5.0. SR 08-23-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. - e opposed it. As long as the cost stayed around a $40.00 yearly 1ncrease in property taxes, majority support could be maintained. But, even at that figure, there is a core of twenty-three percent of the residents who would not vote for any tax increase for the construction of a center. Fifty-eight percent of the sample also thought it was a good idea to attach a new City Hall to the community Center, cOmbining the construction of both facilities. city residents seem, then, to endorse the idea of a City Center complex, combining administrative facilities with meeting rooms and other facilities for the public. Fourteen different facilities for possible inclusion in a community center were read to each interviewee. Over eighty percent supported the inclusion of a teen center. Over seventy percent favored a large community room, a senior citizens center, and group meeting rooms. Over sixty percent were supportive of an exercise and fitness room, an indoor running/walking facility, a gYmnasium, and an arts and crafts room. An indoor ice skating rink, an indoor swimming pool, racquetball courts, a community theatre, a nursery SChool/day care facility, and an aerobics and dance room split the citizenry and provoked high levels of opposition. Support, then, tended to build around indoor meeting facilities, and to a lesser extent, passive "dry" individual recreational and wellness facilities. Residents were also asked .to choose their top two priorities from the list. Four facilities were chosen by at least ten percent of the sample: in rank order, a teen center, a senior drop-in center, a large community room, and group meeting rooms. The teen and senior centers were chosen by over one-quarter of the sample as their top priorities. Opposition to any of the facilities was also measured. Four facilities were opposed by more than five percent of the residents: an indoor ice skating rink, an indoor swimming pool, an aerobics and dance room, and racquetball courts. Only the first facility, however, reach an opposition level which is worrisome. Overall, then, Elk River citizens have a clear hierarchy of facilities in mind for their community center. A community center would draw users from sixty-six percent of the city's households. Fifty-nine percent of the households reported at least one member who would visit on a weekly basis or more. There is a clear demand in the community for the facilities and services that a community center could supply. On the subject of operating costs, residents split on a pay- as-you go system. Forty-nine percent oppose the city subsidization of operating costs, even if user fees increase; forty-four percent favor a city subsidy. Fifty-eight percent of the sample would not be impacted by a moderate daily fee; twenty- five percent felt it depended on the size of the fee; only fourteen percent felt their usage would significantly decline. Forty-one percent of the sample would pay $100 yearly for a family membership. But, when informed about comparable costs in the area, forty-four percent of the respondents indicated a 8