CITY OF GOLDEN PARKS & RECREATION SURVEY RESULTS JUNE 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS METHODOLOGY & SELECTED FINDINGS DEMOGRAPHICS CURRENT FACILITIES FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, & SERVICES FINANCIAL CHOICES/FEES OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS METHODOLOGY & SELECTED FINDINGS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to gather public feedback on Golden parks and recreation facilities, services, and programs. This survey research effort and subsequent analysis were designed to assist the City of Golden in updating their master plan regarding existing and possibly future enhancements, facilities, and services. METHODOLOGY The survey was conducted using two primary methods: 1) a postcard sent to a random sample of Golden residents (the “invitation sample”) inviting residents to complete the survey online or request a paper version of the survey; and 2) an open- link online survey for members of the public who were not part of the invitation sample. The analysis herein primarily focuses on responses from the statistically-valid invitation sample. The primary list source used for the mailing was a registered voter list purchased from Jefferson County. Use of the registered voter list includes renters in the sample who are frequently missed in other list sources such as utility billing lists. METHODOLOGY A total of 4,000 postcards were mailed to a random sample of City of Golden residents in May 2016. After accounting for undeliverable addresses (121 total), 3,879 postcards were delivered and 363 responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 9.4 percent. The margin of error for the 363 statistically valid responses is approximately +/- 5.1 percentage points calculated for questions at 50% response. The open link survey received an additional 556 responses. For the total invitation sample size of 363, margin of error is +/- 5.1 percent calculated for questions at 50% response (if the response for a particular question is “50%”—the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the larger margin, which occurs for responses at 50%). Note that the margin of error is different for every single question response on the survey depending on the resultant sample sizes, proportion of responses, and number of answer categories for each question. Comparison of differences in the data between various segments, therefore, should take into consideration these factors. As a general comment, it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends and patterns in the data rather than on the individual percentages. WEIGHTING THE DATA The underlying data were weighted by age to ensure appropriate representation of City of Golden residents across different demographic cohorts in the sample. Using the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the age distribution within the invitation sample was matched to the 2014 demographic profile of the City of Golden. Due to variable response rates by some segments of the population, the underlying results, while weighted to best match the overall demographics of residents, may not be completely representative of some sub-groups of the population. SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS • Comparisons Between Invitation and Open Link Responses. As noted above, all survey responses were tabulated and reviewed. The primary focus of this report is on Invitation responses, but because the two sets of data are generally similar, the responses by survey version (Invitation or Open Link) are mentioned when particularly relevant. • Familiarity with Current Facilities is Fairly Strong. Invitation sample respondents indicated relatively high familiarity with current Golden parks and recreation offerings, with 68 percent reporting that they are familiar. • Open Space, Trails/Pathways, Parks, & the Community Center are Highly Important, Best Meet Needs, and are Most Frequently Used. Over three-quarters of invitation sample respondents identified trails and pathways, open space/natural areas, community/ neighborhood parks, and the Golden Community Center as important. Similarly, at least 75 percent of respondents said these amenities are meeting the needs of Golden well. Perhaps unsurprising as these amenities are important to most households and are adequately meeting community needs, they are also the top four most frequently used facilities. Open link responses followed a similar pattern. SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS • High “Needs-Met” Ratings for All Amenities. All of the listed facilities were rated to be meeting the needs of the City of Golden quite well by invitation respondents, with average needs met ratings of 3.5 or higher on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is “not at all” and 5 is “completely.” Open link respondents also provided high “needs-met” ratings for all of the listed facilities. This indicates strong satisfaction across the board with parks and recreation facilities operated by the City of Golden. • Most Frequently Used Facility Used More than Once per Month. When asked to identify the frequency with which respondents use the facility they use most, a strong majority (88 percent) said they use the facility more than twelve times per year. • Facilities are Close By; Walking is Top Form of Transportation. A question asking respondents how they typically access the facility they use most frequently revealed that roughly three-quarters walk (73 percent), while 53 percent drive and 42 percent bike. Consistent with this finding, many respondents live close to the facility they use most, with over half (53 percent) a mile or less away and 89 percent within three miles. SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS • Open Space and Trails/Pathways Top List of Future Priorities. Despite the high level of needs being met for both trails/pathways and open space, invitation sample respondents want to focus on these areas in the future, with 82 percent and 77 percent respectively identifying these as important needs to improve in the future. Open link respondents also selected trails/pathways and open space as the top two most important needs for the future. • Future Facilities to Add/Expand/Improve and to Benefit Health and Well-Being Very Similar. Invitation respondents identified their top three priorities to add, expand, or improve in Golden as well as their top three priorities to benefit the health and well- being of Golden residents. The overall prioritization of the facilities was the same in both cases, led by trail and pathway connections, open space/natural areas, and a new or updated community/recreation center/aquatic facilities. Interestingly, respondents were somewhat more likely to prioritize a new or updated community/recreation center/aquatic facilities to benefit health and well-being of Golden residents (57 percent) than to prioritize it be added, expanded, or improved in Golden (45 percent). SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS • Support Varies for Funding Mechanisms to Preserve Historical Sites. A new dedicated lodging tax received the most support from invitation respondents to fund the preservation of historical sites (58 percent in support), followed by user fees (50 percent). In contrast, a new dedicated property tax was supported by only a small share of respondents (19 percent). • Open Link Sample Differs Slightly due to Presence of Interest Groups, Different Demographic Profile. Throughout the results, the open link sample reveals a strong presence of interest groups, particularly users of the Bike Park – open link respondents had a much greater likelihood of rating the Bike Park as important (56 percent) compared to invitation respondents (36 percent), and were considerably more likely to identify it as their most frequently used facility (11 percent vs. 1 percent). Additionally, the open link sample was more representative of households with children, and respondents unsurprisingly rated child-friendly amenities like athletic fields and the Clear Creek Whitewater Park as more important. Nevertheless, in terms of overall priorities, open link responses were highly consistent with invitation responses. DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE The invitation sample skews somewhat female (63%). Over half of invitation respondent households earn $100,000 or more per year (54%). Three percent of invitation respondents identify themselves as being of Hispanic/Latino origin. RESIDENTIAL PROFILE Two in five invitation respondents (42%) live with children at home, and an additional quarter are couples without children. Respondents have lived in the area for a fairly long time, with an average of 13.0 years. Roughly three-quarters of invitation respondents (77%) own their households. RESIDENTIAL PROFILE All invitation respondents were known residents of the City of Golden. Open link respondents, however, were potentially facility users living outside of Golden and were therefore asked if they live in the City of Golden. Roughly a third (32%) of open link respondents live outside Golden. CURRENT FACILITIES FAMILIARITY WITH PARKS & RECREATION Invitation respondents are generally highly familiar with Golden Parks and Recreation offerings, with 68% indicating that they are familiar and an average familiarity rating of 3.9 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “not at all familiar” and 5 is “very familiar.” IMPORTANCE OF CURRENT FACILITIES Open space/natural areas (95% rated as important), trails and pathways (94%), community/neighborhood parks (83%), and the Golden Community Center (77%) were rated as the most important facilities among invitation respondents. IMPORTANCE OF CURRENT FACILITIES Open link