2016’s Best & Worst Cities for Recreation
2:28 AMPosted by: Richie Bernardo
Main FindingsEmbed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/5144/geochart-recreation2.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2tk0erw;
0|
Overall Rank |
City |
Total Score |
“Entertainment & Recreational Facilities” Rank |
“Costs” Rank |
“Quality of Parks” Rank |
“Climate” Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98 | San Antonio, TX | 33.72 | 73 | 57 | 91 | 74 |
| 99 | Charlotte, NC | 32.41 | 75 | 71 | 97 | 71 |
| 100 | Chula Vista, CA | 32.21 | 96 | 95 | 76 | 29 |
Tania Santiago Instructor of Recreational Therapy in the Department of Leadership and Professional Studies at Florida International University
Louis Hodges Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences and Associate Head for Undergraduate Programs at Texas A&M University
M. Jean Keller Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion and Recreation at the University of North Texas
Heather Burket Instructor of Rehabilitation Sciences and Internship Co-Coordinator in the College of Public Health at Temple University
Connie Edmonston Parks and Recreation Director in the City of Fayetteville Arkansas
Bob Brookover Senior Lecturer in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at Clemson University
Beth Erickson Associate Professor at California State University Sacramento
Andrew J. Bobilya Associate Professor and Director of the Parks and Recreation Management Program at Western Carolina University
Amy R. Hurd Director of Graduate School at Illinois State University
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Developing more community support and creating partnerships with organizations that have the common goal of promoting health, wellness, conservation, sustainability, and social equity is key. Parks and Recreation departments need to position themselves as health and wellness resources for the community, and get both private and public funding. With appropriate partnerships, local authorities can expand and better the infrastructure (facilities), services, and programming that parks and recreation departments offer to the community. Funding for local park operations comes from the general fund in most communities. This reliance in subsidized programs and facilities is difficult to maintain, especially in an environment where the general perception is that parks and recreation services are less essential than some other local government services. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Building facilities and programs that are not sustainable, or that do not meet the present and future needs and wants of the community. Local authorities need to put more effort in the development of the master plans for each facility, and update that plan periodically, taking into consideration trends and changes in recreation, and in the community. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? The most important aspect to consider when allocating funds is the need of the community. Need differs from community to community, so funding should go to recreational activities for the groups that a particular community has. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Bigger parks do not always mean better services. Local authorities should do more research into what the residents of a particular community need, so they can provide them with appropriate facilities and programs. It is fundamental to provide programs and services that help the community, that keep the community engaged, and that are sustainable. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? There should be an investment in parks and recreation, because parks are a good investment. However, local citizens need to decide if increasing taxes and/or debt levels is the best way. In my opinion, other viable ways to be considered are grants, partnerships and private funding. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
- Quality of parks and recreation facilities;
- Access to recreational facilities, and activities;
- Affordability;
- Leisure time of the population;
- Sense of community.
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Effectively using volunteers (Master Gardeners, for example, to maintain ornamental plantings in small spaces or neighborhoods) and looking for non-traditional funding sources. Athletic fields are expensive, but they may be used to attract out-of-town visitors for competitive events (tournaments), and anything that places “heads in beds” may qualify for partial funding through hotel-motel taxes -- we certainly use this in Texas to construct fields with artificial turf (which cost less to maintain than traditional grass fields). What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? There are several mistakes that are made with great regularity, but these two are particularly bad ones: First, inadequate attention to future maintenance costs -- if you don’t have the funds to properly maintain a park or facility, don’t purchase it or build it. If you do build a new facility, then perform a maintenance impact study first to estimate future costs. Also, to minimize those costs, build with ease of maintenance in mind -- that means using safe, durable materials which will minimize the costs of labor, since that is usually the major cost in maintaining a facility. For example, if you have a problem with graffiti in parks, consider building with concrete blocks with the same color throughout and with fluted exterior surfaces. Spray painting such surfaces does not really display the artwork, and, if it is done, sand blasting will still reveal the same exterior color. Second, don’t purchase or accept park land or facilities unless it is in accordance with a master plan for the municipality. And that master plan must include widespread citizen input on what is wanted or needed -- including not only voting-age adults and senior citizens, but teenagers and younger kids as well. You are not building for the past, but for the future, and tastes will change. Also, some gifts of lands, particularly the odds and ends of new developments may not be suitable for development, particularly if they are in the flood plain. Other lands may contain endangered species of plants or animals, and are thus off-limits to use or development. A ten-acre piece of land with the endangered Navasota Ladies’ Tresses (an orchid) is just a maintenance headache of no use. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Moot point, because sometimes it has to be done to maintain political support. However, it is a fallacy in most communities to assume that the elderly are on a fixed income and cannot pay for their recreation, or that recreational activities must be provided free to kids because they cannot pay. A financial reality is that without fees and charges we cannot provide public funding of recreation for everyone. In some places and times, however, there may be a social good resulting from providing funding of recreational activities for disadvantaged groups. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? One could not argue that a large park, such as Central Park in New York City or Memorial Park in Houston, does not provide benefits to the local community. But the size is certainly of less importance than the quality of the development -- the facilities, the natural resources, the landscaping and design must appeal to the citizens in order for them to reap the maximum benefits. The placement of the parks must be such that they are accessible to the intended clientele. Children in a particular neighborhood may be effectively prevented from utilizing a park if they must cross one or more busy streets to get there. You want both quality and quantity, but quantity is not necessarily size-related. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? In my community, we have seen that quality parks definitely attract potential residents. A particularly interesting example occurred when we worked with a developer to place apartment units adjacent to a park, with parking on the other side. He noted subsequently that those apartments adjacent to the park were always the first to be rented (and probably at a higher rate than the other units). If we are to acquire and develop those parks, it is necessary to do so in advance of development, and that means either raising taxes or incurring bonded indebtedness. To come back in and attempt to acquire park land after development has commenced means purchasing land at 10 to 20 times the cost per acre, if it is even available. Taxes or bonds are also needed to construct new athletic fields -- a Little League or Girl’s Softball organization may be able to maintain a field, but they cannot afford to purchase the land or build the fields. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? There are several indicators. Probably one of the best is to see how the community program is rated by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), which has a certification program for cities. If it is certified, then it is a safe bet that it runs a good, balanced program. You can also look at the municipality’s track record on bond issues. If the citizens regularly approve new bond issues, then it is likely that the residents approve of what is being done, because they are voting to tax themselves to provide those programs and facilities. What kind of relationship exists between the politically elected governing body of the city and the park department. Mayors and councilmen try to stay in touch with the voting citizens, and if there is a good relationship between the elected officials and the park and recreation department, then somebody thinks they are doing a good job. Forty years ago, a major indicator was the number of acres of parkland per 100 or 1000 citizens. In this case, quantity equated with quality, but that is really a measure of how far-sighted the city fathers were in acquiring land -- an important antecedent to a quality program, but not a really a good measure. The NRPA certification mentioned in the first point has a lot of other measures which you could consult for other ideas. They look at such measures as citizen input (advisory boards or commissions), volunteer involvement, per capita funding levels, hosting of regional or state-wide competitions or events, and professional levels (education) of staff. M. Jean Keller Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion and Recreation at the University of North Texas 
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Explore public/private partnerships, seek sponsorships, and use citizen groups to fund raise and support bond issues. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Not ensuring there are adequate operations and maintenance funding over the life of the facility. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Based on needs and opportunities, prioritization is usually effective and efficient in getting new and needed programs started. The sustainability of a program should be considered early in the program planning process. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? The physical size of a park does not always correlate with great benefits. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Parks have good return on investment at multiple levels -- personal, business, education, health, and community. Heather Burket Instructor of Rehabilitation Sciences and Internship Co-Coordinator in the College of Public Health at Temple University 
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities?
- Splash pads instead of community pools;
- Seasonal pop-up gardens (maintains equipment longer);
- Solar panels;
- Solunteer and volunteer programs;
- Grant funded programming;
- Partnerships with businesses in the communities and non-for-profits that serve underprivileged populations.
- Accessibility;
- Universal design;
- Indoor and outdoor space;
- Variety of programming options;
- Access to a certified therapeutic recreation specialist to lead programming for special populations.
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? There are several cost effective ways to improve parks and recreation facilities, such as:
- Participation fees;
- Rental/use fees;
- Tax/mileage increase for parks;
- Establishment of foundation and development practices;
- Grants, foundations, etc.;
- Establishment of a foundation or non-profit to support parks and recreation;
- Various levels of sponsorships -- local and regional;
- HMR tax dedicated for parks;
- Development fees and requirements, such as Park Land Dedication Ordinance (Green Space Ordinance), requirement of land or money in lieu to support parks as new homes and businesses come into a city;
- Development of a robust volunteer program to assist with maintenance, such as Adopt-A-Park or Trail, specialized maintenance projects, recreation coaches, special event assistance;
- Obtaining grant matches by using volunteer manpower or expertise on projects;
- Donation or memorial program for different park facilities including benches, art pieces, pavilions, etc.;
- Park facility naming program, in which donors could name a park or park amenity by giving a donation;
- Hosting special events, such as runs or bike rides, which have sponsors and entry fees;
- Hosting various tournaments at your facility that attract visitors and create an economic engine in the city.
- Parks with unique natural features that are capitalized with sustainable, creative and user-friendly designs.
- Parks with large water features, whether it be natural (lake or river) or man-made, such as a water park that provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities.
- Adequate funding that increases to update, renovate, and properly maintain new and existing parks and recreation programs.
- Balanced park facilities and recreational programs offered that meet the needs of the city's citizens, and obtaining the commitment and endorsement of parks and programs by the citizens.
- Professional, progressive, creative and dedicated staff that are focused on providing the best parks and programs to the citizens in a city.
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? While some agencies are very successful in using friends groups and fundraising, the most important thing is to build a sustainable funding model that generates and sets aside ongoing funds for operations, maintenance, upgrades, renovations, and replacement of facilities. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? See answer to last question -- elected officials tend to love the groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings, and getting facilities and amenities off the ground, but have unrealistic expectations that facilities will become completely self-supporting. The other big mistake I see local authorities and elected officials make is basing decisions on sunk costs and not being willing to move in a different direction, or holding on to an existing facility or park because of nostalgia, when selling or completely repurposing a piece of property and investing in alternatives is a better and more rational decision. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? In our work, which has included conducting lots of public input processes for municipal recreation agencies, we have found that citizens and stakeholders believe that underserved and at-risk populations (older adults, low socio-economic status, people with disabilities) should be a priority for public funding. That includes programming and providing access. Transportation is a big issue for older adults and lower income children. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Absolutely not. I think having the right size, right mix, in the right locations, with the appropriate quality of parks and recreation facilities is most important. Each municipality should seek stakeholder input to determine how to balance size, mix, and location. Building high quality facilities should always be a priority. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Yes. I think the fear elected officials have about raising taxes at the local level is misplaced when it comes to parks and recreation. When we do a public input process, we collect data on willingness to pay for parks and recreation facilities, program, and amenities. Without fail, the amount of people that are willing to pay for what they currently have is at least 1.5-2 times what is being invested by local government, and when asked how much they would be willing to pay for improved facilities, programs, and amenities, that number typically increases to 2.5-3 or more times than the current public investment. So, if local officials show people what they are getting for those tax increases and provide some guarantee that the money will actually go to parks and recreation, there is certainly room to raise taxes to invest in those amenities. From a debt perspective, there has never been a better time to borrow money, with interest rates being so low. If a city is on solid financial footing and has a good credit rating, it would be hard to argue why you wouldn’t be willing or want to debt finance projects. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? A top-5 indicator list would be tough, but the trend has been that people want trails/greenways and green/open space, so I would definitely say that miles of trails, greenways and bike lanes would be a good indicator, followed by acres of green and open space for informal recreation activities and enjoyment. Obviously, you would do a per-capita calculation to compare one city to another. A third indicator that I would put on the list would be average distance to a park for residents. The final two are on my wish list because the data doesn’t exist on a wide-scale that would allow you to make comparisons (mostly because it would be hard to collect -- but technology is getting to the point where it will be realistic to do so), but if I could wave my magic wand, I would have all cities collect data on program participation and park usage, and compare that data to the demographics of the community. For example, it is great if you have 1,000 kids participating in a program or 100,000 people come to a park, but do those 1,000 kids or 100,000 park users reflect the demographic breakdown of the community? Beth Erickson Associate Professor at California State University Sacramento 
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Conduct a needs assessment to find out what the immediate population served want and need. Act accordingly. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Often they build the facility, but lack the money for operations. It is critical that organizations understand the amount of capital needed for operations -- otherwise, what is the point? Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? I think this depends on where one lives. For example, if one lives near Sun City, AZ, then the priority needs to be seniors, obviously; in contrast, if this is an area where there are a number of kids present, then afterschool programming might be needed. If the area has a large number of single parents with children, then afterschool programming really needs to be a priority. Oddly, however, there really is an overall lack of programming for adults at this point. My guess is that programmers must feel that the real need is for the groups you mentioned; but really, adults need recreation activities available as much as anyone. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? This is a difficult question. I do believe the more greenspace an area has, the more likely one is to recreate in that area. But with those greenspaces comes the necessity to manage the areas, which can be costly. Greenspaces offer individuals the ability to get outside, enjoy nature, exercise, and learn about their immediate environment -- so yes. The balancing act is difficult but not impossible. There are laws in most communities whereby for every acre of development, there has to be a certain amount of preserved greenspace. Boulder, Colorado and Lexington, Kentucky have done this quite well. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Yes, I do. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
- The numbers of acreage of greenspace preserved per acreage developed;
- The amount of space designated for off-leash dog areas;
- Bike trail development;
- The amount of money poured into recreation facility infrastructure and operations;
- Topography and geography of the area (the presence of mountains, rivers, lakes).
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? With regards to local municipal budget and priority procedures, each city and county is very different and their unique situation must be taken into account. Some general suggestions might include: grant and foundation support for specific projects, targeting areas of regional or national concern (e.g., concern about physical activity among youth); partnering with other community agencies to share resources (e.g., a pool that is used to support the county recreation programs, the YMCA and other agencies); closing or eliminating ineffective programs and facilities and prioritizing programs and facilities that can meet current interests, needs and wants of community members. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Not planning for the long-term costs associated with the physical plant and staffing needed to provide quality programming. In addition, those facilities that can be designed for mixed-use and expansion from the beginning are a huge help. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Again, the local and regional needs vary, but in general, local authorities should consider the demographics of the population(s) they are trying to serve, and ensure that their facilities and programs are meeting their needs. For example, if a recreation center is located in an area where a majority of the citizens do not have personal transportation, then a priority becomes providing transportation and/or mobile programming. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Not necessarily. Bigger is not necessarily better. The priority should be the “best use” of the artificial and natural resources available. In other words, a smaller park could provide a greater impact because of how it was designed and is used more efficiently, and to maximize potential of reaching the intended benefits. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? There is a balance that needs to be reached, but certainly parks and recreation in the United States seems to be needed more now than in previous generations because of the decline of direct contact with nature among young people, the rise in obesity, the overstructured lives and lack of “play time” among children, and other compelling reasons. Parks and recreation is a long term investment in meeting the current and future needs of an increasingly diverse U.S. population. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
- Access to facilities and natural spaces to engage in formal programs and informal personal recreation;
- Appropriate planning for current and future bike and walking corridors;
- Green space proximal to population centers;
- Variety of recreation providers offering free and low cost options, in addition to more typical recreation programs;
- Recreation is clearly a priority when considering the city’s marketing efforts and budget priorities.
What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? There is never enough funding for parks and recreation in a community. So, it can be difficult to continually improve facilities. However, there are several things communities can do. First, set priorities for parks and recreation facilities, and fund what you can. If the city can’t fund it, don’t build it. It is better to have fewer services than to have poor services. Next, look at community partnerships. How can multiple agencies work together? Instead of building new facilities or maintaining deteriorating facilities at subpar levels, maybe it is beneficial for recreation departments and school districts to share facilities, and both help maintain them. After all, they are being funded by tax payers. Neighborhood groups can be used to take “ownership” of their park through adopt-a-park programs, where the community helps with such things as park beautification, fundraising, and programming. Lastly, developing alternative funding sources, such as sponsorships, grants, Friends Groups, or planned giving campaigns can help infuse resources to help maintain facilities. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? One of the biggest mistakes I see is not planning for the administrative costs and future maintenance of the facilities and parks. After the ribbons are cut, the photos are taken, and the media goes home, the agency is left with financing the park or facility for the rest of its life. It looks great to see a community expanding by adding parks and recreation facilities, but agencies need a solid financial plan to make sure there is enough staff to operate the facility, resources to maintain and repair the facility, as well as a capital improvement plan for when facilities and equipment become obsolete or need to be replaced. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Yes. However, it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberate way. Priorities should not be set based on which group is the loudest in making its demands known. Agencies are best served if they develop a strategic plan to outline growth areas based on community needs. These plans should involve the community and other stakeholders. Agencies should also review what services are available to the community, regardless of who provides the service. Recreation agencies do not have to be all things to all people. Share the responsibilities with other service provides. For example, in Champaign-Urbana (adjoining cities in Illinois), the two park districts work off of each other’s strengths. Champaign has more of a focus on the arts and Urbana on nature and environmental programming. This allows resources to be better targeted to the appropriate priority, and the community members have the benefits of more well rounded programming. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? I don’t see there being a direct link between size and benefits. First, benefits come in many different forms. Some in the community will see that parks benefit only the individual and others will see the impact to themselves and the greater community as a whole. For example, if I live near a park, I benefit physically from being able to walk to that park and exercise in it. Furthermore, if it is well maintained, my property values go up, and crime levels go down. There are also the social aspects of a local gathering place. Parks increase social capital within a community, by neighbors getting to know each other. The benefits to the community are that as the value of my house increases, the property taxes paid back to the city increase, as does the quality of life for the residents. Quality parks and recreation are seen as a means to entice new businesses to come to the community or people to move in from out of town. If a park is large enough, there is the potential to draw tourists to the area. These tourists spend money in the community, supporting local businesses though purchases and sales taxes. Lastly, the environmental benefits of parks mean lower levels of pollution absorbed by vegetation, rainwater retention by trees and bushes, and many other environmental impacts from parks. Balancing quality and quantity is difficult. While it is easy to say that quality should always win, there is also a need to provide accessible services to the entire community. So if a majority of resources are put towards just a few programs and facilities, and they are all in the same area of town, this quality philosophy is flawed. Agencies need to develop a plan that allows them to set priorities for quality, quantity and equity. A very difficult task at best. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? This is a tough question. Each community will be different, as will their debt levels and tax rates. Before considering raising taxes, agencies should look at how resources are used to ensure they are good stewards of these resources. It isn’t always necessary to raise taxes or debt to invest in local parks and recreation. There are a number of ways to fund services, depending on what those services are. Agencies should have a good cost recovery model in place that outlines which (and by how much) services will be subsidized with tax dollars, which will break even, and which will make a profit. This profit can help fund programs that need to be subsidized. Also before raising taxes or debt levels, agencies should consider whether the services they currently provide are the ones they should provide to fulfill their mission. If they should not be providing the service or if someone can provide the service better, get out of that business and redirect the resources to where they are needed. Both of these tasks can be quite arduous, but a good exercise in effectively managing resources. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? First, I feel a good park system will focus on quality of programs, facilities and parks over quantity. Second, these services should be equitably distributed among the community. Place the services where they are needed. Third, services should be accessible. For example, that may mean that there is a park within a half mile of every house, or within a 10 minute walk. People have to be able to get to the service to use it. Fourth, the best cities for recreation adequately fund the departments and hire a professional staff trained in parks and recreation to manage the system. Lastly, great parks systems have a plan for the future that guides growth to best meet the needs of the community. Methodology
from Wallet HubWallet Hub
via Finance Xpress
0 comments