YUMA COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC NOTICE & AGENDA (REVISED)
The Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission meetings can also be viewed on the Yuma County Government Cable Channel 77.
DATE: September 24, 2018 TIME: 5:00 P.M. PLACE: Aldrich Auditorium, 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona MEMBERS: Tim Bowers, Dist. 1 Scott Mulhern, Dist. 3 Ron Rice, Dist. 1 Gary Black, Dist. 4 Wayne Eide, Dist. 2 Matias Rosales, Vice-Chairman, Dist. 4 Paul White, Chairman, Dist. 2 Alicia Z. Aguirre, Dist. 5 Danny Bryant, Dist. 3 John McKinley, Dist. 5 STAFF: Maggie Castro, AICP, Planning Director Javier Barraza, Senior Planner Fernando Villegas, Senior Planner Juan Leal-Rubio, Senior Planner Amber Jardine, PZ Administrative Specialist ADVISORS: Amanda Mahon, Deputy County Attorney for Jon Smith, County Attorney Arturo Alvarez, Civil Engineer Assistant for Roger Patterson, County Engineer Diana Gomez, Director, Yuma County Public Health Services District Joe Wehrle, County Tax Assessor
Note: A quorum of the Commission may gather for dinner prior to the beginning of the meeting and no legal action will be taken.
1. Call to Order the Regular Session of the Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission and verify quorum.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Approval of Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes of August 27, 2018. 4. Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06: Steve Ponce requests a Special Use Permit per Section 604.03(E) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a parcel 2.06 gross acres in size zoned Suburban Site Built-2 acre minimum (SSB-2), Assessor's Parcel Number 723-55-001, located at 13569 South Tierra Mesa Avenue, Yuma, Arizona; located within the 65 dB noise zone.
5. Discussion concerning possible text amendment to the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, to consider adding a new section, Section 1108.19, to allow one recreational vehicle upon a lot/parcel for up to four (4) months in a twelve (12) month period when the principal residential building is occupied in the following zoning districts: Rural Area, Suburban Ranch, Suburban Site Built, Low Density Residential, and Manufactured Home Subdivision.
6. Discussion by the Commission members and Planning Director of events attended, current events, and the schedule for future Planning Commission meetings.
7. Adjourn.
Note: For further information about this public hearing/meeting, please contact Maggie Castro, AICP, Planning Director, phone number (928) 817-5173; or e-mail [email protected] or TDD/TTY (Arizona Relay Service): call in 1-800-367-8939, call back 1-800-842-4681. Individuals with special accessibility needs should contact the individual indicated above before the hearing/meeting with special need requirements.
Note: The Commission may vote to hold an Executive Session for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the Commission's attorney on any matter listed on the agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431(A)(3). Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission
Item No. 3
YUMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION: August 27, 2018 Page 1 of 5
The Yuma County Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on August 27, 2018. The meeting was held in Aldrich Auditorium at 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona.
CALL TO ORDER: At 5:00 p.m. Chairman White convened the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioners present were: Gary Black, Alicia Aguirre, Wayne Eide, Danny Bryant, John McKinley, Scott Mulhern, Matias Rosales and Paul White. Commissioners Tim Bowers and Ron Rice were absent. Others present were: Planning Director Maggie Castro, AICP; Senior Planner Javier Barraza; Senior Planner Juan Leal-Rubio; Senior Planner Fernando Villegas; Deputy County Attorney Ed Feheley; Chief Building/Fire Code Official Pat Headington; and PZ Commission Administration Specialist Amber Jardine.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman White led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ITEM No. 3: Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes of June 25, 2018.
MOTION (BRYANT/BLACK): Approve as presented.
VOICE VOTE: Mulhern-AYE; McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 8-0.
ITEM No. 4: Minor Amendment Case No. 2018-MA-03: Christopher Robins, agent for Kactus Kush Farms LLC, requests to change the land use designation of 7.8 acre portion of a parcel 62.63 gross acres in size from Agriculture/Rural Preservation (A-RP) to Agriculture/Rural Development (A-RD), Assessor's Parcel Number 140- 22-004, located on the southwest corner of the alignment of Avenue 74E and County 17 -1/2 Street North, Hyder, Arizona.
Commissioner Scott Mulhern recused himself from Minor Amendment Case No. 2018-MA-03.
Senior Planner Fernando Villegas presented the staff report recommending approval of Minor Amendment Case No. 2018-MA-03 based on:
1) The change will not be detrimental or disruptive to the existing rural/agricultural character of the area. 2) The change helps to achieve the goals of the Dateland/East County planning Area.
ITEM No. 5: Rezoning Case No. 18-09: Christopher Robins, agent for Kactus Kush Farms LLC, requests the rezoning of a 7.8 acre portion of a parcel 62.63 gross acres in size from Rural Area-40 acre minimum (RA-40) to Rural Area-5 acre minimum (RA-5), Assessor's Parcel Number 140-22-004, located on the southwest corner of the alignment of Avenue 74E and County 17-1/2 Street North, Hyder, Arizona.
Commissioner Scott Mulhern recused himself from Rezoning Case No. 18-09.
Senior Planner Fernando Villegas presented the staff report recommending approval of Rezoning Case No. 18-09 with the following Performance Conditions:
YUMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION: August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Performance Conditions.
1. Within 60 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors, the owners or agent shall provide the following:
a. An Agricultural Disclosure Statement. b. An Infrastructure Disclosure Statement.
2. Within 180 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors, the owners or agent shall split the properties in accordance with the attached site plan labeled as “Exhibit A” by means of a Land Division Permit in accordance with Section 507.00 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance.
Adrian Vega, 1560 South 5th Avenue, Yuma, Arizona, representing Christopher Robins the agent of the applicant. The agent agrees with the performance conditions for the Minor Amendment and the Rezoning Cases.
Chairman White opened the public hearing for both cases.
There being no one from the public to come forward, Chairman White closed the public hearing.
MOTION (BRYANT/BLACK): Approve Minor Amendment Case No. 2018-MA-03 as presented by staff.
VOICE VOTE: McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 7-0-1, Commissioner Mulhern abstaining.
MOTION (MCKINLEY/BLACK): Approve Rezoning Case No. 18-09 as presented by staff.
VOICE VOTE: McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 7-0-1, Commissioner Mulhern abstaining.
ITEM No. 6: Rezoning Case No. 18-07: John A. Weil, trustee of Desert Paradise Partnership Trust 09-19-1998, requests the rezoning of the south 40 gross acres of a parcel 86 gross acres in size from Rural Area-40 acre minimum (RA-40) to Suburban Site Built-10 acre minimum (SSB-10), Assessor’s Parcel Number 186-22-005, located on the northeast corner of the alignments of Avenue 37½E and County 8th Street, Wellton, Arizona.
Senior Planner Javier Barraza presented the staff report recommending approval of Rezoning Case No. 18-07 with the following Performance Conditions:
Performance Conditions.
1. Within 60 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors, the owners or agent shall provide the following:
a. An A.R.S §12-1134 waiver. b. A recorded military training route (IF-218) disclosure statement. c. A recorded Infrastructure Disclosure Statement.
YUMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION: August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 5
2. Within 180 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors and prior to splitting the property, construct an/or improve the ingress/egress easement shown on “Exhibit A” as an all-weather access built road for emergency vehicle services pursuant to Section 503 and Appendix D of the 2003 International Fire Code and in accordance with current policy and standards.
Commissioner Aguirre inquired about the distance between the subject property and Interstate 8.
Senior Planner Javier Barraza informed Commissioners that the subject property is approximately a mile away from the interstate and access to the property is off of County 8th Street.
Commissioner Rosales inquired about the internal comment staff received by Chief Building/Fire Code Official Pat Headington.
Senior Planner Javier Barraza explained the Building Safety Division would require an all-weather access and turnaround for emergency vehicles in future permit applications. Staff attached the all-weather access to the performance conditions to ensure the access is built prior to any future home owners.
John Weil, 3771 East Las Cruces Lane, Yuma, Arizona, applicant, explained Rezoning Case No. 18-07 was presented to the Board of Supervisors requesting RA-10. The Board of Supervisors requested the applicant to change the rezoning to SSB-10 excluding manufactured homes due to comments received from neighbors. Mr. Weil stated that he agrees with the performance conditions as presented by staff.
Chairman White opened the public hearing.
There being no one from the public to come forward, Chairman White closed the public hearing.
MOTION (BRYANT/ROSALES): Approve Rezoning Case No. 18-07 as presented by staff.
VOICE VOTE: Mulhern-AYE; McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 8-0.
ITEM No. 7: Rezoning Case No. 18-10: Robert Shafer requests the rezoning of two parcels totaling approximately 28,314 square feet in size from Rural Area-20 acre minimum (RA-20) to Low Density Residential-12,000 square feet minimum (R-1-12), Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 459-59-004 (10,018.8 square feet) located at 10551 North Martinez Lake Road and 459-59-005 (18,295.2 square feet) located at 10567 North Martinez Lake Road, Yuma, Arizona.
Senior Planner Juan Leal Rubio presented the staff report recommending approval of Rezoning Case No. 18-10 with the following Performance Conditions:
Performance Conditions.
1. Within 60 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors, submit the following to the Department of Development Services:
a. An A.R.S §12-1134 waiver.
YUMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION: August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 5
b. A recorded Schedule for Development disclosure statement. 2. Within one year of approval by the Board of Supervisors, the property shall be split in accordance with the attached site plan labeled as “Exhibit A” by means of a Land Division Plan in accordance with Section 507.00 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance. The new parcels shall be configured to meet the minimum size of 12,000 square feet required by the R-1-12 zoning district.
Robert Shafer, 10551 North Martinez Lake Road, Yuma, Arizona, applicant explained that moving the lot line will provide enough space to build a storage for boats and trailers.
Chairman White opened the public hearing.
There being no one from the public to come forward, Chairman White closed the public hearing.
MOTION (MCKINLEY/ROSALES): Approve Rezoning Case No. 18-10 as presented by staff.
VOICE VOTE: Mulhern-AYE; McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 8-0.
ITEM No. 8: Discussion concerning possible text amendments to the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 401.00--Manufactured Home Permits, Section 801.03--Sign Area, Section 1102.02 (H), and Section 1108.09--Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, Jacuzzi’s and Pool Mechanical Equipment
Planning Director Maggie Castro, AICP reviewed the possible text amendments for each section.
Commissioner Rosales inquired about Section 401.01 in regards to inspections for manufactured home rehabilitation permits.
Chief Building/Fire Code Official Pat Headington informed Commissioners the State of Arizona will only perform inspections on rehabilitation of mobile homes. Staff has not performed a mobile home rehabilitation inspection in over eight years. Mr. Headington explained that a letter from the Arizona General Attorney’s Office had been given to the State indicating the State retaining the right to perform inspections for mobile home rehabilitation permits. Mr. Headington stated mobile homes built on or before June 15, 1976 are considered rehabilitation homes.
Commissioner Bryant inquired about why the proposed amendment in Section 801.03 regarding the “V” shape sign is different than the City of Yuma’s requirement.
Planning Director Maggie Castro, AICP explained the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance and the City of Yuma Zoning Ordinance are different. The current Yuma County Zoning Ordinance Section 801.03 states the distance between the “V” shaped sign does not exceed two feet (2). That requirement is very difficult for large signs to meet. Staff is proposing the language in the Zoning Ordinance to either end at “the angle between faces does not exceed thirty (30) degrees” or add the fifty-four (54) inch requirement at the end. Both proposals eliminate the two feet (2) requirement.
Commissioner Bryant asked if local business’s affected by the proposed amendment to Section 801.03 would have an opportunity to give staff their comments.
YUMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION: August 27, 2018 Page 5 of 5
Planning Director Maggie Castro, AICP explained prior to forwarding the discussion to the Board of Supervisors, staff will notify all local business’s affected by all the proposed text amendments and receive comments.
Chairman White opened the public hearing.
There being no one from the public to come forward, Chairman White closed the public hearing.
MOTION (AGUIRRE/EIDE): To advance to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
VOICE VOTE: Mulhern-AYE; McKinley- AYE; Rosales- AYE; White- AYE; Aguirre- AYE; Black- AYE; Eide- AYE; Bryant- AYE. The motion carried 8-0.
ITEM No. 9: Discussion by the Commission members and Planning Director of events attended, current events, and the schedule for future Planning Commission meetings.
Commissioner Bryant informed commissioners the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee is making progress. The next meeting is September 27, 2018.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:41 p.m.
Approved and accepted on this 24th day of September 2018.
Paul White, Chairman ATTEST:
Maggie Castro, AICP, Planning Director
Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission
Item No. 4
AIR-8636 4. P&Z Commission Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2018 Submitted For: Maggie Castro Submitted By: Fernando Villegas Department: Planning & Zoning Division - DDS
Information 1. REQUESTED ACTION: Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06: Steve Ponce requests a Special Use Permit per Section 604.03(E) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a parcel 2.06 gross acres in size zoned Suburban Site Built-2 acre minimum (SSB-2), Assessor's Parcel Number 723-55-001, located at 13569 South Tierra Mesa Avenue, Yuma, Arizona; located within the 65 dB noise zone.
2. INTENT: The applicant’s intention is to build an accessory dwelling unit 1,568 square feet in size.
3. For detailed analysis see attached staff report 4. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the Operational and Performance Conditions listed on the attached staff report.
Attachments Staff Report Vicinity Map Site Plan Applicant Letter Internal Memos MCAS letter Development Checklist
STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION September 24, 2018
Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06
REQUEST: A Special Use Permit per Section 604.03(E) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a parcel 2.06 net acres in size zoned Suburban Site Built- 2 acre minimum (SSB-2), Assessor's Parcel 723-55-001, located at 13569 South Tierra Mesa Avenue, Yuma, Arizona; located in the 65 dB noise zone.
APPLICANT: Steve Ponce
Application is within Supervisor District 2: Russel McCloud. Planning Commissioners are Paul White and Wayne Eide. Staff report prepared by Fernando Villegas, Senior Planner.
LOCATION: From the intersection of Avenue 3E and 32nd Street, travel south on Avenue 3E for three miles to the intersection with County 14th Street. At the intersection with County 14th Street turn east (left) and travel east for approximately 0.5 miles to the intersection of Tierra Mesa Avenue and turn north (left). Travel north on Tierra Mesa Avenue for approximately 2,200 feet. The subject property is located on the east side at 13569 South Tierra Mesa Avenue.
INTENT:
The applicant’s intention is to build an accessory dwelling unit 1,568 square feet in size.
SITE CONDITIONS:
The subject property is located in Desert Star Estates subdivision. The primary residence is currently under construction (B18-0491) and is 2,353 square feet in size. The property is served with an onsite well for potable water and septic system. Physical access to the property is by Tierra Mesa Avenue, an asphalt road 50 feet in width that has 80 feet of dedicated right-of-way maintained by Yuma County.
Surrounding zoning and land uses: There are 39 parcels within the 300 foot notification area of which 33 are located in Tierra Mesa Estates subdivision which is zoned Low Density Residential- 8,000 square feet minimum (R-1-8). Said 33 parcels are improved with site built dwellings. Parcels 2 and 3 to the east and Parcels 8, 9 and 10 to the north and northeast are located in Desert Star Estates subdivision which is zoned SSB-2 and are improved with site built dwellings.
The purpose of the SSB-2 district is to accommodate residential land uses on larger lots in the more rural, outlying areas of the county where adequate services and facilities exist or may be developed to support such development. Uses such as single family dwellings, farming, and agricultural-related land uses are allowed.
Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06 Page 2
Accessory Dwelling Units are defined as follows: A habitable space that contains independent sanitary and cooking facilities on the same parcel as an existing primary dwelling intended to house family or guests of the occupants of the principal dwelling without compensation. Section 310.00 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance states that the following conditions shall apply in order to ensure that the nature and character of the permitted use remains as a single family parcel: a. The accessory dwelling unit shall meet principal building development standards and setback requirements. b. The total number of dwelling units, principal and accessory dwelling unit, shall not exceed two dwelling units per parcel. c. The accessory dwelling unit can be used intermittently or year-around. d. The accessory dwelling unit and principal dwelling shall not be rented or leased as separate units. e. All utilities delivered to the accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling shall be from a shared meter. f. The accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling shall share common driveway used for ingress and egress.
Two Special Use Permits (SUP10-11 and SUP18-03) for accessory dwelling units have been approved in the area. Both properties are located along Tierra Bonita Boulevard located approximately 700 feet to the east. SUP10-11 was approved on February 19, 2011 to allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit 2,344 square feet in size. SUP18-03 was approved on June 4, 2018 to allow the conversion an existing pool house into an accessory dwelling unit by adding a cooking facility.
The subject property is located in the Yuma Mesa Planning area of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation is Rural Density Residential (R-RD) which allows a residential density ranging from 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. This request for a Special Use Permit does not trigger an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because it does not require a zone change.
The subject property is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Additionally, the property is located in the 65 dB noise zone and under the MCAS-Yuma Overflight Pattern. The Airport District does not allow residential development other than single family residential development that was the subject of zoning approved on or before December 31, 2000 that permits one dwelling unit per acre or less and single family residential development that is the primary residence for persons engaging in agricultural use. The SSB-2 zoning for the subject property was approved on May, 2000 (RZ99-79), therefore a variance was not required for the construction of a single family residence on the subject property.
The subject property is not located within the six-minute response time radius of Rural Metro Fire Department. Fire Station No. 8, located at 15865 South Avenue A, is approximately six miles away.
The subject property is not within the ten minute response time radius by Yuma County Sheriff’s Department. The nearest Sheriff’s response would be from the main station located at 141 South 3rd Avenue which is approximately ten miles away from the subject property.
Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06 Page 3
CRITICAL ISSUES:
Required Conclusions from Yuma County Zoning Ordinance: (Section 402.01)
1. The proposed development will not materially affect or endanger the public health, safety or welfare.
The construction of an accessory dwelling unit is not seen as endangering the health, safety and welfare for the following reasons: 1) Traffic conditions in the vicinity will not be affected, and 2) All services and utilities including sewer, water, electrical, garbage collection and fire protection will be shared from the principal dwelling.
2. The proposed development complies with all regulations and standards applicable within the zoning district specifically applicable to the particular type of special use or class of special uses.
The proposed development will comply with all applicable regulations and standards associated with the SSB-2 zoning district including, but not limited to, setbacks, height and parking, as well as the requirements for accessory dwelling units.
3. The proposed development will not substantially change or materially affect the adjoining property or the surrounding area.
The construction an accessory dwelling unit will not substantially change or materially affect the surrounding area because most of the adjacent properties are already developed with similar uses.
4. The proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
The proposal is seen as being in harmony with the existing development of the neighborhood because it is a residential use in a residential zone and the proposed use is similar to existing uses in the immediate area.
Ordinances, codes and regulations that pertain to the application: • Yuma County Zoning Ordinance • Yuma County Comprehensive Building Code • 2003 International Fire Code (IFC) • Environmental Health Laws (ARS Titles 36 and 49) • Yuma County Flood Control District • Public Works Standards Volume I, Section 7.2.8 Driveway/Curb Cuts.
SUMMARY NOTES:
Support Staff Summary: The Environmental Programs Section, Flood Control Division and Engineering Division all find this request satisfactory. The Building Safety Division provided the following comment: All construction to be in compliance with the Yuma County Comprehensive Building Safety Code. Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06 Page 4
Letters of Support, Opposition, Agency, Military, and Special Interest: The application is on file. Memos from the Environment Programs Section, MCAS and YCAA are on file.
• Mary Ellen Finch from MCAS provided the following comment: The property is located within the 65-70dB DNL noise contour and is zoned SSB-2 which allows one home on a 2 acre parcel. The property owner is requesting an (ADU) that has the potential of increasing the number of people residing within the noise contour. The intent of Arizona Revised States 28-8481 and the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance are to limit residential development within the 65-70db noise contours. The property was rezoned in 2000 with RZ99-76 from RA-10 to SSB-2 within the 65-70db noise contours. MCAS Yuma has never deviated from our stance not to encourage incompatible development within the noise contours and when this property was rezoned, we were strongly opposed to any attempts to rezone it less than SSB-2 – one residence per 2 acres. This property is located less than 150 feet from the 70db contour line, within the racetrack pattern and directly under an Approach/Departure flight track. The requested ADU would be approximately 250 feet from the 70db contour. While the request is for an ADU, MCAS Yuma staff research shows that there is no current residence on this property so in effect the owners are requesting to build two residences on a parcel only zoned for one residence. There is no way to assure that the ADU would be used on an occasional basis for guests or family members only and review of the basic plan includes full-fledged residence with a garage, bedroom, kitchen and living space. Other than the shared road access, both residences have separate driveways that violate the requirements of an ADU per Section 310.00 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance. This separate driveway would make this residence easy to rent also violating the requirements of an ADU. Therefore, the Marine Corps Air Station is not in favor of approval of this special use request as the potential to increase residential density is contrary to the current zoned usage. If this special use request is approved contrary to our recommendation, it is strongly requested that noise level reduction standards be incorporated into the ADU and that an avigation disclosure statement be recorded that recognizes the noise, interference, and vibrations that will occur due to aviation activities performed at the nearby Marine Corps Air Station/Yuma International Airport aviation complex.
• Gen Grosse from the Yuma County Airport Authority made the following comment: The property is located within the 65 dB noise contour and is zoned SSB-2 which allows one home on a 2 acre parcel. The property owner is requesting an ADU which potentially increases the number of people residing within the noise contour. The YCAA strongly discourages incompatible development within the noise contour and is NOT in favor of approval of this special use request as it lends to the potential to increase residential density contrary to the current zoned usage. If this SUP is approved contrary to the YCAA & MCAS Yuma's recommendation, it is strongly requested that noise level reduction standard be incorporated into the ADU and an avigation disclosure statement be recorded recognizing noise, interference and vibrations that will occur due to aviation activities at MCAS Yuma /Yuma International Airport.
Special Use Permit Case No. 18-06 Page 5
Development Evaluation Checklist (DEC): The Development Evaluation Checklist identifies the following Impact Categories: Conformance to Existing Plans; Land Use Compatibility: Natural Resources; Public Infrastructure; Natural Environmental Conditions; Manmade Environmental Conditions; and Health, Safety and Welfare. A point system is used to score whether a proposal should likely be approved or denied. Of a possible maximum score of 300, the total score for this proposal is 280. A score from 275 to 300 represents a proposal that likely should be approved. The proposal is likely to be in compliance with adopted land use plans, policies, and objectives, has good access, and is compatible with surrounding development.
CHRONOLOGY:
07-25-18 Application received 09-05-18 Legal ad appears in the Yuma Sun for the Planning Commission’s public hearing 09-07-18 Public notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of the request, the City of Yuma, and all relevant agencies and stakeholders 09-07-18 Property posted for the Planning Commission’s public hearing 09-14-18 Letter mailed informing applicant of item being placed on the Planning Commission’s public hearing agenda 09-14-18 Staff report mailed to applicant and/or agent 09-27-18 Planning Commission’s public hearing
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following Operational and Performance Conditions for the following reasons: The accessory dwelling unit is not seen as endangering the health, safety and welfare and the proposal is in harmony with the existing surrounding development.
Operational Conditions.
1) The approval of the Special Use Permit is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant. Any change from the site plan will require approval by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 402.04 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance.
2) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented.
Performance Condition.
1) Within 60 days of the Board of Supervisors approval, all owners, or their agents, must provide the following: a. An A.R.S. § 12-1134 waiver b. An a recorded avigation disclosure statement.
General comments from Steve Ponce concerning Special Use Permit (SUP) for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) A.K.A., Guest house, located at 13569 Tierra Mesa Ave. To the Yuma County Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning Commission: When my wife and I decided to develop a property that included a guest home, we chose a lot in Desert Star Estates. We were very familiar with the area as we lived at 3547 E. Moreno Lane in Tierra Mesa Estates for about 7 years (the first street due south of proposed ADU site). We also lived at 13515 Tierra Bonita Blvd for about 5 years (two streets due east of proposed ADU site). We are very aware of the noise and vibration generated by military aircraft from MCAS. We don’t ever remember civilian commercial aircraft from the Yuma International Airport (YIA) posing any noise or vibration issues in the 12 years that we lived in the area of concern. We don’t have any issue with the noise of any aircraft. If aircraft noise was an issue, we wouldn’t be developing a 3rd property in the area.
• For consideration; It is important to know that the [Recorded] Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Desert Star Estates, dated October 11, 2005, allows for a single guesthouse (See CC&Rs, FEE#: 2005 – 44442, Page 11, ARTICLE VI, Part 6.1b). • For consideration; It is important to know that Yuma County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO), Adopted August 21, 2006, also allows for a single guesthouse (See YCZO, Section 310.00, Part D). In summary, we did our due diligence prior to purchasing our lot with the intent of the property including a guest house;
• We already knew and didn’t care about aircraft noise. • We found a recorded document (Desert Star CC&R’S) that supported a guesthouse. • We researched and found a County Government Ordinance that supported a guesthouse. • We collected 12 signatures of support from surrounding neighbors. Using the Reasonable Person Standard, a reasonable person that reviewed the two sources, the CC&R’s and Section 310.00 of the YCZO’s, one could arrive at the conclusion that approval of the permit would be much in our favor. We submitted our application and paid the $750 non- refundable fee and let the process take its course. It didn’t take long and we were surprised at two opposition letters the county received on our behalf; one from MCAS and an identical one from the YCAA which we had no idea were even a part of the permit process. We did not receive any information with the permit application that the permit process would include scrutiny from MCAS and YIA. This information would have been worthy of inclusion with the application.
Comments from Steve Ponce concerning opposition from MCAS The following narrative was copied and pasted from a PDF file received from Mr. Villegas, county Senior Planner, to a word file. It is verbatim. Ponce comments apply to YCAA opposition letter also. MCAS comment The property is located within the 65-70dB DNL noise contour and is zoned SSB-2 which allows one home on a 2-acre parcel. Ponce counter comment The Desert Star CC&R’s [AND] County Ordinance Section 310.00 Parts B, D, F, all allow for an ADU (Guest home) in addition to the primary residence. MCAS comment The property owner is requesting an (ADU) that has the potential of increasing the number of people residing within the noise contour. Ponce counter comment It goes without saying that the number of people residing within the noise contour of the proposed build site will increase once a home is built. I know of no known limit to the number of family members that can occupy a single household. Using a common family size of 5 members, it’s permissible for this family of 5 to occupy one house within this noise contour. Enter a guest home and let’s say the same family of 5 is reduced to only 3 members. The guest home will be occupied by 2, intermittently or year-round, as allowed by Section 310.00. This equates to the same number of 5. What’s the difference? MCAS comment The intent of Arizona Revised States 28-8481 and the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance are to limit residential development within the 65-70db noise contours. Ponce counter comment Military aircraft noise affects the ENTIRE subdivision of both Tierra Mesa and Desert Star Estates. If the identified area of concern was a real concern then those identified lots should never have been made available for development. MCAS comment The property was rezoned in 2000 with RC99-76 from RA-10 to SSB-2 within the 65-70db noise contours. MCAS Yuma has never deviated from our stance not to encourage incompatible development within the noise contours and when this property was rezoned, we were strongly opposed to any attempts to rezone it less than SSB-2 – one residence per 2 acres. Ponce counter comment The CC&R’s of Desert Star Estates, which allows for a guest home, was RECORDED on October 11, 2005, and the YCZO Section 310.00, which allows for a guest home, was adopted on August 21, 2006, 5 and 6 years respectively, after the rezoning in 2000. MCAS comment This property is located less than 150 feet from the 70db contour line, within the racetrack pattern and directly under an Approach/Departure flight track. The requested ADU would be approximately 250 feet from the 70db contour. While the request is for an ADU, MCAS Yuma staff research shows that there is no current residence on this property so in effect the owners are requesting to build two residences on a parcel only zoned for one residence. Ponce counter comment Again, and I emphasize, The Desert Star CC&R’s [AND] County Ordinance Section 310.00 Parts B, D, F, all allow for an ADU (Guest home). MCAS staff research fell a little short; my primary house plans (for one home) have been approved and the home is under construction. The Special Use Permit was applied for after the primary plans were approved so it’s better said that I applied for a permit to build a house, the plans were approved, I paid my fee then I applied for a SUP for guest quarters and paid that fee, all well within the auspices of county ordinance, supported by CC&R’s and, 12 of my future neighbors. MCAS comment There is no way to assure that the ADU would be used on an occasional basis for guests or family members only. Ponce counter comment To clarify, County Ordinance Section 310.00 Part C allows for intermittent or “Year-round” use. And I agree that there is no assurance that an ADU will not be used as a rental property, but the possibility alone should not garner opposition. MCAS comment and review of the basic plan includes full-fledged residence with a garage, bedroom, kitchen and living space. Ponce counter comment County Ordinance Section 310.00 does not offer a list of full-fledged amenities that one can or cannot employ. However, I even questioned the inclusion of a kitchen. I consulted Pat Headington, via e-mail, and learned that a kitchen was permissible. MCAS comment Other than the shared road access, both residences have separate driveways that violate the requirements of an ADU per Section 310.00 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance. Ponce counter comment I thought MCAS’s issues were central to noise. How did they get into the driveway business? The site plan clearly shows a proposed monolithic driveway configuration that constitutes a “Common” driveway that satisfies County Ordinance Section 310.00 Part F. MCAS comment This separate driveway would make this residence easy to rent also violating the requirements of an ADU. Ponce counter comment MCAS seems hell-bent on dwelling on my driveway. Again, there is no separate driveway. And, I don’t care for the accusatory tone referencing the rental concern. I personally went door–to-door and spoke to a dozen neighbors in my immediate area to tell them of the proposal to build a guest house on my property. I declared, in writing, that my guest house would never be a rental. Everyone I spoke to supports my project. My petition was hand-delivered to the county and is on file for review. To the point of making an ADU easier to rent, again, MCAS is basing their decision to oppose my request on a possibility. MCAS comment Therefore, the Marine Corps Air Station is not in favor of approval of this special use request as the potential to increase residential density is contrary to the current zoned usage. Ponce counter comment Again, County Ordinance Section 310.00 allows for an ADU as do the CC&R’s of Desert Star Estates. MCAS comment If this special use request is approved contrary to our recommendation, it is strongly requested that noise level reduction standards be incorporated into the ADU and that an avigation disclosure statement be recorded that recognizes the noise, interference, and vibrations that will occur due to aviation activities performed at the nearby Marine Corps Air Station/Yuma International Airport aviation complex. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ponce counter comment I consulted with Senior Planner, Mr. Villegas, via email, for a definition of what an Avigation disclosure was. My understanding is that it’s basically a disclaimer advising of the noise levels produced by aircraft in the area of concern. I have no issue signing receipt of this information. YCAA The property is located within the 65 dB noise contour and is zoned SSB-2 which allows one home on a 2 acre parcel. The property owner is requesting an ADU which potentially increases the number of people residing within the noise contour. The YCAA strongly discourages incompatible development within the noise contour and is NOT in favor of approval of this special use request as it lends to the potential to increase residential density contrary to the current zoned usage. If this SUP is approved contrary to the YCAA & MCAS Yuma's recommendation, it is strongly requested that noise level reduction standards be incorporated into the ADU and an avigation disclosure statement be recorded recognizing noise, interference and vibrations that will occur due to aviation activities at MCAS Yuma /Yuma International Airport. END
Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan Development Evaluation Checklist
Case No.: SUP 18-06 Owner/Agent: Steve Ponce Parcel #: 1723-55-001 Agent: NONE Current Zoning: SSB-2 Proposed Zoning: ADU Acreage: 1.75 GROSS AC
IMPACT CATEGORY I. YES NO SCORE CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING PLANS 1 The proposal is consistent with the Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan, area plans, 25 0 25 and other applicable county, state, or regional plans. 2 The proposed project reduces open space or rural preservation areas identified in the Yuma County 2020 0 10 10 Comprehensive Plan. 3 The proposed use is consistent and compatible with overlay zoning districts applicable to the subject 10 0 0 parcel such as the Airport District, Gila Mountain, or Visual Corridor overlay zones.
IMPACT CATEGORY II. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 4 The proposed use is the same or similar to the uses 25 0 25 in the surrounding vicinity. 5 The proposed density is the same or similar to the 25 0 25 existing density in the surrounding vicinity. 6 The location of the project is appropriate considering 25 0 25 proximity to existing transportation, shopping, services and employment.
IMPACT CATEGORY III. NATURAL RESOURCES 7 The project, or a part of the project is located within 0 10 10 the 100-year floodplain or floodway. 8 The subject parcel is located in an area of known high 0 5 5 groundwater or a surface water source is present 9 The project will result in the loss of prime and/or 0 15 15 unique farmland.
IMPACT CATEGORY IV. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 10 Adequate improvements to the existing transportation system are proposed (i.e., intersection improvements, road widening, turn lanes, etc.) to accommodate the 15 0 15 anticipated increase in traffic, or the development will not result in an increase in traffic. 11 Any public right-of-way necessary to accommodate the 5 0 5
[Path]SUP18-06 Development Evaluations Chklist.xlsx development has been or is proposed to be dedicated. 12 A traffic impact study is either not required, or if required has been completed indicating the conclusions 5 0 5 and recommendations for improvements. 13 A public or private water system, or an on-site water 5 0 5 source, will adequately serve the proposed development
IMPACT CATEGORY V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 14 The project site contains endangered or threatened animal or plant species, or contains ecologically 0 5 5 sensitive land. 15 The project site contains earthquake fault lines, fissures, cracks, sinkholes, craters, or is within an 0 5 5 earthquake liquefaction area. 16 Soils within the project area are stable and suitable for 5 0 5 the proposed development. 17 There are visual indications of previous slides, slumps or other soil problems (cracked walls and foundations, 0 5 5 tilted trees or fences, settling, flooding, etc.) in the project area. 18 The site contains slopes of 12% or greater. 0 5 5
IMPACT CATEGORY VI. MANMADE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 19 The site contains fossils, artifacts, relics, monuments, 0 5 5 or structures of archaeological or cultural significance. 20 Given the existing noise and estimated future noise levels of the area, the site is appropriate for the 5 0 5 proposed activities and facilities. 21 The project will increase PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less diameter) or other air pollution levels 0 5 5 in the vicinity. 22 The proposed project will release emissions such as nitrates, sulfates, or organic carbons into the air, which 0 15 15 may reasonable be anticipated to causes or contribute to regional haze or impairment of visibility.
IMPACT CATEGORY VII. HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE 23 Physical access to the site is traversable by a two- 15 0 15 wheel drive passenger motor vehicle. 24 Access to or within the site is via a non-paved surface (which increases the amount of particulates such as 0 10 10 soot or dust in the air). 25 Response time for emergency vehicles (Rural/Metro ambulance and fire) is 6 minutes or less, and 10 10 0 0 minutes or less for law enforcement (Sheriff's Dept.).
[Path]SUP18-06 Development Evaluations Chklist.xlsx 26 A legal public right of vehicular ingress and egress 10 0 10 exists to and from the parcel. 27 The proposed land use is an allowed use according to the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance Airport District 10 0 10 Land Use Matrix. 28 Elementary, middle, and high schools serving the subject property will be able to accommodate any 10 0 10 projected enrollment increases within existing capacities.
TOTAL SCORE 280
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE 300
HIGH SCORE MODERATE SCORE LOW SCORE
Total score is 275 to 300. Total score is 250 to 274. Total score is 249 or less
A score falling in this A score falling in this A score falling in this category represents a category represents a category represents a proposal that likely should proposal that likely proposal that likely should be be approved. contains some redeeming denied. qualities but is lacking in The proposal is likely to be one or more areas. The proposal likely does not in compliance with adopted comply with several adopted land use plans, policies, Proposals within this score land use policies, goals, or and objectives, has good range typically should be objectives, may not have access, and is compatible more carefully considered. physical or legal access, or with surrounding development. may not be compatible with surrounding development.
Prepared by: ______Fernando Villegas, S.P. Date: 09/22/18 ver. 1 280
[Path]SUP18-06 Development Evaluations Chklist.xlsx Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission
Item No. 5
AIR-8637 5. P&Z Commission Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2018 Submitted For: Maggie Castro Submitted By: Juan Leal-Rubio Department: Planning & Zoning Division - DDS
Information 1. REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion concerning possible text amendment to the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1108.00--Additional Use Requirements.
2. INTENT: To allow the occupancy of one recreational vehicle upon a lot/parcel for up to four months when the principal residential building is occupied in the following zoning districts: Rural Area, Suburban Ranch, Suburban Site Built, Low Density Residential, and Manufactured Home Subdivision.
3. For detailed analysis see attached staff report 4. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide input on the proposed changes and forward the item to the Board of Supervisors for their input.
Attachments Staff Report Petitions Petitioners Map Yuma Tourism Study AZ Counties Temp RV's
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Yuma County Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner
RE: Discussion concerning possible text amendment to the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, to consider adding a new section, Section 1108.19, to allow one recreational vehicle upon a lot/parcel for up to four (4) months in a twelve (12) month period when the principal residential building is occupied in the following zoning districts: Rural Area, Suburban Ranch, Suburban Site Built, Low Density Residential, and Manufactured Home Subdivision.
DATE: September 18, 2018
In March 2018, the Department of Development Services received 62 letters and petitions requesting the Planning Commission initiate a rezoning pursuant to Section 404.01(C)(2)(c) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO) of 54 parcels in Foothills No. 1 through Foothills No. 4 subdivisions to the Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS) zoning district.
Below is a history detailing two similar actions dating back to 2006:
CI10-01: To rezone the Foothills No. 3 Subdivision from MHS to RVS (denied) The Board of Supervisors unanimously denied the request to rezone Foothills No. 3 Subdivision to RVS. The reason for denial of this request was due to: 1) the rezoning would create the potential for conflict with existing CC&Rs for lot size, 2) the rezoning would allow uses and densities not allowed to the east and north of the subject area, 3) traffic congestion would result from higher and larger vehicle traffic loads, 4) particulate matter levels would rise due to increased traffic loads because the roads in the subdivision are sand/gravel surfaces, and 5) the potential for increased septic system inflows which in turn would cause septic system failures without the existence of public sewer.
CI06-01: To rezone the Foothills No. 4 Subdivision from MHS-10 to RVS (denied) The Board of Supervisors unanimously denied the request to rezone Foothills No. 4 Subdivision to RVS. The reasons for denial of this request include the same reasons outlined on CI10-01 above. There was discussion by the Board of Supervisors after the action on this case was taken regarding methods other than rezoning that could allow visitors to temporarily reside in recreational vehicles, and asked staff to bring this issue before them again for review in the future.
On August 30, 2018, staff met with the leaders/organizers of the recent petition to explore other options that could allow guests to live in a recreational vehicle on a temporary/seasonal basis without the need to rezone the properties to RVS. The needs and demands of the petitioners include wanting the right to have visitors on their properties for short periods of time during the winter season. The YCZO, Section 1107.03(L), allows the use of a recreational vehicle for up to one year with the approval of a Temporary Use Permit and states as follows: Temporary second dwelling unit for guests, relatives and/or caretakers in an RV for a period up to one (1) year. There shall be no extensions allowed and no re- application permitted within twelve (12) months of expiration of such permits. Such temporary second dwelling units shall not be used as rentals.
Pursuant to Section 1107.03(L), any property owner in unincorporated Yuma County is allowed to have a guest living on their property for a period of up to one (1) year with a temporary use permit for a fee of $355.00. The issuance of the temporary use permit requires adherence to all minimum development standards and, as stated, no re-applications are allowed within a 12 month period after expiration. The petitioners feel the $355.00 fee is excessive and believe it is unfair to not be able to apply for the temporary use permit every year or for shorter periods of time when the need arises, especially during the winter season. Attached to this memorandum is a table that summarizes other counties in Arizona which currently allow or do not allow the temporary occupancy of recreational vehicles in residential districts.
Since 2010, a total of six temporary use permits have been approved in Yuma County pursuant to Section 1107.03(L). Prior to the expiration of a temporary use permit, staff mails a letter to the property owner as a reminder that the temporary use permit will soon expire. After the expiration of the temporary use permit, staff inspects the property to ensure the recreational vehicle has been removed from the property. Section 1107.03(L) works well for property owners that need to have guests living in a recreational vehicle up to one year; however, this may not work well for the winter visitors who wish to have guests living on their property in recreational vehicles during the winter season or for shorter periods of time.
Other than rezoning the properties to RVS, staff believes another option is to add a new section to the YCZO to serve a different purpose than what is currently allowed in Section 1107.03(L). Staff feels that adding a new section to allow the temporary/seasonal occupancy of recreational vehicles in residential districts will be more utilized during the winter season when friends, relatives and/or guests visit the Yuma community for short periods of time.
There are some benefits and concerns in allowing the temporary occupancy of one recreational vehicle as a dwelling unit in residential zoning districts. One of the biggest benefits include the economic benefit that winter visitors bring to our local economy since many of these winter guests travel in recreational vehicles and wish to utilize their recreational vehicles to stay with friends or relatives during their temporary stay in the Yuma community. A report produced for the Arizona Department of Tourism in February of 2011, titled “Yuma Area Tourism Study”, collected a total of 1,316 surveys from the Yuma area over a 12-month period from January 2010 through December 2010 to assist the Yuma area tourism community in determining the effect that winter visitors have in the Yume regional economy. The study asserts that only 9.9% of winter visitors extended their stay in second homes or recreational vehicles and that 13.2% traveled in a
2
recreational vehicle. These percentages would indicate that only a small percentage of Yuma visitors utilize recreational vehicles as temporary living quarters.
Some of the major concerns include the same reasons brought up during the process to rezone Foothills No. 3 and No. 4 subdivisions to RVS which include the potential conflict with existing CC&Rs, increase in density, traffic congestion, increase in traffic, and the rise of particulate matter in those areas with unimproved roads during four months of the winter season every year. Another concern is the negative effect this type of ordinance could have on occupancy rates for recreational vehicle parks who rent spaces to winter visitors.
The language below is the proposed new section that could be added to the YCZO:
Section 1108.19
The occupancy of one recreational vehicle is allowed upon a lot/parcel for up to four (4) months in a twelve (12) month period when the principal residential building is occupied in the following zoning districts: Rural Area, Suburban Ranch, Suburban Site Built, Low Density Residential, and Manufactured Home Subdivision.
3
From: Jessica Berube To: Juan Leal Rubio Subject: RE: MH change to RVS with provisions Date: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:34:47 PM
Jessica Berube 1020 Gold Rd Naples, ID 83847 208- 255-9676 ------On Mon, 4/9/18, Juan Leal Rubio
Subject: RE: MH change to RVS with provisions To: "Jessica Berube"
Please provide your phone number and mailing address.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: Jessica Berube [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 3:51 PM To: Juan Leal Rubio
Juan, I Jessica Berube and Jack Tice would also like to be added to the petition to allow rv. use in foothills subdivision #3. I would like to be a contact for our subdivision. THANKS JESSICA BERUBE JACK TICE ------On Mon, 4/9/18, Juan Leal Rubio
Subject: RE: MH change to RVS with provisions To: "Jessica Berube"
Hello Jessica,
Here is a copy of the Z.O.
Thanks,
-----Original Message----- From: Jessica Berube [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 2:15 PM To: Juan Leal Rubio
Hello, thanks for helping me with my questions, I hate to be a pain but just trying to research to come up with a reasonable way to be allowed to have visitors 6 months a year. Just from some research it doesn't seem right the permit use to be app 120 a year to approx 350 for a year to have a visitor. If you also can send me info about the TUP per section 1107.03(L) of the YCZO for a period of one year and TSUP per section 506.00 of the YCZO for a period of 2 years. I also
would like to know how and why they charge that fee. If you could let me know the zoning district and the subdivision name in which my lot is in which is 12560 e 44th st, and how many lots are in that zone, it would be much appreciated at your convenience. As far as some research I have done, it states foothills subdivision #3 was platted in 1968 as 77 lots for single family residential development. Also I would love to work with you in developing a commission initiative to resolve this so we can allow one RV on a lot with one stick built or manufactured home and 2 rvs on an empty lot. I look forward to giving you some input to make this happen. THANKS AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING, JESSICA
------On Thu, 4/5/18, Juan Leal Rubio
Subject: RE: MH change to RVS with provisions To:
"Jessica Berube"
Hello Jessica,
Attached you will find a copy of the petitions, as requested.
Thanks for your patience.
-----Original Message----- From: Jessica Berube
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:24 AM To: Juan Leal Rubio
Hello, this is Jessica Berube at 12560. Could you please send names of petitioners. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME
A
R
FOOTHILLS 5 B D MHS-10 MHS-4.5 MHS-4.5
Y
39TH N
D A
I MHS-10
A
S
S E
L L FOOTHILLS 11 S
RVS E Y
A
M R C MHS-20
A C-2 E
P FOOTHILLS 5 A
H S 40TH
A MHS-4.5 R
MHS-4.5 E D MHS-10
E
N
N MHS-10
A
E
S MHS-4.5 MHS-4.5
R T
L T
40TH L O
FOOTHILLS 4 E MHS-4.5 C
H S
S
40TH MHS-4.5 THE FOOTHILLS
A
R
RA-10 D N 41ST
A
S MHS-20 MHS-10 41ST
T
L L
T MHS-4.5 E
O
A H
C
R 41ST MHS-10 S 41S S T
D
N
E
MHS-4.5 A E MHS-10 S MHS-20 N
E MHS-4.5
R
A L MHS-6 MHS-10
U
42ND A 42ND
P MHS-4.5 MHS-4.5 MHS-4.5
E
R
E E 42ND FOOTHILLS 3 42ND
N
T
E
N
R
U
A
H
R
D
N
A MHS-4.5 S MHS-10 43RD 43RD MHS-4.5 MHS-10 MHS-10 MHS-10 FOOTHILLS 2 MHS-4.5 MHS-10
MHS-4.5 MHS-10 MHS-10 44TH
R
E
T 44TH 44TH C-2
N
U
A
H
L
U
FOOTHILLS A
P MOBILE EST 25 45TH STATE OF AZ
Y
D
I
45TH A
S RVS L C-1
I
S
E
A
H
C
S
DEPARTMENT OF CASE NO: TBD DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: FOOTHILLS NO. 1- 4 SERVICES ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: VARIOUS PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION 2351 W. 26TH STREET Legend YUMA, AZ 85364 CASE PLANNER: JUAN L. RUBIO Subject Properties DATE UPDATED: 9-5-2018 660' Radius REVIEWD BY: SERGIO P. µ Subdivision FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO LIABILITY ASSUMED SCALE: 1" =500' Zoning
Yuma Area Tourism Study
Photo Courtesy of the Arizona Office of Tourism
Produced for the Arizona Office of Tourism
By the
Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center Center for Business Outreach The W.A. Franke College of Business Northern Arizona University
February 2011
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the people who helped to make this study possible. First, thanks go to Melissa Elkins, Research Manager at the Arizona Office of Tourism, for recognizing the critical role that these local visitor studies play in understanding tourism in rural Arizona communities. Without this market research, Arizona cities and towns outside the Phoenix area would have little or no data on which to base their marketing placement decisions. Next, we want to recognize the tourism “champions” in Yuma who worked diligently throughout the year to collect a laudable number of completed visitor surveys. First we want to thank Bob Ingram, former Executive Director, and Ann Walker, Public Relations Specialist, at the Yuma Visitors Bureau for their help launching this project and generating support in the local tourism community. We also extend our appreciation to Susan Sternitzke, current Executive Director for the Yuma Visitors Bureau, for her oversight as the project came to completion. In particular, we want to thank Jean Hinton of the Yuma Visitor Center and the Yuma Chamber of Commerce for acting as Survey Coordinator; Jean was the go‐to person to see that surveys were completed and returned to us at Northern Arizona University. Also, Jeanine Rhea, the General Manager of the Hampton Inn, outperformed all other survey sites in producing completed surveys. The participation and cooperation of staff at all the survey collection sites were of great importance – kudos everyone! Their dedicated personnel interacted directly with visitors to insure that survey forms were completed according to the survey schedule.
Finally, special thanks to all the visitors to the Yuma area who agreed to complete visitor surveys as part of their trips to the area. Without their help this report would not have been possible.
The AHRRC team:
Cheryl Cothran, AHRRC Director Thomas Combrink, Senior Research Specialist Melinda Bradford, Research Technician
2
Executive Summary
This survey of visitors to the Yuma area of Arizona was undertaken in an effort to gather more reliable regional data than is available from statewide or national panel surveys which contain too few cases to reliably represent area visitation. This survey process collected a total of 1,316 surveys from the Yuma area over a 12‐month period from January 2010 through December 2010 – a more than sufficient sample size to produce high confidence in these results. This information will assist the Yuma area tourism community with targeted marketing efforts, product development, and advocacy for an industry that is critical to the health of the regional economy. The general profile of Yuma visitors is one of adult visitor parties, largely Baby Boomers who are from California or the Greater Phoenix area, and who overwhelmingly stay overnight in the area. Located between the Phoenix metro area and the California beach cities, these visitors visit museums, cultural and historic sites, explore Yuma’s Historic Downtown District, the Quartermaster Depot, Yuma Territorial Prison and Pivot Point. Many visitors are attracted by Yuma’s warm winter weather and appreciate the friendly attitude of local residents.
A summary of the specific findings of the Yuma visitor survey follows:
• Data for this tourism survey were collected at a number of locations in the community of Yuma. • Male (50.5%) and female (49.5%) visitors were evenly represented in the survey sample. • The average age of visitors was 51 years (median 53 years), with no difference in age by gender. • The average party size was 2.6 people (1.6 men, 1.3 women). Only 9.2 percent of parties traveled with children under the age of 18 years; for parties that did contain children, the average was one child. • The majority of visitors (42.9%) traveled in family groups, while 12.3 percent traveled in groups of family and friends, or friends‐only parties (8.4%). A large percentage of visitors traveled alone (24.4%), perhaps representing those on business trips. • Travelers to the Yuma area had average annual household incomes of $73,355, only slightly below that for Arizona visitors overall ($76,000 in 2009). • For two‐thirds of visitors (66.7%) the Yuma area was the primary destination of their trip, while for one‐third of visitors (33.3%) it was not the primary destination. • The most notable primary destinations other than Yuma were locations in California (46.4%) or other Arizona communities (29.5%). Overall, San Diego, CA ranked highest among other primary destinations. • The largest percentage of visitors in the sample were on Business trips (29.5%), followed by Just passing through (21.9%), Vacation/leisure trips (14.4%), Visiting friends and relatives (14.0%) or on Extended stays in second homes or RVs (9.9%). • Three‐fourths of visitors to the Yuma area (75.5%) traveled in an automobile – 57.6% in a private car and 17.9% in a rental car; in addition, 13.2% traveled in a RV/Camper, 7.4% by airplane, and 2.3% by motorcycle. • Day visitors spent an average of 3.6 hours in the Yuma area while overnight visitors spent an average of 2.7 nights.
3
• Those visitors who did stay overnight in the area used a variety of accommodations: 73.7% stayed in a hotel or motel, 12.8% in a campground or RV Park, 7.7% in the homes of friends and family, and 3.4% in a second home. Those on extended stays in second homes (59 days) or in RV parks or campground (35 days) had the longest average lengths of stay. • In terms of visitor origins, one‐fourth of visitors to the Yuma area came from Arizona (26.9%), while an almost equal number (25.2%) came from California. After California, the other top 10 states for domestic visitors included: Washington, Texas, Oregon, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Nevada, Maryland and Virginia. In all, visitors from 47 U.S. states and Puerto Rico were captured in the survey. • Within Arizona, visitors from communities in the Greater Phoenix area accounted for about half (48.1%) of Yuma area visitors, while another 25% were from Pima County, another important market. In all, 64 Arizona cities and towns appeared in the sample. • Among foreign visitors, Canadians accounted for the overwhelming majority at 70.3%, while visitors from the United Kingdom provided 11.9% of visitors. No other foreign source contributed more than five percent of visitors. In all, 11 countries were represented in the survey sample. • Visitors had considerable expenditures in the Yuma area. Average per‐party per‐day expenditures by category included: lodging ($117), restaurant and grocery ($65), transportation including gas ($48), shopping or arts and crafts purchases ($61), recreation‐tour‐entrance fees or permits ($45), and “other” ($206). • When expenditures were correlated with trip purpose, Event/conference/meeting visitors had the highest average expenditures per‐party per‐day ($279), followed by combination business/leisure ($273), business trips ($269), and outdoor recreation ($263). • In general, visitors are most interested in cultural and historic sites, visiting parks and recreational areas, and visiting museums and galleries, followed by hiking or walking trails; these were the same activities they did participate in on the trip to Yuma. • The most‐visited area attraction was the Historic Downtown Yuma Riverfront, visited by 67.2% of all visitors, followed closely by Yuma Territorial Prison (61.0%). Next most‐visited sites were: Yuma Quartermaster Depot (42.3%), Cocopah, Paradise or Quechan casinos (33.3%), Martinez Lake or Fisher’s Landing (27.0%), and Imperial Sand Dunes NRA (23.2%). • The two main sources of visitor information were Family/friends and co‐workers or word‐of‐ mouth (51.1%), along with a sizeable one‐fourth of visitors who obtained area information from some other source (28.4%). Next, were Web /Online sources (13.7%), followed by Visitor Center/brochure rack (12.9%) and Guide books (10.4%). • Visitors to the Yuma area evidenced a high degree of satisfaction with their trips. Overall satisfaction levels with visitor experiences in the Yuma area averaged 8.25 out of a possible 10, with the median at 8.0. Visitors also rated value for money in Yuma at 8.0 out of 10. • Fully 93.2% said they would plan a return visit to Yuma and 9 of 10 visitors (87.8%) said they would recommend a visit to Yuma to their friends and family.
4
• When asked to comment on what they like best and least about Yuma, visitors most liked the winter weather and sunshine and the friendly people. They liked least the hot and dusty weather (most likely in summer) and delays caused by traffic and road construction. • Visitors to the Yuma area had an estimated $139.2 million in direct expenditures, which resulted in an indirect economic impact of $26.5 million, and induced impact of $61.3 million for a total economic impact of $226.9 million. Indirect business taxes based on direct expenditures produced an additional $20.5 million and the total economic impact supported 1,818 direct jobs or 2,688 direct, indirect and induced jobs.
5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Yuma Area Tourism Study ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 Research Methods ...... 10 Sample Description ...... 13 Gender ...... 13 Age ...... 13 Gender by Age ...... 15 Travel Party ...... 16 Party Type ...... 17 Annual Income ...... 18 How Did You Hear About Yuma? ...... 19 Yuma Area Survey Results ...... 21 Primary Destination ...... 21 Primary Purpose of your visit to the Yuma Area...... 22 What is your primary mode of transportation?...... 23 How much time in total did you spend in the Yuma area?...... 23 What type of lodging did you use during your stay? ...... 28 In what city did you spend last night? ...... 29 In what city will you stay tonight? ...... 30 Geographic Origins of Yuma Area Visitors ...... 31 Visitor Spending ...... 36 What attractions do you plan to visit in the Yuma Area? ...... 43 Overall satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area ...... 45 Overall satisfaction with the value for money for the Yuma area ...... 46 Would you plan a return trip to Yuma? ...... 48 Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to friends or family? ...... 49 What did you like Best and Least about Yuma?...... 50 Appendix A: ...... 51 Survey Questionnaire ...... 51 Appendix B: ...... 54 Regional Economic Impacts of the Yuma area Tourism Survey ...... 54 Introduction ...... 55 Economic Impact Analysis Methods ...... 55 Regional Expenditure Results ...... 56 Regional Economic Impact Analysis Results ...... 59 Discussion...... 59 Appendix C: ...... 60 Quarterly Tables ...... 60 Appendix D ...... 102
6
List of Tables
TABLE 1. LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED ...... 11 TABLE 2. PLEASE INDICATE THE CURRENT MONTH ...... 11 TABLE 3. SURVEY PERCENTAGES BY CALENDAR QUARTER ...... 12 TABLE 4. WHAT IS YOUR GENDER? ...... 13 TABLE 5. AGE RANGES OF VISITORS ...... 13 TABLE 5A. AGE RANGES OF VISITORS ...... 14 TABLE 6. AGE RANGE OF VISITORS BY GENDER ...... 15 TABLE 7. HOW MANY PERSONS, INCLUDING YOURSELF, ARE IN THE PARTY? ...... 16 TABLE 8. WHO IS TRAVELING WITH YOU ON THIS TRIP? ...... 17 TABLE 9. WHO IS TRAVELING WITH YOU BY PARTY SIZE? ...... 17 TABLE 10. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? ...... 18 TABLE 11. HOW DID YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR THE YUMA AREA? ...... 20 TABLE 12. IS THE YUMA AREA THE PRIMARY DESTINATION OF YOUR TRIP? ...... 21 TABLE 13. IF YUMA IS NOT THE PRIMARY DESTINATION OF YOUR TRIP, WHAT IS THE PRIMARY DESTINATION? ...... 21 TABLE 14. WHAT BEST DESCRIBES THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP TO THE YUMA AREA? ...... 22 TABLE 15. WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION? ...... 23 TABLE 16. HOW MANY HOURS WILL YOU SPEND IN THE YUMA AREA ON THIS TRIP? ...... 23 TABLE 17. HOW MANY NIGHTS, IN TOTAL, WILL YOU SPEND IN THE YUMA AREA ON THIS TRIP? ...... 25 TABLE 18. HOW MANY NIGHTS, IN TOTAL, WILL YOU SPEND IN THE YUMA AREA ON THIS TRIP? ...... 26 TABLE 18A. HOW MANY NIGHTS, IN TOTAL, WILL YOU SPEND IN THE YUMA AREA ON THIS TRIP‐BUSINESS VS LEISURE? ...... 26 TABLE 19. WHAT TYPE OF LODGING DID YOU STAY IN? ...... 28 TABLE 20. IN WHAT CITY DID YOU SPEND LAST NIGHT? ...... 30 TABLE 21. IN WHAT CITY WILL YOU STAY TONIGHT? ...... 30 TABLE 22. STATE OF ORIGIN OF YUMA VISITORS ...... 31 TABLE 22. STATE OF ORIGIN OF YUMA VISITORS…CONTINUED ...... 32 TABLE 23. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF ARIZONA VISITORS TO THE YUMA AREA ...... 33 TABLE 23. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF ARIZONA VISITORS TO THE YUMA AREA…CONTINUED ...... 34 TABLE 23A. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF CALIFORNIA VISITORS TO THE YUMA AREA ...... 35 TABLE 24. ORIGINS OF FOREIGN VISITORS TO THE YUMA AREA...... 36 TABLE 24A. CANADIAN TRAVELERS‐LENGTH OF STAY ...... 36 TABLE 25. PLEASE ESTIMATE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOUR TRAVEL PARTY IS SPENDING PER DAY IN THE YUMA AREA? ...... 37 TABLE 26. PRIMARY PURPOSE OF TRIP BY AVERAGE PER PARTY EXPENDITURES PER DAY...... 38 TABLE 27. PRIMARY PURPOSE OF TRIP BY AVERAGE PER‐PARTY EXPENDITURES PER DAY...... 39 TABLE 27A. PRIMARY PURPOSE OF TRIP BY AVERAGE PER‐PARTY EXPENDITURES PER DAY‐BUSINESS VS. LEISURE...... 39 TABLE 28. TELL US HOW INTERESTED YOU ARE IN PARTICIPATING IN THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES ...... 41 TABLE 29. WHAT ACTIVITIES DID/WILL YOU PARTICIPATE IN? ...... 42 TABLE 30. ATTRACTIONS YOU HAVE OR PLAN TO VISIT IN THE YUMA AREA? ...... 43 TABLE 31. INFORMATION SOURCES FOR YUMA AREA ...... 44 TABLE 32. RATE YOUR OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE YUMA AREA ...... 45 TABLE 33. RATE YOUR OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE VALUE FOR MONEY OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE YUMA AREA ...... 47 TABLE 34. WOULD YOU PLAN A RETURN VISIT TO YUMA? ...... 48 TABLE 35. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A VISIT TO YUMA TO YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY? ...... 49 TABLE B1. ESTIMATE OF PER PERSON PER DAY EXPENDITURES FOR DAY AND OVERNIGHT YUMA AREA VISITORS...... 57
7
TABLE B2. ESTIMATE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR DAY AND OVERNIGHT YUMA AREA VISITORS...... 58 TABLE B3. EFFECTS AND MULTIPLIERS OF $139.2 MILLION OF REGIONAL EXPENDITURES BY YUMA AREA VISITORS ...... 59
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. AGE RANGES OF YUMA AREA VISITORS ...... 14 FIGURE 2. AGE RANGES BY GENDER ...... 16 FIGURE 3. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? ...... 19 FIGURE 4. AVERAGE HOURS SPENT IN THE YUMA AREA ...... 24 FIGURE 5. HOW MANY NIGHTS DID YOU SPEND IN THE YUMA AREA? ...... 25 FIGURE 6. AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY PRIMARY REASON OF VISIT ...... 27 FIGURE 7. AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY ACCOMMODATION TYPE ...... 29 FIGURE 8. OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE YUMA AREA ...... 46 FIGURE 9. OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE VALUE FOR MONEY OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE YUMA AREA ...... 47 FIGURE 10. WOULD YOU PLAN A RETURN TRIP TO YUMA? ...... 48 FIGURE 11. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A VISIT TO YUMA TO YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY? ...... 49
8
Yuma Area Tourism Study
Introduction
The tourism and hospitality industries are vitally important to the economic growth and stability of the U.S. economy. Tourism is the nation’s top services export, one of the top three industries, and one of the nation’s largest employers. In Arizona, the 2008‐09 recession demonstrated once again how central tourism is as an economic driver and generator of tax revenue for the state and local economies. Going forward, Arizona’s rural communities will be looking for ways to revive and reinvigorate their tourism offerings and this research can be an important part of that effort. Research of this type is a crucial tool to inform and help guide local communities in their product development and tourism promotion efforts.
Advertising is expensive and promotional dollars are increasingly scarce, requiring targeted marketing to the most receptive and productive market segments. The more information a region or community has about its current visitors, their experiences and travel patterns, the more accuracy can be applied in continuing to attract similar visitors or reaching out to new markets. What are the demographics of Yuma visitors, where do they come from, what products attract them to the area, what is the level of satisfaction with the visitor experience, how can it be improved, how can stays be extended, and what do industry insiders see as emerging trends?
The Yuma area could be characterized as a developed tourism region with the potential to appeal to the historic‐cultural visitor and outdoor recreation enthusiasts. It is home to some unique tourist attractions, such as Yuma Prison State Park, Historic Downtown Yuma, and numerous special events, such as the Historic Home Tours, Midnight at the Oasis, and other events that highlight the area’s historic importance as a trade center. The Yuma area is also home to a variety of unique natural resources such as Martinez Lake, The Imperial National Wildlife Center and the Colorado River. Yuma offers a wide variety of developed campgrounds that provide climate relief and recreation opportunities to populations of winter visitors or “snowbirds.”
The data gathered in this survey forms a picture of tourism in the Yuma area of Arizona that can help shape the tourism planning efforts of neighboring communities as well and attractions that form “Arizona’s West Coast.” With the data from this report, the Yuma area can pursue regional marketing strategies and develop products that will entice new visitors, lengthen their stays in the area and increase the economic impact of tourism. Finally, the data in this study will allow Yuma area tourism leaders to aggressively pursue sources of outside funding for tourism promotion and use these marketing dollars to further a regional tourism vision.
9
Research Methods
In 2010 the Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) contracted with the Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center (AHRRC) at Northern Arizona University to conduct research on tourism in the Yuma area as part of an ongoing plan to gather regional and community‐based tourism data statewide. An information meeting to discuss the tourism survey was convened by AOT in Yuma to introduce tourism leaders and representatives of the City of Yuma to the idea of the survey. AOT indicated that it was willing to fund the community surveys if the communities were willing to “champion” a local effort and muster volunteers to help distribute and collect surveys according to a prescribed survey schedule, and to promote the project among their respective constituents. All representatives present agreed to participate and were eager for the opportunity to receive area‐specific tourism data.
The Yuma area tourism survey was designed by the professional staff at the AHRRC in conjunction with the AOT research staff and representatives of Yuma tourism businesses. The instrument was developed in Teleform™, a computerized scanning program that affords rapid data capture of the completed questionnaires. The two‐page survey was developed to obtain information on visitors’ origins, demographics, activities in the area, attractions visited, reasons for visiting, travel patterns, information sources and expenditures made in the various communities. The surveys were collected according to a seasonally‐adjusted stratified sample based on historic visitation patterns. The collection schedule was randomized to ensure that surveys were distributed on both weekdays and weekends. Each participating survey site was provided a fixed number of surveys to be distributed and collected according to a predetermined survey schedule. Over the course of the year‐long study, surveys were collected during one week of each month.
The survey was designed to be self‐administered, i.e., Visitors Bureau, lodging or attraction staff handed the survey to visitors who completed and returned it to staff. Completed surveys were forwarded to NAU on a monthly basis. The identified community tourism leader was responsible for distributing the surveys to the various participating entities, according to the survey schedule. The tourism leaders were invaluable in this process as they also encouraged participation in the survey and returned data to NAU once collected. The hard work of those in the area resulted in a substantial sample; and, the larger the sample, the greater confidence in its findings. A total of 1,316 surveys were collected for the year, for a response rate of 53.6 percent with a 95% confidence level and +‐5% margin of error. Tourism champions are to be commended for their hard work and terrific results. The remainder of this report presents combined results for the Yuma area.
Data for the Yuma area survey were collected in Yuma and the surrounding area. Various sites such as the Quartermaster Depot, Hampton Inn, and the Imperial Wildlife Center collected the majority of surveys. See Table 1 for survey locations.
10
Table 1. Locations in which the survey was administered
Count Percent The Visitor Bureau 60 4.6% Quartermaster Depot 291 22.1% Basket Creations 38 2.9% Sanguinetti House Museum 26 2.0% Clarion Suites 25 1.9% Hampton Inn 625 47.5% Hilton Gardens 62 4.7% The Peanut Patch 17 1.3% Imperial National Wildlife Center 76 5.8% Yuma Potpourri Artists Jan 19-30, 2010 9 .7% Midnight at the Oasis March 5-6, 2010 22 1.7% Desert Hills Golf Tournament, March 11, 2010 48 3.6% Unidentified 17 1.3% Total 1316 100.0%
Table 2 shows the number of surveys collected by month during the year‐long survey, and Table 3 shows the percentage of surveys collected monthly by calendar quarter in the Yuma area.
Table 2. Please indicate the current month
Count Percent January 2010 111 8.4% February 2010 64 4.9% March 2010 205 15.6% April 2010 122 9.3% May 2010 90 6.8% June 2010 104 7.9% July 2010 108 8.2% August 2010 133 10.1% September 2010 92 7.0% October 2010 113 8.6% November 2010 123 9.3% December 2010 51 3.9% Total 1316 100.0%
11
See findings in Table 3 for quarterly results.
Table 3. Survey percentages by calendar quarter
Calendar quarter of Survey July to October to January to April to June September December March 2010 2010 2010 2010
January 2010 29.2% February 2010 16.8% March 2010 53.9% April 2010 38.6% May 2010 28.5% June 2010 32.9% July 2010 32.4% August 2010 39.9% September 2010 27.6% October 2010 39.4% November 2010 42.9% December 2010 17.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12
Sample Description
Demographics are an important part of visitor research, as they describe visitor age, gender, party composition and household income. Together these demographic variables paint a portrait of the typical visitors. This section provides information on overall visitors to the Yuma area.
Gender Even numbers of males (50.5%) and females (49.5%) were captured in the sample, each representing half the sample. See Table 4.
Table 4. What is your gender?
Count Percent
Female 603 49.5%
Male 616 50.5%
Total 1219 100.0%
Age How old is the average visitor to the Yuma area? We know that age is a central determinant of tourism product offerings; older visitors are generally more likely to engage in certain activities, such as visiting cultural and historic sites, whereas younger visitors are likely to engage in more active pursuits, such as mountain biking or rock climbing; however, as with any generalization exceptions may be present.
The average (mean) age of visitors is 51.1 years, making Yuma area visitors older than the overall average of 46.8 years for Arizona visitors generally. [Note: State data used for comparisons in this report were obtained from the Arizona Office of Tourism annual report, “Arizona 2009 Tourism Facts: Year End Summary.”] The median age (or mid‐point of the distribution) is 53.0 years, or slightly higher than the average age indicating the prevalence of older age cohorts. In fact, when the 51 to 65 year age groups, essentially Baby Boomers, are combined they account for well over one third (38.4%) of all visitors. Another third of visitors (35.7%) were between 31 and 50 years, while 16.4 percent were over age 65. The youngest visitors, those 30 years of age and under, accounted for a relatively minor portion (9.6%) of the sample. See Table 5 and Figure 1.
Table 5. Age ranges of visitors
Valid Mean Median Number
Yuma visitors 51.1 53.0 1074 age in years
13
Table 5a. Age ranges of visitors
Count Percent
20 and under 22 2.0%
21 - 25 years 31 2.9%
26 - 30 years 50 4.7%
31 - 35 years 85 7.9%
36 - 40 years 84 7.8%
41 - 45 years 94 8.8%
46 - 50 years 120 11.2%
51 - 55 years 129 12.0%
56 - 60 years 149 13.9%
61 - 65 years 134 12.5%
66 - 70 years 96 8.9%
71 - 75 years 45 4.2%
76 years and older 35 3.3%
Total 1074 100.0%
Figure 1. Age ranges of Yuma area visitors
Age Ranges of Yuma Area Visitors
38.4% 35.7%
16.4%
9.6%
< 30 years 31 ‐ 50 years 51 to 65 years 66+ years
14
Gender by Age Are there any age differences between male and female visitors? No ‐ male and female visitors are essentially the same age, with males at 50.9 years and female visitors at 51.1 years. See Table 6, and Figure 2.
Table 6. Age range of visitors by gender
Age by Gender Female Male Percent Percent 20 and under 3.1% 1.1% 21 - 25 years 2.7% 3.1% 26 - 30 years 4.9% 4.4% 31 - 35 years 7.2% 7.9% 36 - 40 years 7.2% 8.6% 41 - 45 years 8.0% 9.6% 46 - 50 years 10.9% 11.8% 51 - 55 years 11.9% 12.3% 56 - 60 years 13.8% 14.2% 61 - 65 years 15.2% 10.3% 66 - 70 years 9.3% 8.1% 71 - 75 years 3.5% 4.6% 76 years and older 2.3% 4.0% Total 100.0% 100.0%
Mean Age by Gender: Male (50.9 years); Female (51.1 years)
15
Figure 2. Age ranges by gender
Age Ranges by Gender (%) 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 20 and 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 31 ‐ 35 36 ‐ 40 41 ‐ 45 46 ‐ 50 51 ‐ 55 56 ‐ 60 61 ‐ 65 66 ‐ 70 71 ‐ 75 76 under years years years years years years years years years years years years and older
Female Male
Travel Party What is the average visitor party size? On average, 1.3 women and 1.6 men appeared in the average party which consisted of 2.6 people. This matches the state overall average party size of 2.7 persons. Only 9.2 percent of parties indicated that they traveled to the Yuma area with children under the age of 18. Those parties that did include children averaged one (1.0) child per party. All this data suggests that the Yuma area currently is more a destination for adults than it is for families with children, presenting a possible opportunity for future growth and product development. See Table 7.
Table 7. How many persons, including yourself, are in the party?
Mean Median Number of women? 1.3 1.0 Number of men? 1.6 1.0 Number of children under 18 years? .7 .0 Total number of people in your travel party? 2.6 2.0
16
Party Type What is the composition of visitor travel parties to the Yuma area? The majority of survey respondents traveled as family only groups (42.9%), followed by those traveling alone (24.4%), and groups of family and friends (12.3%). Those traveling with business associates (11.3%), friends only (8.4%), or organized tours (0.8%) accounted for the remaining percentages. See Table 8.
Table 8. Who is traveling with you on this trip?
Count Percent Family Only 511 42.9% Nobody, traveling alone 290 24.4% Family and Friends 146 12.3% Business Associates 134 11.3% Friends Only 100 8.4% Organized Tour Group 9 .8% Total 1190 100.0%
Which types of travel parties contain the largest number of persons? Not surprisingly, organized tour groups led with an average of 18.1 persons per party – however, very few of these party types were captured in the sample. On the other hand, 43 percent of all parties consisted of Family only, and these averaged 2.4 persons per party. Those traveling with Friends only had larger party sizes, at 4.0 persons, while those traveling with Business Associates had similarly large parties of 3.5 persons. Those traveling with Family and Friends also had relatively large parties – 3.5 persons on average – but they accounted for fewer visitors than Family only. See Table 9.
Table 9. Who is traveling with you by party size?
Total number of people in your travel party?
Mean Number Business Associates 3.5 127 Organized Tour Group 18.1 9 Nobody, traveling alone 1.0 282 Friends Only 4.0 99 Family Only 2.4 495 Family and Friends 3.5 142
17
Annual Income The average household income of visitors to the Yuma area was $73,355, which is just slightly under the average for overnight visitors to Arizona, which was $76,000 in 2009 (latest available). The most striking result is that more than one‐third – 37.3% – earned more than $95,000 annually, suggesting a potential market for resort and luxury properties in the area. Note that the highest annual HH income provided in the scale below topped out at $95,000 and was used in calculating the overall mean. Scales used in developing the Arizona statewide average Income of $76,000 were different and included a high‐end scale up to $150,000. Therefore, these numbers are not directly comparable and the resulting Yuma visitor income is likely somewhat conservative. See Table 10 and Figure 3.
Table 10. Which of the following categories best describes your annual household income?
Count Percent Less than $15,000 18 1.7% $15,000 to $24,999 25 2.4% $25,000 to $34,999 45 4.3% $35,000 to $44,999 50 4.8% $45,000 to $54,999 112 10.7% $55,000 to $64,999 98 9.4% $65,000 to $74,999 127 12.1% $75,000 to $84,999 110 10.5% $85,000 to $94,999 71 6.8% $95,000 and above 390 37.3% Total 1046 100.0%
Mean household income = $73,355
18
Figure 3. Annual Household Income?
What is your annual household income?
37%
12% 11% 11% 9% 7% 4% 5% 2% 2%
Less than $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $45,000 to $55,000 to $65,000 to $75,000 to $85,000 to $95,000 $15,000 $24,999 $34,999 $44,999 $54,999 $64,999 $74,999 $84,999 $94,999 and above
How Did You Hear About Yuma? The next question on the survey form asked respondents how they heard about the Yuma area. The findings show that a majority of visitors (51.1%) heard about the area from Friends, Family or Co‐ workers – in other words, by word‐of‐mouth, which is the most common way that travelers everywhere say they hear about destinations. This was followed by “Other” at 28.4%. Next in importance as a source of information was Web sites or Online, used by 13.7% of visitors. This was followed by visitor center or brochure rack at 12.9%, and by guide books at 10.4%. An additional 3.4% heard about the Yuma area from a newspaper or magazine article. A complete list of “Other” sources is included in Appendix D. A large percentage (31%) of these listed the Quartermaster Depot, which is also the current site of the Yuma Visitors Bureau, as an important source. See Table 11.
19
Table 11. How did you obtain information for the Yuma area?
Count Percent Friends Family or Co-workers 553 51.1% Other 307 28.4% Web site or online 148 13.7% Visitor center or brochure rack 140 12.9% Guide Book 113 10.4% Newspaper or Magazine 37 3.4% Total 1082 100.0%
20
Yuma Area Survey Results
Primary Destination Was the Yuma area a primary destination for most visitors, or was it one stop on a longer trip? For two‐ thirds of all visitors (66.7%) Yuma was their primary destination. Yuma was, however, not the main trip destination for a third (33%) of visitors, but one stop on a longer trip. See Table 12.
Table 12. Is the Yuma area the primary destination of your trip?
Count Percent Yes 849 66.7% No 423 33.3% Total 1272 100.0%
Those respondents who said that the Yuma area was not their primary destination were asked to indicate where they were headed on the trip. The largest group of visitors – almost half (46.4%) – indicated that they were on their way to California, mainly the San Diego or San Francisco areas. About one‐third (29.5%) were on their way to other Arizona communities, among which Phoenix was the most popular. A significant number of visitors (17%) were headed for other US states, while 7.1% were on their way to Mexico. See Table 13. The complete list of other destinations is in Appendix D.
Table 13. If Yuma is not the primary destination of your trip, what is the primary destination?
If Yuma was not, what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent California 189 46.4% Arizona 120 29.5% Other state 69 17.0% Mexico 29 7.1% Total 407 100.0%
21
Primary Purpose of your visit to the Yuma Area People visit communities for a variety of reasons, including leisure, business, or a combination of both, while others are simply passing through en route to other destinations. What are the primary reasons visitors come to the Yuma area? Not surprisingly given its proximity to the Yuma Proving Grounds and the Marine Corps Air Station, Business Trips (29.5%) were the most popular trip purpose for visitors to the Yuma area. This is in contrast to data from the Arizona Office of Tourism which reports leisure travel and visiting friends & relatives as the most common trip purposes for visitors to Arizona. Second, were people Just Passing Through (21.9%), followed by visitors who were on Vacation/Leisure/Sightseeing (14.4%) trips. Next, were those Visiting friends & relatives (VFR) (14.0%), followed by those on Extended Stays in a second home or RV (9.9%). Much smaller percentages of visitors were visiting Yuma for other reasons, including Event, Conference, Meeting (6.0%), Outdoor Recreation (5.2%), combination Business/Leisure (3.3%), or were previewing the area for Relocation or Retirement reasons (2.9%).
If we combine the categories below into either Business (Business trip, Event‐Conference‐Meeting, and Combination of Business and Leisure Travel) or Leisure (Just Passing Through, Vacation‐Leisure‐ Sightseeing, Visiting Friends and/or Relatives, Extended Stay, Outdoor Recreation, Possible Relocation or Retirement) the results do suggest an overall greater number of Leisure travelers in the sample (68.3%) compared to Business travelers (38.8%). Note that a limited number of visitors did mark multiple responses so that the sum is greater than 100%. See Table 14.
Table 14. What best describes the primary purpose of your trip to the Yuma area?
Count Percent Business trip 382 29.5% Just Passing Through 284 21.9% Vacation/Leisure/Sightseeing 187 14.4% Visiting Friends and/or Relatives 182 14.0% Extended Stay (second home or RV) 128 9.9% Event, Conference, Meeting 78 6.0% Outdoor Recreation 67 5.2% Combination of Business and Leisure Travel 43 3.3% Possible Relocation or Retirement 38 2.9% Total 1297 107.1%
22
What is your primary mode of transportation? How do visitors get to the Yuma area? Three‐fourths of all visitors (75.5%) arrived by automobile – either Private Autos (57.6%) or Rental Cars (17.9%). A substantial percentage (13.2%) arrived by RV/Camper or by Plane/air service (7.4%). The remainder arrived by Motorcycle (2.3%), Other (1.4%) and Tour Bus (0.2%). See Table 15.
Table 15. What is your primary mode of transportation?
Count Percent Private Auto 740 57.6% Rental Vehicle 230 17.9% RV/Camper 169 13.2% Plane/air service 95 7.4% Motorcycle 29 2.3% Other 18 1.4% Tour Bus 3 .2% Total 1284 100.0%
How much time in total did you spend in the Yuma area? Length of stay is always an important factor in any tourism study because it greatly affects economic impact. How long did visitors spend in this area? Respondents were asked to indicate whether they spent either hours or nights in the Yuma area. Only a small minority of respondents (5.5%) described themselves as day visitors, those staying 12 or fewer hours, while about 9 out of 10 visitors (86.1%) were overnight visitors. (Day and overnight visitors combine to 91.6% of the sample; note that 8.4% of visitors did not respond to this question on length of stay.) For those who were day visitors, the single largest group (54.7%) spent between one and three hours in the region, while about one third of visitors (37.5%) spent four to seven hours. The average length of stay for day visitors was 3.6 hours. See Table 16 and Figure 4.
Table 16. How many hours will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip?
Count Percent 1 - 3 hours 35 54.7% 4-7 hours 24 37.5% 8+ hours 5 7.8% Total 64 100.0%
23
Figure 4. Average hours spent in the Yuma area
If a day trip how many hours are you spending in the Yuma area?
55%
38%
8%
1 ‐ 3 hours 4‐7 hours 8+ hours
Mean: 3.6 hours
As noted previously, only a small percentage (5.5%) of visitors identified themselves as day visitors. The largest single cohort of visitors (37.9%) stayed in the area one night, while the next largest group of visitors (17.9%) stayed two nights; smaller percentages stayed three or more nights. The average for overnight stays, correcting for extremes (i.e., those staying 3 months or more) was 2.7 nights. Visitors to the Yuma area had shorter overnight stay patterns than the state average (3.5 nights in 2009). See Table 17 and Figure 5.
24
Table 17. How many nights, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip?
Count Percent 1 night 429 37.9% 2 nights 203 17.9% 3 nights 134 11.8% 4-7 nights 161 14.2% 8-14 nights 89 7.9% 15 -30 nights 42 3.7% 1-3 months 62 5.5% Greater than 3 months less than 6 months 13 1.1% Total 1133 100.0%
Figure 5. How many nights did you spend in the Yuma area?
How many nights did you spend in the Yuma area? 38%
18% 14% 12% 8% 5% 4% 1%
1 night 2 nights 3 nights 4‐7 nights 8‐14 nights 15 ‐ 30 1‐3 months 3 ‐6 months nights
Mean: 2.7 nights
25
Which types of visitors stayed the longest in the Yuma area? Understanding the characteristics of different visitor populations may assist local marketing agencies to increase overnight stays. Figure 6 shows the average length of stay of each visitor type or the relative strength of each market segment in driving overall visits to the region. Those individuals (128 or 9.9%) who were in the area for “extended stays” had the longest stays (61 nights average); the 38 respondents (2.9%) who were there for “relocation or retirement” reasons also had long stays (23 nights) but represented relatively few visitors. On the other hand, those on Vacation/leisure visits (187 respondents) stayed an average of 15 nights, while those Just passing through (284 respondents) stayed 1.5 nights; finally, those visiting friends & relatives (VFR ‐ 182 respondents) stayed 8.7 nights, and those on business trips (382 respondents) stayed 3.7 nights. Thus, while all visitors are important, concentrating on increasing the number of Vacation/leisure , VFR or Weekend visitors would be the most productive strategies to increase the overall economic impact of tourism in the area. See Table 18 and Figure 6 for all results.
Table 18. How many nights, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip?
How many nights are you staying Primary trip purpose Mean* Count Percent Just Passing Through 1.5 284 21.9% Business trip 3.7 382 29.5% Combination of Business and Leisure travel 3.9 43 3.3% Event, Conference, Meeting 3.8 78 6.0% Vacation/Leisure/Sightseeing 14.5 187 14.4% Outdoor Recreation 12.1 67 5.2% Extended Stay (second home or RV) 61.3 128 9.9% Possible Relocation or Retirement 22.5 38 2.9% Visiting Friends and/or Relatives 8.7 182 14.0% *represents the average number of nights
When the above categories are again combined and grouped into either Business or Leisure the following means result‐ 3.7 nights for Business travelers and 11.9 for Leisure.
Table 18a. How many nights, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip‐Business vs Leisure?
Business or Leisure trip
Business Leisure
Mean Mean
How much time, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip - 3.7 11.9 overnight, how many nights
26
Figure 6. Average length of stay by primary reason of visit
Length of stay in Yuma by primary purpose of your trip (nights)
61.3
22.5
14.5 12.1 8.7 3.7 3.9 3.8 1.5
Passing through Business trip Combo Bus/Leisur Event/Con/Meet Vac/Leisure/Sight Outdoor Rec Extended Stay Relocate/Retire VFR
27
What type of lodging did you use during your stay? Now that we know that 86 percent of respondents stayed overnight in the Yuma area and that the average visitor stay was 2.7 nights (correcting for extremes); the next important question is where did these visitors stay? Almost three‐fourths of visitors (73.7%) stayed in a Hotel‐motel, while 12.8% stayed overnight in a campground or RV park. Smaller percentages (7.7%) stayed overnight at the homes of family or friends in the area, and 3.4 percent stayed in a second home. A small percentage camped or stayed in RVs on state or federal lands in RVs (2.5%), while “other” types of lodging were also used by 1.8% of respondents. When asked to specify, “other” categories, responses included a large number of people who said they were staying at the County Fairground, the Marine Corps Air Station or at the Yuma Proving Ground. The full list of “other” accommodations is included in Appendix D. See Table 19.
Table 19. What type of lodging did you stay in?
Count Percent Hotel-Motel 889 73.7% Home of Friends/Family 93 7.7% Public Camping (state, federal, BLM) 30 2.5% Campground/RV Park 154 12.8% Second Home 41 3.4% Other 22 1.8% Total 1207 100.0%
Which accommodation type produced the longest average lengths of stay? Figure 7 shows the differences that appeared in length of stay by lodging type. The longest lengths of stay were in second homes (58.6 nights), followed by RV parks/Campgrounds (34.7 nights), with public camping (21.8 nights), and with family and friends (10.3 nights) accounting for most of the remainder. Hotel/Motel, the category accounting for the vast majority of visitors (73.7%) stayed an average of 2.7 nights. The average lengths of stay for other lodging types were 22.2 nights. See Figure 7.
28
Figure 7. Average length of stay by accommodation type
Average length of stay (nights) by lodging type
58.6
34.7
21.8 22.2
10.3 2.7
Hotel‐Motel Home of Public Camping Campground/RV Second Home Other Friends/Family (state, federal, Park BLM)
In what city did you spend last night? To determine the travel patterns of visitors to the region, respondents were asked to specify where they spent the night before their visit to the Yuma area. Respondents described a large number of cities, with San Diego, San Francisco and Phoenix heading the list. In order to make sense out of the data all cities or locations were aggregated into either the Yuma area, California, or other states. The full list of communities can be found in Appendix D. The analysis of this data reflects that a majority of visitors (47.2%) were already staying in Yuma when they completed the survey, a further one‐fifth (21.9%) stayed in other Arizona communities the night before, while the remainder stayed in a California city (19.6%) or stayed in another state (11.3%). See Table 20.
29
Table 20. In what city did you spend last night?
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent Yuma 474 47.2% Other Arizona communities 220 21.9% California 197 19.6% Other states 113 11.3% Total 1,004 100.0%
In what city will you stay tonight? A much larger percentage of visitors indicated that they planned to stay in the Yuma area the night after completing the survey – 71 percent stayed in the Yuma area “tonight” compared to 47.2 percent for the night before. Once again, the vast majority of visitors stayed in the Yuma area (71%), while the next largest number was intending to stay in California (13.1%). A further one‐tenth (11.4%) indicated that they planned to stay somewhere in Arizona and 4.4 percent indicated that they would be staying in another state. Thus, it is clear that a majority of visitors planned to stay in the Yuma area after they took the survey. See the full list of communities in Appendix D.
Table 21. In what city will you stay tonight?
In what City will you stay tonight? Count Percent Yuma area 677 71.0% Other Arizona communities 109 11.4% California 125 13.1% Other states 42 4.4% Total 953 100%
30
Geographic Origins of Yuma Area Visitors Where do visitors from the Yuma area originate? Respondents were asked to include the ZIP Code of their permanent residence, which provides evidence of geographic origin. Almost one‐fourth of visitors to this area (26.9%) were Arizona residents. The remaining 73 percent were either out‐of‐state or foreign visitors. California, like Arizona, contributed one quarter of all visitors (25.2%), by far more than any other state – no surprise given Yuma’s location on the border with California. Thus, following Arizona, the top 10 states for visitors to the Yuma area were: California (25.2%), Washington (5.1%), Texas (3.8%), Oregon (3.0%), Michigan (3.0%), Illinois (2.5%), Florida (2.0%), Nevada (1.8%), Maryland (1.8%) and Virginia (1.8%). These origins match those for Arizona visitors generally, in which California, Illinois, Nevada and Colorado are among the top 10 originating states for overnight visits. In all, an impressive total of 47 U.S. states and Puerto Rico were represented in the sample. See Table 22.
Table 22. State of origin of Yuma visitors
State of origin of Yuma visitors Count Percent Arizona 308 26.9% California 288 25.2% Washington 58 5.1% Texas 43 3.8% Oregon 34 3.0% Michigan 34 3.0% Illinois 29 2.5% Florida 23 2.0% Nevada 21 1.8% Maryland 21 1.8% Virginia 21 1.8% New Mexico 20 1.7% Colorado 20 1.7% Wisconsin 20 1.7% Utah 14 1.2% New York 14 1.2% Iowa 13 1.1% North Carolina 13 1.1% Pennsylvania 13 1.1% Ohio 12 1.0% Idaho 11 1.0% Alabama 10 0.9%
31
Table 22. State of origin of Yuma visitors…continued
State of origin of Yuma visitors Count Percent Oklahoma 8 0.7% Montana 8 0.7% Tennessee 8 0.7% Indiana 7 0.6% Alaska 6 0.5% South Dakota 6 0.5% Hawaii 5 0.4% Louisiana 5 0.4% Georgia 5 0.4% New Jersey 5 0.4% Connecticut 5 0.4% Nebraska 4 0.3% Kansas 4 0.3% Mississippi 4 0.3% Massachusetts 4 0.3% Kentucky 3 0.3% New Hampshire 3 0.3% Rhode Island 3 0.3% Wyoming 2 0.2% North Dakota 2 0.2% South Carolina 2 0.2% Arkansas 1 0.1% West Virginia 1 0.1% Vermont 1 0.1% Puerto Rico 1 0.1% Total 1143 100.0%
32
Arizona Visitors to the Yuma Area One‐fourth (26.9%) of visitors to the Yuma area were Arizona residents, and the vast majority of these were from the Greater Phoenix metro area. When all the communities in the Phoenix MSA (Maricopa County) are combined, the area accounted for almost half (48.1%) of all in‐state visitors to the Yuma region. Pima County (25%) was the next largest generator of Arizona visitors, sending another quarter of all Arizona visitors. In all, 64 Arizona communities were represented in the survey sample. See Table 23.
Table 23. Geographic origin of Arizona visitors to the Yuma area
County Arizona city of origin Count Percent Cochise Fry 3 1.0% Cochise Hereford 2 0.7% Cochise Sierra Vista 1 0.3% Cochise Huachuca City 1 0.3% Cochise Fort Huachuca 1 0.3% 2.6% Coconino Flagstaff 10 3.4% Coconino Bellemont 1 0.3% 3.7% Graham Solomon 1 0.3% Graham Safford 1 0.3% 0.6% La Paz Salome 1 0.3% La Paz Parker 1 0.3% 0.6% Maricopa Phoenix 35 12.0% Maricopa Scottsdale 17 5.8% Maricopa Mesa 13 4.5% Maricopa Glendale 10 3.4% Maricopa Gilbert 9 3.1% Maricopa Peoria 8 2.7% Maricopa Chandler 7 2.4% Maricopa Cave Creek 7 2.4% Maricopa Sun City 6 2.1% Maricopa Tempe 5 1.7% Maricopa Guadalupe 5 1.7% Maricopa Surprise 4 1.4% Maricopa Anthem - Desert Hills 4 1.4% Maricopa Sun Lakes 3 1.0% Maricopa Avondale 2 0.7% Maricopa Wittmann 1 0.3% Maricopa Tolleson 1 0.3% Maricopa New River 1 0.3% Maricopa Litchfield Park 1 0.3% Maricopa Goodyear 1 0.3% Maricopa Buckeye 1 0.3% 48.1%
33
Table 23. Geographic origin of Arizona visitors to the Yuma area…continued
County Arizona city of origin Count Percent Mohave Lake Havasu City 5 1.7% Mohave Kingman 2 0.7% Mohave Mohave Valley 1 0.3% Mohave Golden Shores - Topock 1 0.3% Mohave Bullhead City 1 0.3% 3.3% Navajo Overgaard 1 0.3% Navajo Holbrook 1 0.3% 0.6% Pima Tucson 35 12.0% Pima Oro Valley 16 5.5% Pima Fort Lowell 6 2.1% Pima Rincon 5 1.7% Pima Saddlebrooke 3 1.0% Pima South Tucson 2 0.7% Pima Sahuarita 2 0.7% Pima Tubac 1 0.3% Pima Marana 1 0.3% Pima Kino 1 0.3% Pima Corona de Tucson - Vail 1 0.3% 24.9% Pinal Gold Canyon - Queen Valley 1 0.3% Pinal Eleven Mile Corner 1 0.3% 0.6% Santa Cruz Nogales 3 1.0% Santa Cruz Green Valley 3 1.0% 2.0% Yavapai Prescott 4 1.4% Yavapai Sedona 3 1.0% Yavapai Prescott Valley 2 0.7% Yavapai Skull Valley 1 0.3% Yavapai Humboldt 1 0.3% Yavapai Cottonwood 1 0.3% Yavapai Ash fork 1 0.3% 4.3% Yuma Yuma 17 5.8% 5.8% ? Turkey Creek 2 0.7% ? Sun 2 0.7% 1.4% Total 291 100.0%
34
Another quarter of visitors were from California. After summarizing and converting the zip codes provided to coordinating cities and counties 32 counties were represented. However, half of California visitors to Yuma were from just two counties (San Diego and Los Angeles) while the top ten counties encompassed 86.5% of all Californians to Yuma in the sample. Results are summarized below with a complete list in Appendix D.
Table 23a. Geographic origin of California visitors to the Yuma area
California County Count # Percent San Diego 108 37.5% Los Angeles 38 13.2% Riverside 31 10.8% Orange 25 8.7% Ventura 14 4.9% Imperial 11 3.8% San Bernardino 8 2.8% Fresno 5 1.7% Monterey 5 1.7% Tulare 4 1.4% Additional 22 counties 39 13.5%
Total All 288 100.0%
International Visitors to the Yuma Area What percentage of total visitors were foreigners? For the Yuma area, a significant nine (9.0) percent of visitors were of international origins – making foreigners an important market segment for the Yuma area. The state of Arizona draws large numbers of international visitors from around the world, attracted by natural wonders ‐ the Grand Canyon and Sedona’s red rocks, as well as cowboy culture and Native American history; perhaps the possibility exists to attract more of them to the Yuma area.
Canadians, who frequently migrate during the cold winter months as Snowbirds, dominated foreign visitors to the Yuma area, accounting for almost three‐fourths (70.3%) of all foreign visitors. Looking at this cohort further Canadian leisure travelers had an average length of stay of 36 nights in the Yuma area. See Table 24a. The next largest group of visitors, though considerably behind Canada, was from the United Kingdom (11.9%) followed by the Germany (4.2%). These were followed by Australia, the Netherlands, Russia, Mexico, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Europe and Belgium. Origin countries of these international visitors to the Yuma area are similar to Arizona international visitors generally. See Table 24.
35
Although the survey collection sites in this study captured only a few Mexican visitors, it is clear that Yuma receives millions of visitors annually from Mexico. This study was not designed to capture Mexican visitors, who are different from other visitors in that they are largely day visitors who cross the border to engage in a specific activity – shopping. A 2007‐08 study of Mexican visitors entering through the San Luis Port of Entry counted 6.5 million annual non‐U.S.‐citizen border crossers – 4.0 million by auto and 2.5 million pedestrians. The same study found: 84% were day visitors and 16% spent the night; shopping was the main reason for the visits and Wal‐Mart was by far the most popular shopping destination for Mexican visitors to Yuma. Direct expenditures of Mexican visitors to Yuma increased dramatically – from $194million in 2001 to $735million in 2007‐08. During this time, the number of visitor parties travelling from San Luis to Yuma increased 19%, from 3.0 million to 3.55 million; likewise, daily expenditures increased from $65 per‐party in 2001 to $207 per‐party in 2007‐08. These 2007‐08 numbers have undoubtedly experienced a decline as a result of the deep 2008‐09 recession. [See the full study, Mexican Visitors to Arizona: Visitor Characteristics and Economic Impacts, 2007‐08, at: http://azot.gov/documents/Final_Mexican_Visitors_to_AZ_2007_08_report.pdf ]
Table 24. Origins of foreign visitors to the Yuma area
Count Percent CANADA 83 70.3% UNITED KINGDOM 14 11.9% GERMANY 5 4.2% AUSTRALIA 4 3.4% THE NETHERLANDS 2 1.7% RUSSIA 2 1.7% MEXICO 2 1.7% DENMARK 2 1.7% SWITZERLAND 1 .8% SPAIN 1 .8% EUROPE 1 .8% BELGIUM 1 .8% Total 118 100.0%
Table 24a. Canadian Travelers‐Length of stay
Business or Leisure trip Canadian visitors Overall Business Leisure Mean
Mean Mean Mean
How much time, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip - 2.8 36.0 33.8 overnight, how many nights
36
Visitor Spending Visitor spending is always a crucial component of any visitor study. Visitors to the Yuma area reported a wide variety of expenditures in categories of Lodging‐camping, Restaurant and grocery, Transportation (including gas), Shopping, Recreation/tour/entrance fees, and “Other” expenditures. Lodging and camping ($117) had the highest average expenditures, followed by restaurant and grocery ($65), shopping for arts and crafts purchases ($61), and transportation ($48). Transportation was followed by tour, entrance fees or permits ($45). The “Other” category had high expenditures ($206), however this category had the least overall impact as only 6.8% of all respondents registered any expenditures in this category. The final column (Valid N) in Table 25 indicates the number of respondents who listed expenditures in the various categories, with lodging and camping (84.7%) being the highest, followed by restaurant and grocery (79.3%); “other” expenditures had the lowest participation rate (6.8%). See Table 25.
Table 25. Please estimate as closely as possible the amount of money that your travel party is spending per day in the Yuma area?
Mean Median Count Please tell us the number of people these expenses cover 2 2 Lodging-camping $116.75 $100.00 1114 Restaurant and grocery $64.77 $50.00 1044 Transportation including gas $47.79 $40.00 944 Shopping souvenirs $61.27 $35.00 531 Recreation-Tours-Rentals-Fees or Permits $44.77 $20.00 276 Other $205.54 $55.00 90
37
The question is often asked, which visitors produce the most economic impact for the Yuma area, i.e., what specific segments should the community target in its marketing? The visitor survey data show that those in Yuma for events, conferences and meetings ($279), followed by combination of business and leisure ($273), and Business trips ($269) produced the highest per‐party per‐day expenditures. Of course, these represented relatively few visitors with the exception of business trip visitors who account for almost one third of all visitors. On the other hand, Vacation/leisure visitors ($250) or Outdoor Recreationists ($263) had lower per‐party per‐day expenditures but represented larger segments of the visitor market or lengthier overall stays. The fact that Yuma is situated along a major transportation route to/from California makes those “Just Passing Through” an important segment. The predominance of business trip travelers may be a function of where the sample was collected, i.e., a majority of the surveys came from the Hampton Inn a chain of hotels that are favored by business visitors. Overall, business visitors may not comprise as large a portion of the tourist activity as appears in this survey, although they are an important segment with high spending impact. See Table 26.
Table 26. Primary purpose of trip by average per party expenditures per day.
Percent Total Average of all Expenditure Stay Per Day visitors Just Passing Through $190 1.5 $128 21.6% Business trip $269 3.7 $73 29.0% Combination of Business and Leisure travel $273 3.9 $70 3.3% Event, Conference, Meeting $279 3.8 $74 5.9% Vacation/Leisure/Sightseeing $250 14.5 $17 14.2% Outdoor Recreation $263 12.1 $22 5.1% Extended Stay (second home or RV) $86 61.3 $1 9.7% Possible Relocation or Retirement $248 22.5 $11 2.9% Visiting Friends and/or Relatives $240 8.7 $28 13.8%
Visitor expenditures are further broken down in Table 27 to show the correlation between trip purpose and average daily expenditures. It shows that those on Business Trips and those Passing through (with one overnight) had the highest lodging expenditures ($84), while Pass‐through visitors had the highest food and beverage expenditures ($36). See all results in Table 27. Business and Leisure categories are again grouped with resulting means in Table 27a.
38
Table 27. Primary purpose of trip by average per‐party expenditures per day.
Combo Event/ Vacation Extended Pass Business Conf./ Leisure Outdoor Stay (2nd Relocate/ Thru Business Leisure Meet Sightsee Rec home or RV) Retire VFR Lodging- camping $84 $84 $58 $53 $40 $38 $2 $20 $39 Restaurant and grocery $36 $35 $32 $28 $20 $21 $3 $20 $27 Transportation including gas $31 $25 $18 $21 $14 $14 $1 $7 $21 Shopping souvenirs $4 $7 $7 $2 $18 $3 $0 $11 $11 Recreation- Tours-Rentals- Fees or Permits $14 $8 $16 $24 $22 $8 $0 $9 $18 Other $5 $1 $3 $9 $5 $14 $1 $1 $3 Total $173 $160 $135 $138 $119 $99 $8 $69 $119
Table 27a. Primary purpose of trip by average per‐party expenditures per day‐Business vs. Leisure.
Business or Leisure trip
Business Leisure
Lodging-camping $100.0 $55.4
Restaurant and grocery $62.5 $44.5
Transportation including gas $96.7 $26.4
Shopping souvenirs $60.0 $57.9
Recreation-Tours-Rentals-Fees or . $21.3 Permits
Other . $20.0
39
Interest in participating in activities
The Yuma area offers a great variety of activities for visitors to pursue, from the Imperial Wildlife area to attending events in Historic Downtown Yuma. Knowledge of visitors’ activities and levels of interest can lead to the creation of additional opportunities for tourism services and to product development that extends itineraries and produces longer overnight stays.
In order to judge visitors’ interest in Yuma area activities, respondents were asked to indicate their general level of interest in a series of activities and then to indicate whether they participated in that activity on this trip. All questions were measured on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “not at all interested,” and 5 is “extremely interested.” Therefore, higher mean (average) scores indicate a greater level of interest in participating in the specific activity. The levels of interest in the specific activities are displayed in Table 28.
Visiting cultural and historic sites had the highest mean score (3.1) for area visitors, with almost half (44.6%) of all respondents indicating they were either “very” or “extremely interested” in visiting these sites. Visiting parks and recreational areas was the second most popular interest with a mean score of 3.0, and 42.3 percent indicating they were either “very” or “extremely interested” in visiting parks and recreational sites. These two activities – visiting parks and recreational sites and visiting cultural and historic sites – are often the top choices in Arizona tourism activities. The next highest interest was in visiting museums or galleries (2.8) followed by hiking or walking trails (2.7 mean), an activity for which the Yuma area presents many opportunities, followed by another prominent area recreational activity – bird watching and observing wildlife (2.2), camping or recreational vehicle stays (2.2), visiting Mexico to shop or dine (2.1), biking in any form (2.1) and casino gaming (2.1).
Other niche or less popular activities in which visitors were either a “little interested” or “not at all interested” were: playing golf (2.0), boating/waterskiing/ or personal watercraft (2.0), special events (1.9), Canoeing or kayaking (1.8), ATV’s or off‐road riding (1.8), hunting or fishing (1.8) and visiting Mexico for medical‐dental‐vision needs (1.7). A number of respondents (10.4%) indicated that they had attended a special event in the Yuma area, and the most popular of these were: the Yuma Rodeo, Motor Bike Runs, golf tournaments, weddings and reunions. See the complete list in Appendix D. See Table 28.
40
Table 28. Tell us how interested you are in participating in the following activities
Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Interested Interested Interested Interested Interested Mean
Visiting cultural and historic sites 19.3% 10.9% 25.3% 30.1% 14.5% 3.1
Visiting parks and recreational areas 22.2% 10.6% 24.9% 28.6% 13.7% 3.0
Visiting museums or galleries 27.2% 13.0% 25.2% 22.9% 11.7% 2.8
Hiking or walking trails 31.4% 13.9% 23.9% 19.0% 11.8% 2.7
Birdwatching and observing wildlife 44.5% 17.3% 18.1% 11.6% 8.5% 2.2
Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 53.8% 9.6% 11.6% 13.0% 11.9% 2.2
Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 52.3% 11.3% 15.9% 11.5% 9.0% 2.1
Biking any form 51.5% 13.1% 15.0% 11.8% 8.7% 2.1
Casino Gaming 50.3% 15.1% 16.4% 12.6% 5.6% 2.1
Playing Golf 60.1% 7.3% 10.7% 12.9% 9.0% 2.0
Boating/Waterskiing/Personal watercraft 56.2% 13.7% 14.2% 10.2% 5.7% 2.0
Special Event (list) 69.8% 2.0% 6.4% 7.9% 13.9% 1.9
Canoeing or kayaking 60.1% 12.9% 14.3% 9.1% 3.6% 1.8
ATVs or off-roading 66.4% 8.9% 10.4% 8.3% 6.1% 1.8
Hunting or fishing 65.9% 10.8% 10.6% 7.5% 5.2% 1.8
Visiting Mexico for medical-dental-vision needs 73.0% 5.9% 6.3% 7.1% 7.6% 1.7
41
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate whether they actually participated in these activities while in the Yuma area. In this case, the most interest was found to be in visiting cultural and historic sites, which was indicated by 60.0 percent of visitors. This was followed by visiting parks and recreational sites (52.3%), by visiting museums and galleries (46.4%), and by hiking or walking on trails (42.5%). The middle group or those activities with more than a 20 percent level of interest were: Casino gaming (37.3%), Visiting Mexico to dine or shop (36.0%), Playing golf (29.9%), Bird‐watching and observing wildlife (29.9%), Visiting Mexico for medical‐dental‐vision needs (27.4%) and Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay (26.9%). See the full list of activities in which visitors participated in Table 29.
Table 29. What activities did/will you participate in?
Count Percent Visiting cultural and historic sites 265 60.0% Visiting parks and recreational areas 231 52.3% Visiting museums or galleries 205 46.4% Hiking or walking trails 188 42.5% Casino Gaming 165 37.3% Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 159 36.0% Playing Golf 132 29.9% Bird watching and observing wildlife 132 29.9% Visiting Mexico for medical-dental-vision needs 121 27.4% Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 119 26.9% Biking any form 77 17.4% ATVs or off-roading 50 11.3% Hunting or fishing 49 11.1% Boating/Waterskiing/Personal watercraft 47 10.6% Special Event (list) 46 10.4% Canoeing or kayaking 38 8.6% Total 442 100.0%
42
What attractions do you plan to visit in the Yuma Area? Respondents were next presented with a list of area attractions and asked to check all those that they had visited or planned to visit on this trip. Of all the sites listed, the Historic Downtown Yuma Riverfront was the most visited attraction (67.2%), followed by Yuma Territorial Prison State Park (61.0%), Yuma Quartermaster Depot (42.3%), Cocopah, Paradise or Quechan Casinos (33.3%), and Martinez Lake or Fisher’s Landing (27.0%). See the full list of attractions visited in Table 30. To see the list of other attractions visited refer to Appendix D; leading the list are the Peanut Patch and the Yuma Proving Ground.
Table 30. Attractions you have or plan to visit in the Yuma area?
Count Percent Historic downtown Yuma riverfront 577 67.2% Yuma Territorial Prison 523 61.0% Yuma Quartermaster Depot 363 42.3% Cocopah, Paradise or Quechan Casinos 286 33.3% Martinez Lake or Fisher’s Landing 232 27.0% Imperial Sand Dunes NRA 199 23.2% Yuma Art Center, Historic Theatre 198 23.1% Sanguinetti House Museum 175 20.4% Kofa, Imperial or Cibola NWR 144 16.8% The Camel Farm 143 16.7% Castle Domes Mine Museum 137 16.0% Other 101 11.8% Total 858 100.0%
43
Sources of Visitor Information Next, respondents were asked where they obtained information for their trip to the Yuma area. The largest percentage –slightly more than half of all visitors (51.1%) – responded that they relied on their Friends, family or co‐workers for information about the area. The next most common source of information was “Other”, used by about a quarter of visitors (28.4%). Following this were: Web site‐ online (13.7%), Visitor Centers or brochure rack (12.9%), Guide books (10.4%), and Newspaper or Magazine (3.4%). Those who said “Other” were asked to specify the source, and the most common of these were maps, previous trips to the area, or information gleaned from just passing through. In many of these categories respondents were invited to write‐in the specific source; for the complete lists of these information sources see Appendix D. The summary of findings is presented in Table 31.
Table 31. Information Sources for Yuma Area
Count Percent Friends Family or Co-workers 553 51.1% Other 307 28.4% Web site or online 148 13.7% Visitor center or brochure rack 140 12.9% Guide Book 113 10.4% Newspaper or Magazine 37 3.4% Total 1082 100.0%
44
Overall satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area The next question on the survey asked visitors to rate their overall satisfaction with their experience in the Yuma area. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is “low” and 10 is “high,” the Yuma area scored well, with a mean score of 8.25 out of a possible 10, and a median of 8.0. Only 8.5 percent of respondents noted their level of satisfaction at 5 or below. Over two‐thirds (71.8%) of all respondents, rated their overall experience in the Yuma area as 8 or better, indicating overall high levels of satisfaction. See Table 32 and Figure 8.
Table 32. Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area
Count Percent 1 8 .7% 2 2 .2% 3 5 .4% 4 15 1.3% 5 69 5.9% 6 68 5.8% 7 164 14.0% 8 272 23.1% 9 194 16.5% 10 378 32.2% Mean = 8.25, Median 8.0
45
Figure 8. Overall level of satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area
On a scale of 1 to 10, please indicate your overall satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area 32%
23%
17% 14%
6% 6%
1% 1% 0% 0%
12345678910
Overall satisfaction with the value for money for the Yuma area Overall satisfaction was followed by a question that asked visitors to rate their overall satisfaction with their perception of the value for money of their experience in the Yuma area. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is “low” and 10 is “high,” the Yuma area scored well, with a mean score of 8.0 out of a possible 10, and a median of 8.0 also. Only 11.4 percent of respondents noted their level of satisfaction for the value of money at 5 or below. Fully two‐thirds (68%) of all respondents, rated their overall perception of the value for money as 8 or better, indicating a high level of appreciation for the value for money of their Yuma visitor experience. See Table 33 and Figure 9.
46
Table 33. Rate your overall satisfaction with the value for money of your experience in the Yuma Area
Count Percent 1 5 .4% 2 2 .2% 3 7 .6% 4 24 2.2% 5 89 8.0% 6 75 6.7% 7 155 13.9% 8 256 23.0% 9 182 16.4% 10 318 28.6% Mean = 8.0, Median 8.0
Figure 9. Overall level of satisfaction with the value for money of your experience in the Yuma Area
On a scale of 1 to 10, please indicate your overall satisfaction with the value for money for the Yuma area
29%
23%
16% 14%
8% 7%
2% 0% 0% 1%
12345678910
47
Would you plan a return trip to Yuma? The last two questions on the survey attempted to find out whether visitors would return to visit Yuma. The first question asked whether visitors would consider a return trip to Yuma. A resounding majority (93.2%) indicated that they would plan a return trip to Yuma, while only a small minority (6.8%) indicated that they would not. See Table 34 and Figure 10.
Table 34. Would you plan a return visit to Yuma?
Count Percent Yes 1106 93.2% No 81 6.8% Total 1187 100.0%
Figure 10. Would you plan a return trip to Yuma?
Would you plan a return trip to Yuma?
No 7%
Yes 93%
48
Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to friends or family? The last question asked visitors whether they would recommend a visit to Yuma to their friends or family. The overwhelming majority (87.8%) indicated that they would recommend a visit to Yuma to their friends and family, while a small minority (12.2%) indicated that they would not recommend a visit to Yuma to their friends or family. See Table 35 and Figure 11.
Table 35. Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to your friends or family?
Count Percent Yes 1021 87.8% No 142 12.2% Total 1163 100.0%
Figure 11. Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to your friends or family?
Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to friends or family?
No 12%
Yes 88%
49
What did you like Best and Least about Yuma? To further understand visitors’ satisfaction with Yuma, the final question of the survey asked visitors what they liked “Best” and “Least” about Yuma. This question attempts to get at the top‐of‐mind perceptions of visitors as to their likes and dislikes. The most common feature of Yuma that people liked the most was “Weather and sunshine,” while the “Friendly People” was second. The most frequent remark about what respondents liked least was the “Weather, heat, and dust” – a reference to summer weather characteristics. The second most frequent reference to things visitors disliked was “Traffic, Road Construction, and Delays caused by traffic.” The fact that Yuma residents are considered friendly and that the weather in winter is very nice places Yuma in a good position. The complaints about traffic and road construction will probably decrease as construction projects are completed; little can be done, of course, about the heat or the dust in summer months. See the Appendix for the full list of comments.
In conclusion, it appears that visitors to the Yuma area participate in a variety of activities, have enjoyable experiences, and are quite satisfied with their trips. Yuma has an opportunity to build upon the most popular tourism themes and to redouble efforts to market the area as a tourism destination. This research will help to focus efforts on potential visitors who may be underserved presently or to inspire new product development or regional partnerships that will entice more or different visitors to experience the region. Given that this survey was conducted during 2010, a year that found communities just beginning to emerge from the 2009‐10 recession, it may not exactly represent tourism activity during a normal year. On the other hand, it may represent what many in the tourism industry believe may represent the “new normal.”
This report also uses visitors’ reported direct spending to calculate the Economic Impact of tourism in the Yuma area. See Appendix B, which follows this analysis, for the full report on economic impact.
50
Appendix A:
Survey Questionnaire
51
52
53
Appendix B:
Regional Economic Impacts of the Yuma area Tourism Survey
54
Introduction Question seven in the survey of visitors to the Yuma area asked respondents to detail their regional expenditures in each of the following categories: lodging, food and beverage, transportation (including gas), shopping/arts & crafts purchases, recreation/tour/entrance/permit fees, and miscellaneous other expenditures. Understanding the regional economic impacts of visitors can illustrate the economic importance of tourism and recreational activities to the Yuma area, and can be compared to the impacts of other economic sectors.
Expenditures from Yuma area visitors were entered into the Input‐Output model Impact analysis for PLANing (IMPLAN) and economic impacts and multiplier effects were calculated for Yuma County, Arizona. Economic impact analysis (EIA) measures the direct and extended effects of expenditures related to a tourist activity by detailing industry response and multiplier effects on many regional economic indicators such as output, income, and employment.
Economic Impact Analysis Methods Input‐Output (I‐O) models are an important tool used in assessing the economic impacts of specific activities. The I‐O model incorporates transaction tables to keep track of inter‐industry sales and purchases, as well as exogenous sectors of final demand such as households, government, and foreign trade. The name, “I‐O Model,” is a result of each industrial sector in the model being both a buyer and a seller of inputs and outputs.
The I‐O model can be used to conduct economic impact analysis. Economic impact analysis involves applying a final demand change to the economic I‐O model, and then analyzing the resulting changes in the economy (IMPLAN Analysis Guide, 1999). Impacts can be one‐time impacts, such as the construction of a new factory, or they can be recurring impacts, such as the arrival of a new industry. Often, the impact analysis is concerned with multiplier effects, or the amount of money that is re‐ circulated through the economy after an initial expenditure.
Visitors were asked to estimate daily trip expenditures in the categories listed above. The visitors are assumed to be concentrated in the Yuma area of Yuma County, Arizona. Visitors from outside of the region purchased regional lodging, food, transportation, entertainment, etc., and this importation of expenditures represents an influx of “new” money to the region. This analysis does not include respondents who live in Yuma County as they do not represent “new” output to the region because it is assumed that regional residents would have allocated those expenditures to industrial sectors within the county anyway.
Thus, direct, indirect, and induced effects of visitor expenditures were calculated for Yuma County. The direct effects of expenditures capture the amount of purchases made by participants in each industrial category. Commodity purchases contributing to direct effects need to be margined to effectively allocate economic impacts. For example, many commodities available in Yuma County were not necessarily manufactured within the county (e.g. gasoline, souvenirs, etc.). By margining commodities, producer and purchaser prices are separated. IMPLAN uses regional purchasing coefficients (RPCs) to estimate gross regional trade flows (gross exports and imports), and incorporates the RPCs into the
55 allocation of direct effects attributable to the defined study area. A regional purchasing coefficient represents the proportion of the total demands for a given commodity that is supplied by the region to itself (IMPLAN Analysis Guide, 1999).
Indirect effects are a measure of economic activity in other industrial sectors that is spurred by the direct effects. For example, Yuma area visitors provided an economic boost to local food/beverage and lodging sectors (a direct effect). These hotels and restaurants require a number of inputs from other industries such as utilities, bulk food and beverage ingredients, and equipment. Indirect effects are the increased economic activity in these other industrial sectors caused by additional hotel and restaurant patrons.
Induced effects are an estimate of increased economic activity resulting from wages and income attributed to the direct and indirect effects. Staying with the previous example, a portion of wages earned by workers in the food/beverage and lodging sectors are then locally re‐spent in other industrial sectors. IMPLAN uses Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCEs) to model induced effects. PCEs provide estimates of consumer expenditures on goods and services by different income classes (IMPLAN Analysis Guide, 1999).
Regional Expenditure Results For the economic analysis, each survey represents a travel party. Expenditure questions asked respondents to estimate their expenditures for the travel party, i.e., each survey comprised one group or party. To estimate the number of visitors to the Yuma area a population estimate was developed to use in expanding per‐party expenditures to all potential visitors to the Yuma area. It is estimated that approximately 1,413,679 people visited the Yuma area in 2010 (during the period of the survey). This estimate is derived from attractions visitation (parks), lodging supply (hotels and time share properties) as well as average occupancy, and attendance at private attractions and visitation to secondary attractions. This population estimate is likely to be an underestimate of visitation as it does not include traffic count data. The researchers, however, prefer to err on the side of conservative population estimates. As discussed previously only out‐of‐region visitors are included in this analysis. Therefore, only these 1,413,679 out‐of‐region visitors are included in the economic impact analysis. The harmonic or trimmed mean was used for average expenditures in calculating economic impact. The trimmed mean avoids extremes at either end of a frequency distribution by effectively reducing the top and bottom five (5) percent of the distribution and recalculating the mean. This reduces the extreme end of the range lessening the impact of those who had no expenses as well as those who listed expenses that were in error or considered unreasonable (i.e., $2,500 for lodging for 1 night).
To begin with the population estimate of 1,413,679 is apportioned between day and overnight visitors. This yields 47,706 day visitors, and 1,365,990 overnight visitors. These numbers will be used to develop the total expenditures for each visitor type. Table B1, illustrates the first steps in developing the total expenditures by spending category. In column one, per‐party, per‐day expenditures are listed; as can be seen, day visitors do not have any lodging expenditures so that the value per‐person per‐day is $0. The next column is the per‐person, per‐day visitor expenditures which is calculated by dividing the average party size (2.1 for day visitors and 2.2 for overnight visitors) by the per‐party expenditures. This is a
56 necessary step as the population estimate is measured as visitors, and the expenditures need to be in per‐person expenditures. The final column in Table B1 for day visitors is the percentage of visitors with expenditures in any specific category, for example 46% of day visitors have restaurant and grocery expenditures. The percentage with expenditures column will be used to adjust the population estimate to reflect that percentage of the visitor population who had valid expenditures in any category. Overnight visitors per‐person expenditures and percentages of the population with expenditures are derived in a similar manner. See Table B1.
Table B1. Estimate of per person per day expenditures for day and overnight Yuma area visitors.
Day Visitors Overnight Visitors Per- Percent Per- Per- Party Per-Person with Party Person Percent Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp with Exp Lodging-camping $0.0 $0.0 0% $119.6 $55.4 78% Restaurant and grocery $30.5 $14.1 46% $66.9 $31.0 71% Transportation including gas $40.3 $18.6 42% $49.1 $22.7 64% Shopping souvenirs $30.9 $14.3 15% $63.3 $29.3 36% Recreation-Tours-Rentals- Fees or Permits $17.0 $7.8 3% $47.6 $22.1 19% Other $4.5 $2.1 2% $238.8 $110.5 6%
Table B2 illustrates total visitor expenditures by each specific expenditure category. Per‐person expenditures in column one come from Table B1. The population estimate in the next column is calculated by multiplying the percentage of those with expenditures, 46 percent in the example of restaurant and grocery expenditures by the day visitor population estimate (47,706) to yield a population estimate of 21,945. Finally the expenditures are derived by multiplying the population estimate by per‐person per‐day expenditures from column one. Overnight visitor expenditures are calculated in a similar manner. Finally, total expenditures are arrived at by summing day and overnight visitors’ expenditures. The total expenditures listed in the last column were used for the subsequent economic impact analysis.
57
Table B2. Estimate of total expenditures for day and overnight Yuma area visitors.
Day Visitors Overnight Visitors Day + Overnight Per- Per- Person Pop Person Pop Total Exp Estimate Expenditures Exp Estimate Expenditures Expenditures Lodging- camping $0.0 0 $0 $55.4 1,072,240 $59,361,905 $59,361,905 Restaurant and grocery $14.1 21,945 $308,917 $31.0 972,593 $30,136,467 $30,445,384 Transportation including gas $18.6 20,037 $372,329 $22.7 880,213 $19,988,051 $20,360,380 Shopping souvenirs $14.3 7,156 $102,165 $29.3 497,196 $14,568,444 $14,670,609 Recreation- Tours-Rentals- Fees or Permits $7.8 1,431 $11,229 $22.1 258,459 $5,699,335 $5,710,564 Other $2.1 954 $1,982 $110.5 77,849 $8,606,172 $8,608,154 Total $796,622 $138,360,375 $139,156,997
The totals from each expenditure category were entered into the operationalized Input‐Output model IMPLAN. Visitor expenditures entered into IMPLAN’s Impact Analysis require bridging from survey expenditure categories into IMPLAN industry sectors. Most survey expenditure categories link directly to IMPLAN industry sectors (e.g., “Grocery Store Purchases” directly corresponds with IMPLAN sector #405 “Food and Beverage Stores”). Only one survey expenditure category, “Transportation,” was allocated to multiple IMPLAN industrial sectors. Because the “Transportation” survey question asked participants to include gas, oil, and auto expenses, the overall expenditures were allocated to sector #407 “Gasoline Stations” (85%) and to sector #483 “Automotive Repair and Maintenance” (15%).
58
Regional Economic Impact Analysis Results The total number of out‐of‐region visitors to the Yuma area in the study period was estimated at 1,413,679 visitors. These visitors were responsible for some $139.2 million of expenditures in Yuma County, AZ, with an average regional expenditure of $232 per party. Expenditures recorded for each industrial category were entered into IMPLAN’s impact analysis.
Table B3 shows the direct, indirect, and induced effects of regional expenditures made by non‐local visitors. Type SAM multipliers are presented for each of the economic impact categories. Type SAM multipliers are similar to Type III multipliers in that they represent the ratio of total effects to direct effects and include indirect and induced effects. They are also similar in incorporating employment‐ based Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCEs) to model overall induced effects. IMPLAN’s Type SAM multipliers differ from traditional multipliers because IMPLAN uses all social accounting matrix information to generate a model that captures the inter‐institutional transfers (IMPLAN Analysis Guide, 1999).
Table B3. Effects and Multipliers of $139.2 million of Regional Expenditures by Yuma area visitors
Induced Impact Type Direct Effect Indirect Effect Effect Multiplier Total Effect Output $139,157,000 $26,468,700 $61,283,500 1.63 $226,909,200 Employment 1,818.1 230.1 640.1 1.48 2,688.3 Labor Income $48,245,600 $8,883,200 $27,573,300 1.76 $84,702,100 Tax $9,244,200 $2,767,600 $8,450,300 $20,462,100
If regional expenditures are substantial, increased tax revenues will be generated. These tax revenues can also be substantial, particularly in tourism and service‐oriented industries, where additional tax collections occur. As seen in Table B3, visitors to the Yuma area spurred an additional $20.5 million of tax revenue for Yuma County. Much of this money is re‐invested into infrastructure and community needs that further support tourism and recreation industries. The majority of tax revenue coming from Yuma area visitors is the result of sales tax paid to restaurants, hotels, and retail stores. Other fee and excise taxes are common in sectors such as car rentals and lodging industries.
Discussion In 2010 visitors to the Yuma area injected significant output to businesses in the regional economy of Yuma County. Approximately $139.2 million of regional purchases were made by out‐of‐region visitors, contributing to a total economic output of $226.9 million for Yuma County. This economic activity supported some 2,688 full‐time equivalent (FTE) jobs. The total economic impact of visitors to the Yuma area is therefore substantial, and contributes significantly to the greater regional economy.
59
Appendix C:
Quarterly Tables
60
Please indicate the current month
Calendar quarter of Survey Please indicate the current month
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
January 2010 111 29.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
February 2010 64 16.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
March 2010 205 53.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
April 2010 0 .0% 122 38.6% 0 .0% 0 .0%
May 2010 0 .0% 90 28.5% 0 .0% 0 .0%
June 2010 0 .0% 104 32.9% 0 .0% 0 .0%
July 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 108 32.4% 0 .0%
August 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 133 39.9% 0 .0%
September 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 92 27.6% 0 .0%
October 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 113 39.4%
November 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 123 42.9%
December 2010 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 51 17.8%
Total 380 100.0% 316 100.0% 333 100.0% 287 100.0%
61
Is the Yuma area the primary destination of your trip?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Is Yuma the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Yes 288 78.0% 194 63.6% 181 56.0% 186 67.6%
No 81 22.0% 111 36.4% 142 44.0% 89 32.4%
Total 369 100.0% 305 100.0% 323 100.0% 275 100.0%
62
Have you ever been to Yuma before?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Have you ever been to Yuma before? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Yes 272 77.5% 199 66.3% 223 70.6% 196 75.4%
No 79 22.5% 101 33.7% 93 29.4% 64 24.6%
Total 351 100.0% 300 100.0% 316 100.0% 260 100.0%
63
What is the primary purpose of your visit?
Calendar quarter of Survey
What is the primary purpose of your visit? January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Business trip 53 14.1% 110 35.3% 114 34.9% 105 37.2%
Just Passing Through 34 9.0% 77 24.7% 106 32.4% 67 23.8%
Vacation/Leisure/Sightseeing 96 25.5% 35 11.2% 39 11.9% 17 6.0%
Visiting Friends and/or 52 13.8% 37 11.9% 42 12.8% 51 18.1% Relatives
Extended Stay (second home 91 24.2% 8 2.6% 9 2.8% 20 7.1% or RV)
Event, Conference, Meeting 27 7.2% 32 10.3% 10 3.1% 9 3.2%
Outdoor Recreation 43 11.4% 8 2.6% 9 2.8% 7 2.5%
Combination of Business and 11 2.9% 11 3.5% 8 2.4% 13 4.6% Leisure travel
Possible Relocation or 11 2.9% 11 3.5% 12 3.7% 4 1.4% Retirement
Total 376 100.0% 312 100.0% 327 100.0% 282 100.0%
64
What best describes your primary mode of transportation?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Indicate your primary mode of transportation? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Private Auto 195 52.0% 176 57.0% 204 62.2% 165 60.7%
Rental Vehicle 37 9.9% 60 19.4% 81 24.7% 52 19.1%
RV/Camper 107 28.5% 22 7.1% 17 5.2% 23 8.5%
Plane/air service 28 7.5% 25 8.1% 17 5.2% 25 9.2%
Motorcycle 2 .5% 22 7.1% 4 1.2% 1 .4%
Other 3 .8% 4 1.3% 5 1.5% 6 2.2%
Tour Bus 3 .8% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
Total 375 100.0% 309 100.0% 328 100.0% 272 100.0%
65
How much time, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip - hours?
How much time, in total, Calendar quarter of Survey will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip - January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 day trip-how many hours? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 2 15.4% 2 8.7% 7 29.2% 2 50.0%
2 3 23.1% 4 17.4% 5 20.8% 0 .0%
3 1 7.7% 4 17.4% 5 20.8% 0 .0%
4 3 23.1% 7 30.4% 1 4.2% 2 50.0%
5 1 7.7% 3 13.0% 2 8.3% 0 .0%
6 1 7.7% 2 8.7% 2 8.3% 0 .0%
8 1 7.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
10 0 .0% 1 4.3% 1 4.2% 0 .0%
11 1 7.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
12 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 4.2% 0 .0%
Total 13 100.0% 23 100.0% 24 100.0% 4 100.0%
66
How much time, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip - nights?
How much time, in Calendar quarter of Survey total, will you spend in the Yuma area on January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 this trip – overnight- how many nights? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 36 11.7% 113 41.7% 152 50.8% 128 50.4% 2 49 15.9% 58 21.4% 47 15.7% 49 19.3% 3 49 15.9% 27 10.0% 33 11.0% 25 9.8% 4 34 11.0% 18 6.6% 16 5.4% 14 5.5% 5 17 5.5% 10 3.7% 8 2.7% 3 1.2% 6 7 2.3% 2 .7% 4 1.3% 4 1.6% 7 9 2.9% 8 3.0% 5 1.7% 2 .8% 8 10 3.2% 2 .7% 1 .3% 4 1.6% 9 4 1.3% 1 .4% 3 1.0% 1 .4% 10 11 3.6% 6 2.2% 7 2.3% 4 1.6% 11 1 .3% 0 .0% 1 .3% 0 .0% 12 3 1.0% 3 1.1% 5 1.7% 0 .0% 13 1 .3% 1 .4% 0 .0% 2 .8% 14 8 2.6% 5 1.8% 3 1.0% 2 .8% 15 2 .6% 2 .7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 16 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .4% 18 0 .0% 1 .4% 2 .7% 0 .0% 19 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .3% 0 .0% 20 0 .0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 2 .8% 21 1 .3% 0 .0% 1 .3% 0 .0% 22 0 .0% 1 .4% 0 .0% 1 .4% 24 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 25 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .3% 0 .0% 30 12 3.9% 2 .7% 2 .7% 3 1.2% 31 1 .3% 0 .0% 1 .3% 0 .0% 32 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 35 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
67
How much time, in Calendar quarter of Survey total, will you spend in the Yuma area on January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 this trip – overnight- how many nights? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
38 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 40 3 1.0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 42 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 45 4 1.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 50 0 .0% 1 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0% 58 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .3% 1 .4% 60 8 2.6% 3 1.1% 1 .3% 4 1.6% 70 1 .3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 75 2 .6% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .4% 80 3 1.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 90 19 6.1% 0 .0% 1 .3% 1 .4% 99 2 .6% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 100 2 .6% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 120 5 1.6% 1 .4% 1 .3% 2 .8% Total 309 100.0% 271 100.0% 299 100.0% 254 100.0%
68
Average length of time spent in Yuma by season
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to July to October to March April to September December 2010 June 2010 2010 2010
Mean Mean Mean Mean
How much time, in total, will you spend in the 4.1 3.8 3.3 2.5 Yuma area on this trip- day trip-how many hours?
How much time, in total, will you spend in the Yuma area on this trip- 18.0 5.0 4.3 5.6 overnight-how many nights?
69
If you are staying overnight in Yuma what type of lodging did you stay in?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 If you are staying overnight in the Yuma area what type of lodging did you stay in? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Hotel-Motel 165 47.8% 232 81.7% 258 85.1% 234 85.1%
Home of Friends/Family 27 7.8% 17 6.0% 33 10.9% 16 5.8%
Public Camping (state, 23 6.7% 6 2.1% 0 .0% 1 .4% federal, BLM)
Campground/RV Park 92 26.7% 25 8.8% 14 4.6% 23 8.4%
Second Home 34 9.9% 3 1.1% 1 .3% 3 1.1%
Other 14 4.1% 4 1.4% 2 .7% 2 .7%
Total 345 100.0% 284 100.0% 303 100.0% 275 100.0%
70
Other Lodging in Yuma
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Other lodging used Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
CASINO 1 5.3% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 2 66.7% MILITARY BASE 1 5.3% 1 25.0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% FAIRGROUNDS 2 10.5% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% YUMA FAIRGROUNDS 2 10.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RESORT RENTAL 2 10.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% YUMA CO FAIRGROUND RV 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RV ON PRIVATE OWNED LOT 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RV LOT RENTAL 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RV LOT 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RESIDENCE 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RENT A MOBILE 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% OWN HOME 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% HOST FAMILY 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% HOME 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% HILTON GARDEN INN 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 33.3% HAVE A PARK MODEL IN WELLTON 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% FAIR GROUNDS, RV RALLY 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% FAIR GROUNDS 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% BOUGHT HOME 1 5.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% APARTMENT 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% Total 19 100.0% 4 100.0% 3 100.0% 3 100.0%
71
State of origin of Yuma visitors
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 State of origin of Yuma visitors Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Arizona 50 16.4% 81 28.6% 98 32.7% 79 30.9% California 77 25.3% 67 23.7% 70 23.3% 74 28.9% Washington 28 9.2% 10 3.5% 10 3.3% 10 3.9% Texas 9 3.0% 10 3.5% 12 4.0% 12 4.7% Oregon 18 5.9% 4 1.4% 7 2.3% 5 2.0% Michigan 10 3.3% 8 2.8% 8 2.7% 8 3.1% Illinois 14 4.6% 3 1.1% 10 3.3% 2 .8% Florida 2 .7% 6 2.1% 7 2.3% 8 3.1% Nevada 7 2.3% 9 3.2% 2 .7% 3 1.2% Maryland 2 .7% 4 1.4% 9 3.0% 6 2.3% Virginia 3 1.0% 9 3.2% 6 2.0% 3 1.2% New Mexico 4 1.3% 6 2.1% 7 2.3% 3 1.2% Colorado 7 2.3% 8 2.8% 3 1.0% 2 .8% Wisconsin 10 3.3% 6 2.1% 1 .3% 3 1.2% Utah 8 2.6% 2 .7% 2 .7% 2 .8% New York 5 1.6% 5 1.8% 4 1.3% 0 .0% Iowa 8 2.6% 1 .4% 2 .7% 2 .8% North Carolina 2 .7% 2 .7% 6 2.0% 3 1.2% Pennsylvania 3 1.0% 2 .7% 3 1.0% 5 2.0% Ohio 5 1.6% 3 1.1% 3 1.0% 1 .4% Idaho 6 2.0% 1 .4% 2 .7% 2 .8% Alabama 1 .3% 6 2.1% 2 .7% 1 .4% Oklahoma 1 .3% 2 .7% 4 1.3% 1 .4% Montana 4 1.3% 0 .0% 2 .7% 2 .8% Tennessee 1 .3% 2 .7% 2 .7% 3 1.2% Indiana 2 .7% 2 .7% 1 .3% 2 .8%
72
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 State of origin of Yuma visitors Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Alaska 3 1.0% 1 .4% 1 .3% 1 .4% South Dakota 3 1.0% 0 .0% 1 .3% 2 .8% Hawaii 0 .0% 1 .4% 4 1.3% 0 .0% Louisiana 1 .3% 2 .7% 2 .7% 0 .0% Georgia 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 .7% 3 1.2% New Jersey 0 .0% 1 .4% 3 1.0% 1 .4% Connecticut 1 .3% 2 .7% 0 .0% 2 .8% Nebraska 1 .3% 3 1.1% 0 .0% 0 .0% Kansas 1 .3% 2 .7% 1 .3% 0 .0% Mississippi 0 .0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 2 .8% Massachusetts 2 .7% 1 .4% 0 .0% 1 .4% Kentucky 1 .3% 1 .4% 1 .3% 0 .0% New Hampshire 0 .0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 1 .4% Rhode Island 2 .7% 1 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0% Wyoming 2 .7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% North Dakota 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .3% 0 .0% South Carolina 0 .0% 2 .7% 0 .0% 0 .0% Arkansas 0 .0% 1 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0% West Virginia 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .4% Vermont 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .3% 0 .0% Puerto Rico 0 .0% 1 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total 304 100.0% 283 100.0% 300 100.0% 256 100.0%
73
Yuma visitors-Arizona resident city of origin
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Yuma visitors from Arizona (translated zip code of origin) Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
TUCSON 1 2.2% 8 10.8% 17 17.9% 9 11.8% PHOENIX 1 2.2% 10 13.5% 14 14.7% 10 13.2% YUMA 4 8.7% 2 2.7% 5 5.3% 6 7.9% SCOTTSDALE 3 6.5% 5 6.8% 3 3.2% 6 7.9% ORO VALLEY 3 6.5% 6 8.1% 3 3.2% 4 5.3% MESA 2 4.3% 7 9.5% 3 3.2% 1 1.3% GLENDALE 2 4.3% 3 4.1% 1 1.1% 4 5.3% FLAGSTAFF 2 4.3% 1 1.4% 2 2.1% 5 6.6% GILBERT 1 2.2% 4 5.4% 4 4.2% 0 .0% PEORIA 6 13.0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 1 1.3% CHANDLER 0 .0% 2 2.7% 3 3.2% 2 2.6% CAVE CREEK 1 2.2% 2 2.7% 2 2.1% 2 2.6% SUN CITY 1 2.2% 1 1.4% 1 1.1% 3 3.9% FORT LOWELL 1 2.2% 3 4.1% 2 2.1% 0 .0% TEMPE 1 2.2% 3 4.1% 1 1.1% 0 .0% RINCON 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 3 3.9% LAKE HAVASU CITY 1 2.2% 1 1.4% 3 3.2% 0 .0% GUADALUPE 0 .0% 3 4.1% 2 2.1% 0 .0% SURPRISE 1 2.2% 1 1.4% 2 2.1% 0 .0% PRESCOTT 2 4.3% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 0 .0% ANTHEM - DESERT HILLS 1 2.2% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 1 1.3% SUN LAKES 2 4.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% SEDONA 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 2 2.6% SADDLEBROOKE 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 3.9% NOGALES 0 .0% 2 2.7% 1 1.1% 0 .0%
74
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Yuma visitors from Arizona (translated zip code of origin) Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
GREEN VALLEY 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 2 2.6% FRY 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 1 1.3% TURKEY CREEK 0 .0% 1 1.4% 1 1.1% 0 .0% SUN 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 1 1.3% SOUTH TUCSON 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 0 .0% SAHUARITA 1 2.2% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% PRESCOTT VALLEY 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% KINGMAN 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2.1% 0 .0% HEREFORD 0 .0% 1 1.4% 1 1.1% 0 .0% AVONDALE 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 1 1.3% WITTMANN 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% TUBAC 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% TOLLESON 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% SOLOMON 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% SKULL VALLEY 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% SIERRA VISTA 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% SALOME 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% SAFFORD 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% PARKER 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% OVERGAARD 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% NEW RIVER 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% MOHAVE VALLEY 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% MARANA 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% LITCHFIELD PARK 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% KINO 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% HUMBOLDT 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% HUACHUCA CITY 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% HOLBROOK 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% GOODYEAR 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
75
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Yuma visitors from Arizona (translated zip code of origin) Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
GOLDEN SHORES - TOPOCK 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% GOLD CANYON - QUEEN VALLEY 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% FORT HUACHUCA 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% ELEVEN MILE CORNER 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% COTTONWOOD 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% CORONA DE TUCSON - VAIL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% BULLHEAD CITY 0 .0% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% BUCKEYE 1 2.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% BELLEMONT 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.3% ASH FORK 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1.1% 0 .0% Total 46 100.0% 74 100.0% 95 100.0% 76 100.0%
76
If you are not from the US please list your country?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 If you are not from the US please list your country of origin Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
CANADA 50 83.3% 4 20.0% 3 15.0% 15 83.3% UNITED KINGDOM 0 .0% 5 25.0% 7 35.0% 2 11.1% GERMANY 0 .0% 2 10.0% 2 10.0% 1 5.6% CANADA, BC 2 3.3% 1 5.0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% AUSTRALIA 0 .0% 1 5.0% 3 15.0% 0 .0% CANADA, ALBERTA 3 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% THE NETHERLANDS 0 .0% 2 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RUSSIA 1 1.7% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% MEXICO 0 .0% 1 5.0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% DENMARK 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 10.0% 0 .0% SWITZERLAND 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% SPAIN 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% EUROPE 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CANADA, SASKATCHEWAN 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CANADA, QUEBEC 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CANADA, ONTARIO 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CANADA, NOVA 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% SCOTIA BELGIUM 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total 60 100.0% 20 100.0% 20 100.0% 18 100.0%
77
Please estimate as closely as possible the amount of money that your travel party is spending per day in the Yuma area?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N
Please tell us the number of people 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 these expenses cover
Lodging-camping $89.36 $80.00 299 $131.05 $109.00 267 $129.17 $104.00 279 $120.14 $109.00 269
Restaurant and $60.23 $43.00 268 $68.23 $50.00 254 $67.83 $50.00 282 $62.60 $50.00 240 grocery
Transportation $36.22 $25.00 243 $52.17 $40.00 231 $50.54 $35.00 259 $52.94 $45.00 211 including gas
Shopping souvenirs $49.54 $30.00 165 $61.59 $40.00 129 $73.04 $30.00 130 $64.67 $50.00 107
Recreation-Tours- Rentals-Fees or $56.19 $30.00 112 $39.88 $20.00 60 $35.16 $15.00 56 $35.48 $20.00 48 Permits
Other $232.95 $33.33 31 $278.02 $100.00 20 $172.50 $58.00 20 $119.32 $100.00 19
78
Other expenditures
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Other expenditures defined Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
BEAUTY SHOP-NAILS, HAIR ETC. 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% BEER 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CAMEL FARM 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CAR RENTAL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% CAR REPAIRS 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CASINO 1 12.5% 3 30.0% 1 20.0% 1 50.0% CINENIA 77218 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% CLOTHING 0 .0% 1 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CLOTHING JEWELRY GIFTS 0 .0% 1 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CLOTHING, ARTS & CRAFT SUPPLIES 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CONDUCTING A SEMINAR 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% DENTAL IN ALGADONES 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% DENTAL WORK 1 12.5% 2 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% DENTIST IN ALGODONES 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% DENTIST(?) 0 .0% 1 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% DINNER/MUSIC 0 .0% 1 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% DON'T KNOW 0 .0% 1 10.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total 8 100.0% 10 100.0% 5 100.0% 2 100.0%
79
Quarter #1 (January – March 2010)
Tell us how interested you are in participating in the following activities in the Yuma area
Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Interested Interested Interested Interested Interested Total
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Mean
Playing Golf 50.7% 7.6% 12.2% 15.6% 13.9% 2.3 Hiking or walking trails 21.0% 15.2% 30.7% 20.0% 13.1% 2.9 Visiting cultural and historic sites 13.9% 10.0% 29.0% 32.9% 14.2% 3.2 Visiting parks and recreational areas 15.2% 8.8% 25.3% 34.3% 16.5% 3.3 Bird watching and observing wildlife 36.4% 19.4% 19.8% 12.4% 12.0% 2.4 Boating/Waterskiing/ Personal watercraft 65.2% 12.0% 9.8% 9.1% 4.0% 1.7 Canoeing or kayaking 66.3% 11.7% 13.2% 6.2% 2.6% 1.7 Hunting or fishing 68.7% 7.1% 10.8% 8.2% 5.2% 1.7 Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 41.0% 7.3% 11.5% 14.9% 25.3% 2.8 Biking any form 49.6% 14.1% 16.3% 10.9% 9.1% 2.2 ATVs or off-roading 67.5% 6.9% 11.6% 7.2% 6.9% 1.8 Casino Gaming 46.4% 15.6% 18.3% 13.2% 6.4% 2.2 Visiting museums or galleries 22.7% 13.7% 27.8% 24.1% 11.7% 2.9 Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 35.6% 12.4% 21.8% 18.8% 11.4% 2.6 Visiting Mexico for medical- dental-vision needs 54.3% 9.6% 9.9% 13.7% 12.6% 2.2
Special Event (list) 61.5% 2.6% 12.8% 7.7% 15.4% 2.1
80
Quarter #2 (April – June 2010)
Tell us how interested you are in participating in the following activities in the Yuma area
Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Interested Interested Interested Interested Interested Total
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Mean
Playing Golf 63.4% 7.8% 11.2% 11.6% 6.0% 1.9 Hiking or walking trails 35.6% 11.7% 20.5% 19.7% 12.6% 2.6 Visiting cultural and historic sites 18.3% 12.6% 21.1% 31.3% 16.7% 3.2 Visiting parks and recreational areas 22.7% 11.8% 23.1% 28.2% 14.3% 3.0 Bird watching and observing wildlife 48.4% 15.8% 14.9% 12.2% 8.6% 2.2 Boating/Waterskiing/ Personal watercraft 53.6% 14.7% 15.2% 11.2% 5.4% 2.0 Canoeing or kayaking 55.8% 12.5% 16.1% 11.2% 4.5% 2.0 Hunting or fishing 66.1% 11.8% 9.5% 7.2% 5.4% 1.7 Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 60.4% 8.9% 12.4% 11.1% 7.1% 2.0 Biking any form 54.4% 11.8% 12.3% 10.1% 11.4% 2.1 ATVs or off-roading 68.2% 9.5% 8.6% 9.5% 4.1% 1.7 Casino Gaming 51.6% 18.3% 15.1% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0 Visiting museums or galleries 28.6% 12.1% 19.9% 23.8% 15.6% 2.9 Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 61.3% 11.3% 10.8% 7.7% 9.0% 1.9 Visiting Mexico for medical- dental-vision needs 80.2% 4.1% 5.9% 3.2% 6.8% 1.5
Special Event (list) 69.6% .0% 8.7% 4.3% 17.4% 2.0
81
Quarter #3 (July – September 2010)
Tell us how interested you are in participating in the following activities in the Yuma area
Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Interested Interested Interested Interested Interested Total
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Mean
Playing Golf 61.5% 7.5% 9.4% 13.6% 7.9% 2.0 Hiking or walking trails 33.7% 13.4% 21.8% 20.7% 10.3% 2.6 Visiting cultural and historic sites 20.6% 8.6% 24.0% 30.0% 16.9% 3.1 Visiting parks and recreational areas 26.0% 9.4% 23.8% 26.8% 14.0% 2.9 Bird watching and observing wildlife 44.0% 15.9% 20.2% 11.1% 8.7% 2.2 Boating/Waterskiing/ Personal watercraft 47.8% 15.7% 18.4% 9.8% 8.2% 2.1 Canoeing or kayaking 53.3% 14.9% 16.5% 9.8% 5.5% 2.0 Hunting or fishing 60.9% 11.9% 13.4% 8.7% 5.1% 1.9 Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 59.8% 11.2% 10.8% 12.0% 6.0% 1.9 Biking any form 48.8% 13.8% 15.4% 15.4% 6.7% 2.2 ATVs or off-roading 64.5% 8.6% 10.2% 8.6% 8.2% 1.9 Casino Gaming 53.4% 10.2% 16.2% 14.7% 5.6% 2.1 Visiting museums or galleries 27.7% 11.2% 20.0% 26.5% 14.6% 2.9 Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 57.2% 12.5% 12.8% 7.8% 9.7% 2.0 Visiting Mexico for medical- dental-vision needs 82.0% 4.5% 4.1% 3.7% 5.7% 1.5
Special Event (list) 72.2% 2.8% 4.2% 8.3% 12.5% 1.9
82
Quarter #4 (October – December 2010)
Tell us how interested you are in participating in the following activities in the Yuma area
Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Interested Interested Interested Interested Interested Total
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Mean
Playing Golf 61.5% 7.5% 9.4% 13.6% 7.9% 2.0 Hiking or walking trails 33.7% 13.4% 21.8% 20.7% 10.3% 2.6 Visiting cultural and historic sites 20.6% 8.6% 24.0% 30.0% 16.9% 3.1 Visiting parks and recreational areas 26.0% 9.4% 23.8% 26.8% 14.0% 2.9 Bird watching and observing wildlife 44.0% 15.9% 20.2% 11.1% 8.7% 2.2 Boating/Waterskiing/ Personal watercraft 47.8% 15.7% 18.4% 9.8% 8.2% 2.1 Canoeing or kayaking 53.3% 14.9% 16.5% 9.8% 5.5% 2.0 Hunting or fishing 60.9% 11.9% 13.4% 8.7% 5.1% 1.9 Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 59.8% 11.2% 10.8% 12.0% 6.0% 1.9 Biking any form 48.8% 13.8% 15.4% 15.4% 6.7% 2.2 ATVs or off-roading 64.5% 8.6% 10.2% 8.6% 8.2% 1.9 Casino Gaming 53.4% 10.2% 16.2% 14.7% 5.6% 2.1 Visiting museums or galleries 27.7% 11.2% 20.0% 26.5% 14.6% 2.9 Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 57.2% 12.5% 12.8% 7.8% 9.7% 2.0 Visiting Mexico for medical- dental-vision needs 82.0% 4.5% 4.1% 3.7% 5.7% 1.5
Special Event (list) 72.2% 2.8% 4.2% 8.3% 12.5% 1.9
83
Attending a special event
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Event you attended? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
WEDDING 1 2.9% 0 .0% 2 10.0% 0 .0% YUMA PRISON RUN 0 .0% 2 7.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% PRISON RUN 0 .0% 2 7.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% MUSIC 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% MATO 2 5.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% GOLF TOURNAMENT 2 5.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% FAMILY 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 10.0% 0 .0% ELVIS EXPO 2 5.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% DAV 0 .0% 2 7.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% BUSINESS ONLY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 1 5.0% 0 .0% BASEBALL 0 .0% 1 3.8% 1 5.0% 0 .0% AIRSTREAM RALLY 2 5.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% YUMA CROSSING DAY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% YUMA BIRD & NATURE FEST 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% WORK 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% VOLUNTEERING 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% VISITING PRISON 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% VISIT FRIENDS IN MX 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% VARIOUS EVENTS 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% UP WITH PEOPLE 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% TUBING 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% SOFTBALL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% SAVE PRISON 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0%
84
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Event you attended? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
SAND DUNES 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% S.P. STEAM ENGINE 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RV RALLY 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RUNNING 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% RUBBERSTAMP CONVENTION-MESA, 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% GLENDALE ROTARY SAUSAGE FRY 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% RODEO/FAIR/4-H 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RODEO, CAR SHOW, AIR SHOW, POW-WOW 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RODEO 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% REUNION CLASS 1950 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% REUNION 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% RETIREMENT PARTY 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% REFUGES 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% RED HAT CONVENTION 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% RAILROAD 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% PASSING THRU 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% OUTLAW SHOOT OUT, YUMA T PRISON POW WOW, WINTERHAVEN 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CA ONLY STAYED ONE NIGHT 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% NATURE FESTIVAL 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% MOTORCYCLE RALLY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% MOTOR CYCLE RALLY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% MIDNIGHT @ OASIS 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% MEETING 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0%
85
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Event you attended? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
MACAULY GOLF 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% LETTUCE DAYS-RODEO 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% INWR 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% HUNTING 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% HERE FOR BUSINESS IN CALEXICO 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% GOLF TOURNEY 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% GOLF 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% GM PROVING GROUNDS 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% FARMER MKT-BALLON FEST-BASEBALL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% FAMILY PARTY 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% EATING IN DALLAS FOOD 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% DR VISIT 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% DANCING 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CONVENTION 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% CONFERENCE @ YPG 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% CONFERENCE 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% CLIMBING 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% CIVIL WAR DAYS 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% CASINO BUSINESS 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% CAR SHOWS 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% CAR SHOW & BALLOON 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% CAR SHOW 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% BUSINESS MEXICO 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% BUSINESS 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% BUS TOUR 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% BIRTHDAY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0%
86
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Event you attended? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
BIRDING FESTIVAL; LETTUCE DAYS 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% BIRDING FESTIVAL 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% BIKE RUNS 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% BIKE RUN 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% BALLOONING 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% BALLOON FESTIVAL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% BALLON FESTIVAL 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% BAC 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% 0 .0% ART/MUSIC SHOWS 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% ARIZ WINTER BASEBALL 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% ANY 0 .0% 1 3.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% ALPHA DELTA KAPPA 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 5.0% ALL EVENTS IN OLD TOWN-BASEBALL 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% AIR SHOW 1 2.9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total 34 100.0% 26 100.0% 20 100.0% 20 100.0%
87
Did or will you participate in any of the following?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Did or will you participate in any of the following? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Visiting cultural and historic sites 102 60.7% 49 57.6% 68 66.7% 46 52.9% Visiting parks and recreational areas 100 59.5% 39 45.9% 54 52.9% 38 43.7% Visiting museums or galleries 72 42.9% 40 47.1% 61 59.8% 32 36.8% Hiking or walking trails 82 48.8% 27 31.8% 43 42.2% 36 41.4% Casino Gaming 66 39.3% 29 34.1% 41 40.2% 29 33.3% Visiting Mexico to dine or shop 80 47.6% 26 30.6% 27 26.5% 26 29.9% Playing Golf 68 40.5% 20 23.5% 27 26.5% 17 19.5% Bird watching and observing wildlife 58 34.5% 17 20.0% 30 29.4% 27 31.0% Visiting Mexico for medical- dental-vision needs 66 39.3% 17 20.0% 16 15.7% 22 25.3%
Camping or Recreational Vehicle stay 60 35.7% 19 22.4% 21 20.6% 19 21.8% Biking any form 34 20.2% 11 12.9% 17 16.7% 15 17.2% ATVs or off-roading 26 15.5% 5 5.9% 12 11.8% 7 8.0% Hunting or fishing 13 7.7% 5 5.9% 19 18.6% 12 13.8% Boating/Waterskiing/ Personal watercraft 15 8.9% 7 8.2% 14 13.7% 11 12.6% Special Event (list) 14 8.3% 10 11.8% 11 10.8% 11 12.6% Canoeing or kayaking 13 7.7% 5 5.9% 11 10.8% 9 10.3% Total 168 100.0% 85 100.0% 102 100.0% 87 100.0%
88
Please mark those attractions you have visited or plan to visit in the Yuma area?
Calendar quarter of Survey
Please mark those attractions you January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 have visited or plan to visit in the Yuma area? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Historic downtown 217 72.3% 118 62.8% 131 63.6% 111 67.7% Yuma riverfront
Yuma Territorial Prison 189 63.0% 122 64.9% 116 56.3% 96 58.5%
Yuma Quartermaster 139 46.3% 69 36.7% 100 48.5% 55 33.5% Depot
Cocopah, Paradise or 133 44.3% 43 22.9% 55 26.7% 55 33.5% Quechan Casinos
Martinez Lake or 113 37.7% 26 13.8% 50 24.3% 43 26.2% Fisher’s Landing
Imperial Sand Dunes 80 26.7% 27 14.4% 46 22.3% 46 28.0% NRA
Yuma Art Center, 69 23.0% 36 19.1% 58 28.2% 35 21.3% Historic Theatre
Sanguinetti House 74 24.7% 29 15.4% 43 20.9% 29 17.7% Museum
Kofa, Imperial or Cibola 76 25.3% 17 9.0% 22 10.7% 29 17.7% NWR
The Camel Farm 67 22.3% 20 10.6% 26 12.6% 30 18.3%
Castle Domes Mine 61 20.3% 26 13.8% 24 11.7% 26 15.9% Museum
Other 32 10.7% 20 10.6% 30 14.6% 19 11.6%
Total 300 100.0% 188 100.0% 206 100.0% 164 100.0%
89
Where did you obtain information for the Yuma area?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Where did you obtain information for the Yuma area? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Friends Family or 216 65.1% 102 41.5% 119 44.6% 116 48.9% Co-workers
Other 60 18.1% 80 32.5% 86 32.2% 81 34.2%
Web site or online 37 11.1% 39 15.9% 44 16.5% 28 11.8%
Visitor center or 52 15.7% 42 17.1% 22 8.2% 24 10.1% brochure rack
Guide Book 38 11.4% 27 11.0% 30 11.2% 18 7.6%
Newspaper or Magazine 15 4.5% 11 4.5% 5 1.9% 6 2.5%
Total 332 100.0% 246 100.0% 267 100.0% 237 100.0%
90
Rate level of satisfaction with your Yuma Experience
Calendar quarter of Survey
July to October to January to April to June September December March 2010 2010 2010 2010
Mean Mean Mean Mean
On a scale of 1 to 10 where one is Low and ten is High, please indicate your overall 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 satisfaction with your experience in Yuma area
On a scale of 1 to 10 where one is Low and ten is High, please indicate your overall 8.1 8.2 8.0 7.9 satisfaction with the value for money for the Yuma area
91
On a scale of 1 to 10 where one is Low and ten is High, please indicate your overall satisfaction with your experience in the Yuma area
On a scale of 1 to 10 where Calendar quarter of Survey one is Low and ten is High, please indicate your overall January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 satisfaction with your experience in Yuma area Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 4 1.2% 1 .4% 1 .3% 2 .8%
2 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .3% 1 .4%
3 0 .0% 1 .4% 2 .7% 2 .8%
4 7 2.0% 2 .7% 5 1.7% 1 .4%
5 15 4.3% 15 5.5% 22 7.3% 17 6.6%
6 16 4.6% 17 6.2% 19 6.3% 16 6.2%
7 46 13.3% 38 13.9% 38 12.7% 42 16.3%
8 80 23.2% 69 25.3% 69 23.0% 54 21.0%
9 56 16.2% 45 16.5% 43 14.3% 50 19.5%
10 121 35.1% 85 31.1% 100 33.3% 72 28.0%
Mean Quarter #1 = 8.3, Quarter #2 = 8.3, Quarter #3 = 8.2, Quarter #4 = 8.1
92
On a scale of 1 to 10 where one is Low and ten is High, please indicate the value for money in the Yuma area
On a scale of 1 to 10 where Calendar quarter of Survey one is Low and ten is High, please indicate your overall January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 satisfaction with the value for money for the Yuma area Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3 .9% 1 .4% 0 .0% 1 .4%
2 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .4%
3 2 .6% 2 .8% 3 1.1% 0 .0%
4 8 2.5% 3 1.2% 6 2.1% 7 2.8%
5 19 6.0% 15 5.8% 29 10.2% 26 10.4%
6 26 8.2% 16 6.2% 17 6.0% 16 6.4%
7 37 11.6% 39 15.1% 35 12.3% 44 17.6%
8 78 24.5% 63 24.3% 66 23.2% 49 19.6%
9 55 17.2% 42 16.2% 42 14.7% 43 17.2%
10 91 28.5% 78 30.1% 86 30.2% 63 25.2%
Mean Quarter #1 = 8.1, Quarter #2 = 8.2, Quarter #3 = 8.0, Quarter #4 = 7.9
93
Would you plan a return visit to Yuma?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Would you plan a return visit to Yuma? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Yes 331 95.7% 257 91.8% 273 90.7% 245 94.2%
No 15 4.3% 23 8.2% 28 9.3% 15 5.8%
Total 346 100.0% 280 100.0% 301 100.0% 260 100.0%
Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to friends or family?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 Would you recommend a visit to Yuma to friends or family? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Yes 319 93.3% 241 88.0% 253 87.8% 208 80.3%
No 23 6.7% 33 12.0% 35 12.2% 51 19.7%
Total 342 100.0% 274 100.0% 288 100.0% 259 100.0%
94
Visitor’s age
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N Mean Median Valid N
Yuma visitor’s 57.1 60.0 300 49.7 50.0 253 47.4 48.0 273 49.2 51.0 248 age in years
95
Age by Range
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Visitor Age in ranges Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
20 and under 1 .3% 2 .8% 13 4.8% 6 2.4%
21 - 25 years 7 2.3% 7 2.8% 8 2.9% 9 3.6%
26 - 30 years 7 2.3% 8 3.2% 11 4.0% 24 9.7%
31 - 35 years 16 5.3% 23 9.1% 26 9.5% 20 8.1%
36 - 40 years 11 3.7% 28 11.1% 28 10.3% 17 6.9%
41 - 45 years 11 3.7% 28 11.1% 32 11.7% 23 9.3%
46 - 50 years 21 7.0% 37 14.6% 38 13.9% 24 9.7%
51 - 55 years 26 8.7% 31 12.3% 37 13.6% 35 14.1%
56 - 60 years 56 18.7% 35 13.8% 34 12.5% 24 9.7%
61 - 65 years 56 18.7% 31 12.3% 19 7.0% 28 11.3%
66 - 70 years 57 19.0% 10 4.0% 13 4.8% 16 6.5%
71 - 75 years 24 8.0% 4 1.6% 7 2.6% 10 4.0%
76 years and older 7 2.3% 9 3.6% 7 2.6% 12 4.8%
Total 300 100.0% 253 100.0% 273 100.0% 248 100.0%
96
Age recoded by gender
What is your gender?
Female Male
Calendar quarter of Survey Calendar quarter of Survey
July to October to July to October to January to April to June September December January to April to June September December March 2010 2010 2010 2010 March 2010 2010 2010 2010
Visitor Age in ranges Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
20 and under .7% .8% 7.4% 3.4% .0% .8% 2.3% 1.6%
21 - 25 years 3.6% 2.5% 1.5% 3.4% 1.3% 3.1% 4.5% 4.0%
26 - 30 years 2.1% 2.5% 3.7% 11.8% 2.6% 3.8% 4.5% 7.2%
31 - 35 years 5.0% 11.8% 8.8% 3.4% 5.8% 6.2% 9.8% 10.4%
36 - 40 years 2.9% 10.9% 6.6% 9.2% 4.5% 11.5% 14.3% 4.8%
41 - 45 years 3.6% 10.9% 8.8% 9.2% 3.8% 11.5% 14.3% 9.6%
46 - 50 years 5.0% 15.1% 16.9% 6.7% 9.0% 14.6% 11.3% 12.8%
51 - 55 years 11.4% 10.9% 13.2% 11.8% 6.4% 13.1% 14.3% 16.8%
56 - 60 years 18.6% 12.6% 13.2% 10.1% 19.2% 14.6% 12.0% 9.6%
61 - 65 years 21.4% 15.1% 10.3% 13.4% 16.7% 10.0% 3.8% 9.6%
66 - 70 years 20.0% 2.5% 3.7% 10.1% 17.3% 5.4% 4.5% 3.2%
71 - 75 years 5.0% 1.7% 2.9% 4.2% 9.6% 1.5% 2.3% 4.0%
76 years and older .7% 2.5% 2.9% 3.4% 3.8% 3.8% 2.3% 6.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
97
How many people including yourself in your travel party?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Number of women? 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0
Number of men? 1.7 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.0
Number of children 1.6 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.8 2.0 under 18 years?
Total number of people 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 in your travel party?
98
Who is traveling with you on this trip?
Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Who is traveling with you on this trip? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Family Only 155 45.2% 109 39.1% 133 43.6% 114 43.3%
Nobody, traveling alone 62 18.1% 73 26.2% 89 29.2% 66 25.1%
Family and Friends 56 16.3% 30 10.8% 33 10.8% 27 10.3%
Business Associates 15 4.4% 40 14.3% 36 11.8% 43 16.3%
Friends Only 47 13.7% 26 9.3% 14 4.6% 13 4.9%
Organized Tour Group 8 2.3% 1 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0%
Total 343 100.0% 279 100.0% 305 100.0% 263 100.0%
99
Who is traveling with you on this trip by party size?
Total number of people in your travel party?
Who is traveling with you on this trip? Calendar quarter of Survey
January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010
Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Mean Valid N
Business Associates 2.4 13 3.3 40 3.7 34 3.7 40
Organized Tour Group 19.8 8 5.0 1 . 0 . 0
Nobody, traveling alone 1.0 59 1.1 72 1.0 87 1.0 64
Friends Only 3.6 46 6.4 26 2.0 14 2.8 13
Family Only 2.2 148 2.5 104 2.7 132 2.4 111
Family and Friends 4.0 56 3.2 29 3.2 30 3.2 27
100
Which of the following categories best describes your annual household income?
Calendar quarter of Survey
Which of the following categories best January to March 2010 April to June 2010 July to September 2010 October to December 2010 describes your annual household income? Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Less than $15,000 4 1.4% 6 2.4% 4 1.5% 4 1.7%
$15,000 to $24,999 5 1.7% 8 3.2% 8 2.9% 4 1.7%
$25,000 to $34,999 17 5.9% 7 2.8% 13 4.7% 8 3.4%
$35,000 to $44,999 15 5.2% 8 3.2% 13 4.7% 14 6.0%
$45,000 to $54,999 44 15.3% 22 8.8% 28 10.2% 18 7.7%
$55,000 to $64,999 42 14.6% 17 6.8% 12 4.4% 27 11.5%
$65,000 to $74,999 41 14.2% 34 13.7% 32 11.7% 20 8.5%
$75,000 to $84,999 28 9.7% 27 10.8% 26 9.5% 29 12.3%
$85,000 to $94,999 25 8.7% 8 3.2% 19 6.9% 19 8.1%
$95,00 and above 67 23.3% 112 45.0% 119 43.4% 92 39.1%
Total 288 100.0% 249 100.0% 274 100.0% 235 100.0%
101
Appendix D
Complete Lists of Data &
Open-Ended Comments
102
Visitors who provided California zip codes-County and city of origin
County City/Town Count # Percent Alameda Fremont 1 0.3% Butte Palermo 1 0.3% Calaveras Copperopolis 1 0.3% Contra Costa Clayton 1 0.3% Fresno Clovis 2 0.7% Fresno Dunlap 1 0.3% Fresno Sanger 1 0.3% Fresno, Kings Riverdale 1 0.3% Total 5 1.7% Humboldt Eureka 1 0.3% Imperial Holtville 6 2.1% Imperial El Centro 2 0.7% Imperial Winterhaven 2 0.7% Imperial Salton City 1 0.3% Total 11 3.8% Kern Ridgecrest 2 0.7% Kern Rosamond 1 0.3% Los Angeles Los Angeles 5 1.7% Los Angeles Canyon Country 3 1.0% Los Angeles Sun Valley 3 1.0% Los Angeles Valencia 3 1.0% Los Angeles Canoga Park 2 0.7% Los Angeles Lancaster 2 0.7% Los Angeles Long Beach 2 0.7% Los Angeles Whittier 2 0.7% Los Angeles Agoura Hills 1 0.3% Los Angeles Arcadia 1 0.3% Los Angeles Beverly Hills 1 0.3% Los Angeles Covina 1 0.3% Los Angeles Downey 1 0.3% Los Angeles El Monte 1 0.3% Los Angeles Glendale 1 0.3% Los Angeles Granada Hills 1 0.3% Los Angeles Hacienda Heights 1 0.3% Los Angeles Hermosa Beach 1 0.3% Los Angeles Monrovia 1 0.3% Los Angeles North Hollywood 1 0.3% Los Angeles San Dimas 1 0.3%
103
County City/Town Count # Percent Los Angeles San Gabriel 1 0.3% Los Angeles San Pedro 1 0.3%
Los Angeles Torrance 1 0.3% Total 38 13.2% Madera Madera 1 0.3% Merced Planada 1 0.3% Monterey Salinas 3 1.0% Monterey Greenfield 1 0.3% Monterey Monterey 1 0.3% Total 5 1.7% Napa/Solano American Canyon 2 0.7% Orange Costa Mesa 5 1.7% Orange Fountain Valley 2 0.7% Orange Huntington Beach 2 0.7% Orange Santa Ana 2 0.7% Orange Tustin 2 0.7% Orange Cypress 1 0.3% Orange Fullerton 1 0.3% Orange Garden Grove 1 0.3% Orange Irvine 1 0.3% Orange La Habra Heights 1 0.3% Orange Laguna Hills 1 0.3% Orange Mission Viejo 1 0.3% Orange Newport Beach 1 0.3% Orange Placentia 1 0.3% Orange San Clemente 1 0.3% Orange Seal Beach 1 0.3% Orange Yorba Linda 1 0.3% Total 25 8.7% Riverside Murrieta 6 2.1% Riverside Riverside 4 1.4% Riverside Temecula 4 1.4% Riverside La Quinta 3 1.0% Riverside Sun City 3 1.0% Riverside Menifee 2 0.7% Riverside Palm Desert 2 0.7% Riverside Coachella 1 0.3% Riverside Hemet 1 0.3% Riverside Indio 1 0.3% Riverside Moreno Valley 1 0.3% Riverside Perris 1 0.3%
104
County City/Town Count # Percent Riverside San Jacinto 1 0.3% Riverside Winchester 1 0.3%
Total 31 10.8% Sacramento Sacramento 2 0.7% Sacramento Rancho Cordova 1 0.3% San Bernardino Fontana 2 0.7% San Bernardino Joshua Tree 2 0.7% San Bernardino Montclair 1 0.3% San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga 1 0.3% San Bernardino Yucaipa 1 0.3% San Bernardino Yucca Valley 1 0.3% Total 8 2.8% San Diego San Diego 57 19.8% San Diego El Cajon 9 3.1% San Diego Escondido 5 1.7% San Diego Ramona 5 1.7% San Diego Lakeside 4 1.4% San Diego Alpine 3 1.0% San Diego Carlsbad 3 1.0% San Diego Chula Vista 3 1.0% San Diego Poway 3 1.0% San Diego Vista 3 1.0% San Diego Coronado 2 0.7% San Diego Santee 2 0.7% San Diego Bonita 1 0.3% San Diego Campo 1 0.3% San Diego Fallbrook 1 0.3% San Diego La Mesa 1 0.3% San Diego San Marcos 1 0.3% San Diego San Ysidro 1 0.3% San Diego Solana Beach 1 0.3% San Diego Spring Valley 1 0.3% San Diego Valley Center 1 0.3% Total 108 37.5% San Joaquin Tracy 1 0.3% San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 1 0.3% San Mateo Burlingame 1 0.3% Santa Barbara Santa Maria 2 0.7% Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 1 0.3% Santa Clara Los Altos 1 0.3% Santa Clara Palo Alto 1 0.3%
105
County City/Town Count # Percent Santa Cruz Aptos 1 0.3% Santa Cruz/Monterey/Santa Clara Watsonville 2 0.7%
Shasta Redding 1 0.3% Solano Fairfield 1 0.3% Stanislaus Modesto 2 0.7% Sutter Yuba City 1 0.3% Tehama Corning 1 0.3% Tulare Porterville 2 0.7% Tulare Visalia 2 0.7% Total 4 1.4% Ventura Simi Valley 5 1.7% Ventura Camarillo 3 1.0% Ventura Thousand Oaks 2 0.7% Ventura Moorpark 1 0.3% Ventura Oak Park 1 0.3% Ventura Oxnard 1 0.3% Ventura Santa Paula 1 0.3% Total 14 4.9% Yolo West Sacramento 1 0.3% Unknown Unknown 6 2.1%
Total All Cities/Towns 288 100.0%
106
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip?
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent SAN DIEGO, CA 84 20.6% TUCSON 22 5.4% LOS ANGELES, CA 19 4.7% PHOENIX 16 3.9% CALIFORNIA 15 3.7% ALGONDONES, MEXICO 13 3.2% SAN LUIS, AZ 8 2.0% MEXICO 5 1.2% SEDONA 4 1.0% LAS VEGAS, NV 4 1.0% GRAND CANYON NP 4 1.0% EL CENTRO, CA 4 1.0% USA 3 .7% SAN FRANCISCO, CA 3 .7% OCEANSIDE, CA 3 .7% MEXICALI, MEXICO 3 .7% DISNEYLAND, CA 3 .7% YUMA PROVING GROUNDS 2 .5% YUMA PROVING GROUND 2 .5% YUMA 2 .5% WINTER HAVEN 2 .5% WASHINGTON 2 .5% VALENCIA, CA 2 .5% UTAH 2 .5% TEMECULA, CA 2 .5% SEATTLE, WA 2 .5% SAN DIEGO/OREGON 2 .5% QUARTZSITE 2 .5% PRESCOTT 2 .5% OREGON 2 .5% MESA 2 .5% LOS ALGADONES MEXICO 2 .5% LONG BEACH, CA 2 .5% LAS CRUCES, NM 2 .5% LAKE HAVASU 2 .5% LAGUNA BEACH, CA 2 .5% HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 2 .5% DEL MAR, CA 2 .5% CORONADO, CA 2 .5% CARLSBAD, CA 2 .5% BUSINESS 2 .5% BOSTON, MA 2 .5% AUSTIN, TX 2 .5%
107
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent
ANAHEIM, CA 2 .5% YUMA/PHOENIX 1 .2% YUMA CEMETARY 1 .2% WINTER IN APACHE JUNCTION 1 .2% WEST COAST TO ALASKA 1 .2% WELTON 1 .2% WE ARE ON OUR WAY TO CANADA 1 .2% WASHINGTON DC 1 .2% WARM DRY AREA 1 .2% WALMART 1 .2% VICTORVILLE CA 1 .2% VARIOUS CITIES IN ARIZONA: FLAGSTAFF, TUCSON, YUMA 1 .2%
UNKNOWN 1 .2% TX TO CAL TO TX 1 .2% TX 1 .2% TUSCON 1 .2% TUCSON/SAN DIEGO, CA 1 .2% TUBAC 1 .2% TRAVELLING 1 .2% TRAVEL THROUGHOUT SOUTHWEST 1 .2% TRAVEL FOR WORK 1 .2% TOURING STATE 1 .2% TEXAS (DENTON) 1 .2% TEXAS 1 .2% SURPRISE 1 .2% STOP BEFORE TUCSON 1 .2% ST. DAVID, AZ 1 .2% ST LOUIS, MO 1 .2% SOUTHWEST U.S. ROUND TRIP 1 .2% SOUTHWEST 1 .2% SOUTHERN ARIZONA/CALIFORNIA 1 .2% SONORA NISSAN 1 .2% SONOITA 1 .2% SOMERTON 1 .2% SO. CALIF 1 .2% SEVERAL SE STATES-JUST DRIVIN-LOOKING 1 .2% SEMOLINA IL 1 .2% SCOTTSDALE 1 .2%
108
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent
SCOTTSDALE-SEDONA 1 .2% SANTA FE, NM 1 .2% SANTA BARBARA CA 1 .2% SAND DUNES 1 .2% SAN LUIS MEXICO 1 .2% SAN LUIS & SOMERTON 1 .2% SAN DIEGO....GILBERT 1 .2% SAN DIEGO, TUCSON 1 .2% SAN DIEGO, RETURNING TO TUCSON 1 .2% ROUND TRIP WEST COAST 1 .2% ROUND TRIP TO CA 1 .2% REDMOND, OR 1 .2% QUECHAN RESORT 1 .2% PICACHO DAM AREA-HIDDEN SHORES VILLAGE 1 .2% PHOENIX, YUMA & LA AREAS 1 .2% PHOENIX & YUMA 1 .2% PEORIA 1 .2% PALM SPRINGS, CA 1 .2% ORGAN PIPE NAT'L MON 1 .2% ORANGE COUNTY, CA 1 .2% OLD TUCSON, TOMBSTONE, THEN YUMA 1 .2% OKLAHOMA CITY 1 .2% OHIO 1 .2% OAKLAND, CA 1 .2% NOT SURE, VACATIONING 1 .2% WHERE THE WIND BLOWS! NORTH CAROLINA 1 .2% NONE-TRAVELING CROSS COUNTRY 1 .2% NEW YORK 1 .2% NEW ORLEANS 1 .2% NEW MEXICO 1 .2% NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 .2% NEBRASKS 1 .2% MORRO BAY, CA 1 .2% MONTEREY, CA 1 .2% MISSOURI 1 .2% MICHIGAN 1 .2% MEXICO, SAN DIEGO 1 .2% MESA AZ, YUMA AZ, SAN DIEGO CA 1 .2% MEMPHIS, TN 1 .2% MCRD SAN DIEGO, CA 1 .2%
109
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent
MARICOPA 1 .2% LEMON GROVE, CA 1 .2% LAS VEGAS AFTER VISITING FRIENDS IN TUCSON 1 .2% LAKE HAVASU, CHANDLER, YUMA 1 .2% LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ (HOME) 1 .2% LA JOLLA, CA 1 .2% JUST TRAVELING 1 .2% JOSHUA TREE 1 .2% INDIO, CA 1 .2% IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 1 .2% ILLINOIS 1 .2% I AM ON A ROAD TRIP THROUGH AZ,UT,NV,CA 1 .2% HOOVER DAM 1 .2% HOLTVILLE, CA 1 .2% HERMOSA BEACH, CA 1 .2% HAWAII 1 .2% HARRISBURG, PA 1 .2% GREEN VALLEY 1 .2% GRAND CANYON & PACIFIC OCEAN 1 .2% GERMANY 1 .2% FT HAUCHUCA 1 .2% FOUNTAIN HILLS 1 .2% FLORIDA 1 .2% FLORENCE AZ 1 .2% FLAGSTAFF 1 .2% FAMILY IN YUMA-ROAD TRIP TO ARIZONA & CALIFORNIA 1 .2% FAIR GROUNDS 1 .2% EVERYWHERE 1 .2% EL GOLFO MEXICO 1 .2% EAST SAN DIEGO, CA 1 .2% DOUGLAS 1 .2% DISNEYLAND/LEGOLAND, CA 1 .2% DENTIST IN ALGADONES, MX 1 .2% CROSS COUNTRY RVING 1 .2% COUPEVILLE, WA 1 .2% COMING BACK FOR CA 1 .2% COLORADO 1 .2% CHANDLER 1 .2% CARLSBAD CAVERNS 1 .2%
110
If Yuma was not what is the primary destination of your trip? Count Percent
CARGO MUCHACHO MOUNTAINS 1 .2% CANTON, MI 1 .2% CAMP PENDLETON, CA 1 .2% CALIFORNIA BEACH AREA 1 .2% CALIFORNIA, MISSISSIPPI, AZ 1 .2% CALIF. COASTAL HIGHWAY SF-LA, CA 1 .2% CALEXICO 1 .2% CACTUS GARDEN, RV PARK 1 .2% BUSINESS ALL OVER 1 .2% BRAWLEY, CA 1 .2% BOULDER, CO 1 .2% BISBEE 1 .2% BENSON 1 .2% ATLANTA, GA 1 .2% AROUND AND BACK TO VEGAS 1 .2% ARKANSAS/PENNSYLVANIA 1 .2% ARIZONA GENERAL 1 .2% ARIZONA & NEW MEXICO ROAD TRIP 1 .2% ARIZONA 1 .2% APACHE JUNCTION 1 .2% ALL WEST COAST 1 .2% ALL USA 1 .2% ALL OVER THE STATE 1 .2% ALL OF ARIZONA 1 .2% ALABAMA 1 .2% Total 408 100.0%
111
Other Lodging
Other lodging? Count Percent CASINO 4 13.8% MILITARY BASE 3 10.3% FAIRGROUNDS 3 10.3% YUMA FAIRGROUNDS 2 6.9% RESORT RENTAL 2 6.9% YUMA CO FAIRGROUND RV 1 3.4% RV ON PRIVATE OWNED LOT 1 3.4% RV LOT RENTAL 1 3.4% RV LOT 1 3.4% RESIDENCE 1 3.4% RENT A MOBILE 1 3.4% OWN HOME 1 3.4% HOST FAMILY 1 3.4% HOME 1 3.4% HILTON GARDEN INN 1 3.4% HAVE A PARK MODEL IN WELLTON 1 3.4% FAIR GROUNDS, RV RALLY 1 3.4% FAIR GROUNDS 1 3.4% BOUGHT HOME 1 3.4% APARTMENT 1 3.4% Total 29 100.0%
112
In what City did you spend last night?
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent YUMA 472 46.7% SAN DIEGO, CA 74 7.3% TUCSON 62 6.1% PHOENIX 55 5.4% SCOTTSDALE 10 1.0% HOME 10 1.0% LOS ANGELES, CA 9 .9% EL CENTRO, CA 9 .9% MESA 7 .7% LAS VEGAS, NV 7 .7% LAKE HAVASU CITY 7 .7% CARLSBAD, CA 7 .7% QUARTZSITE 6 .6% PALM SPRINGS, CA 6 .6% FLAGSTAFF 6 .6% EL PASO, TX 6 .6% CHANDLER 6 .6% RIVERSIDE, CA 5 .5% LAS CRUCES, NM 5 .5% TEMPE 4 .4% SEDONA 4 .4% PARKER 4 .4% NEW MEXICO 4 .4% LONG BEACH, CA 4 .4% BLYTHE, CA 4 .4% ALBUQUERQUE, NM 4 .4% WELLTON 3 .3% SIERRA VISTA 3 .3% SALINAS, CA 3 .3% ORLANDO, FL 3 .3% MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 3 .3% GLENDALE 3 .3% FOOTHILLS 3 .3% CHULA VISTA, CA 3 .3% CAVE CREEK 3 .3% YUMA FOOTHILLS 2 .2% WINTERHAVEN 2 .2% WHITTIER, CA 2 .2% WASHINGTON, DC 2 .2% VAN HORN, TX 2 .2% TUSTIN, CA 2 .2% TEMECULA, CA 2 .2%
113
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent SURPRISE 2 .2% SOLEDAD, CA 2 .2% SEATTLE 2 .2% SACRAMENTO, CA 2 .2% RAMONA, CA 2 .2% POWAY, CA 2 .2% MURRIETA, CA 2 .2% MARTINEZ LAKE 2 .2% LORDSBURG, NM 2 .2% LAGUNA BEACH, CA 2 .2% KINGMAN 2 .2% KANSAS CITY, MO 2 .2% GRAND CANYON NP 2 .2% GILBERT 2 .2% ESCONDIDO, CA 2 .2% EL CAJONE, CA 2 .2% DOUGLAS 2 .2% CASA GRANDE 2 .2% CAMARILLO, CA 2 .2% CALIFORNIA 2 .2% BULLHEAD CITY 2 .2% BRAWLEY, CA 2 .2% ANAHIEM, CA 2 .2% ALPINE, CA 2 .2% YUMA PROVING GROUNDS 1 .1% YUMA (FROM TUCSON) 1 .1% YUKON OK 1 .1% YORBA LINDA, CA 1 .1% WISE, VA 1 .1% WINTER HAVEN, FL 1 .1% WESTWEGO, LA 1 .1% WELLS, ME 1 .1% WANTAGE, NJ 1 .1% VISTA, CA 1 .1% VISALIA, CA 1 .1% VICKSBURG, MS 1 .1% TUCSON (HOME) 1 .1% THOUSAND OAKS, CA 1 .1% TEXAS 1 .1% SUN CITY, CA 1 .1% SUGAR LAND, TX 1 .1% STROUDSBURY, PA 1 .1% STERLING HEIGHTS, MI 1 .1% SOMERTON 1 .1%
114
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent
SOLVANG, CA 1 .1% SIMI VALLEY 1 .1% SILVER SPRINGS, NV 1 .1% SHREWSBERRY, MA 1 .1% SEVERAL CITIES (UNDETERMINED) 1 .1% SANTA MARIA, CA 1 .1% SANTA BARBARA, CA 1 .1% SAN MARCOS, CA 1 .1% SALTON SEA STATE PARK, CA 1 .1% SALOME 1 .1% ROSWELL, NM 1 .1% ROCK HILL, SC 1 .1% RICHMOND, VA 1 .1% REEDLEY, CA 1 .1% RANCHO BERNARIO, CA 1 .1% PROVIDENCE, RI 1 .1% PRESCOTT 1 .1% POMONA, CA 1 .1% PERRIS, CA 1 .1% PEORIA 1 .1% PENDLETON, OR 1 .1% PANAMA CITY, FL 1 .1% PALO ALTO, CA 1 .1% PALM BEACH, FL 1 .1% OZONA, TX 1 .1% ORO VALLEY 1 .1% ORANGE, CA 1 .1% ON BOARD CRUISE SHIP (GOING TO S.D.) 1 .1% OCEANSIDE, CA 1 .1% NORFOLK, VA 1 .1% NOGALES 1 .1% NEWPORT BEACH 1 .1% NEW YORK 1 .1% MORRISON, CO 1 .1% MORENO VALLEY, CA 1 .1% MONAHANS, TX 1 .1% MISSION VIEJO, CA 1 .1% MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1 .1% MIDLAND, TX 1 .1% MEXICALI, MEXICO 1 .1% MARICOPA 1 .1% MADERO RANCH 1 .1%
115
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent LOVELAND, CO 1 .1% LIVERMORE, CA 1 .1% LEONARDTOWN, MD 1 .1% LAUGHLIN, NV 1 .1% LAKE ELMO, MN 1 .1% LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 1 .1% LAKE ALAMO 1 .1% KODIAK, AK 1 .1% KAILUA-KONA, HI 1 .1% JOHNSON CITY, TN 1 .1% JACKSONVILLE, FL 1 .1% IRVINE, CA 1 .1% INDIANAPOLIS, IN 1 .1% INDIAN WELLS, CA 1 .1% HUNTSVILLE, AL 1 .1% HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1 .1% HOLTVILLE, CA 1 .1% HERNDON, VA 1 .1% HEREFORD 1 .1% HARKER HEIGHTS, TX 1 .1% GREENFIELD, CA 1 .1% GRAHAM, NC 1 .1% GOLD CANYON 1 .1% GLENDORA, CA 1 .1% GILA BEND 1 .1% FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 1 .1% FORTUNA DE ORO 1 .1% FONTANA, CA 1 .1% FLEW INTO SAN DIEGO AND DROVE TO YUMA 1 .1% FISHER'S LANDING 1 .1% ELIZABETH CITY, NE 1 .1% EI PASO, TX 1 .1% DOWNEY, CA 1 .1% DETROIT, MI 1 .1% DENVER, CO 1 .1% DAVENPORT IA 1 .1% COUPVILLE, WA 1 .1% COUNTRY ROADS RV PARK 1 .1% COTTONWOOD 1 .1% CLARION 1 .1% CHICAGO, IL 1 .1% CARLSBAD, NM 1 .1% CANYON LAKE, CA 1 .1%
116
In what City did you spend last night? Count Percent CANTON, MI 1 .1% BUCKEYE 1 .1% BRIGHTON, MI 1 .1% BOULDER CITY, NV 1 .1% BOILING SPRINGS, SC 1 .1% BLOOMINGTON, IN 1 .1% BLM SENATOR WASH 1 .1% BARSTOW, CA 1 .1% BANNING, CA 1 .1% BALTIMORE, MD 1 .1% BAKERSFIELD, CA 1 .1% AUSTIN, TX 1 .1% AURORA, CO 1 .1% ASHBY 1 .1% ARLINGTON, VA 1 .1% ARCADIA, CA 1 .1% APACHE JUNCTION 1 .1% ANDRADE, CA 1 .1% AMARILLO, TX 1 .1% AJO 1 .1% Total 1011 100.0%
117
In what City will you stay tonight?
In what City will you stay tonight? Count Percent YUMA 664 69.7% SAN DIEGO, CA 62 6.5% TUCSON 32 3.4% PHOENIX 30 3.1% HOME 10 1.0% LOS ANGELES, CA 9 .9% MESA 7 .7% LAKE HAVASU CITY 5 .5% UNCERTAIN 4 .4% LAS VEGAS, NV 4 .4% WELLTON 3 .3% VALENCIA, CA 3 .3% SEDONA 3 .3% MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 3 .3% EL CENTRO, CA 3 .3% COSTA MESA, CA 3 .3% YUMA FOOTHILLS 2 .2% WINTERHAVEN 2 .2% TEMPE 2 .2% SEATTLE 2 .2% PRESCOTT 2 .2% PHOENIX 2 .2% OCEANSIDE, CA 2 .2% MARTINEZ LAKE 2 .2% HOLTVILLE, CA 2 .2% ENCINITAS, CA 2 .2% EDMONTON, ALBERTA 2 .2% CARLSBAD, CA 2 .2% CALIFORNIA 2 .2% ANAHEIM, CA 2 .2% YUMA, ONTARIO, CERRITOS, LOS 1 .1% ANGELES YUMA PROVING GROUNDS 1 .1% YOUNG 1 .1% WILLIAMS 1 .1% WHITTIER, CA 1 .1% WASHINGTON, DC 1 .1% VICTORVILLE, CA 1 .1% VAN HORN, TX 1 .1% URBANA, MO 1 .1%
118
In what City will you stay tonight? Count Percent SURPRISE 1 .1% SUNNYVALE, CA 1 .1% ST LOUIS, MO 1 .1% SONOITA 1 .1% SOMEWHERE IN TEXAS OR NEW MEXICO 1 .1% SOMEWHERE IN N.M. 1 .1% SOMERTON 1 .1% SEVERAL CITIES (UNDETERMINED) 1 .1% SCOTTSDALE 1 .1% SANTA FE, NM 1 .1% SAN MARCOS, CA 1 .1% SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1 .1% SALTON CITY, CA 1 .1% RIVERSIDE, CA 1 .1% RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 1 .1% PRESCOTT VALLEY 1 .1% PHOENIX OR FLAGSTAFF 1 .1% PEORIA 1 .1% PARKER 1 .1% PALM SPRINGS, CA 1 .1% PALM DESERT, CA 1 .1% ORO VALLEY (HOME) 1 .1% ORANGE COUNTY, CA 1 .1% MT PLEASANT, UT 1 .1% MORENCI 1 .1% MISSION VIEJO, CA 1 .1% MENIFEE, CA 1 .1% MARANA 1 .1% LAS CRUCES, NM 1 .1% LAKESIDE, CA 1 .1% LAGUNA WOODS, CA 1 .1% LAGUNA HILLS, CA 1 .1% LAGUNA BEACH, CA 1 .1% LA MESA, CA 1 .1% LA JOLLA, CA 1 .1% JOSHUA TREE NM 1 .1% INDIO, CA 1 .1% HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1 .1% HARTFORD, WI 1 .1% GREENFIELD, CA 1 .1% GLENDORA, CA 1 .1% GILBERT 1 .1%
119
In what City will you stay tonight? Count Percent GILA BEND 1 .1% GERMANY 1 .1% FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 1 .1% FOOTHILLS 1 .1% FLORENCE 1 .1% FLAGSTAFF 1 .1% EL PASO, TX 1 .1% EL CAJONE, CA 1 .1% DON'T KNOW-WILL SHOP IN YUMA TODAY 1 .1% DISNEYLAND 1 .1% DEPENDS ON HOW FAR WE GET 1 .1% DEMING NM 1 .1% DEL MAR, CA 1 .1% DEATH VALLEY, CA 1 .1% COUNTRY ROADS RV PARK 1 .1% CORONADO, CA 1 .1% CHULA VISTA, CA 1 .1% CHANDLER 1 .1% CANYON COUNTRY 1 .1% CAMARILLO, CA 1 .1% BLM SENATOR WASH 1 .1% BILOXI, MS 1 .1% AVONDALE 1 .1% ATLANTA, GA 1 .1% AS FAR AS I GET I DON'T KNOW 1 .1% APACHE JUNCTION 1 .1% ANDRADE, CA 1 .1% ANCHORAGE, AK 1 .1% ALBUQUERQUE, NM 1 .1% Total 953 100.0%
120
Other expenditures
Other expenditures defined Count Percent GOLF 7 8.8% CASINO 6 7.5% DENTAL WORK 4 5.0% TIPS 3 3.8% SHOPPING 2 2.5% MISC EXPENSES 2 2.5% WINE 1 1.3% WE WILL SHOP FOR OUR KIDS & GRANDCHILDREN TODAY. GOING 1 1.3% TO YOUR MALL.
WE HAVE 800 BUDGET TO GIVE YOUR STATE ON VACATION 1 1.3%
WE ARE WORKAMPERS, WORKING FOR OUR RV SITE + PAY 1 1.3%
WE'RE SUPPORTING ARIZONA BECAUSE IT'S POLITICAL STAND 1 1.3%
WATER & SNACKS FOR KIDS 1 1.3% UP WITH PEOPLE 1 1.3% TRAVEL/GAMBLING 1 1.3% TRAILER LIGHTS @ AUTO ZONE 1 1.3% TOILETRIES & SUNDRIES 1 1.3% SWAP MEET 1 1.3% SNOWBIRDS 1 1.3% SNACKS 1 1.3% SHOES 1 1.3% SHIRT 1 1.3% RENTAL CAR 1 1.3% REFRESHMENTS 1 1.3% MISC, SNACKS, DRINKS, BOOKS 1 1.3% MISC SHOPPING (BLACK FRIDAY) 1 1.3% MISC PRESENTS 1 1.3% MISC ITEMS HOUSEHOLD 1 1.3% MIGHT HAVE TO BUY A ROUTER 1 1.3% MEXICO 1 1.3% MEDICAL 1 1.3% MAP 1 1.3% LODGING 1 1.3% LODGING-FOOD-REC-MOVIE 1 1.3% LAUNDRY, MISC 1 1.3%
121
Other expenditures defined Count Percent
LAUNDRY 1 1.3% JUST PASSING THROUGH 1 1.3% INCIDENTAL 1 1.3% INCEDENTALS 1 1.3% IN FOR WEDDING TOTAL SPENT $12,000 LODGING, HOTELS ETC 1 1.3%
HOTEL 1 1.3% HEALTH CLUB FOR THE WEEK 1 1.3% FEES, NEWSPAPER ETC 1 1.3% FATHERS FUNERAL 1 1.3% FAMILY TIME 1 1.3% DRUGS IN MEXICO 1 1.3% DONATION 1 1.3% DON'T KNOW 1 1.3% DINNER/MUSIC 1 1.3% DENTIST(?) 1 1.3% DENTIST IN ALGODONES 1 1.3% DENTAL IN ALGADONES 1 1.3% CONDUCTING A SEMINAR 1 1.3% CLOTHING, ARTS & CRAFT SUPPLIES 1 1.3% CLOTHING JEWELRY GIFTS 1 1.3% CLOTHING 1 1.3% CINENIA 77218 1 1.3% CAR REPAIRS 1 1.3% CAR RENTAL 1 1.3% CAMEL FARM 1 1.3% BEER 1 1.3% BEAUTY SHOP-NAILS, HAIR ETC. 1 1.3% ANTIQUES-ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT WE FIND-ONE ITEM COULD COST $250 1 1.3%
Total 80 100.0%
122
Attending a special event or festival
Event you attended? Count Percent WEDDING 3 3.0% YUMA PRISON RUN 2 2.0% PRISON RUN 2 2.0% MUSIC 2 2.0% MATO 2 2.0% GOLF TOURNAMENT 2 2.0% FAMILY 2 2.0% ELVIS EXPO 2 2.0% DAV 2 2.0% BUSINESS ONLY 2 2.0% BASEBALL 2 2.0% AIRSTREAM RALLY 2 2.0% YUMA CROSSING DAY 1 1.0% YUMA BIRD & NATURE FEST 1 1.0%
WORK 1 1.0% VOLUNTEERING 1 1.0% VISITING PRISON 1 1.0% VISIT FRIENDS IN MX 1 1.0% VARIOUS EVENTS 1 1.0% UP WITH PEOPLE 1 1.0% TUBING 1 1.0% SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT 1 1.0%
SOFTBALL 1 1.0% SAVE PRISON 1 1.0% SAND DUNES 1 1.0% S.P. STEAM ENGINE 1 1.0% RV RALLY 1 1.0% RUNNING 1 1.0% RUBBERSTAMP CONVENTION- MESA, GLENDALE 1 1.0%
ROTARY SAUSAGE FRY 1 1.0% RODEO/FAIR/4-H 1 1.0% RODEO, CAR SHOW, AIR SHOW, POW-WOW 1 1.0% RODEO 1 1.0% REUNION CLASS 1950 1 1.0% REUNION 1 1.0% RETIREMENT PARTY 1 1.0% REFUGES 1 1.0% RED HAT CONVENTION 1 1.0%
123
Event you attended? Count Percent RAILROAD 1 1.0% PASSING THRU 1 1.0% OUTLAW SHOOT OUT, YUMA T PRISON POW WOW, 1 1.0% WINTERHAVEN CA ONLY STAYED ONE NIGHT 1 1.0% NATURE FESTIVAL 1 1.0% MOTORCYCLE RALLY 1 1.0% MOTOR CYCLE RALLY 1 1.0% MIDNIGHT @ OASIS 1 1.0% MEETING 1 1.0% MACAULY GOLF 1 1.0% LETTUCE DAYS-RODEO 1 1.0% INWR 1 1.0% HUNTING 1 1.0% HERE FOR BUSINESS IN CALEXICO 1 1.0% GOLF TOURNEY 1 1.0% GOLF 1 1.0% GM PROVING GROUNDS 1 1.0% FARMER MKT-BALLON FEST- BASEBALL 1 1.0% FAMILY PARTY 1 1.0% EATING IN DALLAS FOOD 1 1.0% DR VISIT 1 1.0% DANCING 1 1.0% CONVENTION 1 1.0% CONFERENCE @ YPG 1 1.0% CONFERENCE 1 1.0% CLIMBING 1 1.0% CIVIL WAR DAYS 1 1.0% CASINO BUSINESS 1 1.0% CAR SHOWS 1 1.0% CAR SHOW & BALLOON 1 1.0% CAR SHOW 1 1.0% BUSINESS MEXICO 1 1.0% BUSINESS 1 1.0% BUS TOUR 1 1.0% BIRTHDAY 1 1.0% BIRDING FESTIVAL; LETTUCE DAYS 1 1.0% BIRDING FESTIVAL 1 1.0% BIKE RUNS 1 1.0% BIKE RUN 1 1.0% BALLOONING 1 1.0%
BALLOON FESTIVAL 1 1.0%
124
Event you attended? Count Percent BALLON FESTIVAL 1 1.0% BAC 1 1.0% ART/MUSIC SHOWS 1 1.0% ARIZ WINTER BASEBALL 1 1.0% ANY 1 1.0% ALPHA DELTA KAPPA 1 1.0% ALL EVENTS IN OLD TOWN- 1 1.0% BASEBALL AIR SHOW 1 1.0%
Total 100 100.0%
125
Other Attractions Visited
Other attraction you visited? Count Percent PEANUT PATCH 8 7.1% YUMA PROVING GROUND 7 6.2% GOLF 5 4.4% GOLF/DESERT HILLS 4 3.5% SWAP MEET 3 2.7% FAMILY 3 2.7% WORK 2 1.8% WETLANDS 2 1.8% VISITOR CENTER 2 1.8% NURSING HOME 2 1.8% MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 2 1.8% MALL 2 1.8% FRIENDS 2 1.8% CRACKER BARREL 2 1.8% BUSINESS ONLY 2 1.8% BUSINESS 2 1.8% YUMA SCORPIONS 1 .9% YUMA PROVING GROUND FOR WORK 1 .9% YUMA PLAZA 1 .9% YUMA DESALTING PLANT 1 .9% YUMA COGEN PLANT 1 .9% WETLAND PARK 1 .9% VISIT FAMILY 1 .9% TVO TIME 1 .9% TUMCO 1 .9% TRIBAL NATIONS IF OPEN TO OUTSIDERS 1 .9% TOUR TRIPS 1 .9% THE MALL 1 .9% SWAPS 1 .9% SWAPMEET 1 .9% SWAP MEETS 1 .9% SULTAN SEA 1 .9% STAPLES INC 1 .9% SHOPPING!!! 1 .9% SENATOR WASH 1 .9% SEGWAY TOUR 1 .9% S.P. STEAM ENGINE 1 .9% RIVER TOUR 1 .9% RIVER FRONT 1 .9% RAY CROCK 1 .9% QUECHAN MUSEUM 1 .9%
QUECHAN 1 .9%
126
Other attraction you visited? Count Percent PROVING GROUNDS 1 .9% PEANUT PATCH, SHAW'S CARPET 1 .9% PEANUT FARM 1 .9% PASS THRU WITHOUT TIME TO DO ANYTHING 1 .9% EXTRA PARADISE CASINO 1 .9% PALMS 1 .9% ONLY STAYED ONE NIGHT 1 .9% OLD DOWNTOWN 1 .9% NWR 1 .9% NATURE PRESERVE 1 .9% MOVIES/SHOWS 1 .9% MOVIES, PARKS 1 .9% MEXICO 1 .9% MCAS 1 .9% MAIN ST PARTIES 1 .9% LUTES CASINO 1 .9% LUTES 1 .9% LOCAL RESTAURANTS 1 .9% IMPERIAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 1 .9% HARKINS THEATER/MALL 1 .9% HAMPTON INN 1 .9% FAIRGROUNDS 1 .9% FAIR GROUNDS 1 .9% DENTIST 1 .9% COURT HOUSE 1 .9% CONVENTION CTR 1 .9% COLORADO RIVER PARK 1 .9% CLIMBED CASTLE DOME 1 .9% CENTER WORLD 1 .9% CENTER OF WORLD 1 .9% CENTER OF THE WORLD 1 .9% BUSINESS YUMA PROVING GROUNDS 1 .9% BUSINESS TRIP 1 .9% BORDER PATROL 1 .9% BLUE GRASS FESTIVAL-QUILT SHOW 1 .9% BASEBALL GAMES 1 .9% BARRY GOLDWATER RANGE, ORGAN PIPE NAT'L MONUMENT, WETLANDS PARK 1 .9%
Total 113 100.0%
127
Information Sources
Visitor Center or Brochure Rack:
Visitor center name? Count Percent YUMA VISITOR CENTER- QUARTERMASTER DEPOT 8 30.8%
YUMA VISITOR GUIDE 1 3.8% YUMA PRISON BROCHURE 1 3.8% YUMA BROCHURE IN HOTEL 1 3.8%
WILLCOX CHAMBER-WORK THERE 1 3.8% VARIOUS 1 3.8% QUARTERMASTER DEPOT 1 3.8% MARK MONK 1 3.8% HOTELS IN LA/SAN DIEGO 1 3.8% HAMPTON INN YUMA 1 3.8% HAMPTON INN BROCHURE RACK 1 3.8% HAMPTON INN 1 3.8% FROM HOTEL 1 3.8% FRIENDS 1 3.8% CAR PROBLEMS 1 3.8% BROCHURE RACK IN HOTEL 1 3.8% AT MOTEL 1 3.8% AT HAMPTON INN (YUMA) 1 3.8% 1ST STOP 1 3.8% Total 26 100.0%
128
Web site or Online
Web site or Online? Count Percent GOOGLE 8 19.0% VISIT YUMA 2 4.8% HILTON.COM 2 4.8% GOOGLE.COM 2 4.8% GOOGLE SEARCH 2 4.8% YUMASUN.COM 1 2.4% YUMA.COM 1 2.4% YUMA VISITOR BUREAU 1 2.4% YUMA HOME PAGE 1 2.4% YAHOO 1 2.4% VISITYUMA.ORG 1 2.4% VISITAZ.COM 1 2.4% VARIOUS 1 2.4% URBAN K9 1 2.4% UNKNOWN 1 2.4% TRIP ADVISOR 1 2.4% THINGS TO DO IN YUMA 1 2.4% STATE PRISON WEB SITE 1 2.4% STATE PARKS 1 2.4% PRISON 1 2.4% ORDERED TOURIST BROCHURE 1 2.4% MAPQUEST 1 2.4% HOTELS.COM 1 2.4% HAMPTON INN SITE 1 2.4% GOVERNMENT TRAVEL WEBSITE 1 2.4% GOGGLE 1 2.4% DEL PUEBLO RV WEBSITE 1 2.4% CRACKER BARREL 1 2.4% CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1 2.4% CHAMBER 1 2.4% ARIZONA 1 2.4% Total 42 100.0%
129
Newspaper or Magazine
Newspaper or Magazine? Count Percent ARIZONA REPUBLIC 3 23.1% YUMA SUN 1 7.7% YUMA NEWS 1 7.7% VARIOUS 1 7.7% SUN 1 7.7% NEW LAW 1 7.7% HUNTING 1 7.7% AZ HIGHWAYS 1 7.7% AT HOTEL 1 7.7% ARIZONA HIGHWAYS 1 7.7% ARIZONA HIGHWAY 1 7.7% Total 13 100.0%
130
Guide Book
Name of Guide Book Count Percent AAA 15 36.6% MAIL 3 7.3% YUMA 2 4.9% MAILED 2 4.9% AAA TOUR BOOK 2 4.9% YUMA MAG @ MOTEL 1 2.4% WELCOME WINTER VISITOR BOOKLET RANCHO RIALTO 1 2.4% RESIDENT BOOKLET
VISITOR CENTER 1 2.4% VISIT CENTER 1 2.4% REQUESTED 1 2.4% ORDERED ONLINE 1 2.4% MOONGUIDE TO AZ 1 2.4% MOON'S ARIZONA 1 2.4% JWANOWSKI & BAEDEKER 1 2.4% FROM FRIEND 1 2.4% ENTERING ARIZONA 1 2.4% CLARION 1 2.4% CALLED & SENT 1 2.4% AZ GUIDE BOOK 1 2.4% AT MOTEL 1 2.4% ARIZONA FROMMERS 1 2.4% AAA ARIZONA 1 2.4% Total 41 100.0%
131
Other source of information
Other source of information? Count Percent WORK 43 13.1% BUSINESS 32 9.7% MAP 9 2.7% MILITARY 4 1.2% PASSING THROUGH 3 .9% NEEDED GAS 3 .9% MARINE CORPS 3 .9% GAS 3 .9% DRIVE BY 3 .9% BUSINESS TRIP 3 .9% YUMA PROVING GROUND 2 .6% SB 1070 2 .6% JUST PASSING THRU 2 .6% HAMPTON INN 2 .6% FRIEND 2 .6% EMPLOYER 2 .6% DRIVING THROUGH 2 .6% BUSINESS ASSOC 2 .6% BEEN HERE BEFORE 2 .6% AIRSTREAM CLUB 2 .6% YUMA SCORPIONS 1 .3% WORKAMPER NEWS 1 .3% WORK/BUSINESS 1 .3% WORK/BUSINESS-YPG 1 .3% WORK, GM PROVING GROUNDS 1 .3% WORK! 1 .3% WORK RESEARCH 1 .3% WORK RELATED 1 .3% WORK RELATED-AG 1 .3% WORK MAP 1 .3% WORK LOCATION IS HERE 1 .3% WORK KAMPER NEWS 1 .3% WORK BRINGS ME 1 .3% WORK ASSIGNMENT 1 .3% WORK ASSIGNED 1 .3% WORK (HOSPITALITY) 1 .3% WORD OF MOUTH 1 .3% WHEN PADRES WERE HERE 1 .3% WHEN I LIVED IN SAN DIEGO 1 .3% WE'VE BEEN COMING HERE FOR YEARS TO MEET FRIENDS 1 .3%
VISITOR CENTER 1 .3%
132
Other source of information? Count Percent VISITOR'S BUREAU 1 .3% VISITING AREA 1 .3% USED TO WINTER HERE 1 .3% USED TO LIVE IN PHX 1 .3% USED TO LIVE HERE 1 .3% USED TO LIVE & WORK HERE 1 .3% US NAVY 1 .3% US MARINES 1 .3% US GOVT ORDERS 1 .3% TRAVELING TO CALIF. 50 YRS AGO 1 .3% TRAVEL ON WAY TO SAN DIEGO 1 .3% TRAVEL OFFICE 1 .3% TRAVEL 1 .3% TOURNAMENT DIRECT 1 .3% TOUR BUS 1 .3% TIME TO STOP 1 .3% THROUGH BUSINESS 1 .3% SUPPORT 1070 1 .3% STREET SIGNS 1 .3% STOPPED FOR GAS 1 .3% STOP OVER 1 .3% SON IN MILITARY 1 .3% SO. CA RESIDENT 1 .3% SISTER LIVES HERE 1 .3% SINCE I WAS A BOY 1 .3% SIGNS 1 .3% SENT HERE 1 .3% S.D. PADRES SPRING TRAINING 1 .3% RVING-CRA PARK 1 .3% RVERS 1 .3% RODE THROUGH ON WAY TO TUCSON 1 .3% ROAD SIGNS GPS 1 .3% RESIDENT 1 .3% REQUIRED BUSINESS TRIP 1 .3% RALLY HOST 1 .3% QUARTERMASTER DEPOT 1 .3% PRISON RUN 1972 1 .3% PRISON RUN 1 .3% PRIOR WORK 1 .3% PREVIOUSLY VISITED 1 .3% PREVIOUSLY RESIDED 1 .3% PREVIOUS VISITS 1 .3% PAST VACATIONS 1 .3% PAST MILITARY 1 .3% PAST EXPERIENCE 1 .3%
133
Other source of information? Count Percent PASSING THRU FROM OTHER AREAS 1 .3% PASSING THRU 1 .3% PASSING THROUGH PRIOR 1 .3% PASSED THROUGH & LIKE 1 .3% PARENTS WINTERED HERE 1 .3% PADRE TRAINING CAMP 1 .3% OUR GPS "POINTS OF INTEREST" 1 .3% ON ROUTE 1 .3% ON BUSINESS 1 .3% NORWALK MOTORCYCLE CLUB 1 .3% NORWALK MC 1 .3% NORWALK M/C CLUB 1 .3% NONE 1 .3% NEW LAW 1070 1 .3% NEED GAS 1 .3% NEED BREAK 1 .3% NAT'L WILDLIFE REFUGE 1 .3% MY COMPANY 1 .3% MOVIE 1 .3% MONTHLY BUSINESS 1 .3% MILITARY/BUSINESS 1 .3% MCAS 1 .3% MARRIED-58 YRS AGO 1 .3% MACAULY GOLF 1 .3% LIVED IN YUMA FOR A TIME 1 .3% LIVED IN YUMA 1 .3% LIVED HERE BEFORE 1 .3% LIVED HERE AS A CHILD 1 .3% LIVED HERE 6 YEARS 1 .3% LIVED HERE 30 YRS AGO 1 .3% LIVED HERE 1 .3% LIVE IN YUMA 90-91 1 .3% LIVE IN THE STATE. HAVE BEEN HERE MANY TIMES 1 .3% LIVE IN SO CAL & TRAVEL THROUGH 1 .3% LIVE IN LAKE HAVASU 1 .3% LIVE IN AZ 1 .3% KNOWLEDGE OF AREA 1 .3% JUST TRAVELING THRU 1 .3% JUST PASSING THROUGH 1 .3% JUST PASSING 1 .3% JUST GOT GAS 1 .3% JUST DRIVING THROUGH 1 .3%
134
Other source of information? Count Percent JOB ANNOUNCEMENT 1 .3% JOB 1 .3% IT IS NEAR RELATIVES 1 .3% IT'S ON THE HIGHWAY 1 .3% IMPERIAL NWR 1 .3% I USE TO BE STATIONED HERE 1 .3% I SPENT 2 WINTERS IN RV PARKS IN YUMA 1 .3% HUSBANDS COMPANY 1 .3% HUSBAND 1 .3% HOTEL 1 .3% HISTORY BUFF 1 .3% HISTORY BOOKS 1 .3% HISTORICAL FICTION 1 .3% HILTON HOTELS 1 .3% HIGHWAY SIGN FOR PRISON 1 .3% HERE ON BUSINESS 1 .3% HERE FOR WORK AT YPG 1 .3% HERE 2 SUPPORT YOU 1 .3% HAVE LIVED IN LHC FOR 12 YRS 1 .3% DUNES HAVE BUSINESS HERE 1 .3% HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE 1 .3% HARLEY DAVIDSON MAP 1 .3% HAMPTON INN, YUMA 1 .3% GREW UP IN YUMA 1 .3% GREW UP HERE 1 .3% GOVERNMENT TRUCK 1 .3% GOT FUEL 1 .3% GOOD ROUTE TO/FROM CA 1 .3% GOLF TOUR 1 .3% GOLF 1 .3% GM PROVING GROUND 1 .3% GET GAS 1 .3% GAS & MAP 1 .3% GAS-TIRED 1 .3% FORMER RESIDENT 1990 1 .3% FOR WORK-PROVING GROUNDS 1 .3% FIRST VISIT WAS WORK RELATED 1 .3% FATHER STATIONED AT YPG 1 .3% FARMING 1 .3% FAMILY VACATION 1955 1 .3% FAMILY LIVES HERE 1 .3% FAMILY IN CA 1 .3% EMPLOYER (DOD) 1 .3% DUNES 1 .3%
135
Other source of information? Count Percent DRIVING TO SAN DIEGO 1 .3% DRIVING THRU 1 .3% DRIVING BY 1 .3% DRIVING AROUND CITY 1 .3% DAV 1 .3% CUSTOMER VISIT TO YPG 1 .3% CUSTOMER 1 .3% CONTRACT AT MCAS 1 .3% COMPANY I WORK FOR HAS A CONTRACT WITH YUMA REGIONAL 1 .3% MEDICAL CENTER COMPANY 1 .3% COMING THROUGH 1 .3% CLIENT 1 .3% CIRCLE K STORE 1 .3% CAR TROUBLE HAMPTON INN CLOSE 1 .3% CAN'T RECALL 1 .3% CAMPING CLUB & INTERSTATE TRAVEL 1 .3% CA HWY SIGNS 1 .3% BUSINESS/SALES 1 .3% BUSINESS/AG 1 .3% BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT 1 .3% BUSINESS TRIP-GM DESERT PROVING GROUND 1 .3%
BUSINESS REQUIREMENT 1 .3% BUSINESS REQUEST 1 .3% BUSINESS ONLY 1 .3% BUSINESS OFFICE 1 .3% BUSINESS NEEDS 1 .3% BUSINESS INFO 1 .3% BUSINESS EXPECTATION 1 .3% BUSINESS EVENT 1 .3% BUSINESS AT YUMA PROVING GROUND 1 .3% BUISNESS 1 .3% BREAK TIME 1 .3% BORN HERE 1 .3% BORN & RAISED HERE 1 .3% BIRTH PLACE 1 .3% BILLBOARD 1 .3% BEING HERE 1 .3% BEEN COMING & GOING FOR 55 YEARS W/FRIENDS & FAMILY 1 .3% ATLAS 1 .3%
136
Other source of information? Count Percent ART SHOW 1 .3% ARMY 1 .3% AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL DEPT 1 .3% AMA 1 .3% AIRSTREAM GRP 1 .3% AIR STREAM EVENT 1 .3% AGRICULTURE 1 .3% AAA BOOK 1 .3% A MOVIE, OLD 1 .3% 4TH GENERATION AZ 1 .3% 1070/BOYCOT 1 .3% 1/2 MARK ON TRIP 1 .3% Total 329 100.0%
137
What do you like BEST about Yuma?
WEATHER FRIENDLY PEOPLE CLIMATE PEOPLE THE PEOPLE GOLF EVERYTHING FRIENDLY THE WEATHER FOOD SHOPPING SCENERY RELAXING HISTORY HAMPTON INN SUN NICE PEOPLE LOCATION BUSINESS WARM WEATHER PEOPLE ARE FRIENDLY HOTEL FAMILY ALL THINGS TO DO THE SUN SUNSHINE SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE SAND DUNES RESTAURANTS PRISON PRICES PEOPLE & WEATHER OLD TOWN NOTHING LEAVING GOOD FOOD CLEAN HOTEL WORK WEATHER/PEOPLE WEATHER IN WINTER WEATHER & PEOPLE WARMTH WARM WEATHER IN WINTER VIEWS
138
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
TRAFFIC THE WARM WEATHER THE SUNSHINE TERRITORIAL PRISON SB 1070 RIVER QUIET PEOPLE FRIENDLY ONLY HERE FOR BUSINESS NO TRAFFIC NICE HOTEL NA MUSEUMS MOUNTAINS MEXICO MEXICAN FOOD LOW HUMIDITY LOTS TO DO HOSPITALITY HISTORIC DOWNTOWN GOLF WEATHER FRIENDS FRIENDLINESS OF PEOPLE EASY TO GET AROUND EASY ACCESS DESERT CONVENIENT PLACE TO STOP CONVENIENCE CLEAN AIR CLEAN CASINO YUMA TERRITORIAL PRISON & SUNSHINE YUMA TERRITORIAL PRISON YUMA SCORPIONS YUMA QUARTERMASTER DEPOT/PRISON YUMA PROVNG GROUNDS YUMA PALMS SHOPPING AREA YUMA PALMS AREA YUMA PALMS YUMA WX WONDERFUL VACATION WINTER WEATHER WINTER CLIMATE WINTER‐MILD CLIMATE
139
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
WELCOME WEATHER/SAND DUNES/PEOPLE WEATHER/LACK OF HUMIDITY FALL WINTER SPRING WEATHER/HISTORY WEATHER/EASY TO TRAVEL AROUND WEATHER/ACTIVITIES WEATHER, SCENERY, DESERT WEATHER, RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES MEMENTOS SCRAPBOOK STORE WEATHER, PEOPLE, GOLF WEATHER, MEXICO NEARBY WEATHER, LITTLE TRAFFIC WEATHER, LIFE STYLE, MOUNTAINS & DESERT, FRIENDS WEATHER, HIKING, BIKING, DANCING WEATHER, GOLFING, FRIENDLY PARK WEATHER, GOLF, SMALL TOWN WEATHER, GOLF WEATHER, FRIENDLY RESIDENTS WEATHER, DINING WEATHER WINTER WEATHER THIS TIME OF YEAR WEATHER PEOPLE WEATHER IS BEAUTIFUL, VERY PLEASANT WEATHER IN OCTOBER WEATHER DESERT WEATHER AND SMALL TOWN FEELING WEATHER AND PEOPLE WEATHER (EXCEPT SUMMER) WEATHER & SHOPPING WEATHER & RIVER WEATHER & HOTEL WEATHER‐SHOPPING‐MOTEL WEATHER‐PEOPLE ARE NICE WEATHER‐NOT HUMID WEATHER WE JUST GOT GAS & SODA'S WATERFRONT AREA WATER PARK, PLAYGROUNDS WASN'T HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW WARMTH, DRY AIR WARMTH & CONVENIENCE WARM WEATHER WHEN COMPARED WITH CANADIAN WEATHER WARM IN DEC WARM WALKING DISTANCE OF HAMPTON INN TO YUMA PALMS WALKING
140
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
VISTAS VISITOR CENTER/DEPOT VISITOR CENTER EMPLOYEES (VERY HELPFUL & FRIENDLY) VISITING WITH MY FAMILY & CAMPING VISITING THE YUMA TERRITORIAL PRISON VISITING OUR OLD STOMPING "GROUNDS" VISITING MY FAMILY VISITING FRIENDS & SHOPPING IN MEXICO VISITING FAMILY, DINING VISITING FAMILY VERY VERY FRIENDLY PEOPLE! VERY SCENIC VERY PLEASANT AREA; FRIENDLY PEOPLE VERY NICE WEATHER VERY LITTLE VEGGIES VARIETY OF STORES VARIETY OF RESTAURANTS/HOTELS VARIETY OF PLACES TO GO & SEE & CLIMATE VARIED ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS VALUE VACATION UPGRADE TO SUITE AT HAMPTON INN UPDATED HOTELS, FOOD ETC. TUBING THE COLORADO TREES, WELL DESIGNED LANDSCAPE THIS HOTEL THEATRES, SHOPPING, WEATHER THE WINTER WEATHER THE WINTER THE WEATHER, THE PEOPLE, HIKING THE WEATHER AND FRIENDLY PEOPLE THE WEATHER ...LOL THE WEATHER (SUNSHINE) THE WEATHER & THE PEOPLE THE WEATHER & LANDSCAPE‐BEAUTIFUL THE STORE WE NEEDED WAS OPEN. DON'T REALLY THINK OF YUMA AS A DESTINATION. THE STAFF AT STAPLES AND THE HAMPTON INN‐THEY ARE THE BEST THE STAFF @ DESERT HILLS GC THE SHOPPING MALL THE SHOPPING & GOLF THE ROOM THE RIVER THE RECEPTIONIST AT THE CLARION THE QUARTERMASTER DEPOT
141
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
THE PRISON TOUR, HOSPITALITY IS A1 THE PRICE OF THE HAMPTON INN THE PEOPLE VERY NICE THE PEOPLE & YUMA MALL THE PEOPLE & EVENTS THE PEOPLE & ATMOSPHERE THE PEOPLE‐VERY FRIENDLY THE NEW SHOPS THAT ARE HERE THE MUSEUM THE MALL & RESTAURANTS ARE EASY TO FIND THE LOCATION THE LADIES THE HOTEL WITH COMPLIMENTARY BREAKFAST THE HISTORY THE HISTORICAL ASPECT THE HAMPTON INN & SUITES THE HAMPTON INN THE HAMPTON HOTEL THE HAMPTON THE FRIENDLY PEOPLE THE ENVIRONMENT, GOOD RESTAURANTS THE EASE OF GETTING TO HOTEL FROM HIGHWAY THE DRY CLIMATE THE DESERT AND THE HEAT! THE COUNTY THE COMFY BED IN MY HOTEL THE CLIMATE, THE WIND, THE PEOPLE THE CLIMATE THE CLARION SUITES HAPPY HOUR THE AVAILABILITY OF RESTAURANTS THAT MY DAUGHTER WILL BE LIVING HERE TEXAS ROADHOUSE TERRITORIAL PRISON VISIT TEMPERATURE SURPRISED BY SHOPPING & RESTAURANT VARIETY SUNSHINE, FRIENDLY SUNSHINE AND VEGIS SUNRISES & SUNSETS, THE FALL"EVENINGS" SUN, BLUE SKIES, RELAXATION SUN & PEOPLE SUN & LOTS TO DO SUN & HEAT SUN‐WARM WEATHER SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS STAFF AT HOTEL
142
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
SPRAGUE SPOETS SPACE SOMEPLACE TO GET GAS ALONG ROAD SO MUCH TO DO SO FAR RESTAURANTS & SHOPPING SMALL TOWN, EVERYTHING IS NEARBY SMALL TOWN W/LOTS OF ACCOMMODATING SMALL TOWN FEEL SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE‐GRASS & TREES‐WATER SMALL TOWN APPEAL SMALL TOWN SMALL ENOUGH TO GET AROUND SMALL CITY‐EASY TO GET AROUND SIGHTSEEING SIGHTS SHORT STAY SHOPS/RESTAURANTS SHOPPING MALL CASINOS SHOPPING DILLARDS, HAMPTON INN AND CRACKER BARREL SERVICES & SHOPPING SEEMS LIKE A CLEAN CITY SEEMED NEWER SEEING RELATIVES‐FELT SAFE SEEING OUR SON SEEING MY DAD & WEATHER SEEING A NEW AREA AND PLACE SECOND HOME & FRIENDS SECOND HOME SCENERY, WEATHER, NICE HOTELS, CRACKER BARREL SANGUINI HOUSE SAND DUNES NEARBY RV PARK ROADS AND EASY ACCESSIBILITY RIVERFRONT ART CENTER & FRIENDS RIVER, WILDLIFE, HIKING & FISHING RIVER, CLOSE TO BORDER RIVER CITY GRILL RIVER‐IT GETS HOT RIGHT OFF HIGHWAY RELAXING ATMOSPHERE RELAXED DESERT ATMOSPHERE RELAXED ATMOSPHERE & CHINA BUFFET RELAX ATMOSPHERE & CHINA BUFFET RED LOBSTER REASONABLE PRICES
143
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
RE‐VISIT QUIET, GOOD GOLF QUECHAN CASINOS QUARTERMASTER DEPOT QUARTER MASTER MUSEUM PROXIMITY TO A VARIETY OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES PRISON, NWR PRISON WEATHER PRICE FRIENDLY PRICE PRETTY, QUIET TOWN PRETTY SCENERY PLANTS/ANIMALS PLACE TO STAY AND GO TO CHURCH PEOPLES KINDNESS PEOPLE; SHOPPING PEOPLE/SITE PEOPLE, HAMPTON INN PEOPLE WEATHER PEOPLE ARE VERY FRIENDLY PEOPLE ARE SO FRIENDLY PEOPLE ARE FRIENDLY‐HOTEL CLEAN‐ SITES INTERESTING PEOPLE AND SUN PEOPLE‐PRICES‐FUN PEANUT PATCH PEANUT FACTORY PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE PEACEFUL PARKS PARK WAS INTERESTING OUTDOORS OUR STAY AT HAMPTON INN OUR HOTEL WAS WONDERFUL OPEN SPACE OPEN FEELING OF TOWN ON BUSINESS OFF ROADING, MILITARY BASE NUMEROUS DINING/SHOPPING OPTIONS NOTHING STICKS OUT NOTHING‐HERE FOR WORK NOT SURE YET/FRIENDLY NOT SURE YET NOT SURE NOT SO CROWDED NOT MUCH‐ALL WORK FOR ME
144
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
NOT HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW NO TRAFFIC CONGESTION NO OPINION NICE WEATHER IN WINTER NICE WEATHER NICE TOWN, GOOD SHOPPING & RESTAURANTS NICE STOP FOR ROAD TRIP NICE SHOPPING AREA @ YUMA MALL ON 16TH ST NICE RESTAURANTS NICE PLACE, LOTS OF HOTEL CHOICES NICE PLACE TO BREAK UP THE DRIVE FROM SAN DIEGO NICE PEOPLE/CLEAN VERY FRIENDLY HAMPTON INN NICE PEOPLE & FACILITIES NICE LITTLE CITY, CLEAN NICE HOTELS, RESTAURANTS NICE HOTEL ROOM‐FRIENDLY PEOPLE NICE HOTEL GOOD FOOD NICE HOTEL‐GOOD FOOD‐GOOD JUMP OFF TO San Diego POINT NICE CLIMATE NEW TO THE AREA NEW SHOPPING RESTAURANTS HOTELS NEW RESTAURANTS & ACTIVITIES NEW MALL & CLEAN HOTEL NEW LAWS NEW JOB NEW HOTELS, PLACES TO DINE, SHOPPING NEW HOTELS & RESTAURANTS NEW GRANDSON NEW CONSTRUCTION, HOT WEATHER NATURAL BEAUTY N/A MY WIFE LIKES THE WEATHER MY PARENTS & THE MEXICAN FOOD MY MOM MY HOMETOWN MY FRIENDS MY FRIEND MY FAMILY MOTORCYCLE RIDING MOTORCYCLE EVENTS MOTHER'S GRAVESITE MOTEL/DINNER MEXICAN RESTAURANTS MEETING NEW PEOPLE & HOW EASY TO GET AROUND. MEETING NEW PEOPLE
145
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
MCAS MARTINEZ LAKE/FISHERS LANDING & IMPERIAL SAND DUNES MANY THINGS TO DO MANY RESTAURANT CHOICES MALL/HOTEL AREA MALL & RESTAURANT MALL LUTES CASINO LUTES LUTE'S CASINO LOW KEY, FRIENDLY, WEATHER, FEEL SAFE LOTS TO DO & SEE LOTS OF RESTAURANTS/TERRITORIAL PRISON LOTS OF RESTAURANTS LOTS OF MUSEUMS LOTS OF CUSTOMERS LOTS OF BUSINESS/REST LODGING & FOOD LOCATION (MOST OF ALL THE SOFT SHEETS FROM HOTEL) LIKED ALL OF IT LESS TRAFFIC LEISURE LEARNING ABOUT THE LETTUCE INDUSTRY & SEEING THE FIELDS LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE, SHOPPING POSSIBILITIES LADY AT THE VISITOR PLACE LADY @ VISITOR CENTER LADY @ VISIT CENTER LADIES AT VISITOR CENTER KOFA REFUGE KOFA BIG SHEEP & BIRDING KING SIZE BED JUST STAYING OVERNIGHT ON WAY TO SAN DIEGO JUST STARTED JUST PASSING THRU‐GOOD RESTAURANTS JUST PASSING BY JUST GOT HERE‐DON'T KNOW YET JULIANNA'S IT WAS INVITING THE WEATHER WAS NICE IT IS CLEAN W/LOTS OF STORES & CASINO IT'S PEACEFUL AND BEAUTIFUL IT'S NOT CALIFORNIA (AND I LIKE YUMA'S FRIENDLINESS) IT'S LIKE HOME IT'S GROWING UP IT'S DRY! NO HUMIDITY!
146
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
IT'S CLEAN IMPERIAL NWR I WAS HERE FOR BUSINESS I LIKE THE PEOPLE‐MOST ARE VERY FRIENDLY I LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE IN YUMA BEST I HAVE OFFICES HERE I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YUMA DUE TO BUSINESS TRIP HOTELS, PEOPLE, COUNTRY SIDE HOTELS HOTEL/RESTAURANT CONVENIENCE & WESTCOR MALL AS SAFE PLACE FOR KIDS TO STRETCH LEGS HOTEL, RESTAURANT, SHOPPING CENTER HOTEL TO STOP @ HOTEL STAFF AND THE TACO STAND HOTEL (HAMPTON INN) RESTAURANTS & SHOPPING HOTEL & FOOD‐SHOPPING HOSPITALITY/MOTEL/FOOD/CASINO/LOW KEY HAMPTON INN & SUITES & MI RANCHO HOME TOWN HOSPITALITY HOME TOWN HISTORY & FRIENDLY PEOPLE HISTORY‐RIVER HISTORY‐OLD WEST HISTORY HISTORICAL STUFF HISTORICAL SITES HISTORICAL SITE/LUTES CASINO/HAMPTON INN HISTORICAL PLACES & SITES HISTORICAL PARKS HISTORICAL ATTRACTIONS HISTORIC SITES HISTORIC PRISON HISTORIC DOWNTOWN YUMA HISTORIC DISTRICT HILTON GARDEN INN HILTON GARDEN INN‐HISTORIC AREA DOWNTOWN HIKES & PEOPLE HERE ON BUS ONLY HELPFUL MUSEUM STAFF & GREAT COLLECTION HELP AT VISITOR'S CENTER HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH YET HAVEN'T BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO PICK YET. HAVE NOT HAD CHANCE TO EXPLORE ALWAYS PASSING THROUGH HARKINS MOVIE THEATRE HAMPTON INN WAS VERY NICE HAMPTON INN SUITES HAMPTON INN‐VERY NICE
147
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
HAMPTON HOTEL GROWTH GROWING CITY‐NICE MALL GREAT INN! GOT AWAY FROM HOME GORGEOUS WEATHER IN THE WINTER GOOD WEATHER IN WINTER GOOD WEATHER AND MEXICAN FOOD! GOOD SHOPPING GOOD REST STOP GOOD PLACES TO EAT & SHOP GOOD HOTELS, BARS, RESTAURANTS GOOD HOTELS TO CHOOSE FROM GOOD HOTEL, RESTAURANTS IN MALL GOOD GOLF GOOD FOOD, FRIENDLY PEOPLE GOOD FOOD & HOTEL GOOD ACCOMMODATIONS & FOOD GOLFING GOLF, WEATHER GOOD GOLF, FOOD GOLF AND SUN GOLF & DINNER AT JACK & ROSIE'S GOING OUT IN DESERT AREA, FOOD GENERAL FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE GAS PRICES GAS FOR AUTOS GAS FRIENDS & FAMILY FRIENDS & BUSINESS ASSOCIATES FRIENDLY, THINGS TO DO FRIENDLY, CLEAN CITY & BUSINESS FRIENDLY, CLEAN FRIENDLY RESIDENTS FRIENDLY POLICE FRIENDLY PEOPLE FAIRLY COMPACT SIZE FRIENDLY PEOPLE‐NICE HOTEL (HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS) FRIENDLY PEOPLE‐LODGING‐VALUE FRIENDLY FOLKS FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE FRIENDLY‐PEOPLE FRIENDLY‐EASY TO GET AROUND FRIENDLY‐AGRICULTURE, DESERT FRIENDLINESS, TIDY APPEARANCE FRIENDLINESS OF RESIDENTS/CUSTOMER SERVICE @ STORES/RESTAURANTS
148
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
FRIENDLINESS‐SHOPPING AVAILABILE FOOD & SHOPPING CLOSE TO HOTEL FOOD & LODGING OPTIONS FOOD & ACCOMMODATION FOOD‐MAIN ST‐WEATHER FOOD‐LODGING FIRST TIME HERE DON'T KNOW YET FARMLAND IS BEAUTIFUL FARM, FRIENDS, PEOPLE FAMILY/FRIENDS FAMILY FRIENDS LIVE HERE & WEATHER FAMILY & FRIENDS FAMILY & AGRICULTURAL SIGHT SEEING EXPANSIVE‐LANDSCAPING EXCELLENT MEXICAN FOOD EXCELLENT CULTURAL‐HISTORIC SITES EVERYTHING WEATHER EVERYTHING RIGHT WHERE YOU NEED IT. EVERY THING ENVIRONMENT/NATURAL AREAS/QUIET PLACES/NO LIGHTS EASY TO NAVIGATE EASY TO GET AROUND, GOOD VALUES EASY TO GET AROUND‐MANY FOOD & SHOPPING OPTIONS EASY TO FIND EASY HIGHWAY EXIT & ENTRANCE EASY GOING EASY ACCESS TO SHOPPING EASY ACCESS TO FOOD EASE OF TRAVEL EASE OF STOPPING OVERNIGHT DRY DR FLORES‐IN MEXICO DOWNTOWN DON'T KNOW YET DON'T KNOW DON'T KNOW‐JUST ARRIVED DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE FAR TO GET AROUND TOWN DIVERSE ACTIVITIES DIFFICULT TO ANSWER‐BUSINESS TRIP ONLY DIDN'T SPEND ENOUGH TIME DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT LEISURE TIME TO ACCESS DESERT SCENERY DESERT REFUGES DESERT HILLS GOLF & HISTORIC SITES DESERT GOLF COURSE
149
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
DESERT‐STORES‐PEOPLE! DATE SHAKES CULTURE CRACKER BARREL COST CONVIENCE CONVENIENT WHEN TRAVELING THRU CONVENIENT HOTELS TO YPG CONVENIENCE OF MOTELS TO RESTAURANTS CONVENIENCE OF LODGING TO WORK CONVENIENCE OF CLEAN HOTEL TO FOOD, GAS CONVENIENCE & QUALITY HOTELS COMFORTABLE COLORADO RIVER CLOSE TO IMPERIAL SAND DUNES CLOSE TO HOME CLOSE TO FAMILY CLIMATE/LOCATION CLIMATE, PEOPLE CLIMATE, FRIENDLY PEOPLE, MANY MERCHANTS, SCENERY CLIMATE, FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE CLIMATE, FOOD, MY CLIENT CLIMATE (WINTER) CLIMATE & LOCATION CLIMATE & GEOGRAPHY CLIMATE & AGRICULTURE CLEAN, SAFE, MUCH TO SEE & DO CLEAN, NEW SHOPPING, & LODGING CLEAN, CONVENIENT CLEAN CITY CLEAN AIR, FRIENDLY PEOPLE CHILI PEPPER CHEAP GAS CHARM CASINOS CASINO, RIVER BY THE FREEWAY BUSINESS TRIP BUSINESS RELATED BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY BURGER & BEER GRILL/HAMPTON INN BLEND OF OLD AND NEW BIRD FEST BIG HOTEL
150
What do you like BEST about Yuma? (cont.)
BEST PLACE TO CROSS TO MEXICO & BACK‐LEAST HASSLE BED AT HAMPTON INN BEAUTIFUL AREA, GREAT FOOD & PEOPLE BEAUTIFUL BARS AVAILABLE SHOPPING + OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ATTRACTION AVAILABILITY‐STORES ATTRACTION AREA WE STAYED IN BY HAMPTON IS CONVENIENT TO HIGHWAY & SHOPPING & MOVIES APPEARANCE AMERICANS AMENITIES‐SHOPS, HOTEL SELECTION ALWAYS ENJOY HAMPTON INN & SUITES ALL THE SPECIAL EVENTS ALL THE EVENTS ALL GOOD ALL EXCEPT THE HEAT ALASKA PICNIC IN FEBRUARY AIR CONDITIONING, SOME SUN AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL LAND ACCOMMODATIONS A LOT OF NATURAL SCENERY MINUTES FROM TOWN 1/2 WAY TO CALIF BEACHES
151
What do you like LEAST about Yuma?
HEAT NOTHING WIND TRAFFIC HOT WEATHER DUST CONSTRUCTION THE HEAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION RAIN SUMMER HEAT NONE TOO HOT TEMPERATURE NOTHING YET FOOD HEAT IN SUMMER TOO HOT IN SUMMER THE HEAT! NOTHING COMES TO MIND HOT WEATHER ZERO WORK WIND/RAIN TRAFFIC CONSTRUCTION TOO WINDY TOO HOT!! THE CONSTRUCTION SMELL SAND ROAD WORK NOT SURE NOT ENOUGH TIME NO BODY SPEAKS ENGLISH NEED BETTER RESTAURANTS LANDSCAPE HOT! HOT WEATHER IN SUMMER DUST/WIND DIRT BUGS 110 DEGREES YUMA HAS GOTTEN BIGGER YUMA
152
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
YOU SHOULD HAVE MORE PALM TREES WX WINDS WIND/DUST WIND, DUST, HAPHAZARD DEVELOPMENT & ZONING WIND! (CAN'T BE HELPED) WIND! WIND DUST WIND & SAND BLOWING WIND & BLOWING SAND WIND‐HA! WHEN IT'S VERY WINDY WEATHER TOO WARM WEATHER (WIND) WEATHER (HEAT) WE LIKE YUMA WE HAVE BEEN TO SIERRA VISTA AZ, ROCKPORT TX, NEEDLES, CA & HERE FOR WINTER. THERE IS MORE TO DO & SEE BY FAR.
WATER (DRINKING ETC) WATER WAIT AT THE BORDER OF MEXICO VERY WINDY VARIETY OF SALADS @ FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS US95 CONSTRUCTION UNABLE TO FIND A PLACE SAT NIGHT FOR DANCING TRAVEL DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION HERE TRAFFIC ROAD CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC PATTERNS/CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON 16TH ST TRAFFIC NOISE AND LONG LIGHT @ EXIT 2 TRAFFIC DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ON ROADS TRAFFIC DELAYS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONES TRAFFIC BARRIERS TRAFFIC 16TH ST/4TH AVE/24TH/32ND TRAFFIC "SLOW‐BIRDS" TRAFFIC‐STREET LAY OUT‐CONSTRUCTION TOWN TOURIST DRIVERS/WIND TOPOGRAPHY TOO WINDY! TOO SMALL CITY TOO QUICK A TRIP
153
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
TOO MUCH SPANISH SPOKEN TOO MUCH ROAD PROBLEM TOO MUCH CONSTRUCTION TOO MANY RUNDOWN BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA (HOTEL DEL SOL ETC) ALSO “WATER PARK" IS JUST A BUNCH OF SPRINKLERS
TOO MANY NON ENGLISH SPEAKERS, THIS IS AMERICA TOO HOT! TOO HOT TO RIDE IN SUMMER TOO HOT MOST OF YEAR TOO FAR FROM HOME TOO FAR AWAY TOO EXPENSIVE FOR MERCHANDISE TOO CLOSE TO MEXICO TO SPREAD OUT TIME DIFFERENCE FROM HOME (VA) THIS SURVEY THIS PLACE IS UGLY THERE WAS CONSTRUCTION THE WIND AND HEAT THE WIND THE WEATHER THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS THE SUN AND IT'S HARD TO FIND AIR. THE SUMMER, LACK OF THINGS TO DO. THE SUMMER HEAT THE SNOWBIRDS THE RUN DOWN AREAS AROUND MCAS FEEL UNSAFE THE ROAD WORK THE ROAD IS NOT DONE YET!!! THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION THE QUECHAN RESORT THE QUECHAN CASINO/HOTEL THE PRISON THE HOT WEATHER IN SUMMER THE HIGHWAY!! THE HEAT AND THE DUST THE GYM HERE THE FOOD THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN/VACANT BUILDINGS THE DUST THE DRIVERS THE COPS‐GANG TASK FORCE THE CONSTRUCTION ON 16TH STREET THE CONSTRUCTION ON 16TH AVE TOOK TO LONG TO FINISH
154
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
THE CONSTRUCTION ON 16TH THE BOYCOTT THE BACK‐UP ON INTERSTATE 8 THE AGRICULTURAL SPRAY IN THE AIR! THE 35 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT, ESPECIALLY ON MAJOR 4‐LANE ROADS THE $ OF HOTELS TERRIBLE DRIVERS TAXES SUMMER WEATHER STRUCTURE OF BUILDINGS STORM STILL LOOKING SPREAD OUT TOO MUCH SPRAWL‐NOT MUCH TOWN CENTER SPEED LIMITS ARE TOO LOW ON RURAL ROADS SOMETIMES TOO HOT, WIND STORMS SOME AREAS APPEAR A LITTLE RUN DOWN SO FAR FROM TEXAS SO FAR FROM SOMERTON AZ SNOWBIRDS (OCT‐MAR) SNOWBIRDS SNOW BIRDS (I AM ONE) SMOKEY CASINO ATMOSPHERE SMOKE IN PUBLIC SMALL TOWN SIRENS SHORT TRIP EVERYTHING WAS GREAT SHAW FACTORY TOUR SHAW‐YARIS SEASONAL ALLERGIES SAND STORMS SAM TRAIN & GARBAGE TRUCKS SAFETY‐CLEANLINESS RUDE PEOPLE ROUGH ROADS ROADWORKS BY HOTEL ROADWORK ROAD WORK/TRAFFIC JAMS ROAD CONSTRUCTION; HEAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION/HEAT/DUST ROAD CONSTRUCTION!!! ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON 16TH STREET RESTAURANTS REPAIR PRICES REMOTENESS
155
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
REMOTE LOCATION REMOTE AREA REMOTE RAIN/WIND RAIN THIS YEAR RAIN‐WIND QUAKE PROXIMITY TO MEXICO PRICE POLITICS POLICE PEOPLE SPEAKING SPANISH PEOPLE & TRAFFIC OUTDOOR SUMMER TEMPERATURE OUTDATED HOTELS STILL IN BUSINESS OLD HOTELS OK/SO FAR ODOR BY THE RIVER NOTHING. WISH I COULD STAY LONGER & BE A TOURIST NOTHING, I WISH I LIVED HERE NOTHING SO FAR NOTHING IN PARTICULAR‐NOTHING NEGATIVE NOTHING BAD NOTHING‐LOVE IT HERE NOT SURE YET NOT MUCH TO DRAW TYPICAL US CITIZEN NOT MUCH TO DO FOR THE YOUNG CROWD NOT MUCH TO DO AFTER 10PM NOT MUCH TO DO NOT MANY PLACES TO SHOP NOT HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW NOT HERE LONG ENOUGH TO FIND OUT NOT ENOUGH TIME HERE NOT ENOUGH NIGHT LIFE NOT APPLLICABLE NOT ALOT TO DO NOT A LOT TO DO! NOT A LOT TO DO (BUT ITS IMPROVED) NOT A LOT OF ACTIVITIES NOT A BIG CITY NONE, BORN & BREAD HERE! NON ENGLISH SPEAKING NOBODY SPEAKS ENGLISH NO TREES AND FLAT NO SHADED/COVERED PARKING LOTS
156
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
NO REAL CHOICE OF RESTAURANTS NO PUBLIC TRANSIT NO FREE WATER NO ENGLISH NO DISLIKES YET‐BACK IN A FEW MONTHS NO DISLIKES NO BOOKSTORE NEWSPAPER TOO SMALL NEUTRAL NEEDS TO GROW UP MORE NEEDS MORE GOOD RESTAURANTS NEED TO BEAUTIFY BUSINESSES NEED MORE ACTIVITIES FOR SUMMER MY NEIGHBOR MY BROTHER IN LAW MOTHER'S GRAVESITE MOTEL WAS BELOW EXPECTATION MEXICANS; HEAT; SAND; DRY, HEAT, HEAT. NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH. DID I SAY HEAT. MEXICANS MEXICAN FOOD MANY NON‐ENGLISH SPEAKING, EVEN WORKING IN STORES LOW # OF FLIGHTS IN/OUT OF AREA LOTS OF BUILDINGS CLOSED LOSING $ AT CASINO LONG JOHN SILVER'S LONG DRIVE, POOR ROADS LOCATION IN RELATION TO MAJOR CITY LOCATION LITTER ON ROADS, MANY JUNKYARDS LIMITED RETAIL LACK OF SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT LACK OF RESTAURANT VARIETY LACK OF LANDSCAPE IN CITY AREAS LACK OF GOOD RESTAURANTS LACK OF CLEANSE LACK OF ATTRACTIONS JUST PASSING THRU JUST PASSING THROUGH JUST PASSING BY ITS GOTTEN TOO BIG! ITS A LITTLE HOT THIS TIME OF YEAR IT STINKS (THE AIR SMELLS BAD) IT SMELLS SOMETIMES IT IS CLEAR THE UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH IT APPEARS DIRTY & DUSTY
157
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
IT ALMOST SEEMS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR SOME THINGS. IT'S HOT!! IT'S HOT IN THE SUMMER IT'S HOT IT'S DUSTY! AND A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION IT'S DISTANT FROM EVERYWHERE IT'S ALL BEEN GOOD! ISOLATION IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A CAB @ NIGHT I LIKED IT OVERALL! I DON'T KNOW I DISLIKE THE HEAT IN YUMA HUNGRY HUNTER CLOSED HOTEL WAS TOO EXPENSIVE HOTEL (HILTON) SMELLED FROM WATER TREATMENT PLANT HOTEL HOT WIND HOT VERY‐STORES WERE NOT OPEN ON MONDAY HOT SUMMER HOT SOMETIMES HOT IN THE SUMMER HOT IN SUMMER HOT HOT HOT HOT & ROAD CONSTRUCTION DELAYS HIGH SALES TAXES HIGH SALES TAX HIGH FOOD TAXES HEAT/WIND HEAT/WEATHER HEAT/DIRT HEAT. EXTREMELY HOT HEAT, WIND, LACK OF NIGHT LIFE HEAT, DRY, DUST HEAT!!! HEAT! HEAT IN THE SUMMER HEAT IN THE SUMMER HEAT DESERT HEAT (WEATHER) HEAT & WIND HEAT & HUMIDITY HEAT‐WEATHER IN SUMMER HEAT‐WARM TAP WATER HEAT‐HAHA! HEAT‐BUT USE TO HEAT
158
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
HAVE NOT HAD CHANCE TO EXPLORE ALWAYS PASSING THROUGH HARD TO GET TO HARD TO FIND MOTEL GOT LOST GOLDEN CORRAL‐CLOSED 2 MINUTES BEFORE CLOSING TIME PER CELL PHONE GOATHEAD STICKERS GETS DARK TOO EARLY GANGS FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION FLIES FINDING WAY AROUND FIELDS BURNING FEWER TRIPS AVAILABLE‐WE WANTED TO VISIT THE QUECHAN ELDERS FAR FROM YPG EXTREME HIGH TEMPERATURE EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING EVENTS ARE SO SHORT‐CLOSE SO QUICKLY EARTHQUAKE EARLY RESTAURANT CLOSING TIMES DUSTY AIR DUST STORM DUST & WIND DUST & THE SMELL DUST & SMOKE DUST & GRIT DUST‐WIND DRYNESS DRIVING CITY STREETS‐TERRIBLE SHAPE! DRIVE FROM PHOENIX DRIVE FROM GLENDALE AZ DOWNTOWN EVERYTHING IS CLOSED DOWNTOWN AREA PRETTY DEAD DOWNTOWN DON'T VISIT OFTEN ENOUGH DON'T LIKE THE DESERT DON'T KNOW YET DON'T KNOW‐JUST ARRIVED DO YOU RECYCLE? DISTANCE TO WORK DISTANCE TO GET HERE DIRTY STREETS, HOT HOT HOT DIRTY LOOKING DIRTY DIFFICULT TO ANSWER‐BUSINESS TRIP ONLY
159
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
DID NOT WIN ENOUGH AT CASINOS DESERT TOWN DESERT SURROUNDINGS DAMN BIKERS!! HA HA CUSTOMER SERVICE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS CROWDS CROWDED GROCERY STORES COST CONSTRUCTION/WEATHER CONSTRUCTION ZONE CONSTRUCTION WORK CONSTRUCTION ON THE ROADS CONSTRUCTION ON ROADS CONSTRUCTION ON 16TH CONSTRUCTION MADE IT DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND TOWN CONSTRUCTION CONFUSION CONSTRUCTION ALL THE TIME ROADS CONSTRUCTION (ROAD)‐JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE! CONSTRUCTION‐HIGH HOTEL PRICES CONSTRUCTION‐BUT IT IS NECESSARY CONSTANT ROAD CONSTRUCTION, HEAT CONSTANT CONSTRUCTION CONFUSING STREET NUMBERING COLD IN WINTER CLOTHING TYPES AVAILABLE CLOSURE OF SO MANY OLD TOWN BUSINESSES IN SEPT. CLIMATE‐TOO HOT CHEAP TIPPERS CEMETARY CATO CAN'T THINK OF EVEN ONE THING! CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING CAN'T GET AROUND ON FOOT OR BIKE BUSY TRAFFIC, SHOPPING BUSINESS TRIP BUSINESS ROUTE 8 (AVE 4) BUSINESS BUS SERVICE BOYCOT BLOWING SAND BLOWING DUST BIG BOX RETAIL BEING AWAY FROM FAMILY BEER SELECTION IN RESTAURANTS
160
What do you like LEAST about Yuma? (cont.)
BAD TV, NO HBO, MOVIES BAD SERVICE IN RESTAURANT BAD ROADS AUG HEAT ARRIVING AREA LAYOUT‐POOR PLANNING ALMOST EVERYTHING ALL THE SLEEZY EVENING ENTERTAINMENT AIRPORT NOISE AIR QUALITY ACCESS VIA AIR IS TOUGH ACCESS TO VISITOR INFORMATION IS DIFFICULT 1995 16TH STREET TRAFFIC MESS 16TH STREET MESS; ROAD NAMES ARE CONFUSING 16TH ST TRAFFIC 16TH AVENUE 110 DEGREE HEAT "OPEN" MALLS SHOULD BE INDOOR
161
ARIZONA COUNTIES COMPARISON TABLE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF RV's IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Are RV's allowed on a temp basis in residential Description and/or other info
Apache County holds onto its tradition of allowing RVs anywhere anytime. APACHE COUNTY YES The only restriction is that if an RV owner wants to connect to the electric utility, they must have an approved wastewater treatment system.
Temporary occupancy of one RV in conjunction with a permitted principal use up to six months in a calendar year with a required TUP; stays of 15- COCHISE COUNTY YES consecutive days or less do not require a permit. (Temp RV Permit Fee $30.00)
Coconino county allows an RV on vacant rural zoned properties for up to 100 days with a TUP ($72), or a TUP for residential RV use in the same rural zones with an active building permit. The permanent use of an RV is COCONINO COUNTY YES in rural areas /NO in residential districts allowed as a residence in the rural zones with a Conditional Use Permit. RV's are not allowed as an accessory to an existing SFD in any residential zoning district under any circumstance.
RV's only allowed for security purposes on the site of an active construction GILA COUNTY NO project, but not for a total of more than 6 months in any 12 month period. Graham provides a temporary use for 90 days in the event family is visiting GRAHAM COUNTY YES for more than 3 days. (TUP fee at $125.00) GREENLEE COUNTY Called 928-865-4762, left message on 8/21/18. 2 rv's allowed in SR district (1 acre or larger) up to 100 days by right in LA PAZ COUNTY YES/NO conjunction with primary home. Occupied rv's not allowed in residential districts under any circumstance. MARICOPA COUNTY NO Only during construction with a TUP. No permit needed if for 1 RV occupied on the property at any time, if the period of time does not exceed a cumulative total of more than 30 days during any calendar year, and no single period of occupancy exceed 14 MOHAVE COUNTY YES consecutive days. TUP needed if more than 14 consecutive days or more than 30 cumulative days during any calendar year, the RV shall be connected to an approved wastewater disposal system. ($100 permit fee) A single RV may be placed for one time each calendar year for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive days without a Temporary RV Permit. More than NAVAJO COUNTY YES 30 days requires a Temporary RV permit for up to 1 year. ($150 permit fee) (Article 22 of the ZO) PIMA COUNTY NO Only during construction of a SFR. PINAL COUNTY NO Only during construction with a TUP.
A temporary trailer permit, not to exceed thirty (30) days, may be issued by the Zoning Inspector for the RV in any residential area of the County for SANTA CRUZ COUNTY YES temp residential use, not related to the construction of a new home. ($300.00)
Temporary use of a travel trailer, motor home or recreational vehicle as an occasional overflow guest room for non-paying or non-reimbursed relatives or guest is authorized as outlined provided such interim use does not YAVAPAI COUNTY YES exceed ninety (90) days of continuous duration or a total of ninety (90) days in a year or one (1) twelve (12) month period. Long term occupancy requires a Temp Dwelling Unit Permit at a cost of $210.00. Temporary second dwelling unit for guests, relatives and/or caretakers in an RV for a period up to one (1) year. There shall be no extensions allowed and YUMA COUNTY YES no re-application permitted within twelve (12) months of expiration of such permits. Such temporary second dwelling units shall not be used as rentals. $355.00 Rv's allowed up to 4 weeks per calendar year with a Temporary Occupancy CITY OF SOMERTON YES Permit at a cost of $100.00 No option for a temporary dwelling, and in zoning districts which allow a CITY OF YUMA NO second permanent residence, it must be site-built. CITY OF SAN LUIS NO Not allowed. All residentials lots allow a maximum of 2 RV's by right. If the residential lot CITY OF WELLTON YES has an existing site-built or MH, only one additional RV is allowed. (no fee)