Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-26-1996 - 5a 065 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 26, 1996 Action Agenda Item # 5 a SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - RECREATION SITES (DEDICATION/PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PROVISIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the dedication/ payment-in-lieu provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners June 26, 1995 meeting, a status report was presented concerning Concept Plans approved in the Stoney Creek basin area. The Board directed staff to study the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of the Subdivision Regulations and prepare amendments, if needed, for public hearing. At its December 9, 1995 goal-setting retreat, the Board of Commissioners reiterated its desire to have the provisions addressed as soon as possible. The attached report identifies the statutory basis for enacting such provisions,the origins of the current standards, concerns about the application of the standards, and changes through which to address those concerns. The specific proposal is to amend Section IV-B-7-b, Recreation Sites, of the Subdivision Regulations to substitute a payment-in-lieu based on the cost of land md facilities associated with implementing a system of community and district parks. Currently,the payment-in-lieu includes only the value of land, and is based on the assessed value listed in the Orange County Tax Office. The average payment-in-lieu per household is presently $76. Under the proposed system,the payment-in-lieu would not exceed $455 per household. In addition to the proposed payment-in-lieu, a change in the amount of land which must be dedicated for recreation sites is also proposed. Currently, 1/35th of an acre (1,244 sq.ft.) must be dedicated for each lot in a new subdivision unless the Board of Commissioners approves a payment-in-lieu. This standard is equivalent to 10.50 acres of land per 1,000 population. Under the proposed change, 1/57th of an acre (764 sq.ft.) must be provided for each lot. The new standard is equivalent to 7.5 acres per 1,000 population and is based on the amount of land needed to provide a system of community and district parks in the county. RECOMMENDATION: Section VII-D-3 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations be presented at a joint public hearing involving the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. It is at that time that the Planning Department's recommendation is presented. No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation. Planning Staff Recommendation Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Planning Staff recommends that the payment-in-lieu be set no higher than 5455 per dwelling lot and that the land dedication required be set no lower than 115 7th of an acre. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council for recommendations to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1996 Fff� ,G M INQ ssw - r SW 16'Mr az lid" S..'t"j Z ��v► /��-':�`� h �'�? X171. 068 069 Table of Contents Enabling Legislation 1 Dedication/Payment-In-Lieu Provisions 1 Dedication Formula 2 Origin 2 Application 3 Payment-In-Lieu Formula 3 Origin 3 Application 4 Determining Need 7 Demand Units 7 Per Capita 7 Per Household 9 Service Standards 9 Parkland Requirements 9 Identified Need 12 Determining Cost 15 Capital Cost 17 Payment-In-Lieu Proposal - A County-wide Approach 24 An Alternative Proposal - A Service Area Approach 24 Revenue Considerations 27 Land Dedication 30 Partial Dedications 32 Plan Consistency 32 Credits Toward Payments-In-Lieu 33 Conclusions 34 Proposed Ordinance Changes 34 An Alternative Approach - A Recreation Impact Fee 36 070 At the Board of Commissioners June 26, 1995 meeting, a status report was presented concerning Concept Plans approved in the Stoney Creek basin area. The Board directed staff to study the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of the Subdivision Regulations and prepare amendments, if needed, for public hearing. At its December 9, 1995 goal-setting retreat, the Board of Commissioners reiterated its desire to have the provisions addressed as soon as possible. This report identifies the statutory basis for enacting such provisions, the origins of the current standards, concerns about the application of the standards, and changes through which to address those concerns. Enabling Legislation Authorization to enact dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions through Subdivision Regulations is contained in G.S. 153A-331. On June 10, 1991, the General Assembly approved a local act (Senate Bill 623, Chapter 246) which permitted Orange County to define immediate (service) areas in terms of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. Also of significance was the provision which permitted the County to acquire and develop recreational areas using payment-in-lieu funds. The provisions of that statute, including those contained in the local act, are listed below, with pertinent sections highlighted in boldface type. G.S. 153A-331. Contents and requirements of ordinance A subdivision ordinance may provide for the orderly growth and development of the county;for the coordination of streets and highways within proposed subdivisions with existing planned streets and highways and with other public facilities; for the dedication or reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the subdivision and residents of the immediate area within which the subdivision is located, and of rights-of-way or easements for street and utility purposes including the dedication of rights-of-way pursuant to G.S. 13666.10 or G.S. 136.6611; and for the distribution of population and traffic in a manner that will avoid congestion and overcrowding and will create conditions essential to public health, safety, and the general welfare. The ordinance may include requirements that the final plat show sufficient data to determine readily and reproduce accurately on the ground the location, bearing, and length of every street and alley line, lot line, easement boundary line, and other property boundaries, including the radius and other data for curved property lines, to an appropriate accuracy and in conformity with good surveying practice. A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may be required to provide funds to the county whereby the county may acquire and develop recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area A subdivision control ordinance may define immediate area by reference to a comprehensive system.of parks and recreation areas within the county. Current Dedication/Payment-In-Lieu Provisions Orange County's current dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions were initially adopted by the Board of Commissioners on August 4, 1986 as Section IV-B-7-b, Recreation Sites, of the 072 , Subdivision Regulations. Section IV-V-7-b-6 requires that a payment-in-lieu be equal to the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Because of the linkage between "dedication" and "payment-in-lieu", the derivation of each element is discussed below. Dedication Formula Orange County's formula for the amount of land to be dedicated is contained in Section IV-B-7- b-2. At least one thirty-fifth (1135) of an acre shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan, except where land is located in the floodplain of a stream or river as indicated by the floodplain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and/or is characterized by steep slopes (IS% or greater), then at least one twentieth (1120) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit. Origin. The above formula was derived in part from the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of the Town of Cary, particularly the latter portion requiring a higher proportion of land dedication where the land was characterized by floodplains and/or steep slopes. The purpose of the provision was to serve as a disincentive and insure, insofar as possible, that "high and dry" land would be made available for recreation purposes. The"1/35" standard was derived from the following formula: A=NxPxR where A= Area, in acres, of the land required to be dedicated for recreation purposes in the subdivision; N= Number of lots or dwelling units proposed in the subdivision; P = Population or average family size according to the latest decennial census for the township in which the subdivision is located; R= Ratio equivalent to 0.01050 or 10.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population as recommended by the National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA) as the upper limit of the minimum standard for establishment of a "core" system of park lands, including the following: • Mini-parks, based on a standard of 0.5 acres per 1,000 population; • Neighborhood parks, based on a standard of 2.0 acres per 1,000 population, and • Community parks, based on a standard of 8.0 acres per 1,000 population. 3 0'73 When the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions were initially presented at public hearing on February 24, 1986, the Board of Commissioners asked that the formula be simplified to a single standard of so many acres per dwelling unit. The standard (1/35 or 0.02857) was derived by multiplying the ratio equivalent of 0.01050 times 2.72 persons per household, the average household size according to the 1980 Census. The 1135 standard was presented at a second public hearing on May 27, 1986 and subsequently adopted on August 4, 1986. Application. Since the adoption of the provisions in 1986 through FY 1994-95, Orange County has accepted dedication of approximately 30 acres of parkland through the dedication provision. All of this land is located in the Joint Planning Area along stream corridors which define and extend the greenway systems originating in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Only one development application has been considered by Orange County in which land dedication could have occurred - the proposed University Station project. The developer had proposed to dedicate a 25-acre park site for the proposed Eno Community Park, however, a development application was not approved, and the dedication did not occur. Recently, five conceptual plans have been approved for the property which comprised the University Station project site, and one plan has proceeded to the point of receiving preliminary plan approval. The difficulty with the dedication provision is that unless a project is large enough, e.g., of University Station size, or moderate sized subdivisions occur adjacent to each other, there is little opportunity to acquire, through dedication, a single large parcel or collection of smaller, contiguous parcels on which to develop a park. The other difficulty is that, even if dedications were proposed and accepted, the facilities; e.g., playgrounds, courts, etc., would still need to be constructed using other funding sources. Payment-In-Lieu Formula As noted previously, Section IV-V-7-b-6 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that a payment- in-lieu be equal to the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Fair market value is determined by dividing the tax appraisal of the property at last re-evaluation by the current year assessment ratio. As an example, if the appraised value of a 50-acre tract to be subdivided was $150,000, and the assessment ratio was 95% of fair market value, then the estimated fair market value would be $157,895 ($150,00010.95) or $3,158 per acre. If the subdivision was to consist of 50 lots, the dedication requirement would be 1.43 acres(50 x 1/35), and the payment-in-lieu would be $4,516 (53,158 x 1.43) or $90 per lot. Origin. As originally proposed, fair market value was to be determined by an appraisal of the acreage required, after development of the subdivision and with the required improvements (e.g., playgrounds, courts, etc.). The appraisal was to be prepared at the applicant's expense, and, if disagreement arose over the value, a committee comprised on the applicant's appraiser, an appraiser appointed by the County, and a third selected by the other two was to decide the appropriate value. As was the case with the "dedication" provision, the Board of Commissioners asked that the payment-in-lieu provision be simplified as well. The result was the provision described above. 074 Application. Since the adoption of the provisions in 1986 through FY 1994-95, Orange County has collected $130,527 from 1,713 lots, or an average payment of$76 per lot. Collection of these funds has come from the following park service areas: Community Parks 519,219 14.73% Efland-Cheeks Community Park $ 2,030 1.56% Fairview Community Park S 781 0.60% Caldwell Community Park S2,642 2.02% White Cross Community Park $ 4,918 3.77% N Human Services Center Community Park $ 4,010 3.07% University Station Community Park S 4,838 3.71% District Parks $111,308 85.27% Cane Creek District Park $10,397 7.97% Chapel Hill District Park 538,501 29.50% Cedar Grove-Little River District Park $28,782 22.05% Cheeks-Corporation Lake District Park $33,628 25.75% The park service areas referred to above are shown on the accompanying map and represent the "immediate neighborhood' that each park is to serve. As defined in Section H, Definitions, of the Subdivision Regulations, the immediate neighborhood is a subdivision or area of the county which distinguishes it from other subdivisions or areas by virtue of its location within the service area of a park site or sites as shown on the adopted Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., Master Recreation & Parks Plan) or the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. The Recreation Element designates four (4) district park sites and six (6) community parks sites. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designates a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces designed to serve the residents of the more urbanized towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The significance of the"service areas" or"immediate neighborhoods" is that payments-in-lieu are earmarked to pay for land acquisition and/or facilities associated with the park(service area) from which the funds were collected. The Master Recreation &Parks Plan recommended a minimum size for community parks of 25 acres and 75 acres for district parks. Shown in Table 1 is a survey of land sales in calendar years 1994 and 1995. The average price per acre for 25-acre tracts varied from $2,862 per acre in the northern townships to $4,991 in the southern portion of the county, with an average of$3,515 per acre for the county as a whole. For 75-acre tracts, land sales data was limited to the northern portion of the county, where the average price per acre for such tracts was$2,092. However, since the price for 75-acre tracts was approximately $770 per acre less than for 25-acre tracts, the price per acre for the central and southern portions of the county could be estimated at $2,489 and $4,221, respectively, with an average of$2,862 for the county as a whole. 075 5 TABLE 1 SELECTED LOT SALES IN ORANGE COUNTY BY SIZE AND LOCATION 1994 - 1995 Lot Sale Date Per Number Acres Price Sold Acre NC1►RT RN PORTION»L1�TT RPAR.:AN1}CEI)AKGROVE TOWNSH&S 1 73.06 $230,000 Jun-95 53,148 2 74.50 $100,000 Jan-94 51,342 3 74.60 5101,000 Dec-94 $1,354 4 78.10 5135,000 Sep-95 S1,729 5 84.60 5239,000 Dec-94 $2,825 384.86 5805,000 N/A 52,092 Ayer a !! 76.97 S161.000 N/A S2,092 1 23,41 $87,000 Apr-95 S3,716 2 21.24 $63,000 Aug-94 52,966 3 20.00 $110,000 May-94 $5,500 4 27.60 $50,000 Aug-94 $1,812 5 20.90 552.000 Sep-95 $2,488 6 28.90 567,000 May-94 $2,318 7 20.00 $40,640 Mar-95 $2,032 8 20.00 $34,500 Mar-95 S1,725 9 24.30 $86.500 Mav-95 S3,560 2S Acre ots 206.35 5590,610 N/A S2,862 A 'a 22.93 S65,627 N/A 52,862 591.21 $1,395,640 N/A 52,361 A 42.23 599,689 N/A 52,361 Arm ENO 1 29.68 $100,000 Jun-94 $3,369 2 22.93 $69,000 Jun-94 $3,009 3 29.94 $100,000 Mar-95 53,340 25-ACtre 82.55 S269,000 N/A $3,259 Aver 27,52 S89,6671 N/A $3,259 SAre N/A N/A N/A S2,489* S�( I TSEI I�f RTIQN»RIl `r ND:CBA ES�:ffiI:L TO WNSI 1 20.73 $60,000 Feb-95 $2,894 2 20.01 $130,000 Mar-94 56,497 3 22.57 5103,500 Dec-94 54,586 4 21.00 S126,000 Feb-94 $6,000 5 21.39 5108,000 Mav-95 55,049 A,C y 105.70 S527,500 N/A S4,991 S41991 21.14 5105500 /A N/A N/A N/A S4,221* 779.46 52,192,110 N/A S2,812 35.43 599,643 N/A 52,812 «ire 23.21 581,596 N/A 53,515 75i»ACt+e Letss N/A N/A N/A S2,745* Source:Orange County Land Records System *Note: For 75-acre lots,calculation of the average price per acre is based on the actual difference between 25-acre lots and 75-acre lots in the northern portion of the county;e.g., $770 per acre. r ' r 076 6 By comparing the payments collected with the average prices projected for 75-acre ($214,650 or $2,862 per acre x 75 acres) and 25-acre ($87,875 or $3,515 per acre x 25 acres) tracts, it is obvious that one difficulty with the payment-in-lieu provision is that the funds collected do not begin to cover the cost of the park site, much less the facilities to be provided in association with the sites. Recreation Service Area 1 Boundaries LLegend: • Comnunity Park ■ District Park r a Comnunity Park Service Area Boundary i — Oistict Park Service Area Boundary • Municipalities Joint R"im Area 11i 'i Another aspect of the payment-in-lieu provisions which must be considered is the type of development from which payments are derived. In Orange County's jurisdiction, most new development (other than building on individual lots) occurs in the form of major or minor subdivisions. Minor subdivisions consist of land divisions of five lots or less, and, between 1986 and the end of FY 1994-95, 427 such divisions were approved involving 931 lots. In contrast, only 59 major subdivisions were approved. However, only slightly fewer lots were created - 782. For minor subdivisions, each division consisted of two lots with an average lot size of 3.5 acres. Major subdivisions consisted of 13 lots per division with an average lot size of 2.0 acres. e 7 077 As noted previously, Orange County has collected 5130,527 from 1,713 lots since the adoption of the payment-in-lieu provisions in 1986 through FY 1994-95. Collection of these funds has come from the following types of subdivisions: Per Per Subdivision Number Lots Fees Paid Lot Subdivision Major 59 782 $57,702 $74 $978 Minor 427 931 $72,825 $78 $170 All 486 1,713 $130,527 $76 $268 This information indicates that the fees for major and minor subdivisions are very similar, with the larger average lot sizes in minor subdivisions accounting for the slightly higher fee. The information may also be used to provide some indication as to whether the price per acre being obtained through such fees is comparable with actual land sales data. As an example, the basic standard for land dedication is 1/35`h of an acre per lot. Given that the average fee collected per lot is $76 or the (appraised) value of 1/35`h of an acre, then the appraised value of one acre could be estimated at $2,660 (S76 x 35). By way of comparison, the average price per acre for a 25- acre tract is $3,515, and the average for a 75-acre tract is $2,862 per acre. The conclusion to be reached from this comparison is that the average payment-in-lieu is only equivalent to 76% of the value of a 25-acre tract and 93% of the value of a 75-acre tract. Determining Need Calculations of the amount of land to be dedicated and/or payments-in-lieu to be made begin with a determination of physical quantities of facilities that new development will require. The need for such facilities can be expressed in terms of demand units and service standards: Needed Improvements=Demand Unit x Service Standard Demand Units A "demand unit" is a unit associated with new development that generates the need for improvements in public facilities. For purposes of identifying parks and recreation capital needs, the demand unit most often used is the number of persons to use a park or participate in a recreational activity, commonly referred to as a"per capita" rate. While the number of persons is an important demand unit, equally important is another demand unit, the average number of persons per household or residential dwelling unit. The per capita rate is important in terms of projecting the number of acres of parkland needed to serve existing and future populations, but, from the standpoint of dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions, the per household rate is necessary to equate the number of acres needed or the cost of development to individual households. Per Capita. Shown on Table 2 are population projections for Orange County, by township. Two sets of projections are shown, with the first based on growth rates prior to the 1990 Census. Prepared in March, 1987, these projections provided the basis for projecting future park needs in the Master Recreation&Parks Plan. 078 N N z z Z Z Z Z Z Z N W, < < < < < < a 4 ° rn 1- ° •n v, Vf M C\ N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z IT C O aa ¢ ¢ a ¢ Q N zzzzzZz z •= N MTV ^ � �P, a p = C O N n 0. •J ^!. 00 O h N OC 1 pp N N N h N C\ h 'O N en et C/1 is 4 4 3 h O N N yy O O M O N N N OC Y1 00 ,d. t t- N .M�+ O r- — C C14 C4 00 N co) d 00 - — O � 1n N N !r VS ^ P i� r .� w CI4 M 4 M CN C14 1 G1 l� V' N OM m CQ �/ T M 1O O I'� 00 �0 � C1 00 '1 N M � 00 h 4n 00 C�1 cM�1 00 N h C� N M F O w. N M V� �0 �.: V. N M •n 'n �n � O� a a .°: M lei � hH0 T o ^ zzzzzzz z F r7 Wit: O M �p �-• C+ O N O O M .r O� O d N V1 o dl 00 N C% .V1 h v1 of M x' 00 h r �r 00 w-i W% Ch C4 ... h Oo V1 M O\ N h '70 '�1 M ' M O O r M v'f N N M M v1 N N M V1 M h a `Z as - v D c � ne�•, — � � .goof% no or N t R V R ENO F O oo O: O 00 > X00 = V 16. > 0.0 a U cz U O U2 C F � uzwG7U O 00 1 9 0'79 The second set of projections was prepared in June, 1992 following the 1990 Census and resulted in lower population numbers than used in the Master Recreation &Parks Plan. As an example, the projected 1990 population was 108,663, but the actual Census figure was 93,851, a difference of 14 %. Since the 1992 projections reflect more up-to-date growth rates, they are used as the basis for projecting park needs in this report. Per Household. Shown on Table 3 is the number of persons per household in Orange County, by township. Although the percentage of persons in households is lower in Chapel Hill township due to the student population, the overwhelming majority of persons reside in households and thus provide the basis for equating park needs and costs with residential dwelling units. Service Standards A "service standard" is generally expressed in terms related to land development; e.g., a service standard for parks and recreation might be expressed in terms of acres of parkland per 1,000 population. When such standards are used in determining need, they are best established within the Comprehensive Plan. Orange County adopted a Master Recreation & Parks Plan in July of 1988, and, at the same time, approved the Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Parkland Requirements. As noted at the beginning of this report, the amount of land to be dedicated was based on a standard of 10.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population as recommended by the National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA), The standard represented the upper limit of the minimum standard for establishment of a"core" system of park lands, including the following: • Mini-parks, based on a standard of 0.5 acres per 1,000 population; • Neighborhood parks, based on a standard of 2.0 acres per 1,000 population; and • Community parks, based on a standard of 8.0 acres per 1,000 population. The Master Recreation &Parks Plan presented a similar but slightly expanded set of standards, including: • Neighborhood parks, based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population; • Community parks, based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population: • District parks, based on a standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population; and • Regional parks, based on an average of 7.5 acres per 1,000 population. The service standard as well as the size range, population served, and service area for each park classification above are shown on Table 4. Although the combined standard of 17.5 acres per 1,000 population is higher than that used in the calculation of land dedication requirements (10.5 acres per 1,000), the Master Recreation & Parks Plan recommends that only community and district parks be provided by the County. Neighborhood parks are more appropriately provided by municipalities where densities are higher, and the Eno River State Park and Duke Forest are meeting regional park needs. Furthermore, the Master Recreation &Parks Plan recommends that 050 TABLE 3 HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. 1990 Households All Persons As%of Persons Township/Municipality Persons in All Total Per Households Persons Households Household 44GTCII1'tTY' TETAI� Bingham 5184 5177 99.86% 2156 2.40 Cedar Grove 3691 3676 99.59% 13)45 2.73 Chapel Hill 61973 53108 85.70% 23942 2.22 Cheeks 5422 5422 100.00% 2036 2.66 Eno 5262 5245 99.68% 2037 2.57 Hillsborough 10136 9816 96.84% 3811 2.58 Little River 218') 2183 100.00% 777 2.81 Total 93851 84627 90.17% 36104 2.34 Chapel Hill 37604 29188 77.62% 13383 2.18 Carrboro 11553 11543 99.91% 5637 2.05 Hillsborough 4263 4131 96.90% 1648 2.51 Mebane 513 512 99.79% 204 2.51 Total 539331 45375 84.13%1 208721 2.17 Bingham 5184 5177 99.86% 2156 2.40 Cedar Grove 3691 3676 99.59% 1345 2.73 Chapel Hill 12816 12377 96.57% 4922 2.51 Cheeks 4909 4910 100.02% 1832 2.68 Eno 5262 5245 99.68% 2037 2.57 Hillsborough 5873 5685 96.80% 2163 2.63 Little River 2183 2183 100.00% 777 2.81 Total 39918 39252 98.33%, 15232 2.58 Source: 1990 Census of Population o � 03 S N .y O w o -a O 0 �i D O O �p N O p s�s3 fl• t!1 O N O �n � J N t` 0 � N I F d c A O a =� N `' o V � r 3 Iz Y s 082 12 only a minimum of 70% of identified park acreage needs be provided by public agencies. The remaining 301/o would be provided by the private sector. Shown on Table 5 is the calculation of parkland acreage requirements using the updated population projections from Table 2 and the land area requirements for community and district parks from Table 4. In terms of total parkland acreage, 1,250 acres are required to serve the 2020 population of 166,700 persons. However, by applying the "70% public provision" standard, the land area required for community and district parks is reduced to 875 acres. One way of comparing the projections with those in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan is to consider the year 2005. The Plan projected a total need of 1,342 acres in 2005 for community and districts parks, while the use of the updated population projections results in a total need of 958 acres. Identified Need. In contrast to both sets of projections, the Master Recreation & Parks Plan recommended that the following facilities be developed and/or expanded: Community Parks 110 Acres Northern Human Services Center Expansion (20 acres) Fairview Community Park Development Efland-Cheeks Community Park University Station Community Park(30 acres) White Cross Community Park(30 acres) Caldwell Community Park(30 acres) District Parks 175 Acres Cane Creek Reservoir District Park Corporation Lake District Park(75 acres) Chapel Hill District Park Little River/Cedar Grove District Park (100 acres) Swimming Pools 50-Meter Pools Orange High School Chapel Hill High School The significance of these recommendations is twofold. First, the combined land area of district and community park facilities proposed for development by Orange County is 285 acres or almost 600 acres less than the projected requirements shown on Table 5. One reason for the disparity is the recommended development of parks in association with other public facilities such as water supply reservoirs, landfill sites, and/or public schools. Another consideration is that much of the projected park demand will be met by existing or planned municipal facilities, particularly those in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. A second point of significance is that since the adoption of the Master Recreation &Parks Plan in 1988, some facilities have already been constructed or planned for expansion. For example, the Fairview Community Park was opened in October, 1987. Play apparatus, picnic areas, and 13 063 TABLE 5 CALCULATION OF PARKLAND ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS,BY TOWNSHIP PROJECTED POPULATION ITownship 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Little River 2793 3201 3651 4145 4682 Cedar Grove 4010 4266 4554 4875 5230 Cheeks 5912 6216 6520 6823 7127 Hillsborough 12413 13701 15085 16658 18148 Eno 7171 8151 9207 10337 11543 Bingham 7172 8290 9510 10833 12259 ,Chapel Hill 76556 83942 91597 99520 1 107711 County Total 116027 127767 140121 153191 166700 TOTAL PARKLAND ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS JTownship 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Little River Total 21 24 27 31 35 Community Parka 2.5 per 1000 7 8 9 10 12 District Park a 5.0 per 1000 14 16 18 21 23 Cedar Grove Total 30 32 34 37 39 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 10 11 11 12 13 District Parka 5.0 per 1000 20 21 23 24 26 Cheeks Total 44 47 49 51 53 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 15 16 16 17 18 District Park 5.0 per 1000 30 31 33 34 36 Hillsborough Total 93 103 113 125 136 Community Park,a 2.5 per 1000 31 34 38 42 45 District Park a 5.0 per 1000 62 69 75 83 91 Eno Total 54 61 69 78 87 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 18 20 23 26 29 District Park 14 5.0 per 1000 36 41 46 52 58 Bingham Total 54 62 71 81 92 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 18 21 24 27 31 District Park a 5.0 per 1000 36 41 48 54 61 Chapel Hill Total 574 630 687 746 808 Community Park(a 2.5 per 1000 191 210 229 249 269 District Park,,4 5.0 per 1000 383 420 458 498 539 County Total 870 958 1051 1149 1250 Community Park(4 2.5 per 1000 290 319 350 383 417 District Park(a,5.0 per.1000 580 639 701 766 834 Continued on following page 14 084 TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) CALCULATION OF PARKLAND ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS, BY TOWNSHIP PARKLAND ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS. 70%PUBLIC PROVISION ITownship 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Little River Total 15 17 19 22 25 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 5 6 6 7 8 District Park,,4 5.0 per 1000 10 11 13 15 16 Cedar Grove Total 21 22 24 26 27 Community Parka 2.5 per 1000 7 7 8 9 9 District Parka 5.0 per 1000 14 15 16 17 18 Cheeks Total 31 33 34 36 37 Community Park J 2.5 per 1000 10 11 11 12 12 District Park;&5.0 per 1000 21 22 23 24 25 Hillsborough Total 65 72 79 87 95 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 22 24 26 29 32 District Parka 5.0 per 1000 43 48 53 58 64 Eno Total 38 43 38 54 61 Community Parka 2.5 per 1000 13 14 I6 I8 20 District Park a 5.0 per 1000 25 29 32 36 40 Bingham Total 38 44 50 57 64 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 13 15 17 19 21 District Park a 5.0 per 1000 25 29 33 38 43 Chapel Hill Total 302 441 381 522 565 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 134 147 160 174 188 District Park,(a 5.0 r 1000 268 294 321 348 377 Countv Total 609 671 736 804 875 Community Park a 2.5 per 1000 203 224 245 268 292 District Park(a7 5.0 per 1000 306 447 490 536 583 15 benches have been installed, and picnic shelters and multi-use fields are to be added as part of the 1995-2000 Capital Improvements Program. Another facility which has been developed is the Efland-Cheeks Community Center. Opened in 1992 adjacent to the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School, a new 3,000 sq.ft. community center as well as picnic areas and a children's playground are currently available for use. Walking, fitness, and nature trails, and multi-use activity areas for volleyball and horseshoes will be added as part of the 1995-2000 Capital Improvements Program. A final facility constructed since the adoption of the Master Recreation &Parks Plan is Triangle Sportsplex, consisting of an indoor swimming pool, an ice rink, fitness center, community meeting rooms, sports shop, and a snack bar. The design of the facility includes two separate pools, each 25 yards by 25 meters in size. One pool has been planned to have 10 lanes for competition and lap swimming, and the second pool is a recreational type pool with similar dimensions. Given the construction and/or development of the above facilities, the remaining identified need for parks in Orange County includes the following: Community Parks 110 Acres Northern Human Services Center Expansion (20 acres) University Station Community Park(30 acres) White Cross Community Park (30 acres) Caldwell Community Park(30 acres) District Parks. 175 Acres Cane Creek Reservoir District Park Corporation Lake District Park(75 acres) Chapel Hill District Park Little River/Cedar Grove District Park(100 acres) Determining Cost Along with recommendations for park types and locations, the Master Recreation & Parks Plan included a 20-year capital improvements program through which to implement the system of parks. Shown on Table 6 are the four community parks and four district parks which represent the identified need for recreational facilities. Also shown is the phasing plan or time schedule for development of the parks. As originally scheduled, the parks were to be developed between 1988 and 2008. However, the phasing plan had to be adjusted to reflect the current 1995-2000 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The CIP was adopted in June, 1995 in conjunction with the County's annual operating budget, and any additions to it would have to be made during the annual budget cycle leading to the adoption of the 1996-2001 CIP. This means that if the 20-year schedule for parks development included in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan were initiated in 1996, the parks system would be completed in the year 2016. . . $ _ & : � ) . � 4 � A � k � . . � � a � Qo A Q � • V © q « � $ ON A � - o 5 2 . « « � 5 t a � % Sk $ � 2 $ 6 $ k z _ » _ U � � � ^ �-� ^ 17 0S7 Capital Cost The principal source of data for estimating the capital cost of park improvements was the Master Recreation &Parks Plan. However, because the Plan was prepared in 1987, it was necessary to confirm that the cost estimates were still accurate, particularly for facilities such as community centers and ball fields, and land acquisition. Shown on Table 7 is a comparison of the 1987 cost estimates and those for 1995. There were three sources for the 1995 estimates, including the City of Mebane Recreation Department, Woolpert Associates, the consulting firm that prepared the Master Recreation &Parks Plan, and Urban Land Institute publications. Provided below is a summary of the main differences in the two sets of cost estimates. • Community Centers. In 1992, Orange County completed construction of the Efland-Cheeks facility. Containing approximately 3,000 sq.ft., the center cost $239,300 to build or $80 per square foot. Although the price per square foot is comparable with that used in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan, estimates obtained from Woolpert Associates indicated that the 1995 cost for a community center, including gymnasium, was $100 per square foot and that a typical community center contained 10,000 square feet. Because the Woolpert data is more recent, it has been used in this report. • Ball Field Complex. The City of Mebane recently completed such a facility in conjunction with its new arts center. The total cost of the ball field complex, including four fields, scoreboards, concession center and bathrooms, lights, and grading and site work was $1,155,000. Although lower than the $1.5 million estimate used in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan, the Mebane cost was considered more accurate and used in this report. • Land Acquisition. A significant concern in terms of cost data is the price per acre to be paid for park land. As noted in Table 1, the average price per acre for 25-acre tracts appears to be approximately $3,500, with ranges from $1,300 to $6,500 per acre possible. Prices per acre for 75-acre tracts are somewhat lower. In the Master Recreation & Parks Plan, the average price per acre used to calculate land acquisition costs was $10,000 per acre. While this price may seem high in comparison to the sales data presented in Table 1, it is low when compared to the price per acre paid for new school sites. As an example, the 28-acre tract on which the New Hope Elementary School is located was acquired at a price of$15,000 per acre. Nearby, the 34-acre site of the new A L. Stanback Middle School was acquired for$22,500 per acre. While these prices may reflect the intended use of the sites for school purposes, they suggest that the data contained in Table 1 is to low to estimate land acquisition cost. Since the $10,000 figure appears to reflect a mid- range price, it has been retained as the average price per acre to be paid for land acquisition. • Golf Course. A public golf course was proposed in the Master Recreation &Parks Plan for the Chapel Hill District Park. In the 1994 edition of Golf Course Development&Real Estate, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the cost of a typical 18-hole golf course was TABLE 7 COST ESTIMATES-RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Facility 1987 1995 Comment Adult Softball held Basic Field* $30.000 $30.000 *Includes bleachers. team benches. Backstop lit Fence N/A $20.000 trash cans. signs,bases. grading, Lighting $45,000 $35.000 and seeding. Irrigation N/A $15.000 Total S75,0001 S110,000, Youth/Little League Field Basic Field* $20.000 $25.000 *Includes bleachers, team benches. Backstop&Fence N/A $15.000 trash cans, signs.bases.grading. Lighting N/A $30.000 and seeding. Irrigation N/A $10.00 Total 520,000 590,000. Ball Field Complex 4 Fields* N/A $288.000 *Includes bleachers,team benches, Fencing,Dugouts,&Ticket Booth N/A $157.000 trash cans, signs, scoreboards,bases, Lighting N/A $223.000 grading,and seeding. Irrigation N/A $254.000 Concession Building&Bathrooms N/A $233.000 Total S115001000 51,155,000 Soccer/Football Fields Basic Field* $20.000 $30,000 *Includes bleachers. team benches. trash Lighting N/A $35.000 cans,signs,goals,grading,and seeding. Irrigation N/A S 10,000 Total S20,000 575,000 Lake Development 3.0 Acres S80,000 N/A A 6.0 Acres 5125,000 N/A Docks 516,000 N/A Picnic Areas 1 Site* $500 $2,000 *Includes grading and seeding,concrete !a� 20 Sites Per Communi Park $10,000 $30,000 d,trash can.accessible table,and ll. Picnic Shelters* 1 Shelter 530,000 530,000 *x30.00 Per Square Foot(S.F.) 'a 2 Shelters 560,000 S60,000 1.000 S.F. =$30.000. Mufti-UseBasketball Caarts Basic Court* $20,000 $20,000 *Includes benches,trash cans,asphalt, Lighting N/A $10.000 backboards,goals and and nets,grading, Total S201000 $30,000 and seeding, Tennis Courts Basic Court* $25,000 $25,000 *Includes benches,trash cans,asphalt. Lighting N/A $20,000 fencing,nets,signs,grading,and seeding, Total S251000 S45,000 Play Areas* Small 515,000 S15,000 *Includes grading and seeding,fibar mulch Medium N/A $30,000 surface,trash cans,and benches. Large N/A 555,000 19059 TABLE 7(CONTINUED) COST ESTIMATES-RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Facility 1987 1995 Comment Golf Course(18-Hole) Staking N/A $25.000 Clearing N/A $150.000 Grading N/A 5613,000 Drainage N/A $195.000 Irrigation N/A $850.000 Tees, Greens,&Bunkers N/A $1.065.000 Finishing Shaping N/A $225.000 Seeding&Landscaping N/A $160,000 Total $3,000,000 $3,283,000 Amphitheater Basic Cost 540,000 N/A Communitv Center na 10.000 S.F. Building w/Gymnasium* 1 $1,100.0001 $1,000,000 *$1.00.00 Per Square Foot(S.F.) Park Office&Interpretive Center na 2.500 S.F. Building $200,0001 S250,000 *$100.00 Per Square Foot(S.F.) Campsites Basic Cost 1 S40,000 N/A Restrooms* 400 S.F. Building 530,000 S36,000 *$90.00 Per Square Foot(S.F.) 530 S.F. Building 540,000 548,000 800 S.F. Building 560,000 572,000 Access&Parkin : Community Park,,?� 175 Spaces S100,000 S157,500 *$900.00 Per Space, including Access District Park A 350 Spaces S200,000 5315,000 Drives. Landscaping Community Park S60,000 N/A District Park 5200.000 N/A Pedestrian Trails" Community Park 4 2,800 Linear Feet $10,000 542,000 *10'Wide Gravel Trail(4$15.00 Per District Park(&, 8.400 Linear Feet S20,000 $126,000 Linear Foot NOTE: Comments highlighted with(*)refer to 1995 cost data. SOURCES: Master Recreation&Parks Plan City of Mebane Recreation Department Wooipert Associates Urban Land Institute 20 Y ' 09,,,,0 estimated at $3,283,000. Although comparable to the $3.0 million estimate in the Master Recreation &Parks Plan, the ULI estimate is considered more accurate. • Other Facilities & Infrastructure. Insofar as the cost of individual ballfields, picnic shelters, multi-use courts, and similar facilities is concerned, Woolpert Associates indicated that the 1987 and 1995 costs for such facilities are comparable. However, there are some important differences. Although the ballfield costs are similar, one cost that was apparently omitted from the Master Recreation & Parks Plan was that for backstops and fencing. That cost was added to the price of proposed softball fields, but in all other respects, no cost adjustments (e.g., for lighting, etc.) were made unless specifically mentioned in the Plan. As an example, the Plan generally recommended two "mixed use" ballfields at each community park. A "mixed use" field consists of a softball field and adjoining football/soccer field, costing $30,000 each for the basic fields. To these costs were added the price of backstops and fencing for a total cost of$80,000. Another important change occurred with respect to access drives and parking. The 1995 cost estimate for asphalt paving, including grading and base material, was approximately $2.77 per square foot. Applied to a parking space standard of 325 square feet per space, including backup aisles and access drives, the 1995 cost estimate per individual space is $900. This estimate was applied to the one proposed park where a specific number of spaces (350) was mentioned, the Cedar GrovelLittle River District Park, and resulted in an estimated cost of $315,000. The cost for parking for other proposed parks was then adjusted proportionately. One of the most significant changes occurred in the price of picnic areas. The information supplied by Woolpert Associates indicated that the current cost for a picnic area, including grading and seeding, concrete pad, trash can, table, and grill, was $2,000, up from the $500 estimate used in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. The Plan recommended that there be 10 picnic sites to serve 6,000 persons. Based on the recommended land area of 30 acres per community park and the standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population, a community park would serve approximately 12,000 persons. To serve that number of people, 20 picnic sites at a cost of$2,000 each would be needed in a typical community park. A final major adjustment in cost estimates involved the price per linear foot for pedestrian trails linking facilities within parks. Woolpert Associates provided an estimate of $10 per linear foot for a 10-foot wide gravel trail. This figure was then applied to the estimated number of feet of park trails in district (1.5 miles) and community (0.5 miles) parks to obtain an adjusted estimate for these facilities. Shown on Table 8 is the total estimated capital cost of all park improvements broken down by park category (e.g., community vs. district parks) and by specific park facility (e.g., Caldwell Community Park). These costs have been calculated using the updated cost estimates contained in Table 7 and result in a total estimated cost of $18,047,250 for all park improvements. • ' ' " TABLES 21 ESTLNATED CAPITAL COSTS-ALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS 0 9 1 Community District V Improvement Total Parks Parks LAND AC UISMON r4 510,000 PER ACRE 30 Acres (20 Acres(d N Human Services) $1.100.000 $1,100,000 a 100 Acres(75 Acres @Cheeks-Corp Lake) $1.750,000 $1.750,000 SubTotal 52,850,000 $1,100,000 S1,750,000 Contingency* 10% 5285,000 $110,000 5175,000 Total Acquisition Cost S3,135,0001 $1,210,0001 S1,925,000 ACQUISITION COST PER ACRE $11,0001 511,000 511,000 FACILITIES Ball Fields 2 Fields(1 @ N Human Services) $410,000 5330,000 $80.000 4 Fields w/Lights&Concessions $1,155,000 $1,155,000 Lake Development (,3.0 Acres $320,000 $320,000 C 6.0 Acres $125,000 $125,000 Docks $32,000 $32.000 Picnic Areas $400,000 $160,000 $240,000 Picnic Shelter @ 1 Shelter $120,000 $120,000 @ 2 Shelter $180,000 $180,000 Multi-Use Court(Includes Tennis Courts) $115,000 $20,000 $95,000 Play Area $225,000 $105,000 $120.000 Golf Course(18-Hole)&Amphitheater $3,283,000 $3.283.000 Community Center(?� 10,000 sq.ft. $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Park Office&Interpretive Center @ 2,500 sq.ft. 5750,404 $750.000 Campsites W.000 $40,000 Restrooms $372,000 $144,000 $228,000 Subtotal $10,527,000 S4,199,0001 $6,328,000 SITE EMPROVEMENTS Access&Parking $1,102,500 $551,250 $551.250 Landscaping $420,000 $195,000 $225.000 Pedestrian Trails $588,000 $168,000 $420,000 Subtotal $2,110,500 5914,250 51,196,250 FACILITIES&IMPROVEMENTS COST Subtotal $12,637,500 55,113,250 57,521,250 Contingency @ 10% $1,263,750 $511,325 $752,425 Design Fees @ 8% 51,011,000 $409,060 $601,940 Total Facilities&Improvements Cost 511,912,250 56,033,635 $8,878,615 Il"ROVEMENT COST PER ACRE $52,3241 S54,8511 550,735 TOTAL PARK COST Land Acquisition 53,135,000 $1,210,000 $1,925,000 Facilities&Improvements 511,912,250 56,033,635 58,878,615 Total $18,047,250 $7,243,635 $10,803,615 TOTAL PARK COST PER ACRE S63,3241 S65,8511 561,735 Sources: Master Recreation&Parks Plan City of Mebane Recreation Department 092 O O — O O C O C C � .. O C E O = V=j •:r %1 � C O� 1 00 0 0 0 = O 0 0 0 O=h r r T T .•. =T �f .. Cf 0 .� 0000 O �O �O r-C N C; V)h-}Vj ..; C vj yj N Op QQ M M .� 00 00 Y M M O M a\ v1 \0 Y r r r N 1'4 �O M M 4 t, Q *m M t�f fin M EA H 44 69 H GR O 69 N K fA N Y"w�. .�. a fI! 'GM GM b9 M OD ^ V) � O br9 H _ 69 N 3 � 604 ill 6M c — oo s oo x co ^ 000 — r — r o0 orr o0 �n .. or v) � Y �o r y O O N N l� Y M T `f M N N N H f4 6M %M H 6M 64 604 6R 604 b4 MM 69 6R 64 - � SM SM � SM N r [- :m o ? 6M SM 6R Si y z � 0 0 0 0 O O C O C C C O C O C 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 — M 0 0 O O C O O = 0 O C O O C : = O r Y 1 OA O C\ OC F CL = C O V) W� V'1 Y-r Z .�, O O I S r h 4 r .+ O W V i N C O O M M 00 00 Y M M C m ON V'1 v:. Y r r r N M 14 en M N4 1- �Ww L O M M 6M M 69 64 64 64 64 64 O 69 N 64 V9 (4 W) Sy N) 20 L y r 6A 6M bM ,� I. f14 614 ,,,� 6M 6M ^ " .4 N Gib w 69 6M 514 6M 619 > •C !/] O � p 0 0 0 O O p C p op C C C C O 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 M O O C C O O O O 01 O O �i- V^ VOlw h-tt�`-P CS QC O`�! Y 0 �14 r- N 1 r r v r .= o r r N 0 o M M .� 00 00 Y M M s M T �O Y r h ^ ^ m 1 4 M m^ t- 4 3 c s 5 4 6i9 m 6n 69 64 Q4 64 64 6R N — 1^ b4 614 u4 .••. •.3 .-- 404 W 'y 404 614 604 GA 64 619 z O � � oo0 00000 ^ 0o corn ov) ov) owr Q SoOOOO 00 Inc r r. N �oen r oMM r. OO CL It O 00 ._.0 0000 .+ 00000 0 � O� �6"! tai •+O�rf �f 0enm W" Op O O t� •r M N �o N_ N 0 O Y ON �1 .. O M 1A .• N 619 M M 69 0 .-r "- �/1 -'� ^� T •y Wry 7 O SM N O N GM 64 6R b9 N9 N9 M 64 -; H4 69 69 614 W 6/4 6M ^i 614 69 v4 69 6M 6M SR 69 Fo QM a e F a Q U D F Q ca •-e�z' � O wi a. 8 Z Ix CL Q F 8 F y see oo H ^' as Z U o z U C4 Id ,y. 100 G F y e°� •u i� Ar S „ A+ AQ u � v> > .. o : as_ a e = e cc N A.04m .1 CSv�o� Vda o ao •�a+ :o: OF ox 'erx °.o: O E" fs, viUGF FaGaF F 093 r, o0o d c 0000c o co at d o00 N 'A GA G19 � o 0 0 � � 0 00 o0 ao ao �, u4aDa0 � z o moo =o oC o .taoa z ao;, z o o^ vi o 0o T N N 1.0 a0 V3 6n v; x �C 1 N (') 'r "" -P `P `G m N N N N C L ir4 fn4 GA 64 604 44 64 m 64 FA GA GA -T A 19 U tj v: n 0� 0� � d o � � o0 000 oln0 d olr I d ^ C ... un '7 h h r '� N V) N z N �rl� z Iz T N x Y1 N 64 64 64 N N 64 `O GA — M O�M M r- 604 t w t 'A A U F COO = O CO 'vJ C 0 = v� O � Gr Wi rw 6r^ h n— " -t (-- N h r- N M W A In In t- N n •r \O N9 N M z 00 �c W) "� N W N a 1` r G9 00 G14 64 64 64 64 64 N GR vn 69 ^+ N 00 6A GR T 5A a0 T t' Y3 64 GR 614 Gi? (A 64 64 ill 6" V.) ts4 J4 ^, a � u 0000 0 cg oc � o � o O O O O C O O �bc� � � oo -t -r ao o -t -r ao O C O C O O O O M O M 00 O M M 00 h -n ^C C O O N N V'1 O N � fn � 0T0 � N O *a w � L w O O O O n V'1 N �o \c N M h T t- — `Q a 4 > O O "M .•+ GR -+ 64 64 604 64 �Nl 64 64 a0 6M9 —ros — GSA �^b 4 G" t V, .:� [^OC (.1 U 6A Gil 4e 64 6R GA (.1 614 � �A � F z � F DA o000 0 p0000 0 0 0 o c ^ po oinov) kn owtr, v; 0 0 0 0 O C O CL CL C C O C O O O C N C O N N ' O�'4 C' = IC r O O to in .� O to W%N O O H O m cc o0 a0 — %n C %a I v N a0 O h a0 M — W v'f Gn t- N x to N m "It x IN N x W1 It N N v; N N ai Pi Yi O t` W" N r O �Q H 64 N — 64 N t- GR N M wl N ^7 .-+ VS t- 14 00 GR Ch a0 00 Yl O L G14 64 64 f/f 64 c, fA 64 'c 64 64 iO4 A Gi4 6R 00 O U d a. v4 Ge Gil GR 64 GR GR 614 69 GM GR � .a d F U A W � - d 0 U tn � R pG H U o O W tn 4 .. z d OWG ad GO e o J N w e o c 30 E W3 ...� �i Z Op f•. � V °y� � � 3 0� � cr ao 0 od D � w � rn � ¢`' U° O c. $ o ff dd y o .» c e aw a � d = d eon F -Z F .iL>vIUF a � a1 a � a2a v 19 urxv32 Q ac v') Fri ml d � • wF O 24 U94 Payment-In-Lieu Proposals There are two basic approaches for calculating a payment-in-lieu, both which incorporate parkland and recreational facilities costs, and both which rely on a "per household" approach for determining the payment-in-lieu to be paid for each dwelling unit or lot. One approach is to consider the payment calculation on a "county-wide" basis, whereas the second approach takes a narrower view and focuses on the "service area" of specific types of parks and the people most likely to use the facilities. Each approach is discussed below. A County-wide Approach Using the capital costs from Table 8, it is possible to calculate a projected payment-in-lieu. The "county-wide" approach is based partly on the rationale that the calculations are directly related to the recommended system of public parks and implementation program contained in the adopted Master Recreation & Parks Plan; e.g., the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The principal rationale, however, is that since the system of ublic parks is accessible to all citizens of Orange County, all should participate in funding the facilities. Shown on Table 9 is the conversion of the recreation capital costs from Table 8 to "per capita" costs. This is accomplished by dividing the land acquisition, facilities, and site improvement costs by the population who potentially would use the parks. As noted previously, the recreation capital improvement program was projected to be carried out over a 20-year period, ending in the year 2016. Through interpolation between projections for the years 2015 and 2020 (Table 2), the 2016 population may be estimated at 155,802 persons. By dividing each acquisition, facility or improvement cost by the 2016 population, the per capita cost may be obtained. As an example, the total cost of all park improvements is projected at $18,407,250. By dividing that total by 155,802 persons, the total per capita cost is estimated at$115.83. To obtain the "per household" cost, the per capita cost of$115.83 is multiplied by the average number of persons per household or 2.34 persons according to the 1990 Census (Table 3). This calculation results in a per household or per dwelling unit cost of$271.05 or $271 rounded off, the amount of the projected payment-in-lieu. A Service Area Approach An alternative to the"county-wide" approach is to calculate payments-in-lieu on the basis of park service areas. While this approach is also related to the recommended system of puhUg parks and implementation program contained in the adopted Master Recreation &Parks Plan, it focuses on the primary users of the parks, the residents of the "immediate neighborhoods" located within the park service areas. In that sense, the approach is more directly linked to the enabling legislation which permits the County to use payments-in-lieu to "acquire and develop recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area" TABLE 9 25 ESTIMATED PER CAPITA&PER HOUSEHOLD RECREATION CAPITAL COSTS 095 ORANGE COUNTY,N.C. PROJECTED POPULATION 2016 155802 POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD-1990 1 2.34 Per Per Community District Capita Household Improvement Parks Parks Total Cost Cost LAND ACQUISITION-a 510,000 PER ACRE (a� 30 Acres (20 Acres!a�N Human Services) $1.100,000 $1.100.000 $7.06 $16.52 100 Acres(75 Acres w Cheeks-Corp Lake) $17750,000 $1.750.000 $11.23 $26.28 SubTotal $1,100,000 S1,750,000 52,850,000 S18.29 S42.80 Contingency'' 10% 5110,000 $175,000 5285,000 S1.83 54.28 Total Acquisition Cost S1,210,0001 51,925,000 S3,135,000 S20.12 547.08 ACQUISITION COST PER ACRE $11,0001 Si1,000 -sil'000l $0.071 S0.17 FACILITIES Ball Fields @ 2 Fields(1 (4 N Human Services) $330.000 $80.000 $410,000 $2.63 $6.16 (a�4 Fields w/Lights&Concessions $1.155,000 $1,155,000 $7.41 $17.35 Lake Development (a7 3.0 Acres $320,000 $320,000 $2.05 $4.81 6.0 Acres $125,000 $125,000 $0.80 $1.88 Docks $32,000 $32,000 $0.21 $0.48 Picnic Areas $160.000 $240.000 $400,000 $2.57 $6.01 Picnic Shelter (g 1 Shelter $120,000 $120,000 $0.77 $1.80 (a,2 Shelter S 180.000 $180.000 $1.16 $2.70 Multi-Use Court(Includes Tennis Courts) $20.000 $957000 5115,000 $0.74 $1.73 Play Area $105,000 $120,000 $225,000 $1.44 $3.38 Golf Course(18-Hole)&Amphitheater $3,283,000 53,283,000 $21.07 $49.31 Community Center(4 10.000 sq.ft. $3.000,000 $37000,000 $19.26 $45.06 Park Office&Interpretive Center(a-,)2,500 sq.ft. $750.000 $750,000 $4.81 $11.26 Campsites $40,000 W.000 $0.26 $0.60 Restrooms $144.000 $228,000 $372,000 $2.39 $5.59 Subtotal 54,199,000 S6,328,000 S10,527,0001 S67.571 5158.11 SITE EMPROWN ENTS Access&Parking $551,250 $551,250 $1,102,500 $7.08 $16.56 Landscaping $195,000 $225,000 $420,000 $2.70 $6.31 Pedestrian Trails $168.000 $420,000 $588,000 $3.77 $8.83 Subtotal 5914,250 51,196,250 52,110,500 513.55 $31.70 FACILITIES&EMPMVEN ENTS COST Subtotal S5,113,250 $7,524,250 $12,637,500 S81.11 5189.80 Contingency @ 10% S511,325 S752,425 $1,263,750 $8.11 S18.98 Design Fees ,8% S409,060 5601,940 S1,011,000 56.19 515.18 Total Facilities& Improvements Cost S6,033,635 58,878,615 $14,912,250 595.71 $223.97 IlMPROVEMENT COST PER ACRE S54,851 $50,7351 S52,3241 50.34 $0.79 TOTAL PARK COST Land Acquisition 51,210,000 51,925,000 $3,135,0001 S20.12 547.08 Facilities&Improvements 56,033,635 S8,878,615 S14,912,250 595.71 S223.97 Total 57,243,635 510,803,615 518,047,250 5115.83 5271.05 TOTAL PARK COST PER ACRE $65,8511 S61,7351 563,324 $0.411 S0.95 096 TABLE 10 ESTIMATED RECREATION CAPITAL COSTS BY SERVICE AREA Community District Improvement Park park LAND ACQULSITION Oil 30 Acres $300.000 100 Acres $1.000.000 SubTotal $300,000 S1,000,000 Contingency,* 10% S30,000 S100,000 Total Acquisition Cost 5330,000 51,100,000 FACILITIES Ball Fields 1& 2 Fields $80,000 4 Fields w/Lights&Concessions $1.155,000 Lake Development (ad 3.0 Acres $80,000 6.0 Acres $125.000 Picnic Areas $40,000 560,000 Picnic Shelter 1 Shelter $30,000 @ 2 Shelter $60,000 Multi-Use Court $20,000 Play Area 530.000 $30,000 Community Center, 10,000 sq.ft. $1,000,000 Park Office&Interpretive Center 2,500 sq.ft_ $250,000 Campsites $40.000 Restrooms $36,000 $72.000 Subtotal S1,296,0001 S1,812,000 SITE MPROVEMENTS Access&Parking $157,500 $315,000 Landscaping $60.000 5110.000 Pedestrian Trails $42,000 $126,000 u Subtotal 5259,500 5551,000 FACILITIES&EMPROVEMENTS COST Subtotal 5115551500 52,363,000 Contingency*10% $155,550 $236,300 Design Fees, 8% $124,440 5189,040 Total Facilities&Improvements Cost $1,835,190 52,788,340 TOTAL PARK COST Land Acquisition $330,0001 S1,100,000 Facilities&Improvements $1,835,190 $2,788,340 Total 52,165,190 53,888,340 SERVICE ST ` ARDS Acres of Parkland Per 1,000 Population 2.5 5.0 Population Served 12,000 20,000 PER CAPITA COST Land Acquisition S28 S55 Facilities&Improvements 5153 $139 Total S180 5194 POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD 2.341 2.34 PER HOUSEHOLD COST Land Acquisition S64 $129 Facilities& Improvements 5358 S326 Total 5122 5155 27 09; Shown on Table 10 are the facilities associated with prototypical community and district parks, as identified in the Master Recreation &Parks Plan. Estimates of the cost to develop each type of park were prepared using the cost data from Table 7. For a typical community park, the cost would be $2,165,490, while a district park would cost $3,888,340. To derive the number of persons which would be served by a park, the service standard or land area requirements in Table 4 and the recommended acreage for community (30 acres) and district (100 acres) parks were used. As an example, the land area requirement for a community park is 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. By dividing the recommended park size of 30 acres by 2.5 and multiplying the result by 1,000, the number of persons served by the park may be estimated at 12,000. By applying the methodology to a district park, the number of persons served by that type of facility would be 20,000. To calculate the capital cost per household, dividing the total park cost by the number of persons served by the park results in the per capita cost. Multiplying the per capita cost by the number of persons per household provides an estimate of the per household cost. The per household cost represents the payment-in-lieu for each dwelling lot and would be $422 per lot created within a community park service area and $455 for each lot created within a district park service area. Revenue Considerations While both approaches result in greater payments-in-lieu, any increase should not be viewed as capable of producing a revenue windfall sufficient to finance the parks system. Instead, several important points should be considered in the collection of payments from each approach. • Payments-in-lieu are made prior to recording of a subdivision plat and not at the time a building permit or certificate of occupancy is issued. The point at which payments-in-lieu are made is related to the enabling legislation which permits counties to enact dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions. G.S. 153A-33 1. Contents and requirements of ordinance. A subdivision ordinance may provide for...the dedication or reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the subdivision and residents of the immediate area within which the subdivision is located...A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may be required to provide funds to the county whereby the county may acquire and develop recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area Dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions are contained in the subdivision regulations. Thus, they are collected during the subdivision approval process, and the last opportunity for collecting such payments is prior to the recording of the plat with the Register of Deeds. 09828 • Payments received from a particular park service area must be used to pay for acquisition and/or development costs associated with that park. The significance of this point is also emphasized by the enabling legislation, and, in turn, the County ordinance provisions, which require that the beneficiaries of the payments-in-lieu be the residents of the "immediate neighborhood" (e.g., service area) from which the funds were collected. Thus, a payment-in-lieu collected from a subdivision being developed in the Caldwell Community Park service area would be used to buy land and/or construct recreation facilities for the Caldwell Community Park and no other. • The amount of payments received from a particular park service area is dependent upon the size of and rate of growth within that service area. The importance of this point is best illustrated by the listing of current and projected revenues received from park service areas as shown on Table 11. Payments received from the White Cross, Northern Human Services Center, and University Station community park service areas are generally twice (or more) those of the remaining areas. Likewise, payments received from district park service areas are considerably more than those of community parks. While differences between community park service areas may reflect differences in growth rates, the differences between community and district parks primarily reflect differences in service area size. • Payments-in-lieu are obtained over an extended period of time and only from subdivisions developed in Orange County's,jurisdiction. The "county-wide" payment-in-lieu calculated previously was based on the projected population for the entire county in the year 2016. Between 1995 and 2016, the overall population is expected to grow by 50,893 persons. However, approximately 57% of this growth is expected within municipal boundaries. This means that approximately 21,884 persons would be expected to reside in new homes in the County's jurisdiction. If that figure is divided by the number of persons per household in rural areas (2.58), a total of 8,482 housing units would be added between 1995 and 2016. The significance of this calculation is that if"county-wide" payments-in-lieu were collected on the basis of building permits issued, approximately $2.3 million (8,482 x $271) in payments- in-lieu would be collected from these households over the 20-year period, an amount equivalent to approximately 13% of the total parks program cost. However, such payments are collected prior to recording of the subdivision plat, and estimates of long-term revenues must be based on the projected number of lots to be created in the 20-year period as shown on Table 11. If a similar number of lots were recorded on an annual basis as were recorded in the 1986 to 1995 period, the number of lots created in the 20-year period would total 3,820 and payment-in-lieu revenues from these tots would amount to $1,029,800. This figure represents only 6% of the total parks program cost and points to the fact that other revenue sources such as sales taxes, grant funds, and even bond funds be used to make up the difference of$17.0 million. .. _ 099 cs N N -7 IC = v1 00 M O y H N H M u C +� m ,-P H r0 H 60 H H GN H 41-11 t^ H H pN � N 00 �t N -t �O V1 C in O �C 6i �O N 00 v'1 M V) .r C .� N N -T ID ^ T 4" H N N N Q Q p C ry H H H H H 64 - 4* W y rA H W 5A ci C � N dC1: 1 • Q Q ^ y„ � � O C C C O O C O L O (Yiy C4 O Q d � (� N N N N N N N V1 to V1 wn W" U r N N N N N N N V1 V1 n Y, 1fi I!t -7 It -t -7 `t -t 'Y T -7 't Y 6� H H H H H d4 d4 H H H H fief Yf cn o: r c Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 �O N 00 Y N ? O O N 7 00 7 O r` N r` m M. M in 00 N V N cli G y H H H H H GM H MH H � 3 F a F GM h M 0000 T N 000 N W �Q7 H H L. V! H H H 40) H — H H Y�4 w 604 a � d On w � - o r` H v' h C4 C% C4 a C C L W 0» � d °0 F Z o W �` r-w w C N - C J 00 N O N Y .± O n -- O a0 N M V) r` \.D N! wA N w.Rd GL a ' N H N •t T T O 00 00 c+t ri O Q y L H H H H H H H H H 604 0 a a p" = a y (n CA > c s T .e , u U u F 10 0 30 Whereas the "service area" payment-in-lieu is not calculated on the basis of a long-term population projection, it is still subject to the same growth rate in "new" lots as the "county- wide" payment. As shown on Table 11, "service area" payments would generate approximately $1,710,520 in revenues, representing 9.5% of the total parks program cost. Even though more revenue would be received using this approach, a substantial portion of the program cost ($16.3 million) must come from other sources. Land Dedication Although the preceding discussion focused entirely on the calculation of payments-in-lieu, an integral part of any proposal is the amount of land to be dedicated for parkland purposes. As noted at the beginning of this report, the current land dedication requirement is 1/35`h of an acre for each lot or dwelling unit in a proposed subdivision. This is equivalent to a ratio of 0.01050 or 10.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. If a ratio equivalent of 0.00750 or 7.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population is used, then the dedication requirement becomes 1/57h of an acre per lot or dwelling unit. The latter ratio is based on the combined land area requirements for community and district parks as recommended in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan: • Community parks, based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population; and • District parks, based on a standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population. Shown on Table 12 is a comparison of the amount of dedicated land which would result from application of the two standards to subdivisions of varying size. The table indicates that for any given subdivision, the new standard (1/57 ') results in a 38% decrease in the amount of land to be dedicated. It also illustrates (through gray shading) the amount of land dedication from minor subdivisions or those containing from 1-5 lots. As noted previously in this report, approximately 54% of all lots created between 1986 and 1995 were located in minor subdivisions. Combined with the very small dedication requirements associated with such subdivisions (0.02 - 0.09 acres), the new standard assures that contributions toward recreation and parks improvements from these subdivisions will be in the form of payments-in-lieu. As applied to major subdivisions, the same conclusion can be reached. For example, the average number of lots in a major subdivision created between 1986 and 1995 was 13, and the amount of land to be dedicated for a subdivision of that size would be slightly less than one-fourth of an acre. Another illustration involves the size of a major subdivision large enough to result in dedication of a 25-acre community park site. Under the current 1/35'h standard, the threshold would be reached at 880 lots. Under the proposed standard of 1/57`h of an acre, the threshold is pushed up to 1,440 lots. These examples suggest that unless the County decides on a specific site and accepts partial dedications from several subdivisions, or agrees to accept dedication of a larger site (25+ acres) in a location removed from that shown in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan, contributions from major subdivisions will likewise be in the form of payments-in-lieu. These considerations, partial dedication and plan consistency, are discussed in greater detail below. 31 TABLE 12 10 1 COMPARISON OF APPLICATION OF LAND DEDICATION STANDARDS Number Acreagge irement Number Acreage Re uirement Number Acreage Re uirement of Lots Current Proposed of Lots Current Proposed of Lots Current Proposed in 'aJ 1/35th (S-1 1/57th in 1/35th a 1/57th in 1/35th a) 1/57th Subdivision Standard Standard Subdivision Standard Standard Subdivision Standard Standard 1 0.03 0.02 120 3.43 2.11 980 28.00 17.20 2 0.06 0.04 140 4.00 2.46 1000 28.57 17.55 3 0.09 0.05 160 4.57 2.81 1020 29.14 17.90 4 0.11 0.07 180 5.14 3.16 1040 29.71 18.25 5 0.14 0.09 200 5.71 3.51 1060 30.28 18.60 6 0.17 0.11 220 6.29 3.86 1080 30.86 18.95 7 0.20 0.12 240 6.86 4.21 1100 31.43 19.31 8 0.23 0.14 260 7.43 4.56 1120 32.00 19.66 9 0.26 0.16 280 8.00 4.91 1140 32.57 20.01 10 0.29 0.18 300 8.57 5.27 1160 33.14 20.36 11 0.31 0.19 320 9.14 5.62 1180 33.71 20.71 12 0.34 0.21 340 9.71 5.97 1200 34.28 21.06 13 0.37 0.23 360 10.29 6.32 1220 34.86 21.41 14 0.40 0.25 380 10.86 6.67 1240 35.43 21.76 15 0.43 0.26 400 11.43 7.02 1260 36.00 22.11 16 0.46 0.28 420 12.00 7.37 1280 36.57 22.46 17 0.49 0.30 440 12.57 7.72 1300 37.14 22.82 18 0.51 0.32 460 13.14 8.07 1320 37.71 23.17 19 0.54 0.33 480 13.71 8.42 1340 38.28 23.52 20 0.57 0.35 500 14.29 8.78 1360 38.86 23.87 21 0.60 0.37 520 14.86 9.13 1380 39.43 24.22 22 0.63 0.39 540 15.43 9.48 1400 40.00 24.57 23 0.66 0.40 560 16.00 9.83 1420 40.57 24.92 24 0.69 0.42 580 16.57 10.18 1440 41.14 25.27 25 0.71 0.44 600 17.14 10.53 1460 41.71 25.62 26 0.74 0.46 620 17.71 10.88 1480 42.28 25.97 27 0.77 0.47 640 18.28 11.23 1500 42.86 26.33 28 0.80 0.49 660 18.86 11.58 1520 43.43 26.68 29 0.83 0.51 680 19.43 11.93 1540 44.00 27.03 30 0.86 0.53 700 20.00 12.29 1560 44.57 27.38 31 0.89 0.54 720 20.57 12.64 1580 45.14 27.73 32 0.91 0.56 740 21.14 12.99 1600 45.71 28.08 33 0.94 0.58 760 21.71 13.34 1620 46.28 28.43 34 0.97 0.60 780 22.28 13.69 1640 46.85 28.78 35 1.00 0.61 800 22.86 14.04 1660 47.43 29.13 36 1.03 0.63 820 23.43 14.39 1680 48.00 29.48 37 1.06 0.65 840 24.00 14.74 1700 48.57 29.84 38 1.09 0.67 860 24.57 15.09 1720 49.14 30.19 39 1.11 0.68 880 25.14 15.44 1740 49.71 30.54 40 1.14 0.70 900 25.71 15.80 1760 50.28 30.89 60 1.71 1.05 920 26.28 16.15 1780 50.85 31.24 80 2.29 1.40 940 26.86 16.50 1800 51.43 31.59 100 2.86 1.76 960 27.43 16.85 1820 52.00 31.94 NOTES: "1/35th"of an acre is equivalent to 0.2857 acres or 1.244 sq.ft. "1/57th"of an acre is equivalent to 0;1755 acres or 764 sq.ft. LEGEND: Minor Subdivisions(1-5 lots) r-� Major Subdivisions(more than 5 lots) i ( A 102 32 .� s Partial Dedications As used in this report, the term "partial dedication" refers to any dedication wherein the amount of land provided for recreation purposes is less than the minimum size needed for development of a community or district park. For example, suppose that a 300-lot subdivision was submitted for approval, requiring the dedication of 5.27 acres (see Table 12 - 1/57,' Standard). During the subdivision review process, it was determined that, given the existence of a proposed park site, the site's suitability for recreation purposes, and the character of the area (e.g., large tracts capable of producing other partial dedications), a partial dedication would be acceptable. Whereas a partial dedication may permit development of some minimal facilities, such as a play field, play area, restrooms, and picnic areas, complete development of the park must await dedications from adjoining tracts and/or purchase of the additional acreage by the County. As alluded to earlier in the "University Station" example, large tracts may characterize the area, but the location of tract boundaries may preclude the dedication of contiguous parcels which, when combined, form a parcel large enough to meet the minimum acreage requirements for a community or district park. Likewise, multiple owners and/or developers may preclude acquisition of a park site through dedication unless some form of"landowner compact" is devised wherein one or more owners agree to provide the park land, provided density losses through the dedication are made up by shifting units from one tract to another through some form of "planned development" approach. This type of arrangement would also work well where the carrying capacity of the soils dictates differing densities and thus different land dedication requirements on adjoining parcels. While "partial dedications" are possible, they do suggest that advance planning and negotiation are essential to assure that a form of"public-private" partnership exists through which to secure the necessary land for a specific park. In the absence of such planning and agreements, partial dedications offer limited opportunities for parkland acquisition,'and payments-in-lieu should be expected from such developments. Plan Consistency The locations of community and district parks as shown in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan are"general" in nature. That is to say they are not site specific, except for the following: • North Human Services Center Community Park • Cane Credo Reservoir District Park; and • Corporation Lake District Park. For the remaining parks, there is leeway in determining a specific park location, based on land availability and/or prospects for development; access; proximity to residential neighborhoods, and other existing or planned facilities such as public schools; and the suitability of the site for its intended use for recreation purposes. 33 103 "Plan consistency" refers to whether the location of land proposed for dedication as a park site is consistent with the general location of a community or district park shown in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. In many instances, the question of plan consistency may not arise, provided the land dedication is near a proposed park site or even within the service area of a park (as shown on page 6). In other cases, however, a proposed land dedication may fall between the service areas of two (or more) park sites. It is in such situations that the question of whether to accept the dedication arises. While there is nothing to prevent the acceptance of the dedication, there still remains the question of whether the dedication satisfies the intent of the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions; e.g., can a dedication be given credit toward satisfying the provisions if its location is not consistent with the Plan? The means of dealing with this question is to accept the land dedication on a conditional basis. In other words, the County would agree to accept the dedication, provided the Master Recreation & Parks Plan is amended to include the "new" park site as part of the system of district and community parks. Likewise, the developer would agree to dedicate the land under the same terms. Such an arrangement provides assurances to both parties that, within the financial resources available to the County, there is a long-term commitment to develop the park. If the Plan is not amended, then the developer is free to incorporate the land into his/her subdivision plans and make the required payments-in-lieu. Credits Toward Payments-In-Lieu Regardless of the method through which a complete or partial land dedication occurs, one issue that will arise in such situations is whether the land dedication will preclude the necessity of the developer from making a payment-in-lieu. The answer to this question is that the land dedication may reduce the payment-in-lieu, but it will not eliminate it entirely in all cases. Consider, for example, a developer who submitted plans for a 300-lot subdivision and agreed to dedicate part of the land for a proposed park site. As shown on Table 12, the amount of land to be dedicated would be 5.27 acres (under the 1/57'h standard). If credit is based on the average price per acre ($10,000) used to calculate the payment-in-lieu, then the developer would be eligible for a $52,700 credit (5,27 acres x $10,000 per acre). If the "service area" payment-in-lieu were adopted, the developer would have to pay a $126,600 payment-in-lieu if located in a community park service area (300 lots x $422 per lot). This means that that the developer's payment-in-lieu would be reduced to $73,900 or$246 per lot. But what of the developer who agreed to dedicate more than the minimum required acreage? As an example, if a developer offered to dedicate 25 acres for a community park, he/she would receive a credit of$250,000 (25 acres x $10,000 per acre). When compared with the payment-in- lieu required of$126,600, no additional payment would be required, since the credit exceeded the required payment. However,the excess credit could not be transferred to another site or project. While such a system of credits may be viewed as a disincentive, for the developer who paid $3,500 per acre for the land, it can be an incentive to dedicate more land. As an example, if the developer of the 300-lot subdivision paid $3,500 per acre for the land and was only given credit 34 104 for the amount actually paid, the credit would be $87,500 (25 acres x $3,500 per acre). This means that a payment-in-lieu of$39,100 ($126,600 - $87,500) must be made. Conclusions As noted in this report, dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions cannot be expected to provide the complete system of community and district parks to serve the citizens of the county. Such provisions are available for use, through the enabling legislation, to all municipalities and counties in North Carolina. The degree to which such provisions are successful is greater in municipalities than rural counties because residential densities are higher, the system of parks is more comprehensive, and the resulting dedications or payments-in-lieu provide more land and capital through which to implement a parks system. Nevertheless, such provisions do contribute to the implementation of the parks system, and ordinance amendments through which to provide payments incorporating land and facilities are outlined below. In addition, amendments which reflect the service standards (e.g., acres per 1,000 population) contained in the Master Recreation & Parks Plan are also proposed. Finally, as a long-term solution, the opportunities available through use of a "recreation impact fee" instead of"dedication/payment-in-lieu" provisions are discussed. Proposed Ordinance Changes The dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions are contained in Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations. Listed below are applicable sections of the regulations, including proposed changes through which to implement the conclusions drawn from this study. IV-B-7. SITES FOR PUBLIC USE IV-B-7-b. Recreation Sites IV-B-7-b-1. Applicability Every person, firm or corporation who subdivides land for residential and'or non-residential purposes shall be required to dedicate a portion of such land for the purpose of public recreation/open space, including the preservation of natural and cultural resources, to serve the leisure needs of the residents of the subdivision and the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the subdivision is located In all cases, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council shall review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the provision or dedication of recreation and'or open space areas. IV-B-7-b-2. Dimensional Requirements At least one fifty-seventh of an acre (1/57) shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan, 35 105 the floodplain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and/or is characterized by steep slopes (I5% or greater), then at least one twentieth (1120) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit. If the application of the provisions of Article 5.1.1 (Required Minimum Recreation Space Ratio) and Article 612 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance remlts in a greater amount of land then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 5.1.1 and Article 6.12 shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the development. The total land area dedicated as part of a non-residential subdivision shall be determined by an analysis of the site, the use(s) to be located thereon and the designation of recreation and/or open space sites as shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The site analysis shall be prepared by the applicant and shall identify in written and graphic form those areas characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater), floodplains and wetlands, rock outcroppings, mature woodlands (trees of 18 inches or greater in diameter), existing structures and cemeteries, and lakes, ponds, rivers mid other water resources. A written and graphic description shall also be submitted by the applicant which identifies the proposed use of each lot in the subdivision, the approximate amount of building and parking coverage for each lot, mid the apprommWe number of employees associated with each use. In no case, however, shall the total land area be less than that required by application of the provisions of Article 5.1.2 (Required Mjnimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio) mid Article 612 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance- IV-B-7-b-6 Payments in Lieu of Dedication Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area pursuant to this Ordinance may, with the approval of the Board of Commissioners, make a payment in lieu of dedication or make a combination of land dedicated and payment. Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the property in question. The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to $422 per lot for a subdivision to be located in the service area of a community park as shown on the map in Appendix E The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to f 36 106 $455 per lot for a subdivision to be located in the service area of a district park as shown on the map in Appendix E. OR The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to $271 for each lot Where a combination of land dedication and payments in lieu are approvec4 the subdivider shall be given a credit equivalent to $10,000 per acre of land dedicated for recreation purpose& The credit amount shall be determined by multiplying the number of acres to be dedicated by $10,000 per acret If the total payment in lieu as determined above is larger than the credit amount, the subdivider shall pay the difference between the two amounts If the credit amount is larger than the total payment in lieu as determined above, no additional payment in lieu is required However, the subdivider may not transfer the excess credit from one subdivision to another. Upon approval by the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1)year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, whichever occurs first. All moneys received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and development of recreation,park, curd open space sites to serve the residents of the development and the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located. An Alternative Approach- A Recreation Impact Fee As a long-term solution, another mechanism which should be considered to implement a system of parks is an "impact fee" approach. In 1987, the General Assembly approved a local act (House Bill 917, Chapter 460) which permits Orange County to... 'provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by developers to help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new development that takes place in the County. " For the purposes of the local act, the term "capital improvements" included... "the acquisition of land for open space and greemvays. capital improvements to public streets, schools, bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off-street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and public recreation facilities." The use of the impacts fee approach evolved partially from dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions in use around the country. For this reason, there are similarities between the two approaches, including the following: 37 10 • Both approaches utilize the concept of "service standards" for determining the type and number of facilities to be provided, as well as apportioning the cost of such facilities. As an example, land area requirements (e.g., acres per 1,000 population) as well as the types of facilities provided differ between community and district parks. For this reason, the cost of developing each type of park will be different. Service standards allow such differences to be recognized and the cost apportioned on a "per capita"or"per household" basis. • Both approaches utilize the concept of "service districts" or "service areas" as a means of apportioning costs and assuring that services or facilities are provided to the residents responsible for paying the fees. Using the preceding example, the cost of a district park may differ from that of a community park. Thus, the residents of neighborhoods within one service area or district may be higher or lower than another district. • Both approaches may only be used in the County's planning jurisdiction. The applicability of the approach within municipal jurisdictions would only be valid through approval of an amendment to the local act as was the case with public school impact fees. While similarities do exist, there are also some important differences, including the following: • The use of the "impact fee" approach specifically requires that the cost of improvements be calculated on the basis of identified needs within a reasonable planning period, not to exceed 20 years, and that the percentage of the total cost be fairly and objectively apportioned between "new" and "existing" residents. Though this approach is often used in the calculation of payments-in-lieu, there is not a specific requirement in the enabling legislation that this be done. • Though a system of credits may be included in dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions for land dedicated and/or improvements made, there is not a specific requirement that such credits be provided as is the case with the"impact fee" approach. • Impact fees may be collected at the time that a building permit is issued, whereas payments-in- lieu are made at the time that lots are created, during the subdivision approval process. An advantage of this approach is that, if implemented, it would permit funds for park improvements (e.g., recreational facilities) to be recouped from lots which have already been created but remain undeveloped. To utilize this approach, however, credit would have to be given for the payment-in-lieu already made on the lot for land acquisition. A final consideration in determining whether to pursue an impact fee approach is flexibility. As permitted by the local act, impact fees may be used for "the acquisition of land for open space and greemvays. [and) capital improvements to...public recreation facilities." Given this wording, it suggests that open space dedications for wildlife habitats and corridors, and the preservation of natural areas are legitimate uses for the expenditure of impact fees. This is not to suggest that a system of greenways is about to be proposed by the County, but it does suggest that the Master 'Y F 108 38 Recreation & Parks Plan may need to be revisited to determine if it should be expanded to become the Recreation&Open Space Plan. The suggestion that a Recreation & Open Space Plan be considered stems, in part, from the work of the Rural Character Study Committee over a number of years. As a result of the work of the Committee, a "Flexible Development" or open space design proposal has been prepared and presented at public hearing which would, if adopted, establish a voluntary basis for subdividers to set aside at least 33% of the development as protected open space. While a variety of development options exist for a subdivider to use, inclusion of"open space" as an eligible expense under an impact fee approach could allow such lands to be credited toward the payment of impact fees, serving as an incentive to provide open space. The utilization of a"Flexible Development" or open space design approach may also provide greater opportunities for parkland dedication. Finally, the suggestion also stems from the fact that the Master Recreation & Parks Plan was adopted in 1988. In recent years (and months), issues have arisen and been discussed at length which give credence to the idea of reviewing the Plan to determine if it needs to be updated. Among these issues are the following: • The relationship between existing and proposed school sites, and proposed parks; • The development of"small area plans" in the northern portions of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the impact, if any, that proposed park sites in those areas may have on the need for "County" facilities; • The utilization of landfill sites, both existing and proposed, as possible recreation sites; • The discussion of strategies for preserving natural and cultural resources through open space design, including the relationship of these resources to active and passive recreational pursuits; and • The evolution of a Recreation Advisory Board for the Town of Hillsborough and the role the Town will play in the provision of recreational facilities. An updated Master Recreation & Parks Plan, including a long-term capital improvements program for implementation, is the starting point for an impact fee approach. Until that is accomplished, reliance on updated dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions is necessary.