Draft Final Parks and Rec Master Plan
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
386338 characters
PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
DRAFT - MAY 2021
i
DRAFT
acknowledgments
Mayor and City Council
Mayor Jerry P. Weiers
Vice Mayor Ian Hugh
Councilmember Jamie Aldama
Councilmember Joyce Clark
Councilmember Ray Malnar
Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff
Councilmember Bart Turner
Administration
City Manager Kevin R. Phelps
Assistant City Manager Vicki Rios
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Gayle Schiavone, Chair
Sam McConnell, Vice Chair
Stephanie June
Reggie Martinez Jr.
Kathryn Mawby
Derrick Johnson, Teen Commissioner
Public Facilities, Recreation, and Special Events Staff
Director James Burke
Assistant Director Walter “Skip” Varney
Heidi Barriga, Special Events Administrator
Paul King, Recreation Administrator
Diane Williams, Program Manager
Consultant Team
GreenPlay, LLC
J2 Design
RRC Associates, Inc
For more information about this document, contact GreenPlay, LLC
At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N, Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone:
303-439-8369 Email: info@greenplayllc.com www.greenplayllc.com
i
ii
DRAFT
table of contents
I. Purpose & Background......................................................................................................................... 1
A. Planning Goals..................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Planning for Growth............................................................................................................................. 2
C. Community Profile............................................................................................................................... 4
D. Glendale Parks and Recreation............................................................................................................ 11
II. The Planning Process.......................................................................................................................... 21
A. The Methodology................................................................................................................................ 21
B. What We Heard................................................................................................................................... 23
III. Peer Agency Competitive Analysis..................................................................................................... 27
A. Population & Parks.............................................................................................................................. 29
B. Full Time Equivalents........................................................................................................................... 30
C. Revenue & Expenditures...................................................................................................................... 31
IV. Our System......................................................................................................................................... 33
A. GRASP Assessment of Existing Facilities.............................................................................................. 33
B. Level of Service Analyses..................................................................................................................... 42
C. LOS Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 54
V. Our Programs & Services..................................................................................................................... 55
A. Recreation Programs............................................................................................................................ 55
B. Program Development......................................................................................................................... 58
C. Program Evaluation.............................................................................................................................. 58
VI. Key Findings & Recommendations.................................................................................................... 59
A. Improving Access to Community Experiences with Programs and Services........................................ 59
B. Improving Financial and Asset Management ...................................................................................... 61
C. Process Solutions................................................................................................................................. 62
D. Strengthening the Department........................................................................................................... 63
VII. Implementation Plan........................................................................................................................ 65
A. Goals, Objectives, and Action Items.................................................................................................... 65
B. Capital Priorities................................................................................................................................... 78
C. Funding Mechanisms........................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Community Survey Report................................................................................................. 93
Appendix B: City of Glendale 2020 Parks and Recreation Disparity Report.......................................... 115
Appendix C: Parks and Facilities Inventory Assessment and Level of Service Analysis......................... 155
Appendix D: Community Survey Methodology...................................................................................... 193
Appendix E: Site Specific Park Improvement Projects........................................................................... 195
Appendix F: Parks and Recreation Influencing Trends........................................................................... 205
Appendix G: GRASP® Methodology and Using the Data to Make Informed Decisions......................... 225
Appendix H: Maps................................................................................................................................... 251
Appendix I: Community Profile............................................................................................................... 259
iii
DRAFT
table of figures
Figure 1: Envision 2040 Key Goals............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: City of Glendale Council District Boundary Map ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Council District Populations...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: City of Glendale Population Annual Growth Rates (2019 – 2024)............................................................ 6
Figure 5: Household Income.................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 7: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8: 2019 Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation ........................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Outdoor Recreation Behavior................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10: Fitness and Wellness Participation.......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 11: Team Sport Household Participation ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 12: Team Sport Household Participation ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 13: System Map............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 14: Operating Budget.................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 15: Communication Effectiveness................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 16: Facilities Importance-Performance Matrix.............................................................................................. 25
Figure 17: Programs Importance-Performance Matrix............................................................................................ 25
Figure 18: What Would You Like the Department to Do?........................................................................................ 26
Figure 19: Agencies Compared for Glendale Benchmarking Report........................................................................ 28
Figure 20: 2019 Jurisdiction Population Estimates .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 21: Acres of Parks per 1,000 Residents ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 22: Expenditures & Revenue Per Capita ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 23: Total Revenue to Total Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................... 32
Figure 24: Example of GIS Inventory Map and Datasheet for Desert Garden ......................................................... 34
Figure 25: Glendale Trails ........................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 26: Example of GRASP® Level of Service Perspectives ................................................................................. 43
Figure 27: Glendale Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation......................................................................... 44
Figure 28: Walkability Barriers “Cut-off” Service Areas........................................................................................... 45
Figure 29: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation ................................................................................................ 46
Figure 30: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Population..................................................................................... 48
Figure 31: Walkable Access Gap Identification........................................................................................................ 49
Figure 32: Access to Indoor Facilities....................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 33: Percent of 12,802 Total Registered Participants by Program Category................................................... 57
Figure 34: Current Sahuaro Ranch Park Diagram..................................................................................................... 79
Figure 35: Current Historic Sahuaro Ranch Map...................................................................................................... 80
Figure 36: Sahuaro Ranch Park Conceptual Improvements..................................................................................... 81
Figure 37: Grand Canal Linear Park Conceptual Improvements at 83rd Avenue..................................................... 82
Figure 38: Thunderbird Conservation Park Map...................................................................................................... 83
Figure 39: Thunderbird Conservation Park Overview.............................................................................................. 84
Figure 40: Thunderbird Conservation Park – 55th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout........................................ 85
Figure 41: Thunderbird Conservation Park - 59th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout........................................ 85
Figure 42: Thunderbird Conservation Park - 67th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout........................................ 86
Figure 43: Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park at 67th Avenue Conceptual Improvements.......................................... 87
Figure 44: Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park at Thunderbird Road Conceptual Improvements.................................. 87
Figure 45: Skunk Creek Linear Park Map.................................................................................................................. 88
Figure 46: Skunk Creek Linear Park – Conceptual Improvements at Bell Road........................................................ 89
Figure 47: Glendale Regional Heros Park Conceptual Improvements...................................................................... 90
Figure 48: Household Income.................................................................................................................................. 119
Figure 49: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income .......................................................................................... 120
Figure 50: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................. 121
Figure 51: 2019 Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation ......................................................................... 122
Figure 52: Community Needs Assessment - Who Responded................................................................................. 123
iv
DRAFT
Figure 53: Invite and Open Link Results on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services......................................... 124
Figure 54: Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services............................. 126
Figure 55: Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services............................. 127
Figure 56: Invite Results by Race on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services................................................... 128
Figure 57: Invite Results by Age on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services..................................................... 129
Figure 58: Community Survey - Invite Results by Household Income on Program Importance............................... 130
Figure 59: Community Survey - Invite Results by Race on Program Importance..................................................... 131
Figure 60: Community Survey - Invite Results by Age on Program Importance....................................................... 131
Figure 61: Glendale Parks and Recreation System Map........................................................................................... 133
Figure 62: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation Gap Identification................................................................... 137
Figure 63: Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities..................................................................................................... 141
Figure 64: Fee-based Registrants by Program Category (12,802 Total Registrants)................................................. 145
Figure 65: Locations of Programs Offered between April 2018-December 2019.................................................... 148
Figure 66: Number of Fee-Based Programs Held at City- and Non-City-Owned Locations...................................... 149
Figure 67: Glendale Trails......................................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 68: 2019 Population Density Based on Population per Square Mile by Census Tract................................... 167
Figure 69: Example of GRASP® Level of Service Perspectives ................................................................................. 170
Figure 70: Glendale Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation......................................................................... 171
Figure 71: Walkability Barriers “Cut-off” Service Areas........................................................................................... 177
Figure 72: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation ................................................................................................ 178
Figure 73: Walkable Access Gap Identification........................................................................................................ 181
Figure 74: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Percentage of Land within City Boundary .................................... 183
Figure 75: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Population..................................................................................... 183
Figure 76: Access to Indoor Facilities....................................................................................................................... 185
Figure 77: Improving access to indoor facilities analysis......................................................................................... 191
Figure 80: Outdoor Recreation Behavior of Glendale compared to the State of Arizona........................................ 206
Figure 81: Fitness and Wellness Participation of Glendale compared to the State of Arizona................................ 207
Figure 82: Team Sport Household Participation in Glendale compared to State of Arizona.................................... 207
Figure 83: Six Pivotal Areas as the Basis of Cultural Tourism................................................................................... 209
Figure 84: Generational Trends................................................................................................................................ 210
Figure 85: Services Offered to the Homeless population by Parks and Recreation................................................. 212
Figure 86: Tactical Approaches to Managing Homelessness.................................................................................... 213
Figure 87: How effective is your community/ is your organization?........................................................................ 214
Figure 88: Number of Jobs by Industry.................................................................................................................... 218
Figure 89: Pickleball Trends...................................................................................................................................... 218
Figure 90: Participation Rates Among Diverse Groups Over Time (All Americans, Ages 6+)................................... 220
Figure 91: Participation Rates Among Diverse Groups by Age (All Americans, Ages 6+)......................................... 220
Figure 92: Cary, NC Site-Specific Signage................................................................................................................. 224
Figure 93: Cary, NC Directional Signage................................................................................................................... 224
Figure 94: GRASP® Asset Scoring Comparison......................................................................................................... 234
Figure 95: GRASP® Score calculation....................................................................................................................... 235
Figure 96: GRASP® Process...................................................................................................................................... 236
Figure 97: City Trails Brochure................................................................................................................................. 247
Figure 98: Glendale Council District Boundary Map................................................................................................ 260
Figure 99: Glendale Population Annual Growth Rates (2019 – 2024)...................................................................... 261
Figure 100: Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation in 2018 ................................................................... 261
Figure 101: 2018 Glendale Residents by Educational Attainment Level.................................................................. 262
Figure 102: 2018 Educational Attainment................................................................................................................ 262
Figure 103: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity............................................................................................... 263
Figure 104: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income......................................................................................... 264
Figure 105: County Health Ranking Model.............................................................................................................. 264
Figure 106: 2017 Arizona Health Ranking Overview................................................................................................ 265
v
DRAFT
table of tables
Table 1: Glendale Population Profile........................................................................................................................ 4
Table 2: CIP Projects List – PFRSE Department, 2021 - 2030 ................................................................................... 17
Table 3: FTE Chart.................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 4: Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per 10,000 Population...................................................................................... 30
Table 5: Park Operating Expenditures per Acre of Parkland.................................................................................... 31
Table 6: Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Areas........................................................................... 35
Table 7: Community Parks........................................................................................................................................ 36
Table 8: Neighborhood Parks................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 9: Neighborhood Parks Continued................................................................................................................. 37
Table 10: Indoor Locations....................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 11: Regional Park Ranking Table..................................................................................................................... 38
Table 12: Community Park Ranking Table................................................................................................................ 39
Table 13: Neighborhood Park Ranking Table........................................................................................................... 39
Table 14: Figure 30 Statistics.................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 15: Summary of Average Neighborhood Parks............................................................................................... 47
Table 16: Glendale Capacities.................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 17: Comparison to NRPA Outdoor Park and Rec Facilities – Median Population Served................................ 53
Table 18: Acres of Park per 1,000 Residents............................................................................................................ 53
Table 19: Action Plan................................................................................................................................................ 65
Table 20: Summary of Glendale Indoor Recreation Facilities................................................................................... 142
Table 21: Sample of Fee-based Program Types and Age Groups Served by Program Category............................... 144
Table 22: Policy Statement and Actions for Improving Service Disparities.............................................................. 150
Table 23: Summary of Glendale Neighborhood Parks............................................................................................. 157
Table 24: Summary of Glendale Neighborhood Parks............................................................................................. 158
Table 25: Summary of Glendale Community Parks.................................................................................................. 159
Table 26: Summary of Glendale Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Areas..................................... 160
Table 27: Summary of Glendale Indoor Locations................................................................................................... 163
Table 28: Neighborhood Park Ranking Table........................................................................................................... 165
Table 29: Community Park Ranking Table................................................................................................................ 166
Table 30: Regional Park Ranking Table..................................................................................................................... 166
Table 31: Figure 71 Statistics.................................................................................................................................... 173
Table 32: GRASP® Comparative Data....................................................................................................................... 175
Table 33: Figure 73 Statistics.................................................................................................................................... 179
Table 34: Summary of Average Neighborhood Parks............................................................................................... 179
Table 35: Glendale Capacities.................................................................................................................................. 188
Table 36: Comparison to NRPA Outdoor Park and Rec Facilities – Median Population Served................................ 189
Table 37: Acres of Park Land per 1,000 Residents.................................................................................................... 189
Table 38: Recreational Expenditures in Glendale, AZ............................................................................................... 206
Table 39: GRASP® Outdoor Component List............................................................................................................ 226
Table 40: GRASP® Indoor Component List............................................................................................................... 232
Table 41: GRASP® Outdoor Low Scoring Components............................................................................................. 241
Table 42: Low Scoring Outdoor Modifiers................................................................................................................ 242
Table 43: Low Scoring Indoor Modifiers................................................................................................................... 244
vi
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1
DRAFT
Purpose &
Background
I.
A. Planning Goals
PFRSE is responsible for managing a robust parks system including 2,188 acres of
parks and open space, 25 sports fields, 46 miles of trail, 73 parks, seven specialized
facilities, five recreation and community centers, two outdoor pool facilities, and a
multitude of non-PFRSE City facilities. The City is committed to fully understanding
the current conditions of the parks system and to ensuring that access to the system
is equitable for all Glendale residents regardless of income, race, or age.
When this master planning process began in 2019, the City’s goals for this effort included:
Assess existing services & conditions,
Determine community needs,
Accurately reflect current and future conditions, and
Incorporate relevant plans.
The plans of significant relevance to this update are Envision Glendale 2040, the City’s 2016 General Plan,
2011 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006 Thunderbird Conservation Park Master Plan, and 2005
Open Space and Trails Master Plan.
This Parks and Recreation Master Plan is the City of Glendale’s long-
range plan for Public Facilities, Recreation, and Special Events (PFRSE).
This plan, last updated in 2011, serves as the framework for the parks
and recreation system, which is comprised of recreation services and
park operations. This plan establishes the groundwork necessary
to proceed with individual park master plans, capital projects, and
operational improvements. This plan was influenced by a collaborative
process with Glendale residents, elected officials, and stakeholders.
2
DRAFT
Dynamic
community spirit
Friendly, nurturing
and safe for all
Well-maintained, clean,
visually attractive
neighborhoods
Family values including
education, outdoor
enjoyment, culture, and
economic vitality
Rural areas that remind
community members of
the agricultural heritage
of the area
Figure 1: Envision 2040 Key Goals
B. Planning for Growth
Urban parks and recreation systems play a vital role in the physical, economic, and social well-being of
American cities and their community members. As cities across the country face similar concerns, such
as constrained budgets and population shifts, elected officials, community advocacy groups, planners,
and other local government staff are taking a renewed look at how parks and recreation services
aid in helping address critical infrastructure and public health issues. City parks and facilities provide
community members with access to recreation opportunities, grow local economies, combat crime, and
provide environmental benefits.
The City of Glendale’s General Plan, Glendale Envision 2040, is a long-range comprehensive plan that
guides development in the City by addressing various elements such as land use, housing, growth areas,
urban design, military and aviation, open space, circulation, fiscal public health, environmental planning,
energy, etc. This plan was ratified by Glendale voters on August 30, 2016.
A great number of the policies within the General Plan are directly supported by the recommendations
and actions laid out in this Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Some of the General Plan elements which
are reinforced in the master plan include:
•
Economic vitality,
•
Connectivity,
•
Public facilities including safe parks, open spaces, and recreation buildings, and
•
Environmental sustainability practices.
Increasing resources toward PFRSE will greatly contribute to Glendale’s ability to achieve long-term
success. Future funding appropriations will allow the Department to carry out its role in improving the
lives of Glendale residents through quality parks and recreation services and programs throughout the
parks system.
3
DRAFT
Relevant Planning Efforts
Since the 2011 Master Plan, PFRSE staff have worked to implement the actions envisioned. The status
and current relevance of each plan was considered and carefully reviewed while developing this plan,
including the 2006 Thunderbird Conservation Park Master Plan, 2005 Open Space and Trails Master Plan,
and 2019 Thunderbird Conservation Park Trails Assessment. Each is summarized below.
2011 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The previous City of Glendale Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed
in 2011 by Olsson Associates and adopted by City Council in 2012. The resulting
Master Plan identified the recreational needs of the citizens of Glendale and
recommended strategies/actions for meeting those needs by evaluating
programs, facilities, services and operations to develop vision and action
strategies for the community in the future. Through a public input process, the
2011 Master Plan intended to achieve realistic goals for the enhancement of the
community’s social, cultural and environmental well-being.
The goals of the 2011 Master Plan were to:
•
Enhance the ability to take care of what we have through partnerships,
contracting and streamlined means and methods
•
Understand the maintenance needs of the system (sites, facilities,
infrastructure, etc.) in order to protect the quality of these assets for future
planning and development
•
Improve awareness of facilities, services and programs available in the community
•
Complete the Western Area Regional Park (Glendale Heroes Park)
•
Support the development of a primary non-profit partner for fund development – conservancy,
friends’ group or foundation
•
Establish and follow prudent standards for amenity development as the community grows
•
Expand or enhance the financial resources of the Department through multiple means
While progress toward many of these goals have been made, there remain a number of elements which
hold within the current master plan including supporting the development of a primary non-profit
partner for fund development and expanding the financial resources of the Department through a
diverse array of means.
2006 Thunderbird Park Conservation Master Plan
This plan set out to protect and manage Thunderbird Conservation Park. Six priorities for the park were
developed:
•
Provide consistent maintenance and design standards for park trails, trailheads, trail routes, signage,
trash cans, ramadas, picnic tables, drinking fountains, equestrian hitching posts and troughs,
restrooms, parking, facilities and lighting.
•
Establish surfacing and marking standards for parking lots and roads (paved and unpaved).
•
Ensure the park property boundaries are clearly identified to prevent encroachment onto park
property.
•
Provide mileage indicators and clearly mark all designated trails.
•
Establish and annually update an operations plan to manage and maintain the park.
•
Develop a community education outreach program regarding park wildlife, vegetation, geology and
other natural areas in the park.
4
DRAFT
2005 Open Space & Trails Master Plan
This plan identified missing links and gaps in the City’s trails and open space
infrastructure. It further provided tools to City staff and citizens to plan, build, and
maintain the fundamental building blocks of a vibrant, quality community.
There are a number of components within the 2005 Open Space & Trails Master
Plan which should be retained as they remain relevant to progressing the City’s
ability to meet present day community needs. These components include a trail
and path inventory as well as pedestrian, and open space standards. Preserving
the character of Glendale is noted in this plan as a strategy. This strategy should be
continued as open spaces and trails are managed given the community’s desire to
maintain the small-town, agricultural feel of Glendale. Descriptions on classifying,
designing, and maintaining park and recreation system features contained within the 2005 Open Space &
Trails Master Plan should be retained given their continued relevance.
2019 Thunderbird Conservation Park Trails Assessment
The 2019 Thunderbird Conservation Park Trails Assessment was completed in February, 2019, by
Okanogan Trail Construction. Thunderbird Conservation Park was identified as a “diamond in the rough”.
This study provided specific design enhancements and routing recommendations as well as sustainable
trail construction and maintenance practices. Much of this assessment remains relevant and has been
considered for recommended improvements at this facility.
C. Community Profile
Glendale is located about nine miles northwest of Phoenix, at an elevation of 1,187 feet,
with an average annual temperature of 72 degrees. The average annual high is 85 degrees.
The average high in winter is 67 degrees, and highs frequently reach 80 in the spring and
fall. The area receives an annual rainfall of 8.4 inches, with 294 average days of sunshine
each year.
2019 Estimated Population
250,784
2024 Projected Population*
272,960
Projected Annual Growth (2019-2024)
1.8%
Households with Children (2019)
37.5%
Table 1: Glendale Population Profile
5
DRAFT
The City is approximately 61.94 square miles, divided into six district council areas.
Figure 2: City of Glendale Council District Boundary Map
Based on numbers from the U.S. Census
Bureau, Ocotillo is the most populated
(17%), and Sahuaro is the least populated
(16%).
Figure 3: Council District Populations
6
DRAFT
Population Growth
The annual population growth rate for the City (1.8%) is predicted to be slightly higher
than the growth rate of the state of Arizona (1.35%), and greater than the U.S. average
(0.77%) between 2019 and 2024. Yucca is estimated to have the highest growth rate
at 1.56 percent, twice the national average, while Sahuaro has a growth rate of 0.85
percent making it the slowest growing of the districts.
Figure 4: City of Glendale Population Annual Growth Rates (2019 – 2024)
Household Income
According to the City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report the 2019 median household income in
Glendale was $54,405; approximately $3,366 less than the Arizona state median income level and was
approximately $6,143 lower than the U.S. median income level.
Figure 5: Household Income
Source: City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report
7
DRAFT
Figure 6: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income
Race
Demographic reporting reveals the following information about Glendale’s race and ethnic makeup:
•
Those that identify as Hispanic make up more than 39 percent of the total population. This is more
than the Hispanic population of 31 percent in Arizona and 18 percent in the U.S.
•
There is a high proportion of citizens who identify as another race not specified on the U.S. Census
(18%).
•
Roughly seven percent of the population identify as Black or African American, and very few identify
as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander.
According to Census.gov, the concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Percentages for the
various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic or percent Minority.
Visit https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html for more information about the census and how race
data is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Figure 7: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity
Source: Esri Business Analyst
Black/African
American
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Two or More
Races
Hispanic
Minority
White
Population
USA
12.93%
0.98%
5.82%
0.19%
6.99%
3.49%
18.57%
40.20%
69.60%
ARIZONA
4.77%
4.60%
3.45%
0.21%
12.97%
3.96%
31.94%
46.17%
70.03%
GLENDALE
7.16%
1.84%
4.67%
0.20%
18.32%
4.60%
39.02%
54.37%
63.21%
BARREL
8.08%
2.15%
4.73%
0.27%
13.44%
4.64%
31.31%
48.32%
66.67%
CACTUS
9.90%
2.97%
2.99%
0.25%
22.28%
5.12%
47.64%
64.74%
56.49%
CHOLLA
3.24%
0.71%
7.96%
0.16%
2.97%
3.69%
11.47%
26.00%
81.27%
OCOTILLO
8.29%
1.92%
1.87%
0.14%
37.93%
4.70%
71.17%
83.52%
45.16%
SAHUARO
3.95%
1.27%
5.21%
0.17%
6.54%
4.14%
18.07%
30.80%
78.71%
YUCCA
9.24%
1.95%
5.50%
0.23%
25.20%
5.27%
51.80%
70.19%
52.60%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
8
DRAFT
Age
Understanding the age distribution of Glendale’s population can inform levels of
program and facility needs for various age groups. According to 2019 data, the median
age of residents in Glendale is 33.8 years which is lower than the state median age of
37.3 years. Millennials (born 1981 – 1998) make up approximately 28 percent of the
City’s population and Generation Z (born 1999 – 2016) is behind them at 25 percent.
The Baby Boomer (born 1946-1964) and Silent & Greatest Generation (born 1945 or
earlier) groups together account for 24 percent of Glendale’s 2019 population.
Figure 8: 2019 Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation
Source: Esri Business Analyst - City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report
Understanding demographic data provides information with which we can assess whether Glendale’s
park and recreation system and recreation programs are achieving equitable service levels for clients
across different incomes, races, and ages. But this demographic data alone does not tell the full story.
It is the recreation trends of the population and the physical park assets and the recreation programs
offered which we must also understand in order to determine where gaps in services are present.
Recreation Participation Trends
Outdoor Recreation
In Figure 9, data from ESRI Business Analyst shows popular outdoor recreation activity participation by
households in Glendale. Participation was also pulled from the State of Arizona for comparison. The
most popular activities in the City of Glendale included:
•
Jogging or Running (13%)
•
Hiking (11%)
•
Fishing (Fresh Water) (10%)
Thirty-seven and a half percent of households in Glendale have children under the age of 19.
In 2021, this means that someone
who is in the...
•
Silent & Greatest Generations
Population is 76 years-old or
older.
•
Baby Boomer Population is 57-
75 years old.
•
Generation X Population is 41-
56 years old.
•
Millennial Population is 23-40
years old.
•
Generation Z Population is
5-22 years old.
9
DRAFT
Figure 9: Outdoor Recreation Behavior
Fitness and Wellness Behavior
The figure below shows household participation in various fitness activities. Participation was higher in
Glendale than the State of Arizona, specifically for the following activities:
•
Walking for Exercise (23%)
•
Swimming (15%)
•
Weightlifting (10%)
Figure 10: Fitness and Wellness Participation
10
DRAFT
Team Sport Participation
According to census data, households in Glendale had highest participation in Basketball
(8%), followed by Football (5%), and Baseball, Soccer, Tennis, and Volleyball (4%).
Figure 11: Team Sport Household Participation
Generational Trends
Activity participation varies based on age, but it also varies based on generational preferences. In regard
to generational activity, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) report, Millennials
had the highest percentage of those who were “active to a healthy level,” but a quarter also remained
sedentary. Nearly 28 percent of Generation X were inactive, with Baby Boomers at 33 percent inactive.
Baby Boomers prefer low impact fitness activities such as swimming, cycling, aquatic exercise, and
walking for fitness.
Figure 12: Team Sport Household Participation
11
DRAFT
D. Glendale Parks and Recreation
Glendale is often referred to as a playground for the outdoor and athletic enthusiast. Opportunities to be
active abound. Parks, trails, activities, and water play can all be found in Glendale. The Parks, Facilities,
Recreation, and Special Events Department (PFRSE) maintains and protects the City’s parkland and
natural resources, and offers a variety of recreation, educational, art, and enrichment programs. Cultural
opportunities, special events, and aquatic activities at unique locations are also a part of what residents
and visitors are able to enjoy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXCELLENCE
PFRSE is proudly recognized as a Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies
(CAPRA) certified agency. This mark of excellence means the Department is meeting, or exceeding,
standards maintained by leaders in the park and recreation industry. In 2019, 170 agencies
across the United States hold this recognition as stand-outs in accountability. As a result of this
accreditation, this plan aligns with the CAPRA standards and calls out opportunities to maintain this
impressive standing amongst public agencies providing park and recreation services.
Approximately every 10 years, PFRSE develops its master plan for parklands, facilities, and programs.
This master plan is the guiding document for how the Department operates, determines capital
improvements, and provides amenities and programs. This Plan builds on and updates the 2011 Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, the 2006 Thunderbird Conservation Park Master Plan, and the 2005 Open
Space and Trails Master Plan.
PFRSE, has a variety of park types, natural areas, trails, and active recreation facilities as seen in Figure X
below. As the City’s population grows, it is important for the parklands, facilities, and programs to meet
the needs of the residents in a way that gives them similar opportunities to recreate. Glendale’s Parks
and Recreation Master Plan builds on the opportunity for community-rooted, ideal park experiences to
be part of what makes Glendale a community of choice.
It is important to note that this Parks & Recreation Master Plan does not include an evaluation of the
Department’s Convention & Visitors Bureau Division’s operations. However, the budgetary review and
organizational structure assessment in this plan does include this division in the Department data.
12
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
13
DRAFT
Figure 13: System Map
14
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15
DRAFT
City of Glendale Vision and Mission
Vision:
We are the community of choice for residents, businesses, and employees.
Mission:
We improve the lives of the people we serve every day.
PFRSE Vision Statement:
PFRSE Mission Statement:
A partnership of employees and community working together to create a better quality of life for
Glendale through the provision of excellent parks, recreational programing, special events,
tourism, and neighborhood and community facilities.
Operating Budget
Glendale’s budget is prepared each fiscal year, which begins July 1 and ends June 30. In Fiscal Year 2020-
2021, the total City Operating Budget was $444 million. PFRSE’s portion of this budget was $15 million –
three percent of the total City Operating Budget.
Figure 14: Operating Budget
Internal Charges are those costs incurred from the services provided by other City Departments such as
technology, insurance, workers’ compensation, indirect charges, and the like. Services and
Supplies are the costs associated with operating the Department as well as contractual
expenditures. Personnel Services encompass salaries and wages and associated costs.
Capital Improvement Plan
Approved parks capital investments for Fiscal Year 20-21 total $2,028,881 with a total
investment plan of $117 million identified through 2030. Projects specified include park grounds and
irrigation improvements, master planning Sahuaro Ranch Park, lighting improvements, playground
structure replacements, and building out Glendale Heroes Regional Park.
16
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17
DRAFT
Table 2: CIP Projects List – PFRSE Department, 2021 - 2030
18
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
19
DRAFT
Organizational Structure
Parks Division
The Parks Division manages and maintains all public parks, open spaces, trails, storm water retention
basins, landscaping at municipal facilities and Thunderbird Conservation Park. The Division is also
responsible for monitoring and ensuring the safety and security of park and facility use. There are 22
Parks Maintenance full-time equivalent (FTEs) and 2 Park Rangers FTEs. Four temporary Rangers, part-
time staff, and several contracted services for maintenance tasks such as weed control and aeration
practices, supplement the Parks Division’s ability to perform its duties at the current level.
Recreation Division
The Recreation Division offers opportunities to enhance the social, physical, mental and economic health
of the Glendale community through a variety of diverse recreation programs and facilities. Recreation
programs and events are held at the Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center, the Glendale Adult Center,
Historic Sahuaro Ranch, the three community centers and at basketball, tennis, skate courts and other
recreation facilities throughout the City.
Table 3: FTE Chart
Approximately, eight to 10 temporary or part-time FTEs support the division’s ability to perform its
function.
Special Events Division
The Special Events Division is
responsible for initiating and
planning City-wide signature events
in collaboration with community
partners to better connect residents
and visitors with Glendale, fostering
a greater sense of community pride.
The Special Events Division plays an
important role as an economic driver
by attracting tourism and potential
shoppers. Four FTEs are allocated to
this division in 2021.
20
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21
DRAFT
The Planning
Process
II.
A. The Methodology
September 2019 marked the beginning of the master plan project with a strategic kick-off
meeting between PFRSE staff and the consultant team, led by GreenPlay. The project
was divided into four distinct phases with milestones for community engagement:
information gathering, findings and visioning, draft recommendations, and final plan.
Engagement Strategies
Focus Groups
To interact with various groups and individuals who partner with PFRSE or have a specific interest in
PFRSE services, four focus groups were held in October 2019. The hour and a half long, facilitated
discussions allowed for participants to respond to a series of questions. Conducted early in the
information gathering phase, the many responses helped shape the statistically valid community
survey.
During this phase of information gathering PFRSE staff provided input as part of a strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Participants’ responses revealed insights into
key opportunities for improving the existing park and recreation system.
Stakeholder Interviews
During information gathering individual interviews were held with City Council Members and city staff.
These interviews allowed for awareness of specific issues to be identified.
Public Forum
To solicit input from the people of Glendale, a public forum was held at the Foothills Recreation and
Aquatics Center (FRAC) in October 2019. To widen the opportunity for participation, this event was
simultaneously broadcast and facilitated on Facebook Live. Forty-eight people attended in-person, 325
people viewed the forum on Facebook Live, and 13 comments were provided by viewers.
City Council Meetings
Throughout the course of the project several presentations and discussions were presented to City
Council. Their guidance and input were foundational to the progression and success of the planning
process.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meetings
Several key meetings were held during each project phase with the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee (PRAC) to help inform and guide development of the master plan. In particular, the
Disparity Report (Appendix B), was presented to the committee in September 2020.
Over the course of 16 months, the master plan was formed
with many opportunities for input through focus groups,
stakeholder interviews, a survey, public meetings, and digital
platforms (i.e., social media). The statistically valid community
survey and focus groups helped evaluate current and future
community parks and recreation needs.
22
DRAFT
Community Survey
December 2019 - February 2020
Responses: 632
The community survey was distributed throughout Glendale to assist in assessing the
needs of the community for park and recreation services and facilities in a manner that included those
familiar with PFRSE services as well as those less familiar with the parks and recreation system.
Statistically Valid Invite Survey
To obtain the opinions of non-users of the parks system as well as users of recreation facilities and
programs, throughout the entire Glendale community, a survey was distributed to a random selection
of rented and owned households. A traditional mail survey approach was coupled with an option
to complete the invite survey online or by smartphone through a password protected website. The
mailed invite survey was structured to allow for a random selection of respondents to the survey in
Glendale in order to obtain a representative sample from the community. In total, 4,251 households
within the City limits of Glendale were randomly selected to receive the invite survey. In total, 276
completed surveys were received and resulted in a margin of error of +/- 5.9% at a 95% confidence
level. Responses were collected from all major ZIP codes (85301 through 85310) across Glendale,
representing a thorough geographic participation.
Open Link Survey
After a period of three weeks, the same community survey was made available for anyone to
respond to within the City. Referred to as the open link survey, these responses further validated
the statistically valid invite survey results. The 356 completed responses from the open link survey
showed very similar results to the invite responses, placing more confidence in the results of the
Invite Survey sample despite a lower sample size. A full description of the survey methodology is in
Appendix D.
Who Took the Invite Survey
Household Income
Under $25,000 – 14%
$25,000 - $49,999 – 26%
$50,000 - $74,999 – 28%
$75,000 - $99,000 – 15%
$100,000 - $149,999 – 15%
Above $150,000 – 11%
Race/Ethnicity
Other – 11%
Asian – 2%
American Indian or Alaska Native – 2%
Black or African American – 7%
White – 82%
Of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin
Yes – 21%
No – 79%
Age
Under 35 – 29%
35-44 – 17%
45-54 – 15%
55-64 – 15%
65-74 – 14%
75 and above – 10%
23
DRAFT
B. What We Heard
•
Focus Groups Participants: 103 in-person groups
•
Digital Exposure: 325+ Facebook Live viewers
•
Community Surveys Completed: 632
•
Public Meetings: 6
During the information gathering phase, PFRSE staff and the consultant team shared the project purpose
and the planning process. Collectively, community engagement strategies focused on determining the
community’s preferences and needs by obtaining feedback on:
•
Current strengths and weaknesses
•
Facility and program needs
•
Partners and funding opportunities
•
Aspirations for the park and recreation system
Community-Informed Themes
Five themes stemmed from the varied engagement encounters and surveys in this planning process:
ACCESS FOR ALL
People expressed a desire for access to the park and recreation system, particularly neighborhood
parks. Issues of access included walkability and affordability.
CARE FOR EXISTING FACILITIES
Throughout the process a clear desire for maintaining existing parks system infrastructure was
expressed.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES
A common desire for parks and recreation facilities and services to be funded at a level that allows for
all parks to be of the same quality was expressed.
CLEANLINESS & SAFETY
Ensuring personal safety in public spaces that are clean is key to resident’s willingness to use facilities
and amenities.
PRESERVING COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Built on farming and irrigation, the City is described as having “small town character and ambiance.”
Community Needs Assessment
Usage and Overall Satisfaction
Current Offerings Satisfaction Ratings (5=Very satisfied, 1=Not at all satisfied)
4.4 Sahuaro Ranch Park
4.3 Thunderbird Conservation Park
4.1 Trails and open space
4.0 Recreation facilities
4.0 Events attended
4.0 Programs used
3.9 Parks
24
DRAFT
What Would Improve Your Local Park or Encourage You to Revisit a Park?
#1 Adding or improving restrooms
#2 Improving park/facility amenities such as picnic or shaded areas
#3 Better maintenance
#4 More aquatic features like spray pads
#5 Improved communications about offerings
#6 More programs at sites
#7 Improved safety at parks/recreation facilities
What Would Increase Your Usage of Sahuaro Ranch Park?
70% Festivals
56% Artisan crafts and good market
53% Café/dining
40% Agricultural displays/activities
15% Event rental space
Communications
Newsletters, emails from the City, and a printed schedule of activities are the primary communication
methods that invite respondents prefer to be contacted about parks and recreation services.
Figure 15: Communication Effectiveness
Current Facilities and Programs
To best understand how important
present-day facilities and programs
are to households and how well
respondents’ needs are being met
by the park and recreation system
(programs, facilities, activities,
and services), responses to
these questions were analyzed
and graphically shown in an
importance-performance
matrix.
READING AN IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX
25
DRAFT
Figure 16: Facilities Importance-Performance Matrix
Priority Opportunities for Facility Improvements:
•
Aquatic facilities
•
Picnic/shade areas
•
Dog parks
•
Athletic courts
Figure 17: Programs Importance-Performance Matrix
Priority Opportunities for Program Improvements:
•
Outdoor/environmental programs
•
Aquatic programs
26
DRAFT
Future Facilities and Programs
Top Priorities for the Next 5-10 Years
#1 Improved park amenities
#2 Additional walking/bike trails
#3 Events and festivals
#4 Trail and pathway connectivity
Would You Like the Department to…
…Balance maintaining existing facilities and developing new facilities?
…Shift resources more toward maintaining existing facilities?
…Shift resources more toward developing new facilities and undeveloped land?
Figure 18: What Would You Like the Department to Do?
Respondents place a high priority on improving current parks, facilities, and trails in Glendale. Only six
percent of respondents rated improving existing facilities as a low or “not at all a priority.”
A Future Park and recreation system Envisioned
Top 4 Future Priorities for Glendale’s Parks and Recreation
•
Ensure parks and recreation facilities have a high level of safety
•
Invest in maintaining and repairing current/existing park and recreation facilities
•
Ensure facilities and programs are affordable to all residents
•
Protect environmental resources and preserve land in its natural state
In general, the parks are in pretty good condition, however it is
evident that they have been ignored for a long time. Restrooms,
playgrounds, turf, buildings. I have seen projects done in the City
that cost a lot of money being spent, however only benefits a few
residents. Favoritism at its worst when it comes to Glendale.
Thank you for doing a great job! My family and I
enjoy the many parks in the City of Glendale.
Safety of playground and park
resources is a priority. For the parks in
Glendale currently, I think the City is
doing a great job!
Respondent comments:
27
DRAFT
Peer Agency
Competitive
Analysis
III.
Comparative analysis (benchmarking) is an important tool that allows for comparison
of certain attributes of the PFRSE’s management practices and fee structure. This
process creates a deeper understanding of alternative providers, your place in the
market, and varying fee methodologies, which may be used to enhance and improve
the service delivery of parks and recreation.
It is very difficult to find exact comparable communities, because each has its
own unique identity, ways of conducting business, and differences in the populations that it serves.
The political, social, economic, and physical characteristics of each community make the policies and
practices of each parks and recreation agency unique. Additionally, organizations do not typically define
the expenditures of parks, trails, facilities, and maintenance the same way.
Agencies also vary in terms of how they organize their budget information, and it may be difficult to
assess whether or not the past year’s expenses are typical for the community. Therefore, it is important
to take all data in a benchmarking study with context, realizing that while benchmarking can be a great
comparative tool, it doesn’t lend itself to being a decision-making tool. For the purposes of this study, a
regional approach was taken to benchmark neighboring agencies with similar populations.
Comparative analysis (benchmarking) is an important tool
that allows for comparison of certain attributes of the PFRSE’s
management practices and fee structure. This process creates
a deeper understanding of alternative providers, your place
in the market, and varying fee methodologies, which may be
used to enhance and improve the service delivery of parks and
recreation.
28
DRAFT
Data was pulled and compared throughout this report from a database called Park Metrics, administered
by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). Data was submitted to NRPA from the agencies
listed below within the last two years. The year in which the agency submitted data to the database is
provided in Figure 19. The map shows the proximity of compared agencies in comparison to Glendale.
Figure 19: Agencies Compared for Glendale Benchmarking Report
Data points are compared throughout this report for the following topics:
•
Population and Parks
•
Full Time Employees
•
Revenue and Expenditures
29
DRAFT
A. Population & Parks
The compared agencies were similar in population size. The smallest area in population was Surprise, at
an estimated 138,284, while the largest population was Gilbert at 266,971. Glendale’s population was
one of the highest in population, with an estimated 250,784 in 2019.
Figure 20: 2019 Jurisdiction Population Estimates
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, U.S. Census (*Data Provided by City of Glendale)
Park Acres per 1,000 Residents
National data indicates the typical agency operates 10.1 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Out of the
agencies compared, Glendale offered the highest number of acres per park than any other agency, at
6.04 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. The total number of park acres – originally 2,102 – was adjusted
to exclude linear park acreage (1,516 acres). The data indicates there is more parkland to maintain and
operate in Glendale compared to other agencies.
Figure 21: Acres of Parks per 1,000 Residents
Source: NRPA Park Metrics
30
DRAFT
B. Full Time Equivalents
Glendale had the lowest number of full time equivalent (FTE) per population than other agencies. It
was estimated there were only 1.91 FTEs per 10,000 residents, compared to other agencies, who at
a minimum had 4 FTEs (Surprise) and at a maximum had 14.75 FTEs (Scottsdale). On a national level,
there are 8.3 FTEs on staff for every 10,000 residents living in the jurisdiction served by the parks and
recreation agency. This means there were fewer employees to serve residents for parks and recreation
services in Glendale than the typical parks and recreation agency would have available.
Table 4: Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per 10,000 Population
Source: NRPA Park Metrics
Glendale had one of the highest operating expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) compared to the
other agencies. On a national level, the annual operating expenditures at the typical park and recreation
agency for each full-time equivalent employee was $93,230. It should be noted that PFRSE utilizes
contract services for maintenance operations such as restroom cleaning, mowing, weed abatement, and
litter pick-up. This use of contract services accounts for some of the difference seen in the FTE per 10,000
population and in the national annual operating expenditures per FTE comparison. Again, it is important
to take all data in a benchmarking study with context, realizing that while benchmarking can be a great
comparative tool, findings, on their own, do not lend themselves to being a decision-making tool.
31
DRAFT
C. Revenue & Expenditures
Glendale had the lowest expenditures per park acre ($3,036) than the other agencies. This means the
City spent less to maintain and operate each park acre. For comparison, Scottdale spends 420% more to
operate an acre of parkland than Glendale.
Table 5: Park Operating Expenditures per Acre of Parkland
Source: NRPA Park Metrics
Glendale had the lowest operating expenditures per capita at $55 per year. The national median
operating expenditures per capita is $78.69 per year. This is an indication that Glendale operates
efficiently to reduce costs and reduce the tax burden for residents. When comparing revenue per capita,
Glendale was the lowest of the other agencies at only $9 per resident – meaning there is additional
opportunity and a need to bring in revenue sources. The median for NRPA Park Metrics data is $20
revenue per resident.
Figure 22: Expenditures & Revenue Per Capita
Source: NRPA Park Metrics
32
DRAFT
One way to look at revenue generation is by analyzing cost recovery as a percentage of operating
expenditures. According to NRPA Agency Performance Report, 27.3 percent of a typical agency’s
operating expenditures is recovered from non-tax revenues. In this case, Glendale is bringing in 15.70
percent revenue compared to operating expenditures.
Figure 23: Total Revenue to Total Operating Expenditures
Source: NRPA Park Metrics
33
DRAFT
Our System
IV.
To assess residents’ access to outdoor and indoor recreation opportunities,
12 city-owned indoor recreation facilities (including two facilities having pro-
shops and several that are operated through public-private partnerships)
were assessed. The components at these sites were compiled into the
inventory assessment and used to identify gaps in access to recreation.
A. GRASP Assessment of Existing Facilities
Parks and facilities were inventoried and assessed for function and quality in October 2019 using the
GRASP®-IT audit tool. This tool classifies park features into one of two categories: component and
modifier. A component is a feature that people go to a park or facility to use, such as a tennis court,
playground, or picnic shelter. Modifiers are amenities such as shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms
that enhance the comfort and convenience of a site. Further definitions and discussions are found in
Appendix C.
GRASP® Assessment Methodology
The series of detailed GIS (Geographic Information System) inventory conducted by the planning
team first prepared a preliminary list of existing components using aerial photography and GIS data.
Components identified in aerial photos were located and labeled initially and were confirmed or revised
in October 2019 when each site was visited by the consultant team.
Evaluation of each element determined if components were serving their intended functions and
captured any components in need of refurbishment, replacement, or removal. The inventory also
included the recording of modifiers such as shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms.
Glendale’s parks and recreation system is diverse and far-
reaching. As of October 2019, when the inventory assessment
was conducted, PFRSE owns and maintains more than 2,000
acres of land, of which 1,112 acres are conservation parkland
and 46 miles are trails. The system encompasses seven regional
parks (regional parks, specialty parks and conservation areas),
eight community parks, and fifty-seven neighborhood parks.
34
DRAFT
Collection of the following information occurred during site visits:
•
Component type and geo-location
•
Component functionality
•
Based assessment scoring on the condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality. The inventory team
used the following three-tier rating system to evaluate these:
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Meets Expectations
3 = Exceeds Expectations
•
Site modifiers
•
Site design and ambiance
•
Site photos
•
General comments
Figure 24 shows an example of the resulting inventory datasheet and map for Desert Garden Park.
Figure 24: Example of GIS Inventory Map and Datasheet for Desert Garden
35
DRAFT
All components were scored based on condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality as they reflect
the expected quality of recreational features. Beyond quality and functionality of components, however,
GRASP® Level of Service analysis also considers important aspects of a park or recreation site. Not all
parks are created equal, and their surroundings may determine the quality of a user’s experience. For
example, the GRASP® system acknowledges the essential differences between identical playground
structures as displayed in the following images:
Note: these are illustrative images and do not imply a direct comparison to any specific playgrounds or
existing conditions in Glendale.
In addition to scoring components, GRASP®-IT assesses each park site or indoor facility for its comfort,
convenience, and ambient qualities. These qualities include the availability of amenities such as
restrooms, drinking water, shade, scenery. These modifier values then serve to enhance or amplify
component scores at any given location.
Compiled GIS information collected during the site visit includes all GIS data and staff input. This
review packet consists of the most recent GIS data displayed by location on an aerial photograph. An
accompanying data sheet for each site lists modifier and component scores as well as observations and
comments.
Table 6: Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Areas
36
DRAFT
Table 7: Community Parks
Table 8: Neighborhood Parks
Location
Classification
GIS Acres
Aquatics, Spray Pad
Basketball Court
Basketball, Practice
Diamond Field
Diamond Field, Practice
Educational Experience
Event Space
Fitness Course
Game Court
Garden, Display
Horseshoe Court
Loop Walk
Open Turf
Pickleball Court
Playground, Local
Public Art
Racquetball
Rectangular Field, Large
Shelter, Large
Shelter, Small
Tennis Court
Volleyball Court
Total Component/Park
Unique Components/Park
Acoma
Neighborhood
4.8
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
6
Arrowhead Lakes
Neighborhood
4.1
1
1
1
2
1
6
5
Bicentennial
Neighborhood
5.2
1
1
1
4
1
8
5
Butler
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Carmel
Neighborhood
4.8
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
6
Cholla
Neighborhood
5.6
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
12
8
Clavelito
Neighborhood
1.9
1
1
1
1
4
4
Country Gables
Neighborhood
4.0
1
1
1
2
1
6
5
Delicias
Neighborhood
4.5
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Desert Garden
Neighborhood
6.8
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
8
Desert Mirage
Neighborhood
5.9
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
7
Desert Rose
Neighborhood
6.9
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
6
Desert Valley
Neighborhood
6.8
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
7
Discovery
Neighborhood
9.6
1
2
1
1
1
5
2
13
7
Dos Lagos
Neighborhood
5.6
1
1
2
1
2
2
9
6
El Barrio
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
3
3
Gardenwood
Neighborhood
1.4
1
1
1
Greenbrier
Neighborhood
3.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
9
6
Greenway Granada
Neighborhood
6.1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Heritage
Neighborhood
3.3
1
1
1
3
3
Hillcrest
Neighborhood
8.2
1
1
1
2
5
4
Horizon
Neighborhood
4.3
1
1
1
3
3
Kings
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
4
Lawrence
Neighborhood
2.9
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Lions
Neighborhood
4.5
1
1
1
3
3
Manistee Ranch
Neighborhood
6.6
1
1
2
2
Mary Silva
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
6
Maryland Lakes
Neighborhood
6.4
1
1
1
Memmingen
Neighborhood
4.7
3
1
1
1
2
2
10
6
37
DRAFT
Location
Classification
GIS Acres
Aquatics, Spray Pad
Basketball Court
Basketball, Practice
Diamond Field
Diamond Field, Practice
Educational Experience
Event Space
Fitness Course
Game Court
Garden, Display
Horseshoe Court
Loop Walk
Open Turf
Pickleball Court
Playground, Local
Public Art
Racquetball
Rectangular Field, Large
Shelter, Large
Shelter, Small
Tennis Court
Volleyball Court
Total Component/Park
Unique Components/Park
Mission
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
11
7
Mondo
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
2
2
Montara
Neighborhood
5.1
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
6
Murphy
Neighborhood
2.3
1
1
1
3
3
Myrtle
Neighborhood
0.5
1
1
2
2
New World
Neighborhood
8.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Oasis
Neighborhood
4.9
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Ocotillo Rose
Neighborhood
2.3
1
1
1
1
4
4
Orangewood Vista Park
Neighborhood
9.4
4
1
10
1
1
1
18
6
Pasadena
Neighborhood
2.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
Paseo Neighborhood
Neighborhood
1.1
1
1
1
3
3
Plaza Rosa
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
Rovey
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
Sands
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
11
7
Sierra Verde
Neighborhood
8.2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
11
7
Sonorita
Neighborhood
0.6
1
1
1
3
3
Sunnyside
Neighborhood
8.0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Sunset
Neighborhood
3.6
1
1
2
2
Sunset Palms
Neighborhood
8.0
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
12
8
Sunset Ridge
Neighborhood
7.0
1
1
1
2
5
4
Sunset Vista
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Sycamore Grove
Neighborhood
4.8
1
2
1
1
1
2
8
6
Tarrington Ranch
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
2
1
1
6
5
Tierra Buena
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
12
8
Triangle
Neighborhood
0.1
0
0
Utopia
Neighborhood
3.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Windsor
Neighborhood
0.6
1
1
1
System Totals:
251.7
1
43
3
3
14
2
1
7
12
1
1
18
47
1
49
2
28
5
7
59
11
29
% of Parks w/ Component
2% 63% 4%
4% 21% 4%
2% 13% 4%
2%
2% 30% 84%
2% 84% 4% 13%
9% 11% 70% 11% 41%
Average
4.5
6
5
Table 9: Neighborhood Parks Continued
38
DRAFT
Table 10: Indoor Locations
A formula was then applied that combines the assessments of a site’s components and modifiers to
generate a score or value for each component and the entire park or location. The study uses the
resulting score to compare sites to each other and to analyze the overall performance of the park and
recreation system through a park rankings analysis.
Park Rankings
In addition to locating components, assessments included the functional quality of each element. The
following tables (organized by classification) display the ranking of each park based on an overall score
for its components and modifiers. In general, parks at the top of the list offer added and enhanced
recreation opportunities than those ranked lower. The bar length for each park reflects its overall score
in proportion to the highest-ranking. There is no perfect score. Scores are cumulative and based on the
total number and quality of the components at a park in addition to the availability of modifiers. Scores
can be compared across classifications but are more applicable within the same class.
Table 11: Regional Park Ranking Table
39
DRAFT
Table 12: Community Park Ranking Table
Table 13: Neighborhood Park Ranking Table
40
DRAFT
Park Comparisons Using the GRASP® Data set
Based on the data set derived from the inventory assessments PFRSE parks are compared to other
agencies across the county. The GRASP® National Data set currently consists of 66 agencies, 4,540 parks,
and over 23,975 components.
When comparing PFRSE parks against other agencies and parks in the data set, Glendale has three parks
in the top 100 parks in terms of overall GRASP® score.
PFRSE also has twelve parks in the top ten percent.
Trails
Nearly 46 miles of trails exist in the Glendale system. The following map and descriptions (displayed
in Figure 25) are available from the City website. Trails GIS data was also obtained from the City and
incorporated into the GRASP® Inventory and Level of Service analysis.
41
DRAFT
Figure 25: Glendale Trails
42
DRAFT
B. Level of Service Analyses
Why Level of Service?
Level of Service (LOS) describes how a recreation system provides residents access to recreational assets
and amenities. It indicates the ability of people to connect with nature and pursue active lifestyles. It
can have implications for health and wellness, the local economy, and the quality of life. Further, LOS for
a park and recreation system tends to reflect community values. It is often representative of people’s
connection to their communities and lifestyles focused on outdoor recreation and healthy living.
GRASP® Analysis
GRASP® (Geo-referenced Amenities Standards
Process) has been applied in many cities across the
country to evaluate LOS for park and recreation
systems. With GRASP®, information from the
inventory combined with Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) software, produces analytic maps and
data that show the quality and distribution of park and recreation services across the City.
Perspectives
Perspectives are maps and data generated using the GRASP® methodology. Each perspective shows
service across the study area. Data analysis also incorporates statistics. Maps, tables, and charts provide
benchmarks or insights that are useful in determining community success in delivering recreation
opportunities. Find further discussion on Perspectives and other GRASP® terminology in Appendix C.
Types of Perspectives
The LOS offered by a park or other feature is a function of two main variables: what is available at a
specific location and how easy it is for a user to get to it. The inventory performed with the GRASP®-
IT tool provides a detailed accounting of what is available at any given location, and GIS analysis uses
the data to measure its accessibility to residents. People use a variety of ways to reach a recreation
destination: on foot, on a bike, in a car, via public transportation, or some combination. In GRASP®
Perspectives, this variability is accounted for by analyzing multiple travel distances (referred to as
catchment areas). These service areas produce two distinct types of Perspectives for examining the park
and recreation system:
1. Neighborhood Access
2. Walkable Access
A Neighborhood Access perspective uses a travel distance of one mile to the inventory and is assumed
to be a suitable distance for a bike ride or short drive in a car, or perhaps a longer walk. This suitable
distance captures users traveling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility by way of a bike, bus, or
automobile.
A Walkable Access perspective uses a shorter catchment distance intended to capture users within a ten
to fifteen-minute walk. See Appendix C for further discussion on walkability standards.
For each analysis, combining the service area for each component, including the assigned GRASP® value
into one overlay, creates a shaded map representing the cumulative value of all features.
43
DRAFT
Figure 26: Example of GRASP® Level of Service Perspectives
GRASP® Level of Service
Perspectives Using
Overlapping Suitable Distance
to Yield a “Heat Map” that
Provides a Measurement of
LOS for any Location Within
a Study Area (Orange Shades
Represent the Variation in LOS
Values Across the Map)
Assumptions:
1. Proximity relates to access. A feature within a specified distance of a given location is considered
“accessible” from that location.” “Access” in this analysis does not refer to access as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2. Neighborhood access relates to one-mile proximity, a reasonable distance for a drive in a car, or by
bicycle.
3. Walkable access relates to ½-mile proximity, a moderate ten-minute walk.
4. Walkable access is affected by barriers, obstacles to free, and comfortable foot travel.
5. The LOS value of a map point is the cumulative value of all features accessible at that location.
Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation
A series of “heat maps” were created to examine neighborhood access to outdoor recreation
opportunities which are available in parks. Neighborhood access looks at access to the system parks
based on a 1-mile service area but also gives higher scores to those living within walking distance (10-
min/half-mile).
The orange shades on Figure 27 represent a resident’s level of service at their house or work. Darker
shades indicate greater access to a greater number or enhanced parks and components. Areas in gray
indicate residents must go farther than one mile to access a recreation opportunity. The highest value of
outdoor recreation in parks is just west of Heroes Regional Park. From this location, a resident has access
to 75 components at seven parks, a trail, and an indoor facility.
Analysis of this perspective indicates that 82 percent of the Glendale residents are within one mile of an
outdoor recreation opportunity.
44
DRAFT
Figure 27: Glendale Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation
Walkability Analysis
Walkability analysis measures access to recreation
components by walking. To evaluate walkability
in Glendale, a half mile walkable distance radius
was placed around each component and assessed
according to the component’s GRASP® score.
Scores within the half mile walkable distance were
doubled to reflect added value of being within the
walkable proximity, allowing direct comparisons
between neighborhood access and walkable
access.
Pedestrian Barriers
Environmental barriers can limit walkability. The LOS in this analysis has been “cut-off” by identified
barriers where applicable.
Pedestrian barriers in Glendale, such as major streets, highways, streams, and arroyos/rivers,
significantly impact the analysis. Zones created by identified barriers, displayed as dark red lines, serve
as separate areas that are accessible without crossing a major street or another obstacle. Green parcels
represent existing parks and open space.
Walkability is a measure of how user-
friendly an area is to people traveling on foot.
This benefits a community in many ways related
to public health, social equity, and the local
economy. Many factors influence walkability
including the quality of footpaths, sidewalks or
other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road
conditions, land use patterns, and public safety
considerations among others.
45
DRAFT
Figure 28: Walkability Barriers “Cut-off” Service Areas
46
DRAFT
Figure 29: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation
Walkable Access to Recreation
The analysis shows the LOS available across Glendale,
based on a ten-minute walk. Darker gradient areas on
the maps indicate where there are more and higher
quality recreation assets available based on a half-mile
service area. Gray areas on these maps suggest that
recreation opportunities are beyond a ten-minute walk.
In general, these maps show that Glendale has a good
distribution of parks and facilities at a walkable scale
but that there are perhaps some gaps in the system
where facilities can be improved, and assets expanded.
It is also evident in this analysis that pedestrian barriers
play a significant role in walkable access to parks
throughout Glendale.
Areas of higher concentration are notable around
the City with the highest value just North of Heroes
Regional Park. The red star reflects the most significant
GRASP® value area (430) in Figure x above. From the
red star, a resident has access to 48 outdoor recreation
components in four parks, a trail, and an indoor facility.
47
DRAFT
Table 14: Figure 30 Statistics
The numbers in each column are derived as described in neighborhood access. The GRASP® Index does
not apply to the walkability analysis. The LOS value for a person who must walk to assets is about 50
percent (81 vs. 155) of that for someone who can drive to areas that have some access to recreation
opportunities.
Determining a Level of Service Standard
The orange shading in the LOS maps allows for a quick understanding of service distribution across
the City. Showing where LOS is adequate or inadequate is an advantage of using GIS analysis. To do
this the question of “what constitutes an appropriate level of service for Glendale residents?” must be
determined.
Using the average score of all parks in Neighborhood park classification, one could consider this
measurement as a standard for the Glendale system. Three parks occur in an average score range
and may constitute the average park in this classification type. These parks are displayed with their
associated components in Table 15. This table indicates that of these three parks, basketball courts, open
turf, playgrounds, small shelters, and volleyball courts are standard components. They are present at all
three of these parks. Additional components that occur less frequently at these parks include a practice
diamond, a loop walk, racquetball courts, and tennis courts. These three parks average six unique
components, and there may be more than one of these components, such as multiple racquetball courts
or tennis courts, for example.
Table 15: Summary of Average Neighborhood Parks
48
DRAFT
These parks and components are likely to attract users from a walkable distance. The following map
(Figure 32) brackets the level of service values to areas that are below or above the value provided
by parks in this range and is known as the target score for Glendale. GIS analysis shows where LOS is
above or below the threshold value. Purple areas indicate where walkable LOS values meet or exceed
the target. Areas shown in yellow on the map can be considered areas of opportunity. These are areas
where land and assets are currently available but do not provide the target value. It may be possible to
improve the LOS value in such areas by enhancing the quantity and quality of features in existing parks
without the need to acquire new lands or develop new parks. Another option is to work with other City
Departments to reduce pedestrian barriers in the area surrounding parks which score below the target
score.
Figure 30 displays the walkable access to recreation assets level of service based on where people live.
Using the data shown in Walkable Access to Recreation Gap Identification, and census data (Esri GIS data
enrichment techniques), the analysis indicates that parks are well placed in or close to residential areas
and capture a higher percentage of the population than land area. With 59 percent of residents in the
target zone and about 84 percent within walking distance of some outdoor recreation opportunities,
Glendale is better positioned than indicated by the previous analysis.
Figure 30: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Population
49
DRAFT
Figure 31: Walkable Access Gap Identification
50
DRAFT
Figure 32: Access to Indoor Facilities
Access to Indoor Facilities
The analysis shows access to indoor facilities across Glendale based
on a one mile and 1/2-mile service area. Indoor facilities in Glendale
differ significantly in their offerings, size, and function. For those
reasons, the following analysis should be considered, but not be
regarded as the only method of determining indoor recreation level
of service in Glendale. Darker gradient areas on the maps indicate
where there are more and higher quality indoor assets available.
Gray areas on these maps suggest that recreation opportunities are
beyond a one-mile radius. In general, these maps show that Glendale
has limited distribution of indoor facilities. The highest level of service
is provided at FRAC. An equivalate facility is not available in south
Glendale. Other facilities that offer limited indoor opportunities are
reasonably distributed around the City.
51
DRAFT
Utilizing GRASP® Perspectives
GRASP® perspectives evaluate the level of service throughout an area from various points of view. Their
purpose is to reveal possible gaps in service and provide a metric to use in understanding a recreation
system. However, it is not necessarily beneficial for all parts of the community to score equally in
the analyses. The desired level of service for a location should depend on the type of service, the
characteristics of the site, and other factors such as community need, population growth forecasts, and
land use issues. For example, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might reasonably have lower
Levels of Service for parks and recreation opportunities than residential areas. GRASP® perspectives
focus attention on gap areas for further scrutiny.
Perspectives can determine if current levels of service are appropriate if used in conjunction with other
assessment tools such as needs assessment surveys and a public input process. Future planning efforts
can model similar levels of service to new, developing neighborhoods, or it may be that different levels
of service are suitable, and the City should utilize a new set of criteria to reflect these distinctions.
Traditional LOS Analyses
Capacities Analysis
A traditional tool for evaluating parks and recreation services is capacity analysis. This analysis compares
the number of inventoried assets to population and projects future needs based on providing the same
ratio of components per population (i.e., as the population grows over time components may need to be
added to maintain the same proportion). Table 16 shows the current capacities for certain components
in Glendale. There are no correct ratios for the components, this table must be used in conjunction with
other information, such as input from focus groups, staff, and the general public, to determine if the
current capacities are adequate or not for specific components.
52
DRAFT
Table 16: Glendale Capacities
This capacities table bases analysis on the number of assets without regard to distribution, quality, or
functionality and does not consider residents needs. If only using this data, a higher LOS is achieved only
by adding assets, regardless of the location, condition, or quality of those assets. In practice, LOS is more
accurately and more usefully measured by using a combination of location and quality as well as their
quantity. It is important that the information contained within the table above is used with discretion
and only in conjunction with the other analyses presented in this plan.
NRPA Benchmark LOS Analysis
Comparing Glendale to recent national statistics published by the National Recreation and Park
Association in their “2020 NRPA Agency Performance Review: Park and Recreation Agency Performance
Benchmarks”, the agency fails to meet the median components except for basketball courts, dog parks,
and playgrounds. Dependent on field classification amongst agencies, Glendale is either below the
median or has a surplus in both diamond and rectangle fields.
53
DRAFT
Table 17: Comparison to NRPA Outdoor Park and Recreation Facilities – Median Population Served per
Facility
Acres of Parks per 1,000 Residents LOS Analysis
Similar calculations can also be made based on acres of land and parks per 1,000 residents. The following
table includes all the properties included in the GIS mapping (Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks,
Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Parks). Computation of the acreage consists of only
Glendale parks. Residents per park and acres of parks per 1,000 people fall slightly short of the NRPA
published benchmarks for similar size cities.
Table 18: Acres of Park per 1,000 Residents
This capacity table indicates that Glendale provides approximately 8.4 acres per 1,000 people or 119
people per acre of “park.” It also shows that based on projected population growth that the City would
need to add 186 acres over the next five years in order to maintain the current ratio of 8.4 acres per
1,000 residents.
54
DRAFT
C. LOS Conclusions
Proximity; availability of transportation; pedestrian barriers such as major roads (ex: Thunderbird
Road), highways, and waterways and canals; and, overall size of the City are relevant factors affecting
Glendale levels of service. The current provision of assets is, to a certain degree, equitable across
Glendale, assuming residents have access to motorized transportation. The City provides neighborhood
and walkable levels of service in most areas, while non-residential regions may have limited access to
opportunities. The quality and standards of the amenities at existing parks should be improved and
increased across the entire system.
One way to increase overall LOS is to add assets in any area with lower service or to acquire land or
develop partnerships in areas lacking current service. However, further evaluation of these low service
areas should be conducted as inventory efforts for this study did not include alternative providers such
as homeowner association parks which may supplement the service at the walkable levels.
Many areas where walkability gaps exist are residential in nature. Some residential areas have less
access to quality recreation opportunities, while other regions have no walkable access.
Pedestrian barriers and lack of trails also may limit access to recreation throughout Glendale. Additional
analysis and a review of the information received from surveys, focus groups, and other sources,
including staff knowledge, contribute to identify the best locations for future improvements to
addressing pedestrian barriers.
In addition to improving existing park conditions and adding service in low scoring areas, it is evident
that access to indoor facilities lacks equitability throughout the system. Foothills Recreation and
Aquatics Center provides a higher LOS than other indoor facilities in the City. The southern area is in
need of indoor facility improvements to create a more equitable service in Glendale.
In considering improvements it should be noted that there are substantial maintenance issues with the
pool at Rose Lane Aquatics Center making development of an aquatic facilities at a central location a
better option to achieve service equity and financial goals. This location could be considered at Glendale
Heroes Regional Park.
55
DRAFT
Our Programs
& Services
V.
A. Recreation Programs
The Glendale @ Play is the Department’s seasonal catalog of program, activity and event
offerings. The brochure is published three times a year. While programs and activities vary
seasonally, PFRSE catalogs and tracks participation in the following categories:
Special Interest Classes
Fitness
Youth Athletic Programs, Leagues and Camps
Adult Sports Leagues
Aquatics
Adult Programs and Services at GAC
Special Events
Descriptions of program categories and 2019 participation rates are summarized below, with key
observations provided at the end of the section.
Special Interest Classes
Special Interest Classes are offered throughout the year to provide an opportunity for adults and
youth to experience new activities or further expand current knowledge and abilities. The range of
programs offered throughout the year include painting, cooking, and dance classes, cheer instruction,
language courses, and tumbling. Participants may sign up for a class that is offered on
a monthly basis, six- or eight-week sessions or as an individual workshop. In 2019, 230
classes were offered and 122 were cancelled. Most classes did not meet the minimum
registration numbers required to proceed with the offering. The 108 successful offerings
served 627 attendees. Collectively, the 108 classes had a capacity to reach 1425 registered
participants.
Fitness
The Parks and Recreation Department provides a diverse array of fitness activities year-round for adults
and seniors. Most classes are conducted at the FRAC. In 2019, 72 fitness classes were offered with 386
registered participants. Collectively, fitness classes were at 27 percent capacity.
Youth Athletic Programs, Leagues and Camps
PFRSE provides year-round youth athletic programs including archery, tennis, football, soccer, and
basketball. In 2019, 136 programs were offered. Many classes did not meet the minimum registration
numbers required to proceed with the offering. The 73 successful offerings served 466 attendees.
Collectively, the 73 classes had a capacity to reach 1350 registered participants.
PFRSE prides itself on the quality and diversity of public
recreation programs and activities the City offers and
purposefully seeks to make participation affordable and
financially accessible for all residents.
56
DRAFT
PFRSE also offers youth sports leagues in basketball and baseball. Youth sports leagues are designed to
be recreational in nature where ability is not a prerequisite, and each participant gets an equal chance to
play. Youth sports leagues shows strong registration numbers; however, numbers are minimal for older
youth. PFRSE has the most success with youth 5 to 10 years old.
In addition to youth athletic programs and leagues PFRSE offers Foothills 360, a 10-week youth summer
day camp. In 2019 the camp served 1,534 youth. Camp capacity is 1,600.
Adult Sports Leagues
The Parks and Recreation Department offers adult sports leagues that provide recreational opportunities
in basketball and softball. Adult co-ed, as well as men’s and women’s programs are offered. Adult softball
is broken into four seasons. Registration trends are typical with the lowest registration occurring in
the winter and highest in the Spring. Spring softball team enrollment exceeds 50 teams while Spring
hovers near 20 teams. Overall, softball registration numbers are strong. In 2019, 224 teams registered
for softball. The Department’s Racquetball league and Basketball leagues also show strong registration
numbers year-round.
Aquatics
The PFRSE swim lesson program strives to provide a safe, fun, and creative experience to people of all
ages. On average, the Department provides group swim lessons to nearly 5,000 participants annually.
Adult Programs and Services
Glendale Aquatics Center offers a variety of programs for adults. The range of programs offered
throughout the year include arts and crafts, computers and technology, dance, language courses, music,
fitness and other special events. Programs at Glendale Aquatics Center have consistent enrollment and
provide a variety of opportunities to users. In 2019, Glendale Aquatics Center offered 43 classes with
nearly 1,000 participants registered.
Special Events
PFRSE is responsible for coordinating and managing free family-friendly events held annually throughout
the community. In 2019, special events and programs hosted by the Department included:
•
Glendale Glitters Holiday Light Display
•
Glendale Glitters Spectacular Weekend
•
Glitter & Glow
•
Movies by Moonlight
•
Touch A Truck
•
Folk & Heritage Festival
•
Summer Band Concert Series
•
The Chocolate Experience
•
Live! @ Murphy Park
57
DRAFT
Participation Trends
In 2019, PFRSE programs and activities showed moderate participation rates. Registration data and
participation estimates provided by staff for 2019 using the City’s internal Parks and Recreation booking
software, Civic Rec, reported:
•
627 individuals registered for Special Interest Classes
•
386 adults registered Fitness Classes
•
1,534 youth registered for Youth Recreation Camps; 466 youth registered for Youth Athletic Programs
•
265 teams registered for Adult Softball or Basketball Leagues; 193 individuals registered for the
Racquetball League
•
977 youth registered for Youth Sports Leagues
•
4,752 individuals registered for Aquatics programs
•
989 adults registered for Adult Programs and Services at GAC
•
50,000+ estimated participants at Special Events (no registration)
•
84 individuals registered for Lifeguard and CPR/AED training
•
Drop-in visits to FRAC and GAC combined total approximately 324,700
•
An estimated 2,919 individuals participated in fee-based events held at FRAC and GAC
The percentage of program registration by program category is shown below.
Figure 33: Percent of 12,802 Total Registered Participants by Program Category
*Adult Sports Leagues calculated using an average of 12 members per team.
Programs and Services Conclusions
•
Registration data reflects interest and participation at the GAC, in Aquatics programs, Youth
Recreation Camps and Adult Sports Leagues.
•
Demand may warrant considering growth in Youth Recreation Camps. Adding summer sites and
school break camps should be evaluated.
•
Program attendance is low causing cancellation rates to be high in the Special Interest Classes, Fitness
Classes and Youth Athletics program categories.
•
A number of classes are run at 33% capacity or lower. The method used to establish class minimums
and maximums and current subsidy levels needs further evaluation for consistency throughout the
Department.
58
DRAFT
•
Department marketing efforts should be evaluated. Insufficient marketing staff and/or budget is
likely contributing to low registration rates.
•
At age ten registration numbers for Youth Sports Leagues sharply decline. The Department should
consider divesting from offering youth sports leagues to youth over the age of 10. Each sport should
be evaluated independently. Independent youth sports leagues and organizations in the community
may be better equipped to serve older youth.
•
Teen programming that is non-sports oriented and driven by youth input may be introduced into the
program portfolio.
•
The Department does not have a consistent way to evaluate the success of current program
offerings.
B. Program Development
While the residents of Glendale are satisfied with the programs that are offered, they do have a demand
for more program offerings. Included among the additional programs, residents expressed a desire to see
more programming for special events, seniors, aquatics, pickle ball, additional adult sports, and non-
traditional sports opportunities. Social gatherings and fitness classes were also desired.
New recreation trends may indicate the need for changing the current program offerings. Changing
program offerings requires careful consideration, planning, and proper communication with the
community. Programs need to be continually assessed for viability. Decisions regarding changes,
expansions, enhancements, and/or program eliminations need to be made carefully and with proper
data. Starting new programs, based on community demand and/or trends, need to be well researched,
planned, and advertised to provide the best possibility of their success. If new program interest seems
enough based on a survey or community input, then the new programs should be developed, advertised,
and implemented.
C. Program Evaluation
PFRSE should have a process in place to evaluate the success of current program offerings and criteria to
determine if new program ideas should be instituted or if changes should be made to current programs,
including eliminating or suspending existing programs. A few simple questions should be asked of
participants and staff about each program that includes:
•
Is participation increasing or decreasing? If participation is increasing, then it could mean that the
program should be continued. If participation is decreasing, are there steps to take to increase
interest through marketing efforts, changes to the time/day of the program, format or instructor? If
not, it may be time to discontinue the program.
•
Is there information contained in the participation/staff feedback that can be used to improve the
program?
•
Are cost recovery goals being met? If not, can costs be reduced or can fees be realistically increased?
•
Is there another provider of the program that is more suitable to offer it? If yes, the Department
could provide referrals for its customers.
•
Is this program taking up facility space that could be used for expansion of more popular programs or
new programs in demand by the community?
59
DRAFT
Key Findings &
Recommendations
VI.
The themes and corresponding recommendations
below interrelate with one another and with Envision
Glendale 2040 Economic Vitality, Public Facilities
and Services, Environmental Sustainability, and
Connectivity Themes.
Providing cost-effective parks and recreation services within the City is key to meeting
residents’ expectations and needs. In addition to servicing community members, having
quality park and recreation system features that meet a consistent standard, regardless of
area within the City’s boundaries, elevate economic development. Throughout this master
plan process community members expressed a desire to see existing facilities maintained,
renovated, and improved upon before taking on projects in undeveloped parklands. Analysis conducted
in support of this plan propel projects aimed at assuring older neighborhoods serviced by walkable park
and recreation system facilities are prioritized in future years.
A. Improving Access to Community Experiences with Programs and Services
As a concentrated part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, the City sought to conduct a
data-driven analysis to determine if any income, race, or age disparities in access to public parks, open
space, recreation facilities (collectively referred to as the ‘parks and recreation system’) and recreation
programming exist within the City of Glendale.
Disparity considers if there are differences in access to park and recreation system amenities, facilities,
and recreation services between population groups.
To answer this question the gaps in parks and recreation services were identified using the LOS analysis
techniques explained in Chapter IV. Addressing these gaps will ensure that all community members have
access to the many great benefits that PFRSE has to offer. Specifically, the Disparity Report (Appendix
B) provides specific analysis and recommendations which have been incorporated into Goal One in the
Strategic Action Plan. Implementing these goals will help minimize gaps in service over the next 10 years
as the City prioritizes opportunities for programming and parks and recreation system improvements.
In addition to addressing issues of disparity, a number of other access-related objectives, when
accomplished, will improve people’s ability to access the parks and recreation system. These objectives
are described in this section.
60
DRAFT
Access and Connectivity
A priority for improving access to the park and recreation system is improving walkability in Glendale.
Pedestrian barriers (i.e., major streets, highways, streams, and arroyos/rivers) play a significant role in
reducing people’s ability to access parks. It is recommended that PFRSE work with Public Works to assess
pedestrian barriers identified in this plan (see Figure X) and to create the bicycle and pedestrian system’s
trail elements identified in Glendale: The Next Step 2025 and prioritized in Envision Glendale 2040. This
will then allow residents to more safely access the parks system.
Facility Improvements & Programming
Community survey results indicated a desire from the community for existing facilities to be maintained
and improved upon. The GRASP® analyses of access to outdoor recreation shows there is an opportunity
to prioritize improvements on both a smaller scale and on a larger scale. It is recommended that small
scale improvements be prioritized and made to parks in areas which fall below the target service
level. These gap areas can be identified using the Figure 32: Walkable Access Gap Identification Map.
Examples of parks falling in these gap areas are:
•
Mondo Park
•
Heritage Park
•
Hillcrest Park
•
Hidden Meadows Park
It is also recommended that larger scale capital projects at various park and recreation system sites be
undertaken in the next 10 years to improve access to indoor and outdoor park and recreation system
amenities and to allow for the continuation and expansion of youth and adult recreation sports activities.
These projects are discussed in Chapter VII – Capital Priorities and are:
•
Sahuaro Ranch Park Master Plan and Improvements
•
Grand Canal Linear Park Improvements
•
Thunderbird Conservation Park Improvements (including opportunities for new environmental
education programming)
•
Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park Improvements
•
Skunk Creek Linear Park Improvements
•
Glendale Heroes Regional Park Concept Validation and Build Out
In general, Glendale residents have limited access to indoor facilities and the programming available
within those facilities. The highest level of service is provided at FRAC. An equivalent facility is not
available in the central and southern areas of the City. It is recommended that a feasibility study be
conducted to determine what specific programming needs are in these areas and to evaluate the existing
sites where indoor facilities are located in addition to the undeveloped portion of Glendale Heroes
Regional Park. Once a study reveals the programming needs and opportunities for renovating existing
buildings or developing a new facility, the City is encouraged to pursue investing in the provision of
indoor facilities to meet the programming needs identified in this plan. Namely these are additional
aquatics programming, youth activities and after-school programming, youth and adult recreation sport
leagues (i.e., basketball and volleyball), and fitness and wellness activities.
In order for facilities and programming to remain accessible to low-income households, it is suggested
that the City consider implementing a sliding scale membership fee program at FRAC (and other
recreation center facilities) and develop a financial plan for the management of the Glendale Youth
Scholarship Fund. However, these should only be done once a full resource allocation study has been
conducted and can inform fee-related aspects of managing the park and recreation system.
61
DRAFT
B. Improving Financial and Asset Management
In support of the creation of more standardized park and recreation system facilities, there are a number
of actions the City can support and PFRSE should pursue over the next decade.
Best Practices
Resource and data collection during this planning process revealed opportunities for PFRSE to implement
a number of best practices for managing public park and recreation system facilities and for operating
recreation programs. Leveraging best practices will, over time, better enable PFRSE to meet the public’s
expectations and deliver better services.
As an example, it is recommended that PFRSE continue to follow the park classification system as
expressed in the inventory section of Our System (Chapter IV) and as detailed in Appendix C and
in the geographic information system (GIS) data resulting from this planning effort. Based on these
classifications, PFRSE should create and adopt various management standards such as those addressing
irrigation, turf management, trail maintenance, and park maintenance standards which are aligned with
the level of maintenance required for the various park types. For example, a community park with a
sports complex will require a higher level of maintenance than a neighborhood park which offers open
turf used as a practice field.
Additionally, facility hours at Thunderbird Conservation Park and Foothills Recreation and Aquatics
Center should be reconsidered based on consistency with neighboring agency hours of operation,
improving customer experience expectations, and mitigating labor implications.
All PFRSE services should also be annually evaluated using a services assessment process. This will allow
for the services portfolio to be evaluated against certain criteria and will lead to the determination
of what programs should be continued, modified, or divested from on a regular basis. The services
assessment process description which includes an evaluation matrix has been provided to staff as a
resource document.
Plan-informed Budget Development
As a CAPRA agency, PFRSE has done well to undertake this, and other planning efforts to assess current
conditions and to base future actions. It is suggested this mode of operation continue. Pursuing the
maximum utilization of Lucity, the City’s asset management system, and the existing tree inventory data;
assessing indoor facilities’ and tree maintenance needs; and partnering with regional agencies such as
the City of Peoria and State of Arizona Game and Fish Department in planning efforts are recommended
in order to best inform PFRSE’s annual operating budgets and capital improvements plans.
Appropriate Personnel for Maintaining Quality of Life
As the City is able to fund capital projects and increases operational funding for programs, it is critical
that staffing also be adjusted to accommodate increases in responsibilities. Program areas such as
Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center, special events and youth after-school and summer camp
programming should be prioritized for staff expansion – need and capacity issues necessitate these
actions. Trail and conservation-based staff should be added, and maintenance contracted, so ecologically
important properties’ resources remain preserved. As this is done maintenance standards should be
applied to ensure visitor safety.
62
DRAFT
Safety of visitors is an important aspect of PFRSE’s ability to improve community experiences when
visiting park and recreation system facilities. Open-ended community survey comments and comments
received during public input sessions described a general concern for public safety and well-being due
to the use of parks for unintended activities and purposes. Moving forward, it is suggested that the City
fund additional FTE hours for dedicated Ranger staff, additional Parks and Recreation staff. Contracting
services for administrative assistance is also suggested. This, along with improved design using principles
aimed at deterring criminal activity, increased activation of neighborhood parks, and improvements to
parks, will help increase use of the park and recreation system.
Additionally, asset management data should be utilized to determine the real-costs for addressing
deferred maintenance at indoor and outdoor facilities and to develop and inform the asset replacement
schedule.
C. Process Solutions
Finding opportunities to use innovative solutions, to conduct meaningful public engagement, and to
employ purposeful communications will further PFRSE’s ability to best serve the diverse population
residing in Glendale and will produce accountability for the services it provides.
Processes and Policies
Given the resources allocated to maintain and operate the park and recreation system so that gaps
in access to recreation are minimized and partnerships are mutually beneficial, it is wise to pursue
strategies that take full advantage of those resources. Recommended actions which will allow for the
maximization of resources include 1) adopting a resource allocation (cost recovery) policy based on
outcomes from a public process. (Information about this process has been provided as a resource
document.); 2) conducting public engagement for planning projects; 3) adopting a quid pro quo policy
for use of public facilities, and 4) continuing the development of an annual report which can be used to
generate support for the park and recreation system.
Marketing
According to community survey results, one area of improvement is in creating awareness of parks and
recreation services and park and recreation system features. Ideal reasons for increasing awareness
are to increase use of the park and recreation system, to improve people’s health and well-being, to
generate political and funding support. It is suggested that the many tools already available to PFRSE be
leveraged to make information about services more accessible and identifiable. It is also recommended
that a marketing plan be developed. This plan should identify engagement and marketing objectives and
policies; identify community groups and organizations; outline processes and procedures for interacting
with groups; recognize internal training needs; and provide strategies for understanding community
needs.
Public Engagement
Engaging people in park and recreation system planning projects ensures that facilities are created by
those they are intended to serve. Building relationships with community groups which represent the
diverse population residing in Glendale and employing engagement best practices will help encourage
participation. Working to conduct engagement in a way that represents and reaches people who are less
inclined to be involved in local government projects is essential to providing a community-benefiting
park and recreation system.
63
DRAFT
D. Strengthening the Department
The City of Glendale has shown its commitment to unifying its workforce by creating a strong workplace
culture, training its employees, and providing the tools and technology necessary to perform work
duties. The City’s mission, “We improve the lives of those we serve every day,” acts as the unification
of work efforts. In turn, the values outline how Glendale’s staff are expected to contribute. To increase
PFRSE employees’ commitments to their valuable work, there are a number of recommendations to be
considered. First, ensure that policies that explain expectations are written and made available to each
appropriate staff member. Second, the use of consistent personnel management practices to recruit,
retain, and lead staff is recommended. For example, establishing equitable pay amongst staff members,
especially in Parks Maintenance, would go far to foster a positive workplace culture. Employees are the
heart of the City and their engagement within the organization will directly translate into their work –
leading to improved lives of Glendale’s residents.
64
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
65
DRAFT
Implementation
Plan
VII.
A. Goals, Objectives, and Action Items
The following Goals, Objectives, and Action Items for the recommendations are drawn from the public
input, inventory, level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all the information gathered during
the master planning process with a primary focus on maintaining, sustaining, and improving City parks,
recreation, open space, and trails. All cost estimates are in 2020 figures. Estimated costs are dependent
on the extent of the enhancements and improvements determined and known at this time.
Timeframe to complete is designated as:
•
Short-term (up to 5 years)
•
Mid-term (5-7 years)
•
Long-term (8-10 years)
Goal 1: Strive to improve residents’ access to quality parks and recreation experiences throughout
Glendale.
Objective 1.1: Increase residents’ access to outdoor recreation facilities by funding strategic park and
recreation system improvements and connections.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.1.a Evaluate gray areas on the
Walkable Access to Outdoor
Recreation Gap Identification map
which are residential in nature.
Partner with City transportation
planners to prioritize improving
access to nearby, existing park and
recreation system infrastructure
for gray areas in residential areas.
If improving walkability is not
possible, focus on determining if
the development of a neighborhood
park is feasible.
Dependent
upon specific
transportation-
related and/or
park development
opportunities
-
Short-term
Table 19: Action Plan
66
DRAFT
1.1.b Areas below target service
levels should be prioritized for
reducing physical barriers in
partnership with City Departments
but also for making annual park
improvements such as adding
shaded areas and splash pads.
Parks which do not meet target
scores should be prioritized for
park improvements and possible
activation through programming.
$150,000-$200,000/
year; Dependent
Upon Site Specifics
Reduction in
Maintenance
Expenditures
Short-term
1.1.c Master Plan Historic
Sahuaro Ranch Park and prioritize
improvements to this site which
will address deferred maintenance
issues and will maximize the
opportunities to increase outdoor/
environmental programs, interactive
agricultural displays, festivals and
events, and nutrition learning
opportunities.
$300,000 for Master
Plan
$20,000-$30,000/
year
Short-term
1.1.d Improve access to Thunderbird
Conservation Park by prioritizing
improvements to trails and
infrastructure; dedicating budget
and staffing resources to implement
improvements and to maintain
improved conditions; prioritizing the
developing environmental education
and recreation programs that appeal
to youth, families, and older adults;
and celebrating and positioning
Thunderbird Conservation Park as
a highly valuable environmental
resource within the urban setting.
$11,000,000-
$13,000,000
$30,000-$40,000/
year
Mid-term
1.1.f Focus on improving connection
of parks to planned bicycle routes
and recreation corridors, including
trails, such as along New River,
Skunk Creek, the Thunderbird Paseo
Park, and the Agua Fria River.
-
-
Ongoing
1.1.g Monitor usage of recreation
amenities and determine whether
to remove/redesign/repurpose
racquetball courts which have hiding
areas and restricted sight lines.
-
-
Long-term
67
DRAFT
Objective 1.2: Increase residents’ access to indoor recreation facilities.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.2.a Complete Heroes Regional
Park or conduct a feasibility study
to determine if market demand
and site conditions can support
an equivalent facility to FRAC at
a central or southern location, or
through multiple, smaller locations.
Areas to consider could include
Heroes Regional Park, Rose Lane
Park and Aquatics Center, and the
Glendale Community Center.
$25,000-$35,000 for
Feasibility Study
-
Long-term
1.2.b Confirm the improvement/
buildout concepts at Glendale
Heroes Regional Park through a
master plan public process. Buildout
the park based on master planning
outcomes.
$35,000,000-
$50,000,000;
Dependent Upon
Planning Outcomes
$350,000-$440,000/
year
Long-term
1.2.c Consider appropriateness for
indoor recreation facilities to be
accessible via a drive-to distance
(greater than 1-mile). If this is
determined, it is recommended
that the City support and fund
partnership work with public
transportation providers to
supply transportation methods
and routes to indoor recreation
facilities, particularly for youth, for
households with low incomes, and
for persons experiencing disabilities.
-
$30,000/year
Long-term
1.2.d Support and make capital
improvements at existing indoor
facilities.
Dependent Upon
Planning Outcomes
and Site Specifics
Dependent Upon
Programming Needs
Long-term
1.2.e Pursuant to Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements,
create and implement a plan to
remove barriers to existing park and
recreation system facilities.
Dependent Upon
Site Specifics
-
Ongoing
68
DRAFT
Objective 1.3: Provide fee-based recreation programs that appeal to the diverse Glendale population.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.3.a Modify the program portfolio
at facilities to appeal to younger
adults and families as well as older
adults by including a variety of
options like additional yoga classes
or nutrition and wellness classes or
massage therapy or family group
fitness classes. Continue offering
programs which are most attended
by older adults.
-
-
Short-term
1.3.b As demographics change,
consider creating marketing
strategies for Glendale Adult Center
which promote it as a facility for
people aged 18 and above.
-
-
Long-term
1.3.c Track, measure, and monitor
age data for participants at FRAC
and GAC and other fee-based
program locations using the
registration software.
-
-
Short-term
1.3.d Continue to provide sports
leagues for adults.
-
-
Short-term
1.3.e Continue focusing youth
fee-based programming on skill-
development.
-
-
Short-term
1.3.f Continue to focus on providing
recreation level youth sports.
-
-
Mid-term
1.3.g Continue providing aquatics
programs.
-
-
Short-term
69
DRAFT
1.3.h Contract with Arizona
Association of Environmental
Education and other providers to
develop and implement equitable
and inclusive nature-based
environmental education programs
at locations such as Thunderbird
Conservation Park, Sahuaro Ranch
Park, and, perhaps, Manistee Ranch
Park.
-
$20,000-30,000/year
Mid-term
Objective 1.4: Continue to provide and expand free youth programs to residents experiencing economic
hardship and to offer no-cost facility-based events.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.4.a Prioritize the continued
offering and eventual expansion
of free afterschool and summer
camp programs. Consider bringing
free afterschool and summer
camp programs entirely under the
management and administration
of PFRSE. Create a youth-driven
initiative that empowers older
youth to learn new skills, develop
new relationships, stay away
from negative risks, and gain
valuable work experience through
volunteerism. Begin with afterschool
and summer camp programs and
extend youth-led programming as
resources are available. Utilize the
Glendale Youth Scholarship Fund
to expand free programming to
qualifying participants.
-
$30,000-$40,000/
year
Short-term
1.4.b Host a free healthy lifestyle-
inspired event at a linear park,
Thunderbird Conservation Park or at
Sahuaro Ranch Park.
-
$3,000/year
Mid-term
1.4.c Track participation rates in free
events and consider divesting of
an event when participation rates
decline.
-
-
Long-term
70
DRAFT
Objective 1.5: Celebrate Glendale’s diverse community with well-designed and financially resourced
City-hosted special events.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.5.a Increase participation in
special events by celebrating their
purpose and connection to the
mission of the City and of PFRSE
– improving lives through health
and wellbeing at excellent facilities.
Continue hosting, and expand upon,
special events at park and recreation
system sites where activation will
increase use of parks and build
support for the facilities and services
PFRSE provides. Prioritize funding
to manage and implement each
additional city-hosted special events.
-
$100,000-$130,000/
year
Mid-term
1.5.b Hold additional special
events and festivals with cultural
aspects that aim at sharing cultural
elements through food, storytelling,
dance, and arts. Use focus groups
and liaisons within representative
cultural communities in Glendale
to determine the types of events
that will appeal to the diverse
population.
-
$75,000-$85,000/
year
Long-term
Objective 1.6: Foster community connection by enticing residents to use indoor and outdoor facilities in
new and improved ways.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.6.a Provide group fitness classes
or non-sports classes at outdoor
and indoor facilities located within
gap areas identified in access maps.
Consider developing a Fitness in the
Parks program to activate parks and
increase usage of local parks.
-
$8,000/year
Short-term
1.6.b Consider a sliding scale
membership fee program to FRAC
for residents living below the
poverty level for their household
size.
-
Determined through
Resource Allocation
Process
Mid-term
71
DRAFT
Objective 1.7: Maximize the City’s provision of free and low-cost services to youth in financial need.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.7.a Create a financial plan for
the management of the Glendale
Youth Scholarship Fund that
outlines objectives and strategies
for increasing youth access to park
facilities and recreation programs.
$25,000-$35,000
Staff time
Mid-term
Goal 2: Implement strategies to improve resource alignment and asset management.
Objective 2.1: Manage facilities and programs using best practices.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.1.a Align park classification types
with park maintenance standards so
that maintenance levels match uses.
-
-
Short-term
2.1.b Create and adopt irrigation and
turf standards which align with the
appropriate standards based on the
various park classifications.
-
-
Short-term
2.1.c Establish a plan to meet the
irrigation and turf standards.
-
-
Short-term
2.1.d Adopt and implement
general maintenance park standard
which are in alignment with park
classification types.
-
-
Short-term
2.1.e Consider expanding hours of
operation at FRAC to 6am-10pm.
-
-
Mid-term
72
DRAFT
2.1.f Adhere to trail standards that
address proper trail construction
and maintenance.
-
-
Mid-term
2.1.g Adopt maintenance standards
which support park classification
standards.
-
$22,000-$27,000
Mid-term
2.1.h Adopt an ordinance that
protects existing conservation and
agricultural parcels in the system.
-
-
Mid-term
2.1.i Conduct an annual services
assessment process which
evaluates which programs should
be continued, modified, or divested
from based on established criteria,
or determinants, to develop a
programming plan that includes
program objectives.
-
-
Mid-term
2.1.j Update the PFRSE security
plan for buildings and facilities
that includes evacuation
procedures, Ranger and other staff
responsibilities and roles, and other
safety procedures.
-
$20,000-$25,000
Long-term
Objective 2.2: Improve budget development by conducting study and planning efforts to assess and
improve the system on a regular basis.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.2.a Utilize the existing asset
management software system
to manage and track equipment,
inventory and other PFRSE assets.
-
Staff time
Short-term
2.2.b Conduct a facilities assessment
to determine indoor facilities’
replacement needs.
-
$25,000
Short-term
73
DRAFT
2.2.c Utilize tree inventory
information to prioritize tree
maintenance and replacement
needs.
-
-
Short-term
2.2.d Utilize the asset management
system to perform and track
preventative maintenance tasks and
to determine deferred maintenance
needs.
-
Staff time
Mid-term
2.2.e Develop an Animal
Management Plan for Sahuaro
Ranch Park and other affected park
sites.
$35,000-$40,000
-
Mid-term
2.2.f Create a Glendale Urban Tree
Shade Plan.
-
$20,000
Long-term
2.2.g Represent parks and recreation
services in future City General Plan
updates.
-
-
Ongoing
2.2.h Update the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan between
2029-2031.
-
$120,000-$140,000
Long-term
2.2.i Work with regional, State of
Arizona, and federal agency partners
to coordinate planning efforts.
-
-
Ongoing
Objective 2.3: Gradually improve the allocation of resources provided to PFRSE in support of
maintaining the quality of life for Glendale residents.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.3.a Consider increasing FTEs to
special events to support community
and City desire to increase the
number of special events and
festivals.
-
$40,000-$50,000/
year plus benefits
Short-term
74
DRAFT
2.3.b Consider increasing FTE
hours to Park Maintenance for
Ranger Services and general park
maintenance and operations. Add
specialist positions for duties such
as irrigation maintenance, electrical
functions, and arborist tasks.
-
TBD
Mid-term
2.3.c Hire full-time staff to
administer and manage the trail
system and conservation-based
properties.
-
$60,000-70,000/year
plus benefits
Mid-term
2.3.d Contract out trail maintenance.
-
$25,000/year
Mid-term
2.3.f Increase FTEs and part-
time staffing at FRAC to support
expanded hours of operation and to
increase the community’s access to
recreation programming.
-
$13,000-$20,000/
year
Mid-term
Goal 3: Advance our processes through innovative solutions, meaningful engagement, and purposeful
communications.
Objective 3.1: Improve processes and policies which maximizes resources and improves
communications within the agency and with the public.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
3.1.a Conduct a facilitated resource
allocation (subsidy level) public
process.
-
$25,000
Mid-term
3.1.b Conduct public engagement
when making large-scale capital
improvements to facilities.
-
-
Ongoing
3.1.c Develop and adopt a quid pro
quo policy applicable when the City
agrees to allow a non-City agent
to utilize and/or operate a public
facility.
-
-
Mid-term
75
DRAFT
3.1.d Continue to create and
publicize an annual report which
highlights PFRSE successes in its
service delivery and master plan
accomplishments.
-
$4,000-5,000/year
Ongoing
3.1.e Cooperate in the City’s
development and periodic review
and updating of a disaster mitigation
and recovery plan.
-
$20,000-$25,000
Mid-term
3.1.f Conduct an Economic Benefits
Study that analyzes the benefits
of the park and recreation system.
Market the findings to demonstrate
the value services bring to the City.
-
$20,000-$30,000
Long-term
3.1.g Maintain a recreation
programs evaluation process that is
easily accessible and simple to use.
-
-
Ongoing
Objective 3.2: Use GlendaleOne, Glendale@Play, GlendaleAZ.com, and other marketing efforts to
further awareness about parks and recreation services.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
3.2.a Continue to designate a staff
person to direct the monitoring
of, and responses to, GlendaleOne
inputs.
-
Staff time
Ongoing
3.2.b Create digital content for
Knowledge Base (Frequently Asked
Questions).
-
Staff time
Short-term
3.2.c Place a Glendale@Play banner
on the Department homepage.
-
Staff time
Short-term
76
DRAFT
3.2.d Develop a community relations
and marketing plan.
-
$30,000
Mid-term
3.2.e Implement a wayfinding and
signage program.
$200,000-$250,000
-
Long-term
Objective 3.3: Conduct public outreach that allows for diverse interests to be involved in planning
processes.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
3.3.a Build relationships with
community leaders, nonprofits,
and cultural groups who/which
can serve as information liaisons.
Acknowledge their efforts.
-
Staff time
Ongoing
3.3.b Avoid using jargon and
acronyms during meetings and in
marketing messages.
-
-
Ongoing
3.3.c Provide food and childcare at
public engagement events.
-
$2,000/year
Ongoing
3.3.d Consider holding meetings and
input events at “neutral” locations
which are accessible by public
transportation.
-
-
Ongoing
3.3.e Consider having virtual or
digital engagement opportunities
that are well-publicized.
-
TBD
Ongoing
77
DRAFT
Goal 4: Strengthen the Department through the use of tools and technology, positive workplace
culture, and professional development of our workforce.
Objective 4.1: Ensure Department systems, policies and procedures are reviewed and updated
periodically and made available to appropriate staff.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.1.a Maintain, and make accessible
to staff, a handbook that outlines
and explains the code of ethics,
administrative and operational
policies and Standard Operating
Procedures.
-
-
Ongoing
4.1.b Create a communication
matrix which illustrates how PFRSE
manages internal communications
within the City.
-
Staff time
Short-term
Objective 4.2: Improve workplace culture through personnel management practices.
Actions
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.2.a Work with Human Resources
to establish parity amongst Parks
Maintenance Staff working 40 hours
a week.
-
$50,000-80,000/year
Short-term
4.2.b Encourage supervisors to
clearly communicate expectations,
coach, mentor and train staff, and
conduct, at a minimum, written
performance reviews twice a year.
-
Staff time
Short-term
4.2.c Attract qualified personnel by
creating a workplace where PFSE
values and performance goals are
clear, collaboration is expected,
and contributions are recognized.
Market the social, community, and
personal benefits of working for
PFRSE when recruiting and retaining
staff.
-
-
Mid-term
78
DRAFT
4.2.d Develop employees based on
PFRSE needs by providing required
trainings, maintaining training logs,
and participation in education
opportunities.
-
TBD
Mid-term
4.2.e With Human Resources,
periodically review the
compensation plan to ensure
compensation levels of other
peer agencies are considered as
comparative data points.
-
Staff time
Ongoing
B. Capital Priorities
Prioritizing Investment in Existing Parks
Community survey results strongly showed support for prioritizing maintenance of, and improving,
existing facilities. Considering this, it is important to make improvements to parks which are important to
the community. As expressed in the community survey, desired features are:
•
Park amenities (i.e., increasing shade, adding picnic amenities, updating playgrounds, splash pads),
and
•
Additional walking and biking paths.
Opportunities also exist for increasing park usage by providing restrooms in community and regional
parks; providing environmental programs; improving the condition of open turf areas at parks across the
system; and increasing the availability and useability of athletic courts.
In order to better understand the opportunities for making these needed improvements, a number
of specific system sites were evaluated based on the community priorities noted above and the sites’
abilities to address these community needs. The sites visited and evaluated for improvements are:
•
Sahuaro Ranch Park,
•
Thunderbird Conservation Park,
•
Skunk Creek Linear Park
•
Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park
•
Grand Canal Linear Park
•
Glendale Heroes Regional Park
Resulting from these site visits a number of conceptual designs and drawings have been provided to
the City. The sites’ evaluations, concepts, and recommended improvements are described below and
are only conceptual in nature. Each site will require a public master planning process to confirm and
finalize improvements. A full package of comprehensive conceptual drawings for each site is available in
Appendix E.
79
DRAFT
Short-term
Sahuaro Ranch Park is an accessible, much-utilized site in need of master
planning. The historic area can be re-envisioned to maximize gathering and event
opportunities and to better allow for community-desired programming. Through
a master planning process the park area can be improved with a confirmation of
its park classification type and resulting maintenance standards.
Sahuaro Ranch Park is a unique site offering visitors both recreational and historical experiences. Within
the overall park there are 17 acres which host the historic area and includes numerous buildings, a rose
garden, barnyard, orchards, palm, and olive tree groves as well as the chance for spotting one of the
many peacocks that live at the park. The remaining 63 acres are utilized as the recreational component
and has numerous amenities including, softball and soccer fields, volleyball courts, ramadas of varying
sizes, playgrounds, picnic areas, and a dog park.
Figure 34: Current Sahuaro Ranch Park Diagram
Sahuaro Ranch Park Master Planning and Conceptual Improvements
80
DRAFT
Figure 35: Current Historic Sahuaro Ranch Map
Recommendations to Consider when Master Planning:
•
Provide dining, walking, shopping, socializing, event, botanical, and commercial opportunities and
attractions.
•
Continue, and improve upon, historic preservation of all existing buildings and orchards.
•
Prepare a structural assessment for the existing historic buildings and structures with
recommendations for repairs and ongoing maintenance.
•
Prepare a drainage assessment for the historic areas of the park focusing on the historic buildings
and structures.
•
Identify recommendations to eliminate flood impacts to buildings.
•
Enhance interpretative signage throughout park.
•
Continue to host recreational league play of athletic programs.
•
Provide tours and educational field trips in partnership with non-profit organizations and local
schools.
81
DRAFT
Facilities and Practices to Consider Changing or Improving: (Potential cost for
improvements)
•
Consider re-establishing the Pecan Grove. ($80,000)
•
Consider removal of the fence around soccer field. ($65,000)
•
Consider creating sloped edges along soccer fields to create distinction between the playing area and
the general use (non-field-of-play) area.
•
Removal of some tables and/or pads in picnic area. ($30,000)
•
Enhance the connection across Mountain View Road into Historic District. ($150,000)
•
Enhance the connection from Brown Street through library into Historic District. ($250,000)
•
Consider removal of existing signage at 59th Ave and Mountain View Road intersection to be
replaced with new signage perpendicular to roadway. ($125,000)
•
Consider creating a sense of entry at main entry drive with signage and landscaping. ($135,000)
•
Consider new interpretive center for increased opportunities for classes and events within the
historic area of the park. ($1,500,000)
Figure 36: Sahuaro Ranch Park Conceptual Improvements
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
82
DRAFT
Grand Canal Linear Park Conceptual Improvements
Mid-term
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements as well as safety improvements are needed
at Grand Canal Linear Park. These modifications will increase access to park
components and to other recreation facilities and destinations.
Grand Canal Linear Park is a great park for walking, horseback riding and biking. It is roughly 3-1/4
miles of trail that runs along the Grand Canal. It has a paved, lighted trail with wonderful landscaping
throughout and crosses the canal several times. This park is a great trail park that links to the Glendale
Heroes Regional Park, State Farm Stadium and Westgate. The 75th Avenue and Camelback Road portion
of the park features a wheelchair accessible playground with slides and swings.
Figure 37: Grand Canal Linear Park Conceptual Improvements at 83rd Avenue
Recommendations to Consider when Master Planning:
•
Control undesired access points.
•
Increase maintenance of trees, shrubs, and turf with looped and redundancy in irrigation
components.
•
Replace irrigation controls.
•
Provide trail “eco-counters” along corridor to document volume of trail use.
•
Ensure connectivity between Grand Canal Linear Park and adjacent developing land.
•
Improve existing disc golf course by providing concrete pads at “tee” locations.
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
83
DRAFT
Thunderbird Conservation Park Conceptualized Enhancements
Mid-term
Thunderbird Conservation Park serves as Glendale’s only park dedicated to
preserving the desert environment. To balance impacts caused by recreational
uses with resource protection, it is important to make renovations to the site and
to follow necessary maintenance standards. Due to the community’s interest in
environmental education opportunities, improvements which will appropriately
allow for this use are recommended.
As a native desert Conservation Park, the focus is on preservation of the desert vegetation, habitat along
with the natural topography. Access is through three trailheads located at 55th, 59thand 67th Avenues.
Trails and access roads branch from these trailheads into the Park.
Figure 38: Thunderbird Conservation Park Map
Recommendations to Consider when Master Planning:
Thunderbird Conservation Park Trailheads
•
Provide native desert restoration by hydro-seeding and land sculpting disturbed areas.
•
Update built facilities with new elements that meet user needs and can be maintained.
Decommission under-utilized and non-functional facilities.
•
Provide primary trailhead with breezeway: indoor/outdoor classroom space, restroom, shade
structures.
•
Provide secondary trailhead with Breezeway: restroom, classroom, and shade structure.
•
Provide entry monument sign.
•
Provide trail signage.
•
Provide historic and environmental interpretive signs.
•
Double or increase available parking.
84
DRAFT
•
Enhance/repair existing trails/system. Decommission social, un-utilized and non-maintainable trails.
•
Create and fund a trail maintenance program.
•
Continue fishing activities at pond.
Specific Facilities and Practices to Consider Changing or Enhancing: (Potential cost for
improvements)
•
Entry monument and gateway. (3 X $150,000 ea. - $450,000)
•
Trail and environmental signage. ($150,000)
•
Trailhead parking, restrooms, drinking fountain, environmental education, shade. (3 X $3,000,000 ea.
- $9,000,000)
•
Close all existing restrooms and ramadas at trailhead locations and only have new restrooms at the 3
rehabilitated trailheads. ($150,000)
•
Review all existing ramadas outside of trailheads for demo, re-hab. ($50,000)
•
Access road to water tank and upper ramada overlook. Consider closing road to all but service access
and making a “silent road” for hikers and biking. ($30,000)
•
Revitalize and enhance existing amphitheater into a desert botanical garden. ($300,000)
•
Rehab and revegetate demo/closed areas and scarred areas. ($25,000)
Figure 39: Thunderbird Conservation Park Overview
85
DRAFT
Figure 40: Thunderbird Conservation Park – 55th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout
Figure 41: Thunderbird Conservation Park - 59th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
86
DRAFT
Figure 42: Thunderbird Conservation Park - 67th Avenue Trailhead Conceptual Layout
Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park Conceptualized Improvements
Mid-term
To improve safety and visitor experiences at Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park, it is
recommended that landscape and trailhead improvements be made. The existing
disc golf course should be upgraded to increase activity at this park site.
Thunderbird Paseo Park is a linear park, following along Skunk Creek Wash, for walking, horseback riding
and biking. This linear park provides nearly four miles of trails that connect to Skunk Creek Linear Park.
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
87
DRAFT
Figure 43: Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park at 67th Avenue Conceptual Improvements
Figure 44: Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park at Thunderbird Road Conceptual Improvements
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
88
DRAFT
Recommendations to Consider when Master Planning:
•
Provide landscape enhancements along 73rd Avenue.
•
Provide trail counters along corridor to document and monitor volume of trail use.
•
Implement trailhead enhancements at 67th Avenue and Thunderbird.
•
Provide improvements to existing disc golf course.
Skunk Creek Linear Park Improvements
Mid-term
Like the other linear parks, improvements to this park will increase use by
providing a safer, more inviting experience that builds upon the character of
Glendale.
Skunk Creek Linear Park is a linear park which follows Skunk Creek Wash and provides a trail for walking,
horseback riding and biking. The trail system runs along a natural creek bed. This park provides roughly
3.5 miles of trails that connect to the Thunderbird Paseo Park trails. Historically, this trail corridor was
landscaped. The current condition of this landscape needs refreshing to improve visitor experience and
to create community pride.
Figure 45: Skunk Creek Linear Park Map
89
DRAFT
Recommended Plan of Conceptual Improvements
•
Investigate adjacent communities’ interest in providing solar lighting at intersections and key nodes.
•
Provide connections at existing desire lines (social trails/paths).
•
Connect gaps in trail and adjacent neighborhood connections in partnership with Public Works to
improve neighborhood access to trail system and parks.
•
Provide trail counters along corridor to document and monitor volume of trail use.
•
Redo irrigation and landscaping along path.
•
Redo signage along path.
Figure 46: Skunk Creek Linear Park – Conceptual Improvements at Bell Road
Glendale Heroes Regional Park Concept Validation and Build Out
Long-term
Pursuit of a public process to validate the concepts stemming from this master
plan is suggested. Community needs this site can alleviate include improved
access to indoor facilities, outdoor athletic courts, turf sports fields, fitness
space, and programs which are on-par with Foothills Recreation and Aquatics
Center; walking paths; additional outdoor courts and playing fields; and provision
of a dog park.
When built out Glendale Heroes Regional Park will be an 81-acre regional park featuring a variety of
facilities and amenities.
Currently the park facilities include:
•
Group Ramada area with fifteen (15) separate ramadas
•
Large Group Ramada Complex. The group picnic area contains ten covered ramadas, with 72 people
per ramada for a total capacity for all 10 ramadas is 720 people.
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
90
DRAFT
•
Splash Pad
•
Lake/water feature
•
Two (2) Playgrounds/tot lots - located near the splash pad, and near the ramadas
•
Volleyball Courts
•
Basketball Courts
•
X-Court
•
Archery Range
•
Restrooms - (located near the splash pad, and near the ramadas)
•
Parking lots (3 lots located at the NW area, Library and Group Ramada area)
•
Heroes Regional Park Recreation Building
•
Heroes Regional Park Library is a 7,515 square feet of building space features books, movies, music,
and more. Special features include separate outdoor Youth, Teen and Adult Patios and a drive-up
book return.
Unrealized facilities include:
•
Recreation & Aquatics Center
•
Dog park
•
Multi-use/soccer/ball fields
Figure 47: Glendale Regional Heroes Park Conceptual Improvements
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
91
DRAFT
Recommendations to Consider when Master Planning:
•
Pursue a public process to validate the 2000 Glendale Heroes Regional Park Master Plan
recommendations which remain undeveloped and to incorporate current community input and to
test recommended park improvements resulting from this master plan process which are noted
below.
Design and construct a recreation and aquatics center. ($20,000,000-$27,000,000)
Provide multi-purpose lighted fields, dog park, basketball courts. The need for multi-purpose
lighted fields are needed to accommodate the demand for sports requiring this outdoor
recreation facility.
Create loop walks to connect neighborhoods with pathways.
Create opportunities for families and individuals to utilize the park by providing ramadas and
comfort amenities such as benches, picnic tables, and trash receptacles.
Supply adequate parking.
C. Funding Mechanisms
Many improvements, including those made to parks and recreation facilities, make a positive
contribution to the fiscal well-being of the City. Capital projects such as enhancing existing facilities
promote economic development and growth which leads to the generation of additional operating
revenues. These new revenue sources provide the funding needed to maintain, improve and expand the
City’s infrastructure.
Operating Expenditures
Ongoing maintenance and operating costs are generally paid out of the General Fund.
Capital Improvements
Capital projects are currently funded from the following sources: grants, facility capital funds,
construction funds Development Impact Fees. Large projects typically are financed using a mix of funding
sources.
Funding Sources
General Obligation (G.O.) Bond
The City uses G.O. Bonds to fund facility, infrastructure and equipment capital improvements for capital
programs such as Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Facilities, Flood Control, Government
Facilities, Libraries, Public Safety, and City Court. G.O. bonds are backed by “the full faith and credit” of
the City and the debt service (principal and interest) on the bonds is repaid from secondary property
taxes levied each fiscal year during the budget process. Arizona State law mandates the separation of city
property taxes into two components, the primary tax levy and the secondary tax levy. A municipality’s
secondary property tax revenue can be used only to pay the principal, interest and redemption charges
on bonded indebtedness or other lawful long-term obligations that are issued or incurred for a specific
capital purpose. In contrast, primary property tax revenue may be used for any lawful purpose.
Development Impact Fee
Impact fees are one-time charges to developers that are used to offset a city’s capital costs resulting
from new development. Developers pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) when they construct new
residential and commercial developments. These fees are designed to cover a city’s increased costs for
providing new or expanded infrastructure in the following categories: streets, parks, libraries, police, fire,
and water/sewer.
92
DRAFT
Municipal Property Corporation Bond
A city may form a Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) to finance a large capital project. An MPC is a
non-profit organization over which the City exercises oversight authority, including the appointment of
its governing board. This mechanism allows the City to finance a needed capital
improvement and then purchase the improvement from the corporation over a period of
years.
In order for the MPC to market the bonds, a city will typically pledge unrestricted excise taxes.
Unrestricted excise taxes are generally all excise, transaction privilege, franchise and income
taxes within the City’s General Fund. This means MPC debt service is paid with General Fund operating
dollars.
Grants
The majority of Glendale’s grants for capital projects come from the federal or state government. There
are two major types of grants. Open, competitive grant programs usually offer a great deal of latitude
in developing a proposal and grants are awarded through a competitive review process. The existing
Arizona Heritage Fund grants for parks and historic preservation capital projects are an example of
competitive grants.
Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO)
Some capital improvements are paid for on a cash basis and are either included in the capital budget
and/or as part of the department’s operating budgets on a pay-as-you-go basis. PAYGO is used to
avoid the interest costs that may be incurred when using other financing instruments. The City’s
operating budget also provides for the maintenance of capital assets and expenses associated with the
depreciation of city facilities and equipment.
Lease Financing
Lease financing provides long-term financing for the purchase of equipment or other capital
improvements and does not affect the City’s G.O. bond capacity or require voter approval. In a lease
transaction, the asset being financed can include new capital needs, assets under existing lease
agreements or, in some cases, equipment purchased in the past for which the government or municipal
unit would prefer to be reimbursed and paid over time. Title to the asset is transferred to the City at the
end of the lease term.
Local Improvement District
Local improvement districts (LIDs) are legally designated geographic areas in which a majority of the
affected property owners agree to pay for one or more capital improvements through a supplemental
assessment. This financing approach ties the repayment of debt to those property owners who most
directly benefit from the improvements financed.
93
DRAFT
Appendix A: Community Survey Report
Glendale Parks and Recreation
2020 Master Plan Survey Results
1
INTRO, METHODOLOGY & KEY FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEMOGRAPHICS AND CHARACTERISTICS
FINANCIAL CHOICES AND VISION
$
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND PROGRAMS
COMMUNICATION
2
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
USAGE AND OVERALL SATISFACTION
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
2
94
DRAFT
Introduction
The purpose of this study
was to gather community
feedback on Glendale’s
facilities, amenities,
programs, future planning,
communication, and more.
This survey research effort
and subsequent analysis
were designed to assist
Glendale in assessing the
needs of the community for
park and recreation services
and facilities.
3
3
Methodology
Primary methods:
1 = Statistically Valid (Invitation Survey)
Mailed survey with an option to complete online
2 = Open Link Survey
Online survey available to all residents
Completed Invite Surveys
276
4,250 Mailings of Glendale Residents
Completed Open Link
Surveys
356
The Invite Survey represents the randomly
sampled survey of all Glendale residents. A sample
size of 276 completed invite surveys leads to a
margin of error of +/- 5.9%. The Open Link Survey
allows for all other residents to share their opinion
and are compared throughout the report.
4
95
DRAFT
Weighting of the Data
The underlying data from the
invitation survey were weighted
by age to ensure appropriate
representation of Glendale
residents across different
demographic cohorts in the
sample.
Using U.S. Census Data, the age
distributions in the sample were
adjusted to more closely match
the population profile of
Glendale.
Due to variable response rates
by some segments of the
population, the underlying
results, while weighted to best
match the overall demographics
of residents, may not be
completely representative of
some sub-groups of the Glendale
population.
5
5
Key Findings
Glendale residents are, in general, positive about parks,
recreation facilities, and programs. However, there is a
consistent theme to improve what is currently offered
and allocating resources to improve amenities. Across
many survey topics, this priority is brought up by
respondents.
Adding/improving restrooms and improving park
amenities are the two most important ways to
encourage people to use their local parks. This
reinforces the desire to improve what is currently
offered.
The top three priorities for the future among invite
respondents are improving park amenities, adding
additional walking / biking paths, and events and
festivals. These three priorities were selected among a
list of several future changes by most respondents.
6
Key Findings
6
96
DRAFT
Key Findings
Respondents would prefer the Department maintain a
balance of improving current offerings and developing
new sites/facilities. If the respondent chose one
emphasis, overwhelmingly respondents chose to
prioritize improving current facilities/parks.
Open-ended comments highlight the need to ensure
parks are safe, park/facility-specific needs, and praise
for the City’s efforts currently. Many comments highlight
how important parks are to respondents’ families too.
Thunderbird Conservation Park, community/
neighborhood parks, and Foothills Recreation Center all
received high importance and high needs met ratings
among facilities in Glendale. This is a positive sign as it
shows that these areas are important and receiving
necessary attention.
7
7
DEMOGRAPHICS
8
97
DRAFT
Demographics
Age, a weighted variable, is well distributed across all ranges. The open link results are a slightly older age
demographic than the invite results. Invite respondents were more likely to be female (60%), a common
finding in survey research. Most invite respondents were couples with children at home (31%) followed by
couples with grown children (18%). In total, approximately 51% of households likely have children at home
(not guaranteed among all multi-generational households).
9
Demographics
Approximately, 21% of invite respondents identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin, compared to 11% of
open link respondents. Furthermore, 82% of respondents identified as white with 11% as other and 7% as
Black or African American. Household incomes were higher among open link respondents while most
respondents in the invite sample earned between $25,000-$99,999 per year.
10
98
DRAFT
Demographics
The majority of respondents (83%) are registered voters in Glendale. Furthermore, most respondents (77%)
own their home with 17% renting. Approximately 16% of invite respondents have a need for ADA-accessible
facilities and services. Invite respondents have lived in Glendale a wide range of years with 18% living there
less than three years to 18% living more than 30 years. Open link responses are similar, but they are more
likely to own their home and have lived longer in Glendale.
11
USAGE AND OVERALL SATISFACTION
12
99
DRAFT
Familiarity with Parks and Recreation
Invite respondents in Glendale are moderately familiar; however, there are people on both ends of the
familiarity scale. For instance, 37% rated their familiarity as either a 4 or 5 out of 5 compared to 31% rating
their familiarity a 1 or 2 out of 5. Most respondents are in the middle of the range. Open link respondents
are more familiar with parks and recreation offerings than invite respondents.
13
Usage of Parks and Recreation
Parks are used most frequently by both invite and open link respondents with 60% using them “often” or
“very often.” Sahuaro Ranch Park, Thunderbird Conservation Park, and trails and open space follow in
frequency of use by invite respondents. The least used offerings are programs. This is not uncommon as only
a smaller segment of residents typically participate in programs.
14
100
DRAFT
Satisfaction with Current Offerings
When asked how satisfied respondents were with amenities in Glendale provided by the Parks and
Recreation Department, Sahuaro Ranch Park (4.4), Thunderbird Conservation Park (4.3), and trails and open
space (4.1) rate near the top. All facilities rated had positive responses from both groups. Overall, parks rated
lowest in satisfaction, but there were more respondents that were satisfied than not satisfied even on the
lowest rated amenity.
15
Increasing Usage of Sahuaro Ranch Park
Festivals (70%), artisan crafts and goods market (56%), and a café/dining area all saw rather high percentages
for increasing usage of Sahuaro Ranch Park. Somewhat lower on the list were agricultural displays/services
(40%), event rental space (15%) and any other ideas (15%). Open link respondents were similar in their
responses.
16
101
DRAFT
Encourage or Improve Local Parks
When asked what would improve their local park or encourage them to revisit, invite and open link
respondents both said added/improved restrooms and improved park/facility amenities as the top two
responses. Following was better maintenance of facilities, aquatic features, and improved communication
about what is offered. Overall these results trended very similar across both groups.
17
COMMUNICATION AND VISION
18
102
DRAFT
Communication Effectiveness
Glendale is perceived as moderately effective with their communication across the invite sample.
Approximately 37% of respondents said that communication effectiveness rated a 3 out of 5. About 30% of
invite respondents rated the communication effectiveness either a 4 or 5. Open link respondents were
slightly more positive. This is likely because they are paying attention to current communications too.
19
Communication Methods
Newsletters (52%), emails from the City (41%) and a printed schedule of activities (38%) are the primary
communication methods that invite respondents prefer to be contacted about parks and recreation services.
Open link respondents lean more towards online resources than invite respondents.
20
103
DRAFT
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
21
Importance of Facilities – Top Facilities
Community/neighborhood parks (4.1), walking/biking trails and pathways (3.9), and Thunderbird
Conservation Park (3.6) are the most important facilities to invite and open link respondents. Regional parks,
picnic areas/shelters, and Sahuaro Ranch Park follow behind as a next level of importance among invite and
open link respondents.
22
104
DRAFT
Importance of Facilities – Bottom
Facilities
Towards the middle-to-bottom of the list are dog parks, athletic courts, and the Glendale Adult Center. The
least important facilities are the O’Neil Recreation Center and skate parks at Heroes and Foothills Parks.
23
Importance of Programs
For programs, special events and festivals (3.8 invite) are of most importance to both invite and open link
respondents. Outdoor environmental programs (3.3), adult recreation programs (3.2) and aquatics programs
(3.0) are relatively important too. Senior programs are much more important to open link respondents.
24
105
DRAFT
Needs Met of Facilities – Top Facilities
Thunderbird Conservation Park (4.2), Foothills Recreation & Aquatics Center, Sahuaro Ranch Park, Regional
Parks, and walking/biking trails and pathways (4.0 each) all meet the needs of the community quite well.
Additionally, many of these facilities are also some of the more important facilities to respondents.
25
Needs Met of Facilities – Bottom
Facilities
Handball courts (3.5), Manistee Ranch (3.5), and Aquatic facilities (3.5) all rated near the bottom of the list
for meeting the needs of the community. The O’Neil Recreation Center had the largest difference between
invite and open link respondents with more open link respondents saying that it does not meet their needs.
26
106
DRAFT
Needs Met of Programs
Among programs, adult recreation programs (3.9), sports programs (3.9), and youth/teen programs (3.9) all
appear to be meeting the needs of the community somewhat well. Agricultural displays/activities and
outdoor/environmental programs are meeting the community’s needs the least; however, the difference
compared to the top of the list is small in how well they are meeting Glendale’s needs.
27
Importance-Performance Matrix
28
High importance/
Low needs met
High importance/
High needs met
Low importance/
Low needs met
Low importance/
High needs met
These amenities are important to
most respondents and should be
maintained in the future, but are less
of a priority for improvements as
needs are currently being adequately
met.
These are key areas for potential
improvements. Improving these
facilities/programs would likely
positively affect the degree to which
community needs are met overall.
Current levels of support appear to be
adequate. Future discussions
evaluating whether the resources
supporting these facilities/programs
outweigh the benefits may be
constructive.
These “niche” facilities/programs
have a small but passionate following,
so measuring participation when
planning for future improvements may
prove to be valuable.
28
107
DRAFT
Importance – Performance Matrix of
Facilities - Invite
29
Importance – Performance Matrix of
Facilities - Open link
30
108
DRAFT
Importance – Performance Matrix of
Programs - Invite
31
Importance – Performance Matrix of
Programs - Open Link
32
109
DRAFT
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES,
AND PROGRAMS
33
Future Needs – Top Needs
Invite respondents highlighted improved park amenities, additional walking/bike trails, and events/festivals
as the top needs for the future. Trail and pathway connectivity and walking loops in parks were also popular
among both groups. There was strong consensus among invite and open link respondents for the top five
improvements to be made.
34
110
DRAFT
Top 4 Priorities
Prioritized, improved park amenities (37%), additional walking/bike trails (32%), events and festivals (30%),
and trail and pathway connectivity (29%) are highest amongst invite respondents. Open link respondents
rated trail and pathway connectivity the #1 priority. Senior programs were also much more important to
open link respondents; however, that sample skewed older.
35
Balancing New Development and
Existing Maintenance
Both invite and open link respondents prefer the Department to balance maintaining existing facilities and
developing new facilities (58% and 61%). If the respondent chose one emphasis over another, many more
want the Department to shift resources to maintain existing facilities. Very few respondents want to shift
more resources towards developing new facilities.
36
111
DRAFT
Improving Current Facilities
Respondents place a high priority on improving current parks, facilities, and trails in Glendale. Only 6% of
invite and 3% of open link respondents rated improving facilities as a priority either as a 1 or 2 out of 5.
However, 64% of invite and 69% of open link respondents rated the priority either a 4 or 5 out of 5. Similar
results are found on other questions regarding improving amenities in Glendale.
37
FINANCIAL CHOICES AND VISION
38
112
DRAFT
Funding Mechanisms
Only two funding mechanisms received over 50% support from respondents; park and facility sponsorships
(58% support) and public/private partnerships (52% support). Respondents were lukewarm or unsure of the
other funding options. New or increased needs, increased property taxes, and new sales taxes were majority
negative among all respondents. Open link respondents were much more positive about bond referendums.
39
Fee Increases
Fee increases would limit participation, significantly or somewhat, in approximately 53% of invite
respondents and 57% of open link respondents. Only 25% of respondents’ participation in both groups
would not be impacted. 22% of invite and 17% of open link respondents are unsure at the moment if it
would impact them.
40
113
DRAFT
Visions for the Future
Ensuring parks and facilities are safe, maintaining current facilities and parks, and ensuring facilities and
programs are affordable are the top three most important visions for the future. Protecting environmental
resources and improving aesthetics and appearance of parks is important too.
41
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
42
114
DRAFT
Additional Comments
At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments about
parks and recreation facilities and programs, needs, and opportunities in Glendale. The most frequently
mentioned words are “park,” “need,” “Glendale”, and “facility.” A full listing of comments are in the
appendix.
43
43
Additional Comments
A random selection of verbatim responses is shown below from Glendale’s comments. Many comments focus on improving
what is offered currently, praise for the City for making Glendale better, and improving safety in parks/playgrounds across
Glendale.
44
Please focus on redeveloping older parks prior to building new
park infrastructure. They have been loved to death and its time
for Glendale's leadership to substantially reinvest in them. Don't
be afraid to be bold and pursue quality of life bond initiatives for
this purpose. Other cities have figured this out & look at park
assets as major economic drivers - when will Glendale? Parks are
often the heart and soul of a City and we have done too good of
a job of minimizing their importance over the past 10 years.
In general, the parks are in pretty good condition, however it is
evident that they have been ignored for a long time. Restrooms,
playgrounds, turf, buildings. I have seen projects done in the City
that cost a lot of money being spent, however only benefits a
few residents. Favoritism at it's worst when it comes to Glendale.
Thank you for doing a great job! My family and I enjoy
the many parks in the City of Glendale.
On the whole I think Glendale does a decent
job, but better communication re what's
available would be very useful and increase
participation!
Unfortunately, in and out of our parks and on our
streets, all over the place, we have trash everywhere.
It's so much worse than it was twenty years ago.
I love the parks that surround Glendale.
Sometimes at night I don't feel as safe. So
maybe more security is needed.
Glendale is a great city and I would love
for the parks and open areas to be
maintained to keep Glendale beautiful
and safe. Also having fireworks again
would be awesome!
Safety of playground and park resources
is a priority. For the parks in Glendale
currently, I think the city is doing a great
job!
44
115
DRAFT
Appendix B: City of Glendale 2020 Parks
and Recreation Disparity Report
2020 Parks and Recreation
Disparity Report
116
DRAFT
table of contents
I. Purpose and Methodology.................................................................................................................... 117
II. Demographics: Household Income, Race, and Age.............................................................................. 119
III. Community Needs Assessment........................................................................................................... 123
IV. Park System Inventory and Recreation Programs ............................................................................... 132
V. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 150
Figure 48: Household Income.................................................................................................................................. 119
Figure 49: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income .......................................................................................... 120
Figure 50: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................. 121
Figure 51: 2019 Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation ......................................................................... 122
Figure 52: Community Needs Assessment - Who Responded................................................................. 123
Figure 53: Invite and Open Link Results on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services......................... 124
Figure 54: Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services............. 126
Figure 55: Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services............. 127
Figure 56: Invite Results by Race on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services................................... 128
Figure 57: Invite Results by Age on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services..................................... 129
Figure 58: Community Survey - Invite Results by Household Income on Program Importance............... 130
Figure 59: Community Survey - Invite Results by Race on Program Importance..................................... 131
Figure 60: Community Survey - Invite Results by Age on Program Importance....................................... 131
Figure 61: Glendale Parks and Recreation System Map........................................................................... 133
Figure 62: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation Gap Identification................................................... 137
Figure 63: Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities..................................................................................... 141
Figure 64: Fee-based Registrants by Program Category (12,802 Total Registrants)................................. 145
Figure 65: Locations of Programs Offered between April 2018-December 2019.................................... 148
Figure 66: Number of Fee-Based Programs Held at City- and Non-City-Owned Locations...................... 149
Table 20: Summary of Glendale Indoor Recreation Facilities................................................................... 142
Table 21: Sample of Fee-based Program Types and Age Groups Served by Program Category............... 144
Table 22: Policy Statement and Actions for Improving Service Disparities.............................................. 150
list of figures
list of tables
117
DRAFT
I. Purpose and Methodology
As a concentrated part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, the City sought to conduct a
data-driven analysis to determine if any income, race, or age disparities in access to public parks, open
space, recreation facilities (collectively referred to as the ‘park system’) and recreation programming
exist within the City of Glendale. For the purposes of this assessment, disparity considers if there are
differences in access to park system amenities, facilities, and recreation services between population
groups.
To answer this question any gaps in parks and recreation services must be identified. Addressing gaps
ensures that every member of all communities has access to the many great benefits that Glendale
Parks and Recreation offer. Specifically, this assessment aims to provide knowledge which can be used
to help minimize gaps in service over the next five to ten years by informing priority opportunities for
programming and park system improvements.
Making decisions based on data means decision-makers can be more confident that their actions will
bring success since there is data to support decisions. The following quantitative data points served to
identify any gaps in Glendale Parks and Recreation programming and park system facilities.
Data Point
Information Provided
2018-2019 Civic Rec
Software Program
Registration Report
This report captures paid programs only and does not include free
programs and events. Free programs and events include but is not
limited to afterschool programs and summer camps offered at O’Neil
Recreation Center and Glendale Community Center. This report was
provided by PRFSE staff and covers registration information from April
2018-December 2019.
2020 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update -
Community Survey
The statistically-valid community survey was sent to 4,250 randomly
selected owned and rented households in Glendale. 276 completed
random sample surveys were received. A further 356 residents’ opinions
were solicited when the survey was made available to all households
through an online link which was marketed using City social media
outlets and the recreation programming registration email database.
This survey research effort and analysis assist in assessing the needs of
the community for park and recreation services and facilities.
2020 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update -
Community Survey Crosstab
Tables (Appendix A)
This grouping of tables provides a cross-tabulation (or crosstab) of
income, race, and age characteristics with responses from the 2020
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Community Survey. These
tables show the relationships between responses and household
income, age, and race demographic characteristics considered in this
disparity report.
2020 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update – Parks
and Facilities Inventory
Assessment and Level of
Service Analysis (Appendix
C)
The 2020 Parks and Facilities Inventory Assessment and Level of
Service Analysis serves as an ‘access to recreation’ analysis tool. Park
components throughout the Glendale system were evaluated and
scored by consultant team members who visited every park site in
October 2019. The results from these assessments were then used to
analyze Glendale’s level of service (LOS) by yielding analytical maps and
data that have been used to examine access to recreation across the
Glendale parks system.
118
DRAFT
2020 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update -
Demographic Profile
This report looks at the City of Glendale’s demographic profile as it
relates to parks and recreation services. This report was based on
data from a combination of sources (ESRI Business Analyst, American
Community Survey, and U.S. Census). Age, ethnicity and racial diversity,
and household income information data reveal the composition of City
of Glendale residents at a given point in time.
2019 City of Glendale
Community Profile Report
This report was provided to the consultant by the City of Glendale and
was used to further extrapolate data on race and ethnicity, and age
distribution.
City of Glendale, Public
Facilities, Recreation, and
Special Events Recreation
Programming Report
This information was provided in August 2020 to the consultant by
Recreation Division staff and detailed free program offerings and public-
private programs. Public-private programs are operated by private
organizations, held at City facilities, and marketed using City resources.
Park and Facilities Data Collection Explained
For the 2020 City of Glendale Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, consultant staff visited seventy-
five parks and facilities and recorded observations using a proprietary GRASP® qualitative assessment
tool. This information was then fed into a GIS-based GRASP® dataset for Glendale. The data provides the
City with a series of metrics that show the current level-of-service (LOS) provided by the park system
from a variety of perspectives, and identifies gaps in service.
Methods of Analysis
Before the analysis was conducted, the datasets were checked for missing data and confirmed by
PFRSE staff in June 2020. Park system level of service analysis was conducted using GRASP® maps
and demographic data. Programming analysis was similarly performed using programming locations,
programming and demographic data. The mapping patterns and trends found helped to understand
relationships between access to park and recreation programs and facilities and income, age, and race.
This approach contributes new knowledge and understanding to the City’s understanding of where
gaps exist within parks and recreation services and facilities. The recommendations resulting from this
disparity assessment will be incorporated into the goals, objectives, and strategies specified in the 2020
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update. This report provides a detailed description of
how those recommendations have been derived.
119
DRAFT
II. Demographics: Household Income, Race, and Age
Analyzing local population and census data, also referred to as demographic data, to assess income-,
race-, and age-based access to recreation opportunities will help support future PFRSE efforts to more
effectively achieve the City’s mission of improving the lives of all Glendale residents through parks and
recreation services and facilities.
Qualitative GRASP® scores and Level of Service Analysis
Parks and facilities were inventoried and assessed for function and quality in October 2019 using the
GRASP®-IT audit tool. This tool classifies park features into one of two categories: components and
modifiers. A component is a feature that people go to a park or facility to use, such as a tennis court,
playground, trail, or picnic shelter. Modifiers are amenities such as shade, drinking fountains, and
restrooms that enhance the comfort and convenience of a site.
A formula was applied that combines the qualitative assessments of a site’s components and modifiers
on a scale of 1 – 3 (1 being low, 3 being high) to generate a score for each component, and, summarily,
for the entire park or location. The resulting scores are used to compare all of Glendale’s outdoor
recreation sites to one another so the overall performance of Glendale’s park system can be analyzed
and gaps in service can be identified geographically.
For the purposes of this project, outdoor recreation facilities evaluated using the GRASP®-IT tool
included regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, specialty parks, conservation areas, and
trails. Indoor facilities were located and their components were identified.
Appendix C: Parks and Facilities Inventory Assessment and Level of Service Analysis details inventory
findings and LOS conclusions.
Household Income
According to the City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report the 2019 median household income in
Glendale was $54,405; approximately $3,366 less than the Arizona state median income level and was
approximately $6,143 lower than the U.S. median income level.
Figure 48: Household Income
Source: City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report
120
DRAFT
Figure 49 shows that within Glendale, the median household income is highest in the Cholla District.
The Ocotillo District has the lowest median household income while the Yucca District has a median
household income most similar to that of the median household income in the United States. According
to the City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report the average household size in the City is 2.8. The
2019 poverty guidelines for the 48 contiguous states for a household of three was $21,330.
Figure 49: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income
Race
Demographic reporting reveals the following information about Glendale’s race and ethnic makeup:
•
Those that identify as Hispanic make up more than 39 percent of the total population. This is more
than the Hispanic population of 31 percent in Arizona and 18 percent in the US.
•
There is a high proportion of citizens who identify as another race not specified on the U.S. Census
(18%).
•
Roughly 7 percent of the population identify as Black or African American, and very few identify as
American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander.
According to Census.gov, the concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin.
Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the
percent Hispanic or percent Minority. Visit https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
for more information about the census and how race data is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
121
DRAFT
Figure 50: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity
Source: Esri Business Analyst
Age
Knowing the age distribution of Glendale’s population in 2019 can inform levels of program and facility
needs for various age groups., The median age of residents in Glendale is 33.8 years which is lower
than the state median age of 37.3 years. In fact, Millennials (born 1981 – 1998) make up approximately
twenty-eight percent of the City’s population and Generation Z (born 1999 – 2016) is right behind them
at twenty-five percent. The Baby Boomer (born 1946-1964) and Silent & Greatest Generation (born 1945
or earlier) groups together account for twenty-four percent of Glendale’s 2019 population.
122
DRAFT
37.5% of households in Glendale have children under the age of 19.
Understanding demographic data provides information with which we can assess whether Glendale’s
park system and recreation programs are achieving equitable service levels for clients across different
incomes, races, and ages. But this demographic data alone does not tell the full story. It is the physical
park assets and the recreation programs offered which we must also understand in order to determine
where gaps in service, or any issues of disparity, are present.
Figure 51: 2019 Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation
Source: Esri Business Analyst - City of Glendale 2019 Community Profile Report
123
DRAFT
III. Community Needs Assessment
As stated in the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies standards, “evaluation
and research are systematic processes that park and recreation professionals use to better understand
the impacts of their efforts on the communities they serve”. Specifically, conducting a needs assessment
allows for the identification of existing and projected gaps in service. It also determines facility and
service priorities.
To understand the community’s needs, the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Updates process
included a statistically-valid, random sample community survey. This survey was conducted between
November 2019 and January 2020. Two hundred seventy-six randomly sampled Glendale residents
responded. These respondent’s results in the survey report and in the following figures are referred
to as “Invite” responses. To expand input from the community at-large, an additional 356 “Open Link”
responses were collected and results have been compared against the statistically-valid, invite results.
The survey methodology and complete responses can be found in Appendix A.
The survey and the survey report were developed and administered by RRC Associates, a data analysis
firm and consultant team member on the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Updates project.
Who Responded
Demographic data such as income, age, and race allow for the breakdown of overall survey response
data into meaningful groups of respondents. In the case of the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Updates Community Survey, the following demographic data was collected:
Figure 52: Community Needs Assessment - Who Responded
124
DRAFT
To ensure appropriate representation of Glendale residents across different demographic respondents
in the sample, the underlying data from the invitation survey were weighted by age.
Usage
As part of understanding the current state of the park system, the Community Survey asks respondents
about their frequency of use for variance Glendale’s parks and recreation facilities and programs.
Summarily, both Invite and Open link respondents indicated that parks were most frequently visited
with sixty percent of respondents using them “often” or “very often” (Figure 53). Historic Sahuaro Ranch
Park, Thunderbird Conservation Park, and trails and open space followed in frequency of use by invite
respondents. The least used offerings are programs. This is not uncommon as only a smaller segment of
residents typically participates in programs.
Figure 53: Community Survey - Invite and Open Link Results on Frequency of Use of Facilities and
Services
125
DRAFT
Cross tabulation is a quantitative method used in statistical analysis to find patterns and trends within
mutually exclusive groups within raw data. For this disparity report, the mutually exclusive groups
were divided by household income, age, and race.
To understand the relationships between household income level, race, age, and frequency of use,
a series of cross tabulation of data was created. While the average frequencies of use of the varying
household income levels are relatively close (in statistical terms), Figures 55, 56, and 57 show some
differences in use based on demographic characteristics.
Key Use Differences
Households with income under $50,000 and over $150,000 participate less often in programs
and use recreation facilities less frequently than households with incomes between $50,000 and
$149,999.
Respondents between the ages of 35-44 indicate a slightly higher frequency of use of programs and
recreation facilities than any other age groups. However, this age group’s use averages just above
‘infrequently use’.
Historic Sahuaro Ranch Park was often visited by respondents whose household income was less
than $99,999.
Thunderbird Conservation Park is infrequently visited by respondents whose household income is
less than $50,000, who are non-white, and over the age of 65.
Trails and open spaces are infrequently used by respondents over the age of 75. Respondents with
household incomes over $150,000 often use trails and open space whereas all other household
income level respondents use these facilities less frequently. Both non-white and white respondent
results average use of trails and open space is in the infrequent range.
Parks are often visited by respondents aged 44 and under.
While no disparities are seen with participation in special events, it should be noted that average
results for all characteristics fall in the never to infrequently use range.
126
DRAFT
Figure 54: Community Survey - Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities
and Services
The numbers in the circles along the right side of the figure show the average frequency of use for
a given characteristic on a 4-point scale where 1 = Never Use and 4 = Very Often. The characteristic
considered in the case of Figure 55 is household income.
127
DRAFT
Figure 55: Community Surve - Invite Results by Household Income on Frequency of Use of Facilities and
Services
128
DRAFT
Figure 56: Community Survey - Invite Results by Race (Non-white, White) on Frequency of Use of
Facilities and Services
129
DRAFT
Figure 57: Community Survey - Invite Results by Age on Frequency of Use of Facilities and Services
Program Importance
As part of the community needs assessment, the survey also asked for respondents to rate the level of
importance of various program areas to their households. Using a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not important
at all and 5 being very important, respondents gave their importance rating on:
Special events and festivals,
Outdoor/environmental programs,
Adult recreation programs,
Aquatic programs,
Sports programs,
Youth and teen programs,
Senior programs, and
Agricultural displays/activities.
130
DRAFT
To understand the relationships between household income level, race, and age and program
importance to a household, a series of cross tabulation of data was created. While the average
frequencies of use of the varying household income levels are relatively close (in statistical terms),
Figures 59, 60, and 61 show some differences in use based on demographic characteristics. Note that 3
on a 5-point Likert Scale indicates a neutral rating selection.
Key Program Importance Differences
All program areas are comparatively more important to respondents whose household income was
less than $150,000 and who were non-white.
The highest average importance ratings amongst all program areas and all characteristics were
special events and festivals with averages between 3.7 and 4.3 indicating this is an important – very
imporant program area.
Senior programs were important to respondents aged 55 and above.
Youth and teen programs are important to respondents between the ages of 35-64.
Respondents aged 74 and below indicated outdoor/environmental programs are important.
Sports programs are important to non-white respondents and to respondents aged 54 and under.
Figure 58: Community Survey - Invite Results by Household Income on Program Importance
131
DRAFT
Figure 59: Community Survey - Invite Results by Race on Program Importance
Figure 60: Community Survey - Invite Results by Age on Program Importance
132
DRAFT
Interestingly, usage results indicate that programs are used less frequently to infrequently yet
importance ratings of programs show, on average, that all program areas are generally important. This
indicates there is an opportunity to improve community awareness about programs offered in addition
to evaluating and modifying PFRSE’s program portfolio.
IV. Park System Inventory and Recreation Programs
PFRSE provides services and facilities to create a better quality of life for Glendale residents. Recreation
programming enhances the social, physical, mental, and economic health of the community. Special
events are held to foster a greater sense of community pride. Parks system facilities are meant to
ensure the safety and security of park and facility visitors. Collectively PFRSE strives to provide Glendale
residents with superior customer service, connections to the community, portray a positive image of
Glendale, and contribute to the economic health of the City.
This holistic look at the park system and recreation programs offered is essential to addressing any
discrepancies in usage by the diverse population in Glendale. Ultimately, the idea is to create a system
where all Glendale residents have the ability to access facilities and services regardless of income, race,
age, or any other characteristics.
Recommendations found in this section will be included in the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Updates and take into consideration the usage and current satisfaction results provided in the
Community Survey.
Park System
PFRSE’s park system sites which were visited in October 2019 as part of the 2020 City of Glendale Parks
and Recreation Master Plan Update Inventory Assessment and LOS Analysis. The system encompasses
seven regional parks (regional parks, specialty parks, and conservation areas), eight community parks,
and fifty-seven neighborhood parks. Twelve city-owned indoor recreation facilities, including two
facilities having pro-shops and several that are operated through private-public partnerships were
located and their components were compiled into the inventory assessment and used to asses access to
outdoor and indoor recreation facilities in Glendale. The full inventory assessment and level of service
analysis can be found in Appendix C.
133
DRAFT
Figure 61: Glendale Parks and Recreation System Map
134
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
135
DRAFT
LOS evaluates how parks and facilities in Glendale serve the community. LOS measurements for a park
or other feature is a function of two main variables: what is available at the specific location and how
easy it is for a user to get to it. It is understood that people use a variety of ways to reach a recreation
destination: on foot, on a bike, in a car, via public transportation, or some combination of these modes.
For the purposes of this study, walkable access to outdoor recreation facilities and drivable access to
indoor recreation facilities best reveal gaps in service levels.
Access to Outdoor Recreation Facilities
In general, LOS mapping shows that Glendale has a good distribution of parks and facilities at a walkable
scale. However, there are gaps in the system where facilities can be improved and assets expanded.
Walkability common standards when evaluating LOS using radial distances form a destination:
•
A distance of ½ mile is used as the typical distance from which a 10-minute walk to a selected
destination would originate.
•
Walkable access is affected by barriers - obstacles to free and comfortable foot travel.
In Glendale, barriers and obstacles “cut-off” people’s ability or willingness to access a park. (These
barriers were identified by the consultant and confirmed by PFRSE staff in December 2019.) To a large
extent, these are major streets, highways, and a railroad. It is evident that pedestrian barriers play a
significant role in walkable access to parks throughout Glendale. Any efforts the City can make to seek
a built environment that serves various users of varying ages and abilities would increase access to
outdoor recreation facilities.
It is not necessarily beneficial for all parts of the community to have equal coverage. A desired LOS for a
location should depend on the type of service being provided, the characteristics of the space where the
service would be or is provided, and other factors such as community need, population growth forecasts,
and land use issues. For example, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might have lower parks
and recreation LOS than residential areas.
The map in Figure 63: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation Gap Identification shows where LOS is
above or below Glendale’s minimum LOS standard. This minimum standard is also referred to as a ‘target
score’ and is based on community expectations arising from existing conditions experienced at City park
facilities in October 2019. (See Appendix C for specific information regarding Glendale’s target score
measurement.) Purple areas indicate where walkable LOS values meet or exceed the target score. Yellow
areas should be considered areas of opportunity as these are areas where outdoor recreation assets
are currently available but do not meet the target score. Areas within the gray coloring represent areas
which have no walkable access to an outdoor recreation facility.
136
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
137
DRAFT
Figure 62: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation Gap Identification
138
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
139
DRAFT
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
Yes. Residents’ geographic relationships to outdoor facilities and their walkable access to these facilities
reveal gaps in service throughout the City. Seventeen percent of the City’s land area has no walkable
access and twenty-five percent of the City’s land area has access to an outdoor recreation facility that
scores lower than the average Glendale outdoor facility. Many of the physical barriers to access are due
to the motorized transportation infrastructure. Other walkable access issues pertain to outdoor park
facilities having low-scoring components at park locations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
Evaluate whether or not gray areas are residential in nature.
If they are, work with City transportation planners to prioritize reducing physical barriers in order
to improve access to nearby, existing park system infrastructure. If improving walkability is not
possible, focus on determining if the development of a neighborhood park is feasible.
Areas below target service levels (areas in yellow) should next be prioritized for reducing physical
barriers but also for making park improvements such as adding shaded areas and spray pads.
Because these areas already have existing park infrastructure, the opportunity to improve usage
and encourage more use is likely to produce a more rapid impact on access LOS.
As seen on Figure 63, one yellow area of note is the neighborhood near Heritage and Mondo
Parks. While this neighborhood has two parks within walking distance for most residents,
these parks, even with their combined values, do not equal the target score as indicated by the
yellow color on the map. Parks which do not meet target scores could be prioritized for park
improvements and possible activation through programming.
Other areas of priority include Hillcrest Park, Hidden Meadows Park, O’Neil Park, and Windsor
Park.
•
Increase access to Thunderbird Conservation Park.
Prioritize park improvements to trails and infrastructure. Dedicate budget and staffing resources
to implement improvements and to maintain improved conditions.
Prioritize developing environmental education and recreation programs that appeal to youth,
families and older adults.
Celebrate and position Thunderbird Conservation Park as a highly-valuable environmental
resource within the urban setting.
Increase usage of Historic Sahuaro Ranch Park given its central location.
Prioritize improvements to this site to address deferred maintenance issues while maximizing
the opportunities to increase outdoor/environmental programs and interactive agricultural
displays and nutrition learning opportunities.
Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities
PFRSE indoor recreation facilities vary amongst size, function, components, and offerings. Due to these
differences, this analysis is limited and should not be used on its own to make decisions. Figure 64:
Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities applies a reasonable travel distance from the edge of the each of
the eleven indoor facilities where indoor components are located. In this case, the distance is ½-mile
to account for walkable access and one mile to account for a wider catchment area that considers the
industry’s common understanding that residents will drive to indoor services and facilities. A catchment
area is a circular map overlay that radiates outward in all directions from an asset and represents a
reasonable travel distance from the edge of the circle to the asset. In this case, the catchment area was
used to show ½-mile access to a Glendale indoor recreation facility.
140
DRAFT
The orange gradient in this map indicates LOS measurements for indoor recreation facilities. The
lighter orange areas indicate areas where there are fewer expected, or minimum quality, indoor assets
available. Conversely, the darker orange areas illustrate areas where higher quality indoor recreation
facilities are accessible within the ½-mile and one-mile radii. Gray areas indicate no service access to
indoor facilities.
In general, it appears that in Glendale there is a limited distribution of indoor recreation facilities. The
highest level of service is provided at Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center. An equivalent facility is
not available in central, south or southwest Glendale although there are plans for a recreation center
and aquatics complex at Glendale Heroes Regional Park. Other indoor facilities do exist throughout the
City but these have few components to access or offer limited, niche indoor recreation opportunities.
Future capital improvement program planning has identified potential upgrades for each of the three
centers at O’Neil Recreation Center, Glendale Community Center, and Rose Lane Recreation Center and
the completion of Glendale Heroes Regional Park.
141
DRAFT
Figure 63: Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities
142
DRAFT
Table 20: Summary of Glendale Indoor Recreation Facilities
Facility/Location
Aquatics, Lap pool
Aquatics, Leisure Pool
Arts and Crafts
Auditorium/Theatre
Childcare/Preschool
Educational Experience
Fitness/Dance
Food - Counter Service
Food - Vending
Kitchen - Commercial
Kitchen - Kitchenette
Kitchen- Commercial
Kitchen -Commercial
Multipurpose
Multi-purpose
Public Art
Racquetball
Retail/Pro-shop
Second floor empty expansion
Specialty Services
Sport Court
Track - Indoor
Weight/Cardio Equipment
Weights/ Cardio Equipment
Total Components/Facility
Unique Components/Facility
CowTown Skate Boards
1
1
1
Foothills Aquatic & Recreation Center
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
22
12
Glendale Adult Center
3
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
16
8
Glendale Civic Center
1
9
10
2
Glendale Civic Center Annex
5
1
6
2
Glendale Community Center
1
3
1
5
3
Manistee Ranch Museum
1
1
1
ONeil Recreation Center
1
2
3
2
Paseo Racquet Center
1
1
1
3
3
Rose Lane Recreation Center
1
3
4
2
Sahuaro Ranch Park Historical Area
1
1
2
2
Wheels in Motion Action Sports
1
1
1
System Totals
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
33
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
74
24
% of Facilities with Component
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
17%
17%
8%
17%
17%
8%
8%
17%
58%
8%
8%
25%
8%
17%
17%
8%
8%
8%
143
DRAFT
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
Yes. Figure X shows that Glendale has a limited distribution of indoor facilities, all of which offer differing
types of components and, therefore, uses. The highest LOS is provided at Foothills Recreation and
Aquatics Center (FRAC). An equivalent facility, or combination of facilities, is not presently available in
south Glendale. Other facilities that offer limited indoor opportunities are distributed throughout the
City as seen in Figure 64.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
Complete Heroes Regional Park or conduct a feasibility study to determine if market demand
and site conditions can support an equivalent facility to FRAC at a central or southern location, or
through multiple, smaller locations.
General areas to consider could include Heroes Regional Park, Rose Recreation Center, and the
Glendale Community Center.
Re-engage the community in the planning process to determine the programming and facility
needs of present-day residents.
•
Consider that it may be most appropriate for indoor recreation facilities to be accessible via a drive-
to distance (greater than 1-mile).
If this is determined, it is recommended that the City support and fund partnership work
with public transportation providers to supply transportation methods and routes to indoor
recreation facilities, particularly for youth, for households with low incomes, and for persons
experiencing disabilities.
•
Support and make capital improvements at existing indoor facilities.
Recreation Programs
Described in the City of Glendale Annual Budget Book Fiscal Year 2019-2020, recreation programs
provide Glendale residents with the opportunity “to enhance the social, physical, mental and economic
health of our community through a variety of diverse recreation programs and facilities. Recreation
programs and (recreation) events are held at the Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center, the Glendale
Adult Center, Historic Sahuaro Ranch, the three community centers and at basketball, tennis, skate
courts and other recreation facilities throughout the city.”
Fee-based Recreation Programs
Between April 2018, when PFRSE began using CivicRec registration software, and December 2019, the
Department had 12,802 total fee-based program registrants. Registrants paid a fee for classes, clinics,
and leagues in seven different program categories. Fee-based recreation programs are offered at
Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center which is accessible to people of all ages and at Glendale Adult
Center which is open to people aged eighteen and older.
Registration or participation does not require a person to provide household income or race
demographic data. Therefore, only age-based assertions about differences in service levels can be
conducted for fee-based recreation programs and facility use.
144
DRAFT
Table 21: Sample of Fee-based Program Types and Age Groups Served by Program Category
Program categories are made up of various program types. Registration data and participation estimates
provided by staff for the period between April 2018 and December 2019 were derived using a Civic Rec
Software Report.
•
627 individuals registered for Special Interest Classes
•
386 adults registered in Fitness Classes
•
1534 youth registered for Youth Recreation Camps; 466 youth registered for Youth Athletic Programs
•
265 teams registered for Adult Softball or Basketball Leagues; 193 individuals registered for the
Racquetball League
•
977 youth registered for Youth Sports Leagues
•
4,752 individuals registered for Aquatics programs
•
84 individuals registered for Lifeguard and CPR/AED training
•
989 adults registered for Adult Programs and Services at Glendale Adult Center (GAC)
•
Drop-in visits to Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center (FRAC) and GAC combined total
approximately 324,700
•
An estimated 2,919 individuals participated in fee-based events held at FRAC and GAC
The percentage of fee-based program registrations (does not include daily use or drop-in visitation
numbers) for the period between April 2018-December 2019 by program category in Figure 65.
145
DRAFT
Figure 64: Fee-based Registrants by Program Category (12,802 Total Registrants)
Drop-In Programming and Facility Use for Recreating
Fee-based recreation programs also include drop-in classes at Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center
(FRAC) and Glendale Adult Center (GAC) which are included in facility memberships. Non-members can
also participate by paying a day-use fee upon entry. PFRSE staff estimated nearly 325,000 visits were
made at FRAC and GAC for recreational use such as playing table games, using the fitness center, playing
court games, and swimming. Drop-in, daily use of Rose Lane Pool is also available for use upon paying a
fee.
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
Inconclusive. Because demographic registrant data is not collected, it is not possible to make fully-
informed assertions about who, specifically, is being served by fee-based programs and facility use
for the purposes of recreating. Only assumptions about disparity based on age can be made. Because
membership and drop-in use is only available to people aged 18 and older at Glendale Adult Center,
access to this facility is limited. This facility is primarily programmed for and marketed to appeal to
older adults. In Glendale, adults born before 1964 make up twenty-four percent of the population.
With multiple generations comprising the Glendale population (and financial challenges a reality),
opportunities to share spaces should be taken advantage of by the City. Both Millennials and Baby
Boomers embrace healthy lifestyles through fitness and recreation opportunities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
Modify the program portfolio at facilities to appeal to younger adults and families as well as older
adults by including a variety of options like additional yoga classes or nutrition and wellness classes
or massage therapy or family group fitness classes. Continue offering programs which are most
attended by older adults.
•
Create marketing strategies for GAC which promote it as a facility for people aged 18 and above.
•
Track, measure, and monitor age data for participants at FRAC and GAC and other fee-based program
locations using the registration software.
146
DRAFT
•
Continue to provide sports leagues for adults.
•
Continue focusing youth fee-based programming on skill-development.
•
Consider divesting of youth leagues if private organizations are filling the competitive role.
If private organizations are no longer able to fill the competitive role, the development of
leagues may become an appropriate role for PFRSE.
•
In the future, partnering with neighboring agencies to hold leagues for various sports may
be essential to the success of youth leagues.
•
Continue providing aquatics programs.
Free Programs
By providing ways to get involved with and stay invested in the park system, effective programming
brings many benefits to health and wellbeing to Glendale residents. PFRSE works to bring recreation
programming to the general public through facility-related events and, primarily, to low-income
households by providing recreation programs for youth which are free of charge to participants.
Between April 2018-December 2019, three facility-related annual events served an estimated 1,199
community members of various household income levels, races, and ages. These free events are smaller
in scale than City-hosted special events and are designed, marketed, financially managed, and operated
by the PFRSE Recreation Division.
The primary focus of free programming is through afterschool programs and summer camps offered at
Glendale Community Center and at O’Neil Recreation Center. PFRSE staff estimated that 7,000-10,500
youth attended afterschool and summer camp programs between April 2018-December 2019. In recent
years these free afterschool and summer camp programs were administered and managed by non-profit
organizations in agreement with the City for use of the two facilities.
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
Yes. Free afterschool and summer camp programs are primarily designed and marketed to households
with lower incomes and to youth.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
Prioritize the continued offering and eventual expansion of free afterschool and summer camp
programs.
Consider bringing free afterschool and summer camp programs entirely under the management
and administration of PRFSE.
•
Create a youth-driven initiative that empowers older youth to learn new skills, develop new
relationships, stay away from negative risks, and gain valuable work experience through
volunteerism. Begin with afterschool and summer camp programs and extend youth-led
programming as resources are available.
Utilize the Glendale Youth Scholarship Fund to expand free programming to qualifying
participants.
•
Host a healthy lifestyle- inspired event at a linear park, Thunderbird Conservation Park or at Sahuaro
Ranch Park.
•
Track participation rates in free events and consider divesting of an event when participation rates
decline.
147
DRAFT
City-hosted Special Events
City-hosted special events connect residents and visitors to one another and set out to create
community pride. PFRSE is responsible for coordinating and managing City-hosted free events held
annually. In 2018 and 2019, special events hosted by the Department included:
•
Glendale Glitters Holiday Light Display
•
Glendale Glitters Spectacular Weekend
•
Glitter & Glow
•
Movies by Moonlight
•
Touch A Truck
•
Folk & Heritage Festival
•
Summer Band Concert Series
•
The Chocolate Experience
•
Live! @ Murphy Park
It is estimated that these events see at least 50,000 attendees each year. Registration is not required for
these offerings. Qualitative descriptions provided by staff on who special events are designed for and
marketed to have been used to determine if any disparities in LOS exist.
City-hosted special events are the predominant pathway for providing programming that appeals to the
diverse population within Glendale and brings people together in large gatherings. The City’s special
events are designed for and marketed as inclusive, family-friendly, multi-cultural occasions. Special
events in Glendale provide an opportunity for people of differing races, ages and income levels to gather
together and should be well-marketed and designed to appeal to celebrate Glendale’s multi-cultural
population.
PFRSE markets their programs, including special events, through public service announcements,
GlendaleAZ.com, and social media accounts. Marketing efforts often include Spanish language materials.
To facilitate good communication between Spanish-speaking community members and the Department,
PFRSE employs several staff who are bilingual in Spanish and English.
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
No. City-hosted events are designed to be welcoming for all community members. However, Community
Survey responses indicate there is likely an opportunity to increase resident participation in City-hosted
special events.
RECOMMENDATION:
•
Increase engagement in and elevate special events by celebrating their purpose and connection to
the mission of the City and of PFRSE – improving lives through health and wellbeing at excellent
facilities.
Continue hosting and expand upon special events at park system sites where activation will
increase use of parks and build support for the facilities and services PRFSE provides.
Prioritize funding to manage and implement each additional city-hosted special events.
•
Hold additional special events and festivals with cultural aspects that aim at sharing cultural
elements through food, storytelling, dance, and arts.
Use focus groups and liaisons within representative cultural communities in Glendale to
determine the types of events that will appeal to the diverse population.
148
DRAFT
Locations of Facilities Used for Program Delivery
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) supported research shows that recreation programs
in parks can change how people interact with their surroundings. Communities like Glendale that have
recreational facilities to host social events, recreational activities, and gatherings has been shown to help
strengthen bonds, increase wellness, and build relationships. People are more likely to have an improved
community experience when they care about their surroundings and one another because a positive
sense of community connects them.
Creating this sense of community is done each time PFRSE delivers its programs at many of its indoor
and outdoor park system facilities throughout the City. From a City-hosted special event at Westgate
Sports and Entertainment District to free after school programs provided by private organizations at
O’Neil Recreation Center to fee-based adult sports leagues at Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center,
there are a number of programs offered at a variety of indoor and outdoor facilities.
Figure 65: Locations of Programs Offered between April 2018-December 2019
149
DRAFT
Analysis of the number of fee-based program data (does not include free, day use, or drop-in visitation
numbers) shows that from April 2018-December 2019 Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center (FRAC)
hosted a majority of fee-based programs. Given this facility’s variety of programmable space, this
emphasis on use is not surprising.
Figure 66: Number of Fee-Based Programs Held at City- and Non-City-Owned Locations by Percent
Source: 2018-2019 Civic Rec Software Program Registration Report
Is there a Difference in Service Levels?
Yes. Recreation program information shows that the largest opportunity for accessing indoor facilities
and fee-based and drop-in programs is at Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center. Access to this facility
is likely different for those who have more disposable income (i.e., individuals with higher household
incomes) than for those with less (i.e., individuals with lower household incomes). Also, access to indoor
facilities level of service analysis showed that physical access Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center is
challenged for residents living farther away from the facility than those living in closer proximity.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
Provide group fitness classes or non-sports classes at outdoor and indoor facilities located where gap
areas have been identified (See Figures X and Y).
Develop a Fitness in the Parks program to activate parks and increase usage of local parks.
•
Consider a sliding scale membership fee program to Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center for
residents living below the poverty level for their household size.
•
See Section III: Access to Indoor Recreation Facilities for additional recommendations.
150
DRAFT
Youth Scholarship Fund
Glendale’s Youth Scholarship Fund is in place to remove economic barriers to participation for Glendale
children in families experiencing economic need in a given year. Approval criteria is based on Arizona
Department of Economic Security standards. Scholarship applications are available online at www.
glendaleaz.com/parksandrec. The fund is dependent upon fundraising and donations therefore, the
reach of the scholarship fund is dependent upon the fund’s balance.
Between April 2018 and December 2019, fifty-three youth received scholarships totaling $4,076.27.
During the same period $767.10 was donated by individuals.
RECOMMENDATION:
•
Create a financial plan for the management of the Glendale Youth Scholarship Fund that outlines
objectives and strategies for increasing youth access to park facilities and recreation programs.
With a comprehension of Glendale’s demographics and where disparities within the park system
services and facilities exist, a baseline for understanding the current conditions is established. To further
expand upon recommendations for addressing known disparities, it is essential to next compare this
current state with an ideal state as envisioned by the residents of Glendale as revealed through the 2020
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Updates Community Survey.
V. Conclusion
With this better understanding of differences in levels of service Glendale can develop policies and
operational practices that ensure that PFRSE is being attentive and responsive to these disparities. These
policies and practices are outlined in the table below.
Table 22: Policy Statement and Actions for Improving Service Disparities
Policy: Strive to improve residents’ access to quality parks and recreation experiences throughout
Glendale
Objective 1.1: Increase residents’ access to outdoor recreation facilities by funding strategic park
improvements.
Actions
1.1.a Evaluate whether or not gray areas on the Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation Gap
Identification map are residential in nature. If they are, work with City transportation planners
to prioritize reducing physical barriers in order to improve access to nearby, existing park system
infrastructure. If improving walkability is not possible, focus on determining if the development of a
neighborhood park is feasible.
1.1.b Areas below target service levels should be prioritized for reducing physical barriers but also for
making park improvements such as adding shaded areas and spray pads. Parks which do not meet
target scores could be prioritized for park improvements and possible activation through programming.
1.1.c Increase access to Thunderbird Conservation Park by prioritizing improvements to trails
and infrastructure; dedicating budget and staffing resources to implement improvements and to
maintain improved conditions; prioritizing the developing environmental education and recreation
programs that appeal to youth, families and older adults; and celebrating and positioning Thunderbird
Conservation Park as a highly-valuable environmental resource within the urban setting.
151
DRAFT
1.1.d Increase usage of Historic Sahuaro Ranch Park given its central location by prioritizing
improvements to this site which will address deferred maintenance issues and will maximize the
opportunities to increase outdoor/environmental programs, interactive agricultural displays, and
nutrition learning opportunities.
Objective 1.2: Increase residents’ access to indoor recreation facilities.
Actions
1.2.a Complete Heroes Regional Park or conduct a feasibility study to determine if market demand and
site conditions can support an equivalent facility to FRAC at a central or southern location, or through
multiple, smaller locations. Areas to consider could include Heroes Regional Park, Rose Lane Park and
Aquatics Center, and the Glendale Community Center.
1.2.b Consider that it may be most appropriate for indoor recreation facilities to be accessible via a
drive-to distance (greater than 1-mile). If this is determined, it is recommended that the City support
and fund partnership work with public transportation providers to supply transportation methods and
routes to indoor recreation facilities, particularly for youth, for households with low incomes, and for
persons experiencing disabilities.
1.2.c Support and make capital improvements at existing indoor facilities.
Objective 1.3: Provide fee-based recreation programs that appeal to the diverse Glendale population.
Actions
1.3.a Modify the program portfolio at facilities to appeal to younger adults and families as well as older
adults by including a variety of options like additional yoga classes or nutrition and wellness classes or
massage therapy or family group fitness classes. Continue offering programs which are most attended
by older adults.
1.3.b As demographics change, consider creating marketing strategies for GAC which promote it as a
facility for people aged 18 and above.
1.3.c Track, measure, and monitor age data for participants at FRAC and GAC and other fee-based
program locations using the registration software.
1.3.d Continue to provide sports leagues for adults.
1.3.e Continue focusing youth fee-based programming on skill-development.
1.3.f Consider divesting of youth leagues if private organizations are filling the competitive role.
1.3.g Continue providing aquatics programs.
152
DRAFT
Objective 1.4: Continue to provide and expand free youth programs to residents experiencing
economic hardship and to offer no-cost facility-based events.
Actions
1.4.a Prioritize the continued offering and eventual expansion of free afterschool and summer
camp programs. Consider bringing free afterschool and summer camp programs entirely under the
management and administration of PRFSE. Create a youth-driven initiative that empowers older youth
to learn new skills, develop new relationships, stay away from negative risks, and gain valuable work
experience through volunteerism. Begin with afterschool and summer camp programs and extend
youth-led programming as resources are available. Utilize the Glendale Youth Scholarship Fund to
expand free programming to qualifying participants.
1.4.b Host a free healthy lifestyle- inspired event at a linear park, Thunderbird Conservation Park or at
Sahuaro Ranch Park.
1.4.c Track participation rates in free events and consider divesting of an event when participation
rates decline.
1.3.e Continue focusing youth fee-based programming on skill-development.
1.3.g Continue providing aquatics programs.
Objective 1.5: Celebrate Glendale’s diverse community with well-designed and financially resourced
City-hosted special events.
Actions
1.5.a Increase engagement in and elevate special events by celebrating their purpose and connection
to the mission of the City and of PFRSE – improving lives through health and wellbeing at excellent
facilities. Continue hosting and expand upon special events at park system sites where activation will
increase use of parks and build support for the facilities and services PRFSE provides. Prioritize funding
to manage and implement each additional city-hosted special events.
1.5.b Hold additional special events and festivals with cultural aspects that aim at sharing cultural
elements through food, storytelling, dance, and arts. Use focus groups and liaisons within
representative cultural communities in Glendale to determine the types of events that will appeal to
the diverse population.
Objective 1.6: Foster community connection by enticing residents to use indoor and outdoor facilities
in new and improved ways.
Actions
1.6.a Provide group fitness classes or non-sports classes at outdoor and indoor facilities located within
gap areas identified in access maps. Consider developing a Fitness in the Parks program to activate
parks and increase usage of local parks.
1.6.b Consider a sliding scale membership fee program to Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center for
residents living below the poverty level for their household size.
153
DRAFT
Objective 1.7: Maximize the City’s provision of free and low-cost services to youth in financial need.
Actions
1.7.a Create a financial plan for the management of the Glendale Youth Scholarship Fund that outlines
objectives and strategies for increasing youth access to park facilities and recreation programs.
Inevitably, there will be challenges to being able to accomplish the goals related to reducing disparity. In
its 2018 Parks and Recreation Inclusion Report, National Recreation and Parks Association found that the
two highest ranked challenges to keeping services from being accessible to all were insufficient funding
and inadequate staffing.
Investing in facility improvement projects in prioritized areas, providing both financial and staffing
resources to PFRSE, supporting the development of a diverse portfolio of programs, and adopting
administrative policies which give all residents opportunities to participate will improve access to quality
park and recreation facilities and programming for all residents within Glendale for years to come.
154
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
155
DRAFT
Appendix C: Parks and Facilities Inventory
Assessment and Level of Service Analysis
Parks and facilities were inventoried and assessed for function and quality in October 2019 using the
GRASP®-IT audit tool. This tool classifies park features into one of two categories: components and
modifiers. A component is a feature that people go to a park or facility to use, such as a tennis court,
playground, or picnic shelter. Modifiers are amenities such as shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms
that enhance the comfort and convenience of a site.
A formula was applied that combines the assessments of a site’s components and modifiers to generate
a score or value for each component and the entire park or location. The study uses the resulting score to
compare sites to each other and to analyze the overall performance of the park system.
Assessment Summary
Observations and conclusions based on visits to each park or facility include the following:
•
Parks generally well maintained although there is an obvious deferred maintenance backlog
•
An appropriate mix of park types or classifications
•
Good distribution of properties
•
Several unique properties combined with standard neighborhood parks
•
Park design projects can continue incorporating native landscape and reducing large areas of turf
while maintaining a park look and feel
•
Opportunities exist to increase public art in parks
•
Glendale is ahead of the curve on playground shade but should continue to add when appropriate
•
Work needed in updating playground surfacing and court surfaces
•
Park identification signs and branding practices can be continued
156
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
157
DRAFT
Neighborhood Parks
The following tables are a list of all neighborhood parks and their associated components.
Table 23: Summary of Glendale Neighborhood Parks
Location
Classification
GIS Acres
Aquatics, Spray Pad
Basketball Court
Basketball, Practice
Diamond Field
Diamond Field, Practice
Educational Experience
Event Space
Fitness Course
Game Court
Garden, Display
Horseshoe Court
Loop Walk
Open Turf
Pickleball Court
Playground, Local
Public Art
Racquetball
Rectangular Field, Large
Shelter, Large
Shelter, Small
Tennis Court
Volleyball Court
Total Component/Park
Unique Components/Park
Acoma
Neighborhood
4.8
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
6
Arrowhead Lakes
Neighborhood
4.1
1
1
1
2
1
6
5
Bicentennial
Neighborhood
5.2
1
1
1
4
1
8
5
Butler
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Carmel
Neighborhood
4.8
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
6
Cholla
Neighborhood
5.6
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
12
8
Clavelito
Neighborhood
1.9
1
1
1
1
4
4
Country Gables
Neighborhood
4.0
1
1
1
2
1
6
5
Delicias
Neighborhood
4.5
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Desert Garden
Neighborhood
6.8
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
8
Desert Mirage
Neighborhood
5.9
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
7
Desert Rose
Neighborhood
6.9
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
6
Desert Valley
Neighborhood
6.8
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
7
Discovery
Neighborhood
9.6
1
2
1
1
1
5
2
13
7
Dos Lagos
Neighborhood
5.6
1
1
2
1
2
2
9
6
El Barrio
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
3
3
Gardenwood
Neighborhood
1.4
1
1
1
Greenbrier
Neighborhood
3.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
9
6
Greenway Granada
Neighborhood
6.1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Heritage
Neighborhood
3.3
1
1
1
3
3
Hillcrest
Neighborhood
8.2
1
1
1
2
5
4
Horizon
Neighborhood
4.3
1
1
1
3
3
Kings
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
4
Lawrence
Neighborhood
2.9
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Lions
Neighborhood
4.5
1
1
1
3
3
Manistee Ranch
Neighborhood
6.6
1
1
2
2
Mary Silva
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
6
Maryland Lakes
Neighborhood
6.4
1
1
1
Memmingen
Neighborhood
4.7
3
1
1
1
2
2
10
6
158
DRAFT
Table 24: Summary of Glendale Neighborhood Parks
Location
Classification
GIS Acres
Aquatics, Spray Pad
Basketball Court
Basketball, Practice
Diamond Field
Diamond Field, Practice
Educational Experience
Event Space
Fitness Course
Game Court
Garden, Display
Horseshoe Court
Loop Walk
Open Turf
Pickleball Court
Playground, Local
Public Art
Racquetball
Rectangular Field, Large
Shelter, Large
Shelter, Small
Tennis Court
Volleyball Court
Total Component/Park
Unique Components/Park
Mission
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
11
7
Mondo
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
2
2
Montara
Neighborhood
5.1
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
6
Murphy
Neighborhood
2.3
1
1
1
3
3
Myrtle
Neighborhood
0.5
1
1
2
2
New World
Neighborhood
8.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Oasis
Neighborhood
4.9
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Ocotillo Rose
Neighborhood
2.3
1
1
1
1
4
4
Orangewood Vista Park
Neighborhood
9.4
4
1
10
1
1
1
18
6
Pasadena
Neighborhood
2.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
Paseo Neighborhood
Neighborhood
1.1
1
1
1
3
3
Plaza Rosa
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
Rovey
Neighborhood
0.2
1
1
1
Sands
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
11
7
Sierra Verde
Neighborhood
8.2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
11
7
Sonorita
Neighborhood
0.6
1
1
1
3
3
Sunnyside
Neighborhood
8.0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Sunset
Neighborhood
3.6
1
1
2
2
Sunset Palms
Neighborhood
8.0
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
12
8
Sunset Ridge
Neighborhood
7.0
1
1
1
2
5
4
Sunset Vista
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
7
Sycamore Grove
Neighborhood
4.8
1
2
1
1
1
2
8
6
Tarrington Ranch
Neighborhood
4.2
1
1
2
1
1
6
5
Tierra Buena
Neighborhood
5.0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
12
8
Triangle
Neighborhood
0.1
0
0
Utopia
Neighborhood
3.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Windsor
Neighborhood
0.6
1
1
1
System Totals:
251.7
1
43
3
3
14
2
1
7
12
1
1
18
47
1
49
2
28
5
7
59
11
29
% of Parks w/ Component
2%
63%
4%
4% 21%
4%
2%
13%
4%
2%
2%
30% 84%
2%
84%
4% 13%
9%
11% 70% 11% 41%
Average
4.5
6
5
159
DRAFT
Table 25: Summary of Glendale Community Parks
160
DRAFT
Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Areas
The following table is a list of all remaining Glendale Parks, including Specialty, Regional, and Conservation Areas. Find associated components in the table as well.
Location
Classification
GIS Acres
Aquatics, Spray Pad
Basketball Court
Concessions
Diamond Field
Disc Golf
Dog Park
Educational Experience
Event Space
Fitness Course
Garden, Display
Loop Walk
Natural Area
Open Turf
Playground, Destination
Playground, Local
Public Art
Rectangular Field, Large
Shelter, Large
Shelter, Small
Skate Park
Target Range
Trail, Multi-use
Trailhead
Volleyball Court
Water, Open
Total Component/Park
Unique Components/Park
Elsie McCarthy Sensory Garden
Specialty
1.4
1
1
1
3
3
Foothills
Regional
29.0
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
19
11
Glendale Heroes Regional Park
Regional
60.3
1
3
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
3
24
11
Grand Canal Linear
Regional
94.9
1
4
1
1
11
1
2
21
7
Sahuaro Ranch
Regional
73.0
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
9
4
29
12
Skunk Creek Linear
Regional
94.0
1
1
1
Thunderbird Conservation
Conservation
1112.1
1
1
15
3
1
21
5
Thunderbird Paseo
Regional
214.9
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
14
9
System Totals:
1679.6
1
5
2
7
2
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
7
4
4
1
5
19
38
2
1
3
7
7
1
% of Parks w/ Component
13% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 38% 13% 38% 38% 13% 50% 50% 50% 13% 25% 25% 63% 25% 13% 38% 50% 25% 13%
Table 26: Summary of Glendale Regional Parks, Specialty Parks, and Conservation Areas
161
DRAFT
Trails
Nearly 46 miles of trails exist in the Glendale system. The following map and descriptions are available
from the city website. Trails GIS data was also obtained from the City and incorporated into the GRASP®
Inventory and Level of Service analysis.
Figure 67: Glendale Trails
162
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
163
DRAFT
Table 27: Summary of Glendale Indoor Locations
Indoor Facilities
Facility/Location
Aquatics, Lap pool
Aquatics, Leisure Pool
Arts and Crafts
Auditorium/Theatre
Childcare/Preschool
Educational Experience
Fitness/Dance
Food - Counter Service
Food - Vending
Kitchen - Commercial
Kitchen - Kitchenette
Kitchen- Commercial
Kitchen -Commercial
Multipurpose
Multi-purpose
Public Art
Racquetball
Retail/Pro-shop
Second floor empty expansion
Specialty Services
Sport Court
Track - Indoor
Weight/Cardio Equipment
Weights/ Cardio Equipment
Total Components/Facility
Unique Components/Facility
CowTown Skate Boards
1
1
1
Foothills Aquatic & Recreation Center
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
22
12
Glendale Adult Center
3
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
16
8
Glendale Civic Center
1
9
10
2
Glendale Civic Center Annex
5
1
6
2
Glendale Community Center
1
3
1
5
3
Manistee Ranch Museum
1
1
1
ONeil Recreation Center
1
2
3
2
Paseo Racquet Center
1
1
1
3
3
Rose Lane Recreation Center
1
3
4
2
Sahuaro Ranch Park Historical Area
1
1
2
2
Wheels in Motion Action Sports
1
1
1
System Totals
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
33
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
74
24
% of Facilities with Component
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
17%
17%
8%
17%
17%
8%
8%
17%
58%
8%
8%
25%
8%
17%
17%
8%
8%
8%
164
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
165
DRAFT
Park Rankings
In addition to locating components, assessments included the functional quality of each element.
The following tables (organized by classification) display the ranking of each park based on an overall
score for its components and modifiers. In general, parks at the top of the list offer more and better
recreation opportunities than those ranked lower. The bar length for each park reflects its overall score
in proportion to the highest-ranking. There is no ultimate or perfect score. Scores are cumulative and
based on the total number and quality of the components at a park in addition to the availability of such
amenities as restrooms, drinking fountains, seating, parking, and shade Scores can be compared across
classifications but are more applicable within the same class.
Table 28: Neighborhood Park Ranking Table
166
DRAFT
Table 29: Community Park Ranking Table
Table 30: Regional Park Ranking Table
Glendale parks are comparable to other agencies across the county by using these scores. The GRASP®
National Dataset currently consists of 66 agencies, 4,540 parks, and over 23,975 components.
When comparing Glendale parks for all other agencies and parks in the dataset, Glendale has three parks
in the top 100 parks in terms of overall GRASP® score.
It also has twelve parks in the top ten percent. These numbers are excellent when compared to recent
GRASP® studies.
167
DRAFT
Population Distribution and Density
When discussing access to recreation, it is helpful to understand the population distribution and density in Glendale. In Figure 69, areas of higher population density are shown in darker orange, while areas that are less densely populated are
lighter in color. Much of Glendale has a similar low density, as indicated by the brighter orange and yellow tones
Figure 68: 2019 Population Density Based on Population per Square Mile by Census Tract
168
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
169
DRAFT
Level of Service Analyses
Level of Service (LOS) measurements evaluate how parks, open spaces, and facilities in Glendale serve the
community. They may be used to benchmark current conditions and to direct future planning efforts.
Why Level of Service?
Level of Service (LOS) describes how a recreation system provides residents access to recreational assets
and amenities. It indicates the ability of people to connect with nature and pursue active lifestyles. It can
have implications for health and wellness, the local economy, and the quality of life. Further, LOS for a park
and recreation system tends to reflect community
values. It is often representative of people’s
connection to their communities and lifestyles
focused on outdoor recreation and healthy living.
GRASP® Analysis
GRASP® (Geo-referenced Amenities Standards
Process) has been applied in many cities across the country to evaluate LOS for park and recreation systems.
With GRASP®, information from the inventory combined with Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
software, produces analytic maps and data that show the quality and distribution of park and recreation
services across the City.
Perspectives
Perspectives are maps and data generated using the GRASP® methodology. Each perspective shows
service across the study area. Data analysis also incorporates statistics. Maps, tables, and charts provide
benchmarks or insights that are useful in determining community success in delivering recreation
opportunities.
Types of Perspectives
The LOS offered by a park or other feature is a function of two main variables: what is available at a specific
location and how easy it is for a user to get to it. The inventory performed with the GRASP®-IT tool provides
a detailed accounting of what is available at any given location, and GIS analysis uses the data to measure its
accessibility to residents. People use a variety of ways to reach a recreation destination: on foot, on a bike,
in a car, via public transportation, or some combination. In GRASP® Perspectives, this variability is accounted
for by analyzing multiple travel distances (referred to as catchment areas). These service areas produce two
distinct types of Perspectives for examining the park and recreation system:
1. Neighborhood Access
2. Walkable Access
A Neighborhood Access perspective uses a travel distance of one mile to the inventory and is assumed to
be a suitable distance for a bike ride or short drive in a car, or perhaps a longer walk. This suitable distance
captures users traveling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility by way of a bike, bus, or automobile.
A Walkable Access perspective uses a shorter catchment distance intended to capture users within a ten to
fifteen-minute walk.
For each analysis, combining the service area for each component, including the assigned GRASP® value into
one overlay, creates a shaded map representing the cumulative value of all features.
170
DRAFT
Figure 69: Example of GRASP® Level of Service Perspectives
GRASP® Level of Service
Perspectives Using
Overlapping Suitable Distance
to Yield a “Heat Map” that
Provides a Measurement of LOS
for any Location Within a Study
Area (Orange Shades Represent
the Variation in LOS Values
Across the Map)
Assumptions:
1. Proximity relates to access. A feature within a specified distance of a given location is considered
“accessible” from that location.” “Access” in this analysis does not refer to access as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2. Neighborhood access relates to one-mile proximity, a reasonable distance for a drive in a car, or by
bicycle.
3. Walkable access relates to ½-mile proximity, a moderate ten-minute walk.
4. Walkable access is affected by barriers, obstacles to free, and comfortable foot travel.
5. The LOS value of a map point is the cumulative value of all features accessible at that location.
Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation
A series of “heat maps” were created to examine neighborhood access to outdoor recreation
opportunities which are available in parks. Neighborhood access looks at access to the system parks
based on a 1-mile service area but also gives higher scores to those living within walking distance (10-
min/half-mile).
The orange shades represent a resident’s level of service at their house or work. Darker shades indicate
greater access to a greater number or enhanced parks and components. Areas in gray indicate residents
must go farther than one mile to access a recreation opportunity. The highest value of outdoor
recreation in parks is just west of Heroes Regional Park. From this location, a resident has access to 75
components at seven parks, a trail, and an indoor facility.
In general, this map shows that Glendale has an excellent distribution of parks and facilities, with 99% of
all residents living within one mile of a City recreation opportunity.
171
DRAFT
Figure 70: Glendale Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation
172
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
173
DRAFT
Further analysis of this perspective indicates that 82 percent of the Glendale residents are within one
mile of an outdoor recreation opportunity.
Table 31: Figure 71 Statistics
Column A: Shows the percentage of the City that has at least some service (LOS >0). Eighty-two percent
of Glendale has at least some access to recreation opportunities within one-mile. This percentage is
above the average for compared cities. Much of the area without service appears to be Luke Air Force
Base.
Column B: For any location on the map, there is a numerical value that corresponds to the orange
shading called the GRASP® value and results from the overlay or cumulative value of the scores of
components accessible from that location. Values for different locations on the map can be compared
to one another, so a person in a location with a high value (darker orange) has greater access to quality
recreation opportunities than a person in a lower value (lighter orange) area. Glendale GRASP® values
range from a low of 0 to a high of 505.
Column C: Glendale’s value of 155 is below the average and median GRASP® value for other comparable
GRASP® agencies. This lower value may be a result of a higher percentage of lower-scoring parks than
other agencies. For example, Glendale may have more parks in the Neighborhood Park classification as
compared to Henderson, who has a higher rate of Community Parks.
Column D: Shows the results of dividing the number from Column C by the population density of the
area. Compared to other similar-sized agencies for which GRASP® data is available, Glendale’s population
density is above the average and median. Glendale’s score of 25 is significantly lower than the other
agencies.
Column E: The GRASP® Index, effectively the GRASP® value per capita, involves dividing the total value
of all the components in the system by the population of Glendale. These last two numbers (column C &
D) differ in two ways. First, the GRASP® Index does not factor in population density. Second, the GRASP®
Index is derived using all components and does account for vital regional resources residents may access
outside those limits. Glendale’s score of 11 is below the average and median on the comparable list.
174
DRAFT
GRASP® Comparative Data
The table below provides comparative data from other communities of similar population to Glendale
across the country. Because every community is unique, there are no standards or “correct” numbers.
However, there are several interesting similarities and differences when making these comparisons.
First, comparing the total number of locations, Glendale is below the average and median when
compared to similar agencies, but Spokane’s total number of parks skews these factors.
Glendale is low in the parks and components per capita. The system fails to meet the average or median
in both categories.
In contrast, though, City of Glendale parks are the median value in average score per location. It is above
the median and average in the number of components per site.
175
DRAFT
In the end, these comparisons would indicate that Glendale residents have access to fewer parks and
components than other similar size agencies. Still, the parks that they do have access to are relatively
similar or more developed than other agency parks. Find these comparisons and others in the following
table. Please note that the inventory and analysis only include Glendale owned properties. Residents may
have additional access to recreation opportunities provided by alternative providers such as HOA parks.
Table 32: GRASP® Comparative Data
STATE
WA
AZ
OR
CA
NV
CITY
Spokane
Glendale
Tualatin Hills
PRD
Valley-Wide
PRD
Henderson
YEAR
2009
2020
2018
2020
2018
POPULATION
200,844
250,784
265,078
275,064
290,567
STUDY AREA SIZE (Acres)
38,440
39,660
35,010
490,802
68,249
# OF SITES (Parks, Facilties, etc.)
107
75
270
65
65
TOTAL # OF COMPONENTS
673
594
898
414
854
AVG. # COMPONENTS per SITE
6.3
7.9
3.3
6.4
13.1
TOTAL GRASP® VALUE (Entire
System)
3,705
2,622
7,125
2,154
5,236
GRASP® INDEX
18
10
27
8
18
AVG. SCORE/SITE
35
35
26
33
81
% of TOTAL AREA w/LOS >0
99%
82%
100%
9%
83%
AVG. LOS PER ACRE SERVED
220
155
489
84
202
NUMBER OF COMPONENTS PER
POPULATION
3.4
2.4
3.4
1.5
2.9
AVERAGE LOS/POP DEN PER ACRE
42
25
65
150
47
Population Density (per acre)
5
6
8
1
4
% of Population with Walkable
Target Access
NA
59%
72%
22%
46%
People per Park
1,877
3,344
982
4,232
4,470
Park per 1k People
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.2
0.2
176
DRAFT
Walkability analysis measures access to recreation
components by walking. One-half mile catchment
radii have been placed around each component
and shaded according to the component’s
GRASP® score. Scores are doubled within this
catchment to reflect the added value of walkable
proximity, allowing direct comparisons between
neighborhood access and walkable access.
Pedestrian Barriers
Environmental barriers can limit walkability.
The LOS in this analysis has been “cut-off” by
identified barriers where applicable.
Pedestrian barriers in Glendale, such as major streets, highways, streams, and arroyos/rivers,
significantly impact the analysis. Zones created by identified barriers, displayed as dark red lines, serve
as discrete areas that are accessible without crossing a major street or another obstacle. Green parcels
represent existing parks and open space.
Walkability is a measure of how user-
friendly an area is to people traveling on foot.
This benefits a community in many ways related
to public health, social equity, and the local
economy. Many factors influence walkability
including the quality of footpaths, sidewalks or
other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road
conditions, land use patterns, and public safety
considerations among others.
177
DRAFT
Figure 71: Walkability Barriers “Cut-off” Service Areas
178
DRAFT
Walkable Access to Recreation
The analysis shows the LOS available across Glendale, based on a ten-minute
walk. Darker gradient areas on the maps indicate where there are more
and higher quality recreation assets available based on a half-mile service
area. Gray areas on these maps suggest that recreation opportunities are
beyond a ten-minute walk. In general, these maps show that Glendale has
a good distribution of parks and facilities at a walkable scale but that there
are perhaps some gaps in the system where facilities can be improved, and
assets expanded. It is also evident in this analysis that pedestrian barriers
play a significant role in walkable access to parks throughout Glendale.
Areas of higher concentration are notable around the City with the highest
value just North of Heroes Regional Park. The red star indicates the most
significant GRASP® value area (430) in Figure x above. From the red star, a
resident has access to 48 outdoor recreation components in four parks, a
trail, and an indoor facility.
Figure 72: Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation
179
DRAFT
Table 33: Figure 73 Statistics
The numbers in each column are derived as described in neighborhood access. The GRASP® Index does
not apply to the walkability analysis. The LOS value for a person who must walk to assets is about 50
percent (81 vs. 155) of that for someone who can drive to areas that have some access to recreation
opportunities.
Determining a Level of Service Standard
The orange shading in the LOS maps allows for a quick understanding of service distribution across
the City. Showing where LOS is adequate or inadequate is an advantage of using GIS analysis. To do
this the question of “what constitutes an appropriate level of service for Glendale residents?” must be
determined.
Using the average score of all parks in Neighborhood park classification, one could consider this
measurement as a standard for the Glendale system. Three parks occur in an average score range
and may constitute the average park in this classification type. These parks are displayed with their
associated components in Table 34. This table indicates that of these three parks, basketball courts, open
turf, playgrounds, small shelters, and volleyball courts are standard components. They are present at all
three of these parks. Additional components that occur less frequently at these parks include a practice
diamond, a loop walk, racquetball courts, and tennis courts. These three parks average six unique
components, and there may be more than one of these components, such as multiple racquetball courts
or tennis courts, for example.
Table 34: Summary of Average Neighborhood Parks
180
DRAFT
These parks and components are likely to attract users from a walkable distance. The following map
(Figure 74) brackets the level of service values to areas that are below or above the value provided by
parks in this range and is known as the target score for Glendale. GIS analysis shows where LOS is above
or below the threshold value. Purple areas indicate where walkable LOS values meet or exceed the
target. Areas shown in yellow on the map can be considered areas of opportunity. These are areas where
land and assets are currently available but do not provide the target value. It may be possible to improve
the LOS value in such areas by enhancing the quantity and quality of features in existing parks without
the need to acquire new lands or develop new parks. Another option might be to address pedestrian
barriers in the immediate area.
181
DRAFT
Figure 73: Walkable Access Gap Identification
182
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
183
DRAFT
On the Walkable Access Gap Identification map, regions shown in purple have LOS that exceeds the
target value. Forty-five percent of the City is above the target, and about 55 percent is outside of
walkable access.
Figure 74: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Percentage of Land within City Boundary that Scores
Above Target (Purple) or Below Target (Yellow)
Figure 75: Walkable Access to Assets Based on Population
Figure 76 displays the level of service based on where people live. Using the data shown in Walkable
Access to Recreation Gap Identification, and census data (Esri GIS data enrichment techniques), the
analysis indicates that parks are well placed in or close to residential areas and capture a higher
percentage of the population than land area. With 59 percent of residents in the target zone and
about 84 percent within walking distance of some outdoor recreation opportunities, Glendale is better
positioned than the previous analysis indicated.
184
DRAFT
Additional Discussion on Access to Outdoor Recreation
While the above analyses are typical, they may not reflect the model that an agency such as Glendale
may follow in the level of service provision. The expansiveness of the City likely makes it difficult for
complete walkable coverage. On the other hand, the City may find its market is more in providing
recreational opportunities at the broader drive-to distance.
As an example, one area of note would include the neighborhood around Heritage and Mondo Parks.
While this neighborhood has two parks within walking distance for most residents, these parks, even
combined values, do not equal the target score as indicated by the yellow color on the map. Other areas
of note include around Hillcrest Park, Hidden Meadows Park, and O’Neil/Windsor Parks. These areas
could likely benefit from park upgrades and additional components where space allows.
Access to Indoor Facilities
The analysis shows access to indoor facilities across Glendale based on a 1-mile and 1/2-mile service
area. Indoor facilities in Glendale differ significantly in their offerings, size, and function. For those
reasons, the following analysis should be considered, but not be regarded as the only method of
determining indoor recreation level of service in Glendale. Darker gradient areas on the maps indicate
where there are more and higher quality indoor assets available. Gray areas on these maps suggest that
recreation opportunities are beyond a one-mile radius. In general, these maps show that Glendale has
limited distribution of indoor facilities. The highest level of service is provided at Foothills Recreation
Center. An equivalate facility is not available in south Glendale. Other facilities that offer more limited
indoor opportunities are more reasonable distributed around the City.
185
DRAFT
Figure 76: Access to Indoor Facilities
186
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
187
DRAFT
More on Utilizing GRASP® Perspectives
GRASP® perspectives evaluate the level of service throughout an area from various points of view. Their
purpose is to reveal possible gaps in service and provide a metric to use in understanding a recreation
system. However, it is not necessarily beneficial for all parts of the community to score equally in
the analyses. The desired level of service for a location should depend on the type of service, the
characteristics of the site, and other factors such as community need, population growth forecasts,
and land use issues. For example, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might reasonably
have lower Levels of Service for parks and recreation opportunities than residential areas. GRASP®
perspectives focus attention on gap areas for further scrutiny.
Perspectives can determine if current levels of service are appropriate if used in conjunction with other
assessment tools such as needs assessment surveys and a public input process. Future planning efforts
can model similar levels of service to new, developing neighborhoods, or it may be that different levels
of service are suitable, and the City should utilize a new set of criteria to reflect these distinctions.
Other Types of Analysis
Traditional analyses may also evaluate the recreational level of service.
Capacities Analysis
A traditional tool for evaluating parks and recreation services is capacity analysis. This analysis compares
the number of assets to population and projects future needs based on providing the same ratio of
components per population (i.e., as the population grows over time components may need to be added
to maintain the same proportion). Table 35 shows the current capacities for selected elements in
Glendale. While there are no correct ratios for these components, this table must be used in conjunction
with other information, such as input from focus groups, staff, and the general public, to determine if
the current capacities are adequate or not for specific components.
188
DRAFT
Table 35: Glendale Capacities
The usefulness of the capacity table to project future facility needs based on population growth, if the
future population’s interests and behaviors are the same as today’s, and that today’s capacities are in
line with today’s needs. The capacities table bases its analysis on the number of assets without regard
to distribution, quality, or functionality. Higher LOS is achieved only by adding assets, regardless of the
location, condition, or quality of those assets. In theory, the LOS provided by assets is more accurately a
combination of location and quality as well as their quantity, which is why this table should be used with
discretion, and only in conjunction with the other analyses presented here.
189
DRAFT
Table 36: Comparison to NRPA Outdoor Park and Recreation Facilities – Median Population Served per
Facility
Comparing Glendale to recent national statistics published by the National Recreation and Park
Association in their “2020 NRPA Agency Performance Review: Park and Recreation Agency Performance
Benchmarks”, the agency fails to meet the median components except for basketball courts, dog parks,
and playgrounds. Dependent on field classification amongst agencies, Glendale is either below the
median or has a surplus in both diamond and rectangle fields.
Similar calculations can also be made based on acres of land and parks per 1,000 residents. The following
table includes all the properties included in the GIS mapping. Computation of the acreage consists of
only Glendale parks. Residents per park and acres of parks per 1,000 people fall slightly short of the
NRPA published benchmarks for similar size cities.
Table 37: Acres of Park Land per 1,000 Residents
This capacity table indicates that Glendale provides approximately 8.4 acres per 1000 people or 119
people per acre of “park.” It also shows that based on projected population growth that the City should
consider adding 186 acres over the next five years.
190
DRAFT
Key Conclusions
Proximity, availability of transportation, pedestrian barriers, and overall size of the City are relevant
factors affecting Glendale levels of service. The current provision of assets is, to a certain degree,
equitable across Glendale, assuming resident’s access to motorized transportation. The City provides
neighborhood and walkable levels of service in most areas, while non-residential regions may have
limited access to opportunities. The quality and standards of the amenities at existing parks should be
improved and increased across the entire system.
The most obvious way to increase overall LOS is to add assets in any area with lower service or acquire
land or develop partnerships in areas lacking current service. Some gaps in walkable service exist
throughout Glendale, and many of these areas are likely residential in nature. Inventory efforts for this
study did not include alternative providers such as homeowner association parks that may supplement
the service at the walkable levels. Some residential areas have less access to quality recreation
opportunities, while other regions have no walkable access. Pedestrian barriers and lack of trails also
may limit access to recreation throughout Glendale. Additional analysis and a review of the information
received from surveys, focus groups, and other sources, including staff knowledge, contribute to identify
the best locations for future improvements.
In addition to improving existing park conditions and adding service in low scoring areas, it is also evident
that access to indoor facilities lacks equitability from north to south. The following figure illustrates
an option of improving Rose Lane Aquatics Center and Park. This southern location appears to be a
reasonable option to creating more equitable service in Glendale and uses existing facilities. However,
there are feasibility challenges with the pool at Rose Lane Aquatics Center so development of aquatic
facilities at a central location may better achieve service equity and financial goals.
The map below shows the impacts to access to indoor facilities given three-mile, five-mile and seven-mile
service areas on Foothills Recreation Center and potential improvements at Rose Lane Aquatics Center
and Park.
191
DRAFT
Figure 77: Improving access to indoor facilities analysis
192
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
193
DRAFT
Appendix D: Community Survey
Methodology
The City of Glendale Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Community Survey used a traditional
mail survey approach coupled with an option to complete the survey online or by smartphone through
a password protected website. The mail survey, also referred to as the Invite Survey, was structured to
allow for a random selection of respondents to the survey in Glendale in order to obtain a representative
sample from the community. In total, 4,251 households within the city limits of Glendale were randomly
selected to receive the Invite Survey. The Invite Survey generated 276 complete surveys which resulted
in a margin of error of +/- 5.9% at a 95% confidence level. Responses were collected from all major ZIP
codes (85301 through 85310) across Glendale, representing a thorough geographic participation.
Margin of error represents a level of accepted uncertainty and confidence level represents how confident
RRC, a survey firm with expertise in parks, open space, and trails needs assessment studies, is that the
results represent the greater population. Error is present in all survey data because the purpose of a
survey is to use a smaller sample to estimate how an entire population would respond.
For example, if this study was repeated with a new sample of 276 of randomly selected Glendale
residents, RRC assumes the actual result for any given question is still within +/- 5.9% of the result we
find on this Invite Survey. Thus, if a “yes/no” question is asked of respondents and the response is 50
percent “yes,” we would be 95 percent confident (a commonly used threshold) that the actual result is
between 44.1 percent and 55.9 percent. A common target for margin of error is +/-5%; however, the
random selection methodology of the survey truly drives how well the data represents the population
and the margin of error is only one part of the process of gathering representative results.
To ensure results represent residents of Glendale, Invite Survey responses are weighted by age to better
represent the community. In this case, younger residents were not as well represented. In general, mail
surveys tend to have a higher than average age than the local population. Weighting is therefore applied
to ensure younger residents are given a representative share of responses. This is a common practice in
survey research and facilitates representative results.
Comparing findings to another sample of data is another method to use to confirm survey data. In this
case, comparing Open Link Survey sample responses further validates Invite Survey results. The 356
completed responses from the Open Link Survey show very similar results to the Invite responses, placing
more confidence in the results of the Invite Survey sample despite a lower sample size.
The margin of error is acceptable (and significant at even a 90% confidence level) and the process used
to produce the Community Survey Report followed a standardized approach within the parameters of
budget allocated to the research to allow for a random sample of respondents from across Glendale to
participate. Results were weighted to correct for issues of underrepresentation of younger populations
and Open Link Survey results track very similarly to the Invite Survey sample. All together these steps
garner valid results from residents. Therefore, RRC is confident the results are valid and represent
Glendale residents.
194
DRAFT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
195
DRAFT
Appendix E: Site Specific Park Improvement
Projects
0
100'
200'
SCALE: 1"=100'
2.2.2021
Keynote Legend
Parking Data:
Needed Amenity Parking:
- 70 / Soccer Field =
350
- 40 / Dog Park =
40
- 150 / Group Ramada =
150
- 20 / Archery Range =
20
- Miscellaneous =
50
Total = 610
Provided Parking:
-Existing Pavilion Parking =
240
-Existing Library Parking =
127
-Proposed North Field Parking =
180
-Proposed South Field Parking =
140
-Proposed Additional Library
Parking =
50
-Proposed Basketball Parking = 40
-Proposed Recreation & Aquatic
Center Parking =
220
Total = 997
Heroes Park
Conceptual Layout
Multi-Use
Multi-Use
Field
Field
Multi-Use
Multi-Use
Field
Field
Maintenance
Maintenance
Yard
Yard
Multi-Use
Multi-Use
Field
Field
3 Acre
3 Acre
Dog Park
Dog Park
U11-U12
U11-U12
Field
Field
Ramada
Ramada
Pavilion
Pavilion
Recreation and
Recreation and
Aquatic Center
Aquatic Center
5 Acre
5 Acre
Lake
Lake
Existing
Existing
Parking
Parking
Existing
Existing
Parking
Parking
Heroes Regional
Heroes Regional
Park Library
Park Library
Parking
Parking
Lot
Lot
Parking
Parking
Lot
Lot
Parking
Parking
Parking
Parking
Lot
Lot
Parking
Parking
Lot
Lot
U11-U12
U11-U12
Field
Field
Ramada &
Ramada &
Large Play
Large Play
Tennis
Tennis
Courts
Courts
Tennis
Tennis
Courts
Courts
Volleyball
Volleyball
Courts
Courts
Volleyball
Volleyball
Courts
Courts
Basketball
Basketball
Courts
Courts
Ramada &
Ramada &
Restroom
Restroom
U6-U8
U6-U8
Field
Field
U6-U8
U6-U8
Field
Field
U6-U8
U6-U8
Field
Field
U9-U10
U9-U10
Field
Field
Ramada &
Ramada &
Restroom
Restroom
127
50
140
180
240
220
40
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
196
DRAFT
Bicycling and Pedestrian Element
Page 5‐15
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
CAMELBACK RD
GLENDALE AVE
NORTHERN AVE
OLIVE AVE
PEORIA AVE
CACTUS RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
GREENWAY RD
BELL RD
UNION HILLS DR
BEARDSLEY RD
DEER VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
GRAND AVE
59TH AVE
67TH AVE
75TH AVE
83RD AVE
91ST AVE
99TH AVE
107TH AVE
115TH AVE
EL MIRAGE RD
DYSART RD
LITCHFIELD RD
BULLARD AVE
REEMS RD
SARIVAL AVE
COTTON LN
CITRUS RD
PERRYVILLE RD
o
Luke AFB
Glendale
Municipal
Airport U
V
101
U
V
303
U
V
101
£
¤
60
S
k
un
k
Creek
New River
New River
Agua F
ria
R
i
ver
G
L
E
N HA
R
B
O
R
B
LVD
NOR
THERN PKW
Y
Glendale Bicycle and
Pedestrian Network
Figure 5
Sources: Glendale, 2014; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015.
Legend
Existing On-street Bikeway (collector streets)
Existing On-street Bikeway (arterial streets)
Existing Off-street Multi-use Pathway
Future On-street Bikeway (collector streets)
Future On-street Bikeway (arterial streets)
Future Off-street Multi-Use Pathway
Existing Pathway Underpass/Overpass
Future Pathway Underpass/Overpass
Glendale City Limits
Glendale Municipal Planning Area
Luke Air Force Base
Freeway / Highway
Major Arterial / Arterial
Railroad
River / Creek
Luke AFB
o
Airport
0
1
2
½
Mile
Envision Glendale 2040 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
197
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Pg. 1 of 3
Conceptual Layout | Concept “A”
1
14
1
10
7
1
2
13
17
15
13
20
19
9
4
4
18
5
6
8
Sahuaro Ranch Park
Keynote Legend
1.
Restore Historic Groves
Citrus
Date Palm
Pecan
Stone Fruit
Demonstration Field
2.
Make 59th the SRP district signature
streetscape from Mt. View to Brown with
enhanced intersections, signals, landscape,
paths, etc.
3.
Create a Guest Pavilion at the north end
of the central parking as the “hub” for
visitors, education, shopping, dining,
sales, etc.
4.
Create “Education Loop(s)” with brand,
signage, for both guided and self-guided
tours.
5.
Right size parking size and distribution
6.
Create drop zones in parking
7.
Add Shade along all walks and paths
8.
Add trees and islands w/ trees in parking
9.
Add roundabout on Mt. View
10.
Create and brand soft path walking
loops in the park and district. “Walk the
Park” attractions
11.
Renovate soccer field, expand to 200’ x 320’, switch to
artificial turf, remove fence, surround field with grove and
add shade pavilions making it a signature attraction
12.
Renovate north soccer fields, provide (2) 160’ x 260’
artificial turf soccer fields, install (3) 20’ x 40 Ramadas
13.
Rehab or rebuild existing restrooms,
review locations/distribution to optimize
14.
Reduce number of picnic tables/pads in
pecan grove
15. Complete Removal and Replacement of
Existing Playground Equipment
16. “The Lawn” Multi-Use Event and Education Space
with Shade pavilion
17. Destination Play and Water Play Area
18. Multi-Use Lawn Area
19. Rename Mountain View Road to Sahuaro Ranch Drive
20. Re brand the Area to Include Sahuaro Ranch as the Key
Element, i.e. Glendale Public Library at Sahuaro Ranch,
Glendale Community College at Sahuaro Ranch.
Concept Statements
- Provide Dining, Walking, Shopping, Socializing, Event, Botanical,
and Commercial Opportunities and Attractions
- Prepare a Structural Assessment for the Existing Historic
Buildings and Structures With Recommendations For Repairs
and Ongoing Maintenance
- Prepare a Drainage Assessment for the Historic Areas of the
Park Focusing on The Historic Buildings and Structures. Provide
Recommendations to Eliminate Flood Impacts to Buildings.
63rd Avenue
59th Avenue
Glendale Public Library
@ Sahuaro Ranch
Sahuaro Ranch Elem. School
Existing Parking Proposed Parking
Lot A
207
XXX
School Lot
Lot B
290
XXX
Ballfifield Lot
Lot C
245
XXX
Ramada Lot
Lot D
58
XXX
Historical Lot
Totals
742
XXX
Signage and Wayfifinding Legend
Create a District With Brand Identification and Wayfinding Signage
Entry Monument
Electronic Reader Board
Primary Directional
Secondary Directional
Educational / Historical Information
Brown St.
0
100'
200'
Glendale Community College
Parking Lots
Glendale Community College
at Sahuaro Ranch
Glendale Fire
Station No. 157
Sahuaro Ranch Dr.
1
16
3
5
6
8
5
6
8
SAHUARO RANCH
PARK DISTRICT
P
S
E
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
S
S
20
P
5
6
8
S
S
E
S
11
12
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
198
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Pg. 2 of 3
Conceptual Layout | Concept “B”
1
15
14
1
10
7
1
2
13
13
20
19
11
4
4
18
5
6
8
Sahuaro Ranch Park
Keynote Legend
1.
Restore Historic Groves
Citrus
Date Palm
Pecan
Stone Fruit
Demonstration Field
2.
Make 59th the SRP district signature
streetscape from Mt. View to Brown with
enhanced intersections, signals, landscape,
paths, etc.
3.
Create a Guest Pavilion at the north end
of the central parking as the “hub” for
visitors, education, shopping, dining,
sales, etc.
4.
Create “Education Loop(s)” with brand,
signage, for both guided and self-guided
tours.
5.
Right size parking size and distribution
6.
Create drop zones in parking
7.
Add Shade along all walks and paths
8.
Add trees and islands w/ trees in parking
9.
Add roundabout on Mt. View
10.
Create and brand soft path walking
loops in the park and district. “Walk the
Park” attractions
11.
Move Main Soccer Field North, Expand to 225’ x 360’,
Switch to Artificial Turf, surround field with grove and add
shade pavilions making it a signature attraction
12.
Reconfigure Sidewalks
13.
Rehab or rebuild existing restrooms,
review locations/distribution to optimize
14.
Reduce number of picnic tables/pads in
pecan grove
15. Complete Removal and Replacement of
Existing Playground Equipment
16. “The Lawn” Multi-Use Event and Education Space
with Shade pavilion
17. Destination Play and Water Play Area
18. Multi-Use Lawn Area
19. Rename Mountain View Road to Sahuaro Ranch Drive
20. Re brand the Area to Include Sahuaro Ranch as the Key
Element, i.e. Glendale Public Library at Sahuaro Ranch,
Glendale Community College at Sahuaro Ranch.
Concept Statements
- Provide Dining, Walking, Shopping, Socializing, Event, Botanical,
and Commercial Opportunities and Attractions
- Prepare a Structural Assessment for the Existing Historic
Buildings and Structures With Recommendations For Repairs
and Ongoing Maintenance
- Prepare a Drainage Assessment for the Historic Areas of the
Park Focusing on The Historic Buildings and Structures. Provide
Recommendations to Eliminate Flood Impacts to Buildings.
63rd Avenue
59th Avenue
Glendale Public Library
@ Sahuaro Ranch
Sahuaro Ranch Elem. School
Existing Parking Proposed Parking
Lot A
207
XXX
School Lot
Lot B
290
XXX
Ballfifield Lot
Lot C
245
XXX
Ramada Lot
Lot D
58
XXX
Historical Lot
Totals
742
XXX
Signage and Wayfifinding Legend
Create a District With Brand Identification and Wayfinding Signage
Entry Monument
Electronic Reader Board
Primary Directional
Secondary Directional
Educational / Historical Information
Brown St.
0
100'
200'
Glendale Community College
Parking Lots
Glendale Community College
at Sahuaro Ranch
Glendale Fire
Station No. 157
Sahuaro Ranch Dr.
1
16
3
5
6
6
8
17
5
6
8
SAHUARO RANCH
PARK DISTRICT
P
S
E
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
S
S
20
P
5
6
8
12
12
S
S
9
199
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Pg. 3 of 3
Photo Inspiration
Sahuaro Ranch Park
1
Shaded Walkway
5
Destination Playground
9
Outdoor Event Space
4
Destination Playground
8
Citrus Groves
12
Themed Roundabout @ Entry Drive
3
Pole Barn Event Space
7
Themed Splash Pad
11
Educational Opportunities
2
Shaded Walkway
6
Mutli Use Event Lawn
10
Pecan Groves
Tumbleweed Park | Chandler, Arizona
Atlanta Contemporary Art Center | Atlanta, Georgia
Murphy Bridle Path | Phoenix, Arizona
Pecan Groves | Queen Creek, Arizona
Roundabout Art Monuments | Bend, Oregon
Audubon Park | New Orleans, Louisiana
Peoria Sports Complex | Peoria, Arizona
Citrus Groves | Waddell, Arizona
Event Space | Palouse County, Idaho
Maggie Daly Park | Chicago, Illinois
200
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Conceptual Layout | 55th Avenue Trailhead
Pinnacle Peak Road
Keynote Legend
1. Hydroseed Disturbed Areas and
Existing Parking Areas
2. Proposed Parking Area to Match
Existing Parking: 165 Parking Stalls
3. Re-Configure Driveway Entrance
@ Intersection with Access Gate
and Treadle
4. Convert Drive into One Way Loop
5. Reclaim Edge and Revitalize with
Desert Demonstration Garden
6. Secondary Trailhead Breezeway:
Restroom, Classroom, and Shade
Structure
7. Trail Connection to Pinnacle
Peak Road
8. Aesthetic Screen Wall
9. Emergency Vehicle Access Only
with Gates
10. Entry Monument Signage
11. Secondary Signage Typ.
Coach Whip Trail
Flatlander Trail
New Trail Connection
General Notes:
- Remove Existing Restroom
Buildings (Refer to Park Overview
for Locations)
55th Avenue
2
6
11
7
4
5
11
5
1
1
1
1
Thunderbird Conservation Park
Pg. 2 of 5
8
9
5
8
3
5
10
8
5
CONCEPTUAL
ONLY
201
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Conceptual Layout | 59th Avenue Trailhead
Keynote Legend
1. Hydroseed Disturbed Areas and
Existing Parking Areas
2. Proposed Parking Areas to
Match Existing Parking: 169
Parking Stalls
3. Re-Configure Driveway Entrance
@ Intersection.
4. Convert Drive into One Way Loop
5. Modify Vehicular Circulation ,
Create “Silent Road” For Hikers and
Bikers
6. Revitalize Existing Amphitheater
and Old Drive into Desert
Demonstration Garden
7. Tertiary Trailhead Breezeway:
Bathroom and Shade Structure
8. Primary Trailhead Breezeway:
Indoor/Outdoor Classroom Space,
Restroom, Shade Structures
9. Entry Monument Signage
10. Secondary Signage Typ.
11. Barrier Free Trail
12. Dedicated Maintenance Area
Coach Whip Trail
Cholla Loop Trail
Sunrise Trail
General Notes:
- Remove Existing Restroom
Buildings (Refer to Park Overview
for Locations)
59th Avenue
59th Avenue
11
10
1
3
9
5
5
4
6
6
10
8
7
2
2
12
Thunderbird Conservation Park
Pg. 3 of 5
1
6
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
202
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Conceptual Layout | 67th Avenue Trailhead
67th Avenue
1
8
6
5
7
9
7
2
1
4
3
Keynote Legend
1. Hydroseed Disturbed Areas and
Existing Parking Areas
2. Proposed Parking Areas to
Match Existing Parking: 100
Parking Stalls
3. Re-Configure Driveway Entrance
@ Intersection with Access Gate
and Treadle
4. Re locate Entry Driveway to
Parking Lot
5. Convert Drive into One Way Loop
6. Modify Vehicular Circulation ,
Create “Silent Road” For Hikers and
Bikers
7. Reclaim Edge and Revitalize with
Desert Demonstration Garden
8. Tertiary Trailhead Breezeway:
Restroom and Shade Structure
9. Equestrian Parking
10. Entry Monument Signage
11. Secondary Signage Typ.
Coach Whip Trail
Sunrise Trail
Desert Iguana Trail
Desert Iguana
Connector
Chuckwalla Overlook
General Notes:
- Remove Existing Restroom
Buildings (Refer to Park Overview
for Locations)
Thunderbird Conservation Park
Pg. 4 of 5
10
11
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
203
DRAFT
2.2.2021
Photo Appendix
Thunderbird Conservation Park
Pg. 5 of 5
1
Shade Structure
5
Restroom Building
9
Trailhead Breezeway
4
Ranger Station
8
Desert Revegetation
12
Desert Revegetation
3
Trailhead Breezeway
7
Entry signage
11
Trail Signage
2
Shade Structure
6
Group Education
10
Trail Signage
Brown’s Ranch Trailhead | Scottsdale, Arizona
Piestewa Peak Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Liberty Wildlife | Phoenix, Arizona
Desert Hills Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Piestewa Peak Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Desert Hills Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
George “DOC” Cavalliere Park | Scottsdale, Arizona
Desert Hills Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Desert Hills Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Piestewa Peak Trailhead | Phoenix, Arizona
Deem Hills Trailhead and Park | Phoenix, Arizona
Deem Hills Trailhead and Park | Phoenix, Arizona
204
DRAFT
0
400'
800'
Thunderbird Conservation Park
Thunderbird Conservation Park Overview
Keynote Legend
Thunderbird Conservation Park Boundary
Coach Whip Trail
Cholla Loop Trail
Cholla Connector
Flatlander Trail
Arrowhead Point Trail
Sunrise Trail
Desert Iguana Trail
Desert Iguana Connector
Ridgeline Trail
Chuckwalla Overlook Trail
Remove/Re-vegetate Trail
“Silent” Road - Hiking and Service Only
Existing Restroom Building
1. 55th Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Trailhead See Pg. 2
for Proposed Improvements.
2. 59th Ave. Trailhead, See Pg. 3 for Proposed
Improvements
3. 67th Ave. Trailhead, See Pg. 4 for Proposed
Improvements.
4. Keep Existing Ramadas, Remove Existing Restroom
5. Walk In Trailhead
6. Amphitheater Steps - To be Turned into Interpretative
Botanical Garden Walk
7. Monument Sign
8. Wildlife Viewing Areas
9. Sediment Basin / Retention Area
67th Ave
67th Ave
59th Ave
59th Ave
51st Ave
51st Ave
59th Ave
59th Ave
67th Ave
67th Ave
55th Ave
55th Ave
Pinnacle Peak Rd
Pinnacle Peak Rd
Arrowhead
Arrowhead
Ranch
Ranch
Legend Springs
Legend Springs
Elementary
Elementary
School
School
Arrowhead
Arrowhead
Lakes
Lakes
Saddleback
Saddleback
Hills
Hills
The
The
500
500
Club
Club
Las Brisas
Las Brisas
Elementary
Elementary
School
School
Bayer
Bayer
Private
Private
School
School
51st Ave
51st Ave
Pg. 1 of 5
2.2.2021
9
3
7
7
5
1
2
8
8
7
6
4
205
DRAFT
Appendix F: Parks and Recreation
Influencing Trends
The changing pace of today’s world requires analyzing recreation trends from both a local and national
level. Understanding the participation levels of city residents using data from the U.S. Census Bureau,
combined with research of relevant national recreation trends, provides critical insights that help to plan
for the future of parks and recreation. These new shifts of participation in outdoor recreation, sports, and
cultural programs are an important component of understanding and serving your community.
Part I: Recreation Behavior and Expenditures of Glendale Citizens
•
Local Recreational Expenditures
•
Outdoor Recreation Behavior
•
Fitness and Health Behavior
•
Team Sport Participation
Part II: Parks and Recreation Trends Relevant to Glendale
•
Community Events and Festivals
•
Community Gardens
•
Conservation
•
Cultural Tourism
•
Food Trucks
•
Generational Trends in Recreation
•
Impacts of Homelessness
•
Marketing & Social Media
•
Nature Programming/Nature Deficit Disorder
•
Older Adults and Senior Programming
•
Outdoor Fitness Trails
•
Pickleball
•
Preventative Health
•
Recreational Preferences by Ethnicity
•
Signage and Wayfinding
•
Urban Park Revenue
Part I: Recreation Behavior and Expenditures of Glendale Households
Local Recreational Expenditures
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides insights about consumer expenditures per household
in 2019. The following information was sourced from ESRI Business Analyst, which provides a database of
programs and services where Glendale residents spend their money. The table below shows the average
dollars spent on various recreational products/services. Money spent on Sports/Rec/Exercise Equipment
related to Entertainment and Recreation generated the highest revenues of $15.4 million per year in
Glendale.
206
DRAFT
Table 38: Recreational Expenditures in Glendale, AZ
Outdoor Recreation Behavior
In Figure 78, data from ESRI Business Analyst shows popular outdoor recreation activity participation by
households in Glendale. Participation was also pulled from the State of Arizona for comparison. The most
popular activities in the Glendale included:
•
Jogging or Running (13%)
•
Hiking (11 %)
•
Fishing (Fresh Water) (10%)
Figure 78: Outdoor Recreation Behavior of Glendale compared to the State of Arizona
207
DRAFT
Fitness and Health Behavior
The figure below shows household participation in various fitness activities. Participation was higher in
Glendale than the State of Arizona, specifically for the following activities:
•
Walking for Exercise (23%)
•
Swimming (15%)
•
Weight Lifting (10%)
Figure 80: Fitness and Wellness Participation of Glendale compared to the State of Arizona
Team Sport Participation
According to census data, households in Glendale had highest participation in basketball (8%), followed
by football (5%), baseball, soccer, tennis, and volleyball (4%).
Figure 80: Team Sport Household Participation in Glendale compared to State of Arizona
208
DRAFT
Part II: Parks and Recreation Trends Relevant to Glendale
Community Events and Festivals
In the context of urban development, from the early 1980’s there has been a process that can be
characterized as “festivalization,” which has been linked to the economic restructuring of towns and
cities, and the drive to develop communities as large-scale platforms for the creation and consumption
of “cultural experience.”
The success rate for festivals should not be evaluated simplistically solely on the basis of profit (sales),
prestige (media profile), size (numbers of events). Research by the European Festival Research Project
(EFRP)1 indicates there is evidence of local and city government supporting and even instigating and
managing particular festivals themselves to achieve local or regional economic objectives, often defined
very narrowly (sales, jobs, tourists). There is also a growing number of smaller, more local, community-
based festivals and events in communities, most often supported by local councils that have been
spawned partly as a reaction to larger festivals that have become prime economic-drivers. These
community-based festivals often will re-claim cultural ground based on their social, educational, and
participative value. For more information on the values of festivals and events, see the CRC Sustainable
Tourism research guide2 on this topic.
Community Gardens
Communities around the country are building community gardens for a number of far-reaching
environmental and social impacts. According to GreenLeaf Communities, which supports scientific
research in environmental and human health, community gardens offer benefits including:3
Some studies show that community gardens can improve the well-being of the entire community by
bringing residents together and creating social ties. This activity can reduce crime, particularly if gardens
are utilized in vacant lots. In fact, vacant land has the opposite effect of community gardens, including
increased litter, chemical and tire dumping, drug use, and decreased property values. By creating
community gardens, neighborhoods can teach useful skills in gardening, food production, selling,
and business. The National Recreation and Park Association published an in-depth guide to building a
community garden in parks through the Grow Your Park Initiative, which can be found on their website.4
1 EFRP is an international consortium seeking to understand the current explosion of festivals and its implications and
perspective. http://www.efa-aef.eu/en/activities/efrp/, accessed October 2012.
2 Ben Janeczko, Trevor Mules, Brent Ritchie, “Estimating the Economic Impacts of Festivals and Events: A Research Guide,”
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, 2002, http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com/1005/events/estimating-
the-economic-impacts-of-festivals-and-events-a-research-guide, accessed October 2012.
3 Katie DeMuro, “The Many Benefits of Community Gardens” Greenleaf Communities, https://greenleafcommunities.org/the-
many-benefits-of-community-gardens, accessed January 2019
4 Laurie Harmon and Laurel Harrington, “Building a Community Garden in Your Park: Opportunities for Health, Community, and
Recreation.” National Recreation and Park Association, https://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Grants_and_Partners/
Environmental_Conservation/Community-Garden-Handbook.pdf, accessed January 2019
209
DRAFT
Conservation
One of the key pillars of parks and recreation is the role that it plays in conservation. Managing and
protecting open space, providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and educating
communities about conservation are all incredibly important. One of the key components of
conservation is addressing climate change. Local parks and recreation can help by building climate
resilient communities through water management, green infrastructure, and sustainability. A report by
NRPA in 2017 titled “Park and Recreation Sustainability Practices” surveyed over 400 park and recreation
agencies and found the top five ways that local departments are taking action on conservation and
climate change include:
•
Alternative Transportation – 77% reduce carbon footprint through offering transportation
alternatives
•
Watershed Management – 70% adopt protective measures for watershed management
•
Air Quality – 53% plant and manage tree canopy that improves air quality
•
Sustainable Education – 52% educate the public about sustainability practices
•
Stormwater Management – 51% proactivity reduce stormwater through green infrastructure5
Cultural Tourism & Public Art
Public Art is a one aspect of cultural tourism that creates valuable revenue potential. According to the
World Tourism Organization, cultural tourism involves visiting sites with historical and cultural value,
which “creates admiration, national pride, and the rediscovery of our achievements of our ancestors.” A
2012 global survey by the World Tourism Organization identified six key categories for cultural tourism:
Food Trucks
It is estimated that in 2017, the food truck industry accounted for
approximately $2.7 billion in food revenue. Popularity has increased
since the late 2000’s, partly because of the hit on brick and mortar
businesses, and partly because of the ability of social media to connect
on-the-go businesses with consumers. According to the 2015 Harvard
Kenny School Article “On the Go: Insights into Food Truck Regulation,”
the rise of food trucks placed a responsibility on city officials to regulate
and enforce policies related to four main areas: Economic Activity, Public
Health, Public Safety, and Public Space.6
In regard to public space, cities like Portland, Oregon, have established a set of regulations that promote
economic development by encouraging the use of vacant lots. These vacant lots are turning into “Food
truck hubs,” which help improve the aesthetics of the area and deter crime. Information and regulations
are easily found online which facilitates the creation of new food truck businesses. Centralizing the
permitting process for mobile food vendors also assists with getting new businesses on the road.
5 NRPA, “NRPA Report: Park and Recreation Sustainability Practices,”2017. https://www.nrpa.org/our-work/Three-Pillars/
conservation/climate-resilient-parks/
6 On the Go: Insights into Food Truck Regulation, Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center, 2015: https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/
sites/default/files/2018-01/On_the_Go.pdf
Figure 81: Six Pivotal Areas as the Basis of Cultural Tourism
210
DRAFT
Generational Trends in Recreation
Activity participation varies based on age, but it also varies based on generational preferences. In regard
to generational activity, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) report, Millennials
had the highest percentage of those who were “active to a healthy level,” but a quarter also remained
sedentary. Nearly 28 percent of Generation X were inactive, with Baby Boomers at 33 percent inactive.
Baby Boomers prefer low impact fitness activities such as swimming, cycling aquatic exercise, and
walking for fitness.
Baby Boomers
As Baby Boomers enter retirement, they will be looking for opportunities in fitness, sports, outdoors,
arts and cultural events, and other activities that suit their lifestyles. With their varied life experiences,
values, and expectations, Baby Boomers are predicted to redefine the meaning of recreation and
leisure programming for mature adults. Boomers are second only to Generation Y and Millennials in
participation in fitness and outdoor sports.7
Boomers look to park and recreation professionals to provide opportunities to enjoy many life-long
hobbies and sports. When programming for this age group, a customized experience to cater to the need
for self-fulfillment, healthy pleasure, nostalgic youthfulness, and individual escapes will be important.
Recreation trends will shift from games and activities that boomers associate with senior citizens. Ziegler
suggests that activities such as bingo, bridge, and shuffleboard will likely be avoided because boomers
relate these activities with old age.
Generation X
This generational group is comprised of individuals in the 37 to 52-year old age range. Many members of
this generation are in the peak of their careers, raising families, and growing their connections within the
community. As suggested by the 2017 Participation Report from the Physical Activity Council, members
7 Physical Activity Council, 2012 Participation Report, 2012.
Figure 82: Generational Trends
211
DRAFT
of Generation X were “all or nothing” in terms of their levels of physical activity; with 37 percent
reported as highly active, and 27 percent reported as completely inactive. As further noted in the Report,
over 50 percent of Generation X was likely to have participated in fitness and outdoor sports activities.
An additional 37 percent participated in individual sports.
The Millennial Generation
The Millennial Generation is generally considered those born between about 1981 and 1996, and in April
2016, the Pew Research Center reported that this generation had surpassed the Baby Boomers as the
nation’s most populous age group.8
As Millennials tend to be more tech-savvy, socially conscious, achievement-driven age group with more
flexible ideas about balancing wealth, work and play. They generally prefer different park amenities, and
recreational programs, as opposed to their counterparts in the Baby Boomer generation. Engagement
with this generation should be considered in parks and recreation planning. In an April 2015 posting
to the National Parks and Recreation Association’s official blog, Open Space, Scott Hornick, CEO of
Adventure Solutions suggests the following seven things to consider to make your parks millennial
friendly:9
1. Group activities are appealing.
2. Wireless internet/Wi-Fi access is a must – being connected digitally is a millennial status-quo, and
sharing experiences in real time is something Millennials enjoying doing.
3. Having many different experiences is important – Millennials tend to participate in a broad range of
activities.
4. Convenience and comfort are sought out.
5. Competition is important, and Millennials enjoy winning, recognition, and earning rewards.
6. Facilities that promote physical activity, such as trails and sports fields, and activities like adventure
races are appealing.
7. Many Millennials own dogs, and want places they can recreate with them.
In addition to being health conscious, Millennials often look for local and relatively inexpensive ways to
experience the outdoors close to home; on trails, bike paths, and in community parks.10
Generation Z
As of the 2010 Census, the age group under age 18 forms about a quarter of the U.S. population.
Nationwide, nearly half of the youth population is ethnically diverse and 25 percent is Hispanic.
Characteristics cited for Generation Z, the youth of today, include:11
1. The most obvious characteristic for Generation Z is the widespread use of technology.
2. Generation Z members live their lives online and they love sharing both the intimate and mundane
details of life.
3. They tend to be acutely aware that they live in a pluralistic society and tend to embrace diversity.
4. Generation Z tend to be independent. They don’t wait for their parents to teach them things or tell
them how to make decisions, they Google it.
8 Richard Fry, “Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s Largest Generation”, Pew Research Center Fact Tank, April 25,2
016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/, accessed May 2015
9 Scott Hornick, “7 Ways to Make Your Park More Millennial Friendly”, Parks and Recreation Open Space Blog, August 19, 2015,
http://www.nrpa.org/blog/7-ways-to-make-your-parks-millennial-friendly, accessed May 2016
10 “Sneakernomics: How The ‘Outdoor’ Industry Became The ‘Outside’ Industry”, Forbes, September 21, 2015, http://
www.forbes.com/sites/mattpowell/2015/09/21/sneakernomics-how-the-outdoor-industry-became-the-outside-
industry/2/#50958385e34d, accessed May 2016
11 Alexandra Levit, “Make Way for Generation Z”, New York Times, March 28, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/jobs/
make-way-for-generation-z.html, accessed May 2016
212
DRAFT
With regard to physical activity, a 2013 article published by academics at Georgia Southern University
noted that the prevalence of obesity in Generation Z (which they describe as individuals born since the
year 2000) is triple that of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1981). It suggests that due to increased
use of technology, Generation Z spends more time indoors, is less physically active, and more obese
compared to previous generations. The researchers noted that Generation Z seeks social support from
peers more so than any previous generation. This is the most competent generation from a technological
standpoint, but Generation Z also tends to fear, and often struggles with, some basic physical activities
and sports.
Homelessness
Around the country, parks and recreation agencies are faced with a growing concern of homeless
populations in their area. Many municipalities may assume that they have the unique challenge of
manage homelessness, but in fact thousands of agencies are currently developing initiatives and pilot
programs to determine the best way of addressing the issue.
Often, homeless populations may use park benches, shady trees, campgrounds, amphitheaters, and
recreation facilities to sustain their livelihood. In fact, a survey administered by GP RED, a non-profit
dedicated to the research, education, and development of parks and recreation agencies, asked 150
agencies questions specifically about how they were managing homelessness in their communities. As
seen in the figure below, many agencies offer services far beyond traditional “parks and recreation”
services. Restroom facilities are the number one facility offered by agencies, but electricity/charging
stations, showers, fitness/health and wellness, and food assistance were in the top five.
Figure 83: Are the following services are offered to the homeless population by parks and recreation
agencies in your community?
Source: GP RED Homelessness Redline Survey 2018
213
DRAFT
This has consequences for park and facility managers – in addition to impacts on the perception of park
visitors. Concerns over drug and alcohol use by homeless populations, in addition to managing hepatitis
outbreaks, are serious issues. Often, seasonal or part-time parks and recreation employees may be
the first line of enforcement. A lack of training, policies, and communication continue to exasperate
the issue. Proactive management is a preferred way of managing the issue, but most often, parks and
recreation agencies do not work with the root of an individual reasons for being homeless. Rather,
agencies are left to deal with homelessness on a case by case basis.
Noted in the figure below, oftentimes management is a balance of prevention and enforcement. The
majority of parks and recreation agencies utilize ad-hoc tactics by some agencies and rely on non-
profits for other services. Over 27 percent of respondents said that often city agencies were working
on various components of the homeless issue, but not necessarily coordinated together to succeed.
Only 23 percent said that there is citywide coordination which spanned across agencies and non-profits.
These kinds of coordinated efforts are key to accomplishing the appropriate balance of prevention and
enforcement.
Figure 84: Tactical Approaches to Managing Homelessness
Source: GP RED Homelessness Redline Survey 2018
214
DRAFT
When asked how effective agencies were in dealing with unauthorized camping, over 77 percent of
agencies states they were not at all effective or neither effective/ineffective. Zero percent of respondents
said that they were extremely effective of dealing with unauthorized camping in parks and public spaces.
Currently, successful initiatives for dealing with unauthorized camping are still in development.
Figure 85: How effective is your community/ is your organization?
Source: GP RED Homelessness Redline Survey 2018
215
DRAFT
Marketing and Social Media
Awareness of parks and recreation services is critical to the success of any agency. According to a study
in collaboration with the National Recreation and Park Association and GP RED of approximately 35,000
responses, one of the primary reasons that patrons do not participate in programs and services is due to
lack of awareness.
In today’s modern world, there is ample opportunity to promote and market parks and recreation
services. It begins with a needs assessment that details how the community prefers to receive
information. Then, a marketing plan should be developed that is catered to the agency’s resources,
including staff, time, and budget. This should guide the agency for one to three years.
Technology has made it easier to reach a wide-reaching, location-dependent audience which can be
segmented by demographics. However, it has also caused a gap in the way parks and recreation agencies
are able to communicate. Agencies around the country have previously not dedicated substantial
funding to marketing, however it is becoming a critical piece to receiving participants. Without dedicated
staff and support, it is difficult to keep up with social media trends which seem to change daily.
Furthermore, with an overarching desire to standardize a municipalities’ brand, there may be limitations
to the access and control that a parks and recreation agency has over their marketing. It is essential
that professionals become advocates for additional resources, training, and education. Having a strong
presence on social networks, through email marketing, and through traditional marketing will help
enhance the perception from the community.
Nature Play
Playing in nature is an educational opportunity that has numerous benefits, from increasing active and
healthy lifestyles, to developing a conservation mindset, to understanding the ecosystems and wildlife
that depend on them.12 According to the report, “Nature Play & Learning Places: Creating and Managing
Places where Children Engage with Nature” there is a genuine need in today’s society for learning spaces
that spark creative play with natural materials, such as plants, vines, shrubs, rocks, water, logs, and
12 Moore, R. (2014). Nature Play & Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Raleigh, NC: Natural
Learning Initiative and Reston, VA: National Wildlife Federation
216
DRAFT
other elements. This is the premise of the concept of Nature Play, which is defined as:
Nature Play spaces can provide valuable lessons for children, not only in regards to learning their natural
environment and appreciation for nature, but also for personal development. These spaces, similar
to playgrounds, provide safe spaces to take risks and understand behavioral outcomes. One of the
most essential elements in planning Nature Play spaces is to conduct a risk assessment to reduce the
unnecessary potential of injury. For instance, natural objects such as logs and boulders may be placed
strategically for climbing, but consider where the child might land if he or she were to fall or jump off.
Similarly, trees can be used as natural climbing features, with consideration to removing shrubs and
nearby smaller trees below. Nature Play can happen in forest-based schools, play zoos, gardens, and
summer camps. American Camp Association reported that there are approximately 5,000 day camps that
currently operate in the U.S.
Older Adults and Senior Programming
Many older adults and seniors are choosing to maintain active lifestyles and recognize the health
benefits of regular physical activities. With the large number of adults in these age cohorts, many
communities have found a need to offer more programming, activities, and facilities that support the
active lifestyle this generation desires.
As Baby Boomers enter retirement, they will be looking for opportunities in fitness, sports, outdoors,
arts and cultural events, and other activities that suit their lifestyles. With their varied life experiences,
values, and expectations, Baby Boomers are predicted to redefine the meaning of recreation and
leisure programming for mature adults. Boomers are second only to Generation Y and Millennials in
participation in fitness and outdoor sports.13
Boomers will look to park and recreation professionals to provide opportunities to enjoy many life-long
hobbies and sports. When programming for this age group, a customized experience to cater to the need
for self-fulfillment, healthy pleasure, nostalgic youthfulness, and individual escapes will be important.
Recreation trends will shift from games and activities that boomers associate with senior citizens. Ziegler
suggests that activities such as bingo, bridge, and shuffleboard will likely be avoided because boomers
relate these activities with old age.
Public parks and recreation agencies are increasingly expected to be significant providers of such
services and facilities. The American Academy of Sports Medicine issues a yearly survey of the top 20
fitness trends.14 Whether it’s Silver Sneakers, a freestyle low-impact cardio class, or water aerobics, more
Americans are realizing the many benefits of staying active throughout life. According to the National
Sporting Goods Association, popular senior programming trends include hiking, birding, and swimming.
13 Physical Activity Council, 2012 Participation Report, 2012.
14 American College of Sports Medicine, “Survey Predicts Top 20 Fitness Trends for 2015”, http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/
media-room/news-releases/2014/10/24/survey-predicts-top-20-fitness-trends-for-2015, accessed January 2015.
217
DRAFT
Outdoor Fitness Trails
A popular trend in urban parks with trail use for health, wellness, and
fitness activities is to install outdoor fitness equipment along the trails.
These kinds of exercise stations have been modernized to withstand
weather and heavy use. These can be spaced out or a more popular
option is to cluster the fitness apparatus just off the trail with a peaceful
and pleasing view of nature or playgrounds.
Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor recreation has become a thriving economic driver, creating 7.6 million jobs in 2018 and
generating $65.3 billion in federal tax revenue. Close to half of the US population six and older
participated in at least one outdoor activity in 2017. The most popular activity was running – which
included both jogging and trail running. Participation among Hispanics and Asians has increased by 1.0
percent and 0.9 percent in the last five years, respectively.15
In the State of Arizona, the outdoor recreation economy generates:
•
201,000 direct jobs
•
$21.2 billion in consumer spending
•
$5.7.4 billion in wages and salaries
•
$1.4 billion in state and local tax revenue
There is good evidence that American’s want for outdoor recreation drives commerce. Current figures
for consumer spending on outdoor recreation are greater than $887 billion dollars annually. This means
Americans spend more money on outdoor recreation than they do on motor vehicles and parts, or
household utilities, or pharmaceuticals and gas/fuel combined.
Not only does outdoor Recreation encourage consumer spending on recreation products, trips and
travel, it also provides employment for more than 7.6 million Americans. Our country is a global leader
in recreation, and the demand of our citizens creates jobs and careers for many highly skilled workers
in a wide variety of professions. The Bureau of Labor statistics finds, for example, that more Americans
directly employed in the industry of hunting and fishing than are employed in oil and gas extraction.
There are also more people employed in recreational motorcycling and off-roading than there are
lawyers in the US. Outdoor recreation is creating healthier communities, providing positive past times,
driving commerce, and it is the livelihood of millions of Americans.
15 Outdoor Industry Association, Accessed January 2020: https://outdoorindustry.org/
218
DRAFT
Figure 88: Number of Jobs by Industry
Pickleball
Pickleball continues to be a fast-growing sport throughout America. Considered a mix between tennis,
ping pong, and badminton, the sport initially grew in popularity with older adults. However, now the
sport is being taught in schools across the country. Pickleball will continue to grow, judging by its growth
in just the last several years. From 2016 to 2017, pickleball grew 12.3 percent to 2.815 million players.
Dedicated pickleball courts are desired by avid players, rather than playing on striped tennis courts.
Figure 88: Pickleball Trends
219
DRAFT
Preventative Health
Research has shown conclusively that parks and recreation agencies can use systems thinking
approaches to have a beneficial effect on modifiable health behaviors by helping to address:
•
Increased physical activity
•
Enhanced social and parental engagement
•
Improved nutrition
•
Better transportation and access to facilities and spaces
•
Perceptions of personal and community safety
•
Reduced smoking, alcohol, and drug use
Five primary factors and corresponding indicators have been deduced from the literature reviews and
additional validation. These factors include: 1) nutrition regimen; 2) social interaction; 3) transportation
services; 4) physical activity; and 5) safety.
Community-specific indicators and factors can be evaluated through various processes and then
addressed through collaborations with a variety of community partners or “actors”, such as schools,
public health, medical, other governmental agencies, private and non-profit sectors.16
The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space, a report from the Trust for
Public Land, makes the following observations about the health, economic, environmental, and social
benefits of parks and open space:17
•
Physical activity makes people healthier.
•
Physical activity increases with access to parks.
•
Contact with the natural world improves physical and physiological health.
•
Residential and commercial property values increase.
•
Value is added to community and economic development sustainability.
•
Benefits of tourism are enhanced.
•
Trees are effective in improving air quality and act as natural air conditioners.
•
Trees assist with storm water control and erosion.
•
Crime and juvenile delinquency are reduced.
•
Recreational opportunities for all ages are provided.
•
Stable neighborhoods and strong communities are created.
Multiculturalism/Racial Diversity
As the recreation field continues to function within a more diverse society, race and ethnicity
will become increasingly important in every aspect of the profession. More than ever, recreation
professionals will be expected to work with, and have significant knowledge and understanding
of, individuals from many cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. According to the 2018 Outdoor
Participation Report, participation rates among diverse groups is evolving quickly, even in the last
ten years. African-Americans have participation rates less than 40 percent consistently in the last
decade. Meanwhile, Asians have increased in participation since 2011, reaching over 50 percent in
2016. Hispanics are also increasing participation. The figure below, sourced from the 2018 Outdoor
Participation Report, demonstrates these changes since 2009.
16 Penbrooke, T.L. (2017). Local parks and recreation agencies use of systems thinking to address preventive public health
factors. (Doctoral Dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from: http://www.gpred.org/resources/
under PhD Dissertations.
17 Paul M. Sherer, “The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space,” The Trust for Public Land, San
Francisco, CA, 2006
220
DRAFT
Figure 88: Participation Rates Among Diverse Groups Over Time (All Americans, Ages 6+)
Source: 2018 Outdoor Participation Report, Outdoor Industry Association
Participation in outdoor activities is higher among Caucasians than any other ethnicity, and lowest
among African Americans in nearly all age groups. Figure 89 demonstrates that those under 18 have
much higher participation rates than all other age groups.
Figure 89: Participation Rates Among Diverse Groups by Age (All Americans, Ages 6+)
Source: 2018 Outdoor Participation Report, Outdoor Industry Association
221
DRAFT
According to the report by the Outdoor Industry Association, there are a variety of reasons why people
do and do not participate. Many of those reasons are similar regardless of demographics, but it is helpful
to look at the top motivations of each race to understand potential barriers. Below is a compiled list of
the motivations and reasons that various races participate, as well as the top activities that each group
participates in.
African Americans
Asian Americans
222
DRAFT
Research about outdoor recreation among Asian Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area (Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, and Filipino)18 found significant differences among the four groups concerning the
degree of linguistic acculturation (preferred language spoken in various communication media). The
research suggests that communications related to recreation and natural resource management should
appear in ethnic media, but the results also suggest that Asian Americans should not be viewed as
homogeneous with regard to recreation-related issues. Another study19 found that technology use for
finding outdoor recreation opportunities is highest among Asian/Pacific Islander populations. Over 60
percent of these populations use stationary or mobile technology in making decisions regarding outdoor
recreation.
18 P.L. Winter, W.C. Jeong, G.C. Godbey, “Outdoor Recreation among Asian Americans: A Case Study of San Francisco Bay Area
Residents,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2004.
19 Harry Zinne and Alan Graefe, “Emerging Adults and the Future of Wild Nature,” International Journal of Wildness, December
2007.
Caucasians
Hispanics
223
DRAFT
In the United States, the Hispanic population increased by 43 percent over the last decade, compared
to five percent for the non-Hispanic population, and accounted for more than half of all the population
growth. According to Emilyn Sheffield, the growing racial and ethnic diversity is particularly important to
recreation and leisure service providers, as family and individual recreation patterns and preferences are
strongly shaped by cultural influences.20
Shade Structures
Communities around the country are considering adding shade structures as well as shade trees to their
parks, playgrounds, and pools, as “a weapon against cancer and against childhood obesity”21 in an effort
to reduce future cancer risk and promote exercise among children. A study found that melanoma rates
in people under 20 rose three percent a year between 1973 and 2001, possibly due to a thinning of the
ozone layer in the atmosphere. It is recommended that children seek shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
but with so little shade available, kids have nowhere to go. Additionally, without adequate shade, many
play areas are simply too hot to be inviting to children. On sunny days, the playground equipment is hot
enough to scald the hands of would-be users.
Trees would help provide protection, as tree leaves absorb about 95 percent of ultraviolet radiation,
but they take a decade or more to grow large enough to make a difference. So, many communities are
building shade structures instead. The non-profit Shade Foundation of American is a good resource for
information about shade and shade structures (www.shadefoundation.org).
Signage and Wayfinding
To increase perception and advocacy, a parks and recreation professional needs to prioritize
opportunities that impact the way the community experiences the system. This can start with signage,
wayfinding, and park identity. The importance of signage, wayfinding, and park identity to encourage
awareness of locations and amenities cannot be understated. A park system impacts the widest range of
users in a community; reaching users, and non-users, across all demographic, psychographic, behavioral,
and geographic markets. In a narrower focus, the park system is the core service an agency can use
to provide value to its community (ex. partnerships between departments or commercial/residential
development, high-quality and safe experiences for users, inviting community landscaping contributing
to the overall look or image of the community). Signage, wayfinding, and park identity can be the first
step in continued engagement by the community, and a higher perception or awareness of a park
system; which can lead to an increase in health outcomes.
Cary, NC is a good example of a city who has implemented a cohesive and comprehensive Wayfinding,
Signage, and Identity Plan, as depicted in the images below. The key element is that each sign and
wayfinding device provides a cohesive identity that help residents identify parks and recreation holdings
and point to their awareness. In a city of trees, such as Cary, staff believes this has greatly helped
resident knowledge and awareness.
20 Emilyn Sheffield, “Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today,” Parks and Recreation, July 2012, p. 16-17.
21 Liz Szabo, “Shade: A weapon against skin cancer, childhood obesity”, USA Today, June 30, 2011, www.usatoday.30.usatoday.com/news/
health/wellness/story/2011/06/Shade-serves-as-a –weapon-against-skin-cancer-childhood-obesity/48965070/1, accessed May 2015
224
DRAFT
Figure 90: Cary, NC Site-Specific Signage
Figure 91: Cary, Directional Signage
225
DRAFT
Appendix G: GRASP® Methodology
and Using the Data to Make Informed
Decisions
A. GRASP® Glossary
Buffer: see catchment area
Catchment area: a circular map overlay that radiates outward in all directions from an asset and
represents a reasonable travel distance from the edge of the circle to the asset. Used to indicate access
to an asset in a Level of Service assessment
Component: an amenity such as a playground, picnic shelter, basketball court, or athletic field that allows
people to exercise, socialize, and maintain a healthy physical, mental, and social wellbeing
Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Process® (GRASP®): a proprietary composite-values methodology
that takes quality and functionality of assets and amenities into account in a Level of Service assessment
GRASP® Level of Service (LOS): the extent to which a recreation system provides community access to
recreational assets and amenities
GRASP®-IT audit tool: an instrument developed for assessing the quality and other characteristics of
parks, trails, and other public lands and facilities. The tested, reliable, and valid tool, is used to conduct
inventories of more than 100 park systems nationwide.
Low-score component: a component given a GRASP® score of “1” or “0” as it fails to meet expectations
Lower-service area: an area of a city that has some GRASP® Level of Service but falls below the minimum
standard threshold for the overall Level of Service
Modifier: a basic site amenity that supports users during a visit to a park or recreation site, to include
elements such as restrooms, shade, parking, drinking fountains, seating, BBQ grills, security lighting, and
bicycle racks among others
No-service area: an area of a city with no GRASP® Level of Service
Perspective: a perspective is a map or data quantification, such as a table or chart, produced using the
GRASP® methodology that helps illustrate how recreational assets serve a community
Radius: see catchment area
Recreational connectivity: the extent to which community recreational resources are transitionally
linked to allow for easy and enjoyable travel between them.
Recreational trail: A recreation trail can be a soft or hard-surfaced off-street path that promotes active
or passive movement through parklands or natural areas. Recreational trails are typically planned and
managed by parks and recreation professionals or departments.
226
DRAFT
Service area: all or part of a catchment area ascribed a particular GRASP® score that reflects the Level of
Service provided by a particular recreational asset, a set of assets, or an entire recreation system
Threshold: a minimum Level of Service standard typically determined based on community expectations
Trail: any off-street or on-street connection dedicated to pedestrian, bicycle, or other non-motorized
users
Trail network: A trail network is a functional and connected part of a trail system within which major
barrier crossings, including such things as crosswalks, pedestrian underpasses, or bridges. Different
networks are separate from other trail networks by missing trail connections or by such barriers as
roadways, rivers, or railroad tracks.
Trail system: all trails in a community that serve pedestrian, bicycle, and alternative transportation users
for purposes of both recreation and transportation
Transportation trail: A transportation trail is a hard surface trail, such as a city sidewalk, intended for
traveling from one place to another in a community or region. These trails typically run outside of
parklands and are managed by Public Works or another city utility department.
B. GRASP® Components and Definitions
Table 39: GRASP® Outdoor Component List
GRASP® Outdoor Component Type
Definition
Adventure Course
An area designated for activities such as ropes
courses, zip-lines, challenge courses. The type
specified in the comments.
Amusement Ride
Carousel, train, go-carts, bumper cars, or other
ride-upon features. The ride has an operator and
controlled access.
Aquatics, Complex
An aquatic complex has at least one immersion
pool and other features intended for aquatic
recreation.
Aquatics, Lap Pool
A human-made basin designed for people to
immerse themselves in water and intended for
swimming laps.
Aquatics, Leisure Pool
A human-made basin designed for people to
immerse themselves in water and intended for
leisure water activities. May include zero-depth
entry, slides, and spray features.
Aquatics, Spray Pad
A water play feature without immersion intended
for interaction with moving water.
Aquatics, Therapy Pool
A therapy pool is a temperature-controlled pool
intended for rehabilitation and therapy.
Basketball Court
A dedicated full-sized outdoor court with two
goals.
227
DRAFT
Basketball, Practice
A basketball goal for half-court play or practice
that includes goals in spaces associated with other
uses.
Batting Cage
A batting cage is a stand-alone facility that has
pitching machines and restricted entry.
Bike Complex
A bike complex accommodates various bike skills
activities with multiple features or skill areas.
Bike Course
A designated area for non-motorized bicycle use,
constructed of concrete, wood, or compacted
earth. May include a pump track, velodrome, skills
course.
Camping, Defined
Defined campsites may include a variety of
facilities such as restrooms, picnic tables, water
supply. Use the official agency count for quantity if
available.
Camping, Undefined
Indicates allowance for users to stay overnight
in the outdoors in undefined sites. Undefined
camping receives a quantity of one for each
park or location. Use this component when the
quantity of sites is not available or for dispersed
camping.
Climbing, Designated
A designated natural or human-made facility
provided or managed by an agency for recreation
climbing not limited to play.
Climbing, General
Indicates allowance for users to participate in a
climbing activity. Use a quantity of one for each
park or other location.
Concession
A facility used for the selling, rental, or other
provision of goods and services to the public.
Diamond Field
Softball and baseball fields, suitable for organized
diamond sports games. Not specific to size or age-
appropriateness.
Diamond Field, Complex
Many ballfields at a single location suitable for
tournaments.
Diamond Field, Practice
An open or grassy area used for the practice of
diamond sports. Distinguished from ballfield in
that it doesn’t lend itself to organized diamond
sports games and from open turf by the presence
of a backstop.
Disc Golf
A designated area for disc golf.
Quantities: 18 hole course = 1; 9 hole course = .5
Dog Park
An area explicitly designated as an off-leash area
for dogs and their guardians.
228
DRAFT
Educational Experience
Signs, structures, or features that provide an
educational, cultural, or historical experience.
Assign a quantity of one for each contiguous site.
Distinguished from public art by the presence of
interpretive signs or other information.
Equestrian Facility
Signs, structures, or features that provide an
educational, cultural, or historical experience.
Assign a quantity of one for each contiguous site.
Distinguished from public art by the presence of
interpretive signs or other information.
Event Space
A designated area or facility for an outdoor class,
performance, or special event, including an
amphitheater, bandshell, stage.
Fitness Course
Features intended for personal fitness activities.
A course receives a quantity of one for each
complete grouping.
Game Court
Outdoor court designed for a game other than
tennis, basketball, volleyball, as distinguished
from a multi-use pad, including bocce,
shuffleboard, lawn bowling. The type specified in
the comments. Quantity counted per court.
Garden, Community
A garden area that provides community members
a place to have a personal vegetable or flower
garden.
Garden, Display
A garden area that is designed and maintained
to provide a focal point or destination, including
a rose garden, fern garden, native plant garden,
wildlife/habitat garden, an arboretum.
Golf
A course designed and intended for the sport of
golf. Counted per 18 holes.
Quantities: 18 hole course = 1; 9 hole course = .5
Golf, Miniature
A course designed and intended as a multi-hole
golf putting game.
Golf, Practice
An area designated for golf practice or lessons,
including driving ranges and putting greens.
Horseshoe Court
A designated area for the game of horseshoes,
including permanent pits of regulation length.
Quantity counted per court.
Horseshoes Complex
Several regulation horseshoe courts in a single
location suitable for tournaments.
Ice Hockey
Regulation size outdoor rink explicitly built for ice
hockey games and practice. General ice skating
included in “Winter Sport.”
Inline Hockey
Regulation size outdoor rink built specifically for
in-line hockey games and practice.
229
DRAFT
Loop Walk
Opportunity to complete a circuit on foot or by
non-motorized travel mode. Suitable for use as an
exercise circuit or leisure walking. Quantity of one
for each park or other location unless more than
one distinct circuit is present.
Multi-Use Pad
A painted area with games such as hopscotch,
4 square, tetherball found in schoolyards. As
distinguished from “Games Court,” which is
typically single-use.
Natural Area
Describes an area in a park that contains plants
and landforms that are remnants of or replicate
undisturbed native regions of the local ecology. It
can include grasslands, woodlands, and wetlands.
Open Turf
A grassy area that is not suitable for programmed
field sports due to size, slope, location, or physical
obstructions. May be used for games of catch, tag,
or other informal play and uses that require an
open grassy area.
Other
An active or passive component that does not fall
under any other component definition. Specified
in comments
Passive Node
A place that is designed to create a pause or
particular focus within a park and includes
seating areas, plazas, overlooks. Not intended for
programmed use.
Pickleball Court
A designated court designed primarily for
pickleball play.
Picnic Ground
A designated area with a grouping of picnic tables
suitable for organized picnic activities. Account
for individual picnic tables as Comfort and
Convenience modifiers.
Playground, Destination
A destination playground attracts families from
the entire community. Typically has restrooms and
parking on-site. May include special features like a
climbing wall, spray feature, or adventure play.
Playground, Local
A local playground serves the needs of the
surrounding neighborhood. Includes developed
playgrounds and designated nature play areas.
Park generally does not have restrooms or on-site
parking.
Public Art
Any art installation on public property. Art
receives a quantity of one for each contiguous
site.
Rectangular Field Complex
Several rectangular fields in a single location
suitable for tournament use.
230
DRAFT
Rectangular Field, Large
Describes a specific field large enough to host
one adult rectangular field sports game such as
soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, and field hockey.
The approximate field size is 180’ x 300’ (60 x 100
yards). The field may have goals and lines specific
to an individual sport that may change with the
permitted use.
Rectangular Field, Multiple
Describes an area large enough to host one adult
rectangular field sports game and a minimum of
one other event/game, but with an undetermined
number of actual fields. This category describes a
large open grassy area arranged in any manner of
configurations for any number of rectangular field
sports. Sports may include but are not limited
to: soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, and field
hockey. The field may have goals and lines specific
to an individual sport that may change with the
permitted use.
Rectangular Field, Small
Describes a specific field too small to host a
regulation adult rectangular field sports game
but accommodates at least one youth field sports
game. Sports may include but are not limited to:
soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, and field hockey.
A field may have goals and lines specific to a
particular sport that may change with a permitted
use.
Shelter, Large
A shade shelter or pavilion large enough to
accommodate a group picnic or other event for a
minimum of 13 seated. Address lack of seating in
scoring.
Shelter, Small
A shade shelter, large enough to accommodate
a family picnic or other event for approximately
4-12 persons with seating for a minimum of
4. Covered benches for seating up to 4 people
included as a modifier in comfort and convenience
scoring and should not be included here.
Skate Feature
A stand-alone feature primarily for wheel sports
such as skateboarding, in-line skating. The
component may or may not allow freestyle biking.
May be associated with a playground but is not
part of it. Categorize dedicated bike facilities as
Bike Course.
Skate Park
An area set aside primarily for wheel sports such
as skateboarding, in-line skating. The park may or
may not allow freestyle biking. May be specific to
one user group or allow for several user types. It
can accommodate multiple abilities. Typically has
a variety of concrete or modular features.
231
DRAFT
Target Range
A designated area for practice or competitive
target activities. The type specified, such as
archery or firearms, in comments.
Tennis Complex
Multiple regulation courts in a single location with
amenities suitable for tournament use.
Tennis, Practice Wall
A wall intended for practicing tennis.
Track, Athletic
A multi-lane, regulation-sized running track
appropriate for track and field events.
Trail, Multi-Use
A trail, paved or unpaved, is separated from the
road and provides recreational opportunities or
connection to walkers, bikers, rollerbladers, and
equestrian users. Paths that make a circuit within
a single site are Loop Walks.
Trail, Primitive
A path, unpaved, located within a park or natural
area that provides recreational opportunities
or connections to users. Minimal surface
improvements that may or may not meet
accessibility standards
Trail, Water
A river, stream, canal, or other waterway used as a
trail for floating, paddling, or other watercraft.
Trailhead
A designated staging area at a trail access point
may include restrooms, an information kiosk,
parking, drinking water, trash receptacles, and
seating.
Volleyball Court
One full-sized court. May be hard or soft surface,
including grass and sand. May have permanent or
portable posts and nets.
Wall Ball Court
Walled courts associated with sports such as
handball and racquetball. The type specified in the
comments.
Water Access, Developed
A developed water access point includes docks,
piers, kayak courses, boat ramps, fishing facilities.
Specified in comments, including quantity for each
unique type.
Water Access, General
Measures a user’s general ability to access the
edge of open water. May include undeveloped
shoreline. Typically receives a quantity of one for
each contiguous site.
Water Feature
This passive water-based amenity provides a
visual focal point that includes fountains and
waterfalls.
Water, Open
A body of water such as a pond, stream, river,
wetland with open water, lake, or reservoir.
Winter Sport
An area designated for a winter sport or activity
such as a downhill ski area, nordic ski area,
sledding hill, toboggan run, recreational ice. The
type specified in the comments.
232
DRAFT
GRASP® Indoor Component Type
Definition
Arts and Crafts
A room with a non-carpeted floor, built-in storage
for materials, and a sink. Often adjacent to a kiln
room.
Auditorium/Theater
A large room explicitly designed as a
performance/lecture space that includes a built-
in stage, seating and can accommodate stage
lighting and sound amplification.
Childcare/Preschool
A room or space with built-in secure entry and
cabinets, a small toilet, designated outdoor play
area. Intended for short-term child watch or half
or full-day preschool use.
Fitness/Dance
A room with resilient flooring and mirrors.
Food - Counter Service
Staffed food service with a commercial kitchen
and no waiter services.
Food - Full Service
Staffed food service with a commercial kitchen
and dining room with waiter services.
Food - Vending
A non-staffed area with vending machines or self-
service food options.
Gallery/Exhibits
A space intended for the display of art,
interpretive information, or another type of
exhibit. Typically has adequate lighting, open wall
space, and room for circulation.
Sport Court
An active recreation space such as a gymnasium
that can accommodate basketball, volleyball, or
other indoor court sports with one or more courts
designated in quantity.
Track, Indoor
Course with painted lanes, banked corners,
resilient surface, and marked distances suitable
for exercise walking, jogging, or running.
Kitchen - Kitchenette
Area for preparing, warming, or serving food.
Kitchen - Commercial
A kitchen meeting local codes for commercial food
preparation.
Lobby/Entryway
An area at the entry of a building intended for
sitting and waiting or relaxing
Multi-Purpose Room
A multi-purpose room can host a variety of
activities, including events, classes, meetings,
banquets, medical, or therapeutic uses. It also
includes rooms or areas designated or intended as
games rooms, libraries, or lounges. Rooms may be
dividable.
Patio/Outdoor Seating
Outdoor space or seating area designed to be
used exclusively in conjunction with indoor space
and primarily accessed through an indoor space.
Table 40: GRASP® Indoor Component List
233
DRAFT
Retail/Pro-shop
An area for retail sales of sporting equipment,
gifts. Typically has direct access from outdoors
and can be secured separately from the rest of a
building or facility.
Sauna/Steam Room
A facility with built-in seating and a heat source
intended for heat therapy. May be steam or dry
heat.
Specialty Services
Any specialty services available at an indoor
location.
Specialty Training
Any specialty training available at an indoor
location that includes gymnastics and circuit
training.
Weight/Cardio Equipment
A room or area with weight and cardio equipment,
resilient or anti-bacterial flooring, adequate
ventilation, and ceiling heights appropriate for
high-intensity workouts
Woodshop
A room with wood-working equipment that
contains an adequate power supply and
ventilation.
C. Inventory Methods and Process
To complete a detailed GIS (Geographic Information System) inventory, the planning team first prepared
a preliminary list of existing components using aerial photography and GIS data. Components identified
in aerial photos were located and labeled.
Next, field teams visited sites to confirm or revise preliminary component data, make notes regarding
sites or assets, and develop an understanding of the system. The inventory for this study focused
primarily on components at public parks. Evaluations include assessments to ensure a component was
serving its intended function, noting any parts in need of refurbishment, replacement, or removal.
The inventory also included the recording of site comfort and convenience amenities such as shade,
drinking fountains, restrooms, called modifiers.
Collection of the following information during site visits:
•
Component type and geolocation
•
Component functionality
Based assessment scoring on the condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality. The inventory
team used the following three-tier rating system to evaluate these:
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Meets Expectations
3 = Exceeds Expectations
•
Site modifiers
•
Site design and ambiance
•
Site photos
•
General comments
234
DRAFT
Asset Scoring
All components were scored based on condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality as they reflect
the expected quality of recreational features. Beyond quality and functionality of components, however,
GRASP® Level of Service analysis also considers important aspects of a park or recreation site. Not all
parks are created equal, and their surroundings may determine the quality of a user’s experience. For
example, the GRASP® system acknowledges the essential differences between identical playground
structures as displayed in the following images:
In addition to scoring components, GRASP®-IT assesses each park site or indoor facility for its comfort,
convenience, and ambient qualities. These qualities include the availability of amenities such as
restrooms, drinking water, shade, scenery. These modifier values then serve to enhance or amplify
component scores at any given location.
Compiled GIS information collected during the site visit includes all GIS data and staff input. This
review packet consists of the most recent GIS data displayed by location on an aerial photograph. An
accompanying data sheet for each site lists modifier and component scores as well as observations and
comments.
Analysis of the existing parks, open space, trails, and recreation systems often determine how they are
serving the public. Level of Service (LOS) in parks and recreation master plans defines the capacity of the
various components and facilities to meet the needs of the public in terms of the size or quantity given a
population or user group.
D. Composite-Values Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) measures how parks, open spaces, trails, and facilities serve the community. They
may be used to benchmark current conditions and to direct future planning efforts.
Figure 92: GRASP® Asset Scoring Comparison
235
DRAFT
Why Level of Service?
LOS indicates the ability of people to connect with nature and pursue active
lifestyles. It can have implications for health and wellness, the local economy,
and the quality of life. Further, LOS for a park and recreation system tends to
reflect community values. It is often representative of people’s connection to
their communities and lifestyles focused on outdoor recreation and healthy
living.
Analysis of the existing parks, open space, trails, and recreation systems
determine how the systems are serving the public and the capacity of the
various components and facilities to meet the needs of the users or residents.
GRASP® Score
Each park or recreation location, along with all on-site components, has been
assigned a GRASP® Score. The GRASP® Score accounts for the assessment
score as well as available modifiers and the design and ambiance of a park.
The following illustration shows this relationship. A basic algorithm calculates
scoring totals, accounting for both component and modifier scores, every park,
and facility in the inventory.
An analytical
technique known as
GRASP® (Geo-Referenced
Amenities Standard
Process) was used to
analyze the Level of Service
provided by assets. This
proprietary process, used
exclusively by GreenPlay,
yields analytical maps and
data that may be used
to examine access to
recreation across a
study area.
Figure 93: GRASP® Score calculation
Catchment Areas
Catchment areas, also called buffers, radii, or service area, are drawn around each component.
The GRASP® Score for that component is then applied to that buffer and overlapped with all other
component catchment areas. This process yields the data used to create perspective maps and analytical
charts.
Perspectives
Maps and data produced using the GRASP® methodology are known as Perspectives. Each perspective
models service across the study area. The system can be further analyzed to derive statistical information
about service in a variety of ways. Maps are utilized along with tables and charts to provide benchmarks
or insights a community may use to determine its success in delivering services.
Plotting service areas for multiple components on a map produces a picture that represents the
cumulative Level of Service provided by that set of elements in a geographic area.
236
DRAFT
This example graphic
illustrates the GRASP®
process, assuming all three
components and the park
boundary itself, is scored
a “2”. The overlap of their
service areas yields higher
or lower overall scores for
different parts of a study
area.
Figure 94: GRASP® Process
On a map, darker shades result from the overlap of multiple service areas and indicate areas served
by more or higher quality components. For any given spot, there is a GRASP® Value for that reflects
cumulative scoring for nearby assets.
More on Utilizing GRASP® Perspectives
GRASP® Perspectives evaluate the Level of Service throughout a community from various points of
view. Their purpose is to reveal possible gaps in service and provide a metric to use in understanding a
recreation system. However, it is not necessarily beneficial for all parts of the community to score equally
in the analyses. The desired Level of Service for a location should depend on the type of service, the
characteristics of the place, and other factors such as community need, population growth forecasts,
and land use issues. For example, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might reasonably have a
lower Level of Service for parks and recreation opportunities than residential areas.
GRASP® Perspectives should focus attention on gap areas for further scrutiny.
Perspectives used in conjunction with other assessment tools such as community needs surveys and a
public input process to determine if current levels of service are appropriate in a given location. Plans
provide similar levels of service to new, developing neighborhoods. Or it may be determined that
different Levels of Service are adequate or suitable. Therefore a new set of criteria may be utilized that
differs from existing community patterns to reflect these distinctions.
237
DRAFT
E. Brief History of Level of Service Analysis
To help standardize parks and recreation planning, universities, agencies, and parks & recreation
professionals have long been looking for ways to benchmark and provide “national standards” for how
much acreage, how many ballfields, pools, playgrounds, a community should have. In 1906 the fledgling
“Playground Association of America” called for playground space equal to 30 square feet per child. In
the 1970s and early 1980s, the first detailed published works on these topics began emerging (Gold,
1973, Lancaster, 1983). In time, “rule of thumb” ratios emerged with 10 acres of parklands per thousand
population becoming the most widely accepted norm. Other normative guides also have been cited as
traditional standards but have been less widely accepted.
In 1983, Roger Lancaster compiled a book called, “Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and
Guidelines,” which was published by the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA). In this
publication, Mr. Lancaster centered on a recommendation “that a park system, at minimum, be
composed of a core system of parklands, with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space
per 1,000 population (Lancaster, 1983, p. 56). The guidelines went further to make recommendations
regarding an appropriate mix of park types, sizes, service areas, and acreages, and standards regarding
the number of available recreational facilities per thousand population. While published by NRPA, the
table became widely known as “the NRPA standards,” but these were never formally adopted for use by
NRPA.
Since that time, various publications have updated and expanded upon possible “standards,”
several of which have been published by NRPA. Many of these publications benchmarked and other
normative research to try and determine what an “average LOS” should be. NRPA and the prestigious
American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, as organizations, have focused in recent
years on accreditation standards for agencies, which are less directed towards outputs, outcomes,
and performance, and more on planning, organizational structure, and management processes. The
popularly referred to “NRPA standards” for LOS, as such, do not exist.
Today, NRPA has shifted to an annual Agency Performance Review publication. The following three tables
provide similar but updated information to the table of commonly referenced LOS capacity standards
included in the 2006 document. “The 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review presents the data and
key insights from 1,075 park and recreation agencies collected by the Agency Performance Survey. This
annual report provides critical park and recreation metrics on budgets, staffing, facilities, and more.”22
In conducting planning work, it is critical to realize that the above standards can be valuable when
referenced as “norms” for capacity, but not necessarily as the target standards for which a community
should strive. Each city is different, and many factors that are not addressed by the criteria above. For
example:
•
Does “developed acreage” include golf courses”? What about indoor and passive facilities?
•
What are the standards for skateparks? Ice Arenas? Public Art? Etc.?
•
What if it’s an urban land-locked community? What if it’s a small town surrounded by open Federal
lands?
•
What about quality and condition? What if there’s a bunch of ballfields, but they are not
maintained?
•
And many other questions.
22 https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/nrpa-agency-performance-review.pdf
238
DRAFT
F. GRASP® (Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program)
A new methodology for determining the Level of Service is appropriate to address these and other
relevant questions. It is called composite-values methods is applied in communities across the nation
in recent years to provide a better way of measuring and portraying the service provided by parks and
recreation systems. Primary research and development on this methodology were funded jointly by
GreenPlay, LLC, a management consulting firm for parks, open space, and related agencies, Design
Concepts, a landscape architecture, and planning firm, and Geowest, a spatial information management
firm. The trademarked name for the composite-values methodology process that these three firms use
is called GRASP® (Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program.) For this methodology, capacity is
only part of the LOS equation. Consider other factors, including quality, condition, location, comfort,
convenience, and ambiance.
Parks, trails, recreation, and open space are part of an overall infrastructure for a community made
up of various components, such as playgrounds, multi-purpose fields, passive areas. Explanations and
characteristics listed above affect the amount of service provided by the parts of the system follow.
Quality – The service provided by a component, whether it is a playground, soccer field, or
swimming pool, is determined in part by its quality. A playground with a variety of features, such as
climbers, slides, and swings, provides a higher degree of service than one with nothing but an old
teeter-totter and some “monkey-bars.”
Condition – The condition of a component also affects the amount of service it provides. A
playground in disrepair with unsafe equipment does not offer the same function as one in good
condition. Similarly, a soccer field with a smooth surface and well-maintained grass provide more
service than one that is full of weeds, ruts, and other hazards.
Location – To be served by something, you need to be able to get to it. The typical park playground
is of more service to people who live within walking distance than it is to someone living across
town. Therefore, service is dependent upon proximity and access.
Comfort and Convenience – The service provided by a component, such as a playground, is
increased by having amenities such as shade, seating, and a restroom nearby. Comfort and
convenience enhance the experience of using a component and encourages people to use an
element. Easy access and the availability of drinking fountains, bike rack, or nearby parking are
examples of conveniences that enhance the service provided by a component.
Design and Ambiance – Simple observation proves that places that “feel” right, attract people. A
sense of safety and security, as well as pleasant surroundings, attractive views, and a sense of place
impact ambiance. A well-designed park is preferable to a poorly designed one, and this enhances the
service provided by the components within it.
The GRASP® methodology records a geographic location of components as well as the capacity and the
quantity of each element. Also, it uses comfort, convenience, and ambiance as characteristics that are
part of the context and setting of a component. They are not characteristics of the element itself, but
when they exist in proximity to a component, they enhance the value of the component.
By combining and analyzing the composite values of each component, it is possible to measure the
service provided by a parks and recreation system from a variety of Perspectives and for any given
239
DRAFT
location. Typically, this begins with a decision on “relevant components” for the analysis, collection of an
accurate inventory of those components, analysis. Maps and tables represent the results of the GRASP®
analysis.
G. Making Justifiable Decisions
GRASP® stores all data generated from the GRASP® evaluation in an electronic database that is available
and owned by the agency for use in a variety of ways. The database tracks facilities and programs and
can be used to schedule services, maintenance, and the replacement of components. In addition to
determining LOS, it is useful in projecting long-term capital and life-cycle costing needs. All portions of
the information are in available standard software and can be produced in a variety of ways for future
planning or sharing with the public.
It is important to note that the GRASP® methodology provides not only accurate LOS and facility
inventory information, but also integrates with other tools to help agencies make decisions. It is
relatively easy to maintain, update, and creates an easily understood graphic depiction of issues.
Combined with a needs assessment, public and staff involvement, program, and financial assessment,
GRASP® allows an agency to defensibly make recommendations on priorities for ongoing resource
allocations along with capital and operational funding.
Addressing Low-Scoring Components
Components whose functionality ranks below expectations are identified and scored with a “one.” Find
a list of these as extracted from the inventory dataset below. When raising the score of a component
through improvement or replacement, the Level of Service is raised as well. The following is an outline
strategy for addressing the repair/refurbishment/replacement or re-purposing of low-functioning
components.
I.
Determine why the component is functioning below expectations.
•
Was it poorly conceived in the first place?
•
Is it something that was not needed?
•
Is it the wrong size, type, or configuration?
•
Is it poorly placed, or located in a way that conflicts with other activities or detracts from its use?
•
Have the needs changed in a way that the component is now outdated, obsolete, or no longer
needed?
•
Has it been damaged?
•
Or, has the maintenance of the component been deferred or neglected to the point where it no
longer functions as intended?
•
Does component scores low because it is not available to the public in a way that meets
expectations?
•
Is the component old, outdated, or otherwise dysfunctional, but has historical or sentimental
value? An example would be an old structure in a park such as a stone barbecue grill, or other
artifacts that are not restorable to its original purpose, but which has historical value.
II. Depending on the answers from the first step, a select a strategy for addressing the low-functioning
component:
•
If the need for that type of component in its current location still exists, then the component
should be repaired or replaced to match its original condition as much as possible.
Examples of this would be many of the existing shelters that need shingles or roof repairs.
Other examples could be playgrounds with old, damaged, or outdated equipment, or courts
with poor surfacing or missing nets.
240
DRAFT
•
If the need for that type of component has changed to the point where the original one is no
longer suitable, then it should be replaced with a new one that fits the current needs.
•
If a component is poorly located or poorly designed to start with, consider relocating,
redesigning, or otherwise modifying it.
•
Remove a component because of changing demands, unless it can be maintained in good
condition without excessive expense or has historical or sentimental value. Inline hockey rinks
may fall into this category. If a rink has been allowed to deteriorate because the community has
no desire for inline hockey, then maybe it should be repurposed into some other use.
III. It is possible that through ongoing public input and as needs and trends evolve, there is the
identification of new demands for existing parks. If there is no room in an existing park for the
requests, the decision may include removal or re-purpose a current component, even if it is quite
functional.
•
As the popularity of tennis declined and demand for courts dropped off in some communities
over recent decades, perfectly good courts became skate parks or inline rinks. In most cases, this
was an interim use, intended to satisfy a short-term need until a decision to either construct a
permanent facility or let the fad fade. The need for inline rinks now seems to have diminished.
In contrast, temporary skate parks on tennis courts are now permanent locations of their own.
They become more elaborate facilities as skateboarding, and other wheel sports have grown in
popularity and permanence.
•
One community repurposed a ball diamond into a dog park. The ball diamond is well-suited
for use as a dog park because it is already fenced, and the combination of the skinned infield
where the dogs enter and natural grass in the outfield where traffic disperses is ideal. In time this
facility either becomes a permanent facility or is constructed elsewhere. Or, it could turn out that
dog parks fade in popularity like inline hockey rinks are replaced with some other facility that
dog owners prefer even more than the current dog park model. Meanwhile, the use of the ball
diamond for this purpose is an excellent interim solution.
241
DRAFT
Table 41: GRASP® Outdoor Low Scoring Components
Park or Location
Component
GIS
Map ID
Quantity
Neighborhood Score
Community Score
Lights
Shade
Comments
Heritage
Playground, Local
C503
1
1
1
Old, no shade, on sand.
Horizon
Open Turf
C507
1
1
1
Bland and dry
Kings
Open Turf
C510
1
1
1
Lawrence
Loop Walk
C514
1
1
1
Mostly on road
Mission
Playground, Local
C521
1
1
1
Old equipment on EWF
Mission
Rectangular Field, Large
C524
1
1
1
Mission
Open Turf
C525
1
1
1
Dry and patchy
Mondo
Playground, Local
C527
1
1
1
Tiny equipment on sand with no shade
Mondo
Open Turf
C528
1
1
1
Patches of dirt.
New World
Volleyball Court
C534
1
1
1
Y
Holes and weeds in sand. One light broken.
New World
Open Turf
C536
1
1
1
Very dry and patchy.
O'Neil
Rectangular Field, Large
C537
1
0
2
Y
Locked fencing with bleachers
O'Neil
Diamond Field, Practice
C540
1
1
1
No infield and outfield is intersected by fence from rectangle field
Rose Lane
Playground, Local
C553
1
1
1
Y
Built on sand with no ADA ramp.
Sunnyside
Fitness Course
C563
1
1
1
Old equipment on sand
Tierra Buena
Open Turf
C583
1
1
1
Big patches of dirt
Sunset Ridge
Shelter, Small
C615
2
1
1
Abused and old table
Thunderbird Conservation
Event Space
C622
1
1
1
Amphitheatre
Arrowhead Lakes
Playground, Local
C627
1
1
1
Y
Equipment is old and on sand surfacing
Hidden Meadows
Playground, Local
C633
1
1
1
Old and on sand, good tree shade
Hillcrest
Open Turf
C637
1
1
1
Patchy turf
Pasadena
Basketball Court
C645
1
1
1
Cracked surfacing. Floods when irrigating.
Sands
Pickleball Court
C657
1
0
0
Y
Very broken hard court surface and no poles or nets. Unusable.
Foothills
Concessions
C674
1
0
2
Locked.
Foothills
Playground, Destination
C675
1
1
1
Small for this park
Foothills
Trailhead
C677
1
1
1
Trail access, but really lacks amenities to create a great trailhead
Thunderbird Paseo
Fitness Course
C684
1
1
1
Old
Country Gables
Fitness Course
C694
1
1
1
Sahuaro Ranch
Educational Experience
C701
1
0
2
Old farming equipment.
Windsor
Open Turf
C704
1
1
1
Patchy
Orangewood Vista Park
Game Court
C706
10
1
1
Tetherball court, no tethered balls.
Grand Canal Linear
Playground, Local
C717
1
1
1
Old equipment on sand with no shade.
Glendale Heroes Regional Park
Open Turf
C730
1
1
1
Turf problems
Discovery
Open Turf
C739
1
1
1
Much dirt.
Ocotillo Rose
Open Turf
C743
1
1
1
Mary Silva
Fitness Course
C753
1
1
1
Many features circumnavigating park. Needs refurbishment.
Rose Lane
Volleyball Court
C755
1
0
1
Part of pool rental. Over grown and low on sand. Locked.
El Barrio
Fitness Course
C757
1
1
1
Very minimal stretching feature.
Bonsall North
Tennis Court
C346
4
1
1
Y
Netting needs attention.
Bonsall North
Inline Hockey
C348
1
0
2
Good concrete, locked fence
Bonsall North
Shelter, Small
C352
3
0
0
Fenced off
Bonsall South
Shelter, Large
C354
1
1
1
Worn
Desert Mirage
Open Turf
C383
1
1
1
Patchy
Discovery
Diamond Field
C388
2
1
1
Infield and outfield need maintenance
Lions
Diamond Field
C392
1
0
2
Locked fence, lights, scoreboard, covered dugout, bleachers.
Memmingen
Shelter, Small
C393
1
1
1
Beaten and rusty
Memmingen
Playground, Local
C394
1
1
1
Far from other components. Aged. Accessible and on EWF.
Memmingen
Volleyball Court
C398
2
1
1
Lacks paint and nets, on concrete
Paseo Tennis Center
Tennis Court
C400
19
0
3
Y
Y
Well kept with good fencing, seating, and shade structures. Locked.
Paseo Sports Complex
Diamond Field
C403
4
0
3
Y
Locked. Well kept with good turf and covered dugouts
Sahuaro Ranch
Concessions
C405
1
0
2
Y
Locked.
Sahuaro Ranch
Diamond Field
C406
4
0
3
Y
Locked.
Sahuaro Ranch
Rectangular Field, Large
C411
1
0
3
Y
Locked.
Thunderbird Paseo
Basketball Court
C425
2
1
1
Needs surfacing and paint
Thunderbird Paseo
Playground, Local
C427
1
1
1
Sun beaten plastics, built on PIP. 2-5 and 5-12 structures.
Foothills
Diamond Field
C432
3
0
2
Y
Well-kept with locked access
Foothills
Playground, Local
C436
1
1
1
Y
Small older playground on sand with deteriorating rubber surfacing
Acoma
Basketball Court
C441
1
1
1
Needs resurfacing
Acoma
Playground, Local
C443
1
1
1
Old, without shade, on sand
Acoma
Open Turf
C445
1
1
1
Patched with dirt
Carmel
Basketball Court
C457
1
1
1
Needs surfacing
Carmel
Volleyball Court
C458
1
1
1
Lacks sand border
Carmel
Playground, Local
C460
2
1
1
Y
Old and built on sand. 2-5 and 5-12 structures.
Country Gables
Playground, Local
C471
1
1
1
Old and on sand
Greenbrier
Playground, Local
C498
1
1
1
On sand with no shade and aged equipment
Greenbrier
Open Turf
C501
1
1
1
Patchy turf
Greenway Granada
Playground, Local
C592
1
1
1
Y
Some old equipment, some new, built on sand
242
DRAFT
Table 42: Low Scoring Outdoor Modifiers
Modifiers in green meet or exceed Glendale standards. Red highlighted modifiers scored low. Modifiers,
in yellow that was not present at the time of site visits, scored a zero. These scores do not imply that all
parks and facilities should have all modifiers but instead that the presence of modifiers positively impacts
the user experience.
Location
Design & Ambiance
Drinking Fountains
Seating
BBQ Grills
Dog Stations
Security Lighting
Bike Racks
Restrooms
Available Shade
Trails Connections
Park Access
Parking
Seasonal Plantings
Ornamental Plantings
Picnic Tables
Acoma
1
1
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
2
Arrowhead Lakes
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
Bicentennial
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Bonsall North
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
2
Bonsall South
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Butler
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Carmel
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Chapparal
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Cholla
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
1
Clavelito
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Country Gables
1
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
Delicias
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Desert Garden
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Desert Mirage
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Desert Rose
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Desert Valley
2
2
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
Discovery
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
2
Dos Lagos
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
El Barrio
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
Elsie McCarthy Sensory Garden
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
Foothills
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
0
2
2
Gardenwood
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
Glendale Heroes Regional Park
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Glendale Youth Sports Complex
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
Grand Canal Linear
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
2
2
0
2
2
Greenbrier
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Greenway Granada
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
Heritage
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Hidden Meadows
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
3
2
Hillcrest
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Horizon
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
2
Kings
1
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
Lawrence
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Lions
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Manistee Ranch
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
Mary Silva
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Maryland Lakes
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
Memmingen
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
243
DRAFT
Location (Cont)
Design & Ambiance
Drinking Fountains
Seating
BBQ Grills
Dog Stations
Security Lighting
Bike Racks
Restrooms
Available Shade
Trails Connections
Park Access
Parking
Seasonal Plantings
Ornamental Plantings
Picnic Tables
Mission
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
Mondo
1
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
Montara
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Murphy
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
Myrtle
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
New World
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
2
Northern Horizon
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
Oasis
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Ocotillo Rose
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
O'Neil
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
Orangewood
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Orangewood Vista Park
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
Pasadena
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
Paseo Neighborhood
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
Paseo Sports Complex
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
Paseo Tennis Center
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
Plaza Rosa
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
Rose Lane
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
Rovey
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Sahuaro Ranch
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
3
3
Sands
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
Sierra Verde
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
Skunk Creek Linear
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
Sonorita
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
Sunnyside
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
Sunset
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Sunset Palms
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
Sunset Ridge
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
Sunset Vista
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
Sycamore Grove
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
Tarrington Ranch
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
3
2
Thunderbird Conservation
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
0
2
Thunderbird Paseo
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
Tierra Buena
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
Triangle
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
Utopia
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
Windsor
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
244
DRAFT
Table 43: Low Scoring Indoor Modifiers
H. Level of Service Improvements
Addressing Lower and No Service Areas
One way of using the GRASP® Perspectives is to consider prioritization of identified gap areas. For
example, in the walkable access analysis, several regions with low or no service were identified.
Further investigations of these areas can help when prioritizing future improvements or recreation
opportunities. These priorities may consider multiple factors, including providing maximum impact to
the highest number of residents. Social equity factors, such as average household income, could also
influence priorities.
Component Inventory and Assessment
Maintaining and improving existing facilities typically ranks very high in public input. Existing features
that fall short of expectations should be enhanced to address this concern. Elements have been assessed
based on condition and functionality in the inventory phase of this plan. Identify and treat those with
low scores, as explained below. The assessment should be updated regularly to assure the upgrade or
improvements of components as they are affected by wear and tear over time.
Addressing Low-Scoring Components
Low scoring components are addressed previously in Section G.
Booster Components
Another way to enhance the level of service is through the addition of booster components at specific
park sites or recreation facilities. These are most effective in low-service areas where parks exist that
have space for additional components.
245
DRAFT
High Demand Components
The statistically-valid survey asks respondents to rank facilities by importance based on those they
felt the city needed to add or improve. Consider these high demand components when adding new
elements to the system.
The highest priority for added, expanded, or improved recreation activities listed by survey respondents
are:
a. Make improvements or renovate existing amenities at parks to encourage use of local parks
b. Update or improve indoor facilities such as community centers
c. Improve current level of service and quality of facilities and programs
d. Allocate resources to maintain the current system
e. Increase trail and pathway connectivity by connecting the communities with walking/biking trails
f.
fContinue and expand events and festivals
Many of these needs may be addressed by upgrading facilities, retrofitting lesser used assets, and by
adding components that could serve as future program opportunities.
Trends in Parks and Recreation
Trends to consider when deciding what to do with low-functioning facilities, or improving existing parks
to serve the needs of residents, include things like:
•
Skateboarding and other wheel sports continue to grow in popularity. Making neighborhood parks
skateable and distributing skating features throughout the community provides greater access to this
activity for younger people who cannot drive to a more extensive centralized skate park.
•
Events in parks, from a neighborhood “movie in the park” to large festivals in regional parks, are
growing in popularity to build a sense of community and generate revenues. Providing spaces for
these could become a trend.
•
Spraygrounds are growing in popularity, even in colder climates. An extensive and growing selection
of products for these is raising the bar on expectations and offering new possibilities for creative
facilities.
•
New types of playgrounds are emerging, including discovery play, nature play, adventure play, and
even inter-generational play. Some of these rely upon movable parts, supervised play areas, and
other variations that are different from the standard fixed “post and platform” playgrounds found
in the typical park across America. These types of nature-based opportunities help connect children
and families to the outdoors.
•
Integrating nature into parks by creating natural areas is a trend for many reasons. These include a
desire to make parks more sustainable and introduce people of all ages to the natural environment.
I. Walkability and Recreational Connectivity
Walkability is an essential consideration in recreation. Various walkability metrics and methodologies
have emerged to assist park and recreation managers and planners in understanding this dynamic. These
include:
It is vital to take bicycles and public transportation users into account as well as pedestrians. The concept
of “complete streets” refers to a built environment that serves various types of users of varying ages
and abilities. Many associations and organizations guide on best practices in developing walkable and
bikeable complete streets infrastructure. One such entity, the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals (APBP, www.apbp.org) actively promotes complete streets in cities around the country.
Another such organization, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO, www.nacto.
246
DRAFT
org), recently released the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, which provides a full understanding of
complete streets based on successful strategies employed in various North American cities. This most
comprehensive reference on the topic is a valuable resource for all stakeholders involved in city planning.
It proves to be a critical reference in building the cities of tomorrow.
Recreational Connectivity
The infrastructure available to get people to and from destinations is increasingly vital as many people
prefer a leisurely walk or bike ride to a trip in the car. Users expect easy access to parks, recreation
centers, and other community resources. Employing different modes of travel to include walking and
bicycling may be referred to as recreational connectivity.
Recreational connectivity is the ability to access a variety of recreational opportunities or amenities by
multiple modes of transportation. In addition to recreational trails, this may also include city sidewalks,
bicycle paths, bicycle routes, and public transit infrastructure. Of course, the scope of creating and
maintaining such a network is a substantial undertaking that involves many players. Along with a
community expectation for this type of user-friendly network infrastructure comes the hope that
stakeholders work together in the interest of the public good. At the municipal level, this might include
public works, law enforcement, private land-owners, public transit operators, and user groups, as well as
the local parks and recreation department.
The concept of recreational connectivity is essential within the scope of parks and recreation planning
but also has more profound implications for public health, the local economy, and public safety, among
other considerations. As more people look for non-automotive alternatives, a complete network of
various transportation options is in higher demand. Other elements of this infrastructure might consist
of street/railroad crossings, sidewalk landscaping, lighting, drainage, and even bike-share and car-share
availability.
Where to Start?
Recognizing that trail development occurs at a variety of scales, many trails serve park users only
while others are citywide or regional extent. Also, people with a destination in mind tend to take the
most direct route, while recreationists tend to enjoy loop or circuit trails more than linear pathways.
An exemplary trail system provides multiple opportunities for users to utilize trail segments to access
different parts of the city directly or enjoy recreational circuits of various sizes. By employing park trails,
city trails, and regional trails, users should ideally be able to select from several options to reach a
destination or spend time recreating. Simple, early steps such as creating preferred routes and loops on
city sidewalks or low traffic streets are a great place to start.
Connecting People to Trails
As the trail system develops, additional resources are desirable to support users. It is worthwhile
to consider signage and wayfinding strategies, trailheads and access points, public trail maps, and
smartphone applications as strategies to connect people to trails and affect positive user experience.
Signage and Wayfinding
Signage and wayfinding strategies enhance a system by promoting ease of use and improving
access to resources. Branding is an essential aspect of adequate signage and wayfinding markers.
A hierarchy of signage for different types of users assists residents and visitors as they navigate
between recreation destinations. Further, a strong brand can imply investment and commitment to
alternative transit, and which can positively impact city identity and open economic opportunities.
247
DRAFT
Trailheads & Access Points
It is also vital to provide users access to trails. There are two ways to approach this. First, develop
formal trailheads to include parking, bike racks, signage, restrooms, drinking water, a trail map,
and other amenities. A trailhead provides access to trails that serve a higher volume of users at
destinations reached by automobile. The second approach involves providing a trail access point,
usually without the extensive amenities found at a trailhead. Trail access points are appropriate in
residential or commercial areas where users are more likely to walk or ride a bicycle to reach the
trail. Trailheads and access points should be primary points of interest on any trails mapping.
Map & App Resources
By making trail maps, available users may enjoy trails with greater confidence and with a better
understanding of distances, access points, amenities, and the system. The following trails brochure is
available from the city website. This brochure is an excellent resource for the public.
Figure 95: City Trails Brochure
248
DRAFT
249
DRAFT
250
DRAFT
Another way of trail mapping is through web-based smartphone technologies. Maps made available on
this type of platform are more dynamic for users, always on hand, and can be easily updated. Upfront
investment needed for this type of resource may be cost-prohibitive at present. However, it is likely as
technologies advance; these costs become more manageable in the future. It may be worth considering
the development of web-based maps in long term planning decisions.
251
DRAFT
Appendix H: Maps
252
DRAFT
253
DRAFT
254
DRAFT
255
DRAFT
256
DRAFT
257
DRAFT
258
DRAFT
259
DRAFT
Appendix I: Community Profile
Trends emerge from analyzing population data, which can inform decision making and resource
allocation strategies for the provision of parks, recreation, and open space management. This
demographic profile was compiled in October 2019 from a combination of sources including ESRI
Business Analyst, American Community Survey, and U.S. Census. In addition, data from the Glendale
Planning and Development Services, Public Works, and the Parks Recreation and Open Space
department was also included in the report below. The following topics will be covered in detail in this
report:
Population
Summary
Gender & Age
Distribution
Race/Ethnic
Character
Educational
Attainment
Household
Data
Employment
Health
Rankings
Key facts about Glendale in 2019:
•
The population topped 248,060 in 2019
•
The average median age in the district was 33.8 years old, lower than the median age in Arizona
(37.3)
•
The median household income in Glendale was over $54,405
Glendale is approximately 61.94 square miles, divided into five district council areas. For the purposes of
collecting relevant data, the statistically valid survey asked respondents to indicate which subarea they
resided in. To make further comparative analysis, this demographics study will compare data from the
district council areas, while also looking at the city as a whole. When it is meaningful, comparisons to the
State of Arizona and the United States will also be highlighted. Figure 96 below shows the five council
areas, labeled by name. The map below was sourced from the Glendale Open Data site.
260
DRAFT
Figure 96: Glendale Council District Boundary Map
Based on numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau,
100% percent of the total population of Glendale
lives within these district council areas, with
Ocotillo being the most populated (17%) and
Sahuaro being the least populated (16%).
261
DRAFT
Population Growth
Growth rates can be a strong comparative indicator of an area’s economic development. In the case of
Glendale, the annual population growth rate for the city (1.17%) is predicted to be less than the growth
rate of the state of Arizona (1.35%), but greater than the US avergage (0.77%) between 2019 and 2024.
Yucca is estimated to have the highest growth rate at 1.56 percent, twice the national average, while
Figure 97: Glendale Population Annual Growth Rates (2019 – 2024)
Population Gender & Age Distribution
Analyzing the gender and age distribution in Glendale, AZ, can help determine program and service
needs for particular demographics. Similar to state and national populations, Glendale has roughly the
same amount of males (49.18%) and females (50.82%). The median age of residents is 33.8, slightly
lower than Arizona (37.3). As many municipalities are finding, Millennials are starting to become the
largest generational group of their residents. In Glendale, Millennials (born 1981 – 1998) make up
approximately 28 percent of the population, with Generation Z (born 1999 – 2016) right behind them at
25 percent.
Figure 98: Estimated Population of Glendale by Generation in 2018
Source: Esri Business Analyst
262
DRAFT
Education
According to a Census study, education levels had more effect on earnings over a 40-year span in the
workforce than any other demographic factor, such as gender, race, and ethnic origin.23 The educational
attainment for Glendale can be seen in Figure 99. Those with a Bachelor’s degree, on average, received
over twice the annual income than those with a high school diploma.
A breakdown of the educational attainment by City residents over the age of 25 was measured, as
illustrated in Figure 100. Over 79 percent of Glendale residents had obtained a high school degree or
higher (compared to 84 percent Arizona average).
23 Tiffany Julian and Robert Kominski, “Education and Synthetic Work-Life Earnings Estimates” American Community Survey
Reports, US Census Bureau, http://www.Census.gov/prosd/2011pubs/acs-14.pdf, September 2011.
Figure 99: 2018 Glendale Residents by Educational Attainment Level
Figure 100: 2018 Educational Attainment
263
DRAFT
Race/Ethnicity
In the United States, communities are generally becoming more diverse. Before comparing this data, it
is important to note how the U.S. Census classifies and counts individuals who identify as Hispanic. The
Census notes that Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth
of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before arrival in the United States. In the U.S. Census,
people who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish are included in all of the race categories. Figure X
reflects the approximate racial/ethnic population distribution.
•
Glendale is more diverse than the average United States population with a non-white population of
63 percent.
•
Those that identify as Hispanic make up more than 39 percent of the total population. This is more
than the Hispanic population of 31 percent in Arizona and 18 percent in the US.
•
There is a high proportion of citizens who identify as another race not specified on the U.S. Census
(18%).
•
Roughly 7 percent of the population identify as Black or African American, and very few identify as
American Indian/Alaska Native , Asian, or Pacific Islander
Figure 101: 2019 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity
Employment & Income
The most current data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American
Community Survey, illustrated in Figure 102, indicates that the median
household income in Glendale is approximately $3,366 less than in Arizona, and
is approximately $6,143 lower than the U.S. median income. Of the five districts,
Cholla has the highest local median income($93,026), $32,478 higher than the
national average, while Octillo has the lowest median income, $28,019 lower
than the national average.
264
DRAFT
Figure 102: 2019 Estimated Median Household Income
Median household income is highest in Cholla, which is significantly higher than the average in the
state of Arizona or the country. Ocotillo has the lowest median household income. Yucca has a median
household income most similar to that of the United States. Disposable income, according to the U.S.
Census, is after-tax household income, and follows similar patterns to that of median household income.
Understanding the status of the community’s
health can help inform policies related to
recreation and fitness. Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation’s County Health Rankings and
Roadmaps provide annual insight on the
general health of national, state, and county
populations. The 2019 Rankings model shown
in Figure 103 highlights the topic areas
reviewed by the Foundation.
The health ranking for gauged the public health
of the population based on “how long people
live and how healthy people feel while alive,”
coupled with ranking factors including healthy
behaviors, clinical care, social and economic,
and physical environment factors.24
State Health Ranking
In 2018, the United Health Foundation’s
America’s Health Rankings Annual Report
ranked Arizona as the 30th healthiest state
nationally. The health rankings consider and
weigh social and environmental factors that
tend to directly impact the overall health of
state populations as illustrated in Figure 104. The state moved up two positions in the ranking since
2016.
24 University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, City Health Rankings 2018, http://
www.Cityhealthrankings.org
Figure 103: County Health Ranking Model
265
DRAFT
STRENGTHS
of Arizona health include:
CHALLENGES
of Arizona health include:
•
Low cancer death rate
•
Low prevalence of smoking
•
Low prevalence of low birthweight
•
Low percentage of high school
graduation
•
High levels of air pollution
•
Lower rate of mental health providers
Maricopa County ranked
1st of out 15
counties for Health Outcome
Figure 104: 2017 Arizona Health Ranking Overview
Source: United Health Foundation’s America’s Health Rankings Annual Report 2017