Laserfiche WebLink
Howare you <br />with how well the City <br />of Eugene's parks are <br />maintained? <br />Source: DHM Research, October 2016 <br />Similar demographic patterns were also observed, with Democrats (81%) and frequent park visitors (79%) <br />saying they were more satisfied than Republicans (66%) and infrequent visitors (67%) did. Again, voters <br />from Southeast Eugene were more satisfied at 81%, compared to just 61% of those in Southwest. <br />parks. The first scenario called for an additional $2 million annuallyabout $27 for a typical household <br />to fully fund maintenance of existing park facilities (Q14). This maintenance included maintaining lawns <br />and natural areas, park clean-up, and servicing restrooms. The second scenario included all the funding <br />for maintenance described in the first scenario, and also allocated funds to provide safety and security <br />services at city parks (Q15). This scenario called for an additional $2.5 million annually, or about $35 for a <br />typical household. <br />Fullyfunding park <br />maintenance services: <br />$2 million annually, <br />$27/household <br />Fully funding parksmaintenance, <br />plus safety and security services: <br />$2.5 million annually, $35 <br />household <br />Source: DHM Research, October 2016 <br />Support for both funding scenarios was high. Some 71% supported fully funding park maintenance <br />services at a cost of an additional $2 million annually. Nearly as many (64%) supported fully funding <br />tional cost of $2.5 <br />million annually. In both cases, the proportion of voters in strong support was at least double that of those <br />in strong opposition. This is a simple, yet effective bellwether for the prospects of any funding proposition. <br />DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 <br />13 <br /> <br />