1. What is the charter of The Park
2. How is it funded and how strong is The Park financially at this time
3. How is it being utilized today and what is the trend over the last several years
4. What is the strategy for use of The Park going forward
5. When will specific expansion plans for The Park be available
6. What is The Park willing to accept as limits on activities
7. To what extent is The Park dependent on the community for cooperation
8. Review and analysis of the contractual relationship between NVRPA and GMU and assessment of the continuation of GMU of the stewardship of the NVRPA outdoor education program. Identification of alternatives, if any

Specific requests-

1. ban use of large tour buses on Yates Ford Road
2. cap the number of visitors to The Park
3. establish blocks of time for training purposes
4. provide assurances of self-policing for traffic violations by employees and visitors
5. inclusion of cautionary statements in literature for visitors regarding the community
6. sharing of financial plans on an ongoing basis
7. include the community as part of The Park strategy

A vigorous, diplomatic exchange of views regarding the park took place throughout the meeting

A sincere effort was made by all present to appreciate and reflect on opposing views, resulting in a cooperative atmosphere and acceptable compromise agreements on all significant issues discussed

It was agreed that the group would reconvene when a specific proposal for the development of the park was available and that items noted below would be made available individually to the community through Hot Force as well as general community notice programs established by Park and GMU. It was further agreed that an additional meeting would be called in the meantime if appropriate

Specific agreements-

1. Park , GMU and community participants agreed that while the mission statement expressed by Susan Johnson was appropriate and elevating for the current use of The Park, there remains an unsatisfied need to document the current charter and mission of The Park from the perspective of Park authorities. Park agreed to prepare said statements. Due date: TBD
2. Park personnel agreed to draft an Operations and Management Plan for The Park similar to the Sandy Run Rowing Facility Plan presented to the community at the meeting. Due date: TBD
3. Park and GMU agreed to eliminate the use of tour buses (non-school buses) on Yates Ford Road. Minor exceptions (4 or 5 times per year) were considered acceptable by the community.
4. Park and GMU agreed to work with community to establish caps on training volume at The Park for the next several years. Limits will be negotiated through discussion between Susan Johnson and Jim Bonhivert and presented to Hot Force, Park and GMU management for approval over the next 90 days. It was strongly recommend that limits be established in terms of daily, annual and unusual event maximums. As current training volume is in the range of 25 000 visitors, this was established as the targeted annual cap for discussion purposes. GMU stated that the practical limit was 225 visitors per day, while Park personnel suggested a peak daily number of 400 without specifying under what condition such volume would occur. The community spoke firmly that limits should be established at no more than current annual activity levels on an annual basis in order to maintain harmony with the community. Furthermore, the community agreed to work cooperatively to reach an acceptable compromise of peak attendance levels on specific occasions in order to facilitate GMU programs.
5. Park and GMU agreed to include cautionary statements in literature read by potential visitors regarding the sensitivity of the community and its needs in terms of traffic safety and littering.
6. Park and GMU agreed to periodic sharing of financial plans and records regarding The Park.
7. Hot Force agreed to assist Park and GMU in dissemination of information throughout the community by attempting to establish a network for said purpose. Also, information regarding The Park would be included in community newsletters as appropriate.
8. The expansion plan, as explained, included a building of approximately 3 to 4000 square feet and that any additional parking would be a direct replacement of any existing parking. Overall parking spaces would not increase. Specifically, it was stated that there would be an overall maximum of 30 to 50 cars and no more than 6 buses. Park and GMU stated that there was no specific building proposal at this date and that when one was ready (approximately 6 months) Hot Force would be invited to review and comment on it. The stated budget for this project, including the parking lot, was $300 000.

Other comments-

1. Speeding on Yates Ford Road- It was noted that while speeding continues to be an issue, it is not confined to The Park activities. Susan Johnson was complimented by Hot Force on the quick action she took to admonish her staff and visitors to drive safely and the immediate improvement that was noticed after the February 28th meeting. It was recognized that the local residents and their children drivers also contribute to the speeding problem. It was also agreed that this required ongoing reminders and that police would be contacted to apprehend speeders as necessary.
2. Community inclusion- A general request was made that GMU and Park consider including the community in their plans and needs. For example, if properly initiated, a community volunteer program for improvements to The Park could be established. A community event of some type at The Park was also suggested.
3. Financial considerations- A vigorous discussion took place regarding the need to recover the cost of GMU operations at The Park, estimated at $1 million annually. As the $1million consisted principally of salaries to staff that were visitor volume dependent, the question was raised as to the impact of cutting the staffing and budget to, for example $500 000, or 50% of the current activity level. Park personnel pointed out that the relationship with their various supporters would be negatively impacted in terms of perceived value of The Park to their constituencies and support might erode if The Park was not adequately advertised, visible and active. The amount of activity required to achieve the above objective was not specifically discussed and will be pursued through discussion in the context of agreeing on visitor volume limits.

Other open items added to notes

1. Planned utilization of the house and its parking. One member mentioned that if all the parking is combined in the new space, then parking is no longer needed at the house.
2. Further clarification of the mission. It was stated that if the mission of the park is outdoor education, then all other uses should be out-of-bounds including the renting of dormitory space. Also, who is the park to serve? If it is the NVRPA, then that should be the first priority, followed by the Metropolitan area. Finally, and with some question regarding any use would be out of State and distant users. Records should be kept is such a manner that utilization can be determined by the appropriate categories: elementary, secondary, and college students. Source of students by geography. Adult use by location, etc.