Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Chapter 3 Public Involvement JCPRAB Oct 1 2014Chapter 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT / CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Introduction The nine citizen members of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (JCPRB) represent the three geographic regions of East Jefferson County. Throughout this planning process the JCPRB held meetings and provided input on the content and process of the plan. The JCPRAB was briefed regularly on the plan status, and progress. In addition, the JCPRAB reviewed chapter drafts, survey results, and other documents such as service area maps and capital plans. The culmination of this effort was final approval and recommendation for adoption of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on XX/XX/XX. A tour of 15 County parks was conducted on September 17, 2014. Participants included the parks and recreation manager and two members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Tour participants completed a written survey of each park. The survey was designed to document the condition and usage level of the park. The analysis rated the usage level against capacity, adequacy of day to day maintenance, as well as the capital facility repair and improvement needs. The full Park Tour Analysis report is included as part of Addendum B-1: Public Involvement/Community Questionnaire. In September and October of 2011, Jefferson County conducted a Community-wide Parks and Recreation Questionnaire. MIG, Inc., professional Park and Recreation planners, administered the community questionnaire. The online and paper questionnaire was advertised throughout the County. The response level was high. Respondents provided input about current recreation participation, needs and participation and prioritization of limited resources. In 2010 the City of Port Townsend conducted a Teen Opinion Survey on the topic of public recreational facilities and programs with questions and results regarding their opinion on youth participation, adequacy of number of programs offered for youth and how youth is informed about recreation programs. Additionally a public survey was included in 2010 as part of the update of the City of Port Townsend Park and Recreational Functional Plan. Key Finding from the survey was that respondents place a high value on parks and recreation services. 2011 ERPRC Community Questionnaire Summary: The high number of responses (1,473), represents a substantial effort on the part of the volunteer ERPRC Exploratory Committee members, the staff of Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend, as well and other community members. The questionnaire was self-selecting and open to all interested parties. The community questionnaire was not random and therefore cannot be interpreted as representative of the entire population. In addition to the quantitative results several questions allowed respondents to write-in another (“other”) answer or a more extensive comment. The written comments were numerous. They are included in the Community Question Results Report. MIG, Inc. also provided a graphic representation of the written responses: a word cloud program which shows each word that appeared in the responses, scaled to correspond with how frequently it was mentioned. Given scarce resources it is critical to understand community priorities regarding parks and recreation. The priority setting question #23 rendered a clear consensus across each community in East Jefferson County. The first priority is “Maintaining existing parks and recreation facilities.” The priority of maintaining existing parks and recreation facilities is also underlined by the responses to question 10, in which 74%indicated it was their number one priority. The following is a summary of the observations by the MIG, Inc. planning team. They are listed in the Community Questionnaire Results Report (Appendix B-1) and are integrated below each question throughout the document. Observations in the report include the following: Responses matched list of zip code and self-identified community. They also closely matched to the percentage of the 2010 census population. (Q:2 comparison tabulation; report page 3) 56% indicated that they have lived in Jefferson County for 10-20 years. (Q:3) Visitors indicated a wide range of reasons for visiting. (Q:4) There was a slight overrepresentation of females (females 58.8% vs. male 34.8%) which is common in survey efforts. (Q:5) Most age groups were well represented, when compared to the 2010 census data. (Q:6) Youth were under-represented but MIG, Inc. experience indicates that the percent was more than typically seen by youth responses in many other communities. When asked to list top two choices of “important benefit of parks, recreation and natural areas,” natural environment (enjoy nature/outdoors) is a particular interest (59.7%). Printed materials (particularly newspapers and posters) are important sources of information for respondents. (Q:8) There is a high value placed on parks, recreation programs and natural areas in relation to quality of life in Jefferson County (Q:9) Most respondents indicated “Maintaining existing parks and facilities” as one of their two top choices (74% Q: 10). Providing programs and activities was also a popular choice with over 40% of respondents selecting it. When asked if they “seldom use or do-not use” parks, there were relatively few respondents to the question which could reflect the high level of “use” of parks. When asked “your favorite park or recreation facility” which was an open-ended write in response (Q:12),a quick word cloud analysis indicated that Fort Worden State Park, Chetzemoka (Port Townsend) and H.J. Carroll (Jefferson County) parks are the most frequently mentioned. In the next group are North Beach, the Mountain View Pool and the Port Townsend Community Center. Respondents were asked about trails in Q: 13-15. Just over half of the respondents indicated that “more trails” are needed in Jefferson County (52.7%). “Recreation” trails was the primary reason to develop more trails (26.4%) and they should be “unpaved for non-motorized use” (21.1%). When asked if they “participate in recreation” 43% answered yes (Q:16) which the MIG, Inc. planning team indicated is a high level of participation compared to other northwest communities. This may also be the reason relatively few respondents answered “seldom/do not use” in Question 11, which could reflect the high level of use indicated in Question 16. The top reasons given for not participating (Q: 17 “no time, nothing of interest, not aware of programs” with a total of 42.8% for all three) indicates a need for targeting activities and marketing. It appears that the other choices in the question are not major issues. Responses to the types of indoor recreation spaces (Q: 18), the indoor swimming pool is the most important indoor recreation space identified (46.9%). Following that, gym space and teen activity space are essentially tied (31.6% & 28.2%). When asked about additional recreation programs which does not prioritize existing programs, the top five responses (Outdoor/Environmental; Aquatic; Before and After School; Fitness Classes and Special Events) are very close and should be considered essentially a tie. Few people believe that no new programs are needed. In Questions 20 and 21 respondents were asked what activities “have you done” and then five activities you “would like to do”. Responses were: “Walking/running for pleasure” and “bicycling for pleasure” ranked first and second in both (Q: 20 & Q: 21). The MIG, Inc. planning team indicates that “walking” and “bicycling” are high ranking activities throughout the northwest and the country. They also indicated that “fitness” (ranked third Q: 20/sixth Q: 21) and “swimming” (ranked fourth Q: 20 & Q: 21) ranked higher than in most communities, which may reflect high quality programs (either public or private). The shift from the bottom of the list (Q: 20 “have done”) to the middle (Q: 21 “would like to do”) for “Outdoor adventure programs” and “Horseback riding” could be reflective of the desire for outdoor and environmental programming in Question 19. Organized sports, which have high participation for the individuals who participate, are not frequently listed in the top five activities respondents would most “like to do.” The answers to the question (Q:22) asking if the “community should consider a Park & Recreation District” provides insight into the acceptance of a potential funding measure, which are: 45.2% (666) answered “Yes” and 21.3% (313) answered “No”. 353 were “no answer” (24.0%). The answer to this question was cross-tabulated to “what community most closely identified with” (Q: 2), and “how long resided in Jefferson County” (Q: 3). MIG, Inc. planning team indicates that the general nature of this question informs more about the negative response that could be expected. 21% of respondents indicating a district should not be considered are a relative low number. Overall results are fairly similar in the communities with larger numbers of respondents with less than 30% in the “No” category. Responses were similar regardless of how long respondents have lived in Jefferson County (cross-tabulation with Q: 3). Question 23 asks respondents how much would they spend of $100.00 divided between types of projects. Maintaining the existing sites and facilities is the highest priority (47%). Following this is a group of responses with similar support which is adding new facilities (play areas, sports fields, buildings, swimming pool) to existing parkland (19%) and making existing program entrance fees less expensive (13%) and offering new recreation programs (13%). Purchasing new land was allocated the smallest amount of the budget. When the answers were cross-tabulated by “what community do you most closely identify with” (Q-2), the results were essentially the same across all communities. When asked to rate overall satisfaction with the level of maintenance (Q: 24) 18% stated they were “very satisfied” and 34.1% rated it between “very satisfied and neutral” (total both 52.1%). 11.4% indicated that they were “unsatisfied or between “unsatisfied and neutral.” 20.8% were “neutral” on the rating the level of maintenance. Respondents seem to be satisfied with the level of maintenance in the Port Townsend and Jefferson County parks. The last question (Q: 25) was an open-ended question asking if there was “anything else” they would like to tell about the parks and recreation in Jefferson County. To quickly analyze the responses to this question, a word cloud was created to show each word that appeared in the responses, scaled to indicate how frequently it was mentioned. Themes drawn from full responses (Appendix A of the Questionnaire Report) were: Many mentions of the importance of a quality pool in the community. Frustrat ion with the limited resources and resulting maintenance. Appreciation for what is accomplished with limited resources. Expressing the importance of parks and recreation to the community. Need to prioritize rather than just spreading resources thinner. Concern about the condition or plans for particular sites, such as Kah Tai Lagoon. Concern about the concentration of sites/effort around Port Townsend. Desire for more permanent restrooms in parks and better maintenance of existing restrooms. Bringing partnerships together, avoiding duplication of effort. 2010 Port Townsend Teen Opinion Survey Summary: The City of Port Townsend conducted a survey of youth on the topic of public recreational facilities and programs. 442 sixth through twelfth graders within the Port Townsend School District (Blue Heron Middle School and Port Townsend High School) completed the survey. Questions were asked on frequently of youth participation in activities. 74% stated that they participated in an activity “often”. When asked about the barriers to participation 54 youth said it was cost, 91 said it was difficulty in getting there, 188 said that they were not sure what it was and 386 youth stated it was lack of interest. When asked when programs and services should be offered 60.86% said after school was “best” and 68.55% said before school was “bad”. 40.50% said weekends were “okay” and 50.23% said summer was good. In regard to the question of adequate number of programs being offered very few youth thought there were too many of any program, mostly indicating the number was just right or that they didn’t know. In general, females believe more activities are needed, with a significant number indicating the need for more individual sports (37%) and volunteer opportunities (33%). When asked what other programs and services should be offered the average youth wanted 4.7 of the activities suggested with a 24 hour internet café being the most desired by all grades. When asked to list other activities, athletics ranked first and clubs ranked second. The students were asked about how they were informed of recreation programs. They indicated that primarily it was through school announcements (55.66%). Secondly the students also indicated that they used social-networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. To a lesser extent they indicated it was through email, flyers/posters and newspaper. The website and twitter ranked lowest. In the “fill-in” comments, many youth noted that there seem to be very few activities for them and very few places they felt comfortable hanging out with friends. Several of them said they felt this town was mainly for “old people” and that their thoughts and opinions were generally ignored by those in charge. Many also want the recreation center to be reopened. 2010 City of Port Townsend Park & Recreation Functional Plan Survey: In 2010 the City of Port Townsend completed a public survey with 562 respondents which based on the current population of 9,113 the data collected yielded confidence that it represented an accurate representation of the entire population with an error level of +/- 5%. 94.5% of respondents stated that parks and recreation services are important to the quality of life in Port Townsend.(Q:5) 94.5% of the respondents stated that it is either important or very important that every household has reasonable access to parks/open space.(Q:16) 80.9% of the respondents would support some sort of dedicated tax increase to fund improvements or expansion of the parks and recreation system. (Q: 21) KEY FINDINGS: The survey respondents place a high value on parks and recreation services.