Tuesday, April 9, 2013

What does success look like for City Resolution 2460? [Fort Ward Park] December 14, 2011



What does success look like for City Resolution 2460?  "Homework Assignment"
Draft Results December 14, 2011

On October 3, 2011 Advisory Group members were provided a list of questions that were discussed during the September 14, 2011 Fort Ward Park & Museum Advisory Group Meeting.  At the meeting it was suggested that we all take some time individually to respond to the following questions.  The hope is that the Advisory Group will have a better chance of successfully implementing the provisions of City Resolution No. 2460 if we take some time to see if we agree on the general direction we should take to successfully implement the resolution.

The following questions and replies to date are provided in a “raw form”.  Members who provided replies include: Chuck Ziegler, Linda Reis, Bob Moir, Ellen Stanton, Glenn Eugster, Frances Terrell, Janice Magnuson, and Lena Rainey.  

If there is interest, and additional comments, these results will be edited, consolidated and returned to the group for review and possible action.


1. What are the conditions that must exist for the Advisory Group and the Trust and City agencies to be successful implementing Resolution No. 2460?

* That the meetings be open and discussion be transparent and forthright.

* That the members of the stakeholder advisory group report back to their respective representative groups to seek continued input and to provide information regarding the process and progress of the advisory group.

* That another public meeting similar to those held a couple of years ago be held to update the citizens at large regarding the work of the stakeholder advisory group.

* The most important condition is that there be trust between the Advisory Group and the various City agencies with whom it deals, with no "hidden agendas" or lack of candor.

* We need a feeling of trust and respect between the advisory members and with the city staff. An open mind by city staff will also be needed to move forward.

* THE CITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF LARGE GROUPS ARE ALLOWED TO USE THE PARK THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO INCREASE THE RENTAL CHARGE TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC AREAS AND THE FLOWERS. I REMEMBER HOW BEAUTIFUL THE AZALEAS USED TO LOOK, NOW THEY NEED MAJOR WORK AND ADDITIONAL PLANTS.  

* No reply

* agree to  an open communication--understanding that reasonable people can disagree--disagree without getting disagreeable or personal 

* what about a team building social hour with City people with soft drinks, chips, etc before-after meeting--every little bit helps--??

*  A major condition would be for all entities involved to work together collectively with a common goal in mind rather than each group striving to meet its individual goals.

* The decision-making process needs to be open and consensus-based.  Information about graves and the removal of grave stones needs to be made public and integrated into the decision-making process. Everyone is a participant in decision-making!

* Clearly defined jurisdiction and areas of responsibility.

* Properly document and communicate these areas of responsibility.

* Set up proper communication channels between areas responsible for working on the project.  

* Although a lot has to be done prioritization will be the key.  The committee will need to force rank priority items based on available resources, understanding that all things will eventually get done.  

* Focus on low hanging fruit items that can be done quickly and be seen and quick "wins", this will earn trust/goodwill from the community that things are really going to get done.
* Establish a effective way to communicate to the community.  This can be done via a project website, newsletters and through the Citizens Advisory Committee.

* Establish feedback channels both internally for those working on the project and for the community.

* Set correct expectations up front.  For projects like this its always better to be conservative with your expectations as oppose to having to explain why something hasn't been done when expected.

* Have fun and respect everyone's areas of involvement.  At the end of the day cooperation will be needed and everyone should be working towards the same end goal.


2. What is the goal and objectives of this effort?

* Goals - as stated in resolution 2460 under the functions of the group, a, b and c .

* Objectives - as needed to implement the goals.

* The main goals of this effort are 1) to ensure that the recommendations contained in the recommendations of January 2011 of the Ad Hoc Fort Ward Park and Museum Area Stakeholders Advisory Group are implemented, and 2)help to ensure that the management of the park by the relevant City of Alexandria departments is conducted in both the letter and spirit of the August 2011 Memorandum of Understanding.

* Helping the city with advice on how the Fort Ward management plan might look like. 

* No reply 

* to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the previous Ad Hoc Committee.

* see 3 below 

* Devise the best possible management of the Park incorporating its exceptional history, recreational use, and horticulture, historic and current.

* The City Resolution and comments of the City Council should be followed.

* To revitalize the Ft Ward park areas 
  • To establish long term management solutions that benefit the city, those attending park, the neighboring community and those with loved ones memorialized at the respective cemeteries.
  • Do both of the above with fiscal responsibility in mind.  You don't want this to be a financial overburden.

3. What does success look like for the Advisory Group two (2) years from now?

* Prioritize recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Fort Ward Park and museum Area Stakeholder Advisory Group and implement those deemed most important. Determine which recommendations can be deferred with a plan to implement those recommendations in the future. Provide rationale for deferring or retracting some of the recommendations.

* Develop education and outreach opportunities.

* Per question # 1 above, reflect the desires of the community in developing the management plan.

* Continue to liaison with the community as the management plan evolves.

* In addition to the attainment of the two goals noted above, success includes the establishment of a permanent Citizen Advisory Committee for Ft. Ward Park.

* We will see an effective management plan in place and being implemented. 

* No reply

* the implementation of those recommendations of the previous Ad Hoc Committee and to oversee on-going management at the Park.

* Development submit a plan to city Council that describes clearly the reasonable uses of the park. Portions of the Park should be designated as recreational areas, respected and personal areas, educational and learning areas, and  Alexandria tourist destination aspects. Both in terms of activities such as reenactments and also tours of the historical and cultural areas of the park, volunteer docents, photos of Museum walls...

  • Having a management plan in place which sets aside policy for the 
operation and usage of the park so that each governmental agency which has oversight  responsibility will know exactly what his area is and what the boundaries are.  

* Storm water runoff eliminated or drastically reduced throughout the park preventing further erosion of Oakland’s cemetery and its negative impact on Marlboro estates.

* The graves immediately outside of the Church cemetery incorporated back into to cemetery even if it entails realigning the property, and other identified graves marked and honored as well as the Jackson cemetery.

* Signage marking historic African American sites 

* The Advisory Group, City Departments, City Council, City Advisory Committees and the public are in support of what is to be proposed. Issues are resolved; a master/ management plan is approved; and the January 2011 Advisory Report is implemented.

* 2 years from now FT Ward should be a park that is fully functional and esthetically in line with the standards of the city and the community that it serves.  Additionally long term management of the park should be in place.  Graves sites adjacent to park should be properly identified and kept and well. Residents of the community impacted to feel confident that communication channels are in place to be kept informed of significant changes to the park as well as how to provide feedback, report problems, etc..

4. What are the key terms that we need to define at the start of this effort?

* No reply

* "Balanced Use," with regard to historic preservation and recreational activities.

* Everyone should – including city staff – understand their appropriate roles. That is if we ask for one thing – that we don’t get something different from the city staff.  (for example if we ask for a short presentation – that it doesn’t become so long to hinder other meeting topics). I think we might more clearly define time for a presentation to prevent this problem. Also – it is important that everyone shows a respect in particular to the descendents who have such an attachment for Fort Ward. 

* No reply

* None

* No reply

* No reply

* Master plan; management plan; Historic Park; public outreach.

* Who's responsible for what work.

* How are these areas of responsibility being communicated and managed

* Determine what resources are available when and how much i.e. money, manpower.

* Force rank priorities; determine what's low hanging fruit items.

* Establish timelines and benchmarks

* Determine what methods and how often to communicate statuses and updates to the communicate.

* How will feedback be managed


5. What information is necessary for this effort?  What information is available to assist this effort?  Where is the information?  How can it be accessed most expediently? Who can help collect and organize this information?

* Information obtained through the Fort Ward Work Group, Office of Historic Alexandria, and RPCA.

* A great deal of information is available due to the work that has been completed over the past 2 years. More information will be needed as we progress regarding the resources available to implement recommendations.

* City agencies have much of the information needed for our efforts.  As well, residents adjacent to the Park will have the best information on the success, or lack thereof, of the storm water runoff mitigation efforts.  The Ft. Ward History Working Group also has a gathered a great deal of information on the history of Ft. Ward, and is in the process of gathering even more.

* I think we have already collected much background information last year. Now it might be helpful to search for similar locations and see how they developed their management plans. Some items are pertinent to Fort Ward – others might be similar to other parks. Why reinvent the wheel?

* No reply  

* None

* Identify all grave sites ( archaeology information) and those interred( historical records, family info)

* property owners and land transactions on  on park property

* location and cause of storm runoff, effects, methods of repair, timing, and cost

* identify specific areas in the park that will be used for specific purposes such as respected and personal areas etc. Develop educational opportunities other than signs that  will attract Alexandria and other student field trips, and obtain information from hospitality industry on potential out-of-towners tourist  attractions ( to provide income)

* described activities at  "the fort” from 1865 to 2011.

* No reply

* The Advisory Group needs to complete a Statement for Management; Outline of Planning Requirements; and the sequence for combining the information proposed for the Management Plan in the January 2011 Advisory Group Report.

* No reply

6. Who else should be involved in this effort?  How should they be involved?  When should they be involved?

* See response to question 1.

* The various local citizens' groups (e.g., Seminary Hills Association) and interest groups (e.g., Friends of Ft. Ward) should be informed of and kept apprised of our activities, which they could follow on the City's web site.  They could be most directly involved when we ask for their support for our recommendations to City departments and the City Council.

* I told Tom I thought it would be a great opportunity to talk with current park users by setting up a table in the park and visiting with folks. Could be during the week or on the weekend when folks are out walking their dogs, going a run, etc. I think we have not reached out directly to many users. 

* GROUPS THAT RENT THE PARK SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE HISTORY.  THAT IS A WAY TO REACH A LARGE GROUP THAT USES THE PARK.  I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE TO SIGN SOME SORT OF CONTRACT WITH THE CITY WHEN THEY RENT, SO INCLUDE THE INFORMATION IN THEIR CONTRACT. 

* We should be involved in the effort along with City staff who are to provide needed information and feedback.

* The usual suspects---Advisory (thus many stakeholder groups)and City agents, informal public meetings, MEDIA(not for antagonistic reasons)

* No reply

* The City Resolution calls for public outreach.  The Group should develop a Public Outreach Plan that would identify who should be involved; how they should be involved; when they should be involved.

* No reply

7. How do we best communicate, to the public, other park partners and community interests, what we are doing?  What is the “message”?

* Hold public meeting in 6-9 months to inform and solicit responses to the progress of the group.

* Attend/speak at civic group meetings. Attend/speak at commission meetings.

* In addition to information on the activities of the group posted on the appropriate City web sites, we should disseminate news of our activities to local newspapers, "The Washington Post," and the various neighborhood citizens' groups.

* The "message" is that we are working for balanced use of Ft. Ward Park by preserving its historical resources and character,  with due regard for recreational uses.

* See above idea. I think we could also set up a park blog – or set up a Facebook page. Just having information on website may not reach everyone. 

* INCLUDE THE MANY PARK WALKERS.  THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE SITE, PICKING UP TRASH.  CLEAR SIGNS ARE HELPFUL TO MAKE VISITORS AWARE OF THE HISTORY, BOTH CIVIL WAR AND AS A COMMUNITY FOLLOWING THE WAR.  

* The message is we are doing our job of implementing the plan.  We do that through City Council.

* The tough part is agreeing on the "message"--then standard communication--web, citizen association newsletters,  Media coverage if it can be a cooperative piece --Kojo, morning local news, Post...

* Best way to communicate is by having and announcing open meetings via City website and local press, radio and/or tv.

  • Periodic reporting, as described in #6.; Park bulletin board information postings; Museum information postings; circulate information through various public and private social networking sites. 

* Establish a project website where stakeholders and visit to obtain all relevant information.

* Establish a project newsletter that can be sent out periodically to those who have requested to be updated.  This correspondence should come from as high up in the management hierarchy as possible.  Should includes what's taken place since the most recent update and what's on the immediate horizon.  Should also include information on how to provide feedback.

* Use whatever local or community newspaper available to communicate updates.

* Hold periodic meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee.

  1.  Other questions (insert)?

* Statement - keep it simple. This is a complex task and we do not want to add to its complexity. Work on determining: 1) what has been done 2) what are the priorities among those recommendations not implemented  3) what are our resources, monetary and otherwise 4) how do we best utilize these resources to reach the goals as outlined by resolution 2460.

* No reply

* No reply

* No reply

* No reply

  • What is the schedule for City agencies to complete the work needed 
to implement the January 2011 Management Plan recommendation?  How do current and future budget decisions track with that schedule.

* No reply

Prepared by J. Glenn Eugster 12-14-2011

Fort Ward Park Master/ Management Plan: Possible Alternatives for Assistance. 2011


Fort Ward Park Master/ Management Plan: Possible Alternatives for Assistance

Contacts:

1. Elizabeth Gilroy, Director of the VA Tech Community Design Assistance Center (CDAC: 540-231-5644). She said we should complete the application and send online or by fax to her.

The CDAC website is http://cdac.arch.vt.edu/
Once there, there's a sidebar link for "Application". You can also meet the staff and see many of the past and current projects done by this group.

2.Timothy Beatley. He is on sabbatic this spring and so it is probably not realistic for him to take on anything new.  He will circulate the email and see if others here might have an interest. 
School of Architecture, University of Virginia
109 Campbell Hall, P.O. Box 400122
Charlottesville VA 22904-4122
tel: (434) 924-6457
beatley@virginia.edu

3. Steve Coleman is the contact  and Executive Director for Washington Parks & People.  He worked with NPS to do this plan and project.
Washington Parks & People : Marvin Gaye Park Photos
www.washingtonparks.net/marvin_gaye_park_photos

This is the official trailhead to the longest city park in Washington, DC. Beginning ...affirmed the commitment of his staff and resources to keep Marvin Gaye Park ...

4. Craig Evan Barton is an associate professor and urban design and the Chair of the Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of Virginia. Prior to this appointment Mr. Barton was a member of the faculty at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, where he directed the New York/Paris Program. Mr. Barton was Loeb Fellow at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

Through his practice, research, and teaching Mr. Barton investigates issues of cultural and historical preservation and their interpretation through architectural and urban design. Much of his practice focuses on assisting African-American communities to preserve and interpret their significant cultural resources and to utilize them to stimulate community development.
University of Virginia | School of Architecture 
Academic Dean, Semester at Sea Summer 2012 Voyage

106 Peyton House
P.O. Box 400122  Charlottesville, VA 22904-4122
434.924.6467 v.  434.982.2678 f.


Other Information

Craig Barton Chair, Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Virginia. Dennis Reidenbach Regional Director, Northeast Region, ...


American Forts Network | Facebook
www.facebook.com/American.Forts

American Forts Network - News and Views from North America's Historic Military and Trade Forts (1526-1956). | Facebook.



Founded
1998
About
News and Views from North America's Historic Military and Trade Forts (1526-1956).

Description
We began as a collection of several different websites on the old Geocities.com, showcasing individual historic forts in the United States and Canada. In 2009, with the shutdown of Geocities, we were left with only one website, our extensive database of every known fort ever built in North America. In 2011 we joined the Facebook community, monitoring over 500 fort and battlefield and museum Facebook pages in our news feed. Our familial heritage is French-Canadian (Québecois), so we feel it is important to give the study of Canadian forts equal importance to that of American forts. After all, before 1815 we all shared the same history!
Mission
An online community showcasing historic military forts in the United States and Canada, complementing our website database. Support your local fort and help save our past!

Email
admin@northamericanforts.com
Website




Prepared by: J. Glenn Eugster 12/14/2011

Ways to Improve the Draft Recommendations for Fort Ward Park by J. Glenn Eugster. November 17, 2010




City of Alexandria Recreation Department
Attn: Ms. Laura Durham
1108 Jefferson Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
                                       November 17, 2010
Dear Ms. Durham,

Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the November 1, 2010 draft Recommendations regarding the use and management of Fort Ward Historical Park prepared by the Fort Ward Park Advisory Group.  

My comments are intended to suggest ways to make the Advisory Group’s recommendations more accurate and increase the chance that they are adopted and implemented by City managers and elected officials.  I fully realize that reviewing a document of this type is far, far easier than actually writing it.  The time and effort of the City managers and the Advisory Group in preparing this draft is recognized and appreciated.  My general and specific comments are as follows:

Ways to Improve the Draft Recommendations for Fort Ward Park

1.  Get Shorter & Tighten Up: The document is far, far, too long.  It is duplicative and redundant in several sections and the information it communicates would be much more effective if the report were edited, made more concise, and illustrated with photos.  The Executive Summary and the Concluding Recommendations seem to be unnecessarily duplicative making the priority messages confusing.  While reading the report I was never sure whether I was reading something new or the same text in a new location.

2.  Be Clear About the Report Purpose: The document indicates that this is a “Draft for Public Discussion”.  However, despite the comments made by Advisory Group members at their meetings about their desire to hold public meetings on this document, there are no public meetings scheduled and no opportunities for public discussion.

The decision by the Advisory Group not to present and discuss the recommendations with the communities that the park serves is troubling given that public concerns were sparked by the 2008 plan that the City and the Parks & Recreation Commission did without public input. Discussion and dialogue about the plan’s recommendations would benefit all.

3.  Add Context: The report needs succinct background information to give the reader context for the narrative to 


follow.  For example, there is little information on the 
creation of Fort Ward Park in terms of the intent of City Council and the various perspectives that Alexandria’s community leader’s, elected officials and courts have noted while discussing the need for and purpose of the park.  

Another example of the lack of context is the City’s intent in developing the park for the stated purposes.  The document would lead the reader to believe that a master plan has not been prepared for Fort Ward Park.  However, the City Council approved and funded a General Plan for the park in 1962.  The Department of Transportation & Environmental Services prepared a Master Plan for the park in 1979.  The City Council applied for a received state and federal historic register status in 1982. Each of these documents may not fit the current definition of what a park master plan is but they do show the earliest approved visions for Fort Ward Park.  

In addition, the report does not indicate that a great deal of the public’s concern about the City’s management of the park was sparked by the October 16, 2008 facility study and recommendations for Fort Ward Park.  This document was prepared and approved by the City Recreation Department and the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission without public input or basic information about the natural, historic and cultural resources which the park was created to protect.

More context is also needed about the issues and problems that motivated City Council to convene the Fort Ward Park Advisory Group.  The report fails to mention the petition that was submitted to the City Council in October 2007 by residents who live adjacent, and in close proximity, to the park having to do with crime, solid waste dumpsters, maintenance of the park’s intermittent stream, and vegetative management of the park’s boundaries.  Moreover, there is no mention of the concerns regarding graves, solid waste dumpsters, stormwater, and the protection of the park’s archaeology and history, which were raised by citizens and members of the Seminary Hill Association, Inc. at a City Council Public Meeting in December of 2008.

The report also fails to provide the reader with background on the City’s failure to comply with established city ordinances and regulations related to land use changes, noise, archaeological resources, and soil erosion controls, related to new park development and uses.

Finally, the report makes no mention of the fact that City leaders, despite repeated public statements to the contrary, was aware of African American graves within the park and in certain 


areas chose to ignore their presence.

4.  Clarify Assumptions: The readers of the report would benefit if there was a succinct section of the introduction that clarified the assumptions that the Advisory Group, and the City for that matter, are operating under in the review of Fort Ward Park.  These could include: the role of the communities in helping create this park; justifications used by the City in legal actions and federal grants to acquire and develop the park; and provisions of the National Register of Historic Places designation.  A list of assumptions could also include the key provisions in Resolution No. 2349.

5.  Show Conviction: The executive summary outlines a list of priority actions for City Council and City department managers to consider.  First of all, in many places in the report--including this section, the Advisory Group’s recommendations are “soft”.  The Advisory Group is charged to make recommendations and yet in the Executive Summary they suggest that elected officials “consider” these ideas.  The words are seemingly without conviction and should be given backbone if they are to have any chance of being acted on.  Anticipatory compromise and, or, business as usual is not an option if the desired result is what Council approved in their charge to the Group.

6.  Set Priorities:  The report would be more effective if it focused more on different levels of priorities.  At a minimum what the Advisory Group recommended needs to be put in priority order.  As I’ve listened to most of the Group’s public discussions, and the presentations of the department heads, I’ve learned that the archaeological work will begin the week of November 15, 2010. Recent meetings have revealed the following information.

First, on November 6, 2010 Lance Mallamo, Director of the Office of Historic Alexandria, told the members of the Fort Ward History Work Group that he does not believe that there will be any new funds in this budget year for archaeology at Fort Ward.  He said that he talked with people in the City Manager's Office and they want to see the results of the Ground Penetrating Radar work before putting more money toward this task.  Mr. Mallamo said that he would try to use some of the National Park Service "Save America's Treasures" grant to do additional archaeology and research on Fort Ward Park.

Second, on November 11, 2010 at the Fort Ward Park Advisory Group Meeting Mr. Mallamo told the members of the group and the public that the initial results of the archaeological research will be available within the next month. This work will 


determine if the use of Ground Penetrating Radar has been 
successful in identifying graves in the park. He indicated that if the Radar technology is successful he expects that it will be used to look at approximately 80% of the park in 2012. 

However, if the Radar technology is not successful in identifying graves he and his staff will look at other alternatives for identifying graves in the park.

Third, on November 10, 2010 Rich Baier, Director of Transportation & Environmental Services (T&ES) wrote in a memo that, “The [City's] Stormwater Project list contains 35k [$35,000 this year] for stormwater field work and or design [for Fort Ward Park]. The money is still there awaiting the development of a plan which takes into account the Office of Historic Alexandria and RPCA [Recreation Department] needs. Infrastructure and especially drainage improvements must be designed into some overall plan or they risk being removed as the park is improved according to a master plan. As noted in my May presentation to the advisory group, some general field work has been done by in house staff. Nothing major but review of historic aerials, field review of drainage along houses and condition review of water courses. All is to get ready to kick off work as a part of the park plan effort. In fact I was to come to the advisory group tomorrow night to explain how a grant may be applied for if the park master planning effort includes historic stream restoration efforts. Daniel Imig of my staff will be coming in my stead as I have a mtg conflict. So the bottom line is the funds are there and I am awaiting a plan to work the drainage issues into."

On November 11, 2010 Mr. Imig of T&ES presented some ideas for a possible "Stream Restoration" grant for Fort Ward Park. The presentation included information about sources of funding, project criteria, grant requirements, funding levels, and the deadlines for applying for and using these funds. He indicated that this would only address a portion of the water problems in Fort Ward Park. Advisory Group members concluded that although these funds would be most helpful in solving some of the park's problems this grant alone would have little impact on managing stormwater in the park or the runoff which is damaging the graves and gravestones within the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery. 

It appears that delays in using existing funds to begin the archaeological research have jeopardized receiving any City funds for 2011. Unfortunately delays to the archaeological research could impact the completion of the 2011 Fort Ward Park Stormwater Study funded by the City.  Moreover, delays in 


archaeological research and the stormwater study could further delay proper planning, management and protection of Fort Ward Park and the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery. The forecast seems to indicate that work on any of these problems, if funding is available, would not begin until after 2013.

As Rich Baier wrote in a November 8, 2010 note to me and others, "Nothing will be able to go forward until there is some marriage of the programming--historic---and master planning within the park. The infrastructure needs to be done all as a part of these efforts. I have raised to Roger Blakeley and Jim Spengler that next year's budget will be tight and Ft. Ward has to be master planned prior to getting into a drainage project“.

Hopefully through the leadership of the Advisory Group, the Departments of Recreation, Historic Alexandria and Transportation & Environmental Services, as well as the members of City Council, can agree soon on the priority actions that are needed to solve the ongoing problems in Fort Ward Park. 

I urge you to be pragmatic and look at the tasks in terms of sequential order so that things aren’t being funded before they are ready to be implemented.  A nature trail, a reinvigorated arboretum, new parking lots, or a memorial to those buried in the park, are all ideas that need to be examined during the preparation of a new master plan.  The inventory of archaeology, history, culture and nature has to be completed before site-specific projects can be undertaken.  A lack of basic information about Fort Ward Park has resulted in bad park decisions and cost the City and the residents it serves time and money.  Good data will result in better city decisions and services.

7.  Come Together: Throughout the report are descriptions about the interface between City managers, homeowners and residents.  Nowhere in your report is this topic examined in any depth and breadth.  Fundamental to some of the Fort Ward conflicts is the tension, disrespect and distrust that have been created between City managers, adjacent homeowners, elected officials, and residents.  Some of these feelings have been caused by the City acting outside of its own noise, solid waste, soil erosion, archaeology, and Special Use Permit laws. Other conflicts seem to stem from different views about the role of residents in City decisions that affect them.  To most residents unilateral, top-down decisions appear to often be the norm in the Recreation Department.

Although the Advisory Group process has been a good way to document differences we still need to make sure that all the 


Fort Ward Park interests have the same goals in mind.  It would be most helpful if the report could include some very simple over-arching short-term goals for the park.  Perhaps
the Group could look at these as “key result areas” for all interests to agree on and get behind.  This type of community-based approach to building consensus for City action is an 
essential change needed at Fort Ward Park.  

8. Postpone New Development:  The lack of basic information for making decisions about the location of graves and other important park, recreation, archaeological, and historic values in the park, would either limit most new development at Fort Ward Park, and, or require that detailed evaluations are done at development sites.  The Advisory Group report should either suggest a freeze on new development or a process that is to be followed to avoid inappropriate decisions.  

The development freeze, and or review procedures, would be in place until the City Council approves the new master plan for Fort Ward Park.

9.  Plan for the Plan: Earlier I sent the Advisory Group some suggestions on park master planning in an attempt to give them a sense of the typical sequence of steps that go into a master plan.  Your lists of multiple plans are all elements that go into a standard master plan process.  However, there is no recommendation that gets at the need for different City department’s to integrate their ideas, information, plans and actions into one consolidated effort. 

The report acknowledges that there are a number of plans running on parallel tracks. Unfortunately some of this independent thinking and action has brought all of us together for the last three years.  The park seems to be used for at least four different objectives.  It was created to protect, interpret and enjoy history and culture.  It was created to protect and enjoy open space and passive recreation uses. It has been used as an Arboretum. It is also being used to manage stormwater from the park, Marlboro Estates, and Episcopal/VA Theological Seminary.  

In order to meet each of these objectives simultaneously, without impairing the values and functions of the other objectives, future actions need to be integrated.  This integration starts with all of the department heads, as well as the City Council and public, agreeing on a Statement for Management for Fort Ward Park. The Statement is a basic document prepared and revised regularly to guide park management and planning. This approach is a straight-forward way of organizing information to make decisions about park use, protection, 


management, interpretation, etc.  It shows the relationship between park purpose; management objectives; inventory and analysis; the outline of planning requirements; additional documents needed for a park master plan; and ways to engage the public in the preparation of the master plan.

The Statement for Management could be used to integrate the four major goals of the park as well as identifies what information 
is needed for future decision-making.  It is an essential decision-making path for the City to take in order to achieve the Council’s goal of a “Commitment to a balanced, multi-use park and historic site”. 

10.  Restore Trust and Parkland:  My research of the creation of Fort Ward Park spans a period of more than 60 years.  During that time community leaders, city managers, and elected officials have done a great deal of work to protect, restore, interpret, and make publicly accessible the many values of Fort Ward Park.  Over time most of the decisions that were made about the park have been positive and appropriate. Unfortunately some of the decisions that were made about the park have been detrimental to its history and the communities it serves.  

Mistakes will happen and the treatment of the graves and the creation of the maintenance yard may have reflected the times or the result of overworked park managers cutting corners to juggle multiple demands.  However, City leaders have repeatedly tried to deny or excuse the City’s actions with statements that are neither true nor reflective of the responsibility that comes with public service.  The Advisory Group should include a recommendation that urges the City managers and local elected officials to apologize to the descendant families of those persons buried in the park, and or, in the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery for the inappropriate actions taken by the City impacting these areas.  The City should also be urged to restore the land, including the topography, drainage, permeability of the soil, and vegetation that has been modified, without proper approvals and public review, within the park maintenance yard. These actions will go a long way in rebuilding trust between City managers and elected officials and the public they serve.  

Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks again!

Sincerely,

Glenn

J. Glenn Eugster
4022 Ellicott Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22304