Parks Strategic Master Plan 2021
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
169121 characters
NO. PR1907.101
J U L Y 2 0 2 1 | F I N A L
PREPARED BY
AND
STRATEGIC
MASTER PLAN
TA B L E O F
C O N T E N T S
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
Mayor
Kevin Hartke
Vice Mayor
Mark Stewart
Council members
Christine Ellis
OD Harris
Rene Lopez
Matt Orlando
Terry Roe
Parks and Recreation Board
Tim Johnson, Chairman
Melanie Dykstra, Vice Chair
Barbara Cenalmar Bruquetas
John David
Jason Dawson
Shawn Hsu
Jeff Reynolds
City Staff
Joshua H. Wright, Acting City Manager
Debra Stapleton, Assistant City Manager
Andy Bass, Community Services Director
Mickey Ohland, Community Services Planning Manager
Jeff Larsen, Parks Maintenance Manager
Dan Haskins, Engineer-CIP
Consultants
Kimley-Horn
PROS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
2
CHAPTER 3
Community Needs and Prioritized Ranking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CHAPTER 2
Demographics and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 4
Park Classification, Design Principles, and Facility
Inventory/Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
CHAPTER 5
Level of Service and Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
CHAPTER 6
Capital Improvement and Total Cost of Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
CHAPTER 8
Strategic Implementation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
CHAPTER 7
Funding Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
CHAPTER 9
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Appendix A: Statistically Valid Survey
Appendix B: Facility Inventory and Assessment
Appendix C: Capital Improvement Plan
(Lifecycle Replacement and Visionary Projects)
Appendix D: Community Input
APPENDICES
3
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
4
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 1
Executive Summary
5
Chapter 1 – Executive Summary
PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOAL
At nearly a quarter of a million residents, the City of Chandler
(City) is the fourth largest city in Arizona. Per its mission, the
City’s Community Services Department (Department) ‘champions
everyday experiences that encourage the community to discover,
imagine, and grow.’ As the city has grown since its establishment
in 1912 to encompass 64.90 incorporated square miles, the
number of parks and facilities has equally grown.
The purpose of this Strategic Parks Master Plan is to provide
the City of Chandler a roadmap for future development and
improvement of recreational facilities and opportunities for the
City. This plan is based on nationally recognized park planning
principles and standards and reflects local input from residents,
stakeholders, City Staff, City Council, the Department, and the
Parks and Recreation Board.
MISSION
Champion
everyday
experiences that
encourage the
community to
discover, imagine,
and grow
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
6
The City of Chandler Strategic Parks Master Plan (Master Plan) focuses on identifying the City’s current
and future recreation needs to aid City staff and decision-makers in providing, improving, and expanding
the equitable distribution of recreational facilities and opportunities to City residents and stakeholders. This
includes preserving the quality of the City’s parks and facilities while expanding access to better connect
people to outdoor recreation and educational opportunities. Primary outcomes of the Master Plan included:
Evaluating the existing park system and project future conditions (as noted in COC Agenda Memo CP20-
080)
Documenting priorities and needs of the current and projected population growth based on data-driven
input
Establishing the vision, goals, and policies to guide decision-making
Developing a three-tiered capital improvement plan that outlines projects, anticipated costs, potential
funding sources, operation and maintenance implications, and implementation strategy
Providing a record of issues discussed and decisions made
Evaluating total cost of ownership of constructing and operating the parks and recreation system
Creation of an Asset Management Plan to inventory physical amenities, evaluate their condition, and
create a replacement schedule.
7
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
PROJECT PROCESS
The foundation of the Master Plan was to incorporate a variety of data and mine local knowledge using a
comprehensive stakeholder participation process and community surveys. The stakeholder input process
incorporated a variety of methods that included interviews, focus group meetings, and public forums/
presentations. The data generated from these critical community interactions helped to define the true unmet
recreation needs of the community and strategize on how to best position the City and the Department to move
forward for optimum results.
ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
The planning process for the Master Plan was completed with City Staff and included:
◢The collection of available information
◢Data analysis to determine inventory and condition of current facilities
◢Determination of supply and demand within the community
◢Developing recommendations for meeting the needs of the community through an analysis of facilities,
maintenance practices, and levels of service
The data collected from the staff and onsite facility assessments was utilized to identify key factors, issues, and
concerns regarding the parks and recreation system and how the Department manages operations.
MASTER PLAN ORGANIZATION
This Master Plan presents the overall analysis, findings, and recommendations for the next 15 years. This
document begins with an Executive Summary that provides an overview, and the following sections respond to
the primary outcomes, determine needs, and offer capital improvement recommendations.
o
o
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
Ray Rd
Pecos Rd
Germann Rd
Queen Creek Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Chandler Heights Rd
Chandler Blvd
Riggs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Val Vista Dr
Lindsay Rd
Gilbert Rd
Cooper Rd
McQueen Rd
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
Old Price Rd
Arizona Ave
McClintock Dr
Rural Rd
Kyrene Rd
56th St
Tempe
Mesa
Gilbert
Phoenix
?
ð
!"a$
Gila River
Indian Community
?
Þ
West
North
Southwest
Southeast
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
8
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the assessment of the City’s parks and recreation
system, a variety of key findings were identified to support the
implementation of the Master Plan. These key findings help to
guide decision-making for the next 15 years.
MARKET ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS
POPULATION
◢The population is increasing and is projected to experience
a 32% population growth over the next 15 years.
◢With a significantly growing population, in particular in the
Southeast and Southwest park planning areas, park and
recreation services will need to strategically invest, develop,
and maintain parks and facilities in relation to current and
future housing development areas.
AGE SEGMENTATION
◢Chandler currently has a balanced age
segmentation with the largest group being
35-54 and the second largest group being 0-17.
◢Over the next 15 years, the 55+ age segment
will increase by 4.9% while those who are 0-17
are projected to decrease by 2%, making up
23.2% of the population by 2034.
◢This is assumed to be a consequence of a vast
amount of the Baby Boomer generation shifting
into the senior age segment.
◢Given the differences in how active adults
(55 and older) participate in recreation
programs, the trend is moving toward having
at least two to three different program-age
segments for older adults.
◢When developing the park and recreation
system, the City should evaluate recreation
experiences that would cater to active adults in
the 55-64, 65–74, and 75+ age segments.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
◢A diversifying population will likely focus the City on providing traditional programming and service
offerings while always seeking to identify emerging activities and sports such as pickleball, cricket, and
lacrosse.
HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME
◢With median and per capita household income averages well above that of state and national averages,
it is important for the City to prioritize providing offerings that are first class with exceptional customer
service while seeking opportunities to create revenue generation.
9
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
COMMUNITY INPUT KEY FINDINGS
Input from the community confirmed that the City’s parks are loved by many but there are gaps in service and
amenities. Additional city investment is needed to maintain existing parks and develop new parks and facilities
for the growing community. Participants see the system as one that is well-maintained with great staff. Unmet
needs exist as the demand for select services is currently outweighing the available facilities and/or existing
amenities. The following summarizes the themes of community input:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PARK DEVELOPMENT
Opportunity exists for park development to enhance and/or advance economic development. There is also an
opportunity for economic development to enhance and support park development.
◢Parks can play a significant role in business attraction, residential development, and the overall quality of
life attributes desired by the community.
◢Investment in parks reflects the community’s value set and the City’s overall attitude of being an active
player in the betterment of the community.
◢The development of a Sports Complex can serve as an economic catalyst, via sports tourism.
INVESTING IN THE EXISTING PARKS SYSTEM
◢Continue to focus on reinvesting in and maintaining existing parks.
◢Opportunities exist to, in part, help meet the park needs of the community through partnership with
Maricopa County.
TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY
◢Desire for a connected, accessible recreational trail system that also supports active transportation and
Safe Routes to School initiatives.
ADVOCACY AND AWARENESS
◢Increased and targeted communication/marketing is needed to develop more advocacy for, and the
awareness of, the parks system.
FUNDING THE PARKS SYSTEM
◢Multiple funding strategies are required to meet the needs of the community.
◢Focus on opportunities to expand the City’s partnership with Maricopa County and the development
community to meet the park needs of the community.
◢Securing funding through bond initiatives and grants will be critical for funding park development over the
next 10 years.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
10
PROGRAM AND FACILITY PRIORITY RANKINGS
The purpose of the Program and Facility Priority Rankings is to provide a prioritized list of program/service
and facility/amenity needs for the community served by the City. The analysis completed evaluated both
quantitative and qualitative data. The following charts identify the highest program/service and facility/amenity
priorities by Park Planning Area.
PROGRAM/SERVICE HIGH PRIORITY RANKINGS – BY PARK PLANNING AREA
FACILITY/AMENITY HIGH PRIORITY RANKINGS – BY PARK PLANNING AREA
SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
As Chandler develops over the next decade, a number
of future developed parks or strategic changes to parks
have been identified. In working with the Department,
these future and strategic changes to parks are
summarized to the right:
The table identifies an additional 159.27 acres that, when
developed, will be added to the City’s parks system.
Future parks include Lantana, Homestead North, and
Mesquite Grove. The development of a regional park is
also recommended.
Total Acres
Recreation Component
STRATEGIC
CHANGES TO
EXISTING
PARKS
FUTURE
PLANNED
PARKLAND
DEVELOPMENT
PARKS AND SPECIAL USE FACILITIES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
7.60
COMMUNITY PARKS
53.27
REGIONAL PARKS
235.00
98.40
SPECIAL USE PARKS
(235.00)
Total
-
159.27
11
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
PLANNED FUTURE PARKS IMPACT ON LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDS
To understand the impact that the future parks will have on the City’s ability to meet the LOS standard needs
shown on the previous table, a comparative level of service table was developed as shown below.
The development of the future parks has an impact on four park classification categories and is summarized
as follows:
◢Neighborhood Parks: The development of seven neighborhood park acres will reduce the City’s
neighborhood park acreage needs in 2035 by 35% — from 20 acres needed to 13 acres needed.
◢Community Parks: The development of 53.27 acres of future community parks will fully satisfy the City’s
2035 community park acreage needs.
◢Regional Parks: The development of 98.4 acres of future regional parks and the development of a 235
acre Regional Park, will fully satisfy the City’s 2035 regional park acreage needs.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
12
To plan and prioritize capital improvement projects, recommendations include balancing the maintenance
of current assets with the development of new facilities. The departmental Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
framework is utilized to determine CIP projects in concert with an implementable financial plan. A key priority is
also focused on maintaining the integrity of the current park infrastructure and amenities before expanding and/
or enhancing parks and facilities.
A two-tier plan is recommended to help guide the decision-making process for CIP investments. The two-tiered
plan acknowledges a fiscal reality, leading to the continuous rebalancing of priorities and their associated
expenditures. Each tier reflects different assumptions about available resources. A complete list of the projects
in each is identified in this section. The two tiers include:
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS
◢Critical maintenance projects, including lifecycle replacement, repair of existing equipment, safety and
ADA improvements, and existing debt service obligations. Many of these types of improvements typically
require one-time funding and are not likely to increase annual operations and maintenance costs. In many
cases, these types of projects may reduce annual operations and maintenance costs.
VISIONARY PROJECTS
◢Projects that include strategic changes to the existing parks system to better meet the unmet needs of
the community, including adding features to extend recreation opportunities, such as playfields, shade
structures, adult fitness equipment, covered picnic shelters, and trail loops. These types of improvements
typically require one-time funding and may trigger slight increases in annual operations and maintenance
costs, depending on the nature of the improvements.
◢Complete park renovation, land acquisition, and new park/trail development, such as a new sports
complex and major trail developments. These improvements will likely increase annual operations and
maintenance costs.
The following are the general assumptions utilized in the development of the recommended capital
improvement plan:
◢All projects must be financially viable
◢All projects must align with the City of Chandler’s seven-year CIP cycles
◢Only projects likely to be implemented are included in the plan
◢Projects must be consistent with other planning efforts, where applicable
◢Cost escalators have been included for projects
Note that values shown within the tables below are based on 2021 dollars with cost escalators added in years
7-15 (35%) and years 16+ (55%). The City should continue to evaluate costing information with current market
conditions throughout the life of the plan.
13
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
The current value
of the existing park
system amenities,
excluding land value,
in 2021 dollars is
$220, 191,520
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: 1- 7 YEARS
Sustainable Projects
$44,460,375
Existing Neighborhood Park Improvements
Existing Community Park Improvements
Visionary Projects
$92,292,350
Featured Projects:
Mesquite Groves Park - Phase 2
Mesquite Groves Park - Phase 3
Lantana Ranch Park - Phase 2
Folley Park Improvements
Tumbleweed Park Improvements
Harmony Hollow Park Improvements
Pinelake Park Improvements
Regional Park Feasibility Study and Master Plan
Total
$136,752,725
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: 8- 15 YEARS
Sustainable Projects
$217,685,449
Existing Neighborhood Park Improvements
Existing Community Park Improvements
Visionary Projects
$164,751,504
Featured Projects:
Desert Breeze Park Improvements
Boys and Girls Club Park Improvements
San Tan Park Renovation
*New Regional Sports Complex - Phase 1
Tumbleweed Park Improvements
Total
$382,436,953
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: 16+ YEARS
Sustainable Projects
$103,910,819
Existing Neighborhood Park Improvements
Existing Community Park Improvements
Visionary Projects
$116,114,348
Featured Projects:
Desert Breeze Park Improvements
Navarrete Park Improvements
San Marcos Park Improvements
Tumbleweed Park Improvements
+New Regional Sports Complex - Phase 2
Total
$220,025,166
*if determined feasible, a new
regional park equals $151,248,399
of the total estimated cost for years
8-15
+if determined feasible, a new
regional park equals $98,404,823
of the total estimated cost for
years 16+
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
14
FUNDING THE MASTER PLAN
In order to continue to build and maintain the parks system, funding should be pursued for operations and
capital improvement projects, such as those presented in this plan.
New, sustainable funding sources are essential to implementing a capital improvement plan. There is
substantial potential for increasing revenues for the parks and recreation system while still providing affordable
recreation opportunities. The following are high-level funding options that should be vetted as the Department
updates its Master Plan and implements the Capital Improvement Program beginning in 2021.
To achieve the outcomes identified in the key findings and recommendations as presented in the Master Plan,
the following funding sources were identified and analyzed:
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES
◢Grants
◢Park Development Fees
◢Parks and Recreation Bond Issues
◢Partnerships
OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS
◢Community Parks Foundation
◢Capital Improvement Fees
◢Friends’ Association
◢Corporate and Personal Lead Giving
◢Donations
◢User Fees
◢Park Revolving Fund
◢Advertising Sales
◢Maintenance Endowment Fund
◢Leasebacks
◢Franchise Fee Utility Right-Of-Ways
◢Private Concessionaires Operating within a Land
Lease
◢Volunteerism
15
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Upon completion of the data collection and park assessments phase of the project, the findings were
synthesized to develop a framework of strategic recommendations for the Department. The key to success
for the Department is to continue to build on current achievements while adding programs, services, and
facility improvements that will generate revenue, reduce operational expenditures, and enhance recreation
experiences for the residents of Chandler.
The following six strategic focus areas are recommended:
1. Improve Access to Parks and Trails and Maintain Quality
2. Increase Connectivity
3. Invest in Existing Resources
4. Create an Economic Catalyst
5. Grow Operations and Staffing
6. Finance the System
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
16
RECOMMENDED PRIORITY ACTIONS (THROUGH 2028)
1. Prioritize lifecycle replacement of assets in neighborhood and community parks per the CIP
(Focus Area: Invest in Existing Resources)
2. Provide significant renovations at aging neighborhood parks (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources)
3. Complete a renovation of Folley Park (Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in
Existing Resources)
4. Complete design and construction of four softball fields at Tumbleweed Park (Focus Areas:
Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources)
5. Consider the development of an updated site-specific master plan for Desert Breeze Park
(Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing
Resources)
6. Develop a Bike/Trails Master Plan (Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Increase
Connectivity)
7. Consider the conversion of select athletic fields from natural turf to synthetic turf (Focus Areas:
Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
8. Continued improvements to Snedigar Sports Complex (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
9. Conduct a sports tourism feasibility study to include current park assets and impact of new
facilities being built in surrounding communities (Mesa and Gila River) (Focus Areas: Create an
Economic Catalyst)
10. Conduct a feasibility study and site-specific master plan for a regional park (i.e. Sports Tourism
and Adventure Area) (Focus Area: Create an Economic Catalyst)
11. Continue to implement the existing master plan for Tumbleweed Park and explore partnerships
and/or development opportunities for the northeast corner. (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
12. Complete the development of Lantana, Mesquite Grove, and Homestead North Parks (Focus
Area: Improve Access and Maintain Quality)
13. Consider exploring options with private developers to meet park needs in north Chandler and
to address other community needs and wants throughout the City (Focus Area: Improve Access
and Maintain Quality)
17
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 1 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
18
C H A P T E R 2
Demographics and Trends
19
Chapter 2 – Demographics and Trends
This section of the document provides information regarding
the current park facilities and programs. This section also
contains an analysis of current and projected demographics
for the City; a review of projected recreation trends that could
influence the recommendations; and a description of the current
administration, organization, and financial information for the
Chandler Community Services Department.
Demographic Analysis
The Demographic Analysis provides an understanding of the
population of Chandler, Arizona. This analysis is reflective of
the total population and its key characteristics, such as age
segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity.
It is important to note that future projections are all based on
historical patterns and not unforeseen circumstances during or
after the time of the projections, which could have a significant
bearing on the validity of the final projections.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
20
Methodology
Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) specializing in
population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in June 2020 and reflects actual numbers as
reported in the 2010 Censuses and estimates for 2020 and 2025 as obtained by ESRI and MAG. Straight line
linear regression was utilized for projected 2030 and 2035 demographics.
RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for federal statistics, program administrative reporting,
and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race is not directly
comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting
changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and
nomenclature are used within this analysis.
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and
South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment
Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast
Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam
Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands
White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,
the Middle East, or North Africa
Some Other Race – Includes all other responses not included in the “White”, “Black or African
American”, “American Indian and Alaska Native”, “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander”
race categories described above.
Two or more races – People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or
more race responses
Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal
Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or
other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race
21
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
Community Profile
POPULATION
The City’s population has experienced a slight growing trend in recent years and is estimated at 261,639
individuals in 2020. Projecting ahead, the total population is expected to continue to grow, over the next 15
years. Based on predictions through 2035, the City is expected to have 300,000 residents living within
109,890 households.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
22
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
AGE SEGMENT
Evaluating the population by age segments, the City exhibits a balanced distribution among the major age
segments. Currently, the largest grouping of age segments is the 35-54 segment, making up 28.5% of the
population, which is 3.4% greater than the United States as a whole.
The overall age composition of the population within the City is projected to continue to undergo an aging trend
while still remaining balanced. Over the next 15 years, the 55+ age segment will increase by 4.9% and make up
28.3% of the City’s population. Conversely, those who are 0-17 are projected to decrease by 2%, making up
23.3% of the population by 2034. This is assumed to be a consequence of a vast amount of the Baby Boomer
generation shifting into the senior age segment.
Given the differences in how active adults (55 and older) utilize parks, the trend is moving toward having at
least two to three different program-age segments for older adults. When developing the park and recreation
system, the City should evaluate recreation experiences that would cater to active adults in the 55-64, 65–74,
and 75+ age segments.
20.1%
18.6%
18.4%
17.8%
17.3%
7.5%
6.6%
6.5%
6.1%
5.9%
23.8%
23.9%
23.6%
23.6%
23.6%
31.2%
28.5%
28.0%
26.7%
25.9%
9.6%
11.4%
10.7%
11.5%
11.7%
4.7%
7.3%
8.1%
9.3%
10.2%
3.1%
3.7%
4.6%
4.9%
5.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010
Census
2019
Estimate
2024
Projection
2029
Projection
2034
Projection
POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENT
0-12
13-17
18-34
35-54
55-64
65-74
75+
23
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
Ethnicity
In analyzing race, the City’s current population is relatively diverse. The 2019 estimates show that 68% of the
City’s population falls into the White Alone category, while the Asian category (10%) represents the largest
minority. The predictions for 2034 project that the City’s population by race will diversify further with a decrease
in the White Alone population by approximately 7% and increases in all other race segments.
73%
68%
65%
63%
61%
5%
6%
6%
7%
7%
8%
10%
12%
13%
14%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
4%
5%
5%
5%
6%
2010
CENSUS
2019
ESTIMATE
2024
PROJECTION
2029
PROJECTION
2034
PROJECTION
POPULATION BY RACE
White Alone
Black Alone
American Indian
Asian
Pacific Islander
Some Other Race
Two or More Races
24%
27%
76%
73%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 Estimate
2034 Projection
HISPANIC POPULATION
Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)
All Others
The Hispanic population in Chandler
is expected to increase to 27% by 2034.
INCOME
The City’s per capita and median
household income level is well
above that of state and national
averages.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
24
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
$38,678
$28,634
$31,950
$84,089
$54,974
$58,100
Chandler
Arizona
U.S.A.
COMPARATIVE INCOME
CHARACTERISTICS
Per Capita Income
Median Household Income
25
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
CHANDLER DEMOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS
The following implications are derived from the analyses provided
above:
POPULATION
◢The population is increasing and is projected to experience an
15% population growth over the next 15 years.
◢With a growing population, in particular in the Southeast
and Southwest park planning areas, park and recreation
services will need to strategically invest, develop, and maintain
parks and facilities in relation to current and future housing
development areas.
AGE SEGMENTATION
◢Chandler currently has a balanced age segmentation with the
largest group being 35-54 and the second largest group being
0-17.
◢Over the next 15 years, the 55+ age segment will increase by
4.9%, while those who are 0-17 are projected to decrease by
2%, making up 23.2% of the population by 2034.
◢This is assumed to be a consequence of a vast amount of the
Baby Boomer generation shifting into the senior age segment.
◢Given the differences in how active adults (55 and older)
participate in recreation programs, the trend is moving toward
having at least two to three different program-age segments
for older adults.
◢When developing the park and recreation system, the City
should evaluate recreation experiences that would cater to
active adults in the 55-64, 65–74, and 75+ age segments.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
A diversifying population will likely focus the City on providing
traditional programming and service offerings while always seeking
to identify emerging activities and sports such as pickleball, cricket,
and lacrosse.
HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME
With median and per capita household income averages well above
that of state and national averages, it is important for the City to
prioritize providing offerings that are first-class with exceptional
customer service, while seeking opportunities to create revenue
generation.
15%
Projected Population Growth
Over Next 15 Years
By 2034,
the 55+ Age Segment Will
Increase by Nearly 5%
4.9%
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
26
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
Recreation Trends Analysis
The Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national, regional,
and local recreational trends, as well as recreational interest by age
segments. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports
& Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
(ESRI). All trends data is based on current and/or historical participation
rates, statistically-valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics.
National Trends in Recreation
METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness &
Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2020 was utilized in
evaluating the following trends:
◢National Recreation Participatory Trends
◢Core vs. Casual Participation Trends
◢Non-Participant Interest by Age Segment
The study is based on findings from surveys carried out in 2019 by
the Physical Activity Council (PAC), resulting in a total of 18,000 online
interviews. Surveys were administered to all genders, ages, income
levels, regions, and ethnicities to allow for statistical accuracy of
the national population. A sample size of 18,000 completed interviews
is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A
sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of
plus or minus 0.32 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level.
Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the total U.S.
population figure of 302,756,603 people (ages six and older).
The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify
key participatory trends in recreation across the U.S. This study looked
at 122 different sports/activities and subdivided them into various
categories including: sports, fitness, outdoor activities, aquatics, etc.
CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION
In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active
participants as either core or casual participants based on frequency
of participation. Core participants have higher participatory frequency
than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus
core participation may vary based on the nature of each individual
activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness activities
more than 50 times per year, while for sports, the threshold for core
participation is typically 13 times per year.
In a given activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be
less likely to switch to other activities or become inactive (engage in no
physical activity) than casual participants. This may also explain why
activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern
shifts in participation rates than those with larger groups of casual
participants.
27
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
National Sport and Fitness Participatory Trends
NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
The sports most heavily participated in the United States were basketball (24.9 million) and golf (24.3 million),
which have participation figures well in excess of the other activities within the general sports category,
followed by tennis (17.7 million), baseball (15.8 million), and outdoor soccer (11.9 million).
The popularity of basketball, golf, and tennis can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively small
number of participants. Basketball’s success can also be attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed
to participate and the limited space requirements necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport
that can be played at the majority of American dwellings as a drive-way pickup game. Even though golf has
experienced a recent decrease in participation in the last five years, it still continues to benefit from its wide
age segment appeal and being considered a life-long sport. In addition, target-type game venues or golf
entertainment venues have increased drastically (84.7%) as a five-year trend. Golf entertainment is a new
alternative to breathe life back into the game of golf.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Since 2014, golf entertainment venues (84.7%), pickleball (40.5%), and flag football (23.1%) have emerged as
the overall fastest-growing sports. Similarly, baseball (20.2%) and indoor soccer (17.8%) have also experienced
significant growth. Based on the trend from 2014-2019, the sports that are most rapidly declining include
ultimate frisbee (-49.4%), squash (-23.4%), touch football (-21.5%), badminton (-15.1%), and tackle football
(-14.6%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In general, the most recent year shares a similar pattern with the five-year trends; with boxing for competition
(8.2%), golf entertainment venues (6.7%), and pickleball (4.8%) experiencing the greatest increases in
participation this past year. However, some sports that increased rapidly over the past five years have
experienced recent decreases in participation, such as rugby (-10.8%) and gymnastics (-1.5%). Other sports
including ultimate frisbee (-15.5%), sand volleyball (-7.8%), roller hockey (-6.8%), and touch football (-6.3) have
also seen a significant decrease in participation over the last year.
BASKETBALL
24.9 Million
GOLF
24.3 Million
TENNIS
17.7 Million
BASEBALL
15.8 Million
SOCCER
11.9 Million
SPORTS
PARTICIPATION
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
28
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
Highly participated in sports, such as basketball, baseball, and slow pitch softball, have a larger core
participant base (participate 13+ times per year) than casual participant base (participate 1-12 times per year).
In the past year, ice hockey and softball-fast pitch have increased core participation. While less mainstream
sports, such as boxing for competition, roller hockey, badminton, and racquetball have larger casual
participation base. These participants may be more inclined to switch to other sports or fitness activities.
29
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced strong growth in recent years. Many of these
activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health and
enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry,
which provides a variety of options that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by
most individuals. The most popular general fitness activities amongst the U.S. population include: fitness
walking (111.4 million), treadmill (56.8 million), free weights (51.4 million), running/jogging (49.5 million), and
stationary cycling (37.1 million).
HIKING (DAY)
111.4 Million
TREADMILL
56.8 Million
DUMBBELL
FREE WEIGHTS
39.2 Million
RUNNING/
JOGGING
49.5 Million
STATIONARY
CYCLING
37.1 Million
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years (2014-2019), the activities growing most
rapidly are Trail Running (46.0%), Yoga (20.6%), Cross Training Style
Workout (20.2%), and Stationary Group Cycling (17.5%). Over the
same time frame, the activities that have undergone the biggest
decline include: Traditional Triathlon (-9.2%), Running/Jogging
(-8.7%), Free Weights (-8.3%), and Fitness Walking (-1.0%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In the last year, activities with the largest gains in participation
were Trail Running (9.9%); Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise
(7.0%); and Yoga (6.0%). From 2018-2019, the activities that had
the largest decline in participation were Traditional Triathlon (-7.7%),
Non-Traditional Triathlon (-7.4%), Bodyweight Exercise (-2.8%), and
Running/Jogging (-2.6%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS
IN GENERAL FITNESS
The most participated in fitness activities all have a strong core
users base (participating 50+ times per year). These fitness activities
include: Fitness Walking, Treadmill, Free Weights, Running/Jogging,
Stationary Cycling, Weight/Resistant Machines, and Elliptical Motion/
Cross Training, all having 48% or greater core users.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
30
C H A P T E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Results from the SFIA report demonstrate a contrast of growth and decline in participation regarding
outdoor/adventure recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage
an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or within a group, and are not as limited by time
constraints. In 2019, the most popular activities, in terms of total participants, from the outdoor/adventure
recreation category include: Day Hiking (49.7 million), Road Bicycling (39.4 million), Freshwater Fishing
(39.2 million), and Camping within ¼ mile of Vehicle/Home (28.2 million), and Recreational Vehicle Camping
(15.4 million).
HIKING (DAY)
24.3 Million
BICYCLING
(ROAD)
39.4 Million
FISHING
(FRESHWATER)
39.2 Million
CAMPING (<1/4 MI.
OF CAR/HOME)
28.2 Million
CAMPING
(REC. VEHICLE)
15.4 Million
FIVE-YEAR TREND
From 2014-2019, BMX Bicycling (55.2%), Day Hiking (37.2%), Fly
Fishing (20.1%), Salt Water Fishing (11.6%), and Mountain Bicycling
(7.2%) have undergone the largest increases in participation.
The five-year trend also shows activities such as In-Line Roller
Skating (-20.5%), Archery (-11.7%), and Adventure Racing (-9.5%)
experiencing the largest decreases in participation.
ONE-YEAR TREND
The one-year trend shows activities growing most rapidly include
BMX Bicycling (6.1%), Day Hiking (3.8%), and Birdwatching (3.8%).
Over this same one-year period, activities that underwent the largest
decreases in participation include: Climbing (-5.5%), In-Line Roller
Skating (-4.4%), and Camping with a Recreation Vehicle (-3.5%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS
IN OUTDOOR RECREATION
A majority of outdoor activities have experienced participation growth
in the last five years. Although this is a positive trend, it should be
noted that all outdoor activities participation, besides adventure
racing, consist primarily of casual users. This is likely why we see a
so much fluctuation in participation numbers, as casual users likely
found alternative activities to participate in.
31
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
The most popular water sports/activities based on total participants in 2019 were Recreational Kayaking (11.4
million), Canoeing (8.9 million), and Snorkeling (7.7 million). It should be noted that water activity participation
tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and environmental factors. A region with more water access and
a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities than a region that has a
long winter season or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in water sports and activities,
it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of environmental barriers which can greatly
influence water activity participation.
KAYAKING
11.4 Million
CANOEING
9 Million
SNORKELING
7.7 Million
JET SKIING
5.1 Million
SAILING
3.6 Million
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years,
Stand-Up Paddling (29.5%) and
Recreational Kayaking (28.5%)
were the fastest-growing water
activities, followed by White
Water Kayaking (9.9%) and
Surfing (8.9%). From 2014-
2019, activities declining in
participation most rapidly were
Water Skiing (-20.1%), Jet Skiing
(-19.6%), Scuba Diving (-13.7%),
Wakeboarding (-12.7%), and
Snorkeling (-12.5%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
Similarly to the five-year trend,
Recreational Kayaking (3.3%)
and Stand-Up Paddling (3.2%)
also had the greatest one-year
growth in participation, from
2018-2019. Activities which
experienced the largest
decreases in participation in
the most recent year include:
Boardsailing/Windsurfing
(-9.7%), Sea Kayaking (-5.5),
and Water Skiing (-4.8%).
CORE VS. CASUAL
TRENDS
IN WATER SPORTS/
ACTIVITIES
As mentioned previously,
regional, seasonal, and
environmental limiting factors
may influence the participation
rate of water sport and
activities. These factors may
also explain why all water-
based activities have drastically
more casual participants
than core participants, since
frequencies of activities may be
constrained by uncontrollable
factors. These high casual
user numbers are likely why
a majority of water sports/
activities have experienced
decreases in participation in
recent years.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
32
33
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
Non-Participant Interest by Age Segment
In addition to participation rates by generation, SFIA also tracks non-
participant interest. These are activities that the U.S. population currently
does not participate in due to physical or monetary barriers, but has
interest in participating. Below are the top five activities that each age
segment would most likely participate in, if they were readily available.
Overall, the activities most age segments are interested in include:
Camping, Bicycling, Fishing, and Swimming for Fitness. All of these are
deemed low-impact activities, making them obtainable for any age
segment to enjoy.
45-54 Year-Olds
65+ Year-Olds
35-44 Year-Olds
55-64 Year-Olds
13-17 Year-Olds
25-34 Year-Olds
Fitness
Swimming
Camping
Bicycling
Fishing
Hiking
Fishing
Camping
Working out w/ Weights
Volleyball
Running/Jogging
Bicycling
Fishing
Camping
Fitness Swimming
Hiking
Bicycling
Fishing
Fitness Swimming
Camping
Hiking
Camping
Fitness Swimming
Bicycling
Fishing
Kayaking
Fishing
Fitness Swimming
Bicycling
Birdwatching/
Wildlife Viewing
Working Out using
Machines
6-12 Year-Olds
18-24 Year-Olds
Fishing
Camping
Soccer
Martial Arts
Basketball
Camping
Fishing
Martial Arts
Volleyball
Kayaking
ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION BY AGE SEGMENT
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
34
Participation by Generation
Analyzing participation by age for recreational activities reveals that fitness and outdoor sports were the
most common activities across all generations. Breaking down activity level by generation shows a converse
correlation between age and healthy activity rates.
2019 PARTICIPATION RATES BY GENERATION –
U.S. POPULATION, AGES 6+
GENERATION Z (BORN 2000+)
Generation Z were the most active, with only 17.9% of
the population identifying as inactive. Approximately
82% of individuals within this generation were deemed
calorie burning in 2019; with 36.7% being active high
calorie and 34.1% being casual high calorie.
MILLENNIALS (BORN 1980-1999)
Almost half (42.0%) of millennials were active high
calorie, while 23.4% claimed they were inactive.
Even though this inactive rate is much higher than
Generation Z’s (17.6%), it is still below the national
inactive rate (28%).
GENERATION X (BORN 1965-1979)
Generation X has the second highest active to a
healthy level rate (39.4%) among all generations, only
being 2.6% less than Millennials. At the same time,
they also have the second highest inactive rate, with
28.1% not active at all.
THE BOOMERS (BORN 1945-1964)
The Boomers were the least active generation, with an
inactive rate of 33.7%. This age group tends to participate
in less intensive activities. Approximately 24.8% claimed
to engage in casual & low/med calorie (4.3%) burning
activities.
Active High Calorie
Casual High Calorie
Low/Med Calorie
Inactive
Definitions:
Active: 20+ minutes of elevated heart rate, 3+ times per week
Casual High Calorie: 20+ minutes of elevated heart rate (1-2 times per week)
Low/Med Calorie: >20 minutes of elevated heart rate
Inactive: No physical activity in 2019
35
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
2.5 Local Sport and Market Potential
The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI)
measures the probable demand for a product or service within the City. The MPI shows the likelihood that a
resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. National average. The
national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate,
and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The following tables illustrate
and summarize the indexes of the general sports, fitness, and outdoor recreation general sports market
potential for the City as a whole and each of the City’s Park Planning Areas.
GENERAL SPORTS
GENERAL FITNESS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
36
OUTDOOR RECREATION
37
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
CONCLUSION
It is critically important for Chandler to understand the
national participation trends in recreation activities. In
doing so, the Department can gain general insight into
the lifecycle stage of recreation sports programs and
activities and thereby anticipate potential changes in
need and demand.
Locally, participation in general sports, general fitness,
and outdoor recreation are anticipated to above or at
average, though differences do exist between park
planning area.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
38
39
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 2 : D E M O G R A P H I C S A N D T R E N D S
40
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 3
Community Needs
and Prioritized Ranking
41
Chapter 3 – Community Needs and Prioritized Ranking
The efforts in creating this Master Plan were based on an evaluation of existing resources and capacity, as
well as community input. Thus, a key consideration to creating a vision for parks in Chandler is to understand
current community values, needs, and desires. The assessment of these values is accomplished by
triangulating information generated from focus groups with staff, public input received via the project website,
a statistically valid survey, and reinforcement through virtual community meetings. The survey was written
to reflect issues and wishes that emerged from the qualitative data gathered through discussions with staff.
Triangulation occurs when findings of the qualitative work is supported by the quantitative work. The following
sections discuss this process and resulting findings.
QUALITATIVE INPUT SUMMARY
Throughout 2020 and early 2021, the consultant team conducted a series of focus group, stakeholder, and
public meetings, in partnership with City staff, that included representatives from various stakeholder groups;
launched the project website; and held several virtual community meetings. The results of these focus group
discussions, as well as the input received via the project website and community meetings, were condensed to
a series of key themes that emerged.
Discussion with staff, community leaders and citizens revealed the following key themes related to parks in
Chandler.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PARK DEVELOPMENT
Opportunity exists for park development to enhance and/or advance economic development. There is also an
opportunity for economic development to enhance and support park development.
◢Parks can play a significant role in business attraction, residential development, and the overall quality of
life attributes desired by the community.
◢Investment in parks reflects the community’s value set and the City’s overall attitude of being an active
player in the betterment of the community.
◢The development of a sports complex can serve as an economic catalyst, via sports tourism.
INVESTING IN THE EXISTING PARKS SYSTEM
◢Continue to focus on reinvesting in, and maintaining existing parks.
◢Opportunities exist to help meet the park needs of the community, in part, though partnership with
Maricopa County.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
42
TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY
◢Desire for a connected, accessible recreational trail system that also supports active transportation and
Safe Routes to School initiatives.
ADVOCACY AND AWARENESS
◢Increased and targeted communication/marketing is needed to develop more advocacy for, and
awareness of, the parks system.
FUNDING THE PARKS SYSTEM
◢Multiple funding strategies are required to meet the needs of the community.
◢Focus on opportunities to expand the City’s partnership with Maricopa County and the development
community to meet the park needs of the community.
◢Securing funding through bond initiatives and grants will be critical for funding park development over the
next 10 years.
WEB-BASED FINDINGS
As part of the community input process, the consultant team, in conjunction with the Department, developed
and administered a project website, www.planchandlersparks.com. The website provided residents with an
open participation portal to provide feedback on their park needs. The graphic below provides an artistic
interpretation of the 100+ responses received via the project website.
43
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY
OVERVIEW
ETC Institute administered a needs assessment survey for the City during the spring and summer of 2020. The
survey was administered as part of the City’s Parks Master Plan for their residents. The survey results will aid
the City in taking a resident-driven approach to making decisions that will enrich and positively affect the lives
of residents.
METHODOLOGY
ETC Institute mailed a survey
packet to a random sample of
households in Chandler. Each
survey packet contained a cover
letter, a copy of the survey, and
a postage-paid return envelope.
Residents who received the survey
were given the option of returning
the survey by mail or completing it
online.
A few days after the surveys
were mailed, ETC Institute sent
emails and placed phone calls to
the households that received the
survey to encourage participation,
the emails contained a link to
the online version of the survey
to make it easier for residents to
complete the survey. To prevent
people who were not residents
of Chandler from participating,
everyone who completed the
survey online was required to
enter their home address prior to
submitting the survey. ETC Institute
then matched the addresses
that were entered online with the
addresses that were originally
selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the
addresses selected for the sample, the online survey was not counted.
The goal was to obtain completed surveys from at least 500 resident households. The goal was exceeded with
a total of 652 households completing the survey. The overall results for the sample of 652 households have
a precision of at least +/-3.8% at the 95% level of confidence. The scatter plot graph above indicates where
completed surveys were received from households in Chandler.
The major findings of the survey are summarized on the following pages. Complete survey results are provided
in Appendix A.
Survey Participation Locations
652
Households
Participated
in the Survey
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
44
IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-QUALITY PARKS AND TRAILS
Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of high-quality parks and trail experiences in Chandler.
◢Sixty-one percent (61%) indicated “Very Important” while another 34% indicated “important.”
45
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
PARK AND FACILITY UTILIZATION AND CONDITION RATINGS
◢Utilization
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of households used parks over the past 12 months.
The national benchmark for park utilization is 76%.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
46
◢Condition Ratings of Parks, Trails and Athletic Fields
Thirty-one percent (31%) of households rated the condition of the parks as excellent.
Thirty-two percent (32%) of households rated the condition of trails as excellent.
Only twenty percent (20%) of households rated the condition of athletic fields as excellent.
The national benchmark for excellent is 29%.
47
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
WAYS HOUSEHOLDS CURRENTLY LEARN ABOUT PARKS AND TRAILS
◢Sixty percent (60%) learned about Chandler’s parks and trails from friends and neighbors. It was the most
utilized source of information.
◢Forty-eight percent (48%) of households indicated they utilize the City website as an information source.
◢Other most used sources include:
Activity Guide (30%).
Facebook (37%).
The national benchmark for from friends and neighbors is 43%. The national benchmark for
website is 31%.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
48
WAYS HOUSEHOLDS WOULD PREFER TO LEARN ABOUT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
◢Emails were the most preferred source of information with learning about Chandler’s Parks and Trails.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of households indicated they would prefer to continue to learn about parks and
trails via the City website.
◢Other most preferred sources include:
Emails (38%)
Activity Guide (35%)
Facebook (26%)
49
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
FACILITY IMPORTANCE AND UNMET NEEDS
Respondents were asked to indicate from a list of facilities/amenities the level of importance and how well their
needs were being met with the current inventory provided by the City.
Facility Importance:
◢Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, 43% indicated Paved Walking and Biking Trails were
the most important to their household.
◢Other most important facilities include:
Covered Picnic Shelters (29%)
Soft Surface Walking and Biking Trails (28%)
Open Space Conservation Areas/Trails (28%)
Large Community Parks (27%)
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific field typology, athletic fields appear to rank low in
importance. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose” fields are combined and the responses for
“diamond” fields are combined, the importance of each field typology to households significantly increases.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
50
◢How well household needs are being met for facilities:
Based on the number of households who indicated their needs were only being met 50% or less,
29,081 households indicated an unmet need for Community Gardens.
Other unmet needs include:
» Soft Surface Walking and Biking Trails (26,657 households)
» Adventure Area (24,888 households)
» Paved Walking and Biking Trails (22,527 households)
» Open Space Conservation Areas/Trails (22,172 households)
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific field typology, athletic fields appear to rank low in
terms of unmet needs. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose” fields are combined the responses for
“diamond” fields are combined, the level of unmet need for each field typology significantly increases.
51
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
PROGRAM/SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES - IMPORTANCE AND UNMET NEEDS
Respondents were asked to indicate from a list of programs and services the level of importance and how well
their needs were being met with the current inventory provided by the City.
Program Importance:
◢Fifty-one percent (51%) of households indicated that opportunities to walk/jog/bike/hike were important to
them.
◢Other most important programs/service opportunities include:
General Visitation of Parks (48% of households)
Fitness and Wellness (44% of households)
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific athletic field programs, these experiences appear
to rank low in importance. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose field” athletics are combined
and the responses for “diamond” field athletics are combined, the importance for each athletic field program
significantly increases.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
52
How Well Needs Are Being Met for Programs and Service Opportunities
◢Based on the number of households who indicated their needs were only being met 50% or less, 23,289
households responded that Fitness and Wellness had the greatest level of unmet need.
◢Other unmet needs include:
Outdoor Adventure (20,826 households)
Nature Programs (18,908 households)
Walk/Jog/Bike/Hike (16,435 households)
Fishing (15,436 households)
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific athletic field programs, these experiences appear to
have low levels of unmet need. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose field” athletics are combined
and the responses for “diamond” field athletics are combined, the level of unmet need for each athletic field
program significantly increases.
53
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS MOST WILLING TO FUND
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of funding support for the improvements to the Chandler parks
and trails system.
◢Based on the percentage of households who indicated support for improvements, 48% were most
supportive of General Repair and Increase Maintenance of Parks.
◢Other most supported actions include:
Improve Existing Trail System (31%)
Add/Expand Trails/Walking Loops in Existing Parks (28%)
Improve Restrooms in Existing Parks (26%)
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
54
NEEDS ASSESSMENT PRIORITY RANKINGS
The purpose of the program and facility priority rankings is to provide a prioritized list of facility/amenity needs
and program needs for the community served by Chandler Parks. This model evaluates both quantitative and
qualitative data.
◢Quantitative data includes the statistically valid survey, local demographics and recreation trends.
◢Qualitative data includes resident feedback obtained through project website, community input,
stakeholder interviews, staff input, and planning team observations.
◢A weighted scoring system was used to determine the priorities for programs/services and facilities/
amenities.
These weighted scores provide an overall score and priority ranking for the system as a whole. The results of
the priority ranking are tabulated into three categories: High Priority (top third), Medium Priority (middle third),
and Low Priority (bottom third).
PROGRAM RANKINGS
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific athletic field programs, these experiences appear
to be low priority. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose field” athletics are combined and the
responses for “diamond” field athletics, the priority ranking increases significantly and both can be considered
as a Medium Priority.
55
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
FACILITY AND AMENITY RANKINGS
PLEASE NOTE: When viewed through the lens of specific field typology, athletic fields appear to rank as a
low priority. However, when the responses for “multi-purpose” fields are combined and the responses for
“diamond” fields are combined, the ranking for each field typology significantly increases and both can be
considered as a Medium Priority.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
56
Further analysis of the program/service and facility/amenity priorities revealed a high level of consistency
across all four Park Planning Areas. The following charts identify highest program/service and facility/amenity
priorities by Park Planning Area.
57
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 3 : C O M M U N I T Y N E E D S A N D P R I O R I T I Z E D R A N K I N G
58
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 4
Park Classification, Design
Principles, and Facility
Inventory/Assessment
59
Chapter 4 - Park Classification, Design Principles, and Facility
Inventory/Assessment
In developing design principles for parks, it is important that each park be programmed, planned, and designed
to meet the needs of its service area and classification within the overall parks and recreation system. The
term programming, when used in the context of planning and developing parkland, refers to a list of uses and
facilities and does not always include staff-managed recreation programs. The program for a site can include
such elements as ball fields, spray parks, shelters, restrooms, sport courts, trails, natural resource stewardship,
open meadows, nature preserves, or interpretive areas. These types of amenities are categorized as lead or
support amenities. The needs of the population of the park it is intended to serve should be considered and
accommodated at each type of park.
Every park, regardless of type, needs to have an established set of outcomes. Park planners and designers
design to those outcomes, including operational and maintenance costs associated with the design outcomes.
Each park classification category serves a specific purpose, and the features and facilities in the park must
be designed for the number of age segments the park is intended to serve, the desired length of stay deemed
appropriate, and the uses it has been assigned. Recreation needs and services require different design standards
based on the age segments that make up the community that will be using the park. A varying number of age
segments will be accommodated with the park program depending on the classification of the park.
Terminology Utilized in Park Design Principles
◢Land Usage: The percentage of space identified for either passive use or active use in a park. A Parks
and Recreation Master Plan should follow land usage recommendations.
◢Programming: Can include active or passive programming. Active means it is organized and planned
with pre-registration by the user. Examples of active programming include sports leagues, day camps,
and aquatics. Passive programming is self-directed by the user at their own pace. Examples of passive
programming include playground usage, picnicking, disc golf, reading, or walking the dog.
◢Park/Facility Classifications: Includes pocket park, neighborhood park, community park, regional park,
sports complex facility, recreation/special use park and greenbelts, and conservation.
◢Revenue Facilities: These include facilities that charge to play on them in the form of an access fee,
player fee, team fee, or permit fee. These could include pools, golf courses, tennis courts, sport field
complexes, concession facilities, nature centers, reservable shelters, and special event spaces.
◢Signature Facility/Amenity: This is an enhanced facility or amenity which is viewed by the community as
deserving of special recognition due to its design, location, function, natural resources, etc.
Over the last 20 years, the City of Chandler’s park system has expanded and grown more diverse in the
experiences that it provides to its residents. As the park system has evolved so has the need for classification
system that the City utilizes to classify its parks. The consulting team recommends the adoption of the park
classification system and design principles found in the following sections.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
60
General Park Design
Intent: To provide the City with parks that are centerpieces of neighborhoods; places that people use regularly
and care for; are aesthetically pleasing, universally accessible, and safe; allow for both individual and group
activities and both formal and impromptu use; are successfully maintained; and are programmed, planned,
and designed to meet the needs of its surrounding neighborhood(s) and typology within the overall parks and
recreation system.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Parks should be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, inviting, innovative, universally accessible, connect
people with place, and create value and a sense of ownership among its users.
Park entries and edges should be inviting and well maintained. Bounding streets should be integrated into
the design (planting street trees, repaving sidewalks, etc.) as feasible and appropriate. Entries should be
clearly marked with park signage.
Path circulation should provide access to amenities as well as loops for walking.
Restroom buildingsin community and regional parks should be located in near recreation fields, children’s
play areas, and group picnic areas, if possible. Restroom buildings should be aesthetically pleasing and
well-maintained. They can provide opportunities for unique architectural and artistic expression in the park.
Parks should be designed to ensure safety and the perception of safety, through visibility, activation, and
other applicable strategies of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Parks should have sufficient lighting to ensure safety, day and night.
Care should be made to preserve valuable existing trees.
New parks should be a central feature of a neighborhood and should be located where it can be easily
accessed by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.
Parks should be programmed, planned, and designed to meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhood
and classification within the overall parks and recreation system. Please refer to Chandler’s Park
Classifications, including minimum acreage and typical amenities, when creating design goals.
The designer should establish a set of outcomes or design goals, based on Chandler’s Park
Classifications, and should design to those outcomes, including operational and maintenance costs
associated with the design outcomes.
PROXIMITY STANDARDS
Further service delivery analysis should be undertaken to ensure equitable access to Parks. The service area of
a park is another level of service measurement that the city should consider to assess the quality of the system.
Service area is directly attributable to how accessible the park system is to the City’s residents. In short, a park
or facility’s service area is the accepted amount of time that most park patrons will travel from their home to get
to a given recreation destination. The service area standards by park/facility type could be as follows:
61
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
A potential goal of City’s could be for
each household in the city to be served
by a neighborhood, community, or
regional park utilizing a set of walking
and/or driving distance standards.
City staff acknowledge, however,
that development patterns across the
city make certain areas not suitable
for neighborhood, and in some
cases, community parks. There are also heavily developed neighborhoods where the Department relies on
homeowner’s associations to operate and maintain neighborhood parks for their communities.
PARK CLASSIFICATIONS
POCKET PARKS
A pocket park is a small outdoor space, usually less than 0.1 acres up to 1½ acres, most often located in an
urban or residential area surrounded by commercial buildings or houses. Pocket parks are small spaces that
may serve a variety of functions, such as: small event space, play areas for children, spaces for relaxing and
socializing, taking lunch breaks, etc. Successful pocket parks have four key qualities: They are accessible; they
allow people to engage in activities; they are comfortable and inviting; and they allow for sociability. In general,
pocket parks offer minimal amenities on-site and are not designed to support programmed activities. The
service area for pocket parks is usually less than a quarter-mile and they are intended for users within close
walking distance of the park.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Neighborhood parks in Chandler typically serve neighborhoods within a one-square-mile area and are
generally one to 10 acres in size. The service area that these parks reach is approximately ½-mile radius. Many
neighborhood parks in Chandler have been developed adjacent to elementary schools to share amenities
and parking. Neighborhood parks serve the recreational and social focus of the adjoining neighborhoods and
contribute to a distinct neighborhood identity. Amenities typically include playgrounds, pavilions, multi-use
courts, lighted walking paths, and open areas. Chandler currently has 51 developed neighborhood parks and
two more neighborhood parks (Lantana Ranch and Homestead North) scheduled for development.
A neighborhood park should be 1½ to 10 acres; however, some neighborhood parks are determined by use
and facilities offered and not by size alone. The service radius for a neighborhood park is typically ½-1 mile.
Neighborhood parks should have safe pedestrian access for surrounding residents; parking typically not
provided for neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks serve the recreational and social focus of the adjoining
neighborhoods and contribute to a distinct neighborhood identity. There may be opportunities to create joint-
use sites that serve as both neighborhood parks and recreational space for schools.
◢Service radius: ½ - 1 mile radius,
◢Site Selection: On a local or collector street.
If near an arterial street, provide natural or
artificial barrier. Next to a school, where possible.
Encourage location to link subdivisions and
linked by trails to other parks.
◢Length of stay: One to four hours.
◢Amenities: One signature amenity (e.g.
playgound, sport court, gazebo). If an signature
amenity is not present it may include one non-
programmed sports field, playgrounds for ages
2-5 and 5-12, one reservable shelter for parks
three acres in size or greater, loop trails, one type
of sport court, benches, and/or a small shaded
area next to play areas.
◢Landscape design: Appropriate design to
enhance the park theme/use/experience.
◢Revenue facilities: none.
◢Land usage: Eighty-five percent (85%) active/15
percent passive.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
62
◢Programming: Typically, none.
◢Maintenance standards: Provide the highest-
level maintenance with available funding. Seek
a goal of Level 2 maintenance standards. Some
amenities may require Level 1 maintenance
◢Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity
regulations to enhance user experience.
◢Parking: Where possible, design should include
widened on-street parking area adjacent to park.
Goal is to maximize usable park space. Traffic-
calming devices encouraged next to park.
◢Lighting: Security only.
◢Size of park: Typically, 1 to 10 acres.
COMMUNITY PARKS
Community parks are intended to be accessible to multiple neighborhoods and should focus on meeting
community-based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. Community
parks are generally larger in scale than neighborhood parks, but smaller than regional parks, and are designed
typically for residents who live within a three-mile radius. When possible, the park may be developed adjacent
to a school. Community parks provide recreational opportunities for the entire family and often contain facilities
for specific recreational purposes: athletic fields, extreme sports amenity, loop trails, picnic areas, reservable
picnic shelters, sports courts (tennis, basketball, sand volleyball), restrooms with drinking fountains, large
turfed and landscaped areas, and a playground or spray ground. Passive outdoor recreation activities, such as
meditation, quiet reflection, and wildlife watching also take place at community parks.
Community parks in Chandler generally range from 10 to 50 acres. Community parks serve a larger area —
radius of two to three miles and contain more recreation amenities than a neighborhood park. They also have
the capacity to function as neighborhood parks for the local area. There are currently nine community parks in
Chandler with two more to develop (Lantana Ranch and Mesquite Groves).
◢Service radius: Two to three-mile radius.
◢Site selection: On two collector streets minimum
and preferably one arterial street. If near an
arterial street, provide natural or artificial barrier.
Minimal number of residences abutting site.
Preference is streets on four sides, or three sides
with school or municipal use on fourth side.
Encourage trail linkage to other parks.
◢Length of stay: Two to three hours experience.
◢Amenities: Four signature amenities at a
minimum (e.g. trails, sports fields, large shelters/
pavilions, community playground for ages 2-5
and 5-12 with some shaded elements, recreation
center, pool or family aquatic center, sports
courts, water feature); public restrooms with
drinking fountains; ample parking; and security
lighting. sport fields and sport complexes are
typical at this park.
◢Revenue facilities: One or more (e.g. pool,
sports complex, pavilion).
◢Land usage: Sixty-five percent (65%) active and
thirty-five (35%) passive.
◢Maintenance standards: Provide the highest-
level maintenance with available funding. Seek
a goal of Level 2 maintenance standards. Some
amenities may require Level 1 maintenance.
◢Parking: Sufficient to support the amenities;
occupies no more than 10% of the park. Design
should include widened on-street parking area
adjacent to park. Goal is to maximize usable park
space. Traffic-calming devices encouraged within
and next to the park.
◢Lighting: Amenity lighting includes sport field
light standards.
◢Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity
regulations to enhance user experience. May
include kiosks in easily identified areas of the
facility.
◢Landscape design: Appropriate design to
enhance the park theme/use/experience.
Enhanced landscaping at park entrances and
throughout park.
◢Other: Strong appeal to surrounding
neighborhoods; loop trail connectivity; linked to
regional park, trail or recreation facility.
◢Size of park: Typically 10 to 75 acres.
63
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
REGIONAL PARK
A regional park functions as a destination location that serves a large area of several communities, residents
within a city, city or county, or across multiple counties. Depending on activities within a regional park, users
may travel as many as 60 miles for a visit. Regional parks include recreational opportunities such as soccer,
softball, golf, conservation-wildlife viewing and fishing. Although regional parks usually have a combination of
passive areas and active facilities, they are likely to be predominantly natural resource-based parks.
A common size for a regional park is 50 or more acres in size. A regional park focuses on activities and
natural features not included in most types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational
opportunity. Facilities could include those found in a community park and have specialized amenities, such as
an amphitheater, golf course, or natural area with interpretive trails. Regional parks can and should promote
tourism and economic development. Regional parks can enhance the economic vitality and identity of the
entire region.
◢Service radius: Three-mile or greater radius.
◢Site selection: Prefer location which can preserve natural resources
on-site, such as wetlands, streams, and other geographic features
or sites with significant cultural or historic features. Significantly
large parcel of land. Access from public roads capable of handling
anticipated traffic.
◢Length of stay: All or multiple day experience.
◢Amenities: Six to 12 amenities to create a signature facility (e.g.
dog parks, fishing/boating access, golf course, tennis complex,
sports complex, lake, regional playground, 3+ reservable picnic
shelters, camping, outdoor recreation/extreme sports, recreation
center, pool, gardens, trails, zoo, specialty facilities); restrooms with
drinking fountains; concessions; restaurant; ample parking; special
event site.
◢Revenue facilities: Typically, park designed to produce revenue to
offset operational costs.
◢Land usage: Up to 50% active/50% passive.
◢Maintenance standards: Provide the highest-level maintenance
with available funding. Seek a goal of Level 2 maintenance
standards. Some amenities may require Level 1 maintenance.
◢Parking: Sufficient for all amenities. Traffic-calming devices
encouraged within and next to park.
◢Lighting: Amenity lighting includes sport field light standards.
◢Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations
to enhance user experience, may include kiosks in easily
identified areas of the facility.
◢Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the
park theme/use/experience. Enhanced landscaping at park
entrances and throughout park.
◢Other: Linked to major trails systems, public transportation
available, concessions, food and retail sales available,
dedicated site managers on duty. Wi-Fi and telephone/cable
TV conduit.
◢Size of park: Typically, 75 to 250 acres.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
64
SPORTS COMPLEX
Sports complexes at community parks, regional parks, and stand-alone sports complexes are developed to
provide four to 16+ fields or courts in one setting. A sports complex may also support extreme sports facilities,
such as BMX and skateboarding. Sports complexes can be single focused or multi-focused and can include
indoor or outdoor facilities to serve the needs of both youth and adults. Outdoor fields should be lighted to
maximize value and productivity of the complex. Agencies developing sports complexes focus on meeting the
needs of residents while also attracting sport tournaments for economic purposes to the community.
Sport field design includes appropriate field distances for each sport’s governing body and support amenities
designed to produce revenue to offset operational costs.
Signature sports complexes include enhanced amenities, such as artificial turf, multipurpose field benches
and bleachers, scoreboards, amplified sound, scorer’s booths, etc. Enhanced amenities would be identified
through discussion between City and schools and/or sports associations
and dependent upon adequate funding.
◢Service radius: Determined by community demand.
◢Site selection: Stand-alone sports complexes are strategically located
on or near arterial streets. Refer to community or regional park sections
if sport complex located within a park. Preference is streets on four
sides, or three sides with school or municipal use on fourth side.
◢Length of stay: Two to three hours experience for single activities. Can
be all day for tournaments or special events.
◢Amenities: Four to sixteen or more fields or sports courts in one
setting; restrooms, ample parking, turf types appropriate for the facility
and anticipated usage, and field lighting.
◢Revenue facilities: Four or more (e.g. fields, concession stand, picnic
pavilion).
◢Land usage: Ninety-five percent (95%) active and 5% passive.
◢Retention basins: While joint use is acceptable, park-related uses in
storm-drainage basins typically do not satisfy City requirements for
amounts of parkland needed to serve local populations.
◢Programming: Focus on active programming of all amenities.
◢Parking: Sufficient to support the amenities. Traffic-calming devices
encouraged within and next to park.
◢Lighting: Amenity lighting includes sport field light standards.
◢Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity
regulations to enhance user experience. May include
kiosks in easily identified areas of the facility.
◢Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the
park theme/use/experience. Enhanced landscaping at
entrances and throughout complex.
◢Size of park: Preferably 20 or more acres for stand-alone
complexes.
65
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
SPECIAL-USE PARKS
Special-useparks are those spaces that don’t fall within a typical park
classification. A major difference between a special-use facility and other
parks is that they usually serve a single purpose whereas other park
classifications are designed to offer multiple recreation opportunities.
It is possible for a special-use facility to be located inside another park.
Special-use facilities generally fall into the following categories:
◢Historic/cultural/social sites – Unique local resources offering historical, educational, and cultural
opportunities. Examples include historic downtown areas, plaza parks, performing arts parks, arboretums,
display gardens, performing arts facilities, indoor theaters, churches, and amphitheaters. Frequently these
are located in community or regional parks.
◢Nature parks – Parks where people can experience a preserved or enhanced natural environment and a
refuge from active, urban life. This classification is appropriate for areas where the human experience is
emphasized.
◢Golf courses – Nine and 18-hole complexes with ancillary facilities, such as club houses, driving ranges,
program space and learning centers. These facilities are highly maintained and support a wide age level
of males and females. Programs are targeted for daily use play, tournaments, leagues, clinics and special
events. Operational costs come from daily play, season pass holders, concession stands, driving range
fees, earned income opportunities and sale of pro shop items.
◢Outdoor recreation facilities – Examples include baseball stadiums, aquatic parks, disc golf,
skateboard, BMX, and dog parks, which may be located in a park.
Size of park: Depends upon facilities and activities included. Their
diverse character makes it impossible to apply acreage standards.
Service radius: Depends upon facilities and activities included. Typically
serves special user groups while a few serve the entire population.
Site selection: Given the variety of potential uses, no specific standards
are defined for site selection. As with all park types, the site itself should
be located where it is appropriate for its use.
Length of stay: Varies by facility.
Amenities: Varies by facility.
Revenue facilities: Due to nature of certain facilities, revenue may be
required for construction and/or annual maintenance. This should be
determined at a policy level before the facility is planned and constructed.
Land usage: Varies by facility.
Retention basins: While joint use is acceptable, park-related uses in storm-drainage basins typically
do not satisfy City requirements for amounts of parkland needed to serve local populations.
Programming: Varies by facility.
Maintenance standards: Provide the highest-level maintenance with available funding. Seek a goal of
Level 2 maintenance standards. Some amenities (i.e., rose gardens) will require Level 1 maintenance.
Parking: On-street or off-street parking is provided as appropriate. Goal is to maximize usable park
space. As necessary, provide a minimum of five to 10 spaces within park including accessible spaces.
Traffic-calming devices encouraged next to park.
Lighting: Security or amenity only.
Signage: Directional and regulation signage to enhance user experience.
Landscape Design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
66
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION LANDS
Open space/conservation lands are undeveloped but may include natural or
paved trails. Open space/conservation lands contain natural resources that
can be managed for recreation and natural resource conservation values,
such as a desire to protect wildlife habitat, water quality, and endangered
species. Open space/conservation lands also can provide opportunities for
nature-based, unstructured, low-impact recreational opportunities, such as
walking and nature viewing.
◢Amenities: May include paved or natural trails, wildlife viewing areas,
mountain biking, disc golf, and interpretation and education facilities.
◢Maintenance standards: Demand-based maintenance with available
funding. Biological management practices observed.
◢Lighting: None.
◢Signage: Interpretive kiosks, as deemed appropriate.
◢Landscape Design: Generally, none. Some areas may include
landscaping, such as entryways or around buildings. In these situations,
sustainable design is appropriate.
GREENBELTS/TRAILS
Greenbelts are recognized for their ability to connect people and places
while serving as active transportation facilities. Linking neighborhoods,
parks, recreation facilities, attractions, and natural areas with a multi-use
trail fulfills three guiding principles simultaneously: 1) protecting natural
areas along canals and open space areas, 2) providing people with a way
to access and enjoy them, and 3) providing a safe, alternative form of active
transportation.
◢Site selection: Located consistent with an approved Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan.
◢Amenities: Parking and restrooms at major trailheads. May include
small parks along the trail.
◢Maintenance standards: Demand-based maintenance with available
funding. Biological management practices observed.
◢Lighting: Security lighting at trailheads and along trail is preferred.
◢Signage: Mileage markers at 1/4-mile intervals. Interpretive kiosks at all
trailheads and where deemed necessary.
◢Landscape design: Coordinated planting scheme in urban areas.
Limited or no planting in open space areas.
◢Other: Connectivity to parks or other City attractions and facilities is
desirable.
◢Size: Typically, at least 30 ft. width of unencumbered land for a
greenbelt. May include a trail to support walk, bike, run, equestrian type
activities. Typically, an urban trail is 8-10 feet wide to support pedestrian
and bicycle uses. Trails incorporate signage to designate where a user
is located and where the trails connect in the City.
67
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
68
o
o
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
Ray Rd
Pecos Rd
Germann Rd
Queen Creek Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Chandler Heights Rd
Chandler Blvd
Riggs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Val Vista Dr
Lindsay Rd
Gilbert Rd
Cooper Rd
McQueen Rd
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
Old Price Rd
Arizona Ave
McClintock Dr
Rural Rd
Kyrene Rd
56th St
Tempe
Mesa
Gilbert
Phoenix
?
ð
!"a$
Gila River
Indian Community
?
Þ
West
North
Southwest
Southeast
The
Department
manages 66
park assets,
which equates
to an average
of more than
one park per
every square
mile.
Facility Inventory/Assessment
At nearly a quarter of a million residents, the City is the fourth largest city in
Arizona. This population boom has led to a balanced diversity of parks and
associated amenities throughout its history and growth. Per its mission, the
Department ‘champions everyday experiences that encourage the community
to discover, imagine, and grow’. As the city has grown since its establishment
in 1912 to encompass 64.90 incorporated square miles, the number of parks
and facilities has equally grown with it. Currently, the Department manages
67 park assets, which equates to an average of more than one park per every
square mile of the City’s boundaries. The over 1,000 acres of parks and facilities,
maintained by the City, offer an ample mix of traditional park types.
For the purposes of this assessment, the City has been separated into four
distinct planning areas, as shown in the graphic below.
69
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
UNDEVELOPED PARK LANDS
The City currently owns over 200 acres of
undeveloped parklands. Land was previously acquired
and set aside by the City to expand existing and/or
create new facilities at the following locations:
DEVELOPED PARKS
◢Desert Breeze Park: 2.50 Acres
◢Tumbleweed Park: 77.95 Acres
UNDEVELOPED PARKS
◢Homestead North Park: 7.60 Acres
◢Lantana Ranch Park: 50.77 Acres
◢Mesquite Groves Park: 98.40 Acres
SYSTEM-WIDE AMENITIES AND QUANTITIES
Amenity
Quantity
ARCHERY RANGE
1
BASEBALL FIELD (LIGHTED)
20
BASKETBALL COURT (LIGHTED)
40
BBQ PIT / GRILL
162
BEAN BAG TOSS (CORNHOLE)
4
BENCH
852
BIKE RACK / LOOP
72
BIKE / SKATE PARK (SF)
60,000
BLEACHERS
48
BOCCE BALL COURT
3
CRICKET FIELD
1
DECORATIVE FOUNTAIN
3
DISC GOLF COURSE
1
DOG BAG STATION
252
DOG PARK
4
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
96
FENCING (LF)
1,888
FITNESS STATION
17
FLAG POLE
19
HORSESHOE PIT
11
IRRIGATION SYSTEM (AC)
1,066
KIOSK (INTERPRETIVE)
18
LAKE / POND
10
LIGHTING (SITE, SPORTS, PED, ETC)
2,950
MAINTENANCE YARD / BUILDING
5
MULTIUSE COURT (LIGHTED)
2
MULTIUSE COURT (NON-LIGHTED)
1
Amenity
Quantity
MULTIUSE FIELD (LIGHTED)
22
MULTIUSE FIELD (NON-LIGHTED)
7
OPEN TURF AREA (AC)
300
PARKING LOT (SPACES)
4,464
PICKLEBALL COURT
9
PICNIC TABLE
760
PLAYGROUND (NON-SHADED)
13
PLAYGROUND (SHADED)
82
PUBLIC ART
7
RACQUETBALL COURT (OUTDOOR)
2
RAMADA
155
RC AIRPLANE FLYING AREA
5
RESTROOM BUILDING
26
SHADE STRUCTURE (STAND-ALONE)
62
SIGNAGE (PARK ENTRY)
137
SIGNAGE (REGULATORY)
282
SOFTBALL FIELD (LIGHTED)
9
SOFTBALL FIELD (NON-LIGHTED)
2
SPRAY PAD
3
TENNIS CENTER
1
TENNIS COURT (LIGHTED)
25
TRAIL - NON PAVED (MI)
9.5
TRAIL - PAVED (MI)
53.9
TRASH RECEPTACLE
1,896
VETERANS MEMORIAL
1
VOLLEYBALL COURT (SAND)
35
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
70
o
Nozomi
Desert Breeze
Price
Harter
Mountain View
Sunset
Windmills West
Pine Shadows
Sundance
Mccullough-Price
Pueblo Alto
Ray Rd
Pecos Rd
Chandler Blvd
McClintock Dr
Rural Rd
Kyrene Rd
56th St
!"a$
?
Þ
West
?
ð
WEST PLANNING AREA
Park/Facility
Built
Size
DESERT BREEZE
1991
44.40
HARTER
1993
8.65
MOUNTAIN VIEW
1989
18.07
NOZOMI
2004
21.36
PINE SHADOWS
1997
5.28
PRICE
1993
12.57
PUEBLO ALTO
1997
0.25
SUNDANCE
1993
3.52
SUNSET
1999
4.99
WINDMILLS WEST
1990
6.32
Average Age – 25.4 Years
Total Acres
125.4
The City’s parks and facilities are generally
well distributed geographically and
have a consistent variety of amenities at
each location. However, due to planned
development communities and home
owner’s associations maintaining their own
recreational facilities in newer parts of
the city, the west and north planning areas
have more facilities than the southwest and
southeast areas.
71
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
Aj Chandler
Maggio Ranch
Ashley
Harris
Memorial
Plaza
Espee
Park
Manors
Los Altos
Summerset Row
Homestead
North
Armstrong
Traditions
East
Navarrete
Shawnee
Hoopes
San Tan
Brooks
Crossing
Arrowhead
Meadows
Tibshraeny
Family
Thude
Jackrabbit
Stonegate
Harmony
Hollow
Pima
Apache
Pequeno
Amberwood
Folley
Gazelle
Meadows
San Marcos
Summit Point
Desert Oasis
Boys & Girls Club
Winn
Provinces
Homestead South
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
Ray Rd
Chandler Blvd
Gilbert Rd
Cooper Rd
McQueen Rd
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
Arizona Ave
?
ð
?
Þ
North
The North Planning
Area has the oldest
facilities (31 years) and
the most dense at 1.5
parks per square mile.
NORTH PLANNING AREA
Park/Facility
Built
Size
AMBERWOOD
1986
16.47
APACHE
1977
9.97
ARMSTRONG
2009
1.57
ARROWHEAD
MEADOWS
1974
30.84
ASHLEY TRAIL
1996
2.51
BOYS & GIRLS
CLUB
2009
5.40
BROOKS
CROSSING
1986
8.16
DESERT OASIS
1992
0.72
DR. AJ CHANDLER
1912
3.52
EAST MINI
1970
0.26
ESPEE
2004
32.77
Park/Facility
Built
Size
FOLLEY
MEMORIAL
1974
22.86
GAZELLE
MEADOWS
1985
8.39
HARMONY
HOLLOW
2003
6.06
HARRIS
1967
0.66
HOMESTEAD
SOUTH
2018
4.98
HOOPES
1984
12.54
JACKRABBIT
1995
2.79
LOS ALTOS
1999
1.17
MAGGIO RANCH
1994
5.28
NAVARRETE
1969
4.37
PARK MANORS
1999
0.29
Park/Facility
Built
Size
PASEO TRAIL*
2009
26.85
PEQUENO
2002
4.54
PIMA
1980
31.68
PROVINCES
1999
5.97
SAN MARCOS
1994
14.65
SAN TAN
1995
9.71
SHAWNEE
1983
17.55
STONEGATE
1984
8.32
SUMMIT POINT
1987
0.29
THUDE
1995
25.98
TIBSHRAENY
FAMILY
2007
16.34
WINN
1986
0.80
Average Age
31.1 Years
Total Acres
344.2
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
72
Snedigar
(East)
Blue Heron
Chuparosa
Fox Crossing
Dobson
Ryan
Snedigar
(West)
Pecos Ranch
Germann Rd
Queen Creek Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Chandler Heights Rd
Riggs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
Arizona Ave
?
ð
Southwest
SOUTHWEST PLANNING AREA
Park/Facility
Built
Size
BLUE HERON
2006
2.85
CHUPAROSA
2003
29.38
DOBSON
1994
12.45
FOX CROSSING
1999
5.16
PECOS RANCH
1994
10.61
RYAN
2006
13.85
SNEDIGAR
SPORTSPLEX
1991
90.83
Average Age
21.0 Years
Total Acres
165.13
OF THE 66 FACILITIES
INVENTORIED AS PART OF THIS
ASSESSMENT, THERE WERE:
51 Neighborhood Parks
9 Community Parks
5 Special-use Facilities
1 Regional Park
At over 200 acres,
Tumbleweed Park
is the City’s largest
park by area.
73
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
o
Meadowbrook
Mesquite
Groves
Bear
Creek
La Paloma
Pinelake
Chuckwalla
Tumbleweed
Arbuckle
Quail Haven
Veterans
Oasis
Crossbow
Roadrunner
Paseo Vista
Recreation Area
Los Arboles
Centennial
Valencia Park
Citrus Vista
Lantana Ranch
Paseo Trail
Germann Rd
Queen Creek Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Chandler Heights Rd
Riggs Rd
Hunt Hwy
Lindsay Rd
Gilbert Rd
Cooper Rd
McQueen Rd
Arizona Ave
Val Vista Dr
?
ð
Southeast
SOUTHEAST PLANNING AREA
Park/Facility
Built
Size
ARBUCKLE PARK
2007
7.89
BEAR CREEK GOLF
COURSE #
2000
234.3
CENTENNIAL PARK
2014
10.88
CHUCKWALLA PARK
2006
4.46
CITRUS VISTA
2015
11.21
CROSSBOW PARK
2008
7.95
LA PALOMA PARK
2002
15.64
LOS ARBOLES PARK
2003
11.37
MEADOWBROOK PARK
2018
7.09
PASEO TRAIL*
2009
53.7
PASEO VISTA
RECREATION AREA
2009
62.50
PINELAKE PARK
2006
7.80
QUAIL HAVEN PARK
2004
9.77
ROADRUNNER PARK
2013
10.24
TUMBLEWEED PARK
2002
211.10
VALENCIA PARK
2014
9.35
VETERANS OASIS PARK
2007
113.0
Average Age
11.4 Years
Total Acres
788.2
NOTE
It is important to note that the on-site inventory and assessment
process was performed May 4th through May 8th, 2020. During
that time the global pandemic associated with the COVID-19 virus
was ongoing, therefore the availability of certain facilities and
amenities were not easily accessible given government mandates
and social distancing measures being practiced at that time.
The assessments used reasonable efforts to review these
amenities. Facilities, such as restrooms and maintenance
buildings were reviewed from the exterior and the Department’s
knowledge and input was utilized to fill in the remaining
assessment items, such as restroom interior conditions, as
needed to provide a complete and thorough inventory of the
existing system.
# Bear Creek Golf Course is considered part
of the City’s inventory but was not assessed
as a part of this study.
The Southeast
Planning Area
has nearly
150 acres of
undeveloped
park land which
are currently
owned by the
City of Chandler.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
74
GROWTH
The additional expansion or growth of the City is extremely
limited given its existing geographic and political boundaries
with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and the Cities
of Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, and Phoenix. Any realistic growth
opportunities for improvement to parks and amenities will
be through the development of expanded connections,
such as greenways, bike paths, and trails along existing
transportation corridors and public infrastructure. The current
Paseo Trail along the Consolidated Canal is an excellent
resource serving a wide variety of users and linking the entire
city north to south. The City should make it a priority to
maximize opportunities with CIP projects, such as roadway/
street improvements to develop additional paths, trails, and
other methods of safe bike and pedestrian transportation to
assist in closing ‘gaps’ and expanding access to existing park
facilities. The expansion of these connections will only further
help in providing that “last mile” for both citizens and visitors
alike to experience the City’s park assets.
CONDITION
While there are a few parks and facilities in the southeast area, which are relatively new and in good condition,
in general the parks and amenities visited were observed to be in an average state of condition. This is primarily
due to the age of amenities within the park system and current maintenance practices. While, nothing was
noted as being in complete disrepair or a safety hazard, there are a number of amenities, that due to their age,
will soon need accelerated maintenance plans and/or complete replacement. Typically, these assets involve
amenities, such as ramadas/shade structures, benches, or playgrounds, which have been highly used and are
exceeding their lifecycle. Due to these aging amenities, improvements will be needed to upgrade the existing
parks to meet modern recommendations for playground equipment and access. While many amenities have
been noted as aging, the Department’s commitment to high-quality maintenance is clearly evident throughout
the entire system. The City clearly recognizes the key role its parks system plays in providing a high quality of life
for its residents.
MAINTENANCE
The Department has done a good job with routine maintenance and general upkeep of its parks, so much in
fact, that many amenities appear to have far exceeded the manufacturer’s recommended lifecycle. With that in
mind, the upgrade and/or full replacement of these amenities will need to be addressed in the very near future.
As these amenities continue to age, additional challenges in maintaining them will arise for the Department if not
upgraded or replaced soon. The Department should be aggressive in implementing a plan to identify existing
park and amenity upgrades for future CIP projects.
ADA COMPLIANCE
While a full Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance review was not part of this assessment process
during on-site investigations, it was noted that several playground structures and surfacing appear to need
review to ensure a continued commitment to safety. The Department is currently undertaking such an effort
to inspect existing facilities, conduct self-evaluations, and update its transition plan as needed to continue
meeting the standards and regulations for ADA compliant accessibility. Several parks have sidewalk panels that
show some vertical separation exceeding 1/4 inch (the maximum vertical difference allowed under ADA). The
department should develop a plan to sawcut, dowel, and replace any panels in question.
The inventory and assessment of the
existing park system is a vital step in
this planning process to understand
the physical condition of the
Department’s assets. This inventory
is intended to build off the City’s
previous parks and recreation master
plans and studies by evaluating
past recommendations, current
geographic information databases,
and physical on-site assessments
by looking at each asset in terms of
location, number, size, and quality.
75
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
MAXIMIZING PROGRAMMING
During the on-site assessments, it was noted that the smaller open turf areas were not in nearly as good of
condition as the larger more active turf spaces, which is mostly due to lack of proper irrigation maintenance.
In addition, most open turf areas, regardless of size, are in need of general grading and drainage improvements
to minimize low spots, address slope erosion, and improve or replaced irrigation systems to maximize healthy
turf growth. The Department should focus on strategic turf improvements, as they will ultimately increase the
usability and future programming opportunities for these spaces.
MATURE TREES
Most of the trees within the west, north, and southwest areas of the city are large and mature, as well as provide
incredible shade from the sun in the harsh desert environment. While these trees are a great asset due to their
size and aesthetic appeal, some of them are declining in health due to age and other environmental factors. In
addition, some of these larger trees create situations of poor turf quality due to the dense shade they project, as
well as sidewalk cracking and heaving. It is recommended that the Department undergo a tree lifecycle analysis
at all of its parks to understand the impacts the trees age may have on future maintenance. An inventory analysis
and recommended best practices will be critical for establishing a plan for systematic removal and replacement.
Removing all mature trees at one time would be devastating to the character of several facilities and should
be avoided when possible. Additionally, developing a plan for sidewalk replacement and relocation should be
considered to provide sufficient root zone separation.
SPORTS FIELDS
The Department’s sports fields (baseball, softball, multi-use, and soccer) are generally well maintained. There
are signs of inconsistent turf growth and bare spots which are a direct result of poor irrigation maintenance.
Overall, the turf playing surfaces are in above average condition at most fields. The fencing, dugouts, and
backstops at several softball and baseball fields is noticeably aging, bowing and in need of replacement.
Additionally, all fields should be upgraded with LED lighting.
PARKING LOTS
The asphalt-concrete pavement is showing signs of cracking due to age and surface ponding in many of the
park parking lots. Most cracks range from a ½ to an inch in width. It is recommended that the Department seal
coat all surface cracks with, at the most, every three years for ease of maintenance and to increase the surface’s
life expectancy. In most cases the existing parking pavement and subbase have significant life remaining before
replacement will be required. Proper sealing and treatment of cracks, along with proper drainage conveyance,
limiting the infiltration of moisture, can prolong the life of the parking lots.
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Due to the age of many parks and the apparent inconsistencies of existing irrigation coverage and maintenance,
particularly in turf areas, it is recommended that the Department undertake a system-wide irrigation audit to
fully inventory and assess the existing irrigation systems and maintenance practices at all parks and facilities.
The audit should evaluate the existing equipment, available supply and demand, perform hydraulic analysis,
and provide prioritized recommendations and costs for necessary improvements. As noted above, identifying
deficiencies in the irrigation systems and fixing them will lead to consistent, quality turf and open space areas
that will in turn strengthen the number of programming opportunities.
LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
Similar to irrigation mentioned above, both the system and many individual parks display inconsistencies in
lighting types. While some parks have been converted to LED and standardized equipment, others have not.
Existing lighting and electrical systems have been repaired and replaced on a case by case, as needed basis.
It is recommended that the Department undertake a system-wide lighting and energy study to develop
alternatives and solutions for improving lighting by retrofitting existing fixtures for greater efficiency and energy
savings. Additionally, the incorporation of smart emerging technologies can be planned and incorporated into
new infrastructure implementation.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
76
The quality of each asset was
assessed as a part of the
on-site review and inventory.
The following factors were the
primary categories reviewed
during the inventory phase:
◢Asset Age
◢Asset Size
◢Asset Condition
◢Asset Connectivity (Vehicular,
Non-Vehicular and Contextual)
77
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
CHAPTER 4: PARK CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND FACILITY INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
Summary
In general, the overall impression of the Department’s assets are as follows:
Parks are clean, consistent and well-maintained at or near a NRPA Level III
There is a good variety of park types and amenities
Facilities are clearly valued by residents given their visible use
Higher density of city facilities in the north and west areas
Recommendations from the recent ADA audit should be implemented
Parks contain many mature trees, many of which are exceeding their lifecycle
Decomposed granite in planting areas has weathered and washed away
Several irrigation maintenance issues on turf slopes
Quality maintenance has prolonged the lifecycle of many amenities
Park signage is consistent but small and not instantly recognizable
Newer parks have a uniqueness and individuality, which older parks lack
Parking lots are generally in need resurfacing and restriping
Many restroom facilities are original and need renovation/replacement
Many turf areas are in poor condition and lack usability
Miscellaneous grading and drainage improvements are needed
78
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 5
Level of Service and Mapping
79
Chapter 5 - Level of Service and Mapping
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS - CURRENT
Level of Service (LOS) standards are guidelines that define service areas based on population that support
investment decisions related to parks, facilities, and amenities. LOS standards can and will change over time;
as the population increases, the need to acquire additional land and develop parks also increases as will the
costs to do so.
The consultant team evaluated LOS standards using a combination of local, regional, and national resources,
including:
◢General Plan 2016 Policy Document; Parks and Recreation Element
◢National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines
◢Recreation activity participation rates for the U.S. and the City as reported by the SFIA 2020 Study of
Sports and ESRI
◢Community and stakeholder input and general observations. This information allowed standards to be
customized to the Chandler Parks system
These resources provide LOS guidelines based on population to inform and support investment decisions
related to parks, facilities and amenities. When coupled with local input on the needs of the Chandler
community, these standards help to identify park and facility/amenity gaps and surpluses. The findings of the
LOS standards analysis are summarized below:
◢Chandler currently provides a total LOS, including Homeowner Association neighborhood parks of 8.22
acres of developed parks per 1,000 residents based on the City’s current population. The City of
Chandler provides approximately 65% of the total acreage.
◢In order to create a realistic and fiscally sustainable parks system, it is recommended that the future level
of service standard for developed parks be 8.5 acres per 1,000 population.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
80
◢With the recommended level of service to 8.5 acres per 1,000 population, the City will need to add a
total of 409 developed park acres to the system by 2035 to keep up with the projected population
growth. Additional park acreage is needed in every park classification, except special use parks.
◢The City currently meets 2035 standards for five amenities: basketball courts, sand/grass volleyball courts,
playgrounds, ramadas and golf courses.
◢The City is deficient in meeting standards in several amenities, most notably: Athletic fields (multi-purpose,
diamond, cricket), pickleball and tennis courts.
To meet athletic field needs, the City should consider the development of a regional park.
Based on a thorough review of the parks system and public input, it is recommended that the City pursue
further development of specific parks and recreation amenities that meet the needs listed in the High Priority
Program and Facility Rankings and address the gaps per park type to increase the current level of service
standard for the projected population in 2035. Further park acreage and amenity needs will be required beyond
2035 as the City reaches it’s build-out population.
The table on the previous page details the current and recommended LOS for the Chandler Parks system.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS -
FUTURE
As the City develops over the next decade, a number of
future developed parks or strategic changes to parks have
been identified. In working with the Community Services
Department, these future and strategic changes to parks
are summarized to the right:
The table identifies an additional 159.27 acres that, when
developed, will be added to the City’s parks system. Future
parks include Lantana, Homestead North, and Mesquite
Grove. The development of a new Regional Park is also
recommended.
PLANNED FUTURE PARKS IMPACT ON LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDS
To understand the impact that the future parks will have on the City’s ability to meet the LOS standard needs
shown on the previous table, a comparative LOS table was developed as shown below.
Recreation Component
STRATEGIC
CHANGES TO
EXISTING
PARKS
FUTURE
PLANNED
PARKLAND
DEVELOPMENT
PARKS AND SPECIAL USE FACILITIES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
7.60
COMMUNITY PARKS
53.27
REGIONAL PARKS
235.00
98.40
SPECIAL USE PARKS
(235.00)
Total
-
159.27
81
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
The development of the future parks has an impact on four park classification categories and is summarized as
follows:
◢Neighborhood Parks: The development of 7 neighborhood park acres will reduce the City’s
neighborhood park acreage needs in 2035 by 35% — from 20 acres needed to 13 acres needed.
◢Community Parks: The development of 53.27 acres of future community parks will fully satisfy the City’s
2035 community park acreage needs.
◢Regional Parks: The development of 333.4 acres of future regional parks will fully satisfy the City’s 2035
regional park acreage needs.
TECHNICAL NEEDS ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS
SERVICE AREA EQUITY MAPPING – CURRENT INVENTORY
The Chandler Parks system has evolved over time and distribution of sites and facilities throughout the
community is reflected in the current site locations.
To further illustrate the distribution of current park types and amenities in the City, an equity-mapping analysis
was conducted to show the service areas and the gaps in service of the current inventory of park types and
amenities based on the recommended LOS standard. The recommended standard established per 1,000
residents per acre of park type or number of residents per type of amenity are also indicated in the map title.
The service area is calculated by the quantity of inventory of each site extended in a uniform radius until the
population served by the recommended standard is reached. Shaded areas indicate the extent of the service
area based on recommended inventories; unshaded areas indicate locations that would remain outside of the
standard service area for each park type or park asset. Unshaded areas are not always the most appropriate
location for future parks or park assets. They only represent areas that might be more thoroughly reviewed for
potential additional facilities.
Although there are occasions when the service area may extend beyond the City’s borders, only Chandler’s
population was utilized for calculating service area standards in this analysis.
Community-wide maps of existing park types or classifications identified in this Master Plan, as well as the
major park amenities, are provided in the pages that follow. The maps on the following pages identify existing
and future (where possible):
◢Neighborhood parks
◢Community parks
◢Regional parks
◢Special use parks
◢Baseball fields (lighted)
◢Multi-use fields (lighted)
◢Softball fields (lighted)
◢Cricket fields
◢Basketball courts (lighted)
◢Pickleball courts
◢Tennis courts (lighted)
◢Volleyball courts (sand/grass)
◢Dog parks
◢Playgrounds
◢Ramadas
◢Disc golf courses
◢Bike parks/skate parks/pump tracks
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
82
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
WEST
NORTH
SOUTHEAST
SOUTHWEST
Amberwood
Park
Apache Park
Arbuckle Park
Armstrong
Park
Blue Heron
Park
Boys & Girls Club
Brooks
Crossing
Centennial
Park
Chuckwalla
Park
Citrus Vista
Crossbow Park
Desert
Oasis Park
Dobson Park
East Mini Park
Fox Crossing
Park
Gazelle
Meadows
Harmony Hollow Park
Elgin Park
Harter
Park
Homestead
South Park
Hoopes Park
Jackrabbit
Park
La Paloma
Park
Los Altos
Park
Los Arboles
Park
Maggio
Ranch Park
Meadowbrook
Park
Mountain
View Park
Navarrete
Park
Park Manors
Park
Pecos
Ranch Park
Pequeno Park
Pine Shadows Park
Pinelake Park
Price Park
Provinces
Park
Pueblo
Alto Park
Quail
Haven Park
Roadrunner
Park
Ryan Park
San Marcos
Park
San Tan Park
Shawnee Park
Stonegate
Park
Summit
Point Park
Sundance Park
Sunset Park
Tibshraeny
Family Park
Valencia Park
Windmills
West Park
Winn Park
Homestead
North
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Chandler, Arizona
Parks and Recreation
Equity Maps
Local Road
Major Road
Highway
Park Zone Boundaries
Chandler City Boundary
Recommended Standard of
Neighborhood Parks
3.5 Acres per 1,000 People
0
1
2Miles
´
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
83
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
COMMUNITY PARKS
WEST
NORTH
SOUTHEAST
SOUTHWEST
Arrowhead
Meadows Park
Chuparosa
Park
Desert
Breeze Park
Espee Park
Folley
Memorial Park
Nozomi Park
Pima Park
Snedigar
Sportsplex
Veterans
Oasis Park
Lantanna
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Chandler, Arizona
Parks and Recreation
Equity Maps
Local Road
Major Road
Highway
Park Zone Boundaries
Chandler City Boundary
Recommended Standard of
Community Parks
1.25 Acres per 1,000 People
0
1
2Miles
´
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
Lantana
Lantana
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
84
REGIONAL PARKS
WEST
NORTH
SOUTHEAST
SOUTHWEST
Tumbleweed
Park
Mesquite
Grove
Bear Creek
Golf Club
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Chandler, Arizona
Parks and Recreation
Equity Maps
Local Road
Major Road
Highway
Park Zone Boundaries
Chandler City Boundary
Recommended Standard of
Regional Parks
1.45 Acres per 1,000 People
0
1
2Miles
´
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
Owner
Chandler
Future
HOA
South Chandler
South Chandler
Regional Park
Regional Park
85
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
SPECIAL-USE PARKS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
86
BASEBALL FIELDS LIGHTED
87
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
MULTI-USE FIELDS LIGHTED
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
88
SOFTBALL FIELDS LIGHTED
89
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
CRICKET FIELDS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
90
PLAYGROUNDS
91
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
DOG PARKS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
92
RAMADAS
93
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
BIKE PARK/SKATE PARK/PUMP TRACK
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
94
OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURTS LIGHTED
95
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
TENNIS COURTS LIGHTED
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
96
PICKLEBALL COURTS
97
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURTS
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
98
DISC GOLF COURSE
99
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 5 : L E V E L O F S E R V I C E A N D M A P P I N G
100
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 6
Capital Improvement and
Total Cost of Ownership
101
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
102
Chapter 6 - Capital Improvement and Total Cost of Ownership
SUSTAINABLE AND VISIONARY PROJECTS
This section provides a thorough look into the quantity of existing assets, the timeline for needed replacement,
and the appropriate (future inflation adjusted) value for each. The intent of the following section is to provide a
starting point in quantifying the considerable financial value of the existing physical assets contained within the
entire Department using a detailed system of matrices.
In addition to its existing assets, it is important for the Department to continually invest in regular redesign and
rebuilding of the City’s parks and recreation facilities to ensure that they are aligned with the everchanging
nature of public demand and programming needs. Changes such as these should be considered visionary
projects, or projects which expand and/or replace facilities at existing parks that are currently not in place or
needed. The consultant team worked directly with Department staff to determine a list of visionary projects for
each park and facility.
Utilizing the results of the on-site inventory and assessment, detailed matrices were developed which utilized
the previously established grading standards along with current construction pricing to create an improvement
priority plan and associated value for each facility. Assets scored with grading standards F (1) and D (2)
were considered critical and therefore capital improvement projects for the next one to seven year to correct
safety hazards and accelerated deterioration. Assets scored with grading standard C (3) were categorized as
capital improvement projects for years eight to 15 and those scored grading standards B (4) and A (5) were
categorized for longer term improvements, 16+ years as assets were early enough in their lifecycles to not be in
need of immediately replacement.
The detailed matrices included in this section should be built upon by the Department moving forward as new
facilities are constructed and/ or old facilities replaced. With careful planning and a keen vision, the information
will assist the City in its efforts to ensure that infrastructure operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and park
development is as efficient and effective as possible.
Additionally, the following information will allow staff to strategically anticipate future expenditure and plan for
adequate funding of future improvements while negotiating confidently with forward well-evidenced information
in always difficult climate of budget constraints.
SYSTEM-WIDE SUMMARY
Category
CIP (1-7 Years)
CIP (8-15 Years)
CIP (16+ Years)
Sustainable Projects
$44,460,375
$217,685,449
$103,910,819
Visonary Projects
$92,292,350
$164,751,504
$116,114,348
Totals
$136,752,725
$382,436,953
$220,025,166
103
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
DESERT BREEZE
$2,405,000
$17,949,272
$1,170,250
HARTER
$998,577
$2,422,030
MOUNTAIN VIEW
$783,000
$2,874,957
NOZOMI
$2,412,000
$8,059,939
PINE SHADOWS
$1,010,107
$1,185,750
PRICE
$67,500
$2,147,650
$2,557,500
PUEBLO ALTO
$86,000
$264,189
$775,000
SUNDANCE
$2,302,592
SUNSET
$200,000
$1,279,807
WINDMILLS WEST
$1,630,276
$1,650,750
Sub Totals
$5,953,500
$38,517,367
$9,761,280
VISIONARY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
DESERT BREEZE
$523,800
$1,661,213
HARTER
$160,000
$40,500
MOUNTAIN VIEW
$80,000
NOZOMI
$47,250
PINE SHADOWS
$270,000
PRICE
$20,000
$109,013
PUEBLO ALTO
$10,000
SUNDANCE
$40,500
SUNSET
$30,000
$114,750
$34,875
WINDMILLS WEST
$40,500
Sub Totals
$300,000
$1,186,313
$1,696,088
WEST PLANNING AREA
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS + VISIONARY PROJECTS
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
Totals
$6,253,500
$39,703,679
$11,457,368
WEST NOTES
Per Park
Reinvestment
Range: $1.1 Million
– $23.7 Million
Median
Reinvestment Cost:
$3.4 Million
Lowest
Reinvestment Cost:
Pueblo Alto
Largest
Reinvestment Cost:
Desert Breeze
Note that costs shown are intended to be rough order of magnitude and based on park and recreation related
amenities only. Projected costs do not include additional associated infrastructure or soft costs related to
project implementation. The values shown within this document are based on 2021 dollars with cost escalators
added in years 7-15 (35%) and years 16+ (55%). City staff should continue to evaluate costing information with
current market conditions throughout the life of the plan as project funding opportunities arise.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
104
The North
Planning Area has
the largest funding
required in CIP
Years 8-15 for
facility upkeep and
improvements.
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
AMBERWOOD
$1,159,500
$2,194,765
$93,000
APACHE
$930,000
$2,111,785
$2,299,425
ARMSTRONG
$114,000
$155,126
$129,115
ARROWHEAD MEADOWS
$3,235,000
$10,568,433
$465,000
ASHLEY TRAIL
$555,426
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB
$32,250
$2,207,968
$238,700
BROOKS CROSSING
$343,000
$2,463,390
$232,500
DESERT OASIS
$202,770
$914,500
DR AJ CHANDLER
$358,000
$2,309,445
$2,192,475
EAST MINI
$540,588
$8,843
ESPEE
$240,000
$10,078,757
$4,851,500
FOLLEY
$1,834,000
$7,687,974
$1,243,100
GAZELLE MEADOWS
$750,967
$465,953
$1,550,000
HARMONY HOLLOW
$645,856
$260,888
HARRIS
$54,042
$31,050
$423,228
HOMESTEAD SOUTH
$1,597,740
HOOPES
$2,263,768
$1,276,425
JACKRABBIT
$87,075
$1,136,978
LOS ALTOS
$528,000
$141,949
MAGGIO RANCH
$237,500
$2,217,157
NAVARRETE
$735,000
$826,562
$1,162,500
PARK MANORS
$800,220
$21,700
PEQUENO
$5,500
$2,155,004
PIMA
$37,500
$8,616,835
$1,525,975
PROVINCES
$1,969,996
SAN MARCOS
$120,000
$2,484,490
$1,249,300
SAN TAN
$94,500
$3,136,898
SHAWNEE
$4,190,104
$1,904,950
STONEGATE
$2,891,425
$337,900
SUMMIT POINT
$9,450
$981,933
THUDE
$550,000
$2,890,881
TIBSHRAENY FAMILY
$2,168,702
$3,534,310
WINN
$185,000
$137,491
$775,000
Sub Totals
$12,635,703
$75,248,181
$33,274,151
NORTH PLANNING AREA
105
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
VISIONARY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
AMBERWOOD
$15,000
$457,988
APACHE
$348,500
$51,030
$93,000
ARMSTRONG
$60,000
$40,500
ARROWHEAD MEADOWS
$360,000
$966,600
$232,500
ASHLEY TRAIL
$15,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB
$1,674,675
BROOKS CROSSING
$790,000
$20,250
$7,750
DESERT OASIS
$122,175
DR AJ CHANDLER
$12,222,000
EAST MINI
$33,750
ESPEE
$40,500
$77,500
FOLLEY
$7,670,000
GAZELLE MEADOWS
$257,850
$105,788
HARMONY HOLLOW
$1,815,000
$270,000
HARRIS
$5,500
$40,500
$77,500
HOMESTEAD SOUTH
$13,500
HOOPES
$83,700
JACKRABBIT
$60,000
$506,250
LOS ALTOS
$155,250
MAGGIO RANCH
$108,000
NAVARRETE
$25,000
$20,250
$1,278,750
PARK MANORS
$20,250
PEQUENO
$182,250
PIMA
$103,750
$94,500
PROVINCES
$81,000
SAN MARCOS
$27,000
$1,007,500
SAN TAN
$20,000
$1,659,150
SHAWNEE
$10,000
$246,375
STONEGATE
$20,250
$15,500
SUMMIT POINT
$10,000
$74,400
THUDE
$325,000
$81,675
TIBSHRAENY FAMILY
$51,975
WINN
$75,000
Sub Totals
$23,929,750
$7,327,193
$2,970,188
NORTH NOTES
Per Park
Reinvestment
Range: $498,000
– $18.4 Million
Median
Reinvestment Cost:
$3.2 Million
Lowest
Reinvestment Cost:
Armstrong
Largest
Reinvestment Cost:
Folley Memorial
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS + VISIONARY PROJECTS
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP 8-15
Years
CIP 16+
Years
Totals
$36,565,453
$82,575,374
$36,244,339
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
106
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
BLUE HERON
$131,500
$506,300
$1,819,700
CHUPAROSA
$1,424,000
$5,688,717
$1,088,100
DOBSON
$997,000
$2,301,567
$1,550,000
FOX CROSSING
$631,818
$1,566,068
PECOS RANCH
$596,500
$2,001,040
$775,000
RYAN
$755,000
$3,209,547
SNEDIGAR SPORTSPLEX
$8,462,000
$28,078,988
$1,640,675
Sub Totals
$12,997,818
$43,352,226
$6,873,475
VISIONARY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP 8-15
Years
CIP 16+
Years
BLUE HERON
$10,000
$13,500
CHUPAROSA
$40,500
$77,500
DOBSON
$325,000
FOX CROSSING
$33,750
PECOS RANCH
$15,000
RYAN
$25,000
SNEDIGAR SPORTSPLEX
$75,000
Sub Totals
$450,000
$87,750
$77,500
SOUTHWEST PLANNING AREA
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS + VISIONARY PROJECTS
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP 8-15
Years
CIP 16+
Years
Totals
$13,447,818
$43,439,976
$6,950,975
SW NOTES
Per Park
Reinvestment
Range: $2.2 Million
– $38.2 Million
Median
Reinvestment Cost:
$3.9 Million
Lowest
Reinvestment Cost:
Fox Crossing
Largest
Reinvestment
Cost: Snedigar
Sportsplex
107
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
SOUTHeast PLANNING AREA
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
ARBUCKLE PARK
$1,764,452
$1,760,025
BEAR CREEK GOLF
COURSE
CENTENNIAL PARK
$49,000
$805,950
$3,622,680
CHUCKWALLA PARK
$250,500
$2,338,901
$201,500
CITRUS VISTA
$79,313
$4,391,529
CROSSBOW PARK
$329,000
$865,890
$1,422,125
LA PALOMA PARK
$760,000
$2,076,247
$866,450
LANTANA RANCH PARK
LOS ARBOLES PARK
$8,500
$1,122,938
MEADOWBROOK PARK
$50,288
$3,395,951
MESQUITE GROVES
PARK
PASEO TRAIL
$174,500
$8,773,743
$1,585,650
PASEO VISTA
RECREATION AREA
$1,664,000
$3,694,275
$8,440,525
PINELAKE PARK
$758,624
$549,383
$1,643,000
QUAIL HAVEN PARK
$162,000
$2,283,753
$143,375
ROADRUNNER PARK
$158,963
$4,524,956
TUMBLEWEED PARK
$8,717,230
$31,559,043
$3,944,750
VALENCIA PARK
$114,750
$4,620,897
VETERANS OASIS PARK
$4,329,788
$13,438,500
Sub Totals
$12,873,354
$60,567,675
$54,001,912
At over 450
million dollars,
the Southeast
Planning Area has
the largest Capital
Improvement
funding required.
Note that costs shown are intended to be rough order of magnitude and based on park and recreation related
amenities only. Projected costs do not include additional associated infrastructure or soft costs related to
project implementation. The values shown within this document are based on 2021 dollars with cost escalators
added in years 7-15 (35%) and years 16+ (55%). City staff should continue to evaluate costing information with
current market conditions throughout the life of the plan as project funding opportunities arise.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
108
VISIONARY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Park/Facility
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
ARBUCKLE PARK
$162,600
$20,250
CENTENNIAL PARK
$13,500
CHUCKWALLA PARK
$25,000
CITRUS VISTA
$15,500
CROSSBOW PARK
$62,100
LA PALOMA PARK
$33,750
LANTANA RANCH
PARK
$4,703,000
LOS ARBOLES PARK
$50,000
MEADOWBROOK PARK
$13,500
MESQUITE GROVES
PARK
$40,928,000
PASEO TRAIL
$477,900
PASEO VISTA
RECREATION AREA
$324,000
PINELAKE PARK
$960,000
$20,250
QUAIL HAVEN PARK
$25,000
ROADRUNNER PARK
$10,000
SOUTH CHANDLER
REGIONAL PARK
$150,000
$151,248,399
$98,404,823
TUMBLEWEED PARK
$18,099,000
$3,675,375
$12,803,000
VALENCIA PARK
$13,500
VETERANS OASIS PARK
$2,500,000
$247,725
$147,250
Sub Totals
$67,612,600
$156,150,249 $111,370,573
SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS + VISIONARY PROJECTS
CIP
1-7 Years
CIP
8-15 Years
CIP
16+ Years
Totals
$80,485,954
$216,717,924 $165,372,485
SE NOTES
Per Park
Reinvestment
Range: $1.1 Million
– $60 Million
Median
Reinvestment Cost:
$4.2 Million
Lowest
Reinvestment Cost:
Los Arboles
Largest
Reinvestment Cost:
Tumbleweed
Additional
Visionary Project:
South Chandler
Regional Park -
$271 Million
SOUTHeast PLANNING AREA (cont)
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
It is critically important to view the financial sustainability of the parks system through the concept of “Total
Cost of Ownership” as shown in the graphic below.
The following sections will explore best-practice opportunities that the City should focus on to ensure the
delivery of high-quality experiences to Chandler residents and visitors.
PARKS MAINTENANCE
Parks have played a major role in the livability of Chandler since its inception. Parks, facilities, and amenities
that are clean and functioning efficiently are a critical element to delivering high-quality programs and services.
Today, Chandler’s public park system consists of approximately 1,550 acres of developed, natural area, and
green spaces woven throughout the city. The core services that the Park Maintenance Division provides are:
◢Park Lands Management and Maintenance
◢Facilitation of Community Partnerships and Events
PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Regular maintenance requires unit-based quantification for most major resource requirements and provides
the methods for projecting future resource needs. The City’s maintenance efforts are expansive and address
diverse aspects of maintaining high-quality facilities, amenities, and infrastructure to preserve the integrity
of public assets and their meaningful use. The prevailing objectives of a standards-based park maintenance
program are presented below but not in order of importance:
◢Maintain and improve the sites, grounds, facilities, and structures
of the City parks and recreation system to provide optimal and
enjoyable use.
◢Provide landscaping and general maintenance for a multitude of
City amenities, including but not limited to, landscaped beds, turf,
and urban open spaces.
◢Be responsive to maintenance needs of the City’s open-space
tracts. Particular attention must be paid to access points, trail
repair, erosion control, and trash removal.
◢Protect and preserve the value of City assets so that long-term
maintenance costs are minimal due to extending the service life of
those assets.
Many of the objectives assigned to the Park’s maintenance teams go
beyond the traditional responsibilities of park maintenance employees,
such as special event support.
Capital
Investment
Operations
and
Maintenance
Lifestyle
Replacement
Total
Cost of
Ownership
109
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
It is recommended that the Parks Division adopt a system of grounds maintenance levels wherein functions
are organized into a tiered structure with three different levels of service. These levels are referred to as
maintenance modes, and each has a unique standard that dictates routine maintenance tasks and their
frequency. The appropriate maintenance mode is assigned to each park or site, which creates a framework for
organizing and scheduling tasks and responsibilities at each location. A description of each of the maintenance
modes is provided below:
MAINTENANCE MODE/LEVEL 1
◢Maintenance Mode/Level 1 (Mode/Level 1) applies to parks or sites that require the greatest level of
maintenance standard in the system. These parks or sites are often revenue-producing facilities, such as a
sports complex, where the quality and level of maintenance has a direct impact on the park facility’s ability
to maximize revenue generation.
MAINTENANCE MODE/LEVEL 2
◢Maintenance Mode/Level 2 (Mode/Level 2) applies to parks or sites that require a moderate level of
effort and maintenance standards in the system. These include developed and undeveloped parks with
amenities that are heavily used such as community and neighborhood parks, and special-use facilities
found in the Chandler parks system.
MAINTENANCE MODE/LEVEL 3
◢Maintenance Mode/Level 3 (Mode/Level 3) applies to parks or sites that require a nominal level of effort
and maintenance standards in the system. These generally include undeveloped parks with minimal
amenities, such as natural areas.
PARKS MAINTENANCE KEY FINDINGS
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Through the review of data and workshops with staff, the consulting team determined that the Parks Division
does generally operate within the maintenance modes identified above. The Parks Division also intuitively
follows a set of routine parks and grounds maintenance standards with task, frequency, and season of year
for each of their four functional work areas; however, a formalized, documented, and detailed maintenance
management plan for work performed by City staff does not exist. Formalized standards are provided for
third-party contractors that manage and maintain landscaped areas as defined in the scope of work.
A formalized maintenance management plan includes not only maintenance modes and standards for each
park but also tracks the performance of the work against a set of defined outcomes, as well as the costs
expended to achieve each outcome. A maintenance management plan is typically memorialized within a work
order management system.
WORK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Parks Maintenance Division in Chandler does not currently utilize an asset management-based work order
management system and should consider the implementation of such a system to document maintenance and
asset replacement schedules, as well as the performance of work completed.
COST OF SERVICE/SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTING
Given the varying cycles of the economy, it is imperative that the Parks Division continually evaluate the
capacity and cost of service in the private sector. Currently, the Parks Division does not track unit activity costs
and therefore cannot analyze the unit cost to perform work internally against the unit cost to perform work by a
third-party vendor. Without this level of analysis, the Parks Division is unable to determine if it is more effective
and efficient to perform work in-house or to contract it out.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
110
PARK MAINTENANCE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENT WORK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
An asset-based work order management system should be used to track lifecycle maintenance requirements
that are tied to weekly and monthly work orders. This will help the staff to stay ahead of preventative
maintenance and limit breakdowns. Further, utilizing the system will provide staff the necessary “actual cost”
data for work being performed. The typical components of a work order management system are as follows:
Schedule Work Activities
Detailed framework for asset management by incorporating GIS into the asset repository. Allows for grouping
of assets by location, type, age, or other key parameters. These groupings can then be used to create
maintenance activities, such as preventive work, reactive work, tests, or inspections.
Mapping Tools
ArcGIS maps are an integral part of the work management process. This allows for the creation of map
visualizations of database queries, including open work orders, service requests, or work orders of a specific
type and assignment. These tools empower both management and staff to interact with asset data.
Data Mobility
A variety of tools to help maintenance staff access and update valuable information while in the field.
Asset Management
Track work performed on any asset at any given time throughout its lifecycle. Users can easily search for
active work orders and view them dynamically on the GIS map. Track overdue work orders and monitor work
associated with a specific task, contractor, or project.
COST OF SERVICE/SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTING
Through the development of management processes, the Parks Division must begin to track unit activity costs
through the implementation of a work order management system, which would in turn, analyze the unit cost to
perform work internally against the unit cost to perform work by a third-party vendor.
UPDATE WORK PLANS BASED ON MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Maintenance standards are based on Level (1), (2) and (3) modes (tasks and frequencies of each task and follow
best practices as established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Maintenance standards have
been provided as a stand-alone Excel spreadsheet.
PLEASE NOTE: The best-practice maintenance standards may differ from current City park maintenance
practices and may include standards for assets that are currently not a part of the City’s park system, but
might be in the future. The Division should update and continue to customize the standards based on the park
values of City residents The standards should be adopted and implemented by staff and followed regardless of
whether work is performed by City staff or third-party contractors.
LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
As noted in the Community Needs Assessment chapter, most Chandler residents support funding being
allocated for the reinvestment in the existing parks system. To achieve this goal, the Community Services
Department will need to closely monitor the condition of the parks system’s assets throughout their lifecycle
to ensure the safety of park patrons. It is highly recommended that assets be replaced, as needed, to ensure
efficient and effective utilization of operational dollars. The lifecycle replacement schedule found on the
following page should be utilized as a guide for the creation of an asset management system. Unit costs are
also provided (in 2020 dollars).
111
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
A M E N I T I ES
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
112
113
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 6 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
114
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 7
Funding Strategies
115
Chapter 7 - Funding Strategies
In order to continue to building and maintaing the parks system, funding
should be pursued for operations and capital improvement projects, such
as those presented in this plan.
New, sustainable funding sources are essential to implementing a capital
improvement plan. There is substantial potential for increasing revenues for
the parks and recreation system, while still providing affordable recreation
opportunities. The following are high-level funding options that should be
vetted as the Department updates its Master Plan and implements the
capital improvement program beginning in 2021.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES
GRANTS
The grant market continues to grow annually. Grant writers and
researchers are essential if the Department is to pursue grants. Matching
dollars are required for most federal grants and many state grants.
PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES
Many municipalities seek developer contributions for parklands and for
the development of trails that run through the property being developed.
The developer perceives the enhanced value in terms of what the
improvements mean for their development. Park or trail dedication as a
requirement of subdivision development is a reliable means for maintaining
equity of access to parks and trails.
PARK AND RECREATION BOND ISSUES
Agencies typically seek park bonds to meet park-related needs. The key
is to use debt financing through bonds to address needs that are both
unmet and clearly a community priority. It is best to propose a capital-
bond project that serves a variety of users and needs. Even in the worst
economic downturn, most bond issues have been passing because
communities are the direct recipient of the money, and the funding directly
benefits residents.
PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships are joint-development funding sources or operational funding
sources formed between separate agencies, such as two government
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
116
entities, a non-profit, and a public agency, or a private business
and a public agency. Partners jointly develop revenue-producing
park and recreation facilities and share risk, operational costs,
responsibilities, and asset management based on the strengths
of each partner.
OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS
COMMUNITY PARKS FOUNDATION
The development of a Chandler Parks Foundation would be a
joint-development funding source with Chandler. The foundation
would operate as a non-profit organization, working on behalf of
the public agency to raise needed dollars to support its vision
and operational needs.
The dollars that would be raised by the foundation are tax-
exempt. Foundations promote specific causes, activities,
or issues that Chandler’s Community Services Department
needs to address. They offer a variety of means to fund capital
projects, including capital campaigns, gifts catalogs, fundraisers,
endowments, sales of park-related memorabilia, etc.
Private donations may be received in the form of cash, securities,
land, facilities, recreation equipment, art, or in-kind services.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES
Many park and recreation systems add a capital-improvement
fee onto an existing user fee when they develop or enhance
major recreation facilities. This is usually applied to golf courses,
aquatic facilities, recreation centers, ice rinks, amphitheaters,
and special-use facilities like sports complexes. The dollars
gained either offset the cost of the capital improvement or the
revenue bond that was used to develop or enhance the special-
use facility. Once the capital improvement is paid off, the fee
typically expires and is discontinued.
FRIENDS’ ASSOCIATION
Friends’ associations are typically formed to raise money for a
single purpose, such as a specific park facility or program that
will better the community.
CORPORATE AND PERSONAL LEAD GIVING
Corporate and personal giving involves the Department seeking
corporate funds or personal gifts via a foundation partner or
through personal contacts that are used to catalyze wider giving in
support of a specific project or operation. The lead donations set
the precedent for additional giving over a period of one year up to
five years.
DONATIONS
Private donations are a popular form of fundraising by public
117
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 7: F U N D I N G S T R AT E G I E S
agencies, particularly for facilities and services that are
highly visible and valued by the public. Donations can
be channeled through a foundation or friends group
aligned with the parks and recreation system’s priorities.
Donations can be made through one or more of the
following methods:
◢
Donations of cash to a specific park or trail segment
by community members and businesses
◢
Donations of services by large corporations to reduce
the cost of park or trail implementation, including
equipment and labor to construct and install elements
of a specific park or trail
◢
Reductions in the cost of materials purchased
from local businesses that support parks and trails
implementation, and can supply essential products for
facilities
USER FEES
User fees are fees paid by a user of park facilities or
services to offset the costs of services in operating a park,
or in delivering programs. A perception of “value” needs
to be instilled in the community for the benefits the agency
is providing to the user for exclusive use. Future fees
could be charged by the agency based on cost-recovery
goals for the parks core services, based on the level of
exclusivity the user receives compared to the general
taxpayer.
PARK REVOLVING FUND
This is a dedicated fund replenished on an ongoing
basis from various funding sources, such as grants,
sponsorships, advertising, program-user fees, and rental
fees within one or more parks. The agency could establish
a revolving fund to support maintenance at multiple parks.
ADVERTISING SALES
Advertising can occur with trash cans, playgrounds, dog
parks, trails, flower pots, and as part of special events to
pay for operational costs.
MAINTENANCE ENDOWMENT FUND
This is a fund dedicated exclusively for a park’s
maintenance and is funded by a percentage of user fees
from programs, events, and rentals. The fee is paid by
users and is added to a dedicated fund for facility and
equipment replacement, such as fitness equipment,
water slides, lights, artificial turf, and park-maintenance
equipment.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
118
LEASEBACKS
This is another source of capital funding wherein banks
or private placement-fund companies develop a park or
recreation attraction or complex by purchasing the land,
developing a recreational attraction, and then leasing it
back to the agency to pay off the land or capital costs
over a 30- to 40-year period. Agencies may find this
source attractive because typically they can increase
operational budgets more easily than finding capital
dollars to pay off the lease over a set period of time.
FRANCHISE FEE FOR UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
Many agencies have sold the development rights below
the ground to utility companies for fiber optic lines, water,
sewer, electricity lines, and cable conduits on a linear foot
basis.
PRIVATE CONCESSIONAIRES OPERATING
WITHIN A LAND LEASE
Contracts with private businesses to provide and operate
desirable recreational activities provide compensation to
the agency through a land lease. Contractors may include
coffee shops, grill and food concessions, small restaurants, ice cream shops, bicycle shops, farmers markets,
and small businesses. Land leases are usually based on 15% of the value of the land plus a percentage of
gross revenues from the contractor on an annual basis.
VOLUNTEERISM
The revenue source is an indirect revenue source in that persons donate time to assist the department in
providing a product or service on an hourly basis. This reduces the City’s cost in providing the service plus it
builds advocacy into the system.
119
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 7: F U N D I N G S T R AT E G I E S
120
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 8
Strategic Implementation Plan
121
◢Collaborate with local partners, both in public and private sectors, to develop
innovative parks and spaces to increase or exceed the levels of service
targeted in this plan.
◢Maintain and enhance the quality of current park sites, facilities, and amenities.
◢Increase targeted communications and marketing to create more awareness of
the Department’s assets.
◢Redevelop facilities with equitable access by residents throughout the city and
that reflect the ability to serve a diverse public, as well as meeting all ADA-
compliance requirements and other special needs.
◢Develop park design and development standards to establish general
standards, guidelines, and criteria for the design and development of
improvements in City parks and open spaces. The following link is provided as
an example of park design and development standards:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/consultantsguide2019.pdf
◢Enhance the level of partnership/sponsorship with schools in the interest of
improved equity and to increase access to park amenities.
◢Pursue renovations and new improvements for parks, trails, and recreational
facilities in areas of greatest growth and unmet needs.
◢Continually review and update the lifecycle asset management plan for the
Department.
Chapter 8 - Strategic Implementation Plan
Upon completion of the data collection and park assessments phase of the project,
the findings were synthesized to develop a framework of strategic recommendations
for the City of Chandler Community Services Department.
The following six focus areas are recommended:
1. Improve Access to Parks and Trails and Maintain Quality
2. Increase Connectivity
3. Invest in Existing Resources
4. Create an Economic Catalyst
5. Grow Operations and Staffing
6. Finance the System
Focus Area 1. Improve Access and Maintain Quality
Increase access to park amenities and facilities throughout the City, while
maintaining and improving the quality of the system.
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
122
Focus Area 2. Increase Connectivity
Establish connectivity between parks and greenways that is accessible by
pedestrians and bicyclists.
◢Work with other City departments to identify and connect sidewalk and bike
lanes to trails to improve access to desirable destinations.
◢Prioritize existing City-owned land and future land acquisition decisions
to focus investments in a bike/pedestrian trail system that achieves active
transportation strategies and the development of a contiguous network.
◢Strive to increase connectivity so that parks and green spaces are within a
five minute walk/bike ride for every household in the City of Chandler.
◢Work with neighboring municipalities and jurisdictions to expand regional
connectivity.
◢Develop a City-wide Bike and Trails Master Plan.
◢Encourage and seek funding for the development of trails and trail amenities,
and construct in appropriate areas of the city and consider partnerships for
the maintenance of the trails.
Focus Area 3. Invest in Existing Resources
Focus on reinvesting in and maintaining existing parks facilities to offer the
community a variety of parks that integrate environmental design, safety,
needs and emerging trends.
◢Implement improvements that are mindful of environmental stewardship to
aid in the protection of park resources and ensure that they will be protected
for future generations.
◢Utilize consistent design standards in the development of park recreational-
facility landscaping, amenities, signage, and infrastructure.
◢Make all parks and services welcome and accessible to all level of users,
i.e., adults, children, seniors, and all-abilities through clean restrooms when
feasible, seating or benches, running water fountains or water stations, and
park features usable for all abilities in parks (ADA).
◢Consider the incorporation of technology into the design of parks through
partnerships to produce a state-of-the-art park system (systems, such as
cameras, irrigation, Wi-Fi, pedestrian counters, automated restrooms, solar,
cybertech trash receptacles, etc.).
123
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 8 : S T R AT E G I C I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P L A N
Focus Area 4. Create an Economic Catalyst
Invest in infrastructure and facilities to make Chandler a viable sports tourism
destination.
◢Develop athletic fields and facilities that can support regional sports tourism through
large-scale baseball, softball, and/or soccer tournaments.
◢Develop outdoor recreation activities and related partnerships that facilitate
adventure-based activities and programming.
◢Update and improve the quality of existing athletic fields to increase durability and
maximize usability for large-scale tournaments. Develop athletic field maintenance
standards which improve playing conditions of the fields system-wide.
Focus Area 5. Grow Operations and Staffing
Empower and train current Department employees while growing staff to meet the
emerging needs of the community.
◢Ensure job descriptions are reviewed and updated and salary assessments are
completed to meet pay levels that keep salaries competitive.
◢Utilize best practices that match maintenance standards to sites and amenities in
order to maximize and expand their lifespan.
◢Continually encourage and seek funding to meet the emerging functions of the
Department, including, but not limited to, trail maintenance, work order management,
urban forest management, open space management, etc.
◢Incorporate the use of technology into the maintenance of parks, such as GIS and
real-time tracking to increase efficiency and prioritization.
Focus Area 6. Finance the System
Pursue adequate funding to support existing parks, new parks, and other
park types.
◢Ensure a fiscally sustainable parks system by leveraging financially-driven decisions.
◢Ensure that impact fees and funding from other funding sources, including grants,
are pursued to maintain the current level of service for parks and recreation within
the community.
◢Seek additional funding opportunities to support capital and operational needs as
identified in the Plan.
◢Establish a performance measure for the Department to become 50% self-
supporting from user fees, permits, reservations, earned income and effective
partnerships (national benchmark is 50%)
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
124
Recommended PRIORITY ACTIONS (through 2028)
1. Prioritize lifecycle replacement of assets in neighborhood and community parks per the CIP
(Focus Area: Invest in Existing Resources)
2. Provide significant renovations at aging neighborhood parks (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources)
3. Complete a renovation of Folley Park (Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in
Existing Resources)
4. Complete design and construction of four softball fields at Tumbleweed Park (Focus Areas:
Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources)
5. Consider the development of an updated site-specific master plan for Desert Breeze Park
(Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing
Resources)
6. Develop a Bike/Trails Master Plan (Focus Areas: Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Increase
Connectivity)
7. Consider the conversion of select athletic fields from natural turf to synthetic turf (Focus Areas:
Improve Access and Maintain Quality, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
8. Continued improvements to Snedigar Sports Complex (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
9. Conduct a sports tourism feasibility study to include current park assets and impact of new
facilities being built in surrounding communities (Mesa and Gila River) (Focus Areas: Create an
Economic Catalyst)
10. Conduct a feasibility study and site-specific master plan for a regional park (i.e. Sports Tourism
and Adventure Area) (Focus Area: Create an Economic Catalyst)
11. Continue to implement the existing master plan for Tumbleweed Park and explore partnerships
and/or development opportunities for the northeast corner. (Focus Areas: Improve Access and
Maintain Quality, Increase Connectivity, Invest in Existing Resources, Create an Economic Catalyst)
12. Complete the development of Lantana, Mesquite Grove, and Homestead North Parks (Focus
Area: Improve Access and Maintain Quality)
13. Consider exploring options with private developers to meet park needs in north Chandler and
to address other community needs and wants throughout the city (Focus Area: Improve Access
and Maintain Quality)
125
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 8 : S T R AT E G I C I M P L E M E N TAT I O N P L A N
126
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
C H A P T E R 9
Conclusion
127
Chapter 9 - Conclusion
The City of Chandler’s Strategic Parks Master Plan was developed to
provide the Department a roadmap for the future utilizing knowledge
gained from community input, park inventory and assessment and
comparison to national standards and trends all while assessing the
realities of the current economic and political climate. The planning
process incorporated a comprehensive series of discovery and
analysis strategies to understand the workings of the Department
and included an extensive community engagement process. Several
strategic recommendations resulted from this effort and were aligned
into the six major focus area categories of implementation actions
shown in this plan.
The park system is highly valued by community residents and leaders.
It serves multiple purposes, including recreational, environmental,
educational, social, and economic development, and it improves
the overall quality of life for its residents. The condition and upkeep
of existing parks is a priority for residents. It is evident that the
Department has made this a high priority as multiple parks have been
maintained with such care that they have far exceed their lifecycle.
This has, however, created a situation where many parks will be in
need of significant repairs and/or renovation in the near future.
The City of Chandler’s population is increasing and projected to
experience a 32% growth over the next 15 years. If strategies
and policies are not in place to address this increased growth,
it will create unnecessary pressure on the Department’s already
stressed resources. The Department should make it a priority
to strategically invest, develop, and maintain parks and facilities
in relation to current and future housing development areas.
Currently, the City lacks sufficient parkland to meet the needs of
residents, most notably athletic fields, pickleball/tennis courts, and
shade ramadas do not meet the recommended national standards.
It is important to note there is an anticipated need for an additional
466 developed park acres within the next 15 years to keep up with
the projected population growth. It is recommended that the City
partner with future homeowner associations to help shoulder some
of this load by having them focus solely on developing the needed
neighborhood parks.
To ensure that the City has a plan for capital projects, an approach
was developed that organized projects into two categories:
Sustainable Projects and Visionary Projects. This comprehensive
approach provides departmental staff a systematic three-tiered plan
to categorize and prioritize projects, which will ultimately be provided
through a detailed capital improvement plan for the next 15 years,
starting with $136 million to be accomplished over the next seven-
year CIP-cycle.
S I X M A J O R
F O C U S A R E A S
Improve Access to Parks
and Trails and Maintain
Quality
Increase Connectivity
Invest in Existing Resources
Create an Economic
Catalyst
Grow Operations
and Staffing
Finance the System
CITY OF CHANDLER ARIZONA PARKS STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
128
The information included in this Strategic Parks Master Plan provides the
Department an approach for accomplishing its goals, initiatives, tactics and
measurements to ensure that as the city grows, the Department does so as
well—effectively, efficiently and sustainably—while providing world-class services,
programs, parks, and facilities to the community for many years to come.
Building upon the collaboration and coordination started as a part of
this planning effort, continued engagement of the Department, City
Council, Parks and Recreation Board, and the residents of Chandler
will be critical to ensure that the maximum benefit of the strategies
outlined in this plan are realized.
129
C H A P T E R T I T L E ( C T R L + C L I C K T H I S T O U N LO C K & T Y P E )
C H A PT E R 9 : C O N C L U S I O N