Browse
Search
IPWG agenda 041304
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
>
Agendas
>
2004
>
IPWG agenda 041304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2020 5:27:38 PM
Creation date
2/5/2020 5:25:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Future of the IP Work Group <br /> As of June 30 , the three-year timeframe set out for the Work Group expired . As the Work <br /> Group was created by the elected boards in 1999 - 2000 , an interest was expressed in re- <br /> evaluating the Work Group after the three- year period concluded . <br /> To evaluate the three-year activities and process , a poll of active Work Group members <br /> was solicited - asking members what they perceived as successes and challenges of the <br /> Work Group setup and meeting format . <br /> Successes that were mentioned included : <br /> • The opportunity for sharing information about new projects and possible joint <br /> ventures (two members noted that, in their opinion, this function was in itself <br /> sufficient to justify existence of the Work Group) <br /> • Furthering the dialogue between schools , OWASA and local governments about <br /> mutual needs and interests <br /> • Keeping an up -to - date inventory of all parks and recreation facilities <br /> • Helping communicate and provide feedback on Town and County bonds for parks <br /> and open space <br /> • Simple networking among persons with similar interests <br /> • Regular updates from the Parks Directors found very useful <br /> Challenges that were noted by Work Group members included : <br /> • Three meetings a year (February, May and October) sometimes made continuity <br /> and consistency difficult <br /> • Meeting start time (5 : 15 ) made it difficult for those with 7030 meetings <br /> • Large group (23 members) and limited timeframe (5 : 30 -7 : 15 ) made it difficult to <br /> get all members present at same time <br /> • Need for more concrete , meaningful duties in the group ' s charge <br /> In general, Work Group members who responded were positive about the three-year <br /> effort of the Work Group , and pointed to efforts like the study of OWASA lands and the <br /> work toward a joint County/Town park planning process as successes . No member <br /> indicated interest in dissolving the group permanently. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.