HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-07-1999 - 10aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 7, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No. ~ o-a
SUBJECT: Joint Master Recreation and Parks Report
DEPARTMENT: County Manager, ERCD PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Executive Summary
Work Group Report (separate cover)
Goals and Criteria (separate cover)
Open Facilities resolution (separate cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Albert Kittrell, ext 2307
David Stancil, ext 2590
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive the report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group.
BACKGROUND: In November 1997, the Board created the Joint Master Recreation and Parks
Work Group. The group was charged to update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks
Plan to be a joint long-range capital facilities plan, including an inventory of facilities, an
assessment of needs and standards, and a review of payment-in-lieu programs and long-term
parkland acquisition goals.
The Work Group, comprised of elected board and advisory board representatives from each
jurisdiction, has worked to explore these and other topics. The report, completed on May 26,
contains a number of recommendations for the County and other jurisdictions, including the
formation of a new Parks and Resource Lands Council as a long-term coordinating mechanism.
The attached executive summary highlights those recommendations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. Some recommendations of the report, to be
considered later, would have financial implications.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information. The Manager recommends that the Board
consider the recommendations from the Work Group and discuss referral to advisory boards.
The report is slated to be formally presented at the Assembly of Governments meeting.
2
Executive Summary
Report of the point Master Recreation and Parks
Work Group
June 11, 1999
Introduction
On November 19, 1997, the- Board of Commissioners created a Joint Master
Recreation and Parks -Work Group. The Work Group was developed. to follow up
on two reports:- a 1996 Assembly. of Governments report :`Recreation and Parks
-Issues in Orange. County, NC ; and a May .1997 report entitled "Coordination of
Parks and Recreation Services. for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange. County
developed by the area Managers.
The charge to the Work Group was to:
"update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks. P/an to be a joint /ong-
range capita/ faci/ides p/an for Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hi//... ~ '
Although not listed in the charge, Town of Hillsborough and OWASA
representatives participated in the work. group- effort. In accomplishing this task
the Work Group -was asked to address the following topics:
An update of recreational facilities countywide
- An update of local recreation and parks- needs
- Develop standards for park facilities- and design
- Joint siting, design and management of school and park sites
- Tangible and realistic parkland acquisition goals
- Reassess payment-in-lieu of dedication programs (and .service area
boundaries for programs)
- Dedication provisions for greenways in-the Joint Planning Area
The Work Group began orr December 17 1997: The group mete monthly over the
-next - 17 months (including -six months of additional subcommittee work) to
produce a report. While the Work- Group reviewing a great deal of research and
discussed a wide variety of topics, a summary of ,the report may best be
considered in the following six topical categories:
1. Where Are We Now?
In evaluating the status of recreation and parks in the County, the Work -Group
created two committees. The Resource Inventory Committee worked during the.
spring and summer of 1998 to develop atemplate;--:for tracking all existing
recreational facilities, and discuss a map or brochure to convey these facilities to `
1
3
the public. The inventory of facilities (including quasi-public and private "fee-
. based" locations) is included. as Appendix C to the report. The inventory -would
be maintained for future use, and contains information on the type of activities
available at each location.
The Needs Assessment Committee met during the spring and summer of 1998 to
.update recreation and parks needs from each jurisdiction. These needs are found
on pages 47 of the report, and run the gamut from active recreation facilities to
community.: parks, greenways and "low-impact"- recreation.. In summary, the
rims needs identified for each 'urisdiction were:
-.
Carrboro Acquire/develop. Northem Community Park,
communi mnasium
Chapel Hill Complete Northern Community. Park, Southern
communi Park
Hillsborou h River Wal 'Fairview Park Occoneechee Park-
Orange County Complete Efland-Cheeks Park, Northern Human
Services` Center. Park, acquire parkland in
Bin ham Little River Tw s
An evaluation of previous bonds and projects constructed with those monies is
also provided on pages 7-10 of the document. A summary of needs appears on
page 19.
The Work .Group discussed the concept of a Countywide set of standards for
facilities and park design. The development of a common set of standards was
recognized as important, but because of time considerations was deferred by the
Work Group. Recommendation B on page 35 addresses this topic.
2. Where Do We Go From Here
With knowledge of needs and facilities, the Work Group then turned its attention
to future concerns. One such area was a set of goals and criteria for future land
acquisition and facility itings. In general, the goals and criteria (pages 12-14)
encourage... joint .siting of schools ;.and parks, preservation of resources in
conjunction with parks development, awareness of environmentally-sensitive
lands, .the .existence- of matching. funds, considering the. intensity. of use, and
locations for linear parks.
The work of the Schools and Land Use Councils was recognized as an important
piece of the recreation picture, and the idea of joint management of school and
park sites (as well as possible joint acquisition) is a theme throughout the report.
One topic .that the .report notes. regards. impediments to locating new active
recreation facilities. These impediments exist primarily in the context of lighting,
intensity, traffic and noise. In defining .both active and low-impact. recreation, it is
2
4
important to be consistent with~surrounding land uses. Ideas on ways to mitigate....
the impacts of larger active facilities include co-location of schools and parks,
combining .active. and low-.impact.- recreation in larger park settings to buffer-
-. residential areas, and the. need for a proactive land acquisition program to
purchase lands for- long-term .use as parks (and/or schools).
The- potential for coordinating parks planning. exists beyond the scope of the local
governments involved in this effort. In particular, the report notes the significant
potential for coordination .with UNC, OWASA and Duke University in meeting
long-term needs of mutual interest. While UNC provides ..many facilities used by
students (and local residents), there is also an .undefined. impact on local
recreation facilities from faculty and staff of the University. Programs such as the
Carolina Outdoor Recreation Center offer a means for sharing resources, and thee..
potential exists for collaboration on future recreational facilities with UNC.
Likewise, OWASA currently provides recreation facilities at both- University Lake
..and .Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA .holds over 3,000 acres of- land in the County,.:
some of which appears to offer the opportunity for, coordinated .recreational use...
A memo .from the OWASA Board (Appendix: F) indicates. a willingness to discus
certain parcels for future- public 'use. And finally, Duke Forest. also provides a
recreational resource to County citizens. While concerns about protecting the
integrity of .the forest resources will. be paramount,. opportunities exist.to work
with Duke in the, future, particularly in terms of .carefully-located trails that fit
with the University's plans.
3. Adequate Provision of Parkland and Natural Corridors.
One of the most prominent needs identified is to preserve green .corridors,
whether in an urban or rural setting. This section.. of the report addresses the
potential for linking some existing and proposed. greenway networks in Chapel
Hill,.. Carrboro and Hillsborough to future parks .and regional .open space such as
Eno River State-Park and Duke Forest.
The importance of existing and future greenways in the Towns is noted, as welt
as the existence of a schematic.-plan .for greenways extending from the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro area into the Rural Buffer, -developed in 1986 as part. of the Joint
Planning Area Land.Use Plan. Wildlife corridors in the rural areas were introduced
into County- planning efforts through the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitat, and are important to the overall County and regional ecosystem
as part of the :`green infrastructure." These. corridors are undeveloped riparian
stream corridors or overland connectors that exist in a natural state. Any trails
would exist only as they have evolved over time by use of wildlife or humans.
However, as the County and Towns continue to grow, it will become important to
link Town parks to regional corridors such as Eno-River-State Park, nodes of
3
5
open space such as Duke Forest, and future County parks. and open space.
.Linking #uture rural parks and open space to Town parks via a few unpaved trails
could greatly expand low-impact recreational opportunities. The identification of
strategic corridors that might tie together these recreation facilities is suggested
as a practical long-term goal Using criteria and a classification scheme, the
potential for a .select -few woodland trails as part of a Countywide (and.
eventually)- regional corridor scheme is noted. Three examples of such trail links
are offered (two within the Towns or Rural Buffer, one in the rural areas linking
Cane Creek and Eno River State Park) are offered.
4. Coordinated Land Acquisition for Parks `
The 1996 and 1997 reports point to the need for coordinated -capital funding,
and this is one of the. goals of this project. In discussing parks needs and goals,
the Work Group placed a strong emphasis on the need to begin land-acquisition.
.for long-term park needs now.
Orange County. has taken -steps in 1999 to create amechanism -that could be
used in this fashion. The new :Department of .Environment and Resource
Conservation began. operation on January 4, with a primary focus. on
acquisition/easements of critical land resources. A Land Acquisition Program for
Orange County is .currently being :developed for discussion in the fall of 1999.
.This program will develop .and/or use inventories, criteria and a `management
structure for the acquisition and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to
the public interest, .working with other existing land trusts and entities. The
program will. involve the preservation of natural areas and wildlife. habitat,.
farmland, riparian buffers, and the acquisition of lands for long-term parks .use.
The County is hiring a Land Resources Conservation Manager, -with expertise in
site evaluation and land acquisition this summer.-This .position will coordinate
land acquisition efforts, and would use the criteria developed in the Master
Recreation and. Parks effort to evaluate land purchases for parks (please see the
Recommendations: section for additional details). The outline of the Land
Resource Acquisition Program may be found in the report on page 26.
Funding for long-term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and
allocations, and grants. from programs such as the state Parks and Recreation
Trust-Fund. Information on this program is provided on pages 27-28.
~. Payment-in-Lieu Programs
All of the jurisdictions in the County have provisions in their development
ordinances addressing dedication or provision of recreation facilities. Carrboro
and Orange County also have payment-in-lieu of dedication programs, which
allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lots in lieu of providing
recreation facilities. Orange County has special legislation that would allow- for
4
6
the use of an impact fee for public uses including recreation, but this. proviso has
not been utilized to date.
As of .1999, Carrboro has collected $453,000 through its payment-in-lieu
program.. Orange County. currently has. $488,000 available, allocated by -four
districts in which the money must be spent. The County has also received .land
dedications .totaling 44 acres since .1986, although this. land is in small pieces.
exclusively in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships.
The Work Group found that difficulties exist with the existing. payment-in-lieu
programs.: The funds must be geographically earmarked .and -spent within the
area collected. They must also be supplemented with matching funds for ,use..:
Considerable. research was. performed to explore programs in other jurisdictions,.
and a special meeting with Richard Ducker from the Institute of Government was
held to review payment-in-lieu possibilities.
6. Recommendations
Using the research and deliberations of 17 months, and with the -charge- and
goals of the project in mind, the .Work Group developed nine recommendation,
summarized as follows (these recommendations -also appear on -pages 34-40).
A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Counci/
As we move to coordinate long-term recreation and parks planning, the need for-
a permanent joint council (to meet quarterly) was identified, -building on the
useful nature of the Work Group itself. Possible duties might include:
- Develop and review standards
Develop future-parks bond proposals
- Provide a coordinating. mechanism for parks plan updates
- Make recommendations`on allocations of future bond moneys
- ,Coordinate acquisitions though the County Land Resource .Acquisition
Program
A resolution asking the local boards to create the Parks and Resource Lands.
Council is attached as Appendix L.
B. Inter jurisdictions/Standards
As previouslynoted, impediments exist to the creation of common standards that
could be used Countywide for recreation and .parks facilities.. If coordinated
funding -were .pursued, the need. for. some coordinated standard would be
important. The Parks and Resource Lands .Council is recommended as a
mechanism to accomplish this goal.
5
7
C. Joint Siting, Design and Management ofSchool and Park Sites.
Coordinating efforts and responsibilities with the Schools and Land -Use Councils
will be .important, given the emphasis from both groups on the benefits of joint
school/park development.: As discussed in the section on land acquisition, it is
recommended that Orange County, -with dedicated staff resources, a program fora
..land acquisition, and a role in school siting, should take the lead-role.
D. Pub/ic/P~ivate Partnerships
One of the most exciting prospects is the potential for partnerships. Coordination
between the local. governments. on future parks, such as a -large district parK
between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro, will be paramount. Opportunities
also exist with OWASA, and it is recommended that -the Parks and Resource
Lands Council work to identify properties for partnership and meet to explore
these possibilities, Coordination with UNC on future parks also appears-practical
and should be pursued.- .While Duke Forest is a different .type of recreational
entity, it plays an important role in the County's open space network and future
discussion of less-sensitive portions of the Forest as links in" the open space
network should be pursued. finally, opportunities for coordination with the state,
other land trusts and private firms offer many possibilities for future needs.
E. Joint Capital Facilities Planning /Coordinated Land Acquisition
A meeting of the Managers of each jurisdiction is recommended to develop a
plan for coordinating long-term land acquisition. With land prices continuing to
escalate and little land available for parks within the Town jurisdictions, action is
needed now to identify and acquire future park sites. Use of the individual
Capital Improvement Plans could- be a fundamental part of this :funding
mechanism. By timing and matching fund availability, -the Towns and County. will
be able to work together more effectively, with the County serving in a lead rote
in site 9dentilication and acquisition, working with the Parks and. Resource Lands
Council and the .individual elected boards.
F. Open Faci/ides Po/icy
In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the Work Group feels that all
County citizens should have the opportunity to use facilities within the County,
regardless. of their jurisdiction of residence. Attempts to .restrict use will ~ be
cumbersome administratively and not constructive in the, collaborative future of
parks planning. A resolution. to this end for consideration by the elected- boards is
found as Appendix" F. Pursuit of a similar policy with UNC and OWASA is
recommended, as is a review of hours of .operation at Cane Creek/University
Lake..
G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes
After considerable discussion and review, the Work Group finds that the existing
payment-in-lieu programs are not likely to produce- sufficient funds to meet long-
6
8
term needs. It is recommended that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans
to match other funding with the current payment-in-lieu funds to use these
resources. Even with its limitations, the existing payment-in-lieu program should
be kept and modified where possible.. The. potential for an impact fee or impact
tax should be explored, using existing legislation.
H, Address Existing Needs
While more thorough standards are needed, apopulation-based standard from
the 1996 Assembly of Governments report was used to determine needs .for
parklands. Using this standard, the County. as a whole has a current deficit of
645 acres of parkland. With expected population growth, this is County and
Towns combined with have a deficit of 1,265 acres by the year 2025.
Based on average land sales (weighted for .urban and rural lands) and existing
.bond funds, the cost of purchasing lands to erase the long-term deficit is $10.12
million in 1999 dollars. Since this will unquestionably rise in the future, they Work
Group again recommends immediate action in terms of land acquisitions.
I. Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs:
While it may be -more practical to develop recreation facilities over time as the
population increases, amore-proactive approach. to land acquisition is needed to
identify and purchase sites that offer both. active -and low-impact recreation
potential. Matching funds from the different .jurisdictions (coordinated through
the aforementioned joint capital funding mechanism) should be an important
component, and an acreage threshold and additional standards for joint
school/park sites are also warranted.
To address long-term needs, the Work Group recommends that the following
actions occur:
- Tlie remaining $2.89 million for land acquisition from the County parks bond
should be used for .acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term
acquisition as soon as possible.
- The remainder of the $10 million in long-term land acquisition should be
addressed through an $8 million parks bond placed before the voters in
November 2000. The Parks and Resource Lands Council should .develop the
specifics of the bond proposal.
7
REPORT OF THE
1~lASTER RECREATION AND PARKS
WORK GROUP
May 26, 1999
6/15/99
1
5/26/99
Table of Contents
I. Background History 1
A. Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan 1
B. Joint Planning Efforts - 1996-97 1
C. Summary of Existing Plans 3
D. Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan 3
II. Descriptive Scenario -Where are we now? 5
A. Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources 5
B. Parks and Recreation Needs 6
C. Parks and Recreation Standards 8
D. Status of Previous Bonds and. Projects Constructed 8
III. Futu re Efforts and Issues -Where to go from here? 13
A. Park/Recreation Acquisition Goals, Objectives and Criteria 13
B. Joint Siting and Management of Sites 15
c. Impediments to Location of New Facilities 16
d. Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through
CIP's and Land-Banking 17
E. Coordination Opportunities with UNC and
Implications of UNC Expansion 17
F. Coordination Opportunities with O WASH 19
G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University 19
IV. Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands
and Natural Use Corridors 21
A. Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met 21
B. Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in
Rural Areas 21
C. Analysis Criteria of Land for Greenways and Corridors 23
V. Acquisition of Land 26
A. Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program 26
B. Funding Sources 28
VI. Payment-In-Lieu Programs 30
A. Development Exactions for Recreation Land in Orange County 30
B. Definition of Payment-in-Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 30
C. Current Status of Payment-in-Lieu Throughout the County 31
D. Difficulties with Payment-in-Lieu Programs 33
E. Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally 34
VII. Proposals and Recommendations 35
A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council 35
B. Inter-jurisdictional Efforts to Standardize Parks
and Recreation Requirements 36
C. Joint Siting, Design, and Management of School/Park.
Sites Across Jurisdictions 36
D. Public/Private Partnerships 36
E. Joint Capital Facilities Plan /Coordinated Land
Identification, Acquisition and Banking 37
F. Open Facilities Policy 38
G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes 38
H. Address Existing Needs 39
I. Recommendations for Use of Current and Future Bond Funds 41
Appendices A-K
5/26/99
Members of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group
Margaret Brown, Chair
Ken Chavious
Keith Cook
Judson Edeburn
Martin Feinstein
Kevin Foy
Jacqueline Gist
Bea Hughes-Werner
Ron Hyatt
Barry Jacobs
Loraine Kohorn
Dianne Lemasters
Patrick Mulkey
Wendy Olsen
Bill Strom
Wendy Weiher
John Link
Staff
Albert Kittrell
Bob Jones
Richard Kinney
Sarah Magruder
Kathryn Spatz
David Stancil
Bill Webster
Daniel Newman
2
.5/26/99
I. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Over the last decade, several recreation and parks planning efforts have
been undertaken across Orange County, with policy recommendations
covering a spectrum of related issues. Committees, citizen work groups, and
local governments have worked together in developing guidelines for the
future recreation .and open space needs of our County. Through these efforts,
we can ensure the provision of a wide range of recreational opportunities and
venues for all citizens.
This section includes the overarching rationale for the creation of a
framework for joint planning of recreation and parks, as well as a listing of
the primary recommendations of these various working groups from 1988 to
the present.
A. Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan
Guiding policies for the update include:
• Explore the relationship between existing and proposed school sites and
parks
• Explore strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural resources
through acquisition and open space design, including the relationship of
these resources to active and low-impact recreational uses
• Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities (See Appendix A)
These policies provide the impetus. for much of the current update efFort and
are largely based upon a combination of current and past concerns and
efforts.
B. ]oint Recreation Planning. Efforts: 1996-97
Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group (1996
The Recreation and Parks Work group developed recommendations to serve
multiple purposes. The recommendations are intended to, "establish
principles for coordinated county-wide recreation and park facility planning,
foster greater cooperation in use of existing facilities, and support private
recreation providers and public/private partnerships." The work group
developed the following recommendations. for Orange County and its
municipalities in its recreation planning, which were presented to the
Assembly of Governments:
Set standards based on ranking with other Triangle Area counties.
Determine type of park and recreation facilities to be surveyed. Develop
mechanism for annual review of park and facilities standards by all
jurisdictions.
5/26/99
• Develop an interjurisdictional set of recreation requirements that Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough could include in their
respective Land Use Ordinances
• Plan the inclusion of park facilities in selecting new school sites, while
improving existing sites with recreation and park amenities where it is
~~mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental
jurisdiction(s)."
• Standardize contracting documents with private providers throughout all
jurisdictions
• Create an Orange County listing of private recreation vendors and
facilities, and update annually.
• Establish a bi-annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation
providers for information sharing and establishing new public/private
initiatives.
Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange County
1997
The purpose of this report was to describe different options for the
improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental
coordination of parks and recreation functions. The report contains several
different parts related to the investigation of adequate park and recreation
facilities. Observations of activities were made, needs were assessed,
options were developed, and recommended actions were proposed. The
recommendations were divided into four major categories, capital
development, coordination of operations, consolidation approaches, and
voluntary coordination and commitment. The recommendations follow
below:
Capital Development
• Along-range plan should be adopted as a serious commitment by all
players
• .Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in
time to produce programs for future budgets
• Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority
• Orange County should play a major role in funding, acquisition,
development, ownership, and maintenance of new facilities
• A countywide. bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration if
needs are as great as expected
Coordination of operations
• Joint .planning, needs assessment, and selected cooperative actions are
appropriate purposes for a staff work group
• Consideration of Orange County as the primary candidate for operating
new programs, expansions, and transfers from the towns can lead to a
growing consolidation of services under the County
2
5/26/99
Consolidation Approaches
• Begin 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
Voluntary Coordination and Commitment
• Capable and adequate staffing needed to develop materials, set agendas,
and prod participants in both capital and operating programs
• Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained
Shaping Orange County's Future Parks and Recreation Issues (1998)
See Appendix B for excerpts from SOCF Transportation, Infrastructure, and
Services (TIS) report which includes parks and recreation issue list..
C. Summary of Existing Plans
See Appendix A for summaries of existing recreation and parks plans.
D. Background /Rationale for Updating .joint Plan
Charge to Work Group: Update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks
Plan to be a joint long-range capital facilities plan for Orange County,
Carrboro, and Chapel Hill.
The most recent efforts in developing the intergovernmental master park and
recreation plan have included the formation of a work group comprised of
elected ofFcials, citizens, staff, and interested stakeholders -including
representatives of the Town of Hillsborough. _ This Commissioner-appointed
work group divided into two subcommittees to address updating the
countywide needs assessment as well as an inventory of public, quasi-public,
and private recreational facilities and opportunities. These subcommittees
then re-formed into the large work group to address issues such as the
incorporation of wildlife corridors and open space preservation into parkland.
acquisition.
In addition, park and recreation department supervisors from each
jurisdiction worked together to develop facility and program standards to be
used county-wide, and County staff researched various issues regarding land
acquisition, dedication/payment-in-lieu, and school/park joint siting. Staff
then prepared versions of the final report for work group comment and made
adjustments accordingly. The work group developed the final proposals and
recommendations for the master plan, which staff then incorporated into the
final report.
3
5/Z6/99
II. DESCRIPTION:.WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the park bond
funds will be disbursed, the work group had to first gain an idea of the state
of park and recreation facilities within the county and its municipalities. It
was necessary to have an accurate picture of who is providing for the
recreation needs of the citizenry, whether through public, quasi-public, or
private means. Once the needs and resources were identified, standards for
future park and recreation provisions were discussed.
A. Inventory of Resources
One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to create an inventory of
the current recreation resources and parks within the County (see Appendix
C). The Resource Subcommittee developed categories for the inventory and
decided it was important to address resources within all sectors of our
community. Thus, the inventory was split into lists for private, public, and
quasi-public. Private consists primarily of apartment complexes,
neighborhood clubs, and larger, specialized clubs (e.g. tennis club, country
club). However, locations such as Duke Forest are also listed as private since
they are privately owned with primary missions other than recreation. Public
resources identified were parks, trails, community centers, and other locales
open to and funded by the public. Quasi-public entities include community
centers and Ruritan clubs usually open to the public with additional contact
required, UNC facilities selectively opened to the public, and government-
owned facilities, such as Cane Creek Reservoir, which allows recreation while
maintaining the primary mission of water supply protection.
Once the list was divided, the categories were modified to more accurately
reflect specific resources in each ownership grouping. For example, the
quasi-public list may include a category inventorying whether the facilities
require additional contact before use, while this issue would infrequently
apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks.
The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues. The
Work Group and staff's personal knowledge of resources in the area,
inventories recently completed by participating municipalities, and
information from area apartment associations and complexes were all used in
development of the document. The roster of apartments is that of complexes
listed in Orange County tax records. Thus,. this is not a complete listing of all
complexes in the county or municipalities.
B. Needs Identified for County and Municipalities
The Needs Assessment Subcommittee was formed in order to more
accurately identify specific needs of facilities throughout each jurisdiction.
4
5/26/99
The following active recreation_needs were identified through this process:
1. Orange County
a) Develop Phase II - Efland-Cheeks School/Community Park.. (In
progress)
b) Develop Courthouse/River Park (jointly with Town of
Hillsborough).
c) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground.
d) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park
and renovate the building.
e) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System
and replace windows.
f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill/Bingham
Township.
g) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA.
h) Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for
locating schools and park sites and to construct larger
gymnasiums at future schools to address the overcrowding of
indoor recreation activities.
2. Town of Chapel Hill
The Town has recently-begun updating its comprehensive plan.
The new plan will:
• Include a section on .parks and recreation
• Call for plan to be completed in .fall of 1999
The Town's comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989. The
Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan
on May 26, 1998.
Needs identified include:
a. Future Development of Northern Community Park
At its September 28, 1998 Council adopted the following
actions; 1) from FY98-99 budget appropriated for conceptual
5
5/26/99
plan process of aquatic facility/community center; and 2)
$200,000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of
batting cage project. Possible development a. aquatic facility, b.
Community Center.
b. Future Development of Southern Community Park
• No Council decisions made at this point, except soccer field at
school
• No conceptual plan at this point
Staff and the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon
recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will:
• Identify community leisure needs, values
• Clarify/revise Department mission
• Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation
planning/development
3. Town of Carrboro
a) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park
b) Community Gymnasium
c) Provide general on-going renovations to all existing facilities at
all community, neighborhood, and mini-park sites.
d) Along with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System, provide
expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities.
e) Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek
Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where
possible. Accept all previous ofFers of dedication and easements
along Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system.
f) Fully develop the "Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park."
g) Acquire property for "Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park" and fully
develop.
h) Fully develop °Odum Mini-Park"
i) Acquire additional property for "Pathway Drive Mini-Park" and
fully develop.
4. Town of Hillsborough
The Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved in
1993. Its goals are still valid although additional needs have arisen
that indicate the Master Plan is due for an update. A recent
annexation to the Town for a new subdivision coupled with substantial
growth within Hillsborough Township increases the need for
recreational opportunities. The Town, as yet, has no public parks that
are officially open to the public although several park projects are
6
5/26/99
currently in progress.
The Parks and Recreation Board was appointed in 1996. Since then
the members of the Board have assessed existing property and
facilities owned by the Town and have assigned some priorities for
implementation of the Master Plan. Several projects are ongoing.
Funding has been allocated and/or is being requested for these
projects. Some funding has been allocated for construction.
The most immediate recreation needs, based on the original survey
and subsequent requests by townspeople, include (not necessarily in
order of need):
a) Playing fields for organized sports
b) Basketball courts
c) Safe places to walk and bicycle
d) Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences
e) Neighborhood parks
f) Skateboard facilities
C. Standards
See Section VII for recommendations on the development of coordinated
standards. See Appendix D for existing standards.
D. Status of .Previous Bonds and Projects
Constructed
In previous years, different jurisdictions have issued bonds for recreation and.
parks projects. A number of existing facilities used by County and Town
residents were funded through these bonds. The following is a listing of
bonds approved and projects constructed or other accomplishments in the
past five years.
1. Orange County
Bond Funds
$6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November, 1997:.
• Park Land Acquisition $3.0 Million
• Development $3.0 Million
Efland-Cheeks Community School Park $0.5 Million
Northern Chapel Hill Community Park $1.0 Million
Southern Chapel Hill Community Park $1.0 Million
Other Park Facilities $0.5 Million
7
5/26/99
Current Projects
• Construction of Efland-Cheeks School Park - Phase I.
• Feasibility study for Fairview Park development.
• Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/River Park.
Accomplishments -Past Five Years
• Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts (Jointly with
Orange County Schools -County share $40,030).
• Renovations to tot-lot playground at the Northern Human Services
Center ($9,200 plus $14,000 Smart-Start grant).
• Purchased 40 acres adjoining the Northern Human Services Center
($110,000).
• Developed Efland-Cheeks Community School/Park Master Plan and
began construction of Phase I. ($84,575 for plan, $756,000 for
construction contract, Phase I. Total to date: $840,575)
2. Town of Chapel Hill
1996 Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Funds $5 million
1996 Land Acquisition for Open Space and Greenways $3 million
1989 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds - $5 million
• Funded the following projects: Merritt Pasture ($400,000), Bolin
Creek Greenway Part III ($161,273), Northern Community Park
($1.25 million for acquisition, $1.05 million for development),
Southern Community Park (north tract $679,000) and other smaller
projects
1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $2.5 million
• Funded Southern Community Park (south tract - $1.046 million),
Pritchard Park ($665,000) and several small projects
1976 Parks Bond - $2.65 million
• Funded Cedar Falls Park, Chapel Hill Community Center, Umstead
Park, five ballfields, 20 tennis courts and. Hargraves Recreation
Center
3. Town of Carrboro
$1,110,000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978
• Funded Anderson Community Park acquisition/development
Accomplishments -Past Five Years
• Lighting of ballfleld at Anderson Community Park
• Renovation of Wilson Park tennis courts
• Removal and renovation of playground at Baldwin Park
8
5/26/99
Current Projects /Ongoing Improvements
• Acquisition and renovation of Carrboro Baptist Church building for
Carrboro Community Center
4. Town of Hillsborough
$254,000 from the Clean Water Management Trust. Fund for Eno
Riverwalk Stream Buffers
$3.1,500 for Occoneechee Mountain park (plus $37,500 in other
funds)
Current Projects:
Cooperative projects between Hillsborough and Orange County
River Park -Approximately 5 acres of county land located in
downtown Hillsborough between the new courthouse and river is being
planned for an urban park and open space. The town has .pledged
$50,000 for this effort. At least $25,000 has been spent and the
remainder is available when the county is ready to proceed. A re-
creation of the Occoneechi village is being constructed on the site.
RC&D is prepared to assist with an erosion mitigation project along
Still House Creek within the park. Further planning and development
funds are needed for implementation of the proposed master plan.
Fairview Park - An engineering study is needed to evaluate the
possible impacts of an old landfill and general soil conditions of the
combined county and town properties on the feasibility of a major
sports facility. The estimated cost of the study is $46,000.
Hillsborough projects
Occoneechee Park -Trails have been built by volunteers within the
original 28 acres with funds from Adopt-a-Trail Grants and from the
Town. Development plans. for an overlook within the 28 acres, a small
parking and picnic area on afee-simple parcel next to Eno Mountain
Road, and a 1/4 mile accessible trail on an easement parallel to the
Eno River that would connect the two was expected to be implemented
in 1999 using a NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) grant
($31,500) and other funds totaling $69,000. An upcoming lease
agreement between N.C. Parks and Recreation and Hillsborough, to
combine the management of Occoneechee park with the newly-
acquired state park lands on Occoneechee Mountain, will negate plans
to build the parking lot and trail. The PARTF grant and other funds
totaling $69,000 have been allocated for the above development. Due
to the 2-year elapsed time of the original estimate additional funds
may be needed for completion. An additional $13,000 has been
requested.
Gold Park/Old Ball Park -Twenty-four acres at the south end of
9
5/26/99
Nash Street, south of the railroad tracks, were donated to the town in
1995. This land has historically been used for semi-pro baseball
activities and the town would like to reinstate its use for organized
sports, on a local scale. An estimated $26,000 is needed- (in '96
dollars) to relocate sewer and electrical lines. Because the land is
adjacent to the Eno River, floodplain and wetland issues must also be
investigated.
Murray Street Park -The master plan for this 1/4 acre lot was
developed by local residents. $9,000 has been allocated for
construction of the project by the town board. $10,000 for phase 2
has been requested.
King/Occoneechee Street Park -Local residents have approached
the Park and Recreation Board with a proposal to develop this 0.6 acre
lot for a neighborhood park. No funds have yet been requested.
River Walk -The town received a grant from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund totaling $254,000 to acquire buffers along the
Eno River for water quality preservation. The buffer is planned to
connect Occoneechee Mountain Park on the west side of town with Eno
River State Park near US 70 bypass to the east. Funds have been
requested to hire a consultant to administer this project. The design
and planning for pedestrian access is still needed.
Sidewalks -Pedestrian access within the town of Hillsborough is
outlined in both Hillsborough's Parks and Recreation and
Transportation Plans.
5. Grant Funding Received
Each municipality within the County, as well as Orange County, have
received funds from various programs throughout the last couple
decades for the purpose of constructing and improving recreational
facilities. These grant funds originate at various levels of government.
Examples of funding opportunities include the State Park and
Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF), North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), the Clean Water Management Trust Fund,
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), and the
now defunct Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The range of
projects completed with these funds is broad. Examples of funded
projects include nature trail construction, bike trail construction,
ballfield construction, and playground upgrades.
The following table illustrates the total amount of grant funding
received by Orange County and its municipalities within the last 20
years.
10
5/26/99
$ 29,480
$1,135,000
$482,000
$3.1,5.00
11
5/26/99
III. FUTURE EFFORTS AND ISSUES -WHERE
TO GO FROM HERE?
With the knowledge of what facilities, needs and standards exist at this time
(see Section II and appendices), the Work Group has discussed the direction
of future efforts. In particular, there are two key areas to which attention
should be drawn.
First, a working set of goals and objectives must be developed that meet the
diverse recreation and parks needs of the County. To implement these goals,
criteria have been developed for the expenditure of future resources for land
acquisition and facility siting. Subsection A below addresses these needs.
Second, the potential for joint siting and management of sites is seen as a
logical extension of the information gathered to date. An evaluation of
possibilities in this area is also warranted, and is included as subsection B.
Impediments to locating new facilities, potential for coordination with Duke
and OWASA in meeting future goals, and mechanisms for accomplishing
these objectives are also addressed in this section.
A. Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals,
Objectives and Criteria
1. Goals and Obiectives for Land Acquisition
In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs, there
are several goals that have become apparent through the discussions
of the Work Group:
Goals
* Encourage school/park joint planning
* Preserve natural resources
* Promote multi-jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts
Preserve watersheds and water quality
Encourage historic and cultural preservation
* Identify and emphasize targeted needs
Establish public/private partnerships
* Encourage the dedication of easements
* Implement land-banking opportunities
* .Acquire/purchase parkland through development process
* Develop linear parks concepts and plans
Using these goals, more-specific objectives were identified:
Objectives
* Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is
12
5/26/99
environmentally sensitive, such as wetlands;
* Develop a program for land dedication/recreation payment that is
more effective and comprehensive;
Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction
with the creation of recreation facilities;
* Develop linear parks in the Rural Buffer, and explore opportunities
along other identified stream corridors;
* "Retrofit" existing developed properties for recreation;
* Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the
Upper Eno River preservation efforts;
* Develop land-use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood
parks
2. Criteria for Evaluating Possible Lan~1 Acauisiti
Subject to approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, a
system should be developed to evaluate how well potential land
acquisitions meet the goals and objectives. A number of specific
measures have been suggested both for the purchase of property, and
for the appropriateness of siting facilities. The components of this
system would become the basis of the Recreation and Parks
Acquisition section of the County's Resource Acquisition Program (see
Section V).
Potential Land Acquisition Criteria (examples.
* The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction;
* Grants and other funding opportunities;
* Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan;
* Identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County, N.C.;
* Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses
(Rogerson/Oakwood neighborhood park);
* Appropriate intensity of use for the area (Merritt Pasture at NC 54
and US 15/501);
* Location (Northern Community Park);
* Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors, greenways and linear
parks;
* Land adjacent to new schools (Efland-Cheeks, Southern Park);
* Land for active recreation is suitable and appropriate for uses (i.e.,
not ecologically-sensitive areas);
* Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor
preservation efforts;
* Access (transportation) is safe and easily-accomplished;
* Meeting multiple goals (above) gets higher weighting;
Potential Facilities Siting Criteria•
* Facilities should be centrally located for population to be served
* Both active and low-impact (natural area) recreation opportunities
13
5/26/99
may exist on-site;
* School/park joint use sites are preferred;
* Facility addresses a broad range of needs;
* An adopted facility plan must exist;
Promotes pedestrian, bicycle, and .public transportation
* Intensity of uses should be compatible with community (i.e.
lighting)
B. point Siting and ,Management of Sites
1. Schools a~l~and Use Council
In Orange County, a number of elected officials make decisions that
affect schools. The towns and county make land use decisions and
approve developments that increase the numbers of school children.
School boards are responsible for school policy and school buildings,
while the county is responsible for providing adequate school facilities.
To coordinate these efforts, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and
Land Use Council and the Orange County Schools and Land Use
Council were formed, with the purpose of advising the Board of County
Commissioners on growth and land use issues related to schools.
Specifically, the Schools and Land Use Councils are charged with "
developing a coordinated plan for approving developments, accounting
for the impact of the developments on school capacity, siting schools,
and building schools to meet demonstrated need in a timely manner."
Membership on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Land Use Council
is composed of two Board of Education members, two Carrboro Board
of Aldermen, two Chapel Hill Town Council members, and one Orange
County Commissioner. -The Orange County Schools Land Use Council
is composed of two Board of Education members, one Hillsborough
town Commissioner, and one Orange County Commissioner.
The Schools and Land Use Councils held their first meeting on October
8, 1997 and meet generally bi-monthly, either jointly or as individual
councils. To date, the councils have:
Adopted a Resolution of Intent Concerning the Role of the Schools
and Land Use Councils;
Adopted a Structure for Communication that defines procedures
whereby local governments and schools systems keep each other
apprised of activities/decisions. that may impact the other; and
Initiated discussion on a Memorandum of Agreement on Co-location
of Facilities (see Appendix E).
14
5/26/99
C. Impediments to Location of New Facilities
In recent years, more attention has been paid to the impacts of recreational
facilities. In particular, impacts of lighting, intensity of use, traffic and noise
have been cited as posing negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods in the
location of recreational facilities that involve active recreation fields,
programs and lighting.
The Parks and Recreation Directors met with staff to explore this issue. Since
these concerns are almost exclusively related to active and low-impact
recreation, a definition of active and passive recreation might be an
important first step to addressing impacts.
While many definitions could be developed for the terms active recreation
and low-impact_ recreation, the following might serve as a starting point:
Active Recreation: Recreation facilities programmable for structured
activities, such as ballfelds, tennis courts and picnic shelters.
Low-Impact Recreation: Facilities that are designed for individual rather than
structured activities, such as hiking trails, open picnic tables, open fields and
other natural areas.
Having defined the nature of active recreation, several points were noted as
critical to resolution of future siting problems:
• Examples from other communities that have public education on
facility location and public input into decisions;
• Point out the positive components of nearby active recreation;
• Focus on greater community needs and the downside of not
providing active facilities;
• Work to better define the type of land appropriate for active
facilities with lights -locating adjacent to schools and other more-
intensive uses;
• Stress accessibility to pedestrians, bicycle riders, and public
transportation;
• If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to residential
communities, buy larger land area to develop buffers for shielding
of light and noise.
More analysis is needed to explore the change in attitude toward park
impacts. However, the following suggestions may be ways to mitigate
concerns about active recreation facilities while meeting the public need:
The co-location of schools and parks. can address this issue with
appropriate design.
Co-locating schools with parks may have superseded the old
concept of community (mid-level) parks. If this is the case, the
15
5/26/99
focus for future parks and recreation development could be
targeted to smaller, less-intensive neighborhood parks and larger
district parks.
• By combining active and low-impact recreation needs at the district
park level (100-plus acres), it may be possible to develop trails and
retain natural areas on the perimeter while dedicating the interior
to active facilities and °hidden" parking areas. Care must be
exercised to ensure the integrity of natural areas, however.
• Buffers should contain enough land and mature tree canopy to
minimize sound and lighting to an acceptable level.
• Place future programmed active recreation .facilities in larger district
parks and make neighborhood parks low-impact.
• Look countywide to define future neighborhood and district parks -
working with UNC, OWASA and other entities.
• Related to the above, land acquisition for parks is needed now to
begin to identify and save priority parklands. Several local.
governments (including some city/county joint efforts) are
presently engaged in this {sometimes called land banking).
D. Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through
Capital Improvement Plans (CIP's) and Long-
term Parkland Acquisition
To be developed. A meeting of the Managers, elected representatives and
staffs is being scheduled to address these issues.
E. Coordination Opportunities with UNC /
Implications of UNC Expansion
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provides both facilities that are
used by the greater town and County populations, and users of local
recreational facilities in the form of students who live on and (particularly)
off-campus.
Currently, UNC provides the following recreational facilities for its students.
Policy does not allow .use by non-students, although this policy is not strictly
enforced and many Town residents avail themselves of facilities like the
Botanica{ Gardens, Finley Golf Course, Kenan Stadium, Fetzer Field/Belk
Track, and groups Tike Rainbow Soccer use fields owned by the University.
In the 1996 report °Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County", the work
group'~determined that in applying standards to the population of Orange
County that 11,000 people (students living in dormitories and
fraternities/sororities) could be subtracted from population totals in deriving
park acreage needs. The assumption underlying this adjustment is that these
students reside on campus and have their recreation needs met wholly by
16
5/26/99
UNC-CH, while others in the towns and County rely largely on the three
jurisdictions facilities."
Town-Gown Oonortunities
According to UNC recreation managers, facility needs for students are largely
met on the UNC campus. UNC officials estimate that a small number of
students use town facilities, excluding the use of privately held soccer fields.
As mentioned above, it is widely known that citizens throughout the
community use various facilities owned by UNC. While towns' concerns are
largely centered around facility use by students, faculty use of both UNC and
public facilities also arise when developing methods of assessing use and
needs by jurisdictions. The exact numbers of faculty and students utilizing
UNC facilities is unknown. Some officials from UNC see the balance of town-
gown recreation facility use as harmonious while select town perceptions
focus on increasing public-sector facility pressures.
UNC is also working to encourage the public use of some of its facilities such
as the Carolina Outdoor Education Center (see Appendix E). This facility
includes tennis courts, a frisbee. golf course, bike trails, and rope courses.
UNC wants to educate the public about recreation availability, especially
encouraging lesser-known facilities around campus.
F. Coordination Opportunities with OWASA
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has been an active part of
Orange County's efforts surrounding recreation and park planning.
Representatives of the OWASA Board and staff are members of the Work
Group, and have actively contributed to the efforts of the County in providing
higher levels of recreation and park service to citizens in the community.
OWASA owns over 3,000 acres in Orange County, and the local governments
have expressed interest in discussing recreation possibilities on parts of these
holdings.
Both OWASA-owned Cane Creek Reservoir lands and University Lake (which
is leased from UNC) are unique recreational locations in the County. These
combined areas represent nearly 2,000 acres within southwestern Orange
County. As some of the only formal locations with boating, fishing, and
canoeing in the County, these areas are recreational opportunities the
County is interested in maintaining. The expansion of hours and seasons for
use of recreation facilities at Cane Creek and University Lake is an issue that
might build new bridges. Partnerships with OWASA are avenues for
encouraging recreational opportunities on OWASA lands.
Opportunities appear to exist for local governments to work with OWASA. In
particular, local governments may be interested in discussing with OWASA
long-term scenarios for some lands, including mitigation lands acquired
during the building of Cane Creek Reservoir. The OWASA Board of Directors
17
5/26/99
has asked the local governments that requests regarding recreation use be
made on specil=tc parcels (please see Appendix F). OWASA's primary
objective of water quality protection will determine their policy decisions
regarding appropriate intensity of use on specific holdings. The Carrboro
Board has recently asked OWASA to consider environmentally-sensitive low-
impact public recreation uses on all OWASA properties. Finally, OWASA has
acquisition-plans for nearly 1300 acres in Cane Creek watershed, which may
offer another potential opportunity for partnership with local governments for
the provision of low-impact recreation.
G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University
Duke Forest is private land owned and managed by Duke University as an
outdoor educational and research facility. Comprised of seven tracts of land,
the Forest covers nearly 8000 acres of woodlands and fields. Within the
Forest there are a variety of forest ecosystems, stand ages, plant species,
wildlife, soils, topography, and past land uses. Orange County contains five
Duke Forest tracts (or 'divisions') and almost 5000 acres in the County.
The Duke Forest is fully accessible through an established network of roads
and footpaths. Although not expressly invited, the public is permitted to use
the maintained road and trail system for recreational purposes. Permissible
uses include hiking, biking, horseback riding, fishing, and picnicking, with
horses and mountain bikes being restricted to the access roads. These uses
are allowed where they do not conflict with teaching and research activities.
The public in Orange County has received a substantial benefit from the
availability of Duke Forest resources. A 1990 survey estimated Duke Forest
visitation at 273,000 visits per year. Given a fifteen percent increase in the
county's population since that survey, and the fact that three-quarters of the
Forest's roads and trails are in Orange County, it is probable that current use
by residents of Orange County exceeds 235,000 visits per year.
Public use of the Duke Forest has the potential to cause conflicts with
ongoing research and teaching, in addition to creating concerns related to
maintenance and liability. In recent years, an increasing amount of Duke
Forest staff time has been spent in response to problems caused by improper
public use and over-use. Attempts have been made to reduce liability and
conflicts between academic and public uses by directing the public to less
sensitive areas, restricting permissible activities, and educating the public
about the academic mission of the Duke Forest. However, in light of
increasing public demand for natural area recreation, reduction in conflicts
with the academic mission of the Forest will only occur with the addition of
public facilities provided by the surrounding counties and municipalities.
In light of this, the future appears to offer opportunities to work with Duke to
address mutual interests.
18
5/26/99
IV. ADEQUATE AND TIMELY PROVISION OF
PARKLAND AND NATURAL CORRIDORS
A. Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met
In Section II of this document, recreation needs have been identified for each
of the jurisdictions within Orange County, using previous works and new
assessments. While there are some differences between the jurisdictions, in
general the needs fall into the following major categories:
• Acquisition of lands for long-term park use ("land-banking");
• School/park combinations;
• Acquisition of open space and natural areas for low-impact recreation;
• Acquisition and development of greenways, trails, and linear parks;
• Active recreation facilities and/or gymnasiums
• Larger community/district parks with a mixture. of activities
• Neighborhood-scale parks
If coordinated capital funding and long-term land acquisition is pursued, a
flexible process must be developed that would allow for revisions as well. as
the introduction of new priorities with a timetable that ranks needs and
establishes a reasonable timeframe to assure the communities' recreational
needs are being met. A model along the lines of the NCDOT seven-year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) might be a starting point.
A multi-jurisdictional committee charged with evaluating needs, funding
availability and long-term plans could undertake the development of this
mechanism.
B. Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors
in Rural Areas
One of the most prominent needs identified in both urban and rural areas are
the need to preserve green corridors. These corridors serve a variety of
recreation needs, while preserving visual and natural resources. In rural
areas, the need for wildlife corridors has been documented -areas that serve
as connectors between watersheds along streamways and ridges. Inside the
Towns, paved or gravel trails along utility easements and streamways have
been and continue to be a high priority -such as the much-used -Bolin Creek
Greenway in Chapel Hill. Other types of corridors merge these two concepts,
serving as a combination of the two (such as Eno River State Park and the
planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough/Orange County).
19
5/26/99
1. Greenways
In the past 15 years, a considerable degree of planning has occurred
in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for greenways. In 1985, the
Town of Chapel Hill received a Greenways.Task Force Report that led
to the creation of a Greenways Commission, and the planning and
development of Bolin Creek Greenway. In 1996, a Comprehensive
Greenways Master Plan was adopted that outlines future greenways,
funding and construction plans and priorities. The 1996 plan focused
on four new greenway trails: Lower Booker Creek (Phase II), Upper
Booker Creek, Dry Creek (Phase I) and Dry Creek (Phase II).
The Town of Carrboro's "Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan"
calls for active greenways to be located on the Morgan and Bolin Creek
corridors. Both would be off-street facilities, for a total of ten miles and
linking up with greenways planned in Chapel Hill. It has been the
practice to require offers of dedication in both areas as part. of the
Town's Land Use Ordinance. However, no offers have been formally
accepted by the Town as of this date. In regards to other non-
motorized access, Carrboro's bikeways system is among the best in
North Carolina. The bikeway. system is designed to allow residents to
safely commute from their neighborhoods through the central business
district to Chapel Hill at Cameron Avenue. For the sporting cyclist
concerned with touring or training, routes start at Jones Ferry and Old
Hillsborough roads. The town's recreational facilities are easily
accessible to Carrboro residents by the bikeway system.
While the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal greenways
program, recent initiatives to link Occoneechee Mountain to the Eno
River State Park and develop a Riverwalk along the Eno in Hillsborough
(in conjunction with Orange County) would form a significant
beginning for a greenways system.
There is a fourth area where the potential for greenways currently
exists, although no facilities have been planned or developed to date.
The 1986 Joint Planning Area Plan Use Plan adopted by the County,
Chapel Hill and Carrboro contains a strategy map that provides for
future greenway corridors along the .network of streams in the Rural
Buffer area as well as the Town's long-term transition areas. Through
the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, the County has a policy to
require dedication of land for greenways in the Rural Buffer area.
While some land has been dedicated to date in the Rural Buffer, no
plans have been developed for a greenway system. This. subject would
likely be dealt with in the planned revision to the County Master
Recreation and Parks Plan.
20
5/26/99
2. Wildlife Corridors
In 1988, the Triangle Land Conservancy developed an Inventory of
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County. In identifying
64 of the most significant sites countywide, the Inventory also
identified and addressed the importance of preserving wildlife corridors
along selected streams and ridges as connectors. These connectors
provide habitat and allow migrating wildlife to move between larger
open land masses and water bodies. In many of these corridors a
primitive trail system exists, formed, by years of use by wildlife and
local hikers, although many of the lands in the corridor are privately-
held.
The need for this green skeleton will increase in the future as
development continues to occur. The proposed wildlife corridor
network in the 1988 Inventory connects the Jordan Lake lands to
University Lake, and Cane Creek Reservoir to the Eno River and Little
River. This corridor has been incorporated in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan as part of the Resource Protection Area category.
Much of the wildlife corridor lies within floodplain or poorly-drained
land that would not be developed, but important overland connectors
exist along several ridges.
Attempts to protect this corridor in its natural state are currently
pursued through .the County's voluntary Flexible Development
ordinance. Other corridors may also be .important to the natural eco-
system and wildlife habitat.
3. Linkages between Greenways and Linear Parks
There are clear distinctions between greenways. designed for human
recreational use and wildlife corridors to be maintained in a natural
state. A third component of the system is the existing/planned
network of open space in the County, areas such as Eno River State
Park, Duke Forest, and the planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough. These
areas are apparent as "nodes" or junctions in the green infrastructure
of the. County, often connected by stream or wildlife corridors. This
type of network also exists in the urban areas, where greenways serve
to connect many Town parks.
As the County and towns continue to grow and develop, retention of a
green corridor concept will be important.. Additionally, ways to link
rural linear parks and open space accessible to the public to Town
greenways at a few key- junctions could greatly expand low-impact
recreational opportunities. Identification of strategic corridors (rural
trail links) that can tie these pieces of the open space network will be
needed in the long-term.
21
5/26/99
C. Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and
Rural Trail Links
The use of land for greenways, rural trails and wildlife corridors may
be viewed as a continuum of types. One example of a continuum is
found in the 1996 Chapel Hill Greenways Plan.
The Greenways Plan classifies six different types of natural corridors or
trails, ranging from natural wildlife corridors, to 10-foot paved
greenways for bike and .pedestrian use. The six classes from the
Chapel Hill Greenways Plan (with some modified terminology) are:
1. Unimproved Corridors lacking trails. No maintenance unless
problems (such as diseased or dying trees) affect neighboring
properties.
2. Primitive Trails, created by wildlife or citizens. Not maintained.
3. Improved Woodland Trails, with soft natural surface and
minimal improvements that can accommodate mountain bikes
and serve as interpretive trails. Basic maintenance (removal of
litter, fallen trees and limbs)
4. Unpaved Access Drive with gates or bollards to prevent casual
vehicle use, suitable for pedestrians or mountain bikes. Usually
a road built for other purposes and used for a trail.
5. Paved Greenway Trail, under 10-feet wide. Can be pedestrian-
only or allow bicycle use. Maintenance.
6. Paved Greenway Trail 10-Feet or Wider, for mixed bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. Built to ADA standards.
While developed with greenways in mind, this classification scheme
could be used on a broader scale. Classes 1-2, for example, might
reasonably fit into the scheme of wildlife corridors, adding provisions
that specify no improvements, no public access, and any trails only as
previously created by wildlife or people.
Classes 4-6 would appear to be more-properly classified as greenways,
since their use is more targeted to people (either pedestrian or
bicycle). Classes 4-6 would be more urban in nature, publicly owned or
eased, and found inside the Towns or adjacent areas.
Class 3 (Improved Woodland Trails) could be seen as a hybrid trail
found in both urban and rural areas, and as such could be used as an
example of rural trail links that tie some parks and open space to a
regional trail system on a primary corridor to be identified in the
future. In this sense, Woodland Trails may constitute a third category
of corridors and trails.
There are several criteria that could be used to evaluate land
22
5/26/99
suitability for wildlife corridors, woodland trails and greenways, in this
setting. Examples might include:
Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Criteria
• Located along perennial streams, or ridges connecting watershed
basins and their perennial streams
• Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy
• Connects and includes identified natural areas and wildlife habitat
and other areas of public interest
• Privately held unless dedicated to public entity - no public access
unless granted by property owner/public entity
• No trails, except as existing from the movement of wildlife/people
Woodland Trails (Rural Trail Links) Evaluation Criteria
• Located along an identified primary corridor system
• ~ Located away from natural areas and wildlife habitat, or in such
fasfiion as to minimize impact on these areas
• Links parks, urban greenways systems and existing open space
areas such as Eno River State Park
• Consistent with along-term regional trails system
• Located in areas with minimal streamway and adjoining lands
erosion potential
• Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy
• Located in areas where periodic access for emergency vehicles can
be sited
Greenway Evaluation Criteria
• Located. along streamway systems in urban or surrounding areas
• Co-located with existing easements (such as utility easements)
• Located as far as possible from residences to preserve privacy
• Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank
• Stream crossings should be avoided whenever possible .and grade
separated when necessary
• Located to ensure that minimum disruption of the trail would result
from repair or replacement of utilities
• Located to connect existing neighborhoods, parks and services
• Located to allow for emergency vehicle access
With these priorities in mind, the long-term potential for a few
carefully-sited rustic rural trails linking some urban greenways or
parks to existing and future rural linear parks and open space does
exist. Plans for development of any coordinated intra-County trail
system should be developed with linkages to regional plans for parks
and trails. Linkages along the Haw River, Eno River State Park, New
Hope Creek, Jordan Lake and future rails-to-trails initiatives will likely
be critical components of a long-range regional trails system. The Joint
Planning Area Strategy Map shows the beginnings of such a system
that was envisioned in 1987. While considerable further work is
23
5/26/99
needed in this area, it is possible.. with existing mapping to visualize
three examples of possible long-term rural trail links tying town parks
and open space to those in rural areas:
• A North Chapel Hill/Rural Buffer corridor linking Booker Creek
Greenway, Northern Community Park, Duke Forest, New Hope
Creek (including TLC lands and Duke Forest) back to the New Hope
Creek Corridor and the Durham County line.
• A .corridor in southwest/central Orange County linking the Haw
River, Cane Creek Reservoir, OWASA mitigation lands, Seven-Mile
Creek lands, Eno River, and Duke Forest, Eno River Walk in
Hillsborough and the Eno River State Park. (A northern branch
along the Eno toward the new Hillsborough reservoir could be
added to this concept).
• A corridor in southern Orange linking Bolin Creek Greenway via
Meadowmont and UNC to the UNC Botanical Garden to Jordan Lake
lands.
24
5/26/99
V. ACQUISITION OF LAND
A. .Coordination with County Resource Acquisition
Program
On January 4, 1999, Orange County created a Department of Environment
and Resource Conservation. One of the principal tasks for the new
department is the development of a Resource Acquisition Program. While
primarily targeted to the preservation of natural and cultural resources, the
program will also address acquisition measures for recreation lands and
parks -since many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and
recreation are intertwined. Since the County's resources are located in all
quadrants of the County, irrespective of planning jurisdiction, the program,
offers an opportunity for coordinated acquisition with the Towns and OWASA.
A new Land Resource Conservation Manager is being hired to coordinate
these acquisitions, a with a dual background in science and real estate..
A draft outline of the Resource Acquisition Program has been developed and
is shown below. It includes an assessment of the loss of resources that has
occurred to date, an inventory of resources at present, and development of a
program of easements and purchase for the future that may involve a
number of approaches. Fortunately, some preliminary GIS mapping in this
area has been accomplished. Additional efforts will be needed to complete
the task, including the collation of data from inventories previously compiled.
This program will coordinate the acquisition of land for historic sites, natural
resources, parks and recreation, and farmland. -using matching funds and
seed money from the County. As such, the program will be inter-related with
the Schools/Land Use and Master Recreation and Parks efforts.
It is thus anticipated that the. eventual goals, .objectives and criteria identified
in this report will be inputs into the acquisition program for recreation and
parks facilities.
25
5/26/99
Draft -Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County
I. Overview and Description of Rationale
A. Formation of Department
e. Resources /Past programs and initiatives
Section I -S ummary of Re~~-~~~ v Priorities
II. Summary of Inventories and Available Knowledge
A. 1986 OCPD Inventory of Natural, Cultural..
8. 1988 TLC Inventory
C. 1990 LESA Farmland Evaluation program
D. Watershed studies (1988, 1989, 1996, 1999)
E. 1996 Landscape with Wildlife -TLC
F. 1997 Resources Section -Comprehensive Plan
G. 1999 Prime Forest Follow-up
H. Master Recreation and Parks Report
III. Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay
A. How Database was created
8. Listing of Existing coverages
C. New Coverages created to rill in gaps
D. Continued Data Needs
IV. Criteria and Master Priority List for Acquisition
A. Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife habitat
e. Criteria for Prime Farmland
C. Criteria for Historic Sites
D. Criteria for Parklands
E. Criteria for Riparian Buffers
F. Ranking System /Weighting
G. Priority List (by category)
Section II - Manaoement and Funding
V. Tool's and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition
A. Fee-simple purchase
8. Donations (several types)
C. Conservation Easements
D. Coordination with Acquisitions through Development Process
E. Other easements
F. Life-lease agreements
G. Coordinated Capital Funding with Towns (parks)
VI. Management Structure (land trusts, etc)
A. Collaborating with existing land trusts
8. Soil and Water District
C. Establishing a Countywide Land Trust
D. Roles of County Commissions and Advisory Boards
E. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships
F. Stewardship and Post-Acquisition Structure
VII. Alternative Funding Sources (grants, etc)
A. County CIP Allocations
B. Other County Funds
C. .Grants from Clean Water Management Trust Fund
D. Grants from Natural Heritage Trust Fund
E. Grants from NC Recreation and Parks Trust Fund
F. Federal Funds
G. Soil and Water Administered Funds
H. Many Others
Section III - Imoiementation
VIII. Recommended Implementation Program
A. Management Structure
e. Board of Directors /Oversight Boards
C. Funding Plans
D. Plan of Action
E. Stewardship and use of Lands
26
5/26/99
B. Funding Sources
1. Alternative Sources
The means and methods of funding future recreation and parks needs
may involve a number of approaches and combinations. As discussed
in Section III, a coordinated approach for capital funding of
acquisitions might be desirable. Some possibilities for funding sources
might include:
• .Bond referenda from the County or Towns
• Grants from. programs such as the NC Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund, the Natural Heritage Trust Fund (via state agencies), the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Conservation Reserve.
Enhancement Program, and other sources (add examples)
• Allocations from local government general funds or special accounts
• Contributions from other agencies with interests
• Matching funds from local governments
• Payment-in-Lieu or New Program of funding through development
(see Sections VI and VII) or School/Park Reserve Fund
• Future Federal programs for open space and parks (Lands Legacy /
Better America Bonds Initiative)
• NC Conservation Corps (AmeriCorps/VISTA)
2. Local Funding of State Trust Funds: Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund /Natural Heritage Trust Fund
Two of these potential funding sources are funded through locally
collected revenue stamps. Currently, the County collects $2.00 per
thousand on the sale prices of houses. Of this money, 48% goes to
the State, while 52% ($1.04 of the $2 stamp) stays in the County.
Three-quarters (75%) of the State's portion goes to the Parks and
Recreation Trust-Fund established under G.S. 113-44.15. The money
collected under this fund is appropriated annually by the NC Parks and
Recreation Authority and used as follows:1
1. Sixty-five percent (65%) for the State Parks System for capital
projects, repairs/renovations of park facilities, and land acquisition.
2. Thirty percent (30%) to provide matching funds to local
governmental units on adollar-for-dollar basis for local park and
recreation purposes. These funds. shall be allocated by the North
Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority based on criteria patterned
after the Open Project Selection Process established for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund administered by the National Park
Service of the United States Department of the Interior.
' Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statutes.
27
5/26/99
3. Five percent (5%) for the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach
Access Program.
Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) through.
revenue stamps began in the 1996-97 fiscal year. Through March
1999, Orange County (including the towns) has contributed
$1,351,727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund through the
state's 48% portion of the funding arrangement. Of that amount,
$304,139 has gone to the local government matching grants program.
To date, the N.C. Recreation and Parks Authority has allocated
$31,500 back into Orange County, to the Town of Hillsborough for the
Occoneechee Mountain Park. This is the only local funding received.
The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the local revenue stamps
goes to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund created under G.S. 113-77.7.
The monies generated from this fund are used to acquire natural lands
for state parks, preserves, wildlife conservation areas, coastal
reserves, natural and scenic rivers, historic site properties, and other
outdoor recreation and natural areas. Fund priorities are given to
projects that will protect areas of state or national ecological
significance or outstanding cultural significance, and are granted only
to state and federal agencies.Z Funds are only available to state
agencies, or local governments working in conjunction with state
agencies.
To date, Orange County has contributed $337,932 to the Natural
Heritage Fund program through revenue stamps. The only federal or
state programs in Orange County that have received money is the Eno
River State Park.
2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage.
28
5/26/99
VI. PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PROGRAMS
A. Development Exactions for Recreation. in Orange
County
Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of
the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas.
Increasing pressures on funds generated from the traditional property tax
levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental ideas on paying
for parks and recreation. Public officials have been encouraged to consider
alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the
property tax base and bond funds. Alternatives to purchase and dedications
include payment-in-lieu and impact fee programs.
The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions in
Orange County have recreation requirements in their own Subdivision
Regulations or Land Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated,
private recreation facilities provided, or a combination thereof. These
requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/police authority of local
governments to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their communities.
These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority,
similar to roads, utilities, and other public improvements required as
conditions for subdivision approval. The North Carolina Supreme Court
affirmed this authority in Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 297 S.E.2d 632
(1982), in holding that the Town ordinance, within the statutory powers
given to a city, could exact recreation .land or facilities and even require the
particular site within the subdivision to provide adequate recreation needs.
B. .Definition of Payment-in-Lieu and Impact Fee
Programs
1. Payment-in-Lieu
A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities. has been the
inclusion of a payment-in-lieu program under this same general
statutory power. In this program, a subdivision developer pays a fee
related to the jurisdiction's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation
lands, of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate.
These fees then help provide recreation facilities within the immediate
area of the development. If the developer is provided the option to
meet the jurisdiction's requirements or make some commensurate
payment-in-lieu of recreation facilities, the jurisdiction is empowered
to accept the payment under its existing statutory powers. Payment-
in-lieu fees must be geographically designated within the "immediate
area" of the development, spent within a reasonable amount of time,
and supplemented with other funds.
5/26/99
2. Imaact Fees and Imaact Taxes
An impact fee requires the developer to pay a fee representing the
prorated cost of providing community-wide and area-wide recreational
facilities required. by this new development. The use of the fee
requires authority from the legislature through enabling legislation,
and Orange County currently has the authority to levy such impact
fees. Orange County also has a Public School Facilities Impact Fee, but
no other impact fee is currently in use in the county for any other
services. In using these fees, there must be exhibited a correlation
showing the (1) actual need created by the impact of the development
and (2) benefits provided to the particular subdivision.
By contrast, an impact tax allows for recognition that all impacts are
not equal. Impact taxes may be assessed in graduated levels and do
not require the "one size fits all" regressive nature fee scale that exists
for impact .fees. Orange County has, in previous years, sought impact
tax legislation from the State to provide for possible reassessment of
the Public School Impact Fee program.
C. Current Status of Payment-in-Lieu Throughout
the County
Methods of assessing a development's recreation impact vary across
the different jurisdictions within Orange County. Appendix G indicates
the method by which Orange County and Carrboro calculate their
payment required for the payment-in-lieu program. Orange County
also has special legislation which allows payments to be collected and
spent on a "district" basis. Instead of using a set schedule of
payments, Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development
proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of land instead of
payments. The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected
jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation
and open space needs.
In terms of the reality of the programs, in Carrboro, many
developments choose to provide private recreation facilities rather
than payment-in-lieu. Carrboro has collected $453,000 to date. Both
Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do not have detailed central records of the
results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations.
Orange County has required payments since 1988, and has
accumulated these payments in a fund totaling $488,000.
It is clear in a broad overview, however, that the current system of
land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens' needs. Several
problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and
5/26/99
facilities. While recreational facilities may be developed privately,
these are -not open to the public. Secondly, small parcels of land that
are donated for public use are often not used, because of their small
size and/or inaccessible location.
1. Land Dedication
In Orange County, a total of 44.08 Acres has been dedicated. All of the
land is located in southern Orange, in either Bingham or Chapel .Hill
Townships. All are also non-contiguous parcels ranging from 0.12
acres to 12.34 acres in size.
• Bingham Township 14.32 Acres
• Chapel Hill Township 29.76 Acres
2. Payments-in-Lieu Funds Collected
Both Orange County and Carrboro have collected funds under
the existing payment-in-lieu programs. Under legislative
authority granted by the General Assembly, Orange County may
collect and. use its funds on a district basis. In the 1988 Master
Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County, a system of four
districts was instituted (see map in Appendix K).
To date (April 1999), the County .has accumulated $533,000
through the payment-in-lieu system. Three projects totaling
$45,000 have been funded from these proceeds: the New Hope
Creek Corridor project, the Efland-Cheeks Park and the Parkland
Reserve. There is currently $488,000 available for use in the
fund. Broken .down by district, the Orange County funds are
allocated as follows:
Orange County Payments-in-Lieu
Total Accumulated (as of 4/99): $533,000
Spent (as of 4/99): $45,000
District Amount
1- Northern Oran a 102 332
2- .Cheeks/
Hillsborou h $171,296
3- Bin ham 65 003
4- Cha el Hill. Tw 149 317
GRAND TOTAL -
ALL TWPS $487,952
Town of Carrboro Payments-in-Lieu to date: $453,684
5/26/99
D. Difficulties with Payment-in-Lieu Programs
In reviewing payment-in-lieu programs, the Work Group heard from
local practitioners, attorneys, and an expert from the Institute of
Government. It is clear that several difficulties exist in effectively
providing recreation facilities using payment-in-lieu programs. Both
Carrboro and Orange County have funds that remain to be matched
and spent. Chapel Hill has consistently used its fund, yet the same
restrictions do not necessarily apply since its system of individual
negotiations does not fit under the definition of a payment-in-lieu
program. Several problems with the current systems are highlighted
below, and proposals for changes to the means of providing and
funding recreation lands will be suggested in Section VII, the
recommendations section of this report.
Difficulties
• Payment-in-lieu is not intended to fund facilities of
countywide significance
• Fees must be geographically earmarked and spent on areas
within the immediate area
• Fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time
• Fees must be supplemented with matching funds for use
The requirements for the distribution of payment-in-lieu fees
complicate potential solutions that would pool funds and inter-
jurisdictional cooperation. In order for any of these ventures to occur,
an analysis of park use as related to population growth and location
may be needed, helping to prove the requisite "reasonable
relationship" between the collected fee and benefited populace.
Through its special legislation, Orange County may be able to re-draw
districts to potentially address these problems.
E. Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and
Nationally
Understanding our difficulties with payment-in-lieu and exactions will
enable us to also search for better solutions. In order to gain a clearer
picture of regional, state, and national trends regarding land
regulatory policies for parkland acquisition, we must look to examples
of different jurisdictions experiences. The table below highlights
jurisdictions within our region, state, and other states.
5/26/99
Table 2: Recreation Land Acquisition Comparison
]URISDICTION PAYMENT-IN METHOD OF CALCULATING COST ESTIMATES
LIEU? PAYMENT
Oran a Count Yes Zone District Ma 422 or 455 er lot
Carrboro YeS Points System $852.63 to
$1,695.21 per
dwellin unit
Chapel Hill. YeS Fair Market Value Cost negotiated with
developer via
Planning & Rec
Department, based
on Community
Facilities Re ort
Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1/35 acre or 1/20
acre per dwelling or
business unit
Wake Count
Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times Fair
Market Value
Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule and $223 to $375 per
Zone Ma dwellin unit
Durham City/County No Impact Fee Schedule $183.38 to $296.99
er dwellin unit
Guilford Count No None N A
Greensboro No None N A
Charlotte-Mecklenbur No None N A
Davis California Yes Im act Fee Schedule 2000 er acre
Boulder County, Yes Fair Market Value 25 acres per 1000
Colorado occu ants
Many of the above local governments have developed alternative models to
the acquisition and/or dedication of land for recreational purposes. Additional
details on the specifics of each program may be found in Appendix H.
5/26/99
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork
for future matching funds and grant programs -- many of which require a .set
of goals, objectives and criteria. As Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough develop, the nature of future park and recreation provision will
likely include cooperative ventures among the local governments and
partnerships with organizations such as the school systems, OWASA, UNC
and Duke. Planning for this eventuality should begin now, to ensure that
valuable opportunities are not lost. These concepts were in fact, the reason
for this effort, as described in the Assembly of Governments and Manager's
reports from 1996/1997.
In its deliberations, the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has
developed recommendations in nine key areas:
A. Create a "Parks and Resource Lands Council"
In developing plans for long-term recreation and parks planning,
the Work Group has identified a need for a permanent joint
Parks and Resource Lands Council. For example, this council
might include one elected official and one citizen from each
jurisdiction, along with representatives from the school systems,
UNC, OWASA and Duke. The Council could meet .quarterly to
address follow-up concerns in the areas discussed in this report.
The opportunity in this Work Group to bring all of the different
local governments to the table has been useful and informative,
and the Work Group feels that this .momentum could be
continued through along-term mechanism. While the actual
duties of the Council would need to be determined, some areas
of responsibility might include:
• Develop and periodically review coordinated standards;
• Develop future bond proposals for parks and recreation;
• Provide input and a coordinating mechanism for updates of
future recreation plans in the different jurisdictions;
• Make recommendations on allocation of future bond moneys
for parks and recreation;
• Develop grant applications and alternative funding sources;
• Maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation
Facilities developed as part of this effort;
• Create and maintain an inventory of properties dedicated or
accepted as part of the development process;
• Monitor success of efforts to protect significant natural areas
as identified in the Natural Areas Inventory, watershed
5/26/99
studies, and plans for greenways and linear parks;
Coordinate efforts with the Orange County Resource
Acquisition Program;
Develop public education programs on parks and recreation
The creation of this council is a critical component of future
coordination. By its nature, the Council will need to coordinate
closely with the work of the Schools/Land Use Councils on
acquisition of lands of mutual interest for school/park co-
location. This report contains criteria and details that build on
the ideas of the School/Land Use Memorandum of Agreement.
A resolution asking the local governments to create the Parks
and Resource Lands Council in time for an initial meeting in fall
of 1999 is attached as Appendix L.
B. Inter-jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks
and Recreation Requirements
Currently, the towns and County have a number of different
standards that are used to determine parks and recreation
needs. While recognizing the distinctions between urban and
rural needs and facilities, it does app2ar that coordination of the
different approaches would provide a number of advantages. In
particular, if the local governments pursue joint capital funding,
land acquisition, and other combined functions, the need for a
consistent countywide set of standards will be paramount.
The Work Group recommends that the Parks and Resource
Lands Council address, among their first duties, a coordinated
set of recommended standards for parks and recreation.
C. Joint Siting, Design, and Management of School and
Park Sites across Jurisdictions
The Schools and Land Use Councils have opened an important
door in the co-location of schools and parks. With an avenue for
input into the design .and planning stages, the local
governments and schools will be able to provide for a number of
parks and recreation needs. Concerns about. management of
these facilities should be resolvable, with the Schools and Land
Use Councils providing an important role in consensus-building.
As mentioned above, close coordination between the Parks and
Resource Lands Council and the Schools/Land Use Councils will
be paramount.
As further research is developed on the. specifics of a program
for school/park acquisition, the Work Group suggests that
5/26/99
Orange County, with its role in school site acquisition and
program/staff resources for land acquisition may best play a
coordinating role in future land acquisitions for both purposes.
D. Public/Private Partnerships
As mentioned above, one of the most .exciting prospects for the
future of recreation and parks provision in Orange County is that
of public/private partnerships. Coordination with OWASA and
UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible, and
the Work Group recommends that the local governments
(perhaps through the Parks and Resource Lands Council) work
to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to
explore these possibilities. In particular, the identified need for a
large district park between Chapel Hill-Carrboro and
Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would have a
stake in.
Additionally, partnerships with other entities may take on
different roles. Coordination with Duke University is also
recommended, although it is recognized that Duke Forest is of a
different nature. Duke Forest plays an important role in the
open space network of the County, and future discussion of that
role as links in a corridor or trail system will be critical.
Finally, the potential for coordination with Triangle Land
Conservancy, the State of North Carolina, the Eno River
Association and private firms appears to exist and should be
encouraged where practical.
E. joint Capital Facilities Plan /Coordinated Land
Identification, Acquisition and Banking
If the local governments in Orange County are. to be successful
in providing for the long-term needs of County/town residents,
it is clear that joint capital funding and land-banking efforts
need to be addressed, and should be addressed as quickly as
possible. A meeting of Managers, elected officials and staff
should be called to develop a plan for coordination.
It is clear that land prices will continue to escalate. Potential
larger park areas inside the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area are quite
limited, which will require planning for future joint district parks
in the County. This, plus the inability to accumulate sufficient
funds individually, leads to a strong recommendation that
Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough develop
a plan to coordinate funding sources in future years. It is
5/26/99
recommended that the aforementioned meeting of Managers,
staffs and elected ofFcials from the jurisdictions as soon as
possible.
Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs (CIP's) could
be a fundamental part of this mechanism. As previously-
mentioned, Orange County's Resource Acquisition Program for
land might allow the County. to take a lead role in coordinating
future acquisitions, most of which will likely be located outside
of Town corporate limits.
F. Open. Facilities Policy
In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the Work Group
believes that citizens of the Towns and County should have the
opportunity to use facilities developed by all of the local
governments and OWASA. Attempting to limit use of facilities
solely to residents on a single jurisdiction is likely to be
cumbersome administratively and not constructive generally.
The Work Group recommends that Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, Hillsborough and OWASA adopt the "Open Facilities
Policy" resolution found in Appendix I. This policy will provide
that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties
are open and accessible to all County residents.
To a different degree, a policy regarding use of local
government facilities by UNC students and of UNC facilities by
local citizens should be investigated with the University. A
particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education Center, and
cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued now.
Additionally, coordination with OWASA on recreational hours at
the lake facilities is another venue for partnership, and the Work
Group recommends that OWASA review hours of operation as
suggested by the Carrboro Board.
The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should
also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop appropriate
mutual guidelines in this area.
G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes
The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and
Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities.
However, because of its limitations (both geographic and
financial), payment-in-lieu programs are unlikely to produce
5/26/99
sufficient funds to meet long-term recreation needs. A process is
needed to use existing funds, modify the current program to
make it more practical, and develop new sources of revenue for
recreation land and facilities.
The Work Group recommends that Orange County and Carrboro
develop plans to match payment-in-lieu dollars to date with
parks bonds and other funding sources. With a method of
pooling payment-in-lieu across jurisdictions currently
unworkable, it is recommended that the current, system of
payments-in-lieu be kept. In Orange County's case, the County
should explore modifications to the system to provide for a
more-appropriate calculation of payment based on the
developed property valuation.
Finally, the Parks and Resource Lands Council should explore
the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax,
along the lines of existing legislation. If found prudent, a
recommended impact fee/ tax program for recreation should be
developed and forwarded to the local governments in Orange
County for action.
H. Address Existing Needs
Currently, countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of
types of parks (e.g. regional, community, neighborhood, etc).
While additional work is needed in developing standards, it is
possible to envision an overview of park needs based on
population standards.
The combined projected population for all of Orange County in
the year 2025 is 168,000. This total county population was used
to assess the level of adequacy for future years. Based on this,
in the year 2000, Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres
5/26/99
of park/recreation land in order to meet national adequacy
standards. With current park facilities (including projected
acquisitions in the next year), a deficit of 645 acres will exist in
2000. In 2025, the County will need 3100 acres with a current
projected deficit of 1265 acres. Details on haw these projections
were generated may be found in Appendix 3. Based on the
projected future need for 1,265 new acres of parkland, the
Work Group has determined that the current critical need
is to begin long-term land acquisition ("land banking").
This concept is similar to any kind of bank - it essentially
establishes a ~~savings account" of land. Once the savings
account has been fully funded, land can be wlthdrawn and
developed for specific parks and recreation needs.
Based on the most commonly accepted standards, the
county/towns will need the following new parks just to
meet current deficits:
* -The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage
needs, but the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in
Carrboro and one at Efland-Cheeks) may not meet the geographic
needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in
Hillsborough, northern Orange County and southwestern Orange.
The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide,
in 1999 dollars, is $10.12 million. Over time, the cost of
purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise
dramatically.
t. Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and
Future Funding Needs
Simultaneous with the population increase, land in Orange
County is rapidly. increasing in value. Large tracts are
being subdivided, and options for. geographic locations of
parkland in every township are diminishing. A priority for
use of future funds clearly must be land acquisition for
long-term park needs, rather than simply developing
recreational facilities (which can be developed over time as
5/26/99
the population increases}.
A program for land acquisition for long-term park needs
should be developed that identifies sites that could meet
needs (including potential for siting active and low-impact
recreation), based on projected size and location of
parkland throughout the county. The availability of
matching funds from the benefiting jurisdictions should be
an important component in future acquisition and park
development. The program should also identify an acreage
threshold for co-located school/park land acquisition and
should be developed with the Parks and Resource Lands
Council and the Schools/Land Use Council.
To address the estimated $10.12 million in future park
needs, the following actions should be taken to use
existing bond funds and address long-term needs.
1. The remaining $2.89 million in land acquisition funds
from the 1997 parks bond .should be used for
acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term
parks use as soon as possible.
2. The balance of funding should be an estimated $8
million parks bond placed before the voters in
November 2000. As previously discussed, the specifics
of this bond should be coordinated by the Parks and
Resource Lands Council.
Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long-
term park sites at this time will greatly reduce the cost of
meeting long-term park needs.
5/26/99
Appendices
A Summaries of Existing Plans
B Shaping Orange County's Future Parks Issues
C Inventory of Existing Facilities -Resources Subcommittee
D Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions
E Memorandum of Agreement of Co-Location of
School/Parks Facilities
F OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property
G Existing Local Payment-in-Lieu Programs
H Payment-in-Lieu Programs Around the Country
Resolution -Open Facilities Policy
Parkland Acreage Needed in 2025 Based on Population
Standards
K Maps
L Resolution on Establishing a Countywide Parks and
Resource Lands Council
Appendix A
Summaries of Existin4 Recreation and Parks Plans
1988 -Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan
The primary recommendations for the provision of County-wide recreation
services focus on specific policies for. park development within the townships in
the County. The majority of land for the proposed parks shall be provided by
public agencies throughout the County. Generally, the Master Plan recommends:
• The development of community parks within Bingham, Cheeks, Cedar Grove,
Eno, and Little River townships
• Four district parks scattered throughout county
• Construction of swimming pools at Chapel Hill and Orange High Schools
In determining the priorities of park development and land acquisition, the Plan
cites the requirement to consider immediate or pressing needs of the community
first. Priorities for land acquisition and development include the following:
1. Providing equitable distribution of recreational opportunities
2. Providing for areas of the County not currently being served
3. Providing for the greatest number of possible users
Chapel Hill Park and Recreation Planning Efforts
The Town of Chapel Hill currently operates without a Master Parks &
Recreation Plan. The Town anticipates beginning development of a master plan
i n FY 1999-00.
Some planning direction is provided by the 1989 Community Facilities Report
section of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which recommended the
development of 4 community parks, 4 community centers, 17 neighborhood
parks, and 25 mini-parks by the year 2010. The Comprehensive Plan is currently
being updated and is scheduled for review. by the Council in late 1999.
The Town does have a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan, which was
adopted in 1998. The plan recommends that 38 miles of linear open space be
preserved. The plan also recommends that 28 miles of linear open space be
improved with trails. The plan recommends a mix of paved and natural surface
trails.
Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a comprehensive plan for
recreation and parks services during 1995. Each ensuing year, the
Carrboro Recreation and Parks Commission reviews the plan and
makes recommendations for changes to keep this plan current. The
main purpose of the document is to provide the Town of Carrboro with
an accurate, usable plan to guide its actions and decisions concerning:
- The future recreation role for the Town;
- Park and greenway acquisitions, renovations and developments;
- Facility renovations and developments; and
- Recreation programming strategies.
The Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan contains numerous
specific proposals and recommendations too lengthy for inclusion
herein. The projected timetable of the Plan is through the year 2015.
At this time, it is projected that the Town will have "built-out" its
present planning jurisdiction. For further information, please refer to
the Executive Summary or full Comprehensive Plan report for
accompanying proposals, tables, exhibits and maps.
Hillsborough Park and Recreation Plan
The Town's Master Plan goals would:
1. Use the Town's natural and historical heritage as a recreational resource
2. Acquire and maintain a neighborhood park for informal use in each
neighborhood
3. Meet the recreational needs of the Town's diverse population
4. Acquire and maintain playing fields, courts and other facilities for organized
sports and fitness
5. Provide safe, convenient, and efficient travelways for non-motorized
transportation of all people in Hillsborough.
6. Actively seek participation and cooperation of all organizations involved in, or
concerned with the provision of recreational services in the Hillsborough area.
5/26/99
Appendix B
1998 -Shaping Orange County's Future Citizen
Committees ,Park and Recreation Issues)
Through the community visioning effort, Shaping Orange County's
Future, eight citizen committees identified qualities valuable to
maintain throughout the county. They also. compiled a list of .qualities
to either change or encourage. A partial list of these qualities, drawn
from the different committee reports, is as follows.
Existing Qualities to Maintain:
• Duke Forest and Eno River State Park as recreational areas
• Existing parks in Chapel Hill and Carrboro should d be maintained
and enhanced
Qualities. to Change or Encourage:
• Encourage recycling bins at parks
• Encourage more facilities outside of towns
• Change lack of swimming pools
• Change lack of greenways in Rural Buffer
• Change lack of teen programs at recreational facilities
• Change lack of parkland north of Hillsborough
• Change means of funding parks and recreation facilities
• Change loss of open space (defined generally as forests or fields)
• Encourage more parks and schools/parks combinations
• Encourage better intergovernmental cooperation in parks planning
• Encourage multi-use paths in utility easements
• .Encourage public transportation to parks
• Encourage implementation of parks and recreation plans
• Encourage use of existing publicly-owned lands for regional parks
5/26/99
Appendix C
Inventory of Existing Recreation Facilities -
Resource Subcommittee
Orange County Master Recreation anJ Parks Plan /nvenlary -Public Facilities
-. ~ ...` y 1
,.
NnmeotFa~t ~: ~ ~.. »~=ou .. ~ 5 ~ ify 3"~ S ,j "
~QUtiiCthrC9rtnalitiu itatne~tmi 419 rFadt .` ;Mf S? y-~S a gti.yt; ~
I,bCiitloa%'w ...s~.n.,. "t y .': 7;'<Y~
'F`~7iri
Carrboro
Anderson Community Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Hwy 54W 820!98 54.7 N Y 1 0 1
Wilson Neighborhood Park Richard E. Kinnry, 968-7703 Williams St. 8/20/98 8.49 N Y 0 1 t
Baldwin Park Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Broad St. 8/20/98 l.5 N Y 0 0 1
Cart Court Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Brewers Lane 820/98 1 N Y 0 1 0
Simpson Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Simpson/Main SL 8/20/98 0.25 N Y 0 0 0
Carrboro Elementary School Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Shelton St 8!20/98 4 N Y 0 1 1
Orange County
Northam Human Services Center OC Recreation end Parks, 732-8181 x2660 Hwy 86 North 8!20/98 48 Y Y 0 1 I
Central Recreation Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660 Tryon St Hillsborough 8/20/98 3 Y Y 0 0 0
Fairview Community Park OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660 Rainey St. Hillsborough 8!20/98 42 N N 0 0 1
Homestead Community Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660 Homestead Rd. 820/98 4 Y Y 0 0 0
Courthouse Park Site "(Proposed) OC Recreation end Parks, 732-8181x2660 Margaret Ln. Hillsborough 8/20/98 6 n/a N 0 0 0
Efland-Cheeks Community School Park
"(Proposed with funding secure)
OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660
Richmond Rd.
8/20!98
24
Y
Y
0
1
2
Occoneechee Park Hillsborough Planning Dept, 732-2104 x228 Eno Mm Rd. 9/INS 28 N N (proposed treil'Yes~ 0 0 0
Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed'00) Hillsborough Planning Dept, 732-2104 x228 . Murray St., Hillsborough 9/1/98 0.25 N Y 0 swin 0
Eno River State Park Eno River State Park, 383-1686 Orange County and Hillsborough 9/1/98 2600 N One Access Only 0 0 0
Chapel Hill
Burlington Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Chumh Rd 3/!/98 5 N Y 0 1 1
Cedar Falls Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Weaver Dairy Rd 3/1/98 64 Y Y 0 1 1
Chapel Hill Community Center and Park AI Hams 932-2964 120 S. Estes Dr 6/1H8 10 Y Y 0 1 I
Ephesus Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Church Rd 3/1N6 16 N Y 0 0 0
Gomains Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Sykes St 6/1{98 0.25 N N 0 1 I
Hargraves Community Center Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N. Roberson 6/1/98 7.68 Y Y 0 I 1
Hargraves Gymnasium Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N. Roberson 6/1/98 Y Y 0 0 0
]ones Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Holland Dr 3/1/98 10 N Y 0 1 0
Lincoln Center Gymnasium Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Memtt Mill Rd 6/1/98 0.25 Y Y 0 0 0
North Forest Hills Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Collums Dr 3/1N8 10 N Y 0 0 1
Oakwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Berkley Rd and Oakwood Dr. 3/1/98 2 N N 0 I 1
Phillips Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Estes Dr 3/1/98 I N N 0 0 0
Umstead Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Umstead Rd 3/1/98 16 N Y 0 l I
Westwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Dogwood Dr 3/1/98 l N N 0 0 I
Northam Community Park Kathryn S atz 968-2784 Homestead Rd. and Hwy 86N 2/1/99 37 N Y 0 0:5 0.5
Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands
Mertitt Pasture (open space) Kathryn Spatz968-2784 15-501 and Hwy 54 intersection 2/1/99 35 N N 0 0 0
Pritchard Park (proposed) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 surrounding C.H. Library 2/1/99 34 N
Southern Community Park (proposed) Kathryn Spatz 966-2784 15-501 ar Southern Village 2/1/99 73 N
Little Creek (open apace) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Cleland Ave. near Glen Lennox 2/1/99 50 N
T I! ~ is ..~- .t >;315I~17 ° r ~.. ~.9. ~'-.;S .~ _.3. !'~' - ~.~ .£t13;~: , :.t'3.~
• Blanks indicate missing data.
"" YesMo Colum Totals reflect'Yes' answers
Page / S/2//99A:02.tM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory -Public Facilities
:. ~.~. ~
I~nmttif Fiilil ,.._~ ;' ~ `:' _. ~
C",etp YpaLlty
'. Ctlp ,~,~.
NO~PiEniE
:.::
31 PfPirLie
;..Shdferi'
~IICZ'oltlybitq
` cauru
it Gf$d{J(Ctbal)
.~.;? hurts..+:.
oaf B.a~ebatl/,
5c~rbai[fidd5
~q[.2~
`Fltrltkr -
~nf>rApfbtdt
•-~t'~eldr ~--~:~-
f~p{~L~1~-.'
:~~'~ ~Fiddr
..~U~SlYiaft4 rp~.'
~~Poo~r'~.
~0('Y'lnnN
- C.oaris:•ii
~plf Etlanb.
. ~kia' tailf:taites.
Carrboro
Anderson Community Park N 5 1 I 2 4 -0 1 1 0 2 N 0.75
Wilson Neighborhood Park N 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 N 0.25
Baldwin Park Mini-Park N I I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0
Carr Court Mini-Park N 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Simpson Mini-Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N °' "0
Carrboro Elementary School Park N 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Orange County
Northam Human Services Curter Y 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Central Recreation Center N 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0
Fairview Community Perk N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Homestead Community Carter Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Courthouse Park Site +(Proposed) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Efland-Cheeks Community School Park
+(Proposed with funding secure)
Y
4
I
2
2
l
2
0
I
0
0
N
I
Oceoneechce Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0.25 (0.25 proposed)
Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed'00) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
Eno River State Park N 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 18
Chapel Hill
Burlington Park N 1 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N
Cedar Falls Park N 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 N
Chapel Hill Community Center and Park Y 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 N
Ephesus Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 N
Gomains Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Hargraves Community Center N 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 3 N
Hargraves Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Jones Park N 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Linwln Center Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
North Forest Hills Park N 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N
Oakwood Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 N
Phillips Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N
Umstead Park N 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 N
Westwood Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Northam Community Park N I 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 N
Other Chapel Hilt owned recreation loads
Merritt Pasture (open space) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
Pritchard Park (proposed)
Southern Community Park (proposed)
Little Crcek (open space)
rt]tAlli , c '~'6_• ,19-':.; ,#0' - ~.8' .1Y ,yu...f&,;~ ~ .~~~~,.~ .~.b :~<w ~, ;t •~'~~~ fl~ 76
Page 1 S/2//99 9:02 AM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan /nventory -Public Faci/dies
.. aVY. 3 r,»"' Y ~ Y;}. y
4
p ~ .j'R. #~~
I?iarnerrfFatdi , i..,.r4. ~ ~. •ip
y~
tau .-p xra~fa
~' I¢Ilrb • f . 5y~ ~ £fi
~ w~;- Y 5-:. '7~F."s ~r_ iw K ?~~~r :'.1 ,? ~ - .. 1:.: .C~ h ~ ;.:
`•~
~~~ V 1~'
Carrboro
Anderson Community Park 0.75 0.75 0 N Y N N 4 2
Wilson Neighborhood Park 0.25 0.25 0 N N N N 0 2
Baldwin Park Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1
Cart Court Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1
Simpson Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Carrboro Elementary School Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Orange Couuly
Northern Human Services Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Central Recreation Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 I
Fairview Community Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Homestead Community Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Courthouse Park Site •(Propoaed) 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0
Efland-Cheeks Community School Pads
•(Proposed with funding secure)
0.25
0
0
N
N
Y
N
~ 2
2
Occoneechee Park 0 0 0 N Y N N 0 0
Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed'00) 0 0 0 N N N N 0 (proposed)
Eno River State Park 0 0 0 Y Y N Y 0 0
Chapel Hill
Burlington Park N N N • + •
Cedar Falls Park N N N + • +
Chapel Hill Community Center and. Perk N N N • * •
Ephesus Park N N N •
Gomains Park N N N
Hargraves Community Center N N N • * •
Hargraves Gymnasium N N N • • +
Jones Park N N N • •
Lincoln Center Gymnasium N N N • •
North Forest Hills Park N N N • •
Oakwood Park N N N •
Phillips Park N N N • • •
Umstead Park N N N • • •
Westwood Perk N N N • • • -
Northem Community Park N N N •
Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lauds
Merritt Pasture (o n space) - N N N •
Pritchard Park (proposed)
Southern Community Park (proposed)
Little Creek (open space)
Page 3 S/I//99 9:01 AM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory -Quasi-Public Facilities
Facility Name Facility Location Date of information Use. requires additional contact Meeting Hall #, of Sall Fields # of Soccer Fields Picnic Shelter
Buckhorn Community Building Orange County 7/88 Y Y U 0 N
Caldwell Community Building Orange County 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N
Cane Creek Reservoir Orange County 7/98 N N 0 0 Y
Cedar Grove Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N
Corporation Lake Orange County 7/88 N N 0 0 N
Efland Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N
Exchange Club Hillsborough 7/98 N N 1 0 Y
Homestead Center Carrboro 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N
Lake Michael Mebane .7/88 N N 0 0 Y
Lake Orange Orange County 7/98 N N 0 0 Y
Moorefields Orange County 9/98 Y N' 0 0 N
Oak Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N 2 0 N
Orange Grove Community Center Orange County 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N
Orange United Methodist Church Chapel Hill 7/98 Y N 0 2 N
Schley Grange Hall Orange County 7/98 ~ Y Y I 0 N
University Lake Chapei Hill 7/98 N N 0 0 N
Walnut Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N 0 0 N
UNC Facilities Open to Public
Tennis Complex Chapel Hill 8/98 Y N 0 0 N
Finley Golf Course Chapel Hill 8/98 N N 0 0 N
Outdoor Education Center Chapel Hill 5/99 Y N 0 0 N
Private Businesses Open to Public
Occoneechee Golf Course Hillsborough 9/98 N N 0 0 N
Sportsplex Hillsborough 8/98 N N 0 0 N
YMCA Chapel Hill 7/98 N N 0 1 Y
Totals **l3 "'` ~ 6 2 **5
** Yes/No Column Totals retlect'Yes' answers
Page 1 S/21/99 9:02 AM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory -Quasi-Public Facilities
Facility Name Playground Boat Ram Canoeigg Fishing Camping Walkin Track Nature Trail Tennis Courts Golf Course Swimming Pool
Buckhorn Community Building N N N N N N N N N. N
Caldwell Community Building N N N N N N N N N N
Cane Creek Reservoir N N N Y N N Y N N N
Cedar Grove Ruritan Club N N N N N N N N N N
Corporation Lake N N N N N N Y N N N
Efland Ruritan Club N N N N N Y N N N N
Exchange Club Y N N N N N N N N N
Homestead Center N N N N N N N N N N
Lake Michael Y Y N Y N N N N N N
Lake Orange N Y N Y N N N N N N
Moorefields N N N N Y N Y N N N
Oak Grove Church N N N N N N N N N N
Orange Grove Community Center N N N N N Y N N N N
Orange United Methodist Church N N N N N N N N N N
Schley Grange Hall N N N~ N N N N N N N
University Lake N Y Y Y N N N N N N
Walnut Grove Church Y N N N N N N N N N
UNC Facilities Open to Public
Tennis Complex N N N N N N N Y N N
Finley Golf Course N N N N N N N N Y N
Outdoor Education Center N N N N N Y N Y N N
Private Businesses Open to Public
Occoneechee Golf Course N N N N N N N N Y N
Sportsplex N N N N N N N N N Y
YMCA Y N N N N N N N N Y
Totals ~* 4 ~~3 ~*1 ~~q ,~*1 ~*3 *~3 ~~2 .k2 ~k~2
Page 2 S/21/99 9:02 AM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Inventory* -Private Facilities
4 ~ , r~+ ~ y ~ ~. ~ ,
,1,.` '1Y ~-~ F» !1.!~d yl.'.FyF A t ~~ i
s xt ~:Y ~ ~oAtaCt I~fOrmA~Qtt~^~~,I~fr3n < r ~`"r ~
AT116U1'~at~li `" t';,.y,":. ~,..r ~ ~ •• s4 .'- ,I:l1t'AtiQ~'
~kr~aCada^F.
~ D>ite ots
.v~4:..
v.~~lit3 y~.
CQIIeCflOld'
.~ ~K
.~.ti
3E~iCr~C;
"'.df~1'f¢,.-,
-
~tcyssitii~ ~
i3
~Ob~'~C~~!
. ~I~E~< ~
~ `~+~ ~. ~ ~ ~1
~i~ 5 ~'».`'
I~3ridIC>r~fpC(I y .a '
N , . Y~ ~rf
, i a sat 4.
~ . t
~ .;.. »
5 ~ ~
Y
,~,
1 w~ ~ .'r
~~ of-
f,y ~ ~: '~
~_ ~i,A~.
A
.~
>~,. ilk. ;
~,. ,. ~.':
,t ~ y.
°p>.~H Cl~i~. e:
'4
ads nssi~'m~~
Ber s tre Manor 9 9->f" 9 Cart oro u -9 o o U
0o er ree - ape t u - o es
roo tone tg nne tuner ape t u- o es
aro ma nsty exro - art oro u - o
am ers t ge usan eag e - art oro u - o
ape t ountry u can ontro er ape t u - o es
ape t enms an wtm u e to - art oro u - o es
oac woo - Ht s orou u - o es
0 ony partments t ee es ape t ct- o es
o ms t ante ose - ape t ct- o
xc ange u oo tane em er - ape t u - o es
F rot Rt ge - i s oroug u- o
oxcro a assengt ape t u - o
ran m oo s - ape t u- o es
ateway - t s oroug u - o es
en ennox anessa ac woo - pt s ape t u - o
entage t s etg or oo u o user ape t ep- es
t an i s n y a er - arc oro u- o es
mgs rms at atterson - ape t t- o
mgsw - ape t u - o es
aure t ge tsty arnes - ape t u - o
o ampton aza ape t u - o es
megate ape t u - o
op ar ace o nn ram - art oro u - o es
amsgate ma cam - arc oro u - o es
t gewoo ary nn upuy - art oro u - o
oc ree awn o roger - art oro u - o es
oya Pa - art oro u - o
a owoo to ra t tter - ape t u - o
ou ern t age. at - ape Ht u - o es
ter mg B u tson o f or a y - art oro u- o
ter tng roo usan car to - art oro u - o es
tra or t s arcs tseo - ape t u - o
unstone to a colt ape t u - o
T e atesu ante oge art oro ct- o
tm er o ow au c onne ape t u - o es
tm er yne t age. wen tac - ape ~ u - o es
own ouse - ape t u - o es
nrvetsity e - at'r oro u - o es
t ages - art oro u - o es
a en at reen to s eresa oo e - ape t u - o
u e - ac woo rvtston en y et er - ange ct- es no ee exc u mg ootpa s
u e - ur am rvtston en y et er ge t- es no ee exc u mg ootpa s
u e - no rvtston en y et er range t- es no ee exc u mg ootpa s
u e - - s oro rvtston en y et er - ange ct- es no ee exc u mg ootpa s
u e - orsttan rvtston en y et er range
tills ,r A:»: ~.,+,~ :. ... •FiS::. Y~'
J, r'~,. es no ee
,. exc u mg ootpa s
...
*Inventory includes apartment complexes tracked by the Orange County Tax Assesot's Office that are greater than 50 units with all construction complete.
** Yes/No Column Totals reflect'Yes' answers. *** Blanks indicate missing data.
Page 1 G/28~J9 3:51 PM
Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Inventory* -Private Facilities
Page 2
62&99 3:51 PM
5/26/99
Appendix D
Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions
PARK TYPE ACRES/1000 ACRES POPULATION SERVICE AREA
STANDARD POPULATION SERVED
Regional Park
State 20 1000 multi-county <1 hour driving
time
County 5 to 10 200+ 40-80,000 <1 hour driving
time
District Park
State 10 200+ 1 or more <1 hour driving
communities time
County 5 75+ 10-50,000 <1/2 hour driving
time
Community Park
National 5 to 8 25+ Several Neighs. 1-2 mile radius
State 8 25+ 20,.000 1-3 mile radius
County 2.5 25+ 10,000 1-2 mile radius
Chapel Hill 5 21+ 15,000 5 mile radius
Carrboro 8 60 6,000 1 mile radius
Neighborhood Park
National 1 to 2 15+ 5,000 1/4 to 1/2 mile
State. 2 6 to 8 4,000 1/4 to 1/2 mile
County 2.5 5 to 20 2-8,000 1/4 to 1/2 mile
Chapel Hill 2.5 5 to 20 5,000 none given
Carrboro 2 10 4,000 1/2 mile
Mini Park
National 0.25 1 Adjacent Neigh. 1/4 mile
State none given none given 500-2,500 none given
County none given 1 none given 1/4 mile
Chapel Hill none given 1 500-2,500 none given
Carrboro 0.25 1 Adjacent Neigh. 1/4 to 1/2 mile
Linear Park
National Varies Varies Varies Varies
State 30 Varies Varies Varies
County none given none given none given none given
Chapel Hill none given none given none given none given
Carrboro Varies Varies Varies Varies
Source: Report of the Recreation and Park Work Group, "Recreation and Park Issues
in Orange County, NC," January 1996, Appendix 1: Park Classification and
Land Area Requirements Comparison.
5/26/99
Appendix E
Memorandum of Agreement on
Co-location of School/Park Facilities
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
FOR PROVIDING COORDINATED SITE AND FACILITY PLANNING
(1 of 4)
This agreement between the Orange County and Chapel HiIU Carrboro Boards of Education and
the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough
is intended to establish and implement a coordinated site and facility planning process for schools
and compatible government facilities. The purpose of the coordinated planning process is to share
information among the parties to the agreement, optimize the collocation and use of schools and
other public facilities in a way that builds community, provides public services where they are
most needed, assures the compatibility of collocated services, and efficiently uses public
resources.
This agreement recognizes the existence of two school districts -the Chapel Hi1UCarrboro School.
District and the Orange County School District - and a Schools and Land Use Council for each
district. Decisions on collocation of facilities in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District may
involve the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education and any or all of the following units of local
government: the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County. Decisions on
collocation of facilities in the Orange County School District may involve the Orange County
Board of Education and one, or both, of the following units of local government: the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County. Wherever possible, agreement/cooperation across school
district lines shall be pursued.
To further these goals, the Orange County and Chapel HiIU Carrboro Boards of Education and the
governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough do
hereby agree to the following separate and shared responsibilities for coordinated facility planning
to the extent that it does not delay time critical construction of either school or government
facilities. These statements of responsibilities are intended to be consistent with all applicable laws
and regulations; where they are not, they are superseded by those applicable laws and regulations.
Specifically, this agreement is not intended to supersede the statutory authority of either Board of
Education to select school sites or to build, maintain or repair school facilities or the other
governing Boards to approve the amounts to be spent for sites and to determine the funds available
for school and county or municipal facilities. This agreement does not supersede local
government planning and zoning authority and/or land use planning and zoning requirements.
I. The Orange County and/or Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards of Education will:
A. Identify appropriate site criteria for public school facilities; and
B. Identify interior and exterior space and exterior site requirements for school facilities; and
C. Begin a planning process after the internal/external space needs for collocated facilities are
determined; and
(2 of 4)
D. Recommend school facility priorities, timetables for completion, and related funding
needs; and
E. Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair
of public school facilities, within the funding available for these activities; and
F. Whenever possible, address joint collocation of facilities on each parcel of land being
considered for development; and
G. Assign to the superintendent the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and
other resources to participate in a joint facility planning process.
II. When joint development (or cooperative development) of facilities are planned for a school
site, the Governing Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough will, as appropriate and in their respective interests:
A. Identify appropriate site criteria for county and municipal government facilities and
facilities in which. contracted county or municipal services are provided; and
B. Identify interior space and exterior site requirements for county or municipal government
facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided; and
C. Determine priorities, timetables for completion, and related funding requirements for
county or municipal government facilities; and
D. Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair
of county or municipal government facilities; and
E. Determine the funding available for school and county or municipal government facilities;
and
F. Assign to the County and/or Town Managers the responsibility of providing the necessary
staffing and other resources to participate in a coordinated facility planning process; and
G. Whenever possible, address joint collocation of facilities on each parcel of land being
considered for development.
III. The Orange County and/or Chapel HilUCarrboro Boards of Education and the governing
Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and/or Hillsborough
will jointly:
A. Identify opportunities for collocating compatible public facilities on sites, including
facilities for schools, county government, municipal governments, state and federal
government, and other public authorities providing complementary public services; and
(3 of 4)
B. Develop master site plans on which public facilities will be collocated; and
C. Determine the most appropriate means of relating various public services on sites,
considering all program needs, and including opportunities for sharing spaces; and
D. Designate a lead jurisdiction in designing common facilities and include other jurisdictions
in design; and
E. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating the construction of
shared facilities located on common sites; and
F. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating maintenance of shared
public facilities located on common sites; and
G. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of scheduling and establishing fees for
usage of any shared public facilities on common sites; and
H. Determine the most appropriate and practical means of sharing operating costs for shared
public facilities on common sites; and
I. Determine the most appropriate and practical means of providing public ownership of sites
and site improvements where public facilities are collocated. Public ownership of sites
will be implemented in the following manner:
1. School sites will be owned in fee simple by the Orange County School Board and/or
the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board or Orange County in those instances
where the financing of the purchase of the site or the financing of the cost of the
facilities on the site requires Orange County ownership.
2. Park sites will be owned in fee simple by the appropriate jurisdiction (i.e., County,
town) unless otherwise agreed.
A joint lease agreement will be signed between the appropriate parties setting forth the
conditions of the joint use area and facilities. Language will be included in the agreement
to address review and approval of joint use facilities and who bears the cost of installation/
construction and maintenance.
IV. The Orange County and Chapel HilUCarrboro Boards of Education and the governing
Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough
will, as appropriate, jointly develop any interlocal agreements or understandings needed to
allow participation of other units of government in the collocation of public facilities.
V. This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective upon approval by each governing
board and school board. It shall remain in effect until terminated by all parties to it. A party
may not withdraw from this agreement until it holds a public hearing on the proposed
withdrawal followed by written notices to the other parties within thirty (30) days of the
public hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective one (1) year following receipt by the other
parties of the written notice. Withdrawal of one party shall not invalidate the Memorandum
of Agreement with respect to the remaining parties.
SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL FOR
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL
DISTRICT
CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO
BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY
TOWN OF CARRBORO
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
(4 of 4)
SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL
FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION
ORANGE COUNTY
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
h: \schoollu\moadrft5 . doc\4-22-99\gb
5/26/99
Aanendix F
OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property
OWASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
Quality Service Slnce 1977
MEMORANDUM
T(O: Ed Kerwin
FROM: Ed Holland
DATE: October 15, 1998
SUBJECT: Potential Recreational Uses of OWASA Property
Background
During the past year, Board members Batty Jacobs and Bill Strom have attended
meetings of Orange County's Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group
charged with updating the County's Recreation and Parks Master Plaa. One part of that - .
work is an inventory of all public and semi public land and- recreational assets in Orange
County.
Doting the August 27, 1998 Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Strom
submitted a list of questions about possible recreational uses of OWASA's land holdings.
This was referred to the Boazd's Natural Resources and Technical Systems (NRTS)
Committee, which reviewed information provided by staff and discussed the attendant
issues during three subsequent meetings. This memorandum and attachments attempt to
summarize the NRTS Committee consensus that emerged through those discussions.
The attached map shows the location of all OWASA-owned properties in Orange Coun__ty;
Table 1 provides additional details; and Table 2 presents the NRTS Committee's
evaluation of the acceptability of different recreational uses of those properties: Uses _
listed in'1'able 2 were compiled from documents of the Orange County Wark Group.
OWASA Interests.
The NRTS Committee agreed that alternative uses should be-eonsidered in terms of
OWASA's central mission of providing "an adequate supply of high quality drinking
water and a complementary sewer service. " Activities or uses that might compromise
OWASA's utility function should be discouraged.
For .example, certain uses, such as tennis, racquetball, or basketball courts, would be
incompatible with OWASA's operational activities within sewer easements or rights-of-
way, while other uses, such as hiking trails, might be acceptable. Hiking trails would not,
however, be desirable near. the Cane Creek Reservoir where public access to the shoreline
represents a water quality risk contrary to OWASA's water supply mission.
400 Joncs Ferry Road E'qua/ Opportunity Emp/oyc~ V~~icc (919) 968-4421
PO Box 366 I'rintcd on Recycled Paper F.~ X (919) 968-4464
Clrrhnrn N(' ~~~ I n_nu~
Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property
October 15, 1998
Page 2
On other tracts, such as the biosolids land or the two sites reserved for future elevated
storage tanks, the NRTS Committee believed it to be in OWASA's best interest to defer
consideration of alternative uses until the future utility needs for those properties are
better defined through the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Master Plan or, in the case of
the tank sites, by local regulatory requirements for setbacks, buffering, and so forth.
These three mission-oriented considerations -utility operations, water quality, and future
options - aze abbreviated as (uo), (wc~, and (~ in Table 2, where they indicate the NRTS
Committee's rationale for recommending against certain uses or activities.
Maior Categories of Property
The Committee first considered possible uses OWASA's largest categories of land (see
Table 1): Cane Creek property (inside and outside the'/z-mile Critical Area), biosolids
application property, Stone Quarry Reservoir, and the elevated storage tank sites.
Cane Creek Property -The NRTS Committee believed that property within the %2-mile
Critical Area should be considered for virtually no recreational activities, due to water.
- .quality concerns. Limited use of certain land in the Critical Area for research or _
educational purposes might be appropriate.. Certain low-impact uses, such as a nature
center, hiking/jogging trails, and other educationaUreseazch activities might be acceptable
on OWASA property outside the Critical Area, but any uses requiring modification to the
land for clearing, grading, parking, or vehicular access would not be acceptable.
Similazly, the NRTS Committee recommended only limited activities be allowed on the
portion of the existing Cane Creek recreation- site draining to the lake (inside the
watershed), but that additional .uses might be allowed on the back portion of that
property, which is located outside the watershed.
Biosolids Application Property -Although most of OWASA's biosolids are currently
applied under strict State regulation to private farmland, it has been OWASA's long-term - _
strategy_ to accumulate sufficient land for.-the future, when less private property will -
remain available for land application. A systematic review of biosolids management
options -including the production of Class A material, possible co-composting with
municipal solid waste, further moisture reduction, and so forth = is included in the
Water/Sewer Master Plan project. Such options could reduce the eventual need for land,
but until this information is available, the NRTS Committee recommended that OWASA
maintain its maximum range of future options and not consider recreational uses of
biosolids property.
Stone Quarry Property -Similarly, the Committee recommended that no recreational
uses be considered at OWASA's Stone Quarry property until the future use of that site is
more clearly established.
Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property
October 15, 1998
Page 3
Elevated Taak Sites -The NRTS Committee suggested that alternative uses be
considered at existing tank sites as long as they don't interfere with OWASA's
operational needs for access and maintenance. The Committee recommended that no
alternatives be considered on the two properties reserved for future tank sites until
specific design and regulatory requirements aze established.
Authority to Allow Alternative Uses
Throughout its discussions, the Committee recognized that the authority to allow
recreational uses of OWASA property often lies outside of OWASA's control. For
example, OWASA might agree to certain low-impact activities on its sewer easements
and rights of way; but legally, OWASA may not acquire utility easements for non-
utilitarian purposes such as recreation. Successful greenway partnerships with Chapel
Hill or Carrboro would likely require the Towns to act as lead agencies in acquiring
multi-purpose easements and then granting utility rights to OWASA.
Similaz situations aze evident at OWASA's elevated tank sites and at the 500-acre Cane
' Creek mitigation tract. Any alternative use of the 46 acres of OWASA land surrounding
the Nunn Mountain and Hilltop water tanks is strictly controlled by Special Use Permit _
conditions of the Town of Chapel Hill. The 500-acre Cane Creek mitigation tract was
-- acquired in 1980 to comply with requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the North Cazolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Because these requirements became
permit conditions for the Cane Creek Reservoir project; any alternative use of that tract
would likely require approval by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
These examples illustrate that OWASA does not have unilateral authority to allow
alternative uses on all of its property. The NRTS Committee noted that the
implem8ntation of some recreational proposals with community-wide benefits will
require collaboration by other governmental entities, iiraddition to OWASA, working
- towazd a common goal. - -
Staff Recommendations
I recommend that this memorandum and attachments .be reviewed by the Board of -
Directors and, if appropriate, provided to Orange County's Joint Master Recreation and
Pazks Plan Work Gioup. .
Edward A. Holland, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
attachments
w~rnn or~cto~s
„~,~e o~, io ~t~ 9~'
Mitigation Tra
A
----~
~ ~`1
Thunder Mountain
Tract
A
A
LEGEND `
[] Watershed Boundaries
~i 1/2 Mile Critical Area i
OWASA Property ,
~ University Lake Leased band
OWASA Property
October, 1998
(See Table 1 for Descriptions)
N
' E
S
i o i nti~es
^ ^
io ~ ioo
Acres Acres Acres
Son e B u a r ry ~ ~ J u''~~~..~~,!
J ~~ ( / ! ' ~
Table 1. Summary of Land Owned or leased
By OWASA -- October, 1998
OWASA OWNED LAND
Common~~Name
Cane Creek Project
Watershed Protection
Stone Quarry Reservoir
Jones Ferry Road Operations
Center & Water Treatment Plant
Morgan Creek WWTP
Hilltop Tank Site
Nunn Mountain Tank Site
Carrboro Tank. Site
Southern District Tank
Northern District Tank
Right of Way (access)
Right of Way (access}
Right of Way (access)
Wilson Creek Outfall
Biosolids Application Sites
Calvander Pump Station
Rangewood Pump Station
Rogerson Drive Pump Station
Jordan Lake
TOTAL LAN D OWN ED BY OWASA _ 3,215 ac
Purpose
Land purchased for original Cane
Creek Reservoir Project
Land purchased since 1991 for
watershed protection under.OWASA's
Critical Lands Program
Supplemental raw water storage
Water treatment plant site
Wastewater plant site
New elevated storage tank
finished water storage
Finished water storage
Site for future elevated tank
Site for future elevated tank
Access to sewer ROW
Access to sewer ROW
Access to sewer ROW
Access to sewer ROW
Land for WWTP biosolids (sludge)
application
Finished water booster station
Wastewater_~ump station
Wastewater pump station
Site for future water treatment facility
Acreage Map Symbol
1,642 q
521 A
59 g
15 C
24
17
_29
1
4.5
17.6
2
1
1
2.1
751
D
E
F
G
H
K
0.9 L
_ ~ 0.4 M
2.3 N
124.6 (Chatham County)
LEASED FROM UNC
Common Name
University Lake
Purpose
Water Supply Reservoir and
Surrounding Buffer .
Acreage Map Symbol
577 Q
Manning Drive Tank Site
Elevated storage tank
0.3 P
TOTAL LAND LEASED FROM UNC 577 ac
Table 2. Potential Recreational Uses of OWASA Property
~ Non-Cane Creek Watershed Land Existing CC Cane Creek Watershed Land
Potential Recreational ~ Recreation site Outside Critical Area
USe/ACtIVIt
y
Sewer
Easements
Note #1
Taryk Sites
(Existing)
~ Note #2
Tank Sites
(Future)
Biosolids
Land
Stone
Quarry
~ Note tR3 Land
.Below
CC Dam
Note #4
Inside
Watershed
Note #5
Outside
Watershed
Note #5 Inside
Critical
Area •,
Mitigation
Tract
Note #2
Thunder
Mtn. Tract
Meadowcrest
(Partial Lot)
Note #6
Gymnasium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Auditorium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Stadium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (~ No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Swimming Pool No (uo) No (uo,r)' No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Meeting Center, General Purpose Rooms No (uo) No'(uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No,{uo) Yes Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Nature Center No (uo) No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) No (uo) Yes Yes No (wq) Yes Maybe No (wq)
Athletic Fields No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No No (uo) No (wq) Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Tennis, Racquetball, Volleyball Courts No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Playground Maybe No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) Maybe Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
.Picnic Area, Shelters Maybe No (uo,r) .Yes No (f) No (f) No (uo) Yes Yes No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq)
Track No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Golf Course No (uo) ~ No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No' (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
D~iving Range No (uo) No (uo,r) No, (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
RV Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Car Camping (Tent) No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq)
Primitive Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq)
Nature, Hiking, Jogging Trail Yes No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) Yes Yes Yes No (wq) Yes Yes No (wq)
Education and Research ~ .Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Maybe
Notes:
1. (Symbols in parenthesis) indicate the basis for assigning a "No" to a potential use or activity: (uo) indicates utility operational constraints; (r) indicates state or local
regulatory constraints on a/ternative uses; (fl indicates the need to maintain OWASA's future options at a site; and (wt~ indicates water quality concerns.
2. Regulatory restrictions on altemative uses of this property are subject to change if initiated by other governmental entities.
3. Refers to OWASA's existing 59-acre Quarry Reservoir site located east of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road
4. Much of the OWASA property downstream of the Cane Creek Dam is located in the apron of the dam's emergency spillway. The remainder of this site is constrained by steep
topography and/or proximity to access roadways and the raw water pumping station.
5. Because a portion of the existing Cane Creek recreation area slopes towarcl the reservoir (inside the watershed) and the remainder slopes away (outside the watershed), .the
potential water quality impacts of altemative uses/activities would depend on their specific location.
6. A narrow 3-acre strip of the Meadowcrest property is located within the watershed but outside the 1/2-mile Critical Area. There appears to be little or no opportunity for
alternative use of this site. ,
t
5/26/99
Appendix G
Existing Local Payment-In-Lieu Programs
Orange County Payment-in-Lieu Program
The County uses a zoning map approach to calculate all payment in
lieu of dedications. The amount of a payment depends upon the
location of the subdivision. Any subdivider required to dedicate
recreation area may make a payment in lieu of dedication or make a
combination of land dedicated and payment with approval by the
Orange County Board of Commissioners, as long as the subdivision is
not designated for recreation and/or open space in the County
Comprehensive Plan.. Depending on the location of the property in
question, the payment in lieu of dedication is equal to either $422 per
lot if the subdivision is within the service area of a community park or
$455 per lot if the subdivision is located in the service area of a district
park. With the combination of land dedication and payment in lieu
option, the subdivider is given a credit of $10,000 per. acre for each
acre of land dedicated for recreational purposes. If the multiplication of
the number of acres dedicated by $10,000 is less than the payment in
lieu, the subdivider pays the difference. If the credit is more than the
determined payment in lieu, no additional payment is required.
Carrboro Payment-in-Lieu Program
The Town of Carrboro uses a point system in determining payment in
lieu of dedications. Each type of recreational facility is assigned points
per square foot. For example a Tennis Court is assigned 0.034 points
per square foot. The typical square footage is 7,200 sq. ft., which
when multiplied by 0.034 yields 245 points. Each type of residence has
a minimum number of recreation points required (e.g. a single family
detached unit requires 10.39 points per dwelling unit). All new
developments must meet the points required by including recreational
areas or it must pay $143.54 per point. Residential developments that
are exempt from providing on-site active recreational areas,
recreational facilities or open space pay a fee to the Town's open space
and recreational facilities fund. The minimum amount to be paid is
derived from the point system. For example the development of one
single family detached unit is exempt from .providing on-site
recreational facilities. The minimum payment in lieu would be $143.54
multiplied by the required points for this dwelling, which is 10.39. The
minimum. amount due equals $1,491.38 (10.39 x.$143.54 = 1491.38).
5/26/99
Appendix H
Payment-in-Lieu Pro4rams Around the Countrx
Alternative Models for Programs
1. Davis, California (Ann Brunett)
Methods of. Acquiring Land:
Mandatory land dedication:
• .Developers are required to mitigate land on a 1:1 ratio.
• Land dedicated must fall within the city's general plan
boundary.
• Should be equal farmland if possible. If none can be
.found, they can seek a replacement somewhere else.
• The developers can create conservation easements on
those properties, although the actual holder of the
easement is sometimes controversial, with the county,
Yolo County Land Trust, and the city all vying for
control.
• Often, the Land Trust will find money to pay for the
easement, with the city providing matching funds which
they have budgeted.
Payment-in-lieu option:
• A payment-in-lieu option of $2000 per acre is also
available to the developer, although it is less desirable.
• Money acquired spent within the general plan area.
• This option is more expensive than the easements for
developers and they can often find farmers willing to
sell some of their land.
Other:
• Some local farmers create conservation easements on their own
Focus of Acquisition:
• The city concentrates its efforts around one creek in
particular.
• As the city acquires land around it, the Army Corps of
Engineers will come in and repair it back to its original
form under. an 1135 grant.
• Besides the creek, acquire land all over the city.
• Made decision to buy more properties vs. one small
piece
5/26/99
• Now in the process of creating a matrix of easements to
provide a picture of what they have, the gaps that
might exist, and what is happening with the properties.
2. Boulder County, CO (Nancy Dayton, (303) 678-6243)
Methods of Acquiring Land:
Sales Tax:
• In 1993 passed a sales tax for acquiring land
• Revenue from so far between $4 and $4.5 million
annually, which the county uses to pay off bonds.
• Sold idea of sales tax of ~/a of a cent
• Needed carrots to help sell the idea -certain areas that
everyone wants to stay open. Able to work out
arrangements to get them.
• In its life, it has generated $33 million, which has
allowed the county to `power shop."
• The community supported and initiated the sales tax
idea.
• Had deals in place before the bonds to buy 4-5000 acre
ranches
Details of buying:
• Find property ownership where wanted to purchase the
conservation easement
• Rolling option contract -purchase land over time, price
set in the first year
• Pay about 6% per annum on the balance
• The current board of county commissioners has to
approve the purchase of the additional land on a yearly
basis, but have every time so far
• Have some staff dedicated to just land acquisition on
their staff, including an attorney and paralegal
• Start the negotiation with a letter of inquiry, which lays
out the potential offer and. seeks to determine the
interest in the owners possibly selling the land
• Follow-up with a letter of intent to buy the land.
Includes an offer for x acres, legal description of the
land, the amount of water/mineral rights, other
conditions of the. sell, lease back, etc.
• Haggle,. settle, get contract with those terms in it.
• Will do a variety of things to get deal done
• Include the creation lots around beaten out house, add
value to the seller (can exempt subdivision policy if they
can show a clear public purpose)
• 1/35 acre zoning
5/26/99
• Joint acquisition with the municipalities
• Some have own sales taxes
• Work also with the Trust with Public Lands, Nature
Conservancy
• Open Space Task Force made up of a people,
stakeholders,
• Decide where want to spend money preserving lands
Focus of Acquisition:
• Other categories to purchase
• Prime. agricultural land, which has good soil and
irrigation
• Rights to draw water off of, which makes the land more
valuable
3. Guilford County, NC (Roger Bardsley (33~ 574-3544)
Note: All of the governments within Guilford County use some
version of the county's policy (Flood Plain Dedication only),
although some drift has occurred since 1992 when it was
created.
Methods of Acquiring Land:
• Require dedication of field plain open space if the land
falls within the 100-year flood plain
• Open space for watershed policy
• .Over past 15 years got 1000 acres
• Bonds -about 2000 acres through bonds
• Have a greenway plan
• Offer of dedication if Parks and Recreation Department
wants
• Some dedicated to the North Carolina Conservancy by
the developer, then deeded over to the county
• No requirement for dedication if clustering (RS-20).
Could zone at a lower level (RS-12) though and
dedicate about N15% as open space
Focus of Acquisition:
• Dedication has to be connected to public interest
• 100 Year Flood Plain easy to see that in - no
development possibility for developers
5/26/99
~• Charlotte. -Mecklenburg County, NC (Linda Beverly, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Planning Dept, (704) 336-5719)
Note: The policy is only for Charlotte and the unincorporated areas
of Mecklenburg County.
Methods of Acquiring Land:
• No mandatory dedication for open space with any
development
• Developers can elect in single family subdivisions to do
clustering that allows them to redraw the individual lots
with setting aside a minimum of 10% of the land as
open space.
• That space either is then maintained by a private
homeowners association, or is dedicated to the Parks
and Recreation department as a greenway.
• No incentive for developers to provide the land, but the
smaller lots makes it so they can position the lots on
better land
• Lot of greenways through the subdivision process
• Some bonds
• Purchase open space. Some negotiated dedication for.
tax credit
Focus of Acquisition:
• .Parks and Recreation has a greenway master plan.
• If a development comes into that area, the planner will
put them in contact with the Parks and Recreation
Department.
• The Parks and Recreation Department can also
purchase the land directly from the property-owner.
5/26/99
Appendix I
Resolution -Open Facilities POlicx
An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County
WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange
County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to
citizens in their jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that
residents of adjacent jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a
different jurisdiction or desirous of use of the facilities, and
WHEREAS, the spirit of inter-jurisdictional coordination on current and
future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years
with cooperative ventures between local governments, OWASA and the
school systems, and
WHEREAS, attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the
providing jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would
hinder community-building and inter-local efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local
governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an
Open Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities
constructed by the member local governments of the County be open to use
by all. County citizens.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, upon adoption of this resolution by the
elected boards of all. local governments in Orange County, the resolution be
transmitted to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, the Orange
County Board of Education, and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water
and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open
Facilities Policy;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the local governments agree to explore
opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to clarify and explore a
.modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University.
This, the day of , 1999
To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and
Orange Count rte.
5/26/99
Appendix ~
Parklands Needed Based on Population Standards
MEMORANDUM
To: Margaret Brown, County Commissioner
John Link, County Manager
Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager
Richard Kinney, Carrboro Parks and Recreation Director
Bob Jones, Orange County Recreation and Parks Director
Bill Webster, Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Analyst
From: David Stancil, Orange County ERC Director
Sarah Magruder, Orange County Planning/ERC Intern
RE: Current/Projected Estimates of Parkland Needs in County
Date.: Apri 128, 1999
We have performed some calculations in order to begin to put some
numbers together for the Master Recreation and Parks Report. Currently, the
report has blanks, plugged numbers or "xx's" on projected parkland needs.
Prior to disseminating this to the full work group, we wanted to run these
numbers by you for review.
We have attempted to determine the number of parks (by type) and
acres needed for Orange County's population in 2000 and 2025. The intent
of this exercise is to provide us with a general idea of the countywide needs..
We used the Standards appendix from the 1996 Assembly of Governments
Report, as well as the definitions of parks in the 1988 Orange County Master
Recreation and Parks Plan. We used these standards in the absence of the
anticipated community-based standards, that would be developed by the
proposed future Parklands and Resource Council. Thus, alterations may be
needed when the new standards are in place. Two tables are presented, one
with gross land needs, the other demonstrating net needs after accounting
for our .best estimation of existing resources. Also. listed are the assumptions
used in the calculation process, as follows:
• In determining the number of people served by different types of parks, we chose
the midpoint between the County's and municipalities different standards.
• In determining the existing resource base, we used the inventory.
• De>•Initions used -Regional parks are >200, District parks are >75acres,
Community parks are >20 acres and Neighborhood parks are >5 acres.
• Acreage needs were based upon the entire county. We did not allocate the final
number of parks and acres by municipality or township.
• Eno River State Park is regarded as a regional park due to its size.
5/26/99
Table 1: County-wide Parkland Needs
T e of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres
Re Tonal 2@ 450acres each 3@ 450acres each
District 4@ 150acres 6@ 150acres
Community 12@ 25acres 17@ 25acres
Nei hborhood 23@ l0acres 34 @12.5acres
Total acres needed 2030 acres. 3100 acres
The size of parks above are averages and are figured according to population
needs and standards. The above figures do not account for existing resources
in our inventory. Based on existing data, the following table illustrates the
amount needed, after current resources are considered.
Table 2: Net Parkland Needs -Accounting for Existing Parks
T e of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres
Re Tonal -0-* -0-*
District -600 -900
Communit +104.7* -20.3
Nei hborhood -149.32 -344.32
Total acres needed 644.62 1264.62
*While the tables demonstrate an apparent adequacy of parkland for regional
and community parks, location and amenity provision are not necessarily
taken into account. Eno River State Park does not include all amenities often
found in regional parks, according to the Orange County Master Recreation
and Parks Plan definitions. Additionally, the location and amenity offerings of
many parks classified under the neighborhood' category do not meet written
guidelines. The adequacy of acreage does not necessarily mean the locations
most effectively serve the largest number of citizens throughout the county.
Appendix K
Mays
1. Facilities and Lands Owned by:
Towns
County
OWASA
UNC, and
Duke
2. Wildlife Corridors and Greenways
Maps are currently being digitally
formatted for photocopy reproduction
5/26/99
Appendix L
Resolution:.7oint Parks and Resource Lands Council
.RESOLUTION
A Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council
WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange
County have discussed long-term parks and recreation issues in the past
several years, and
WHEREAS, these discussions have led to a Recreation and Parks Work
Group (1996) and a Report on Coordination (1997) to refine and explore
coordination efforts among the jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks .Work Group has, in its
deliberations, benefited from ideas and possible means of collaboration
developed as part of the work .group process, and
WHEREAS, consistent with the Schools and Land Use Councils work in the
co-location of parks and schools, the Work Group has provided criteria and
details that might enhance the potential for coordination in this and other
areas of long-term parks needs, and
WHEREAS, the Work Group has recommended that a new Joint Parks and
Resource Lands Council be formed to follow-up on the work of this body and
implement future efforts toward coordination of recreation and parks
planning;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the
agrees to create a Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council along the lines
specified in the Joint Work Group report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the instructs its
Manager to meet with the Managers of each jurisdiction to develop and
report back on a charge, mission and structure for the Parks and Resource
Lands Council, with the goal of a first meeting of the Council in the fall of
1999.
This, the day of , 1999
To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough and
Orange Count:
from Master Recreation and Parks Report
A. Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals,
Objectives and Criteria
1. Goals and Objectives for Land Acquisition
In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs,
there are several goals that have become apparent through the
discussions of the Work Group:
Goals
Encourage school/park joint planning
* Preserve natural resources
Promote multi-jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts
Preserve watersheds and water quality
Encourage historic and cultural preservation
Identify and emphasize targeted needs
Establish public/private partnerships
* Encourage the dedication of easements
Implement land-banking opportunities
Acquire/purchase parkland through development process
Develop linear parks concepts and plans
Using these goals, more-specific objectives were identified:
Obiectives
Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is environmentally
sensitive, such as wetlands;
Develop a program for land dedication/recreation payment that is
more effective and comprehensive;
Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with
the creation of recreation facilities;
Develop linear parks in the Rural Buffer, and explore opportunities
along other identified stream corridors;
°Retrofit" existing developed properties for recreation;
Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper
Eno River preservation efforts;
Develop land-use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood
parks
2. Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition
Subject to approval by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, a system should be developed to evaluate how
well potential land acquisitions meet the goals and objectives. A
from Master Recreation and Parks Report
number of specific measures have been suggested both for the
purchase of property, and for the appropriateness of siting
facilities. The components of this system would become the basis
of the Recreation and Parks Acquisition section of the County's
Resource Acquisition Program (see Section V).
Potential Land Acquisition Criteria (examplesZ
The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction;
Grants and other funding opportunities;
Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan;
Identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County, N.C.;
Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses
(Rogerson/Oakwood neighborhood park);
* Appropriate intensity of use for the area (Merritt Pasture at NC 54 and
US 15/501);
Location (Northern Community Park);
Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors, greenways and linear parks;
Land adjacent to new schools (Efland-Cheeks, Southern Park);
Land for active recreation is suitable and appropriate for uses (i.e., not
ecologically-sensitive areas);
Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor preservation
efforts;
Access (transportation) is safe and easily-accomplished;
Meeting multiple goals (above) gets higher weighting;
Potential Facilities Siting Criteria:
Facilities should be centrally located for population to be served
Both active and low-impact (natural area) recreation opportunities may
exist on-site;
School/park joint use sites are preferred;
Facility addresses a broad range of needs;
An adopted facility plan must exist;
Promotes pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation)
Intensity of uses should be compatible with community (i.e. lighting)
.from the Master Recreation and parks report
Resolution - Onen Facilities Policy
An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County
WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County have
developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their
jurisdictions, and
WHEREAS, the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that residents of
adjacent jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction or desirous
of use of the facilities, and
WHEREAS, the spirit of inter-jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation
programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures
between local governments, OWASA and the school systems, and
WHEREAS, attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing
jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would hinder community-
building and inter-local efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local
governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an Open
Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed by
the member local governments of the County be open to use by all County citizens.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, upon adoption of this resolution by the elected
boards of all local governments in Orange County, the resolution be transmitted to the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, the Orange County Board of Education, and the
Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement
of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the local governments agree to explore
opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to clarify and explore a modification of an
open facilities arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke
University.
This, the _ day of , 1999