Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-21-1997 - 10a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 SUBJECT: Recreation and Parks Coordination Report DEPARTMENT: Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Report Albert T. Kittrell, Assistant County Manager TELEPHONE NUMBERS: --ext. 2300 Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive the Recreation and Parks Coordination Report. BACKGROUND: In September of 1994 the Orange County Assembly of Governments met and discussed funding equity and service coordination issues among Orange County governmental jurisdictions regarding Recreation and Parks needs. They recommended that the staffs of the local governments make recommendations to their governing bodies about opportunities for joint planning and capital improvements; and that the two school systems be involved in the process. From October 1994 to March 1995 a proposed process for discussing county-wide recreation and parks services was developed, amended and finalized by staffs of the governmental jurisdictions. In May 1995,the governing bodies approved a process and appointed representatives to a Recreation and Parks Work Group. The charge of the Work Group was to consider how the governing bodies can provide the best recreation and parks services to the most citizens at the least cost. A report of the Work Group entitled"Recreation and Parks Issues in Orange County,NC was finalized in December of 1995 and distributed to the governmental jurisdictions in January 1996. At the February 29, 1996 meeting of the Assembly of Governments, the report was submitted by the Work Group. Staff was requested to bring back a draft plan of action to address the recommendations of the report. . 2 On February 18, 1997 County staff presented to the Board an update indicating the following tasks has been completed: • ensured that school systems and local governments adopted a resolution supporting the concept of joint use, site, location and management of recreation and parks facilities among local government agencies in Orange County(resolutions are attached). • met with a representative from the Institute of Government to discuss the opportunities for joint planning, use and management of recreation facilities and services among municipalities, county and school system. • reviewed management and joint use agreements between other municipal and county governments in the state. Staff also indicated the Managers of Carrboro,Chapel Hill and Orange County would finalize a recreation and parks coordination report by May 1997. The report is attached and includes recommendations by the Managers for all three jurisdictions to consider. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as information, consider the recommendations made by the Managers, and to provide direction to the Manager on implementation of these recommendations in the near future. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Orange County Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Chapel Hill Town Council FROM Robert W. Morgan, Carrboro Town Manager W. Calvin Horton, Chapel Hill Town Manager John M. Link, Jr., Orange County Manager SUBJECT: Recreation and Park Coordination Report DATE: May 4, 1997 SUMMARY The attached report,prepared in outline form,represents efforts over the past several months to meet requests from the above mentioned jurisdictions,in addition to the Town of Hillsborough and the two school systems within Orange County. All jurisdictions passed resolutions supporting improved delivery of recreation and park services and combined school/park initiatives. This report addresses both needs. BACKGROUND The Orange County Assembly of Governments has discussed these issues twice. The first discussion led to the creation of a Recreation and Parks Work Group that was a mixture of elected officials, citizen advisory board members, and staff. The Work Group developed a report entitled"Recreation and Parks Issues in Orange County,N.C.". After this report was presented to the Assembly of Governments the Managers were asked to provide a report on possible actions that could be implemented addressing the issues brought forth in the initial report. Afterwards various resolutions were adopted further delineating the issues to be addressed by a report from the Managers. The attached report addresses the directives provided within the resolutions. DISCUSSION The demand for recreation and parks services and facilities has increased across all of Orange County. Increasing demand for these services is the result of population growth. It is generally accepted that financial resources within each of the jurisdictions are inadequate to meet all demand. Therefore,the report addresses new ways to make improvements in meeting demands. School/park recommendations are included because not only are the facilities and sites integrally connected, but also population growth and dependence upon the same scarce financial resources directly affect both services. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS That the Managers be authorized to implement the following recommendations: • Modify the purpose of the Orange County"Master Recreation and Park Plan"to be a joint long range capital facility plan for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County, intended for adoption by each jurisdiction. Adjust staffing and advisory groups as appropriate for the broader purpose. • Direct staff to begin planning for joint program coordination and conducting a countywide needs assessment for recreation programming. • Following completion of the joint long range capital facilities plan, begin identifying opportunities for consolidation of programs on an incremental basis. • Develop for consideration of the governmental and school jurisdictions a proposed process to develop a formal plan for joint use and site selection of future school and park sites. It is desirable that these plans lead to,the adoption of a formal agreement (similar to the one in use in Wake County) on school facility use and that such agreements would guide all future site acquisition of school and parkland. 5 The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Jay Bryan and duly seconded by Alderman Diana McDuffee. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO TO WORK WITH THE MANAGERS OF THE TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL AND HILLSBOROUGH, AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATIONS FOR JOINT CAPITAL PLANNING AND JOINT OPERATIONS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS Resolution No. 8/96-97 WHEREAS, in September, 1994, the Orange County Assembly of Governments recommended that the staffs of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County make recommendations to their respective governing bodies about opportunities for joint planning for use of capital improvements for recreation and park services, and that representatives of both school systems be involved; and WHEREAS, a work group was formed and presented its report to the Assembly of Governments on January 30, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO: Section 1. The Board of Aldermen hereby authorizes the Town Manager to proceed to: 1. Cooperatively prepare a recommended process for joint capital planning and joint operations for parks and recreation services to the people of Orange County; 2. Maximize joint development. and use of facilities by schools, parks and local governments; 3. Determine whether this approach will reduce long-term capital and operating costs; 4. Consider the value of planning and developing district parks for Orange County; 5 Consider dedicated revenue sources for parks. Section 2. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing resolution, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996: Ayes: Alex Zaffron, Hilliard Caldwell, Hank Anderson, Michael Nelson, Diana McDuffee, Jacquelyn Gist, Jay Bryan Pa-c 9 . ti A RESOLUTION AUT'FiOlU7ING THE MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL I H LJ,TO 1VORK W1'111 THE MANAGERS Oh'THE TOWNS OF CARRBORO AND ' HILISBOROUGI I, ANU'I-iE ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH _. PR—PARATIONS 1-OH JOINTCAPITALPLANNING AND JO1NI'OPETtATIONSFOR 'fl-LE RI:SPECI'IVI: PARKS ANTS TtZ;CItEA'I'IUN DEPARTMENTS (96-5-29/R-17) WHEREAS, in - Scptesnber, 1991, . the orange County' Assembly of Governments recoututeudcd that the staffs of Carrtioro, Chapel I-Ell, HW§borough and Orange County make rccomtnteudatious to their respective govern ng bodies about opportunities for-joint planning for use of capital Improvements for recreation nud park. services, and that tellresevttttivcs of both school systems be involved; and WHEREAS, a work group was formed and presented its report to the Assembly of Goveruntcrtts on January 30, 1996; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RUSOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to proceed to: I. Cooperatively prepare a recommended process for Joint capital planning and joint operations for parks and recreation services to the people of Oraage,Covuty; 2. Maximize jolat development and use of facilities by schools, parks and local govcnn mete ts; 3. Address wlrcther. this approach bas poteutial-to reduce long-term capital and operating costs; 4. Con.5ider the value of planning and developing district parks for Orange County; S. Coosider dedicated revenue sources for parks; and 6. Report to the goveruing.boards by Septeunber 16, 1996. This the 29th day of May, 1996. } 7 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGERS OF THE TOWNS OF CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL AND HILLSBOROUGH,AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATIONS FOR JOINT CAPITAL PLANNING AND JOINT OPERATIONS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, in September, 1994,the Orange County Assembly of Governments recommended that the staffs of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County make recommendations to their respective governing bodies about opportunities for joint planning for and use of capital improvements for recreation and park services, and that representatives of both school systems be involved; and , WHEREAS, a work group was formed and presented its report to the Assembly of Governments on January 30, 1996; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby authorizes the County Manager to proceed to: 1. Cooperatively prepare a recommended process for joint capital planning and joint operations for parks apd recreation services to the people of Orange County; 2. Maximize joint development and use of facilities by schools, parks and local governments; 3. Address whether this approach has potential to reduce long-term capital and operating costs; 4. Consider the use of planning and development of district parks for Orange County; and S. Consider dedicated revenue sources for parks. 6. Report to the governing boards by September 16, 1996. This is the 141ILday of May, 1996. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair COORDINATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES FOR CARRBORO, CHAPEL HILL AND ORANGE COUNTY May 1, 1997 9 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OBSERVATIONS I III. NEEDS 3 IV. OPTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE 5 V. RECOMNIENDATIONS 10 10 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose: To describe options for improving services through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation functions. B. Method 1. Review of materials prepared by staff. 2. Interview with managers and parks and recreation directors from participating jurisdictions. 3. Preparation of outline report. 4. Discussion with manager and directors. C. Report content 1. Observations regarding activities and participants. 2. Needs as interpreted from materials and interviews. 3. Options for improved coordination. 4. Recommended actions which are most likely to be productive and acceptable to staff, managers, elected officials, and citizens. II. OBSERVATIONS A. Ob.ectives for coordination 1. To improve effectiveness. 'Doing things better together'. Determining and providing what the citizens want. 2. To provide sufficient funding for new parks and other facilities in a manner which is equitable for the entire county. 3. Lower priority objectives include expanding recreation programs and improving efficiency of existing operations. B. Concerns 1. Primarily, the acquisition and development of new sites (capital improvements). 2. The expansion and improvement of operating programs are concerns, but they are considered to be less urgent and less dependent on intergovernmental coordination than capital development. � 11 C. Coordinated capital program 1. Components: (a) long-range plan, (b) multi-year program, and (c) annual budget. 2. Participating jurisdictions currently have effective, separate capital programs, but coordination between jurisdictions is limited. 3. Strong support exists for coordinated, "unified" long-range plans for parks and recreation facilities. 4. Open space dedication or fees-in-lieu of dedication are required by each jurisdiction. Requirements are similar but somewhat different in each jurisdiction. 5. Orange County has recently initiated a long-range "master recreation and parks" planning process. The process includes intergovernmental representation, but it is not perceived to be a joint effort of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. D. Coordination of operations 1. There is potential for incremental benefits over several years. Coordination is not expected to produce major, near-term improvements in operations. 2. Procedures for coordinating separate programs may be easily and quickly initiated. Obtaining agreement on the comprehensive consolidation of recreation operations under one agency may be difficult. Partial consolidation of some operating functions may be beneficial and acceptable. 3. Considerable coordination of existing operations exists. This provides a base for an expanded coordination effort. Examples include the "Fun Finder' listing of programs for all jurisdictions and the production of the January, 1996 report on "Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County, N.C.". 4. Interviews with managers and directors produced a few examples of operating programs that may be improved with coordination. Examples include: a. Reduction in duplication for a few indoor programs. b. A joint athletics program which will reduce travel distance and improve accessibility. C. Coordination to prevent schedule conflicts for special events. d. A unified approach to senior citizen programs. 2 12• ' e. A combined program registration system. f. Coordinated fee structure. g. The continuation and, possibly, improvement of joint public information activities. h. A joint "needs study" to determine the types of recreation programs desired by citizens. i. A coordinated plan for recreation services. E. Funding 1. There is a widely held opinion that funding for site acquisition and development has been inadequate 2. "Tax district" funding was mentioned by several participants. This indicates interest in revenue sources which are dedicated to parks and recreation purposes because parks have not been adequately funded in the past. F. Park and school coordination 1 The situation: Two separate school districts in Orange County. The County has primary responsibility for capital program budgeting. School site selection authority is the responsibility of the Boards of Education with consultation with the County. 2. The acquisition of new, combined park and school sites are a primary concern. The development of future joint use facilities and the use of existing school facilities for recreation purposes are secondary concerns. 3. The two school systems are considered important participants in parks and recreation coordination activities. G. The climate for cooperation: The staff, management, and boards appear to have cooperative and supportive attitudes toward coordination efforts. There is general agreement that serving the needs of the citizens is the important consideration and that the organization which can best do that should be employed. There is a sincere concern for fully involving citizens in efforts to improve coordination. III. NEEDS A. Capital facility planning and programming process 3 i 13 1. Joint capital facility plan preparation a. Twenty-year(more or less)plan which describes approximate sizes, locations, and facility requirements for various park types. Sufficient detail to be directly useful in capital programming and site selection. b. Plan to be adopted by the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County. C. A primary objective of the preparation and adoption process is to produce commitment to the plan by staff and governing boards. d. Park plan to be coordinated with a comparable long- range school plan. 2. Joint capital improvement programming process for park facilities a. Five-year (more or less) capital improvement program which provides a schedule and funding plan for park facilities in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County. b. Annually updated and adopted by the three governing boards. C. A primary objective of the process is to produce commitment to the multi-year funding plan. d. Park capital program to be coordinated with the site acquisition portion of the schools capital program. 3. Annual parks capital budget coordination process a. Coordination of capital budget recommendations for each jurisdiction by town and county managers. b. Budget procedure should include method to reconcile differences between governing boards as necessary. 4. Site selection and site design under the framework of the long-range plans and capital improvement program. B. Operations coordination process 1. Ongoing process for considering coordination opportunities and recommending budgets and implementation measures. 2. List of possible components 4 14 a. Needs assessment. Market research on citizen's preferences. b. Short-term operations planning. Annual plan with three-year(more or less) framework and annual action plan. C. Continuation and, possibly, expansion of coordinated program information for the public. d. Coordinated registration procedures. e. Optimum use of facilities. f. Fee policies. g. lnterlocal agreements or joint contracts with private providers for program operation. C. Park-School coordination 1. Incorporation of school site planning into the long-range park plan either by considering existing school plans if they are sufficient or by preparing a new schools plan in conjunction with the parks plan. 2. Include joint school and park sites in multi-year capital improvement programs and provide funding for sufficient sites for joint use. 3. Include school officials in park and recreation operations planning activities as needed and include town and county officials in school site planning activities as needed. IV. OPTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE A. Capital facility planning and programming 1. - Long-range plan preparation a. Clarify or modify the purpose of the Orange County "Master Recreation and Park Plan" to be a joint long- range plan for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County, to be adopted by each of the jurisdictions. b. Modify the approved "Work Group" advisory structure that appears to be one committee consisting of a mixture of elected officials, citizen advisory board members, and staff. Possibilities include: (1) A two-committee structure which includes a policy committee comprised of elected officials 5 15 and citizen advisory council members and a technical committee comprised of town, county, and school staff members. (2) A three committee structure with a policy committee of elected officials, a citizen advisory group representing existing advisory councils, and a technical committee consisting of staff representatives from participating jurisdictions. (3) Periodic reviews by town and county managers may be needed to assure the production of a document that is suitable to guide capital improvement programs. C. Assure adequate staff support to complete plan in a reasonable time period. The current plan to use Orange County staff is a workable arrangement. 2. Capital improvement programming a. Staff group (directors) to annually prepare a coordinated park capital improvement program recommendation with specific schedules and sources for funding. b. Managers group to annually develop a coordinated capital improvement program proposal for consideration by governing bodies. C. Citizen advisory councils to meet jointly to consider annual program proposal. d. Governing bodies to annually adopt a program. e. Support from parks and recreation, planning, and budgeting staff will be needed. 3. Capital budgeting a. The first year funding requirements of the capital program should be included in annual budget proposals prepared.by managers and adopted by the jurisdictions that have funding responsibility. 4. Capital funding options 6 16 a. General revenues. Growth in Orange County is likely to produce demands for substantial annual capital funding for many years. A "pay-as-you-go" program from general revenues is a good way to fund costs that recur at a fairly consistent level each year. A commitment by Orange County, developed through the capital improvement programming process, to dedicate annual revenues to park development would provide equitable, reliable funding for the long-term capital program. Countywide taxing jurisdiction makes Orange County a logical funding agent for new parks and facilities, particularly those that serve areas larger than neighborhoods. Annual revenues are a good source of funds for an ongoing site acquisition program. b. Bond funding. Bonds can provide substantial funding over a short time period(three years more or less) to meet existing deficiencies that have accumulated. They are useful in funding high costs of park development or a major acquisition initiative. Orange County is the logical jurisdiction to hold a bond referendum, issue the bonds, and manage the use of the funds for the entire county. C. Development exactions and fees. Each jurisdiction requires open space dedication or fees-in-lieu of dedication. To the extent that these contributions from new development are intended to serve community- wide needs,the park planning and progr amming process should direct them. d. Service district tax. If a portion of a governmental jurisdiction requires a higher level of service than the entire jurisdiction, an additional property tax can be levied on properties in the special district. Sub-areas with special needs have not been identified in Orange County. If it could be determined that service needs differ substantially in different parts of the county, a special tax could be applicable. This may be difficult to demonstrate. e. Designation of funds. There is an opinion that parks and recreation has been substantially under funded and that an arrangement to set aside a portion of local revenues is ' needed to correct this deficiency. Advocates sometimes seek funding gimmicks that 1 - 17 avoid competition with other purposes. A deliberate dedication of funds for park capital purposes in Orange County is probably needed, but it should be done as the result of the capital planning and programming process and normal governmental deliberation. Special arrangements which offer tax dedication and insulation from normal governmental processes should be avoided. B. Coordination of park and recreation operations 1. Organization a. Staff group (directors) to develop recommendations for improvement through coordinated action. b. Managers group to periodically review recommendations and agree on proposals to be presented to governing boards. C. Separate but related actions by governing boards such as approval of budgets and agreements. d. Special staff support may be necessary to develop information and facilitate meetings of the staff group. Staff time available will be a major determinant of depth of study. The directors can rotate as facilitators with some success, but their time to devote to coordination is severely limited. It may be necessary to employ a part time or full time person to support the coordination program. 2. Functions a. Preparation of needs assessment and operations plan. b. Recommendation of interlocal service agreements. C. Recommendation of agreements with external providers. d. Coordination of activities such as program information, registration, and facility use. e. Development of work sharing arrangements to avoid duplication and share special resources such as talented instructors. 3. Funding 8 1 18 a. Negotiated arrangements using normal program revenues and general revenues. b. Coordinated user fee policies with heavy reliance on user fees for special benefit programs to minimize inequity in use of tax revenues. C. Consolidation approaches 1. Orange County as sole owner and operator of parks and recreation facilities and programs.. a. Description: Most assets, staff, and program responsibilities transferred from towns to county. Complete funding and management responsibilities to be assumed by County. Towns could be part of advisory structure similar to citizen advisory councils. b. Advantages: County has authority without special legislation or agreements. County is available for the long-term. County represents all the citizens and service area. Countywide tax base provides equity in funding. Sole ownership and management responsibility provides best opportunity for realizing the benefits of coordination such as economy of scale, optimum resource management, and unified planning. County is in best position to coordinate with schools. As a general purpose local government, the County will balance parks and recreation needs with other needs competing for tax resources. Planning and decision processes -are simple and direct. C. Disadvantages: Loss of control by town governments. Potential for County to be less accessible to customers in small operating issues. Agreement on transfer of assets and staff may be difficult. Special services to small areas and small groups may be reduced. The difficulty of achieving political approval of a major change in governmental service structure. 2. Orange County as the future owner and operator of parks and recreation facilities and programs. a. Description: County acquisition, development, and maintenance of new facilities. County provision of new and expanded services to the entire county with 9 • 19 minimal growth in town programs. County assumption of responsibility for most facilities and services at some future time when capacity to perform and community acceptability has been demonstrated. b. Advantages: Same as in 1 b, but attained over time with enhanced opportunity for acceptance. The County is in the best position to be the lead agent in funding, acquisition, and maintenance for an expanded capital program. This role can position the County to become the primary provider of facilities and programs and to be accepted as such. Transfer of existing major park ownership and maintenance responsibility to County may be an interim step. C. Disadvantages: Same as 1 c except community acceptance and transition problems would be reduced. 3. Program management by Carrboro or Chapel Hill. a. Description: lnterlocal agreements to assign countywide responsibility to one town. b. Advantages: Reduced administrative responsibility and cost for one town and the County. Benefits of coordination, such as economy of scale and more effective use of resources would be realized for operating programs. C. Disadvantages: The operating town would have responsibility without control of revenues. Potential for intergovernmental disagreement on annual funding. Little benefit for capital program because an intergovernmental process for facility-planning and capital funding would still be necessary. Benefits would be limited to those associated with operations coordination. 4. Independent governmental authority (independent park district) a. Description: Independent governmental unit established for the purpose of providing park facilities and services. Powers to tax and issue bonds independently from other governing agencies. Board of directors may be either elected or appointed by existing governing boards. 10 20 b. Advantages: Independence. No competition for revenues within the limitations established by special enabling legislation. Focus on parks and recreation purpose with few distractions. Primarily beneficial in situations where a general purpose local government . with appropriate geographic jurisdiction does not exist. C. Disadvantages: Limitation on taxing power may be too low to operate appropriately or so high that excessive expenditure is encouraged. Absence of competition with other governmental programs for scarce resources. Authority can only be granted and modified by the General Assembly. Independence from general purpose local government. Reduced accountability to citizens. D. Park-School coordination 1. Long-range plan: Board members from each school system should be included in policy committee. Staff members from each school system should be included in technical committee. 2. Capital improvement programming: Staff members from the school systems should meet annually with parks and recreation directors to develop coordinated capital improvements program recommendations. School superintendents should meet each year with town and county managers to coordinate capital improvement program proposals. 3. Operation planning: Staff members from each school system should be involved with parks and recreation directors in operations planning to the extent that issues relate to use of school facilities. 4. Orange County managers and board should assure adherence to park-school development plans during annual school budget review. 5. Agreement on coordinated capital facility planning: Formal agreement adopted by towns, the county, and the school boards will be a useful step in defining responsibilities and commitment to coordinated action in acquiring all school/park sites. It is desirable that that all future school/park sites are determined within a formal plan and an agreement be adopted much like the one in use for Wake t� 21 County and titled"Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Facility Planning". V. RECOMMENDATIONS A. First priority: Capital development 1. The long-range plan is the first step,a necessary framework. Should be in a form to be clearly understood and useful in annual programming. Should be adopted as a serious commitment by all players. 2. Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in time to produce proposals for 1998-99 budgets. 3. Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority. 4. Orange County should play a major role in funding, acquisition, development, ownership, and maintenance of new facilities. 5. If the planning process indicates that new facility needs are as great as expected, a substantial, countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration. B. Second Priority: Coordination of operations 1. Joint planning, needs assessment, and selected cooperative actions are appropriate purposes fora staff work group. 2. Consideration of Orange County as the primary candidate for operating new programs, expansions, and transfers from the towns can lead to a growing potential for consolidation of services under the County, especially if the County assumes a major role in capital development as well. C. Consolidation Approaches: Start with coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions. Develop new facilities and programs as county functions. Consider complete consolidation in several years after experience with coordination and partial consolidation. D. Voluntary Coordination and Commitment: Coordination can fail because other important matters distract the participants. Capable and adequate staffing will be needed to develop materials, set agendas, and prod participants in both capital and operating 12 a `2 . programs. Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained. E. It is desirable that a plan be developed that coordinates site selection in regards to all school/park sites. An agreement should be approved that is similar to the one in use in Wake County and titled "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Facility Planning" 13