Indoor Recreation Facility: North Point Meeting

On Tuesday, several hundred Reston residents attended the North Point district meeting to discuss the indoor recreation facility. Larry Butler, from the Reston Association, described RA's various investigations of additional indoor facilities. The RCC staff provided only the statement that RCC expected to be able to fund a new facility within the existing tax rate, in part because it expected Small Tax District No. 5's tax base to grow significantly in the future. (The RCC website states that RCC expects significant growth beginning in 2013.) After Larry Butler's presentation, the attendees were assigned to one of 17 small groups. The groups discussed the issues and then reported their views to the entire group.

Overall, the meeting demonstrated deep distrust of RCC, RA, and of Fairfax County. The general sense was one or more of these institutions was trying to foist a facility on the community. People objected to the idea that Reston residents would have to pay for a facility that would be open to users from outside Reston. Some argued that no Reston Association should be turned over to Fairfax County under any circumstances. Others contended that, if a recreation facility were to be built, Fairfax County should pay for it and build it on Fairfax County land.

A majority of those present were opposed to the recreation facility as currently proposed. Brown's Chapel was the wrong location, they said. It was unwise to use any of the existing open space for a new building. It was not clear that a new facility was needed. It was not clear that a large facility was needed. Perhaps smaller, separate facilities would suffice. Perhaps covering one of the existing swimming pools and some of the existing tennis courts would be sufficient. It was inappropriate for the public sector to compete with the recreational facilities operated by private companies. Some asserted that the privately-owned facilities and the YMCA are under-utilized and are struggling to survive. A new facility would generate noise and traffic.

Nearly everyone was unhappy with the process RCC and RA had adopted. Some thought that RCC and RA should not have engaged a consultant without first gaining community approval. Many thought that the process, including the questionnaire distributed at the meeting, assumed that the community wanted a recreation facility. Many asserted that the consultant's report misrepresented the community's wishes. Several people demanded to see the raw data collected by the consultant.

Without any new financial information available, the comments about paying for a facility were somewhat confused. Some assumed that a facility should pay for itself. Others objected to non-Reston users having access to the facility. Few seemed to understand how RCC pays for the current facility at Hunters Woods. Several questioned RCC's assumption that the Small Tax District No 5 tax base would grow in the future.