Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (945) M1^ AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 9, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION: AT OR AFTER 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS ADJOURNMENT The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk at least five days prior to the meeting, at 229-4700. POSTED: 02/02/06 4:00 p.m. Ih • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 9, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Bob Kovitz, Governmental and Community Relations Administrator SUBJ: Community Survey Naranja Town Site Background: On November 16, 2005, the Town Council authorized a survey of Town residents to gauge their feelings regarding the development of the Naranja Town Site. In order to accomplish this task, the Town engaged the services of Marketing Intelligence, a local firm specializing in survey design and administration. Two members of the Town Council (Vice Mayor Parish and Council member Carter) met with town staff members and Marketing Intelligence representative Chris Baker to design the questions. The survey itself was administered during January, 2006. This evening, Mr. Baker will present the survey findings to the Town Council as well as to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Budget and Finance Committee. Mr. Baker will also be available to answer questions or to respond to requests for more detailed correlations that might be drawn from the survey results. A copy of Marketing Intelligence' survey report is attached for your information. 410 Bob Kovitz, Government I and Community Relations dministrator Chuck Sweet, Town Manager Attachment: Marketing Intelligence Naranja Town Site Survey Report . NARAN JA TOWN SITE S Report of Findings and Analysis PRESENTED TO L p.." ,4 , 494 "eq.,. ) 0 V Tr N, . 4 1 Town o 1 1 4 A ,i ke Oro Valley A b 1 , , t,s ) 11 ) February 2, 2006 1 ) . I _,1 I 7.1.,...\1[ I .) Marketing Intelligence Marketing Research&Strategy Consultants IT 0 0 I • • , _ TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . i Survey Findings . . . . . . . . 1 Overall Opinions1 Park Priorities4 Funding Sources10 Misc. Questions14 Re-Test of Support . 15 Survey Respondents . . . . . . . 17 Survey Design and Methodology . . . . . 19 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . 20 Open Ended Responses . . . . . . 25 • S t „ my • I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Marketing Intelligence executed a telephone survey of 400 Oro Valley residents 18 years of age GP or older from January 3rd - 7t", 2006, yielding a sampling error of+/- 5%. The sample is skewed slightly older than the 18+ population of Oro Valley for the 2000 census. As such, questions regarding support and knowledge were also analyzed using a weighted formula, which better reflects the actual population distribution of the 2000 census. In addition to basic frequency reporting, this report also contains segmentation analysis. For each question, MI determined whether or not certain sub-segments significantly answered the question differently from the general sample. Results with statistical significance are reported. THERE IS GENERAL AWARENESS, BUT LITTLE DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE • NARANJA TOWN SITE 77% are aware of the town site, but only 23% have viewed the actual plans and only 9% feel they have any real knowledge about the site. THERE IS GREAT SUPPORT FOR THE NTS, BUT FUNDING IS QUESTIONABLE • o 54% Overall, 70/o support the building of a regional park, with very much supporting the park. Also 74% are likelyto use thepark at least once a month, and 24% are likelyregular weekly g users. However, there is less support for the potential funding sources to build and maintain the • park. Of the funding sources offered as potential options, there is equal support between some sales of property tax and a sales tax to build the park. Most would favor a sa s tax for annual maintenance costs. SUPPORT FOR THE PARK IS STILL HIGH AFTER DISCUSSING POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND PARK DETAILS • Though 28% were less supportive of building the park after park details and funding sources • were discussed, 10% were more supportive and overall 61% are still in favor of buildingthe pp park, and 41% are very much in favor. 0 • • • • • S • 0 • • S S S • • II. SURVEY FINDINGS • SECTION 1 —OVERALL OPINIONS Question 1 — Have you ever heard of the Naranja Town Site? b Question 2 — If you were told that the Naranja Town Site is a proposed 200-plus acre regional park centrally located on Naranja Road, does it now sound familiar to you? Awareness Naranja Town Site 1 • 64.0% 13.3% • • • 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% • El General awareness ❑With explanation 41. Just over 77% have some awareness of the Naranja Town Site, with 64% recognizing the 11 project by name. ISegmentation: 111 More likely to have heard of the Naranja Town Site by name: • Member of household 62+ (69%) • 6 — 10 year Oro Valley residents (76%) — • 45— 54 year olds (74%) • Business owners (79%) • Live within 2 miles of NTS (90%) I , Less likely to have heard of the Naranja Town Site by name: • Newer Oro Valley residents— 5 or fewer years (50%) s` • Under 35 years old (37%) • Less than $35k AHHI (39%) • Live 4 —5 miles from NTS (46%) • Live 6+ miles from NTS (50%) More likely to have general awareness of the Naranja Town Site: � • 6 — 10 year Oro Valley residents (86%) • 11+ years Oro Valley residents (84%) • • Live within 2 miles of NTS (93%) 1 Less likely to have general awareness of the Naranja Town Site: • Newer Oro Valley residents (65%) Question 3 — Have you ever had the opportunity to view the plans for the Naranja Town Site? Viewed Naranja Town Site plans 23.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Only 23% have actually viewed the plans for the Naranja Town Site. Amongst those with awareness of the Town Site, 30% have viewed the town plans, therefore 70% are getting information elsewhere or only have general awareness of the project, without the benefit of seeing the plans. 1 Segmentation: More likely to have viewed plans: 1/4 • 6 — 10 year Oro Valley residents (33%) 1 • Business Owners (46%) 9 • Live within 2 miles of NTS (45%) ter Less likely to have viewed plans: • Newer residents (13%) • Live 4 - 5 miles from NTS (14%) • Live 6+ from NTS (17%) • • i • • • 0 • s 0 • • • 2 0 r:a Question 4— How knowledgeable are you about the Naranja Town Site on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very knowledgeable, and 1 means not at all knowledgeable? Knowledge of Naranja Town Site 50.0% 40.9% 40.0% - - 30.0% 24.3%- 25.6% 20.0% 10.0% — — — 5.4%--- 3.8% Not at all 2 3 4 Very Of those who are aware of the Naranja Town Site, very few feel they are knowledgeable about the project. Only 9% responded with a "4"or"5,"with 41% reporting they are "not at all" knowledgeable. Segmentation: More likely to respond "4 or"5"on knowledge scale: • 6 — 10 year Oro Valley residents (16%) • Males (15`)/0) 3 SECTION2 — PARK PRIORITIES Question 5 — How much do you support the Town of Oro Valley building this regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very much support and 1 means not at all support? Support for Naranja Town Site 60% 54.3%- 40% 4.3%--40% - 20% 15.2% 15.7% 9.1% 5.6% • 0% Not at all 2 3 4 Very much • O Overall, support for the Naranja Town Site is high, with 54% responding they are "very much" in favor of having it built. • 411,S Support for NTS When weighting the results to account for the anticipated age distribution, there i Nor is very little difference in the overall 5 IP mean response (an increase from 4.01 to 4.01 4.09 4.09). 4 I lir O 3 I %OP 2 MP I r 1 Sample Weighted Sample • S 4 Support for NTS Support is slightly higher for those living in the Naranja/La Canada area and slightly lower for those in the Lambert/La 5 Canada area, though neither of the 4.27 g 3.85 differences is statistically significant. 4 3 - 2 - 1 -1 Naranja/La Canada Lambert/La Canada Segmentation: More likely to support the building of the regional park at the Naranja Town Site: • Have children in the household (4.46) • 35-44 year olds (4.43) • 45-54 year olds (4.41) • Greater than $150k in AHHI (4.45) • Live within 2 miles of NTS (4.43) Less likely to support the building of the regional park at the Naranja Town Site: • 65+ years old (3.67) • Member of household 62+ (3.72) • Under$35k in AHHI (3.52) • $35 - $50k AHHI (3.71) Question 6— Is there any particular reason you don't support (don't know whether you support or are neutral about) the building of the regional park previously described? Concerns about funding 24.4% Wouldn't use it 15.4% Already have enough parks/facilities 14.7% Lack of information 10.9% Concerns about effects on surrounding area 9.0% Too big 7.1% Dislike specific inclusions/exclusions 5.1% Misc 13.5% For those who are neutral or don't support the building of the regional park, primary concerns include questions about the funding sources, the lack of personal need, the lack of a community need, lack of information available, the anticipated effects on the surrounding area, the size of the park and feeling certain aspects should be added or eliminated. 5 Question 7 — How often are you likely to use the regional park as described above? Frequency of use 60.0% 50.0% - -- 40.0% -- --- - - -- -------30.0% 24.— - ° 20.5% -- 3% 22.3% F 14.9% 20.0% — 18.1 /0 -- 10.0% — - 0.0% Never Rarely (< once Occasionally Frequently (few Regularly (once a month) (once a month) times/month) a week) 60% would use the park at least once a month, with just under a fourth anticipating becoming regular users (at least once a week). When weighting responses to better reflect the age demographics of Oro Valley, 68% would use the park at least once a month and 27% would use it on a regular basis. Segmentation: More likely to use the park at least once a month: • Have children in the household (90%) • 26 —34 year olds (94%) • 35 —44 year olds (89%) • 45— 54 year olds (83%) • Business owners (88%) • Live in Naranja/La Canada area (80% • Live within 2 miles of NTS (77%) Less likely to use the park at least once a month: • Member of household 62+ (42%) • 65+ years old (39%) • Live 4 — 5 miles from NTS (35%) 6 Respondents were next asked how important it would be to include each of the following features as part of the regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very important and 1 means not at all important. Question 8 — A multi-generational center with a gym, multi-purpose room, fitness center and classrooms Question 9 —A an amphitheater with lawn seating Question 10 —A performing arts center Importance of... Performing Arts Center 3.42 Amphitheater 3.37 Multi-generational 1 Center 3.55 1 1 2 3 4 5 Each feature is important (a "4" or"5") to at least 50% of respondents, and the Performing Arts Center is "very important" to 32%, while 37% and 29% feel the Multi-generational Center and Amphitheater are "very important," respectively. Though the Multi-generational Center has the highest mean rating of importance, it is not statistically more important (paired samples t-test used), and responses for all three are highly correlated, meaning individuals are likely to answer similarly for all three. Segmentation: More likely to feel it is important to include a Performing Arts Center • Females (3.59) More likely to feel it is important to include an Amphitheater • Have children in the household (3.64) • Business owners (4.33) More likely to feel it is important to include a Multi-generational Center • Have children in the household (3.84) 7 Question 11 — If the multi-generational center, outdoor amphitheater and performing arts center were all part of the regional park along with the sports fields and other features previously mentioned, how often are you likely to use the regional park? Frequency of use - post info 60.0% 50.0% - 40.0% - 29.4% 30.0% - ---- --- -- 24.2% 20.7% 20.0% 16.5% . ,.. 9.2% 10.0% --- -- _ 0.0% Never Rarely (< once Occasionally Frequently (few Regularly (once a month) (once a month) times/month) a week) After learning about the possible addition of the Multi-generational Center, Amphitheater and Performing Arts Center, more people indicate a likelihood to use the regional park. Change in Frequency of Use Regularly (once a week) 1.9% Frequently (few times/month) A 5.8% Occasionally (once a month) 5.1% -4.0% Rarely (< once a month) 8.9% Never ..._........ . . � I T -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 8 tor • Would use the regional park at Overall, an additional 13% report a • least once a month likelihood of using the regional park at • least once a month. • 100.0% • 74.3% 75.0% 61.4% • 50.0% • 25.0% I 0.0% i Pre - info Post - info • • 110 s • • • s • • • • • • • • • 9 SECTION 3— FUNDING Respondents were next asked to evaluate possible funding sources to build the regional park, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very acceptable, and 1 means not at all acceptable. Question 12 —A 25-year voter approved property tax that would be equal to about $200 per year for a $300,000 home, the median price for a single family home in Oro Valley, which would allow the park to be built all at once Question 13 —A property tax that would be equal to about$100 per year for a $300,000 home, which would require the park to be built in phases over several years. Question 14—A 1 cent sales tax, which would require the park to be built in phases as the funds are accumulated. Potential funding sources 25 Yr. Property Tax 2.59 $100/yr Property Tax 2.73 1 cent sales tax 2.75 1 1 2 3 4 5 None of the three options have a high acceptability rating, with between 44— 50% rating each as a "1" or a "2." The two property tax options are highly correlated with each other, but not with the 1 cent sales tax. To a certain degree, respondents are evaluating the options as "property tax" and "sales tax," rather than evaluating the specifics of each option. 10 • • • • % acceptable (4's and 5's) None of the three o tions are acceptable p p • (responded with a "4" or a "5") to more than 50% of respondents. • 75% • 50% -- a 33.2/0 30.6%• 27.1% 25% - • • 0% 1 cent sales $100/yr 25 Yr. tax Property Tax Property Tax • 4. 4F Question 15 —Of the three potential funding sources to build the regional park, which do you feel is the most preferred? I tillrMost preferred funding source When asked to choose one of three options, there is equal support for the 100% -- "sales tax" versus the "property tax." y 75% d 48.2% 50%vI . 26.5%26.5% 25.3% 25% 0% I VP 1 cent sales $100/yr 25 Yr. d 1. tax Property Tax Property Tax U ir Segmentation: 111 More likely to choose the sales tax option: iimp • Member of household 62+ (56%) Id Iv Less likely to choose the sales tax option: I . Have children in the household (36%)v. Other: • When deciding between the two property tax options, males are more likely to prefer the $200/year option and females the $100/year option. I Air �rr VIP . •ir 11 r Respondents were also asked to evaluate possible funding sources for annual maintenance of the regional park, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very acceptable, and 1 means not at all acceptable. Question 16 — Increasing the local general sales tax by 1/4 to 3/4 percent Question 17 —An on-going property tax of about $120 per year for the median valued $300,000 home Potential funding sources - maintenance $120 property tax 2.21 1/4 - 3/4 per cent sales tax 2.78 1 2 3 4 5 % acceptable (4's and 5's) Similar to the funding sources to build the park, well below 50% feel the options 100% -. presented for maintenance of the park are acceptable. 75% 50% 32.0% 25% 18.0% 0% $120 property tax 1/4- 3/4 per cent sales tax 12 Question 18 —Which of the two is most preferable to you? Most preferred funding source When asked to choose between the two options, most prefer the sales tax as a funding source for annual maintenance 1000/0 - of the regional park. 70.5% 75% 50% - 29.5% 25% - 0% - $120 property tax 1/4- 3/4 per cent sales tax Segmentation: More likely to choose the sales tax option: • Member of the household 62+ (77%) More likely to choose the property tax option: • Under 35 years old (56%) 13 SECTION 4- OTHER QUESTIONS Question 19 —Are you in favor of implementing other consumer taxes on utilities, commercialp roperty, and telecommunications that would help offset annual park maintenance costs? Question 20 —Are you in favor of corporate sponsorships of the regional park that could offset building and maintenance costs by up to 10%? Question 21 —Would it be acceptable to you for space to be reserved at the Naranja Town Site for future Town Office space needs if it did not interfere with park functions? Other questions 16.5% I I L I Other consumer taxes 60.4% 23.1% 7.8° 5.5% Corporate sponsorships 86.8% Acceptable for town space 24.1% ,10.7% 65.2% 1 I I I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ❑No ❑Maybe ❑Yes Most do not favor using any other potential tax source mentioned to help offset annual park maintenance costs. However, many favor using corporate sponsorships to offset maintenance liP costs. Respondents also feel it is acceptable to use the Naranja Town Site for future Town Office space. • • • •i • 411 • • • • 111 • • 14 • SECTION 5 — RE-TESTING SUPPORT FOR THE NARANJA TOWN SITE r • Question 22 —After taking the survey, I would like to again ask you How much you • support the Town of Oro Valley building this regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 11/ means very much support and 1 means not at all support? • *.r Support for Naranja Town Site 60% 54% yawIMP 41% 40% I 1 vor 20% 20% 20% - 15% 16% ifki IP 9%9/° 6% 7% i 0% z T Not at all 2 3 4 Very much D Pre-survey D Post-survey Change in support of park Afterg eneral education about what the park might include and possible funding 100% sources, there is still general support for the building of the regional park. 1p 75% 62.5%o However, 28% are less supportive, 10% are more supportive and 62% did not 50% change their level of support. 27.8% 25% 9.7% 0% Less Same More !' supportive supportive • • • • 40 • 15 S Segmentation: More likely to be less supportive: � • 26 — 34 year olds (41`)/0) • 55—64 year olds (36%) • More likely to be more supportive: • • Under$35k in AHHI (23%) • More likely to have no change in support: • • 35—44 year olds (75%) • 410 • 110 410 • • 40 IP • • s • • 411, • • • • • • 16 /IC • S 1 • III. SURVEYRESPONDENTS Ey.::.. Children in the household Under 18 26.6% Under 6 6.2% 6 - 11 12.1% 12- 17 17.8% More than one-fourth has at least one child in the household, with nearly 18% having a child between the ages of 12 and 17. 62 and older in household Yes 51.6% No 48.4% About half has at least one member of the household 62 years or older. Age Group Survey '00 census Under 25 2.5% 3.7% 25 - 34 4.3% 10.8% 35 -44 11.8% 19.9% 45 - 54 19.5% 19.3% 55- 64 21.6% 16.8% 65 + 40.4% 29.5% The survey sample is skewed slightly older than the population according to the 2000 census figures. Total AHHI Survey '00 census Under$35k 7.8% 21.9% • $35 - $50k 14.7% 16.2% $50 - $75k 24.9% 25.7% o 0 $75- 100k 23.5% 15. /o 7 • $100 - $150k 15.7% 13.5% • $150k + 13.3% 7.1% IP Annual household income also skews slightly higher for the survey sample. • • i • • • r •. 17 • Length of residency in Oro Valley Average =9.14 ears 1 - 5 years 33.3% 6 - 10 years 29.8% 11+years 37.0% The average length of residency in Oro Valley is just over nine years, with a near equal distribution of respondents who have lived in Oro Valley between one and five years, six and 10 years and 11 years or more. Length of residency in Tucson area Average = 15.14 ears 1 - 5years 21.8% 6 - 10 years 23.1% 11+years 55.1% The average length of residency in the greater Tucson area is just over 15 years. More than half have lived in the Tucson area for 11 or more years. Currently own business in OV Yes 6.0% No 94.0% 6% of the respondents own a business within Oro Valley Gender Survey '00 census Male 48.4% 48.5% Female 51.6% 51.5% Gender distribution matches the 2000 census. 18 IV. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY SURVEY EXECUTION A telephone survey was executed from January 3rd_ 7th 2006 by 1 to 1 Direct. SAMPLE FRAME/SAMPLE POPULATION The sample frame includes all residents of Oro Valley over the age of 18 and having a landline telephone available for calling. SAMPLING METHOD MI used random sampling in order to ensure the survey sample is representative of the general demographics of the Town of Oro Valley. SAMPLE SIZE The survey sample size is 404. Thus using a 95% confidence interval, the margin of error is calculated as +/-4.9% RESPONSE/INCIDENCE RATE The total sample list included 2,714 total telephone call attempts. There were 976 actual interviews, with 442 refusals, 130 who did not qualify for the survey (were not residents of Oro Valley), and 404 completes, for a response rate of 19.7% (based on the CASRO response rate formula). 19 • � V. SURVEY INSTRUMENT Hello, my name is , and I am calling on behalf of the Town of Oro Valley. We are surveying Oro Valley residents to better understand your awareness and opinions of area parks. This is not a sales call, your identity will remain anonymous to our client and all of your responses will remain completely confidential. Do you have five to ten minutes to answer some of my questions? Qualifier • Are you currently a resident of Oro Valley o Yes o No (thank and terminate) Section 1 — Overall opinions Q1. Have you ever heard of the Naranja Town Site? 1. Yes (go to question 3) 2. No Q2. If you were told that the Naranja Town Site is a proposed 200-plus acre regional park centrally located on Naranja Road, does it now sound familiar to you? 1. Yes 2. No (go to question 5) Q3. Have you ever had the opportunity to view the plans for the Naranja Town Site? 1. Yes 2. No Q4. How knowledgeable are you about the Naranja Town Site on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very knowledgeable, and 1 means not at all knowledgeable? 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know Section 2 — Park priorities The Town of Oro Valley is planning a regional park at the Naranja Town Site that will include sports fields, tennis courts, a playground area, facilities for skating and BMX bike riding, a dog park, pedestrian and bicycle trails and various other recreational areas. Q5. How much do you support the Town of Oro Valley building this regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very much support and 1 means not at all support? 1. 1, go to question 6 2. 2, go to question 6 3. 3, go to question 6 4. 4, go to question 7 5. 5, go to question 7 6. Don't know, go to question 6 20 • Q6. Is there any particular reason you don't support (don't know whether you support or are neutral about) the building of the regional park previously described? • 1. Open ended response Q7. How often are you likely to use the regional park as described above? 1. Regularly (at least once a week) • 2. Frequently (a few times a month) 3. Occasionally (about once a month) • 4. Rarely (less than once a month) 5. Never 6. Don't know • I am now going to ask you about a few specific features of the regional park. After each, 71. please tell me how important it is for the feature to be included as part of the regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very important and 1 means not at all important. Q8. A multi-generational center with a gym, multi-purpose room, fitness center and classrooms 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know Q9. A an amphitheater with lawn seating " 1. 1 —5 scale, 6 Don't know Q10. A performing arts center � 1. 1 —5 scale, 6 Don't know Q11. If the multi-generational center, outdoor amphitheater and performing arts center were all part of the regional park along with the sports fields and other features previously mentioned, how often are you likely to use the regional park? 1. Regularly (at least once a week) � 2. Frequently (a few times a month) tim 3. Occasionally (about once a month) 4. Rarely (less than once a month) IP 5. Never II « 6. Don't know • Section 3— Funding 11111 For the next set of questions, I will be asking you about possible dedicated sources of funding to build and maintain the regional park. I am going to read three potential funding sources along with the implications each has on when and how the park will be built. After I read each, please tell me how acceptable you feel the funding source is on a y qp scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very acceptable, and 1 means not at all acceptable. Q12. A 25-year voter approved property tax that would be equal to about $200 per IP which for a $300,000 home, the median price for a single family home in Oro Valley, which would allow the park to be built all at once • 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know • Q13. A property tax that would be equal to about $100 per year for a $300,000 home, which would require the park to be built in phases over several years. 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know •• 21 Q14. A 1 cent sales tax, which would require the park to be built in phases as the funds are accumulated. 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know Q15. Of the three potential funding sources to build the regional park, which do you feel is the most preferred? 1. An averaged $200 per year property tax for 25 years that allows the park to be built all at once 2. An averaged $100 per year property tax that would require the park to be built in phases 3. A 1 cent sales tax that would require the park to be built in phases I am now going to read you the options for funding the annual maintenance of the regional park. After I read each, please tell me how acceptable the funding source is on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very acceptable, and 1 means not at all acceptable. Q16. Increasing the local general sales tax by 1/4 to 3/4 percent 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know Q17. An on-going property tax of about $120 per year for the median valued $300,000 home 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know Q18. Which of the two is most preferable to you? 1. '/4 to 3/4 cent sales tax 2. Property tax of$120 per year Q19. Are you in favor of implementing other consumer taxes on utilities, commercial property, and telecommunications that would help offset annual park maintenance costs? 1. Yes 2. Maybe 3. No 4. Don't know Q20. Are you in favor of corporate sponsorships of the regional park that could offset building and maintenance costs by up to 10%? 1. Yes 2. Maybe 3. No 4. Don't know Q21. Would it be acceptable to you for space to be reserved at the Naranja Town Site for future Town Office space needs if it did not interfere with park functions? 1. Yes 2. Maybe 3. No 4. Don't know Q22. After taking the survey, I would like to again ask you How much you support the Town of Oro Valley building this regional park on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means very much support and 1 means not at all support? 1. 1 — 5 scale, 6 Don't know 22 Section 4- Demographics and Psychographics Finally, we would like to get some additional information about you that will help us to better understand your opinions. This information will be used for classification purposes only, and as a reminder your identity will remain anonymous and all of your responses will remain completely confidential. Q23. What is the closest major cross street to where you live? 1. Open ended response 2. Code don't know as 999 Q24. Are there any children under the age of 18 currently living with you? 1. Yes 2. No (go to Question 28) Q25. Are any of the children in your household under the age of 6? 1. Yes 2. No Q26. Are any of the children in your household between the ages of 6 and 11? 1. Yes 2. No Q27. Are any of the children in your household between the ages of 12 and 17? 1. Yes 2. No Q28. Are there any members in your household over the age of 62? 1. Yes 2. No Q29. How long have you lived in Oro Valley? 1. Open-ended response Q30. How long have you lived in the greater Tucson metropolitan area? 1. Open-ended response Q31. Which of the following best describes your age group? Under 25 26 - 34 35 -44 45- 54 55 -64 65 or older Refused (DO NOT READ) Q32. Which of the following best describes your total combined annual household income? 1. Less than $35,000 2. $35,000 - $49,999 3. $50,000 - $74,999 4. $75,000 - $99,999 5. $100,000 - $150,000 IP 6. Over $100,000 1111 7. Refused (DO NOT READ) • 11) 23 Q33. Do you currently own a business that is located in Oro Valley? 1. Yes 2. No • Q34. Coded Gender • 410 r r 110 410 • 410 • • • 24 r VI. OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES /%%f/////,iii! % // ......!//%...../.....////////////////W�/i/////%/ "..,�- /,..,,. ,.,,../%//i%°`,,./.,,,,,<-... r r�3"/y %, /h`.. !%N/% ///////////�i/i//y/,r.'i!/.da//ii/ Question 6 - Is there any particular reason you don't support (don't know whether you support or are neutral about) the building of the regional park previously described? • Because all of that is going to increase our taxes. • Because I am not sure of the location of the park. • Because I don't think I'd use it very often. • Because I will probably never go there • Because I wouldn't be using it • because it is needed • Because the smaller portions of people would enjoy it better, and tax payers should not pay for the park. Too much people. • Because they're going to take up more desert and I don't approve of it. • Because we already have a park • Because we are handicapped, we cannot drive or walk to the park. • Because we have everything where I live, we already have a park. • Don't like the dog run. • Everything is going to the more affluent areas. I am in the Canyon Shadow subdivision and I have lived here for 9 years. • I am a senior and I am concerned about the taxes and that is the reason why I am neutral • I am not sure where it is located • I am old and not able to do a lot of things I used to do and would not use anything in the park. • I am retired and My family and Do not have use for the park • I cannot see any difference between the park that is already there in that area. • I do not want my taxes to go up. • I don't care about it one way or the other • I don't care one way or the other. I don't use parks. • I don't have any reason not to. • I don't have enough info. on how it will affect the community • I don't know any thing • I don't know anything about it. • I don't know enough about it • I don't know enough about it and how it's going to be paid for. • I don't know enough about it. • I don't know if I support it because I want to know how much it is going to cost I think it is a good idea but I want to know how there going to pay for it • I don't know much about it • I don't know that much about it. • I don't really use parks that much. • I don't support it at all. • I don't think we need all that • I don't want to have higher taxes that what I already do • I have 4 acres next to that area and I don't know what the impact is going to be on the surrounding area. 25 • I have a park right around the corner and I don't even use that • I have to know how much it is going to cost me. • I haven't seen it. • I just moved here to Oro Valley, so I don't know much about the town. • I live at a place that has a lot of facilities. • I live right next door to where they are going to build it and I don't want the noise but I like the idea I just don't want to be right next to it • I need to know how much people would use it before I could decide. • I need to know more about it • I probably wouldn't use it. • I think that it's a good idea, but I haven't had a chance to study it. • I think the Town of Oro Valley has to have more open space. • I think they need something there but the plans seem a little bigger than what is needed • I think we have enough parks. • I want to know how much its going to cost us • I will not use it. I have no need for it. We are retired. • I would for other peoples sake • I would like a soccer field. If there is no soccer field I will not support a Park. • I would much rather see more parks throughout the area not one large park the plan sounds very expensive • I would need to know the neighbors' view of the park, those who live right next to or near the park, because I've heard that there is some controversy there. I would like to accommodate their needs. • I would not use the facility • I wouldn't use it at all, and it would cost more money and I don't think it's needed. • I wouldn't use it. • I wouldn't use it. • I'd have to know more about it. • If it includes nature areas I would be in more support of it. • I'm just curious where the money is going to come from. • I'm no sure of the cost to build this park. • I'm not interested in all those sports I'm not at that age • I'm not sure if I would use it. • I'm opposed for that kind of thing , and raising taxes to build it • I'm to old now so why would I support it • I'm to old to even pay into something like that I am not interested in that • In don't know about the park • In Oro Valley there are mostly retired people. Not many retired people go to the park. We have to take a car to go to the park. We are paying high property taxes and it keeps going up. • is going to make my taxes go up • It could be better used for downtown buildings and training for the police dept. • it depends on how much it will cost • It doesn't involve me. There is one near me on Lambert and I don't use it. • It is going to be attracting people from all parts of the area. The funding is going to fall on the people of Oro Valley and people from other areas will be using it. They are trying toplan too much into the space. I live on Pomegranate and it is quiet and the street will p g have more traffic and more speed and be noisier. S S • 26 • It is going to take away the desert, I am against it. I live nest door to where they will be building and it will destroy the wildlife. • It is too costly for the town. It needs to be done in stages. • It is very large and costly, a huge development. Like Central Park in the middle of nowhere. We are running on money from fees on lots sold and running out of lots to gain more funds. • It seems as you drive around they have smaller parks and there are parks at schools. • It seems too close to the one on Lambert Lane. It is only 1 mile north of the other one. • It would depend on the area, the terrain; I'd like to see more of what the landscaping and things like that would be. • its a long way from where I am costs a lot of money • its going to cost too much money • its similar to what's at riverfront park on Lambert • money • never use it • no • no lighted soccer fields • none • not sure • Probably for financial reasons more than anything. I think it's a good idea, just unsure about the financial aspect. • q6 • raises the taxes and I wouldn't use it • The cost • the costs • the skate park a real hang out • The town isn't big enough to have that level of a complex given the financial situation, and I think it is too soon in the development of the town for something like that. • The Town of Oro Valley can't handle building it--they haven't got the money. You can't please everyone. • There are trying to do to much, they should try to not do so much in this park. • There is a park on Lambert, how many parks do we need. • There is a park over at Lambert which is right here and there was some talk of other stuff going on that would be more beneficial to taxes, instead of the park. • There is already a park around that area with that kind of stuff and it makes no sense to build a park for the skating and bike riding. • there is no reason • there's nothing there for the senior community and we need a golf course in there the town is going to be kicking itself in the butt for years because there is nothing there for the seniors its all for younger people which isn't bad but I think they need to put a golf course in there too. • They have a park already. • they let land slip through their fingers when they had an agreed upon price • • They need to pay their employees of the City of Oro Valley better. • They need to present it to the community. The community needs to vote on the plan Theyneed to do a comprehensive plan with the county. The before it is implemented. p Y builders are taking advantage of us by building under the table. The community has turned downed most of the proposals. • to much money • • • 27 • • To much night lights • too many abstract items in the park • too many parks already • Traffic is bad. Congestion in traffic. • waste of taxpayer's money • We already got the other park. • We already have a new park on Lambert and I do not understand why we need another park. That is in a 5 miles radius and how many parks do we need. • We already have a nice park at Lambert Lane; I'm disappointed that there are not more facilities and opportunities there currently. I'm surprised that they want to build another, large park so near to that one. I don't know if we need another large, elaborate park. • We already have a number of parks, such as Catalina State Parks. There are hiking trails that cross Rancho Vistoso. I am not sure we need one and somebody has to pay for it. If they can do it without raising taxes I would be in agreement. • we already have parks in the area and I don't think its necessary • We are on the outside of Oro Valley and we don't have children. • We do not want taxes to increase. • We do not want the property taxes to increase. • we don't need another park • We have a lot of parks already. We need a middle school before we need a park. • We live in retirement community and we have everything here and we have to pay for all amenities. We live on a fixed income. • We live right next to it and it's going to cause a lot of traffic, the traffic congestion and the noise will be too much. • We would like a senior citizen community center in the new park. We would support it more if it had that. • Well it sounds like another political deal where a lot of money is involved and a lot of different political angles are involved. It might result in a tax increase. • Yea because I don't know much about it . • You would impede on my view and decrease the value of my home. • • S S S S S S S S S i • S 28 f •