Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-30-2000-1Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Report— Potential Joint Capital Funding for Parks DEPARTMENT: Joint Town /County PUBLIC.HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Report David Stancil, 245 -2590 I PURPOSE: To consider a report on Potential Joint Funding for Parks, as a follow -up to the 1999. Joint. Master Recreation and Parks Work. Group report. BACKGROUND: In May of 1999, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group, comprised of elected and appointed officials of each jurisdiction and both school boards, issued its report. Among the recommendations of the report was a call for the Town and County Managers to prepare a report on opportunities for joint capital funding for parks projects. In resolutions adopted during the spring and summer of 2000, each jurisdiction authorized the creation of this report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting. The attached report explores the identified capital funding needs for parks from each jurisdiction's Capital Improvements /investment Plan, the current sources of funding, use of the County's Lands Legacy program for acquiring parkland, and observations on additional steps that could be taken toward collaboration for parks and recreation. A two -page summary of the report is provided following the cover page. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receipt of the report. However, funding decisions and potential collaboration for parks. would have a financial impact on each jurisdiction either collectively or individually, depending on the method of coordination pursued (as. identified in the report). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend that the elected boards discuss the report and provide direction on follow -up actions that are desired. 41 Mme+! Report Potential point Capital Funding for Parks October 3 2000 Potential Joint Capital Funding for Parks Summary — October 30, 2000 Earlier this year, each elected board adopted resolutions asking that, in follow -up to the 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP) Work Group Report, the Managers from each jurisdiction develop a report on potential for joint capital funding for parks needs. Three reports in the past five years have explored different aspects of parks and recreation facilities and service in the County. All of the reports have pointed to a mechanism that establishes Orange County in a coordinating role for parks and recreation initiatives. In addition, the Memoranda of Agreement between the school boards and the local governments provide an important precedent for collaboration in this area. Having identified parks needs in the 1999 JMRP report, the current park projects in the Capital Improvement Plans (CIP's) for each jurisdiction were examined. In general, while significant headway has been made, there are identified parks and recreation needs in the County and Town C1P's totaling $63 million. Only 25% of those projects are funded at this point in time, leaving $47 million in unfunded parks projects. There are several potential sources of funding for parks needs, ranging from bonds to State and Federal grants to special reserve funds and even impact fees (not currently implemented, but authorized by the General Assembly). Orange County's new Lands Legacy Program was developed concurrently with the 1999 JMRP report, and the potential may exist for using the County's Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan process to 1) identify parks projects that are collaborative opportunities for multiple jurisdictions and 2) pursue acquisition of parkland needed for the project in question. The Memoranda of Agreement on co- location between the schools and local governments, and the new School Capital Funding Policy, offer significant opportunities to explore joint projects. In considering parks projects that are most appropriate for joint ventures, the previously - mentioned Memoranda of Agreement provides a frame of reference in determining when co- location may be desirable. In addition, the Board of Commissioners has noted that the most - appropriate types of joint park ventures are larger -scale parks that provide a broad range of opportunities and can serve both rural and Town populations. In reviewing the parks and recreation reports, there may be an emergent delineation of roles for joint park projects. The Towns currently expend substantial capital and operating funds on an annual basis to operate and maintain existing parks, and are often challenged to provide capital funds for new park facilities. Orange County, in its 1997 Parks bond, attempted to address both Town and County by allocating bond money to parks projects inside Chapel Hill and in western Orange County. Even so, the County's burgeoning population (currently estimated at 111,000) makes the need for land- banking for parks a pressing one, as illustrated by the unfunded parks needs. With this being the case, the County may be in the best position to provide capital funding for parkland acquisition and facility development for larger -scale joint parks. In order to operationalize a system of planning for joint park projects, a consensus will be needed on where these parks should exist. If the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan process is the vehicle to identify and pursue land acquisition for joint parks efforts, a map is needed to show where these park needs are. A Conceptual Future Park Sites map is proposed to show current facilities, and the general area where joint parks projects have been agreed to by elected boards. Such a map could be incorporated into the County's Recreation and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan, due for update in 2001, to create a Countywide master plan. The map might also be adopted by reference into each of the Town parks and recreation plans. In conclusion, the report notes the many positive actions that have occurred in the past five years in coordinating and sharing parks and recreation plans. An Inter - Governmental Parks Work Group is poised for an initial meeting in November to continue the sharing and coordinating function. At the same time, however, the County and Towns are faced with a number of significant challenges in coming years. The Towns often must sacrifice capital funding for new parks in order to operate and maintain existing ones, and over $47 million in identified projects stand unfunded. Good park sites are lost each year to development as the area continues to grow, making parkland acquisition a high priority. The 1999 JMRP report has called for a bond referendum to address parks needs. To address these issues, the report offers the following ideas: 1. Develop a- Memorandum of Agreement among the local governments on capital funding for future joint parks. The Memorandum could explore the nature of joint parks ventures (larger -scale parks serving both rural and Town populations), the method for identifying and acquiring park sites, the County's potential roles in capital funding, land acquisition and facility development, the Town's potential roles in operation and maintenance, and the inter - relationships with school/park co- location. Funding equity issues might also be explored in this Memorandum. 2. Create and Adopt a Conceptual Future Park Sites map. To support the Memorandum above, an agreed -upon map showing the conceptual area in which joint park projects have been identified might be developed, with input from all jurisdictions and adopted by all elected boards. This map could be used annually as parks funding is considered by the jurisdictions. 3. Develop Plans for a Parks and Open Space Bond. As noted above, unfunded parks needs (both for parkland acquisition and facility development) exist among the jurisdictions, and the 1999 JMRP report noted the need for a bond referendum. While not all of these projects would be joint ventures, some would likely be appropriate collaborative efforts. The County and Town elected boards may wish to discuss this need and arrive at a mutually agreeable timetable for a bond referendum, or discuss other funding options. I. Introduction and Purpose Earlier this year, the elected boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Recreation andhParks Orange County considered the report of the Joint Master (JMRP) Work Group. One of the recommendations of the JMRP report asked the Managers from each jurisdiction to prepare a report for an Assembly of Governments meeting addressing the potential for joint County/Town collaboration on parks acquisition and development. In resolutions adopted in the spring and summer of 2000, each jurisdiction asked the Managers to prepare this report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting. The concept of a joint mechanism of reports developed planning is not and lggg new idea, and has roots in a trio o p The Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Grou 1996 , which developed recommendations to "establish principles for coordinated county -wide recreation and park facility planning, foster greater cooperation in use of existing facilities, and support private recreation providers and public /private partnerships." The work group developed a number of recommendations presented to the Assembly of Governments, including the setting of standards, an inventory of park and recreation facilities, and planning for the inclusion of park facilities in selecting new school sites. • The Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Oran e County 1997 described different options for the improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation functions. Recommendations were divided into four major categories: capital development, coordination of operations, consolidation approaches, and voluntary coordination and commitment. In summary, the report called for: • a long -range plan for parks and recreation, • acquisition and protection of good park sites, • a lead role for Orange County in funding, acquisition, development, ownership, and maintenance of new facilities, • coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions, and • a countywide bond proposal • The Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks JMRP Work Group (1999), which followed up on many of the recommendations from the 1996 and 1997 reports. As a part of this report, an inventory of facilities and 2 community parks needs was developed for each jurisdiction, and recommendations were forwarded on a variety of issues, including: • Formation of an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to share information and explore collaboration opportunities, • Possible funding mechanisms, • Use of the County's Lands Legacy program as a vehicle for coordinated parkland acquisition, and. • The need for a bond referendum to address the current parkland deficit. Note: For purposes of this report, the three previous reports are referred to in the following manner: ort o the Recreation and Par Work Gro 1996 = 1996 Work Group report, Report on Coo inatian of ecrea ion Pa Services in O n e cou 997 = 1997 COOrdipation Report Re ort o the Joint M ster Recrea ion and Parks Work Grou 1999 = 1999 JMRP report Both the 1997 Coordination Report and the 1999 JMRP Report suggest that parks collaboration be pursued, with the County as lead entity for coordination and administration. At the 1997 Assembly of Governments meeting, staffs were asked to further develop ideas for joint parks efforts by the jurisdictions and report back at a future Assembly of Governments meeting. In addition to these reports, there is a related document worthy of note. The Memoranda of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning (originated by the Schools and Land Use Councils) provide an impetus for co- location of public facilities where possible. The Memoranda of Agreement are provided as Appendix 5. With these efforts as a backdrop, this report will attempt to address the following issues: 3 II. Current Capital Improvement Plans and Available Funding At present, each jurisdiction has varying levels f funding available for parkland acquisition and facilities development rammed currently - available funds from bonds ent plans (CIP's) sources, or programmed as part of long -term capital imp Note: While the fol %wing parks projects are in current Town rand The County CIPs, it does not automatically fo�lo "acts is done annually through the actual appropriation of funds projects budget process. The following sections provide an overview ati programmed or planned parks (Note: More complete endix late inform on submitted from the jurisdictions may be found as App Appendix 1 the Town of Carrboro is currently engaged in As shown in App ro acts, so planning for a number of parks p me of which are or could be ] multi- jurisdictional in scope. The first two -projects have some limited funds previously committed; the rest remain unfunded at this time. Smith Middle School and Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hill Community park, in conjunction with Orange County Carrboro City Schools. Cost of $5 a00 OPOach toward a soccer field within 0th s project. wn and County have committed $75,000 Hillsborough Road Park include outdoor Small park to serve several north a rrbo mgho� over three hree fiscal Years (FY00 - -02). The swimming pool (see below). Co $1.245 land has been purchased, and master planning funded. The master plan is due January, 2001. outdoor Swimming Pool Pro sad for location at Hillsborough Road Park. Cost of $4.86 million over four fiscal Po years (00 -03). playground Equipment at Existing Parks New playground equipment for Wilson, Baldwin, Carr Court and Anderson parks, proposed for FY 2009 -2010 at total cost of $362,000 Northern Community Park Proposed park to meet needs in northern area of Carrboro. fsca� include and 201. P fields, playgrounds and picnic areas. Cost of $6.4 million in a /so serve this need Note: Orange County's Chapel Hill Township District Park may 5i Gymnasium Gymnasium with two basketball courts, meeting room and office /storage space. Total cost of $3.79 million in fiscal years'2010 and 2011. In addition, the Town plans to develop sidewalks, bikeways and greenways at a projected cost of $5.6 million during the period 2000- 2011. Table A — Town of Carrboro Summary of Projects and Cost Estimates Smith Middle School $465,000 75 uuu iD uuu J1z) UUV Hillsborough Road Park $1.25 million $5829000 $663,137 Outdoor Swimming Pool $4.86 million 0 14.86 million Playground E ui ment $362,398 0 $362,398 Northern Community Park $6.36 million 0 $6.36 million Gymnasium $3.79 million 0 $3.79 million TOTAL. $17.09 $657,000 $75,000 $16.3:5 million million B. Chanel Hill. - Capital Parks and O en S ace Projects The Town of Chapel Hill has identified a number of projects, whether funded, programmed or unfunded. Significant detail on these projects is included in the material in Appendix 1. A brief summary is provided below, followed by Table B, showing the summary of Town projects, cost estimates and existing Town or County funds. (Three other tables — Funding through the Town s Capital Repair and Maintenance Fund, Town Council Funding Schedule (bond funds), and Town s Councils Funding Schedule (grant funds) - are found in Appendix 2). Homestead Park / Proposed Aquatics Center Homestead Community Park (previously known as Northern Community Park) provides playing fields, a skate facility, a batting cage and walking trails. The Town has approved $3.26 million in its funding schedule, and $1 million from the 1997 County parks bond is appropriated for this park, which opened in 1999. After completion of Homestead Park, approximately $2 million of Town and County bond funds are projected to remain. The Town's intent is to use these funds toward a proposed Aquatics /Community Center. This amount would not be sufficient to plan and construct the proposed center, estimated to cost between $4 million and $12 million. At an October 18 worksession, the Town Council asked that the Homestead Park Aquatic/Community Center Conceptual Plan Committee's Interim Report be referred to the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group to be discussed as a potential joint project. 5 Southern Community Park The 1997 County Parks bond allocated $1 million for this park, $105,000 of which has been used for lighting and irrigation of the playing field at Scroggs Elementary. An additional $100,000 has been authorized for disbursement for a design and concept plan. No other funds are identified or appropriated for this park. Total cost of the park is estimated at $4 to $5 million. Pritchard Park This project would develop the area surrounding the Chapel Hill Public Library known as Pritchard Park. The Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee presented its report on September 25. The report was accepted and referred to all Town boards and commissions and staff for comment. The item is scheduled to return to the Town Council on November 13 for action. Potential amenities identified in the report include trails, a small playground, art benches, a gazebo /belvedere, a picnic area, and an art garden. Funding for the project totaling $167,000 is from a gift to the Town, interest, and rental fees from properties the Town owned. Booker Creek Linear Park This project would establish a trail and park between Elliott Road and Franklin Street and along Booker Creek. Cost of the project is estimated at $438,000, and a NCDOT grant has been awarded. A Town match of $87,000 will be required. Erwin Road Open Space /Greenway Land Acquisition The Town has proposed working with Orange County on open space land banking via acquisition of another large tract of open space between New Hope Commons and Erwin Road. The Town has $200,000 in Clean Water Management Trust Fund money to put toward such an acquisition. This is part of the Dry Creek Greenway project. Merritt Pasture Access This project would establish access to the Town -owned property known as Merritt Pasture. The Merritt Pasture Access Committee's report was presented to the Council on September 25. The report was accepted and referred to all Town boards and commissions and staff for comment. It is scheduled to return to the Council on November 13 for action. Four identified options for access range in cost from $254,000 to $398,000. Two potential sources of funding are payments -in -lieu funds from two neighboring developments: Southern Village ($116,000) and Culbreth Ridge ($76,000). Greenways Several greenway projects are listed in the Town's plans. Dry Creek Greenway; Sufficient funds exist to construct this greenway from East Chapel Hill High School to Perry Creek Road, but no funds exist to link the Eastowne and New Hope Commons areas to this greenway. Cost estimates for completion of the greenway (not including land acquisition) are $750- 800,000. Lower-Booker Creek Greenway: Bids were awarded for this project in June, at a cost of $500,000. State and local funds totaling $468,000 will cover most of this cost. Bolin CLe@k Greenwa : Joint project with OWASA to replace sewer interceptor and install greenway to Umstead Park and beyond to the Carrboro border. To be built in phases, the total project is expected to cost $1.15 million. Morgan Creek Greenwa : This trail would extend the Fan Branch Trail at Southern Village to Smith Level Road, providing access to Merritt Pasture. Costs for the project are expected to range from $400,000 to $750,000 depending on scope. $100,000 of existing funds are appropriated for this project, also to be completed in phases. Table B —Town of Chapel Hill Summary of Projects and Cost Estimates Homestead Park/ $4 -12 million, $1,200,000 $855,000 $9.96 million Aquatics Center depending on type of facili Southern Community Park 4 — 5,000,000 -0- 1895,000 $4.11 million Hargraves Center Renovations $500,000 -0- -0- $500,000. Community Center Renovations 1 $696,000— -0- -0- $1.2 million 1,200,000 Pritchard Park 167 000 $167.000 -0- -0- Booker Creek Linear Park $438,000 $2,000 $349,000 t87,000 Lower Booker Creek Trail $651r000 $651,000 -0- -0- Bolin Creek Trail (Phase III) Z $350,000- -0- -0- $1.15 million $1,150,000 Dry Creek Trail (Phase II & III) $750,000- -0- -0- $800,000 800, 000 Morgan Creek Trail (Phase I) 3 $400,000- $113,000 -0- .$637,000 Merritt Pasture Access $250,000 - .$192,000 -0- $208,000 $400,000 Erwin Road Unknown $2.6 million -0- Unknown Open Space Acquisition a TOTAL $23.05 $4.93 $2.10 million $18.65 million million million 1. The upper end of the range would include non- maintenance items such as improved ventilation, expansion of locker rooms, air- conditioning, and a new foyer. 2. This project could be split into a number of phases. I This project could be done in at least 2 phases. 4. We have no basis for estimating ultimate land acquisition costs. These costs are ultimately parcel specific. 5. Calculated based on upper end of cost range. . Hillsborough — Capital Parks and O en S ace Projects The Town of Hillsborough has programmed the following parks projects into its CIP: Occoneechee Mountain Park overlook Overlook platform constructed near the rim overlooking west Hillsborough. Accessible from public trails constructed through the state -owned portion of the mountain natural area. Completed in June, 2000. Murray Street Park Neighborhood park at the corner of Eno and Murray Streets. Will serve the 7 immediate area with walking trail, play equipment and future picnic area. Riverwalk /Eno River buffers Riverwalk would create a greenway /walkway connecting the proposed River Park (near the County Courthouse) to Occoneechee Mountain Park to serve the greater county population. This project has not undergone a feasibility study yet. The buffer project is funded through the town's CWMTF grant. The town is seeking ownership or conservation easements along the Eno River. The buffer depth in the grant is 100 feet. RiverPark In conjunction with Orange County, this would create a small park near the County Courthouse and the Eno River with walking trails, benches and a gazebo. A joint committee is currently developing plans. Fairview Active Sports Park proposed as a joint venture, this would be a soccer complex that would serve the Town, County and greater region by providing a location for soccer clubs to play and hold tournaments. It is unclear whether the site would be acceptable as "soccer only" or whether a broader range of activities would be planned. Table C — Town of Hillsborough Summary of Projects and Cost Estimates* Occoneechee Park $32,448 $32,448 Completed Overlook $33000 $300,000 $200,000 S 000 i33,000 $86,000 $25,000 5 000 -p_ $214,000 ** '0" $10,000 $165,000 -0- __ _ _ %. r-r nnn Murray Street Park Riverwalk/Eno River buffers RiverPark Fairview Park feasibili * - Cost estimates do not include facility develop[ ** - Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant D. Orange County — Ca ital Parks and Open Space Projects Orange County parks activities are ongoing in two programs — previously - planned parks in the adopted 2000 -2010 Capital Investment Plan and via the new Lands Legacy program, adopted in April 2000. Funding for both methods are shown through the CIP. Over the next 10 years, Orange County has identified the following expenditures for parklands: Chapel Hill Parks Projects A total of $2 million was approved in a 1997 County parks bond for use toward the Town's Homestead (Northern) Community Park and Southern Community Park. Some of 0 these funds have now been disbursed for both parks. The funds are projected for expenditure in fiscal year 2000 (also listed in Chapel Hill parks projects above). Efland- Cheeks Park This is a school -park combination in conjunction with Efland- Cheeks Elementary School, which was funded through the 1997 parks bond. New picnic areas, basketball courts, playing fields and a walking track (Phase I) opened in May of this year. The cost of Phase I was $859,000. Phase II of the park, including additional parking, nature trails and athletic field lighting, will bring the total project cost to $1.6 million. Phase II is not currently reflected in the 2000 -2010 CIP. Cedar Grove Community Park (Northern Human Services Center) Forty acres adjacent to the Northern Human Services Center was purchased in 1998. A total of $190,000 is shown for this project for land acquisition (previously disbursed) and design in FY 02. Funding for land acquisition is from a combination of 1997 parks bond and sales tax revenues. The projected total cost for the park is $1.4 million. Note; Further /and acquisitions at this park site are ongoing through the Lands Legacy program. Fairview Park This park was acquired in 1987, with playground equipment and picnic areas provided through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Portions of the site are on an old Town of Hillsborough landfill. A total of $75,000 for geo- technical evaluation was appropriated in FY 2000 (estimated actual cost is $40,000). Geo- technical evaluations have recently verified that the site Is safe for recreation facilities. Total cost, estimate to complete the park is $725,000. RiverPark In conjunction with the Town of Hillsborough, this park would be located on County - owned land between the Courthouse and the Eno River, and would feature walking trails, benches and a gazebo. A joint committee is currently working on a plan for the park. (Funding needs for this park shown in Town of Hillsborough section). New Hope Creek Corridor This project provides funding to the Triangle Land Conservancy to preserve land along New Hope Creek. Funding of $75,000 in FY 2000 and $15,000 in FY 2001 is from a combination of payment -in -lieu funds and sales tax revenues. Triangle Sportsplex The Triangle Sportsplex in Hillsborough contains an indoor swimming pool, ice rink, fitness center and meeting rooms. As part of the operational agreement, Orange County provides $400,000 per year during the 10 -year period ($4.0 million total) for programming of the pool facility. Parks and Recreation Facilities A total of $955,000 for pay -as- you -go repairs and improvements at existing parks and recreation facilities. other Parks Projects (Lands legacy program) A total of $2.91 million remains from the 1997 County parks bond, $2.84 million of which is targeted for parkland acquisition via the 2000 -2001 Lands Legacy Action Plan adopted May 3, 2000 by the Board of Commissioners. The County's new Lands Legacy program is a comprehensive resource acquisition program designed to acquire, conserve and protect 0 important natural areas, cultural resources and parklands. As part of the 2000 -2001 Annual Action Plan, the County is currently pursuing acquisitions of key parcels for parkland with remaining County Parks Bond funds in the following areas: Chapel Hill Township District Park: Parkland of 100 -200 acres in Chapel Hill Township, north of Chapel Hill and /or Carrboro. Note: This park may also meet needs identified by Carrboro for a Northern Community Park and could serve both towns and much of the County. Projected total park cost for the district park (land and facility development) is estimated at $7.5 million. Bingham Township Communi Park: In conjunction with OWASA, the County is pursuing 25 -74 acres for a community park for the 7,000 residents of Bingham Township. Projected total park cost is $1.6 million. Eno/Schley area Community Park: A park of 25 -74 acres east or northeast of Hillsborough, to serve east Hillsborough and the areas between Hillsborough and Durham. Projected total park cost is $2.1 million. Expansion of Cedar Grove District Park: Additional acquisitions at existing site (see above) Little River Regional Park and Natural Area: In conjunction with Durham County, Triangle land Conservancy and the Eno River Association, this regional park and natural area will be primarily low- impact.recreation. Due to the awarding of three State and federal grants, only about $94,000 of parks bond funds are projected for expenditure for this project. Projected total park costs are $1.5 million. New Hope Corridor Rustic Woodland Trail: A multi -year project, this would tie together Duke Forest and other open space areas in the New Hope Creek area north of Chapel Hill. Estimate cost of trail acquisition and development is $500,000. 10 Table D — Orange County Summary of Projects and Cost Estimates Cha el Hill arks" See Table B 2.0 million See Table B -0" See Table B 750 le B Efland- Cheeks ParkZ 1.6 million 859 000 190 000 _p_ 1.21 million Cedar Grove Park $1.4 million 75 000 �" 650, -00 Fairview Park $725 q00 90 000 90 000 -0- "p_ New Ho a Creek Corridor 4.Q million 4.0 million - -- -0- Trian le S orts lex Existin Parks im rovements 955 000 $955,000 -0- 143 000 _p_ $70,000 McGowan Creek Preserve $370,000 157 000 _p" $1.8 million $5.7 million Chapel Hill Township District $7.5 million Park Bin ham Communi Park 1,6 million -0" _p_ -0- 444 000 1.6 million 1.66 million Eno /Schle Communi Park 2.1 million $1.5 million $89,000 $1,186,000 $ 225,000 Little River Regional Park and Natural Area _p_ _p_ $500,000 New Hope Rustic Woodland $500,000 Trail TOTAL.. $22 35 $8.42 million $12.37 million IT million i — The Town funds and unfunded portion are shown in the Town of chapel Hill parks table. 2 - Phase II (appro)imately $75o,000) not reflected in current CIP. 3 _- Includes estimate of facility development costs. with Durham County, Triangle Land Conservancy and Eno River Association. 4 -- Joint project ii Table E -- Summary of Major Projects Note: Proiects are a mix of parkland acoursrtron and facility development, as shown on X ** Smith Middle School $465,000 1315,000 ** Hillsborough Road Park $1.25 million $663,137 ** Outdoor Swimming Pool $4.86 million $4.86 million ** Playground Equipment $362 398 $362,398 ** Northern Community Park $6.36 million $6.36 million ** 3.79 million $3.79 million imnasium 9.96 million ** Homestead Park/Aquatics Center Up to 12 million ** Southern Community Park 15 million $4.11 million ** Pritchard Park . $167,000 -0- ** Hargraves Center Renovations $500,000 $500,000 ** Community Center Renovation $1.2 million $1.2 million ** Booker Creek Linear Park $438,000 $87,000 ** Greenwa s pr2jects $3.35 million $2.59 million ** Merritt Pasture Access $400,000 208,000 ** Qp2n Space Ac uisitions Unknown Unknown ** Occoneechee Park overlook $32,448 -0- ** Murray Street Park $33,000 -0- ** Eno RiverWalk and Buffers $300,000 -0- ** River-Park $200,000 $165,000 ** Fairview Park feasibili study $5,000 -0- 1 ** Cha el Hill Parks projects' See above See above ** Efland Cheeks Park 1.6 million $750,000 ** Cedar Grove Park 11.4 million $1.21 million ** Fairview Park $725,000 $6501000 ** New Hope Creek Corridor-2 90 000 -0- ** Triangle S orts lex 4,000,000 -0- ** Existinci Parks Improvements $955,000 -0- ** McGowan Creek Preserve $370,000 $70,000 ** Chapel Hill Township Park $7.5 million $5.7 million ** Bingham Communi Park $1.6 million 11.6 million ** EnciLSchley Park $2.1 million $1.66 million ** Little River-Regional Par Natural Area 1.5 million $225,000 ** New Hoe Rustic Woodland Trail 500,000 $500,000 TOTAL $63.05 million $47.58 million 1 - $1 million each for Homestead Community Park and Southern Community Park (also listed under Town of Chapel Hill) 2 — includes Contributions toward New Hope Corridor work of TLC. 3 — Total project cost including projected park development, Includes funding from Durham County, Triangle Land Conservancy, Eno River Association, two State grants and one Federal grant. Orange County cost = $89,000 4 - Upper end of cost range used for estimates. Totals are rounded. 12 III. Sources of Funding As we explore potential collaboration on joint funding for parks, it might be useful to consider the variety of funding sources that either currently exist or could exist in the future. A more complete listing of funding sources may be found in the 1999 JMRP report. A. CIP's Each of the local governments in Orange County has a long -term capital plan, often known as a Capital Improvement Plan or Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Each CIP contains the local government's 5 -year or 10 -year plan for expending funds for capital projects, including parks and recreation facilities. The principal advantage of using CIP's as a funding source for joint parks funding is that each government has a capital plan that is generally similar in method and process. However, there ,are some differences in timing of. the different CIP's that would need to be addressed in order to develop a joint funding plan. The 1999 JMRP report suggested "synchronizing" CIP's, to ensure that sufficient funds are available at the appropriate time for joint parks projects. Current schedules for Town and County CIP's may be found as Appendix 4. B. General Obligation GO Bonds Three of the four local governments have passed bonds for parks and recreation in the past 22 years. However, only Chapel Hill (1996) and Orange County (1997) have bond funds available now. Carrboro's bond was in 1978. General obligation bonds require. voter approval, but also require approval of the Local Government Commission. C. Installment Purchase Financing Installment financing is another option available to local governments, where an annual amount is financed each year toward land .purchases or facility development. Installment Purchase (also termed private placement funding) is financing secured through a bank. This type of financing does not require voting approval. 13 D. Grants A number of grant programs exist to provide funding for parks at the State and Federal level. Additional detail on these programs may be found in the 1999 JMRP report — a brief summary of the programs is provided below: Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF): The Clean Water Management Trust Fund is a State trust fund designed to fund projects that protect water quality across the State. With a semi- annual grant cycle, the Trust Fund has $30 million this fiscal year and $40 million in FY 2001 -2002 to assist with projects for acquisition and protection /restoration of water supplies. Acquiring land for parks (particularly parks with a low- impact recreation theme) are one means of protecting water quality. The CWM Trust Fund has funded several projects in Orange County in recent years, awarding grants for the watershed protection through the preservation of open space to Chapel Hill, OWASA, Hillsborough and Orange County (twice), most recently for the joint Orange County/Durham County Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF): The Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is another State trust fund set up in 1996 and administered by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources through a Board of Trustees. The PARTF grant program assists local governments with parks purchases and facility. development. The maximum grant amount is $250,000, with a $1:$1 local match. PART has awarded two grants in Orange County during its existence — one to Hillsborough for the Occoneechee Mountain Park with M.C. Division of Parks, and most recently to Orange County and Durham County for the Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a Federal fund administered through the National Parks Service and channeled through the N.C. Department of Environment and Resource Conservation. The LWCF was established in 1964 to provide funds for the purchase of public lands for open space and outdoor recreation. Legislation in Congress this session would have allocated $900 million annually in offshore oil and gas revenues to LWCF, with approximately $43 million of that for North Carolina grant programs. However, compromise legislation recently approved has greatly lowered that amount. Orange County was awarded a grant of $262,000 this year for Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. Trails Funding: There are other funds that provide money for parks acquisition and development that have not been listed here, such as the National Trails Program, which is administered through the NC DENR and provides funds for trails open to the public. E. Pay -As- You -Go Pay -as- you -go revenues are non -debt revenue. For Orange County and the school systems, these revenues are comprised of one -half cent sales taxes, earmarked property tax revenue, and Public School Building Funds. 14 F. Oran a Coun School Park Reserve Fund cent In the early- 1990's, the County established a capital's to nsq The fund cur en ly on the tax rate for �� c taxlratekand stands at $2.57 million. receives 1/3 cent oft County In the last 18 months, fostered by the work of the Schools/Land ado emo ands Councils, the County, Towns and es school desire to systems co-locate, where feasible and of understanding that addr appropriate, future schools and park sites. To clarify the use of the School /Park Reserve Fund, the Board SPRC t Commissioners address in May of 1999 appointed a School /Park Reserve Committee (includin criteria guidelines and criteria for use of the The SPRC 7� 1999, and provides and guidelines) were adopted by the BO CC on for additional flexibility in use of the funds and changes in allocation of future revenues. In general, the guidelines provide for the following uses of the fund: deemed appropriate, the fund may be used on a $1:$1 matching basis When arks needs to assist Towns in meeting p The land in question must be owned .by a governmental entity before funds are committed The fund should not be used for parks design or parks planning, unless the funds are used to complete the project tapped for facility development_ Accumulated interest in the fund may be tape needs not addressed through bonds or other means. The existing funds ($2.24 million at that time) should be ined'for future land acquisition, with bond funds and other sources development. e school /park co- location need not be readily To provide flexibility, th apparent at the time of acquisition. Each iction has provisions in its development ordinances for the dedication 7 of land for recreation and open space via new development. 'In 9 eneral, the Town of Chapel Hill has provisions for recreation an open by new dedications for new projects. Land dedicated o developments meats may be used for recreation and open space uses, as agreed to by the developer and approved by the Town Council. 15 Orange County and Carrboro have recreation and open space dedication provisions in their respective ordinances. The County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro also have an alternative to land dedication where dedication is not desired or warranted. In these cases, a payment -in -lieu of dedication is allowed. To date, the following money has been raised from this funding source: ✓ Carrboro - $ 574,000 ✓ Chapel Hill - $ 611,000 ✓ Orange County- $ 603,000 In the 1999 JMRP report, a number of problems were outlined with the existing payment -in -lieu programs. While the payment -in -lieu program has raised money for parks projects, the amount has often been insufficient to provide for needed recreation land or facilities. Principal among the limitations of payment -in -lieu cited in the JMRP report were: • Payment -in -lieu is not intended to fund facilities of countywide significance • Fees must be geographically earmarked and spent within the area • Time limitations • Fees must be supplemented with matching funds for use H. Potential for Im act Fees Orange County has special legislation allowing impact fees to be levied on new development for a variety of purposes. Specifically, the County may "provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by developers to help defray the cost of the County constructing certain capital improvements ". These improvements include "the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets, schools, bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, or and off - street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities." Currently, the only impact fees enacted under this legislation are for public school facilities in both school systems. However, as shown above, the legislation also provides for impact fees for open space, greenways and recreation. The potential for application of a recreation and open space impact fee was examined in 1996. In order to implement such a fee, the County (and the Towns) would need to 1) establish a current baseline of parks and open space provision, 2) develop a schedule of parks needs over a specified timeframe (20 years has been suggested), and 3) identify a clear expectation of the cost of those recreation and open space needs. This cost might then be extrapolated to a cost per new dwelling unit and collected along with the public school impact fees at the time a building permit is issued for new residential units. 16 The 1999 JMRP report recommended that the new Inter - Governmental Parks Work Group explore establishment of an impact fee or tax. IV. Orange County Lands. Legacy Program Both the 1997 Coordination report and the 1999 JMRP report note the role that the County could play as a lead entity in coordinating future parks and recreation land acquisitions. As noted in the 1999 report, if the County and Towns wish to pursue joint capital funding for parks, a vehicle now exists at the County level to provide for coordinated parkland acquisitions. On April 4, 2000, the Orange County Commissioners adopted a new voluntary program designed to provide for a comprehensive approach to the conservation of priority resource lands in the County. The Lands Legacy program has five areas of emphasis: 1. Parkland (active and low - impact) 2. Natural areas and wildlife habitat 3. Prime Farmland 4. Cultural resource lands (containing historic, archaeological or visual sites of significance) watersheds 5. Riparian buffers in water supply The Lands Legacy approach uses a GIS ""comprehensive resource databe�i to evaluate ; and prioritize critical resource lands, and also includes evaluate lands for each of the resource variables listed above. Funding for Lands Legacy acquisitions comes from a Lands Legacy fund in the Orange County CIP, bond funds, and aggressive pursuit of outside grant sources. The Lands Legacy program was developed concurrent with the completion of the JMRP report. With this in mind, the program is designed to function countywide, if desired, to facilitate conservation of important resource lands. Management structures were explored that could, in the long -term, be of a joint County /town nature. As discussed in the JMRP report, the County's role as lead entity for parkland acquisitions for all local governments could become operational through: the methods described above for synchronizing capital funding sources, and • the Annual Action Plan program for Lands Legacy The 1999 JMRP report saw this program as a coordinating that the broader parkland acquisition by both County and Towns definition of parks in the report brings the inter - relationship between natural resources and recreation facilities into focus: 17 "...Many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and recreation are intertwined. Since the County's resources are located in all quadrants of the County, irrespective of planning jurisdiction, the program offers an opportunity for coordinated acquisition with the Towns and OWASA. " The 1999 JMRP report saw a direct relationship between this program and the immediate need to begin land- banking for future parks. This relationship was later strengthened by the incorporation of parkland evaluation criteria from the JMRP report into the adopted Lands Legacy program. There are two methods that Lands Legacy uses to consider ,parks and resource conservation acquisitions: the Annual Action Plan and inquiries made by landowners. Examples of both exist in the acquisitions and work of Lands Legacy to date. Each fall, an Annual Action Plan for the upcoming fiscal year is compiled using initial guidance from the Board of Commissioners. Discussion for relevant program priority priorities by each of several advisory bo ards occurs categories (for example, the County's Recreation and Parks Advisory Council discusses and recommends priority projects for parkland acquisition in the coming fiscal year), followed by incorporation of the recommendations from advisory boards into a draft action plan. Plan concurre deliberation, the CiP process of Commissioners adopts the Annual Action in the spring. Both the 1997 and 1999 reports highlight the need to land -bank now for future park sites, in order to ensure that good park sites are acquired and to maximize local funding for parkland acquisition in a market with steadily- increasing land costs. The Lands Legacy program offers a means to accomplish this need. V. Capital Funding for Parks As the local governments explore methods of collaboration, there are several existing policies that support coordination and /or offer a framework for how joint efforts are pursued: First, as an overarching theme, the Schools and Land Use Councils' Memoranda of Agreement between the school systems and local -governments provides a precedent and a basis for collaboration among local governments and schools. The Agreements call for coordination in the siting and development of public facilities, exploring opportunities for co- locating parks with school sites and other public facilities when new facilities are planned. It In addition to the Memoranda, there are other policies and frameworks of note: 1. in adopting the JMRP report recommendations (revised) in May of this year, the County Commissioners noted that the appropriate focus for joint parks collaboration is on larger -scale parks that can meet multiple needs and serve multiple jurisdictions. While recognizing the important role of "neighborhood" parks and smaller mini - parks, the Commissioners indicated interest in focusing joint efforts on community, district and regional parks (generally, parks of 25 acres or more that offer a wide variety of activities, including both active and low- impact recreation). 2. The County and both School Systems have agreed to a Capital Funding Policy that addresses coordination in selecting and acquiring new school sites. The potential for co- location of schools and parks has been widely - recognized as a goal worth pursuing. Consistency between the School Capital Funding Policy and a joint parks capital funding agreement would be very important. A. Observations Three reports have been produced in the past four years on coordinating parks and recreation in the County and Towns. In reviewing these reports, and the current status of parks and recreation funding, the following. observations are offered on directions in which we could collectively move in future years. Through these reports and the joint work of the schools and local governments, many positive actions have occurred, a few of which are: 1. The sharing of information on parks projects (current and future) that has occurred through the 1999 JMRP report, and will occur in the future with the new Inter - Governmental Parks Work Group. 2. Orange County's Lands Legacy program, which offers opportunities to use this shared information to jointly identify and plan for future parks that serve both Town and County populations. 3. Substantial progress in the co- location of schools and parks in the future Regarding the relationship between the local governments on parks planning and development, as well as the current and future roles of the Towns and the County, we offer the following thoughts: 1. The Towns, with many competing resource needs, are challenged to find funding to operate and maintain their parks. As a result, the Towns have limited opportunities to provide capital funding for new parks that may serve Town residents - and residents beyond the Town boundaries. 19 2. The County in 1997 passed a bond referendum that addressed amixture sof County and Town needs, both in terms of active recreation (playing programmable facilities) and low- impact recreation (walking and hiking trails, picnic areas, etc.). 3. However, even with this bond referendum, pointed up bybeen he 1999 JMRP address Town and County parkland needs report, such as the need for one or two district /regional scale parks that can serve the whole County. 4. To make these and other park needs reality, the a a larger to take the lead in identifying and funding new parks that serve l populations in both urban and rural areas. 5. While many potential park sites have been lost the the areas systems to Towns, there remain opportunities for the Towns and collaborate on co- locating needed school and park. sites. 6. As shown in Table E on page 11, there are $63 million of park needs that have been identified, with little money programmed for parkland acquisition and /or facility development. VI. Map with General Areas of Consensus for Parks Needs Whether for identified but unfunded parks, or new park opportunities, a general consensus is desirable on where joint parks projects are needed. As previously noted, these joint park projects would generally ue larger hat par would prom de (community tinge district and regional scale parks of 25 acres an p) of recreation offerings that serve both rural and urban opportunities o Maui would be e map that illustrates both existing parks and new valuable tool for planning and identifying collaborative park projects. Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County each have anat onpte d parks plan in place. Orange County will be updating its ill is Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2001. Master n of Chapel HThe currently undertaking its first Parks and Recreation report is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2001. To pave the way for collaborative park efforts, a countywide d p of developed conceptual park needs (a "Conceptual Future Park tip would illustrate conceptually (via a agreed to by each elected board. "bubble" approach): 1. Current Town and County park facilities 2. The general locationsis an identified joint park� 3. Projects where there need, and collaboration on park acquisition and development is warranted. ao As a starting point, the initial Conceptual Future Park report. s Cap co to such a generated using existing plans and the 1999 7MRP ma p would be an important first step in identifying parks needs and prioritizing opportunities for collaboration. f as suggested in the 1997 and 1999 reports, the County isato play a to I , g9 coordinating role in future parkland lacquisitions, i t next year, with the County's incorporating this Map into policies u date to its Master Recreation and Parks Element of theon omprehensive Plan. report and the 1999 p suggested in both the 1997 Coord This possibility was ]MRP report. In this scenario, the County Master Rc eatati needs, nd ark l Element would be expanded to address Town parks and re between Town and County parks, and the inter - relationships between Town and County parks systems (for both active and low- impact recreation). Vzx. Where Do We Go From Here: Conclusions The p ositive activities of the past four years in parks coordination e County tolmakeg have enabled Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough an 9 progress in several key areas: We have moved forward from the 1997 coordinations report, needs and funding inventory of facilities and a much clearer understanding parks mechanisms We now have a process for coordinated land acquisitions that can be use Countywide in the Lands Legacy program. We have an Inter - Governmental Parks Work Group prepared for an initial meeting in November, to ensure sharing of information and exploration of opportunities for joint projects. l for action, including recognition of the We have been able to identify key p rincipes need to acquire good park sites now before they are gone. The need for facility development and the specific facility needs are more clearly - defined. chool The local governments and school systems are nt to m maximize opportunities to co- and park siting, via the Memoranda of Agreeme , locate compatible public facilities. In the 1997 and 1999 reports, a clear consensus Wig „gadmaao ole Orange funds gas best poised to provide a coordinating mechanism acquisition and development” for larger joint parks. ► At the same Of time while we have learned a great deal about of .cue ant state of parks and recreation and our needs, we as local governments ac pressing challenges in the years to com e 21 • The Towns face a continuing challenge to fund capital land acquisition and facility development for new parks, while still providing adequate operation and maintenance of existing parks. ds for all jurisdictions There are substantial identified parks nee — totaling $63 million in all — but available funding for only 114 of these needs • The need to coordinate quickly on funding for land acquisition is immediate, as land is not getting cheaper and good park sites disappear each year. The 1999 JMRP report calls for a parks and open space bond referendum to land - bank for future park needs and address the deficit of parkland at the present. The Town of Chapel Hill has identified a number of concerns regarding the level of County contribution to Town parks and recreation operating budget, the location of facilities based on contribution, and the need for individual jurisdiction parks standards (please see Appendix 6 for additional information). With the substantial knowledge gained from the work of the past five years, the Managers would jointly suggest consideration of the following steps to address current and future needs: 1. Develop and Adopt a Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Towns on Capital Funding for ]oint Parks Projects From the many findings from the reports of the. last flue years, we have learned that: There is a deficit of parkland in the County, as identified in the 1999 JMRP • report, and $47 million in identified parks projects are currently unfunded, • There is an immediate need for begin land- banking for parks, to ensure adequate sites for future park needs, Orange County has the greatest opportunity to raise funds countywide for parks needs, and the 1997 County Parks bonds illustrate a precedent for a County bond serving rural and Town needs, The Towns are limited in their ability to raise capital funding for new, large parks needs, but have a longstanding experience in operation and maintenance of parks. If Orange County's optimal role in joint parks projects is oriented toward capital funding, land acquisition and facility development, and the Towns optimal role is in operation, programming and maintenance, a mechanism to address how these roles will be fulfilled may be needed. If the County and Towns are interested in pursuing an arrangement along these lines, a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) may be desirable. This Memorandum could address: The nature of joint parks to which the Memorandum is applicable (larger - scale park endeavors to serve all residents, for example), 22 The method in which joint park projects a identified and agreed upon (the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan, for example), The County's role in capital funding, acquisition and facility development for joint parks The Town's role in operation and maintenance of joint parks The means of programming for joint parks projects, and The inter - relationship and coordhaSchoolshCapital Funding policy, and Memoranda of Agreement and the Other topics as needed Z. Create and Adopt "Conceptual Future Park Sites Map" projects In support of the proposed MoA, a consensus could be identified through should be developed. Potential joint projects the Inter - Governmental Parks Work Group and land acquisition Action Plan t o sued through the County's Lands Legacy Program Annual address short -term and long -term joint land acquisitions. Once yebndtified, the general location and nature of these joint parks projects ►� showing g reflected on the proposed "'Conceptual rFa Future d Sites reviewed and both joint and local parks plans. T P adopted by each elected board as the "plan" for joint parks projects. To incorporate the map into County and Town policy, it m bethen with incorporated into the existing parks plans of each jurisdiction may the individual jurisdiction plan. This process is similar to that used for the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. 3. Develop Plans for a Parks and open Space Bond Almost $47 million of unfunded parks needs acili adevelopment. ur jurisdictions bond in the County, both for land acquisition taddress parks needs in the County. referendum has been suggested The County oun and Town elected boards may wish to discuss this n ode snd arrive at a mutually- agreeable timetable for a bond referendu t� other funding options. i Appendices Appendix 1 CIP and Parks Project Funding Information from each 3urisdiction Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix b 23 Town of Chapel Hill Supplemental Information Executive Summary —1999 3MRP report Comparison of CIP Schedule - All 3urisdictions Memoranda of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning (Schools /Land Use Councils) Chapel Hill Town Manager Memorandum (8/28/00) Appendix 1 CIP and Parks Project Funding Information from Each Jurisdiction 13 J"i. r,= Project Costs Chapel Hill Park Projects Efland Cheeks Park Equipment and Fairview Park New Hope Creek Other Park Projects Human Services Center Parkland & Recreation Facilities Trianele SnortsgleX Total recreation an Parks Project Costs ORANGE COUNTY Summary Recreation and Parks 2000 -10 Capital Investment Plan 2005 -06 2005 -06 Through Through Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total $2,000,000 $0 so-L- $0 $o $o $0 $2,000,000 $858,690. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $858,690 $85,050 $11,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $50,000 $250,000 $501,050 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $75,000 $15,000 $o $0 $o $o $0 $90,000 $2,000,000 $1,070,560 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $3,070,560 $110,000 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,000 $155,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $955,000 $2,100,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $300,000 $o $4,000,000 $7,458,740 151,521,560 $535,000 $485,000 I $540,000 $450,000 $750,000 11 $11,740,300 2005 -06 Through Through Funding Sources 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total CIP Pay -As- You -Go Funds $2;453,300 $436,000 $535,000 $485,000 5540,000 $450,000 $750,000 $5,649,300 Bond funds S4,929,440 $1,070,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 Grant Funds $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0- $0 Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $76,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,000 Total Recreation and Parks Funding Sources $7,458,740 I $1,521,560 $535,000 ,5485,000 $540,000 $450,000 $750,000 $11,740,300 Projects Chapel Hill Park 2005 -06 Through Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total Project Costs Land /Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Desi ;n $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Construction $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0• 0 $2,000,000 Total Casts $2,000,000 s0 s0 s0 so s0 $0 52,000,000 Funding Sources Stales Tax $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bond Funds $2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2,000,000 Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Fees $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Total Funding - ,82,000,000 SD so. s0 s0 s0 $0 $2,000,000 Project Description Proceeds from the Recreation and Parks bond provide $3 million for the purchase of parkland and $3 million to develop park facilities. Of this total, $2 million was designated for two parks in Chapel Hill — the Northern Chapel Hill Community Park and the Southern Chapel Hill Community Park. This project provides for the payment of these funds to the Town of Chapel Hill. I I 1 I Efland Cheeks Community- School Park Project Description Originally opened in 1992, this park was built in coordination with the Efland Cheeks Community Center and Efland Cheeks Elementary School. Located adjacent to the school, the original phase of this project included picnic areas and a children's playground. Currently, phase two of this park is occurring. Planned improvements in the second phase include walking, fitness and nature trails, available for community and school use. In addition, activity areas for sports such as basketball and soccer are planned for this second phase. A picnic shelter is also planned. This phase, funded mainly with 1997 park bond funds, is scheduled for completion by summer 2000. Annual operating costs for this park are estimated at $15,000 including maintenance and gate personnel, maintenance supplies and utilities. The Recreation and Parks's annual operating budget for fiscal year 2000 -01 will reflect the increased operational costs for the park. 2005 -06 Through Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 .2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total Project Costs Land/Building $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Design $140,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 $140,390 Construction $713,300 0 0 0 0 0 $713,300 Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Total (�bsts $858,690 $0 $Q $0 $0 $0 $0 $858,690 Funding Sources Sales Tax $28,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,250 Bond Funds $819,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 $819,440 Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Fees $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $11,000 Total Funding $858,690 $0 $0 . $0' $0 $0 $0 $858,690 Project Description Originally opened in 1992, this park was built in coordination with the Efland Cheeks Community Center and Efland Cheeks Elementary School. Located adjacent to the school, the original phase of this project included picnic areas and a children's playground. Currently, phase two of this park is occurring. Planned improvements in the second phase include walking, fitness and nature trails, available for community and school use. In addition, activity areas for sports such as basketball and soccer are planned for this second phase. A picnic shelter is also planned. This phase, funded mainly with 1997 park bond funds, is scheduled for completion by summer 2000. Annual operating costs for this park are estimated at $15,000 including maintenance and gate personnel, maintenance supplies and utilities. The Recreation and Parks's annual operating budget for fiscal year 2000 -01 will reflect the increased operational costs for the park. Equipment_ and Vehicles, - Recreation and Parks 2005 -0b Through - Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total . Project Costs Land/Building $0 'SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $85,050 $11,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 50,000 250,000 $501,050 ® Total Costs 585,050 $11,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $50,000 $250,000 $501,050 Funding Sources Sales Tax $85,050 $11,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $50,000 $250,000 $501,050 Bond Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - $0 Fees $0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Total Funding $85,050 $11,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $50,000 $250,000 $501,050 Project Description This project .provides funds to purchase vehicles and major equipment for the Recreation and Parks department., During fiscal year 2000 -01 the department will replace aged equipment including ball field maintenance items. Beginning to fiscal year 2000 -01, staff will explore options of purchasing Low Emission Vehicles (LEV's). The cost difference of LEV's and present vehicles is unclear at this time. The number of vehicles that can be replaced is dependent upon the cost difference. The impact on operating budgets is dependent upon the types of vehicles purchased in the future. ` Future years' capital allocations provide funds to continue scheduled equipment and vehicle replacements and purchases. Fairview Park Project Costs Land /Building Design Construction Other Total Costs )Funding Sources Sales Tax Bond Funds Private Placement Grant Funds Fees Other Total Funding Through 1999 -00 2005 -06 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 Through 2004 -p5 2009 -10 Total $o $o $o $Q $0 0 0 $75,000 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 $75,000 so so so $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 0 0 $o $0 0 0 0 $0 0 Q 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 so so $0 0 $75,000 s0 $0 50 Project Description $0 0 $0 $0 $o p 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $75,000 o $o so $o $o $75,000 $0 0 $0 $0 $75,000 0 0 0 $0 . 0. 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $o 0 $0 so so $0 $75,000 In October 1987, the County developed using opened this park located in the Fairview community. Community Development with play apparatus, picnic areas Block Grant funds. .It provides surrounding , and benches. The park was g neighborhoods The park was developed on an old landfill that the County acquired geotechnical evaluation is currently being conducted to determine the extent Before fit develop 9 d from the Town p Hillsborough, q further ment of the park, staff recommends that the evaluation d depth of the landfill. Board receive a report from the engineers staff rec of the evaluation before the end of the 1999 -00 fiscal yearentia! uses of the land, be completed and the Staff.anticipates results I New Hope Creek Corridor -` 2005 -06 Through Through F 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2003 -05 2009 -10 Total IProject Costs Land/Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Construction $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $75,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 $90,000 Totat costs $75,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 590,000 Funding Sources Sales Tax $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Bond Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0. Fees $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $55,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 $70,000 Total Funding $75,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Project Description This project provides subdivision payment -in -lieu funds to preserve land along New Hope Creek in Orange County. In February 1992, Orange County adopted the "New Hope Corridor Space Master Plan ". The master plan proposed creating a wildlife habitat including hiking and biking trails along atwenty- three mile protected corridor from rural Orange County to Jordan Lake. Jointly 'funded by Orange and Durham Counties, Town of Chapel Hill, City of Durham, and various private donors, this effort is coordinated through the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC). TLC is currently working with landowners in both counties regarding donating and selling land or easements to fulfill the master plan. Orange County's Recreation and Parks Department and Planning Depart ment will work with TLC in developing an annual work plan and strategy for acquiring land. �. The im p act .of this project on future operating budgets will be developed as land is acquired.fL.i� Other Park Projects (Bonds) Through 2005 -06 1999-00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 Through 2009 Project Costs -10 Total Land/Building $2,000,000 $1,070,560 $0 Design $0 p Construction 0 $0 0 $0 p $0 $0 $3,070,5( $0 0 Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Total Costs $1,070,560 $2,000,000 0 0 0 0 1 $ $0 $0 $0 $D $0 ,53,070,56 Funding Sources Sales Tax $0 $0 Bond Funds $2,000,000 1,070560 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 , Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0 $( Grant Funds 0 p 0 0 $3,070,56( $0 Fees 0 0 0 0 0 $( Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $( $( Total Funding S2,000,000 000,000 $1,070,560 ' 0 0 0 0 $C $o $o so $o $0 $3,070,560 Project Description Proceeds from the 1997 Parks Bond provide $3 million for the purchase of parkland and $3 million to develop park facilities. A work group consisting of representatives from Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro is in the process of updating and revising the Master Recreation and Park plan that was originally adopted in 1988, Recommendations from this group will identify community and large district park sites -,.t are conveniently located and easily accessible to all county residents. E h fiscal year 1999 -00, a portion of the bond funds have been used for construction of the second Bk. *he Efland Cheeks Community and School Park and for the purchase of land adjacent to the oft 'man Services Center. Additional detail on these two projects is located on the individual 7 this document. 'rd of Commissioners has pledged $2 million to the Town of Chapel Hill for Southern park and the Chapel Hill Northern Community Park. Each park is designated to e (see Chapel Hill Parks Projects located in the Recreation and Parks section of Park at Northern Human Services Center ` 2005 -06 Through Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total Project Costs Land/Building $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0, $0 $110,000. Design $0 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 $80,000 Construction $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0' $0 Total Costs $1101000 $0 $80,000 so $0 $0 $0. $190,000 Funding Sources Sales Tax $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 Bond Funds $110,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $110,000 Private Placement $0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 $0 Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Fees $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0. Other $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 iTotal Funding $110,000 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ,5190,000 Project Description In May 1998, the County purchased forty acres of property adjacent to the Northern Human Services Center in Cedar Grove. Funding for the purchase came from proceeds from the 1997 Parks and Recreation Bonds. Development plans for the park are anticipated to be part of the revised Master Recreation and Park plan that is currently being updated. Funds allocated in fiscal year 2001 -02 provide for a feasibility study for the park. Parkland and recreation, Facilities Project Costs Land /Building Design Construction Other Total Cos {s Funding Sources Sales Tax Bond Funds Private Placement Grant Funds Fees Other Total Funding $155,000 $25,000 525,000 550,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $955,000 $145,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 0 2005 -06 0 0 Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 Through 0 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $155,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 $955,000 $155,000 $25,000 525,000 550,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $955,000 $145,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 0 $10,000 0 0 $155,000 525,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $945,000 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $o 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $10,000 550,000 5100,000 5100,000 $500,000 $955,000 Project Description This pay -as- you -go project provides funds for improving and repairing existing parks and recreation facilities. Possible uses of these monies include replacing aged playground equipment or replacing protective ground covers in play areas. Allocations for specific future projects will be based on departmental and community needs. Examples of improvements funded from this project in prior years include: Northern Human ,Services Center - Resurface play areas with protective covering and replace broken playground equipment Whitted Human Services Center - Resurfacing the walking track located at the rear of the Whitted Human Services Center. As new parks come on -line, staff anticipates the need for playground and facility maintenance to increase in the future. Triangle Sportsplex 2005 -06 Through _ 'Through 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2009 -10 Total Project Costs Land/Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Construction Other $0 $2,100,000 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 300,000 0 $4,000,000 Total Costs $2,100,.000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 ,$300,000 $0 $4,000,000 Funding Sources Sales Tax $2,100,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,0000 $300,000 $00 $4,000,000 Bond Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Private Placement $0 0 p . 0 0 0 0 $0 Grant Funds $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Fees $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Other $0 0 Total Fundinga $2,100,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $300,000 $0 . 54,000,000 Project Description The Sportsplex activity center, located in the Meadowlands Business Park near I -85 and N.C. Highway 86 interchange in Hillsborough, opened in April 1995. The activity center includes an indoor swimming pool facility along with an ice rink, fitness center, community meeting rooms, sports shop, and a snack bar. Pursuant to an operational agreement between the County and the Sportsplex, Orange County will provide the activity center with a.total of $4,000,000 over a ten -year period (annual installments of $400,000 each). In return, Sportsplex staff consults the County in the programming of the pool facility. In addition, the Board of County Commissioners appoints one less than a majority of the Sportsplex. Because Orange County does not operate the facility, there is.no significant impact on the County's operating budget. rp tro ws ero 0 C n R MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Stancil FROM: Kathryn Spatz RE: Planned Chapel Hill Capital Projects DATE: July 19, 2000 This is in response to the recent meeting regarding planned parks and recreation projects in various jurisdictions, including Chapel Hill. The following is a narrative list of projects, funded and unfounded in Chapel Hill. Homestead Park/Proposed Aquatics Facility: The Board of County Commissioners agreed to provide $145,000 toward completion of the Chapel Hill Skate Park at Homestead Park. Funds were used to construct the restroom /concession building and to extend utilities to the site. Utilities were extended in a manner that could allow easy accessibility for the proposed aquatics center, if that facility is constructed. This leaves $855,000 remaining of the $1 million originally committed to Homestead Park by the County. Margaret Brown was appointed by the Commissioners to serve as the County representative on the Homestead Park Aquatic /Community Center Conceptual Plan Committee. We anticipate that approximately $1.2 million of the Town's 1996 Parks bonds will remain after completion of Homestead Park. If the balance of both Town and County bond funds were combined we would have approximately $2 million for any future project. We believe this is well short of the funding necessary to design and construct a quality aquatic /community center. We are not far enough along in the planning stage of this project to provide cost estimates. However, our consultants have noted that regional figures for aquatic facility construction range from $150 to $200 per square foot. Our experience has shown that, in the past several years, our construction costs tend to be on the high end (or beyond) of most standard ranges. Based on an assumption that an aquatics facility could occupy up to 15,000 square feet of a 30,000 square foot facility, we would assume that the design and construction of this proposed building could cost approximately $4 -6 million, not allowing for inflation. Southern Community Park: The County has provided $105,000 for the lighting and irrigation of the athletic playing field at Scroggs Elementary School. The remaining $895,000 committed by the County is the only current funding anticipated for the Southern Community Park project. In September 1998 the Council forwarded a suggested timeline for a bond sale to the County Commissioners. The timeline included $100,000 in 1999 for the conceptual design phase of the project. I am aware that the County Commissioners have recently approved the use of up to $50,000 for developing a master plan for the park, Although we have not started a conceptual plan process for the Southern Community Park, we believe that our experience at Homestead Park can be a guide in estimating the cost of this project. We estimate that $4 to $5 million may be a realistic estimate for complete buildout of the site. This assumes that the site would be used primarily for playing fields. Any buildings- -other than picnic shelters, concession stands or restrooms (which would require extending water and sewer lines to the site)- - and major roadwork would significantly increase this rough estimate. Renovating Existing Facilities: Renovations of the Hargraves Center and Community Center are essential. While renovation is often not as exciting as new construction, these buildings are currently the backbone of recreation opportunities in Chapel Hill. The Town recently contracted with a consultant to examine Town facilities and formulate cost estimates for necessary repairs. The consultant's report places total renovation costs for. Hargraves at $416,000. This includes maintenance deficiencies of $173,000 at the Hargraves building and $243,000 for the A.D. Clark Pool, including bath house and mechanical room repairs. The $416,000 figure represents about 18% of the replacement value of the facilities. Unfortunately the consultant did not visit the Community Center on Estes Drive this fall. The consultants working on the building assessments are scheduled to review the Community Centerlater this month. The budget for the assessment project was increased by the Town Council, so that all Town buildings not yet studied will be surveyed this summer and estimates developed of the costs of repair and renovations. For each. Estimates for repair and renovation of the Community Center are based on Public Works staff input. We believe that maintenance needs are probably in the range of $580,000. This figure would not address important items — chiefly air conditioning and adequate ventilation- -that were not included in the original design. The Center's ventilation system is extremely poor. Humidity and lack of sufficient circulation have led to substantial corrosion and rust of mechanical and electrical systems throughout the building. Major problem areas include the roof and gym floor. The replacement value of the Community Center at $125 per square foot is about $2.9 million. Twenty percent of replacement value is approximately $580,000. The figures listed above for Hargraves and the Community Center represent hard costs for construction. They do not include project development and construction management and contingency. Public Works' staff suggests that another 1520% should be added to reflect total costs. Booker Creek Linear Park: This project is proposed to include a, trail and park in the area between Franklin Street and Elliott Road and along Booker Creek. We have applied for an enhancement grant this spring through the NCDOT for the Linear Park project. The cost projection for the entire project is approximately $500,000. If the State grant is not secured we would have to find some other source of funding for this project. Lover Booker Creek Greenway: In June the Council awarded the project to the low bidder for approximately $500,000. State and local funds will cover a large portion of the cost. The recreation requirement of a planned development in the area will also contribute. Dry Creek Greenway: We expect to have sufficient funds to complete the sections from East Chapel Hill High School to Perry Creek Road. However, we do not have any fiends identified. for the sections that would link the Eastowne and New Hope Commons areas with the trail. We face unique challenges due to some wet conditions that could drive up costs. Very preliminary cost estimates place completion of this project at around $750,000 - $800,000, not counting land acquisition. Bolin Creek Greenway: We are interested in a joint planning exercise with OWASA to engineer the best possible solution to both replace the Bolin Creek interceptor sewer upstream of Airport, Road as well as designing an extension of the Bolin Creek Trail that would link the current trail to Urnstead Park and beyond to the Carrboro line. This is probably the most challenging section of greenway trail identified in the Town's Master Plan. Engineering costs. are likely to be around $100,000- 150,000. Construction costs are likely to approach $1,000,000. The trail could be built in phases. Morgan Creek Greenway: This trail would eventually extend the existing Fan Branch (Southern Village) Trail under Culbreth Road, over Morgan Creek and on to Smith Level Road. Portions of the trail are likely to be important if access to Merritt Pasture is to be secured. We have a commitment for $100,000 from the Southern Village developer, however costs for the project are likely to range from $400,000 to $750,000 depending on the scope. of improvements. A possible first phase may be identified once the Merritt Pasture Access. Committee finishes its work. Land Acquisition: It is important to note that the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan YVork Group Report seems to suggest that airy future County bond referendum be used to purchase land for open space and future recreation needs (land banking). We could work with the county to identify and purchase at least one more large tract of land suitable for active recreation before the last opportunities are gone. We believe that any such purchase could likely serve open space and greenways needs as well. One immediate joint project that may be possible is the purchase of land between Erwin Road and New Hope Commons. We have a $200,000 Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant that could be combined with County funds to purchase several properties north of I- 40. These properties could serve as an important trail link as well as a possible park site. Another possible site is the American Legion property. Below, please find a comprehensive chart listing all projects named in this memorandum. POTENTIAL PROJECT (includine design) Homestead Park Aquatics Center Southern Commuxut Park ESTIMATED RANGE $4 - 6,000,000 $4 - 5,000,000 EXISTING TOWN FUNDS $1,200,000 -0- EXISTING COUNTY FUNDS $845,000 $895,000 Hargraves Center Renovations $500,000 $50,000 -0- Community Center Renovations $696,000 — 1,200,000 -0- -0- Booker.Creek Linear Park' $250,000- 500,000 $2,000 -0- Lower Booker Creek Trail $618,000- 768,000 $468,000 -0- Bolin Creek Trail (Phase III) 3 $350,00041,150,000 -0= -.0- Dry Creek Trail (Phase 11 & III) $750,000- 800,000 -0- -0- Morgan Creek Trail (Phase I ) $400,000- 750,000 $100,000 -0- Open Space Acquisition 5 Unknown -0- 1. The upper end of the range would include non - maintenance items such as improved ventilation, expansion of locker rooms, air - conditioning, and a new foyer. 2. The lower range. would represent the smallest portion of the overall project that could result in significant improvements. This would allow extension of the trail including a new bridge over Booker Creek. 3. This project could be split into a number of phases. 4. This project could be done in at least 2 phases. 5. We have no basis for estimating ultimate land acquisition costs. These costs are ultimately parcel specific. I trust this addresses the items raised in Mayor Waldorf 's email. We would be pleased to assist should you need additional information regarding parks and recreation projects and projected deeds. 0 i ON 1�t+ ti.en C O y 0 o v°Oi as N w 1 � a O C mw D 0 O G'J Q a+ b CD rw CD o co w ro ro a cn e a- co do O -- M A � c co C a CD 0 • n ro a a -i � as aq 1n o .d a- co A ;% In zi- �o ' co o eQb•� C, Q A '. a. A =L, CA CD a n m p^ C 4 A w p 6�,q Off' Uq w c„b N EA Qq ro o C !C O o C CD u CD 0 IfQ t j o .. 0 0 A ro rn ° coo [n Fe o:�A w tzro w `^d 0 �_ C � p � ' •O•� r c o CD o co a vac o b� CD ° co ce n, C-0 n aq ao w N MW H �, d oaa. EA cp CD CD f9 fND C CD cy . r+ w• ��►Cnz � C m w CO rt w � co n O O O LA CD N —CD. EL n qQ CD r+�S' ••� 0 m o� a y CD � m A O o �? a W -4, M RD y C n cp 09 3 (3 h Z, a ee M i w in CS .: :T p A Ca 0 o ro UQ CD EL 1 a b'n•.. upi M CO > td �- A• y '° a: ° rL zs y 0 or h 0, CD CN y msa, A @ •n rov CD . n n co a sy o n R y a o a !4 w O Uq p O [/� N N ti O c9 Co co w H �Q A�9 x�a nL q EA 10 g CD ro o? co rn CD CD °, ro Q Co y, > `Z s CD a d Ate? � Cp CD z y z long tfs 'V 0 1w.1 0 . l�•/I b U+1 z to 1 , c m o L- o 0 Mcl b p y vOi C�V .v.CD CD C..1' � U) 4rry V2 0 n C p cn O C:) W m� .a D. Q n O Co no no r J .�,..t. Q �• " y m R m�co rywp O O Z M o? ry�p' m Ci °� "[•�sJ O � InO p �• � w y D 'hi a P. C y' co p cr CD 't Qy'OG G' 8 �:y O ►C a. y gym_ CD 5'w_ n p. zs. rn 7.. p• N y. CO)- C4 .1 `i �' p m �. Cd C9 C9 N z n tn�. UO N O R. C. CD ❑ o ro �, •ty t=- y O `wG f`1 O r] Z p A7�+ �[ oO N O m "G 'a c; fC O' n c d-+ gO`9y'd O 6' UC A �• ro • z 0 tt y n O ro O ig tn. C ID Q a- d ' `�+ a S. a " " `N OQ a° t-^y4 a� go F �n r. A r(" N O O N H O ' y f�' C a CD 5 m 7 0 ,� � D A7 Vii• .n., R � 49 � n N h .�, N � ° �• n �' '� � mss' .., cn ,Y� G ' • � � " '� n rE FA•ya'o•Rr' $ c $ S e m o ��• G. tti L3 CD R 0. c C]• ^'�1 R b05, v r�•F W R ,'r�Y r ° H a- t,.Q •[� ny W W Cc, r„ O C �'i pt p� `�7CC 5• O •� 7. C [n u a 9 Km rn E'i ran a 0. •p' CL _ � �_ � C �• O n " ' y. co pip R. IA �' m a CR CA � �•��•� � sag ��•c] q. to 3 a ^m ¢ � e w N r r eL CP Nu u �+ r G' W r r r w to ' N+. N N N O (/ N M N N �•! Y D M N N N r Y 0 Ja � �g5� Qti�y � y1 �O� ��J � �• � IM d � �ZSwib � w r r N CD CD a �. y •� .p° 4 uR ta CD R G (� m .O°•. 79 S• c � ° N C �, O � CJ' �,: � �° y H •d �• O p� u a 9 Km rn E'i ran a 0. •p' CL _ � �_ � C �• O n " ' y. co pip R. IA �' m a CR CA � �•��•� � sag ��•c] q. to 3 a ^m ¢ � e w N r r eL CP Nu u �+ r G' W r r r w to ' N+. N N N O (/ N M N N �•! Y D M N N N r Y 0 Ja � �g5� Qti�y � y1 �O� ��J � �• � IM d � �ZSwib � w r r N fD ro y n c� a$� � C H• n 'S a � O n ro y •n' m � o R .. uR a � O n ro y •n' m � o R .. 'P CL "O G "ri In to W. rod q. • W 0. QpQ O 2. O p, 'd rO p 0� O ~ G ro p r r`i a o ro a coo "� R [p 'Fy p' L p 9 :' 7 pad (9� co C6 0 Cpp� Cb w•• r. Q in Q Yj p !7 (L CD N '+C � N p h OR C w 9, rt a W c gr c : � w o, vp 1_ C D K+ 4 C -, R p`� � ^ 0 CL K, � o "d •�i D CD G. E. crt9 'a ' y O 0 w C t7 ti .D•. 7, n i'o D G n ; C CD �' in • CD Q q ;:3 H ro a w 'Q C' (p R 0 O p-0 5' _ n d �i ro ~ d 0 co o OR O b. a. rp N O CO W D o oz N rt q S. o �. w Fe' � D •+f �p [T D p ptr�, • p e ..� CL co CL •'1 � W . w. p rt n w S 3 P C D O rm a, w '.0 rye O m n d K CD w b. .nom-. = p�q _ t9 H .7�iG' C9 P at D fGP C�Ib .qj�. �° p, n ta 'D co P' cl n 0.G y! N d- W �- O pG�' Q f, R 0- n O N yC p �� .O .d r D r�p C O CR vi�a•+�, rx „py c rower can n =• 0 F ,��o ern , CD a B m '°n CV o o err. o WFll m 0 Or E .nom-. .�. CL tr IZI :03 Er CD 10 A A dpi c a P PA M-4 � �e�xw�Ca r a ac.O -� �yy C7 p O rte 1pe ° d M N N r r r � � �1 pM N N �qQ` } ♦ p N y � W y � «p p� ��� N�Mc ,� rrrr�Mo a NyrW =w� �• w ° � -a � '° -� � W � gip^ M Vii N O � M �", L1 •Ix �p � O G w � N � h en N o w P g g g w � N � h en N o w P va �a' t �-•• w y 4 �' rn r. sa ,i, r+ d ro _� a �! `e CD CD 04 w w C ro n d cv d w w d q n cD [�' m ' ° w cOOn O d A c"�c cw9 Q CD 7C "C7 m O a ei ., w two �°". r, :tr g ro b. H C. e n R y w ro_ m 0 O °, .gyp, ti m • ' yp� ! yW_ N... N �.. O p+ a ero �y �. ro ^� ° co r. "�' m. _ �. G c 0 . 64 ° n.'t3 n •�1°• R C n. O CI �' wi � n. y � '� � 5• e�p l9 a p O' W � [c R G' Coo � as-cro c �' a. b.5 ° »gym �bCO co go 0 S a. m � m °� c c. ern o n ^+� c ° � a4 0 m' ?: ^rr °' a, a r: n c ° �*' c \ 5' }'-� ° m a CO y'17 y °14 x `(9� 4X Qp O g 7 db-.. '��• �.' a W � .wCS' ,mom. C'•. �-1 n• �• � � � pq Q 6 �' � G CID 5* zi, cl? R 0 9 3 k , i p Or R N i1t l' W �.s' p- � w y IN P. CIP a ND E.-0 -0 d va ro ..� 0 C H n 04 ._. N ° w r. AD .. .. ^° C a a � �nyrnn n n � �•i• -] r r a d a, 0 a g h• 0 V co a ro co V d to (7�WEr co D) N_ w eo O co e0 cn a• C. c �+ N ` w ED to oo . r�°. D �. fn 5' G• w ca CQ ..".� g� C. CD r [9 OR �5 ro p a, p w S o ^o c.n E* pr° y�aCrQ n �6 C m ro O n 7 n n ifP'o mC[�•7Q 2 r. 2.on c°. ..py� C C a a � �nyrnn n n � �•i• -] r r a a° VQ rr y y� ~ w r r W CD u ri: w J w r w m co 'R n_ C~9 5 n_ C~9 5 w ?:, c croa n H CO ' p .7h y o H f1.� x '? o ;r1 is �• n C CD C o to •i? Z`' R ... C �. ° m v 7 ro �' 4 a w F n �" ro ce rn n0' -n• o �' ti n w Z3 C rao c� "'� v ry O- C c° p, nq <° ' °' °• a d n f° .. H ptipa� v' C o [� C• q. rte. m p ~j o O � d G a ', w CD b Jam' •A► p y ,' G n M 'C �ipGq [� O Lh O pi o =y- CGam. .O�• .+ O• R''C7- n h a C" O $ .7•� FD es C H co 5 ��'. c• �•`C �• h -q .°,� O �, a h ! .-+ ° �' 'd 'C .q n• CL C ty 'Cy ti �0 '.%. °� H ?: o H ° ° ��C •a • c cs o c G " :: " ��°n, p• a, a CD co ~ y n p• Fi.Oy. h `-' '� " `° .� ry c b pro• Lo a`3 ro �R a+5 Cr y ...tip n n p, ro Dr `�' ^;� a -°� tea°_. Kyb! y a 2 "e x � �R 00 51 - ro n i° .-�. ca U7 o m �I p, rya 0, S` c ro K CD E. °, a c as n o "� c °�' � M •a �' y o g u, o. v, ro ro C o p •n rn° n ro G 0 ^r en"u cv cn p ,F; •• C y H q. r .. x eon � �� ° .. •o w CA CD 0 cl, h, W yrj (] O O Q a ry A O 00 �+ to p .°r p �'_ y co f° "J' O p q. Sr F C 0. e~'n ti R O p N O R co w ^C o n � 'q Qom• ° C D O � � � .� F �• Qn" O ov R.r�•Q;CD n O p ace �-t9 CA Os �• � � � :: � �' � • 3 �, as N• rW� o a n 0 O� d t3• C3 O G. a <' avi � CD O cCc co 0 •n• � Yni � � � • � �, W C°•�5 d'5••n'Q ° $ N ' W 'D o x � ro H ro a `Ci O a p, a 5 C ro K K w � � 'o �' ro ri m ty e f - m _ _ n 'S7 C � W �y pR�i 5 0. � p, �' y !• �• P _ co 5R []• •� 0 O O d4 C CL, CD CD a ro C n � ego F; = 9i a: X G O O. C ' 4 co' O R O H O G a pn w R ro ry y yi G y w ra �' K `Q,q '* +"ter O C G w n ca a C4 m cw Cal �' a of ro�.�y ° �OiC N. a n na pppp ; pQ n �t" vM•a w H OR Im y� P d � W M W pp M 1 ° W w W Lp W N Lpp W M v A U M P 9 ir r r r L G ¢¢ P 0 M O p C } e�� rrlrr y wWr�aw� .y u u$� 9b os Eft Y25.ob 77 �O7 Q (7 0 �n ry O cc a ro C O y a ro C ��C 5D 5ro � r C ft �0 5.za E� 105='C = w p c° �w 00 uwa5ow��.°,�N� ' G cr •D N 9C" r"s• w �.... t^ rDr m ►r% R t�9 R R G ��' G `vii co D m ro �i, �' .a h. a' tea' 5 5. *tl c- c a N CD =- ° ""' � Er. Fr (��co y .. 5 '� a. w ps �, e e a�a7 '°3 •'"•• .0 @•.� y N ~ w Ea ^Di• dG p e> .°-. ,^-i '~�' ra (p C "' `C G rn^ A. ' C �. O CA R R .Dyr b o o°a 3 e oR. cone m' cbn a " .°u ro 5 w " ° rs ,� va -e gyp ° n �, g o ° � 5. a ° m � � ' .. K w N (9 Ly C rw.. %�= 'y Ej- d j �• rNr 5' h] Fy °- ,� 5' p? ro R N '° o �, 'p°p :' tT a w 1 CD w '° ° CP SC w S7' �' o-d'7 A P+ "L7 M 7 R w g, fti n .� ry "...I' . w b y w ro. y c CA .n. rt Q9D, h•�� •a'y p ro C. 'N"'��^ Q� �,rt '° ��.w C. Hw CO rro W SRC `S Z; e�oj (7 „0 ' �s r" D ro° N �° _ G A. ° n 7S w R w a p C �•-' W b~ [e O nLu� 5'"" ro ° "b ° ° Sro pmt c M - 0s=co 'LS C.: n C !� C7 D ml .y ro ro R . w �y {7, w a• `{ C n [N tIR a 9 n D „Cy "y n w „ah fb �' Vw' y '�.."1 C' C�9 .n .N.. N C. [p P• ci [C (G7 '•' G ^. .Q'r• .�, c O a- N q eSO .. '" �` CD is G ° r °• °' ° b cl, ct IF t ea Flor E� G a M M C n N o `�[ ry Ov' S9 N . w o'er H LQ 5•� u a �.° - x.•� V roMa °�`b'vM o g5p`��•� tro m tP L?. a ST c (! t7 .o r b f7 t� M C x F F'7 C el W C. ° ^ @• ,f HH� 02� o t,�q C •' a te` Fi O w A t3. QQ n 0o ra '! y� a �• n Ste• aO O uq � n -O R � �• D a � .0 � r CCy � Cb r ^ � •C r �•qE p � Rm...• O a � Q � � '"� C � y , �4 "� � � Y F7 y' ate• 'ZJ CD CD m 19 CD rC G• e ; nd � 2 w + 5 n a .n S ph , o ;3 g r r g E s E E co CD CD CD CD w� Im m LA y -, ' � c m• � � rr � �^ a � � o a ��. 'I tv . w n td m t^C G' D �• " C p' G b D N O n ;; � � m• r1 N r• . a'1 r W r N N N r N �..� a 5 w . �y- rr MrrQ rr r n W re_ O° S Sr. tq w � � w 0 `d O C ' w b f7 ' N a M C d a n ro G IV a'[7 O rte. `M n = =' �.ySJ �. E' ro e g n C 'v w -n 51 a Cr ar E r1 C] d cn p� m � °D 0. b 10 ^. G�4 Y h cm. O A. N �. C7 '� O� G h O O to h 0 W � fp . '�'• q A �n O m Ctl ti p O _cn 'C ' N UO (n � b o n '21 h 'rC �.= a �. laa ©9 5'crrt w 5 co r°, 5 ry c co'n-ro ° ° e°o �•w c `�' a 0 eo �, ,E o c a 5 c m o 5 Cc, a� o R. o °- o �1 iv rx• w `° c a 5 °• CD "ys a H� o m d p�� ° y x '� ° a H 0 9 n. �o cp h .ah •`: c �w5> Ana ogfD cm to cdx.n��e�"'� CL co C-P U) ED a. va o o w c w 0 �a p5� n `-= `" •n° «. ry a �a �. .a a• 'b CO �• O CS• ►my 4 04 "O+� f�D EL . .7 G_ � ~ � • ,.wry C"TD CCD ^� y 7R � `7' L. In 54 - ,;ate �,�• r,cyc�D oS�QO'5oo�''sop.o 9�°- '-"'y� It CL CL � n 6 O •b t. cn co Q. = .b,, ° v a. C CD 10 CD 9 CL El a w �' h 5 a. a kb b c 5 5' _ cm G R' �r w CD CD n co a 1510, N5'O go c 5 CD cr co b' rL Cy �. 9 ° c c 4E fC O CD Q. w 0 a o wJQ o m 5' •� C ov er � "y1 O C' N L R a l7 � 1 O C N tp M 3 E Z. A _ ca —o fn MAO cc a Fyn t4,lr •' 1� K. � h � . n w n ° � s M N N rr r r ee M6e W W W rr r r G _O�i C41 W pVp+ a Qr � M Q a n o r� m C C0x 4 tl Pa a w=pb a.O rw u p�� w � P�pnMQ C. Oa i.a° P. �i .O �OO� •O L.a �pp•ppp q�� Q m o W w. Q re w H ro N ro' 2 � y �. ro H p hlw m NI 4 p O W w. Q re w H ro N ro' 2 � y �. ro H p hlw m NI 0 '13 R0.0 p•�p'.roy �. 'C a ro ci co ro C R CE 1 m m G m ro v— w 7 4. C ti •••� .. y G �• O �n � av a to 9-2 !� C•'fl ' G ro G •'{y G w O f+p � b r n R c° c 0 h 0 � p oa . a ° ' 0 0 o zr m p 14 ri ° a coq w O n f7 6 H D p Q d D0 .%D�.` �` "CI �• .. D H t • > t-o ° �.• p .rT roy n'L3 rCn r. �a "' n m C p y a Er CrR CD p e C n �• ..j "0 � r� `' C. �a• "° y ., 5 m wig a D a+ a. o M St V. W n N OC Ci '� Q� tms R' m � v' 0 m ro•. 10 1 x e 5mm . al enoi, w. ° y, ran qn po n `c 5 m p °7 . va 'r°r� m r n 5� a O ra rrt • • .G+ R D ��. N rte.. y d '"; C O � UQ O '� n • ~ m �g ' p p g roC n G c°' CG G 5 tv a G rC 7 i A a w C p , M. ro {p ti 'E 'C7 n [� Ua to ro ti n es "C •2' m w h p w •�' „R � � q�q � i• b � � p �9 �' i�. � � C P � � �'.• •may �w Mg. n� r N � o � w w. •''� NM NNM M u:� r r - p r N N N, . � M pip .p pn © p� w •� w �.1 ti..l w o v v O z � x C n ¢ N W r7 q N M K' r l y • MM W � C" 4• O•r ea wQM V Oy �'• M O V Q DD m ^7 Y D• p "C cwe [• p 0 G 8 0 15 -0 r, ^• .� ...' m �' � w .�5• 5 co C to Q m • 7 C' G tv D t'a'i - CD y C? D a w. Q a G "7 •d rp ,E R7 . ^ A ro 6-1 •+ � via � �• ro N ,�. a• ,�. �' � W O .b ,� � � fai 5 C S p. M pq G• "pp77h ,••,•• rip S a• fi •, a G W D m_ p • C W �n �° : O ���g.�� 'o� ia.. L�"i is Co N 'CP m A. O d y w? w 0, o 5 N m o ro ca. ° m omww �, rs• C .� e m ryA cp CD �7 y� trr N w D G D y•� � ti m N G CD -J N n m ~ ~ co h 5 p� c •�' „R � � q�q � i• b � � p �9 �' i�. � � C P � � �'.• •may �w Mg. n� r N � o � w w. •''� NM NNM M u:� r r - p r N N N, . � M pip .p pn © p� w •� w �.1 ti..l w o v v O z � x C n ¢ N W r7 q N M K' r l y • MM W � C" 4• O•r ea wQM V Oy �'• M O V Q DD m ^7 Y n 5•n5op°i�•o'�•e,0 ^• .� ...' m �' � w .�5• 5 co cb cc in !nom pm� 7 0 00 �• � � «- • 7 C' G tv w g Q `• m QO ro 6-1 •+ � via � �• ro N y .. d 0a .a.., Yom. • 7 [C �. t�,p C S p. M pq G• "pp77h ,••,•• rip S a• fi •, a G W D m_ p a�• N co ii" � � .�{,�,• yes y � "'f � � � N CL C1. ° C� ••yy w •+ m "S r'q • C y •Li • .y W L�"i is Co N 'CP Ln .» m •�' „R � � q�q � i• b � � p �9 �' i�. � � C P � � �'.• •may �w Mg. n� r N � o � w w. •''� NM NNM M u:� r r - p r N N N, . � M pip .p pn © p� w •� w �.1 ti..l w o v v O z � x C n ¢ N W r7 q N M K' r l y • MM W � C" 4• O•r ea wQM V Oy �'• M O V Q DD m ^7 Y 5 m w � w g Q 5 m n m 0 C m O d a 0 h a a n1 (b N .c ro O K ❑ � N CD '� J7 � .ny p7 rL co 0 v� a' b � � [n N % ❑ cp CD C ❑ O ro a ro r c� rL C y 4 f9 CD C OF av @ "a a. o w C c ro CL .❑y N co co 14 o m C° Q o rn rz I tz "� � ,� � Q ❑ w ra A d ~ p�j C R :A --,7G-c70 y w•n 7 0 CO M D3 C�9 R � �v H rr CCn M D L Ci W .7 i ~C 7 ' po HH C- CrP A• Y M m y. •a �`9 cp y n A N N N A Nom- � OON a n � o�x q < r d . H O J ~ i M � o Sy n i7 ra �i r M rq Y 0 5' j 0 b `" CD rQ C7 a n 7�s'G•,r ar'� 4 6 ct �y CD CO w W co tI!• K .ryp- � Q CA e. O N 61 0 y. 0 � 'e7 pp t-• CS ga, C9 H `� H 9 �r�•b "RP 91 -ben ro �9 Y E.1 �$'� i �e Em g A c a r $06 11- a.�� ��e" .� cLq��'� a8 �n S 5n C� 6 Ot, m 0 10 4 N b ~ N r r r V N M rr r r r r G V �p FS H V � IA b ip ~ r a � � r r M M r �Mpp r M r N 1, r r r eNj N N L7 A n� M Cx. b X N n m a 'A *a Q y N y •� t9 p h p •�i � � m 0 rp ❑ N O D r7 ! w 6•pr Cp w W � M b ❑ R t w o «nom•. �• p m G w `C cs P m C❑9• 5❑. C�'D o. go.'C °D .'� to b QQ 0 5' j 0 b `" CD rQ C7 a n 7�s'G•,r ar'� 4 6 ct �y CD CO w W co tI!• K .ryp- � Q CA e. O N 61 0 y. 0 � 'e7 pp t-• CS ga, C9 H `� H 9 �r�•b "RP 91 -ben ro �9 Y E.1 �$'� i �e Em g A c a r $06 11- a.�� ��e" .� cLq��'� a8 �n S 5n C� 6 Ot, m 0 10 4 N b ~ N r r r V N M rr r r r r G V �p FS H V � IA b ip ~ r a � � r r M M r �Mpp r M r N 1, r r r eNj N N L7 A n� M Cx. b X N n m Q y N y •� t9 !!'w''7�� N ❑ N O D r7 � M w o 0 5' j 0 b `" CD rQ C7 a n 7�s'G•,r ar'� 4 6 ct �y CD CO w W co tI!• K .ryp- � Q CA e. O N 61 0 y. 0 � 'e7 pp t-• CS ga, C9 H `� H 9 �r�•b "RP 91 -ben ro �9 Y E.1 �$'� i �e Em g A c a r $06 11- a.�� ��e" .� cLq��'� a8 �n S 5n C� 6 Ot, m 0 10 4 N b ~ N r r r V N M rr r r r r G V �p FS H V � IA b ip ~ r a � � r r M M r �Mpp r M r N 1, r r r eNj N N L7 A n� M Cx. b X N n m Sumramaiy of Capital Projects — FYI999 -2000 through FY2004- -05 The Town, due to limited resources over the next five years, must prioritize the capital needs identified in the Capital Improvement Program that was submitted to the Board on November 4, 1999. The following projects remain unfunded over the next five years: $ 797,635 $ 25,000 $ 4,855,315 $ 3,242,671 $ 72,114 $ 76,643 $ 2,9.97,952 $ 769,341 $ 362,398 m $3,788 ' 688 $6, 59,307 $23,347,064 Fire Department Renovations Fiber Optic Cabling — Seed money for long -range plan Outdoor Swimming Pool Town Hall Renovations Sculpture Project Tree Planting Project Greenways Local Road Improvements Playground Equipment Gymnasium Northern Community Park TOTAL UNFUNDED Several projects have been modified in scope until future revenue streams can be identified. The projects and their funded scope include: Smith Middle School -- Funded initial phase of athletic field construction. Town has submitted draft of formal joint arrangement with the schools and is awaiting its return. Small Park (Hillsborough Road) — Land purchase and design study for future development of the park (in the event that grant funding or other funding becomes available) Public Works Facility — Land purchase only Sidewalks -- At Board direction, sidewalk funding includes contribution to Hannah St. sidewalk and funds for a sidewalk on Autumn Drive when a connector road is built Bikeways — Entire project funded; increased intergovernmental. shareanticipated for Roberson Place bikepath project Town Parking Lots -- Purchase of one parking lot versus three requested 08/02/2000 09:53 9196442390 i-1 � p LO cv V.�- Q cm 6ci T N H} `C) ujW io�- 4 co CL PLAN & ENGIN PAGE 02 HILLSBOROUGH O LO cv V.�- Q cm 6ci T N H} N io�- co PLAN & ENGIN PAGE 02 HILLSBOROUGH i 4 O LO cv V.�- N io�- i 4 CL .Q= }`YF /Lo '�A� A )��Vij /� + V/ _ O 2 2 � � ca) a �q c U- C CQ < U 2 V +�+� •� Ci- i 4 Appendix 2 Town of Chapel Hill Supplemental Information PRIORITIES FOR SELECTING CIP PROJECTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING Priority #1: Projects that have a Council mandate. Priority 92: Projects that we have a legal requirement to perform or complete. Priority #3: Projects for which we have a binding contractual agreement. Priority #4:. Projects that would repair or maintain existing Town T facilities /infrastructure above and beyond ordinary maintenance. Priority #S: Projects involving public safety. Priority #6: Projects which are part of an adopted master plan. Priority #7: Other projects. u Recommended funding through the Capital Repair and Maintenance Fund in 2000 -2005 is as follows: MSCAL YEAR F oject PARKS AND RECREATION AND GREENWAYS 'i r Re- 1 11 Priority I Project PW1 -6 -00 Sidewalk/Bicycle Facilities 1 100,0001 100,0001 125,000 125,000 125,000 50,000 625,000 1 G Constrict sidewalk and bicycle facilities at locations to be selected by the Council, PRG -1 -00 Small Park Ivlaintenance Projects 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 60,000 360.000 1 M Repair and replace equipment at Town parks. 487,000 PRG -2 -00 Greenwa s ** 1 93,000 95,000 97,0001 100,0001 102,0001 0 1 E lnr lenient 1998 Greenways Master Plan following priorities set by the Council, PRG -3 -00 Community Center Renovations 1 30,000 40,000 SBA0 75,000 75,000 U 278,000 4 N1 Reline pool, replace sliding roof with freed roof, replace gyrn floor; install ventilation system in '1'111, replace gym divider, renovate locker rooms and rebuild retaillin 9 IvallS. PRG -4 -00 Hargraves Center Renovations 33.0001 66,0001 66,0001 66.0001 66,0001 U 297,000 4 1 1vt Renovate attic floofing, ceilings, plasierti le, winelows, so It, lighting and drains. Add acoustic panels. PRG -5 -00 A.D. Clark Pool and Bathhouse Rehabilitation 30,000 60,000 60,000 60,0001 60,000 0 270,000 4 M Renovate bathhouse and pool. PRG -6 -00 Tennis Court Reconstruction 60,000 60,000 .60,000 0 U U 180,000 4 M Reconstruct /renovate courts at Ephesus, Cedar Falls, Hargraves, and Phillips Parks. TOTAL 1 396,000 _471,0001 516,0001 501,0001 503,0001 110,000 2,497,000 Key: M = Maintenance "'Includes revenues from cell tower leases. Funding reduced by $12,000 /year pending resolution of issues concerning Cleland Ave. pole site. I = Improvement E = Expansion. Items to he financed by 10 year installment plan. Total estimated renovation cost is $1,355,000. 2000 -2005 CIP Proposed Funding CAPITAL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE FUND - UNFUNDED PROJECT'S 7/19/00 Priority Projc FISCAL YEARS 0 -2005 Numbers T p Project � PARK RECREATION SAND CREATION AND,: GREE S Number PRG -6 -00 $allfield Im rovements 160,000 over two years, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03, 4 I Description: Reconstruct ba/lfields #1 and #2 at Cedar Falls Park. Repaving Parking Lots at T40,000 PRG -7 -00 Recreational Facilities in 2000 -01. 4 M Description: Repave Hargraves Park and Parks & Recreation Administrative Building parking lots. PRG -8 -00 Culbreth Park Playground 35,000 in 2000 -01. 7 E Description: Build playground structure. PRG -9 -00 Umstead Park 25,000 in 2000 -01. 7 T Description: Add poured-in-place resilient surface to eeistin play structure. . Amounts are estimates, es Key: M = Maintenance/ I = Improvement / E = Expansion 5 Reconlmended funding through bond funds in 2000 -2005 is as follows: Funding Schedule Adopted by Town Council PROJECTS BY BOND CATEGORY BOND PROJECTS Funding Phase I (1997 -98 & 1998 -99) Funding Phase II (1999 -00 & 2000 -01) Funding Phase III (2001 -02 & 2002 -03) TOTAL 1996 Streets & 3. Sidewalks /Bikeways 200,000 200,000 100,000 500,000 1996 Open Space & Greenwa s 1. Open S ace /Greenways 265,000 1,550,000 1,185,000 3,000,000 1996 Parks and Recreation 1. Northern Community Park 3,260,000 0 0 3,260,000 2. Hargraves Gym 425,000. 0 0 425,000 3. Northern Community. Center /Pool 0 0 1,315,000 1,315,000 TOTALS: 4,149,0001 1,7509000 2,600,000. 8,500,000 Recommended funding through grunt /other funds in 2000 -2005 is as follows: Appendix 3 Executive Summary 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP) Report Executive Summary Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group June 11, 1999 ntroductio On November 19, 1997, the Board of Commissioners created a Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. The Work Group was developed to follow up on two reports: a 1996 Assembly of Governments report "Recreation and Parks Issues in Orange County, NC ", and a May 1997 report entitled "Coordination of Parks and Recreation Services for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County" developed by the area Managers. The charge to the Work Group was to: "update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long - range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill... " Although not listed in the charge, Town of Hillsborough and OWASA representatives participated in the work group effort. In accomplishing this task the Work Group was asked to address the following topics: D An update of recreational facilities countywide An update of local recreation and parks needs Develop standards for park facilities and design Joint siting, design and management of school and park sites Tangible and realistic parkland acquisition goals Reassess payment -in -lieu of dedication programs (and service area boundaries for programs) Dedication provisions for greenways in the Joint Planning Area The Work Group began on December 17, 1997. The group met monthly over the next 17 months (including six months of additional subcommittee work) to Produce a report. While the Work Group reviewing a great deal of research and discussed a wide variety of topics, a summary of the report may best be considered in the following six topical categories: 1. Wh re Are We Now? In evaluating the status of recreation and parks in the County, the Work Group created two committees. The Resource Inventory Committee .worked during the spring and summer of 1998 to develop a template for tracking all existing recreational facilities, and discuss a map or brochure to convey these facilities to the public. The inventory of facilities (including quasi- public and private "fee - based" locations) is included as Appendix C to the report. The inventory would be maintained for future use, and contains information on the type of activities available at each location. The Needs Assessment Committee met during the spring and summer of 1998 to update recreation and parks needs from each jurisdiction. These needs are found on pages 4-7 of the report, and run the gamut from active recreation facilities to community parks, greenways and 'glow- impact" recreation. In summary, the primary needs Identified for each iurisdicdon were: Carrboro Acquire/develop Northern Community Park, community gymnasium Chapel Hill Complete Northern Community Park, Southern Community Park Hillsboroucih River Walk Fairview Park Occoneechee Park Orange County Complete Efland- Cheeks Park, Northern Human Services Center Park, acquire parkland in Binaham /L"ittle River Twps An evaluation of previous bonds and projects constructed with those monies is also provided on pages 7 -10 of the document. A summary of needs appears on page 19. The Work Group discussed the concept of a Countywide set of standards , for facilities and park design. The development of a common set of standards was recognized as important, but because of time considerations was deferred by the Work Group. Recommendation B on page 35 addresses this topic. Z. Where DoMejeo FroM Here With knowledge of needs and facilities, the Work Group then turned its attention to future concerns. One such area was a set of goals and criteria for future land acquisition and facility sitings. In general, the goals and criteria (pages 12 -14) encourage joint siting of schools and parks, preservation of resources in conjunction with parks development, awareness of environmentally- sensitive lands, the existence of matching funds, considering the intensity of use, and locations for linear parks. The work of the Schools and Land Use Councils was recognized as an important piece of the recreation picture, and the idea of joint management of school and park sites (as well as possible joint acquisition) is a theme throughout the report. One topic that the report notes regards impediments to locating new active recreation facilities. These impediments exist primarily in the context of lighting, intensity, traff=ic and noise. In defining both active and low- impact recreation, it is important to be consistent with surrounding land uses. Ideas on ways to mitigate the impacts of larger active facilities include co- location of schools and parks, combining active and low- impact recreation in larger park settings to buffer residential areas, and the need for a proactive land .acquisition program to purchase lands for long -term use as parks (and /or schools), The potential for coordinating parks planning exists . beyond the scope of the local governments involved in this effort. In particular, the report notes the significant potential for coordination with UNC, OWASA and Duke University in meeting long -term needs of mutual interest. While UNC provides many facilities used by students (and local residents), there is also an undefined impact on local recreation facilities from faculty and staff of the University. Programs such as the Carolina Outdoor Recreation Center offer a means for sharing resources, and the Potential exists for collaboration on future recreational facilities with UNC. Likewise, OWASA currently provides recreation facilities at both University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA holds over 3,000 acres of land in the County, some of which appears to offer the opportunity for coordinated recreational use. A memo from the OWASA Board (Appendix F) indicates a willingness to discuss certain parcels for future public use. And finally, Duke Forest also provides a recreational resource to County- citizens. While concerns about protecting the integrity of the forest resources will be paramount, opportunities exist to work with Duke in the future, particularly in terns of carefully - located trails that fit with the University's plans. 3. Ad uate Prov'si of arkland and Natural Corridors One of the most. prominent needs identified is. to preserve green corridors, whether in an urban or rural setting. This section of the report addresses the potential for. linking some existing and proposed greenway networks. in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to future parks and regional open space such as Eno River State Park and Duke Forest The importance of existing and future greenways in the Towns is noted, as well as the existence of a schematic plan for greenways extending from the Chapel Hill / Carrboro area into the Rural Buffer, developed in 1986 as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Wildlife corridors in the rural areas were introduced into County planning efforts through the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat, and are important to the overall County and regional ecosystem as part of the "green infrastructure." These corridors are undeveloped riparian stream corridors or overland connectors that exist in a natural state. Any trails would exist only as they have evolved over time by use of wildlife or humans. However, as the County and Towns continue to grow, it will become important to link Town parks to regional corridors such as Eno River State Park, nodes of open space such as Duke Forest, and future County parks and open space. Linking future rural parks and open space to Town parks via a few unpaved trails could greatly expand low - impact recreational opportunities. The identification of strategic corridors that might tie together these recreation facilities is suggested as a practical long -term goal. Using criteria ' and a classification scheme, the potential for a select few woodland trails as part of a Countywide (and eventually) regional corridor scheme is noted. Three examples of such trail links are offered (two within the Towns or Rural Buffer, one in the rural areas linking Cane Creek and Eno River State Park) are offered. A. Coordinated Laind Acgulsition hr Parks The 1996 and 1997 reports point to the need for coordinated capital funding, and this is one of the goals of this project. In discussing parks needs and goals, the Work Group placed a strong emphasis on the need to begin land acquisition for long -term park needs now. Orange County has taken steps in 1999 to create a mechanism that could be used in this fashion. The new Department of Environment and Resource Conservation began operation on January .4, with a primary focus on acquisition /easements of critical land resources. A Land Acquisition Program for Orange County is currently being developed for discussion in the fall of 1999. This pro gram will develop and /or, use inventories, criteria and a management structure for the acquisition and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to the public interest, working with other existing land trusts and entities. The program will involve the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat, farmland, riparian buffers, 'and the. acquisition of lands for long -term parks use. The County is hiring a Land Resources Conservation Manager, with expertise in site evaluation, and land acquisition this summer. This position will coordinate land acquisition efforts, and would use the criteria developed in the Master Recreation and Parks effort to evaluate land purchases for parks (please see the Recommendations section for additional details). The outline of the Land Resource Acquisition Program may be found in the report on page 26. Funding for long -term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and allocations, and grants from programs such as the state Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. Information on this program is provided on pages 27 -28. S. Payment-min-Lieu Pr rams All of the jurisdictions in the County have provisions in 'their development ordinances addressing dedication or provision of recreation facilities. Carrboro and Orange County also have payment -in -lieu of dedication programs, which allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lofts in lieu of providing recreation facilities. Orange County has special legislation that would allow for the use of an impact fee for public uses including recreation, but this proviso has not been utilized to date. As of 1999, Carrboro has collected $453,000 through its payment -in -lieu Program.. Orange County currently has $488,000 available, allocated by four districts in which the money must be spent. The County. has also received land dedications totaling 44 acres since 1986, although this land is in small pieces exclusively in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships. The Work Group found that difficulties exist with the existing payment -in -lieu programs. The funds must be geographically earmarked and spent within the area collected. They must also be supplemented with matching funds for use. Considerable research was performed to explore programs in other jurisdictions, and a special meeting with Richard Ducker from the Institute of Government was held to review payment -in -lieu possibilities. A. ReCOmmendaLtions Using the research and deliberations of 17 months, and with the charge and goals of the project in mind, the Work Group developed nine recommendations, summarized as follows (these recommendations also appear on pages 34 -40). A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council As we move to coordinate long -term recreation and parks planning, the need for a permanent joint council (to meet quarterly) was identified, building on the useful nature of the Work Group itself. Possible duties might include: A Develop and review standards Develop future parks bond proposals Provide a coordinating mechanism for parks plan updates Make recommendations on allocations of future bond moneys Coordinate acquisitions though the County Land Resource Acquisition Program A resolution asking the local boards to create the Parks and Resource Lands Council is attached as Appendix L. B. Inter jurisdictona /.Standards As previously noted, impediments exist to the creation of common standards that could be used Countywide for recreation and parks facilities. If coordinated funding were pursued, the need for some coordinated standard would be important. The Parks and Resource Lands Council is recommended as a mechanism to accomplish this goal. C. Joint Siting, Design and Management of School and Park Sites Coordinating efforts and responsibilities with the Schools and Land Use Councils will be important, given the emphasis from both groups on the benefits of joint school /park development. As discussed in the section on land acquisition, it is recommended that Orange County, with dedicated staff resources, a program for land acquisition, and ,a role in school siting, should take the lead role. D. Public/Private Parfnerships One of the most exciting prospects is the potential for partnerships. Coordination between the local governments on future parks, such as a large district park between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill /Carrboro, will be paramount. Opportunities also exist with OWASA, and it is recommended that the Parks and Resource Lands Council work to identify properties for partnership and meet to explore these possibilities. Coordination with UNC on future parks also appears practical and should be pursued. While Duke Forest is a different type of recreational entity, it plays.an important role in the County's open space network and future discussion of less- sensitive portions of the Forest as links in the open space network should be pursued. Finally, opportunities for coordination with the state, other land trusts and private firms offer many possibilities for future needs. E. Joint Capital Facilities Planning / Coordinated Land Acquisition A meeting of the Managers of. each jurisdiction is recommended to develop a plan for coordinating long -term land acquisition. With land prices continuing to escalate and little land available for parks within the Town jurisdictions, action Is needed now to identify and acquire future park sites. Use of the individual Capital improvement Plans could be a fundamental part of this funding mechanism. By timing and matching fund availability, the Towns and County will be able to work together more effectively, with the County serving in a lead role in site identification and acquisition, working with the Parks and Resource lands Council and the individual elected boards. F. Open Facilities Policy In the spirit of inter - governmental coordination, the Work Group feels that all County citizens should have the opportunity to use facilities within the County, regardless of their jurisdiction of residence. Attempts to restrict use will be cumbersome administratively and not constructive in the collaborative future of parks planning. A resolution to this end for consideration by the elected boards is found as Appendix F. Pursuit of a similar policy with UNC and OWASA is recommended, as is a review of hours of operation at Cane Creek/University Lake. G. Payment in ! ieu Changes After considerable discussion and review, the Work Group finds that the existing payment -in -lieu programs are not likely to produce sufficient funds to meet long- term needs. It is recommended that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans to match other funding with the current payment -in -lieu funds to use these resources. Even with its limitations, the existing payment -in -lieu program should be kept and modified where possible. The potential for an impact fee or impact tax should be explored, using existing legislation. H. Address Existing Needs While more thorough standards are needed, a population -based standard from the 1996 Assembly -of Governments report was used to determine needs for parklands. Using this standard, the County as a whole has a current deficit of 645 acres of parkland. With expected population growth, this is County and Towns combined with have a deficit of 1,265 acres by the year 2025. Based on average land sales .(weighted for urban and rural lands) and existing bond funds, the cost of purchasing lands to erase the long -term deficit is $10.12 million in 1999. dollars. Since this will unquestionably rise in the future, the Work Group again recommends immediate action in terms of land acquisitions. I. Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs While it may be more practical to develop recreation facilities over time as the Population increases, a more - proactive approach to land acquisition is needed to identify and purchase sites that offer both active and low- impact recreation potential. Matching funds from the different jurisdictions (coordinated through the aforementioned joint capital funding mechanism) should be an. important component, and an acreage threshold and additional standards for joint school /park sites are also warranted. To address long -term needs, the Work Group recommends that the following actions occur: The remaining $2.89 million for land acquisition from the County parks bond should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long -term acquisition as soon as possible. The remainder of the $10 million in long -tern land acquisition should be addressed through an $8 million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000. The Parks and Resource lands Council should develop the specifics of the bond proposal. Appendix 4 Comparison of CIP Schedule — All Jurisdictions Comparison of Capital Investmentlimprovements Plan Timetables The Towns of Hillsborough and Carrboro do not have separate CIP submission timetables; both municipalities have the CIP and the annual operating budget process kick -off at the same time and requests are due at the same time. Appendix 5 Memoranda of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning (Schools /Land Use Councils) DRAFT I I (1 of 4) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING COORDINATED SITE AND FACILITY PLANK NG This agreement between the Orange County and Chapel Hiiillt Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel FMI, Carrboro and Misborough is intended to establish and implement a coordinated site and facility planning process for schools and compatible government facilities. The purpose of the coordinated planning process is to share information among the parties to the agreement; optimize the collocation and use of schools and other public facilities in a way that builds community, provides public services where they are most needed, assures the compatibility of collocated services, and efficiently uses public resources. This agreement recognizes the existence of two school districts - the Chapel IU- YCarrboro School District and the Orange County School District - and a Schools and Land Use Council for each district. Decisions on collocation of facilities in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District may involve the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education and any or all of the following units of local government: the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Canboro, and Orange County. Decisions on collocation of facilities in the Orange County School District may involve the Orange County -Board of Education and one, or both, of the following units of local government: the Town of FM'sborough and Orange County. Wherever possible, agreement/cooperation across school district lines shall be pursued. To further these goals, the Orange County and Chapel lily Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough do hereby agree to the following separate and shared responsibilities for coordinated facility plarming to the extent that it does not delay time critical construction of either school or government facilities. These statements of responsibilities are intended to be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations; where they are not, they are superseded by those applicable laws and regulations. Specifically, this agreement is not intended to supersede the statutory authority of either Board of .Education to select school sites or to build, maintain or .repair school- facilities or the other governing Boards to approve the amounts to be spent for sites and to determine the funds available for school and county or municipal facilities. This agreement does not supersede local government planning and zoning authority and/or land use planning and zoning requirements. I. The Orange County and/or Chapel Hdl/Canboro Boards of Education will: A Identify appropriate site criteria for public school facilities; and B. Identify interior and exterior space and exterior site requirements for school facilities; and C. Begin a planning process after the internal/external space needs for collocated facilities are determined; and 3 (2 of 4) D. Recommend school facility priorities, timetables for completion, and related funding needs; and E. Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, within the funding available for these activities; and F. Whenever possible, address joint collocation of facilities on each parcel of land being considered for development; and . G. Assign to the superintendent the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and other resources to participate in a joint facility planning process. H. When joint development (or cooperative development) of facilities are planned for a school site, the Governing Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough will, as appropriate and in their respective interests: A Identify appropriate site criteria for county and municipal government facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided; and B. Identify interior space and exterior site requirements for county or municipal government facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided; and C. Determine priorities, timetables for completion, and related funding requirements for county or municipal government facilities; and D. Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair of county or municipal government facilities; and E. Determine the funding available for school and county or municipal government facilities; and F. Assign to the County and/or Town Managers the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and other resources to participate in a coordinated facility planning process; and G. Whenever possible, address joint collocation of facilities on each parcel of land being considered for development. M. The Orange County and/or Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and/or Hillsborough will jointly: A. Identify opportunities for collocating compatible public facilities on sites, including facilities for schools, county government, municipal governments, state and federal government, and other public authorities providing complementary public services; and B. Develop master site-plans on which public facilities will be collocated; and (3 of 4) C. Determine the most appropriate means of relating various public services on sites, considering all program needs, and including opportunities for sharing spaces; and D. Designate a lead jurisdiction in designing common facilities and include other jurisdictions in design; and E. Determine the most appropriate and effective means coordinating the construction of shared facilities located on common sites; and F. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating maintenance of shared public facilities located on common sites; and G. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of scheduling and establishing fees for usage of any shared public facilities on common sites; and H. Determine the most appropriate and practical means of sharing operating costs for shared public facilities on common sites; and I. Determine the most appropriate and practical means of providing public ownership of sites and site improvements where public facilities are collocated. Public ownership of sites will be implemented in the following manner: 1. School sites will be owned in fee simple by the Orange County School Board and/or the Chapel Hill- Canboro City Schools Board or Orange County in those instances where the financing of the purchase of the site or the financing of the cost of the facilities on the site requires Orange County ownership. 2. Park sites will be owned in fee simple by the appropriate jurisdiction (i.e., County, town) unless otherwise agreed. A joint lease agreement will be signed between the appropriate parties setting forth the conditions of the joint use area and facilities. 'Language will be included in the agreement to address review and approval of joint use facilities and who bears the cost of installation/ construction and maintenance. IV. The Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough will, as appropriate, jointly develop any interlocal agreements or understandings needed to allow participation of other units of government in the collocation of public facilities. V. This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective upon approval by each governing board and school board. It shall remain in effect until terminated by all parties to it. A party may not withdraw from this agreement until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notices to the other parties within thirty (30) days of the Public hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective one (1) year following receipt by the other parties of the written notice. 'Withdrawal of one party shall not invalidate the Memorandum of Agreement with respect to the remaininj SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL FOR CHAPEL HI LL/CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF CARRBORO Ii8CH00UMMOADMS.DOC (4 of 4) parties. SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Appendix 6 Chapel Hill Town Manager Memorandum (8/28/00) ATTACHMENT 1 AGENDA #4f MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council . . FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager. SUBJECT: Proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group DATE:: August 28, 2000 The attached resolution would respond to a proposal from the Board of Orange County Commissioners to establish an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. The attached resolution would stipulate representation of both the Town's Parks. and Recreation. Commission and Greenways Commission, rather than one or the other. BACKGROUND After receiving comments from the Manager, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Greenways Commission regarding the Joint Master Plan Work Group Report, the Council adopted the Report as a general planning document at its April 10, 2000 meeting. At that time the Council, also adopted the following recommendations related to the report: • Adopt an Open Facilities Policy • Spend the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Parks land acquisition bonds for the purchase of park lands 'as soon as possible in order to maximize value of existing funds and options for selection of sites • Promote inter-jurisdictional work on joint siting, design, and management of school and park sites across jurisdictions • Pursue partnerships with groups such as OWASA and UNC in order to expand parks and recreation opportunities • Pursue opportunities for coordinated expenditures for land acquisition on a case -by- case basis until such time as the idea for more formalized coordination of land acquisition funds can be explored The Council's adopted April 10 resolution also recommends to the County that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations concerning the following issues: • Consider a proposed Inter- Governmental Task Force. • Examine the issue of adopting County -wide standards • investigate how to assure equitable distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions 2 Examine the level of County funding to support the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared to County's use of Town programs and facilities A copy of the resolution adopted by the Council on April 10, 2000 is attached. After the presentation of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report this spring, .= County. Board of Commissioner's Chair Moses Carey wrote to Mayor Waldorf in May to request that the Town Council: 1. Adopt a resolution establishing an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (1P Work Group) and appoint members for a first meeting in September. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to meet with his counterparts in the County and other municipalities, for the purpose of developing a report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting on ways that the County and municipalities might coordinate and synchronize capital funding for future park development. A copy of the letter from Chair Moses Carey to Mayor Waldorf is attached. The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group's primary charge would be to continue. the information sharing and inventory updating processes of the Joint Master Plan Work Group. The proposed Work Group's charge also recognizes that parks and recreation standards may vary among the jurisdictions. In June, the Council referred the County requests to the Manager and the Parks and Recreation Commission for reply at the Council's August 28 meeting. DISCUSSION We believe that the charge of the proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group would continue the positive steps in County -wide cooperation on leisure issues begun by the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group and the completion of its report. We agree with the report's central message that the best hope for a strong parks and recreation program lies in partnerships, be it inter jurisdictional or otherwise. In addition, the completed inventory of existing facilities and parklands is an important component of the document, which should be updated annually. The proposed IP Work Group could be a logical group to continue this 'process. We believe the proposed charge for the Work Group is. consistent with the Council's comments in its April 10 resolution. The IP Work Group's primary charge would be information sharing at least initially, and the Group's charge acknowledges flexibility for each jurisdiction's parks values and standards. The proposed composition of the IP Work Group includes one member and one alternate of the Town's Parks and Recreation Commission or Greenways Commission. We believe that the needs of Chapel Hill must be fairly represented by any such body and recommend that one member of both Town commissions be appointed to the IP Work Group. 3 Both an examination of how to assure equitable distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions and an examination of the level of County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department's operating budget compared to the County's use of Town Programs and facilities are important tasks. We believe these issues can best be initially analyzed by the Manager with his counterparts in the County and other municipalities, for the purpose of developing a report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting. RECOMMENDATION Manager's Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution, which would establish an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group with representatives from both the Parks and Recreation and Greenways Commissions, direct the two Commissions to appoint. representatives for a September meeting, and authorize the Manager to meet with his counterparts in the County and other municipalities for the purpose of developing a report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting. The report would address ways that the County and municipalities might coordinate capital funding for future parks, the distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions, and the level of County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared- to County's use of Town programs and facilities. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Commission met on August 16, 2000, and voted unanimously (7 -0) to recommend that the Council request that both the Town's Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions be represented on the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. The Commission also believes that the IP Work Group's charge should be clarified and should include development of a report to respond to these issues, that all parties should consider accommodations for multi -uses of facilities and land to include lighting, after - hours access to restrooms, phones, and first aid supplies, and that the proposed Work Group should meet as least 3 times per year. Please see attached the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. April 10, 2000 resolution (p. 5) 2. May 19, 2000 letter from Moses Carey (p. 7) 3. Memorandum from Parks and Recreation Commission (p. 14). 4 A RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO THE BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARKS WORK GROUP (2000- 08- 28/R -5) WHEREAS, the Mayor received a May 19, 2000, correspondence from the Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners requesting that the Council adopt a resolution establishing an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners also requested that the Council appoint Chapel Hill representatives for an initial meeting in September; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners also requested that the Council authorize the Town Manager to meet with his counterparts in the County and other municipalities, for the purpose of developing a report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting on ways that the County and municipalities might coordinate and synchronize capital funding for future parks; and WHEREAS, these requests were reviewed by the Manager and the Parks and Recreation Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council concurs in the establishment of an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group with one representative each from the Town's Parks and Recreation and Greenways Commissions included, and directs. the two Commissions to appoint representatives to be ready for a first meeting in September. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is authorized ' to meet with his counterparts in the County and other municipalities, for the purpose of developing a report for the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting. The report would address ways that the County and municipalities might coordinate capital funding for future parks, the distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions, and the level of County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared to the County's use of Town programs and facilities. This the 28`h day of August, 2000. S ATTACHMENT 1 A RESOLUTION. ADOPTING THE JOINT MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN WORK GROUP REPORT AS A GENERAL PLANNING DOCUMENT (2000- 0410/R -14a)) `WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and WHEREAS, representatives from all governmental jurisdictions in Orange County have worked toward and developed a report on issues surrounding the provision of recreation and park services within the County; and WHEREAS, this report provides recommendations for the Chapel Hill Town Council to consider in regard to future improvement of recreation and park services for the Town; and WHEREAS, the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions have reviewed the report and provided comment to the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as a general planning document. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby adopts the following recommendations of the report: • Adoption of an Open Facilities Policy • Expenditure of the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Parks land acquisition bonds fbr the purchase of park lands as soon as possible in order to maximize value of existing funds and options for selection of sites • Inter jurisdictional work on joint siting, design, and management of school and park sites across jurisdictions • Pursuit of partnerships with groups such as OWASA and UNC in order to expand parks and recreation opportunities in the area • Pursuit of opportunities for coordinated expenditures for land acquisition on a case - by -case basis until such time as the idea for more formalized coordination of land acquisition funds can be explored BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends to the County that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations concerning the following issues: • Consideration of a proposed Inter - Governmental Task Force. • Re- examination of the issue of adopting County -wide standards