to N.C.G.S. § 160A-351. See N.C.G.S. § 160-156 (1957) (“The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require an adequate recreation program and that the creation, establishment and operation of a recreation system is a governmental function . . ..”). 2 . See, e.g., Sides v. Cabarrus Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 287 N.C. 14, 25-26, 213 S.E.2d 297, 304 (1975) (“[0]peration of a public hospital is not one of the ‘traditional’ services rendered by local governmental units. Accordingly,. . . we hold that the construction, maintenance and operation of a public hospital by either a city or a county is a proprietary function.”). 3 . See, e.g., Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. at 530, 186 S.E.2d at 908 (<HOLDING>); Hare v. Butler, 99 N.C. App. 693, 699, 394
holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract recognizing the holding in webb and stating operation of the plant for the city by a separate agency does not relieve the city from liability holding that city was engaged in a proprietary capacity in operation of a sanitary landfill in part because city was receiving revenues over and beyond incidental income