2014 Fraser Valley Rec District Needs Assessment Survey - Final Results

FVMRD Needs Assessment Survey Final Results January 2015

Prepared for: Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District

Prepared by: RRC Associates LLC 4770 Baseline Rd, Ste 360 Boulder, CO 80303 303/449-6558 www.rrcassociates.com

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY........................................................ 2 AN OVERVIEW OF SELECTED FINDINGS............................................... 3 Invitation and Web Surveys ............................................................................................ 3 Focus Groups .................................................................................................................. 4

DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................... 7 USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ................................................... 15 Use of FVMRD Facilities/Programs by Season ................................................................ 15

CURRENT FACILITIES ............................................................................ 16 IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT FACILITIES ........................................ 19 Grand Park Community Recreation Center .................................................................... 19 Fraser Valley Sports Complex ........................................................................................ 20 Pole Creek Golf Club ..................................................................................................... 28 Trails ............................................................................................................................ 36 Suggestions/Comments Regarding Trails ....................................................................... 39

FUTURE FACILITIES ............................................................................... 40 Importance of Future Facilities ...................................................................................... 40 Indoor Facilities .............................................................................................................. 40 Outdoor Facilities ........................................................................................................... 40 Top Priorities for Future Facilities.................................................................................. 44 Allocation of Funds for Recreation Improvements ......................................................... 49 Comments on Priorities .................................................................................................. 52

CURRENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS .................................................. 53 Suggestions for Changes/Improvements to Current Programs ....................................... 53 Suggestions for Additional Programs ............................................................................. 54

COMMUNICATION .................................................................................. 55 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS / OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS ................ 58

Table of Figures Figure 1: Respondent Demographics .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 3: Respondent Demographics (2) ...................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Respondent Demographics (2) ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Respondent Geographics ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Household / Family Demographics ................................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Current Use of FVMRD Facilities/Programs by Season ................................................. 15 Figure 8: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Percent Good/Excellent vs. Poor/Fair ............................ 17 Figure 9: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating ............................................................... 18 Figure 10: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating ............................................................. 18 Figure 11: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Percent Important vs. Unimportant ................ 21 Figure 12: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Average Rating ................................................ 22 Figure 13: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Average Rating ................................................ 22 Figure 14: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements ................................................................. 24 Figure 15: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined ............................................... 25 Figure 16: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined ............................................... 26 Figure 17: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined ............................................... 27 Figure 18: Golf Participation ......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 19: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Percent Important vs. Unimportant ............... 29 Figure 20: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Average Rating................................................ 30 Figure 21: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Average Rating................................................ 30 Figure 22: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements ................................................................ 32 Figure 23: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined .............................................. 33 Figure 24: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined .............................................. 34 Figure 25: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined .............................................. 35 Figure 26: Trail Usage and Awareness .......................................................................................... 36 Figure 27: Trail Usage and Awareness .......................................................................................... 36 Figure 28: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Percent Good/Excellent vs. Poor/Fair ........ 38 Figure 29: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Average Rating............................................ 38 Figure 30: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Average Rating............................................ 38 Figure 31: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Percent Important vs. Unimportant .......... 41 Figure 32: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating .......................................... 42 Figure 33: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating .......................................... 43 Figure 34: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities ........................................................ 45 Figure 35: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined ....................................... 46 Figure 36: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined ....................................... 47 Figure 37: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined ....................................... 48 Figure 38: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements ............................................. 50 Figure 39: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements ............................................. 50 Figure 40: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements ............................................. 51 Figure 41: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements ............................................. 51 Figure 42: Current Program Participation .................................................................................... 53

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 43: Effectiveness of FVMRD Communications................................................................... 55 Figure 44: Sources Used to Gain Awareness of FVMRD Programs/Facilities ............................... 56 Figure 45: Preferred FVMRD Communication Channels .............................................................. 56 Figure 46: Preferred FVMRD Communication Channels .............................................................. 57

RRC Associates, Inc.

1

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY The 2014 Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment is intended to provide current information on local residents’ opinions concerning recreation needs and priorities, and to update a needs assessment conducted by the District in 1999/2000. It is based on a combination of citizen focus groups and input from the District Board and staff obtained through a work session, as well as a statistically valid survey conducted in October and November, 2014.

The needs assessment is the first step in an overall process designed to create a master plan for the District. The assumption is that the outreach conducted as a part of the needs assessment will provide a framework for any subsequent planning work conducted in the future. This report summarizes the results from the Needs Assessment.

A series of four focus groups were conducted as a part of the needs assessment. These groups involved local residents that were recruited to be representative of the broad range of users of District recreation facilities and programs. Facilitated by RRC staff, they were designed to systematically gather input on a variety of factors related to an evaluation of current recreation needs and priorities, as well as some future planning decisions. The Board and Staff work session allowed a perspective reflective of the experience of past and current operations, with first-hand knowledge of history, successes, and expressed user concerns and needs, as well as operational and financial pressures and opportunities. All sessions were taped and were evaluated for broad “themes” and ideas, and specific comments and suggestions. These results are summarized below.

A survey of residents was also conducted using a combination of mail and Web-based distribution. A total of 2,000 paper surveys were mailed to a random sampling of residents and second homeowners within the District. The survey invitation offered alternative methods for completing the survey: either an online version, or a paper survey with a postage paid return envelope. Additionally, the random survey was augmented with an email invitation that was sent to names on e-mail lists maintained by the District. Together the two survey methods resulted in 735 responses, including 288 from the invitation sample and 447 from the email list. The margin of error for the statistically valid invitation sample is roughly +/- 5.8 percentage points calculated for questions at 50% response1. However, as responses were generally similar among invitation sample and email list respondents, overall results have been reported throughout the report. 369 respondents identified themselves as full time residents of the Fraser Valley Recreation District, and 226 identified themselves as part time residents.

The resident survey was also designed to complement a second survey-based research effort that was conducted simultaneously on behalf of the County and local chambers of commerce. That study, termed the “Grand Profile,” was designed to look at a variety of economic factors that are 1

For the total sample size of 288, margin of error is +/- 5.8 percent calculated for questions at 50% response (if the response for a particular question is “50%”—the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the larger margin, which occurs for responses at 50%). Note that the margin of error is different for every single question response on the survey depending on the resultant sample sizes, proportion of responses, and number of answer categories for each question. Comparison of differences in the data between various segments, therefore, should take into consideration these factors. As a general comment, it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends and patterns in the data rather than on the individual percentages.

RRC Associates, Inc.

2

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

present in Grand County. That study contained a number of questions that related to recreation demand and satisfaction and the results of that study were also considered in developing the FVMRD Needs Assessment. These findings are summarized in the report that follows.

AN OVERVIEW OF SELECTED FINDINGS Invitation and Web Surveys Surveys of District Residents. The Needs Assessment is partially based on responses to a mail/web survey which resulted in 735 responses from residents and second homeowners. This survey and the overall Needs Assessment effort was grounded, in part, on a similar study conducted by the District in 1999/2000. That study had resulted in the identification of a major opportunity, to create an indoor recreation facility that would serve area residents, and the facility was subsequently constructed and is successfully operating today. Additionally, a second survey of Grand County residents was conducted during the late summer/fall of 2014. That survey contained some recreational use and priority questions that have also been considered in conjunction with the Needs Assessment effort.

Use of Recreational Facilities. Indicative of widespread usage of local recreation facilities, most respondents (88 percent) reported that they personally use recreational facilities, either public or private, in the Fraser Valley area. Eighty-six percent also reported that they have household members who utilize recreational facilities in the area.

Ratings of Current Facilities. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “poor” and 5 means “excellent”, respondents rated the quality of FVMRD facilities. The Pole Creek Golf Course and the Grand Park Community Recreation Center received the highest average ratings (4.6 each), followed by the Pole Creek Club House (4.5), the Fraser Valley Sports Complex (FVSC) Soccer Fields (4.4), the FVSC Baseball/Softball Fields (4.3), the FVSC overall (4.3), and the FVSC Icebox Ice Rink (4.1). The Fraser Town Park Tennis Courts were ranked slightly lower, with an average rating of 3.7 provided by respondents. Overall, ratings are very favorable with few respondents rating facilities with a 1 or 2 (“Fair/Poor”).

Importance of Potential Fraser Valley Sports Complex Improvements. Respondents rated the importance “for you or your family” of a list of potential improvements to the FVSC using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is “not at all important” and 5 is “very important”. Overall, most facilities received average importance ratings of 2.5 or less on a five point scale. The highest importance ratings were provided for refrigeration of Icebox (average 2.6), expanded and enhanced playgrounds (2.4), lighting of fields (2.4), added lighting of parking lot and pedestrian ways (2.4), and a paved parking lot (2.2). Respondents gave lower ratings to additional courts and fields, including volleyball (1.8), basketball (1.7), and soccer (1.7). These importance ratings suggest overall high levels of satisfaction with current facilities (based on the ratings), and no obvious single type of improvement project that receives resounding support from survey respondents as a top priority.

RRC Associates, Inc.

3

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Relative to part-time residents, local residents provided significantly higher average importance ratings to refrigeration of Icebox, lighting of fields, and additional soccer fields. Part-time residents, in contrast, placed higher importance on a paved parking lot. Notably, both year-round and seasonal residents rate the importance of playground improvements at about the same level, with a 2.5 average.

Prioritization of Potential Fraser Valley Sports Complex Improvements. Using the same list of improvements, respondents selected their first and second priorities for the FVSC. Priority rankings were assessed by a variety of demographic variables to explore differences among respondents, including breakdowns by residency status, age, and presence of children in the home. Overall, the priorities are similar to those identified through the ratings of importance on the scale described above. The top two priorities measured in this way are refrigeration of the ice rink and expanded and enhanced playground facilities.

Prioritization of Potential Pole Creek Golf Club Improvements. Similarly to the priority question for the FVSC, respondents who play golf or have household members who play golf were asked for their top two priorities for the Pole Creek Golf Club (PCGC) from a list of proposed improvements. The top priorities include paved cart paths (34 percent of respondents including this as their first or second priority), an improved practice facility (26 percent), GPS golf carts (23 percent), more rain shelters (23 percent), and bunker renovation (20 percent). More modest support was expressed for a permanent outdoor pavilion (18 percent), a new irrigation system on Ridge Course (15 percent), a year-round restaurant (14 percent), and a paved parking lot (10 percent).

Importance of Potential Future Indoor Facilities. Respondents were provided a list of seven future indoor facilities and asked to rate the importance of each on the 1 to 5 scale. Average importance ratings were highest for a performing arts center (average 3.2) and an arts and cultural center (3.1). These two categories received 48 percent and 41 percent respectively calling the improvements “important”, higher than the ratings for any other future indoor or outdoor facilities. Respondents provided more moderate importance ratings for a teen center (2.9) and a senior center (2.8), and lower ratings for a multi-purpose field house (2.5), racquetball/handball courts (2.3), and indoor tennis courts (2.2).

Effectiveness of FVMRD Communication. Overall, respondents rated the efficacy of FVMRD communications regarding recreational services and program offerings to be relatively high, with an average rating of 3.3 on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “poor” and 5 means “excellent.”

However, based on open-ended comments and focus group input, communications are deserving of attention as the District looks to the future.

Focus Groups Focus groups were conducted as a part of the Needs Assessment process. They were facilitated

by Chris Cares of RRC Associates and Chris Dropinski of GreenPlay. The focus groups were RRC Associates, Inc.

4

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

designed to add “color” and a more complete understanding to the information obtained through surveys. They also lead to practical suggestions that can be pursued independent of the Needs Assessment.

A Number of “Themes” (key ideas repeated a number of times) emerged from the focus groups: Favorable Comments on Current Facilities, Programs and Progress that has been made. The groups were characterized by very positive comments about the District and its programs, facilities and personnel. Several agreed that the District could capitalize on the “friendliness” of staff – the “attitude comes through.” The facilities let people build social connections and a “culture of lifestyle,” this is a “special thing that we have.” The results from the groups were summarized in the full report under “strengths” and “weaknesses.” In general, at this time the strengths outweigh the weaknesses in the opinion of focus group participants, and the District is viewed very positively.

The Sports Complex. Fraser Valley Recreation District fields are rated very favorably, but there could be more done to facilitate the comfort and convenience of fans and to make the Sports Complex more of a community gathering place. Parents and fans would be served by lights, some type of space for gathering with shade and out of the weather. “We cannot effectively host tournaments because we don’t have the support facilities.” The “spin off” (economic) benefits of tournaments were pointed out, as well as the social aspect of gathering at the fields.

The term “bundling” of facilities, and looking for “multi-use facilities” came up in the groups. For example, a pavilion or gathering space could also function as a classroom.

Enhanced concessions as part of the Sports Complex, would help to make it more of a gathering place. There was advocacy for self-supporting facilities (i.e. pay for themselves). These ideas provide further perspective on the survey results. While the surveys showed few glaring gaps in services or facilities, there is a desire to refine and enhance how the Sports Complex functions as a resource for the Valley.

Extend the season. The length of season was a theme: refrigeration of the Icebox, indoor tennis, soccer dome, covered pavilion and/or indoor gathering space were identified as examples of improvements that could extend the often short outdoor seasons that are present in Grand County. Also, it was pointed out that it’s hard to keep staff when there isn’t year-round activity.

Transportation. The focus groups pointed out that transportation to the Recreation Center and fields is a major weakness, especially for both youth and seniors. It was identified as a multijurisdictional problem, but one that the focus groups felt was worthy of attention. Some mentioned the opportunity to create a transportation link between the Recreation Center, the Sports Complex and the Golf Course.

Playground. There was broad interest and support for an expanded/enhanced playground at the Sports Complex; this sentiment was expressed in the focus groups in a number of different ways, RRC Associates, Inc.

5

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

and was further reinforced by the survey results. The playground will help to complete one important element of the master plan for the sports complex. Several mentioned that the playground should have access to a gathering place (the pavilion idea expressed above) that would allow children and adults to get out of bad weather.

Awareness of Programs Could be Improved. Some in the focus groups mentioned the need for enhanced communications and awareness of programs; it is seen by some as a relative area of weakness of the District. With so many programs it is difficult to summarize and share information on what is being offered, a challenge that was acknowledged. Ideas for easier navigation of the Web site were expressed.

Conclusions. Together, the surveys and the focus groups provide guidance that can be used to frame and reinforce future planning efforts by the District. The Needs Assessment study did not show major gaps in services, or one large identifiable project that would receive broad support at this time. Rather, many smaller improvements were ranked and prioritized, and there were indications of support for continued improvements at the Sports Complex, Pole Creek Golf Course, and the Grand Park Community Recreation Center.

One focus group participant suggested that “The Plan should be based on Little Steps with a few Big Leaps.� This comment seemed to receive support from others in one group. A number of the focus group participants mentioned that they would like to see continued emphasis on the facilities and programs already in place. There was mention of larger opportunities that included: a fieldhouse, an outdoor pool, arts/cultural facilities, or land for future growth. Relatively smaller items included working on some of the specific improvements that were identified and ranked as priorities through the survey to complement or enhance existing facilities. These included completing the playground with more extensive equipment and branding, enhancements at the Sports Center to allow larger events, more frequent use, and improved opportunities for economic development through tournaments and events. Teen and kids oriented programs were also identified as important. Practical ideas that came out of the focus groups were also identified, and communications and Web site enhancements were also suggested as important.

These types of opportunities received clear support from both surveys and the focus groups that were conducted through the Needs Assessment process, and they provide direction as the District looks toward future planning.

RRC Associates, Inc.

6

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

DEMOGRAPHICS The following section details the demographic profile of survey respondents. Several of the demographic categories are segmented by residency status (local residents vs. part-time residents) to highlight key demographic differences between these two groups. 

Gender. Gender representation in the survey was roughly equal—52 percent of respondents overall were male, and 48 percent were female.

By residency status, local respondents were more frequently female (57 percent vs. 43 percent male), while part-time respondents were more heavily represented by males (69 percent vs. 31 percent female).



Age. Respondent age generally skewed older, with 53 percent of respondents age 55 or older and an average age of 54.3 years. However, respondents reported a broad range of ages, with 10 percent under age 35, 13 percent age 35 – 44, and 23 percent age 45 – 54.

Part-time respondents were typically older than local respondents, with an average age of 59.0 years compared to 51.9 years on average for local respondents. Consistent with this finding, approximately 32 percent of local respondents were under age 45, significantly higher than the share of part-time respondents in the same age range (9 percent). Fifty-five percent of part-time respondents were 55 or older.



Grand County Residency Status. A majority of respondents are full-time residents of Grand County (63 percent), while 32 percent identify themselves as second homeowners and 5 percent are seasonal residents.



Annual Household Income. Over half of respondents overall (53 percent) reported that their household earns less than $100,000 annually. The average annual household income is $130,193, likely attributable to fairly high share of respondents earning over $200,000 a year (17 percent).

As would likely be expected, there is a considerable difference between the annual household incomes of local respondents and part-time respondents. Over two-thirds of local respondents (68 percent) reported earnings of less than $100,000 annually, while 79 percent of part-time respondents earn $100,000 or more per year. Local respondents also reported a significantly lower average annual household income ($99,482) than parttime respondents ($202,251).



Marital/Family Status. The largest share of respondents are empty nesters (36 percent), followed singles and couples with children (24 percent), couples without children (24

RRC Associates, Inc.

7

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

percent), and singles without children (15 percent). A strong majority of respondents reported being in a couple, either with or without children (79 percent).

A considerably higher proportion of part-time respondents are empty nesters (51 percent vs. 27 percent of local respondents), while local respondents are much more likely to be singles without children (21 percent vs. 5 percent of part-time respondents). 

Length of Time Lived in Area. Most respondents have lived in the Fraser Valley area for a relatively long period of time, with 62 percent reporting that they have lived in the area for over 10 years and an average length of 16.6 years.

On average, local respondents have lived in the area for slightly longer (16.9 years) than part-time respondents (16.1 years).



Education Level. Overall, 84 percent of respondents indicated that they have received a college-level degree or higher. Thirty-one percent reported having completed a postgraduate degree. Completion of college was also common among respondents’ partners, with 79 having obtained a college degree and 30 percent having finished a post-graduate degree.

Almost all part-time respondents reported having a college degree (94 percent), compared to 79 percent of local respondents. Part-time respondents were also more likely to have completed graduate school (47 percent) than local respondents (22 percent). A similar pattern emerged for the education level of the respondents’ partners.



Geographic Origin (part-time residents only). Three-quarters of part-time residents live within Colorado when they are not living in Grand County. Other top states include Texas (9 percent of part-time respondents), Florida (3 percent), and Arizona (2 percent).

Similarly, the top Designated Market Area (DMA) that part-time respondents come from is Denver (73 percent), followed by Houston (5 percent) and Dallas-Ft. Worth (2 percent).



Own vs. Rent. A majority of respondents overall reported that they own their residence (85 percent).



Homeschooling. Homeschooling was rare, with only 1 percent of respondents reporting that they homeschool their children.



Presence of Disabled Individuals in Household. Five percent of respondents indicated that they live with someone who is disabled or in need of special accommodations.



Likelihood of Participation in an Adaptive/Therapeutic Recreational Program. Fifteen percent of respondents indicated that they would participate in such a program.

RRC Associates, Inc.

8

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014



Total Number of People in Household. As is shown in Figure 5 to follow, most respondents reported living in a household with between one and three people (81 percent).

Responding households had an average of 2.4 people living in them.

Figure 1: Respondent Demographics Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

9

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 2: Respondent Demographics

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

10

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 3: Respondent Demographics (2) Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

11

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 4: Respondent Demographics (2)

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

12

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 5: Respondent Geographics Part-Time Residents Only

RRC Associates, Inc.

13

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 6: Household / Family Demographics Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

14

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Respondents were asked whether they themselves or members of their household use recreation facilities in the Fraser Valley, either public or private. A strong majority of respondents (88 percent) indicated that they personally use recreational facilities. Eighty-six percent also indicated that members of their household use recreational facilities in the Fraser Valley area, reflective of widespread usage of recreational facilities in the area.

Use of FVMRD Facilities/Programs by Season Respondents were further questioned about their use of recreational facilities, specifically Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District facilities, by season. As is depicted in Figure 7 to follow, 87 percent of respondents use FVMRD facilities/programs during the summer, and 84 percent of respondents use these facilities during the winter.

Over a third of respondents utilize FVMRD amenities at least once a week, both in the summer and winter (each 36 percent). During the winter, an additional 25 percent of respondents use facilities 1 – 3 times a month, while 22 percent use facilities less than once a month. Twentynine percent of respondents go to FVMRD facilities 1 – 3 times a month in summer, and 22 percent go less than once a month. Overall, these results indicate that usage of FVMRD facilities is fairly regular during both the winter and the summer.

Figure 7: Current Use of FVMRD Facilities/Programs by Season Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

15

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

CURRENT FACILITIES Respondents rated the quality of current FVMRD facilities on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “poor” and 5 means “excellent”. Figure 8 to follow illustrates the percentage of respondents providing a “4” or “5” rating (indicating that the facility is good or excellent) versus the percentage of respondents providing a “1” or “2” rating (indicating that the facility is poor or fair).

Figure 9 depicts the average rating provided for each facility. The facilities with the greatest percentages of 4 and 5 ratings and the highest average ratings include:  Pole Creek Golf Course (average rating 4.6; 96 percent provided a rating of 4 or 5)  Grand Park Community Recreation Center (4.6 average; 95 percent rated 4 or 5)  Pole Creek Club House (4.5 average; 90 percent rated 4 or 5)  Fraser Valley Sports Complex (FVSC) Soccer Fields (4.4 average; 93 percent rated 4 or 5)  FVSC Baseball/Softball Fields (4.4 average; 91 percent rated 4 or 5)  Fraser Valley Sports Complex overall (4.3 average; 91 percent rated 4 or 5)  FVSC Icebox Ice Rink (4.1 average; 80 percent rated 4 or 5) Despite the very high ratings for almost all of the facilities, the Fraser Town Park Tennis Courts were rated somewhat lower, with an average rating of 3.7 and only sixty-three percent of respondents providing a 4 or 5 rating.

Quality ratings of current FVMRD facilities were relatively similar between local residents and part-time residents, as is shown in Figure 10 to follow. Part-time respondents rated the quality of the Grand Park Community Recreation Center slightly higher (average 4.7) than local respondents (average 4.5), while local respondents were more likely to give a higher average rating to the Fraser Valley Sports Complex soccer fields (4.5) than their part-time counterparts were (4.3).

RRC Associates, Inc.

16

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 8: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Percent Good/Excellent vs. Poor/Fair Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

17

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 9: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating Overall Sample

Figure 10: Quality of FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

18

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT FACILITIES Respondents were asked to provide suggestions for improvements to current FVMRD facilities as well as rank the importance of and select priorities from a list of proposed improvements.

Facilities covered include the Grand Park Community Recreation Center, the Fraser Valley Sports Complex, the Pole Creek Golf Club, and the trail systems in Grand County. The findings from these questions are discussed in turn below.

Grand Park Community Recreation Center Respondents were asked for suggestions to help the Grand Park Community Recreation Center better serve their household’s needs. Common themes in the responses include lowering membership fees, increasing program options and class times, adding more work out and weight lifting equipment/space, adding racquetball courts, changing the name, adding an outdoor pool/hot tub, better maintenance and cleaning of the facilities, and adding tennis courts. Below is a random sample of the comments. A full listing of verbatim comments is provided under separate cover.



“A basketball league; pool table; improve disc golf”



“Any activities for seniors with special rates”



“Change the name of it to Fraser Valley Community Recreation Center”



“Earlier opening hours on weekends”



“I am a member of the Rec Center. I received a yearly membership as a Christmas gift. I realize it is a rec center and not a private gym. Nonetheless, I miss having the towel service that I had at private gyms I have belonged to in the past before moving to Colorado. There is no private gym in the part of Grand County where I live.”



“Improve the Wifi for personal device use in the Gym. Expand the use of the gymnastics facilities for more structured instruction. Add coaches and times to the rock wall.”



“Less tourist- more locals. Too expensive for a family pass or one day visit to such a small facility. We are usually recreating outdoors- running, hiking, biking, skiing, fishing.”



“More offerings other than traditional sports. How about some dirt jumps, pump track, skills park, or other activities that can assist in the growth of biking for younger kids and inexperienced adults. Then there could be classes offered by the REC...”



“None at the moment”



“Since I don't go very often…maybe more published info of hours and programs available”



“Would love to have the 'Town Center' be located in this area. Shops, restaurants, playground and joining area.”

RRC Associates, Inc.

19

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Fraser Valley Sports Complex Respondents rated the importance of eight potential improvements to the Fraser Valley Sports Complex (FVSC) on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “not at all important” and 5 means “very important”. Figures 11 and 12 show the percentage of “4” and “5” ratings (meaning the respondent feels the improvement is important) compared to the percentage of “1” and “2” ratings (indicating unimportance) and the average ratings, respectively. All of the listed improvements had a higher proportion of respondents providing 1 and 2 ratings than those providing 4 or 5 ratings, indicating that more respondents found the proposed improvements unimportant rather than important. Following is a list of the improvements, from highest average importance ranking to lowest:  Refrigeration of Icebox to lengthen winter season (average rating 2.6; 34 percent provided a rating of 4 or 5)  Expanded and enhanced playgrounds (2.4 average; 27 percent rated 4 or 5)  Lighting of fields (2.4 average; 29 percent rated 4 or 5)  More lighting of parking lot and pedestrian ways (2.4 average; 25 percent rated 4 or 5)  Paved parking lot (2.2 average; 20 percent rated 4 or 5)  Additional volleyball courts (1.8 average; 11 percent rated 4 or 5)  Additional basketball courts (1.7 average; 8 percent rated 4 or 5)  Additional soccer fields (1.7 average; 8 percent rated 4 or 5) When results are broken down by resident type, considerable differences in average importance ratings are apparent. As is shown in Figure 13 to follow, local residents are much more likely to view as important refrigeration of Icebox (average rating 2.7 vs. 2.3 average for part-time residents), lighting of fields (2.7 vs. 1.9), and additional soccer fields (1.8 vs. 1.5). Conversely, part-time respondents gave a higher average importance rating to a paved parking lot (2.4 vs. 2.2 for local respondents).

RRC Associates, Inc.

20

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 11: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Percent Important vs. Unimportant Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

21

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 12: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Average Rating Overall Sample

Figure 13: Importance of FVSC Improvements – Average Rating

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

22

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Respondents were then asked to select their top two priorities from the list of proposed improvements to the Fraser Valley Sports Complex by first choosing their most important priority and then choosing their second most important priority. Figure 14 on the following page illustrates the percentage of respondents choosing each item as their first or second choice, as well as the sum of these two percentages to reflect the total share of respondents prioritizing each item. This allows an understanding of how respondents prioritize each improvement against the other improvements. As is shown in Figure 14, the top two improvements are refrigeration of Icebox to lengthen winter season (35 percent of respondents included this as one of their top two priorities) and expanded and enhanced playgrounds (35 percent). Refrigeration of Icebox also had the highest share of respondents ranking it as their single most important priority (25 percent). Progressively less important priorities include lighting of fields (29 percent), more lighting of parking lot and pedestrian ways (27 percent), paved parking lot (26 percent), additional volleyball courts (9 percent), additional basketball courts (6 percent), and additional soccer fields (6 percent).

A relatively sizeable proportion of respondents also selected “other” as one of their top two priorities (13 percent). Common open-ended suggestions respondents offered in the “other” improvements section include adding a dog park, making improvements to existing fields and courts, and making golf course improvements.

Figures 15 through 17 assess FVSC improvement priority rankings on a range of key demographic variables, including residency status, age, and presence of children in the household. This segmentation reveals the following findings:  By Residency Status. Local residents were considerably more likely than part-time respondents to prioritize refrigeration of Icebox, lighting of fields, and additional volleyball courts; part-time residents showed greater preference towards expanded and enhanced playgrounds and a paved parking lot.  By Age. Younger age cohorts prioritized to a greater degree lighting of fields and additional volleyball and basketball courts, while older age cohorts were more likely to select a paved parking lot.  By Presence of Children in the Home. Respondents in family households unsurprisingly had a greater likelihood than respondents without children to prioritize improvements like refrigeration of Icebox, expanded and enhanced playgrounds, and additional soccer fields.

RRC Associates, Inc.

23

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 14: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

24

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 15: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

25

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 16: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined

By Respondent Age

RRC Associates, Inc.

26

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 17: Top Two Priorities for FVSC Improvements Combined

By Presence of Children in Household

RRC Associates, Inc.

27

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Pole Creek Golf Club Similar to the questions on the FVSC, respondents who play golf or have household members who play golf were asked about the importance and prioritization of a variety of potential improvements to the Pole Creek Golf Club (PCGC). Roughly two-thirds (67 percent) of respondents either personally play golf or live with others who play. Fifty-seven percent indicated that they themselves play, and forty-two percent indicated household members play.

Figure 18: Golf Participation Overall Sample

Respondents who are golfers or have household members who golf rated the importance of 10 proposed improvements to the PCGC on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “not at all important” and 5 is “very important”. Figures 19 and 20 show the “4” and “5” ratings (indicating importance) versus the “1” and “2” ratings (indicating unimportance) and the average ratings respectively.

The greatest percentages of 4 and 5 responses and the highest average ratings were given for the following items:  Improved practice facility (average rating 3.1; 43 percent provided a rating of 4 and 5)  Year-round restaurant (3.1 average; 45 percent rated 4 or 5)  Paved cart paths (3.0 average; 38 percent rated 4 or 5)  GPS golf carts (3.0 average; 42 percent rated 4 or 5) Several of the proposed improvements received higher shares of respondents indicating that it was unimportant to them rather than important. These items include more rain shelters (41 percent unimportant vs. 29 percent important), new irrigation system on Ridge Course (39 percent unimportant vs. 28 percent important), bunker renovation (40 percent unimportant vs.

27 percent important), paved parking lot (50 percent unimportant vs. 23 percent important), permanent outdoor event structure (59 percent unimportant vs. 21 percent important), and paved maintenance lot (72 percent unimportant vs. 10 percent important).

Average importance ratings varied slightly by residency status. Local respondents gave higher importance ratings to a permanent outdoor event structure (2.4 vs. 2.1 for part-time respondents) and a paved maintenance lot (2.0 vs. 1.8). Part-time respondents favored GPS golf RRC Associates, Inc. 28

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

carts (3.1 vs. 2.9 for local respondents), a new irrigation system on Ridge Course (2.9 vs. 2.7), more rain shelters (3.0 vs. 2.6), and a paved parking lot (2.6 vs. 2.4).

Figure 19: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Percent Important vs. Unimportant Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

29

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 20: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Average Rating Overall Sample

Figure 21: Importance of PCGC Improvements – Average Rating

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

30

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Respondents were asked to select their two top improvement priorities for the Pole Creek Golf Club. Figure 22 depicts the percentage of respondents who selected each item as their first and second priority, as well as the sum of these two percentages for the overall priority ranking.

Paved cart paths is the top priority overall (34 percent of respondents including this as their first or second priority), as well as the single most important priority (22 percent of respondents ranking this as their number one priority). Other top priorities include an improved practice facility (26 percent), GPS golf carts (23 percent), more rain shelters (23 percent), bunker renovation (20 percent), a permanent outdoor event pavilion (18 percent), a new irrigation system on Ridge Course (15 percent), a year-round restaurant (14 percent), and a paved parking lot (10 percent).

Figures 23 through 25 assess PCGC improvement priority rankings on a range of key demographic variables, including residency status, age, and presence of children in the household. This segmentation reveals the following findings:  By Residency Status. Local respondents placed higher priority on paved cart paths and a year-round restaurant, while respondents living in Fraser Valley part-time prioritized an improved practice facility, more rain shelters, a new irrigation system on Ridge Course, and a paved parking lot.  By Age. Older respondents were more likely than their younger counterparts to select paved cart paths, more rain shelters, and a paved parking lot. Meanwhile, younger participants showed a stronger desire for an improved practice facility, GPS golf carts, a permanent outdoor pavilion, and a new irrigation system on Ridge Course.  By Presence of Children in the Home. Respondents with children at home were more in favor of an improved practice facility, more rain shelters, and a new irrigation system on Ridge Course. Those living in nonfamily households were more likely to prioritize paved cart paths, GPS golf carts, and a paved parking lot.

RRC Associates, Inc.

31

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 22: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

32

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 23: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

33

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 24: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined

By Respondent Age

RRC Associates, Inc.

34

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 25: Top Two Priorities for PCGC Improvements Combined

By Presence of Children in Household

RRC Associates, Inc.

35

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Trails Lastly, respondents were questioned about their use of the Grand County trail systems and about the quality of current trails. Almost all respondents overall (92 percent) indicated that they use Grand County trails. Roughly two-thirds (65 percent) reported awareness that the planning and development of Grand County trails is primarily conducted by the Headwaters Trails Alliance.

Local and part-time residents reported similar usage of trail systems, though local respondents were considerably more likely to be aware of the role of the Headwaters Trails Alliance (80 percent) in planning and development of trails than part-time respondents (39 percent).

Figure 26: Trail Usage and Awareness Overall Sample

Figure 27: Trail Usage and Awareness

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

36

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Quality ratings of aspects of the trail system are shown in Figures 28 through 30 on the following page. Respondents were asked to rate various components of the trail system on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “poor” and 5 means “excellent”. The items with the highest percentage of “4” and “5” ratings (meaning the item has good/excellent quality) and highest average ratings include:  Number/variety of unpaved/soft surface trails (average rating 4.1; 77 percent provided a rating of 4 or 5)  Access to trails (3.7 average; 58 percent rated 4 or 5)  Interconnectedness of trails (3.7 average; 60 percent rated 4 or 5) Slightly lower-rated aspects of the trail systems include:  Number/variety of paved trails (3.4 average; 46 percent rated 4 or 5)  Signage/communications on trail system (3.4 average; 46 percent rated 4 or 5) Average quality ratings were generally similar between local residents and part-time residents, though part-time residents gave slightly higher ratings on average to the number/variety of paved trail systems.

RRC Associates, Inc.

37

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 28: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Percent Good/Excellent vs. Poor/Fair Overall Sample

Figure 29: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Average Rating Overall Sample

Figure 30: Quality of Grand County Trail Systems – Average Rating

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

38

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Suggestions/Comments Regarding Trails Respondents were asked to provide any additional suggestions or comments they had on the Grand County trail systems. Ideas that came up frequently include better signage on trails, making more detailed and more accessible maps, connecting existing trails, increased trailhead parking, additional paved trails, trail maintenance, building new trails, additional unpaved/gravel trails, and more lighting on existing trails. A random sample of comments follows; a full list of verbatim comments is provided under separate cover.



“50% primitive 50% mechanical”



“Better trail signage and maps at trailheads”



“Continue pavement on Fraser Valley Trail to Granby”



“Get sustainable funding source!”



“Keep adding trails like they have over the last few years.”



“More loop trails/connections- start and finish same place without backtracking”



“Need parking spaces for Idlewild”



“None - thank you”



“Pave more.”



“Sometimes trail signage is either not clear, or not easily found. Possibly posting trailhead signs with paper trail maps could help.”



“We would really like to see the paved trail on the Winter Park side from the ski area connect in a better way at Rendezvous and continue on. The river trail would be much more useful if paved!”

RRC Associates, Inc.

39

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

FUTURE FACILITIES A series of questions regarding potential future facilities asked respondents to rate the importance of a list of several future indoor and outdoor facilities as well as select their top three priorities for FVMRD from this list. This section detail the findings of these two questions.

Importance of Future Facilities Respondents rated the importance of seven potential future indoor facilities and eight potential outdoor facilities on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “not at all important” and 5 is “very important”. Each set of facilities is discussed below in turn.

Indoor Facilities The indoor facilities with the highest percentages of “4” and “5” responses and the highest average ratings include:  Performing arts center (average rating 3.2; 48 percent provided a rating of 4 or 5)  Arts & cultural center (3.1 average; 41 percent rated 4 or 5)  Teen center (2.9 average; 40 percent rated 4 or 5) Facilities that received a higher proportion of respondents indicating it was “unimportant” rather than “important” include a senior center (41 percent unimportant vs. 37 percent important), a multi-purpose field house (53 percent unimportant vs. 27 percent important), indoor tennis courts (63 percent unimportant vs. 19 percent important), and racquetball/handball courts (58 percent unimportant vs. 18 percent important).

Local residents gave higher average importance ratings to all of the potential indoor facilities, with the exception of indoor tennis courts.

Outdoor Facilities All outdoor facilities were rated to be relatively unimportant, with greater shares rating the item as “unimportant” (providing a 1 or 2 rating) than those considering it “important” (providing a 4 or 5 rating). The highest average ratings given include:  Small parks in neighborhoods (2.9 average, 37 percent rated 4 or 5)  Dog park (2.8 average; 39 percent rated 4 or 5) Facilities with greater than 50 percent of respondents identifying it as unimportant include an outdoor pool, outdoor shooting range, tennis courts, splash pad, equestrian riding center, and artificial turf field.

Local respondents provided higher average importance ratings for a dog park and an equestrian riding center, while part-time respondents again provided a slightly higher average rating for tennis courts.

RRC Associates, Inc.

40

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 31: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Percent Important vs. Unimportant Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

41

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 32: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

42

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 33: Importance of Future FVMRD Facilities – Average Rating

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

43

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Top Priorities for Future Facilities Respondents were then asked to select their first, second, and third priorities for future FVMRD facilities from the list of indoor and outdoor facilities. Figure 34 to follow illustrates the percentage of respondents choosing each facility as their first, second, or third priority as well as the combined percentage of all three to establish ranking among the proposed improvements.

The top facility overall was a performing arts center (42 percent of respondents included this in their top three priorities). Performing arts center also received the highest share of respondents designating this as their single top priority (15 percent). Other commonly-selected priorities include an arts and cultural center (29 percent), dog park (24 percent), senior center (22 percent), teen center (22 percent), small parks in neighborhoods (21 percent), outdoor pool (21 percent), outdoor shooting range (17 percent), and multi-purpose field house (17 percent).

Figures 35 through 37 assess future FVMRD facility priority rankings on a range of key demographic variables, including residency status, age, and presence of children in the household. This segmentation reveals the following findings:  By Residency Status. Local residents, compared to part-time residents, had a greater likelihood of prioritizing a teen center and a multi-purpose field house. Part-time residents were more likely to make an outdoor shooting range and tennis courts a priority.  By Age. Older age cohorts were more in favor of a performing arts center, arts and cultural center, senior center, and teen center relative to their younger counterparts.

Younger respondents, on the other hand, were more likely to select as priorities a dog park, outdoor pool, outdoor shooting range, multi-purpose field house, racquetball/handball courts, equestrian riding center, artificial turf field, and splash pad.  By Presence of Children in the Home. Family households showed a stronger preference for prioritizing a teen center, outdoor pool, multi-purpose field house, artificial turf field, and splash pad. Respondents in homes without children were more likely to prioritize a performing arts center, arts and cultural center, dog park, senior center, and small parks in neighborhoods.

RRC Associates, Inc.

44

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 34: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

45

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 35: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

46

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 36: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined

By Respondent Age

RRC Associates, Inc.

47

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 37: Top Three Priorities for Future FVMRD Facilities Combined

By Presence of Children in Household

RRC Associates, Inc.

48

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Allocation of Funds for Recreation Improvements Respondents were asked, “If you had $100 to spend on recreation improvements to the Recreation Center, Sports Complex, tennis courts, golf course, or other new facilities, how would you distribute it?” Figure 38 below depicts the average allocation amount respondents provided for each facility. The top facility was the Pole Creek Golf Course (average allocation $25.00), followed by enhancements at the Grand Park Community Recreation Center ($19.68) and other new facilities ($16.24). Facilities that were allocated less money include Icebox refrigeration ($9.79), additional land purchase ($9.05), playground at the FVSC ($7.93), FVSC ($7.36), and tennis courts ($4.48).

Due to the fairly large average sum of money dedicated towards “other new facilities”, openended comments for this question were analyzed. Common responses include a performing arts center or arts/cultural center, improvements and connections to trails, a dog park, a shooting range, an outdoor pool, a teen center, a senior center, and upgrades to the FVMRD TV translator.

Figures 39 through 41 assess allocations on a range of key demographic variables, including residency status, age, and presence of children in the household. This segmentation reveals the following findings:  By Residency Status. Part-time residents allocated a significantly larger amount of money towards the Pole Creek Golf Course than local residents did, while local residents on average put more money towards enhancements at the Grand Park CRC, other new facilities, Icebox refrigeration, and the FVSC.  By Age. Older respondents gave considerably more money to the Pole Creek Golf Course, while younger age cohorts allocated more to enhancements at the Grand Park CRC, Icebox refrigeration, and the FVSC.  By Presence of Children in the Home. Respondents with children unsurprisingly provided higher amounts to Icebox refrigeration and a playground at the FVSC. Meanwhile, respondents living in nonfamily households allocated higher amounts to the Pole Creek Golf Course and additional land purchase.

RRC Associates, Inc.

49

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 38: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements Overall Sample

Figure 39: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements

By Residency Status

RRC Associates, Inc.

50

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 40: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements

By Respondent Age

Figure 41: Allocation of Funds towards Recreation Improvements

By Presence of Children in Household

RRC Associates, Inc.

51

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Comments on Priorities Respondents had the opportunity to provide additional comments on their priorities and allocations. A random sample of comments follows; however, responses should be examined in their entirety in order to gain a deeper understanding. A verbatim list of comments is provided under separate cover.



“A community theater would be so awesome! Let's do this!”



“Better transportation for elders”



“Give it back to the taxpayers”



“I identified my priorities. I'll go with the consensus/majority .. but that's where the 'new facilities' funding should go ... but do the Sports Complex playground first. It wasn't a choice when prioritizing facilities”



“I think there should be improvement on what buildings there already are as opposed to buying new land and building more. I'd much rather see land purchased for the utilization of trails and other outdoor activities, such as frisbee golf.”



“If having a 'dog park' would alleviate all the dogs at the current sports complex, it is a high priority. Or allocate funding to enforce the no dogs/dogs on leash policy already in place.”



“Lighting at ball fields”



“More trails”



“Not aware of any public ice skating rinks other than YMCA Snow Mountain and the bottom of parking garage at Cooper shopping area”



“Priorities (my personal ones) are typically based on my kid's interests/activities”



“Since the golf course seems to be the primary revenue generator, I would continue to enhance it to attract more customers = additional revenue to improve other recreation assets.”



“They are mine and all need to be considered. The rec center is a grand facility. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.”



“We need a place to go for entertainment inside- live entertainment with seating and music/theater”



“Yes. We need a venue for live performing arts year round. In reviews of Winter Park Ski area in national magazines, readers say there is nothing to do at night. We need a place where we can see live entertainment year round.”

RRC Associates, Inc.

52

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

CURRENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS Respondents identified which FVMRD programs they currently use and provided suggestions for improvements to current programs as well as ideas for new programs. This section summarizes the findings from this part of the survey.

Over half of respondents (52 percent) indicated that they currently use FVMRD programs and activities. The most popular programs include adult programs (31 percent of respondents), special events (25 percent), adult league sports (14 percent), and youth programs (12 percent).

Teen programs (6 percent) and preschool programs (5 percent) trailed in usage.

Figure 42: Current Program Participation Overall Sample

Suggestions for Changes/Improvements to Current Programs Common themes that emerged in the open-ended comments included increased availability and different hours for programs, no extra class fees, improved program advertising, and more programs for adults. Following is a random sample of comments; the full list of verbatim comments has been provided under separate cover.

RRC Associates, Inc.

53

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014



“A community choir option”



“Don't allow a program to monopolize the basketball court 4 nights a week”



“It would be nice to have a fitness class that is 6-7 ish- Zumba, kickboxing…”



“More workout classes- like Courtney's former class and classes like Bridget's Barre class”



“Offer the programs more frequently, on a regular basis, and longer session times”



“The programs are great. It is very expensive to join and pay so many of the programs on top of membership. This is especially true with multiple children.”



“Would possibly consider if some were included with the purchase of an annual pass, say 1 per week or 3 per month.”

Suggestions for Additional Programs Popular suggestions for new classes include art classes, dance classes, culture classes, programs and social events for seniors, additional swim programs, more yoga offerings, and masters swim classes. Below is a list of random comments.



“A couples massage class. We are very active in my household, especially in the winter & summer softball season. It would be interesting to learn ways we could aid each other in dealing with sports aches and pains.”



“Classes for my kids at the same time as classes for myself”



“Fitness and yoga classes available to entire membership free of charge.”



“Karate for kids, theater program”



“More pet programs.”



“Possibly more advertised community, or group hikes or day trips.”



“Special arts and culture events; senior center with events for seniors to interact and socialize”



“Would love to see adult couples dance classes offered like swing or ballroom. Tai chi classes too.”

RRC Associates, Inc.

54

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

COMMUNICATION Respondents were asked how effective the FVMRD is in reaching them with information about recreational services and programs in Fraser Valley. Respondents rated the effectiveness of FVMRD communications on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “poor” and 5 is “excellent”. Overall, effectiveness of FVMRD communications is fairly strong, with 46 percent of respondents providing a 4 or 5 rating and an average rating of 3.3.

Figure 43: Effectiveness of FVMRD Communications Overall Sample

In a follow up question asking how respondents usually learn about FVMRD programs and facilities, just short of half (47 percent) indicated that they learn through word of mouth.

Moderate shares also learn via Sky Hi News (42 percent), the FVMRD website (38 percent), and seasonal brochures (34 percent). More modest shares identified informational flyers (19 percent), the newsletter (16 percent), social media (7 percent), school flyers (6 percent), radio (1 percent), and the Denver Post (1 percent) as methods through which they gain awareness.

Respondents were asked about their preferred method of communication from FVMRD. The most popular response was via the FVMRD website (23 percent), followed by “other” sources (17 percent), Sky Hi News (17 percent), and a newsletter (15 percent). Smaller shares prefer to receive information via seasonal brochures (11 percent), social media (9 percent), informational flyers (4 percent), word of mouth (3 percent), and school flyers (1 percent). In the open-ended comments, respondents selecting “other” overwhelmingly listed email as the best way to reach them. Another suggestion was to put up a bulletin board with current happenings at the recreation center.

RRC Associates, Inc.

55

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Figure 44: Sources Used to Gain Awareness of FVMRD Programs/Facilities Overall Sample

Figure 45: Preferred FVMRD Communication Channels Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

56

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Finally, respondents were asked whether or not they use the FVMRD’s low power television translator system as their primary source for television. Ten percent reported that they do, while 79 percent do not and an additional 11 percent are unsure.

Figure 46: Preferred FVMRD Communication Channels Overall Sample

RRC Associates, Inc.

57

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS / OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS Respondents were given the opportunity at the end of the survey to provide any additional comments or suggestions they had regarding recreation facilities or programs in the Fraser Valley or in Grand County. Several common themes were discovered through analysis of the openended comments. These themes, and corresponding verbatim comments, are explored below.

A full listing of comments is provided under separate cover.

Improve communications on programs and facilities, and expedite the process of signing up for programs and classes.



“Do mailings to those who sign up via email”



“E-mail to all residents and members.”



“Email is good communication”



“Emailing list of events helpful”



“FVMRD needs to place up coming events in Sky Hi News sooner. Often only in the paper the week of the event.”



“I find the website very difficult to maneuver around in it. It might be a good idea for someone to just go through it. Make it easier to use. I have a hard time locating classes in the pool area.”



“I only see flyers at the rec center. They need to be posted (all new programs) around town!”



“In my opinion, guests should be able to sign up for classes online. The current system seems complicated as we have to call to sign up. The schedule should be on the website with information about the class, if it is full already etc.”



“Monthly fitness schedules- the print is hard to read!”



“Quarterly e-mail or brochure detailing news and goings on with FVMRD”



“Send info vis email as I do not facebook or twitter”



“You might offer an email blast with new programs listed”

RRC Associates, Inc.

58

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Expand program offerings and offer more varied class times.



“Always looking for times that are mid day because of my hours at work cater to resort life. I generally like classes over late lunch or before dinner rush.”



“Computer classes; meditation/yoga site (part indoor part outdoor; adult mountain bike classes and bike maintenance; group cross country ski class/ski meet up”



“I would like to see a stronger emphasis on recreation for handicapped/elderly individuals. We have terrific programs already in place, but I think there is room for improvements/expansion.”



“More morning ski conditioning classes”



“Senior activities in WP Fraser area”



“Tried to register last year for ski conditioning and class was full very early. Offer more classes/options for popular offerings.”



“Weight loss incentive programs- be creative. Host nutritional food demos, using 5 ingredients or less, prepare a balanced meal once a month- free and tasting.”



“Yoga classes”

Continue funding and improve reception from the TV translator. 

“I use the tv translator and would like to see that continue.”



“Improve TV signal!!”



“Keep the free TV. It is the only TV many have and is therefore their first news source and contact for emergency. It is the only service you now offer with no additional fee on top of taxes we all pay.”



“My household uses the TV translator. Our taxes go towards paying for things in the district that we don't use (like golf facilities) but that others enjoy. Please do the same for us. We want to continue receiving the tv stations at our home.”



“Since taxpayer dollars fund the low power TV translator, how about making sure that all channels are being transmitted. ABC-7 has been non-existent all summer. I want my money back!”



“Towers so anyone can receive TV signal”



“We love the antenna/translator service- it goes down a lot and we wish it could go up faster but it's ‘free’ (we pay property tax) and we rely on it.”



“Would love to have ABC working again on the low power TV transmitter”

RRC Associates, Inc.

59

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Reconsider recreation center and golf club membership fee structure.



“I would love to see a lower golf fee structure for seniors. It has gone beyond what we can afford and we love golf.”



“Keep the cost down. no charge to watch grand kids swim.”



“Overall, I think the Fraser Valley has a fantastic set of recreational amenities for residents and visitors. I'd like to see a year round ice rink and continued affordable golf for locals/residents.”



“Pole Creek fees are too high- $60 green fee for FVMRD card holders is higher than other two FV golf courses in their senior leagues.”



“Rec center is expensive and classes aren't even included!”



“Thank you for affordable prices for gymnastics and pool parties. If family membership was more reasonable, we might use the rec more!”



“We have a house in Winter Park Highlands that doesn't seem to fall into the FVMRD, so we don't get the discounts etc. that might cause us to use some of the facilities more. I'm not sure if allowing us to contribute annually in order to take advantage of those benefits would be an option.”

Improve golf course amenities and increase usage.



“As we age we need more bathroom facilities on the golf course”



“Golf course is great, but is underutilized, hurting cash flow. Should seek innovative ways to increase utilization, without robbing from Grand Elk/Granby Ranch.”



“Include a discounted 4 pack golf package for residents who would like to play Pole Creek a few time a year. Combine with other local golf courses to offer an evening local golf pass at all courses (after 3 0r 4 pm play.)”



“Just remember ...... that roof over the patio at the golf course!!!”



“Pole Creek clubhouse noise”

RRC Associates, Inc.

60

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Eliminate or reduce taxes, particularly those charged to residents who do not use the facilities.



“As a taxpayer in Grand County, I would hope that any improvements would not increase my taxes”



“Make participants pay - not taxpayer”



“Raise fee/ lower taxes”



“Stop putting public money into Pole Creek golf course and clubhouse. The new clubhouse is a joke. You have a great view that is totally hidden by walls. Golfers can pay their own way without my property tax money.”



“Stop taxing and let the users pay for the services”



“We have a home in Grand County because it is a great place without all of the infrastructure.

Raising taxes to build more stuff is not why people live want to live there. There are plenty of arts in Denver. If one wanted to play tennis or basketball, they would stay in Denver. It is important to have some infrastructure but when is enough enough? More is not always better.”

Simply maintain current offerings.



“I think we have to better maintain what we have before expanding further.”



“More attention to routine maintenance needs”



“With limitations on money I would like to see all existing facilities kept in maintenance before expansion”

RRC Associates, Inc.

61

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District Needs Assessment – 2014

Keep up the good work.



“Excellent facilities, well run. A real asset to Grand County.”



“FVMRD is a well run organization with great community assets”



“Great Silver Sneakers program. The golf course is fun and friendly.”



“I feel very fortunate to have such a high quality facility in our community. The mountain bike trails, rec center and public library are my three favorite ways to spend my free time!”



“I suggest that Mary Monihan, Craig Calalan, and Sarah continue to do their wonderful jobs at Pole Creek Golf Course. They provided an excellent summer of activity and dining.”



“I think the facilities are great and encourage expansion. We are an adult household but understand the needs for facilities for families must be a priority.”



“Keep reaching out to the community. This is an excellent process!”



“Keep up the good work”



“Love the 80's band at the Icebox”



“Love the golf course”



“Maintenance/upkeep are key- FVMRD employees seem to be doing a great job- keep it up!”



“Overall, doing a great job!”



“Recreational life in the Fraser Valley has come a long way since the 70's. Thank you!”



“We enjoy the disc golf course”



“You all do a great job. Thanks for all you do.”

RRC Associates, Inc.

62