Fairfax County is considering creating a specialized agency to enhance its recreational facilities and boost sports tourism.
The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a board matter yesterday (Tuesday) directing County Executive Bryan Hill to explore the establishment of a Public Recreational Facilities Authority.
In addition to identifying opportunities for building new or renovating older facilities, the authority would have the power to purchase and lease land, construct and maintain recreational spaces like parks and concert halls, set usage fees to generate revenue, and issue bonds to fund project development, according to Virginia law.
It is also meant to collaborate with local government departments, community organizations and private entities to optimize the use of recreational spaces. Moreover, it establishes rules and policies to ensure proper use and compliance with regulations.
According to the board matter, establishing this authority could bring several advantages to the county, including improved recreational and sports facilities, increased community engagement, economic growth through sports tourism, and enhanced management of resources and partnerships for recreational projects.
“In recent years, several groups have expressed interest in partnering with Fairfax County to establish entertainment, sports, and other recreational facilities,” the board matter states. “Currently, Fairfax County has specifically defined formal mechanisms to explore public-private partnerships that benefit residents and ensure adequate public involvement in project planning and community use of new facilities.”
While it’s not entirely clear how the new authority would function alongside the existing Fairfax County Park Authority, Braddock District Supervisor James Walkinshaw noted that they would remain separate entities with some possible overlap.
“There’s a very specific Public Recreational Facilities Authorities Act, and other jurisdictions that have used it in Virginia have used it for purposes that are complementary to or entirely separate from their Park Department or Park Authority,” he said. “Some have created museums between two jurisdictions. Some have created sports and recreational facilities in partnership with their sports and [recreational] departments…So, they can be complementary and/or completely separate.”
Walkinshaw pointed out that there isn’t any specific project or partnership planned for the new authority at present. Instead, he and other board members see it as a potential means to boost county revenue and improve residents’ quality of life.
“I’m really happy to see this move forward,” said Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity, who chaired the county’s Sports Tourism Task Force.
That task force, which issued its final report in 2020, resulted in the development of Patriot Park North, a baseball and softball complex that opened near George Mason University’s campus last year, and an indoor ski slope called Fairfax Peak has been proposed in Lorton.
However, earlier this year, the park authority declined to pursue four additional pitches for sports tourism projects after determining that the sites weren’t suitable and the applicants lacked funding.
Some supervisors expressed skepticism about the proposed recreational facilities authority’s scope, but Board Chairman Jeff McKay noted that the board matter is merely a request for more information to determine if the authority makes sense and nothing is yet set in stone.
“The motion includes a lot of scope, and of course we get to define that scope if we are interested in setting up such an authority,” McKay said. “That’s entirely the board’s prerogative.”
According to the board matter, Hill has been tasked with evaluating the proposal for the new agency based on the following criteria.
- Role and Oversight: What role can a Public Recreational Facilities Authority play in overseeing the development of new public-private sports, arts, and entertainment facilities?
- Partnerships: Would the authority solicit partnerships for new facilities to serve sports tourism and private sport uses? What are the revenue impacts on the County?
- Transparency and Community Involvement: Would such an authority enhance transparency in decision-making and allow for greater community input and public use of facilities?
- Resident and Student Use: Would there be potential for residents and students to utilize sports facilities developed through public-private partnerships?
- Scope and Geography: If recommended, what would be the geographic scope and types of facilities under the authority’s purview?
- Private Entity Engagement: Should private entities be engaged to assess the need for developing sports and entertainment facilities in the County?
- Establishment and Oversight: What is the process and the Board of Supervisors’ role in establishing and overseeing a Public Recreational Facilities Authority?
The board has instructed Hill to return later this year with recommendations regarding the structure, scope, benefits, and revenue impacts of the potential authority.
