Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11-4 <br />Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan <br /> CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11 <br />D. Need for a Public Pool? <br /> <br />In the Community Needs Assessment, one of the <br />desired new facilities was a “swimming pool.” <br />Currently, there are public pools operated by the <br />Town of Chapel Hill – including the Homestead <br />Aquatics Center funded in large measure by an <br />Orange County bond. The Sportsplex in Hillsborough <br />has a swimming pool, and there are a number of <br />other private pools that allow for individual or single <br />-usage passes. But there is no publicly-operated free <br />to the public swimming pool outside of Chapel Hill. <br /> <br />It is unclear whether the survey respondents intend- <br />ed to show a desire for an outdoor public pool, or an <br />indoor pool. Since indoor pools exist, it may be likely <br />that the intention is for a public outdoor pool, but <br />this is not known. <br /> <br />Public swimming pools are somewhat-expensive to <br />operate and can require significant capital and oper- <br />ating costs. The County should explore further the <br />intention and desire expressed in the survey to see <br />what exactly is desired, and conduct a cost-benefit <br />analysis looking at likely costs and potential users/ <br />revenues, and then make a decision on whether to <br />include a swimming pool as a new recreational <br />facility for Orange County. A swimming pool could <br />be located into the designs for one of several ex- <br />isting or planned future parks if desired. But more <br />information is recommended before committing to a <br />course of action in this area. <br />E. Five Year CNA’s / 10 Year Update <br /> <br />Orange County’s 1988 Recreation and Parks Master <br />Plan has served the county well. The themes and <br />philosophy of that plan are now ingrained in the <br />county’s method and means of providing parks and <br />recreation, and have charted the course for future <br />needs identification and development. <br /> <br />While there was never an intention to go 25 years <br />between system master plans, that occurrence and <br />the happy circumstance of the way the 1988 plan <br />served the county is not one that should be <br />expected to occur again. We live in a dynamic <br />society, where technology and community and per- <br />sonal recreation interests are subject to change and <br />need flexibility for future options and alternatives. <br /> <br />Especially with a community needs based system of <br />standards and facilities, an evaluation of the <br />preference of residents is needed on a more- <br />frequent basis. <br /> <br />It is recommended that this master plan have an <br />amendment process that allows for goals, planned <br />facilities and programs, and other strategies and <br />recommendations to be altered from time to time. <br />Additionally, resident input on community needs <br />should be solicited on a regular basis. A community <br />needs assessment survey is recommended for every <br />10 years, with a statistical random-sample survey at <br />least once in the 10-year period. <br /> <br />Accordingly, the system master plan should be up- <br />dated to reflect changed conditions, facilities issues <br />and new community needs identification every 10 <br />years, in addition to any special amendments that <br />may be needed to address immediate issues, trends <br />or changed conditions in the interim. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />128