Nelson Report 09/21/2004
Entered into the Record on ov
By: ~ ftey
Agenda Item# Exhibit
i '
00
NELSON
, E
_s
JWUC, FMAW COUNSEL • P.O. BOX U90 • SA D% OREGON 97309 • (503) 363.7084
CITY OF TIG.ARD - 2404
SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUZMARY
SEPTEMBER S, 2004
The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding
voter's attitudes and opinions concerning a variety of proposals to enhance recreational
opportunities for Tigard residents. This report should assist the city in determining what if, any,
recreational projects would be supported by residents.
Below, The Nelson Report has highlighted the key results of the survey research report. .
The final report is over 200 pages in length, with multiple tables designed to assist the-client in
undmtanding and analyzing the respondents'views.
Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics
for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher
• percentage rats than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for
any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion.
They are, however, the ones that hold that opinion most strongly.
A total of 333 respondents were interviewed between August 23 and August 27, 2004.
The margin of error for this survey is +1-4.99% at the 95% level of confidence.
Prepared By The Nelson Report
FAVORlOI'FOSE: CREATING RECREATION DIVISION
Respondents were read the following information and question:
"The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not
include recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a
variety of ideas to enhance recreational opportunities for city residents events,
children's classes, day camps, summer playground programs, camps, special
middle school programs, teen programs and adult programs such as sports leagues
and classes. We are going to be presenting you several of these ideas. These ideas
are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely it way to gauge public support of
the following options." should be
' "The city would like your opinion on whether ~ervices are paid for of of the City of
park
offered to city residents. Currently
Tigard budget. The city has two other options they would like your opinion on."
"One option.ls for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own
budget. This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues."
"Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division
of the cityr
Well over half of respondents, 57%, favored creating a Recreation Division of the city,
while 3l % opposed. Twelve percent were not sure as displayed below.
;.:u: ;J~j? vb y
hr~, •i . •sYv .,'Cfr. fi• r 3 i+E••34r~ c ;
fix 1
.
Z i III !I! III
Prepared By The Nelson Report
Y demographics who favored the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the
city were females (63%),18-34 years old (79%), 35-44 years old (62%), renters (65%), voters in
1 out of 4 elections (66%), and 4 out of 4 elections (59%).
Key groups who opposed creating a Recreation Division of the city were males (35%),
55-64 years old (38%), 65+ years 'old (33%), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (35%).
FAVOR /OPPOSE: CREATING RECREATION DISTRICT
Next, respondents were read the following question:
"Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate
Recreation District with its oven taxing authority-"
"Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing
authority?"
Slightly over half of respondents, 53%, opposed the creation of a separate Recreation
District with its awn tmdng.authority, while 34% favored the proposal. Thirteen percent were not
sane. The following chart shows the comparison between the proposals to create a Recreation
Division and Recreation District
Prepared By.The Nelson Report
3
A
1
41
IV V dJ'7 f5t
ii: -Y~. 4 4~ ~y"r;'~ ii~ ;`'Q' f'S. Y 4 ~;.titi!'d .N•~Ko
i it ~f' : ~ii:!"•A .f"•{r~y`•4,%ij•Ir7JS
1' 1 M• Y::
Key demographics who opposed the creation of a Recreation District with its own taxing
authority were males (58%), 55-64 years old (66%), 45-54 years old (59%), home owners (560K),
and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (67%).
Key groups who favored the creation of a Recreation District were 18-34 years old (41
35-44 years old (400/6), renters (48%), voters in 3 out of 4 elections (38%), and 1 out of 4
elections (37%).
Prepared By The Nelson Report 4
RECREATION DIVISION VS. RECREATION DISTRICT
Respondents were given the following information and question.
"The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $060,000 per year.
The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating
levy and would increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other
option is for Tigard residents to vote•for the creation of a Recreation District. A
Recreation District would cost $1 million per year and increase the property tax rate
by 26-cents per thousand.
or the creation of RECREATION
"If you had to choose, 22-cents per prefer the creation of a
JPECIAL '
DIVISION at a cost of
RECMTION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand?"
Slightly less than half of respondents, 48%, preferred the creation of a city Recreation
Division, while 28% preferred neither option. Thirteen percent preferred a special Recreation
Dist&4.one percent cited "other" options, and ten percent were not sure.
,i rt 28 a
' p y " j SS~ C
. r !K•ro
J 4
1
Prepared By The Nelson Report
5
Key demographics who preferred a city Recreation Division were females (51%),18-34
years old (79%), 35-44 years old (520/o), 45.54 years old (51%), renters (50%), voters in 3 but of
4 elections (58%), apd 2 out of 4 elections (55%).
Primary reasons for preferring a city Recreation Division were:
Costs less than Recreation District 71%
Good ideatmakes sense 7%
City is more aware of community needs 7%
Key groups who preferred neither option were males (32%), 65+ years old (33%), 55-64
years old (31%), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (32%).
Key demographics who preferred a special Recreation District were males (16%), 55-64
years old (18%), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (16%).
Main reasons for preferring a Special Recreation District were:
Prefer independent district without city
control 37%
My preference 16%
Includes more than just city residents 16%
"other" responses are listed in the table below, The reader should note the following
percentages were taken from a much, much smaller sub-sample (I% of all respondents).
Of Total
Universe
Merge with Tualatin Hills District 34% less thaw 1%
Both 33% less than I%
Construct Senior Center 33% less than 1%
Prepared By The.Nelson Report
6
Following the creation of a Recreation Division vs. Recreation District questinn,
respondents were asked the following qu.estion• The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement
in support of a Recreation District.
Not Net
Recreation Recreation
Division )District Neither Other , Sure Gain/Loss
_ Question
28 1 10
Division vs. District 48 13
If you knew the Special
Recreation District would
be similar to Beaverton's
Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District, would
you prefer the creation
of a QTY RECREATION
DIVISION at a cost of
22-cents per thousand, or
the =ation'of a SPACIAL
RECREATION DISTRICT
at a cost of 26-cents per 23 26 1 14 +10
thousand? 36
Ker observations to this argument are as follows:
e Information that the Special Recreation District would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin
Hills Park and Recreation District pushed +10% ofrespondents
a Recreation District were 35-
District, Key demographics who increased in support
44 years old (+200/o), and 18-34 years old (+12%).
Again, "other" responses ate listed in the table below. The reader should note the
following percentages were taken from a much, much smaller sub-sample (I% of all
respondents).
Of Total
Universe
No new tares 50% less than 1%
Merge with Tnalatin Hills District 25% less than 1%
Open to idea 25% less than 1%
prepared By The Nelson Report 7
'WHO'S ABER`C~REATICENTER •
COMMUNITY
In addition, respondents were given the following information and question:
"Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to
construct a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community
Recreation Center would include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms,
and meeting rooms. The construction of a Community Recreation Center would
increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand of assessed value."
"If an election were held today, would you FAVOR o for the City a $6.75 miilllliio
of Tigard
bond measure for a Community rate n Center
by 13-cents per thousand?" '
would increase the property
Slightly over half of respondents, 52%, opposed a $6.75 million Community Recreation
Center, while 41% favored the proposal. Seven percent were not sure.
.•'rF; x r fit.,.
:•;ti;S i. Y:k.~ ~d N' I q ~'.r. YC. .7,j,~2:"^a. j9 C.~?~N'•b,.
,i~~i'k 'i ~ ~t'~•' ~r, ~.Pf~IY rrP • r~ r
~Y' ¢x~.•
r.G~r'x " , ~'71• S ' ayTl+Y: I.y i~ .
`~:'p• •~~a.•,'{.rSt• 4c `~~ti~> '+''.r~~'4~j1b''-7f' ~#`YV`•~,'r"' •,~-.•~t~
Key demographics who opposed a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center were
males (54%), 55-64 years old (630/o), 65+ years old (58%), and voters in 3 out of 4 elections
(54%).
Prepared By The Nelson Report
Foremost reasons for opposing a Community Recreation Center were:
Taxes too highloppose increase 43%
Already have activides/facili ies/school gyms 26%
Focus on more important priorities • :10%
Key groups who favored a $6,75 million Community Recreation Center were 18.34 years
old (68%), 35•-04 years old (46%), 45-54 years old (431Yp), renters (50%), voters in 2 out of 4
elections (479/o), and 1 out of4 elections (45%).
Top reasons for favoring the Recreation Center were:
Need recreational facilities 54%
Would improve quality of life 26%
The chart below displays the $6.75 million Community Recreation Center who's ahead
results with the corresponding key demographics.
P-MV-9-01" WON 0,
x. A - M1l lr i~e~ r 5> ~;1 C~ y da t
A ~r'r':F,Kar?'~L 50. ' ~ •
r t.y4.~17EL:'
1^,ifi~uµy~ni S ~X' y,((fr'ff *}f,r y 'lFr. `r 4r ~V .S.
.
_ n n
, C7>KQgt~r~11t, ' F
Prepared By The Nelson Report
9
5 t
Furthermore, respondents were asked:
"In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center
would cost $400,000 per year. 111,10- con.--+ vtm;rra Inc-mole. the property tax rate by
an additional 11-cents per thousand."
qf an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that
would increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand?"
Well over half of respondents, 55%, opposed a proposal to fund the operation and
maintenance of the Community Recreation Center, while 34% favored the proposal. Eleven
percent were not sure.
Yvfto*~. X.
,'::~lji.~,.,Y P tia"••r~F C,4
F" •;•tii.t„?' : i ''~S.']'
Flit:
~4.`:y'i' i. "v'' 'r~ e' ~•Y'!f'i~: r'?i~• l ~isU;.~k ~S}~':~;•F.a~".
rFe.r.^rdbu'.5ap$°.::'
3:nr•.. ::rt' %f! aY A,. r..: $"y/:
Y.•.^': .1:. ti4'.i+~"G G:io..:' : 5 t I .
~y^4 ' :Y''"` tiiL►y,;rxy.;.F: r~ i;,.5 ;1; A„±, I•~d ET .r1: H~+~~ j. , E~
r( ~ i t• k' L rrF~. rD?..~, ( ~iy : .4{i, wf.},j f`•': ~ r
Y.~r`4V'• 9.7 ~``~a::.~; T,~u;a,,. t':~ f }~^:~,rMr,•'dF..:!:`try.. '
y; ~ .~4 r.•F ~tress ~~#v
. xH..
• 4~! .:n.•. •¢'t'~~t~f.'..'~. ..t., . _ I, r51"~'~ry"az. r~~ 1'
Key groups who opposed the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation
Center were males (57%), 55-64 years old (61%), 65+ years old (60%),45-54 years old (57%),
and voters in 3 out of 4 elections (62%).
? Primary reasons for opposing Recreation Center funding were:
Taxes too high/oppose increase 54%
Unnecessary/use schools/other buildings 20%
Not a high priority with city's current budget 11%
Prepared By The Nelson Report
10
1 ,
Key demographics who favored funding the operation and maintenance of tine Community
Recreation Center were females (36%),1 8-34 years old (59%), 35-44 years old (45%), 45-54
years old (36%), voters in 2 out of 4 elections (41%), and 1 out of 4 elections (39%).
ftolple reasons favoring Recreation center funding were;
Unable to operate without money 44%
Needed/goodidea 36%
The chart below displays the Community Recreation Center funding who's ahead results
with the corresponding key demographics.
t
t i ran , OF
s
k
rr"L n r
f ~e J d ~ . ' Y l~. ~~1
Prepared By The Nelson Report ii
c;
PUSH[ RESULTS: COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER.
WAV4 rMnOndents were asked a series of questions designed to gauge the positive or
x,
negative impact of certain pieces of information. This methodology was used to ascertain which
arguments produced the greatest net movement from the original "who's ahead" question.
The reader should keep i.n mind the "if you knew..." format. Certain arguments may push
people "if they knew," but the nature of the argument may make it impossible to convince
someone that it is factual. In addition, the resources required to do the convincing may be too
groat when compared to other arguments. This series was crosschecked later in the survey by the
agree/disagme series. The results are ranked on the following page in descending positive order.
The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement off the original "who's ahead" question.
Not Net
Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss
Question
Who's Ahead Results'.
Community Recreation Center 41 52 7
If you knew the Community
Recreation Center would
' enable the city to provide
, additional recreational
opportunities for Tigard
residents, such as live theatre
performances, children's
U programs like classes, summer
playground programs, camps,
special events, middle school
programs, teen programs, and
adult programs such as sports
leagues and classes, would you
FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond 52 38 10 +11
measure?
Prepared By. The Nelson Report 12
Not Net
Question Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss
1
who's Ahead ResaraM: 41 52 7
Community Recreation Center
If you knew the bond payments
would be structured so that new
residents who wove into the
community in the future would
assist in the payment of the bond
measure, would you FAVOR or 40 .11 +8
OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept? 49
If you knew that a bond measure
would cost property taxpayers 13-cents
per thousand or $26 per year for an
owner of a $200,000 home, would you 43 9 +7
FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 48
If you knew operation and maintenance
costs for the Community Recreation
Center would increase property taxes
by an additional 11-cents per thousand
or $22 per year for an owner of a
$200,000 home, would you FAVOR 42 47 11 +1
or OPPOSE the bond measure?
Key observations to this series were as follows:
® The argument that produced the largest increase (+11%) in support of a Community
Recreation Center was knowledge that the Community Recreation Center would enable
the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live
theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs,
camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such
as sports leagues and classes. Key demographics who increased in support were females
(+16%), 35-9 years old (+22%), 45-54 years old (+16%), home owners (+13%), voters
in 1 out of 4 elections (+161/o), and 4 out of 4 elections (+13%).
. Information that bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into
the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure increased
support for the Recreation Center b++8%4 54 des o demographics impacted with this
(+10%),
information were 35.44 years old (+16), Y (+10%), home and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (+10%).
Prepared By The Nelson Report 13
The fact that the bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or
$26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home also moved (+7%) of respondents to
t suap ort the proposed community Recreation Center. Key demographics moved with this
females (+120/o), 35-44 years old (+190/o), 45-54 years old (+90/0), and
voters in 3 out of 4 elections (+10%).
WHO'S AHEAD: $400,000 SKATE PARK
Next, respondents were presented with the following information and question:
"Another idea is a 10 year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct
a skate park for youth. s concept would $260 per year for the swner of $200,000 home.'o~ately
1-cent per thousand or
"if an electlon were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSrate 0 bond
cent
measure to construct a skate park that would increase property by
} per thousand?"
Slightly less than half of respondents, 49%, opposed a bond measure to construct a skate
park, while 43% favored the proposal. Eight percent were not sure.
~ "v;`..iwi•.3..'.F~j:':h jf. ';'y'i•;2 M•:f4'~Sl*~%:
p•. t'n:~j• h~v'S%tiF,,5!f t• k'.'.y'.d: ~8 "'a'J .S~"t'~ .y~.: .C~~!S,l..
::r ~ ;~:~ti<f:i .1., • ~ 3q ..1Yt'{f :..~r' "r `:.L<'i}':
$<i t f'» u~ 'si•+fi"P ~ ~ t4,r i~1'a• 'y, s ~'F'~ o.
f ltri b ) uie ~:.•°Ld? S,,ys~1•a4.,4r 1j, J ?+i~, _•w~;
I M. 4.
ST f'i)'U".•N,' t ~Y+a
- iss a tt i+ rt '•i''3a1~.,/•~ER'.'~1,. •*c.'fr-•~S.
~-F
l~~ t:+~~z..,• y :,try. S L.q+,A....•tiy>.: a~•:~t_ .
ti•APkS'k•~•.A.
1 Yt rz'. f " ~`kt : f
Prepared By The Nelson Deport
14
c'
1
Key demographics who opposed the proposed skate park were males (51%), 65+ years
old (514%), 55-64 years old (52%), and voters in 3 out of4 elections (51%).
Foremost reasons respondents opposed the proposeu n,.a,e t..,...were,
No more taxes 26%
Unnecessary 17%
Will be only utilized by a few 11%
Key groups who favored a $400,000 skate park were males (4611o), 18-34 years old (50%),
3544 years old (49%), 45-54 years old (48%), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections (47%).
Main reason respondents favored constructing a skate park were:
Need activities for youth 70%
Reasonable cost 16%
The chart below displays the skate park who's ahead results with the corresponding key
demographics.
f
f
e f b ti '1 .4 t. ir" , e S 9t~•F
tt '9~?y~ § ~ '?t 4l/ ~ ~ r '1 ! y~i ° x y 1~?4' 4+A~`
.[Fl~i' a ~4 ".i~'fit. f' r . 4.u"{ 3. •f- eG~, ~y~.~~~' ~ ~~f1~`~~~~~~;
, ; ,yam x~ u,
d.! i - ~~i f` ' m: ei#sF..•;4;t:1A t F',- '+n°~.: ri~~','r ,.r~ a*. i`Ntj4.. ~~,,.ryy~=,~taN?
t
Prepared By The Nelson Report
15
[O'S AHEAD: $5 MMLION BOND MEAS~ FOR
PARKSlATS'LFTIC FIELDS
" .«,rmn6nnandquestion:
Vetre6pondents were gVGIa
purchase
"Another idea includes a $5 Million bond te ~c ~ i~ fro gha t the city. This idea
land to construct ad fon parks rate by 9-cents Per thousand."
would increase the property
an election were held today, would you IAVathletic OR Idph® would $5 willion increase t d
he
arks and
measure to construct ad nay nal ousand?"
property tax rate by 9- p arks and
gAspondents were split with 45% who opposed a $5 million bond measure for p
athletic fields and 44% who favored the Proposal. Eleven percent were not sore.
yS li
T
1.~~tS:.~)• J'18;f.''F~'.,"f.N,~. y;..~;q:t 1~.~i5'~.I II~:Y •'s (~Pv
,,j,. 'a ~s~,q,,•<~'yy:'~.ns• 'yY,s r~, '.u..::n ~ryt r '
'•i' S,u•. ~i `^wA r. ' a[ 1• F.Yi••~,.j;.~l
i.~ . ?jyk
6 y t7~t' f. p!p •G".,.A yi ar'" , I..ti1s i S .
D 'W
y,H~~`y+a'V34kh "~^5'Y~; • C3,.•+~ .fit`
~ r
Li
osed the proposed bond measure for parks and athletic fields
Key demogmPhics who opp
emales 47%), 65+yem old (50%), 55-64 yew old (49%), renters (50%), voters in 2 out
were f (
47%)
of 4 elections (50%), and 3 out of 4 elections (
-area By The Nelson Report
Prep 16
primary reasons respondents opposed the proposed parks/athletic fields were.
Already have parks/doWt maintain what they 38%
have -.A1
Taxes too high/oppose increase
Key groups who favored a additional parks/athletic fields were males (470/,), 35-44 years
old (57%),18-34 and 45.54 years old (471/6), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections
Main reasons respondents favored additional parks/athletic fields were:
17%
Need more parks/athletic fields 41%
Favor city improvements 11%
Provides place for children to play
The chart below displays the proposed parks and athletic fields who's ahead results with
' the corresponding key demographics.
IM
I(> ak R
y~Y elt Y~~4'
1 > t 6Y T j.~'~ >~+JS'
t + rY ,7F`+t u~ix
2 5}~ t.{0 ;~li^~'r :4.tFf ~V Z 4j~ f~ S
l r
L1r f ~y W~
,f rA 4
IN ,
MIN III
Prepared By The Nelson Report 17
c.:
following the $s million bond measure for parks and athletic fields question, respondents
were asked the following question. The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement in favor of
the proposal
Not Net
Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss
Question
Who's Ahead Results: 45 li
Additional Parks/Athletic Fields 44 if you knew the $5 million bond
measure would increase property
taxes by 9-cents per thousand or
$18 per year for an owner of a
$200,000 home, would you
FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept
to construct additional parks and 44 43 13 +0
athletic fields?
V HWS AMA]D: $5 MILLION BOND NZASM FOR
WETLANDSIGREEN SPACES
Next, respondents were asked.:
,'In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that
would be used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces
throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per
thousand:'
"if an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond
measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the
property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand?"
Slightly less than half of respondents-49%, favored the proposed $5 million bond measure
for.wedands and green spaces, while 41% opeosed the proposal. Ten percent were not sure.
Prepared By The Nelson Report
C,.
"N1"i P+j•en<b•:}.tIT.i (.•:.1~.'S ~~':;IYI'Id '~17'; yt::i:'! kJ.:,.,A , ~-y _ ~1*~~ 14' "1
"t A' f.r15t rrr5•~f :i 1!~,i'r}'7i it T7:,., h.,~;{•:+.tr?M.o- Y'., I.
r:' • i
>'~!:n':ii:3.M.'t.,;~;~`Y`si'liS! i• b.;t:. ji(5.F3;>~c}~f.%~1n,~:r7'rYa;;~i,r',,. !
`'•',7iteti~`}i~'ti :••y-' :Y .:3~ . A S~ Gi:.~i~•t'1 1'J!`/"~Ik?:t• 1'4
:'`••s3'<`~n`-.<y r.%t''i a:1 Y;t,.•:',•4. d5. y7t
~ y fit,^• R},r...:." ilk, L. ,
r . _1~:~.;1't7`,1r nrP~+eti~h,~~_~,~`'`"''ayt.r,k~4y.~'
! ups who favored purchasing land for wetlands and green spaces were females
Key groups -
(54%), 18.34 years old (706), 45-54 years old (61%), renters (60%), and voters in 2 out of 4
t elections (52%).
y Main reasons respondents favored land for wetlands/greeu spaces were:
Need to preserve open spaces 67%
Good for the environment 17%
Key demographics who opposed the proposed bond measure for wetlands and green
spaces were males (46%), 55-64 yew old (48%), 65+ years old (47%), 35-44 years old (460/),
home owners (43%), slid voters in 1 out of 4 elections (45%).
Primary reasons respondents opposed wetlands and green spaces were:
Oppose tax increase 33%
C) Unnecessary 26% Environment is already protected '13%
The following chart displays the proposed bond measure for wetlands and green spaces
t , who's ahead results with the corresponding key demographics.
Prepared By The Nelson Report 19
w. + ^pr ' asL *;C . ar y =`at n}~': ` ~ i~ { t~ ~Y 94.. ~~ti~ bs, f~¢ ej.~
~t• } ny,1 i a F Y y n a4l~^~~ rl.~ ~f
f ^T~ w ~i iy'i..~k` N y(~ 7 v. R ~ ` . i. ,d i• Z, ~ .r ~ ^ ~M°j{'^~$ ~~e .
'i ¢ w4'»e , tS
NrVj i
` •'~,F~, i ri t^Fi$$+ j t..~~~~1,yk1 .d<v;y,5 , 1'
f r s i S y 33" a„ •I ~i
ii r~yf {Yi hl k
r.
11, 2,
F72, (7j:fRie
,,~d . f5~ i;r~°~j•rr•yI ~~~°~kt,_,:.:; . ~t~.iv ''"''i" :~~i~,';! ~ a ~f'Ca~ ~~'G~~~Y~n~ OI
• ~ 4 ~ i Sit y~r ~1
n •r. i ti. . k o- t N~~r+ ah' G M.5
e'f.ryy~p1`°Sf. ta.t.4f..}v
Lis « . r: e .g 5 1q ,R r Y "S'
k M1
Following the $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces question,
C' respondents were asked the following question- The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement
Kffim
in favor of the proposal.
Not Net
]Favor oppose Sure Gain/Loss
Question
Who's Ahead Results: 49 41 10
Wetlands/Green Space
U if you knew the $5 million bond
measure would increase property
taxes by 9-cents per thousand or
$ l g per year for an. owner of a
i $200,000 home, would you FAVOR
or OPPOSE the concept to protect
wetlands and green spaces 49 38 13 +0
throughout the city?
c!
Prepared By The Nelson Report 20
CONCEPTS PREFERRED IN ONE ]BOND MEASURE
Next respondents were given the following options:
"Thinking about four of the concepts N CONS iRMAIVIv vxA'C1'EeTrnN CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKAW PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND
FOR PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and SPACES, which ofh ~epts these concepts would you a POR willing
WETLANDS AND GREEN
to vote for In one bond measure?"
A plurality of respondents, 24%, were willing to vote for a Recreation Center only in one
bond measure, while 21% would vote for wetlands and green spaces only. Sixteen percent were
.1
not willing to vote for any of the concepts; another 16% were willing to vote for "other" concepts,
and 13% would vote for land for parks and athletic fields only. Eight percent would vote for a
skate park only and two percent were not sure.
ubgt r ' :.`1. t y f i4r.: ry r• j l:ll .
y.'
t" y f• k`r,~" ,~~'..(`.'+t•i::~ y:~ ~ $ w%~,~•'..:7 i~,.,, .:'!yf~•.: a a a M.
u r n m ~ iz~', ~L t l:. }a~+.Y ~'t:. •.i,. ate, 4.r~k~,
~•~R • ' v, < ,}fft.Rx~ s MA" ' "t ~.~r d;' 4?$'y.+')... r. ~•w,'...ii{L•..,i' 1:y''~
, 'a:n` .y y -
~i:' ?•,.;:'r .lit :..1~ciF.;4"; y.;.~. rQ r' ; ~ti We 4:uq Of
ti, a F ~:41, $'',.Ye
b. •~~1~.i•C{;~f~:~:.` tif'"i~i~:~', ,b. ;y r+E6:'"+;,~;dY:•.FC;.
`»'~*,Y'6~•.~yly'^ rvy~..~ ~ 'iMr.: ~~;t~,i•!. Jril: fF•.% i:7'!;. Fr ;....dG•C.i;
'r'~;•`tar,. ,:7".~f~''r~~ FJ~~`w ~'bx~y}},,z.4q~'~;s~~;'~YA Y.H Y;iC6
:;AEG "~~F 1 t a ¢ ~ Ste'}~~~7 y A S„~ ady'~''~c'?! .
t T ~x ti ' ~ r
. ~ }s✓~~ 'T""1` + 1 rb,'r: r * i. '~rJ r vY~Lt~
~~~~;Y , i !e Z}f's ~ rw-'.,~J'~a4 a r~+~4..'rt ~W~:•:
16
It dh ~ -
5~ ~tf b MLfV'9`'1'Q' s}41S r~•~~f
a w~ r e, v~1 9+ 'i iA 'f! a-MR' ~'.~ih 1 r~~i¢'g~e~ka~ r~Cq~,~f a
i.' ~,~'YtY! ,C:' ~>•~k•' ~ +.$,?'dw r~ '1.•. lrS: 1!'i}i;;v F ~'."f4r`:?.~f'_±.
Key demographics who would vote for a Recreation Center only were females (26%),18-
34 years old (411/6), 3544 years old (28%), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (26%).
t.~
Prepared By The Nelson Report 21
1
Key demographics who would only vote for land for wetlands and green spaces were
females (25%),18-34 and 55-64 years old (240/6), 4554 years old (23%), renters (23%), voters in
..,efl.~
3 out of 4 elections (290/0), and 2 out of 4 eiections kAU 70).
Key groups who would not vote for any of the concepts were males (lg%), 65+ years old
(220A), 55-64 years old (219/6), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections. (19%).
Key demographics who cited "other" concept combinations were 35-44 and 45-54 years
old (25%),18-34 years old (21%), renters (19010), voters in 1 out of 4 elections (246/a), and 2 out
s
of4 elections (20%).
Of those respondents who felt "other" options were best, "all of them" topped the list,
followed by `'parks and open space", as indicated in the table below (16% of all respondents).
Of Total
Universe
All of them 20% 3%
Parks and open space 177% 3%
1%
Ali except skate park 8% 1%
Recreation Center and open space %
Recreation Center and skate park 7% 7% 11%
Skate park and open space 7% 1%
Recreation Center and parks
In a special cross tab, 44% of respondents who previously said they favored a
Community Recreation Center (18% of all respondents) said they would only vote for a
Community Recreation Center in one bond measure.
In another key cross tab, 36% of respondents who previously said they favored land for
wetlands and green spaces (18% of all respondents) said they would only vote for wetlands
and green spaces in one bond measure.
Prepared By The Nelson Report 22
}
HOW MUCII RFSIDFNTS Ala WILLING IES AY FOR
RNCREATI®NAL OPPORTUNITIES
A .+1,mmlity of resvondents, 23%, were not willing to pay anything Per year to enhance
r----w -
recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces in the City of Tigard, while 21% were
willing to pay between $1-$18 per year, Seventeen percent were willing to pay between $19-$36
er ear, and eight percent were willing to pay over $90.
per year, ten percent between $37-$52 p y
Five percent were willing to pay between $53-$90 per year and 16% were not sure.
1 t. 5„ F B t~ .~'•;•8i'Ik .a'4 ~:Y,i, ''Hn~',~-..5;{.~. `:4
' ;e :5° o %?~wa~~~Fr:y.^~K "~tty''••~'.~• t n. 4 0 1"t~N.;4 `.:S ;
$7,k y,~4',.~*v'NFr a~` ° 7~~*5!t>'* e r.r•p^'':~=(•:r.:
- f'~ ;Y i ~ .3.• ~1 'Y f~..i gi37 :•t;1R6 t'k:~. . _CN:. t{Ty`4~:~~,'e{1'
f'a
3.S`Rf.` ..`•f.~p `'i4.,fS'.~l'l hYil{''
J 1Fy jx . t N 1N jId •
S!s; 'i1Fn
Yl~if~}f; ,i,;, y I f+f 'oi• ~'~'t " Gkt jq '1.7':.;H::. 4y~ a• ; tti, .
d k ll:; . YY r ~ k Y f SM
`4 4a3•
P~ groups who were not willing to pay anything to enhance recreational opportunities in
C) Ti and were males (27%), 55-64 years old (310/6), 65+ years old (300/o), renters (25%), voters in 2
g
out of 4 elections (26%), and 3 out of 4 elections (25%)•
Key demographics who were willing to pay between $1418 per year in to enhance
recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces were 65+ years old (25%),18-34 years old
(240/o), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (26%).
i~
Prepared By The Nelson Report 23
Key demographics who were willing to pay between $19-$36 per year were females
(200/6), 35-44 years old (28%),18-34 years old (240%), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections (241/6).
who- nraviously said they favored land
In an interesting cross tab, s~,.-,,r,o of 1G aya~udo .
for wetlands and green spaces 12% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay
between $1418 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces.
In another cross tab, 20% of respondents who also previously said they favored land for
wetlands and green spaces (10% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay between
$19.$36 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces.
In yet another cross tab, 25% of respondents who also previously said they favored a
' Community Recreation Center (10% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay
between $19436 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces.
AGREE/DISAGREE
In this series, respondents were presented with a number of potentially prejudicial
statements regarding the various recreation projects. This. format was designed to serve as a
cross-check on various close-ended questions as well as to pickup variations on prejudices not
readily apparent in those types of questions. r-:e following table displays all of the
C } agree/disagree statements in descending order of agreement
AGREE/DISAGREE STATEMENTS IN DESCENDING
®RDE
Agree Disagree Not Sure
Statement
I like the idea that the city is considering in
protection of natural wetlands and greenays
the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our 69 25 6
natural resources.
Prepared By The Nelson Report 24
Statement Agree Disagree Not Sure
It's about time the City of Tigard began providing
additional recreational opportunities for citizens. 43 8
- -9. rnmmnnity Recreation Center. 49
I favor Tae WUWIJI. N -
Our city already has plenty of parks and athletic
fields. I oppose the $5 million bond measure for 42 46 12
parks and fields.
I would prefer to create a Recreation District
similar to Beaverton's, Tualatin Hills park and
Recreation District to enhance recreational
' opportunities for residents rather than create a 38 34 28
Recreation Division within the city.
My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any
of the recreation concepts being discussed in this 38 56 6
survey.
I like the community,just the way it is. We don't
need additional recreational activities to improve 30 60 10
livability in our area.
v
prepared By The Nelson Report 25
C::
1
CONCLUSIONS
1. Well over half of respondents favor creating a Recreation Division of the city.
_.r nm,nge the creation of a separate Recreation District
2. Slightly over nau Vl icayv.s....... -rr---
I with its own taxing authority.
creation of Recreation Division over
i 3. Slightly less than half of respondents prefer the creation o► -
a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority.
4. Primary reasons for preferring a city Recreation Division are "costs less than Recreation
"
District', "good idea/makes sense", and "city is more aware of community needs. 5. Main reasons for preferring a Special Recreation District are "prefer independent district
without city control d "includes more than just city residents".
"mY Preference", an
6 Information that a Special Recreation District would be similaro Beav Special Rem Tualatin
Hills Park and Recreation District, pushes respondents to supp
District by a large margin.
7. Slightly over half of respondents oppose a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center,
while fewer numbers favor the proposal.
g. Foremost reasons for opposing a Community Recreation Center are "taxes to focus on
bighloppose increase", "already have activities/facilities/school gyms
more important priorities".
9. Top reasons for favoring a Community Recreation Center are "need recreational
facilities" and "would improve quality of life".
10. Well over half of respondents oppose the additional $400,000 per year it would cost to
hind the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center, while slightly
over one-third favor the additional costs.
11. Primacy reasons for opposing funding for the operation and maintenance of the
Recreation Center are "taxes too high/oppose increase", "unnecessary/use schools/other
buildings", and "not a high priority with city's current budget".
12. "Unable to operate without money" tops the list
Center, followed by "needed/good idea'.
maintenance costs of the Community Recreation
C. ,
Prepared By The Nelson Report 26
1
13. The argument that produces the largest increase in support of a Community Recreation
Center is knowledge that the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to
provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre
performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps,
special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports
leagues and classes. Recreation Center will enhance recreational opportunities for all
Tigard residents is a primary theme for respondents.
14. Information that bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into
the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure also
increases support for a Recreation Center. This is a primary theme.
15. The fact that the bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or
$26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home also moves respondents to support the
proposed Community Recreation Center.
16. Slightly less than half of respondents oppose a bond measure to construct a skate park,
while slightly fewer numbers favor the proposal.
17. Top reasons for opposing the proposed skate park are "no more taxes", "!unnecessary",
and "will only be utilized by a few".
18. Main reasons for favoring a skate park are `!need activities for youth" and "reasonable
cost".
19. Respondents are split with slightly less than half who oppose a $5 million bond measure
for parks and athletic fields and slightly less than half of favor the proposal.
- , 20. Primary reasons for opposing the bond measure for parks and athletic fields are "already
have pmWdon't maintain what they have" and "taxes too high/oppose increase".
21. "Need more parkslathletic fields" tops the list of reasons for favoring the bond measure to
purchase land for parks and athletic fields, followed by ",favor city improvements", and
`provides place for children to play".
ti
22. Slightly less than half of respondents favor a $5 million bond measure for wetlands and
green spaces.
23. Foremost reasons for favoring land for wetlands and green spaces are "need to preserve
' open spaces" and "good for the environment".
24. Top reasons respondents oppose land for wetlands and green spaces are "oppose tax
increase", ` umecessW', and "environment is already protected".
Prepares! By The Nelson Report
27
't
25.. A plurality of respondents are willing to vote for a Recreation Center only in one bond
measure, while slightly fewer numbers are willing to vote for wetlands and green spaces
only.
26. A plurality of respondents are not willing to pay anything per year to enhance recreational
opportunities and preserve green spaces in Tigard, while slightly fewer numbers are
willing to pay between $1-$18.
.t .
27, Tigard residents clearly prefer the creation of a city Recreation Division over a special
Recreation District even after being presented with information that the Recreation
District would be similar to Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. While none of
the proposed bond measures receive a majority of support, it appears Tigard residents are
most supportive of a bond measure that would be used to preserve wetlands and green
spaces, followed by a proposal for additional parks and athletic fields. While slightly
more than half of respondents oppose a bond measure for a Community Recreation
Center, information that the Recreation Center would enhance recreational opportunities
for all residents significantly increases support for the proposal. It is clear, however,
respondents are not supportive of the additional operation and maintenance costs
associated with a Recreation Center.
Liven with some of these positive responses, respondents appear to be stpaggling with the
tax increases that come with each of these proposals.
r't
.
Prepared By The Nelson Report
28
'
. S U 'L . .
T'l 0 N., N
S
,
FINAL RESULTS
(n=383)
CITY OF TIGARD 2004
' FINAL DRAFT
Hello, my name is I'm with The Nelson Report, a public opinion
research firm. We are conducting a brief survey today in your area and would like to include
your household's opinions. May I please take a few minutes of your time? Let me assure you I
am not selling anything.
First of all, are you registered to vote in the state of Oregon? (INTERVIEWER: IF NO,
POLITELY TERMINATE)
The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not include
recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a variety of ideas to
enhance recreational opportunities for city residents such as children's classes, day camps,
summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs
and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. We are going to be presenting you several
of these ideas. These ideas are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely a way to gauge
public support of the following options.
The city would like your opinion on whether recreational programs should be offered to
city residents. Currently park services are paid for out of the City of Tigard budget. The cityhas
two other options they would like your opinion on.
One option is for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own budget.
This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues.
1. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the
city?
1. Favor 57
2. Oppose 31
J 3. Not Sure/Refused 12
Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate Recreation
District with its own taxing authority.
2. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing
authority?
1. Favor 34
2. Oppose 53
3. Not Sure/Refused 13
Page I
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelsons ][deport
M The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $860 thousand per year.
The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating levy and would
increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other option is for Tigard residents
to vote for the creation of a Recreation District. A Recreation District would cost $1 million per
year and increase the property tax rate by 26-cents per thousand.
3. If you had to choose, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION
thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION
.
at a cost of 22-cents per
DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand?
1. City Recreation Division (GO TO "A') ~3
2. Special Recreation District (GO TO"A'J 28
3. Neither (SKIP TO #4) 1
4. Other 10
5. Not Sure/Refused (SNIP TO #4)
A. (RECREATION DIVISION/RECREATION DISTPJCTT ONLY
AT ONOM 93)
Why would you prefer the (RECREATION DIVISION) (RECRE
DISTRICT)? (PROBE)
4. If you knew the Special Recreation Distri ct would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin
Hills park and Recreation District, would you prefer the creation of a CITY
. RECREATION DIVISION
DISTRICT at a ostsof~26--thousand, or the cents pe thousand? on of a
SPECIAL RECREATION
1. City Recreation Division 36
2. Special Recreation District 6 23
3. Neither 1
4. Other I4
5. Not Sure/Refused
Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to construct
would
a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation cCenter onstruction
include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi purpose rooms, and meeting rooms. The
of a Community Recreation Center would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand
J of assessed value.
5. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $6.75 million bond
measure for a Community Recreation Center for the City of Tigard that would increase
the property tax rate by I3-cents per thousand?
1. Favor (GO TO "B") 41
2. Oppose (GO TO"B") 52
3. Not sure/Refused 7
B Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the $6.75 million bond measure?
Page 2
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelson Report
In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center would
cost $400,000 per year. This concept would increase the property tax rate by an additional I I -
cents per thousand.
6. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that would
increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand?
1. Favor (GO TO "C") 34
2. Oppose (GO TO "C") 55
3. Not Sure/Refused 11
C. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the concept? (PROBE)
Another idea is a 10-year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct a skate
park for youth. This concept would cost property taxpayers approximately 1-cent per thousand
or $2.60 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home.
7. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $400,000 bond measure
to construct a skate park that would increase property tax rate by 1-cent per thousand?
1. Favor (GO TO "D") 43
2. Oppose (GO TO "D") 49
3. Not Sure/Refused 8
_ D. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the proposed skate park? (PROBE)
J
Now I am going to ask you a variety of questions concerning the idea of a $6.75 million
bond measure to construct a Community Recreation Center. For each one, I will give you some
information and ask, whether with that information, you would FAVOR or OPPOSE the idea.
8. If you knew the bond payments would be structured. so that new residents who move into
the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure, would you
FAVOR or OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept?
1. Favor 49
J 2. Oppose 40
3: Not Sure/Refused 11
..1
..J
Page 3
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelson Report
J
9. If you lmew the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide
additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre
performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, carrrps,
special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports
leagues and classes, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond measure?
1. Favor 52
2. Oppose 38
3. Not Sure/Refused 10
10. If you knew that a bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or
$26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond
measure?
1. Favor 4$
2. Oppose 43
3. Not Sure/Refused 9
11. If you knew operation and maintenance costs for the Community Recreation Center
would increase property taxes by an additional 11-cents per thousand or $22 per year -r-
an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR Dr OPPOSE the bond measure?
1. Favor 42
2. Oppose 47
3. Not Sure,/Refused 11
J
Another idea includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land to
construct additional parks and athletic fields throughout the city. This idea would increase the
property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand.
12. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond
measure to construct additional parks and athletic fields that would increase the property
tax rate by 9-cents per thousand?
1. Favor (GO TO I'M 44
2. Oppose (GO TO "EIS 45
3. Not Sure/Refused 11
E. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for parks and
athletic fields? (PROBE)
.7
1
Page 4
August 27, 2004
]Prepared By The Nelson Report
13. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per
thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or
OPPOSE the concept to construct additional parks and athletic fields?
1. Favor 44
2. Oppose 43
3. Not Sure/Refused 13
In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that would be
used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city. This
idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand.
14. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond
measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the property
tax rate by 9-cents per thousand?
1. Favor (GO TO "T+") 49
2. Oppose (GO TO "F") 41
3. Not Sure/Refused 10
F. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for wetlands
and green spaces? (PROBE)
15. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per
thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or
OPPOSE the concept to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city?
1. Favor 49
2. Oppose 38
3. Not Sure/Refused 13
16. Thinldng about four of the concepts - CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION
CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATE PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR
PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WETLANDS
AND GREEN SPACES, which of these concepts would you be willing to vote for in one
bond measure? (INTERVIEWER: COMBINATION RESPONSES WILL GO
UNDER THE "OTHER" CATEGORY)
1. Recreation Center Only 24
2. Skate Park Only 8
3. Land For Parks Only 13
4. Land For Wetlands/Open Spaces Only 21
5. None 16
6. Other 16
7. Not Sure/Refused 2
Page 5
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelson Repot
17. How much more would you be willing to pay each year in property taxes in order to
enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces throughout the City Of
Tigard?
! 1. Nothing 23
2. $1-$18 21
3. $19-$36 17
4. $37-$52 10
5. $53-$90 5
6. Over $90 8
7. Not Sure/Refused 16
Now I am going to read youiseveral
and statements
s currently seeking your opinion one For ea he
various recreation projects the City of Tg
! statement, I would like you to tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the statement.
1. Agree
2. Disagree
4. Not Sure/Refused
AGREE - DISAGREE NOT SUREIREFUSED -
18. My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any of the recreation concepts being
discussed in this survey.
38-56-6
19. I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetlands and
greenways in the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources.
} 69-25-6
20. It's about time the City of Tigard began providing additional recreational opportunities
for citizens. I favor the concept of a Community Recreation Center.
49-43-8
21 Our city alreadyhas plenty of parks and athletic fields. I oppose the $5 million bond
measure for parks and fields.
j 42-4612
22. I like the community just the way it is. We don't need additional recreational activities to
improve livability in our area.
30-60-10
Page 6
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelson Report
6
d
N AGREE - DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED
23. I would prefer to create a Recreation District similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park
and Recreation District to enhance recreational opportunities for residents rather than
create a Recreation Division within the city.
38-34-28
DEMO bRAEM S.
24. SEX:
1. Male
2. Female
1
25. AGE: Are you between the ages of.....?
1. 18-34
2, 35-44
3. 45-54
4. 55-64
5. 65+
6. Not Sure/Refused
.1 26. OWN/RENT: Do you own or rent your home?
1. Own
2. Rent
3. Not Sure/Refused
INTERVIEWER: POLITELY END SURVFY WITH
RESPONDENT, IM OMPT.FTE THE E011,03ENf~
()TTE~'i'f N:
J 27. VOTER HISTORY: (INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER OF TIMES
RESPONDENT HAS VOTED IN THE LAST FOUR ELECTIONS FROM THE
PHONE LIST - SEE INSTRUCTION SHEET)
1. 1 Out Of 4 Elections
2. 2 Out Of 4 Elections
3. 3 Out Of 4 Elections
4. 4 Out Of 4 Elections
Page 7
August 27, 2004
Prepared By The Nelson Report