OCPB agenda 070214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6—8 Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6 some difference in prioritization (please see Appen- dix 6-3 and 6-4). A swimming pool and water parks were more-strongly supported in the online survey than in the SRS survey. The above responses are very similar across the different survey offerings. In all cases, respondents showed very strong support for state and federal grants and private donations, and moderately- strong support for existing local taxes (other than property taxes) and voter approved bonds. User fees were slightly less favorable, and there was substantial disfavor with the strategy of increasing local taxes (other than property taxes). 7. Overall Demographic Overview When put together, the 835 surveys received showed that most respondents (75%) came from households of between two and four persons. Ten percent (10%) were in households of five persons, and 4% in homes of six or more. In terms of age groups within households, 51% of the respondents had at least one person under and up to 12 years of age in their household, and another 23% had a person in the home aged 13-18. The largest single age cohorts identified were 36-55 years (61% of households) and 6-12 years (35%). Almost 6% of the responding households had at least one person over 76 years of age. The vast majority of respondents owned their own residence, which held true among all of the different survey types (to varying degrees). The SRS survey was very much a survey of homeowners. Overall, 7% of respondents were African-American, 2.5% Asian-American groups, and 2% of Hispanic origin. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the respondents were White (non-Hispanic). Funding Strategy Strongly Agree/ Agree Disagree/ Strongly Disagree “New recreation and parks facility development should be financed, at least in part by:” Private/corporate donations 95% 5% State and federal grants/funds 94% 6% Existing local taxes (other than property) 73% 27% Voter-approved bonds 70% 30% Existing local property taxes 70% 30% Charging user fees (resident and non-resident) 68% 32% Increasing local taxes (other than property) 34% 66% 6. Financing New Recreation and Park Facilities The final section of the survey attempts to determine public opinion regarding different means of financing future recreation and park facility development. Participants were asked to respond whether they “strongly agree,” “agree,” disagree,” or “strongly disagree” with the following eight approaches. As was done in the General Information section, the “agree” and “strongly agree,” and “disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses have been aggregated together in the table below to indicate preferences shown: Table 6-2: Funding Strategy Responses 72