Northwood News ♦ December 2012

Update on the PROS Plan

By Carole A. Barth

The 2012 Park Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan estimates future (i.e., over the the next decade) parks and recreation needs and presents strategies for meeting those needs.  On 8 November, the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee were briefed on the 2012 PROS plan.  In preparation for that briefing, Carole Barth transmitted to the Council the PROS testimony we had previously submitted to the Planning Board.

In a cover email, we noted that the concerns expressed in the testimony grew out of a thorough review of both the 2012 PROS Plan and the 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (LPPRP) which preceded it; many discussions with Parks staff over the past 11 years, as well as following the Parks CIP proposals and observing the maintenance and management of Montgomery Parks facilities.

From that perspective, we urged the PHED Committee to carefully consider the affordability (and financial sustainability) of constructing all the new park facilities outlined in the PROS plan.  In the CIP process, we reminded the committee, the question is whether or not to fund construction of a particular project based on available funds and competing needs and desires during that CIP cycle.  However, we asked the PHED to look beyond the individual facility types and consider the plan’s totality.

We further suggested that, in these tough financial times, it’s important to develop consensus on what is really needed and what is affordable.  What is the aggregate impact of this plan?  Is the County obligated to provide state-of-the-art facilities for every conceivable sport and hobby?  Is it more important to have convenient, nearby facilities or is it more important to have regulation-sized facilities?  Should the County pursue an aggressive program of facility construction when many existing facilities cannot be adequately maintained?

Lastly, we expressed hope that the PHED would continue to monitor these issues and revisit them in future PHED Committee meetings.   ■