Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott study session reviews parks master‑plan survey: high park/trail use, priority to maintain assets
Summary
City consultants told the Prescott City Council that survey and engagement work found very high park and trail use (92% and 86% of households), strong support for maintaining existing facilities, and targeted improvements—restrooms, shade and trail parking—while programs draw lower participation.
Christi Diaz Trejo, Prescott’s parks and recreation director, opened the April 28 study session by saying the master‑plan update is “community driven” and introduced consultants who presented a blended engagement and a statistically valid survey of city households.
Teresa Jackson of BerryDunn summarized the engagement work and said consultants logged roughly 2,700 public touchpoints, more than 500 in‑person interactions and a completed survey sample that exceeded the target. “This is what our community wants,” Jackson said, noting dot‑voting at events put splash pads, indoor pools and sports facilities near the top of in‑person priorities, and that local user groups indicated willingness to partner on grants and projects.
An ETC Institute representative described the survey methodology and its reliability: the firm said it randomly sampled about 2,000–2,500 addresses to achieve 437 completed surveys and estimated a margin of error of about 4.6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The representative said consultants will provide cross‑tabulations on request to show how preferences vary by age and household type.
The survey findings showed unusually high usage of city assets: 92% of respondents reported visiting a city park in the last year and about 86% used city trails, both well above ETC’s national averages. By contrast, about one in four households reported participating in city programs, a figure consultants tied to lack of awareness and to residents’ preference for unstructured outdoor activity. The consultants’ importance–satisfaction analysis flagged availability of restrooms and availability of shade/comfort as the top trail‑system opportunities likely to move overall satisfaction metrics.
On investment priorities, respondents devoted the largest share of a hypothetical $100 allocation to maintaining existing assets and addressing deferred maintenance. Facility priorities from the combined analyses included trails, picnic areas and aquatics (indoor and outdoor pools were identified among higher‑priority facility items in cross‑questions), while community events, concerts and festivals ranked highest among program priorities.
The survey also recorded a narrow split on e‑bikes: 44% of respondents supported allowing e‑bikes on Prescott trails and 56% opposed; among supporters, class‑1 e‑bikes (assist only while pedaling) received the most backing.
Public commenters emphasized specific local needs. Shannon Ferris, a Prescott resident, urged the council to include beach‑volleyball courts and improved indoor volleyball facilities to support high‑school and college play, youth development and tournament draws. Rod Moyer told the council that with thousands of approved but unbuilt residential lots, planning should look beyond present needs to add fields, courts and open space to protect wildlife connectivity (he cited the Glassford Hill lands). Other residents asked the consultants to publish demographic cross‑tabs to ensure the preferences of younger households are visible and urged continued funding for the community nature center.
Consultants and staff said the survey is a tool for council decision‑making, not a prescription. Next steps described in the meeting include deeper cross‑tab analysis requested by councilmembers, follow‑up work with staff, a visioning phase this summer, and a return to the council for adoption in the fall.
