Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor: How does PenMet compare to other park districts?
PenMet has referred to data provided by the National Recreation and Park Association or “NRPA.” NRPA has 7 key metrics it uses to compare one park with another. The NRPA metric data is compiled from a thousand park districts across the country. I’ve used the data for park districts with between 20,000 and 50,000 residents — comparable to PenMet. The 7 key metrics are:
- Residents per park
- Acres of parkland per thousand residents
- Residents per playground
- Full-time equivalent employees (FTE’s) per 10,000 residents
- Percentage of full-time staff dedicated to operations/maintenance
- Operating expenditures per capita
- Revenue to operating expenditures
Residents per park
Note: The SMALLER this number, the better as it means the park district has more space in its parks for each resident. PenMet has plenty of acreage under its control. This raises the question of why PenMet is so strident in its desire to buy even more properties? Why not concentrate on upgrading its existing parks—some of which are completely unused. By this metric PenMet does not need any more parks!
NRPA Key Metric: 2,014
PenMet’s Key Metric: 1,840
Acres of parkland per thousand residents
Note: Being the flipside of the first metric, the LARGER this number, the better as it means the park district has more acreage available in its parks for each resident. PenMet has a huge amount of acreage given the population in its park district. Another indicator that PenMet does not need any more parks!
NRPA Key Metric: 11.3
PenMet’s Key Metric: 16.3
Residents per playground
Note: The SMALLER this number, the better as it means the park district has more capacity in its playgrounds per resident. This metric clearly indicates a need for more playgrounds. Given PenMet’s already large acreage shown in the previous graph, the need for more playgrounds can be met using existing parks. Sad note here: PenMet has no additional playgrounds planned in its current Capital Improvement Project list for 2023. Why not?
NRPA Key Metric: 3,028
PenMet’s Key Metric: 20,238
Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per 10,000 residents
Note: This key metric clearly shows that PenMet is short staffed—but where is it short staffed? See the next Key Metric.
NRPA Key Metric: 10.7
PenMet’s Key Metric: 9.1
Percentage of full-time staff dedicated to operations/maintenance
Note: This key metric shows how the park district is with regard to staffing the frontline employees who actually maintain the parks. This provides the answer as to where PenMet is short staffed — the maintenance department. That highly trained team is overworked and, until recently, underpaid. Having voted unanimously to unionize, the maintenance team just recently received the raises they deserve.
Key Metric: 46%
PenMet’s Key Metric: 37%
Operating expenditures per capita
Note: This an interesting slide because PenMet has been showing data that shows if falls far behind similar park districts in per capita spending. Some of the comparison districts PenMet uses are not even in Washington state and some are not even Metropolitan Park Districts! Apples to oranges comparison. According to the NRPA, this data shows that PenMet is spending well above average on a per capita basis.
Key Metric: $103.95
PenMet’s Key Metric: $129.93
Revenue to operating expenditures
Why does PenMet need every tax dollar it can get? Here’s a big part of the answer!
This metric shows how much non-tax related income a park district generates as a percentage of total expenses. It shows how much the park’s operations contribute to paying the park’s expenses thus reducing the burden on the taxpayers. Why is PenMet pleading poverty? Look at the graph!
Key Metric: 25.7%
PenMet’s Key Metric: 10.1%
This chart clearly shows why PenMet, despite its property tax levies increasing by 77% from 2017 to 2023, is still pleading poverty. PenMet should concentrate on improving this metric.
Here’s a staggering number: PenMet needs to increase its earned income by about $820,000 just to get to average on this key metric! However, it gets even worse: If you remove ALL tax revenue and ALL investment interest almost all of which comes from bond funds allocated to the CRC (which will disappear as those funds are spent), PenMet’s Key Metric drops dramatically.
Key Metric: 25.7%
PenMet’s Key Metric: 4.5%
Summary
PenMet appears to have more than adequate acreage in its district. Its parks may not all be in the best locations, but the acreage is there and unused or poorly located properties can be sold to fund the purchase of properties in better locations. PenMet’s assertion that its per capita spending is very low compared to other park districts seems to be contradicted by the NRPA Key Metric of Operating Expenditures Per Capita. To me, the critical information here is that PenMet is not doing nearly enough to take some of the burden of its operations off the taxpayers’ shoulders.
PenMet is overly dependent on our tax dollars!
PenMet should work harder to earn its own dollars!
Craig McLaughlin
Fox Island
Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to about 800 words. Submit them on the Contact form by selecting “Letter to the Editor” from the Purpose dropdown.