Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-2002-10b 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. I �, SUBJECT: Planning Process for Joint County/Town Open Space Projects — IP Work Group Update DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) 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 Group regarding a recommendation on a policy for planning joint parks and open space 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 IP 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 2/27102 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 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. 4 A7071:A70 C;.IL:3NG' S HEIR MADS: TO THIS DI1,4.f`:I'.• T YlE I{'l;'.I31;'t1_•1RY?f 11017K PEWDING St .B('O:,11 i11'L'.'l'E`I ,II.L;hli7lI:'!'G:1ND AI—t'L'OC'AL IN APRIL ' LlR::1..1±T 2/`0/02 IP Work Group Recommendation Planning Process for Joint County/Town Parks and Open 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 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) 5 N0:17:: '0 t:;I1:1.:�'Cr �S" ��'f.rt14:�1:1.r1.f< 'r'f1 I'.I�15"1�.1�,1.I"'I'.trl„1'I:f�'7?Z.r:>7i'I;'_1.r��'j?Ci'�JI�1 71�tJ(:I'. 1t.I;:r'.I 'C . 1'f.A1'1)1:,'�'t SYZ,'I�f;C):t1�T7'r"I'r"I DRAFT 2/20/02 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 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: 6 NOTE.-.`%-70 C11AI1'GES TFEI.RE MADE 710 711118 DRAF.TAT TILE Fk,113RUARY ' 7 i'VORK GROUPAH,,ETIA"G. PEWDING JUISETING AlVD.A.Pf)BOVAL IN APRIL DRAFT 2/20/02 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.Lb 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 A`0 C;.H.,U\-'GES F'E%LIiFM:t.T).,t; 710 TIII;S'DIAH'AT1%E F ,I1I:A Y-9 Rc}R.fs 7 GROUP:VEETMG. PI,.N7)IA't Z,.lITTTI NGAN1)AI?IT,Ot•AL I APRIL DRAFT 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? NO C,.I-LA- -"G'ES VVE7121 AL-IDE TO 711-17S D.17-41Y AT TIT I'E.I3Ii'.d,':1.I Y 7 i-t"GIt'K GII?CII;I':t11'.I::I'.1:: 't . P A'Z)1:11'( zS UBC OMAIf'I''111 E 1IEEfl'iN(x A.Nl).A.Pl-'?.01:I L.lN A.PR.IL DRAFT 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) 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) 9 NOTE-.-NO t";.I3A.I.VGIsS W f1RE JIL-I E TO 711-IIS Z:7.R..A.P.`Z'A.'1"II:IE FE7.BRI.;:'A-1?Y 7 CIV0.11" (r.It{)1 .P:11EC;:I'TNG. PZ;A'I)ING AND:-I..I.>1a]'?0y1"".4l..I:2/20/02 APRIL t' 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 Duration*# Project Total Cost Status / Expected (Town portion) Town of Carrboro # Project Total Cost Status / Expected Duration*(Town portion) Town of Hillsborough 1. Fairview Park