Prince William supervisors faced four alternatives for dealing with its 233-acre Silver Lake property that has been slated for park development since a 2006 proffering: Convey it to the local park authority, convey it to the Northern Virginia park authority, convey it to a local conservancy group or do nothing.
Following two failed votes on Tuesday, they defaulted to the last.
Supervisors will take up the issue again in two or three weeks after county staffers prepare a report sought by Supervisor Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge, that offers yet another alternative -- the blending of proposals from the local park authority and the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy.
Had the property been conveyed to the Prince William County Park Authority, the land would have "accommodate[d] a mix of recreational uses to include hiking, boating, fishing, horseback riding, picnicking, RV camping and environmental preservation and education," background documents for the board read. The downside, however, was that conveyance required the county to pay $215,000 in operating costs each year, with a $50,000 payment from this fiscal 2009 budget.
Supervisor Wally Covington, R-Brentsville, found that option unacceptable without first putting it to the scrutiny of the budget process, while Supervisor Martin Nohe, R-Coles, criticized the plan as "big government."
Had the property been conveyed to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, proposed uses would have included a "family campground, trails, picnic pavilions, marina, playground, equine camping and trails and possibly scuba," the board's summary read. The county would not incur expenses for this upcoming fiscal year, but in fiscal 2010, "the county's operating and capital appropriations for NVRPA would be approximately $750,000 and $900,000, respectively," the summary continues.
And had the property been conveyed to the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy, the park would have provided residents with a no-cost "mix of trails, primitive camping and educational programming," the summary reads. Further, the summary continues, the 233 acres of Silver Lake would have been "combined with the adjacent 268-acre property, which is subject to an existing conservation easement, to create a larger public natural recreational area."
To Supervisor Maureen Caddigan, R-Dumfries, that option was "a no-brainer" that carried obvious benefits over the other two options. Principi, however, found the lack of control allowed to the county less than appealing -- the conservancy plan calls for the county to agree to deed restrictions and covenants, for instance --and instead suggested the board take the best of what he perceived as the best and strike a compromise.
"There are benefits from both proposals that we can capitalize on and ensure the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," he said, referring to the conservancy and the Prince William Park Authority plans. "I would like to direct senior staff to meet [with key players] to determine whether it's possible to come forward with a blended solution."
That was pretty much the only unanimous decision to be reached on this issue Tuesday evening; three proposals and months later, supervisors still maintain strong contrasting views on which plan would yield the greatest public benefit at the lowest financial responsibility.
For Vice Chairman John Stirrup, R-Gainesville, the deciding factor for which park proposal to support lay entirely with the ability of each to uphold the concept of "in perpetuity," or, for the life of the property.
"I want the property to be maintained in perpetuity … so children in future generations will be able to enjoy this park," Stirrup said. "Not to disparage any applicants, but I don't believe anyone here has met the test to move this jewel that we've spoken about tonight out of the public domain."
Better to withhold decision than compromise this principle, he said.
"We can always give away this property. We don't have to do this today," Stirrup said.
In brief: Supervisor John Jenkins, D-Neabsco, supported the conveyance of the land to the local Park Authority, and said the $50,000 requirement could likely be met by contributions from outside sources. Jenkins also characterized the conservancy plan as sub-par, as the proposed agreement would always place "their interest first, not the public interest."
Supervisor Michael May, R-Occoquan, didn't see the conservancy plan as a give-away of $4 million worth of public land -- but still, a lot rested on the ability of the county to craft language in the deed to protect its interests. And Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, while recognizing that the county "was certainly in a budget crisis," also expressed concerns about "setting [a] precedence [of] giving away" county property as a means of saving money.
"Would the conservancy be open to a long term lease where the county or Park Authority would maintain title?" Stewart asked, as an 11-hour attempt to reach an agreement.
No, came the reply, and subsequent board votes broke down -- both times -- on 5-3 lines. For the Prince William Park Authority plan, Jenkins, Stewart and Stirrup voted for, and the other five members against. For the Bull Run conservancy plan, Caddigan, May and Nohe voted for, and the other five against.
Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907. By CHERYL K. CHUMLEY
cchumley@potomacnews.com
Prince William supervisors faced four alternatives for dealing with its 233-acre Silver Lake property that has been slated for park development since a 2006 proffering: Convey it to the local park authority, convey it to the Northern Virginia park authority, convey it to a local conservancy group or do nothing.
Following two failed votes on Tuesday, they defaulted to the last.
Supervisors will take up the issue again in two or three weeks after county staffers prepare a report sought by Supervisor Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge, that offers yet another alternative -- the blending of proposals from the local park authority and the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy.
Had the property been conveyed to the Prince William County Park Authority, the land would have "accommodate[d] a mix of recreational uses to include hiking, boating, fishing, horseback riding, picnicking, RV camping and environmental preservation and education," background documents for the board read. The downside, however, was that conveyance required the county to pay $215,000 in operating costs each year, with a $50,000 payment from this fiscal 2009 budget.
Supervisor Wally Covington, R-Brentsville, found that option unacceptable without first putting it to the scrutiny of the budget process, while Supervisor Martin Nohe, R-Coles, criticized the plan as "big government."
Had the property been conveyed to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, proposed uses would have included a "family campground, trails, picnic pavilions, marina, playground, equine camping and trails and possibly scuba," the board's summary read. The county would not incur expenses for this upcoming fiscal year, but in fiscal 2010, "the county's operating and capital appropriations for NVRPA would be approximately $750,000 and $900,000, respectively," the summary continues.
And had the property been conveyed to the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy, the park would have provided residents with a no-cost "mix of trails, primitive camping and educational programming," the summary reads. Further, the summary continues, the 233 acres of Silver Lake would have been "combined with the adjacent 268-acre property, which is subject to an existing conservation easement, to create a larger public natural recreational area."
To Supervisor Maureen Caddigan, R-Dumfries, that option was "a no-brainer" that carried obvious benefits over the other two options. Principi, however, found the lack of control allowed to the county less than appealing -- the conservancy plan calls for the county to agree to deed restrictions and covenants, for instance --and instead suggested the board take the best of what he perceived as the best and strike a compromise.
"There are benefits from both proposals that we can capitalize on and ensure the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," he said, referring to the conservancy and the Prince William Park Authority plans. "I would like to direct senior staff to meet [with key players] to determine whether it's possible to come forward with a blended solution."
That was pretty much the only unanimous decision to be reached on this issue Tuesday evening; three proposals and months later, supervisors still maintain strong contrasting views on which plan would yield the greatest public benefit at the lowest financial responsibility.
For Vice Chairman John Stirrup, R-Gainesville, the deciding factor for which park proposal to support lay entirely with the ability of each to uphold the concept of "in perpetuity," or, for the life of the property.
"I want the property to be maintained in perpetuity … so children in future generations will be able to enjoy this park," Stirrup said. "Not to disparage any applicants, but I don't believe anyone here has met the test to move this jewel that we've spoken about tonight out of the public domain."
Better to withhold decision than compromise this principle, he said.
"We can always give away this property. We don't have to do this today," Stirrup said.
In brief: Supervisor John Jenkins, D-Neabsco, supported the conveyance of the land to the local Park Authority, and said the $50,000 requirement could likely be met by contributions from outside sources. Jenkins also characterized the conservancy plan as sub-par, as the proposed agreement would always place "their interest first, not the public interest."
Supervisor Michael May, R-Occoquan, didn't see the conservancy plan as a give-away of $4 million worth of public land -- but still, a lot rested on the ability of the county to craft language in the deed to protect its interests. And Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, while recognizing that the county "was certainly in a budget crisis," also expressed concerns about "setting [a] precedence [of] giving away" county property as a means of saving money.
"Would the conservancy be open to a long term lease where the county or Park Authority would maintain title?" Stewart asked, as an 11-hour attempt to reach an agreement.
No, came the reply, and subsequent board votes broke down -- both times -- on 5-3 lines. For the Prince William Park Authority plan, Jenkins, Stewart and Stirrup voted for, and the other five members against. For the Bull Run conservancy plan, Caddigan, May and Nohe voted for, and the other five against.
Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907 or cchumley@potomacnews.com.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement