NEW! Click Here to Read the FAQ/Survey Quotes
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Kim Kelly
From: Marci Duncan
Date: April 21, 2009
Re: Community Pool Survey Results
I have accumulated the data received from the Lake City Pool Survey and reviewed the collective results. As a result of this review, the following highlights were noted.
A total of 217 surveys were completed and returned. Direct mail accounted for 71% of the total, 14% were from the school, 9% obtained from local businesses, and the remaining 6% from other sources. Of the quantifiable number of surveys distributed (direct mail) approximately 22% of the total was returned (150 of 700 total). The number of surveys returned appears to be a reasonable representation of the community.
Household demographics varied widely, with 60% of surveys returned representing households with 1-2 members, 35% with 3-5 members, and 5% with 6+ members. Age ranges also varied, with the highest response being received from households with adults representing the 41-60 age range (45%). Adults representing the 61+ age range accounted for 32% of the households and ages 21-40 accounted for 23%. Only 25 surveys were returned with household representation from the 0-5 age range. Representation from ages 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 were quite consistent (42-44 respondents in all three categories).
Regarding frequency of use of the Lake City pool, a large number of survey respondents (45%) never used the pool during the previous season. See further notes below regarding narrative comments received from this population. There were 20% who used the pool 4+ times per week, 13% 1-3 times per month, 12% 1-3 times per week, and 10% 1-2 times per season.
Regarding pool facilities in neighboring communities, the majority of survey respondents (65%) never used a neighboring community pool during the previous season. There were 22% who used a neighboring pool 1-3 times, 6% 4-6 times, 5% 11+ times, and 1% 7-10 times per season. One could interpret this data as showing that approximately 6% of the potential or targeted pool users within our community are using neighboring facilities for regular pool usage.
In terms of pool features marked by survey respondents as important, very important, or critical, the following priorities were noted (ranked from highest to lowest):
- Diving Board
- Zero Entry
- Sun Deck
- Shaded Areas on the Pool Deck
- Lap Lanes
- Moderate Slide at Middle Depths
- Drop Slide at Deep Water Levels
- Shaded Areas within Low Water Levels
- Kiddie Slide at Zero Depth
- Other Fountains/Splash Pad Features
- Mushroom Fountain
Items 1-4 appeared as the highest priorities in a strong cluster, followed by a slight break in the data and then another strong cluster of items 5-8. Item 9 appeared to be an isolated priority (number of responses did not correlate well with any other features). Items 10-11 were of importance to far fewer survey respondents than any of the other features noted. Almost identical priorities were identified when reviewing pool features marked by survey respondents as very important or critical.
A number of comments were received regarding the pool project, with a large number of surveys (45%) containing supportive comments. There were 44% of surveys containing no additional comments, 7% containing neutral or non-discernable comments, and 4% (8 surveys) with comments that did not support the pool project. Based on these comments, there appears to be a high level of community support for the pool project.
I categorized the supportive narrative comments and other priority features noted by survey respondents and noted the following results:
• The highest number of comments (24) noted that although the respondent was not a pool user, they were supportive of pursuing the pool project. I thought this spoke highly of community support, as even non-users recognize the importance and need for this project.
• 23 comments were of a general supportive nature (i.e. let's get this done, we support this project).
• 19 comments noted that the pool was important to maintaining the vitality of our community, continued progress, the future of our community, or community benefit.
• 16 comments focused on maintaining a simpler design and sticking to the basics that a community of our size needs. Conversely, 8 respondents noted the desire to broaden the design to include larger “thrill” slides. Of those that commented, a margin of 2 to 1 supports a simpler design.
• 13 comments related to attracting the young people and families within our community, potential members to our community, and retaining young families.
• 13 comments addressed the need to provide a facility that will meet the needs of our local swim team.
• 12 comments noted the opportunity to expand our concessions.
• Other miscellaneous narrative responses were noted related to maintaining high communication levels during the project, warmer water, consideration of an alternate site, ensuring families with small and older children are considered, ensuring handicapped accessibility is taken into account, affordability, and safety.
In summary, it appears that the community response to the Lake City Pool Survey was highly favorable. Survey respondents have identified a consistent group of priorities that are of greatest importance to our community. Based on these priorities, I recommend pursuing a revised cost estimate from our engineering firm as outlined in the attached High Level Requirements document and obtaining City Council approval to proceed with this project.
