Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJMRPWG agenda 052599 JOINT CAPITAL FUNDING FOR PARKS May 25 , 1999 AGENDA 1 . Introductions/Opening Comments 2 . Background : Why Are We Here ? • 1996 Assembly of Governments — Recreation and Park Work Group Report • 1997 Managers ' — Coordination of Parks and Recreation Services Report • 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report 3 . Review of Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Final Report Recommendations 4 . Proposal for Coordinated Land — Banking and Capital Parks Funding 5 . Next Step . ■ ■ II Proposal for Coordinated Land - Banking and Capital Parks Funding May 25 , 1999 A strong theme and recommendation of the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group will be the need for proactive land - banking for future recreation and parks needs . This was also a recommendation of the Manager's Recreation and Parks Report of May, 1997 ( attached ) , which was a follow- up action from the 1996 Assembly of Governments report . Several factors have led the Work Group to propose land - banking as an immediate need . Among them are the prospect of the County and Towns facing a current ( 2000 ) deficit of 645 acres of park land and a long -term deficit of 1 , 265 acres by the year 2025 . Additionally, the price of purchasing land is increasing dramatically with each passing year . With little remaining undeveloped land left in Chapel Dill and Carrboro jurisdictions , the Work Group has noted that most future park land will likely need to be located in rural areas such as the Rural Buffer . As an area that is already jointly- planned by the County and Towns, joint- planning for future park needs is being recommended in the context of coordinated capital improvements funding and land - banking . Coordinated land - banking for long -term park needs could address a number of issues . • Coordinated planning for parkland acquisition , with capital improvement funds for acquisition targeted over time . • Opportunities for joint parks that serve multiple jurisdictions ' needs ( both active and passive recreation ) . • A dedicated land -term source of funding . • A clearer picture of future parks bond needs . • The proposed inter-jurisdictional Parks and Resource Lands Council could serve as a means of bringing together mutual interests and priorities . • Sharing of staff resources with expertise in land resource analysis and acquisition to work with Town/County parks and recreation staffs, through the County's new Land Resource Acquisition Program and Land Resource Conservation Manager position . This position will have both land resource analysis background and land acquisition experience . Proposal Orange County, with its new program and Land Resources Manager, could take the lead in site assessment and identification , working closely with the Town staffs . This arrangement could be similar to that of County Economic Development staff in years past . The combination of County and Town GIS coverages would allow for adequate land analysis to identify possible park sites and eventually explore acquisition . Although there are many ways a coordinated park land - banking arrangement might work, one approach might be the following . • The Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report is completed in May, 1999 , including park needs and criteria for future acquisition and siting . • As planned , the criteria from this report are incorporated into the County's Land Resource Acquisition Program . • The local elected boards receive the report and authorize Managers and staff to meet to explore land - banking for long -term parks needs • Managers and staffs from the Towns and County Parks and Recreation departments meet with County Environment and Resource Conservation staff ( Parks and Resource Lands Council staff team ) to review recommendations for park location criteria and identified needs . V • Parks and Resource Lands Council agrees on countywide park standards, differentiated by jurisdiction where needed . • County uses GIS to take criteria and identify possible sites with a preliminary site evaluation (working closely with all Parks and Recreation Directors) • Possible park sites are matched against County/Town - identified needs, both for active and passive ( low- impact) recreation • Assessment of potential for joint park meeting individual jurisdiction is made by staff team for each site • Land Resources Manager conducts thorough evaluation of sites and projects land acquisition costs • Joint meeting of CIP personnel from each jurisdiction to discuss long -term funding sources, methods of coordinating funds timewise, and processes to allocate funds based on needs and site availability • Staff team prioritizes and ranks identified sites, and assesses each identified site for short-term park needs and/or long -term land - banking for future park • Site identification and prioritization reviewed by advisory and elected boards • Recommend a parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to the Parks and Resource Lands Council • After feedback, coordinated parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to advisory and elected boards • Implement program through CIP's as recommended • County's Land Resources Manager negotiates acquisition with interjurisdictional staff team providing direction COUNTY I-IIEESBOROUGH NORTH CA. ROLINA. Memorandum To : Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group From : Albert Kittrell , Assistant County Manager Date : May 18 , 1999 Re . Final Draft of Work Group Report Please find attached a copy of the final draft of the Work Group report . In this document you will find two types of new language — new additions from staff based on feedback from the last meeting in bold italic, and additional comments from Commissioners Jacobs and Brown are underlined . Any language that has been previously reviewed by the Work Group is shown in normal font . The May 26 meeting is planned to be the final meeting of the Work Group . We would ask you to review the attached draft and come prepared to make any final revisions to the May 26 meeting ( 6 : 00 p . m . , Southern Human Services Center) . Due to time considerations, we recommend that the group focus on the recommendations section of the document ( pages 35 = 41 ) . As you review the draft, we would call your attention to the following key pages/sections that contain new or critical information . Page / Section Issue Page 18 , subsection D A meeting is being scheduled to pursue formal joint capital improvements and land - banking , but this will not occur rior to the Work Grou 's completion . Page 19 , " G " New language from Duke regarding Duke Forest, plus new sentence from staff at end of section Page 23 , " C " This section was in the addendum handed out at the last meeting . AREA CODE (919 ) 732 -8181 ® 968 - 4501 68 & 7331 227 - 2031 FAX (919) 644 -3004 Ext . 2300 Pages 30 - 34 Section of payment- in - lieu rewritten based on last meeting with Rich Ducker Page 35 -41 : Section VII Recommendations — 10 in total — that ( Recommendations cover broad range of topics . Please review close ) for new information . For length and time constraints, the 11 appendices to the document will be handed out at the meeting — including a resolution on an Open Facilities Policy . An executive summary will be created for the document before it is transmitted , and a copy of that summary, plus a final document, will be mailed to you in June . Please feel free to call myself ( extension 2307 ) or David Stancil (extension 2590 ) at the numbers below if you have any questions . I look forward to seeing you on the 26th . 05 / 23 / 1999 21 : 34 9196443002 OR . GTY , PLANNING PAGE 01 / 02 t: y Dave +A VNC J � � � a Proposal for Coordinated Land - Banking and Capital Parks Funding May 25 , 1999 A strong theme and recommendation of the Master Recreation and Parks work Group will be the need for proactive land - banking for future recreation and parks needs . with a short�term deficit of 645 acres of park land and a long-term der cit of 4265 acres, and the price of land increasing dramatically with each passing year, interest in setting the wheels in motion as quickly as possible for coordinated land - banking has been identified as important. With little remaining undeveloped land left in Chapel Hill and Carrboro jurisdictions, most future park land will likely need to be located in rural areas such as the Rural Buffer. As an area that is already jointlyplanned by the County and Towns, joint- planning for future park needs is being recommended by the Work Group in the context of coordinated capital improvements funding and land banking . Coordinated land - banking for long -term parks needs could meet a number of needs ; Better planning for parkland acquisition , with capital Improvement funds for acquisition targeted over time . • More opportunities for joint parks that serve multiple jurisdictions ' needs ® R dedicated landAermr source of funding . • A clearer picture of future parks bond needs • The proposed inter-jurisdictional Parks and Resource Lands Council could serve as a means of bringing together mutual interests and priorities . ■ Staff resources with expertise in land resource analysis and acquisition will be available to work with Town/County parks and recreation staffs, through the County 's new Land Resource Acquisition Program and Land Resource Conservation Manager position . This position will have both land resource analysis background and land acquisition experience . Proposal Orange County, .with its new program , and Land Resources Manager, could take the lead in site assessment and identification , working closely with the Towns staffs. This arrangement could be similar to that of County Economic Development staff in years past. The combination of County and Town GIS coverages would . allow for adequate land analysis to identify possible park sites and eventually explore acquisition . 05 / 23 / 1999 21 : 34 9196443002 OR , GT`f . PLANNING PAGE 02 / 02 Although there are many ways a coordinated land ^ banking arrangement might work, one approach might be the following . • The Master Recreation and Parks report is completed in May, 1999, including park needs and criteria for future acquisition and siting . • As planned , the criteria from this report are incorporated into the County's Land Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County . • The local elected boards authorize Managers and staff to meet to explore land- banking for longterm parks needs • Staffs from the Towns and County Parks and Recreation departments meet with County Environment and Resource Conservation staff (Parks and Resource Lands Council staff team ) to review recommendations for park location criteria and identified needs . • Parks and Resource Lands Council agrees on countywide park standards, differentiated by jurisdiction where needed . • County uses GIS to take above parameters and identifies possible sites with preliminary evaluation (working closely with all Parks and Recreation Directors) • Possible park sites are matched against County/towns identified needs • Potential for meeting individual jurisdiction needs with a joint park assessed by staff team on each site • Land Resources Manager conducts thorough assessment of sites and projects cost of purchase • Joint meeting of CIP representatives from each jurisdiction to discuss long - term funding sources, methods of coordination ( one source or matching funds in each CIP tracking with acquisition/ needs) ,, and processes to allocate funds based on needs and site avallabillty • Staff team prioritizes and ranks identified sites, and assesses each identified site for short-term park needs and/or long -term land - banking for future park • Site identification and prioritization reviewed by advisory and elected boards • Recommend parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to Parks and Resource Lands Council • After feedback, review of coordinated parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to advisory and elected boards • Implement program through CIP's as recommended • County's Land Resources Manager negotiates acquisition with interjurisdictional staff team providing direction ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHARGE TO RECREATION AND PARKS WORK GROUP November 19 , 1997 The charge to the Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group is to update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long -range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill and to present the new Plan at the October 8 , 1998 Joint Planning Area public hearing . The update and modification of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan shall include , but not be limited to , the following . 1 ) Update of inventory of recreational facilities and opportunities , 2 ) Update of needs assessment, 3 ) Development of standards used to determine recreation facility and acreage needs, and standards for park design. Standards should be developed for use by Orange County, as well as Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro ; 4) Utilization of joint siting, designing, and management of school and - park sites across jurisdictions , 5 ) Development of tangible , realistic parkland acquisition and development goals ; 6) Reassessment of service area boundaries for payment in- lieu- of dedication ; and 7) Reassessment of dedication provisions related to greenways in the Joint Planning Area, 8 ) Reassessment of parkland payment-in-lieu and dedication provisions . The Plan update and modification shall emphasize coordination between the County and its municipalities and school boards in determining recreation needs , targeting areas for future park sites , and providing for the joint siting of school and park facilities . The Work Group will be guided by a Steering Committee made up of the representatives appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Towns of Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Staff assistance will be provided by the Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill Planning Departments , and Recreation 1 Proposal for Coordinated Land - Banking and Capital Parks Funding May 25 , 1999 A strong theme and recommendation of the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group will be the need for proactive land - banking for future recreation and parks needs . This was also a recommendation of the Manager's Recreation and Parks Report of May, 1997 (attached ) , which was a follow- up action from the 1996 Assembly of Governments report . Several factors have led the Work Group to propose land - banking as an immediate need . Among them are the prospect of the County and Towns facing a current ( 2000 ) deficit of 645 acres of park land and a long -term deficit of 1 , 265 acres by the year 2025 . Additionally, the price of purchasing land is increasing dramatically with each passing year . With little remaining undeveloped land left in Chapel Hill and Carrboro jurisdictions , the Work Group has noted that most future park land will likely need to be located in rural areas such as the Rural Buffer . As an area that is already jointly- planned by the County and Towns , joint- planning for future park needs is being recommended in the context of coordinated capital improvements funding and land - banking . Coordinated land - banking for long -term park needs could address a number of issues . • Coordinated planning for parkland acquisition , with capital improvement funds for acquisition targeted over time . • Opportunities for joint parks that serve multiple jurisdictions ' needs ( both active and passive recreation ) . • A dedicated land -term source of funding . A clearer picture of future parks bond needs . • The proposed inter jurisdictional Parks and Resource Lands Council could serve as a means of bringing together mutual interests and priorities . • Sharing of staff resources with expertise in land resource analysis and acquisition to work with Town/County parks and recreation staffs, through the County 's new Land Resource Acquisition Program and Land Resource Conservation Manager position . This position will have both land resource analysis background and land acquisition experience . Proposal Orange County, with its new program and Land Resources Manager, could take the lead in site assessment and identification , working closely with the Town staffs . This arrangement could be similar to that of County Economic Development staff in years past . The combination of County and Town GIS coverages would allow for adequate land analysis to identify possible park sites and eventually explore acquisition . Although there are many ways a coordinated park land - banking arrangement might work, one approach might be the following . • The Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report is completed in May, 1999, including park needs and criteria for future acquisition and siting . • As planned , the criteria from this report are incorporated into the County's Land Resource Acquisition Program . • The local elected boards receive the report and authorize Managers and staff to meet to explore land - banking for long -term parks needs • Managers and staffs from the Towns and County Parks and Recreation departments meet with County Environment and Resource Conservation staff ( Parks and Resource Lands Council staff team ) to review recommendations for park location criteria and identified needs . • Parks and Resource Lands Council agrees on countywide park standards, differentiated by jurisdiction where needed . • County uses GIS to take criteria and identify possible sites with a preliminary site evaluation (working closely with all Parks and Recreation Directors) • Possible park sites are matched against County/Town - identified needs, both for active and passive ( low- impact) recreation • Assessment of potential for joint park meeting individual jurisdiction is made by staff team for each site • Land Resources Manager conducts thorough evaluation of sites and projects land acquisition costs • Joint meeting of CIP personnel from each jurisdiction to discuss long -term funding sources, methods of coordinating funds timewise, and processes to allocate funds based on needs and site availability • Staff team prioritizes and ranks identified sites, and assesses each identified site for short-term park needs and/or long -term land - banking for future park • Site identification and prioritization reviewed by advisory and elected boards • Recommend a parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to the Parks and Resource Lands Council • After feedback, coordinated parkland purchase plan and CIP funding mechanism to advisory and elected boards • Implement program through CIP's as recommended • County's Land Resources Manager negotiates acquisition with interjurisdictional staff team providing direction F REPORT OF THE RECREATION AND PARK WORK GROUP CREATION AND PARK ISSUES IN ORANGE COUNTY, NC " January 1996 Report Authorized by the Orange County Assembly of Governments TABLE OF CONTENTS I . Executive Summary II . Local Park Standards and Land Use Ordinances III . School/Government Coordination IV . Pubhc/Private Recreation Providers V . Report Recommendations Appendices Appendix 1 : Park Classification and Land Area Requirements Chart Appendix 2 : Standards Comparison for Public Facilities Chart Appendix 3 : Graphic Representations of Park Types Appendix 4 : SCORP Ranking Information Appendix 5 : Sample of School/Park Agreement Appendix 6 : Public/Private Partnerships for Leisure Services r Appendig � Carrboro/ Criagi 411 .WGrange County; "Commercial IRecreation Providers Appendix 8 : Parks and Recreation Program and Facility Inventory Assembly of Governments . The conclusions drawn forth involve three specific actions and they are : • Standardize recreation sections of land use ordinance across jurisdictions . • Employ joint siting, designing, and management of school and parks sites across jurisdictions . • Use public/private partnerships across jurisdictions . The major bulk of the context of this report provides documentation of the Recreation and Park Work Group ' s deliberations . The last section provides specific recommendations on the tasks assigned . Recommendations to be considered at this juncture include the following: • 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 . • Although the three jurisdictions use different formulae to define their recreation and park requirements within . their Land Use Ordinances, the philosophy and intent of all are the same . It is recommended that the three Planning Departments consider developing a most preferred set of recreation requirements that could be included in all three jurisdictions ' Land Use Ordinances . • It is recommended that all new school sites be - planned to include park facilities and that existing school sites be improved. with recreation and park amenities where it is mutually . beneficial to the school system = and governmental jurisdictions) to do so . • Standardize all documents used by the three jurisdictions when contracting with private recreation providers . (Personnel; Facilities , Program Management) • That Orzige County publish and update annually the listing of private recreation vendors and facilities on the new information referral network currently being developed in Orange County . Also , include models of existing, successful public/private partnerships , i . e . Triangle Sportsplex, Chapel Hill Senior Center, etc , • Establish a bi- annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation providers for information sharing and establishing new public/private initiatives . In addition, the Recreation and Park Work Group felt that it was important to add to the recommendation section a "Future . Directions/Trends " listing that is inclusive of ideas ot Page 2 I . Executive Summary The Orange County Assembly of Governments discussed equity and efficiency issues related to the delivery of local government services and focused on the area of recreation and park services . The consensus of this group was . . . "That the local government staffs make recommendations to their governing bodies about opportunities for joint planning for and use of capital improvements for recreation and park services . And, that both school systems be involved in any cooperative venture . " A Recreation and Park Work Group was formed with representatives from the local governments of Carrboro , Chapel Hill, and Orange County and both the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County School Boards . The Town of Hillsborough administration chose to not actively participate at this time . This report entails the issues considered by all parties and assigned to the Recreation and Park Work Group . To succeed in mutual planning for recreation zrid. :parks� p1_ann .g.. r..ecuires needs assessment �. and developing uniform standards across the jurisdictions . In setting standards for recreation and park needs in the coming years , it is necessary to recognize the unique impact of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on this process . This is because the .institution accounts for a large part of the population of Orange County, while at the same time offering a range of facilities and services to its students and employees . There are , for example , about 8 , 000 students living in dorms and another '3 , 000 living in fraternities and sororities whose recreation and park needs are largely met by the University . A related factor to consider is that the portion of the projected growth in population for Orange County that * comes from the University will continue to decrease steadily. Put differently , a growing proportion of the population in Orange County will come from in- migrants whose jobs are located throughout the Triangle Area and this group of residents will look to the three governmental jurisdictions to meet their needs for recreation and parks . Another factor to consider is that the population growth that is projected for Orange County will come primarily from the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill . At the same time, the unincorporated areas of the county are becoming * 0more urbanized with the additional subdivisions that are being approved . This means that the demand for recreation and parks will increase as the population becomes more urbanized across Orange County . With our population growing, land is becoming more scarce and recreation demands are increasing. Taken together, these factors point to the need to expand recreation and park facilities and services at an accelerating rate over the coming years . The Recreation and Park Work Group ' s initial goals focused specifically on the tasks assigned and agreed upon by the governmental jurisdictions convening as the Orange County Page 1 generated by the Recreation and Park Work Group during their meetings . ' These are as follows : • Bond referenda for recreation and park projects • Comprehensive program planning to avoid duplication of services and service gaps • Joint ventures in the area of After- School programming • Status of swming pools i im n Orange County • Mechanisms for funding facilities by all jurisdictions • Recreation and Parks District Tax • Funding equity issues (who pays for what, now and in the future ? ) • Joint School/Park use of the Greene Tract II. Local Park Standards and Land Use Ordinances Introduction Park and recreation facility standards are a nationally recognized method for determining the quality of recreation and park facilities available to a public jurisdiction ' s service population . The importance of establishing standards is recognized because they are : - an expression of minimum acceptable facilities for the citizens of urban and rural communities . - a guideline to determine land requirements for various kinds of park and recreation areas . --a basis for relating recreational needs to spatial analysis within a community j wide sytem of parks and open space areas . - one of the major structuring elements that can be used to guide and assist regional park and recreation development. -- a means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land-use pattern . The basis upon which a community ' s standards are set is constantly changing . This section explains some of the concepts surrounding the establishment of this recreation and park planning tool . Page 3 r , Another important part of park planning involves the recreation and park requirements commonly used in Land Use Ordinances . A community ' s total recreation inventory comes from what the general tax base can afford plus the recreation lands or facilities provided by private development. Therefore, the recreation sections of the Land Use Ordinances for all three jurisdictions were reviewed by the Recreation and Park Work Group . Park Standards • Please refer to Appendix I for a full comparison of previously adopted . park classifications for each jurisdiction . Park types are classified into six types ; Regional , District, Community, Neighborhood, Mini Park, and Linear Park. • There are national and state standards for park classification and all three jurisdictions considered both of these standards in compiling their local standards . Appendix 3 shows graphical examples of each park type . • The jurisdictions ' standards are established using ratios of acreage to population which have been established for each type of park . Most of the standards are very similar. There appears to be no overriding factor . again.st making the standards the same . • A linear park or greenway is an area where conformity to a standard is difficult, if not impossible . This type of park is usually predicated upon the need for stream buffering, transportation, scenic hiking, etc . A more serious effort would be fruitful in developing standards for the type of construction on common greenway that a pd trai s so ave l does not end at one jurisdiction' s limits and a beaten path extend along the same corridor into the adjoining jurisdiction . • Most of the information above relates to the development of standards for public recreation facilities . These are "population driven " , and national and state averages are used as a0 base line upon which to determine local standards . Facility standards are detailed in Appendix 2 . Program demands unique to one locale may drive ' a standard to a higher or lower level than national and state averages . • All three jurisdictions considered UNC-CH and school facilities but did not factor them into the standards . UNC -CH has many recreation and park amenities such as the Botaical Gardens , Finley Golf Course , Kenan Stadium and other recreati n on facilities . National and state standards do not reflect these types of quasi-public facilities . The Page 4 local school teams , after- school and summer programs at the Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro systems schools eliminate much of the availability of school recreation facilities for programs for public programs . The Recreation and Park Work Group was more concerned with the uniqueness of UNC - CH and the impact of their. recreation facilities on the development of standards . rmined that in applying standards to the population of Orange The work Group dete County, that 11 , 000 (students living in dormitories and fraternitieslsoronties) . people 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 UNC - CH, while others in the towns and county rely largely on the three jurisdictions ' facilities . • Again, the standards for public park and recreation facilities adopted by each jurisdiction are very similar. Standards for both park types and recreation facilities might be difficult to make generic for an entire county . Often, urban and rural perceived needs of the number of parks and facilities differ in that the urban demand is usually greater . • Orange County has a " Master Recreation and Park Plan " that was adopted in July 1988 , Chapel Hill established standards as part of their " Community Facilities Report " updated and adopted in June of 1989 . Carrboro adopted a " Comprehensive Recreation and Parks Master Plan " in March of 1995 . Population has been the . most widely recognized deternunant in developing standards : The following chart represents population projections for Carrboro , Chapel i -M. and Orange County through year 2010 . • : POPULATION PROJECTION 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 [1131 , 747 2010 Cha ell=hill 32 , 038 38 , 87 ? 46 , 4X9 53 , 810 62 , 38172 , 317 Carrboro 71336 12 , 136 14 , 505 167874 20139623 , 917 Coun 77 , 066 93 , 861 106 , 585 1151066 123 , 574 Source : 'NC Office of State Planning, Towns of Chapel Hill and CxTboro Planning Departments Due to the proximity of Eno State Park, Umstead State Park, Jordan and Falls Lakes , it can be assumed that Orange County is served well on the regional , state level . Therefore regional parks are not discussed m this report . Page 5 • If one accepts the standards that have been previously adopted and that population can determine the number of park types and facilities needed; then, population projections can determine the number of parks and facilities required to serve the recreation and park needs at any given future year . • For".:purposes of the following. calculations for the "Park Type " chart below, Carrboro standards will be used since they are the most recently revised . • The NC Office of State Planning certifies the population of counties and municipalities on July 1 for the past fiscal year . The following chart represents the most updated information on present population in Orange County . STATE .OF NC. . CERTIFIED POPULATION July 1 , 1992 July 1 , . July 1 , 1994 1993 Chapel Hill 411524 42 , 918 44, 470 Crarboro 1277861113 , 052 1403 Coun 99 , 67.4, 101 , 599 66868Source : NC Office of State Planning • Orange County had a total population of 104 , 668 in 1994 . Discounting the 11 , 000 student residents on the UN&CH campus would bring this total down to 93 , 668 . A brief evaluation of need by park types (Appendix 1 ) based on Cauboro ' s standards for this population follows : Park Type Acreage Needed to Existing Meet Standard Acres District Parks - 46.8 0 Communi Parks 749 398 Neighborhood Parks 187 86 Mini Parks 23 45 TOTAL 11427 529 • The above chart reflects approximately . how far the entire County is behind in maintaining a rninum nu standard of park types . The "Existing Acres " column includes both developed and undeveloped park properties presently owned by the three jurisdictions . Page 6 • . Between 1993 and 1994, county population grew by 3 , 069 ( all residential growth off- campus) . During July 1 , 1994 to July 1 , 1995 , municipal planners project the combined growth in Carrboro and Chapel Hill to total 2 , 417 . These two municipalities , in order to meet Chapel Hill ' s standard for this projected year, would need to acquire and develop an additional 12 acres of community parks , 6 acres of neighborhood parks , and the standard for _ muummrparks is presently exceeded . The County would need to bring on-line 12 acres" in distr-ict � parks . Perhaps the most glaring deficit in the chart above is that Orange County has not acquired and developed any parks of sufficient size to be classified as district parks . • Under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 , federal funds were available to the states and local governments for development wof outdoor recreation . To receive funds , each state had to do a state-wide comprehensive recreation plan (SCORP) and update the document at five -year increments . The SCORP provided state standards for local governments to use . The State of NC has just published its preliminary SCORP and will no longer provide state standards for park and recreation facilities . Also, Land and Water Conservation Act funds are no longer available on the federal level . The plan instead ranks each of the one hundred counties in severalty recreation and park categories . Appendix 4 provides data about Orange County's position in the state and other pertinent SCORP information . • The National Recreation and Park Association is contemplating moving from standards instead ranking under population size much like the state based . on population number and has done . The problem with state data is that the preliminary SCORP ranking -is based on 1990 - 91 survey data . Also , without federal . funds for outdoor recreation and their subsequent requirement that the states do the SCORP , there is no assurance that the SCORP will be done again or in what, if any, form . This information demands that each community become self reliant on establishing their own standards without assistant or gtudance by `state and national authorities . The local jurisdictions cannot collect data on all counties in the state to evaluate their position by rank as the SCORP has done in the past . • Recreation and park services speak to the quality of life in a town , county or region . Orange County is constantly compared to our " sister counties " in the Triangle . Wake and Durham Counties may be an acceptable comparison to see how Orange County ranks with their park acreage and facilities . One other adjoining county (Alamance , etc . ) could be reviewed . An annual survey of their facilities would be manageable and Page 7 a long- term goal of matching or exceeding their amenity level could be agreed upon . After the initial year, updating the comparison would be relatively easy . • Establishing uniform standards for all of Orange County can be the basis for developing plans of actions that involve cooperative ventures among all of the governments ` responsible for providing this service to its citizens . Local Land Use Ordinances • All three jurisdictions (Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Orange County) have historically recognized the significance of establishing requirements for recreation and parks within their subdivision ordinances . A jurisdiction has two ways to develop a park system, through the general tax base and requiring developers to contribute . All have the provision to accept a cash payment in . lieu of providing lands or facilities within the subdivision . This provides the flexibility to serve needs of the subject subdivision and the broader community. • Each can allow for off site improvements or donations of land to provide for large, planned park sites contributed to by more6 than one subdivision . The three ordinances have flexibility in requiring land, developed facilities , or both . • Chapel Hill and Orange County regulations are written to be land intensive while Carrboro basically requires that private recreation facilities be included . • Although the three ordinances use different formulae to define their requirements , the philosophy ftid intent of all three ordinances are the same . • Equalizing or having the same requirements across jurisdictions would require few changes and could be done to standardize recreation land and facility expectation placed on new developments by each jurisdiction . Section Recommendations 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 . Page 8 Although the three jurisdictions use different formulae to define their recreation and park requirements within their Land Use Ordinances , the philosophy and intent of all are the same . It is recommended that the three Planning Departments consider developing a most preferred set of recreation requirements that could be included in all three jurisdictions ' Land Use Ordinances , III . School/Government Coordination Introduction Combining new schools with new parks benefits the entire community . The school/park concept is a cost- effective approach to providing _public facilities for Orange County . A. school campus typically defines and serves as the focal point for neighborhood use of its indoor and outdoor facilities . The school/park concept can enable capital and operational cost savings while . providing the # optimum facilities for both school and after- school use . Because school campuses generally have facilities in place that are needed for public parks (i . e . , open play fields , parking , lots , water and sewer connections ; electricity, and road systems to campuses ) the school/park concept is a cost effective approach to providing public recreational facilities to all residents and saves the tax payers many thousands of dollars because the purchase of additional park land is not required . Opportunities exist for joint management, locating, and operation of school/park facilities . • Joint Management - The Recreation and Park work Group reviewed the facility use agreements of the Orange County School System and the Chapel Hill/Cartboro City School System. . Both systems are similar in their agreements with the Recreation and Parks Departments and provide facility use for little or no fee charged . There are nine school sites` " available in the County School System and twelve in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School System - that are existing .or under construction . All three Recreation and Parks Departments rely greatly on the use of school facilities . Although the outdoor athletic facilities are widely used ; auditoriums , arts and music rooms , media centers , and gymnasiums are under great demand as well . The number of school sites that are presently being used or have been used in the past include all ten completed school sites in the Chapel Hi1UCarrboro School System and eight of the nine school sites in the County School . System . • Joint Site Location - Many of the existing school sites throughout Orange County were not - developed for community use . Outdoor recreation . areas were not considered at the time of construction . Surplus land exists at some of the school campuses around the county . Page 9 State standards recommend that school districts purchase approximately 20 acres for elementary schools and 35 acres for middle schools . An elementary school only needs 8 - 9 acres for the actual school building and infrastructure . This leaves 11 . 12 acres for a school/park . Building a park on school property saves the . tax payers money since purchased park land is not required . The school systems typically do not spend a lot of money on site ameruties around school campuses for community recreational programs . Many of the existing schools were built at the center of the property site with entrance roads and parking areas accessible only to the main building . Had these schools been designed with community use in mind, the buildings could be located to the side or rear of the property, leaving a large portion of the land for park development . The # entrance roads and parking areas could be designed to access both the school and park facilities . Gymnasiums could be designed to provide outside access for restroom facilities for potential park patrons . Building schools and parks together is a win/win situation for everyone . • Joint Operation - By . combining new and existing schools with park facilities , the surrounding neighborhoods benefit . A school campus typically defines a community. Citizens identify with the campus as. being a part of their neighborhood and a convenient place for indoor and outdoor recreational activities . Joint facility planning enables both the schools and the recreation departments to ensure , for example , that gyms are of adequate size for use by both the schools and the recreation departments . Other design features can then be included which will create cost- effective operation of the facilities by both parties . • The School/Park concept is not unique . Wake County developed a plan in the early 1980s , most recently adopted a School/Parke Master Plan in 1993 , and presently has eleven School/Park sites . Wake serves as a . model throughout the State of N . C . The Recreation and Parks Director for Wake County made a presentation to the . Recreation and " Park Work Group on September 21 , 1995 , expla.uling the development of the Wake County School/Park Master Plan . He discussed the process of forming a Coordinated Facility Planning Committee and establishment of a Maintenance and Management Policy . A sample agreement is included as Appendix 5 and serves as a model that could be considered . Section Recommendation it is recommended that all new school sites be planned to include park facilities and that existing school sites be improved with recreation and park amenities where it is mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental jurisdictions ) to do so . Page 10 IV. PubliC/Pnvate Recreation Providers Introduction Meeting all the recreational needs of Orange County will require a joint effort between the various government agencies and the private sector . The total value of a community' s leisure delivery system is the aggregate of recreation services provided by both the public and private `sectors . No one group can be held responsible for meeting all of the leisure needs of the community . A strong formal system for cooperation should exist between the private and public sectors . • When recreation partnerships are developed, they will result in a greater degree of effective and efficient recreational service to the public . The theme of " sharing the cost " is at the heart of all public/private partnerships , but must, be tempered with the need to be affordable to insure that the over-alll mission of the public sector is met in providing service to the entire -community . • The three jurisdictions are presently heavily engaged in public/private recreation services and these are detailed on Appendix 6 . Partnership activities range from individual classes to major special events, such as the July 4th Fireworks . These relationships include arrangements with private vendors , contractors , individuals, and businesses in conjunction with one or more public agencies . A list of Orange County Private/Commercial _. . Recreation Providers is attached as Appendix 7 , • Although public/private partnerships are evident throughout Orange County, there is a need for mechanisms to be in place that encourage these relationships to flourish . when appropriate , private recreation providers should be included in the public recreation and park planning process . Dialogue should be encouraged between public and private recreation providers to identify opportunities where mutual goals (programs and/or facilities) can be achieved to the benefit of both parties . • Paivinership models are available not only in Orange County ; but elsewhere in the state and throughout the nation . These models should be researched as to their applicability to Orange County and formulas developed to allow for rapid response to new recreational venues . Section Recommendations Standardize all documents used by the three jurisdictions evhen contracting with private recreation providers . (Personnel, Facilities , Program Management) Page 11 That Orange County publish and update annually the listing of private recreation vendors and facilities on the new information referral network currently being developed in Orange County . ,Also , include models of existing, successful public/private partnerships , i . e . Triangle Sportsplex, Chapel Hill Senior Center, etc . Establish a bi-annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation providers for information sharing and establishing new public/private initiatives . V. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The Recreation and Park Work Group provides the following recommendations to the Orange County Assembly of Governments and the Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Boards . Inherent in this document are many possibilities to work in unison for the provision of more effective and efficient recreation and park services . During discussions of the Work Group , a plethora of other recreation and park issues came to the forefront, but the Work Group. believes that -placing all of these issues on the table would to be too inundating at this time . However, the Recreation and Park Work Group includes in their report a listing under the following "Future Directions/Trends " so that these ideas may be recorded . In realizing the importance of the issues under consideration, the Recreation and Park Work Group completed this report in a very short, self- imposed time period . Nevertheless , the recommendations immediately serve to : - establish principles for coordinated county-wide recreation and park facility planning -foster greafer cooperation in use of existing facilities - support private recreation providers and public/private partnerships Recommendations • 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 . • Although the three jurisdictions use different formulae to define their recreation and park requirements within their Land Use Ordinances , the philosophy and intent of all are the same . it is recommended that the three Planning Departments consider developing a most preferred set of recreation requirements that could be included in all three jurisdictions ' Land Use Ordinances . Page 12 • It is recommended that all new school sites be planned to include park �- facilities and that existing school sites be improved with recreation and park amenities where it is mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental jurisdictions ) to do so . . • Standardize all documents used by the three jurisdictions when contracting with private recreation providers .P p (Personnel, Facilities , Program Management) • That Orange County publish and update annually the listing of private recreation vendors and facilities on the new information referral network currently being developed in Orange County . Also , include models of existing, successful public/private partnerships , i . e . Triangle Sportsplex, Chapel Hill Senior Center, etc . • Establish a bi-annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation providers for information sharing and establishing new public/private initiatives . While these recommendations lay promising groundwork for long-range planning, other practical possibilities must be explored to achieve success . Tune did not permit the development of the mechanisms (i . e . ,, intergovernmental work groups , etc . ) to pursue the thorough .investigation of the following matters . The . .. Work Group believes that it is imperative that they end their report by delineating these future concerns . Future Directions/Trends Bond referenda for recreation and park projects • Comprehensive program planning to avoid duplication of services and service baps • Joint ventures in the area of After- School programming • Status of swimming pools in Orange County • Mechanisms for funding facilities by all jurisdictions Recreation and Parks District Tax Funding equity issues (who pays for what, now and in the future ?) • Joint School/Park use of the Greene Tract Page 13 PARK CLASSIFICATION AND LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON PARK TYPE ACRES/1000 POPULATION SERVICE STANDARD POPULATION ACRES SERVED AREA Regional Park* State 20 1000 multi-county region < 1 hour driving tirno County 5 to 10 200+ 40-80,000 < 1 hour driving tirne District Park* State 10 200+ 1 or more communities < 1 hour driving tirne County 5 75+ 10-50,000 < 1/Z hour driving time Community Park National 5 to 8 25+ Several Nelghs. 1-2 mile radius State 8 25+ 20,000 V-3 mile radius County M 25+ 10,000 1-2 mile radius Chapel Hill 5 .21+ 15,000 5 mile radius �-- Carrboro 8 60 6,000 1 mil© radius X Neighborhood Park National 1 to 2 15+ 51000 1/4 to 1/2 mile CL C State 2 6 to 8 4,000 1/4 to 1/2 mile CL County 2.5 5 to 20 2-8,000 1/4 to 1/Z mile Q Chapel Hill 2.5 5 to 20 5,000 none given Carrboro 2 10 4,000 1/2 mile Mini Park National 0.25 1 Adjacent Neigh. 1/4 mile State none given none given 500-2,500 none given County none given 1 none given 1/4 mile Chapel Hill none given 1 500-2,500 4' none given Carrboro 0.25 1 Adjacent Neigh. 1/4 to 1/2 mile Linear Park National Varies Varies Varies Varies State 30 Varies Varies Varies County none given none given none given none given Chapel Hill none given none given none given none given Carrboro Varies Varies Varies Varies STANDARDS COMPARISON FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES NATIONAL STATE COUNTY CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL FACILITY STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD 1000 POP. 1000 POP. 1000 POP. 1000 POP. 1000 POP: FIELDS Adult Baseball 1/12,000 1/5,000 1/30,000 1/2,500 -1/5,000 Youth Baseball none given , none given none given 1/21500 1/5,000 Softball 1/5,000 1/5,000 1/5,000 1/2,500 1/3,000 Football 1/T0,000 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/8,000 none given Soccer . 1/10,000 1/10,000 1/10,000 1/8,000 1/5,000 COURTS Basketball 1/5,000 1/5,0©0 1/5,000 1/2,000 1/ 2,500 Tennis. 1/2,000 1/2,000 1/2,000 1/2,000. 1/2,000 Volleyball 1/5,000 1/5,000 none given 1/5,000 1/5,000 Shuffleboard none given none given none given 1/5,000 none given N Horseshoe none given none given none given 1/5,000 none given x OUTDOOR AREAS Picnic Tables none given none-given none given 1/400 none given �- Picnic Shelters none given none'given 1/3,000 1/5,000 none given .Q Playgrnd. Activities none given 1/1,000 1/2,000 1/1,000 none given Trails: Hiking 1/region .4 mile/1,000 1/region .1 mile/2,000 none given Interpretive 1/region .2 mile/1,000 none given 1 mile/5,000 none given Archery 1/50,000• 1/50,000. 1/50,000 1/50,000 none given Amphitheater none given none given 1/50,000 1/20,000 none given SPECIALIZED Community Center none given none given 1/20,000 1/201000 ' 1/20,000 Neighborhood Cente none given none given 1/5,000 1/10,000 none given Swimming Pool 1/201000 1/20,000 1/25,000 1/201000 1/10,000 Golf Course 1/25,000 1/25,000- 1/50,000 1/25,000 none riven Bicycling: Urban none given 1 mile/1,000 none given 1 mile/1,000 none given Hppel IUTA i TtAIL i `• 1 1. row = ft • � r �-- f , odT LAM1I -� plam Ice � � _ . DAB CQr•t � r�1 ` � � Y�'d' IL IIIiSTOKIC � i SITt". n ' nstll �-1G� r � �^ OV H O LOO K , $�vG • �Lt% Go o-ro� tc� 4*1 1 � C1 acc . �► 000 /.� APO 00 OAT vu r � r i 1 � a Ar 0 o � ..�,c. ' 41 joc to e, tt. ' ' x z a ' 4 a i \ Jrlb \ IC CrTP 4 © Lut, 00 VOL4 400 i ♦ 000 rr - - ttIp ry ry A'C Cr `VV ( 4 of 6 ) ' OALL FICLD �' • Tel t�! Is • � u =TtZ • 13I = P-d. c >✓ ' ' r1cmIC • �La,� G �ou � n ITI4L GoL.L =r.T'oc 5Tjt, e:= r--- WOO � ic � lc - f K-AC ol: V lam! . 04 J N � r�•.a�G e�c� u v u TZ. GStGGMTI .4C_ G0LL1= CroE:. � v1 J � 1 /` ' °y` J `mil 44 • /ram "tit woo ( 6 of 6 ) . l . �. it • . 1 L I � � t • rr ' 1 PARKING lr• PLAY AREA ll � � l OVERLOOK tt l � 8 p w /1 'l • • t !1 SHELTER j Tvmcal Linear Park - -- 4w At ( Acreage Varies } j ! I l l Rppenuix z+ ORANGE COUNTY Local • Recreation Department Expenditures G ' to * go 000 _ , 4, :. f. : : r ` '.. :: % :; 09 AP {.: ; E . . 4 • 1 T J v We 0 Sao . . .x-0•:KKC•::• . . :{:}• :• •:. . . . . . . • . . :. . ::r.::• '..'::r . . . . . . . . . r. . . . • . • . . h 4.�:•},:::•}•{ }{ }::{:r}}wvv.•h•.::• 4• •.4xt•::.•:.V:KK{K{•k4t.:m4:{• �� Orange County � 96 , 302 $ 5I2 , 247 ��` $ 5 . 32 , Carrboro 12 , 525 $ 3332936 $ 26 . 66 Chapel Hill 38 , 286 $ 1 , 9277372 $ 50 . 34 Comity Total 961302 $ 2 , 773 , 555 $ 28 . 80 Public Recreation Acreage and Facilltv Needs Assessment i::•::•}::: . ::J.• • • • •:. :. . a ::1 45L .Y: t J. 4 ♦ • S :K • Y • 16� goes 4h .5 :: r U::::::.: : . . . . . . . : . . :. . . . . .. • . .: i : :{.}•.;{{�;;{•};:.: :Slaves 100 }I:Ly• • • }. Y .L. M1 .i�ti}•:1•: •.•.•:: L•}.:::::•:1•::. . . :}::: •h• } r.' . .K : ':K• •.� . . . r. 1 • 4Y: /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . .1 . .L%'%. . . . . . }.V'}. . . • . • . . .1 . .. . . :.4•. . . . :.� r:•}}:}} ':1•}:\{4 ..1f :::VAS 4:SLYhY.YY 1Y.YJf KVOX :3: %i?:%': . r�:•:ti1L•r.•:}%iti•}}:?:w{ivY}`.`1%:�%Cvv ,Local Park Acres 566 170 362 21 Regional Park Acres 1 , 488 65 0 26 Dispersed Use Acres 0 n/a 7 79 Baseball Fields 008 • 121038 * 12 > 056 49 Basketball Courts 4 24 , 076 157576 4 61 Campsites , Tent and Trailer � : 967302 505 73 Football Fields 1 . 9:62302 77 ,344 50 Golf Courses • , 2 . 5 3 8 , 521 . 202934 82 Playgrotlnd/Totlots 16 6 , 019 117727 21 Soccer Fields 5 19 , 260 22 , 056 44 _ Softball Field 4 15 6 , 420 127478 16 Swimming Pools 1 96 , 302 58 , 097 59 Tennis Courts 33 2 , 918 47994 20 Trail Miles (A] Types ) 1200 8 , 025 7 , 660 53 • Natural Heritage Inventory Information : See Appendix C for Details v: :::� J. 4 r:K'i' .V. . : •.Y:. t%. �� R iS "d: 44 •. :4•. .0 4�6/. . :}fy ` f . �::• 11:• }: • J 1'r :h . 4h h :t`:" •:'ri•4'i�: :•:v. 'ti i • •.• :•:: .:V •::: •:.Y::::•:::: :':KKK•. •:{{• • 1 . •'K . tiK•. . • .VT. . . {KK%:. h •:v: :v: 4 . . .v.\•. K•:1 . . . h . . . . . . . . . l. . . 44• •�K' :{h 1 'KI} y.t� ?% . y C� 0 .:4•: •r • •.\v L• • :Y. . . . . . . .KK: .4 . . . . . . . . .t . 4 . . . Y . . . . . .•h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .y{•:S . . . . . . . . . . . }•\ . . . . :•hKY:•:•:•:i:•}: . . . 1. • .\ :ti: \ Cedar Grove Lewis Hea stleaf Preserve 172 3 Completed 1988 Big Woods - Old Quany Creek New Hope Creek Bottomland Forest Robeson Creek 6660 9400 00 64 a Use too Weaver Creek Pine Forest Windfall Branch White Oak Slopes r Eno River State Park/The Cabelands Eno River State Park-/P ump Station r, l� ac. Or r Table II-2. SCORP Park and Recreation Area Class Names and Descriptions 0 AREA NAME DESCRIPTION D f Neighborhood Park Area for intensive recreation such as field and court games, playground equipment, picnicking and wading pools. 6-8 acres is a typical size. Examples include mini-parks serving residential areas, playgrounds, sports field complexes and combination playgrounds/sports fields/passive natural areas. Community Park Area providing a wide array of active recreational opportunities including a recreation center building, fields, hard surface courts, 'and picnicking. Natural or landscaped areas are provided for passive recreation. May include a swimming pool or be in conjunction with a school. 10-20 acres is a typical size. Examples include large park/school complexes; recreation center/ pool/sports field and court complexes; and community center/park complexes. District/Metro Area serving one or more suburban or rural communities. Similar to the Community Park, these.areas offer intensive Area Park recreation activities and natural envirokunent areas. Typical size is 20-100 acres. Examples include intensively developed county parks, developed public recreation sites at large reservoirs, and state recreation areas. 0 Local Parks Combines Neighborhood, Community, and District/Metro Area parks classes described above. _ Regional Park Area of natural quality for natural-resource-based outdoor recreation. Generally, 80% of the land is reserved for conservation Reserve and natural resource management with less than 20% developed for recreation. Typical size is 3,000-5,000 acres. Examples include state parks, state natural areas, and large natural resource-based county parks:.Activities include nature study, picnicking, camping, fishing, boating, swimming, and various trail uses. Special Use Area for specialized or single-purpose recreation activities. Typical size varies according to.facility_space requirements. Recreation Area Examples include.golf courses, zoos, fairgrounds, ski areas, campgrounds, gun ranges, boat/ beach access areas, gardens, and developed recreation sites in national parks and national forests. Dispersed Use/ Area for protection and management of the natural environment with recreation use as a secondary objective. Certain multiple Conservancy Area use management approaches produce natural resource outputs such as timber, agricultural produce and minerals. Examples include state gamelands, state and federal scenic rivers, multiple use areas of national and state forests, reservoir shoreline buffer lands, and Blue Ridge Parkway corridor between developed recreation sites. Typical size should be sufficient to protect and manage the primary resource while providing secondary recreational uses. Wilderness Area Area characterized by unmodified natural environment of fairly large size, 4w interaction between users, and evidence of others is minimal. Motorized use is not permitted. Typical size is 5,000-15,000 acres. Examples are congressionally designated National Wilderness Areas. Historic/Cultural Area that preserves, maintains, and interprets buildings and places of archaeological, historical, or cultural significance. Should Area be of sufficient size to protect and interpret the resource while providing optimum use. Examples include local, state, and national historic sites. COUNTY PARK RANKING ' RANK COUNTY LOCAL PARK POPULATION ACRES/POP ACRES 1 Wilson 1, 699 - 60, 378 0. 028139 2 Guilford 80, 019 349 ,764 0. 022927 3 Alamance 2, 421 .109 , 119 0. 022187 4 Union 11903 861, 398 0. 022026 5 Forsyth 5, 447 267 , 237 0. 020383 6 Wake 71539 442 , 803 0. 017026 7 Randolph 11774 107 , 946 0. 016434 8 Mash 1, 202 77 , 668 0. 015476 9 Edgecombe 802 57 , 180 0. 014026 10 Durham 21497 186, 540 0. 013386 11 Ga9ton 11582 176, 828 0. 008947 12 Pamlico 98 11, 458 .0. 008553 13 Pitt 915 109, 904 0. 008325 14 Buncombe 1, 336 176, 714 0. 00756 15 Surry 452 62, 387 0. 001245 16 Mecklenburg 31568 524, 463 0. 006803 17 Craven 551 82, 489 0. 00668. 18 Rowan 695 112 , 223 0. 006193 19 New Hanover , 753 '123 , 309 0. 006107 20 Robeson 627 . 105, 257 . 0. 005957 21 Orange .; 566 96; 302 0. 005877 lU ) og:® ' F""'agal CD -� (0alGil — W W C3) NO � COD too Still . � W y N O 0) .7 O N 00 O CJl -O =r W it p : 0 . 0 O p C � 4 Cal COL) c � . . . N � NO44011 0 — ..,tStill Stilldata #00pagovestoomoo . • • • C)) O � � Cox) -,c (D -� CD CD Cl) CD 1 " C �- : . . CL CD COD O- :3 [A • . . a;a So': all a %% MOMMEMr 44 is mat . • ti,;'tt•••• • ti:� o off;\� _ a: :; . . . . . do a la 4w do t. \• •'fit. •.,.btt to,• t •ad ,t at; y .&Oad• 1••, t r •• • t •• t` 0 r .• .•.•. `` ` •\.ad, ♦ do ♦, \ •, . n ` '• ' Rw t ♦\ fir\\♦i t4 a • •\6 ,•,,♦• t •♦ t0•r• ,t\ t •,. as • r a #No So t •,t\\Xt, • • . , as \�\tit •'t;♦\ . . . � • • . • NO tt�t o t `rt •;.t t ti\ ,tit . t\ .•• •t ♦ . . . • t\♦ \\do♦ •t'\'•S t\•,ti 90 a 1'y •tt •'i't;•. top ti\ \'+ \ •.ti•\ti • t ••• ♦t t •t t a •. \\t % •;tr\ •t r ti♦ . • • t ' . . tit t ♦\\♦`~ . . . . • t '•�t., \t�\t \ . . t go t t ' . . . ti♦�.;%N.floyt %% ON • . 0 '•tit \,t . .0 •. • t`t�. . . lo ode •• :ti•':• •• •• • • •oso 0♦4 0 0 so logo. • • • • • • . • • . tt' ' olp% �' •. •. ...• . . \ • so t.,! ' 66 t ' • • . . . of, lo tt • ; tyt 0 040 a • • • . ♦ ti,' 9t I, LO:j 3 0 o � a m C�0 CO (D -� O (D ..� \ ....,, \ '�" O � CA n n O to (D � N _"' Q L A� ' tQ �. ` 0 O O OD �_ do �' (D O Cn no an a 0 9 . . . of En Q (D —�c iv (D CD :3 > CL (D O • `\` \ < D to `a 0 (D 0 c .._. Z3 O f Q (D (D --�. -•t Cl) . . �. . `0 * * 000 . , . Q3 n --t .• "O p (D Oof \ a. mw O '=; ^t •\ x (D . . . � 4 /� .. • D \ \ . • 0 0.0 0•• 3 u(j . Q 01) W- . = \ �� • • \ f QJ (D < :(D . .: .: . .: : . .o �o -� ;� : �. . . O � i : . . Osseo 0 � � � :�� Q do,o 4 '\ (p -- 0 (D No C� O 0 � " kU Ui 10 ) Elo N CSC O N rm+ _ ol COD CD " m, O O CD CD 0) an an (n Ca (D Cn CL C . COD offol ri) CL ,..i. C L p COD A J CD =3 (D -� CODof of a CD cn ^ . 6% No pJ -Z (D to `; O- CD (D : , .of of r+ O �, ♦ Mmot'• y ```'' '` • • • �e .,� ••y,•-y y y V :0 of •. \,\• 1 .. 989 % do • •r • r • r ' •. •` 0 % • • • Of • •• • • • \, y •. . r• weessest we gyp• CD :. . . • . . . : 0 y: 1� do o p goo .,: CJ) C 0 do•••`'•owe•`goys�1. •' •.r. • 6 woo so % % opN go tooted do No io Is If Or we Op Op Or sluggish 1 Nor of "',,•.\t\t. % 1, ••• •••r om tv 0 Cn ., ,\` ` `d* . �( yj \We t • ' Ott 0 op It loop X IT M • (n age 0 so m c r _ • r . •:•: . `�\�\w\\` • r • • • r• (D No . ovagedov O CL do . ;` •mbe • r • , . (D ( D �' :logo..agdow �:\:• No y • , . \ . . ^ : y \defy •.ti`do Is �•: • ••4 •Of • . do r � O ' J ' • O U - .. :.._ ice.\/�.�•.�J\ •• ,%,,t. W ^, e . . cd O N . . . . . . . . • . •. , • . . ••.• ••• ••• • • v� '',..,,. ,. t '.- '• ••D ..0 .tom LL tit'•,^:ti,` %;.••'•,,:• , •. � ` L cl LOcz CL ■■.■^■■-■W/`_■■■[ :•t, % :ttiy1;•by� �'�'• ' •• tit:k ,,,�+h,�.,•: • • • • • ,tr + / • . '���yttt'•�.' tit`,\; •,,• . %% •tiff ;;``;: • ,t\,.• •••• . • • 1 1 •• CO CO LL L (� C(j �-- Lo CO Cc • '` i•- COC In Z7 � � -vN � o Q) .u7 � .� •� sr O T CC) • - o o N � � O O c cv � � o � 110 ❑ 0 -" co o) rn o ..,:., .. O � CllNN nCD n p O t31 Ui .:.00 p 0 --� -•l p o � -c O p CD L1 Meal N co CD (n a + CJ) CC) CL � � Cl) Cil CD . . . . o � •• • • �- O p r t, -D -� • .•.• . Cn cD CD lo CD on —c (J) "l CD CD CL eel 0 ([/�\��� v , v (/(�j {y\\per ( 1 ) �ryJ , r '•r11;% �� ■ COD c• M row" fn o r*' cn < �' r--�- ft ON% � 1%`, r ti as • •- 0 :1�' . •1� :: . . . . . . • ff 1','+;ti We 100% ago o0 0 a at 0 1 4 4 4 (D ti : `-t COD . ;11 : we � ofov 16 \� 1O. m\at •: ' # seat me too 0 • 1,1 1' •1 `•` , • ( M t ..♦,ry•o``r1 .1 .`+ 1 O p • • r am • Or . • •• ' ,1.1. • 0 6%* *6 %malms 0 0 0 -9 0 As to got 4 cnem ( ? f ) ,Lr ,10 9 • , . , ad me am. am 0 �- 0 Was -- .. O p mammarm / ( 9 Of 16 ) O p OCDNN CD tL� 0 00 0 CD 0 `` o c �. C � . N -`L CD � ca WWI CL l Q (D cn rD o O (D -v CD m cOn �- 00 � CD � 70be . . ( Q CDti''% .' :� ^tip 0 `'''' (/�) U/� �/ I 1j '•'' \ t G• •y\\\give O C \ go . . CD . •. 0* 4 :`ly ' • 1 ' .♦ 1 Net 09%60 le \4"`~ 4 owl 1 \, • • • �.t• • • •of 0 •. . . • 9 If •• • • • ' • • \ • •. ' 1 • • y t• ♦ '•• Cy \\t be a.1• , ti•y1yig ot . y10 ., ti•.1ti•., om a ow 44 *0 0 g 00 to ' . .1 ` 11• -� o �- :� `ti:` O so go ,\,� ♦ 1. . \1\, T 0 \,• • • ,•1 . \ tgo o `c s1` `\ . . • •\ti'+yam 1• ow 0 r-h0 4 0 6 0 a I if I a 6 go 4 do as 0%0 NCD �w \\ ;` ;, %. A4% a \ ' g go 14 \F Q 9 00 6 4 big y0 C7 p 0 ( 10 Of 16 ) .\\ . O r D ® 1 o 00 CP Coal CD go.. .. N* AboveO GJ Wcn (D ;:��;.'. at #6 boo Q O Q- oo �; ° O ._..�. O CD w Cn0 too .� CC CD 0 0 ( D CO CD 0 Mobil ; ss a) a: CD cn 6 , C. appit 4 0 0 0 0 4 ,• an Op =3 '17 CD � � � � � titol � COD 0 it < CD ( D CL. 'I --t CD p • (D CD 0 CD At C to CY tD CD C00 c - •` '• p 0 e a poll *a •,• 9•1\ \•. \ • \ \\• •• ., • 1•0 �1 I %* of 0 (D •\�•\ as OR to 0 ti•1 \, • c0 —I --� •• , 1\ to 0 ` I • • • •• • •`• 1oo ' •`• • •• •. • O • • • 1, • Maggot •. 6*6.1::1 . • 1:••:•ti••. VV • . . • 0 • • • 1• ••• \% , po • % so ••\\ �1\ Q • \ i•••\ot \ \ \No ' age �•}. Al • • • • • • ` \ % 1 a. `do 46 \ oo < • •• • • • • • y\V;\\ �\\ % It It V CD11 1 1 \ •N ' %\ \\ • • AF ti\\�. N L3' 0 to CD o tQ O la at a a ;\ :N,. 1, •• 1 • \L 1` :•'. 1 % •\ \•1 `•mot' to It % % % % aw at Q . ; ; ; ,.`, . . . 0 L O 0 `* L Q O V , r C ct3 *� CD . . 421 tv ° U U ♦�%;. •. . • • • .• ` :3 QQ . . . \\+\ . . . . . aL O :;\fit,t, •• • • • • 0 Cl _0 O O j o • -- �„ co \`% . . cn a) .,., o 0 O CL wJ LO C C v1 N cn .-- o C- O O O O '(D E CZ E O C 0 0 0 0 z.. 0. Lr L ) � l() O co cv t,%,: tio00 0 .Y rrNL C CZ of IMOODF ( nT In TT \ l v y U / ❑ a8got o � . 0 U7 GJ 2 tV to (D 7 � CC? OC) CAD 0 CS1 0 0 0 lD j � 0OMI o (n do go a 0 0 0 o CD ( D 0 4 a 0 0 n � -� ( • cn o Q � CD CL CD W 06Dow . %4mm V *90 do to 0 go 9 ♦ "POP • to • p (D ♦ . CD a of so "'fit ;♦ ♦ \ \% *, a. *Nti • tit`\\\\ \ , ` \�. 4 NO Ma a goO (D NON 40694 * 09 ti, *%t\ \ It CD r-r C CD :3 \, • •\ % 4 66 O ,% . .\.♦.% 000 All 0 0 Cl) 0 ( 13 of 16 ) as Rome N co 0o CD O �OCOC� N � CD n O� -� O O CL CD in CD 3 CD tQ .... . CD l CD a �- W Q . CL0 O (D r+' =3 _.a . (D CD O —,c romme" T CD to �1.. CD =3 CD CD Wool " CD — —' "I Romm"Roo (D C L CD regime CD CD . T_ L, , mass we 6 CD ::'�'L:: . . . . • . . . : Ott oo (D am a •% • ti •••'S•. • - •� a 'oa i . 4••4.4 . �; , ` • • • ti41� 0\4.4. 41 to • V O O • • , • • • • ••• 49 lar, •• •• ' " r T y • • • • • • � • • • ' • • • '• O (D r + ' • •• • • • , CD V / '•• ' •' 'L '• to�''4 '4• sea am I am V O • • • • 4 S, • 0 SNo , L. 4 •tik •� C � • • • • • 'y' S'L OR • • • , • • -� X l V • ` ' • • • ' . •. . ' tism D • • ' • •• r . p (D •'•ti•4 '' W��y as vea Noom lose v. .6 D am 'LL , ^cm 6 L L O W L ` :(D �-1 a ' so to n O �- 04, so-fi Cl) t O — c J ! n. l � U lb ❑ a ® o o o� � oo BCD CD -� toffs, o a" o " a. cn r+ CD CD (D O -PA4 � . �- m ccDD Q D COD Ul OD � M 0 � o --I U) CD mostCAD . CMA" CD wo p CD CL _ A 0 (D CD CD C/) CD CL CD � p- CD �- CAC ._ fD r+- O �. Co CD =I r--}�• CD 4V J so 1 0 :•t. of • t am 10f. \ V saw 6 % go dad 0 so �_J •y1 •do 1. 1yY14a of to top goal 4 o '•'\1•'y'\ •'• y • 0 Gas •_ Sto to a So �•• . . '1;ti.'• Y V ,/ n ter'-tom'• i... 4` %�. Jm ' . , '• '• '• � . ' , '. oD • 'OIL • '.• . 0 a a a 9 a a a a a �. • �� OR do ad• •'•'• •• V / •do . w \ U Isolationists • • • •' ' ' • • '• • , . '• ' • • '• r • ' , •• '' '1' • • •4� ••'' `fir dd do 0 • • k ••;;•;• , . a'�. • .. • 46 1 • 4• • •, •1 .1. , •.• •, •m 4 ad 1 ,1 • D o00 °1 woodOa . . ti\as 9 4, •�\ �•1 L i +� �_ all a a addat 4 O p • •1 1 as % weeks wait ® 0 o Mosel O too *gasses,, .. CC)oldT CA O O p -'' -, 't�` ow O O o1 cD CD p �, , �., **�:* as 0 -� �- o :� Q: fCOD w cD CD : O .�. cOn Z3 a cn , N N a , .�. CD a, cn ses& Wool co O CD CD (D --� - ,:;, \O p CD CD cn cn p -z CD -s"T 0 . . • ;• ti CL p --� CD a -n CD CD Owl „� U% sto memommosop nr • lt fit` % ': ''t �..L� COD n • wavou t CIO, CeD CD CD p CD :3 to Cn 0� it ` V 0 %0 is %, \ r� ,\ . `�% 14, '�♦ ;,♦•• V towalwafe V ``� `�•` •. •• t •tco t . O1 1 rt so to` •'``t`' • • ' • • ''• t '• . Y . . • • • • ••t ••t ,a t /� Or is 0 4 O p ; . s tt;• • ti 1J y • go O CD rosettes we tot a 0 0 .40. ' W LJ •4 or. tlsor•t♦ t�''••0% 6 ' �. t 'tit \ ♦ \. . � ' •.'♦ , \•' % O,* fit ,• .♦ , ;ti tit ti rt go 00 % 4 (J) � 0 t,.,t• t•,•, •\ •, •\ ,•. •r. too C: a east see O ruse V •t ''tOf / �.•. • p so • • skies . • • • ow 0 at �lm who (./-(}-eft- p, � ` ♦• '� ' ;'.•�,ee 6w (D / � yti��6 to 0 �♦� t INDL/ (D v.. • 0 la ow 6 04 r •• • so • • •• •• • ' \• •• • oa am 10 •• • • • • •,• l 0 Y •�•.,• (n ` 4 9 4 • .• 4 a . t • (D pCD . • a 4 a 0 .....�,. No v rn ` V UJ viati'to 4 '•�' Al 0 r"gle• a O c ( ib or 16 ) Sasso a ❑ No,do # % m, \ IC)7 o � N CD Cn CD T •. •., •. r ..• r CD .,.,, •. tot O r y y. \yL O O LJ COD o tests a" wl 600 c a te. too c #`a(D CD COD CL a. � . . 0) .- +. CD Z� CD _ . COD 4 = CL NIND r Q cn ( n • • - 01 O CD 6/ / �r�r . . CD :3- O O � CD (D 0 ' CL (n O -"I CA -i Cl)� gp awl :. ' Cn l V /'D O M n (D Is .y�\ V O Q t.•a`a Y Cr CD CD CD r-4- 0 :3 regime Cn � ■ cn (D I of Rate eaR • •aa tt yy • , .a . • Y .a a'4` yti•. ••. a4 , ,908•••L yta , • `*a OR • ``: •4 , a1ado % • Is No a�,�a�•.a• 41 •:\;off y\•�'\ ;`• CO •O%ls000 NoloorN \t0 ow `taa' ' •a oe oeoN%aa` mdo o O •a `a , \ •. . • •a a`t` 0 O C7 � � ' va 0 0 do we ...�, • •a • • yaa a • • • • y y\ ya . • • • • • � . . \ •O CD . • CD � ••• \ •. • sa • •✓ r do oR t/ ....3. • a ` b. •tti• • y �at aa;. t a 446 ` a60 ; •. •. . ad` ti . • asogga% ata . . 9 ••• •. ,`• •• ... •• • r�� 96 to 6!J Cling :.R�y . . We 0 Appendix 5 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING COORDINATED FACILITY PLANNING This agreement between the Orange County and / or Chapel Hill / Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and / or the Towns of Chapel Hill and / or Carrboro is intended to establish and implement a coordinated site and facility planning process for schools and certain government • IF facilities . The purpose of the coordinated planning process is to optimize the collocation and use of schools and other public facilities in a way that builds community , provides public services where they are most needed , assures the compatibility of collocated services , and efficiently uses public resources . To further these goals , the Orange County and / or Chapel Hill / Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and / or the Towns _ of Chapel ' -Hill and / or Carrboro do hereby agree to the following separate and shared responsibilities for coordinated facility planning to the extent that it does not delay necessary construction of either school or government facilities . These statements of responsibilities are intended to be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations ; where they are not , they are superseded by those applicable laws and regulations . Specifically , this agreement is not intended to supersede the statutory authority of either Hoard of Education to select school sites or to build , maintain or repair school facilities or the other governing Boards to approve the amounts to be spent for sites and to determine the funds available for school and county or municipal facilities . The Orange Courfty and / or Chapel Hill / Carrboro Boards of Education will : NO * Identify app- ropriate site criteria for public school facilities ; and * Identify interior space and exterior site requirements ' for school facilities , and * Recommend school facility priorities , timetables for completion , and related funding needs ; and * Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction , renovation , or repair of public school facilities , within the funding available for these activities ; and * Assign to the superintendent the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and other resources to participate in a joint facility planning process . { The Governing Boards of Orange County and / or the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro will : * Identify appropriate site criteria for county and municipal government facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided ; and * Identify interior space and exterior site requirements for county or municipal government facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided ; and * Determine priorities , timetables for completion , and related funding requirements for county or municipal government facilities ; and * Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction , renovation ; " or repair of county or municipal government facilities ; and * Determine the funding available for school and county or municipal government facilities ; and * Assign to the county and / or Town Managers the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and other resources to participate in a coordinated facility planning process . The Orange County and / or Chapel Hill / Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and / or the Towns of Chapel Hill and / or Carrboro will jointly : r * Identify opportunities for collocating compatible public facilities on common sites , including facilities for schools , county government , ftmunicipal governments , state and federal government , other public authorities , and facilities for nonprofit organizations providing complementary public services ; and * Develop master site plans on which public facilities will be co - located ; and * Determine the most appropriate means of relating various public services on common sites , considering all program needs , and including opportunities for sharing spaces ; and * Develop any interlocal agreements or understandings needed to allow participation of other units of government in the collocation of public facilities ; and * Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating the construction of shared facilities located on common sites , and tJ U ► J ) * Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating maintenance of shared public facilities located on common sites ; and * Determine , the . most appropriate and effective means of scheduling usage of any shared public facilities on common sites ; and * Determine the most appropriate and practical means of providing public ownership of . sites and site improvements where public facilities are collocated . This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective upon approval by each governing board . It shall remain in effect until either party shall decide ' to terminate the agreement . ORANGE * COUNTY CHAPEL HILL / CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION II ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TOWN OF CA1tRBO-RO . i a Appendix 6 ' Public /Private Partnerships for Leisure Services Carrboro / Chapel Hill / Orange County Definition of Terms Annual Cost : Actual cost of activity or service . Estimated S Value : Estimated cost of activity or service if it were paid for at market rates . Program Category : Indicates the services provided through the partnership (P = Personnel, M* _ Program Management , F = Facilities) . Town of Carrboro /Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department NAME ACTIVITIES ANNUAL EST. PROGRAM COST $ VALUE CATEGORY American Red Cross Baby Sitting Courses $ 2000 $ 2, 000 M Til Help Arrives First Aid Training Arts Center Kids New Years Eve $ 700 $ 1 , 500 PMF Celebration Freedom Tra* n Chfidn n s $ 300 $ 2 , 000 PM Performance ( 2) Rental monies $ 15 , 000 $ 15, 000 F Animal Protection Society Rabies Clinic $ 900 $ 1 , 800 PM Canine Good Citizen Canine Health Fair Weaver Street Market $ 5 , 300 $ 11 , 500 Family Flowerbox Workshop MF Family Scarecrow Workshop MF Ghost Stories - Family - Show MF July 4th pre -event activities MF Carrboro Baptist Senior Fitness $ 5 000 $ 11 , 000 PMF Hari isJeeter Supermarket Strategy $ 350 $ 450 NIF Most Carrboro Businesses July 4th Celebration S11000 $ 3 , 000 M participation in Events Various Independent Leisure Classes S3u , 0 % 0 $ 45 , 600 PM contrators for lei c sure classes , Tents , P . A. Systems , etc . equipment, etc . Entertainment and Performers 1 R Town of Carrboro / Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department t NAME ACTIVITIES ANNUAL EST. PROGRAM COST $ VALUE CATEGORY Chapel Hill/Carrboro Annual photo show $ 50 $ 800 PM Photography Club University Mall Daycamp Fair $ 300 , $ 1 , 800 F Hyconeechee Regional Library Special Event Program $ 1 , 000 $ 2 , 400 PMF -All About Series - Family Shows -Children ' s Show Junior League of Durham and Middle School Afterschool $ 3 , 835 $ 37 , 000 PM Orange Counties Program WCHL July 4th Live $ 0 $ 3 , 000 PM Broadcast/Adverfising Gregory Hermann Giddens , Breakfast With An Expert $ 250 $ 600 M Attorney Doug Rodgers . Insur, Parapsychology Instit, and other experts National Youth Sports Coaches Certification `Training $ 738 $ 738 M Assoc . Burlington Officials Assoc . Football Referees $ 300 $ 300 M Pony Baseball Baseball program affiliation $ 300 $ 300 M Orange Co . 4- H Workshops $ 60 $ 150 PM (Agric . Ext Services ) ::.. . :::. . :::::::::.:::.::::::. :. . . . :. . . .: . . :. . . :. . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . ALL 3 DEPARTMENTS - CHAPEL HILL , CARRBORO AND ORANGE COUNTY NAME`r ACTIVITIES ANNUAL EST. PROGRAM ' . COST $ VALUE CATEGORY Durham Herald FunFinder Brochure e $ 400 $ 5 , 000f PM Mardi Gras Senior Games $ 5 , 000 $ 7 , 200 F Sportsplex University Mall and Merchants Carolina Meadows Finley Golf Course UNC Fetzer Field 1 E )I ' Carrboro and Orange County Smoot Name Activities Annual Estimated Program Cost $ Value Category Sprint Cellular Fishing Rodeo $ 13400 $ 1 , 850 PM Boy Scouts of America Law Enforcement/ Explorer Post Friskee' s Dog Food Canine Frisbee Competition $ 800 $ 3 , 200 . PM WCHL Chapel Hill Herald Animal Protection Society :r :' 't.• .:.�L. .•'.:. TT ;.. o 904*6 tot V69% t go to 94 ::A::: V it **0100009 Vto :•f:: Town of Chapel Hill/ Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Name . Activities Annual Estimated Program Cost $ Value - Category Triangle Land Conservancy Land acquisition services for New $ 20 , 000 $ 20 , 000 M Hope Corridor Master Plan Triangle Land Conservancy ' Administrative assistance for New $450 $450 PM Hope Committee . ; - Durham Herald Free department brochure ( Fun $ 5 ) 000 $ 5 , 000 PM Finder) Abundant Life Cultural arts bazaar $ 5, 000 $ 51000 PM ANN July 4th Celebration Durham/Herald July 4th Celebration ( Coordination $ 0 $ 20 , 000 PMF of private sponsors , donate significant free advertising ) Village Advocate �. :: July 4th Celebration (Donation of $ 0 $ 5 , 000 PMF advertising ) WCHL July 4th Celebration ( Donation of $ 0 $ 15 , 000 PMF advertising , master ceremonies ,* music at event) Siena Hotel July 4th Celebration $ 3 , 000 $ 3 , 000 PMF Domino ' s Pizza July 4th Celebration $ 3 , 000 $ 3 , 000 PMF Cablevision July 4th Celebration $ 3 , 000 $ 3 , 000 PMF Saturn of Chapel Hill July 4th Celebration $ 3 , 000 $ 3 , 000 PMF Resolute Building July 4th Celebration $ 31000 $ 31000 PMF Village Companies Foundation July 4th Celebration $ 1 , 000 $ 1 , 000 PMF First Union Bank July 4th Celebration - $ 250 $ 250 PMF 2 0: : GIG Go oi 004 ; :;YGet T . . 1 05 .: :>$ : : t ` 7 s :f Y.:.::. :. : .. :. :. . :. . . . . . Goo 000 cif. €> e #ai of w race .dam# . a . :P .. f . :,. . . . I� i .. �b I Name Activities Annual Estimated Program Cost $ Value Category now Sister Cities Saratov exchange $ 1 , 000 $ 1 , 000 M New Year' s Eve Celebration Arts and Events (Assist ArtsCenter $ 0 $ 700 PM staff) Teen Afterschool Arts and Events ( Use of facility in $ 53000 $ 10 , 000 PMF exchange for offering program) to 6,9VO .1 `r Peef a0*0 Community Youth Theater Summer production $ 860 $ 860 PM El Pueblo , Inc . La Fiesta del Pueblo $ 5 , 000 $ 5 , 000 M NCHSAA Non-revenue championships $ 7 , 500 $ 7 , 500 M NC Symphony Society Free concert $ 2 , 400 $ 2 , 400 PM Orange County Arts Comm . Directional map reprint $ 1 , 700 $ 1 , 700 M Street Scene Teen Center Weekend bands $ 2 , 600 $ 2, 600 PMF Women ' s Center Women ' s art show $ 2, 000 $ 2 , 000 PM ArtsCenter Building rental $ 20 , 000 $ 200000 F Chapel Hill Senior Center Operational Support $ 20 , 000 $ 20 , 000 PMF Junior League of Middle School Afterschool Program $ 37 , 000 $ 37 , 000 ' PMF Durham/Orange Counties Jazzercise Arts and Events Programs ( School $ 5 , 400 $ 61720 PMF rental paid by 80/20 contract) Filmmakers Workshop Arts and Events Programs ( Use of $ 0 $ 600 PM Chapel Hill Senior Center for offering program ) Apple Chill Cloggers Arts and Events Programs ( Use of $ 0 $ 275 PM Teen Center for afterschool program in exchange for the activity ) Program Assistant - . Arts and Events Programs ( 100 % $ 7 , 245 $ 78245 PM recouped through program fees ) Plaza Performance with NC Arts and Events Programs ( Chapel $ 0 $ 600 PMF Opera Hill Herald paid for the opera , P & R provided facility) Rock Rest Adventures 9 Outdoor/Nature Programs ( 100 % $ 16 , 550 $ 16 , 550 PM recouped ) Boy Scouts of America Outdoor/Nature Programs ( Gas and $ 200 $ 53000 PM Explorer' s Post miscellaneous supplies ) Exercise Instructor New Generation Programs ( 80/20 $ 9 , 600 $ 121000 PM contract) Painting & Drawing New Generation Programs $ 756 $ 756 PM Arts & Crafts New Generation Programs $ 576 $ 576 PM Orange County 4- H Hargraves Programs $ 0 $ 1 , 500 PM Name Activities Annual Estimated Program Cost $ Value Category Chapel Hill Transition Program Hargraves Programs $ 0 0 $ 1 , 000 PM ( Narcotics Anonymous ) Mission in Excellence Tutorial Hargraves Programs $ 0 $ 2 , 500 PM Program Bay Scout and Girl Scouts of Hargraves Programs $ 0 $ 2 , 000 PM America Carrboro ArtsCenter Day Hargraves Programs $ 200 $ 200 * PM Camp Program Mickey Mills & Steel Band two Hargraves Programs $ 0 $ 1 , 000 PM Carribean Dance Durham Athletic Officials Athletics Programs 4 $ 7 , 900 $ 7 , 900 PM Association ( Game officials ) Volleyball Association Athletics Programs $49700 $ 41700 PM (Volleyball officials ) American Red Cross Community Center Programs $4, 000 • 1 $4, 000 PM Instruction :O � • Orange County I Orange County Recreation and Parks Department Name Activities Annual Estimated Program Cost $ Value Category Booking agents Softball $ 2 , 500 $ 2 , 500 P Booking agents Basketball $4 , 000 $ 4, 000 P Booking agents Football $ 1 , 000 $ 1 , 000 P Booking agents Soccer $ 1 , 000 $ 1 , 000 P Booking agents Coaches Clinic $ 300 $ 300 P Hillsborough Chamber of Hog Day ( Children ' s Stage ) $ 0 $ 500 P Commerce Singers and musicians Senior Picnic $ 200 $ 200 P Singers , musicians , dancers Thanksgiving Dinner J $ 400 $ 400 P Young Olympians ( baton , Recreation Programs $ 8 ) 000 $ 10 , 000 PM cheeheading , self- defense for youth , Jazz dance ) ScHovl of I ae Kwon Do Recreation Programs 581000 $ 101000 PM Tai Chi Recreation Programs $ 3 , 000 $4, 000 PM Orange County Community Triangle Sportsplex (Operations ) $ 4001000 $ 400 , 000 PMF Acdvq Center Corp , Hillsborough Youth Athletic Baseball Program 1 $ 111340 $ 11 , 340 PMF Association Triangle Land Conservation Land Aquis . Services 1 09011 $ 151000 F : . 4 2: ' .. 0 . . . ` . Total Annual Cost . $ 746 , 610 Total Estimated $ Value . $ 891 , 010 ( 1 oT Appendix 7 Carrboro / Chapel Hill / Orange County Private / Commercial Recreation Providers Fitness Body Works Health Club Townsend/Bertram Club for Women Trail Shop Gold ' s Gym Picnic/Rent Facilities The Spa BPW Women 's Club Civic Club Dance Lion ' s Club Apple Chill Cioggers (Chapel Hill) Ponderosa Ballet School ( Chapel Hill ) Sertoma Club . Bounds Dance Studio ( Chapel Hill ) Story Book Farm Cane Creek Clog gers . ( Carrboro ) Carolina Sang and Dance Association ( Carrboro ) Senlor Citizen Services Dancenter (Chapel Hill ) Carol Woods Faulkner's (Hillsborough ) - Carolina Meadows Fred Astaire ( Durham) Fearrington Village Hillsborough School of Dance Senior Centers ( Carrboro and Chapel Hill ) Sandell Dance School ( Chapel Hill ) Square Heels Dancers Interest Groups African American Arts Center (Seeds of Sheba) Exercise Carrboro Civic Club Carrboro Garden Grou Park Valley Swim Club P Carolina Sport Art ( Chapel Hill ) Carrboro Library Group Chapel Hill Tennis Club Center for Peace Education j Exchange Club Pool Chapel Hill Camera Club Heritage Hills Swimming and Tennis Downtown Business Association Hollow Rock Racquet and Swim Club Friends of Old Carrboro Group Spirit Express ( Ehapel Hill ) Lion ' s Club UNC Student Recreation. Complex Sierra Club YMCA UNC Faculty Club - UNC Student Associations ( various ) Outdoor u r Facilities Lofton Field Sports Cane Creek Hunting Lodge Play It Again Sports Durham S ortin Goods Cane Creek Reser<<oir ( boat rental) p 9 Cobb Fief Golf Duke Forest Arrowhead Golf Club Old Power Station Dam Canoe Launch Site Cedar Grove Golf Course University Lake ( boat rental ) Chapel Hill Country Club Finley Golf Course Equipment Rentals Governor' s Club Clean Machine Occoneechee . Golf Course Performance Bike Shop Twin Lakes Golf Course Scott Rent-All Soccer Seeds of Sheba Chapel Hill Country Club UNC Memorial Hail Hollow Rock Racquet and Swim Village Community Theater Rainbow Soccer, Ltd . Music ArtsCenter ( Carrboro ) Horse Riding/Equestrian Cats Cradle ( Carrboro ) Finnabar Farm Village Band Harmony Farms Village Orchestra Montross Boarding /Training Center Village Chorus Basketball Whitecross Athletic Association Bowling AMF ( Durham ) Mardi Gras ( Chapel Hill ) UNC Student Union Skatingllce Hockey Daniel Boone Village Orange County Community Activity Corp , ( Hillsborough ) After SchoolfDaycare . . . Carrboro Methodist After School and Daycare Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools 444 , Childcare Network Holmes Daycare Volunteers for Youth Wholistic Health Center YMCA Special Recreation Association of Retarded Citizens Club Nova Jr Other Farmer' s Market to Red Cross Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department UNC Hospital ' s Employee Recreation Theaters (Motion Pictures ) Carolina Theater Flicker Movies Oat Timberiyne Plaza Theaters Ram Theaters Varsity Theater Theaters ( Plays ) ArtsCenter ( Carrboro ) Playmakers Repertory Company 4 Appendix 8 12 / 94 PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM .AND FACILITY INVENTORY The following inventory is divided into two separate sections ( Program Inventory and Facility - Inventory ) ' and is listed by each jurisdiction ( Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County ) , The lists are in alphabetical order using the following sequence : PROGRAM INVENTORY MEMO Aquatics Arts Athletics Come General Programs - Outdoor and Nature - Programs for Persons with Disabilities/ Special Needs OPENS Senior Citizens Special Events MONSOON Jointly Sponsored Programs and Special Events FACILITY INVENTORY - Developed Undeveloped School Facilities Used Other Facilities Used j i r � PROGRAM INVENTORY i AQUATICS i i . I Chanel H ' l • i Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events . acuacise a ?'• th = " 1. S aquatl. CS basic water safety - department - sponsored youth swim team ilmons emergency water safety practices and meets high school swim team practices and meets kayaking classes lap and open swim periods at Community Center ( year - round ) and A . D . Clark ( summer ) Pools • r, r 2 - parent / tot swim lessons specialized exercise programs water aerobics water safety instructor training - water exercise for the back ( W . E . B . ) - youth and adult swim lessons Orange County summer youth and adult swimming lessons ARTS Carrboro Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : arts / crafts classes and workshops basketry dance drama drawing / painting music ( piano , harmonica ) crafts woodcrafts Entertainment Adventures for Families Lollipop Series for Preschoolers Chapel. Hill - Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : - - arts / crafts classes dance pottery filmmaking indoor / outdoor concerts workshops Orange County Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : artist competitions - arts / crafts classes basketry 1 , r M 3 leather music artist forums ATHLETICS Carrboro Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : ' adult horseshoes -- adult / youth tennis lessons adult softball - adult volleyball - basketball free play cheerleading camp - field hockey# * camp - men ' s basketball parent / child: basketball shoot - out parent / child homerun derby volleyball free play - women ' s free - play basketball - youth baseball 0( 6 - 16 years old ) youth basketball ( 6 - 15 years old ) - youth football ( 6 - 11 years old ) youth softball camp youth volleyball camp Chapel Hill Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : adult co - recreatio Ial vol i eyball adult / junior tennis tournaments* adult men ' s basketball adult softball - adult tennis leagues adult / youth tennis lessons basketball and volleyball free play bocce ball - boys baseball. ( 8 - 15 years old ) boys basketball ( 8 - 1 8 ears old ) boys junior lacrosse ( 11 - 15 years old ) boys lacrosse ( 15 - 18 yeas old ) childrens instructional baseball ( 6 - 7 years old ) childrens instructional basketball ( 6 - 7 years old ) _ � nor� 1, ; rTh grhnnl Softball ri 4 girls softball ( 8 - 18 years old ) over 35 adult basketball - summer youth / adult basketball leagues - rock climbing wall classes Orange County coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : adult co - rec volleyball adult / youth tennis lessons - adult / youth tennis tournaments cheerleading ( 4 - 7 years old ) girls softball ( 7 - 16 years old ) men ' s softball over 35, adult basketball youth basketball ( 5 - .J ,8 years old ) youth football league ( 7 - 12 years old ) youth football clinic • ( 7 - 12 years old - youth punto/pass / kick competition ( 8 - 15 years old ) . youth soccer ( 6 - 12 years old ) youth wrestling ( 8 - 14 years ) ' GENERAL PROGRAMS Carrboro �' - Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest - activities and events : aerobics classes - childrens ' bingo - childrens ' cookie bake games for group leaders Family Scarecrow Workshop magic classes - tumbling classes relaxation and massage classes and workshops - summer enrichment day camps Chapel Hill coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : aerobics classes after - school programs for children and teens - ; - - , - - r _ ..... a-. .. .. 5 game room free play ( Hargraves and Community Center Buildings ) indoor / outdoor concerts Path Choice Role Model Workshops - rose garden workshops - summer day camps - tutorial program for children and teens Orange Countv - Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : - aerobics classes - babysitting courses first aid and CPR hunter safety courses massage and exercise classes self - defense classes summer day camps tai chi classes workshops on : common childhood illnesses communication and conflict resolution grant writing OUTDOOR MATURE Carrboro family fishing clinics workshops on insects , leaves , other nature topics science museum presentations Chaoel Hill Coordinate the daaartme :: . - sponsored Explorers Post ( Boy Scouts or P�{, erica ) for �, een adventure training and outings . Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities : environmental education workshops nature and day hikes nature interpretation classes rafting and canoe trips 6 PROGRAMS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES / SPECIAL NEEDS Carrboro Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events : creative crafts dances - mainstream assistance special events , cookouts , performances Special Olympics softball - trips Chapel Hill Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events . adaptive aquatics county - wide Special Olympics group activities for the visually and hearing impaired - learning garden workshops - mainstream assistance Orange County - Coordinate and conduct workshops for children with special needs . mainstream assistance SENIOR CITIZENS Carrboro - Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest activities and events . arts / crafts classes ( basketry , drawing ) annual community - wide picnic - Breakfast with an Expert series - Carrboro Senior Center events / programs cooking classes dance classes ( tap , line dance ) day trips and tours fitness classes garden groups 7 Chapel Hill Coordinate and conduct year - round special interest j activities and events , antiques and collectibles lectures and trips arts and crafts classes Chapel . Hill Senior Center events / programs day and overnight trips and tours exercise / dance classes genealogy research group special events - theater trips - . Village Elders in Dialogue with University of North Carolina Scholars (lecture series ) Orange County Coordinate and conduct year -- round special interest activities and events : - . arts / crafts classes - day and overnight trips and tours exercise / dance classes -- gardening workshops . SPECIAL EVENTS Carrboro Dogtober ANEW Entertainment Adventures for Families Series A-: alloween Carnival July 4th Celebration MOON Kid ' s New Year ' s Eve Party - Ki " e Fly Ode - Lollipop Series foVIPOWr pLeschooIers AWWWParent / Child Basketball ShooLO - Parent / Child Home - Run Derby - - F Teacher: - Workday Shows . A .. - - _ ap Daycamp Fair , Chapel Hill Apple Chill Street Fair Black History Month Celebration - Dixie Rock Climbing Competition WEEP Festifall Street Fair moda Gospel Concerts ( Hargraves Center ) - - . ^ - - -- � r �- c / varkinn Deck Plaza ) ' r �1r 7 ' 8 July 4th Fireworks - Senior Citizen Luncheons ( Hargraves Center ) Thanksgiving Christmas May Day Spring Break Tournaments ( Hargraves Center ) Orange County Bike Rodeos Hog Day JOINTLY SPONSORED PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS Carrboro / Chapel Hill - July 4th Fireworks Special Olympics Softball Carrboro / Orange County Canine Frisbee Championship and Canine Health Fair - Fishing Rodeo Carrboro / Chapel Hill / Orange County Easter Egg Hunt Celebration Orange County Senior Games FACILITY INVENTORY Carrboro Developed Baldwin Park 2 . 5 acres , picnic area , playground , shelter Brewer ' s Lane Park 1 acre , basketball court , , playground , picnic area Carrboro Community Park 55 acres , pond , 2 basketball courts , 2 tennis courts , 4 baseball / softball fields , open fields , trails , horseshoe pits , picnic shelter , playground 9 Carrboro Elementary Park This site has a dual purpose , serving as both a school and park facility . 1 softball / baseball field . 2 basketball courts Wilson Park 8 . 5 acres , pond , 4 tennis courts , 1 volleyball court , 1 baseball / softball field , basketball court , trails , picnic shelter , playground Undeveloped Morgan Creek Property Runs along both sides of Morgan Creek near multi - family developments Pathway Drive Property Property is accetssible to a bike path allowing easy access to the surrounding ' neighborhoods . School Facilities Used Carrboro Elementary School gymnasium , classrooms Chapel Hill High School tennis courts Culbreth Middle School gymnasium r . Estes Hills Elementary School multipurpose room , gymnasium Frank Porter Graham School multipurpose room , classrooms McDougle Middle School gymnasium , media center , classrooms Phillips Middle School gymnasium Seawell Elementary School gymnasium Other Facilities Used Carrboro Baptist Church Carrboro Civic Club _ rArrhoro Fire Department sr 10 Carrboro Town Hall and Grounds Carr Mill Mall Kenan Stadium � Strayhorn ' s Pond The ArtsCenter University Mall Chapel Hill Developed Battle Branch Greenway Trail pedestrian path from the Community Center Park to Forest Theater Bolin Creek Greenway Phase I pedestrian / bicycle path from Airport Road to Elizabeth Street Burlington Park 5 acres , open field , play area , picnic area Cedar Falls Park 64 acres , 4 baseball / softball fields , 6 tennis courts , trails , picnic area , play area Community Center Park 5 acres , community center building with gymnasium , indoor swimming pool , and meeting room , learning garden , rose garden , picnic area , volley court 2 basketball courts , Play area Ephesus Park 16 acres , 6 tennis courts , baseball / softball field , trails , picnic area , play area Gomains Play Area 1 / 4 acre , play area Greendale Park 15 acres , trails Hargraves Park 5 acres , community building with game room , meeting room and stage , 3 tennis courts , 2 basketball courts , outdoor swimming pool , picnic area , play area , 1 volleyball court Jones Park 10 acres , play area , picnic area , trails Lincoln Center - cnrmna �q i lam _ art- c }-„ i i 1 ri ; n (MT lI Oakwood Park 2 acres , play area , picnic area , 1 tennis court , 1 ballfield / open f ield Phillips Park 1 acre , 4 tennis courts Tanyard Branch Greenway Pedestrian path from Umstead Park to Caldwell Street Umstead Park 16 acres , 1 ballfield , 1 tennis court , 1 basketball court , 2 picnic shelters , play area , 1 volleyball court , trails Westwood Park 1 acre , play area Undeveloped / Proposed. Bolin Creek Greenway Phase • II pedestrian / bicycle path from Elizabeth Street to the . Community Center Park Hargraves Gymnasium addition to . the Hargraves Community Center Little Creek Park . 50 acres in Glen Lennox area located along Cleland Avenue -. . Merritt Pasture 35 acres located near the intersection of U . S 15 - 501 South and 54 West Northern Community Park 37 acres 41pocated along N . C . 86 North North Forest . hiZls 10 acres scheduled to be completed by the Spring , 1995 , im 1 picnic shelter , pic :: ic area , play area , 1 / 2 basketball court , trains Pritchard Park 35 acres surrounding the new ChapelF. i11 Library Southern Commu .r ity Park 80 acres adjacent to the irate = section of U . S 15 - 501 South , and Dogwood Acres Drive School Facilities Used Culbreth Middle School • t_ _ I 1 r ; : l 12 Ephesus Elementary School , ballf field , multipurpose room ' Glenwood Elementary School gymnasium Phillips Middle School ballf ield Other Facilities Used Chapel Hill Senior Center Kenan Stadium Pine Knolls Community Center StreetScene Teen Center The ArtsCenter Orange County Multipurpose Center Orange County Developed Central Recreation Center 2 acres , gymnasium , classrooms , football field Ef land Cheeks Community Center and Park 6 acres , play area , picnic area , shelter , meeting / class rooms Fairview Community Park 42 acres , playground , picnic area Homestead ' Community Center 3 acres , meeting rooms Northern Recreation Center 8 acres , gymnasium , classrooms , play area , softball / soccer field School Facilities Used New Hope Elementary School 4 Gymnasium Orange High School tennis Courts , football field Stanbeck School r.v, mn a C i III f 13 Other Facilities Used y Lake Michael Park ( Mebane ) - i Orange County Department on Aging Classroom Private residential swimming pools Strayhorn ' s Pond r COORDINATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES eFOR CARRB ORO, CHAPEL HILL AND—ORANGE COUNTY May 1 , 1997 ' v 4 y CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION 1 II . OBSERVATIONS 1 III . NEEDS _ 3 IV . OPTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE 5 V . RECOMMENDATIONS 10 10 I . INTRODUCTION A . Purpose : To describe options for improving services through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation functions . Be Method 1 . Review of materials prepared by staff. 2 . Interview with managers and parks and recreation directors from participating jurisdictions . 3 . Preparation of outline report . 4 . Discussion with manager and directors . C . Report content : 1 . Observations regarding activities and participants . 2 . Needs as interpreted from materials and interviews . 3 . Options for improved coordination. 4 . Recommended actions which are most likely to be productive and acceptable to staff, managers , elected officials , and citizens . II . OBSERVATIONS A. Objectives for coordination 1 . To improve effectiveness . 'Doing things better together' . Determining and providing what the citizens want. 2 . To provide sufficient funding for new parks and other facilities in a manner which is equitable for the entire county . 3 . Lower priority objectives include expanding recreation programs and improving efficiency of existing operations . B . Concerns 1 . Primarily , the acquisition and development of new sites (capital improvements ) . 2 . The expansion and improvement of operating programs are concerns , but they are considered to be less urgent and less dependent on intergovernmental coordination than capital development . 1 C . Coordinated capital program 1 . Components : (a) long-range plan, (b) multi-year program , and ( c ) annual budget. 2 . Participating jurisdictions currently have effective , separate capital programs , but coordination between jurisdictions is limited. IStrong support exists for coordinated, "unified " long-range plans for parks and recreation facilities . 4 . Open space dedication or fees - in- lieu of dedication are required by each jurisdiction . Requirements are similar but somewhat different in each jurisdiction. 5 . Orange County has recently initiated a long -range " master recreation and parks " planning process . The process includes intergovernmental representation, but it is not perceived to be a joint effort of Orange County , Chapel Hill , and Carrboro . D . Coordination of operations 1 . There is potential for incremental benefits over several years . Coordination is not expected to produce major, near-term improvements in operations . 2 . Procedures for coordinating separate programs may be easily and quickly initiated.. Obtaining , agreement on the comprehensive consolidation of recreation operations under one agency may be difficult. Partial consolidation of some operating functions may be beneficial and acceptable . 3 . Considerable coordination of existing operations exists . This provides a base for an expanded coordination effort . Examples include the "Fun Finder' listing of programs for all Jurisdictions and the production of the January , 1996 report on " Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County , N. C . 4 . Interviews with managers and directors produced a few examples of operating programs that may be improved with coordination. Examples include : a . Reduction in duplication for a few indoor programs . b . A joint athletics program which will reduce travel distance and improve accessibility . c . Coordination to prevent schedule conflicts for special events . d. A unified approach to senior citizen programs . 2 12 e . A combined program registration system . f. Coordinated fee structure . g . The continuation and, possibly , improvement of joint public information activities . h . A joint " needs study " to determine the types of recreation programs desired by citizens . i . A coordinated plan for recreation services , E . Funding I . There is a widely held opinion that funding for site acquisition and development has been inadequate ' 2 . " Tax district " funding was mentioned by several participants . This indicates interest in revenue sources which are dedicated to parks and recreation purposes because parks have not been adequately funded in the past. F . Park and school coordination 1 The situation : Two separate school districts in Orange County . The County has primary responsibility for capital program budgeting . School site selection authority is the responsibility of the Boards of Education with consultation with the County , 2 . The acquisition of new, combined park and school sites are a primary concern. The development of future joint use facilities and the use of existing school facilities for recreation purposes are secondary concerns . 3 . The two school systems are considered important participants in parks and recreation coordination activities . G . The climate for cooperation : The staff, management, and boards appear to have cooperative and supportive attitudes toward coordination efforts . There is general agreement that serving the needs of the citizens is the important consideration and that the organization which can best do that should be employed. There is a sincere concern for fully involving citizens in efforts to improve coordination . III . NEEDS A . Capital facility planning and programming process 3 13 1 . Joint capital facility plan preparation a. Twenty -year (more or less ) plan which describes approximate sizes , locations , and facility requirements for various park types . Sufficient detail to be directly useful in capital programming and site selection . b . Plan to be adopted by the governing boards of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County . c . A primary objective of the preparation and adoption process is to produce commitment to the plan by staff and governing boards . d . Park plan to be coordinated with a comparable long - range school plan . 2 . Joint capital . improvement programming process for park facilities a. Five -year (more or Less } capital improvement program which provides a schedule and funding plan for park facilities in Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County . b . Annually updated and adopted by the three governing boards . c . A primary objective of the process is to produce commitment to the multi-year funding plan. d. Park capital program to be coordinated with the site acquisition portion of the schools capital program . 3 . Annual parks capital budget coordination process a. Coordination of capital budget recommendations for each jurisdiction by town and. county managers . b . Budget procedure should include method to reconcile differences between governing boards as necessary . 4 . Site selection and site design under the framework of the long- range plans and capital improvement program . Be Operations coordination process 1 . Ongoing process for considering coordination opportunities and recommending budgets and implementation measures . 2 . List of possible components 4 i 24 a . Needs assessment . Market research on citizen ' s preferences . b . Short- term operations planning . Annual plan with three - year (more or less ) framework and annual action plan . c . Continuation and, possibly , expansion of coordinated program information for the public . d. Coordinated registration procedures . e . Optimum use of facilities . f. Fee policies , go lnterlocal agreements or joint contracts with private providers for program operation . Co Park- School coordination 1 . Incorporation of school site planning into the long-range park idering existing school plans if they are plan either by cons sufficient for by preparing a new schools plan in conjunction with the parks plan . 2 . Include joint school and park sites in multi-year capital improvement programs and provide funding for sufficient sites for joint use . 3 . Include school officials in park and recreation operations planning activities as needed and include town and county officials in school site planning activities as needed. IV . OPTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE A . Capital facility planning and program =g 1 . Long-range plan preparation . e a. Clarify or modify the purpose of the Orange County " Master Recreation and Park Plan " to be a joint long- range plan for Carrboro , Chapel Hill , and Orange County, to be adopted by each of the jurisdictions . b . Modify the approved " Work Group " advisory structure that appears to be one committee consisting of a mixture of elected officials , citizen advisory board.# members , and staff. Possibilities include : ( 1 ) A two - committee structure which includes a policy committee comprised of elected officials 5 15 and citizen advisory council members and a technical committee comprised of town, county , and school staff members . (2 ) A three committee structure with a policy committee of elected officials , a citizen advisory group representing existing advisory councils , and aetechnical committee consisting of staff representatives from participating . jurisdictions . ( 3 ) Periodic reviews by ,town and county managers may be needed to assure the production of a document that is suitable to guide capital improvement programs . c . Assure adequate staff support to complete plan in a reasonable time period. The current plan to use Orange County staff is a workable arrangement. I Capital improvement progranu=cr a. Staff group (directors ) to annually prepare a coordinated park capital improvement program recommendation with specific schedules and sources for funding . b . Managers group to annually develop a coordinated capital improvement program proposal for consideration by governing bodies . c . Citizen advisory councils to meet jointly to consider annual program proposal . d. Governing bodies to annually adopt a program . e . Support from parks and recreation, planning , and budgeting staff will be needed. I Capital budgeting a. The first year funding requirements of the capital program should be included in annual budget proposals prepared* by managers and adopted by the jurisdictions, that have funding responsibility . 4 . Capital funding options 6 16 a. General revenues . Growth in Oran e g . County is likely to produce demands for substantial annual capital funding for many years . A " pay- as -you- go " program from general revenues is a good way to fund costs that recur at a fairly consistent level each year. A commitment by Orange County , developed through the capital improvement programming process , to dedicate annual revenues to park development would provide equitable , reliable funding for the long- term capital program. Countywide taxing jurisdiction makes Orange County a logical funding agent for new parks and facilities , particularly those that serve areas larger than neighborhoods . Annual revenues are a good source of funds for an ongoing site acquisition . program. _ b . Bond funding . Bonds can provide substantial funding over a short time period (three years more or less ) to meet existing deficiencies that have accumulated. They are " useful in funding high costs of park development or a major acquisition initiative . Orange County is the logical jurisdiction to hold a bond referendum, issue the bonds , and manage the use of the funds for the entire county. c . Development exactions and fees . Each jurisdiction requires open space dedication or fees -in-lieu of dedication. To the extent that these contributions from new development are intended to serve community- wide needs , the park planning and progranuning process should direct them. d. Service district tax. If a portion of a governmental jurisdiction requires a higher level of service than the entire jurisdiction, an additional property tax can be levied on properties in the special district. Sub- areas with special needs have not been identified in Orange County . If it could be determined that service needs differ substantially in different parts of the county , a special tax could be . applicable . This may be difficult to demonstrate . e . Designation of funds . There is an opinion that parks and recreation has been substantially under funded and that an arrangement to set aside . a portion of local revenues is ' needed to correct this deficiency . Advocates sometimes seek funding gimmicks that 17 avoid competition with other purposes . A deliberate dedication of funds for park capital purposes in Orange County is probably needed, but it should be done as the result of the capital planning and programming process and normal governmental deliberation . Special arrangements which offer tax dedication and insulation from normal governmental processes should be avoided. B . Coordination of park and recreation operations l . Organization , a. Staff group (directors ) to develop recommendations for improvement through coordinated action . b . Managers group to periodically review recommendations and agree on proposals to be presented to governing boards . c . Separate but related actions by governing boards such as approval , of budgets and agreements . d. Special staff support may be necessary to develop information and facilitate meetings - of the staff group . Staff time available will be a major determinant of . depth of study. The directors can rotate as facilitators with some success , but their time to devote to coordination is severely limited. It may be necessary to employ a part time or full thinek person to support the_ coordination program. I Functions a . . Preparation of needs assessment and operations plan . b . Recommendation of interlocal service agreements . c . Recommendation of agreements with external providers . d . Coordination of activities such as program information , registration, and facility use . e . Development of work sharing arrangements to avoid duplication and share special resources such as talented instructors . 3 . Funding s 18 a . Negotiated arrangements using normal program revenues and general revenues . b . Coordinated user fee policies with heavy reliance on user fees for special benefit programs to minimize inequity in use of tax revenues . C . Consolidation approaches 1 . . Orange County as sole owner and operator of parks and recreation facilities and programs . . a. Description: Most assets , staff, and program responsibilities transferred from towns to county . Complete funding and management responsibilities to be assumed by County. Towns could *be part of advisory structure similar to citizen advisory councils . b . Advantages : County has authority without special legislation or agreements . County is available for the long-term. County represents all the citizens and service area. Countywide tax base provides equity in funding . Sole ownership and management ides best opportunity for realizing responsibility prov the benefits of coordination such as economy of scale , optimum resource management, and unified planning . County is in best position to coordinate with schools . ` As a general purpose local government, the County will balance parks and recreation needs with other needs competing for tax resources . Planning and decision processes - are simple and direct. c . Disadvantages : Loss of control by town governments . Potential for County to be less accessible to customers in small operating issues . Agreement on transfer of assets and staff may be difficult. Special services to small areas and small groups may be reduced. The difficulty of achieving political approval of a major change in governmental service structure . I Orange County as the , future owner and operator of parks and recreation facilities and programs . a. Description : County acquisition, development, and maintenance of new facilities . County provision of new and expanded services to the entire county with 9 minimal growth in town programs . County assumption of responsibility for most facilities and services at some future time when capacity to perform and community acceptability has been demonstrated. b . Advantages : Same as in 1 b , but attained over time with enhanced opportunity for acceptance . The County is in the best position to be the lead agent in funding , acquisition, and maintenance for an expandea capital program . This role can position the County to become the primary provider of facilities and programs and to be accepted as such . Transfer of existing major park ownership and maintenance responsibility to County may be an interim step . c . Disadvantages : Same as 1 c except community acceptance and transition problems would be reduced . 3 . Program management by Carrboro or Chapel Hill . a. Description : lnterlocal agreements to assign countywide responsibility to one town . b . Advantages : Reduced administrative responsibility and cost for one town and the County . Benefits of coordination, such as economy of scale and more effective use of resources would be realized for operating programs . c . Disadvantages : The operating town would have responsibility without control of revenues . Potential for intergovernmental disagreement on annual funding . Little benefit for capital program because an intergovernmental process for facility lanni p ng and capital funding would still be necessary . Benefits would be limited to those associated with operations coordination . 4 . Independent governmental authority ( independent park district) a . Description . Independent governmental unit established for the purpose of providing park facilities and services . Powers to tax and issue bonds independently from other governing agencies . Board of directors may be either elected or appointed by existing governi e ng boards . 10 Lu . I b . Advantages : Independence,. No competition for revenues within the limitations established by special enabling legislation . Focus on parks and recreation purpose with few distractions . Primarily beneficial in situations where a general purpose local government with appropriate geographic jurisdiction does not exist. c . Disadvantages : Limit axi ation on tng power may be too low to operate appropriately or so high that excessive expenditure is encouraged. Absence of competition with other governmental programs for scarce resources . Authority can only be granted and modified by the General Assembly . Independence from general purpose local government . Reduced accountability to citizens . D ° Park- School coordination 1 . Long-range plan : Board members from each school system should be included in policy committee . Staff members from each school system should be included in technical committee . 2 . Capital improvement programming : Staff members from the school systems should meet annually with parks and recreation directors to develop coordinated capital improvements program recommendations . School superintendents should meet each year with town and county managers to coordinate capital improvement program proposals . 3 . Operation planning :, Staff members from each school system should be involved with parks and recreation directors in operations planning to the extent that issues relate to use of school facilities . 4 ° Orange County managers and board should assure adherence to park- school development plans during annual school budget review . 5 . Agreement on coordinated capital facility planning : Formal agreement adopted by towns , the county, and the school boards will be a useful step in defining responsibilities and commitment to coordinated action in acquiring all school/park sites . It is desirable that that all future school/park sites are determined within a formal plan and an agreement be adopted much like the one in use for Wake 11 21 County and titled " Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Facility Planning " . V . RECOMMENDATIONS A . First priority : Capital development 1 . The long - range plan is the first step , . a necessary framework . Should be in a form to be clearly understood and useful in annual programming . Should be adopted as a serious commitment by all players . I Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in time to produce proposals for 199 & 99 budgets . I Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority . _ 4 . Orange County should play a major role in funding , acquisition , development, ownership , and maintenance of new facilities . 5 . If the planning process indicates that new facility needs are as great as expected, a substantial, countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration. Be Second Priority . Coordination of operations 1 . Joint planning, needs assessment, and selected cooperative actions are appropriate purposes fora staff work group . 2 . 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, especially if the County assumes a major role in capital development as well . C . Consolidation Approaches : Start 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 . D . Voluntary Coordination and Commitment : Coordination can fail because other important matters distract the participants . Capable and adequate staffing will be needed to develop materials , set agendas , and prod participants in both capital and operating 12 22 programs . Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained. E . It is desirable that a plan be developed that coordinates site selection in regards to all school/park sites . An agreement should be approved that is similar to the one in use in Wake County and titled "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Facility Planning" I i e REPORT OF THE . MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS WORK GROUP ( Digital Pic here ) May 26 , 1999 , , , a , s9 5/ 18/ 99 Table of Contents I . Background History 1 A . Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan 1 Be Joint Planning Efforts - 1996 - 97 1 C . Summary of Existing Plans 3 D . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan 3 II . Descriptive Scenario on Where are we now? S A . Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources 5 Be Parks and Recreation Needs 6 C . Parks and Recreation Standards 8 D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed 8 III . Future Efforts and Issues - Where to go from here ? 13 A . Park/ Recreation Acquisition Goals , Objectives and Criteria 13 Be Joint Siting and Management of Sites 15 c . Impediments to Location of New Facilities 16 d . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through CIP 's and Land - Banking - 17 E . Coordination Opportunities with UNC and Implications of UNC Expansion 17 F. Coordination Opportunities with OWASA 19 G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University 19 Iv . Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands and Natural Use Corridors 21 1 A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met 21 Be Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in Rural Areas 21 C . Analysis Criteria of Land for Greenways and Corridors 23 vo Acquisition of Land 26 A . Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program 26 Be Funding Sources 28 via Payment- In - Lieu Programs 30 A . Development Exactions for Recreation Land in Orange County 30 Be Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 30 C . Current Status of Payment - in - Lieu Throughout the County 31 D . Difficulties with Payment- in - Lieu Programs 33 E . Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally 34 vII . Proposals and Recommendations 3S A . Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council 35 Be Inter-jurisdictional Efforts to Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements 36 C . Joint Siting , - Design , and Management of School/ Park Sites Across Jurisdictions 36 D . Public/ Private Partnerships 36 E . Joint Capital Facilities Plan / Coordinated Land Identification, Acquisition and Banking 37 F . Open Facilities Policy 38 . G . Pay. ment - in - Lieu Changes 38 H . Address Existing Needs 39 I . Recommendations for Use of Current and Future Bond Funds 41 Appendices A- K 5 / 18 / 99 L BAC KG RQ U N D AND - HISTORY . Over the last decade , several recreation and parks planning efforts have been undertaken across Orange County , with policy recommendations covering a spectrum of related issues . Committees , - citizen work groups , and local governments have worked together in developing guidelines for the future recreation and open space needs of our County . Through these efforts , we can ensure the provision of a wide range of recreational opportunities and venues for all citizens . This section includes the overarching rationale for the creation of a framework for ioint planning of recreation and parks , as well as a listing of the primary recommendations of these various working j groups from 1988 to the present . i A . Rationale for Interaovernmenta / Plan Guiding policies for the update include . • Explore the relationship between existing and proposed school sites and parks • Explore strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural resources through acquisition and open space design , including the relationship of these resources to active and low - impact recreational uses • Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities ( See Appendix A ) These policies provide the impetus for much of the current update effort and are largely based upon a combination of current and past concerns and efforts . B . Joint Recreation - Planning Efforts ; 1996 = 97 'i Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 19961 Parks Work group developed recommendations to _ The Recreation and Pa g p p 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 , eiders and public/ private rivate and support private recreation pro p / p 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 . 5 / 18 / 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 . Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange County ( 1997 ) The purpose of this report was to describe different options for the improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental coordination of parks and recreation functions . The report contains several different parts related to the investigation of adequate park and recreation facilities . Observations of activities were made , needs were assessed , options were developed , and recommended actions were proposed . The recommendations were divided into four major categories , capital development , coordination of operations , consolidation approaches , and voluntary coordination and commitment . The recommendations follow below : Capital Development A long - range plan should be adopted as a serious commitment by all players • Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should be initiated in time to produce programs for future budgets • Acquisition and protection of good sites should be the initial priority • Orange County should play a major role in funding , acquisition , development , ownership , and maintenance of new facilities • A Countywide bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration if needs are as great as expected 2 5 / 18/ 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 _ rowing consolidation of services under the County Consolidation Approaches • Begin with coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions Develop new facilities and programs as county functions • Consider complete consolidation in several years after experience with coordination and partial consolidation Voluntary Coordination and Commitment • Capable and adequate staffing needed to develop materials , set agendas , and prod participants in both capital and operating programs • Management to assure that commitment is evident and sustained Shaping Orange County 's Future Parks and Recreation Issues ( 199 I See Appendix B for excerpts from SOCF Transportation ,, Infrastructure ,ture , and Services (TIS ) report which includes parks and recreation issue list . C . Summary of Existing Plans See Appendix A for summaries of existing recreation and parks plans . D . Background / Rationale for Updating Joint Plan Charge to Work Group : Update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long - range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. The most recent efforts in developing the intergovernmental master park and recreation plan- have included the formation of a work group comprised of elected officials , citizens , staff, and interested stakeholders . This Commissioner- appointed work group divided into two subcommittees to address updating the countywide needs assessment as well as an inventory of public , quasi - public , and private recreational facilities and opportunities , _ These subcommittees then re - 3 5 / 18/ 99 formed into the large work group to address issues such as the incorporation of wildlife corridors and open space preservation into parkland acquisition . In addition , park and recreation department supervisors from each jurisdiction worked together to develop facility and program standards to be used county - wide , and County staff researched various issues regarding land acquisition , dedication / payment - in - lieu , and school / park joint siting . Staff then prepared versions of the final report for work group comment and made adjustments accordingly . The work group developed the final proposals and recommendations for the master plan , which staff then incorporated into the final report to be submitted' to the Orange County Board of Commissioners . 0 4 5 / 18/ 99 Un . DESCRIPTIVE SCENARIO : WHERE ARE WE N oW?`r Before decisions are ma-de regarding the manner in which the park bond funds will be disbursed , the work group had to first gain an idea of the state of park and recreation facilities within the county and its municipalities . It was necessary to have an accurate picture of who is providing for the recreation needs of the citizenry , whether through public , quasi - public , or private means . Once the needs and resources were identified , standards for future park and recreation provisions were incorporated into the decision - making process . A . Inventory of Resources One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to create an inventory of the current recreation resources and parks within the County ( see Appendix C ) , The Resource Subcommittee developed categories for the inventory and decided it was important to address resources within all sectors of our community . Thus , the inventory was split into lists for private , public , and quasi - public . Private consists primarily of apartment complexes , neighborhood clubs , and larger, specialized clubs ( e . g . tennis club , country club ) . However , locations such as Duke Forest are also listed as private since they are privately owned with primary missions other than recreation . Public resources identified were parks , trails , community centers , and other locales open to and funded by the public . Quasi-public entities include community centers and Ruritan clubs usually open to the public with additional contact required , UNC facilities selectively opened to the public , and government - owned facilities , such as Cane Creek Reservoir, which allows recreation while maintaining the primary mission of water supply protection . Once the list was divided , the categoriesa were modified to more accurately reflect specific resources in each ownership grouping . For example , the quasi - public list may include a category inventorying whether the facilities require additional contact before use , while this issue would infrequently apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues . The Work Group and staff's personal knowledge of resources in the area , inventories recently completed by participating municipalities , and information from area apartment associations and complexes were 5 5/ 18/ 99 all . used in development of the document . The roster of apartments is that of complexes listed in Orange County tax records . Thus , this is not a complete listing of all complexes in the county or municipalities . B . ' Needs Identified for County and Municipalities The Needs Assessment Subcommittee was formed in order to more accurately identify specific needs of facilities throughout each jurisdiction . The following active recreation needs were identified through this process : 1 . Orange County al Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks School / Community Park . kLn progress b ) Develop Courthouse/ River Park (jointly with Town of Hillsborough ) . c ) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground . d ) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park and renovate the building . e ) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System and replace windows . f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill/ Bingham Township . g ) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA . h ) Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for locating schools and park sites and to construct larger gymnasiums at future schools to address the overcrowding of indoor recreation activities . 0 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 5 / 18 / 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 FY98 - 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 the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will : • Identify community leisure needs , values • Clarify/ revise Department mission • Perhaps develop community standards for park and recreation planning/ development 3 . Town of Carrboro a ) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park b ) Community Gymnasium c ) Provide general on - going renovations to all existing facilities at all community , neighborhood , and mini - park sites . d ) Along with the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System , provide expanded recreation facilities at existing and new facilities . e ) Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where possible . Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements along Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system . f) Fully develop the " Morgan Creek Neighborhood Park . " g ) Acquire property for " Bolin Creek Neighborhood Park " and fully develop . h ) Fully develop " Odum Mini - Park " a 7 5/ 18 / 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 ) : a ) Playing fields for organized sports b ) Basketball courts c ) Safe places to walk and bicycle d ) Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences e ) Neighborhood parks f) Skateboard facilities C . Standards See Section VII for recommendations on the development of coordinated standards . See Appendix D for existing standards . D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed In previous years , different jurisdictions have issued bonds for recreation and parks projects . A number of existing facilities used by County and Town residents were funded through these bonds . The following is a listing of bonds approved and projects constructed or 8 5 / 18 / 99 other accomplishments in the past five years . 1 . Orange County Bond Funds $ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November , 1997 : • Park Land Acquisition ' $ 3 . 0 Million • Development $ 3 . 0 Million Efland - Cheeks Community School Park $ 0 . 5 Million Northern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million Southern Chapel Hill Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million Other Park Facilities $ 0 . 5 Million 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 ( $ 9 , 200 plus $ 14 , 000 Smart - Start grant ) . • Purchased 40 acres adjoining the Northern Human Services Center ( $ 1101000 ) . • Developed Efland - Cheeks Community School/ Park Master Plan and began construction of Phase I . ( $ 722 , 500 ) 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 i 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 9 5/ 18 / 99 • Funded Cedar Falls Park , Chapel Hill Community Center , Umstead Park , five ballfields , 20 tennis courts and Hargraves Recreation Center 3 . Town of Carrboro $ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978 • Funded Anderson Community Park acquisition / development Accomplishments - Past Five Years • Lighting of ballfield at Anderson Community Park • Renovation of Wilson Park tennis courts • Removal and renovation of playground at Baldwin Park Current Projects / Ongoing Improvements • Acquisition and renovation of Carrboro Baptist Church building for Carrboro Community Center 4 . Town of Hillsborough This section to be rewritten in same format as others , with breakout of accomplishments and fundin4 ) Current Projects : Cooperative projects # between Hillsborough and Orange County River Park - Approximately 5 acres of county land located in downtown Hillsborough between the new courthouse and river is being planned for an urban park and open space . The town has pledged $ 50 , 000 for this effort . At least $ 25 , 000 has been spent and the remainder is available when the county is ready to proceed . A re - creation of the 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 . Preliminary investigation is underway . The estimated cost of a full - blown 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 10 5 / 18/ 99 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 NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( 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 . 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 withiry the town of Hillsborough is outlined in both Hillsborough ' s Parks and Recreation and Transportation Plans , 5 . Grant Funding Received Each municipality within the County , as well as Orange County , have received funds from various programs throughout the last couple decades for the purpose of constructing and improving recreational facilities . These grant funds originate at various levels of government . Examples of funding opportunities include the State Park and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) , North Carolina Department of 11 5 / 18/ 99 Transportation ( NCDOT ) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , the Community Development Block Grant Program ( CDBG ) , and the now defunct Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund . The range of projects completed with these funds is broad . Examples of funded projects include nature trail construction , bike trail construction , balifield construction , and playground upgrades . The following table illustrates the total amount of grant funding received by Orange County , and its municipalities within the last 20 years . Local • vernment Unit Total Funds - • as Grants $ 29,490 : ... . . ... .: . : 3:1a 12 5 / 18/ 99 T - RE . EFFORTS AND ISSUES : = WH ERE TCO FRaM HERE ? With the knowledge of what facilities , needs and standards exist at this time ( see Section II and appendices ) , the Work Group has discussed the direction of future efforts . In particular, there are two key areas to which attention should be drawn . First , a working set of goals and objectives must be developed that meet the diverse recreation and parks needs of the County . To implement these goals , criteria have been developed for the expenditure of future resources for land acquisition and facility siting . Subsection A below addresses these needs . Second , the potential for joint siting and management of sites is seen as a logical extension of the information gathered to date . An evaluation of possibilities in this area is also warranted , and is included as subsection B . Impediments to locating new facilities, potential for coordination with Duke and OWASA in meeting future goals, and mechanisms for accomplishing these objectives are also addressed in this section . A . Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals, Objectives and Criteria 1 . Goals and Objectives for Land Acquisition j i In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs , j there are several goals that have become apparent through the discussions of the Work Group : Goals * Encourage school / park joint planning * Preserve natural resources * Promote multi jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts * Preserve watersheds and water quality * Encourage historic and cultural preservation * Identify and emphasize targeted needs * Establish public/ private partnerships * Encourage the dedication of easements * Implement land - banking opportunities * Acquire/ purchase parkland through development process * Develop linear parks concepts and plans 13 5 / 18 / 99 Using these goals , more - specific objectives were identified : Ob ' e� ctives * Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is environmentally sensitive, such as wetlands ; * Develop a program for land dedication / recreation payment that is more effective and comprehensive , * Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with the creation of recreation facilities ; * Develop linear parks in the Rural Buffer, and explore opportunities along other identified stream corridors ; * " Retrofit " existing developed properties for recreation ; * Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper Eno River preservation efforts ; * Develop land - use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood parks 2 . Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition Subiect to approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , a system should be developed to evaluate how well potential land acquisitions meet the goals and objectives . A number of specific measures have been suggested both for the purchase of property , and for the appropriateness of siting facilities . The components of this system would become the basis of the Recreation and Parks Acquisition section of the County 's Resource Acquisition Program ( see Section V ) , Potential Land Acquisition Criteria ( examples ) : * The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction ; Grants and other funding opportunities ; * Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan ; * Identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County , N . C . ;. * Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses ( Rogerson/ Oakwood neighborhood park ) ; Appropriate intensity of use for the area ( Merritt Pasture at NC 54 and US 15/ 501 ) ; * Location ( Northern Community Park ) ; * Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors , Qreenways and linear parks ; Land adjacent to new schools ( Efland - Cheeks , Southern Park ) ; * Land for active recreation is suitable and appropriate for uses ( i . e . , not ecologically - sensitive areas ) , 14 5 / 18 / 99 * Furthers purposes of Upper . Eno and New Hope Corridor preservation efforts. * Access ( transportation ) is safe and easily - accomplished ; * Meeting multiple goals ( above ) gets higher weighting , Potential Facilities Siting Criteria . * Facilities should be centrally located for population to be served * Both active and low - impact ( natural area ) recreation opportunities may exist on - site ; * School / park joint use sites are preferred ; * Facility addresses a broad range of needs ; * An adopted facility plan must exist , * Promotes pedestrian , bicycle , and public transportation ; * Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e . lighting ) B . Joint Siting and Management of Sites , ( Suggest reducing the length of this section ) 1 . Schools and Land Use Councils. In Orange County , a number of elected officials make decisions that affect schools . The towns and county make land use decisions and approve developments that can increase the numbers of school children . The school boards are responsible for school policy and school buildings , while the county is responsible for providing adequate school facilities . To coordinate the efforts of these entities , the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools and Land Use Council and the Orange County Schools and Land Use Council were formed . The purpose of the Schools and Land Use Councils is to advise the Board of County . Commissioners concerning growth and land use issues relating to schools . The Schools and Land Use Councils were given the following specific charge : To develop a coordinated plan for approving developments, accounting for the impact of the developments on school capacity, siting schools, and building schools to meet demonstrated need in a timely manner. Membership on the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , two Carrboro Board of Aldermen , two Chapel Hill Town Council members , and one Orange County Commissioner , The Orange County Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , 15 5 / 18/ 99 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 bi - monthly ( with one or two exceptions ) since that time . Most meetings have been joint although there have been a few meetings specific to one council or the other . To date , the councils have : • Adopted a Resolution of Intent Concerning the Role of the Schools and Land Use Councils ; • adopted a Structure for Communication that defines procedures whereby local governments and schools systems keep each other apprised of activities/decisions that may impact the other ; and • initiated discussion on a Memorandum of Agreement on Co4ocation of Facilities ( see Appendix Q . r 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 and low - impact recreation , a definition of active and passive recreation might be an important first step to addressing impacts . While many definitions could be developed for the terms active .recreation and lowjmpact recreation , the following might serve as a starting point : Active Recreation : Recreation facilities programmable for structured activities, such as ballfields, tennis courts and picnic shelters . Low-Impact Recreation : Facilities that are designed for individual rather than structured activities, such as hiking trails, open picnic tables, open fields and other natural areas . Having defined the nature of active recreation , several points were noted as critical to resolution of future siting problems . • Examples from other communities that have public education on facility location and public input into decisions ; • Point out the positive components of nearby active recreation ; 16 5 / 18 / 99 • Focus on greater community needs and the downside of not 9 Y providing active facilities ; • Work to better define the type of land appropriate for active facilities with lights - locating adjacent to schools and other more - intensive uses ; • Stress accessibility to pedestrians bicycle riders , and public transportation ;. • If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to residential communities , buy larger land area to develop buffers for shielding of light and noise . (THIS SECTION POSSIBLE CANDIDATE FOR SHORTENING ) 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 to 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 low - impact recreation needs at the district park level ( 100 - plus acres ) , it may be possible to develop trails and retain natural areas on the perimeter 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 low - impact . • 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 . 0 17 5/ 18 / 99 D . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through Capital Improvement Plans ( CIP 's ) and Land - Banking To be developed. A meeting of the Managers, elected representatives and staffs is being scheduled to address these issues, but will not occur prior to the completion of this report. 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 UNC - CH , while others in the towns and County rely largely on the three jurisdictions facilities . " Town - Gown Opportunities According to UNC recreation managers,, facility needs for students are largely met on the UNC campus. UNC officials estimate that a small number of students use town facilities, excluding the use of privately held soccer fields. As mentioned above, it is widely known that citizens throughout the community use various facilities owned by UNC. While towns ' concerns are largely centered around facility use by students, faculty use of both UNC and public facilities also arise when developing methods of assessing use and needs by jurisdictions. The exact numbers of faculty and students utilizing UNC facilities is unknown . DELETE or CLARIFY: Faculty are thought to use the. public facilities more often as more visible members of the community than students on campus. Some officials from UNC see the balance of town -gown recreation facility use as harmonious 18 5 / 18/ 99 while select town perceptions focus on increasing public-sector facility pressures. UNC is also working to encourage the public use of some of its facilities such as the Carolina Outdoor Education Center (see Appendix E) . This facility includes tennis courts, a frisbee golf course, bike trails, and rope courses. UNC wants to educate the public about recreation availability, especially encouraging lesser- known facilities around campus. F . Coordination Opportunities with OWASA The Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA ) has been an active part of Orange County 's efforts surrounding recreation and park planning . Representatives of the OWASA Board and staff are members of the Work Group , and ' have actively contributed to the efforts of the County in providing higher levels of recreation and park service to citizens in the community . OWASA owns over 3 , 000 acres in Orange County , and the local governments have expressed interest in discussing recreation possibilities on parts of these holdings . Both OWASA - owned Cane Creek Reservoir lands and University Lake ( which is leased from UNC ) are unique recreational locations in the County . These combined areas represent nearly 2 , 000 acres within southwestern Orange County . As some of the only formal locations with boating , fishing , and canoeing in the County , these areas are recreational opportunities the County is interested in maintaining . Partnerships with OWASA 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 F ) . OWASA 's 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 iowJmpact recreation . G . Coordination Opportunities with Duke University Duke Forest is private land owned and managed by Duke University as an outdoor educational and research facility. Comprised of seven disjunct tracts of land, the Forest covers nearly 8000 acres of 19 5 / 18/ 99 woodlands and fields. Within the Forest there are a variety of forest ecosystems, stand ages, plant species, wildlife, soils, topography, and past land uses. Orange County contains five of the Duke Forest tracts, called 'divisions ', for a total of almost 5000 acres in the County. The Duke Forest is fully accessible through an established network of roads and footpaths. Although not expressly invited, the public is permitted to use the maintained road and trail system for recreational purposes. Permissible uses include hiking, biking, horseback riding, fishing, and picnicking, with horses and mountain bikes being restricted to the access roads. These uses are allowed 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 1990 survey estimated Duke Forest visitation at 273, 000 visits per year. Following a 15 percent increase i p n the county 's population since that survey, it is likely that Forest- wide use currently exceeds 310, 000 visits per year. Since many of the Duke Forest roads and trails are in Orange County, it is probable that current use by residents of Orange County exceeds 235, 000 visits per year. Public use of the Duke Forest has the potential to cause conflicts with ongoing research and teaching, in addition to creating concerns related to maintenance and liability. In recent years, an increasing amount of Duke Forest staff time has been spent in response to problems caused by improper public use and over- use. Attempts have been made to reduce liability and conflicts between academic and public uses by directing the public to less sensitive areas, restricting permissible activities, and educating the public about the academic mission of the Duke Forest. However, in light of increasing public demand for natural area recreation, reduction in conflicts with the academic mission of the Forest will only occur with the addition of public facilities provided by the surrounding counties and municipalities. In light of this, the future appears to offer opportunities to work with Duke to address mutual interests. 20 5 / 18 / 99 IVY AL DATE AN :D TI:M ELY , PROVISION -. OF: Q PAKLANC'� ANC . NATURAL Pt CORRIDtRS 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 , trails , and linear parks , School/ park combinations ; Acquisition of open space and natural areas for low - impact recreation ; Land - banking ; - • Active recreation facilities and / or gymnasiums • Larger community/ district parks with a mixture of activities Neighborhood - scale parks If coordinated capital funding and land - banking possibilities are pursued , a fluid and flexible process must be developed . This would allow for revisions as well as the introduction of new priorities , along with a timetable that ranks needs and establishes a reasonable timeframe to assure the communities ' recreational needs are being met . A model along the lines of the NCDOT seven - year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP ) might be a starting point . A multi jurisdictional committee charged with evaluating needs , funding availability and long - term plans could undertake the development , of this mechanism . B . Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife corridors in Rural Areas ' s . 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 - 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 ) . 21 5 / 18 / 99 1 . Greenways In the past 15 years , a considerable degree of planning has occurred in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for greenways . In 1985 , the Town of Chapel Hill received a Greenways Task Force Report that led to the creation of a Greenways Commission , and the planning and development of Bolin Creek Greenway , In 1996 , a Comprehensive Greenways Master Plan was adopted that outlines future greenways , funding and construction plans and priorities . The 1996 plan focused on four new greenway trails : Lower Booker Creek ( Phase II ) , Upper Booker Creek , Dry Creek ( phase I ) and Dry Creek ( Phase II ) . While the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough do 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 of Hillsborough . Future efforts to explore greenways in Carrboro, possibly linked to the Town 's extensive bikeways, are also on the horizon . 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 . In many of these corridors a primitive trail system may already exist , formed by years or use by wildlife and local hikers . 22 5 / 18 / 99 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 ( REDUCE DETAIL OR PUT IN APPENDIX , EXCEPT FOR LAST SECTION STARTING WITH " With these Priorities in mind . . . " ) 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 10400t paved greenway 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 . 5 . Paved Greenway Trail , under 104eet wide . Can be pedestrian - only or allow bicycle use . Maintenance . 23 5 / 18/ 99 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 residerJitial structures to preserve privacy • Located in areas where periodic access for emergency vehicles can be sited Greenway Evaluation Criteria • Located along streamway systems in urban or surrounding areas • Co - located with existing easements ( such as utility easements ) • Located as far as possible from residential structures to preserve privacy • Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank 24 i 5 / 18 / 99 • 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 . Additionally, plans for development of a coordinated intra - County system should be developed with linkages to the regional plans for parks and trails. Linkages along the Haw River, Eno River State Park, Jordan Lake and future rails - to - trails initiatives may be critical components of a long-range regional trails system. The Joint Planning Area Strategy Map shows the beginnings of such a system that was envisioned in 1987 . While considerable further work 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 Meadowmont and UNC to the UNC Botanical Garden to Jordan Lake lands . v 25 5 / 18 / 99 11. W AC 4x .UIsITIC3N o t_AN D 1 1 . , . . A . Coordination with County Resource Acquisition Program On January 4 , 1999 , Orange County created a Department of Environment and Resource Conservation . One of the principal tasks for the new department is the development of a Resource Acquisition Program . While primarily targeted to the preservation of natural and cultural resources , the program will also address acquisition measures for recreation lands and parks - since many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and recreation are intertwined . Since the County 's resources are located in all quadrants of the County , irrespective of planning jurisdiction , the program offers an opportunity for coordinated acquisition with the Towns and OWASA . A new position will be established 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 . Additional efforts will be needed to complete the task , including the collation of data from inventories previously compiled . This program will coordinate the acquisition of land for historic sites , natural resources , parks and recreation, and farmland - using matching funds and seed money from the County . As such , the program will be inter- related with the Schools/ Land Use and Master Recreation and Parks efforts . It is thus anticipated that the eventual goals , objectives and criteria identified in this report will be inputs into the acquisition program for recreation and parks facilities . v 26 5 / 18 / 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 C. 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 C. Establishing a Countywide Land Trust D. Roles of County Commissions and Advisory Boards E. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships F. Stewardship and Post-Acquisition Structure VII . Alternative Funding Sources (grants , etc) A . County CIP Allocations Be Other County Funds C. Grants from Clean Water Management Trust Fund D. Grants from Natural Heritage Trust Fund E. Grants from NC Recreation and Parks Trust Fund F. Federal Funds G. Soil and Water Administered Funds H. Many Others a Section III - Implementation VIII . Recommended Implementation Program A . Management Structure Be Board of Directors / Oversight Boards Co Funding Plans D. Plan of Action E. Stewardship and use of Lands 27 5 / 18 / 99 B . Funding Sources 1 . Alternative Sources The means and methods of funding future recreation and parks needs may involve a number of approaches and combinations . As discussed in Section III , a coordinated approach for capital funding of acquisitions might be desirable . Some possibilities for funding sources might include : • Bond referenda from the County or Towns • Grants from programs such as the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund , the Natural Heritage Trust Fund ( via state agencies ) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program , and other sources ( add examples ) • Allocations from local government general funds or special accounts • Contributions from other agencies with interests • Matching funds from local governments • Payment - in - Lieu or New Program of funding through development ( see Sections VI and VII ) 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 ( 30 % ) to provide matching funds to local governmental units on a dollar4or- dollar basis for local park and recreation purposes . These funds shall be allocated by the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority based on criteria patterned after the Open Project Selection Process established for the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior . ' Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statutes . 28 5 / 18 / 99 3 ) Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program . Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) through revenue stamps began 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 back into " Orange County , to the Town of . Hillsborough for the Occoneechee Mountain Park . This is .the only local funding that has been received . FundsTotal County Funds Portion of County Matching Funds • Date Program $ 11351 , 727 $ 304 , 139 $ 31 , 500 The remaining twenty - five percent ( 25 % ) of the local revenue stamps goes to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund created under G . S . 113 - 77 . 7 . The monies generated from this fund are used to acquire natural lands for state parks , preserves , wildlife conservation areas , coastal reserves , natural and scenic rivers , historic site properties , and other outdoor recreation and natural areas . Fund priorities are given to projects that will protect areas of state or national ecological significance or outstanding cultural significance , and are granted only to state and federal agencies . 2 Funds are only available to state agencies, or local governments working in conjunction with state agencies. To date , Orange County has contributed $ 337 , 932 to the Natural Heritage Fund program through revenue stamps . The only federal or state programs in Orange County that have received money is the Eno River State Park . v 2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage . 29 5 / 18/ 99 VL PAYMENT- IN - LLEU PROGRAMS A . Development Exactions for Recreation in Orange County Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas . Increasing pressures on funds generated from the traditional property tax levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and recreation . Public officials have been encouraged to consider alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the property tax base and bond funds . Alternatives to purchase and dedications include payment - In - lieu and impact fee programs . The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions in Orange County have recreation requirements Wtheir own Subdivision Regulations or Land Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated , private recreation facilities provided , or a combination thereof. These requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/ police authority of local governments to protect the health , safety , and welfare of their communities . These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority , similar to roads., utilities , and other public improvements required as conditions for subdivision approval . The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Messer v . Town of Chapel Hill , 297 S . E . 2d 632 ( 1982 ) , in holding that the Town ordinance , within the statutory powers given to a city , could exact recreation land or facilities and even require the particular site within the subdivision, to provide adequate recreation needs . B . Definition of Payment-in -Lieu and Zmpact Fee Programs 1 . Payment- in - Lieu A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities has been the inclusion of a payment-in4ieu program under this same general statutory power. In this program, a subdivision developer pays a fee related to the jurisdiction 's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation lands, of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate. These fees then help provide recreation facilities within the immediate area of the development. tf the developer is provided the option to meet the jurisdiction 's requirements or make some commensurate payment4n4ieu of recreation facilities, the jurisdiction is empowered to accept the payment under its existing statutory powers. Payment-in -lieu fees must be geographically designated within the " immediate area " of the development,, 30 5 / 18 / 99 spent within a reasonable amount of time, and supplemented with other funds. 2 . Impact Fees (SOMEHOW INCLUDE HOW THIS MIGHT WORK WITH IMPACT TAXI _ An impact fee requires the developer to pay a fee representing the prorated cost of providing community- wide and area - wide recreational facilities required by this new development. The use of the fee requires authority from the legislature through enabling legislation, and Orange County currently has the authority for such impact fees. Orange County also has special legislation which allows payments to be collected and spent on a "district" basis. The county must be divided into at least two districts within which funds will be distributed. Orange County also has a Public School Facilities Impact Fee, but no other impact fee is currently in use in the county for any other services. In using these fees, there must be exhibited a correlation showing the (1 ) actual need created by the impact of the development and (2) benefits provided to the particular subdivision. C . Current Status of PaymentoommLieu Throughout the County Methods of assessing a development 's recreation impact vary across the different jurisdictions within Orange County. Appendix G indicates the method by which Orange County and Carrboro calculate their payment required for the payment-in - lieu program. Instead of using a set schedule of payments, Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of land instead of payments. The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation and open space needs. In terms of the reality of the programs, in Carrboro, many developments choose to provide private recreation facilities rather than payment-in -lieu. Carrboro has collected $453, 000 to - date. Both Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do not have detailed central records of the results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations. Orange County has required payments since 1988, and has accumulated these payments in a fund totaling $488, 0008 It is clear in a broad overview, however, that the current system of land acquisition has been insufficient to meet 31 5 / 18 / 99 citizens ' needs. Several problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and facilities. While recreational facilities- may be developed privately, these are not open to the public. Secondly, small parcels of land that are donated for public use are often not used, because of their small size and/or inaccessible location. 1 . Land Dedication In Orange County , a total of 44 . 08 Acres has been dedicated . All of the land is located in southern Orange , in either Bingham or Chapel Hill Townships . All are also non - contiguous parcels ranging from 0 . 12 acres to 12 . 34 acres in size . • Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres • Chapel Hill Township . 29 . 76 Acres Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough acreage dedicated ? ? ? 2. Payments-in -Lieu Funds Collected Both Orange County and Carrboro have collected funds under the existing payment- in - lieu programs . Under legislative authority granted by the General Assembly, Orange County may collect and use its funds on a district basis. In the 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County, a system of four districts was instituted (see map in Appendix K) . To date (April 1999), the County has accumulated $ 533, 000 through the payment-in -lieu system . Three projects totaling $45, 000 have been funded from these proceeds : the New Hope Creek Corridor project, the Efland- Cheeks Park and the Parkland Reserve. There is currently $488, 000 available for use in the fund. Broken down by district, the Orange County funds are allocated as follows. a 32 5 / 18 / 99 Orange County Payments - inomUeu . Total Accumulated ( as of 4/ 99 ) : $ 533 , 000 Spent as of 4/ 99 45 000 District Amount 1 - Northern Orange $ 102 , 332 2 - Cheeks/ $ 171 , 296 Hillsborough 31m Bingham 65 003 4 - Chapel Hill Tw 149 317 GRAND TOTAL - $ 487 , 952 ALL TWPS Town of Carrboro Payments - in - Lieu to date : $ 453 , 684 D. Difficulties with Payment-in -,Lieu Programs Zn reviewing payment-in -lieu programs, the Work Group heard from local practitioners, attorneys, and an expert from the Institute of Government. Zt is clear that several difficulties exist in effectively providing recreation facilities using payment-in -lieu programs. Both Carrboro and Orange County have funds that remain to be matched and spent. Chapel Hill has consistently used its fund, yet the same restrictions do not necessarily apply since its system of individual negotiations does not fit under the definition of a payment-in -lieu program . Several problems with the current systems are highlighted below, and proposals for changes to the means of providing and funding recreation lands will be suggested in Section VIZ, the recommendations section of this report, . Difficulties • Payment-in -lieu is not intended to fund facilities of countywide significance • Fees must be geographically earmarked and spent on areas within the immediate area • Fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time • Fees must be supplemented with matching funds for use The requirements for the distribution of payment-in -lieu fees complicate potential solutions that would pool funds and inter- jurisdictional cooperation . Zn order for any of these ventures to occur, an analysis of park use as related to population growth and location may be needed, helping to prove the requisite "reasonable relationship " between the collected fee and benefited populace. Through its special legislation, Orange 33 5 / 18/ 99 County may be able to re-draw districts to potentially address these problems. E. Comparison with Other Programs Regionally and Nationally Understanding our difficulties with payment- in - lieu and exactions will enable us to also search for better solutions . In order to gain a clearer picture of regional , state , and national trends regarding land regulatory policies for parkland acquisition , we must look to examples of different jurisdictions experiences . The table below highlights jurisdictions within our region , state , and other states . Table 2 : Recreation Land Ac uisition Comparison JURISDICTION PAYMENT- IN METHOD OF CALCULATING COST ESTIMATES LIEU ? - PAYMENT Oran a Count Yes Zone District Ma 422 or 455 per lot Carrboro Yes Points System $ 852 . 63 to $ 1 , 695 . 21 per dwelling unit - Chapel Hill Yes Fair Market Value Cost negotiated with developer via Planning & Rec Department , based on Community Facilities Report Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1 / 35 acre or 1 / 20 acre per dwelling or business unit Wake Count Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times Fair Market Value Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule and $ 223 to $ 375 per Zone Map dwelling unit Durham City/ County No Impact Fee Schedule $ 183 . 38 to $ 296 . 99 per dwelling unit Guilford Count No None, N/A Greensboro No None N /A Charlotte - Mecklenbur No None N /A Davis California Yes Impact Fee Schedule 2000 per acre Boulder County , Yes Fair Market Value 25 acres per 1000 Colorado I occupants Many of the above local governments have developed alternative models to the acquisition and / or dedication of land for recreational purposes . Additional details on the specifics of each program may be found in Appendix H . 34 . I 5 / 18 / 99 i `/ II . RC } 1 N DTIONS ; One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork for future matching funds and grant programs - - many of which require a set of goals , objectives and criteria . As Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough develop , the nature of future park and recreation provision will likely include cooperative ventures among the local governments and partnerships with organizations such as the school systems , OWASA , UNC and Duke . Planning for this eventuality should begin now , to ensure that valuable opportunities are not lost . In its deliberations , the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group has developed recommendations in ten 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 jurisdiction , along with representatives from the school systems , UNC , OWASA and Duke . The Council could meet quarterly to address follow - up concerns in the areas discussed in this report .. The opportunity in this 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 , • Provide input and a coordinating mechanism for updates of future recreation plans in the different jurisdictions ; • Make recommendations on allocation of future bond moneys for parks and recreation ; • Develop grant applications and alternative funding sources ; • Maintain and update the Inventory / of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of this effort ; • Create and maintain an inventory of properties Jedicated to governments as part of the development processIL ; • Monitor success of efforts to protect significant natural areas as identified in the Natural Areas Inventory , watershed studies , and plans for greenways and linear parks ; 35 5/ 18 / 99 • Coordinate efforts with the Orange County Resource Acquisition Program ; • Develop public education programs on parks and recreation programs Bit Inter=jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements Currently , the towns and County have a number of different standards that are used to determine parks and recreation needs . While recognizing the distinctions between urban and rural needs and facilities , it does 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 Parks and Resource Lands 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 . D . Public / Private Partnerships As mentioned above , one of the most exciting prospects for the future of recreation and parks provision in Orange County is that of public/ private partnerships . Coordination with OWASA and UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible , and the Work Group recommends that the local governments ( perhaps through the Parks and Resource Lands Council ) work 36 5 / 18 / 99 to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to explore these possibilities . Iinlparticular, the identified need for a large district park between Chapel Hill Carrboro and Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would have a stake i n . Additionally , partnerships with other entities may take on different roles . Coordination with Duke University is also recommended , although it is recognized that Duke Forest is of a different nature . Duke Forest plays an important role in the open space network of the County , and future discussion of that role as links in a corridor or trail system will be critical . Finally , the potential for coordination with Triangle Land Conservancy , the State of North Carolina , the Eno River Association and private firms appears to exist and should be - encouraged where practical . - E . Joint Capital Facilities Plan / Coordinated Land Identification , Acquisition and Banking If the local governments in Orange County are to be successful in providing for the long - term needs of County/town residents , it is clear that joint capital funding and land - banking efforts need to be addressed , and should be addressed as quickly as possible . A meeting of Managers , elected officials and staff should be called to develop a plan for coordination . 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 Hlll - 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 tor - coordinate funding sources in future years . It is recommended that the aforementioned officials meeting of Managers , staffs and elected ffcials from the jurisdictions as soon as possible . Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs ( CIP 's ) could , be a fundamental part of this mechanism . As previously- mentioned, Orange County 's Resource Acquisition Program for land might allow the County to take a lead role in coordinating future acquisitions, most of which will likely be located outside of Town corporate limits. 37 I, 5/ 18/ 99 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 adopt the " Open Facilities Policy " resolution found in Appendix I. This policy will provide that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties are open and accessible to all County residents . To a different degree , a policy regarding use of local government facilities by UNC students and of UNC facilities- by local . citizens should be investigated with the University . A particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education Center, and cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued now. The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop appropriate mutual guidelines in this area . G . Payment- in - lieu changes The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities. However, because of its limitations (both geographic and financial), payment-in -lieu programs are unlikely to produce & sufficient funds to meet long - term recreation needs. A process is needed to use existing funds, modify the current program to make it more practical, and develop new sources of revenue for recreation land and facilities. 0 The Work Group recommends that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans to match payment-in - lieu dollars to date with parks bonds and other funding sources. With a method of pooling payment- in -lieu across jurisdictions currently unworkable, it 38 5 18 99 is recommended that the current system of payments -in -lieu be kept. In Orange County 's case, the County should explore modifications to the system to provide for a more-appropriate calculation of payment based on the developed property valuation . Finally, to augment (or eventually replace) this source of funding, the Parks and Resource Lands Council should explore the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact taxr along the lines of existing legislation . If found prudent, a recommended impact fee/ tax program for MMMMMMMMMM recreation should be developed and forwarded to the local governments in Orange County for enaction . H . Address Existing Needs Currently, countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of types of parks (e. g. regional, community, neighborhood, etc) . While additional work is needed in developing standards, it is possible to envision an overview of park needs based on population standards. Current Parkland Orange County (including towns) Po ulation in 2000 estimated 112, 000 Total Parkland Needs 2, 0340 acres Current Parkland Acres If 385 acres Parkland Deficit/Surplus - 645 acres Year 2025 on Parkland Needs forOrange towns) Population in 2025 168 000 Total Parkland Needs 3 100 acres Parkland Acres 1 835 acres Parkland Deficit Sur /us - 1 265 acres The combined projected population for all of Orange County in the year 2025 is 168, 000. This total county population was used to assess the level of adequacy for future years. Based on this, in the year 2000, Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres of park/recreation land in order to meet national adequacy standards. With current park facilities (including projected acquisitions in the next year), a deficit of 645 acres will exist in 2000. In 39 5 / 18 / 99 2025, the County will need 3100 acres with a current projected deficit of 1265 acres. Details on how these projections were generated may be found in Appendix J. Based on the projected future need for 1 , 265 new acres of parkland , the Work Group has determined that the current critical need is to begin 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/towns will need the following new parks just to meet current deficits . • of Park NumberNeeded Acres District 1 or 2 countywide 1 @ 600 acres , or 2 @ 300 acre average Community 0 * 0 * Neighborhood 12 5 - 20 acres each * - The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage needs, but the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in Carrboro and one at Efland-Cheeks) may not meet the geographic needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in Hillsborough, northern Orange County and southwestern Orange. The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide , in 1999 dollars , is $ 10. 1 million dollars . Over time, the cost of purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise dramatically. 40 5 / 18/ 99 I . Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs (THIS SECTION NEEDS DEVELEOPMENT AND MAY INCL UDE REFERENCE TO MATCHING FUNDS AND LAND- BANKING . To address the estimated $ 10 . 1 million in future needs , the following actions should be taken to use existing bond funds and address long - term needs . 1 ) The remaining $ 2 . 89 million in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond should be used for land- banking of identified sites as soon as possible . 2) The balance of funding should be an estimated $8 million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000 . Land-banking at this time will greatly reduce the cost of meeting long - term park needs. ADD RECOMMEND -ATIONS ON. Land- Banking Specifics ? Greenways and Wildlife Corridor Linkages ? NC PARTF grants ? 0 41 5/ 18 / 99 Appendices A Summaries of Existing Plans B Shaping Orange County 's Future Parks Issues C Inventory of Existing Facilities — Resources Subcommittee D Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions E Memorandum of Agreement of Co - Location of School /Parks Facilities F OWASA & Memorandurn on Recreational Use of Property G Existing Local Payment- in - Lieu Programs H Payment- in - Lieu Programs Around the Country 1 Resolution — Open Facilities Policy I Parkland Acreage Needed in 2025 Based on Population Standards K Maps ..... . ._ .. as � :r-,. Li rd :'.- ii :#r - n a ac K � 9 _ < , s q.... r e e Y - a: o f in2 . < a 5/ 18 / 99 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 To be provided by Chapel Hill staff Carrboro Master Park and Recreation Plan To be provided by Carrboro staff Hillsborouah Park and Recreation Plan The Town 's Master Plan goals would : . 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 Co Meet the recreational needs of the Town 's diverse population D . Acquire and maintain playing fields , courts and other facilities for organized sports and fitness 5 / 18 / 99 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 . A 5 / 18 / 99 Appendix B 1998 Shaping Orange Countys 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 . C 5 / 18/ 99 Appendix C Inventory of Existing Recreation Facilities - Resource Subcommittee Add Sarah ' s inventory 0 5 / 18/ 99 I Appendix D Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions a a 5 / 18 / 99 Appendix E Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location of School / Park Facilities 5 / 18 / 99 Appendix F OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property Attach memo 0 5 / 18/ 99 Appendix G Existina Local Payment - In - Lieu Programs Use old summary from PIL section of document 5 / 18/ 99 Appendix H Payment - in - Lieu Programs Around the Country Alternative Models for Programs 1 . Davis , California (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 seek a replacement somewhere else . • The developers can create conservation easements on those properties , although the actual holder of the easement is sometimes controversial , with the county , Yolo County Land Trust , and the city all vying for control . • Often , the Land Trust will find money to pay for the easement , with the city providing matching funds which they have budgeted . Payment - in - lieu option : • A payment - in - lieu option of $ 2000 per acre is also available to the developer, - although it is less desirable . • Money acquired spent within the general plan area . • This option is more expensive than the easements for developers and they can often find farmers willing to sell some of their land . Other . • Some local farmers create conservation easements on their own Focus of Acquisition : • The city concentrates its efforts around one creek in particular . • As the city acquires land around it , the Army Corps of Engineers will com_ a in and repair it back to its original form under an 1135 grant . • Besides the creek , acquire land all over the city . • Made decision to buy more .properties vs . one small piece 5 / lt / 99 • Now in the process of creating a matrix of easements to provide a picture of what they have ; the gaps that might exist , and what is happening with the properties . 2 . Boulder County, CO (Nancy Dayton , (303 ) 6781006243 ) 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 . v • 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 5 18 99 Joint acquisition with the municipalities • Some have own sales taxes • Work also with the Trust with Public Lands , Nature Conservancy • Open Space Task Force made up of a people , stakeholders , • Decide where want to spend money preserving lands Focus of Acquisition : • Other categories to purchase • Prime agricultural land , which has good soil and irrigation • Rights to draw water off of, which makes the land more valuable 3 . Guilford County , NC (Roger Bardsley (336) 574- 3544) Note . All of - the governments within Guilford County use some version of the county 's policy ( Flood Plain Dedication only ) , although some drift has occurred since 1992 when it was created . Methods of Acquiring Land . Require dedication of field plain open space if the land falls within the 100 - year flood plain Open space for watershed policy Over past 15 years got 1000 acres 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 N15016 as open space Focus of Acquisition . • Dedication has to be connected to public interest • 100 Year Flood Plain easy to see that in - no - development possibility for developers 5 / 18 / 99 • Charlotte — Mecklenburg County , NC (Linda Beverly , Charlotte- Mecklenburg Planning Dept, (704) 336- 5719) Note : The policy is only for Charlotte and the unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County . Methods of Acquiring Land : • No mandatory dedication for open space with any development • Developers can elect in single family subdivisions to do clustering that allows them to redraw the individual lots with setting aside a minimum of 10 % of the land as open space . • That space either is then maintained by a private homeowners association , or is dedicated to the Parks and Recreation department as a greenway . • No incentive for developers to provide the land , but the smaller lots makes it so they can position the lots on better land • Lot of greenways through the subdivision process • Some bonds • Purchase open space . Some negotiated dedication for tax credit Focus of Acquisition . • Parks and Recreation has a greenway master plan . • If a development comes into that area , the planner will put them in contact with the Parks and Recreation Department . • The Parks and Recreation Department can also purchase the land directly from the property - owner . 5 / 18 / 99 Appendix I Resolution - Open Facilities Policy To be handed out on 5/26 v 5/ 18/ 99 Appendix 3 Parklands Needed Based on Population Standards Memo 5 / 18 / 99 i Appendix K i Mans i . Local Government Facilities and Lands 2 . UNC Facilities and Lands 3 . Duke Facilities and Lands 4 ,, OWASA Facilities and Lands 5 . Other Conserved Lands 6 . Wildlife Corridors and Greenways E. - i o�R� OjZ*WpT5 CY Lk$lT L ION* UP WORY . . f TIP y} Will ' y ^x.IWW • ,may-x - � v Me • 1999 aP y 61 , 61 ,5199 1 . 5/ 26/ 99 Table of Contents I . Background History 1 A . Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan 1 Be Joint Planning Efforts - 1996 - 97 1 Co Summary of Existing Plans 3 D . Background and Rationale for Updating Joint Plan 3 Ii . Descriptive Scenario Where are we now? 5 : . A : Inventory of Parks and Recreation resources 5 Be Parks and Recreation Needs 6 Co Parks and Recreation Standards 84 . D . Status of Previous Bonds and . Projects Constructed 8 III . Future Efforts and Issues - Where to go from here? 13 A . Park/ Recreation Acquisition Goals , Objectives and Criteria 13 Be Joint Siting and Management of Sites 15 c . .Impedlments • to Location of New Facilities 16 d . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through CIP's and Land - Banking 17 E . Coordination Opportunities with -UNC and Implications of UNC Expansion 17 F. Coordination Opportunities with O WASA 19 G. Coordination Opportunities with Duke University 419 . IV . Adequate and Timely Provision of Parklands and Natural . Use Corridors 4 21 , A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met 21 Be Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in Rural Areas 21 C . Analysis - Criteria of Land for Greenways and Corridors 23 V. Acquisition of Land : 26 . A . Coordination with Resource Acquisition Program 26 Be Funding Sources 28 Vim Payment- In- Lieu Programs 30 A . Development Exactions for Recreation Land in Orange County 30 . Be Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and Impact Fee Programs 30 C . Current Status of Payment- in - Lieu Throughout the County 31 D . Difficulties with Payment- in -Lieu .Programs 33 E . Comparison with Other Programs Regionaliy . and Nationally . 34 VII . Proposals and Recommendations 35 A . Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council 35 Be Inter-jurisdictional Efforts to Standardize Parks. and Recreation Requirements 36 Co Joint Siting , Design , and Management of . School/ Park . Sites Across Jurisdictions 36 D . Public/ Private . Partnerships 36 E . Joint Capital Facilities Plan / Coordinated Land Identification, Acquisition and Banking 37 , F . Open Facilities Policy I 36 G . Payment- in - Lieu Changes 38 H . Address Existing Needs - 39 I . Recommendations for Use of Current and Future Bond Funds 41 . Appendices A- K 5/ 26/ 99 Members of the ,joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Margaret Brown , Chair Ken Chavious Keith Cook . Judson Edeburn Martin Feinstein, Kevin Foy Jacqueline Gist Bea Hughes - Werner Ron. Hyatt Barry Jacobs Loraine Kohorn Dianne Lemasters Patrick Mulkey Wendy Olsen Bill Strom Wendy Weiher : John Link Staff Albert Xittrell Bob Jones Richard Kinney Sarah . Magruder Kathryn Spatz- David Stancil Bill Webster Daniel No 2 5/ 26/ 99 A;wr I>,•^.rri'.' ,.,. .>. :, ,.tN . ..�,.. ,..-. _. ,. € t< . - s_ ' t ..,,n;�:�, - ,-F` _ p .Y« . -sz�x�t'r_:- >c ,..v:: sr � ':�: "� � s^^..,. .. «; -,:. �: a>.p<�w; tz` as:< -a< r'^• wfz:' . < z' z„ X-.. .. a. - _ '2:"" .. .. .s > .'�,r.^.--' - ,:: , {. . . ;,.- ;tr , . - - - ` rz ...-+ - n.,3:.._.r:,,c. ' .rx:-^.v„:a ;� °<�a< .,=_at .t'�„.T^e^'s4 ">•,i Esc n'�<. , :< :a :': .p _ : .-' . <, } g .: . .,:.. ,,.,- .< ) ...i'r,:^✓„'-:>s. '::*;tw'c��: $x,.x:ei.i,K::" :s« '-f,±_,.A,= :.s ..>i:> -, .�;, <}.,, a�x . F , � x: `>_' - " : bra - e.b; , .r>:, e- a;# <'• <, . a.. .,-_..,<.:..< a'sa„r xsaet<s€n.*a�.,:: �..:m.:S,:.:.xai.sa.:',a . ^' •A, .aakr'.?zu.'£.,£� , ,rw»e°.s».�x� i». ".';3:°.�s`.:':.iY^:'35'�m'ss— ::,:b.3„4.v:s3.'A .,, sxsri? , w.:n,.mx... ar�< %+3�wi.+t, .ts:tm.`,:��i ::�;a....'...,.,'.:.., ...a �s::� . Over the last decade ; several recreation and parks planning efforts have been undertaken across Orange County , with policy recommendations . covering a spectrum of related issues . Committees , citizen work groups + and , local governments have worked together in developing guidelines for the future recreation and open space needs of our County . Through these efforts , we can ensure the provision of a wide range of recreational opportunities and a . venues for all citizens . This section includes the overarching rationale for the creation of a framework for joint planning . of recreation and parks , as well as a listing of the primary recommendations of these various working groups from 1988 to the present . A . Rationale for Intergovernmental Plan ~ ' Guiding policies for the update include : • Explore the relationship between existing and proposed school sites ' and . parks It • Explore strategies for the preservation of natural and cultural ' resources through acquisition and open space design , including the relationship of these resources to active and low - impact recreational uses : • Update Master Plans of County and Municipalities ( See Appendix A) These policies provide the impetus for much of the current update effort and are largely based upon a combination of current and past concerns and efforts . B . Joint Recreation Planning _ Efforts : 1996 - 97 Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group (. 1996� The Recreation and . Parks Work group developed recommendations to , serve multiple purposes . The recommendations are - intended to , " establish principles for coordinated county = wide recreation and park facility planning , foster greater cooperation in use of existing facilities , and support private . ' recreation providers and public/ private partnerships . The work group developed the following recommendations for Orange County and its' : municipalities in its recreation planning , which were presented to. the Assembly of Governments : 4 ' 1 1 • Set standards based on ranking with other Triangle Area counties . : Determine type of park and recreation facilities to be surveyed. Develop . mechanism for annual review of park and facilities standards by all jurisdictions . 5/ 26/ 99 Develop an interjurisdictional set of recreation requirements that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro , and Hillsborough could include in their respective Land Use Ordinances : • Plan the inclusion of . park facilities in selecting new school sites , while improving existing sites with recreation and park amenities where it is " mutually beneficial to the school system and governmental jurisdiction ( s ) . " .Standardize contracting documents with private providers throughout all jurisdictions Create an Orange County listing of private recreation vendors and facilities , and update annually . T • Establish a bi - annual meeting or forum for private and public recreation providers for information sharing and establishing new public/ private initiatives . Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange Count 1997 oF The purpose of this report was to describe different options for the improvement of services to the community through intergovernmental f coordination of parks and recreation functions . The report contains several different parts related - to the investigation of adequate .. park and recreation facilities . Observations of activities were made , needs were assessed , options were developed , and recommended actions were proposed . The recommendations , were divided into . four major categories , capital development, coordination of operations , consolidation approaches , and voluntary coordination and commitment . The recommendations follow below : Capital Development • A long - range plan should be adopted as a serious commitment by all players • . Coordinated capital programming and budgeting should . be initiated in time to produce programs for future budgets • Acquisition and protection . of good sites should be the initial priority • Orange . County should play a major role in funding , acquisition , development , ownership , and maintenance of new facilities • A countywide, bond proposal should be presented for voter consideration* if needs are as great as expected Coordination of operations • Joint .planning , needs assessment, and selected cooperative actions are appropriate purposes for staff work group • Consideration of Orange County as the primary candidate for operating new programs , expansions , and transfers. from the towns can lead to a growing consolidation of services under the County 2 = 5/ 26/ 99 Consolidation Approaches • Begin with coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions • Develop new facilities and programs as county functions • Consider complete consolidation in several years after experience with coordination and partial consolidation Voluntary Coordination. and Commitment • Capable and adequate staffing needed to develop materials , set agendas , and prod participants in both capital and operating programs Management to assure that commitment is evident and . sustaIined Shaping Orange County 's Future Parks and Recreation Issues ( 1998) 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 : arid parks plans . OFF. F D . Background / Rationale for Updating Joint Plan Charge to Vork 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 off;lcials , citizens , - staff, and interested stakeholders - including . representatives of. the Town . of Hillsborough : . This Commissioner- appointed work group divided into two subcommittee s to . address updating . the countywide needs assessment as well as an inventory of public , quasi =public , and private recreational facilities and opportunities : These subcommittees 4 . then re - formed into the large work group . to address. issues such as the I IF incorporation of wildlife corridors and open. space preservation into parkland . . acquisition . F. ' . 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 : IF 5/ 26/ 99 . .. .�.'> ^i is v ;w�;. • c.. .. > , id . .. .. ��. rh :s �-r, ..,"c. c: • r>•. •, w.<..- . , a'�&, x z ;;-c ` �` i,>r :-� ' `t':i �' . ..,. . . .'' 'R'�< P ' E't".e.A.;R '& .e` » -+8 a, :> x't f7ai. -✓. ?ar' ` S- '-- z4`n t i N > x: s r Before decisions are made regarding the manner in which the park • bond funds will be disbursed , the work group had to first gain an idea of the state . of park and recreation facilities within . the county and its municipalities . It . was necessary to have an accurate picture of who is providing for the recreation needs of the citizenry , whether through public , quasi - public , or private means . Once the needs and resources were identified , standards for future park and recreation provisions were - discussed . A . Inventory of Resources One subcommittee of the Work Group was formed to create an inventory of the current recreation resources and parks within the County ( see Appendix - C ) . The Resource Subcommittee developed categories for the inventory and decided it was important to address resources within all sectors of our community . Thus , the inventory was split into lists for private , public , and quasi - public . Private consists primarily of apartment complexes , neighborhood clubs , and larger, specialized clubs ( e . g . tennis club , country club ) . However, locations such as Duke Forest are also listed as private since they are privately owned with primary missions other than recreation . Public resources identified were parks , trails , community centers , and other locales open to and funded by the public . Quasi-public entities include community centers and Runtan clubs usually open to the public with additional contact required , UNC facilities selectively opened to the public , and government- owned facilities , such as Cane Creek Reservoir, which allows recreation while maintaining the primary mission , of water supply protection . . Once the list was . divided , the categories were modified to more accurately reflect specific resources in each ownership grouping . For example , the quasi - public list may include a category inventorying whether the facilities . require additional contact before use , while this issue would infrequently apply to public sector recreation facilities and parks . The information for the inventory was gained through several avenues . . The . Work Group and staffs personal knowledge of resources in the area , inventories recently completed by participating municipalities ; and information from area apartment associations and complexes were all used in. . development of the document . The. roster of apartments is that of complexes listed in Orange County tax ' records . Thus , . this is not a complete . listing � of all • complexes in the county or municipalities , B . Needs Identified for County and Municipalities . The Needs Assessment Subcommittee was formed in order to more accurately identify specific needs of facilities throughout . each jurisdiction . 4 5/ 26/ 99 The following active recreation_ needs were identified through this process : 1 . Orange County a ) Develop Phase II - Efland - Cheeks School / Community Park . ( In progress ) b ) Develop Courthouse/ River Park (jointly with Town of Hillsborough ) . c ) Develop Fairview Community Park & renovate playground , d ) Develop a Master Plan for Northern Human Services Center Park and. renovate the building . . e ) Renovate the Central Recreation Center Heating and Air System and replace windows : f) Acquire parkland in Little River and Chapel Hill / Birigham . Township . g ) Develop a joint Park planning effort with OWASA . h ) Continue joint planning efforts with the school systems for locating schools and park sites and to construct larger gymnasiums at future schools to *address the overcrowding of indoor recreation activities . 2 . Town of Chapel Hill The Town . has . recently , begun updating+ 11 its comprehensive plan . % The new , plan will : • Include a section on : parks and recreation • Call for plan to be - completed in . fall of 1999 The 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 : 4 1 . a . Future Development of Northern Community Park At its September 28 , 1998 Council adopted the following actions ; 1 ) from FY98 - 99 budget appropriated for conceptual 5 5/ 26/ 99 plan process of aquatic facility/ community center , and 2 ) $ 200 , 000 in Town park bonds allocated for development of batting cage project : Possible development a . aquatic facility , b . Community Center . b . Future Development of Southern Community Park No Council decisions made at this point , except soccer field at - school • No conceptual plan. at this point Staff and the Town Parks & Recreation Commission will soon recommend a parks and recreation master plan process that will • Identify community leisure needs ; values • Clarify/ revise Department mission • Perhaps * develop community standards for park and recreation planning/ development 3 . Town * of Carrboro a ) Acquisition and Development of a Northern Community Park b ) Community Gymnasium c ) Provide general on - going renovations to4all existing facilities at all community , neighborhood , and mini - park sites . d ) Along with the Chapel HilKarrboro School System , provide expanded recreation facilities at existing and 4new facilities . e ) Begin acquiring property along Morgan creek and Bolin Creek Greenway corridors and start developing facilities where possible . . Accept all previous offers of dedication and easements along Morgan and Bolin Creek for greenway system . f) Fully develop the " Morgan Creek Neighborhood - Park : " g ) Acquire property for " Bolin : Creek Neighborhood. Park" and fully develop . h ) Fully develop " Odum Mini - Park " i ) Acquire additional property for " Pathway Drive Mini - Park " and fully . develop . 4 . Town of NO 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 5/ 26/ 99 currently in progress . The Parks and Recreation Board was appointed in 1996 . Since then the members of the Board have assessed existing property and facilities owned by the Town and have assigned , some priorities for implementation of the Master .Plan . Several projects are ongoing . Funding has. been allocated and/ or is being . requested for these projects . Some fnding has been allocat u ed for construction . If The most immediate recreation needs , based on the original survey and subsequent requests by townspeople, include ( not necessarily inIf order of need ) : a ) Playing f elds for organized sports b ) Basketball courts c ) Safe places to walk and bicycle d ) Playgrounds within safe walking distance of residences e ) Neighborhood parks f) Skateboard facilities C . Standards See Section VII for recommendations on the development of coordinated standards . See Appendix D for existing standards . D . Status of Previous Bonds and Projects Constructed In previous years , different jurisdictions have issued bonds for recreation and . parks projects . A number of existing facilities used by County and Town residents were funded through these bonds . The following is a listing of bonds approved and projects constructed, or other accomplishments in the .past five years . If 1 . Orange County If Bond Funds $ 6 million Recreation and Parks Bond in November, 19972. . • Park Land . Acquisition _ $ 3 . 0 Million • Development $ 3 . 0 Million Efland - Cheeks Community School Parke $ 0 . 5 Million Northern Chapel Hill Community. Park $ 1 . 0 Million Southern Chapel H11 ] Community Park $ 1 . 0 Million Other Park Facilities $ 0 . 5 Million 7 . 5/ 26/ 99 Current Projects • - Construction of Efland - Cheeks School Park - Phase I . • Feasibility study for Fairview Park development . • Develop Master Plan for Courthouse/ River Parka IF IF I Accomplishments - Past Five . Years IF IF IF • Renovations to Orange High School Tennis Courts ( Jointly with Orange -County Schools - County share $ 40 , 030 ) . • Renovations to tot - lot playground at the Northern Human Services Center ( $ 9 , 200 plus $ 14 , 000 Smart- Start grant ) . • Purchased 40 acres adjoining the Northern Human Services Center ( $ 1101000 ) , IF • Developed . Efland - Cheeks Community School / Park Master Plan and . began construction of Phase I . ( $ 84 ; 575 for plan , $ 756 , 000 for IF construction contract, Phase I . Total to date : $ 840 , 575 ) IF 2 . Town of Chapel Hill IF 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 IF projects IF IF 1986 Parks and Open Space Bond Funds $ 2 . 5 million • - Funded Southern * Community Park ( so. uth tract - $ 1 . 046 million ) , Pritchard Park ( $ 665 ; 000 ) and several small projects 1976 Parks . Bond $ 2 . 65 million IF - • Funded Cedar Falls Park , Chapel Hill Community Center, Umstead' . IF IF I Park , five ballfields , 20 tennis courts and Hargraves Recreation IF .CenterI IF 3 . Town ,of Carrboro $ 1 , 110 , 000 Recreation Facilities Bond in 1978 : • Funded Anderson Community Park acquisition/ development 41 4 IF IF IF Accomplishments - Past Five Years IF • Lighting of ballfield at Anderson Community Park IF . • Renovation of Wilson Park tennis courts • Removal and - renovation of playground , at Baldwin Park 5/ 26/ 99 Current Projects / Ongoing Improvements • Acquisition and renovation of Carrboro Baptist Church building for Carrboro Community Center 4 . Town of Hillsborough • $ 254 , 000 from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for Eno Riverwalk Stream Buffers • $ 3. 1 , 500 for Occoneechee Mountain park ( plus $ 37 , 500 in other funds ) Current Projects : t Cooperative projects between Hillsborough and Orange County River Park - Approximately 5 . acres of county land located in . downtown Hillsborough between the new courthouse and river is being planned for an urban park and open space . The. town . has .pledged $ 50 , 000 for this effort . At � least $ 25 , 000 has been spent and the remainder is available when the . county is ready to proceed . . A re - creation of the Occon-eechi village is being constructed on the site . RC &D is prepared to assist. with an erosion mitigation project along Still House Creek within -the park . Further planning and development , funds are . needed for implementation of the proposed master plan . Fairview Park - An engineering study is needed to evaluate the possible impacts of an old landfill and general soil conditions of the - combined county and town properties on the feasibility of a major sports facility . The estimated cost of the study is $ 46 , 000 . Hillsborough projects Occoneechee Park - Trails have been built by volunteers within the original 28 acres with funds from . Adopt- a -Trail Grants and from the Town . Development plans for . an overlook within the 28 acres, : a small parking and picnic area on a fee- simple parcel next to Eno Mountain Road , and a 1/4 mile accessible trail on an easement . parallel to the Eno River .that would connect the two was expected to be implemented _ in � 1999 using a NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF) grant ( $ 31 , 500 ) and other funds totaling . $ 69 , 000 . An upcoming Lease . agreement between . N . C : Parks and Recreation and Hillsborough , to combine -the . management of Occoneechee park with the newly - acquired state park lands on Occoneechee Mountain ; will negate plans to build the parking lot and trail . The PARTF grant and other funds - ' ' totaling 4 $ 69 ,000 have been . allocated ' for the above development . . Due to - the 2 - year elapsed time of the original estimate additional funds may be needed for completion . An additional $ 13 , 000 has been . requested . Gold Park/ Old Ball Park - Twenty - four acres at the south end of 94 . 5/ 26/ 99 Nash Street, south of the railroad tracks , were donated to the town in 1995 . This land has historically been used for semi - pro baseball activities and the town would like to reinstate its use - for organized sports , . on a local scale . An estimated $ 26 , 000 is needed ( in ' 96 dollars ) to relocate sewer and electrical lines . Because the land is adjacent to the Eno River, floodplain and wetland issues must also be investigated . Murray Street Park - The master plan - for this ' 1/4 acre lot was developed by local . residents . $ 9 , 000 has been allocated for construction of the project by the town board . $ 10 , 000 for phase 2 has been requested . King / Occoneechee Street Park Local residents have approached the Park and Recreation Board with a proposal to develop this 0 . 6 acre lot for a neighborhood park . No funds have yet been requested . River Walk - The town received a grant from the4 Clean Water Management Trust Fund . totaling $ 254 , 000 to acquire buffers along the Eno River for water. quality preservation . The buffer is planned to connect Occoneechee Mountain Park on the west side of town with Eno . River State Park near US 70 bypass to the east . - Funds have been requested to hire 4a 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 . Hi.11sborough ' 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 . decade.s . for the purpose of constructing and improving recreational facilities . These grant - funds originate at various levels of government . Examples " of funding opportunities include the State Park and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF) , North Carolina Department of . Transportation ( NCDOT) , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund , the Community Development Block Grant - Program - ( CDBG ) , and ther . now defunct Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund . : The range of projects completed with these funds is broad . Examples of funded projects include nature trail construction , : bike trail cnstru o ction , ballfield construction , and playground upgrades . The following table illustrates the total + amount of grant funding received by Orange County and its municipalities within the last. 20 years . 10 4 r 5/ 26/ 99 • . • - _ �x�:?`�,:_7'is` �:.YeTti�_ �.a;.`�:�-`"�• `'.�:.�=sr5t�;�� :�:�::s"� :.sa: � ����.xt�Y:- i>a=t. - - - % '�:`„�.:� -r�w; � ,r, ��� a � z �' .1i � xs z� q _,r�-�: � # - �'�'",fit;i -��°'Sh:;�y�=�'.a:t�;#'�;.��,•?`,-{:i''�<`•`: , _ !�i"+ #it..:E'.�>1;-k.' ,aa:�)'i+va'•�.�: - .r.:"'�?.=.'3n- , �K,gxoxr ,i� ,$� �+`LM .tc-. {t+ k,�=. '�Y::;:`: O . r'� ;x,� }.!'�.c . #>4'.: -.�:�`)t'tx, k Za .a' :.�$�'�.wa a •. a*.`� '7'�9�_ w-���„`'3+rlS ay;• n �>, m,.s"a, .-zX�-�'.�w_s*�aCi�' °?y'�z'�..���i'�3�.'.�4°`,���t'``• ` �"r p`:�tC.�,#F.,: ?� 2�-y'-�,1. ,x..) .RL(�jj� a'.:: - •E�,:#4�t �,.c 'r�;i '�^kr;: y;�� ,. .,';,<'z.'+s<r';q._�� "�+;;�? <� �_ �.�' >i' !I ,��i:3 tt�^-4'{,.�<i `.:�' �,°. : -, l:-R `:'k?�.. {`� xL1R _ E3' :ti'3' " x"' h`:.` •a::;. y�Tc.4> , - ' :srea'i%�,'^��,�"e'�:,i'I�.}:. .fie .:.#�:���, �;�c':n-.;rs_���,s�'� 'r�'-�.t�r.;: •x�s;.<'�""� '"`-.:=r's..x-� R.::;� �x>za�:,�.s` - -,-.t,A.�� .� • �s. _ ,r s#; .��,�.; _ . . ,;K �' :t•M�:c•- ^� ;tom "'- If ,;a?�, . x ^`.:> ,,t• �'"�^;;<"'^��`?•��% % 4,: = :�<?."=:��4�z� -��`'�`3.,,^A��,'�-Fe£� - s.,.. t�' z:�<?'�';==:Sd -#..--L �•-iss`-�>�-Z`. , ,`., �'=�`�v<x ;%•a�;�.'>< .�•;,¢ :. �ar �1 - ' ��, -�,.v< �'���"1�;'s�- Z;� r<ss„' '.,'-�. ..v� ,'� ,Yt-c:' ra..:=� :x ; " f ' 'r'. gs": ;'-.K =_ <. ;- ,�'''., mys.•.«.^ ! r S.�tt PI dNI :.%'+< i '"' . rt:K�ktw: { � ,�25,_ z �:a�.e, .y >.r ». ;hfix�' -�� � - ^M1�,tR�Ep .•. .G ..,�.; 29 s E � - >:#$'...>�fr '_�' <`-, ��� '? iFi�';""-�- 6'. .�': r �' ,'3 ➢'..a��^s� �'`kF. .t ��!!�"�rs '�i` .O ` . T ' 5/ 26/ 99 +,�x .r ," ;u `#.b.M, '...''� H'= '_ ,.�.�- ,a: •r.-•-..'sa4 „k�,.: >asrzz,.».�.>.,yf; ;,4£,�,> :.;-. 4'Y . ..•r*, . . '.'^,:may„ ,�.:''�[.. a;>. -.�.z �#' r:x,;=:"?s. ,-,<x;^"�.rww•: «; A v .: , #< `,.n - _ . . .m"' ' '_-,'„ >,}t %d.? .'.�3.. _ 8. •,y:? . z. _< . .. =-(--.. , .�-'Rs;'_-s , . d . r5. Y>..,' e'. to "»: ':'e $ . >3n - v :t" kao ' a.a."= - -.. ,..,4 . .:. 6 $._. ..r .:tiu'2' ;>`� — — - v-_`F - yhi 'C.t< gh ':'>. ,.7 .::: &.': f'4 Z t . .. r» % , 7yY ^:p - E x , t= . . , r�� :�SFvl- r � F �<,:. :',;�'. .+ r. . ;�. ,€<�.:;x .c; - s+,? ,.:�« �,�'y;a _ t��£"'b1' f'.r;:- _ .�:" rFt�• _ . a*'> _a: .<g,<xr._�:..' •:::.�-"�".':" -;ar,x;'Y -.,.r<F .. ` .'3,'...- _ .;a _-s"E"� - s y.:. _5. 4 ' .`:'s?:=�': _.n";a"�i•: :;�. -�-n.£c<-k:„, ( �;ac :, , ;:^: ;::�`,¢'v.r_ , �-.:xry« ...� di K. . c�: :E.k,.Y. � .$ • r` , .. - .- _ _- � �:."'f::' : � - -c,;.:;.usn:'i:d? :<l:.n _ <£�,: _ :i. SF _ 'Sk:�.L.4';�.`,i'..' _ - �.LyI . F :X^.. ..-Y i+ 3.'6.a S`" ra .: . ., ,,ss_ :_,.-. .� s_, ..-t . v§ c,F. ai .._ , ,' .. :. $<av ?>�_ :> .c�.r� ' •r.,� ;a�% . T,.:��<' - :f+".� : *.. r3.. ri ..'. : ^ep*„: _ .,y':s. -''"a?tc^, ..sE:. . .>�^. s . _s->' ,:.is.l•..:.t<, _ ».d' . , .. . •r,.as., x_„: _. .6m±, . .>.f. _ _ : ::..-,<.�-x£?.c,< k'<. .Pas: ;Y.. '"';g_ i .- �b,, a-. -<F e- <"3-,.i:�`, 'Y_f ,'i .. -s'r""..:t^�'.,k:;ve`:+y:"..not6.�£�,'m,u::s ;:';ixs.�q,>:s.q�.:<: :�;:::0,'2" -2 - s�at. - ,r �' ,�� ��,r,..mvK<°�<.. � .{�. �'� ' �°• - :.:�,:;�;;��r`:<-� .�r' .#�='<�„�:2"�,n' fx��-;�y..-�;;,�.: _'�` jz_ ..,,.. , . ' ...y,...,.<. �� ,.. ...>:- - S� ., - -.. _ x ...3�t k.$ i j5� �.� � .?;ro'.: Ati rL.:` : t, <s<�� �-.d7•-.- E h 73 - ..t:..s' �-<,E._.. . ..Ka -�-"�i? > •.tw''.r�^ .+. � � :.'1��%' {'{ ?�tfr:<>,v 2 rk,= { ss :.i "`:S 'S �.,., .�'+"„ tib'<'.:<>., fs,ie-;> _s rran.+• . t' Y;. "� � i < - 7 , - ..F,." :.eT-. <i..Sh,- =;;.i<.,i::u.';�iz,�. .,ri�:�<..,+,..�< .._y r<•.,,, : ai^�`%=::�:Z�.�F3r;';�.5= �£ i n£.. ?.?S,�}r f: � ."�"s�.G� N- ��x : 3-C3 . . ''.3�.:,..: rv.'�+b.•.: .2_ . . .3. #I�:f ,'" s-'$''� m�5z, e-rvs°z:.-�f:?-s. - 'm' , v. � ;-, n4 - -.z ..,.- s. • .S.f. N ;..f:•u l;, ,_,e, - .s•n.:-.�y ; - �.. Z. ��<3: ,.. _ - - .....ze,r_..�,.>�.'3%:�.<2'fi-r,,, =.+x.azi3? x.'tu.,:.F t« ..- to : ,..;.��. .� ..,�� >--•�� :r,.� �D»: :r r:. r:.ss��� ;''.`� ra�:...,�>o:.�.....,..,.,.�...� With the knowledge of what facilities , needs and stand ards . 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 ofthe 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 . An7 evaluation of possibilities in this area is also warranted , and is included as subsection B . Impediments to locating new facilities , potential for coordination with Duke and OWASA in meeting future goals ; and mechanisms for accomplishing these objectives are also addressed . in this section . A . Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Goals, . Objectives and Criteria 1 . Goals and Objectives for Land Acquisition In looking to acquire land for future recreation and parks needs , there are several - goals that have. become apparent through the discussions of the * Work Group : 1 . Goals ' Encourage school / park joint planning Preserve natural resources Promote multi jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts * Preserve watersheds - and water quality Encourage historic and cultural preservation * Identify and emphasize targeted needs * ' Establish public/.private partnerships Encourage the dedication of easements Implement . land - banking opportunities Acquire/ purchase parkland through development process - Develop linear parks concepts . and plans Using - these goals , more - specific objectives were identified : Objectives Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is 12 5/ 26/ 99 environmentally sensitive , such as wetlands ; * Develop a .program for land dedication/ recreation payment that is more effective and comprehensive ; * Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with the creation of recreation facilities ; Develop linear : parks in . the Rural Buffer, and explore . opportunities along other identified stream corridors ; * . ` Retrofit " existing developed . properties for recreation ; Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper. Eno River preservation efforts , . Develop land - use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood . parks 2 . Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition Subject to approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , a system should be developed to evaluate how well potential land acquisitions meet the goals and objectives . A number of specific measures have been . suggested both for the purchase of property , and for the appropriateness of siting facilities . The components of this system would become the basis of the Recreation and Parks Acquisition section of the County 's Resource Acquisition Program ( see Section V) , Potential Land Acquisition Criteria ( examples]L. The existence of matching funds from requesting jurisdiction ; Grants and other funding opportunities ; * Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan , * Identified in the Inventory of Natural . Areas and * Wildlife Habitats of Orange County , N. . C . ; * Compatibility of planned use with adjacent land uses ( Rogerson/ Oakwood neighborhood park ) ; Appropriate intensity of use for the area . ( Merritt Pasture at NC 54 and US 15/ 501 ) ; * Location ( Northern Community . Park ) ; * Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors , greenways and linear parks ; * Land adjacent to new schools ( Efland - Cheeks , Southern Park ) ; Land for active recreation is. suitable and appropriate for uses ( i . e . , not ecologically - sensitive areas ) ; Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor preservation efforts , * Access ( transportation ) is safe and easily- accomplished ; Meeting multiple goals ( above ) gets higher weight ' Potential Facilities Siting Criteria : * Facilities should be centrally located for population to be served Both active and low = impact ( natural area ) . recreation , opportunities 13 5/ 26/ 99 may exist on - site ; School/ park joint use sites are preferred , Facility addresses a broad range of needs , . An adopted facility plan must exist , . * Promotes pedestrian , bicycle , and . public transportation.; Intensity of uses should be compatible with community ( i . e . lighting ) B . Joint Siting and . Management of Sites 1 . Schools and Land Use Councils In Orange County , a number of elected officials make , decisions that affect schools . The towns and county make land use decisions and . approve developments that increase the numbers . of school children . School boards are . responsible for school policy and school buildings , while the county is . responsible for -provid.ing adequate school facilities . To coordinate these efforts , : the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools and Land Use Council and the Orange County Schools and Land. Use Council were formed , with the purpose of advising the Board of County Commissioners on growth and land use issues related to schools . Specifically ; the Schools and Land Use Councils are charged with " developing a coordinated plan : for approving developments, accounting for the impact of the developments on school capacity, siting schools, and building schools to meet demonstrated need in a timely manner. " Membership on the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , two , Carrboro Board of Aldermen , two , Chapel Hill Town Council members , . and one . Orange. County Commissioner . - The Orange County Schools Land Use Council is composed of two Board of Education members , one Hillsborough town . Commissioner, and one _Orange County - Commissioner . The Schools and Lad - n Use Councils held their first meeting. on . October 8 , 1997 and meet generally bi - monthly , either jointly or as individual councils . To date , . the councils have : . • Adopted a Resolution of Intent Concerning the Role of the Schools- and Land Use Councils ; • Adopted a . Structure for Communication that defines procedures -whereby local governments and schools systems keep+ each other apprised of activities/ decisions that may impact the other ; and • Initiated discussion on a Memorandum of Agreement on Co4ocation of Facilities ( see Appendix E ) . 14 5/ 26/ 99 � C . Impediments to Location of New Facilities In recent years , more attention has been paid to the impacts of recreational facilities . In particular, impacts of lighting , intensity of use , traffic and noise have been cited as posing negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods in the location of recreational . facilities that involve active recreation fields , programs and - lighting , The Parks and Recreation Directors met with staff to explore this issue . Since these concerns are almost exclusively related to active and low - impact recreation , a definition of active and passive recreation might be an important first step to addressing impacts . While many definitions coul be developed for the terms active recre dation and low - impact recreation , the following * might serve as a starting point Active Recreation : Recreation facilities programmable for structured activities, such as ballfields, tennis courts and picnic shelters . Low4mpact Recreation : Facilities that are designed for individual rather than structured activities, such as hiking trails, open picnic tables, open fields and other natural areas . Having defined the nature of active recreation , several points were noted as critical to resolution of future siting problems : • Examples from other communities that have public + education on facility location and public input into decisions ; • Point out the positive components of nearby active recreation , • Focus on greater community needs and the 4downside of not providing active facilities ; • Work to better define -the type of land appropriate for active facilities with lights - locating adjacent to schools and other . more - intensive uses ; • Stress accessibility to pedestrians , bicycle riders ; and public transportation ; • -If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to residential communities, buy , larger land area to develop buffers for shielding of light andm noise . More analysis is needed to explore the . change in attitude toward park impacts , However, the following suggestions may be ways to mitigate concerns about active recreation facilities while meeting the public need : • The co - location of schools and parks can address this issue with appropriate design . • Co - locating schools with parks may have superseded the old concept of community ( mid - level ) parks . If this is the case , the 15 5/ 26/ 99 focus for future parks and recreation development could be targeted to smaller, less - intensive .neighborhood .parks and larger district parks . • By combining active and low - impact recreation needs at the district park level ( 100 - plus acres )., it may be possible to develop trails and retain natural areas on the : perimeter while dedicating the interior to active facilities and " hidden " parking areas . Care must be exercised to ensure the integrity of natural areas , however . Buffers should contain enough land and mature tree canopy to minimize sound and lighting to an , acceptable level . • Place future programmed active recreation . facilities in . larger district parks and make neighborhood parks low - impact . • Look countywide to define future neighborhood and district parks working with UNC , OWASA and other entities . • Related to, the above , land acquisition for parks is needed now to begin to identify . and save priority parklands . Several local governments ( including some city/ county joint efforts ) .are presently engaged in this ( sometimes called " land :banking ) . D . Mechanisms for Implementing Goals Through Capital . Improvement Plans ( CIP 's ) and . * Long - term Parkland Acquisition To be developed . A meeting of the Managers , elected representatives and " staffs is being scheduled to address these issues . E . Coordination . Opportunities wiW 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 man y 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 U.niversity .. In the 1996 report " Recreation and Park Issues In Orange County ", the work group " determined that in applying standards to the population of Orange County that 11 , 000 people ( students living in dormitories and fraternities/sororities ) could. be subtracted from population .totals in deriving park acreage needs . The assumption underlying this adjustment is that these students reside on campus and have their recreation needs met wholly by. 16 5/ 26/ 99 * UNC - CH , while others in the, towns and County rely largely on the three jurisdictions facilities . " Town - Gown Opportunities According to UNC recreation managers , facility needs for students are largely met on the UNC campus . UNC officials estimate that a small . number of students use town . facilities , excluding . the use of privately held soccer fields . As mentioned above , it is widely known that citizens throughout the community use various facilities owned by UNC . While towns ' concerns are largely centered around facility use by students , faculty use of both UNC and public facilities also arise when developing methods of assessing use and needs by jurisdictions . The exact numbers of faculty and students utilizing UNC facilities is unknown . Some officials from UNC see the balance of town - gown recreation facility use as harmonious while select town perceptions focus on increasing public sector facility pressures . UNC is also working to encourage the public- use of some of .its facilities such as the Carolina Outdoor Education Center ( see Appendix E ) . This facility . includes tennis courts , a frisbee . golf course-, bike trails , and rope courses , UNC wants to educate the public about recreation availability ,_ especially encouraging lesser- known facilities around campus . F . Coordination Opportunities with OWASA The Orange Water and Sewer Authority. ( OWASA) has been an active part of . . Orange County 's efforts ' surrounding recreation and park planning . Representatives of the OWASA Board and staff are members of the Work Group , and have actively contributed to the efforts of the County in providing higher levels of recreation and park service to citizens in the community . OWASA owns over 3 , 000 acres in Orange County , - and the local governments have expressed interest in discussing recreation possibilities on parts of these holdings . Both OWASA- owned Cane Creek - Reservoir lands - and University Lake ( which - is leased from UNC) are unique recreational locations in the County . These combined areas represent nearly 2 * 000 acres within southwestern Orange County . As some of the only formal locations with boating , fishing , and canoeing in the County , these areas are recreational opportunities the County is interested in maintaining . The expansion of hours and seasons for use of recreation facilities at Cane Creek and University Lake is an issue that might build new bridges : Partnerships with OWASA are avenues for encouraging recreational opportunities on OWASA lands . Opportunities appear to exist for local governments to work 'with OWASA . In 4 particular, local governments may be interested in 4discussing with OWASA long - term scenarios . for some lands , including mitigation lands acquired during the building of Cane. Creek Reservoir , The OWASA Board of Directors 17 5/ 26/ 99 * has asked the local governments that requests regarding recreation use be made on specific parcels ( please see Appendix F) . OWASA`.s primary objective of water quality protection will determine their policy decisions regarding appropriate intensity of use on specific holdings . The Carrboro - Board has recently asked. OWASA to consider environmentally - sensitive low - impact public recreation uses on 4all * OWASA properties . Finally , OWASA has acquisition plans for nearly 1300 acres in Cane Creek watershed , which may offer another potential opportunity for partnership with local governments for the provision of low - impact recreation . G . Coordination . Opportunities with , Duke University Duke Forest is private land_ owned and managed by Duke University as an outdoor educational and, I research facility. Comprised of seven tracts of land , the Forest covers nearly 8000 acres of woodlands and fields . Within , the Forest there are a variety of forest ecosystems , stand ages , plant species , wildlife , soils , topography , and past land uses . Orange County contains five Duke Forest tracts . ( or ' divisions ' ) and almost 5000 acres in ' the County . The Duke Forest is fully accessible through an established network - of roads and footpaths : Although not expressly invited , the public is permitted to use the maintained road . and trail system for recreational purposes . Permissible uses 'include hiking , biking , horseback riding , fishing , and picnicking , & with horses and mountain bikes being restricted to the access roads . These uses are allowed where they do not conflict with teaching and research activities . The public in Orange County has received a substantial benefit from the availability of Duke Forest resources . A 1990 survey estimated Duke Forest visitation at 273 , 000 visits per year . Given a fifteen . percent increase in the county ' s population since that .survey, and the fact that three - quarters of the Forest ' s roads and trails are in Orange County , it is probable that current use by residents of Orange County exceeds 235 , 000 visits per year . Public use of the Duke Forest has the potential to cause conflicts with ongoing research and teaching, in addition to - creating concerns - related to maintenance and liability . . In recent years , an increasing amount of Duke Forest staff . time has been spent in response to problems caused by improper public use and over- use . Attempts have been made to reduce liability, and conflicts between academic and public uses by .directing the public to less sensitive areas , restricting permissible activities, and educating the public about the academic mission of the Duke Forest . However, in light of increasing public demand for natural area recreation , reduction in conflicts with the academic mission of the Forest will only occur with the addition of public facilities provided by the surrounding counties and . municipalities . In light of this , the future appears to offer opportunities to work with Duke to address mutual interests . 18 5/ 26/ 99 a: -n:ryutnr. ...ts:.,vT'.:: �r.,, ':s`r' :ry':ro::- s:r^• s `F _,r•<•x=::x:> - ?.:aisa+>s'a�.0 ..f-v 'xsx: Fo . i:"'� ._v . .. .:a..� . ,, :•r - '' "-.v., : >c > .�i ' '�:Y7 _ n_ 4'£" 3: -`q.<h' M ..yu�-+w{rt3?^ ," ':'xr s-:. sse;�c ®e:::t.;'k':ti{".,{ •'•ar:,_r.^'s' - ,,.a =. ,.rm 5r- .e- `v''E. .< §� ^ ..,r". ' 'fa�` r r `„ <, v. .2�E• .. . r ' _ � �::- A-. - .r ' ., . .. _ - ...'<i::t . a;� - . {� , :ir' ���'���,' ,��- . _ 53 _ 'ait" _ 3 fT _ x , :._ -i..r.. �S "F, !;-' ''`jLLT '?� r� • <?<� � k._ :-G rc2:: t '} f .vmt-<dr'S , f . ��ffzz ' ." ,M s _ may. ,Y z . . < r, . . . :-: <��� � - l �u.»-:,.., 'r. ;y.ic ,.- _ .. , ,. •t<. . . s F ..,,. . _ .. : ,. 4...s-�< �> - ., ..:, . - «.- '.fi... rs _ ,ran. ... :, ,.....'C„_ ="k -x -i.'Z.a s . v,.'.,v'� a�;> - :^:x .i ^"' :R. .. _ � c .. _ ::..+.:H. _ .. ✓: , .Y .. F. a . L. _ f„ .«.+. . .- as° xT.Lv;.,x „:$.: — �'=5'�-F{'r-'"a r ,y'+.:- • _ .;.{: .- .: `sC;'"v`.:..^„n . .. � R .,F '�, - ." +,. : . s.; } .�' . s« o+. . {s_ 3-. , r.,3'.Y.< '- s: :•..zn . s �'F5k-'.'rr_ : }a) ,T�i'" - _.na. - ..,�tia. �`? .:. .sib. .<"S. < .. s •5 F -. x . . > .".:e{ .rv. .. ,i .. .< :<... .r. }f` ..>..::n '#.vc :. ...._.� r c.:�•'�".�a<_ ,S :`.��!` >..?�_ .:,.r ,:"F'<°.. .i;. �.,!"_ L. :] .["4�=<'i.\3 :__.n Y.a^% cs'"<:a#a,'•`«:�ii..'.�,", :TL".:e. .- n ">E�=s'£.n.- �:z�... `�X'•' ':..{,- F..- . . Y, `�.F-s,;..t; {a3m� �.2<*�r4< ' Fla'', e . F A: r, •s . . .t . A . Ensuring Recreation Needs Are Met In Section II of this -document , recreation needs have been identified for each of the jurisdictions within Orange County , using previous works and new assessments . While there are some differences between the jurisdictions , in general the needs fall into the following major categories : • Acquisition of lands for long -term park use (" land - banking ") ; • School / park • combinations ; • Acquisition of open space and natural areas for low - impact . recreation ; • Acquisition and development of greenways , trails , and linear parks ; • Active recreation facilities and/ or gymnasiums • Larger community/ district parks with a mixture of activities • Neighborhood - scale parks - If coordinated capitalfunding and long - term land acquisition is pursued , a flexible process must be developed that would allow for revisions as well , as the introduction of new priorities with a timetable that ranks needs and establishes a reasonable timeframe to assure the communities ' recreational needs are being met . A model along the lines of the NCDOT seven - year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP ) might be a starting point . . A multi jurisdictional - committee charged . with evaluating needs , funding availability and long - term plans could . undertake the development of this mechanism . B . Greenways in Urban Areas and Wildlife Corridors in Rural Areas One of the most prominent needs identified in both urban and rural areas are the need to preserve green corridors . ' These corridors 4 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 and4 ridges . Inside the . Towns , paved or gravel trails along utility easements and - streamways have been and continue to be a high priority . such as the much - used Bolin Creek Greenway in Chapel Hill . Other types of corridors merge these two concepts , . serving as a combination of the wtwo ( such as Eno River State Park" and . the planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough/Orange County ) . 19 5/ 2. 6/ 99 - 1 . Greenways In the past 15 years , - a considerable degree of planning has occurred in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for greenways . In 1985 , the Town of Chapel Hill received a Greenways , Task Force Report that Ied . to the creation 4 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 arid construction plans an-d . priorities . The 1996 plan focused on four new greenway trails : Lower Booker Creek ( Phase II ) , Upper Booker Creek , Dry Creek ( Phase I ) and Dry Creek ( Phase II ) . The Town of Ca rrboro 's " Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan " calls for active greenways to be - located on the Morgan and Bolin Creek corridors . Both would be off- street facilities ; for a total of ten miles and linking up with greenways planned in Chapel Hill . . It has been the practice to require offers of dedication in - both areas as -part:. of the Town 's _Land Use .Ordinance . However, no offers have been formally accepted. by the Town as of this date . In regards to other non - motorized access , Carrboro 's bikeways system is among the . best in . North Carolina . The bikeway system is designed to allow residents to safely commute from their - neighborhoods through the central business district to Chapel Hill at Cameron Avenue . For the sporting .cyclist concerned with touring or training , routes start at Jones Ferry and Old 11 + Hillsborough roads . The town 's recreational facilities are easily accessible to * Carrboro residents by the bikeway . system . While . the Town . of Hillsborough . does not have a formal greenways program , recent initiatives to link Occoneechee Mountain to the Eno River State Park and develop at Riverwalk along the Eno in Hillsborough ( in conjunction with Orange County ) would -. form a significant beginning for a greenways system . There is a fourth area where the potential for greenways currently exists , although no facilities have been planned or developed to date . The 1986 Joint Planning Area Plan Use -. Plan . adopted . by the ( County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro contains a strategy map that provides : for - future . greenway corridors along the . network - of . streams in the . Rural Buffer .area as well . as the Town. 's long - te, rm 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 Ito date - in the Rural Buffer ,. no plans have been developed for a greenway system . This. subject would likely be dealt with in the planned revisi. on to . the . County Master. Recreation and Parks Plan . 20 5/ 26/ 99 2 . Wildlife Corridors In 1988 , the Triangle Land Conservancy developed an Inventory of &Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County . In identifying 64 of the most significant sites countywide , the Inventory also identified and addressed the importance of preserving wildlife corridors. along selected streams and ridges as connectors . These connectors provide habitat and allow migrating wildlife to move between larger open land masses and water bodies . In many of these corridors a primitive trail system exists , formed by years of use , by wildlife and local hikers , although many of the lands in the corridor are privately - . . . - . . held . The need . for this green skeleton will increase in the future as development continues to occur . The proposed_ wildlife corridor network in the 1988 Inventory connects . the Gordan Lake lands to University Lake , and Cane Creek Reservoir to the . Eno . River and Little P . River . This corridor has been incorporated in the - Or : County Comprehensive Plan . as part of the Resource Protection Area category . Much of the wildlife corridor lies . * within floodplain * or poorly - drained land that would not be developed ; but important, overland connectors exist along several ridges . Attempts to protect this corridor in Its natural state are currently pursued through the County `s voluntary Flexible Development ordinance . Other corridors may also , be . important to + the & natural eco - system and wildlife habitat . 3 . Linkages between Greenways and Linear Parks There are clear distinctions between greenways, designed for human recreational use and wildlife corridors to - ' be maintained in , a natural state . A third component of the system is the existing / planned network of open space in the County , ' areas such as Eno River State Park , Duke Forest , and the planned Riverwalk in Hillsborough . These areas are apparent as " nodes " or junctions in the green infrastructure of the . County, often connected . by stream or wildlife corridors . This type of network also exists in the urban . areas , where greenways serve to connect many Town parks . As the County and towns continue to grow and develop, retention of a green corridor concept will - be Important . Additionally , ways to link : rural linear parks and open space accessible to ` the public to Town greenways at a few key6 junctions could greatly expand low = impact recreational opportunities . Identification of strategic corridors ( rural trail links ) that can tie these pieces of the open space network will be needed in the long -term.. 21 5/ 26/ 99 , C . Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and Rural Trail Links The use of land for greenways , rural trails and wildlife corridors - may be viewed as a , continuum of types . One example . of a continuum is found in the 1996 Chapel Hill Greenways Plan ., The Greenways Plan classifies six different types of natural corridors or trails , ranging from natural wildlife corridors , to 10400t paved greenways for bike and . pedestrian use . The six classes from the Chapel Hill Greenways Plan ( with some modified terminology ) are : 1 . Unimproved Corridors lacking trails . No . maintenance unless problems ( such as diseased or dying trees ) affect neighboring properties . 2 . Primitive Trails , created+ by . wildlife or . citizens . Not maintained : 3 . Improved Woodland Trails , with .soft natural surface and minimal improvements that can accommodate mountain bikes and serve as interpretive trails : Basic maintenance ( removal of litter, fallen trees and limbs ) 4 . Unpaved Access Drive with gates or bollards to prevent casual vehicle use , suitable for pedestrians or mountain bikes . Usually a road built for other, purposes and used for a trail . 5 . Paved Greenway Trail , under 104eet wide . Can be pedestrian - only. or allow bicycle use . Maintenance . 6 . Paved Greenway Trail 10 - Feet or Wider, for mixed bicycle and pedestrian traffic . Built to ADA standards . While developed with greenways in mind , this classification scheme could be used on a broader scale . Classes 1 - 2 , for example , might reasonably fit into the scheme of wildlife corridors , adding provisions that specify no improvements , no public access , . and any trails only as � l previously created by wildlife or people . Classes 4 - 6 would appear to be more - properly classified as greenways, since their use - is * more targeted to people ( either pedestrian or bicycle ) . Classes 4 - 6 ' would be more urban .in nature ,. publicly owned . or eased , and found inside the Towns or . adjacent areas . Class 3 (Improved Woodland Trails ) could be seen as a hybrid trail found in both urban and rural areas , and as such could be used as an example of rural trail links that tie some parks and open space to a regional trail system on a primary corridor to be identified in the o future . In this sense , Woodland Trails may constitute a third . category of corridors and trails . There are several criteria that could be used to evaluate land 22 5/ 26/ 99 suitability for wildlife corridors , woodland trails and greenways , in this setting . Examples might include : . . . Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Criteria • Located along perennial streams , or ridges . connecting watershed basins and their perennial. streams Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy • Connects and includes identified natural areas and wildlife habitat and other areas of public interest • Privately held unless dedicated to public entity - no public access unless . granted by property owner/ public entity • No trails , except as existing from the movement of wildlife/ people Woodland Trails ( Rural Trail Links) Evaluation Criteria • Located along an identified primary corridor system • Located away from natural areas and wildlife habitat , or in such fasihion 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 it • Located in areas with minimal streamway and adjoining lands erosion potential • Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy • Located in areas where periodic access for emergency vehicles can be sited Greenway Evaluation Criteria • Located along streamway systems in urban or surrounding areas • Co - located with existing easements ( such as. utility easements ) • Located as far as possible from residences to preserve privacy • Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank • . Stream crossingsshould be avoided whenever possible and grade separated when necessary • Located to ensure that minimum disruption of the trail would result from . repair or replacement of utilities • Located to connect existing neighborhoods , parks and services • Located to allow for emergency vehicle access With these priorities in mind , the long - term potential for a few carefully - sited rustic rural trails linking some urban greenways or parks to existing and future rural linear parks and open space does exist . Plans for development of any coordinated intra -County trail system should be developed . with linkages . to regional plans for parks and trails . Linkages along the Haw River, Eno River State Park, New Hope Creek, Jordan Lake . and future rails - to - trails initiatives will likely be critical components of a long - range regional trails system . The Joint Planning Area Strategy . Map shows the beginnings of such a system that was envisioned in 1987 . While considerable further work is 23 5/ 26/ 99 needed in this area , it is possible , with existing mapping to. visualize three examples of possible long -term rural trail links tying town parks and open space to those in rural areas ; • A North Chapel Hill / Rural Buffer corridor linking Booker Creek Greenway , Northern Community Park , Duke Forest, New Hope Creek ( including TLC lands and Duke Forest) back to the New . Hope Creek Corridor and the Durham County line . • A corridor in southwest/ central Orange County linking the Haw River , & Cane Creek Reservoir, OWASA mitigation lands , Seven - Mile Creek lands , Eno . River . and Duke Forest, Eno River Walk in Hillsborough and the Eno River State Park . ( A. northern branch along the Eno toward * the new Hillsborough reservoir could , be added to this ' concept ) . • A corridor in southern Orange linking Bolin Creek Greenway via . Meadowmont and UNC to the U_ NC Botanical Garden to Jordan Lake lands . . t .24 5/ 26/ 99 .._. . -. . . ._ : v - ;hK r:. ., t . . , emW :r> ie 72 Y Ase ?:Hx>wrs .e z'S ;r q",,...s��r. m-C;s>i.�:k r. _.-�` .9w,SxWa>-',.ti�-£`> x c.-µ- ' =. . '?_?-•`:;.,'»s.;<-;<7:r-`xva.�.-..-x. .- s•,',_, a �a: .>-1=' . i Y;sy: i c ..', n . f'..r 'IPf`•}`. .�n;.f _. ,...L;-:s e _ ,_. ` . . - <•... . .•.., :_ : :` :,. `'s-' .R�: .it'�:` : z.. ,,: 'Ssy::c,.afr. E'S3 < i: ',._.^ l#' w;:s; a�';w. t€.ts�. ".-��"`.'.:::.1;.. .sM. ;rF:iz.�r:S.=.�::r';:u+ti.:M..-�.xra .�.d �.:.,�•a:�Eat. i :. .. ...... *t ' �:.r«�`-..:.. . ¢...ima:+a':ea.: `�::s..�'..;`":<�i.',z..,iaR,: �.,.zs:.<.�r:a ,ass,...aa :.M'$Zk.�x:xx,c�.. ':€Yrx•:,..0 �.�a."w...,.,.w..r..,........ek'�..'a A . Coordination with County Resource Acquisition Program On January 4 , 1999 , Orange County created a Department of Environment and Resource Conservation . One of the principal tasks for, the new department is the development of a Resource Acquisition Program . While primarily targeted to the preservation of natural and cultural resources , the program will also address acquisition measures for recreation lands . and. parks - since many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and recreation are intertwined . Since the County 's resources are located in all quadrants of the County , irrespective of planning jurisdiction , the program offers an opportunity for coordinated acquisition with the Towns and OWASA . A new Land Resource, Conservation Manager is being hired to coordinate these acquisitions , a with a dual background in science and. real estate . . r. A draft outline of the Resource Acquisition Program has been developed and is shown below. It includes an assessment of the loss of resources that has occurred to date , an inventory of resources at present ; and development of a program of easements and purchase for the future that may involve a number of approaches . Fortunately , some preliminary GIS mapping in this area has been accomplished . Additional efforts will be needed to . complete the task, including the collation of data from inventories previously compiled . * This program will coordinate the acquisition of land for historic sites , .. natural resources , parks and recreation, and farmland - using matching funds and seed money from the County . As such , the program will be inter- related with the Schools/ Land Use and .Master Recreation and Parks efforts . It is thus anticipated that the , eventual goals , objectives and criteria identified in this report will be inputs into the acquisition program for .recreation and parks facilities . 25 5/ 26/ 99 Draft - Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County L 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 C. 1990 LESA Farmland Evaluation program _ D: Watershed studies (1988, 1989, 19961 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 Npeds Iv . Criteria and Master Prioritylist' for Acquisition A . Criteria for. Natural Areas and . Wildlife habitat Be Criteria for Prime Farmland co Criteria for Historic Sites ~ . Do Criteria for Parklands. E. Criteria for Riparian Buffers F. Ranking System / Weighting G. Priority List (by category) Section IT - Management and Funding v . Tool's 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) via Management Structure ( land trusts , etc) A . Collaborating with existing land trusts Be . Soil and Water District C. Establishing a Countywide Land Trust D. Roles of County Commissions and Advisory Boards E. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships F. Stewardship - and Post Acquisition Structure viI . Alternative Funding Sources (grants , etc) A . County CIP Allocations Be Other County Funds C. Grants from Clean Water Management Trust Fund D. Grants from Natural Heritage Trust Fund E. Grants from NC Recreation and Parks Trust Fund F. Federal Funds G. Soil and Water Administered Funds H. Many Others Section III - Implementation vIII . Recommended Implementation Program A . Management Structure Be Board of Directors / Oversight Boards Co Funding Plans D. Plan of Action E. Stewardship and use of Lands 26 5/ 26/ 99 * B . : Funding Sources 1 . Alternative Sources The means and methods , of funding future recreation and parks - needs - may involve . a number of approaches and combinations . As discussed in Section III , a coordinated approach for capital funding of acquisitions might be desirable . Some possibilities for funding sources might include : • Bond referenda from the County or Towns • Grants from. ,programs such as the . NC Parrs and Recreation Trust Fund , the . Natural- Heritage Trust Fund ( via state agencies ) , the . Clean Water Management Trust Fund , Conservation Reserve . Enhancement Program , and other sources ( add exam-pies ) • Allocations from. local government general: funds or special accounts • Contributions from other agencies with interests • Matching funds from local governments • Payment- in - Lieu or New Program of funding through development ( see Sections VI and VII ) : or. School /.Park Reserve Fund • Future Federal programs for open space and parks ( Lands Legacy / Better America Bonds Initiative ) • NC Conservation Corps (AmeriCorps/VISTA ) 2 . Local funding of State Trust Funds : Parks and Recreation .Trust Fund / Natural Heritage Trust Fund . . Two of these potential funding sources are funded through . locally collected - revenue stamps . Currently , the County collects $ 2 . 00 per thousand on Pthe sale prices of . houses , Of this money , 48 % goes to the State , while 52 % ( $ 1. . 04 of the $ 2 stamp ) stays in the . County . Three - quarters ( 75 % ) of the- Staters portion : goes to the Parks _ and Recreation Trust Fund established under G . S : 113 = 44 . 15 . The money collected under this fund is appropriated annually by the NC Parks and Recreation Authority and used . as fo1 lows : 1 1 . Sixty - five percent ( 65 % ) for the State Parks System for capital . projects , repairs/ renovations of park facilities , and land acquisition . 2 . Thirty percent ( 30 % ) to provide matching funds to local governmental units on a .dollar- for- dollar basis for local park and recreation purposes . These funds. shall be allocated - by the North Carolina . Parks and Recreation Authority based on: criteria patterned after- the Open Project Selection Process established for the - Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the Nation_ al . Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior . 1 Information on the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund is taken from the corresponding state statutes P g 27 5/ 26/ 99. I Five percent ( 5 % ) for the Coastal and . Estuarine Water Beach Access Program . Local funding to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ( PARTF ) through revenue stamps began in the 1996 - 97 fiscal year. Through March 199 % Orange County ( including the towns ) has contributed $ 1 , 351 , 727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust : Fund through the state "s 48 % portion of the funding arrangement . Of that amount , $ 304 , 139- has gone to the . local government matching grants program . To date , the N . C . Recreation and &Parks Authority has allocated $ 31 , 500 back .into Orange County , to the Town of Hillsborough for the Occoneechee . Mountain Park : This is the only local funding received . Total Revenue Stamps Collected from Orange County March . . . 52 % back to County local governments 48 % portilon to State • • of 48 • • to Parks and Recreation Trust Fu • . $ 1 , 351 , 727 30 % of Parks and Recreation Trust Fund available for local government grants ' . Parks and Recreation Trust Fund $ 's Allocated inside County 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 land_ s for state parks , preserves , wildlife conservation areas , coastal reserves , natural and scenic rivers , historic site properties , and other outdoor recreation and natural areas . Fund priorities are given to projects that will protect areas of state or national ecological significance or outstanding cultural significance , and are granted only to state and federal agencies , Funds are only available to state agencies , or local governments working in conjunction with state agencies . . To date , Orange County has contributed $ 337 , 932 to the Natural Heritage Fund program through revenue stamps . The only federal or state programs in Orange County, that have received money is the Eno River State Park , 2 From the Natural Heritage Trust Fund webpage . 28 . 5/ 26/ 99 = t '^xzeY,pw '-ro�:>`a . 'x^ • ;:.swsx...,-, „"r':ir»• .-.o"%y ' ' tee".". ' Y:rzk;pycz;:: ^^.r„"8 <i�'�'W�"os?o.'. .�">� "Tz ... :ne .. .es:, '. *•.ex:•x -wx:s .<. .. ... „ fz. . ,as4.. .-.� ;x .sr.>>ai_w' ve:�.y;: r ' g:':e "`::.£;a< :`.':T :".^s't'z•(w"pf` _:41v . t.> � _- ":'� `-.`# � - ,P'it;•. - .. . e. . . , . 3 r . ._ . . , , ->.T,.xs ,_.o.. ..*,.. - _ _ ., t . :e.r,. ,..-s ' -5:^ a . ^:. `.r:g• < F, •=;:.;ax>:': .z-sit. -....,.: .x: :�.,...,....>. .. ` .. _ :�. < - t 4.-+ -- •-;s;r - P ,: £.,.'. <- f°3=.m '4'c'` :q'''„',?'w i., ; { <.C:t.: , Ec ,c,{' � „'.. ,:. , „a • -�°:st . ..,F,:.""P; cd :�;«,:e;g.s,,',-`. i Y'/'' • Rn`n ..F . - > � t -.�.-` .2 .:'.'%. _ i - tn-;7 . . -._h: .. . y{ „ NMa .i - .�.:.. •�c- e.7a.i. 4. v Air . � : � rP• _� e s �: .x-..,.:.'.t`xRP..§tz;,.taao.:m., fFfa '•:CFF'`�'`... ;:, zT • . . _• ..,. .. -,::£".e ^:r`ss.3::.i:. fik: :A. :.a�.:.',-.'.. 'f„�i.::;:ai.z'.-...,.:P.95r` .'i&:;.T.�:rs.m.a:�:::�3;: � ". ti«csw:r'a:'�waacir'.` e"k' 'xc'sxa-' :.'.'.<'s=`,z`.'.,Y.i"z,'..:x: A . Development Exactions for Recreation . ' in Orange County Population growth overthe - past thirty years has forced a reassessment of . the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas . Increasing pressures on , funds generated from the ' traditional property tax levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental Ideas on paying for parks and recreation . - Public officials have been encouraged to consider alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the property tax base and bond funds .- ' Alternatives to purchase and dedications include payment- in - lieu and impact fee programs . The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions .in Orange County have recreation requirements in their own Subdivision Regulations or Land ' Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated , private recreation facilities ' provided , or a combination . thereof. . These requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/ police authority of local governments to protect the health , safety , and welfare of their . communities. These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority ,,. similar to roads , utilities , and other public improvements required as . conditions for- subdivision approval . The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Messer v . Town of Chapel Hill , 297 S . E . 2d 632 ( 1982 )1, . in holding that the - Town ordinance , within the statutory powers given to a city , could exact recreation -land or facilities wand even require the . particular site within the subdivision to provide adequate recreation needs . B . .Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and . Impact Fee . Programs L Payment- in - Lieu A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities has been the inclusion of a payment- in - lieu program under this same general statutory . power. In this program , a subdivision developer pays a fee related to the jurisdiction 's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation lands , of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate . These fees then help provide recreation - facilities within the , immediate area of the development . If the developer Is provided the option . to meet the jurisdiction 's . requirements or make some commensurate payment - in - lieu of recreation facilities , the Our is empowered under its existing statutory owers . Payment- to accept the payment g ry p in - lieu fees must . be geographically designated • within the mmediate area of the development , spent within :a - reasonable amount of time , and supplemented with ' other funds . 5/ 26/ 99 2 . Impact Fees and Impact Taxes An impact fee requires the developer . to pay a fee representing the prorated cost of providing, community - wide and area - wide recreational facilities required, by this new development . The use of the * fee requires authority from the legislature through enabling' legislation , and Orange . County currently has the authority to levy* such impact . fees . Orange County also has a Public School . Facilities Impact Fee , but no other impact fee is currently in use in the county for any other services . . In using these fees , there must . be exhibited a correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual need created by the impact of the development and ( 2 ) benefits provided to the particular subdivision . By contrast , an impact tax allows for recognition that all impacts are not equal . . Impact taxes may be assessed in graduated levels and do not require the " one size fits. all " regressive nature fee scale that exists for impact .fees . Orange County has , in previous years , tsought impact tax legislation from the State to provide for possible reassessment of the Public School Impact Fee program . C . Current Status of Payment- in - Lieu. Throughout the County Methods of assessi-ng a development 's recreation impact vary across the different jurisdictions . within Orange County . Appendix . G indicates the method by which . Orange County a. nd Carrboro calculate their payment required for the payment - in - lieu program . Orange County also has tspecial legislation which allows . payments to be collected and spent on a " district " basis . Instead of using . a set schedule of payments , Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of Land instead of payments . The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation and open space :needs . . In terms of the reality of the programs , in Carrboro , many , developments choose - to provide private recreation facilities rather 41 than payment - in - lieu . Carrboro has collected $ 453 , 000 to date . Both Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do � not have . detailed central . records of the . results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations . Orange County . has required payments since 1988 , , and has accumulated these payments in a fund totaling '$ 488 , 000 . It is clear in a broad , overview , - however, that the current system of , land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens ' . needs . Several problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and 5/ 26/ 99 facilities . While recreational facilities may be developed privately , these are # not open to the public . Secondly , small parcels of land that are donated for public use are often not used , because of their small size and/ or inaccessible location . 1 . Land Dedication In Orange County , a total of 44 . 08 Acres has been dedicated . All of the la nnd is located in souther . Orange , in , either Bingham . or Chapel . Hill ' Townships . All are also non - contiguous , parcels ranging from 0 . 12 acres to 12 . 34 acres in size . i - • Bingham Township 14 . 32 Acres * • Chapel Hill Township 29 . 76 Acres 2 . Payments - in - Lieu Funds Collected Both Orange County and Carrboro have . collected funds under the existing payment - in4eu programs . Under legislative authority granted * by the General Assembly , Orange County may , .. collect and use its funds on a district . basis . In the . 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County , a system of four districts was instituted ( see map 1n Appendix K) . . To - date ( April 1999 ) , the County has ' accumulated $ 531000 through- the payment - in - lieu system . ' Three projects totaling $ 45 , 000 have been funded from these proceeds : the New Hope Creek Corridor project , the ' Efland - Cheeks Park and the & Parkland = Reserve . There is currently $ 488., 000 available for use in the fund . Broken down by district, the Orange County funds _ are allocated as follows : Orange County Payments - in - Lieu Total Accumulated ( as of 4/ 99 ) : $ 533 , 000 Spent as of 4/ 99 45 000 District Amount 1 - - Northern Orange 102 332 2 - Cheeks/ $ 1711296 Hillsborou h 3 - Bin ham 65 003 4 - Chapel . Hill Tw - 149 317 ' GRAND TOTAL - $ 487, 952 ALL TWPS Town of Carr -born Payments in Lieu to date •. $ 453 , 684 5/ 26/ 99 . D . Difficulties with Payment- in - Lieu Programs In reviewing payment- in - lieu programs , the Work Group heard from . local practitioners, attorneys , and an expert from the Institute of Government . It is clear that several difficulties exist in effectively providing recreation facilities using payment - in - lieu programs . Both Carrboro ,and Orange . County have funds that remain , to be matched and -spent . Chapel Hill has consistently used its fund , yet the same. restrictions do not necessarily apply . since its4 system of individual negotiations does not fit under the definition of a payment - in - lieu program . . Several problems with the current systems are highlighted below , and - proposals for changes to the means of providing and . , funding recreation lands will be suggested in Section VII , the recommendations section of this report . Difficulties • Payment - in - lieu is not intended . to fund facilities of countywide significance • Fees must be geographically earmarked and . spent on areas within the immediate area • Fees must be spent within a reasonable period of time Fees must -be supplemented with matching funds for use The requirements for the distribution of payment- in - lieu fees complicate potential solutions that would pool funds and inter- - jurisdictional cooperation . In order for any of these ventures to occur, an analysis , of park use as related to population growth and location may be needed , helping to prove the requisite " equisite " reasonable . relationship " between the collected fee and benefited populace . Through its special legislation , Orange County may be able to re - draw : districts to potentially address these problems . E . Comparison with . Other Programs Regionally and Nationally Understanding our difficulties with 4* paymentawminowlieul and exactions will enable us to also search for better solutions . In order to gain a clearer 4. picture of regional , state , and national trends regarding land regulatory policies for parkland acquisition , we . must .look to examples of different jurisdictions experiences . The table below . highlights jurisdictions within our region , state , and4 other states . 41 5/ 26/ 99 Table 2 : Recreation Land Acquisition Comparison JURISDICTION PAYMENT- IN METHOD OF CALCULATING COST ESTIMATES LIEU ? PAYMENT Orange County Yes Zone District Ma 422 or 455 per lot Carrboro Yes Points System $ 852 . 63 to $ 11695 . 21 per dwellin unit Chapel Hill . Yes Fair Market Value Cost negotiated with developer via Planning & Rec . Department , based on Community Facilities Report Hillsborough Yes Fair Market Value 1/ 35 acre or 1 / 20 . . acre per dwelling or business unit Wake Count Cary Yes Fair Market Value # Acres times Fair Market Value Raleigh No Impact Fee Schedule and $ 223 to $ 375 per Zone Map dwelling unit Durham City/ County No Impact Fee Schedule $ 183 . 38 . to $ 296 . 99 per dwellind unit Guilford County No None N/A Greensboro No None N/A Charlotte - Mecklenburg No None N /A Davis California Yes Impact Fee Schedule 2000 per acre Boulder County , Yes Fair Market Value 25 acres per 1000 Colorado occupants Many of the above local governments have developed alternative models to the acquisition and/ or dedication of land for recreational purposes .- Additional q / P p i details on the specifics of each program may be found in Appendix H . r 5/ 26/ 9 .9 <..-5=. •f"-!;: h; �€: .�.,"�' `� -:„- Y � "< �'? r ,.-•.::;ia•. gar . •. ; srs;f,. - - +[v :.e ; .zs �1 f is ;4 .r. i .• r 11 11 "F.-� .. .s -. ;,A . -' .k. n- . . . . t .. i. . :+:. .,. ,. ,. .�. .- . ._a .. , 'zaQ" _ `�:_ - -+:.s' "w `•?� )?'z _ .'c'yc "£.`-'� a ''z a.tx..x..'.kwR..f...4?.r.S.,u.,..k3xZfS.S'..�R.r-e.X`r»S,.%tw.e"':..&i"dw.`a., :9�k:a •a . e,.^§'-. k . .. . .. es. ,« :"a- - ,. ?c.. ,. .r.,? ":.` - w$;< ',=.4 .<h.,.s—'; i :,."" 4r F`s,,. e , �-- -'-'3>. .... >'`i''.'';'=.Ftx'S. «''4�".''t*w€..t.k'.r.:..�K'... ..,,,,.A,rn,.x.#=t.awn:G,.«�: . k:....«'xi.�xa?�•ao-: �^Z<,�. .::h' .`a1'ee.,.:Y{z�S.t :;?Y'`:?:: :dE:? r::..x.' z.,'s,::iW...r;'�`.ca' :z.:�,aLaa�-�:?-xs}P. az'^:,szs,e:,is`i=d�'C: m:". •d�'.'x2zx'�i One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork for future matching funds and grant programs - - many of which require a set of goals, objectives and criteria . As Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough develop , the nature of future park and recreation provision will likely include cooperative ventures among the local . governments *and partnerships with organizations such as - the school systems , OWASA , UNC and Duke . Planning for this eventuality should begin now , to ensure - that - valuable opportunities are not lost . These concepts were in fact , the reason for this effort ; as described in the Assembly of Governments and Manager's reports from 1996/ 1997 , In its deliberations , the Master- Recreation and Parks Work Group has developed recommendations - in . nine key areas , An Create a " Parks and Resource Lands Council " b 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 one4 citizen from each jurisdiction , along with representatives from the school systems , UNC , OWASA and -Duke . The Council could meet . quarterly to address follow =up concerns An the areas discussed in - this report . The opportunity i, n this Work Group to bring all of the different. local governments to the table has been useful and informative , and the Work Group feels that this . momentum could: be - continued through a long - term mechanism . While the actual duties of the Council would need to be determined , some areas of responsibility ' mi4 . ght include : • Develop" and periodically review coordinated standards ; . • Develop future bond . proposals for -parks and recreation ; • Provide input and a ' co.ordinatin. g mechanism. for updates of future recreation plans in the different jurisdictions ; • Make recommendations on allocation of future bond moneys for parks and recreation ; Develop grant applications . and alternative funding sources ; . Maintain and update the Inventory . of Parks and Recreation . Facilities developed as part of this effort ; • Create' and maintain an inventory of properties dedicated or accepted as part of the development process , • Monitor success of efforts to protect significant natural areas as identified in the Natural Areas Inventory , watershed 5/ 26/ 99 studies , and plans for greenways and linear parks , • Coordinate efforts with the Orange County Resource Acquisition Program ; • Develop public education programs on parks and . recreation The creation of this council is a critical component of future coordination . By its . nature , the Council will need to coordinate closely with the -work of the Schools/ Land: Use Councils on acquisition of . 1ands of mutual interest . for school/ park co - location . This report contains criteria and details that build on the - ideas of the School / Land Use Memorandum of - Agreement . A resolution asking the local governments to create . the Parks and Resource Lands Council - in time for an initial meeting in fall of 1999 - is attached as _ Appendix L . B . . Inter-jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements Currently , the towns and County have a number of different standards that are used to determine parks and - recreation needs . While recognizing the distinctions between urban and rural needs and facilities , it does appear that coordination of the different approaches would provide a number of . advantages . -In particular, if the local governments pursue joint capital funding , . land acquisition , and other combined functions , the need for a consistent countywide set of standards will be paramount . The Work Group recommends that the Parks and Resource Lands Council address , among their first duties , , a coordinated set of recommended , standards for parks and recreation . Co 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 , 4 with th&e Schools and Land Use Councils providing an important role in consensus - building . As , mentioned above , close coordination between the Parks and Resource Lands Council and the Schools/ Land Use Councils will be paramount . As further research is developed on the . specifics of a program for school/ park acquisition , the Work Group suggests that 5/ 26/ 99 Orange County , with its role in school site acquisition and program/ staff. resources .for land , acquisition . may best play a coordinating role in future land acquisitions for both purposes . . D . Public / Private Partnerships As mentioned above , one of the most . exciting prospects for the future of recreation and parks . provision in Orange County is that of public/ private partnerships . Coordination with OWASA and UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible , and the Work Group recommends that the Local governments ( perhaps through &the Parks and Resource Lands Council ) work to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to explore these possibilities . In particular, the identified & need for a large district park between . Chapel Hill - Carrboro and Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would . have a stake 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 . : E . point . Capital Facilities Plan. / Coordinated Land Identification , acquisition and Banking If the local governments. in - Orange County are to be successful in providing for the long - term needs of County/town residents , It is clear that joint capital funding and land - banking efforts need to - be addressed , and should be addressed as quickly as . possible . A meeting of Managers , -elected officials - arid staff should be called -to develop a plan for coordination . . It is clear that land prices will continue to escalate . Potential areas inside the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area are quite larger park limited , which will require . planning for future joint district parks 1nT the County . This ,. plus the inability to accumulate sufficient funds individually , leads to . a . strong recommendation . that Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough develop a plan to coordinate funding sources in future years .. It is 5/ 26/ 99 recommended that the aforementioned meeting of Managers , staffs and elected officials from the jurisdictions as soon as possible . Use of the different Capital Improvement * Programs ( CIP 's ) could be a fundamental part of this mechanism . As previously if Orange County 's Resource Acquisition Program for land might allow the County to take a lead role in coordinating future acquisitions , most of which . will likely be located . outside of Town corporate limits . s . 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 adopt the " Open Facilities Policy " resolution - found in Appendix , I . This policy will provide that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties are open and . accessible to all County residents . To a different degree , a policy regarding use of local government facilities by UNC students and of UNC facilities * by local citizens should. be investigated with the University . A particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education Center, and cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued now . Additionally , coordination with OWASA on recreational hours at the lake facilities is another venue for partnership , and the Work . Group recommends that OWASA review hours of operation as suggested by the - Carrboro Board . The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should also cooperate with Duke' in the future to develop appropriate mutual guidelines in this area : G . Payment- in - Lieu Changes The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and : Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities . However, because of its limitations ( both geographic and financial ) ; payment - in - lieu progIF rams are unlikely to produce 5/ 26/ 99 sufficient funds to meet long - term recreation needs . A process is needed to use existing . funds , modify the current program to make it more practical , and develop new sources of revenue for, recreation land and facilities . The Work Group recommends -that Orange . County and Carrboro . develop plans to match paymenNn - lieu dollars to date with parks . bonds and other funding sources . With a method of pooling payment- in - lieu across jurisdictions currently unworkable , it is . recommended that the . current , system of payments - in - lieu be kept . In Orange County 11s case , the County should explore modifications to the system to provide for a more - appropriate calculation of payment based on the developed property valuation . Finally , the Parks and Resource Lands Council should explore the establishment of. a recreation impact fee or impact tax , along the Lines of existing legislation . If found prudent ; . a recommended impact . fe-e/ tax program for recreation should be developed and forwarded to the local governments in :Orange. �- County for action . H . Address Existing Needs Currently , countywide parklan-d needs are assessed in terms of . types of parks ( e . g . regional , community , neighborhood , etc ) . While additional work is needed in developing standards , it is possible to envision an overview of park needs based on population standards . L Current Parkland Needs #for Orange County ( including towns ) Population in 2000 estimated 112 000 Total Parkland Needs 2 030 acres Current Parkland Acres 1 385 acres Parkland Deficit/ Surplus - - 645 acres Year • Parkland Needs for Orange County fincluding • - Po ulation in 42025 168 , 000 Total Parkland Needs . 3 , 100 acres Parkland Acres 1 , 835 acres Parkland Deficit/ Surplus - 1 , 265 acres The combined projected population , for all of Orange County in the year 2025 is 168 , 000 . . This total county population was used to assess the level of adequacy for , futur-e years : Based. on this , in the year 2000 , Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres 5/ 26/ 99 of park/ recreation land in order to meet national adequacy standards . With current -park facilities ( including projected acquisitions in the next year) , a deficit of 645 acres will exist in 2000 . In 2025 , the County will need 3100 acres with a current projected deficit of 1265 acres . Details on how these projections were generated may be found in Appendix j : Based on the projected future need for 1, 265, new acres of parkland , the Work Group has , determined that the cut rrent . critical need Is to begin long - term land acquisition (" land banking " ) : This concept is similar to any kind of bank POOR it essentially establishes a " savings account" of land . Once- the savings account has been . fully funded , land can be withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation needs . Based on the most commonly accepted standards, the , county/towns will need the following new parks just to meet current deficits : t Type of Park Numb & Needed Acres District 1 or 2 countywide 1 @ .600 . acres , or 2 @ 300 acre average Community 0 * 0 * Neighbor ho 04d 12 5 - 20 acres each * - The total acreage in community . parks currently exceeds * acreage needs, but the existing - community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in Carrborotand one at Efland- Cheeks) may not meet . the geographic needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in Hillsborough, northern Orange : County and southwestern Orange. The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide , in 1999 dollars , is $ 10. 12 million . . Over time , the cost of purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise dramatically . I . Recommendations for. Use of, Current Funds and Future Funding Needs Simultaneous with the population increase , land in Orange County is rapidly . increasing in value . Large tracts area being subdivided , and options for. geographic locations of parkland in every township . are diminishing . A priority for use of" future funds clearly + must be land acquisition for = long - term . park, needs , rather than simply developing recreational facilities ( which can be developed over time as 5/ 26/ 99 the population increases ) . A . program for land acquisition for long - term park needs should be developed . that identifies sites that could meet needs ( including potential for siting active and low - impact recreation ) , based on projected size and location _.of parkland throughout the county . The availability of matching funds from1he benefiting jurisdictions should + be an important component in future acquisition and park development . The , program should also identify an acreage threshold for co - located school /park land acquisition and should be developed with the Parks and Resource Lands Council and the Schools/ Land Use Council . h - To address the estimated $ 10 . 12 million in future park needs , the following actions should be taken to use existing bond funds and address long - term needs . 1 . The remaining $ 2 . 89 million : in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond - should be used - for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long - term parks use as soon as . possible . 2 . The balance of funding should be an estimated $ 8 million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000 , As previously -discussed , the specifics of this bond should be coordinated by the Parks and Resource Lands Council . Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long - term park sites at this time will greatly reduce the cost of meeting Long - term park needs . 5/ 26/ 99 Appendices . A Summaries of Existing Plans B Shaping Orange County's Future Parks Issues C Inventory of Existing Facilities _ Resources Subcommittee D Existing Recreation Standards Used by . ] urisdictions E Memorandum of Agreement of Co- Location of . School / Parks Facilities F OWASA Memorandum on Recreational Use of Property G Existing Local Paymentwin - Lieu Programs H Payment- in - Lieu Programs Around the Country I Resolution -- Open Facilities Policy ] Parkland Acreage Needed in 2025 Based on Population Standards K Maps L Resolution on Establishing a Countywide Parks and Resource Lands Council t Appendix Summaries of Existina 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 : i . Providing equitable distribution of recreational opportunities . . 2 . Providing for areas of the County not currently being served 3 . Providing for the greatest number of possible users Chapel Hill Park and Recreation Plannin ' Efforts fforts The Town of Chapel Hill . currently operates without a Master Parks & Recreation Plan , The Town anticipates beginning development of a master plan in FY 1999 - 00 . Some planning direction is provided by the 1989 Community Facilities Report section of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan , which recommended the development of 4 community parks, 4 community centers - 17 neighborhood parks, and 25 mini - parks by the year 2010 , The Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated and is scheduled for review . by the Council in late 1999 . The Town does have a Greenways Comprehensive Master . Plan , ' which was adopted in 1998 , The plan recommends that 38 miles of linear open . space be preserved . The plan also recommends that 28 miles of linear open space be improved with trails . The plan recommends a mix of paved and natural surface trails . Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive- Plan . The Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a comprehensive plan for recreation and parks services during 1995 , Each ensuing year, the * Carrboro Recreation and Parks Commissionv reviews the plan and makes recommendations . for changes to . keep this plan current . The main purpose of the document is to provide the Town of Carrboro with an accurate , usable plan to guide its actions and decisions concerning : ➢ The future recreation role for the Town ; ➢ Park and greenway, acquisitions , renovations and developments ; ➢ Facility renovations and developments ; and ➢ Recreation programming strategies . IF The Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan contains numerous specific proposals and recommendations too lengthy for inclusion herein . The projected timetable of the Plan is through the year 2015 . . At this time , , it is projected that the Townwill have # " built - out " its present planning jurisdiction . For further information , please refer to the - Executive Summary or full Comprehensive Plan report for ' accompanying proposals , tables , exhibits and maps . Hillsborough Park and Recreation Plan I. The Town's Master Plan goals would : 1 . Use the Town 's natural and historical heritage as a recreational resource 2 . Acquire and maintain a neighborhood park for informal use in each neighborhood I Meet the recreational needs of the Town 's diverse population 4 . Acquire and maintain playing fields, courts and other facilities for organized sports and fitness 5 . Provide safe, convenient, and efficient travelways for non - motorized IF transportation of all people in . Hillsborough . IF IF +IF 6 . Actively seek participation and cooperation of all organizations involved in , or concerned with the provision of recreational services in the Hillsborough area . r 5/ 26/ 99 . Append ix B 1998 - Shaping Orande County ' s Future Citizen Committees Park and Recreation Issues Through the community visioning effort , .Shaping Orange County 's Future , eight citizen committees identified qualities valuable to maintain throughout the county . They also . compiled a list of . qualities to either change or encourage . A partial list of . these qualities , drawn from the different committee reports , is - as follows. Existing Qualities to Maintain : • Duke Forest and Eno River: State Park as recreational areas • Existing parks , in Chapel Hill and Carrboro should d ebe. maintained and enhanced Qualities to Change or . Encourage : • Encourage recycling bins at parks . • Encourage more facilities outside of towns • Change lack of swimming pools • Change lack of greenways in Rural Buffer • Change lack of teen programs at recreational facilities • Change lack of parkland . north of Hillsborough Change means of funding parks and recreation facilities • Change loss of open space ( defined generally as forests * or fields ) . • Encourage more parks and schools/ parks combinations • Encourage better intergovernmental cooperation in parks. planning . • Encourage multi - use paths in utility easements • Encourage public transportation to parks Encourage implementation of parks and recreation plans Encourage use of existing publicly - owned lands for regional parks 51 2GI9g dux c s per► a� i vlftlke m l R.ecCe too IR,,wee . ExAs��n ubc0 nor 01 ou� �e 5 Res , : , Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory-Public Facilities NUMUMMINI Carrboro Anderson Community Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Hwy 54W MOM 54.7 N Y 1 0 1 Wilson Neighborhood Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Williams St 8/20/98 8.49 N Y 0 1 1 Baldwin Park Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Broad St 8/20/98 1.5 N Y 0 0 1 Carr Court Mini-Park Richard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Brewers Lane 8/20/98 1 N Y 0 1 0 Simpson Mini-Park IRichard E. Kinney, 968-7703 Simpson/Main St 8/20/98 0.25 1 N I Y 0 1 0 0 Carrboro.Elementary School Park Richard E. Kinney,968-7703 Shelton St 8/20/98 1 4 1 N I Y 0 1 1 Orange County- Northern Human Services Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Hwy 86 North 8/20/98 48 Y Y 0 1 1 Central Recreation Center • OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818 1 x2660 Tryon St Hillsborough 8/20/98 3 Y Y 0 0 0 Fairview Community Park OC Recreation and Parks,.732-818lx2660 Rainey St Hillsborough 8/20/98 42 N N 0 0 1 Homestead Community Center OC Recreation and Parks, 732-8181x2660 Homestead Rd 8/20/98 4 Y Y 0 0 0 Courthouse Park Site *(Proposed) OC Recreation and Parks,732-8181x2660 Margaret Ln. Hillsborough 8/20/98 6 n/a N . 0 0 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park *(Proposed with funding secure) OC Recreation and Parks, 732-818W660 Richmond Rd. 8/20/98 24 Y Y 0 1 2 Occoneechee Park Hillsborough Planning Dept, 732-2104 x228 Eno Mtn Rd. 9/1/98 28 N N(proposed trail'Yes) 0 0 0 Murray St Neighborhood Park(proposed '00) Hillsborough Planning Dept,732-2104 x228 Murray St, Hillsborough 9/l/98 0.25 N Y 0 swings 0 Eno River State Park ., Eno River State Park,383-1686 Orange County and Hillsborough 9/1/98 2600 N One Access Only 0 0 0 Chapel Hill Burlington Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Church Rd 3/1/98 5 N Y 0 1 1 Cedar Falls Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Weaver Dairy Rd 3/1/98 64 Y Y 0 1 1 Chapel Hill Community Center and,Park Al Hams 932-2964 120 S. Estes Dr 6/l/98 10 Y Y 0 1 1 Ephesus Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Ephesus Church Rd 3/1/98 16 N Y 0 0 0 Gomains Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Sykes St 6/l/98 0.25 N N 0 1 1 Hargraves Community Center Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N.Roberson 6/l/98 7.68 Y Y 0 1 1 Hargraves Gymnasium Nate Davis 932-2965 216 N. Roberson 6/t/98 Y Y 0 0 0 Jones Paris Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Holland Dr 3/1/98 10 N Y 0 1 0 Lincoln Center Gymnasium Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Merritt Mill Rd 6/l/98 0.25 Y Y 0 0 0 North Forest Hills Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Collums Dr 3/1/98 10 N Y 0 0 1 Oakwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Berkley Rd and Oakwood Dr. 3/1/98 2 N N 0 1 1 Phillips Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Estes Dr 3/l/98 1 N N 0 •0 0 Umstead Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Umstead Rd 3/1/98 16 N Y 0 1 1 Westwood Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Dogwood Dr 3/1/98 1 N N 0 0 1 Northern Community Park Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 Homestead Rd. and Hwy 86N 211/991 37 N Y 0 0:5 . 0.5 Other Chapel Will owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture(open space) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 15-501. and Hwy 54 intersection 2/1/99 35 N N 0 0 0' Pritchard Park(proposed). Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 surrounding C.H. Library 211/99 34 N Southern Community Park(proposed) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 15-501 at Southern Village 2/1/99 73 N Little Creek(open space) Kathryn Spatz 968-2784 . Cleland Ave. near Glen Lennox 2/1/99 50 N * Blanks indicate missing data ** Yes/No Colum Totals reflect'Yes'answers Page I S121199.9.02 AM i a Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory-Public Facilities 1111 , 111, 11409 Carrboro Anderson Community Park N 5 1 1, 2 4 10 l 1 0 2 N 0.75 Wilson Neighborhood Park N 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 N 0.25 Baldwin Park Mini-Park N 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 Carr Court Mini-Park N 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Simpson Mini-Park , N ' _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ' 0 Carrboro Elementary School Park N 0 0 0 2 l 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Orange County Northern Human Services Center Y 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Central Recreation Center N 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 Fairview Community Park N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Homestead Community Center Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 N 0 Courthouse Park Site *(Proposed) N 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park *(Proposed with funding secure) Y. 4 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 . N I Occoneechee Park N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0.25 (0.25 proposed) Murray St. Neighborhood Park(proposed'00) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Eno River State Park IV 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 N is Chapel Hill Burlington Park, N 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Falls Park N 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 N Chapel Hill Community Center and.Park Y 1 0 . 2 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 N Ephesus Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 6 , N Gomains Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Hargraves Community Center N 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 3 N Hargraves Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 N Jones Park. N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Lincoln Center Gymnasium Y 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 N North Forest Hills Park N I 1 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 N Oakwood Park N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 1 N Phillips Park N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N Umstead Park N 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 N Westwood Park N. 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Northern Community Park N 1 -1 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 N Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture(open space) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Pritchard Park(proposed) • ' Southern Community Park(proposed). Little Creek(open space) � R Page 2 5121199 9i01 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory-Public Facilities PCarharnAnderson Community Park 0.15 0.75 0 N Y ' N N 4 2 Wilson Neighborhood Park 0.25 ' 6.25 0 N N N N 0 2 Baldwin Park Mini-Park 0 0 6 N N N N 0CarrCourt Mini-Park 0 0. 0 . N N N N 0 1 Simpson Mini-Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Carrboro Elementary School Park 0 0 0 N N N. N 0 0 Orange County Northern Human Services Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0Central Recreation Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 1 Fairview Community Park 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Homestead Community Center 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Courthouse Park Site*(Proposed) 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 Efland-Cheeks Community School Park*(Proposed with funding secure) 0.25 0 0 N. N Y N 2 2 Occoneechee Park 0 0 0 N Y N N 0 0 Murray St. Neighborhood Park(proposed00) 0 0. 0 N N N N 0 (proposed) Lno River State Park 0 0 0 Y ' Y N Y 0 0 Chapel Hill Burlington Park N N N CedarFalls Park N N NChapel Hill .Community Center and.Park N N NEphesus Park N N N Gomains Park N N N Hargraves Community Center N N N Hargraves Gymnasium N N N Jones Park N • N N Lincoln Center Gymnasium N N N North Forest Hills Park N N NOakwood Park N N N Phillips Park N N N Umstead ParkN N N Westwood Park N N N Northern Community Park N N N Other Chapel Hill owned recreation lands Merritt Pasture(open space) N N N Pritchard Park(proposed) Southern Community Park(proposed) Little Creek(open space) _ Page 3 5121199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory - Quasi Public Facilities s a7,a i r •i N i `M b '•i 1.. +,. a+ -� :.,!: ;tn .dr`-.:«E�. •c Ail! .+R� ±. ..�'. 7r:« ,5 ..F*!' :;�� �"^"Yf:•i1?w. , F. 'x4i," ia: 1y ^^�;;."'.fi �: R. 9. x a d 4., 'i i a 0 Kµ � n.; � n. ! :+� .Ba ��e1�' ..+d �' •e���� .ir n Via# =.+u�� formation[ l': se�-e a e aC ��" l i�an.�a��. et�N `,Hal �=> �'�,�; cc r� n .,...0 w.....a�,..<..�.. ,rc..r..a<?�,._•�.M.t>m.,..rt'��:�.,..5�.a.as..4+.nt:2.#.6..._<u.<.uw.., ..o u.F�.s....<• ...�.,..<:r. .:�.rc,..,v::.-x.,,...<-». .w..., ,......,.,.,,..>...,.h..�.a.Q,w +z3>., ,.<: ..x. � ,,..c....;..�.. ..::c:..:.;+-..:.,.,.:v„<�!•:�,n'M„, ...1.t.,.» ;4r.r:.�•.k.u-,�. �.,aeim.�.a'�:;..>a,�,..,..:,,:,:�•ea..rs,N:a..:,:<,.�' •<::s•r" Buckhorn Community Building Orange County 7/88 Y Y 0 0 N Caldwell Community Building Orange County • 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Cane Creek Reservoir. Orange County 7/98 N N. 0 . 0 Y Cedar Grove Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 . Y Y 1 0 N Corporation Lake Orange County 7/88 N N 0 0 N Efland Ruritan Club Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N Exchange Club Hillsborough 7/98 N N 1 0 Y Homestead Center Carrboro 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Lake Michael Mebane 7/88 N N 0 0 Y Lake Orange Orange County ,. 7/98 N N 0 0 Y Moorefiields Orange County 9/98 Y N 0 . . 0 N Oak Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N 2 . 0 N Orange Grove Community Center Orange County. 7/98 Y Y 0 0 N Orange.United Methodist Church Chapel Hill 7/98 Y N 0 2 N Schley Grange Hall Orange County 7/98 Y Y 1 0 N University Lake* Chapel Hill 7/98 N N 0 0 N Walnut Grove Church Orange County 7/98 Y N 0 0 N UNC Facilities Open to.Public Tennis Complex Chapel Hill 8/98 Y N 0 0 N Finley Golf Course Chapel Hill- 8/98 N N 0 0 N Outdoor Education Center Chapel Hill 5/99 Y N 0 0 N Private Businesses Open to Public ' Occoneechee Golf Course Hillsborough 9/98 N N 0 O N Sportsplex Hillsborough 8/98 N N . 0 0 N YMCA Chapel Hill 7/98 N N- 0 1 Y .:...,r.. <. xgsy.. a,.<.�... . .w,: ns , .�^e'� .. a•� �s..,,, �7F n r• ,t+asz�w : a. � .. �+ «,�+ a' �p .i a �'.ai. 's, :! .�^ P '"�:;1�-"��" i, ...- .,� fn[a F"a'a, .s rt..w,... .�,t. .,,.,.ss, k'�` !. . . 6,,a! �' i�y�a; •:�:;¢?�.,. ,. .. k �. ��` •r�, .� rc.4:''g•,„,,� .'in:;`.u��af.»t�t ins �,+#i'm>•• r`_`��. M'� 'st s s a#` ,& R n .,:fir»,..•: , ����...w . .�;;...�.,�.a . shy : ?, ,�,`, .�.,.�, .F� �� �.�r.�3,, �.'�i�Y �` +� �.,.a�,,�C ��[�;, , �#, t€t, �„ ,.;s.•� .�:.;;,: :��at , x . ,r s.,aar�` ai: ::�"" = 6 a�.� ':�# � , Rk',. �.•�s t^u. S ". � •y{�<.l x, .� .. :a• C` �H :.dx�y�+a•:l d�{ <'� ..n+�,` �:;Y•�„,>, xk",":Fi?�. +'E?;c k,�.:'d+»,tSN. - .o......��: F � _ y �}. v.�.� �°@ .� - �eP� � .;-..'�c .:, ;�'i:.,d. . - ..Y... „via.T., a, .ru•}1g'„.{.,.f,.:!EE{.�,. .<�'?: rr��;;i ^,,,�a..,,•.." i'�,:.$t.:".~�E..:s"�:.. al£=E.4'� row ;�'crr.„�tRd' ���. p,�'•.�,.k<,r�:t�:���.,uhrle�FA�.,�z•3a,�", '�: j'�'�+„,'�n :..o.:x.=i�.iK,�.'�.C�n��.^E ,.� se< ��'�sn[�:,...,:. "'-.`�;� ;.sSa��o:, .3c."'�.. a.*.,�,. � <u,Yu..,»:r � ,.mo,4:.Wr **Yes/No Column Totals reflect'Yes'answers " Page 1 5121199 9.02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Inventory - Quasi Public Facilities '. . }} .*<•sr.. n b. "i.. r. .. ... ! ,... '3 F aa:.. a.' J.rrzar'•4zririte3i`. ::".".': rT•'Y. .? .i"aei?iM"'?£Yi.<i<<c.'eilrt£i. , .w..,.. „ .....yG° "a;:• ? tz.Is?[:Y,... .". ..eE.� .wlu.': ',M,^.'"9!` ffi: g p.,.ed.^ 1::5":S"."'.'n.'..'..:iT:.",;, ,., .2 •f„:M1u:s R:ki .wf h� k *t,'i... 49.. � E:, $~ r �. u a E�, .{< , >Ca�culz .:�I �•..::M::,.<:� . . ., ': .. .�.. a gad B��.� - � cab' : : ; .r :� " �an�i an. :t ���� t ::�l:�- r �r:�:� uc txr. :4 •..., „aa,u,..ara•• , a .u., •zuan'sze.:eu:. 4,:. ,u«a ••x..• ru:•. `'t a >r•<• > L k•« w< •F Buckhorn Community Building N N N N N N N N N . N Caldwell Community Building N N N N N N N N •.N N Cane Creek Reservoir N N N Y . N N Y N N N Cedar Grove Ruritan Club N N N N N N N N N N Corporation Lake N N N N N N Y N N N . Efland Ruritan Club N N N N N Y N N N N Exchange Club Y N N N N N N N N N Homestead Center N N N N N N N N N N Lake Michael Y Y N Y N N N N N N Lake Orange N Y N Y N N N N N N Moorefields N N N N Y N Y N N . N Oak Grove Church N N N N N N N N N N Orange Grove Community Center , N N N N N Y N N N N Orange United Methodist Church N N N N ' N N N N N N Schley Grange Hall N N N N N N N N. N N University,Lake N Y Y Y N N N . N N N Walnut Grove Church Y N N N N N N N N N UNC Facilities Open to Public Tennis Complex .' N N N N N N N Y N N Finley Golf Course N N N N N N N• N Y N - Outdoor Education Center. N N N N N Y N Y N N Private Businesses Open to Public Occoneechee Golf Course N N N N N N N. N Y N Sportsplex N N N N N N N N N Y YMCA •Y N N N N . N N N N Y ".... ..,�.h`,...: <z. •.. i:'.. , r ^;�,* .„�, �: � :;�.% �s:T"c f(�' <iz" '` " ,t• � '�`, ttt k: '+r�. E• ' :a• LYI ?' � `.r: w'. z t" �. ,.�' R it,• ;r' • z .t's'" * 4�y".x :,:•`,• "(4:. ..919 4 i�,. .s y ';1,. Page 2 5/21199 9:02 AM Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Inventory*-Private Facilities e � Berkshire Manor - Can oro Ju-98 No , No 0 Booker Creek 29-040 el Hill o Yes Broo stone Leigh Anne Turner - ape HiU_' Jul-98 Jul- No Yes Carolina Christy Rexroa - arr oro Jul-98 No Chambers Ridge Susan Seagle 929-0504 Qarrboro '_-_-fuT-W No 0 0 0 0 Chapel iCountry Club Jean ontro er - 2 ape i, u - o Yes 0 0 Chapel Hill Tennis and Swim Club Debbie -52 Can oro Jul'-Tul'-W No Yes 0 1 0 0 Coach-wood 7 2-98 4 His oroug Ju-98 No Yes 0 Colony Apartments Bill Peebles 967-7019 - Chapel Hi ct- 6 No Yes Dobbins Hill Daniel A.Rose -3100 Chapel HillOct- No 0 0 Exchange Club Pool Diane(Member) 7- 0 Chapel Hi Ju- o . Yes Flint Ridge 732-8418 Hillsborough . Ju-98 23 No 1 0 0 0 Foxcroft Jeff Massengi -7 05 Chapel Hill No 0 Franklin Woos 933-2345 Chapel Hill Ju-98 No Yes • 0 0 0 Gateway 732- 70 Hi s oroug Ju- 8 0- es Glen Lennox Vanessa Blackwood-Spinks 967 ape i Ju-98 60 No Heritage His ei or oo u VIsser Chapel Hi ep-9 Yes 0 Highland His Randy Webber 967-0934 Can oro Ju-98 No Yes 0 0 0 0 rings Arens Pat Patterson 929-2406 Chapel Hill No 0 . Kingswoo 67-22 ape Hi Jul- o es 0 0 0 0 Laurel Ridge Misty Barnes 967-'6918 rFapqrH_ifrJu-98 No Northampton Plaza 929-6357 UfiapeFffiff Jul-98o es Pinegate 493-2489 Chapeli -Jul--Jul-98 No 0 0 Pop ar P ace LouAnn ram 7- 95 an oro Ju-98 No Yes 0 0 1 0 Ramsgate Gina McLain - 5 Carr oro Ju-98 No Yes 0 Ridgewood Mary Ann Dupuy 29- an oro Ju- No 0 0 Rock Creek Dawn Bollinger 67-2 1 Jul-98 Jul- No Yes 0 0 0 Royal Park 967-2239 Carrboro u- 8 No 0 0 0 0 a owoo Die ra Bi rter 9 7-0 Cape Hi Ju-98 No 0 0 ou ern Vi age Pat 9 -5577 C aHipe Ju-9 No Yes 0 Sterling Bluff Allison Holt or Kathy 9 7- 7 7 Can oro Ju-98 No.. 0 0 0 0 Sterling Brook Susan McFar m 968- 252 Carrboro Jul- No Yes 0 Stratton His Darci D E iseo 29- 0 5 ape i u-98 o- 0 0 unstone Linda Scott - - Chapel Hill ---TuT--R No The Chateau Daniel A.Voge III 29-7 26 an oro ct- 6 No 0 Timber Hollow. Paul McDonnell29- apel Hill Ju-9 o Yes Tim.er yne Village. Ju-9 Yesa o Townhouse 942-2163 ChapelHill 12 No Yes 0 0 0 University La e - 968-3983 Cifr.rboro u- o Yes 0 0. 0 0 Villages 929-1141 Carrboro, Jul-Jul-98 No Yes Walden at Greenfields Teresa L.Poole - ape i Jul-Jul-98 No 1 0 0 0 Duke-B ac od Division Wen y Weilier 6 3-801 range ct 98 1060 Yes nofee) excluding ootpa s 0 0 0 Duke-Durham Division Wendy Wei her 013-8013 917 Yes no ee excluding footpaths Duke-Eno Division Wendy Wei her 0 13-8013Orange Oct-98 484Yes no ee excluding rootpatFs 0 0 Duke-Hillsboro Division Wendy Wei her 613-8013 Orange ct-98 . 65Yesnoee) excluding ootpa s 0 0 0 Orange c98 excluding Duke-Korstian Division Wendy Wei her. - t 91 es no ee*Inventory includes apartment complexes.tracked by the Orange County Tax Assesor's Office that aregreater than 50 units with all construction complete. **Yes/No Column Totals reflect'Yes'answers. ***BIanks indicate missing data Page 1 612W9 3:51 PM m wwra m e» _ R _ ».,.: 3 , i L- , w t+ 1 ... m>. -:,v n.,a,m, nx ,. n• r• a. "n i"Y 'W. l E r s< ,t>na.. rM.-tk. ,.�^-^-�. r. rrl ^z s ,r ^ ercr r_ rs r..r*.> .- rr �� ¢ r�. n ,,,r,T•^�'"MIN s r.. r ,:�':.. „ 4: ....,,. ..,. ., { ^<,K��iil''•, .. a',e. N q.. ?, ,a Y.. '1 ,, .. , ..H.. .-: .. 3... .., v.v-tt., 4 �,. . . .. �.. . ix.. a._ a'<:., rz.. .[. _Y p r. �{ _... „,. _,,r ,' .. , ,...r. ,- rw�.r:.a,. n .1s'. ... 5 ,-, S .. ..1 S 4 . .,Y I ,. .,S ..9 4 �4 , w , F >f ! Y Tr. �*- -'rt,. .,.. a> A .,,. ., at-- a. „ .[! , I P ��{S �",' {!�?•� a 'S CJ. fn f,. 'i ':...R , 1 I P f ., c.. ,. _7 ..". . u ,c '1:.18.�5 aK u:r't ) .., 'b Ll 3``ui"21Y ,s, , _.v., ..L,... xl.k..,,... .fi fi a, a .<d:rl..a.. t .t � 1.. �., ,.,w ,�' a t J 9.. 3 a� n, ,r{C_ '� s R I _.. ,.. ,. _.. �.r.. •k. A .'.�. Y rt,. .>W >. a ��[�� �i.r �r r a.���! T � ��_, <, t h. .. ,.._,�r .. . .,� ..,... sss .�,. y ..ter# b. .;. nGk+4. � ,. � s,. .v.,..,,...sG � _.�..._,. .,T�r.. �..,. r ..rr,..., .'�.Ix �.�.n fia �>.ts.w..tr_h _,_.� 7.�>°t' t� l..< ,a ..tTss. .. � � 1r.. < _...,�)- r� _ a> _ ,a ,+-.� ^ F .l, u.> .Yrt �..l�. .. ,.. .. 7... ., r :... 9 ..�.. .. ,. .> o .1 .r ..'fin .-., >� ,e ,5Tf ..c ,..:.:. .. .., �,..k C. -,.. _ ._.. _. . .,,, ^�,, .. _.� t. .. „w _ Y � ry to,{. 44 3. . ..nee.r. ... .. lip.-. .. ..YF.,N . ... ,..a. � , .,C..+,[,. ..u,.. }, «.. L.. ,. `-t. .,.,r. d. r•.. .-.. > x..I,i , v t , , v r 3 ». h,..k� . 5. .. ,. �... .fit .,: ,.r. ..•, f . u,., , .,a: . .. F � i � .:.. Yrr,... .. ,.. � ,t 1. q. Yt" N„�.._ N.�4 4 .i", xe f' r . .,x i� .. .,. ..., �t. r("}(: t.44�hrlw. ...,i. 3 ..�... � �� .e.^rti .k.. h.' t, s:(>:=.V' ,.'s.,.I. ,c>•.,.. �`s ,. .. ._ »LL. ..>�,7zl, 1•� ...ss. .,�t ,...� s:�° .L. �, ¢ +, t S. ":d r"•F h.E p R. C 5 � q >� •7 r a i � � :: t S•. a I i .n { .� b .�° f� ''� r ,!.�v^ @ 9? ° .F>�gr � : a >� t „� , tt"..1 _ e#-- .��"• ="'G. � t s` >a 1 .�.. 5w � >.f ..1.,a-vi"'L��f,.R.:._ f 1.r�'�?7^� .;._�S F r �_.. <: ....». � `"r.. �...-l.. �. .., .. �, . n .' ,_ _.,. ... _ u a t r.., _ ..^_ ,. .,._...rc. tea.,. �,s ,-�. CdrC!.C..a'f:' .�, .t..-s ..�._v .., .. ..] �...., �. „"f,. �.. �.. ... ..!'- "� � �T'.'4Y! a ,. _ a,..,u .. .r :. „ �� :.�. r.t.�. �....k 4"r -M{{� -,.- .,3.,. 1tt� .T^<"'c`.i.. � .c.t.,, r��n_.,.. ... . '�. . r � � t.l� �,__, >,t> ..,.. .., ,, L .. „�»�.Mn• ..._� r. .�-. •a I>�^, ., .�. ..�. . tE„}. ., '<� .3 t •r. :.a, .,� •- ,._ �. a.. •._ n y ...� .,rr lr,.n �.� .r. �>. 1, tom^ � . } � . .saw .2Gaess30��.�"s._.v..vF..•��v�..o_.a.r.�.«z,. z,., xi,�..7.�wpp. _._. ,,_.. m. .55. (( q [ y .r�7•.,f '..;. I ¢' .,. ,^..F�9V^ba-'�. .�w��a#�L�xfame?msrar.,.rx.;�>c, n<#w�capro,�.��5ra�-...aeat,.L,.p.:,,..-».ra_�Sx: sar.iaf>,r�nn:;isz6�,>rtisr'x�aa.4ri,in:x�:r�>�.���a;�i���lat�.,.:n��a>��,k e :.��,m ,m�?��.., sc�+...,vs. r,.�tr_,.����k�:.a�Tp.�.,,.z�.,�°lx=;(t�tu• ��,a:a��a �..,,,mnem��Tm�;r"z'� .,.,»°���s Berkshire Manor 1• reek MM Chambers Ridge Colo 1.'�Do-bYin—s Will Glen Lennox Itmilp Kingswood Timber Hollow University Lake Duke ---Blackwood Division D 1 Duke-Hillsboro ivision 'Duke-Korstian.Division �.. . . .xt_•.. �!. . . _ . .. - , �laDuke-Eno Division ,:� .c.. r t � �u a,a ,>_.� �_•�b� ,s.�b:.ls,.'a a:a r.a.m t_e;•� .,.t o�•.*t0r`:.'wc... .r- n 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix D Existing Recreation Standards Used by Jurisdictions PARK TYPE ACRES / 1000 ACRES POPULATION SERVICE AREA STANDARD POPULATION SERVED Regional Park 1 00 multi - count < 1 hour driving State � 20 0 y 9 . .time• County 5 to 10 200 + 40 - 80 , 000 < 1 hour driving : time District Park State 10 200 + 1 or more . < 1 hour driving communities time County 5 . - 75 + 10 - 50 , 000 - < 1/ 2 hour driving time Community Park National 5 to 8 25 + Several Neighs : 1 - 2 mile radius State 8 25 + 20 , 000 1 - 3 mile radius- County 2 . 5 25 + 10 , 000 1 - 2 mile radius Chapel Hill 5 21 + 15 , 000 5 mile radius Carrboro ' 8 60 6 , 000 1 mile. radius Neighborhood Park National . 1 to 2 15 + 51000 1/4 to 1 / 2 mile State 2 6 to 8 . 41000 1 /4 to 1 / 2 mile County 2 . 5 5 to 20 2 - 81000 1/4 to 1 / 2 mile Chapel Hill 2 . 5 S to 20 5 , 000 none given Carrboro 2 10 . 41000 1 / 2 mile. Mini Park National 0 . 25 1 Adjacent Neigh . 1/4 mile- State none given none given . 500 - 2 , 500 none given County none given 1 1 1 none given 1/4 mile Chapel Hill none - given 1 500 - 2 , 500 none given - Carrboro 0 . 25 1 Adjacent Neigh . 1/4 to 1/ 2 mile - = Linear Park National Varies L Varies Varies Varies State 30 Varies Varies Varies County none given % none given none given none given Chapel Hill none given none given none given none given Carrboro Varies Varies. Varies Varies Source : Report of the Recreation *and Park Work Group , " Recreation and Park Issues in Orange County , NC , " January 1996 , Appendix 1 : Park Classification and Land Area Requirements Comparison . a 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix E Memorandum of Agreement on Co - location wof School / Park Facilities ( l of 4) DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING COORDINATED SITE AND FACILITY PLANNING This agreement between the Orange County and Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Boards of.Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough is intended to establish and implement a coordinated site and facility planning process for schools and compatible government facilities . The purpose of the coordinated planning process is to share information among the parties to the agreement, optimize the collocation and use of schools and other public facilities in a way that builds community, provides public services where they are most needed, assures the compatibility of collocated services, and efficiently uses public . resources. This agreement recognizes the existence of two school districts - the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District and the - Orange County School District - and a Schools and Land Use Council for each* district . Decisions on collocation of facilities in the . Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District may involve the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education and any or all of the following units of local government : the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County . Decisions on collocation of facilities .in the Orange County School District may involve the Orange County Board of Education and one, or both; of the following units of local government : the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. Wherever possible, agreement/cooperation across school district lines shall be pursued . . To further these goals, the Orange County and Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough do hereby agree to the following separate and shared responsibilities for coordinated facility planning to the extent that it does not delay time critical construction of either school or government facilities . These statements of responsibilities are intended to be consistent with all applicable laws . and regulations ; where they are not, they are superseded by those applicable laws and regulations . Spec* ifically, . this agreement is not intended to supersede the statutory authority of either Board of Education to select school sites or to build, maintain or repair school facilities or . the other governing Boards to approve the amounts to be spent for sites and -to determine the funds available for school and county or municipal facilities . This agreement does not supersede local government planning and zoning authority and/or land use planning and zoning requirements . I . The Orange County and/or Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards of.Education . will : oL A: Identify appropriate site criteria for public school facilities ; and Be Identify interior and exterior space and exterior site requirements for school facilities ; and C . Begin a planning process after the internal/external space needs for collocated facilities are determined ; and (2 of 4) D . Recommend school facility priorities, timetables for completion, and related funding needs ; and E . Determine the most appropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, within the funding available for these activities ; and IF Whenever possible, address joint -collocation of facilities on each parcel of land being considered for development; - and G. Assign to the superintendent the responsibility of providing the necessary staffing and other resources to participate .in a joint facility planning process . 11 . When joint development (or cooperative development) of facilities are planned for- a school site, the - Governing Boards of Orange County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough will, as appropriate and in their respective interests : A. Identify appropriate . site criteria for county . and municipal government facilities and t, ' i ' in which contracted count or municipal services are rovided ; and . facil ties w y p p Be Identify interior space and exterior site requirements for county or municipal government facilities and facilities in which contracted county or municipal services are provided ; and C . Determine priorities, timetables for completion, and related. funding requirements for county or municipal government facilities ;. and . D . Determine the most aPP ropriate means of managing the construction, renovation, or repair of county or municipal government . facilities ; and E . Determine the funding available for school and county or municipal government facilities ; and F . Assign to the County and/or Town Managers the responsibility of providing the .necessary staffing and other resources to participate in a coordinated facility planning process.; and G. Whenever possible, address joint collocation . of facilities on each parcel of land being considered for. development . III. The Orange County and/or Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards& of Education and the governing Boards of Orange . County and/or the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro , . and/or Hillsborough will jointly : : A. Identify + opportunities for collocating compatible public facilities on sites, including facilities for. schools, county government, municipal governments, state and federal government, and other public authorities providing complementary public services ; and - g � p p g : (3 of 4) B . Develop master site plans on which public facilities will be collocated; and . .. C . Determine the most appropriate . means of relating various public services on 4sites, considering all program needs, and including opportunities for sharing spaces ; and D . Designate a lead jurisdiction in designing common facilities and include other jurisdictions in design ; and E . Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating the construction of shared facilities located on common sites ; and z F . Determine the most appropriate and effective means of coordinating maintenance of shared public facilities located on. common sites ; and G. Determine the most appropriate and effective means of scheduling and establishing fees for usage of any shared public facilities on common sites ; and 4 , H. Determine the most appropriate and practical means of sharing operating costs for shared public facilities - on common sites ; and I . Determine the most appropriate and practical means of providing public ownership of sites and 4site improvements where public facilities are collocated : Public ownership of sites will be implemented in the following manner : 1 . School sites will be owned in fee simple by the Orange County- School Board and/or. the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board or Orange County in those instances . IF where the financing of the purchase of the . site or the financing of the post * of the .facilities on the site requires Orange County ownership . 4 - 2 . Park sites will . be owned in fee simple by the appropriate Jurisdiction . (i . e . , County, town) unless otherwise agreed . A joint lease agreement will be - signed between the -appropriate parties setting forth the conditions of the joint use area and facilities . . Language will be included in the agreement to address review and approval of joint use facilities and .who bears the cost of installation/ - construction and maintenance . IV. The Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Boards of Education and the governing Boards of Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough . , will, as appropriate, jointly develop any interlocal agreements or understandings needed to allow participation of other units of government in the . collocation of public facilities . . IF IF 4 V . This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective upon approval by each governing board and school board . It shall remain in effect until terminated by all parties to it. A party may not withdraw from this agreement. until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notices to the other parties within thirty (30) days of the public hearing . The withdrawal shall be effective one ( 1 ) year following receipt by .the other parties of the written notice . . Withdrawal of one party shall not invalidate the Memorandum (4 of 4) of Agreement with respect to the remaining parties . SCHOOLS AND LAND USE. COUNCIL FOR SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCIL CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY . TOWN OF CARRBORO TOWN OF . HILLSBOROUGH TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL h:\schoollu\moadrft5 . doc\4-22-99\gb I F o elf ed�x of pr p �► �a� �reat% use � . e ,�► OV% R . oru S � Mew► OWASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY Quality Service Since 1977 IF MEMORANDUM TO(: . Ed Kerwin FROM : Ed Holland DATE : October 15 , 1998 ` SUBJECT : Potential Recreational Uses of OWASA Property Background During the past- year, Board members Barry , Jacobs and Bill Strom have attended IF meetings of Orange County ' s Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group IF charged with updating the County ' s Recreation and Parks Master Plan. One part of that work is . an inventory of all public and semi-public land and recreational assets in Orange County . IF _ During the August 27 , 1998 Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Strom submitted a list of questions about possible recreational uses of OWASA ' s land holdings . This was referred to the Board ' s Natural 'Resources and Technical Systems (NRTS) Committee, which reviewed information provided. by: staff and discussed the attendant issues during three subsequent meetings . This memorandum and attachments attempt to. summarize the NRTS Committee consensus , that - emerged through those discussions . The attached map shows the location of all OWASA-owned properties in Orange ,County ? Table 1 provides additional. details , and Table 2 presents the NRTS Committee ' s _ evaluation of the acceptability of different recreational uses of those properties . Uses .OFF _ listed ifi7able 2 were compiled from documents of the Orange County Work Group . OWASA Interests The NRTS Committee agreed that alternative uses should be'-considered in terms of OWASA ' s central mission of providing an adequate supply of high quality drinking water and a complementary sewer service. " Activities or uses that might compromise OWASA ' s utility function should be discouraged . . . -For example , certain * uses , such as tennis , racquetball , or basketball courts , would be incompatible with OWASA ' s operational activities within sewer easements I or rights-of- way , while other g, suc usesh as hikin trails , might be acceptable : Hiking trails would not, however, be -desirable near the Cane Creek Reservoir where public access to the shoreline represents a water quality risk contrary to OWASA ' s water supply mission . I IF 400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer �'aice ( 9 19 ) 968 -4421 PO Box 366 Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property October 15 , 1998 Page 2 On other tracts, such as the biosolids land orothe two sites reserved for future elevated storage tanks , the NRTS Committee believed it to be in OWASA' s best interest to defer consideration of alternative uses until the future utility needs for those properties are better defined through the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Master Plan or, in the case of the tank sites , by local regulatory requirements for setbacks , buffering, and . so forth. These three mission-oriented considerations — utility operations, water quality, and future options -- are abbreviated as (uo), (wq), and (f) in Table 2 , where they indicate the NRTS - Committee ' s rationale for recommending - against certain uses or activities . Major Categories of Property The Committee first considered possible uses OWASA '. s largest :categories of land (see Table 1 ) : Cane Creek property (inside and outside the '/z-mile Critical Area) , biosolids application property, Stone Quarry. Reservoir., and the elevated storage tank sites . Cane Creek Property The NRTS - Committee believed that property within the V2-mile Critical Area should be considered for virtually no recreational activities , due -to water — quality concerns. Limited use of certain land in the Critical Area for research or _ educational purposes might be appropriate . Certain low-impact uses, such as a nature center, hiking/jogging trails , .and other educational/research activities might be acceptable on OWASA property outside the Critical Area, but . any uses requiring modification to the land for clearing; grading, parking, or vehicular ac4 . cess- would not be acceptable . Similarly, the NRTS Committee recommended only limited activities be allowed on the portion of the existing Cane Creek recreation * site draining to the lake (inside the _ watershed) , but that - additional -uses might be allowed on the back portion of that : which is located outside the watershed: property, . . . . . Biosolids Application Property —. Although most of OWASA ' s biosolids are currently applied under strict State regulation to private farmland, it has been OWASA ' s long-term strategy_ to accumulate .suff r th cient land foe future, _when less private property will . remain available for land application. A systematic review of biosolids. management options — including the production of Class .A material , possible co -composting with municipal solid waste , further moisture reduction, and so forth = is included in the Water/Sewer Master Plan project. Such options could reduce the eventual need for :land, but until this information is available, the NRTS Committee recommended that OWASA maintain its maximum range of future options and not consider recreational uses of biosolids property . that no recreational Stone Quarry Property Similarly , the Committee recommended Q rY P �Y Y � . uses be considered at OWASA ' s Stone Quarry -property until the future use of that site is . more clearly established . - z Potential Recreational Use of OWASA Property October 15 , 1998 Page 3 Elevated Tank Sites — The NRTS Committee suggested that alternative uses be considered at existing tank sites as long as they don ' t interfere with : OWASA' s operational needs for access and maintenance .+ The Committee recommended that no alternatives be considered on the two properties reserved for future tank sites until specific design and regulatory requirements are testablished. . Authority to Allow Alternative Uses Throughout its discussions , the Committee recognized .that the authority to allow recreational uses of OWASA property often lies outside of OWASA' s control . For . example, OWASA might agree to certain low-impact activities on its sewer easements and rights of way; but legally, OWASA may not acquire utility easements for non- It utilitarian purposes such as recreation : - Successful greenway partnerships with Chapel. Hill or Carrboro would likely require the Towns- to act as lead agencies in acquiring multi-purpose easements and then granting utility rights to -OWASA. Similar situations are evident at OWASA ' s elevated tank sites and at the 500-acre Cane Creek mitigation tract. Any alternative use of the- 46 acres of OWASA land surrounding the Nunn Mountain and, Hilltop water tanks is strictly controlled by Special Use Permit . conditions of the ' Town of Chapel Hill: - The 500 -acre Cane Creek mitigation tract was acquired ' 1980 to comply with requirements of the . U . S , Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Because these requirements became permit conditions for the Cane Creek Reservoir project; - any alternative use of that tract would likely require approval by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. These examples illustrate1hat OWASA does not have unilateral authority to allow alternative uses on all of its property. The NRTS Committee noted that the implementation of some recreational proposals with community-wide benefits will require collaboration by other governmental s nmental entities' uraddition to OWASA, working . — toward a common goal . ant - _ Staff Recommendations I recommend that this memorandum and attachments be ' reviewed by the Board of - Directors .and, if appropriate, provided to. Orange County ' s Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group . Edward- A. Holland, AICP Director of Planning and Development attachments PROP! TO B OF � t�' 0 AP D& 1 1 Mi ti gati.on Tract { s A OWAQ A Property n October, 1998 (See Table.1 for Descriptions) N Thunder Mountain E Tract S A - 1 0 1 Miles 10 50 100 Acres Acres Acres. :t y -S�d :.. d Sto.neQuarry :w B L t d G d Chapel IE oro d V1h ter Plant N d C WA P E J Vkh st ewa ter Plant LEG1:1vD D [D Watershed Boundaries 1/2 Mile Critical Area f' OWASA Property , University Lake Leased band H 1 Table 1 . Summaty of Land Owned or Leased By OWASA -- October, 1998 OWASA OWNED LAND IF Common Name Purpose Acreage Map Symbol Cane Creek Project Land purchased for original Cane 11642 A Creek Reservoir Project I IF Watershed Protection : Land purchased since 1991 for 521 A watershed protection . under • OWASTA ' s Critical Lands Program Stone Quarry Reservoir Supplemental raw water storage 59 B IF I Jones Fe.rry . Road Operations Water treatment plant site 15 C Center & Water Treatment Plant Morgan Creek WWTP . Wastewater plant site 24 D He Tank Site . New elevated storage tank IF 17 - F Nunn Mountain Tank Site finished water storage _ 29 F Carrboro Tank. Site Finished water storage 1 - G Southern District Tank Site for future elevated tank* 4 . 5 H MINION Northern District Tank Site for future elevated tank 17 . 6 I Right of Way (access) . Access to sewer ROW 2I OF M IF J Right of Way (access) Access to sewer ROW 1 J Right of Way (access ) Access to sewer ROW 1 J Wilson Creek Outfall Access to sewer ROW 2 . 1 J Biosolids Application Sites _ Land for WWTP biosolids (sludge) . 751 K application Calvander Pump Station Finished water booster station 0 . 9 L Rangewood Pump Station Wastewater_aump station : 0 . 4 M _ _ Roge�on Drive Pump Station Wastewater pump station - 2 . 3 N Jordan Lake Site for future water treatment facility 124 . E (Chatham County) TOTAL LAND OWNED BY OWASA IF _ 3 , 215 ac I IF LEASED FROM UNC Common Name Purpose Acreage [ Map Symbol University Lake Water Supply Reservoir and 577 O I IF Surrounding Buffer Manning Drive Tank Site Elevated storage tank 0 . 3 P TOTAL LAND LEASED FROM UNC 577 ac Table 2 . Potential- Recreational Uses of OWASA ' Pro-perty . Non-Cane Creek Watershed Land Existing CC Cane Creek Watershed Land Potential Recreational Recreation site outside Critical Area Use/Activity Land Inside Sewer Tagk Sites Tank Sites Biosolids Stone. Below Inside Outside . Critical Mitigation Thunder Meadowcrest Easements (Existing) (Future) .Land Quarry CC Dam Watershed Watershed Area Tract Mtn. Tract (Partial Lot) Note#1 Note#2 Note#3 Note#4 Note#5 Note#5 Note#2 Note#6 Gymnasium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (0 No (f)• No (1) No (uo) No (wq) No.(uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Auditorium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (1) No (0 No (fl No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq)- No (wq) . No (wq) Stadium No (uo) No (uo,r) No (fl No (0 No (t) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Swimming Pool No (uo) No (uo,r)' No (D No (0 No (fl No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Meeting Center, General Purpose Rooms No (uo) No'(uo,r) No (0 No (f) No (0 No,(uo) Yes Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Nature Center No (uo) No (uo,r) Yes No (f) No (f) No (uo) Yes Yes No (wq) Yes Maybe No (wq) Athletic Fields No (uo) No (uo,r) No (D• No (1) No No (uo) No (wq) Yea No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Tennis, Racquetball, Volleyball Courts No (uo) No (uo,r) No (0 No (fl No (t) No (uo) No (wq) Yes No (wq) No (r;wq) No (wq) No (wq) Playground Maybe No (uo,r) No (t) No (fl No (f) No (uo) Maybe Yes No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) .Picnic Area, Shelters Maybe No (uo,r) Yes No (t) No (f) No (uo) Yes Yes No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq) Track No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (f) No (t) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Golf Course No (uo) No (uo,r) No (0 No (0 Nd(f) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Diving Range No (uo) No (uo,r) No, (0 No (0 No (0 No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) RV Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (f) No (0 No (0 No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) No (wq) No (wq) Car Camping (Tent) No (uo) No (uo,r) No (fl No (f) No (0 No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) No (r,wq) 'No (wq) No (wq) Primitive Camping No (uo) No (uo,r) No (1) No (0 No (1) No (uo) No (wq) No (uo) No (wq) Maybe Maybe No (wq) Nature, Hiking, .fogging Trail Yes No (uo,r) Yes No (f} No (0 Yes Yes Yes No (wq) Yes Yes No (wq) Education and Research .Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Maybe Notes: 9. (Symbols in parenthesis) indicate the basis for assigning a "No"to a potential use or activity. (uo). indicates utility operational constraints, (r) indicates state or local regulatory constraints on alternative uses; (t) indicates the need to maintain OWASA's future options at a site; and (wq) indicates water quality concerns. 2. Regulatory restrictions on alternative uses of this property are subject to change if initiated by other governmental entities. ' 3. Refers to OWASA's existing 59-acre Quarry Reservbir site located east of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road. 4. Much of the OWASA property downstream of the Cane Creek Dam is located in the apron of the dain's emergency spillway. The remainder of this site is constrained by steep topography and/or proximity to access roadways and the raw water pumping station. 5. Because a portion of the.existing Cane Creek recreation area slopes toward the reservoir(inside the watershed) and the remainder slopes away (outside the watershed), the potential water quality impacts of alternative uses/activities would depend on their specific location. 6. A narrow 3-acre strip of the Meadowcrest property is located within the watershed but outside the 1/2-mile Critical Area. There appears to be little or no opportunity for alternative use of this site. 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix G Existing Local Payment- In - Lieu Programs Orange County Payment-in -Lieu Program The County uses a zoning map approach to calculate all payment. in lieu of dedications . The amount of a payment depends upon - the location of the subdivision . Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area may make a payment in lieu of dedication or: .make a combination of land dedicated * and payment with approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , as long as the subdivision is not * designated. for recreation and / or - open space in the County Comprehensive Plan . Depending on the location of the property in . question , the payment in lieu of dedication is equal to . either $ 422 per lot - if the subdivision . is within 4the service area , of a community park or $ 455 per lot if the subdivision is located in the service area of a district park . With the combination of land dedication and payment . in lieu L option , the subdivider is . given . a credit of $ 10 , 000 per acre for each acre of land dedicated for recreational purposes . If the multiplication of the number of acres dedicated by $ 10 , 000 is less than the payment in lieu , the subdivider pays the difference . If. the credit is more than the determined . payment in lieu , no additional payment is required. Carrboro Payment-in -Lieu Program The Town of Carrboro uses a point system in determining payment , n lieu of dedications . Each type of .recreational facility is assigned : points per square foot . For example a Tennis Court is assigned 0 . 034 points per square foot . The . typical square footage is 7 , 200 sq . ft . , which ' r when multiplied by . 0 . 034 � yields 245 points . Each type of .residence has a minimum * number of recreation points required ( e . g . a single family detached unit requires- 410 . 39 points per dwelling unit ) . All new developments must meet the points required by including * recreational areas - or it must pay $ 143 . 54 per point . Residential developments that are exempt from providing on - site active . recreational areas , recreational facilities or open space pay a. fee to the Town 's open space and recreational .facilities fund . The - minimum amount to be paid is derived from the point system . For example the . development of one single family detached . unit is exempt from providing on - site recrea tional facilities . The minimum payment in lieu would be $ 143 . 54 . multiplied * by the required points for this dwelling , which is 10 . 39 . The . minimum amount due equals $ 1 , 491 . 38 ( 10 . 39 x $ 143 . 54 = 1491 . 38 ) . 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix H . IF Payment- in - lieu Programs Around the Country Alternative Models for Programs 1 . Davis , % California (Ann Brunett) Methods of. Acquiring Land : T Mandatory land dedication : • Developers are required to . mitigate land on a 1 : 1 ratio . Land dedicated must fall within the city 's general plan F,F boundary-. • • Shou.ld be equal farmland If possible . If none can be found , they can seek a replacement somewhere else . • The developers can create : conservation easements on IF those properties , although the actual holder of the t easement is sometimes controversial ;. with the county , Yolo County Land Trust , and the city all vying for control . • Often , the Land Trust will find money to pay for the easement , . with the city providingIF I matching funds -which they have budgeted . FI IF Payment - in - lieu option : • A payment - in - lieu option of $ 2000 per ' acre is also available to% the developer. , although it is less desirable . • Money acquired spent within the general plan area . This option is more expensive than the easements for developers and they can often . :find farmers willing_ to sell some of their. land . IF , .1 Other : • Some -local farmers create conservation easements on their own Focus of Acquisition . q . • 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 a. nd 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 IF piece 5/ 26/ 99 • Now in the process of creating a matrix of easementso to provide a picture of what they have , the gaps that . . might exist , and what is happening with the properties . 42 . Boulder County; CO (Nancy Dayton, (303) 67 & 6243) Methods of Acquiring Land Sales Tax : . In 1993 passed a4 sales tax for4 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 . " . ` to • 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 5/ 26/ 99 • Joint- acquisition with the municipalities Some have own sales taxes Work also with the .Trust -with Public Lands , Nature Conservancy Open Space Task Force made up of a people , stakeholders , • Decide where want to spend money preserving lands Focus of Acquisition : • Other categories to purchase • Prime. agricultural land , . which , has good soil and , irrigation ' • Rights to draw water off of, which makes the land more valuable 3 . Guilford County, NC (Roger Bardsley (336) 574-3544) Note : All of the governments within Guilford County use some version - of the county 's . policy ( Flood Plain Dedication only ) , although . some drift has occurred since 1992 when it was created . Methods of Acquiring Land :_ • Require dedication of field plain open. space if the land falls within the 100 - year flood - plain • Open space for watershed policy Over past 15 yearn 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 - 20J . - Could zone at a lower level ( RS- 12 ) though and dedicate about N15 % as open space Focus of Acquisition • Dedication has to be connected to public- interest • 100 - Year Flood Plain easy to see that in - no . development possibility for developers 5/ 26/ 99 • Charlotte. — Mecklenburg County, NC (Linda Beverly, Charlotte- Mecklenburg Planning Dept; (704) 33 & 5719) Note : The policy is only for Charlotte and the unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg . County . Methods of Acquiring Land : • No mandatory dedication for open space with any development • Developers can elect , in single family subdivisions to & do clustering that allows them to redraw the , individual lots with setting aside a minimum of 10 % of the land as open space . • That space . either is then maintained by a private homeowners association , or is . dedicated to the Parks and ' Recreation department as a greennway . No incentive for developers to provide the land , . but the smaller lots makes it so they can position the lots on ` better land • Lot of greenways through the subdivision process • Some bonds • Purchase open space . Some negotiated dedication for tax credit Focus of Acquisition : • Parks and Recreation has a greenway master plan . • If a development comes into that area , the planner will . put them in contact with the Parks and . . Recreation Department . • The Parks and Recreation Department can also purchase the land directly from the property - owner . 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix I Resolution= Open Facilities Policy An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County WHEREAS, the . Towns of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County - have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their jurisdictions , and WHEREAS , the location and type of many parks arid facilities is such that residents of adjacent jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction or desirous of use of the facilities , and : . WHEREAS , the spirit of inter-jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments , OWASA and the school systems , and WHEREAS , attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would hinder community- building and inter- local efForts ; NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for 4an Open Facilities Policy , which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed- by the member local governments of the County be open to use by all . County citizens . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT , upon adoption of this resolution by the . I elected boards of all , local governments in Orange County , the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Board of Education , the Orange County Board of Education., and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water . and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy ; AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT , the local governments agree to explore opportunities , at a later appropriate date , to clarify and explore a modification of an open facilities arrangement with the. University of . North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University . This , the day of , 1999 To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill Carrboro , Hillsborough and Orange Counter . . i 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix 3 Parklands Needed Based on Population Standards - MEMORANDUM . To : . Margaret Brown , County Commissioner John Link, County Manager Albert Kittrell , Assistant County Manager Richard Kinney , Carrboro Parks and Recreation Director Bob Jones , Orange County Recreation and Parks Director Bill Webster, Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Analyst From : David Stancil ,. Orange County ERC Director Sarah Magruder, Orange County . Planning/ ERC Intern RE : Current/ Projected Estimates of Parkland Needs in County Date ., April 28 , 1999 ' We have performed some calculations in order to begin to put some numbers together_ for . the . Master Recreation and Parks Report . Currently , the report has blanks , plugged numbers or . " xx 's " on projected parkland needs . - Prior to disseminating this to the full work group , we wanted to run these numbers . by you for review . We have attempted to determine . the number Hof 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 existingresources . Also listed are the assumptions . used in the calculation process , as follows ; • In determining the number of: people served by different types of parks , we chose the midpoint - between the County 's and municipalities different standards . • - In determining the existing- resource base , we used the inventory . • Definitions used — Regional parks are , > 200 , : District parks are > 75acres , Community - parks are > 20 acres and Neighborhood parks are > 5 acres . ' . • Acreage needs were based upon the entire county . We did not allocate the final number of parks and acres by , municipality or township . • Eno River State Park is regarded as a regional park due to its size . 5/ 26/ 99 . Table 1 : County-wide Parkland Needs ...Type of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres Regional 2@ 450acres each 3@ 450acres each District 4@ 150acres 6@ 150acres Community 12@ 25acres 17@ 25acres - Nei hborhood 23@ 10acres 34 @12 . 5acres Total acres needed 2030 * acres . 3100 acres The size of parks above are averages and . are figured according to population needs and standards . The above figures do not account for existing resources -in our inventory . Based on existing data , the following table illustrates the amount needed , after current resources are considered . Table 2 : Net Parkland Needs Accounting for Existing: Parks Type of Park Year 2000 acres Year 2025 acres Regional , - 0 - * - 0 - * District - 600 - 900 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 m 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 . Ap perdu top . Owed aid hands Facilittes Co'an A nd UNC� a en�tt4s Duke o� and Gre �fe CQ'r��a 2• . � r�e��9 duot�o� V►CCeC1ty Ce�To s are c otocop�l Ma'P for ph a'�e.d toC'�` 5/ 26/ 99 Appendix L Resolution : Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council RESOLUTION A Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County have discussed long - term parks and recreation issues in the past several years , and WHEREAS, these discussions have led to a Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 1996 ) ' and #a - Report on Coordination ( 1997 ) to refine and explore coordination efforts among the jurisdictions , and WHEREAS , the Joint . Master Recreation and - Parks Work Group has , in its deliberations , benefited from ideas and possible means of collaboration developed as part of thef work . group process , and WHEREAS , consistent with the Schools and Land Use Councils work in the co - location of parks and schools , the* Work Group has provided criteria and - potential for coordination in this and other details that might enhance the areas of long -term parks needs , and WHEREAS , # the Work Group has recommended that a new Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council be formed to follow - up on the work of this body and i implement future efforts - toward coordination of recreation and parks planning ; ` NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the agrees to create a Joint Parks :and Resource Lands Council along the lines specified in the Joint Work Group report . 1. BE IT FURTHE R RESOLVED THAT the instructs its Manager to meet with the Managers of each jurisdiction to develop and report back on a charge , mission and structure for the Parks and Resource Lands Council , with the goal of a first . meeting of the Council in the - fall of 1999 . This , the day of , 1999 . . To be signed by chair and mayors of Chapel Hill , Carrboro , Hillsborough and Orange County: