Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-13-2004-5pORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. ~-p SUBJECT: Re-Establishment of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group DEPARTMENT: ERCD, R&P PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT 1) Resolution 2) Draft IPWG Report INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 245-2590 Lori Taft, 245-26.60 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the three years of activity by the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IPWG), and consider a resolution proposing to re-establish the Work Group. BACKGROUND: The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group was created in the spring of 2000 by the elected boards of Qrange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, The concept of an inter-jurisdictional committee bringing together representatives of elected boards, advisory boards and other conservation and parks groups sprang from the May 1999 .Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group, which included formation of this group as one of its recommendations. The concept of the IPWG was to bring together elected officials, advisory board members and staffs from County jurisdictions, as well as representative from the schools, QWASA and other parties with an interest in parks. The purpose of the IPWG, as outlined in the charge to the group, was: 1. To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County 2. To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 3, To foster communication between the municipalities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures 4. To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction 2 5, To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6, To develop parameters for parks standards (leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7, To develop and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues (coordinated brochures, etc.) The initial meeting of the IPWG was held on December 7, 2000, fallowing appointments by all Town and County elected boards and both school boards, During 2001, 2002 and 2003, the IPWG met three and usually four times per yeas. A wide variety of topic discussion and information-sharing took place during this timeframe, including: 1, Planning for the November 2001 County Parks and Open Space Bond 2, Creation of a brochure about all parks and recreation opportunities in the County (currently being completed) 3. Review of Parkland Acquisitions and Opportunities (such as the County's Lands Legacy Program acquisitions) 4, Review and Comment on New Projects Underway (such as Southern Park, CHATPEC, Little River Park and the Homestead Aquatic Center) 5, Study of New Opportunities (including greenways opportunities and basic operating principles far parks, among others), and 6. Items Referred to the IPWG by Elected Boards (including the review of OWASA- owned land far park purposes and the draft Joint Parks Planning Process and Policy) On .June 30, 2003, the three-year initial term of the IPWG expired. The resolution adapted by all elected boards in 2000 called for an evaluation of the project after three years, The attached report provides this analysis, as well as thoughts by IPWG members on the successes and challenges of the initiative, and ideas an re-establishing the Work Group, The only substantive change proposed is to add a fourth meeting each year (up from three) to put the group on a quarterly schedule, A resolution is attached that would re-establish the Work Group, If the Board wishes to propose renewal of the IPWG, with changes as deemed necessary, staff would forward this report and resolution to the other elected boards and ask them to also re-establish the work group. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and adopt the report and resolution, with changes as needed, to re-establish the IP Work Group, Staff would then convey the resolution and report to the Towns for authorization from the elected boards of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution To Re-Establish the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group WHEREAS, the .Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report of 1999, adopted by the elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Carrboro, called for the creation of an inter-jurisdictional parks committee, and WHEREAS, the elected boards duly created the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (II'WG) in 2000 for a three year initial duration, to promote communication between ,jurisdictions and allow for the sharing of ideas and opportunities for joint projects and initiatives, and WHEREAS, during the three years of the Work Group (which included representatives from a broad cross-section of elected and advisory boards, school boards, and other interested parties), a number of successes were achieved by the communication and collaborations fostered through this mechanism, as outlined in the Intergoverrunental Parks Work Group report of April 2004; and WHEREAS, Work Group members surveyed in the report noted the importance of the IPWG forum for communicating on parks projects, development of brochures and others needs, and WHEREAS, re-establishment of the Work Group is expected to continue to promote opportunities for coordination between all stakeholders and interested parties within the County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners proposes that the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group be re-established to continue to foster communication and collaboration in parks efforts, with the same charge and membership as in the resolution of establislmient adopted May 3, 2000, with one addition to allow for a fourth quarterly meeting each year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board commends this resolution to the elected boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and asks that they adopt like resolutions to re-establish the Work Group in time for a meeting in fall 2004.. This the 13°' day of April, 2004 Barry.lacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Donna M. Baker, Clerk to the Board Intergovernmental Parks Work Group April 13, 2004 5 Introduction and Backeround The Intergovernmental Parlcs Work Group was created in the spring of 2000. The concept of an inter-jurisdictional conunittee bringing together representatives of elected boards, advisory boards and other conservation and parks groups sprang from the May 1999 .Ioint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group, which included as one of its recommendations the following: A. Create nn Lrtergovernmenta(Pnrks {Nark Crorrp (IP {Vork Crorrp) In developing plans for long-term recreation mtd parks planning, there roil! be a need for a peruumerr[ joint hnergoverruuental Parks Work Group (IP Work CrarrpJ For example, this /P Work Grmrp might inchrde one elected official and one citizen fironr ench jurisdiction's parks advisory board, along with representatives from the school systems, UNC, O6VASA, Duke and others. The /P {fork Group could meet three times per,yem' over the nest three yews, to address follow-up concern-s in the areas discussed in this repor! The opportunity iu the MRP Work Group to bring all of the dijjer ent local governments to the table 1«as been rrsefid mrrl it formative, and the MRP Work Group feels drat dds momenhan cold be continued tln'o«gh n long-terur mechanism. While the actual duties of the /niwgovernrneutn/Porks Work Group would need to be determined, some m ear oJY espmrribility might include / To gather, exchmrge nnrl share it formation ou parks planning and development irr the nnmicipalities and Comrt}, 2 To maintain and update the Lrventmy of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed rr part of the .loin[ Master Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 3 To jolter canununicatimr beriveeu the nnmicipalitre and Covnq, on (rrhn'e opportratities and collaborative venno es 4 To provide a cam'dinnting mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in ench jurisdiction 5 To review and it form the numicipnlities and County cmrcerning parks needs mrd po[errtin/ opportunities G To develop parameters fm' pm'ks standards (leaving Jlesibility for [he actual standards to vary from jro'isdictim: to jurisdiction within these parameters') 7 To develop and coordinate public edrrcntimr mrd public oun'each mr parks issues (coordinated brachm e-r, etcJ The creatimr of this IP Work Group is a critical conrpm:ent of fiarne coordination. By its Hoarse, the IP Work Crronp -sbardd share information with the Sdrools/Land Use Corurcils mt the potentiallm school/park co-locattmr This report cantairrs criteria and details that build mr the ideas of the Sclroo!/Lmrd Ure Memm'and«nr of Agreement A resolution asking the locnlgovernments to create dre Lrtergovernmenut! Parks Work Group in time fm- mt initial meeting in fall of 2000 is attached as Appendix L As a result of this recommendation, the elected boards of the County agreed to create the work group and a resolution creating the II' Work Group (IPWG) was approved. The resolution maybe found as Attachment 1. The initial meeting of the IPWG was held on December 7, 2000, following appointments by all Town and County elected boards and both school boards. ~~ Membership and Charge The IPWG's charge is almost identical to that proposed in the .IMRP report recommendations listed above: Charge To build on the momentum of the .Joint Mnster Recreatiar mrd Pm'ks' Work Group process by nccomplishing the follorving / To gad~er, exchange and share it formation on pm'kr planing and deve/opmertt in die nrvnicipalities mrd Comity 2 To mnintain and update the hrventory oJParks mrd Recreation Facilities developer) ns pm't of the Join) Mnster Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 3 To foster cmnnunricntion behveen the municipalities mrd County on firnue opporharities mrd collaborative venuues' 4. To provide n coordinating mechmrism jar updates' to parks and recreation plnrrs in each jvrirdictimr 5 To review and it form dre rnmicipnlitie-r and Comrty concerniag parks needs and potential opporfnnities ( To develop parameters, for parks stmrdnrdr (leavingJlecibility jor dre ncuml stnndnrdr to vnrl~ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7 To develop nnrl coordinate public education mrd public ouu'euch on parks issuer (coordinated brochures, etc) The Work Group included 17 members, appointed as follows: • Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council • Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission or Greenways Commission • Carrboro Parks and Recreation Board • Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Board • OWASA Board of Directors • University of Nordr Carolina • Duke Forest Resource Manager • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • Orange County Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • Otange County Board of Commissioners (or designee of Board) • Carrboro Board of Aldermen (or designee of Board) • Chapel Hill Town Council (or designee of Board) • Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (or designee of IIoard) • Mebane City Council (or designee of Board) • Orange County Commission for the Environment • Triangle Land Conservancy • Eno River Association Staff for the Work Group included representatives from all ,jurisdictions. Orange County assumed the coordinating role for agendas and administrative support. When the IPWG was appointed, the group was created with a term of three years, ending June .30, 200.3. Throughout its existence, members appointed from the above organizations have attended three Work Group meetings per year (February, May and October). In each year, continuation of a meeting led to a fourth meeting being held. Activities and Accomplishments of the IPWG During its three-year tenure, the IPWG has been involved in a number of issues, ranging from reporting to elected boards about collaborative park opportunities, preparing studies of parks and recreation issues, and responding to matters referred to the Work Group by the elected boards. The listing that follows is a brief overview of some -but not all - of these subjects: Planning for the November 2001 County Parks and Open Space Bond • Identifying Projects for the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force • Updating Inventory of Park Facilities for Bond Consideration Review of Parkland Acquisitions and Opportunities • Receiving reports on new lands acquired by the County's Lands Leagcy Program, and providing ideas for new acquisitions Review and Comment on New Projects Underway • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area -Concept Plan • Southern Pazk Conceptual Plan • Homestead Park Aquatics Center • Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus (CHATPEC) • Historic Occoneechee Speedway (Ayr Mount) Trail Study of New Opportunities • Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Parks • Guiding Principles for Coordinated Parlcs Standards • Greenways Coordination • Basic Operating Principles for Parks Items Referred to the IPWG by Elected Boards • Potential Use of OWASA Lands for Park Purposes (report 2002) • Toint Parks Planning Process and Policy (this was the subject of much deliberation and resulted in a draft policy sent to the elected boards in early 2002) • Southern Park Conceptual Plan • Friends of Bolin Creek • Morgan Creek Valley Alliance • Creation of a Countywide Pazks Brochure/Nlap (currently underway) In addition, at each meeting a roundtable discussion was held to solicit new information and opportunities, as well as receive reports from each of the Recreation and Parlcs Directors on new programs and facility upgrades. U Future of the IP Work Group As of Tune 30, the tluee-yeaz timeframe set out for the Work Group expired. As the Work Group was created by the elected boards in 1999-2000, an interest was expressed in re- evaluating the Work Group after the tluee-year period concluded. To evaluate the tlaee-year activities and process, a poll of active Work Group members was solicited -asking members what they perceived as successes and challenges of the Work Group setup and meeting format. Successes that were mentioned included: • The opportunity for sharing information about new projects and possible joint ventures (two members noted that, in their opinion, this fimction was in itself sufficient to justify existence of the Work Group) • Furthering the dialogue between schools, OWASA and local governments about mutual needs and interests • Keeping an up-to-date inventory of all parks and recreation facilities • Helping communicate and provide feedback on Town and County bonds for parks and open space • Simple networking anrong persons with similar interests • Regular updates from the Parks Directors found very useful Challenges that were noted by Work Group members included: • Three meetings a year (February, May and October) sometimes made continuity and consistency difficult • Meeting stazt time (5:15) made it difficult for those with 7:30 meetings • Large group (23 members) and limited timeframe (5:30-7:15) made it difficult to get all members present at same time • Need for more concrete, meaningful duties in the group's charge In general, Work Group members who responded were positive about the three-year effort of the Work Group, and pointed to efforts like the study of OWASA lands and the work toward a joint County/Town pazk planning process as successes, No member indicated interest in dissolving the group pernianently. I Conclusion The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, in its first three years of existence, participated in a number of projects and offered advice and input on topics of significance, including the details on how the Towns and County might work together on ,joint projects. While the scope of activity of the Work Group did not include advocating for certain projects or taking a lead role in proposing capital funding, the IPWG's most valuable role may have been the most basic of all -the ability for all involved parties to come together on a regular basis to share information and discuss opportunities. As noted by some of the Work Group members, this function in itself is very important and cannot be overstated. In addition, the feedback on parks and greenways processes and the creation of a brochure and updated inventories are accomplishments the Work Group can point to, One possible change that might enhance the Work Group's effectiveness is the addition of a fourth meeting per year (to make it a quarterly body). In some cases, work required a fourth special meeting to be called, and when there was a long gap between meetings some members expressed concern that momentum and shared understanding were lost..