities for the building of outdoor recreational facilities, it would presently support a carefully constructed bond referendum for neighborhood park improvements, trail links, and an outdoor swimming pool, requiring an average property tax increase of $20.00-$25.00. 3. There was much enthusiasm for a full-service community center at present. In fact, with the exception of a community theater, residents overwhelmingly supported every facility tested for possible inclusion. A key problem, however, were the financial constraints placed upon the project, wherein the typical residents was willing to accept a $19.70 annual tax increase. Clearly, either a much more scaled-down proposal would need to be put before the voters, or a careful information campaign outlining costs would have to be undertaken before a vote. 4. In light of the support for a bond referendum at this time which would be financially feasible, we suggest the best course of action would be to proceed with a park bond proposal, and then engage in concrete discussions with the city in preparation for a later election effort for the community center. The list of citizen desires was much better aligned with their willingness to pay increased taxes in the case of the outdoor recreational facilities. In order to secure the Page 7