Opinion: Park Authority funding priorities address community needs
The following opinion piece, by William G. Bouie, chairman of the Fairfax County Park Authority Board, was submitted in response to Jan. 19 article by Marie Reinsdorf raising concerns about the board’s decision-making focus on revenue generation.
We live in an age when relying on solid facts is more critical than ever. Just part of the story, or personal opinion or bias, or even misunderstandings of process, can significantly change our conversation and ultimately lead to misinformation.
For those reasons, the Park Authority Board felt compelled to respond to Marie Reinsdorf’s opinion piece of Jan. 19, 2021, which suggests that the Park Authority’s “parks-as-a-business” approach is bad for county residents. Let me speak to this general perspective first, before addressing some more specific points in her blog post.
Early in the piece, Ms. Reinsdorf criticizes Park Authority decision-making concerning RECenter redevelopment that has occurred in the past decade. However, the Park Authority’s mandate regarding RECenter funding has not changed since the first recreation center was established at Wakefield Park in 1977.
At that time, the county agreed to provide funding for facility development through voter-approved, tax-supported general obligation bonds and gave the Park Authority responsibility for self-generating operating funds through user fees.
That directive is as alive today as it was in 1977 and, therefore, influences our approach to managing Park Authority RECenters and other facilities and services funded via our Revenue and Operating Fund. That is not conjecture nor opinion but simply a fact.
User fee revenues from RECenters and other facilities go into the Park Authority’s Revenue and Operating Fund, for which Park Authority Board members have a fiduciary responsibility. Thus, the Park Authority manages the operations funded through its revenue fund in the most responsible manner possible, with a business-like approach to decision-making. Often this involves adapting to changing expectations and activity interests of the public we serve. Good governance and financial stewardship are our obligations, not a choice.
Throughout our 70 years of existence and service to this community, we have excelled under these fiscal realities. On multiple occasions, the Government Finance Officers Association has awarded the Park Authority’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report its highest honor, the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
Related story: Opinion: How the Park Authority’s increasing focus on parks-as-a-business is bad for us
We are one of only a handful of public park and recreation agencies to be a four-time winner of the National Gold Medal for Excellence in Parks and Recreation. Similarly, we are among a small, august group of local government park and recreation service providers who have been re-accredited three times by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies, meeting all 151 national standards each time. Contrary to a business approach being “bad for us,” these accolades are evidence that county residents are getting the very best in local park and recreation service delivery that the nation has to offer.
Ms. Reinsdorf charges that the Park Authority’s bond spending priorities have shifted to a focus on “revenue profitability.” In our 2016 Community Needs Assessment Survey, the public said their number-one priority was to repair and maintain existing parks and infrastructure, followed by expanding/upgrading existing park facilities.
Our actual spending priorities in both the 2016 and 2020 Park Authority bonds are in lockstep with the public’s priorities with park renovations and upgrades accounting for 56 percent of the bond package in 2016 and 53 percent in 2020.
This category of bond funding includes re-investment in RECenters, with funding for the Mount Vernon RECenter renovation and expansion and systemwide lifecycle replacements and repairs in 2016 and in 2020.
Additionally, funding was allocated for design and Phase 1 construction for the Audrey Moore RECenter and childcare/fitness center improvements at the Lee District, Cub Run, and Providence RECenters. Of course, both bonds include a variety of other park renovation and upgrade projects (along with other funding) which are summarized in the park bond at-a-glance links for 2016 and 2020.
Ms. Reinsdorf correctly notes that the Park Authority’s revenue fund “is now receiving funds that were originally designated for other purposes,” referring to monopole cell tower lease revenues.
This is primarily due to the unprecedented stress placed on Park Authority finances by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced us to use all available Reserve Fund assets in fiscal year 2020 and will likely require us to use monopole cell tower lease revenues in FY 2021, as well. It is our hope and expectation, however, that cell tower revenues can be returned to funding park maintenance and natural/cultural resource projects next fiscal year.
There is also a reference to the FCPA’s Systemwide RECenter Sustainability Study which provides a blueprint guiding RECenter redevelopment over the coming decade. This is an important planning document that accomplishes two things.
First, and foremost, it provides a specific plan for renovating our existing RECenter network over this decade to ensure our facilities stay relevant to the ever-changing needs and desires of the population we serve. In other words, making sure we stay “competitive.” Ms. Reinsdorf is troubled by this term and questions “why we are pouring precious resources into competing?” Whether RECenters belong in the indoor recreation and fitness space has been debated off and on since the 1970s when Wakefield was first conceived and constructed. The fact is Fairfax County residents have been demonstrative in their desire for the Park Authority to create and operate RECenters throughout the county ever since.
Staying current with the needs of county residents is critical since much of the service delivery we provide is discretionary and people decide whether to participate based on our ability to meet their needs. This plan also is aspirational in that it recommends new facilities that tap into unmet areas of need in the community – now and in the future.
We agree with Ms. Reinsdorf that “opportunities to leverage citizen power” to realize an even bigger and better park system should be maximized. Community support and empowerment comes in many forms, including increasing voter approval for park bonds that reached 76 percent in 2020.
We depend on the largess of thousands of volunteers who over the past several fiscal years have contributed an annual average of 192,274 hours of service, valued at more than $5.2 million annually as determined by Independent Sector.
Similarly, we count on the growing number of Friends groups and park volunteer teams (PVTs) who give selflessly of time, talent, and treasure worth millions each year in exchange for the simple satisfaction of giving back to our community. Currently, 14 Friends groups have signed Memorandums of Understanding with the Park Authority and 23 PVTs are active in the parks.
One of the strongest examples of community commitment is found in the work of the Fairfax County Park Foundation which provides financial support for those things that tax dollars cannot cover. From concerts in the parks, to free summer camps for children, to grants for capital projects and open space preservation, the nonprofit Park Foundation brings home the true meaning of philanthropy and a love for Fairfax County Parks. In FY 2019, the Park Foundation crested the $1 million dollar mark representing contributions from hundreds of individual donors, bequests, other foundations, and grants.
As for planning and service delivery integration with Neighborhood and Community Services (NCS), which Ms. Reinsdorf advocates, the Park Authority and NCS are partnering in the development and operation of the Sully Community Center. The Park Authority is providing $1.5 million to fund a second gym at the new community center and will provide programming through camps and classes to benefit the community. The approaching Mount Vernon Racquet Club reuse and renovation project that includes a Park Authority-funded athletic field is another example of NCS and Park Authority collaboration that benefits the community.
While the Park Authority’s hybrid general fund/revenue fund financing structure has allowed us to expand the provision of recreation and park services to the residents of Fairfax County well beyond what we would have been able to provide with a strictly general fund budget, we are not blind to the weaknesses of the funding model. That is why as a part of our commitment to One Fairfax, the Park Authority’s Equity Action Plan includes goals to provide access to safe parks countywide and to increase access to recreation and wellness opportunities for all county residents.
Realization of those goals includes achieving equitable access to all park facilities and programs, including RECenters and other revenue fund facilities, regardless of ability to pay.
Our ability to meet these objectives will take time and require partnerships with the county government and the community. As a step forward, the Park Authority Board in its next joint meeting with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will discuss equity in service delivery and emphasize the need to find a sustainable funding model that enables the Park Authority to realize its Equity Action Plan objectives. It is not only the right thing to do; it is also good business.
7 responses to “Opinion: Park Authority funding priorities address community needs”
Leave a reply
Right. And now they offer up park land to beef up developer proffers. Kill the Authority and make it a regular county department that answers to the BOS.
Mr. Bouie, thank you for your letter.
I started this recent research and writing endeavor after receiving an incorrect and incomplete reply to what seemed to me a most straightforward request about how bond money was spent at the John & Margaret White Gardens.
I see the struggles of the revenue operating fund model, I know it’s difficult and complicated to operate; so, my theme is simply, does our current system work for us, today? Since the Prince William County Park Authority board voted in 2011 to dissolve itself and become a regular parks & rec department, we are the only jurisdiction in the commonwealth operating its parks system as an Authority (NOVA Parks being a multi-jurisdiction Authority).
The county has changed much since the Park Authority was founded in 1950. Couldn’t we all have open and honest discussion about what’s working and what isn’t.
Lastly, if the Authority would report, comprehensively and clearly, how bond funds have been spent, members of the public could draw their own conclusions, using those facts.
I look forward to the future, and I thank you board members for serving.
Marie Reinsdorf
Thank you Mr. Bouie for discussing the PA's priorities and bond funding disposition. Unfortunately, your process is not an open one to residents. After reading the Park Authority's January 13 Board Minutes, one paragraph stood out to me and is quoted below:
"a) Discussion or consideration of publicly held real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held property, where discussion in an open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body,
pursuant to Virginia Code §2.2-3711(A)(3)."
I can understand going into a closed session for personnel matters, but not for the purpose of selling, trading, giving parkland away that belongs to Fairfax County residents. Residents need to know from the beginning what the Park Authority is negotiating on land deals. The process needs to be open from the beginning not just after the fact when all the plans and negotiations have been decided by the Park Authority.
When I look at the parks and facilities provided by the Arlington or DC Park and Rec departments, I see glaring disparities compared to Fairfax.
Many of Arlington's playgrounds have been renovated with fantastic, creative play spaces that offer challenges for children of all ages. DC also has been innovative with playgrounds and dog parks, and in addition, DC offers its many indoor and outdoor pools free for use to DC residents.
In contrast, oftentimes, our Fairfax parks' playgrounds are not renovated, or, in the case of the recent Justice renovation, were designed without any community input. Indeed, it took significant advocacy by nearby neighbors to even add toddler features in that playground, which had previously been accessible to toddlers and older children. The playground has had continual maintenance issues, which went unaddressed despite much outreach. The parks are also frequently overrun with invasives, including ivy.
In addition, facilities across the county vary widely. Providence Rec is so far behind Oak Marr or Cub Run, which serve more affluent communities.
There may be advantages to the Park and Rec structure in terms of accountability for results. Even without that, the Fairfax Park Authority could be more responsive and a better partner to communities.
I will say I am glad we don’t do parks like Arlington does parks. I have found Arlington’s parks overly extravagant – with the associated price tags nauseatingly high and seemingly a shining example of government excess. A shining example was the multi million dollar dog park https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/02/18/dog-park-cost-almost-2-million/
Would it be nice if Fairfax County did its parks a bit better? Sure. And there are valid complaints here about the maintenance of parks in other areas of the county vs here, and I don’t feel Ms Reinsdorf’s questions about misappropriated bond money have yet been answered (this was a missed opportunity to put those concerns to bed)
But please let’s not become Arlington.
They are an "Authority" and can do WHATEVER they want. Partnering with communities is so far away from who they are it will never happen. Instead of engaging they dictate from on high. And of course, since Bill Bouie is the King — apparently for life — the feudal system of Fairfax County continues. Natural resource protection is part of their mission they COMPLETELY ignore in favor of the non-profits who benefit from the soccer fields. This organization needs to be completely reworked, the top echelon needs to be removed since they are sucking up all the money for themselves, and that money needs to be used for natural resource protection. This organization is sick and needs to either die or adapt. The rural park system dreamed of in the past is now an urban park system, but this group refuses to change to make this the park system we could all be proud of.
Sounds like we want a ballot referendum to dissolve the current board system? I'd say at the very least commission a report for a new operating structure. For example, how well do park systems operate with elected leadership in-charge versus an appointed board? I'd like to see an analysis and recommendations before taking shots in the dark and ad-hoc solutions.