Upcoming Publication of Final Report is Forthcoming (end of April - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

F AIRFAX C OUNTY P ARK A UTHORITY N EEDS A SSESSMENT 14 A PRIL 2016 Par arks ks Cou Count nt! !

 Thursday, April 14 th @ Herrity Building  6:30-7:00pm - Open House  7:00-7:30 - Presentation  7:30-8:00 - Open House  8:00-8:30 - Presentation  8:30-9:00 - Open House  Upcoming Publication of Final Report is Forthcoming (end of April 2016)

P ROJECT O VERVIEW AND P ROCESS Par arks ks Cou Count nt! !

~ •S t a r I · • Fa ci i ty a sse ss m e nt s ' •Needs pr i or iti za ti on · •Programs and services · •Manageme nt st andards assessme nts • Commun ity o utr each I im p , . Cap it a rove m e nt · • Fi 111 an cia I rev i e v11/ Cos t ti s ti ca lly -va lid pla nnin g of Servi ce s urv ey , . Fund in g S tr at egies · •Eq uity Mapp in g •Demographi cs and '• Impl eme nt a ti on plan t ren ds analysi s. •Servi ce Level St andards. How Do We Get There7 4

S YSTEM A SSESSMENT Par arks ks Cou Count nt! !

 Purpose: Evaluate the existing conditions and functionality of the building systems and determine the life expectancy of each of the main building elements for each RECenter.  Assessments were conducted on eight of the nine FCPA facilities (Mount Vernon excluded as study was underway). 6

. 1 0~ . ar ' ~ $9 ~ re . 50 O ~ a kM 89 ' 9Q ~ rovement lmp . 39-~ sp ~ ring _ RECenter Lifecycle Assessment Summary FAC UTY ASSESSMENT COST SUMMARY 10 Year 20 Year % of Total Cost Facility Improvement within 10 Years Total Total Audrey Mo $11.215,, 000 54. ?0/o $6.1 37 .500 Cub Run $2 .• 89 0 ,. 5 50 $3 ,353. 050 , 86 _ ,20;0 George washington $2, 892, 7'E .O $3 ,115. 25 0 Lee District $16, 095 , 000 56 . 6°/0 $10. 26 1,, 000 $9.463,500 ' 9Q _ 2'lfo Providence .$l ,090.000 $7'572 500 00 .6% • • South Run $3, 02.5 ,000 $3 , 387 ,500 ' . Hill $4 69'8 5(110 $8, 47 ' 1, 000 55 . 5°10 TO , TAL $45,300,300 $63,470,300 71.4% 1 7

 Key Findings From the Natural Resource Analysis:  In the survey, most important function of FCPA - preserving open space and the environment .  73% of FCPA-owned land is natural area.  FCPA actively maintains 28% of natural area acreage.  Natural Resources is underfunded by a minimum of $2,351.69 per acre annually. 8

 Key Findings From the Cultural Resource Analysis:  Conserving and educating people about historic sites is the 7th most important function of FCPA .  Of the agencies benchmarked, FCPA is one of only three that performs all of the best practice cultural resource functions.  The work performed is guided by principles, policies, and best practices  FCPA values the work performed by Cultural Resources, however, funding for the branch is far below that of best practices. 9

C OMMUNITY I NPUT ( QUALITATIVE ) Par arks ks Cou Count nt! !

 27 Stakeholder interviews  5 Focus Groups  Open House  Crowdsourcing  Emails, other online responses 11

QUALITATIVE INPUT PARK SYSTEM ELEMENT SUMMARY Qualitative Opportunities Input Value Identified for Index Improvement Local Parks Highly Valued Yes Playgrounds Highly Valued Yes Courts Neutral No Neighborhood Skatepark Neutral No 12

QUALITATIVE INPUT PARK SYSTEM ELEMENT SUMMARY Qualitative Opportunities Input Value Identified for Index Improvement District/Countywide Parks Highly Valued Yes RECenters Highly Valued Yes Rectangle Fields Highly Valued Yes Youth Diamond Fields 60’ Highly Valued Yes Youth Diamond Fields 65’ Highly Valued Yes Adult Diamond Fields 60’ Highly Valued Yes Adult Diamond Fields 90’ Highly Valued Yes RECenters (Aquatics/Fitness) Highly Valued Yes Indoor Gymnasiums Valued No Golf Valued No Outdoor Family Aquatics Highly Valued No Waterfront Parks Highly Valued No Equestrian Highly Valued Yes Trails Highly Valued Yes 13 County Skateparks Neutral No

QUALITATIVE INPUT PARK SYSTEM ELEMENT SUMMARY Qualitative Opportunities Input Value Identified for Index Improvement Resource Based Parks Highly Valued Yes Horticulture Parks Highly Valued Yes Historic Sites Highly Valued Yes Nature Centers Highly Valued Yes 14

C OMMUNITY I NPUT (S URVEY ) Par arks ks Cou Count nt! !

 Usage and satisfaction with Fairfax County Park Authority services  The value of high quality parks to the quality of life in Fairfax County  Most important functions for the Fairfax County Park Authority to focus on for households and the County  Needs, unmet needs, and priorities for facilities and programs  Funding priorities to improve parks, facilities and services 16

Park Usage is High Q2. Households That Have Visited Parks Operated by the Fairfax County Park Authority in the Past 12 Months by percentage of respondents Yes 87% No 13% National Benchmark for Usage is 79% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute for Fairfax County (2015) 17

~ sage U Increase in Use, Strain on System Q2. Households That Have Visi ited Parl ks Operated by the Fairfax County Park Authoni ty i in the Past 12 Months 1 OOo/o 87% 80 o/o 40o/o 20 o/o Oo/o I of Fa irf ax Co unty Pa rk Authority Parks 18

~ ~ et N ot Unmet Need: Top 12 Parks and Facilities Q7c a nd Q9c . Est im ate d Numb er of Hou se ho ld s in Fa irfax Co un ty Wh ose N ee ds for Pa rk s or Fac iliti es Ar e Only Be 1 i ng " Pa rtly" or "N ot " M by nu mber of households based on 39 ,1,6, 27 households in Fairfax County I 88 ,800 Publie , ga rdens P'av ed w al king/bik in g trails Swi mm in g pools Exer cise & fitness facilities W ater par lk s & sprayg ro u mds G ym s (basketball. volle yb all. etc.) Na t lll re centers Small co mm unity parks Un pav ed w al k in g/bik in g trails Co mm unity garden plots Smaller neighborhood playgrounds Picnic shelters/areas 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 1 00 ,000 Met I !• Partly Met ~ •1 •• • ill • :'Ill • :"\ • • • :"'I • I .. • Unmet need = households having a need that is partly met or not met. 23 23

ly" ' ~ Part Unmet Need: Top 12 Programs and Activities 011 c. Est i im ated N umb er of Ho u se holds in Fa irf ax Co un ty VVh ose Needs f or Pro gr am s or Act1 ivit1 ies Are Only Be 1 i ng or '' ' Not " M let by nu mber of holllseholds based on 39 ·1,6· 27 h ouseh ol cls in Fairfax County 89 , 936 Special e lf ents, concerts Exe rc is e/fitn e s s Science/technol og iY programs B oat ing, fishing, ca mp ing Vollllnteering Nature/ en vi ron mental pro9ams Gar· dening program s Art programs Day tr ips and tours Biking, hiking, walking P'erforming arts (dance, dra ma) P'rograms for families 0 .20 ,000 40,000 60 ,000 80 ,000 100,000 Unmet need = households having a need that is partly met or not met. 24

Physical Condition Rating Q3. How Residents Rate the Physical Condition of ALL the Fairfax County Park Authority Parks, Trails & Recreation Facilities They Have Visited by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know ”) Excellent 29% Poor 0% Fair 9% Good 62% National Benchmark for Excellent is 34% 25 Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute for Fairfax County (2015)

Satisfaction with the Park System Q16. Rating of Satisfaction with the Fairfax County Park System on Scale of 10 to 1 by percentage of respondents (excluding “don’t know") 9 19% 8 30% Excellent 8% Poor 2 1% 3% 3 5% 4 Neutral 3% 7 6 8% 17% 6% 26 Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute for Fairfax County (2015)

Sa ~ t i sfac ti on Overall Satisfaction Lower than in the Past Q1 6. Ra ting of Sa tisf ac tion with the Fa irf ax Co un ty Pa rk Syst em on Scale of 1 0 to 1 by pe rcentage of res polltd ents (excludi lll '9 "1 d olll 't kllO W 11 ) 1 OOo/o 0 o/o --------------------------------------- .--. ------------ -7 8 · :f% ------------ T 4% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69% 68% 71% 6 0o/o 40°/o 2 0o/o Oo/o I Ratings of 8 -1 0 27

Importance to Quality of Life Q17. Importance of High Quality Park, Trails, Recreation Facilities and Services to the Quality of Life in Fairfax County by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know ") Extremely important 62% Not at all important 1% Somewhat important 6% Very important 31% 28 Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute for Fairfax County (2015)

~ .,.~ t:.)~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ to:.~ . ,~ ,.~ ~ ,.~ ,.~ i es l ~ t i ac ~ ~t. Importance to Quality of Life Higher than in the Past 0 1 7. Im po rt ance of High Qu al ity Park, Trai i ls, Recreation F and Services to the Qu al ity of Ufe in Fairfax County (combination of extremely important and very important)' 80 °/o 40°/o 20°/ o 0°/o t\ '1-t:.) I to Quality of Life in Fairfax County I t§ lmportance of Parks. 29

Fundin ing g Lower r than n in in the e Past $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 Millions $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 1988 2015 FUNDING FUNDING GENERAL FUND $13.2 $23.5 REVENUE FUND $7.9 $44.9 30

Support for a Balanced Approach to Funding Q15. How Residents Would Allocate $100 to Various Parks and Recreation Categories by percentage of respondents Repair/maintain existing parks and infrastructure $30 Acquire new parkland and open space $17 $18 $13 Develop new recreation and Conserve and maintain natural parks facilities and historic resources $22 Upgrade/expand existing park facilities 31 Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute for Fairfax County (2015)