HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Chapter 3 Public Involvement JCPRAB Oct 1 2014 (0002)
Chapter 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 Survey1 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.
1 APPENDIX B-1: Public Involvement/Community Questionnaire
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
measure2, which are:
45.2% (666) answered “Yes” and 21.3% (313) answered “No”. 353 were “no answer”
(24.0%).3 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.
2 Because the questionnaire was self-selecting, this result should not be interpreted as representative of the entire
community.
3 141/9.6% were non-completed: respondent exited questionnaire before reaching this question.
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.
Frustration 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.4
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.
4 Assessment from FINAL: November 16, 2010