City of Alamosa Customer Satisfaction and Residents Priorities Survey October Final Descriptive Results

Transcription

1 City of Alamosa Customer Satisfaction and Residents Priorities Survey October 2008 Final Descriptive Results

2 City of Alamosa Customer Satisfaction and Residents Priorities Survey October 2008 Final Descriptive Results Melissa L. Freeman, Ph.D. Adams State College

3 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 5 Survey Overview 6 Description 6 Methodology 6 Sample 7 Limitations 8 Results 9 Demographic Information 10 Gender 10 Age 11 Voting Intentions 12 Race/ethnicity 13 Years lived in Alamosa 14 Household income per year 15 Children under the age of Citizen Satisfaction with City Services 17 Police services 17 Crime prevention 18 Traffic enforcement 19 Fire services 20 Emergency preparedness 21 Street repair 22 Street cleaning 23 Sidewalk maintenance 24 Garbage collection 25 Recycling services 26 Water services 27 Sewage services 28 Parks 29 Recreation programs and facilities 30 Land use zoning and planning 31 Code enforcement 32 Public library services 33 City employees 34 Employee knowledge Employee responsiveness Employee courtesy Employee overall impression

4 3 Policy Issue 1 Recreational Facilities and Opportunities 36 Frequency of usage of The public library 36 Bike trails 37 Walking trails 38 City parks 39 Recreation center facilities 40 Opportunities offer through the recreation center 41 Rank order of importance Public Library Improvement, Public Swimming Pool, 42 Bike Trails, Walking Trails, and Park Improvements Level of agreement with A new library facility 45 A new public swimming pool 46 Developing pedestrian and bike trails 47 Playground equipment improvement 48 Adding a weight room at the recreation center 49 Adding batting cages at the recreation center 50 Likelihood to support Property tax for a new public library 51 Sales tax for a new public library 51 Property tax for a new public swimming pool 52 Sales tax for a new public swimming pool 52 User fee for a new public swimming pool 52 Property tax for new or upgraded bike trails 54 Sales tax for new or upgraded bike trails 54 Property tax for new or upgraded walking trails 56 Sales tax for new or upgraded walking trails 56 Property tax for playground equipment upgrades 57 Sales tax for playground equipment upgrades 57 Policy Issue 2 Land Use and Management, City-Owned Alamosa Ranch 59 Level of familiarity with the city-owned Alamosa Ranch 59 Rank order of importance Recreational Opportunities, Educational Opportunities, 60 Economic Development, Open Space, Combination Level of agreement with Expansion of recreational opportunities at the ranch 62 Current recreational opportunities are sufficient 62 Expansion of educational opportunities at the ranch 64 Current educational opportunities are sufficient 64 Appropriate economic development at the ranch 65 Expansion of open space at the ranch 66 Current open space is sufficient 66

5 4 Likelihood to support Property tax for expansion of recreational opportunities 68 Sales tax for expansion of recreational opportunities 68 Property tax for economic development 69 Sales tax for economic development 69 Incentives to attract additional retail and manufacturing 69 Property tax for expansion of open space 71 Sales tax for expansion of open space 71 Open-Ended Question 73 Additional information to add for the City of Alamosa s information 73 References 86 Appendix A 87

6 5 Acknowledgements There are several individuals I would like to take this opportunity to thank. These individuals were the reason this project was successfully completed. First, Nathan Cherpeski, City Manager and members of Alamosa City Council Mayor Farris Bervig, Greg Gillaspie, April Gonzales, Charles Griego, Josef Lucero, Kathy Rogers, and Leland Romero were important to this project. Their understanding of the importance to gather information from the citizens of their community prior to making future planning decisions was crucial. Second, I would like to thank Dr. Bruce Landis, Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Adams State College and his staff Lori Laske, Gaylene Horning, Tammy Lopez, Cathi Lucero Connell, and Lynn Michalke for their support in allowing my team to use their space and telephone bank for two weeks for data collection. Finally, and most importantly, thank you to my four student workers Sandra Lowman, Craig Booth, Brenda Chavez and Anna Dean for their tireless work which included many conversations with strangers and a few hang ups. Their professionalism and commitment was critical to the project s success.

7 6 Survey Overview Description The City of Alamosa, Colorado is in the process of future planning, focusing on resident priorities and satisfaction with city services. Toward this end, the City of Alamosa contracted with Dr. Melissa L. Freeman at Adams State College to conduct a survey of registered voters in the city seeking input regarding residents priorities and customer service satisfaction. Dr. Freeman worked collaboratively with City Manager, Nathan Cherpeski and members of City Council Mayor Farris Bervig, Greg Gillaspie, April Gonzales, Charles Griego, Josef Lucero, Kathy Rogers, and Leland Romero to develop the survey instrument, which was designed to be completed by registered voters in the City of Alamosa. The registered voter list was provided by the city. There were 69 items on the survey, which included an open-ended question for individuals to provide additional information or clarification of responses. Certain items were reported as comparison data, specifically the tax questions. A copy of the survey instrument is included as Appendix A. Methodology The survey was conducted via telephone. According to Suskie (1996), there are several advantages to telephone-based data collection. First, telephone surveys often cost less than a mailed survey. This was especially true of this survey, given the absence of long distance costs and access to the Adams State College s telephone bank. Second, telephone surveys often realize time efficiency. We were able to collect data from 400 residents in a two week time period, as opposed to longer time frame had the survey been mailed. Third, telephone surveys are more conducive to brief and straightforward data collection. The brevity of this survey enabled for more effective communication with the residents sampled. Finally, telephone

8 7 surveys yield a high response rate. In this case, there were 400 respondents, which made for a lower margin of error (+/-5%). Four of the five telephone interviewers were bi-lingual in both Spanish and English. In addition, the survey and language direction sheets were printed for interviewers in both languages. This helped to facilitate data collection on several occasions when Spanish-speaking individuals were contacted. See Appendix A. Sample The sample was drawn from a list of registered voters in the city. The City of Alamosa has a population of nearly 8,000 people, of which approximately 6,000 are age-eligible to vote. However, only two-thirds of them are actually registered to vote (n=4,447). Of these, there were 1,032 cases which did not have a telephone number. In an effort to capture as many of these missing cases as possible, telephone numbers were sought from the current Alamosa telephone directory. Only 182 cases were recovered, leaving 850 as unidentifiable and deleted. Thus the final population of interest was 3,597. Data were collected from 400 randomly selected registered voters. The number of individuals selected for sample size depends upon how much sampling error one is willing to accept. Sampling error is the possible difference between the study s findings and the true results if valid responses were available from everyone in the population. Based on a mathematical formula (see Figure 1), a sample size of n=400 is a sufficient size to ensure +/- 5% margin of error. In other words, with a sample size of n=400, the margin of error was 5% (Suskie, 1996). In social science research, as well as political polls, 5% is an acceptable margin of error.

9 8 Figure X 100% n (where n=sample size) Three different samples were drawn using a random number generation method (Randomizer, 2008). The first two samples contained 400 cases each and the final sample contained 670 cases for a total sample of n=1,470. Of these, 241 registered voters refused to take the survey. An additional 336 never answered their telephones, despite multiple attempts during different times and days to reach them, leaving messages about the nature of our calls, and providing times in which we were likely to call back. This suggests that residents were selectively screening calls in order to not speak with data collection staff, a form of refusal. Once 400 surveys were completed, telephone calls stopped. As a result, 141 voters drawn in the sample were not contacted. See Table 1. Limitations As with all research, this project had a few limitations. First, the population of interest was registered voters. The City of Alamosa boasts a population of 7,960, of which 24% are under the age of 18 (U.S. Census, 2000), leaving approximately 6,000 adults who live within the city limits. However, only 4,447 individuals are registered to vote. Thus, approximately twothirds of voting-age individuals were considered in the original population of interest. Second, there were a number of missing telephone numbers on the voter registration list (n=850) which required these cases to be deleted, further reducing the population of interest. Third, there were a large number of invalid telephone numbers found in the sample drawn (n=352). This combined with the first limitation above further reduced the population of interest (n=3,597). Three possible reasons for the missing and invalid telephone numbers are a) voters

10 9 are not required by law to either provide a telephone number or update their voter record when their telephone number changes; b) many individuals, particularly younger voters, do not have land lines; they use cell phones and are often reluctant to give these numbers; and c) some households, particularly lower-income, may not have a telephone. Table 1 Respondent Metrics Number Registered voters 4,447 Registered voters with no telephone 1,032 Telephone numbers recovered from Alamosa directory 182 Cases deleted due to no telephone number 850 Registered voters in final population 3,597 Sample drawn 1,470 Invalid telephone numbers called 352 Refusals 241 No answers 336 Respondents 400 Total in sample not called 141 * First survey response 9/15/2008. Last survey response 9/28/2008 Results Descriptive results for each question follow, including both graphical presentations pie charts and bar charts and SPSS tables. Missing data are excluded from the graphs; however,

11 10 the SPSS tables provide column data which includes missing cases. The valid percent column is the basis for the pie and bar charts. Additional comments, if any and as applicable, are included. All respondent comments are reported under question 52. Demographic Characteristics 1. What is your gender? Nearly two-thirds of respondents were female. While this percent is higher than the general population in Alamosa (U.S. Census, 2000), there was no cause for concern for two reasons. First, no change was observed when data were weighted based on gender. Second, women are more likely to vote than their male counterparts. Gender Valid Frequency Valid Male Female Total Respondents' Gender 36% Male Female 64%

12 11 2. What is your age range? The majority of respondents were over the age of 50 (66%). As with gender, these results may seem to be skewed. However, the yrs category is consistent with U.S. Census (2000). While the yrs ranges are slightly lower than Census data and the 50+ years ranges are slightly higher than Census data, when the data were weighted, no significant changes occurred to warrant concern about the distribution. Again, older individuals, as with women, are more likely to vote than their younger counterparts. It is interesting to note that 1% of respondents refused to answer this question. Age Valid Frequency Valid yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs refused Total Respondents' Age Range 40% 38% 30% 20% 10% 0% 28% 16% 9% 9% 1% yrs yrs yrs yrs 60+ yrs Refused

13 12 3. Do you plan to vote in the next election? When asked about their intent to vote in the next election, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they planed to do so (98%). Still, 0.8% did not plan to vote; 1% did not know whether or not they planned to vote; and 0.3% refused to answer the question. Vote Valid Frequency Valid Yes No Don't Know Refused Total Respondents' Intent to Vote in the Next Election 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% Yes No Don't Know Refused 98.0%

14 13 4. What is your race/ethnicity? A majority of respondents indicated that they were Caucasian/white (70%), consistent with U.S. Census (2000) data. The second largest racial/ethnic demographic was Hispanic/Latino (25%). Still, 2.5% of respondents refused to answer this question. Race/Ethnicity Valid Frequency Valid Caucasian/white Hispanic/Latino American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Asian Indian/Pacific Islander Other Refused Total % 1.8% 1.0% 0.3% Respondents' Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/white Hispanic/Latino 24.5% 70.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Asian Indian/Pacific Islander Other Refused

15 14 5. How many years have you lived in Alamosa? A little more than three-quarters (75.3%) of respondents indicated that they had lived in Alamosa for more than 11 years. This result is not surprising given the age distribution reported earlier. Again, a few respondents (0.5%), refused to answer this question. Years Lived in Alamosa Valid Frequency Valid < 2 yrs yrs yrs yrs > 20 yrs Refused Total Number of Years Respondents Have Lived in Alamosa 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 59.5% 6.0% 8.3% 10.0% 15.8% 0.5% < 2 yrs 2-5 yrs 6-10 yrs yrs > 20 yrs Refused

16 15 6. What is your household income range per year? When asked about their household income range per year, nearly one-third (31%) indicated that they made more than $55,000 per year. Similarly, nearly one-third (30%) reported making no more than $35,000 per year. This finding is not surprising considering that the median household income in Alamosa is $28,576 (U.S. Census, 2000). One-fifth (20%) of respondents refused to answer this question. Income per Year Valid Frequency Valid <15, ,000-25, ,000-35, ,000-45, ,000-55, , Refused Total % 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Respondents' Household Income Range Per Year < 15, % 15,000-25, % 9.5% 10.8% 8.3% 25,000-35,000 35,000-45,000 45,000-55,000 55, % 20.0% Refused

17 16 7. How many children under the age of 18 currently live with you? When questioned about the number of children under the age of 18 currently residing in the household, 76% of respondents indicated that there were no children under the age of 18 currently living with them. This likely had to do with the age demographic outcome discussed earlier. Number of Children Under 18 Valid Frequency Valid None one two three four or more refused Total Number of Children Under the Age of 18 Living with Respondents 0.5% 1.8% 10.8% 8.5% 2.3% No Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4+ Children Refused 76.3%

18 17 8. Police Services Level of Satisfaction with City Services Nearly two-thirds (62%) of citizens indicated that they were satisfied with police services, with 29% of citizens rating those services as neutral. Only 10% of respondents indicated any dissatisfaction with police services. Police Services Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Police Services 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 42.5% 28.5% 19.3% 8.0% 1.8% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

19 18 9. Crime Prevention Citizen satisfaction with crime prevention did not rate quite as highly as police services. In fact, a little less than one-half (49%) indicated that they were satisfied with crime prevention. And, more than one-third (38%) indicated that they were neutral on this particular service. Finally, 14% of respondents indicated dissatisfaction with crime prevention in the city. Crime Prevention Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Crime Prevention 50.0% 40.0% 37.8% 38.8% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11.8% 10.0% 1.8% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

20 Traffic Enforcement One-half (50%) of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with traffic enforcement, while 30% indicated their view as neutral. Still, one-fifth (20%) of respondents indicated dissatisfaction with traffic enforcement in the city. Traffic Enforcement Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Traffic Enforcement 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 29.5% 38.3% 20.0% 10.0% 7.8% 13.3% 11.3% 0.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

21 Fire Services Clearly, respondents are satisfied with fire services. An overwhelming majority (83%) gave a good or excellent rating in this category. Another 16% indicated that they were neutral with regard to their satisfaction with fire services, mostly because they had never used the service before. Less than 2% indicated any dissatisfaction. Fire Services Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Fire Services 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 15.8% 41.5% 41.3% 10.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

22 Emergency Preparedness Respondents rated their satisfaction with the city s emergency preparedness high as well, with 30%, neutral, 39% good, and 21% excellent. Comments given with regard to their level of satisfaction with emergency preparedness had to do with how well the city handled the water crisis last spring (2008). Emergency Preparedness Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 39.1% 29.6% 21.1% 3.3% 7.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

23 Street Repair Citizen satisfaction with street repair was fairly low. More than one-half (57%) of respondents rated their level of satisfaction with street repair as either poor or fair. Nearly onequarter (24%) rated their satisfaction with street repair as neutral. Sixteen percent of respondents rated street repair as good, while only 3% rated it as excellent. Many respondents indicated their unhappiness with the condition of city streets in the open ended questions. One respondent indicated that the pot holes were so bad, it damaged cars, costing citizens money. Street Repair Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 2.5 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Street Repair 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 30.2% 26.9% 23.9% 16.3% 2.8% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

24 Street Cleaning Citizens appear to be satisfied with street cleaning in the city. Nine percent rated it excellent, 35% rated it as good, and a similar percentage rated it neutral. One-quarter (25%) of respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with street cleaning in the city. Street Cleaning Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Street Cleaning 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 7.5% 17.8% 31.1% 35.1% 8.5% 0.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

25 Sidewalk Maintenance Respondents were about evenly split in their ratings of sidewalk maintenance. A little more than one-third of respondents indicated both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with this service (35% and 34%, respectively). A little less than one-third (31%) rated it neutral. Sidewalk Maintenance Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Sidewalk Maintenance 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 14.0% 20.0% 30.8% 31.0% 10.0% 0.0% 4.3% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

26 Garbage Collection Citizen respondents were overwhelmingly satisfied with garbage collection services provided by the city. Here, 90% rated it good or excellent; with only 4% rating is as fair or poor. Garbage Collection Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 2.5 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Garbage Collection 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 52.0% 37.7% 1.0% 3.0% 6.3% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

27 Recycling Services Nearly one-half of citizens (49%) rated recycling services as good or excellent. Approximately one-third (30%) rated it as neutral, while one-fifth (21%) rated is as fair or poor. Respondents indicated that recycling services could be improved in three ways. First, the city needs to implement curbside pick-up. Second, the city needs to recycle more items, in particular glass. Finally, the city needs to better clean up the recycling center located on Ross Avenue. Recycling Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Recycling Services 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 29.8% 32.3% 16.5% 17.0% 4.5% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

28 Water Services Interestingly, 50% of citizen respondents indicated that they were satisfied with city water services, despite the fact that a number of respondents reminisced about the salmonella crisis that occurred last spring (2008). It appears as though respondents were satisfied with the way in which the city handled the emergency. Suggestions for continued improvement were offered, in particular, to lower the level of chlorine currently in the water supply. Water Services Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Water Services 40.0% 35.8% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 12.8% 14.5% 22.6% 14.3% 0.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

29 Sewage Services Overall, citizens rated their satisfaction with sewage services fairly high. Sixty-six percent gave sewage services a positive rating, while 24% were neutral. Only 10% rated city sewage services as something to be improved. Sewage Services Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisifaction with Sewage Services 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 45.1% 23.8% 20.8% 8.3% 2.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

30 City Parks City parks ranked very high in citizen satisfaction. Nearly 84% of citizen respondents gave city parks a good or excellent rating. And, less than 5% rated city parks low. Clearly, citizens think very highly of city parks in Alamosa. Parks Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 2.5 Total Citizen Satisfaction with City Parks 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 54.0% 29.6% 12.3% 0.8% 3.3% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

31 Recreation Programs and Facilities Overall, citizen respondents are satisfied with city recreation programs and facilities. Sixty three percent of respondents rated recreation programs and facilities positively. Nearly one-third (28%) rated them neutral. And less than 9% rated them poorly. Recreation programs and facilities Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 2.5 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Recreation Programs and Facilities 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 41.7% 28.4% 21.1% 1.8% 7.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

32 Land Use Zoning and Planning When asked about their satisfaction with Land Use (zoning and planning) in the city, a majority (53%) of respondents rated it as neutral. This is in large part because they did not understand what land use such as zoning and planning is or what the city is doing in regard to it. However, of those who did understand land-use issues, they rated this fairly high. One-third (32%) of citizen respondents gave it a good or excellent rating. It appears as though increased educational efforts about land use in the city would be beneficial. Land use--zoning/planning Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Land Use: Zoning and Planning 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 52.9% 25.3% 3.8% 11.5% 6.5% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

33 Code Enforcement As with land use, when ask to rate code enforcement, citizens did not understand what it was. Many individuals asked, What is that? Thus, 43% rated code enforcement as neutral. One-third (32%) rated it positively, while 24% rated it poorly. Code Enforcement Frequency Valid Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Missing System 1.3 Total Citizen Satisfaction with Code Enforcement 50.0% 40.0% 43.4% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 7.0% 17.0% 25.6% 7.0% 0.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

34 Public Library Services A majority of citizens indicated that they were satisfied with public library services (72%). Approximately one-fifth (19%) rated public library services as neutral. And, only 9% rated public library services as poor or fair. Public Library Services Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with Public Library Services. 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 42.8% 29.3% 19.0% 1.8% 7.3% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

35 City Employees Generally, citizen respondents are satisfied with city employees. When asked to rate employees based on their knowledge, responsiveness, courtesy and overall, respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction (56%, 58%, 69%, and 64%, respectively). However, a number of respondents were neutral with regard to city employees ranging from 26% on courtesy to 37% on knowledge. These respondents indicated that a score would be dependent upon which department they were rating. Thus, many gave a neutral. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to explore individual departmental city employees on the above dimensions. Employee Knowledge Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Employee Responsiveness Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total

36 35 Employee Courtesy Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Employee Overall Impression Valid Frequency Valid Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Total Citizen Satisfaction with City Employees 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Knowledge Responsiveness Courtesy Overall

37 36 Policy Issue 1: Recreational Facilities and Opportunities Citizens were asked a series of questions related to recreational facilities and opportunities offered by the city, ranging from usage to how might the city pay for new or improved facilities. Responses to those questions follow. 25. Library Usage A majority (71%) of citizen respondents indicated that they often or occasionally use the public library. Only 29% indicated never using it. P1.1 Public Library Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total Library Usage 29% 25% Often Occasionally Never 46%

38 Bike Trail Usage Less than one-half (44%) of respondents indicated using the bike trails, while 56% indicated never using them. P1.1 Bike Trails Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total Bike Trail Usage 16% 56% 28% Often Occasionally Never

39 Walking Trail Usage Citizen respondents indicated that they more often use walking trails, as opposed to the bike trails. Here two-thirds (66%) of respondents indicated that they occasionally or often use the walking trails. Only one-third (34%) of citizen respondents indicated that they never use the walking trails. P1.1 Walking Trails Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total Walking Trail Usage 34% 30% Often Occasionally Never 36%

40 City Park Usage The vast majority of respondents indicated that they use the city parks. Forty-eight percent reported using them often, while 42% reported using them occasionally. This finding is not surprising given the overwhelming satisfaction that citizen respondents indicated they have with city parks. P1.1 City Parks Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total City Park Usage 10% 42% 48% Often Occasionally Never

41 Recreation Center Facilities Usage of the recreation center facilities was nearly evenly split among those who indicated never using it versus occasionally or often using it. Here, 53% of respondents reported either occasionally or often using the recreational center facilities, while 47% reported never using it. P1.1 Recreation Center Facilities Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total Recreation Center Facilities Usage 17% 47% 36% Often Occasionally Never

42 Opportunities offered through the Recreation Center Similar to citizen respondents usage of the recreation center facility, was respondents usage of opportunities offered through the recreation center. Forty-nine percent indicated that they at occasionally or often participated in these opportunities, while 51% indicated that they never participated in these opportunities. P1.1 Rec Opportunities Offered through the Recreation Center Valid Frequency Valid Never Occasionally Often Total Opportunities Offered through the Recreation Center Usage 15% 51% 34% Often Occasionally Never

43 Rank Order Importance of Recreational Facilities and Opportunities Respondents were asked to rank order in importance their view about various city recreational facilities and opportunities library improvement, public swimming pool, bike trails, walking trails, and park improvements. The public swimming pool was overwhelmingly the most important item to citizen respondents. Fifty-five percent ranked it as number one; 13% ranked it number two; and 12% ranked it number three. Thus, 80% of respondents indicated a public swimming pool to be important to this community. Respondents indicated that it was awful that our kids did not have a public swimming pool to go to in the summer. Several respondents noted their concern about the fact that an entire generation of Alamosa children will never learn to swim unless a pool is a priority of the city. Respondents noted that children need something to do. Similarly, respondents were interested in public library improvements. More than onehalf (58%) of respondents ranked it as either their number one or number two priority. Here, respondents primary concern with the public library facility had to do with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Citizen respondents really like and enjoy the library, but recognized it is outdated and needs some long overdue improvements. The final three items bike trails, walking trails, and park improvements were not ranked as highly. Here, 22% of respondents ranked bike trails as their number one or two priorities. Twenty-seven percent ranked walking trails as their top priorities. And, 29% ranked park improvements as their number one or number two priorities.

44 43 P1.2 Public Library Improvement Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total P1.2 Public Swimming Pool Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total P1.2 Bike Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total

45 44 P1.2 Walk Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total P1.2 Park Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total Rank Ordered Recreational Facilities/Opportunities 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Library Improvement Public Swimming Pool Bike Trails Walking Trails Park Improvements Least important Fourth important Third important Second important Most important

46 Level of Agreement with a New Public Library Facility A majority (55%) of citizen respondents indicated that they supported a new public library facility. Still, one-third (30%) indicated that they were neutral with their level of support, while 15% indicated that they did not support a new public library facility. P1.3 New Public Library Facility Frequency Valid Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Missing System 1.3 Total Level of Support of a New Public Library Facility 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 30.3% Strongly Agree 24.8% 30.3% 9.0% 5.5% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

47 Level of Agreement with a New Public Swimming Pool Given citizen respondents ranking that a swimming pool was the most important facility and opportunity in the community, it is not surprising that an overwhelming majority (72%) support a new public swimming pool 56% strongly agree and 16% agree. Only 14% of respondents indicated that they did not support a public swimming pool on any level. P1.3 New Public Swimming Pool Frequency Valid Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Missing System 1.3 Total Level of Support of a New Public Swimming Pool 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 56.1% Strongly Agree 16.0% 13.8% 7.8% 6.3% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

48 Level of Agreement with Developing Pedestrian and Bike Trails Citizen support of developing pedestrian and bike trails appeared to be positive. Fiftynine percent indicated that they either strongly agreed or agreed. However, nearly one-third (28%) indicated their neutrality with this priority. Perhaps this is due to combining pedestrian and bike trails in this question. When citizens were asked to rank order these items, pedestrian trails were ranked slightly higher than were bike trails (27% and 21%, respectively). P1.3 Developing Pedestrian and Bike Trails Frequency Valid Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Missing System 1.3 Total Level of Support of Developing Pedestrian and Bike Trails 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 25.1% Strongly Agree 34.3% 28.1% 10.0% 2.5% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

49 Level of Agreement with Playground Equipment Improvement Fifty-six percent of citizen respondents indicated that they supported playground equipment improvement. One-third (34%) rated their level of support as neutral. And, 10% did not support playground equipment upgrades at all. P1.3 Playground Equipment Improvement Frequency Valid Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Missing System 1.3 Total Level of Support of Playground Equipment Improvement 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 24.6% Strongly Agree 31.8% 34.1% 7.0% 2.5% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

50 Level of Agreement with Adding a Weight Room at the Recreation Center When asked to rate their level of support of adding a weight room at the recreation center, most respondents either a) thought that one already existed or b) were surprised by the suggestion. As such, respondents appear to be balanced with regard to whether or not they would support such an item. Approximately one-third (38%) indicated that they would support it. One-third (32%) indicated that they were neutral. And, one-third (31%) indicated that they would not support adding a weight room at the recreation center. P1.3 Adding a Weight Room at Rec Center Valid Frequency Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Level of Support of Adding a Weight Room at the Recreation Center 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 17.0% Strongly Agree 20.5% 32.0% 14.3% 16.3% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

51 Level of Agreement with Adding Batting Cages at the Recreation Center Similar to the reaction that citizen respondents had with adding a weight room at the recreation center, was their reaction to adding batting cages at the recreation center. Here, 35% indicated that they supported adding batting cages; 35% indicated that they were neutral about adding batting cages; and 30% indicated that they did not support adding batting cages. P1.3 Adding Batting Cages at the Rec Center Frequency Valid Valid Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Missing System 1.3 Total Level of Support of Adding Batting Cages at the Recreation Center 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 16.5% 18.3% Strongly Agree 35.1% 12.8% 17.3% Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

52 Likelihood to Support a Property Tax and/or Sales Tax for a New Public Library Clearly, citizen respondents appear to support a variety of recreational facilities and opportunities for the community. However, to truly understand the viability of these recreational facilities and opportunities, one must ask how likely are citizens willing to pay for them and through what means property tax, sales tax, or a user fee. When asked about their likelihood to support either a property or sales tax to build a new public library, citizens preferred a sales tax to a property tax (53% and 47%, respectively) Still, one-third indicated that they would not support either a property or sales tax to build a new public library facility (31% and 37%, respectively). P1.4 Property Tax for New Library Valid Frequency Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total P1.4 Sales Tax for New Library Valid Frequency Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total

53 52 Likelihood to Support a Tax for a New Public Library 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 23.3% 20.8% 26.3% 30.0% 14.3% 10.0% 27.3% 27.3% 11.5% 9.5% Property Tax Sales Tax 5.0% 0.0% Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know 39. Likelihood to Support a Property Tax, Sales Tax and/or User Fee for a New Public Swimming Pool When asked about their likelihood to support a property tax, sales tax, or user fee to build a new public swimming pool, citizen respondents were overwhelmingly agreeable to all three options. The most supported way in which to pay for a new public swimming pool was through the use of user fees (63% very likely to support and 21% somewhat likely to support). The second most preferred way to fund a new public swimming pool was by imposing a sales tax. Here, 59% of respondents indicated that they would support a sales tax to build a new public swimming pool. Finally, 54% of respondents indicated that they would support a property tax in order for the city to build a new swimming pool. Clearly, citizens in the City of Alamosa want a public swimming pool. And, they are willing to pay for it. A public swimming pool was the number one, most supported issue on this

54 53 survey. However, there were a few citizens who indicated that the city should purchase and refurbish Splashland, rather than build a new facility P1.4 Property Tax for new Swimming Pool Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 1.3 Total P1.4 Sales Tax for New Swimming Pool Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 1.3 Total P1.4 User Fee for New Swimming Pool Valid Frequency Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total

55 54 Likelihood to Support a Tax and/or User Fee for a New Public Swimming Pool 70.0% 60.0% 62.8% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 32.1% 40.1% Very Likely 22.3% 19.0% 20.5% Somewhat Likely 25.1% 23.1% 12.3% 9.8% 5.0% 7.8% Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely 8.3% 8.0% 4.0% Don't Know Property Tax Sales Tax User Fee 40. Likelihood to Support a Property Tax and/or Sales Tax for New or Upgraded Bike Trails Citizen respondents were less likely to support any type of tax for new or upgraded bike trails. This is consistent with the previous finding where citizen respondents did not rank bike trails very highly in order of importance relative to other recreational opportunities/facilities. Here, more than one-half of respondents indicated that they would not likely support either a property or sales tax for new or upgraded bike trails (55% and 53%, respectively). P1.4 Property Tax for New/Upgrade Bike Trails Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 1.3 Total

56 55 P1.4 Sales Tax for New/Upgrade Bike Trails Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 1.3 Total Likelihood to Support a Tax for New or Upgraded Bike Trails 40.0% 35.0% 34.3% 33.6% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 17.0% 14.3% 22.1% 22.3% 20.6% 19.0% 8.8% 8.0% Property Tax Sales Tax 5.0% 0.0% Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know

57 Likelihood to Support a Property Tax and/or Sales Tax for New or Upgraded Walking Trails Similar to respondents lack of support of a tax for new or upgraded bike trails, was their lack of support for new or upgraded walking trails. Again, the majority indicated that they would not support either a property or sales tax for new or upgraded walking trails (54% and 50%, respectively). P1.4 Property Tax for New/Upgrade Walking Trails Valid Frequency Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total P1.4 Sales Tax for New/Upgrade Walking Trails Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 2.5 Total

58 57 Likelihood to Support a Tax for New or Upgraded Walking Trails 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 13.3% 17.8% 24.5% 25.4% 19.8% 17.3% 34.0% 32.4% 8.5% 7.0% Property Tax Sales Tax Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know 42. Likelihood to Support a Property Tax and/or Sales Tax for Playground Equipment Upgrades Forty-two percent of citizen respondents indicated that they were either very or somewhat likely to support a property tax for playground equipment improvements. They were more supportive of a sales tax for playground equipment improvements (48%). Similarly, 48% of citizen respondent were either somewhat or very unlikely to support a property tax and 33% indicated the same. There was no majority observed due to the percentage of citizen respondents who indicated that they did not know whether or not they would support any kind of tax for playground equipment upgrades (10%). P1.4 Property Tax for Playground Equipment Upgrades Valid Frequency Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total

59 58 P1.4 Sales Tax for Playground Equipment Upgrades Frequency Valid Valid Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Don't Know Total Missing System 1.3 Total Likelihood to Support a Tax for Playground Equipment Upgrades 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 22.6% 26.3% 25.6% 30.5% 28.6% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 16.3% 17.3% 14.5% 9.8% 8.8% Property Tax Sales Tax 5.0% 0.0% Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Don't Know

60 59 Policy Issue 2: Land Use and Management and the City-owned Alamosa Ranch Citizens were asked a series of questions about land use and management, specifically related to the city-owned Alamosa Ranch. These questions ranged from level of familiarity with the ranch to what should be done with the ranch to how it should be funded. Responses to those questions follow. 43. Familiarity with the City-owned Alamosa Ranch A majority (53%) of citizen respondents indicated that they were not at all familiar with the City-owned Alamosa Ranch. Of those who remained, 23.5% indicated that they were very familiar, while 23.5% indicated that they were somewhat familiar. Respondents who indicated that they were not familiar with the ranch were skipped to the next section in the survey. Thus, the following questions were answered by 47% of the sample. During data collection, it appeared as though a few, who reported being somewhat familiar were, in fact, not familiar enough to effectively answer the following questions. As a result, there are missing data, where respondents did not/could not/would not answer specific questions. There are also a number of neutral responses. These factors must be taken into consideration as future planning about the City-owned Alamosa Ranch goes forward. P2.1 Familiar with Ranch Valid Frequency Valid Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar Total

61 60 Familiarity with the Alamosa Ranch 23.5% 53.0% 23.5% Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar 44. Rank Ordered Opportunities at the Alamosa Ranch Of the 47% who indicated that they were familiar with the City-owned Alamosa Ranch, a large percentage of them indicated that they wanted ranch to be left alone as open space (43% most important and 23% second most important). If anything were to be done at the ranch, citizen respondents were equally likely to support recreational opportunities and educational opportunities (35%). Respondents did not strongly support any type of economic development at the ranch. P2.2 Recreational Opportunities Frequency Valid Valid Total Missing System Total