My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRSR 06-16-1997
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Packets
>
1993-2000
>
1997
>
06-16-1997 SPECIAL
>
PRSR 06-16-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2015 10:15:15 AM
Creation date
2/26/2015 11:54:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRSR
date
6/16/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Twelve percent of the respondents reported leaving Elk River to use bicycle paths elsewhere, <br /> while nine percent did so to use a swimming pool. Six percent reported leaving the community <br /> to go to a Community Center, while four percent used another community's playgrounds. But, a <br /> high sixty-five percent did not leave the City of Elk River to recreate elsewhere. <br /> Forty percent of the households in the community contained members who participated in youth <br /> recreational programs during the past year. Similarly, twenty-two percent contained participants <br /> of adult recreational programs. <br /> Future Plans: <br /> No consensus emerged on the top priority for recreational development during the next few <br /> years; this finding mirrored the lack of consensus found in the 1989 study. Thirty-three percent <br /> would prioritize smaller neighborhood parks, while twenty percent would place larger area parks <br /> at the top of the list. Eighteen percent would make trails the top priority, and fourteen percent <br /> felt the same way about larger community ballfields. <br /> Seventy percent favored the development of a trail system linking neighborhoods throughout the <br /> city. In fact, fifty-three percent would support a trail system even if it ran adjacent to their <br /> property. <br /> • <br /> Park Bond Referendum: <br /> The table below indicates the amount of support and opposition for a property tax increase to <br /> fund the development of each recreational facility: <br /> Park System Facility Support Oppose <br /> Park for Skate Boarding and In-Line Skating 42% 49% <br /> Outdoor Swimming Pool 59% 35% <br /> Outdoor Ice Skating and Hockey Rinks 45% 48% <br /> Swing Sets, Playground Equipment,etc. 71% 24% <br /> Paving of Neighborhood Trail Links 54% 37% <br /> Lighting, etc., for Youth Athletics Complex 51% 36% <br /> Mountain Bike Trail System for Hillside Park 45% 43% <br /> Permanent Restrooms/Shelters 75% 20% <br /> Interpretive Center and Woodland Trails Park 36% 41% <br /> • <br /> Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.