Source: Oakmont REC Center, posted right next to the elevator.
Let me start with the simple fact, as shown in the picture above. Fairfax REC Centers are self-supporting. They require no ongoing taxpayer subsidy.
The proposal for Vienna’s one-third-scale REC Center, by contrast, assumed that operating cost subsidies would be required. It seemed to imply that this was normal, and that nothing could be done about it. That, consistent with ignoring the nearby REC Centers.
You may or may not be familiar with one or more of the three Vienna-area REC Centers. This post has a broader focus than any one REC Center.
Focus 1: Do you need any more proof of economies of scale?
With the REC Centers, the lack of ongoing tax support is a bedrock principle. User fees cover operating costs.
But the need for permanent taxpayer subsidy as assumed in the Vienna pool/gym proposal. This, despite proposed user fees that are roughly the same as what Fairfax charges ($960 annual family membership for Vienna, versus $1050 for Fairfax.)
A moment’s thought will tell you that if the Vienna proposal could have claimed no need to subsidy, it would have. That would surely have made it an easier “sell” all around.
Why can Fairfax count on the REC Centers to be self-sufficient, but Vienna can’t. Compare:
- Vienna’s proposed facility, 25,000 square feet.
- Lee District REC Center ….. 86,000 square feet (reference).
- Cub Run REC Center ………, 94,000 square feet (reference).
- Audrey Moore REC Center, 83,000 square feet (reference).
The smallest REC Center for which I have found size data — Providence — is roughly twice the size of the planned Vienna facility.
As a Vienna resident, you may have been aware that there are three REC Centers nearby (Oakmont, Spring Hill, Providence). You may have been vaguely aware that these are large facilities.
But you may not have been aware of the full context. All of the Fairfax County REC Centers are large. And they pay their own way with user fees. But Vienna’s proposed facility is small. And not even the people who’d like to sell us the plans for the building can credibly claim that it’s going to be self-supporting.
Connect the dots between that, and the relative size of the facilities, and 2014 Town Council Member Kelleher’s point regarding the inefficient scale of a Vienna facility.
Focus 2: A purposeful level of subsidy in the well-planned Fairfax County system
The second big difference between the planned Fairfax County system, and the one-off proposed Vienna facility, is that the lack of operating subsidy for the REC Centers is part of a larger recreational whole. Fairfax didn’t randomly set out to make the REC Centers self-supporting. That’s how REC Centers fit into the bigger picture, in Fairfax.
Fairfax REC Centers are just one point on a fairly intuitive “spectrum” of taxpayer subsidies, for a variety of recreational activities. For Fairfax County-run entities:
- Golf courses cover operating cost, plus.
- REC Centers cover operating cost.
- Events held in the parks cover operating cost, minus.
- Parks (just parks, not “attractions”), are free. They cover none of their costs.
At one end of the spectrum, expensive recreation, typically used by the well-off (golf), must pay its own way for both operating and capital expenses. At the other end, taking a walk in a pleasant un-developed space has no associated user fee.
This purposeful spectrum of taxpayer subsidies in Fairfax is laid out in their recent study on equitable access to recreational activities in Fairfax.Fairfax County recently underwent some self-criticism for being too business-like in terms of limiting subsidies, and making many facilities inaccessible to the poor (I paraphrase, but that’s the common-sense gist of it the 2024 Fairfax equity study).
By contrast to Fairfax’s seemingly-thoughtful planning of subsidy level by type of activity, Vienna’s taxpayer subsidy level for the proposed pool/gym is … whatever it is. It’s purely the residual of finances of this particular facility, no matter how they work out.
On the one hand, Fairfax County is the 600 pound gorilla in this market, and they have leeway that Vienna does not. So in that sense, it’s unfair to point out the “randomness” of Vienna’s taxpayer subsidy for it’s (small-scale) rec center.
And yet, the more I look at the entire Fairfax system, they have made an effort to make it sensible, for want of a better term, So, on the other hand, it’s undeniable that much of the Fairfax system has an innate logic to it, while Vienna’s does not. Nobody even seems to be asking the question “what is the right, fair, just, or reasonable level of subsidy” so that Vienna can have a public indoor pool.
But on the other hand, “What’s the right subsidy for this proposed facility?” is not even on our radar screen.
