Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIPRWG report 061199 Executive Summary Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group June 11 , 1999 Introduction On November 19 , 1997 , the Board of Commissioners created a Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group , The Work Group was developed to follow up on two reports : a 1996 Assembly of Governments report " Recreation and Parks Issues in Orange County , NC ", and a May 1997 report entitled " Coordination of Parks and Recreation Services for Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Orange County ", developed by the area Managers . The charge to the Work Group was to . "update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a ,point 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 : ➢ 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 c 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 . Where Are We Now? In evaluating the status of recreation and parks in the County, the Work Group created two comm 'ttees . 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 1 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 `° low- impact " recreation . In summary, the rima needs identified for each ' urisdiction were . NeedsJurisdiction Primary Carrboro Acquire/develop Northern Community Park, communi ty gymnasium Chapel Hill Complete Northern Community Park, Southern Community Park Hillsborough River Walk Fairview Park Occoneechee Park Orange County Complete Efland - Cheeks Park, Northern Human Services Center Park, acquire parkland in Bingham/ Little River Tw s An evaluation of previous bonds and projects constructed with those monies is also provided on pages 7 - 10 of the document . A summary of needs appears on page 19 . The Work Group discussed the concept of a Countywide set of standards for facilities and park design . The development of a common set of standards was recognized as important, but because of time considerations was deferred by the Work Group . Recommendation B on page 35 addresses this topic . 2 . Where Do We Go From Here With knowledge of needs and facilities ,. the Work Group then turned its attention to future concerns . One such area was a set of goals and criteria for future land acquisition and facility 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, traffic and noise . In defining both active and low- impact recreation , it is 2 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 terms of carefully- located trails that fit with the University 's plans . 3 . Adequate Provision of Parkland and Natural Corridors One of the most prominent needs identified is to preserve green corridors , whether in an urban or rural setting . This section of the report addresses the potential for linking some existing and proposed greenway networks in Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough to future parks and * regional open space such as Eno River State Park and Duke Forest . The importance of existing and future greenways in the Towns is noted , as 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 3 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 . 4 . Coordinated Land Acquisition for Parks The 1996 and 1997 reports point to the need for coordinated capital funding , and this is one of the goals of this project . In discussing parks needs and goals , the Work Group placed a strong emphasis on the need to begin land acquisition for long -term park needs now . Orange County has taken steps in 1999 to create 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 program will develop and/ or use inventories , criteria and a management structure for the acquisition and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to the public interest, working with other existing land trusts and entities . The program will involve the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat, farmland , riparian buffers, and the acquisition of lands for long -term parks use . The County is hiring a Land Resources Conservation Manager, with expertise in site evaluation and land acquisition this summer . This position will coordinate land acquisition efforts , and would use the criteria developed in the Master Recreation and Parks effort to evaluate land purchases for parks ( please see the Recommendations section for additional details ) . The outline of the Land Resource Acquisition Program may be found in the report on page 26 . Funding for long -term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and allocations , and grants from programs such as the state Parks and Recreation Trust Fund . Information on this program is provided on pages 27 - 28 . s . Payment- in - Lieu Procir_ ams All of the jurisdictions in the County have provisions in their development ordinances addressing dedication or provision of recreation facilities . Carrboro and Orange County also have payment- in - lieu of dedication programs , which allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lots in lieu of providing recreation facilities . Orange County has special legislation that would allow for 4 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 , GGG through its payment- in - lieu program . Orange County currently has $ 488 , 000 available , allocated by four districts in which the money must be spent . The County has also received land dedications totaling 44 acres since 1986 , although this land is in small pieces exclusively in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships . The Work Group found that difficulties exist with the existing payment- in - lieu programs . The funds must be geographically earmarked and spent within the area collected . They must also be supplemented with matching funds for use . Considerable research was performed to explore programs in other jurisdictions , and a special meeting with Richard Ducker from the Institute of Government was held to review payment- in - lieu possibilities . 6 . Recommendations Using the research and deliberations of 17 months , and with the charge and goals of the project in mind , the Work Group developed nine 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 : ➢ 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 jurisdictional 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 . 5 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. Pub/ic/Private Partnerships One of the most exciting prospects is the potential for partnerships . Coordination between the local governments on future parks , such as a large district park between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro , will be paramount . Opportunities also exist with OWASA, and it is recommended that the Parks and Resource Lands Council work to identify properties for partnership and meet to explore these possibilities . Coordination with UNC on future parks also appears practical and should be pursued . While Duke Forest is a different type of recreational entity, it plays . an important role in the County's open space network and future discussion of less- sensitive portions of the Forest as links in the open space network should be pursued . Finally, opportunities for coordination with the state , other land trusts a.nd 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-Lieu Changes After considerable discussion and review, the Work Group finds that the existing payment- in - lieu programs are not likely to produce sufficient funds to meet long - 6 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 . L 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 -term land acquisition should be addressed through an $ 8 million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000 , The Parks and Resource Lands Council should develop the specifics of the bond proposal . 7 V � tTj r , lot :< O r O % itt t f � ti \L/ t ' tTj 5 / 26 / 99 Table of Contents I . Background History 1 A . Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan 1 Be Joint Planning Efforts on 1996 - 97 1 Co Summary of Existing Plans 3 D . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan 3 II . Descriptive Scenario - Where are we now ? 5 A . Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources 5 Be Parks and Recreation Needs 6 Co Parks and Recreation Standards 8 D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed 8 III . Future Efforts and Issues - Where to go from here ? 13 A . Park/ Recreation Acquisition Goals , Objectives and Criteria 13 Be Joint Siting and Management of Sites 15 c . Impediments to Location of New Facilities 16 d . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through CIP 's and Land - Banking 17 E . Coordination Opportunities with UNC and Implications of UNC Expansion 17 F, Coordination Opportunities with O WASA 19 G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University 19 IV . Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands and Natural Use Corridors 21 A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met 21 Be Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in Rural Areas 21 Co Analysis Criteria of Land for Greenways and Corridors 23 V . Acquisition of Land 26 A . Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program 26 Be Funding Sources 28 VI . Payment- In - Lieu Programs 30 A . Development Exactions for Recreation Land in Orange County 30 Be Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 30 Co Current Status of Payment- in - Lieu Throughout the County 31 D . Difficulties with Payment - in - Lieu Programs 33 E . Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally 34 VII . Proposals and Recommendations 35 A . Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council 35 Be Inter-jurisdictional Efforts to Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements 36 Co Joint Siting , Design , and Management of School / Park Sites Across Jurisdictions 36 D . Public/ Private Partnerships 36 E . Joint Capital Facilities Plan / Coordinated Land Identification, Acquisition and Banking 37 F . Open Facilities Policy 38 G . Payment- in - Lieu Changes 38 H . Address Existing Needs 39 I . Recommendations for Use of Current and Future Bond Funds 41 Appendices A - K 5 / 26/ 99 Members of the .joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Margaret Brown , Chair Ken Chavious Keith Cook Judson Edeburn Martin Feinstein Kevin Foy Jacqueline Gist Bea Hughes - Werner Ron Hyatt Barry Jacobs Loraine Kohorn Dianne Lemasters Patrick Mulkey Wendy Olsen Bill Strom Wendy Weiher John Link Staff Albert Kittrell Bob Jones Richard Kinney Sarah Magruder Kathryn Spatz David Stancil Bill Webster Daniel Newman 2 5/ 26/ 99 ... A All I . BA A GROUND AND HISTORY t . �: ........ > . . r . �. .+:. . /. .mvp.x.. .......:.i ...N. a . : .. . ..F «. ... r...y c:..�.S.i ...vJui ant .ii v....< kv<.�M.xil�nmml...J.:.:.n.J.. . : _. . . . .. . . A...... . Over the last decade , several recreation and parks planning efforts have been undertaken across Orange County , with policy recommendations covering a spectrum of related issues . Committees , citizen work groups , and local governments have worked together in developing guidelines for the future recreation and open space needs of our County . Through these efforts , we can ensure the provision of a wide range of recreational opportunities and venues for all citizens . This section includes the overarching rationale for the creation of a framework for joint planning of recreation and parks , as well as a listing of the primary recommendations of these various working groups from 1988 to the present . A . Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan Guiding policies for the update include : • Explore the relationship between existing and proposed school sites and parks • Explore strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural resources through acquisition and open space design , including the relationship of these resources to active and low - impact recreational uses • Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities ( See Appendix A ) These policies provide the impetus for much of the current update effort and are largely based upon a combination of current and past concerns and efforts . B . Joint Recreation Planning Efforts : 1996 - 97 Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group 1996 ) The Recreation and Parks Work group developed recommendations to serve multiple purposes . The recommendations are intended to , " establish principles for coordinated county - wide recreation and park facility planning , foster greater cooperation in use of existing facilities , and support private recreation providers and public/ private partnerships . " The work group developed the following recommendations for Orange County and its municipalities in its recreation planning , which were presented to the Assembly of Governments : • Set standards based on ranking with other Triangle Area counties . Determine type of park and recreation facilities to be surveyed . Develop mechanism for annual review of park and facilities standards by all jurisdictions . 5 / 26/ 99 • Develop an interjurisdictional set of recreation requirements that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro , and Hillsborough could include in their respective Land Use Ordinances • Plan the inclusion of park facilities in selecting new school sites , while improving existing sites with recreation and park amenities where it is mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental jurisdiction ( s ) . if • Standardize contracting documents with private providers throughout all jurisdictions • Create an Orange County listing of private recreation vendors and facilities , and update annually . • Establish a bi - annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation providers for information sharing and establishing new public/ private initiatives . Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange County 1997 , The purpose of this report was to describe different options for the improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation functions . The report contains several different parts related to the investigation of adequate park and recreation facilities . Observations of activities were made , needs were assessed , options were developed , and recommended actions were proposed . The recommendations were divided into four major categories , capital development , coordination of operations , consolidation approaches , and voluntary coordination and commitment . The recommendations follow below : Capital Development • A long - range plan should be adopted as a serious commitment by all players • Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in time to produce programs for future budgets • Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority • Orange County should play a major role in funding , acquisition , development , ownership , and maintenance of new facilities • A countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration if needs are as great as expected Coordination of operations • Joint planning , needs assessment , and selected cooperative actions are appropriate purposes for a staff work group • Consideration of Orange County as the primary candidate for operating new programs , expansions , and transfers from the towns can lead to a growing consolidation of services under the County 2 5 / 26/ 99 Consolidation Approaches • Begin with coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions • Develop new facilities and programs as county functions • Consider complete consolidation in several years after experience with coordination and partial consolidation Voluntary Coordination and Commitment • Capable and adequate staffing needed to develop materials , set agendas , and prod participants in both capital and operating programs • Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained Shaping Orange County ' s Future Parks and Recreation Issues ( 1995 See Appendix B for excerpts from SOCF Transportation , Infrastructure , and Services ( TIS ) report which includes parks and recreation issue list . C . Summary of Existing Plans See Appendix A for summaries of existing recreation and parks plans . D . Background / Rationale for Updating Joint Plan Charge to Work Group : Update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long - range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill . The most recent efforts in developing the intergovernmental master park and recreation plan have included the formation of a work group comprised of elected officials , citizens , staff, and interested stakeholders - including representatives of the Town of Hillsborough . This Commissioner - appointed work group divided into two subcommittees to address updating the countywide needs assessment as well as an inventory of public , quasi - public , and private recreational facilities and opportunities . These subcommittees then re - formed into the large work group to address issues such as the incorporation of wildlife corridors and open space preservation into parkland acquisition . In addition , park and recreation department supervisors from each jurisdiction worked together to develop facility and program standards to be used county - wide , and County staff researched various issues regarding land acquisition , dedication / payment - in - lieu , and school / park joint siting . Staff then prepared versions of the final report for work group comment and made adjustments accordingly . The work group developed the final proposals and recommendations for the master plan , which staff then incorporated into the final report . 3 5/ 26/ 99 III . K .DES ae CRIPTTON : 1NHERE ' Af E E N.OW ? Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the park bond funds will be disbursed , the work group had to first gain an idea of the state of park and recreation facilities within the county and its municipalities . It was necessary to have an accurate picture of who is providing for the recreation needs of the citizenry , whether through public , quasi - public , or private means . Once the needs and resources were identified , standards for future park and recreation provisions were discussed . A . Inventory of Resources One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to create an inventory of the current recreation resources and parks within the County ( see Appendix C ) . The Resource Subcommittee developed categories for the inventory and decided it was important to address resources within all sectors of our community . Thus , the inventory was split into lists for private , public , and quasi - public . Private consists primarily of apartment complexes , neighborhood clubs , and larger , specialized clubs ( e . g . tennis club , country club ) . However , locations such as Duke Forest are also listed as private since they are privately owned with primary missions other than recreation . Public resources identified were parks , trails , community centers , and other locales open to and funded by the public . Quasi-public entities include community centers and Ruritan clubs usually open to the public with additional contact required , UNC facilities selectively opened to the public , and government - owned facilities , such as Cane Creek Reservoir , which allows recreation while maintaining the primary mission of water supply protection . Once the list was divided , the categories were modified to more accurately reflect specific resources in each ownership grouping . For example , the quasi - public list may include a category inventorying whether the facilities require additional contact before use , while this issue would infrequently apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks . The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues . The Work Group and staff' s personal knowledge of resources in the area , inventories recently completed by participating municipalities , and information from area apartment associations and complexes were all used in development of the document . The roster of apartments is that of complexes listed in Orange County tax records . Thus , this is not a complete listing of all complexes in the county or municipalities . B . Needs Identified for County and Municipalities The Needs Assessment Subcommittee was formed in order to more accurately identify specific needs of facilities throughout each jurisdiction . 4 5 / 26 / 99 The following active recreation_ needs were identified through this process : 1 . Orange County a ) Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks School / Community Park . ( In progress ) b ) Develop Courthouse/ River Park ( jointly with Town of Hillsborough ) . c ) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground . d ) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park and renovate the building . e ) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System and replace windows . f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill / Bingham Township . g ) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA . h ) Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for locating schools and park sites and to construct larger gymnasiums at future schools to address the overcrowding of indoor recreation activities . 2 . Town of Chapel Hill The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan . The new plan will : • Include a section on parks and recreation • Call for plan to be completed in fall of 1999 The Towns comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989 . The Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan on May 26 , 1998 . Needs Identified include . a . Future Development of Northern Community Park At its September 28 , 1998 Council adopted the following actions ; 1 ) from FY98 - 99 budget appropriated for conceptual 5 5 / 26/ 99 plan process of aquatic facility/ community center ; and 2 ) $ 200 , 000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of batting cage project . Possible development a . aquatic facility , b . Community Center . b . Future Development of Southern Community Park • No Council decisions made at this point , except soccer field at school • No conceptual plan at this point Staff and the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will : • Identify community leisure needs , values • Clarify/ revise Department mission • Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation planning / development 3 . Town of Carrboro a ) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park b ) Community Gymnasium c ) Provide general on - going renovations to all existing facilities at all community , neighborhood , and mini - park sites . d ) Along with the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System , provide expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities . e ) Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where possible . Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements along Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system . f) Fully develop the " Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park . " g ) Acquire property for " Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park " and fully develop . h ) Fully develop " Odum Mini - Park " i ) Acquire additional property for " Pathway Drive Mini - Park " and fully develop . 4 . Town of Hillsborough The Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved in 1993 . Its goals are still valid although additional needs have arisen that indicate the Master Plan is due for an update . A recent annexation to the Town for a new subdivision coupled with substantial growth within Hillsborough Township increases the need for recreational opportunities . The Town , as yet , has no public parks that are officially open to the public although several park projects are 6 5 / 26 / 99 currently in progress . The Parks and Recreation Board was appointed in 1996 . Since then the members of the Board have assessed existing property and facilities owned by the Town and have assigned some priorities for implementation of the Master Plan . Several projects are ongoing . Funding has been allocated and / or is being requested for these projects . Some funding has been allocated for construction . The most immediate recreation needs , based on the original survey and subsequent requests by townspeople , include ( not necessarily in order of need ) : a ) Playing fields for organized sports b ) Basketball courts c ) Safe places to walk and bicycle d ) Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences e ) Neighborhood parks f) Skateboard facilities C . Standards See Section VII for recommendations on the development of coordinated standards . See Appendix D for existing standards . D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed In previous years , different jurisdictions have Issued bonds for recreation and parks projects . A number of existing facilities used by County and Town residents were funded through these bonds . The following is a listing of bonds approved and projects constructed or other accomplishments in the past five years . 1 . Orange County Bond Funds $ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond . in November , 1997 : • Park Land Acquisition $ 3 . 0 Million • Development $ 3 . 0 Million Efland - Cheeks Community School Park $ 0 . 5 Million Northern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million Southern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million Other Park Facilities $ 0 . 5 Million 7 5/ 26/ 99 Current Projects • Construction of Efland - Cheeks School Park - Phase I . • Feasibility study for Fairview Park development . • Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/ River Park . Accomplishments - Past Five Years • Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts ( Jointly with Orange County Schools - County share $ 40 , 030 ) . • Renovations to tot - lot playground at the Northern Human Services Center ( $ 9 , 200 plus $ 14 , 000 Smart - Start grant ) . • Purchased 40 acres adjoining the Northern Human Services Center ( $ 1101000 ) . • Developed Efland - Cheeks Community School / Park Master Plan and began construction of Phase I . ( $ 84 , 575 for plan , $ 756 , 000 for construction contract , Phase I . Total to _ date : $ 840 , 575 ) 2 . Town of Chapel Hill 1996 Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Funds $ 5 million 1996 Land Acquisition for Open Space and Greenways $ 3 million 1989 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds - $ 5 million Funded the following projects : Merritt Pasture ( $ 400 , 000 ) , Bolin Creek Greenway Part III ( $ 161 , 273 ) , Northern Community Park ( $ 1 . 25 million for acquisition , $ 1 . 05 million for development ) , Southern Community Park ( north tract $ 679 , 000 ) and other smaller projects 1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 2 . 5 million • Funded Southern Community Park ( south tract - $ 1 . 046 million ) , Pritchard Park ( $ 665 , 000 ) and several small projects 1976 Parks Bond - $ 2 . 65 million • Funded Cedar Falls Park , Chapel Hill Community Center , Umstead Park , five ballfields , 20 tennis courts and Hargraves Recreation Center 3 . Town of Carrboro $ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978 • Funded Anderson Community Park acquisition / development Accomplishments - Past Five Years • Lighting of ballfield at Anderson Community Park • Renovation of Wilson Park tennis courts • Removal and renovation of playground at Baldwin Park 8 5/ 26/ 99 Current Projects / Ongoing Improvements • Acquisition and renovation of Carrboro Baptist Church building for Carrboro Community Center 4 . Town of Hillsborough • $ 254 , 000 from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for Eno Riverwalk Stream Buffers • $ 31 , 500 for Occoneechee Mountain park ( plus $ 37 , 500 in other funds ) Current Projects : Cooperative projects between Hillsborough and Orange County River Park - Approximately 5 acres of county land located in downtown Hillsborough between the new courthouse and river is being planned for an urban park and open space . The town has pledged $ 50 , 000 for this effort . At least $ 25 , 000 has been spent and the remainder is available when the county is ready to proceed . A re - creation of the Occoneechi village is being constructed on the site . RC & D is prepared to assist with an erosion mitigation project along Still House Creek within the park . Further planning and development funds are needed for implementation of the proposed master plan . Fairview Park - An engineering study is needed to evaluate the possible impacts of an old landfill and general soil conditions of the combined county and town properties on the feasibility of a major sports facility . The estimated cost of the study is $ 46 , 000 . Hillsborough projects Occoneechee Park - Trails have been built by volunteers within the original 28 acres with funds from Adopt - a -Trail Grants and from the Town . Development plans for an overlook within the 28 acres , a small parking and picnic area on a fee - simple parcel next to Eno Mountain Road , and a 1 / 4 mile accessible trail on an easement parallel to the Eno River that would connect the two was expected to be implemented in 1999 using a NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) grant ( $ 31 , 500 ) and other funds totaling $ 69 , 000 . An upcoming lease agreement between N . C . Parks and Recreation and Hillsborough , to combine the management of Occoneechee park with the newly - acquired state park lands on Occoneechee Mountain , will negate plans to build the parking lot and trail . The PARTF grant and other funds totaling $ 69 , 000 have been allocated for the above development . Due to the 2 - year elapsed time of the original estimate additional funds may be needed for completion . An additional $ 13 , 000 has been requested . Gold Park / Old Ball Park - Twenty - four acres at the south end of 9 5 / 26/ 99 Nash Street , south of the railroad tracks , were donated to the town in 1995 . This land has historically been used for semi - pro baseball activities and the town would like to reinstate its use for organized sports , on a local scale . An estimated $ 26 , 000 is needed ( in ' 96 dollars ) to relocate sewer and electrical lines . Because the land is adjacent to the Eno River , floodplain and wetland issues must also be investigated . Murray Street Park - The master plan for this 1 /4 acre lot was developed by local residents . $ 9 , 000 has been allocated for construction of the project by the town board . $ 10 , 000 for phase 2 has been requested . King / Occoneechee Street Park - Local residents have approached the Park and Recreation Board with a proposal to develop this 0 . 6 acre lot for a neighborhood park . No funds have yet been requested . River Walk - The town received a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund totaling $ 254 , 000 to acquire buffers along the Eno River for water quality preservation . The buffer is planned to connect Occoneechee Mountain Park on the west side of town with Eno River State Park near US 70 bypass to the east . Funds have been requested to hire a consultant to administer this project . The design and planning for pedestrian access is still needed . Sidewalks - Pedestrian access within the town of Hillsborough is outlined in both Hillsborough ' s Parks and Recreation and Transportation Plans , 5 . Grant Funding Received Each municipality within the County , as well as Orange County , have received funds from various programs throughout the last couple decades for the purpose of constructing and improving recreational facilities . These grant funds originate at various levels of government . Examples of funding opportunities include the State Park and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) , North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT ) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , the Community Development Block Grant Program ( CDBG ) , and the now defunct Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund . The range of projects completed with these funds is broad . Examples of funded projects include nature trail construction , bike trail construction , ballfield construction , and playground upgrades . The following table illustrates the total amount of grant funding received by Orange County and its municipalities within the last 20 years . 10 Ql . l0 N Lf) 0I . , I ' Ln p1 . IN1A N - M 00 , M IN IN . ' �, 1. F�y��ys; t �HI 70l� S VqW N4two u ' to y 4aOSA [i' yj ,I il Y��+,d--H ^ r■M1 9`j' f t k'I ' 3 .15 ' wo L eL Y' (; . . 0 a . �!'sSCT�, ✓'."f :q as A 1� �" d� I I 5/ 26/ 99 FF IF W €III . F UTURE IRE EFFORTS ASV D I:v IF I -+ F.F Wa 0 1 FF. I FF I I SSI! ES - WHEREFA r � � TO GF . FROM H EREaFF Is 9 With the knowledge of what facilities , needs and standards exist at this time ( see Section II and appendices ) , the Work Group has discussed the direction of future efforts . In particular , there are two key areas to which attention should ' be drawn . First , a working set of goals and objectives must be developed that meet the diverse recreation and parks needs of the County . To implement these goals , criteria have been developed for the expenditure of future resources for land acquisition and facility siting . Subsection A below addresses these needs . Second , the potential for joint siting and management of sites is seen as a logical extension of the information gathered to date . An evaluation of possibilities in this area is also warranted , and is included as subsection B . Impediments to locating new faci. lities , potential for coordination with Duke and OWASA in meeting future goals , and mechanisms for accomplishing these objectives are also addressed in this section . A . Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals , Objectives and Criteria 1 . Goals and Objectives for Land Acquisition In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs , there are several goals that have become apparent through the discussions of the Work Group , Goals * Encourage school / park joint planning * Preserve natural resources * Promote multi -jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts Preserve watersheds and water quality Encourage historic and cultural preservation Identify and emphasize targeted needs * Establish public/ private partnerships * Encourage the dedication of easements * Implement land - banking opportunities * Acquire/ purchase parkland through development process Develop linear parks concepts and plans Using these goals , more - specific objectives were identified : Objectives * Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is 12 5/ 26/ 99 environmentally sensitive , such as wetlands , * Develop a program for land dedication / recreation payment that is more effective and comprehensive ; * Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with the creation of recreation facilities ; * Develop linear parks in the Rural Buffer , and explore opportunities along other identified stream corridors ; * " Retrofit " existing developed properties for recreation ; Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper Eno River preservation efforts ; * Develop land - use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood parks 2 . Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acguisition Subject to approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , a system should be developed to evaluate how well potential land acquisitions meet the goals and objectives . A number of specific measures have been suggested both for the purchase of property , and for the appropriateness of siting facilities . The components of this system would become the basis of the Recreation and Parks Acquisition section of the County 's Resource Acquisition Program ( see Section V ) . Potential Land Acquisition Criteria ( examples ) * The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction , * Grants and other funding opportunities ; * Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plans Identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County , N . C . ; * Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses ( Rogerson / Oakwood neighborhood park ) ; * Appropriate intensity of use for the area ( Merritt Pasture at NC 54 and US 15 / 501 ) ; * Location ( Northern Community Park ) , * Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors , greenways and linear parks , * Land adjacent to new schools ( Efland - Cheeks , Southern Park ) ; * Land for active recreation is suitable and appropriate for uses ( i . e . , not ecologically - sensitive areas ) , * Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor preservation efforts; * Access ( transportation ) is safe and easily - accomplished ; * Meeting multiple goals ( above ) gets higher weighting , Potential Facilities Siting Criteria : * Facilities should be centrally located for population to be served * Both active and low - impact ( natural area ) recreation opportunities 13 5 / 26 / 99 may exist on - site ; School / park joint use sites are preferred ; * Facility addresses a broad range of needs , An adopted facility plan must exist ; Promotes pedestrian , bicycle , and public transportation, Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e . lighting ) B . .joint Siting and Management of Sites 1 . Schools and Land Use Councils In Orange County , a number of elected officials make decisions that affect schools . The towns and county make land use decisions and approve developments that increase the numbers of school children . School boards are responsible for school policy and school buildings , while the county is responsible for providing adequate school facilities . To coordinate these efforts , the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools and Land Use Council and the Orange County Schools and Land Use Council were formed , with the purpose of advising the Board of County Commissioners on growth and land use issues related to schools . Specifically , the Schools and Land Use Councils are charged with " developing a coordinated plan for approving developments, accounting for the impact of the developments on school capacity, siting schools, and building schools to meet demonstrated need in a timely manner. " Membership on the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , two Carrboro Board of Aldermen , two Chapel Hill Town Council members , and one Orange County Commissioner , The Orange County Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , one Hillsborough town Commissioner , and one Orange County Commissioner . The Schools and Land Use Councils held their first meeting on October 8 , 1997 and meet generally bi - monthly , either jointly or as individual councils . To date , the councils have : • Adopted a Resolution of Intent Concerning the Role of the Schools and Land Use Councils ; • Adopted a Structure for Communication that defines procedures whereby local governments and schools systems keep each other apprised of activities/ decisions that may impact the other ; and • Initiated discussion on a Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of Facilities ( see Appendix Q . 14 5/ 26/ 99 C . Impediments to Location of New Facilities In recent years , more attention has been paid to the impacts of recreational facilities . In particular, impacts of lighting , intensity of use , traffic and noise have been cited as posing negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods in the location of recreational facilities that involve active recreation fields , programs and lighting . The Parks and Recreation Directors met with staff to explore this issue . Since these concerns are almost exclusively related to active and low - impact recreation , a definition of active and passive recreation might be an important first step to addressing impacts . While many definitions could be developed for the terms active recreation and low - impact recreation , the following might serve as a starting point : Active Recreation : Recreation facilities programmable for structured activities, such as ballfields, tennis courts and picnic shelters . Low-Impact Recreation : Facilities that are designed for individual rather than structured activities, such as hiking trails, open picnic tables, open fields and other natural areas . Having defined the nature of active recreation , several points were noted as critical to resolution of future siting problems : • Examples from other communities that have public education on facility location and public input into decisions ; • Point out the positive components of nearby active recreation ; • Focus on greater community needs and the downside of not providing active facilities ; • Work to better define the type of land appropriate for active facilities with lights - locating adjacent to schools and other more - intensive uses ; • Stress accessibility to pedestrians , bicycle riders , and public transportation ; • If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to residential communities , buy larger land area to develop buffers for shielding of light and noise . More analysis is needed to explore the change in attitude toward park impacts . However , the following suggestions may be ways to mitigate concerns about active recreation facilities while meeting the public need : • The co - location of schools and parks can address this issue with appropriate design . • Co - locating schools with parks may have superseded the old concept of community ( mid - level ) parks . If this is the case , the 15 5/ 26/ 99 focus for future parks and recreation development could be targeted to smaller , less - intensive neighborhood parks and larger district parks . • By combining active and low - impact recreation needs at the district park level ( 100 - plus acres ) , it may be possible to develop trails and retain natural areas on the perimeter while dedicating the interior to active facilities and " hidden " parking areas . Care must be exercised to ensure the integrity of natural areas , however . • Buffers should contain enough land and mature tree canopy to minimize sound and lighting to an acceptable level . • Place future programmed active recreation facilities in larger district parks and make neighborhood parks low - impact . • Look countywide to define future neighborhood and district parks — working with UNC , OWASA and other entities . • Related to the above , land acquisition for parks is needed now to begin to identify and save priority parklands . Several local governments ( including some city/ county joint efforts ) are presently engaged in this ( sometimes called land banking ) . D . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through Capital Improvement Plans ( CIP ' s ) and Long - term Parkland Acquisition To be developed . A meeting of the Managers , elected representatives and staffs is being scheduled to address these issues . E . Coordination Opportunities with UNC / Implications of UNC Expansion The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provides both facilities that are used by the greater town and County populations , and users of local recreational facilities in the form of students who live on and ( particularly ) off- campus . Currently , UNC provides the following recreational facilities for its students . Policy does not allow use by non - students , although this policy is not strictly enforced and many Town residents avail themselves of facilities like the Botanical Gardens , Finley Golf Course , Kenan Stadium , Fetzer Field / Belk Track , and groups like Rainbow Soccer use fields owned by the University . In the 1996 report " Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County " , the work group " determined that in applying standards to the population of Orange County that 11 , 000 people ( students living in dormitories and fraternities/ sororities ) could be subtracted from population totals in deriving park acreage needs . The assumption underlying this adjustment is that these students reside on campus and have their recreation needs met wholly by 16 5/ 26/ 99 UNC - CH , while others in the towns and County rely largely on the three jurisdictions facilities . " Town - Gown Opportunities According to UNC recreation managers , facility needs for students are largely met on the UNC campus . UNC officials estimate that a small number of students use town facilities , excluding the use of privately held soccer fields . As mentioned above , it is widely known that citizens throughout the community use various facilities owned by UNC . While towns ' concerns are largely centered around facility use by students , faculty use of both UNC and public facilities also arise when developing methods of assessing use and needs by jurisdictions . The exact numbers of faculty and students utilizing UNC facilities is unknown . Some officials from UNC see the balance of town gown recreation facility use as harmonious while select town perceptions focus on increasing public - sector facility pressures . UNC is also working to encourage the public use of some of its facilities such as the Carolina Outdoor Education Center ( see Appendix E ) . This facility includes tennis courts , a frisbee golf course , bike trails , and rope courses . UNC wants to educate the public about recreation availability , especially encouraging lesser - known facilities around campus . F . Coordination Opportunities with OWASA The Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA ) has been an active part of Orange County 's efforts surrounding recreation and park planning . Representatives of the OWASA Board and staff are members of the Work Group , and have actively contributed to the efforts of the County in providing higher levels of recreation and park service to citizens in the community . OWASA owns over 3 , 000 acres in Orange County , and the local governments have expressed interest in discussing recreation possibilities on parts of these holdings . Both OWASA - owned Cane Creek Reservoir lands and University Lake ( which is leased from UNC ) are unique recreational locations in the County . These combined areas represent nearly 2 , 000 acres within southwestern Orange County . As some of the only formal locations with boating , fishing , and canoeing in the County , these areas are recreational opportunities the County is interested in maintaining . The expansion of hours and seasons for use of recreation facilities at Cane Creek and University Lake is an issue that might build new bridges . Partnerships with OWASA are avenues for encouraging recreational opportunities on OWASA lands . Opportunities appear to exist for local governments to work with OWASA . In particular , local governments may be interested in discussing with OWASA long - term scenarios for some lands , including mitigation lands acquired during the building of Cane Creek Reservoir . The OWASA Board of Directors 17 5/ 26/ 99 has asked the local governments that requests regarding recreation use be made on specific parcels ( please see Appendix F ) . OWASA ' s primary objective of water quality protection will determine their policy decisions regarding appropriate intensity of use on specific holdings . The Carrboro Board has recently asked OWASA to consider environmentally - sensitive low - ; impact public recreation uses on all OWASA properties . Finally , OWASA has acquisition plans for nearly 1300 acres in Cane Creek watershed , which may ` offer another potential opportunity for partnership with local governments for the provision of low - impact recreation . f G . Coordination Opportunities with Duke University Duke Forest is private land owned and managed by Duke University as an ( outdoor educational and research facility . Comprised of seven tracts of land , the Forest covers nearly 8000 acres of woodlands and fields . Within the Forest there are a variety of forest ecosystems , stand ages , plant species , wildlife , soils , topography , and past land uses . Orange County contains five Duke Forest tracts ( or ' divisions ' ) and almost 5000 acres in the County . The Duke Forest is fully accessible through an established network of roads and footpaths . Although not expressly invited , the public is permitted to use the maintained road and trail system for recreational purposes . Permissible uses include hiking , biking , horseback riding , fishing , and picnicking , with horses and mountain bikes being restricted to the access roads . These uses are allowed where they do not conflict with teaching and research activities . The public in Orange County has received a substantial benefit from the availability of Duke Forest resources . A 1990 survey estimated Duke Forest visitation at 273 , 000 visits per year . Given a fifteen percent increase in the county ' s population since that survey , and the fact that three - quarters of the Forest ' s roads and trails are in Orange County , it is probable that current use by residents of Orange County exceeds 235 , 000 visits per year . Public use of the Duke Forest has the potential to cause conflicts with ongoing research and teaching , in addition to creating concerns related to maintenance and liability . In recent years , an increasing amount of Duke Forest staff time has been spent in response to problems caused by improper public use and over - use . Attempts have been made to reduce liability and conflicts between academic and public uses by directing the public to less sensitive areas , restricting permissible activities , and educating the public about the academic mission of the Duke Forest . However , in light of increasing public demand for natural area recreation , reduction in conflicts with the academic mission of the Forest will only occur with the addition of public facilities provided by the surrounding counties and municipalities . In light of this , the future appears to offer opportunities to work with Duke to address mutual interests . 18 5/ 211 6/ 99 1/ . A �� EQUATE �4► ND TIMELY' R VIS1N ® F ,PA► RKLAND A .ND ; NATU,RAL 11 CORRIDORS A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met In Section II of this document , recreation needs have been identified for each of the jurisdictions within Orange County , using previous works and new assessments . While there are some differences between the jurisdictions , in general the needs fall into the following major categories : • Acquisition of lands for long - term park use ( " land - banking " ) , • School / park combinations ; • Acquisition of open space and natural areas for low - impact recreation ; • Acquisition and development of greenways , trails , and linear parks ; • Active recreation facilities and / or gymnasiums • Larger community/ district parks with a mixture of activities • Neighborhood - scale parks If coordinated capital funding and long - term land acquisition is pursued , a flexible process must be developed that would allow for revisions as well as the introduction of new priorities with a timetable that ranks needs and establishes a reasonable timeframe to assure the communities ' recreational needs are being met . A model along the lines of the NCDOT seven - year Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP ) might be a starting point . A multi jurisdictional committee charged with evaluating needs , funding availability and long - term plans could undertake the development of this mechanism . B . Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in Rural Areas identified in both urban and rural areas are One of the most prominent needs the need to preserve green corridors . These corridors serve a variety of recreation needs , while preserving visual and natural resources . In rural areas , the need for wildlife corridors has been documented - areas that serve as connectors between watersheds along streamways and ridges . Inside the Towns , paved or gravel trails along utility easements and streamways have been and continue to be a high priority - such as the much - used Bolin Creek Greenway in Chapel Hill . Other types of corridors merge these two concepts , serving as a combination of the two ( such as Eno River State Park and the planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough / Orange County ) . 19 5/ 26 / 99 1 . Greenways In the past 15 years , a considerable degree of planning has occurred in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for greenways . In 1985 , the Town of Chapel Hill received a Greenways Task Force Report that led to the creation of a Greenways Commission , and the planning and development of Bolin Creek Greenway , In 1996 , a Comprehensive Greenways Master Plan was adopted that outlines future greenways , funding and construction plans and priorities . The 1996 plan focused on four new greenway trails : Lower Booker Creek ( Phase II ) , Upper Booker Creek , Dry Creek ( Phase I ) and Dry Creek ( Phase II ) . The Town of Carrboro 's " Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan " calls for active greenways to be located on the Morgan and Bolin Creek corridors . Both would be off- street facilities , for a total of ten miles and linking up with greenways planned in Chapel Hill . It has been the practice. to require offers of dedication in both areas as part of the Town 's Land Use Ordinance. However , no offers have been formally accepted by the Town as of this date . In regards to other non - motorized access , Carrboro 's bikeways system is among the best, in North Carolina . The bikeway system is designed to allow residents to safely commute from their neighborhoods through the central business district to Chapel Hill at Cameron Avenue . For the sporting cyclist concerned with touring or training , routes start at Jones Ferry and Old Hillsborough roads . The town 's recreational facilities are easily accessible to Carrboro residents by the bikeway system . While the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal greenways program , recent initiatives to link Occoneechee Mountain to the Eno River State Park and develop a Riverwalk along the Eno in Hillsborough in conjunction with Orange County ) would form a significant beginning for a greenways system . There is a fourth area where the potential for greenways currently exists , although no facilities have been planned or developed to date . The 1986 Joint Planning Area Plan Use Plan adopted by the County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro contains a strategy map that provides for future greenway corridors along the network of streams in the Rural Buffer area as well as the Town 's long - term transition areas . Through the Orange County Subdivision Regulations , the County has a policy to require dedication of land for greenways in the Rural Buffer area . While some land has been dedicated to date in the Rural Buffer , no plans have been developed for a greenway system . This subject would likely be dealt with in the planned revision to the County Master Recreation and Parks Plan . 20 5 / 26 / 99 2 . Wildlife Corridors In 1988 , the Triangle Land Conservancy developed an Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County . In identifying 64 of the most significant sites countywide , the Inventory also identified and addressed the importance of preserving wildlife corridors along selected streams and ridges as connectors . These connectors provide habitat and allow migrating wildlife to move between larger open land masses and water bodies . In many of these corridors a primitive trail system exists , formed by years of use by wildlife and local hikers , although many of the lands in the corridor are privately - held . The need for this green skeleton will increase in the future as development continues to occur . The proposed wildlife corridor network in the 1988 Inventory connects the Jordan Lake lands to University Lake , and Cane Creek Reservoir to the Eno River and Little River . This corridor has been incorporated in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as part of the Resource Protection Area category . Much of the wildlife corridor lies within floodplain or poorly - drained land that would not be developed , but important overland connectors exist along several ridges . Attempts to protect this corridor in its natural state are currently pursued through the County 's voluntary Flexible Development ordinance . Other corridors may also be important to the natural eco - system and wildlife habitat . 3 . Linkages between Greenways and Linear Parks There are clear distinctions between greenways designed for human recreational use and wildlife corridors to be maintained in a natural state . A third component of the system is the existing / planned network of open space in the County , areas such as Eno River State Park , Duke Forest , and the planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough . These areas are apparent as ` nodes " or junctions in the green infrastructure of the County , often connected by stream or wildlife corridors . This type of network also exists in the urban areas , where greenways serve to connect many Town parks . As the County and towns continue to grow and develop , retention of a green corridor concept will be important . Additionally , ways to link rural linear parks and open space accessible to the public to Town greenways at a few key junctions could greatly expand low - impact recreational opportunities . Identification of strategic corridors ( rural trail links ) that can tie these pieces of the open space network will be needed in the long - term . 21 5/ 26/ 99 C . Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and Rural Trail Links The use of land for greenways ; rural trails and wildlife corridors may be viewed as a continuum of types . One example of a continuum is found in the 1996 Chapel Hill Greenways Plan . The Greenways Plan classifies six different types of natural corridors or trails , ranging from natural wildlife corridors , to 10 - foot paved greenways for bike and pedestrian use . The six classes from the Chapel Hill Greenways Plan ( with some modified terminology ) are : 1 . Unimproved Corridors lacking trails . No maintenance unless problems ( such as diseased or dying trees ) affect neighboring properties . 2 . Primitive Trails , created by wildlife or citizens . Not maintained . 3 . Improved Woodland Trails , with soft natural surface and minimal improvements that can accommodate mountain bikes and serve as interpretive trails . Basic maintenance ( removal of litter , fallen trees and limbs ) 4 . Unpaved Access Drive with gates or bollards to prevent casual vehicle use , suitable for pedestrians or mountain bikes . Usually a road built for other purposes and used for a trail . 5 . Paved Greenway Trail , under 104eet wide . Can be pedestrian - only or allow bicycle use . Maintenance . 6 . Paved Greenway Trail 10 - Feet or Wider , for mixed bicycle and pedestrian traffic . Built to ADA standards . While developed with greenways in mind , this classification scheme could be used on a broader scale . Classes 1 - 2 , for example , might reasonably fit into the scheme of wildlife corridors , adding provisions that specify no improvements , no public access , and any trails only as previously created by wildlife or people . Classes 4 - 6 would appear to be more - properly classified as greenways , since their use is more targeted to people ( either pedestrian or bicycle ) . Classes 4 - 6 would be more urban in nature , publicly owned or eased , and found inside the Towns or adjacent areas . Class 3 ( Improved Woodland Trails ) could be seen as a hybrid trail found in both urban and rural areas , and as such could be used as an example of rural trail links that tie some parks and open space to a regional trail system on a primary corridor to be identified in the future . In this sense , Woodland Trails may constitute a third category of corridors and trails . There are several criteria that could be used to evaluate land 22 5/ 26/ 99. suitability for wildlife corridors , woodland trails and greenways , in this setting . Examples might include : Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Criteria • Located along perennial streams , or ridges connecting watershed basins and their perennial streams • Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy • Connects and includes identified natural areas and wildlife habitat and other areas of public interest • Privately held unless dedicated to public entity - no public access unless granted by property owner/ public entity • No trails , except as existing from the movement of wildlife/ people Woodland Trails ( Rural Trail Links ) Evaluation Criteria • Located along an identified primary corridor system • Located away from natural areas and wildlife habitat , or in such fashion as to minimize impact on these areas • Links parks , urban greenways systems and existing open space areas such as Eno River State Park • Consistent with a long - term regional trails system • Located in areas with minimal streamway and adjoining lands erosion potential • Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy • Located in areas where periodic access for emergency vehicles can be sited Greenway Evaluation Criteria • Located along streamway systems in urban or surrounding areas • Co - located with existing easements ( such as utility easements ) • Located as far as possible from residences to preserve privacy • Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank • Stream crossings should be avoided whenever possible and grade separated when necessary • Located to ensure that minimum disruption of the trail would result from repair or replacement of utilities • Located to connect existing neighborhoods , parks and services • Located to allow for emergency vehicle access With these priorities in mind , the long - term potential for a few carefully - sited rustic rural trails linking some urban greenways or parks to existing and future rural linear parks and open space does exist . Plans for development of any coordinated intra - County trail system should be developed with linkages to regional plans for parks and trails . Linkages along the Haw River , Eno River . State Park , New Hope Creek , Jordan Lake and future rails - to - trails initiatives will likely be critical components of a long - range regional trails system . The Joint Planning Area Strategy Map shows the beginnings of such a system that was envisioned in 1987 . While considerable further work is 23 5 / 26/ 99 needed in this area , it is possible with existing mapping to visualize three examples of possible long - term rural trail links tying town parks and open space to those in rural areas : • A North Chapel Hill / Rural Buffer corridor linking Booker Creek Greenway , Northern Community Park , Duke Forest , New Hope Creek ( including TLC lands and Duke Forest ) back to the New Hope Creek Corridor and the Durham County line . • A corridor in southwest/ central Orange County linking the Haw River , Cane Creek Reservoir, OWASA mitigation lands , Seven - Mile Creek lands , Eno River and Duke Forest , Eno River Walk in Hillsborough and the Eno River State Park . ( A northern branch along the Eno toward the new Hillsborough reservoir could be added to this concept ) . • A corridor in southern Orange linking Bolin Creek Greenway via Meadowmont and UNC to the UNC Botanical Garden to Jordan Lake lands . 24 5/ 26/ 99 c f ` s �� ' ' ?a' IfUo' 'q"' u .y`c t ss' 1. V . ACCZUISI 10N OF LAND ,rt $ A . Coordination with County Resource Acquisition Program On January 4 , 1999 , Orange County created a Department of Environment and Resource Conservation . One of the principal tasks for the new department is the development of a Resource Acquisition Program . While primarily targeted to the preservation of natural and cultural resources , the program will also address acquisition measures for recreation lands and parks - since many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and recreation are intertwined . Since the County 's resources are located in all quadrants of the County , irrespective of planning jurisdiction , the program offers an opportunity for coordinated acquisition with the Towns and OWASA . A new Land Resource Conservation Manager is being hired to coordinate these acquisitions , a with a dual background in science and real estate . A draft outline of the Resource Acquisition Program has been developed and is shown below . It includes an assessment of the loss of resources that has occurred to date , an inventory of resources at present , and development of a program of easements and purchase for the future that may involve a number of approaches . Fortunately , some preliminary GIS mapping in this area has been accomplished . Additional efforts will be needed to complete the task , including the collation of data from inventories previously compiled . This program will coordinate the acquisition of land for historic sites , natural resources , parks and recreation, and farmland - using matching funds and seed money from the County . As such , the program will be inter - related with the Schools/ Land Use and Master Recreation and Parks efforts . It is thus anticipated that the eventual goals , objectives and criteria identified in this report will be inputs into the acquisition program for recreation and parks facilities . 25 5/ 26/ 99 Draft - Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County I . Overview and Description of Rationale A . Formation of Department Be Resources / Past programs and initiatives _Section I - Summary of Resources / Priorities II . Summary of Inventories and Available Knowledge A . 1986 OCPD Inventory of Natural, Cultural. . . Be 1988 TLC Inventory Co 1990 LESA Farmland Evaluation program D. Watershed studies (1988, 1989, 1996, 1999) E. 1996 Landscape with Wildlife now TLC F. 1997 Resources Section - Comprehensive Plan G. 1999 Prime Forest Follow- up H. Master Recreation and Parks Report III . Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay A . How Database was created B . Listing of Existing coverages Co New Coverages created to fill in gaps D. Continued Data Needs IV . Criteria and Master Priority List for Acquisition A . Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife habitat Be Criteria for Prime Farmland C. Criteria for Historic Sites D. Criteria for Parklands E. Criteria for Riparian Buffers F. Ranking System / Weighting G. Priority List (by category) Section II - Management and Funding V . Tools and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition A . Fee -simple purchase Be Donations (several types) C. Conservation Easements D. Coordination with Acquisitions through Development Process E. Other easements F. Life -lease agreements G. Coordinated Capital Funding with Towns (parks) VI . Management Structure ( land trusts , etc ) A . Collaborating with existing land trusts Be Soil and Water District Co Establishing a Countywide Land Trust D . Roles of County Commissions and Advisory Boards E. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships F. Stewardship and Post-Acquisition Structure VII . Alternative Funding Sources ( grants , etc) A . County CIP Allocations Be Other County Funds Co Grants from Clean Water Management Trust Fund D. Grants from Natural Heritage Trust Fund E. Grants from NC Recreation and Parks Trust Fund F. Federal Funds G. Soil and Water Administered Funds H. Many Others Section III - Implementation VIII . Recommended Implementation Program A . Management Structure B . Board of Directors / Oversight Boards C. Funding Plans D. Plan of Action E. Stewardship and use of Lands 26 5 / 26 / 99 B . Funding Sources 1 . Alternative Sources The means and methods of funding future recreation and parks needs may involve a number of approaches and combinations . As discussed in Section III , a coordinated approach for capital funding of acquisitions might be desirable . Some possibilities for funding sources might include : • Bond referenda from the County or Towns • Grants from programs such as the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund , the Natural Heritage Trust Fund ( via state agencies ) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program , and other sources ( add examples ) • Allocations from local government general funds or special accounts • Contributions from other agencies with interests • Matching funds from local governments • Payment - in - Lieu or New Program of funding through development ( see Sections VI and VII ) or School / Park Reserve Fund • Future Federal programs for open space and parks ( Lands Legacy / Better America Bonds Initiative ) • NC Conservation Corps ( AmeriCorps/ VISTA ) 2 . Local Funding of State Trust Funds : Parks and Recreation Trust Fund / Natural Heritage Trust Fund Two of these potential funding sources are funded through locally collected revenue stamps . Currently , the County collects $ 2 . 00 per thousand on the sale prices of houses . Of this money , 48 % goes to the State , while 52 % ( $ 1 . 04 of the $ 2 stamp ) stays in the County . Three - quarters ( 75 % ) of the State 's portion goes to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund established under G . S . 113 - 44 . 15 . The money collected under this fund is appropriated annually by the , NC Parks and Recreation Authority and used as follows : l 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 5 / 26/ 99 3 . Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program . Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) through revenue stamps began in the 1996 - 97 fiscal year . Through March 1999 , Orange County ( including the towns ) has contributed $ 1 , 351 , 727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund through the staters 48 % portion of the funding arrangement . Of that amount , $ 304 , 139 has gone to the local government matching grants program . To date , the N . C . Recreation and Parks Authority has allocated $ 31 , 500 back into Orange County , to the Town of Hillsborough for the Occoneechee Mountain Park . This is the only local funding received . • - ' - - - - • $ 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 . 2 Funds are only available to state agencies , or local governments working in conjunction with state agencies . To date , Orange County has contributed $ 337 , 932 to the Natural Heritage Fund program through revenue stamps . The only federal or state programs in Orange County that have received money is the Eno River State Park , 2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage . 28 5/ 26/ 99 . , ., • . . . •< _ VI . AYMENT, IN - LIE .. ROGRId VA _ S A. Development Exactions for Recreation in Orange County Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas . Increasing pressures on funds generated from the traditional property tax levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and recreation . Public officials have been encouraged to consider alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the property tax base and bond funds . Alternatives to purchase and dedications include payment - in - lieu and impact fee programs . The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions in Orange County have recreation requirements in their own Subdivision Regulations or Land Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated , private recreation facilities provided , or a combination thereof. These requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/ police authority of local governments to protect the health , safety , , and welfare of their communities . These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority , similar to roads , utilities , and other public improvements required as conditions for subdivision approval . The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Messer v . Town of Chapel Hill , 297 S . E . 2d 632 ( 1982 ) , in holding that the Town ordinance , within the statutory powers given to a city , could exact recreation land or facilities and even require the . particular site within the subdivision to provide adequate recreation needs . B . Definition of Payment - in - Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 1 . Payment - in - Lieu A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities has been the inclusion of a payment - in - lieu program under this same general statutory power . In this program , a subdivision developer pays a fee related to the jurisdiction 's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation lands , of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate . These fees then help provide recreation facilities within the immediate area of the development . If the developer is provided the option to meet the jurisdiction 's requirements or make some commensurate payment - in - lieu of recreation facilities , the jurisdiction is empowered to accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . Payment - in - lieu fees must be geographically designated within the " immediate area " of the development , spent within a reasonable amount of time , and supplemented with other funds . 5/ 26/ 99 2 . 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 gone size fits all " regressive nature fee scale that exists for impact fees . Orange County has , in previous years , sought impact tax legislation from the State to provide for possible reassessment of the Public School Impact Fee program . C . Current Status of Payment - in - Lieu Throughout the County Methods of assessing a development ' s recreation impact vary across the different jurisdictions within Orange County . Appendix G indicates the method by which Orange County and Carrboro calculate their payment required for the payment - in - lieu program . Orange County also has special legislation which allows payments to be collected and spent on a " district " basis . Instead of using a set schedule of payments , Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of land instead of payments . The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation and open space needs . In terms of the reality of the programs , in Carrboro , many developments choose to provide private recreation facilities rather than payment - in - lieu . Carrboro has collected $ 453 , 000 to date . Both . Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do not have detailed central records of the results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations . Orange County has required payments since 1988 , and has accumulated these payments in a fund totaling $ 488 , 000 . It is clear in a broad overview , however, that the current system of land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens ' needs . Several problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and 5 / 26 / 99 facilities . While recreational facilities may be developed privately , these are not open to the public . Secondly , small parcels of land that are donated for public use are often not used , because of their small size and / or inaccessible location . 1 . Land Dedication In Orange County , a total of 44 . 08 Acres has been dedicated . All of the land is located in southern Orange , in either Bingham or Chapel Hill Townships . All are also non - contiguous parcels ranging from 0 . 12 acres to 12 . 34 acres in size . • Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres • Chapel Hill Township 29 . 76 Acres 2 . Payments - in - Lieu Funds Collected Both Orange County and Carrboro have collected funds under the existing payment - in - lieu programs . Under legislative authority granted by the General Assembly , Orange County may collect and use its funds on a district basis . In the 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County , a system of four districts was instituted ( see map In Appendix K ) . To date ( April 1999 ) , the County has accumulated $ 533 , 000 through the payment - in - lieu system . Three projects totaling $ 45 , 000 have been funded from these proceeds : the New Hope Creek Corridor project , the Efland - Cheeks Park and the Parkland Reserve . There is currently $ 488 , 000 available for use in the fund . Broken down by district , the Orange County funds are allocated as follows . Orange County Payments - in - Lieu Total Accumulated ( as of 4/ 99 ) : $ 533 , 000 Spent as of 4/ 99 : $ 45 , 000 District Amount 1 - Northern Orange 102 332 2 - Cheeks/ $ 171 , 296 Hillsborou h 3 - Bingham $ 65 , 0031 4 - Cha el Hill Tw $ 149 , 317 GRAND TOTAL - $ 487 , 952 ALL TWPS Town of Carrboro Payments - in - Lieu to date : $ 453 , 684 5 / 26/ 99 D . Difficulties with Payment - in - Lieu Programs ft In reviewing payment - in - lieu programs , the Work Group heard from local practitioners , attorneys , and an expert from the Institute of Government . It is clear that several difficulties exist in effectively providing recreation facilities using payment - in - lieu programs . Both Carrboro and Orange County have funds that remain to be matched and spent . Chapel Hill has consistently used its fund , yet the same restrictions do not necessarily apply since its system of individual negotiations does not fit under the definition of a payment - in - lieu program . Several problems with the current systems are highlighted below , and proposals for changes to the means of providing and funding recreation lands will be suggested in Section VII , the recommendations section of this report . Difficulties • . Payment - in - lieu is not intended to fund facilities of countywide significance • Fees must be geographically earmarked and spent on areas within the immediate area Fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time • Fees must be supplemented with matching funds for use The requirements for the distribution of payment - in - lieu fees complicate potential solutions that would pool funds and inter - jurisdictional cooperation . In order for any of these ventures to occur , an analysis of park use as related to population growth and location may be needed , helping to prove the requisite " reasonable relationship " between the collected fee and benefited populace . Through its special legislation , Orange County may be able to re - draw districts to potentially address these problems . E . Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally Understanding our difficulties with payment - in - lieu and exactions will enable us to also search for better solutions . In order to gain a clearer picture of regional , state , and national trends regarding land regulatory policies for parkland acquisition , we must look to examples of different jurisdictions experiences . The table below highlights jurisdictions within our region , state , and other states . 5 / 26 / 99 Table 2 : Recreation Land Acquisition Comparison JURISDICTION PAYMENT- IN METHOD OF CALCULATING COST ESTIMATES LIEU ? PAYMENT .Orange Count 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 - Mecklenburg 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 . I � i 1 I 1 f I I 1 i I1 I I � i i I I j 1 • � I i I i 1 I I ' I � I 5/ 26/ 99 ¢ 9 _ E 2 1/my 3- II . RECOM 41 A`� IONS K , .. .. mob .. . . �� amarmytea : One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork for future matching funds and grant programs - - many of which require a set of goals , objectives and criteria . As Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough develop , the nature of future park and recreation provision will likely include cooperative ventures among the local governments and partnerships with organizations such as the school systems , OWASA , UNC and Duke . Planning for this eventuality should begin now , to ensure that valuable opportunities are not lost . These concepts were in fact , the reason for this effort , as described in the Assembly of Governments and Manager 's reports from 1996/ 1997 , In its deliberations , the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has developed recommendations in nine key areas : l A . Create a " Parks and Resource Lands Council " In developing plans for long - term recreation and parks planning , the Work Group has identified a need for a permanent joint Parks and Resource Lands Council . For example , this council might include one elected official and one citizen from each jurisdiction , along with representatives from the school systems , UNC , OWASA and Duke . The Council could meet quarterly to address follow - up concerns in the areas discussed in this report . The opportunity in this Work Group to bring all of the different local governments to the table has been useful and informative , and the Work Group feels that this momentum could be continued through a long - term mechanism . While the actual duties of the Council would need to be determined , some areas of responsibility might include : • Develop and periodically review coordinated standards ; • Develop future bond proposals for parks and recreation ; • Provide input and a coordinating mechanism for updates of future recreation plans in the different jurisdictions ; • Make recommendations on allocation of future bond moneys for parks and recreation ; • Develop grant applications and alternative funding sources ; ` Maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of this effort , F Create and maintain an inventory of properties dedicated or accepted as part of the development process ; • Monitor success of efforts to protect significant natural areas t as identified in the Natural Areas Inventory , watershed 5/ 26/ 99 studies , and plans for greenways and linear parks ; • Coordinate efforts with the Orange County Resource Acquisition Programs • Develop public education programs on parks and recreation The creation of this council is a critical component of future coordination . By its nature , the Council will need to coordinate closely with the work of the Schools/ Land Use Councils on acquisition of lands of mutual interest for school / park co - location . This report contains criteria and details that build on the ideas of the School / Land Use Memorandum of Agreement . A resolution asking the local governments to create the Parks and Resource Lands Council in time for an initial meeting in fall of 1999 is attached as Appendix L . B . Inter -jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements Currently , the towns and County have a number of different standards that are used to determine parks and recreation needs . While recognizing the distinctions between urban and rural needs and facilities , it does app2ar that coordination of the different approaches would provide a number of advantages . In particular , if the local governments pursue joint capital funding , land acquisition , and other combined functions , the need for a consistent countywide set of standards will be paramount . The Work Group recommends that the Parks and Resource Lands Council address , among their first duties , a coordinated set of recommended standards for parks and recreation . C . Joint Siting , Design , and Management of School and Park Sites across Jurisdictions The Schools and Land Use Councils have opened an important door in the co - location of schools and parks . With an avenue for input into the design and planning stages , the local governments and schools will be able to provide for a number of parks and recreation needs . Concerns about management of these facilities should be resolvable , with the Schools and Land Use Councils providing an important role in consensus - building . As mentioned above , close coordination between the Parks and Resource Lands Council and the Schools/ Land Use Councils will be paramount . As further research is developed on the specifics of a program for school / park acquisition , the Work Group suggests that 5 / 26/ 99 Orange County , with its role in school site acquisition and program / staff resources for land acquisition may best play a coordinating role in future land acquisitions for both purposes . D . Public / Private Partnerships E G - As mentioned above , one of the most exciting prospects for the future of recreation and parks provision in Orange County is that of public/ private partnerships . Coordination with OWASA and UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible , and the Work Group recommends that the local governments ( perhaps through the Parks and Resource Lands Council ) work to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to explore these possibilities . In particular , the identified need for a large district park between Chapel Hill - Carrboro and Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would have a stake i n . Additionally , partnerships with other entities may take on different roles . Coordination with Duke University is also recommended , although it is recognized that Duke Forest is of a different nature . Duke Forest plays an important role in the open space network of the County , and future discussion of that role as links in a corridor or trail system will be critical . Finally , the potential for coordination with Triangle Land Conservancy , the State of North Carolina , the Eno River Association and private firms appears to exist and should be encouraged where practical . I E . Joint Capital Facilities Plan / Coordinated Land Identification , Acquisition and Banking If the local governments in Orange County are to be successful in providing for the long - term needs of County/ town residents , It is clear that joint capital funding and land - banking efforts need to be addressed , and should be addressed as quickly as possible . A meeting of Managers , elected officials and staff should be called to develop a plan for coordination . It is clear that land prices will continue to escalate . Potential larger park areas inside the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area are quite limited , which will require planning for future joint district parks in the County . This , plus the inability to accumulate sufficient funds individually , leads to a strong recommendation that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough develop a plan to coordinate funding sources in future years . It is 5/ 26/ 99 recommended that the aforementioned meeting of Managers , staffs and elected officials from the jurisdictions as soon as possible . Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs ( CIP 's ) could be a fundamental part of this mechanism . As previously - mentioned , Orange County 's Resource Acquisition Program for land might allow the County to take a lead role in coordinating future acquisitions , most of which will likely be located outside of Town corporate limits . F . Open Facilities Policy In the spirit of inter- governmental coordination , the Work Group believes that citizens of the Towns and County should have the opportunity to use facirities developed by all of the . local governments and OWASA . Attempting to limit use of facilities solely to residents on a single jurisdiction is likely to be cumbersome administratively and not constructive generally . The Work Group recommends that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro , Hillsborough and OWASA adopt the " Open Facilities Policy " resolution found in Appendix I . This policy will provide that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties are open and accessible to all County residents . To a different degree , a policy regarding use of local government facilities by UNC students and of UNC facilities by local citizens should be investigated with the University . A particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education Center, and cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued now . Additionally , coordination with OWASA on recreational hours at the lake facilities is another venue for partnership , and the Work Group recommends that OWASA review hours of operation as suggested by the Carrboro Board . The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop appropriate mutual guidelines in this area . G . Payment - in - Lieu Changes The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities . However , because of its limitations ( both geographic and financial ) , payment - in - lieu programs are unlikely to produce 5 / 26/ 99 - recreation needs . A process is sufficient funds to meet long term needed to use existing funds , modify the current program to make it more practical , and develop new sources of revenue for recreation land and facilities . The Work Group recommends that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans to match payment - in - lieu dollars to date with parks bonds and other funding sources . With a method of pooling payment - in - lieu across jurisdictions currently unworkable , it is recommended that the current system of payments - in - lieu be kept . In Orange County ' s case , the County should explore modifications to the system to provide for a more - appropriate calculation of payment based on the developed property valuation . I Finally , the Parks and Resource Lands Council should explore the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax , along the lines of existing legislation . If found prudent , a recommended impact fee/ tax program for recreation should be developed and forwarded to the local governments in Orange County for action . H . Address Existing Needs Currently , countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of types of parks ( e . g . regional , community , neighborhood , etc ) . While additional work is needed in developing standards , it is possible to envision an overview of park needs based on population standards . Po elation in 2000 estimated 112 000 Total Parkland Needs 2 , 030 acres Current Parkland Acres 1 , 385 acres Parkland Deficit/ Surplus - 645 acres rams Population in 2025 168 , 000 Total Parkland Needs 3 , 100 acres Parkland Acres 1 , 835 acres Parkland Deficit/ Surplus - 1 , 265 acres The combined projected population for all of Orange County in the year 2025 is 168 , 000 , This total county population was used to assess the level of adequacy for future years . Based on this , in the year 2000 , Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres 5/ 26/ 99 of park/ recreation land in order to meet national adequacy standards . With current park facilities ( including projected acquisitions in the next year ) , a deficit of 645 acres will exist in 2000 . In 2025 , the County will need 3100 acres with a current projected deficit of 1265 acres . Details on how these projections were generated may be found in Appendix J . Based on the projected future need for 1 , 265 new acres of parkland , the Work Group has determined that the current critical need is to begin long - term land acquisition ( " land banking " ) . This concept is similar to any kind of bank — it essentially establishes a " savings account " of land . Once the savings account has been fully funded , land can be withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation needs . Based on the most commonly accepted standards , the county/ towns will need the following new parks just to meet current deficits : Type of Park Number Acres District 1 or 2 countywide 1 @ 600 acres , or 2 @ 300 acre average Communit 0 * 0 * Neighborhood 12 5 - 20 acres each * - The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage needs, but the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in Carrboro and one at Efland - Cheeks) may not meet the geographic needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in Hillsborough, northern Orange County and southwestern Orange , The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide , in 1999 dollars , is $ 10 . 12 million . Over time , the cost of purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise dramatically . I . Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs Simultaneous with the population increase , land in Orange County is rapidly increasing in value . Large tracts are being subdivided , and options for geographic locations of parkland in every township are diminishing . A priority for use of future funds clearly must be land acquisition for long - term park needs , rather than simply developing recreational facilities ( which can be developed over time as l 5 / 26 / 99 the population increases ) . A program for land acquisition for long - term park needs should be developed that identifies sites that could meet needs ( including potential for siting active and low impact recreation ) , based on projected size and location of parkland throughout the county . The availability of matching funds from the benefiting jurisdictions should be an important component in future acquisition and park development . The program should also identify an acreage threshold for co - located school / park land acquisition and should be developed with the Parks and Resource Lands Council and the Schools / Land Use Council . To address the estimated $ 10 . 12 million in future park needs , the following actions should be taken to use existing bond funds and address long - term needs . 1 . The remaining $ 2 . 89 million in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long - term parks use as soon as possible . 2 . The balance of funding should be an estimated $ 8 l million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000 . As previously discussed , the specifics of this bond should be coordinated by the Parks and Resource Lands Council . Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long - term park sites at this time will greatly reduce the cost of meeting long - term park needs . L 1 ' 5/ 26 / 99 I Appendices h E t - F A Summaries of Existing Plans E E B Shaping Orange County' s Future Parks Issues C Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Resources Subcommittee D Existing Recreation Standards Used by jurisdictions E Memorandum of Agreement of Co - Location of School / Parks Facilities F OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property G Existing Local Payment- in - Lieu Programs H Payment- in - Lieu Programs Around the Country 1 Resolution — Open Facilities Policy j Parkland Acreage Needed in 2025 Based on Population Standards K Maps L Resolution on Establishing a Countywide Parks and Resource Lands Council \ \ ', � � � �� � '� � 1 �`� � � 1 � � � � t • � ��� � � , �_ � Appendix A Summaries of Existing Recreation and Parks Plans 1988 - Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan The primary recommendations for the provision of County-wide recreation services focus on specific policies for park development within the townships in the County . The majority of land for the proposed parks shall be provided by public agencies throughout the County . Generally , the Master Plan recommends . • The development of community parks within Bingham , Cheeks , Cedar Grove , Eno , and Little River townships • Four district parks scattered throughout county • Construction of swimming pools at Chapel Hill and Orange High Schools In determining the priorities of park development and land acquisition , the Plan cites the requirement to consider immediate or pressing needs of the community first . Priorities for land acquisition and development include the following . 1 . Providing equitable distribution of recreational opportunities 2 . Providing for areas of the County not currently being served 3 . Providing for the greatest number of possible users Chapel Hill Park and Recreation Planning Efforts The Town of Chapel Hill currently operates without a Master Parks & Recreation Plan , The Town anticipates beginning development of a master plan in FY 1999 - 00 . Some planning direction is provided by the 1989 Community Facilities Report section of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan , which recommended the development of 4 community parks , 4 community centers , 17 neighborhood parks , and 25 mini - parks by the year 2010 . The Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated and is scheduled for review by the Council in late 1999 . The Town does have a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan , which was adopted in 1998 . The plan recommends that 38 miles of linear open space be preserved . The plan also recommends that 28 miles of linear open space be improved with trails . The plan recommends a mix of paved and natural surface trails . Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan The Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a comprehensive plan for recreation and parks services during 1995 . Each ensuing year , the Carrboro Recreation and Parks Commission reviews the plan and makes recommendations for changes to keep this plan current . The main purpose of the document is to provide the Town of Carrboro with an accurate , usable plan to guide its actions and decisions concerning : ➢ The future recreation role for the Town , ➢ Park and greenway acquisitions , renovations and developments ; ➢ Facility renovations and developments ; and ➢ .Recreation programming strategies . The Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan contains numerous specific proposals and recommendations too lengthy for inclusion herein . The projected timetable of the Plan is through the year 2015 . At this time , it is projected that the Town will have " built - out " its present planning jurisdiction . For further information , please refer to the Executive Summary or full Comprehensive Plan report for accompanying proposals , tables , exhibits and maps . Hillsboro u4h Park and Recreation Plan The Town 's Master Plan goals would : 1 . Use the Town 's natural and historical heritage as a recreational resource 2 . Acquire and maintain a neighborhood park for informal use in each neighborhood I Meet the recreational needs of the Town 's diverse population 4 . Acquire and maintain playing fields , courts and other facilities for organized sports and fitness 5 . Provide safe, convenient, and efficient travelways for non - motorized transportation of all people in Hillsborough . 6 . Actively seek participation and cooperation of all organizations involved in , or concerned with the provision of recreational services in the Hillsborough area . 5 / 26 / 99 ( Appendix 6 1 1998 now Shaping Orange County " s Future Citizen Committees ( Park and Recreation Issues ) Through the community visioning effort , Shaping Orange County 's Future , eight citizen committees identified qualities valuable to maintain throughout the county . They also compiled a list of qualities to either change or encourage . A partial list of these qualities , drawn from the different committee reports , is as follows . Existing Qualities to Maintain . • Duke Forest and Eno River State Park as recreational areas • Existing parks in Chapel Hill and Carrboro should d be maintained and enhanced Qualities to Change or Encourage : • Encourage recycling bins at parks • Encourage more facilities outside of towns • Change lack of swimming pools • Change lack of greenways in Rural Buffer • Change lack of teen programs at recreational facilities • Change lack of parkland north of Hillsborough • Change means of funding parks and recreation facilities • Change loss of open space ( defined generally as forests or fields ) • Encourage more parks and schools/ parks combinations • Encourage better intergovernmental cooperation in parks planning • Encourage multi - use paths in utility easements • Encourage public transportation to parks • Encourage implementation of parks and recreation plans • Encourage use of existing publicly - owned lands for regional parks R i w � � � • '\ \ \ \ \ \\ • \\\ \, \ \ ` \ t \ \� \ ` \� i 5 / 26/ 99 f I Appendix C Inventory of Existing Recreation Facilities - � � Resource Subcommittee i i Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory - Public Facilities _ � fff Ti 1 , .0� mV I )tebrOR U" N P Of rc k10 fd� f x,, 4, 091M Carrboro Anderson Community Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Hwy54W 8/20/98 54.7 N Y 1 0 1 Wilson Neighborhood Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Williams St. 8/20/98 8.49 N Y 0 1 1 Baldwin Park Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Broad St. 8/20/98 1.5 N Y 0 0 1 Carr Court Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Brewers Lane 8/20/98 1 N Y 0 1 0 Simpson Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Simpson/Main St. 8/20/98 0.25 N Y 0 0 0 Carrboro Elementary School Park lRichard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Shelton St. .8/20/98 4 _N Y 0 1 Orange County Northern Human Services Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Hwy 86 North 8/20/99 48 Y Y 0 1 1 Central Recreation Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Tryon St. Hillsborough 8/20/98 3 Y Y 0 0 0 Fairview Community Park OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Rainey St. Hillsborough 8/20/98 42 N N 0 0 1 Homestead Community Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Homestead Rd. 8/20/98 4 Y Y 0 0 0 Courthouse Park Site *(Proposed) OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660 Margaret Ln. Hillsborough 8/20/98 6 n1a N 0 0 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park *(Proposed with funding secure) OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8 18 1 x2660 Richmond Rd. 8/20/98 24 Y Y 0 1 2 Occoneechee Park Hillsborough Planning Dept, 732-2104 x228 Eno Mtn Rd. 9/l/98 28 N N (proposed trail 'Yes') 0 0 0 Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed '00) Hillsborough Planning Dept, 732-2104 x228 Murray SL, Hillsborough 9/l/98 0.25 N Y 0 swings 0 Eno River State Park Eno River State Park, 383-1686 Orange County and Hillsborough 9/1/98 2600 N One Access Only 0 0 0 Chapel Hill Burlington Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Church Rd 3/l/99 5 N Y 0 1 1 Cedar Falls Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Weaver Dairy Rd 3/l/98 64 Y Y 0 1 1 Chapel Hill Community Center and Park A[ Harris 932-2964 120 S. Estes Dr 6/1/98 10 Y Y 0 1 1 Ephesus Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Church Rd 3/l/98 16 N Y 0 0 0 Gomains Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Sykes St 6/l/98 0.25 N N 0 1 1 Hargraves Community Center Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N. Roberson 6/l/98 7.68 Y Y 0 1 1 Hargraves Gymnasium Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N. Roberson 6/l/98 Y Y 0 0 0 Jones Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Holland Dr 3/1/98 10 N Y 0 1 0 Lincoln Center Gymnasium Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Merritt Mill Rd 6/l/98 0.25 Y Y 0 0 0 North Forest Hills Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Collums Dr 3/l/98 10 N Y 0 0 1 Oakwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Berkley Rd and Oakwood Dr. 3/l/98 2 N N 0 1 1 Phillips Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Estes Dr 3/l/98 1 N N 0 0 0 Umstead Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Umstead Rd 3/l/98 16 N Y 0 1 1 Westwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Dogwood Dr 3/1/981 1 N N 0 0 1 Northern Community Park Kathryn Spatz 969-2784 Homestead Rd. and Hwy 86N 2/1/991 37 N Y 0 0.5 0.5 Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture (open space) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 15-501 and Hwy 54 intersection 2/l/99 35 N N 0 0 0 Pritchard Park (proposed) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 surrounding C.H. Library 2/l/99 34 N Southern Community Park(proposed) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 15-501 at Southern Village 2/l/99 73 N Little Creek (open space) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Cleland Ave. near Glen Lennox 2/l/99 50 N Blanks indicate missing data. Yes/No Colum Totals reflect'Yes' answers Page 1 5121199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks-Plan Inventory- Public Facilities J, N Carrboro Anderson Community Park N 5 1 1 2 4 0 1 1 0 2 N 0.75 Wilson Neighborhood Park N 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 N 0.25 Baldwin Park Mini-Park N I 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 Carr Court Mini-Park N 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Simpson Mini-Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Carrboro Elementary School Park N 1 0 0 0 2 1 ----F--o--T o 0 0 0 N 0 Orange County Northern Human Services Center Y 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Central Recreation Center N 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 Fairview Community Park N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Homestead Community Center Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Courthouse Park Site *(Proposed) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park *(Proposed with funding secure) Y 4 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 N I Occoneechee Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0.25 (0.25 proposed) Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed 'OO) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Eno River State Park N 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 18 Chapel Hill Burlington Park N I 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Falls Park N 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 N Chapel Hill Community Center and Park Y 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 N Ephesus Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 N Gomains Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Hargraves Community Center N I 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 3 N Hargraves Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Jones Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Lincoln Center Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 N North Forest Hills Park N I 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Oakwood Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 N Phillips Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N Umstead Park N I 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 N Westwood Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Northern Community Park N I 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 N Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture (open space) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Pritchard Park (proposed) Southern Community Park (proposed) Little Creek (open space) I 42240',!'MAN�4 ,0 19L "ErNINARRON '1191, Ott im �Iggg-g-'�!mpog q-q,*L�m W N Malt UMAN"N "fe , MA, Page 1 5121199 9:02 A41 Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory-Public Facilities L-12 z ��,,Tiliiti riiiii es is eiek rails: 7 1 -_�,,;_'-i �,,; . -1 1 2 Brc � I_�,-�- - - - - 11 1. alde' f Faciilit- `­ fi, j., , - I N U1 i ntt Carrboro Anderson Community Park 0.75 0.75 0 N Y N N 4 2 Wilson Neighborhood Park 0.25 0.25 0 N N N N 0 2 Baldwin Park Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1 Carr Court Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1 Simpson Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Carrboro, Elementary School Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Orange County Northern Human Services Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Central Recreation Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1 Fairview Community Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Homestead Community Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Courthouse Park Site *(Proposed) 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park *(Proposed with funding secure) 0.25 0 0 N N Y N 2 2 Occoneechee Park 0 0 0 N Y N N 0 0 Murray St. Neighborhood Park (proposed 'OO) 0 0 0 N N N N 0 (proposed) Eno River State Park 0 0 0 Y Y N Y 0 0 Chapel Hill Burlington Park N N N Cedar Falls Park N N N Chapel Hill Community Center and Park N N N Ephesus Park N N N Gomains Park N N N Hargraves Community Center N N N Hargraves Gymnasium N N N Jones Park N N N Lincoln Center Gymnasium N N N North Forest Hills Park N N N Oakwood Park N N N Phillips Park N N N Umstead Park N N N Westwood Park N N N Northern Community Park N N N Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture (open space) N N N Pritchard Park (proposed) Southern Community Park (proposed) Little Creek (open space) 1 4 I,-.1 ..nC 1 • - F,- L;tEr `,� ,_':_-, ", ,,T Page 3 5121199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory - Quasi-Public Facilities Facility Name Facility Location Date of information Use requires additional contact Meeting Hall # of Ball Fields #of Soccer,'Field' Picnic Shelter' Buckhorn Community Building Orange County 7/88 Y Y 0 0 N Caldwell Community Building Orange County 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Cane Creek Reservoir Orange County 7/98 N N 0 0 Y Cedar Grove Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N Corporation Lake Orange County 7/88 N N 0 0 N Efland Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N Exchange Club Hillsborough 7/98 N N 1 0 Y Homestead Center Carrboro 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Lake Michael Mebane 7/88 N N 0 0 Y Lake Orange Orange County 7/98 N N 0 0 Y Moorefields Orange County 9/98 Y N 0 0 N Oak Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N 2 0 N Orange Grove Community Center Orange County 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Orange United Methodist Church Chapel Hill 7/98 Y N 0 2 N Schley Grange Hall Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N University Lake Chapel Hill 7/98 N N 0 0 N Walnut Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N L 0 0 N UNC Facilities Open to Public Tennis Complex Chapel Hill 8/98 Y N 0 0 N Finley Golf Course Chapel Hill 8/98 N N 0 0 N Outdoor Education Center Chapel Hill 5/99 Y N 0 0 N Private Businesses Open to Public Occoneechee Golf Course Hillsborough 9/98 N N 0 0 N Sportsplex Hillsborough 8/98 N N 0 0 N YMCA Chapel Hill 7/98 N N 0 1 Y :..: �;:.t... .:... ... ... ...... v.Ytt. r..1.4fi i..f.,r - ... .Y r ...... r. �.. ....<.,a....r <. v o t J.N (.. y.7;. ...,.}4. . . .....e........oT d Y .., .r ma, .�t:�r: .s... 9e. ... .e...,.....F. .. ..,..,(,, &. .it.,,r,r v b.,>x$ .>.J.'.. ,. s. ,:'°i,..a:aE�....,fit .F ::>:,. Totals h.F... ,. . . . ... , ,�€€ r<.: ... . . w 13.,.. a.. M: 7' s.n ��� )..�.. .>.n.1� ....n.0°w.T.. x. !;.M}^�s3'w�+:".S �S: .�M: F ,. ...... ..... ... '... ,:-. ....::,:.,.x;.....�.....,,..,...,,sx�3.,,,,...r:£t:...a i�r. n. ,.�......: .,,�,.t.._,..�?.i.. .<Y,.?�. -.rs..3"D;?!v'., .�:�Y,. S�.,t....�.:7x�rt'..:.:s�.� >t�`.,,'...E...,".�' '`u".. **Yes/No Column Totals reflect'Yes'answers Page 1 5121199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory - Quasi-Public Facilities ......I Nat: GO Pooh .a_. .. ­ , , ,- -— :V Wflki Track" Ile; Courts U" f.iry"mMmg: Ing .,amp!ng :, , a:., ng-aff.'FariWk Name P1 round oat.R 'g qoem Buckhorn Community Building N N N N N N N N N N Caldwell Community Building N N N N N N N N _N N Cane Creek Reservoir N N N Y N N Y N N N Cedar Grove Ruritan Club N N N N N N N N N N Corporation Lake N N N N N N Y N N N Efland Ruritan Club N N N N N Y N N N N Exchange Club Y N N N N N N N N N Homestead Center N N N N N N N N N N Lake Michael Y Y N Y N N N N N N Lake Orange N Y N Y N N N N N N Moorefields N N N N Y N Y N N N Oak Grove Church N N N N N N N N N N Orange Grove Community Center N N N N N Y N N N N Orange United Methodist Church N N N N N N N N N N Schley Grange Hall N N N N N N N N N N University Lake N Y Y Y N N N N N N Walnut Grove Church Y N N N N N N N N N UNC Facilities Open to Public Tennis Complex N N N N N N N Y N N Finley Golf Course N N N N N N N N Y N Outdoor Education Center N N N N N Y N Y N N Private Businesses Open to Public Occoneechee Golf Course N N N N N N N N Y N Sportsplex N N N N N N N N N Y YMCA Y N N N N N N N N Y 4 N Page 2 5121199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Inventory*-Private Facilities N D 100 1 �g ME- I I I- , I �, -1.-1 Berkshire Manor 929-8394 arr oro Jul- No No 0 0 0 0 Booker Creek 929-0404 -Cape FH-Tif F Jul-98- No Yes 0 0 0 0 Brookstone Leigh Anne Turner 942-2800 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Carolina Christy Rexroad 929-2139— Carrboro Jul-98--- No 0 0 0 0 Chambers Ridge Susan eagle 929-050T--TarrFo—ro Jul-98 No 0 0 0 0 Chapel Hill Country Club Jean(Controller)967-8201 ----Ju-F--98--1-5T- No Yes 0 0 0 Chapel Hill Tennis and Sw`ii-m-C-Tu-F---D-e-5Fi-e 929-5248 —Ta-rr-Fo-r—o - Jul-98 No Yes 0 1 0 0 Coachwood 732-9844 Hillsborough Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 1 0 Colony Apartments Bill Peebles 967-7019 -CT ape FHi TF----Gc—t-9 6 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Dobbins Hill Daniel A. Rose 932-3 100 - ape H�i ......................�ct-96 ................ No 0 0 0 0 Exchange Club Pool Diane(Member)967-8840 Cape Ht Jul- No Yes .0 0 0 0 Flint Ridge 732-8418 Hillsborough ----J-uT--98 23 No 1 0 0 0 Foxcroft Jeff Massengill 929-7005 TFape FH-jF----Tu-7-9-8 No 0 0 0 0 Franklin Woods 9-3 T-2 3 4-5 -CF ape T`ffiTF----Ju-F--98 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Gateway 732-6701 His Fo-ro u-g'ff Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 0 0 n Lennox Vanessa Blackwood-Spin s 967 Chapel Hill Jul-98 60 No ---T- 0 0 0 Heritage Hills Neighborhoo-d-NuT--R-oTV—isser Chape -H-iU- Sep-98 6 Yes 0 1 0 0 Highland Hills Randy Webber 967-0934 ra-r-rFo—ro ----J-uF-9-8 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Kings Arms Pat Patterson 929-2406 -c-F ape TTHETF. Oct-96 No 0 0 0 0 Kingswood 967-2231 Chapel Hill Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Laurel Ridge Vi—styBames 967-6918 -CFapel Hill --JUT--9-8 No 0 0 0 0 Northampton Plaza 929-6357 C-fi-ape -H-Tff-------Ju-f--98 No Yes 0 0 Pl-negate 493-2488 Tfi-ap-eT`H`iTF Jul-98 No 0 0 1 0 Poplar Place LouAnn Crain 967-0955 Carrboro, ----J-uF--98 No Yes 0 0 1 0 Ramsgate Gina McLain 967-3125 -C-arr-Fo—ro ----JuT--9-8 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Ridgewood Mary Ann Dupuy 929-3821 Carr�®ro -Ju F--98- No 0 0 0 0 Rock Creek Dawn Bollinger 967-2111 Carrboro Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 0 0 Royal Park 96-7-2-239 Ta-r rTo r—o Jul-98 No 0 0 0 0 Shadowood Diedra Biliter 967-0661 Chapel Hill ----J-uT-98 No 0 0 0 0 Southern Village Pat 933-5577 C Fape Hi ----i u-79-8--f�FT- No Yes 0 0 1 0 Sterling Bluff Allison Holt or Kathy 96777-17 T a-r 7 Fo r—o Tu-F 9-8 *** No 0 0 0 0 Sterling Brook Susan McFarlin 968-1252 Carrboro Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 1 0 Stratford Hills Darci D'Eliseo 929-3015 Chapel Hill No 0 0 0 0 Sunstone Linda Scott 942-0481 No 0 0 0 0 The Chateau Daniel A. Vogel III 929-7126 -C-a-rrTo—ro --73—ct-96 No ---F- 0 0 Timber Hollow Paul McDonnell 929-4444 Chapel Hill Jul-98 No Yes 0 0 0 Tim berlyne Village Gwen Stack 967-4420 TFape-Fffiff-----J--uF-79 --- No Yes F- I 1 0 Townhouse 942-2163 No Yes --(T--- 0 0 0 University Lake 968-3983 -C-ar-rFo—ro -JuPT No Yes 0 0 0 0 Vt ages 929-1141 Carrboro Jul-98 No Yes --T— 0 0 0 Walden at Greenfields Teresa L. Poole 9 00 Chape T-H-,U-----j-uT-9-8 No I ---7U- 0 0 Duke-Blackwood Division Wendy Welher 613-8013 Orange ---Uc-t--9-9---1U6-0 -Yes-Cn-o-Te-eT excluding To-o-tp-at-Fs----U— 0 0 0 Duke- Durham Division Wendy Wei her 613-8013 Orange ------Gc—t-9 8 917 Yes no fee) excluding footp-RF—s 0 0 0 0 Duke- Eno Division Wendy Weilier 613-8013 Orange Oct-98 484 Yes no fee) excluding footpaths 0 0 0 0 Duke- Hillsboro Division Wendy Wet -er-6713-8013 Orange Oct-98 645 Yes nofee exc u ing footpaths 0 0 0 0 Duke- Korstian Division Wendy Wei her 613-8013 Orange - Oct- -1 Ti-6 Yes noTe 67 excluding footpaths 0 0 0 0 F -M 77,7--�, F , 2 �1.t Rw NO I �f otaw;zit A,7 4� 05, -.... .4215V 14-0 TURF717,751—T,,�;,77 i-1-5-i-, 2 Inventory includes apartment complexes tracked by the Orange County Tax Assesor's Office that are greater than 50 units with all construction complete. Yes/No Column Totals reflect'Yes' answers. *** Blanks indicate missing data. Page 1 6128199 3:51 PM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Inventory*-Private Facilities _ v._. ,,,�,.:__,. :. �... .,.__ ._ .._ .... .. _ i. :..,, .,. I J .I �.i - 7,1._ „7.' -:f.T :1- - I�IC'. .,, ommani ,.- '6eteI �rnie_:_ : atlEe billettlI�u:Rar tretlba] : :,Soeea, :i,Fpr �I ;. wtth ens .,;; 1 ,. ___.. - -_. - _ ,._ .,. .I;T _ �-I�ir�es�€ie--;Big r7e L .__. ,.._. .-. .a _. ,. _.•y_-. tt ..- _ i • .. :: .r: "^ '"ice I-. _:;-I: h _ / y S7 s fit 1� ,,x _i_I ��:��i�Q±U1�.-;1 .•caw.i��i )f� .ria�'1[tt4�,`5,:1:„clt\i�Cn�..�: Berkshire Manor No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 0 0 Booker CreekNo 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 0 0 Broo stone Yes 1 0 0 0 2 o No Carolina Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 No No Q C am ers Ridge Yes 1 0 1 0 0 0 No No 0 Chapel Hill Country Club Yes 1 0 0 0 0 1 Yes No 0 5 Chapel Hill Tennis and Swim Club Yes 2 0 0 0.5 0 0 2 1 28 No 0 No 0 Coachwood No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o No Colony Apartments Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 No 0 No 0 0 Dobbins Hill No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 Exchange Club Pool No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 0 0 Flint Ridge No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 No 0 Yes 0 0 Foxcroft Yes 0 0 1 0 0 0 No No 1 0 Franklin Woos No 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 0 0 Gateway No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 G en Lennox No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 Heritage Hills Neig or oo C u Yes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 No 0 No 0 0 Highland His Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 No 0 No 0 Kings Arms No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kingswoo No 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 No 0 No 0 0 Laurel Ridge Yes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 No 0 No 0 0 Northampton Plaza o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 Pmegate No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 No 0 No 0 0 Poplar Place Yes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 No 1 No 0 0 Ramsgate Yes 0 1 0 0 No 0 No 0 Ridgewood Yes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 0 0 Rock Creek Yes 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 No 0 No 0 Royal Park Yes 0 0 0 0 0 1 No 0 No 0 Shadowood Yes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 No 0 No 0 Southern Village Yes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 No 0 No 0 0 Sterling Bluff Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 Sterling Brook Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 No I No 0 0 Stratford His Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 Sunstone Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 No 0 No 0 0 The Chateau Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 0 0 0 Timber Hollow Yes 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 No No 0 0 Tim er yne Village Yes 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 No 0 No 0 0 Townhouse No 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 No 0 No 13 University Lae No 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 Vi ages Yes 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 No 0.5 No 6-Walden at Greenfields Yes 2 0 0 1 No 0 No Duke-Blackwood Division No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 6 No Duke-Durham Division No 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 3.3 No 0 0 Duke-Eno Division No o 0 0 0 0 0 No 2.7 No 0 Duke--Hillsboro Division No 0 0 0 .7 No Du e-Korstian Division No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 5.8 No 0 0 .�. .S '�' klh F .0 t-L' ,�3415G f. - :� -}'J -�l- :ifa ':i - , ., �,v. `SLY sr , n7..,. Alit �t,sl sl, e. 4amx� k �: � Mrs s� # 1 � O�AIi�,i -,. - 5_i �, ��' 2w _,�. ,.,. 7Tw �.:J,: .tt$ �1. Hli U u' �� 4� a� .•�1 l ,�-. `� ...;s � �. ��, ,n ,,.w ., �r c s� % �-� � ��7,,�,� y3�#i!° �3 :,� '� ,� s c sw Page 2 6128199 3.51 PM 5 / 26 / 99 Appendix D Is Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions 6 '� PARK TYPE ACRES / 1000 ACRES POPULATION SERVICE AREA STANDARD POPULATION SERVED Regional Park State 20 1000 multi - county < 1 hour driving time County 5 to 10 200 + 40 - 801000 < 1 hour driving time District Park State 10 200 + 1 or more < 1 hour driving communities time County 5 75 + 10 - 50 , 000 < 1 / 2 hour driving time Community Park National 5 to 8 25 + Several Neighs . 1 - 2 mile radius State 8 25 + 20 , 000 1 - 3 mile radius County 2 . 5 25 + 10 , 000 1 - 2 mile radius Chapel Hill 5 21 + 15 , 000 5 mile radius Carrboro 8 60 61000 1 mile radius Neighborhood Park National 1 to 2 15 + 5 , 000 1 / 4 to 1 / 2 mile State 2 6 to 8 4 , 000 1 / 4 to 1 / 2 mile County 2 . 5 5 to 20 2 - 8 , 000 1 / 4 to 1 / 2 mile Chapel Hill 2 . 5 5 to 20 51000 none given Carrboro 2 10 41000 1 / 2 mile Mini Park National 0 . 25 1 Adjacent Neigh . 1 /4 mile State none given none given 500 - 21500 none given County none given 1 none given 1 / 4 mile Chapel Hill none given 1 500 - 21500 none given Carrboro 0 . 25 1 Adjacent Neigh . 1 / 4 to 1 / 2 mile Linear Park National Varies Varies Varies Varies State 30 Varies Varies Varies County none given none given none given none given Chapel Hill none given none given none given none given Carrboro Varies Varies Varies Varies Source : Report of the Recreation and Park Work Group , ` Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County , NC , " January 1996 , Appendix 1 : Park Classification and Land Area Requirements Comparison . 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix E Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of School / Park Facilities ( 1 of 4) DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING COORDINATED SITE AND FACILITY PLANNING This agreement between 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 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 Hill/Carrboro School District and the Orange County School District - and a Schools and Land Use Council for each district . Decisions on collocation of facilities in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District may involve the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education and any or all of the following units of local government : the Town of Chapel Hill , the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County . Decisions on collocation of facilities in the Orange County School District may involve the Orange County Board of Education and one, or both, of the following units of local government : the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County . Wherever possible, agreement/cooperation across school district lines shall be pursued . To further these goals, the Orange County and Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough do hereby agree to the following separate and shared responsibilities for coordinated facility planning to the extent that it does not delay time critical construction of either school or government facilities . These statements of responsibilities are intended to be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations ; where they are not, they are superseded by those applicable laws and regulations . Specifically, this agreement is not intended to supersede the statutory authority of either Board of Education to select school sites or to build, maintain or repair school facilities or the other governing Boards to approve the amounts to be spent for sites and to determine the funds available for school and county or municipal facilities . This agreement does not supersede local government planning and zoning authority and/or land use planning and zoning requirements . I . The Orange County and/or Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Boards of Education will : A. Identify appropriate site criteria for public school facilities ; and B . Identify interior and exterior space and exterior site requirements for school facilities ; and C . Begin a planning process after the internal/external space needs for collocated facilities are determined ; and (2 of 4) timetables for completion, and related funding D . Recommend school facility priorities, needs ; and G 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 . f II . When joint development (or cooperative development) of facilities are planned for a school site, the Governing Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough will, as appropriate and in their respective interests : A. Identify appropriate site criteria for county and municipal government facilities and r facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided ; and Be 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 ; f 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 of facilities on each parcel of land being G. Whenever possible, address point collocation considered for development . III. 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 (3 of 4) B . Develop master site plans on which public facilities will be collocated ; and C . Determine the most appropriate means of relating various public services on sites , considering all program needs , and including opportunities for sharing spaces ; and D . Designate a lead jurisdiction in designing common facilities and include other jurisdictions in design ; and E . Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating the construction of shared facilities located on common sites ; and F . Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating maintenance of shared public facilities located on common sites ; and G. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of scheduling and establishing fees for usage of any shared public facilities on common sites ; and H . Determine the most appropriate and practical means of sharing operating costs for shared public facilities on common sites ; and I . Determine the most appropriate and practical means of providing public ownership of sites and site improvements where public facilities are collocated . Public ownership of sites will be implemented in the following manner : 1 . School sites will be owned in fee simple by the Orange County School Board and/or the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board or Orange County in those instances where the financing of the purchase of the site or the financing of the cost of the facilities on the site requires Orange County ownership . 2 . Park sites will be owned in fee simple by the appropriate jurisdiction ( i . e . , County, - town) unless otherwise agreed . A joint lease agreement will be signed between the appropriate parties setting forth the conditions of the joint use area and facilities . Language will be included in the agreement to address review and approval of joint use facilities and who bears the cost of installation/ construction and maintenance . IV . The Orange County and Chapel 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 (4 of 4) of Agreement with respect to the remaining parties . l SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL FOR SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL - Q CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT - CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF CARRBORO TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL h: \schoollu\moadrft5 . doc\4-22-99\gb � �, �� \ "' � � , � �\ 1 �� . � �� s �� ` �� i 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix F OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property I I I i 1 . i OWASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY Quality Serrice Since 1977 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Kerwin FROM : Ed Holland DATE : October 15 , 1998 SUBJECT : Potential Recreational Uses of OWASA Property Background During the past year , Board members Barry Jacobs and Bill Strom have attended meetings of Orange County ' s Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group charged with updating the County ' s Recreation and Parks Master Plan . One part of that work is an inventory of all public and semi .public land and recreational assets in Orange County . During the August 27 , 1998 Board of Directors meeting , Mr . Jacobs and Mr . Strom submitted a list of questions about possible recreational uses of OWASA ' s land holdings . This was referred to the Board ' s Natural Resources and Technical Systems (NRTS ) Committee , which reviewed information provided by staff and discussed the attendant issues during three subsequent meetings . This memorandum and attachments attempt to summarize the NRTS Committee consensus that emerged through those discussions . The attached map shows the location of all OWASA -owned properties in Orange County , Table 1 provides additional details , and Table 2 presents the NRTS Committee ' s y _ evaluation of the acceptability of different recreational uses of those properties . Uses _ listed in fable 2 were compiled from documents of the Orange County Work Group . OWASA Interests The NRTS Committee agreed that alternative uses should be -considered in terms of OWASA ' s central mission of providing " an adequate supply of high quality drinking water and a complementary sewer service . " Activities or uses that might compromise OWASA ' s utility function should be discouraged . For example , certain uses , such as tennis , racquetball , or basketball courts , would be incompatible with OWASA ' s operational activities within sewer easements or rights - of- way , while other uses , such as hiking trails , might be acceptable . . Hiking trails would not , however , be desirable near the Cane Creek Reservoir where public access to the shoreline represents a water quality risk contrary to OWASA ' s water supply mission . 400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer Voice ( 919 ) 968 - 4421 PO Box 366 9 - Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property October 15 , 1998 Page 2 On other tracts , such as the blosolids land or the two sites reserved for future elevated storage tanks , the NRTS Committee believed it to be in OWASA ' s best interest to defer consideration of alternative uses until the future utility needs for those properties are better defined through the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Master Plan or, mi the case of the tank sites , by local regulatory requirements for setbacks , buffenng , and so forth . These three mission- oriented considerations — utility operations, water quality, and future options — are abbreviated as (uo) , (wq) , and (� in Table 2 , where they indicate the NRTS Committee ' s rationale for recommending against certain uses or activities . I Major Categories of Property 1 The Committee first considered possible uses OWASA ' s largest categories of land ( see Table 1 ) : Cane Creek property ( inside and outside the '/7 -mile Critical Area) , blosolids application property , Stone Quarry Reservoir, and the elevated storage tank sites . Cane Creek Property — The NRTS Committee believed that property within the 1/2-mile Critical Area should be considered for virtually no recreational activities , due to water quality concerns . Limited use of certain land in the Critical Area for research or _ educational purposes might be appropriate . Certain low-impact uses , such as a nature center, hiking/jogging trails , and other educational/research activities might be acceptable on OWASA property outside the Critical Area, but any uses requiring modification to the land for clearing , grading , parking , or vehicular access would not be acceptable . Similarly, the NRTS Committee recommended only limited activities be allowed on the portion of the existing Cane Creek recreation site draining to the lake ( inside the _ watershed) , but that additional uses might be allowed on the back portion of that property , which is located outside the watershed . Biosolids Application Property — Although most of OWASA ' s blosolids are currently _ applied under strict State regulation to private farmland , it has been OWASA ' s long -term strategy_ to accumulate sufficient land for .the future , when less private property will remain available for land application . A systematic review of blosolids management options -- including the production of Class A material , possible co - composting with municipal solid waste , further moisture reduction, and so forth = is included in the Water/Sewer Master Plan project . Such options could reduce the eventual need for land , but until this information is available , the NRTS Committee recommended that OWASA maintain its maximum range of future options and not consider recreational uses of blosolids property . Stone Quarry Property — Similarly , the Committee recommended that no recreational uses be considered at OWASA ' s Stone Quarry property until the future use of that site is more clearly established . Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property October 15 , 1998 Page 3 Elevated Tank Sites — The NRTS Committee suggested that alternative uses be considered at existing tank sites as long as they don ' t interfere with OWASA ' s operational needs for access and maintenance . The Committee recommended that no alternatives be considered on the two properties reserved for future tank sites until specific design and regulatory requirements are established . Authority to Allow Alternative Uses Throughout its discussions , the Committee recognized that the authority to allow recreational uses of OWASA property often lies outside of OWASA ' s control . For example , OWASA might agree to certain low- impact activities on its sewer easements and rights of way ; but legally , OWASA may not acquire utility easements for non- utilitarian purposes such as recreation . Successful greenway partnerships with Chapel Hill or Carrboro would likely require the Towns to act as lead agencies in acquiring multi -purpose easements and then granting utility rights to OWASA . Similar situations are evident at OWASA ' s elevated tank sites and at the 500 - acre Cane Creek mitigation tract. Any alternative use of the 46 acres of OWASA land surrounding the Nunn Mountain and Hilltop water tanks is strictly controlled by Special Use Permit _ conditions of the Town of Chapel Hill . The 500 - acre Cane Creek mitigation tract was acquired in 1980 to comply with requirements of the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission . Because these requirements became permit conditions for the Cane Creek Reservoir project, any alternative use of that tract would likely require approval by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. These examples illustrate that OWASA does not have unilateral authority to allow alternative uses on all of its property . The NRTS Committee noted that the implementation of some recreational proposals with community -wide benefits will require collaboration by other governmental entities , maddition to OWASA , working toward a common goal . Staff Recommendations I recommend that this memorandum and attachments be reviewed by the Board of Directors and ; if appropriate , provided to Orange County ' s Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group , Edward A . Holland , AICP Director of Planning and Development attachments PR01/I TO M M OF see Approved Dade 10 lb � t Mitigation Tract A OWAQA Proms October, 1998 o (See Table 1 for Descriptions) Thunder Mountain Vl+E s Tract A 1 Mies 10 so 100 Acres Acres Acres A w --; ji ubarics Road d 4 Stone Quarry I. K B L J T G J Chapel fill Oro Etter Plant N L�. J C WA M P E J V1b st ewa ter O Plant LEGFM D []Watershed Bowdaries /4]/2 Mite Critical Area OWASA Property 10 Ujiversity Lake Leased Land H Table 1 . Summary of Land Owned or Leased By OWASA -- October , 1998 OWASA OWNED LAND Common Name Purpose Acreage Map Symbol Cane Creek Project Land purchased for original Cane 11642 A Creek Reservoir Project Watershed Protection Land purchased since 1991 for 521 A watershed protection under - OWASA ' s Critical Lands Program Stone Quarry Reservoir Supplemental raw water storage 59 B Jones Ferry Road Operations Water treatment plant site 15 C Center & Water Treatment Plant Morgan Creek WWTP Wastewater plant site 24 D Hilltop Tank Site New elevated storage tank 17 E Nunn Mountain Tank Site Finished water storage _ 29 F Carrboro Tank Site Finished water storage 1 G Southern District Tank Site for future elevated tank 4 . 5 H Northern District Tank Site for future elevated tank 17 . 6 Right of Way ( access ) Access to sewer ROW 2 J Right of Way ( access ) Access to sewer ROW 1 J Right of Way ( access ) Access to sewer ROW 1 J Wilson Creek Outfall Access to sewer ROW 2 . 1 J Biosolids Application Sites Land for WWTP biosolids ( sludge ) 751 K application Calvander Pump Station Finished water booster station 0 . 9 L. Rangewood Pump Station Wastewater_ Rump station 0 . 4 M _ Rogor-son Drive Pump Station Wastewater pump station - 2 . 3 N Jordan Lake Site for future water treatment facility 124 . 6 ( Chatham County) TOTAL LAND OWNED BY OWASA _ 3 , 215 ac LEASED FROM UNC Common Name Purpose Acreage Map Symbol University Lake Water Supply Reservoir and 577 O Surrounding Buffer Manning Drive Tank Site Elevated storage tank 0 . 3 P TOTAL LAND LEASED FROM UNC 577 ac Table Z . Potential Recreational Uses of OWASA Property Non-Cane Creek Watershed Land Existing CC Cane Creek Watershed Land Potential Recreational Recreation Site Outside Critical Area Use/ActivityLand Inside Sewer Ta0k Sites Tank Sites Biosolids Stone. Below Inside Outside Critical Mitigation Thunder Meadowcrest Easements (Existing) (Future) Land Quarry CC Dam Watershed Watershed Area Tract Mtn. Tract (Partial Lot) Note#1 -Note#2 Note#3 Note#4 Note#5 Note#5 Note#2 Note#6 Gymnasium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Auditorium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Stadium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Swimming Pool No (uo) No (uo,r)' No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Meeting Center, General Purpose Rooms No (uo) No'(uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No,(uo) Yes Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Nature Center No (uo) No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) No (uo) Yes .Yes No (wq) Yes Maybe No (wq) Athletic Fields No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No No (uo) No (wq) Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Tennis, Racquetball, Volleyball Courts No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Playground Maybe No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) Maybe Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Picnic Area, Shelters Maybe No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) No (uo) Yes Yes No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq) Track No (uo) No (uo,r) No (fi) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Golf Course No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No' (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Driving Range No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) RV Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Car Camping (Tent) No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Primitive Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq) Nature, Hiking, Jogging Trail Yes No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) Yes Yes Yes No (wq) Yes Yes No (wq) Education and Research Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Maybe Notes: 1. (Symbols in parenthesis) indicate the basis for assigning a "No"to a potential use or activity: (uo) indicates utility operational constraints; (r) indicates state orlocal regulatory constraints on alternative uses; (t) indicates the need to maintain OWASA's future options at a site; and (wq) indicates water quality concerns. 2. Regulatory restrictions on alternative uses of this property are subject to change if initiated by other governmental entities. 3. Refers to OWASA's existing 59-acre Quarry Reservbir site located east of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road. 4. Much of the OWASA property downstream of the Cane Creek Dam is located in the apron of the dam's emergency spillway. The remainder of this site is constrained by steep topography and/or proximity to access roadways and the raw water pumping station. 5. Because a portion of the existing Cane Creek recreation area slopes toward the reservoir(inside the watershed) and the remainder slopes away (outside the watershed), the potential water quality impacts of alternative uses/activities would depend on their specific location. 6. A narrow 3-acre strip of the Meadowcrest property is located within the watershed but outside the 1/2-mile Critical Area. There appears to belittle or no opportunity for alternative use of this site. i 'I � ', � , � ' � � , i I � I ICI h , � � � � � � 11 i I ,I ` I 1 5 / 26 / 99 Appendix G Existing Local Payment - In - Lieu Procirams Orange County Payment- in - Lieu Program The County uses a zoning map approach to calculate all payment in lieu of dedications . The amount of a payment depends upon the location of the subdivision . Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area may make a payment in lieu of dedication or make a combination of land dedicated and payment with approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , as long as the subdivision is not designated for recreation and / or open space in the County Comprehensive Plan . Depending on the location of the property in question , the payment in lieu of dedication is equal to either $ 422 per lot if the subdivision is within the service area of a community park or $ 455 per lot if the subdivision is located in the service area of a district park . With the combination of land dedication and payment in lieu option , the subdivider is given a credit of $ 10 , 000 per acre for each acre of land dedicated for recreational purposes . If the multiplication of the number of acres dedicated by $ 10 , 000 is less than the payment in lieu , the subdivider pays the difference . If the credit is more than the determined payment in lieu , no additional payment is required . Carrboro Payment-in - Lieu Program The Town of Carrboro uses a point system in determining payment in lieu of dedications . Each type of recreational facility is assigned points per square foot . For example a Tennis Court is assigned 0 . 034 points per square foot . The typical square footage is 7 , 200 sq . ft . , which when multiplied by 0 . 034 yields 245 points . Each type of residence has a minimum number of recreation points required ( e . g . a single family detached unit requires 10 . 39 points per dwelling unit ) . All new developments must meet the points required by including recreational areas or it must pay $ 143 . 54 per point . Residential developments that are exempt from providing on - site active recreational areas , recreational facilities or open space pay a fee to the Town 's open space and recreational facilities fund . The minimum amount to be paid is derived from the point system . For example the development of one single family detached unit is exempt from providing on - site recreational facilities . The minimum payment in Lieu would be $ 143 . 54 multiplied by the required points for this dwelling , which is 10 . 39 . The minimum amount due equals $ 1 , 491 . 38 ( 10 . 39 x $ 143 . 54 = 1491 . 38 ) . � � �� ', � \ 1 �� i i 1 A ', 1 5 / 26 / 99 ( Appendix H 1 Payment - in - Lieu Programs Around the Country E _ Alternative Models for Programs 1 . Davis , California (Ann Brunett) 1 Methods of Acquiring Land . Mandatory land dedication : • Developers are required to mitigate land on a 1 : 1 ratio . • Land dedicated must fall within the city 's general plan boundary . • Should be equal farmland if possible . If none can be found , they can seek a replacement somewhere else . • The developers can create conservation easements on those properties , although the actual holder of the easement is sometimes controversial , with the county , Yolo County Land Trust , and the city all vying for control . • Often , the Land Trust will find money to pay for the easement , with the city providing matching funds which they have budgeted . Payment - in - lieu option . • A payment - in - lieu option of $ 2000 per acre is also available to the developer , although it is less desirable . • Money acquired spent within the general plan area . • This option is more expensive than the easements for developers and they can often find farmers willing to sell some of their land . Other : • Some local farmers create conservation easements on their own Focus of Acquisition . • The city concentrates its efforts around one creek in particular . • As the city acquires land around it , the Army Corps of Engineers will come in and repair it back to its original form under an 1135 grant . • Besides the creek , acquire land all over the city . • Made decision to buy more properties vs . one small piece 5 / 26 / 99 • Now in the process of creating a matrix of easements to provide a picture of what they have , the gaps that might exist , and what is happening with the properties . 2 . Boulder County , CO (Nancy Dayton , (303 ) 67 & 6243 ) Methods of Acquiring Land Sales Tax : • In 1993 passed a sales tax for acquiring land • Revenue from so far between $ 4 and $ 4 . 5 million annually , which the county uses to pay off bonds . • Sold idea of sales tax of 1/4 of a cent • Needed carrots to help sell the idea - certain areas that everyone wants to stay open . Able to work out arrangements to get them . • In its life , it has generated $ 33 million , which has allowed the county to "' power shop . " • The community supported and initiated the sales tax idea . • Had deals in place before the bonds to buy 4 - 5000 acre ranches Details of buying , • Find property ownership where wanted to purchase the conservation easement • Rolling option contract - purchase land over time , price set in the first year • Pay about 6 % per annum on the balance • The current board of county commissioners has to approve the purchase of the additional land on a yearly basis , but have every time so far • Have some staff dedicated to just land acquisition on their staff, including an attorney and paralegal • Start the negotiation with a letter of inquiry , which lays out the potential offer and seeks to determine the interest in the owners possibly selling the land • Follow - up with a letter of intent to buy the land . Includes an offer for x acres , legal description of the land , the amount of water/ mineral rights , other conditions of the sell , lease back , etc . • Haggle , settle , get contract with those terms in it . • Will do a variety of things to get deal done • Include the creation lots around beaten out house , add value to the seller ( can exempt subdivision policy if they can show a clear public purpose ) • 1 / 35 acre zoning I, 5 / 26 / 99 • Joint acquisition with the municipalities • Some have own sales taxes • Work also with the Trust with Public Lands , Nature Conservancy • Open Space Task Force made up of a people , I stakeholders , Decide where want to spend money preserving lands Focus of Acquisition : • Other categories to purchase • Prime agricultural land , which has good soil and irrigation • Rights to draw water off of, which makes the land more valuable 3 . Guilford County , NC (Roger Bardsley (336) 574 -3544) Note : All of the governments within Guilford County use some version of the county 's policy ( Flood Plain Dedication only ) , although some drift has occurred since 1992 when it was created . Methods of Acquiring Land . • Require dedication of field plain open space if the land falls within the 100 - year flood plain • Open space for watershed policy • Over past 15 years got 1000 acres t • Bonds - about 2000 acres through bonds • Have a greenway plan • Offer of dedication if Parks and Recreation Department wants • Some dedicated to the North Carolina Conservancy by the developer , then deeded over to the county ( No requirement for dedication if clustering ( RS - 20 ) . t - Could zone at a lower level ( RS12 though h and g dedicate about N15010 as open space Focus of Acquisition : • Dedication has to be connected to public interest • 100 Year Flood Plain easy to see that in - no development possibility for developers 5 / 26/ 99 • Charlotte — Mecklenburg County , NC (Linda Beverly , Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Dept , (704) 336 - 5719) Note : The policy is only for Charlotte and the unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County . Methods of Acquiring Land . • No mandatory dedication for open space with any development • Developers can elect in single family subdivisions to do clustering that allows them to redraw the individual lots with setting aside a minimum of 10 % of the land as open space . • That space either is then maintained by a private homeowners association , or is dedicated to the Parks and Recreation department as a greenway . • No incentive for developers to provide the land , but the smaller lots makes it so they can position the lots on better land • Lot of greenways through the subdivision process Some bonds • Purchase open space . Some negotiated dedication for tax credit Focus of Acquisition • Parks and Recreation has a greenway master plan . • If a development comes into that area , the planner will put them in contact with the Parks and Recreation Department . • The Parks and Recreation Department can also purchase the land directly from the property - owner . 5 / 26 / 99 Atmendix I Resolution O- en Facilities Polic An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County t WHEREAS , the Towns of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their jurisdictions , and WHEREAS , the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that residents of adjacent jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction or desirous of use of the facilities , and WHEREAS , the spirit of inter -jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments , OWASA and the school systems , and WHEREAS , attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would hinder community - building and inter - local efforts , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an Open Facilities Policy , which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed by the member local governments of the County be open to use by all County citizens . i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT , upon adoption of this resolution by the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County , the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education , the Orange County Board of Education , and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority , asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy ; AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT , the local governments agree to explore r opportunities , at a later appropriate date , to clarify and explore a modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University . This , the day of , 1999 To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill , Carrboro , Hillsborough and Orange County . y � `, 1 �\ �\ .-- �� �. 5 / 26/ 99 I i Appendix 3 1 Parklands Needed Based on Population Standards MEMORANDUM To : Margaret Brown , County Commissioner John Link , County Manager Albert Kittrell , Assistant County Manager Richard Kinney , Carrboro Parks and Recreation Director ` Bob Jones , Orange County Recreation and Parks Director Bill Webster , Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Analyst From : David Stancil , Orange County ERC Director Sarah Magruder , Orange County Planning / ERC Intern RE : Current/ Projected Estimates of Parkland Needs in County Date : Apri 128 , 1999 We have performed some calculations in order to begin to put some numbers together for the Master Recreation and Parks Report . Currently , the report has blanks , plugged numbers or " xx ' s " on projected parkland needs . Prior to disseminating this to the full work group , we wanted to run these numbers by you for review . We have attempted to determine the number of parks ( by type ) and acres needed for Orange County "s population in 2000 and 2025 . The intent of this exercise is to provide us with a general idea of the countywide needs . We used the Standards appendix from the 1996 Assembly of Governments Report , as well as the definitions of parks in the 1988 Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan . We used these standards in the absence of the anticipated community - based standards , that would be developed by the proposed future Parklands and Resource Council . Thus , alterations may be needed when the new standards are in place . Two tables are presented , one with gross land needs , the other demonstrating net needs after accounting for our best estimation of existing resources . Also listed are the assumptions used in the calculation process , as follows : • In determining the number of people served by different types of parks , we chose the midpoint between the County 's and municipalities different standards . • In determining the existing resource base , we used the inventory . • Definitions used - Regional parks are > 200 , District parks are > 75acres , Community parks are > 20 acres and Neighborhood parks are > 5 acres . • Acreage needs were based upon the entire county . We did not allocate the final number of parks and acres by municipality or township . • Eno River State Park is regarded as a regional park due to its size . 5/ 26/ 99 Table 1 : County-wide Parkland Needs Type of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres Regional 2@ 450acres each 3@ 450acres each District 4@ 150acres 6@ 150acres Community 12@ 25acres 17@ 25acres Neighborhood 23@ 10acres 34 @12 . 5acres Total acres needed 2030 acres 3100 acres The size of parks above are averages and are figured according to population needs and standards . The above figures do not account for existing resources in our inventory . Based on existing data , the following table illustrates the amount needed , after current resources are considered . Table 2 : Net Parkland Needs - Accounting for Existing Parks Type of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres Regional - 0 - * - 0 - * District - 600 - 900 Communit + 104 . 7 * - 20 . 3 Neighborhood - 149 . 32 - 344 . 32 Total acres needed 644. 62 1264 . 62 * While the tables demonstrate an apparent adequacy of parkland for regional and community parks , location and amenity provision are not necessarily taken into account . Eno River State Park does not include all amenities often found in regional parks , according to the Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan definitions . Additionally , the location and amenity offerings of many parks classified under the neighborhood ' category do not meet written guidelines . The adequacy of acreage does not necessarily mean the locations most effectively serve the largest number of citizens throughout the county . Appendix K Maps 1 . Facilities and Lands Owned by : Towns County OWASA UNC, and Duke 2 . Wildlife Corridors and Greenways Maps are currently being digitally formatted for photocopy reproduction i 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix L 1 Parks and Resource Lands Council Resolution . Joint a - s RESOLUTION A ] oint Parks and Resource Lands Council F I E WHEREAS , the Towns of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County have discussed long - term parks and recreation issues in the past several years , and WHEREAS , these discussions have led to a Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 1996 ) and a Report on Coordination ( 1997 ) to refine and explore coordination efforts among the jurisdictions , and WHEREAS , the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has , in its deliberations , benefited from ideas and possible means of collaboration developed as part of the work group process , and WHEREAS , consistent with the Schools and Land Use Councils work in the co - location of parks and schools , the Work Group has provided criteria and details that might enhance the potential for coordination in this and other areas of long - term parks needs , and WHEREAS , the Work Group has recommended that a new Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council be formed to follow - up on the work of this body and implement future efforts toward coordination of recreation and parks planning ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the agrees to create a Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council along the lines specified in the Joint Work Group report . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the instructs its Manager to meet with the Managers of each jurisdiction to develop and report back on a charge , mission and st ructure for the Parks and Resource Lands Council , with the goal of a first meeting of the Council in the fall of 1999 . This , the day of , 1999 I To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill Carrboro , Hillsborough and Orange County . _ � � � i 1 1 i ` 1 1 1 1 ti � � � � 4 i f a r i a