ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL OF WINTER ACTIVITY ON THE FLAGSTAFF ECONOMY

Produced for the

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planninng Organization

by the Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center Center for Business Ouutreach The W. A. Franke College of Business Northern Arizona University

July 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL OF WINTER ACTIVITY

Flagstaff is the primary winter recreation destination for Arizona residents, especially those from the Greater Phoenix area. In 2010, the combined annual economic impact of winter recreation visits to Arizona Snowbowl and Flagstaff snow play sites such as Wing Mountain, was a combined total of $48 million, producing a total tax impact of $7.3 million and more than 500 jobs. Winter recreation contributes about 10% to the estimated $500 million annual impact that tourism has on the Flagstaff economy.

Tourism in Flagstaff is highly seasonal, with lodging occupancy, hospitality employment, and restaurant/bar sales tax collections all at their lowest point during the winter months. Winter recreation activity, which occurs largely from December through March, therefore comes at a welcome time boosting the otherwise lowest tourism season of the year. Flagstaff also benefits from much higher than average winter snowfall, ranking fifth in the U.S. for snowfall totals that average about 100 inches per year.

Latent demand for winter recreation in the Greater Phoenix Area and in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, home to two‐thirds of the state’s population, suggests that demand for winter recreation from that area is almost double the 411,000 estimated current winter visitors; by 2020, an additional 568,000 Phoenix area residents will seek winter recreation, and by 2030 that number expands to an additional 772,000 residents.

A conjoint analysis survey of Phoenix area residents who have an interest in winter recreation, determined that more than three‐fourths of them (78%) currently travel to Flagstaff for winter recreation – 85% for snowplay, 52% for downhill skiing and snowboarding, and 15% for cross country. In fact, almost two‐thirds (62%) reported that they do not go anywhere other than Flagstaff for their winter recreation. More than half of those who have been to Flagstaff for winter recreation (58%) visit once or twice a year and many are repeat visitors. These visits mostly occur on school holidays and weekends vs. weekdays.

This survey also showed that more than half of respondents said they would likely ride a shuttle to winter recreation sites in the Flagstaff area. Skiers were more likely to consider using shuttle service than people participating in snowplay or sledding.

In terms of the services and amenities that are most important to winter recreation visitors, especially those seeking snowplay, the conjoint survey found the following:

1. Easy and direct access is far preferable to visitors than driving through city traffic in Flagstaff. It also appears that getting “to the mountain” is not necessarily their preference, but that visitors would rather avoid traffic to access snow play areas more directly.

2. Full services, such as plowed parking lots, restrooms, trash receptacles, and refreshments, are preferable to minimal or no services. Thus, all things being equal people prefer to have services available at their winter recreation sites.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 1 | Page 3. Cost is, above all others, a very important factor, perhaps more given the recent recession and the rising cost of gasoline to get to Flagstaff. Visitors generally prefer the cost for winter recreation, especially snow play on public lands, to be free or as nearly free as possible.

4. Development of the lands on which winter recreation is offered is the attribute with the least variability, or the area about which visitors felt least strongly. The highest preference in this area is for minimal development, more than no development at all, while least preferable were highly developed areas or areas with manmade snow. Thus, visitors want their snow play and winter recreation experiences to be natural and authentic.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 2 | Page

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL OF WINTER ACTIVITY ...... 1 Introduction ...... 7 I. Analysis of Lodging Capacity ...... 9 II. Analysis of Winter Employment in Flagstaff ...... 13 III. Analysis of Hospitality Taxes ...... 17 IV. Analysis of Snowfall ...... 18 V. Combined Analysis of Holiday/Weekend Daily Activity ...... 23 VI. Total Annual Economic Impact of Winter Recreation ...... 28 VII. Latent Demand for Winter Activities in the FMPO ...... 30 VIII. U.S. 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study: Findings of Conjoint Analysis Survey ...... 36 Conjoint Analysis ...... 43 APPENDIX A ...... 52 FMPO Segment Cross‐Tabulation Analysis ...... 53 APPENDIX B ...... 61 Complete List of Responses ...... 61

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 3 | Page List of Tables

Table 1. Winter Occupancy Rates in Flagstaff, 2007‐2011 ...... 10 Table 2. Holiday /Daily Occupancy Data ...... 11 Table 3. Flagstaff Hospitality employment, winter months 2007‐2011 ...... 15 Table 4. City of Flagstaff‐BBB Lodging Tax Collections (2%) ...... 17 Table 5. City of Flagstaff, BBB Tax Collections Winter months, 2007‐2011 ...... 18 Table 6. Total Snowfall – November through March, 2000‐2011 ...... 20 Table 7. Flagstaff Snowfall/Precipitation & Sea Surface Temperatures ...... 21 Table 8. Grand Canyon National Park‐Recreational Visitors by Month ...... 22 Table 9. Grand Canyon National Park, Vehicle Counts‐Tusayan Entrance ...... 22 Table 10. Comparison‐ Lodging Occupancy, BBB, Snowfall, Employment & Attendance Data, 2008‐2011 ...... 24 Table 11. Combined direct expenditures for Wing Mountain, dispersed snowplay and AZ Snowbowl. ... 28 Table 12. Economic impact of winter visitors ...... 29 Table 13. Overall Population Growth in Arizona between 2000 and 2010 ...... 30 Table 14. Growth in the Phoenix MSA, between 2000 and 2010 ...... 31 Table 15. Maricopa and Pinal counties 2010 population, with forecasts to 2030 ...... 31 Table 16. Children under 18 years of age in Maricopa County, 2010 ...... 32 Table 17. Current Demand ...... 33 Table 18. Winter activity participation rates from Conjoint Analysis Survey ...... 34 Table 19. Latent Winter activity participation rates from Conjoint Analysis Survey ...... 34 Table 20. Projected winter activity 2020 and 2030 ...... 35 Table 21. What types of winter recreation do you participate in? ...... 37 Table 22. How many years have you lived in Arizona – mean years...... 37 Table 23. Age coded into ranges ...... 37 Table 24. What is your gender? ...... 38 Table 25. What is your combined annual household income? ...... 38 Table 26. Average number of Adults and Children in the Household ...... 38 Table 27. Total number of adults in Household ...... 39 Table 28. Total number of children in Household ...... 39 Table 29. Have you or your family ever traveled to the Flagstaff Area to engage in Winter Recreational activities (skiing/sledding/snowplay)? ...... 39 Table 30. Winter activities participated in Flagstaff ...... 40 Table 31. In a typical year, how many times do you your family/friends visit Flagstaff during the snow season? ...... 40 Table 32. How many times have you your family/friends visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years? ...... 40 Table 33. Do you have any potential interest in visiting Flagstaff in the future for Winter Recreation (skiing, sledding, snowplay)? Include bringing grandchildren, houseguests etc...... 41 Table 34. When do you visit Flagstaff for winter recreation? ...... 41

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 4 | Page Table 35. What is the liklihood that you would consider using shuttle service in Flagstaff for accessing local Winter Recreation Areas? ...... 421 Table 36. Do you travel to any other location(s) in Arizona for Winter, Snow‐related Recreation? ...... 42 Table 37. What factors are most influential in choosing a Winter Recreation/Snowplay Area? ...... 42 Table 38. Access – Levels of preference ...... 46 Table 39. Site Services – Level of Preference ...... 47 Table 40. Price – Level of Preference ...... 48 Table 41. Site Development ‐ Level of Preference ...... 49 Table 42. Summary of Results‐ Weighted Utility ...... 51 Table 43. Importance of attributes by Number of times visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years ...... 53 Table 44. Number of times visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years – weighted utility scores ...... 53 Table 45. What is your combined annual household income? ...... 55 Table 46. Income recoded (low, medium, high) ...... 55 Table 47. Importance of attributes by low, medium and high annual income ...... 55 Table 48. Low, medium and high annual income – weighted utility scores ...... 56 Table 49. In a typical year, how many times do you your family/friends visit Flagstaff during the snow season? ...... 58 Table 50. Frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season ‐ recoded ...... 58 Table 51. Importance attributes for visiting Flagstaff during the snow season ...... 58 Table 52. Frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season – weighted utility scores ...... 59

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 5 | Page List of Figures

Figure 1. Flagstaff Annual Occupancy Pattern, 2010 ...... 10 Figure 2. Seasonality of Hospitality Employment, 2010 ...... 14 Figure 3. Hospitality employment 1991 to 2011, All Employees, In Thousands ...... 14 Figure 4. Flagstaff Annual Snowfall compared to US Average ...... 19 Figure 5. Weighted Utility Scores FMPO Snowplay ...... 45 Figure 6. Feature Importance Scores FMPO Snowplay ...... 45 Figure 7. Access Attributes – Level of Preference ...... 46 Figure 8. Site Services – Level of Preference ...... 47 Figure 9. Price Attributes ‐ Level of Preference ...... 48 Figure 10. Site Development ‐Level of Preference ...... 49 Figure 11. Importance by Number of Times Visited Flagstaff ...... 54 Figure 12. Weighted Utility by Number of Times Visited Flagstaff ...... 54 Figure 13. Importance by Income Level ...... 57 Figure 14. Weighted Utility by Income Level ...... 57 Figure 15. Importance by Annual Visits ...... 60 Figure 16. Weighted Utility by Annual Visits...... 60

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 6 | Page Introduction

The purpose of this report is to describe and analyze the impact of snow‐related visitor activities on the Flagstaff economy. It analyzes lodging data, hospitality taxes, employment, Grand Canyon visitation, and snowfall totals during the winter months – December, January, February –to understand the economic impacts of winter recreation on Flagstaff.

Flagstaff has an unusually large and vital tourism economy. The tourism industry is by far the largest private sector industry, with total economic impact estimated at $500 million annually (Flagstaff Visitor Study, 2009), which is produced by an estimated four‐plus million overnight visitors and an unknown number of day and pass‐thru visitors. The tourism industry is both unusually large and difficult to quantify owing to its multiple sources: traffic on I‐40 & I‐17, visitors to Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and the region’s many other parks and monuments, and in‐state visitors seeking climate relief in Summer and snow‐related activities in Winter. Flagstaff tourism can also be affected by many things – from the fluctuating price of gasoline, to the weather, to recessions and macroeconomic conditions, NAU graduation and special events that cause visitation to swell, natural disasters such as forest fires, school holidays and many more – all of which make it difficult to parse or attribute causation in the data. One example is the trade‐off that occurs in winter visitation between snowfall that brings visitors for snow‐related activities and clear mild weather that brings pass‐through and other kinds of visitors.

One characteristic of Flagstaff tourism is constant, however, and that is seasonality, which has followed a historically consistent pattern of peaking in Summer and reaching its nadir in Winter. This pattern is evident in lodging occupancy, hospitality employment, GCNP visitation, and BBB tax collections, year after year.

Snow‐related Recreation. Flagstaff has long been Arizona’s primary destination for winter recreation. Arizona Snowbowl, which opened in 1938, is now one of the oldest continuously operated ski areas in the country, and has been a major focus of Flagstaff’s winter recreation. Arizona residents have also long traveled to the Flagstaff area for sledding and snowplay, where the challenge has been to provide safe attractive areas for this activity. The Northern Arizona Winter Recreation Task Force – composed of ADOT, Arizona Snowbowl, City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Nordic Center, DPS, US Forest Service, Coconino County, and Recreation Resource Management – and many others recognize both the obligation and the opportunity to provide safe and satisfying snowplay experiences for Arizona residents who travel north to enjoy the snow. Since Wing Mountain Snowplay Area opened in 2008, much of the snowplay activity has shifted to that site and other managed areas, including Crowley Pitt, Peak View and Fort Tuthill.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 7 | Page

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 8 | P age In 2010, the Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center at NAU was commissioned by the Flagstaff Convention & Visitors Bureau to conduct market research on snowplay visitors to Flagstaff for the 2009‐ 10 season – Flagstaff Snowplay Study. This survey described the size and characteristics of the snowplay market and found that it is large and has considerable economic impact during the otherwise slow Winter months, when Flagstaff hotel occupancy typically plunges from the 80% rates of Summer to the 40% rates of Winter months. Snowplay recreation holds out the possibility of creating more year‐round hospitality jobs. The study found that snowplay visitors, especially those on the Highway 180 corridor at Wing Mountain, Crowley Pit, and Peak View are:

• Almost entirely from out‐of‐town (96.4%), mostly from the Phoenix area • Have higher than average annual household incomes ($79,023) • Are younger families in large party sizes – average age 38 years, 5.5 persons/party • A majority stays overnight in Flagstaff (55% vs. 45% day trips), staying an average of 1.8 nights.

In addition, the study found that snowplay visitors also frequent other local and area attractions during their trips, and perhaps most importantly, most are repeat visitors who come often and are highly satisfied with their snowplay experiences. Finally, the study found that the $11.2 million in direct snowplay spending produced a total annual economic impact of $16 million. Many have suggested that these benefits must be balanced against severe traffic congestion that can occur on Highway 180 on holidays and weekends.

To better understand the economic impacts of winter recreation, the next section presents an analysis of hotel occupancy patterns during the Winter months from 2008‐2011.

I. Analysis of Lodging Capacity

This section analyzes lodging capacity during the winter months – December, January, February – to understand the economic importance of snow‐related activities, reaching the following conclusions:

• Occupancy rates have retained their highly seasonal pattern despite increased snowplay • Monthly occupancy rates have fluctuated due to the recent recession, but overall remained steady in the 40‐50% range during the winter months • Daily occupancy rates, however, can spike wildly on holidays and weekend days in the winter, when they are often 70%‐100% higher than typical rates for the month.

Occupancy rates for lodging properties in Flagstaff are influenced by many factors, including I‐40/I‐17 traffic, Grand Canyon visitation, and general macroeconomic factors. The result is a consistent cyclical pattern of seasonality, as occupancy rates peak in Summer in the 80‐90% range (June‐August) and bottom‐out in the 40‐50% range in Winter (December‐February). (This pattern is the opposite of that which occurs in the Phoenix and Tucson markets, where lodging occupancy peaks in Winter/Spring and reaches its lowest point in Summer.) The industry benchmark is to achieve 65% occupancy on an annual basis. The Flagstaff pattern is shown in Figure 1 for the 2010 annual cycle – a pattern that has been consistent over time.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 9 | Page Figure 1. Flagstaff Annual Occupancy Pattern, 2010

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Source: Smith Travel Research

Occupancy rates during the Winter months (December, January, February) in recent years are presented in Table 1 for the winter seasons from 2007‐08 through 2010‐11. The data show that during the recent recession, occupancy rates remained fairly steady every December, while January and February rates generally declined, especially in the 2010‐11 season.

Table 1. Winter Occupancy Rates in Flagstaff, 2007‐2011

Winter Season December January February 2007‐08 51.7% 46.2% 51.7% 2008‐09 49.7% 45.0% 46.9% 2009‐10 49.9% 41.2% 45.7% 2010‐11 51.1% 42.9% 43.1% Source: Smith Travel Research

To further explain these numbers, Table 2 examines occupancy rates for important Winter holiday and weekend dates from 2007 to 2011 – the period of time when the opening of the managed site at Wing Mountain Snowplay Area was promoted by the City of Flagstaff, resulting in increased levels of activity and traffic congestion on the Highway 180 corridor. In Table 2, January dates represent the New Year’s holiday and Martin Luther King Day; February dates reflect the President’s Day holiday; December dates represent the Christmas holiday. These dates also are school holidays, when skiers but especially snowplay families with children are most likely to visit. Contrast the occupancy rates for these holiday dates with the average for the month, which is shown in bold type in the last column, along with the percent change of that daily rate from the monthly average. From these numbers we conclude the following:

• Sunday night occupancy rates, even on holiday weekends, align with the monthly average

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 10 | Page • Friday and Saturday rates are considerably higher than the monthly average • Saturday night occupancy rates during winter holiday weekends are consistently 60‐100% above the average for the month – clear evidence of the economic effects of winter‐recreation.

Table 2. Holiday /Daily Occupancy Data

DATE DAILY DAILY/MONTHLY OCCUPANCY COMPARISON RATE [% daily diff. from month] JANUARY 2007 (census of rooms=4878) 43.8% Monday 1 46.7% +6.6% Friday 12 55.2% +26.0% Saturday 13 72.3% +65.1% Sunday 14 51.0% +16.4% FEBRUARY 2007 (census of rooms=4878) 51.6% Friday 16 60.9% +18% Saturday 17 65.0% +26% Sunday 18 47.1% ‐8.7% DECEMBER 2007 (census of rooms=4827) 51.7% Tuesday 25 44.9% ‐13.2% Wednesday 26 71.2% +37.7% Thursday 27 85.8% +66.0% Friday 28 85.9% +66.2% Saturday 29 89.8% +73.7% Sunday 30 73.5% +42.2% Monday 31 71.0% +37.3% JANUARY 2008 (census of rooms = 4827) 46.2% Tuesday 1 47.2% +2.2% Friday 18 59.6% +29.0% Saturday 19 75.6% +63.6% Sunday 20 51.8% +12.1% FEBRUARY 2008 (census of rooms = 4827) 51.7% Friday 15 70.0% +35.4% Saturday 16 83.7% +61.9% Sunday 17 57.2% +10.6% DECEMBER 2008 (census of rooms = 5005) 49.7% Thursday 25 51.5% +3.6% Friday 26 86.9% +74.8% Saturday 27 87.3% +75.7% Sunday 28 77.4% +55.7% Monday 29 80.2% +61.4% Tuesday 30 69.2% +39.2% Wednesday 31 74.4% +50.0% JANUARY 2009 (census of rooms = 5005) 45.0% Thursday 1 80.4% +78.7% Friday 2 87.9% +95.3% Saturday 3 68.0% +51.1%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 11 | Page Sunday 4 34.3% ‐23.8% Friday 16 54.6% +21.3% Saturday 17 65.8% +46.2% Sunday 18 47.0% +4.4% FEBRUARY 2009 (census of rooms = 5165) 46.9% Friday 13 77.3% +64.9% Saturday 14 86.8% +85.1% Sunday 15 58.2% +24.1% DECEMBER 2009 (census of rooms = 5165) 49.9% Sunday 27 74.0% +48.3% Monday 28 84.4% +69.1% Tuesday 29 81.9% +64.1% Wednesday 30 78.6% +57.5% Thursday 31 87.4% +75.2% JANUARY 2010 (census of rooms = 5165) 41.2% Friday 1 91.7% +122.6% Saturday 2 74.2% +80.1% Sunday 3 34.4% ‐16.5% Friday 15 52.7% +27.9% Saturday 16 66.8% +62.1% Sunday 17 46.6% +13.1% FEBRUARY 2010 (census of rooms = 5165) 45.7% Friday 12 79.5% +74.0% Saturday 13 92.1% +101.5% Sunday 14 69.2% +51.4% DECEMBER 2010 (census of rooms = 5165) 51.1% Saturday 25 55.9% +9.4% Sunday 26 69.7% +36.4% Monday 27 85.6% +67.5% Tuesday 28 82.2% +60.9% Wednesday 29 91.6% +79.3% Thursday 30 76.7% +50.1% Friday 31 82.6% JANUARY 2011 (census of rooms = 5165) 42.9% Saturday 1 79.3% +84.8% Sunday 2 42.7% ‐0.47% Friday 14 56.0% +32.6% Saturday 15 56.7% +32.2% Sunday 16 80.8% +88.3% FEBRUARY 2011 (census of rooms = 5165) 43.1% Friday 18 58.5% +35.7% Saturday 19 72.6% +68.4% Sunday 20 52.7% +22.3%

Source: Smith Travel Research Note: Two hotel properties opened for business during the 2008‐2011 time period: The Drury Inn (160 rooms) opened April 1, 2008, and Courtyard by Marriott (164 rooms) opened August 1, 2009.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 12 | Page II. Analysis of Winter Employment in Flagstaff

Another factor to consider in calculating the economic effects of snowplay on the Flagstaff economy is the seasonality of hospitality employment. As with occupancy rates, a seasonal plunge occurs in Leisure & Hospitality employment in Flagstaff; in 2010, for example, employment in this sector declined by thousands of jobs, from the peak of 13,200 employees in July to 11,800 employees in February and March – clearly negatively impacting the employees and their families who work in this industry.

Employment data confirm that Flagstaff is a tourism‐dependent economy. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Government agencies are the largest employment sector in the Flagstaff Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but jobs in the Leisure & Hospitality sector are the second largest and the largest private sector employer:

1) Government: 19,700 employees 2) Leisure & Hospitality 12,300 employees 3) Trade, Transportation, Utilities 9,800 4) Education & Health Services 8,100 5) Manufacturing 3,700 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economy at a Glance: Flagstaff, AZ, 2010.

A “Location Quotient” analysis, which uses the distribution of employment in an area to demonstrate the relative importance of an industry, confirms the tourism dependency in Flagstaff. In March 2011, of 2,877,000 employed Arizonans, 9.0% (259,200 persons) worked in the Leisure & Hospitality sector statewide. In the Flagstaff MSA, of the 71,000 total employed, 18.0% (12,900 persons) worked in the Leisure & Hospitality sector, producing a location quotient comparison of Flagstaff /Arizona comparison of 18/9 = 2.0, demonstrating that tourism/hospitality employment in Flagstaff is 100% greater or twice the rate of the state overall, emphasizing the degree to which Flagstaff employment is extremely concentrated in this sector. 1

In contrast to Flagstaff’s 18%, the Phoenix‐Mesa MSA specifically (1,949,600 total employed/182,200 in hospitality) had a location quotient of 9.35%; the Tucson MSA (449,500 total employed /37,700 in hospitality) had a location quotient of 8.39%; and the Prescott MSA (88,600 total employed /7,400 in hospitality) was 8.35%.2 Again, demonstrating that while other Arizona cities are near the state average of 9.0% – in a state in which tourism is a very large industry – that Flagstaff employment in this sector is twice the state average and twice that of most other communities.

Hospitality employment in Flagstaff, like occupancy and other tourism indicators, is highly seasonal – high in Summer and low in Winter – the typical pattern is shown for 2010 in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the highs and lows over many years from 1991 to 2011, but also shows the growth in hospitality

1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, data extracted April 20, 2011. Civilian labor force in Arizona is 3,180,300 of whom 303,300 were unemployed and 2,877,000 employed; Flagstaff civilian labor force was 77,600, with 71,000 employed and 6,600 unemployed. 2 Ibid.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 13 | Page employment over time as the population of Flagstaff has grown – nonetheless, the seasonal pattern has persisted.

Figure 2. Seasonality of Hospitality Employment, 2010

13,500

13,000

12,500

12,000

11,500

11,000

10,500

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Flagstaff, AZ, 2010.

Figure 3. Hospitality employment 1991 to 2011, All Employees, In Thousands

15.5 14.5 13.5 12.5 11.5 (thousands)

10.5 9.5 8.5 Employees 7.5 6.5 5.5 Year: 1991 thru 2011 (peaks mark summer months)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Series ID: SMU04223807000000001)

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 14 | Page

Given the tourism‐dependent nature of Flagstaff employment, if snow‐related activities were more predictable, then winter jobs might be boosted – providing more consistent less volatile employment. Hospitality employment in Flagstaff during the winter months – December, January, February – from 2008 to 2011 is shown in Table 3. It reflects several things:

• The decline in employment from 2007‐08 through 2009‐10 reflects the national recession • The improved employment numbers in these three months in 2010‐11 as the economy improved.

The calendar‐year average for hospitality employment in recent years again highlights the effects of the recent recession – the overly inflated peak in 2007 and the subsequent declines, with apparent reluctance of employers to rehire, as has been the case in many industries:

2007 13,400 2008 13,100 2009 12,400 2010 12,300

Table 3. Flagstaff Hospitality employment, winter months 2007‐2011

Year December January February Annual average 2007‐08 13,000 12,300 12,400 2008 – 13,100 2008‐09 12,400 10,800 11,600 2009 – 12,400 2009‐10 11,900 11,500 11,400 2010 – 12,300 2010‐11 12,300 12,400 12,500 2011 – n/a Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The following page shows the stream of monthly data over the last two decades.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 15 | Page State and Area Employment Original Data Value

Series Id: SMU04223807000000001 Not Seasonally Adjusted State: Arizona Area: Flagstaff, AZ Supersector: Leisure and Hospitality Industry: Leisure and Hospitality Data Type: All Employees, In Thousands Years: 1991 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1991 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.7 9.0 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.7 9.0 8.7 8.3 8.7 1992 7.8 8.2 8.6 9.6 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.0 9.1 8.6 8.7 9.3 1993 7.9 8.0 8.8 9.5 10.1 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.1 9.9 9.2 9.1 9.5 1994 8.1 8.3 9.0 9.9 10.0 10.3 10.1 10.3 9.9 10.2 9.6 9.1 9.6 1995 8.4 8.9 9.2 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.2 10.8 10.1 9.5 10.2 1996 9.0 9.3 10.0 11.1 11.7 11.9 11.7 11.9 11.7 11.3 10.6 10.4 10.9 1997 9.5 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.1 11.5 11.3 11.3 11.2 10.7 10.1 9.5 10.6 1998 9.0 9.1 9.3 10.4 10.9 11.4 11.1 11.2 11.0 10.4 9.7 9.3 10.2 1999 8.4 8.9 9.1 10.4 10.9 11.4 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 10.6 10.1 10.4 2000 9.3 9.5 10.2 11.5 12.0 12.6 12.5 12.2 12.0 11.6 10.8 10.7 11.2 2001 9.6 10.1 10.3 11.2 11.7 12.2 12.3 12.2 12.0 11.2 10.6 10.4 11.2 2002 9.8 9.7 10.1 10.9 11.5 11.8 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.2 10.6 10.4 10.9 2003 9.9 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.3 11.7 12.0 11.8 11.5 11.1 10.7 10.5 10.9 2004 10.1 10.4 10.8 11.2 12.2 12.5 12.1 11.9 11.7 12.1 11.3 11.1 11.5 2005 10.9 11.1 11.5 12.4 12.6 12.9 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.0 12.4 12.0 12.4 2006 11.3 11.4 12.3 12.9 13.3 13.7 13.7 13.4 13.2 12.9 12.5 12.2 12.7 2007 11.8 12.1 12.9 13.4 13.9 14.4 14.3 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.2 13.0 13.4 2008 12.3 12.4 12.8 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.8 13.8 13.7 13.1 12.7 12.4 13.1 2009 10.8 11.6 11.8 12.2 12.8 13.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 12.6 12.2 11.9 12.4 2010 11.5 11.4 11.4 12.2 12.7 13.0 13.1 12.9 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.3 2011 12.4 12.5 13.1 13.7 14.1 14.5 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 16 | Page III. Analysis of Hospitality Taxes

The City of Flagstaff applies an additional two percent (2%) tax to all transient accommodation and restaurant/bar sales in the city, also known as the BBB or “bed, board and booze” tax (in addition to a 1.72% general city sales tax). These hospitality collections have earned an average of $5 million annually for the last several years – typically about two‐thirds of which is from restaurant sales (e.g., $3.5 million Restaurant/Bar) and one‐third from lodging (e.g., $1.5 million lodging). Given the size of Flagstaff’s tourism industry, these taxes constitute an important source of city revenues, which are earmarked for tourism promotion, economic development, parks and recreation and beautification programs. These BBB tax collections track with occupancy and employment and are highly seasonal – highest in Summer and lowest in Winter, as shown in Table 4, which shows tax collections from 2008 to 2011.

Table 4. City of Flagstaff‐BBB Lodging Tax Collections (2%)

BBB Lodging Tax Collections (2%) BBB Restaurant/Bar Tax Collections (2%) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 JAN $80,135 $77,348 $74,092 $76,253 $253,139 $262,415 $248,316 $261,675 FEB $84,726 $73,185 $74,727 $68,460 $258,849 $241,781 $252,272 $243,086 MARCH $121,180 $100,618 $111,654 $108,940 $286,182 $271,827 $288,128 $286,022 APRIL $108,908 $106,859 $109,085 $106,379 $273,344 $271,235 $278,803 $278,856 MAY $143,955 $136,197 $146,271 $145,673 $304,208 $306,489 $305,714 $311,034 JUNE $176,832 $164,262 $182,225 $328,549 $322,367 $330,641 JULY $191,688 $176,428 $192,951 $339,129 $331,684 $344,679 AUG $190,480 $168,567 $179,659 $336,210 $328,914 $327,860 SEPT $147,826 $146,266 $160,128 $299,984 $306,275 $316,614 OCT $136,680 $132,635 $136,386 $297,906 $295,278 $306,988 NOV $81,639 $78,313 $83,354 $252,560 $245,911 $251,660 DEC $96,145 $100,547 $106,251 $281,129 $280,705 $290,420

Total $1,560,193 $1,461,225 $1,556,783 $3,511,188 $3,464,882 $3,542,095

From these data we can conclude the following:

• The declines in both restaurants and lodging in 2008 and 2009 are consistent with the national recession. • By mid‐year 2010, both lodging and restaurant/bar collections had returned to positive growth as the economy recovered.

Two general points can be made about BBB tax collections. First, while an estimated 73% of total BBB taxes are paid by non‐residents, local residents contribute more heavily to restaurant/bar sales (including both the resident population of 62,000 and the 16,000 resident students at Northern Arizona

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 17 | Page University).3 Thus, restaurant/bar sales are not as good a proxy for measuring tourism as are lodging sales, which are almost entirely made by non‐residents and thus a better indicator of tourism activity. Second, taxes are collected and reported by the city on a monthly basis; the city has no ability to report meaningful tax collections on a daily basis. This said, it would seem logical that winter months with heavy snowfall, which attracts lots of visitors, would be traceable in the BBB collections. Unfortunately, this is not the case, due to the variety of sources for Flagstaff lodging and restaurant sales, such as I‐40 and I‐17 traffic and the Grand Canyon. The fact is that when Flagstaff gets heavy snowfalls, visitors travel up to enjoy the snow and spend money on winter recreation; conversely, when the winter weather is clear and mild, Flagstaff gets heavier traffic on the interstates or from GCNP visitors, but no ski/snowplay visitors. Thus, the resulting effect on the BBB tax collections is a virtual one‐for‐one trade‐ off, which has prevented the tracking of winter ski/snowplay activity through BBB tax collections. Referring to the Economic Impact Statement prepared for the Forest Service in relation to Arizona Snowbowl, the Arizona Daily Sun states “there is little correlation between skier visits to Snowbowl and overall winter tourism spending in Flagstaff”.4

Nevertheless, BBB tax data show stronger visitor activity in December 2007 to 2011, but more volatility and declines in both January and February, which are clearly the weakest months overall. See Table 5.

Table 5. City of Flagstaff, BBB Tax Collections Winter months, 2007‐2011

December January February LODGING 2007‐08 $96,591 $80,135 $84,726 2008‐09 $96,145 $77,348 $73,185 2009‐10 $98,979 $74,092 $74,727 2010‐11 $106,251 $76,212 $64,084 RESTAURANT/BAR 2007‐08 $288,806 $253,139 $258,849 2008‐09 $281,129 $262,415 $241,781 2009‐10 $280,705 $248,316 $252,272 2010‐11 $288,255 $260,328 $244,655 Source: City of Flagstaff, BBB Tax Revenue Report

IV. Analysis of Snowfall

Another direct determinant of the economic impact of winter visitor activity is snowfall. Flagstaff’s winter visitor activities, downhill skiing and snowplay, are dependent on the amount of snowfall that occurs from roughly November through March, but more precisely from December through February. November snowfall totals are typically not enough to open ski runs and by March Arizona residents are turning their attention from skiing to spring and summer activities. While summer visitors are predictable, winter visitors are dependent on the natural snow that falls in the area. Arizona Snowbowl

3 Editorial, Voters should renew sales/BBB taxes, Arizona Daily Sun, April 20, 2010. 4 Snowbowl economic potential untapped, Arizona Daily Sun, Nov. 20, 2005, Page A1

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 18 | Page does not, like most ski areas in the U.S., make snow – a condiition set to change in the near future as Snowbowl has received permission from the U.S. Forest Service and the City of Flagstaff to begin to make snow from reclaimed water. However one views the pros and cons of snowmaking, artificial ssnow presents the opportunity for Flagstaff to offer a predictable winter recreattion industry to state residents, and provide more year‐round, less seasonal hospitality employment. Of course, any snowplay areas located on the national forest, such as Wing Mountain, that do not make snow, will continue to be dependent on natural snowfall totals.

Historically, Flagstaff is far above the U.S. average in the amount of annual snowfall it receives – about 100 inches per year. Among the top U.S. cities with the highest average annual snowfall, Flagstaff ranks number 5 – behind Syracuse, Clay and Utica, New York and Anchorage, Alaska. (By comparison, Denver and Salt Lake City receive only about 60 inches of snowfall annually.) This dramatic difference is depicted in Figure 4 below, which shows the US average snowfall (the redd line/green highlight) and Flagstaff’s typical snowfall (the teal line).

Figure 4. Flagstaff Annual Snowfall compared to US Average

Source: Flagstaff City Data, at: http://www.city‐data.com/city/Flagstaff‐Arizona.html

Ideally, in pursuit of more constant and less seasonal occupanncy rates, more permanent year‐round employment, and less volatile BBB tax collections, some benefits could flow from a predictable snow season, and the ability to make snow.

The following table shows Flagstaff’s monthly snowfall totals in inches, and the monthly average snowfall from roughly November through March 2001 through 2011. From this data, we can conclude:

• Snowfall totals during these months have ranged from a low of 31.2 inches in the 2005‐06 season to a high of 132 inches in the 2009‐10 season. • Snowfall has averaged about 100 inches per year, allthough the drought of recent years is evident in these totals.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 19 | P age • Average monthly snowfall, calculated over the five winter months shown, has ranged from a low of 6.24 inches in 2005‐06 to a high of 26.4 inches in the 2009‐10 season; • Snowfall in the 2008‐09 and 2009‐10 seasons reflected higher than average snowfall totals.

Table 6. Total Snowfall – November through March, 2000‐2011

YEAR Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Snowfall Monthly Total Average 2010‐11 8.1 30.1 NR NR NR NR NR 2009‐10 4.8 33.8 47.30 27.10 19.00 132 26.4 2008‐09 3.40 33.0 9.30 22.30 0.50 68.5 13.70 2007‐08 0.00 25.4 23.00 0.00 0.00 48.4 9.68 2006‐07 1.10 6.50 13.80 8.50 2.10 32.0 6.40 2005‐06 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.00 29.10 31.2 6.24 2004‐05 8.60 9.50 48.60 15.70 17.00 99.4 19.88 2003‐04 0.40 5.30 6.20 25.70 7.00 44.6 8.92 2002‐03 3.30 20.60 1.90 15.00 8.80 49.6 9.92 2001‐02 5.10 19.80 2.90 1.40 5.20 34.4 6.88 2000‐01 19.6 2.1 26.30 30.00 9.70 87.7 17.54

Source: NOAA

The additional factor of “sea surface temperatures” has played an increasingly important role in Flagstaff’s annual precipitation totals in recent decades. In general, El Niño years are wetter than average years, while La Niña years are drier than average years. Thus, 1995‐96, 1998‐99 and 1999‐2000 were La Niña years, or years with less than normal precipitation, as shown by the data, while 1997‐98, 2002‐2003 and 2004‐05 were El Niño years, or years with higher than normal precipitation, including higher annual snowfall totals. Other years, interspersed in between, such as 1996‐97, 2000‐01, and 2001‐02 were considered “Normal” years when sea surface temperatures did not play a large role in Flagstaff’s precipitation pattern. See Table 7.

El Niño La Niña Weak Mod Strong Weak Mod Strong 1951 1986 1957 1950 1954 1955 1963 1987 1965 1956 1964 1973 1968 1994 1972 1962 1970 1975 1969 2002 1982 1967 1998 1988 1976 1991 1971 1999 1977 1997 1974 2007 2004 2009 1984 2010 2006 1995 2008 2000

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 20 | Page Table 7. Flagstaff Snowfall/Precipitation & Sea Surface Temperatures

Winter Season Winter Precipitation Winter Snowfall SST State* (Oct‐Apr) (Oct – Apr) (Oct‐ Apr) 1995‐1996 2.83” 28.5” La Niña 1996‐1997 9.30” 107.5” Normal 1997‐1998 12.50” 136.4” El Niño 1998‐1999 9.46” 71.5” La Niña 1999‐2000 5.54” 74.4” La Niña 2000‐2001 12.09” 125.1” Normal 2001‐2002 4.02” 38.9” Normal 2002‐2003 8.51” 54.9” El Niño 2003‐2004 7.95” 50.9” Normal 2004‐2005 26.63” 130.6” El Niño 1971‐2000 Normals 14.27” 108.2”

Source: www.wrh.noaa.gov *Effect of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) on Northern Arizona precipitation. El Nino & La Nina do not guarantee that it will be wetter or drier than normal, but they tip the scales in that direction – El Nino years are wetter, La Nina years are drier than normal.

Grand Canyon National Park Traffic

As one of the key gateway cities to Grand Canyon National Park, Flagstaff’s tourism has long been influenced by park visitation. As the second‐most visited national park in the United States, Grand Canyon is a major destination driver for all of Arizona, but has had an especially important impact on northern Arizona communities such as Flagstaff. A visitor survey conducted by the AHRRC at the Grand Canyon in 2005 found that 40% of GCNP visitors said they also visited Flagstaff – constituting some two million visitors annually who are traveling through or staying overnight in Flagstaff.5 Although the North Rim of the Grand Canyon is closed in the winter months, the South Rim is open throughout the year. The winter months are the slowest months for visitation at GCNP – dropping from the 600,000+ range in the summer months to lows of around 130,000 in December, January and February.

5 Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center, Grand Canyon National Park and Northern Arizona Tourism Study, Flagstaff, AZ, 2005, p. 42.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 21 | Page Table 8. Grand Canyon National Park‐Recreational Visitors by Month

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 January 132,660 163,222 139,636 123,600 135,463 120,409 February 151,719 178,982 155,049 146,730 132,865 124,573 March 356,357 296,498 332,226 358,409 310,717 312,903 April 380,473 419,253 431,874 377,542 393,469 375,136 May 444,253 451,576 443,773 453,651 432,940 399,037 June 594,410 509,456 515,106 530,291 529,833 555,941 July 611,813 578,208 604,185 644,915 658,993 647,636 August 572,431 507,951 580,670 633,985 600,442 629,167 September 392,835 399,117 424,493 433,030 425,737 477,863 October 335,518 352,556 362,602 359,396 352,207 359,758 November 230,597 239,306 235,217 209,843 214,355 219,474 December 198,456 183,314 188,837 153,922 161,047 166,489 Total 4,401,522 4,279,439 4,413,668 4,425,314 4,348,068 4,388,386 Source: National Park Service, www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

Even though Grand Canyon visitation is at its lowest in December, January and February, is it a factor in the Hwy. 180 traffic congestion during winter holidays and weekends? In other words, what percentage of the traffic congestion on Highway 180 on these days is due to Grand Canyon traffic? In an effort to determine this, GCNP managers6 provided daily attendance at the South Rim/Tusayan station (not including the Desert View entrance station, which funnels traffic more to Highway 89). Table 9 below shows the daily vehicle counts for some key holiday and weekend winter dates. Table 9. Grand Canyon National Park, Vehicle Counts‐Tusayan Entrance

Holiday 2008 # vehicles 2009 # vehicles 2010 # vehicles 2011 # vehicles New Year’s Jan 1 2,207 Jan 1 2,521 Jan 1 2,530 Jan 1 1,719 Jan 2 3,388 Jan 2 3,156 Jan 2 1,976 Jan 3 2,284 Jan 3 2,126 Jan 4 1,430 Martin Luther King Day Jan 18 1,519 Jan 16 1,531 Jan 15 1,467 Jan 14 1,454 Jan 19 1,998 Jan 17 1,948 Jan 16 1,704 Jan 15 1,971 Jan 20 1,817 Jan 18 1,637 Jan 17 1,858 Jan 16 2,009 President’s Day Feb 15 1,529 Feb 13 1,569 Feb 12 1,615 Feb 18 1,902 Feb 16 2,714 Feb 14 2,013 Feb 13 2,324 Feb 19 962 Feb 17 2,815 Feb 15 2,357 Feb 14 2,498 Feb 20 978 Christmas/Year‐End Dec 25 1,058 Dec 25 2,550 Dec 26 1,890 Dec 26 3,206 Dec 26 2,967 Dec 27 3,456 Dec 27 2,736 Dec 27 4,129 Dec 28 3,437 Dec 28 3,418 Dec 28 4,607 Dec 29 3,591 Dec 29 3,208 Dec 29 1,154 Dec 30 3,541 Dec 30 2,079 Dec 30 756 Dec 31 2,479 Dec 31 2,671 Dec 31 1,572

6 Jim O’Sickey, Supervisory Fee & Revenue Analyst, Grand Canyon National Park, 2011.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 22 | Page V. Combined Analysis of Holiday/Weekend Daily Activity

This section combines daily data from the previous sections to compare winter visitor activity patterns. It also includes daily attendance at Wing Mountain Snowplay Area and Snowbowl for these dates.

The following table presents this data by day/month for a series of holiday and weekend dates that allow for parsing of the data to see how much of the traffic stream on Highway 180 might be attributable to various sources. This data are presented for the key winter season days/months from 2008 through 2011, and contain data for categories, including:

• Hotel daily occupancy rates • BBB lodging tax collections • Monthly and daily snowfall totals • Monthly hospitality employment • GCNP attendance • Wing Mountain Snowplay Area attendance

This combined data enables us at a glance to be able to evaluate, for example, occupancy rates in relation to snowfall totals and gate figures for both Wing Mountain and Snowbowl, as well as the resulting employment that these activities produced.

Generally, this analysis allows us to draw the following conclusions:

• A clear relationship exists between months of heavy snowfall and higher occupancy rates. • December 2008 had high snowfall, high occupancy over the Christmas holidays, but also relatively high GCNP visitation. • It can be hard to attribute occupancy rates to a single cause because GCNP visitation is often high on the same days that Wing Mountain attendance is high – especially holidays weekends. In fact, we know from the Snowplay study that 12 percent of snowplay visitors also visit GCNP as part of their visit. • Higher occupancy rates on some days appear to be due more to snow‐related recreation than to GCNP visitation – specifically, February 14/President’s Day, 2009; January 16 and February 13, 2010; and January 15, 2011. • In summary, it is likely that some winter residents who come north visit both GCNP and engage in snow‐related recreation. Thus, the additional “product” of snow brings more visitors to the Flagstaff area than a single product alone.

.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 23 | Page Table 10. Comparison‐ Lodging Occupancy, BBB, Snowfall, Employment & Attendance Data, 2008‐2011

Comparison: Occupancy, Snowfall & Employment Data, 2008

January 2008 – New Year’s January 2008 – MLK Holiday February 2008 ‐ President’s Day Tuesday Friday Saturday Sunday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 18 19 20 15 16 17 Daily Occupancy 47.2% 59.6% 75.6% 51.8% 70.0% 83.7% 57.2% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $80,135 (+7.1%)* $80,135 (+7.1%)* $84,726 (+7.4%)* Monthly Snowfall NA 13.80” 8.50” Daily Snowfall NA NA NA Monthly Employment 12,300 12,300 12,400 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 2,207 1,519 1,998 1,817 1,529 2,714 2,815 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 688 37 538 720 51 584 647 Snowbowl Attendance 1,776 *percent increase over same month previous year

December 2008 ‐ Christmas Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Occupancy 51.5% 86.9% 87.3% 77.4% 80.2% 69.2% 74.7% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $96,145 (0.6%)* $96,145 (0.6%)* Monthly Snowfall 39.1” 39.1” Daily Snowfall 5.2” 1.2” 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Employment 12,400 12,400 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 1,058 1,890 3,456 3,437 3,591 3,541 2,479 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 288 643 758 711 604 627 403 Snowbowl Attendance 1,112 *percent increase over same month previous year

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 24 | Page Comparison: Occupancy, Snowfall & Employment Data, 2009

January 2009 – New Year’s January 2009 – MLK Holiday February 2009 – President’s Day Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. Friday Saturday Sunday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 2 3 4 16 17 18 13 14 15 Daily Occupancy 80.4% 87.9% 68.0% 34.3% 54.6% 65.8% 47.0% 77.3% 86.8% 58.2% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $77,348 (0.3%)* $77,348 (0.3%)* $73,185 (‐0.9%)* Monthly Snowfall 7.80” 7.80” 31.30” Daily Snowfall 0 0 0.02” 0.23” 0 0 0 0 trace 0 Monthly Employment 10,800 10,800 11,600 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 2,521 3,388 2,284 1,430 1,531 1,948 1,637 1,569 2,013 2,357 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 665 728 753 554 710 568 311 79 667 825 Snowbowl Attendance 2,956 *percent increase over same month previous year

December 2009 – Christmas Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Occupancy 74.0% 84.4% 81.9% 78.6% 87.4% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $100,547 (‐4.9%)* $100,547 (‐4.9%)* Monthly Snowfall 33.00” 33.00” Daily Snowfall 0 0 0.8” 2.1” 0 Monthly Employment 11,900 11,900 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 2,736 3,418 3,208 2,079 2,671 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 921 636 777 789 703 Snowbowl Attendance *percent increase over same month previous year ** indicates area was closed

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 25 | Page Comparison: Occupancy, Snowfall & Employment Data, 2010

January 2010 – New Year’s January 2010 – MLK Holiday February 2010‐ President’s Day Friday Saturday Sunday Friday Saturday Sunday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 2 3 15 16 17 12 13 14 Daily Occupancy 91.7% 74.2% 34.4% 52.7% 66.8% 46.6% 79.5% 92.1% 69.2% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $74,092 (‐4.9%)* $74,092 (‐4.9%)* $74,727 (‐4.4%) Monthly Snowfall 56.40” 56.40” 28.5” Daily Snowfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Employment 11,500 11,500 11,400 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 2,530 3,156 2,126 1,467 1,704 1,858 1,615 2,324 2,498 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 991 1,094 711 0** 747 908 93 875 1,010 Snowbowl Attendance 3,520 *percent increase over same month previous year ** indicates area was closed

December 2010 – Christmas Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Daily Occupancy 55.9% 69.7% 85.6% 82.2% 91.6% 76.7% 82.6% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $106,251 (7.0%)* $106,251 (7.0%)* Monthly Snowfall 30.1” 30.1” Daily Snowfall 0 0 0 0 10.0” 7.2” trace Monthly Employment 12,300 12,300 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 2,550 2,967 4,129 4,607 1,154 756 1,572 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 836 900 671 737 201 0** 526 Snowbowl Attendance 1,631 *percent increase over same month previous year ** indicates area was closed

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 26 | Page Comparison: Occupancy, Snowfall & Employment Data, 2011

January 2011 –New Year’s January 2011‐ MLK Holiday February 2011‐ President’s Day Sat. Sun. Friday Saturday Sunday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 2 14 15 16 18 19 20 Daily Occupancy 79.3% 42.7% 56.0% 80.8% 56.7% 58.5% 72.6% 52.7% Monthly BBB Lodging tax $76,253 (2.9%)* $76,253 (2.9%)* $68,460 (5.5%)* Monthly Snowfall 1.2” 1.2” 24.6” Daily Snowfall trace trace 0 0 0 0.3” 12.1” 5.5” Monthly Employment 12,400 12,400 12,500 GCNP: Daily Vehicles 1,719 1,976 1,454 1,971 2,009 1,902 962 978 Wing Mt: Daily Vehicles 982 910 85 990 1,133 0** 191 285 Snowbowl Attendance 3,312 3,562 1,635 3,578 3,735 712 839 707 *percent increase over same month previous year ** indicates area was closed

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 27 | Page VI. Total Annual Economic Impact of Winter Recreation

What percentage of winter recreation is attributable to snowplay and what percentage to Arizona Snowbowl? Visitor spending data collected over two seasons, suggest that Snowbowl accounts for about 60 percent of snow‐related visitor spending and snowplay for about 40 percent of visitor spending. The 2008‐2009 Winter Visitor Study conducted for the Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau by Gary Vallen Hospitality Consultants collected expenditure data from skiers at the Arizona Snowbowl. This report calculated total direct skier spending for the 2008‐2009 season at $15,838,600. Due to expenditure category pooling, the “other expenditure” category in the Winter Visitor Study accounted for 52.6 percent of all expenses. Therefore, expenditure proportions from the Flagstaff Snowplay Study were used to allocate the “other expenditures” across the sectors used in the economic impact analysis of snowplay visitors, allowing for comparable comparisons of the two studies as shown below. According to the snowplay study, conducted by the AHRRC in 2009‐10, snowplay accounted for $11.2 million in direct visitor spending.

Once summarized, winter recreation accounted for direct expenditures of $27,029,572 during the study period. See Table 11. The combined expenditures listed in the table below were then input into the IMPLAN Input‐Output model to generate the economic impact of winter activities found in Table 12.

Table 11. Combined direct expenditures for Wing Mountain, dispersed snowplay and AZ Snowbowl.

Wing Mountain Dispersed Arizona Winter recreation Expenses Snowplay Snowplay Snowbowl Combined

Lodging‐Camping $2,424,717 $918,859 $2,757,402 $6,100,978

Restaurant & Bar $2,551,884 $854,831 $3,935,946 $7,342,661

Groceries $634,288 $147,417 $806,158 $1,587,863

Transportation (including gas) $1,265,917 $488,372 $3,912,685 $5,666,974

Shopping‐Gear‐Clothing $830,572 $487,049 $2,753,810 $4,071,431

Recreation‐Entrance‐Permit Fees $309,478 $41,034 $881,550 $1,232,062

Other expenditures $195,603 $40,950 $791,048 $1,027,601

Total $8,212,459 $2,978,513 $15,838,600 $27,029,572

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 28 | Page Direct winter visitor expenditures of $27.0 million, resulted in indirect impacts of $4.8 million, and induced impacts of $15.7 million for a total overall economic impact of $47.6 million (about one tenth of Flagstaff’s estimated annual economic income from tourism of $500 million). The direct expenditures support 307.5 jobs, with induced and indirect impacts accounting for a further 210 jobs, for a total of 517.6 jobs. The economic impacts resulted in direct taxes of $4.3 million, and a total tax impact of $7.3 million. See Table 12.

Table 12. Economic impact of winter visitors

Economic Direct Indirect Induced Type SAM Impacts Effects Effects Effects Multipliers Total

Total Output $27,029,572 $4,828,392 $15,745,916 1.8 $47,603,880

Total Employment (FTE jobs) 307.5 40.6 169.5 1.7 517.6

Total Labor Income2 $7,630,200 $1,602,098 $7,480,669 2.0 $16,712,967

Indirect Business Taxes3 $4,292,679 $601,670 $2,429,151 $7,323,500

1Effects are presented in 2009 dollars. 2Total labor includes employee compensation and proprietor income. 3Indirect business taxes include excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales tax paid by businesses.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 29 | Page VII. Latent Demand for Winter Activities in the FMPO

POPULATION IMPACTS

According to the 2010 Census, Arizona is currently home to 6.3 million people, a growth rate of 24.6 percent over the last decade. All counties showed growth over the 2000 census with the exception of Greenlee County that lost 1.3 percent of population. Arizona population has grown at an average rate of 25 to 30 percent since the 1980 census. This rapid rate of growth may not be sustainable in the light of current economic conditions and the impact of declining home prices, especially in the metro counties of Maricopa, Pinal and Pima. County growth rates and changes between 2000 and 2010 appear in Table 13 below.

Table 13. Overall Population Growth in Arizona between 2000 and 2010

Arizona County % Populations 2000 2010 Change Apache County 69,423 71,518 3.0% Cochise County 117,755 131,346 11.5% Coconino County 116,320 134,421 15.6% Gila County 51,335 53,597 4.4% Graham County 33,489 37,220 11.1% Greenlee County 8,547 8,437 ‐1.3% La Paz County 19,715 20,489 3.9% Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,817,117 24.2% Mohave County 155,032 200,186 29.1% Navajo County 97,470 107,449 10.2% Pima County 843,746 980,263 16.2% Pinal County 179,727 375,770 109.1% Santa Cruz County 38,381 47,420 23.6% Yavapai County 167,517 211,033 26.0% Yuma County 160,026 195,751 22.3% Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.6%

Source: 2010 Census

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 30 | Page The Phoenix‐Mesa‐Glendale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) comprised of Maricopa and Pinal counties has experienced considerable growth, nearly 30 percent (28.9%) over the past decade. Pinal county’s population doubled between the census periods, with growth driven primarily by housing development in communities south of Chandler. See Table 14 below.

Table 14. Growth in the Phoenix MSA, between 2000 and 2010

2000 2010 % Change Maricopa 3,072,149 3,817,117 24.2% Pinal 179,727 375,770 109.1% Phoenix MSA total 3,251,876 4,192,887 28.9% Source: 2010 Census

Maricopa County is anticipated to grow 32 percent between 2010 and 2030, while Pinal County is estimated to grow 57 percent over the same period. Together the counties account for 68% of Arizona’s population, ensuring continual population growth potential.

Table 15. Maricopa and Pinal counties 2010 population, with forecasts to 2030

Maricopa‐ % of State Maricopa Pinal Pinal State 2010 6,999,810 4,217,427 364,587 4,582,014 65% 2011 7,186,070 4,328,379 388,674 4,717,053 66% 2012 7,370,993 4,438,459 412,925 4,851,384 66% 2013 7,554,429 4,547,590 437,304 4,984,894 66% 2014 7,736,022 4,655,640 461,787 5,117,427 66% 2015 7,915,629 4,762,473 486,363 5,248,836 66% 2016 8,093,110 4,867,994 511,011 5,379,005 66% 2017 8,268,253 4,972,135 535,687 5,507,822 67% 2018 8,441,095 5,074,891 560,371 5,635,262 67% 2019 8,611,507 5,176,195 585,056 5,761,251 67% 2020 8,779,567 5,276,074 609,720 5,885,794 67% 2021 8,945,447 5,374,643 634,338 6,008,981 67% 2022 9,109,289 5,471,976 658,903 6,130,879 67% 2023 9,271,163 5,568,104 683,443 6,251,547 67% 2024 9,430,974 5,663,008 707,915 6,370,923 68% 2025 9,588,745 5,756,690 732,282 6,488,972 68% 2026 9,744,463 5,849,185 756,555 6,605,740 68% 2027 9,898,153 5,940,494 780,735 6,721,229 68% 2028 10,049,900 6,030,713 804,781 6,835,494 68% 2029 10,199,674 6,119,860 828,693 6,948,553 68% 2030 10,347,543 6,207,980 852,463 7,060,443 68%

Source: Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 31 | Page According to the Outdoor Recreation Participation Topline Report 2011, It is estimated that 48.6% of all Americans aged 6 and older participated in outdoor recreation activities (Outdoor Foundation, 2011). Using this participation percent as a proxy, 48.6 percent of Metro Phoenix residents (1,855,118) participate in outdoor recreational activities and 10.6% participate in skiing and snow recreational activities (calculated from participation rates obtained in the conjoint analysis survey conducted for this report; see Section IX, pages 35).

Arizona has seen rapid growth in the number of persons under 18 years of age. In fact, Arizona ranks fifth in the nation in the number of children. In 2010, the number of children under 10 years old in Arizona topped 909,000, an 18 percent increase over the previous census, placing the state fifth in the U.S. in total numbers added over the decade. The state added 137,000 children in that age group from 2000 to 2010 according to the census (Arizona Republic, June 20, 2011). The growth of children in the state indicates a future potential for those families that might be especially interested in snow‐related winter recreation, especially snowplay. In fact, Maricopa County has 1,007,861 children under the age of 18 in the population as of 2010, or 26.4 percent of the total population.

Table 16. Children under 18 years of age in Maricopa County, 2010

Cumulative Both sexes Percent Under 1 year 54,300 5.4% 1 year 55,566 10.9% 2 years 57,730 16.6% 3 years 58,192 22.4% 4 years 56,982 28.1% 5 years 56,447 33.7% 6 years 56,658 39.3% 7 years 56,405 44.9% 8 years 55,708 50.4% 9 years 57,491 56.1% 10 years 56,645 61.7% 11 years 55,538 67.2% 12 years 55,185 72.7% 13 years 55,215 78.2% 14 years 54,645 83.6% 15 years 54,962 89.1% 16 years 55,075 94.5% 17 years 55,117 100.0% 1,007,861

Source: 2010 Census

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 32 | Page Current Situation

It is estimated that in the winter of 2009 and 2010 there were 411,762 visitors in the Flagstaff area for winter recreation activities. Half of the winter recreation visitors (50%) were visitors to Snowbowl, while a further 35 percent of all visitors were from the Wing mountain sledding concession, with 14 percent estimated to be participating in dispersed recreation opportunities on the National Forest lands and 1 percent from the Nordic Center. Therefore, in the current situation Snowbowl and Wing Mountain account for the majority of visitors and recreational traffic in the Flagstaff region in the winter. Therefore, the current demand for winter based recreation activity is 411,762 persons. The population estimate is further aggregated into 205,762 downhill skiers, 6,000 cross‐country skiers, and 200,000 snowplay, sledding and snowmobile participants. The aggregated activities and population estimates will be used to calculate latent or unmet demand.

Table 17. Current Demand

Current Demand 2009‐2010 Season Percent Wing Mountain 144,000 35% Dispersed recreation Coconino National Forest 56,000 14% Nordic Center (estimate) 6,000 1% Snowbowl attendance 205,762 50% Winter season projections 411,762 100%

Source: Snowbowl, Wing Mountain, USFS

Family groups with children dominate the snowplay activities in both dispersed recreation settings and at fee sites such as Wing Mountain, while down‐hill skiers tend to be evenly split between family (42%) and friends (45%). Since snowplay visitors are the focus of much of the traffic issues in the FMPO we will focus on families as the unit of analysis to calculate latent demand. The 2010 census indicates that there are 932,814 families with children in Maricopa County, with an average family size of 3.25 persons, providing a population of family groups with children of 3,031,646 persons. The vast majority (78%) of winter recreation visitors from the conjoint analysis survey included in Section VII of this report were from Maricopa County. The population of 3,031,646 persons is multiplied by 78 percent to reduce the potential Maricopa County market of 3,031,646 to more accurately reflect the percent from Maricopa County in the survey. This reduces the population estimate to 2,370,902 persons, including both adults and children.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 33 | Page In terms of estimating the potential number of winter recreation visitors from Maricopa County, not all 2.4 million adults and children would necessarily show interest in winter recreation activities in Flagstaff. The survey asked respondents about the winter activities they participate in. The largest aggregated activity from the survey was snowplay, sledding and snowmobiling, at 19.6%, followed by downhill skiing and snowboarding which has a 10.7 percent participation rate, and 0.3 percent participated in cross country skiing. As the survey was random, and of sufficient sample size the participation rates can be applied to the population of families and children

Table 18. Winter activity participation rates from Conjoint Analysis Survey

% Participation Activities from Conjoint Analysis Survey rate Downhill/Snowboarding 10.7% XC Skiing 0.3% Snowplay and/or Sledding/ Snowmobiling/ Other 19.6%

Source: Conjoint Analysis Survey

Latent demand as defined in this study is the difference between actual demand of 411,762 winter visitors and the potential demand derived by multiplying participation rates by the population estimate. Latent demand can be thought of as unmet demand, the difference between current and potential demand. For example, the potential population for downhill skiing and snowboarding is 254,318 (10.7% x population estimate (2,370,902)). Latent demand is therefore, the difference between actual visitation (205,762) and potential (254,318). A similar method was used to determine latent demand for cross country skiing and snowplay activities.

Table 19. Latent Winter activity participation rates from Conjoint Analysis Survey

Latent Demand Current Potential (Current less Activities –Conjoint Analysis Survey Demand demand Potential) Downhill/Snowboarding 205,762 254,318 48,556 Cross Country Skiing 6,000 7,113 1,113 Snowplay and/or Sledding/ Snowmobiling/ Other 200,000 463,515 263,515 411,762 724,946 313,184

Source: Conjoint Analysis Survey; 2010 Census

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 34 | Page Finally, projections for 2020 and 2030 are developed from the current and latent demands for winter recreation. The projected 2020 demand is calculated by summing the current demand and half the latent demand, a conservative approach. Demand for 2030 is calculated as a 35 percent increase of 2020 based on the estimated county growth between the 2020 and 2030 estimates. Population estimates for 2020 and 2030 come from Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics.

Table 20. Projected winter activity 2020 and 2030

Current Latent Projected Projected Activities IHD study Demand Demand 2010 2020 2030 Downhill/Snowboarding 205,762 48,556 230,040 312,499 Cross Country Skiing 6,000 1,113 6,556 8,907 Snowplay and/or Sledding/ Snowmobiling/ Other 200,000 263,515 331,758 450,678 Total 411,762 313,184 568,354 772,083

Source: 2010 Census; Arizona Department of Administration‐Office of Employment and Population Statistics.

The difference between current demand (411,762 visitors) and potential visits (724,946) is 313,184 winter recreation visitors or a 76 percent increase over current demand. The greatest potential increase in winter recreationists is found in the snowplay/sledding/snowmobile/other category. The lion’s share of this category is comprised of snow play activities including sledding. This category accounts for 84.1 percent of the latent demand, followed by downhill skiing and snowboarding 15.5% and 0.4 percent for XC skiing. With potential increases in ski runs and snowmaking in the future for Snowbowl, the potential latent demand of an extra 48,556 skiers can be absorbed by the extra capacity being planned for at Snowbowl. On the other hand, the latent demand for snowplay/sledding activities of 263,515 cannot be met by Wing Mountain alone. The potential impact of the latent demand for snowplay/sledding activities may be alleviated by another managed facility similar to Wing Mountain, either in Flagstaff or adjacent to the city on Forest Service lands.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 35 | Page VIII. U.S. 180 Winter Congestion Mitigation Study: Findings of Conjoint Analysis Survey

In order to gain a better understanding of which attributes of the winter recreation experience motivate Phoenix area residents to travel to Flagstaff, the AHRRC conducted an E‐survey that included a conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis is a marketing technique used to assess the weights individuals place on different features of a given product or service. When using conjoint analysis, the researcher is concerned with the identification of utilities—values used by people making trade‐offs and choosing among objects having many different attributes/characteristics.

To accomplish these objectives, the AHRRC made use of a Qualtrics™ Panel Survey in the Southern Arizona areas outside Coconino County. Qualtrics, an innovator of online survey software, offers a seamless, full‐service product allowing creation of customized survey instruments that generate data uniquely tailored for statistical processing. For this survey, an online sample of 400 residents, pre‐ qualified to have a specific interest in winter recreation, were sent an online survey that consisted of some preliminary and demographic questions about winter recreation in Flagstaff, followed by the conjoint analysis questions. The findings of this survey are presented in this chapter.

The cities of origin of the sample of respondents were:

• Phoenix 24.3% • Mesa 11.3% • Scottsdale 6.6% • Glendale 4.9% • Tempe 4.8% • Gilbert 2.7% • Chandler 5.4% Subtotal 60% • Other Phoenix metro 18.2% (24 other communities in Greater Phoenix area) • Outside Phoenix metro 24.8%

In terms of comparability, the survey sample and the Snowbowl and Snowplay surveys do not differ greatly with respect to the Phoenix Metro area market. The Phoenix Metro area counted for 60 percent of all respondents, while the same area accounted for 66 percent of snowplay visitors and 72 percent of Snowbowl visitors. The full list of community origins of the sample is shown in Appendix A at the end of this report.

Respondents were asked to specify types of winter recreation in which they are interested. The findings show that more than two‐thirds (69%) are interested in general snowplay, while 43% are interested in sledding, and one‐third (33%) are interested in downhill skiing. Smaller percentages also expressed interest in snowboarding (29.5%), cross‐country skiing (15.4%) and snowmobiling (14.4%). This question, like several others in the survey, allowed participants to mark all relevant choices therefore cumulative percentages sum to greater than 100 percent in these cases. See Table 21.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 36 | Page Table 21. What types of winter recreation do you participate in?

Count Percent Skiing/Cross country 61 15.4% Skiing/Down hill 133 33.6% Snowboarding 117 29.5% Snowmobiling 57 14.4% Sledding 171 43.2% General Snowplay 272 68.7% Other 0 .0%

The survey next asked respondents how many years they had lived in Arizona. The average(mean) number of years of Arizona residence was 16.8 years. One‐fourth (26.1%) had lived in Arizona 1 to 5 years; 6 to 10 years (15.6%); 11 to 15 years (12.2%); 16 to 20 years (11.4%); and 21 to 25 years (10.1%); 26 years or more (24.6%).

Table 22. How many years have you lived in Arizona – mean years.

Mean How many years have you 16.8 lived in Arizona?

The average age of respondents was 38.2 years, and the breakdown of age cohorts is shown in Table 23. In all, more than half (55.3%) were between the ages of 20 and 39 years, years in which it is likely to find young children in the household; about one‐fourth were between the ages of 40 and 59 years (28.4%); and, one‐tenth were 60 years or over (11.1%), and one in 20 were under age 20 (5.3%). The final column in the table provides corresponding U.S. Census data for Arizona and indicates that the survey sample was somewhat younger than the general population, especially as compared to the 70+ age group.

Table 23. Age coded into ranges

Count Percent 2010 AZ Census

15‐ 20 years 21 5.3% 9.2% 20 ‐ 29 years 115 28.9% 17.5% 30 ‐ 39 years 105 26.4% 16.6% 40 ‐ 49 years 55 13.8% 16.6%

50 ‐ 59 years 58 14.6% 15.8% 60 69 years 40 10.1% 12.6% 70+ years 4 1.0% 11.9% Total 398 100.0% 100.0% Mean Age‐Survey Participants = 38.2 years

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 37 | Page In terms of gender, respondents consisted of more female (57.5%) than male (42.5%) respondents, as shown in Table 24. The gender ratio among similar aged Arizona residents is nearly evenly split according to the most recent U.S. Census.

Table 24. What is your gender?

2010 AZ Census Count Percent (15+ years of age) Male 170 42.5% 49.3% Female 230 57.5% 50.7% Total 400 100.0% 100%

The average combined annual household income of respondents was $62,843, lower than the average income in the Flagstaff Snowplay Study ($79,023). One‐third of respondents (33.5%) had incomes in the range from $25,000 to $49,999, and one‐fourth (23.5%) had incomes from $50,000 to $74,999. One in three respondents (29.6%) had incomes over $75,000, and of these, 7.8% had incomes over $125,000. A significant percentage (13.5%) had incomes under $25,000 though this was notably lower than the Arizona population generally where a full one‐quarter (24.7%) report incomes of less than $25,000.

Table 25. What is your combined annual household income?

Count Percent 2009 Census* Under $25,000 54 13.5% 24.7% $25,000 ‐ $49,999 134 33.5% 26.5% $50,000 ‐ $74,999 94 23.5% 19.1% $75,000 ‐ $99,999 57 14.3% 12.0% $100,000 ‐ $124,999 30 7.5% 7.2% $125,000 ‐ $149,999 10 2.5% 4.0% Over $150,000 21 5.3% 6.3% Total 400 100.0%

* 2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

The average number of adults per household was two adults and the average number of children per household was one child.

Table 26. Average number of Adults and Children in the Household

Mean

Total number of adults 2.1550

Total number of children .9650

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 38 | Page

Table 27. Total number of adults in Household

Count Percent 1 82 20.5% 2 223 55.8% 3 66 16.5% 4 19 4.8% 5 6 1.5% 6 1 .3% 7 2 .5% 10 1 .3%

Table 28. Total number of children in Household

Count Percent 0 203 50.8% 1 82 20.5% 2 77 19.3% 3 23 5.8% 4 4 1.0% 5 7 1.8% 6 1 .3% 7 2 .5% 10 1 .3% Total 400 100.0%

More than three‐fourths of all respondents (78.0%) had traveled to the Flagstaff area at some time to engage in winter recreation in the past, while 22% had not.

Table 29. Have you or your family ever traveled to the Flagstaff Area to engage in Winter Recreational activities (skiing/sledding/snowplay)?

Count Percent Yes 312 78.0% No 88 22.0% Total 400 100.0%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 39 | Page The overwhelming majority (85.3%) had come to Flagstaff for winter snowplay or sledding. Half of respondents (51.6%) had engaged in downhill skiing or snowboarding at Arizona Snowbowl, 15% had engaged in cross‐country skiing. This question allowed for multiple responses therefore cumulative percentages sum to more than 100 percent.

Table 30. Winter activities participated in Flagstaff

Count Percent Downhill Skiing or Snowboarding at Arizona Snowbowl 161 51.6% Cross Country Skiing 47 15.1% Snowplay and/or Sledding 266 85.3%

In a typical year, more than half (58.7%) of these visitors came to Flagstaff only once or twice during the winter season, while a fourth (24.4%) came three or four times during the winter. A much smaller percentage (16.9%) came more often than this on winter visits, five or more times.

Table 31. In a typical year, how many times do you your family/friends visit Flagstaff during the snow season?

Count Percent 1‐2 times 183 58.7% 3‐4 times 76 24.4% 5‐6 times 25 8.0% 7‐8 times 12 3.8% 9+ times 16 5.1% Total 312 100.0%

Over a five year period, the numbers of visits to Flagstaff were similar – two‐thirds (68.5%) came fewer than 10 times in five years, or an average of twice a year. The remaining third came to Flagstaff 11 or more times over this five year period, a small percentage (13.4%) more than 20 times.

Table 32. How many times have you your family/friends visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years?

Count Percent 1‐5 times 129 41.3% 6‐10 times 85 27.2% 11‐ 20 times 56 17.9% 21‐30 times 21 6.7% more than 30 times 21 6.7% Total 312 100.0%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 40 | Page The vast majority – 81.8% – also said they were interested in visiting Flagstaff in the future to engage in winter recreation activities, while 14.0% said they might visit and only 4.3% said they had no interest in visiting Flagstaff in the winter.

Table 33. Do you have any potential interest in visiting Flagstaff in the future for Winter Recreation (skiing, sledding, snowplay)? Include bringing grandchildren, houseguests etc.

Count Percent Yes 327 81.8% No 17 4.3% Maybe 56 14.0% Total 400 100.0%

Most people visit Flagstaff for winter recreation on non‐holiday weekends (62.4%) or on school holidays (53.8%). Smaller groups visit on non‐holiday weekdays (29.8%), while a significant third (37.3%) visit as soon as possible after fresh snowfall. Again, percentages sum to greater than 100 percent due to multiple responses.

Table 34. When do you visit Flagstaff for winter recreation?

Count Percent During School Holidays (weekend or weekdays) 206 53.8% On Non‐Holiday Weekends 239 62.4% On Non‐Holiday Weekdays 114 29.8% As soon as possible after fresh snowfall 143 37.3%

Providing a shuttle service to move winter visitors from the outskirts of Flagstaff to the Hwy. 180 corridor has been suggested as a way to minimize traffic congestion. When asked about the likelihood of using a shuttle service in Flagstaff to access local winter recreation areas, more than a third said they were very likely or likely to do so (38.1%), and another fourth (26.6%) said they were somewhat likely. About one in five (18.5%) were undecided about this prospect, while 16.8% were either somewhat or very unlikely to do so. Table 35. What is the likelihood that you would consider using shuttle service in Flagstaff for accessing local Winter Recreation Areas?

Count Percent Very Likely 63 16.4% Likely 83 21.7% Somewhat Likely 102 26.6% Undecided 71 18.5% Somewhat Unlikely 29 7.6% Unlikely 19 5.0% Very Unlikely 16 4.2% Total 383 100.0%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 41 | Page Respondents were asked whether they went to Arizona locations other than Flagstaff for their winter recreation. Almost two‐thirds (61.5%) said they did not go elsewhere than Flagstaff, while the remaining third or so (38.5%) said they did travel to other locations in Arizona.

Table 36. Do you travel to any other location(s) in Arizona for Winter, Snow‐related Recreation?

Count Percent Yes 154 38.5% No 246 61.5% Total 400 100.0%

The Arizona location other than Flagstaff that was most often visited for winter recreation was the White Mountains, including Sunrise Ski Resort, Pinetop /Lakeside, Payson, Strawberry and Snowflake. A small number of areas outside Arizona were also listed, including ski communities in Colorado, Utah, and California. See the full list in the Appendix.

When asked what factors influence their choice of a winter recreation location, the most common reasons given were: proximity to my home (59.5%), prior visits (55.3%), accessible and safe roadways in winter (53.5%), and because of the winter services and amenities offered (45.0%). See the full list below.

Table 37. What factors are most influential in choosing a Winter Recreation/Snowplay Area?

Count Percent Proximity to my Home 238 59.5% Location where Family/Friends Live 126 31.5% Accessible & Safe Roadways in Winter 214 53.5% Location of Second Home 20 5.0% Tradition 84 21.0% Prior Visits 221 55.3% Winter Amenities/Services Offered 180 45.0% Developed Snowplay/Sledding Areas 172 43.0% Other: 10 2.5%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 42 | Page Conjoint Analysis

The next section of the survey consisted of the conjoint analysis. The type of conjoint used in this exercise is referred to as “self‐explicated” where respondents are asked to make choices from a list of product profiles. Here, respondents were presented with four attributes of the snowplay experience in Flagstaff, each of which had four alternatives within it. The purpose of the conjoint exercise was therefore to determine the level of desirability and importance of each possible option in these four topic areas. These were:

1. Snowplay Area Location/Access

Direct Access off Interstate: (no city traffic) Perimeter/Outskirts of Flagstaff: (limited city traffic) Mid‐City Travel: (moderate to heavy traffic) Thru City Travel: (Completely thru City of Flagstaff to the mountain with possible heavy traffic congestion)

2. Snowplay Area Services

Minimal Services: Plowed Parking Moderate Services: Plowed Parking, Portable Toilet, Trash Bin, Picnic Area Enhanced Services: Plowed Parking, Permanent Toilet, Trash Bin, Picinc Area, On‐site Staff, Limited Retail Sales Full Services: Plowed Parking, Permanent Toilet, Trash Bin, Picinc Area, Warming Area, On‐Site Staff, Expanded Retail/Food Sales

3. Snowplay Site Fees/Amenity Purchases

Free‐no cost Minimal Cost ($10 to $25) Moderate Cost ($26 to $40) Higher Cost ($41 to $55+)

4. Snowplay Area‐Level of Development

Non‐developed, natural area on national forest Minimally developed & managed area on national forest Highly developed & managed area within City of Flagstaff Highly developed & managed area with man‐made snow to supplement snowfall (more predictable & consistent sledding season)

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 43 | Page To establish preferences in each of these areas, respondents were first asked to select both a “Most” and a “Least” favored alternative. This served to identify among the 400 respondents which option garnered the greatest support and conversely the least support. As shown in summary below, these selections were:

• Access to winter recreation sites • Most favored – Direct Access off Interstate (no city traffic) • Least favored – Thru City Travel (Completely thru City of Flagstaff to the mountain with possible heavy traffic congestion) • Level of Services at winter recreation site • Most favored – Full services • Least favored – Minimal services • Cost of winter recreation • Most favored – Free‐no cost • Least favored ‐ Higher Cost ($41‐$55+ ) • Level of development of winter recreation site • Most favored ‐ Minimally developed & managed area on national forest • Least favored – Highly developed & managed area with man‐made snow to supplement snowfall (more predictable & consistent sledding season)

In the flow of the survey, after respondents selected their “most preferred” and “least preferred” choices in each of four categories, they then rated the remaining options using a zero to 10 point scale. Note that in this scale, zero equated to the “least preferred’ and 10 to the “most preferred” choices already made. The remaining two choice options were therefore given a rating between 1 and 9. So, each respondent to the survey rated every option in all four categories. Full results from this exercise are shown in Tables 38‐41 which follow.

When one considers the responses to this first set of attributes, it is not surprising in conjoint analysis for respondents to indicate that they want the most they can get, such as direct access, no cost, or full services. It is also not surprising that their least favorable choices were those with the most perceived disadvantages, such as thru‐city travel, minimal services or higher cost. These choices are displayed in Figure 5, which compares averaged responses to each other using weighted utility scores. Such scores are generated statistically and are the result of weighting the probability of the various combinations of outcomes.

Conjoint analysis was performed on only those respondents who indicated in the surveys that they came to Flagstaff for snowplay activities, no skiers were included in this analysis.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 44 | Page Figure 5. Weighted Utility Scores FMPO Snowplay

Weighted Utilities FMPO Snowplay Factors 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

In the final exercise of the conjoint portion of the survey, respondents were provided with their “most preferred” choices in each of the four attribute categories and asked to assign, using percentages, the Importance of each one relative to the others. In other words, 100 percentage points were divided among the four categories in any combination that most reflect an individual respondents’ perception of Importance. This analysis shows that cost is relatively more important than the other factors, which line up in declining order of importance as:

1. Fees and Cost of winter recreation sites 30.38 2. Level of services at winter recreation sites 25.71 3. Location and access to winter recreation sites 22.71 4. Level of development of winter recreation sites 21.20

Figure 6. Feature Importance Scores FMPO Snowplay

Feature Importance Scores

30.38 25.71 22.71 21.20

Snowplay Area Snowplay Area Snowplay Site Level of Location/Access Services Fees/Amenity Development Purchases

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 45 | Page For Snowplay Location/Access attributes, Table 38 below shows that 51.3% (#10) chose direct access off the interstate as most preferred; and, conversely shows 68% chose thru‐city travel (0) as the least preferred option. These clearly demonstrate, again, that most respondents prefer direct access off the interstate and the fewest prefer thru‐city travel. Displayed in Figure 7 that follows.

Table 38. Access – Levels of preference

Direct Access Perimeter/ Mid‐City Thru City off Interstate Outskirts Travel Travel 0 9.8% 7.3% 15.0% 68.0% 1 1.8% 2.3% 15.0% 5.0% 2 1.0% 1.3% 9.3% 2.5% 3 1.3% 1.8% 18.5% 3.3% 4 1.5% 1.8% 10.0% 3.0% 5 3.8% 7.3% 14.3% 3.8% 6 5.5% 6.5% 4.8% 2.5% 7 9.8% 14.8% 2.5% 2.5% 8 9.3% 10.3% 2.3% 1.5% 9 5.3% 12.0% 2.0% 0.8% 10 51.3% 35.0% 6.5% 7.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 7. Access Attributes – Level of Preference

Level of Preference for Access Attributes 80.0%

60.0% Title 40.0% Axis 20.0%

0.0% 012345678910 Axis Title

Direct Access off Interstate Perimeter/Outskirts Mid‐City Travel Thru City Travel

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 46 | Page The data on Snowplay Area Services show the most preferred option to be Full services (58% under #10), and the least preferred option to be minimal services (71.5% under #0). See Table 39 and Figure 8 that follows.

Table 39. Site Services – Level of Preference

Minimal Moderate Enhanced Full Services Services Services Services 0 71.5% 9.0% 6.0% 13.5% 1 1.3% 9.0% 4.5% 0.8% 2 1.3% 9.0% 2.0% 1.5% 3 3.5% 12.3% 3.8% 4.5% 4 1.3% 9.5% 3.5% 2.8% 5 3.3% 12.0% 8.3% 4.5% 6 3.8% 7.5% 7.3% 3.0% 7 2.8% 9.8% 14.3% 4.0% 8 3.0% 3.8% 15.3% 4.3% 9 2.0% 3.0% 15.0% 3.3% 10 6.5% 15.3% 20.3% 58.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 8. Site Services – Level of Preference

Level of Preference for Services Attributes 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 012345678910

Minimal Services Moderate Services Enhanced Services Full Services

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 47 | Page The data on the Cost of winter recreation areas show the most preferred option to be Free‐no cost (69.5% under #10), and the least preferred option to be Higher: $41 to $55+ (85.8% under #0). See Table 40 and Figure 9 that follows.

Table 40. Price – Level of Preference

Free $10 to $25 $26 to $40 $41 to $55+ 0 4.8% 6.0% 3.5% 85.8% 1 1.5% 4.5% 32.3% 1.5% 2 0.3% 6.0% 12.8% 0.8% 3 2.3% 2.5% 12.8% 0.8% 4 1.5% 2.8% 9.3% 0.8% 5 2.8% 7.0% 9.0% 0.8% 6 2.3% 7.8% 6.5% 0.5% 7 4.3% 10.5% 3.0% 2.5% 8 3.5% 14.0% 3.3% 0.8% 9 7.5% 19.3% 2.8% 0.3% 10 69.5% 19.8% 5.0% 5.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 9. Price Attributes ‐ Level of Preference

Level of Preferences for Price Attributes 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 012345678910

Free $10 to $25 $26 to $40 $41 to $55+

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 48 | Page Finally, the results of Level of Development at Snowplay areas produced a somewhat less polarized view where minimally developed and managed sites was most preferred but only at 34.8 percent while highly developed sites with man‐made snow was most often selected as the least preferred. See Table 41 and Figure 10 below.

Table 41. Site Development ‐ Level of Preference

Minimally Highly developed & developed & Man‐made Non‐developed managed managed snow 0 37.5% 7.8% 11.3% 43.5% 1 1.5% 7.8% 9.5% 2.3% 2 0.5% 4.3% 8.0% 2.0% 3 2.5% 5.0% 8.3% 3.5% 4 2.3% 5.8% 7.5% 3.8% 5 4.5% 6.8% 11.3% 6.5% 6 5.5% 5.5% 6.0% 3.0% 7 9.0% 6.0% 10.0% 5.5% 8 6.3% 7.0% 4.8% 4.0% 9 5.8% 9.5% 6.0% 3.0% 10 24.8% 34.8% 17.5% 23.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 10. Site Development ‐Level of Preference

Level of Preference for type of Development Attributes 50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% 012345678910

Non‐developed Minimally developed & managed Highly developed & managed Man‐made snow

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 49 | Page Conclusion. Having established the most and least preferred options, the trade‐offs or weighting of the importance of the other options are displayed in Table 42. Thus, we can conclude the following from this conjoint analysis:

1. Easy and direct access is far preferable to visitors than driving through city traffic in Flagstaff. It also appears that getting “to the mountain” is not necessarily their preference, but that visitors would rather avoid traffic to access snowplay areas more directly. 2. Full services, such as plowed parking lots, restrooms, trash receptacles, and refreshments, are preferable to minimal or no services. Thus, all things being equal people prefer to have services available at their winter recreation sites. 3. Cost is, above all others, a very important factor, perhaps more given the recent recession and the rising cost of gasoline to get to Flagstaff. Visitors generally prefer the cost for winter recreation, especially snowplay on public lands, to be free or as nearly free as possible. 4. Development of the lands on which winter recreation is offered is the attribute with the least variability, or the area about which visitors felt least strongly. The highest preference in this area is for minimal development, more than no development at all, while least preferable were highly developed areas or areas with manmade snow. Thus, visitors want their snowplay and winter recreation experiences to be natural and authentic.

In addition, a number of cross‐tabulations were performed between select sets of variables to further elucidate the findings of the conjoint analysis. It found, for example, that less frequent visitors had a greater propensity to rate the cost of winter recreation as more important, while those who visited more frequently were more likely to rate access, area services and levels of development as more important. Further, the cross‐tabulations found that issues of direct access and level of services offered were more important to those in the medium income cohort ($50,000‐$100,000); cost was most important to those in the lowest income category; and, level of development was most important to the highest income earners. Finally, cross‐tabulations showed no difference based on frequency of visits on the issue of access, although it found that those who visit more often want more services; those who visit least often are more concerned about cost; and, that level of development of snow recreation areas appears to be more important to those who visit more often. The full dataset for the cross tabulations is presented in the Appendix which follows.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 50 | Page Table 42. Summary of Results‐ Weighted Utility

Location/Access Area Services Fees/Amenity Purchases Level of Development Direct Access off Interstate: Minimal Non‐developed, natural area on (no city traffic) 1.77 Services 0.38 Free‐no cost 2.73 national forest 1.02

Perimeter/Outskirts of Moderate Minimal Cost Minimally developed & managed Flagstaff: (limited city traffic) 1.68 Services 1.18 ($10 to $25) 2.04 area on national forest 1.30

Moderate Mid‐City Travel: (moderate to Enhanced Cost ($26 to Highly developed & managed area heavy traffic) 0.76 Services 1.81 $40) 0.94 within City of Flagstaff 1.09

Highly developed & managed area Thru City Travel: (Completely with man‐made snow to thru City of Flagstaff to the supplement snowfall (more mountain with possible heavy Higher Cost predictable & consistent sledding traffic congestion) 0.37 Full Services 2.03 ($41 to $55+) 0.20 season) 0.94

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 51 | Page

APPENDIX A

FMPO Segment Cross‐Tabulation Analysis

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 52 | Page FMPO Segment Cross‐Tabulation Analysis This section of the report presents the results of a number of cross‐tabulations that were performed between select sets of variables to further elucidate the findings of the conjoint analysis. For example, the first cross‐tab, presented in Table 43 below, measures the importance of the attributes according to the number of times people visited Flagstaff for winter recreation. It shows that amenities are more or less important depending on the number of times people had traveled here for winter recreation. Generally, few differences appear between these groups, with minimal exceptions. In terms of Site fees, those who had visited 10 times or less had much greater propensity to rate the cost of winter recreation as more important, while those who had visited more frequently (11 times or more) were more likely to rate access, area services and levels of development as more important.

Table 43. Importance of attributes by Number of times visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years

1‐5 times 6‐10 times 11+ times Area Location/Access 21.5 22.3 23.3 Area Services 25.1 25.5 26.4 Area Site Fees/ Purchases 31.8 31.2 27.6 Area‐Level of Development 21.6 21.0 22.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 44. Number of times visited Flagstaff for Winter Recreation in the last Five Years – weighted utility scores

1‐5 times 6‐10 times 11+ times Direct Access ‐Interstate 1.7 1.8 1.8 Perimeter/Outskirts 1.5 1.7 1.7 Mid‐City Travel 0.8 0.7 0.9 Thru City Travel 0.3 0.3 0.4 Minimal Services 0.3 0.4 0.5 Moderate Services 1.2 1.2 1.4 Enhanced Services 1.8 1.7 1.8 Full Services 1.9 1.9 2.0 Free‐no cost 2.9 2.9 2.2 Minimal Cost 2.0 2.2 2.0 Moderate Cost 0.8 1.0 1.1 Higher Cost 0.1 0.2 0.4 Non‐developed 1.1 1.1 1.0 Minimally developed 1.4 1.2 1.4 Highly developed 1.0 1.1 1.3 Man‐made snow 0.8 0.9 1.1

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 53 | Page Figure 11. Importance by Number of Times Visited Flagstaff

Importance of attributes of snowplay to how many times have you visited Flagstaff for winter recreation in the last 5 years? 31.8 31.2 27..6 25.5 26.4 23.3 25.1 21.5 22.3 21.6 21.0 22.7

Area Location/Access Area Services Site Fees/Amenity Area‐Level of Development Purchases

1‐5 times 6‐10 times 11 or more times

Figure 12. Weighted Utility by Number of Times Visited Flagstaff

Frequency of visits to Flagstaff for winter recreation by weighted utility functions 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

1‐5 times 6‐10 times 11+ times

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 54 | P age The next cross‐tabs looked at the attributes in terms of income, defined as low (less than $50,000), medium ($50,000‐$100,000) and high ($100,000 or more). Looked at this way, the issue of direct access and services offered were more important to the medium cohort ($50,000‐$100,000); cost was most important to those in the lowest income category; and, level of development was most important to the highest income earners. See next four tables.

Table 45. What is your combined annual household income?

Count Percent Under $25,000 54 13.5% $25,000 ‐ $49,999 134 33.5% $50,000 ‐ $74,999 94 23.5% $75,000 ‐ $99,999 57 14.3% $100,000 ‐ $124,999 30 7.5% $125,000 ‐ $149,999 10 2.5% Over $150,000 21 5.3% Total 400 100.0%

Table 46. Income recoded (low, medium, high)

Frequency Percent less than $50,000 188 47.0% $50,000 ‐ $100,000 151 37.8% $100,000 or more 61 15.3% Total 400 100.0%

Table 47. Importance of attributes by low, medium and high annual income

less than $50,000 ‐ $100,000 $50,000 $100,000 or more Area Location/Access 21.9 23.7 22.9 Area Services 25.3 27.0 23.7 Site Fees/Amenity Purchases 31.7 29.3 28.9 Area‐Level of Development 21.1 20.0 24.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 55 | Page Table 48. Low, medium and high annual income – weighted utility scores

<$50K $50K ‐ $100K $100K+ Direct Access ‐Interstate 1.6 1.9 1.8 Perimeter/Outskirts 1.6 1.8 1.7 Mid‐City Travel 0.7 0.8 0.9 Thru City Travel 0.4 0.2 0.5 Minimal Services 0.5 0.3 0.4 Moderate Services 1.2 1.2 1.0 Enhanced Services 1.7 2.0 1.7 Full Services 1.9 2.2 1.9 Free‐no cost 3.0 2.6 2.3 Minimal Cost 2.0 2.1 2.0 Moderate Cost 0.9 0.9 1.0 Higher Cost 0.2 0.1 0.5 Non‐developed 1.2 0.8 0.8 Minimally developed 1.4 1.2 1.3 Highly developed 0.9 1.1 1.7 Man‐made snow 0.8 0.9 1.5

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 56 | Page Figure 13. Importance by Income Level

Importance of attributes of snowplaay by household income 31.7 29.3 28.9 27.0 23.7 25.3 23.7 24.5 21.9 22.9 21.1 20.0

Area Location/Access Area ServicesSite Fees/Amenity Purchases Area‐Level of Development

less than $50,000 $50,000 ‐ $100,000 $100,000 or more

Figure 14. Weighted Utility by Income Level

Annual Household Income by weighted utility functions 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

<$50K $50K ‐ $100K $100K+

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 57 | P age Cross‐tabs measured the attributes in terms of frequency of visits for winter recreation. Here cross‐tabulations show no difference based on frequency of visits on the issue of access. It does show that those who visit more often want more services; those who visit least often are more concerned about cost; and, that level of development of snow recreation areas appears to be more important to those who visit more often. See next four tables.

Table 49. In a typical year, how many times do you your family/friends visit Flagstaff during the snow season?

Frequency Percent 1‐2 times 183 58.7% 3‐4 times 76 24.4% 5‐6 times 25 8.0% 7‐8 times 12 3.8% 9+ times 16 5.1% Total 312 100.0%

Table 50. Frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season ‐ recoded

Frequency Percent 1‐2 times 183 58.7% 3 or more times 129 41.3% Total 312 100.0%

Table 51. Importance attributes for visiting Flagstaff during the snow season

1‐2 times 3 or more times Area Location/Access 22.2 22.3 Area Services 24.4 27.5 Site Fees/Amenity Purchases 32.5 27.2 Area‐Level of Development 20.9 23.0 100.0 100.0

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐ July 2011 58 | Page

Table 52. Frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season – weighted utility scores

1‐2 times 3 or more times Direct Access ‐Interstate 1.8 1.7 Perimeter/Outskirts 1.7 1.6 Mid‐City Travel 0.8 0.8 Thru City Travel 0.3 0.5 Minimal Services 0.3 0.6 Moderate Services 1.2 1.4 Enhanced Services 1.8 1.9 Full Services 1.9 2.0 Free‐no cost 3.0 2.2 Minimal Cost 2.2 1.8 Moderate Cost 0.9 1.0 Higher Cost 0.1 0.4 Non‐developed 1.0 1.1 Minimally developed 1.4 1.3 Highly developed 1.0 1.2 Man‐made snow 0.8 1.1

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐ July 2011 59 | Page Figure 15. Importance by Annual Visits

Importance of attributes by frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Area Location/Access Area Services Site Fees/Amenity Area‐Level of Purchases Development

1‐2 times 3 or more times

Figure 16. Weighted Utility by Annual Visits

Frequency of visiting Flagstaff during the snow season by weighted utility functions 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

1‐2 times 3 or more times

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 60 | Page APPENDIX B

Complete List of Responses

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 61 | Page What is the Zip Code of your Arizona residence? (converted to place)

Zip Code Count Percent PHOENIX 91 24.3% Zip Code Count Percent GOLD CANYON 2 .5% MARANA 1 .3% APACHE JUNCTION 4 1.1% TUCSON 3 .9% CASA GRANDE 1 .3% LAKESIDE 3 .8% ARIZONA CITY 2 .5% SAINT JOHNS 1 .3% COOLIDGE 1 .3% SNOWFLAKE 1 .3% FLORENCE 1 .3% SPRINGERVILLE 1 .3% HAYDEN 1 .3% TAYLOR 1 .3% MARICOPA 4 1.1% FLAGSTAFF 8 2.1% SAN TAN VALLEY 2 .6% FREDONIA 1 .3% QUEEN CREEK 6 1.6% PAGE 1 .3% MESA 43 11.3% WILLIAMS 1 .3% CHANDLER 17 5.4% WINSLOW 3 .8% SCOTTSDALE 25 6.6% PRESCOTT 6 1.6% PARADISE VALLEY 1 .3% PRESCOTT VALLEY 11 3% FOUNTAIN HILLS 2 .5% ASH FORK 1 .3% TEMPE 18 4.8% CHINO VALLEY 4 1.1% GILBERT 5 2.7% COTTONWOOD 2 .5% GLENDALE 18 4.9% DEWEY 1 .3% AVONDALE 3 .8% JEROME 2 .5% BUCKEYE 6 1.6% SEDONA 2 .5% CAVE CREEK 1 .3% KINGMAN 5 1.4% EL MIRAGE 1 .3% LAKE HAVASU CITY 2 .6% GOODYEAR 1 .3% BULLHEAD CITY 2 .6% LAVEEN 4 1.1% MOHAVE VALLEY 1 .3% LITCHFIELD PARK 1 .3% MEADVIEW 1 .3% PEORIA 14 3.7% SUN CITY 4 1.1% TONOPAH 1 .3% WADDELL 2 .5% WITTMANN 2 .5% YARNELL 1 .3% YUMA 1 .3% SURPRISE 10 2.7% SUN CITY WEST 3 .8% PAYSON 5 1.3% SAFFORD 1 .3% THATCHER 1 .3% SIERRA VISTA 2 .5% TUMACACORI 1 .3%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 62 | Page How many years have you lived in Arizona?

Count Percent Count Percent 1 30 7.5% 45 6 1.5% 2 30 7.6% 48 1 .3% 3 14 3.5% 49 1 .3% 4 8 2.0% 50 2 .5% 5 22 5.5% 53 2 .5% 6 14 3.5% 55 1 .3% 7 7 1.8% 56 1 .3% 8 14 3.5% 63 1 .3% 9 12 3.0% Total 398 100.0% 10 15 3.8% 11 9 2.3% 12 7 1.8% 13 6 1.5% 14 9 2.3% 15 17 4.3% 16 4 1.0% 17 7 1.8% 18 9 2.3% 19 5 1.3% 20 20 5.0% 21 6 1.5% 22 9 2.3% 23 6 1.5% 24 2 .5% 25 17 4.3% 26 5 1.3% 27 9 2.3% 28 6 1.5% 29 6 1.5% 30 8 2.0% 31 8 2.0% 32 3 .8% 33 4 1.0% 34 7 1.8% 35 5 1.3% 36 1 .3% 37 2 .5% 38 4 1.0% 39 3 .8% 40 7 1.8% 41 1 .3% 42 1 .3% 43 2 .5% 44 2 .5%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 63 | Page Other Winter Recreation Location #1

Count Percent Count Percent No place 257 64.3% Whistler, BC 1 .3% Aspen, CO 1 .3% White Mountains 4 1.0% California 1 .3% Williams 2 .5% Chicago 1 .3% Woods Canyon 1 .3% Colorado 2 .5% Young, Arizona 1 .3% Colorado 2 .5% Total 400 100.0% Connecticut 1 .3% Cottonwood 1 .3% don't remember 2 .5% Flagstaff 2 .5% Forest Lakes 1 .3% Globe 1 .3% Granby, UT 1 .3% Grand Canyon 1 .3% Greer 3 .8% Heber 1 .3% Hills 1 .3% Hualapai mountains 2 .5% Jerome 1 .3% Lake Powell 1 .3% Lake Tahoe 1 .3% Live in Winter location 1 .3% Mogollon Rim 2 .5% Mt. Graham 1 .3% Mt. Lemon 5 1.3% Nevada 2 .5% Page 1 .3% Payson 17 4.3% Phoenix 2 .5% Pine 3 .8% Pinedale Estates, Pinedale 1 .3% Pinetop/Lakeside 10 2.5% Prescott 12 3.0% Rimrock 1 .3% Sedona 5 1.3% Show Low 7 1.8% Snowbowl 4 1.0% Snowflake 1 .3% Strawberry 2 .5% Sunrise Ski Resort 25 6.3% Telluride, CO 2 .5% Tucson 1 .3% Utah 2 .5%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 64 | Page

What other factors are most influential in Other Winter Recreation Location #2 choosing a Winter Recreation/Snowplay Area?

Count Percent Count Percent No other place 339 84.8% No Reason 390 97.5 Alpine 1 .3% College 1 .3 around home‐the park 1 .3% Do not do wintersports 1 .3 Christopher Creek 1 .3% Don't like snow 1 .3 Colorado 1 .3% Family own Property 1 .3 Colorado 1 .3% Get out of the heat in Phoenix 1 .3 Cottonwood 1 .3% Good people 1 .3 Durango 1 .3% National Forests 1 .3 Flagstaff 2 .5% Price 1 .3 Grand Canyon 1 .3% Promotions/Discounts 1 .3 Greer 2 .5% Resort points hotel 1 .3 Heber 1 .3% Total 400 100.0 Kingman 1 .3% Mammoth, CA 1 .3% Minnesota 1 .3% Moccasin 1 .3% Mt. Lemmon 2 .5% Payson 10 2.5% Pine/Strawberry 1 .3% Pinetop/Lakeside 1 .3% Prescott 7 1.8% Roxton Pond 1 .3% Sedona 3 .8% Show Low 2 .5% Snowbowl 1 .3% Snowflake 2 .5% South of Flagstaff 1 .3% Strawberry, AZ 1 .3% Sunrise Ski Area 2 .5% Top of the World 1 .3% Utah 2 .5% Various cross country 1 .3% skiing areas White Mountains 3 .8% Williams 2 .5% Winslow 1 .3% Total 400 100.0%

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 65 | Page Survey Comments: Is there anything you would like to share with us regarding your experiences or interest in Winter Recreation in the Flagstaff area that will help us in future planning? (Note: Comments appear verbatim as they were provided)

A NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR SNOWPLAY IS APPRECIATED SO THAT NOT ONE SITE IS OVERCROWDED. AREAS FOR SMALLER CHILDREN TO HAVE SNOWPLAY WITHOUT THE THREAT OF BEING RAN OVER BY OLDER KIDS WOULD ALSO BE NICE.

Ability to rent intertubes for sledding would be nice.

Access and problems with maintenance and continuing governmental(Indian communities) problems. always manage to find areas to play in the snow with kids that other people are at, but you are not alone ‐ I like to be near civilization, in case of an emergency ‐ We really prefer our 2nd home to play at in the winter because we can enjoy the beauty of winter in the pines in peace and quiet

Any artificial snow made with reclaimed water is fine with me and does not disrespect so‐called native americans

Artificial snow would be a big plus as that would maintain snow throughout the season. Relying on natural snow causes crowds on the few days that snow activities are available.

Better transportation from ski hill to downtown.

Bigger Ski resorts would be nice

Busses from Phoenix area to Flagstaff would be good. Fun areas for young adults in Flagstaff for post‐ winter recreation. can't think of anything at the moment‐‐you can't make it snow more cheaper lift tickets at the snowbowl or discounted offers

Clean Comfort rooms,

Clear the roads more cool beans cool survey, glad you guys are on it!

Don't like snow and do not travel in it.

Enjoyed it when driving from Phoenix, now we live in the White Mountains and have winter here.

Everything is great, keep it as planned.

Experiences were great.

Flagstaff is a great place to escape the heat of Phoenix and have a fun time in the snow with my family. great place

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 66 | Page great place great place to go but the help could use some training great time

Have Fun! hihihi

Hope to see you soon!

Hoping for big snow this year

I always have a fun a great experience in Flagstaff during the winter.

I am excited to see that research is being gathered on this subject. Another location, especially one closer to Phoenix, maybe as far South as Sedona, would bring me, my family, and my snowboarding friends up North more often!

I can't think of anything, although I would like to see more ski lodges in the Flagstaff area, and ones that aren't crowded!

I can't think of anything.

I don't have anything at this time. i feel good

I have always loved Flagstaff. Not only for their winter sports and beautiful ski areas, some in the middle of nowhere and some closer to the interstate or road access. It depends on what type of skiing I am doing on where I want the place to be and the accessibility. If me and my friends are doing downhill skiiling, then it is nice to be in a more natural area. If we are snowboarding then it would be okay to have it inner city like a summer skateboard area. I also love the little shops.

I have driven through when there are signs that say wintry road conditions but it doesn't seem that anyone has plowed the interstate. I saw many vehicles in the ditch. I think you should monitor road conditions more if you want more visitors.

I have not been to Flagstaff and would need to know more about the area. It is about 4 hours from my home.

I have really enjoyed my experiences in Flagstaff.

I just hate when the roads get closed down but it's flagstaff's fault.

I just want to keep it naturally beautiful there. I would hate to see it become just another congested city.

I like to see that the roads are maintained and safe for the winter weather as I do not own a four wheel drive vehicle.

I like when I can get out of my vehicle and there is nothing around it feels like you went back in time.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 67 | Page I love Flagstaff

I love Flagstaff! i love flagstaff...and the snow play i love going up to flagstaff during snow season

I love it :)

I Love The Area.

I love to play in the fresh in an area where not alot of people have been yet, then go get warm and something to eat

I love to travel to Flagstaff as the area is so beautiful.I love the tall green trees and the whole area in the winter in so nice and you have so many activities to do in the winter.I love to try all the winter activities as my children love the snow. My husband loves to snowboard.

I prefer European winter recreation sites. It is nice to have the convenience of shops and restaurants nearby...but "chain" shops and restaurants are much less desirable.

I really like the idea of having a couple of park and rides and shuttles to the recreational areas. Bathrooms are a MUST. If there is no permanent facility at the location, I think the shuttle drivers should have first aid training and equipment as well as a means of summoning help.

I really want somewhere me and my family can enjoy without many interruptions.

I think its great!

I throw snowballs and go sledding

I used to live there and loved the snow very much

I wish they would give out more information on when they were planning to be open.

I would lik to see more handicap access

I would like to see more activities for after skiing in the town of Flagstaff. Also, more B&B or hotel specials during the winter months. Otherwise, I enjoy the ability to travel a short distance (from Scottsdale) to Flag for a fun couple of days playing in the snow. The citizens of Flag are absolutely delightful!

I would love to go sledding on a snowhill.

I would LOVE to visit Flagstaff to play in the snow, but I don't know where to go. PLEASE advertise in the Phoenix area. You'll be inundated by parched Phoenicians.

If the roads to the skiing/snowplay areas are not regularly plowed, have vendors that offer snow chain rentals located before the unplowed area starts possibly closer to the Interstate with signs indicating the availability and location(s).

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 68 | Page If there were other opportunities highlighted such as Lowell Observatory or the Museum...to combine with snow recreation

I'll probably just go to Utah....

In researching, the only lodging available was motel 6 quality...

Information on inexpensive hotels that are not "seedy" interesting.

It a lot of fun coming up to flagstaff and playing in the snow with the family

It is a beautiful palce and I enjoy the beauty

It is a great place to visit

It was great and i look to come back there in the next winter.

It would be best to have trails accommodating all levels of ability when it comes to skiing, with good research and planning done to ensure that no trail is very saturated while others go unused.

It would great to have shuttles that were reasonable from the Phoenix area. Also I could picture hotel/motel stays combined with the shuttle service. its a good beginners snowboard area its all good its all good just have some fun

Just keep the snow coming just to be safe....

Keep the beautiful natural appeal keep up the good work

Love it can't wait till they can make snow

Lowering the cost of Ski Lift tickets would be great. Lowering the cost would allow me to go more times during the winter.

Make simple, easy access areas with small hills and low cost for young children.

Make sure to check weather reports and also see if there are any closures on currently as far as ski resorts and sledding areas.

Maybe a few more locations for sleding as they get to be pretty crowded at times.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 69 | Page Maybe be more attentive to keeping the garbage cleared off the slopes and keeping the roads more desirable to travel

Maybe have an out of state day(s) where they get reduced admissions and then have a locals day(s) too.

More advertising of what is available would be helpful more places to eat more restrooms..and clean the ones u have

N/A, No, Nothing, None‐ (87 Total such comments)

No it was great!!

No thank you i think that this quiz was a wonderful opertunity to voice my opinion

No, but I have always been impressed with the choice of things to do for winter activities in Flagstaff.

No. I'd like to be able to go. nothing comes to mind except keep up the great work.

Offer Arizona resident ONLY discounts or free days to facilities and events

Offer coupons for more expensive areas at half prices.

Please no man‐made snow!

Plenty of areas to "Play in the Snow"....within two national forests...abundant ski areas.... Good interstate access.... prices are great! prices should be lower that way you can make more money plus have more customers. probably not, cant remember any names of companies we used, hotels, rentals, etc sorry

Provide maple candy safer roads

Safety in having some one driving a shuttle would be great weather it was snow and winter related it would also be great to have for just visiting flagstaff at any given time to visit up there. / places that advertise and let people know what they offer would be nice and also a low cost visit

Seems the more government gets involved... the less natural/enjoyable the experience.... / Goal is to have kids and family pets experience the natural beauty...

Snow levels are too low earlier in the season earlier than other locations which is one reason we don't visit more during the season, thank you

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 70 | Page thanks thankyou

The last time we visited it was difficulty to find a sledable hill with parking. With kids, we're not looking for anything exceptionally steep or fast but something of moderate speed and comfortable. My own personal preference is something where traffic is moderate, as part of the reason I go up is to get away from highly populated city life. I suppose I would be willing to pay $10‐ 15 for something that fits the above description.

The ski area could use more lifts.

This sounds like a great activity for families ‐ we love to come to Flagstaff ‐ stay overnight, eat out, and just have fun.

Too much planning and micro‐managing from a government entity seems to pull away from the actual "spur of the moment" activities. Obviously, some rules and conduct need to be regulated, but don't stifle.

Traffic is the big problem for Flagstaff no matter if it is summer or winter. Other major roadways need to be developed.

Until very recently I lived in Flagstaff year‐round. Go NAU!

Very Fun!

VERY GOOD

We enjoy playing in an area that is more private where I am not worried about losing site of my kids and can help keep my kids safer from other people being reckless. we enjoy visiting the snow several times per year

We LOVE Flagstaff. You have a beautiful area and yet you feel out in the open

We love going up there every winter. The kids have a blast. Wish there were more large family deals for the winter activites. We have a family of 8 and with out those deals there are no way we could go. It would be nice to try something out then if we find all the kids enjoy it we would be willing to pay more.

We love Snow Bowl. The parking could be improved and perhaps making better information on other play areas more available. we love spending time as a family and going to flagstaff where we can have fun in the snow enjoying each other is the best.

We moved from Flagstaff last year after 5 years of living there. Parking is a huge issue. People come up from the Valley and park anywhere/everywhere and it's very dangerous .

We moved here from Georgia and my kids are ages 5 and 9 and it was the first time they saw snow and is was a wonderful family trip. we need safer areas to go sledding

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 71 | Page We really like the new sledding area that is on the way to Williams but dont always feel that we can pay to use it, especially because the only thing it offers is a hill that is minimally maintained. However, most of the free play areas are now being considered as off limits and therefore we don't have a lot of choice. well

When we first started sledding in Flagstaff, they had great hills and everything was open and free, now everything is commercialized. It kinda takes the fun out of it. will bw back flagstaff is fun

Winter hotel packages. Have packages with some type of bus service from Phoenix to Flagstaff.

Winter recreation locations should be easy to find and low on price.

With gas prices higher, Flagstaff fits in our budget

Would like a snowmobile rental area that is attached to snowmobile trails so there would be no transporting snowmobiles to another area.

YEAH.FUNNY

Yes, you should add "open ended" areas like this for each question area for the "why"

You guys should add more restaurants more choices i know you got sushi, pizza all kinds of stuff but add more around the mountain areas yuki

Northern Arizona University, Center for Business Outreach, AHRRC‐July 2011 72 | Page