1999 Public Water Access-Preliminary Recreation Assessment Appendix-1999

II
II
r
11
11
11
II
11
U
11
11
11
Appendix
DCM COPY
v
I \ I Please do not remove.
PUBLIC ACCESS -PRELIMINARY
RECREATION
ASSESSMENT
M=
11

Appendix
To
The Town of Atlantic Beach
1999 PUBLIC WATER ACCESS — PRELIMINARY RECREATION
ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
Citizen Participation Plan — news items
Notice to Property Owners in random sample
Notice to Focus Group for interviews
State Standards for Recreation
National Recreational and Parks Association Standards
Guidelines for Evaluating Public Parks and Recreation
Questionnaire and Tabulations

1 RESOLUTION 98-07-02
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE
1 TOWN'S PUBLIC WATER ACCESS PLAN/PRELIMINARY RECREATION
ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, the Town of Atlantic Beach has been awarded a grant by NC DENR
for costs associated with undertaking a Public Water Access Plan/Preliminary Recreation
Assessment; and
WHEREAS, citizen participation is crucial to the success of this effort.
NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners, the
governing body of the Town of Atlantic Beach, duly assembled this 204 day of July,
1998 that in order to provide citizens, residents, property owners and other interested
parties the opportunity to participate in developing a Water Access Plan/Preliminary
Recreation Assessment for the Town, the following guidelines shall be utilized:
1. The Board is responsible for this Plan Assessment and for any action
corceming it.
2. The Board, during its regular monthly meetings will accept public comment
on these activities.
3. Affected local governments in Carteret County will be notified of this project
and their attendance and comments solicited.
4. News items concerning this project will be submitted to the local newspaper
to advise interested parties as to the status of the project.
5. A questionnaire will be sent to property owners to solicit their views on water
access mid other recreation issues. The results will be included in the project
report.
6. Upon completion of this project, the Board of Commissioners will see that
copies of the Plan and Assessment are available for public review and use.
This resolution is adopted on the 2V' day of July, 1998.
TOWN 1117/
BEACH
By:
Lemuet oe S' ud, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
Parse Smith, Town Clerk
SEAL
1
1
1

Dear Carteret County Local Government:
The Town of Atlantic Beach will be preparing a Public Water Access Plan
and a preliminary recreation assessment during FY 1998-99 funded in part through
a grant from the Division of Coastal Management.
The Town Board of Commissioners will be responsible for this project.
They will meet on the Yd Monday of each month in the Town Hall at 7:00 pm. As
this project may have some affect on your local government, your attendance at
these meetings is welcomed.
We will be conducting a survey of Town property owners during this
project to solicit their input. The results of this survey will be available for public
review.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please don't hesitate to call
if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Town Manager

Continued from page 3 column 2
household garbage.
November 1 until April 30 - once a week pick up for
household garbage
Monday - recyclable pick up (Correction - both #1 &
#2 plastic containers can be recycled.)
Friday - white goods pick up (Winter & Summer).
Yard Waste - as time permits (Winter & Summer).
Remember all household trash must be put in the
green garbage cart in order to be picked up.
Waste Industries also picks up the following:
• Furniture, old beach chairs
• Carpeting— must be bundled & tied, no longer
than 4 feet in length and no heavier than 50 lbs.
• Old ceramic bathroom fixtures
• Mattresses and box springs
All of these items must be placed next to your green
cartfor pickup. Please try and put these items out
no sooner than the night before their scheduled pick-
up. Otherwise, weather and animals can have them
'all over town." Help us keep Atlantic Beach dean
and beautiful!
NEW FACES IN TOWN HALL
Last November's election ushered in a new Mayor,
Joe Stroud and four new Board members: Ms. Rilla
Woods, (District2); Joe Osbome (District 4); Carl
Williams (District 5) and Mack Churchill (District 8).
Commissioner Williams is making a return
appearance after a 2 year absence.
Staff changes have also taken place. In March, Ed
Sealover, the former Marlboro County, SC
Administrator took over as Town Manager, replacing
Kim Cox who left in August, 1997. Two employees
"shed" their interimlading titles. In June, Susan
Nixon and Pamela Smith were named Finance
Director and Town Clerk. Lastly, in late July, Scott
Kilpatrick was appointed Chief of Police succeeding
Russ Duke, who retired in March. Scott was
previously a Lieutenant in the Iredell County Sheriffs
Department. In that capacity, he served as Patrol
Supervisor and Director of Crime Prevention.•
WATER ACCESS AND
RECREATION
The Town has received a State grant to develop a
public water access plan and to conduct
preliminary work on identifying recreation needs.
The study will be completed in this fiscal year.
A significant part of the project is a mail -out
questionnaire to solicit views on water access to
both the ocean and sound, and recreation needs.
Residents and non-residents will be contacted.
A select group of community leaders, business
people, and other interested parties will also be
Interviewed. The results of this random sample
survey should help Town officials to better plan
for improvements to existing sites as well as
future access and recreation needs. The Town
hired John Crew, of Coastal Consortium,
Consulting Planners, Inc. from Washington, N.C.
to assist in the study. Staff from the Survey
Research Laboratory at the Regional
Development Services East Carolina University
will be involved in survey development and
analysis.
In addition to the questionnaire, citizen
comments concerning this matter are
encouraged. Contact the Mayor, one of the
Commissioners or the Town Manager. Feel free
to share your opinion at Board meeting.
Lastly, the Town anticipates a grant award to
construct wooden pedestrian boardwalks at two
local access sites: adjacent to 400 Club Colony
Drive and at the intersection of Wilson and East
Boardwalk. The work will take place in the off
season.*
' SEPTEMBER 1993 THE OCEAN BREEZE 4

PRESS RELEASE
Atlantic Beach Undertaking Public Rater Access, preliminary Recreation
Assessment Study
The Town of Atlantic Beach has received a grant award from the Division of
Coastal Management to develop a public water access plan and to conduct
preliminary work on assessing recreation needs is the community. The grant
became available this past July 1. The States' share of the approximately 520,000
project is 66%. The Town will make up the balance with cash and in -kind services.
The study will be completed in this fiscal year.
One significant part of the project is a mail -out questionnaire to solicit views on
water access to both the ocean and sound, and recreation needs. Residents and non-
residents will be contacted. The results of this random sample survey should help
Town officials better plan for improvements to existing sites as well as future access
and recreation needs. A select group of community leaders, business people, and
other interested parties will also be Interviewed during plan development.
' The Town has hired John Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
from 'Washington, N.C. to assist in the study. Staff from the Survey Research
Laboratory at the Regional Development Services East Carolina University will be
involved in survey development and analysis.
The Town Board recently adopted a citizen participation plan to guide this effort.
In addition to the questionnaire, citizen comments concerning this matter are
welcomed at the regular monthly meeting. The Town is also contacting the county
and area municipal governments for their input.
For further information or questions on this matter should be directed to Town
Manager Ed Sealover. (726-2121)
to%V)-0-

I
I
If
11
PRESS RELEASE
Mayor Joe Stroud today announced that Atlantic Beach has been awarded a
$16,080 grant from the NC Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access
Program to construct two dune crossovers at local access sites: adjacent to 400
Club Colony Drive and the ocean end of Wilson Avenue. "'These two sites are
fairly difficult to traverse" the Mayor said. "Wooden boardwalks will make it a
lot easier to get to the beach particularly for senior citizens and those with
mobility impairments," Stroud noted.
The projeces total cost is estimated at $21,400. The Towes share, cash and in -
kind is approximately $5,300.
Commissioner Mack Churchill echoed the Mayor's sentiments and commented
on the Board's position on expanding and improving access to the sound and
ocean. "Ies our most valuable asset; it's what brings people to Atlantic Beach.
We need to do everything we can to both protect and upgrade our access to the
water," Churchill concluded. The Town had also recently been awarded a grant
to develop a Water Access Plan and conduct a preliminary recreation needs
assessment.
Commissioner Carl Williams spoke about the positive impact the pedestrian
boardwalks would mean for the handicapped "We feel very strongly that
persons with disabilities should be able to enjoy the same coastal recreation
opportunities that those without them have been able to for so long," he said
Williams noted that the Town was working with the Easter Seal Society of
North Carolina to develop a Beach Ability program that would feature making
available such items as beach wheelchairs and portable boardwalks.
For further information, conma Edward L Sealover, Town Manager at (252)
726-2121.

IAtlantic Beach Undertaking Public Water Access, Preliminary Recreation Assessment Study
I
I
I
f
11
1'
The town of Atlantic Beach has received a grant award from the Division of Coastal
Management during fiscal year 1998-99 to develop a public water access plan and to conduct
preliminary work on assessing recreation needs in the community. The grant became available
July I and will terminate no later than June 30,1999. The Town will also contribute cash and in -
kind services toward this project.
One significant part of the study involves a mail -out questionnaire to property owners to
solicit their views on water access and recreation needs. Both residents and non-residents will be
contacted. The results of this random sample survey should help town officials better plan for
future access and recreation needs. A select group of community leaders, businesses, and other
interested parties will also be interviewed during plan development.
The town has hired John Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc. from Washington,
NC to assist in the study. Researchers from the Survey Research Laboratory at the Regional
Development Services East Carolina University will be involved in survey development and
analysis.
The town has adopted a citizen participation plan to guide this effort and in addition to the
questionnaire, citizen comments concerning this matey are welcomed at the town's regular
monthly meetings. The town will also contact the county and other municipal governments for
possible input.
Further information or questions on this matter should be directed to town hall at 726-2121
during normal working hours.

Atlantic Beach Citizens and Town Commissioners discuss Public Water Access and
Recreation
On Thursday, November 19 at 6:30 pm in the Town Hail, several area residents
and several Town Commissioners met with representatives of Coastal Consortium,
Consulting Planners from Washington, NC and researchers from the Survey Research
Laboratory in the Regional Development Services at East Carolina University to air
concerns on public access to the ocean, sound, and other recreation matters.
Earlier in the year the Town received a planning grant from the Division of
Coastal Management to conduct this work. in October 800 questionnaires were mailed
out to a random sample of Town property owners. Many specific questions on these
issues were asked. Well over half of the surveys have been returned and they will be
tabulated in the next few weeks. The results will be made available as soon as counted.
The questionnaire results should help Town leaders decide or, various options available to
them on these issues.
The meeting Thursday night gave local businessmen, other Town leaders and
board members an opportunity to participate in a round table discussion. This Focus
Group offered many views on access and recreation problems and needs. The meeting
lasted until 8:45 and a video was made for future reference. Information from the group
will also be used as another reference Town off icials can use. The final access plan and
recreation assessment, due in the spring, many help the Town be more proactive on these
matters and help the Town compete for grant funds in the future.
Those attending were:

(Continued from Page IA)
inat enuW unprervc uw+n mI..
sound access, Dr. Wilson noted, but
Councilmen took no action on
those largely involved improved
the study, which had been re-
marking of existing access sites.
quoted by Atlantic Beach Town
Dr. Wilson added, however, that
Manager Ed Sealover.
he was surprised by some of the
The council several years ago
survey results. For example. 43.9
funded a recreation department,
percent of property owners said that
headed at the time by chic[ life-
if the town did develop an indoor
guard Frankie Garner. After one
recreation facility, it should be a
year, however, a new council
multipurpose community center.
pulled the plug on the department
That, be said, was a high degree
• before any programs had been start-
of consensus, especially compared
ed.
to the. relatively paltry support for
Another new council was elect-
such things as it swimming pool
ed, and several members began
(16.7 percent), tennis courts (I5.1
clamoring to start a recreation pro-
pereent) and basketball courts (131
Pam again, leading Mr. Sealover to ;
person).
request the study,.
....,Similarly. Dr.. Wilson said. a
Aecording'tc�Dr- Wilson,;'ECU,i
"large number of.the tespontlenu—
woykbd-'on •lhe'"rvegrwirft:,J6hn
''3Y.6'percent"—= listed hiking and
Crew of Coastal Consortium Con.
jogging trails as the primary out-
sulting Planners Inc. of Washing-
door recreational need in town.
ton.
Those numbers are especially
kescarchets randomty'selcuul
high. Ire said, in light of the fact
800 property owners to receive the
that -the survey questions were
survey by mail. After two mailings,
open-ended, not multiple-choice.
494 leopcity owners — more than
The key, he said, is that in both
00 percent of those to whorl% the
case,. -- indoor and outdoor facili-
Surveys were mailed — had re-
ties — 60 percent to 70 percent of
sponded.
the respohdcnts said the facilities
Dr. Wilson called that an excel-
should be pail for by user fees, not
lent response, rioting that similar
tax money.
surveys in other towns often netted
And, Dr. Wilsun added, more
a return of 20 percent to"30 percent
than 70 percent of the respondents
after the standard four mailings.
said Carteret County should share
As a result, Dr. Wilson said,
some of the cost of any recreation
beach officials can be very confi-
improvements in the town.
dent that the results of the survey
Dr. Wilson noted that the focus
are accurate within a range of plus
group supported hiring a recreation
or minus 5 percent, which is the
director who could seek not only
standard deviation for a study of
county participation, but also any
this type.
state or federal grants that might be
In his executive summary, Dr.Wilson wrote: "While a few people
dreamed of large projects for Allan -
tic Beach, most people seemed sat-
isficd with the town.
"Any hirge project requiring a
tax increase would tun into signifi-
cant opposition from both the gen-
eral population of property owners
and front the cwmnunity leaders."
•ram,. ..,...v,.,,n:ry 4a,blc who
i1YY11J\IIG 1V. •K........
Dtstr'wt 6 Councilman Wally
r....r....r .......... .. .. ..... .... ...
town, he said, sic many parcels are
Currie asked Dr. Wilson how he
either vacant, rented by the month
thought the property owners would
or rented by the year.
feel about using an existing mwn-
- owned facility — the old Under-
ground nightclub on the amusement
circle — for a cumllnllity of recre-
ation center.
The survey leader reiterated that
white there was strong support for
such a facility, there was little sup-
port (or public expenditures.
District I Councilman Phil
Johnson said he thought the survey
iesults•might have been different if
surveys had been sent to a large
group of people, including not just
pfoperty. owners but renters.
149re- th Rv180' percent of the
r ,•, _
Survey:
No public
funds for
1 4
recreation
By Brad Rich
ar.a wan,
;ATLANTIC BEACH — A
large majority of property owners
think this Bogue Banks resort
town's ocean and beach accesses
and boat ramps are adequate and
don't wart significant public funds
spent to build indoor or outdoor re-
creation facilida.
That"was one of the key findings
of a survey presented to town coun-
cilmen during a meeting Tuesday
night by Dr. Kenneth Wilson, head
of the survey research laboratory at
&t Carolina University in Green-
ville.
M M M == W = � m m

TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH
125 WEST FORT MACON ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
October 15, 1998
Dear Property Owner/Resident:
The Town has received a grant from the state to prepare a Public Water Access Plan and
preliminary assessment of our recreation needs. This undertakingwill include a scientific
surrey of property owners and residents.
Your answers to this survey will be used to formulate action in these matters. It is y=
iportant that you fill out and return the questionnaire.
Please do not interpret any of these questions as an effort by the current administration to
change the character of the Town. Our sole purpose is to ensure that our planning takes
into account the desires ofour property owners and residents.
We appreciate your willir:gness to share you opinion about the future of public water access
and recreation in Atlantic Beach, and we look forward to receiving your completed survey.
Please return the questionnaire by ng later than October 30, 1998.
Sincerely, }
L.
emuel oe Stroud, Jr.
Mayor
LJS/ps
POST OFFICE BOX 10 • ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 28512 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

N
ry;
r
O
TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH
125 WEST FORT MACON ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
November 3, 1998 ••
Dear Rtsidertt/Prope ty Owner.
Recently you were mailed a questionnaire from the Toun of Atlantic Beach concetnistg your
opinion or. pubic access and recreation needs. It went to only a limited number of people at
r2adv'n Thus, lour response is very import--nt
To date, were not received your completed summary. Please sake a few minutes to
complete that survey and return it If you need another survey, please caL Town Hall a:
[phone].
Thanks for you: assistance.
CO P
Edward L 5ealover
Town :Manager
cEM/ps
POST OFFICE BOX 10 • ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 28512 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

November 04, 1998
Dear
As you probably know, the Town received a state grant to develop a public water access plan
and to conduct preliminary work on identifying recreation needs. We're utilizing the services
of Totem Crew of Coastal Consortium Consulting Planners, Inc. from Washington, North
Carolina to assist in this.
A significant partof this undertaicng eras a mail -out questionnaire. About 800 were sent to
residents and non-residents on a random basis. We're currently in the process of follow-up.
Staff from the Survey Research Laboratory, Regional Development Services at ECU were
involved in the surveys development and will be doing its analysis.
A select group of business and community leaders and people interested in access and
recreation needs, along with the Mayor and Commissioners, will also take part in a group
interview conducted by Mr. Crew and the folks from ECU.
I am asking you ttQ participate in that interview
It will be held in the Town Board Meeting Room 6:30 p.m. Thursday evening the 19th. It
will probably last two to three hours.
W&U pro%ride sandwiches and drinks.
Please give the Town Clerk, Pamela Smith a call at (252; -126-2121 and let her know if you
can attend. Please let her know by Friday, November 13th.

I hope you uill take part in this effort. The results of the survey and ir:terview should help
the Town to better plan for improvements to existing sites as well as future access and
recreation needs.
I look forward to seeing you Thursday evening the 19th.
Cordially,
Edward I_ Sealover
Town Manager

Ms Mary Wolthusen Ms. Linda Rike
208 Forest Knoll Post Office Box 1721
AS, NC 28512 Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Alan Shetor Ms. Cathy Gibbons
Post Office Box 3001 Post Office Box 986
AS, NC 28512 AS, NC 28512
Mr. Tom Outlaw Mc Bob Miranda
Post Office Box 1700 309 East Fort Macon Road
AB. NC 28512 AB, NC 28512
Mr. David Bradley Mr. Harry Rippy
Post Office Drawer 820 Post Office Box 306
AB, INC 28512 AB, NC 28512
Ms. Linda Brickbouse Mr. & Mrs William Fuicher
Post Office Box 1035 410 Lee Drive
AB, NC 26512 AB, NC 28512

MINIMUM LOCAL STANDARDS
ii,
ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING
PARK AND RECREATION AREAS
IN
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
CONSULTING SERVICES SECTION
DIV. OF PARKS AND RECREATION
N.C. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Over the years, municipal, county, state, federal, private and commercial
agencies have been using park and recreation standards as guides to assist in
the planning, acquisition, and development of facilities. Most all of the
accepted standards used today are outdated or unrelated to acquisition and/or
development of park and recreation facilities in North Carolina. Also, the
diversity between standards from state to state, county to county, and agency
to agency increases the difficulty of devising acceptable standards for North
Carolina.
Therefore, the Consulting Services Section of the N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development has used a different approach in
determining new standards which are more applicable to North Carolina.
The one unique feature about these standards is that they are based upon
the total population of the county. (The population of the towns and cities
is included in total county population.) Also, these standards are the
recommended minimum amounts necessary to provide adequate park and recreation
acreage and facilities throughout the county.
The reasons for basing standards on total county population are as follows:
(1) Joint planning and development of park and recreation
facilities can prevent competition between municipal
and county efforts and provide more equitable leisure
opportunities for all county residents.
(2) Joint planning can prevent competition between govern-
mental agencies and private and commercial enterprise.
(3) Duplication would be reduced or avoided. 'Monies would
be saved and coordination enhanced.
I ' (4) Problems relating to non-resident use of facilities
will be reduced and will have a tendency to more
equitably distribute the tax base to all county citizens.
11

If any or all of these justifications can assist in providing for
logically planned and located park and recreation areas and facilities, then
we should give some consideration to adopting these standards for North Carolina.
Although these minimum standards are based on county population, they can
also be used by municipalities to determine what portion of the total county
recommended minimum is assigned to the municipality. (See examples on pages 3
and 4.)
Lighted facilities should be included when determining the minimum number
of facilities needed to serve the population of the county or municipality.
The basic concept recommends minimum standards for park acreage and
facility development based upon the total county population. To achieve the
minimum standard, the acreage provided by the counties, the municipalities, the
public schools, and the private and commercial sector can be added together to
achieve the minimum standard for each county. However, the acreage on school
lands used for public recreation and the acreage provided by the private and
commercial sector, when added together, cannot exceed approximately 30 percent
of the total minimum standard required for the county. If the minimum standards
cannot be met, then one or more recreation agencies, public or private, should
plan together to acquire more land or develop more facilities so that each county
can at least meet the minimum standards for parks and recreation.
Lastly, it is well understood that standards are intended as guides and
subject to change and some debate. However, an effort is needed to devise
standards that are more realistic and meaningful to the park and recreation
interests in North Carolina. These suggested standards aie an effort to meet
this need.
Jack Frauson, Park/Recreation Consultant
Steve Moler, Park/Recreation Consultant
K

' MINIMUM FACILITY GUIDELINESI
(BASED ON TOTAL COUNTY POPULATION)
Population of Counties
M
350,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
10,00(
Guide-
to
to
to
to
to
to
and
FACILITY
lines
200 000
100,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
under
Football/Soccer
1/10 000
20-35
10-20
5-10
3-5
2-3
1-2
1-2
Softball
1/ 3,000
67-117
34-67
17-34
10-17
7-10
4-7
2-4
'
Baseball
l/ 6,000
34-58
17-34
9-17
5-9
4-5
2-4
1-2
Swimming Pool
- 25 yd.
1/10,000
20-38
10-20
5-10
3-5
2-3
1-2
1
or
- 50 meter
1/20,000
10-19
5-10
3-5
2-3
1-2
1
1
'Tennis Courts
2/ 4,000
50-87
25-50
12-25
7-12
5-7
2-5
1-2
Multipurpose Courts
1/ 1,000
200-380
100-200
50-100
30-50
20-30
10-20
10
'Public Golf (9-hole)
1112,500
16-30
8-16
4-8
2-4
2
1
1
(18-hole)
1/25 000
8-15
4-8
2-4
1-2
1
1
1
Trails
1 mile/
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
Fitness/Jogging
25,000
8-14
4-8
2-4
1-2
1
1
1
Outdoor Amphitheater
1/20,000
10-18
5-10
3-5
2-3
1
1
1
Handball/
Racquet Ball
1/10 000
20-35
10-20
5-10
3-5
2-3
1-2
1-2
Apparatus
,E Area
l/ 1 000
200-380
100-200
50-70
30-50
20-30
10-20
10
Use of
Community Center
g
(with m)
1/25 000
8-15
4-8
2-4
1-2
1
1
rec:
Neighborhood -type
Center (no m)
1/10,000
20-38
10-20
5-10
3-5
2-3
1-2
1
'Picnic Area with
1 acre/
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
2-3
acre.
1-2
Support Facilities
6,000
33-63
17-33
8-17
5-8
3-5
(10-12 sites/acre)
Picnic Shelters
1 3,000
67-117
34-67
17-34
1U-17
7-10
4-7
2-4
■
These guidelines indicate minimum standards. The standards are based upon the amount of
' population needed to support each type of facility.
Example: Standard for softball fields - 1 per 3,000 population
' Population Needed softball fields
Wayne Co. 90,100 30
Goldsboro 36,740 12 - city's share of the
county total
It is not required that all facilities listed in the chart above be constructed to meet the
' minimum county standards.
11
3

HOW MUCH PARK LAND SHOULD EACH COUNTY HAVE?
Population of County or Municipality
350,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Minimum
to
to
to
to
to
to
and
Park Acreage
200.000
100,000
50,000
30 000
20,000
10,000
under
Small Park*
(31 acre/1000)
100-175
50-100
25-50
15-25
10-15
5-10
5
Medium Park
Complex*
(3 acres/1000)
600-1050
300-600
150-300
90-150
60-90
30-60
30
Large Park
Complex*
(411 acres/1000)
900-1575
450-900
225-450
135-225
90-135
45-90
45
*Definitions of terms included on next page.
HOW TO USE THIS CHART FOR COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
County
Wayne Recommended Minimum Park Acreage
Population: 90,100 throughout the county
Small park acreage 45.05
Medium park complex acreage 270.30
Large park complex acreage 405.45
Total recommended minimum acreage throughout Wayne Co. 720.80
Goldsboro Mt. Olive Park and recreation acreage provided by Wayne County,
Dudley Pikeville the municipalities, the public schools, and the pri-
Eureka Seven Springs vate and commercial sector can be added together to
Fremont Walnut Creek achieve the minimum standard for Wayne County. How-
ever, the acreage on school lands used for public
recreation and the recreation acreage provided by the
private and commercial sector, when added together,
cannot exceed approximately 30 percent of the total
minimum standard for the county.
Municivalit
Goldsboro Recommended Minimum Park Acreage
Population: 36,740 needed in municipality
Small park acreage 18.37
Medium park complex acreage 110.22
Large park complex acreage 165.33
Total recommended minimum acreage throughout City of Goldsboro 293.92
Park and recreation acreage provided by the City of Goldsboro, the public schools, and
the private and commercial sector can be added together to achieve the minimum standard
for Goldsboro. However, the acreage on school lands used for public recreation and the
recreation acreage provided by private and commercial sector, when added together, cannot
exceed approximately 30 percent of the total minimum standard required for the City of
Goldsboro.
4

TYPES OF PARK ACREAGE
(Based Upon Total County Population)
SMALL PARK--1/2 acre per 1,000 population
Size: Up to 5 acres
Service Area: 1/4 to 1/2 mile area
Suggested Location: High density neighborhoods, subdivisions, and adjacent to schoo.
Sample Facilities: Paved area, playground apparatus, fitness trails, benches
MEDIUM PARK COMPLEX--3 acres per 1,000 population
Size: Up to 50 acres
Service Area: 1/2 mile to 211 miles or logical geographic boundaries
Suggested Location: Near schools or near major population areas
Sample Facilities: Softball/baseball fields, multipurpose areas, picnic areas,
small swimming pool, playground apparatus, tennis courts,
parking, small recreation center
LARGE PARK COMPLEX-4'-i acres per 1,000 population
Size: Up to 500 acres
Service Area: 3 miles to 10 miles
Suggested Location: Near larger centers of population within county
Sample Facilities: Tennis courts, softball/baseball fields, football/soccer fields,
large swimming pool, large recreation center, parking, natural
areas, trails for hiking, jogging, and/or nature study,
picnicking, large rustic areas with open space, golf course,
lake, river, or water -related activities, family and group
camping
i These minimum e.tandande axe baeed upon .the botZow ng doeument:6 and booh.4:
A. Outdoox RecAeati,on
B. VuLdeUne4 oh va
C. Nati.ona.t
Stnndaxd6 U.S. Dept. ob .the InteAiox.
u c anha 9 Recxeati•on - Jameb A. Peteu on,
on and Open Space S.tandaxdb - edited by Robext D.
isuecnneA, Nazcona.0 KecReaLton t rax2 &64ocxa.L on.
D. Minimum Locat S#anda)Ld6 - State o6 South Caxoti.na.
E. Noxth C&koZin_a_r6_9Zae_wide CompKehen4.Lve Outdoor Reexeati.on Plan-
5

POPULATION OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES
(Through July 1, 1979)
Alamance
98,000
Johnston
66,700
Alexander
22,61D0
Jones
9,800
Alleghany
8,800
Lee
3S,100
Anson
23,500
Lenoir
58,700
Ashe
20,800
Lincoln
38,900
Avery
13,800
McDowell
34,100
Beaufort
40,000
Macon
19,200
Bertie
21,200
Madison
17,200
Bladen
29,200
Martin
25,400.
Brunswick
32,700
Mecklenburg
384,700
Buncombe
154,400
Mitchell
14,100
Burke
63,800
Montgomery
19,900
Cabarrus
79,700
Moore
44,700
Caldwell
60,900
Nash
67,400
Camden
5,700
New Hanover
97,700
Carteret
37,000
Northampton
23,400
Caswell
19,600
Onslow
117,600
Catawba
100,900
Orange
69,600
Chatham
31,000
Pamlico
10,000
Cherokee
17,700
Pasquotank
28,800
Chowan
12,300
Pender
22,200
Clay
6,000
Perquimans
8,800
Cleveland
78,300
Person
27,100
Columbus
51,600
Pitt
81,600
Craven
67,500
Polk
12,400
Cumberland
233,200
Randolph
84,700
Currituck
10,600
Richmond
429800
Dare
10,600
Robeson
93,900
Davidson
102,800
Rockingham
76,600
Davie
22,400
Rowan
93,500
Duplin
40,100
Rutherford
S1,600
Durham
145,600
Sampson
49,100
Edgecombe
55,500
Scotland
31,000
Forsythe
229,400
Stanly
45,200
'Franklin
28,100
Stokes
30,000
Gaston
156,000
Surry
56,000
Gates
8,300
Swain
10,200
Graham
7000
Transylvania
22,000
Granville
32,900
Tyrrell
4,000
Greene
14,900
Union
65,300
Guilford
305,400
Vance
34,300
Halifax
55,500
Wake
278,500
Harnett
55,700
Warren
17,100
Haywood
44,600
Washington
15,100
Henderson
51,600
Watauga
28,700
Hertford
25,000
Wayne
93,000
Hoke
18,800
Wilkes
55,700
Hyde
5,500
Wilson
60,800
Iredell
790300
Yadkin
27,100
Jackson
25,400
Yancey
14,600

nRP8 RECOMMEMBOnG
The following standards are recommended by the National
Recreation and Park Association. It should be emphasized
that these are for the ultimate, not present population of a
given service area, They should be applied in light of cautions
and variables presented in the following sections.
11

BY CLASSIFICATION AND POPULATION RATIO
Classification
Acre,/
2000 People
Size
Range
Population
Served
service
Area
Playlots
•
2,500 sq. ft.
500.2.500
Sub -neighborhood
to 1 acre
Vest pocket parks
•
2.500 sq. ft.
500.2.500
Sub -neighborhood
to 1 acre
Neighborhood parks
2.5
Min. 5 acres
2,000.10.000
r/e-1/2 mile
up to 20 acres
District parks
2.5
20.100 acres
20,000-50,000
1/2.3 miles
Large urban parks
5.0
100 -t- acres
One for ea. 50.000
Within 2/2 hr.
-
driving time
Regional parks
20.0
250 T acres
Serves entire popu-
Within 1 hr.
lation in smaller
driving time
communities; should
be distributed
throughout larger
metro areas
Special Areas &
Includes parkways,
beaches, plazas, historical
sites, flood plains,
Facilities
downtown malls,
and small parks, tree lawns,
etc. No standard is
applicoble.
-Not applicable
By Percentage of Area
The National Recreation and Park Association recommends that a minimum of
25% of new towns, planned unit developments, and large subdivisions be devoted
to park and recreation lands and open space.
12

STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES
The following standards are recommended for individual recreation facilities:
Facility (outdoor)
Slandard'1000 people
Comment
Baseball Diamonds
1 per 6.000
Regulation 90'
Softball Diamonds (and/or youth
1 per 3,000
diamonds)
Tennis Courts
1 per 2.000
(Best in battery of 4)
Basketball Courts
1 per 500
Swimming Pools-25 meter
1 per 10.000
Based on 15 sq. ft. of
Swimming Pools-50 meter
1 per 20,000
water for ea. 3% of pop.
Skating Rinks (artificial)
1 per 30.000
Neighborhood Centers
1 per 10.000
Community Centers
1 per 25.000
Outdoor Theaters (non-commercial)
1 per 20.000
Shooting Ranges
1 per 50,000
Complete complex Incl.
high power, small -bore,
trap and skeet, field
archery, etc.
Colf Courses (18 hole)
1 per 25.000
Note: All of the abnvu menimnM fanhuts ere ties -::Mr In smnll communities. even though than
population may actually be lass than the stno::ard. Every effort should be made to light all
facilities for tight use, thus extending than utility.
13

SPACE STANDARDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Suggested space standards for various units within the park. The minimum size Is
five acres.
Area In Acres
Facility or Unit Park Adjoining School Separate Park
Play apparatus area —preschool
.25
.25
Play apparatus area —older children
.25
.25
Paved multi -purpose courts
.50
.50
Recreation center building
.25
Sports fields
5.00
Senior citizens' area
.50
.50
Quiet areas & outdoor classroom
1.00
1.00
Open or "free play" area
.50
.50
Family picnic area
1.00
2.00
Off-street perking
2.30'•
Subtotal
4.00
21.55
Landscaping (buffer & special areas)
2.50
3.00
Undesignated space (109o)
.55
1.45
Total
7.15 acres
16.00 acres
• Provided by elementary, school
•' Based on SS cars 0 400 sq. it; per car.
14
0

SPACE STANDARDS FOR DISTRICT PARKS
Suggested space requirements for various units within the park. The minimum
size is 20 acres.
Facility or Unit
Area in Acres
Park Adjoining School
Separate Park
Play apparatus area -pre-school
.35
.35
Play apparatus -older children
.35
.35
Paved multi -purpose courts
1.25
1.75
Tennis complex
1.00
1.00
Recreation center building
_ 1.00
Sports fields
1.00
10.00
Senior citizens' complex
1.90
1.90
Open or "free play" area
2.00
2.00
Archery range
.75
.75
Swimming pool
2.00
1.00
Outdoor theater
.50
.50
Ice rink (artificial)
1.00
1.00
Family picnic area
2.00
2.00
Outdoor classroom area
1.00
1.00
Golf practice hole
.75
Off-street parking
1.50
3.00
Subtotal
25.60
28.35
Landscaping (buffer & special areas)
3.00
6.00
Undesignated space (10%)
1.86
3.43
Total
20.45 acres
37.78 acres
• Provided by it. or Sr. High School
" Based on 330 core ® etb sq. ft. per car
15

OTHER RECOMMENDED FACILITIES
In addition to the special facilities previously listed, the following facilities
are recommended and desirable in or near every community and should be
provided as the need and conditions dictate. For details on the planning,
development, and operation of many of these facilities, see the list of Man-
agment Aids published by NRPA in the appendix.
Aquariums
Arboretums
Arenas and coliseums
Beaches
Bike rights -of -way
Boccie courts
Botanical gardens
Bowling greens
Campgrounds
Casting pools
Coasting and tobogganing areas
Culture centers
Day camps
Drag strips
Fishing piers
Football fields
Handball courts
Hiking and riding trails
Horseshoe courts
Ice curling rinks
Ice rinks, natural
Jogging paths
Lakes and water sports
Libraries
16
Marinas and boating centers (for
powered and non -powered boats)
Miniature golf
Model airplane areas
Model boating ponds
Motorized vehicle areas
Museums
Natural areas
Nature centers
Nature trails
Picnic areas
Running tracks
Scenic overlooks
Shuffleboard courts
Ski centers
Soccer fields
Spray pools
Stables
Stadiums
Surfaced play areas
Teen centers
Volleyball courts
Wading pools
Wildlife preserves
Zoological parks

G
EC-458
uag
• Open Space • Facilities • Programs
by James A. Peterson
and Richard J.Schroth
Indiana and Purdue Universities
Cooperative Extension Service • Purdue University s West Lafayette, Indiana

Contents
How this publication will and will not help you .....................................
3
. ........
Local government's responsibility in providing leisure services, open space areas
and recreational facilities ...............................................................
3
What should your park system look like? ....................................................
4
How much park land should your community have? .........................................
5
Why should a community plan for leisure services? ..........................................
6
Savings resulting from planning...........................................................
6
Open space: Guidelines for evaluating lgnd acquisition ......................................
6
Facilities: Guidelines for evaluating community recreational facilities ........................
7
Facilitieschecklist
8
........................................................................
Have considered these facilities?
you .......................................................
Program section: Guidelines for evaluating community recreational programs ................
8
9
General program inventory................................................................
9
Program discussion questions..............................................................
10
Whatdoesit mean?
11
........................................................................
Technical assistance
......................................................................
Bibliography
11
........................................................................ ..
12
Checklist of Information Needed
in Order to Complete This Evaluation
Section I — Open Space Evaluation
❑ Knowledge of the total amount of park acreage existing in your community.
❑ Knowledge of the size of each park in your community.
❑ A current copy of your community and/or park and recreation master plan if one is available.
❑ A map of your community indicating where your parks are located.
Section II — Facility Evaluation
❑ A current copy of your community and/or park and recreation master plan if one is available.
❑ A list of all public facilities used for recreational purposes.
Section III — Program Evaluation
❑ Knowledge of any agreements which allow for the use of public facilities, such as schools, libraries,
etc., beyond their normal period of operation or in conjunction with their daily operation.
❑ Knowledge of all activities which public agencies in your community may sponsor. These agencies
would include the park and recreation department, library, school, etc. This does not include YM-
YWCA's, Boys' Clubs, etc.
❑ Knowledge of the methods used in your community to promote recreational activities.
"The obligation and opportunity to provide the kind of place we want to live in is ours. The quality of life
we create for ourselves tomorrow depends on how well we take advantage of our opportunities today."
James A. Peterson
FO

How This Publication
Will and Will Not
Help You
This publication will ...
a... indicate where your agency stands in relation
to state and national standards concerning open
space, facilities and programs.
®... pinpoint areas within your agency's operation
that may need to be analyzed more completely in
contrast to current agency management tech-
niques and departmental goals.
a... aid planners, architects and other park and
recreation specialists while assisting- your
community to better understand your current
departmental status in relation to state and
national open space, facility standards, and
program guidelines.
®... serve as a beginning standardized tool to give
researchers a base on which to build community
studies or in-depth evaluations of current open
space, facilities or program processes.
e,,, serve as a tool to help develop a unified plan-
ning effort in Indiana according to guidelines
established by the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources and the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation.
This publication will not ...
■... make a park and recreation planning expert
out of the person(s) using it; nor does it attempt to
do so.
®... equate one community with another, but tends
to generalize into broad categories possible
community strengths and weaknesses.
■... serve as the only evaluative tool used tojustify
departmental changes concerning open space,
facilities, and programs. These guidelines
should be supplemented with additional fact-
finding data that apply specifically to the area
of concern within a department's operation.
■... make recommendations on specific procedures
that need to be applied to alleviate a particular
problem. Please refer to the technical assistance
page for further information.
o... serve to fulfill all state regulations for partici-
pation in the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
REMEMBER: CAUTION SHOULD BE USED
WITH THE STANDARDS ON PAGES 5 AND 7.
THESE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS YOUR
ONLY CRITERIA FOR PLANNING OPEN
SPACE AND FACILITIES.
Local Government's
Responsibility in
Providing Leisure
Services, Open Space
Areas and Recreational
Facilities
The question is often asked, "Why should a com-
munity provide park and recreation services?
Where does a community's responsibility begin
and end?"
There are no pat answers, and generalizations
lose their meaning rather quickly. The following
statements apply to all communities in varying
degrees and should serve as the basis for under-
standing the importance that a public agency has
in providing park and recreation services for a
community.
■Leisure, used in a constructive manner, is basic
to the self-fulfillment and life enrichment of the
individual and therefore helps to strengthen the
stability of the family, the community and the
nation.
■How people use their leisure time is an important
social question. By providing recreation re-
sources, a community is contributing to the
physical, mental and social health of its resi-
dents.
■Leisure and,recreation are recognized as effec-
tive ways to enhance life in a community by
developing leadership potential and stimulating
popular participation for community better-
ment.
■It is only through public recreation services that
a large portion of the population will have access
to many recreational facilities, such as pools,
tennis courts, picnic areas, and golf courses.
■Recreation and leisure services consume space.
Local government is best suited to acquire,
develop and maintain that space in the best
interest of the entire community.
■Government sponsorship of recreation services
assumes equal participation by all ages, races
and creeds, all seasons of the year; it is demo-
cratic and inclusive.
■By providing a park and recreation agency, the
combined wisdom of citizens participating on
park and recreation boards can be assembled
and a community can focus attention on pro-
tecting public lands and developing facilities
and programs. Concentration on long-range
plans will help assure proper growth of the
system as the community expands.

■It is only through government that equitable
fair -share financing is available for the acquisi.
tion, development, and maintenance of park
facilities and programs.
0A park and recreation board can, through co-
operative agreements with school boards, li-
brary boards, and other governmental agencies,
energize and maximize the leisure and recre-
ation potential of a community.
What Should
Your Park System
Look Like?
Community Park'
Purpose: To provide an activity -dominated recre-
ation area with a moderate amount of man-
aged, undeveloped land that can sustain
continued heavy use.
Undeveloped land: 20 to 40 percent of total park
area, including support acreage.
Optimum size: Ranges from 10 to 400 acres.
Special considerations: Should be accessible by
public transportation (if available) and have
ample space for off-street parking.
Neighborhood Park*
Purpose: To provide active and passive recreation
facilities for all age groups within normal
walking distance of urban neighborhood
residents.
Undeveloped land: 10 to 25 percent of the total
park area, including support acreage.
Optimum size: Ranges from 2 to 50 acres.
Special considerations: Develop in conjunction
with school grounds whenever feasible. Sup-
ports a wide variety of uses: active sport, active
play, areas for quiet meditation.
Mini -Park'
(Block Park, Tot Lot, Vest -Pocket Park, etc.)
Purpose: To provide protected areas for young
children in residential areas, and space and
activities for adults in residential or com-
mercial areas.
Undeveloped land: 10 to 20 percent of total park
area.
Optimum size: These areas are generally lots
which become available as older buildings are
razed.
Special considerations: Should be designed for
specific age groups.
COMMUNITY PARK
Typical Distribution
of Facilities
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Typical Distribution
of Facilities
MINI PARK
Typical Distribution
of Facilities
'These models were adapted from the 1975India no Outdoor
Recreation Plan.
NOTE: Almost every community has environmental corridors, flood plains or unique resource areas that shouldbe an integral part
of the community's open space system. Effort should be made on the part of the local government to acquire and protect such prop-
erties. These areas should be considered part of your community's open apace system.
51

or
Ir
I I HOW MUCH PARK LAND
i I SHOULD YOUR COMMUNITY HAVE?
Comunity t t Clogs I Cl.,., It Cl... III Class 1V Close V. Class Vb CIS,. VC
population 250,000 25.000 - 20.010 - 10,000 - 5.000 - 2,500 - Selov 2.500
250,000 35,000 20,000 10,000 5,000
Community Park
1750a
245-1750
140-245
70-140
15-70
17-15
17
sera*
(7 at.../1 000 pep.)
acres
at,,,
acre.
acres
acre,
acres
Neighborhood Pork
625+
87-62S
50-37
25-50
12-15
6-12
6
acre,
(2.5 afro/1 000 pop.)
acres
acre$
acres
,ere,
act..
acres
Nlnt-Part
125e
17-125
17-10
5-10
1-5
1-1
1
$ere
( 5 acre$/I 000 pop.)
act.,
acre,
acres
acres
acres
_.tree
Total Park Acreage
2500s
350-2500
200-150
100-200
50-100
25-50
25
acres
(10 are /1 000 pop.)
acres
acres
$else
acres
acres
ter..
HOW DO YOU COMPARE?
to Some
(Please circle number to appropriate column)
Yea Almost Dec at No
1.
Nov does your community compare with the above chart for park land of each type!
Community Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J 2 1 0
Neighborhood Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 0
Nini-Parks. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J 2 1 0
Total park acreage (a combination Of all type,)
1 2 1 0
2,
Nat Youe eomnun4y cpmpl eted • long range plea within the past live years for parks and recreation?
J 2 1 0
1.
In addition to the .,star Dien above, or contained within. doe. your community have a specific
plan for future park land acquisition and development? .
J 2 1 0
4.
Has your toun', natter plan been accepted by the Division of Outdoor Recreation for partletp.tton
in the Land and Vater Conservation Fund?
1 2 1 0
S.
Does your community have a board or commission It. g., Department e! Park, and Rear e. tion.
Department of Public Works and Safety) that I. charged with the responsibility for acquisition.
d svelopment and me intenuce of public land for recreational put,*,,,?. . . •
J 2 1 0
6.
Are your park lands and open space distributed throughout the eormunity so each citizen can walk
to . park? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
) 2 1 0
Column Total
Total Score
WHAT IS YOUR RANGE?
27 - 24 - It appears your community Is meeting the minimal standards for community space allocations and proper development of these
areas.
21 - 15 - Your community ahould address itself to acquiring needed park land and/or have professional planning started to enable proper
development.
14 - '0 m Your community should be concerned about the provision of park lands. Roth your land &area$, and Initiation in planning for
Parks and recreation areas is net in proper proportion vtth existing state and national planning guidelines. Your community
should begin to give greater attention to park and retreatltn land acquisition and planning.
5

Why Should a Commun
Plan for
Leisure Services?
1.
2.
3.
Plans are made to meet expected changes. na
an example, a community might plan to extend
and improve existing park and recreational
facilities to accommodate increased popula-
tion.
Desired change requires planning to be ac-
complished. For instance, landscaping a river -
front might be planned to make the community
more attractive.
Planning is a means to prevent undesirable
change. Downtown beautification is an
example of planning as a precaution against
community deterioration.
Savings Resulting
from Planning
1. Savings resulting from advance land acquisi-
tion.
2. Savings resulting from eliminating conflicting
public uses.
3. Savings resulting from postponing or eliminat.
ing premature or uneconomic projects.
4. Savings resulting from projects constructed in
advance of apparent need.
5. Planning encourages gifts of land and money.
6. Savings resulting from early financial plan-
ning.
7. Savings resulting from preparedness for un-
foreseen developments.
8. Savings resulting from sharing community
-information collected for other purposes.
X.Ai
Open Space
Guidelines for Evaluating
Land Acquisition
Guidelines
As you work through this section, keep the follow-
ing guidelines in mind.
MThese prepared guidelines are based on recom-
mendations established by the Indiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and the National
Recreation and Park Association.
■The design of individual open space should
emphasize variety and avoid park stereotypes.
The charts shown represent only a general con-
cept of space utilization to help the reader visu-
alize the areas being discussed.
■Land guidelines must reflect the particular re-
sources and needs of each individual communi-
ty. The guidelines set forth are general and their
application to all communities in Indiana should
only serve, as the title indicates, as "guidelines."
■A prime responsibility of government is to pre-
serve those natufal areas of land still remaining
and to insure protection of these areas for future
generations. If an area has unique land char-
acteristics, a major effort should be made to
acquire this property even if the acreage exceeds
the guidelines listed.
MThese guidelines represent a minimum for land
acreage and should not be interpreted as ideal
or maximum.
E.

Facilities
Guidelines for Evaluating
Community Recreational Facilities
Guidelines
As you work through this section, keep the follow-
ing guidelines in mind.
MThese prepared guidelines are based on scales
established either by the National Recreation
and Park Association or by the nationally af-
filiated organization of the specialized facility.
MThese prepared guidelines are based on an incre-
mental scale reflecting the practicality of a com-
munity size, budget, and space limitations.
NWhen using these guidelines, facilities asso-
ciated with public organizations, such as schools,
should be included in the determination pro-
vided these facilities are open to the general
public on a regular basis.
MElecause of the variety of population densities
which may exist in a community, these stan-
dards do not reflect a service radius with a
definite distance.
■Even though a community has met the minimal
standards outlined for facilities, this is not
necessarily a reflection of the type or quality of
service offered. Therefore, the effectiveness of
the facility may be reduced and not meet the
minimal amount of people it was designed to
serve.
MINIMUM FACILITY GUIDELINE
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class Va
Class Vb
Type of
Class I
35,000-
20,000-
10,000-
5,000-
2,500-
Class Vc
Facility
Guidelines
250,000+
250,000
35,000
20,000
10,000
51000
Belo. 2,500
Softball Diamond
1 diamond per
84+
12-84
7-12
4-7
3-4
2-3
1-2
3,000
Baseball Diamond
1 diamond per
42+
6-42
4-6
2-4
2-3
1-2
1
6,000
Community Center
1 center per
to+
2-10
1
1
-----
----
25,000
Auditorium
1 facility per
5+
1-5
-----
-----
-----
----
---
(Indoor)
50,000
Skating Rink
I rink per
10+
2-10
1
-----
-----
----
---
(Artificial)
25,000
Skating Rink
1 rink per
84+
12-84
6-12
3-6
2-3
1-2
1
(out -natural)
3,000
*Swimming Pool
1 pool per
10+
3-10
1-2
1
-----
----
---
(Indoor)
10,000
*Swimming Pool
1 pool per
to-
3-10
2-3
1-2
1
1
---
(Outdoor)
5,000
Tennis Courts
1 court per
150+
30-150
20-40
12-20
6-12
4-6
2-4
1,000
Basketball Courts
1 court per
500+
70-500
40-70
20-40
10-15
5-10
1-5
500+
Public Golf Course
1 course per
10+
2+
1
1
-----
----
---
--18h.
25,000
Outdoor Theater
1 facility per
12+
2-12
1-2
1
-----
----
---
(Non-commercial)
20,000
*Swimming pool standards have been adjusted to the practicality of development in Indiana communities. It is desirable that each
community have at least one swimming facility in order to aid in the education of water safety for the residents.
NOTE: All of the above -mentioned facilities are desirable in small communities, even though their population may actually be lees
than the standard.
NOTE: Every effort should be made to light all facilities for night use, thus extending their utility.
h

11
Facilities Check List
(Please circle number in appropriate column)
To Some
Yes Almost Degree No
1. Has your community completed a long-range plan for parks and recre-
ation?
3 2 1 0
2. Based on the population of your community and using preceding
charts, does your community meet the established minimum guide-
lines for facilities?
3. Have ever conducted any type of community survey to establish
3 2 1 0
you
how effective your facilities are in reaching the people in your com-
munity?
4. Does your agency have any written or verbal joint arrangements with
3 2 1 0
the schools to use the facilities for general recreation purposes beyond
the normal school day?
3 2 1 0
'
5. Does your community have a non -reverting capital improvement fund
for parks and recreation development? (Capital improvements include
pools, buildings, land acquisition and development, etc.)
3 2 1 0
6. Are your facilities totally accessible to the handicapped (e.g., ramps
where needed, accessible parking for handicapped, etc.)?
3 2 1 0
'
Column Total
Total Score
' What Is Your Range?
18.16 = Your community is meeting a minimal standard in providing services to the community through
use of facilities (see page 11).
15-9 = Your community should address itself to developing and expanding its facility base for parks
and recreation (see page 11).
9-0 = Your community has a potential limitation in delivering leisure services. Basic facilities avail-
able to the public are not in proportion to the size of your community (see page 11).
Have You Considered These Facilities?
Aquariums
Ski centers
'
Arboretums
Day camps
Lake & water sports
Soccer fields
Arenas & coliseums
Environmental studies areas
Libraries
Spray pools
Beaches
Exercise/Fitness trails
Liveries —bikes, canoes, horses
Stables
Bike right-of-ways
Fishing piers
Nature centers
Stadiums
Boccie courts
Football fields
Nature trails
Surfaced play areas
Botanical gardens
Handball/Racquetball courts
Picnic areas
Community centers
Camp grounds
Hiking & riding trails
Public access areas
Volleyball courts
asting pools
Historic building preservation
Running tracks
Wading pools
Coasting & tobogganing areas
Horseshoe courts
Scenic overlooks
Wildlife preserves
ultural centers
Jogging pathways
Shuffleboard courts
Zoological parks
g

Program Section
Guidelines for Evaluating Community Recreation Programs
As you work through this section, keep the follow-
ing guidelines in mind.
oThe recreation program should attempt to meet
the individual and group needs and desires of
the people. It is the responsibility of the recre-
ation program to satisfy expressed leisure needs,
stimulate new interests, and develop skills to
explore interests within the total objectives of
the department.
eThe recreation program should be diversified.
All too often, recreation means only sports and
games, although the scope of recreation is limit-
less, covering programs from aquatics to visiting
the zoo.
®The program should provide equal opportunity
for all regardless of race, creed, social status,
economic need, sex, age, interest, or mental and
physical capacity.
■Programs should be offered at a wide variety of
times to meet the diverse living schedules of the
population. Offering of programs only in the
afternoon or evenings may exclude the night
workers or the early -rising individual, who is
also an equally important part of the community.
®Recreation programs for the community should
be planned and coordinated through a central
agency to make best use of community facilities
and personnel resources, not to mention making
things less complex for the citizens.
MLeadership must be employed as the backbone of
recreation offerings. It is the responsibility of the
local recreation agency to seek out, train and
extensively develop the talents of people to meet
this capacity.
eAdequate financial backing is necessary if pro-
grams are to succeed. Statutory regulations have
been established to help make funds available
for recreation programs.
■Programs should be constantly re-evaluated
both during and after programs in light of set
objectives and public acceptance. Records
should be kept concerning this information.
■Programs should be offered in each season of the
year. This includes not only summer but also the
other three seasons. Having a good community
high school basketball or football team does not
relieve the responsibility of programming for the
public.
General Program Inventory
Preface
The intent of this section is to identify the scope
and variety of public recreational programs of-
fered in your community. The purpose is not to
Directions
1. Begin with the spring season.
2. Place a (A in the appropriate box in which
your community offers public programs. These
programs may be offered by the parks and
recreation department, library, school or any
other public organizations. Do not include
varsity athletics.
3. Repeat the above procedure for each of the other
seasons, being sure to note these public pro-
grams throughout the community.
4. When you have completed this inventory, con-
tinue to answer the questions in the next sec-
tion.
NOTE: To provide further insight into program
offerings in your community, you may want to use
a different colored pencil or symbols for programs
offered by churches, Boy Scouts, schools, YM-
YWCA's, etc.
M
evaluate or make judgments of program offerings.
By checking the appropriate boxes, you will be
able to look at your current program offerings and
observe how they are -balanced.
+SPRING—Mnch
April. M.y
ARTS {CRAFTS—cer.mio. p.mt I
m. K.moa.ru. eK
IIANC'1:—.xul, folk. .vuue, eK
MENTAI—{bmk elu{e. I.cturn,
MCp:(t—Mnd .emerK..Iwrvu.. I —
.iu
O17000R RECREATION—
mm� pren•m.. oub, Arden..
cu
SOCIAL CREATION-
4.naueKp.niuNA night. etut.ROINHIES—hooey duce.ko.k..ui\..ne aempcV.i,ene jIIl —IrIl—'Ijl—Ijll obby
SKRVICE ACTIMIEA— I.-toq
m.nm.. Irod... h" .Co...A
.Aipm. e.pn sr.pvueq memNn
Rryrinl. F:cr.NTR—<in;�Id,:T
le.u.d.. R.h EVENTS
-1,1,
--Y.K
RP(IRTR { GAMER—.pe
N.m.."io. Fnd.e. Ih.... flf
IIIIAMA—Ihwlm nl nMueUmu,
vl+nmunA+kiu�mrpdL�. cur

�ScpCP �AN�oPPNVPJ�o'J AP GNANry��;� ��JNEPN3NJ •YALL—
•bUMMF.R— un, Sw.
..v, A ....
tlln � cxApTs-n..mm•. nNp
mt. 4.Namtu. •u.
DANCE—.wiM. fVlb...v.r•, rm
MENTALrbv k dub.Imun•,
pvub•
�
MUD _. -b.nd wnmu,
tl<• dub. •w.
OUTDOOR RECREATION—
nuun vwn.m•. tnn.. fvd•n•,
mc.
SOCIAL RECREATION—
b•nOwW vniu. hmmfhl nc.
XURRI ES —hubby <lub•, hubby
.he.., t.n..nd d•m.........n.
SERVICE AMVITIES—•ulunury
VruYnm•. 1•.dmhip n.n•m..
<.mmu.un n.enwn m•mw..
SPECIAL EV L'NTS—cnp.id•
(••u•d., a•h Mw, nMae
wnWY
SPO Rn a GAM ES —.part I• ... ..
wvm•m.nu, bride.. ch.w,...
DRAMA—th••tnc.l pcdunl....
pbrfwund .biu..urrylhnf. rc.
A1"p
•WINTE4 D py`�pvh yOJ�'OJv p,G 'J,T,y�hte
c�
n., F.
o
ARTS a CRAFTS—nruniw. w�np
tnl, b.N•m•fu..w.
DANCC—•end, felt, .avu.. •u.
MENTAIrbaeb club, I.tnurw,
P.W.
MUSIC—b.nd wnwru, eAerv.•.,
flw AVG..te
OUTDOOR RECREATION—
nuun pronun., u•Il., fndrn.,
•w.
SOCIAL RECREATION-
b.naum, pniw, bnmuht. •u.
RO
qlb
erlN .nA erm wvmem
cI:R\'It'1: MTIb'ITII:S—•ulunwry
Vrupr.nu.. M„nmMV premm•.
•hipm�
SPECIAL EVENTS-city.ndr
I.ui•d., foh M...Nbu<TT
SPORTSL GAMES—.""I•q.••.
wemam.nw. bndf. eh•w,•w.
DRAMA—th.•tnwl nadumew,
I
plaYfmpnd M1n.. rogvlhn Y. •w.
Program Discussion
Questions
1. Looking at the overall inventory you have just
completed, does it appear that there is a bal-
ance of program offerings when comparing
one season with the others? If not, where is
there an imbalance?
2. Looking again at the inventory, do there ap-
pear to be recreational opportunities for each
age level and both sexes in all seasons?
3. Does your community offer recreational
opportunities for special populations (all types
of handicapped) in each season?
ART b CRAfTR—vnm�u, wine
mY.lo mdw. •w.
DANCE —..at. flb..au•r•..0
MESTAI.-wVb club•, 1•cwn.,
pe•<lu
M VSIC—b•nd nnnru. chervu•,
pw cbw •u.
OUTDOOR RECREATION—
•• v.en.m.. v.il.. f•rd.n..
SOCIAL RECREATION-
b•nvu•u, vm•.. Iummeh4 •w.
IIOIIIIIES—n.bb, dub•. hubby
SERVICE ACTIVITIES-vOunury
narr.m. I..d... h,p
.,w .r.a.,wry m.man
SPECIAL E V ENTS_citr.u•
I. , , aM Inw..thlmw
SPORTS L GAMES—.wn I...uw,
wum.m.nu. bndp.<h•u,•u
DRAMA—thulnwl pmdun.en•.
plgfmvna.DM, roryulLnf.•w.
•If activities overlap more than two weeks, count them in both seasons.
4. In what program does there seem to be an
abundance of program offerings?
5. Is there any individual or group of individuals
who are excluded from participating in these
programs because of transportation restric-
tions? (Either they don't have cars, or perhaps
are disabled and can't get to the program, or a
major intersection is the prohibitive problem.)
6. Could the cost of any of the programs offered
be prohibitive to any individual? If so, what
might be done to alleviate this problem?
7. What are your current methods for promoting
activity programs? Can you think of any other
ways to reach the people?
8. Has your community conducted arecreational
attitude interest survey?
9. Has your park and recreation department
established a non -reverting operating fund
which allows for expanding recreation activi-
ties on a fee basis?
10. Have you considered the commercial sector in
providing. recreation services to the public,
e.g., movie theaters, bowling alleys, etc
Consider the types of persons who may be
excluded from using these facilities.
Recreational Program Summary
As stated earlier, the inventory and accompany-
ing questions are only to serve as guidelines for
making observations and raising pertinent ques-
tions. If, after answering these questions, there
appears to be a potential or identifiable problem in
the area of recreational programming, turn to the
technical assistance page and consult the sources
listed for advice and/or help.
10

What Does It Mean?
Now that you have completed open space, facility
and program services evaluations, or have chosen
only to investigate a particular segment of your
operation, you are probably ready to take some
sort of action. BUT WHAT TYPE?
It is understandable that your community will fall
into one of two categories after the evaluation:
1) SATISFACTORY or 2) AN EXISTING OR
POTENTIAL CONCERN. In either case, some
specific steps should be taken.
Satisfactory (meeting minimal standards)
®Check with the Division of Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, to make sure
your current master plan is in accordance with
recommended state guidelines. Determine if you
are still eligible for participation in the Land and
Water Fund (50% federal matching program for
land acquisition and development).
®Consider special research studies on needs and
attitudes taking place in your community.
oDon't become complacent, particularly if you are
on the low side of the satisfactory scale. This
evaluation deals with minimal standards, and if
your community is to maintain a satisfactory
rating, you must continue to move ahead. No
community stands still —it either progresses or
falls behind.
BAvoid obsolescence by joining the Indiana Park
and Recreation Association and the National
Recreation and Park Association; attend state,
regional and national workshops and confer-
ences; build a reference library using the bibliog-
raphy on page 12.
Existing or Potential Concerns
■If your community has an existing or potential
concern about delivery of leisure services, con-
tact one of the technical assistance resources
listed on this page or consider employing a
professional planning firm to develop a long-
range program that will bring your community
up to satisfactory standards.
■Write to the Park and Recreation Specialist for
his mimeographs on "Park and Recreation Con.
sultants—Guidelines for Selection" and "Master
Planning for Parks and Recreation."
Summary
This publication has been developed to assist you
and your community in determining the present
status of your park and recreation system and to
help you identify and think about your communi-
ty's leisure service in an organized manner. Its
purpose is not to evaluate or make judgments
about specific problem identification but to help
you look at the potential and vast sources of op-
portunities for creative agency development and
service.
Technical Assistance —
Where to Write or Call
I. Primary Contacts
Cooperative Extension Service —each county
in Indiana has an Extension Office capable
of referring you to local, area or university
resources to assist you on problems relating
to soils, forestry, turf management, wildlife
management, lake and pond management,
surveying population data, community de-
velopment and planning —call your Exten-
sion Agent for assistance.
II. Park and Recreation Specialist,
Indiana/Purdue Universities
James A. Peterson
Room 133, HPER Building
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47401
[phone]
III. Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Outdoor Recreation
Room 612
State Office Building
Indianapolis, IN 46204
[phone]
IV. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Department of the Interior
Lake Central Region
3853 Research Park Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
11

National Organizations
National Recreation and Park Assn.
1601 N. Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation
1201 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
United States Lawn Tennis Assn.
51 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Athletic Institute
Merchandise Mart, Room 805
Chicago, IL 60654
American Camping Assn.
Bradford Woods
Martinsville, IN 46151
Ice Skating Institute of America
1000 Skokie Boulevard
Wilmette, IL 60091
Bicycle Manufacturers Assn.
122 E. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
National Swimming Pool Foundation
2000 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
National Rifle Assn. of America
1600 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
National Endowment for the Humanities
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Indiana Arts Commission
Union Title Building
155 East Market, Suite 614
Indianapolis, I14 46204
National Golf Foundation, Inc.
804 Merchandise Mart
Chicago, IL 60654
Bibliography
t
Bannon, Joseph J., Leisure Resources: Its Com-
prehensiue Planning. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice -Hall, Inc., 1976.
Buechner, Robert D., ed., National Park and .
Recreation Open Space Standards. Arlington,
Virginia, National Recreation and Park As-
sociation.
California State Department of Education, Cri-
teria for Evaluating the Physical Education
Program. Junior College, Sacramento, 1962.
Carlson, Reynold; Deppe, Theodore, and Mac-
Lean, Janet, Recreation in American Life. Bel-
mont, California: Wadsworth PublishingCom-
pany, Inc., 1972.
Economic Research Division/Department of
Development —State of Ohio, Planning and
Community Development. Community De-
velopment Series Seven, 1968.
How Effective Are Your Community Recreation
Services? Washington: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1973.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1975
Indiana Outdoor Recreation Plan. Indian-
apolis, 1975.
Murry, Roger D., and Twardzik, Louis F., Plan-
ning Community -Wide Recreation. Extension
Bulletin a-684,. Michigan State University,
1970.
Van der Smissen, Betty, Evaluation and Self -
Study of Public Recreation and Park Agencies.
Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and
Park Association, 1972.
C.epene.. l0glen Wert M J.p•Iculwr, and Mom, Icon..... stab to tnaVn,. F.,du. and V S D.o.nm..,"
•sncullWe Coa"1.1n1 M. C 0..Mnn. Dlre<IOG W.0 lebptb Ind IMued M IupnPence of Ib ♦cl. e1 May I and June IQ
1014, it 1. Ne po4q of IN C,.,".n. lmnuen U.C. el d.,due Wnrdw, Iql ell denone NUI nv..dvtl ."namt,
.no ueoe to Ito pepnmc end bp4Lo .dneut need to r.d.HIG'.", eeler, MI. er n,llentl ongm.
a
12

PUBLIC WATER ACCESS — PRELIMINARY RECREATION ASSESSMENT
Property Owner Opinion Survey
Focus Group Interviews
Prepared for
The Town of Atlantic Beach
1999
By
Dr. Ken Wilson
Ms. Claudia Williams
Survey Research Laboratory
Regional Development Services
East Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina
Assistance by
John Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
Washington, North Carolina

' During the impeachment debate, the American Association of
Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) released a document instructing
' the media on the proper use of polls. In it, Philip Meyer (UNC-
CH) presented a set of "do's and don'ts of reporting on polls."
He asked editors to "use polls to enhance your leadership, not
substitute for it." The same advice applies to community
leaders. The Town of Atlantic Beach has conducted a valid
scientific study of community opinion; the Town's challenge is
' to use it to shape the future.
There is little popular support among property owners for a
project that requires a tax increase. If government leaders
believe that there is a need for such a project, they will have
to help the property owners understand why it is important to
' the future of Atlantic Beach. There is substantial support for
cost-effective, targeted projects that improve the quality of
life in Atlantic Beach. Improved road crossings and beach
walkways are two examples of these types of projects. Another
example would be the mini -marinas approved at the February
meeting of the Town Board. This should encourage private
development that will improve the overall quality of boat
access.
The two areas where most respondents would appreciate cost-
effective actions would be development of a community
center/multi-purpose building and walking/jogging trails. . The
focus group of business and community leaders clearly identified
the need for a recreation director who would be responsible for
' developing programs that could be funded through grants or user
fees and also for getting the county to invest more funds in
programs for Atlantic Beach. By hiring a person whose primary
I responsibility would be the development of cost-effective, self-
supporting programs, the Town should save money in the long run.

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Atlantic Beach worked with John Crew and
the ECU Survey Research Laboratory to design and conduct
cost-efficient, scientifically valid research to assess the
opinions of Atlantic Beach taxpayers concerning ocean and
sound access and recreational activities. This Research
followed the standards and practices suggested by the
American Association of Public Opinion Researchers and the
American Statistical Association. In addition, a focus
group was developed assess the views of community and
business leaders.
While a few people dreamed of large projects for
'
Atlantic Beach, most people seemed satisfied with the Town.
Any large project requiring a tax increase would run into
significant opposition from both the general population of
property owners and from the community leaders. The
community leaders identified some low-cost, focused projects
that could improve ocean and sound access in Atlantic Beach.
These included clearly marking and improving the existing
ocean and sound access points. Improving pedestrian highway
crossing in the West -end of town is another example. While
property owners were satisfied with existing recreational
opportunities and opposed any new recreational programs that
raised taxes, they were also able to identify recreational
facilities that they would like to have available. In a
'
similar vein, the community leaders focused on the need for
a recreation director who could develop low-cost programs
targeted to meet community needs. The director would be
expected to raise funds from user fees or grants to pay for
these programs. There was strong agreement that Carteret
County should pay part of the cost of recreation programs
'
and the director would be expected to advocate for the
town's "fair share."
1

' OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
' INTRODUCTION
In the past, businesses have tended to measure their
success by the bottom line of a profit/loss statement.
Government organization used election results to measure
their success. While these are important, they are not the
only measures of success. During the last decade people
working at all levels of government and in all types of
businesses have become aware of the need to systematically
assess their clients needs and opinions.
People from many different perspectives (e.g., Total
Quality Management and Reinventing Government) have
recognized that customer satisfaction with both the product
and services provide the important foundation underlying
future success. Since judgments of customer satisfaction
are often based on informal feedback, it can be very biased
and inaccurate. Many people working in private enterprises
and in government (national, state and local) have turned to
scientific surveys of their customers.
In June 1998, John Crew met with the Director and
Assistant Director of the ECU Survey Research laboratory.
As the result of his discussion with Ed Sealover, he wanted
to start the process of designing scientific research to
assess the opinions of the Atlantic Beach taxpayers
concerning ocean and sound access and recreation in Atlantic
Beach. It was also clear that a process to incorporate the
opinions of business leaders and community leaders needed to
be incorporated into the research design.
The SRL worked with John Crew and Ed Sealover to
develop a design for a mail survey that kept the costs as
low as possible without sacrificing scientific validity by
allowing Atlantic Beach personnel to do as much of the work
as possible following directions developed by the SRL. The
SRL advised Atlantic Beach concerning the questionnaire
design, the rationale for selecting a sampling frame,
designing the scientific sampling procedure, protocol for a
mail survey, data input, and data analysis. The final
design was approved by on
In addition, SRL, John Crew and the Town of Atlantic
Beach joined together to conduct a focus group of business
and community leaders. The Town obtained the facilities for
the group meeting, recruited the participants, and provided
dinner. John Crew designed the questions and briefed the
participants on the background of the issues. SRL
facilitated the group and analyzed the results.
2

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
SURVEY RESEARCH DESIGN
The research was designed and executed according to the
scientific standards for mail surveys developed by Don
Dillman at the Washington State University. The Dillman
Total Design Method specifies rules for questionnaire
development, length and format, packet contents, mailing
procedures and follow-ups. This research design calls for
three questionnaire mailings and a postcard reminder.
On , the questionnaire, a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the survey and a stamped return
envelope was mailed to the random sample of 800 Atlantic
Beach property owners. On , a follow-up postcard
reminding people to return their questionnaires and thanking
them for their help was mailed to all respondents.
On , a second questionnaire, cover letter
and return envelope was mailed to everyone who had not
responded. Finally, on , a third
questionnaire, cover letter and return envelope was mailed
to everyone who had not responded by that date.
people were eliminated from the sample because
In all 494 property owners completed and returned
the survey. The response rate for the survey was 61.8
percent (if no one was eliminated) [IF THERE WERE A HUNDRED
BAD ADDRESSES, THE RESPONSE RATE WOULD EXCEED 70%]. This
response rate exceeds the minimum response rate for
scientific standards for mail surveys. The data allow
accurate and valid estimations of the views of the Atlantic
Beach property owners.
3

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OF
ATLANTIC BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS
1. Over three -fourths of the respondents thought that the
Town's large ocean beach accesses are adequate for the
current needs of the Town. Full-time residents were
slightly less likely to be "uncertain."
2. Over three -fourths of the respondents thought that the
Town currently has an adequate mix of regional,
neighborhood, and local ocean -access. Full-time
residents were slightly less likely to be "uncertain."
3. Over 90 percent of the respondents would not be willing
to pay higher taxes or fees for more ocean beach access.
There were no statistically significant differences among
the residents.
4. Over 70 percent of the respondents thought that the town
currently has adequate access sites to Bogue Sound. Full-
time residents were slightly less likely to be
"uncertain."
5.over 80 percent of the respondents would not be willing
to pay higher taxes or fees for more access to Bogue
Sound. There are no statistically significant
differences among the residents.
6. Over two-thirds of the respondents reported that the town
currently has adequate boating facilities. Full-time
residents were more likely to express stronger agreement.
7. Over 85 percent of the respondents would not be willing
to pay higher taxes or fees for more boating facilities.
There were no statistically significant differences
among the residents.
8. Over three -fourth of the respondents thought that the
town currently had adequate marina facilities. Full-time
residents were more likely to express stronger agreement.
9. Over 90 percent of the respondents would not be willing
to pay higher taxes or fees for more marinas facilities.
Full-time residents were more likely to express stronger
disagreement.
4

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECIREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
10. Over 70 percent of the respondents would be not willing
to pay higher taxes or fees for development of Town
recreation facilities. Full-time residents were slightly
less likely to be "uncertain."
11. Two thirds of the respondents thought that the Town
should not develop more public recreation facilities.
There were no statistically significant differences among
the residents.
12. If Atlantic Beach developed an indoor public recreation
facility, the most popular types of facilities were a
community center/multi-purpose building (43.9%), an
exercise facilities (28.6%), a play areas for children
(21.0%), a swimming pool (16.7%), tennis courts (15.1%)
and basketball courts (13.2%).
13. If established, over 70 percent of the respondents
thought that an indoor facility should be paid for by
charging user fees. There were no statistically
significant differences among the residents.
14. If Atlantic Beach developed an outdoor public
recreation facility, the most popular choices would be
walking or jogging trails (37.6%), bike trails (22.5%),
playgrounds (21.8%), amphitheater (21.0), and boating
facility on the sound (20.7).
15. If established, over 60 percent of the respondents
thought that an outdoor facility should be paid for by
charging user fees. There were no statistically
significant differences among the residents.
16. Respondents reported that their favorite summer
recreational activities in Atlantic Beach included beach
activities (43.6%), walking/jogging (40.2%),
fishing/crabbing (35.4%), boating (34.9%), swimming
(23.4%) and biking (22.4%).
' 17. Respondents reported that their favorite winter
recreational activities in Atlantic Beach included
walking/jogging (47.1%), fishing/crabbing (23.78), biking
(22.6%), golf (18.7%), beach activities (17.8%) and
boating (17.0%).
18. Over 70 percent of the respondents thought that
Carteret County and the City of Atlantic Beach should
share sponsorship of recreational programs. There were
' no statistically significant differences among the
residents.
' 5

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
19. Less than 20 percent of the respondents indicated that
they.would be willing to volunteer as a committee member
or as part of the management team if a recreational
facility were established in Atlantic Beach. However,
' over one-third (38.6%) of the full-time residents were
willing to volunteer.
F
I'
I'
I,
[1
II
3

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
FOCUS GROUP DESIGN
A focus group was held on November 19, 1998 in the
Atlantic Beach Town Hall Annex. It began at 6:30 and lasted
until almost 9:00 p.m. In order to keep the costs to the
Town as low as possible, the Town of Atlantic Beach assisted
the SRL and John Crew in conducting the focus group of
business and community leaders. The Town reserved a room in
the Town Hall Annex for the group meeting, recruited the
community and business leaders to participate in the group,
participants, and provided dinner. John Crew designed the
questions and briefed the participants on the background of
the issues. The SRL facilitated the group, recorded the
participants' comments and analyzed the results.
Present:
Ed Sealover, Town Manager, Atlantic Beach, NC
John Crew, Research Director, Coastal Consortium
Consulting Planners, Inc
Dr. Ken Wilson, Facilitator, ECU Survey Research
Laboratory Director
Claudia Williams, Recorder, ECU Survey Research
Laboratory
Focus Group Members:
Harry Rippy, owner Triple S Fishing Pier
Pat Rippy, owner Triple S Fishing Pier
Rilla Moran Woods
Cathy Gibbons
Alan Shelor, Owner of Real Estate Company
Linda Brickhouse
Peggy Fulcher, Property owner and retired school
teacher whose grandchildren often visit her in
Atlantic Beach
Bill Fulcher, Retired property owner.
Tom Outlaw, Operates the Oceanna Resort
Joe Osborne, Town Commissioner
Max D. Graff, Town Commissioner and mayor pro-tem
David Bradley, owner of Sportsman Pier
Guy who came in very late
Written comments were submitted by:
Phil Johnson,
Bob Mirada, Owner of the Sound Side Motel and Charters
WA

' OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
' MAJOR FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS
' 1. Public access for residents (seasonal and year-round) is
a problem. The first step is to clearly mark and improve
the access the town already has. There was support for
' using tax dollars for low-cost improvement targeted at
the needs of residents (i.e., taxpayers). More costly
projects should not be considered until this is done.
' 2. Making public access point handicapped accessible would
benefit many segments of the population (e.g., elderly
' residents, families with young children, etc.) and may be
financed largely through grants.
' 3. Public access for non-resident tourists was not a
widespread concern for the focus group. There was
agreement that projects designed to serve the needs of
' tourists should be paid for by the businesses that
benefit and the people who use them (user fees).
4.The only real recreational need that can be addressed is
the need for a recreation director. Everything else
depends on this position and it is central to developing
a recreation program that truly reflects the needs of the
residents, both year-round and seasonal. The director's
salary should be paid from Town revenues but programs
should be financed largely from other sources (e.g.,
grants, user fees or county funds).
E]

OPINIONS OF OCEAN S SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
DETAILED RESULTS OF FOCUS GROUP
Important challenges facing Atlantic Beach
♦ The limits to economic development were one major focus
of this discussion. The lack of a sewage system was a
widely recognized to be the primary limiting factor. .
Revitalizing the circle was also recognized as an
important challenge facing Atlantic Beach. Lack of
central sewage system made any plans to revitalize the
circle more difficult.
♦ Recreation was a second theme of this discussion. There
was substantial support for more recreational
opportunities for people of different ages and physical
abilities. The need for more sound and beach access
including boat ramps and wheelchair access was noted.
Some stressed the need for family -oriented recreation
while others stressed the need for places catering to
young people.
♦ A third theme was the problems with the high volume of
summer traffic on Fort Macon highway.
♦ Finally, there was a consensus that Atlantic Beach did
not get its fair share of support from Carteret County.
It was noted that while Atlantic Beach attracts tourists
to the area but many tourists spend their money on the
mainland.
9

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
Public Access to Public Waters
Does the town have enough access sites or do they need more?
There was general agreement that more access sites were
needed and that these sites should be designed to serve the
needs of residents (both seasonal and year-round). The
needs of tourists were considered a completely separate
issue.
Several problems with existing facilities were noted and
discussed. These include:
♦ The access problem is seasonal. There is no access
problem for the year-round residents in the winter.
There is an access problem during the 7 months of the
year when the seasonal residents are here. There are so
many tourists in the summer that it makes it difficult
for the residents (both year-round and seasonal) to use
the beach and sound access. Public access needs to be
designed to insure that residents get to use the
facilities they financed. Some noted that businesses
depend on the tourists and that the town board has often
experienced conflicts between residents and business
owners.
♦ There is a disparity at different ends of town. Ocean
access points in the West End are sadly lacking. The
Sheraton is not a true public access since it is hard to
cross the highway; there is no boat ramp and no public
parking facilities. There was a general agreement on the
need for pedestrian controlled lights in this area but no
agreement on the number or location. It was generally
agreed that there was a need for resident parking at this
location but it was not clear how it could be reserved
for residents. Sound access in this area is available
but unmarked so that people do not realize that it is a
public access. There is no parking at this access point.
♦ There is a need to clearly mark all public access.
Property owners close off public accesses so no one knows
it's public. The public accesses are not.clearly defined
so the residents don't know what the town already has.
♦ There is a need to improve the access that exists to make
it easier to get on and off the beach and to make it
handicapped accessible. Wheelchair accessible boardwalks
would also help the elderly and all people who are
carrying things like chairs and coolers to the beach.
KE

' OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
' Attractive, visible, easily accessible public access
speaks well of the town.
Who should pay for increased access?
First, there was general agreement that many of these ideas
were not large budget ideas (e.g., clearly making and
improving existing accesses). People seemed to think that
' residents (both year-round and seasonal) would be willing to
pay for projects that realistically addressed their needs.
Absentee property owners should also help pay for these
projects since they will make their property more valuable.
Where grants are available, they should be used. The people
present generally agreed that "people would dig in their
pockets and do the right thing" if they believed that a
project would make a nice place to live even better.
Generally, the participants seemed to think that private
businesses should be an important source of funds for
projects that would provide better access for tourists.
User fees should also be charged for this type of project.
Some grant money may be available and county funds would be
welcomed. There was not much support for spending tax money
on this type of project.
If there was one thing you could do to improve access, what
would that be?
♦ More sound access is needed. Ocean access is fine.
♦ Visibility signage for accesses points - make the signs
bigger and more visible.
♦ Clearly define what accesses we already have (width and
location).
♦ Tell people how to get to the access from Fort Macon
Road.
♦ Businesses should do something to help the area
♦ Identify public accesses on ocean and initiate grant
money to improve it.
♦ Identify accesses and look for grant money.
♦ Agree with the others
11

OPINIONS OF OCEAN 6 SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
♦ Build walkways to beach for handicapped and non -
handicapped especially at end of streets. Majority of
the public would use this type of access.
♦ Clear identification of public access is critical, and so
is improving handicapped access
♦ Need to identify accesses
♦ Residents know where accesses are. The town needs to fix
them and clearly mark them.
♦ Parking is the main issue.
Other comments on the need for more parking
• I don't support it because it encourages more day-
trippers.
• It would be okay if a user -fee was charged.
• A parking deck at the circle is a good idea
• The parking problem is equal to the sewer problem
12

11
11
11
11
OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
Recreation in Atlantic Beach
Atlantic Beach needs to remember that its biggest recreation
draw is the ocean and the sound. There would not be any
parking and access problems if we didn't have those. Any
recreation programs should build around these assets.
' The focus of the group discussion was on recreation for
young people. Morehead City has a very strong recreational
program for children. Some think that the number of
children living in Atlantic Beach year round is to small to
Justify something like that but other think that the
children are being overlooked. People point to successful
(e.g., Kidfest) and unsuccessful (e.g., church teen clubs)
recreation programs.
Many children, like their parents, are seasonal residents of
Atlantic Beach. In the summer, some businesses are packed
with local kids and young tourists. The ocean will attract
teenagers and providing recreational opportunities is the
best way to keep kids out of trouble. Some thought that
private business rather than the Town should provide this
type of recreation while other suggested the need for
cooperation between the Town and local businesses.
The recreation issue is political. The town board is
divided on it. It is the sorest subject because Atlantic
Beach property owners pay a lot of money to Carteret County
but get almost nothing in return. The county services are
not adequate for Atlantic Beach.
Sometime in the past, the Town board was enthused about
recreation and hired a director. The next board was a split
on recreation so the position of recreation director was
eliminated. At that time the town bought property to use as
a community center but it has never been developed.
There was a consensus in the group that this was a major
mistake and that Atlantic Beach needed a recreation
director. Because of the seasonal changes in this
community, the director needs to develop flexible programs
that fulfill the needs of the various seasonal populations.
This is a more complex task than in a town with a stable
year-round population. The survey is a good first step but
the Town needs someone who can combine survey -data with
informal feedback from the residents and then develop
creative responses within the constraints of a very limited
budget. On the other hand, the director would have the
special assets of the ocean and sound with which to work.
13

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
The Director will also have to represent the Town to county
officials. The Director will need to show county officials
that their facilities are not adequate because they are too
far away. The Director will need to figure out what
residents will support and develop a practical plan for how
that can be achieved. He will need to develop community
support for the program and may need to go door to door
talking with people. He will need to convince county
officials to support these projects or develop alternative
funding for these projects.
Concern was expressed for the type of recreational
opportunities that seems to be developing. The circle used
to be safe but it no longer feels safe to many residents.
The type of entertainment determines the crowd it attracts.
Develop a clean, family -oriented environment and bad people
stay away. The recreation director should help Atlantic
Beach reverse this trend.
The group expressed the feeling that the only real
recreational need that can be address at this time is the
need for a director. Everything else depends on this
position. It is central to developing a recreation program
that truly reflects the needs of the residents, both year-
round and seasonal. It is necessary if Atlantic Beach is
going to provide for its residents. The group firmly
stated that people should petition the Town board to hire a
director.
As long as the Recreation Director pursued the course
outlined in the group, the group was willing to have the
director's salary be paid from Town Revenues.
Other comments on Recreation
• The county has a beautiful senior citizens facility in
Morehead City. They charge a user fee. Many people
don't use it because it is so far away.
• The Town needs a community center where residents can
hold social functions.
• Year round fishing should be developed to extend the
tourist season. Piers and a catwalk on the high-rise
bridge could be used for sound fishing. User fees
could be charged to pay for these projects.
14

OPINIONS OF OCEAN & SOUND ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
FALL, 1998
DETAILED RESULTS OF THE MAIL SURVEY
15

I
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
The Towns large ocean
beach accesses are
adequate for the current
479
97.0%
15
3.0%
494
100.0%
needs of the Town'
Resident Status?
We currently have an
adequate mix of types of
ocean access (regional,
481
97.4%
13
2.6%
494
100.0%
neighborhood, and local)
Resident Status?
I would be willing to pay
higher taxes or fees for
486
98.4%
8
1.6%
494
100.00/0
more ocean beach access
' Resident Status?
We currently have
adequate access sites to
484
98.0%
10
2.0%
494
100.0%
Bogue Sound' Resident
Status?
I would be willing to pay
higher taxes or fees for
486
98.4%
8
1.6%
494
100.0%
more access to Bogue
Sound' Resident Status?
We currently have
adequate boating facilities
484
98.0%
10
2.0%
494
100.0%
' Resident Status?
1 would be willing to pay
higher taxes or fees for
486
98.4%
8
1.6%
494
100.0%
more boating facilities'
Resident Status?
We currently have
adequate marina facilities
484
98.0%
10
2.0%
494
100.0%
Resident Status?
I would be willing to pay
higher taxes or fees for
482
97.6%
12
2.4%
494
100.0%
more marina facilities'
Resident Status?
I would be willing to pay
higher taxes or fees for
development of Town
485
98.2%
9
1.8%
494
100.0%
recreation facilities'
Resident Status?

The Towns large ocean beach accesses are adequate for the current needs of
the Town * Resident Status?
Resident121
Full-time
The Towns large
Strongly Disagree
Count
7
ocean beach
%within Resident Status?
8.0%
accesses are
adequate for the
current needs of the
Disagree
Count
o
k within Resident Status?
12
0
13.6 /0
1
Town Uncertain Count
% within Resident Status?
1.1%
8.5%
Agree
Count
21
111
%within Resident Status?
23.9%
45.1%
Strongly Agree
Count
47
80
%within Resident Status?
53.4%
32.5%
Total
Count
88
246
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
NoWgggent
The Towns large
Strongly Disagree
Count
8
25
ocean beach
%within Resident Status?
5.5%
5.2%
accesses are
adequate for the
current needs of the
Disagree
Count
°
/° within Resident Status?
18
12.4%
54
11.3%
. 10
32
Town Uncertain Count
% within Resident Status?
6.9%
6.7%
Agree
Count
63
195
%within Resident Status?
43.4%
40.7%
Strongly Agree
Count
46
173
%within Resident Status?
31.7%
36.1%
Total
Count
145
479
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
24.867°
8
.002
Likelihood Ratio
26.951
8
.001
Linear -by -Linear
1.316
1
Association
.251
N of Valid Cases
479
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.59.
We currently have an adequate mix of types of ocean access (regional,
neighborhood, and local) * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
We currently have an
Strongly Disagree
Count
4
9
adequate mix of types
%within Resident Status?
4.5%
3.6%
of ocean access
(regional,
neighborhood, and
local)
Disagree
Uncertain
Count
%within Resident Status?
Count
%within Resident Status?
14
15.9%
21
8.40/6
2
2.3%
21
8.4%
Agree
Count
25
117
% Wthln Resident Status?
28.40/4
47.0%
Strongly Agree
Count
43
81
%within Resident Status?
48.9%
32.5%
Total
Count
68
249
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
NoV999ent
We currently have an
Strongly Disagree
Count
4
17
adequate mix of types
%within Resident Status?
2.8%
3.5%
of ocean access
(regional,
neighborhood, and
local)
Disagree
Uncertain
Count
/o within Resident Status?
Count
18
12.5%
53
11.0%
12
35
%within Resident Status?
8.3%
7.3%
Agree
Count
68
210
%within Resident Status?
47.2%
43.7%
Strongly Agree
Count
42
166
%within Resident Status?
29.2%
34.5%
Total
Count
144
481
% within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
20.372a
8
.009
Likelihood Ratio
21.457
8
.006
Linear -by -Linear
1
Association
.962
.327
N of Valid Cases
481
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.11.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more ocean beach access
Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
I would be willing
Strongly Disagree
Count
65
162
to pay higher
% within Resident Status?
73.0%
64.5%
taxes or fees for
more ocean
beach access
Disagree
Count
%within Resident Status?
14
15.7%
64
25.5%
3
11
Uncertain Count
% within Resident Status?
3.4%
4.4%
Agree
Count
6
11
%within Resident Status?
6.7%
4.4%
Strongly Agree
Count
1
3
%within Resident Status?
1.1%
1.2%
Total
Count
89
251
% within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
No - k ent
I would be willing
Strongly Disagree
Count
89
316
to pay higher
%within Resident Status?
61.0%
65.0%
taxes or fees for
Disagree
Count
44
122
more ocean
beach access
%within Resident Status?
30.1%
25.1%
Uncertain
Count
7
21
%within Resident Status?
4.8%
4.3%
Agree
Count
5
22
% within Resident Status?
3.4%
4.5%
Strongly Agree
Count
1
5
%within Resident Status?
.7%
1.0%
Total
Count
146
486
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
dT
2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
7.737a
8
.460
Likelihood Ratio
8.044
8
.429
Linear -by -Linear
193
1
Association
.661
N of Valid Cases
486
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .92.
We currently have adequate access sites to Bogue Sound'` Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
We currently Strongly Disagree Count
7
10
13
30
have %within Resident Status?
7.9%
4.0%
8.9%
6.2%
adequate Disagree Count
17
36
23
76
access sites
% within Resident Status?
19.1%
14.5%
15.8%
15.7%
to Bogue
Sound Uncertain Count
10
45
27
82
% within Resident Status?
11.2%
18.1%
18.5%
16.9%
Agree Count
17
101
53
171
% within Resident Status?
19.1%
40.6%
36.3%
35.3%
Strongly Agree Count
38
57
30
125
%within Resident Status?
42.7%
22.9%
20.5%
25.6%
Total Count
89
249
146
484
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

' Chi -Square Tests
1
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
27.8593
8
.001
Likelihood Ratio
27.859
8
.001
Linear -by -Linear
3.015
1
Association
.083
N of Valid Cases
484 '
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.52.
' I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more access to Bogue Sound
' * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
I would be willing
Strongly Disagree
Count
53
143
to pay higher
%within Resident Status?
59.6%
57.0%
taxes or fees for
more access to
Bogue Sound
Disagree
Uncertain
Count
% within Resident Status?
Count
22
24.7%
69
27.5%
5
19
%within Resident Status?
5.6%
7.6%
Agree
Count
8
17
%within Resident Status?
9.0%
6.8%
Strongly Agree
Count
1
3
% within Resident Status?
1.1%
1.2%
Total
Count
89
251
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
No - g ent
I would be willing
Strongly Disagree
Count
81
277
to pay higher
%within Resident Status?
55.5%
57.0%
taxes or fees for
more access to
Rogue Sound
Disagree
Uncertain
Count
%within Resident Status?
Count
38
26.0%
129
26.5%
9
33
%within Resident Status?
6.2%
6.8%
Agree
Count
17
42
%within Resident Status?
11.6%
8.6%
Strongly Agree
Count
1
5
%within Resident Status?
.7%
1.0%
Total
Count
146
486
% within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
I' ChiSquare Tests
I!
if
11
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
3.653a
8
.887
Likelihood Ratio
3.610
8
.890
Linear -by -Linear
536
1
Association
.464
N of Valid Cases
486
a. 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .92.
1 We currently have adequate boating facilities * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
We Strongly Disagree Count
5
11
4
20
currently %within Resident Status?
5.6%
4.4%
2.7%
4.1%
have Disagree Count
13
32
20
65
adequate
% within Resident Status?
14.6%
12.9%
13.7%
13.4%
boating
11
33
22
66
facilities Uncertain Count
%within Resident Status?
12.4%
13.3%
15.1%
13.6%
Agree Count
23
115
61
199
% within Resident Status?
25.8%
46.2%
41.8%
41.1%
Strongly Agree Count
37
58
39
134
% within Resident Status?
41.6%
23.3%
26.7%
27.7%
Total Count
89
249
146
484
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

rChi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
16.330a
8
.038
Likelihood Ratio
16.349
8
.038
Linear -by -Linear
110
1
740
Association
N of Valid Cases
484
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.68.
' 1 would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more boating facilities*
1 Resident Status?
Crosstab
r
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
I would be Strongly Disagree Count
65
140
83
288
willing to pay %within Resident Status?
73.0%
55.8%
56.8%
59.3%
higher taxes or Disagree Count
15
72
41
128
fees for more boating facilities %within Resident Status?
16.9%
28.7%
28.1%
26.3%
Uncertain Count
3
15
8
26
% within Resident Status?
3.4%
6.0%
5.5%
5.3%
Agree Count
5
22
12
39
% within Resident Status?
5.6%
8.8%
8.2%
8.0%
Strongly Agree Count
1
2
2
5
% within Resident Status?
1.1%
.8%
1.4%
1.0%
Total Count
89
251
146
466
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
rChi -Square Tests
r
r
r
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2aided
Pearson Chi -Square
9.205a
8
.325
Likelihood Ratio
9.608
8
.294
Linear -by -Linear '
2.642
1
Association
.104
N of Valid Cases
486
a. 4 cells (26.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count Is .92.
rWe currently have adequate marina facilities * Resident Status?
r '

1 Crosstab
`J
A
1
I 1
if
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
We Strongly Disagree Count
1
5
2
8
currently %within Resident Status?
1.1%
2.0%
1.4%
1.7%
have Disagree Count
5
22
8
35
adequate
%within Resident Status?
5.7%
8.8%
5.5%
7.2%
marina
facilities Uncertain Count
10
31
23
64
%within Resident Status?
11.4%
12.4%
15.8%
13.2%
Agree Count
28
126
74
228
%within Resident Status?
31.8%
50.4%
50.7%
47.1%
Strongly Agree Count
44
66
39
149
% within Resident Status?
50.0%
26.4%
26.7%
30.8%
Total Count
88
250
146
484
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
IChi -Square Tests
11
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
21.464a
8
.006
Likelihood Ratio
20.442
8
.009
Linear -by -Linear
3.365
1
Association
.067
N of Valid Cases
484
a. 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count Is 1.45.
rI would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more marina facilities*
Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
I would be Strongly Disagree Count
69
146
89
304
willing to pay %within Resident Status?
79.3%
58.6%
61.0%
63.1%
higher taxes or Disagree Count
14
73
45
132
fees for more
%within Resident Status?
16.1%
29.3%
30.8%
27.4%
marina facilities
Uncertain Count
2
11
8
21
%within Resident Status?
2.3%
4.4%
5.5%
4.4%
Agree Count
2
17
2
21
%within Resident Status?
2.3%
6.8%
1.4%
4.4%
Strongly Agree Count
2
2
4
%within Resident Status?
.8%
1.4%
.8%
Total Count
87
249
146
482
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
19.370a
8
.013
Ukelihood Ratio
21.337
8
.006
Linear -by -Linear
2.543
1
Association
.111
N of Valid Cases
482
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .72.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for development of Town
recreation facilities * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
would be willing to
Strongly Disagree
Count
45
98
pay higher taxes or
%within Resident Status?
51.1%
39.0%
fees for
development of
Town recreation
facilities
Disagree
Uncertain
Count
%within Resident Status?
Count
16
18.2%
85
33.9%
5
22
%within Resident Status?
5.7%
8.8%.
Agree
Count
16
43
%within Resident Status?
18.2%
17.1%
Strongly Agree
Count
6
3
%within Resident Status?
6.8%
1.2%
Total
Count
88
251
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
No - M ent
I would be willing to
Strongly Disagree
Count
53
196
pay higher taxes or
..
% within Resident Status?
36.3%
40.4%
fees for
development of
Town recreation
Disagree
Count
%within Resident Status?
46
31.5%
147
30.3%
19
46
facilities Uncertain Count
%within Resident Status?
13.0%
9.5%
Agree
Count
25
84
%within Resident Status?
17.1%
17.3%
Strongly Agree
Count
3
12
% within Resident Status?
21%
2.5%
Total
Count
146
485
% within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
20.534a
8
.008
Likelihood Ratio
19.281
8
.013
Linear -by -Linear
229
1
Association
.632
N of Valid Cases
485
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.18.
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
MIS inq
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Do you think Atlantic
Beach should develop
more public recreation
462
93.5%
32
6.5%
494
100.0%
facilities?' Resident
Status?
Do you think Atlantic Beach should develop more public recreation facilities? • Resident Status? Crosstabulation
develop more public recreation facilities? %within Resident Status?
%within Resident Status?
% within
28
31.5%
82
34.5%
61
156
68.5%
65.5%
89
238
00.0%
100.0%

' Do you think Atlantic Beach should develop more public recreation facilities? • Resident Status? Crosstabulation
11
11
I,
Resident
Total
No - g ent
Do you think Atlantic Beach should Yes Count
develop more public recreation facilities? %within Resident Status?
No Count
%within Resident Status?
48
35.6%
158
34.2%
87
64.4%
304
65.8%
Total Count
% within Resident Status?
135
100.0%
462
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
.414a
2
.813
Likelihood Ratio
.417
2
.812
Linear -by -Linear
1
.544
Association
.368
N of Valid Cases
462
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 30.44.
IMultiple Response
11
II
II
I
II

*** C R O S S T A B U L AT I ON
$INDOOR (tabulating 1) Preferred Indoor Recreation Facilities
by Qll Resident Status?
Page 1 of 2
' oil
Count IFull-tiro Seasonal Non-resi
Col pct Ie dent Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$INDOOR --------+--------+-----------------+
Q14A I 10 I 28 I 11 I 49
Basketball Courts I 15.4 I 16.7 I 10.9 I 14.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14B I 22 I 49 I 35 I 106
Exercise Facilities I 33.8 I 29.2 I 34.7 I 31.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14C I 3 I 17 I 6 I 26
Handball Courts I 4.6 I 10.1 I 5.9 I 7.8
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14E I 16 I 32 I 30 I 78
Play Area For Childr I 24.6 I 19.0 I 29.7 I 23.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14F I 6 I 8 I 6 I 20
Scateboard Areas I 9.2 I 4.8 I 5.9 I 6.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14G I 5 I 8 I 7 I 20
Roller Scating Rink I 7.7 I 4.8 I 6.9 I 6.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14H I 3 I 5 I 5 I 13
Shuffleboard I 4.6 I 3.0 I 5.0 I 3.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14I I 14 I 32 I 16 I 62
' Swimming Pool I 21.5 I 19.0 I 15.8 I 18.6
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14J I 5 I 7 I 5 I 17
Track I 7.7 I 4.2 I 5.0 I 5.1
' -F'--------+--------+--------+
Q14K I 10 I 33 I 13 I 56
Tennis Courts I 15.4 I 19.6 I 12.9 I 16.8
+--------+--------+--------+
' Q14L I 9 I 13 I 5 I 27
Volleyball Courts I 13.8 I 7.7 I 5.0 I 8.1
+--------+--------+--------+
Column 65 168 101 334
Total 19.5 50.3 30.2 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
' (Continued)

11
*** C R 0 S S T A B U L AT I ON
$INDOOR (tabulating 1) Preferred Indoor Recreation Facilities
by Qll Resident Status?
Page 2 of 2
Q11
Count IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
Col pot Ie dent Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$INDOOR--------+--------i---------+--------+
Q14M I 34 I 86 I 43 I 163
Community Center I 52.3 I 51.2 I 42.6 I 48.8
+--------+--------+--------+
014N I 8 I 10 I 7 I 25
I Other I 12.3 I 6.0 I 6.9 I 7.5
+--------+--------+--------+
Q14D I 2 I 4 I 3 I 9
Ice Skating Rink I 3.1 I 2.4 I 3.0 I 2.7
Column 65 168 101 334
Total 19.5 50.3 30.2 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
334 valid cases; 160 missing cases
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Should taxes or user fees
pay for an Indoor facility?
Resident Status?
465
94.1%
29
5.9%
494
100.0%
Should taxes or user fees pay for an Indoor facility? " Resident Status? Crosstabulation
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
Should taxes or Taxes Count
6
4
10
user fees pay for an % within Resident Status?
2.5%
2.8%
2.2%
Indoor facility? User fees Count
57
178
95
330
% within Resident Status?
67.9%
74.5%
66.9%
71.0%
Both Count
27
55
43
125
%within Resident Status?
32.1%
1 23.0%
1 30.3%
1 26.9%
Total Count
84
239
142
465
1
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
5.910'
4
.206
Likelihood Ratio
7.678
4
.104
Linear -by -Linear
109
1
.741
Association
N of Valid Cases
465
a. 2 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.81.
Multiple Response

+++ C R O S S T A B U L AT I ON +++
$OUTDOOR (tabulating 1) Preferred Outdoor Recreation Facilities
by Qll Resident Status?
Page 1 of 2
Qll
Count
IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
Col pct
Ie dent
Row
I
Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$OUTDOOR--------t--------+--------+--------+
Q16A
I 14 I 42 I 25 I
81
Amphiteatre
I 20.0 I 23.0 I 23.1 I
22.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16B
I 1 I 6 I 1 I
8
Baseball Field
I 1.4 I 3.3 I .9 I
2.2
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16C
I 6 I 21 I 5 I
32
Basketball Courts
I 8.6 I 11.5 I 4.6 I
8.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16D
I 18 I 38 I 32 I
88
Bike Trails
I 25.7 I 20.8 I 29.6 I
24.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16E
I 1 I 3 I 1 I
5
Frisbee Golf
I 1.4 I 1.6 I .9 I
1.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16F
I 8 I 22 I 24 I
54
Golf Course
I 11.4 I 12.0 I 22.2 I
15.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16G
I 13 I 30 I 22 I
65
Picnic Facilities
I 18.6 I 16.4 I 20.4 I
18.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16H
I 17 I 40 I 27 I
84
Playgrounds
I 24.3 I 21.9 I 25.0 I
23.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16I
I 11 I 26 I 13 I
50
Multi -purpose Field
I 15.7 I 14.2 I 12.0 I
13.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16J
I 6 I 10 I 6 I
22
Skateboard Area
i 8.6 I 5.5 I 5.6 I
6.1
+--------+--------+--------+
Q16K
I 2 I 7 I 2 I
11
Soccer Field
I 2.9 I 3.8 I 1.9 I
3.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Column
70 183 108
361
Total
19.4 50.7 29.9
100.0
Percents and totals based
on respondents
(Continued)

*** C R O S S T A B U L AT I ON
$OUTDOOR (tabulating 1) Preferred Outdoor Recreation Facilities
by Qll Resident Status?
Page 2 of 2
Q11
Count IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
Col pct Ie dent Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$OUTDOOR ------------------------------------
Q16L I 1 I 7 I 3 I 11
Softball Field I 1.4 I 3.8 I 2.8 I 3.0
----------------------------
Q16M I 12 I 36 I 13 I 61
Tennis Courts I 17.1 I 19.7 I 12.0 I 16.9
----------------------------
Q16N I 4 I 4 I 4 I 12
Track I 5.7 I 2.2 I 3.7 I 3.3
----------------------------
Q160 I 7 I 10 I 2 2 19
Volleyball Courts I 10.0 I 5.5 I 1.9 I 5.3
---`------------------------
Q16P I 29 I 72 I 44 I 145
Walking/Jogging Trai I 41.4 I 39.3 I 40.7 I 40.2
+---------------------------
Q16Q I 11 I 20 I 13 I 44
Water -related Activi I 15.7 I 10.9 I 12.0 I 12.2
+---------------------------
Q16R I 15 I 44 I 21 I 80
Boating Facilities o I 21.4 I 24.0 I 19.4 I 22.2
+---------------------------
Q16S I 3 I 14 I 4 I 21
Other I 4.3 I 7.7 I 3.7 I 5.8
----------------------------
Column 70 183 108 361
Total 19.4 50.7 29.9 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
361 valid cases; 133 missing cases
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Should taxes or user fees
pay for an outdoor facility?
• Resident Status?
462
93.5%
32
6.5%
494
100.0%

1
Should taxes or user fees pay for an outdoor facility? • Resident Status? Crosstabulation
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
Should taxes or Taxes Count
5
23
13
41
user fees pay for an % within Resident Status?
5.9%
9.7%
9.4%
8.9%
outdoor facility? User fees Count
49
157
76
282
% within Resident Status?
57.6%
66.0%
54.7%
61.0%
Both Count
31
58
50
139
% within Resident Status?
36.5%
24.4%
36.0%
30.1%
Total Count
85
238
139
462
% within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
8.4262
4
.077
Likelihood Ratio
8.562
4
.073
Linear -by -Linear
1
.958
Association
.003
N of Valid Cases
462
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.54.
' ;ultiple Response
1
1
1
I

[l
'
* * *
C R O S S T A B U L AT I ON
* * *
$SUMMER (tabulating
1) Favoriate Summer Activities
in A.B.
by Qll Resident Status?
Page 1 of 2
Q11
Count
IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
Col pct
Ie dent
Row
I
Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$SUMMER --------+--------+--------+--------+
Q18A
I 7 I 23 I 10 I
40
'
Astronomy
I 8.9 I 10.3 I 8.8 I
9.6
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18B
I 42 I 93 I 47 I
182
Beach Activities
I 53.2 I 41.5 I 41.2 I
43.6
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18C
I 18 I 45 I 30 I
93
Biking
I 22.8 I 20.1 I 26.3 I
22.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18D
I 27 I 76 I 42 I
145
Boating
I 34.2 I 33.9 I 36.8 I
34.8
+--------+--------+--------+
'
Q18E
I 11 I 14 I 15 I
40
Canoeing/Kayaking
I 13.9 I 6.3 I 13.2 I
9.6
+--------+--------+--------+
'
Q18F
I 1 I 8 I 9 I
18
Camping
I 1.3 I 3.6 I 7.9 I
4.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18G
I 24 I 82 I 41 I
147
Fishing/Crabbing
I 30.4 I 36.6 I 36.0 I
35.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18H
I 8 I 43 I 24 I
75
Golf
I 10.1 I 19.2 I 21.1 I
16.0
'
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18I
I 11 I 14 I 9 I
34
Nature Clubs
I 13.9 I 6.3 I 7.9 I
8.2
+--------t--------t--------+
Q181
I 8 I 29 I 15 I
52
Picnicking
I 10.1 I 12.9 I 13.2 I
12.5
+--------+--------+--------+
'
Q18K
I 12 I 27 I 18 I
57
Sailing
I 15.2 I 12.1 I 15.8 I
13.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Column
79 224 114
417
'
Total
18.9 53.7 27.3
100.0
Percents and totals based
on respondents
(Continued)

* * * C R O S S T A B U L AT I ON ***
$SUMMER (tabulating 1) Favoriate Summer Activities in A.B.
by Q11 Resident Status?
Page 2 of 2
Qll
Count IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
.Col pct Ie dent Row
I Total
I l I 2 I 3 I
$SUMMER --------+--------+--------+--------+
Q16L I 21 I 54 I 24 I 99
Swimming I 26.6 I 24.1 I 21.1 I 23.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18M I 7 I 36 I 12 I 55
Tennis I 8.9 I 16.1 I 10.5 I 13.2
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18N I 31 I 83 I 54 I 168
Walking/Jogging I 39.2 I 37.1 I 47.4 I 40.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18O I 4 I 13 I 7 I 24
Water Skiing I 5.1 I 5.8 I 6.1 I 5.8
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18P I 4 I 5 I 5 I 14
Wind Surfing I 5.1 I 2.2 I 4.4 I 3.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q18Q I 8 I 19 I 8 I 35
Other I 10.1 I 8.5 I 7.0 I 8.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Column 79 224 114 417
Total 18.9 53.7 27.3 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
417 valid cases; 77 missing cases

* * *
C R 0 S S T A B U L AT I ON
* * *
$WINTER (tabulating
1) Favorite Winter Actiivities
in A.B.
by Qll Resident Status?
Page I of 2
Qll
Count
IFull-tim Seasonal Non-resi
Cal pct
Ie dent
Row
I
Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$WINTER --------+-----------------+--------+
Q19A
I 11 I 25 I 14 I
50
Astronomy
I 15.1 I 13.2 I 14.1 I
13.8
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19B
I 12 I 35 I 18 I
65
Beach Activities
I 16.4 I 18.4 I 18.2 I
18.0
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19C
I 19 I 35 I 27 I
81
Biking
I 26.0 I 18.4 I 27.3 I
22.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19D
I 14 I 33 I 14 I
61
Boating
I 19.2 I 17.4 I 14.1 I
16.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19E
I 5 I 5 I 7 I
17
Canoeing/Kayaking
I 6.8 I 2.6 I 7.1 I
4.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19F
I 0 I 3 I 2 I
5
Camping
I .0 I 1.6 I 2.0 I
1.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19G
I 11 I 52 I 23 I
86
Fishing/Crabbing
I 15.1 I 27.4 I 23.2 I
23.8
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19H
I 8 I 40 I 19 I
67
Golf
I 11.0 I 21.1 I 19.2 I
18.5
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19I
I 9 I 16 I 11 I
36
Nature Clubs
I 12.3 I 8.4 I 11.1 I
9.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19J
I 5 I 13 I 9 I
27
Picnicking
I 6.8 I 6.8 I 9.1 I
7.5
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19K
I 5 I 6 I 3 I
14
Sailing
I 6.8 I 3.2 I 3.0 I
3.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Column
73 190 99
362
Total
20.2 52.5 27.3
100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
(Continued)

* * * C R 0 S S T A B U L AT I ON * * *
$WINTER (tabulating 1) Favorite Winter Actiivities in A.B.
by Q11 Resident Status?
Page 2 of 2
Qll
Count IFull-tiro Seasonal Non-resi
Col pct le dent Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I
$WINTER --------+--------+-----------------+
Q19L I 9 I 16 I 7 I 32
Swimming I 12.3 I 8.4 I 7.1 I 8.8
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19M I 9 I 28 I 6 I 43
Tennis I 12.3 I 14.7 I 6.1 I 11.9
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19N I 40 I 77 I 52 I 169
Walking/Jogging I 54.8 I 40.5 I 52.5 I 46.7
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19O I 1 I 2 I 2 I 5
Water Skiing I 1.4 I 1.1 I 2.0 I 1.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19P I 2 I 3 I 0 I 5
Wind Surfing I 2.7 I 1.6 I .0 I 1.4
+--------+--------+--------+
Q19Q I 10 I 24 I 7 I 41
Other I 13.7 I 12.6 I 7.1 I 11.3
+--------+--------+--------+
Column 73 190 99 362
Total 20.2 52.5 27.3 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
362 valid cases; 132 missing cases
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
M iiiii i nq
TotqPercen.,t,
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Sponsorship of arecreational
program
should be shared by
Carteret County and the
462
93.5%
32
6.5%
494
City of Atlantic Beach
Resident Status?
I would be willing to
volunteer as a committee
member or as part of the
462
93.5%
32
6.5%
494
100.0%
management team
Resident Status?
Sponsorship of 6 recreational program should be shared by Carteret County

and the City of Atlantic Beach * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
Sponsorship of a .00 Count
1
1
recreational %within Resident Status?
.7%
.2%
program should be 1.00 Count
32
78
45
155
shared by Carteret
County and the City %within Resident Status?
37.6%
32.6%
32.6%
33.5%
of Atlantic Beach 2.00 Count
25
104
60
189
%within Resident Status?
29.4%
43.5%
43.5%
40.9%
3.00 Count
7
14
5
26
% within Resident Status?
8.2%
5.9%
3.6%
5.6%
4.00 Count
10
13
3
26
%within Resident Status?
11.8%
5.4%
2.2%
5.6%
5.00 Count
11
30
24
65
% within Resident Status?
12.9%
12.6%
17.4%
14.1%
Total Count
85
239
138
462
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
2-sided
Pearson Chi -Square
18.449a
10
.048
Likelihood Ratio
18.272
10
.051
Linear -by -Linear
071
1
Association
.790
N of Valid Cases
462
a. 5 cells (27.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .18.
I would be willing to volunteer as a committee member or as part of the
management team * Resident Status?
Crosstab
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
I would be willing to volunteer as a committee Yes Count
member or as part of the management team % within Resident Status?
No Count
%within Resident Status?
34
38.6%
29
12.3%
54
61.4%
207
87.7%
Total Count
%within Resident Status?
88
100.0%
236
100.0%

Crosstab
Resident
Total
No - ent
I would be willing to volunteer as a committee Yes Count
member or as part of the management team %within Resident Status?
No Count
%within Resident Status?
24
17.4%
87
18.8%
114
82.6%
375
81.2%
Total Count
%within Resident Status?
138
100.0%
462
100.0%
Chi -Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi -Square
29.3808
2
.000
Likelihood Ratio
26.189
2
.000
Linear -by -Linear
11.156
1
001
Association
N of Valid Cases
462
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.57.
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missinq
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
How long have you been a
resident? ` Resident
Status?
364
73.7%
130
26.3%
494
100.0%
How long have you been a resident? • Resident Status? Crosstabulation
Resident Status?
Full-time
Seasonal
Non-resident
Total
How long have 5 yrs or less Count
17
34
11
62
you been a %within Resident Status?
19.1%
14.7%
25.6%
17.0%
resident? 5 to 10 yrs Count
20
50
8
78
%within Resident Status?
22.5%
21.6%
18.6%
21.4%
Over 10 yrs Count
52
148
24
224
% within Resident Status?
58.4%
63.8%
55.8%,
61.5%
Total Count
89
232
43
364
%within Resident Status?
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

APPENDIX A:
Citizen's Assessment Cover Letter and Survey
And
Citizen's Asssessment Survey

I
' September 18, 1998
Dear Property Owner/Resident
The Town of Atlantic Beach has received a grant from the state of North Carolina to
prepare a Public Water Access Plan and a preliminary assessment of our recreation needs.
This undertaking will include a scientific survey of property owners and residents.
' Your answers to this survey will be used to formulate our future actions in these matters.
Since this is a random survey, not all property owners will receive this survey, so your
answers are critical to us. Please do not interpret any of these questions as an effort by
the current administration to change the character of the Town. Our sole purpose is to
ensure that our planning takes into account the desires of our property owners and
residents.
Even though you may still be experiencing the effects of Hurricane Bonnie on your
property, we appreciate your willingness to share opinions about the future of public
water access and recreation in Atlantic Beach. Please complete and return the pre -paid
questionnaire by , 1998.
Sincerely,
Lemuel Joe Stroud, Jr.
Mayor

Please circle the number that most closely represents your answer.
1. The Town of Atlantic Beach currently has two large ocean beach accesses with
parking, public showers, bathrooms and lifeguard stands (Newbern Avenue and
The Circle), and one access with parking only (the Sheraton). Considering these
three, the Town's large ocean beach accesses are adequate for the current needs of
the Town.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
2. We currently have an adequate mix of types of ocean access (regional,
neighborhood, and local).
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
3. I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more ocean beach access.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
4. We currently have adequate access sites to Bogue Sound.
1. STRONGLY AGREE
2. AGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. UNCERTAIN

5.
a
7
91
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more access to Bogue Sound.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
We currently have adequate boating facilities.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more boating facilities.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
We currently have adequate marina facilities.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN
9. I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more marina facilities.
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2.
AGREE
3.
DISAGREE
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5.
UNCERTAIN

10. I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for development of Town recreation
facilities.
1. STRONGLY AGREE
2. AGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. UNCERTAIN
11. Which of the following best describes you?
1. FULL-TIME RESIDENT
2. SEASONAL RESIDENT
3. NON-RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
12. (If you are a resident) You have been a seasonal or full-time resident of Atlantic
Beach for:
1. 5 YEARS OR LESS
2. BETWEEN 5 AND 10 YEARS
3. OVER 10 YEARS
13. Do you think Atlantic Beach should develop more public recreation facilities?
1. YES
2. NO

14.
If Atlantic Beach developed an INDOOR public recreation facility, what kind of
facility would you prefer?
1. BASKETBALL COURTS
2. EXERCISE FACILITIES
3. HANDBALL/RACQUETBALL COURTS
4. ICE SKATING RINK
5. PLAY AREAS FOR CHILDREN
6. ROLLERBLADES/SKATEBOARD AREAS
7. ROLLER SKATING RINK
8. SHUFFLEBOARD
9. SVnNDv1ING POOL
10. TRACK
11. TENNIS COURTS
12. VOLLEYBALL COURTS
13. COMMUNITY CENTER (MULTI -PURPOSE BUILDING)
14. SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED (PLEASE TELL US YOUR IDEAS)
15. If established, should taxes or user fees pay for this facility?
1. TAXES
2. USER FEES
3. BOTH

16.
If Atlantic Beach developed an OUTDOOR public recreation facility, what kind
of facility would you prefer?
1. AMPHITHEATRE
2. BASEBALL FIELDS
3. BASKETBALL COURTS
4. BIKE TRAILS
5. FRISBEE GOLF
6. GOLF COURSE
7. PICNIC FACILITIES
8. PLAYGROUNDS
9. MULTI -PURPOSE FIELDS
10. ROLLERBLADES/SKATEBOARD AREAS
11. SOCCER FIELDS
12. SOFTBALL FIELDS
13. TENNIS COURT
14. TRACK
15. VOLLEYBALL COURTS
16. WALKING OR JOGGING TRAILS
17. WATER -RELATED ACTIVITIES
18. BOATING FACILITY ON THE SOUND
19. SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED (PLEASE TELL US YOUR IDEAS)
17. If established, should taxes or user fees pay for this facility?
1. TAXES
2. USER FEES
3. BOTH

10
19
What SUMMER recreational activities would your family prefer in Atlantic
Beach?
1. ASTRONOMY
2. BEACH ACTIVITIES
3. BIKING
4. BOATING
5. CANOEING/KAYAKING
6. CAMPING
7. FISHING/CRABBING
8. GOLF
9. NATURE CLUBS
10. PICNICKING
11. SAILING
12. SWIMMING
13. TENNIS
14, WALKING/JOGGING
15. WATER SKIING
16. WIND SURFING
17. SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED (PLEASE TELL US)
What WINTER recreational activities would your family prefer in Atlantic
Beach?
1. ASTRONOMY
2. BEACH ACTIVITIES
3. BIKING
4. BOATING
5. CANOEING/KAYAKING
6. CAMPING
7. FISHING/CRABBING
8. GOLF
9. NATURE CLUBS
10. PICNICKING
11. SAILING
12. SWIMMING
13. TENNIS
14. WALKING/JOGGING
15. WATER SKIING
16. WIND SURFING
17. SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED (PLEASE TELL US)

20. Sponsorship of a recreational program should be shared by Carteret County and
the City of Atlantic Beach.
1. STRONGLY AGREE
2. AGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. UNCERTAIN
21. If a recreational facility were established in Atlantic Beach, I would be willing to
volunteer as a committee member or as part of the management team.
' 1. YES
2. NO
Thank you very much for your help. Please remember to send your survey back in the
prepaid return envelope.

APPENDIX B:
Cross -Tabulations by Type of Resident
and
Frequency Tables

1
i
'lease circle the number that most closely represents your answer.
The Town of Atlantic Beach currently has two large ocean beach accesses with parking, public showers, bathrooms
and lifeguard stands (Newbern Avenue and The Circle), and one access with parking only (the Sheraton).
Considering these three, the Town's large ocean beach accesses are adequate for the current needs of the Town.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1. STRONGLY AGREE
47 (9.8)
80 (16.7)
46 (9.6)
173 (36.1)
2. AGREE
21 (4.4)
111 (23.2)
63 (13.2)
195 (40.7)
3. DISAGREE
12 (2.5)
24 (5.0)
18 (3.8)
54 (11.3)
4. STRONGLY DISAGREE
7 (1.5)
10 (2.1)
8 (1.7)
25 (5.2)
5. UNCERTAIN
1 (.2)
21 4.4
10 (2.11
32 6.7
88 (18.4)
246 (51.4)
145 (30.3)
479 (100)
2. We currently have an adequate mix of types of ocean access (regional, neighborhood, and local).
FULL-TIME RESIDENT SEASONAL RESIDENT NON RESIDEI
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
43 (8.9)
81 (16.8)
42 (8.7)
2.
AGREE
25 (5.2)
117 (24.3)
68 (14.1)
3.
DISAGREE
14 (2.9)
21 (4.4)
18 (3.7)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4 (.8)
9 (1.9)
4 (.8)
5.
UNCERTAIN
2 (.
21 (44)
12 2.5
88 (18.3)
249 (51.8)
144 (29.9)
A 3.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more ocean beach access.
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
1 (.2)
3 (6)
2.
AGREE
6 (1.2)
11 (2.3)
3.
4.
DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
14 (2.9)
65(13.4)
64(13.2)
162(33.3)
5.
UNCERTAIN
3 (.6)
11 (2.31
89 (18.3)
251 (51.6)
4.
We currently have adequate access sites to Bogue Sound.
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
I
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
38 (7.9)
57 (11.8)
2.
AGREE
17 (3.5)
101 (20.9)
3.
DISAGREE
17 (3.5)
36 (7.4)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
7 (1.4)
30 (2.1)
5.
UNCERTAIN
10 2.1
45 (9.31
89 (18.4)
249 (51.4)
5.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more access to Bogue Sound.
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
1 (.2)
3 (6)
2.
AGREE
8 (1.6)
17 (3.5)
3.
DISAGREE
22 (4.5)
69(14.2)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
53 (10.9)
143 (29.4)
5.
UNCERTAIN
S (1.0]
1913.9]
89 (183)
251(51.6)
f
COLUMN
TOTAL
166 (34.5)
210 (43.7)
53 (11)
17(3.5)
35(7.3)
481(300)
COLUMN
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
1 (.2)
5 (1)
5 (1.0)
22 (4.5)
44 (9.1)
122(25.1)
89 (18.3)
316 (65.0)
7 1.4
21 (4.3)
146 (30.0)
486 (100)
COLUNLN
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
30 (6.2)
125 (25.8)
53 (11.0)
171(35.3)
23 (4.8)
76 (15.7)
13 (2.7)
30 (6.2)
27 (5.6)
82(16.9
146 (30.2)
484 (100)
COLUM
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
5 (1.0)
17 (3.5)
42 (8.6)
38 (7.8)
129 (26.5)
81 (16.7)
277 (57.0)
9 (1.9)
33 6.8
146 (30.0)
486 (100)

I!
We currently have adequate boating facilities.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
37(7.6)
58 (12.0)
39 (8.1)
134 (27.7)
2.
AGREE
23(4.8)
113 (23.8)
61 (12.6)
199 (41A)
3.
DISAGREE
13 (2.7)
32 (6.6)
20 (4.1)
65 (13.4)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5 (1.0)
Il (2.3)
4 (8)
20 (4.1)
5.
UNCERTAIN
11 2.3
33 (6.8)
22 (4.51
66(13.6
89 (18.4)
249 (51.4)
146 (30.2)
484 (100)
7.
1 would be willing to pay higher taxes or fees for more boating facilities.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
1 (2)
2 (A)
2 (A)
5 (1.0)
2.
AGREE
5 (1.0)
22 (4.5)
12 (2.5)
39 (8.0)
3.
DISAGREE
15 (3.1)
72(14.8)
41 (8.4)
128(26.3)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
65 (13.4)
140 (28.8)
83 (17.1)
288 (59.3)
'
5.
UNCERTAIN
3 (.6)
1s (3.11
8 (1.61
26 (5.31
'
89 (18.3)
251 (51.6)
146 (30.0)
486 (100)
8.
We currently have adequate marina
facilities.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESlDEirT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
44 (9.1)
66 (13.6)
39 (8.1)
149 (30.8)
2.
AGREE
28(5.8)
126 (26.0)
74 (15.3)
228 (47.1)
3.
DISAGREE
5 (1.0)
22 (4.5)
8 (1.7)
35 (7.2)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
1 (2)
5 (1.0)
2 (A)
8 (1.7)
5.
UNCERTAIN
10 (2.11
31 (6.41
23 (4.8)
64(113.2
88 (18.2)
250 (51.7)
146 (30.2)
484 (100)
9.
I would be willing to pay higher
taxes or fees for more marina facilities
COLUMN
'
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
70TAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
2 (A)
2 (A)
4 (.8)
2.
AGREE
2 (A)
17 (3.5)
2 (A)
21 (4.4)
3.
DISAGREE
14 (2.9)
73 (15.1)
45 (9.3)
132 (27.4)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
69 (14.3)
146(30.3)
89 (18.5)
304 (63.1)
5.
UNCERTAIN
2 (A)
11S2.3
s 1J
21 (4.4
87 (18)
249 (51.7)
146 (30.3)
482 (100)
10.
I would
be willing to pay higher
taxes or fees for development of Town recreation
facilities
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
6 (1.2)
3 (.6)
3 (.6)
12 (2.5)
2.
AGREE
16 (33)
43 (8.9)
25 (5.2)
84(173)
3.
DISAGREE
16 (33)
85 (17.5)
46 (9.5)
147(30.3)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
45 (9.3)
98 (20.2)
53 (10.9)
196(40.4)
5.
UNCERTAIN
5 f1.01
2 (4.5
19 .9
,465¢.
88 (18.1)
251(51.8)
146 (30.1)
485 (100)
.1. Which of the following best describes you?
1. FULL-TIME RESIDENT 89 (18.3)
2. SEASONAL RESIDENT 251 (51.6)
3. NON-RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER 146 (30.0t
486 (I00.0)

' ' 2. (If you are a resident) You have been a seasonal or full-time resident of Atlantic Beach for.
COLUNLN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
A
1.
5 YEARS OR LESS
17(4.7)
34 (9.3)
11 (3.0)
62 (17.0)
2.
BETWEEN 5 AND 10 YEARS
20(5.5)
50 (13.7)
8 (2.2)
78 (21.4)
3.
OVER 10 YEARS
5204.3
148(40.
24 (6.61
224(61.5 1
89 (24.5)
232 (63.7)
43 (11.8)
364 (100)
13.
Do you think Atlantic Beach should develop more public
recreation facilities?
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
2.
YES
NO
28 (6.1)
6103.2
82(17.7)
156 (33.8)
48(10.4)
97(18.8
158(34.2)
304 (65.8I
89(19.3)
238(51.5)
135(29.2)
462 (100)
14. If Atlantic Beach developed an INDOOR public recreation facility, what land of facility would you prefer?
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT TOTAL
1.
BASKETBALL COURTS
10(2.1)
28 (5.8)
11(2.3)
49(10.1)
2.
EXERCISE FACILITIES
22(4.5)
49 (10.1)
35(7.2)
106 (21.8)
3.
HANDBALURACQUETBALL COURTS
3 (.6)
17 (3.5)
6(1.2)
26 (5.3)
4.
ICESKATINGRINK
2 (4)
4 (.8)
3 (.6)
9 (1.9)
5.
PLAY AREAS FOR CHILDREN
16(3.3)
32 (6.6)
30(6.2)
78 (16)
6.
ROLLERBLADES/SKATEBOARD AREAS
6(1.2)
8 (1.6)
6(1.2)
20 (4.1)
7.
ROLLER SKATING RINK
5(1.0)
8 (1.6)
7(1.4)
20 (4.1)
S.
SHUFFLEBOARD
3 (.6)
5 (1.0)
5(1.0)
13 (2.7)
9.
SWIMMING POOL
14(2.9)
32 (6.6)
16(3.3)
62 (12.8)
10.
TRACK
5(1.0)
7 (1.4)
5(1.0)
17 (3.5)
11.
TENNIS COURTS
10(2.1)
33 (6.8)
13(2.7)
56 (11.5)
12.
VOLLEYBALL COURTS
9(1.9)
13 (2.7)
5(1.0)
27 (5.6)
13.
COMMUNITY CENTER (MULTI -PURPOSE 34(7.0)
86 (17.7)
43(8.8)
163 (33.5)
BUILDING)
14.
SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED
19(3,9)
34 (7.0)
11(2.3)
64 (13.2)
(PLEASE TELL US YOUR IDEAS)
15. If established, should tares or user fees pay
for this facility?
COLUhLY
FULL-TIME RESIDENT SEASONAL RESIDENT
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
TAXES
6 (1.3)
4 (.9)
10 (2.2)
2.
USER FEES 57 (12.3)
178 (38.3)
95 (20.4)
330 (71.0)
3.
BOTH 27(5.81
55(11.81
43 9.2
125(26.9
84 (18.1)
239 (51.4)
142 (30.5)
465 (100).

II
6.
If Atlantic Beach developed an OUTDOOR public recreation facility, what kind of facility would you prefer?
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL
RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
I
1.
AMPFRCHEATRE
14(2.9)
42 (8.6)
25 (5.1)
81(16.7)
2.
BASEBALL FIELDS
1 (.2)
6 (1.2)
1 (.2)
8 (1.6)
3.
BASKETBALL COURTS
6(1.2)
21 (4.3)
5 (1.0)
32 (6.6)
4.
BIKE TRAILS
19(3.7)
38 (7.8)
32 (6.6)
88 (18.1)
5.
FRISBEE GOLF
1 (.2)
3 (.6)
1 (.2)
5 (1.0)
6.
GOLFCOURSE
8(1.6)
22 (4.5)
24 (4.9)
54(11.1)
7.
PICNIC FACILITIES
13(2.7)
30 (6.2)
22 (4.5)
65 (13.4)
8.
9.
PLAYGROUNDS
MULTI -PURPOSE FIELDS
17(3.5)
11(2.3)
40 (8.2)
26 (5.3)
27 (5.6)
13 (2.7)
84 (17.3)
50 (10.3)
10.
ROLLERBLADES/SKATEBOARD
6(1.2)
10 (2.1)
6 (1.2)
22 (4.5)
AREAS
11.
SOCCER FIELDS
2 (A)
7 (1.4)
2 (A)
11 (2.3)
12.
SOFTBALL FIELDS
1 (.2)
7 (1.4)
3 (.6)
11 (2.3)
13.
TENNIS COURT
12(2.5)
36 (7.4)
13 (2.7)
61 (12.6)
14.
TRACK
4 (.8)
4 (.8)
4 (.8)
12 (2.5)
15.
VOLLEYBALL COURTS
7(1.4)
10 (2.1)
2 (A)
19 (3.9)
16.
WALKING OR JOGGING TRAILS
29(6.0)
72 (14.8)
44 (9.1)
145 (29.8)
'
17.
WATER -RELATED ACTIVITIES
11(2.3)
20 (4.1)
13 (2.7)
44 (9.1)
18.
BOATING FACILITY ON THE
15(3.1)
44 (9.1)
21 (4.3)
80 (16.5)
SOUND
19.
SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED
11 (2.3)
32(6.6)
5(1.0)
48 (9.9)
(PLEASE TELL US YOUR IDEAS)
17.
If established, should taxes or user fees pay for this facility?
L
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NONRESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
TAXES 5 (1.1)
23 (5.0)
13 (2.8)
41 (8.9)
2.
USER FEES 49(10.6)
157(34.0)
76 (16.5)
282(61.0)
3.
BOTH 31 (6.7)
58(12.61
50 (10.8)
139(30.2
85 (18.4)
238 (51.5)
139 (30.1)
462 (100)
18.
What SUMMER recreational activities would your family
prefer in Atlantic Beach?
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
COLUMN
TOTAL
1.
ASTRONOMY
7(1.4)
23 (4.7)
10 (2.1)
40 (8.2)
2.
BEACH ACTIVITIES
42(8.6)
93 (19.1)
47 (9.7)
182 (37.4)
3.
BIKING
18(3.7)
45 (9.3)
30 (6.2)
93 (19.1)
4.
BOATING
27(5.6)
76 (15.6)
'
42 (8.6)
145 (29.8)
5.
CANOEIN01KAYAKING
11(2.3)
14 (2.9)
15 (3.1)
40 (8.2)
6.
CAMPING
1 (.2)
8 (1.6)
9 (1.9)
18 (3.7)
7.
FISHING/CRABBING
24(4.9)
82 (16.9)
41 (8.4)
147 (30.2)
8.
GOLF
8(1.6)
43 (8.8)
24 (4.9)
75(I5.4)
9.
NATURE CLUBS
11(2.3)
14 (29)
9 (1.9)
34 (7.0)
10.
PICNICKING
8 (1.6)
29 (6.0)
15 (3.1)
52 (10.7)
it.
SAILING
12(2.5)
27 (5.6)
18 (3.7)
57(11.7)
12.
SWIMMING
21(4.3)
54 (11.2)
24 (4.9)
99 (20.4)
13.
TENNIS
7(1.4)
36 (7.4)
12 (2.5)
55(113)
14.
WALKING/JOGGING
31(6.4)
83 (17.1)
54(11.1)
168 (34.6)
15.
WATER SKIING
4 (.8) -
13 (2.7)
7 (IA)
24 (4.9)
16.
WINDSURFING
4 (.8)
5 (1.0)
5 (1.0)
14 (2.9)
'
17.
SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED
8 (1.6)
19 (3.9)
8 (1.6)
35 (7.2)
(PLEASE TELL US)

What WINTER recreational activities would your family prefer in Atlantic Beach?
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
ASTRONOMY
11(2.3)
25 (5.1)
14
(2.9)
50 (103)
2.
BEACH ACTIVITIES
12(2.5)
35 (7.2)
18
(3.7)
65 (13.4)
3.
BIKING
19(3.9)
35 (7.2)
27
(5.6)
81 (16.7)
4.
BOATING
14(2.9)
33 (6.8)
14
(2.9)
61 (12.6)
5.
CANOEING/KAYAKING
5(1.0)
5 (1.0)
7
(1.4)
17 (3.5)
6.
CAMPING
3 (A)
2
(A)
5 (1.0)
7.
FISHINGICRABBING
11(2.3)
52(10.7)
23
(4.7)
86(17.7)
L
GOLF
8(1.6)
40 (8.2)
19
(3.9)
67(13.8)
9.
NATURE CLUBS
9(1.9)
16 (3.3)
11
(23)
36 (7.4)
10.
PICNICKING
5(1.0)
13 (2.7)
9
(1.9)
27 (5.6)
it.
SAILING
5(1.0)
6 (1.2)
3
(A)
14 (2.9)
12.
SWIMMING
9(1.9)
16 (3.3)
7
(1A)
32 (6.6)
13.
TENNIS
9(1.9)
28 (5.8)
6
(1.2)
43 (8.8)
14.
WALMNO/lOOGING
40(8.2)
77(15.8)
52(10.7)
169(34.8)
13.
WATER SKIING
1 (.2)
2 (A)
2
(A)
5 (1.0)
16.
WIND SURFING
2 (A)
3 (.6)
5 (1.0)
17.
SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED
10(2.1)
24 (4.9)
7
(1.4)
41 (8.4)
(PLEASE TELL US)
20. Sponsorship of a recreational program should be shared by Carteret County and the City of Atlantic Beach.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1.
STRONGLY AGREE
32 (6.9)
78 (16.9)
45 (9.7)
155 (33.5)
2.
AGREE
25 (5.4)
104 (22.5)
60 (13.0)
189 (40B)
3.
DISAGREE
7 (1.5)
14 (3.0)
6 (1.3)
27 (5.8)
4.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
10 (2.2)
13 (2.8)
3 (.6)
26 (5.6)
5.
UNCERTAIN
1)_(.44
30 (6.5
24 .2
65 (1411
85 (18.4)
239 (51.7)
138 (29.9)
462 (100.0)
21. If a recreational facility were established in Atlantic Beach, I would be willing to volunteer as a committee member or
as part of the management team.
COLUMN
FULL-TIME RESIDENT
SEASONAL RESIDENT
NON RESIDENT
TOTAL
1. YES 34 (7.4)
2. NO 34(11.
88 (19.0)
29 (6.3)
207(44.8
236 (51.1)
24 (5.2)
138 (29.9)
87 (18.8)
373 (81,
462 (100.0)
22. If you have other comments, please tell us about them...
Thank you very much for your help. Please remember to send your survey back in the prepaid return envelope.

Q1
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
173
35.0
35.7
35.7
2.00
198
40.1
40.8
76.5
3.00
55
11.1
11.3
87.8
Valid
4.00
25
5.1
5.2
93.0
5.00
34
6.9
7.0
100.0
Total
485
98.2
100.0
Missing
System
9
1.8
Total
494
100.0
Q2
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
166
33.6
34.1
34.1
2.00
213
43.1
43.7
77.8
3.00
54
10.9
11.1
88.9
Valid
4.00
17
3.4
3.5
92.4
5.00
37
7.5
7.6
100.0
Total
487
98.6
100.0
Missing
System
7
1.4
Total
494
100.0
Q3
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.00
22
4.5
4.5
5.5
3.00
123
24.9
25.0
30.5
Valid
4.00
319
64.6
64.8
95.3
5.00
23
4.7
4.7
100.0
Total
492
99.6
100.0
Missing
System
2
.4
Total
494
100.0

Q4
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent -
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
125
25.3
25.5
25.5
2.00
174
35.2
35.5
61.0
Valid
3.00
76
15.4
15.5
76.5
4.00
30
6.1
6.1
82.7
5.00
85
17.2
17.3
100.0
Total
490
99.2
100.0
Missing
System
4
.8
Total
494
100.0
a
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.00
42
8.5
8.5
9.6
3.00
130
26.3
26.4
36.0
Valid
4.00
280
56.7
56.9
92.9
5.00
35
7.1
7.1
100.0
Total
491
99.6
100.0
Missing
System
2
.4
Total
494
100.0
Let.
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
135
27.3
27.6
27.6
2.00
201
40.7
41.0
68.6
Valid
3.00
6S
13.2
13.3
81.8
4.00
20
4.0
4.1
85.9
5.00
69
14.0
14.1
100.0
Total
490
99.2
100.0
Missing
System
4
.8
Total
494
100.0

Q7
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.00
39
7.9
7.9
9.0
3.00
129
26.1
26.3
35.2
Valid
4.00
290
56.7
59.1
94.3
5.00
28
5.7
5.7
100.0
Total
491
99.4
L 100.0
Missing
System
3
1 .6
Total
494
j 100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
M
30.4
30.7
30.7
2.00
230
46.6
47.0
77.7
100
35
7.1
7.2
84.9
Valid
4.00
8
1.6
1.6
86.5
5.00
66
13.4
13.5
100.0
Total
489
99.0
100.0
Missing
System
5
1.0
Total
494
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
4
.8
.8
.8
2.00
21
4.3
4.3
5.1
3.00
132
16.7
27.1
32.2
Valid
4.00
307
62.1
63.0
95.3
5.00
23
4.7
4.7
100.0
Total
487
98.6
100.0
Missing
System
7
1.4
Total
494
100.0
3

Q10
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
11
2.4
2.4
2.4
Valid
2.00
84
17.0
17.1
19.6
3.00
147
29.8
30.0
49.6
4.00
1 200
40.5
40.8
90.4
5.00
47
9.5
9.6
100.0
Total
490
99.21
100.0
Missing
System
4
.8
Total
494
100.0
Q11
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
89
18.0
18.3
18.3
-'
2.00
251
50.8
51.6
70.0
Valid
3.00
146
29.6
30.0
100.0
Total
486
98.4
100.0
Missing
System
1
8
1.61
Total
4941
100.0
Q12
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
61
12.6
16.8
16.8
2.00
79
16.0
21.4
38.1
Valid
3.00
229
46.4
61.9
100.0
Total
370
74.9
100.0
Missing
System
124
25.1
Total
4941
100.0
Q13
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
158
32.0
33.8
33.8
Valid
2.00
309
62.6
66.2
100.0
Total
467
94.5
100.0
Missing
System
27
S.5
Total
494
1 100.0

Q14A
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
444
89.9
89.9
89.9
Valid
1.00
50
10.1
10.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
388
78.5
78.5
78.5
Valid
1.00
106
21.5
21.5
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14C
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
467
94.5
94.5
94.5
Valid
1.00
17
5.5
5.5
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14D
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
485
9&2
9R2
98.2
Valid
1.00
9
1.8
1.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14E
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
415
84.0
84.0
84.0
Valid
1.00
79
16.0
16.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q14F
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
474
96.0
96.0
96.0
Valid
1.00
20
4.0
4.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14G
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
474
96.0
96.0
96.0
Valid
1.00
20
4.0
4.0
100.0
Tota]
494
100.0
100.0
Q14H
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
481
97.4
97.4
97.4
Valid
1.00
13
26
2.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14I
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
432
87.4
87.4
87.4
Valid
1.00
62
12.6
12.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14J
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
477
96.6
96.6
96.6
1.00
17
3.4
3.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q14K
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
438
88.7
88.7
88.7
Valid
1.00
56
11.3
11.3
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14L
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
467
94.5
94.5
94.5
Valid
1.00
27
5.5
5.5
100.0
Tota]
494
100.0
100.0
Q14M
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
331
67.0
67.0
67.0
Valid
1.00
163
33.0
33.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q14N
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
429
86.8
86.8
86.8
1.00
65
13.2
13.2
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q15
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
10
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.00
335
67.8
71.3
73.4
Valid
3.00
125
15.3
26.6
100.0
Total
470
9S.1
100.0
Missing
System
241
1
4.9
Total
4941
100.0

Q16A
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
413
83.6
83.6
83.6
Valid
1.00
81
16.4
16.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
486
98.4
98.4
98.4
Valid
1.00
8
1.6
1.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16C
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
EVaOlid1.00
.00
461
93.3
93.3
93.3
33
6.7
6.7
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16D
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
405
82.0
82.0
82.0
1.00
89
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
200.0
Q16E
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
489
99.0
99.0
99.0
Valid
1.00
S
1.0
1.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q16F
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
438
88.7
88.7
88.7
Valid
1.00
56
11.3
11.3
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16G
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
428
86.6
86.6
86.6
Valid
1.00
66
13.4
13.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16H
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
410
83.0
83.0
83.0
Valid
1.00
84
17.0
17.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16I
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
444
89.9
89.9
89.9
Valid
1.00
50
10.1
10.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16J
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
.00
471
95.3
95.5
95.5
1.00
22
4.5
4.5
100.0
Total
493
99.8
100.0
Missing
System
1
.2
Total
4941
100.0

Q16K
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
483
97.8
97.8
97.8
Valid
1.00
11
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total .
494
100.0
100.0
Q16L
Frequency
Percent
Valid .
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
483
97.8
97.8
97.8
Valid
1.00
.11
1.2
2.2
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16M
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
432
87.4
87.4
87.4
Valid
1.00
62
12.6
12.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16N
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
482
97.6
97.6
97.6
Va]id
1.00
12
2.4
2.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16O
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
475
96.2
96.2
96.2
Valid
1.00
19
3.8
3.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q16P
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
347
70.2
70.2
70.2
Valid
1.00
147
29.8
29.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16Q
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
449
90.9
90.9
90.9
Valid
1.00
45
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16R
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
414
83.8
83.8
83.8
Valid
1.00
80
16.2
16.2
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q16S
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
446
90.3
90.3
90.3
1.00
48
9.7
9.7
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q17
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
42
8.5
9.0
9.0
2.00
285
S7.9
61.2
70.2
Valid
3.00
139
28.1
19.8
100.0
Total
467
94.S
100.0
Missing
System
271
S.S
Total
494
100.0

Q18A
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
4S4
91.9
91.9
91.9
Valid
1.00
40
8.1
8.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
311
63.0
63.0
63.0
1.00
183
37.0
37.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18C
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
399
80.8
80.8
80.8
Valid
1.00
95
19.2
19.2
100.0
Tota]
494
100.0
100.0
Q18D
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
347
70.2
70.2
70.2
1.00
147
29.8
29.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18E
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
454
91.9
91.9
91.9
Valid
1.00
40
8.1
8.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q18F
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
476
96.4
96.4
96.4
Valid
1.00
18
3.6
3.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18G
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
345
69.8
69.8
69.8
Valid
1.00
149
30.2
30.2
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
417
84.4
84.4
84.4
Valid
1.00
77
15.6
15.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18I
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
460
93.1
93.1
93.1
Valid
1.00
34
6.9
6.9
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
q18 j
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
441
89.3
89.5
89.S
Valid
1.00
S2
10.5
10.5
100.0
Total
493
99.8
200.0
Missing
System
1
.2
Total 1
1 494
100.0

Q18K
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
437
88.5
88.5
88.5
Valid
1.00
57
11.5
11.5
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18L
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
393
79.6
79.6
79.6
Valid
1.00
101
2a4
20.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18M
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
439
88.9
88.9
88.9
Valid
1.00
55
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q18N
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
322
65.2
65.2
65.2
Valid
1.00
172
34.8
34.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q180
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
469
94.9
94.9
94.9
Valid
1.00
2S
S.1
S.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q18P
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
480
97.2
97.2
97.2
Valid
1.00
14
2.8
2.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
M]
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
459
92.9
92.9
92.9
Valid
1.00
35
7.1
7.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19A
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
444
89.9
89.9
89.9
1.00
SO
20.1
10.1
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
•
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
428
86.6
86.6
86.6
Valid
1.00
66
13.4
13.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19C
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
412
83.4
83.4
83.4
Valid
1.00
81
16.6
16.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q19D
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
433
87.7
87.7
87.7
Valid
1.00
61
12.3
12.3
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19E
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
477
96.6
96.6
96.6
Valid
1.00
17
3.4
3.4
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19F
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
488
98.8
98.8
98.8
Valid
1.00
6
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19G
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
407
81.4
82.4
82.4
Valid
1.00
87
17.6
17.6
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
M.
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
415
86.0
86.0
86.0
Valid
1.00
69
14.0
14.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
I00.0

Q19I
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
458
92.7
92.7
92.7
Valid
1.00
36
7.3
7.3
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19J
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
467
94.5
94.5
94.5
Valid
1.00
27
5.5
5.5
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19K
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
EVaalid1.00
.00
480
97.2
97.2
97.2
14
2.8
2.8
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19L
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
462
93.5
93.5
93.5
Valid
100
32
6.5
6.5
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19M
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
00
451
91.3
91.3
91.3
1.00
43
8.7
8.7
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0

Q19N
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
322
65.2
65.2
65.2
Valid
1.00
172
34.8
348
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19O
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
489
99.0
99.0
99.0
Valid
1.00
5
1.0
1.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
489
99.0
99.0
99.0
Valid
1.00
5
1.0
1.0
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q19Q
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
00
453
91.7
91.7
91.7
Valid
1.00
41
8.3
8.3
100.0
Total
494
100.0
100.0
Q20
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
156
31.6
33.3
313
1.00
193
39.1
41.2
U.6
3.00
27
5.5
5.8
80.3
Valid
4.00
16
53
5.6
85.9
5.00
66
13.4
14.1
100.0
Total
468
94.7
100.0
Missing
System
26
5.3
Total
494
100.0

Q21
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
87
17.6
I8.6
I8.6
Valid
2.00
381
77.I
8I.4
100.0
Total
468
94.7
100.0
Missing
System
26
5.3
Total
494
1 100.0