A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q
1	Question 1
2	Please rank the following options by dragging and dropping in order of your priorities. (#1 being the highest priority and #13 being the lowest priority)
3	#	Answer	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Responses	Mean
4	1	Additional Park Features (playground, picnic tables, shelter, etc.)	1	14	20	13	6	5	7	3	2	3	5	4	4	119	4.3
5			1%	12%	17%	11%	5%	4%	6%	3%	2%	3%	4%	3%	3%
6	2	Community Recreation Space (gymnasiums, meeting rooms, senior facilities, etc.)	20	10	15	16	12	6	11	7	6	6	5	5	0	119	5.1
7			17%	8%	13%	13%	10%	5%	9%	6%	5%	5%	4%	4%	0%
8	3	Fitness Trail / Walking Track	10	10	13	19	10	17	14	11	7	5	1	1	1	119	5.3
9			8%	8%	11%	16%	8%	14%	12%	9%	6%	4%	1%	1%	1%
10	4	Arboretum (educational trail highlighting species of trees, flowers, shrubs, etc.)	5	24	15	16	13	7	4	8	6	5	7	5	4	119	5.5
11			4%	20%	13%	13%	11%	6%	3%	7%	5%	4%	6%	4%	3%
12	5	Low Intensity Recreation (outdoor chess, table tennis, bocce ball, etc.)	4	13	6	8	18	18	13	11	14	6	5	3	0	119	6.2
13			3%	11%	5%	7%	15%	15%	11%	9%	12%	5%	4%	3%	0%
14	6	Outdoor Exhibits (park could be leased to museum)	9	12	11	11	3	8	18	14	13	10	8	0	2	119	6.2
15			8%	10%	9%	9%	3%	7%	15%	12%	11%	8%	7%	0%	2%
16	7	Public Event Plaza (fence entire space and utilize for special events and public gatherings)	11	7	9	8	6	9	2	8	9	15	11	16	8	119	7.5
17			9%	6%	8%	7%	5%	8%	2%	7%	8%	13%	9%	13%	7%
18	8	Food Truck Park (seasonal)	3	6	6	8	8	5	12	22	17	8	7	10	7	119	7.7
19			3%	5%	5%	7%	7%	4%	10%	18%	14%	7%	6%	8%	6%
20	9	Dog Park	4	9	1	6	8	12	13	7	16	10	15	12	6	119	7.9
21			3%	8%	1%	5%	7%	10%	11%	6%	13%	8%	13%	10%	5%
22	10	Disc Golf Course	0	2	6	4	15	17	7	15	7	20	8	14	4	119	8.0
23			0%	2%	5%	3%	13%	14%	6%	13%	6%	17%	7%	12%	3%
24	11	Private Concessionaires (long-term leases with outdoor recreation operators i.e.,miniature golf)	6	6	6	5	6	6	10	5	15	19	19	12	4	119	8.1
25			5%	5%	5%	4%	5%	5%	8%	4%	13%	16%	16%	10%	3%
26	12	As is (do nothing)	13	5	5	4	8	4	7	4	3	4	4	6	52	119	8.9
27			11%	4%	4%	3%	7%	3%	6%	3%	3%	3%	3%	5%	44%
28	13	Skate Park	1	1	6	1	6	5	1	4	4	8	24	31	27	119	10.3
29			1%	1%	5%	1%	5%	4%	1%	3%	3%	7%	20%	26%	23%
30		Total	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119	119
32	Question 2
33	There are a number of options available to increase parking in the downtown area. Please rank the following options by dragging and dropping in order of your priorities. ( #1 being the highest priority and #5 being the lowest priority)
35	#	Answer	1	2	3	4	5	Responses		Mean
36	1	On-Street Parking (diagonal parking located on 4th Street and / or Ute Avenue)	27	40	17	16	8	108		2.4
37			25%	37%	16%	15%	7%
38	2	Museum Parking (relocating current museum parking to Whitman Park space allowing expansion for museum)	28	21	28	24	7	108		2.6
39			26%	19%	26%	22%	6%
40	4	Flow-Through Parking Lot on the East and West Sides of the Park Similar to Sherwood Park	28	19	25	23	13	108		2.76
41			26%	18%	23%	21%	12%
42	3	Reduce Park Size for Parking Spaces	11	19	29	33	16	108		3.2
43			10%	18%	27%	31%	15%
44	5	Parking Garage	14	9	9	12	64	108		4.0
45			13%	8%	8%	11%	59%
46		Total	108	108	108	108	108

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
1	Question 3
2	Would you support a sale, exchange, or long-term lease with this park property?
3
4	#	Answer	Bar	Response	%
5	1	Yes	66.10%	78	66.10%
6	2	No	33.90%	40	33.90%
7		Total	0.00%	118	100.00%
8
9	Min Value	Max Value	Average Value	Variance	Standard Deviation	Total Responses	Total Respondents
10	1	2	1.3	0.2	0.5	118	118
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30	#	Answer	Bar		Response	%
31	1	Yes			78	66.10%
32	2	No			40	33.90%
33		Total			118	100.00%

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
1	Question 4
2	The City is moving forward with Las Colonias Park and Matchett Park developments. Please rank the Whitman Park renovation in terms of importance related to the other park developments.
6	#	Answer	Bar	Response	%
7	1	Much Higher	9.24%	11	9.24%
8	2	Higher	17.65%	21	17.65%
9	3	About the Same	21.01%	25	21.01%
10	6	Slightly Lower	15.13%	18	15.13%
11	7	Much Lower	36.97%	44	36.97%
12		Total	0.00%	119	100.00%
16	Min Value	Max Value	Average Value	Variance	Standard Deviation	Total Responses	Total Respondents
17	1	7	4.6	5.4	2.3	119	119
22	#	Answer	Bar		Response	%
23	1	Much Higher			11	9.24%
24	2	Higher			21	17.65%
25	3	About the Same			25	21.01%
26	6	Slightly Lower			18	15.13%
27	7	Much Lower			44	36.97%
28		Total			119	100.00%

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R
1		Please use this space to include any general comments or suggestions you have.
2	1	Improvements to Whitman Park must include provisions to reduce/eliminate transient/homeless loitering, which in my opinion has reduced the general public's use of the park.
3	2	Without parking close by, the only folks who will use the park will be the same ones using it now. At age 70, it will have to be a lot more friendly to users other than those folks, for me to go there on any regular basis. Right now I ride my cruiser on the riverfront trail and walk from the Botanical Gardens to Eagle Rim Park. Also am looking forward to the corridor from 9th to Edgewater Brewery for biking.
4	3	Sale or lease to the museum or multiple use with the museum would be the best option
5	4	Please clean this park up......it looks terrible
6	5	Proximity to bus terminal will always be a problem due to nature of many bus users. Parking is a big problem. Park is relatively "downtown" and I don't think people are ready to come downtown to a park..
7	6	if the museum doesn't see any potential for the park I think the city should use the park for future development. Either the city build on it or sell it to be developed. make sure it doesn't go idle though
8	7	Using the park for parking would help to get the transients out of the area where people coming to the city could have a better first impression of the city.
9	8	Where will the homeless move if the park becomes unavailable to them? They are already at 9th and Ute and at Hawthorne Park. Probably at others too. If the homeless problem can be resolved I would have different priorities in this survey.
10	9	Results of this study should not be used because none of the options included estimated cost.
11	10	Until the problem of vagrants in the park is solved, nothing the city does will make the park a viable option for the community. If the city decided to build a community recreation center, this would be a poor choice of locations.
12	11	Traffic patterns are the worst problem for the park --------------- it's just in the wrong place now. Parking for G.J.P.D. and the Museum makes the most sense to me. But again, there would be a pedestrian problem crossing 5th or Ute. Good luck.
13	12	Why don't you run a survey of how well Charter customers feel about the service they are getting since you contracted them? Ask how many people would prefer a 1 year contract renewal. etc.
14	13	Perhaps, I am reading too much into this effort. Nevertheless, it seems as if this is the response to the inability/unwillingness to control the vagrant problem in the park. At sometime, the City will be forced to address this in court. It seems that every city council in the last few decades has tried to manage this issue with an avoidance approach based on, "Don't let it happen on my watch; let's leave it to our successors". We elect, and pay, individuals to handle the tough problems; the easy ones can be handled by the plebeians. Fixing the underlying problem is, of course, the real solution. Under no circumstances should this park become the venue of yet another ill-conceived business venture. The business interests of Grand Junction, have done quite enough already to erode the quality of life in the Grand Valley.
15	14	In order for the park to be a success, the first order of business is to move the existing people out of the area. You cannot expect anyone to want to use a park when it is filled with vagrants. I feel it would be a poor use of money to upgrade this area in anyway until the people are re-located.
16	15	Clean it up. Try to move the transients
17	16	The issue of transients / homeless people needs to seriously addressed. Otherwise, the city will just be investing time and money to make a nicer park for them. I do not feel comfortable or safe walking around Whitman Park and have no intentions of visiting it, improved or not, if the homeless issue is not resolved.
18	17	Would love to see this park reclaimed as a place to picnic, Holiday Gatherings, Strolling. A true urban park for everyone not for the homeless. We own property downtown and I would never walk in the park right now but do dream of gardens and tables and a peaceful place to take a break from the workday.
19	18	Bigger issue is public safety of current park that deters use by general public
20	19	Afraid to use Whitman Park......we do not go there ever. Turning it into a parking lot might be a good thing.
21	20	A safe place for food truck Fridays would be awesome and this would be a great park for it!
22	21	Parks are usually a benefit to the surrounding neigbhorhood but Whitman is a detriment. Whitman park neighbors do not benefit from the park setting as they are all commercial, civic, or condemnable properties. If the park could be used for high density urban housing it would benefit the downtown economically, aesthetically, and in terms of safety and percieved safety. The real amenity downtown is the urban environment. Redevelopment of Whitman park would be a great catalyst for a very rundown part of the downtown.
23	22	The situation with the traffic makes this a not very usable space . It's green and it's pretty.
24	23	The main objective should be to eliminate the loitering in this park. When I think of a park, I think of family friendly and a great place to take your kids to play. I would never dream of taking my kids to this park. Sell it, tear it down, turn it into a parking lot. I honestly don't claim to have the magic answer. Just get rid of the loitering. It's an embarrassment to our city.
25	24	Ms. Sam; You will notice, I did not answer a couple of the pages simply, because there wasn't a choice there, that I could make. First of all, IMO, nothing good will come of this until the problem of the 'homeless' is taken care of. I don't wish to sound harsh/cruel however, I'm so sick and tied of seeing panhandlers/bums all over the city. There has been to much $ spent as it pertains to this problem. Last summer we had a friend, who is from the ABQ area, come visit us and they had the same problem several years ago. And, I know this to be a fact, as I used to travel there, quite a bit, on business. Am not exactly sure how they took care of the problem. My bud said he wasn't 100% sure although, he thought they mounted a strict campaign and flat out ran them out of town. I don't want you to think I don't give a rats butt about those who really need assistance because, nothing could be further from the truth than that. It's just that I feel, we have to many 'bleeding heart's in our community who seem to be pretty damn quick to suggest something without any regard to solving the genuine real problem. I monitor P.D. (I'm retired L.E. Officer from the front range) but, mostly the Fire Dept. Channel (our son is a volunteer EMT/firefighter) and I it makes me boil at the amount of calls they have to answer for our 'poor' homeless. And, the MAJORITY of the calls involve either alcohol or drugs. "Yup, I might be homeless but, I sure as hell can get booze!" And nearly all of them smoke as well. When the time comes, I'd like to see an office and/or business in a large building with underground parking. Say, something like the Fish and Game Depts. that are going to be moving out of their HQ's in Denver. However, unless it is something like the aforementioned, it's going to be a bit tough to get some large business to come here (IMO) right now, as our economy is pretty much in the toilet. I truly feel much of this has to do with the tree hugging, green weenies that have been a huge factor in running off many of the business's in the energy fields. One can always hope, eh? I've bitched enough; G'Day
26	25	This park is developed but nobody wants to use it because it is always full of vagrants. Not the place you want to take the family to for an outing. On the sale of the property I put no. That is not an absolute no! If the right project came along like museum expansion or transportation hub for Grey Hound and GVT or something else that truly benefits the community, then it would be considered. More parking spaces or a parking garage not much of a benefit. If you close it where will the vagrants go? Emerson? The new Los Colonias Park? Whitman? Sherwood? Probably all of the above!
27	26	Put the kid-friendly, interactive fountain (like the one you shut down on Main Street) in Whitman park! Purchase a big sculpture from local "found art" artist Lyle Nichols in Palisade for display in the middle of the park. His stuff is fabulous. Have him make a big sculpture of a dinosaur from old car parts or something. Let people sell popsicles and ice cream in the park in summer. Encourage local musicians to play in the park on summer evenings.
28	27	Can't have too much park space.
29	28	The biggest improvement that was made to the park was when the bushes and trees were trimmed back so that the park could be visually monitored. It's unfortunate that there are homeless people, but that's just a fact of life. Even they have the right to use public parks. At least they are mostly at one place (Whitman Park) and can be monitored more easily, which has to be a positive. I drive by this park several times each day, and it seems to me that it is not a problem area, unless you are offended by poor people. Dispersing that population will probably also make it harder for the kind folks who offer meals to them periodically. People don't like that park because it is in a high traffic area and because it isn't quite close enough to main street to be an attraction. If the city wants to get the homeless population off the streets and out of the parks, I think a much better approach would be for it to provide a shelter of some sort (with the money it's proposing on wasting on the park) and some sort of feeding program. Such a shelter and feeding program doesn't have to fancy, just something that provides very basic help for the people who need it. Many of these people are mentally ill, drug users and alcoholics, veterans, people at a hard point of their life, etc.
30	29	Due to location and size, I think this park is low priority.
31	30	open more atv trails
32	31	Matchette park is just fine the way it is. I use it on a regular basis, and I use it because I like it the way it is. If Matchette park gets developed I will use it less.
33	32	If parking isn't provided, it's hard to see how anything else works.
34	33	The historical significance of the park should be considered in making decisions.
35	34	Traffic circles should be eliminated. They are dangerous!
36	35	We need our open spaces and parks BUT that park has limited use by tax-paying individuals. It is historical and adjacent to our Museum of Western Colorado. It is a shame that tourists and tax-paying citizens to our area aren't able to enjoy a picnic lunch at the park that is adjacent to a tourist museum. Something needs to be done! I don't believe the Museum has current financial stability to take on the park.
37	36	This city park has been neglected for years.
38	37	If you could sell the property to a private business then there would be more tax revenue for the downtown.
39	38	Whitman Park has become a home for vagrants and its an eye sore. The City should not allow it to be.
40	39	I believe a healthy downtown atmosphere that is family friendly as currently exists on main street is key to keeping this area attractive and safe for residents. South of main it feels less safe at this time. If the park is only drawing unwanted negatives, I support it's function being evaluated critically. I'd really like to see several small community rec centers open to the general public throughout the city to increase opportunities for safe healthy physical fitness at affordable prices. Several smaller facilities on par with Fruita would be better than arguing over where to put one very expensive one. I was also intrigued by the idea of miniature golf or some recreation that keeps the green space and trees, but allows it to have more function.
41	40	With the high volume of traffic on all four sides of the park and lack of parking, it is foolish to think of any improvement that would significantly increase the number of users. All this is an effort to rid the city of the homeless population. Until the city steps up to the plate and provides additional low cost housing and support services to those who are struggling with underemployment, mental health issues and substance abuse, it is sinful to think of ANY money being spent on amenities that very few would use.
42	41	Whitman park is worthless in its present state, going so far as to add to the crime and drug problems.The park should be razed along with the entire block west of Whitman to Pitkin Ave in front of the old train station (which could be grand junctions trolly square). As everyone knows its nothing but a transient hang out and has been for years. Salt Lake City did this many years ago with the downtown 2nd south area because of the same problems. They offered owners market value for the properties with the choice to improve with low interest rates or the condemnation to sell to interested investors at low interest rates. It worked and was developed into a business district which has thrived. Trolley Square was another brilliant move by the City. This entire area could and should be made into a thriving business area with the removal of the entities that attract the transients. It should be integrated into the Ambience of the Main Street area with the flow of quaint history. Until that problem is solved I can't imagine it being anything else and don't think the city should invest. The Police station should have been built on this property.
43	42	Where will the "loiterers" go? It seems to me that's the part of the issue not addressed.
44	43	Some of the listed ideas for the park are great, but I can't envision them working until the homeless people loitering situation is resolved. The loitering and panhandling in Grand Junction gives a horrible impression of the city. I'm glad the city is giving this attention. What have other municipalities done with their homeless? New York City had an amazing turn around with their loitering and homeless, I think they gave them jobs cleaning streets. Might be worth looking into. Thanks for working on this.
45	44	The location of Whitman, being flanked on all sides by busy streets makes it impractical for any actual park activity ...too dangerous for children or dog play, or adults running after balls, etc. It appears to be too small to add enough parking for recreation centers. As a senior, I would not feel safe in that part of downtown.
46	45	The city should use the park space instead of allowing the homeless to use it as the center for their begging business. Make sure that whatever is done doesn't result in the homeless moving to Emerson Park.
47	46	Which park will they relocate to? In my opinion, by redesignating Whitman to other uses, you are just setting up another park to become the future favorite loitering location. Do you have a location choosen as the next loitering location???
48	47	Put your resources on Machett Park and make it mostly trails and trees for walking.
49	48	Up grading Whitman park will not address the homeless problem. I feel resources should be used elsewhere, as Whitman park is not in a very desirable or easily accessed area of town.
50	49	I would go for a trade of property if a better location or better possibilities would be in the trade.

51	50	anxious to see Matchett park started.
52	51	Is it possible to make this survey more confusing and complicated? Probably the worst format I have ever seen.
53	52	First let me clarify that I have a problem with the premise of this questionnaire. I see loitering as a main purpose of a park. If you want to complain that bums hang out there then you need to approach the issue differently. Besides that...the city parks dept has too many irons in the fire as it is. Finish a project before starting another one! And lets remember that the city is a DRIP member and we live in a desert so whatever you do decide to do, lets make it water and hipocracy free please and thank you.
54	53	We need to have some sort of a resolution to the homeless problem. My family is not comfortable using the park as it is now occupied by large numbers of homeless.
55	54	I think it would be a good idea to partner as much as possible with the existing museum. It seems that there are some common interests, and with the close proximity of the two entities it would make sense that the two are not working at cross purposes.
56	55	This park is located between really busy streets. Some of the proposed uses may pose safety concerns. This is somewhat of a gateway spot for downtown. Changing the use to some of the proposed industrial facilities/uses may detract from the setting.
57	56	As an amateur local historian I would be unforgiving if the city chose to sale, reduce or lease this historic property. The fact that none of the four corner parks (Emerson, Washington, Hawthorne and Whitman) have any plaque within the park boundaries to educate the public of their historical status is a sad statement regarding the past and current city fathers. I truly doubt more than 5% of the local population are aware of the park's value in the original plat of the city. Sad. But onto the subject of the future of Whitman...a sadly neglected property within the city. The museum and park should complement each other. If activities within the park were a draw for families I do believe a "day at the museum and park" would be successful. Miniature golf, a playground and other low physical activities would be a definite draw. Economical concessionaires or truck vendors would encourage longer stays in the park plus attendance to the museum. I would even encourage a pedestrian sky-walk over Ute Avenue to encourage participation in both the park and museum offerings. With children or large groups this would be the safest crossing method of a busy traffic artery. The possibility of a walking path around the outside perimeter of the park would be a plus for downtown workers. Before my retirement, my lunch time was spent walking Main Street for exercise. This option would have been wonderful and could still co-exist with other interior activity options developed in the park. As for parking, I believe creating parking along Ute Avenue would be a traffic disaster. The flow of traffic would make it difficult to back out of any parking space and dangerous for traffic flow. I would suggest a possible business cooperation with the Elks Lodge and the use of the parking lot behind their Lodge. If the city was to lease the use of the lot during a suggested 10 AM to 6 PM time frame the parking problem would be solved. The Elks could receive honors for supporting the community and income to their organization. The lot is empty almost every day currently It would be cheaper than a new parking garage, safer than Ute street parking, and it would not be destructive by taking land from the park. As a final note, I placed this project on equal priority as the other two new parks because I DO NOT believe in abandoning our inner city for suburb development. You will only promote decline such as what has already occurred in Whitman. I am excited about the renovation prospects to Whitman. Honors to all who moved this project forward to this point. I hope to hear good news and decisions.
58	57	The two references to privatizing/long-term leases are a little confusing. I would support long-term leasing to a private recreation operator for PART of the park, because it could privatize enforcement. The owner/manager would have the right to kick out immediately any loiterers who bother the paying customers. Therefore long-term “aggressive loiterers” would be watched for misbehavior by private security guards even outside the pay gate, and much of the park’s attraction to some people who threaten others would be eliminated. However, I would not support a long-term lease that turns over the ENTIRE park to private operators. With its essential location, at least part of it must remain green space open to all members of the public who do not threaten others.
59	58	I think the one way system on Ute and Pitkin should move one street south and connect Whitman Park with Museum Property, close Ute between 5th and 4th streets and adding parking there and add Higher density Housing around whole project.
60	59	While I would love to see the backside of the bums, I think that, in this day and age of correctness, we are stuck with them. I do wish that you would repaint the little blue room a different color. Can we not hide it a bit more?? The stupid thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Throw some netting over it. Do something to get rid of that stupid blue color.
61	60	Something needs to be done to re-invigorate that area and making the park an safer, healthier area would do just that. What ever is done, we need to recognize that there is a situation there that has been allowed to fester. Until that problem is handled anything done to the park will not be successful.
62	61	Most importantly is to get rid of the panhandlers and improve the overall looks of the park. For people passing through the city and seeing this is just downright wrong and sends the wrong message. I like the idea of fencing the entire area and giving our more senior people a nice place to enjoy the out of doors. How about a professional horse shoe throwing area?
63	62	The park is unusable by the rest of the population because of the vagrants. The vagrants have to go somewhere and tend to be in that area because of the services near by. We need to be conscious of whether they will be displaced by the development or simply co-opt it and if they are displaced where they will go. It would be such a bummer if they all simply moved to hawthorn. Of all the places they could hang out, this seems relatively harmless and easy to police?
64	63	GJ is currently struggling to maintain and upkeep their existing parks. Expansion of new facilities should happen ONLY when we are able to keep or improve existing amenities and facilities in good to excellent condition. I would invite you to tour the numerous substandard bathrooms, ramadas, and playground equipment around the city. Additionally, decisions to make more park space high-maintenance (such as the choice to bulldoze Wingate Park desert area for a grass field that is used almost NEVER) which lose the City money every quarter. If the City had listened to local residents and retained the desert nature of the existing environment, perhaps they could have afforded something other than the disappointing portable toilet and lack of drinking fountain at the park.
65	64	Just getting the vagrants out of this park will help it tremendously. No one will use this park while a bunch of bums and alcoholics are sitting around there. It is such a beautiful park with shade trees. It is a shame for it to go to waste.
66	65	every possible use/improvements has to consider, initially, if improvements will be used by residents other than homeless. If not, I opt for no changes to Whitman; spend time and resources on Las Colonias or Matchett, and Saccomanno.
67	66	This is a highly visible area in the city. I think it reflects badly for visitors to our city when they pass through and see the park as it is currently. I have heard numerous poor comments about Whitman park from people passing through and staying downtown. The city needs to utilize it and make a statement like it has done with the new police and fire facilities.