Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-29-1996
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 02-29-1996
>
Agenda - 02-29-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2013 10:43:15 AM
Creation date
10/18/2013 10:24:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/29/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960229
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
•. Between 1993 and 1994, county population grew by 3,069 (all residential growth off <br /> campus). During July 1, 1994 to July 1, 1995, municipal planners project the combined <br /> growth in Canboro and Chapel Hill to total 2,417. These two municipalities, in order to <br /> meet Chapel Hill's standard for this projected year, would need to acquire and develop an <br /> additional 12 acres of community parks, 6 acres of neighborhood parks, and the standard <br /> for mini-parks is presently exceeded. The County would need to bring on-line 12 acres in <br /> district parks. Perhaps the most glaring deficit in the chart above is that Orange County <br /> has not acquired and developed any parks of sufficient size to be classified as district <br /> parks. <br /> • Under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, federal funds were available to the <br /> states and local governments for development of outdoor recreation. To receive funds, <br /> each state had to do a state-wide comprehensive recreation plan (SCORP) and update the <br /> document at five-year increments. The SCORP provided state standards for local <br /> governments to use. The State of NC has just published its preliminary SCORP and will <br /> no longer provide state standards for park and recreation facilities. Also, Land and Water <br /> Conservation Act funds are no longer available on the federal level. The plan instead <br /> ranks each of the one hundred counties in several recreation and park categories. <br /> Appendix 4 provides data about Orange County's position in the state and other pertinent <br /> SCORP information. <br /> • The National Recreation and Park Association is contemplating moving from standards <br /> based on population number and instead ranking under population size much like the state <br /> has done. The problem with state data is that the preliminary SCORP ranking is based on <br /> 1990-91 survey data. Also, without federal funds for outdoor recreation and their <br /> subsequent requirement that the states do the SCORP, there is no assurance that the <br /> SCORP will be done again or in what, if any, form. <br /> • This information demands that each community become self-reliant on establishing their <br /> own standards without assistant or guidance by state and national authorities. The local <br /> jurisdictions cannot collect data on all counties in the state to evaluate their position by <br /> rank as the SCORP has done in the past. <br /> • Recreation and park services speak to the quality of life in a town, county or region. <br /> Orange County is constantly compared to our "sister counties" in the Triangle. Wake <br /> and Durham Counties may be an acceptable comparison to see how Orange County <br /> ranks with their park acreage and facilities. One other adjoining county (Alamance, <br /> etc.) could be reviewed. An annual survey of their facilities would be manageable and <br /> Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.