Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 6 <br />COMPARISON OF CITY FACILITIES <br />WITH FACILITY STANDARDS <br /> <br /> # in City No. Required Based on Space Standards <br /> System <br />Activity /Lighted 1990 1995 2000 2010 <br /> <br />Volleyball 1 4 5 5 7 <br />Basketball 1 12 15 16 20 <br />Horseshoes 6/0 6/2 7/2 8/3 10/3 <br />Softball 13/2 8/4 10/5 11/6 13/7 <br />Baseball 1/0 4/2 5/3 5/3 7/4 <br />Football/Soccer 5 3 4 4 5 <br />Tennis 6/2 8/5 10/7 11/7 13/9 <br />Playgrounds 12 12 14 16 20 <br />Ice Rinks* 6 4 6 7 8 <br />Trails-Bike/Jogging 0 4 miles 5 miles 5 miles 7 <br /> <br />*Includes hockey and free skating. <br /> <br />As is evident, the standards do not necessarily reflect local community needs. This <br />is particularly true when one looks at the number of softball and football/soccer fields <br />in the City compared with projected space standards. While it appears that the City <br />has an excess of both types of fields, program demand for these fields is more <br />intense than virtually any other types of facilities. However, by any measure, it is <br />readily apparent that the City is deficient in the number of hard surface courts and <br />trails available to the public. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br /> <br />