would love to see a new facility with badminton and racquetball courts too!

This would be a major regional recreational facility. The costs shouuld therefore be spread accordingly. Let those who want it most pay for it thru user fees, general taxes and private fundraising. Do not put this financing burden solely upon residents of small tax district 5.

I would love another indoor pool but wonder how much land would be devoted to this. Would any soccer fields remain?

Surprise! The ones who propose will play, while Small Tax District 5 (Reston residents) will pay.

I think this would be a great idea! We live just outside of Reston and I've occasionally tried to get my kids into the Hunters Woods CC swim classes or camps, but they nearly always fill up with Reston residents alone. Plus I grew up in Reston and this IS the kind of facility I think Reston should add - very community-oriented :->

Well, it would be a great thing for those who live just outside of Small Tax District 5...

Melissa - Just to clarify - this is not a Reston Association project. This is a Reston community center project. So it has nothing to do with your RA assessments. If you live in small tax district 5 (reston, but not just RA members), you are already paying 47 cents per $1000 assessed value of your home in an extra tax. The new facility would be paid for (mostly) with that.

The current RCC gets gallons of use. Something akin to an Oak Marr or Cub Run with user fees would be a much needed addition.

Bill Bouie

There are 9 soccer fields (7 full size and 2 junior fields) and an adult slow-pitch softball fields at Baron Cameron according to the Google Satellite photograph.

What does Reston Soccer say about eliminating those fields?

What do the Adult Softball leagues say about that? There is no other Park Authority adult softball field in Reston. The fences at South Lakes Drive Park are too short for adult play.

If Small Tax District #5 taxes are to be used to build a facility on FCPA land, what discounts and use preferences will residents and employees of STD#5 receive?

Small Tax District 5 was the product of the County's refusal to provide recreation services to Reston. Residents of Small Tax District 5 pay for their own recreation facilities as well as part of the costs of the County's other recreational resources like Oak Marr. To make matters worse the RCC Board of Governors insists on subsidizing users from outside Small Tax District 5. RCC users from outside Small Tax District 5 do not pay the full cost of the services they use. (It's not irrelevant that RCC is so poorly managed that the Board does not know the full cost of the services it provides and wouldn't know what to charge outside users.)
So, why would Reston residents want to pay for still more recreational facilities that the County should pay for? Isn't it about time that Small Tax District 5 was dissolved and the facilities handed back to the County to be supported by all County taxpayers?

All -

The County's existing Rec Centers are not supported by tax dollars - they are funded entirely by user fees (admission fees, rentals, etc.). The Park Authority has said that there are no new centers planned over the next 25 years as they are focusing on maintaining and renovating existing centers, of which all but one are over 25 years old. Reston has a chance to build a crown jewel and this is probably our only shot. To those who are whining about receiving no support from the County, they would be providing the land for this facility so that is significant.

Glad to see this concept reinvigorated in a more focused proposal by Reston's, and indeed the County's, recreational and youth sports champion, Bill Bouie. It was his leadership which most recently brought the skate park to Lake Fairfax, a County facility just outside Reston, but which largely benefits Reston youth!
The comments on this story raise some important questions which must be addressed--such as what impact the new rec center might have on existing and badly needed sports fields. And, the proposal must address how such a facility would guarantee access for ALL Restonians on an equal basis, including those with lower incomes.
But, let's keep focused too on the positive benefits such a facility could provide to our community. And focus on the excellence of the existing RCC facilities that serve us so well. Indeed, RCC's track record also gives us reason for confidence in a new facility
As to affordability, let's indeed get a fix on a firm estimate. But, again, there is reason for confidence going forward as Reston is poised for major new development & more people to serve both as.beneficiaries of this concept and as sources of additional revenue to pay for it.

One more thing - there will likely be user fees in three categories: Reston resident, Fairfax County Resident and non county resident. So, just like with current RCC programs, Reston (small tax district 5) residents benefit from lower program costs and higher registration priority.

Where are the tennis enthusiasts? Wouldn't indoor tennis courts be a feasible add-on to an athletic facility, sharing asking, locker rooms, food and beverage services? Let's get cative, folks. We have a wonderful venue. Let's use it for all. Yes, let's support swimming, but don't forget that tennis has zero facilities in Reston.

Sorry, "cative" is really, "creative"!

We definitely need a second indoor swimming faciliity--the existing one at HW is crowded, and lap lane swimmers are affected by the crowds. Plus we have a large group of water aerobic people, and they would also benefit from another, larger, 50 meter pool indoors.

My neighborhood (Walnut Branch Rd area) was gerrymandered into Small Tax District 5 when the Fox Mill residents extricated themselves. We had no voice in that decision. Although part of RA, and now RCC, we are an orphan area of Reston, with no access to Reston cable programming or proximity to the facilities we "support." When will we work to contain costs rather than expanding them? Why can't we combine the administration of RA, RCC, and RCA under one umbrella? Citizens will find it simpler to understand and deal with these confusingly separate organizations and their unceasing needs for more and more resources. Neighborhood facilites are important, but, in my view, a mega-swim complex is a foolhardy project, especially when non-users are required to foot the bill!

Reston Soccer should really be feeling the love today!

First, FCPS & FCPA take $250,000 of its hard earned fundraising proceeds to build artificial turf fields at SHLS that, all things being equal, should be fully funded by FCPS and FCPA alone.

Then, RCC and FCPA propose to take 9 fields away from soccer at Browns Chapel and give the land to swimming.

With friends like these . . . .

It's certainly good news that RCC does not plan to charge residents of Small Tax District 5 the same fees that they charge non-residents. Nevertheless, if the current charges are any indication, RCC will still be subsidizing non-residents to a considerable extent. RCC's 2013 budget calls for roughly $6 million in tax revenue and $1 million in user fee revenue. In other words, the average user is paying 14 percent (1/7) of the total cost of the service received, visiting the pool or whatever. (One might wonder whether it's necessary to subsidize all users to this extent.) Since non-residents pay none of the tax revenue, the equitable practice would be to charge them 7 times the fee paid by residents, in other words the full cost of the service provided. Even a quick review of the current RCC fees indicates that fees for non-residents are well below this level. ($4 for a non-resident pool visit compared to $2 for resident pool visit, when the full cost is more like $14 a visit. In this case, the taxpayers of Small Tax District 5 are subsidizing the non-resident pool visitor to the tune of $10 per visit.)

Thanks for the correction, John. Yes, I meant indoor tennis. In fact, we have 49 outdoor courts, indicating the interest there is. The interesting thing about the RCC plan is that the different recreational interests can live together and accommodate each other. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. We can do have swimming AND tennis.

John

First off, this land is Baron Cameron Park, not Brown's Chapel as you mentioned. And no one has said that any fields are going away, let alone all nine of them. There's plenty of space on that property, especially if you look at the southeast corner closest to Baron Cameron and Wiehle.

As a regular morning swimmer at the RCC pool, I look forward to having another pool in Reston. It will be a great addition to Reston.

As I recall one of the problems with the Brown's Chapel proposal was its environmental impact - especially its impact on watersheds (increased storm water runoff) and reduced tree cover. What impact would the proposed facility have on the environment - especially tree cover and the watershed?

RA has adopted a policy that no development or redevelopment in Reston would result in an increase in storm water runoff or reduction in tree cover. Of course RA has no authority over this proposal since it is on FCPA land. Nevertheless RA was recently able to work with FCPS to ensure the renovations to Terraset School would result in reduced storm water runoff, the removal of invasive exotic species from the site, and the use of native species in its landscaping.

What a wonderful Idea. It is a long drive to Hunters Woods from the Baron Cameron area homes.

The Tennis Community was probably busy travelling to Fairfax or Vienna to play at indoor courts. The only indoor courts in Reston are at Hidden Creek which is a private country club. I would love to see a great partnership of people, funds and ideas/solutions leading to a facility that includes indoor tennis as well as other priority sports venues. We have some models in Ashburn and Montgomery County to learn from. Tennis is a lifelong sport for many people, I coach 3 year olds and I play with 80+ year olds. That's alot of tennis, health and well-being.

Wonderful potential project. I will be happy to pay a fee for such an amenity that I can use. Swimming at Hunters Woods is way too oversubscribed.

Amy J
Of particular concern is this quote from the article:

Reston commercial real estate broker Joe Ritchey, who has been instrumental in many community organizations, floated the idea of building a "world class" aquatic facility that could host major meets and Olympic trials.

"If we consider the future, we could really get something special," he said. "I hope we think bigger - way bigger. The potential is huge."

While they have moved the venue for the proposed rec center, the thinking is still skewed. First, Baron Cameron park borders residential neighborhoods. In places it is just a few hundred feet from homes. The site is not appropriate for hosting major meets, such as Olympic trials. We simply couldn't handle the traffic, parking and noise. Secondly, since STD 5 is solely paying for the facility it should be built for our needs and only our needs, not with an eye to hosting "major events".

Why is RCC using the same consulting firm that was used for the Brown's Chapel debacle? They did a poor job there and it seemed clear that their role was to deliver an answer that supported RCC's wishes. There will definitely be suspicion of the result they come back with. This does not serve moving this project forward.

There is a plan for a new fitness and pool facility in Reston. Preview center opens this spring.

See: http://clubs.lifetimefitness.com/Reston/63901/

Over 114,000 Sq Ft of Health Luxury - includes indoor lap pool, outdoor lap pool and outdoor leisure pool with water slide. It is on North Reston - closer to Metro. It is not in a residential area. It will be a commercial venture and therefore run at an operating profit (unlike RCC that only survives because of tax dollars).

Why would Fairfax County compete with a commercial venture like this?

Lifetime Fitness is located in an appropriate commercial area and is in walking distance to the new metro stop. The proposed rec center site is located in an entirely residential neighborhood. The park itself borders on homes (adjacent to backyards and just a few feet from houses) and just across the street from more homes. The site is inappropriate for this sort of facility. When you look at the lighting and parking required and the noise and traffic generated, such a facility would severely hurt the residential neighborhood.
Lifetime Fitness is privately funded and will not add to our already heavy tax burden. Those who choose to use it can pay for it. The proposed rec center would be paid for through our SD5 taxes, but would be heavily used by people who live outside of the tax area. The current RCC facilities are run at a loss, they makeup the difference using excess taxes collected. The current taxes would not be enough to cover the cost of building the facility and also maintaining it.
Furthermore, as Reston grows why would we take open space and build on it? We are going to have an increased need for outdoor recreation space, like the soccer, football and baseball fields currently located at the park. We should treasure the few open spaces left in Reston and not build on them. Once you take away open space you can never get it back.

I hope there are no plans to eliminate the dog park. I'm disabled and use a wheelchair, and it is the only dog park in the area that is accessible for me.

I agree that there are many benefits to a new rec center in meeting the community's needs, however, I hope we consider what we are loosing as we build up more of Reston. I think there are smarter, more efficient ways of giving swimmers access to a larger pool.

As Jonathan points out, there are things we are not considering in destroying Baren Cameron Park. The dog park is probably an afterthought to most, as are the community gardens, and softball field, but to many others they matter a great deal. For example, the Baron Cameron dog park is the only one in the area and has become its own community for hundreds of Reston dog owners. There are other pools, tennis courts, climbing walls, etc in Reston, but only one dog park.

If plans for the rec center go through, I sincerely hope, and expect it of RCC and the community to make sure to replace the things we are loosing. After all, that is what community is, right?

I've started a petition to keep the dog park.

Please sign and pass along. Thanks!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/baron-cameron-dog-park/

This is an entirely inappropriate location for this type of facility. It is a quiet residential neighborhood which will be COMPLETELY disrupted and ruined by a huge facility. There is PLENTY of land elsewhere in Reston - IF this type of thing is really needed. There will be a huge indoor sports facility in the re-development of Sunrise Valley (Reston Heights), we have a YMCA, other indoor pools, so do we really need another one? And are we building this just for the swimmers? I appreciate that they are getting up early, but where are the soccer and baseball players going to play once their fields are gone? What about the gardeners who have their garden plots? The dog owners who only have this one dog park in all of Reston? This is WRONG WRONG WRONG on so many levels. I have no problem with it being built - just NOT here. There are just SO many other possible locations that make sense. The proposed one makes NO sense whatsoever.

Deeply concerned that the only dog park in Reston wil be replaced by another community center! Typical of Nova. This portion of the park is essential to the area. Has there been any research into just HOW MANY DOGS actually enjoy this facility? I take my dogs there several times a month. I beling to a gym and I swim there. I don't need another community center. Unless you can put in the center and still have space for the dog park, I can tell you you will dissapoint hundreds of dog owners.

The neighborhoods closest to this project are going to be severely affected by all the new traffic traveling down Wiehle Avenue to get to the new Metro location. We are already having difficulty making a left turn out of Longwood Grove onto Wiehle, during rush hour in the morning. On weekends when there are soccer tournaments being held at the soccer fields at Baron Cameron Park there is a big increase in traffic in and out of the park. The dog park has added more traffic, using the same entrance as the folks using the soccer fields. Is anyone considering the safety issues involved in the very considerable increase in the number of cars that would be converging on both Wiehle Avenue and Baron Cameron if a new facility was built?

If traffic is your concern, the dog park shouldn't be an issue. Unlike soccer or other events, where lots of people come and go at the same time, dog park traffic is a slow trickle. People come one at a time and leave one at a time. To argue its impact on overall traffic, of all things, is ridiculous.

Leave the playing fields for our children. Explore the Tall Oaks area. Jeanne

It would be nice to have an indoor play area or padded gym for young kids in the winter. We do have a lot of good outdoor playgrounds but during foul weather, we have to take the young ones to play in the mall, paid indoor playgrounds, and sometimes the play rooms of adult gyms (such as Sport and Health).
If the swimming pool goes through, It would be great to have a small pool similar to the one at Cub Run with a zero entry that remains shallow. They have a great pool facility there. I don't particularly care about the water slides or fountains. I actually can't stand Uplands Pool as I feel it can be dangerous for the littler ones partly because the pool goes fairly deep. I think we tend to forget there are A LOT of younger ones under 5 here in Reston that also need indoor places to play and swim .

Request: Indoor Basketball Courts.

And to the 8th grade swimmer, a pool that's closer to your house by 10 minutes will not help your situation.

There are 9 Recreation Centers in Fairfax County funded by the County. Fairfax County has approximately 1.2 million residents. Reston and small district 5 has approximately 60,000 resident and these residents pay extra taxes just to have RCC. As far as i can tell the only difference between RCC and the other county Recreation centers is that RCC has a small theater and a few meeting rooms. Surely these additional facilities are not worth the current extra taxes.
If that is not bad enough now RCC and FCPA want to build another Recreation Center! That would give the 60,000 residents TWO recreation centers whereas elsewhere approximately $125,000 residents share one Recreation center.
This is just a waste of our tax dollars.
We then the have the issue of doing away with open space, soccer, lacrosse, flag football, softball fields and the dog park.
This whole process is being driven by a very small group of individuals and is not representative of the community at large.
In my opinion this project makes no sense on several levels:
-facility not needed based upon population
-a waste of tax revenues
-loss of open space
-loss of athletic fields when there is a chronic shortage
-loss of dog park
- additional density in a residential community