Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.
I asked city staff to research a series of questions regarding expenditures for Glen Lakes over the years. Much of it was historical data which they could not provide. However, I am sharing the information I did receive.
I asked what the 1979 purchase price was for Glen Lakes. The amount the city paid in 1979 was $1,418,113. I would only remark that the 1979 price was remarkable considering that it was purchased over 40 years ago. It would be considered a remarkable amount of money today as well.
I asked if there were any expenditures required after the land was purchased prior to opening the course to the public. Staff could not find any information.
I assumed the course operations and maintenance would have been a line item in the city’s budget over the years but that was not the case. Costs of operation and maintenance for all city parks and facilities were lumped together so there is no method to determine what would have been expended on the course until 2019. In 2019 the city implemented a new financial software system that now enables the tracking of individual facility expenditures across all departments.
It is fair to assume the city did spend money on operations and maintenance of the course between its purchase date and 2019 when the city could actually begin tracking expenditures. We just don’t know how much was spent each year so I find it puzzling when supporters opposed to the sale of Glen Lakes claim the city deliberately underfunded the operations and maintenance of the course in recent years when they have no factual information to prove it. As can be seen below with regard to attendance figures available attributing the decline in attendance to lack of maintenance seems unrealistic when nationwide golf course attendance declined.
We do know the city paid Golf Maintenance Solutions $120,500 in 2018. We do know that city expended $394,537 in 2019; another $166,691 in 2020; and another $65,000 in 2020. I asked what the city has spent on course maintenance since its closure. That figure is $261,634.
Factually, it can be documented that between the purchase price and the expenditures identified since 2018, the city has spent approximately $3,164,841.00 plus whatever expenditures there were between 1979 and 2018. Over 40 years, it is fair to say the expenditures were considerable and could be considered in the millions of dollars but there is no means of verification.
I asked what the attendance at the course had been since 2005. I have heard Glen Lakes advocates say repeatedly that in 2005 the course was very popular. I asked staff if they had any data on attendance and they provided:
- 2005 47,469
- 2006 46,947
- 2007 42,999
- 2008 39,455
- 2009 39,999
- 2010 33,577
- 2011 25,104
- 2012 21,377
- 2013 22,788
- 2014 19,196
- 2015 18,420
- 2016 15,483
- 2017 unknown
- 2018 12,240
I discovered many 9 hole municipal golf courses throughout the country whose annual attendance is twice that of Glen Lakes at its peak in 2005. By 2016 users of Glen Lakes had declined by 67% from the 2005 figure.
An article entitled Course Correction published in September of 2019 sums up the current issues associated with municipal golf courses, “But over the past 15 years, golfing participation has fallen by 20 percent, from 30 million in 2005 to 24 million today. Now, according to the National Golf Foundation, there are more municipal courses than ever—some 2,800 across the country—but they are serving far fewer golfers than they once did. As a result, course costs are cutting into city budgets. One-third of public golf courses don’t make enough to cover annual operations. That number goes up when taking into account other expenses, such as debt and employee retirement benefits.”(https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-golf-courses.html).
There is another issue that has surfaced recently with regard to Glen Lakes and that is, the issue of the park space to be reserved for public use. Currently, other than the view provided to adjacent neighbors, to actually be on the golf course one would have to pay a fee to use it so consequently the only benefit to neighbors is the view.
It should be noted that there is quite a bit of established park space in this area. Close by are Butler Park and Manistee Ranch Park. A little further is one of Glendale’s premier parks, that of Sahuaro Ranch Park.
I attended the public meetings for neighborhood residents. At one of those meetings conceptual plans were offered for proposed park space and the amount of improved park land is to be + or – 10 acres. The attendees were the ones who chose the final conceptual plan and they made it quite clear that they did not want a park with active amenities such as basketball courts that would attract users from outside their neighborhoods. Now to hear complaints about the configuration of the park space is quite baffling.
The city council will be voting on this issue sometime in October. I have no idea how the vote will go. There are several issues to consider. Does the city need two 9 hole municipal golf courses? Is it cost effective to maintain a view for the adjacent neighbors? Should this course be preserved no matter the current and future costs to be borne by all of the city’s taxpayers? Would the funding to operate and maintain 10 acres of useable, neighborhood, public park space be a better investment for the city?
I understand the Glen Lakes advocates’ position. Their request is to restore the course. I represent all citizens of Glendale. Is it fair, just and equitable to ask every taxpayer in Glendale to subsidize millions of future dollars to completely renovate, operate and maintain this course? Even if the course were renovated, it is anticipated the revenues earned by players’ fees would not cover the annual costs of operation and maintenance. The reality is that this course will be a financial deficit to the city in perpetuity.
It is always jarring and upsetting to residents when they are confronted with the fact that a once vacant parcel of land nearby will be developed. Their first comment is on the loss of their unimpeded view enjoyed for many years.
As Planning Chairperson Gary Hirsch said at a recent meeting, if this were a parcel owned by a private entity wishing to develop, it would be recognized and acknowledged that the private entity has the right to so as it wished with its investment. He drew a line in the sand when it came to a public entity, namely local government, and its desire to develop or to repurpose land that it owns. I’m not sure I agree with his premise. Taxpayers constantly question whether its local government is making sound financial decisions and operating in the most cost effective manner possible. Doesn’t local government have the obligation to stop throwing good money after bad?
I understand the anguish of nearby neighbors and the loss of their view of 40 acres of green space but at what cost do the rest of the taxpayers preserve the neighbors’ view?
© Joyce Clark, 2020
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Joyce, if Glen Lakes was reopened it would be an “amenity” that people would have to pay to use and only the surrounding neighbors would be able to enjoy the view. Taxpayers are constantly telling “the government” to use tax money more responsibly instead of simply raising taxes.
This is a good opportunity for Glendale to do the responsible thing by turning Glen Lakes into an amenity we could all enjoy for free, like any other park, etc..
Reopening Glen Lakes would only benefit the surrounding neighbors and the few golfers who would actually play there. And a few politicians who think they would get some political “traction” by reopening it. I look at it like this:
WHO BENEFITS FROM REOPENING: Neighbors/ golfers.
WHO LOSES: Everybody else
WHO PAYS FOR IT: All Glendale taxpayers.
WHO BENEFITS FROM TURNING IT INTO AN ACTUAL PUBLIC AMENITY: Everybody
As a Glendale resident and taxpayer, I bristle at the thought I would be subsidizing yet another golf course I would never use and which could only be “enjoyed” by a few residents and golfers.
Hello Joyce,
I can’t begin to tell you how much I appreciate your diligence in researching and considering every issue that comes before our City Council. More importantly, you make sure that we citizen’s of Glendale all have access to your work, and a forum to provide commentary. Finally, you are always an advocate for the citizens of Glendale, and not your own personal agenda, something which I greatly admire.
Regarding Glen Lakes Golf Course let me state my prejudices up front. I am of the opinion that when the City proposes zoning changes to a parcel of land that the folks that have already invested in the adjacent properties should be given every consideration. In this case you have described Glen Lakes as a “once vacant parcel of land nearby.” I would suggest that this has not been vacant land for many years, and that there is a general reliance by most property owners on City zoning remaining stable. If I understand correctly there is a proposal to significantly change the zoning of this property. Whether this change is to commercial property, residential or otherwise appears to be one of the subjects of debate surrounding this site.
As I recall you were at the forefront defending the position of the residents opposed to the rezoning of Stonehaven to smaller lots, and I am absolutely convinced you were in the right on that issue. As a taxpaying citizen I hope that the City will make decisions that give full consideration to those who have already chosen to invest in our City. When developers come in from outside our community seeking profit I’d like to think that those who have already invested in Glendale would get a big say in that activity.
In your article you also mention that Planning Chairperson Gary Hirsch noted that “if this were a parcel owned by a private entity wishing to develop, it would be recognized and acknowledged that the private entity has the right to do as it wished with its investment.” I am not sure that this is accurate. I would maintain that this private entity would have to conform to the existing zoning regulations, unless they obtained approval from the City for a variance. If the local residents have researched that zoning prior to investing, and are relying on it remaining intact, I would like to think that the City would give that primary consideration.
Now, regarding the issue of losing money in perpetuity, I believe that the City already does that in numerous places. Foremost in my mind is Camelback Ranch Ballpark. If I have my figures correct, this venture has cost the City and will continue to cost the City many times more than we could possibly lose at Glen Lakes. Worse, it is not even within the City boundaries. I know that while the maintenance of the street I live on languished, a new multimillion dollar road was built to access the Ballpark. I don’t think I can make the argument that this is an entity that is “freely” open to Glendale citizens. You have to pay to get into a ballgame. Further, I would contend that we have many amenities that are in fact open to the public, but do lose funds in perpetuity. Consider almost any of our park facilities, aquatic centers, skate parks, dog parks, etc. I can guarantee you that I will not be using a skate park any time soon, but it is a facility that I am happy to support with tax dollars. We all share costs for amenities we don’t use, but we are all enriched when we have a vibrant community.
So it boils down to do we want to keep maintaining Glen Lakes as it exists, or do we change it. I’m not sure that the attendance at Glen Lakes merits sustaining the golf course. I’ll leave that argument to others. I do think that the City should seriously look at maintaining this area as an amenity for all Glendale citizens, such as a park with multiple uses. I believe that changing the overall nature of the area to any kind of private property would be wrong for Glendale and wrong for its citizens. Again, let me thank you for providing a platform to discuss public issues!
Warmest Regards,
Larry
Joyce,
You have made your position clear. Here are some thoughts from a different perspective.
Your staff researched expenditure data from years gone by (and when the data was not available, assumptions were made that may or may not be factual). Here is what the Save Glen Lakes group learned from interviewing the Parks and Rec staff from years gone by. Considerable monetary contributions went into the Parks and Recreation coffers from Glen Lakes. Those contributions helped make the Glendale Parks and Rec programs the envy of the West Valley. Parents drove to Glendale from Avondale and Peoria to enroll their kids in the many programs offered in Glendale. (Sadly, listings of these programs can only be found in the historical documents housed at Sahuaro Ranch Park.)
Yes, the city paid Golf Maintenance Solutions an exorbitant amount of money. Who thought that was a good idea? The Save Glen Lakes group did not advocate for or even understand why the city would enter into such an expensive agreement. It was only later that we became aware that the city plan all along was for Golf Maintenance Solutions to just keep it green while closing it down.
You made a point of how attendance had dropped off over the years. That is really passing the buck. If the city fails to promote the course and fails to maintain it, who owns the problem? What we learned, is the course was never listed in city tour brochures or on the city web site. We were told by the folks in the tour office that they never had any information on it. The winter visitors who did find the course on their own, gave positive feedback until the course was left to deteriorate. That is also when leagues started going elsewhere.
Green space is more than a view. It provides relief from heat islands, is a source of clean air, adds water to the water shed rather than city sewers, reduces congestion with all its problems, and provides a habitat for migrating birds. Over 25 species of birds have been spotted on Glen Lakes. I do agree that public lands should provide benefit to all taxpayers. One of the most famous public golf courses in the world (St Andrews in Scotland) opens its course to the public every Sunday for picnics, walking, etc. A public course in Toronto (Rosedale) is only used for golf in the summer. In the winter it is open to the public for winter sports. There are a lot of options for multiuse of public lands. We gave suggestions to the City Council – such as foot golf, frisbee golf, and kids golf. We even brought in a Golf in Schools program but were prevented from holding it at Glen Lakes. The high schools and GCC already use the land for their cross-country teams to practice. The high schools used the course for their golf teams.
If you think folks have too much open space or too many parks in this area, I invite you to the picnic area at Sahuaro Ranch Park on any holiday. But get there early (say 6 am) if you expect to get a table for your family. If you think the population in the proximity of historic Glendale already has enough public space, then I would argue that you do not know your constituents. The city manager has said “the city needs to stay in its own lane.” Providing opportunities for citizens who would not otherwise have them and preserving quality of life in their communities, is a worthy lane for any city.
Glen Lakes should remain green. We just went through one of the hottest summers, I would think the City of Glendale would want to make sure that we do not add more heat to the atomosphere…173 homes with airconditioning turned on full blast,adding carbon dixoide to the environment. Glendale doesn’t need another heat island. we need a Green Space that all can use. It’s ok to say goodbye to the golf course, but definitely not to green space. Once it’s gone we will not be able to retrieve it. Think Green and Sustainable Living for the citizens of Glendale. Believe me keeping Glen Lakes green is not only good for the citizens living in the neighborhood, it’s good for all of Glendale. Glendale deserves an amenity that enhances the environment we live in. Glen Lakes is a keeper!!
Dear Councilmember Clark,
“It is time to stop allowing the development community build to the lowest common denominator of an area and demand that they build adhering to a philosophy of upgrading, not downgrading or adding more of the same in an area.
Glendale must stop allowing developers of infill projects greater and greater residential densities. I once learned that Glendale loses approximately $200 a year per home when providing basic services such as public safety, libraries, parks, streets, water, sewer and garbage collection. What that means is that Glendale spends more in services per home than that home earns in revenue for the city in terms of property taxes, sales taxes, etc.”
These words were from you regarding the one-time “controversial” Stonehaven development in your district. While “progress” may be an unstoppable force, I would ask that you apply your standards to all districts in Glendale, not simply the Yucca District. Though the sale/development of Glen Lakes may be a foregone conclusion, be mindful of neighbor demands and help create an area around Glen Lakes that strikes a balance of public interest and neighborhood interest. Don’t let Glendale’s long list of poor land disposition and contractual decisions affect your decision here. Finally, don’t let those in the development community, economic development realm, and chamber of commerce community continue to sell the city a bill of goods. Accountability for tax payer give-aways, fee waivers, and GPLET boondoggles is a good thing, right?