Agenda - 05-03-2000-9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CHAPEL HILL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIQN 200 PLANT ROAD, CHAPEL HILL, NpRTH CAROLINA 27514 VoICE/TTD~(919) 968-2784 FAX: (919) 932-2923 ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Waldorf and Council FROM: Dianne Lemasters, Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission RE: Recommendation Regarding the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report DATE: February 3, 2000 At its December 8, 1999 and February 2, 2000 meetings, the Commission discussed the Report of the joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. On February 2, 2000 the Commission voted unanimously (&0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Report of the Grange County Master Recreation and Pazks Plan Work Group as a general planning tool. However, the Commission expressed concern over several ideas in the Report including the reciprocal relationship between jurisdictions for participation in programs, the development of unified recreation standards, and lighting of playing fields. The Commission applauds the Work Group's efforts in collecting an inventory of all recreation and park resources in Orange County and believes that the Work Group has laid a strong framework for Carrboro, Orange County, and Chapel Hill working cooperatively. The notions of joint siting and management of sites and coordinated opportunities with OWASA, UNC, and Duke University are very positive. The Work Group did not resolve some key issues, chiefly the concept of unified standazds. It maybe that no one set of standards is applicable for all azeas of Orange County. While we believe the creation of a "Parks and Resource Lands Council" is a good idea, we are not confident the Council's charge has been fully articulated. We believe staff should work to develop a formal list of agreed upon responsibilities before elected officials approve the concept. The Open Facilities Policy proposed in the Joint Master Recreation and Pazks Work Group Report is consistent with curt reciprocal agreements. We believe it should be noted that virtually all facilities currently being operated in the County are in fact in Chapel Hill. While we do not propose restricting participation, we believe Town of Chapel Hill residents should receive priority registration in Town programs. This concept is not inconsistent with the proposed Open Facilities Policy. We understand that the funding Orange County provides to the Town of Chapel Hill for parks and recreation operation amounts to less than 5% of the department's operating costs. Yet almost 20% of overall participants in organized department activities are County, non-Town residents. Staff records indicate that for some programs almost 40% of fee waiver applicants are County, non-Yawn residents. We believe the County's contribution should be equitable at least to County, non-Town resident usage. 45