Laserfiche WebLink
e • <br /> Special Meeting/Park&Recreation Commission Page 2 <br /> May 21, 1997 <br /> Regarding usage of city facilities, a drop in the usage of Orono Park was noted. • <br /> The Commission felt that this was due to the deteriorating water quality. <br /> In response to what facilities were missing in Elk River, the highest response was <br /> bike paths, followed by a pool. The response for these two issues were of a <br /> significant level. Facilities of a lower concern were a community center and <br /> playground equipment. Regarding playground equipment it was noted that it is <br /> not more equipment that is wanted, but better equipment. Bike paths were <br /> strongly supported and it was noted that even if a property tax were required for <br /> bike paths, they were still supported in significant numbers. <br /> Mr. Morris stated that a tax increase would be supported by the public for the <br /> following facilities: permanent restrooms and shelters; neighborhood parks and <br /> equipment (swingsets, hardsurfaced courts, and playground equipment); an <br /> outdoor pool that could be used by the entire family; and the downtown <br /> riverwalk. Combining the neighborhood parks with a trail system generated a <br /> high level of support from citizens. <br /> Mr. Morris indicated his surprise at the Elk River response against an interpretive <br /> center as this was the first community he has experienced that did not support <br /> expenditure of funds for this type of facility. Mr. Morris also noted that the public <br /> would not support a bond referendum that contained anything having to do with <br /> ice skating, a skateboard park, or a mountain bike trail system. <br /> The support for an outdoor recreation bond referendum in Elk River is very good <br /> news compared to what is happening in other communities. The fact that • <br /> approximately two thirds of the citizens were undecided whether or not they <br /> would vote for or against a bond issue was viewed as a good statistic due to the <br /> fact that these individuals can be "sold" on voting for an appropriately structured <br /> bond referendum. Mr. Morris noted that the public will only support spending <br /> about$20 to$25 per year for a bond referendum and that the expenditure of <br /> funds needs to be justified to the two thirds that are undecided. In response to <br /> the question on how much of a tax increase people would pay for park and <br /> recreation facilities, the 20 percent "nothing" answer was very small in <br /> comparison to metropolitan communities and was also seen as a positive for a <br /> possible bond referendum. <br /> It was the consensus that a mid September date for a public bond referendum <br /> was a good time, especially when considering the school referendum in <br /> November. The statistics support the fact that a referendum can be sold to the <br /> public if it is the right type of issue and does not include any of the big negative <br /> concerns identified in the survey. Additionally the city has to be very careful with <br /> the amount of money being requested and has to clearly identify how the funds <br /> will be spent. The referendum can be sold based on the fact that the facilities will <br /> help kids and that it is a community pride issue to improve the facilities. <br /> Discussion took place on the outdoor pool issue. The Commission agreed that this <br /> issue should be a separate (second) question and the bond should be structured <br /> so that the pool could only be approved if the first park and recreation issue was <br /> also approved. <br />