Extracted text (via ocr_local)
5883 characters
Citizen Petition Regarding the City of Phoenix Municipal Golf System Attachment A SHAY -7 PH A:T] Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, | respectfully petition the Phoenix City Council to take the following actions regarding the City's operation of municipal golf courses: Petition Summary 1. Establish an Independent Ad Hoc Committee Form a temporary Ad Hoc Committee to study the future of municipal golf in Phoenix. This committee should be: ° ie} Independent of current Parks or Golf management staff; Proportional in representation, with 1 golfer for every 10 non-golfers, reflecting the estimated 1-2% of Phoenix residents who regularly use municipal golf facilities; Empowered to review financials, land use, water use, environmental impacts, and equity implications of golf course operations; Required to produce a public report within 6 months, with clear policy options for Council review. 2. Acknowledge the Disproportionate Land Use Municipal golf courses occupy approximately 1,000 acres, or 20% of all developed parkland in the City of Phoenix, yet are primarily used by 1-2% of the population. This imbalance warrants formal Council recognition and policy scrutiny. 3. Account for Foregone Revenue While the golf system may show annual operating surpluses on paper, it does not pay rent or land-use fees for the nearly 1,000 acres of high-value public land it occupies. fe) If this land were privately developed, it is conservatively estimated to be worth $500 million. Interest alone on this principal—at a modest 4% rate—would generate $20 million annually. Property and sales tax from commercial or residential redevelopment could reasonably generate an additional $10 million annually. 2 Combined, this is a potential $30 million/year public opportunity cost, which translates to a $1,000 annual subsidy per golfer (based on an estimated 30,000 unique municipal golfers). 4. Prioritize Equity and Transparency in Parkland Use The use of scarce land and water for low-participation, high-cost recreation must be evaluated within a larger framework of equity and environmental responsibility. Council should direct staff and the Ad Hoc Committee to assess: ° Alternatives for the phased repurposing of certain courses, especially those with high potable water use or limited deed restrictions; ° Opportunities to increase access to more inclusive and underfunded recreational activities, especially in underserved neighborhoods. 5. Water Usage: Reality vs. Myth ° In 2023, City-owned golf courses consumed over 2,800 acre-feet of water—more than 912 million gallons. 9° None of this was reclaimed or effluent; all was potable or raw water. ° This is equivalent to the annual water use of ~25,000 Phoenix residents. ° Ata time of regional drought and Tier 1 Colorado River shortages, this level of use for an elite recreational amenity is no longer tenable. Conclusion This petition does not request the immediate closure or sale of any course, but it does ask that we, as a city, stop pretending that subsidizing 1,000 acres of grass for 1-2% of residents is a neutral or equitable policy. Phoenix must do better. Let's start with the facts. Let's build a transparent, balanced, and forward-looking process for reconsidering how we use our land, water, and tax dollars. | respectfully request that the City Council formally agendize this petition and act to establish the Ad Hoc Committee no later than its next regular meeting. Sincerely, Jeremy Thacker 4520 N 2nd Ave Phoenix, AZ 85013 Phoenix, AZ Acreage i How we calculate the Phoenix ParkScore® pie Ranking SE The ranking for Phoenix is based on how it compares nationally Investment i on five characteristics of an excellent park system: acreage, 26 pts access, investment, amenities, and equity. Amenities i Download Phoenix's ParkScore Report 20 pts See Methodology Equity i See the Map Comparing amount of park space between neighborhoods by income Across the country, parks serving low-income households are four times smaller yet serve four times more people per acre than parks serving high-income households, according to TPL park equity data. In Phoenix, residents in low-income neighborhoods have access to 24% less park space per person than those in the average Phoenix neighborhood and 58% less than those in high- income neighborhoods. City Median High-income Neighborhoods How do park amenities measure up? Parks help foster healthy, inclusive, and flourishing communities ~the cities with the highest ParkScore ratings are healthier Places to live. These six amenities reflect activities popular among a diverse selection of user groups (kids, teenagers, adults, seniors). For each amenity, Phoenix is awarded points based on their abundance relative to the other 99 cities. BASKETBALL Hoops 28 us 2.8 per 10,000 people PLAYGROUNDS DOG PARKS 18... 0.7 per 100,000 people BATHROOMS How much is Phoenix investing in parks? We compared Phoenix with the other 100 most populous cities in the nation on total park investment per person, aggregating all public and private spending for any publicly accessible park in the city. Visit our City Park Facts database to see how the other big cities stack up. Tam. 29 er 1 per 10,000 people 1 per 10,000 people REC 6 SENIOR CENTERS von 0.4 per 20,000 people SPLASHPADS. 2 ns 0.8 per 100,000 people PARK INVESTMENT (THREE-YEAR AVERAGE) i @ City agency $90 (99%) i @ Other public agencies $0.19 (0%) i $91 Total Spending Per Capita @ Private organizations $0.08 (0%) i @ Monetized volunteer hours $0.8 (1%) i National benchmark: Relative park spending by organization type Average cmong 109 most populous cities City agency: 86% Other public agencies: 7% Private organizations: 5% Monetized volunteer hours: 2% Total per capita spending: $124 per person