Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIPRWG memo 012401 ! , 25 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To . Intergovernmental Parks Work Group From : David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director Date : January 24 , 2001 Re . Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Parks One of the items that the IP Work Group has been charged to address is the issue of funding mechanisms for parks . To begin our discussion ( working toward a goal of recommendations by our October meeting ) , please find attached a copy of the relevant sections from the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report ( May , 1999 ) and the Joint Capital Funding report ( October, 2000 ) . In general , the areas of focus for Work Group discussion and eventual recommendation are : Impact fees / impact taxes • Acquisitions Through the Land Development Process ( payment- in - lieu provisions , land dedications ) • Special Districts for parks Coordination and consistency of programs among jurisdictions Environment and Resource Conservation PO Box 8181 / 306-A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245 -2597 5/ 26/ 99 217 6 . Fund "Ing Sources 1 . Alternative Sources The means and methods of funding future recreation and parks needs may involve a number of approaches and combinations . As discussed in Section III , a coordinated approach for capital funding of acquisitions might be desirable . Some possibilities for funding sources might include : • Bond referenda from the County or Towns • Grants from programs such as the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund , the Natural Heritage Trust Fund ( via state agencies ) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program , and other sources ( add examples ) • Allocations from local government general . funds or special accounts • Contributions from other agencies with interests • Matching funds from local governments • Payment - in - Lieu or New Program of funding through development ( see Sections VI and VII ) or School / Park Reserve Fund • Future Federal programs for open space and parks ( Lands Legacy / Better America Bonds Initiative ) • NC Conservation Corps ( AmeriCorps/VISTA ) 2 . Local Funding of State Trust Funds : Parks and Recreation Trust Fund / Natural Heritage Trust Fund Two of these potential funding sources are funded through locally collected revenue stamps . Currently , the County collects $ 2 . 00 per thousand on the sale prices of houses . Of this money , 48 % goes to the State , while 52 % ( $ 1 . 04 of the $ 2 stamp ) stays in the County . Three - quarters ( 75 % ) of the State 's portion goes to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund established under G . S . 113 - 44 . 15 . The money collected under this fund is appropriated annually by the NC Parks and Recreation Authority and used as follows . ' 1 . Sixty - five percent ( 65 % ) for the State Parks System for capital projects , repairs/ renovations of park facilities , and land acquisition . 2 . Thirty percent ( 30 % ) to provide matching funds to local governmental units on a dollar- for- dollar basis for local park and recreation purposes . These funds shall be allocated by the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority based on criteria patterned after the Open Project Selection Process established for the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior . 1 Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statutes . 27 Z � 5 / 26/ 99 3 . Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program . Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) through revenue stamps began in the 199 & 97 fiscal year . Through March 1999 , Orange County ( including the towns ) has contributed $ 1 , 351 , 727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund through the state 's 48 % portionk of the funding arrangement . Of that amount , $ 304 , 139 has gone to the local government matching grants program . To date , the N . C . Recreation and Parks Authority has allocated $ 31 , 500 back into Orange County , to the Town of Hillsborough for the Occoneechee Mountain Park . This is the only local funding received . . - - - - • $ 3 , 900 , 000 ( est ) $ 2 , 023 , 000 ( est ) $ 1 , 877 , 000 ( est ) $ 1 , 351 , 727 � ' . • ■ . ■ - • $ 304 , 139 ■ . ■ - - . . . $ 31 , 500 The remaining twenty - five percent ( 25 % ) of the local revenue stamps goes to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund created under G . S . 113 - 77 . 7 . The monies generated from this fund are used to acquire natural lands for state parks , preserves , wildlife conservation areas , coastal reserves , natural and scenic rivers , historic site properties , and other outdoor recreation and natural areas . Fund priorities are given to projects that will protect areas of state or national ecological significance or outstanding cultural significance , and are granted only to state and federal agencies . Z Funds are only available to state agencies , or local governments working in conjunction with state agencies . To date , Orange County has contributed $ 337 , 932 to the Natural . Heritage Fund program through revenue stamps . The only federal or state programs in Orange County that have received money is the Eno River State Park . 2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage . 28 5/ 26/ 99 29 .niP - a,rrr r r.;•' ,�y�ep� xaa 0 a u d ..Y. � c ,.ys'6sc^' :R'X"�''�` ,i.,`f". .' y : Y' °s If "I ;.' '4 ,,y � r°�`y '%jxE73 . y ''' p v� rr� �E� ....E � CK R0 1. R s ,.± sue i� - � �4 for R4 A . Development Exactions for Recreation in Orange County Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas . Increasing pressures on funds generated from the traditional property tax levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and recreation . Public officials have been encouraged to consider alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the property tax base and bond funds . Alternatives to purchase and dedications include payment - in - lieu and impact fee programs . The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions in Orange County have recreation requirements in their own Subdivision Regulations or Land Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated , private recreation facilities provided , or a combination thereof . These requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/ police authority of local governments to protect the health , safety , and welfare of their communities . These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority , similar to roads , utilities , and other public improvements required as conditions for subdivision approval . The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Messer v . Town of Chapel Hill , 297 S . E . 2d 632 ( 1982 ) , in holding that the Town ordinance , within the statutory powers given to a city , could exact recreation land or facilities and even require the . particular site within the subdivision to provide adequate recreation needs . B . Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 1 ,, Payment- in - Lieu A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities has been the inclusion of a payment - in - lieu program under this same general statutory power . In this program , a subdivision developer pays a fee related to the jurisdiction 's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation lands , of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate . These fees then help provide recreation facilities within the immediate area of the development . If the developer is provided the option to meet the jurisdiction 's requirements or make some commensurate payment - in - lieu of recreation facilities , the jurisdiction is empowered to accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . Payment - in - lieu fees must be geographically designated within the " immediate area of the development , spent within a reasonable amount of time , and supplemented with other funds . 30 5/ 26/ 99 2 . Impact Fees and Impact Taxes An impact fee requires the developer to pay a fee representing the prorated cost of providing community - wide and area - wide recreational facilities required by this new development . The use of the fee requires authority from the legislature through enabling legislation , and Orange County currently has the authority to levy such impact fees . Orange County also has a Public School Facilities Impact Fee , but no other impact fee is currently in use in the county for any other services . In using these fees , there must be exhibited a correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual need created by the impact of the development and ( 2 ) benefits provided to the particular subdivision . By contrast , an impact tax allows for recognition that all impacts are not equal . Impact taxes may be assessed in graduated levels and do not require the " one size fits all " regressive nature fee scale that exists for impact fees . Orange County has , in previous years , sought impact tax legislation from the State to provide for possible reassessment of the Public School Impact Fee program . C . Current Status of Payment- in - Lieu Throughout the County Methods of assessing a development 's recreation impact vary across the different jurisdictions within Orange County . Appendix G indicates the method by which Orange County and Carrboro calculate their payment required for the payment - in - lieu program . Orange County also has special legislation which allows payments to be collected and spent on a " district " basis . Instead of using a set schedule of payments , Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of land instead of payments . The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation and open space needs . In terms of the reality of the programs , in Carrboro , many developments choose to provide private recreation facilities rather than payment - in4eu . Carrboro has collected $ 453 , 000 to date . Both Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do not have detailed central records of the results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations . Orange County has required payments since 1988 , and has accumulated these payments in a fund totaling $ 488 , 000 . It is clear in a broad overview , however, that the current system of land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens ' needs . Several problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and 5 / 26/ 99 31 facilities While recreational facilities may be developed privately , these are not open to the public . Secondly , small parcels of land that are donated for public use are often not used , because of their small i a sible location . s ze and / or in cces 1 . Land Dedication In Orange County , a total of 44 . 08 Acres has been dedicated . All of the land is located in southern Orange , in either Bingham or Chapel Hill Townships . All are also non - contiguous parcels ranging from 0 . 12 acres to 12 . 34 acres in size . Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres • Chapel Hill Township 29 . 76 Acres - 2 . Payments in - Ueu Funds Collected Both Orange County and Carrboro have collected funds under - - legislative the existing payment in lieu programs . Under g authority granted by the General Assembly , Orange County may collect and use its funds on a district basis . In the 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County , a system of four districts was instituted ( see map in Appendix K ) . To date ( April 1999 ) , the County has accumulated $ 533 , 000 through the payment- in - Ileu system . Three projects totaling $ 45 , 000 have been funded from these proceeds : the New Hope Creek Corridor project , the Efland - Cheeks Park and the Parkland Reserve . There is currently $ 488 , 000 available for use in the . Broken down b district the Orange County funds are fund o y 9 allocated as follows . Orange County Pay ments - in - Lieu Total Accumulated ( as of 4/ 99 ) : $ 533 , 000 Sent as of 4/ 99 45 000 District Amount 1 - Northern Orange $ 102 , 332 2 - Cheeks/ $ 171 , 296 Hillsborough 3 - Bingham 65 003 4 - Chapel Hill Tw 149 , 317 GRAND TOTAL - $ 487 ► 952 ALL TW PS Town of Carrboro PaymentsAn - Lieu to date : $ 453 , 684 5/ 26/ 99 32 D . Difficulties with Payment - in - Lieu Programs In reviewing payment - in - lieu programs , the Work Group heard from local practitioners , attorneys , and an expert from the Institute of Government . It is clear that several difficulties exist in effectively providing recreation facilities using payment - in - lieu programs . Both Carrboro and Orange County have funds that remain to be matched and spent . Chapel Hill has consistently used its fund , yet the same restrictions do not necessarily apply since its system of individual negotiations does not fit under the definition of a payment - in - lieu program . Several problems with the current systems are highlighted below , and proposals for changes to the means of providing and funding recreation lands will be suggested in Section VII , the recommendations section of this report . Difficulties • Payment - in - lieu is not intended to fund facilities of countywide significance • Fees must be geographically earmarked and spent on areas within the immediate area • Fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time • Fees must be supplemented with matching funds for use The requirements for the distribution of payment - in - lieu fees complicate potential solutions that would pool funds and inter - jurisdictional cooperation . In order for any of these ventures to occur, an analysis of park use as related to population growth and location may be needed , helping to prove the requisite " reasonable relationship " between the collected fee and benefited populace . Through its special legislation , Orange County may be able to re - draw districts to potentially address these problems . ith Other Programs Regionally and E . Comparison w Nationally iUnderstanding our difficulties with payment - in - lieu and exactions will enable us to also search for better solutions . In order to gain a clearer picture of regional , state , and national trends regarding land regulatory policies for parkland acquisition , we must look to examples of different jurisdictions experiences . The table below highlights jurisdictions within our region , state , and other states . i 5 / 26/ 99 33 Table 2 , Recreation Land Acquisition Comparison JURISDICTION PAYMENT- IN METHOD OF CALCULATING COST ESTIMATES LIEU ? PAYMENT Orange County Yes Zone District Ma 422 . or 455 per lot Carrboro Yes Points System $ 852 . 63 to $ 1 , 695 . 21 per dwelling unit Chapel Hill Yes Fair Market Value Cost negotiated with developer via Planning & Rec Department, based on Community Facilities Report Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1 / 35 acre or 1 / 20 acre per dwelling or business unit Wake Count Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times Fair Market Value Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule and $ 223 to $ 375 per Zone Map dwelling unit Durham City/ County No Impact Fee Schedule $ 183 . 38 to $ 296 . 99 per dwelling unit Guilford County No None N /A Greensboro No None N /A Charlotte - Mecklen burg No None N /A Davis California Yes Impact Fee Schedule 2000 per acre Boulder County , Yes Fair Market Value 25 acres per 1000 Colorado occupants Many of the above local governments have developed alternative models to the acquisition and / or dedication of land for recreational purposes . Additional details on the specifics of each program may be found in Appendix H . it t nt ! 35 Table E - Summary of Major Projects Note; Projects are a mix of parkland acquisition and facility development, as shown on prevlous a es 1. , . . . . � . ; , •i .. rLl , .. S � l > rj� >, �- r� { � i .; Y • - S= « i . •4 . S�F{ t 4r ? t t a # r r ! 4 7 tf3 22,, A 5 1 1: 1 > f; W .* .. li 1 . t 117 I . . ( 41t Fk 1 ` i {RffNt + ��iY.i'11pS,.1 Yt y .,� 1 7 4 �il i ti.� t Inr ' : sarrboro' { { Mrii `.�I J. i >Y , � � �> it.!?�-a :S:-ti, ,tF? y ,:zt.:l ,:t�'F� k,nt-i ti`k 41i - k .(h:.'kNl ' 1 .t N� s{1 :.-1 . ,. ;. .. . � . . � : . tti c .f . ..c y i4 . rct ! I i,s . * * Smith Middle School $ 465 , 000 $ 315 , 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 * * G mnasium A lap 3 . 79 million 3 . 79 million _ d1, r . ■ } .: Ixt7u'2s4 ` RS.. i t{. ; '_ `.3-.A 4t - J,.:F u.. t 1 " ' 'J•:Xjs{I.)' .,.�1- E sly` uY ?e.rary i, ': I:.. hh Qi ll: 'S4Pt 11�ti1 ' - � pt7i 1VF ��4 �'.",".' >< '{�.l'�'' _ a1,_' y. \^` TIDY `i ��A t _ rf yl J L f 7 !r i { i 1 L, { { L ;fy ■.� a � � lil1kSt43 � 1f� t41, a- t +t J ` ? a cI �S ?( r a r a�i f satf ' 1 h _ . .:1,... . f�1 r;,t { 4S Yt ..# ,' rliJ'l _ ' '.,f K'1 , 1 .' f*�f:� +J ^ E4, t 471 i ;;ir'`,';r Y, �r���iH T. '7rs3�l `.71 f, `t1 vf''� rr ifti 9 ,tjiii, * * Homestead Park/Aquatics Center Up to 12 million $ 9 . 96 million j * * Southern Community Park 5 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 t8TOOO * * Greenwa s projects $ 3 . 35 million $ 2 . 59 million * * Merritt Pasture Access $ 400 , 000 $ 208 , 000 * * Open Space Acquisitions Unknown Unknown ..f ' !*.PR t< St t• ,." .,i �, ,(' •<t , <: fs :) f , i' sr+ r} I :, It; , t •• •2 . .t �'t�r 1 -1 ir . 4 ., � - tna. }:.. la "+i+M,' ' " i: r.Zi� {'••i ,4' :. f { pI+ i :. ._ , H � Ilsborou t tt . rf = ,4 -�i t �t S� ,yl4 tg qqI 1a a ,6, , t 1 , � . }';{ £4'rr11e•: ityi ., a '2 1 .m i j 1< f t I . . i u t, s 7: tot ,:. , e } t . .; :if, - s i ',a : ,}a: i a;r.Me:, t1 ,+-Wf ki5h, 4,.: :1' ;01 1Y .4 -4 I : I i6 [, , ! , ,. 7r , ? 13'�}^ � =is :k f ±. ' ,., * * Occoneechee Park overlook $ 32 448 - 0 - * * MurrayStreet Park 33 000 - 0 - * * Eno RiverWalk and Buffers $ 300 , 000 -0 - * * RiverPark $ 200f 000 165 000 * * Fairview Park feasibility stud 5 000 - 0 - t1. , ' *7 c}i Y7"s ':.F i ?` � . . v,�. �r , ,e, t'- i 3ik } (Y f r� 4 , 7 1 : ty �� i�i �,L ayts I} >Ha. Sf O Ca n � (yf M y,1 t( } ti p. �t a( i :, v ,' � eSH2 : f { c : : 'riu i t,•W{ e1 I t jr� 1 +� cnd ,f u �. . co ��� 1' .t ts ;, ' ! il !�. w,s"Y1 ,.r ;4 1 'v s ? -x� Mwl iit tM.,,i { :: ez .i4t Zni Fli l: t ,i ao .. . . r71F : . ;qlia � :. k,i 1 - I �ptkr,+„h t ,� %!' tf rr.. - (.;,i ,i Jyg, , .sow: ni S4;2 4Y I ^ :+. . _r .f4.JFn1'c.. Ra. * * Chapel Hill Parksprojects ' See above See above * * Efland Cheeks Park $ 1 . 6 million 750 000 * * Cedar Grove Park $ 1 . 4 million $ 1 . 21 million * * Fairview Park 725 000 $ 650 , 000 * * New Hope Creek Corridor2 90 , 000 - 0 - * * Triangle S orts lex 4 000 000 - 0 - * * Existing Parks Improvements $ 955f 000 - 0 - * * McGowan Creek Preserve $ 370 000 $ 70 , 000 * * Chapel Hill Township Park $ 7 . 5 million $ 5 . 7 million * * Bingham Community Park $ 1 . 6 million $ 1 . 6 million * * Eno/ Schley Park $ 2 . 1 million $ 1 . 66 million * * Little River Regional Park/ Natural Area $ 1 . 5 million 225 000 * * New Hope Rustic Woodland Trail $ 500 , 000 $ 500f 000 <ai %� '''? , . . : 1!'l:. . i , i3y t:3 ,i �r .- / � ; r: �, . ep,R_ •., r fM1 .n� nat.k:J I tl I ' r s fls1. r ik : ! :V t -.1 L y,�� _`y,fS, 'k+ 7Jr 7t`4t+ 1,<4.Fr -r'Y+..c{5 '}: ¢ tt - . 3:' ?: 6, �. e� i ' .!• - Q. 7 *I '�' µ all (- t ¢5 y i:.�..r.•::1 M bane � I� Slr I ` Id hA �y . n7 �4 5 1lFI f 1 Fa L yy } 5 '! t {ihE Mtn t � k fYSY� `- } ? { Iryn . . . .. . . , , .: .<, �4. . } • . . t� ,rr4,., .fi _ , . .,.. . 71 } 'fir?F ,z: t ��1 4a1"< i+ t' ., }iL,{' I Laxt,r ,t Gsfr{r::ilC. , ;4 ; 1{5 �' ` L n, r. ...itllt .,. . -+",!W ,. .' M . . .C, :t, s� J t . !:4I 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 . r ' 36 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 . CI P '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 . 3 ? 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 . J 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 . PARTF has awarded two grants in Orange County during its existence one to Hillsborough for the Occoneechee Mountain Park with N . 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 . Pav- ASmYou - 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 . r F . Orange County School / Park Reserve Fund In the early- 1990 's , the County established a capital fund equivalent to one cent on the tax rate for future school / park land acquisitions . The fund currently receives 1 / 3 cent of the County tax rate , and stands at $ 2 . 57 million . In the last 18 months, fostered by the work of the Schools/ Land Use Councils , the County, Towns and both school systems have adopted memoranda of understanding that address the desire to , co - locate, where feasible and appropriate , future schools and park sites . To clarify the use of the School / Park Reserve Fund , the Board of Commissioners in May of 1999 appointed a School/ Park Reserve Committee ( SPRC ) to address guidelines and criteria for use of the fund . The SPRC report ( including criteria and guidelines ) were adopted by the BOCC on December 7 , 1999 , and provides 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 . • When deemed appropriate , the fund may be used on a $ 1 : $ 1 matching basis to assist Towns in meeting parks needs • 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 • Accumulated interest in the fund may be tapped for facility development needs not addressed through bonds or other means . • The existing funds ( $ 2 . 24 million at that time ) should be retained for future land acquisition , with bond funds and other sources used for facility, development . • To provide flexibility, the school/ park co - location need not be readily apparent at the time of acquisition . G . Acquisitions via Development ( Land Dedication , Payments - in - Lieu ) Each jurisdiction has provisions in its development ordinances for the dedication of land for recreation and open space via new development . In general , the Town of Chapel Hill has . provisions for recreation and open space dedications for new projects . Land dedicated for these purposes by new developments may be used for recreation and open space uses , as agreed to by the developer and approved by the Town Council . 33 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 Impact 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, capita ! 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 . � e 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 ) 5 . Riparian buffers in water supply watersheds The Lands Legacy approach uses a GIS " comprehensive resource database " to evaluate and prioritize critical resource lands , and also includes criteria to 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 mechanism for parkland acquisition by both County and Towns — recognizing that the broader definition of parks in the report brings the inter- relationship between natural resources and recreation facilities into focus .