Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content
» Back to: » Parks home » Planning & Stewardship » Park Planning » Park Activity Buildings » Meetings Notes

Park Activity Buildings

Park Recreation & Ancillary Buildings Study

Town Hall Meeting - Community Input & Comments

October 16, 2007 - Brookside Gardens Auditorium, 1800 Glenallan Avenue, Wheaton. The following are comments were collected from the general public in attendance at the Town Hall meeting on the Recreation Building (Activity Centers) Study. It is hoped the essence of statements, observations, opinions, perceptions, and comments offered by the participants has been accurately captured. Please send an email to MCP-RecBuilding@mncppc.org  to provide additional comments, request a community meeting or to be added to an email distribution list.

Thank You,
Mark Wallis, Project Manager
Montgomery Parks, Park Planning & Stewardship Division

Clarksburg Neighborhood Park | Bureau of Animal Industry Building (Norwood Local Park)
Hillandale Rec Center | Randolph Hills Rec Center | Garrett Park | Camp Seneca

Clarksburg Neighborhood Park

  • No Community Participants

Bureau of Animal Industry Building (Norwood Local Park)

  • No Community Participants

Hillandale Recreation Center (back to Top)

  • Would like a detailed status report of the septic issue
  • Would like detailed maintenance history of the septic system
  • Would like a written estimate of the cost of a Hook up
  • Explore connection to Barrett or Hillandale Fire Station
  • Explore possibility of Grinder Pump System
  • Community told Insurance would cover repair. Has claim been paid?
  • Centers for the Handicap is causing point runoff severely degrading southeast end of park.
  • There is possible encroachment at southeast point of park.
  •  Connect parking lots within Hillandale Local Park
  • Citizen’s Association voiced concern that current outreach efforts on are inadequate and they feel patronized.
  • They would appreciate a more respectful tone of discussion.
  • People are hesitant to rent facility because of claims septic system failure.
  • Citizen’s Association found the “number 1” status of the park redesign in the next CIP indicates that the decision to “remove the building” has already been made. They find that insulting and are also upset over the expenditure of $1.6 million on the Barnett Building.
  • Civic Association testified at Planning Board
  • Sent e-mails requesting information
  • Did not receive adequate response to questions

Camp Seneca (back to Top)

  • How much notice will the current resident, who lives on site, receive if the building is demolished?
  • Do we plan to keep Camp Seneca until its life expectancy is complete? If so, what does this mean? What’s the life expectancy of the building?
  • The Recreation Department maintains the pool at Camp Seneca well. Will the Recreation Department continue to operate the pool if the functions at Camp Seneca are moved to the Lodge?
  • Why demolish Camp Seneca?
  • Was Camp Seneca originally designed as a recreation center?
  • Think site specific and look at each building individually when making management recommendations
  • It’s a bad idea to move the campers who use Camp Seneca into Seneca Lodge.
  • Camp Seneca is heavily used in the summer by more than 50 kids.
  • Seneca Lodge is also heavily used.
  • There might be an issue with competing uses at the Lodge if the campers are in the basement.
  • Seneca Lodge has been recently improved.
  • The campers would “trash” the basement at Seneca Lodge
  • Maintenance costs at the Lodge would likely increase if camp function moves into the building
  • The campers have overnights, will the Lodge be able to accommodate them.
  • Camp Seneca is heavily used beyond the summer campers, by scout groups, a nursery school, etc.
  • Charge permit holder for needed repairs - the Recreation Department campers damage Camp Seneca and Recreation Department should be charged to make necessary repairs.)
  • Improve parking - The basketball courts at Camp Seneca and the pavilion are heavily used, but parking does not accommodate use - People are parking illegally
  • Quality control for adherence to permit hours People are using Camp Seneca beyond the time blocks they have permitted.
  • Why wasn’t the Owens Park Recreation Center on the list for transfer or demolition? It is never used, has water, septic problems

Randolph Hills Recreation Center (back to Top)

  • Building already closed
  • This is an omen for the future
  • Deferred maintenance sealed its future
  • Need toilets
  • Playground being held hostage
  • Nearby recreation centers not marketable
  • Center of Community – schools gone (old Elementary school now Montgomery County Public Schools offices and Middle school leased to private school)
  • Inexpensive meeting place
  • Do not believe 30% capacity utilization metric is valid.
  • Would like to see some trend data
  • Would like capacity utilization figure for this building
  • User survey and current meetings do not represent a valid attempt to get public input.
  • Meetings do not represent good way to get input.
  • Building has value to community - Place for meetings – scouts, civic, community picnic
  • If use moves to Viers Mill – there may not be capacity available during core evening. Evening and weekends are “core” times.
  • Some of our other facilities have restrictions on catering. These buildings do not.
  • Split between Recreation Department and Parks contributes to confusion.
  • Marketing needs to be targeted at Facilities not rented by Recreation Department – Those facilities are at a disadvantage in the comparison of a capacity utilization metric.
  • Should look at metric with and without Recreation Department use
  • Suggest forming citizen’s advisory committee.
  • Timing of headquarters project creates bad appearance.

Garrett Park Estates & Elem. School (back to Top)

  • Predetermined decisions
  • Arbitrary 30% usage rate
  • Air conditioning
  • Permanent structure
  • Not a World War II barracks
  • Could be historic due to lending library
  • Concern that decision is made.
  • Have timing issue: applications for Fall 2008 due
  • Add to the matrix
  • Community built the building – and with it a sense of community.
  • Nursery + community + up keep + intergenerational
  • Feeder of students and parents to school system
  • 53 years of nursery school as tenant; within $3400 with operating cost.
  • Recreation Center with school: protects students first.
  •  Must be careful of “tenant mix” affects whether can go beyond 30%
  • 5 days/week – September – June – one tenant preleased lower costs to parks in terms of marketing dependable revenue/usage.
  • Playground at risk, too - if building goes to Montgomery County Public Schools, playground will go. No replacement possibility on that side of Strathmore
  • No equivalent nursery school in area for 2-3-4 year olds – they are full.
  • Walk-able location from neighborhood - Reduces need for trips.
  • Close to school – supports after school uses (scooters e.g.) – “full service” for young children
  • Co-op has fostered community involvement and elected officials.
  • Kids have benefited from the model involvement of parents

Marketing (back to Top)

  • Need to put Garrett Park rentals back in pool
  • Differentiate between fees for buildings with more amenities
  • Explore focus groups with communities.
  • Research prices: how do we compare? Make sure they’re reasonable – lower prices?
  • Use Civic Association newsletter to seek input or advertise.
  • Look at square footage – how much did we spend on maintenance? Does it match $13.50? Would this lower cost?
  • Seasonal usage: define who qualifies and look at increasing rate? Making it competitive
  • Look at usage trends and how they might impact hour blocks.

Last update: December 6 2007