HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2014 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -a
SUBJECT: Public Hearina - Draft Oranae County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks and
Recreation
ATTACHMENT(S):
Summary of the Plan (Chapter 1)
Summary of Public Outreach
Open House Handout
Responses to 2/11/14 BOCC Feedback
Draft Master Plan Available At-
http://test.co.orange.nc.us/deapr/PandR
MP 5 28 2014.asp
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, 245 -2510
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Team
PURPOSE: To provide an opportunity for public comment on the draft Orange County Parks
and Recreation Master Plan 2030.
BACKGROUND: In July 1988 the County adopted its first Recreation and Parks Master Plan
(also known as the Parks and Recreation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan).
Designed as a 20 -year plan, the 1988 plan identified a vision and plan for a parks system in
Orange County, which included the acquisition and construction of parks and recreation centers
at strategically- identified locations around the County. While the County continued to offer
recreation programs for County residents, the acquisition and construction of the planned future
parks did not begin in earnest until the late- 1990's. Bond referenda passed by County voters in
1997 and 2001 funded many of the planned improvements and park site acquisitions envisioned
in 1988. Most of the parks identified in the 1988 plan have now been constructed or acquired.
The 1988 Master Plan has served the County well, but it is now 25 years old and in need of
replacement. While many of the values and basic precepts remain valid, there have been many
changes since 1988, and many accomplishments and new initiatives undertaken which were not
anticipated at that time. Additionally, updating the plan is important for state grant funding
agencies, which will require a more - current plan for future grant requests.
Plans to develop a new master plan for the County's parks and recreation facilities and
programs were part of Orange County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the
Board of Commissioners in November 2008. The Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on
Parks and Recreation, and foremost among the recommendations in that chapter was the
creation of a new master plan to assess needs and guide future decisions. The Comprehensive
2
Plan also offered a set of goals and objectives as a starting point for the new master plan. After
delays due to the economic downturn and other pressing projects, work toward the new master
plan began in earnest in the spring of 2012. The new master plan process was coordinated by
staff with the advice and direction of the Parks and Recreation Council. Funding for a third party
to administer a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) was provided, and UNC- Greensboro's
Department of Community and Therapeutic Recreation was selected as the survey
administrator, and also provided issue papers on tourism, economic development and
standards. This staff -based approach was selected to provide a product with a more -local flavor
and at considerably lower cost, but it also acknowledged a longer timeframe for completion.
As shown in the attached timetable of activities, a Community Needs Assessment survey was
conducted in late 2012 and early 2013. Supplemental assessments were also conducted in the
spring of 2013, along with a series of topic- oriented focus groups. An initial draft master plan
was created in the summer and fall of 2013, and staff has been reviewing a series of drafts with
the Parks and Recreation Council for the last several months. Staff involved in this project
includes a Master Plan Team comprised of six staff members from DEAPR, and an inter-
departmental Staff Resources Group with representatives from a variety of other County
departments.
The draft Master Plan covers a great deal of territory and includes both an inventory and
assessment of existing facilities, as well as plans for the future based on surveys, studies and
other work. The plan includes sections on:
• Overview of existing and past plans
• Inventory and assessment of current and planned future facilities
• Existing recreation programs and activity
• Demographics and other driving factors
• A multi -modal Community Needs Assessment and survey results
• Linkages to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and other County and related parks plans
• Economic, health and environmental impacts of parks and recreation programs
• Summary of park standards, classifications, service areas and plan "Findings"
• Goals, objectives and plan recommendations
• Issues for further study
In general, the draft 2030 Master Plan focuses on protecting the substantial investment made in
parks and recreation facilities in the past 15 years, and moving toward creation of the identified
and planned parks acquired but not yet built. By virtue of having a very proactive land
acquisition program for parks, the County is well "ahead of the curve" in terms of securing
parkland in identified locations. However, important decisions are on the horizon concerning
community centers, playing field surfaces, coordination with private and local non - profit
organizations, and other matters as noted. Chapter 9 of the plan includes a review of standards
and service delivery, and a set of 20 "findings" drawn from the plan and activities to date.
Chapter 10 reiterates the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, and offers a series of 9
recommendations beginning on page 10 -5. The recommendations cover the following topics:
• Protecting existing investments in park and open space facilities;
• Building planned future parks over the next 10 years;
• Complete three nature preserves with public accessible- areas;
• Multi- partner parks and recreation capital facilities;
• Master Plan for the Orange County Mountains -to -Sea Trail (MST) segment;
Q
• Build trails and connect open spaces;
• Improve access and incorporate healthy lifestyle design into parks and open spaces;
• Look at new program needs, identify partnerships;
• Examine the role of community centers in providing public recreation.
Several issues for further study are identified in the final chapter (Chapter 11).
Upon completion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the draft Master Plan be
transmitted to several advisory boards for review and comment (as noted in the
recommendation below), before coming back to the Parks and Recreation Council for a formal
recommendation and thence review and consideration by the Board of Commissioners
(anticipated for September 2014).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the public hearing for the
draft Master Plan. The plan includes many current and new proposed capital investments for
parks and recreation facilities — most of which are included within the adopted Capital
Investment Plan (CIP), as well as likely renovations, repairs and replacement costs, which will
be evaluated and considered as part of future CIP and budget approval processes each year.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board open the public hearing
for resident comment, close the hearing and after providing any initial direction, refer the Master
Plan to the Board of Health, Economic Development Commission, Planning Board, Orange
United Transportation Board, Commission for the Environment, Board on Aging, and Historic
Preservation Commission for review and comment (and any other advisory boards as deemed
warranted), and that all such comments be forwarded by August 31, 2014 to the Parks and
Recreation Council for use in developing a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, as
noted above.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master- Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Summary of the Plan
In July 1988, the Orange County Board of
Commissioners adopted the County's first master
plan for the provision of parks and recreation
services. This document, the "Master Recreation
and Parks Plan" included on its opening page the
following introduction:
"The growing population of America has more
leisure time than ever before, a factor encouraging
greater participation in recreational activities... As a
consequence, federal, state and local governments
are challenged with providing adequate recreational
activities for an expanding population. This
challenge is heightened by the fact that urbanization
is reducing existing open space. Increased demand
often results in the overuse of existing facilities
which in turn leads to mis -use or deterioration."
What was true in 1988 appears true or even
exacerbated in 2014. Greater demand for a wide
range of recreational opportunities is still evident.
The past 25 years have seen further dramatic
changes in Orange County, where almost 50,000
additional residents have come to reside since
1988. Urban and suburban development has
changed the landscape of much of the nation, the
state and our county.
This same quarter- century has also been a period of
dramatic change in the degree of park facilities and
recreation programs in the county — especially in the
past 15 years. Since 1998, Orange County has
funded, constructed and opened six new parks, and
witnessed substantial increases in recreation and
athletic program participation. The facilities and
programs available in 2014 offer opportunities
beyond those envisioned in 1988, into program
areas and types of facilities only opaquely seen at
that time. Likewise, the linkages between public
parks, recreation programs and public health has
become an issue of national significance, and
interest in healthier lifestyles (whether through
athletic events on playing fields or opportunities to
commune with nature on an interpretive trail) is of
heightened awareness.
1 -1
To provide for these places, the County embarked
on an innovative and proactive Lands Legacy
Program which works in part to acquire future park
sites, many of which were identified back in the
1988 plan.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
contained herein is, in essence, an attempt to:
• examine the lessons and experiences of the
past,
• identify current issues and challenges, and
• project community needs and desires into a
vision for the future — a future that ensures a
legacy of parks and public open spaces for
current and future generations.
Background and Inventory — Why a New Plan
The 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan was
Orange County's first vision for a future of park
facilities and recreational opportunities, and it has
served the County well. The fact that so many of its
organizing concepts, goals and identified facility
needs continue to be the basis of activity and policy
is testament to its service.
However, there can be no question that many things
have changed since 1988. New residential subdivi-
sions, schools, population growth, interstate
highways, and changes in community infrastructure
are just a few of the many changed conditions from
the 1988 plan. In order to accurately represent the
vision for the future, plans must be updated, and
goals and objectives revisited and adjusted. This
plan looks to both the ideas and goals of the old
plan, and the espoused community needs and
interests of the present and future.
While Orange County adopted a system master plan
in 1988, in reality, very little activity toward achiev-
ing the vision of that plan occurred in the first
decade after its adoption. However, beginning with
new planning efforts and a voter - approved bond
referendum in 1997, the next 15 years would see
IH
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
the fulfillment of some of the vision from 1988 with
a dramatic increase in new park facilities, acquisition
of public open space for future parks and nature
preserves, and increases in recreation program
opportunities. Before Efland- Cheeks Park opened in
1998, Orange County operated no true parks. Only a
few individual playing fields /playgrounds at County -
owned sites were in use. The 1997 Parks and Open
Space bond provided funds for the construction of
Efland- Cheeks Park and two parks in Chapel Hill.
Armed with information and needs assessments
from a series of four reports on parks and open
space needs and opportunities created between
1996 and 2000, the stage was set for the single
largest catalyst for creation of a parks system in the
county - the County's most - aggressive effort to
acquire and develop its park system — a $20 million
Parks and Open Space Bond, which was approved by
voters in November 2001. It is worth noting that the
passage of this bond — less than two months after
the shocking national tragedy of 9/11/2001— serves
as a testament to county resident's strength of
commitment to parks and open space as important
functions in the community.
The 2001 bond provided funding for a variety of
different projects — and enabled creation of such
diverse places as Cedar Grove Park, Fairview Park,
Eurosport Soccer Center, the Adams Tract Preserve
in Carrboro and the Homestead Aquatic Center and
Southern Park in Chapel Hill.
1 -2
Between 2001 and 2010, Orange County acquired
1,000 acres of future parkland, nearly erasing the
1,245 acre "parkland deficit' identified in a key 1999
report. Over that same period, six new parks were
opened.
Chapter 3 of The Master Plan includes an in -depth
assessment of all Orange County existing parks,
recreational facilities, and future parks or nature
preserve sites. More than a million visitors (many
return patrons) are welcomed each year into Orange
County parks, programs or facilities.
As a county with four municipalities within its
borders (a very small portion of a fifth, Durham, also
slices inside the County line), any planning for the
future of parks and recreation needs must include a
parallel view with the context of system master
plans of the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
Hillsborough and Mebane, and a synopsis of these
community's facilities and plans is provided in
Chapter 2. Fortunately, each of the jurisdictions has
community master plans that are fairly recent.
Through coordination efforts and multi- jurisdictional
planning groups such as the Intergovernmental
Parks Work Group, towns and County are more
aware of each other's facilities and plans than in
previous decades, and the County's new plan
included here is developed with the knowledge and
projected future activity from these town plans - to
avoid duplication of services and offer opportunities
for coordination going forward.
Inventory of Facilities & Recreation Programs/
Services
As noted, at present Orange County owns and
operates six (6) parks (including the Eurosport
Soccer Center) as shown in the inventory of facilities
in Chapter 3. One of the parks, Little River Regional
Park and Natural Area, is a unique joint venture with
neighboring Durham County. Orange County
operates this park owned by the two counties,
which includes 391 acres in both counties, under an
interlocal agreement. The County also operates and
0
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
maintains the Jones Creek Greenway (which is also
Phase I of Twin Creeks Park), and two recreation/
community centers in Hillsborough and Efland (the
Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough also
includes a playing field and playground). Orange
County further owns an indoor sports facility in
Hillsborough, the Orange County Sportsplex, which
includes ice rink, swimming pools and a fitness
center and is operated contractually by a
management firm.
Recreation Programs /Services
Orange County has provided local recreation
programs long before the County owned and
operated any parks, dating back to the 1960's. Cur-
rent areas of program offerings include:
• Instructional programs
• Youth Athletic programs
• Adult Athletic programs
• Summer Enrichment programs
• Special Populations programs, and Special
Events
The special events include traditional community
events such as the annual Egg Hunt, Halloween
Spook - tacular, Daddy- Daughter Dance and Fishing
Rodeo as well as newer activities such as Movies in
the Park and Earth Evening.
There are additional future park sites that have been
acquired for future use. Two of these have had park
master plans prepared (Blackwood Farm Park and
Twin Creeks Park) and a master plan has also been
adopted for the Hollow Rock Access Area (another
joint multi- jurisdictional venture) within the larger
New Hope Preserve. Another nature preserve, the
Upper Eno Preserve, has substantial land acquired
and informal plans for two Access Areas.
Finally, there are two additional park sites
(Northeast Park and Millhouse Road Park) where
parkland has been acquired, pending master plans
and future construction.
In 2013, there were over 4,800 participants in
Orange County recreation programs and events.
Most of the programs at present are targeted to
children and youth (ages 5 -17), as has been histori-
cally the case, although there are some adult
programs and activities.
The County also offers a variety of recreation and
leisure facilities that are available for reservation by
the public, including community centers, picnic
shelters, gymnasiums and sports playing fields. In
2013, over 2,000 reservations were scheduled for
County facilities.
It is important to note that recreation offerings for
As noted in the inventory, several of the existing seniors is not a part of this plan, and is coordinated
parks also have future phases, or will need facility by the Orange County Department on Aging through
improvements, in the coming years. two existing senior centers. Orange County
Sportsplex also offers a wide variety of recreation
opportunities, including many options not otherwise
available in the County.
1 -3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Orange County Profile
Before charting a course for the future it is always
important to ground ourselves in the past and
present. It is crucially- important for an effective
future parks and recreation plan to understand both
the nature of the resident population and the future
trends that appear evident — even with the under-
standing that such trends and projections will
change.
As of 2012, Orange County has 138,000 residents -
likely 140,000 as of the writing of this plan in early
2014. Much of the county population is urban and
located in southeastern Orange County. Nearly
76,000 county residents (or just under 55% of the
population) live within the municipalities of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro in that quadrant of the county. The
Town of Hillsborough's share of the county popula-
tion is 4.6% (6,271), around 1.5% of County resi-
dents (around 2,000) live inside the City of Mebane.
The remaining 39% of county residents (53,751 in
2012) live outside of the municipal boundaries.
There are some unique components to the County's
overall population makeup. Orange County is among
the most - educated counties in the nation, with
almost 55% of the population over the age of 25
holding a bachelor's degree or higher. The presence
of the University of North Carolina within the county
infuses the local population with a high number of
persons from 18 -25 years of age. Orange County's
median family income of $56,055 in 2011 was 22%
higher than the state average. Even so, this masks
another statistic of note, that almost 17% of the
population resides below the federal poverty level.
Planning and identifying service areas for a county is
somewhat more complicated than for distinct,
defined urban areas. With the municipalities of
Mebane, Chapel Hill and Carrboro having their own
Parks and Recreation Departments and offering
their own parks systems and recreation programs,
the County's traditional service area for its parks and
recreation programs has been the population of
unincorporated Orange County and the town of
Hillsborough. In 2012 this totaled approximately
60,000 persons combined.
1 -4
The geographical breakdown of this population, as
well as age, gender and racial compositions of the
population may be found in Chapter 4.
Looking to the future, three different scenarios of
growth have been projected for the County in the
2008 - adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan
2030. While no one knows what the future rate of
increase will be, the projection model with the
closest fit for the period 2008 -2010 indicates that
Orange County could expect (and should plan) to
include 154,000 persons by the year 2020 and
173,000 persons by the plan target year 2030. This
would equate to an increase of another 35,000
persons by the end of the plan timeframe.
Public Input / Community Needs Assessment
Perhaps the most important component in the new
Parks and Recreation Plan 2030 was the gathering of
community input. This multi- faceted process
included a statistical random sample "Community
Needs Assessment" survey, a follow -up online
survey, a youth survey, surveys to increase minority
participation, and a series of focus groups, forums,
open houses and other opportunities to gauge
interest and solicit feedback.
Specifically, the following public input initiatives were
undertaken:
1. An informal youth survey of camps and camp
counselors was conducted by a UNC graduate
student in the early stages of the plan process.
2. A random - sample scientific survey of 4,100 Orange
County households (paper mail survey with paid
return mail, and follow -up postcard).
3. An online survey (identical to the mail survey
above) publicized through email master lists and
news releases.
7
M
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
The results of these efforts are shown in Chapter 6.
As noted therein, the three surveys conducted (2, 3
and 4 above) have been collated to provide for a
more representative and balanced assessment of
the survey results (the rationale for this is explained
in more detail on pages 6 -2 and 6 -3 of the plan).
A total of 835 persons (including a 12.5% response rate
for the random - sample survey) responded to the ques-
tionnaires. Generally, the survey results indicated:
• Strong support for the types of facilities and
programs, facility safety, maintenance and
accessibility.
• Strong support for expanding active and low- impact
recreation opportunities.
• High recognition of the role parks and rec programs
play for the economy and public health.
• Moderate support for more indoor recreation or arts
facilities.
• A need to create or expand trails linking areas of the
county.
• The highest interest categories for future program
areas are hiking, swimming and walking.
• The highest interest for future facility needs are for
walking /hiking /nature trails, swimming pool and
greenways.
• Preferences for funding new facilities through grants,
donations, voter - approved bonds and existing taxes,
and a lack of interest in funding through increasing
local (non- property) taxes.
Of the 835 survey respondents:
• 31% came from unincorporated Orange County,
• 29% from Hillsborough,
• 27% from Chapel Hill, and
• 7 %Carrboro and
• 6% from Mebane
Focus group meetings to delve into more specifics on
targeted issues were held on:
• Soccer Facilities
• Trails and Connectivity
• Public Health Benefits
• Park Facility Needs
• Recreation Programs
• Nature and Environmental Programs
• County /Town Coordination, and
Economic, Public Health and Environmental
Linkages
Providing parks, open space and recreation
programs is a key component in quality of life
measurements for communities, and often an
important fact in economic development decisions,
in the health and general welfare of a community
and its natural environment. To this end, research
was conducted to evaluate economic, health and
environmental components of parks and recreation.
A 2011 national study indicated that every $1
invested in land conservation (including parkland)
returned $4 in economic value — not including
potential jobs and tourism. Additional research
performed for this master plan by UNC- Greensboro
found that "preserving parks and recreation funds
can actually reduce the need to allocate funding" for
other purposes. This supports other studies that find
parks "are a good financial investment for a
community" — by enhancing residential property
values, generating jobs and tax revenue, and
attracting retiree incomes and small businesses.
Tourism, through special recreation events and
sports tournaments, has also been shown to benefit
from investment in parks and public open spaces.
Orange County has already seen the benefits of local
soccer tournaments (some of which have been
shown to generate nearly $1 million in economic
benefit) and their spinoff economic impact on
restaurants, lodging and other segments of the
economy.
Likewise, there is strong research to support the
importance of parks and recreation programs on
public health and quality of life. This is important to
combat several national trends in public health. Sev-
en of every 10 deaths among Americans each year
result from preventable chronic diseases — diseases
that would benefit from more exercise. In Orange
County, 53% of adults and 33% of high school chil-
dren are not within healthy weight ranges.
Nationally, persons who report access to walking/
jogging trails are 55% more likely to be active.
• Sportsplex Coordination
1 -5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Focus groups conducted as part of the Orange Coun-
ty Health Department's Community Health Assess-
ment in 2011 spoke highly of the quality of parks
and open space resources, but 75% agreed that lack
of access to parks and recreational opportunities is a
problem in Orange County — particularly in areas
outside of the towns. A number of initiatives to en-
courage more healthy lifestyles exist and could be
enhanced through greater access to parks, and more
healthy design within parks. Across the nation,
dialogues on parks, public health and planning disci-
plines are of foremost importance.
Finally, the role that parks and public open spaces
play in protecting our common natural resources is
very important. Parks provide habitat for certain
animal and flora species. Their natural areas help
filter pollutants from streams and enhance water
quality, offer wooded areas that improve air quality
and provide important breaks in the impervious
surfaces to lessen the effect of reflective heat and
the myriad of issues caused by this increasing issue.
Parks also include not only natural resources, but
cultural and archaeological resources —old buildings,
roadways, burial grounds and other significant
features of the county's past. There are many such
examples of these features within parks in Orange
County, such as Blackwood Farm Park and Eno River
State Park.
Goals and Objectives
In the case of this master plan, goals and objectives
have already been identified through the adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan. These five goals, and
objectives toward the goals, are listed in Chapter 10.
The goals are:
1 -6
"Overarching Goal: Regionally - coordinated park and
recreation facilities that provide healthy opportuni-
ties for recreation and exercise for all citizens of Or-
ange County, and that preserve important cultural
and natural resources."
Goal 1: Provide adequate parks and recreational
acilities for all citizens within the county regardless of
age, gender, race or disability.
Goal 2: Create a partnership among regional recreation
providers and facility owners /managers including the
appropriate co- location and sharing of school facilities
that meets the County's recreation needs.
Goal 3: Provide recreational facilities for public use in a
manner that is multi- generational and accessible to all
County citizens at both the county -wide and community
level.
Goal 4: Promote healthy lifestyles, quality of life and
community building through the provision of a variety
of affordable recreational facilities and choice of leisure
activities, while responding to the changing needs and
interests of County residents.
Goal 5: Ensure that park and recreational facilities are
environmentally - responsible, and where cultural and
natural resources and open space within these sites are
protected.
These goals and the objectives towards these ends
in Chapter 10, are interwoven into the findings and
recommendations of this master plan. Also within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030 are
eight goals in other chapters that have relationships
to parks facilities and recreation programs. These
goals, including such areas as energy conservation,
agriculture and forestry, cultural and archaeological
resources and landscapes, and sustainability and
native plant species, may be found on page 7 -1.
Finally, the relationship of County parks and open
spaces to other regional facilities is of importance.
Places like public school facilities, the State Parks
(including Eno River State Park and the Mountains to
Sea Trail) are critical to factor into planning for the
future of Orange County's overall vision.
E
10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Master Plan Summary and Findings
The new Master Plan to guide parks and recreation
decisions through the year 2030 is a synthesis of the
many reports, studies, surveys and needs
assessments conducted to date and /or contained
within. In review and comparison with the 1988
Master Plan, many of the same values and principles
enumerated at that time remain valid in 2014.
However, many conditions have changed since
1988.
• The county population has grown by 56% since
1988, and is expected to grow again by 25% by
the end of this master plan period.
• The county, fueled by public support, has
passed two parks and open space bonds to
acquire and construct new parks and public
open space, with six County parks now
open, nature preserves protected, and several
municipal parks funded.
• Most of the parks called for in the 1988 plan
are now either built, or land has acquired for
future construction.
• Recreation programs are more numerous and
diverse, branching into areas barely envisioned
in 1988.
• The County owns a successful indoor sports
facility in the Sportsplex, and has engaged in
partnerships with other recreation providers for
camps, athletic leagues and other facilities.
• School Parks — Opportunities to utilize school play-
ing fields and facilities for public recreation at
existing and future facilities.
• Community Parks — Parks generally between 40 -75
acres that serve smaller sub -areas of the county
and offer a mix of active and low- impact
recreation needs.
• District Parks —The primary park for each of the
County's four larger designated districts as
identified in 1988 (Northeast, Cheeks/
Hillsborough, Bingham and Chapel Hill Township),
these are usually 75 -125 acres in size and also
include active and low- impact recreation facilities,
but also may include amphitheaters and water
features, among other facilities.
• Regional Parks — Large areas of 150 acres or more
that serve all or most of the County, these typically
feature miles of trails of different types and have
picnic areas, water features and other natural
exhibits or facilities.
• Nature Preserve Access Areas —These are portions
of County Nature Preserves that are or would be
accessible to the public for camping, hiking, wild-
life viewing and other low- impact activities. These
areas are defined sites within a larger natural area
located in less- sensitive portions of large areas of
natural land, where the primary purpose is to
protect significant natural or cultural resources
present in the area.
One of the important distinctions between a county
By any measure, Orange County is in a very different
place in 2014 in terms of its parks, public open space
and recreational offerings. However, despite the
accomplishments, many things remain to be
completed — including future facilities secured but
not yet constructed or opened.
At a macro level, Orange County's parks and
recreation needs in 2014 as enumerated in this
document are more aligned to finishing planned
improvements than embarking on massive new
facilities planning.
This is reflected in the assessment of park classifica-
tions, standards and service delivery in Chapter 9.
Table 9 -2 illustrates the nature of the park classifica-
tion system that has evolved and will be needed
going forward:
1-7
park system and a city park system is that smaller
park types — such as mini -parks or neighborhood
parks — best serve and are most easily - provided by
municipalities where the population density,
transportation networks and public transit, water
and sewer infrastructure and walking /driving time
makes these smaller facilities more practical. In a
large county of 400 square miles, with most of the
areas of a rural nature, this plan concludes that the
most effective service provision scale is to focus on
district and regional parks and nature preserves. In
addition, where special communities and needs
exist, community parks have been provided and may
be appropriate. This is, in fact, the way the County
park system has evolved over the past 16 years,
working in conjunction with its sister systems in the
towns and with State Parks.
11
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
The creation of the Lands Legacy Program in 2000
gave the County a mechanism to not only acquire
land for future parks, but the ability to identify and
work to acquire lands for future nature preserves (as
well as protect riparian buffer lands, prime and
threatened farmland and cultural resource lands —
other focus areas for Lands Legacy). One component
that is emergent in this master plan, but was identi-
fied as a priority as far back as 1999, is the role that
nature preserves can play in providing not only
protection for the County's most significant natural
areas but also the ability for public access in
proximity and on the edges of these areas. Over the
past 12 years the County has worked to secure im-
portant lands within the two nature preserves, and a
possible third preserve may exist (working with
municipalities and UNC). With careful design and
ecological sensitivity, it is possible to provide public
access at these nature preserves, buffered from the
most - sensitive natural segments of the site, and
plans toward this end are underway.
Standards
In years past, community parks and recreation mas-
The current best practice in using park standards to
frame park needs is to rely on a community -needs
based approach. This involves many of the tools
used in this plan, survey and assessment of
community desires and preferences, mapping of
future known facilities and transportation networks.
This approach is recommended and used for this
master plan. However, the mathematical population
-based standards are recommended to be used
periodically as a valuable benchmark or "double -
check," as they may show when a certain type of
park need is under - represented at a macro county-
wide scale.
Similarly, defining park service areas in a rural
jurisdiction is very different than in an urban setting.
The master plan uses housing patterns,
transportation networks, other geographical factors
and awareness of the municipal park networks to
identify service areas. As noted in the 1988 master
plan, even a diligent set of calculations based on
population, socioeconomic and transportation
factors may not include intangibles that affect how
residents view which parks serve their needs. In
some cases, it is again community needs and
preferences that are the true determining factors.
The location of future parks in the 1988 plan looked
at these population and transportation factors, but
ultimately it was the existence of other public lands
or natural features that was the real determinant for
identifying the general location where district parks
should be located, for example. These parks were
proposed in 1988 (and later acquired between 2000
and 2007 through the Lands Legacy Program).
ter plans would rely heavily on population -based
Maps in Chapter 9 show how a service area radius
standards to help identify the number of needed
applied to existing and planned community parks
future parks and their locations. This approach has
fallen from favor in the last 20 years both nationally and district parks would look. Once again, in a
and locally, as it often led to a mathematically- county system the awareness of and coordination
indicated park need that may or may not fit with with planned and existing municipal parks is a factor
that helps define effective park service areas.
actual community needs. For example, a formulaic
calculation of the number of community parks
needed based on population growth might call for
parks to be built without confirmation or acknowl-
edgement from the community about actual needs.
1 -8
12
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Findings of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Based on the information gathered in the master
plan process, a set of 20 findings or statements was
identified. These findings are shown on pages 9 -13
and 9 -14 of the plan and are summarized below:
• County residents overwhelmingly approve of the
way parks and recreation facilities are operated
and maintained, and they find them safe and easily
accessible. The County's parks and recreation facil-
ities meet a variety of needs, but maintenance and
facility repairs and renovations are on the horizon.
• The County's parks program has secured parkland
and constructed parks, and has built parks in low -
income and /or minority communities - helping
meet physical activity and social needs, both indi-
vidually and in groups. Residents see County parks
and recreation facilities having a positive impact
on the economic, physical and mental well -being
of the county, and that these parks and programs
help reduce crime.
• Strong interest is indicated by residents for
expanding both active recreation and low- impact
recreation opportunities — especially for hiking and
biking trails and a swimming pool. Residents are
less sure about the need for new indoor facilities
for arts /leisure activities, but do favor more indoor
athletic facilities.
• Among those expressing an opinion, a significant
majority of residents surveyed see a need for new
athletic programs and parks, although some were
unsure on this topic. The most desired program
areas were for walking, hiking, biking, swimming,
summer camps and yoga. The most - desired park
facilities were multiple types of trails, a swimming
pool and water parks.
• In funding new facilities, residents were almost
universally supportive of grants and corporate do-
nations, strongly supportive of voter - approved
bonds or existing local taxes. Less support existed
for user fees, and increasing local (non - property)
taxes did not receive strong support.
1 -9
• The County's proactive approach to parkland
acquisition has enabled the acquisition of all but a
few parks identified in 1988, and has plans for four
new parks to be constructed on acquired sites in
the coming three to nine years. In a related vein,
the work toward creating and protecting nature
preserves around some of the most significant
natural areas in the county has created opportuni-
ties for public access and low- impact recreation at
these sites.
• A number of opportunities and challenges are on
the horizon for the County. Recent efforts on part-
nerships with other recreation providers have
been successful and should be continued. Like-
wise, there may be unprecedented opportunities
for coordination with the towns and the schools
for new parks or facility use. These opportunities
provide for financial as well as community - building
benefits and opportunities. The continued desira-
bility of Orange County as a place to live will result
in more population, an expected additional 35,000
persons between 2012 and 2030.
• Due to the proactive steps taken, most of the
projected park needs may be met by current or
planned parks, although one portion of the county
— Bingham Township — is as of yet unserved.
13
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Wester Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan
Recommendations
Using the 20 Findings identified in the master plan,
and assessing the current status of park planning via
the framework of the park system as has been
developed over the past 15 years, the Master Plan
makes nine recommendations moving forward to
the year 2030:
Recommendation 1 - Protect and Enhance Invest-
ment in Parks and Open Spaces:
The County currently operates six parks repre-
senting an investment of over $9 million, and has
helped fund municipal parks by contributing over
$6.5 million to these facilities. Future phases at the
six open County parks are planned, and some of the
facilities built will begin to age out over time.
Operation and maintenance costs are ongoing and
critically important to the park experience. The
County should continue to protect its investment in
the existing parks by funding facility replacement,
future phases and operating costs.
Recommendation 2 — Build the Planned Future
Parks:
Because the County has been so proactive in
identifying and acquiring future park sites, several
future sites have been secured for future use and
these new park projects are included in the County's
Capital Investment Plan. Orange County should
commit to opening the planned new parks as shown
in Table 10 -1 within 10 years (by the year 2024),
with two of the parks opened within 5 years (by
2019).
Recommendation 3 — Complete the Protection of
Identified Nature Preserves and Create Access
Areas and Trails Within the Preserves:
Working through the Lands Legacy program and
other conservation partners, the County has three
identified locations where nature preserves exist or
have been started with the possibility of expansion —
the Upper Eno preserve, the New Hope Preserve
and the Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve. The
primary purpose of these preserves is to protect
important natural lands, but opportunities exist —
and should be pursued — to provide for public access
on the less sensitive portions of the sites through
careful site nlannine.
Recommendation 4 — Formalize and Build Support
Structure for Multi- Partner Capital Facilities:
Over the past 16 years, the towns and County have
worked together to construct a number of parks and
open space areas, primarily County funding toward
construction of town -owned and operated facilities.
Similarly, the use of school facilities for recreation
programs occurs in some locations. Greater
opportunities for joint ventures appear both possi-
ble and prudent. In some cases, towns are running
out of land for new parks, and the County owns
parkland nearby. Design of new school facilities
could occur with joint use in mind, rather than after
the fact. In addition, opportunities with OWASA,
state parks and the two local educational
institutions (UNC and Duke) appear to exist. All of
these parties have mutual interests that may be
served by greater collaboration, and the time may
have come to make this collaboration more formal.
Recommendation 5 — Develop a Master Plan for
the Orange County segment of the Statewide
Mountains -to -Sea Trail:
The Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) is part of the State
Parks system and will link Clingman's Dome in the
Great Smoky Mountains to Jockey's Ridge on the
Outer Banks. While many portions of the trail
network have been developed and are in use, the
eastern Piedmont segment remains the most
complicated due to the need to traverse an area
without natural features (rivers) or public lands. The
plan for the MST calls for it to enter Orange County
at the southwest from the Haw River Trail, and con-
nect via Hillsborough into Eno River State Park and
thence to Falls Lake. The MST, which in rural areas
may be only a natural path a few feet wide, contains
a planned segment from OWASA -owned lands
around Cane Creek Reservoir to the Upper Eno Pre-
serve near Hillsborough. This segment will require
careful planning with property owners and utilities.
A master plan for the trail is needed to pinpoint the
trail's path through this area. A solution should be
identified (whether on private lands, public roads or
some combination thereof) so that Orange County
does not become the gap in the NC MST.
. -10
14
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Recommendation 6 — Build More Trails and
Connect Open Spaces:
One of the clear messages of the Community Needs
Assessment surveys is that county residents want to
get out into nature and walk, hike and bike more.
There are several mechanisms in place that will help
with this, buy virtue of building the planned future
parks (see Recommendation 2). Determining a
solution to the MST segment in Orange County, and
providing trails at nature preserves are additional
measures that are planned /proposed. Additionally,
there may be ways to connect trail systems that
exist in Duke Forest and Eno River State Park to
town and county parks and trails. The local
governments that would mutually benefit from a
connected trail system should look at joint funding
mechanisms.
Recommendation 7: Improve Access to Parks and
Trails, and incorporate Healthy Lifestyles Design:
Over the last 15 years, most parks have been
constructed with an eye to providing access to the
public, and activities for individuals to develop and
maintain healthy lifestyles. However, an emerging
issue in the fields of public health and parks
planning is the integration of these concepts at the
design level — parks designed with an eye to
maximize opportunities for enhancing public health.
Likewise, the potential for public transportation
access to County parks is a consideration, but in a
rural county with a need to provide service to
different portions of the county, this type of access
is problematic. Working park- and -ride lots into
future parks, and looking at parks as possible transit
stops are two mechanisms that warrant closer
examination and should be part of future planning
for new parks.
Recommendation 8 — Look to Add Programs in
Areas Where Residents Have Identified needs,
Consider Partnerships:
Flexibility and responsiveness is critical to providing
public recreation programs. Needs and interests
change over time, and systems must be prepared to
change with the times. While it is not practical to
provide every program that is desired by members
of the community, the Community Needs Assess-
ments provide a look at current needs and desires.
Follow -up surveys should be conducted to deter-
mine the depth of interest in new program areas,
and at the same time, existing programs should be
evaluated to see if resource allocation should be
altered. The County has partnered in recent years
with private non -profit recreation providers for
certain programs. A "partnership template" being
developed will help determine whether a partner-
ship is desirable or warranted, and opportunities
with the school systems in this area may be fruitful.
Financing and Capital Investments
As shown in Table 10 -1, Orange County has posi-
tioned itself through careful and proactive planning
to know what park and recreation facilities are
needed, and through its Capital Investment Plan
(CIP), a possible sequence of construction to fulfill
the master plan outlined within these pages may be
glimpsed. The funding needed for parks and recrea-
tion opportunities includes: new construction of
planned parks, future phases of existing parks,
replacement and repair of aging facilities, and
operating and maintenance funding. Approximately
$10 million in park and public open space funding is
identified in the current CIP through 2018, and an
additional $36 million is expected to be needed
beyond 2018 to complete the vision of the park
system outlined in this plan. An additional $467,000
within two years, and $923,000 in two to five years,
is projected to be needed for renovations and
' improvements or repairs. As future financial plan-
ning is undertaken, the manner in which these
needs may be funded will become more clear, as
will the potential sources (including several potential
grant projects).
1 -11
15
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1- Summary of the Plan
Recommendation 9 — Examine the Role of
Community Centers in Providing Public Recreation
Opportunities:
Orange County currently operates one community
center (Efland- Cheeks), and is poised to own two
additional centers by the end of 2015. In recent
years, considerable interest has been expressed by
residents in these communities about the level of
service provision and operating hours for these cen-
ters, and it is expected that this issue will continue
to be a challenge. The County may wish to take a
comprehensive look at the current and planned fu-
ture centers, the level of service that is financially
and socially practical, and the role that these centers
play in community life.
1 -12
Issues for Further Study
As with many plans for the future, some examina-
tions lead to more questions. The master plan iden-
tified seven "Issues for Further Study:"
1. Ultimate Level of Service (scope of the parks
system)
2. Review of Land Dedication / Payment -in -Lieu
Provisions
3. Coordination between Sportsplex and County
Programs
4. Need for a Public Pool?
5. Timing for Future Community Needs Assess-
ments / Master Plan
6. Artificial Turf Playing Surfaces
16
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Public Outreach Efforts
Summer 2012 Youth Survey
Fall 2012 Statistical Random Sample Survey to 4,200 households
(520 results)
Winter 2012 Public Input Sessions (1 Northern Orange, 1 Southern
Orange)
Winter- Spring 2013 Supplemental Online Survey (301 results)
Supplemental Targeted Diversity Surveys (14 results)
Targeted Focus Groups (8)
Fall 2013 Public Input Sessions — Round 2 (3 - north, central & south)
Public Service Announcements, WCHL Interview
Spring 2014 County Expo Exhibit, Open House, PSA
Ongoing Additional Targeted Diversity Meetings
WA
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
Open House & Public Hearing Summary
May 17/ May 28
What's Going On?
Orange County's master plan for parks and recreation is 25 years old and in need of
update. The plan, which includes recommendations and planned actions for the future,
has served the county well and many of the things called for in 1988 have come to
pass. A new master plan has been drafted and will soon be presented to County
officials for consideration.
What Do We Know?
To create a new master plan, three different community needs assessment surveys
were conducted, and 832 persons responded. Here is a brief summary of the results:
• The most commonly -used County facilities are the Sportsplex and Central
Recreation Center in Hillsborough, Little River Regional Park, and Eurosport
Soccer Center.
• 82% of those surveyed think the County should expand active outdoor
recreation opportunities.
• 79% think the County should expand low- impact /passive recreation
opportunities.
• 89% said the County should expand or provide a trail system linking various
areas of the county.
• Between 89% and 94% feel County facilities are safe, well- maintained and
well- operated.
• 93% think that parks and recreation programs enhance economic health of the
community, and 96% think they enhance the physical and mental well -being of
residents.
Most Popular Recreation Programs
1.
Youth Soccer
2.
Youth Basketball
3.
Open Gymnasium
4.
Little River Trail Run
5.
Volleyball
18
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
Most Popular Special Events
1. Egg Hunt
2. Halloween Spooktacular
3. Fishing Rodeo
4. Earth Day Fair
Top 10 Recreation Programs to
Add /Expand
AfterSchool Programs
Dog Obedience
Tennis
Gardening
Summer Camps
Biking
Yoga
Walking
Swimming
Hiking
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Top 10 Most - Desired New Facilities
Tennis Courts
Playgrounds
Nature Center
Indoor Athletic Complex
Amphitheatre
Water "Spray" Areas
Greenways
Swimming Pool
Nature Trails
Walking &Hiking Trails
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
®%
13%
19
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT 11111118-40JEM
Draft Master Plan Findings — What Does the Plan Indicate?
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities and Programs
1. County residents overwhelmingly approve of the way current parks and recreation facilities are
operated and maintained. They feel safe in these facilities, and find them easy to get to and
accessible. County staff are seen as helpful and professional.
2. In the 15 years since the County opened its first park, additional park facilities and recreation
centers have been created that serve a variety of community needs — and get high marks for
providing quality opportunities to recreate — but maintenance and equipment replacement needs
are on the horizon for some facilities.
3. The County has successfully acquired parkland and constructed parks in low- income and
minority communities over the past 15 years, providing a needed outlet for physical activity,
reflection in nature and outdoor recreation that meets social, mental and physical needs for both
individuals and the public.
4. Residents believe strongly that park facilities and recreation programs:
a Enhance economic health of Orange County;
b. Enhance physical and mental well -being of residents, and
c. Help reduce crime.
Future Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs
5. There is strong interest among county residents to expand both active recreation and low- impact
recreation opportunities (especially hiking, walking and biking trails, and a swimming pool).
6. Residents are less sure and largely split on whether the County should pursue indoor facilities
for arts /leisure activities, but somewhat more in favor of additional indoor athletic facilities.
7. Some residents are unsure about whether future athletic programs or parks are needed, but
among those expressing an opinion, a significant majority favor new programs and parks.
8. The highest levels of interest in new /expanded programs are for walking, hiking, swimming,
biking, summer camps and yoga.
9. Likewise, the top choices for new parks facilities are walking trails, nature trails, biking trails,
greenways, a swimming pool and water parks.
10. Residents are almost universally supportive of funding new parks and recreation facilities
through grants and corporate donations.
11. Residents express strong support for financing future parks and recreation opportunities through
voter - approved bonds or existing local taxes. There is less support for charging user fees, and
increasing local taxes (other than property taxes) is not a desired solution.
12. The County has successfully acquired sites for new parks identified in the 1988 Master Plan,
with the exception of the Bingham District, and four new parks are projected in the County's
Capital Investment Plan, along with additions and improvements to existing parks.
13. The creation of nature preserves in important natural areas of the county offers an opportunity
for public access and low- impact recreation in addition to protection of natural resources.
Opportunities and Challenges
14. The County has in recent years seen success in pursuing public /private or public /non - profit
partnerships for new facilities, and should continue to pursue these opportunities where
mutually - beneficial.
15. With the County having land- banked several park sites for future use, and little room for new
parks inside the town borders, there may be unprecedented opportunities for partnerships
between County and towns for developing new park or recreation facilities.
16. There are likely also financial benefits to coordination and collaboration among the towns and
County for future parks.
17. While not growing at the rate of the 1970's- 1990's, the County continues to be a very - desirable
place to live with a high quality of life, and population growth is expected to continue, adding
another 36,000 residents by the year 2030. These new residents will likely be split between
persons in the towns and those in the rural and suburban areas of the County.
20
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT May 1, 2014
18. The County's Lands Legacy Program has wiped out the parkland deficit identified in 1999, and
secured a number of future parks, open spaces and nature preserve sites at strategic locations
for future needs.
19. The 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan served the County well as a blueprint for future
needs, and most of the facilities and programs anticipated in that plan have been built, secured
or implemented. Many of the basic philosophical and physical tenets of that plan are still valid.
However, a solution to a park site for Bingham Township remains to be addressed.
20. Opportunities for coordinated school /park planning with the school systems appear to exist.
Proposed Recommendations
Important Note: These are draft recommendations and are subject to change.
1. Enhance and protect our investment in existing park and recreation facilities.
2. Build the planned future parks (all planned parks open within 10 years).
3. Complete Nature Preserves in a way that provides for public access and
recreation.
4. County should work with towns, school systems and others to build new facilities.
5. In some manner (whether on rural rustic trails or along rural roadways), develop
a plan and complete Orange County section of the NC Mountains -to -Sea Trail.
6. Build more trails, and connect County /town open spaces and parks with trails?
7. Improve access to parks and trails, and design parks for healthy lifestyles.
8. Look at new program needs and consider new partnerships.
9. Examine the role of community centers in providing recreation, other services.
Issues for Further Study
• Ultimate Level of Service for the County Parks system.
• Review methods of park funding and acquisition.
• Coordination between Sportsplex and County programs.
• Further examine need for a public pool?
• Artificial turf versus natural playing surfaces.
• Frequency of surveys and plan updates.
Want to view the master plan — or share thoughts and comments online or by email? Go
to http : / /0rangecountync..govldeanr /parks master plan.asp and click on the master plan
link, or comments link. Email us at deaprc�i.orangecountync.gov or call 919- 245 -2510.
21
Information and Responses to Board Feedback
Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
1. Is there socioeconomic data for recreation program participants? How many users
are subsidized?
The County does have programs for fee reductions based on income and need.
Please see Attachment 9 for more information.
2. Is the percentage of residents in towns correct (page 38)?
69 % of County residents live inside the towns (the numbers were inverted)
3. What do we mean by "corporate sponsors "?
Over the past decade, the County has engaged in opportunities for corporate
sponsorships to help defray and offset the costs of operating recreation programs
and maintaining facilities. Examples of this would be current naming agreements at
Eurosport Soccer Center with Sports Endeavors, Inc. (facility name) and Triangle
Orthopedics (concession stand name). There are also corporate donations in some
cases to purchase recreation equipment or other small capital equipment.
4. How should we address the expressed demand for trails, given that there are other
providers of trails? How certain are we that there is a demand for more trails?
The 832 survey participants indicated 89% support for "expand or provide trail
systems linking various areas of the county" and 79% support for "expand low -
impacVpassive recreation opportunities." When asked to list the top 5 new facilities
desired, the top vote - getters were "walking /hiking trails" (45%) and "nature trails"
(34%). The focus group on Trails and Connectivity also indicated strong support for
enhancing trail options.
Many of the planned future facilities in the CIP include new trails, so these needs
may be met over time through existing and future plans. Another approach to further
solicit opinion on trail demand would be to follow -up with more refined survey work
on the trails topic. Finally, the issue of trails interconnectivity is one that has come up
in several different settings, including the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
(IPWG).
22
5. How do the planned facilities in the Master Plan match up with the facilities in the
County Capital Investment Plan (CIP)?
The CIP was used as the primary source to develop the listing in the Master Plan, so
the items shown should closely match the adopted CIP. The main thrust of the
Master Plan is that, with one or two exceptions, acquisitions through the Lands
Legacy Program over the past 14 years have left the County in a position to have
sufficient park sites and at strategic locations as previously- identified, for the
foreseeable future. The improvements and renovations /replacements needs that are
noted for the existing parks are included in a new CIP project for FY 14 -19 "Park &
Recreation Facility Renovation and Repairs."
6. Are there priorities among the needed facilities and programs? Should we reassess
priorities based on public feedback? What priorities would be suggested from public
input?
Inherent prioritization exists in the CIP based on funding and expected timing
(including projected partner funding), but this is adjusted annually by the Board as
desired. The current schedule of priorities from the CIP would be as shown in
Attachment 2.
7. Have we discussed with the schools the demand among youth for programs and
facilities to see if it is what they want? County and schools should discuss
programming needs to determine what is needed, what gaps exist.
Staff has included schools representatives in different focus groups, but will be glad
to follow -up on this specifically to ensure that County (and schools) program
offerings are meeting desired needs.
8. The Master Plan does not include the Greene Tract?
At present, the Greene Tract is still listed as a Solid Waste "asset." Use of the
property for non -Solid Waste purposes triggers a repayment to the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund. This repayment has been underway (completed ? ? ?) for the 104.7
acres jointly owned by the three local governments, but not for the County's 60
acres. Park and open space on either properties or just the County land could be
pursued under the above parameters. The property is located within the Town of
Chapel Hill Joint Planning transition area (effectively in Town jurisdiction). If the
Board directs, staff could incorporate this into the Master Plan.
Board Feedback statements
• Prioritize constructing the parks where land is already acquired.
• Use the term "low- impact" instead of "passive."
• Some park projects could be poised to move forward but need master plan.
• County should hire consultant to re- investigate payment -in -lieu provisions.
23
Attachment 1
Data and Subsidy Information on Recreation Program Participants
The Recreation Division of DEAPR offers scholarships or subsidy for participants in
youth programs through two methods:
1. A 25% fee reduction is available to students who qualify for reduced -fee lunch from
the school systems.
2. Full scholarships may be provided by a special fund administered by the Department
of Social Services and created by the Board of Commissioners in 2011.
In FY 2013 -14 to date, 392 discounted or waived registrations have been processed,
with a cost savings of $9,584 passed on to participant families. In FY 2012 -13, the DSS
Scholarship program provided for 173 full scholarships (56% boys and 43% girls).
In terms of demographic or socioeconomic data, in FY 2013 -14:
Race/ Ethnicity
Number
Percentage*
White
136
35%
Black (African -
American)
195
50%
Asian
0
0%
Hispanic origin
61 1
16%
" - Does not total 100% due to rounding
As noted at the February 11 meeting, County recreation programs are often the low -
cost option in the community. The following table compares one type of program, a 9-
week summer camp, and compares the least- expensive of the summer camp options
for each entity. Please note - this is not a comparison of the camp activity or experience,
and does not include memberships or registration fees that might be applicable in some
cases. The comparison is only to illustrate the comparative cost of the program.
Program
County
Sorts lex
YMCA
OC Schools
9 -Week Summer Camp
Program (Fees represent
$864
$1,805
$1,480
$966
lowest cost available camp)
Average Weekly Cost
$96
$201
$164
$107
24
Attachment 2
Planned Schedule of Park Construction (as per CIP)
Blackwood Farm Park (limited facilities) FY 2014 -15
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area II and III FY 15 -16 (II), > FY 19 -20 (III)
Seven Mile Public Access (Upper Eno Preserve) FY 15 -16
RiverPark, Phase II
FY 15 -16
Hollow Rock Public Access (New Hope Preserve) FY 16 -17 (some work in 14 -15)
Blackwood Farm Park (full park) FY 17 -18
Millhouse Road Park FY 17 -18
Eurosport Soccer Center, Phase II FY 18 -19
Bingham District Park > FY 19 -20
Cedar Grove Park, Phase II > FY 19 -20
Mountains to Sea Trail (connections) > FY 19 -20
Northeast District Park > FY 19 -20
Twin Creeks District Park, Phase II and III > FY 19 -20
r