Wednesday, September 10, 2003
|
Wednesday, September 10, 2003 |
|
PTC, Tyrone left out of Fayette's $19 million 20-year recreation plan By JOHN THOMPSON
After last week's acceptance of a recreation needs assessment plan by the Fayette County Commission, many residents are wondering when they will see new facilities popping up on the landscape and how they will be funded. The details of the $19 million plan are in a hefty 65-page document prepared for the county by consulting group Robert and Company. Leafing through the pages, you get a sense of where the county wants to head with its recreation programs for the next 20 years. But as Commissioner Greg Dunn said last Wednesday when the County Commission approved it 4-1, "it's only a plan, and I'm sure some things will be shifted around. The dissenting vote came from Commissioner Peter Pfeifer, who said he liked much of the plan, but had a few problems. "I just cannot vote for a plan that says our service area is 61 percent of our population," he said. The plan did not address recreation efforts in Peachtree City or Tyrone, which have their own recreation departments. "I can't stop this plan, nor do I want to. What I can do is to work in the future to modify this plan, to help shape it as it moves forward to better meet the needs and address the shortcomings that I see," Pfeifer said. Included in the recommendations for recreation facilities are: 209 acres of additional park space at the cost of $4.18 million. Two new aquatic centers, which would feature seven-lane lap pools. The study says the county already needs a center now, and anticipates another aquatic center for the growing population. Each center would cost $1.7 million. Additional bike and nature trails. The study recommends building 14 miles of trials with a total cost of $1.47 million. Horseshoe courts spread throughout the county. By the year 2020, the study estimates the county will need 47 courts costing $1,500 each. More picnic areas for families to enjoy the outdoors. 41 additional picnic areas, with a price tag of $8,000 each, are recommended. The study also recommends some interesting options for funding the projects. Federal funding choices include, community development block grants, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If the county wants to fund the projects on a local level, the study offers five solutions. The general fund, which is how the county currently funds recreation needs. A Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. The additional penny sales tax could be used to fund part of the program, but not any ongoing maintenance projects. Dedicated millage. If the county raised the millage rate by one mill, more than $3.8 million a year would be raised for recreation, the study estimated. Bond referendums. Traditionally, these have not been successful for recreation issues. Public and private partnerships.
|
||