Laserfiche WebLink
increase to cover program costs. �nce again, residents show a <br />wil3ingness to accept tax increases ta preserve and enhance the <br />natural ambience of the community. <br />An impressive ninety-six percent rate the park facilities in <br />Roseville as either "excellent" or "good." This rating is at the <br />top of the Metropolitan Area. In additian, eighty-six percent <br />similarly rate the indoor recreational facilities currently <br />offered in Roseville. This is particularly impressive in view of <br />the almost eighty percent who feel at least "somewhat well <br />informed" about the park system and its facilities. Residents <br />are very proud of their park and recreation system. <br />Respondents were asked to rate the components of the park <br />and recreation system with which they were familiar. Central <br />Park led the ratings, with eighty-five percent expressing <br />approval; the remainder were unable to rate the Park, rather than <br />dissatisfied with it. In fact, in the case of most ratings, <br />unfamilarity rather than discontent was the norm. Seventy-five <br />percent appraved of the neighborhood parks, while sixty-nine <br />percent similarly rated the park trails. Fifty-ane percent gave <br />good grades to the city's picnic shelters, while forty-three <br />percent similarly viewed the community's softball fields. All but <br />one af the remaining facilities -- Cedarholm Golf Caurse, outdaor <br />ice rinks, paved pathways, and the Ice Arena -- scored about <br />thirty-three percent approval ratings. Gymnasium space was rated <br />highly by only fourteen percent because most residents were <br />unaware of the present afferings. Overall, each component of the <br />park system is highly valued by its users. <br />Next, residents were asked about their support for potential <br />additions to the park and recreation system. By nearly three-to- <br />one, residents favored the construction of a multi-purpose <br />community center, containing Pacilities such as indoor <br />xecreational offerings, meeting rQams, and a teen center. By two- <br />to-one majorities, citizens supported a speed skating rink, a <br />golf driving range, and additional tennis courts. Narrawer <br />pluralities supported a second goZf course and a skate board and <br />roller blade rink. It should be nated, though, that these <br />queries judged support of the concept and did not explicitly <br />raise tax and financing implications. In fact, if residents could <br />establish priorities, two aims wauld dominate: upgrading current <br />park facilities and developing additional passive park <br />tacilities. But, in any case, there zs a solid level of support <br />for selected additions to the current system. <br />Eighty-nine percent of the residents are satisfied with the <br />current mix and number of recreational facilities. A small part <br />of the dissatisfaction stems from the lack of a cammunity center. <br />An exceptionally large forty-three p�rcent have participated in <br />city-sponsored park and recreational programs -- fifty percent <br />higher than the suburban norm. Concerts and events, as we11 as <br />softball-baseball programs were the most popular. Satisfaction <br />was virtually unanimous. Eighty-seven percent of those with <br />opinions feel senior programs meet community needs; sixty-five <br />4 <br />