HomeMy WebLinkAboutJMRPWG agenda 042899 f
ORANGE COUNTY
NTY
HMESBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
�A el 17�52
MEMORANDUM
TO : Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group
FROM : Albert Kittrell
DATE : April21 , 1999
SUBJECT : Meeting Notification
The next Joint x: fit ' p $ vill be held on
Mastq Recre ion and ParkgT-,- Work Grou. .i '')��)''/
T'>N'y ,
Wednesda A ri "`>N . 00 . m . _ ''ne tSi v, i'. $ 1999t6 i .:r W Sou herrvices Center,
. . . .n... . .
250 ::.._.
5 Homestead R ddr . . ' . �1: A l { ` 7er will be`' o vd :c a-- >>
a. ar . ,. :p ..
we
. ; �. d•.:
Lee
r.
''Y : - lee : r: f:f.: .
" < ' n.ti. r�: .. ,.
N�
r•� '
.
ell .kt
+,
a. ,
:Yip. L.,.. .wk < a.<c:•v,;+r:..,;.. .si'Y S':•nxsl.y . . : tis .i.
`^` '
e.
:q5
1�"
:i : rA!
s"
y .1Xt ;. . .
:t:
<F:•
sv :r
. s
s2.3 r- ,f . . � :r-
.k.�_..J r..:..� t . : >.. • f :z:;%.:> ;3 ;; ...+k;@
cC�'
F.,
. .tvwww ..:i7i<s:•'. kL
< .. : <• .v. r . .ri.
xir •S+w- =e�.: I!w 'x.!•t v : .., .. ) - ..'.Y' +;.<<:.: we ?C' 7':k:y ':f.
snow-v; r. x: :
.v.Y.: .. v30
+,.
+ .wMa•
F.
A .k.
{.•'.I;i �'!•:: : ndJ :-.{*� mil :t, . .
cif:` • C:
2:
el
j:
: t
4a
.i:�. ..tL+:tx:L.,r`�� :::}' � Jr S- I:x. �.•
> r di<
+ Y.. .::�•i Flv:.f+> _:F''i.->.f'ai 5,•Jfiiv. K\l.`rk.£.L_ -...,:!' s... :-.
,.'. ..a : . . . a: a " ` ::>t:n< ,+`:+,.`` .,..:v-a.'.i::<.:..�.e.r:;ei)5>• ••vi:::. -':..v.>.t:4:,.c .•.e:.�; .. To. :. \ .. .�. ,
T.-
•�r': 'T-.. - .:`..-t..i:
G`!
K. io
. ... .a' yf: - :> '<:>....::;, Y:u;y .? . .n.a... :w. .,..... .::..a:._ t_: ... ...n.:n: i3yh
: .:. ..,, : :a•:V,w.
e .., rvt .'Ai. r..i <ki.t%r.:. 'v:v :�:n� lr
`:N,iz�•`. l":X.'.v.-4::n.++. ..vr..r.:r+.:<::n<::. ...,,,t •+:;^.,: ::...:< .u•n:.iw..a ::;,` > . . . -. , Y..
n. 1•i.. ,r.'F.nffi��a:
AREA CODE (919) 7321&8181 • 968 -4501 • 688 -7331 • 22T2031 ® FAX (919) 644-3004
Ext . 2300
t
Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan
Work Group
Southern Human Services Center
April 28 , 1999
6 : 00 p . m .
AGENDA
I . Review of Final Report
II . UNC Recreation Facilities Policy
Martin Pomerantz, Director
Intramural and Recreational Sports
III . Payment4n-Lieu Alternative
Richard Ducker, Associate Professor
Institute of Government
REPORT OF THE
MASTER RECREATION
AND PARKS WORK
GROUP
Third Draft
April 28 , 1999
* New text shown in bold
1
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Joint Recreation and Parks Master Plan Outline
I . Background History
a . Rationale for Update of Joint Plan
* be Joint Planning Efforts - 199 & 97
c . Summary4of Existing Plans ,
d . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan
II . Descriptive Scenario - Where are we now ?
a . Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources
b . Parks and Recreation Needs
c . Parks and Recreation Standards
d . Status of previous bonds and projects constructed
III . Future Efforts and Issues on Where to go from here ?
a . Park/ Recreation acquisition goals , objectives and criteria
b . Joint Siting and Management of sites
c . Impediments to Location
,. d . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through CIP 's and Land - Banking
e . Coordination Opportunities with UNC / Implications of UNC Expansion
e. Coordination Opportunities with OWASA
f. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University
IV. Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands and Natural Use Corridors
a . Ensure adequate recreation for each jurisdiction
b . 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
b . Funding Sources
Via Payment- In - Lieu Programs
a . Review 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 / Coordinated
Land Identification, Acquisition and Banking
e . Long - term Recreation and Parks Council
f. Open Facilities Policy
1 . 0 �County, towns and OWASA
2 . UNC and schools
3 . Duke
g . Using CIP to recommend acquisition
h . Payment- in - lieu changes ai2ues
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
. , .- .
<., A ... .
s
f.: .. +._.:: .. ...,. n : : :. .,. _ ., 2: • .. 3i _ rre.Mr..,, i;'"f. ,^3.:., sy, .:. ii.,; :;�?:���c.
.. f.. :.. . ,
rx ..
cx..rx.:x....;:s.:.,x.w-.:K::xxr.-F.::.:.,x:.....i:x.rom....:,Ck::x._,..
s.
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 .
4d 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
4/ 28/ 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 - 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 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 pl,ayers
• 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 , s � wnership , and maintenance of new facilities
• A countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter
consideration if needs are as great as expected
2
P
Draft
4/ 28/ 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 h
• Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained
1998. - Shaping Orange County Is 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
3
i
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
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 .
4
r
Draft
Ww4K: .: � . _.._...... ..,H. ,...... ... _. ._ .
4/ 28/ 99
> .> . . d .:,:, > . .,.. .. ^: ... . t .... s... � z: <�:�. . ,. _ : - .r '�•.,, : .., . ., r. +rx:•>;
s .
.:
IT � . D
S E3,Y �V �1► RT . _ ,
CRYPT�v . S o, .. V1' H E u#
,
F . . _.. . . . ...t- _ � > ,< �,. rr. .. .. . ,�.. ::- .- z.,.< . .. :,>.. �. ._ ._ � �"�� . : ram:: :' � - .,,� ' ''`ri .. '� . EL�~• . Y "��`:'.� :; .
.. _ ..t .s ,_ ..t.z.'.. ,. t_a ,c_-r. .,{ _ , I _ . : :�. , „ x,.. > . { . . . n . _ . , •''. s. _ _.:T._ J, sri ?:= .a2," ;if;;:'-, ri:x: iT-` - ,>f.<.. ..A. _.1-.�..:.>c.: < .
., : ._ - -. _>. -. . -, ... _..>.. ._.. ., r -C,._ . ,> < • ,., S _ <. .... . ..... . ....a , ..::i'.-` . <,5. . r.�a+xo- " 2'.:Ys'" ..at.,tC.:: - . `T.,=z:' - .s . : ,a't z?'isT°a>a _' y
.>. _ < ,_,.... . . >_ , _ > -_< .. . . . ,._ . ::: �. «:.. v« :-, .. . ..,:., � 5 'v..Y o >.'.--3 . ;'S: �.:),� f.L.._. .-. .u„_ . i,33 •.->r»c •r«,x:et ; _
_ : . . . .. . Y ,, . --.. . � ,• .,, . . . ,�.. . -,.., . ,�, ._ , - .r r . .< .., > ,. , .�,.,��;� . a•. - - ,GIs:' y:,;2.. . S '. _ x�a ' 'r' �r> - a
.. ,. .. � .. , t. . . , ,. . .<
.- a
. ... _a-..- n -. x. .,. .,, ,.0:- MR
..: .?.. ,..-. _ .JF, : I.
..>,.�..:.w,.>TS - . _
.ta,r.,4"•;zF,:u, .. <>:zurs.�,'z : �#�', "'�7.r:
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 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 .
Onceothe 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
4/ 28/ 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 :
1 . Orange County
a ) Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks School/ Community Park .
b ) Develop Courthouse/ River Park (jointly with Town of
Hillsborough ) .
c ) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground .
d ) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park
and renovate the building .
e ) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System
and replace windows .
f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill / Bingham
Township .
g ) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA .
h ) Continue joint planning efforts with the School systems for
locating schools and park sites and to construct larger
gymnasiums at future schools to address the over crowding of
indoor recreation activities ,
2 . Town of Chapel Hill
The Town has recently begun updating its comprehensive plan .
The new plan will :
• Include a section on parks and recreation .
• Call for plan to be completed in fall of 1999
6
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
The Town 's comprehensive plan was last updated in 1989 . The
Town Council adopted a Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan
on May 26 , 1998 .
Needs identified include .
a . Future Development of Northern . Community Park
At its September 28 , 1998 Council adopted the following
actions ; 1 ) from FY9 & 99 budget appropriated for conceptual
plan process of aquatic facility/ community centers and 2 )
$ 200 , 000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of
batting cage project . Possible development a . aquatic facility , b .
Community Center .
b . Future Development of Southern Community Park
No Council decisions made at this point , except soccer field at
school
• No conceptual plan at this point
Staff and Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend parks
and recreation master plan process .
_ Identify community leisure needs , values
• Clarify/ revise Department mission :y
• Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation
planning/ development
3 . Town of Carrboro
a ) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park
b ) Community Gymnasium
c ) Provide general on - going renovations to all existing facilities at
all community , neighborhood , and mini - park sites .
d ) Along with the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System , provide
expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities .
e ) Begin acquiring property- along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek
Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where
possible . Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements
along ;Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system .
f) Fully, develop the " Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park . "
g ) Acquire property for " Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park " and fully
develop .
h ) Fully develop " Odum Mini - Park "
7
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
i ) Acquire additional property for " Pathway Drive Mini - Park " and
fully develop .
4 . Town of Hillsborough
The Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved
in 1993 . Its goals are still valid although additional needs have
arisen that indicate the Master Plan is due for an update . A
recent annexation to the Town for a new subdivision coupled
with substantial growth within Hillsborough Township increases,
the need for recreational opportunities . The Town , as yet , has no
public parks that are officially open to the public although several
park projects are currently in progress .
The Parks and Recreation Board was appointed in 1996 . Since
then the members of the Board have assessed existing property
and facilities owned by the Town and have assigned some
priorities for implementation of the Master Plan . Several projects
are ongoing . Funding has been allocated and / or is being
requested for these projects .
The most immediate recreation needs , based on the original survey
and subsequent requests by townspeople , include ( not necessarily in
_ order of need )
:y
A . Playing fields for organized sports
B . Basketball courts
C . Safe places to walk and bicycle
D,. Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences
E . Neighborhood parks
F . Skateboard facilities
C . Standards
See Section VII for recommendations on the development of
coordinated standards . See Appendix F for existing standards .
D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects
Constructed
In previous years; different jurisdictions have issued bonds for
recreation and parks projects . A number of existing facilities used by
County and Town residents were funded through these bonds . The
following is a listing of bonds approved and projects constructed or
8
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
other accomplishments in the past five years .
i . Orange County
Bond Funds
$ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November, 1997 :
• Park Land Acquisition $ 3 . 0 Million
• Development $ 3 . 0 Million
Efland - Cheeks Community School Park $ 0 . 5 Million
Northern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million
Southern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million
Other park Facilities $ 0 . 5 Million
Current Projects
• Construction of Efland - Cheeks School Park - Phase I .
• Feasibility study for Fairview Park development .
• Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/ River Park .
Accomplishments - Past Five Years
• Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts ( Jointly with
Orange County Schools ) .
• Renovations to tot - lot playground at the Northern Human Services
Center .
• Purchased 40 acres adjoining the North Human Services Center .
• Developed Efland - Cheeks Community School / Park Master Plan .
o
2 . Town of Chapel Hill
1996 Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Funds $ 5 million
1996 Land Acquisition for Open Space and Greenways $ 3 million
1989 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds - $ 5 million
• Funded the following projects : Merritt Pasture ( $ 400 , 000 ) , Bolin
Creek Greenway Part III ( $ 161 , 273 ) , Northern Community Park
( $ 1 . 25 million for acquisition , $ 1 . 05 million for development ) ,
Southern Community Park ( north tract $ 679 , 000 ) and other smaller
projects
1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 2 . 5 million
• Funded Southern Community Park ( south tract - $ 1 . 046 million ) ,
Pritchard Park ( $ 665 , 000 ) and several small projects
1976 Parks. Bond - $ 2 . 65 million
• Funded Cedar Falls Park, Chapel Hill Community Center, Umstead
Park, five balifields , 20 tennis courts and Hargraves Recreation
Center
9
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
3 . Town of Carrboro
$ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978
• Funded Anderson Community Park acquisition / development
Accomplishments = Past Five Years
• Lighting of ballfield at Anderson Community Park
• Renovation of Wilson Park tennis courts
• Removal and renovation of playground at Baldwin Park
Current Projects / Ongoing Improvements
• Acquisition and renovation of Carrboro Baptist Church building for
Carrboro Community Center
4 . Town of Hillsborough
,. Current Projects :
Cooperative projects between Hillsborough and Orange County
River Park - Approximately 5 acres of county land located in
downtown oHillsborough between the new courthouse and river is being
planned for an urban park and open space . The town has pledged
$ 50 , 000 for this effort. At least $ 25 , 000 has been spent and the
remainder is available when the county is ready to proceed . A re -
creation of the Occoneechee village is being constructed on the site .
RC &D is prepared to assist with an erosion mitigation project along Still
House Creek within the park . Further planning and development funds
are needed for implementation of the proposed master plan .
Fairview Park - An engineering study is needed to evaluate the
possible impacts of an old landfill and general soil conditions of the
combined county and town properties on the feasibility of a major
sports facility . The estimated cost of the study is $ 46 , 000 ,
Hillsborough projects
Occoneechee Park - Trails have been built by volunteers within the
original 28 acres with funds from Adopt - a -Trail Grants and from the
Town . Development plans for an overlook within the 28 acres , a small
parking and picnic area on a fee simple parcel next to Eno Mountain
Road , and a 1/4 mile accessible trail on an easement that connects the
two are expected to be implemented in 1999 . A PARTF grant ( $ 31 , 500 )
and other funds totaling $ 69 , 000 has been allocated for the above
development. Due to the 2 year elapsed time of the original estimate
additional funds may be needed for completion . An additional $ 13 , 000
has been requested .
10
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Gold Park/ Old Ball Park - Twenty - four acres at the south end of
Nash Street, south of the railroad tracks , were donated to the town in
1995 . This land has historically been used for semi - pro baseball
activities and the town would like to reinstate its use for organized
sports , on a local scale . An estimated $ 26 , 000 is needed ( in ' 96
dollars ) to relocate sewer and electrical lines . Because the land is
adjacent to the Eno River, floodplain and wetland issues must also be
investigated .
Murray Street Park - The master plan for this 1 /4 acre lot was
developed by local residents . $ 9 , 000 has been allocated for
construction of the project by the town board . $ 10 , 000 for phase 2
has been requested .
King / Occoneechee Street Park - Local residents have approached
the Park and Recreation Board with a proposal to develop this . 6 acre
for a neighborhood park . No funds have yet been requested . .
River Walk - The town received a grant from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund totaling $ 254 , 000 to acquired buffers along
the Eno River for water quality preservation . The buffer is planned to
connect Occoneechee Mountain Park on the west side of town with Eno
River State Park near highway 70 bypass to the east . Funds have
been requested to hire a consultant to administer this project . The
design and planning for pedestrian access is still needed .
Sidewalks - pedestrian access within the town of Hillsborough is
outlined in both Hillsborough ' s Parks and Recreation and
Transportation Plans ,
5 . Grant Funding Received
Each municipality within the County , as well as Orange County ,
have received funds from _ various programs throughout the last
couple decades for the purpose of constructing and improving
recreational facilities . These grant funds originate at various
levels of government . Examples of funding opportunities include
the now defunct Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund , the
State Park and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF) , North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) , the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund , and the Community Development Block
Grant Program ( CDBG ) . The range of projectscompleted with
these funds is broad . Examples of funded projects include
nature trail construction , bike trail construction , ballfield
construction , and playground upgrades .
11
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
The following table illustrates the total amount of grant funding
received by Orange County and its municipalities within the last
20 years .
,r :._. .. . :::.:. ..::.:: . . ..:...:...:: ._,: ....i. ., .: ,,.. : :
41
. . . .. . ..... :_ ,. •: •:.::rv. - :.: .. v .... r..._:a
o .:::
. ...:r':.i: ..... ..:::: ::�:•:a•:::::::i� ::
t
.c. Go: .: r:: . :
r� e.�n_ :.. .. . . �tt :::. : ;::, ,::, _. ' . aa. ..: Fu:rd .,,Rece� ec� : .
Orange County To Be Provided
Chapel Hill $ 1 , 135 , 000
Carrboro $ 482 , 000
Hillsborough $ 31 , 500
12
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
_ t .
..r�G:{ . _t.. �- ., �:: .>,. � .. . . '3:. ?r_ .. t,;» YF'�a�v;" r_^.3S'.' :t> : -.. :R... .s.:t:6:J.Yii"::':' ;rc:%'y`:..N3;:Y f": .;:Y_'v ,yw:,:'•'.+. v...�,.�,.g;•.y Yr`.< tt'sdr':>:'?"%F".!r
. ... .. __ ..:. -t..: . >. .. .. . . .... .. .. �•, v, ..,.. «... ; . . ,._- F-S. . n ._:: .az._ "-<. < -<^... � . .r...>i�'� :• "it'i _ :S? : <F': . 3 .y.Y.y„ ^ .?<."^ ... f
. . . - ..:. .
<
r .t . .. -: .. . ....� : >... .�::
^
.. : cat:. -
.-... , .<:. .n .t a:. - .: .. ":..e . .. is �M1;}:�'_ _
� TL ._ _ FUTURE . E T AN:Q < :I=
FFOR sy;.3 ss:C1Es
-
.'Sr.
, .: _ _..,. , . . o- .. x.. .; _ , .. , _ v .• .. . . : >.v..>;..,<4 �: > . . _ t :<-r, =;'-£ F:: Asa
�,- j? r._ a- ., ...K . , _£ • - za e ., : . , , t ,.. ., >r,..> ... ,. , . ., 's� . n ,, .-. •, _ =.;.. , u .. -< .. . .� . . #,,-c» vCt :: :_= ;s' rvf�abc a-F .. >.�:F.^' yS.r 'ti�z - ., �ii�. : <J,('c �: ::
•
z.I 2
.,- .,. .. .. . . ,..v . -: - ,.. -.. _. . . _ .. ._. . ,. . .. .4 r. . ,_ u`✓'- L ,.":-:it:`: "':.ii7't i7.`N'* : :1: _ :<.T�? _ _.1.v.
__ .. . s - '.:� , > : ., . .:. s, .-<•.-. . . .. ...,s� :�e,._� �....`; ,-%:t :s .::.':.<<:' ° - ,tk 4=`fFu- e - - :.,;.. k. -';lLx�,�,:i-, _
OM . �iE E - -
-3k .^1•.Xn ::.o.n.:.. ' .i.3 H.v.x -'bys':b -.::.,. • s l. . a ' ,... .. o'w . >:PL«.dt>k' � }...o
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 a addresses possible mechanisms for
implementing these goals and objectives .
A . Park and Recreation- Land Acquisition Goals,
Objectives and Criteria
1 . Goals and Objectives for Land Acquisition
In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs ,
there are several goals that have become apparent through the
discussions of the Work Group :
Goals
* Encourage school/ park joint planning
* Preserve natural resources
* Promote multi jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts
• Preserve watersheds and water quality
* Encourage historic and cultural preservation
* Identify and emphasize targeted needs
* Establish public/ private partnerships
* Encourage the dedication of easements
Explore land - banking opportunities
* Acquire/ purchase parkland through development process
* Develop linear parks concepts and plans
13
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
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
" 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
'' 2 . 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 (examples ) :
Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses
( Rogerson/ Oakwood neighborhood park )
* Appropriate intensity of use for the area ( Merritt Pasture at NC 54
and US 15/ 501 )
Location ( Northern Community Park )
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 Sitina Decisions :
Facilities 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
14
Draft .
4/ 28/ 99
* Facility addresses a broad range of needs
* A standing facility plan must exist
* Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e .
lighting )
Be 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 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 bimonthly ( 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 ;
15
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
• 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 others and
• initiated discussion on a Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location
of Facilities ( see Appendix D ) .
C . Impediments to Location of New Facilities
.in recent years, more attention has been paid to the ancillary
impacts of recreational facilities. In particular, impacts of
lighting, intensity of use, traffic and noise have been cited as
posing negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods in the
location of recreational facilities that involve active recreation
fields, programs and lighting.
The Parks and Recreation Directors met with staff to explore
this issue. Since these concerns are almost exclusively related
to active recreation, a definition of active and passive
recreation might be an important first step to addressing
impacts.
While many definitions could be developed for the terms active
recreation and passive recreation, the following might serve as
a starting point:
Active Recreation , Recreation facilities programmable for
structured activities, such as ballfields, tennis courts and picnic
shelters.
Passive Recreation : Facilities that are designed for individual
rather than structured activities, such as hiking trails, open
picnic tables, open fields and other undeveloped lands.
Having defined the nature of active recreation, several points
were noted as critical to resolution of future siting problems:
• ' Examples from other communities that have public
education on facility location and public input into decisions
Point out the positive components of nearby active
recreation.
• Focus on greater community needs and the downside of not
providing active facilities
• Work - to , better define the type of land appropriate for active
facilities with lights - locating adjacent to schools and other
more-intensive uses
16
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
• If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to
residential communities, buy larger land area to develop
buffers for shielding of light and noise.
Why are some park facilities now viewed as an impact than an
improvement? More analysis is needed to explore the change in
attitude toward park impacts. However, the following
suggestions are offered as ways to4 mitigate concerns about
active recreation facilities while meeting the greater public
need:
• The co -location of schools and parks can address this issue
with appropriate design.
• Co -locating schools with parks may have superseded the old
concept of community (mid-level) parks. If this is the case,
the focus for future parks and recreation development could
be targeted to smaller, less-intensive neighborhood parks
and larger district parks.
• By combining active and passive recreation needs at the
district park level (100-plus acres), it may be possible to
develop trails and retain natural areas on the perimeter of
parks while dedicating a portion of the interior to active
facilities and "hide " parking areas. Care must be exercised
to ensure the integrity of significant natural areas, however.
• Buffers should contain enough land and mature tree canopy
to minimize sound and lighting to an acceptable
• Place all future active recreation facilities, in larger district
parks and make neighborhood parks passive
• Look countywide to define future neighborhood and district
parks - working with UNC, OWASA and other entities
• Related to . the above, land banking is needed now to begin
to identify and save priority parklands. Several local
governments (including some city/county joint efforts) are
presently engaged in land banking.
D . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through
Capital Improvement Plans ( CIP 's ) -and Land -
.Banking
< < To be developed > >
17
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
E . Coordination Opportunities with UNC /
Implications of UNC Expansion
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provides both
facilities that are used by the greater town and County
populations , and users of local recreational facilities in the form
of students who live on and ( particularly ) off- campus .
Currently , UNC provides the following recreational facilities for its
students , Policy does not allow use by non - students , although
this policy is not strictly enforced and many Town residents avail
themselves of facilities like the Botanical Gardens , Finley Golf
Course , Kenan Stadium , Fetzer Field / Belk Track , and groups like
Rainbow Soccer use fields owned by the University ,
in the 1996 report "Recreation and Park Issues in Orange
County', the work group "determined that in applying
standards to the population of Orange County that 11, 000
people (students living in dormitories and
fraternities/sororities) could be subtracted from population
totals in deriving park acreage needs. The assumption
underlying this adjustment is that these students reside on
campus and have their recreation needs met wholly by ( INC-
CH, while others in the towns and County rely largely on the
three jurisdictions facilities. "
< < Key questions: Do students use off-campus facilities ? Do
faculty/staff use off-campus facilities ? Focus more on land/park
facilities rather than buildings/centers ? > >
« Note: This section to - be completed after 4128 presentation
from UNC > >
F . Coordination Opportunities with OWASA
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has been an
active part of Orange County's efforts surrounding recreation
and park planning. Representatives of the OWASA Board are
members of the Work Group, and have actively contributed to
the efforts of the County in providing higher levels of
recreation and park service to citizens in the community.
OWASA owns over 3, 000 acres in Orange County, and the local
governments have expressed interest in discussing recreation
possibilities on parts of these a holdings.
18
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Both OWASA -owned Cane Creek Reservoir lands and University
Lake (which is leased from UNC) are unique recreational
locations in the County. These combined areas represent
nearly 2, 000 acres within southwestern Orange County. As
some of the only forma/ locations with boating, fishing, and
canoeing in the County, these areas represent recreational
opportunities the County is interested in maintaining.
Partnerships with the Authority are avenues for encouraging
the provision of recreational opportunities on OWASA lands.
Opportunities appear to exist for local governments to work
with OWASA . In particular, local governments may be
interested in discussing with OWASA long-term scenarios for
some lands, including mitigation lands acquired during the
building of Cane Creek Reservoir. The OWASA Board of
Directors has asked the local governments that requests
regarding recreation use be made on specific parcels (please
see Appendix H) , OWASWs primary objective of water quality
protection will determine their policy decisions regarding
appropriate intensity of use on specific holdings. In addition,
OWASA has acquisition plans for nearly 1300 new acres in the
Cane Creek watershed, which may offer another potential
opportunity for partnership with local governments for the
provision of passive recreation .
G . Coordination Opportunities with Duke University
< < To be developed for May meeting »
. <3� , x+'*�;��->� ra'= :'�•.::: r. ?.>o-'r-'K .. `a:.�^�".,""A"" :"^"sr ".xfi "S.<�i�i,':' ..�v".v 't.s-a„'>u=a'tz" : k... ::tEr, ,,:a<•-. a.:w*=__��.x''�'-_'_-�.
.. .. . _. .. r,: _.e:'.,.•y , > . < : ... _ _ .. S'v ,� ... t�s.<. t..s- - el . .i ..-.,..... ._c.c' . x� _. .�•_2. :
rt „ v
a
T
T }
n 3 :'
?
z
'y't> 1,
s
� :.. „iR .. . , , . -. - ,
g
S - . �. - -
?`.
v T� u � . E. .. :, . .. . ,. " . . a �r. AN _ 4 .M _�� you s �p _
j -e -..Z: ac .,o.. .r.,- ., - .. :r ., .- . . :�. =•�i.;,'<.-.:, s's.^-;":; F :�: ''
. .. ,� . ''s-i
. .�z - . e ...: . _. . . . . . , ' �sv::'w - _ _ '<'�;: 3, . .,,he:'4 -:; •
._. .> gist'.'."•
. . ... . , ,.. .zzxr . 'i'tv.:4::"
_ ..- .. . ,. c . . r. , . , _.. . :.: ..: ::. .. . ... sw- �;T:s' _ _ s:&.. •^?^-.' :w">�'"+'::,.:_�:,:�?-�=�iK:i
fr;a, .; - . - -
i� +i
_ is _ . x : _
> :
D . . A . Rai
-.. m . .. .. w: -. .., '�.....
.. ., :..a.'za:;as.rm,tt.:,�«aaa✓;�axr::....,ai..;,.:i..'.v1,error„�X;:::aazP«,odsi:tAfsr�:i'k..X,+.�A:�zr ta'S.u:mw"-`'cv.e.we."sa...,...,wAa�ias:+. :.',.i�.�:X�.:s:>..s:3;.is.;:,,,Y"�iF,aiw.;:�ii..: r;zx:
A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met
In Section II of this document, recreation needs have been
identified for each of the jurisdictions within Orange County,
using previous works and new assessments. While there are
some differences between the jurisdictions, in general the
needs fall into the following major categories:
• Acquisition and development of greenways or trails
• School/park combinations
• Active recreation facilities and/or gymnasiums
19
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
• Larger community/district parks with a mixture of activities
• Neighborhood-scale parks
I'f coordinated capital funding and land-banking possibilities
are pursued, a fluid and flexible process must be developed
that allows for revision and introduction of new needs, along
with a timetable that prioritizes needs and establishes a
reasonable timeframe to make sure that the needs of the
communities are being met. A model along the lines of the
NCDOT seven -year Transportation .improvement Program (TZP)
might be a starting point.
A multi-jurisdictional committee charged with evaluating
needs, funding availability and long- term plans could
undertake the development of this mechanism .
B . Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors
in Rural Areas
One of the most prominent needs identified in both urban and
rural areas are the need to preserve green corridors. These
corridors serve a variety of recreation needs, while preserving
visual and natural resources. In rural areas, the need for
wildlife corridors has been documented - areas that serve as
connectors between watersheds along streamways and ridges.
Inside the Towns, paved or gravel trails along utility easements
and streamways have been and continue to be a high priority ans
such as the much - used Bolin Creek Greenway in Chapel Hill.
Other types of corridors merge these two concepts, serving as
a combination of the two (such as Eno River State Park and the
planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough/Orange County) .
1 . Greenways
to the past 15 years, a considerable degree of planning has
occurred in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
greenways. In 1985, the Town of Chapel Hill received a
Greenways Task Force Report that led to the creation of a
Greenways Commission, and the planning and development of
Bolin Creek Greenway. In 1996, a Comprehensive Greenways
Master Plan was adopted that outlines future greenways,
funding and construction plans and priorities. The -1996 plan
focused on'four new greenway trails: Lower Booker Creek
(Phase II), Upper Booker Creek, Dry Creek (phase I) and Dry
Creek (Phase II).
20
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Carrboro. . . (to be added - link to bikeways)
While the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal
greenways program, recent initiatives to link Occoneechee
Mountain to the Eno River State Park and develop a Riverwalk
along the Eno in Hillsborough (in conjunction with Orange
County) would form a significant beginning for a greenways
system in the Town .
There is a fourth area where the potential for greenways
currently exists, although no facilities have been planned or "
developed to date. The 1986 Joint Planning Area Plan Use Plan
adopted by the County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro contains a
strategy map that provides for future greenway corridors along
the network of streams in the Rural Buffer area as well as the
Town 's long - term transition areas. Through the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations, the County has a policy to require
dedication of land for greenways in the Rural Buffer area.
While some land has been dedicated to date in the Rural Buffer,
no plans have been developed for a greenway system. This
subject would likely be dealt with in the planned revision to the
County Master Recreation and Parks Plan.
2. Wildlife Corridors
In 1988, the Triangle Land ' Conservancy developed an
Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange
County. In identifying 64 of the most significant sites
countywide, the Inventory also identified and addressed the
importance of preserving wildlife corridors along selected
streams and ridges as connectors. These connectors provide
habitat and allow migrating wildlife to move between larger
open land masses and water bodies. The need for this green
skeleton will increase in the future, as development continues
to occur. The proposed wildlife corridor connects the .Jordan
Lake lands to University Lake, Cane Creek Reservoir to the Eno
River and Little River. This corridor has been incorporated in
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as part of the Resource
Protection Area category. Much of the wildlife corridor lies
within floodplain or poorly-drained land that would not be
developed, but important overland connectors exist along
several ridges. Attempts to protect this corridor in its natural
state are currently pursued through the County's voluntary
Flexible Development ordinance. Other corridors may also be
important to the natural eco -system and wildlife habitat.
21
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
As the County and towns continue to grow and develop,
expansion of the urban greenways and rural wildlife corridors
may be needed. In the long -term, the potential for linking the
two systems is desirable.
C. Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and Corridors
Additional language to be handed out 4128
Definition ( Chapel Hill Greenways Plan classes/ tiers from paved
urban to wildlife corridor)
Intent and purposes of greenways
Intent and purposes of corridors
Methods for evaluating land suitability
22
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
>
V�V
. . :. ,." .:T,_ >s . - ., . . ., _ . .. _.. .. .. ,<._. _ . �. ... ::r .. s'xa: e ;3-Y T;?s , rs., .•;r'': ' ; "z•:v�-^r_e „Y ,. .
r • . : y-a .{ _, .¢,ni ,, . > Diu ':. : : ,;.j s i-n - - r> .". ..:..:ts....ai.. x..ai,.w :.,.s.,,K<..rtrr.sizz,.i.. ....:.........AS.rK*.::.,,. ..:,.„.>2az' - - n.S.xG.;:ya:u:s.»s :o:'J<:^.a,:.:w:.:sao{:.ma::�.< ,r.'<�a,.ar2,r.,:r::.x,..xtL+,.A.:,u-::.s«,.aa,...L' ...a3:rkat"-..tic,..,,.a..fi..........,x..rc...r.,s..l..,H:..x....,,..,k.P.}..• ,:.x.w.u .srr. 4T,.,.....w:....«,.,.>,.....,..:..,.x.•m`.•.
A . Coordination with County Resource Acquisition
Program
On January 4 , 1999 , Orange County created a Department of
Environment a, nd Resource Conservation . One of the principal
tasks for the new department is the development of a Resource
Acquisition Program . While primarily targeted to the preservation
of natural and cultural resources , the program will also address
acquisition measures for recreation lands and parks - since many
of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and
recreation are intertwined . Since the County 's resources are
located in4all 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 th,e eventual goals , objectives and
criteria identified in this report will be inputs into the acquisition
program. . for recreation and parks facilities .
23
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Draft - Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County
I . Overview and Description of Rationale
A. Formation of Department
Be Resources / Past programs and initiatives
Section I - Summary of Resources / Priorities
II . Summary of Inventories and Available Knowledge
A . 1986 OCPD Inventory of Natural, Cultural. . .
Be 1988 TLC Inventory
co 1990 LESA Farmland Evaluation program
D. Watershed studies (1988, 1989, 1996, 1999)
E. 1996 Landscape with Wildlife - TLC
F. 1997 Resources Section - Comprehensive Plan
G. 1999 Prime Forest Follow-up
H. Master Recreation and Parks Report
III . Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay
A . How Database was created
Be Listing of Existing coverages
Co New Coverages created to fill in gaps
D. Continued Data Needs
IV . Criteria and Master Priority List for Acquisition
A . Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife habitat
Be Criteria for Prime Farmland
Co Criteria for Historic Sites
D. Criteria for Parklands
E. Criteria for Riparian Buffers
F. Ranking System / Weighting
G. Priority List (by category)
Section II - Management and Funding
V. Tools and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition
A. Fee-simple purchase
Be Donations (several types)
C. Conservation Easements
D. Coordination with Acquisitions through Development Process
E. Other easements
F. Life-lease agreements
G. Coordinated Capital Funding with Towns (parks)
VI . Management Structure ( land trusts , etc)
A . Collaborating with existing land trusts
Be Soil and Water District
Co Establishing a Countywide Land Trust
D. Roles of County Commissions and Advisory Boards
E. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships
F. Stewardship and Post-Acquisition Structure
VII . Alternative Funding Sources (grants , etc)
A. County CIP Allocations
B: Other County Funds
C. Grants from Clean Water Management Trust Fund
D. ; Grants from Natural Heritage Trust Fund
Grants from NC Recreation and Parks Trust Fund
F. Federal Funds
G. Soll and Water Administered Funds
H. Many Others
Section III - Imvlementation
VIII . Recommended ' Implementation Program
ii
A . ManageMent Structure
Be Board of Directors / Oversight Boards
C. Funding Plans
D. Plan of Action
E. Stewardship
24
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
B . Funding Sources
1 . Alternative Sources
The means and methods of funding future recreation and parks
needs may involve a number of approaches and combinations .
As discussed in Section III , a coordinated approach for capital
funding of acquisitions might be desirable . Some possibilities for
funding sources might include :
• Bond referenda from the County or Towns
• Grants from programs such as the NC Parks and Recreation
Trust Fund , the Natural Heritage Trust Fund , the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund , Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program , and other sources ( add examples )
• Allocations from local government general funds or special
accounts
rr • 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 ( Lands
Legacy Initiative )
• NC Conservation Corps (AmeriCorps/ VISTA)
2 . Local Funding of State Trust Funds : Parks and
Recreation , Trust Fund / Natural Heritage Trust Fund
Two of these potential funding sources are funded through locally
collected revenue stamps . Currently , the County collects $ 2 . 00
per thousand on the sale prices of houses . Of this money , 48 %
goes to the State , while 52 % 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 ) Sixty - five percent ( 65 % ) for the State Parks System for
capital projects , repairs and renovations of park facilities , and
land acquisition .
2) Thirty percent (3001o) to provide matching funds to local
governmental units on a dollar- for- dollar basis for local park
and recreation purposes. These funds shalfbe allocated by
' Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statutes .
25
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
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 ,
Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund
(PARTF) through revenue stamps began with the 1996- 97
fiscal year. Through March 1999, revenue stamps from
Orange County (including towns), have contributed
$ 1, 351, 727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, and
$304, 139 of that amount has gone to the local-
government matching grants program . To date, the N. C.
Recreation and Parks Authority has allocated $31, 500
,j back into Orange County, to the Town of Hillsborough for
the Occoneechee Mountain Park. This is the only local
funding that has been received.
The remaining twenty - five percent ( 25 % ) of the local revenue
stamps goes to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund created under
G . S . 113 - 77 . 7 . The monies generated from this fund are used to
acquire natural lands for state parks , preserves , wildlife
conservation areas , coastal reserves , natural and scenic rivers ,
historic site properties , and other outdoor recreation and natural
areas . Fund priorities are given to projects which will protect
areas of state or national ' ecological significance or outstanding
cultural significance , 2
To date, Orange County has contributed $337, 932 to the
Natural Heritage program through this method. No -
projects in Orange County have received a grant from the
Natural Heritage Trust Fund, although some moneys have
been appropriated to the Eno River State Park.
z From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage .
26
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
. . .. ,.>. ,, a-; <y.. ,.:rx -,k,,•,.y....>rw.<r•wrw:�;^rW sm ==,xy: :r";,,y.:.rr:s• t : ,: :axw ;£:,•F-:`" r.?=•„s=t:>c'sm.;y:yf;r;.;a:.ix•' t::.< .y;rm: : '?-�'.. .^ .'r:.='., ..x
:,. ..zv,•.s..,......�..«r _:.... �. ,,......rz"t•,'LSv; ' :rs: » : ;.i"t`» :i:.? ;•t.
.<.. - . Cs. .. , . . _.._ .. ,:. ._ . .. . re.. .. ..._ :- . . - i ... ... . . . .. .. ,._ . . . . ._ :;,.:_ . .- ..yr � °y:� •:Y'Ysi:^M.. ,- > rs;r;:.
:>:< 4: .3_r ..rr ` .:: `S -.._'1 .. ;.. .. »'i2e .•:3'::r;;, 'Y`:'" Fr`f;-:`: :="r''.$., :. ; �;� �:%9
• rr
.. . . _ . . . . .. : . . . .. . .. P Roy
u . .
. . . .., n,- . . •- . > T_< .. s �.. .��.� . . " ... ..,_ .,.. . . . s - - .i3hSz.:.m.«:.i`n. :r"r..`x: :... ....r_<:'i`,a rir::;'; iai ..:;�..
.�f
< < Note: This section will be re-combined and " cleaned up *
Is
after April 28. The section will be completed after hearing from
Rich Ducker on payment-in -lieu alternatives. > >
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 F 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 appendix also shows the efforts of
other selected jurisdictions in acquiring land .
It has been difficult for the governments to 4quantify 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 . Carrboro has collected
$ 453 , 000 to date . 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 on payments for recreation
purposes . Orange County has required payments since 1988 , and has
accumulated these payments in a fund . The fund has brought in
$ 425 , 0000 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 .
Orange County residents have long enjoyed the private open
vided by agricultural and forestry uses . In particular ,
space that is pro
residents have used Duke Forest land for recreational purposes .
County governments , however , have not uniformly kept pace with
demand , as measured by national indicators .
27
Draft
4/ 28/ 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 2025 is
16.8 , 000 . Based on this projection , national standards indicate that the
four local governments should have at a minimum 740 acres of land
devoted to residents' recreational needs .
1 . Land Dedication / Payment- in - Lieu
Orange County
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 )
Payments - in - Lieu Collected : January 1 , 1988 - December 31 ,
1998
To A hi Amount
1 . Little River $ 741F719
2 . Cedar Grove $ 61 , 552
3 . Cheeks $ 87 , 753
4 . Hillsborough $ 21 , 376
5 . Eno $ 56 , 615
6 . . Bingham $ 39 , 458
7 . Chapel Hill $ 79 , 476
Unknown Twp 4 966
GRAND TOTAL ALL
TWPS 425 915
28
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Town of Carrboro
Total of Payment in Lieu ( through 1998 ) : $ 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
reIt
creation 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 4particular 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 . 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 showipg 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 .
29
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
An option remaining is to request special enabling legislation for
" Recreation Facilities Fee " . 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 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 Builders ' 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 " 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 .
30
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Dedication and Payment Provisions
<<Check against Carrboro section and recombine after 4/28>>
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
iao n . lieu on a similar, if not exact, basis . In contrast, an impact fee is a cash payment based
onthe 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.
31
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
§ 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, parr or
open space sites. Any formula enacted to determine the amount of funds that are to be
I Is
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
t r.,..._.....»s..... ,..,r-. . , .> fit. . ist ....., . .t. '<• y x r,�<•.::•<.;<?^«t.: t.:'<.sy . a
tsi
t 1 r• - a ; tY:> •,ks > ` :_' . :: :ry:;:. :x: - . . _ :, ,<Y > q a:Y , s. a,= t z o-
r. �. p� ,t ,,, .: 1 .. •:t ` { t= ps "` ".. i'y: J f ¢,': '.r s f3?� i= t
�,•�•. � i it:`�• •- r. ?Y.. .
.zf�,-, £:, g: . ' w ' y '� .HI>< Y< w:S, `;E . s ` �`•:,�`,_.t` :. : f tl s .t� 'r e �.
. 'F:
:
a��� .. . .� .. �� It
y <r- t,
HIS
_ ._ t�e��t`�. ` "`�� .:, � ..
�, ...� ; : f'�; � ��"' �• ' � .. <cl� :. �':..':�? � �i#. "a•a •F '.� '°'�':'� ::€` � " #:` _ £i-G`" �r ' �:s �.. . ..� ..:,_<� � ._F. . "a°�'._ `,- �� �:. � `t�
{�•�.a ; . 'Z` s6. ... � _, ; : . , . � :'�`•. : »` h' ,s� x�'. ' z :�^ -t 'ixz� _ as 7 n : .. t ��
�: s - �k" . Mx:4�. �..� �;�, nf�. ,: f. �� f; � . ��, � `E.: ,�. s ?� i 'pis f.: :ii
- s"a`A 'SI' `
e - Y>k, - • : ,-t:,y . .2.. .- Ex .�x: Fn '< i� � . �•r t �x _. f - .t. . lr �i
fE-h It • <.� �L'. • .tS - . - . . - ': .t�,•'S„ - . -:ti�^^-.{� r,�: . ... - 4^. `'t '�. 1 HI' ' < 1: , ....f - u� ' ^d�� -:lZ�i�`�' _y :: ��
•y ,�^,. yt� ., �<_..s�l...--,:��' . t� :-�s:x �' �"
�. :f�i+g-•:�k.' - } � Y :� a' <�i`'^Y .a•� ' x'�'"" � = .Lz. '�-,�:. _ ,:s3f<. - .! Er:�r,.:.R:,:sa< .t � Elm
� .. .f. k , ;� , , . i —r3 , 1., t ..e . . Y. .er £ ,: li :3i Ssz<... . . . . « ... :ts zc"5 r- . s3< ,. : : €:- , .. . ..sk . .^3 .Sps.. .E., .„ �:ki.- . . ;q?H -, S::xs, ! {k'3
Orange County Yes Zone Map . $ 422 or $ 455 per
lot-
Ca rrboro 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
32
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Wake .Count
Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times
Fair Market Value
Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule and $ 223 to $ 375 per
Zone Map dwelling unit
Durham 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 occu ants
Many of the above local governments have developed alternative
models to the acquisition and/or dedication of land for recreational
purposes. Additional details on the specifics of each program may be
Is
found in Appendix G.
-z.;•7<..• -x:- , s • �reszr•: x,x,.f, . W s: _x`x ;�:� - �te:v. ..,,y,x - , .ram,. ..y;..., -
•sy"e fi.. •",n;m;s :T'S?'A}'- _ .ySyt :•a:.:':"'s, e '�'xfi;<':."e'-. .^„?{.;,�F.c'4yEr
�: : e:-•�.. .. » .. -
- ,:,€,r,;d>> !.e:>
2
n. e
... .:_: .:, .: i ;.. .; .,+.. , [. :r. �•:) ::Ya �1.--.. :i,=`%`� - ;ys`:j:."' i:t::. -i 'F: : .:<.-: .;pia "=
p ,
L- � rx „'vt ..
j) �, i
L. Y..t� >. ......st ....,a'.:ii.% ..>n. s
�.-'c.y........ .<,:. . ' Nt
rr
NOW
>w..:..a�°x,..,..>~........ - .. �..:a.Ms•,,.9:..fas.^.:�• .£.x..�. ., . ...,. . ,. ".a{d�..,.xr'?9:r.•.kg..: �=` .'.isfi: <�>........a
< < More-detailed recommendations will be drafted and handed
out on 4 -28 > >
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
be Joint siting , design , and management of school and
ffi
park sites across jurisdictions
c . Public/ private partnerships across jurisdictions
d . Joint Capital Facilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
eel Long - term Recreation and Parks Council
( future follow - up , 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
33
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
h . Payment- in - lieu changes
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 land
banking '. This concept is similar. to any kind of bank - it
essentially establishes a ` savings account " . of land . Once
the savings account has been fully funded , land can be
withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation
, needs ,
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
, r
parkland in every township are diminishing . Funds should
therefore be devoted to land banking rather than to
developing recreational facilities .
Land banking should be done based on projected size and
location of parkland throughout the county . The county
needs :
1 ) One countywide community park ( XX 6007acres )
2 ) Seven district parks ( XX 607acres each ) ; one in each
township
3 ) XX [ 20 ? number] of neighborhood parks ( XX 157acres
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
4/ 28/ 99
< < Note : All appendices to be cleaned- up and links
verified by May meeting > >
Appendix A
Summaries of Existing Recreation and Parks Plans
1988 - Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan
The primary recommendations for the provision of County - wide
recreation services focus on specific policies for park development
within the townships in the County . The majority of land for the
proposed parks shall be provided by public agencies throughout the
County . Generally ,. the Master Plan recommends :
• The development of community parks within Bingham , Cheeks ,
Cedar Grove_, Eno-, and Little River townships
• Four district parks scattered throughout county
• Construction of swimming pools at Chapel Hill and Orange High
Schools
In determining the priorities of park development and land acquisition ,
the Plan cites the requirement to consider immediate . or pressing
needs of the community first . Priorities for land acquisition and
development include the following .
1 . Providing equitable distribution of recreational opportunities
2 . Providing for areas of the County not currently being served
3 . Providing for the greatest number of possible users
Chapel Hill Master Park and Recreation Plan
Carrboro Master Park and Recreation Plan
Hillsborough Park and Recreation Plan
A brief summary of the Master Plan goals :
A . Use the Town 's natural and historical heritage as a recreational
resource
B . Acquire and maintain a neighborhood park for informal use in each
neighborhood
C . Meet the recreational needs of the Town 's diverse population
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
D . Acquire and maintain playing fields , courts and other facilities for
organized sports and fitness
E . Provide safe , convenient , and efficient travelways for non - motorized
transportation of all people in Hillsborough .
F . Actively seek participation and cooperation of all organizations
involved in , or concerned with the provision of recreational services
in the Hillsborough area .
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 .
Appendix C
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Appendix D
Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of Facilities
Appendix E
Resolution on Recommended Actions
Appendix F
Existing Local Payment - In - Lieu Programs
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Appendix G
Payment - in - Lieu Programs Around the Country
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 city 's general plan
boundary .
• Should be equal farmland if possible . If none can be found ,
they can seekta 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 genera-1 plan area .
• This option is more expensive than the easements for
developers and they can often find farmers willing to sell
some of their land .
• Other :
• Some local farmers create conservation easements on their own
Focus of Acquisition :
• The city concentrates its efforts around one creek in particular.
• As the city acquires land around it, the Army Corps of Engineers will
come in and repair it back to its original form under an 1135 grant.
• Besides the creek, acquire land all over the city .
• Made decision to buy more properties vs . one small piece_
• 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 .
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
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 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
Join4t ' acquisition with the municipalities
• SQme have own sales taxes
Work also with the Trust with Public Lands , Nature
Conservancy
Open Space Task Force made up of a people , stakeholders ,
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
• 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 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
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 ( 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) 336-5719
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
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
with setting aside a minimum of 10 % of the land as open
space .
• That space either is then maintained by a private
homeowners association , or is dedicated to- the Parks and
Recreation department as a greenway .
• No incentive for developers to provide the land , but the
smaller lots makes it so they can position the lots on better
land
Lot of greenways through the subdivision process
• Some bonds
Purchase open space . Some negotiated dedication for tax
credit
Focus of Acquisition :
Parks and Recreation has a greenway master plan .
• If a development comes into that area , the planner will put
them in contact with the Parks and Recreation . Department .
• The Parks and Recreation Department can also purchase the
land directly from the property - owner .
Appendix H
OWASA Memorandum on Recreation Use of Property
Summary of NC Park and Recreation Trust Fund
The Trust Fund was established in 1994 to aid in development of recreation
facilities throughout North Carolina. The goal of the program is to equalize the provision
of recreation resources on the state level while providing funds to applicants with diverse
backgrounds and needs . An eleven ( 11 ) member Authority is selected by the Governor,
Speaker of the House , and President of the Senate . The Authority selects the grants each
year from a pool of completed local government applications .
According to Eric Gulledge, the Regional Coordinator for our region, several
objective and subjective measures are used to select grant applications for funding . In
addition to the objective point criteria, a one-page submission from the applicant,
Regional Coordinator analysis, and preferences by Authority members are all used in the
selection process . Mr . Gulledge stated that the intent of the program is to redistribute
funds to rural areas who have less opportunity to develop recreation resources . Thus , a
specific County is not intended to receive back all funds which are ` paid into ' the fund .
Information included in the Regional Coordinator analysis include a summary of
noteworthy project features , park characteristics , applicant history of program funding,
adjacent land use impact analysis , and evaluation of project ' s ability to meet the
community ' s need . The subjective preferences stated by Authority members are also
influential elements considered . The specific agendas of these members largely drives
the priority given to particular projects .
Since July 1996 , the program has been funded at the local level through the
Register of Deeds Excise Stamp Tax . 75 % of these moneys generated by local
governments are allocated to the Trust Fund, with the remaining 25 % dedicated to a
related program, the Natural Heritage Fund . Of the 75 % generated for the Park and
Recreation Trust Fund locally, only a designated portion (30 %) is available for grants j
back to local governments for projects such as facility upgrades and parkland acquisition .
Orange County has contributed $ 1 , 351 , 727 through the excise tax since July 1 ,
1996 . The total amount available for return to the County from the Park and Recreation
Trust Fund (PARTF) is $ 304 , 139 and from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund, $ 338 , 932 .
Of this total , $ 31 , 500 has been received back into the County through grant awards . Thus ,
4 . 9 % of contributed funds were returned through the Park and Recreation Trust Fund.
The sole grant recipient in Orange County was the Town of Hillsborough, receiving funds
for Occoneechee Park development.
i
II,
MEMORANDUM
To : Margaret Brown, County Commissioner
John Link, County Manager
Albert Kittrell , Assistant County Manager
Richard Kinney , Carrboro Parks and Recreation Director
Bob Jones , Orange County Recreation and Parks Director
Bill Webster, Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Analyst
From : David Stancil , Orange County ERC Director
Sarah Magruder, Orange County Planning/ERC Intern
RE : Current and Projected Estimates of Parkland Needs in County
Date : April 28 , 1999 .
We have performed some rough calculations in order to begin to put some , � -
numbers together for the Master Recreation and Parks Report . Currently, the report has
blanks , plugged numbers or "xx ' s" on projected parkland needs . Prior to disseminating
this to the full work group , we wanted to run these numbers by you for review .
We have attempted to determine the number of parks (by type) and acres needed
for Orange County ' s population in 2000 and 2025 . The intent of this exercise is to
provide us with a general idea of the countywide needs . We used the Standards appendix
from the 1996 Assembly of Governments Report, as well as the definitions of parks in the
1988 Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan . We used these standards in the
absence of the anticipated community-based standards , that would be developed by the
proposed future Parklands and Resource Council . Thus , alterations may be needed when
the new standards are in place . Two tables are presented, one with gross land needs , the
other demonstrating net needs after accounting for our best estimation of existing
resources . Also listed are the assumptions used in the calculation process .
Calculation Assumptions
• In determining the number of people served by different types of parks , we
chose the midpoint between the County ' s and municipalities different
standards .
• In determining the existing resource base , we used the inventory .
• Definitions used — Regional parks are >200 , District parks are >75acres,
Community parks are >20 acres and Neighborhood parks are > 5 acres .
• Acreage needs were based upon the entire county . We did not allocate the
final number of parks and acres by municipality or township . .
• Eno River State Park is regarded as a regional park due to its size .
1
Table 1 : County-wide Parkland Needs
Type of Park Year 2000 (acres) Year 2025 (acres)
Regional 2@ 450acres each 3@ 450acres each
District 4@ 150acres 6@ 150acres
Community 12@ 25acres 17@ 25acres
Neighborhood 23@ 10acres 34 @12 . 5acres
Total acres needed 2030 acres 3100 acres
The size of parks above are averages and are figured according to population needs and
standards . The above figures do not account for existing resources in our inventory .
Based on existing data, the following table illustrates the amount needed, after current
resources are considered .
Table 2 : Net Parkland Needs - Accounting for Existing Parks
Type of Park Year 2000 (acres) Year 2025 (acres)
Regional
District - 600 - 900
Community + 104 . 7 * -20 . 3
Neighborhood 449 . 32 -344 . 32
Total acres needed 644. 62 1264. 62
* While the tables demonstrate an apparent adequacy of parkland for regional and
community parks , location and amenity provision are not necessarily taken into account .
Eno River State Park does not include all amenities often found in regional parks,
according to the Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan definitions .
Additionally, the location and amenity offerings of many parks classified under the
` neighborhood ' category do not meet written guidelines . The adequacy of acreage does
not necessarily mean the locations most effectively serve the largest number of citizens
throughout the county .
2
Addendum
Master Recreation and Parks Draft Report
April 28 , 1999
This document includes new language developed since the 4/ 28/99 draft of the
report . The applicable replacement pages are enclosed .
O y H A `' A '1 O �' C i1 A M. H • • • • • y -, M m i?!' `S'r!k
a, nrto � oo . �,' oco ocDnoo �. � '* c� ov, � o '' �
a �' 3 'tallcD a. o �' as a� cD cD -. oul
cD o o cD n ''' o o �D �cn = �'* O C p cD
rt
P+ t�D Vf O O O 4 Z tD p W . O 4 tD -, O A `A':
�, O tD p O. y O ■— tD `�+V. O O a' � ftt ~' p 43 t0
y rt p cD cD y O 3 °' '�' C't
3 cD �, o A cD
�, rt � .� � �. ° A � o � oH
t � �' O � tDiDv°i O �• 034 � `CO �, � � d � O Odd rtAytD ~ O
O
Mal
OO NMcD O ' Cep cDv� A O
0, O C C '� -, .h
wft' �D -' GC pO OCDp � Op ycDNOUN ,�, -. ' -, nrtp4 pQ. � ?
0 0foll
Z M' O cD y c�D cD' O 3, Ci■ 'C �, a c�p = p' \ rt V1 .h to —■
ru�p ? Oa• n00 ° � Ort4i`
Q.
o ;
C O cD �' cD O 'C p cD cD O A ;* vl �+ y" O cD
a000pM000n' o o °: o v � ° �, a� � � � � � p'� ° o � c� A
O y O p O y O A .h r,i, 3 4 `' O Z .
N O0.?
cD cD " � CD
o D m
CA. � ' ^A
t
falm
C
m m a Vf ? OS'
ria m a. cD H � y tOif O,
O O tD O O O aftmia Z atO A n a. "t
tD `e O A
O 1O?;a
cD � tDrtOc�p cD � cp _, Ito
nftto oa� �, , �. cDa ycDa 3 ° -� a� � �c r* '
o y
O _ch
�
rata
eat
Mi
cD O *0 y p cn O y mot Mi
y C d y -0. a' L1 cep /yw
0. _e O ry, y .., 00 �
O O y 0
0 (D
y 3' ,< <D kO
tD \ O
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
i . Greenways
in the past 15 years, a considerable degree of planning has
occurred in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
greenways. In 1985, the Town of Chapel Hill received a
Greenways Task Force Report that led to the creation of a
Greenways Commission, and the planning and development of
Bolin Creek Greenway., In 1996, a Comprehensive Greenways
Master Plan was adopted that outlines future greenways,
funding and construction plans and priorities. The 1996 plan
focused on four new greenway trails. Lower Booker Creek
(Phase II), Upper Booker Creek, Dry Creek (phase I) and Dry
Creek (Phase ZZ) .
Carrboro. . . (to be added - link to bikeways)
While the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal
greenways program, recent initiatives to link Occoneechee
Mountain to the Eno River State Park and develop at Riverwalk
along the Eno in Hillsborough (in conjunction with Orange
County) would form a significant beginning for a greenways
system in the Town .
There is a fourth area where the potential for greenways
currently exists, although no facilities have been planned or
developed to date. The 1986 Joint Planning Area Plan Use Plan
adopted by the County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro contains a
strategy map that provides for future greenway corridors along
the network of streams in the Rural Buffer area as well as the
Town 's long - term transition areas. Through the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations, the County has a policy to require
dedication of land for greenways in the Rural Buffer area .
While some land has been dedicated to date in the Rural Buffer,
no plans have been developed for a greenway system. This
subject would likely be dealt with in the planned revision to the
County Master Recreation and Parks Plan.
2. Wildlife Corridors
In 1988, the Triangle Land Conservancy developed an
Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange
County. In identifying 64 of the most significant sites
countywide, the Inventory also identified and addressed the
importance of preserving wildlife corridors along selected
streams and ridges as connectors. These connectors provide
habitat and allow migrating wildlife to move between larger
21
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
open land masses and water bodies. In many of these corridors
a primitive trail system may already exist, formed by years or
use by wildlife and local hikers. The need for this green
skeleton will increase in the future, as development continues
to occur. The proposed wildlife corridor connects the Jordan
Lake lands to University Lake, Cane Creek Reservoir to the Eno
River and Little River. This corridor has been incorporated in
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as part of the Resource
Protection Area category. Much of the wildlife corridor lies
within floodplain or poorly-drained land that would not be
developed, but important overland connectors exist along
several ridges. Attempts to protect this corridor in its natural
state are currently pursued through the County's voluntary
Flexible Development ordinance. Other corridors may also be
important to the natural eco -system and wildlife habitat.
As the County and towns continue to grow and develop,
expansion of the urban greenways and rural wildlife corridors
may be needed. In the long -term, the potential for linking the
two systems is desirable.
C . Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and
Corridors
The use of land for greenways and corridors may be viewed as
a continuum of types. One example of this type of continuum is
found in the 1996 Chapel Hill Greenways Plan .
The Greenways Plan classifies six different types of natural
corridors or trails, ranging from natural wildlife corridors , to
10 -foot paved green way trails for bike and pedestrian use. The
six classes from the Chapel Hill Greenways Plan (with some
modification of terminology) are;
1 . Unimproved Corridors lacking trails. No maintenance unless
problems (such as diseased or dying trees) affect
neighboring properties.
2. Primitive Trails. created by wildlife or citizens. Not
maintained.
3. Improved Woodland Trails, with soft natural surface and
minimal improvements that can accommodate mountain
bikes and serve as interpretive trails. Basic maintenance
(removal of litter, fallen trees and limbs)
4. Unpaved Access Drive with gates or bollards to prevent
casual vehicle use, suitable for pedestrians or mountain
bikes. Usually a road built for other purposes and used for a
trail.
22
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
5. Paved Greenway Trail; under 104eet wide. Can be
pedestrian -only or allow bicycle use. Maintenance.
6. Paved Greenway Trail 10-Feet or Wider; for mixed bicycle
and pedestrian traffic. Built to ADA standards.
Classes 1 -2 above might reasonably fit into the scheme of
wildlife corridors, with no improvements and any trails
previously created by wildlife or people.
Classes 3- 6 would appear to be more -properly classified as
greenways, since their use is more targeted to people (either
pedestrian or bicycle. Classes 4 - 6 would be more urban in
nature and found inside the Towns or adjacent areas. Class 3
(Improved Woodland Trails) could be found in both urban and
rural areas, perhaps linking parks to a regional trail system on
a primary corridor to be identified in the future. In this sense,
Woodland Trails may constitute a third category of corridors
and trails.
There are several criteria that could be used to evaluate land
suitability for wildlife corridors, woodland trails and
greenways. Examples might include;
Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Criteria
• Located along perennial streams, or ridges connecting
watershed basins and their perennial streams
• Located away from residential structures to preserve
privacy
• Connects and includes identified natural areas and wildlife
habitat and other areas of public interest
Woodland Trails Evaluation Criteria
• Located along an identified primary corridor system
• Located away from natural areas and wildlife habitat, or in
such fashion as to minimize impact on these areas
• Links parks, urban greenways systems and existing open
space areas such as Eno River State Park
• Consistent with a long - term regional trails system
• Located in areas with minimal streamway and adjoining
lands erosion potential
• Located away from residential structures to preserve
privacy
• Located in areas where periodic access for emergency
vehicles can be sited
23
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
Greenways Evaluation Criteria (note - many criteria taken
from Chapel Hill Master Plan )
• Located along streamway systems in urban or surrounding
areas
• Co -located with existing easements (such as utility
easements)
• Located as far as possible from residential structures to
preserve privacy
• Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank
• Stream crossings should be avoided whenever possible and
grade separated when necessary
• Located to ensure that minimum disruption of the trail
would result from repair or replacement of utilities
• Located to connect existing neighborhoods, parks and other
public services
• Located to allow for emergency vehicle access
With these priorities in mind, the potential for long -term
development of a trail system linking the urban greenways and
rural trails to parks and open space does exist. The Joint
Planning Area Strategy Map shows the beginnings of a such a
system that was envisioned in Y 987. While considerable further
work would be needed in this area, examples of some possible
long -term corridors/trails might include:
• A North Chapel Hill/Rural Buffer corridor linking Booker
Creek Greenway, Northern Community Park, Duke Forest,
New Hope Creek (including TLC lands and Duke Forest) back
to the New Hope Creek Corridor and the Durham County
line.
• A corridor in southwest/central Orange County linking the
Haw River, Cane Creek Reservoir, OWASA mitigation lands,
Seven -Mile Creek lands, Eno River and Duke Forest, Eno
River River Walk in Hillsborough and the Eno River State
Park. (A northern branch along the Eno toward the new
Hillsborough reservoir could be an addition to this concept) .
• A corridor in southern Orange linking Bolin Creek Greenway
via Meadownmont and UNC to the UNC Botanical Garden to
Jordan Lake lands.
24
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
VI = � . RECMMENDATTNS
One of the important results of this report will be the laying of
groundwork for future matching funds and grant programs - many of
which require a set of goals , objectives and criteria . As Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough move into the
21st century, the nature of future park and recreation provior
sion
will likely include cooperative ventures among the local
governments and partnerships with organizations such as the
school systems, OWASA, UNC and Duke. Planning for this
eventuality should begin now, to ensure that valuable
opportunities are not lost.
In its deliberations , the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has
developed recommendations in eight key areas :
a . Create a "Parks and Resource Lands Council "
In developing plans for long - term recreation and parks
planning, the Work Group has identified a need for a
permanent joint Parks and Resource Lands Council. For
example, this council might include one elected official
and one citizen from each jursidiction, along with
representatives from the school systems, UNC, OWASA
and Duke. The Council could meet quarterly to address
follow- up concerns in the areas discussed in this report.
The opportunity in this effort to bring all of the different
local governments to the table has been useful and
informative, and the Work Group feels that this
momentum could be continued though a long - term
mechanism. While the actual duties of the Council would
need to be determined, some areas of responsibility
might include .
• Develop and periodically review coordinated
standards
Develop future bond proposals for parks and
recreation
• Make recommendations on allocation of future bond
moneys for parks and recreation .
• Develop grant applications and alternative funding
sources
36
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
• Maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and
Recreation Facilities developed as part of this effort
• Develop public education programs on parks and
recreation programs
b . Inter-jurisdictional Efforts To Standardizing Parks
and Recreation Requirements
Currently, the towns and County have a number of
different standards that are used to determine parks and
recreation needs. While recognizing the distinctions
between urban and rural needs and facilities, it does
appear that coordination of the different approaches
would provide a number of advantages. In particular, if
the local governments pursue joint capital funding and
land-banking, and other possible combined functions, the
need for a consistent countywide set of standards will be
paramount.
The Work Group recommends that the future Parkland
and Resources Council address, among their first duties,
a coordinated set of standards for parks and recreation .
c . Joint siting , design , and management of school and
park sites across jurisdictions
The Schools and Land Use Councils have opened an
important door in the co -location of schools and parks.
With an avenue for input into the design and planning
stages, the local governments and schools will be able to
provide for a number of parks and recreation needs.
Concerns about management of these facilities should be
resolvable, with the Schools and Land Use Councils
providing an important role in consensus-building.
As further research is developed toward the specifics of a
program for school/park acquisition, the Work Group
suggests that Orange County, with its role in school site
acquisition and program/staff resources for land
acquisition, may be able to play a coordinating role in
future land acquisitions for both purposes.
37
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
d . Public / private partnerships across jurisdictions
As mentioned above, one of the most exciting prospects
for the future of recreation and parks provision in Orange
County is that of public/private partnerships.
Coordination with OWASA and UNC in locating future
parks and facilities seems feasible, and the Work Group
recommends that the local governments (perhaps
through the Parkland and Resources Council) work to
identify properties for potential partnership and meet to
explore these possibilities. In particular, the identified
need for a large district park between Chapel Hill-
Carrboro and Hillsborough might be a venture that all
parties would have a stake in .
Additionally, partnerships with other entities may take on
different roles. Coordination with Duke University is also
recommended, although it is recognized that Duke Forest
is of a different nature. Duke Forest plays an important
role in the open space network of the County, and future
discussion of that role as links in a corridor or trail
system will be critical.
Finally, the potential for coordination with Triangle Land
Conservancy, the State of North Carolina, the Eno River
Association and private firms appears to exist and should
be encouraged where practical.
cilities Plan for Parks and Recreation
e . point Capital Fa
If the local governments in Orange County are to be
successful in providing for the long - term needs of
County/town residents, it is clear that joint capital
funding and land-banking efforts need to be addressed,
and should be addressed as quickly as possible. A
meeting of Managers, elected officials and staff should be
called to develop a plan for coordination .
Regardless of future decisions in areas such as merged
functions of the departments, it is clear that land prices
will continue to escalate. Potential larger park areas
inside the Chapel Hill- Carrboro area are quite limited,
which will require planning for future joint district parks
in the County. This, plus the inability to accumulate
sufficient funds individually, leads to a strong
recommendation that Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Carrboro and Hillsborough develop a plan to coordinate
38
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
funding sources in future years. It is recommended that
the aforementioned meeting of Managers, staffs and
elected officials from the jurisdictions as as soon as
possible.
Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs
(UP 's) could be a fundamental part of this mechanism.
Other recommendations to come from subcommittee. . . .
f. Open Facilities Policy
In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the
Work Group believes that citizens of the Towns and
County should have the opportunity to use facilities
developed by all of the local governments and OWASA .
Attempting to limit use of facilities solely to residents on
a single jurisdiction is likely to be cumbersome
administratively and not constructive generally.
The Work Group recommends that Orange County, Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and OWASA develop an " Open
Facilities Policy" to be jointly adopted by all parties. This
policy should provide that all recreation facilities owned
and operated by the parties are open and accessible to all
County residents.
To a different degree, a policy regarding use of local
government facilities by UNC students and of UNC
facilities by local citizens should be investigated with the
University.
The local governments within which Duke Forest falls
should also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop
appropriate mutual guidelines in this area.
< < addressed through joint funding recommendation > >
g . Payment - in - lieu changes
The payment in lieu system used by Orange County ,
Carrboro and ( to a different degree ) Chapel Hill is not
adequately serving current or future demand . Based on the
projected future need for XXX new acres of recreation
land , the Work Group has determined that the current
39
Draft
4/ 28/ 99
critical need is to begin land banking . This concept is
similar to any kind of bank — it essentially establishes a
" savings account " of land . Once the savings account has
been fully funded , land can be withdrawn and developed
for specific parks and recreation needs .
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 land banking rather than to
developing recreational facilities .
Land banking should be done based on projected size and
location of parkland throughout the county . Based on the
most commonly accepted standards, the county needs
the following new parks .
1 ) One countywide District Park ( 200 - 600 acres )
2 ) Five Community parks ( 25- 75 acres each ) , one in
each township ( four currently exist/ planned , with two in
Chapel Hill , one in Carrboro and one in Efland )
3 ) XX [ 207 number ] of neighborhood parks ( 5- 20 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 .
h . 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 district park .
2 ) The balance of funding should be a $ 10 million parks
bonds placed before the voters in November , 2000 .
40
r
Richard Ducker
Inst , of Govt .
April , 1999
ACQUIRING LAND FOR RECREATION
THROUGH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
is Acquiring Land for Recreation By Purchase
lie Acquiring Land for Recreation By Land Development Regulation
-- developer A . Mandatory land dedication requirement that offer
interest in land to a governmental unit for its acceptance and
maintenance
1 . Ascondition of subdivision pla
t approval
�
City : Ordinance may provide "for the dedication . . . of
recreation areas serving residents of the immediate
neighborhood within the subdivision . . . "
I
County : Same
2 . As a condition of a special - use or conditional - use permit
City : Such permit conditions " may include requirements . . .
that provision be made of recreational space and
facilities . "
County : Such permit conditions " may include requirements
that recreational space be provided . "
3 . Local government may specify where land to be dedicated is
located and may set standards concerning the size , shape , f
topography , and accessibility of parcel to be dedicated .
2
4 . Local government may either require dedication of land for
acceptance by a public agency or allow or require the
conveyance of land by the subdivider to a property
owners ' association or other private entity .
Be Fees in lieu --developer pays a fee related to the cost incurred by
the governmental unit when it purchases land of the type it
could have required the developer to dedicate
1 . As a condition of subdivision plat approval
City : 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 . "
County : 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 . "
2 . Although unclear on this point , language of both city and
county statutes suggests that the choice whether to dedicate
land or pay fees is to be made by the developer .
3
C . Reservation of land -- developer sets aside land for future
purchase by a governmental agency
1 . As a condition of subdivision plat approval
City : Ordinance " may provide . . . for the . . . reservation of
recreation areas serving residents of the immediate
neighborhood within the subdivision "
County : Same
2 . Statute does not provide for how long reservaton may
remain in effect or what evidence the local unit must
provide to demonstrate that the parcel will eventually
be purchased .
D . Impact fees -- developer pays fee representing pro - rated cost of
providing community-wide and area -wide recreational facilities
required by the new development
1 . No express statewide authorizing legislation presently exists
for impact fees to finance park , recreation areas , or open
space
2 . Fees must be spent in timely manner and to provide
facilities that sufficiently benefit those who reside or
occupy the development for which they were paid .
E . Setbacks , buffers , and density transfers ordinance requires
landowner to comply with standards in zoning or land
subdivision ordinance
1 . Linear buffers may be required for various natural resource ,
hazard , and land use protection purposes .
2 . Development potential within buffer can be transferred to .
other portions of adjacent property .
3 . However , development restrictions of this type do not
necessarily open up areas to public access .
4
III . Constitutional Limitations on Use of Exactions
A . Exaction : A condition of development permission that a
developer provide public facilities at the developer' s own expense .
B . Exaction must not violate Fifth Amendment of U . S . Constitution ,
which provides that government " shall not take private property for
public use except upon payment of just compensation . "
CO If an exaction is not to be an unconstitutional regulatory taking , it
must :
1 . Be sufficiently related to the impact of the development on
the need for the public facility . ( North Carolina state courts
require a " rational nexus . " )
2 . The exaction must be " roughly proportional " to the
development ' s impact . ( Dolan v . City of Tigard , 512 U . S . 374
( 1994 ) )
3 . Although " no precise mathematical calculation is required , "
government must make an " individualized determination "
that an appropriate connection exists . ( Dolan)
4 . Burden of showing that sufficient connection exists is on
government . ( Dolan)
r li adventures •
at the Outdoor Education Center at the Student Recreation Center
9624179 962 - 4STC
• high and low elements • all types of
challenge ropes weight
course training
• longest zipline in the US equipment
• indoor climbing wall • state - f -the -
• outdoor equipment art cardio
program equipment
• adventure trips a the hottest
• resource center aerobics
• freshman wilderness classes
experience • personal
• 18 - hole disc training
golf course • special
• single - track events , and
mountain bike 4more
trails
•
s o fl t intramural
c C u 6 s somethin or everyone
sports
962 = 1153
gbz - 1o13
• over 60 team and
• o v eT 45 active individual sports
clubs , f� zom ka - • competitive and rec -
i
t a t e and t c e reational divisions
hockey to s4tilin5 • Nike t- shirt awards
and wateiz polo to all champions
• leazn new skills , compete and • over 200 student
gavel , make new gutends and officials
have � un to the process • lots of special events ,
• gzeat leadelishi p and � el - fun runs and much ,
Cowsht p o p po � tuntties much more
UNC - CHAPEL HILL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
WOOLLEN GYM 143 , 251 GSF ; 108 , 522 NSF
• 8 basketball /volleyball courts
• 2 crew training rooms , 2 racquetball courts
• weight training facility
• men ' s and women ' s lockerrooms
• Women ' s Gym : 2 dance/aerobic studios ; Faculty/ Staff Wellness Center
• Bowman Gray Indoor Pool , Kessing ( Navy) Outdoor Pool
FETZER GYM 1601) 598 GSF ; 100 , 597 NSF
• courts : 5 basketball / 6volleyball / 6 badminton / 2 team handball / 3 indoor soccer
• 15 racquetball courts
• 6 squash courts
• combatives room
• fencing/multipurpose room
• men ' s and women ' s lockerrooms
STUDENT RECREATION CENTER 29 , 843 GSF ; 21 , 699 NSF
• 10 ,000 sq . ft. weight training facility with free weights and variable resistance machines ;
large cardio- vascular area ; Cardio Theatre under construction
• 14 aerobic/dance studios ; Center for Healthy Student Behaviors
CARMICHAEL FIELDS 1851000 GSF
• 4 lighted , intramural - size soccer/flag football/ softball fields , also used for ultimate frisbee ,
rugby , cricket, lacrosse , and more
• 2 of the fields will be artificially surfaced , summer/fall 1999 ; 1 of the fields is closed
temporarily due to IOG expansion
EHRINGHAUS FIELD 6000 GSF
• 1 lighted , full - size field used primarily by 10- 12 sport clubs
OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER 40 acres
• formerly the varsity tennis complex and old Country Club
• high and low elements challenge ropes course, 18- hole disc golf course , 3 sand volleyball
courts , single - track mountain bike trails , horseshoes , hiking , picnic area
FINLEY FIELDS 11 acres
• primarily an athletics field but used by Campus Recreation soccer and lacrosse clubs
TENNIS COURTS 30 courts
• Cobb-Joyner ( I I lighted) , Hinton-James (8 lighted) , OEC ( 11 unlighted)
CRAIGE OVERFLOW PARKING LOT 20 , 000 sq . ft. (lighted)
• primarily a parking lot but available for roller blading and roller hockey Mon -Fri after
6PM and on weekends
KENAN/HAMNER PARCEL AKA Rainbow Soccer Fields 60 acres
• leased to Rainbow Soccer
KERR LAKE RECREATION ASSOCIATION 238 exclusive acres , 37 non - exclusive acres
• pennisula on Kerr Lake , 90 minutes from Chapel Hi11 , includes nonreserved camp sites ,
picnic shelter , launching ramp , boat shed
• university lease expires Dec . 31 , 2000 , under review
Suggested addition to Section III, B with same heading as " Schools and Land Use
Councils
Recreation Committee for At-Risk Youth
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council, and Orange County Board
of County Commissioners all recognized a need to collaborate on issues concerning at-
risk youths . From this recognition, all three governing bodies passed a resolution to this
effect and appointed representatives to serve on a Recreation Committee for At-Risk
Youth . The primary goals of the committee were : 1 ) identifying existing services ;
2 ) avoiding duplication of services ; and 3 ) determining if more programs were needed.
Meetings were held with mentoring group representatives and individuals serving at-risk
youth to discuss the nature of their efforts and to receive their recommendations on how
the corresponding recreation and park departments could best serve at-risk youth . The
committee met from October 1998 to January 1999 .
These meetings brought forth identified issues , findings and recommendations for elected
officials to include in their budget and policy deliberations . Ten key issues were
identified . Many of the issues require action or policy changes by elected officials in
order to implement the recommendations . The key identified issues are the following : 1 )
lack of facilities 2) transportation to facilities and programs 3 ) shortage of mentors 4)
marketing methods to reach at-risk youth 5 ) staff shortages 6)life skills training 7 )
increase youth job opportunities 8) multicultural at-risk needs (with particular emphasis
on Hispanic youth) 9) fewer programs for adolescent females 10) interagency
cooperation. A report was finalized and presented to the respected governing bodies .
The report is attached for reference .
The governing bodies then asked that representatives meet on certain issues . During
March 1999 , elected officials met with the Chapel Hill — Carrboro City School Board
members and staff to address several issues , especially the community access to all
system-wide school facilities . These meetings have culminated in a reaffirmation by the
City School Board to insure that all facilities are open and to improving operating
arrangements and agreements when used by community groups , especially the public
entities . On- going efforts such as these, coupled with the Schools and Land Use
Councils work, hold promise for full utilization of the largest public system of buildings
and land in the County (outside of the UNC system) .
Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County
Recreation Committee for At- Risk Youth
Issues , Findings and Recommendations
The Recreation Committee for At -Risk Youth has met since October, 1998 to determine
.how the community of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County could better provide
recreation services to at-risk youth . At-risk youth , for the purposes of this committee , are
defined as adolescents who are potentially at-risk with the legal system , have a high
probability of dropping out of school without subsequent vocational training , and/or have
inadequate support systems . The nature of recreation programs help participants build
self-esteem , find positive outlets for leisure time , and learn new skills that can have a
positive impact their quality of life .
The Committee surveyed , our community' s three Recreation and Parks Departments ,
community mentoring programs , and other youth agencies and organizations that serve
at- risk youth . Key issues , findings and recommendations were identified that require
policy changes by elected officials to allow staff to initiate programs . The key issues
voiced by most groups were as follows:
1 . a lack of adequate facilities restricts existing and future programs ;
2 . at-risk youth need transportation to facilities/programs ;
3 . a shortage exists of volunteers to serve as community mentors ;
44 new methods are needed to market programs to at-risk- youth ;
5 . a shortage exists of professional and trained staff,
6 . at-risk youth need independent , life skills training ;
7 . a need exists for more job opportunities for at-risk youth ;
80 efforts are needed for outreach to Hispanic youth in all programs ;
90 fewer programs are geared specifically for at-risk adolescent females ; and
100 a need exists for continued improvement in inter-agency support and
cooperation ,
Issue 1 : Lack of Facilities
Findings .
• A lack of facilities ( e . g . gyms , pools , playing fields , and indoor , air-conditioned activity
areas ) restricts the size and number of youth programs and summer day camps to meet
program demands .
• Teens require meeting spaces that are designated for their use only . Most recreation
facilities are designed for multipurpose use .,
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Meet with School Boards to readdress the Facility Use relationship within three months
to provide expanded use of school facilities .
• Include the expansion of the number of summer day camps and youth programs in the
1999/00 Budget.
• Investigate financing mechanisms that will ensure the construction of facilities for youth
programs ,
page 2
Approach appropriate UNC departments ( Leisure Studies , Social Services , Psychology,
Athletics , Employee Recreation , etc. ) to explore the sharing of programs/facilities to serve
at-risk youth .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Ask churches , apartment complexes , and other private -sector facility owners to provide
facilities for youth recreation programs , especially teenAesignated space .
Issue 2 : Transportation to Facilities and Programs
Findino : At-risk youth do not have adequate transportation to recreation programs and
facilities during after school and summer hours .
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Address with School Boards transportation needs through special buses/routes
provided on a cost-sharing basis . Transportation coordination may involve public transit
department, school transportation , CAT, etc.
Issue 3 : Shortage of Mentors
Finding: There is an insufficient number of mentors available to work with at-risk youth .
Recommendation to Elected Officials :
• Provide time off to government employees who become involved as mentors to at-risk
youth . Encourage UNC and the private sector to do the same .
Issue 4 : Marketing Methods to Reach At-Risk Youth
Finding : Efforts to advertise youth programs and mentorship programs do not reach the
targeted audience . This reduces at-risk youth participation in the programs , since their
participation depends on meeting registration procedures .
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Request that residence councils , schools , and mentoring programs identify a contact
person to receive and distribute recreation program information to at-risk youth .
r
page 3
Recommendations to t S aff.
• Develop new marketing methods , including Spanish language information , to attract
greater participation of at-risk youth .
• Send to at- risk contact persons , mentors , teachers , and neighborhood # newsletters ,
information on community-wide recreation program offerings and the registration
process :
• Secure marketing interns to develop youth marketing plan .
• Utilize the internet to disseminate recreation program information . Enlist the assistance
of interns with Web site design experience .
Issue 5 : Staff Shortages
Findin s :
• There is a shortage of professional or trained staff to work in youth recreation programs .
This has a direct impact on the number of youth programs available .
• Summer recreation programs serve a high percentage of at-risk youth . These youth
require professional or trained staff.
• Wages in public recreation are often too low to attract professional or trained staff.
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Increase wages for a limited number of summer day camps staff positions to attract
sufficient professional/trained staff ( i . e. , B . E . H . teachers , school counselors , social
workers , PIC -trained personnel , etc. ) . These staff will train other staff and create
programs to address behavioral problems experienced in summer recreation programs .
A suggested wage range for these staff would be $ 12 to $20 per hour.
• Create joint school/recreation summer programs to serve summer school students ,
sharing facilities and staff at the designated summer school sites .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Develop apprenticeship programs with UNC ' s Social Work, Leisure Studies ,
Adolescent Health , and Psychology Departments to recruit college students .
Page 4
Issue 6 : Life Skills Training
Findings :
Older youth who are at-risk do not have the independent life skills to take advantage of
public transportation , apply for jobs , and/or do activities necessary to access recreation
programs .
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Have Transportation Department sponsor parent/child ridership program with free rides
for children ages six to twelve to teach them how to ride public transportation .
• Have Transportation Department provide a month-long program for adolescents that
results .in free admission to a dance or concert to encourage teen ridership .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Support and create programs that teach independent living skills . These programs may
include free swimming clinics , life-guard training , job counseling , service 1earning
projects , and special programs for teen -aged girls .
• Pilot a modified Night Flight Basketball Program for 16A 8 year olds for boys and girls .
• Incorporate transportation and life skills training in appropriate recreation programs .
Issue 7 : Increase Youth _ Job Opportunities
Finding : Teens need more opportunities for after school and summer employment.
Recommendations to Elected Officials :
• Request that the Chambers of Commerce create apprenticeship and job placement
programs through their business membership .
• Create summer jobs for at-risk adolescents through appropriate government
departments .
Issue 8 : Multicultural At- Risk Needs
Finding : In our multicultural community , insufficient means are available to bridge
language or cultural barriers in recreation programs .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Identify community resources for serving the Hispanic population .
• Hire personnel who can speak Spanish .
• Involve and hire members of the Latino community to create culturally relevant programs
( i . e . soccer programs , cultural celebrations , blended -culture programs , etc. ) , and
encourage them to serve on volunteer boards .
page 5
Issue 9 : Fewer Programs for Adolescent Females
Findin : There are fewer programs for at-risk, adolescent females .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Increase the number of programs that attract adolescent females . These programs
may include a . Night Flight Basketball program , music classes , women Is defense
training , exercise classes , babysitter training , etc. .
• Create marketing efforts that include special materials for female programs .
• Involve adolescent females in program planning .
Issue 10 : Interagency Cooperation
Finding : There are few opportunities for community-wide , communication and
cooperation among the recreation departments and agencies that serve at-risk youth .
Recommendations to Staff:
• Create networks between recreation departments , schools , service organizations ,
churches , and other youth agencies to share information , recruit staff, provide mentors ,
provide facilities , provide interpretation services , and any other support needed to
connect at-risk youth to positive and useful activity .
• Request that The Orange County Manager' s Office initiate coordination of annual
conferences , grant -writing workshops , round-table discussions , and other
communication .forums sponsored by various agencies , schools , and departments .
Conclusion
Inherent in the recommendations is the need for more involvement by trained
professionals , increased interagency cooperation , and wider community involvement by
agencies and individuals in addressing the needs of at-risk youth . It is acknowledged
that no single program or intervention will be the answer for the complex challenges at-
risk youth present. However , if these recommendations are implemented collectively , and
11
if they complement the services of other. agencies , then our community could make a
difference in the lives of at-risk youth .
AP RI 28 , 1999 9 . 57AM DEMO NO , 5776 , 1
Role of Duke Forest in Orange County Recreation
Duke Forest is private land owned and managed by Duke University as an outdoor educational and
research, facility. Although not expressly invited, the public is permitted to use the established road and
trail system for recreational purposes , Permissible uses include hiking, biking, horseback riding, fishing,
and picnicking, which are allowed so long as they do not conflict with teaching and research activities .
The public in Orange County has received a substantial benefit from the availability of Duke Forest
resources . A 1, 990 survey estimated Duke Forest visitation at 273 , 000 visits per year. Following a 1 � %
increase in local population since that survey, it is likely that Forest-wide use currently exceeds 310 , 000
visits per year . Since 3/ of the Duke Forest roads and trails are in Orange County, it as possible that
current use by residents of Orange County exceeds 235 , 000 visits per year.
Public uses of the Duke Forest have the potential to cause conflicts with ongoing research and teaching,
as well as create concerns related to maintenance and liability. For example, much of the scientific
community perceives that areas of high public use are diminished in research value . Forest managers
have responded to these concerns by closing selected areas to the public when sensitive research is being
undertaken . Another recent problem is free roaming dogs that accompany visitors . These dogs have
present a legal and maintenance liability, as well as a hazard to ecological research, and their presence has
compelled Forest managers to require that all dogs be leashed. Additional problems may be caused by
improper public use of the Forest, such as use of footpaths by mountain bikers or creation of new paths by
curious bikers . Wide much of the public follows the posted ;regulations, as public use escalates conflicts
with the academic mission of the Duke Forest are likely to increase.
-- - --�- _- — — 4-27-99
t Onto of pgea
Fax Note R7673 T .
To r /,,
Ip
FaKtk
From
Mono#