09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^ •. w . StptaiAer, 1994 jo(gu«, at 63%; biidwalchiog. at 54%; motor boatmg« at 33%: McycKfif. at 31 %; fiikmg, at 30%; oature waUci,at2t%; and, swimmifigtii lakes* at27%. 21% ofdwhousdiolAiftOioooalao laported paiticipatiaf or observinf lolttall/basabal] games at ktit weekly during the season. 10% of dm rcsideats felt the curicm mix of parks aod racreatioiial tenHties in and arouad the ity met the needs of their households. 18% disagreed and suggested more trails* more parks, playgroiind equipniaBt, more ballflelds. an ioe arena, or tennis oouits. 11 66% fdt the City of Orono alnady had adequate park fiKilities fbr city residents, while 26% fek the Cky should develop a more extensive park system. ml devdopiaent was deemed to be "preserving , and wikOifa habitatt* by 42% of the The chief priority for City park moie natutil bod areas, sod sample. 23% would prioritize "developing additional passive park bdlitiet, such as walking trails and flower gardens," while 13% opted for "developing addhional aetiv pork forilides, such as ball Adds and playgrounds.* 15% would support a combination approach. The average resident in Orono would support a $25.20 incieese in their yearly property taxes to fond the preservatiooofopea space or the development ofparks and recreational foeilhies. But, 36% wodd support no tneraase ior this purpose. Majorities of residents supported a property tax increase for (1) nature preserves, 62%-33%; (2) nature waUdiy and bicycling trails, 61%-35%; (3) ptayground eqyipmy for children, 56%-38%; (4) paved waOdng and bicycling trails, 53%-43%; and, nature observation areas, 51%-43"«. They opposed: (1) public water access for boats and/or canoes, 26%-68%; (2) outdoor basketball courts, n%>65%; (3) outdoor tennis courts, 28%‘65%; (4) outdoor volleyball courts, 31%-62%; (5) playfi^ for soccer, football, aoflball, and baseball, 35%-59%; (6) picnic areas and shelters, 39%*56%; and, (7) swimming beaches, 40%'54%. The avenge Orono resident would drive at least 16.2 minutas to a park or recreai of intmst to til il focility 64% supported the charging of a user fee for city-owned end operated perk and recraadonal fodltlies; 30% opposed the use of user fact to undarwrite and racover tha cost of oonstnicting and operating City park and ncreanonal focilities. The avenge percentage of the oostt that residents iwiuld hope to recover through user foes was 43.8%. V « j M I I t 58% fovored a trail system linkini peris and recreational facilities within die lunity; but, only 36% stiD fiivored it if a property tax increaae were required to develop the ^stem. If a citywide trail system were built, thou^, 87% ftlt it should serve both pedestrians end bicyclists. 57% fovored inconttpt the development of additional trails in Orono going "cross-county" timiiT to the Luce line; 32% opposed it But if a property tax increase were required to develop these trails, siqiport dropped to 37% of the reqxmdens. Among those supporting this trail concept 74% indicated they would continue to support h even if the trail were to run by their property. Page 2