Laserfiche WebLink
Park System Facility Support Oppose <br />Rehabilitation of"Handke Pit" 49% 30% <br />Development of Riverwalk Trail 59% 32% <br />Purchase of Additional Land 55% 33% <br /> <br />Significant majorities were willing to support a tax increase for the following projects: <br /> <br />Permanent restrooms and shelters at the larger community parks <br />Swing sets, playground equipment, and hard surfaced courts for neighborhood parks <br />An OUTDOOR swimming pool, containing a gradual depth entry, slides, and diving <br />board <br />Development of the Riverwalk Trail in the Downtown Area <br />Purchase of additional land for parks and trails <br />Paving of neighborhood trail links across the community <br /> <br />Several proposals, though, proved to be much more controversial: <br /> <br />A park for skate boarding and in-line skating <br />Outdoor ice skating and hockey rinks <br />A mountain bike trails system for Hillside Park <br />An Interpretive Center at Woodland Trails Park <br /> <br />Predisposition toward a Bond Referendum: <br /> <br />While eighteen percent would "vote against almost any tax increase for park and recreational <br />facilities development," eleven percent would be inclined to "vote for a tax almost any tax <br />increase." Sixty-three percent were "persuadable," depending upon the "justification of the <br />need," "size of tax increase," "inclusion of trails," and "development of more parks." The typical <br />Elk River residents was willing to increase their property taxes by $22.00 yearly to fund park and <br />recreational facilities development. <br /> <br />Impact of a Good Park and Recreation System: <br /> <br />Fifty-five percent agreed with the assertion that "a good Elk River park and recreation system <br />will increase the value of my property." Thirty-three percent disagreed with this statement. <br />There has been a decline in the perceived impact of park and recreational facilities since the 1989 <br />study: in that previous survey, seventy-four percent agreed with the assertion. The "indirect <br />impact on property values" argument for park improvements will not prove to be as effective an <br />argument as it is in other communities. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />