The following is in response to the County Board Majority’s Letter regarding the Population Based Level of Service (LOS) methodology.
Dear County Board Members & Members of the POPS Committee:
This is in response to County Board Chair Katie Cristol’s October 10th email (attached) which explained the majority decision of the Board to support the continued use of the population-based Level of Service approach in the POPS update. It appears that in delving into the complexities of the population-based and the supply-demand analysis, we have not been clear about the problem with the approach used in the update thus far.
I agree that a population-based Level of Service approach can be an acceptable approach. However, DPR did not fully implement the population-based Level of Service approach as per Arlington’s own expert consultants. PROS Consulting’s methodology statement attached to this email titled “POPS LOS Methodology 171220” for Arlington’s POPS LOS Methodology says explicitly that;
“each community determine its own LOS standard based on current supply/demand and future supply/demand projections.”
This methodology statement given to Arlington about how to conduct LOS standards for our County requires supply & demand data, which DPR has, but has not been made part of the POPS process or any public process. Not only is this a critical part of the methodology, the data itself shows that there is a very large discrepancy between what POPS currently recommends as facility “needs” versus the actual need based on the usage of these facilities.
PROS Consulting and other experts include these capacity (supply/demand) adjustments in their population-based Level of Service methodology statements not just for Arlington but other localities and as a general rule of siting park facilities. Examples and links are provided below.
I want to be very clear in saying that this is not an issue of one methodology over another:
- The POPS analyses have only partially implemented necessary data to complete the LOS methodology.
- The exclusion of DPR’s data on field utilization has resulted in POPS recommendations which are likely miscalculated.
Therefore, the portions with the POPS recommendations relying on the LOS methodology, must be revised to include the supply – demand analyses as prescribed and used elsewhere by the consultants and experts. A transparent and independent review and subsequent revisions would also reconcile the apparent discrepancy between DPR’s internal facility utilization data and the current public POPS recommendations.
We all want the POPS document and community planning processes to be as successful as they can be. The tremendous staff, community, and volunteer input and effort thus far for POPS should not be compromised by incomplete recommendations. Instead, the supply-demand analysis recommended by PROS Consulting to adjust and temper the findings should be completed to ensure that Arlington is making appropriate investments, land use decisions and community planning with the most accurate data available and with a complete and sound methodology.
CONSULTANT’S METHODOLOGY STATEMENT