Park bonds: The public needs good reporting

This chart is from a Park Authority brochure on the 2020 park bond.

A few weeks ago I wrote about my experience looking
into bond fund expenditures at the John & Margaret White Gardens. I decided
to write more about park themes and issues.

In this piece, I take a quick look at the
reporting we, the public, currently receive on park bond fund spending, then
review how two other large park systems inform the public: How do they provide
access to money reporting in parks acquisition, new construction, and renovation
– known as capital improvement?

Why reports? Well, besides, “why not?” park bonds are county “general obligation” bonds.
The county sells them, which obligates the county to repay the principal and interest.
We all contribute to that repayment when we pay our property tax bill. These
bonds require our vote. So, it’s fundraising for projects, for which it is fair
to receive a complete, easy-to-read report on how the funds have been used.

According to a Fairfax County Park Authority brochure
titled “2020 Park Bond at a Glance,” the Park Authority raised $4 million from
the first bond referendum in 1959. The most recent referendum in 2020 raised $100
million. If you have been a taxpayer since 1959, thank you! You have contributed
to funding more than $700 million for parks with these bonds. 

Current status of
park bond reporting: I haven’t found a way to track park
bond fund expenditures by project or in a complete summary. If you search for a
capital improvement program report, you’ll likely land on the county budget
office’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) report page, where you can view the Park Authority’s CIP
plan, which is more of a summary-level descriptive narrative.

Related story: The John & Margaret White Horticultural Gardens: What happened to the bond money?

The Park Authority’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report excludes park (general obligation) bonds.
The 2020 document states on page 27: “The county
bond obligations are not included within the authority’s financial statements
as they are county debt and, therefore, are included in the county’s
government-wide Statement of Net Position. The county is responsible for paying
all debt service on these bonds. No annual operating budget is prepared for
this fund.”

Of course, as the money flows into the Park Authority,
it has to show up somewhere in the report, but it is not identified clearly as
such.

As an aside, it’s worth taking a look at the Northern
Virginia Regional Park Authority’s (NOVA Parks) ComprehensiveAnnual Financial Report. The 2020 park bond referendum was $112 million, of which $12 million went to
NOVA Parks.

What we need is a capital
project tracker for Fairfax County parks, either interactive or
in a report format, like the project tracker produced as a PDF by Montgomery County,
Md. 

One report provides summary totals across Montgomery
County by fund type and project type. Another, the CIP (Capital Improvement
Program) Project Description Forms report describes each project, including the
funding source. You can also look at system-wide projects, such as “ballfield
improvements,” and at individual projects, such as “Brookside Gardens Master
Plan Implementation,” as this example: 

If you could view
funding by site, you would better understand what it takes to
grow a site, and you’d have a picture of how these various funding sources can
be brought together to accomplish something. 

I learned that at Green Spring Gardens, a new
smart irrigation system will cut water usage by 40 percent and save tens of
thousands of dollars in annual staff expenses. It is being funded by a $138,000
grant from the Fairfax County Environmental Improvement Program and by
residents who responded to the 2019 annual appeal letter from Friends of Green Springs. They contributed the remaining $30,000.

Kudos to Green Springs management for
securing the grant, to FROGS for all their work, and to citizens who chipped
in. That accomplishment could remain visible to the public in a project
tracker.

It will be helpful and informative to have
the bird’s eye view of funding at all culture/nature sites, such as  Riverbend, Huntley Meadows, and Colvin Run
Mill. These sites require ongoing capital
improvement as they evolve in response to visitor immersion and dedicated
friends-group partners.

It will be helpful and informative to view
comparatively how money is being spent – geographically and by category – across
the county.

Any spending of a sizeable sum should be
viewable. It will stimulate better discussion on our parks, and the freer flow
of information is likely to secure more non-bond contributions, saving tax
money. With this information, we will be better-informed voters.

The public needs accountability,
transparency, and better-quality discussions: We need a project tracker and
system-wide reporting on park projects and funding.

Marie Reinsdorf is an Annandale area resident
interested in parks and especially their potential. She was a member of the Friends of
Green Spring Gardens Board 2014-15 and the Park Authority Board 2008-12.