Log in

A lot of parks, not a lot of funding

Glendale outperforms Valley cities in park acreage, underperforms in park funding

Posted 6/13/20

Glendale far outperforms similar Valley cities in the amount of park acreage it offers relative to its population but far underperforms spending to maintain those park acres, according to a study …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

A lot of parks, not a lot of funding

Glendale outperforms Valley cities in park acreage, underperforms in park funding

Posted

Glendale far outperforms similar Valley cities in the amount of park acreage it offers relative to its population but far underperforms spending to maintain those park acres, according to a study contracted by the city.

The study, by GreenPlay LLC, compares Glendale’s parks to Peoria, Surprise, Scottsdale and Gilbert. The results showed that Glendale provides two or three times the amount of park acres per 1,000 residents than the four other cities studied, but the other cities spend two to five times as much per acre maintaining their parks.

The study, presented to Glendale City Council Tuesday, was part of the first step of Glendale creating a new Parks Master Plan, which will determine how Glendale plans to invest in its parks over the next several years. No decisions were made in Tuesday’s meeting. GreenPlay and city staff will present Council with a draft of the Master Plan in September and it will be finalized in late fall or early winter.

“I look at this as one of the most important things (we do), next to just passing our budget and hiring our city manager. This is an extremely important process,” said Ocotillo District Councilman Jamie Aldama about drafting the city’s Park Master Plan. “…It is for the next 25, 30 years, what our parks are going to look like.”

The study included a public survey, which showed a mix of public satisfaction of Glendale park facilities, depending on the type of facility. Community/neighborhood parks and walking/biking trails received very high satisfaction ratings. Regional parks, picnic areas/shelters and playgrounds received relatively high ratings. Athletic courts and dog parks received an average rating. Athletic fields were rated slightly below average, and skate and bike parks and handball courts received very low ratings.

Glendale provides 8.87 park acres per 1,000 residents compared to 3.9 for Scottsdale, 3.74 for Gilbert, 2.73 for Surprise and 2.59 for Peoria. However, Glendale still underperforms the national median of 10.1 acres per 1,000 residents, according to the National Recreation and Park Association. About 32% of Glendale’s park acreage comes from Thunderbird Conservation Park.

Glendale spends just $3,036 annually in operating expenditures per park acre compared to $6,437 for Gilbert, $8,383 for Surprise, $11,995 for Peoria and $17,203 for Scottsdale. The national median is $6,750 spent annually per acre, according to the NRPA.

Glendale’s poor standing in this figure is caused mostly by the amount of park acreage is has to maintain. When looking at spending based on population, Glendale — at about $27,000 in annual operating expenditures per 1,000 residents — compares closely to Peoria ($31,000), Gilbert ($24,000) and Surprise ($23,000). Scottsdale is far ahead of the pack, spending $67,000 annually per 1,000 residents.

Glendale has increased its Parks Department spending in recent years, from $12.1 million in fiscal year 2017 to $14.2 million in fiscal year 2020. The Parks Department accounted for a 3.08% share of the city’s general fund spending in fiscal year 2017, increasing to 3.39% in fiscal year 2019 before decreasing to 3.31% in fiscal year 2020.

Glendale received a poor park funding score from another study too. Glendale received an 18 out of 100 for park investment by The Trust For Public Land’s ParkScore rating, which trailed the four Valley other cities examined.

Glendale ranked 74th among 97 in overall ParkScore, which examined 97 of the country’s most 100 populous cities. Glendale ranked third among the four other Valley cities studied, which were Scottsdale (44th overall), Phoenix (56th), Chandler (65th) and Mesa (96th).

Glendale outperformed all four of those other Valley cities in park amenities, with a 51 out of 100 rating, and park access, with a 62 out of 100 rating. The study found that 75% of Glendale’s residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park.

GreenPlay used the same metric of residents within a 10-minute walk of a park for its heat map, which showed which areas of Glendale had adequate access to parks. Yucca District Councilwoman Joyce Clark noted that a 10-minute walk becomes a lot less convenient during Arizona summers.

“I haven’t done a 10-minute walk in July in Arizona in 50 years, and I’m not about to start now. And I’ll bet there are a lot of people who would avoid that like the plague,” she said, wondering if the city should hold itself to a higher standard of park access than the 10-minute walk metric.

Glendale ranked fourth among the five Valley cities in its acreage score, beating only Mesa. The ParkScore systems acreage ranking differs from GreenPlay’s. Rather than acreage compared to population, ParkScore factors in median park size and percentage of a city’s acreage dedicated to parks. Glendale scored a 33 out of 100 in ParkScore’s acreage system.

Ms. Clark noted that parks, in addition to boosting the quality of life of current residents, can be a draw to new residents or companies considering moving to Glendale.

“Why I consider parks so important is because they, in great measure, determine the quality of life for every resident in Glendale. They are also – when you talk about marketing – they are a marketing tool for possible locates within the city. The bosses, the CEOs of companies want to know that their employees have access to good, quality recreation because that is an attractant. And when we do not pay attention to those things, it does not serve our economic development well,” Ms. Clark said.

Mark Carlisle can be reached at mcarlisle@newszap.com or found on Twitter @mwcarlisle.