Summary

Approximately 20 citizens participated in the parks discussion after the introductory remarks. The discussion session began at about 3:30 pm and ran until 5 pm .

The comments covered a wide gamut of topics. Areas of citizen interest included percentage of county land to be preserved as parks and open space, definitions for land use and facilities, Levels of Service (LOS), inventory and condition of facilities, mechanisms for funding and development, priorities for acquisition, guaranteed access for active and passive recreation, long-term vision, and identifying and protecting sensitive areas.

In particular, citizens expressed a desire for large land areas to be set aside and acquired permanently for parks and open space and access to public areas on private lands to be secured through easements or other solid mechanisms. They wanted more space for active recreation that was guaranteed for non-school uses and facilities that were designed and maintained to high standards.

Citizens want active involvement by staff and citizens for periodic review of LOS by closely defined portions of the county, with assessment by knowledgeable individuals, to determine what facilities meet standards for a given activity. Citizens would like to provide facilities for a wider variety of activities that are accessible to more of the population.

There is a great desire for connectivity and greater protection for sensitive areas. And residents would like to see greater flexibility to take advantage of opportunities to acquire land and develop and maintain facilities as they arise, particularly when it can be done without the need for public funding.

Citizen Comments Recorded During the Meeting:

1. We need to get away from using LOS per citizen metric for measuring acreage goals � instead we should use a percentage of county land. We should aim for 50% of county land area as open space (approximately 30% open space and 20% parks).

2. Permanent access to land is more important than ownership. Private lands should be used for park land with permanent protection and access.

3. Add on comment � User groups would like guaranteed access to athletic facilities whether on public or private land.

4. The goal for total park acreage should be 10% of county land area � approximately 22,500 acres.

5. There should be a lot more gym space provided in new schools available for public use.

6. There should be more park land around schools for other [park] uses. This is similar to the community school concept.

7. Public uses on private land in developments should be written into Homeowners/civic (HOA) association covenants.

8. If HOA land is not accessible to the public, is should not be counted in county open space/park totals.

9. If private land is counted into county open space totals, it should have air-tight protection. It should have restrictive covenants/easements that cannot be changed by property owner � any changes must be through a public process.

10. The comprehensive plan documents should have clear definitions for public access, parks and open space. Only land meeting the clear definitions should be counted in county current acreage totals.

11. We should base the Prince William Comprehensive Plan parks, open space and trails chapters on the corresponding Fairfax County comp plan chapters � solid foundation � do not reinvent the wheel.

12. The plan should address ball field conditions. More acreage should be allotted in LOS percentages so that fields can be rested, rotated or there orientation adjusted to improve condition. The funding for ball fields should be addressed.

13. The plan should use reduction of injury as a measure/goal of improved field condition/maintenance.

14. Athletic fields should be flexible in their design to allow reorientation to improve conditions and be properly located to ensure they have sufficient overplay areas to allow for public safety/convenience.

15. There should be a periodic review of the comp plan parks chapter/park facilities to determine the appropriate LOS based on demographics, use and the needs of the population.

16. The comp plan should continue to use LOS based on number of facilities per number of people for measuring athletic facility needs and current service levels.

17. There should be an inventory of current conditions (acreage, LOS by number/type of facilities, etc.) by region of the county on a periodic basis.

18. Planning for the county should not be based on arbitrary three region division. It should be broken down by magisterial districts, school districts, etc., and then evaluated on LOS per district/area.

19. There needs to be periodic assessment to ensure that facilities are appropriate for the population levels.

20. LOS should first be measured as acres provided as percentage of the county land area and then assessed by facilities/parks provided by type and their proximity and access to population/user groups.

21. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach to acquiring lands and building facilities. There should be many methods and flexibility in their use to include use of easements, public/private partnerships, bonds, grants, revolving funds for land acquisition, private funding, etc.

22. Field inventories should be conducted by:
    •  Requesting a current inventory from the county/Park Authority, and
    •  Having league/citizen representatives knowledgeable in the standards/requirements for each sport participate in inspection of the facilities/fields to ensure they meet the standards before being counted toward meeting the LOS.

23. Parks should be designed and constructed to include a variety/range of amenities to provide a family atmosphere. This could include play equipment and other facilities at adult field complexes (for example).

24. The county should identify and acquire particularly valuable lands as a priority. There should be an assessment/evaluation process that looks at the value of land based on multiple categories (environmental value, ability to accommodate/provide recreation use, scarcity/proximity to underserved areas, etc.) and the highest value land should be acquired first. Land with high value scores in multiple categories should be highest priority.

25. Critical habitat, wildlife corridors, etc. should be highest priority for protection/acquisition.

26. Existing public lands and high priority private lands adjacent to public lands should be top of the list for designation/acquisition for parks and public open space.
    •  5901 Davis Ford Road (PWCSA property) and adjacent 9 acre private lot;
    •  Merrimac Farm;
    • Silver Lake (proffered land and public/private opportunity); and
    • Dove's Landing all need to be top of the acquisition list.

27. The county should partner with public and private organizations or pursue other methods to accept donated land/facilities/services.

28. The county should retain or obtain public access rights through easements on targeted parcels. There should be incentives to encourage property owners to set aside or dedicate land and easements.

29. The county should be prohibited from selling county owned land designated as public open space or park use or converting it for any other use.

30. A priority should be placed on providing connectivity between parcels. Connective corridors should provide multiple services or be multi-use as appropriate.

31. The county needs to set a higher priority (independent process) for acquisition of park land. There needs to be more immediate action for acquiring lands for high demand uses such as ball fields.

32. There need to be creative ways to build and maintain facilities such as allowing user groups to maintain facilities.

33. There should be a group to review, and seek/pursue opportunities to revise built and/or proffered projects to improve the size and/or quality of the facilities they provide. Reference to some projects such as Heritage Hunt that wanted to improve or increase proffered amenities but there was no process for it.

34. Access to Lake Manassas needs to be a priority.

35. There needs to be greater flexibility in balancing density and allowing land donations in the rezoning/land development process.

36. Recommend three priorities for park facilities:
    •  There needs to be access to outdoor sportsman facilities in the east end of the county (shotgun, archery, etc.).
    •  There needs to be a permanent (concrete) skate park.
    •  There need to be dog parks.

37. There needs to be a pedestrian trail from Lake Ridge (McCoart) to Historic Occoquan.

38. The Park Authority needs to address its hesitation (due largely to maintenance and liability concerns) to building trails on HOA/private property.

39. The comp plan needs to include LOS for adult athletic fields.

40. Priority should be given to using utility corridors for recreation uses.

41. The Park Authority needs to:
    •  Identify and secure funding sources for active recreation, and
    •  Prioritize spending for active recreation improvements.

42. Prince William County should follow other jurisdictions such as Boulder, CO (.25 cents) and Fauqueir County that have used voter referenda to approve special taxes to support parks/recreation/open space.

43. The Park Authority needs to get a larger percentage of the County budget.

44. The County needs to take a long view (100 years) at what the priorities need to be. With development continuing and the land area remaining the same, land acquisition must be the priority.

45. The long range vision for park acquisition and development should consider connectivity and infrastructure (transportation, water, sewer, etc.)

46. The County should identify critical areas for water quality, expand Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and other buffers as necessary, and restrict placement or allowance of recreation (to include trails) or utilities where incompatible with resource protection. Steep slope areas need to have greater protection and utilities should be prohibited in these areas.