HomeMy WebLinkAboutJMRPWG agenda 032499 ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
MEMORANDUM
TO : Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group
FROM : Albert Kittrell
DATE : March 19 , 1999
SUBJECT : Meeting Notification
The next Joint MasteryreatQn and Parks :r >..Work Group: ?LI 1 be held on
$:a . .
Wednesday, a cli '
,+ 9 . .6 Q.x:. :m. :i. ee Soutn Y~ :; ' hrvices Center,
s .__fi>: : :i cSli } Sj Yw •�.;t,: :e>y w:.;,A'. ,gi A 15 •. :: �)
2505 Homestead Road hap Hijlt " :. :w 1 p �c � x l
ht on r:.wi,1 be r'o
%:< rN. :.:too
j:A AA
v.3kIt,TO . 3:. r:�. .
%'re '•tie? +.vr ...Tia ; ;. ,
),•;
:F•C rim;'+:•
r`>,r,
:.�.: . ... r : .
j.✓ ;
A ITT.
:•:1
II
,-
L }^-.^ ,+
'.i:' :ilia = •,:1.1+.. ..:AIT I
' n`�: '3F :i};Fi-' {;:•"i:,:..t
IT
or
d? isTV
o3l, gS;�.:.... VII ).ur. :..{ :-,> a .'
5> H t;Ri �: , K'J },. ' :t`fi: i'4: i :r•.r.,. r.�x.y •:<:J
CIA
y 4 _ F : Sei'
i; : l.... . . '\i',• Ky..< . ,Yoa , . ,N.,,'. i: .:.
`o:i g,:: . . ." .24 : :� :z . >:''£r3?t;;{ ys ., .{,S•i:S.• ,ec:s'y �T.
'>.
'�••$ i'f' "'�Sdi ,S:.>, '.`S.k{ '; •t'.: w
.,.t,a. .•4 : f` ,a.t. .:re , . F ' ;,:`<<?<.. .r " ' ✓.is t' ?!1....T, S 's 4{s:^>-'i':: " 3 :1 ,
iIT AT,''k<rIT "f k <::5.is .✓:ri:'�:.� �.','.'`+.v:. >a ':>^f.r :::,v
,'.2 .F' i5`::, •.. t> . r. :'r 4Y,N .�S ;+�'' :>]. ok <. . l sF.:: .i`i ': r 2.,..:, .. . n •• }. w.t n .: fit..,,.,. ,:yam✓.
f "o IV + } ; ': ��;: 'i r:y .;.:{rr; �'
Ytii '<:' `.' n v F• i .+ .., ;:y..Y'^ : �?; " n n`. :: .:I Sr%t+ ,'. . >t ,` ice.
.t:• ,:k, .i . >x. . .Y.: ro}Tai n:�Yf:: i,i< ✓ t .t
f.•3 .. , - . .• .„4: x`P..vi •a.,r- .^r- :i.- > . .: ; ., • > . .. . : '. w.x'xx✓,:rrr • :�-it:+i:Y.p `i k�iyh+i:',{ `.`trt4':: ix:>,
So
ell Ill 1 1
IV
'-' ,:•s�". T rl..
r.✓>'.Nxn.':tx • iYc ..:N, +>\'n•v . .y +w( ..+ n, n.. ..+.Ya: : nv „ : ht`>
�Fg+ .7:.r�- .s „>.. : vr w:S.+ ,..<... .,, : . r .>!;riY .Sw. .. . ¢'<"{•t}jfix < asr�)
AREA CODE (919) 732-8181 968-4501 a 688 - 7331 227 - 2031 ® FAX (919) 644 -3004
Ext . 2300
Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan
Work Group .
Southern Human Services Center
March 24 , 1999
6 : 00 p . m .
AGENDA
I . Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Final Report — Review and Discuss
A. Review changes/additions to Sections : I, III and V
Be Discuss Sections : IV , V and VI
i
REPORT OF THE
MASTER
RECREATION AND
PARKS WORK GROUP
Partial Draft # 2
March 24 . 1999
New text shown in bold
1
Draft
3/24/99
Joint Recreation and Parks Master Plan Outline
I . Background History
a . Rationale for Update of Joint Plan
b . Joint Planning Efforts - 1996 - 97
(Assembly of Governments Report , Coordinated Report , SOCF)
Co Summary of Existing Plans
(e . g . County Master Plan , Municipality Plans)
d . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan
( Explore relationship between existing and proposed school sites and
parks , exploring strategies for the preservation of natural and
cultural resources through open space design , including
the relationship of these resources to active and passive
recreational uses ; tasks and goals established by Work Group)
II . Descriptive Scenario - Where are we now?
a . Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources
b . Parks and Recreation needs identified
c . Parks and Recreation standards
d . Status of previous bonds and projects constructed
III . Future Efforts and Issues - Where to go from here ?
a . Park/Recreation acquisition goals , objectives and
criteria
b . Joint siting and management of sites
c . Implications of UNC Expansion
d . Impediments to Location (lighting , intensity , traffic , )
e . Mechanisms for implementing goals ( CIPAs )
IV . Adequate and timely provision of Parklands and Natural Use
Corridors
a . Ensure adequate recreation needs are met for each
jurisdiction
b . Provide greenways in urban areas and wildlife
corridors in rural areas of County .
Co An ; potential of land in greenways and corridors
V . Acquisition of land
a . Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program
( acquisition and dedication )
b . Funding Sources
Draft
3/24/99
VI . Payment-In -Lieu Programs
a . Conduct review of local , regional , and national
standards for parkland dedication
b . Service boundaries for payment- in - lieu
c . Update dedication and payment provisions
VII . Proposals and Recommendations
a . Interjurisdictional efforts at standardizing parks and
recreation requirements
b . Joint siting , design , and management of school and
park sites across jurisdictions
c . Public/private partnerships across jurisdictions
d . Joint Capital Facilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
or
e . Long -term Recreation and Parks Council
(future follow- up , develop standards , address impediments , maintain
inventory , public relations , develop future bond proposals)
f. Open Facilities Policy
- 1 . County , towns and OWASA
2 . UNC and schools
I Duke
g . Using CIP to recommend acquisition
h . Payment-in -lieu changes
i
I
3/18/80
2
Draft
3/24/99
Over the last decade , several recreation and parks planning
efforts have been undertaken across the 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 update of
the Joint Master Recreation and Parks plan already in progress ,
as well as a listing of the primary recommendations of these
various working groups from 1988 to the present .
A . Rationale for Update of Joint Plan
Two 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 open space design , including the
i
relationship of these resources to active and passive
recreational uses
• Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities ( See
Appendix A)
These two policies provide the impetus for much of the current
update effort and are largely based upon a combination of
current and past concerns arising from previous efforts .
B . Joint Recreation Planning Efforts : 1996 = 97
1996 - Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group
The Recreation and Parks Work group developed
recommendations to serve multiple purposes . The
,
Draft
3/24/99
recommendations are intended to , % oestablish 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 . A 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 .
• Develop an interjurisdictional set of recreation requirements
that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro , and Hillsborough
could include in their respective Land Use Ordinances
inclusion of ark facilities in selecting new school
Plan thep t g
sites , while improving existing sites with recreation and park
amenities where it is %omutually beneficial to the school
system and governmental jurisdiction (s ) . A
• 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 .
1997 - Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services
in Orange County
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
2
Draft
3/24/99
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 potential for consolidation of
services under the County
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 adequate9 staffing needed to develop materials ,
set agendas , and prod participants in both capital and
operating programs
3
Draft
3/24/99
• Management to assure that commitment is evident and
sustained
1998 - Shaping Orange CountvAs Future Citizen Committees ( Park
and Recreation Issues )
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 . 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 reformed into the large work group to
address issues such as the incorporation of wildlife corridors and
open space preservation into parkland acquisition .
In addition ark and recreation department supervisors from
, p p p
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
4
Draft
3/24/99
recommendations for the master plan , which staff then
incorporated into the final report to be submitted to the Orange
County Board of Commissioners .
II
5
Draft
: : :.:.: _ ::,.., .. . ..r. _ ........:.:..._..., .............. :..:.:..:....:.... :.. 3/24/99
.,. ,...:_ :._... ,_.........
64
Id wNEIER w Howl . . dd
Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the
park bond funds will be disbursed to the jurisdictions in the plan ,
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 Iit be through
public , quasi- public , or private means . Once the needs and
resources were identified , standards for future park and
recreation provisions were incorporated into the decision - making
process .
-A . Inventory of Resources
One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to address
inventorying 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 . the inventory ry 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 club
s 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 sector . For
example , the quasi - public list may include a category
6
Draft
3/24/99
inventorying whether the facilities require additional contact
before use , while this issue would not apply to public sector
recreation facilities and parks .
The information for the inventory was gained through several
avenues . The Work Group and staffAs 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 listing of apartments is that of complexes listed
in Orange County tax records . Thus , the list 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 .
The following needs were identified through this process :
Orange County
• Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks Community
School Park .
• Develop Courthouse/River Park .
• Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate
playground .
• Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services
Center Park and renovate the building .
• Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating
and Air System and replace windows .
7
Draft
3/24/99
• Acquire Park land in Little River and Chapel
Hill/Bingham Township .
• Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA .
• 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 over crowding of indoor recreation
activities .
Town of Chapel Hill-
The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan
• Parks and recreation section will be included
• Council schedule calls for plan to be completed in fall of 1999
• TownAs comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989
The Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive
Master Plan on May 26 , 1998
• Future Development of Northern Community Park
1 . At its September 28 , 1998 Council adopted the
following actions
from FY98 - 99 budget appropriated for
conceptual plan process of aquatic facility/community
center
8
Draft
3/24/99
$ 200 , 000 in Town park bonds allocated for
development of batting cage project
2 . Possible development
a . Aquatic facility
b . Community Center
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 Parks & Recreation Commission will soon
recommend parks and recreation master plan process
A . Identify community leisure needs , values
Be Clarify/revise Department mission
C . Perhaps develop community standards for park and
recreation planning/development
Town of Carrboro
♦ Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park
♦ Community Gymnasium
♦ Provide general on -going renovations to all existing
facilities at all community , neighborhood , and mini - park
sites .
♦ Along with the Chapel Hill -Carrboro School System , provide
expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities .
♦ 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 .
9
Draft
3/24/99
♦ Fully develop the %oMorgan Creek Neighborhood Park . A
♦ Acquire property for % oBolin Creek Neighborhood ParkA and
fully develop .
♦ Fully develop %oOdum Mini - ParkA
♦ Acquire additional property for %oPathway Drive Mini - ParkA
and fully develop .
C . Standards
See Section Vll for recommendations on the development of
coordinated standards . See Appendix F for existing standards .
D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed
Orange County
Bond Funds
$ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November , 1997 .
• Park Land Acquisition $ 3 . 0 Million
• Development
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
Accomplishments - Past Five Years
• Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts
(Jointly -with Orange County Schools ) .
10
Draft
3/24/99
Renovations to tot- lot playground at the Northern
Human Services Center .
• Purchased 40 acres of land adjoining the North
Human Services Center .
• Developed Efland - Cheeks Community School Park
Master Plan ,
Current Projects _
• Construction of Efland - Cheeks School Park - Phase
I .
• Feasibility study for Fairview Park development .
• Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/River Park .
Chapel Hill Park Bond History
1996 Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Funds $ 5 million
1996 Land Acquisition for Open - Space and Greenways $ 3
million
1980 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 5 million
1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 2 . 5 million
Staff believes the Community Center on Estes Drive
was funded through bond monies , however staff has
found no documentation on this project . A 1970
Community Facilities Report mentions that
the Town had settled on the Estes Drive location
but does not mention funding . Staff will continue to
research through Council archives .
Carrboro Bonds .
Bond Funds Generated
♦ $ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978
11
Draft
3/24/99
0 ON
With the knowledge of what facilities , needs and standards exist
at this time (see Section 11 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 . Two issues that are directly relevant are
discussed in subsections c and d - UNC expansion and Impediments to
Location of new facilities . Finally , subsection a addresses possible
mechanisms for implementing these goals and objectives .
A . Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals ,
Objectives and Criteria
(Note : The following is a strawman for three important areas of this report: goals,
criteria for land acquisition, and criteria for facilities siting. It is provided for the
group to react to, and will be used (along with Work Group comments) to further
refine these ideas for the final report:)
Goals and Objectives for Park/Recreation 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
12
Draft
3/24/99
* 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
Explore 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 off of land that is environmentally -
sensitive
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
%oRetrofitA existing properties for recreation
Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and
the Upper Eno River preservation efforts
Keep concept of neighborhood parks
Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition
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 , after
approval would become the basics of the Recreation and Parks
Acquisition section of the CountyAs Resource Acquisition Program (see
Section V) ,
Potential Land Acquisition Criteria for Purchase Decisions
(examples ) :
* Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses
( Rogerson /Oakwood neighborhood park)
13
Draft
3/24/99
Appropriate intensity of use for the area ( pasture at NC
54/ Mount Carmel )
* Location ( Northern Community Park)
* 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 )
Access (transportation ) is safe and easily- accomplished
Meeting multiple goals (above ) gets higher weighting
The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction
Grants and other funding opportunities
Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan
Potential Facilities Criteria for Sitinq Decisions :
* Sites should be centrally located for population to be served
* Both active and passive recreation opportunities may exist on -
site
School /park joint use sites are preferred
Site addresses a broad range of needs
A standing facility plan must exist
Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e .
lighting )
B . Joint Siting and Management of Sites
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 can increase the
numbers of school children . The school boards are responsible
for school policy and school buildings , while the county is
responsible for providing adequate school facilities . To
coordinate the efforts of these entities , the Chapel Hill - Carrboro
City Schools and Land Use Council and the Orange County
Schools and Land Use Council were formed . The purpose of the
Schools and Land Use Councils is to advise the Board of County
Commissioners concerning growth and land use issues relating
to schools .
14
Draft
3/24/99
The Schools and Land Use Councils were given the following
specific charge : To develop 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 HilkCarrboro 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 have met bkmonthly (with one or two
exceptions ) since that time . Most meetings have been joint
although there have been a few meetings specific to one council
or the other . 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 (this could include park and recreational facilities ) (see
Appendix D ) .
C . Implications of UNC Expansion
To be developed
D . Impediments to Location of New Facilities
• Lighting
• Intensity of use
• Traffic
E . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals/Objectives
Through Capital Plans
15
Draft
3/24/99
< <To be developed > >
16
Draft
3/24/99
a.
1V. ABRUATI AND * MELY PROI��SI01� OF Pa KLaHD AND NA 't RAL USE
SCdBIQDBS
(Note : The following is a draft outline developed for the Work GroupLs review. Thoughts
comments at the March 24 meeting will be used to develop this section further.)
a ) Ensure adequate recreation needs are met for each jurisdiction
1 . Synopsis of Needs Identified in Section II
2 . Needs for Trails and Naturalist Recreation
3 . Timing Issues on Meeting Needs and Coordination with Mechanisms
for Implementing Goals
b ) Provide greenways in urban areas and wildlife corridors in rural areas
1 . Existing greenways planning in urban areas
2 . Wildlife corridor concept in rural buffer
3 . Plans for expansion of concepts and connectivity
c ) Analyze potential of land in greenways and corridors
1 . Intent and purpose of greenway use
2 . Intent and purpose of corridor use
3 . Evaluation of lands that are suitable/ unsuitable _
17
Draft
3/24/99
It
QVISITION �:
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 CountyAs 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 position will be hired to coordinate these acquisitions , a Land
Resource Conservation Manager 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 of the preliminary
GIS mapping work in this area has been accomplished , but 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 .
Proposed Outline
Orange County Resource Acquisition Program
. Overview and Description of Rationale
18
Draft
3/24/99
Section I - Summary of 'Resources / Priorities
Summary of Inventories and Available Knowledge
Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay
Recreation and Parkland Priorities and Joint Schools/Parks
Master Priority List for Acquisition
Section 11 - Management and Funding
Tools and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition
Management Structure for Open Space Lands ( land trusts , etc . )
Structure for Recreation and Parkland Acquisition
Coordination with Other Agencies
Alternative Funding Sources ( grants , etc )
Section 111 - Implementation
Recommended Implementation Measures
B . Funding 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 , 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 V11 )
• Future Federal programs for open space and parks
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 % stays in the County .
• Of the State money , seventy -five percent ( 75 % ) goes to the Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund established under G . S . 113 -44 . 15 . The money
19
Draft
3/24/99
collected under this fund is appropriated annually by the NC Parks and
Recreation Authority and used as follows : '
1 ) Sixty -five percent ( 65 % ) for the State Parks System for capital
projects , repairs and 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.
3 ) Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach
Access Program .
• The remaining twenty -five percent ( 26 % ) goes to the Natural Heritage
Trust Fund created under G . S . 113 -77 . 7 . The monies generated from
this fund are used to :
4 ) 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 .
5 ) Fund priorities are given to projects which will protect areas of
state or national ecological significance or outstanding cultural
significance . '
• The CountyAs share of the revenue collected from the tax is placed in
the CountyAs general fund .
' Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statues .
a From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage .
20
Draft
3/24/99
(from subcommittee)
Acquisition of Land
One method for accumulating funds to purchase land for parks and
recreation is to require new developments to make payments into a
dedicated fund . Under most versions of this system , which is called a
% opayment in IieuA , local governments try to determine the recreational
impact a new development will generate , and on that basis require the
development either to donate land or to make a payment in lieu of making
the donation .
Appendix G indicates the way in which Orange County and Carrboro
calculate this payment. Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual
development proposals ; Hillsborough seeks dedication of land , not
payments in lieu . The attachment also shows the efforts of other selected
jurisdictions in acquiring land .
It has been difficult for the governments to quantify how well the
current system works . Carrboro reports that its fee structure is sufficient
that many developments choose to provide private recreation facilities
rather than making the payment. Similarly , Chapel Hill does not have
detailed central records of what the results of negotiated fees or land
donations has been . Hillsborough does not have details .
Orange County does have a record , since it has required payments
since 1988 , and has accumulated these payments in a fund . The fund has
brought in $ 425 , 000 .
It is clear in a broad . overview, 4
road . overview, however, that the current system of
land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizensA needs . Part of the
problem is that, while recreational facilities may be developed privately ,
these are not open to the public . Also , small parcels of land that are
donated for public use often end up being of use neither to the public nor
'to the development itself, since their size and location makes them difficult
to use .
Orange County residents have long enjoyed the private open space
that is provided by agricultural and forestry uses . In particular, residents
have used Duke Forest land for recreational purposes . County
governments , however, have not uniformly kept pace with demand , as
measured by national indicators .
21
Draft
3 /24/99
Chapel Hill , for example , has approximately 400 acres of public land ,
devoted to parks and recreation . National standards indicate that Chapel
Hill should have XX acres , based on its current population , and XX acres
based on its projected 2025 population . The town therefore has XX% of
what it should have , and limited prospects for accumulating more .
Carrboro has approximately 70 acres of public land ; Orange County
has approximately 60 acres ; and Hillsborough has approximately 30
acres .
The University of North Carolina is planning a major expansion over
the next - ten years , and its commitment to parks and recreation space as a
component of that expansion is not currently known .
The combined projected population of Orange County in 2026 is
168 , 000 . Based on this projection , national standards indicate that the
four local governments should have at a minimum XX acres of land
devoted to residentsA recreational needs .
(from Orange County )
Land Dedication/Payment-in-Lieu
A . Land Dedication - 44 . 08 Acres Total
• Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres
• Chapel Hill Township 44 . 08 Acres
( non -contiguous parcels from . 12 acres to 12 . 34 acres )
B . Payments - in - Lieu Collected : January 1 , 1988 -
December 31 , 1998
Township Amount
1 . Little River $ 74, 719
2 . Cedar Grove $ 619552
3 . Cheeks $ 879753
4 . Hillsborough $ 21 , 376
5 . Eno $ 56 , 616
6 . Bingham $ 39 , 458
7 . Chapel Hill $ 79 , 476
Unknown Twp $ 41966
GRAND TOTAL $4255915
ALL TWPS
22
Draft
3/24/99
(from Carrboro )
♦ Dedication and Payment Provisions
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 traditional property tax
levy and bond referendums have challenged fundamental ideas on paying
for parks and recreation , encouraging public officials to consider
alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and solely relying on
the property tax base and bond funds . The Work Group has recognized
that all local government jurisdictions in Orange County have recreation
requirements in their Subdivision or Land Use Ordinances which mandate
that land be dedicated , private recreation facilities provided or
combination thereof under their statutory regulatory/ police authority to
. protect the health , safety and welfare of their communities . These
recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority the
same as 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 sustaining 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 .
A more recent tool has been the inclusion of a payment in lieu of process
under this same general statutory power. The payment in lieu of process
has been confused with impact fees . The payment in lieu of process is just
that , payment in lieu of providing private recreation facilities or required
dedication of land as discussed above . If the developer is provided the
option to meet the particular jurisdictionAs requirements or make some
commiserate payment in lieu of doing so , the jurisdiction is empowered to
accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . All jurisdictions
lieu on a similar, if not exact, basis . An impact fee is a
accept payment in l
cash payment based on the impact created by a development to a
particular service and requires special enabling legislation . There must
be exhibited a strong correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual need created by
the impact of the development and ( 2 ) benefits provided to the particular
subdivision . Orange County presently has a School Impact Fee , but no
other impact fee exists in the county for any other services .
An option remaining is to request special enabling legislation for
%oRecreation Facilities FeeA . Given authority to collect such a fee would
result in a general tax to provide funding for park land and facilities , much
in the manner of a general tax levy . This would be collected for a specific
23
Draft
3/24/99
purpose , the acquisition and development of park land , but would be much
more flexible in its use as it would not be as restricted as payment in lieu
funds having to serve the particular subdivision from which the fee was
derived . For the jurisdictions to collectively agree to approach the NC
General Assembly , there would probably be a need for a plan to show
where the funds would be used so that each government was assured that
fees collected from subdivision in their jurisdiction were returned as park
investment to their jurisdictions . It is anticipated that there would be
support needed from the private sector, i . e . Home BuildersA Associations ,
etc . for the enabling bill to pass at the General Assembly level . This option
could be an overlay to the present requirements , but affordable housing
issues might stymie this effort as an add -on cost to housing without
elimination of present ordinance requirements . The following options
could be explored .
1 ) Maintain present recreation land use ordinance
requirements and payment in lieu presently used by each
jurisdiction .
2 ) Continue to rely on these requirements and payment in lieu
of process , but standardize them for all jurisdictions within
the County .
3 ) Continue to maintain either 1 ) or 2 ) above and create an
additional tier of a %oRecreation Facilities FeeA which
generates additional funds to be used for the public park
system throughout Orange County .
4) Eliminate the present recreation requirements and
payment in lieu option in each Land Use Ordinance and rely
on a %oRecreation Facilities FeeA levied to new subdivisions to
aid in the acquisition and development of all park systems
throughout Orange County .
It must be noted that any of the above methods are only an
assistance to provide adequate funding to bring the park systems of
Orange County to where they need to be . No one method exists in
the area of subdivision growth to supplant the need for general tax
funds and bond referendums as the major financing mechanism to
provide adequate park land and facilities throughout Orange
County .
Dedication and Payment Provisions
Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional
means of acquiring public park and recreation areas , items they are statutorily mandated
to provide . Increasing pressures on funds generated from traditional property tax levy
and bond referendums have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and
24
Draft
3 /24/99
recreation, encouraging public officials to consider alternatives . A more recent tool has
been the inclusion of a payment in lieu of process under this same general statutory
power . The payment in lieu of process — payment in lieu of providing private recreation
facilities or required dedication by of land — has been confused with impact fees . If the
developer is provided the option to meet the particular jurisdiction ' s requirements or
make some commiserate payment in lieu of doing so , the jurisdiction is empowered to
accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . All jurisdictions accept payment
in lieu on a similar, if not exact, basis . In contrast, an impact fee is a cash payment based
on the impact created by a development to a particular service and requires special
enabling legislation. There must be exhibited a strong correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual
need created by the impact of the development and (2) benefits provided to the particular
subdivision .
Currently, state ordinances limit the spending of the money gathered through the
payment in lieu option to the immediate area. A switch to an impact fee would . . .
• Allow the money to be pooled and serve a larger area.
• Would provide for greater planning and control for the positioning and
infrastructure of the parks.
But . . .
• It would become integral to show a direct benefit to those from whom the fee
is gathered.
• Who actually uses parks ? - must have a defensible answer
• A change to an impact fee structure would take a lot of initial work to
develop and implement.
• Would also require enabling legislation.
State Ordinances
Below are the corresponding state provisions for counties and
cities/towns to require either dedication or Payment- in - Lieu to
subdivision developers . Both ordinances restrict the use of the
land /funds for the immediate area . Also , both refer to the option
being the developers . The formulas can be set- up in such a way ,
however , to make one option more attractive .
§ 153A- 331 , County Subdivision Ordinance Provision providing for
dedication /Payment- In - lieu
A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may provide funds to
the county whereby the county may acquire recreational land or areas to serve the
25
Draft
3/24/99
development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to
serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area .
§ 160A- 372 , City/Town Subdivision Ordinance Provision
providing for dedication /Paymentdn - lieu
The ordinance may provide that a developer may provide funds to the city whereby the
city may acquire recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision,
including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or
development within the immediate area. All funds received by the city pursuant to this
paragraph shall be used only for the acquisition or development of recreation, park, or
open space sites. Any formula enacted to determine the amount of funds that are to be
provided under this paragraph shall be based on the value of the development or
subdivision for property tax purposes. The ordinance may allow a combination or
partial payment of funds and partial dedication of land when the governing body of the
city determines that this combination is in the best interests of the citizens of the area to
be served.
26
Draft
3/24/99
1 < f
o . , i
::r::.... . :�. :-:: ,:.. t
.: . . . . . . . . . . .. .. - :. ��i . ��}r��V/ ,i' :
, a
kt
s
,.
ojj_ r . . .
# . . . . . .
. , R i + a
� tFA
Orange County Yes Zone Map $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 the
developer with
Planning &
Recreation
Departments
based upon the
townAs
Community
Facilities Report
Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1 /35 acre or
1 /20 acre per
dwelling ( and /or
business ) unit
Wake County
Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times
Fair Market
Value
Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule $ 223 to $ 375
and Zone Map per dwelling
unit
Durham No Impact Fee Schedule $ 183 . 38 to
$ 296 . 99 per
dwelling unit
Guilford County No None N /A
Greensboro No None NIA
Charlotte- No None N /A
Mecklenburg
27
Draft
3/24/99
Davis , California Yes Impact Fee Schedule $ 2000 per acre
Boulder County , Yes Fair Market Value 25 acres per
CO 1000 occupants
Alternative Models
Davis, CA — Ann Brunett
Methods of Acquiring Land:
Mandatory land dedication :
• Developers are required to mitigate land on a 1 : 1 ratio .
Land dedicated must fall within the cityAs 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 , Yellow 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 paymenNn - 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
28
Draft
3/24/99
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 a 1135 grant.
Besides the creek , acquire land all over the city .
Made decision to buy more properties vs . one small
piece
• 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 .
Boulder County, CO — Nancy Dayton, (303) 678 -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
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 %opower shop . A
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 overtime , 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
29
Draft
3/24/99
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
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 ,
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
Guilford County Roger Bardsley (336) 574=3544
Note : All of the governments within Guilford County use some
version of the countyAs policy ( Flood Plain Dedication only) ,
although some drift has occurred since 1992 when it was
created .
Methods of Acquiring Land:
Require dedication of field lain open ace if the land
q p p P
falls within the 100 -year flood plain
Open space for watershed policy
30
Draft
3/24/99
Over past 15 years got 1000 acres
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 ) .
Could zone at a lower level ( R & 12 ) though and
dedicate about ~ 15 % 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
Charlotte • Mecklenburg County • Linda Beverly, Charlotte-heck. 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
31
Draft
3/24/99
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 .
11 RECOMMENDATIONS
H
32
Draft
3/24/99
One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork
for future matching funds and grant programs on many of which require a
set of goals , objectives and criteria .
a . Interjurisdictional efforts at standardizing parks and
recreation requirements
b . Joint siting , design , and management of school and
park sites across jurisdictions
c . Public/private partnerships across jurisdictions
d . Joint Capital Facilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
e . Long -term Recreation and Parks Council
(future followup , maintain database , public relations ,
develop future bond proposals )
f. Open Facilities Policy
1 . County , towns and OWASA
2 . UNC and schools
3 . Duke
g . Using CIP to recommend acquisition
h . Payment- in - lieu changes
(from subcommittee )
Future demand
The payment in lieu system is not adequately serving current or
future demand . Based on the projected future need for XX acres of
recreation land , the committee has determined that the current critical
need is to begin landbanking . This concept is similar to any kind of bank ,
it essentially establishes a %osavings accountA of land . Once the savings
account has been fully funded , land can be withdrawn and developed for
specific parks and recreation 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 .
Funds should therefore be devoted to landbanking rather than to
developing recreational facilities .
Landbanking should be done based on projected size and location of
parkland throughout the county . The county needs .
1 ) One countywide community park (XX 600 ? acres )
33
Draft
3/24/99
2 ) Seven district parks (XX 60 ? acres each ) , one in each township
3 ) XX [20 ? number] of neighborhood parks (XX 15 ? acres each )
The total estimated land required is approximately 1 , 300 acres . The
estimated cost of purchasing this acreage , in 1999 dollars , is $ 13 million
dollars .
Recommendations for use of current funds and future funding .
1 ) there is $ 3 million remaining from the 1997 parks bond . This
money should be used to purchase the first 300 acres for a
community park
2 ) the balance of funding should be a $ 10 million parks bonds
placed before the voters in 2000 .
34
Draft
3/24/99
Appendix A
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 Master Park and Recreation Plan
Carrboro Master Park and Recreation Plan
Hillsborough Park and Recreation Plan
i
Draft
3 /24/99
Appendix B
1998 - Shaping Orange CountyAs Future Citizen Committees ( Park and
Recreation Issues )
Through the community visioning effort , Shaping Orange CountyAs
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 .
Draft
3 /24/99
Appendix C
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Appendix D
Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of Facilities
Appendix E
Resolution on Recommended Actions
Appendix F
Current payment4n -Lieu Programs
Appendix G
J
l
i
I
}
II
REPORT OF THE
MASTER RECREATION
AND PARKS WORK
GROUP
Partial Draft # 2
March 24 , 1999
* New text shown in bold
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
.Joint Recreation and Parks Master Plan Outline
I . Background History
a . Rationale for Update of Joint Plan
b . Joint Planning Efforts - 1996 - 97
(Assembly of Governments Report, Coordinated Report, SOCF)
Co Summary of Existing Plans
( e . g . County Master Plan , Municipality Plans )
d . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan
( Explore relationship between existing and proposed school sites and
parks , exploring strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural
resources through open space design , including the relationship of
these resources to active and passive recreational uses ; tasks and
goals established by Work Group )
II . Descriptive Scenario - Where are we now ?
a . Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources
b . Parks and Recreation needs identified
c . Parks and - Recreation standards -
d . Status of previous bonds and projects constructed
III . Future Efforts and Issues - Where to go from here ?
a . Park/ Recreation acquisition goals , objectives and criteria
b . Joint siting and management of sites
c . Implications of UNC Expansion
d . Impediments to Location ( lighting , intensity, traffic, )
e . Mechanisms for implementing goals ( CIP ' s )
IV . Adequate and timely provision of Parklands and Natural
Use Corridors
a . Ensure adequate recreation needs are met for each
jurisdiction
b . Provide greenways in urban areas and wildlife corridors in
rural areas of County .
c . Analyze potential of land in greenways and corridors
V . Acquisition of land
a . Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program
( acquisition and dedication )
b . Funding Sources
VI . Payment - In - Lieu Programs
a . Conduct review of local , regional , and national standards
for parkland dedication
b . Service boundaries for payment - in - lieu
c . Update dedication and payment provisions
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
VII . Proposals and Recommendations
a . Inter] urisdictional efforts at standardizing parks and
recreation requirements
b . Joint siting , design , and management of school and
park sites across jurisdictions
c . Public/ private partnerships across jurisdictions
d . Joint Capital Facilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
e . Long -term Recreation and Parks Council
(future follow - up , develop standards , address impediments , maintain
inventory , public relations , develop future bond proposals )
f. Open Facilities Policy
1 . County, towns and OWASA
2 . UNC and schools
3 . Duke
g . Using CIP to recommend acquisition
h . Payment - in - lieu changes
3/ 19/99
2
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
i0A KGROU
Over the last decade , several recreation and parks planning efforts
have been undertaken across the 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 update of the
Joint Master Recreation and Parks plan already in progress , as well as
a listing of the primary recommendations of these various working
groups from 1988 to the present .
A . Rationale for Update of Joint Plan
Two 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 open space design , including the relationship of
these resources to active and passive recreational uses
• Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities ( See Appendix A )
These two policies provide the impetus for much of the current update
effort and are largely based upon a combination of current and past
concerns arising from previous efforts .
B . Joint Recreation Planning Efforts : 1996 = 97
1996 - Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group
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 .
Draft
y 3 / 24/ 99
• 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 .
• 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 ) . "
• 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 .
1997 On Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in
Orange Counter
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
2
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
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 potential for consolidation of services under
the County
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
1998 - Shaping Orange County 's Future Citizen Committees Park and
Recreation Issues )
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 . This Commissioner- appointed work group divided into
3
Draft
y 3 / 24/ 99
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
reformed 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 to be submitted
to the Orange County Board of Commissioners .
i
4
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
::. . :.:. :. :. . ::. :::: : .::::::::: .:::. . :.. . :. ::. : ::-::: . .. �. A: 1* 1 .. .:: :.-14:. :. ..:. .... . .. : ..: : .. :: .::.: . ... .::. . .: .. . ::::.:.::::::. :-:;.:.. .. ::. : .:
4*1
W ER Ei WE ow
Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the park
bond funds will be disbursed to the jurisdictions in the plan , 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 it be through public , quasi - public , or private
means . Once the needs and resources were identified , standards for
future park and recreation provisions were incorporated into the
decision - making process .
A . Inventory of Resources
One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to address
inventorying 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 sector . For example , the
quasi - public list may include a category inventorying whether the
facilities require additional contact before use , while this issue would
not apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks .
The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues .
The Work Group and staffs personal knowledge of resources in the
area , inventories recently completed by participating municipalities ,
and information from area apartment associations and complexes were
5
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
all used in development of the document . The listing of apartments is
that of complexes listed in Orange County tax records . Thus , the list 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 .
The following needs were identified through this process :
Orange County
• Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks Community School
Park .
• Develop Courthouse/ River Park .
• Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate
playground .
• Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services
Center Park and renovate the building .
• Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air
System and replace windows .
i
• Acquire Park land in Little River and Chapel
Hill / Bingham Township .
• Develop a Joint Park planning effort with OWASA .
• Continue joint tannin efforts with the Schools stems
J P 9 Y
for locating schools and park sites and to construct
larger gymnasiums at future schools to address the
over crowding of indoor recreation activities .
6
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
Town of Chapel Hill
The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan
• Parks and recreation section will be included
• Council schedule calls for plan to be completed in fall of 1999
• Town 's comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989
The Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master
Plan on May 26 , 1998
• Future Development of Northern Community Park
i . At its September 28 , 1998 Council adopted the
following actions
from FY98 - 99 budget appropriated for conceptual
plan process of aquatic facility/ community
center
$ 200 , 000 in Town park bonds allocated for
development of batting cage project
2 . Possible development
a . Aquatic facility
b . Community Center
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 Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend
parks and recreation master plan process
A . Identify community leisure needs , values
Be Clarify/ revise Department mission
C . Perhaps develop community standards for park and
recreation planning / development
7
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Town of Carrboro
♦ Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park
♦ Community Gymnasium
♦ Provide general on - going renovations to all existing facilities at
all community , neighborhood , and mini - park sites .
♦ Along with the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System , provide
expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities .
♦ 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 .
♦ Fully develop the " Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park . "
♦ Acquire property for " Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park " and fully
develop .
♦ Fully develop " Odum Mini - Park "
♦ Acquire additional property for " Pathway Drive Mini - Park " and
fully develop .
C . Standards
See Section VII for recommendations on the development of
coordinated standards . See Appendix F for existing standards .
D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects
Constructed
Orange County
Bond Funds
$ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November , 1997 .
• Park Land Acquisition $ 3 . 0 Million
• Development
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
8
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Accomplishments - Past Five Years
• Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts
( Jointly with Orange County Schools ) .
• Renovations to tot - lot playground at the Northern
Human Services Center .
• Purchased 40 acres of land adjoining the North Human
Services Center .
• Developed Efland - Cheeks Community School Park
Master Plan ,
Current Projects
• Construction of Efland - Cheeks School Park - Phase I .
• Feasibility study for Fairview Park development .
• Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/ River Park ,
Chapel Hill Park Bond History
1996 Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Funds $ 5 million
1996 Land Acquisition for Open Space and Greenways $ 3 million
1980 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 5 million
1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 2 . 5 million
Staff believes the Community Center on Estes Drive was
funded through bond monies , however staff has found no
documentation on this project . A 1970 Community
Facilities Report mentions that the Town had settled on
the Estes Drive location but does not mention funding .
Staff will continue to research through Council archives .
Carrboro Bonds
Bond Funds Generated
♦ $ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978
9
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
: . . .
> :: :< . : .
[ 01 .�11v: . : :. :TU R . . . T . . AN . . IF
5 ,' <: :;: > 111' "[;E:F :: : "'.0 :
'Rom : .. .. ::. .:: ;: : :: : : .::: . . . . . . . .11 . 11 116 * 4 , 160 14F
. . . . . .
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 . Two issues that are directly relevant are
discussed in subsections c and d - UNC expansion and
Impediments to Location of new facilities . Finally, subsection e
addresses possible mechanisms for implementing these goals
and objectives .
A . Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals,
Objectives and Criteria
(Note : The following is a strawman for three important areas of this
report: goals, criteria for land acquisition, and criteria for facilities
siting . It is provided for the group to react to, and will be used (along
with Work Group comments) to further refine these ideas for the final
report:)
Goals and Objectives for Park / Recreation 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 :
Goa Is
Encourage school / park joint planning
* Preserve natural resources
* Promote multi jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts
10
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
* Preserve watersheds and water quality
Encourage historic and cultural preservation
* Identify and emphasize targeted needs
Establish public/ private partnerships
Encourage the dedication of easements
* Explore 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 off of land that is
envi ron menta l ly- sensitive
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 properties for recreation
Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the
Upper Eno River preservation efforts
Keep concept of neighborhood parks
Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition
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 , after approval would become the
basics of the Recreation and Parks Acquisition section of the
County 's Resource Acquisition Program ( see Section V ) .
Potential Land Acquisition Criteria for Purchase Decisions ( examples ) :
Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses
( Rogerson / Oakwood neighborhood park )
Appropriate intensity of use for the area ( pasture at NC 54/ Mount
Carmel )
Location ( Northern Community Park )
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 )
Access ( transportation ) is safe and easily - accomplished
11
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
* Meeting multiple goals ( above ) gets higher weighting
* The existence of matching funds from requesting jIs
urisdiction
* Grants and other funding opportunities
IN* Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan
Potential Facilities Criteria for Siting Decisions :
* Sites should be centrally located for population to be served
Both active and passive recreation opportunities may exist on - site
School / park joint use sites are preferred
Site addresses a broad range of needs
A standing facility plan must exist
Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e . lighting )
B . Joint Siting and Management of Sites
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 can increase the numbers of school
children . The school boards are responsible for school policy and
school buildings , while the county is responsible for providing adequate
school facilities . To coordinate the efforts of these entities , the Chapel
Hill - Carrboro City Schools and Land Use Council and the Orange
County Schools and Land Use Council were formed . The purpose of
the Schools and Land Use Councils is to advise the Board of County
Commissioners concerning growth and land use issues relating to
schools .
The Schools and Land Use Councils were given the following specific
charge : To develop 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 j
County Commissioner ,
The Schools and Land Use Councils held their first meeting on October
81 1997 and have met bi - monthly ( with one or two exceptions ) since
that time . Most meetings have been joint although there have been a
12
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
few meetings specific to one council or the other . 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 ( this could include park and recreational facilities ) ( see
Appendix D ) .
C . Implications of UNC Expansion
To be developed
D . Impediments to Location of New Facilities
• Lighting
• Intensity of use
• Traffic
E . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals / Objectives
Through Capital Plans
< < To be developed > >
13
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
ADE UAT A D T MELY PR 4 . is ON OF
It
4141 .
If . ►,: If . .: : :::AI : :: :A �l. �►. . . : 4 T ZA. .. . . 5 R1,0 '0 +1 -1
(Note: The following is a draft outline developed for the Work
Group 's review. Thoughts and comments at the March 24
meeting will be used to develop this section further. )
a ) Ensure adequate recreation needs are met for each
jurisdiction
1 . Synopsis of Needs Identified in Section II
2 . Needs for Trails and Naturalist Recreation
3 . Timing Issues on Meeting Needs and Coordination with
Mechanisms for Implementing Goals
b ) Provide greenways in urban areas and wildlife corridors in
rural areas
1 . Existing greenways planning in urban areas
2 . Wildlife corridor concept in rural buffer
3 . Plans for expansion of concepts and connectivity
c ) Analyze potential of land in greenways and corridors
1 . Intent and purpose of greenway use
2 . Intent and purpose of corridor use
3 . Evaluation of lands that are suitable / unsuitable
14
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
: ,� L�T� A : ::: : ::
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 on 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 position will be hired to coordinate these acquisitions, a
Land Resource Conservation Manager 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 of the preliminary
GIS mapping work in this area has been accomplished - but
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 .
15
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Proposed Outline
Orange County Resource Acquisition Prociram
Overview and Description of Rationale
Section I - Summary of Resources / Priorities
Summary of Inventories and Available Knowledge
Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay
Recreation and Parkland Priorities and Joint Schools / Parks
Master Priority List for Acquisition
Section II - Management and Funding
Tools and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition
Management Structure for Open Space Lands ( land trusts , etc . )
Structure for Recreation and Parkland Acquisition
Coordination with Other Agencies
Alternative Funding Sources ( grants , etc )
Section III - Implementation
Recommended Implementation Measures
B . Funding 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 , 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 )
• Future Federal programs for open space and parks
16
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
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 % stays in the County .
• Of the State money, seventy -five percent ( 75 % ) goes to the
Parks and Recreation Trust Fund established under G . S . 113 -
44 . 15 . The money collected under this fund is appropriated
annually by the NC Parks and Recreation Authority and used
as follows : 1
1 ) Sixty- five percent ( 65 % ) for the State Parks System for
capital projects, repairs and 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.
3 ) Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and Estuarine water
Beach Access Program .
• The remaining twenty-five percent ( 25 % ) goes to the
Natural Heritage Trust Fund created under G . S . 113 = 77 . 7 .
The monies generated from this fund are used to :
4 ) 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 .
5 ) Fund priorities are given to projects which will protect
areas of state or national ecological significance or
outstanding cultural significance . 2
• The County 's share of the revenue collected from the tax is
placed in the County 's general fund .
' Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statues .
2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage .
17
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
.
:.
. . . .
( from subcommittee )
Acquisition of Land
. One method for accumulating funds to purchase land for
parks and recreation is to require new developments to make
payments into a dedicated fund . Under most versions of this
system - which is called a " payment in lieu " - local
governments try to determine the recreational impact a new
development will generate , and on that basis require the
development either to donate land or to make a payment in lieu
of making the donation .
Appendix G indicates the way in which Orange County and
Carrboro calculate this payment . Chapel Hill negotiates based
on individual development proposals ; Hillsborough seeks
dedication of land , not payments in lieu . The attachment also
shows the efforts of other selected jurisdictions in acquiring
land .
It has been difficult for the governments to quantify how
well the current system works . Carrboro reports that its fee
structure is sufficient that many developments choose to
provide private recreation facilities rather than making the
payment . Similarly, Chapel Hill does not have detailed central
records of what the results of negotiated fees or land donations
has been . Hillsborough does not have details .
Orange County does have a record , since it has required
II
payments since 1988 , and has accumulated these payments in
a fund . The fund has brought in $ 425 , 000 ,
It is clear in a broad overview, however, that the current
system of land acquisition has . been insufficient to meet
citizens ' needs . Part of the problem is that, while recreational
facilities may be developed privately, these are not open to the
public . Also , small parcels of land that are donated for public
use often end up being of use neither to the public nor to the
development itself, since their size and location makes them
difficult to use .
18
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
Orange County residents have long enjoyed the private
open space that is provided by agricultural and forestry uses .
In particular, residents have used Duke Forest land for
recreational purposes . County governments, however, have not
uniformly kept pace with demand , as measured by national
indicators .
Chapel Hill , for example, has approximately 400 acres of
public land devoted to parks and recreation . National standards
indicate that Chapel Hill should have XX acres, based on its
current population , and XX acres based on its projected 2025
population . The town therefore has XX % of what it should _
have, and limited prospects for accumulating more .
Carrboro has approximately 70 acres of public land ;
Orange County has approximately 60 acres; and Hillsborough
has approximately 30 acres .
The University of North Carolina is planning a major
expansion over the next ten years, and its commitment to
parks and recreation space as a component of that expansion is
not currently known .
The combined projected population of Orange County in
2025 is 168, 000 . Based on this projection , national standards
indicate that the four local governments should have at a
minimum XX acres of land devoted to residents ' recreational
needs .
( from Orange County )
Land Dedication/ Payment-in-Lieu
A . Land Dedication - 44 . 08 Acres Total
• Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres
• Chapel Hill Township 44 . 08 Acres
( non - contiguous parcels from . 12 acres to 12 . 34
acres )
19
64
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Be Payments - in - Lieu Collected : January 1 , 1988 -
December 31 , 1998
Township Amount
1 . Little -River $ 74, 719
2 . Cedar Grove $ 611552
3 . Cheeks $ 87 , 753
4 . Hillsborough $ 21 , 376
5 . Eno $ 56 , 615
6 . Bingham $ 39 , 458
7 . Chapel Hill $ 79 , 476
Unknown Twp $ 41966
GRAND TOTAL $ 425 , 915
ALL TWPS
( from Carrboro )
Total of Payment in Lieu Funds
$ 453 , 684
♦ Dedication and Payment Provisions
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 traditional property tax levy and bond referendums have
challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and
recreation , encouraging public officials to consider alternatives
to the negotiated purchase of park land and solely . relying on
the property tax base and bond funds . The Work Group has
recognized that all local government jurisdictions in Orange
County have recreation requirements in their Subdivision or
Land Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated ,
private recreation facilities provided or combination thereof
under their statutory regulatory / police authority to protect the
health , safety and welfare of their communities . These
recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this
authority the same as 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
sustaining that the Town ordinance, within the statutory
20
Om013nW * �' V1 �DOO " = ` O -1 cl O 'vcO -q'ono = �D =' � O �13 -00 > 0) "O
rt = M C, 0 < = O M -0 O p _. O ? O .i, .� O X. " m m O' w O ID !�. .!. .0 p C 3 O -h O 0
0' . 3, � c�Da — U) CL� � fl. y � unO. m ; O �. � c�c � 1D - o �,, v, �coa <. ° ,< � c ag
-� cDar.� �, o � ai 70'o cn ° _ _ cDA 3; ° � ai =.� 3O -: (DM
�D C C .s <, 0 0� �. C (D C * tD _. C rr = �D O A to N) -• tD A �D < to
rig r+ c � � C � n N O � < O aO_ A O C = U) = 3 — � dcC �* O �''' 3 �< O CD 7cC
A -• _ -e �D �D -• < O- a �D �D =_ -t .0 �D = O rf _. 0 a rr U) -s
0 M a cA �, 0 m 0� rt M 0) 0 a - M .t ? _ M �, a' 0. r' 0 tn�.a ul n '� <
= p m C 0 0 C rr -• 3 '� �•tp y�'a Cr n� �' _r cD (D 0 fl' a. t0D 3 rt -• A _ =. = = C O M cD
EL- Mh --% e' O ° O r.�. rt �D = �D O 3 n �• �D '_ �D _ C cn 0 �D cn < (D O C O
c'a O m a. til.. 0rp
? O rr z i. 0 * M A �' = O �, O �D n. a p �D 3 rr Lq a, 3. = m rt -t' 0
3 — su n O tD '11 p V� O ` 's — -e O �D
�D y rt �D '< r'* �' �D �D rr O (� •� _ ~' —`A �• O -• n a �D C '< (Da gyp' h rr 0
X p C �D p C �' i' cA �D 0 -1 _ � A ... n C _ C a _. 0) rt no O Nf' a) MD C .0 = = n
,O.f. < �D C' C� p M, m O 'G m = O �;�• O 0 rt r-�t O. C ° O O� N' d �p �.
° cD a �. =. -� rt O a A -• Ul .� — z�< cD _, rip M O �, < M n cn cn 'Q .
0 O c ' tD O Vf Vf O' _ ° -e ='Up m rr i-�t M F+ a M M O f+ -• tD 'a tD A
p -e O N m � -�, Vf O -< <D �D A • rr -c cr -�
°- ao. �• -� n °' 3: acn � —�. ° c � 0 -� � -n ° � 3 '° � � 'fl .� � cn °',° = -• on3cD _ O
.. _. a �. . A n = �- > C 'C m 0) -1 O = cD . �< '0 Co cn =• d n '+' � n 0 A m m n C
O p (A 0 Mh ° O 0 �D -pe 0) O. O M .0 O A =r -tee �• `!' ° �< 'I r9l -�+ vpf 0� rt G'
° 00 -� 3 ° ° acDoa =*: �' `04 � ° — .21 � � err = •aocn c — � 3 =' � n �' �' = cMl
O n C.�. �' s � Ste, � �' Q• n� C cr Lr� y (D Oi A � C =' n m _. _ -' G' cp cD
_. y _• u, O
V°f �. p' O m H tD IW O =�: rt, �. d X C' to (D -e rr n (D d �' =• rt Vf m ri.6a. m a) O rr rt
_ rr Vf _. C. C — ID
_ ,..�. tD O O 'a .-' O - = rr p (A n' A� O O m ml c C -h �• m C. O n' m � �. A rt = O
�' O ? p C• � tD � _ = r* = 'p � M O n, �. a' �. � — O' � :r = 0 p rr O w �, • n
�D = O = rp
� O O � � (A -1 O tea. — Ce O O C O �: (D M p .0 -p' p = � 'a -e O' er = O O' (D
p = — -• rr O = A �D a a 0 r* — < rr p 'O . M -e rt C r... O -' O
_ a C cD _. -e O A C• O.'fl t, = cD cA 0 _. o. _. 3 p cn cD p C r�•
cD �,. 3. `° �, n. 0 — o ° -• ° y a 0 = o �'. cD o a- a'0 �' %< " .t �•m i M o, rt o.
�. cfl o c ° 'o M (D = o M Ul.:-0 ° cC cD =. 0� rr p < O =. ° 0. ° _ �< c
to cO _. = tD D O n rr r+ __ a = C DO r. 0 O = C
°
� n ? M v O mO �'� ri a + O C p
° o0nc<D .°o, iDs °-�' ou=, o �< 3 �• 3nrt� o � � � � � �' 3cn'� � o3 CL o �D = - -1 a' O
..,, = U . c _� � _ tea. cD °. art3 m
° r+ cn �, cD O O _. O .0 O -- _, n cC rr C cD d �< M ,+ C rr n -•-0 -I p � -h
= p. lC C x p p to rt M r"�' r O -s = rr p� O O = -• -
tC'`< O p r+" a' -t = _ m -• _ ml r+0 A — O' rt f'f 3 _. cn = -• O A
r=r O rt 3 c=D 0 k< m n� cD� -' a t' p 'Q _�' cD O a p C p U) = c�* p O O p• gyp' r* p C C _ W
�' rt = p rt r+ O' _ X p' C p� p C O ? r� O C ; _ r N
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
1 ) Maintain present recreation land use ordinance
requirements and payment in lieu presently used by
each jurisdiction .
2 ) Continue to rely on these requirements and
payment in lieu of process, but standardize them for
all jurisdictions within the County .
3 ) Continue to maintain either 1 ) or 2 ) above and
create an additional tier of a " Recreation Facilities
Fee " which generates additional funds to be used for
the public park system throughout Orange County ,
4 ) Eliminate the present recreation requirements and
payment in lieu option in each Land Use Ordinance
and rely on a " Recreation Facilities Fee " levied to
new subdivisions to aid in the acquisition and
development of all park systems throughout Orange
County .
It must be noted that any of the above methods are only
an assistance to provide adequate funding to bring the
park systems of Orange County to where they need to be .
No one method exists in the area of subdivision growth to
supplant the need for general tax funds and bond
referendums as the major financing mechanism to provide
adequate park land and facilities throughout Orange
County .
Dedication and Payment Provisions
Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional
means of acquiring public park and recreation areas , items they are statutorily mandated
to provide . Increasing pressures on funds generated from traditional property tax levy
and bond referendums have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and
recreation, encouraging public officials to consider alternatives . A more recent tool has
been the inclusion of a payment in lieu of process under this same general statutory
power . The payment in lieu of process — payment in lieu of providing private recreation
facilities or required dedication by of land — has been confused with impact fees . If the
developer is provided the option to meet the particular jurisdiction ' s requirements or
make some commiserate payment in lieu of doing so , the jurisdiction is empowered to
accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . All jurisdictions accept payment
in lieu on a similar, if not exact, basis . In contrast, an impact fee is a cash payment based
on the impact created by a development to a particular service and requires special
enabling legislation. There must be exhibited a strong correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual
need created by the impact of the development and (2) benefits provided to the particular
isi subdivon.
22
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
Currently, state ordinances limit the spending of the money gathered through the
payment in lieu option to the immediate area. A switch to an impact fee would. . .
• Allow the money to be pooled and serve a larger area.
• Would provide for greater planning and control for the positioning and
infrastructure of the parks.
But . . .
• It would become integral to show a direct benefit to those from whom the fee
is gathered.
• Who actually uses parks ? - must have a defensible answer
• A change to an impact fee structure would take a lot of initial work to
develop and implement.
• Would also require enabling legislation.
State Ordinances
Below are the corresponding state provisions for counties and
cities/towns to require either dedication or Payment - in - Lieu to
subdivision developers . Both ordinances restrict the use of the
land /funds for the immediate area . Also , both refer to the option being
the developers . The formulas can be set - up in such a way , however ,
to make one option more attractive .
§ 153A - 331 - County Subdivision Ordinance Provision providing for
dedication / Payment - In - lieu
A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may provide funds to the
county whereby the county may acquire recreational land or areas to serve the
development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to serve
more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area.
§ 160A - 372 - City/Town Subdivision Ordinance Provision providing for
dedication / Payment - In - lieu
The ordinance may provide that a developer may provide funds to the city whereby the
city may acquire recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision,
including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or
development within the immediate area. All funds received by the city pursuant to this
paragraph shall be used only for the acquisition or development of recreation, park, or
open space sites. Any formula enacted to determine the amount of funds that are to be
provided under this paragraph shall be based on the value of the development or
subdivision for property tax purposes. The ordinance may allow a combination or
partial payment of funds and partial dedication of land when the governing body of the
city determines that this combination is in the best interests of the citizens of the area to
be served.
23
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
3
,::. . . .. ,.. .
A`YMENT ,
CQ � T
1 5
f , .
E
CAL MA,
TI
TI . , _
. .. ........ ........_....... . , .: _: ,,. ._ : _ .n,: .:is _
. . .. .... . . . .. .. . ... .... .. . .. . .. .. . . . . r., .� I
—- E� E A LA.. . . .
.:
Orange County - Yes Zone Map $ 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 the
developer with
Planning &
Recreation
Departments
based upon the
town 's
Community
Facilities Report
Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1 / 35 acre or 1 / 20
acre per dwelling
( and /or business )
unit
Wake Count
Ca ry Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times
Fair Market Value
Raleigh - No Impact Fee Schedule and $ 223 to $ 375 per
Zone Map dwelling unit
Durham No Impact Fee Schedule $ 183 . 38 to
$ 296 . 99 per
dwelling unit
Guilford County No None N /A
Greensboro No None N /A
Charlotte - No None N /A
Mecklenburg
Davis California Yes Impact Fee Schedule $ 2000 per acre
Boulder County , Yes Fair Market * Value 25 acres per
CO 1000 occupants
24
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Alternative Models
Davis, CA — Ann Brunett
Methods of Acquiring Land
Mandatory land dedication :
Developers are requiredito 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 ,
Yellow 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 a 1135 grant.
Besides the creek , acquire land all over the city .
Made decision to buy more properties vs . one small piece
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 .
Boulder County, CO — Nancy Dayton , (303) 678 -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 .
25
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
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
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 , 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
26
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Guilford County - 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
Bonds - about 2000 acres through bonds
Have a greenway plan
Offer of dedication if Parks and Recreation Department
wa nts
Some dedicated to the North Carolina Conservancy by the
developer, then deeded over to the county
No requirement for dedication if clustering ( RS - 20 ) . Could
zone at a lower level ( RS - 12 ) though and dedicate about
N 15 % 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
Charlotte - Mecklenburg County - Linda Beverly, Charlotte -
Meck. Planning Dept, (704) 336 -571 9
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
y
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 .
27
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
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 .
i
I
I
'i
i
28
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
v1 . . . R IF . : : > I DA►T � J :14 ,
.
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 .
a . Inter] urisdictionaI efforts at standardizing parks and
recreation requirements
b . Joint siting , design , and management of school and
park sites across jurisdictions
c . Public/ private partnerships across jurisdictions
d . Joint Capital Facilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
e . Long -term Recreation and Parks Council
( future followup, maintain database, public relations,
develop future bond proposals )
f. Open Facilities Policy
1 . County, towns and OWASA
2 . UNC and schools
3 . Duke
g . Using CIP to recommend acquisition
h . Payment- in - lieu changes
( from subcommittee )
Future demand
The payment in lieu system is not adequately serving
IN
current or future demand . Based on the projected future need
for XX acres of recreation land , the committee has determined
that the current critical need is to begin landbanking . This
concept is similar to any kind of bank sees
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 .
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 . Funds should therefore be
devoted to landbanking rather than to developing recreational
facilities .
29
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Landbanking should be done based on projected size and
location of parkland throughout the county . The county needs :
1 ) One countywide community park ( XX 6007. acres )
2 ) Seven district parks ( XX 607. acres each ) , one in each
township
3 ) XX [ 207. number ] of neighborhood parks ( XX 157. acres each )
The total estimated land required is approximately 11300
acres . The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage , in 1999
dollars, is $ 13 million dollars .
Recommendations for use of current funds and future
funding .
1 ) there is $ 3 million remaining from the 1997 parks
bond . This money should be used to purchase the first 300
acres for a community park
2 ) the balance of funding should be a $ 10 million parks
bonds placed before the voters in 2000 .
30
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Appendix A
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 Master Park and Recreation Plan
Carrboro Master Park and Recreation Plan
Hillsborough Park and Recreation Plan
Draft
3 / 24/ 99
Appendix B
1998 - 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 .
Draft
3/ 24/ 99
Appendix C
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Appendix D
Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of Facilities
Appendix E
Resolution on Recommended Actions
Appendix F
Current payment - In - Lieu Programs
Appendix G