VBC 2020-2021 Report

Glendale - 2020/2021 Report
Jul 01, 2020 - Jun 30, 2021
Page 1

Page 2

Demographics Influencing Factors
Access to Developable Land: Certain cities are able to pursue a strategy of population and
development growth because they are able to acquire undeveloped land. This acquisition can be
done through the annexation of unincorporated land, or through developing unused land within
existing city boundaries.
Tourism and National Recognition: The extent to which a city is nationally recognized (rather than
regionally) as a resort or tourism destination might impact population trends or cost of living.
Natural Environment and Cultural Attractions: Communities that offer more cultural and
recreational activities, or attractions that are unique and native to that city, may see a greater
number of people wishing to reside in those communities.
Economic Health: The economic activity in a community, measured by jobs, job growth, and average
salary, impacts the resilience of a community and is tied to the fiscal health of its government.
Cost of Living: The average home value, cost of transportation, and cost of consumer goods affect
the desirability of a community for potential residents.
Citizen Initiatives: Services and amenities can vary across jurisdictions based on voter-approved
initiatives such as arts and culture, athletics, transportation, parks, preservation, and public safety.
*Note: Valley Benchmark Communities uses the MAG annual population estimates for per capita
calculations. Those estimates use the latest decennial census counts as a starting point, and include
any mid-decade censuses that have been conducted, as well. Prior to the release of the Census 2020
population counts, the estimates were based on Census 2010 housing counts and occupancy
information, with adjustments made to account for the special censuses some municipalities conducted
in 2015. The population estimates starting in 2020 are based on Census 2020 counts. Due to changes in
occupancy characteristics throughout the decade, it is common for the originally published estimate in
the Census year (2020) to differ from the final Census counts. Mid-decade counts may also introduce
some irregularities. For these reasons, the originally published estimates for the decade-end years may
not be consistent with estimates derived after Census 2020.
Page 3

Populations across the Valley continue to increase, with the median reaching its highest rate of
increase in FY 2019-20. In FY 2020-2021 one city had a 9% growth rate increase, while one city
showed a rate increase of 0%. The general growth rate for cities settled around 1-2%.
As the population of a city increases, the base upon which percentage change is calculated increases,
so the rate of population increase will likely decline and stabilize long-term.
Population numbers are provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments.
Demographics: Population Percentage Change (%)
Year Over Year Population % Change
Year
Population Percentage Change (%)
4.10
4.104.10
4.10
3.43
3.433.43
3.43
4.05
4.054.05
4.05
6.71
6.716.71
6.71
14.70
14.7014.70
14.70
0.89
0.890.89
0.89
0.67
0.670.67
0.67
0.79
0.790.79
0.79
0.62
0.620.62
0.62
-2.49
-2.49-2.49
-2.49
1.66
1.661.66
1.66
1.58
1.581.58
1.58
1.71
1.711.71
1.71
2.06
2.062.06
2.06
3.87
3.873.87
3.87
0.89
0.890.89
0.89
0.67
0.670.67
0.67
0.79
0.790.79
0.79
0.62
0.620.62
0.62
2.21
2.212.21
2.21
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Page 4

Demographics: Poverty
Tracks the Percentage of Residents Whose Income Falls Below the Poverty Line
Year
Poverty Rate (%)
20.30
20.3020.30
20.30
22.10
22.1022.10
22.10
17.40
17.4017.40
17.40
18.90
18.9018.90
18.90
19.80
19.8019.80
19.80
4.50
4.504.50
4.50
5.60
5.605.60
5.60
5.20
5.205.20
5.20
4.60
4.604.60
4.60
4.70
4.704.70
4.70
9.70
9.709.70
9.70
9.00
9.009.00
9.00
7.90
7.907.90
7.90
8.55
8.558.55
8.55
7.90
7.907.90
7.90
16.4
16.416.4
16.4
16.7
16.716.7
16.7
16.6
16.616.6
16.6
18.9
18.918.9
18.9
18.2
18.218.2
18.2
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
5
10
15
20
25
Median Household Income (above) has been on the rise with a steady increase across the valley since
FY 2017-18. The Median Poverty Rate (below) has simultaneously fallen by about 1% annually until FY
2019-20 brought a 0.9% median increase in households living in poverty, and the first average
increase in poverty among the eleven Valley Benchmark Cities since FY 2013-14. This increase seems
to have stopped as the median average has fallen by .10% suggesting a period of stabilization to
follow.
Some variations in the data may be the result of a margin of error due to small sample sizes for
individual cities.
Median Household Income and Poverty Rates provided by the United States Census.
Page 5

Demographics: Median Household Income
Median Household Income for Each Community.
Year
Median Household Income ($)
91,576
91,57691,576
91,576
88,407
88,40788,407
88,407
99,866
99,86699,866
99,866
102,793
102,793102,793
102,793
105,729
105,729105,729
105,729
51,022
51,02251,022
51,022
51,986
51,98651,986
51,986
54,789
54,78954,789
54,789
57,137
57,13757,137
57,137
55,020
55,02055,020
55,020
60,521
60,52160,521
60,521
65,898
65,89865,898
65,898
70,280
70,28070,280
70,280
73,850.5
73,850.573,850.5
73,850.5
71,707
71,70771,707
71,707
51,022
51,02251,022
51,022
53,753
53,75353,753
53,753
54,789
54,78954,789
54,789
57,137
57,13757,137
57,137
55,020
55,02055,020
55,020
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
40k
60k
80k
100k
120k
Page 6

Fire Medical Services Influencing Factors
Facilities and Staff Composition: The number of fire stations and firefighters available at any given
time and available specialties such as HazMat, Technical Rescue, Wildland Fires, aviation rescues, etc.
may impact response times.
Risk of Fire Activity: Residential density, aging infrastructure, the composition of building types, and
the number of large impact developments (e.g. stadiums, convention centers, airports, etc.) in the
community influence fire services and management.
Community Characteristics: The geographic size and density of development and the built
environment within a community impacts its service needs. For example, a rural community with
more land area may have increased response times and fewer calls, whereas a densely populated
community with older buildings and infrastructure may have a higher number of calls with a lower
response time.
Demand and Type of Calls: The type and priority of calls received (e.g. high priority such as cardiac
arrest) also impacts response time and resources needed.
Local Service Standards: Any special operating standard or target may affect department
outcomes.
Community Education and Engagement: The extent to which residents are aware of the Fire Code,
and take precautions, and the amount of department involvement in the community are also
influencing factors.
Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements: These partnerships are designed to assure that the closest
appropriate fire department resources are deployed in emergencies, no matter the jurisdictional
boundaries. In addition to automatic aid, mutual aid agreements provide additional assistance that
may be dispatched from a neighboring agency.
Page 7

Fire/Medical Services: Fire Response Times
Fire Response Times Measured in Minutes
Year
Fire/Medical Service Calls per Resident
00:07:25
00:07:2500:07:25
00:07:25
00:06:35
00:06:3500:06:35
00:06:35
00:06:31
00:06:3100:06:31
00:06:31
00:06:31
00:06:3100:06:31
00:06:31
00:06:00
00:06:0000:06:00
00:06:00
00:03:49
00:03:4900:03:49
00:03:49
00:03:57
00:03:5700:03:57
00:03:57
00:04:00
00:04:0000:04:00
00:04:00
00:04:09
00:04:0900:04:09
00:04:09
00:04:09
00:04:0900:04:09
00:04:09
00:05:09
00:05:0900:05:09
00:05:09
00:04:48
00:04:4800:04:48
00:04:48
00:05:17
00:05:1700:05:17
00:05:17
00:05:12
00:05:1200:05:12
00:05:12
00:05:22
00:05:2200:05:22
00:05:22
00:04:49
00:04:4900:04:49
00:04:49
00:04:28
00:04:2800:04:28
00:04:28
00:04:04
00:04:0400:04:04
00:04:04
00:04:22
00:04:2200:04:22
00:04:22
00:05:16
00:05:1600:05:16
00:05:16
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
200k
250k
300k
350k
400k
450k
500k
Since FY 2013-14, Fire Response Times have generally decreased (improved) among the Valley
Benchmark Cities. This overall decrease may be attributed to new fire stations being constructed by a
number of municipalities. In FY 2018-19, a few cities experienced increases in response times due to
new developments being constructed in outlying areas and increased demand for service. In FY
2019-20, most cities saw a slight increase in response times. While in FY 2020-21 there was an
increase in response times which can be attributed to staff turnover/training with an influx of
firefighters entering and leaving at this time.
Fire Response Times do not account for dispatch time, whereas Police Response Times are measured
from the moment the call is received.
Page 8

Fire/Medical Services: Service Calls per Resident
Total Fire Calls for Service / Population
Year
Fire/Medical Service Calls per Resident
0.18
0.180.18
0.18
0.15
0.150.15
0.15
0.15
0.150.15
0.15
0.15
0.150.15
0.15
0.15
0.150.15
0.15
0.07
0.070.07
0.07
0.08
0.080.08
0.08
0.08
0.080.08
0.08
0.08
0.080.08
0.08
0.08
0.080.08
0.08
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
0.13
0.130.13
0.13
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.125
0.15
0.175
0.2
Since FY 2013-14, fire calls per resident have generally maintained an upward trend among Valley
Benchmark Cities. Much of this increase is due to a higher volume of medical calls. In FY 2019-20,
most cities saw a slight decrease in per capita fire/medical calls with these figures remaining stable
for FY 2020-21.
The formula for Calls per Resident is: Total Fire Calls for Service / Population
Page 9

Page 10

Police Services Influencing Factors
Community Characteristics: The geographic size, diversity of landscape, and developed
environment of a community can impact the amount and type of areas a police department needs to
serve.
Impact of Non-Residents: Visitors to a particular city who do not maintain a formal residence impact
the need for public safety services. These visitors could be seasonal residents, commuters from
neighboring cities, tourists, or students not counted in population figures.
Citizen Engagement with Police: Police services are influenced by the extent to which police officers
are involved in the community and residents are aware of the services provided by the department.
In many communities, police forces utilize civilian staff to provide additional resources and support
in the community.
Demographics: This factor considers the socioeconomic status of community residents, along with
race, gender, age, and economic health of the community as potential predictors of demand for
police services.
Deployment Strategies: How police resources are utilized within a community can vary based on
multiple community factors. For example, some agencies place an emphasis on non-sworn roles in
police support that can offset the cost of more traditional sworn officer positions.
*Note: Due to Queen Creek's Police Department being created on January 11th, 2022 they are not
represented in this year's trend report in our police services section.
Page 11

Police Services: Police Response Times
Police Response Times Measured in Minutes
Year
Police Response in Mins
00:06:38
00:06:3800:06:38
00:06:38
00:07:22
00:07:2200:07:22
00:07:22
00:07:15
00:07:1500:07:15
00:07:15
00:07:03
00:07:0300:07:03
00:07:03
00:06:40
00:06:4000:06:40
00:06:40
00:03:28
00:03:2800:03:28
00:03:28
00:03:27
00:03:2700:03:27
00:03:27
00:03:07
00:03:0700:03:07
00:03:07
00:03:08
00:03:0800:03:08
00:03:08
00:03:28
00:03:2800:03:28
00:03:28
00:04:52
00:04:5200:04:52
00:04:52
00:05:08
00:05:0800:05:08
00:05:08
00:05:05
00:05:0500:05:05
00:05:05
00:04:44
00:04:4400:04:44
00:04:44
00:04:38
00:04:3800:04:38
00:04:38
00:03:34
00:03:3400:03:34
00:03:34
00:03:27
00:03:2700:03:27
00:03:27
00:03:07
00:03:0700:03:07
00:03:07
00:03:08
00:03:0800:03:08
00:03:08
00:03:28
00:03:2800:03:28
00:03:28
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
100k
200k
300k
400k
500k
Trend data shows that Top Priority Response Times have fluctuated for most cities within a 20-30
second variance over the past three years. The majority of cities decreased (improved) their response
times with an average VBC decrease of 35 secs per response per city in FY2020-21. Annual variations
are possible due to higher-than-average vacancy rates within the patrol officer ranks across the
region.
Police Response Times are measured from the moment the call is received whereas Fire Response
Times do not account for dispatch time.
Page 12

Police Services: Police Calls per Resident
Tracks the Number of Officer and Citizen Initiated Calls Dispatched per Resident.
Year
Police Calls per Resident
1.13
1.131.13
1.13
1.11
1.111.11
1.11
1.10
1.101.10
1.10
1.04
1.041.04
1.04
1.00
1.001.00
1.00
0.52
0.520.52
0.52
0.52
0.520.52
0.52
0.50
0.500.50
0.50
0.45
0.450.45
0.45
0.31
0.310.31
0.31
0.68
0.680.68
0.68
0.67
0.670.67
0.67
0.67
0.670.67
0.67
0.59
0.590.59
0.59
0.55
0.550.55
0.55
0.808
0.8080.808
0.808
0.767
0.7670.767
0.767
0.680
0.6800.680
0.680
0.657
0.6570.657
0.657
0.661
0.6610.661
0.661
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
Total Police Calls per Resident for almost all cities have held steady or maintained a slight decline
over the past four years. Variation in individual city data may be related to population changes and
community policing “eyes and ears” efforts.
The formula for Calls per Resident is: Total Police Calls / Population
Page 13

Police Services: Officer Initiated Calls per Resident
Police Calls - Officer Initiated Calls / Population
Year
Police Calls per Resident - Officer Initiated Calls
0.55
0.550.55
0.55
0.50
0.500.50
0.50
0.41
0.410.41
0.41
0.55
0.550.55
0.55
0.54
0.540.54
0.54
0.11
0.110.11
0.11
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
0.11
0.110.11
0.11
0.10
0.100.10
0.10
0.25
0.250.25
0.25
0.25
0.250.25
0.25
0.26
0.260.26
0.26
0.20
0.200.20
0.20
0.20
0.200.20
0.20
0.271
0.2710.271
0.271
0.283
0.2830.283
0.283
0.258
0.2580.258
0.258
0.231
0.2310.231
0.231
0.238
0.2380.238
0.238
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Police Services: Citizen Initiated Calls per Resident
Police Calls - Citizen Initiated Calls / Population
Year
Police Calls per Resident - Citizen Initiated Calls
0.58
0.580.58
0.58
0.61
0.610.61
0.61
0.69
0.690.69
0.69
0.69
0.690.69
0.69
0.70
0.700.70
0.70
0.30
0.300.30
0.30
0.29
0.290.29
0.29
0.27
0.270.27
0.27
0.25
0.250.25
0.25
0.18
0.180.18
0.18
0.43
0.430.43
0.43
0.42
0.420.42
0.42
0.42
0.420.42
0.42
0.37
0.370.37
0.37
0.35
0.350.35
0.35
0.54
0.540.54
0.54
0.48
0.480.48
0.48
0.42
0.420.42
0.42
0.43
0.430.43
0.43
0.42
0.420.42
0.42
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Page 14

Police Services: Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
The Number of Reported Violent Crimes per 1,000 Residents.
Year
Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
6.86
6.866.86
6.86
7.92
7.927.92
7.92
7.58
7.587.58
7.58
7.30
7.307.30
7.30
8.47
8.478.47
8.47
0.83
0.830.83
0.83
0.84
0.840.84
0.84
0.92
0.920.92
0.92
0.94
0.940.94
0.94
1.05
1.051.05
1.05
2.89
2.892.89
2.89
2.68
2.682.68
2.68
2.40
2.402.40
2.40
2.24
2.242.24
2.24
2.26
2.262.26
2.26
5.05
5.055.05
5.05
5.06
5.065.06
5.06
5.04
5.045.04
5.04
3.55
3.553.55
3.55
4.52
4.524.52
4.52
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
2
4
6
8
10
Police Services: Property Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
The Number of Reported Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents.
Year
Property Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
53.73
53.7353.73
53.73
43.64
43.6443.64
43.64
42.34
42.3442.34
42.34
39.34
39.3439.34
39.34
39.23
39.2339.23
39.23
14.02
14.0214.02
14.02
13.62
13.6213.62
13.62
12.94
12.9412.94
12.94
11.76
11.7611.76
11.76
10.64
10.6410.64
10.64
24.47
24.4724.47
24.47
22.65
22.6522.65
22.65
23.16
23.1623.16
23.16
20.40
20.4020.40
20.40
19.56
19.5619.56
19.56
53.735
53.73553.735
53.735
43.639
43.63943.639
43.639
42.345
42.34542.345
42.345
33.222
33.22233.222
33.222
28.240
28.24028.240
28.240
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Page 15

Police Services: Violent Crime Clearance Rates
Clearance Rates Include Cases Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means.
Year
Violent Crime Clearance Rates
64.00
64.0064.00
64.00
55.50
55.5055.50
55.50
60.00
60.0060.00
60.00
60.00
60.0060.00
60.00
57.00
57.0057.00
57.00
27.00
27.0027.00
27.00
27.00
27.0027.00
27.00
28.00
28.0028.00
28.00
28.00
28.0028.00
28.00
26.00
26.0026.00
26.00
48.23
48.2348.23
48.23
43.00
43.0043.00
43.00
46.00
46.0046.00
46.00
43.25
43.2543.25
43.25
38.50
38.5038.50
38.50
34
3434
34
32
3232
32
28
2828
28
28
2828
28
26
2626
26
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
20
30
40
50
60
70
Police Services: Property Crime Clearance Rates
Clearance Rates Include Cases Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means.
Year
Property Crime Clearance Rates
30.64
30.6430.64
30.64
28.49
28.4928.49
28.49
27.80
27.8027.80
27.80
27.00
27.0027.00
27.00
23.00
23.0023.00
23.00
12.39
12.3912.39
12.39
8.70
8.708.70
8.70
9.00
9.009.00
9.00
10.00
10.0010.00
10.00
11.00
11.0011.00
11.00
17.00
17.0017.00
17.00
19.00
19.0019.00
19.00
18.00
18.0018.00
18.00
16.52
16.5216.52
16.52
16.96
16.9616.96
16.96
17
1717
17
19
1919
19
10
1010
10
10
1010
10
13
1313
13
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 16

Violent crime clearance rates and property crime clearance rates both show an overall downward
trend, and both rates are at their lowest on average across the Valley Benchmark Cities since FY
2013-14. This indicates a lower percentage of cases cleared on average and likely is not affected by
the changes in the total number of cases. As with other police indicators, regional staffing shortages
may be a driving factor for the slight shift.
In FY 2020-21, Property crime clearance rates have a range of 12% (between 11-23%) and seem to be
narrowing toward an average of 17%.
Clearance rates include cases "cleared by arrest," or "submitted to prosecutor," and cases "cleared
exceptional." Clearance rates are calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are cleared via a
charge being assessed by the total number of crimes reported in a given year. Considering the special
complexity of some cases, some charges will be included outside of the year when the crime
occurred. Our definition of a clearance rate is consistent with the definition of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Page 17

Library Services Influencing Factors
County Policy for Library Reciprocal Borrowers Program: Exchange among library branches and
between cities allows for greater access to materials that citizens request and reduces costs of new
materials. Residents of Maricopa County may obtain a library card from any county or municipal
library.
Population / Library Patrons and Customer Demand: Local population and number of people using
library materials and facilities drive the demand for library availability.
Library Services: Average Hours Libraries are Open per Week
Public Service Hours / Number of Branches / 52 Weeks
Year
Average Hours Libraries are Open per Week
66
6666
66
66
6666
66
66
6666
66
49
4949
49
52
5252
52
37
3737
37
41
4141
41
42
4242
42
27
2727
27
30
3030
30
50
5050
50
50
5050
50
50
5050
50
38
3838
38
39.2
39.239.2
39.2
37
3737
37
41
4141
41
42
4242
42
33
3333
33
44.6
44.644.6
44.6
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
20
30
40
50
60
70
Page 18

The number of hours a library is open is influenced by whether it is operated by the municipality or
Maricopa County. Hours at Valley libraries have remained relatively static, with only minor
fluctuations over the last five years.
In FY 2019-20, Library Hours were drastically reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring many
facilities to close their doors. During this time, many libraries continued providing services via drive-
through or lobby-only borrowing, as well as through virtual events. The values above only account
for those hours during which the library was fully open for normal operations. In FY 2020-21, one can
see the slow reopening of libraries in the post-pandemic recovery period.
Average weekly hours city libraries are open for operation is a calculation of the total number of
public service hours divided by the number of branches and 52 weeks.
Library Services: Physical Item Turn Over Rate
Number of Physical Items Borrowed/Number of Physical Items Available
Year
Physical Item Turn Over Rate
12.64
12.6412.64
12.64
12.67
12.6712.67
12.67
12.36
12.3612.36
12.36
7.12
7.127.12
7.12
6.05
6.056.05
6.05
2.68
2.682.68
2.68
2.68
2.682.68
2.68
2.79
2.792.79
2.79
2.02
2.022.02
2.02
0.58
0.580.58
0.58
5.24
5.245.24
5.24
5.53
5.535.53
5.53
5.53
5.535.53
5.53
3.88
3.883.88
3.88
3.06
3.063.06
3.06
3.06
3.063.06
3.06
2.68
2.682.68
2.68
2.79
2.792.79
2.79
2.29
2.292.29
2.29
1.89
1.891.89
1.89
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
5
10
15
Page 19

Physical Item Turnover represents the number of items checked out over the fiscal year relative to the
number of items available. Turnover rates can fluctuate up and down based on the number of
physical items you have in your collection. This number may be greater than 1 if items are checked
out repeatedly.
Since 2016, turnover has generally remained steady, but FY 2019-20 saw a decline across 9 cities as a
result of the COVID-19 related library closures. This decline has continued through FY 2020-21.
The formula for Physical Item Turnover Rate is: (Number of physical items borrowed) / (Total physical
items available)
Library Services: Operation and Maintenance Expenditures per Square Foot
O & M Expenditures per Square Foot
Year
Operation and Maintenance Expenditures per Square Foot (
80.87
80.8780.87
80.87
88.69
88.6988.69
88.69
84.59
84.5984.59
84.59
79.10
79.1079.10
79.10
72.71
72.7172.71
72.71
33.44
33.4433.44
33.44
31.26
31.2631.26
31.26
30.97
30.9730.97
30.97
31.89
31.8931.89
31.89
26.42
26.4226.42
26.42
52.15
52.1552.15
52.15
47.03
47.0347.03
47.03
48.00
48.0048.00
48.00
49.58
49.5849.58
49.58
49.14
49.1449.14
49.14
41.76
41.7641.76
41.76
43.23
43.2343.23
43.23
45.37
45.3745.37
45.37
50.02
50.0250.02
50.02
44.19
44.1944.19
44.19
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
20
40
60
80
100
Page 20

O&M Expenditures per Square Foot have been relatively stable since 2016. Over that same period,
however, O&M Expenditures per Visit appear to be gradually increasing across the valley. This is likely
due to an increase in electronic borrowing and a decrease in physical visits. Both of these trends are
reflected in almost all Valley Benchmark Cities since 2016.
In FY 2017-18, City of Phoenix O&M Expenditures increased significantly due to the reconstruction of
Burton Barr Central Library and the replacement of damaged items after the library had a severe
flooding incident.
In FY 2019-20, the City of Surprise O&M Expenditures per square foot decreased substantially due to
the new Asante Library, a 10,000 square foot addition that opened in February 2020 and then halted
operations in mid-March due to the pandemic.
In FY 2020-21 the City of Phoenix experienced a massive drop in visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic
and flooding causing library closures.
Library Services: Operation and Maintenance Expenditures per Visit
Total O&M Expenditures / Number of Total Library Visits
Year
Operation and Maintenance Expenditures per Visit ($)
8.657
8.6578.657
8.657
12.233
12.23312.233
12.233
10.815
10.81510.815
10.815
16.516
16.51616.516
16.516
344.260
344.260344.260
344.260
4.078
4.0784.078
4.078
4.539
4.5394.539
4.539
4.350
4.3504.350
4.350
5.021
5.0215.021
5.021
3.128
3.1283.128
3.128
6.281
6.2816.281
6.281
6.658
6.6586.658
6.658
6.800
6.8006.800
6.800
10.188
10.18810.188
10.188
23.035
23.03523.035
23.035
8.472
8.4728.472
8.472
8.995
8.9958.995
8.995
10.018
10.01810.018
10.018
14.985
14.98514.985
14.985
25.960
25.96025.960
25.960
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
100
200
300
400
Page 21

Parks and Recreation Services Influencing Factors
Services Offered by Private Sector: At times, recreation programs, parks, trails, and pools are
offered by private organizations, such as homeowner associations. The availability and quality of
private programs and amenities influence the extent to which cities consider offering similar
programs and amenities.
Customer Feedback: Feedback from the community is vital to understanding what services are
desired and what the community values most in parks and recreation services.
Social Demographics: The socioeconomic and demographic make-up of a community can influence
recreation centers and other amenities. Communities with larger low-income populations have a
higher demand for low-cost or free recreation programs, public pools, and recreation centers for
people of all ages.
Geography/Open Space Recreation Areas: Geography helps shape how cities define recreational
activities and what amenities are offered. Individuals who live closer to outdoor recreation areas than
developed municipal parks influence the demand for parks in a city. If recreation exists in close
proximity for citizens, such as preserves, trails, and open spaces, their need to visit a developed park
is diminished, which influences developed park acreage.
Page 22

Parks and Recreation Services: Park Acreage (Developed, Golf, Stadium) per 1,000 Residents
(Park Acreage for Public Use - Developed Park Acreage + Park Acreage for Public Use - Golf Course Acreage + Park Acreage for Public Use - Stadium Acreage ) / ( Population ) * 1000
Year
Park Acreage (Developed, Golf, Stadium) per 1,000Residen
8.47
8.478.47
8.47
8.31
8.318.31
8.31
8.07
8.078.07
8.07
7.93
7.937.93
7.93
7.63
7.637.63
7.63
1.76
1.761.76
1.76
1.47
1.471.47
1.47
1.45
1.451.45
1.45
1.29
1.291.29
1.29
1.12
1.121.12
1.12
3.72
3.723.72
3.72
3.67
3.673.67
3.67
4.03
4.034.03
4.03
3.97
3.973.97
3.97
3.49
3.493.49
3.49
4.04
4.044.04
4.04
4.06
4.064.06
4.06
4.03
4.034.03
4.03
4.95
4.954.95
4.95
4.66
4.664.66
4.66
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
2
4
6
8
10
Park acreage has not seen significant change among VBC cities since FY 2014. There is a slight
downward trend in park acreage per 1,000 residents among some cities due to population growth. As
the population continues to increase and communities approach full build-out, this trend is expected
to stabilize.
Park acreage includes developed park acreage, golf course acreage, and stadium acreage. Natural
preserve acreage, applicable to Avondale (130 total acres), Gilbert (182), Glendale (1,112), Peoria
(1,133), Phoenix (36,243), Scottsdale (30,560), and Tempe (321), is not included. Planned park acreage
is also not included.
Page 23

Parks and Recreation Services: Miles of Trails per 1,000 Residents
Miles of Trails / Population * 1000
Year
Miles of Trails per 1,000 Residents
1.81
1.811.81
1.81
1.81
1.811.81
1.81
1.83
1.831.83
1.83
1.79
1.791.79
1.79
2.06
2.062.06
2.06
0.02
0.020.02
0.02
0.01
0.010.01
0.01
0.01
0.010.01
0.01
0.01
0.010.01
0.01
0.01
0.010.01
0.01
0.19
0.190.19
0.19
0.19
0.190.19
0.19
0.19
0.190.19
0.19
0.25
0.250.25
0.25
0.19
0.190.19
0.19
0.191
0.1910.191
0.191
0.190
0.1900.190
0.190
0.190
0.1900.190
0.190
0.189
0.1890.189
0.189
0.185
0.1850.185
0.185
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
1
2
3
The average miles of trails per 1,000 residents has remained relatively stable among VBC cities from
FY 2014-15 through FY 2019-20. Changes to this trend may occur when an individual municipality
adds and opens new trails, as observed in FY 2019 -20 when the City of Scottsdale opened 10 miles of
a new hiking trail from their local preserve which provided an upward trend. This trend continues in
FY2020-21 as Scottsdale continues to increase its preserved trails.
A community's geography influences its ability to add miles of trails. As the population continues to
increase and communities approach full build-out, this trend is expected to continue stabilizing.
Miles of trails include only those trails separated from the roadway and also include miles of trails in
preserves.
The formula for Miles of Trails per 1,000 Residents is: Miles of Trails / Population * 1000
Page 24

Page 25

Water, Sewer, and Trash Services Influencing Factors
Drinking Water Source: The water source (or surface water, e.g. Salt River Project or Central Arizona
Project) impacts costs of production due to different treatment requirements. Environmental
conditions, seasonal demands, and the number of independent water supply and distribution
systems also affect treatment costs.
Service Area: The size and conditions of the geographic area serviced, the elevation gain, and the
number and density of customers affect water, sewer, and trash costs.
Conservation Programs: Programs and rate structures can provide incentives or disincentives for
water consumption, waste reduction, and recycling.
Facilities: The size, technology used, and ownership of the facility (joint/shared or local) impact the
cost of water, landfills, and recycling centers provided to customers.
Density: The size and type of residential, agricultural, and commercial properties influence water
consumption and trash tonnage collected.
Irrigation or Use of Reclaimed Water: Consumption can be impacted if customers use water from
separate irrigation districts for landscape watering.
Type of Services: The types of services included in collection fees vary by community and affect
trash tonnage; e.g. uncontained and bulk trash collection.
Consumer Behavior: Consumer behaviors surrounding recyclable products are constantly changing.
These changes can impact waste streams, and consequently impact supply and demand in the
recycling market. For example, as residents and businesses do more communicating, reading, and
shopping online, recycling in the form of paper mail, newspaper, magazine, and correspondence
have declined, while cardboard recycling from online shopping has increased.
Market Rates: The market for recycled materials impacts the production and net cost of recycling in
a city. Historically, foreign nations have been the primary consumers of recycled materials, but
changes in recycling requirements and acceptable commodities are affecting the amount of
household waste diverted to recycling.
Page 26

Water, Sewer, & Trash Services: Standardized Monthly Bill for Water & Sewer (Higher Use)
Assumes Single-Family Residential Water Use 17,000 Gallons on 1 Meter and Sewer Use 12,000 gallons. Taxes Not Included. Rates are for Municipal Water Providers Only.
Year
Standardized Monthly Bill for Water & Sewer (HigherUse) ($
170.74
170.74170.74
170.74
194.67
194.67194.67
194.67
207.75
207.75207.75
207.75
227.02
227.02227.02
227.02
227.02
227.02227.02
227.02
69.82
69.8269.82
69.82
69.82
69.8269.82
69.82
71.10
71.1071.10
71.10
71.10
71.1071.10
71.10
71.10
71.1071.10
71.10
102.45
102.45102.45
102.45
111.66
111.66111.66
111.66
116.27
116.27116.27
116.27
118.11
118.11118.11
118.11
127.02
127.02127.02
127.02
113.8
113.8113.8
113.8
113.8
113.8113.8
113.8
119.97
119.97119.97
119.97
126.63
126.63126.63
126.63
140.69
140.69140.69
140.69
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
50
100
150
200
250
Water, Sewer, & Trash Services: Standardized Monthly Bill for Water & Sewer (Lower Use)
Assumes Single-Family Residential Water Use 9,000 gallons on 3/4" Meter and Sewer Use 8,000 gallons. Taxes Not Included. Rates are for Municipal Water Providers Only.
Year
Standardized Monthly Bill for Water & Sewer (LowerUse) ($
99.66
99.6699.66
99.66
112.03
112.03112.03
112.03
118.66
118.66118.66
118.66
128.66
128.66128.66
128.66
128.66
128.66128.66
128.66
50.17
50.1750.17
50.17
50.17
50.1750.17
50.17
52.07
52.0752.07
52.07
51.91
51.9151.91
51.91
51.91
51.9151.91
51.91
58.57
58.5758.57
58.57
60.05
60.0560.05
60.05
62.69
62.6962.69
62.69
63.27
63.2763.27
63.27
67.48
67.4867.48
67.48
70.86
70.8670.86
70.86
70.86
70.8670.86
70.86
74.75
74.7574.75
74.75
78.81
78.8178.81
78.81
87.51
87.5187.51
87.51
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
25
50
75
100
125
150
Page 27

Water and sewer combined monthly rates for both higher and lower use continue to increase
gradually and steadily for cities throughout the region.
Water and sewer rates are set individually by each community and have many variables. This chart
does not compare the average or typical customer in each community but rather visualizes what the
standardized monthly bill would be for a customer with the same meter size and water usage.
Because rates differ based on higher or lower water use, both charts are provided to reflect the range
of customers serviced.
Even customers with the same water usage may have different sewer rates because of variations in
how each community calculates those charges. The higher use is calculated using the equivalent of a
1" meter with water use of 17,000 gallons and sewer flow of 12,000 gallons. The lower use is
calculated using the equivalent of a 3/4" meter with water use of 9,000 gallons and sewer flow of
8,000 gallons.
Water, Sewer, & Trash Services: Percent of Single Family Residential Waste Diverted through Curbside Recycling
Diversion Rate is (Recycling Tons / Total Waste + Recycling Tons Combined)
Year
Percent of Waste Diverted through Recycling (%)
13.00
13.0013.00
13.00
16.00
16.0016.00
16.00
12.00
12.0012.00
12.00
0.23
0.230.23
0.23
0.12
0.120.12
0.12
25.00
25.0025.00
25.00
26.00
26.0026.00
26.00
28.00
28.0028.00
28.00
20.00
20.0020.00
20.00
20.00
20.0020.00
20.00
22.00
22.0022.00
22.00
21.00
21.0021.00
21.00
21.00
21.0021.00
21.00
16.50
16.5016.50
16.50
18.50
18.5018.50
18.50
13
1313
13
16
1616
16
12
1212
12
12
1212
12
12.75
12.7512.75
12.75
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
0
10
20
30
Page 28

Waste diversion is the prevention and reduction of landfilled waste through the recycling of collected
residential waste. The diversion rate is calculated by dividing the recycling tonnage by the total waste
and recycling tonnage combined, or the total tonnage collected.
Since FY 2013-14, cities have diverted about 22% of single-family residential waste through recycling
each year. In FY 2019-20, four cities ceased or reduced their recycling services, resulting in a
significant drop in the recycling rates shown in the charts. The reduction was caused in large part by a
decline in market rates for recycled materials in 2018.
An additional blow was dealt when the Salt River Pima Indian Community's Republic Services
recycling plant burned down in October 2019. This plant provided 100% of the City of Scottsdale's
recycling services, and 60% of the City of Mesa's, and its loss significantly increased the number
of recyclables sent to landfills in these cities.
The remaining cities showed slight declines in their service levels, and declines are expected to
continue across all cities as they seek innovative solutions to waste reduction and diversion.
The City of Buckeye is not included in this metric as while they collect recycling (8,222 tons in
FY2020-2021) it is not recycled.
Page 29

Page 30

Finance and Administration Services Influencing Factors
Population: As a city’s population increases, so do the demands for service and corresponding
staffing levels. Cities with a larger population are often able to generate more revenue to support
these services, providing increased flexibility for unique or enhanced programs. In addition to a city’s
resident population, a community’s non-resident daytime population can influence the amount and
level of services required.
Service Methods: Staffing levels are influenced by whether services are performed by internal staff
or provided by contract, which can vary between cities.
Regional Responsibilities: Some cities (primarily Phoenix) have regional responsibilities that
require additional staffing. Examples include Sky Harbor Airport and Phoenix Convention Center.
Paying for Service Delivery: Over time, cities have decided to enhance or improve certain services,
thus requiring additional revenue sources. For example, some cities use a Primary Property Tax to
generate additional operating funds.
Financial Health: The fiscal health of a community can be difficult to summarize with one measure,
but a commonly accepted approach is to compare bond ratings. A high bond rating is an indicator of
financial health, since rating agencies look for acceptable financial practices, consistent revenue
streams, expenditure control, healthy fund balance reserves, the socioeconomic composition of the
community, and the value of the tax base.
Page 31

Finance Services: Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per 1,000 Residents
Total FTE for Fiscal Year / Population * 1000
Year
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per 1,000 Residents
10.35
10.3510.35
10.35
10.27
10.2710.27
10.27
10.26
10.2610.26
10.26
10.54
10.5410.54
10.54
10.82
10.8210.82
10.82
5.43
5.435.43
5.43
5.51
5.515.51
5.51
5.51
5.515.51
5.51
5.73
5.735.73
5.73
5.82
5.825.82
5.82
7.14
7.147.14
7.14
7.44
7.447.44
7.44
7.49
7.497.49
7.49
7.30
7.307.30
7.30
6.99
6.996.99
6.99
7.432
7.4327.432
7.432
7.442
7.4427.442
7.442
7.495
7.4957.495
7.495
7.513
7.5137.513
7.513
7.407
7.4077.407
7.407
VBC MAX
VBC MAX
VBC MIN
VBC MIN
VBC MEDIAN
VBC MEDIAN
Glendale
Glendale
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
4
6
8
10
12
FTE per 1,000 Residents has remained relatively stable, with a few exceptions. In FY 2019-20, two
Valley Benchmark Communities saw significant increases of 1.37 and .63 FTE per 1,000 Residents. In
FY 2020-21, our communities saw decreases of .7 and .3 FTE per 1,000 Residents.
Despite these exceptions, the great majority of annual fluctuations are minor and are likely due to
employee attrition and population change.
The formula for FTE per 1,000 Residents is: Total FTE for Fiscal Year / ( Population / 1000 )
Page 32

Valley Benchmark Communities 2021 Bond Ratings
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AA
AAAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AA
AAAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AA
AAAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
AA
AAAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAA
AAA
Avondale, AZ
Buckeye, AZ
Chandler, AZ
Gilbert, AZ
Glendale, AZ
Goodyear, AZ
Mesa, AZ
Peoria, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Queen Creek, AZ
Scottsdale, AZ
Surprise, AZ
Tempe, AZ
The bond rating of one Valley city reduced from AA+ to AA in FY 2019-20. Bond ratings for all other
Valley-area cities are stable or increasing year over year. All are rated AA or higher.
Cities report the highest bond rating regardless of the rating agency. Bond ratings range between D
and AAA.
Page 33

Page 34

ll photos used in this report were provided by the Valley Benchmark Communities.
Contributions to this report were made by the following individuals:
Avondale
•
Torin Sadow, Senior Management Analyst
•
Katrece Swenson, Management Analyst
•
Tracy Stevens, Acting Assistant City Manager
Buckeye
•
Dan Cotterman, Buckeye City Manager
•
Mel Gibson, Assistant to the City Manager
Chandler
•
Steven Turner, Assistant to the City Manager
Gilbert
•
Viki Coe, Management and Budget Analyst
•
Genesis E. Hart, Management & Budget Analyst
Glendale
•
Jenny Durda, Business Intelligence and Analytics Officer, Department of Organizational Performance
•
Khala Stanfield, Director, Department of Organizational Performance
Goodyear
•
Jenna Goad, Assistant to City Manager
Maricopa County
•
Valerie Beckett, Assistant County Manager
•
Kelly Rao, Innovation Studio Manager
Mesa
•
Mikayla Cutlip, Budget Analyst
•
Aaron Blaylock, Performance Advisor II
•
Stephen Gushue, Performance Advisor II
•
Quentin Nelson, Management Analyst I
•
Joe Zhao, Senior Performance Advisor
Peoria
•
Anthony Alejandro, Assistant to the Mayor
Phoenix
•
Alexa Martin, Management Assistant II
•
Marie Rabusa, Management Assistant II
Queen Creek
•
Tracy Corman, Assistant to Town Manager
•
Samantha Womer, Public Information Specialist
Scottsdale
•
Adam Samuels, Sr. Budget Analyst
•
Shane Stone, Senior Management Associate to City Manager
Page 35

•
Brent Stockwell, Assistant City Manager
Surprise
•
Andrew Rumpeltes, Process and Policy Analyst
•
Kelsey Lamphier, Assistant to City Manager
Tempe
•
Wydale K. Holmes, Strategic Management Analyst
Arizona State University
•
Brock Schroeder, Marvin Andrews Fellow
•
Cynthia Seelhammer, Marvin Andrews Fellowship Coordinator, Professor of Practice
•
David Swindell, Director of the Center for Urban Innovation
•
George Pettit, Professor of Practice
Maricopa Association of Governments
•
Anubhav Bagley, Regional Analytics Director
•
Scott Wilken, Senior Planning Project Manager
A special thank you to the following sponsors who made this report possible!
Our Sponsors
•
Core
•
Envisio
•
GreenburgTrauing
•
Republic Services,
•
Ritoch-Powell and Associates
•
Snell and Wilmer
•
Squire Patton Boggs
•
Stifel
•
Willdan
•
Zion Bank
And a special shout out to the Envisio staff who assisted in transferring our previous reports to the new system!
•
Chloe Donatelli, Implementation Consultant
•
Jim Li, VP of Software Development
Page 36