Public Spaces, Public Priorities An Analysis of Milwaukee County's Parks
The Public Policy Forum Emily Van Dunk Deborah A. Curtis Jeffrey J. Brazzale Anneliese M. Dickman Pooja Bhalla December, 2002 Funded by: Barbara Meyer Elsner Foundation, Inc. Chipstone Foundation Halbert & Alice Kadish Foundation The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation The Richard and Ethel Herzfeld Foundation
Public Spaces, Public Priorities
An Analysis of Milwaukee County's Parks
Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………
1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………
3
History and Setting……………………………………………………………………………..
5
Finances and Personnel…………………………………………………………………….
11
Alternative Funding Scenarios……………………………………………………….
21
Park Visits Methodology…………………………………………………………………
24
Neighborhood Characteristics and Impression-Based Scores…..
38
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………..
40
Appendix A: ……………………………………………………………..………………………
42
Appendix B: …..…………………………………………………………………………………
43
Executive Summary Unlike most urban areas in the country, county government controls the majority of open space within Milwaukee County boundaries. The county is the steward of more than 15,000 acres of parkland, including 139 parks and parkways, five beaches, 170 picnic areas, 12 swimming pools, 39 wading pools, 16 golf courses, 130 tennis courts, 10 senior /recreation centers, 200 athletic fields, 23 pavilions, a marina, a horticultural observatory, a nature center and botanical gardens. This report highlights the condition of that stewardship. Over the past ten months, the Public Policy Forum has examined the history, finances, staffing, and governance structure of Milwaukee County Parks. In addition, we completed a systematic assessment of a sample of 52 parks and provided scores for each of the features in these parks. Finally, we compared these scores with characteristics of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Here is a summary of our findings.
•
The county’s financial commitment to parks, recreation and culture today is two-thirds of what it was in the 1970s, after adjusting for inflation. Spending for these functions peaked in 1975 at $77 million and, reached a low point of $43 million 20 years later.
•
In adjusted dollars, tax levy support for parks was $19.4 million in 2000, nearly two-thirds less than the $53 million in 1975. The tax levy supported 47% of park spending in 2000, down from 78% in the 1980s. The difference has been made up by other sources of revenue, including privatizing park functions and increasing user fees. This outside revenue nearly doubled between 1975 and 2000 to more than $16 million.
•
County park employment declined from 1,195 full-time equivalent positions in 1985 to 802 budgeted for 2002, a 33% decline. Park salaries as a percentage of total park spending have increased from below 50% in 1985 to about 60% in recent years.
•
Accounting methods in the parks department have frustrated efforts to determine spending on a park-to-park basis. However, one conclusion that can be drawn is that the percentage of park spending at the central park administrative level has steadily increased from less than 10% in 1970 to nearly 50% in 2000.
1
•
The current funding structure, which requires parks to compete with other county functions, raises questions about whether the county can provide adequate stewardship of Milwaukee County Parks. One proposed remedy might be an independent funding authority for parks based on an initial property tax rate of $0.63 per $1,000 assessed valuation. This levy would remain frozen during the first three years of existence with modest, limited increases allowed thereafter. Another remedy could be a dedicated sales tax rate of .22% that would generate revenue equal to current park expenditures.
•
Systematic, impression-based analysis of 52 parks found wide variations from park to park in terms of general features; recreational activities offered; the quality and quantity of green spaces; the quality of non-green spaces and overall standardized scores.
•
There is a significant relationship between the impression-based scores of parks and the demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods that surround them. Higher-rated parks tend to be situated in wealthier, suburban neighborhoods; lower-rated parks tend to be found in lower-income, minority, urban neighborhoods.
2
Introduction In this period when county government in Milwaukee is being scrutinized both locally and by the state, it seems like an ideal time to fully examine Milwaukee County Parks. There is an unmeasured perception that Milwaukee County Parks, once viewed as crown jewels are deteriorating. This perception is given credence by budget reports that indicate that the Department of Parks over the past ten years has been required to do more with less. The number of park acres has increased at the same time that levy support and manpower for parks maintenance and administration has decreased. These pressures, along with political changes underway at the county, draw attention to the need for a detailed account of Milwaukee County Parks. The following report provides this detail. In order for us to better understand the current park system, we begin by first stepping back. To do this we outline in the first section of this report the historical decisions that resulted in the park system as we currently understand it. This historical summary follows the acquisition of park land over the past 100 years as well as the creation and demise of the Milwaukee County Parks Commission. Next we take a brief look at the financial situation of Milwaukee County Parks. Obviously, all publicly funded institutions must be scrutinized for the services they provide for the dollars spent. To do this we examined budget reports and audited financial statements from 1975 through 2000. By looking at the financial picture over a 25 year period we are best able to measure long-term trends in park financing. To the best of our ability we consistently examined operations expenditures, revenue and positions within the Department of Parks. A financial analysis of the parks department is essential to developing a complete understanding of the constraints within which this department operates. In addition to the picture of park finance that we present, we delve into the issue of alternative financing for parks. Our discussion of alternative financing focuses on a dedicated tax rate and sales tax for parks. There is a number of alternative financing methods for parks. Most of these ideas require approval by the state legislature and governor. The same is true for a dedicated tax rate and sales tax. Since other analysts, such as the Trust for Public Land, discuss alternative sources for park financing, we have taken this opportunity to discuss dedicated funding for parks. Our final analysis focuses on a systematic analysis of Milwaukee County Parks. To do this we sent researchers to conduct assessments of 52 Milwaukee County Parks. Parks were selected if they contained a designated picnic area. Next, we geographically coded these parks in order to ensure that they were located in all regions of the county. We then
3
created an index to assess such areas as cleanliness, maintenance, placement and overall condition of 29 different park features. This included recreational activities, green spaces, non-green spaces, park buildings, playground equipment and restrooms as well as many more. Our final analysis is a five-part depiction of the average scores each park received for these features. The report ends with an analysis that compares the impression-based scores with the condition of the surrounding community. We explored whether there is any relationship between such factors as income, age, race of a surrounding park community and the scores received in the impression-based index.
4
History and Setting
The Milwaukee County Parks system has a rich history that dates back to the original settlement of the City of Milwaukee. “The first public parks in the City of Milwaukee were small parcels of land, donated by its founders, Solomon Juneau, Byron Kilbourn, George H. Walker and others.” Shortly after the City of Milwaukee was chartered in 1846, it acquired other “tiny parcels of open land, oddly shaped through the process of street development… because they were too small or poorly located for residential or commercial use.” These early parks were initially used as meeting places for political and organizational purposes as well as recreation. Early parks or ‘squares’ include Walker Square, Clarke Square, Courthouse Square (now Cathedral Square), and Fourth Ward Park (now Carl Zeidler Park). While these parks date back to the 1840s, private sites—some known as “beer gardens” predated these public parks. Juneau Park, on Milwaukee’s lakefront, was the site of one of the earliest beer gardens.1 The mid-nineteenth century public parks were cared for out of revenues from local ward funds. As early as the 1860s there were proposals to create a taxpayer funded park system; however, ward related opposition continually rejected the plans. Many ward representatives did not want to burden their constituents with additional costs, and, some viewed a citywide park “system” as a threat to ward control. As reported by Harry Anderson, proponents for a city park system were finally successful when, in 1889, they secured the necessary state legislation to create “...an independent commission or Park Board of five members, to be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the common council…the board was given the basic responsibility to establish and maintain a system of parks…and also to plan and develop a boulevard network for the city.” The board, whose members served without compensation and had no staff, was initially given borrowing authority of $100,000 to support the park program. By October of 1890, the first five sites were chosen. With subsequent additions, they became present-day Lake, Riverside, Mitchell, Kosciuszko, and Humboldt Parks. Substantial limitations in the 1889 legislation were addressed in 1891 with new legislation that allowed the board to purchase land anywhere in the county (not just within the soon-to-expand City of Milwaukee boundaries), allowed two additional bond issues, and added a one-half mil ad1.
We relied on the following sources for this historical summary: (Anderson, Harry 1981. Milwaukee: At the Gathering of the Waters. Continental Heritage Press: Tulsa, OK. Gurda, John. 1999. The Making of Milwaukee. Milwaukee County Historical Society. Quadredecennial Report 1950. Milwaukee County Park Commission and Milwaukee County Regional Planning Board).
5
dition to the tax levy for parks development. With this new authority, the Park Board purchased two new sites northwest of the city, present day Washington and Sherman Parks. These latest additions put the board into debt in excess of $800,000; therefore, no additional land purchases were made until 1907, when the sites for Lincoln, Gordon and Jackson Parks were acquired. In the early 1900s Milwaukee County lobbied the state for creation of a Milwaukee County Parks Commission. According to the Quadredecennial Report, the commission “... was organized under state law…and [was] composed of seven members, each serving a term of seven years, one membership expiring each year. Appointments to membership on the Commission are made by the chairman of the County Board.” The objective for the committee’s creation was to prepare for the orderly growth of urban centers by zoned planning; this objective is further defined by the commission’s motto, “The greatest good for the largest number.” Although there were periodic attempts by County Board members to abolish the new commission due to power struggles over spending and the commission’s expanding control over development, throughout the next decade the Commission grew in stature and gained support and respect from the County Board. There were many achievements during this period that would have a lasting impact on the future of the Milwaukee County Park system. In 1907, the legislature authorized “the expenditure of a fixed percentage of the tax levy” to go toward plans to fill in submerged lakefront land for the construction of Lincoln Memorial Drive. The infill also enhanced parts of Juneau, Bradford, Lake and McKinley Parks. Lincoln Memorial Drive from downtown Milwaukee to the north end of Lake Park was officially opened on September 28, 1928. The Commission’s first park purchases, in 1910, were Bluff Park (just north of present day Miller Park), and initial portions of Jacobus Park in Wauwatosa and Grant Park in South Milwaukee. The Washington Park Zoological Society was incorporated on September 30, 1910. And the Park Commission also gained control of the county forestry services in 1911. A 1913 mill tax provision increased land acquisitions dramatically. The Park Commission acquired substantial portions of Estabrook Park in 1916, the Blatz Farm property (present day Kletzsch Park) in 1918, and Zimmerman Farm (present day Currie Park) in 1919. The 1920s brought more additions and donations. Acquired was 278 acres for Greenfield Park (1921), land for McGovern and Hoyt Parks (1926) and Brown Deer Park (1928), 600 acres of farmland for Hales Corners Park (later renamed Whitnall Park) and 35 acres for Bay View Park (1929), and the land to develop the Root River and Menomonee River Parkways. In 1923, additional legislation was enacted to create the Regional Planning Department, which was assigned jurisdiction under the Park Commission. This would, according to Anderson, give the Commission authority to “...control zoning and planned
6
development…In addition to responsibilities in the area of highway widening, rural platting, and planned zoning…the plans and development of the long-talked-of parkway network to follow natural watercourses in the county and providing engineering, landscape, and architectural services for park development.” Creating a County Park System During the depression years there were no funds for the purchase of additional parklands. However, the land acquisitions made before the depression set in proved to be a blessing to the county. The Roosevelt administration relief programs provided workers with employment in developing parks, highways and in other public works projects. The depression was also the impetus for the City of Milwaukee’s transfer of city parks to the jurisdiction of the Milwaukee County Park Commission. The transfer was proposed due to the lack of city funds in depression era Milwaukee. The proposal went to referendum and received overwhelming support (3 to 1); thus, the transfer became effective on November 12, 1936. Anderson notes, “In all, 1,498 acres of park and parkways at 37 locations were involved, ranging from ward triangles of less than an acre to the nearly 308 acre Lincoln Park. The Washington Park Zoo was included, as was the horticultural garden at Mitchell Park.” In addition, during this time period and earlier, several suburban municipalities transferred parklands to the county: Cudahy transferred Sheridan and Pulaski Parks, the Town of Lake transferred Holler Park, Wauwatosa transferred Hoyt Park, and South Milwaukee transferred Rawson Park. This reduced city taxes for parks and increased the county’s tax levy for parks to $.56 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For the next thirty years, the County Parks Commission focused on development of existing parks and on new large-scale projects. The following is an abbreviated list of the Park Commission’s accomplishments during this next (and its final) period. In 1947, land acquisitions for a new county zoo near Bluemound Road and Hwy. 100 began and were complete by 1964. In 1955, construction began on a war memorial—the Milwaukee Art Center. This was supposed to be a community art gallery, a music hall-theatre, and a Veteran’s Center; however, the music hall was postponed due to a lack of funding. In 1959, construction of the McKinley Marina began with the last phase being completed in 1979. In December of 1963 the first of the three Mitchell Domes opened; all three were open by 1968. In 1967, the countywide network of bicycle trails began. The network was completed by 1976 for the Bicentennial observance. In 1968, the first of six new, modern Community Centers—also called Senior or Recreational Centers was constructed at Washington Park. And in 1969, the War Memorial Performing Arts Center opened.
7
Abolishing the Parks Commission On January 1, 1982, in spite of the impressive accomplishments during its 75-year tenure, the Milwaukee County Park Commission was eliminated. There were several reasons for the Park Commission’s demise beginning with the creation of the office of County Executive in 1959. This new office changed how decisions were made and gave power to the top county leader, which in turn diminished the Park Commission’s role in shaping policy. In 1978, state legislation passed authorizing Milwaukee County to adopt a cabinet form of government; soon after, the County Executive created the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Culture; this new move put the Parks Director under the supervision of the Park Commission and the County Executive. This move did not bode well for the future of the Park Commission. A June 13, 1980 Milwaukee Journal article reports the following statements by County Executive O’Donnell, “A stronger county executive and a more politically active County Board have entered the picture. With a cabinet form of government, the Park Commission has become more advisory. Now O’Donnell, rather than the commission, appoints the head of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture.” Later in 1980, the Milwaukee County Zoo was separated from the park system and became a county department reporting directly to the County Executive. However, it was the growing budget crisis that proved to be the final blow to the Parks Commission. On November 11, 1981, the Milwaukee County Board voted to abolish the Parks Commission in a close vote of 13 to 11. This proved to be more of a new direction for Milwaukee County government rather than a direct attack on the Parks Commission; for example, the Expressway and Transportation Commission and the Board of Public Welfare were abolished in the previous two years. Staffing and Funding Cuts The 1980s marked the beginning of major staff cuts, funding cuts, rate hikes, increased user fees and fewer services provided by the county parks. With most of the county budget going toward social services and criminal justice, the parks became a luxury and were the first to see the budget ax. In 1982, the parks department’s payroll budget was reduced by $3 million, and the budget for maintenance was slashed from just over $1.5 million to about $535, 595. In June of 1982, the Milwaukee Sentinel ran a series titled “Parks in Peril?” to bring attention to the consequences of budget cuts on the county parks. By 1983, the Milwaukee Sentinel reported that the parks department had 223 fewer full-time workers than in 1976. When the current Parks Director, Susan Baldwin, took over the job in 1994, the number of full-time employees had dropped from a 1984 total of 765 to 466 and the parks budget had dropped from 30% of the overall county budget to 15% of the entire county budget in the same ten year period.
8
Although the budget cuts of the 1980s looked dismal for the Milwaukee County Park system, the park system continued to acquire new land and develop previously acquired land over the next two decades. In 1980, the Sidney Kohl Co. offered to donate 200 acres of land between 76th and 91st Streets just south of the Ozaukee County border, although development would take more than twenty years. Again, in 1980, with a $240,000 federal Community Development Act grant, the county purchased 7.5 acres of the original Trimborn Farm in Greendale. Although development projects were scarce in the 1980s, they rebounded with the economic boom of the 1990s. A $6.6 million breakwater addition for McKinley Marina began in 1995, with $3.1 million of the funding coming from the Wisconsin Waterways Commission. A $6.4 million shoreline protection and bluff stabilization project for Oak Creek’s 308-acre Bender Park began in 1995. Although a planned boat launch opened in 1999, the long-term plans for a 200-acre golf course are on an indefinite hold. In 1998, the county’s first off-leash dog park—the Granville Dog Park on the county’s far northwest side opened. And the reconstructed Lincoln Memorial Drive—part of Lake Park was completed in 2001. Creative Funding and Partnerships The 1980s and 90s also ushered in the beginning of an era of creative funding and of public/private partnerships between the Parks Department and various “friends of the parks” organizations. The county funding cuts of the 1980s required the park system to find other sources of revenue, which included privatizing various operational functions within the park system. In 1992, the operation of the Milwaukee Public Museum was turned over to a nonprofit entity, while the county retained ownership of the building and collections; the nonprofit status made it easier to garner private support for the museum. In 1994, the county entered into an agreement with a restaurateur to install the Lake Park Bistro at the county’s 92year old Lake Park Pavilion, with profit sharing going to the Parks Department. And in 1997, the first of the Milwaukee County Parks Department’s water parks opened at Greenfield and Kosciuszko Parks. Cool Waters and Pelican Cove were designed to generate enough money to be self-supporting. Additional water slides at other parks increased revenue from the pool operations. The private “friends of the parks” organizations that emerged in the late 1970s with the Park People, grew in numbers and scope into the 1990s. They have become a crucial resource for the support and preservation of our park system. While they usually work in partnership with the Milwaukee County Parks Department, their mission is also that of a watchdog, which sometimes pits them against the department. These and other partnerships have been responsible for the partial and complete funding and creation of many recent projects including, the renovation of Cathedral Square, Betty Brinn Children’s Museum, Discovery World Museum, the $10 million visitor and education center at the Boerner Botanical Gar-
9
dens in Whitnall Park, and the Slice of Ice skating rink at downtown’s Red Arrow Park. In addition, private support funds garden beds at parks, weed-out programs, restoration projects in parks and playgrounds, and music in the parks. These park groups include the Park People, Friends of Boerner, Friends of the Domes, Friends of Wehr, Lake Park Friends, the Milwaukee Parks Foundation, Partners in Parks and the Urban Ecology Center. As is evident from this narrative Milwaukee County has a proud history of providing one of the finest park systems in the world for a metropolitan area of its size and resources.
10
Finances and Personnel Annual adopted budgets were examined from 1975 through 2000. To the best of our ability we consistently examined operations expenditures, revenue and positions within the Department of Parks. Yet, the numbers may be difficult to compare over time because different decisions may have been made in formulas used to calculate such variables as position equivalents. In addition, budget administrators had different views on the best way to present a budget. Some administrators may have produced a summary table for the department breaking out salaries. Other administrators for a particular time period may not have. Also during this time the county implemented a new budget system changing to programmatic budgeting. In addition, this financial analysis does not include an analysis of capital expenditures. Within these constraints we present a detailed look at the finances of the Department of Parks over the past several decades.
The Big Picture
The first look at the finances of the Department of Parks is a comprehensive portrayal of spending in the area of parks, recreation and culture compared to other areas of county spending from 1960 to 2000. Since these county reports do not allow for a separate analysis of the Department of Parks, this analysis includes such activities as the museum, zoo and department of horticulture. The data were obtained from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of Milwaukee County. Social service spending dominates county spending. Chart 1 depicts spending by the remaining county departments in 2000 dollars. Public safety spending has been increasing over the past four decades with spending in 2000 representing a 42% increase over 1990. Spending for public works and highways decreased 63% during this time period. Spending on parks, recreation and culture fluctuated over the decades reaching a peak in 1975 at $77 million and a low point in 1995 of $43 million. Average spending in the 1990s was $49 million compared to $69 million in the 1980s, $75 million in the 1970s and $52 million in the 1960s after accounting for inflation.
11
Chart 1. Distribution of Expenditures in Year 2000 dollars (in thousands)
120,000 100,000
Legislative Executive and Staff Parks, Rec, Culture Public safety Public Works and highways
80,000
Courts & Juciciary
60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Chart 2 on the following page presents another way of looking at the distribution of county expenditures by breaking out the percent of total spending by service area. Spending in the “other” category changed dramatically from 1960 to 2000. Much of this is explained by changes in expenditure categories that assigned what had been allocated to the “other” category to more specific categories, such as social services. Spending in the area of social services represents 50% of the total county spending over the years. The next programmatic area is spending on public safety representing 18% of county expenditures in 2000; county spending on parks, recreation and culture is at approximately 9% in 2000. This compares to a high in 1980 when 18% of county spending went to this area, however, it is much closer to the commitment made in the 1960s and 1970s when approximately 10% of county spending went toward parks, recreation and culture. This first examination of the county spending commitment toward parks underscores the point that spending on parks reached its high point over two decades ago. The commitment to parks, recreation and culture today is two-thirds of what it was in the 1970s. In the area of parks, recreation and culture, service needs must be met with greater demands on efficiency in order to meet the ongoing demands of users.
12
Chart 2. Distribution of Expenditures Across Departments (1960-2000)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
10%
1960
8%
1970
18%
1980
12%
1990
9%
2000
Legislative Excecutive and staff Public Works and Highways Other
Courts and Judiciary Social Services
Public Safety Parks Recreation and culture
Our Financial Commitment to Parks By separating out parks spending, we are able to provide a simpler picture of changes over the past decades. The first illustration in Chart 3 on the following page is of actual and inflation adjusted expenditures for the past 25 years. What is evident from this chart is that on first glimpse actual expenditures appear to have moderately increased. Yet, this conclusion would be incorrect in light of inflation. In real dollars we find a steady decrease in parks expenditures. Budgetary comparison for the years 1985 and 1986 are questionable given some one-time accounting changes that occurred in those years. Proceeding with an analysis without those years we find that real support for the parks in the 1990s averaged $43 million compared with an average level of support in the 1980s of $58 million. The decrease stabilized from 1997 to 1999 with a slight increase in 2000. Still this increase in 2000 represents an expenditure outlay that is just two-thirds of what spending was in 1980. A two-and-a-half decade comparison of tax levy funding for the parks department draws attention to the diminishing property tax commitment to parks. Tax levy funding in 2000 of $19.4 million is slightly higher than the $16.6 million levy support in 1975. However, without controlling for inflation we have an inaccurate portrayal of tax levy
13
Chart 3. Park Department Expenditures (1975-2000) (in thousands)
Expenditures
19 99
19 97
19 95
199 3
19 91
19 89
19 87
19 85
198 3
19 81
19 79
Expenditures (2000$)
19 77
19 75
$80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0
Note: Owing to a difficulty in obtaining comparable expenditure data, for the years 1985 and 1986 were computed based on 3% increase over previous year.
support. Chart 4 depicts tax levy support for the parks department in actual and inflation-adjusted dollars. In adjusted dollars, tax levy support in 2000 is approximately onethird of that received in 1975, $19.4 million compared with $53 million in 1975. Along with Chart 4. Tax Levy Support Milwaukee County Parks $70,000
Tax Levy
$60,000
Tax Levy (2000$)
$50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000
199 9
199 7
19 95
19 93
199 1
19 89
19 87
19 85
19 83
198 1
197 9
197 7
197 5
$0
this decreasing support is a decrease in the percent of park spending supported by the levy. Approximately 47% of park spending was supported by the levy in 2000 compared with an average of 78% in the 1980s. This decline raises an important question regarding our public commitment to county parks. If parks serve the general good then our ability
14
to finance parks using current formulas may be unsustainable. The percent of tax levy that is available for the parks department has decreased steadily since 1990. The amount designated for parks peaked in 1981 at 36% and is at approximately 10% in 2000 (Chart 5). Chart 5. Percent of Tax Levy Designated for Parks 1975-2000 36%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
19 75 19 76 19 77 19 78 19 79 19 80 19 8 19 1 82 19 8 19 3 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 9 19 1 92 19 9 19 3 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 9 20 9 00
10%
Raising revenue is a big challenge for the parks system since the parks department’s dependency on other sources of revenue is limited. Through recreation and admission fees, rental charges, permits and other sources, the parks department has been attempting to meet the challenge of raising revenue. In 2000, the parks department revenues were double what was received in 1975, $16.3 million versus $8.6 million in inflation adjusted numbers (see Chart 6).
Chart 6. Outside Revenue (1975-2000) (Inflation Adjusted 2000$ in 1,000s)
$20,000
$16,349
$15,000 $8,596 $10,000 $5,000
19 7 19 5 76 19 7 19 7 7 19 8 79 19 80 198 198 1 19 2 8 19 3 84 198 19 5 8 1986 1987 19 8 8 19 9 90 199 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 00
$0
15
However, over the past 12 years the parks department has received less revenue than budgeted (Chart 7). This means that expenditures have to be cut to break even at the end of the year. In 2000, actual revenue was 10% less than budgeted. In 2001 actual revenues were $1.5 million less than budgeted. The parks department continues to set high expectations in raising revenue striving to reach $18.8 million in 2002. Setting high goals is laudable in light of the need to continually reduce reliance on the tax levy, nonetheless inefficiencies may result when budgeted revenues continually fail to meet expectations. These inefficiencies result when budgeted expenditures must be cut late in the year in order to meet shortfalls in obtained revenue. The end result is that the parks department does not run a deficit and therefore is under extreme pressure to keep expenditures in line with revenues that do not meet liberal expectations. Chart 7. Variance Between Actual and Budgeted Revenues (1990-2001) in $1,000s $500
4% 2% $0 0% -2% -$500 -4% -$1,000 -6% -8% -$1,500 -10% -$1,542 -$2,000 -12% -14% -$2,500 -16% -18% -$3,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Staffing Staffing within the Milwaukee County Parks Department, measured as full-time position equivalents (FTEs), has decreased over the past fifteen years (See Chart 8). Since the formula for calculating position-equivalents changed over the past four decades, we feel that analysis prior to 1985 is somewhat unreliable. From 1985-2002 there has been a 33% drop in full-time equivalent positions. The largest decrease occurred from 1990 to 1991 when the county shifted away from full-time positions and increased seasonal hours. Ninety-two full-time positions were eliminated. This trend continued in the 2002 budget when the parks department was budgeted to eliminate 71 positions.
16
Chart 8. Full Time Equivalent Positions (1985-2002) 1,195 903
802
198 5 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 199 4 199 5 199 6 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
As in other service related sectors of the economy, salaries and benefits dominate the operational budget of the parks department. On average, salaries and wages, excluding fringe benefits, consume 58% of department expenditures. If fringe benefits are included, the percent increases to approximately 70%. The percent of expenditures on salaries remained steady from 1987 to 1996. Salaries as a percent of total expenditures increased in 1997 and peaked in 1999 when it reached 68%. However, in 2000 there was a decrease of 10 percentage points to 58% (Chart 9). Chart 9. Percent of Total Expenditures with FTEs (1985-2000) 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
80% 60% 40% 20%
19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 199 0 19 91 19 92 19 93 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 19 98 19 99 20 00
0%
Full Time Equivalent Positions Percent of Total Expenditures on Salaries
Interestingly, the decrease in the number of full-time equivalent positions is unrelated to the percent of total spending that goes toward salaries. In 1985 when there were over 1,195 position equivalents, 49% of the budget went to salaries (Chart 9). This compares to 2000 when there were 802 full-time equivalent positions and 58% of the budget went to salaries.
17
There are possibly several ways of interpreting this data. First, is because the entire parks budget has been decreasing, salaries consume more dollars. Another theory might be that more of the budget is going to salaries because the salaries are increasing. Chart 10 helps to clarify this question by illustrating in 2000 dollars the per position equivalent salary. Salaries per full-time equivalent position have remained remarkably steady over the past 15 years averaging $28,746. Salaries peaked in 1988 at $31,848, 14% higher than the $27,331 salary in 2000. However, the nature of the positions in the parks has changed since the early 1990s when there was a reduction in full-time positions and an increased reliance on seasonal employees. The personnel analysis would be clearer if the number of full time, part-time and seasonal workers were consistently available. That could allow for a comparison of parks administration to other personnel. Nonetheless, we can conclude that since there has been no associated decrease in park acreage at the time that park workers have been cut, we are expecting more to be done by fewer workers.
Chart 10. Salaries Per Full-Time Equivalent Position (2000$)
19 85 19 86 19 87 198 8 19 89 199 0 199 1 19 92 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 19 97 199 8 199 9 20 00
35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
Park Districts At the outset of this study we had planned to conduct a park-by-park comparison of expenditures and revenues. Since there are no breakdowns in expenditure and revenue by individual parks, we report a breakdown by park region. Over the past four decades parks have been organized around several regions. There were 11 regions in 1961, five regions in 1982, four regions in 1990 and three regions in 2000. By looking at park region we focus on the daily operation of the parks rather than finance/administration of parks, marketing or programmatic development such as management of golf courses and aquatic centers. Chart 11 displays the amount spent by the Department of Parks along with the amount of the total that went into the direct operation of the park regions in 2000 dollars. In
18
1970, 91% of park spending went to the districts; this decreased to 84% by 1980 and to 51% by 2000. This change in spending priorities suggests that the parks department is focusing a larger percent of its declining budget outside of the direct operation of the parks and toward such areas as administration, programs, marketing and facilities.
Chart 11. District Expenditures Compared to Parks Department (2000$) in thousands
$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0
91%
100%
84%
80%
62%
60%
51%
40% 20% 0%
1970
1980
Total Expenditures (2000$)
1990
2000
District Expenditures (2000$)
Percent on District
Because the park districts were restructured several times, it was impossible to compare the 11 regions of the 1970s with the five of the 1980s and so on. Instead we looked at expenditures in 2000 across the districts. There are 49 parks listed in the South region; 38 in the North and 44 listed in the Central region. This does not include parkways that make up approximately 7,000 acres of parkland in the county. In order to get some sense of spending by region, we calculated per-acre spending both including and excluding parkways. The result is displayed in Chart 12. Spending per-acre is highest in the Central region at over $4,000 per acre. Since the Southern region and Northern regions contain most of the parkChart 12. Park District Expenditures Per Acre 2000 $6,000 $5,000
$4,493
$4,903
$4,000
$2,909
$3,000
$2,018
$2,000
$1,591
$846
$1,000 $0 Central
South
Expenditures Per Acre w/ Parkways
19
North
Expenditures Per Acre w/o Parkways
ways, spending fluctuates when parkway acreage is excluded from the analysis. With parkways, the Southern region spends approximately $846 per acre compared with over $2,000 when they are excluded. Spending increases at approximately the same rate for the Northern region. The unanswered question is why spending for the Central region is so much higher than in the other regions. Part of the answer may remain in the fact that parks in the Central region tend to be older and more developed than the acreage to the North and South. The average age of parks in the Central region is 72 years compared with 55 years for the North and 54 years for the South. Another reason may be that parkland in the North and South is still in various stages of development. Take, for instance, the 200- acre Kohl park, in the North region acquired in 1980 and still in the early stages of development. Also, the South Region is the still developing 308-acre Bender Park; a large-scale capital project to secure the shoreline is finally complete, as is the boat launch and waterfront pavilion. Another reason for wide variation in spending by region may lie in the fact that the Central region is home to both Mckinley Marina and to the two currently operating aquatics facilities. Greenfield Park is home to Cool Waters the county’s most successful family aquatic center, and Kosciusko Park is home to Pelican Cove a neighborhood aquatic center. These reasons and more can be at the heart of the variation in spending across the regions. Yet, the fact remains that because park spending is aggregated by district, it is impossible to determine the specific funding for each park. In the end, we are unable to determine what level of funding is available to each park user by park. A park-by-park report on expenditures and revenue would clearly indicate spending priorities and allow for analysis of change over time. That limitation results in our having to make broad sweeping conclusions rather than specific recommendations regarding specific parks. Summary County spending on parks has declined since 1975 and continued to decline throughout the 1990s. Essentially park spending today is about two-thirds of what it was 25 years ago. Associated with this has been a decrease in park personnel from 1,195 full-time equivalent positions in 1985 to a budgeted projection of 802 in 2002. Additionally, tax levy funding that represented 80% of park expenditures in the 1980s now represents 50% of total expenditures. Together these facts mean that the parks department is left with the unenviable task of meeting the needs of park users across 15,000 acres of parkland with fewer resources. They strive to decrease reliance on the levy through increases in park revenue. Still, there is a need to examine further the idea of other sources of funding for the parks in order to ensure a steady source of revenue for the parks system.
20
Alternative Funding Scenarios The decline in revenue for Milwaukee County Parks has been met by calls for alternative funding for the parks department. Some of these ideas entail a combined funding source for parks, recreation and culture others are solely for parks. In total these functional areas needed approximately $41 million in tax levy funding in 2002. Of this amount, $25 million went toward parks. A number of scenarios for alternative funding are available. These include, a dedicated sales tax for parks • a sales tax on recreation equipment • an income tax check-off • motor vehicle tax (wheel tax) • real estate transfer tax • park improvement district (similar to a business improvement district) • beverage tax for all festivals in Milwaukee County • endowment • naming rights • sale of land • higher fees • leasing of parks equipment • parks and recreation foundation. A wheel tax of $10, which could be implemented without state legislative approval would generate approximately $5.5 million. A dedicated sales tax of .1% or one-tenth of one cent for each dollar spent would generate $11.6 million a year. A dedicated sales tax would require legislative approval. A parks improvement district would be designed along the lines of a business improvement district. When a parks improvement district is adopted, the assessed valuation of real property within the designated park redevelopment area is frozen. Taxes are paid on the property at this base level while improvements to the area are made, new businesses are attracted, and property values rise. Improvements to a park would be paid for from increased assessments on adjacent properties. Each of these alternatives has merit. However, instead of reviewing each option, the Forum defers interested readers to other publications, most comprehensively a 1998 report published by Trust for Public Land, Local Park Financing Techniques, that does an excellent job describing each funding mechanism. The reason for this choice is that after examining these alternative funding sources, we found all of them to be lacking in several critical areas. First, the revenue generated by each would not cover the costs of the entire park levy. Second, the efforts needed to successfully garner both state legislative support and support from the County Executive and Board of Supervisors are so great that we believe only efforts that will generate sufficient funds should be pursued. Third, the transparency of funding is weak for each mechanism. By transparency we mean, payment where the benefit is received. Each resident of Milwaukee County has equal access to parks. Residents can walk to their neighborhood parks or
21
take transportation to a destination park. Collecting taxes on such things as cars that do not directly relate to parks appears tenuous. Finally, as noted, other funding mechanisms are highlighted in the Land Trust report whereas we will use this opportunity to provide a more detailed snapshot on a dedicated property tax rate and dedicated sales tax. Independent Funding As previously illustrated, our commitment to tax levy support of parks has been declining. Using the past as our guide, Chart 13 illustrates the current trend in tax levy funding for parks from 1990 to today with a projection onwards to 2016. The projection is based on the fact that in 2000 dollars levy support for parks has been declining at approximately 3.9% per year. The 2003 budgeted amount continues this decline representing a 12% decrease in tax levy support over 2002 levels. At a decline of 3.9% annually we can anticipate that tax levy support for parks in 2016 will be half of what it is today and just one-third of what it was in 1990. Chart 13. Tax Levy Commitment (1990-2016) $50,000 $40,000
$40,324
$30,000
$22,000
$20,000 $10,000
$13,117
20 16
20 14
20 12
20 10
20 08
20 06
20 04
20 02
20 00
19 98
19 96
19 94
19 92
19 90
$0
Several scenarios are possible for altering this picture. In the following discussion we outline three of them. The first two involve a dedicated tax rate for parks and the third a dedicated sales tax for parks. We begin by establishing a tax rate for parks that is revenue neutral in operations support. A tax rate of $0.63 would be necessary to raise the $25 million needed to operate parks at today’s levels. The rate would be frozen for the first three years after the initiation of the dedicated tax rate. Freezing the rate does two things. First, it ensures a continued focus on efficiency in park operation. Second, it allows taxpayers time to buy into this new system of dedicated funding. The result would be that any increased revenue for parks in the first three years would be generated solely from increases in property value. After 2005 the tax rate increase would be limited so as not to exceed the consumer price index for urban areas. Any increase greater than 2.5% would pass a higher level of scrutiny such as approval by at least two-thirds of the county board rather than a simple majority. With such a system in place over the next fifteen years we would expect a maximum tax rate of $.83.
22
The first tax rate scenario rests on an annual growth in equalized value of two percent. A second tax rate scenario allows for a more generous increase in property value of five percent, while holding steady on the previous tax rate conditions. Considering that municipal property value increased at a rate ranging from 3% to 9% annually, depending on the municipality, over the past several years, a five percent equalized property value increase remains fiscally conservative. A third scenario focuses on a dedicated sales tax. To generate the $25 million in operation spending for parks would require a .22% sales tax. Revenue would increase based on a projected increase in annual sales of 2% Chart 14 illustrates the current trend along with the sales tax and the dedicated tax rate scenarios. All scenarios generate an improvement over the declining levy that has been available to the parks department over the past 10 years. By 2016 the tax levy revenue generated by a dedicated tax rate and a two percent annual increase in property value would be approximately three times greater than the current trend. A five percent annual increase in property value represents five times the current trend. A dedicated sales tax of .22% would generate approximately $36 million or 2.8 times the current trend by 2016. A final scenario that we do not illustrate would be a dedicated tax rate for parks, recreation and culture. To obtain a revenue equal to the $41 million currently spent in these areas would require a $1.00 tax rate. Chart 14. Funding Sources : Dedicated Tax Rate and Sales Tax $80,000 $70,000
$67,100
Current Trend 2% Increase
$60,000
5% Increase
$50,000
$44,600
Sales Tax .22%
$40,000 $30,000
$36,647
$20,000 $10,000
$13,107
20 16
20 14
20 12
20 10
20 08
20 06
20 04
20 02
20 00
19 98
19 96
19 94
19 92
19 90
$0
As noted, there are several methods for alternative funding that can be pursued by interested parties. We chose to highlight methods that call for a dedicated tax rate and sales tax. There are obvious drawbacks for such an endeavor which require residents of this county to approve a dedicated source of funding for parks However, all scenarios alter the current trend toward a declining revenue commitment to parks. These scenarios serve as a starting point for continued debate over the funding of parks.
23
Park Visits Methodology As a component of this research, the Forum commissioned researchers to visit a sample of parks in Milwaukee County and systematically record their impressions on a wide variety of features. The sample of parks were selected based on whether the parks department recorded that the park had a picnic area. This criterion excluded parkway picnic areas since they are not in actual parks. This gave us a list of 51 parks. After geographically coding these parks we realized the sample did not include a park in the central, western part of the county, therefore an additional park, West Milwaukee Park, was added to the sample. The final sample of 52 parks is highlighted in Table 1 and geographically displayed in Appendix A. As indicated, these parks are balanced across the county. In addition, these parks represent the range of size of county parks. The smallest park visited was Cooper Park, eight acres, located in Milwaukee. The largest park visited was Whitnall Park, 640 acres, located in Hales Corners and Franklin. The average size of a park was 84 acres. In total our parks assessors visited approximately 4,400 acres of parkland. Our visits included a number of destination parks and neighborhood parks. Destination parks refer to parks that attract people across Milwaukee County and the state. These include such parks as Greenfield, Brown Deer, Dretzka and Whitnall. Neighborhood parks are primarily designed for users within a close proximity to the park. These include such parks as Kern Park on the eastside of Milwaukee, Froemming Park in Franklin and Wisconsin Avenue Park in Wauwatosa. The parks that were evaluated offer a wide variety of activities. These include basketball, baseball, softball, tennis, soccer, swimming and such featured activities as golfing, lawn bowling, disc golf and fishing. Up to four different parks assessors visited each park, however two assessors served as the primary visitors. The parks were divided geographically and assigned to the two primary assessors. Depending on the size and number of activities at the park, each park was visited between three and six times with the most common number of visits being five. In total our park assessors spent over 400 hours at the parks averaging eight hours at each park. The visits began early in June 2002 and were completed by late August 2002. The assessors were armed with an impression based scoring protocol which required they examine the cleanliness, maintenance, adequacy and placement of each park feature. Each assessor also did an overall comparison of each park feature with similar features they observed in other county parks. An impression based index is quite different from a condition based index that may be used by engineers or risk consultants. The difference is that a condition based index relies on set rules regarding such issues as weight limits of playground equipment, cracks or buckles in
24
Table 1 List of Visited Parks Park Name Alcott Brown Deer Cannon Carver Cooper Cudahy Dineen Doctors Dretzka Estabrook Froemming Gordon Grant Greene Greenfield Hales Corners Holler Hoyt Humboldt Jackson Jacobus Johnsons Kern King Kletzsch Kops Kosciuszko Kulwicki LaFollette Lake Lincoln Lindsay Madison McCarty McGovern Mitchell Noyes Pulaski-Cudahy Rainbow Scout Lake Sheridan Sherman Smith South Shore Vogel Washington Park West Milwaukee Whitnall Wilson * (See Rec too) Wilson Recreation Center Wisconsin Zablocki
Address 3751 S. 97th St. 7835 N. Green Bay Rd. 303 N. 95th St. 911 W. Brown St. 8701 W. Chambers St. 3000 E. Ramsey Ave. 6901 W. Vienna Ave. 1870 E. Fox Ln. 12020 W. Bradley Rd. 4400 N. Eastbrook Dr. 8801 S. 51st St. 1321 E. Locust St. 100 E. Hawthorne Ave. 4235 S. Lipton Ave. 2028 S. 124th St. 5765 S. New Berlin Rd. 5151 S. 6th St. 1800 Swan Blvd. 3000 S. Howell Ave. 3500 W. Forest Home Ave 6501 W. Hillside Ln. 1919 W. Fond du Lac Ave. 3614 N. Humboldt Blvd. 1531 W. Vliet St. 6560 N. Milwaukee River Pkwy 3321 N. 86th St. 2201 S. 7th St. 10777 W. Coldspring Rd. 9418 W. Washington St. 3233 E. Kenwood Blvd. 1301 W. Hampton Ave. 4360 N. 87th St. 9800 W. Glendale Ave. 8214 W. Cleveland Ave. 5400 N. 51st St. 524 S. Layton Blvd. 8235 W. Good Hope Rd. 5400 S. Swift Ave. 700 S. 119th St. 5902 W. Loomis Rd. 4900 S. Lake Dr. 3000 N. Sherman Blv. 5462 N. 33rd St. 2900 S. Shore Dr. 8601 W. Lancaster Ave. 1859 N. 40th St. 5000 W. Burnham St. 5879 S. 92nd St. 1601 W. Howard Ave. 4001 S. 20th St. 10300 W. Wisconsin Ave. 3717 W. Howard Ave.
25
City Year Developed Acreage Milwaukee 1968 16.6 Milwaukee 1927 367.3 Milwaukee 1964 8.5 Milwaukee 1939 20 Milwaukee 1953 8.4 Cudahy 1967 17.6 Milwaukee 1956 59.2 Fox Point 1930 49.5 Milwaukee 1960 326.6 Crosses Municipal Boundaries 1936 115.1 Franklin Unavailable 17.3 Milwaukee 1920 15.4 So. Milwaukee 1944 381.4 St. Francis 1958 37.8 West Allis 1923 295.2 Hales Corners 1961 33.3 Milwaukee 1937 16.4 Wauwatosa 1936 35.1 Milwaukee 1937 70.6 Milwaukee 1900 117.4 Wauwatosa 1935 31.2 Milwaukee Unavailable 13.3 Milwaukee 1928 28.3 Milwaukee 1972 21.3 Glendale 1940 118.9 Milwaukee Unavailable 8.6 Milwaukee 1890 34.7 Greenfield Unavailable 27.8 West Allis 1958 18.4 Milwaukee 1900 140.3 Milwaukee 1900 312.1 Milwaukee 1960 10.4 Wauwatosa 1966 59.5 West Allis 1946 60.6 Milwaukee 1926 70.5 Milwaukee 1890 60.8 Milwaukee 1969 80.8 Cudahy 1943 16.7 West Allis 1967 25.9 Greendale 1964 72.3 Cudahy 1928 84.1 Milwaukee 1900 20.8 Milwaukee 1930 20.2 Milwaukee 1920 40.8 Milwaukee 1964 11.5 Milwaukee 1890 134.8 West Milwaukee 1947 20.1 Crosses Municipal Boundaries 1929 640.1 Milwaukee 1951 78.5 Milwaukee 1968 58.2 Wauwatosa 1930 17.6 Milwaukee Unavailable 47.4
pavement to score the condition of a park feature. These condition based indexes have been used by the park system in rating of playground equipment and asphalt conditions. These informative condition indexes are critical for assessing such factors as safety of a park feature. However, the cost to conduct such analyses on every aspect of the park makes such an analysis prohibitive. For this reason, our impression based analysis results in an assessment of all features of a park from the perspective of an educated park-user. Although few users spend hundreds of hours over the course of a summer visiting thousands of acres of parkland, the impression based system used by the Forum resulted in the ability to examine parks in terms that are understandable to Milwaukee County residents generally and park users specifically. What we offer next is a comparison across the parks we visited. Comparison of features across a system as diverse as the Milwaukee County Parks System is fraught with complications. For example, how do we compare a 20-acre neighborhood park with a 200-acre park with a featured golf course? How do we compare a park with a featured aquatic center with a park with a wading pool? Our methodology for doing this was to create an index that scored each park feature separately on several criteria. An exhaustive list of park features was created. Added to this list was an inventory of recreational activities available in each park. Our final scoring instrument included 29 features. The number of features varied across each park from a low of 13 to a high of 26. The specific criteria were statements with which the assessor responded either strongly agreed, agreed, somewhat agreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed. Each response corresponded to a number on a four point scale, stongly agreed =4; agreed=3 and so on. The criteria are listed below: -Feature is very clean. -Feature is well maintained. -Feature is appropriately placed in park. -There is an adequate number of this particular feature in the park. -Feature enhances the overall impression of the park. -Compared to other parks you have visited in Milwaukee County, the overall condition of this particular feature is: An example helps to clarify this process. If the feature being examined is picnic areas then we would assess whether the picnic areas are very clean. If we felt these areas were unclean then we would select disagree, if the assessor felt they were extremely unclean then they would select strongly disagree. The feature would receive either a score of 1 or 0 for this factor depending on the choice of disagree or strongly disagree. Next we would assess maintenance, placement, number, enhancement and comparison to other parks. In the end each feature received six scores. Because conditions can change, the assessors examined and scored each feature during every visit to the park. The resulting feature score is an average across these visits.
26
This helped to minimize any extreme cases that may result if a feature was only viewed once. Not every statement was applicable to each feature. For example, in assessing the condition of garbage receptacles, it was nonsensical to score this feature on whether it enhanced the overall impression of the park. Similarly, when assessing a swimming pool it was absurd to assess whether there was an adequate number of pools in the park.
Standardized Score Our first depiction of the impression score for parks is an aggregate score factoring in all the features of the park. We use a standardized score to represent this aggregate score, where zero represents the mean to indicate how far and in what direction a particular park deviates from the mean. We then group the parks into what we label mid-range, lowrange, lower-range, high-range and higher range. The ranges are determined based on how close the aggregate score is to the mean of the data. A park is labeled a higher-range park if its standardized score is over 1, a high range park if its standardized score is over .5 and less than .99, mid-range if the standardized score is +/-.5 , low-range if it between –.5 and –.99 and lower-range if its’ score is below –1 (See Table 2). There are 10 parks that fall into what we label higher-range parks. These parks include Kulwicki Park in Greenfield; Cooper, Dretzka, Gordon, Lake and Zablocki Parks in Milwaukee; LaFollette and Rainbow Parks in West Allis; West Milwaukee Park located in its’ namesake village; and Kletzsch Park in Glendale. Another eight parks fall within the high range. As with any data that is normally distributed the majority of parks fall within the mid-range scores. Of the 52 parks, 22 fall within this range. At the other end of the scale there are five parks at the lower-range and eight parks in the low-range. Of these lower scoring parks, eight are in Milwaukee-Johnsons, King, Vogel, South Shore, McGovern, Jackson, Smith and Cannon. Other low scoring parks are Greene Park, is in St. Francis, Cudahy Park is in its namesake city and Wisconsin Avenue Park in Wauwatosa. The final low-scoring parks, Brown Deer and Estabrook cross municipal boundaries. The lowest standardized park score was given to Johnsons Park in Milwaukee. Appendix B illustrates geographically the standardized scores received by parks. Interestingly, 26% of the parks located in the suburbs receive negative standardized scores compared with 44% of Milwaukee parks. General Features The standardized score provides one number that groups all the park features. A second illustration of the impression-based scores focuses on what the Forum refers to as
27
Table 2. Parks by Standardized Score for all Features
-0.58 -0.62 -0.64 -0.77 -0.78 -0.86 -0.97 -1.1 -1.12 -1.24 -1.51 -2.06
28
Lower-Range
M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e C rosses M u n icipal Borders W auwatosa M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e Cudahy S t . Francis M ilw a u k e e
Low-Range
M cGovern Cannon S m ith Estabrook W isconsin Ave. Jackson South Shore Vogel K ing Cudahy Greene Johnsons
Range
Mid-Range
Standardized Score 3 .59 1.81 1.77 1.6 3 1.55 1.37 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.05 0 .98 0.91 0 .9 0 .82 0 .79 0 .69 0 .67 0 .5 0 .37 0 .35 0 .31 0 .31 0 .27 0 .25 0 .22 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.15 0 .11 0 .03 0 .02 -0.03 -0.12 -0.26 -0.29 -0.3 -0.41 -0.5 -0.55
High-Range
C ity G reenfield M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e G lendale W est A llis M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e W est A llis M ilw a u k e e W est M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e H a les C o r n e r s M ilw a u k e e W auwatosa Cudahy W auwatosa F ranklin W est A llis W est A llis G r e e n d a le M ilw a u k e e W auwatosa S o u th M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e F o x P o int M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e Cudahy M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e H a les C o r n e r s M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e M ilw a u k e e C rosses M u n icipal Borders
Higher-Range
Park Kulwicki Lake Zablocki K letzsch L a F o llette Gordon Cooper Rainbow D retzka W est M ilw a u k e e A lcott H a les C o r n e r s W ilson R e c . C e n t e r Jacobus P u laski-C u d a h y Hoyt Froemm ing Greenfield M cCarty Scout Lake Kops M a d ison Grant Sherm a n L indsay Doctors D ineen Carver Sheridan L incoln Noyes W ashington H o ller H u m b o ldt M itchell W h itn a ll Kosciuszko W ilson Kern Brown Deer
general features. These are features that most of the parks we visited contain. They include such things as picnic areas, playground areas, park buildings, restrooms and park benches. Instead of creating a standardized score for this variable, we report both individual scores and the overall average. The range in scores for general park features is from 2.1 to 3.3 on a four-point scale. The average score is 2.6. Table 3 illustrates these feature scores. Before taking a look at some of the individual parks, it is worth pointing out that the feature with the highest impression score across all parks is playground equipment. Thirty-four of the fifty-two parks receive a 3.0 or higher score on this feature. This is due to a concerted effort by Milwaukee County Parks to replace old, unsafe equipment. The result is new equipment in most parks that provides a positive impression of this feature. This uniformity in impression contrasts with some other features that differ quite dramatically from park to park. In order to understand these scores better it is beneficial to take a deeper look at a few parks. King Park, a 21-acre neighborhood park in Milwaukee, has an average score of 2.1. This score is the outcome of low impression scores for picnic tables, garbage receptacles, playground areas and water fountains. Our parks assessor summed it up this way, “The playground area is uneven, with grass growing in the sand and graffiti on the otherwise nice equipment and no benches for the parents. Across the park, there are too few garbage receptacles and some are overflowing with litter , which ends up on the ground. Although the park building provides outside access to restrooms, these door were always locked. And as has been the case during each visit, there are no water fountains available to park patrons.” In the higher-range parks we find Cooper Park with an average score of 3.1. As described by one of our parks assessors, “Cooper is a very small neighborhood park. It is clean and well maintained. The garbage receptacles had bags in them and during the three visits to the park, there was never any litter around. The playground area was nice and clean with woodchips, rather than sand surrounding the equipment.” The largest number of parks are within midrange. These include such parks as Sheridan Park in Cudahy and Doctor’s Park in Fox Point These numbers do not include recreational activities, sidewalks and walkways or flora.
Recreational Features
Many park-users are drawn to county parks for the wide-variety of recreational activities that are available. The next table illustrates the individual scores on recreational activities along with providing a total average score on available recreational activities by park. The average score is 2.7 with a range form 1.5 to 3.8 (Table 4). Before highlighting some average scores of
29
Table 3. General Feature Scores by Park
Note: No number means park does not have that feature or in a few cases feature was not able to be assessed.
30
Bike Racks
3.6 2.4 2.6 3.2
2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.5 1.9 3.0 2.1 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.2 3.3 2.8 2.1 1.7 2.7
2.2 2.9
Park Benches Average 3.8 3.3 2.8 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.4 3.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.3 2.1
Range
LowerRange
Playground Playground Park Water Areas Equipment Buildings Restrooms Fountains 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.7 3.1 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.5 3.2 3.8 3.0 2.6 2.0 3.6 3.9 3.0 2.7 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.4 3.0 3.2 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.2 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.5 3.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.5 3.4 2.2 2.5 2.3 3.3 3.4 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 1.9 2.4 1.9 3.8 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 1.9 2.6 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.1 3.4 1.9 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.9 1.9 3.0 3.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.2 2.4 3.3 2.9 1.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.5 2.3 2.6 3.2 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.4 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.1 2.5 3.3 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.9 3.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 3.0 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.6 3.3 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 3.1 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 3.5 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.3 3.3 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.8 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.6
Low-Range
Garbage Receptacles 2.4 3.0 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.1 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6
Mid-Range
Picnic Tables 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.7 3.2 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.6
High-Range
Picnic Areas 2.8 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.4 3.0 2.6 2.0 3.2 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.3 3.2 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.0
HigherRange
Park Kulwicki Cooper Gordon Zablocki Lake LaFollette Wilson Rec. Pulaski-Cudahy Kops Noyes Kletzsch Hales Corners Jacobus Rainbow Alcott Grant Washington Froemming Humboldt Wisconsin Ave. Doctors Dretzka Madison West Milwaukee Vogel Scout Lake Sheridan Sherman Carver Lindsay Dineen Holler Kosciuszko Greene Cannon McCarty Greenfield Lincoln Hoyt Mitchell McGovern Kern Estabrook Wilson South Shore Cudahy Smith Brown Deer Jackson Whitnall King Johnsons
parks on recreational activities, it is valuable to explore some of the variation across parks within a particular recreational activity. The most commonly available activity in the parks visited is softball, which is available at 40 of the 52 visited parks. The range in impression scores for this activity is extreme from .8 at Noyes Park to 3.6 at Wilson Recreation Center. This variation is summed up by the assessors this way, “At Noyes Park the field looks awful with weeds growing over the infield. It seems that someone should decide either to clean it up or get rid of it.” And at Wilson Recreation the impression is described this way, “There are four fields, one is located in a stadium that is very impressive. All the fields are in excellent shape.” The next most commonly available activities are basketball courts and wading pools that are found in over 25 parks that were assessed. Again the range in scores on these activities is wide. For basketball the scores range from lows of .8 at Vogel Park and 1.0 at Greene Park to 3.7 at McGovern. From our assessors’ point of view it appears that the ill-repair of the basketball courts is intended to discourage use. At Smith Park, as well as West Milwaukee Park, the basketball hoops and backboards have been removed. During a visit to Vogel Park, where only the backboards remain, one young park user, basketball in hand, did not let the downed hoops deter his love for the game; he explained to the assessor, “...we just shoot at where the hoops should be.” At Greene the hoops are leaning, there are no lines for courts and the hoops look like they are going to fall over. In contrast at McGovern Park, basketball is clearly encouraged with most people in the park playing basketball. The updated fenced courts that look great. The contrast in the appearance of wading pools is also evident when looking at this recreational activity by park. The scores range from 1.9 at McCarty to 3.8 at Carver and 3.9 at Gordon. However, the Carver Park wading pool is actually a water playground and at Gordon Parks is a brand new “Splashpad,” which opened in summer 2002. According to our assessors over the course of five visits the pad looked great and appeared to be heavily used. At McCarty the lower score was described this way, “The pool is not bad; it is just so plain and not aesthetically pleasing that it ranks below other pools I have visited in the system.” In terms of the total, average score on recreation, 11 parks received marks in the highest range at least 3.0 or above for recreational activities. This compares with four parks that reached this range when assessing general features. In some cases some of the lower scoring parks in terms of general features are some of the top-scoring parks in the area of recreation and vice versa. This is the case for Lincoln and Hoyt Parks which are in the low or lower-range for general features and in the high and higher-range for recreational activities. The opposite is true at Noyes Park that scores a 2.7 for general features and a 2.4 for recreational activities. Interestingly, within particular parks the condition of recreational activities is extremely varied. In approximately 20 of the 52 parks our assessors have impression scores for
31
Table 4. Recreational Features by Park Baseball Softball Basketball Fields Fields Courts
Soccer Swimming Wading Golf Fields Pool Pool Course 2.6
3.9 3.5
3.0
3.6
3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2
2.8 3.1 2.6
3.2 3.5 3.2
3.2 3.3 3.5 1.8
2.2 1.6 2.1
2.8
3.0 1.8 2.4 3.6 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.7 1.8 2.8 3.1 3.2 2.4
3.2
3.0
2.8 2.7
2.7 2.2 2.6 2.3
3.1 3.1
3.1
2.9 3.3 2.8
3.9 2.8 2.2 3.1 1.9 1.8 2.5
2.6 2.9
1.9 3.8
2.0
3.2
2.5 2.8
3.1
2.8 4.0
2.9 2.8 3.8 1.5 2.3 1.7 3.0
3.5 2.8 3.3
2.8 3.0 2.7
1.3 2.9
2.6 3.2 1.6
1.8 1.7 2.6
2.4
2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 3.0
1.1 3.7 3.2
3.1
2.5 2.2 2.6 1.0
3.0 1.1
1.0 0.8
1.9 2.0
3.0
2.4 1.4
3.0 2.6
Note: No number means park does not have that feature or in a few cases feature was not able to be assessed.
32
Lower-Range
1.7 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.8
3.3
2.7
2.8
2.9 1.8 2.5
3.1
Low-Range
2.6 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 0.8
2.8
Mid-Range
2.8 2.7
2.9 2.4 2.3 3.2
3.4 2.8 2.6
High-Range
2.1 3.3 2.4 2.9 3.2
2.8 2.9 3.1 1.9
3.0 2.2 2.6 3.0 2.5
Tennis Sand Other Other Courts Volleyball Recreation 1 Recreation 2 Average Range 3.8 3.8 3.3 2.6 2.9 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.0 3.1 2.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.9 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.7 3.7 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.5 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.8 1.7 3.5 2.8 3.7 2.2 3.0 2.8 3.3 2.7 1.4 3.3 2.7 1.5 3.0 3.6 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.3 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.6 2.3 2.6 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.6 1.1 2.5 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 1.8 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.5 2.4 3.5 1.8 2.4 1.0 2.2 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.2 2.1 0.8 2.6 2.0 1.5 Higher-Range
Park Kulwicki Gordon Dretzka West Milwaukee Kletzsch LaFollette Pulaski-Cudahy Hoyt Holler Lincoln Lindsay Rainbow Lake Sherman Zablocki Greenfield Madison Froemming Whitnall McCarty King Carver Wilson Rec. Center Wilson Dineen Brown Deer Alcott Estabrook Jacobus Kosciuszko Hales Corners Sheridan Mitchell Jackson Scout Lake Washington Kops Grant Smith Cooper McGovern Noyes Humboldt South Shore Doctors Cannon Cudahy Kern Wisconsin Ave. Johnsons Greene Vogel
one recreational activity greater than 3.1 and for another lower than 2.0. Two examples help to underscore this point. In Lake Park the tennis courts and lawn bowling facilities are top-notch scoring 3.7. As described by one assessor, “The lawn-bowling area is in great shape, it is well kept and over the course of six visits it has always been in use.” However, the softball field is described this way, “The infield is in poor condition, and the outfield is not in great shape.” This impression is summed up in the low-score of 1.9 for the field. Brown Deer Park is also a portrait of extremes, with the golf course receiving a perfect score of 4.0. The views of our assessors over the course of five visits can be summed up this way, “Course looks great - very well maintained.” However, the tennis courts receive a score of 1.9 which is clarified by this description, “There are cracks in the surface, some are patched others have weeds growing. The nets are o.k. but there is debris around the edges of the courts. Over the course of the summer the area around the tennis courts became obstructed with clutter from construction and the GMO.” “Green” Spaces Up to this point we have been examining general features and recreational activities. We now turn to focus on the flora of the parks, or what we refer to as the green spaces. This includes, lawns, ravines and bluffs, trees, shrubs and plants as well as foot paths and bridges. The next table indicates the individual scores on these factors where applicable and again provides an overall average score for each park. What is immediately apparent from Table 5 is the positive impression of the green areas of the parks. Thirty-six of the 52 parks are in the high and higher range for this feature. This compares to just three parks that are in the low and lower range. Also of note is the fact that the overall average for this feature is higher at 2.8 than other aspects that were examined. The impression of specific features is also less varied than with other aspects we have highlighted in this report. For example the impression of the trees/shrubs/plants across the parks never goes below 2.2, with only one park receiving this score. In terms of the lawns at the park just two parks score below a 2.0 for this aspect. We find these low scores at South Shore and Holler Parks. At South Shore our assessors found during the course of spending 6 ½ hours at the park over five visits the park was dirty. The lawns received such a low score primarily because the lawn needed to be cut on more than one visit and there was trash lying around. A number of parks that were in the low and lower-range for general features are in the higher range for this aspect. This includes Whitnall, Brown Deer, Hoyt and King Parks. This variation is obvious with Hoyt Park which averages a score of 2.4 for general features and a 3.2 for green spaces. As described by our assessor, “The lawn was nice and looked good the entire summer despite dry weather. The trees and shrubs in the park are nice and truly enhance the park.”
33
Table 5. Green Space by Park
1.8
2 .6
2 .5 2.9 3.6
3.1 3 2 .3 2.6 2 .8 2.9
2 .1
2.6
2 .7 2 .1 2.6
2.8 2 .7 3.1 2.5
2.6 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.4
2 .7 2.8
3.1
3 2.5
2
2 .1
Note: No number means park does not have that feature or in a few cases feature was not able to be assessed.
34
2 .2
Range
Low- LowerRange Range
2.4
2.9
2.9
Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .4 2.3 2.3
Mid-Range
W isconsin Ave.
2.2 2.9
2 .8 2.9
Foot Bridges/Foot Paths 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.1 3
High-Range
Lawns 2.7 2 .9 3.2 2 .9 3 2.7 2 .9 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.1 2 .8 3 3.2 2 .5 2 .6 2 .9 2 .8 2 .6 2 .8 3 3.2 2 .9 2 .9 2 .6 2 .9 3.1 2.7 2 .6 2.7 2 .6 2 .6 2.7 2.3 2 .5 2 .5 2 .1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 2 .9 2 .5 1.7 2 .1 2 .5 2.3 2 .8 2 .6 2 .5 1.3
Trees/Shrubs /Plants 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3 2 .9 3.3 2 .9 3.4 3.2 3 2 .9 3 3.3 3.1 2.7 3.1 3 2.8 3.3 2.7 2.5 2 .9 3 2 .9 3.6 2 .9 2.8 3.2 3 3 3.1 2.7 2 .6 2 .6 2 .9 2 .4 2.8 3.1 3 3.2 2.8 2.3 2 .2 2.5 2 .6
Higher-Range
Park Lake Kulw icki K letzsch Hoyt Hales Corners Dretzka S m ith Kern Zablocki Cannon M ilw a u k e e Greenfield LaFollette W h itnall Grant Doctors A lcott Cooper Jacobus Brown Deer R a inbow M cCarty W ilson Rec. D ineen Scout Lake Carver Froem m ing K ing M itchell M cGovern Sheridan W ashington H u m b o ldt Kops Lindsay Vogel W ilson Pulaski-Cudahy Cudahy Sherm a n Greene Johnsons Kosciuszko H o ller Lincoln Jackson Gordon Noyes M adison Estabrook South Shore
Ravines & B luffs 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3
Non-Green Spaces The final aspect we examined in our park visits can be called the non-green spaces or the sidewalks, walkways, parking lots, streets and (where applicable) the monuments in the park. The average score on non-green park aspects is 2.6 with a range from 1.9 at Lindsay Park to a high of 3.5 at Alcott Park (Table 6). As with green spaces there are several parks that have low-scores on general features that are in the high and higher-range on non-green spaces. This includes Hoyt, Smith, South Shore, Mitchell and Kern. At the opposite end we find Cooper, Pulaski-Cudahy, Wisconsin Ave. and Gordon Parks scoring in the high and higher range on general features and in the lower ranges on non-green spaces. Though streets and parking lots may not be features that attract park users, they are still an important aspect of a park. The impression of parking lots is quite varied from a low of 1.9 at Sheridan to a high of 3.3 at Gordon. The poor condition of the parking lot at Sheridan contrasts with the new parking lot at Gordon. We include monuments in this part of the analysis, though only ten of the parks we visited had monuments. Only one monument received a score higher than 3.0. This high score of 3.8 was given to the Patrick Cudahy and Cudahy War Memorials at Sheridan Park. In the views of the assessors, the monuments were excellent, well kept and well presented. Moreover, the flower beds around the monuments are well taken care of and provide a nice compliment to the monuments. At Gordon Park there was a lannonstone circle that we included in this category though it may not be a specific monument. It was in extremely poorcondition receiving a .5 average score. As described by one assessor, “There is a lannonstone circle with a bench-like ledge around it. It was covered in graffiti and also had weeds growing up. The rest of the park is renovated and nice; this decaying structure detracts from all the improvements at the park.” The variation in the condition of sidewalks and walkways is evident in the fact that 16 parks receive impression scores for this aspect that are in the low and lower-range. Few other park features find so many parks in the low-range. Overall the walkways appear to be in various stages of wear. In low-scoring parks the sidewalks are rough and cracked. In other parks the sidewalks have been recently resurfaced. In some of the lowest scoring parks the condition of the sidewalks appeared unsafe for bikers and in-line skaters.
35
Table 6. Non-Green Spaces by Park Park
Streets
Parking L o ts
M onum ents
Average 3 .5
3 .2 3 .1
3 .2 3 .1 3 .0
2 .5 3 .2 3 .1 2 .8
3 .0
Range Higher-Range
3 .0 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9
3 .1 2 .9 3 2 .6
3 .2 2 .3 2 .7 2 .7 3 .5
2 .9 2 .9 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8
High-Range
2 .8
3 .1 3 3 2 .7 3 .3 2 .7 3 .2 2 .9 2 .5
3 .8 2 .4
2 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8
3
2 .7 2 .7 2 .7 2 .7
2
2 .7 2 .6 2 .6
2 .2
2 .6 2 .6 2 .6
2 .8
2 .8 2 .8 2 .6
2 .4 2 .8
2 .2 2 .4 2 .4
2 .8
2 .6 2 .6
2 .2 2 .3 2 .5 2 .4 2 .4 2 .3 2 .3 2 .2 3 .3
2 .6
2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6
2 .4
2 .5 2 .5 2 .3
0 .5
2 .3 2 .3
2 .6
2 .3 2 .3 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .1
2 .3
2 .1 1 .9
Note: No number means park does not have that feature or in a few cases feature was not able to be assessed.
36
Lower-Range
2 .7
2 .3 2 .1
Low-Range
2 .7 2 .9 2 .7 2 .3 2 .8 2 .9 2 .4 2 .4 3 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 2 .8 2 .8 2 .7 2 .6 2 .6 2 .7 2 .7 2 .9 2 .9 2 3 .1 2 .3 2 2 .3 1.9 2 .2 2 .2 2 .1 1.8 1.9
1.9 2 .4 2 .5 2 .8 2 .2 2 .7 2 .5 2 .6 2 .5 2 .6 3 2 .6
Mid-Range
A lcott Hoyt Rainbow Kern M cCarty Kulwicki Froem m ing H ales C o rners L a F o llette W e s t M ilw a u k e e South Shore Scout Lake K letz s c h G reenfield W ilson R e c . Center Jacobus S m ith Sheridan M itchell W h itn a l l Zablocki Jackson M cGovern D retzka G rant Lake Estabrook M adison Doctors Johnsons Kops W ashington Carver W ilson H u m b o ldt L incoln Sherm an D ineen K ing Kosciuszko Noyes Brow n D eer G o rdon Cannon P u laski-C u d a h y W isconsin Ave. H o lle r Cudahy Vogel Cooper G reene Lindsay
Sidew a lks/Paved W alkw ays 3 .5 3 .2 3 3 3 .5 2 .7 2 .7 3 2 .9 2 .9 2 .3 3 .4 2 .9 2 .7 2 .3 2 .8 2 .8 2 .3 3 .2
Summary of Feature Scores
Table 7. Summary of Range Scores by Feature
As a final illustration of our impression based evaluation of the parks, we report in Table 7 a summary of the range-scores for each park by feature. What is evident from this table is the variation across features for many parks. This variation makes it problematic to come up with one final score or grade for each park.
Park Kulwicki LaFollette Lake Zablocki Froemming Hoyt Kletzsch Rainbow West Milwaukee Wilson Rec. Center Alcott Cooper Dretzka Gordon Greenfield Hales Corners Jacobus McCarty Mitchell Pulaski-Cudahy Whitnall Kern Kops Lindsay Scout Lake Sheridan Smith Brown Deer Cannon Carver Dineen Doctors Grant Holler Humboldt King Lincoln Madison McGovern Sherman South Shore Vogel Washington Cudahy Estabrook Greene Jackson Johnsons Kosciuszko Noyes Wilson Wisconsin Ave.
Park users ultimately decide what feature is important to them and will assess it accordingly. For example, parents whose children are in little league will want to know about the baseball fields; bikers and walkers will focus on the walkways and footpaths available throughout the system. For these reasons, it is extremely difficult to label each park with one value that will adequately encompass this tremendous diversity. We have chosen to avoid these labels by presenting five different assessments of park features. The visited parks fall into different ranges depending on the feature. In fact 19 of the parks receive scores in the high or higher range on one feature and in the low or lower-range on another feature. A few examples help to highlight this point. Kern Park has recreational features that score quite low, but is contrasted with green-spaces that score in the higher-range. The picture painted by our assessors is one of a beautiful park with stately trees and nicely groomed lawns, contrasting with poorly maintained tennis courts and an average softball field. A different picture is evi-
37
Standardized Score
General Features
Recreation
Green Spaces
Non-Green Spaces
HHR
HHR
HHR
HHR
HHR
HHR
HR
HHR
HHR
HR
HHR
HR
HR
HHR
MR
HHR
HHR
HR
HHR
HR
HR
MR
HR
HR
HR
HR
LR
HHR
HHR
HHR
HHR
MR
HHR
HHR
HR
HHR
MR
HR
HR
HHR
HHR
MR
HR
HR
HHR MR
HHR
HR
HR
HR
HR
MR
MR
HR
HHR
HHR
HHR
MR
HR
LLR
HHR
MR
HHR
HHR
MR
HHR
HHR
HHR
MR
LR
MR
MR
HHR
HR
HR
MR
HR MR
HHR
HR
HR
MR
MR
HR
HR
MR
MR
HR
HR
HHR HR
MR
LR
MR
HR
HR
HR
HHR
MR
LR
MR
LLR
HR
HHR
HR
MR
LR
HHR
HR
LLR MR
HHR
MR
HR
MR
MR
MR
HR
LLR
MR
MR
HHR MR
HR
HR
MR
MR
MR
HR
HR
LR
LR
MR
HHR
HR
LR
LR
MR
HR
LR
LR
MR
HHR
LR
MR
MR
LR MR
HR
MR
MR
MR
MR
HR
MR
MR
MR
HR
MR
MR
MR
LR MR
HR
MR
MR
MR
HHR
MR
LLR
MR
MR
MR
LLR
LR MR
HR
LLR
HR
MR
MR
LR
HHR
MR
MR
MR
MR
HR
LR
MR
LR
LR
LR
HR
MR
MR
MR
HR
MR
MR
LR
LR
LR
LR
HR
LLR
MR
HR
LLR
MR
MR
LLR MR
HR
MR
LLR
LR
LR MR
MR
LLR
LR
MR
LLR MR
MR
LLR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
LLR
LR
LR
LR
LLR
MR
LR
LR
LLR
LLR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
LR
LR MR
LR
MR
LLR
LLR MR
dent in Greenfield Park where our assessors found the recreational activities to be outstanding, but find the general features of the park, such as picnic areas, playgrounds and restrooms, to be of poorer quality in terms of maintenance, cleanliness and adequacy. In the end just four parks fall into the high and higher range for each feature analyzed. These are Kulwicki, Zablocki, LaFollette and Lake. No parks receive scores in the low-range for every feature. However, there are nine parks that do not receive any scores in the high or higher range. These include Wisconsin Avenue, Wilson, Noyes, Kosciuszko, , Johnsons, Jackson, Greene, Estabrook and Cudahy.
Neighborhood Characteristics and Impression-Based Scores As a final look into this assessment data we compared the overall standardized scores with some neighborhood characteristics in order to uncover whether any pattern exists as to our impression-based score and the community surrounding the park. This type of analysis serves to underscore the importance of connecting neighborhood characteristics with the impression of the parks. Still this analysis does not allow for a direct conclusion of the relationship between neighborhood and parks. It should be interpreted narrowly as a heuristic device that allows for another level of comparison of parks and their neighborhoods. To do this we looked at the following neighborhood characteristics: Population, Race/ethnicity, Owner-Occupancy of Homes, Average Household Size, Median Age, Median Home Value and Median Household Income. Next we gathered census data on each of these characteristics for the neighborhood immediately surrounding the park. We defined neighborhood based on the size of the park. Measuring from the center of the park, the neighborhood is 1/2 mile if the park is under 24 acres, 3/4 mile if the park is between 25-69 acres, 1 mile if the park is between 70 and 159 acres and 1 1/2 miles if the park is over 160 acres. Boundaries include all census tracts where 1/4 of the tract falls within the specified boundary. In Table 8 we report an analysis of these characteristics with the standardized score received by each of the 52 parks on all features. What this table initially shows is the Pearson correlation between two sets of numbers. A positive number indicates that when the corresponding characteristic increases we find increasing standardized impression scores. The size of the number corresponds to the strength of the relationship. Therefore, overall we find that parks with higher percent white population, higher median home values and higher median household incomes are associated with parks with higher impression based
38
T a b l e 8 . B i v a r i a t e R e latio n s h i p b e t w e e n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f N e i g h b o r h o o d S u r r o u n d i n g P a r k a n d S t a n d a r d i z e d I m p ressio n S c o re Variable P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o efficien t P e r c e n t W h ite 0 .35 P o p u latio n -0.08 Percent O w ner O c c u p ied H o m e s 0 .2 Average Household Size -0.23 M edian Age 0 .27 M edian H o m e V a lue 0 .35 M edian Household Incom e 0 .35
scores. The fact that correlation scores are higher than .30 suggests that the relationship is statistically strong. The statistical relationship highlighted in the previous table is clarified in the next table (Table 9.). This table depicts characteristics of a park neighborhood with the five ranges of impression-based standardized scores. Table 9. Average Score by Community Characteristics and Standardized Impression-Based Score Average Percent Percent Owner Household White Occupied Size Lower Range 58% 44% 2.6 Low Range 68% 54% 2.4 Mid Range 68% 56% 2.5 High Range 90% 66% 2.5 Higher Range 86% 57% 2.3
Population 2000 8,188 11,561 12,332 9,214 9,470
Median Median Home Age Value 32 $84,258 35 $101,466 36 $101,618 38 $125,487 36 $137,242
Median Household Income $31,352 $41,751 $40,827 $50,712 $49,067
For example, the percent of residents who are white are between 28 and 32 percentage points higher for parks in the higher-range than the lower-range. The trend in percent owneroccupied suggests that owner-occupancy in the high and higher-range parks is 13 to 22 percentage points higher than the lower-range. Median household income for neighborhoods with lower-range parks is just 64% of that of neighborhoods near higher-range parks. Finally, the median home values for homes in the lower-range is just 61% of the value of homes near higherrange parks. Together these relationships suggest a pattern between the impression-based score of county parks and the condition of the demographic characteristics of the neighborhood. Neighborhoods that have a higher percent white population, more home-ownership, more affluence (measured both in terms of home value and household income) and contain an older population of residents are more likely to be located near parks scoring high or higher on the standardized impression-based score than near parks that score in the low or lower-range.
39
Again, it is important to underscore the point that this type of analysis does not demonstrate a direct, causal relationship between neighborhoods and park conditions, In fact, these relationships may be spurious since no attempt has been made to control for other factors that may be related to park conditions, such as individual park budgets, volunteer organizations affiliated with parks, size of park or age of park. Yet, this type of analysis improves our understanding of the relationship between the impression of park conditions and surrounding neighborhoods. Our first look offers enough information that further studies that can go beyond the scope of this analysis should be undertaken.
Conclusion When this research was initiated, there was a general sense portrayed by people we first interviewed and reports we read that Milwaukee County Parks are in crises. There was a perception that the park system was failing the residents of this county. Such an extreme conclusion is avoided here. This is primarily because what we have learned about Milwaukee county parks is that we still have an attractive system of open spaces - a system that with the proper attention and financial commitment can thrive. It will never be confused for a country club, but neither should it be compared with a blighted ghetto. By first stepping back and taking a historical look at the parks, we have confirmed that our park system has never been stagnant. This ever-changing system was ahead of its time in identifying the regional value of parks for all Milwaukee County residents and seizing the opportunity to unite a fragmented system of municipal parks. Given the renewed focus on regionalizing public services, this foresight should not be forgotten. The duplication that is endemic in other areas of service delivery is avoided by having a single county entity control the vast majority of public space in Milwaukee County. There is no mistaking the financial strain that the Milwaukee County Parks has been under. The end result is that in order to meet the diminishing public commitment to our parks, workers have been cut, services slashed and amenities neglected. The residents of this county are left with an important decision: whether to continue with the current funding formulas and to reduce either park amenities, acreage or both, or to change the way the system operates. Our recommendation is to fully reorganize the funding structure for parks. In creating a dedicated tax rate or sales tax for parks, the county can meet the needs of this department without unduly burdening its taxpayers. Assessing the condition of our parks was our next task in this research. By sending researchers into the field to spend hundreds of hours visiting parks, examining over 29 features and scoring each of these features, we have been able to create impression-based scores
40
for 52 parks. These scores enable us to report a standardized score for all features as well as separate scores for individual features. The end result was a list of parks by score. We found that a number of parks receive high scores in such areas as green spaces and low scores for recreational activities. Still other parks receive high scores for non-green spaces and low scores for general features. In the end there is a great deal of variation within parks across these measures. Yet, a few parks consistently scored on the high and higher range and others consistently scored in the low-range. Just four parks — Kletzsch, LaFollette, Zablocki and Kulwicki — fell into the high and higher-range for all features. Of these four, only one is in the City of Milwaukee; the rest are in the surrounding suburbs. Of the 13 parks that do not receive any scores in the high-range, nine are located within the City of Milwaukee. Parks that receive higher impression-based scores are associated with neighborhoods that have a higher percent white population, higher household income, higher home values and older residents. As noted above these tend to be located outside of the City of Milwaukee. However, it is important to underscore the point that finding an association between neighborhood and park impression-based scores is not the same as finding a direct, causal link. Our analysis requires further exploration. This exploration could best begin by conducting an analysis of spending by park. Such an analysis is problematic given the current methods of reporting expenditures by district rather than by park. Without such an individual-level analysis, we are left to conclude that neighborhood matters: There is a systematic relationship between neighborhood and the impression-based score of a park. Parks in affluent areas tend to receive higher scores than parks in poorer areas of the county. The role that public spaces play in a healthy society is difficult to measure. Some may conclude that the role is minor, others may argue that such a relationship is a key to the economic and social success of this region. What is clear is that decades before the current generation became stewards of this land, our predecessors deemed public space to be of critical importance. Their acquisition of land and development of parks is a testament to that commitment. It is now up to current residents of Milwaukee County to decide the value they place on their parkland.
41
