Browse
Search
JMRPWG agenda 052599
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group
>
JMRPWG agenda 052599
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2020 5:11:37 PM
Creation date
2/5/2020 4:59:08 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
225
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 Carrboro 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 _ muummrparks is presently exceeded . The County would need to bring on-line 12 acres" in <br /> distr-ict � 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 wof 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 severalty 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 /> instead ranking under population size much like the state <br /> based . on population number and <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 gtudance 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.