5A - Motion to adopt and recommend that City Council accept the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 15, 2010
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to adopt the
Recreation Program and Facilities Plan and to further recommend that City Council
accept the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan
PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Abbie Poniatowski, Business and Finance Manager
Teri Olander, Recreation Administrator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this meeting is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to
review and adopt the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan (RPFP) and provide a
recommendation to City Council regarding acceptance of the plan.
The Recreation Program and Facilities Plan provides the City with a clear vision, purpose
and philosophy related to providing sustainable recreation services in Boulder that will
meet the community's needs. The plan establishes guiding principles for providing
recreation, defines program objectives for recreation services, creates a pricing policy and
methodology for determining fees, and identifies an implementation strategy for the
overall plan. The completion of the RPFP fulfills one of the recommendations from the
Department's Master Plan.
Comments and Plan Revisions from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board February
22, 2010 Public Hearing are included in Attachment A. The Recreation Program and
Facilities Plan and Appendices are included as Attachment B. The plan and appendices
can be found on the city's web site at www.bouldereolorado.gov
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the PRAB adopt the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan and to
further recommend acceptance to City Council.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 1
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's consideration of this matter and
action in the form of the following motion:
Motion to adopt the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan and to further recommend
acceptance to City Council.
CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
FEEDBACK:
In addition to receiving updates on plan development at monthly PRAB business
meetings, six study sessions devoted to the RPFP were held with the PRAB. The first
study session was held in February 2009 and background research, the internal SWOT
analysis, and the Program, Service and Facility Viability Assessment were discussed.
The second study session, held in April, focused on the results of the community survey
and the public open house. Those two study sessions represented the "inventory and
needs assessment" phase of the project. The third study session, held in June, discussed
the RPFP guiding principles, core programs, program classification and financial
sustainability. The fourth study session, held in September, reviewed feedback from the
public workshop and discussed a framework for recreation offerings, a draft program
delivery model and draft plan components. The fifth study session, held in November,
reviewed additional program and user information, updated information on pricing and
cost recovery and draft policies. The sixth study session, held in January 2010, reviewed
and discussed recreation program and service pricing and methodology, and solicited
comments on content of the Draft RPFP.
A study session with City Council was held in July 2009 to update council on the RPFP.
The key components of the study session were to discuss the Guiding Principles that were
developed for the plan, the Core Program Model, to determine pricing and cost recovery,
Program Classification and developing a long term financially sustainable approach for
providing recreation services, fund management flexibility, cost recovery and pricing
methodology.
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS:
Economic: The RPFP includes the guiding principle "Pursue a sustainable financial
model for recreation programs and facilities." It also includes recommendations specific
to fund management; pricing and fees; and events and tournaments to potentially increase
the department's contribution to the economic vitality of the City of Boulder.
Environmental: The RPFP contains recommendations that include using environmental
and best management practices in all areas of operations and maintenance.
Social: Social sustainability was an emphasis in the RPFP process and recommendations
in the plan. The recommendations recognize changing demographics in the community
and emphasize partnering with other groups on programs and facilities. Guiding
principles also include "Champion diversity" and "Ensure that youth are a priority."
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 2
OTHER IMPACTS:
Staff time: Implementation of the RPFP is part of the Department's normal work plan
and will be done over the five year time frame of the plan, with plan implementation
beginning in 2010.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
The value the community places on recreation services is integral to the Recreation
Program and Facilities Plan. Public input regarding community recreation values and
priorities was collected in 2009 and utilized in developing recommendations. Public
input will help determine the allocation of recreation resources during the next five years
and into the future.
The process engaged the community through outreach in a variety of formats including a
community survey, public meetings, feedback through recreation focus groups and public
forms posted on the City's website and available at City recreation facilities.
A Public Hearing on the RPFP was held at the February 22, 2010 Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board Meeting. (See Comments and Plan Revisions in Attachment A.)
ANALYSIS:
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, with involvement from the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), City Council, and the community, has
developed this Recreation Program and Facilities Plan (RPFP) to guide future decisions
related to program offerings, facility management, facility renovation and development,
and the allocation of available financial resources.
The Recreation Program and Facilities Plan provides the City with a clear vision, purpose
and philosophy related to providing sustainable recreation services in Boulder that will
meet the community's needs. The plan establishes guiding principles for providing
recreation, defines program objectives for recreation services, creates a pricing policy and
methodology for determining fees, and identifies an implementation strategy for the
overall plan. The completion of the RPFP fulfills one of the recommendations from the
Department's Master Plan.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will begin implementing recommendations in the plan. A study session with city
Council is scheduled for August 2010 to review the RPFP.
Approved By:
Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP
Parks and Recreation Director
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Comments and Plan Revisions
Attachment B-1: Recreation Program and Facilities Plan
Attachment B-2: Appendix A: City of Boulder 2009 Recreation Survey - Report of
Results
Attachment B-3: Appendix B: Inventory of Recreation Programs and Facilities
In the Community
Attachment B-4: Appendix C: City of Boulder Recreation Program Detail
Attachment B-5: Appendix D: New or Updated Master Plan Policies
Attachment B-6: Appendix E: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Program
Service and Facility Viability Assessment (March 2009)
Attachment B-7: Appendix F: Comprehensive List of Plan Recommendations
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT A
Comments and Plan Revisions
Revisions were made to the Draft RPFP based on comments made by PRAB members
prior to and at the public hearing on February 22, 2010. Staff response to the comments is
provided in italics.
Public Comments
1. There is no mention of the Pottery Lab in the Brief History of Boulder Recreation.
Pottery Lab information has been added to Brief History of'Boulder Recreation.
Page 16.
2. Facility costs are figured into Pottery programs, but not other programs.
Facility costs are included in all programs. RPFP revised for clarity. Page 41.
3. Net positives are not valued-like increasing revenue from sales and special
events.
Additional appropriations to the base budget are permitted twice annually. RPFP
revised for clarity. Page 40.
4. Pottery Lab budget drastically cut-no janitors, other facilities have janitors.
Staff submitted efficiency suggestions for the area they were responsible for.
Janitorial service was submitted by Pottery program staff
DRAB Questions/Comments
1. How will you figure out what the market will bear?
This information was clarified at the PRAB meeting and included in RPFP.
RPFP revised for clarity. Page 44-
2. Can 2009 data be included in the charts?
2009 charts and information have been included in RPFP. Page 6
3. Recreation in the Community chart - Social core and Business Core aren't
included in the new chart.
Recreation in the Community chart has been revised to include Social Core and
Business Core. Page 20.
4. Are facility costs included on all programs?
Facility costs are included in all programs. RPFP revised for clarity. Page 41.
5. Learn-to-swim is an important Life/Safety program. There used to be P grade
learn to swim program..
The 3Yd grade learn-to-swim partnership that used to exist between BVSD and the
Department is included as an example of Life%safety programs. Page 20.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE)
ATTACHMENT A
6. What are the mechanics for earmarking funds. If there were an earmarked gift or
proceeds from a fundraiser, do you have away to account for it to develop a park
or preserve a program?
Additional appropriations to the base budget are permitted twice annually. RPFP
revised for clarity. Page 40.
Gifts and proceeds from fundraisers can also be contributed to the Department
through the PLAYFoundation.
7. The Department needs to have one person follow life cycles of programs.
An existing recommendation regarding program oversight has been revised to
include oversight of life cycles ofprograms. Page 27.
8. Partnerships are a great idea, but are hard to implement--how will they be
managed? Do you have staff resources to make these happen? Use successful
partnerships as models.
Revisions have been made to RPFP to clam the staff-led partnership process.
Page 13.
9. The chart showing the life cycle of a program looks like all programs will
eventually die. Aren't some cyclic?
Revisions have been made to RPFP to clarify the importance oj'adjusting
program offerings based on awareness ofprogram lifecycles. Language was
added to illustrate the chart is an example of one program. Page 26
10. In reference to achieving 90% on-line registration: will there be other options for
registration?
Registration information was clarified at the PRAB meeting. Other forms of
registration will still be available, but the Department is encouraging on-line
registration.
11. Is there a possibility of using some of the Iris Gardens for parking at NBRC?
Parking is identified as a key need at NBRC, Information was provided at DRAB
to clarify that the Department is working toward a solution. for some additional
parking but there will still be a deficit.
12. After going through the pricing process, will there be an avenue for participants
and user groups to appeal their categorization and fees?
Information was provided at PRAB regarding decreasing tax-supported. funding
for the Department and the need for phasing adjustments to fees for programs.
Revisions were made to RPFP for clarity about Service-Based Pricing and
including market rate information. Page 44.
Pricing Goals will be used for consistency in determining price. Page 43.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE
ATTACHMENT A
13. Service-based pricing is still confusing. Will the rates and discounts be the same
for all groups?
Definitions of Recreation Programs have been revised in RPFP to clarify that
programs will be managed consistently within each category and discounts may
be available depending on category and contribution to the City.
Recommendation has been revised to include rentals in standardizing and
simplifying fees. Page 50.
14. Do you have to follow the New Facilities Development Criteria in order to build
something new?
Information was provided at the meeting that the Master Plan identifies the New
Facilities Development Criteria as the only way to develop a new facility.
Revisions were made to RPFP to clarify that this was identified in the Master
Plan. Page 36.
15. Request to include sidebar on sunsetting sales tax in the front of the chapter.
Sales Tax Sunsets and Reductions Sidebar placed near Recreation Funding at the
beginning of the Chapter. Page 40.
16. A recommendation indicates the Department will strive for 40-65% standard
personnel costs. What is the current percentage of standard personnel? Which
end of the range is the Department shooting for?
Information was provided at the meeting that the Department currently is
approximately 75% personnel costs. The Department is looking for efficiencies
throughout Programs, Facilities and Administration to identify cost savings
including standard personnel costs. It's likely that it will be a phased approach,
targeting 65% initially and reducing from there.
17. What would be the range of fee adjustments with an annual fee adjustment
mechanism?
Information was provided at the PRAB meeting that appropriate fees would need
to be charged, some phased, before implementing an annual fee mechanism. The
range has not been determined and will align with the Pricing Goals. Page 43.
The fee adjustment recommendation was revised for clarity. Page 50.
18. There should be a staff position to oversee partnerships.
Information was provided at the PRAB meeting to clarify the Department's
partnership process is staff-led currently.
Revisions have been made to RPFP to clarify the staff-led partnership process.
Page 13.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT A
19. Could there be two Senior Categories (62 and 70 years of age), or Revise Senior
Category to age 70 due to Boulder's active lifestyles and base discounts on need
instead?
There is a senior category recommendation that revises the age to 62 to be
consistent with Social Security. This is the first step toward need based discounts
and will be analyzed in the future.
20. The RPFP process is unclear. Why wait so long to go to City Council in August
after PRAB adoption in March? How will PRAB be notified of drastic changes
and eliminate programs? What happens after Council acceptance?
Information was provided at the PP-4B meeting to clarify that August was the
earliest availability for City Council Study Session. Many items in the RPFP will
be able to be implemented prior to City Council as they are workplan items. Input
from City Council will be solicited on topics that will affect the City of Boulder as
a whole and will be included in the RPFP implementation. PRAB will be updated
as needed on major program or facility changes.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE S
Attachment B-?
Recreation Programs
el*t' Plan
& Faci i ies
I
.4 ~t ' - - y `:rte
AMR
owl,
. ~ r J~~~,.~ 1. r~ r- 1•' ~ °rl Ask. - -
X X
LING
it
A ~f i~ ` t -fir?
art • `a~t~y~y . f1a~~c~ E\PANI) Fitness (,vmnistics • GcJtf. • Nia Pitates.
Spr~rts • Stvi~~rt~i+~~ . lehhi
s . yr~~a
www.Boulderfrks-Rec.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2009-2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members City Manager's Office
Chad Julian - Board Chair Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Frances Hartogh - Board Vice Chair Paul Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Todd Bryan
Marcelee Gralapp City Finance Office
Richard Thayer Bob Eichem, Director
Pete Webber Kathy McGuire, Budget Manager
Bob Yates Jim Reasor, Budget Analysis Manager
Parks and Recreation Staff
Kirk W. Kincannon, Director, CPRP
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Teri Olander, Recreation Administrator
Abbie Poniatowski, Business and Finance Manager
Sarah DeSouza, Policy and Information Services Manager
Paul Bousquet, Marketing Manager
Dean Rummel, Program Coordinator
Lenore Knox, Program Coordinator
Alison Rhodes, Facility Supervisor
Consultants
Carol Adams, StudioTerra, Inc.
Kathleen McCormick, Fountainhead Communications
Erin Caldwell, National Research Center
Special thanks to the Boulder community who generously gave their time and ideas during the planning process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Sidebars
Department Mission ................................1
City Managers
Summa 'Workgroup on
- - • - • • - • • • • • • • • • • •i Recreation Financing ng .
2
Chapter 1- Context for the Plan .........................................................................1 Public Input ............................................3
Chapter 2 - Recreation in the Community ................................................................10 The 2006 Parks and Recreation
Chapter 3 - Recreation Programs ........................................................................17 Master Plan 4
Chapter 4 -Recreation Facilities . . . . .......28 Blue Ribbon Commission I and II ............5
7
2009 on Division
Chapter 5 - Funding Challenges and Pricing .............................................................39 Recreation
Recreation . Plan Survey
The
Chapter 6 - Achieving Financial Sustainability ...........................................................51 y .._...........................8
Ke Priorities...
Additional Public and Private
Figures/Tables
Recreation Programs .....................10
2008 Recreation Division Funding Sources .................................................................5 Recreation Programs offered by Outside
2008 Recreation Division Funding Uses ....................................................................5 Organizations at City Facilities 11
2009 Recreation Division Funding Sources .................................................................6 Boulder Recreation Clearinghouse 12
2009 Recreation Division Funding Uses Parks and Recreation Facility and
Amenity Partnerships 13
Recommendations Chapter 1 • ...........................................................9 ners...........................14
Recommendations Chapter 2 Performance Sports
Recreation in the Community . ........20 A Brie
on of Parks and.................................... 16
Recreatf
Program Delivery Model ...............................................................................23 Successful Partnerships 17
Summary of Departmental Age Group Offerings ...........................................................24 City of Boulder Recreation Program
18
Program Life Cycle ....................................................................................26 Offerings
Recommendations Chapter 3 ............................................................................27 What is EXPAND ...................................19
Facility Use Chart ................33 What is the Youth Services
Initiative Recommendations Chapter 4 38 ......----................---.19
Scholarship Program ..............................21
Cost Recovery Types ...................................................................................45 LEER-Certified NBRC ............................29
Cost Recovery Goals ...................................................................................45 Valmont City Park Plan.......................... 30
Recreation Programs and Services Funding - Phase 1 .......................................................47 Events and Tournaments ........................34
Recommendations Chapter 5 ............................................................................50 Survey Responses on Allocating
Recreation Facility Time ................35
Recreation Programs and Services Funding -Phase 2 . . 52 Facilities Development
How Plans Relate . ......54 New es 36
Criteria
Recommendations Chapter 6 ............................................................................56 Facility Partnership with the Boulder
Mountainbike Alliance ..................37
Appendix Sales Tax Sunsets and Reductions 40
A 2009 Recreation Plan Survey Results Recreation Cost/Revenue Definitions.....41
B Inventory of Recreation Progams and Facilities in the Community Pricing Methods ....................................42
C City of Boulder Recreation Program Detail Program Classifications ..........................43
D New or Updated Master Plan Policies Support for Programs with
E Program Service and Viability Report Community Benefits 44
City of
F Comprehensive List of Plan Recommendations Boulder Cost Recovery
Philosophy ....................................48
ON M~
ilk
4)r
y _ •1 , i
_
r 1 f S~ _
LT
Context for the Plan ation trends), funding and community values re-
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation De- lated to recreation services. Key demographic
partment, with involvement from the Parks and trends and their implications are discussed in
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the com- Chapter One on pages 1-4. The Boulder cominu-
munity, has developed this Recreation Program nity is very active and places an exceptionally
and Facilities Plan (RPFP) to guide future deci- high value on fitness, wellness, recreational activi-
sions related to program offerings, facility man- ties, and the outdoors. These values were ex-
agement, facility renovation and development, pressed in the responses to the 2009 Recreation
and the allocation of available financial resources. Plan Survey (see Appendix A).
The completion of the RPFP is considered an in-
dustry "best practices" achievement. Guiding Principles
The RPFP provides current operational base- The Department developed the following
line and demographic data, identifies guiding guiding principles for the plan that will be used
principles, presents critical issues and trends in as a basis for decision making for recreation pro-
the community, establishes strategies for improv- grams, services, and facilities in the future. The
ing financing, outlines new and revised policies, principles [listed in alphabetical order] are a syn-
and makes specific recommendations for imple- thesis of responses from the 2009 Recreation Plan
menting the plan. Survey, various open houses, and website feed-
back; the Department's mission and community
Demographics and Community Values values identified in the Master Plan; and recom-
To prepare this plan, the department reviewed mendations from the City Manager's Work Group
the community's profile (demographic and recce- on Recreation Financing.
00 0 4141
go, 0
Guiding Principles ties are not used fully at certain times. At peak
• Champion diversity times in the recreation centers, the lap pools, fit-
• Contribute to personal health and wellness ness and weight rooms are at or near capacity,
• Ensure that youth are a priority and other rooms are used for classes. There are
• Maintain and protect our facilities and pro- some facility spaces, such as gymnasiums and
grams multipurpose rooms, where the demand exceeds
• Prioritize available subsidy to introductory availability at peak times. However, the facilities
level classes and programs are under-used during some off-peak times. A fa-
• Pursue a sustainable financial model for cility-use analysis showed the Department needs
recreation programs and facilities to create priorities for space, programs, and fund-
ing. The analysis showed the Department offers
Recreation Programs many of the same kinds of programs and classes,
The entire set of Department offerings (the and that class minimums often are not met. The
"Portfolio") will be viewed holistically, with Department will have to structure the use of facil-
central management oversight that ensures a ities so as to balance the need for revenue from
balanced set of programs and services is being programs and rentals to program partners with
offered to meet the needs and interests of the the community desire for drop-in (nonpro-
community and the Department's mission and fi- grammed) use.
.._r. nancial sustainability goals. Traditionally, the
community need and support has been for fitness, Financial Sustainability
aquatics, sports and gymnastics programs. New The RPFP lays the ground work for achieving
program proposals and current program evalua- a balanced and sustainable approach to providing
tions will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. The programs and facilities. It includes strategies that
portfolio will include Department programs that will help the Department make decisions and de-
are Department run or contracted, or programs velop a diverse and sustainable portfolio of recre-
offered by partners and rentals. ation programs and service offerings. Employing
the funding strategies listed below (see Chapter
Recreation Facilities Five, pages 39-50) will help the Department fill
To achieve economic sustainability goals, the gaps and make changes in programs, services,
Department will focus on maximizing use of its and facilities that add to achieving a sustainable
facilities. An initial analysis of facility hours indi- Department.
cates that the recreation centers and other facili-
• Continue work to define service costs and set A cost-recovery policy was developed to en-
fees that cover expenses. sure that subsidies, if any, are directed primarily
• Determine which recreation services should to social core programs. This policy provides a
be provided by the City and which should be systematic framework for determining appropri-
provided by others. ate fee structures and evaluating programs that
• Determine how best to provide defined serv- do not meet designated minimum cost-recovery
ices with available resources, including part- goals (see page 45).
nerships and/or contracting services. Based on the RPFP guiding principles, three
• Allocate resources (funding and staffing) ap- program types have been identified and will be
propriately within program areas. offered by the City: social core, business core, and
desirable programs. Funding for these programs -
The Department is anticipating that tax-sup- comes from tax supported funding, user fees, or
ported funding for the RAF will be reduced and other programs. Currently, many desirable pro-
potentially eliminated. Through strategic program grams do not meet the new cost recovery goal. - _ ;
delivery, sustainable fund management, and During the next 1-2 years, the department will im- T -
leveraging resources through partnerships, the plement actions such as reducing costs, raising F -
Department can meet these reductions effectively. fees and /or seeking outside funding in order to
Strategies for achieving self-sustainability are as meet the cost recovery goal. Ultimately, all De-
follows: partment programs will fall into either the social
• Use a standard pricing method to calculate core or business core categories. The additional
and analyze the total cost of service consis- revenues generated by the majority of the pro-
tently for all recreation programs, services, grams will be channeled into subsidies for social
and facilities. core programs and into a capital fund that will
• Apply an appropriate amount of indirect fund renovation, replacement and capital con-
costs to user fees- struction.
• Reinvest in recreation infrastructure, follow-
ing industry standards, by establishing a fa- Key Recommendations
cility investment fee in the pricing structure. Key recommendations from the plan are listed
• Assign percentage of City cost allocations and below. A comprehensive list of all the plan recom-
capital expenses that would need to be in- mendations is in Appendix R
eluded in the total cost of recreation, beyond The Department will review the RPFP annu-
operating costs. ally and update fully every five years. The
0* so 4W
iii
Program Service and Facility Viability Assess- Implementation/Next Steps
ti - h ment will also be updated annually. As a result of developing the RPFP, the Depart-
The Department will collaborate with other ment has already put some strategies into place
r agencies and organizations to share re-
for ensuring that available resources are allocated
♦ sources, including developing a clearing- to meet identified community needs and priori-
. r ~ +J.
house for recreation opportunities. ties. The Department will prioritize high leverage
The Department will pursue partnerships for recommendations and begin implementing them
4 programs and facilities. upon completion of this plan. It will be critically
. The Department will follow the Program De- important for the Department to move forward
livery Model (see Chapter 3, page 23) to de-
with action steps in the next 1-2 years to create a
termine which programs or services should sustainable model for recreation services.
be provided by the Department.
• The Department will develop and implement
a systematic and consistent approach to pro-
gram management and evaluation.
• The Department will create priorities for use
of facility space and work to increase facility
use and revenues.
• The Department will coordinate with other
departments and agencies to maximize the
benefits to the City economy from special
events.
• The Department will establish goals for man-
aging the Recreation Activity Fund (RAF).
• The Department will develop and implement
changes to pricing and fee structures based
on the need for the Recreation Division to be-
come self-sustaining.
• The Department will develop and implement
a marketing plan.
• The Department will complete or create busi-
ness plans for specific facilities and program j
areas.
r~ •
00
'rte iv ~ ~ ~ • ~ 40 i , v •
Y
~-l
tit
r1 ~l r r r~ ~J1 ~E r' I'r r F)
S
'k 46A..
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation De- the community, establishes strategies for improv-
ing financing, outlines new and revised policies, Department Mission
partment, with involvement from the Parks and The mission of the City of Boulder
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the com- and makes specific recommendations for imple-
munity, has developed this Recreation Program menting the plan. Parks and Recreation Department
and Facilities Plan (RPFP) to guide future deci- is to provide safe, clean, and
sions related to program offerings, facility man- Population, Demographics and beautiful parks and facilities and
agement, facility renovation and development, Social Issues high-quality leisure activities for
and the allocation of available financial resources. Population increases and demographic trends the community. These services
The completion of the RPFP is considered an in- shall enhance residents health
in the City and Boulder County will affect future
dustry "best practices" achievement, and is also a and well-being and promote eco-
planning for recreation programs, services, and nomic vitality for long-term com-
recommendation of the 2006 Parks and Recreation facilities. Some population and demographic
Master Plan and the 2008 City Manager's Work munity sustainability. We will
trends are not available for both the city of Boul- accomplish this through creative
Group on Recreation Financing. (See sidebar page der and Boulder County, but information that is g
2) leadership, environmentally sus-
sus-
available is included in this plan. These estimates
As a result of developing the RPFP, the De- are based on data from the City of Boulder and tainable practices, and the re-
partment has put strategies into place for ensur- growth projections from the Denver Regional sponsible use of available
ing available resources are allocated to meet Council of Governments. Sources include the resources.
identified community needs and priorities. The Community Foundation's Boulder County Trends
RPFP also lays the ground work for achieving a 2009; The Status of Children in Boulder County 2008;
balanced and sustainable approach to providing City of Boulder: A Demographic Profile (Department
programs and facilities. of Housing and Human Services, 2004); City of
The RPFP provides current operational base- Boulder Census 2000 (prepared by the Boulder
line and demographic data, identifies guiding Planning Department), Boulder County, the Den-
principles, presents critical issues and trends in ver Regional Council of Governments; the U.S.
City Manager's Work Group on Census Bureau; and the U.S. Department of Hous- Boulder County
Recreation Financing ing and Urban Development. The increased demand from Boulder County's
Fol lowing the adoption of the population growth from 2009 to 2030 will likely
2006 Parks and Recreation Master City of Boulder have an impact on the City's recreational re-
Plan, the City Manager appointed Projected increases in population from 103,650 sources. This is due to the amount of nonresident
a group of community members to in 2009 to 130,000 by 2030, will increase demands use that makes up approximately 30 percent of
make recommendations regarding on facility and program use by up to 30%. This the facility and program attendance of the Depart-
pricing policy and methodology to growth is predicted within current City Limits ment.
provide a framework for the long- (Area 1) and in future Area II (Gunbarrel) sections. In 2008, 12 percent of Boulder County resi-
term sustainability of the City's Within the City, the median age, minus the dents were over age 60. By 2020, an estimated 21
university student population, is expected to peak percent of the County's population will be over
recreation programs. The work at age 51 by the year 2030. An increase in active 60. While older adults are significantly wealthier
group's report, published in April lifestyle choices and an increase in the longevity than earlier generations of similar age, the trend
2008, found that the majority of adults coupled with better overall economic for the general population is a widening economic
the Department's current practices
are sound, but called for increased prosperity (than prior generations) will require an gap. Boulder County ranks 12th nationally in per
increase in active adult programs over the next capita personal income, and in 2008, nearly one
transparency to identify and com- twenty years. third (32 percent) of all Boulder County house-
Households with children declined from 46 holds had incomes of more than $100,000. On the
ing recreation programs. The percent of all Boulder households in 1990 to 42 other end of the spectrum in 2008, 37 percent of
group provided suggestions for im- percent in 2000. Nearly one-quarter of families households lived on less than $50,000 per year,
proving transparency and the sus- with children under age 18 are single-parent fami- while the median income was $66,463 in the
tainability of programs. The work lies. Most single parents (83 percent) are in the County. Contributing to this widening economic
group's report can be found online labor force. For children with two parents at gap are high living costs, such as the median
at home, 60 percent have both parents in the labor home price in the City of Boulder ($538,000 in
.~4,~ti lu~uldercc~lc~rado.s~c~w'md~x.RR. force. 2008), increased energy costs, an economic down-
Increases in residents with English as a second turn, and limited wage increases.
language are projected to continue as nearly 16 In 2007, 21 percent of individuals, 12 percent
percent of Boulder residents speak languages of children, 6 percent of seniors (age 65-plus), and
other than English at home. Countywide, the non- 5 percent of families lived below the federal
English speaking population increased from ap- poverty level in Boulder County. At the time of
proximately 10.5 percent in 2000 to approximately this report, the county unemployment rate was
13.4 percent in 2008. 5.5 percent (September 2009) but could continue
to rise with the current recession. In 2000,
0 Its 's
approximately 14 percent of the City of Boulder's Current demographic trends point to the need Public Input
population had incomes below poverty level, but for flexibility in dealing with future changes in To assess community opinions
within the Latino community, 27 percent of fami- recreation programs, facilities, and services. The about recreation programs and fa-
lies had incomes below poverty level. Department will need to plan for changes that cilities, the Department conducted
In 2008, 62,569 children under age 18 made up will accommodate increasing populations of ehil- the 2009 Recreation Plan Survey
21 percent of Boulder County's population. Be- dren from single-parent families, families where (see page 8 and Appendix A), held
tween 2000 and 2007, the number of Boulder both parents work, and an increase in active t%vo public meetings, and sought
County children under age 18 in poverty in- healthier older residents. These changes and an feedback through recreation-focus
creased from 8.2 percent to 12.6 percent, an in- increase in the non-English speaking resident groups and public forms posted`on
crease of 53.7 percent. In 2007, over 40 percent of population will require the Department to readily the City's website and available at
Latino children in Boulder County lived in and easily adapt and create new programs that
poverty. The 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, address these potential demands. Additionally, City recreation facilities. The
on
conducted by Boulder County Health Department the Department will be faced with creating finan- wpartment ith PR also held study sessions
and the Boulder Valley and St. Vrain school dis- cial support mechanisms, such as a Recreation With and City Council. The
tricts found that 43 percent of local high school scholarship program (see Sidebar, page 21), that Department's recreation focus
students drank alcohol, and 28 percent were binge will help provide services to lower income indi- group meetings have included the
drinkers. Thirty percent used tobacco, 24 percent viduals and families and help close the widening Boulder Valley School District, the
had tried marijuana, and 16 percent had consid- opportunity gap related to fee based services. University of Colorado, the Boul-
ered suicide in the previous year. Given the increase in public desire to reduce der Convention and Visitors Bu-
governmental spending and the demand to con- reau, the Youth Opportunity
Demographic Trends Will Affect tinually enhance programs, the Department will Advisory Board, the Immigration
focus on expanding current collaborative efforts Advisory Committee, Boulder
Recreation Planning
and increasing operational efficiencies. As tax Housing Partners, neighboring mu-
Coupled with demographic changes, the expand- supported funding is reduced and demands for nicipalities and private athletic
ing availability of various forms of communica- service increase, partnerships and additional op- clubs and sports organizations.
lion technology and the social media portunities to provide services will be found
phenomenon will require the Department to stay through cooperative efforts with organizations,
on the cutting edge of public information dissemi- and individuals. This increase in partnerships
nation. Ensuring proper community outreach, and
allow the Department to facilitate and pro-
notification of information, tracking program vide programs that meet future recreational needs
trends, surveying community interests and creat-
ing public awareness of programs will be essen- of the community.
The use of social media mechanisms and the
tial to the Department's future success. increased ability of the Department to capitalize
• • • • • • s • i 0 0 3 44 at 0; a
on new trends by using developments in technol- hensive Plan (BVCP) Area III-Planning Reserve
ogy, and improving marketing efforts to the pub- that is identified for park and recreation facility
_ lic, will help ensure future success for programs development based on future needs. Prior to de-
and activities. In addition, understanding future velopment, the parcel will require annexation into
shifts in trends and also increasing the adaptabil- the City and must undergo an initial planning
*r ity of the Department to meet those changing pro- process. The initial stage of planning for this area
gram and facility requirements will help to ensure is required to happen concurrently with a major
future sustainabili . BVCP update, which occurs every five years. If
'
the department is to begin the process of increas-
41
Future Physical Resources Status and ing future recreational and park availability in the
City of Boulder system, then the City must in-
Changes
The City has a large parcel of land (191 acres) elude this parcel in the future Comprehensive
designated within the Boulder Valley Compre- Plan updates.
The 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Master Plan is a 10-year strategic guide for the Department through 2016. The Master Plan's major components
include:
• The Department's mission, vision, goals and strategies.
• An analysis of the parks and recreation system's conditions and needs.
r # • A list of major challenges in funding and parks and recreation facilities management issues.
+t~ • Investment priorities for the Department.
Recommendations for programs and facilities at three funding levels--fiscally constrained, action, and vision.
• Strategies for increasing the Department's financial sustainability.
The Master Plan vision calls for providing greater program and facility access to under-served populations and
' providing recreation facilities and programs that promote fitness, healthy lifestyles, and economic vitality for the
City. The plan was adopted by City Council in 2006 and will be updated in 2010-2011. The plan and annual re-
ports can be found online at www.bouldercolorado.gov , Parks and Recreation A to Z, Master Plan.
4 • • a •
~ a ~
Recreation Division Funding Sales Tax Fund, and the Permanent Parks and Blue Ribbon Commissions I and 11
Funding for recreation is comprised of fund- Recreation Fund. The Lottery Fund, a sixth source The Blue Ribbon Commission
ing from the following five sources: the Recre- of funding for the Department, does not provide (BRC) I was appointed by City
ation Activity Fund (RAF), the City's General funds for recreation. Funding sources and uses Council to study the revenue pol-
Fund, the .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund, the .25 Cent for 2008 are as follows: icy issues confronting the city. The
2008 Recreation Division Funding Sources 2008 Recreation Division Funding Uses emphasis of BRC 1 was to estab-
Total Funding. $11.9 million Total Budget. $12 million lish a long-term, balanced and sta
Permanent Parks ble revenue stream for the city of
General Fund 15 Cent - 2% and Recreation .15 Cent - 2% Boulder that accomplishes public
15% .25 Cent - 9% Fund .25 Cent - 9% priorities while a) lowing flexibility
8% to meet the varied and dynamic
Permanent Parks needs of the municipal corpora-
and Recreation tion in the next twenty years.
Fund
8% The emphasis of BRC If will be
to refine the revenue stabilization
Recreation Activity Fund recommendations of BRC Phase1
Recreation Activity Fund
66% 81/° ° and to continue the implementa-
tion of the principles and policies
proposed by the first BRC. The
group will also be completing a
review of city expenditures to en-
Recreation Activity Fund (RAF): $7.9 million Recreation Activity Fund (RAF): $9.8 million was sure that public funds are being
from user fees, grants, and donations. budgeted for program and facility operations and
General Fund: $1.8 million transfer to the RAF recreation administration. used effectively and efficiently.
from sales tax. .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $287,000 was budgeted
.15 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $287,000 from a dedi- for operations and maintenance of Pleasant View
cated sales tax that expires December 31, 2012. and Gerald Stazio athletic complexes.
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (capital funding): $1 mil- .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $1 million was budgeted
lion from a dedicated Parks and Recreation Sales for recreation-specific facility and infrastructure
Tax that expires December 31, 2015. needs, including major maintenance and cleaning
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (capital during recreation center shutdowns.
funding): $920,000 from a dedicated.9 mill prop- Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund: $920,000
erty tax and development excise tax. was budgeted for capital improvements.
• . • • • • • • • as OL. a: 4 f g
• • • • • •
• a'
•r at
a
Funding sources and uses for 2009 are as follows:
2009 Recreation Division Funding Sources 2009 Recreation Division Funding Uses
Total Funding. $12.2 million Total Budget: $13.1 million
General Fund .15 Cent - 3% Permanent Parks °
o and Recreation 5 Cent - 3
o .25 Cent - 7 /o
15 /a Fund .25 Cent - b%
9%
Permanent Parks
and Recreation
Fund
10%
Recreation Activity Fund Recreation Activity Fund
65% 82%
Recreation Activity Fund (RAF): $8.1 million Recreation Activity Fund (RAF): $10.7 million
from user fees, grants, and donations was budgeted for program and facility operations
General Fund: $1.8 million transfer to the RAF and recreation administration.
from sales tax. .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $352,000 was budgeted
.15 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $352,000 from a dedi- for operations and maintenance of Pleasant View
cated sales tax that has an indefinite expiration. and Gerald Stazio athletic complexes.
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (capital funding): .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund: $818,500 was budgeted
$818,500 from a dedicated Parks and Recreation for recreation-specific facility and infrastructure
Sales Tax that expires December 31, 2015. needs, including major maintenance and cleaning
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (capital during recreation center shutdowns.
funding): $1.2 million from a dedicated .9 mill Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund: $1.2 mil-
property tax and development excise tax. lion was budgeted for capital improvements.
go 00 q* "0
6 t
/jy _
Funding Challenges allocate those resources to high-priority recreation Recreation Division
The RPFP includes strategies that will help the services. The Recreation Division is the
Department make decisions and develop a di- largest division of the department,
verse and sustainable portfolio of recreation pro- Political Atmosphere with more than 75 standard and
grams and service offerings. Employing the Community leaders support the Department's 750 seasonal staff members. Daily
funding strategy outlined in the plan wiH help the efforts to improve and enhance operations and operations include the manage
Department fill gaps and make changes in pro- services to the public and the Boulder community ment of the East, North, and South
grams, services, and facilities that add to achiev- demonstrates broad support for recreation. This Boulder recreation centers, Scott
ing a sustainable Department. support includes City provided recreation serv- Carpenter and Spruce Pools, East
Because the 2009 economic climate has caused ices as well as those services provided by special- Mapleton and Stazio ballfield
interest, non-profit and for profit recreation
a reduction in the City's sales and use tax rev- complexes, Pleasant View Fields,
enues, the Department has seen a decline in tax- organizations. Boulder is an active, engaged com-
supported funding that supports and subsidizes the Pottery Lab, Flatirons Golf
$ munity that is comprised of individuals and Course, and the Boulder Reservoir.
recreation services. Since 2004, the long-term sus- groups who are willing to partner with the De-
tainabili of the Recreation Activity Fund has Recreation programs offered annu-
tY tY partment in order to provide and enhance recre-
been aconcern. This is due to the De- ally including visual and perform-
been primarily ation offerings.
partment's increasing operating expenses and the ing arts, team and individual sports
restricted ability the Department currently has to leagues, tournaments and clinics,
Community Values Related to fitness classes, swim lessons and
raise fees. There is a need for the Department to
remain competitive in its fee structure to cover in- Recreation Services water activities, and other special
creasing expenses. This can be accomplished The Boulder community is very active and programs and events.
using a mix of fee adjustments and efficiency places an exceptionally high value on fitness,
changes to operations. wellness, recreational activities, and the outdoors.
In response to the Blue Ribbon Commission 11 The community, PRAB, and City Council agreed
recommendations, the Department is working to that recreation in a strong healthy community
define consistent service costs and set fees that to does the following:
cover costs. As the Department moves forward, • enriches family and social relationships
there will be a need to determine recreation serv- • provides resources for people of all ages to
ices that should be provided by the City and those reach their full potential
that should be provided by others in the commu- • champions diversity and inclusion
nity. To be successful, the Department will have • recognizes the importance of play in a bal-
to provide services with available resources and anced life
7 ~
The 2009 Recreation Plan Survey • contributes to a sustainable economy residents who might not otherwise be able to par-
Key Priorities • contributes to personal fulfillment, health, and ticipate in recreation activities. Residents also
Survey respondents identified the wellness. placed a high priority on active physical recre-
following priorities: The community also expressed values about ation and introductory-level programming. These
• Maintain and improve the physi- recreation through the Department's 2009 Recre- findings were again validated through focus
cal health and mental well- ation Plan Survey and the 2005 City of Boulder groups and follow-up contact through the Depart-
being of the general population Parks and Recreation Survey, which was con- ment's website survey.
(78 percent). ducted for the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan. Guiding Principles
• Provide positive activities for With community input, the Department devel-
children and teens, ages 19 and The 2009 Recreation Plan Survey oped guiding principles for the plan that will be
younger (70 percent). In March 2009, as art of the public
• Provide recreation opportunities p participation used as a basis for decision making for recreation
process for the RPFP, the National Resource Cen- programs, services, and facilities in the future.
for senior adults, ages 60 and ter conducted a community survey for the De-
older {58 percent}, y y The principles are a synthesis of responses from
partment of a randomly-selected sample of 3,000 the 2009 Recreation Plan Survey, various open
• Provide recreation opportunities households in Boulder Valley . The 2009 Recreation
for adults, ages 20 to 59 houses, and website feedback; the Department's
Plan Survey assessed opinions about the City's mission and community values identified in the
(57 percent). recreation programs and facilities and how recre- Master Plan; and recommendations from the City
• Provide recreation opportunities ation resources should be allocated in the future. Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing.
to people who might not other- It sought responses on key priorities (see Sidebar The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and
wise be able to participate in this page), use of facilities, participation in pro- City Council have endorsed these guiding princi-
recreational activities, such as grams and activities, fees, funding, commune- ples for the Department (in alphabetical order):
people with disabilities or low tions, and demographic information. The
Champion diversity
incomes (55 percent). complete survey results can be found in Appen- Contribute to personal health and wellness
• Provide opportunities to make dix A.
Ensure that youth are a priority
social connections, to
strengthen the "social fabric" of Boulder residents who participated in the survey Maintain and protect our facilities and programs
the community (34 percent). said they view the Department's recreation pro- Prioritize available subsidy to introductory
• Enhance the economic vitality grams and facilities as a resource for the entire level classes and programs
of the community by offering community. Special emphasis was placed on Pursue a sustainable financial model for
special events that draw visitors recreation offerings for youth, and respondents recreation programs and facilities
from inside and outside the indicated the Department should also serve those
community (24 percent).
8 1P
• K
Recommendations Chapter 1
1 Continue to implement Master Plan recommendations related to recreation programs and facilities
that align with the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan.
2 Review the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan annually and fully update every five years.
3 Explore planning process for Area III land, including identifying challenges and opportunities.
T R ~ n
ba A ^
J
• N 9
> - V
Chapter Two - Recreation in the
Communit
Additional Public and Private
Recreation Programs
Some additional public and pri-
vate recreation programs in the Chapter 2 provides an overview of recreation ever-expanding community wish list and, as a re-
Boulder area include those offered in Boulder-what is happening, the trends, serv- sult, the Department has tried "to be everything
by the following: to everyone". Budget constraints and the need for
ice providers, customer profile, gaps and overlaps
• Local Municipal Governments: in service, and how the City provides services financial standards related to Best Practice mod-
.
Louisville, Longmont, Erie, Supe- els, now dictate that the Department carefully
rior, Broomfield, Westminster Recreation In Boulder evaluate all of the recreation programs, services,
• Local Organizations: YMCA of Recreation is a key part of the "Boulder and facilities it manages in a new financial light.
Boulder County, Boulder Valley The Department must now move to the develop-
School the community places a high value on ment of a strategic financially sustainable plan of
School District Lifelong Learning, Y P
access to recreational activities that encourage fit- action. Such a plan will reshape guide the University of Colorado (CU) Divi- ness and wellness. According to
the Master Plan, p Pe ang
fu-
sion of Continuing Education Per- it's important to the department to provide high- Lure allocation of resources.
The City is not the only provider of recreation
sonal Enrichment Program, quality programs and services that are accessible programs and services to the community. Boulder
Imagine, Association for Commu- to the community. Because the Department is
residents have opportunities to access a variety of
pity Living seen as offering a variety of high quality recre- sports, fitness and recreation programs and serv-
e Private Sector: fitness clubs (24- ation offerings (see Chapters 3 and 4), other local ices similar to those offered by the City. These
Hour Fitness, Flatirons Athletic regional municipalities often set their recreation programs are offered through a variety of private,
Club, Rallysport, Lakeshore Ath- standards based on Boulder's programs, facilities, public and non-profit organizations. The Depart-
Club), Club, Colorado Athletic and management practices. As a result of the ment researched recreation programs offered by
Club), specialized facilities (yoga, quality and variety of programs, services, and fa- the Boulder Valley School District, the YMCA,
Pilates, dance, gymnastics, climb- cilities, participants are drawn from neighboring local sports organizations, hospitals, private enti-
ing), and sports organizations communities. In fact, approximately 30 percent of
(Boulder Valley Lacrosse, Boulder recreation patrons live outside of the City. ties and municipalities to gain perspective on
where overlaps and opportunities for change
Youth Football, Flatirons Volleyball Historically, the Department has added recre- occur (see page 12). The Department should ex-
Club, Gold Crown Basketball). ation programs and services in response to an plore developing a regularly updated clearing-
to 1 ! i 4N Cfr . 7~ c 3•
house of information on community recreation include youth sports, adult sports, adult fit- Recreation Programs Offered by
programs and services that are offered by various ness, outdoor recreation, leisure, and equip- Outside Organizations at City
organizations and clubs. The clearinghouse ment rental programs. Facilities (alphabetical order)
would provide a valuable community service and • An increase in contracting programs and es- Boulder Valley Girls Softball
help residents locate recreation programs and tablishing partnerships for services and space. Boulder County Force Soccer
services that might not be offered by the City, but • The increasing importance of municipal gov- Club
that are available in the area. ernment and school district partnerships for Boulder NOVA Soccer Club
the provision of services (municipalities typi-
Local Recreation Trends cally offer outdoor and sports/ fitness pro- Boulder Tennis Association
As part of the information gathering process grams while the school districts typically offer Boulder Aquatic Masters Swim-
for the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan leisure classes through continuing education min
RPFP), the Department conducted an analysis of programs). g
( Boulder Aquateens Synchro-
recreation programming trends and issues that re- nized Swimming
fleets the experience of nine Colorado Front The Department's Customer Base Boulder Swimming (year-round
Range Parks and Recreation Departments or Dis- The demographic profile of the Department's
club swimming)
tricts, six Parks and Recreation Departments in recreation program and facilities users reflects a Boulder Community Rowing
other states, and three local organizations offering cross section of Boulder's population. The Depart- Boulder Horseshoe Club
recreation programs. ment currently meets some or all of the fitness
and recreation needs of approximately 25,000 Boulder Valley School District
The analysis demonstrated a consistent theme an Sports
of shrinking department, city and individual households in and around the City.
A 2009 analysis that was conducted b Mar- Boulder Valley Lacrosse
household budgets. Recreation programs are now ys`zs by Grass Roots Ultimate Frisbee
under constant evaluation in every jurisdiction keting Solutions Group, Inc. determined that the
contacted, and budget worksheets or lists of eval- users of the Department are reflected as follows: Harlequins Quad Rugby
7270 own their home; North Boulder Little League
uation criteria are being used to help determine Baseball
future programs. Other findings from the trends 507o range in age from 35-55;
research and community focus group meetings 41% are married; South Boulder Little League show the following: 227o have children; Baseball
• Continued popularity of fitness and wellness 667o earn between $50,000 - $150,000 per year; University of Colorado Club
programs, youth and adult sports programs, 18%u earn less than $50,000 per year; Sports
youth summer camps, pre-school recreation 4070 have lived in Boulder 10 or more years. YMCA Youth Soccer, Baseball,
programs, and senior fitness programs. and Skate Park
• Programs that achieve financial sustainability
• • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • •a •9 •e fa f~
Boulder Recreation Clearinghouse The Department's mission includes providing maintenance services (see Sidebar page 37).
Boulder residents have opportuni- fitness and recreation opportunities and access for Program Partner: a private or non-profit organi-
ties to access sports, fitness and the whole community. The data in the customer zation that rents space on an ongoing basis for
recreation programs and services demographic profile indicates that based on in- specific activities at recreation facilities. These
similar to those offered by the City. come levels alone, the Department serves a wide rental arrangements are typically managed
These programs are offered range of users in the community, while providing through contracts or Memorandums of Under-
through a variety of private, public the greatest recreation access for the lower to standing (MOUs) between the program partner
and non-profit organizations. The upper middle income individuals and families in and the Department where both parties have a
Department researched recreation the community. contribution. Examples include Boulder Aquatic
programs offered by the Boulder Masters (BAM), a local organization of adult
Valley School District Recreation Programs swimmers that regularly rents lanes at recreation
, the YMCA, of its members and pro-
and and local municipsportsalities to gleagues,ain per- hospitals, programs Department provides the majority of its center pools for the use
and services at City-owned recreation vides some community programs.
organization
spective on where overlaps and facilities. The Department also works with com- Renter: an individual, group or muni organizations and agencies to provide (profit or
non-profit) that rents space on a limited
opportunities occur (see Appendix or one-time basis for specific activities at recre-
B). The Department will explore recreation programs that are all valuable to the
developing a clearinghouse of in- community. These relationships fall into the fol- ation facilities.
formation about the recreation lowing categories and will be managed consis-
programs and services offered by tently within each category: Service Gaps and Overlaps
various organizations and clubs in Provider: a private or non-profit organization that As part of the RPFP process, the Department
the region. The clearinghouse provides a contracted revenue-sharing program conducted an analysis of recreation programs and
tivould offer a valuable community for the Department at a City park or facility. In services available to Boulder residents that are
service by helping residents locate this situation, the Department markets the pro- provided by the City, other leading recreation
gram through its recreation guide. providers in the community, and neighboring mu-
recreation programs and services Facility Partner: a private or non-profit or aniza-
that might not be offered by the g nicipalities (see Appendix B). The purpose of this
tion that shares in building and operational costs inventory was to determine gaps and overlaps in
City but are available in the area. throw h fundraising and volunteer efforts for one
g g services from organizations that offer similar op-
or more City recreation facilities. Examples in- portunities, and identifies opportunities that
elude the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance, which might exist to partner with these organizations.
raised funds and partnered on grants to help This Boulder-area recreation inventory identi-
build the Valmont Bike Park and may be provid- fied programs and services such as aquatics,
ing learn-to-bike programs and some ongoing dance, golf, gymnastics, pottery, leisure activities,
410
44 12 W w
sports, swimming, summer day camps, wellness, recreation services met with the Department to
and programs for people with disabilities and/or discuss trends and program and/or facility needs
low incomes. The inventory also included recre- in their sectors. The Department's recreation focus
ation facilities, such as gymnasiums, athletic group included the Boulder Valley School District, M
fields, and pools provided by the City, the YMCA, the Town of Superior, the University of Colorado
the University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley (CU Club Sports), the Boulder Chamber, the
School District, Boulder Community Hospital, Youth Opportunity Advisory Board, the Immigra- ' ,
local churches/ places of worship, private sports lion Advisory Committee, Boulder Housing Part-
organizations, and private health clubs- Neighbor- ners, and private athletic clubs (Lakeshore
ing municipalities included in the inventory were Athletic Club) and sports organizations (Boulder
Louisville, Lafayette, Longmont, Erie, and Broom- County Force Soccer Club, Boulder Nova Soccer,
field. Boulder Aquatic Masters Swimming Club, 5430
In addition to the inventory, a focus group of Sports, and Boulder Indoor Soccer/ Cycling).
community organizations and clubs that provide
Parks and Recreation Facility and Amenity Partnerships
The Department has a process in place for partnering with the community to provide recreation facilities and
amenities and is committed to working with the community to leverage resources and find creative ways to provide
high quality recreation services. The Department welcomes proposals from organized groups interested in partner-
ing to provide new or enhanced recreation facilities and/or programs to the community.
A successful partnership assumes that both parties have something to offer and that there is a community bene-
fit as a result. Understanding and responding to the selection criteria developed by the department (with the assis-
tance of a recreation-oriented community working group) will be critical to the success of any proposal.
This Parks and Recreation Facility and Amenity Partnership Process is intended to be flexible, consistent, fair
and accessible to all groups. Each proposal will be assessed at each step in the staff-led process to determine the vi-
ability of the proposal. Partnerships will help the department leverage resources and invest wisely in community
recreation facilities and amenities and it will promote the goals and protect the values identified in the Parks and
Recreation mission statement. The Department has successful partnerships in place that will serve as models for fu-
ture partnership agreements.
13
a
Combining these two sources of information is not being met due to limited indoor courts
with research on existing programs, the Depart- in the community.
_ ment has identified the following gaps and over- Indoor gymnasium space is at a premium, es-
laps in services and facilities: pecially in the after-school hours when Boul-
der Valley School District (BVSD) facilities are
- Program and Facility Gaps not available.
• Most neighboring municipalities do not pro- Pool lap lanes are at a premium, especially in
vide nor are not equipped to provide inclu- the after-school hours when high school and
sion and specialized therapeutic recreation private swim teams use the lap lanes in the
MIA' services similar to the Department's EXPAND three recreation centers.
program, and consequently non-residents
come to Boulder to participate in the Depart- Program and Facility Overlaps
ment's programs. There is considerable overlap in services in the
i# r In Boulder, there has been an increase in youth following program areas: yoga, Pilates, fitness,
' interested in soccer and baseball compared to personal training programs, and indoor swim-
past years and as a result, field space is now at ming.
a premium. • Other municipalities offer similar types over-
F' Lacrosse is a growing sport that has both in- all for recreation programs, but generally offer
door and outdoor space needs. fewer choices and levels.
• In Boulder, demand for winter tennis facilities • Many of the programs offered by the Depart-
Performance Sports
Boulder is a mecca for sports, fitness and endurance athletes. These athletes are the nucleus of the fitness-based so-
cial networks that make up Boulder's unique social fabric. The city has become home (or at least temporary train-
ing ground) for many elite athletes, including Olympic medalists and World Champions who use Department
facilities and programs to train. The city also is a popular venue for national and international sporting events like
the Bolder Boulder. The Department has hosted events such as world class cycling competitions, international Irish
Football Championships, national rugby, softball, volleyball, and ultimate frisbee tournaments, college recruiting
tournaments in soccer and softball and the National Cross Country Championships and AVP Pro Beach Volleyball
tournaments. The City's programs and facilities help attract hundreds of top athletes and athletic businesses/organi-
zations. Together, these individuals and businesses build Boulder's positive image and contribute millions of dollars
of revenue to the city annually. Recognizing and continuing to serve the needs of the fitness and endurance ath-
letic community is valuable to ensuring Boulder's economic stability and future.
i4 . •
IV" 4
ment are offered by private entities, though partment determine those programs and facilities
the offerings are typically more specialized that meet the Department's mission and sustain-
classes at a higher fee. ability goal and can best be partnered, retained or
• Some programs offered by the Department are expanded to meet community needs. The inven-
also offered through Housing and Human tory also provides the foundation for a specific
Services. RPFP recommendation: to work with other organ-
izations and create a clearinghouse of information
The recreation services inventory and the facil- on recreation programs, services, and facilities
ity-use analysis (see Chapter 4) will help the De- (See Sidebar page 12).
Recommendations Chapter 2
1 Collaborate with other agencies and organizations to share resources.
2 Develop a clearinghouse of information about community recreation opportunities.
3 Set up a regional roundtable with public recreation providers to explore resource sharing for serv-
ices the City of Boulder currently provides to people with disabilities (EXPAND - inclusion and
specialized programs).
- # tl ~ 4 R
%Z_11 7
IMF
.1~, ti
15
A Brief History of Boulder Parks and Recreation
Boulder's cultural history is closely linked to its residents' love for recreation, as Suzanne Hudson reveals in A History of Boulder's Parks and Recreation-
By 1868, 10 years after gold miners arrived at the mouth of Boulder Canyon, Boulder had its first park with a baseball diamond. A year later, recreation-
minded residents bought 40 acres south of Valmont Road between 28" and 30'h Streets, and erected a grandstand for horse races and a county fair. A roller-
skating craze beginning in 1878 led to a roller rink at 14th and Spruce. "High-wheelers" in the 1880s and "safety bicycles" in the 1890s were favored by
Boulder's early cyclists.
Beginning in 1903, Boulder acquired land for urban parks to complement recreation opportunities in its mountain parks. By 1920, recreation programs
administered by the Department of Public Welfare included a summer playground program with more than 4,300 children. The tri-towered Hygienic "natato-
rium," or indoor swimming pool, privately built in 1923 on the Spruce Pool site, featured slides, rings, and a trapeze for the "athletically inclined."
During the Great Depression, a men's night softball league proved a popular source of entertainment; in 1931, there were 26 teams with 10 employees to
umpire and do field maintenance, funded by the federal Works Progress Administration (WPA). Another WPA project was a nine-hole precursor to the
Flatirons Golf Course. The recreation program's success led to the formation of the Community Recreation Association, sponsored by the City Council, the
school board, and the YMCA. The Pay Dirt Pow Wow, started in 1934 on what is now the East Mapleton Ballfields, featured a parade, a bike race to Long-
mont and back, and the Hard Rock Drilling Championship of the World.
Recreation programs were curtailed during World War II, though the City in 1945 purchased the Hygienic pool, renaming it Municipal Pool and holding
swimming classes for 10,000 participants. Public swimming was curtailed the following summer due to a polio outbreak. Attempting to make the pool build-
ing more useful year-round, the City began leasing it as a roller rink, with wooden planks laid across the pool that were removed in summer. Softball contin-
ued to be a main source of entertainment; leading to the formation in 1948 of the Boulder Softball Association (BSA).
Postwar expansions began with the City's first full-time recreation director, Willard N. Leuthauser, who was hired in 1951 with an annual salary of $3,600
from a $5,000 recreation program appropriation. Residents in 1952 voted for $2 million in bonds to construct the Boulder Reservoir. In 1957, the Recreation
Department began sponsoring a day camp for children with developmental disabilities. In 1958, Fire Station 02 was converted into the Department's Pottery
Lab, which was the first city-supported pottery program in the country and has been recognized as an innovative recreational program. The city in 1960
founded the Parks and Recreation Department and formed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Voter support for recreation continued in 1971 with approval of $1.6 million for construction of the North and South Boulder recreation centers. A 1981
bond issue pumped $2.4 million into improvements at the Boulder Reservoir and paid for completing the original Gerald Stazio Ballfield Complex. Voters in
1981 also approved the Colorado State Lottery, which gave 14 cents of every dollar spent on lottery tickets to local parks and recreation districts. In 1983,
Boulder used lottery funds to build the 5,000-square-foot gymnastics center addition at the North center. The Department in 1986 took over operation of the
Flatirons Country Club and has maintained the golf course ever since.
In 1993, voters approved the .15 Cent Sales Tax that pays for maintenance at Pleasant View Fields and Gerald Stazio Ballfields and will expire in 2012.
The 1995 approval by Boulder voters of the dedicated .25 Cent Sales Tax for parks and recreation allowed the Department to proceed with a major land ac-
quisition effort, including the land for Valmont City Park and Foothills Community Park, both of which feature multipurpose sports fields and other recreation
facilities (see Sidebar page 40). Since 1996, the Department has developed, upgraded, and refurbished numerous recreation facilities (see Chapter 4).
401~# 1.6 *a
46
(t GY - r. i F It s
I 1 1
The Recreation Program and Facilities Plan state. The aquatics program provides swim les-
(RPFP) establishes a framework for the Depart- sons to more than 3,000 participants each year,-
ment's recreation offerings for making decisions and more than 8,400 adults play softball annually Successful Partnerships
on program offerings now and in the future. This on 649 adult softball teams. The Department will explore part-
chapter includes information on core programs, Over time, the Department's recreation offer- nership opportunities to leverage
program classifications and delivery, program life ings have evolved into being all things to all peo- available resources for
cycle and evaluation, program partnerships, and ple. The Department is now focused on becoming recreation programs desired by the
other recreation program options. more efficient and economically sustainable and community,
as a result is reevaluating its programs and serv- The YMCA of Boulder Valley
Framework for Recreation Offerings ices. This evaluation will help determine which collaborates with the Department
The Boulder lifestyle emphasizes being active programs are core to the Department mission and at the Boulder Skatepark in pro-
which are desirable, but should be offered at com-
and fit, and the community offers abundant op- gramming, special events, and
portunities to participate in a variety of recreation petitive rates. In addition, some programs may be rentals. All events at the Skatepark
activities, including those offered by the Depart- better suited if provided by other organizations are planned in advance and coor-
within the community. Partnerships with other
ment. Boulder leads most Colorado Front Range dinated with the Department. The
municipalities in offering a wide variety of pro- organizations will help the Department leverage YMCA promotes "learn-to-skate"
rams. The Department offers numerous types of resources (see Sidebar on this page) and the types
g opportunities for youth and pays
with over 3,800 different course offer- of recreation programs currently provided will
programs, the Department a percentage of
ings annually The gymnastics is amon change, as will the quantity and variety of offer-
program g revenues from programs and
the most recreation ro rams offered b ings. Programs will be reduced to those that uti-
popular p g Y lize resources (funding and staff) most efficiently events. The Department is respon-
the Department, with more than 1,200 partici- sible for all maintenance at the
ants and is the largest municipal in the and meet community priority demands.
p program 5katepark; the YMCA is responsi-
ble for custodial duties associated
with activities the YMCA manages.
City of Boulder Recreation Program Offerings
The Department's wide variety of program offerings includes the following
(see Appendix C for details on programs):
Performing and Visual Arts Programs Aquatics Program
i~ cEn+"
pottery classes swim lessons and other programs
drama camps EXPAND andYSl Programs
youth and adult dance classes Sports Programs
C/TY OF BOULC~E~ dance camps adult softball teams
leisure enrichment classes (drama, cooking, adult soccer teams
photography, music, art) adult basketball teams
Gymnastics Program adult and youth tennis lessons
recreation program dodgeball leagues
competitive program adult kickball teams
Health and Wellness Programs adult volleyball teams
~td weight training youth sports camps
1
fitness classes youth football teams
- yoga, Pilates, and Swiss Ball classes and youth Sports Samplers and Mini-Sports programs
workshops youth basketball teams
Golf Program youth volleyball instruction and teams
instruction for youth and adults Senior Programs
Boulder Reservoir Programs dance
sailing fitness
y r' windsurfing golf
~K sailboarding sports
_ water sports swimming
camps weight training
yoga
40
What is EXPAND?
EXPAND (EXciting Programs Adventure and New Dimensions) received the National Recreation and Park Association's National Program of the Year
award in 2004. EXPAND is a therapeutic recreation program that helps people with disabilities learn new recreation and leisure skills to enhance their well-
being and quality of life.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that municipalities make accommodations to allow people with disabilities to participate fully in community
life. The EXPAND program has exceeded the intention of the law, building a national reputation with many "firsts" in recreation programs and services for
people with disabilities. In 2008, some 600 people participated in EXPAND, nearly 90% of whom participated in multiple programs. Approximately 40% of
EXPAND participants reside outside the City of Boulder.
EXPAND staff are Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists who assist people with disabilities in all aspects of recreation. They assist in two kinds of
programs: inclusion and specialized programs. Inclusion is when an individual with a disability registers for a regular recreation program and wishes some
assistance, or a recreation program staff identifies a person needing assistance. The goal of inclusion is to provide a person assistance, as little or as great as
needed, to assure successful participation in the general recreation program. When an individual requests this service or staff identifies a need, staff initiates a
process to help determine what level of assistance may be necessary. Accommodations are determined by staff and parents to allow the participant to partici-
pate in the least restrictive setting. They vary from participant to participant and depend upon the person's skills, abilities, and needs.
Specialized therapeutic programs offer a wide range of activities for all ages and disabilities, including aquatics, fitness, gymnastics, golf, outdoor adven-
tures, community outings, and summer day camps. Some special programs include Special Olympics training, warm-water therapy, and unified sports pro-
grams that pair people with and people without disabilities on the same teams.
What is the Youth Services Initiative (YSI)?
The Department launched the Youth Services Initiative (YSI) in 2003 as a social service to support children from low-income families with recreation
activities, homework help, and volunteer opportunities. YSI's mission is to provide opportunities, skills, knowledge, and resources to help participants make
positive and informed life choices. The program is offered every day after school at community centers, recreation centers, and housing sites, and during the
summer months through a day camp program.
The Department collaborates with Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) to serve more than 150 children ages six to 18 living in BHP housing. A teen program
called Getting Fit is offered two days a week for youth ages 12 and older. The YSI program also partners with the Family Resource Schools (the City of Boulder
Housing and Human Services Department program), the I Have a Dream Foundation of Boulder County, and the Watershed School, one of the program sites.
YSI has worked with the Boulder Police Department on gang prevention activities that involve children and their families.
YSI was highly supported by respondents to the 2009 Recreation Plan Survey, even though a majority of respondents were in households without
children.
V
Core and Desirable Programs public good, and financial responsibilities, meaning
Core programs are the Department's highest they help the Department become economically
Y ° priority and are determined on the basis of the sustainable. The Department offers numerous
Department's mission, community need, and programs and facilities, (business core), that help
- community priority interest. The 2009 Recreation fund the core programs.
Plan Survey indicated the community's top priori-
ties included supporting programs that improve City of Boulder Core Programs
health and well-being, providing positive activi- Social Core or "Public Good" Programs
ties for children and youth, and offering recre- Social core or "public good" programs gener-
ation opportunities for people with disabilities or ally include traditional youth programs, pro-
with low incomes who otherwise might not be grams that target community members with
able to participate. disabilities or low incomes, and activities that
enhance the health, safety, and livability of the
commuNe~r noy.ama community. Public-good programs may re-
OtfMa4 at FasW1Na
quire some level of subsidy to encourage the
Cky P-W-4 highest level of participation. They include:
and De:aNac~e ~ Lifef safety and community health programs
and o~
that engage youth and the community in
healthful activities and help establish positive
lifelong habits, such as learn-to-swim classes,
CommunRy s~ci0~" red., introductory sports programs, and basic fit-
Pr9grlmo Pubk C-)d Urn etCky
Ortwo at prwa"' Fec11W1 ness, health, and wellness classes. In the past,
learn-to-swim programs were offered as a
partnership between BVSD and the Depart-
ment, to teach all third graders how to swim.
Programs for people who are disadvantaged
that provide access to recreation programs,
such as the Youth Services Initiative (YSI) for
children and youth from families who live in
Recreation in the Community low income housing (see Sidebar page 19) and
EXPAND for people of all ages with disabili-
The Department provides core programs that ful- ties (see Sidebar page 19).
fill social responsibilities, meaning they benefit the
J~
• • • • •
1110
f Y
Business Core or "Business Sustainability" Desired: Scholarship Program
Programs 1. The program might provide a partner- The Department is interested in es-
Business core or "business sustainability" pro- ship opportunity to leverage city re- tablishing a scholarship program,
grams meet the needs of the market, and are sources. which, in conjunction with the re-
offered at market rate. They include: 2. The program maximizes facility use; it duced-rate program that is cur-
Programs that produce revenues for the De- might use a space that would other- rently offered, will greatly expand
partment and are able to help lower tax-sup- wise be empty. access to recreation programs and
ported funding. These include golf programs, 3. The program contributes to serving a
services to people that are eco-
adult sports leagues, camps and various class diverse cross-section of the community. nomically disadvantaged. The De-
offerings. The Department will be focusing on providing partment will explore various
core mission programs and programs that will re- methods for fundraising, such as a
Desirable Programs duce the City subsidy as well as desirable pro-
The Department offers a multitude of " grams with a competitive fee structure. direct donation campaign, and
desirable" programs that meet community in- Identifying those programs that are "core" to the create clear guidelines and pr
es
terests and desires. These programs must Department's mission allows the Department to dunes for applying and using these
meet the following criteria to be offered by the focus on key recreation programs and determine funds.
City of Boulder: how they will be funded in a sustainable way.
Required: Core and desirable programs will be reviewed
1. The program generates sufficient rev- during regular plan updates and a phased ap-
enues to offset its costs (identified di- proach will be used to move the desirable pro-
rect and indirect costs, such as grams into the business core category
instructor fees, class materials, and ad- A large majority (84 percent) of 2009 Recre-
ministrative costs). ation Plan Survey respondents thought the De-
2. Physical program space is available at a partment should operate using a human services
City of Boulder facility. model, in which parks and recreation is valued
3. The program is in demand; classes for contributing to the physical, emotional, and
often fill up and may have a waiting social welfare of the whole community. The 2006
list. Parks and Recreation Master Plan notes that parks
4. The program serves a large population and recreation departments worldwide, as part of
or identified community need. their mission related to human services, are work-
• • • • • • • • • t._ to • •u t. f.. t, to
• t:. 21
iii r ANN an CM!
_MNI jr_.-_ ing to help young children and youth who are anced set of programs and services is being of-
disadvantaged make healthy life choices. It also fered to meet the needs and interests of the com-
OMAN, MIX
r~■ ■
noted that in recent years society has acknowl- munity and the Department's mission and
• - edged leisure as a right of all citizens and access financial sustainability goals. Traditionally, the
"low
T to recreation as a necessary element for a commu- community need and support has been for fitness,
nity to achieve a high quality of life. The Depart- aquatics, sports and gymnastics programs. New
ment is committed to reaching out to residents to program proposals and current program evalua-
provide access to programs and services regard- tions will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. Spe-
less of age, income, ability, or culture. cific program evaluation criteria are being
The human services model provides recreation developed and will include the requirement to be
services that are funded primarily through tax consistent with the Department's mission, pro-
dollars. Given the current economic shift, use of gram type (core or desirable), business and eco-
this model is not sustainable either in the current nomic factors, and community interest and
or the anticipated future economic climate. The satisfaction. The portfolio will include Depart-
business model, in contrast, is designed to attract ment programs that are Department run or con-
and serve users who can afford to pay for serv- tracted, or programs offered by partners and
ices. This plan recommends a mix of both models rentals (see page 12 for definitions of the types of
4 and defines which programs and services could programs and services).
receive taxpayer subsidy, as available, and which The Program Delivery Model (see page 23)
programs should be self funded (see Chapter 5). shows a series of questions and steps to help de-
termine whether a program or service should be
The Program "Portfolio" provided by the Department, and if not, whether
The entire set of Department offerings (the the Department could facilitate the program or
"Portfolio") should be viewed holistically, with service through a partnership, rental, or clearing-
central management oversight that ensures a bal- house opportunity.
r.
22
1) 0 0 * * 0 r~
RECRFATION PROGRAM AND FACILITIES PLAN l5 the program consistent with guiding principles and
is there a demonstrated community need!
LEGEND
YES NO
Question
Decision
Pricing Determination
Is it offered anywhere else! City does not offer the
pragram.
NO YES At
NO
Should the city directly provide the program? Is there more demand
than capacity! A need for
better accesnbility+
Program should fall into one or more of YES
the following calegaries:
1. Program targets a d sadvantaged population
ProErant supports heaRh.nvellnes_s or City does not offer or
ife/safeiy facilitate the program.
S. Program has a demonstrated high
YES participation ratN'deinand. NO
4. Program will generatewvenue
1 NO
Do we facilitate
City conducts program service?
orscrvice_
YES
Partner/Rent Information
use/ e Is it a suhsidired or rwn- FacililieslAdvertne Referral
9 subsidireel program?
o 100 I what is the cost recovery
E f Lel'e! 100 -Introductory Class or Program targeted ' goal?
a t to any age group
Level 200 - Intermediate Class or Program targeted RENT PARTNER
C r to any age group (lass has a prerequisite) i lylut
Q' 1 Leve1300 - Advanced, Elite, or Competitive Class or i. the I"
i Program for Youth cprt at rordn
0 I Level 400 - Advanced, Elite, of Competitive Class or t~ progrim! %
Program for Adults OR Private Class or Program for Aq• Ihigelr.,vl WO Partnership
an age
Y ~ and 260 process Initialed
L - - - - - - - - ` - o - - uFgxntunnn.+
41111, 23
As part of the RPFP process, the Department of recreation services for various age groups, in-
inventoried recreation programs to identify serv- cluding seniors. The chart also includes programs
ice gaps by age group. The Summary of Depart- offered by the Senior Services Division and identi-
ment Age Group Offerings (see chart below) fies an overlap in services and programs for sen-
shows that the Department offers a wide variety iors.
Summary of Departmental Age Group Offerings
Preschool Youth Teen Adult Senior Sr Services
0-3 yrs 4-6 yrs 7-10 yrs 11-12 yrs 13-16 yrs 16-18 yrs 18+ 50+
Art x X X_ X X X X
Athletics _ X _ X X X X X _ X X X
Dance x X X X X X X X
EXPAND X X X X X X X X*
Fitness x X X X X K X X X
Golf x X X X X X X X
Gymnastic x X X X X X X
Pilates x X X X*
Pottery x X X X X X X*
Reservoir Programs x X X X X X X*
Swimming x X X X X X X X
Swiss Ball x X X _ X*
Tennis x X X X X X X X*
Weight Training x X X X X
Yoga x X X X X X X X
YSI X X X X
There aren't specific programs for Seniors in these areas, but Seniors can participate in any adult programs.
0090000009 4
40 lip "s
00
so 01?
24 i
Program Management encourage efficient operations, staff will continue - -
The Department is committed to a strategic to promote online registration and will identify
process for determining which programs and barriers that deter customers from using the sys-
services it can offer, recognizing that it cannot tem.
offer every program and service the community When the Department is financially sustain-
might desire. The process includes an assessment able, it could develop an "opportunity fund" dur- l y
of all the programs and services now provided by ing the budget process for use in developing new r,__~ • _ 4
the Department, and an analysis of potential new programs. This would allow for new program "
programs. The Program Delivery Model flow ideas related to trends to be tested to increase
chart (see page 23), combined with the descrip- services and produce offsetting revenue.
tions of core and desirable programs (see page New program proposals will be reviewed by - . - - : r.
20), explain how the Department will assess cur- staff using the Program Delivery Model and the
rent programs and/ or offer new ones. associated criteria for new programs. The criteria
Recreation programs will have identified goals addresses whether the proposed program targets
and objectives in order to provide a consistently people who are disadvantaged, supports.y----
r._
high-quality program. The Program Delivery health/ wellness or life/ safety, has a demon- - - ,
Model will also be used to determine which pro- strated high participant demand, and/or will gen- r
grams the Department should continue to offer. erate revenue. A proposed program budget will
These programs will be offered using best prac- be required to ensure identified cost recovery L -
tices in management ensuring they meet leisure goals will be met. r
? ,T a,
education standards, and have evaluation goals 9k
that specifically assess customer satisfaction and Program Evaluation and Life Cycle
other targets. A community needs assessment or Programs, like any product, require periodic
gap analysis will be updated on a regular basis to evaluation and assessment to maintain quality
help guide staff with the evaluation of program and relevance to the market. Dynamic instructors,
offerings. quality equipment and facility space, excellent
As part of the program review process, recre- teaching materials, techniques and marketing all
ation administrators will monitor program offer- play vital roles in delivering program excellence.
ings and consider the life cycle of each program The department will be developing and imple-
and modify class offerings accordingly. Class min- menting a systematic and consistent approach to
imums will be set appropriately based on ex- program evaluation as a key component of this
penes and approved cost recovery goals. To plan.
00 a 4 *a b 6 5
Program evaluation will include participant planning and development, market introduction,
feedback, course enrollment and revenue trends, growth, maturity, extension (or saturation) and
and product life cycle criteria. The goal of pro- decline - to provide useful program evaluation
gram evaluation is to ensure delivery of quality criteria. Ensuring the overall sustainability of
programs and optimal utilization of available fa- recreation programs requires an understanding
cilities and resources. Programs that do not meet and assessment each program's life cycle. Some
baseline evaluation criteria will be modified or programs may last only a few sessions or years,
discontinued. while others may last decades. Adjustments to
Recreation programs typically follow a life program offerings based on awareness of pro-
cycle pattern from start-up, through high interest gram life cycle is critical for effective program
and participation and into decline. The Depart- evaluation.
ment is defining program life cycle stages -
Program Life Cycle
INTRODUCTION GROWTH' MATURATION EXTENSION END
OF OF OF OF OF
PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM
NUMBER
OF
PARTICIPANTS
Source: Leisure Program Planning and Delivery. Ruth Russell
and Lynn Jamieson. Human Kinetics. 2008. p. 732.
This chart is an example of the life cycle of a typical recreation program.
There are some programs that have varied life cycles and are adjusted to reflect the market.
i ' 2Ei
u
Recommendations Chapter 3
Scholarships/Reduced Rate
1 Create a formal scholarship program (in addition to the reduced rate program) that includes guide-
lines, criteria, and procedures. Increase outreach for all reduced rate options.
Develop a stronger partnership with the PLAY Boulder foundation and other community groups
and agencies to raise money for the scholarship program.
3 Implement a direct donation option for the scholarship program, such as a "check the box" idea of
a $5 donation at registration.
New Program Development
4 Establish an "opportunity fund" for creating new programs. (see also Chapter 5)
5 Use the Program Delivery Model to determine which programs to include in the Department port-
folio.
6 Develop incentives for patrons to try new programs.
Program Classification
7 Communicate the Department's program model to provide an understanding of pricing and sub-
sidy levels.
8 Continue to offer desirable programs that meet sustainability criteria (see funding chart in Chapter
5).
Program Management
9 Establish class participation minimums to ensure fees offset defined costs that must be recovered.
10 Achieve 90% online registration by the end of 2012 for efficient operations.
11 Centralize all programming oversight and evaluation, including program fife cycles.
12 Create standards to ensure high-quality programs.
13 Standardize the ratio of program staff to program hours. (see also Chapter 5)
Program Evaluation
14 Develop a standardized process for evaluating programs, and adjust course offerings as appropri-
ate.
Contracted Programs/ Partnerships
15 Offer all future contracted programs at a City of Boulder facility.
• •e •a
0 0, •y m • bs • e MMM . * ~ ~ ~ r ~ 'F
a • 27 u
r ~
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation De- 1970s to early 1990s, the Department built three
partment owns and manages a variety of recre- full-service recreation centers.
ation facilities in addition to the City's urban North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC), was
parks With an emphasis on sustainability, the De- built in 1972 and remodeled in 2002-2003 as a
partment is committed to leveraging resources in LEED-Silver certified, 61,656 square-foot struc-
maintaining and improving recreation facilities. ture_ It includes a fitness and weight room, multi-
This chapter discusses the condition and needs of purpose room, gymnastics center, yoga room,
current recreation facilities, investment priorities dance studio, gymnasium, leisure pool, lap pool,
for facilities, facility programming and opera- racquetball/ squash courts, locker rooms, child-
tions, and the process for developing new facili- care center, meeting room, and lounge/ reception
ties. area. The building has a solar thermal system, de-
signed to provide heat to the lap and leisure
Existing Recreation Facilities swimming pools and to the domestic hot water
The Department's recreation facilities are dis- system for showers and sinks. Annually, this pro-
cussed in the following section, along with some vides roughly 50% of the thermal requirements of
key needs and issues for each facility. The Depart- the pool and avoids the consumption of roughly
ment also owns and manages 72 urban parks that 17,000 gallons per year of fuel oil equivalent.
include a variety of outdoor amenities, such as NBRC is designated as a Boulder County Office of
tennis, basketball and handball courts, athletic Emergency Management shelter for people with
fields, playgrounds, skate parks, walking paths, special needs in the event of a major flood or
horticultural plantings, picnic shelters, and other emergency.
ponds. Facility needs/issues: more parking;
Recreation Centers improved utilization of facility spaces such
During a period of facility growth from the as gymnastics, dance, yoga and child care;
larger fitness / weight area.
28 Sol** 0 0,00?
~ y
East Boulder Community Center (EBCC) was racquetball court, lap pool, and locker rooms.
built in 1992, and includes a recreation center Facility needs/issues: overall facility reno-
(41,000 square feet) and senior center (10,913 vation and expansion.
square feet)- The recreation center includes a fit-
ness and weight area, dance studio, gymnasium, The community highly values the three exist-
fitness/yoga room, lap pool, leisure pool, locker ing Department recreation centers and data shows
rooms, child-care center and climbing wall. The that attendance at the centers increased by an av-
senior wing includes crafts rooms, a multipurpose erage of four percent from 715,909 visits in 2007 to
room, and a commercial kitchen. 741,937 in 2008. The centers were constructed ac-
Facility needs/issues: leisure pool improve- cording to the service model from the 1970s and
ments; fitness/weight area expansion; regu- 1980s, in which recreation centers were built to
lation-size basketball courts. serve a geographic area of the community. As
South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRQ was such, each recreation center has some specialized
built in 1973 and renovated in 1999. Its 35,603 elements, but all generally offer similar amenities.
square feet include a fitness and weight room, A variety of classes are scheduled at all centers
dance studio, gymnasium, yoga/Pilates room, (see Chapter 3). The centers also are available for
LEED-Certified North Boulder Recreation Center
As part of the City's focus on sustainable architecture in design and construction, the Department used the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria for municipal
buildings in renovating and expanding the NBRC in 2002-2003. The 61,000 square-foot center was certified as
LEED-Silver for incorporating environmentally sustainable design elements and construction practices. A solar
water-heating system provides about half of the energy needs for the pools. Heat-reflecting roof panels and low-e
insulating windows help keep the building cool in summer. Energy-efficient use of recycled materials included re-
processing parking-lot asphalt. The recreation center is landscaped with drought-tolerant shrubs and maintained
without pesticides.
The solar thermal water-heating system is designed to provide heat to the lap and leisure swimming pools and
to the domestic hot water system for showers and sinks. Annually, this system provides roughly 50% of the thermal
requirements of the pools and avoids the consumption of roughly 17,000 gallons per year of fuel oil equivalent, or
425,000 gallons over the lifetime of the system. The solar system consists of 142 4'x10' flat-plate collectors
mounted on the roof of the lap pool and the gymnasium. A glycol anti-freeze solution is circulated through the
collectors to absorb the solar energy. Heat is transferred to the swimming pools directly using a heat exchanger for
each pool. To supply the domestic hot water, solar heat is absorbed in a 1,200 gallon hot water storage tank.
0 6 c 29 1~y'"L
daily use through annual pass memberships, for future high-quality athletic fields (grass or
punch cards, or a daily fee that allows users ac- synthetic turf fields) are Valmont City Park and
cess to fitness classes, weight rooms, gymnasi- the three community parks (East Boulder,
ums, pools, hot tubs, saunas, and locker rooms. Foothills, and Harlow Platts). The city and com-
Facilities may also be rented for events or parties. munity park sites are also suitable for high
weekly use and smaller regional athletic events.
Athletic Complexes The Department's athletic fields include the
The Department has four athletic field com- following specialized athletic complexes:
plexes that it schedules and maintains and one Gerald Stazio Ballfield Complex (Stazio Fields)
- that is scheduled and maintained by BVSD: Ger- on 23 acres features seven lighted softball ball-
ald Stazio Ballfield Complex East Mapleton Ball- fields with bleachers, three concession/re-
i fields, Pleasant View Fields and Scott Carpenter stroom /scorekeeper buildings, roads, parking
Ballfield. These facilities are purpose-built athletic lots, multiuse trail and a playground.
f fields and are suitable for hosting tournaments Facility needs/issues: additional fields, en-
and events. Major park sites that are appropriate ergy-efficient field lights, shade structures.
Valmont City Park Plan
In 1998, the City adopted a concept plan for development of the 132-acre Valmont City Park. At the time, the need for private partnerships was identified if
the park was to be developed in the near future, though no partnership agreements were developed. In the intervening years, the Department constructed a
multipurpose field and parking lot, a raw water irrigation system, a temporary dog park and the Wonderland Creek Path.
In 2007, a new concept plan for the park was developed based on extensive community input. The 2007 concept plan includes three phases of devel-
opment:
Phase 1: Development of the north side of the park, including a permanent dog park, a purpose-built off-road cycling facility, the restoration of the Platt
farmhouse, utility upgrades, infrastructure improvements and an 18-hole disc golf course on the southern side of the park (south of Valmont Road).
Phase 2: Development of the remaining outdoor facilities on the south side of the park, including artificial-turf multi-purpose fields, an adventure play-
ground, amphitheater, park infrastructure, and parking.
Phase 3: Development of the indoor facilities (likely with public/private partnerships) and commercial area in the south side of the park.
Development of infrastructure, including a road and utilities, must precede development on the southern section of the site. Costs for those improve-
ments are estimated at $5-10,000,000 depending on type and number of facilities.
The Department in 2009 received a $200,000 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) that will be applied towards Phase I construction of the
park's natural-surface Bike Park on the north side of Valmont Road. The Parks and Recreation Department applied for the grant in February 2009, in partner-
ship with the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA). A groundbreaking for the Bike Park was held in October 2009, and included cyclocross races and a
bike festival.
30 40
East Mapleton Ballfields on 11 acres features fields are located within the following city, com-
three lighted softball fields, bleachers, nine horse- munity and neighborhood parks: Valmont City
shoe pits, a playground, and a restroom/conces- Park; Foothills, East Boulder and Harlow Platts
sion stand / score-keeper building. community parks; and Arapahoe Ridge,
Facility needs/issues: energy-efficient field Columbine, Martin, North Boulder and Tom Wat-
lights, additional parking, and shade struc- son parks. Since 1998, the Department has had a
tures. cooperative agreement with BVSD to maintain
Pleasant View Fields on 52 acres features a soccer athletic/ sports fields at Aurora 7 School (Aurora 7
and rugby complex with nine sand-based turf Park), Columbine School (Columbine Park),
fields, parking lot, restrooms, and multiuse trail. Eisenhower Elementary School (Arapahoe Ridge
Facility needs/issues: additional parking; a Park), Flatirons Elementary School and Summit
playground; shade structures. Middle School.
Scott Carpenter Park Baseball Field is a lighted Facility needs/issues: artificial turf fields at
Legion-size baseball field for high-school age and community parks.
adult players. The facility includes bleachers, a
score box building, and restrooms. The Depart- SRecialized Facilities
ment partners with BVSD, the primary user of the The Department owns and maintains the fol-
fields, who is responsible for facility improve- lowing specialized facilities: - • -
A
ments. Flatirons Golf Course, owned by the City, A ~ ,
Facility needs/issues: This facility is located opened for play in 1938 as the Boulder Municipal
in the Boulder Creek Floodplain, which re- Sports Center. The City and Flatirons Country
stricts most new construction. Replacement Club (FCC) entered into a 30 year lease agreement
of both dugouts is scheduled to be com- in 1956 where the Club would operate the golf
pleted spring 2010. course and turned back over to the City in 1986
when its lease ended. It features an 18-hole
Satellite Fields course, driving range, clubhouse, event center,
The Department owns or manages 20 satellite and parking lot. Revenues from the golf course
athletic fields located in urban parks or at Boulder support other recreation programs through the
Valley School District (BVSD) sites. The fields are Recreation Activity Fund. I _ -
used for Little League baseball, youth softball, Facility needs/issues: A site master plan
and field sports. All of the fields are rented to user and strategic business plan is being devel-
groups for practices and games. These athletic oped to provide strategic long-term pro-
00~ Oh 31
grammatic recommendations and identify ments, pool replacement; parking improve-
r
IF W. golf course improvements and facility reno- ments.
{ • y ~ * vations. It will identify the funding needed Spruce Pool (outdoor), is an eight lane 25-yard
to improve the golf course, clubhouse, and pool, located in the Whittier Neighborhood. It
r event center. also has a leisure pool with accessible ramp and
play features including jets, fountains, and a slide.
Boulder Reservoir was constructed in 1954 for Facility needs/issues: bath house improve-
water supply, storage, and delivery, and for recre- ments; additional parking.
C 1 ationai uses. Recreational uses and facilities at the Salberg Studio, the 2,400 square-foot building at
450-acre reservoir include swimming and boating, Salberg Park, was remodeled in 2001 and is used
a boathouse, a bathhouse /concession /restroom for Pilates, yoga, and summer camps.
building, picnic facilities, and hiking/biking Facility needs/issues: maximum use of fa-
trails. cility.
r Facility needs/issues: A site master plan is Pottery Lab, located in a historic firehouse, in-
underway and is scheduled for completion eludes 3,800 square feet on two floors used for in-
V, 1 I~ in the third quarter of 2010. The plan will es- struction.
1 '1'-- `tablish management objectives that will Facility needs/issues: maximum use of
- d guide future investment at the Reservoir, in- space and time; additional storage, alternate
r.
r - eluding capital needs. parking.
- Skatepark, a 14,000 square-foot special facility for Iris Studio, remodeled in 2006, is a 2,285 square
skateboarding located at Scott Carpenter Park, foot dance and yoga studio located in the Iris
features a street course and deep bowls. The Center administrative building.
Skatepark is free and open to all, and program- Facility needs/issues: maximum use of
ming is provided in a partnership agreement with space and time and compatible uses with
the YMCA. the Department Administration offices dur-
Facility needs/issues: accommodations for ing business hours.
heavy use and different kinds of riders, such
as a stand-alone BMX park. Facility Use
Scott Carpenter Pool (outdoor), located in Scott The recreation centers are used for pro-
Carpenter Park, is a 6-lane 50-meter (substandard grammed classes, drop-in use (gyms, weight
length; slightly smaller than regulation size) pool rooms, lap and leisure pools) as well as rentals of
with a diving well and a leisure slide. the pools, gyms, and multipurpose rooms. Peak
Facility needs/issues: bath house improve- seasons of use are the fall and winter months
40 a• 0 0 • 0 • • • 0 0 • • • •
so a
32 0 0 .0
(September to March). The NBRC experiences the To achieve economic sustainability goals, the; ' -
most use, followed by EBCC and SBRC as shown Department will focus on maximizing use of its
in the Facility Use Chart. facilities. An initial analysis of facility hours
Currently, the Department offers drop-in use indicates that the recreation centers and other fa-
and scheduled programs during both peak and cilities are not used fully at certain times. At peak
off-peak hours. A majority of 2009 Recreation Plan times in the recreation centers (generally 7 to 9~
Survey respondents agreed on the importance of am, 11 am to 1 pm, and 4 to 7 pm), lap pools, fit- i "a
being able to drop into recreation centers for un- ness and weight rooms are at or near capacity,
scheduled and nonprogrammed recreation activi- and other rooms are programmed. There are some
ties such as leisure and lap swimming and facility spaces, such as gymnasiums and multi-
basketball in the gym. purpose rooms, where the demand exceeds avail-
Facility Use Chart
North Boulder Recreation Center East Boulder Community Center
2007 2008 % Change 2007 2008 % Change
Course 112,650 123,726 9.83% 43,669 48,056 10.05%
Drop-in 62,450 57,016 -8.70% 31,004 28,601 -7.75%
Membership 165,185 170,167 3.02% 134,924 127,685 -5.37%
Total 340,285 350,909 3.12% 209,597 204,342 -2.51%
SBRC Scott Carpenter Pool
2007 2008 % Change 2007 2008 % Change
Course 31,039 32,046 3.24% 321 90 -71.96%
Drop-in 7,243 7,876 8.74% 20,634 17,338 -15.97%
Membership 60,236 61,903 2.77% 12,299 12,937 5.19%
Total 98,518 101,825 3.36% 33,254 30,365 -8.69%
Spruce Pool
2007 2008 % Change
Course 8,334 26,212 214.52%
Drop-in 10,822 14,103 30.32% Overall Facility Use Totals
Membership 15,099 14,181 -6.08% 2007 Total 2008 Total % Change
Total 34,255 54,496 59.09% 715,909 741,937 3.64%
• • • • • • • • • • • , • s ~e fs a
• s • • • ,~br ' F
33 ~
ability at peak times. However, the facilities are and other sports organizations from March
underused during some off-peak times. through October and heavily programmed for
Athletic facilities are programmed or rented tournaments and camps from May through Au-
from March through early November, depending gust. The outdoor pools are open from Memorial
on the facility. The Stazio, East Mapleton and Day through Labor Day, and are used by families,
Pleasant View Fields are used by city programs lap swimmers, and competitive swimmers as well
Events and Tournaments
The Department offers or facilitates different kinds of events, including:
Department Special Event- an event or activity primarily designed, organized, or sponsored by the Depart-
ment to generate revenue while contributing to the individual, social, economic, and/or environmental health
and well-being of the community. Department special events will reflect the mission and goals of the Depart-
ment as well as the unique values and character of the community.
Promotional Event - an activity or event held at a Department facility for the purpose of promoting a Depart-
ment program, facility or activity or the Department as a whole. Promotional events are designed to attract
4 prospective new clients.
Programmatic Event - a one-time activity, event, or workshop held as part of the Department's recreation
• programs and meeting the pricing, enrollment, and policy criteria of a recreation program.
Public Engagement Event - a public meeting or event designed to gather input from and/or share information
with the community about Department plans, opportunities, policies, or changes that could impact residents
or user groups. Public engagement events are always free and open to the public, requiring subsidy for all as-
_ sociated event costs.
- 3r Ceremonial Event - a public event designed to celebrate, honor, or commemorate achievements or individu-
als related to the mission and goals of the Department. Ceremonial events are generally free and open to the
public, requiring support/subsidy for all associated event costs.
Special Events organized by non-city groups - an activity or event held at a Department facility organized by
non-profit or for-profit organizations. The organization rents the facility and is responsible for arranging and
paying for logistical support (i.e. Police, Risk Management). The organization may contract with the Depart-
ment for various support services.
Athletic Tournament - an athletic event managed by the Department or another recreation provider at one or
more athletic complexes. Tournaments typically attract a blend of teams from Colorado and other states.
34
as programmed classes. teal operating and maintenance costs and market
A preliminary facility-use analysis showed the rates. (See Appendix D for Policies).
Department needs to create priorities for space,
programs, and funding. The analysis showed the Special Events
Department offers many of the same kinds of pro- There is an existing requirement that groups
grams and classes, and that class minimums often over a specified size must obtain a permit for
are not met. This prompted questions about group use of Department parks and facilities. The
whether the Department's facilities were used ef- criteria for needing a permit relate to group size,
ficiently in terms of space and scheduling, and and type and frequency of use. A fee is charged
open versus programmed times. The community to off-set maintenance costs and on-going impacts
survey indicated that respondents valued drop-in due to the use. The Department will work to edu-
use the most (see Sidebar on this page). The De- cate all users regarding the criteria related to per-
partment will have to structure the use of facilities mit requirements and work to equitably enforce
so as to balance the need for revenue from pro- regulations.
grams and rentals to program partners with the City facilities have historically been utilized
community desire for drop-in (nonprogrammed) for special events. These events may be one or
use. Survey Responses on Allocating Recreation Facility Time
The Department's facilities are rented by sev- The 2009 Recreation Plan Survey respondents assigned the
eral types of groups, including non-profit organi- following percentages of time for recreation opportunities
zations, BVSD, for-profit businesses and service
provided at City recreation facilities:
clubs. The facility use fee that is charged depends
upon whether the use is a one-time use or an on-
use i e. for an on-going Cur- Recreation Opportunity % Use
going ( program). Drop-in Use 29%
rentl, there are historic agreements between the
city and several groups for use of the lap pools Such as lap swimming, basketball, and weight room
and athletic fields. The Department has policies "Learn-to" Skill Development 22%
that address the priority for renting tennis courts Such as beginner and intermediate classes
and field space (multipurpose and baseball fields) City-sponsored Leagues 19%
to independent sports organizations. However, Such as softball, youth football and adult soccer
the policies should be expanded to include all Community Group Use 17%
outdoor and indoor facilities. In addition, the Such as youth soccer, masters swimming, Little League
basis for rental fees for all facilities should be Advanced or Elite Programs 12%
standardized and will be determined based on ac- Such as advanced classes and competitive programs
! 35
v
New Facilities Development more days, and may or may not require exclusive Maximizing facility use: The Department's
Criteria use of a specific facility. (See Sidebar page 34.) facility-use analysis indicates the Department
The Department's process for de- Large events, such as the Boulder Creek Festival owns a range of recreation facilities. Some are
termining whether a new recre- or the 411' of July softball tournament attract out- not used to their fullest capacity, and others
ation facility can be built, as of-town visitors and result in additional sales tax are subject to more demands for space and
identified in the Master Plan, in- from lodging, restaurants and shopping. time than is available.
cludes meeting the following crite- Department facilities that host special events The cost of operating and maintaining recre-
include Pleasant View Fields, Stazio Ballfields, the ation facilities: Utility costs have increased
ria:
1) Little or no funding is required Boulder Reservoir, Flatirons Golf Course and the significantly in recent years as heating, elec-
from the Department for capital Central Park area. At times, portions of commu- tricity, and staffing costs have risen.
pity and neighborhood parks may also be utilized Balancing the scheduling of facility space for
improvements. for special events. The city has a Special Events programs and rentals with space and time
2) There is an operations and Committee that reviews all applications, identifies availability for drop-in use.
maintenance agreement. concerns and meets with applicants as necessary. Facility crowding at peak times and parking
3) Major infrastructure is in place For most large events, a contract between the city problems at NBRC.
allowing for facility develop- and the organizer or organization is required. Funding for facility renovations, including
ment (such as a new road in Fees often include a facility rental fee, a damage upgrading facilities.
Valmont City Park that will open deposit and costs for public safety and environ- Ensuring all facilities meet ADA compliance
the park to recreation facility mental enforcement staffing. Duplication of programs beyond market
development). In order to continue to support special events carrying capacity
4) The facility is compatible with a in Boulder, the Department will review its facili-
park site master plan. ties and scheduling to maximize the benefits to Capital Needs
the City economy from special events. The De- Funding is currently available for ongoing fa-
partment will coordinate with other departments cility maintenance and a limited amount of up-
+A and the Boulder Convention and Visitor's Bureau grades each year. Additional funds will be needed
to determine the types and sizes of events that for major facility renovations. The funding comes
would be the 'best fit' for Boulder. from three sources: the Permanent Parks and
Recreation Fund, the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund and
Facility Issues: Identified Needs or the .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund.
9 . F Deficiencies The Department's investment priorities for
- In addition to physical deficiencies in recre- recreation facilities, identified in the Department's
ation facilities, the Department must address Master Plan, build upon the Department goals to
some programming and operational issues: Maintain and protect our parks and recreation
36
V
facilities and programs" and "Become economi- tion is for energy efficiency upgrades and retro- Facility Partnership with the
cally sustainable." The Department's priorities for fits, such as boiler replacement at EBCC and ath- Boulder Mountainbike Alliance
investing in existing recreation facilities and de- letic field lighting replacement at East Mapleton The Boulder Mountainbike AI-
veloping new facilities are tied to funding. The Ballfields. The City is conducting audits of the liance (BMA) is partnering with the
current priorities for investment in facilities in- recreation facilities to identify improvements for Department to help fund facilities at
elude: energy efficiency. The City will evaluate and cre- the "destination" Bike Park under
Priority 1- Invest in existing revenue-produc- ate priorities for improvements and will pay for construction at Valmont City Park.
ing facilities. the improvements through savings from reduced BMA, a collaborative stewardship
Priority 2 - Invest in improving substandard energy costs as well as by leveraging existing cap- organization that designs, builds,
facilities. ital funds through loans and grants. By investing and maintains trails for land man-
Priority 3 - Invest in existing facilities. in energy efficiency, the Department will reduce agement agencies in Boulder
Priority 4 - Invest in new facilities with its utility and ongoing maintenance costs over the County, partnered with the Depart
demonstrated need and commu- long term. ment resulting in an award of a
nity support (through partner- $200,000 grant from Great Out-
ships). Development of Future Facilities doors Colorado (GOCO) to help
(See Master Plan for more information.) The development of any future facilities will construct the bike park. As .of Danu-
be determined through regularly conducted ary 2010, BMA had raised over
Facility Renovation needs assessments and feasibility studies. Con- $380,000 in additional funding and
The Department's recreation facilities need pe- cept plans for Valmont City Park (see Sidebar is committed to partnering in an on-
riodic renovation and upgrades to protect the page 30) and Foothills Community Park identify going maintenance program for the
City's investment in these facilities, make safety areas for future recreation facilities and athletic Bike Park and developing learn-to-
improvements, and stay current with industry fields. The Department also has a large parcel of bike and other programs.
trends and standards. In the past, the Depart- land (191 acres) within the Boulder Valley Com-
ment's process for determining priorities for capi- prehensive Plan (BVCP) Area III-Planning Re-
tal spending on recreation facilities has focused serve that is set aside for potential future park
on community needs, safety issues, and retrofits and recreation facility needs. Before development
needed to meet legal requirements. could occur, the parcel would need to be annexed
The Department's current priority for renova- into the City and undergo a planning process.
• • • • • • • • • r OL era
" • -S- 37
Recommendations Chapter 4
Facility Management
1 Continue to implement Master Plan recommendations related to recreation facilities.
2 Create business plans for specific areas, such as aquatics, athletic fields, and sports, to analyze the
existing facilities and program offerings, identify needs, and develop future options.
3 Complete in-process master plans and business plans for the Boulder Reservoir and Flatirons Golf
Course.
4 Explore the concept of themed recreation centers to maximize facility design and use.
5 Implement priorities for facility use. The priority order is recreation programs, drop-in facility use,
City programs, and rentals.
6 Create priorities for Department programs to use program space, based on identified criteria.
7 Create an asset replacement and maintenance schedule.
8 Create priorities for renovation projects that will increase facility use and revenues.
9 Ensure that all facility renovations and development meet industry or sport standards. For example,
enlarge the substandard pool at Scott Carpenter and the gymnasium at EBCC.
10 Implement energy efficiency and water conservation measures and upgrades.
11 Explore partnerships for facilities, both developing new and renovating old facilities.
12 Explore the concept of a cafe or food service at appropriate facilities, such as NBRC and EBCC.
13 Partner to develop a tennis teaching center or indoor tennis facility.
14 Install artificial turf fields at community and City parks.
15 Revise and/or develop policies, guidelines, and a pricing structure for facility rental by partners,
non-profit groups, and businesses.
16 Educate, implement, and enforce the existing permit system for group use of Department parks
and facilities.
Events and Tournaments
17 Conduct rental, tournament and event analysis to understand current rates in the region.
18 Maximize event opportunities at current facilities. Work regionally to gain referrals for "Boulder-
sized" events.
19 Ensure that events meet department's financial goals.
20 Strategically expand or enhance outdoor facilities to attract more events.
104,11
appawap-
dal' i Amm"
L ~j ?LLB l ~l i ~ t _ 11 ~3
•
The Recreation Program and Facilities Plan provided by others.
(RPFP) includes strategies that will help the De- • Determine how best to provide defined serv-
partment make decisions and develop a diverse ices with available resources, including part-
and sustainable portfolio of programs and facili- nerships and/or contracting services.
ties. Employing the funding strategy outlined in • Allocate resources (funding and staffing) ap-
this plan will allow the Department to make propriately within program areas.
changes in programs, services, and facilities while
improving financial strength. Recreation Funding
The Recreation Division's budget is composed
The Department's Current Financial of funding from the following five sources: the
Challenges Recreation Activity Fund, the City's General
The current economic climate has caused a re- Fund, the .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund, the .25 Cent
duction in the City's sales and use tax revenue Sales Tax Fund, and the Permanent Parks and
collections, which resulted in a decline in the tax- Recreation Fund (see pages 5 and 6). The Lottery
supported funding to support and subsidize Fund, a sixth source of funding for the Depart-
recreation services. The Department must estab- ment, does not provide funds for the Recreation
lish a decision-making framework to ensure it op- Division.
erates strategically and effectively. The
Department is utilizing the following strategies to The Recreation Activity Fund
address financial challenges: The Recreation Activity Fund (RAF), the main
• Continue work to define service costs and set source of funding for the Recreation Division, was
fees that cover expenses. created in 2001 as a special revenue fund to pro-
• Determine which recreation services should vide flexibility in financing recreation operations.
be provided by the City and which should be The RAF provides an accounting mechanism for
40 - 39
v
I
Sales Tax Sunsets and Reductions fund balance that can be used to offset declining Recreation Fund Management
The City's General Fund and the revenues or weather impacts at facilities. As a Challenges
.15 Cent and .25 Cent sales tax quasi-enterprise fund, its intent is to retain rev- Given the current economic climate and the
enues in excess of expenses from recreation activi-
funds contribute to the Depart- likelihood that it will be ongoing, the Department
ment's funding. ties and reinvest them in recreation services. needs to become more entrepreneurial and needs
Prior to the creation of the RAF, all excess rev-
1Nith declining sales tax rev- greater flexibility in managing funds. Additional
enues, the tax supported funding enues from recreation programs and facilities fees revenue collected in the same calendar year could
for recreation services will con- were added to the City's General Fund. The ma- be used to enhance operations if the Department
tinueto be reduced. jority of recreation funding (approximately 66 was on target to meet budget goals. An increase in
The .15 Cent Sales Tax will percent) is derived from user fees, which are ac- Council approved budget that utilizes such rev-
sunset for through the RAF. Since inception, the enues is one idea. The current mechanism that
sunset or expire in 2012. RAF receives tax-supported funding to subsidize
Boulder voters in November 2009 provides for additional appropriations to the base
programs and services that are not self-sufficient budget is permitted twice annually. But this may
approved putting the sales tax on (do not cover the operating costs to provide the y
not provide enough flexibility for the Department.
the November 2010 ballot. service) through fees charged. The RAF is cur-
This extension of the tax could (i.e. fundraising efforts for the Pottery program
rently reliant on the subsidy since the Depart- could be accepted and allocated only by means of
be allocated for general parks and ment's community outreach recreation programs
recreation- maintenance, not for do not charge cost recovery fees for services and an adjustment base budget.)
Pleasant View and Gerald Stazio funding for those areas is accounted for within Another challenge the Department experi-
sport complexes, which currently the RAF. ences is how funding is managed. Revenues col-
earmarked for funding lected through fees for all recreation programs
are S Before 2002, the number and range of recre- and facilities, contribute to the RAF budget. All
the tax. ation program offerings grew as the Department revenue earned throughout the year goes to the
The Department faces signifi- experienced increases in demands for program RAF "bottom line," similar to a balance sheet.
cant challenges in maintaining services. From 2002 through 2008, recreation pro- Revenues generated by programs and facilities
current maintenance levels at gramming continued to be reactive but the De- are not reinvested directly into the budgets of the
those.athletic complexes without partment was beginning to respond to budget recreation activities or areas in which they were
secured funds. reductions and declining tax-supported funding. earned. For example, the golf course fees provide
The .25 Cent Sales Tax will As a result of the decline in sales tax revenues, in revenue in excess of the amount required to oper-
sunset in 2015. 2004, the long-term sustainability of the RAF be- ate golf services, but these additional revenues are
The ballot language will be revised came a concern. This was due to the Depart-
not specifically reinvested in golf course improve-
based on the Department's needs ment's increasing operating expenses, the limited ments.
and will be proposed to voters as ability to adjust fees and projected RAF deficits.
early as the 2012 ballot.
30
Recreation Cost and Revenue Definitions
The Department currently utilizes the following definitions when calculating and analyzing recreation costs.
1. Program costs include personnel and non-personnel expenses specific to a recreation program. These costs are incurred only when a program is pro-
vided and include instructor salaries and program-specific supplies required for participation. There are both fixed and variable program costs.
a. Program direct costs include expenses that are relative to the program scope and size. The costs adjust according to program participation or
demand and are expended as needed for instructors, referees/umpires, lifeguards and some program specific material (items such as camp shirts
and individual pottery supplies)
b. Program facility costs are costs for facilities that include program space. There are two types:
i. exist solely for specific programs at Iris Studio, Salberg Studio, and the Pottery Lab. These facilities are programmed and not rented. The costs
are incurred daily, including utilities and custodial services, and are incorporated into fees paid by program users.
ii. exist for mixed use. These facilities are programmed, open for general public use and rented (e.g., recreation centers). The costs are associated
with facility operations (see 2. Facility direct costs). A portion of these costs are incorporated into fees paid by program users.
C. Program indirect costs include costs that remain unchanged and must be paid when the course is offered or service is provided, regardless of the
number of participants. These costs are incurred during hours of operation and include: program administration, class/program supervision, pro-
gram expenses (includes mileage/business travel, training, professional certifications, cell phone, some program-specific materials, equipment,
uniforms, and advertising)
2. Facility direct costs include the total of all direct personnel and non personnel expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's
recreation facilities (North, South, and East Boulder recreation centers, Flatirons Golf Course, Scott Carpenter and Spruce outdoor pools, Boulder Reser-
voir, aquatics operations, and sports fields). A portion of facility costs is incorporated into fees paid by users. These costs are incurred daily and include:
recreation center administration and supervision (administrator and supervisors, customer service team members); registration staff; facility drop-in,
childcare, and climbing wall-related oversight and instruction; maintenance and office supplies; utilities and water fees; and financial and custodial
services. Note: Indoor aquatics operations are included as part of the respective recreation center.
3. Recreation indirect costs include the overhead personnel and non-personnel expenses associated with the day-to-day operation of the Recreation Divi-
sion. These costs are incurred daily and include: Administration (recreation superintendent, CLASS registration system management, recreation adminis-
trative specialists); Marketing and promotions (media specialist, recreation guides, camp guides, program advertisement and promotions.)
Note: Department and City overhead expenses, such as Parks and Recreation Director, Business and Finance, Human Resources, City Attorney's Office,
Risk Management, Information Technology, and capital expenses are not included in RAF indirect costs.
4. Program, service, and facility revenues include the total amount of money received by the Department and accounted for within the RAF which are
paid by users for: program registration; admissions (sale of annual passes, punch cards, drop-in fees); and point of sale items (locks, fruit bars).
5. Nonoperating revenues include funding received from sources other than user fees or goods purchased for resale that supplement the RAF to subsidize
recreation operations. Sources include: funding transfers from other City funds (including the General Fund, Worker's Compensation Fund, and Trans-
portation Fund); monies from grants, donations, and fundraising; interest income. 14
-sib AW a
41
Pricing Methods As part of the City's budget process, revenue The Program, Service and Viability Report in-
The Department is changing its and expense projections are allocated annually as cluded findings as follows:
pricing method for recreation fees the year begins. Revenue generated in 2009 is ap- • The total cost of providing recreation services
to service-based pricing, in which plied to the fund balance and is not available in includes the direct and indirect expenses cur-
fees are set, based on the ful l or the current year. Once the annual budget is set, rently accounted for in the RAF;
defined cost to provide the there is no mechanism to access additional rev- • a baseline for the current costs accounted for
enue generated from fees during the same year. in the RAF includes direct program and facili-
service:
Other kinds of pricing, which The fund balance cannot be used unless funds are ties expenses;
the Department also considered appropriated through the City budget process. • recreation indirect expenses that are propor-
hut found inappropriate, include This can restrict program flexibility. The Depart- tional to each program area and facility, based
ment has limited flexibility to make adjustments on total direct costs; and
the following:
Marginal: Fees are set at the point that respond to unidentified needs and trends. • revenue earned that is associated with pro-
of and facilities.
of the minimal cost of providing a The RAF does not account for the total cost of
single unit of service (also known Recreation Cost Analysis
as cost per person). In April 2008, a key recommendation of the recreation. Recreation-related expenses and indi-
Average: Fees are set to include City Managers Workgroup on Recreation Financ- rect expenses not accounted for in the RAF are
in was that the Department gain a better under- not factored into the total cost of recreation.
the full cost of providing the serv g standing of and formalize the costs associated These expenses include city cost-allocated, capi-
ice• tal, and Department overhead.
Differentia[: Fees are set at differ- with operating recreation programs, services and
ent levels for different types of use. facilities. Staff defined recreation costs, deter-
mined the total cost of recreation operations, and Current Pricing and Fee Types
Traditional: Fees are set based on analyzed revenues in order to understand how Historically, fees and charges have been as-
historical precedence. much of the total cost of each program was recov- sessed on individual users or groups that receive
Comparative: Fees are set to ered through user fees. The Department com- a benefit from specific recreation services. Corre-
match the fees of other agencies. pleted a financial analysis to determine the total sponding to the City's budget guidelines, these
Equity: Fees are set at a point that costs of operating recreation programs, services recreation services have been assigned partial,
is fair, reasonable, and equitable and facilities. Based on revenues earned from fees, full, or enterprise cost recovery expectations. The
for all users. cost recovery rates were calculated and subsidy pricing method for recreation services was set
amounts were identified. (See Program, Service using the market and historical precedence to
and Viability Report, Appendix E). Determining match fees of other agencies in the region, or set
the total cost of operations is important because it fees at a point that was considered fair, reason-
will provide the foundation for the Department's able, and equitable for users.
fee-setting methodology.
-4 40 in 0 0
Currently, fees and charges are evaluated on leveraging resources through partnerships, the Program Classifications
an annual basis by recreation staff. The Depart- Department can meet these reductions effectively. The Department is implementing a
ment adjusts program fees on the basis of the cur- Strategies for achieving this goal are as follows: classification system to define skill
rent costs of providing programs and competitive • Use a standard pricing method to calculate and experience levels, simplify the
market rates, and these fees are approved by and analyze the total cost of service consis- registration process for programs
recreation management staff. The Department of- tently for all recreation programs, services, and individual classes, and help
fers City residents discounted rates for classes and and facilities. determine program and class fees,
facility entrance fees to acknowledge that resi- • Apply an appropriate amount of indirect costs This model is based on the univer-
dents already contribute to recreation facilities to user fees. sity course-level model, which
through property taxes. The Department offers • Reinvest in recreation infrastructure, following
ranges from beginning to ad-
additional discounts through multi-use punch industry standards, by establishing a facility vanced cards and for residents with low incomes, people investment fee in the
pricing structure. would or el receive elite.
tax-Level loo classes
with disabilities, and members of the Boulder • Assign percentage of City cost allocations and would supported fund-
Chamber and employer groups within the city. capital expenses that would need to be in- ing, if available, and Levels 200,
300, 400 -
Facility entrance fees for the recreation centers, eluded in the total cost of recreation, beyond ceiveannod subsidy. classes would r
e
the Boulder Reservoir, outdoor pools, and operating costs. eividy. The categories
Flatirons Golf Course are adjusted as part of the include:
City budget ordinance approval process. These Service-based Pricing level 100: introductory basic ra
fees are charged according to the Department's The purpose of using a consistent pricing level class or program
age-based pricing method. Because these fees are method is to ensure the creation of a sustainable targeted to any age group.
identified in the city's municipal code, City Coun- fee structure that reduces the Department's re- Level 200: advanced begin-
cil must approve the increase. Allowable in- liance on tax-supported funding, therefore, the ner/intermediate class or pro-
creases are generally minimal (less than 10%), Department is implementing service-based pric- gram targeted to any age
adjusted in an effort to account for the increased ing for recreation programs and facilities. Fees, in- group, with a prerequisite
cost to do business. However, this can limit the eluding codified fees, will be established based on class or equivalent related ex-
Department's ability to raise fees in order to cover the defined cost: to provide recreation services and perience.
true expenses or to meet market rate. the market rate, when appropriate. Using this Level 300: advanced, elite, or
method will ensure that all programs and facili- competitive class or program
Pricing Goals ties are priced appropriately and fees are set at the for youth.
The Department is anticipating that tax-sup- point at which each program and facility will re- Level 400: advanced, elite, or
ported funding for the RAF will be reduced and cover the identified cost recovery amount. Under- competitive class or program
potentially eliminated. Through strategic program standing and defining the cost to provide the for adults, or a private class or
delivery, sustainable fund management, and program for any age.
• • • • • • • • • ! • • • • • • • • •F 6" fI k tP c
z , 43 /`4
Support for Programs with service will assist the Department in establishing 5. Determine what the market will bear by con-
Community Benefits a cost recovery goal for all recreation services. The ducting market research on fees and assess-
Some important questions for Department plans on phasing the implementation ing participation levels and customer
recreation funding are: of service-based pricing beginning with programs satisfaction.
• Should recreation program and and rentals and eventually applying it to admis-
facility users be the only ones sion fees. Ultimately, subsidy that is applied to Subsidization
admission fees will be eliminated.
paying for programs that The Department's recreation programs are
provide community-wide The service-based pricing process will include funded within the RAF Recreation funds, which
benefits? the following steps:
are derived from two general sources: user fees
• Should the community as a 1_ Establish a baseline through identifying direct for services and subsidy from other City funds
costs for each program/ class.
whole support these (General Fund, Transportation and Workers
programs? 2. Calculate the following overhead (indirect) Comp). Programs that generate more revenue
costs: than is required to cover expense also help programs that focus on a. all program indirect and recreation indi- p
life and: safety, community health, dize the recreation programs and facilities that do
and disabled and low-income par- rect costs; not cover 100 Percent of their costs. Programs
b. all recreation facility costs for operations
ticiPants, including the Youth Serv- and services within the RAF recover varying
and maintenance; amounts of expenses through user fees. The aver-
ices Initiative (YSI), EXPAND c. all Department-related indirect costs;
inclusion, learn-to and drop-in age cost-recovery rate for recreation operations
d. all City cost-allocated costs (including the
swim, and First Aid and Cardiopul- City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Of- was 82 percent in 2008.
monarl' Resuscitation (CPR), are fice, Finance Department, Information Although offerings for programs and services
offered as a community service Technology, and Human Resources); and have expanded, the tax-supported funding has re-
and have little or no opportunities e. all capital-related costs mained fairly constant. This poses a challenge, as
, including major the costs of providing services have increased,
to cover their costs. maintenance, replacement of existing th causing a gap between revenues earned from fees
recreation facilities, and development of
new facilities. and the expenses required to provide services. To
3. Determine and apply an appropriate amount respond to this gap, the Department has estab-
of indirect cost that will be consistently lished a new process for applying subsidies based
passed onto user through fees. on program classifications, which includes the fol-
4. Identify and understand the City cost-allo- lowing steps:
cated costs and all capital-related costs, but L Identify the program level based on the newly
do not pass these on if they cannot be accom- established criteria.
modated by the market. 2. Apply a subsidy, if available, to social core pro-
grams only.
.~~br~
44
Cost Recovery Types
Recreation Services Cost Types
Program Direct* Program Indirect facility Recreation Indirect Department Indirect City Cost Allocation Capital
Programs X X X X A ] A
(Classes, Tean,s, Leagues, Camps)
Contracted Recreation Services O O X X A A A
Facilities (Admissions) O O X X A A A
Rentals O O X X A A
Cost baseline
X = City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Costs
O = Costs paid by user but collected by outside program provider
A = Costs not presently recovered via user fees
Cost Recovery Goals
Program Cost Recovery Goal
Social Core Programs
YSl 0% cost recovery (100% tax supported)
Inclusion 0% cost recovery (100% tax supported)
EXPAND Specialized Programs 75%-100% cost recovery
Learn-to-Swim Programs 90%-100% cost recovery
Certification Programs 90%- 100% cost recovery
Level 100 "Learn-to" Programs 90%- 100% cost recovery
Desirable Programs
Level 200-300 Programs 100% cost recovery
(achieving 100% plus cost recovery would move the program from "Desirable" into the Business Core category)
Business Core Programs
Level 400 programs, summer Cost recovery exceeds 100%
camps, private lessons, tournaments
` Cost recovery goals relate to the program direct, program indirect, facility, and recreation indirect costs, but will likely not recover department-related indirect
costs, City cost-allocation, and capital costs.
• • • • • • • • c t
45
Cost Recovery costs. A potential future phase will analyze de-
partment-related indirect costs, City cost-alloca-
Cost recovery is the portion of a program,
't service, or facility expense that is paid by user tion, and capital costs.
fees. Recreation programs and facilities are
funded through a combination of admission fees How Recreation Programs and Services
and City revenue sources, including sales and Should Be Funded
# taxes. A cost-recovery was devel-
property policy Based on the RPFP guiding principles, three
oped to ensure that subsidies, if any, are directed program types have been identified and will be
primarily to social core programs (see Appendix offered by the City: social core, business core, and
D). This policy provides a systematic framework desirable programs. Funding for these programs
for determining appropriate fee structures and comes from tax-supported funding, user fees, or
evaluating programs that do not meet designated other programs.
minimum cost-recovery goals.
Direct costs are identified as specific identifi- Social core or "public good" programs have par-
able expenses associated with providing recre- tial cost-recovery expectations of between zero
ation services. On a fund level, this includes all and 90 percent, and have user fees that are sup-
expenses from the Recreation Activity Fund, par- plemented by tax supported funding or RAF sub-
tially supplemented by the Department's other sidy. These programs generally are traditional
funds. Indirect costs are identified as Department municipal youth programs, programs that target
and City overhead expenses. disadvantaged populations, or activities that en-
hance the health, safety, and livability of the coin-
Cost Recovery Expectations munity and therefore require the removal of a cost
The Department completed an analysis based barrier for optimum participation. There are two
on operating costs to determine current cost-re- types of social core programs: 1) life and safety
covery rates for programs and services. Fees will and community health programs that engage
be determined based on the identified costs that youth and the community at large in healthy ac-
are required to be recovered and cost recovery tivities and help achieve lifelong healthy habits;
goals. The charts on page 45 identify general cost and 2) programs that serve disadvantaged popu-
recovery types and goals according to whether lations.
they are programs, contracted recreation services,
facilities, or rentals and include program direct, Business core programs have full cost recovery
program indirect, facility, and recreation indirect expectations and beyond, or cost recovery expec-
00 re Z - .0
46
Recreation Programs and Services Funding - Phase 1
Social Core Programs Business Cote Programs Desirable Programs
(Partial cost recovery) (Full cost recovery plus) (Full cost recovery)
Subsidy from the Youth Services Initiative (o%i
EXPAND Inclusion (o%al
General Fund
EXPAND Specialized '(7&100x1
Learn-to•Swim'(9o1-IDD%1 Intra-Fund Subsidy
LL- User Fees 30 Red Cross Certs (9o%,ioo%)
0 Beginning and
Introductory Classes - all
program areas (9o-/,iDO%1
a
0
User Fees Programs that generate Programs and rentals
revenue above required that cover required costs
costs
Social Core programs (Public Good Pro- Business core programs provide revenue Desirable programs are programs that meet priority
grams( are generally accepted as traditional support for the Department's entire portfo- community interests. These programs must meet the
municipal youth programs, programs that tar- lio of recreation services. Business core following criteria in order to be offered through the
get disadvantaged populations, or activities fees are generally set at market rate and City of Boulder:
that enhance the health, safety and livability are Required:
of the community and therefore require the required to cover identified direct and 1. Program covers required direct and indirect costs
removal of a cost barrier For optimum partici- indirect (overhead) costs. (instructor fees and class materials and
potion. There are two types of social core administrative costs).
programs: LiFe/Safely and Community Health 2. Physical program space is available.
Programs (Programs that engage the youth 3. Program is in demand -classes often fill up and
and the community at-large in healthful activi may have a waiting list.
has and help achieve lifelong habits) and Pro- d. Program serves a large population or identified
need of the community.
grams targeted to Disadvantaged Populations Desired:
(Programs that serve disadvantaged popula- 1. Program might provide a partnership
tions).
opportunity to leverage city resources.
2. Program maximizes facility use - might use a
EXPAND Specialized, Learn-to-swim and space that would otherwise be empty.
Red Cross Certifications are supplemented 3. Program contributes to serving a diverse
cross-section of the community.
• , • • • . • • • • • • w
• • • •t1=•Mt» •4W
0 a-
47
v
tations of more than 100 percent. They meet the grams do not meet the new cost recovery goal.
needs of the market, at market rate pricing. These During the next 1-2 years, the department will im-
programs generate revenue in addition to ex- plement actions such as reducing costs, raising
penses, which can be used to offset the costs of so- fees and /or seeking outside funding in order to
cial core programs and thus lower the meet the cost recovery goal. Ultimately, all De-
tax-supported funding. partment programs will fall into either the social
core or business core categories. The additional
Desirable programs have full (100 percent) cost- revenues generated by the majority of the pro-
recovery expectations and respond to expressed grazes will be channeled into subsidies for social
priority community needs. core programs and into a capital fund that will
fund renovation, replacement and capital
The chart on page 47 illustrates this "Phase 1" construction.
funding scenario. Currently, many desirable pro-
City of Boulder Cost Recovery Philosophy
In 1994, City staff completed the Comprehensive Fee Study, which formalized general expectations for fee setting
and City cost recovery. Cost recovery categories were defined as follows and are adopted annually as part of the
budget process.
No Cost Recovery
• Tax dollars should support essential City services that are available to and benefit everyone in the community.
Partial
• User fees may recover less than full cost for those services for which the City desires to manage demand.
• User fees may recover only partial cost from those individuals who cannot pay full cost due to economic hard-
ship.
• A user fee may not recover full cost if competitive market conditions make a full cost fee undesirable.
Full
• User fees should recover the full cost of services which benefit specific groups or individuals.
• User fees should recover the full cost for those services provided to persons who generate the needs for those
services.
Enterprise
• User fees could recover more than the ful I cost for a service in order to subsidize other services provided to the
community.
48 1W 611
r. ti
Fee Adjustments the current market rate);
Implementing a consistent pricing method • communicating the rationale for fee changes
will impact the current fees for recreation services. to users and the community; and
Adjusting fees for programs and facilities will in- • adjusting fees as needed to implement consis-
volve considerations such as: tent pricing while maintaining market-sup-
• analyzing all the impacts of the new pricing ported fees. If the market bears the fee, the
method and cost recovery goals; Department would price the program accord-
• considering a phased approach to modify fees ingly, regardless of the cost to provide the
(fees may increase or decrease depending on program.
r
O
AMP
00 Z so V
a , 49 ~
Recommendations Chapter 5
Fund Management
1 Establish a target RAF fund balance.
2 Achieve recreation industry standard of 40 to 65% of total operating budget for standard personnel
costs. (see also Chapter 3)
3 Determine which programs and services are most appropriately funded by taxes and which should
be supported by user fees.
4 Apply available subsidy to social core programs.
5 Establish an "opportunity fund" that allows new programs to be piloted without impacting or re-
ducing the funding for existing programs. (see also Chapter 3)
6 Develop controls and criteria that permit flexibility in using revenues earned for services provided
in the same fiscal year.
Pricing and Fees
7 Revise list of codified fees to include facility entry fees only, as facilities were constructed with tax-
payer monies.
6 Once the appropriate rate is charged, develop an annual fee adjustment mechanism or market rate
adjustment to accommodate the cost of providing service.
9 Explore a "facility investment fee" that is incorporated into the pricing structure so there is an op-
portunity to reinvest in recreation facilities.
10 Maximize facility use through peak/off-peak pricing and agreements (e.g., inter-governmental
agreements, memorandums-of-understanding) with other providers of recreation services and facil-
ities.
11 Standardize and simplify admission categories, fees, discounts and rentals.
12 Create a "youth" category by combining child and teen to serve children ages three to eighteen.
13 Revise "adult" category to include participants ages nineteen to sixty-one.
14 Revise "senior" category to include 62 and over, aligning with minimum Social Security Adminis-
tration age requirement.
• •
50
One of the guiding principles of the Recreation This five-year plan is intended to achieve
Program and Facilities Plan (RPFP) is for the De- Phase 1 funding scenario (see page 47) and begin
partment to develop and implement a financially Phase 2 funding scenario of the Department's fi-
sustainable operating model for recreation serv- nancial sustainability goals. Creating a financially
ices within the next three to five years. Given the sustainable Recreation Division would involve
recent and dramatic downturn in the economy eliminating the tax- supported funding to the
and the over arching impact the downturn is hav- Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) for recreation
ing on the City's financial health, it is evident that programs (exclusive of support for YSI and
the Department must develop mechanisms to re- EXPAND inclusion efforts) and establishing a cap-
duce the reliance on tax-supported funding. One ital reinvestment funding source from the revenue
method is to implement the RPFP that will move proceeds of recreation programs and services.
the Recreation Division towards a healthier and Achieving this level of independence will take
stronger business model. This plan is designed to time, but can be accomplished through a series of
help achieve the goal of fiscal sustainability with- strategic steps over the next five years. Phase 2,
out eliminating recreation opportunities within as shown on the next page, would align all pro-
the community. The key elements of this effort grams in their appropriate areas.
will include reducing overall program direct and The key strategies that will be used to achieve
indirect expenses, improving program and facility financial sustainability include the following:
efficiency, enhancing marketing to increase the
customer base and developing partnerships and 1. Prepare business plans for facilities and
sponsorships as well as strategically leveraging program areas
key facilities and opportunities to generate addi- All major program areas and facilities will un-
tional revenue. dergo a strategic planning process that will iden-
tify the elements needed to become financially
sustainable. These elements will identify potential
TIT 6: 1 V 1 4: 4:
Recreation Programs and Services Funding - Phase 2
Social Core Programs,: Business Core Programs
(Partial cost recovery) (Full cosl recovery plus)
Subsidy from theYouth Services Initiative (o%)
General Fund EXPAND Inclusion (0%)
19 C EXPAND Specialized *I75.100^:I Intro-Fund
2 Learn-to-Swim *(9o%.loo%)
User Fees Red Cross Certs *[so°~faosa) Subsidy
O Beginning and
4 Introductory Classes - all
program areas (9o-/_ioo%1
01- Z
O
Programs that generate Renovation,
User Fees revenue above Refurbishment, and
required costs Capital Fund
Social Core programs (Public Good pro- Business core programs meet the needs of
grams) are generally accepted as traditional the market, often at market rate. These
municipal youth programs, programs that tar- are programs that are financially success-
get disadvantaged populations, or activities ful and are able to help lower the subsidy
that enhance the health, safety and livability from the general fund by generating rev-
of the community and therefore require the enue that can be used to help offset the
removal of a cost barrier for optimum partici- costs of Social Core programs.
potion. There are two types of social core
programs: Life/Safety and Community All recreation programs offered by the
Health Programs (Programs that engage the Department will generate revenues that
youth and the community at-large in healthful meet assigned revenue targets for the de-
activities and help achieve lifelong habits) fined
and Programs targeted to Disadvantaged program and Department.
Populations (Programs that serve disadvan-
taged populations).
EXPAND Specialized, Lean-to-swim and
Red Cross Certifications are supplemented
with user fees.
u• • . • • • • . • • • • •
so me so '0
52
~ a
future operational efficiencies, facility investment and pricing or policies changes (stemming from
needs as well as other actions, such as marketing the RPFP) to the community. Above all, a De-
plans. partment Marketing and Communications Plan
Planning efforts of this nature are already will identify key opportunities and implementa-
moving forward for the Boulder Reservoir and tion strategies for attracting new patrons and in- '
Flatirons Golf Course. These plans align with creasing recreation revenues. * g
other planning efforts, including the Boulder Val-
ley Comprehensive Plan, the 2006 Parks and 3. Assess Market Prices _
Recreation Master Plan, and the 2010 Recreation Service-based pricing will be utilized to deter- a'
Programs and Facilities Plan (see diagram next mine the actual cost of providing Department
page). programs, services, and facilities. However, after
the defined cost of service is calculated, market
2. Enhance Marketing and Communication rates and trends must be assessed to ensure the
Following approval of the RPFP in 2010, the Department fees are set to achieve financial sus-
Department will develop an overall Marketing tainability, as well as meet the changing demands
and Communications Plan. The intent of this plan and challenges of serving the community. The
is to provide a "blueprint" for successfully imple- pricing of recreation programs and facilities is
menting the necessary changes to the methods subject to the pressures of supply and demand
currently employed by the Department to market pricing within the Boulder market. Market rates
and communicate to customers. Components of should be a regular consideration when establish-
the Department's Marketing and Communica- ing all fees in the recreation and program market-
tions Plan include: how the Department follows place. Assessing market pricing will help enable
trends, adapts programs, determines program life the Department to provide high quality recreation
cycles and achieves revenue, service delivery and and fitness options while achieving the Depart-
customer service goals. ment's fiscal goals.
The marketing plan will provide marketing
and communication goals and strategies to 4. Create Efficiencies and Improve Revenues
achieve the overall goal of fiscal self-sustainabil- A number of operating efficiencies can be em-
ity. Key elements of the plan will include strate- ployed to reduce the cost of providing recreation
gies for increasing participation in programs, programs and services. These include setting ap-
generating revenue through advertising and propriate class minimums, ensuring that classes
sponsorships, promoting new or cost-saving pro- that do not meet minimums are cancelled; maxi-
grams and communicating significant program, mizing facility use through comprehensive sched-
f t • .33
04
How Plans Relate
Scheduled for major
• BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN update in 2010
2006 PARKS AND RECREATION Scheduled for
MASTER PLAN update in 2011
2010 RECREATION PROGRAMS Underway-
AND FACILITIES PLAN scheduled for
completion in 2010
SITE MASTER PLANS
AND BUSINESS PLANS
•
FLATIRONS GOLF Underway-
BOULDER scheduled for
RESERVOIR COURSE completion in 2010
•
ATHLETIC FIELDS AQUATICS ;
FUTURE-
' SPORTS ; OTHER PROGRAM ; recommendation
AREAS ; from the RPFP
go *a as go go go C.,00.40*
• s • as M • ® 00 00 . *sees
.34
uling and implementing peak and off-peak pric- 8. Acquire Additional Funding
ing; ensuring an appropriate level of program, fa- Once business plans are completed with rec- :
cility and administrative staffing to programs ommendations for facility investment priorities,
offered; and reducing operating costs through en- funding sources to make the improvements a real-
ergy efficiency upgrades. ity must be identified. Because capital funding is
limited from the existing sources of recreation
5. Leverage Resources funding, new monies would need to be identified
As described in previous chapters, the Depart- to address the extensive backlog of facility repo- Q:
ment will actively seek out partnerships and vation needs. Depending on the scope of the fa-
sponsorships in order to leverage Department re- cility improvements, revenue bonds may be one
sources with other community partners, source of funding, if approved by voters.
The Department also needs to ensure the .25
6. Invest Strategically Cent Sales Tax Fund, a dedicated Parks and
Business plans will likely include a number of Recreation ballot initiative approved by voters in
recommendations for investing strategically in 1995 and set to expire in 2015, is renewed. An as-
aging or inadequate amenities at facilities. These sessment was completed in 2006 that determined -
investments would be designed to provide supe- that almost all ballot requirements have been met.
rior customer experience and increase revenues. (One additional neighborhood park is scheduled
In some cases, the Department may seek out in- to be completed by 2015.) Outreach to evaluate
vestment partners. current community needs coupled with recom-
mendations from this plan will be considered
7. Assess Community Needs when formalizing the ballot renewal language. It
Ongoing monitoring of the marketplace and is anticipated that the proposed, revised initiative
community needs will occur through needs as- could be on the ballot as early as 2012.
sessments, surveys, and market research designed
to provide the community with the right mix of
programs and services with a high level of cus-
tomer service.
so so 00
Q
Recommendations Chapter 6
Marketing and Communication
1 Develop a marketing plan for programs and services (core programs and facilities and desirable
programs).
2 Create an advertising and promotion strategy.
3 Develop communication plan to convey RPFP recommendations and their impacts (e.g., fees
changes, participation rates, facility use, class offerings).
4 Explore advertising opportunities to fund recreation guide.
5 Revise customer service guidelines to enhance customer experience.
6 Develop early registration incentive program within marketing plan.
Business and Funding
7 Prepare business plans for major facilities and program areas.
8 Evaluate appropriate funding mechanisms for facility renovation and/or new facility construction.
-+l.
~F
=WKWIV
ISO's
56
•
A'tachment B-2
APPENDIX A
2009 Recreation Plan Survey Results
A 44
City of Boulder
2009 Recreation Plan Survey
REPORT OF RESULTS
t~ ~~~R`~r: rte';. :4~~ p--, a
, 41p
li ' A
i~
t.
• - ~ is ~'w - - ,
Pilo*
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1
Survey Background .......................................................................................................................5
Community Priorities for Recreation ..........................................................................................6
Residents' Perspectives on Funding Options for Recreation ..................................................18
Resident Sources for Recreation Information ..........................................................................22
Resident Perspectives on Registration .......................................................................................24
In Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................25
Appendix A: Responses to Survey Questions ............................................................................27
Appendix B: Responses to Open-ended Survey Question ........................................................41
Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area .........................45
Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Presence of Children or
Teenagers in Household .........................................................................................................59
Appendix E: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Use of City of Boulder Parks and
Recreation Facilities/Activities and Registration .................................................................68
Appendix F: Survey Methodology .............................................................................................73
Developing the Questionnaire ...........................................................................................73
Selecting Survey Recipients 73
Survey Administration and Response 74
Survey Processing (Data Entry) 75
Survey Analysis 75
Appendix G: Survey Materials ...................................................................................................78
U
C
yG
U
t
U
10
N
N
N
C
O
Z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Survey Background
The city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is developing a Recreation Program and
Facilities Plan as part of a recommendation from the 2006 Parks and Recreation Department's Master
Plan and the City Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing. This plan will include an
assessment of recreation trends and issues; local demographics; and recommendations for recreation
programs, services and facilities. The goal of this plan is to help guide future decisions and resource
allocations for Boulder's recreation division. As a part of the public input process for the plan, a survey
of a representative sample of Boulder Valley residents was commissioned.
A randomly selected sample of 3,000 residential addresses within Boulder Valley (zipcodes 80301
through 80305) were mailed the 2009 Boulder Recreation Plan Survey. About 4% of these addresses
were vacant. A total of 622 completed surveys were received, for a response rate of 22%.
Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender and type of residence (rent or own,
detached single-family housing unit or attached housing unit) were represented in the proportions
reflective of the Boulder population.
The 95% confidence interval ("margin of error") is plus or minus four percentage points.
Community Priorities for Recreation
Those completing the survey were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of
statements about the overarching goals of recreation programming in Boulder. The percent strongly
agreeing that each statement should be part of the mission of Boulder Parks and Recreation was:
♦ To maintain and improve the physical health and mental well-being of the general population of
the community, 78%
♦ To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger), 70%
♦ To provide recreational opportunities for senior adults (age 60 and older), 58%
♦ To provide recreational opportunities for adults (20 to 59 years old), 57%
• To provide recreational opportunities to people who might not otherwise be able to participate in
recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes), 55%
♦ To provide opportunities to make social connections; to strengthen the "social fabric" of the
community, 34%
♦ To enhance the economic vitality of the community by offering special events that draw visitors
from inside and outside the community, 24%
In addition to providing feedback about the broad purposes of recreation, those completing the survey
were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority. The percent
rating each group as "essential" was:
♦ Children age 12 and younger, 50%
U
♦ Teenagers 13 to 19 years old, 49%
♦ People with low incomes, 44%
U
♦ People with disabilities, 38%
♦ Senior adults (age 60 and older), 33%
♦ Adults (20 to 59 years old), 29%
♦ Families together as a group, 23%
z
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) o
Page 1
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Those completing the survey were asked how they would allocate of recreation facility time across five
types of opportunities. They were to assign a percent of time to each, such that the percents added to
100%. The average percent allocation for each category was:
♦ Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps, shoot baskets, lift weights, etc.), 29%
♦ Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner and intermediate classes), 22%
♦ Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use the facilities (e.g., softball leagues, adult soccer
leagues volleyball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.), 19%
♦ Opportunities for community groups to use the facilities (e.g., Little League, Master Swimming,
youth soccer clubs, Boulder Rugby Club, etc.), 17%
♦ Opportunities for advanced or elite programs (advanced classes or competitive
opportunities), 12%
Respondents were asked how they would distribute recreation class offerings among three categories.
On average, respondents felt that about half of the class offerings should be in the activity physical
recreation category. The remaining allocation was split fairly evenly between leisure enrichment (25%)
and community education classes (24%).
Respondents also were asked how they would distribute tax dollars to best meet the needs of the
Boulder community. They were invited to distribute $100 tax dollars across five categories of
recreation programming. The highest allocation of tax dollars was given to recreational programs
offered at the beginning and intermediate level, with an average of $35 allocated to this category. The
next biggest allocation was given to reducing rental rates for children and teen community groups, with
an average allocation of $24. The remaining allocations were roughly equal, with about $13 or $14
being given, on average, to recreational programs at advanced an elite levels, to reducing rental rates
for adult community groups, and to providing one-day community events.
Those participating in the survey were given a series of five pairs of statements from which they were
to choose the one that best represented how they felt.
♦ The first pair of statements dealt with the overarching philosophy of the parks and recreation
department, and whether it should be considered a human service (and therefore offers limited
services funded primarily through tax dollars) or whether it should be considered a business (and
therefore offer more services funded primarily through fees). There was great support for the
human services model, which was chosen by 84% of respondents compared to the business
model chosen by 16% of respondents.
♦ Two-thirds of respondents felt that program offerings should be offered at many different levels
from beginner to very advanced, while a third felt they should be concentrated at the beginning
and intermediate levels. This seems somewhat contradictory to the finding that when allocating
tax dollars, respondents on average devoted more tax dollars to introductory level programming
($35, the highest amount of the five categories) and less to advanced and elite levels ($14). It
may be that when faced with the trade-off, many respondents chose to have a variety of levels
served, including the introductory levels but also the advanced levels, but when allocating the tax
dollars, placed a higher priority on the introductory levels while still allocating some of their
hypothetical dollars to the advanced levels. c
♦ About two-thirds considered it more important to make facilities more available for drop-in use,
while about a third thought facilities should mostly be programmed with leagues and other pre-
planned activities.
♦ Respondents were evenly split between choosing whether the city should "provide the facilities o
and programs identified as needed by residents even if they are provided by other agencies" or z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) o
Page 2
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
whether "the city should provide facilities and programs that complement others in the
community and do not replicate them."
The survey was also used to assess resident involvement in a variety of recreation activities. For each
activity, respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had
participated in the activity at a city of Boulder facility, at a nonprofit facility, at a private facility, or at
another city's facility. After indicating their participation in the various activities, respondents
evaluated the importance of offering each to the community through city Parks and Recreation.
• The six most popular activities, in which more than 30% of households had participated, were
using an indoor swimming pool for drop-in or lap swim (53% of households), drop-in exercise
(51 fitness and wellness classes (43%), using the reservoir (41 using an outdoor
swimming pool for drop-in or lap swim (31 and using and indoor leisure pool (31
♦ In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. The
four activities given the highest importance ratings were also the four most popular activities.
There were a few notable exceptions; while a relatively small percent of respondents had
participated in EXPAND (3%), certification classes (12%), children's summer day camp (8%),
children's day camp on school days off (4%) or the Youth Services Initiative (2%), these
activities were all rated as "essential" by 30% to 38% of respondents.
♦ Some other offerings that had relatively lower participation rates but higher importance ratings
included educational health and wellness classes; boating at the reservoir; outdoor swimming
pools for lessons and classes; and summer swim team for children and teens.
Residents' Perspectives on Funding Options for Recreation
Those completing the survey were asked to what extent they would support or oppose various funding
options for city parks and recreation offerings. The proportion that "strongly" or "somewhat"
supporting each option presented was:
♦ Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when they expire, 90%
♦ Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or nonprofits to develop joint use
recreational facilities or programs, 85%
♦ Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds from the community on a portion of
the monies received, 82%
♦ Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational facilities or programs, 77%
♦ A new sales tax, 38%
Other types of funding strategies were also presented to respondents. The proportion that "strongly" or
"somewhat" agreed that the city should support each was:
♦ Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for
less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs), 81%
♦ Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for participating in city of Boulder
recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation facilities, 77%
♦ Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a business in Boulder should pay resident
fees for participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation
facilities, 70%
♦ The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order to supplement parks and recreation
funding (e.g., signage with advertisements on baseball fences, use of event banners with logos or
advertising during events or games, naming of facilities, etc.), 69% m
♦ Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees, 37% 8
Z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 7
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Four options for the use of additional funding, if any were found for Parks and Recreation, were
presented to respondents. Nearly all supported the idea that these funds should be used to maintain and
update the existing facilities and equipment. About three-quarters of respondents thought such funds
could be used to lower fees for facilities and programs. About two-thirds supported building or
renovating facilities, or offering additional recreation programming.
Respondents were asked how much subsidy they thought should be given to a variety of types of
programming. In general, the programs that had previously been seen to be more popular in terms of
use or support were more likely to be deemed appropriate for higher levels of subsidy. In addition,
programs for children and teens were more likely to be given a higher subsidy than programs for
adults. Two programs, however, particularly stand out; about 40% of respondents thought that the
Youth Services Initiative and EXPAND should receive a near total subsidy; 12% or fewer respondents
thought any other program should receive such a subsidy.
Resident Sources for Recreation Information
The availability of information about the recreation offerings of the city was perceived fairly
positively. Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) considered the availability of recreation
information as "excellent" and another 51 % rated it as "good." About 23% rated the availability of
information as "fair" or "poor."
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide was the most frequently used source of information about
the city's parks and recreation programs, with nearly two-thirds of respondents reporting that they find
out about programs from the Guide. About 4 in 10 respondents said they use the city of Boulder Web
site, and about 3 in 10 learn about parks and recreation offerings through the Boulder Camera
newspaper. About 2 in 10 pick up the informational flyers about program offerings. Very few (4%)
learn about recreational programs from Channel S. When asked which one source they most preferred,
the Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide was the most popular choice with 4 in 10 indicating this as
their preferred choice. This was followed by the city's Web site, chosen by 3 in 10 respondents, and
the Boulder Camera newspaper, selected by 1 in 10 respondents.
Resident Perspectives on Registration
Those completing the survey were asked whether or not they or anyone in their household had
registered for a city of Boulder Parks and Recreation program or class in the last year. About a third
reported that they had. Those who had registered were asked what method or methods they had used to
register. The most frequently used options were in-person (39%) and online (39%). About a quarter of
those who had registered had done so by phone.
When asked how they would rate the ease or difficulty of registration, just over half deemed
registration "very easy" with another 45% rating it as "somewhat" easy. Only 3% felt registering for
classes or programs was "somewhat difficult," and no respondent rated the registration process as
"very difficult."
In Conclusion
C
Boulder residents view Parks and Recreation as a resource for the entire community, and are
willing for tax dollars to be used to subsidize fees.
A special emphasis is placed recreational offerings for youth by Boulder residents.
Boulder residents believe Parks and Recreation should serve those who might not otherwise be
able to participate in recreational activities.
_FU
C
Residents want Parks and Recreation to serve a wide range of purposes, but do place a higher
priority on active physical recreation and introductory-level programming. o
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 4
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
SURVEY BACKGROUND
The city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is developing a Recreation Program and
Facilities Plan as part of a recommendation from the 2006 Parks and Recreation Department's Master
Plan and the City Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing. This plan will include an
assessment of recreation trends and issues; local demographics, and recommendations for recreation
programs, services and facilities. The goal of this plan is to help guide future decisions and resource
allocations for Boulder's recreation division. As a part of the public input process for the plan, a survey
of a representative sample of Boulder Valley residents was commissioned.
A random sample of households located in the Boulder Valley (zip codes 80301 through 80305) were
selected to receive the survey. Each selected household was contacted three times, starting February
25, 2009. First, a prenotification announcement was sent, informing the household members that they
had been selected to participate in the Boulder Recreation Survey. Approximately one week after
mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a survey containing a cover letter signed by the
city manager and the department director enlisting participation. A reminder letter and survey,
scheduled to arrive one week after the first survey was the final contact. The cover letter contained
instructions in Spanish directing Spanish-speakers to a Web site where they could complete the survey
online in Spanish, if they wished. No survey recipient chose to complete the Spanish version of the
survey online.
About 4% (121) of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the
postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,879 households presumed to
have received a survey, 622 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 22%. The 95%
confidence interval (or "margin of error") quantifies the "sampling error" or precision of the estimates
made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and
indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be
found that is within ±4 percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the
population of interest was surveyed.
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000
Census estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to
reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. The variables used for weighting were
respondent gender, age and housing situation. Additional details on the survey administration and
analysis can be found in Appendix F: Survey Methodology.
On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could answer, "don't know." The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A: Responses
to Survey Questions. However, for the most part, these responses have been removed from the analyses
presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from
respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
V
For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total exceeds
100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in
multiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to
exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole z
number. 0)
0
0
N
O
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 5
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR RECREATION
A variety of purposes can be served by recreation facilities and programs. Those completing the survey
were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about the overarching
goals of recreation programming in Boulder. There was strong agreement with each statement
presented (see Figure 1), but the statement with the most support was "to maintain and improve the
physical health and mental well-being of the general population of the community," with nearly 8 in 10
respondents "strongly" agreeing and virtually all respondents (95%) at least "somewhat" agreeing with
the statement.
Providing positive activities for children and teens received high affirmation, with 7 in 10 respondents
"strongly" agreeing this was an important purpose for recreation programming, and 94% at least
"somewhat" agreeing. A majority strongly felt that recreation programming should provide
recreational opportunities for senior adults age 60 and older (58%) and for adults age 20 to 59 (57%),
with over 90% at least somewhat agreeing with each of these purposes. Over half of respondents
(55%) strongly agreed that the city should be providing recreational opportunities to people who might
not otherwise have the chance, and nearly 9 in 10 at least somewhat agreed.
Strengthening the social fabric and enhancing the economic vitality of the community were given
somewhat less support, although over 70% at least somewhat agreed with these two purposes.
Figure 1: Community Priorities for Recreation
To maintain and improve the physical health and mental well
1794
95%
being of the general population of the community
To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 249'0 94 b
and younger) a
To provide recreational opportunities for senior adults (age 60 35% 93%
and older)
To provide recreational opportunities for adults (20 to 59 35 92%
years old)
To provide recreational opportunities to people who might not
otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., 34`t6 890%
people with disabilities or people with low incomes)
To provide opportunities to make social connections; to
strengthen the "social fabric" of the community 53`%u 87°0
To enhance the economic vitality of the community by offering
special events that draw visitors from inside and outside the 48% 72%
community
a~
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 601/o 10% 80% 90% 100% v
m
Percent of Respondents
■ Strongly Agree ■ Somewhat Agree o
z
M
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 6
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
After rating their agreement with the seven purpose statements, respondents were asked to indicate
which one statement they felt was the most important purpose for recreation offerings. About two-
thirds of respondents indicated that maintenance and improvement of the physical health and mental
well-being of the general population of the community was the primary purpose of city recreation
services.
Figure 2 below displays the percent of respondents indicating which statement they felt was the most
important along side the percent of respondents who had strongly agreed with each statement. In
general, the rank order is fairly similar. There is a slight discrepancy among the lower rated items, but
this is because some of the people that "strongly" agreed with these statements still chose the
maintenance and improvement of the community's health and well-being as their first priority.
Figure 2: Highest Priorities for Recreation
To maintain and improve the physical health and mental well- 67".
being of the general population of the community 78%
To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19
and younger) 70%
To provide recreational opportunities to people who might not 8:y
otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g.,
people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 55%
To provide recreational opportunities for adults (20 to 59
years old) 57%
To enhance the economic vitality of the community by offering 4>5
special events that draw visitors from inside and outside the 24%
community
To provide opportunities to make social connections; to 3%
strengthen the "social fabric" of the community 34%
To provide recreational opportunities for senior adults (age 60
and older) 58%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
V
C
■ Percent ranking as highest priority
IS Percent "strongly agree"
U
L
V
10
yd
N
C
O
M
Z
m
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) U
Page 7
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
In addition to providing feedback about the overarching purposes of recreation, those completing the
survey were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority. Children
and teenagers were most often deemed "essential" groups to serve; about half of respondents gave
these two groups "essential" ratings. Over 80% rated these groups as "essential" or "very important" to
serve.
People with low incomes were rated as "essential" to serve by 44% of respondents, followed by people
with disabilities (38%) and senior adults (33%). Each of these three groups was considered "very
important" or "essential" to serve by 76% to 80% of respondents.
The adult population was rated as "essential" to serve by 29% of respondents, with 76% considering
this group at least "very important." Families as a.group were considered "essential" to serve by 29%
of respondents, and as at least "very important" by over half of respondents (58%), but this category
was given the lowest priority among all the groups rated.
Figure 3: Rating of Importance of Serving Various Population Groups
Children age 12 and younger 33% 83%
Teenagers 13 to 19 years old • ' 36% 85%
People with low incomes 34% 78%
People with disabilities 38% 76%
Senior adults (age 60 and
older) 4B% °lo
Adults (20 to 59 years old) 47% 761/16
Families together as a group ' . 35% 58%
0`i 10`%6 20% 30% 40% 50% 601A 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
■ Essential ®VeryImportant
U
C
N
C
U
O
L
U
N
N
N
N
R
C
O
O
Z
O
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) °
Page 8
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
After rating the importance of serving various population groups through recreation offerings,
respondents were asked to indicate to which two groups they would give highest priority. Figure 4
below displays the proportion of survey participants choosing each of the groups as one of their top
two priorities, side-by-side with the percent of participants rating each as "essential." In general, the
rank order of the two types of ratings are similar, with teenagers and children receiving the highest
priority and families together as a group receiving the lowest priority. However, there was some
variation in the rank order of ratings comparing "essential" ratings as priority ratings. This is because
respondents could rate more than two items as "essential" but could only choose two groups to give
their highest priority.
Figure 4: Highest Priority for Serving Various Population Groups
Teenagers 13 to 19 years old 39%°
49%
Children age 12 and younger 38%
50%
315~People with low incomes 44%
Adults (20 to 59 years old) MMM=29% ■ Percent ranking as highest priority
i
0 Percent rating as essential
Senior adults (age 60 and 19%
older) 33%
People with disabilities 12%
389°
Families together as a group 12`1,
23%
0% '109'. 20111, 30'Y 40% 50% 60% 70:'0 80% 90°k 100%
Percent of Respondents
Differences in subgroup ratings
Generally, the "mission statement" endorsed by the highest percent of respondents was that the city of
Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs to its residents to maintain and improve the
physical health and mental well-being of the general population, followed by an emphasis on providing
positive activities or recreational opportunities for youth, senior adults, adults and those with who
might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities. However, in Gunbarrel, providing
positive activities for youth received the greatest endorsement by respondents. (See Appendix C:
Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area.)
A larger proportion of those whose households included children or teenagers "strongly" agreed that
the city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs in order to provide positive activities
for children and teens than did those whose households did not include children and teenagers. M
However, even among respondents in households without children and teenagers, a strongly majority
(67%) strongly agreed that providing positive activities for youth was an important mission for o
Boulder Parks and Recreation. (See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Presence z
of Children or Teenagers in Household.) 0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 9
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
The city has to take into account a range of community needs and desires when planning the use of its
recreation facilities. Those completing the survey were asked how they would balance the allocation of
facilities across five types of opportunities: drop-in use, learn-to (skill-building) classes, advanced or
elite programs, city-sponsored leagues and community groups. They were to assign a percent of time
to each, such that the percents added to 100%. The average allocation by respondents is shown in
Figure 5.
Opportunities for drop-in use were given the highest allocation, 30% on average. The second highest
allocation, 22%, was given to beginner and intermediate ("learn-to") opportunities. Leagues and
community groups received 19% and 17% allocation on average, respectively. Advanced classes or
elite competitive opportunities were given the lowest allocation, with 12% on average.
Figure 5: Average Percent Allocation by Residents to Various Purposes at City Recreation Facilities
Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps,
29%
shoot baskets, lift weights, etc.)
Opportunities for community groups to use the
facilities,(e.g., Little League, Master Swimming, 17%5
youth soccer clubs, Boulder Rugby Club, etc.)
Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use
the facilities (e.g., softball leagues, adult soccer
19%
leagues volleyball leagues, youth football leagues,
etc.)
Opportunities for advanced or elite programs
12%
(advanced classes or competitive opportunities)
Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner 22%
and intermediate classes)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Average Allocation
U
L
U
A
m
N
N
rG
O
Y
z
00
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 10
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Respondents were asked how they would distribute recreation class offerings among three categories:
active physical recreation, leisure enrichment activities, and community education and certification.
They reported what proportion of all the classes should fall into each of the three categories, with the
total percents across all three categories summing to 100%. Figure 6 below shows that average
distribution among the categories given by respondents.
On average, respondents felt that about half of the class offerings should be in the activity physical
recreation category. The remaining allocation was split fairly evenly between leisure enrichment (25%)
and community education classes (24%).
Figure 6: Average Distribution to Various Categories of Classes
Active physical recreation (e.g., yoga, Pilates, sports, 52%
dance, swimming, fitness, etc.)
Leisure enrichment activities (e.g., pottery, painting,
photography, cooking, etc.) 25°%
0
Community education (e.g., babysitting certification, 24%
CPR, health and wellness lectures, etc.)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Average Allocation
C
61
C
N
U
t
V
N
67
(9
N
C
O
Z
01
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 11
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Respondents also were asked how they would distribute tax dollars to best meet the needs of the
Boulder community. They were invited to distribute $100 tax dollars across five categories of
recreation programming. The highest allocation of tax dollars was given to recreational programs
offered at the beginning and intermediate level, with an average of $35 allocated to this category. The
next biggest allocation was given to reducing rental rates for children and teen community groups, with
an average allocation of $24. The remaining allocations were roughly equal, with about $13 or $14
being given, on average, to recreational programs at advanced an elite levels, to reducing rental rates
for adult community groups, and to providing one-day community events.
Figure 7: Distribution of Tax Dollars to Various Purposes
Recreational programs at the beginning and
intermediate level ("learn-to" programs) $35
Reducing rental rates for children and teen
community groups (e.g., Little League, synchronized $24
swim team, etc.)
Reducing rental rates for adult community groups
(e.g., Masters Swimming, Adult Ultimate Frisbee, $14
etc.)
Recreational programs at the advanced and elite $14
levels ("competitive" programs)
Providing one-day community events at city $13
recreation facilities
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40
Average Allocation
V
C
N
ryC
U
L
U
l6
N
N
N
f0
C
O
Z
67
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 12
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
City staff and officials are often faced with competing interests when planning recreational offerings with limited resources. Those
participating in the survey were given a series of five pairs of statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how
they felt. The first pair of statements dealt with the overarching philosophy of the parks and recreation department, and whether it should be
considered a human service (and therefore offer limited services funded, primarily through tax dollars) or whether it should be considered a
business (and therefore offer more services funded primarily through fees). There was great support for the human services model, which
was chosen 17 to 3 over the business model choice (see Figure 8).
Two-thirds of respondents felt that program offerings should be offered at many different levels from beginner to very advanced, while a
third felt they should be concentrated at the beginning and intermediate levels. About two-thirds considered it more important to make
facilities more available for drop-in use, while about a third thought facilities should mostly be programmed with leagues and other pre-
planned activities. Respondents were evenly split between choosing whether the city should provide the facilities and programs identified as
needed by residents even if they are provided by other agencies or whether the city should provide facilities and programs that complement
others in the community and do not replicate them. There were some differences by subcommunity in responses to this last trade-off: those
in North Boulder/Palo Park, South Boulder and Southeast Boulder were more likely to choose providing programs and facilities identified
by residents regardless if they are provided by others, while those in CentraUEast/CU/Crossroads, Outside and in Gunbarrel were more
likely to choose providing facilities and programs that complement and do not replicate others. Gunbarrel residents, in particular, were more
likely to choose this option (69%).
Figure 8: Trade-Off Preferences
Consider parks and recreation a human service that contributes Consider parks and recreation a business which should attract
to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community, 84% 16% and serve as many people as possible who can afford to pay for the
and therefore offers limited services funded primarily through tax services provided, and therefore offers more services funded primarily
dollars. through user fees.
Parks and recreation program offerings should be at many 65% 35% Parks and recreation program offerings should focus primarily
different skill levels, i.e. beginner through very advanced. on introductory classes at beginning and intermediate levels.
Parks and recreation facilities should mostly be available for Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly programmed
public drop-in use, with some active programming, likely 63% 37% with leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with
earning lesser revenues. some drop-in use, likely earning greater revenues.
iu
Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some Parks and recreation program offerings should focus mostly on
popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse 61% 39% popular sports and fitness (e.g., aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer,
opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g., cooking, tai chi, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of y
etc.). people. M
co
r_
The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities 2
and programs identified by residents, regardless of whether 51% 49% and programs that complement others in the community and z
they are provided by other agencies in or near Boulder. not replicate them. o
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 13
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
The survey was also used to assess resident involvement in a variety of recreation activities. For each
activity, respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had
participated in the activity at a city of Boulder facility, at a nonprofit facility, at a private facility or at
another city's facility. Figure 9 (on the next two pages) displays the proportion of respondents whose
households had participated in the activity in the previous year at a_y facility. Appendix A: Responses
to Survey Questions includes a table that shows the percent participating at each type of facility.
After indicating their participation in the various activities, respondents evaluated the importance of
offering each to the community through the city's Parks and Recreation Department. The proportion
rating each as "essential" is also displayed in Figure 9.
The six most popular activities, in which more than 30% of households had participated, were using an
indoor swimming pool for drop-in or lap swim (53% of households), drop-in exercise (51%), fitness
and wellness classes (43%), using the reservoir (41 using an outdoor swimming pool for drop-in or
lap swim (31 and using and indoor leisure pool (31
In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. The four
activities given the highest importance ratings were also the four most popular activities. There were a
few notable exceptions; while a relatively small percent of respondents had participated in EXPAND
(3%), certification classes (12%), children's summer day camp (8%), children's day camp on school
days off (4%) or the Youth Services Initiative (2%), these activities were all rated as "essential" by
30% to 38% of respondents.
Some other offerings that had relatively lower participation rates but higher importance ratings
included educational health and wellness classes; boating at the reservoir; outdoor swimming pools for
lessons and classes; and summer swim team for children and teens.
Differences in subgroup ratings
In general, households with children or teenagers had higher participation rates for most recreational
activities compared to households without children or teenagers. A couple notable exceptions included
leisure enrichment classes (similar participation rates among both groups) and educational health and
wellness classes (somewhat higher participation rates among households without children or
teenagers). (See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Presence of Children or
Teenagers in Household.)
In addition, households without children or teenagers gave lower importance ratings to most recreation
activities compared to households with children or teenagers. The activities given the highest
importance ratings among households without children and teenagers differed somewhat from the
activities given the highest importance ratings among households with children and teenagers.
U
C
O
C
N
U
L
U
d
Vi
N
O
C
O
i~
2
dt
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 14
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Figure 9: Resident Use and Importance Rating of Recreation Activities
Drop-in exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 53%
51%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g., aerobics, 46%
yoga, weight training, etc.) 43%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap 43
swim) 53%
%
Drop in to a reservoir 42 fff 41%
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise 40%
classes ; EXPAND 3% 38%
Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc) 36%
12%
Children's summer day camp 35%
g2%. °l°
Youth Services Initiative 34%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or 32%
lap swim) ,r 31%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g., spring 30%
break, holidays) 4"X, 29% ■ Percent "essential"
Drop-in yoga/Pilates 260
■ Percent participating in last
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, 26%
football, rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) 25%
Educational health and wellness classes 26%
12%7
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play 25%
features) 31%
Drop-in to a reservoir for boating 25%
9°h
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball, 23%
basketball, etc.) 22%
a~
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 23%
19%
`m
m
m
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 910% 100% N
Percent of respondents 0
Z
z
rn
a
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 15
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Figure 9: Resident Use and Importance Rating of Recreation Activities (continued)
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise 22%
classes 11°/D
Children and teen summer swim team ° 22%
5
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini- 16%
sports) !!1110 %
Gymnastics classes/instruction 16%
9°/a
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography, 15%
music, drama, etc.) 13%
Small watercraft rental % 13%
6
Dance classes/instruction 12%
; 15%
Community event /D ° 12%
7
°/D
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 12%
0
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 11%
8 D/0
Golfing 10% 16°/D ■ Percent "essential"
■ Percent participating in last year
Pottery instruction/classes 10%
60
Drop-in to the Pottery Lab 10%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis lessons, 7%
private golf lessons, personal training, etc.) 9%
Golf lessons/instruction 7/D
0
Competitive team gymnastics 3D/°
a~
D
Competitive dance team/company 4D//0
2
N
0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
m
Percent of respondents o
z
rn
0
0
04
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 16
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
After indicating in what recreational activities their household participated, respondents were given the
opportunity to provide suggestions for other recreational offerings the city of Boulder might provide
that it does not already provide. About a quarter of respondents chose to write in a response. Their
answers as written are provided in Appendix B: Responses to Open-ended Survey Question. Their was
great variety in the responses. These responses were categorized into several broad categories. About a
third suggestions related to specific classes or programs the respondent would like to see offered; some
of the suggestions given more than once included bicycling programs or classes, hiking classes or
programs, other types of outdoor classes or programs, and activities for children and youth. Several
specific types of facilities were mentioned; those named more than once included various types of
fields, tennis facilities (including indoor tennis and lighted courts), an ice rink, a large outdoor pool,
disc golf and dog parks. Lowering fees was mentioned in a variety of contexts; several respondents felt
that "resident" fees should apply to all of Boulder County, not just those living within the city limits.
Table 1: Suggestions For Recreational Offerings
What suggestions, if any, do you have for other recreational offerings the city of Percent of Respondents
Boulder might provide that it does not already provide? Who Gave an Answer
Bicycling 4%
Activities for children/youth 2%
Outdoor classes/programs _ - - - - ------r _ _ 2%
Hiking 1%
Other classes/programs ! 24%
Tennis (indoor tennis, lighted courts, more courts) - 5%
Fields 4%
Ice rink 4%
Outdoor pool 3%
Disc golf - 2%
Dog park _ 2%
Other facilities T 7%
Services/facilities for Gunbarrel _ 1%
Compliments to Parks and Recreation 5/°
None 7%
Other 19%
Total 100%
a~
U
L
U
10
d
N
d
C
O
Z
o,
S
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 17
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
RESIDENTS' PERSPECTIVES ON FUNDING OPTIONS FOR
RECREATION
Several question sets were included on the questionnaire to determine the community's support for or
opposition to a variety of funding options for parks and recreation offerings by the city. Nearly two-
thirds said they would "strongly" support renewing existing sales taxes when they expire, and 90%
said they would at least "somewhat" support renewing these sales taxes. However, only about a third
of respondents said they would even "somewhat" support a new sales tax.
About half of respondents strongly supported partnering with other public or nonprofit agencies to
develop joint use facilities or programs, and 85% at least "somewhat" supported this idea. About a
third of respondents strongly supported the suggestion of partnering with private organizations, and
about three quarters somewhat supported this suggestion. About 8 in 10 respondents somewhat or
strongly supported pursuing grants and donations which often require raising matching funds from the
community.
Figure 10: Resident Support for Various Funding Options
Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when
90%
they expire 25%
Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or
nonprofits to develop joint use recreational facilities or ' . 35% 85%
programs
Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational
771a
39%
facilities or programs
Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds
4996 82%
from the community on a portion of the monies received
A new sales tax 32% 38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
■ Strongly Support ® Somewhat Support
U
Where comparisons can be made, most of these results are similar to those found in 2001. In 2001,
44% of respondents said they would support a new sales tax for additional facilities. In 2001, 86% of
respondents supported the idea of partnering with other public or nonprofit agencies to build and r
manage new facilities. However, support for partnering with private organizations seems to have
increased. In 2001, only 60% of respondents said they thought the city should partner with private
organizations, while in 2009 77% supported the idea of the city partnering with private organizations o
to develop recreational facilities or programs. Z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 18
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Several funding strategies were presented to respondents through the survey. Many of them were at
least somewhat supported by a two-thirds or more of respondents. However, only about 4 in 10
respondents agreed with the statement that "recreation programs must pay for themselves through user
fees."
There was support for individuals living outside the city to pay higher fees than residents for city
offerings. However, there was also support for those who live outside the city limits but who work or
own a business inside city limits paying the resident rates. About two-thirds of respondents agreed that
the city should seek corporate sponsors to supplement parks and recreation funding. Most respondents
(81 also supported the idea that fees from profitable or popular programs could be used to subsidize
less profitable programs.
Figure 11: Agreement with Funding Strategies
Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city of 29% 7 7 :6
Boulder recreation facilities
The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order to
supplement parks and recreation funding (e.g., signage with 37% %
advertisements on baseball fences, use of event banners with logos 69
or advertising during events or games, naming of facilities, etc.
Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and
swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as a o ' . 51% 81%
therapeutic, senior and youth programs)
Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a business in
Boulder should pay resident fees for participating in city of Boulder $29fi 70%
recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation facilities
Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 31% 37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
■ Strongly Agree ® Somewhat Agree
iv
In 2009, 69% of respondents supported the idea of seeking corporate sponsors to supplement parks and
recreation funding, with corporate signage, advertising, logos, etc. This represented an increase from
2001, when only 47% of respondents supported corporate sponsorship if it meant the sponsoring N
organizations could place on site logos and advertising, although 74% in 2001 supported corporate
sponsorship if it did NOT include on site placement of logos and advertising. o
Z
G)
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 19
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Four options for the use of additional funding, if any were found for Parks and Recreation, were
presented to respondents. Nearly all supported the idea that these funds should be used to maintain and
update the existing facilities and equipment. About three-quarters of respondents thought such funds
could be used to lower fees for facilities and programs. About two-thirds supported building or
renovating facilities, or offering additional recreation programming. When asked to choose just one
option, the most popular choice was to maintain and update existing facilities (see Figure 13).
Figure 12: Support for Uses of Additional Funding.
Maintain and update existing
o 29°l0 99%
facilities and equipment
Lower user fees 43°x6 75%
Build new recreation facilities
or renovate existing facilities 41% 68%
Offer additional recreation
programs 52°l0 70°!0
0% 10%s 20% 30%a 40% 50% 60% 70% 809. 90°/n 100°/0
Percent of Respondents
■ Strongly Support ■ Somewhat Support
Figure 13: Highest Priority for Additional Funding
Maintain and update existing 46%
facilities and equipment 70%
19%
Lower user fees
32%
■ Percent ranking as highest priority
Build new recreation facilities ■ Percent "strongly support"
or renovate existing facilities 27°,~
Offer additional recreation 6~b
programs = 1gola
01/0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70Y 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
Respondents were asked how much subsidy they thought should be given to a variety of types of
programming. In general, the programs that had previously been seen to be more popular in terms of
use or support were more likely to be deemed appropriate for higher levels of subsidy (see Figure 14 2
on the next page). Two programs, however, particularly stand out; about 40% of respondents thought 2
that the Youth Services Initiative and EXPAND should receive a near total subsidy; 12% or fewer ,
respondents thought any other program should receive such a subsidy.
z
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) °
Page 20
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Figure 14: Residents' Preferences for Residents Preference for Cost Recovery for Various Recreational Activities/Programs
Golfing for adults and seniors 277, ~7%15-11
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for adults and
8°r° d
seniors 30%,
Golfing for children and teens 28% 69h 6%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for adults and seniors 29% 12% 5°
Pottery classes for adults and seniors 30% 10% 7
Community groups using pools 31%
Community groups using fields or courts 26% 13% 5%
~
Community groups using gyms 29% _27/.T
Pottery "drop-in" studio for children and teens 28% 001129'°
Pottery classes for children and teens 27% INIMEMEW 1211Xv
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for children 28% 12~ d
and teens - -
Sports classes or teams for adults and seniors ;1 , 32% 13
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for 28% 13`9 R
adults and seniors
Swim lessons or water exercise classes for adults and
2$9F, 14°l0 fl -
seniors
"Drop-in" to the gym for adults and seniors 241, "Drop-in" exercise for adults and seniors 27% 15% 9%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for adults and seniors 249E 20%, 8%
Swim lessons for children and teens 24% 26% 8%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for ` 20% 2G"~ 7'an
children and teens
Sports classes or teams for children and teens 27% 21% s
"Drop-in' to the gym for children and teens 20% 24% 12%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for children and teens 21% 25"i ao°fl
a6°r.
Youth Services Initiative 896 20%
iv
EXPAND 3% 2739%6
t
v
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
w
Percent of respondents
■ 100% through fees IN 70%-100% through fees ■ 35%-70% through fees 13 15%-35% through fees O 0%-15% through fees
(no subsidy) (0%-30% subsidy) (30%-65% subsidy) (65%-85% subsidy) (85%-100% subsidy) z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 21
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
RESIDENT SOURCES FOR RECREATION INFORMATION
The availability of information about the recreation offerings of the city was perceived fairly
positively. Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) considered the availability of recreation
information as "excellent" and another 51% rated it as "good." About 23% rated the availability of
information as "fair" or "poor."
Figure 15: Ratings of Availability of Recreation Information
Excellent
26%
Good
51%
Poor
5%
Fair
18%
Differences in subgroup ratings
Those living in Gunbarrel gave less positive ratings to the availability of information about the city of
Boulder's recreation offerings than those living in other subcommunities. (See Appendix C: Responses
to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area.)
Those in households with children or teenagers rated the availability of information about the city of
Boulder's recreation offerings more positively than did those in households without children or
teenagers. (See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Presence of Children or
Teenagers in Household.)
U
C
m
C
U
U
L
U
!C
U
N
U1
d'
C
O
Z
O
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 22
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide was the most frequently used source of information about
the city's parks and recreation programs; with nearly two-thirds of respondents reporting that they find
out about programs from the Guide. About 4 in 10 respondents said they use the city of Boulder Web
site, and about 3 in 10 learn about parks and recreation offerings through the Boulder Camera
newspaper. About 2 in 10 pick up the informational flyers about program offerings. Very few (4%)
learn about recreational programs from Channel 8.
In addition to indicating which sources they use to obtain information about Boulder parks and
recreation programs, respondents were asked which one source they preferred. The Boulder Parks and
Recreation Guide was the most popular choice with 4 in 10 indicating this as their preferred choice.
This was followed by the city's Web site, chosen by 3 in 10 respondents, and the Boulder Camera
newspaper, selected by 1 in 10 respondents.
Figure 16: Information Sources for Information About Boulder Parks and Recreation Programs
Boulder Parks and Recreation 62%
Guide (quarterly publication) MIMMMM42%
42%
The city of Boulder Web site
30{%~
Boulder Camera newspaper MEF 11%. 0 28%
Informational flyers 21%
6' M How do you find out about programs?
17% ■ What is your preferred way to find out about
Other
3 ~b
7%
E-mail groups/listserves
7;a
Channel 8 (the municipal 4%
cable TV channel) 1%
014 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents
Differences in subgroup ratings
Households with children or teenagers were more likely to prefer the Boulder Parks and Recreation
Guide as their information source for city of Boulder Parks and Recreation programs (63%) than were
those in households without children or teenagers (35%).(See Appendix D: Responses to Selected
Survey Questions by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household.)
M
Those living in Central/East/CU/Crossroads were as likely to prefer obtaining their information about
the city's parks and recreation offerings from the city of Boulder Web site as the Boulder Parks and
Recreation Guide. Those living in other subcommunities were most likely to prefer the Guide. (See
Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area.) o
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 23
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
RESIDENT PERSPECTIVES ON REGISTRATION
Those completing the survey were asked whether or not they or anyone in their household had
registered for a city of Boulder Parks and Recreation program or class in the last year. About a third
(34%, data not shown) reported that they had. Those who had registered were asked what method or
methods they had used to register. The most frequently used options were in-person (39%) and online
(39%). About a quarter of those who had registered had done so by phone. When asked how they
would rate the ease or difficulty of registration, just over half deemed registration "very easy" with
another 45% rating it as "somewhat" easy. Only 3% felt registering for classes or programs was
"somewhat difficult," and no respondent rated the registration process as "very difficult."
Figure 17: Method Used for Registration
In-person 39%
Online 39%
On the phone 25%
Don't know 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 601A 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Respondents*
*Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer.
Figure 18: Ratings of Ease of Registration
very easy
52%
somewhat easy
45%
U
C
41
C
U
very difficult 2
0% N
somewhat difficult
3% o
.m
z
m
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 24
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
IN CONCLUSION
Boulder residents view Parks and Recreation as a resource for the entire community, and are
willing for tax dollars to be used to subsidize fees.
Nearly 80% "strongly" agreed that the city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and
programs to residents to maintain and improve the physical health and mental well-being of the
general population of the community.
A large majority (84%) of respondents thought the Parks and Recreation Department should
operate using a human services model, in which parks and recreation contributes to the physical,
emotional and social welfare of the whole community, and therefore offers limited services funded
primarily through tax dollars; as opposed to a business model which should attract and serve as
many people as possible who can afford to pay for the services provided.
About two-thirds opposed the idea that recreation programs must pay for themselves through user
fees.
About two-thirds of respondents would "strongly support" renewing existing parks and recreation
sales taxes when they expire. However, less than 40% would even "somewhat support" a new
sales tax increase for parks and recreation.
A special emphasis is placed recreational offerings for youth by Boulder residents.
Seven in 10 respondents "strongly" agreed that the city of Boulder should offer recreation
facilities and programs to residents to provide positive activities for children and teens, while 94%
at least somewhat agreed.
About half of respondents felt it was "essential" that the city provide recreation programs for
children and for teens. Of the seven population groups rated, these two groups were deemed the
most important.
This priority was reflected in other questions throughout the survey. When allocating hypothetical
tax dollars, respondents, on average, gave more dollars to community groups serving youth ($24)
than community groups serving adults ($14). When determining how much subsidy various
activities should receive, activities for children and teens were given more subsidy, on average,
than activities for adults.
Boulder residents believe Parks and Recreation should serve those who might not otherwise be
able to participate in recreational activities.
People with low incomes and people with disabilities were considered "very important" or
"essential" to serve by about three-quarters of respondents.
r When presented with a list of 27 recreational offerings, and asked how much subsidy each should
receive, there were only two items which more than 10% of respondents thought should receive
85% to 100% subsidy: the Youth Services Initiative (a community based after school and summer
program for youth living in public housing and EXPAND (programs and/or inclusions for people L
with disabilities). In fact, nearly 40% supported a nearly full subsidy for EXPAND and 46%
supported a nearly Hill subsidy for the Youth Services Initiative.
m
C
O
z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 25
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Residents want Parks and Recreation to serve a wide range of purposes, but do place a higher
priority on active physical recreation and introductory-level programming.
➢ A greater proportion of respondents felt the city should offer diverse recreational opportunities
(61 rather than placing more focus on popular sports and fitness that attract more users (39%).
➢ When asked what proportion of time should be allocated to three types of classes, respondents on
average allocated about half of the class time to active physical recreation, a quarter to community
education and a quarter to leisure enrichment activities.
➢ When asked to trade-off between the city offering programming primarily at the introductory
(beginning and intermediate) levels and offering programming at all levels (beginning through
very advanced), about two-thirds of residents felt the city should offer programming at all levels
while a third believed the focus should be at the introductory levels. However, when allocating tax
dollars, respondents on average devoted more tax dollars to introductory level programming ($35,
the highest amount of the five categories) and less to advanced and elite levels ($14). It may be
that when faced with the trade-off, many respondents chose to have a variety of levels served,
including the introductory levels but also the advanced levels, but when allocating the tax dollars,
placed a higher priority on the introductory levels while still allocating some of their hypothetical
dollars to the advanced levels.
U
C
GI
C
v
U
L
U
M
d
N
O
N
C
O
Z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 26
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey.
Question #1
Cities offer recreation facilities and
programs to their residents for a variety of
reasons and purposes. Please Indicate
the extent to which you agree or disagree
that the city of Boulder should offer
recreation facilities and programs to its
residents for each of the following
purposes. Then rate which you think Is the Most
MOST IMPORTANT reason the city of Important
Boulder should offer recreation facilities Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't (check one
and programs. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree know Total only)
To maintain and improve the physical
health and mental well-being of the
general population of the community 78% 17% 1% 5% 0% 100% 67%
To provide opportunities to make social Y
connections; to strengthen the "social
fabric" of the community 34% 53% 9% 4% 0% 100% 3%
To enhance the economic vitality of the -
community by offering special events that
draw visitors from inside and outside the
community 24% 48% 24% 5% 0% 100% 4%
To provide recreational opportunities to
people who might not otherwise be able
to participate in recreational activities
(e.g., people with disabilities or people
with low incomes) 55% 34% 6% 5% 0% 100% 8%
To provide positive activities for children
and teens (age 19 and younger) 70% 24% 3% 4% 0% 100% 14%
To provide recreational opportunities for
adults (20 to 59 years old) 57% 35% 4% 4% 0% 100% 4%
To provide recreational opportunities for
senior adults (age 60 and older) 58% 35% 3% 4% 0% 100% 1%
U
C
Ul
C
N
U
L
V
a)
Ol
N
O
!O
z
M
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 27
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #2a
The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for future parks and
recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that
are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please Indicate which ONE Percent of
of the two statements you believe is more important for Boulder. Respondents
Consider parks and recreation a human service that contributes to the physical,
emotional and social welfare of the whole community, and therefore offers limited
services funded primarily through tax dollars. 84%
Consider parks and recreation a business which should attract and serve as many
people as possible who can afford to pay for the services provided, and therefore
offers more services funded primarily through user fees. 1610
Tota 1 100%
Question #2b
The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for future parks and
recreation programming. Recognizingthat all the statements may reflect values that
are Important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE Percent of
of the two statements you believe is more Important for Boulder. Respondents
Parks and recreation program offerings should be at many different skill levels, i.e.
beginner through very advanced. 65%
Parks and recreation program offerings should focus primarily on introductory
classes at beginning and intermediate levels. 35%
Tota 1 100%
Question #2c
The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for future parks and
recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that
are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE Percent of
of the two statements you believe is more Important for Boulder. Respondents
Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly programmed with leagues and other
pre-planned activities or events, with some drop-in use, likely earning greater
revenues. 37%
Parks and recreation facilities should mostly be available for public drop-in use, with
some active programming, likely earning lesser revenues. 63%
Tota 1 100%
V
C
O7
O
O
V
L
V
M
O1
N
N
f9
C
O
Z
O
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) n
Page 28
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #2d
The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for future parks and
recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that
are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE ; Percent of
of the two statements you believe is more important for Boulder. Respondents
Parks and recreation program offerings should focus mostly on popular sports and
fitness (e.g., aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve
the most number of people, 39%
Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some popular sports and fitness
activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes
(e.g., cooking, tai chi, etc.). 61%
Question #2e
The city of Boulder Is determining important guiding principles for future parks and
recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that
are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE Percent of
of the two statements you believe is more Important for Boulder. Respondents
The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that
complement others in the community and not replicate them. 49%
The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs
identified by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in
or near Boulder. j 51%
Total 100%
U
L
U
W
G1
(A
G7
m
C
O
Z
rn
O
O
N
Q
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 29
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #3
Please rate how important you
think it is for the city of Highest
Boulder to provide recreation Priority
programs for each of the Very Somewhat I Not At All (check two
population groups below. Essential Important Important Important Total only)
Children age 12 and younger 50% 33% 14% 3% 100% 38%
Teenagers 13 to 19 years old 49% 36% 130/,, 2% 100% 39%
Adults (20 to 59 years old) 29% 47% 21% 3% 100% 25%
Senior adults (age 60 and
older) 33% 48% 16% 2% 100% 19%
ramilies together as a group 23% 35% 35% j 7% 100% 12%
People with disabilities 385/o 21% 3% 100% 12%
People with low incomes 44% 34% 18% 4% 100% 31%
Question #4
When planning for the use of Its various recreation facilities (recreation centers class
space, gym space, pools, fields, etc.), the city of Boulder has to consider a variety of
priorities and community needs. What do you think is the appropriate allocation of
time for each of the following purposes at the city's recreation facilities? Average Percent
Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner and intermediate classes) 22%
Opportunities for advanced or elite programs (advanced classes or competitive
opportunities) 12%
Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use the facilities (e.g,, softball leagues,
adult soccer leagues volleyball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.) 19%
Opportunities for community groups to use the facilities (e.g., Little League, Master
Swimming, youth soccer clubs, Boulder Rugby Club, etc.) 17%
Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps, shoot baskets, lift weights, etc.) 29%
Question #5
The city of Boulder has to consider a wide variety of needs in our community when
planning the recreation classes to offer. About what percent of classes do you think
the city of Boulder should offer to the community in each of the following three
categories? Average Percent
"Active" physical recreation (e.g., yoga, Pilates, sports, dance, swimming, fitness,
etc.) 52%
Leisure enrichment activities (e.g., pottery, painting, photography, cooking, etc.) 25%
Community education (e.g., babysitting certification, CPR, health and wellness
lectures, etc.) 24%
a~
Y
C:
N
V
r
U
co
N
N
C
z
Z
Q
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) o
Page 30
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #6
Did at a city Did at a Did at a Did a
In the past year, have you or any member of your household of Boulder nonprofit private i another
participated in any of the following activities? facility facility facility city's facility
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 13% 4% 10% 4%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim) 37% 9% 21% 9%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features) 25% 2% 8% 7%
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 6% 1% 5% 2%
Outdoor swinin, ng pool "open swim" (drep-in swim or lap swim) 19% 4% 12% 5
Children and teen summer swim team 2% 0% ° 1%
-Dance classes/instruction - - - 7% - - - - - 2% 7% 1%
Competitive dance team/company 1% 0% 3% 1%
Gymnastics classes/instruction 6% 0%. 3% 0%
Competitive team gymnastics ( - - ^ - - 2% T, 0%o ------1%
Fitness or health and wellness cla g., sses e. aerobics, yoga,
weight training, etc.) I 19% 8% 23% 3%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 4% 1% : 4% I 1%
"Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 25/° ° 10% - 26% ._r- - 4%
'
"Drop-in" yoga/Pilates 11% 4% 15% 2%
Educational health and wellness classes 6% - 3%T 4% 3%
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 12% 3% 6% 1°%
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, football,
rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) 20% _ 5% 6%, 4%
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball,
basketball, etc.) 13% 5% 8% 2%
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini-sports) 7% 1% 3% 1%
Golf lessons/instruction 3% 0% 2% 2%
Golfing 11% 2% 10% 5%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis lessons, private
golf lessons, personal training, etc,) 3% 0% 6% 1%
Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc) 6% 3V, 4% 3%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography, music,
drama, etc.) 5% 1% 8% 1%
Children's summer day camp 5% 2% 4% 0%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g., spring break,
holidays) 2% 1% 1% 0%
Pottery instruction/classes 4% 0% 2% 1%
D, up-in" to ,he Po,tery L ;u - - - - 3% 0% 1% 0%
Youth Services Initiative - 1% 0% 0% 0%
EXPAND 2% 011_ 0% 0%
Comm u n ity event - - - 5% 0% 2% 0%U
"Drop-in" to a reservoir 40% 1% 3% 3%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating 8% 1%. 3%
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 4% 1% 1%_2
Small watercraft rental 5% 1% 2% z
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 31
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #7
How important, if at all, do you believe It Is that the city
of Boulder offer each of the following activities to the Very Somewhat Not At All Don't
community? Essential ; Important Important Important Know Total
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise
classes 40% 35% 22%' 1%. 2% 100%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop in swim or lap ff
swim) 43% 38% 17% 1% 1% 100%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play
features) 25% 29% 35% 8%! 3%1100%
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise
classes 22%1 31% 39% 5% 3%1100%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or
lap swim) 32% 35% 26% 5%' 2% 100%
Children and teen summer swim team 22%. 35% 32% 6%, 5% 100%
Dance classes/instruction 12% 33% 41% 10% 4% 100%
Competitive dance team/company 5% 11% 42% 32% 16%7100%
Gymnastics classes/ instruction 16% 32% 39% 8% 4% 100%
Competitive team gymnastics 71/1a 17% 39% 2911/o 8% 100%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g., aerobics,
yoga, weight training, etc.) 46% 37% 13% 2% 1% 100%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 11% 30% 37% 13% 9% 100%
"Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 53% 31% 13% 2% 2% 100%
"D rop-i n" yoga/ Pi lates 29% 41% 20% 6% 4% 100%e
Educational health and wellness classes 26% 38%` 29% 4%0 3% 100%
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 23% 37% 32% 1 4% 4%°100%
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer,
football, rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) 26% 41% i 27% 3% 2% 100%
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball,
basketball, etc.) 23% 41%. 32%. 27o 2% 100%
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini-
sports) - - - - - 16% 35% ! 40% 6%! 3% 100%
Golf lessons/instruction _ 77o 16% 40% 33%0 4%
100%
Golfing 10% 13% 38% 34% 5% 100%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis
lessons, private golf lessons, personal training, etc.) 7% 17% 42%' 29% 4% 100%
Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc)T 36% 33% 25%' 2%1100%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography,
music, drama, etc.) 15% 34% 34% 14% 3% 100%
Children's summer day camp 35% 36% 20% 5°! 4% 100%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g., spring
break, holidays) ` - - 30% 31% 25%° - 9% 4% 100%
Pottery instruction/classes 10% 27% 40% 17% 7% 100%
"Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab 10% 2311/Q 40% 18% 8% 100%
Youth Services Initiative J~ 3411/0 36% 23'', 4% 3%! 100%
'PAND - - - - - - - - 38% 32°/u 21%' 3°% o 6% 100% N
mmunity event 12% 21% 41% 17% 8%O 100%
rop-in" to a reservoir 42% 35% 17% 3% 3% 100%
.~n-in" to a reser. it for boating 25% 25% 31% 14% 5% 100%
a~
r 12% 27% 45% 10% 5°1° 100%
13% 27°,x° 45% 9% 5°/ 100% o
z
M
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 32
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #8: Suggestions For Recreational Offerings
What suggestions, if any, do you have for other recreational offerings the city of Percent of Respondents
Boulder might provide that it does not already provide?* Who Gave an Answer
Bicycling 4%
Activities for children/youth 2%
Outdoor classes/programs 2%
Hiking 1%
Other classes/programs _ 24%
Tennis (indoor tennis, lighted courts, more courts) 5%
Ice rink 4%
Outdoor pool 3%
Other facilities _ - 7%
Lower fees 8%
Services/facilities for Gunbarrel 1%
Compliments to Parks and Recreation - v-~ 5%
Other 19%
Total 100%
* Note: Respondents could answer this question in their own word.. This table represents the broad categories into which
responses were classified. The verbatim answers given by respondents can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Open-
ended Survey Question.
C
N
C
W
U
L
U_
ID
N
Q1
16
C
O
i
Z
rn
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 33
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #9
A fee Is required to use most of the city of Boulder's
recreation facilities and programs. These fees generally
do not cover the full cost of offering the program. If a
program is fully funded by tax dollars, there is no fee for
the program. If a program receives no tax funding, the
fees cover the entire cost of offering the program.
Naturally, If all programs were fully funded by tax dollars,
this would require a greater commitment of public No tax funding 4Full tax funding
funding (taxes) than if all program costs were covered by Percent of costs that should be recovered through fees:
fees. For each of the following items, please indicate
what you believe Is the appropriate percent of costs that 70%- 35%- 15%- 0%-
should be recovered through fees. 100% 100% 70% 35% 15% Total
Youth Services Initiative 7% 8% 18%1% 20% 46% 100%
EXPAND 6%!% 9°/% 19% 27% 39% 100%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for adults and seniors 12% 24% 36% 20% 8% i 100%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for children and teens 8% 21% 37% 25% 10% 100°J%
Swim lessons or water exercise classes for adults and
seniors 16% 28% 38% 14°/% 4% 100%
Swim lessons for children and teens _ 11% 24% 31% 26% 8%% 100%
"Drop-in" exercise for adults and seniors 13% 27% 33% 19% 9% 100°/%
"Drop-in" to the gyrn for adults and seniors 15% 24% 37% 16% 8% 100%
"Drop-in" to the gym for children and teens 9% 20% 35°1% 24% 12% 100%
Sports classes or teams for adults and seniors ' 19% 32% 33% 13% 4% 100%
73ports ci : or teams for children and teens 10% 27% 37%/,
3eginnirL termediate level recreation classes for -
adults and seniors 19%0-1-
Advanced i 28°/% 37°/% i 13% 4% i 100%
- - -
or elite level recreation classes for adults and
seniors 38°/% 30% 21°/% 8%% 4% 100°/%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for
children and teens 10°/% 20°/% 36% 26% 7%% 100%
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for children
and teens 22°/% 28°!% 34°/% 12{/% 4%1% 100%
Golfing for adults and seniors 46°1% 27% 14% 7% 5% 100%
Golfing for children and teens 34°1% 28% 26% 6% 6°1% 1.00°!%
Pottery classes for adults and seniors 30°/% 30%/0 26% 10°/% 3°1% 100%
Pottery classes for children and teens _ 23% 27°1% 35°/% 12% 4`Y% 100%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for adults and seniors r 32% 29% 22%/0 1z 57o iuuro
Pottery "drop-in" studio for children and teens 24%/% 281k 30'% 12-/ 6% 100'4,
Community groups using pools 27% 31% 27% 10°1% 5% 100%
Community groups using gyms 25% 29% 30% 12% 4% 100%/0
Community groups using fields or courts 26% 26% 30% 13%/% 5°/% 100% L
U
I%
N
N
%I
m
o0
Z
6)
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) Q
Page 34
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #10
If it were up to you, how would you allocate $100 in taxes across the following types
of programming to best meet the needs of the Boulder community? Average Dollars
Recreational programs at the beginning and intermediate level ("learn-to" programs) $35
Recreational programs at the advanced and elite levels ("competitive" programs) $14
Providing one-day community events at city recreation facilities $13
Reducing rental rates for children and teen community groups (e.g., Little League,
synchronized swim team, etc.) $24
Reducing rental rates for adult community groups (e.g., Masters Swimming, Adult
Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) j $14
Question #11
Please Indicate your level of support
for or opposition to the following
sources of funding to help fund
recreation facilities and programs in Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
the city of Boulder. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Total
Renew existing sales taxes for parks
and recreation when they expire FiJ;t. 2 3 4'. 100
- T
6% 32% 32% 22% 7% 100%
raising matching funds from the
community on a portion of the
monies received 33°/,, 49% 7% I 2% ! 9% 100%
Partnering with other municipalities,
school districts or nonprofits to i
develop joint use recreational i
facilities or programs 35% 8% 2% S% 100%
Partnering with private organizations 1
to develop recreational facilities or i
programs 38% 39% 10% 6% 8% 100%
U
C
N
C
N
U
t
V
ID
U7
N
N
C
O
Z
O
O
N
O
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 35
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #12
Please indicate the extent to which
you agree or disagree with each of the
following funding policies for
recreation facilities and programs the Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
city of Boulder could pursue. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Total
The city of Boulder should seek
corporate sponsors in order to
supplement parks and recreation
funding (e.g., signage with I i
advertisements on baseball fences, i
use of event banners with logos or
advertising during events or games, I
naming of facilities, etc.)____ -1 32% 37% 16%f 12% 3% : 100%
Recreation programs must pay for
themselves through user fees 6% 31% 38% 21% 3% 100%
Profitable or popular programs (such
as sports leagues and swimming i i
lessons) can help pay for less I I
profitable programs (such as
therapeutic, senior and youth
programs) 30% 51% 12% 5% 2% 100%
Individuals living outside Boulder
should pay higherfeesfor
participating in city of Boulder
recreation programs or using city of
Boulder recreation facilities 48% 29% 13% 7% 3% 100%
Individuals who live outside Boulder
but work or own a business in Boulder I i
should pay resident fees for
participating in city of Boulder
recreation programs or using city of
Boulder recreation facilities 28% 42% 15% 9% 6% 100%
U
C
61
QCI
U
L
U
N
N
Ul
UI
C
C
O
M
Z
M
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) 0-
Page 36
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #13
If the city of Boulder Parks and
Recreation Department did get
some additional funding beyond
what is needed to provide the
current levels of programming and
maintenance, please Indicate your
level of support for or opposition to
the following uses of additional Most
funding. Then indicate which ONE Important
of the following you think would be Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly (check one
most important. Support Support Oppose Oppose Total only)
Maintain and update existing
facilities and equipment 70% 29% 46%
Lower user fees 32% 43% 2u% ; 5% 1100 19%
Offer additional recreation
programs 18% 52% 24'% 7" 6%
Build new recreation facilities or
renovate existing facilities 27% 41% 24% 8% 100% 10%
Question #14
How do you find out about city of Boulder Parks and Recreation programs? (Please Percent of
check all that apply.) Respondents*
Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly publication) 62%
HoOder Camera newspaper 28%
i'~hannel 8 (the municipal c_;ble N. channei) -1 Informational flyers 21%
The city of Boulder Web site 42%
E-mail groups/listserves 7%
* Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer.
Question #15
What is your preferred way find out about city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Percent of
programs? (Check one.) Respondents
Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly publication) 42%
Boulder Camera newspaper 11%
Channel S (the municipal cable TV channel) 1%
Other - - - - - - - - - - 3% v
- - -
Informational flyers 6% U
The city of Boulder Web site - 30%
E-mail groups/listserves 7%
Total 100%
0
z
m
0
0
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 37
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #16
How would you rate the availability of information about the city of Boulder's Percent of
recreation offerings to the community? Respondents
Excellent 24%
Good 48%
Fair - - - - - ~ - 17%
Poor - - - - - - - 5%
don't know 6%
Tota 1 100%
Question #17
Have you or any member of your household registered for a recreation class or Percent of
program with the city of Boulder In the previous 12 months? Respondents
Yes 34%
No 62%
Don't Know _ 4%
Tota 1 100%
Question #17e
The time you most recently registered, did you register online, over the phone, or in- Percent of
person? (Please check all that apply.) Respondents*
Online 39%
On the phone 25%
In-person 39%
Don't know 7%
* Percents may add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer.
Question #17b
Percent of
How easy or difficult was it to register? Respondents
Very easy 49%
Somewhat easy i 43%
Somewhat difficult 3°!0
Very difficult 0%
Don't Know j---- 4%
Total 100%
aU
r
U
Co
N
Vi
N
(0
C
O
Z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 38
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #18
Median
Standard 25th (50th 75th
Length of Residency Average Deviation Percentile Percentile) Percentile
About how long have you lived in
Boulder? 13 13 3 8 20
Question #19
Percent of
Do you rent or own your residence? Respondents
Rent 48%
Own 52%
100%
Question #20
Please check the one box which most closely describes the type of housing unit you Percent of
live in. Respondents
A cetc:ched single-family home 52%
An apartment in an apartment complex ;>2
An apartment in a single-family home 2%
condominium or townhouse r 22%
mobile home 0%
her
Question #21
Standard
Persons per Household Average Deviation
Counting yourself, how many people live in your household? 2.4 2.4
Question #22, #23, #24
Presence of Children and Older Adults in the Household Yes No Total
Do any children age 12 or younger live in your household? 18% 1 0`Y~
Do any teenagers ages 13 to 17 live in your household? 00"4'
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? 11% iX"
U
U
L
V
l0
N
N
N
C
O
Z
m
S
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 39
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #25
About how much was your household's total income before taxes In 2008? (Please
Include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your Percent of
household.) Respondents
Less than $24,999 18%
$25,000 to $49,999 21%
$50,000 to $99,999 ` 34%
$100,000 or more - - - _ Y - - - - - 28%
Total 100%
Question #26
Percent of
Which of the following best describes your age? Respondents
18 - 24 11%
25 - 34 39%
35 - 44 - 14%
45 - 54 19%
55 - 64 9%
65 years or older _ 8%
Total 100%
Question #27
Percent of
What is your gender? Respondents
Female 48%
Male 52%
Total 100%
V
C
d
C
V
:J
L
V
~y0
N
d
Q
C
O
z
Qf
8
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 40
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED SURVEY
QUESTION
Following are verbatim responses to the open-ended question on the survey, which asked "What
suggestions, if any, do you have for other recreational offerings the city of Boulder might provide that
it does not already provide?". Because these responses were written by survey participants, they are
presented here in verbatim form, including any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. The
responses are in alphabetical order.
♦ 18-hole disc golf course. • Art classes in conjunction w/open studios artists a lot
• A big public outdoor pool area (what we have is more choices than you have now.
insufficient), with grass around it, pool for actual ♦ At this time of economic crisis, the city of Boulder
swimming and a pool for kids adjacent. should look towards tightening its budget. Users of
♦ A decent tennis facility with indoor courts! Better programs should pay for them. Boulder is way too lax
maintenance of existing outdoor courts! in permitting the deadbeats of society take advantage
Particularly Tom Watson Park! of the hard-working taxpayers footing the bill. No
♦ A more cutting edge marketing approach more further offerings should be provided.
style, hip ♦ Bicycling-related
♦ Aerial fabric or trapeze • Boating swimming lessons
♦ All ages need to be considered but children & • Boulder could benefit from a large conununity outdoor
young people - teen - school age need the most pool that is suitable for all ages baby, toddler, school
attention. age etc.. Or even small baby pools like Longmont.
♦ All the facilities are located in the Boulder City Also, babysitting is too expensive - check out
proper. No park, no recreational facility in the Longmont.
Boulder County. We pay tax too, but no park, no • Boulder is pretty awesome at what they provide.
facility, no program. By the way, I live in Classes for the physically disabled will be especially
Gunbarrel. important w/people returning from war.
♦ Allow private personal trainers at all rec centers at • Bowling alley in Boulder. Provide baseball
no add'l cost opportunities for boy/girl that cannot afford the dues &
♦ Am concerned about unsafe motor boating on registration
resevoir since it is so small. Rec centers has great • Bridge lessons; wii active games introduction dance-
programs for small children & families and a dance revolution type machines
budget. Flatirons golf course is well run too. ♦ Build more mountain bike trails.
• An artist studio for shared use. Preferablely ♦ City of Boulder needs to have more baseball facilities
w/kilns. for youth sport use. There are very few well-
♦ An outward bound type day trips and/or maintained baseball facilities.
overnights (at minimal cost) for older teens (16- ♦ Climbing, skiing, min biking!
24). Being 21 currently I see too many peers ♦ Community bike rides
looking to do something local such as this. It also ♦ Competitive baseball league where one person has a
is a good alternative to the many poor choices chance to get on a team - open tryouts would be willing
people my age make when they have "nothing" to to conduct - 520-591-6961
do. Also, pottery studio time or lessons would be • Cycling instructional & safety for children & teens.
amazing ! - tY
Safe place for teens to "play" on bikes -jumps, dirt
♦ Another disk golf course track, etc. Place for community organizations to safely
♦ Anything that will interest & help the lower hold instructional class & training for mt bike &
income community that most often cannot even cyclocross t
afford to use the rec. Centers, They are treated ♦ Dance classes - Latin American, tango, line dancing
(that part of Boulder's population) as if they etc. Salsa!
barely exist in this town. ♦ Dog parks are very important ~-2
• Areas in local parks designated for fenced dog ♦ Dog park facilities are provided, but are being used and =
parks, with users responsible for maintenance and accessed past their current capacity. Dog park facilities z
clean up are very important and popular in this o
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 41
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
subculture/demographic. Extra facilities for better + I believe we offer a diverse variety already. Let's focus
shade and water would be appreciated. on quality of instrction and accessibility by reducing
+ Doing a great job! fees as well as updating & maintaining equipment &
+ Don't have any - the city provides great resources facilities.
for recreation at all levels. My kids enjoyed many s I do not know all that the rec. Centers offer, so I can't
happy days in gymnastics, swimming & summer suggest anything more.
camp + I love the Bldr rec systems my daughters are now 31;
+ Drop "annual" cost for private business. Day use! 28 & 25 & we enjoyed many activities via the rec
Too expensive to use tax paid facility! ! Makes us centers the entire time they were growing up
mad!! + I love the nia classes and swim! Although I don't have
+ Drop-in gynmastics facility including rings, kids myself, I love seeing mothers use the child care
horse, high-bar, vault, mats, etc. facilities.
+ Educational tours, walking tours, historical + I need "wilderness first responder" training.
tours..ete... + I really the partnership with the Boulder Nordic Club
+ Enjoyed the playgrounds with visiting relatives - for xc skiing. I think we could use a velodrome and/or
especially picnic areas. This, for me in the most criteruim course.
important offering of the parks & rec. Programs. e I think Boulder has always offered a wide selection of
+ Everything about Boulder is about revenue - activities - in which I have participated from time to
lower fees, a bus to the reservoir in the summer so time over the last 50 or so years
more teens/youth have access. + I think the city of Boulder does a great job with the rec
+ Expand to Boulder County, not just Boulder City centers at a reasonable price
for resident fees + I think the city of Boulder needs to put in another
+ Fenced in running track or loop course with ultimate frisbee golf course,
measured distance markers, away from bikes, + I use the pottery studio/lab for all of my Boulder
leisure peds, baby joggers, skates. Well designed recreation. I feel it is important to pay for this level of
cross country course. services! It is an awesome program - attracts all ages. It
+ Fencing instruction! could be expanded.
+ Fields for ultimate frisbee! + I wish there was a rec center closer to north east
+ Gardening, or sustainable living classes Boulder - (Gunbarrel area)
+ Growing veggies 1 hour classes on fixing things + I would like the city to be more supportive (ie. Lower
+ Hands down - indoor tennis! Boulder has many usage fees) of non-profit groups that fill a void in the
tennis players but still no indoor facility in a city's rec offerings - such as little league, masters swim,
winter climate! It could purchase and cover the junior crew.
little-used cu tennis courts or at least provide use + I would like to see more leisure enrichment classes
for the public. Night lights would be 2nd most offered at a lower price ie partially funded with taxes
important. Hint: look at Melbourne, Australia - + I would love another option for a yoga class, only
warmer climate but much more indoor - access because your offerings never fit my schedule
+ Heated pools for sr citizens, hydro-therapy for something 8-9 p.m would be awesome
people w/arthritis... + lee hockey!
+ Hiking 101 - how to enjoy the mtn parks and + Ice skating
tread lightly/leave no trace. Cross- + Ice skating & hockey - figure skating if/when we get a
agency/department recreational programs more rink
outdoors oriented. + Ice skating, diving
+ Host an ultimate frisbee tournament + Ice-skating rink (indoor/outdoor); waterpark (like
+ flow about some rock climbing classes at east Broomfield "bay"); x-country ski track and restrooms
Boulder rec? And maybe some kayaking in the @ all p&r parks!!
U
creek... + I'm not sure if this is already a service, but: horseback
+ 1 am very disappointed at the direction that park riding lessons/family trails.
& rec has taken recently (Valmont-East Boulder). + (Indoor) badminton!
Parks & rec does not consider nature in its
+ Indoor soccor facilities,
planning. Why destroy wildlife habitat for bikers iu
& parking lots. There are many who want the • Indoor tennis -the city effectively has none!
"nature" back in parks & less of the human built • Indoor tennis courts, drop-in senior basketball c
facilities. + Indoor tennis more tennis courts squash courts o
+ Indoor tennis!!!! Please!!! Z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) 0
Page 42
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
♦ Intermed/advanced yoga at east on Fridays ♦ Most important are activities when kids are out of
♦ It is a tragedy that we have only one golf course school: after school, spring break, holidays, and
in Boulder. Golf is a great exercise (particularly summer. Especially kids from low-income families.
as one grows older) and is not a snob sport ♦ Mountain biking and hiking group programs
(contrary to current "Boulder liberal" image. ♦ Need art classes. Such as drawing, painting, affordable
• It is not the city's job to provide these facilities. ♦ Need more effective outreach. I just assume the
♦ It's wonderful & amazing all that the rec center Boulder rec. Costs too much, so it never occurs to me
offers for its community members. I hope that the to seek information.
fee is reasonable & fair for all Boulder County ♦ Neighborhood outdoor movies
citizens. ♦ No
♦ Jewelry & metalworking; hoop classes (hula- ♦ None
hooping/dance); woodworking/wood crafts; ♦ None
sculpture ♦ None
• Just better cleanliness of facilities - that is why we
go to private club • None
♦ Keep boating (a) res • None
♦ Keep affordable • None - keep doing what you are doing well.
• Keep outdoor pools open longer in year • None at this time
• Keep up the activities for the elderly & the • None!
children especially during the summer • None!
♦ Keep up the good work! ♦ Nordic skiing & facilities
♦ Kundalini yoga drop in ♦ Not much in senior services, meals on wheels, eercise
♦ Lets get back to keeping the parks clean & for seniors - etc you are about to get slammed with
mowed senior boomers! !
♦ Lighted tennis courts (south or east rec centers) • Open space learning programs
♦ Local running/biking races or group rides/runs; • Open water swim lessons
team with open space programs; volunteer • Other art classes
opportunities ♦ Outdoor pool areas
♦ Make this survey shorter! ♦ Pass for the Boulder Res. For the summer, discounted
♦ Make used bicycles available at various points for student rates during summer months
temporary use ♦ Please rent space (fields) to ultimate frisbee league
♦ Marriage lessons - before pregnancy lessons - (called grassroots ultimate) to avoid gasoline and
before emissions from those players traveling to Broomfield
• More baseball fields, more basketball courts, or farther away.
more soccer, football & lacrosse fields • Please! Expand takes a disproportionate share of city
♦ More classes at the table mesa facility attention & resources. I say this as a former member of
♦ More classes in the evening/weekend for children the boards of pnp organizations serving people
of working parents. w/disabilities. Back it off & use the resources
elsewhere. Awards aren't everything.
♦ More community involvement/volunteer
well l publ publyissizedzed. er ♦ Provide support for little league! More soccer fields!
opportunities. Ideally w
♦ Re: city of Boulder website - could be a little more user
♦ More dance classes, aka salsa, ballroom, swing friendly. E.g. Going more directly to specific rec.
♦ More equitable sponsorship of youth team sports Center, then getting big schedules.
♦ More family oriented community events to get ♦ Really nice, new outdoor pool like other nearby cities.
farihes outside & active. Place for families, teens, community in the sumer. Nice
♦ More fields available for rugby practice/games landscaping, shade areas etc
♦ More frisbee golf courses ♦ Recycle classes, especially bicycle maintenance and
♦ More indoor swimming lanes! emergency repairs. Q1
v
♦ More late evening hours (till 10 p.m.) And classes • Replace the diving board at nbre, it is dangerous in its r
(8 p.m. Or later) for those of us w/little kids or current condition. 2
late work hours, please. ♦ Rock climbing, x country skiing, trail running (and
♦ More open swim time at outdoor pools other types of outdoor recreation that are available and
m
♦ More spinning/cycling classes plentiful in our area) o
• More time for women's only drop-in volleyball • Self defense and karate classes z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 43
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
+ Senior masters league volleyball & basketball. + Tennis facility
Please continue to provide the childcare services + The city needs an ice skating rink. The city council is
at east & north centers & the Nordic ski trails against this but it is poplar with the public and an
throughout the city. income source.
+ Shorter surveys + The city should reduce excessively wasteful spending
+ Shouldn't provide more has enough already! in recessionary times
+ Since there is no other room for comment I'll use + The Friday night programs should be for teens (14-18)
this space to say that I work for KGNU. Please not pre-teens. Teens need somewhere w/o drinking to
use us as a venue to help raise funds - especially hang, be active, have fun. Why not let them use the rec
for those who cannot afford to use the facility. center from 9-12 p.m.?
+ Skateboard classes/camps for youth, beginner to + There are very few swimming pools & soccer fields in
intermediate Boulder! We appreciate using sbrc & ebrc
+ Slack-living course. Skate plaza. + To be sure that girls have some advantages as boys - in
+ Some areas of Boulder County are not considered all activities.
residents, so fees are higher. It would help to have + Trail walking, hiking
a flat fee so all residents of Boulder County can + Ultimate frisbee'drop-in' for youth 10-16 yrs. Old in
benefit from the programs. the spring/summer months.
+ Sometimes not all activities, like dancing or + Use of indoor pools at reduced rate for seniors (not
gymnastics, are available for males and females. I sure if already provided
think that should change. + We've never used city of Boulder facilities & are not
+ Stop wasting our tax dollars. city residents (county) so 1 really don't think there's
+ Subsidize use of sports fields for youth sports to much value in completing this survey
keep prices lower and attract more kids in + Winter camping skills
Australia a 10 year old pays $80 for a 20 week + YMCA has gone way downhill - classes equip,
soccer season cleanliness, hygiene - pool is grimy & showers moldy -
+ Survey too long. I think you will have more spending on wrong stuff? !
success and participation if you shorten it. + You do an amazing job meeting the needs of the
+ Take a poll of kids between Easter and vacation community-we couldn't be happier!
to determine what they want and take it from
there.
♦ Technology classes/intemet etc
V
C
U1
C
d
U
r
U
(0
N
N
N
l6
C
O
Z
O
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 44
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY
QUESTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
The city of Boulder has divided the city into nine subcommunities for planning purposes. A map of the
subcommunities can be found on page 74. Survey respondents were classified into one of the nine
subcommunities. Some were outside the subcommunity areas, and others could not be classified into a
a subcommunity. Some of the subcommunities have fewer residential addresses, and only a few
respondents were in those subcommunities, so subcommunities were combined into larger areas so that
the minimum number of respondents in any geographic area was 52 (Gunbarrel). The table below
shows the five geographic areas into which respondents were classified (plus a sixth for the
respondents outside the boundaries or unknown), and the number and percent of respondents in each.
The remaining tables in this appendix present selected survey results by respondent geographic area.
Percent of Respondents in Each Geographic Area
Geographic Area Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
Central, East, CU or Crossroads 232 i 37%
Gunbarrel 52 8/o
North Boulder or Palo Park 73 12%
South Boulder 97 16%
Southeast Boulder 104 17%
Outside boundaries or unknown 63 ; 10%
Total 622 ' 100%
Highlights from the report tables in this appendix include:
• Generally, the "mission statement" endorsed by the highest percent of respondents was that the
city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs to its residents to maintain and
improve the physical health and mental well-being of the general population, followed by an
emphasis on providing positive activities or recreational opportunities for youth, senior adults,
adults and those with who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities.
However, in Gunbarrel, providing positive activities for youth received the greatest endorsement
by respondents.
♦ Generally, a majority of respondents believed the parks and recreation facilities should be mostly
available for public drop-in use (likely earning lower revenues) instead of being mostly
programmed with leagues and other activities (likely earning higher revenues). However, in
Gunbarrel, a slight majority (51 felt that facilities should be mostly programmed with pre-
planned activities.
U
C
♦ Among all survey respondents, about half felt the Parks and Recreation Department should
provide facilities and programs that complement others in the community and not replicate them,
and half felt the Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs
identified by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in or near N
Boulder. There were some differences by subcommunity: those in North Boulder/Palo Park,
South Boulder and Southeast Boulder were more likely to choose providing programs and o
facilities identified by residents regardless if they are provided by others, while those in Z
a
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 45
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Central/East/CU/Crossroads, Outside and in Gunbarrel were more likely to choose providing
facilities and programs that complement and do not replicate others. Gunbarrel residents, in
particular, were more likely to choose this option (69%).
• Households in Southeast Boulder were less likely to have participated indoor and outdoor
swimming activities than were those in other subcommunities.
t Households in Central/East/CU/Crossroads and North Boulder/Palo Park were more likely to
have participated in yoga and Pilates than were households in other subcommunities.
• Households in Gunbarrel were less likely to have played drop-in basketball or volleyball, field
sports or indoor court sports than were residents in other subcommunities.
♦ Those living in North Boulder/Palo Park were more likely to feel indoor swimming pool swim
lessons or water exercise classes were essential than were those living in other subcommunities.
♦ Residents in Gunbarrel were less likely to feel fitness/health or wellness classes were essential
than were residents of other subcommunities.
t Those living in Central East/CU/Crossroads and North Boulder/Palo Park were more likely to
rate drop-in pottery and pottery instruction as essential than were households in other
subcommunities.
♦ Residents of Gunbarrel were less likely to support various funding options than were residents of
other subcommunities; however, 51 % did say they would strongly support renewing existing
sales taxes for parks and recreation when they expire.
* Residents of Gunbarrel (many of whom live outside city limits) were less likely to agree that
individuals living outside Boulder city limits should pay higher fees for city of Boulder
recreation programs and facilities than were those in other subcommunities.
♦ Those living in Gunbarrel gave less positive ratings to the availability of information about the
city of Boulder's recreation offerings than those living in other subcommunities.
Those living in Central/East/CU/Crossroads were as likely to prefer obtaining their information
about the city's parks and recreation offerings from the city of Boulder Web site as the Boulder
Parks and Recreation Guide. Those living in other subcommunities were most likely to prefer
the Guide.
U
C
N
C
U
O
U
M
m
N
am
(0
C
O
i~
m
Z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 46
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #1 by Geographic Area
Cities offer recreation facilities and programs to
their residents for a variety of reasons and
purposes.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree that the city of Boulder should offer Central, North Outside
recreation facilities and programs to its East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
residents for each of the following purposes. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
To maintain and improve the physical health
and mental well-being of the general population
of the community 83% 71% 84% ` 82% 62% 72% 78%
To provide opportunities to make social
connections; to strengthen the "social fabric" of
the community 37% 21% 40% 41% 29% 27% 34%
To enhance the economic vitality of the
community by offering special events that draw
visitors from inside and outside the community 28% i 18` 28% , 17% 25% 17% 24%
To provide recreational opportunities to people
who might not otherwise be able to participate
in recreational activities (e.g., people with
disabilities or people with low incomes) ! 59% 52- 57% 60% 44% 48% 55%
To provide positive activities for children and
teens (age 19 and younger) 70% 7 75% 76% 57% 68% 70%
To provide recreational opportunities for adults
(20 to 59 years old) 56% 45% 651% 64% 51% 55% 57%
To provide recreational opportunities for senior
adults (age 60 and older) 53% 43% 67 75% 53% 59% 580/0
Percent ofrespondents rating as "strongly agree."
ID
C
d
U
U
(O
N
Q1
c0
C
O
z
rn
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 4 7
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #2 by Geographic Area
The city of Boulder is determining important
guiding principles for future parks and recreation
programming. Recognizing that all the statements
may reflect values that are important to you, from
each pair of statements below, please indicate Central, North Outside
which ONE of the two statements you believe is East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
more important for Boulder. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Consider parks and recreation a human service
that contributes to the physical, emotional and
social welfare of the whole community, and
therefore offers limited services funded primarily
through tax dollars. ! 91% 68% 85% 84% 79% ' 78% 84%
Consider parks and recreation a business which
should attract and serve as many people as t I I ,
possible who can afford to pay for the services
provided, and therefore offers more services
funded primarily through user fees. 9% 32% 15% 16% 21% 22% 16%
Total 100% 100% 100% 1000/D 100% 100% 100%
Parks and recreation program offerings should be
at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through
very advanced. 68% 62% 75% 61% 58% 63% 65%
Parks and recreation program offerings should
focus primarily on introductory classes at
beginning and intermediate levels. 32% 38% 25% 39% 42% 37% 35%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly
programmed with leagues and other pre-planned
activities or events, with some drop-in use, likely
earning greater revenues. 33% 51% 38% 44% 37% 29% 37%
Parks and recreation facilities should mostly be r 5
available for public drop-in use, with some active
z
programming, likely earning lesser revenues. 67% 49% 62°Jo 56% 63% 71% 63%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100 100% 2
% ' °
m
0
Z
rn
0
0
N
Q
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 48
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #2 by Geographic Area (continued)
The city of Boulder is determining important
guiding principles for future parks and recreation
programming. Recognizing that all the statements
may reflect values that are important to you, from
each pair of statements below, please indicate Central, North Outside
which ONE of the two statements you believe is East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
more important for Boulder. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Parks and recreation program offerings should
focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g.,
aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.)
because those serve the most number of people. 39% ~40/c 31r 46% 39% 33% 39%
Parks and recreation program offerings should
offer some popular sports and fitness activities,
but also include diverse opportunities like arts
and crafts, and classes (e.g., cooking, tai chi, etc.). 61% ~6°i 69% 54°!o 61% 67% 61%
Total 100% 10•^? 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The Parks and Recreation Department should
provide facilities and programs that complement
others in the community and not replicate them. 52% 69% 41% 43% 41% 55% 49%
The Parks and Recreation Department should
provide facilities and programs identified by
residents, regardless of whether they are provided
by other agencies in or near Boulder. 48--/o 31% 59% 57% 59% 45% 51%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
E
N
U
t
U_
tO
N
V1
O
O
C
O
l0
Z
61
O
O
N
Q
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 49
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #3 by Geographic Area
Please rate how important you think it is for the Central, North Outside
city of Boulder to provide recreation programs East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
for each of the population groups below. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Children age 12 and younger 52% 51% 56% 53 ; 44% 41% 50%
Teenagers 13 to 19 years old 54% 30% 58% 49% 44% 42% 49%
Adults (20 to 59 years old) 27% 29% 39% 34% 28% 22% 29%
Senior adults (age 60 and older) 31% 27% 35°% 54% 25% 25% 33%
Families together as a group 23% 22% 36% ' 23% 22% 16% 23%
People with disabilities 40% 28% 34% 50./.T 34% 33% 38%
People with low incomes 50% 29% 41% 56% 37% 30% 44%
Percent of respondents rating as "essential."
U
C
C
a
U
L
U
R
C/
N
N
Q'
f0
C
O
Z
m
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 50
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #4 by Geographic Area
When planning for the use of its various recreation
facilities (recreation centers class space, gym space,
pools, fields, etc.), the city of Boulder has to consider
a variety of priorities and community needs. What do
you think is the appropriate allocation of time for Central, North Outside
each of the following purposes at the city's recreation East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
facilities? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner
and intermediate classes) 22% 21% 25% 24% 21% 23% 22%
Opportunities for advanced or elite programs
(advanced classes or competitive opportunities) 12% 14% 13% 12%; 12% 11% 12%
Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use the
facilities (e.g., softball leagues, adult soccer leagues
volleyball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.) 20% 15%, 20% 18% 20% 18% 19%
Opportunities for community groups to use the
facilities (e.g., Little League, Master Swimming, youth
soccer clubs, Boulder Rugby Club, etc.) 17% 21% 16% 16% 19>', 18% 17%
- -
Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps, shoot
baskets, lift weights, etc.) 30% 29% 25% 31% 28% 31% 29%
Question #5 by Geographic Area
The city of Boulder has to consider a wide variety of
needs in our community when planning the
recreation classes to offer. About what percent of
classes do you think the city of Boulder should offer Central, North Outside
to the community in each of the following three East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
categories? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Active physical recreation (e.g., yoga, Pilates,
sports, dance, swimming, fitness, etc.) 51% 50% 48% 57% , 50% 56% 52%
U
Leisure enrichment activities (e.g., pottery, painting,
photography, cooking, etc.) 25% 27% 27% 22% 24% 22% 25%
y
Community education (e.g., babysitting certification,
CPR, health and wellness lectures, etc.) 25% 22% 25% 20% 26% 22% 24%
0
z
rn
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 51
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #6 by Geographic Area
in the past year, have you or any member of your Central, North Outside
household participated in any of the following Fast, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
activities? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water
exercise classes 32% 24% 18% 13% 26% 24%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim
or lap swim) 64% 39% 54% 60% 29% 54% 53%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play
features) 31% 33% 34% 36% 26% 27% 31%
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water -
I I
exercise classes 13% t8% 9% ! 10% 6% 10% 11%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in
swim or lap swim) 35% 28% 22% 33% 24% 34% 31%
Children and teen summer swim team 4% 12% 4% 6% 1% 2% 5%
Dance classes/ instruction 15% 7% 14% 25% 12% 15% 15%
Competitive dance team/company - 6% 1% 1 - 1% J 8% 4% 1% 4%
Gymnastics classes/instruction 11% 10% . 5%H 12% 3% 8% 9%
Competitive team gymnastics 5% 0% 1% ! 2% 0% 3% 3%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g.,
aerobics, yoga, weight training, etc.) 46% 45% j 37% 37% 49% 43%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais - 9% 5_`:9% j 8% 4% 10% 8%
etc.) "Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, 57/0 49 I 60%~ 46% 42% 41% 51%
e °
"Drop-in" yoga/Pilates 33% 21% 1 32% ; 20% 21% 21% 26%
Educational health and wellness classes 14% 5% 14% 11% 11% 7% 12%
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 24% -5% ; 12%~ 24% 14% 16% 19% S
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball,
soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate )
Frisbee, etc.) - --31% 7% 25% 25% 31% 12% 25%
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball,
dodgeball, basketball, etc.) 27% 9% 18% 28% 18% 17% 22%
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, o
mini-sports) 10% 5% 7% 11% 11% 11% 10% z
0)
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 52
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #6 by Geographic Area (continued)
In the past year, have you or any member of your Central, North Outside
household participated in any of the following East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
activities? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Golf lessons/instruction 7% 8% 6% 2% 00/0 10% 5%
Golfing 16% 14% 20% 9% 17% 20% 16%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis
lessons, private golf lessons, personal training.
etc.) 9% 8% 14% 11% 4% 10% 9%
Certifications (e.g.. CPR. AED. First Aid,
Babysitting, etc) 16% 9% 11% 10% 11% 9% 12%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art,
photography, music, drama, etc.) 17% 7% 17% 16% 7% 6% j 13%
Children's summer day camp 7% 7% 10% 9% 6% 11°k~ 8%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g.,
spring break, holidays) 4%° 5% 4% 3% 2% 5% 4%
Pottery instruction/classes 5% 4% 7% 10% 4°!0 3% 6%
"Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab 4% 6% 7% 3% 2% 4% 4%
Youth Services Initiative 3% 00/0 1% 111/0 0% 19b 2%
EXPAND 5% 0% 2% 00/0 2% 3% 3`yo
Community event 7% 0% 4% 15% 7% 5%° 7%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir 44% 46% 43% 37% 37% 36% 41%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating 12% 8% 4% 11% 2% 15% 9%
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 8% 0% 5% 3% 0% 7% 5%
Small watercraft rental 8"/° 2% 4`/° 6% 1% 8% 6%
U
r
c
V
L
U
ID
d
N
N
l°
C
O
.m
Z
C
C
N
C
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 53
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #7 by Geographic Area
How important, if at all, do you believe it is that Central, North Outside
the city of Boulder offer each of the following East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
activities to the community? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water
exercise classes 40% 25% 61% 36% 36% 43% 40c/,
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in
swim or lap swim) 41% 38% 58% 46% 34% 57% 44%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play
features) 22% 21% 30°x6 31°x6 21% 41% 26%
Outdoor swinwmlp r,nci n uris or vHler"
ere,i:.r cla=sses ~v": 9% 33% 20% 20% 26% 23%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in
swim or lap swim) 30% 26% 41% 33% 310/0 40% 33%
Children and teen summer swim team 25% 16% 41% 20% 14% 23% 23%
Dance classes/ instruction 12% 9% 27% 11% 12%0 8% 13%
Competitive dance team/company 8% 5% 10% 3% 2% 5% 6%
Gymnastics classes/instruction 4 19% 18% 23% 15% 10% 13% 17%
Competitive team gymnastics 10% 2% 12% 6% 5% 6% 8%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g.,
aerobics. yoga, weight training, etc.) 42% 35% 60% 55°! 49°! 45% 47%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 13% 8% 17% , 13% ! 6% 16% 12%
n' F u r; ~xe.icise machines,
c. ' --51% 50% I 65/o 58'/,, 48% 54% 53%
Drop-in" yoga/Pilates 30% 33 /o i- 37% 34% 26% 23% 30%
Educational health and wellness classes 31% 21% 27% 22% 28% 25% 27%
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 24% 12% 29% 21% 26% 27% 24%
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball,
C
soccer, football, rugby. lacrosse, Ultimate
Frisbee, etc.) 24% 13% 40% 29% 33% 26% 27%
- - - co
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball,
dodgeball, basketball, etc.) 24% 12% 31% 24% 29% 17% 24%
Sports instruction/classes (e-g. tennis, 3
volleyball, mini-sports) 15% 11% 18% 19% 21% 15% 17% z
00
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 54
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #7 by Geographic Area (continued)
Now important, if at all, do you believe it is that Central, North Outside
the city of Boulder offer each of the following East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
activities to the community? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Golf lessons/instruction 9% 5% 12% 2% 7% 3% 7°%
Golfing 13% 4% 12% 6% 14% 11% 11%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis
lessons, private golf lessons, personal training,
etc.) 9% 2% 9% 7% 6% 3°% 7%
Certifications (e-g.. CPR. AED, First Aid,
Babysitting, etc) 41% 41°% 41% 26% 38% 32% 37%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art,
photography, music, drama, etc.) 19°% 18% 20% 8% ; 17% 4% j 16%
Children's summer day camp 30% 33% 48% 43% 36% 40% 360/0
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g.,
spring break, holidays) 29°% 31°% 39% 38% 27% 33°% 32°%
Pottery instruction/classes 15% 4°% 20% 4% 7% 6% 10%
"Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab 15°% 13% 21°% 3°% 3% 9% 11°%
Youth Services Initiative 35% 26% 45°% 38°% 34°% 30°% 35%
EXPAND 44% 23°% 47% 47°% 34% - 37% 41%
Community event 17% 4°% 19% 6°% 14% 3% 13%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir 45°% 43% 550% 420% 390% ~ 31% 43%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating 33°% 34% 18% 18% 26% 19°% 26%
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 18°% 5% 11% 7% 141/1a 11% 13%
Small watercraft rental 15% 12% 14% 9% 18% 17°% 14%
Pereeni of respondents rating as "essential. "
C
v
U
t
U_
N
N
N
Q)
tr
76
C
O
z
Z
m
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 55
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #10 by Geographic Area
tf it were up to you, how would you allocate $100
in taxes across the following types of Central, North Outside
programming to best meet the needs of the East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
Boulder community? Crossroads ; Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Recreational programs at the beginning and
intermediate level ("learn-to" programs) $34 $38 $35 $41 $33 $36 $35
Recreational programs at the advanced and elite
levels ("competitive" programs) $15 $15 $15 $15 $12 $10 $14
Providing one-day community events at city
recreation facilities $13 $10 $12 $10 $17 j $14 $13
Reducing rental rates for children and teen
community groups (e.g., Little League.
synchronized swim team, etc.) $24 $23 $26 $21 $23 $25 $24
Reducing rental rates for adult community groups
(e.g., Masters Swimming, Adult Ultimate Frisbee,
etc.) $14 $14 $12 $13 $16 $15 $14
Question #11 by Geographic Area
Please indicate your level of support for or
opposition to the following sources of funding to Central, North Outside
help fund recreation facilities and programs in the East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
city of Boulder. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Renew existing sales taxes for parks and
recreatiur when they expire 72% 51% 82% 66% 61% 59% 68%
A new sales tax 8% 2% - 12% 8% 4% 3% 7%
Grants and donations, which require raising
matching funds from the community on a portion
of the monies received 37° 4 20% 47% 39% 29% 39% 36%
Partnering with other municipalities, school
L
districts or nonprofits to develop joint use co
recreational facilities or programs 51% 44% 56% 63% 44% 56% 52%
Partnering with private organizations to develop ro
recreational facilities or programs 45% 22% 43% 40% 34% 49% 41%
ro
Percent of respoadenrs rating as "strongly support. " z 01
00
0
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 56
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #12 by Geographic Area
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with each of the following funding policies Central, North Outside
for recreation facilities and programs the city of East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
Boulder could pursue. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in
order to supplement parks and recreation funding 32% 35% 24% 28% 37% 51% 33%
Recreation programs must pay for themselves
through use rfees
6% 11% 3% 2% 9% 12% 7%
Profitable or popular programs can help pay for less
profitable programs 31 36% 39% 34% 25% 23% 31%
Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher
fees for participating in city of Boulder recreation
programs or using city of Boulder recreation facilities 52' , 24% 67% 59% 44% 33`V, 50%
Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own
a business in Boulder should pay resident fees for
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or
using city of Boulder recreation facilities 26% 33% 38% 24% 27/0 47% 30%
Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree. "
Question #13 by Geographic Area
If the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation
Department did get some additional funding beyond
what is needed to provide the current levels of Outside
programming and maintenance, please indicate your Central, North boundaries
level of support for or opposition to the following uses East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast or
of additional funding. Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder unknown Overall
Maintain and update existing facilities and equipment 2 i 70% 74% 72% 581/1o 76% 70%
Lower user fees - - - 37% 22% 28% 30% 34% 29% 32%
Offer additional recreation programs 18% 13% 17% 17% 20% 25% 18%
Build new recreation facilities or renovate existing
facilities 29% 24% 33% 28% 24% 22% 27%
Percent of respondents rating as "strongly support. " 2
z
m
0
0
cv
O
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 57
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #15 by Geographic Area
What is your preferred way find out about city of Central, North Outside
Boulder Parks and Recreation programs? East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
(Check one.) Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly
publication) 33% 53% 47% 48% 56% 42%
Boulder Camera newspaper 14% 4% 10% 7% 8% 13% 11%
Channel 8 (the municipal cable TV channel) 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Other - - - - - - 0% 4% 1% - 2% - - - - 7% 6% 3°f
Informational flyers 9% 0°% 2% 3% 8% 5% 6%
The city of Boulder Web site 35% 34% 31% 26% 31% 13% 30%
E-mail groups/list5erve5 - 8°l0 3% 9°% 13% 2% 7% - 7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Question #16 by Geographic Area
How would you rate the availability of Central, ! North Outside
information about the city of Boulder's East, CU or Boulder or South Southeast boundaries
recreation offerings to the community? Crossroads Gunbarrel Palo Park Boulder Boulder or unknown Overall
Excellent 22% 19% 31% 26% 21% 32% 24%
Good 52% 381/1 38% 59% 40°% 49% 48%
Fair 15% 35% 22% 7`Y° 24% 6% 17°%
Poor T - - - - 6% 1% 4% 3% 2% 9% 5%
Don't know - 5% 7% 5% 5% 13% 3% 6°%
Total 100'/0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
C
V
C
N
U
L
V
l0
yV
N
O'
(6
C
O
l0
Z
Q1
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 58
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX D: RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY
QUESTIONS BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN OR TEENAGERS
IN HOUSEHOLD
The table below displays the number and percent of respondents whose household includes children or
teenagers. The remaining tables in this appendix present selected survey results by the presence or
absence of children and teenagers in the household.
Percent of Respondents with Children or Teenagers In Household
Geographic Area Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
Household includes children or teenagers i 141 23%
Household does NOT include children or teenagers 471 77%
Total I 612 100%
Differences of note between those households that include children or teenagers compared to those
households that do not include:
♦ A larger proportion of those whose households included children or teenagers "strongly" agreed
that the city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs in order to provide
positive activities for children and teens than did those whose households did not include
children and teenagers. However, even among respondents in households without children and
teenagers, a strongly majority (67%) strongly agreed that providing positive activities for youth
was an important mission for Boulder Parks and Recreation.
♦ Respondents living in households that included children or teenagers were more likely to rate
providing programs to children, teenagers and families together as a group as "essential" than
those whose households did not include children or teenagers.
♦ Those whose households included children or teenagers were more likely to think the Parks and
Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs identified by residents regardless
of whether they are provided by other agencies than were those who lived in households without
children or teenagers.
♦ In general, households with children or teenagers had higher participation rates for most
recreational activities compared to households without children or teenagers. A couple notable
exceptions included leisure enrichment classes (similar participation rates among both groups)
and educational health and wellness classes (somewhat higher participation rates among
households without children or teenagers).
U
G
C
N
U
L
V
10
QN
N
C
O
Z
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 59
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
♦ In addition, households without children or teenagers gave lower importance ratings to most
recreation activities compared to households with children or teenagers. The activities given the
highest importance ratings among households without children and teenagers differed somewhat
from the activities given the highest importance ratings among households with children and
teenagers.
Most important activities to:
Households with children or teenagers Households without children or teenagers
* Drop-in exercise * Drop-in exercise
* Indoor swimming pool swim lessons * Fitness or health and
or water exercise classes wellness classes
* Indoor swimming pool "open swim" * "Drop-in" to a reservoir
* Fitness or health and wellness classes * EXPAND
* Indoor leisure pool * Indoor swimming pool "open swim"
* "Drop-in" to a reservoir * Certifications
* Children's summer day camp * Youth Services Initiative
*EXPAND * Indoor swimming pool swim lessons
or water exercise classes
♦ Generally, those living in households with children or teenagers gave stronger support to various
funding options for parks and recreation than did those in households without children or
teenagers.
♦ Households with children or teenagers were more likely to prefer the Boulder Parks and
Recreation Guide as their information source for city of Boulder Parks and Recreation programs
(63%) than were those in households without children or teenagers (35%).
♦ Those in households with children or teenagers rated the availability of information about the
city of Boulder's recreation offerings more positively than did those in households without
children or teenagers.
U
C
N
C
N
U
L
U
l0
N
N
U1
D:
(0
C
O
m
Z
m
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 60
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #1 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Cities offer recreation facilities and programs to their residents for
a variety of reasons and purposes. NO child(ren)
Please Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the Child(ren) or or
city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs to Teenager(s) teenager(s)
Its residents for each of the following purposes. In Household in Household Overall
To maintain and improve the physical health and mental well-
being of the general population of the community 81% 77% 78%
To provide opportunities to make social connections; to
strengthen the "social fabric" of the community 38% 34% 35%
To enhance the economic vitality of the community by offering
special events that draw visitors from inside and outside the
community 23% 24% 24%
To provide recreational opportunities to people who might not
otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g.,
people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 66% 52% 55%
To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and
younger) 79% l- -67%- 70%
To provide recreational opportunities for adults (20 to 59 years
old) 66% 54% 57%
To provide recreational opportunities for senior adults (age 60 '
and older) 64% 56% 58%
* Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree. "
V
C
Q~
C
N
U
t
_V
d
UI
Ul
M
C
O
Z
0
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 61
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #2 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for
future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the NO child(ren)
statements may reflect values that are important to you, from Child(ren) or or
each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the Teenager(s) teenager(s)
two statements you believe is more Important for Boulder, in Household In Household Overall
Consider parks and recreation a human service that contributes
to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole
community, and therefore offers limited services funded primarily
through tax dollars. 81% 85% 84%
Consider parks and recreation a business which should attract
and serve as many people as possible who can afford to pay for
the services provided, and therefore offers more services funded
primarily through user fees. 19% 15% 16%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Parks and recreation program offerings should be at many
different skill levels, i.e. beginner through very advanced. 61% ' 67% 65%
Parks and recreation program offerings should focus primarily on
introductory classes at beginning and intermediate levels. 39% ` 33% 35%
Total . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - 100% - - 100'v- 100%
Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly programmed with
leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with some
drop-in use, likely earning greater revenues. 40% 37% 38%
Parks and recreation facilities should mostly be available for
public drop-in use, with some active programming, likely earning
lesser revenues. 60% 63% 62%
Total . - 100%°.~
_ 100/° 100%
Parks and recreation program offerings should focus mostly on~
popular sports and fitness (e.g., aeruuius, yuga, softbaii, soccer,
basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people. 41% ' 38% 39%
Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some popular
sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities
like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g., cooking, tai chi, etc.). 59% 62% 61%
- -
- - -7-
Total 100% 100% 100%
The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities l
and programs that complement others in the community and not
replicate them. 41% 52% 50%
The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities
and programs identified by residents, regardless of whether they
are provided by other agencies in or near Boulder. 48% 50%
Total 100% 100% 100%
iv
v
U
r
U
f°
N
N
Cr
Cr
C
O
.m
Z
rn
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 62
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #3 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
NO child(ren)
Please rate how important you think it is for the city of Boulder to Child(ren) or or
provide recreation programs for each of the population groups Teenager(s) teenager(s)
below. In Household in Household Overall
Children age 12 and younger 71% 43% 50%
Teenagers 13 to 19 years old 53% 48% ' 49%
Adults (20 to 59 years old) 32°% 28% 4 29%
Senior adults (age 60 and older) _ 39% 31% 33%
Families together as a group - 34% 20% 23%
People with disabilities 49% 35% 38%
People with low incomes 48% 43% 44%
*Percent of respondents rating as "essential. "
Question #4 by Presence of Children or Teenagers In Household
When planningfor the use of its various recreation facilities
(recreation centers class space, gym space, pools, fields, etc.),
the city of Boulder has to consider a variety of priorities and NO child(ren)
community needs. What do you think Is the appropriate allocation Child(ren) or or
of time for each of the following purposes at the city's recreation Teenager(s) teenager(s)
facilities? in Household in Household Overall
Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner and
intermediate classes) 25% 22% 22%
Opportunities for advanced or elite programs (advanced classes
or competitive opportunities) 13% 12% 12%
Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use the facilities (e.g., i
softball leagues, adult soccer leagues volleyball leagues, youth
football leagues, etc.) 18% 19% 19%
Opportunities for community groups to use the facilities (e.g.,
Little League, Master Swimming, youth soccer clubs, Boulder
Rugby Club, etc.) 16% 18% 18%
Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps, shoot baskets, lift
weights, etc.) 28% 29% 29%
Question #5 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
The city of Boulder has to consider a wide variety of needs in our NO child(ren)
community when planning the recreation classes to offer. About Child(ren) or or
what percent of classes do you think the city of Boulder should Teenager(s) teenager(s)
offer to the community in each of the following three categories? in Household in Household Overall
"Active" physical recreation (e.g., yoga, Pilates, sports, dance, s
swimming, fitness, etc.) 51%; 52% °
Leisure enrichment activities (e.g., pottery, painting, photography,
r
cooking, etc.) 23% 25% 25% m
E'
Community education (e.g., babysitting certification, CPR, health
and wellness lectures, etc.) 22% 24% 24% m
0
z
rn
c
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) c
Page 63
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #6 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
In the past year, have you or any member of your household Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
participated in any of the following activities? Household in Household Overall
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 47% 18% 24%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim) 72% 48% 54%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features) 68% 20% 31%
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 23% - 7% 11%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim) 57% 23% 31%
Children and teen summer swim team 11% 2% 4%
Dance classes/instruction 23% - 13% 15%
Competitive dance team/company 4% 4%
Gymnastics classes/instruction 26% 4% 9%
Competitive team gymnastics 3% 3% 3%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g., aerobics, yoga,
weight training, etc.) 50% 41% 43%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 6% 9% 8%
"Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 51% 51% 51%
"Drop-in" yoga/Pilates 30% 25% 26%
Educational health and wellness classes _ I 8% 13% l 12%
Drop-in basketball or volleyball 22% 18% 19%
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, football, rugby, I
lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) 27zo 2zj o 26%
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball, basketball, -
etc,) 28% 200/c 220/c
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini-sports) 22% 6% 10%
Golf lessons/instruction 11% 4% 5%
Golfing 17% 16% 16%
Private lessons/instruction (e.g., private tennis lessons, private
golf lessons, personal training, etc.) 16% ! 7% 9%
Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc) - - ^15% 12% 13%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography, music,
drama, etc.) 12% 'I - _._._.14% 13%
Children's summer day camp f _ - 25% r 3% 8%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g., spring break, T -
holidays) 8% 3% j 4%
Pottery instruction/classes 5% . 6%
"Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab 5% ! 4% , 4%
Youth Services Initiative - 1% 2% 1%
+ - _
EXPAND 1% 3% 3%
Community event - 12% 6% - 7%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir 51% 38% 41%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating 9% 9% 9% N
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 6% 4% 5% ~
Small watercraft rental 7% 5% 6% o
z
M
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 64
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #7 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
How important, if at all, do you believe it Is that the city of Boulder Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
offer each of the following activities to the community? Household in Household I Overall
Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 60% 33% 40%
Indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim) 59% 39% 44%
Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features) 53% . 17% 26%
Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or water exercise classes 37% 19% 23%
Outdoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim)- 45% 28% 32%
Children and teen summer swim team 230/-j
Competitive dance team/company 7°% 5% 6%
Gymnastics classes/instruction 27% 13% 16%
Curnputiiive learn gynuiastics li% 7% 8%
Fitness or health and wellness classes (e.g., aerobics, yoga,
weight training, etc.) 56% 44% 47%
Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais 14% 12% 12%
"Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 65% 49% 53%
"Drop-in" yoga/ Pilates 34% 29% 30%
nd wellness classes - - - - 277,
Drop m Laski-.ball or volleyball--- - - 29'!. 22`x- 24"r;,
Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, football, rugby,
lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) 26°1• 27% 27%
Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball, basketball,
etc.) 27% 23% 24%
Sports instruction/classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini-sports) 27% 13% 16%
Golf lessons/instruction 8% 6% 7%
Golfing 13% 10% 11%
Private lessons/instruction (e-g., private tennis lessons, private
~-31f .essors, personal trainirg, etc.) 8`/" 6% 7%
Certifications (e.g., CPR. AED. First Aid, Babysitting, etc) 42%' 36% 37%
Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography, music,
drama, etc.) 15% ; 16% 15%
Children's summer day camp 48% r 32% i 36%
Children's day camp on school days off (e.g., spring break,
t,olidays) 42% 28% 31%
Pottery instruction/classes 9% 11% I 10%
"Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab 13% 11%:
Youth Services Initiative 39% 34% 35;i
EXPAND 46% 39% ; 41>,
C
Community event - - - - - - 11% - 1
"Drop-in" to a reservoir 49% 42% 1 43%
"Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating 29% 25% ' 26%
Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp 19% 11% 13% o
Small watercraft rental 181% 13% 14% z
rn
*Percent of respondents rating as "essential.
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 65
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #10 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
If It were up to you, how would you allocate $100 in taxes across Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
the following types of programming to best meet the needs of the Teenager(s) in ; or teenager(s)
Boulder community? Household In Household Overall
Recreational programs at the beginning and intermediate level
("learn-to" programs) $40 $34 $35
Recreational programs at the advanced and elite levels
("competitive" programs) $13 $15 $14
Providing one-day community events at city recreation facilities $13 $13 $13
Reducing rental rates for children and teen community groups
(e.g., Little League, synchronized swim team, etc.) $24 $23 $24
Reducing rental rates for adult community groups (e.g., Masters
Swimming, Adult Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) $11 $15 ' $14
Question #11 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Please Indicate your level of support for or opposition to the Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
following sources of funding to help fund recreation facilities and Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
programs in the city of Boulder. Household in Household Overall
Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when they
expire 73% 66% 68%
A new sales tax 10% 6% 7%
Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds from
the community on a portion of the monies received 42% 35% . 37%
Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or nonprofits -
to develop joint use recreational facilities or programs 53% 53%
Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational
facilities or programs 43% 40% 41%
* Percent of respondents rating as "strongly support. "
Question #12 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
each of the following funding policies for recreation facilities and Teenager(s) in ! or teenager(s)
programs the city of Boulder could pursue. Household in Household Overall
The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order to
supplement parks and recreation funding
Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user tees 1% 8% 7%
Profitable or popular programs can help pay for less profitable
programs 32% 31%
Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for II
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city of
Boulder recreation facilities 54% 48%
Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a business in t
V
Boulder should pay resident fees for participating in city of
N
Boulder recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation
facilities 37% 28% 30%
* Percent (?f respondents rating as "strongly agree. " .P
Z
s
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) o
Page 66
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #13 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
If the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department did get
some additional funding beyond what is needed to provide the
current levels of programming and maintenance, please indicate Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
your level of support for or opposition to the following uses of Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
additional funding. Household In Household Overall
Maintain and update existing facilities and equipment 72% 69% 70%
Lower user fees 29% 33% 32%
Offer additional recreation programs 19% 18% 18%
Build new recreation facilities or renovate existing facilities 29% 26% 27%
* Percent of-respondents rating as "strongly support. "
Question #15 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Child(ren) or NO child(ren)
What is your preferred way find out about city of Boulder Parks Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
and Recreation programs? (Check one.) Household in Household I Overall
Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly publication) 63% 35% 42%
Boulder Camera newspaper 9% 11% 11%
Channel 8 (the municipal cable TV channel) 1% 1% 1%
- -
Other 3% 3% ! 3%
Informational flyers 2/°t 8% 6%
18% 34% ' 30%
E-mail groups/listserves 6% 8% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Question #16 by Presence of Children or Teenagers in Household
Child(ren) or ! NO child(ren)
How would you rate the availability of information about the city of Teenager(s) in or teenager(s)
Boulder's recreation offerings to the community? Household in Household Overall
Excellent 34% 21% 24%
Good 45% - 49% l- 48%
Fair - - 11% 14 17%
Poor 3% ` 5%
-Don't know Y 5% 6% ! 6%
Total 100% 100% 1000""°
U
C
N
C
O
U
L
U
41
N
0)
(6
C
O
z
Z
m
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13) 0
Page 67
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX E: RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY
QUESTIONS BY USE OF CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND
RECREATION FACILITIEVACTIVITIES AND REGISTRATION
The survey included a list of 35 activities provided by the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation
Department. Survey participants were asked to indicate in which activities they or members of their
household had participated. Survey participants were classified into four categories based on the
number of activities in which they had participated. The table below displays the number and percent
of respondents in each category.
Number of Activities in Which Survey Respondents Had Participated
Number of Activities Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
None 179 29%
One to Two - - 1 - 172, _ 281/o
Three to Five _ - _ 141 23%
Six or More 131 21%
TOTAL 622 100%
The survey also asked whether respondents had registered for a city of Boulder recreation program or
class. The percent who had done so is shown in the table below.
Registration Status
Number of Activities Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
Yes 204 , 34%
No - - 377 62%
Don't Know 25 4%
TOTAL 606 100%
The following tables present selected survey results by the number of activities in which respondents
had participated, and by their registration status. For the most part, few differences by participation
levels and registration status were observed.
U
C
a~
e
a~
U
L
O
l6
O
N
l0
C
O
Z
O1
g
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 68
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #11 by Number of Activities or Programs Used
Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to the
following sources of funding to help fund recreation facilities one or three six or
and programs In the city of Boulder. none two to five more Overall
Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when they
expire 61% 64% 71% 76% 68%
A new sales tax 4%° 5% 5% 15% 7%
Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds
from the community on a portion of the monies received j 37% 26% 36% 50% ; 36%
Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or
nonprofits to develop joint use recreational facilities or j
programs 47% 48% 66% 51% 52%
Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational I -
facilities or programs 42% 36% 38% 47% 41%
Percent of respondents rating as "srrons;Iy support. "
Question #12 by Number of Activities or Programs Used
Please Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each of the following funding policies for recreation facilities one or three six or
and programs the city of Boulder could pursue. ! none two to five more Overall
The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order to
supplement parks and recreation funding 28% 34% 42% 29% 33%
Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 8% 8% 4% 5% 7%
Profitable or popular programs can help pay for less profitable
programs 28% 32% 32% 32% 31%
Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city
of Boulder recreation facilities 40% 50% 56% 56% 50%
Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a business
in Boulder should pay resident fees for participating in city of
Boulder recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation
facilities 30% 25% 33915 34% 30%
Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree. "
Question #13 by Number of Activities or Programs Used
If the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department did get
some additional funding beyond what Is needed to provide the
current levels of programming and maintenance, please
indicate your level of support for or opposition to the following one or three six or s
uses of additional funding. none two to five more Overall
C
Maintain and update existing facilities and equipment 63% 63% 75% : 81% 70%
X
Lower user fees 36% 23% 36
Offer additional recreation programs 221A 14%
Build new recreation facilities or renovate existing facilities 28% 24% o
I'errent of respondents rating as "strongly support. " z
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 69
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #9 by Number of Activities or Programs Used
A fee Is required to use most of the city of Boulder's recreation
facilities and programs. These fees generally do not cover the
full cost of offering the program. If a program is fully funded by
tax dollars, there is no fee for the program. If a program
receives no tax funding, the fees cover the entire cost of
offering the program. Naturally, if all programs were fully funded
by tax dollars, this would require a greater commitment of
public funding (taxes) than if all program costs were covered by
fees. For each of the following items, please Indicate what you
believe is the appropriate percent of costs that should be , one or three to six or
recovered through fees. none two five more Overall
Youth Services Initiative 30% 37% 1 28% ! 35% 32%
EXPAND I 34% I 35% I 29% I 35% 33%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for adults and seniors 53% 56% 63% 57% 57%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for children and teens 48% 51% 58% 51% 52%
Swim lessons or water exercise classes for adults and seniors 60% 64% 68% 64% 64%
Swim lessons for children and teens 51% 54% 61% 55% 55%
"Drop-in" exercise for adults and seniors 57% 58% 63% 55% 58%
"Drop-in" to the gym for adults and seniors _ 56% 61% 63% 56% 59%
"Drop-in" to the gym for children and teens 48% 52% 54% 52% 51%
Sports classes or teams for adults and seniors 60% 70% 71% 65% 66%
Sports classes or teams for children and teens 57% 57% 61% 56% 58%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for adults
and seniors 62% 66% 66% 66% 65%
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for adults and seniors 76% 76% 80% 72% 76%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for children
and teens 49% 56% 53% 56% 53%
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for children and teens 64% 67% 70% 66% 67%
Golfing for adults and seniors 78% 78% 82% 78% 79%
Golfing for children and teens 74% 73% 75% 71% 73%
Pottery classes for adults and seniors 70% 74% 75% 70% 72%
Pottery classes for children and teens 65% 70% 69% 65% 67%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for adults and seniors _ 68% 74% 75% 68% 72%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for children and teens 64% 70% 71% ! 65% 67%
Community groups using pools 66% 69% 77% 70% 70%
Community groups using gyms 66% 67% 72% 70% 69%
Community groups using fields or courts 63%
Average percent that should be recovered through fees, calculated using the midpoints of the scaled options.
v
v
U
L
U
M
m
W
N
N
C
O
Z
rn
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 70
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #11 by Whether registered for a city of Boulder recreation class or program
Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to the Don't
following sources of funding to help fund recreation facilities and Had Had not know if
programs In the city of Boulder. registered registered registered
Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when they
c•.: irc 72% 660/D 49%
A new sales tax 12% 4%, 0%
Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds from
the community on a portion of the monies received 40% 34% 44%
Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or nonprofits to
develop joint use recreational facilities or programs 60% 50% 34%
Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational
facilities or programs 51% 36% 32%
Question #12 by Whether registered for a city of Boulder recreation class or program
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each Don't
of the following funding policies for recreation facilities and Had Had not know if
programs the city of Boulder could pursue. registered registered registered
The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order to
supplement parks and recreation funding 31% 32% 69%
Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 6% 7%v 0%
Nrotitable or -
popular programs can help pay for less profitable
programs i 29% 32% 26%
Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city of
Boulder recreation facilities 60% 47% 19%
Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a business in
Boulder should pay resident fees for participating in city of Boulder
recreation programs or using city of Boulder recreation facilities 29% 29% 55%
Question #13 by Whether registered for a city of Boulder recreation class or program
If the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department did get some
additional funding beyond what Is needed to provide the current
levels of programming and maintenance, please indicate your level Don't
of support for or opposition to the following uses of additional Had ! Had not know if
funding. registered registered registered
Maintain and update existing facilities and equipment 66% 59%
Lower user fees 27340i 27%
Offer additional recreation programs 16r 20% 14%
Build new recreation facilities or renovate existing facilities 30% f 26% 23%
a
U
L
U
f0
GI
N
4)
10
C
, O
Z
rn
O
O
N
Q
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 71
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Question #9 by Whether registered for a city of Boulder recreation class or program
A fee Is required to use most of the city of Boulder's recreation
facilities and programs. These fees generally do not cover the full
cost of offering the program. If a program is fully funded by tax
dollars, there is no fee for the program. If a program receives no tax
funding, the fees cover the entire cost of offering the program.
Naturally, if all programs were fully funded by tax dollars, this would
require a greater commitment of public funding (taxes) than if all
program costs were covered by fees. For each of the following Items, Don't
please indicate what you believe is the appropriate percent of costs Had Had not know If
that should be recovered through fees. registered registered registered
Youth Services Initiative 36% 31% 27%
EXPAND 35% 32% 30%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for adults and seniors 60% 56% 45%
"Open swim" (drop-in) for children and teens 54°A 51% 45%
Swim lessons or water exercise classes for adults and seniors 67%
Swim lessons for children and teens 60% 53% 42%
"Drop-in" exercise for adults and seniors 60% 59% 42%
"Drop-in" to the gym for adults and seniors 6011/0 59% 45%
"Drop-in" to the gym for children and teens 54% 51% 39%
Sports classes or teams for adults and seniors 68% 65% 65%
Sports classes or teams for children and teens - I 60% 57% 49%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for adults and 67% 64% 58%
seniors
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for adults and seniors 77% 76% 74%
Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for children and 55% 53% 44%
teens
Advanced or elite level recreation classes for children and teens 69% 66% 63%
Golfing for adults and seniors 80% 79% 76%
Golfing for children and teens 74% i 73% 75%
Pottery classes for adults and seniors i 75`X 711b 65°6
Pottery classes for children and teens 69% 66% 66%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for adults and seniors A 72% 71% 70%
Pottery "drop-in" studio for children and teens 68% 66% 71%
Community groups using pools _ 75% 68% 65%
Community groups using gyms 73% 67% 65%
Community groups using fields or courts 73% 65% 61%
Average percent that should be recovered through fees, calculated using the midpoints of the scaled options.
U
C
N
C
N
U
t
U
M
U)
N
N
c
O
Z
m
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 72
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX F: SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Developing the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed by the staff of NRC, with input from the city of Boulder Parks and
Recreation staff. The team reviewed previous surveys conducted on behalf of the city as well as
questionnaires conducted on behalf of other jurisdictions. Based on the information needs and issues
faced by the city, the specific questions were drafted by NRC staff. The questionnaire was reviewed
and revised until the final version was accepted.
Selecting Survey Recipients
"Sampling" refers to the method by which survey recipients are chosen. The "sample" refers to all
those who were given a chance to participate in the survey. All households located in the Boulder
Valley, defined as zip codes 80301 through 80305, were eligible for the survey. Because local
governments generally do not have inclusive lists of all the residences in the jurisdiction (tax assessor
and utility billing databases often omit rental units), lists from the United States Postal Service (USPS),
updated every three months, usually provide the best representation of all households in a specific
geographic location. NRC used the USPS data to randomly select a sample of households to receive
the survey.
Attached units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates
to surveys than do those in detached housing units.
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. This instruction
was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
The addresses selected to receive the survey were geocoded as residing in one of the nine planning
subcommunities as defined by the city of Boulder. A tenth area was defined as those addresses outside
the subcommunity boundaries. The map on the next page displays the subcommunity boundaries and
the location of addresses selected to receive the survey.
V
C
N
C
d
U
L
U_
f0
Ul
N
d
m
C
O
Z
d)
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 73
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Map of Subcommunity Boundaries and Addresses Selected for the Survey*
o •
i
Nwro1
j GuribaSel
• , • • • i
8%
: so ort ).Boulder • • •
• • • ~to 6e% • to PalO'Park •
• CrossrO ds East Boulder t
C; tral~9oulder ' ~ t
Colorado UniMCrsity • • ~
♦ M ' Isoutseast Boulder `
.~JI Lafayette
• •
•
~ . ti
South Boul'de;! •
*
N i• - rJ. ~ISV111E.
• J
W+E
S Eldorado thoc. ___j
* Blue dots represent addresses within subcommunity boundaries; red dots indicate addresses outside subcommunity
boundaries.
Survey Administration and Response
Each selected household was contacted three times. First, a prenotification announcement was sent,
informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the Boulder Recreation
Survey. Approximately one week after mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a
survey containing a cover letter signed by the city manager and the department director enlisting
participation. The packet also contained a postage paid return envelope in which the survey recipients
could return the completed questionnaire directly to NRC. A reminder letter and survey, scheduled to
arrive one week after the first survey was the final contact. The second cover letter asked those who
had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in
another survey.
Li
C
The cover letter contained instructions in Spanish directing Spanish-speakers to a Web site where they
could complete the survey online in Spanish, if they wished. No survey recipient chose to complete the
Spanish version of the survey online.
2
The mailings were sent in March 2009. Completed surveys were collected over the following weeks.
About 4% (121) of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the ro
postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,879 households who received a
survey, 622 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 22%. o
NN
Report of Results (2000-05-13) 0
Page 74
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
The 95% confidence interval (or "margin of error") quantifies the "sampling error" or precision of the
estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample
size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result
would be found that is within ±4 percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the
population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may
introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation
and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in
the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally
excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error).
While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four
percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample, results for subgroups will
have wider confidence intervals. For each subgroup from the survey, the margin of error rises to as
much as plus or minus 14% for a sample size of 52 (in the smallest) to plus or minus 6% for 232
completed surveys (in the largest). Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise.
Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Mailed surveys were returned to NRC directly via postage-paid business reply envelopes. Once
received, staff assigned a unique identification number to each questionnaire. Additionally, each
survey was reviewed and "cleaned" as necessary. 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.
Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic
dataset. This dataset is subject to a data entry protocol of "key and verify," in which survey data were
entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the
original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also
performed.
Survey Analysis
Weighting the Data
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000
Census estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to
reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the whole
population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many
socioeconomic characteristics.
The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age and housing situation. This decision was
based on:
♦ The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these
variables
♦ The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups
♦ The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different groups
over the years r
The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger
population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing
them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the o
responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are z
least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data o
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 75
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific
variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public
acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to
adjusting the race variable.
A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights.
A limitation of data weighting is that only 2-3 demographic variables can be adjusted in a single study.
Several different weighting "schemes" are tested to ensure the best fit for the data.
The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings
are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to
ensure they are accurately represented in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal
chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the
jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater
chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the
proper representation of apartment dwellers.
The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table below.
Percent in Population
Characteristic Population Norm* Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Sex and Age
18-34 years of age 53.7% 23.9% 50.0%
35-54 years of age 30.7% 38.0% 33.0%
55+ years of age - 15.6"A 38.1% 17.0%
Female 48.3% ; 61.8% 47.8%
Male 51.7% 38.2% 52.2%
Females 18-34 24.4% 15.3% 22.0%
Females 35-54 15.2% 25.2% 16.9%
Females 55+ - - J.- - - 8.7% 21.3% 8.9%
Males 18-34 - - - - - 29.4% - 9.0% - - - - 28.7%
Males 35-54 15.4% 13.0% ' 16.2%
Males 55+ 6.9% 16.3%y 7.3%
Housing
Own home 51.9% 68.7% 51.9%
Rent home 48.1% 31.3% 48.1%
Detached unit 52.0% 54.0% 52.0%
Attached unit 48.0% 46.0% 48.0%
*Source: 2000 Census
Analyzing the Data
The electronic dataset was analyzed by National Research Center, Inc. staff using the Statistical ;
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). 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
contained in Appendix A: Responses to Survey Questions. Also included are results by geograpic
subarea (Appendix C.- Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area) and presence of
children in household (Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Presence of Children s
or Teenagers in Household). Z
M
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 76
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
Representativeness of the survey respondents
Given that this survey was focused on parks and recreation, there was concern that perhaps those who
use the city's parks and recreation services might have been more likely to complete the survey than
were non-users. This is a difficult hypothesis to test. However, the 2007 Boulder Community Survey,
which was focused an a broad array of issues and therefore would not have been more likely to be
completed by parks and recreation users, did ask a few questions about use of parks and recreation.
The 2007 Boulder Community Survey asked whether survey respondents had used one of the three
Recreation Centers in the past year; about 51 % had done so. The 2009 Recreation Plan Survey did not
ask this question, but respondents were asked about their participation in a variety of activities at a city
of Boulder facility. If respondents had indicated that had participated in one or more of the following
activities, they were assumed to have used a Recreation Center: indoor swimming pool swim lessons
or water exercise classes, indoor swimming pool "open swim" (drop-in swim or lap swim), used an
indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features), dance classes/instruction, competitive dance
team/company, gymnastics classes/instruction, competitive team gymnastics, fitness or health and
wellness classes (e.g., aerobics, yoga, weight training, etc.), Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais, "drop-in"
exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.), "drop-in" yoga/Pilates, educational health and wellness
classes, drop-in basketball or volleyball, certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc), or
a leisure enrichment class (cooking, art, photography, music, drama, etc.); 53% of respondents had
done at least one of these activities in the past year. The results from the two surveys were quite
similar, indicating that users did not seem to be more likely to complete the Recreation Plan Survey
than non-users.
Respondents to the 2007 Boulder Community Survey were asked whether they had participated in a
city of Boulder parks and recreation program or activity; 42% said that they had. On the 2009
Recreation Plan Survey, respondents were asked whether they had registered for a city of Boulder
parks and recreation program or class; 34% said that they had. This figure is lower than that observed
on the 2007 Community Survey, but respondents to the Community Survey were probably considering
a broader range of activities, including drop-in activities, rather than just activities that required
registration. It seems, however, that those who participated in the Recreation Plan Survey were not
necessarily more likely to be users than were those who did not complete the survey.
c
v
C
N
U
L
U_
c0
N
N
C
O
z
0
0
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 77
Recreation Plan Survey
May 2009
APPENDIX G: SURVEY MATERIALS
The following pages contain a copy of the questionnaire that survey participants were asked to
complete.
t
V
d
N
m
d'
r
C
O
fl
O
O
N
Report of Results (2000-05-13)
Page 78
Estamos haciendo un examen y quisieramos escuchar su opinion. Lea
el final de esta carta para mds informaci6n. 1r
r
Dear Resident,
Recreation programs and services are an important part of Boulder's quality of life and the
city of Boulder offers numerous and various types of programs. We are working on a
recreation program plan for our community, and we want to hear from you to understand
your perspectives and preferences so that we can best meet your recreational needs and
interests!
That is why your household has been randomly selected to participate in this survey. Please
take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire. We request that an adult (age 18
or older) in your household most familiar with the recreational activities of all household
members complete the survey. Your responses will remain completely confidential.
Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope provided to National
Research Center, Inc., 3005 30th St., Boulder, CO 80301, who will be compiling the results of
the survey.
We are making important decisions and will use these survey results to help guide us. We
have mailed surveys to only a small percent of Boulder households, so your response is
extremely important in helping us make decisions about recreation facilities and programs
for the entire community. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Sarah
DeSouza at 303-413-7205.
Please help us make Boulder an even greater place to live! Thank you for your help and
participation.
Sincerely yours,
Jane S. Brautigam Tracy Winfree
City Manager Interim Director, Parks and Recreation Department
;La ciudad de Boulder estd trabajando en un programa de recreacion para nuestra comunidad y
queremos escuchar su opinion para poder entender sus perspectivas y preferencias de modo que
podamos de la mejor manera posible atender a sus necesidades a intereses recreacionales! Usted
puede conseguir la ayuda de un amigo o un familiar que hable ingles para contestar la encuesta o
usted puede it al sitio de Internet al http //www.n-r-c.com/RecreationSurvey para contestar ahi la
encuesta en espanol. Si usted no tiene una computadora con acceso a Internet en su hogar, usted
puede it a una de las bibliotecas y utilizar una computadora gratis ahi. Usted necesitard escribir
este UserName (Nombre de Usuario): para poder completar la encuesta.
iGracias!
City of Boulder Recreation Survey
1.Cities offer recreation facilities and programs to their residents for a variety of reasons and purposes.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the city of Boulder should offer recreation
facilities and programs to its residents for each of the following purposes. Then rate which you think is
the MOST IMPORTANT reason the city of Boulder should offer recreation facilities and programs.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Most Important
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree check one onl
a. To maintain and improve the physical health
and mental well-being of the general population
of the community ................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
b. To provide opportunities to make social
connections; to strengthen the "social fabric"
of the community ................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. To enhance the economic vitality of the
community by offering special events that draw
visitors from inside and outside the community 1 2 3 4 ❑
d. To provide recreational opportunities to people who
might not otherwise be able to participate in
recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities
or people with low incomes) ..............................................1 2 3 4 ❑
e. To provide positive activities for children and teens
(age 19 and younger) ..........................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
f. To provide recreational opportunities for adults
(20 to 59 years old) ...............................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
g. To provide recreational opportunities for senior adults
(age 60 and older) .................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
2.The city of Boulder is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation
programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from
each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more
important for Boulder.
a. ❑ Consider parks and recreation a human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social
welfare of the whole community, and therefore offers limited services funded primarily through tax
dollars.
❑ Consider parks and recreation a business which should attract and serve as many people as possible who
can afford to pay for the services provided, and therefore offers more services funded primarily through
user fees.
b. ❑ Parks and recreation program offerings should be at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through very
advanced.
❑ Parks and recreation program offerings should focus primarily on introductory classes at beginning and
intermediate levels.
c. ❑ Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly programmed with leagues and other pre-planned
activities or events, with some drop-in use, likely earning greater revenues.
❑ Parks and recreation facilities should mostly be available for public drop-in use, with some active
programming, likely earning lesser revenues.
d. ❑ Parks and recreation program offerings should focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g., aerobics,
yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people.
❑ Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also
include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g., cooking, tai chi, etc.).
e. ❑ The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that complement others in
the community and not replicate them.
❑ The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs identified by residents,
regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in or near Boulder.
City of Bnnfdcr Rccrc,ation Surve%, Page 1
3.Please rate how important you think it is for the city of Boulder to provide recreation programs for each
of the population groups below. Then indicate which one or two population groups you think should
receive the hi hest priority.
Very Somewhat Not at all Highest Priority
Programs for: Essential Important Important Important (heck two only
a. Children age 12 and younger 1 2 3 4 ❑
b. Teenagers 13 to 19 years old ...............................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. Adults (20 to 59 years old) ...........................................1 2 3 4 ❑
d. Senior adults (age 60 and older) .................................1 2 3 4 ❑
e. Families together as a group .......................................1 2 3 4 ❑
f. People with disabilities ................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
g. People with low incomes .............................................1 2 3 4
4.When planning for the use of its various recreation facilities (recreation centers, class space, gym space,
pools, fields, etc.), the city of Boulder has to consider a variety of priorities and community needs. What
do you think is the appropriate allocation of time for each of the following purposes at the city's
recreation facilities?
% Opportunities to "learn-to" (skill-building; beginner and intermediate classes)
% Opportunities for advanced or elite programs (advanced classes or competitive opportunities)
% Opportunities for city-sponsored leagues to use the facilities (e.g., softball leagues, adult soccer
leagues volleyball leagues, youth football leagues, etc.)
% Opportunities for community groups to use the facilities (e.g., Little League, Master Swimming,
youth soccer clubs, Boulder Rugby Club, etc.)
% Opportunities for drop-in use (e.g., swim laps, shoot baskets, lift weights, etc.)
100% TOTAL
5.The city of Boulder has to consider a wide variety of needs in our community when planning the
recreation classes to off er. About what percent of classes do you think the city of Boulder should offer to
the community in each of the following three categories?
% "Active" physical recreation (e.g., yoga, Pilates, sports, dance, swimming, fitness, etc.)
% Leisure enrichment activities (e.g., pottery, painting, photography, cooking, etc.)
% Community education (e.g., babysitting certification, CPR, health and wellness lectures, etc.)
100% TOTAL
Citv of Boulder Recreation Survey Page 2
6.In the past year, have you or any member of your household participated in any of the following activities at
a city of Boulder recreation facility (e.g., North, South or East Boulder Recreation Centers, Scott Carpenter
Pool, Pleasant View Fields, Boulder Reservoir, etc.), at a nonprofit facility (e.g, the YMCA, etc.), at a private
facility (e.g., RallySport, 24 Hour Fitness, Flatiron Athletic Club, etc.), or at another city's recreation facility
(e.g., Lafayette Bob L. Burger Recreation Center, Erie Community Center, etc.),? Please check all that apply.
Did at a city of Did at a Did at a Did at another
Boulder facility nonprofit facility private facility city's facility
a. Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or
water exercise classes ❑ ❑ D ❑
b. Indoor swimming pool "open swim"
(drop-in swim or lap swim) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c. Used an indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
d. Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or
water exercise classes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
e. Outdoor swimming pool "open swim"
(drop-in swim or lap swim) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
f. Children and teen summer swim team D D ❑ D
g. Dance classes/ instruction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
h. Competitive dance team/company ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
i. Gymnastics classes/ instruction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
j. Competitive team gymnastics ❑ ❑ ❑ D
k. Fitness or health and wellness classes
(e.g., aerobics, yoga, weight training, etc.) ❑ ❑ D ❑
1. Tai Chi/Chi Kung/Feldenkrais ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
m. "Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
n. "Drop-in" yoga/Pilates ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
o. Educational health and wellness classes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
p. Drop-in basketball or volleyball ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
q. Played field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, football,
rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
r. Played indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball,
basketball, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
s. Sports instruction/ classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball,
mini-sports) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
t. Golf lessons/ instruction D ❑ ❑ ❑
u. Golfing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
v. Private lessons/ instruction (e.g., private tennis lessons,
private golf lessons, personal training, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
w.Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
x. Leisure enrichment class (cooking, art,
photography, music, drama, etc.) ❑ D ❑ ❑
y. Children's summer day camp ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
z. Children's day camp on school days off
(e.g., spring break, holidays) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
aa. Pottery instruction/ classes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
bb. "Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab ❑ D ❑ ❑
cc. Youth Services Initiative (a community based after school
and summer program for youth living in public housing) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
dd. EXPAND (Exciting Programs Adventures and New
Dimensions, a program that helps people who have
disabilities improve and gain new recreation and
leisure skills through programs or inclusion) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
ee. Community event (e.g., Father-daughter Valentine's
Day dance, Halloween Carnival, Flick and Float, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
ff. "Drop-in" to a reservoir (for swimming, running,
biking, windsurfing, etc.) ❑ D D ❑
gg. "Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating D ❑ ❑ ❑
hh. Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp
(e.g., sailboats, canoes, paddleboats, sailboards, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
ii. Small watercraft rental (e.g., sailboats, canoes,
paddleboats, sailboards, etc.) ❑ D ❑ ❑
City of S~~ulder l:e~_reation Survey Page 3
7.How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the city of Boulder offer each of the following activities to
the community?
Very Somewhat Not at all Don't
Essential Important Important Important Know
a. Indoor swimming pool swim lessons or
water exercise classes ...............................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
b. Indoor swimming pool "open swim"
(drop-in swim or lap swim) .......................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. Indoor leisure pool (pool with water play features) ...............1 2 3 4 ❑
d. Outdoor swimming pool swim lessons or
water exercise classes ..............................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
e. Outdoor swimming pool "open swim"
(drop-in swim or lap swim) ........................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
f. Children and teen summer swim team .................................1 2 3 4 ❑
g. Dance classes/ instruction .......................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
h. Competitive dance team/company .......................................1 2 3 4 ❑
i. Gymnastics classes/instruction .............................................1 2 3 4 ❑
j. Competitive team gymnastics ................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
k. Fitness or health and wellness classes
(e.g., aerobics, yoga, weight training, etc.) ..1 2 3 4 ❑
1. Tai Chi/ Chi Kung/ Feldenkrais .............................................1 2 3 4 ❑
m. "Drop-in" exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) .............1 2 3 4 ❑
n. "Drop-in" yoga/Pilates ...........................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
o. Educational health and wellness classes ...............................1 2 3 4 ❑
p. Drop-in basketball or volleyball... 1 2 3 4 ❑
q. Field sports (e.g., baseball, softball, soccer, football,
rugby, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) .......................................1 2 3 4 ❑
r. Indoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, dodgeball,
basketball, etc.) ...........................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
s. Sports instruction/ classes (e.g. tennis, volleyball, mini-sports)..1 2 3 4 ❑
t. Goff lessons/ instruction ..........................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
u. Golfing .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
v. Private lessons/ instruction (e.g., private tennis lessons,
private golf lessons, personal training, etc.) ...............................1 2 3 4 ❑
w. Certifications (e.g., CPR, AED, First Aid, Babysitting, etc) .......1 2 3 4 ❑
x. Leisure enrichment classes (cooking, art,
photography, music, drama, etc.) ...............................................1 2 3 4 ❑
y. Children's summer day camp ...............................................1 2 3 4 ❑
z. Children's day camp on school days off
(e.g., spring break, holidays) .......................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
aa. Pottery instruction/ classes .....................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
bb. "Drop-in" to the Pottery Lab .................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
cc. Youth Services Initiative (a community based after school
and summer program for youth living in public housing) ...........1 2 3 4 5
dd. EXPAND (programs and/or inclusions for people with disabilities) .1 2 3 4 ❑
ee. Community events (e.g., Father-daughter Valentine's
Day dance, Halloween Carnival, Flick and Float, etc.) ...............1 2 3 4 ❑
ff. "Drop-in" to a reservoir (for swimming, running,
biking, windsurfing, etc.) ...........................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
gg. "Drop-in" to a reservoir for boating
hh. Small watercraft classes/instruction/camp
(e.g., sailboats, canoes, paddleboats, sailboards, etc.) ................1 2 3 4 ❑
ii. Small watercraft rental
(e.g., sailboats, canoes, paddleboats, sailboards, etc.) ................1 2 3 4 ❑
8.What suggestions, if any, do you have for other recreational offerings the city of Boulder might provide that it
does not already provide?
Citv of Boulder Recreation Survey facie 4
9.A fee is required to use most of the city of Boulder's recreation facilities and programs. These fees generally
do not cover the full cost of offering the program. If a program is fully funded by tax dollars, there is no fee
for the program. If a program receives no tax funding, the fees cover the entire cost of offering the program.
Naturally, if all programs were fully funded by tax dollars, this would require a greater commitment of
public funding (taxes) than if all program costs were covered by fees.
For each of the following items, please indicate what you believe is the appropriate percent of costs that
should be recovered through fees.
No tax funding----------------------------------- 4 Full lax fMiding
Percent of costs that should be recovered through fees:
100% 70%-100% 35%-70% 15%-35% 0%-15'1
a. Youth Services Initiative (a community based after school
and summer program for youth living in public housing) ........................1 2 3 4 5
b. EXPAND (programs and/or inclusion for people with disabilities) 1 2 3 4 5
c. "Open swim" (drop-in) for adults and seniors ..................................1 2 3 4 5
d. "Open swim" (drop-in) for children and teens ..................................1 2 3 4 5
e. Swim lessons or water exercise classes for adults and seniors .........1 2 3 4 5
f. Swim lessons for children and teens .....................................................1 2 3 4 5
g. "Drop-in" exercise (e.g., weights, exercise machines, etc.)
for adults and seniors ...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5
h. "Drop-in" to the gym (e.g., basketball, volleyball, etc.)
for adults and seniors ...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5
i. "Drop-in" to the gym (e.g., basketball, volleyball, etc.)
for children and teens ...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5
j. Sports classes or teams for adults and seniors ....................................1 2 3 4 5
k. Sports classes or teams for children and teens ....................................1 2 3 4 5
1. Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for adults
and seniors (e.g. fitness, dance, music, drama, cooking, photography, etc.) ...1 2 3 4 5
m. Advanced or elite level recreation classes for adults and
seniors (e.g. fitness, dance, music, drama, cooking, photography, etc.) ...........1 2 3 4 5
n. Beginning or intermediate level recreation classes for children
and teens (e.g. fitness, dance, music, drama, cooking, photography, etc.) .......1 2 3 4 5
o. Advanced or elite level recreation classes for children and
teens (e.g. fitness, dance, music, drama, cooking, photography, etc.) ...............1 2 3 4 5
p. Golfing for adults and seniors ...............................................................1 2 3 4 5
q. Golfing for children and teens ...............................................................1 2 3 4 5
r. Pottery classes for adults and seniors ...................................................1 2 3 4 5
s. Pottery classes for children and teens ..................................................1 2 3 4 5
t. Pottery "drop-in" studio for adults and seniors .................................1 2 3 4 5
U. Pottery "drop-in" studio for children and teens .................................1 2 3 4 5
v. Community groups using pools (e,g., Masters Swimming) .................1 2 3 4 5
w.Community groups using gyms (e.g., leagues, etc.) .........................1 2 3 4 5
x. Community groups using fields or courts (e.g., Adult Rugby) ..........1 2 3 4 5
10.If it were up to you, how would you allocate $100 in taxes across the following types of programming to
best meet the needs of the Boulder community?
$ Recreational programs at the beginning and intermediate level ("learn-to" programs)
$ Recreational programs at the advanced and elite levels ("competitive" programs)
$ Providing one-day community events (e.g., Father-daughter Valentine's Day dance, Halloween Carnival,
SpringFest, Flick and Float, etc.) at city recreation facilities
$ Reducing rental rates for children and teen community groups (e.g., Little League, synchronized swim
team, etc.)
$ Reducing rental rates for adult community groups (e.g., Masters Swimming, Adult Ultimate Frisbee, etc.)
TOTAL
City of Boulder Recreation Survey Pagc 5
11.Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to the following sources of funding to help fund
recreation facilities and programs in the city of Boulder.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
Support Support Oppose Oppose Know
a. Renew existing sales taxes for parks and recreation when
they expire .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
b. A new sales tax ...................................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. Grants and donations, which require raising matching funds
from the community on a portion of the monies received 1 2 3 4 ❑
d. Partnering with other municipalities, school districts or nonprofits
to develop joint use recreational facilities or programs ..............1 2 3 4 ❑
e. Partnering with private organizations to develop recreational
facilities or programs .......................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
12.Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding policies for
recreation facilities and programs the city of Boulder could pursue.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know
a. The city of Boulder should seek corporate sponsors in order
to supplement parks and recreation funding (e.g., signage with
advertisements on baseball fences, use of event banners with logos or
advertising during events or games, naming of facilities, etc.) ............1 2 3 4 ❑
b. Recreation programs must pay for themselves through
user fees ............................................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and
swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs
(such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) .....................1 2 3 4 ❑
d. Individuals living outside Boulder should pay higher fees for
participating in city of Boulder recreation programs or
using city of Boulder recreation facilities ......................................1 2 3 4 ❑
e. Individuals who live outside Boulder but work or own a
business in Boulder should pay resident fees for participating
in city of Boulder recreation programs or using city of
Boulder recreation facilities .............................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
13.If the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department did get some additional funding beyond what is
needed to provide the current levels of programming and maintenance, please indicate your level of
support for or opposition to the following uses of additional funding. Then indicate which ONE of the
following you think would be most important.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Most Important
Su_port Support Oppose Oppose check one only)
a. Maintain and update existing facilities and equipment.. 1 2 3 4 ❑
b. Lower user fees ....................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
c. Offer additional recreation programs ............:..................1 2 3 4 ❑
d. Build new recreation facilities or renovate
existing facilities ................................................................1 2 3 4 ❑
Citv of Boulder Recreation Survtw Page 6
14.How do you find out about city of Boulder Parks and Recreation programs? (Please check all that apply.)
❑ Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly publication) ❑ Informational flyers
❑ Boulder Camera newspaper ❑ The city of Boulder Web site
❑ Channel 8 (the municipal cable TV channel) ❑ E-mail groups/listserves
❑ Other
15.What is your preferred way find out about city of Boulder Parks and Recreation programs? (Check one.)
❑ Boulder Parks and Recreation Guide (quarterly publication) ❑ Informational flyers
❑ Boulder Camera newspaper ❑ The city of Boulder Web site
❑ Channel 8 (the municipal cable TV channel) ❑ E-mail groups/listserves
❑ Other
excellent good fair poor don't know
16.How would you rate the availability of information about
the city of Boulder's recreation offerings to the community? ..............1 2 3 4 O
17.Have you or any member of your household registered for a recreation class or program with the city of
Boulder in the previous 12 months?
O Yes -----------------------------4 17a. The time you most recently registered, 17b. How easy or difficult
O No did you register online, over the phone, was it to register?
❑ Don't know or in-person? (Please check all that apply.) ❑ Very easy
❑ Online 0 Somewhat easy
❑ On the phone ❑ Somewhat difficult
❑ In-person ❑ Very difficult
❑ Don t know ❑ Don't know
About You and Your Household
18.About how long have you lived 25.About how much was your household's total
in Boulder? years income before taxes in 2008? (Please include in
(Please mark "0" if less than 6 months) your total income money from all sources for all
persons living in your household.)
19.Do you rent or own your residence? ❑ Less than $24,999
❑ Rent ❑ Own ❑ $25,000 to $49,999
20.Please check the one box which most closely ❑ $50,000 to $99,999
describes the type of housing unit you live in. ❑ $100,000 or more
❑ A detached single-family home 26.VWhich of the following best describes your age?
❑ An apartment in an apartment complex ❑ 18 - 24 ❑ 45 - 54
❑ An apartment in a single-family home ❑ 25 - 34 ❑ 55 - 64
❑ A condominium or townhouse ❑ 35 - 44 ❑ 65 years or older
❑ A mobile home
❑ Other, please specify 27.What is your gender?
21.Counting yourself, how many people ❑ Female ❑ Male
live in your household? people
Thank you!
yes no
22.Do any children age 12 or younger The city of Boulder greatly appreciates your
live in your household? ❑ ❑ responses! Please return the survey in the enclosed
23.Do any teenagers ages 13 to 17 postage-paid envelope to the independent
live in your household? ❑ ❑ organization analyzing the results at:
24.Are you or any other members of National Research Center, Inc.
3005 30th Street
your household aged 65 or older? ❑ ❑
Boulder, CO 80301
Citv of Boulder RecreationSur%~v%, Page 7
Attachment B-3
Appendix B PROGRAMS
Inventory of Recreation Programs and Neighboring Organizations Providing Recreation
City of Boulder COB Boulder Community Hospital BCH
Facilities in the Community YMCA YMCA Churches CH
University of Colorado CU Private Entity for Specific Activity PE
Boulder Valley School District BVSD Private Health Club PH
Other Neighboring Municipalities include; Broomfield, Erie, Lafayette, Longmont, & Louisville
"X" = Offers Program
Program Organization
COB YMCA BCH CU BVSD PH PE CH Other Neighboring
Municipalities
Indoor Lap Swim X X X X X X X
Outdoor I ap Swim X zo~~ X X X
Indoor Leisure Swim X X X X X
Outdoor Leisure Swim X X X X
Swim Lessons X X X X
Swim Team X X X X X
"year round X
'seasonal X X X X
Masters X X X X
Reservoir Programs X X X
Dance (adult) X X X X X
Dance (youth) X X X X X
Art (drawing, painting) X X X X X
Music X X X X X X
Photography X X X
Pottery X X X
Drama X X X
General Day Camp X X X X
Sports Camps X X X X X X X
Tennis Camps X X X X X
Art/Clay/Drama Camps X X
Dance Camps X X X
Water Camps (reservoir! X X
Golf Camps X X X
School Break Camps X X X X
• • • t B1
a
PROGRAMS, continued Program Or anizatinn
COB YMCA BCH CU BVSD PH PE CH Other Neighboring
Municipalities
(EXPAND) x (COB) X X X X
Youth at Risk IYSI) X X X X
Carly learninV X X X x
Blrthdav Parties x X X X X
Senior Services x X X X
Dog Days x X
Baby Sitter Course x X X
First Aid/CPR X X X X X
Sports -Youth x X X X X
Sports-Adult x X X X X
Sports - W+ X X X
Golf x X X
Tennis - Youth X X X X
tennis - Adult X X X
Gymnastics x X X X
Rock Climbing x X X X
Fitness x X X X X X X
Weight'Fraining x X X X X X X
Yoga-Youth x X X x x x
Yoga - Adult x X X X X \ X
Pilates'Swiss Ball x X X X X X X
C:~Img x X X.. X X X X
Kids Night Out x X
Karate x X X X
\ature Programs x X X
Youth Fdness X X X
Scuba x X
IUmPrope x X
Child Carefpreschool X X
Auer School Care x X X
Racquetball Program" X X X
Ice Skating x X X X
Bocce Ball
Badminton
Handball X
Biking X X X
3, 0
s
r . juy •
0
fj g2 o • •
FACILITIES Neighboring0%anizationsProviding Recreation
City of Boulder COB Boulder Community Hospital BCH
YMCA YMCA Churches CH
University of Colorado CU Private Entity for Specific Activity PE
BoulderVallev School District BVSD Private Health Club PH
Other Neighboring Municipalities include; Broomfield, Erie, Lafayette, Longmont, & Louisville
"X" = Offers Amenity
Amenity Organization
COB YMCA SCH CU BVSD PH PE CH Other Neighboring
Municipalities
Indoor Lap Pool x X X X X X X
Outdoor Lap Pool X X x; X X X
Indoor Leisure Pool x X X X X X
Outdoor Leisure Pool x X X X
Water Slide x X ,20i0 X X
Diving Board X X X X X X
Hot Tub x X X X X
Water/Splash Park Xtanu. X X
Reservoir x X X
Pottery Lab X X X X
Dance Studio X X X X X
Fitness Center x X X X X X
Cardio Studio x X X X X X
VVeight Room x X X X X X X
Running Track x X X X X
`indoor x X X X X
`outdoor x X
Gymnasium X X X X X X X
Steam Room x X X X
Sauna x X X X x
Child Care x X X X X X X
Birthday Party Space x X X X X
Climbing Wall X X X X X
'If • • t B3
FACILITIES, continued Amenity Organization
Cab YMCA BCH CU BVSD PH PE CH Other Neighboring
Municipalities
Family Locker Room x x x x x x
Playground x X x x X x
Dog Park X x
Multi-use Room x x x x x X X X
Dr,(. Golf Course x
lnl;.rStudio x X X X X
Sk.rtc York x x
Ice Rink x x x
'indoor x x X
'outdoor
Stage x x x x x
`indoor x \ x x. x
'outdoor x x x
Senior Center X X
Dilates Reformers x X X X X
Tennis Courts x X X X X X
'indoor x
'ourdoor x x x x x x
Outdoor Sand x x x X X
Volleyball Courts
Racquetball x x X X X
Gymnastics Center x x x
Gotf Course x x X x
Artificial Turf Field x x x x x
Baseball Field (youth) x x x
Softball Field (adult) x x X x
Multi-Purpose Field x x x x x x
'indoor
'outdoor x X X x x x
Indoor Soccer x
Cycling x x x x
'indoor x x x X
'outdoor x x x
Inline Hockey Rink X X
• • w
B4 is
Y ~
Attachment B-4
Location: North & South Boulder Recreation Centers,
APPENDIX C East Boulder Community Center, Salberg Center, Senior
City of Boulder Recreation Program Detail West Center, Stir It Up Cooking, Boulder Photo Center,
and Chautauqua Park
Arts and Leisure Activities Pottery
Ages: youth age 4- senior
Dance Annual Participants: 1221
Ages: youth age 18 months- senior Classes offered- Adult (ages 16): Pottery, Senior Pottery,
Annual participants: 3410 Visiting Artists Series, Workshops, Specialty Classes, and
Classes offered- Adult (ages 18+): Ballet, Jazz, Tap, Hip Adult Clay Camp
Hop, Middle Eastern Dance, and Irish Step Dance Classes offered- Youth (ages 4-16): Age specific pottery,
Classes offered- Youth (ages 18 months- 18 years): Little Specialty Classes, Clay Camp, and Teen Pottery
Feats, Pre Ballet, Pre Tap, Ballet, Jazz, Tap, Break Skill Levels: Beginner to Intermediate
Dancing, Hip Hop, Parent/Tot, Audition Skills, Dance Location: Pottery Lab with 20 wheels, 8 kilns
Camps, Expressions Dance Company- Competitive
Dance, Kinder Tap, and Kinder Ballet Youth Services Initiative (YSI)
Skill Levels: beginner to competitive for all age groups Ages: youth age 5-18
in both concert and non- concert classes Annual Participants: 265
Location: 4 studios located at North & South Boulder Programs offered- Youth (ages 5 years-18 years): On-
Recreation Centers, Iris Studio and East Boulder site recreation programs, programs at recreation centers,
Community Center Homework Help, Community Involvement (participating
in community parades and community cleanup, skiing,
Leisure Enrichment hiking, Getting Fit, Bolder Boulder and attending local
Ages: youth age 4- senior sports competitions.
Annual Participants: 1245 Location (City of Boulder only): North & South Boulder
Classes offered- Adult: Photography, Guitar, Painting, Recreation Centers, East Boulder Community Center,
Drawing and Watercolor Boulder Housing Partners housing sites.
Classes offered- Youth (ages 4-18): Drawing, Kids
Cookin', Junior Chefs, Drama Camp, Film Camp, Art
Camp, and Specialty Workshops
Skill Levels: beginner to advanced
06600
a t' 4 00
so I Is 4,
M" 4T to to
C1
r
Sports and Athletics Classes offered- Youth (ages 6- 16): Tommy's Ski
School/ Camps, Sailboard/Windsurf Camp, Sailing
Golf Camp, Water Sports Camp, Junior Sailing Club, and
Junior Sunset Camp
Ages: youth ages 4- senior Location: Boulder Reservoir
Annual Participants (golfers and lessons): 47749
Classes offered- Adult (ages 18+): Tournaments, Private
Lessons, Group Classes, Learning Packages, Play with a Sports
Ages: youth age 9 months -senior
Pro Lessons, Flex Lessons
Classes offered-Youth (17 and younger): Flatirons Annual participants: 20890
Junior League, Group Lessons and Private Lessons Classes/ Sport Leagues offered- Adult (ages 16+):
Location: Flatirons Golf Course Softball, Soccer, Kickball, Dodgeball, Basketball,
Volleyball League and Instruction and Tennis Instruction
Classes offered- Youth (ages 6 months- 16 years): Gym
Gymnastics
Jam, Mini-Sports (soccer, flag football, t-ball), Sports
Ages: youth age 2 1/2 - 18 years Sampler, Mini- Hoopers, Elementary and Middle School
Annual Participants: 6609 Volleyball, High School Volleyball Team, Volleyball
Classes offered- Youth (ages 2 1/2-18): Preschool Camp, Basketball Camp, Flag Football, Football Camp,
Classes, Beginner/ Advanced Beginner, Team- Pre Team, Holiday Break Camps, Sports Camp, Tennis Camp,
Beginning Team. Intermediate Team, Advanced Team, Tennis Instruction, Birthday Parties and Early Childhood
and Birthday Parties Classes
Skill Levels: Preschool- Advanced Team Skill Levels: beginner to competitive
Location: North Boulder Recreation Center Location: North & South Boulder Recreation Centers,
East Boulder Community Center, Stazio Fields, East
Open Water Sports Mapleton Fields, Arapahoe Ridge Park, Baseline Middle
Ages: youth age 6- senior School, Centennial Middle School, Chautauqua Park,
Annual Program Participants: 500 Columbine Elementary, Fairview High School,
Classes offered- Adult (ages 12+): Basic Canoe, Basic Knollwood Park, Manhattan Middle School, Martin Park,
Sailing, Basic Sunfish, Sailing Keel Sailboats 2, Sea Palo Park, Tom Watson Park, and Pleasant View Soccer
Kayak, and Boating Safety Complex
Therapeutic Recreation Wellness
EXPAND (Recreation Programs for People Aquatics
with Disabilities) Ages: youth age 6 months- senior
Ages: youth age 3- senior Annual Participants: 3161
Annual Participants: 1629 Classes offered-Adult (ages 15+): Lifeguard Training,
Classes offered- Adult (ages 15+): Campouts, Rock Water Safety Instructor Training, Adult Group Lessons,
Climbing, Hiking, Kickboxing, Water Aerobics, Yoga, Adult Lap Swim, Adult Private Lessons, Aquatic Fitness,
Frisbee, Floor Hockey, Bowling, Dance, Weight Lifting, and Silver Splash
Spinning, Swim Training, Flag Football, Unified Sports, Classes offered- Youth (ages 6 months-18): Specialized
Gymnastics, Out on the Towns, Quad Rugby, Power Lessons (Seamonkey, Jellyfish, etc), Swim Team Clinics,
Soccer, Adventure Outings, Dogs & Dodgeball, Kickball, Private/Semi Private Lessons, Barracudas Swim Team
Tubing, Sailing, Bocce Ball, Walk for Fun, Gym Sports, (Pre-Team), Diving Class, and Swim Camp
Waterskiing, Adaptive Kayaking, Wheelchair Racing, Location: North & South Boulder Recreation Centers,
Track-N-Field, Mini-Triathlon, Leisure Links, Challenger East Boulder Community Center, Scott Carpenter Pool,
Baseball, Skiing, Dog Sledding, Snowshoeing, and and Spruce Pool
Wiffleball.
Classes offered- Youth (ages 3 years-18 years): Fitness/Wellness
Junglequest, Rock Climbing, Hiking Day, Kickboxing, Ages: 15+
Swim Lessons, Frisbee Fun, Bowling, Unified Soccer, Annual Participants: 2539
Gymnastics Team Training, Power Soccer, Bocce Ball, Classes/ Events offered: Drop in Weight Room, Drop in
Walk for Fun, Outdoor Adventure Day Camp, Leisure Fitness Classes, Registered Weight and Specialty Fitness
Links, Challenger Baseball, Track-N-Field, Lock-Ins, and Classes, CPR/First Aid, Personal Training, Consultations,
Skiing Health Fairs, and Work Site Wellness.
Location (City of Boulder only): North & South Boulder Skill Levels: beginner to competitive
Recreation Centers, East Boulder Community Center, Location: North & South Boulder Recreation Centers,
East Mapleton Ballfields, and Boulder Reservoir East Boulder Community Center, Boulder Reservoir,
Spruce Pool, 63rd, Betasso, 75th, Yards, Housing
Partners, and Cherryvale OSMR
• • 0000000e •••9hMM« M4* -
1P go 00 so 0. a 00 go 00 06 40
i C3
Yoga/Pifates
Ages: youth age 3 - adult
Annual Participants: 3782
Classes offered- Adult (ages 12+): Pre-registered and
crop-in Yoga, Pilates (Mat and Reformer), PIYO, NIA,
Swiss Ball, Tai Chi, Chi Hung, Feldenkrais, and Middle
and High School Yoga
Classes offered- Youth (ages 3-18): Parent/ Child Yoga,
Yoga for Children, Middle and High School Yoga, and
NIA Basics
Skill Levels: beginner, restorative, therapeutic, prenatal/
postpartum, advanced beginner, and intermediate
Location: North & South Boulder Recreation Centers,
East Boulder Community Center, Salberg Center, and Iris
Studio
40 4 c4••• •
Attachment B-5
Appendix D programs and facilities are priced appropriately and
New or Updated Master Plan Policies fees are set so that each program and facility will
Please refer to the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master recover the cost identified in its cost-recovery
Plan for the complete list of policies. goals. Understanding and defining the cost to provide
the service will assist in the establishment of a cost-
2. Operational Policies recovery goal for the Department and for each serv-
2.8 - Safety ice area.
Facilities and programs shall have operating plans The Department's pricing goals are as follows:
that dictate safety procedures that will be reviewed • Use a standard pricing method to calculate and
and updated annually. Controlled-access areas such analyze the total cost of service consistently for
as recreation centers will be staffed during operating all recreation programs, services, and facilities.
hours in order to maximize customer safety. Staff will • Apply an appropriate amount of indirect costs to
be trained to conduct their work assignments safely. user fees.
Park and recreation facility design and construction • Understand City cost allocations and capital
shall be guided by recommendations from the United expenses that would need to be included in the
States Consumer Product Safety Commission, total cost of recreation, beyond operating costs.
National Playground Safety Standards, manufacturers' • Reinvest in recreation infrastructure, following
instructions, and other safety sources. Safety inspec- industry standards, by establishing a facility
tions of parklands and facilities will be made accord- investment fee in the pricing structure.
ing to the Department's procedures and in conjunc- • Plan for reduced tax supported funding for the
tion with the city's Risk Manager and Facilities Asset Recreation Activity Fund through flexible fund
Management staff. management and by generating new revenue
sources and increased profits through fees.
3. Program Policies
3.1 - Pricing 3.1 A - Pricing for Facility Rentals
The Department is implementing service-based The same pricing methodology for Department
pricing to support recreation programs and facilities. programs will be applied to Facility Rentals, which at
Fees will be established based on the defined cost to a minimum will pay for direct costs. The rental
provide programs and facilities and the market, when amount will be identified in the contractual agree-
appropriate. Using this method will ensure that all ment signed by the Department and the renter.
_=w w 0 s iwew~• ~wNhMMNM M~ w •
4, IM b 0,
$ 0 Di
3.1 B - Program Classification - Core and Desirable istrative costs).
Programs and Program Levels • Physical program space is available.
The Department offers three types of programs - • The program is in demand. Classes often fill up
Social Core, Business Core, and Desirable. Social and may have a waiting list.
core, or "public good", programs have partial cost • The program serves a large population or identi-
recovery expectations of between zero and 90 per- fied need of the community.
cent, and have user fees that are supplemented by tax Desired Criteria:
supported funding. These programs traditionally are • The program might provide a partnership oppor-
municipal youth programs, programs that target dis- tunity to leverage city resources.
advantaged populations, or activities that enhance • The program maximizes facility use or uses a
the health, safety, and livability of the community space that would otherwise be empty.
and therefore require the removal of a cost barrier for • The program contributes to serving a diverse
optimum participation. There are two types of social cross-section of the community.
core programs: 1) life and safety and community
health programs that engage youth and the communi- The Department has developed and is implement-
ty at large in healthy activities and help achieve life- ing a classification system to define skill and experi-
long healthy habits; and 2) programs that serve disad- ence levels, simplify the registration process for pro-
vantaged populations, grams and individual classes, and help determine
Business core programs have full cost recovery, program and class fees. This model is based on the
plus cost recovery expectations of more than 100 university course-level model, that ranges from begin-
percent and meet the needs of the market, often at ning to advanced or elite. Level 100 classes could
market rate. These are programs that are financially receive subsidy, if available, and Levels 200, 300,
successful and are able to help lower the tax support- and 400 classes would receive no subsidy. The cate-
ed funding by generating revenue that can be used to gories include:
help offset the costs of social core programs. Level 100: introductory or basic level class or
Desirable programs have full (100 percent) cost program targeted to any age group.
recovery expectations and respond to expressed com- Level 200: advanced beginner/intermediate class
munity needs. These programs must meet the follow- or program targeted to any age group, with a pre-
ing criteria to be offered through the City: requisite class or equivalent related experience.
Required Criteria: Level 300: advanced, elite, or competitive class
• The program covers required direct and indirect or program for youth.
costs (instructor fees, class materials, and admin- Level 400: advanced, elite, or competitive class
• A M M M N N s~ *a{ 00 ~t •~690i 0* yi
• r~ s • N y M s 000000 s o ~i •A
D_
• i .
or program for adults, or a private class or pro-
gram for any age.
3.1 C -Cost Recovery
Fees will be determined based on the costs that are
identified to be recovered, and will vary according to
whether they are programs, contracted services, facil-
ities or rentals, as follows:
Cost Recovery Types
Recreation Services Cost Types
Program Directs Program Indirect Facility Recreation Indirect Department Indirect City Cost Allocation Capital
Programs X X X X A A
!Classes, Teams. Leagues, Camps-)
Contracted Recreation Services O O X X J A A
Facilities ;Admissions! O O X X A A
Rentals O O X X A A A
' Cost baseline
X= City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Costs
O= Costs paid by user but collected by outside program provider
J= Costs not presently recovered via user fees
Cost recovery goals are established once the cost
type to be included in fees is determined by the
recreation service type
times that the facilities are available for use by others,
3.1 D - Facility Use Priorities including other city departments that use the facili-
In order to actively and successfully market its pro- ties, community groups that are facility partners (on-
grams through the Recreation Guide, the department going rentals) and one-time rentals. Program partners
must prioritize its own programs first. This allows pro- who have established schedules at recreation facili-
grams and classes to be scheduled in advance and ties will have priority over new program partners or
advertised in the Recreation Guide. It also clarifies expanded programs from existing partners.
3.2 - Use of Facilities And Park Lands By Not-for- • Environmental, safety, and public health concerns
Profit or Government Organizations for Special are addressed.
Events • Other city departments are kept informed of or
Parks and recreation facilities and park lands may be involved in events.
used by not-for-profit and government organizations • Event holders must comply with all city special
if their event is offered in collaboration with the event policies.
Department, assists the Department in its efforts to
reach underserved populations, and is consistent with 3.5A - Internal Special Events
the Department's mission. A proposal outlining the The Department offers or facilitates special events to
event, its purpose, target audience, expected number either generate revenue, promote a program or activi-
of participants, fees, cost recovery expectations and ty, engage the public, or celebrate individuals or
staffing will be submitted to the Director of the Parks events. Each type of event requires an approved
and Recreation Department a minimum of ten weeks event plan. Internal special events are subject to the
before the event. following guidelines:
• The event is consistent with the Department's
3.5 - Special Events mission
The Department works with groups and individuals to • The event provider prepares a detailed budget
hold special events subject to the following guide- showing expenses and expected revenues
lines: • The event will generate revenues in excess of the
• The event is consistent with the Department's cost of providing the event (industry standard is
mission 150 percent cost recovery)
• The event provider enters into a contractual
agreement with the City Department Special Event - an event or activi-
• There are sufficient staff resources to manage the ty primarily designed, organized or sponsored
Department's interface with the special event by the department to generate revenue while
provider contributing to the individual, social, economic
• The frequency of events does not pre-empt regu- and/or environmental health and well-being of
lar public use of the area. the community.
• The event is held in an appropriate area for the Department-sponsored, mission-driven special
anticipated size of the event and expected atten- events must recover all associated staff and
dance and does not affect a neighborhood on a direct expenses plus generate revenue (achieve
continuing basis. 150 percent cost recovery per industry stan-
dard) within a specified period of time as iden- 3.6 - Use of Parks and Recreation Facilities for
tified within the approved event plan. Private Profit/Gain
Promotional Event - an activity or event held Facilities provided by city governments are for the
at a Department facility for the purpose of pro- public good and are not intended for private profit.
moting a program, facility or activity of the Activities for private gain will not be allowed when
department or the Department as a whole. they interfere with the conduct of city programs or
Promotional events are designed to attract general use by the public. Such activities may be
prospective new clients. Promotional events allowed through a permit process with an appropriate
may require modest subsidy, but should be as fee. These activities will not be allowed if the city is
revenue neutral as possible. Promotional events already providing or sponsoring a similar program
should reflect the mission and goals of the (e.g., private lessons will not be conducted in city
Department swimming pools). The permit/rental fee for commer-
Programmatic Event - a one-time activity, cial (private gain) purposes will be at least two times
event or workshop held as part of the recre- the rate for a private rental, which is higher than a
ation programs of the Department and meeting nonprofit rental.
the pricing, enrollment and other policy criteria
of a recreation program. 5. Environmental Management and Maintenance
Public Engagement Event - a public meeting or Policies
event designed to gather input from and/or 5.9 - Recycling
share information with the community about The Department encourages and supports recycling
Department plans, opportunities, policies or efforts in its facilities and at special events and pro-
changes that could impact residents or user motes the use of products and services that are
groups. Public engagement events are always durable, repairable, reusable, recyclable, or other-
free and open to the public, requiring subsidy wise represent a low-waste solution, including the
for all associated event costs. recycling of organic waste. The Department complies
Ceremonial Event - a public event designed to with city purchasing guidelines that promote the pur-
celebrate, honor or commemorate achieve- chase of recycled and recycled-content products.
ments or individuals related to the mission and (BVCP Policies 4.42 Waste Minimization and
goals of the Department. Ceremonial events are Recycling and 4.43 Promoting the Use of Recycled
generally free and open to the public, requiring Materials)
support/subsidy for all associated event costs.
0 a . 0 0" 0,6 0.0 go *0 Op so 4r 't It it
A z r c D5
r
5.10 - Energy Conservation design and replacement of existing outdoor lighting
The Department will promote energy conservation systems. Exceptions may be required when existing
through its choices of high-performance building and lighting at existing facilities must be upgraded and
landscape designs, building materials, and renewable industry standards are not compatible with City stan-
energy sources wherever possible, such as those used dards. (BVCP Policy 4.46 Outdoor Lighting / Light
in achieving LEEDTM Silver Certification for the Pollution)
remodeled North Boulder Recreation Center. The
Department will purchase fuel-efficient hybrid vehi- 5.19 - Dogs
cles when appropriate, and will pursue the latest in The Department recognizes the important relation-
technological advancements in furthering the use of ship between park visitors and their canine compan-
renewable energy sources. The Department will strive ions. The Department is committed to a citywide
to achieve zero waste at all indoor facilities. (BVCP effort requiring responsible guardianship and well-
Policies 4.39 Energy Conservation and Renewable behaved dogs. Policies on dogs that protect the land,
Energy and 4.41 Energy Efficient Building Design and visitors, and wildlife in both natural and maintained
Construction Waste Minimization) park lands are supported by local ordinances. The
Department will continue to advocate interagency
5.11 - Light Pollution and resident participation in policies related to dogs.
The Department will comply with municipal ordi-
nances governing light pollution in new lighting
~ ♦ N M M N N a
]D6 i•A•
~i`' ® . •
City of Boulder Parks and Recreation
Program, Service and
Facility Viability
Assessment
March 2009
oF BO&~o
u` rFs
Parks lQ Recreation
BACKGROUND
In April 2008, a key recommendation of the City Manager's Workgroup on Recreation Financing was that city
of Boulder Parks and Recreation staff (staff) gain a better understanding of and formalize the costs associated
with operating recreation programs, services and facilities. Staff defined recreation costs, determined the total
cost of recreation operations, and analyzed resultant revenues to understand how much of the total cost of
each program is currently recovered through user fees.
OBJECTIVE
Staff completed a financial analysis to determine the total costs of operating the department's recreation
programs, services and facilities. Based on revenues earned from fees, cost recovery rates were calculated
and subsidy amounts were recognized. This data is intended to support the discussions and decision-making
that will occur in the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process.
Table 1 - 2008-2009 Recreation Program and Facilities Plan - Process and Schedule
Task rosy Yat Jan wb Harsh ♦ n N June Jv • ra U t
oe ■o..
INVENTORY/NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Pro,e[t start-uo, schedule, process
Be in surv instrument design Finalize survey and mall
Itrswrch tit •w de r .ams -JA 1
Demop2 hies! Trends anal sis _ ~
_
InternaVEutemal SWOT analysis
Pre are ro ram via WIN report
Public open house itl - Input
ANALYSIS
Aetewc curve result anal ye
Gap analysis
Rnandal analysis - revenues
Fund. Options
Pane me" or Study session l
0ee-5:o-rnakin matrix
Council Study Sesslon 1
SYNTHESIS
Pecommendations
Public ooen house A 2 - recomm.
Courrl WIP .J Ileeesa 'b.iuNi:~
Omft Plan
Finat Plan
t end:
City Staff led, consultant assistance
Consultant led
so so 97 71 7 f Ej
40* so
r,y
PROCESS AND ANALYSIS
Staff created a technical framework to analyze the viability of city-provided programs, services and facilities,
acknowledging that all recreation costs are not accounted for in the Recreation Activity Fund (RAF). The City
Manager's Office (CMO), city Finance staff and Parks and Recreation staff provided input on how to structure
the technical analysis to ensure the desired outcome was achieved - identifying the total costs of recreation
operations. The CMO supported the approach and the need to determine the true costs of providing
recreation services, which will be the basis for the department's fee-setting methodology.
Staff researched industry and municipal standards to define indirect and direct program, service and
facility costs and revenue sources as the basis of its analysis.
City of Boulder Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) Cost Definitions and Assumptions
1. Indirect costs: Overhead personnel and non-personnel expenses associated with the day-to-day operation of
the Recreation Division. These costs are incurred daily and include:
• Administration (Recreation Superintendent, CLASS System Manager, Recreation Administrative
Specialists)
• Marketing and promotions (Media Specialist, recreation brochures, camp guides, program
advertisement and promotions)
Note: Department and city overhead (e.g., PEAR Director, Business and Finance, Human Resources, City Attorney's
Office, City Managers Office, Risk Management, and Information Technology) are not included in RAF indirect costs.
2. Direct facility costs: Total of all direct personnel and non-personnel expenses associated with the operation
and maintenance of the city's recreation facilities (North, South and East Boulder Recreation Centers, Flatirons
Golf Course, Flatirons Event Center, Scott Carpenter and Spruce outdoor pools, Boulder Reservoir, Aquatics
Operations, 8076 of Aquatics Administration (facility-related: 607o to indoor pools, 20% to outdoor pools) and
sports fields). A portion of facility costs are incorporated into fees paid by users. These costs are incurred daily
and include:
• Recreation Center administration and supervision (Center Administrator and Supervisors, Customer
Service Team members)
• Registration staff
• Facility drop-in (classes, lap swimming, weight room), childcare and climbing wall-related oversight and
instruction
• Maintenance and office supplies
• Utilities and water fees
• Financial and custodial services
Note: Indoor aquatics operations are included as part of the respective recreation center.
3. Direct programiservice costs: Personnel and non-personnel expenses specific to a city-managed recreation
program and 20%, of Aquatics Administration (programs and lessons). These costs are incurred solely when a
program is provided and include instructor salaries and program-specific supplies required for participation.
There are both fixed and variable direct costs.
A. Fixed direct program/service costs: Costs that remain unchanged and must be paid when the course is
offered or service is provided, regardless of the number of participants. These costs are incurred only
during hours of operation and include:
• program administration
• class/ program supervision
• program expenses (includes mileage /business travel, training, professional certifications, cell
phone, some program-specific materials, equipment, uniforms and advertising)
B. Variable direct program/service costs: Expenses that are relative to the program scope and size. The
costs adjust based on program participation or demand. These costs are expended as needed and
include:
• instructors
• referees/ umpires
• lifeguards
• some program specific material (includes items such as camp shirts individual pottery supplies)
C. Program facility costs: Facility costs that exist solely for programs. These facilities are programmed,
not rented. These costs are incurred daily and include utilities and custodial services associated with
the Iris Studio, Salberg, and the Pottery Lab. These costs are incorporated into fees paid by users.
4. Program/service/facility revenues: Total amount of money received by the department and accounted for
within the RAF paid by customers for fees for services provided or goods sold including:
• program registration
• membership (includes sale of annual passes, punch cards, drop-in fees)
• point of sale items (e.g., locks, swim diapers, fruit bars)
5. Non-operating revenues: Funding received from sources other than user fees or goods purchased for resale
that supplement the RAF to subsidize recreation operations. Sources include:
• Funding transfers from other city funds (including the General Fund, Worker's Compensation Fund and
Transportation Fund)
• Monies from grants, donations and fundraising
• Interest income
• • + ~ ~ . ~ • ~ . . • . . ~ •r f • ` . to !w to f f. ~ t ` `
Throughout the process, input was provided by staff and consultants to ensure there was reason and consis-
tency in how the service costs were being calculated. Actual 2007 and 2008 expenses and revenues
accounted for in the RAF were taken from the Boulder Finance System and categorized by program/service
and facility definition. The overhead expenses associated with the day-to-day operations of the recreation
division were amassed, then allocated to each program, service and facility area proportionate to the total
direct cost. For example, aquatics programs and lessons accounted for 1.8% of all program costs in the RAF -
in turn receiving 1.8% of the total indirect costs. Based on the output, the total cost of recreation operations
funded in the RAF was established.
Next, revenues earned from user fees were compared to the costs to offer services. Cost recovery rates
were calculated by program, service and facility, and subsidy amounts were recognized. Unallocated rev-
enue/subsidy is utilized to offset the programs, services and facilities that do not recover 100% of their
expenses. An expense and revenue summary/baseline was established (see Tables 2 and 3) and service
trends/comparisons between 2007 and 2008 can be assessed (See Figures 1 and 2). This information will be
useful in decision-making throughout the development of the Recreation Program and Facility Plan, as well as
understanding annual program performance.
• e r M N r • • a ~ i.
E4 JOI&OD 0 0 1**,**-
Table 2 - Recreation Activity Fund Revenue and Expense Summary - 2007 Programs and Facilities
Non- 2007
Prgm/Service Operating Direct Prgm Indirect 2007 TOTAL Recovery
Programs Revenue Revenue Cost % RAF Cost Prgm Cost Rate
Aquatics - Programs and Lessons $ 228,507 $ 225,262 2.52% $ 18,723 $ 243,985 93.66%
Dance $ 302,641 $ 365,310 4.08% $ 30,363 $ 395,673 76.49%
EXPAND $ 83,605 $ 144,463 $ 607,895 6.79% $ 50,526 $ 658,421 12.70%
Fitness $ 41,973 $ 109,122 1.22% $ 9 070 $ 118,192 35.51%
Gymnastics $ 683,741 $ 678,189 7.58% $ 56,368 $ 734,557 93.08%
Mind & Body (Yoga) $ 194,694 $ 202,433 2.26% $ 16,825 $ 219,258 88.80%
Pilates $ 105.857 $ 144,512 1.62% $ 12,011 $ 156,523 67.63%
Pottery $ 162,636 $ 236.451 2.64% $ 19,653 $ 256.104 63.50%
Reservoir - Programs $ 26.553 $ 29,426 0.33% $ 2,446 $ 31,872 83.31%
Special Interest $ 93,035 $ 83,857 0.94%.$ 6.970 $ 90,827 102.43%
Sports $ 1,155,634 $ 760,199 8.50% $ 63,185 $ 823,384 140.35%
Weight Training $ 133,885 $ 171,852 1.92% $ 14,284 $ 186,136 71.93%
Youth Services Initiative $ 9,291 $ 190,328 2.13% $ 15,819 $ 206,147 0.00%
Pro rams Subtotals $ 3,212,761 $ 153.754 $ 3,804,836 $ 316,243 $ 4,121,079, 71.49%
Non- 2007
Facility Operating Direct Indirect 2007 TOTAL Recovery
Facilities Revenue Revenue Facility Cost % RAF Cost Facility Cost Rate
Aquatics - Outdoor Pools $ 330,646 $ 251,548 2.81% $ 20,908 $ 272,456 121.36%
East Boulder Recreation Center $ 729,506 $ 999,539 11.17% $ 83,078 $ 1,082,617 67.38%
Flatirons Golf Course $ 1,589,709 $ 1,306 049 14.60% $ 108,554 $ 1,414,603 112.38%
North Boulder Recreation Center $ 1,000,059 $ 1,152,754 12.89% $ 95,812 $ 1,248 566 80.10%
Reservoir - Facility $ 738,366 $ 511,802 5.72% $ 42,539 $ 554,341 133.20%
South Boulder Recreation Center $ 309,398, $ 477,935, 5.34%,$ 39,724 $ 517.659 59.77%
S ortfields $ 219.193 $ 441,892 4.94%1$ 36,728 $ 478,620 45.80%
Facilities Subtotal $ 4,916,877 $ 0 $ 5,141,519 $ 1 $ 427,343 $ 5,568,862 88.57%
Unallocated Revenue/Subsidy $ 2,232.717
RAF TOT L 8.129,6381$ 2,386.4711S 8 9 55 1 743,5861$ 9,689.9411 77.47°
r
Table 3 - Recreation Activity Fund Revenue and Expense Summary - 2008 Programs and Facilities
Non- 2008
Prgm/Service Operating Direct Prgm Indirect 2008 TOTAL Recovery
Programs Revenue Revenue Cost % RAF Cost Pr gm Cost Rate
Aquatics - Programs and Lessons $ 234,134 $ 172,577 1.80% $ 12,238 $ 184,815 126.69%
Dance $ 338,891 $ 401,440 4.18% $ 28,467 $ 429,907 78.83%
EXPAND $ 77,702 $ 170,818 $ 600,412 6.25% $ 42,577 $ 642,989 12.08%
Fitness $ 66,143 $ 109,2 3 1.14% $ 7.750 $ 117,043 56.51%
Gymnastics $ 716,057 $ 662,045 6.90% $ 46,947 $ 708.992 101.00%
Mind & Body (Yoga) $ 192,185 $ 219,002 2.28% $ 15,530,$ 234.532 81.94%
Pilates $ 107,236 $ 159,697 1.66% $ 11,325 $ 171,022 62.70%
Pottery $ 196,476 $ 287,888 3.00% $ 20,415 $ 308,303 63.73%
Reservoir - Programs $ 72.773 $ 53,304 0.56% $ 3,780 $ 57,084 127.48%
Special Interest $ 110.285 $ 75,438 0.79% $ 5,349 $ 80,787 136.51%
Sports $ 1,259.003 $ 781,337 8.14% $ 55,407 $ 836.744 150.46%
Weight Training $ 171.590 $ 184.331 1.92% $ 13,071 $ 197,402 86.92%
Youth Services Initiative $ 0 $ 8,146 $ 250,157 2.61% $ 17,739 $ 267,896 0.00%
Programs Subtotals $ 3,542,475 $ 178,964 $ 3,956,921 $ 280,595 $ 4,237,516 83.45%
;y
Non- 2008
Facility Operating Direct Indirect 2008 TOTAL Recovery
Facilities Revenue Revenue Facility Cost % RAF Cost Facility Cost Rate
Aquatics - Outdoor Pools $ 299,857 $ 270.013 2.81% $ 19,147 $ 289.160 103.70%
East Boulder Recreation Center $ 720,495 $ 1,095.210 11.41% $ 77,664 $ 1,172,874 61.43%
Flatirons Golf Course $ 1,572,297 $ 1,358.070 14.15% $ 96.304 $ 1,454,374 108.11%
North Boulder Recreation Center $ 1.006,759 $ 1,274,131 13.27% $ 90,352 $ 1,364,483 73.78%
Reservoir - Facility $ 737,095 $ 639,547 6.66% $ 45,352 $ 684,899 107.62%
South Boulder Recreation Center $ 344.380 $ 562,946 5.86% $ 39,920 $ 602,866 57.12%
S ortfields $ 265,646 $ 443,268 4.62% $ 31,433 $ 474,701 55.96%
Facilities Subtotal $ 4,946,529 $ 0 $ 5,643,185 $ 1 $ 400,172 $ 6,043,357 81.10%
Unallocated Revenue/Subsidy $ 2,003,347
RAF TOTAL 8,48%004f$ 2,182,3111$ 9,600,1061 158.78% 680,7671$ 10,280,8731 8 2.63%
Figure 1 - Recreation Programs - 2007/2008 Revenues and Expenses
$1,500,000
$1,125,000
$750,000
$375,000 q
JI N i
$0 "
N Q7 0 N N N t N N C
O C Z y Cn a E p
o ca cLn o c
W Ca
J X LL a w o c c
w E -C3
o m
C 0
m aoi
M o a
E U) a)
rn aa)
o cc o
a ~
U
ro 2007 Revenue ® 2007 Expenses ❑ 2008 Revenue 2008 Expenses
a
I it
Figure 2 - Recreation Facilities - 2007/2008 Revenues and Expenses
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
a.
$1,000,000
$500,000
t!
$0 i~
p
CL U 0 U U
o c 4 C C
O Opp O O O )
P N y N N
0 c a~
O
U cc D:
Ca m W N
3
~ 7 7 7
Q m m 0
LU O O
Z (n
® 2007 Revenue ■ 2007 Expenses 2008 Revenue ■ 2008 Ex enses
CS • • • • • • : • • • • N • • • = •
r~
FINDINGS
The following findings are intended to highlight changes that need to occur, such as improved data capture or
identifying policy or discussion items for the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process.
General
As staff worked through the analysis, strategic findings were realized and opportunities for improvement in
accounting were evident. Staff recognized the following information:
• All recreation costs are not accounted for in the Recreation Activity Fund (RAF).
• There are inconsistencies in the accounting of programs, services and facilities within the RAF. Staff
will continue to evaluate and establish appropriate accounting and administrative changes to reflect
the categories of recreation offerings provided to improve accuracy over time.
• The RAF indirect costs (overhead) accounted for in the fund are approximately 9% of recreation
operating expenses. For comparison, the city of Boulder's indirect costs (cost allocation) are
approximately 4% of its total operations. Staff will continue to evaluate administrative efficiencies.
Additional Recreation Costs
The RAF was established in 2001 as a special revenue fund to provide flexibility in financing for recreation
operations. Ideally, a specific funding source would provide stability to recreation programs and minimize
the disruption of services during periods of revenue volatility. However, not all recreation-related operating
costs are accounted for in the RAF, including the costs shown in Table 4 and any capital costs for facilities.
Capital funding for investment in the existing recreation infrastructure is not sufficient or accounted for in the
a ape 00 00 4~0
~'~b
Table 4 - Non-RAF Funded Recreation Costs
Non-RAF Funded Recreation Costs
Type Service Amount (2008) Funding Source
Direct Portion of Pleasantview and $179,500 .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund
Stazio Sports Complexes operations
and maintenance
Computer and phone costs for recreation staff $95,850 General Fund
Sports Turf Manager $91,850 .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
Recreation Operations Assistant $77,260 General Fund
CLASS Registration System Technical Manager $76,900 .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
General maintenance including snow removal, $45,500 General Fund
mowing and trash removal for recreation facilities
Indirect Department indirect for Director, Business and $281,000 General Fund and
Finance, portion of Marketing and Administrative .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
Services (50% is directed to each department division)
City indirect/cost allocation for city services $74,440 General Fund
including City Manager's Office, City Attorney's
Office, Risk Management, Human Resources, Finance
and Information Technology
Recreation brochure printing and distribution $59,085 General Fund and
(three brochures) .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
TOTAL $981,385
a ~40 • • y•:• • 0
4~ • •
10 *a- -,W, 0 ***,0-
RAF. Other funding sources (.15 Cent Sales Tax, .25 Cent Sales Tax, Lottery and Permanent Parks and
Recreation Funds) contribute to department's capital budget. However, funding is not adequately planned or
available for major maintenance, to replace existing recreation facilities when their lifecycle expires, or to
develop new facilities within the current funding sources.
A policy consideration to be addressed during the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process is whether
or not to accommodate capital investment or capital maintenance in the RAF in the future.
Subsidization
In addition to the recreation costs not included in the RAF, the fund is subsidized by other city funds (General
Fund, Worker's Compensation and Transportation) to support basic services that do not recover costs through
user fees. The calculation for the General Fund subsidy was based on the differential between revenues and
expenses in 2000 and is increased annually based on a CPI for personnel and non-personnel expenses.
Historically, the annual subsidies from the Worker's Compensation and Transportation funds have been stable.
Services within the RAF recover variable amounts of expenses through user fees. "Profitable" programs and
facilities (e.g., sports and Flatirons Golf Course) are classified as those that earn more money in user fees than
the cost to provide the service. Since all recreation services are funded within the RAF, there are programs
and services that subsidize others that recover less than 100% of the costs to provide the service.
A policy consideration to be addressed in the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process is the "enter-
prise" status of the RAF. Should the General Fund transfer he recalculated so the fund accounts for actual
recreation costs without subsidization? Considering the costs included in the RAF, what is an appropriate
and/or required fund balance (percentage or value) to maintain?
4% 60*600 so 00 99 41's 0*
;t K 4 M M S s
4 ~ Ell ~
Accounting
All expenses and resultant revenues are categorized and accounted for in unique cost centers/program areas
using Organization Cost Accounts (OCAs). Staff identified inconsistencies in service categories (e.g., youth
and adult, private and public instruction, competitive and recreational) and opportunities to improve the
department's internal accounting. Examples include the following:
• Youth and adult programs are accounted for separately in some program areas (e.g., sports,
pottery, mind and body)
• Private lessons and recreation instruction are accounted for separately in some program areas
(e.g., personal weight training, swim lessons)
• Competitive and non-competitive programs are accounted for separately in some program areas
(e.g. Flyers Gymnastics Team)
• Ongoing rental contracts (e.g. Boulder Swimming, Boulder Rowing) are accounted for in Facilities
Operations, as groups are facility users
• City-sponsored programs (e.g. Barracudas Youth Swim Team) are accounted for in Programs OCRs,
as programs are managed by city staff
A policy consideration to be addressed during the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process is whether
to account for service categories consistently across program areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, staff is making immediate internal administrative changes and has identified potential
business processes changes that require approval from the city Finance office. It is anticipated that these
changes will provide more transparency and accuracy in the costs utilized for operational decision-making.
Additionally, calculating the total cost of service will create an understanding of the actual subsidies required
to provide all service offerings and how to allocate the subsidies.
Accounting Improvements
Staff will update its accounting to ensure consistency in the costs accounted for in OCAS. If there are variable
service offerings within a program area (e.g. youth/adult, personal/public instruction, competitive/
non-competitive), OCAs will be established to ensure the true costs are accounted for separately. This will
provide insight for staff and the community when determining the recreational services to be provided based
on financial sustainability.
Currently, recreation programs that are offered as a community service (that have no or minimal cost
recovery expectations) are subsidized via the General Fund and accounted for in the RAF. Although the
programs (such as YSI and EXPAND) are recreational, the financial support required to provide these programs
is significant and would be more appropriately accounted for in the General Fund where cost recovery expec-
tations are minimal. Since current program, service and facility costs and subsidy allocations have been cal-
culated, there is an opportunity to account for services with comparable recovery rates in the same fund. As
a result, an achievable percentage recovery target for the RAF and each program, service and facility area
could be established.
Capturing the Total Cost of Recreation
In an effort to align accounting with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendation to restructure the
RAF and include the total costs of recreation operations in the RAF, the costs not currently accounted for in
the RAF (see Table 4) should be moved to the fund. Because costs are funded via various sources, realloca-
tions may be limited or restricted. Another consideration in consolidating recreation costs into one funding
source is the amount of additional costs that the RAF is able to "afford." At the beginning of 2009, the RAF
fund balance was healthy, approximately $1.7M. Seemingly, moving costs would be opportune; however, due
to the current economic volatility, it is recommended that reallocating the costs into the RAF should be
phased. The direct recreation costs identified could be moved in 2009. If it is determined that the RAF is sus-
tainable, the indirect recreation costs could then be reallocated in 2010.
NEXT STEPS
Ultimately, the findings from this assessment should assist decision-making about the recreation programs,
services and facilities the city of Boulder should offer, and those it should not, which is a major focus of a
Recreation Program and Facilities Plan. Additionally, staff should use this information as it establishes an
updated pricing methodology that incorporates the community's values and needs, also to be assessed
through the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan process.
*0 40
00) s s M M s Y f° •
M s r " E13
3
At!aehment B- 7
APPENDIX F
Comprehensive List of Plan Recommendations
Recommendations Chapter 1
1 Continue to implement Master Plan recommendations related to recreation programs and facilities
that align with the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan.
2 Review the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan annually and fully update every five years.
3 Explore planning process for Area III land, including identifying challenges and opportunities.
Recommendations Chapter 2
1 Collaborate with other agencies and organizations to share resources.
2 Develop a clearinghouse of information about community recreation opportunities.
3 Set up a regional roundtable with public recreation providers to explore resource sharing for services
the City of Boulder currently provides to people with disabilities (EXPAND - inclusion and specialized
programs).
Recommendations Chapter 3
Scholarships/Reduced Rate
1 Create a formal scholarship program (in addition to the reduced rate program) that includes guide-
lines, criteria, and procedures- Increase outreach for all reduced rate options.
Z Develop a stronger partnership with the PLAY Boulder foundation and other community groups and
agencies to raise money for the scholarship program.
3 Implement a direct donation option for the scholarship program, such as a "check the box" idea of a
$5 donation at registration.
New Program Development
4 Establish an "opportunity fund" for creating new programs. (see also Chapter 5)
5 Use the Program Delivery Model to determine which programs to include in the Department portfolio.
6 Develop incentives for patrons to try new programs.
Program Classification
7 Communicate the Department's program model to provide an understanding of pricing and subsidy
levels.
Ft
Recommendations Chapter 3, continued
8 Continue to offer desirable programs that meet sustainability criteria (see funding chart in Chapter 5).
Program Management
9 Establish class participation minimums to ensure fees offset defined costs that must be recovered.
10 Achieve 90% online registration by the end of 2012 for efficient operations.
11 Centralize all programming oversight and evaluation, including program life cycles.
12 Create standards to ensure high-quality programs.
13 Standardize the ratio of program staff to program hours. (see also Chapter 5)
Program Evaluation
14 Develop a standardized process for evaluating programs, and adjust course offerings as appropriate.
Contracted Programs/Partnerships
15 Offer all future contracted programs at a City of Boulder facility.
Recommendations Chapter 4
Facility Management
1 Continue to implement Master Plan recommendations related to recreation facilities.
2 Create business plans for specific areas, such as aquatics, athletic fields, and sports, to analyze the
existing facilities and program offerings, identify needs, and develop future options.
3 Complete in-process master plans and business plans for the Boulder Reservoir and Flatirons Golf
Course.
4 Explore the concept of themed recreation centers to maximize facility design and use.
5 Implement priorities for facility use. The priority order is recreation programs, drop-in facility use, City
programs, and rentals.
6 Create priorities for Department programs to use program space, based on identified criteria.
7 Create an asset replacement and maintenance schedule.
8 Create priorities for renovation projects that will increase facility use and revenues.
9 Ensure that all facility renovations and development meet industry or sport standards. For example,
enlarge the substandard pool at Scott Carpenter and the gymnasium at EBCC.
10 Implement energy efficiency and water conservation measures and upgrades.
11 Explore partnerships for facilities, both developing new and renovating old facilities.
40 OR 48 an to 4~1 ao 0
40
a
Recommendations Chapter 4, continued
12 Explore the concept of a cafe or food service at appropriate facilities, such as NBRC and EBCC.
13 Partner to develop a tennis teaching center or indoor tennis facility.
14 Install artificial turf fields at community and City parks.
15 Revise and/or develop policies, guidelines, and a pricing structure for facility rental by partners, non-
profit groups, and businesses.
16 Educate, implement, and enforce the existing permit system for group use of Department parks and
facilities.
Events and Tournaments
17 Conduct rental, tournament and event analysis to understand current rates in the region.
18 Maximize event opportunities at current facilities. Work regionally to gain referrals for "Boulder-
sized" events.
19 Ensure that events meet department's financial goals.
20 Strategically expand or enhance outdoor facilities to attract more events.
Recommendations Chapter 5
Fund Management
1 Establish a target RAF fund balance.
2 Achieve recreation industry standard of 40 to 65% of total operating budget for standard personnel
costs. (see also Chapter 3)
3 Determine which programs and services are most appropriately funded by taxes and which should be
supported by user fees.
4 Apply available subsidy to social core programs.
5 Establish an "opportunity fund" that allows new programs to be piloted without impacting or reducing
the funding for existing programs. (see also Chapter 3)
6 Develop controls and criteria that permit flexibility in using revenues earned for services provided in
the same fiscal year.
Pricing and Fees
7 Revise list of codified fees to include facility entry fees only, as facilities were constructed with
taxpayer monies.
Recommendations Chapter 5, continued
8 Once the appropriate rate is charged, develop an annual fee adjustment mechanism or market rate
adjustment to accommodate the cost of providing service.
9 Explore a "facility investment fee" that is incorporated into the pricing structure so there is an opportu-
nity to reinvest in recreation facilities.
10 Maximize facility use through peak/off-peak pricing and agreements (e.g., inter-governmental agree-
ments, memorandums-of-understanding) with other providers of recreation services and facilities.
11 Standardize and simplify admission categories, fees, discounts and rentals.
12 Create a "youth" category by combining child and teen to serve children ages three to eighteen.
13 Revise "adult" category to include participants ages nineteen to sixty-one.
14 Revise "senior" category to include 62 and over, aligning with minimum Social Security
Administration age requirement.
Recommendations Chapter 6
Marketing and Communication
1 Develop a marketing plan for programs and services (core programs and facilities and desirable pro-
grams).
2 Create an advertising and promotion strategy.
3 Develop communication plan to convey RPFP recommendations and their impacts (e.g., fees changes,
participation rates, facility use, class offerings).
4 Explore advertising opportunities to fund recreation guide.
5 Revise customer service guidelines to enhance customer experience.
6 Develop early registration incentive program within marketing plan.
Business and Funding
7 Prepare business plans for major facilities and program areas.
8 Evaluate appropriate funding mechanisms for facility renovation and/or new facility construction.
• .e ~i i • •
+ M ANN N M 6000
010 41 0% a
'4 • •