Laserfiche WebLink
contact with the staff is much higher than comparable suburban <br /> areas. The approval ratings of staff stemmed primarily from good <br /> experiences with them; the negative ratings resulted from <br /> feelings that the staff could improve. <br /> Contact with City Hall during the past year was reported <br /> eprobl ortedms aby <br /> fifty-four percent of the sample. <br /> nd <br /> information requests, complaints, and park information prompted <br /> the overwhelming majority of contacts. About fifty percent of <br /> those making contact were unsure with whom they talked, but many <br /> residents mentioned a specific department. Thirteen percent were <br /> dissatisfied with their contact, an average percentage; but <br /> further probing indicated the source of the dissatisfaction was <br /> the content of the response rather than the process, itself. <br /> Sixty-two percent of the sample also reported visiting the <br /> Arden Hills City Hall during the past two years. Sixty-two <br /> percent of the sample felt the condition of the structure was at <br /> least "adequate, " while only eighteen percent disagreed. A solid <br /> fifty-nine percent also felt the facility was adequate for <br /> providing service to the residents of the community. A large <br /> majority of residents, then, are unfamiliar with existing <br /> limitations in the current City Hall . <br /> Seventy-three percent of the sample felt the pace of <br /> �► <br /> economic development was about right; " thirteen percent <br /> described it as "too rapid, " while ten percent viewed it as "too <br /> slow. " Most residents thought city actions to date had resulted <br /> in a good mix of development projects. The most - support was <br /> evidenced for future office development, at twenty-five percent. <br /> Residential scored second, at nineteen percent, and light <br /> industrial ran third, at seventeen percent. Seventy-five percent . <br /> of the sample supported the City taking an active and aggressive <br /> role in attracting targeted development, but fifty-one percent <br /> oppose offering financial incentives as part of that package. <br /> Equal support was found for three development priorities: <br /> increasing the tax base, providing housing opportunities for <br /> young families and retirees, and providing recreational and <br /> leisure time offerings. Balanced future growth is clearly the <br /> theme underlying these results. <br /> While residents possessed very definite views about the <br /> appropriate city action on several types of development <br /> opportunities, a lack of consensus was also clear in several key <br /> areas. Citizens thought the City should act aggressively to <br /> attract single family homes for moderate income families, senior <br /> citizens housing, commercial office buildings, and parks and <br /> recreational open spaces. They also thought the City should act <br /> aggressively to discourage apartment buildings and mobile homes. <br /> Residents offered no unified view of action to take on low income <br /> family housing, townhouses, condominiums, retail shopping <br /> • centers, and light industrial parks. Projects falling into those <br /> categories will garner either citizen support or opposition after <br /> review of their specific parameters. <br /> 5 <br />