HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - Valmont City Park Concept Plan Development Status ReportCITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 26, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: Valmont City Pazk Concept Plan Development Status Report
PRESENTERS:
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Pazks and Recreation Department
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Board
(PRAB) with the report on the community survey (Attachment A) and a summary of
public comment (Attachment B) received on the three identified options and discuss
some preliminary program ideas for the pazk in prepazation for the PRAB study session
on December 17. At PRAB meetings over the summer, staff updated the Board on the
Valmont Pazk Advisory Group (VPAG) work sessions, and provided information on the
development of the three options at the October meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Using input from the VPAG and other recreation user groups, the staff and consultant
team developed three options for public review.
Community Survey
Staff worked with National Reseazch Center to develop a community survey that was
mailed to 3,000 households. The survey included questions on the three options, types of
facilities that the community would like to see at Vatmont City Park, and choices of
facilities on areas of the park site.
In terms of facilities that could be developed at the pazk, 74% of respondents considered
a sofr surface multi-use path suitable for multiple uses "essential" or "very importanY',
and 52% of respondents considered a fenced dog pazk "essential" or "very important."
An 18-hole disc golf course, lighted youth baseball/softball fields, a cyclo-cross course
and an indoor ice azena were considered at least essential or very important by 23% to
30% of respondents. When asked to choose between various cycling facilities and an 18-
hole disc golf course on the north side of the pazk, 69% of respondents chose the cycling
facilities. When asked to choose between a disc golf course or multi-purpose fields and a
dog pazk on the southwest portion of the park, 81 % of respondents preferred the fields
and dog pazk. When asked to choose between an outdoor water pazk, lighted
AGENDA ITEM ~~ PAGE 1
baseball/softball fields or multi-purpose fields on the southeast portion of the pazk, 47%
chose an outdoor water park, 38% chose soccer fields and 15% chose baseball/softball
fields.
Another question asked respondents about potential indoor facilities at Valmont City
Pazk. The two most populaz choices were an indoor performing arts center (39% of
respondents) and an indoor ice azena (38% of respondents).
Respondents were also asked which option they most preferred, and neazly half of
respondents (49%) chose Option 2, which contained an 18-hole disc golf course, an
outdoor water pazk, lighted tennis courts, lighted youth baseball/softball fields and an
outdoor performance azea.
When reviewing survey results, some items appeaz contradictory, such as the preference
for Option 2, which contains facilities which were not considered "essential" or "very
important" by as many respondents in the question on preference of individual facilities.
The planning team met with members of the cycling community and disc golf community
to discuss the potential for co-locating those types of facilities. The team will also be
discussing how to resolve these apparent contradictions with the VPAG and the PRAB in
December.
Public Comment
During the month of September, three open houses and one neighborhood meeting were
held to get community input on the three options. Additionally, the three options were
posted on the department's website to inform the public and obtain comments. This
information is summarized in Attachment B.
NEXT STEPS:
The planning team will develop a draft plan (possibly including several options) based on
the survey results, community feedback, VPAG input and PRAB feedback. Staff will also
provide estimates for development and maintenance costs for facilities identified in the
draft plan.
Schedule:
December 13 -Meet with Valmont Park Advisory Group
December 17 - PRAB Study Session
Februazy 12 -Joint study session with the PRAB and City Council
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Valmont City Park Resident Survey -Report of Results
Attachment B: Categorized Responses from the Web and Open House
AGENDA ITEM #TCC}~ PAGE_2_
Attachment A
Valmont City Park
Resident Survey
Report of Results
November 2007
Prepared by:
NATIONAL
C RESEARCH
C E N T E R •c
3005 30'^ Street • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • 303-4444145 • www.n-rt.com
AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE 3
Table of Contents
Survey Results 1
Survey Background 1
Importance Ratings of Development of Facilities and Amenities 2
Respondent Preferences for Trade-Offs 3
Respondent Comments to Open-Ended Questions 7
Appendix A: Responses to Survey Questions ...................................................................10
Preference and Importance Rating Questions 10
Respondent Characteristics 12
Appendix B: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics ....15
Appendix C: Survey Methodology ....................................................................................25
Appendix D: Survey Materials .........................................................................................28
AGENDA ITEM ~ .PAGE
Survey Results
Survey Background
As the city of Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department worked with the community to
prepare a 10-year master plan for parks and recreation, public input indicated that it was time
to revisit the concept plan for Valmont City Park. The original concept plan was completed in
1998. From it, a multipurpose field, greenway trails, soft surface trails, a temporary dog park
and an irrigation pond were built. While the majority of the property is still undeveloped, it
has become amuch-used destination.
In working to revise the original concept plan, several processes were undertaken. A wide
variety of recreation groups were interviewed. A citizen advisory group worked with the city to
develop options for the park. Public meetings were held to solicit feedback from the
community.
A survey of residents was also commissioned. National Research Center, Inc. was contracted to
conduct the survey, the results of which are summarized in this report. Survey responses will be
used to develop a draft plan to present to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City
Council for review and feedback in November 2007. It is anticipated that the plan will be
presented to City Council for approval in early 2008. Additional information is available on
the department's website at www.Valmontplan.org.
Administering the Survey
Approximately 3,000 households within the Boulder Valley (zipcodes 80301 to 80305) were
randomly selected to participate in the survey. Selected households received three mailings
each beginning in August 2007. Completed surveys were collected over the following six
weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. A
week after the prenotification postcard was sent the first wave of the survey was sent. The
second wave was sent one week after the first. The survey mailings contained both an English
and Spanish version of the questionnaire and cover letter, as well as a postage-paid envelope
for returning the survey. The cover letter, signed by the director of Parks and Recreation,
invited the household to participate in the survey. On the second wave survey, the cover letter
instructed those who had already completed the survey not to do so again while inviting those
who had not yet participated to do so.
About 7% of the surveys were returned because the housing unit was vacant of the postal
service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,796 households to which
surveys were delivered, 879 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 31%. This is a
good response rate; typical response rates for a mailed resident survey range from 25% to 40%.
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of
confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no
greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported. v
v
Survey responses were entered into an SPSS dataset for analysis. The data were weighted to s
reflect the demographics of the community. More information about the survey methodology v
can be found in Appendix C: Survey Methodology, and a copy of the survey itself can be found in
Appendix D: Survey Materials. Tables of survey results can be found in Appendix A: Responses to 0
Survey Questions. z
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve : Re ort o(Resul[s (2007-11-08) °
AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE
? ,
Importance Ratings of Development of Facilities and Amenities
A series of facilities or amenities that could he developed at Valmont City Park or elsewhere in
Boulder was presented to those completing the questionnaire. They were asked to rate how
important they felt it was that each be constructed. Nearly three-quarters of respondents felt it
was "essential" or "very important" that asoft-surface multi-use path be developed (see Figure
1). Just over half felt that a fenced dob park or multi-purpose fields were "very important" or
"essential." Nearly half (47%) felt that a small lake was at least very- important.
Figure 1: Respondents' Ratings of the Importance of Facilities
Being Developed at Valmont City Park or Elsewhere in Boulder
A soft surface multi-use path suitable for bicycling, running, 36% 38% 74%
cross-country skiing, etc.
A fenced tlog park where dogs can play and exercise off-leash 26% 26% 52%
Multi-purpose fields 18% 33% 51
A small lake suitable for swimming and boating 17% 30% 47%
An outdoor performance area 14% 27% 41
A single track mountain bike trail with hills and contours 18% 22% 40%
A covered outdoor ice rink 15% 25% 40% I
A paved loop suitable for bicycling 14% 25% 39%
An outdoor waterpark 18q° 20% 38%
An indoor performing arts center 11% 25% 36%
Alighted artificial turf field 10% 25% 35%
A mountain bike and BMX terrain park 17% 17% 34%
An indoor aquatic facility 12% 21 % 33%
An indoor basketball/volleyball center 9' 25% 32%
An indoorloutdoortennis complex 11% 19% 30%
An indoor ice arena 11°~ 18% 29%
A cyclo-cross course 13% 15% 28%
Lighted youth baseball/softball fields 8% 20% 28%
d
An 18-hole disc golf course 11% 12% 23% v
L
U
0% 20% 40°/0 60% 80% 100°/0
Percent Responding "Essential" or "Very Important"
0
Z
0
0
N
Valmont Cir Park Resident Surve : Ke ort of Results (2007-i r-08) °
AGENDA ITEM # - _ ,1'AGE_ ~ .
About 40% rated an outdoor performance area, a single track mountain bike trail with hills
and contours or a covered outdoor ice rink as "essential" or "very important" (see I~igure 1).
Between 3h% and 39% thought it was at least "very important" to construct a paved loop
suitable for bicycling, an outdoor waterpark or an indoor performing arts center. A lighted
artificial turf field, a mountain bike and BMX terrain park, an indoor aquatic facility or an
indoor basketball/volleyball center were deemed "essential" or "very important by 32% to 35%
of those completing the questionnaire. An indoor/outdoor tennis complex, an indoor ice
arena, a cyclo-cross course or lighted youth baseball/softball fields were considered at least
"very important" by ?8% to 30% of respondents. Gf the listed items, an 18-hole disc golf
course was rated as "essential" or "very important" by the fewest respondents, but nearly one-
fourth of respondents gave this type of amenity such a rating.
Respondent Preferences for Trade-Offs
Given the limited amount of park land remaining and the types of terrain available at Valmont
City Park, not all the recreational facility needs of the community can be fulfilled at the one
site. Respondents were asked to choose what facility or amenity they would prefer ro see in the
various sections of the park. When asked to choose between various bike facilities and an 18-
hole disc golf course, about two-thirds preferred the bike facilities, while about a third chose
the disc golf course (sec Figure 2).
Figure 2: Respondents' preference for the north side of Valmont City Park
On the north side of the park, which
would you prefer to see developed?
.r u,
bike trails and
facilities that
include a bike
skills park, a
BMX track, and
an 18 hole disc a mountain bike
golf course trail system
31 % 69%
V
G
y
C
N
U
L
V
N
Gi
ti
C
O
Z
0
O
N
Valmont City Park Resident Surve : Ke ort of Results (2007-11-08)
AGENDA ITEM ,WAGE
When asked to choose between a disc golf course or fields and a dog park in the southwest
portion of the park, about 4 in 5 respondents preferred the fields and dog park while 1 in 5
preferred to see the disc golf course (see Figure 3). For the southeast portion of the park, an
outdoor water park was the most popular choice, selected by nearly half (47"'/c~, see Figure 4) of
respondents. However, more than a third of those completing the questionnaire chose the
soccer/multipurpose fields, while only 15°/n of respondents chose the lighted youth
baseball/softball fields.
Figure 3: Respondents' preference for the southwest portion of Valmont City Park
On the southwest portion of the park,
which would you prefer to see developed?
the existing
multi-purpose
field, an
additional
lighted field,
and a dog park
81%
an 18 hole disc
golf course
19
Figure 4: Respondents' preference for the southeast portion of Valmont City Park
On the southeast portion of the park, 6 lighted youth
which would you prefer to see developed? baseball/softball
fields(4 for little
league, 2 for
legion or high
school age)
15
an outdoor
water park
47%
v
t
4 soccer/
v
multipurpose
fields
0
38%
z
0
0
ti
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Keport of Results (2007-7 1-08i oo
GENDA ITEM ~ - ,WAGE 0
A
Finally, respondents were asked to choose up to two options from among five possibilities for
indoor recreation facilities. The two most popular choices were an indoor performing arts
center (identified by 39% of respondents, see Figure 5) and an indoor ice arena (38%).
However, an indoor basketball/volleyball and events center was chosen by a similar proportion
of respondents (35~%). An indoor aquatic facility and a tennis complex were chosen by fewer
than 30% of respondents.
Figure 5: Respondents' preferences for facilities at Valmont City Park
Which TWO of the following options would you
most prefer to see developed in Valmont City Park?
(Please check up to 2 options only.)
an indoor performing arts center with seating capacity of
800-1,000 (with dance rooms, a gallery for visual arts, and 39%
a stage)
an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth hockey and 38%
general skating)
an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for
tournament play and community events (configured for 6 35%
full-sized basketball or 12 volleyball courts and suitable for
concerts, community/sporting events)
an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25 yard pool, 29%
separate dive pool/warm-up pool and spectator seating
an indoor/outdoor tennis complex suitable for tournament 26%
play (5 indoor and 7 outdoor courts)
none of the above 10%
0% 20% 400/0 60% 80% 100%
Percent Choosing Each Option*
*Percents may add to more than 100%, as respondents could choose up to two of the options
U
L
V
v
N
K
C
O
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont City Park Resident Surve : Re ort of Results (2007-1 ]-08)
AGENDA ITEM # _ ,PAGE
Respondent Preferences for a Particular Park Design
The survey packet contained information about three possible designs for Valmont Ciry Park,
including a graphic representation of what facilities could be developed on the property. (See
Appendix D: Survey Materials to see a copy of the questionnaire and the three options
presented.) Elements unique to each of the three options were:
? Option 1: a covered outdoor ice rink, a singletrack mountain bike trail, a lighted
artificial turf field and lighted youth baseball/softball fields;
? Option 2: an 18-hole disc golf course, an outdoor water park, lighted tennis courts,
lighted youth baseball/softball fields and an outdoor performance area; and
? Option 3: a singletrack mountain bike trail, an 18-hole disc golf course and
additional multipurpose fields.
Respondents were asked which of the three options they most preferred. The most popular
choice, selected by nearly half of respondents, was Option 2. The next most popular option
was the third one, selected by 29% of respondents, followed closely by Option 1, chosen by
2?% of respondents.
Figure 6: Respondents' preference for the three options presented for Valmont City Park
Knowing that the final plan will likely be a
hybrid of the features in each, which of the
three options do you believe best meets
your or the community's needs? ~ Option ~
22%
Option 3
29%
Option 2
49%
y
v
:J
d
C
O
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Report of Results {1007-7 1-U8i
AGENDA ITEM , PAGE
Respondent Comments to Open-Ended Questions
There were two places on the questionnaire where survey participants could write in their own
comments. The first followed question #2 (see Appendix D: Survey Materials for a copy of the
questionnaire) in which respondents rated how important various facilities were to them.
Respondents were asked whether there were "any other facilities you would suggest?" These
comments were classified into broad categories; Figure 7 below shows the proportion of
respondents who made a comment whose comment was classified into each of the categories.
In addition, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any other comment or
suggestion about the future of Valmont City Park. Classified responses are shown in Figure 8
beginning on page 8.
Figure 7: Other facilities suggested by respondents
Percent of Respondents
Any other facilities you would suggest?** Who Made a Comment*
Support for multi-use/running trails 10.2%
Support for garden/arboretum 8.8%
Support rock climbing/bouldering facilities 7.5%
Support for skate park 7.0%
Support for performing arts center 6.2%
Support for picnicJmeeting areas 6.1
Support for velodrome 5.1
Support for BMX/cyclocross track 4.9%
Support for playground or children's area 4.6%
Support for Nordic/cross-country skiing trails 4.1
Support for indoor recreation center 3.4%
Support for swimming pool or facility 3.0%
Support for tennis facilities 2.8%
Support for golf course 2.8°/
Support for natural lands 2.3%
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 2.2%
Support for water park 2.0°/
Support for ice rink 1.9%
Support for bicycling trails(other options 1.7°1°
Support for disc golf 1.7%
Support for handball 1.7%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 1.7%
Opposition to dog park ~ 1.7°/ ~
C
Opposition to disc golf 1.7%
Support for dog park 1.5% ~
Opposition to golf course 1.1
A
Opposition to ice rink 1.1 %
z
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans p.g
0
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.7% z
0
0
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort of Results (2007-11-08) a
AGENDA ITEM , pgGE
Percent of Respondents
Any other facilities you would suggest?** Who Made a Comment*
Support for small lake 0.6%
Negative comments about survey 0.6°~
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 0.5%
Support for pottery lab 0.5%
Opposition to water park 0.4%
Concerns about cost /taxes 0.2%
Other 24.8%
" Percent/ ¢dd to mo+e than 100% as respondents' comments could cover mme than one category.
""Survey comment/ were in response to the question "Any other facilitiu you would suggest?" (in response to: Please rate how important it is that
each of the following be developed at Valmont City Park o+ elsewhere in Boulder.)
Figure 8: Comments or suggestions made by respondents
Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the Percent of Respondents
future of Valmont City Park? Who Made a Comment*
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 11.4%
Support for disc golf 93%
Support for bicycling trails/other options 8.2%
Support for ice rink 8.2%
Support for dog park 7.6%
Support for BMX/cyclocross track 6.8%
Support for multi-use running trails 6.4°~
Support for performing arts center 6~3°~
Support for amenities that are needed or not duplicative 6.2%
Support for natural lands 5~9%
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 5.2%
Opposition to multi-use or specific sports fields 5.2%
Support for water park 5.2
Support for Nordiclcross-country skiing trails 4.9%
Support for tennis facilities 4.3°~
Opposition to water park 4.2°~
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 4.0%
Opposition to bicycling trails/other options 3.6%
Opposition to disc golf 3.4%
Support for swimming pool or facility 33%
Positive comments about survey 3.3%
Supportforgarden/arboretum 3.1% v
Opposition to golf course 2~8% ~
Concerns about cost /taxes 2.7%
a
Support for indoor recreation center 2.6%^
Support for picnidmeeting areas 2.6%
0
Opposition to dog park 2.6% z
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve :Report of Results (2007-11-OS) °
AGENDA ITEM ...PAGE I
Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the Percent of Respondents
future of Valmont City Park? Who Made a Comment*
Support for playground or children's area 2.3%
Support for multi-purposes over single-use purposes 2.1
Support for small lake 2.0%
Support rock climbing/boulderingfocilities 1.8%
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans 1.7%
Opposition to tennis facilities 1.6%
Negative comments about survey 1.5%
Negative comments about Parks and Recreation/City 1.2%
Support for velodrome 1.0%
Opposition to swimming pool or facility 1.0%
Opposition to BMX/cyclocross track 0.9%
Positive comments about Parks and Recreation/City 0.8%
Support for skate park 0.7%
Support for golf course 0.6%
Opposition to neighborhood commercial center 0.5%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 0.4%
Opposition to ice rink 0.4%
Opposition to small lake 0.1
Opposition to performing arts center 0.1%
Other 28.6%
' Percents add to retie than 100 % as respondents' comments could cover more than one category.
u
`v
c
a
U
L
U
A
N
v
K
T
C
O
Z
r,
O
O
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort of Results (2007-11-08)
AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~
Appendix A: Responses to Survey Questions
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, with
the "don't know" responses included where applicable.
Preference and Importance Rating Questions
Question 1
Knowing that the final plan will likely be a hybrid of the features in each, which of Percent of
the three options do you believe best meets your or the community's needs? respondents
Option 1 22%
Option 2 49%
Option 3 29%
Total 100%
Question 2
Please rate how important i[ is that each
of the following be developed at Valmont Very Somewhat Not at all Don't
City Park or elsewhere in Boulder. Essential Important Important Important Know Total
An 18-hole disc golf course 11% 12% 28% 45% 5% 100%
A fenced dog park where dogs can play and
exercise off-leash 25% 26% 30% 17% 2% 100%
A soft surface multi-use path suitable for
bicycling, running, cross-country skiing, etc. 35% 38% 19% 7% 1% 100%
A paved loop suitable for bicycling 14% 24% 35% 25% 2% 100%
A cyclo-cross course 13% 15% 32% 36% 5% 100%
A single track mountain bike trail with hills
and contours 18% 21% 29% 29% 3% 100%
A mountain bike and BMX terrain park 16% 16% 31 % 32% 4% 100%
A covered outdoor ice dnk 15°/ 24% 35% 24% 2% 100%
An outdoor performance area 14% 26% 34% 23% 2% 100%
An indoor aquatic facility 11% 20% 31% 35% 3% 100%
An outdoor waterpark 18% 20% 24% 37% 1 % 100%
A small lake suitable for swimming and
boating 16% 30% 29% 24% 1% 100%
An indoor ice arena 10% 18% 36% 33% 3% 100%
An indoor/outdoor tennis complex 11 % 18% 33% 35% 2% 100%
An indoor basketbalVvolleyball center 7% 24% 33% 33% 3% 100%
Lighted youth baseballlsoftballflelds 8% 19% 36% 33% 4% 100%
Alighted artificial turf field 10% 24% 33% 29% 4% 100% v
s
Multi-purpose fields 18% 33% 33% 14% 2% 100% A
v
An indoor performing arts center 11% 24% 29% 34% 3% 100%
A
C
O
q
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve : Re ort of Results (2007-11-08) °
AGENDA fTEM PAGE ~
~ .
Question 3
On the north side of the park, which would you prefer to see developed? Percent of respondents
an 18 hole disc golf course 31
bike trails and facilities that include a bike skills park, a BMX track, and a
mountain bike trail system 69%
Total 100%
Question 4
On the southwest portion of the park, which would you prefer to see
developed? Percent of respondents
the existing multi-purpose field, an additional lighted field, and a dog park 81
an 18 hole disc golf course 19%
Total 100%
Question S
On the southeast portion of the park, which would you prefer to see
developed? Percent of respondents
6 lighted youth baseball/softball fields
(4 for little league, 2 for legion or high school age) 15%
4 soccer/multipurpose fields 38%
an outdoor water park 47%
Total 100%
Question 6
Which TWO of the following options would you most prefer to see
developed in Valmont City Park? Percent of
(Please check up to 2 options only.) respondents*
an indoor/outdoor tennis complex suitable for tournament play (5 indoor and 7
outdoor courts) 26°/°
an indoor performing arts center with seating capacity of 800-1,000 (with
dance rooms, a gallery for visual arts, and a stage) 39%
an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for tournament play and
community events (configured for 6 full-sized basketball or 12 volleyball courts
and suitable for concerts, community/sporting events) 35%
an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25 yard pool, separate dive
pool/warm-up pool and spectator seating 29%
an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth hockey and general skating) 38%
none of the above 10%
`Total muy exceed 100% as respondents could choose up ro two options V
L
V
N
N
N
C
O
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort o(Resul[s (2007-17-08) o
AGENDA ITEM , PAGE~~
Respondent Characteristics
Questions 8-11
yes no Total
Do any children under age 5 live in your household? 11 89% 100%
Do any children ages 5 to 12 live in your household? 12% 88% 100%
Do any teenagers ages 13 to 17 live in your household? 10% 90% 100%
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? 11 % 89% 100°
Question 12
50th Percentile
About how long have you Average 25th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile
lived in Boulder? 13 years 3 years 8 years 20 years
Question 13
Do you rent or own your residence? Percent of respondents
Rent SO%
Own 50%
Total 100%
Question 14
Please check the one box which most closely describes the type of housing
unit you live in. Percent of respondents
A detached single family home 42%
An apartment in an apartment complex 26%
An apartment in a single family home 4%
A condominium or town house 26%
A mobile home 0°~
Other, please specify 2%
Total 100%
a
v
i=
v
u
S
V
N
Y
N
K
C
O
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve : Re ort oI Results (2007-11-08) °
AGENDA ITEM # ~ ,PAGE ~t7
Question 15
Do you live within Boulder city limits? Percent of respondents
yes 88°~
no 10%
not sure 2
Total 100%
Question 16
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will
be for 2007? Percent of respondents
less than $14,999 8%
$1 s,000 to $24,999 8%
$25,000 [0 34,999 10%
$35,000 to $49,999 15
50,000 to $74,999 17%
$75,000 to $99,999 14%
$100,000 to $149,999 15%
$150,000 or more 12%
Total 100°!°
Question 17
In which category is your age? Percent of respondents
18-24 years 13%
25-34 years 36%
35-44 years 16°/°
45-54 years 18%
55-64 years 10%
65 years or older 7%
Total 100%
u
C
N
C
L
V
t
u
`m
v
v
z
c
0
Z
0
0
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort o/Results (2007-11-08)
AGENDA ITEM , SAGE ~ 7
Question 18
What is your gender? Percent of respondents
Female 48°~
Male 52%
Total 100%
Language in which questionnaire was completed
In what language was the questionnaire completed? Percent of respondents
English 99%
Spanish 1%
Total 100°~
v
v
V
L
V
N
W
N
R'
F
C
O
Z
0
0
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Survey: Re ort o/Results Q007-17-08) _ a
AGENDA ITEM # , ~AGE~
Appendix B: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics
Selected survey results within demographic subgroups are compared in this appendix. Responses that are significantly different
(p < 0.05, meaning that the probability that difference observed are due to chance alone is less than 5%) are marked with gray
shading.
Some differences of note include:
? An outdoor water park was considered more important by those with children under age 12:
Among those with children under age 5, 62% thought an outdoor water park was "very important" or "essential"; 64% of
those with children between the ages of 5 and 12 thought an outdoor water park was "very important" or "essential" while
only 35% of those who did not have children under age 12 thought so.
? In general, all the facilities and amenities to be rated were deemed "very important" or "essential" by a larger proportion of
younger respondents than older respondents. However, an indoor performing arts center was considered important by 41% of
respondents age 55 and over compared to 30% of those aged 35 to 54.
? Males deemed the following types of facility to be more important than females: an 18-hole disc golf course, a fenced dog park, a
cyclo-cross course, a single track mountain bike trail with hills and contours, a mountain bike and BMX terrain park, an indoor
basketball/volleyball center, a lighted artificial turf field and multi-purpose fields.
? However, females felt the following facilities were more important than did males: a paved loop suitable for bicycling, a covered
outdoor ice rink, an indoor aquatic facility, an outdoor waterpark and an indoor ice arena.
a
v7 ? When asked to choose between 6 lighted youth baseball/softball fields, 4 soccer/multipurpose fields or an outdoor water park,
m
Z the outdoor water park was the most popular choice among females (55% compared to 39% of males), while the most popular
v
D choice among males was the soccer/multipurpose fields (44% compared to 32% of females).
st
V
V
I m
N
D
,n
m
-9 Z
S
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort o! Results (2007-11-08) a
What is your Do you live within the
Knowing that the final plan will likely be Age of respondent gender? Rent or own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
a hybrid of the features in each, which A detached Multi-family
of the three options do you believe best 18-34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
meets your or the community's needs? years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
Option 1 20% 23% 30% 22% 22% 23% 21% 20% 24% 22% 28% 17%
Option 2 48% 49% 50% I 56% 42°,~o 49% 48% I 54% 45% I 48% 53% 41
Option 3 32% 29% 20% 22% 36°,~o 28% 30% I 26% 31 % I 30°,~0 19°,~0 42%
Total ~ 100% 100% 100% ~ 100% 100% ~ 100°'0 100°~0 ~ 100°+~0 100% ~ 100°'0 100°,'0 100%
Knowing that the Do any Are you or any
final plan will likely Do any children Do any children teenagers ages other members
be a hybrid of the under age 5 ages 5 to 12 13 to 171ive in of your Language in which
features in each, live in your live in your your household aged questionnaire was
which of the three household? household? household? 65 or older? Annual household income completed
options do you
believe best meets less $25,000 $50,000
your or the than to to $100,000
community's needs? yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
Option 1 18% 23% 20% 23% 23% 22% 32% 21 % 28% 23°% 20°,'0 19% 22% 25%
Option 2 I 63% 47% I 63°,'0 46% 52% 48% I 47% 49% I 50% 49°,~0 44°,% 54% I 49°,~0 28%
m Option 3 I 18°10 30% I 17% 31% I 25% 30% I 21% 30% I 22% 28°% 36°0 27% I 29% 47%
Z Total I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°% 100% 100% 100°,% 100°'0 100% 100% 100°0
D
-1
m
~ -
*r
C
N
U
L
U
v
K
ti
1~ O
a -
t7 z
na
0
N
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Re ort o(Results (2007-11-081
What is your Rent or Do you live within the
Age of respondent gender? own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
Please rate how important it is that each A detached Multi-family
of the following be developed at Valmont 18-34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
City Park or elsewhere in Boulder.' years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
An 18-hole disc golf course 33% 13% 16% 16% 30% 16% 31% 17% 28% 25% 14% 7%
A fenced dog park where dogs can play and
exercise off-leash 57% 49% 46% 57% 48% 49% 56% 50% 56% 53% 52% 41
A soft surface multi-use path suitable for
bicycling, running, cross-country skiing, etc. 73% 82% 62% 76% 71 % 75% 73% 77% 73°~a 74% 74% 44%
A paved loop suitable for bicycling I 36% 44% 37% I 44% 33% 141 % 37% 39% 40% I 38% 42% 48%
A cyclo-cross course I 32% 29% 17% I 24% 32% 126% 32% I 25% 30% I 30% 24% 8%
A single track mountain bike trail with hills
and contours 46% 39% 20% 35% 43% 35% 45% 35% 42% 40% 35% 40%
A mountain bike and BMX terrain park 38°1° 33% 19% I 28% 38% 131% 36% I 31% 35% 35% 24% 14%
A covered outdoor ice rink I 38°~0 43°1° 40% I 44% 36% 139% 41 % I 40% 39°ro 40% 45% 30°~°
An outdoor performance area ( 43% 36% 46% I 44% 36% 139% 43% I 42% 41 % 41 % 42% 31
An indoor aquatic facility 34% 31 % 32%a I 36% 29% 29% 35% I 32% 33% 32% 34% 22%
An outdoor waterpark I 38% 40% 32% I 44% 32% 140% 36% I 43% 35% I 38% 47% 27%
A small lake suitable for swimming and
boating 52°/° 45% 36% 49% 45% 42% 52% 47% 46% 47% 50% 48°1°
Z An indoor ice arena I 27% 30% 35% I 36% 23% 130% 29% I 32% 27% I 29% 30% 23%
~ An indoorloutdoor tennis complex I 33% 27% 29% I 33% 28% 27% 32% I 31 % 29% I 31 % 27% 6%
An indoor basketball/volleyball center I 37% 24% 34% I 26% 38% 126% 38% I 29% 35% I 33% 27% 24%
~ Lighted youth baseball/softball fields I 26% 24% 42% I 29% 28% 130% 27°/° I 33% 24% I 28% 30% 19%
~ Alighted artificial turf field I 39% 30% 34% 31 % 39% 133% 38% 36% 34% 35% 37% 24%
Multi-purpose fields I 55°i° 48% 53% I 47% 56% 149% 55% I 52% 53% 53% 51% 28%
An indoor performing arts center I 38% 30% 41% I 39% 33% 134% 38% I 33% 39% I 37% 27% 46% ~
L
"Percrnt rating ns "rssentinl" or "vrry importaru" ~
a~
D ~
ill o
;i Z
o
0
N
Valmont City !'ark Resident Survey: Re ort of Resukc !2007-11-08) °
!'age 1 i
Are you or any
other
Do any Do any Do any members of
children under children ages teenagers your
Please rate how age 5 live in 5 to 12 live in ages 13 to 17 household Language in which
important it is that each your your live in your aged 65 or questionnaire was
of the following be household? household? household? older? Annual household income completed
developed at Valmont less $25,000 $50,000
City Park or elsewhere in than to to $100,000
Boulder.* yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
An 18-hole disc golf
course 10% 26% 7% 26% 9% 26% 16% 25% 28% 33% 23% 16% 24% 12%
A fenced dog park where
dogs can play and
exercise off-leash 46% 54% 47% 54% 51% 53% 38% 55% 53% 52% 58°% 49% 53% 13%
A soft surface multi-use
path suitable for bicycling,
running, cross-country
skiing, etc. 69% 74°% 80% 73% 78% 73% 59% 75% 63% 69% 76% 83% 74°~° 68%
A paved loop suitable for
bicycling 43% 39% 49% 38% 41% 39% 35% 40% 29% 39% 40°% 44% 39% 50%
1 A cyclo-cross course I 30% 28% 31% 28% 28% 28% I 17% 30% I 17% 31% 32% 28% I 29% 20%
R' A single track mountain
~ bike trail with hills and
y contours 31% 41% 45% 39% 41% 40% 22% 42% 40% 42% 42% 36% 40% 47%
A mountain bike and BMX
terrain park 38% 33% 38% 33% 33% 33% 14% 36% 35°% 34% 30% 36% 34% 39%
A covered outdoor ice rink I 41 % 40% I 42°% 40% I 30% 41 % I 37% 40% I 47% 36% 38% 44% 40% 43%
An outdoor performance
area 33% 42% I 38% 42% 40°% 41% 39% 41% 52% 45% 38% 38% 41% 9%
q tY I I ° I 40% 31% 30% 32% I 31% 39% 29% 33% I 32% 14% r
An indoor a uatic facili 35 32 43 31
y An outdoor waterpark I 62% 35% I 64% 35% I 44% 37% I 40% 38% I 49% 35% 30% 45% I 38% 26% y
G A small lake suitable for
R.
N swimming and boating 56% 45°% 45% 47% 41 °i° 47% 44% 47% 52% 45% 46% 45% 47% 52%
z
0
0
N
O
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Report of Results (2007-11-08)
Are you or any
other
Do any Do any Do any members of
children under children ages teenagers your
Please rate how age 5 live in 5 to 12 live in ages 13 to 17 household Language in which
important it is that each your your live in your aged 65 or questionnaire was
of the following be household? household? household? older? Annual household income completed
developed at Valmont less $25,000 $50,000
City Park or elsewhere in than to to S100 000
Boulder.* yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
An indoor ice arena 34% 29% 32% 29% 31% 29% 35% 29% 24% 27% 32% 32% 29% 4%
An indoor/outdoor tennis
complex 25% 31% 29% 30% 37% 30% 27% 31% 31% 32% 29% 31% 30% 47%
An indoor
basketball/volleyball center 26% 33% 27% 33% 39% 31 % 35% 32% 38% 36% 30% 29% 32% 39%
Lighted youth
baseball/softball fields 26% 29% 26% 28% 36% 28% 42% 27% 30% 29% 25% 29% 28% 45%
A lighted artificial turf field 29% 36% 32% 36% I 35% 35% I 34% 35% I 39% 37% 32% 36% I 35% 39%
Multi-purpose fields I 53% 52% I 53% 52% 52% 52% I 51% 52% 54% 52% 51% 54% I 52% 60%
An indoor performing arts
center 19% 38% 26% 38% 31% 37% 36% 36% 45% 37% 36% 32% 36% 15%
"Pemen; rating ns "essential" or "rri} important"
D
Q
3=
i~
a#
c
`v
c
V
s
u
`m
d ~
D ~
i'R
i ~
o
0
N
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Re ort of Results {2007-1 1-08) ~
AGENDA STEM - _ , SAGE
What is your Do you live within the
Age of respondent gender? Rent or own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
On the north side of the park, A detached Multi-family
which would you prefer to see 18.34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
developed? years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
an 18 hole disc golf course 34% 25% 34% 26% 36% 27% 35% 27% 34% 32°io 21% 23%
bike trails and facilities that include
a bike skills park, a BMX track, and
a mountain bike trail system 66% 75% 66% 74% 64% 73% 65% 73% 66% 68°'° 79% 77%
Total I 100% 100% 100% I 100% 100% 1100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100°% 100% 100%
Do any Are you or any
Do any children Do any children teenagers ages other members
under age 5 live ages 5 to 12 live 13 to 17 live in of your Language in which
On the north in your in your your household aged questionnaire was
side of the park, household? household? household? 65 or older? Annual household income completed
which would you less $25,000 $50,000
prefer to see than to to $100,000
developed? yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 S49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
an 18 hole disc
golf course 24% 32°'° 18% 33% 24% 32% 36% 31% 42% 31% 32°'° 24% 30% 69%
v bike trails and
Z facilities that
p include a bike
~ skills park, a BMX
~ track, and a
~ mountain bike trail
~ system 76% 68% 82% 67% 76% 68% 64% 69% 58% 69% 68% 76% 70% 31
L
~ Total I 100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100°0 100% I 100% 100%
s
y
y
c
~ ~
O
rfT
Z
0
N
r °
Valmont Ciiy Park Resident Survey: Report of Results (2007-11-08)
What is your Do you live within the
Age of respondent gender? Rent or own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
On the southwest portion of A detached Multi-family
the park, which would you 18-34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
prefer to see developed? years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
the existing multi-purpose field,
an additional lighted field, and a
dog park 76% 84% 89% 85°~0 77% 85% 76% 84% 79% 80% 85% 93%
an 18 hole disc golf course I 24% 16% 11 % I 15% 23% 15% 24% I 16% 21 % I 20% 15% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100%
Do any Are you or any
On the Do any children Do any children teenagers ages other members
southwest under age 5 live ages 5 to 12 live 13 to 17 live in of your Language in which
portion of the in your in your your household aged questionnaire was
park, which household? household? household? 65 or older? Annual household income completed
would you less $25,000 $50,000
prefer to see than to to $100,OOD
developed? yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
q the existing multi-
~ purpose field, an
additional lighted
~ field, and a dog
~ park 89% 80% 93% 79% 88% 80% 86% 80% 82% 81% 77% 84% 81% 63%
~ an 18 hole disc
~ golf course 11% 20% 7% 21% 12% 20% 14% 20% 18% 19% 23% 16% 19% 37%
Total I 100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
C
I„ U
u
i°
rn
C
O
Z
0
0
N
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Report of Results (2007-1 1-08) o
What is your Do you live within the
Age of respondent gender? Rent or own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
On the southeast portion of the A detached Multi-family
park, which would you prefer to 16-34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
see developed? years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
6 lighted youth baseball/softball
fields 11% 15% 28% 13% 17% 16% 14% 16% 15% 14% 20% 25%
4 soccer/multipurpose fields I 42% 36% 33% I 32% 44% I 35% 41 % I 34% 40% 39% 29% 54%
an outdoor water park 47% 49% 39% I 55% 39% I 49% 45% I 50% 45% 47% 50% 21
Total I 100% 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Do any Do any Do any Are you or any
children under children ages 5 teenagers ages other members
age 5 live in to 12 live in 13 to 17 live in of your Language in which
On the southeast your your your household aged questionnaire was
portion of the park, household? household? household? 65 or older? Annual household income completed
which would you less $25,000 $50,000
prefer to see than to to $100,000
developed? yes no yes no yes no yes no $25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
~ 6 lighted youth
~ baseball/softball fields 6% 16% 9% 16% 21% 15% 26% 14% 19% 16% 11% 14% 15% 27%
4 soccer/multipurpose
~ fields 20% 40% 25% 40% 29% 39% 28% 39% 38% 35% 46% 33% 38% 13%
*t an outdoor water park I 74% 43% I 66% 44°!° I 50% 46% I 46% 47% I 43% 49% 43% 53% I 47% 59%
Total I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% I 100% 100% I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
l`~
U
A L
i
y l [p
T y
0
I~
Z
0
0
N
C~
Valrnont Cit Park Resident Survey: Report o(Results (2007-11-08)
What is your Rent or Do you live within the
Which TWO of the following options would you Age of respondent gender? own Type of housing unit Boulder city limits?
most prefer to see developed in Valmont City A detached Multi-family
Park? 18-34 35-54 55 or single family housing or not
(Please check up to 2 options only.)* years years older Female Male own rent home mobile home yes no sure
an indoorloutdoor tennis complex suitable for
tournament play (5 indoor and 7 outdoor courts) 30% 24% 21 % 26% 26% 26% 26% 27% 25% 26% 23% 22%
an indoor performing arts center with seating
capacity of 800-1,000 (with dance rooms, a gallery
for visual arts, and a stage) 40% 36% 41°ro 45% 34% 40% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 42%
an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for
tournament play and community events
(configured for 6 full-sized basketball or 12
volleyball courts and suitable for concerts,
community/sporting events) 37% 32% 35% 29% 40% 30% 39% 35% 34% 35°ro 39°~0 24%
an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25
yard pool, separate dive pool/warm-up pool and
spectator seating 30% 28% 28% 32% 27% 27% 31% 27% 31% 30% 3D% 11%
an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth
hockey and general skating) 39% 36% 38% 42% 34% 37% 39% 39% 37% 39% 33°~b 38%
none of the above I 7% 14% 12% I 7% 12% 113% 7% I 9% 11 % I 9% 13% 32%
' 1'otnl rnny exceed 100% as respondents could choose up to two options
m
z
n
m
V
L
U
R
d
UP y
K
ti
C
r o
f~
0
0
N
Valmont City Park Resident Survey: Report of Results !2007-1 1-081 _ E
Are you or
any other
Do any Do any Do any members of
children children ages teenagers your
Which TWO of the following under age 5 5 to 12 live in ages 13 to 17 household Language in which
options would you most live in your your live in your aged 65 or questionnaire was
prefer to see developed in household? household? household? older? Annual household income completed
Valmont City Park? less $25,000 $50,000
(Please check up to 2 than to to $100,000
options only.)' yes no yes no yes no yes no S25,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more English Spanish
an indoor/outdoor tennis
complex suitable for
tournament play (5 indoor and
7 outdoor courts) 24°% 27% 23% 27% 27% 26% 20% 27% 27% 26% 24% 29% 26°I° 26°!°
an indoor performing arts
center with seating capacity
of 800-1,000 (with dance
rooms, a gallery for visual
arts, and a stage) 29% 40% 35% 40% 35% 40% 42% 39% 39% 47% 40% 32% 39°/° 34%
an indoor basketball/volleyball
L'
center suitable for tournament
~ play and community events
(configured for 6 full-sized
basketball or 12 volleyball
courts and suitable for
~ concerts, community/sporting
events) 34% 35% 28°% 35% 32% 35% 35% 35°ia 42% 31 % 35% 33°~° 35% 40%
an indoor aquatic facility with
a 50 meter by 25 yard pool,
separate dive pool/warm-up
pool and spectator seating 34% 28% 36°/° 28% 37% 28% 30% 29°% 28% 32% 26% 30% 29% 43%
~ an indoor ice arena (suitable ~
s
im for adulUyouth hockey and
general skating) 44% 38% 42% 38% 36% 39% 36% 39°b 45°/° 30% 40% 40% 38% 44°%
~ none of the above I 15°'° 9% I 14°0 9% 10% 10°% 14% 9% I 6% 10% 10% 12% 10% 0°%
'Tovil nuiv rxa•rd l00'% us rzspnndznts eotdd ihoos,~ up to tiro °p~iuns ~
Z
O
O
N
V ilm~>nt City Park K~~sid~nt Survey: R eporl of Results (2007-11-~8)
Appendix C: Survey Methodology
Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire was crafted by the Valmont City Park Project Team (comprised of city staff
and consultants) and National Research Center, Inc. The questions were designed to solicit
survey recipients' preferences for planning the Valmont City Park.
Sample Selection
A USPS address list was used to select the sample of households. Approximately 3,000
households within the Boulder Valley (zipcodes 80301 to 80305) were selected to participate
in the survey using a srtatified, systematic sampling method. (Systematic sampling is a method
that closely approximates random sampling by selecting every Nth address until the desired
number of households are chosen.)
Attached (multi-family) housing units were oversampled to compensate for detached (single-
family) housing unit residents' tendency to return surveys at a higher rate. Additionally,
younger people, people of lower socioeconomic status and those who rent their housing
respond at a lower rate than older people, people of higher socioeconomic status and those
who own their housing. Many of these variables are intercortelated (e.g., younger people are
more likely to rent than older people), so by oversampling the multi-family housing, it
increases the chances of receiving surveys from those who live in this type of housing.
An individual within each household was randomly selected to complete the survey using the
birthday method. (The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the
"person whose birthday has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire. The
underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way
people respond to surveys.)
SurveyAdministration and Response Rate
Households received three mailings each beginning in August 2007. Completed surveys were
collected over the following six weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard
announcing the upcoming survey. A week after the prenotification postcard was sent the first
wave of the survey was sent. The second wave was sent one week after the first. The survey
mailings contained both an English and Spanish version of the questionnaire and cover letter,
as well as a postage-paid envelope for returning the survey. The cover letter, signed by the
director of Parks and Recreation, invited the household to participate in the survey. On the
second wave survey, the cover letter instructed those who had already completed the survey not
to do so again while inviting those who had not yet participated to do so.
V
C
About 7% of the surveys were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal
service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,796 households to which
surveys were delivered, 879 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 31%. This is a
good response rate; typical response rates for a mailed resident survey range from 25% to 40%. v
0
q
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont Cit Park Resident Surve : Re ort o/Results Q007-11-OS)
4GENDA ITEM , ~AGE~
Confidence Intervals
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of
confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no
greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the
entire sample (879 completed surveys). Where estimates are given for sub groups, they are less
precise. Generally the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus five percentage points for
samples of about 400 to 10 percentage points for samples as small as 100.
Data Entry, Data Weighting and Data Analysis
Completed questionnaires were checked for accuracy by the staff of National Research Center,
Inc. and assigned a unique identification number. For example, a question may have asked a
respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff
would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset.
All surveys were then entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data
entry protocol of "key and verify," in which survey data are entered twice into an electronic
dataset and then compared. Discrepancies are evaluated against the original survey form and
corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control are also performed. The
dataset was then imported for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS).
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the
2000 Census estimates and other population norms for the City of Boulder and were
statistically adjusted to reflect the larger population when necessary.l Survey results were
weighted by sex, age and housing tenure. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in
Table 1 on the next page.
' M example of how weighting works maybe helpful. Hypothetically, suppose the population norm for gender was 50%/50% but
70% of the surreys received were from females and 30%were from males. The weights applied to make the sample representative of
the population would be 0.7143 females (thereby giving each response less weigh[ in the overall ratings) and 1.6667 for males
(giving eadr response more weight m~em1D. IE it is further supposed drat these two groups had very different ratings of the
importance of a recreation center; with a much greater proportion of females feeling a recreation center was importan[
(hypotherically, that 80% of females felt it was "essential" or "very importan[" than males (hypothetically, 40%). Since in this
scenario [here are more responses from females, if the results were NOT weighted, a recreation center would be deemed more
important than if [he data were weighted. The unweighted percent rating a new recreation center as at least very important would
be 68% (80x70%+40x30%), while the weighted percent would be 60% (80x50%+40x50%). o
a
c
v
Percent In Percent in Unwelghted WelgMed s
Characteristic Population Sample Weight Rating otlmportance Rating otlmportance
A
Females 50% 70°~ 0.7143 (50%e70%) 80% x70%=56% 80% x70%x0.7143
z
Males 50 % 30 % 1.6667 (50 %+30%) 40 % x 30 % =12 % 40 % x 30 % x 1.6667 A
c
q
TOTAL 100% 100% 68% 60%
z
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[y Park Resident Surve : Re ort of Results (2007-11-OS) a
AGENDA ITEM # , +'AGE
Table 1: Weighting the Valmont City Park Resident Survey
Characteristic Population Norm* Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing Tenure
Own home 50% 69% 50%
Rent home 50% 31% 50%
Type of Housing
Detached unit 44% 57% 43%
Attached unit 56% 43% 57%
Age
18-34 years of age 50% 26% 50%
35-54 years of age 33% 38% 33%
55+ years of age 17% 36% 17%
Gender
Female 48% 57% 48%
Male 52% 43% 52%
'Source: 2000 Ceruus
For the most part, frequency distributions and mean ratings are presented in the body of the
report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix A:
Responses to Survey Questions.
Also included are results by demographic characteristics (Appendix B: Responses to Selected Survey
Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied
to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A "p•value" of 0.05 or less indicates that
there was less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups were due to
chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the
selected categories of the sample represented "real" differences among those populations.
Where differences between subgroups were statistically significant, they were marked with grey
shading in the appendices.
V
C
N
C
N
V
L
V
R
a
a
N
C
O
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve : Re ort o(Resul[s (2007-11-OS)
AGENDA ITEM # , i~gGE 3~
Appendix D: Survey Materials
The following pages contain a copy of the first wave cover letter and the questionnaire.
V
C
N
C
N
V
t
u
ro
v
a
ro
c
0
q
Z
ti
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Resident Surve : Re ort o/Results (2007-17-08) e
4GENDA ITEM ~ _ ,PAGE 3 Z
Dear Boulder Valley resident, db`r8q"r"
The city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department wants your opinion about what facilities
and amenities should be built at the Valmont City Park - a 132 acre park in eastern Boulder, between
Valmont Road and Pearl Parkway, east of Foothills Parkway. We invite your household to participate in
this important survey.
To get a representative sample of Boulder Valley residents, this questionnaire should be completed by the
adult in your household who most recently had a birthday (anyone 18 years or older). That person's yeaz of
birth does not matter, as long as he or she is 18 or older.
Please have the appropriate member of your household take a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the
survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous; none of your
answers can be linked to who you are. Responses will be reported in group form only.
Your participation in this survey is very important -especially since your household is one of only a small number of
households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the survey, please call Sarah DeSouza at 303-413-7205.
Some additional background information about Valmont Ciry Park is provided below. Thank you fox taking the time
to provide us with your thoughts!
Sincerely yours,
Jan Zieden, PRP, Director, Boulder Park.r and Flecrxation Department
BACgGROUND
For several years, we have worked with the community to prepare a 10-year master plan for parks and recreation.
Public input indicated that it was time to revisit the concept plan for Valmont City Paxk. The original concept plan was
completed in 1998. From it, a multipurpose field, greenway trails, soft surface trails, a temporary dog park and an
irrigation pond were built. While the majority of the property is still undeveloped, it has become amuch-used
destination. Now it is time to think about the future of the rest of the park.
THREE OPTIONS TO CONSIDER
Over the past several months, a wide variety of recreation groups have been interviewed. We have been working with
a citizen advisory group to develop three different options for the park. All of the options include playgrounds, picnic
and seating areas, a dog park, and the existing multipurpose playing field. The options differ in the types of other
recreational facilities [o be developed. With the limited amount of park land remaining, not all the recreational facility
needs of the community can be fulfilled at Valmont City Park.
As you review each of the three options on the following pages, you'll see a variety of recreation uses based on the
extensive public input we have received. Uses at Valmont could include a mountain bike and BMX terrain park, an 18-
hole disc golf course, baseball/softball fields, addirional multipurpose fields, a tennis complex, an outdoor water park,
an outdoor amphitheater and/or a large indoor recreation facility. There are several potential uses fox an indoor
recreation facility, including a performing arts center that could be used for dance programs, volleyball and basketball
courts, or pools.
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS
There currently is no city funding available to complete the build-out of the Valmont City Park. In 1995, voters
approved a 0.25 cent sales tax increase to provide funding to buy the land for the park, but not to develop ox provide
ongoing maintenance for it. Due to a reduced level of funding, the Parks and Recreation Department is currently
operating parks and facilities at a level below desired standards and there axe still many recreation needs not being met.
Completing Valmont Ciry Park will, however, meet some unmet needs and your help in crafting a community vision
for the park is greatly appreciated. The department intends to explore a variety of options fox building the park -
fxom phased development, to potential new funding including new sales taxes or the creation of a parks and recreation
district, to partnering with private and non-profit organizations for development and operation of facilities.
NEXT STEPS
The results of this survey will be used to develop a draft plan to present to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
and City Council for review and feedback in November 2007. We anticipate presenting the plan to Ciry Council fox
approval in early 2008. Information will be available on the department's website at www.Valmontplan.org.
A ITEM # , i~AG 33
1
- &KE - I LEGEND
TRAILS
PNRFMmnowe ,..•rn~.c a; .cr
~ ,r i ~ d.A Gc
OPTION 1 PICNIC AREA fsT _ P~NrG • .
GROUPbHELTER ~ Ea~sr,
• _ i uutrr USF CG31Rrpc-.4 ins.
w,ntrY rwp. ~ w
v 'MOUNTAIN 61KE _ _
-Gntlaa AND BMX S~NGLETRACAI MOVNIAIY RI•.r
~FO7G; TERRAIN PARK P<'x=srquN4NLr rRAIE
MounMM Ocean {/~f~. caEeKS ANO drerEs
PLAYGROUND BNMYny 'r'" ~ - Q + ,1YUSCAPE ENNM/CL4t'.'
I..ntlna W.,ti..l
P~a~~~ ` ~ ~ i . SnYG VEd:TATIOY
IAM.rpAAA _-~w-"1_, ~ Q S,;grAf,F D4RKIN.
FTo VALMONT ROAD-~~-r.e..rw. cFUny unw,P...
Parkway I - _ i ~'RO11eY I ~ NEIGHBORHOOD
OOC ~ Nouae . -1~8d'yy~ • 1 COMMERCUL
PARK Ili4ri~ l.~ - l~-~ CENTER
If lACll[fl [T~
~Iv EXISTRIG a vouTH soFTBAw U~ ~
~ ~ MULTI- I Z NIGN SCHOOL IITTL~ EAGUE PLAYGROUND
PURPOSE IF BASEBALL FIELpb
FIELD ~ ~ .onrEa
ARTIFICAL; Cam.
TURF r~~ ~y
FIELD ! O Q" 0,''
OlD PEARL STREET PK:NIC ARE ~ ' ~ 1
WITH GROUP bHELTER Q '
COVERED OUTDOOR G ~ ~ -
COMMUNITI' ?U1ZA
PLAYGROUND ICE RINK
INDOOR RECREATION
\ rte,.. FACILITY
~.11P~ rwwrn
Q`PPP 7 ~,N 1N ~
Q~P
y;.,,l•=IN' NORTH
1 r
g l /t-MOLE ~ L E G E N D
DISC GOLF -~~:x /
COURSE ~""ti. l '~J r,,:'ss,w ur ruEA•e:~Ea~~_v
PYaN FarnNpuae ar++< u _ rT
I~.n.;,rea.Yc
OPTION 2 r~~~' I]INDDOII,
OUTDOOR P'cY~AREA
^•~J:-- I• TENNK ~ FxiS'~NG OREENYMY 7RAl
MOUNTAIN BMEE I ! CO~UR~T6 uv~r~vaE COAAOOA IwrtlArbas
ANO BMx ~ .~fr waa acYwq..Atl ro..rgl
TERRAW PARK ~ E.wwy I SINCi.LrRAGCIp1eITAN etl(E TRAIL
,~1ACMfr C f^a.aaP I,
kk9NIIl1ln aeYE PPnO~ - ~ Pf.h SrRIAM-0IIY TRAI
OUTDOOR BVRdIIp I - - CRlEKS ANO diCMEa
w.salltlMMwr t.
AMPHITHEATER , - ` , ArrsuPE ENNANCEYENT
P.atlo:tlnCysrq ART PLAZA 1 , Rona e r ~ • ~vr. vE eE rwr~oN
u.w,Pq.lEal OVERTOOK -.J ( ~ Nau+e Q
L. _ _ 5.1„F: ~ ..cKrY ;
~To VALMONT O }-iParanlAn [rrr•,p une..a.u
fa~afAWl ` .~.a.
ROH^M0Y ~ ~•C i INDOOR RECREATION
[ ~A~ILTTr
DOG t o Ir• ~11 ~ { ~ fo ,
uP~c.~e,l r - ~ { 6ARDEW RE
PICNIC AREA ( ~ ~ COMMUNITr
w16ROUP J , - 0 PLAZA
SHELTER ~ i EMULT/IG 7~l! ~~~'My~'~ ~r 'M~~ -...5 I PLAYGROUND
PURPOSE E T OUTDOOR WATER PARK I wW GROUP $NELTER
/~A':® FIELD Could MCLUM: 1
• wafaraaa>•tl
PLArGROUND ~ ~ ` - waHr Pryo.oErra • :
wl 6ROUP~ ` ~ F' • - - ~ I NIGN SCHOOL
SHELTER ~ GASES
CCER LDW ~ I -
OID PEARL STREET \ CAMBK.RY
. \ A.Oerml yl ~ i
PK:WC AREA PICNC AREA
~f
\
Q E //P~
0 iW 'M
br> =1N' NOATN
=AGENDA ITEM #~f~ ,
~AGEITEM
3~
3. Facilities from the various options can be "mixed and matched"; however, there are essentially three
large portions of land within the park site: the north side of the park (north of Valmont Road), the
southwest part of the park (south of Valmont Road, west of Wonderland Creek) and the southeast part of
the park (south of Valmont Road, east of Wonderland Creek). Some types of facilities can only be placed
in one part of the park due to their size or to the nature of the terrain. Not all facilities listed will fit on the
available land. For each portion of the park mentioned in the questions below, please check which you
would prefer. (Please refer to the maps on pages 2 and 3.)
On the north side of the park, which would you prefer to see developed?
(Please check one option only.)
? an 18 hole disc golf course
OR
? bike trails and facilities that include a bike skills park, a BMX track, and a mountain bike trail system
4. On the southwest portion of the park, which would you prefer to see developed:
(Please check one option only.)
? the existing mold-purpose field, an additional lighted field, and a dog park
OR
? an 18 hole disc golf course
5. On the southeast portion of the park, which would you prefer to see developed:
(Please check one option only.)
? 6 lighted youth baseball/softball fields (4 for little league, 2 for legion ox high school age)
OR
? 4 soccer/multipurpose fields (1 lighted and with artificial mx~
OR
? an outdoor water park
6. If it were determined to be appropriate to build indoor recreation facilities in Valmont City Park, the
park could accommodate up to two such facilities.
Which TWO of the following options would you most prefer to see developed in Valmont City Park?
(Please check up to 2 options only.)
? an indoor/outdoor tennis complex suitable for tournament play (5 indoor and 7 outdoor courts)
OR
? an indoor performing arts center with seating capacity of 800-1,000 (with dance rooms, a gallery for visual
arts, and a stage)
OR
? an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for tournament play and community events (configured for
6 full-sized basketball or 12 volleyball courts and suitable fox concerts, community/sporting events)
OR
? an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25 yard pool, separate dive pool/warm-up pool and spectator
seating
OR
? an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth hockey and general skating)
OR
? none of the above
Valmont City Park Survey (tier. 2007-08-17)
AGENDA ITEM # _ pA(;F fir,
7. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the future of Valmont City Park?
About You and Your Household
yes no
8. Do any children under age 5 15. Do you live within Boulder city limits?
live in your household? ? ? ? yes
9. Do any children ages 5 to 12 ? no
live in your household? ? ? ? not sure
10. Do any teenagers ages 13 to 17
live in your household? ? ? 16. How much do you anticipate your household's
11. Are you or any other members total income before taxes will be for 2007?
of your household aged 65 or (Please include income from all sources for all
older? ? ? persons living in your household.)
? less than $14,999 ? $50,000 to $74,999
12. About how long have you lived in ? $15,000 to $24,999 ? $75,000 to $99,999
Boulder? (Record 0 if six months or less)..... dean' ? $25,000 to $34,999 ? $100,000 to $149,999
13. Do you rent or own your residence? ? $35,000 to $49,999 ? $150,000 or more
? Rent
? Own 17. In which category is your age?
? 18-24 years ? 45-54 years
14. Please check the one box which most closely ? 25-34 years ? 55-64 years
describes the type of housing unit you live in. ? 35-44 years ? 65 years or older
? A detached single family home
? An apartment in an apartment complex 18. What is your gender?
? An apartment in a single family home ? Female
? A condominium or town house ? Male
? A mobIle home
? Other, please specify
Thank you!
The city of Boulder greatly appreciates your responses! Please return the survey in the enclosed business reply
envelope to the independent organization analyzing the results at:
National Research Centex, Inc.
3005 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
[~nlnrout Cil~~ Park .Snrue)~ (oer. 290 %-08-1
AGENDA ITEM # . T~AGE_~
Attachment B
Categorized Responses from the Web and the Open-House
A brief survey about Valmont City Park was distributed to participants in the Open Houses. A
similar survey was posted on the Parks and Recreation Department's website to which anybody
could respond. Two of the questions included on these feedback forms solicited written
comments from respondents. These responses were examined and classified into categories.
Many comments contained multiple suggestions or statements, and thus could be classified
into more than one category. The feedback form questions were similar to questions that had
been included on the Valmont City Park Resident Survey, thus comparisons are made to
survey responses.
Two of the questions included on the feedback form were "closed-ended" type questions, in
which respondents given a list of amenities and asked to choose the two they would prefer.
One of these questions was similar to a question asked on the resident survey, so a comparison
could be made to resident survey results.
When asked which large outdoor facilities they would prefer, those responding to the feedback
form at the Open House or via the web rated a cycling complex as their top preference (34%
and 47%, respectively, see Figure 1). The second most popular option for Open House
respondents was an outdoor water park, while the second most popular option for web
respondents was a flat grass area.
Figure 1: Preference for Large Outdoor Facility
Given a choice, which large outdoor facility would you prefer? Percent of Respondents*
(choose 2) Open House Web
a cycling complex, including single track mountain bike trails, BMX
and cyclo-cross courses 34.1% 47.2%
an outdoor water park, including water play areas, lazy river, and
slides 24.9% 22.8%
flat grass suitable for field sports like soccer, lacrosse, rugby, ultimate
Frisbee 21.4% 30.4%
a small lake suitable for swimming and boating 17.3% 20.7%
an 18 hole disc golf course 16.2% 20.3%
youth baseball and softball fields 9.2% 6.9%
none of the above 10.4% 8.0%
` Percents add to more tMn 100% as respondents' rould give more than one answer.
u
c
v
c
v
U
S
V
A
a
v
c
0
Z
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Commen[ Re or[ (2007-11-14) _ °
AGENDA ITEM # 1~~_., PAGE ~q
Those completing the feedback form were asked which type of indoor facility they would
prefer. The top 3 choices of those responding at the Open House were a tennis complex
(35%), an indoor aquatic facility (27%) and an indoor ice arena (20%). The top 3 choices of
those responding via the web were an indoor aquatic facility (44%), an indoor ice arena (27%)
and a tennis complex (26%). A similar question was asked on the resident survey. Among
survey respondents, the top 3 choices were an indoor performing arts center (39%), an indoor
ice arena (38%) and an indoor events center (35%).
Figure 2: Preference for large Indoor Facility
Given a choice, which large indoor facility would Percent of Respondents*
you prefer? (choose 2)**
Which TWO of the following options would you
most prefer to see developed in Valmont City Park?
(Please check up to 2 options only.)*** Open House Web Survey
an indoor/outdoor tennis complex suitable for
tournament plan (S indoor, 7 outdoor) 34.7% 25.7°/ 26%
an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25 yard
pool, separate dive pool/warm-up pool and spectator
seating 26.6% 44.4% 29%
an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth hockey
and general skating) 20.2% 26.7% 38%
an indoor performing arts center with seating capacity
of 800-1,000 (with dance rooms, a gallery for visual
arts, and a stage 15.6% 13.2% 39%
an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for
tournament play and community events (configured
for 6 full-sized basketball or 12 volleyball courts and
suitable for concerts, community/sporting events) 11.0% 15.5% 35%
none of the above 16.8% 15.7% 10%
"Percents add to more than 100% as respondents' could give more than one answer.
Open House and Web survey wording. ""`Survey wording.
V
C
N
C
L
V
s
`m
v
v
A
c
0
Z
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Comment Re ort (2007-11-14) _ Es
AGENDA ITEM PAGE.
When asked what they would most like to see at Valmont City Park, the top 3 suggestions
from Open House respondents were tennis facilities, fields and a dog park. For web
respondents, the top 3 choices were bicycling trails, a swimming pool or aquatics facility and a
BMX/cyclocross track. Comparisons are included to resident survey results in the figure below,
although the resident survey question was a slightly different one. While the feedback forms
asked respondents to write in their top three preferences, those completing the resident survey
were asked if there were other facilities they thought were important after being asked to rate
the importance of each of a list of 19 items. The top 3 facilities mentioned by survey
respondents included multi-use/running trails, agarden/arboretum and rock
climbing/bouldering facilities.
Figure 3: Preferences for Things to Include at Valmont City Park
What do you think are the three most important Percent of Respondents Who Made a Comment*
things to include at Valmont City Park?** Open House Web Survey
Support for tennis facilities 31.9% 20.0% 2.8%
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 22.7% 19.7% 2.2%
Support for dog park 17.8% S.5% 1.5%
Support for BMX/cyclocross track 16.0% 21.4% 4.9%
Support for skate park 11.7% 0.4% 7.0%
Support for bicycling trails/other options 11.7% 27.1 % 1.7%
Support for disc golf 11.7% 14.1% 1.7%
Support for ice rink 9.2% 6.9% 1.9%
Support for swimming pool or facility 8.6% 26.7% 3.0%
Support for water park 8.0% 4.0% 2.0%
Support for multi-uselrunning trails 5.5% 11.3% 10.2%
Support fornaturallands 4.9% 2.1% 2.3%
Support for handball 4.9% 0.0% 1.7%
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 4.9% 3.4% 0.5%
Support for performing arts center 4.3% 1.9% 6.2%
Support for NordicJcrosscountryskiingtrails 3.1% 13.9% 4.1%
Support for picnic/meeting areas 2.5% 4.0% 6.1
Support for playground or children's area 2.5% 5.3% 4.6%
Support for small lake 1.8% 3.8% 0.6°/
Support for indoor recreation center 1.2% 0.0% 3.4%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 1.2% 0.0% 1.7%
Support for multi-purposes over single-use purposes 1.2% 2.5% 0.0%
Support for velodrome 0.6°/ 1.1 % 5.1%
Opposition to dog park 0.6% 0.0% 1.7%
v
Opposition to golf course 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% v
V
Support for pottery lab 0.6% 0.2% 0.5%
Support for amenities that are needed or not
duplicative 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% ~
Opposition to tennis facilities 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% `o
g
z
S
N
Valmont Cit Park Comment Re ort (2007-71-14)
AGENDA ITEM #~~__-,PAGE
What do you think are the three most important Percent of Respondents Who Made a Comment*
things to include at Valmont City Park?** Open House Web Survey
Opposition to multi-use or specific sports fields 0.6% 0.4% 0.0%
Supportforgarden/arboretum 0.0% 0.8% 8.8%
Support rock climbing/bouldering facilities 0.0% 0.0% 7.5%
Supportforgolfcourse 0.0% 0.4% 2.8%
Opposition to disc golf 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
Opposition to ice rink 0.0% 0.0°/ 1.1%
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.0% 0.6% 0.7%
Negative comments about survey 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Opposition to water park 0.0% 0.6% 0.4%
Concerns about cost /taxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Opposition to multi-use/running [rails 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Opposition to swimming pool or facility 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Opposition to velodrome 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Opposition to bicyclingtrails/o[heroptions 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Other 18.4% 16.4% 24.8%
" Percents add to mare than 100 % as respondents' comments could cover more than one category.
"Survey wmments were in +esp°nse to the question "Any other facilities you would suggest? (in response to: Please rate how important it is that
each of the following be deoeloped at Valmont Ciry Park or ebewhere in Boulder.)"; Web and Open House comments were in response to the
question "What do you think are the three most important things to include at Valmont Ciry Park?"
V
C
d
C
W
V
L
V
A
W
N
N
C
O
Z
n
0
0
N
Valmont Ci[ Park Comment Re ort (2007-11-14) o
AGENDA ITEM YAGE l Z
The feedback forms and the resident survey included a final question that allowed respondents
to make any comment or suggestion they desired. The three most commonly given comments
by Open House participants were expressed support for tennis facilities (20%), support for disc
golf (13%) and support for fields (11%). Those responding via the web most commonly
expressed support for bicycling facilities (28%), support for BMX/cyclocross track (18%) and
support for tennis facilities (18%). Survey respondents who made comments most often stated
they would like to see multi-use or specific sports fields at the Park (11%), expressed support
for disc golf (9%), expressed support for bicycling facilities (8%) or expressed support for an ice
rink (8%).
Figure 4: Other Comments
Percent of Respondents Who Made a Comment*
Any other comments?** Open House Web Survey
Support for tennis facilities 19.6% 17.5% 4.3%
Support for disc golf 13.4% 13.5% 9.3%
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 10.7% 4.0°/ 11.4%
Support for BMX/cyclocross track 9.8% 17.5% 6.8%
Support for bicycling trails/other options 8.9% 27.9% 8.2%
Support for dog park 8.9% 0.8% 7.6%
Support for lighting at the park 8.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Opposition to water park 6.3% 1.6% 4.2%
Support for skate park 6.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Support for performing arts center 5.4% 0.0°/ 6.3%
Opposition to multi-use or specific sports fields 5.4% 3.2% 5.2%
Support for natural lands 4.5% 1.6% 5.9%
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 4.5% 4.0% 4.0%
Opposition to disc golf 4.S% 0.0% 3.4%
Support for multi-purposes over single-use purposes 4.5% 1.2% 2.1
Support for multi-use/running trails 3.6% 3.6% 6.4%
Opposition to swimming pool or facility 3.6% 1.2% 1.0%
Support for ice rink 2.7% 3.2% 8.2%
Support for indoor recreation center 2.7% 0.8% 2.6%
Opposition to small lake 2.7% 1.6% 0.1%
Opposition to indoor recreation center 2.7% 0.8% 0.0%
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 1.8% 7.6% 5.2%
Support for swimming pool or facility 1.8% 14.3% 3.3%
Support for garden/arboretum 1.8% 0.0% 3.1%
V
Opposition to dog park 1.8% 0.0% 2.6°/
v
Opposition to BMX/cyclocross track 1.8% 0.0% 0.9% v
V
Opposition to multi-use/running trails 1.8% 0.4% 0.0%
Support for amenities that are needed or not
a
duplicative 0.9% 4.8% 6.2% ~
A
Support for water park 0.9% 0.8% 5.2% `o_
z
0
0
N
Valmont City Park Comment Re ort (2007-11-14) °
AGENDA ITEM PAGE ! 3
Percent of Respondents Who Made a Comment*
Any other comments?** Open House Web Survey
Support for Nordic/cross-country skiing trails 0.9% 10.8% 4.9%
Opposition to golf course 0.9% 0.4% 2.8°/
Concerns about cos[/taxes 0.9% 0.0% 2.7%
Support for picnidmeeting areas 0.9°/° 0.4°/° 2.6%
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.9% 0.0% 1 7%
Support forvelodrome 0.9% 2.0% 1.0%
Opposition to neighborhood commercial center 0.9% 0.0% 0.5%
Support for pottery lab 0.9% 2.0% 0.0%
Opposition to bicycling trails/other options 0.0% 0.8% 3.6%
Positive comments about survey 0.0% 5.6% 3.3%
Support for playground or children's area 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%
Support for small lake 0.0% 1.2% 2.0%
Support rock climbing/bouldering facilities 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%
Opposition to tennis facilities 0.0% 0.8% 1.6%
Negative comments about survey 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
Negative comments about Parks and Recreation/City 0.0% 0.4% 1.2%
Positive comments about Parks and Recreation/City 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Support for golf course 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Opposition to ice rink 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Opposition to performing arts center 0.0% 0.8% 0.1
Other 24.1% 9.2°/ 28.6%
"Percents add to more then 100 % as respondents' comments could cover morz than one category.
""Survey romments were in response to the question "Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the future of Valmont Ciry P¢rk?";
Web and Open House comments were in response to the question "Any other comments?"
u
C
N
C
Y
V
L
U
N
N
L
K
N
C
O
q
Z
n
O
O
N
Valmont City Park Comment Re ort (2007-11-14) e
AGENDA ITEM ~ , pgGE~