HomeMy WebLinkAboutIPWG agenda 102302 Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
Agenda
October 23 , 2002 � � y 4_ _Aa x
r5 . - o
5 : 15 P .M.
3 ,
Southern Human Services Center 1 2 ¢ gg
2505 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill , NC
1 . CALL, TO ORDER
See 1 S 2 . JOINT COUNTY/ TowN PROJECT PROCESS
Attachment 1 contains a) a brief summary memo , b) the comprehensive
process document as left by the IP Work Group in February, and c) a
proposal from the Town of Chapel Hill regarding the Southern Park
process . Orange County is currently drafting a response to this proposal .
Staff and representatives will update the group on recent progress .
SAS 3 . BASIC OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR PARKS
This item was on the May 22"d agenda but was not discussed due to time .
Please see Attachment 2 .
6 : 05 4 . UPDATES ON OTHER PROJECTS
■ Duke Forest User Survey (Attachment 3 )
■ Greenways Subcommittee
■ OWASA Mitigation Lands
■ Greene Tract (Attachment 4)
■ Southern Park
■ CHATPEC Master Plan Work Group
■ Little River Regional Park and Natural Area
■ Efland-Cheeks Park
6 : 40 S . ROUNDTABLE UPDATES
Each member is asked to share reports on ongoing projects in their area
or jurisdiction, and any opportunities for collaboration
6 : 55 6 . NEXT MEETING F" EBRUARY 26 , 2003 ?
7 : 00 7 . ADJOURNMENT
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
To : Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
From : David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Date , October 14, 2002
Re : Joint Parks Process — Actions Since May 2002
Please find attached two items on activities regarding the joint parks process,
since the IP Work Group last received an update in May of this year . The first
attachment is the copy of the ` Planning Process for Joint Town/County Parks and
Open Space Projects , " as the IP Work Group left it following the deliberations of
February 27t" . The second is a proposal from the Town of Chapel Hill specific to
a process for approval and construction of Southern Park .
As you may recall , when the IP Work Group met in February to review the draft,
the document was found acceptable - with the understanding that
representatives from the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County would meet to
iron out a few remaining differences on the procedures therein . At the IP Work
Group 's May meeting , we reported that the committee had begun to discuss
these issues but had not yet reached a proposal .
Since that time, the following has occurred :
➢ A meeting of elected representatives was held to discuss the process, where
Town representatives indicated a need to move forward on Southern Park as
the most- pressing project .
➢ In July, the Town of Chapel Hill representatives made a proposal specific to
Southern Park ( attached )
➢ After review in August, the County Commissioners received a report in
September evaluating the proposal . Staff was directed to prepare a reply
based on feedback from the Board . A draft of that document is being
reviewed .
➢ Meanwhile, the Board of Commissioners received the presentation of the
Southern Park Conceptual Plan on October 1st, and has begun consideration
of the plan .
With the activities of the last few months, one possible approach to addressing
the process issues would be to . .
1 ) Treat the Southern Park process as a pilot project, portions of which may or
may not be applicable to other joint projects, and
.2 ) Forward the " Planning Process for Joint Town/County Parks and Open Space
Projects " on to the Board of Commissioners, with the understanding that staff
will look to reconcile the document with the eventual process of Southern
Park, where applicable and appropriate (there are a number of similarities
between the two processes) .
NOT 110V t��r�O ILA1'�TpGESt VVERE p1�'.�ADE TOp- TH�ta4 D...R.1:1F�.1rgAT T1:: E FEB.��� UA Y g2;�I V�t' Otff
T�'�.L IATi 41P.tg JL
RAFT 2/0/02
IP Work Group Recommendation
Planning
Process for Joint
County/Town Parks
and Open
S ce P ro ' ects
pa J
February 27 , 2002
On January 31, the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group met to review the
County 's 9110101 draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and
Open Space Projects . " The Chapel Hill Town Council and the County Board of
Commissioners had asked the IP Work Group to review the policy statement in light
of issues raised and develop a recommendation .
The following recommendations were developed via facilitated discussion of the policy
draft and Chapel Hill Town Council comments . IP Work Group members asked that
the ideas be written up and presented for a recommendation on February 27.
A . General Areas of Common Interest/ Consensus
There are a number of general concepts related to planning for joint parks
that are shared by all jurisdictions :
1 . An interest in avoiding overlap and delays in completing projects
2 . A recognition that County oversight/overview of joint parks and
open space projects which the . County funds wholly or partly is
appropriate
3 . That a planning policy should address both specific 2001 bond
projects and new joint parks/open space projects yet to be developed
In addition, the IP Work Group discussed the draft policy and the Town of
Chapel Hill 's issues . The group agreed by consensus that some objectives from
the draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space
Projects " should be retained . The following list contains the points
recommended for retention (with locational reference in the 9110101 draft
policy statement in parentheses):
4 . The " Conditional Approval" process , for the purpose of new joint
projects only (objective 1 )
fzI D : '() THk'� .[),RA T zI T"�'. [Ft .r' ..BR I, . l? Y 2 ITORK
DRAFT 2/20/0
5 . The County should have joint approval for concept plans on
parks/open space projects the County is fully or partially funding
(Objective 3 , bullet 3)
6 . Joint parks and open space projects should be consistent with
adopted County guidelines and criteria (objective 2)
7 . The 2001 bond projects should be exempted from the conditional
approval process (objective 4)
8 . That all joint parks will be open for use by all County citizens , as
per adopted Open Facilities Policy (objective 7 - a)
B . Proposed Changes to Planning Process
Upon further discussion of the issues raised regarding other portions of the
draft policy, the IP Work Group developed a new approach for addressing
joint parks and open space projects on a case - by - case basis . As noted by
County officials at the meeting, this concept is similar to one in effect for the
County and school systems for new capital projects .
1 . Information Needed
The IP Work Group noted that, to pursue this new approach, additional
information was needed or should be clarified:
a) Clarification is needed to define which parks and open space
projects are "joint" projects to be covered by this approach (please
see Attachment 1 for staff s interpretation of this list)
b ) Information is needed from the respective Towns regarding their
own internal priorities among these joint projects
2 . Alternative Process for Joint Statement of Intent ( objective 3 )
The IP Work Group noted that a one size fits all " approach to planning joint
projects might apply standards and expectations that are not applicable in
each case . As each joint project on the table is unique and different, the
concept of a case- by - case approach for many of the project details and decision
points is suggested as an alternative . This approach is consistent with the
County 's process for joint efforts with the schools, and offers flexibility to
adjust the functions and plans of each project as needed .
The IP Work Group recommends that the County have a set of general
`guiding principles " that apply to all projects, perhaps based on the General
Areas of Common Interest in section A of this recommendation . It is then
recommended that each project be handled on a case - by - case basis using the
following approach:
14�C,� r�'�!'.` Ti� �
DRAFT 2/0/0
a . Process for Current Joint Parks and Open Space Projects
(diagram of process included as Attachment 3)
1 ) The Towns and County should develop a prioritization of
joint projects , including project cost estimates and expected
duration (see B . 1 . b above)
2) The County would then consider funding timetables ,
opportunities and the schedule of projects
3) Once the County has approved funding and timetable , a
Capital Project Ordinance would be developed by both
jurisdictions . This step would trigger the creation of a
Town/ County Parks " Project Plan Group " (PPG) to
recommend key decisions on the . project .
4) The Town and County elected boards could then appoint two
members each to a Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group for
each project , as per its schedule .
5) After receiving recommendations of the Project Plan Group ,
the County Commissioners and Town elected board would
make their respective decisions regarding the Project Plans ,
6) The parks would be designed , constructed and opened in
accord with the Project Plan
Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG)
• 2 County Commissioners and 2 elected officials from the jurisdiction(s) involved
in the project
• County/Town Managers or their designees
• Relevant Staff (Budget, ERCD , Parks , other as needed)
Proposed Charge to Each Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG)
Develop a recommendation to respective elected boards on the following items :
• Which jurisdiction will serve as lead entity for coordinating parks design and
construction (including phasing plans , and the hiring of design and construction
consultants and architects)
• Which jurisdiction will coordinate park operation, stewardship and maintenance
(including the hiring of operational consultants)
• The process for developing a park concept plan, if not already completed
(including appointments to any committees so charged)
• The process for Board approval of the concept plan and park construction, or any
like steps
• The process for Board approval of final site plans and construction phasing
• Any plans for the leasing, or exclusive use/scheduling of park facilities by any
private or non-profit firm or organization
NOTE: O C ILAUNrGE T�'.l�.�iil.�; 1� .��..� E TO T L. .,�1.1��.I FT AT TH . . .� �� � � � Y 21 �� '�"�
(. 1� (.� �:TPAf[1j ,, T1A1(.1, Taoli �'+J1:?.1N(x AT C 0 fA117 'TE4E MEE * 11M.T AND APPROWiL INAPRIL
DRAFT 2/20/02
b . Future 4 (As Yet Unidentified ) Joint Parks and Open Space
Projects
New joint parks or open space proposals that may be developed
in future years might use the following process, which is
essentially the above process, preceded by the `conditional
approval " process outlined in the County 's draft policy statement:
1) A written request proposing the joint project would be
submitted to the Board of Commissioners , who would review
proposal and (if deemed appropriate for further study) refer
it to IP Work Group .
2) The IP Work Group would review proposal, consulting with
Schools/Land Use Councils if warranted , and make a
recommendation to County Commissioners and respective
Town Board (s)
3) The Board of Commissioners would then consider the
recommendation , receive any needed clarifying information ,
consider funding potential (including whether the project
should be part of a future bond package) , and decide on
whether (and when) to designate " conditional approval" for
the project
4) The Board of Commissioners would then, at the appropriate
time based on funding availability and other considerations ,
follow the process for current joint projects outlined in
subsection B . 2 . a above (beginning with B . 2 . a . 2)
C . Other Issues / Remaining Questions
There are a few details or matters that the IP Work Group would forward for
further consideration along with this recommendation.
1 . Will County Capital Project Ordinances include the Town funding
portion ?
2 . What happens if the PPG' s disagree on details or are unable to reach
consensus ?
3 . One task before the IP Work Group is the development of a
Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Towns regarding
parks and future roles and responsibilities . It appears that much of this
discussion could be the body of such an agreement ? Should the IP Work
Group continue to develop a draft agreement ?
4 . How will the County make decisions on project schedule and timetables ?
Do projects that are "ready" get the first green light ?
5 . How should public participation in parks planning be coordinated with .
the PPG' s ?
` Or E. l+IATO CHANGES TT7! U;4' 1�:1��.r���l.,�.,r� To} '�'r����,�' . 7� yp<r ��.3� �` nAT ',�t'.��..�.7��..r .�gfI. P3 L.(..IRY727 IT"O�-y .�7.�
(0 RO .lX'� .a' Y. E".t.',r .4 '. ATc .
DR-AFT 2/20/02
Attachment 1
List of Current Joint Town/ County Parks and Open Space Projects
(jurisdictions involved)
1 . Homestead Park Aquatics Center (Bond partners - Orange
County , Town of Chapel Hill)
2 . Fairview Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Hillsborough)
I Smith Middle School Park (Bond partners - Orange County ,
Carrboro)
4 . Greenways/Joint Open Space (Bond, partners - Chapel Hill ,
Orange County , Carrboro )
5 . Southern Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Chapel Hill)
)i
L
MEMORANDUM
TO : Chair Barry Jacobs
Commissioner Margaret Brown
FROM : Mayor Kevin Foy
Council Member Flicka Bateman
Council Member Bill Strom
SUBJECT : Proposed Process for Developing Southern Community Park
DATE : July 24 , 2002
We offer the attached draft with the hope that it meets the needs of the County and of
Chapel Hill .
General vs . Specific Process : Although we all began our discussions with the intent of
creating a template that could be used for all the joint park projects that will include
Orange County bond funding , we concluded that it would be more practical to begin with
a process specific to the Southern Community Park . Unlike most of the proposed
projects , this park already has a site in public ownership and a completed conceptual plan
developed by a committee composed of neighbors of the site , Chapel Hill ; Carrboro and
County elected officials , and other residents . The Town Council has approved this plan .
This process may be useful for the aquatic center too , which also has a conceptual plan
approved by the Town Council , but we believe we should wait to see how it works out
for this first project .
Decision-making : We have tried to consider the concerns you voiced in general, as well
as your more : specific comments . A key element would be the Project Planning
Committee , to be composed of at least one County Commissioner, one Town Council
Member and the two Managers or their designees , who would work on the Southern
Community Park from the conceptual plan stage through completion . The key decision
point would be the acceptance by both the Board of County Commissioners and the
Town Council of the conceptual plan . All other decisions , be they technical ones or more
significant design issues , would be based on the conceptual plan . The full Board would
also make the key decision of scheduling the funding for the project . . The decision to
award a contract would be made by the Town Council , with advice of the Project
Planning Committee and of the Board .
To summarize , the following are the decision points for the governing boards :
Adoption of conceptual plan BOCC and Town Council
Commitment on financing schedule BOCC
Approval of Special Use Permit Town Council
ri
A
Adoption of budget and award of bid Town Council
Other decisions will be made by Town staff, working with the Project Planning
Committee .
Opportunities for Review : Points of review and opportunities for advice by the full Board
of Commissioners will occur during the Special Use Permit ( SUP) process . First the
Board will receive notice of the process and schedule for the SUP as soon as it is
established . When the staff review is completed, the application goes to the Town ' s
advisory boards , and the Board of County Commissioners will also be included . The
Board would receive at least 60 days notice of this opportunity, so there would be time to
schedule the Board review in time to have its recommendations ready for the SUP public
hearing . After the public hearing at which all the Board ' s recommendations , advisory
board recommendations and citizen input will be heard, the Board will once again be
offered an opportunity for recommendation to the Town Council before the Council acts
on the SUP application . The Council normally acts 3 weeks after a public hearing, which
we would hope would include time for a Board meeting . If another week would
accommodate the meeting schedule of the Board, the Council could delay its decision on
the SUP until its next meeting .
Value Engineering : We are aware of the Board ' s interest in value engineering , and that is
. shared by the Town Council . Our proposed process includes the use of value engineering
during the process that moves from the conceptual plan stage to construction drawings ,
review and analysis of the bids and construction . The contract engineer would also be
available for advice should that be appropriate when considering potential change orders .
We understand that the County ' s Open Space Design Specialist may also be able to act in
these areas .
Project Planning Committee Members : You have suggested that the Project Planning
Committee include those of us who have worked together to develop this process . We
believe that is a good idea, and will submit . the three Council Member names to the full
Town Council ,
Timing . At your request, we have removed the specifics of all but one time period . We
do this with the understanding that the Board of Orange County Commissioners will
consider the Conceptual Plan for the Southern Community Park in September . We also
understand that it is your intent to have in November a mutually acceptable conceptual
plan and an executed interlocal agreement that specifies the schedule of bond fund
availability .
We did .feel the need to leave in one specific time period : the eight days during " Budget
and Bid Award" for setting a discussion between the Board and the Council about the
budget . We do so , because we believe that it is important to be able to award a contract
within 60 days of the bid opening . Requesting bids good for 60 days is fairly standard
and allows time for review and analysis of the bids , checking of references and some
negotiation . We believe that requesting 90 days would increase the bidders ' risk and,
" Ili
n
therefore , the amount of the bids . We would also point out that the two xepresentatives of
the Board will have been working as part of the Project Planning Committee from the
point of the bid opening to the date the recommendations of the Committee and the Town
Manager go to the Council . We would expect that consensus within the Planning
Committee would have been reached by that point and that the full Board of County
Commissioners would be informed of any concerns .
We hope that this draft is acceptable to you . If so , we suggest that the full elected boards
review and accept it at their first meeting after the summer break . If not, we are ready to
continue talking until we can reach full agreement .
. i
July 24 , 2002
PROPOSED PROCESS FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK
1 . Agreement on Timing of Funding
Board of County Commissioners adopts a multi-year capital project ordinance
authorizing the full amount of County bond funding . It also authorizes an interlocal
agreement that commits to making the proceeds of the bonds available for this project on
a given schedule .
2 . Project Planning Committee appointed by respective governing bodies : at least one
County Commissioner and one Town Council Member; each Manager or his designees
a. Charge is to keep informed about the progress of the project and to offer input in a
timely fashion
b . Objective is to discuss and reach consensus on all issues before it in a timely
manner
ilable , the Town of Chapel Hill may make the
c . If consensus is not readily ava
decision to avoid delay in project
d . The Chapel Hill Town Council is governing body in whose jurisdiction the
facility lies and which will be responsible for operations and maintenance for the
life of the project
3 . Conceptual Plan
Project Planning Committee follows the Report of the Southern Community Park
Conceptual Plan, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and the Town
Council, as a guide to the expectations of the governing bodies and the community.
4 . Construction Design
Proj ect Planning Committee decides whether to continue with designer of Conceptual
Plan or to select a new designer . If a new designer is desired,
a . Staff advertises for proposals and reviews all submittals
b . Project Planning Committee and Town staff review some or all submittals and
recommend small number to interview
c . Staff and Project Committee interview designer candidates and make
recommendation to Town Manager
d . Town Manager negotiates a contract with architect as recommended by the
Project Planning Committee
e . If Town Manager cannot negotiate an acceptable contract with the first choice, he
goes on to the second choice .
5 . Value Engineering
Project Planning Committee decides whether to accept the value engineering services of
the firm under contract with the Town . If not, Project Planning Committee selects
another firm, following the type of process outlined above for designer
2
6 . Special Use Permit
a. Designer works with P & R staff and value engineer to complete Special Use Permit
(SUP) application, including design drawings .
b . Project Planning Committee reviews drawings during process and approves drawings
that are part of the SUP application
c . Application undergoes regular SUP review process by advisory boards and Town
Council, as well as by Board of Orange County Commissioners
• At least 60 days notice is given to Board of County Commissioners before review
period for application
d. At Public Hearing Council receives staff recommendation in its role as owner and in
its role as Regulator, and recommendations from Board of County Commissioners
and all advisory boards and commissions
e . Board of County Commissioners meets at its next meeting after the SUP Public
Hearing date to prepare its final comments to Town Council before Council ' s final
decision
f. Town Council, in its role as Regulator, issues SUP
7 . Bidding
a. Designer completes working drawings and bid documents
b . Town staff and contract engineer review drawings and specs before finalized for
bidding, including code reviews by Inspections and Fire Departments
c Staff advertises for bids , holds pre-bid conference, opens bids
d. Staff, with assistance of designer and value engineer, analyzes bids , checks
references and makes recommendation to Project Planning Committee on bids and
project budget
e . Project Planning Committee makes its recommendation to Town Manager, Board of
Commissioners and Town Council on bid and project budget . Recommendations
might include :
-which of several alternates to accept
-which part(s) of the base project to delete to come within budget
-how to phase the project to accommodate budget and other constraints
8 . Budget and Bid Award
a. Town Council considers recommendations of Project Planning Committee and
Town Manager, makes its decisions and requests the County Commissioners '
concurrence in those decisions as quickly as possible , so that the bids can be awarded
within 60 days of the bid opening .
b . Town Council ' s budget may include funding for public art, whose expenditures
would be overseen by the Public Arts Commission according to the Percent for Art
Program
c Board of County Commissioners considers recommendations of Project Planning
Committee and Town Council
d . County Commissioners may :
3
- approve the Chapel Hill project budget as requested by the Town Council, or
- do so with minor conditions on the bid or budget, or
- request a meeting to be held within 8 days of representatives of the two
governing bodies to resolve their differences
e . After County Commissioners agree upon budget, Town Council adopts capital
project budget ordinance and awards contract j
9 . Construction
a. P arks and Recreation staff, designer, value engineer and contractors proceed with
construction
b Value engineer joins staff, designer and contractors for monthly project meetings and
may be involved between those meetings
c . Periodic reports made to Project Planning Committee, probably quarterly, but more
often if circumstances may dictate
d . If cumulative change orders come close to the Town Council ' s limit, proposed
change orders would be reviewed by Project Planning Committee and Town
Mana er, both of whom would make recommendations to Town g w Council .
10 . Completion
After completion and final close- out of the project, a report would be prepared for both
the Town Council and the Board of County Commissioners that details final costs
DRAFT .
Basic Operating Principles for
Countv Park Facilities and Public Open Spaces
■ Opportunities for economies of scale and cost savings should be explored
as projects continue and are developed
■ Each concept plan committee will have a scope of duties and a set of
guiding principles set by the Board of Commissioners at the time of
appointment , The Board may also adopt a "pre - concept" plan to help
provide direction to the committee
■ The County' s organizational vision for parks philosophy is towards an
" Olmsteadian" model or vision of parks ; that values natural and
ecologically - sensitive design , and flexible public open spaces for all areas
not designated for other specific uses
■ As such , the protection of natural areas and stream corridors shall be a
foremost consideration in the design or parks and public open spaces , and
grading and alteration of the natural landscape minimized to the degree
possible
■ Water use should be minimized and xeriscaping pursued wherever
possible and prudent , including the retention and " capture " of on - site
stormwater
■ Plantings and landscaping of parks and public open spaces shall feature
native vegetation wherever practical and appropriate
■ Parks and public open space should promote a pedestrian - friendly
environment and allow for free movement while discouraging internal
automobile traffic . Internal trails should be developed consistent with
both internal and external (trail connections) * networks
■ Where historic or otherwise - significant cultural buildings or features exist
on the site , attention and consideration should be given to preservation of
these features within the context of the park
■ Consideration of potential co - location of facilities is encouraged , as
appropriate and as directed by the Board
■ The concept plan for each park and public open space should reflect design
parameters sensitive to adjoining properties and neighbors
i
i
Gate # Date _ Start H
DUKE FOREST RECREATION SURVEY
The Office of the Duke Forest is updating its information concerning recreational use of the Forest . If you
have already been surveyed , please do not complete the questionnaire again . This survey should take
about 10 minutes . If there is a question you do not wish to answer , skip it and go to the next question .
If you have any questions about this study , call or e - mail Richard at the Duke Forest Office (tel : 613 - 8013 ;
e - mail : rmb7@duke . edu) . Thank you for your help .
Please check ( ✓) the box next to your answer , and/or fill in the available blank
1 How often do you visit the Duke Forest ? 7 Do you normally visit.
❑ EVERY DAY ❑ THE SAME AREA REPEATEDLY
❑ SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK ❑ VARIOUS AREAS IN THE FOREST
❑ SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH
❑ SEASONALLY 8 Please indicate the gate number you most
❑ RARELY commonly use to enter the forest, if
❑ FIRST TIME USER known:
2 About how much time do you usually
spend per visit ? 9 How far do you normally travel to visit the
❑ LESS THAN 1 HOUR Forest ?
❑ 1 - 2 HOURS ❑ LESS THAN 5 MILES
❑ 2 - 3 HOURS ❑ 5 - 9 MILES
❑ 34 HOURS ❑ 10 — 14 MILES
❑ MORE THAN 4 HOURS ❑ 15 — 20 MILES
❑ 20 MILES OR FARTHER
3 While in the Duke Forest, what do you do ?
( Check all that apply . ) 10 When in the Forest, do you tend to stay on
❑ WALK the main gravel roads or do you prefer to
❑ RUN OR JOG use side roads and footpaths ?
❑ BICYCLE ❑ MOSTLY MAIN GRAVEL ROADS
❑ HORSEBACK RIDE ❑ MOSTLY SIDE ROADS / FOOTPATHS
❑ FISH ❑ BOTH ABOUT EQUALLY
❑ PICNIC
❑ WALK DOG 11 To the best of your knowledge , what is
❑ OTHER (please specify) Duke Forest' s primary reason for
existence ? ( Check ONE . )
4 What days of the week do you usually ❑ RECREATION
come to the Duke Forest ? ❑ TIMBER PRODUCTION
❑ WEEKDAYS ❑ EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
❑ WEEKENDS ❑ GREENSPACE / OPEN SPACE
❑ BOTH ❑ REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
❑ DON'T KNOW
5 What time of day do you usually visit ?
( Check all that apply . ) 12 Do you make recreational visits to any of
❑ EARLY MORNING these other Triangle area sites ? ( Check all
❑ MID -MORNING that apply. )
❑ EARLY AFTERNOON ❑ SARAH P . DUKE GARDENS
❑ MID -AFTERNOON ❑ UNC OR NC STATE FORESTS/
❑ EVENING GARDENS
❑ TIME VARIES ❑ ENO RIVER STATE PARK
❑ UMSTEAD STATE PARK
6 How many people accompanied you on ❑ JORDAN LAKE OR FALLS LAKE
this trip ? ❑ OTHER
PERSON(S ) , not including myself. ❑ NONE OF THESE
r
Page 1 of 4
i
I
We would like to know whether the demographics of forest users have changed over the
years . Please take a moment to answer these questions .
21 Are you affiliated with Duke University? 26 How would you describe your ethnic or racial
❑ A STUDENT/ 2001 GRADUATE background ?
❑ FACULTY/ STAFF/ ADMIN ❑ AFRICAN -AMERICAN
❑ NO ❑ HISPANIC
❑ WHITE
22 What is your town of residence ? ❑ NATIVE AMERICAN
❑ DURHAM ❑ ASIAN
❑ CHAPEL HILL ❑ MULTI - RACIAL
❑ RALEIGH ❑ OTHER
❑ CARRBORO
❑ CARY 26 What is your current job status ?
❑ HILLSBOROUGH ❑ EMPLOYED
❑ ORANGE COUNTY ❑ RETIRED
❑ OTHER ❑ HOMEMAKER
❑ STUDENT
23 Are you : ❑ UNEMPLOYED
❑ MALE ❑ OTHER
❑ FEMALE
27 What is the highest level of education you
24 What is your age ? have completed ?
❑ UNDER 20 ❑ SOME HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS
❑ 21 - 30 ❑ HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE
❑ 3140 ❑ SOME COLLEGE
❑ 41 - 50 ❑ COLLEGE DEGREE
❑ 51 - 60 ❑ SOME GRADUATE SCHOOL
❑ 61 - 70 ❑ GRADUATE DEGREE
❑ 71 AND OLDER
You may remain anonymous ; Fold Tong dotted °_line; staple o aape at kiotto i -- and mail
however , if you are interested in
participating in volunteer
STAMP
activities on Duke Forest, please
provide your contact information .
❑ Please contact me about volunteer opportunities .
Name.
Address .
Tel Ao
E- mail:
Office of the Duke Forest
Box 90332
Durham NC , 2770M332
+ , Ab •
r �
WAY
SPA �1lI
Landfill r
FAr r
►,I
elLM
ma I
ws
.v
r t► - ®1
y
3 �
-_ � i
a
_ T ..�'`
k
All
- It WOO&
LIN
a .
ME
® ►. /� --
OIC
mat�O�a, items
k G'foolp
ip � A9eV%da
Lori N . Taft Appointed Recreation and Parks Management Director
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 20 , 2002
Contact : John Link, County Manager, 245-2300
Orange County Manager John Link has appointed Lori N . Taft as Re_ creation and
Parks Management Director . Taft will begin work Monday, October 28 , 2002 .
Taft will plan , organize and direct a comprehensive recreation and parks
management program for Orange County . With approval of recent bond referenda,
Orange County is significantly expanding its parks . Once sites are acquired and
concept plans developed, Taft will lead the development , management and
maintenance of the new parks . Taft has a Bachelor' s Degree in Physical Education
from the University of Massachusetts and a Master' s of Education Degree in
Physical Education and Recreation Administration from Temple University .
Taft worked for over 17 years in the Recreation and Parks Department for New
Castle County , Delaware . She began work there as supervisor of sports and athletic
rb
activities for youth and progressed to District Recreation Supervisor .
She left New Castle County to become Parks Administrator for the Wilmington
State Parks for the State of Delaware . While in that capacity, she managed the
transition of these parks from New Castle County to State of Delaware
management , and led a comprehensive assessment and planning process for these
parks . Currently Taft lives in Oak Ridge , North Carolina where she has been
actively involved as a volunteer serving on the Town' s Parks and Recreation
Committee .
i
Link named an Assessment Panel to assist him in the selection process . The Panel
was made up of Orange County Commissioner Margaret Brown and Assistant j
County Manager Gwen Harvey . The search process included national recruitment .
It yielded 51 candidates .
Link said : "We are very pleased that Lori is joining the Orange County team . Her
professional experience , enthusiasm and especially her vision for park development
and management will be important to successfully completing our park plan . "
Commissioner Brown said : "Parks are the wonderful ingredient in our quality of
life . Lori' s experience will be of great value to the citizens of Orange County in the
development of our parks : " Taft said : "The leaders and citizens of Orange County
have shown foresight and a commitment to maintaining high standards for quality
of life in passing the two land conservation bond referenda . I look forward to the
opportunity to work with this community in developing parks and planning
recreation programs for everyone to enjoy . "
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
Agenda
May 22, 2002
5 : 15 p .m.
Southern Human Services Center
2505 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill , NC
'I . CALL TO ORDER
'I 2 . CHAPEL HILL, TOWNSHIP PARK AND
EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Attachment 1 was adopted by the Board of Commissioners on May 14 as
the Master Plan process for this 193 -acre site . Appointments to the Work
Group may be made in June .
3 . BASIC OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR PARKS
During discussions on May 14 , the Board of County Commissioners
expressed an interest in a set of basic operating principles to be used in
the design of new park facilities, and asked that the IP Work Group
develop draft principles . A starter set for discussion will be handed out at
the meeting, for Is on May 22 and potential recommendation on
October 23 .
6 : 00 49 UPDATES ON OTHER PROJECTS
■ Greenways Subcommittee (Attachment 2)
■ Chapel Hill/Orange County workgroup of Joint Parks Process
■ OWASA Mitigation Lands
6 : 20 s . ROUNDTABLE UPDATES
Each member is asked to share reports on ongoing projects in their area
or jurisdiction, and any opportunities for collaboration
6 : 55 6 . NEXT MEETING OCTOBER 23
7 : 00 7 . ADJOURNMENT
t _ '
{£_ - ,
e 1 j x 6 R 6r
% d
00
CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP PARK &
EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS
Master Plan Process
41
Adopted by Board of Commissioners, May 14, 2002
In order to begin the process of planning for the new park and
educational campus on the County' s 193 - acre site near Old 86 and
Eubanks Road , the following is offered as a draft proposal for the
Board of Commissioners ' consideration . This draft is based on
previous drafts , comments provided by the Board at October 22 ,
2001 and November 13 , 2001 worksessions , and subsequent
meetings and/or discussions . It also includes additional thoughts
from at least two Commissioners in the last few days . New
additional language is shown in bold italic .
This draft process for the Master Plan Work Group is designed to
comprehensively integrate the planning of the educational campus
and park site to ensure maximum efficiency and flexibility of use .
NOTE : Recent correspondence from the CHCCS Superintendent to the School Board —
augmented by discussion at the March 25 BOCC/School Boards meeting - have noted the
iddle school) , as well as potential location for a high
plans for a second school at this site (a m
school as part of a three - school campus .
Tentative Schedule of Activities *
Action D . •
Master Plan Work Group charged , begins work June , 2002
Interim report to Board of Commissioners November , 2002
Work Group completes Master Plan February , 2003 **
Board of Commissioners reviews and approves March - May, 2003
Master Plan
Town of Carrboro review and approval of site March- May 2003 to
plan January 2004
Develo bids and bid project January - February 2004
Construction of Phase I — Schools component Winter 2004 — Fall 2005 ? ?
Construction of Phase I — Parks Component Winter 2004 — Fall 2005
* - best - case scenario , assumes no unforeseen delays
* * - some aspects of the educational campus design may not be completed by
this time
a �
I . Proposed Master Plan Work Group
Char e :
I . DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR THE CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP
PARK AND EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS , WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE PRE"CONCEPT PLAN , GUIDING PRINCIPLES ( PLEASE
SEE ATTACHMENT 1 ) AND OTHER DIRECTION PROVIDED FROM .
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON OCTOBER 22 , 20019
NOVEMBER 13 , 2001 , FEBRUARY 18 , 2002 AND AT
SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS .
2 . THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
COMPONENTS :
• A concept plan for both the park and educational campus * . The concept
plans should include all proposed buildings , playing fields , roads , parking ,
other facilities , amenities , infrastructure locations , vegetative cover ,
hydrology and other components that are commonly included in park or
school facility concept plans .
To accomplish this task , '
the Work Group may divide into two
subcommittees — a Park Subcommittee and an Educational Campus
Subcommittee . Following basic initial planning for the entire site , the two
subcommittees could convene to develop plans for individual components
of the property . It is recognized that the Educational Campus
Subcommittee will be limited to initial site planning considerations , as it
awaits the completion of other school - related committees that have
implications for design of the campus . The subcommittees would need to
communicate regularly and openly to ensure that an integrated design for
the whole site is maintained . The Work Group as a whole would then
reconvene to approve the overall Master Plan to be submitted to the
Board of Commissioners for approval .
• A written report outlining the proposed uses , the design rationale ,
description of work group process , natural and cultural features , means of
soliciting community input , the potential future phases , and construction
cost estimates . The report should also include a phasing plan for both
concept plan components , showing how the park and school facilities
could be developed over time in a cost-efficient fashion .
3 . THE MASTER PLAN WILL ADDRESS CO"LOCATION OF THE
EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS AND PARK , AND SERVE TO PROVIDE
FOR A "SEAMLESS TRANSITION " BETWEEN SCHOOL FACILITIES
AND PARK FUNCTIONS WHEREVER POSSIBLE
05
4 . THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL , VIA A SEPARATE
PROCESS , ADDRESS THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARK
Product : A Master Plan report and map , as described above , by
March 1 , 2003
Timeframe : May 2002- March 2003 **
Final Steps : Once completed , the Master Plan will be submitted to
the Board of County Commissioners for approval . The Board may
either approve the Plan , remand it back for further work , or decide not
to pursue the Plan .
- It is recognized that the level of detail for the educational campus may of necessity be
less precise . However , it is expected that the educational campus component of the
Master Plan should , to the degree possible , show the proposed uses , general building .
locations and functional layout of the school facilities
** - Some components of the Educational Campus design may not be completed b this
p 9 Y p Y
time , pending the work of other school - related committees
i
i
i
r
II . Proposed Membership - Chapel Hill Township Park
and Educational Campus Master Plan Work Group ( 23 )
Appointed by Orange County:
• 2 County Commissioners
• 3 citizens at - large
• 1 Commission for the Environment member
• 1 Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member
• 2 InterGovernmental Parks Work Group members
• Duke Forest Resource Manager
• 1 Carrboro Northern Transition Area Committee member
• 1 Orange County Planning Board member
• 2 Chapel Hill = Carrboro City Schools parents
• 1 Orange County Schools parent
Addition
ally, the Chair and / or Co Chairs of the Work Group will be
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners .
Appointed by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Board:
• 2 CHCCS School Board members j
Appointed b the Town o Carrboro:
pp y f
• 1 Carrboro Alderman
• 1 Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission member
Appointed by the Town of Chapel Hill:
• 1 Chapel Hill Town Council member
• 1 Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission member
• 1 Chapel Hill Greenways Commission member
Appointed by the Orange County Board of Education:
• 1 Orange County Board of Education member
Staff Orange County) :
■ County Manager or designee
■ Environment and Resource Conservation Director
■ Land Conservation Manager
■ Open Space Design Specialist
■ Recreation and Parks Director
(Assistance also to be solicited from Planning Director, County Engineer, Purchasing Director,
and Public Works Director) ,
Other Staff
■ Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Superintendent or designee) , Associate Superintendent
■ Orange County Schools Superintendent (or designee) , Associate Superintendent
■ Parks and Planning staff from Town of Carrboro would be invited to attend and participate
ex-officio .
ATTACHMENT 1
III . Guiding Principles
In addition to the charge, the Work Group shall use the following Guiding
Principles in developing a Master Plan for the site :
• The park and school facility functions and uses should conform to the Pre-
Concept Plan reviewed and agreed to by the Board of Commissioners on
October 22 , 2001 and November 13 , 2001
• The site should promote a pedestrian -friendly environment and work to
discourage automobile traffic between the different components of the site
• The protection of important stream corridors and natural areas should be a
foremost consideration , and active recreation facilities should be designed in
concert with the natural surroundings wherever possible . Grading and
alteration of the natural landscape should be minimized , with the
understanding that some portions of the active recreation area will require
grading for playing fields
• identified for school facilities , playing
Generally , all portions of the site not
fields or ancillary uses should adhere to " Olmsteadian " park and open space
design principles , promoting open spaces , meadows , and fields that may
flexibly be used for a variety of public leisure purposes
• Efficiency opportunities in grouping of playing fields and related facilities
( lighting , restrooms ) should be explored
• The open spaces , including trails , should be developed as both an internal
and external network , with leisure and pedestrian movement between school
facilities and the park addressed internally , and linkage to future Carrboro
greenways externally
• The plan should promote xeriscaping ( native vegetation and minimal water
use ) within the entire site
• The plan should address incorporating the farmstead structures and log cabin
into the overall park design
• Accordingly , the plan should reflect design that is sensitive to adjoining
landowners ( particularly the " in - holding " parcel )
• The Master Plan should ensure that educational facilities and park amenities
are inter-twined based on access and commonality of use , with as seamless
of a transition between uses as possible
• As information regarding potential co - location of other facilities becomes
available , the Work Group may consider this information as directed by the
Board of Commissioners
• Additional basic operating principles may be developed by the
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and approved by the Board of
Commissioners
Y
09
Greenways Subcommittee
InterGovernmental Parks Work Group
April 10, 2002
12: 00 noon
Southern Human Services Center
1 . Review of March 20 Meeting
■ Options for projects — Bolin Creek , Morgan Creek
■ Role of UNC in Rail Trail
■ Chapel Hill greenways discussions to date — upcoming meeting
■ Need for information from Carrboro about greenways projects
■ Town of Chapel Hill received $ 90 , 000 grant for Morgan Creek Planning
■ Opportunities and obstacles to both projects
2 . Report from Chapel Hill Greenways Commission —
Priorities/Pros/Cons
I Discussion with Carrboro regarding Town Greenwa tans
J g yp
4 . Report on Estes Drive Extension plans — DOT
5 . Possibility of DOT Enhancement funds ?
6 . Recommendation to IP Work Group
I
One Possible Option
■ Pursue planning along Morgan Creek with Town of Chapel Hill grant ,
augmented by some other funds
■ Plan to expend remaining bond funds toward Bolin Creek Greenway
in a manner TBA ) and potential 'connections to New Hope open space
system
10
Greenways Subcommittee Meeting
March 20, 2002
Recommendations on Joint Town/ County Open
Space Bond Possible Proj ects
What is Needed ?
A recommendation to the IP Work Group (and eventually the
County and Town Boards ) on how best to proceed with greenways
bond projects .
The Options :
1 . Extend Bolin Creek northwest (both Chapel Hill and Carrboro
greenway sections) toward the County' s new Chapel Hill
Township Park site ?
2 . Extend Morgan Creek Greenway west (both Chapel Hill and
Carrboro greenways sections) toward University Lake ?
3 . Work on Rail Trail to Greene Tract and points north ?
4 . Other combinations ?
infor
matimonal
Items
IP Work
Group
Ma 22
II
r
I
• II
li
I
I
ffvt
1j G T r a d-San
• - �r w�^�h e Classifieds, page 8, c1
Mardi 30 2002 :
Orange High g School's Comics, page A10
baseball team wins its first
Crossword, page 10
Also covering Hillsborough, fr _ game in the Graham Invita- Editorials,page 4,A14
Carrboro, Orange County& uie
tional, page ®5 Movies, page 2,A15
northern Chatham County .Locally owned stores at Obituaries,page B2
- nM ro Religion,page B9
Fax number:9181055K,. South Square Mall are clos-
5® centsing their doors, page BI Sports,page D1Television,page B12
-
a: .�-^%•Lv?r='C^,.;•�?•�'C:,'��,'r i'";�.:"&•t'�2:?ri:k�'"'S"rn a,-ar,^^.n.,z .f'- ="2.: r5'+,..�..�.'r Y`ar;....«.--.;.:-m...:.•y- �.:.xmr -
•-R.rlr.:^wt.p•.•.':•^*:^TM>••.::r...:._•1x....,,...«nr:...•..,�..r,...,.�,,..T.;...., .J':r P..-s'31R ..'�3. .x..t �r .:z.:,":— 'ter n.:i r_ .'::�,'r.,.".y':•n._'8.+e;. .+on..'.+mA''2+.,drv- ,u+s+! -
c ..1.,.- _ x.:• -.?., -b -, n}m u'S.�7:>° 't° �}�, zr ' e.-
.,r'J...r-7-x v 11"r •. J •,�c.`.=.'" .�,,, ..7
{, - u.k.< - .,r-•E:"w`'+«..� ,::, �fr..4.;.:mrn t..' c'«._ ,..w�-i�r....t...s�d?-`�.t.,:r,�x• -,.�''° •, -.•'a'-^ 'r� ^r' .~`1` ^,n•_ ..:Su s' ;'"i �,
d]ia:i:i':G�'.r�.ti,3:,:�:krai.w.:�."�i:.�Ji}:ii='"..xaxix.;-a:«.Ca:nu'.:+tx�,�:l ;i i+u,C .�� .;ram=)-�1.a=i':.;..r_.,f.j::r..,•.--«.*-+`•e._..,t.4� �'s..,.,+x+;'L•'�"..�(�.k-.��'x,5^�a•�"-..�•m�i '�v�. �.,
ksyiS'-�+.rndr.�:. ��i:�"-a' a11is�;'•7b:;+�+��lwc;:r"t�i-.ai.t.:Ury'� :'is'e:.,'F.r"�r.''Fu'4•�.�r
cou. naml],f
" 48 manager to
seeki'mH9 Pa
Y gulmame
New recreation sites and position for a recreation and parks Jones will take on the new title of range of about $37,400 to $45,400 soccer field will be the design spe- along with an expanded Cedar
management director,with a salary parks services director. per year. The county projects the cialist's first assignment. Grove Park on land behind the
plans for more prompt range between$45,400 and$72,000: In a related action,the county has position will cost about $58,000 a The Little River Regional Park Northern Human Services Center
shuffle of parks positions County Manager John Link projects been recruiting for another new year with benefits. and Natural Area would be the next on N.C.86 North,and a trail and pos-
it likely would take the county until position—open space design spe- A look at the county's most recent facility to open, in the spring of sibly primitive campsites in the y
By ®� ������� July to fill the position,which means cialist — that the Orange County timetable for new parks shows 2003.The 391-acre Little River Park Seven-Mile Creek Preserve in cen- L
the first cost will come in the coup Commissioners approved last yeat what's prompting the personnel is a joint project by Orange and ti'al Orange COMM south of Hills-
chWherald-sumcom;732-6397 ty's 2002-03 budget. The commissioners agreed to cre- moves. Durham counties, and it will be borough and Efland off Mt.Willing
HILLSBGROUGH — With the Factoring in benefits, the county ate the position as part of the 2001- This fall, the county expects to designed for low-impact recreation Road.
number of county-operated parks puts the expected cost for the posi 02 budget,but with an effective date open a loop trail at its 63-acre like hiking and mountain biking, The next phase of Fairview Park
set to increase dramatically over tion at about$70,000 a year. of January 2002. McGowan Creek Preserve along rather than activities like soccer. in Hillsborough and the first phase
the next three years,Orange County The county already has a recre- The person the county hires for U.S.70 west of Hillsborough,and a The county's timetable shows the of the Chapel Hill Township
plans xt hire a new parks manager ation and parks director — Bob ' the design position likely will be a new soccer field on a patch of land second phase of the Efland-Cheeks Park(Educational Campus, along
86 N.C. and Eubanks Road,
this summer. Jones. But with the creation of the landscape architect, and he or she that Mapleview Farm owner Robert Park near Efland-Cheeks Elemen- Old d,
The county has created a full-time management director position, will have a salary somewhere in the Nutter is providing. Designing the tary opening in the fall of 2004,
, please see PARKS/PAGE 2
PAGE 2 Saturday, March 30, 2002 LO'C A L
tasks like identifying and acquiring late 70s as a volunteer coach with im$3.5 million for the Ho*nestead `
PARKS sites through the Lands Legacy pro- the newly created Recreation and Park Aquatic Center in Chapel HU
FROM PAGE 1 gram, as well as working on initial Parks Department, and he became ®$2 million for a "Soccer Super-
concept plans for the sites. director in 1995. fund" to build soccer fields around
But the management director will "I'm looking forward to it,"Jones the count,
wouldn't open until the spring of be in charge of overseeing the con- said Thursday. "As far as manage- ®$2 million for Southern Park.
2005. struction of park facilities as well as ment of the entire department,I feel m$1.2 million for the Chapel Hill,
The county also has bought the park programming, operation and hike maybe some new folks should Township Park/Educational Cam-
152-acre Blackwood farm along maintenance. be coming in.. pus.
New Hope Church Road for a future As park services director, Jones "I'm really excited about the coun-
park, although a possible opening will give up many administrative ty going the way it's going,"he said. $1.2 million for the Cedar Grove
Park
date isn't on the county's timetable. duties he had as a department head "It's been a long time coming."
The recreation and parks manage- and will focus more on supervising The $20 million for parks, recre- ®p1n5 million for joint space,such as greenways.
ment director will be the new head work ranging from materials pro- ation and open space that voters ty open nwa
of the county's Recreation and Parks curement to park mowing and trail approved in November as part of the Ex$850,000 for Fairview Park
Department maintenance. $75 million bond package includes: ® $250,000 for Efland-Cheeks
As it has previously, the county's Jones,55,said he's embracing the ®$7 million for land acquisitions Park. ,
Environment and Resource Conser- changes as a good move both for him around the county for future parks ® $250,000 for Smith Middle
vation Department still will handle and the county.Jones started in the and natural areas. School Park.
F
n 2
1z
4:
�- A �' f } t � 2• rFl}�
Chapel Mill wants facility built
PARK
in stages near Southern Ad a e
FRO
M PAGE 1
R RAY GRG � R � RG " adult teams. Planners said the rec
Y ommendation was a concession to their prospective counterparts at
gronberg@herald-sun. com; 918-1032 neighbors who wanted much of the Southern Community Park,
CHAPEL HILL — A park next to park site left untouched. Construction at Southern Commu-
Southern Village should i # The third field envisioned by their nity Park remains years. away,
three full-size soccer fields, instead draft was big enough only for prac- though the council made sure to tell
nclude
of just the two' a design panel read tice or youth-league play. Council Horton they want advice on how the
ommended, Town Council members members quickly traded it for work could get started within the
another full size play surface. next couple of years.
say. They agreed that even if Orange Before it begins, architects need
The council voted to add the third County's government uses a $2 mil- to It turn a conceptual plan into a
field in the course of approving a lion "soccer superfund" to build a detailed set of construction draw.
concept plan for Southern Commu- multi field soccer complex near
nity Park, a 70-acre facility likely to p mgs. The council also has to hold
become the last of its type built in town, plenty of demand would hearings and approve the requisite
Chapel Hill. remain. zoning permits.
Members also ordered lbwnMan- Building Southern Community Orange County has* pledged $2.9
ager Cal Horton to come up with a - Park with only two of the bigger million to the p
. roject. A bond issue
construction schedule that would fields would amount to underserv= approved late in 2001 will supply $2
allow them to build the new park in uig awell-established need in the
stages . community, Councilman Jim Ward --
Since the timing and scale of each said.
phase will depend on how much . Some of Ward's colleagues said
money's available, "there are going the town had made that mistake in million. Another approved in 1997
the past, to its eventual regret. accounts for the rest.
to be some tough choices about what "It's the biggest complaint we Money from the 2001 bond isn't
the first part of it should be," said hear about Homestead Park," Couni likely to start flowing to the project
Councilman Bill Strom. cilwoman Flicka Bateman # said, before 2005, officials say.
Strom and his colleagues added referring to a mid4990s project Strom and other council members
the third soccer field to the plan after a short discussion last week. Air near the co ort roads .comer
of Homestead and hope local governments can use
�
There was no dissent, p i $895,000 left over for the park in the
The design panel had sugested Homestead Park includes two 1997 bond issue to jump-start con
Iqh,orbuilding three fields but o:iily two soccer fields, both smaller than struction.
would have been large enou h .for "The plan has been remarkably
g g please see PARK/PAGE. 8
well-received," Strom said. "And,
hopefully, we'll be well under way in
short prder."
r
Pr
1
ORANGE CO U N Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI IONER
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Cute : April 30 , 2002
Action Agenda
Itom No .
SUBJECT: Proposed Contract with HadenrP3tanziale for Conceptual Design and Site
Planning at Little River Re i+�naI Perk
DEPARTMENT :RTMENT : Pu rchasin g/Envi ro n merit and PUBLIC HEARING : (YIN) fro
Resource Conservation
ATTACHMENT( ):, INFORMATION CONTACTIP
Proposed Contract Pam Jones, 2 - 652
Park Development Timetable David Stencil , 245=2591
Rich Shag. 24&2591
TELEPHONE NUMBERS .
W ils boroug h 732 =8181
Chapel Hill 9684501
Durham OSS*73 d
Mebane 336m%Z2 w203'1
PURPOSE:O E: To consider awarding a contract to Hadenm tanzia. le, P .A. , Planners and
Landscape Architects , for developing a conceptual design and site plan fbr the Little River
Regional Park and Natural Area .
BACKGROUND : Establishin ffis new Little fiver Regional Dark and Natural Area is a
cooperative project amongthe partners Orange County, Durham County., the Triangle
Land Conservancy and the Eno RI'Ver }association . Thee 391 smacr a park will be jointly
owned and managed by Orange and Durham counties .
Late last year, both the Orange and Durham county boards of oornmissioners approved a
preliminary park design plan that incorporates the following elements , entrance road and
parking area , prenic shelter, restroom facifity , children 's play area , group camping area ,
and trail system (with separate walling/hiking , mountain biking , and equeitdan ttrall1s)4
Tiro issues related to parr uses (camping and horseback riding f�r�cilitics} am
,expected to be discussed and resolved when representatives from both county
boards meet later this Spring to finalize an interlooa,l agreement f*r the park's
operation and maIntenance. For that meeting , of boi and rep rosentafives , the count
rnarliagers - have directed staff to prepare background information related to the park
operations and maintenance needs, perk secur�ty� andem
orgerrcy response issues ,
caretaker residence, and county cost share considaratilonst The draft interlocal
2 9 reQ rite nt is a pei ted to go to both boards for a ppr ova I by Aug u st.
The next impodant action for board considerate is hiring a firm to develop a conceptual
design and site plan r -the natrictlon of the park facilitt grange oun recently
solicited proposals fbr identifying a qualitwed and experienced firm to conduct the work.
Four firms submittad responses and the Counter iritmrvimed three firms on March 13 ,
Oection criteria included , but was not IImIted to , experience of thre firm and the design
team , the nature of previous parr pr`oj acts and the I r ad here nce to bud get, ability to work
ith groups and make .public presentations , technical c
Fr epabilftles, and on time oompletion
of previous projects.
Based on those criteria , the of ection comnildee chose Had en- tanzia l e to perform the
requested sarvloas. Haden -Sta nzi a le h a & 20 years of experience with creating
recreational facilities throughout the state and with several parr design projeo#s in the
Triangle region , Examples include Lake Johnson mark and Chavis Park, Moth in Raleigh ,
and west Chapel Hill Park, Hillside Park, Campus Hills Perk and Valley Springs Park in
Durham .
The project would be designed within 00- 120 days after which construction bids would
immediately he solicited , The concept plan will address potential location of a
caretaker structure, trail design and camping are . Construction 9s expected to beg ir-w
in Fell 2002 and the Little . River Regional Dark should be open to the public by March
2003 . A timetable for park development is attached .
Funding for the park designisite plan (arid d'ovelopmenO coMe from n great from
the Land and Water Conservati* n Fund ( I. CF) , awarded to Orange and Durham
owntles for developing the Little River Regional Park. The LWCF grant ( 262 , 00g )
is due to expire on September 30 , 2002. Staff intsnds to request an extensilon once
the design firm is h fired because that would help demonstrate progress and staff
would know the Proposed add ustmonts to the g r'ant's budget line items .
FINANCIAL IMPACT : HadenmStanziale will pride design services through the
bidding/award phase for an amount not to exceed $27 , 120 , plus relm qu r sable expenses
( such as printing , travel , etc . ) . Contract/Construction Administration will be handled by
Durham and Orange county staff. Any services rendered by consultant for contra
oo nstru cti on administration will be billed pier their hourly fee. schedule , which is included in
the attached agreement, Again , funds for the design proj6d will be from the LWCF grant.
RECOMMENDATION ( ) : The (tanager recommends that the Board award the proposal
and approve ove the contract to H ad enn tag nzia le , P .A. in an amount not to exceed $27 , 120 ,
plea reimbursable expenses as they may occur; and authorize the Chair to sign an behalf
of the Boards
5
17
Hader aStangdale
J' 1 M h 1 H \ 1 h II 1 161 11 +
Aprf ,2, 20'02
Pamela K ,`lanes Director
129 Ea !;t ICI g 8 GTr\
HlOsbarough, Noft Camllne 27179
RE: Little RWr N * Design
Deaf Pa!'7t,,
'ems aprpraciete yourimlation t1 present Ws p Mp l 1;3r UNSMM fii0ftarlural w%&M for the
Masstr:r Manning snd Conslltudtton DDowmefa for Rhaso t — Uttla Rua part The wo* it codas
plannln a nd design art all hani=ps and at cap a for the mUre m trano ddw and 1 " M
nwdow, We h ova visttcd t at and rcvlew>ed the waumpml oft Man and baw infamiaiion
prvAdad 1 the Cwrg r Ha0gooto 21a will mist YotL by prOgMMM trg, emoptualtong, rnmr
p4nning , des nipg iand povift =wudlon doour eM and aese#ataince in bid awafdL
t. OJECT 6NaLLkATAWn r�
HadmMenziele und"anda Jh6l Orarrga County wtshast9 `Waster plan this antrance to
tho parrk end the area generally bouts by this ISmv= madow Tne Munty YAI masaer
preen the balance of the park, Mwever HadenStandafa wAl fie responsiWe fbr plannirq
and dWaning ttih �iA trail syStem to tha proposM Ommy dc4pad ImU s+ymm. This
4hk v4H be appuoxin 2aty X mlle In leViks
Haldenslaraists understends that tne County v&hsa to pelarm a brief evW Lwflan ho
WAIMO buildings erld `Wake rac mmatr Wans as to the srrd use of The fpoli'tl", fl is out
and rr I thot this t2sh WRI rar uft an omilm vick by an arMdod and mmithm
rewmmnclatlon as to Ourse of aetien(s).
HadenSteeztafe further arderstands that Oa Countyv4shlas to to prWd4d consUvCHOO
documefds, marls■ detolla■ spoafI9tatl'om and bicll dolownwU suf ein:! for the pr ao1 to
be bid undo r Merlh Carolinit low rer al AM ! ImpfflVMantsm Haden nziaie al.
undarsr ms that the C4uoty desires Ica Ire pmMuV Ud M%Uw Lend
MOM oP sward.
It is HWOnSlanzlalei unOwwtanding Lh2t ofi at the att d rl Oil, to
Wfflaeted In a 90AI2D flRy Brae me„
11. ACME 0 5 V= 3
Based an our undet5s gndin0 of Me prga# and our dhPmmajam, wo propose the totiowmg
op1e1 of Work:
Phase Drove 11Ite Tevir & t;valluntiftn
+ Project kickoff `reeling f one farnitlsrtmilonftoce nalmnch
• PiviWaary baae Mappina
Site Inventoryt ssrrwit
�tJ11 c1S]L1n,fiY1�. a+l, f GAUdInale
h �.I 41y11 M'1 i'F1r: Aalfiarq
� .y1i1 ti� 861iA y6HY, Slilll t/ 11 '
4 I ,WHIP % 411 1 411 +1 ,�1�I• .' llJit
� Nktl 1 SI.I IInrF1i ( 11H.Ini IdF• 1 yl I w7l�itl�oall
1 �
0
4
APM � 2O
Pam .logy as
Pop 2 at 4 '
* issues and cone tmM
jigse map finalization
Phase Two — Fteview of ptapased PaA FscllltW9
■ presentaftazj maating tsf innase I and pMramn bg rrarmha to dowmIne
park fanUjo - combined
■ Rank facAggi s fbr doretoprnant 060 ttY (By Drams and Ourhaln COMM
aavejGpphtusitl ;i Wlans (PY OMMe and UUMM CUM)
Review of hW t.el Or1Gn' IMIUM Mtponenta
Develop (auftes spgLeral requhmments attdi funs al r0etMW43a (bubble
tf ieprams�
Dateh'ti` 419 rqulaftry ortleria
Owner dove Go nt. crtteria
41 P=anWlon me*ing
Phaft lhrt i "Sket& H
Utilizing t5tuea Wd c4tWtainLs rnap dallrasto devdRV tMt POM
■ Sp$Cl2j SaWedon of fad=e$ coRSIdeft pedegYw AN vehlCular
cart ASWCO
% I,S etch Desire of ahemste fates configumuoins
i f'resanEaliori Ong
Phase Four = Draft Conceptual Designs
Review commoru fmm ,* Sketeb DzMgne
w lncorpwMa commenta and d*Map a caranAuL gn plan (homd dnt )
onc* tM =rsMual nib is prMiled a MoapIul I JUM plan W1 be
prepamd to establish the relafWa vole of Garth for the estiMM of PrObabde
Qotistruallon cost.
• Devatop pcOmpiEmardseen plan (,Ey Orage and Driftm CourdW
+ Develop aattMOM v fro la ror�tty.r�tlon Cost
* Re Pint coneaptvAl dWOn
• Pubife fipotire for concept praftntaff an
Phase Ffva � Prellrtttraty Sit& PIM
Re Aaw and Incorpor Me tsorelrrwft,ff*rnl P hose Data pubic maatnd as
Prepare d praoWnerY hand mdemd 041 plan 4r rtg In 0a10 e2#ablishin g
Wiizontal Saar' Oryr for A propmd Improvements. Drzvfts will to cckad
In asactiallon with tnls plan a ptelirtrTnaN !Dradlnp plan Wil ba papered sn
that Initial emion =MH and Mrmm water OnM can be wateftkarn.
• Sketchos of dating stud a4frw speciftftn WN of= bo "poW at the
tirne,
Once the above plans have been prep'; and a deMiled unit quasffityr WlMda
of praba ble c* nstrudion cat Wi6 be PMfemom
• Inca rparate. 00rnmews Inlo pKarur
■ Prepar'e wrttten summary of edm dWgrs pt oMm in enlae3psdan of s bmittal
to oe two wurity boards. 066
'PLtWic presenlatlon meatind to stnba0Mmfttm ofJoiAt b0846
19
t
Y
• . 5
APIV 2v 2DO2
Pam ianos
• faaga 3 at 4
Upon abttaTnirlg appmvl Hadengiarmble 4A11rtrce da'lall plans and
spedtfcatlone along wviM wntmct bommentt sWWaM for 0roc Co untY to
Wd , " Id and cwmructtlnr progect.
f Prepare and sutmil padkVes to Mu Wotev a0tta'as for their mview and
appmvat
Phase ON Siddllr'g and Award
R&Aew Wal tat bld2 sAd make roo WdWWe at award
phas$ haven = contract AdmifIistradOn
r
• atm tO the a HBden�tt�I�ete V�III t�l# �7C �kC at � t� ur Itl �Ipp�p+�
of c3anstrucAfon dt �oc ctheA# se m mod by MadenEnenzille in wiffiIg to
Larne fammae WAh the progrm atd qLm tithe �+ ok and to
00ie to in general If the wMk Is PrOceefing ki scwww= vMh the
Contract laoumw ts. "this work Is oQtCou'rm1 and will be billed haulm if
uIllizod (sea attached bdmie)
n n! All con $4ruWon drakWngs and rl+eiailIryg wt4 be In AtitoCad
ill. G0MPEjjAATf0N
Campancatian for triage serAM o dined Above wM be on ar lumpy sum gee b 5 as
fatImAG In a rdancs with Irbil alldied Genera! Tom and Cor4lUans.
FEe
Phase I Slte Tour and EvalUa'tloa M171000D ,
Phoe it new Reviaw of Propoaed Park Fa011Etlss 144070A
Phase III = Sketch DsMgn
Ptlaae IVY Draft Conce" I DeS194
Phase V — PmAmInary Glte Tan
Phase VI nPE33dd1na and Avmrd "Bunco
Phase Vq _ Contmo AomiNstrallon (Qptlanaa Hourte
TOTAL BASE IC SCOPE OF SERVICE $�T, 1 ►,Q�
eompensmtfon forth ose sac•trices beyond lbs empm of s$ rview ooutlira:d Abwe wild be on the
hasis of actual rime expended ra to ex Wed the aliaw 110ed members and the at#achad General
Terms and Candft me In aiddlttan4p ag oiu of packel do"nsas would ho 121110 in MV&= w1M
the mttached taeno;ai Tanw 4nd CongbMgr wt IM MOO be tnc vrpararte d eMn
Tbo few Wed abom i5heR W sutjest toy MA ot}Moon itWdr [fit 10u0M
As If fhe scopa of the pmjaci charges nrnfertnlg, and I or d gn ravjs m s area mqukW
beyond the originsi appmed puns.
a it $ e Gea covered by this proposal have not heart ron•r Mod wXhin twvIva (t markma
of th a data of this Pic Pout
April Z 20D2 '
Pam Done
Page 4 of 4
We look farvmm to tnTm oppoguhltytit work wtlh Oranga Q antya If the abow nmets wfth your
u►ndhManding acid arealn please z19n the enclosed copy otthis pmpowl. IrAtial erw csas the
aftOd"Ant$p And f[ira it tome for our N , no MUM of the Ogn d vorAr$cj wilt also amour
Mice to proCN�Qd.
Reaped# lly Subm ted,
PAUL C. EMBLER, JR6 ASiA
fonlor Projera Manager
AttoctmwN 'y
I - Copy O( eame
2. SOrwral fi erms aid Canditions
3. Hourly Rate 4djuduie
Robyn 0 cia ison
APPROWD%
the Count of r
Y � an9a [ATE
21
0
7
G Tt7 AL i i! R AND CONIAMNS
1 . The General. Tic tmd Condfflow owlined bdow ars part aftho sttcllald letter agmmmt
and are h=by incorpotated by rI:fc=Lo&
rna €owner shad provide . 'rrr r � V6 FWM UOH=tkan M"ng t
reqtemnaTts and ajw dves ft the 1?raN=L Mcl onsllyF H=i Yr&=&2& shA be Ingi'ded to
relyu rx thc ll�'lt #`nrry ►i r Yr 'arrr�►ti , and sum sports mq*ged by the Owner
or by otbwv%
i
3 . Iniaddiflontoprof6manalf esoolinitd6lotheattacbedkovagcommti the Owmr shall pc
all r�irn�aiSa �pswhioh �r� � � rt�ue� eacpl�dit�u� t>� � �,
tWrangir ya or pwfes Tonal ontmnants m the inf= st oftho prglrx and include xpensa
of tmnspmation and ltving when •tmnling in vmneetion wfth the project; long distanoc CW19
aM t mr=; and =pe a of reprod tiona. postAp ad handling of drawings and
spumomhm4 emduding th *Me* uw and pt*eattWorn to tl Owirm. Un6unabler
art y mar �a , fee.
41 At fm and reimbursable expeum will be Ima [cad bimmml 1y and Ic payable upon "Zoipt.
In the nt. payment is neat, howma, rm&a4 wift •thirty 0) d a:`invaiCe
dud balat w011 be subject to an wfit st salty of one and = -half` pormt ( I - l4l).
U&oieal which remain owstvidi slag be zibaj4&t to inftr A at the me ofom and cn*4W
per t ( InrM ) per r2r hi In the event pa elllt is ualt ma& vain 94y ( )
AddemiPhnVale 0xvitl strap work on tht Mlect until palymtut is nerved_ StapMe ofw ark
by HadimgS iaie *Il) rnot 4mned as a �de4utt u nder the t oft his utter a, r rrre� 1E.
In some cases, are addidottial fee WBI ble reguir to =p and rWan irk dt t6 non=payn=t.
5. The Owner asgus that this 1carer' egm ment sfiAt I e irdepretsd aterdi ng to the laws of the
Mate of orth Carolina, and argees to rdmburu HaI*nn ranz1aM for r mblc suorney
fees that it may expMd in eorax6ng x is War t ft= cnt .
6= 0 Payment of the advanot deposits ifraquktd * and fWattrre of t ie Jett agmwi t will 91g*fy
tltio Imer' s sec tarlca ofall the Terms aria nr�dit110m stiaeal he irt .and 'the �rw�
#hat fur nacss r fiintis are attira01ahle poly n*Sr Jd1* for the daery= and nm
IauNiaed lh the !titer nraeratnt and that thweshInds U0 M wumbwM or WT6q= upon
substquent sale swovals, permiEs of finning wMra r ma,
ffaden•f1�rl+aai4� Ir„ i.
If IM1u 41u1n� I'lat.1 {�{I►�{Iffl�
%�til titi' hI-1111 �IrIL'1 IIIII dill
1 tiul h vkl, Ng ,+' fib Cl+arlrlle
INr 'liliv
I Iniir 1kirlFnn•• Ii.FI � i•t.ntEhd4' < <N54 )f44
La
I' 1 q y I K b' J J 1 +► i t i i � 1 1 ti R J 11 � t F t 1 R
PrIndpals 912S,,00 ,per hOUr
+ JaMs F , Haden
Gearus E. StarMale, Jr.
Senior AasoclaWs $90.00 per hour
Jon Wood
Tiny Snyder
■ Dan Weeks
■ Todd Parrott
Senior P roject' Manag at $100.00 per hour
■ Paul Embier, ,Jr.
Associates SMOG ,per hour
■ waffe
+ Dan Blackrmn
Destgn Staff
Kamm WestmmwChsan 51MOO per hour
■ Rod Florence $55900 per tour
• David _ Barnes $SOq O per hour
a Ivan Bourne
Robert Munk '
Tarry$ :Swartzandrubw
Elliot Buff
Albert Lynn
Tyla BedienbauO
Kovin t4ltcheli
Katie Tlrvrnss
Ierr� J $40000 per hour
Robyn Dickinson
Lanett Froy
Candl Coate
11,,a � 111l vl I' I�.. �arfw+Rt
, IV I've t:aiel virL.♦ 41111r art
rtial4um Nt :"n', Ckftfa�IJr
I M �UI �11nit,llS11�L11, 1 I �I.Ili�u�i Iqy Wi�>�LBe
?- 2
EstimeW Of FaftS Ar DOW BrwIr�1dONn
FPhsCciiaiba Tour2 W 'i t A #era t 0hc3
l .
1t r T'wa- 2 t is Whis 32 nrs a to 0 firs
h e qg! keth 2 hrs 6 hro 15 In Q #us Q ho
fPb.m FourmMftllmin 2 hrs 3s h 6 rS
121�
NN= NOW
nat Site 4 tirs sowrs go ft D 40 hm
PCB ice# W 1��rrL w 0 hrs 3 ttI$ 4 hc's NONE
T6UII !$IqSC *wDDL�$12,10kt* 1 $10, 700&001 SW,QQj $IjGXlu0Qj A27Al2GNDCI
gas
• I.
Rid WK2
ff ad*oWaronIe PA
t
10
Little River Regilo gal Park and Natural Area
Park Development Timetable
Cultural Survey of park pmperty completed [April 2001]
Community MeeUng on desired Park uses [Larch 20011
LRPAC finalizes remmmendabons on uses [April 01]
• LRPAC recommendations *n park uses to Grange/Durham SO= [August 2001 ]
• Park uses approved by both Durham and Orange BOCCs [November 20011
Consultant WecLed for Conceptual Design and Ste Plan [April 2002]
• Concept Flan presented W LRPACI DOCC reps., planning boards, others [.dune 2002]
• Public presentaon of Concept Plan with LRPAC [June/July 20031
■ Interlocal Agreement signed .by both wunties [August 2 2]
Preliminary Site Plan presentad to Durham and Orange BOCCs [August 2002]
Final Site Plan submitted to Orange/Durham staff [September 2002]
Final Site pIan approved by both counties (October 2002]
Construcdon bldding and selection process completed [Oct-Nov, 2002]
ConsErucdon Period [Dec, 2002 — March 2003]
+ Park opens to public [Spring 2003]
� f scat mqr7 wd mAtEff aMftXa7 af5=e melts
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
.J'ranayer 's (911ce �sfa�f r�eo�17S2
MEMORANDUM
TO : Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM : John Link County Manager
er
DATE : March 15 , 2002
RE : Periodic Updates on Significant Topics
Here are several updates for you as summarized below and in the enclosed attachments :
1 . Jane Doe Matter
As you know, in 2000 the County received a favorable verdict in the Jane Doe rape case at the
Courthouse . However, the Plaintiff attorney appealed the matter and ultimately filed a Petition for
Discretionary Review by the North Carolina Supreme Court . I am pleased to report that the
Supreme Court declined the Plaintiff Attorney' s request for this review this week. The matter is
thereforeclosed ,
r= t
2 . Meeting with Chatham County Officials
On Wednesday,;-&ruary 27th the Chair, Vice :Chair and Manager met witho'their Chatham County
counterparts and, :' scussed t , _: a llowin to
to lot g - - -
o, ,_ . .
1 Oran a ha { . _ _ .. __. _ ,' : . :
O g Q tham Tax bounda matters; Recentl a ro ert tax case has developed that
Lb
rY ;.. : Y p p Y p
calls into -
qu.estion the agr ementbetween Orange and -Chatham. Counties . Result of
discussxon ` vasgreerertothe two ;lVSanagers tvq County atton �y : ai�,c1 other appropriate
staff %0.'work ut an equitableor
€solut'ion: or both j o r`- ds.�of�oun�yi�omn� issioners to address .
i it
__ : - ,a r
(2) Collaboration on Southern CommuntyrPark Ciatkiain officiaswere apprised of current
plants `fox Southern' Comriauriity I� rk ; and ^wereito lowvitc cto ii final, planning as well
as furdln the . ark ' _ f: ;, r _.,... ..': _:= }` _ jtAo
-g . l? r
�= P_ :-
__ ._ - _- . - _ . _. . ,. .
(3 ) Shearon Harris:= Update _provided to .Chatham offtel son progress of the case and Chatham
to be included in the Emergency Planning process .
(4) Rural Planning Organization (RPO) : Chatham officials were informed of the RPO options
that BOCC had examined at a recent meeting and Chatham asked if any interest in the RPO
involving Orange, Chatham, and the other counties . Some interest expressed as Chatham
apparently has not yet committed to another option.
(5) Jordan Lake : General discussion of Jordan Lake allocations and Chatham will be invited to
the Water Summit ,
AREA CODE ( 919 ) 245 - 2300 688 - 7331 FAX ( 919 ) 644 = 3004
Ext . 2300
I OWASA Mitigation Tract -
Attachment 1 is a report prepared by ERCD staff and a subcommittee of the Intergovernmental
Parks Work Group , evaluating the potential use of the OWASA "Mitigation Tract" , a 490- acre tract
in northern Bingham Township , for possible recreational use . As per the cover letter to the report,
the OWASA Board of Directors will ask OWASA staff to gather additional information needed .
Likewise, ERCD staff will also , as proposed in the cover memorandum, work to gather additional
information on access and other needs . The report is provided for the Board' s information at this
time .
4 . Chapel Hill Park and Recreation Master Plan
Attachment 2 is the Town of Chapel Hill' s draft Park and Recreation Master Plan. This report has
been sent by the Town Council to the Board of Commissioners and the Intergovernmental Parks (IP)
Work Group for review and comment . Staff is preparing draft comments on the plan for IP Work
Group discussion in April . The Town Council is tentatively slated to consider this plan for adoption
in May. ' Staff will be glad to convey any comments from the Board to the IP Work Group .
5 . Changes to Draft 2002-03 Goals
You will recall that at the close of your February 2 annual retreat, your consensus was that
individual Commissioners would prepare written comments on desired changes to any draft Board
goals , and identify those about which they want to talk further. Staff would assume that any goal
about which no comments are received is satisfactory as written. The April 3 work session agenda
currently includes time for the Board to pursue further discussion of Board goals for FY 2002 -03 ,
including the Efland Sewer goal . Please contact me, Rod, or Greg by Friday, March 22 with any
written comments you have about specific goals . We will work with the department heads
concerned to prepare for further discussion of identified goals at the April 3 work session.
6 . NCDOT Approved Projects for Orange County
NCDOT Division Engineer Mike Mills recently wrote (see Attachment 3 ) to announce projects
approved at the March 7 State Board of Transportation meeting . The list includes several projects
previously noted by the BOCC as requiring DOT ' s attention.
ell 4 J oej
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
A Report of the
OWASA Mitigation Tract Committee
4 j ec
y
/�
h
� yy
I
February 20 2002
c
TO : Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
FROM : David Stancil and Susannah Holloway
DATE : February 20, 2002
SUBJECT : Subcommittee Report - Work to date and next steps for OWASA Mitigation
Lands ' Recreational Use
On January 17 the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) Subcommittee , along
with OWASA staff, walked a section of the 500- acre OWASA 1Vlitigation Land . The OWASA
Mitigation Land lies between Mt . Willing Rd. and Buckhorn Rd . in Orange County. The
Subcommittee was able to walk approximately half a mile downhill to view a branch of Turkey
Hill Creek, which crosses the property. The property is thickly wooded with secondary growth
hardwoods and some pine . Along the bottomlands by the creek there has been some unlawful
ATV activity.
On February 12 2002 the Subcommittee met at OWASA and discussed possible recreational
uses for the land and the unresolved issues regarding the land set forth by Rich Shaw in his
Memorandum of February 6 attached . It was determined that : numbers 1 through 3 of the
unresolved issues should be researched by OWASA ; number 4 should be researched by both
OWASA and the County; and numbers 5 and 6 should be researched by he County.
Following the February 27 IP Work Group meeting, Susie Holloway will present Mr. Shaw ' s
report at the March 12 , 2002 , OWASA Board of Directors meeting . Ms . Holloway will request
that the Board allocate OWASA staff time to researching the unresolved issues set forth in Mr.
Shaw ' s report and stipulate the conditions that must be met to allow the land to be used for
recreation. Next, Mr . Shaw ' s report shall likewise be submitted to the County for the County to
allocate staff time to researching its unresolved issues . Following that, it is recommended that the
Subcommittee will then report back to the full IP Work Group at the May meeting with answers
to the unresolved questions and OWASA' s stipulated conditions for use of the land. If all
conditions can be met, the IP Work Group Subcommittee would like to propose early 2003 as the
target date for implementation.
Attachments
t IT
t � y, t � r OraD re Co inn
f1rfmt I/` Ci._ . 4f� ,. ta*"' it �'�- - : t�l or, A lY "1.Oft Y'�'t`r:\ iS.
{. �. , �. JEnvironlnent Resource
„ r 't:.' Y - , < .,-'F+.. _ �,f „-vi� Y1s C � 11Scrvat
- s to 7 ? xrr=
'A st If y ...�y; 2;\ i ' � -:.4 t; it
.� y .3 9r'. ;dr..• ''1W • ;fir k
rrr
A F
IF I
Rtv
, ;, , .
.ems. - }AW
0
- � ;a . . , .
-- II 306 - A RcveNre Road PO Box 5181
: It ,. , ; ., K � . . I Hillsborough, NC 7 t o
C�it 'y;Cf � l,-,�"'i-,i _ i • {�� .I;Z,•1 - - - - x� •✓
1 a( r., .t . I
v_ : , � " :tyow
yAA`I ~: Phone : ( 919 ) ? 45 -- 2597 , Fax : ( 919 ) 644 -- 3351
I ` . � u
- - _::. . — . - -� -- -- --
IF
Memorandum
To : David Stancil , ERCDlrector
From : Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
Subject : OWASA Mitigation Tract Evaluation
Date : February 13 , 2002
Please find attached staff evaluation of the OWASA Mitigation Tract .
. The subject property is a 490 - acre tract located between Buckhorn
Road and Mt . Willing Road ( Bingham Township ) .
The Parks Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
( adopted 1988 ) calls for a Bingham - Cane Creek District Park ( 75 - 199
acres ) in northern Bingham Township . It also calls for a White Cross
Community Park ( 25 - 74 acres ) in southern Bingham . Neither park has
been established to date . [ The latter is a land acquisition priority in �
the current Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan . ] The Joint Master
Recreation and Parks Work Group report ( 1999 ) recommended that
the County pursue a collaborative arrangement with OWASA for
establishing sites that would serve either or both of these park needs .
i
Since that time , Orange County and OWASA staffs have initiated
discussions of the potential future use of OWASA - owned land for public
recreational uses . OWASA has indicated a willingness to consider , on
a site - by - site basis , the provision of parklands provided the intended
uses would not compromise water quality in Cane Creek reservoir or
the Authority 's ability to have sufficient land for biosolids application .
The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group has created an OWASA
Lands Subcommittee to evaluate the potential use of OWASA lands for
public park purposes . The so - called " Mitigation Tract " may provide
one such opportunity .
Page l of 4
The Tract is located outside of the watershed critical area and is not
needed for biosolids application . OWASA purchased the tract in 1982
to help compensate ( or mitigate ) for the loss of wildlife habitat
resulting from the creation of Cane Creek Reservoir . The acquisition
was a condition of the federal permit to construct the reservoir .
The ERCD staff analysis of this property is focused on the potential use
of the property for a park site that would be compatible with OWASA 's
( and the County 's ) interest in protecting the rural character and hence
the water quality in Cane Creek watershed . The attached evaluation is
based on the adopted Lands Legacy criteria for general and parkland
acquisition .
Unlike other properties evaluated by the Lands Legacy program , the
mitigation tract does not need to be acquired for protection . OWASA
purchased the site to protect , its conservation values , including
watershed protection value and high - quality wildlife habitat . The issue
now is whether to make all or a portion of the tract available for public
recreation and , if so , for what kinds of uses ?
The following points summarize staff's initial findings .
1 . The Mitigation Tract is a valuable property . The large size and high
quality of this nearly unfragmented tract makes it a significant
wildlife habitat . A large portion of the property was identified in a
1999 study as a core area for wildlife in Orange County .
2 . The physical characteristics of the Mitigation Tract make it highly
suitable for public use and enjoyment for low - impact recreational
uses ( e . g . , hiking / nature/jogging trails ) . An area just south of the
Martin Road access and another within reach of the Buckhorn Road
access could support active recreation , but it would require clearing
mature pines and leveling the moderately sloped terrain .
3 . If opened for public use , the Mitigation Tract would provide a
unique wilderness area for county residents , albeit somewhat
similar to the County 's Seven Mile Creek Preserve ( 295 acres thus
far ) located less than four miles away .
4 . OWASA has indicated that certain OWASA lands located outside of
the watershed critical area may be suitable for use as parkland
without compromising OWASA 's protection of watershed lands and
maintaining its ability to provide high quality drinking water . This
tract is located in the upper reaches of the watershed .
Page 2 of 4
5 . OWASA is receptive to the idea of making this land available for
certain low - impact parkland uses only , such as a hiking /jogging
trails , picnic areas/ shelter, primitive camping , nature center , and
other educational / research activities .
6 . Opening this land for public use could help address low - impact
parkland needs in this section of the County and take some
pressure off Eno River State Park and Duke Forest properties
located in eastern parts of the County . The future openings of
McGowan Creek Preserve ( Fall 2002 ) , Little River Regional Park
( Spring 2003 ) and Seven Mile Creek Preserve ( 2004 - 05 ) will also
help satisfy current and future demands .
7 . The Mitigation Tract is part of a proposed network of wildlife
corridors and " rustic woodland trails " that would link Cane Creek to
the Eno River system . As parkland , this site would continue to
further County goals of protecting key open space lands within
Cane Creek watershed , identified prime forest/ wildlife habitat and
the rural character of Bingham Township .
Unresolved issues :
1 . What are
the specific Federal / State conditions for the property use ?.
For example , must all or a portion be open for hunting ? Is Federal or
State approval required before allowing other recreational use ? If so ,
would they allow low - impact recreational uses ? Active recreation ?
2 . Regardless of whether federal / state agencies require it be open for
hunting , what is the County 's disposition toward seasonal hunting on
all or a portion of the property ? If hunting were allowed , could it be
done in compatibly with the other proposed park uses ?
3 . Would the NC Wildlife Resources Commission manage the hunting
activities if that use were allowed ?
4 . Are the County and / or OWASA interested in committing the
resources necessary to operate and maintain the property , both as a
park and to adhere to state/ federal permit conditions ? [For example,
staff oversight, rules enforcement, developing/posting appropriate
signage, parking area (s), trash removal, trail maintenance, etc. ]
5 . Access to the property from Buckhorn Road needs to be explored
further . The County Land Records shows only a single point of access-,
while the survey flagging indicates about 60 feet of road frontage .
Page 3 of 4
6 . As a low - impact park facility , how adequately would this site meet
park needs identified in the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report ( 1999 ) ?
Attachments .
1 . General site -eva4uatian
2 . County parkland acquisition evaluation
3 . Location map
4 . Landowner/ parcel map
5 . 1998 Orthophoto
6 . USGS topographic map
7 . Soil survey map
8 . Vegetation and trails map
9 . Site photos
Page 4 of 4
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 1
OWASA Mitigation Tract
Location: Bingham Township, between Buckhorn Rd. & Mt. Willing Rd.
Background
OWASA owns a 490-acre tract, which they purchased in 1982 from the Weyerhauser Corporation. OWASA
acquired the property to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the filling of Cane Creek
Reservoir. For that reason, OWASA refers to this property as the "mitigation tract." The acquisition was
part of the Federal permitting process for construction of the reservoir.
The irregularly-shaped tract is located in the northwest corner of Bingham Township, between Buckhorn
Road and Mt. Willing Road. The primary access is from the end of Martin Road (SR 1124). A secondary
access point is from the west side of Buckhorn Road. OWASA reserves this land for wildlife habitat and
does not encourage public use. Property boundaries are marked with survey flagging and periodic
postings of"No Tresspassing." There is evidence of some level of public use by hikers, hunters and ATVs,
especially in the northern section of the tract where ATV activities have damaged a stream corridor.
Overall, however, there appears to have been little adverse impact to the site from casual users and the
vast majority of the forest and riparian ecosystems remain intact.
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and Intergovernmental Parks Work Group have expressed
interest in exploring whether this property could be open to the public for recreational uses, including a
variety of"low-impact" uses such as hiking trails and environmental education. According to OWASA staff
the State originally intended that the mitigation property be open for hunting, but OWASA policy prohibits
hunting on any of its lands.
OWASA is receptive to the idea of possibly making this land available for certain low-impact uses and is
researching the state and federal requirements and restrictions for use of the property.
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 1
The following is an evaluation of the property using general criteria adopted for County consideration of
potential land acquisitions.
Com rehensive Plan� The property is categorized Agricultural Residential, Cane Creek Protected Watershed.
Zoning AR/Cane PW (Agricultural-Residential. Cane Creek Protected Watershed). The entire property is
zoned AR, and the Cane Creek watershed protection overlay adds additional development
restrictions of one dwelling per five acresl, 6% impervious surfaces, and wider stream;buffers.
The federal permit issued to OWASA for the Cane Creek Reservoir requires that the tract remain
undeveloped to serve as wildlife habitat. Must it also be managed as ameland?
Natural Areas The site includes no identified County natural areas. It does, however, include a large area (150-
Inventory and 180 acres) of mature woodlands identified as prime forest wildlife habitat in the 1999 inventory
Resource Checklist conducted for Orange County by the Triangle Land Conservancy Wile et al.).
Existing vegetation and The 490-acre tract is entirely forested with a mosaic of mature woodlands dominated by either
site analysis,, mixed hardwoods or. pines. Although once owned by Weyerhauser, the site does not appear to
have received the kind of intensive management for timber production often seen in the region.
The tract can be described in three sections: the northwest portion of the tract (Section 1), the
southwest portion (Section 2), and the eastern portion (Section 3). These sections are identified
on Attachment 5.
Section I (approx. 80 acres) is the northern "head" of the tract that one enters from the Martin
Road access. Turkey Hill Creek forms the western boundary and flows in a southerly direction on
its way toward Cane Creek further south. An unnamed perennial streams forms the southern
boundary (or"neck) of this section and flows west into Turkey Hill Creek. The northern half of
this section is dominated by mixed hardwoods (50-60" tall) typical of a dry to mesic Piedmont
oak-hickory forest community. The understory is clear of any apparent invasive exotic species.
The ground has areas of running cedar and some rock outcrops. Pines (loblolly pine and Virginia
pine) dominate to the south where there has been more recent disturbance.
A former roadway (now trail) leads from Martin Road (elevation 700 feet) down by the remains of
a former home site, then further downhill to the stream (elevation 610 feet). The trail is used by
ATVs, which have created de ressions that hold water. In some areas, ATVs have cut alternate
1 With provision of up to five 2-acre lots for lots of record as of October 19, 1999
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment I
routes to avoid those depressions. ATVs have also carved several paths around trees in the
floodplain located just north of the perennial stream. They have also caused severe bank erosion
and sedimentation. [Note — the severe impacts from ATVs at this location is not indicative of the
rest of the tract. While ATV use is evident in all three sections, it is generally limited to a single
track that follows a trail running along the upland ridge in the large central portion of the tract.]
Section 2 (approx. 250 acres) also has Turkey Hill Creek running along its western boundary. An
intermittent stream drains the western half of a broad upland ridge and flows west into Turkey
Hill Creek. The riparian areas are largely wooded with mixed hardwoods. The western half of this
section is slopes gently to the west and dominated by pine. The terrain then rises slowly to the
east to a high point of 706 feet. The ea
stern If i a min y h s do
minated ated b mixed hardwo
ods (oaks,s
poplars, hickory, Shagbark hickory) on forested slopes. These 150-180 acres were identified as a
core area for wildlife in a 1999 inventory of prime forest areas in Orange County. The sub-
canopy and shrub layers are sparse lending a park-like appearance to several acres. The soils are
well-drained Enon B/C loam. The aforementioned trail leads up from the stream at the northern
boundary (or"neck") of this section up through a wide band of pines and into the large area of
mature hardwoods. The trail then branches off in two directions (90-degrees) to the west and
east. The western trail follows down grade to Turkey Hill Creek and into private residential
properties southwest of the tract. The eastern trail follows the ridge east and then turns south
and off the property into a Duke Power utility corridor.
Section 3 (approx. 150 acres) includes the eastern half of a broad ridge. An intermittent stream
runs west along the northern boundary and a smaller stream drains the eastern portion of the
land and flows south off the property. This section is dominated by pines (Loblolly and
Virginia/Short-leaf) with patches of mixed hardwoods associated with the riparian corridors and
upland slopes. This section of the tract appears to have received more recent disturbances
(earlier succession forest; tangled understory with invasive exotics). There is little evidence of
ATV use in this section of the tract. A deer stand was observed on the property along the north
side of the perennial stream, which flows along the northern boundary. A small empty,container
of deer pheromone was found in that area.
Land Constraints,(soils, The property can be described as high-quality woodlands on rolling (gently to moderately sloped),
flood plain, etc) well-drained upland soils. There are few level areas, with the exception of floodplains arId ridge
tops (700+ feet elev.). Several small streams flow along some of the perimeter areas and from
interior sections of the tract. From there the land rises up from 600 feet at the stream-8 to 680
feet along an elongated ridge or plateau that extends across the tract midsections.
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 1
Section 1 is comprised of mostly Herndon B/C soils found on a broad ridge in the central area
and side slopes to the north and south. This area has a medium to high potential for recreational
use. The entrance trail crosses a band of Tatum D soil (medium recreation potential) on sloped
terrain. A portion of this section could support active recreational uses in close proximity to the
Martin Road access, but it would require clearing an area of pines and leveling the moderate
slope.
Section 2 consists of mostly Enon B/C soil found on the broad ridge and adjacent slopes. This
well-drained soil has medium to high potential for recreational uses, with slope and erosion being
primary limitations. A sizable area of Georgeville B/C soil occurs in the southwest corner, but it is
remotely located and surrounded by riparian areas. As such, it would be appropriate to leave this
entire section as intact forestland.
Section 3 is comprised of mostly Herndon B/C soils, which also occurs on broad ridges and side
slopes. The potential for recreational use is high to medium with slope being a limiting factor.
Areas within reach of the Buckhorn Road access point could be converted to active recreation, but
it would require clearing mature pines and leveling some moderately sloped terrain. A narrow
band of Tatum D soils occur above the stream that flows along the northern boundary.
Access Primary access to the property is from a cul-de-sac at the end of Martin Road. Martin Road is a
secondary public road (.75 mile long; 60' ROW width) located off Buckhorn Road. From the cul-
de-sac, an old roadway (now trail) leads into the northern section of the property. A secondary
access point is from the west side of Buckhorn Road, where according to survey flagging the tract
appears to have about 60 feet of road frontage. The County Land Records GIS, however, shows
only a point of the property touching Buckhorn Road. OWASA's survey plat of the property
should verify the actual amount of road frontage.
There is no existing access to the property from Mt. Willing Road. However, a northwest corner of
the OWASA tract is within 50 feet of Mt. Willing Road. A small sliver portion of a 10-acre tract
separates the OWASA tract from the roadway. If access to the OWASA property were desirable, it
might be possible to acquire this small portion of land. [Most of the 10-acre tract is located
across Mt. Willing Road from the OWASA tract.
Surrounding Land Uses . The OWASA tract is in a rural residential area of the county. Large, privately-owned wooded
tracts surround the property, only a few which have been developed for residential use. Very
little of the surrounding lands are in agricultural production.
4
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 1
The property is bounded by Buckhorn Road and six large-lot residential lots to the east, large
wooded tracts to the south (30-116 acres; one owned by a timber company), Turkey Hill Creek
and seven large-lot residential or wooded tracts to the west, and six large-lot (mostly wooded)
residential lots to the north.
There is a Duke Power easement (with high-tension lines) running just below and parallel to the
southern property boundary. A single-track ATV trail enters the OWASA property from the power
line easement, winds through the western half of the property, and runs north across an
unnamed perennial stream and out to the Martin Road access point.
Ownership and The 490-acre 'Mitigation Tract" is owned by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), which
Assessed Value purchased the property in 1982 from the Weyerhauser Corporation. The purchase was required
to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the filling of Cane.Creek Reservoir.
According to the County Tax Assessor, the estimated market value of the property is $744,000
$1,518/acre . The property is exempt from local property tax.
Likely Asking Price No asking price has been mentioned. Initial discussions between OWASA and County staff have
been about a possible donation, bargain sale or long-term lease of the property.(or a portion of
the property) to the County fora public park.
Previous assessments None.
or evaIuations''of
property
Possible Uses and Portions of the OWASA property could be opened for public use (low-impact recreation) with areas
Stewardship/ designated for more and less intensive use. Possible uses include hiking/nature/jogging trails,
Maintenance Needs picnic areas, environmental education, and maybe some primitive campsites. Hiking through the
interior forest would provide a wilderness experience. Some areas should be preserved in their
natural state with no trails to encourage human activity.
One or two areas could support active recreation (would require access improvements,.tree
clearing, grading), but those activities would, of course, be subject to OWASA and federal permit
approval. The possibility of opening all or a portion of the property for seasonal hunting has also
been mentioned. [More here on potential WRC involvement, needed precautions, etc.]
Stewardship and maintenance would be focused on trail development and maintenance, control of
invasive exotic plant species, environmental education, and the enforcement of park riles.
Funding [Placeholder]
General Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 1
Meets County Goals The current protection of this large tract by OWASA helps to achieve County goals of protecting a
and Criteria? water supply watershed, prime forestland, natural area and wildlife habitat, and rural character
and open space in this largely undeveloped section of Bingham Township.
Opening all or a portion of this property for public use would achieve the County goal of
establishing a Bingham-Cane Creek District Park, identified in the Parks Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Opening this land for public use would help address low-impact parkland
needs in this section of the County and take some pressure off Eno River State Park and Duke
Forest properties located in eastern parts of the County. The future opening Seven Mile Creek
Preserve (2004-05?) will also help in that regard. It may someday be possible to link this tract to
the Seven Mile Creek Preserve (3 miles away) and become part of the proposed Cane Creek to
Eno River rustic woodland trail and wildlife corridor network.
Conclusions [Placeholder]
Orange County ERCD
February 13, 2002
Parkland Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 2
Assessment of OWASA Mitigation Tract
using Adopted Criteria for
Evaluating Potential Parkland Acquisition
Parklands Ac uisition Criteria OWASA Miti ation Tract
The existence of matching funds from a N / A - Site located in unincorporated part
. requesting jurisdiction of the county , Possible donation / lease .
Potential for grants and other funding N / A - Land may be available at little or
opportunities no cost to Orange County .
[ Funds for trail development may be
available from NC Rec . Trails Pro ram .
Completion of existing projects with an N / A
adopted facility Ian
Contains a site identified in the NO - It does , however, include 150 - 180
Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife acres of mature hardwoods identified as
Habitats of Orange County , N . C . prime forest wildlife habitat in the 1999
inventory conducted for Orange County .
Compatibility of planned park use with YES - Potential park uses include low .
adjacent land uses impact recreation ( hiking / nature trails )
and seasonal hunting . Hunting would be
compatible as long as there were clear
and appropriate rules established and
enforced so as not to adversely impact
the surrounding land uses . ( e . g . , a
se aration of uses during hunting season
Appropriate intensity of use for the area YES - A public park featuring low - impact
recreation would blend into with this
sparsely populated area of the County .
Cane Creek watershed protection area
Location YES - The site would help satisfy park
needs identified in Parks Element of the
Comprehensive Plan by establishing the
" Bingham - Cane Creek District Park . "
Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors , YES - Could provide an alternate link to
rustic trails and linear parks proposed Cane Creek to Seven Mile
Creek/ Eno River rustic woodland trail and
wildlife corridor .
Land is adjacent to new schools NO - Closest schools are 4 . 5 miles away .
( Efland - Cheeks Elementary ; Cedar Ridge
High , Grady Brown Elementary )
Land for active recreation is suitable and MAYBE - Site includes areas that may be
appropriate for planned uses suitable for active recreation , but would
require clearing and access may be
difficult . OWASA prefers not to allow
active recreation at this site . The
reservoir permit may ose limitations .
Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and NO - Site is located outside of those
New Hope Corridor preservation efforts riparian corridors .
Parkland Acquisition Evaluation Template _ Attachment 2
Access ( transportation ) is safe and MAYBE — There is access to the site from
easily - accomplished Martin Road ( off Buckhorn Road ) , but
roadway is rural and partially unpaved .
An alternate access point from Buckhorn
Road should be ex lored .
Meeting multiple goals ( of the above ) YES — Developing the site into a park
gets higher weighting would achieve County parkland goals
( Parks Element of Comprehensive Plan ) .
Existing protection by OWASA furthers
County goals of preserving prime forest ,
wildlife habitat, water supply watershed ,
rural character and open s ace .
ERCD
February 6, 2002
/iirM a
o:
INK W "
51
pop
sow ON
Mmm
0 al
r , mow► '�/r11.,, ,, ►���` ��i ► 1 ' , ■�_ :
�� +` � � '�• rem■ � ,�
"�'J� 1, � � ' � ���t. * ._,� `I ♦I `�/�•� `V
�:r ni► � SI11mM
iGi��,i1111}1t14�11�11`� r� �, ` •� - Y.'l;{`,
=.- tr ��" ��_ ������. t : ,,•.� \ 1�� tttttttttt..►�� �.,� I ��: ,,�" t=;::, . t� � .:
� ��nsy .-- fir �ii � 1r1 s t< _li�-I�iTi.C:`���+�. ■■u
\t staf:\i n� IJb I► " -r !!: �� 1r ■ a , : - : .� _�■■/. � a�iTii
limaA ■ M� pi.f, , __ _ - rE :,,.� n■�ui �■a .z s
'�•■ it rti�� ■� � .rsmn�sjai all
its Ill
r w,Cw! ;. u1 ♦��♦wn■ [��r�ra.■1 �__.._ } ■ \ :--_ r\ In;.. � :Ss:e .
■ ti1 ■ a.p u►�_Y'n . r 'Ilafa —.. �� ^� . , i .. y_tlt 1I � • 'Jr.■ 1,
��4 w +►ryr '� ��/ l 9��'i1A1 s' ��■rrf . 'Tf r.' ► �r ! .
�✓ � , ll'J nu,c� -. � ,\�■,■ ,., ■ natn,IRdttl':��it I
�.t ■ itl i2 In31' r� :1■1
n'- �►,`*� fit.
� I ,� ►� rV, � I�Tilr—_ ��i rt� 'MINE
WIN
.�/i ` � .\,T •1 ,,..ram., , . R EN% _
ro
171 HIM
►S �� _ 11111110
a
a• •ate,'' �`' ���� � ONE
iM` •,��
r _��` ���� . � Tim i t :"�:. r��1` '�, •
OWN PAO
ski
NO
soul
allot
rim U101111111111illas
Sam Was
Mill
t�r ��►
._
Location Map
all
mo
awl e (miles)
Seal
WHOM
Attachment 4
v
� v
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ry 'ate: ; ~'' - - - - - - - Jr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� O
ft
wA
t�
if
Ice
,,rr .'+
, Y*�i�',a
J;,r'77
, e
JI
k�r a� rvS i n , � v
Li
a. 2
nCt
for
jo
' ,
f Z pi
tl r d
q oZIA -
aka 3Lr
fir. Ws � � 4 �►` _ 3f eta
Z-T / 1 ,r
tF1_
t 1•
S
w 700
«` t:
CA
� r
1
„ I
A
OJT. a16
4 1
cn
0*4
MMI
mob
dp ``
� • iF Y - � IFr t✓ arid. h v i, } _ 1 le il` �Lr,, � I
},
O ■ 1�! �f�,>2
Oi \
CD
CD
rMOIL
Ip
f e L P[
ti., A. 11 ITui +lirev�
+�p M
A �!
I { d�
Miay
Axr €
I
C- CT o C o t� -`, ,��� fyd � i�,'s 5 t :!fl .;" � , r. t: - m r, �-" r .•`I
to
r a
l r
n � Y J 1 bga�•;sy,�,^15m� t I I e ,� Y - td. :5. xLY, "�{)A�e ' 4,
� � r 'k �'t b r'y'.}wl�. ..,�.�=wt;,^ire ', '�""='s'�'=:�..is'��-{a;.�:ti:lir�'-._:'^�'•'" '..,'� 4.- I' ,iL'' '� i € ,`F��1�
G
Of
wow/ A
OF
LW W
h ' t1,X706
47
_
- - - - _ _ _ _- - -- - z1 - _ - _- _ - _ - � __-�^► -_ - 00 _ - - -- _ -
-. A3 .
t - � _ -�-
10
OWASA Mitiogation Tract
OWASA Tract
Stream W +E
4- i
Lake s
0 Parcel Boundary 0 700 1400 Feet
Building County of Orange
Environment & Resource
Eno USGS Map Conservation Department
February20, 2002
M Jones
HrC
H8
i
En
TI
HrC
Lg
Attachment 7
EnB
Hr8
Ge8
HrB B
We
w
Htc
Lg
Cft
Gee
Or
W Ge
7aD B H(C
i
r8
Hr Hr8
HrB
a�
w
GeC
HrB Lq Hre
EnB
c �
HrB H B
ine HrC n
G E
c
HIB
EnC
Hr8 EnB
HrC
GeC HID
HtB
EnC
GAB Y
Hr8
I'
Gee
En8 Hre
w
HrB
G Hie
Gee
Ge8
GeC
Hie
eC
Hr8
Ch w
1
Attachment 8 J
GUc,`yQo� NGUN CLUB
Opp
I
PR I'
cn �
GCS �
f I
1j
1
1
1
1 li
i
000
f
HOWARD CT
14I X46 �
,4A&.,b W 0o Z�S''
11
IND
0 6 All All Rea _we
'JGG�Q ,
It t
. pia f ,1 a3•
1t� ,q,.?vvv
IA
g,
1 1 t #k
c t ( , ' ctpkl1 a.
It ' '
it
V�I+ 1l� 2 p -•t Yi " r . 0, Air
i t g
d
t p
{f
u � U `
4 r : 1k
e
�. I
tIel
% I t��IIW
Mw i
I'll ltv
-�' n ."^ ry .."s-s n r.! 1 •�"„ r 4I Ito 1 7 Tv w �it Ve
."' R IN'li ✓
el
toil 4
44
IV
IV
.:.,�. L'� •. . . 'ale, �^°�� t
. j J Wxa
. hill) A
1 kt i t a 4✓ b,,q fW el'
IV
r ✓ �Sor VI ,
IV -
All Il
t i
It
I r i a
u
. ,
hit I
it
Iv
IV I
JI :le
k Itt
IV IY q
ev
te ,4
It t's. x T- y ' 3te +t*`' 1"" vitTV
It
S^t'^'•. . 1
JetI
ee Stone chimney at former home site
�..�
S
> � �vlelt %x 711 let
tIII, I
"B •A
AR
V�A Ixi iv
31 ' ' ,
x Ilk
vret
� ' % ;, ' t
r �
k .. '� � � u
s
Vl� 1
/riIli
lit
it
' '
Att
Trail through pine (Section � \ a
it
eev
ell
w. . lit
f
Pear r,r �' K
_, 4. .
� I
( SectionI turkey Hill Creek
11
r ,
j
mT 4 1
!
gg/ a i
a , r k1� if e r ,� r. J— "f i ��• � ; : .. . sa `' ' ? �
( �] ��
t atv
ol
gr �. tot
r
to so7.
1lot
or o # It
��r
k, e
K ^' 7
tl , G. *
Art r ,
! m �
t rtoo
r o
IL to r I
Vt
o-
a
v
R
a _
i
x -
c r I
(t
p �
Buckhorn Road access to property (left side) Perennial stream along northern boundary
u
�) ` S `
to
1!
1 '
i . to
i v
Iv � E Trail through hardwood forest (Section 2)
a 5�rttttttttt
(Sectionstand overlooking stream
o it
ATV trail and directional sign (Section 2) ATV trails through bottomlands
K S
f f
,yam h
y
f .
(Section
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date : March 6 , 2002
Action Agenda
Item No .
1
SUBJECT : Planning Process for Joint County/Town Open Space Projects — IP Work
Group Update
DEPARTMENT : Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING . (Y/ N ) No
Conservation
ATTACHMENT ( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT :
* - Update on Discussions of IP Work Group David Stancil , ERC Director , 245 -2590
* - Draft Recommendation
TELEPHONE NUMBERS :
Hillsborough 732 =8181
Chapel Hill 968 =4501
Durham 688 =7331
Mebane 336 -227 -2031
PURPOSE : To receive an update on the progress of the Intergovernmental Parks ( IP ) Work
regarding a recommendation on a policy for planning joint parks and open space
Group re Y
p g 9 p
projects .
BACKGROUND : On January 31 and again on February 27 , the Intergovernmental Parks
( IP ) Work Group met to review the County' s September 10 , 2001 draft policy statement " Use
of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects " . The policy statement draft was
sent to the Towns for review .and comment in September , 2001 . The Chapel Hill Town
Council and the Board of Commissioners asked the IP Work Group to review the policy
statement in light of issues that had been raised and develop a recommendation .
The attached draft recommendation was developed via facilitated discussion of the policy
draft and Chapel Hill Town Council comments at the January 31st meeting ( no changes to
this draft were made on February 27 ) . A summary of meeting discussion from February 27 is
also provided to apprise the Board of the Work Group ' s progress to date . A subcommittee of
elected officials has been formed from the IP Work Group , to finalize discussion of remaining
unresolved issues . The IP Work Group anticipates meeting in April to complete their
recommendation — in time for the Board ' s review and adoption of a planning process
concurrent with the 2002 - 2012 Capital Investment Plan , The Manager' s recommended CIP
will be presented on March 18 .
2
Staff will be prepared to present at the meeting an example of how the I Work Group
recommended process might work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT : There are no financial impacts associated with receipt of the IP Work
Group update and recommendation . The eventual planning process that is adopted will have
significant implications for how joint County/Town bond projects are addressed .
RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report and
provide comments .
3
Summary of IP Work Group Discussion 2 /27 / 02
The following items summarize the discussion of the IP Work Group at their February 27 ,
2002 meeting regarding the draft policy statement for joint parks and open space .
❑ The Work Group agreed that the draft recommendation was near completion , with only a
few remaining issues needing further discussion
❑ The Work Group discussed the merits of empowering the proposed Project Plan Groups
( PPG ' s ) with the authority to make decisions regarding parks construction and operation ,
as opposed to making recommendations to respective elected boards
❑ The Work Group discussed the level of detail envisioned for PPG review , and whether
after concept plan approval , the final steps should be left to staffs ( unless special
conditions or issues warranted further elected official participation )
❑ The Work Group noted that the PPG ' s could be the vehicle to address the appropriate j
level of public participation needed , and that the regulatory process for approval of parks
would provide another layer of public review
❑ The Work Group briefly discussed the coordination of concept plan committees and
PPG ' s — noting the potential for integrating the two processes and providing
steering/guidance opportunities that could be offered to the committee
Following the discussion , the Work Group appointed a subcommittee of Margaret Brown ,
Mark Dorosin and Flicka Bateman to meet and further discuss the above issues , for a
possible April IP Work Group meeting to adopt a recommendation .
I
i_
4
j j .<:� 0' 21, 11!w ' 4: `411
0 (1*0 .1.41 .z�"pCxj .f..��S 1-p1'y.���;.t�.t{:,� J .�}��}�..t:�f.�. 'g�"'j(�.�1 ',pt`Ir..�,�x`� .1...��I'�.:�..tfiIp' .A41 ' . q '.t'J. + .�.�.t':��F .p��r�� � 'p€�.�.t't.��.
C..7.S '1 l. b:�,�`.s f. 200141
d. Y .L ' .7 { �i.it.i. 1'Vd, .1. .i, YVX d 7Y t.% .iT..3i l t tJ6' itf. �. f ywir! 1 4 . �it ff. v [. xT C.. '.1 .� Y ..'. ' .. .3 .) 1t..E .d. 0', .' . f} � . . .1
DR .IFT 2 / 0 /02
IP Work Group Recommendation
PlanningP for
rocess Joint
Count /Town Parks and Open
Y
Space Projects
February 27 , 2002
On January 31, the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group met to review the
County 's 9110101 draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and
Open Space Projects . " The Chapel Hill Town Council and the County Board of
Commissioners had asked the IP Work Group to review the policy statement in light
of issues raised and develop a recommendation .
The following recommendations were developed via facilitated discussion of the policy
draft and Chapel Hill Town Council comments . IP Work Group members asked that
the ideas be written . up and presented for a recommendation on February 27.
A . General Areas of Common Interest/ Consensus
There are a number of general concepts related to planning for joint parks
that are shared by all jurisdictions :
1 . An interest in avoiding overlap and delays in completing projects
2 . A recognition that County oversight/overview of joint parks and
open space projects which the County funds wholly or partly is
appropriate
3 . That a planning policy should address both specific 2001 bond
projects and new joint parks/open space projects yet to be developed
In addition, the IP Work Group discussed the draft policy and the Town of
Chapel Hills issues . The group agreed by consensus that some objectives from
the draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space
Projects " should be retained. The following list contains the points
recommended for retention (with locational reference in the 9110101 draft
policy statement in parentheses):
4 . The " Conditional Approval" process , for the purpose of new joint
projects only (objective 1 )
c r } x 5
p `rx.7 .`.tIk�.8{.ts g1.�.'l).�"�`..�.�fIX, TO
f}�� �,�p'�l ,.�rs' .�.�.�'i}�.,�p..�'yp�Y A441 ? 77"T.�'i pk .�]:> Ig.�� /� iV r�Y } n �4p. ��
1.. . 1, l . ty£"j z 8.�t. r Y V _. PENDING 1 . 3Y (.J .t. l.i C.�A, 14, : 1 1 .t. �.d. 0 {. t..".t .(.aJ. r ft. 1 lY (.; ' ::i..i�� D ..••�..# �J.L�'�.t. i. 1.� <''� ,i... I !':A.�"}��. .t L
DRAFT 2 / 9. 0/ 02
5 . The County should have joint approval for concept plans on
parks/open space projects the County is fully or partially funding
( Objective 3 , bullet 3 )
6 . Joint parks and open space projects should be consistent with
adopted County guidelines and criteria (objective 2)
7 . The 2001 bond projects should be exempted from the conditional j
approval process (objective 4)
8 . That all joint parks will be open for use by all. County citizens , as
per adopted Open Facilities Policy (objective 7 - a)
B . Proposed Changes to Planning Process
Upon further discussion of the issues raised regarding other portions of the
draft policy, the IP Work Group developed a new approach for addressing
joint parrs and open space projects on a case - by - case basis . As noted by
County officials at the meeting, this concept is similar to one in effect for the
County and school systems for new capital projects .
1 . Information Needed
The IP Work Group noted that, to pursue this new approach, additional
information was needed or should be clarified:
a) Clarification is needed to define which parks and open space
projects are "joint" projects to be covered by this approach (please
see Attachment 1 for staffs interpretation of this list)
b ) Information is needed from the respective Towns regarding their
own internal priorities among these joint projects
2 . Alternative Process for Joint Statement of Intent ( objective 3 )
The IP Work Group noted that a "one size fits all approach to planning joint
projects might apply standards and expectations that are not applicable in
each case . As each joint project on the table is unique and different, the
concept of a case - by - case approach for many of the project details and decision
points is suggested as an alternative . This approach is consistent with the
County 's process for joint efforts with the schools, and offers flexibility to
adjust the functions and plans of each project as needed .
The IP Work Group recommends that the County have a set of general
`guiding principles " that apply to all projects, perhaps based on the General
Areas of Common Interest in section A of this recommendation . It is then
recommended that each project be handled on a case - by - case basis using the
following approach:
NOTE: : V{..Jl . S. /�'l..ir1..X #.fi0.7 yY�4tyA .R. L�.6 yi-Y. w` Dr..[.lt 7010
,l. Y tp � .f. �..7� .n�€..R.7�fAt. T wi��( fJ'l Y�,,yy A. .£ .�d/�i ��}i'i'.(.#.�.� {�g�L �itgY.yy '.1..�,t}�I. tyY a�J�y1 ��,(5t' Ygl...#F[.'�� L.��.
.7. 1 . .i .1 ft. r Y .i F7t. 1 'r .z� .d .t. Yv x �7 (.� . � I t € t.t l !!. �. Y ?: �:r M* 1 �'! ..t. .I.: 11� C,"r .: .A.A�Y.i..� .:!�k..��F f �/ i' t .l-A..i . �. 4• : .&.{.�3R. �I
DRAFT 2 / 2. 0 /02
a . Process for Current Joint Parks and Open Space Projects
(diagram of process included as Attachment 3)
1 ) The Towns and County should, , develop a prioritization of
joint projects , including project cost estimates and expected
duration (see B . l . b above )
2) The County would then consider funding timetables ,
opportunities and the schedule of projects
3) Once the County has approved funding and timetable , a
Capital Project Ordinance would be developed by both
jurisdictions . This step would trigger the creation of a
Town/ County Parks " Project Plan Group " (PPG) to
recommend key decisions on the project .
4) The Town and County elected boards could then appoint two
members each to a Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group for
each project , as per its schedule .
5 ) After receiving recommendations of the Project Plan Group ,
the County Commissioners and Town elected board would
make their respective decisions regarding the Project Plans .
6) The parks would be designed , constructed and opened in
accord with the Project Plan
Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG)
• 2 County Commissioners and 2 elected officials from the jurisdictions) involved
in the project
• County/Town Managers or their designees
• Relevant Staff (Budget, ERCD , Parks , other as needed)
Proposed Charge to Each Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG)
Develop a recommendation to respective elected boards on the following items .
• Which jurisdiction will serve as lead entity for coordinating parks design and
construction (including phasing plans , and the hiring of design and construction
consultants and I architects)
• Which jurisdiction will coordinate park operation, stewardship and maintenance
(including the hiring of operational consultants)
• The process for developing a park concept plan, if not already completed
(including appointments to any committees so charged)
• The process for Board approval of the concept plan and park construction, or any
like steps
• The process for Board approval of final site plans and construction phasing
• Any plans for the leasing, or exclusive use/scheduling of park facilities by any
private or non-profit firm or organi
ri zation
// `}} t..� Yjy�' z�.tq�; a.�'rrO C.i.1:.P..i"1.,N't_� �{iS TT'�'.r//t. i��(tr .`.�.t <}`:R.t..f/r.�.r �yrd. TC.y.� �p7:11 .7i .d..}.p�'��t..�/..#.�` r7'Y .�` i.fT rdgT�.'41E .1 ` .t7.'d" I` �p1, Ci..'•:i..�q� .LY � yf i'V` ..d.'L1
C..Y'. ' 01. % .f'j t,!' :�.(..'[ r T .I yI..T�. 1 �I..fA.i� f. .i V i.X' A. 7Y 1 . ? i C. 1.i'L. 1 1. ft. . Y1.�i tt L .L.fI.I.t[ . fy .: T l..r '.S .x ' ..0 �. �d � < :5 . . : 4' :' �t. . . t
D . . ?.A.FT 2 / 20/02
b . Future (As Yet Unidentified ) Joint Parks and Open Space
Projects
New joint parks or open space proposals that may be developed
in future years might use the following process, which is
essentially the above process, preceded by the `conditional
approval " process outlined in the County 's draft policy statement:
1 ) A written request proposing the joint project would be
submitted to the Board of Commissioners , who would review
proposal and (if deemed appropriate for further study) refer
it to IP Work Group .
2) The IP Work Group would review proposal , consulting with
Schools/Land Use Councils if warranted , and make a
recommendation to County Commissioners and respective
Town Board (s)
3 ) The Board of Commissioners would then consider the
recommendation , receive any needed clarifying information,
consider funding potential (including whether the project
should be part of a future bond package) , and decide on
whether (and when) to designate " conditional approval" for
the project
4) The Board of Commissioners would then , at the appropriate
time based on funding availability and other considerations ,
follow the process for current joint projects outlined in
subsection B . 2 . a above (beginning with B . 2 . a . 2)
C . Other Issues / Remaining Questions
There are a few details or matters that the IP Work Group would forward for
further consideration along with this recommendation:
1 . Will County Capital Project Ordinances include the Town funding
portion ?
2 . What happens if the PPG' s disagree on details or are unable to reach
consensus ?
3 . One task before the IP Work Group is the development of a
Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Towns regarding
parks and future roles and responsibilities . It appears that much of this
discussion could be the body of such an. agreement ? Should the IP Work
Group continue to develop a draft agreement ?
4 . How will the County make decisions on project schedule and .timetables ?
Do projects that are "ready" get the first green light ?
5 . How should public participation in parks planning be coordinated with
the PPG' s ?
;t 3 ,# q p ,�* y� #� b y x �
$( t s: ' , 'Jj' `r:'jj1}`.�� O (1`111:�j/r.'1..�. !'jj��xjr �� ,.�:sj} )/�'I�'��.�Y�.f('.`•,Fr� I`II *1.�}..�1j',r � fi'J>�7Cff� THIS fJ:'�Jj�,.`'jj�x �7.pS��.f( j�}.:�(3'.'. �`"J(:t.'(jY <`:A((r� ' .�$jY�:� .�::\'j k :,}{''X/j�,r4.�yy:�`. j�}y�1'. j/�iJV.jt��,. � ��Y ,)�tttp ��`$[3�''��{pt�� }}.���.
\.. {.P 'i� , 1. �`.F. ) A b. .6..wj. ..f r Yi .i y \. ♦ R. X..f.�.f V F.P .N f.../Y f .F. / l .F R. A .R. ..L. �.R. �A..1 A..� �f, 9�{. .R.�71..� rR. �1t..w 71..7 .w .l.: v F ..��.l..A.•) y.F,R • `../ Y, +tR t .R. wY Y t .w .A. R.i1�.4 . /
DRAFT
01
Attachment 1
List of Current Joint Town/ County Parks and Open Space Projects
(jurisdictions involved)
1 . Homestead Park Aquatics Center (Bond partners - Orange
County , Town of Chapel Hill)
2 . Fairview Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Hillsborough)
3 . Smith Middle School Park (Bond partners - Orange County ,
Carrboro )
4 . Greenways/Joint Open Space (Bond partners - Chapel Hill ,
Orange County, Carrboro)
5 . Southern Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Chapel Hill)
y } / L 7 AIDE
? p f1 p p pf y 9 p p } y p r 9
ggt... . qq'.'P..,' ... i}gt..X *f4 7�} g ' e/t.'1 `.� : k]. .t. /(.It.'rq �y �g7i..yj .tg. YL:g.' 7E ti}�� . ' .: [.#.'gyp. � s`:R/ rdgT �y: .d.'.y PIT r.t.:3 1. w g Y a3 y g . .t. l� dyk
rk. T I1. 'F 03% .(.'.��e�.t�v.t. LO. 7t„X' d.ft .i . . � .#..`t . {. � .d °Y 1..7 ..".£.i tV .l .1.' .. a 'f t,.� < :k . . ? . f"j i . .d..1
Attachment 2
Town Priorities Among 2001 Joint Town/ County
Parks and Open Space Projects
NOTE: Priorities not yet received from Towns
Town of Chapel Hill
Town of Carrboro
01 WW113 � • • �
Town of Hillsborough
1 . Fairview Park
i
i
Memorandum
To : Intergovernmental Parks ( IP ) Work Group
From : Bob Jones , Recreation and Parks. Director ( County)
Richard Kinney, Parks and Recreation Director ( Carrboro )
Kathryn Spatz , Parks and Recreation Director ( Chapel Hill )
I
David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Date : January 24, 2002
Re : January 31 Special Meeting
Please find attached the agenda for a special meeting of the IP Work Group ,
scheduled for :
Thursday, January 31, 2002
5 : 15 p . m .
Southern Human Services Center
2505 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill , NC
* * * PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW 5 : 15 START TIME * * *
We have an important topic for discussion , referred from elected boards — the
Draft Policy Statement for Joint Parks .
Dinner will be provided . The meeting will conclude at 6 : 55 , to allow members to
attend other evening meetings .
i
If you are unable to attend , please contact Carol Melton ( cmelton Caco . orange . nc . us
or 245 - 2597 ) by January 30th . Thank you .
Copies : John Link, County Manager
Cal Horton , Chapel Hill Town Manager
Robert Morgan , Carrboro Town Manager
Eric Peterson , Hillsborough Town Manager
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
AGENDA
.JANUARY 31 , 2002
5 : 15 P . M .
Southern Human Services Center
2505 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill , NC
50015 1 . CALL TO ORDER
5 : 20 2 . DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT " USE OF
COUNTY FUNDS FOR ,JOINT PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE PROJECTS "
The Chapel Hill Town Council and Orange County Commissioners
have referred this draft County policy to the IP Work Group for
discussion and recommendations . Please find attached a two -page
summary of issues to facilitate our discussion along with background
materials as Attachment 1 .
6 : 40 3 . UPDATE LITTLE RIVER REGIONAL PARK
MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS
Please see Attachment 2 .
6 : 50 5 . NEXT MEETING o-- FEBRUARY 27
Potential topics for the next meeting include Southern Park Concept Plan
and report of the OWASA Lands Subcommittee ,
6 : 55 6 . ADJOURNMENT (Next Meeting — February 27)
IP Work Group Discussion Paper 1/31/02
Draft Policy Statement ATTACHMENT # 1
Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and
Open Space Projects
Identified Issues for Discussion — September -December , 2001
The issues identified appear to fall into four major areas . General agreement
has been expressed on other areas of the policy statement :
I . Degree of County Joint Approval ( Objective 3 )
The issue that has been raised here regards "bulleted" items at the end
of Objective 3 . The County has expressed an interest in being more
comprehensively involved in important decision - making about parks
projects , consistent with the County' s financial responsibilities . The
Town of Chapel Hill agrees in principle to many of the points
(including joint approval of concept plans) , but has raised questions
about the fairness /efficiency of County involvement in appointing all
Concept Plan committee members ; possible project delays related to
County involvement in consultant selection ; and potential delays
because of joint approval of schedule changes and site plan approval .
II . Consultation Procured by the County for Oversight of Design
and Construction ( Objective 5 )
The County has proposed that the potential for oversight of the project
by a County consultant be part of the agreement between Town and
County . The Town of Chapel Hill has requested clarification of the
type and nature of such consultation , as it relates to the Town' s
current consultant process .
III . Expectation of Responsibilities - Town Operation and
Maintenance and County Capital Funding ( Objective 6 )
The Town of Chapel Hill has indicated that this is generally
reasonable , but notes that over the long - term operation and
maintenance costs will exceed capital costs . (Note : These potential
roles were discussed in the October 30 , 2000 Joint Capital Funding for
Parks report , presented at the Assembly of Governments meeting . )
o �
IP Work Group Discussion Paper - 1/31/02
IV . Leasing of Facilities or Portions Thereof / Scheduling of Fields
( Objective 7b and 7c)
The draft policy proposes that the County reserve the right of approval
for the leasing of any facilities for exclusive (private) operation , and
that scheduling not permit the monopolization of facilities by private
groups or associations .
Issues raised related to this item may be categorized into three sub -
groups :
a) Contracting out certain park services/facilities for private
operation
b ) Exclusivity of field use for private or non - profit organizations
c) Privatization of parks/facilities
The Town of Chapel Hill has raised questions and requested
clarification regarding leasing arrangements and scheduling for
playing fields , which is a common practice for Town parks .
V . Other Issues
The Town of Chapel Hill has also identified requests related to the
County' s approved criteria for evaluating joint parks projects
(Attachment 1 to the draft policy) . These include lowering of the
matching fund expectation from 1A , and providing flexibility on
central location criterion .
03
DRAFT Policy Statement
Use of County Funds for
Joint Parks and Open Space Projects
September 10 , 2001
III
Rationale
From 1996 = 2000 four different
reports have pointed out the need for
p
significant collaboration among the Towns and the County for certain parks
and recreation initiatives , pointing out economies of scale , the avoidance of
duplication of services , and the opportunities and limitations of each
jurisdiction in terms of available resources (financial and otherwise ) . In each
case , the County has been identified as the jurisdiction best able to take the
lead in collaborative initiatives for parks and open space .
The Orange County Board of Commissioners took several steps in 1999 and
2000 to facilitate the ability to collaborate on joint parks and open space
projects . On December 7 , 1999 , the Board of Commissioners adopted criteria
and guidelines to help guide decision - making for joint parks projects . In
April , 2000 , the Board created the Lands Legacy program as a framework for
the acquisition of land for parks , open space and resource preservation . In
May , 2000 , the Board (along with the Chapel Hill Town Council , Carrboro
Board of Aldermen and Hillsborough Board of Commissioners) appointed an
Inter Governmental Parks (IP ) Work Group to foster coordination . And in
February of this year , the Board agreed to consider the potential for a parks
and open space bond for November 2001 .
In the spring of this year , the Towns of Chapel Hill , Carrboro and
Hillsborough asked that a number of Town parks and open space projects
(totaling $ 18 . 9 million) be funded by the County as part of a planned
November 2001 bond referendum .
The following policy statement is offered to clarify and reiterate the process
and the context for County financial participation in joint parks projects with
the Towns , consistent with the adopted December 1999 Joint Parks Criteria ,
the October 30 , 2000 Joint Capital Funding for Parks report , and the
concepts of joint planning .
o E�
Proposed Policy Objectives
1 . If a jurisdiction wishes to introduce a candidate project for potential
County funding, the proposal should follow the following process :
• A written request should be submitted to the Board of Commissioners ;
• The request , along with staff comments , shall be presented at a Board
of Commissioners meeting as a report ;
• The request will be referred to the InterGovernmental Parks (IP) Work
Group for a recommendation . The IP Work Group will be used as the
" sounding board" for potential joint parks projects , especially those
proposed for County financial participation ;
• If the proposed project would be co - located with a school , a
recommendation from the Schools and Land Use Council shall also be
solicited ;
• The Board of Commissioners will then review the recommendation (s)
and make a decision on " conditional approval" of the joint project
(using adopted criteria and this policy statement) ;
2 . Any proposed project for County funding must be consistent with the
Board' s adopted criteria and guidelines of December 7 , 1999 (amended
May 3 , 2000) , which specifies eligibility of projects , locational criteria and
matching fund expectations . (The adopted criteria are provided as
Attachment 1 ) .
3 . If a project receives conditional approval from the Board of Commissioners
(see item 1 above ) , a Joint Parks Statement of Intent will be signed by the
County and the jurisdiction in question . The Joint Statement of Intent
verifies the jurisdiction' s agreement to comprehensively involve the
County in the park planning and construction process . Disbursement of
funds will not occur until the appropriate steps in the Joint Statement of
Intent have been met . The Board of Commissioners will be
comprehensively involved in approval of the park project , as follows :
• Joint approval of Concept Plan Committee appointments ;
• Joint approval of the hiring of consultants ;
• Joint approval of the concept plan (including park uses) ;
• Joint approval of the timetable for project activities and construction
(or any like step ) ;
• Joint approval of the project site plans and construction phasing
(please see objective 5 below) ;
4 . For purposes of the November 2001 bond , projects that are included for
funding in the 2001 bond will be considered to have received " conditional
approval" as described above . If the bond is successful , the Joint Parks
05
Statement of Intent process described in objective # 3 above shall be
p
pursued to extent possible .
5 . The Joint Statement of Intent may include a provision rovision for consultation as
procured by the County to oversee any and all elements of the park design j
and construction process , for all joint facilities in which County funds are
used .
6 . As per the October 30 , 2000 meeting discussion , which noted the County' s
potential role as the provider of capital funding for joint parks projects ,
the Towns will be expected to take the lead in providing for operation and
maintenance of joint parks facilities , whenever that is appropriate . The
Joint Statement of Intent will confirm this arrangement , prior to
construction .
I�
7 . The Joint Parks and Open Space Statement of Intent will also include
provisions that guarantee :
a) That the project facility will be open to use by all County residents in
accordance with the Open Facilities Policy adopted by all jurisdictions
in 2000 ; and
b ) That the County reserves the right of approval for the leasing out of
the facility or any part thereof for exclusive operation by any
organizations ; and
c) That scheduling will not permit the use of the preponderance of the
facility to be monopolized by private groups or associations , without
the County' s approval .
With this policy statement, the Board of Commissioners reaffirms its interest
and commitment to working collaboratively with the Towns of Carrboro,
Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Mebane on parrs and open space projects, as
demonstrated by the steps taken in the last two years to enable cooperative
parks and open space ventures .
However, in taking on the significant financial responsibilities requested by
the Towns for parks and open space projects, the Board has responsibilities to
ensure that the best interests of all County citizens are met in the expenditure
of funds for such projects, and must therefore be comprehensively involved in
the projects which it funds .
Cr)
Orange County
Joint Parks Guidelines and Criteria
(adopted 12/7/99, 513100)
1. Basic Guidelines for All Joint Town/County projects (adopted 5/3/00):
A. Projects should meet multiple needs and serve multiple jurisdictions (i.e., community, district or regional parks -
25 to 200 acres or more—that offer a wide variety of activities, including active and low-impact recreation)
B. Projects that meet multiple criteria receive higher weighting
2. Parks Project Evaluation Criteria (adopted 12/7/99)
Criteria(Note: All criteria are applicable and will be used for evaluation
Does the project have existing matching funds from a requesting jurisdiction,with the expectation of at least a 1:1 match
in funding?
Is there existence of prior partnerships and previous commitments to the same entity?
Is there a relationship between the project and the inventory of existing facilities and lands(1999 Joint Master Recreation
and Parks report)
Is there potential for grants and other funding opportunities?
What is the cost of the project,relative to available County resources?
If completion of an existing project, is there an adopted facility plan?
Does the project contain a site identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats, Orange County,N.C.?
Is the planned park use is compatible with adjacent land uses?
Is the proposed intensity of land use appropriate for the surrounding area?
What is the geographic location of the project relative to the area to be served(is it a central location for the target
population), as well as the location relative to the number of people served?
Does the project promote continuity of wildlife corridors, greenways and linear parks?
Is the land is adiacent to new or existing schools?
Is the land for potential active recreation suitable and appropriate for the planned uses(i.e., avoids wetlands and
environmentally-sensitive lands)?
Will the acquisition would further purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor preservation efforts(if applicable)?
Is access (transportation)to the proposed site safe and easily-accomplished?
o �
s
VLelp ° rt
OteV% a,n9 fOr Parks
Capital Fu
pctobeC 301 2000
08
Potential Joint Capital Funding for Parks
Summary — October 3 0 , 2000
Earlier this year, each elected board adopted resolutions asking that , in follow-up to the
1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP) Work Group Report, the Managers from
each jurisdiction develop a report on potential for joint capital funding for parks needs .
Three reports in the past five years have explored different aspects of parks and
recreation facilities and service in the County . All of the reports have pointed to a
mechanism that establishes Orange County in a coordinating role for parks and recreation
initiatives . In addition, the Memoranda of Agreement between the school boards and the
local governments provide an important precedent for collaboration in this area .
Having identified parks needs in the 1999 JMRP report, the current park projects in the
Capital Improvement Plans ( CIP ' s) for each jurisdiction were examined . In general,
while significant headway has been made, there are identified parks and recreation needs
in the County and Town CIP ' s totaling $ 63 million . Only 25 % of those projects are
funded at this point in time, leaving $ 47 million in unfunded parks projects .
There are several potential sources of funding for parks needs , ranging from bonds to
State and Federal grants to special reserve funds and even impact fees (not currently
implemented, but authorized by the General Assembly) . Orange County ' s new Lands
Legacy Program was developed concurrently with the 1999 JMRP report, and the
potential may exist for using the County ' s Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan process to
1 ) identify parks projects that are collaborative opportunities for multiple jurisdictions
and 2) pursue acquisition of parkland needed for the project in question . The Memoranda
of Agreement on co - location between the schools and local governments , and the new
School Capital Funding Policy, offer significant opportunities to explore joint projects .
In considering parks projects that are most appropriate for joint ventures , the previously-
mentioned Memoranda of Agreement provides a frame of reference in determining when
co -location may be desirable . In addition, the Board of Commissioners has noted that the
most- appropriate types of joint park ventures are larger- scale parks that provide a broad
range of opportunities and can serve both rural and Town populations .
In reviewing the parks and recreation reports , there may be an emergent delineation of
roles for joint park projects . The Towns currently expend substantial capital and
operating funds on an annual basis to operate and maintain existing parks , and are often
challenged to provide capital funds for new park facilities . Orange County, in its 1997
Parks bond, attempted to address both Town and County by allocating bond money to
parks projects inside Chapel Hill and in western Orange County. Even so , the County ' s
burgeoning population (currently estimated at 111 , 000) makes the need for land-banking
for parks a pressing one , as illustrated by the unfunded parks needs . With this being the
case, the County may be in the best position to provide capital funding for parkland
acquisition and facility development for larger- scale joint parks .
09
3
In order to operationalize a system of planning for joint park projects , a consensus will be
needed on where these parks should exist . If the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan
process is the vehicle to identify and pursue land acquisition for joint parks efforts , a map
is needed to show where these park needs are . A Conceptual Future Park Sites map is
proposed to show current facilities , and the general area where joint parks projects have
been agreed to by elected boards . Such a map could be incorporated into the County ' s
Recreation and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan, due for update in 2001 , to
create a Countywide master plan . The map might also be adopted by reference into each
of the Town parks and recreation plans .
In conclusion, the report notes the many positive actions that have occurred in the past
five years in coordinating and sharing parks and recreation plans . An Inter- Governmental
Parks Work Group is poised for an initial meeting in November to continue the sharing
and coordinating function .
At the same time , however, the County and Towns are faced with a number of significant
challenges in coming years . The Towns often must sacrifice capital funding for new
parks in order to operate and maintain existing ones , and over $ 47 million in identified
projects stand unfunded . Good park sites are lost each year to development as the area
continues to grow, making parkland acquisition a high priority. The 1999 JMRP report
has called for a bond referendum to address parks needs .
To address these issues , the report offers the following ideas :
1 . Develop a Memorandum of Agreement among the local governments on capital
funding for future joint parks . The Memorandum could explore the nature of joint
parks ventures (larger- scale parks serving both rural and Town populations) , the
method for identifying and acquiring park sites , the County ' s potential roles in capital
funding, land acquisition and facility development, the Town ' s potential roles in
operation and maintenance, and the inter-relationships with school/park co - location .
Funding equity issues might also be explored in this Memorandum .
tual Future Park Sites ma . To support the
2 . Create and Adopt a Concep p pp
Memorandum above , an agreed-upon map showing the conceptual area in which joint
ojects have been identified might be developed, with input from all
park pr
jurisdictions and adopted by all elected boards . This map could be used annually as
parks funding is considered by the jurisdictions .
3 . Develop Plans for a Parks and Open Space Bond . As noted above , unfunded parks
needs (both for parkland acquisition and facility development) exist among the
jurisdictions , and the 1999 JMRP report noted the need for a bond referendum . While
not all of these projects would be joint ventures , some would likely be appropriate
collaborative efforts . The County and Town elected boards may wish to discuss this
need and arrive at a mutually agreeable timetable for a bond referendum, or discuss
other funding options .
10
I . Introduction and Purpose
Earlier this year, the elected boards of Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and
Orange County considered the report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks
(JMRP ) Work Group .
One of the recommendations of the JMRP report asked the Managers from each
jurisdiction to prepare a report for an Assembly of Governments meeting
addressing the potential for joint County/Town collaboration on parks acquisition
and development . In resolutions adopted in the spring and summer of 2000 ,
each jurisdiction asked the Managers to prepare this report for the October 30
Assembly of Governments meeting .
The concept of a joint mechanism for parks funding and planning is not a new
idea , and has roots in a trio of reports developed between 1996 and 1999 :
• The Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 1996 ) , which developed
recommendations 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 a number of recommendations
presented to the Assembly of Governments , including the setting of
standards, an inventory of park and recreation facilities , and planning for the
inclusion of park facilities in selecting new school sites .
• The Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange
County ( 1997 ) described different options for the improvement of services to
the community through intergovernmental coordination of parks and
recreation functions . Recommendations were divided into four major
categories : capital development, coordination of operations , consolidation
approaches , and voluntary coordination and commitment . In summary, the
report called for .
• a long - range plan for parks and recreation ,
• acquisition and protection of good park sites ,
• a lead role for Orange County in funding , acquisition , development,
ownership , and maintenance of new facilities ,
coordination and work toward partial consolidation of selected functions ,
and
• a countywide bond proposal
• The Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP ) Work Group
( 1999 ) , which followed up on many of the recommendations from the 1996
and 1997 reports . As a part of this report, an inventory of facilities and
z 1 �
communityarks needs was developed for each j and
p p jurisdiction ,
recommendations were forwarded on a variety of issues, including .
• Formation of an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to share
information and explore collaboration opportunities ,
• Possible funding mechanisms,
• Use of the County 's Lands Legacy program as a vehicle for coordinated
parkland acquisition , and
• The need for a bond referendum to address the current parkland deficit .
Note : For purposes of this report, the three previous reports are referred to in the following manner :
Report of the Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 1996 ) = 1996 Work Group report,
Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services in Orange County ( 1997) = 1997 Coordination
Report
Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group ( 1999 ) = 1999 JMRP report
I
Both the 1997 Coordination Report and the 1999 JMRP Report suggest that parks
collaboration be pursued , with the County as lead entity for coordination and
p tY
administration . At the 1997 Assemblyof Governments meeting , staffs were
9 �
asked to further develop ideas for joint parks efforts by the jurisdictions and
report back at a future Assembly of Governments meeting .
In addition to these reports, there is a related document worthy of note . The
Memoranda of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility
Planning ( originated by the Schools and Land Use Councils ) provide an impetus
for co - location of public facilities where possible . The Memoranda of Agreement
are provided as Appendix 5 .
With these efforts as a backdrop , this report will attempt to address the following
issues .
i
1 . Methods for CoordinatingMunicipal and County Funding :
• ma Cap a tal the sharingof infortion on Current
Improvement/Investment, Flans (CIP 's) for parks and recreation; and
• a ; review of other potential funding sources
' m The Coumys La 'Legacy program as, a mechanisfor2 . *coordination of parkland acquisition
3 . Observations on Ca ital Funding , for Parks C
P g
4 . Developing a Consensus on Park Needs '
5 . Where Do We , Go From Here ? : Conclusions
12 17
". . . Many of the goals and objectives of resource preservation and recreation are
intertwined. Since the Countys 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 . "
The 1999 JMRP report saw a direct relationship between this program and the
immediate need to begin land - banking for future parks . This relationship was
later strengthened by the incorporation of parkland evaluation criteria from the
JMRP report into the adopted Lands Legacy program .
There are two methods that Lands Legacy uses to consider parks and resource
conservation acquisitions . the Annual Action Plan and inquiries made by
landowners . Examples of both exist in the acquisitions and work of Lands Legacy
to date .
Each fall , an Annual Action Plan for the upcoming fiscal year is compiled using
initial guidance from the Board of Commissioners . Discussion and evaluation of
priorities by each of several advisory boards occurs for relevant program priority
categories (for example , the County's Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
discusses and recommends priority projects for parkland acquisition in the
coming fiscal year) , followed by incorporation of the recommendations from
advisory boards into a draft action plan . After review and deliberation , the Board
of Commissioners adopts the Annual Action Plan concurrent with the CIP process
in the spring .
Both the 1997 and 1999 reports highlight the need to land - bank now for future
park sites, in order to ensure that good park sites are acquired and to maximize
local funding for parkland acquisition in a market with steadily- increasing land
costs . The Lands Legacy program offers a means to accomplish this need .
V . Capital Funding for Parks
As the local governments explore methods of collaboration , there are several
existing policies that support coordination and/or offer a framework for how joint
efforts are pursued .
First, as an overarching theme , the Schools and Land Use Councils ' Memoranda
of Agreement between the school systems and local governments provides a
precedent and a basis for collaboration among local governments and schools .
The Agreements call for coordination in the siting and development of public
facilities , exploring opportunities for co - locating parks with school sites and other
public facilities when new facilities are planned .
18
In addition to the Memoranda , there are other policies and frameworks of note .
1 . In adopting the JMRP report recommendations ( revised ) in May of this year,
the County Commissioners noted that the appropriate focus for joint parks
collaboration is on larger- scale parks that can meet multiple needs and serve j
multiple jurisdictions . While recognizing the important role of " neighborhood "
parks and smaller mini - parks , the Commissioners indicated interest in
focusing joint efforts on community, district and regional parks
( generally, parks of 25 acres or more that offer a wide variety of activities ,
including both active and low- impact recreation ) .
2 . The County and both School Systems have agreed to a Capital Funding Policy
that addresses coordination in selecting and acquiring new school sites . The
potential for co - location of schools and parks has been widely- recognized as a
goal worth pursuing . Consistency between the School Capital Funding Policy
and a joint parks capital funding agreement would be very important .
A . Observations
Three reports have been produced in the past four years on coordinating parks
and recreation in the County and Towns . In reviewing these reports , and the
current status of parks and recreation funding , the following observations are
offered on directions in which we could collectively move in future years .
Through these reports and the joint work of the schools and local governments,
many positive actions have occurred , a few of which are .
1 . The sharing of information on parks projects ( current and future ) that has
occurred through the 1999 JMRP report, and will occur in the future with the
new Inter- Governmental Parks Work Group .
2 . Orange County's Lands Legacy program , which offers opportunities to use
this shared information to jointly identify and plan for future parks that serve
both Town and County populations .
3 . Substantial progress in the co - location of schools and parks in the future
Regarding the relationship between the local governments on parks planning and
development, as well as the current and future roles of the Towns and the
County, we offer the following thoughts .
1 . The Towns , with many competing resource needs , are challenged to. find
funding to operate and maintain their parks . As a result, the Towns have
limited opportunities to provide capital funding for new parks that may serve
Town residents - and residents beyond the Town boundaries .
14
19
2 . The County in 1997 passed a bond referendum that addressed a mixture of
County and Town needs , both in terms of active recreation ( playing fields ,
programmable facilities ) and low- impact recreation (walking and hiking trails,
picnic areas, etc . ) .
3 . However, even with this bond referendum , we have not been able to
address Town and County parkland needs pointed up by the 1999 JMRP
report, such as the need for one or two district/ regional scale parks that can
serve the whole County .
4 . To make these and other park needs reality, the County is in the best position
to take the lead in identifying and funding new parks that serve larger
populations in both urban and rural areas .
5 . While many potential park sites have been lost in the areas near the Towns ,
there remain opportunities for the Towns and the school systems to
collaborate on co - locating needed school and park sites .
6 . As shown in Table E on page 11 , there are $ 63 million of park needs that
have been identified , with little money programmed for parkland acquisition
and/or facility development .
VI . Map with General Areas of Consensus for Parks Needs
Whether for identified but unfunded parks , or new park opportunities, a general
consensus is desirable on where joint parks projects are needed . As previously
noted , these joint park projects would generally be larger parks ( community,
district and regional scale parks of 25 acres and up ) that would provide a range
of recreation offerings that serve both rural and urban populations . A combined
map that illustrates both existing parks and new joint opportunities would be a
valuable tool for planning and identifying collaborative park projects .
Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County each have an adopted
parks plan in place . Orange County will be updating its Master Recreation and
Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2001 . The Town of Chapel Hill is
currently undertaking its first Parks and Recreation Master Plan process . The
report is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2001 .
To pave the way for collaborative park efforts , a countywide map of conceptual
park needs ( a ' Conceptual Future Park Sites Map ") could be developed and
agreed to by each elected board . This map would illustrate conceptually (via a
" bubble " approach ) :
1 . Current Town and County park facilities
2 . The general locations where parks are needed , and
3 . Projects where there is an identified joint park need , and collaboration on
park acquisition and development is warranted .
20 15
As a starting point, the initial Conceptual Future Park Sites Map could be
generated using existing plans and the 1999 JMRP report . Creation of such a
map would be an important first step in identifying parks needs and prioritizing
opportunities for collaboration .
If, as suggested in the 1997 and 1999 reports , the County is to play a
coordinating role in future parkland acquisitions , an appropriate vehicle to
incorporating this Map into local policies may exist next year, with the County's
update to its Master Recreation and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan .
This possibility was suggested in both the 1997 Coordination report and the 1999
JMRP report . In this scenario , the County Master Recreation and Parks Element
would be expanded to address Town parks and recreation needs , the linkages
between Town and County parks , and the inter- relationships between Town and
County parks systems (for both active and low - impact recreation ) .
VII . Where Do We Go From Here : Conclusions
The positive activities of the past four years in parks coordination and planning
have enabled Carrboro , Chapel Hill , Hillsborough and Orange County to make
progress in several key areas .
• We have moved forward from the 1997 Coordination report, and now have an
inventory of facilities and a much clearer understanding of parks needs and funding
mechanisms
• We now have a process for coordinated land acquisitions that can be used
Countywide in the Lands Legacy program .
We have an Inter- Governmental Parks Work Group prepared for an initial meeting in
November, to ensure sharing of information and exploration of opportunities for joint j
projects .
• We have been able to identify key principles for action , including recognition of the
need to acquire good park sites now before they are gone .
• 'The need for facility development and the specific facility needs are more clearly-
defined . j
• The local governments and school systems are poised to begin coordinating school j
and park siting , via the Memoranda of Agreement, to maximize opportunities to co -
locate compatible public facilities .
• In the 1997 and 1999 reports, a clear consensus emerged that Orange County is
best poised to provide a coordinating mechanism with "' a major role in funding ,
acquisition and development" for larger joint parks .
At the same time, while we have learned a great deal about of current status of
parks and recreation and our needs , we as local governments face a number of
pressing challenges in the years to come :
l �
z1
• The Towns face a continuing challenge to fund capital land acquisition and facility
development for new parks, while still providing adequate operation and
maintenance of existing parks .
• There are substantial identified parks needs for all jurisdictions — totaling $ 63 million
in all — but available funding for only 1/4 of these needs
• The need to coordinate quickly on funding for land acquisition is immediate , as land
is not getting cheaper and good park sites disappear each year .
• The 1999 JMRP report calls for a parks and open space bond referendum to land -
bank for future park needs and address the deficit of parkland at the present .
• The Town of Chapel Hill has identified a number of concerns regarding the level of
County contribution to Town parks and recreation operating budget, the location of
facilities based on contribution , and the need for individual jurisdiction parks
standards ( please see Appendix 6 for additional information ) .
With the substantial knowledge gained from the work of the past five years, the
Managers would jointly suggest consideration of the following steps to address
current and future needs .
1 . Develop and Adopt a Memorandum of Agreement between the
County and Towns on Capital Funding for Joint Parks Projects
From the many findings from the reports of the last five years , we have
learned that :
• There is a deficit of parkland in the County, as identified in the 1999 JMRP
report, and $ 47 million in identified parks projects are currently unfunded ,
• There is an immediate need for begin land - banking for parks, to ensure
adequate sites for future park needs,
• Orange County has the greatest opportunity to raise funds countywide for
parks needs, and the 1997 County Parks bonds illustrate a precedent for a
County bond serving rural and Town needs,
• The Towns are limited in their ability to raise capital funding for new, large
parks needs, but have a longstanding experience in operation and
maintenance of parks .
If Orange County's optimal role in joint parks projects is oriented toward
capital funding , land acquisition and facility development, and the Towns
optimal role is in operation , programming and maintenance , a mechanism
to address how these roles will be fulfilled may be needed .
If the County and Towns are interested in pursuing an arrangement along
these lines , a Memorandum of Agreement ( MoA) may be desirable . This
Memorandum could address .
• The nature of joint parks to which the Memorandum is applicable ( larger-
scale park endeavors to serve all residents, for example) ,
22 17
• The method in which joint park projects are identified and agreed upon (the
Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan , for example) ,
• The County's role in capital funding , acquisition and facility development for
joint parks
• The Town 's role in operation and maintenance of joint parks
• The means of programming for joint parks projects, and
• The inter- relationship and coordination with the Schools co - location
Memoranda of Agreement and the Schools Capital Funding Policy, and
• Other topics as needed
2 . Create and Adopt " Conceptual Future Park Sites Map "
In support of the proposed MoA, a consensus on joint parks projects
should be developed . Potential joint projects could be identified through
the Inter- Governmental Parks Work Group and land acquisition pursued
through the County "s Lands Legacy Program Annual Action Plan to
address short-term and long -term joint land acquisitions . Once identified ,
the general location and nature of these joint parks projects may be
reflected on the proposed " Conceptual Future Park Sites Map , " showing
both joint and local parks plans . This map could then be reviewed and
adopted by each elected board as the " plan " for joint parks projects .
To incorporate the map into County and Town policy, it may be then
incorporated into the existing parks plans of each jurisdiction along with
the individual jurisdiction plan . This process is similar to that used for the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan .
3 . Develop Plans for a Parks and Open Space Bond
Almost $ 47 million of unfunded parks needs exist among the jurisdictions
in the County, both for land acquisition and facility development . A bond
referendum has been suggested to address parks needs in the County .
The County and Town elected boards may wish to discuss this need , and
arrive at a mutually- agreeable timetable for a bond referendum , or discuss
other funding options ,ti ns .
1 $ 23
Ap end ices
Appendix 1 CIP and Parks Project Funding Information
from each Jurisdiction
Appendix 2 Town of Chapel Hill Supplemental Information
Appendix 3 Executive Summary — 1999 JMRP report
Appendix 4 Comparison of CIP Schedule - All Jurisdictions
Appendix 5 Memoranda of Agreement for Providing Coordinated
Site and Facility Planning ( Schools/ Land Use Councils )
Appendix 6 Chapel Hill Town Manager Memorandum ( 8 / 28 / 00 )
ATTACHMENT # 2
i
. 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
}ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date : January 16 , 2002
Action Agenda
Item No .
I
SU ECT : Resolution Supporting Pmposed Durham County Grant for Establishing
Mountain Bike Trails at Little River Regional Far#
DEPARTMENT : Environment and Resouroe PUBLIC HEARING : ( YIN ) Nc►
Conservstion
�I
ATTA H ME NT INFORMATION CONTACT ;
A. Resolution David Stancil , 245m2590
B . Memo from Durham Open Space Rich $ haw, 245-2591
and Trails Commission
. Site Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS &
D . Grant application Hillsborough 7324181
E . Matching Grant Program Brochure Chapel dill 9684501
( lender Separate Cover) Durham 6 -T33i
Mebane 3 - 74031
PURPOSE : To consider a resolution regarding the potential award of funds by Durham
County for the future construction of mountain bike trails for the Little River Regional Parr ,
Consistent with the future approved site plan .
• in 0 �
B �► �KGRCUND . Orange County and Durham County acquired � � � 1 -aces property �
01 for the new Little River Regional Pa* and Natural Area , The regional park wiq be jointly
owned and managed by Orange and Durham counties in accordance with an inter- local
sgraarr ant (yet to be developed ) . The counties have agreed to make the park available for a
variety of lava- impact recreational uses , including hiking , picnic areas , horseback rid i ng and
mountain bilging . Lame pordons of the park will remain in a natural state .
Grande County , an behalf of bow Counties , is in the process of soiiciting bids for a contractor
to davalop a conceptual design and site plan for the ,agreed-upon park facilities at the Little
River Regional Park . The current timetable anticipates final site plan approval by ,duly 15 ,
2002 and construction underway by early Fall .
In the meantime , Durham County is considering awarding a matching grant to a local non-
profit organizaWn that is interested in designing , constructing and maintaining mountain bile
trails in the bark . The DurhammOrange Mountain Bile Organization ( DOME0 ) applied for
4 , 150 from Durham ' s (hatching Grant Program , administered by the Durham Open Space
and Tails Commission ( DOST) . DDBT is an appointed citizen advisory turd to the Durham
r ounc'I and Durham County Board of Commissioners for matters related to open space
as well as pedestrian and bicycle issues . Grants are awarded on an annual basis in January
20
2
of each year. Construction of park facilities is expected to begin in Fail 20D2 , well in advance
of the next grant award period . No construction of bike trails would occur unti) an aa � iate
time , after approval of the site pla _both _ Qm& arn _ ounty and Orange County
commissioners .
Following review of they DO B0 application , DOSS is prepared to recommend the project for
Durham County Board of Commissioners approval—with the proviso that the maintenance of
such facilities must be administered by DOME30 consistent with a maintenance contract that
would be approved by both Durham and Orange counties .
The Managieft and staffs of both counties are working on a draft inter-local agreement
regarding the uses , operations and maintenance of this park. Additionally, the managers and
their staffs will also be discussing the funding relationships for the park .
Attached for BOLD consideration are a ) a resolution oonceming the potential Durham grant ,
b ) a memo from the DOST requesting Orange County approval of its forthcoming grant
r9oomrnendsticn , c) a map of the tittle River Regional Park shoving potential bike trail
locations , d ) the DOM130 grant application, and e) a brochure about Durham' s Matching
Grant Program ,
FINANCIAL IMPS CT4. They Durham - Orange Mountain Bike Organization (DOMBO ) has
requested $4 , 166 from Durham County for suppiies and rnaterleIs to 40 used for hike trail
conBtru cthn . The proposed grant would be matched whh an in-kind contribution of $ 4 , 620
worth of volunteer labor for trail construction and m a intena noe . No Orange County funds
would be expended as a resuft of this action . Orange County staff would , however, monitor
the trail constmalon along with Durham County staff to mare sure it is done consistent with
the approved site plan for the park ,
RECI MMENDATIONCS : The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the resolution
agreeing to the potential awarding of Durham County funds for the future construction of
mountain bike trails in the Little Rivi r Regional Park and Natural Area , wikh the
understanding (as stated ) that no construction of Neils shall occur until after a site plan is
approved by both county boards .
I
21
t
ATTACHMENT A 3
' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION
Potential Durham County Grant
for Construction of Mountain Bike Trails
at Little Fiver Regional Park and Natural Area
WHEREAS , Orange County and Durham County purchased a 391 -acre property in 2000 -
2001 for establishing the Little River Regional Park and Natural Area; and
wH EREAS , Orange County and Durham County collaborated with the Triangle Land
Gon rvancy and the Eno River Assooiation to acquire this property for the purposes of
protecting a water supply watershed , preserving irnportant wilidlife habitat and open space ,
and providing citizens with an new area for Inw impact recreation ; and
WHEREAS , Orange County and Durham County will Jointly own and manage the park in
accordance with a forthcoming inter-local agreement to be approved by both county boards
of commissioners ; and
WHEREAS , Orange County and Durham County have agreed to allow mountain biking on
designated trails within the park in accordance with a park master plan to beoapproved by
tooth county boards of commissioners ; and
WHEREAS , Durham County has a Matching Grants Program that assists nonprofit
organizations to preserve. open space lands and promote new or improved recreational
opportunities , and
wH EREA . the Durham Open Space and Train Camrnission ( DOBT) , which administers the
Matching Grants Program , has received an application from the DurharrmOrange Mountain
Bike 0rganlzation ( DoM BO ) for matchinrg funds to design , construct and maintain mountain
bike trails in the park; and
WHEREAS , the proposed mountain hike trails would not be constructed until a site, plan for
the park has been developed and approved by both county boards of carrimSsioners :
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners do
hereby agree to the potential awarding of grant funds by Durham County for the
establishment of mountain bike trails at the Little Diver Regional Park and Natural Area on
the conditions that a ) no trail construction occur prior to Park site plan approval by both
Orange County and Durham County Commissioners and b) future maintenance of mountain
bike trails be consistent with an agreement approved by both Orange and Durham counties .
This the 160 day of January , 2002 .
Barry Jacobs , Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Beverly Blythe , Clark to the Board
ATTACHMENT B 4
ML
Lr
t -� I I...I I H ltirt 1� '`'� S F �1 N D TRAILS COMMISSION
Novembar 10. 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO ; Membom of the Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Annette 0. Montgomery, Chair, Durham Open Space and Trails Commission (DOST)
SUBJECT: Lillie River Regional lark and MatGh4IN Grants Protgraan
As tl a result of cowoparat efforts of the Eno Rr" rAssooWion (ERA) , the Triangle Land Conservancy
(TLC) joined by toth Durham and Orange counties pumhase and developnient of the Little IRiw Regional
Park is underway, This 301 -acre tract, b7nedy known as the Newton tract, is slated to ba a r�egianal nature
preserve Frith trai [s for hiking , mountain biking and horseback riding. Durham and Orange counties will a+hm
and manage the land ,
The Durham Opeh Space and Trails Commission ( DOST) is an appointed citizen ad i�arya to t
Durham City Council and the Durham Board of County Oommisslort (BOCC) on wittom rotated to open
specs es waN as padeswrtan and bleyW issues , The 1dlatchiK gents Program recedy oelebrated its tenth
OGG
' year as a cQmrridee of the Commission.
TheMatching Gr'atits Program (MG113) is dealgned to assist norwprufit organizations throughout Duttam
County In proservirtg open specs land and promoting new or improved recredanal cpportanifies . Crards
are awarded competltWy on a yearly cycle. Recomme xlatio s for funding of projects are developed by
the Matching Grp Committee of the DOST for approval action by the Durham Board of County
Commissioners.
This }reera cycle of applications cortitairis one hm the Durham ,O range Mountain Bike Organnkation
(DOMBO) to design, construct and maintain four miles of mountain bike trals in the Little River Regional
Park (see ropy of MGR application att=hed) , We And that this inquest is in keeping with the intent of the
park as wail sa regponsW to smanidas which are desired by the area cikens ,
l=ollnIng mvIew of the application, DOST is prepared to recommend to pipied to the UOCG for approval
with the praviso that the maintenance of such Igclfles must to administerad by D OMSO consistent wtkh a
maintenance contract that woud be approved by Durfiam and Orange oes ,
Ve request that your hoard indic" b a=ptaance of the DOST recommendation of the DOMEO project
prior to final appmvsl by the EOCC.
R pec fully submitted by DOST.
AGO
GO
of
to
.-ti ._ . . . . . t , - - -. . f- . _ _ . ., tens n5 zan_AgAl
r� ,r•+'• + •• 1
- �� :�Sr. ;r..'ti�;�^-r�...lF.`1�•,'.'r r:•���.L_��•` =1:r..,,,!�••rr ' �
r,
� � .. .y F •'•� �•�:�•,:•, �:�. . �,y• ' � .,• .�rnt ry',,,....•: -��?.::;••� � Lr, I; may,;..�
5'
N
24
,5
ATTACHMENT D �
The IDurhaw County MaLkbiug Grants Program,
For Recroeadea and Open Space Projects
APPUirATION . '
Noft: 1} lam ,mowthe Co�n� n s csrdully befom aWn outttris
appli=t9= A pm4pplica6m 0wfiM=e with 9= N IdU4 Or"" Frcgr4lm Admi7f a •, U941 = mmabcr
5604O062P is rec�.�o 3ab4it UMN cep afdw upplic�ti�t nacho tileaig�l) �
Dmt= Co Y BU49d WA U=48== DCPffltRCW
Durbam CM97 C=ffio= ArlmWstr CjmVkx
20D >;aa hisin Shuct, 4th Flat
DutLam, North Carmlim 27741
is - m O A10 : �; g RCvr,
Applicadim DtadWw:
Ti co=1edm tbi* qoa, You ere MARMOC4 tO attach AddltiOtW d Mft it .
GENERAL INFORMATION
1 .NWW afasmia : Durham- ntalr~ BIICs orugnizati n =MB01
3.C*=d }won for tbngVmtregwst: Gaynor Colle r
posit m i off; canwnunitsUons � 9 } $8$-04013
Nwu h BuAncw, 1 9334 413 ext 823
• 4, 0r abv & Chi4f ial: Rawy Tones
Tula: Prelsldnt
5 ,� y�cwr �jp4x � � a eont � '� trlr.
Tice a�t�iacth C��a ; YQ�K, �ToT _ .
.Me bqtMal gc •A• = &=Vice yea 7C Nc Fcdc d Tax ID tom+ ,teem sites )
we are in the process of filing for Norlwpro►M ststua. It MmWd be oampleted by Nov, 30,
2o01 . soe auched letter.
pR0JxcTUMRUATWK
&Frapmbcd Pw)ed nd ]aim:
To design , raanstruct and mainWrk rnouroaln bike trails at tl Uttle River Regional Psrk
7 Raw pcnA a Wwf=MRffY Qffbd lewd grga PMwt (W=k gapba �t defign if qVmVmfe ,
pen&V furmulartian of ffm por "s master pWas will gild 4miles of peftsnW, sustsinOIB
the set forlh in
arw +Brt�+f�4 inendart ons of #1 � Rive �P dvi sound buls. They will be �Cammis and to nUw ationa6ult In 2cewonce with the �l Mountei eke
Association (Its standafft See allached map.
25
s . Pk= List proimt ab9exa ms sad ir4ieate how each objecdvc� contributes to am of more of the five guab odomd by ttte Dwham 7
n SPAM and Tails t UrrIll union (fottrtd on page 2 of the t rttAlin s, DOST GoWa). ,
DQ MSO's efforts in the tittle Mver Regional Park will:
-pravide opportunities for tails within the Cuuntyr
-support the previs lon of ao(ive raoreation areas ,
-arid assist in the preserve4on and long term protection of existing areas in Durham County that are presently Used for
passive or active recreation ,
9. Who will ife the eu9tonoryu54rs of this pmject? HOW iwrge as area, or Clow big a Vwp, does this incf utitr? How •vflcn do you
tiolpote that the pG4iect will be used by these ustxs ? Pteasc be as Specific bs you can. (InclUde a W2Adulo if knawr,,) !
The ~ ' wide c,�om ectati dFE# trails Wa Intend t U will be to hi and Mountain
p build open key m� i bikerz . If AT13 use Is consistent
with other popular local sites, we can expect 200 to 500 users per week. harry mono hikers can be expel - The trails wul be
open to tha general public as long as environmental conditions are favomble. Traits will only be e1wed when Pundifions (le: rain
erosion etc, would result In a degradaWn of the trail and surrounding environment. The "I system will be unoor the
administrative conbm4 of the Park staff.
1 U. Does the project itvolve Sand acyuislt onl Yez^ No_K Ifyt4 Fovidc " Art Off= to Purchase oral tnatram" or kgter of intfmt
( ace Guldelirles, pap 6. Section )l 111). Alsu if yea, peovide a ' Tjcrd= rk,pdoa of any spccial emk it`,al featurex of tim property aind
attach suppwUA& infarrriahan if u aalablc-
11 . Doeg thp� prpjaa iuvolve Wiul imprtwerixnuT Ye* X Now If yet, +ems your wt!anizatUm own thuL Itid an which the
imptvven7e= are proposed? Yes- No if rm, arA the lad : pvblirty awned ( such w a acliml pliygmuud), please provide
uTimen verification that the w4mas supports your orgm=i tivct' A pwposcd plants. plain y6ur crgardza oW s relationship to the
landawa r and attach any ag=maAs on ypur orpniaation 's use of the lmd-
i7OMBO will be the mountain bike dub of rewrd as rewired in the f1mann)e tdatims on "Al owed Uses in thib Little R
Ronal Park and Natural Area" approved by the Durham County Board a€ Commisnionars , See attached
12. Will the project, as propocd in this appti.Cahm , curnplete your organindads plus a3 curmtly cnAilomd or are afttorial
phases sa4 1paW for the fa=? Oomplm:Add 'kLkkw 1phases anti6p &d X _ >wA ibe add 'uioaal p?►as�s.
I
Upon cwpletian of tha initiat 4 rnlle loop and it epproved txy Park planners , tat MBO would Bite to bulid 3 ad4itional la
'ratod for ticiers of d"flarent AIR levels.
26
PzV 3
13 . Any prajtot f=dcd thr the t ��m
hing GrsPmgtam mist publicly smUc6 MWWili thep�pv9ad FrgWtF%=40 for
VJNx a ylM t= MnySpc=& 0=Z16ma tp Fub& wpm € jgL = Vril�'�%m#ed4' sea ] rn" jeoU5mp*e2SKtcmIB .
and the &SMS on of pdblc accM an pege 17, Swfica V C of the Guideliaesw
it will 8vpjW0 to the putt as 'pad of " TU= ationat ftdfftW of the iLfttle River Regional Park.
14, WM dWt W a fee rhar d fw i6 USO yea_ _ No fit,
Tfycs. WLH ftaS fee be is is for the oustnmary us=? Ym
H ym wili that bt� a tee 6uge± fbr the publW? Yw No�_ Amacat ofFeal NA
15. Ifappmved, whan is the ps Cawbc&dcd W Wnt? Sm rg End? MI. 2002
pwgk wit! bo a►mrA?d a7demDwU f* appmWwwdy dx mo gairfie appRamew deadlhu �
OgGANIZATION .INFORMATIOIJ
16; "uw kn hw y= mp tem is oIA=krd0q i vat
17. Appmxii y how mmym=bQs docs it bave? 75 Membe
ur 1' ba is its a l budgot, arA what am N; maurres or glow fl W �
IA4na prosp+ed of ATS trolls at the LRRP vues the tmpe€us for the formation of DOMO. While we've assemb&ed mars
a( # ed ours , itientlecid�litltl lol prj aim ativ8ly sought legalair, s, we have not rred a bvet pec�dlnp
app ai of ft LRRP ATB trails and romplution of non-Prot applicabon .
19 . Des it have my paid staffmcafttrR Yes, i [` .X_
20 How will yow orgnbphm pm vl&** nt4g � ate€ 9u vtsauu i�a �
DomBo has oswmbfed a frail Wlintenwce crunmittee wW will be resparwsible for monthly monhodrM 04 inspDc
the LRRP tail stem . it wOU be their job to communicate ate with Park effidala mW to orl] anize and aoheciule DOMBO work cri
21 . Is these a. r "ambl a p=W of = �j «�i dw is p wt b }mar WgM , }�
DCW50 W COM nitted to maintain the Lim trad stes#errM In R92efuit .
- 27
Page 4•
22. FROJ E Crr BIJT3GET . Plan provide a budget smrrwy only [Dr the project far• which a Matching 1"ir= is rdquma
A. L4nd Acquisition. Lia anticipated mpmse (' whco and for anwdob, providr, documentation ofytlut ;
TuTAL AMOUNT $ fit
. improvemmbL Provide a oaautict*rrk written eStime:te if ?pl ;cabic:
a Signs Q SW = $4101)
4 Briipm WOO= $24CO
lion Wt11ng= $201)
Imo l WIc= $ 250
C, Labors EXP=4 for pm cnt and iflcludinz valuc o r enlicipat+bii volunmff labor,
of TruR
112 miles of ball 10 men For fl hrs (80 man hrs),
4 m0m= 640 mm hm
tars X :ST, 00m W
WnlainU Trail fir 1 Lr
20 ha's X $ 7 . $ 140
TOTAL AMOUNTS !!<4620 .00
D, Supplies To Carty * id the Frejart- Li6t anticipattd expernsrs:
8 f'ulastds * 0
8 ty joou jM S50m $400
$ urveort4 jwppoQs= 61W
•rOYAL AhtOtrn7 $ 900a 0 - -
6 . Other (Pruffissionat expema es, rentals , cues ), List an "'Cipatcd expanses:
i
ToTAi_ &mouN`r I Nam_^
F, TotW Est3 mated PmAact Cost. Add ite a A through E abere aF14 "tOz file Burn tom : (Nc4el TW Grant award will
be
G misid rad maxknum. Orly ad►ol dccumenie� expandRures +n+iili be rairnbursed , or will qualty for the
appGr Wa Match.)
at�uv�e� �r7� ,
TOTAL Ff4aFEC i' COST (A thmu gh E " local Am mILts" frrtm
28
131j�_ 0W ABOUT Me P ROJEL'1'S MATCHINQ FUNDS 10
23. VlWil the prejact ewe sUPPOd thom other sources (-rante , etc. ) in adc0tion ter Durham County? Yes Nor, & if yest .
on 6 separate sheet of paper pieaw fat the sou=, procedures, raWiremenls, rules, regulstlons, agnwmants,
timetabin and all other pennant f2dts on eadh source as 3r o as aU optional or altemate sourves gar plarm, (See
Guldeline l$ D 2 on page nht (8) of the Gtlidekne$. )
24. Will Arc pM' W involvc vntunwer labor, consultation, of supervis =? 'Arcot Bxplxh
Yes, the prey will only use the volunteer resources of the DOMBO membership. Our sluts is propamd and We to
deslgrt, ccx�struct and r intain what will be permanent, sustainable and environmentally wund rnt�Unwin like trails. We have t
skAls necessary to build the trails and to matzo thern ' safe, sensible and attractive pddit art to the LRRP.
25_ To considcr }our application pmperly, wezcvd to cluamify how yw orgatlizatim will pmovide its rambing conuibutions
The ogsnizstiods sbace will be providod in tic following way(s}:
Mk• M 9
1 . FuD& act hand which wills be Ao caxd to this prayer; S_
Z, Fcrwis to be raised bar grants, git~<ss flmd-raiscr�„ etic. Sim! .
TOTAL MONEY (add t od Z above) S
B, Laod (Vdue of)
C. Vdiu ttser Lokacw ( estimated waive of) S '2
D. t7ther 3______
E. TOTAL for Organizatlon'sN
2G. BUDGET SUMMARY 3 8?_. 7
Total FmJecd �t (from 23.F on page 4)
OrSaG416aa 's Total bUtcb (fTVm 23•g SLM) $ A '
Durham CoUaty 's Portiud of Project S �•`(.�. _M
(Tolat Fnjra Cast minas t ni=fiWs TotW i+htch.)
SIGMkTUIRE
t oer* that th,e intb an in dih gmt applic u m is =mrate to the bad of my k wlsdge.
GMMr GoW ter Randv Joneg
I* o= of Coat t Femn (print} Nas= Chien` iDlftciaS qxint}
Of
Zaato 5igh►r
.r
The Matching rants Pry r4m Would you like to gd involved with
V urh am's Open Spam&Trails
The matching Grpnis f'rograim assists Programsl THE
nonprofit organizations in Durhafn to
pm%erve open spare lands and promote The Open Space and Trails Commission MAT
��
he
new or improved re3vational op��por- always welcomes volunteers to assist I N CI '
tunities.T rogram is a costffetive with open spares a�tl trails projects. For
way for the County to+encoura and e3xam ply you could work to improve
���
suppor�tadditional open s pax9 bi 7m- Knmitle,
onditions with others on the
4 rid r+e+c lion,Through the p gram Bicycle or plan the locations of PROQRAM
the Count)r forms ar partnership with future trails on the Trails Committee.
Durham's many private a i
its n recrs*- Y o ur comm unity gro u p m i g ht like to
%tion and open space preservation. receive a prr�sentation on Durham's open
space snd trails progmms.Your accmmua
Matching Gran fs Fr .was de- ity group rn ight eyes errant to apply for a
veloped by the County in 1990.The first matcW ng grant to help with a long-
thre6 gears of the progr$m were funded envisioned open space and recmation
usi�. a portion of the 1986�,1.5 million project.
Durham County Park,and Recreation _
Bonds.Funds to continue the Matching
.jxants program are approved nn a year-
basis the Durham County Board of -
...0unty ommissioners.The Durham ;,' . •fir ` ' � 1 �.___
Dpea Space and Trails mmission �r:
manages the grants program,and makes `F:,.y :
recommendations for hooting. f �'
[projects futtded using a.Durham County �
,gatcMng Grant must be accessible to the �
+ r �
Fyblir,Grant applicants must provide a �
50150 match for dw project which may
�e provided tough a number of ways.
To obtain fudhtr inf+arnmtion on Durham's I urba m"s Open Space
open space and trails programs contact_ &Trai Is Program s
PUFbOffn
-S ObAcounty
I-0 i City Hail Plaza
ioa s of the Matching Qrants Completed Projects
P"rogt'mn
Organization Prop& Location
.'a preserve environmentally si"r-ant Parkwood Association,Inc- .Balo eld and rmd - -- — 5112 Revere Rd.
Res such as Durham's river corndorsl Parkwood Athletic Association AW tk ReW.irrrpmmmenis 451D1 S-AlstGn Ave,
nventory sites wetlands,farm Lands and P+earsantown Elementary SOoof PTA Playground Impromments 4915 Barbee Rd.
,ter areas whkh represent Durham's Val Aun Homeowners'Association New community iaygr,a�and 1423'�alley Run St.
�urall herita e. NC&mrmalty Land Tnrstaes mun Gar r, �833 Wilkerson Ave.
. Triangle Land Conservancy rvancy - -- His Mari coal land acquisition Leigh Farm Rd.
trays and rails- Club BN Elementary School PTA---T— ltaygrxnid trnpr�erbenis Club Blind.
�provide greenw�a�ej f EK Pow�e Elerne�latt,�Schrad PTA ---- Fatnc�sa trail 913 N"h St-
Holt lim es tau n pout Durham. Holt Elernenlary School PTA Playrgrownd'ImpTomments 4019 l-W School lei.
Forestriew Elernentm School FIA f play n d a i�ment and ntu,re slunk 3007 ML Sinai Rd.
"o support ttte pr+ovis[on of active recre Nancy Rhodes Gfeek�I`hood�A,ssociati on - L aaa uisihon and vafure trait RiverraGni Rd.
tion areas. LMk fiver Community Complex Retreat Reaeation Facilities U.S.501 North'
R_N-Hams Elementary School PTA Nature trail lEn Cco"r St,
b assist In the preservation and long Narthem JunicrAthlsticAssndaticn galtftld lights 1008 mil Roost Rd.
mrm groWctian of existmgmamas prevent West End Cammunit_ !&r New community playground1309 Jad=n St.
Ir used(or passive or active r+ecre4tion. EiDy Scout Troup 45 — - Trail irupr menO, Spruce Pine L�dgs
Open Space
+& Recreation. Application nigibility
AsSi Stan c e
The program operates on an ann"l cycle Eligible gmaps axe non-profit
with an application deadline in the organizations which seek W provide
sppringy.'t it#ii n three nr ont#ts j the Durham passive and active recreation
open Space and Trails Commission op�parturdfies or open space in Durham
e rec+ammend.s grant recipients to the Board County.
of County comnussmners for approval.
CountyPro jercfQ &to be funded have IS months to For a copy of the Latching Grants
be completed.Additional information Gn Program Guidelines and application or
rant requirements are provided in the for information contact:
. Matching Grant Program Guidelines.
. Afiacliing fiats Program Admtrnter
Comity 6f Dwft
MatChIng rants m �r rr� 200 East Main S e4 4th Floor
Durham,,NC 27701
sign rrtust be player at com,pkird Telephow 560-0062 r 7
Dur-ham Coinhit Matching Grants l jecl
Oroationa� Items
I�f rk Group
* 0
atl
ary 31 � 2002
Vision for park would satisfy many divergent needs ( l / 16/2002 , CHN) Page 1 of 3
i
i° J, t044 ^ It aq
iTOOL
, .
r "'1l1
4
- ITTy < w
Tf
TL
ch U11
N e. ". r 4
News
t
Home Classifieds News Sports Opinion Our Town
Arts ( Calendar Real Estate Apartments . com Search ( Contact Us
Vision for park would satisfy many divergent
needs
Committee proposes a 70 - acre Southern Community Park near Southern
Village with soccer fields , jogging trails , a dog park, a performance area
and open space .
By VIRGINIA KNAPP , Staff Writer
CHAPEL HILL - - After dropping their 3 . 2 children off at the roller hockey
court, children' s water park and soccer fields in the Southern Community Park
of the future , Mr . and Mrs . Chapel Hill of Tomorrow could then go jogging on
the nature trails down to the dog park with Rover .
At least, that' s the vision of how residents could use the Southern Community
Park planned for 70 acres of town- owned land straddling Dogwood Acres Drive
just south of Southern Village .
" We 've come up with a very different and exciting concept for Chapel Hill , "
said Pam Hemminger, chair of the committee that has worked on the concept
plan for the park since July 2000 .
The plan was presented to the Town Council on Monday and has been referred
to the Orange County Commissioners , Carrboro and town advisory boards
before it is to come back before the council in March .
Plans for the park, which is estimated to cost about $ 3 . 6 million, received a
mostly positive response from the council .
To keep 60 percent to 70 percent of the site as open space , the plan calls for
active recreation to be clustered just south of the park- and-ride lot at Southern
Village and Scroggs Elementary School , where there is also an existing soccer
field .
At two public forums held in September and October, equally vocal supporters
came out for two options : either preserving the whole park as open space or
http : //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/2002/01 / 16/newsOI . html 01 / 16/2002
Vision for park would satisfy many divergent needs ( 1 / 16/2002 , CHN) Page 2 of 3
building active recreation facilities , such as, soccer fields .
" The committee listened to all of those concerns , " Hemminger said . " We feel
like we came up with a good solution . "
The town mandated a minimum of two soccer fields on the site , which are
included, and the committee suggests leaving space for a possible youth- size
athletic field .
A town-mandated dog park and recycling center also are part of the park,
although on opposite ends . Near the recycling center are two basketball courts
and a lighted roller hockey court .
Just south of those facilities is space for a community center with an outdoor
pool, which is not included in cost estimates for the facility.
Beyond the community center is a bocce ball court and outdoor stage and
performance area with capacity for 50 to 100 spectators . Plans call for about
155 parking spaces located in three lots throughout the park .
On the other side of the possible community center would be a water park for
children that would include sprinklers and sprayers but no pools with standing
water . Beside the children' s water park would be the first of four picnic shelters ,
including one big enough for large- scale family reunions .
The soccer fields would be located in the center of the facility but away from
the homes along Dogwood Acres Drive , and two pedestrian crossings would
provide walking access to a youth baseball field and meadow south of
Dogwood Acres Drive .
Trails throughout the park would connect to the existing greenway that runs
il system could be shared by a disc golf through Southern Village, and the tra
course .
While council member Pat Evans questioned whether trail walkers and disc golf
players could peacefully co - exist in the future park, the most immediate conflict
in the process could come over funding and control of the park .
I,
Right now, funding for the park could include $ 895 , 000 from a countywide
park bond passed in 1997 and $2 million from the countywide park bond passed
last year .
The county has asked Chapel Hill and Carrboro to re- examine the policies of
who controls the parks and who pays for them , considering that the majority of
funds come from county bond referenda.
" The unanswered question at this point is what our relationship is going to be
with the county as we partner to construct parks and increase recreation
opportunities and what process we are going to agree upon for managing those , "
http $ //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/2002/01 / 16/newsOI . html 01 / 16/2002
Vision for park would satisfy many divergent needs ( 1 / 16/2002 , CHN) Page 3 of 3
council member Bill Strom said.
Virginia Knapp can be reached at 93M742 or at vknappCanando . com
[ Top Next Story > ]
Home Classifieds ( News Sports Opinion Our Town
Arts ( Calendar Real Estate Apartments . com ( Search Contact Us
http ,@ //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/2002/01 / 16/news0l . html 01 / 16/2002
r -
XN ,
• • 1 • 1 - - • - • 1
Alt a
m VON
dmo
z
s
•
1 / • . • /
400
• • Me Alm
Alt
• . � .
•
. i - / r ' • •
1 1 - • 1 / • r
i �M t OC I •Alt 1 - •
• / v v • 1 • • / -
. 1 - 1 1 - / r • / I - I 1
: / • 1 - / / 1 / 1 1 •
• - • • 1 - 1 / . . • •
1 / • I
• 1 • 1 1 • • 1 1 Air 1
1 1 / 1 • / 1 / / ' 1 • - • 1 1 1 1 1
/ i - • / AtAlt /
1 • 1 / • • / . - i / / •
/ • - 1 / - • • - / •
Sunday em
Janua7y 13, 2002 .
Also covering Hillsborough,
Carrboro , Orange County &
northern Chatham County �� � � door swimming pool.
Fax number: 9181055 Architects turned in a design
FROM PAGE 1 that concentrates much of the pro-
posed construction in an area close
$110 to the Southern Village park-and-
the Orange County Commission- ride lot and along U.S. 15-501*
ers have acquired separate park The plan is intended to give Dog-
sites north of Carrboro off wood Acres — an established
Eubanks Road and along New neighborhood that, unlike South-
, The third field wouldn't get built Hope Church Road near Interstate ern Village, was in place long
as part of an opening round of con- 40* before the town acquired the park
anel struction on the 70-acre site that The county also controls a $2 site — a significant amount of
would cost an estimated $3.6 mil- million "soccer superfund," shielding,
Hon. thanks to a November bond issue, The committee's pruning allows
Committee members pruned the that officials have said could officials to say the plan would pre-
r ' s third field as a concession to home- finance construction of between serve between 60 percent and 70
owners in nearby Dogwood Acres 15 and 20 fields somewhere in the percent of the site as open space,
and Southern Village who wanted county. "Many people equate parks to
much of the property left undevel- Chapel Hill planners figure lighted, irrigated and organized
oped, the county will concentrate athletic fields, but there is I think
ans "We would be fairly open to crib many of them on one of the a real need for ' parks' in our park
cism if we did not respond in any recently acquired park sites and system ," Madry said. "There has
i way to what we are hearing," said concede that their own planning been a good attempt at balancing
Scott Madry, a committee member is proceeding on that assump- the needs of organized athletics
for ar who lives a mile or so away from the tion. with the desire for natural
park site on Morgan Creek Road. "If they follow through and build areas. "
But the committee's move is cer- them in a timely manner, I don't Council members are unlikely to
tain to force the Town Council to think we really need to build those spend much time poring over the
$outhe7`n Community grapple with two weighty issues, [extra] fields at Southern," said plan Monday night, as the only
Park has only 2,feell-sized including one that concerns a mat- Bill Webster, the administrative thing administrators are asking
ter of political trust. analyst for Chapel Hill's parks them to do is send it to six adviso-
soCCer fle16 in blueprint Both rise out of the claim — department. "But it's an if. If they ry boards for review and com-
voiced originally by Councilman don't, then I think we're going to ment.
in a Concesszon to C7"itics Bill Strom — that fiscal and other be in trouble." But even members with close
pressures often lead the town to Webster added that there's ties to county officials agree that
By RAY GRONBERG "underbuild" new facilities like more demand for soccer fields the question of whether two fields
gronberg0herald-sun.com; 9184032 parks, to the point of shortchanging than the town could accommo- are enough — and whether the
the community's long-term needs. date, even if the initial interest town can rely on the county to
CHAPEL HILL — Planners have Southern Community Park and its m placing three or four at South- make up the difference if they
scaled back the number of soccer soccer fields could test that asser- ern Community Park had sur- aren 't — is likely to figure heavily
fields they suggest building at what tion because officials assumed vived the planning committee's in a debate set to last into the
most agree is likely to become going into the year-and-a-half plan- debate. spring.
Chapel Hill's last big park. nmg effort that they might need to Even without a third soccer "That's a great question that
Southern Community Park would build up to four fields there to field, Southern Community Park none of us can answer until we
contain two full-size soccer fields if accommodate future demand. would not lack for facilities. have a better sense of what the
the Town Council ends up adopting a They and committee members The committee's plan calls for a commissioners are going to be
proposal from the citizens commit- believed they were able to scale first phase of construction that doing with their active recreation
tee it appointed to draft an initial back that number because Orange also would include a youth base- planning and budget," Strom said
blueprint for the facility. County's government has signaled a ball field, a dog park, a picnic shel- when asked whether the commit"
An earlier draft of the Southern desire to get into the parks business ter, a flying disc golf course, a tee's draft risks another case of
Park plan called for three fields, but in a big way. roller hockey court and a basket- underbuilding. "It would be irre-
the only remnant of that idea which Two big land buys approved by ball court. sponsible for us to. make firm
will reach the council Monday night ® It also reserves space — but not decisions until we are comfort"
calls for reserving space for a third please see PARK/PAGE 7 money — for a community center able that we understand the larger
field suitable only for practice or that perhaps would include an out- picture. "
youth league play.
"We would be fairly
o pen, to c��iticisrn if zee
did not respond in
any way to what we
are hearing. "
Scott Madry
member, citizens committee
'labs
-lase
Section
+I e
10 1 Obituaries Page 5
Monday, January 14 , 2002 State news Page 2
Classifieds Page 3
Mebane wants par mone y
I
Funds would $ 147 ,000 to pay for improve- when you have $20 million, There ' s no shortage of
ments at the park, located on $ 147 ,000 is a very small piece project requests for the Location of Lake Michael
improve facilities the Orange County side of of that pie, " Orange County commis -
at Lake Michael town off Lebanon Road , Orange County voters sioners to sort through . So ;
Mebane ' s request came late approved a $75 million bond when a decision on
119
in the game , but it will be con- issue in a referendum last Mebane ' s project will be �o
By Brent Lancaster sidered for funding by the November for schools , senior made is unclear.
Times"News Orange County Board of facilities and parks. The pack- A citizen task force Me ban
Commissioners . Ken Chav- age should raise the local waded through a list bf $ 150 A AMANCE
MEBANE — Mebane offs- ious , the county ' s finance property tax rate by 5 to 7 in worth of projects COUNTY % ORANGE
cials want some of the fruits of director, thinks the and weeded the list down j 119 couNrY
project cents by the time all the bonds to $75 million before the 3
a bond issue in Orange County has a good chance . are sold . bond
to fund improvements at Lake " Lake Michael , I think, is Of that $75 million, $20 mil- Proposal was put
Michael park. popular with our county com- lion has been earmarked for before voters .
Mebane has asked for missioners , " he said . "And parks and recreation projects. See PARK/Page C2 Times-New
I
Park : L ake is secondarywater source
Continued from Page C1 trails. The park is open from improvements , have been dis-
mid-March through late cussed by city leaders for the
The 200- acre Mebane park November last couple of years .
offers paddleboats and large Plans for improvements at The 60- acre lake is a see-
the park, including an outdoor ondary water source for
pontoon boats , sand volley- amphitheater, a disc golf Mebane , though it is rarely
ball , fishing and walking course and playground used for that purpose. j_