Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Survey And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton survey shows strong approval for parks, signals public support for modest tax increase to fund improvements
Summary
A Morris Leatherman survey of 400 Dayton residents found high satisfaction with parks and broad willingness to fund improvements; staff described options including levy increases or a bond referendum for larger projects and will return with precise cost estimates.
A city presentation on Nov. 4 summarized results from a Morris Leatherman resident survey of 400 Dayton households that found strong public approval for parks and other city services and identified funding preferences for new park amenities.
City administrator Zach presented methodology and headline results, saying, “It was a 400 random sample survey of Dayton residents” completed in August, with a non‑response rate of about 5.5 percent and average interviews of 14 minutes. He told the Parks Commission the sample yields roughly a ±5 percent margin of error and that the full survey is available on the Dayton website.
Why it matters: staff argued the survey provides a baseline for future decisions on park investments and potential revenue strategies. Zach noted residents rated overall quality of life at about 95 percent favorable and gave parks and trails prominent mention among community strengths. Park maintenance and facilities received a combined favorable rating of about 91 percent.
Funding preferences and next steps
The survey asked whether respondents would support a property‑tax increase for park improvements (no specific dollar amount was embedded in each question). Zach said the highest levels of support—at least 79 percent—were for Veterans memorials, picnic shelters, additional pedestrian/bicycle docks and a fishing pier. Proposals such as an off‑leash dog park, a splash pad and a band shell each drew roughly two‑thirds support.
On the mechanics of paying for projects, Zach explained city choices: an annual levy increase can be enacted by council without a public referendum and used to accumulate cash for projects; bonding to finance large capital projects requires a voter referendum and a majority (50 percent+) to pass. “If you go for bond…you have to go to the voters,” he said, adding that typical campaign practice seeks a stronger margin before placing large questions on the ballot.
Survey figures on household impacts were described as illustrative. Zach said the average willingness reported in the survey equated to about $7.17 per month (approximately $86 per year) earmarked for park improvements. He cautioned that staff would return with exact dollar scenarios and an engineer’s estimate for any bonded project before council considers a referendum.
Costs and scope
Commission discussion noted large items—such as an indoor/outdoor sports complex—would likely require bonding and could cost “$10 million to $20 million” depending on scope, a rough range Zach cited without firm engineering estimates. He described other, lower‑cost items (piers, shelters, splash pads) that could be funded incrementally or with a combination of dedication dollars, grants and levy funds.
What comes next
Staff said they will refine cost estimates, identify potential funding mixes (including park and trail dedication dollars and grant opportunities) and return to council and the commission with concrete levy or bond scenarios. The survey authors and full results remain available for commissioners to review.
Speakers quoted in this article include Zach (City administrator, Speaker 6) and commission members who discussed prioritization and the timing of any funding measures. The commission did not take a formal funding vote at this meeting; staff will follow up with fiscal scenarios and recommended next steps.
