Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2000-9dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 17, 2000 Action Agen a Item No. SUBJECT: Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report DEPARTMENT: ERCD /Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): BOCC Open Space Task Force report (includes one Resolution) MRP Work Group Report (separate cover) MRP Executive Summary Schedule of Review /Comments from Other Boards Resolution -Open Facilities Policy INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 245-2590 Bob Jones, 245-2661 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider comments received on the Joint Master Recreation and Parks (MRP) Work Group report, and a report from the BOCC Open Space Task Force along with two resolutions. BACKGROUND: On May 26, 1999, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group completed its report. The Work Group was comprised of one elected official from each jurisdiction and school board, along with representatives from Duke University, UNC, OWASA and the town and County recreation advisory boards. This report served as a follow-up effort to the 1996 and 1997 inter jurisdictional :reports on recreation and parks issues in the County. The Work Group's charge also included exploring ways to develop a joint long-range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and (later) Hillsborough. The Work Group report was received by the Board on June 21, 1999, and referred to the Town and County advisory boards, followed by review and comment from the Town elected boards. A schedule of review, along with a summary of board comments, is attached. There are nine recommendations in the Work Group report. The nine recommendations include: A. Create an Inter-Jurisidictional °Parks Council" B. Ask the new Parks Council to develop standards parameters for parks and recreation services C. Continue to make co-locating schools and park sites a priority D. Pursue public-private partnerships to provide facilities and services (such as with OWASA, UNC and Duke) E. Coordinate land acquisition through County Lands Legacy program and synchronize jurisdiction's capital improvement plans (CIP's) F. Adopt an -Open Facilities Policy G. Keep existing payments-in-lieu of recreation programs but explore other options H. Address existing parkland deficit (645 acres now, 1265 acres by 2025) I. Begin proactive land banking, ,using the current $3 million parkland bond, and plan fora new parks/open space bond of $8 million or more. With consideration of the Chapel Hill Town Council completed on April 10, all of the advisory and elected boards have considered the report. The Town of Carrboro has adopted the Open Facilities Policy resolution (attached), and has proposed ways to address the resolution that could create the Inter-Jurisdictional "Parks Council". The Town of Hillsborough did not take any action at their review, but is scheduled to consider both resolutions in the near future. The Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the Open Facilities Policy and agreed to recommendations C, D, E, F and I above. The Council also indicated agreement with the concept of a Parks work group, calling for further discussion of the concept and asking that equity issues raised in their staff report be reviewed. The BOCC Open Space Task Force met on April 4 and April 11 to discuss the Parks Council and other. issues raised during the review of the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report, and has prepared a report to address these concerns. The report includes an alternate resolution to reconfigure the Parks Council into an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, and revises the MRP report recommendations accordingly (please see attached). Please note that the Executive Summary of the MRP report included with this agenda has not been revised in this fashion. Prior to consideration of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report, the Board has taken several actions relevant to parks planning, including adoption of parkland criteria and the Lands Legacy program. A Memorandum of Agreement has also been developed by the Schools and Land Use Councils regarding co-location of facilities. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no rfinancial impact associated with the report or the two immediate resolutions for action. A proactive land-banking program through the Lands Legacy Program would involve use of the exiting parkland bond money and other funding sources to be identified (possibly including the school/Park Reserve and the Recreation Payment-in-Lieu funds). ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the Open Facilities Policy resolution and the report of the BOCC Open Space Task Force, including: 1. The resolution for forming an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group,. end 2. The revised MRP report recommendations consistent with this resolution. Consistent with the Open Space Task Force report, the Manager would propose to convene a meeting with the other managers to further facilitate the process of resolving issues raised by the Towns on capital funding and other issues. Finally, the Manager recommends that the Board consider placing unresolved issues on the October 30, 2000 Assembly of Governments meeting. At this meeting, the Managers' would report on the planning and funding issues, including coordinated capital funding through synchronized CIP's and a proactive approach to future (FY 2001-2002 and beyond) parks land- banking through the Lands Legacy program. 3 Memorandum To: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager From: Open Space Task Force (Margaret Brown and Alice Gordon) Date: April 13, 2000 Re: Report on Joint Master Recreation and Parks Report Issues On April 4 and April 11, the Open Space Task Force met with ERCD Director David Stancil, Planning Director Craig Benedict and Recreation and Parks Director Bob Jones. The Task Force has developed two products for the Board's consideration. First, an alternative resolution for a proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to address the proposed Parks Council and issues raised about the charge of that group. Second, based on this concept, a revised set of recommendations from the report (consistent with these changes) is provided for the Board's consideration. The resolution and revised recommendations are attached. P/ease note that the Executive Summary of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report has not been updated in accordance with the revised recommendations attached. In reviewing the resolution and revised recommendations, we would note the following: • The Board has taken several, relevant actions related to the findings of this report, including adoption end use of the parkland criteria (as amended) and adoption of the Lands Legacy program -both of which provide a vehicle for parkland acquisitions. • The Schools and Land Use Councils have also developed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the co-location of facilities. • It should be noted that no attempt has been made to comb back through the report to make the revised recommendations consistent with previous text. To the extent that the report text differs from the revised recommendations, the revised recommendations (attached) are intended to control. Based on the discussion from the Town Boards, the BOCC Open Space Task Force recommends that, if the Board approves of this approach, the resolution and revised recommendations be sent back to the Town boards for their consideration, and that contact be made with the City of Mebane to ascertain their interest in participating. 4 A Resolution Regarding the Establishment of an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) WHEREAS, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks -Work Group effort brought together representatives of the Towns, County, school boards, OWASA, Duke and the University of North Carolina to develop a report on, the future of parks planning in the County; and WHEREAS, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group completed its task on schedule and fostered a spirit of communication and collaboration that the Board of Commissioners desires to maintain; and WHEREAS, the future of parks planning and development in the County will be facilitated by information exchange and coordination among the aforementioned parties; and WHEREAS, a group created in the the spirit and nature of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group could foster these goals: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners- proposes that an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group be created to address important issues arising from the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report. This Intergovernmental Parks Work Group would serve in lieu of the proposed Parks Council, with the following charge: To build on the momentum of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group process by accomplishing the following: 1. To gather, exchange and skate information on parks planning and deve%pment in the municipalities and County 2. To maintain and update the 1~iventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities deve%ped 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 5. To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6. To deve%p parameters for parks standards (leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7. To deve%p and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues (coordinated brochures, etc) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED .that the administrative, tenure and membership components of the Work Group be addressed as provided in Attachment A, "Proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group," and that this .resolution be 5 forwarded to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council, Hillsborough Board of Commissioners and Mebane City Council, for their consideration. This, the 17th day of April, 2000. - Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Mayor, Town of Carrboro ATTEST: Carrboro Town Clerk Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill ATTEST: Chapel Hill Town~Clerk r. ~; Mayor, Town of Hillsborough ATTEST: Hillsborough Town Clerk Mayor, City of Mebane ATTEST: Mebane City Clerk 6 Attachment A Proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) Membership The proposed Work Group would consist of 16 members: • One member and one alternate -Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council • One member and one alternate -Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission or Greenways Commission • One member and one alternate -Carrboro Parks and Recreation Board • One member and one alternate -Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Board • One member - OWASA Board of Directors ' • One member -University of North Carolina • One member -Duke Forest Resource Manager • One member -Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • One member -Orange County Schools Board of Education (or designee of Board) • One member -Orange County Board of Commissioners (or designee of Board) • One member -Carrboro Board of Aldermen (or designee of Board) • .One member -Chapel Hill Town Council (or designee of Board) • One member -Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (or designee of Board) • One member -Mebane City Council (or designee of Board) • One member -Triangle Land Conservancy • One member -Eno River Association Advisory board and elected representatives from each jurisdiction would be appointed- by the elected board of that jurisdiction. ~. Meeti s The Work Group would meet`three times per year (fall, winter and spring) Tenure The Work Group will work for three years (July 2000-June 2003), providing yearly reports and a final report in June 2003. If desired after three years, the participating parties may make it a permanent, standing group. Char e To build on the momentum of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group process by accomplishing the following: 1. To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County. 7 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 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) Nature of Work Group and Staffing Arrangements The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group would be truly inter jurisdictional, providing information to all elected boards on the areas listed above. It would not be a formal advisory board of any jurisdiction. Staffing for the Task Force would be of a joint nature, including: the Parks and Recreation Directors from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Mebane and Orange County the Environment and Resource Conservation- Director from Orange County. The Environment and Resource Conservation Director will be responsible for administration, agenda preparation and meeting coordination -working with the Parks and Recreation Directors` ,~ "~ 8 Proposed changes from BOCC Open Spade Task Forre shown in bo/d italic From the joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report VII. RECOMM:EI\IDATIONS One of the important results of this report will be the laying of groundwork for future matching funds and grant programs -- many of which require a set of goals, objectives- and, criteria. As Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough develop, the nature of future park and recreation provision will likely include cooperative ventures among the local governments and partnerships with organizations such as the school systems, OWASA, UNC and Duke. Planning for this eventuality should begin now, to ensure that valuable opportunities are not lost. These concepts were in fact, the reason for this efFort, as described in the Assembly of Governments and Manager's reports from 1996/1997., In its deliberations, the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group (MRP Work Group) has developed recommendations in nine key areas: A. Create an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IP Work Group) In developing plans for long-term recreation and parks. planning, there will be a need for a permanent joint Intergovernmental-Parks Work Group (IP Work Group). For example, this IP Work Group might include one elected official and one'citizen from each jurisdiction's parks advisory board, along with representatives from the school systems, UNC, OWASA, Duke and others. The IP Work Group could meet three timies per year over the next three years, to address follow,~~ concerns in the areas discussed in this report. The opportunity in the MRP Work Group to bring all of the different local governments to the table has been useful and informative, and the MRP Work Group feels that this momentum could be continued through along-term mechanism. While the actual duties of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group would need to be determined, some areas of responsibility might include: 1, To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and deve%pment in the municipa/ides and County. 2. To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities deve%ped as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report, including new properties acquired or dedicated 9 3. To foster communication between the municipa/ities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures 4. To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction 5. To review and inform the municipa/ities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities 6. To deve%p parameters for parks standards (leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters) 7. To deve%p and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues (coordinated brochures, etc) The creation of this IP Work Group is a critical component of future coordination. By its nature, the IP Work Group should share information with the Schools/Land Use Councils on the potential for for school/park co-location. This report contains criteria and details that build on the ideas of the School/Land Use Memorandum of Agreement. A resolution asking the local governments to create the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group in time for an initial meeting in fall of 2000 is attached as Appendix L. B. Inter-jurisdictional Efforts To Standardize Parks and Recreation Requirements Currently, the municipalities and County have a number of different standards that are used to determine parks and recreation needs. While recognizing the distinctions between urban and rural-°~needs and facilities, it does appear that coordination of the different approaches would provide a number of advantages. In particular, if the local governments pursue joint capital funding, land acquisition, and other combined functit~ns, the need for a consistent countywide set of standards will be paramount. Therefore, it is recommended that the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group address, among their first duties, a coordinated set of recommended parameters, within which each jurisdiction would have standards for parks and recreation. C. joint Siting, Design, and Management of School and Park Sites across Jurisdictions The Schools and Land Use Councils have opened an important door in the co-location of schools and parks. With an avenue for input into the design and planning stages, the local governments and schools will be able to a. o provide for a number of parks and recreation needs. Concerns about management of these facilities should be resolvable, with the Schools and Land Use Councils providing an important role in consensus-building. As mentioned above, sharing ofinformation between the Intergovenmenta/.Parks Work Group and the Schools/Land Use Councils will be paramount. As further research is developed on the specifics of a program for school/park acquisition, the MRP Work Group suggests that Orange County, with its role in school site .acquisition and program/staff resources for land acquisition may best play a coordinating role in future land acquisitions for both purposes. D. Public/Private Partnerships As mentioned above, one of the most exciting prospects for the future of recreation and parks provision in Orange County is that of public/private partnerships. Coordination with OWASA and UNC in locating future parks and facilities seems feasible, and the Work Group recommends that the local governments £ee~i/~ work to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to explore these possibilities. In particular, the identified need for a large district park between Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Hillsborough might be a venture that all parties would have a stake in. Additionally, partnerships with other entities may take on different roles. Coordination with Duke University is also recommended, although it is recognized that Duke Forest is of a different nature. Duke Forest plays an important role. in the open space network of the County, and future discussion of that-role as links in a corridor or trail system will be critical. Finally, the potential for coordination with Triangle Land Conservancy, the State of North Carolina, the Eno River Association and private firms appears to exist acid should be encouraged where practical. E. joint Capital Facilities Plan /Coordinated Land Identification, Acquisition and Banking If the local governments in Orange County are to be successful in providing for the long-term needs of County and municipa/residents, it is clear that joint capital funding, and land-banking efforts need to be addressed, and should be addressed as quickly as possible. A meeting, of Manage should be called to develop a plan for coordination. It is clear that land prices will continue to escalate. Potential larger park areas inside the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area are quite limited, which will require planning for future joint district parks in the County. This, plus the 11 inability to accumulate sufficient funds individually, leads to a strong recommendation that Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough develop a plan to coordinate funding sources in future years. It is recommended that the aforementioned meeting of Managers,~a#s from the jurisdictions occur as soon as possible. Use of the different Capital Improvement Programs (CIP's) could be a fundamental part of this mechanism. As previously-mentioned, Orange County's Lands Legacy program for land acquisition might allow the County to take a lead role in coordinating future acquisitions, most of which will likely be located outside of Town corporate limits. F. Open Facilities Policy In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the MRP Work Group believes that citizens of the municipa/ides and County should have the opportunity to use facilities developed by all of the local governments and OWASA. Attempting to limit use of facilities solely to residents on a single jurisdiction is likely to be cumbersome administratively and not constructive generally. The MRP Work Group recommends that Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and OWASA adopt the ~~Open Facilities Policy" resolution found in Appendix I. This policy will provide that all recreation facilities owned and operated by the parties are open and accessible to all County residents. To a different degree, a policy regarding use of local government facilities by UNC students end of UNC facilities by local citizens should be investigated with tie University. A particular possibility is the UNC Outdoor Education'Center, and cooperative ventures for this facility should be pursued:3now. .t Additionally, coordination with OWASA on recreational hours at the lake facilities is another venue for partnership, and the MRP Work Group recommends that OWASA review hours of operation as suggested by the Carrboro Board.. The local governments within which Duke Forest falls should also cooperate with Duke in the future to develop appropriate mutual guidelines in this area. G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes The payment in lieu system is used by Orange County and Carrboro as a source of funds for recreation lands and facilities. However, because of its limitations (both geographic and financial), payment-in-lieu programs~are unlikely to produce sufficient funds to meet long-term recreation needs. A 12 process is needed to use existing funds, modify the current program to make it more practical, and develop new sources of revenue for recreation land and facilities. The MRP Work Group recommends that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans to match payment-in-lieu dollars to date with parks bonds and other funding sources. With a method of pooling payment-in-lieu across jurisdictions currently unworkable, it is recommended that the current system of payments=in-lieu be kept. In Orange County's case, the County should explore modifications to the system to provide fora more- appropriate calculation of payment based on the developed property valuation. Finally, the future Intergovernmenta/Parks Work Group should explore the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax, along the lines of existing legislation. If found prudent, a recommended impact fee/ tax program for recreation should be developed and forwarded to the local governments in Orange County for action. H. Address Existing Needs Currently, countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of types of parks (e.g. regional, community, neighborhood, etc). While additional work is needed in developing standards, it is possible to envision an overview of park needs based on population standards. Po ulation in 2000 estimated .112 000 Total Parkland Needs ~~ 2,030 acres Current Parkland Acres i 3tf5 acres Parkland Deficit/Surplus ~ -645 acres ';~ . x ;~ Po ulation in 2025 lna uuu Total Parkland Needs 3 100 acres Parkland Acres 1 835 acres Parkland Deficit/Surplus __ -1,265 acres The combined projected population for all of Orange County in the year 2025 is 168,000. This total county-population was used to assess the level of adequacy for future years. Based on this, in the year 2000, Orange County will need a total of 2030 acres of park recreation land in order to meet national adequacy standards. With current park facilities (including projected acquisitions in the next year), a deficit of 645 acres will exist in 2000. In 2025, the County will need 3100 acres with a current projected deficit of 1265 acres. Details on how these projections were 13 generated may be found in Appendix J. Based on the projected future need for 1,265 new acres of parkland, the MRP Work Group has determined that the can-ent critical need is to begin long-term land acquisition ("land banking'. This concept is similar to any kind of bank - it essentially establishes a "savings account" of land. Once the savings account has been fully funded, land can be withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation needs. Based on the most commonly accepted standards, the county/municipa/itieswill need the following new parks just to meet current deficits: * -The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage needs, but the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hi//, one in Carrboro and one at Etland-Cheeks) may not meet the geographic needs of the County. Community park needs appear to exist in Hillsborough, northern Orange County and southwestern Orange. The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide, in 1999 dollars, is $ZO.i2 mi//ion. Over time, the cost of purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly rise dramatically. I. Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs ,~ Simultaneous wit. the population increase, land in Orange County is rapidly increasing in value. Large tracts are being subdivided, and options for geographic locations of parkland in every township are diminishing. A priority for use of future funds clearly must be land acquisition for long-term park needs, rather than simply developing recreational facilities (which can be developed over time as the population increases). A program for land acquisition for long-term park needs should be developed that identifies sites that could meet needs (including potential for siting active and low-impact recreation), based on projected size and location of parkland throughout the county. The availability of matching funds from the benefiting jurisdictions should be an important component in future acquisition and park development. The program should also identify an acreage 14 threshold for co-located school/park land acquisition d //ww /~w~~wwi/ r To address the estimated $10.12 million in future park needs, the following actions should betaken to use existing bond funds and address long-term needs.. 1. The remaining $2.89 million in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term parks use as soon as possible. 2. The balance of funding should be an estimated $8 million parks bond: ~~~~ L~wr~w/_w/~w~ilw/ /+w wwwri/iw+Fww/ ~~i i/~~w ~wM ~ ~r~wr. r ~ ~7 Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long-term park sites at this time will greatly reduce the cost of meeting long-term park needs. a, ,k ` '~ 15 Executive Summary Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group June 15, 1999 Introduction On November 19, 1997, the Board of Commissioners. created a Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. The Work Group was developed to follow up on two reports: a 1996 Assembly of Governments report "Recreation and Parks Issues in Orange County, NC", and a May 1997 report entitled "Coordination of Parks and Recreation Services for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County", developed by the area Managers. The charge to the Work Group was to: "update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long- range capital facilities p/an for Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill... " Although not listed in the charge, Town of Hillsborough and OWASA representatives participated in the work group effort. In accomplishing this task_ the Work Group was asked to address the following topics: - An update of recreational facilities countywide - An update of local recreation and parks needs - Develop standards for parK~ facilities and design - Joint siting, design and management of school and park sites - Tangible and realistic parkland acquisition goals - Reassess payment-in-lieu: of dedication programs (and service area boundaries for programs) ~- - Dedication provisions for greenways in the Joint Planning Area The Work Group began on December 17, 1997. The group met monthly over the next 17 months (including six months of additional subcommittee work) to produce a report. While the Work Group reviewing a great, deal of research and discussed a wide variety of topics, a summary of the report may best be considered in the following six topical categories: 1. Where Are We Now? In evaluating the status of recreation and- parks in the County, the Work Group created two committees. The Resource Inventory Committee worked during the spring and summer of 1998 to develop a template for tracking all existing recreational facilities, and discuss a map or brochure to convey these facilities to 16 the public. The inventory of ,facilities (including quasi-public and private "fee- based" locations) is included as Appendix C to the report. The inventory would be maintained for future use, and contains information on the type of activities available at each location. The Needs Assessment Committee met during the spring and summer of 1998 to update recreation and parks needs from each jurisdiction. These needs are found on pages 4-7 of the report, and run the. gamut from active recreation facilities to community parks, greenways and "low-impact" recreation. In summary, the nrimarv nPeris irlPntified for each iurisdiction were: -~ Carrboro Acquire/develop Northern Community Park, communi mnasium Chapel Hill Complete Northern Community Park, Southern communi . Park Hillsborou h River Walk Fairview Park Ocrnneechee Park Orange County Complete Efland-Cheeks Park, Northern Human Services Center Park, acquire parkland in Bin ham Little River Tw s An evaluation of previous bonds and projects constructed with those monies is also provided on pages 7-10 of the document. A summary of needs appears on page 19. The Work Group discussed the concept of a Countywide set of standards for facilities and park design. The development of a common set of standards was recognized as important, but because of time considerations was deferred by the Work Group. Recommendation.. B on page 35 addresses this topic. 2. Where Do We Go From Here With knowledge of needs and facilities, the Work Group then turned its attention to future concerns. One such area was a set of goals and criteria for future land acquisition and facility sitings:' In general, the goals and criteria (pages 12-14) encourage joint siting of schools and parks, preservation of ,resources in conjunction with parks development, awareness of environmentally-sensitive lands, the existence of matching funds, considering the intensity of use, and locations for linear parks. The work of the Schools and Land Use Councils was recognized as an important piece of the recreation picture, sand the idea of joint management of school and park sites (as well as possible joint acquisition) is a theme throughout the report. One topic that the report notes regards impediments to locating new active recreation facilities. These impediments exist primarily in the context of lighting, intensity, traffic and noise. In defining both active and low-impact recreation, it is 2 17 important to be consistent with surrounding land uses. Ideas on ways to mitigate the impacts of larger active facilities include co-location of schools and parks, combining active and low-impact recreation in larger park settings to buffer residential areas, and the need for a proactive land acquisition program to purchase lands for long-term use as parks (and/or schools). The potential for coordinating parks planning exists beyond the scope of the local governments involved in this effort. In particular, the report notes the significant potential for coordination with UNC, OWASA and Duke University in meeting long-term needs of mutual interest. While UNC provides many facilities used by students (and local residents), there is also an undefined impact on local recreation facilities from faculty and staff of the University. Programs such as the Carolina Outdoor Recreation Center offer a means for sharing resources, and the potential exists for collaboration on future recreational facilities with UNC. Likewise, OWASA currently provides recreation facilities at both University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA holds over 3,000 acres of land in the County, some of which appears to offer the opportunity for coordinated recreational use. A memo from the OWASA Board (Appendix F) indicates a willingness to discuss certain parcels for future public use. And finally, Duke Forest also provides a recreational resource to County citizens. While concerns about protecting the integrity of the forest resources will be paramount, opportunities exist to work with Duke in the future, particularly in terms of carefully-located trails that fit with the University's plans. 3. Adequate Provision of Parkland and Natural Corridors One of the most prominent.-needs identified is to preserve green corridors, whether in an urban or rural setting. This section of the report addresses the ,potential for linking some existing and proposed greenway networks in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to future parks-and regional open space such as Eno River State Park and Duke Forest. The importance of existing and future greenways in the Towns is noted, as well as the existence of a schematic plan for greenways extending from the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area into the Rural Buffer, developed in 1986 as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Wildlife corridors in the rural areas were introduced into County planning efforts through the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat, and are important to the overall County and regional ecosystem as part of the "green infrastructure." These corridors are undeveloped riparian stream corridors or overland connectors that exist in a natural state. Any trails would exist only as they have evolved over time by use of wildlife or humans. However, as the County and Towns continue to grow, it will become important to link Town parks to regional corridors such as Eno River State Park, nodes of 3 2~ open space such as Duke Forest, and future County parks and open space. Linking future rural parks and open space to Town parks via a few unpaved trails could greatly expand low-impact recreational opportunities. The, identification of strategic corridors that might tie together these recreation facilities is suggested as a practical long-term goal. Using criteria and a classification scheme, the potential for a select few woodland trails as part of a Countywide (and eventually) regional corridor scheme is noted. Three examples of such trail links are offered (two within the Towns or Rural Buffer, one in the rural areas linking Cane Creek and Eno River State Park) are offered. 4. Coordinated Land Acquisition for Parks The 1996 and 1997 reports point to the need for coordinated capital funding, and this is one of the goals of this project. In discussing parks needs and goals, the Work Group placed a strong emphasis on the need to begin land acquisition for long-term park needs now. Orange County has taken steps in 1999 to create a mechanism that could be used in this fashion. The new Department of Environment .and Resource Conservation began operation on January 4, with a primary focus on acquisition/easements of critical land resources. A Land Acquisition Program for Orange County is currently being developed for .discussion in the fall of 1999. This program will develop and/or use inventories, criteria and a management structure for the acquisition ,and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to the public interest, working with ,other existing land trusts and entities.. The program will involve the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat, farmland, riparian buffers, and the acquisition of lands for long-term parks use. The County is hiring a Land f~esources Conservation Manager, with expertise in site evaluation and land acquisition this summer. This position will coordinate land acquisition efforts, and °would use the criteria developed in the Master Recreation and Parks effort toevaluate land purchases for parks (please see the Recommendations section fQ~ additional details). The ,outline of the Land Resource Acquisition Program may be found in the report on page 26. Funding .for long-term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and allocations, and grants from programs such as the state Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. Information on this program is provided on pages 27-28. 5. Payment-in-Lieu Programs All of the jurisdictions in the County have provisions in their development ordinances addressing dedication or provision of recreation facilities. Carrboro and Orange County -also have payment-in-lieu of dedication programs, which allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lots in lieu of providing recreation facilities. Orange County has special legislation that would allow for 4' 19 the use of an impact fee for public uses including recreation, but this proviso has not been utilized to date. As of 1999, Carrboro has collected $453,000 through its payment-in-lieu program. Orange County currently has $488,000 available, allocated by four districts in which the money must be spent. The County has also received land dedications totaling 44 acres since 1986, although this land is in small pieces exclusively in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships. The Work Group found that difficulties exist with the' existing payment-in-lieu programs. The funds must be geographically earmarked and spent within the area collected. They must also be supplemented with matching funds for use. Considerable research was performed to explore programs in other jurisdictions, and a special meeting with Richard Ducker from the Institute of Government was held to review payment-in-lieu possibilities. 6. Recommendations Using the research and deliberations of 17 months, and with the charge and goals of the project in mind, the Work Group developed nine recommendations, summarized as follows (these recommendations also appear on pages 34-40). .k A. Create a Parks and Resource Lands Council As we move to coordinate long-term recreation and parks planning, the need for a permanent joint council (to meet quarterly) was identified, building on the useful nature of the Work Group itself. Possible duties might include: - Develop and review standards - Develop future parks bond proposals - Provide a coordinating mechanism for parks plan updates - Make recommendations on allocations of future bond moneys - Coordinate acquisitions though the County Land Resource Acquisition Program A resolution asking the local boards to create the Parks and Resource Lands Council is attached as Appendix L. 5 20 B. Inter jurisdictiona/Standards, As .previously noted, impediments exist to the creation of common standards that could be used Countywide for recreation and parks facilities. If coordinated funding were pursued, the need for some coordinated standard would be important. The Parks and Resource Lands Council is recommended as a mechanism to accomplish this goal. C. Joint Siting, Design and Management of School and Park Sites Coordinating efforts and responsibilities with the Schools and Land Use Councils will be important, given the emphasis from both groups on the benefits of joint school/park development. As discussed in the section on land acquisition, it is recommended that Orange County, with dedicated staff resources, a program for land acquisition, and a role in school siting, should take the lead role. D. Pub/ic/Private Partnerships One of the most exciting prospects is the potential for partnerships. Coordination between the local governments on future parks, such as a large district park between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro, will be paramount. Opportunities also exist with OWASA, and it is recommended that the Parks and Resource Lands Council work to identify properties for partnership and meet to explore these possibilities. Coordination with UNC on future parks also appears practical and should be pursued. While Duke Forest is a different type of recreational entity, it plays an important role in the County's open space network and future discussion of less-sensitive portions of the Forest as links in the open space network should be pursued. Finally, opportunities for coordination with the state,. other land trusts and private firms offer many possibilities for future needs. ,.: E. Joint Capital Facilities Planning /Coordinated Land Acquisition A meeting of the Managers ~f each jurisdiction is recommended to develop a plan for coordinating long-term land acquisition. With land prices continuing to escalate and little land availaq~e for parks. within the Town jurisdictions, action is needed now to identify and acquire future park sites. Use of the individual Capital Improvement -Plans could be a fundamental part of ,this funding mechanism. By timing and .matching fund availability, the Towns and County will be able to work together more effectively, with the County serving in a lead role in site identification and acquisition, working with the Parks and Resource Lands Council and the individual elected boards. F. Open Facilities Policy In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the Work Group feels that all. County citizens should have the opportunity to use facilities within the County, regardless of their jurisdiction of residence. Attempts to restrict use will be cumbersome administratively and not constructive in the collaborative future of parks planning. A resolution to this end for consideration by the elected boards is 6 21 found as Appendix F. Pursuit of a similar policy with UNC and OWASA is recommended, as is a review of hours of operation at Cane Creek/University Lake. G. Payment-in-Lieu Changes After considerable discussion and review, the Work Group finds that the existing payment-in-lieu programs are not likely to produce sufficient funds to meet long- term needs. It is recommended that Orange County and Carrboro develop plans to match other funding with the current payment-in-lieu funds to use these resources. Even with its limitations, the existing payment-in-lieu program should be kept and modified where possible. The potential for an impact fee or impact tax should be explored, using existing legislation. H. Address Existing Needs While more thorough standards are needed, apopulation-based standard from the 1996 Assembly of Governments report was used to determine needs for parklands. Using this standard, the County as a whole has a current deficit of 645 acres of parkland. With expected population growth, this is County and Towns combined with have a deficit of 1,265 acres by the year 2025. Based on average land sales (weighted for urban and rural lands) and existing bond funds, the cost of purchasing lands to erase the long-term deficit is $10.12 million in 1999 dollars. Since this will unquestionably rise in the future, the Work Group again recommends immediate action in terms of land acquisitions. I. Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs While it may be more practical to develop recreation facilities over time as the population increases, amore-proactive approach to land acquisition is needed to identify and purchase sites that offer both active and low-impact recreation potential. Matching funds from the different jurisdictions (coordinated through the aforementioned joint capital funding mechanism) should be an important component, and an acreage threshold and additional standards for joint school/park sites are also warranted. To address long-term needs, the Work Group recommends that the following actions occur: - The remaining $2.89 million for land acquisition from the. County parks bond should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for long-term acquisition as soon as possible. - The remainder of the $10 million in long-term land acquisition should be addressed through an $8 million parks bond placed before the voters in November 2000. The Parks and Resource Lands Council should develop the specifics of the bond proposal. 7 22 Review and Comments on the joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report 4/12/00 Town of Carrboro :~. ~ Planning Board ~. 8/24/99 Support the nine recommendations, develop aggressive schedule for land acquisition and consider interconnecting greenways between Oran a and nei hborin counties. Recreation and Parks 8/24/99 Recommend approval of the recommendations, Commission - but ask Managers to meet to develop mission and charge of "Parks Council", note that a countywide standard for recreation need not be a standard for each jurisdiction, and .acknowledge other parks costs beyond land for future bonds Environmental Advisory Board 8/24/99 Recommend approval of program, and that EAB have early input into any design of park that would change existing natural areas, and . that guidelines for greenways/paths be develo ed with Public Works Parks and Rec. Carrboro Board of Aldermen (2/22/00): Adopted, Open Facilities Policy, expressed support for findings of the report, and asked that comments from the Town advisory boards be incorporated into the report, to be returned after consideration by all of the jurisdictions. Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (3/13/00): Expressed general support for program and in particular, cooperative ventures. Asked about County process for allocation of band moneys for parkland. Recommended that the topic be placed on upcoming Assembly of Governments agenda. ,;: k. Town of Hillsborough =k 'y 23 Town of Chapel Hill :.. Greenways Commission .. 12/8/99 Voted unanimously that Town Council adopt Work Grou Re ort Recreation and Parks 12/15/99 and Recommend Town Council adopt report as Commission 2/2/2000 general planning tool, expressed concerns (2/2) about Town residents priority for programs with the Open Facilities Policy, unified standards for all jurisdictions, and lighting of playing fields -along with County fundin for Town recreation o ratin costs. Chapel Hill Town Council (4/10/00): Adopted Open Facilities Policy and several recommendations from the report (including coordinated land acquisitions on a case-by-case basis), asked that a Working Committee be formed to further discuss the proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (Parks Council), and asked that equity issues raised in staff report be considered. Orange County :, ~. Commission for the 10/il and Supportive of program and recommendations. Environment 11/8 Would like representation on Parks Council and role in preservation of natural areas within rks. Recreation and Parks 8/24/99 ' Expressed support for program, and asked Commission '~ about the role the RPAC would play with the ro sed Parks Council. Plannin .Board 12`.1/99 No comments. Agricultural Districts Advisory 1/j:9/00 Expressed general support for program. No Board ~ comments. Historic Preservation 1/26/00 Express support for program and Commission recommendations, and encouraged by opportunity to preserve some historic sites (carefully) in park setting as done in other laces. ,Mar-22-00 05:13P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 TCfWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Jacquelyn Gist and duly seconded by Alderman Diana McDuffee. A RESOLUTION RECEIVING TIdE REPORT QF THE MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS WORK GROUt' Resolution No_ 109/1999-2000 WIIF.REAS, the Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen recognize the importance of inter- jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and dark services and facilities within Qrange County, and WliIrREAS, Representatives from all governmental jurisdictions in Orange County have worked toward and developed a report on issues surrounding the provision of recreation and park services within the County, and WHEREAS, This report provides recommendations for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to consider in regards to future improvement of recreation and park services to the Town of Carrboro. NOW, THEREFORE, TH1~.130ARD OF ALDk RMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO RESOLVES: ~; Section 1, The Board of Aldermen hRS reviewed comments on the report provided the Carrboro Recreation and Parke Commission,-Planning Board and Environmental Advisory Board. ~ .t Section 2. The Board of Aldermen asks.that Orange County, the lead agency, incorporate the comments of the Town's advisory boards into the report. Section 3. And that the report be returned to the Board of Aldermen for its consideration aRer amendments are made which take into consideration all of the actions by the other jurisdictions involved in the work group report. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly-adopted this 22nd day of February,.2000: 24 ______ _. _____ _ ___ ___._ _ ._. _. _.. -~.. ~.Y ~e~e~ 969.77]9 TDB 19191 956 7717 Mar-22-00 O5:13P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 25 Page 2 lawn of Carrboro Rcsoluiion No. 109119»-~UUO Ayes: Joal Hall Brdun, Mark Dordsin, Diana McDuffee, Jacquelyn Gist, Mchael Nelson, Allen Spalt, Alex ?,affron Noes: None Absent or Bxcused: None I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk ofthe Towr- of Carrboro, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on February 22, 20Q4. o~ `a~ppPOR~~~ 1911 :. }_ . _~ ,~~. L~ Town Clerk Mar-22-00 05:13P Town o4' Carrboro 919 968 7737 26 TOWN C7F CARRBQRa IYCRThi CAROLiPlA The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Jacquelyn Gist and duly seconded by Alderman Allen Spelt. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN O1PEN FACILITIES POLICY FOR RECREATiOTT NACX~.ITIES IN QRANGE COUNTY Resolution No.111/1444-200Q WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and .Orange County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their jurisdictions, and WHERIEAS, the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that residents of adjacent, jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction ar desirous of use of the facilities, and WHF~.REAS, the spirit of inter jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments, OWASA and the school systems, and WHEREAS, attempting to tie use ofrecreation facilities to users only of the providing jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would hinder community- building and inter local efforts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'' RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local governments in Orange Cou~y be encouraged to adapt this resolution for an Open Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities Constructed by the member focal governments of the County be open to use by all County citizens. BE IT 1C!~URTllER RESOi.,YEA Tff.AT, upon adoption of this resolution by the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County, the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Ni tl-Carrboro Board of Education, the Orange County Board of Education, and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open fracil itics Policy; AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the local governments agree io explore opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to clarify and explore a modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University. .~... ...per ...ru a~ec~.T ...ase...,.. .u ...u ~ ... w. ww.._e~.. . e~.v .nr n. na n_v-ie~ . Tnn 10191 O[S A.7717 Mar-22-00 05:14P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 27 P7ge 2 Trnn~ of Carrboro Rcsoluilon Na, 117/1999~20()f) ~'he foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2000: Ayes: Joal Hall Broun, Mark Dorosin, Diana McDuf~ee, Jacquelyn List, Michael Nelsen, Allen Spalt, Aiex Zaffron Noes: None Absent or Excused: None I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on February 22, 2000. ~~~~~ ~a ,, eo 191 'f ~ ~ down Clerk ~, .k .~ ~. Feb-16-00 01:26P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 _ AT"CA C'~YI'ENT B CAR~BORO R11CRl~A`I'YON AND PARKS_COMMISSION Excerpt from Regular Scheduled Meeting on November 1, 1999 Recommendations for the Master l~.ecreation and Parks Work Group Report: John Boone moved that the Commissions comments as follows be forwarded to the Board of Aldermen in consideration of the Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. a) Remove the "NOW, T~IETtEFO1~E, BE IT RESOLVED that the __ _ ~ ._ agrees to create a Joint Parks and Resource Lands Council along the lines specified in the Joint Work Group. report." That wording be substituted to direct that the 1Vlanagers of the different jurisdictions .consider the charge, mission and structure for this Council as part of a resolution for the Board of Aldermen to consider prior to or simultaneous with the actual establishment of this Council. b} Recommend approval to set acounty-wide standard for coordinated funding pursuits, but not necessarily a standard for each jurisdiction. c} Recommend Approval d) Recoxrtmend Approval e) Recommend Approval f) Recommend Approval ,' h} Recommend Approval a: i) Recommend Approval (.With acknowledgment that other funding items, i.e., development costs, etc. may need to be considered, bcyot~.d just land acquisition for future rec.~reation bond passage.) Second: Alice Tropman 'Vote: Unanimous Approval Doris J, Mru ell, Chair Date 2& Feb-16-00 01:27P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 29 FP+B review of the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive plan `~ ~ t The Eab approved the plan with the fallowing stipulations. ~'~jtNgpE tows ~ l .That the EAB have early input into any design of a park or recreational area that would change existing natural areas. 2. That proposed Green ways and associated paths do not have adequate existing guidelines for design and are in particularly environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore the F,AB strongly recommends that these guide lines be developed in conjunction with Public Wanks and-Parks and Rea prior to the outset of any design process for these Green ways. Giles Blunden Chair ,,. .k { 'f Feb-16-00 01:27P Town o~ Carrboro 919 968 7737 TQ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~.,~ • ~ ~'~ANNING BO.A.RD P _~ • 30 309 West Main Street, Carrboro, North Gar+alFna 2750 ItEC~MM EN QATI ~N. Actuber 21,1999 POktT OF THE JOINT MASTER REOREATION AND PARKS WORK GRQiIP MOTION jdVAS 1VIADE BY SUSAN POULTON AND SECONDED HY JOl-TN MARSHALL THAT TFIE FLANNING BOARD SUPPORTS THE NINE RECOM1VlENDATIONS PRO!'OSEl~ !N THE "Ex~cu~rtvE SUMMARY: REPORT OF •~'t-IE JOINT MASTER RECREATION A.ND PARKS WORK GROUP". THE PLANNING HOARD FURTHER (ZECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD Ok' AL17E2IVlEN DEVELOP AN AGRESSIVE SCHEDULE rOR LAND ACQUISITION AND CONSxDER AN ADDITIONAL GOAL OF INTERCONNECTIVITY. OF GREENWAYS BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND NEIGI-iBORING COUNTIES. VOTE:a AYES 9 {Snider, Haven-O'Donnell, Poulton, Gohen, Cheek, Bateson, Babies, Marshall, Presser); NOES 0; ABSENT/EXCUSED 1 (Searing). ~~ . ,~ ~ ~ ,.. r f~1LL~1'8'W ~. COFiB?E, Chalrmarr (date) 3: AGENDA #7b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager SUBJECT: Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report DATE: March 27, 2000 This memorandum addresses recommendations in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report. Resolution A would adopt the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Gr. oup Report as a general planning document, indicate the Council's desire to immediately pursue certain recommendations of the report, and recommend that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations related to the charge of the proposed Parks and Resource Lands Council and equity issues, including distribution of land purchases and facilities to contributions and County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared to County use of Town programs and facilities. Resolution B would adopt a statement supporting an Open Facilities Policy. Resolution C` would adopt the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as written. , Resolution D would establish Chapel Hill as a partner in a joint Parks and Resource Lands Council. -~ :, We recommend that the Council adopt resolutions A and B BACKGROUND In the spring of 1998 representatives from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Orange County began meeting to discuss County-wide recreation and pazk issues. The group's mission was to update and modify Orange County's Master Recreation and Park Plan to be a joint long-range capital facilities plan for Orange County, Carrboro, and. Chapel Hill, _ The work group included elected officials, advisory commission members, public at large, and staff. Council Members Kevin Foy and Lee .Pavan, Parks and Recreation Commission members Martin Feinstein and Dianne Lemasters, and Pazks and Recreation Department 32 staff Kathryn Spatz and Bill Webster represented the Town at the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group meetings. On May 26, 1999, the work group completed work on the Joint ll~aster Recreation and Parks Plan YYork Group Report. The report is intended to serve as a possible blueprint for the direction of future joint parks and recreation efforts in the County. The report includes an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities and lands and offers recommendations to continue joint planning for the area's leisure needs. On September 11, 1999, the Council accepted and referred the report to the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions and the Manager for comment. DISCUSSION We believe convening the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group and the completion of the accompanying report are positive steps in County-wide cooperation on leisure issues. We agree with the report's central message that the best hope for a strong parks and recreation program lies in partnerships, be it inter jurisdictional or otherwise. In addition, the completed inventory of existing facilities and parklands is an important component of the document, which can be updated annually. Key Areas and Opportunities for Cooperation: The report identifies 9 key areas for possible future cooperative efforts: 1. Permanent joint land use planning 2. Inter jurisdictional efforts to standardize parks and recreation requirements 3. Joint siting, design, ar~d management of school and park sites across jurisdictions ~` 4. PubliclPrivate partners~iips 5. Coordinated land identification, acquisition, and banking 6. Open facilities policy 7. Payment-in-lieu changes 8. Address existing needs 9. Recommendations for use of current funds and future funding needs For each of the issues identified, the report includes recommendations for addressing concerns. 1. Permanent Joint Land Use Planning The Work Group identified a need for a permanent joint Parks and Resource Lands Council. The report contains a resolution asking the local governments to create the Parks and Resource Lands Council. The report lists possible areas of responsibility for the proposed Lands Council, including the development of unified parks and recreation standards; working closely with the Schools and Land Use Council to jointly site, design, and manage schools- and parks; exploring the possibility of 3 impact fees; and exploring a potential future bond referendum for parks and recreation. + Manager's Comment: We believe the general concept of a joint Parks and Resource Lands Council is a positive approach to continuing the efforts of the Work Group. We believe that the Council should support the establishment of a Parks and Resource Lands Council after its charge has been clearly articulated and consensus has been reached. We believe that the needs of Chapel Hill must be fairly represented by any such body. 2. Standards The towns and County currently utilize different standards to determine parks and recreation needs. The report recommends that unified parks. and recreation standards be developed for the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and Orange County. Manager's Comment: The 1989 Chapel Hill Community Facilities Report included what were then national standards established by the National Park and Recreation Association. Chapel Hill's draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan does not include recreation and park standards. We do not believe that the leisure values and needs of a specific community should be benchmarked or based on values of other jurisdictions. The Parks and Recreation Department has chosen a consultant to develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. We anticipate that a key result of the plan will be to identify recreation and park needs specific to Chapel Hill and to develop target goals to fully address thole needs. This can be done while allowing flexibility for trends and innovations. F We .believe that Town residents expect a higher standard relative to recreation programming and facilities -when compared to other areas. 3. School/Park Planning Joint siting, design, and management of school and park sites across jurisdictions are important issues identified in the report. Manager's Comment: We agree with the report's recommendation that any new Parks and Resource Lands Council work closely with the existing Schools and Land Use Council to address this idea. The role and relationship of a Lands Council to the existing Schools and Land Use Council should be more fully explored. 33 4. Public/Private Partnerships The report highlights the need to pursue partnerships in order to expand parks and recreation opportunities in the area. 4 The report also recommends. that the local governments (through the Parks and Resource Lands Council) work to identify properties for potential partnership and meet to explore these possibilities. 1Vlanager's Comment: We agree that. the pursuit of partnerships is important in the expansion of parks and recreation opportunities in the area. Coordination with groups such as OWASA and LTNC in locating future parks and facilities appears feasible. We believe that identifying properties for potential partnership would be an appropriate charge for a newly created Parks and Resource Lands Council. 5. Coordinated Capital Funding and Land Acquisition The. report findings indicate that if local governments in Orange County are to be successful in providing for the long-term needs of County/Town residents, joint capital funding and land-banking efforts need to be addressed. . The report recommends that the County take the lead role in coordinating future land acquisitions, most of which will likely be located outside of the various Towns corporate limits. Manager's Comment:, We agree that potential parks areas are disappearing rapidly and that whatever efforts local governments take to preserve open space or purchase space for park development should be activated immediately. While pooling funding resources appears to offer the best opportunity for funding future .land acquisition, vye are mindful that historically Chapel Hill has devoted significantly more resourc.;es than the County or other towns within the County to meeting the community'' leisure needs. We believe that before the coordinated efforts are actualized, wer must ensure that the program's benefits are distributed equitably, and with regard~~to contributions. 6. Open Facilities Policy The Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Crroup's ,report contains a resolution that would provide for all recreation facilities owned and operated by Orange County, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, .and OWASA to be open and accessible to all County residents. Manager's Comment: This idea is consistent with the current policy. We recommend adoption of the Open Facilities resolution. The Town of Chapel Hill currently receives approximately $70,000 annually. from the County in recognition of County, non-Town resident use of Town facilities and programs. The County's financial contribution is about 4% of the operating costs for the Town's parks and recreation programs. 34 5 Parks and Recreation Department records indicate approximately 20% of registered activity participants reside in non-Chapel Hill azeas of Orange County (including Carrboro). The percentage of County, non-Town pazticipants receiving fee waivers is significantly higher. Thirty=nine percent of fee waiver participants in the Town's populaz summer day. camp- program last yeaz were County, non-Town residents. Fee waivers to County, non-Town residents for this program alone amounted to over $20,000. We aze concerned with the issues of equity raised by the fact that the County's contribution does not appear to be commensurate with County, non-Town resident use. In addition, the Town of Chapel Hill currently operates significantly more indoor recreation facilities than the other jurisdictions. 7. Payment-in-lieu Changes The report findings indicate that the current payment-in-lieu programs in Carrboro and Orange County have not been effective as the funds derived have not been sufficient to fund projects. In addition, the rules related to use of payment in lieu funds have prevented those jurisdictions from using some of the funds they have received over the past years. The' Work Group's report also recommends exploration of the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax. Manager's Comment: To date, Chapel Hill has not experienced similar problems. The report recommends currently maintaining separate payment-in-lieu systems, recognizing that Orange County and/or Carrboro may wish to change their own processes. ,,, We believe the establishment of a recreation impact fee or impact tax. is worth examining.. We believe tl}is would be part of an appropriate chazge for a newly created Pazks and Resource Lands Council. 8. Address Current Needs The report recommends that one critical need is to immediately begin land banking in order to meet current and future land needs of the community. The report suggests that the County would need 645 additional acres of parkland just to meet current needs. The estimated cost to meet current needs would be 10 to 12 million dollazs. 35 Manager's Comment: We agree that land should be purchased as soon as possible even if funds for development aze not currently available. 36 9. Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs The report recommends that the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Parks land acquisition bonds should be used for the immediate acquisition of park sites. The report also recommends that an $8 million dollar bond issue be placed before the voters in November 2000. Manager's Comment: We agree with the report's recommendation that the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Parks land acquisition bonds should be used for the immediate acquisition of park sites. We believe that the proposed Parks and Resource Lands Council could discuss the specifics of a future bond issue. We believe the dollar figure of a potential bond referendum should be more fully discussed among elected officials. SUMMARY The report suggests several ways for -the jurisdictions in Orange County to coordinate efforts in providing parks and recreation facilities and programs. We believe that the following aspects of the report could be implemented at any time: • The adoption of an Open Facilities Policy would be consistent with current policy and could be an effective method of ensuring continued cooperation with other jurisdictions. . • The expenditure of the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Parks land acquisition bonds for the purchase of park lands should be accomplished as soon as possible in order to maximize value of existing funds -and options for selection of sites. ,; • We should continue to work together on joint siting, design, and management of school and park sits across jurisdictions. Until a Parks and Resource Lands ,Council is establishec~.we should continue to work with the existing Schools and Land Use Council` to address this idea. • Opportunities to pursue partnerships in order to expand parks and recreation opportunities in the area should be explored with groups such as OWASA and UNC. Chapel Hill could continue to explore opportunities for cooperation until such time as decisions related to establishment of a Parks and Resource Lands Council are implemented. • The Town could pursue opportunities for coordinated expenditures for land acquisition on a case-by-case basis until such time as the idea for more formalized coordination of land acquisition funds can be explored. However, we feel that there are several areas that should be further explored before they are adopted as policy: 7 • We believe that. the proposed Parks and Resource Lands Council should be created only after its chazge is more fully explored. We believe that the needs of Chapel Hill must be fairly represented by any such body. • We aze concerned by the report's recommendation that County-wide standards be adopted. We believe that Chapel Hill residents aze likely to support a different standazd for development of recreation facilities than other portions of the County. • We believe that prior to entering into any cooperative effort the Town should be assured that, based on our tax contributions, a proportional share of land purchases and facilities will be provided in or neaz Chapel Hill. We note that currently Chapel Hill taxpayers provide a significant portion of all recreation facilities and programs in the County, as well as a significant portion of the real estate tax revenues that the County would likely use to pay off the bonds. • Although we support the concept of an Open Facilities Policy, we believe that the County's funding to the Town's Pazks and Recreation Department operating budget should be higher. Currently, Chapel Hill taxpayers are subsidizing County residents who are not Chapel Hill residents. RECOMMENDATIONS Parks and Recreation Commission: On February 2, 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend that the Council adopt'the Report of the Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group as a general planning tool. The Commission expressed concern over several ideas in .the Report including the reciprocal relationship between jurisdictions for participation in programs, the County's contribution to the Department compared to County, non-Town use of programs and facilities, the development of unified recreation standards, and lighting of existing and new playing fields. Greenwavs Commission: On December 8, 2000, the Greenways Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend;~the adoption of the Report. Manager's Recommendation: That the Council adopt Resolutions A and B: Resolution A would adopt the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as a general planning document, indicate the Council's desire to immediately pursue certain recommendations of the report, and recommend that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations related to the charge of the proposed Parks and Lands Use Council and equity issues, including distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions, and County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compazed to County's use of Town programs and facilities. 3 Resolution B would adopt a statement supporting an Open Facilities Policy. 8 38 Resolution C vuould adopt the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as written. Resolution D would establish Chapel Hi11 as a partner in a joint Parks and Land Use Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Report of the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group (begin new page 1). 2. Greenways Commission recommendation. 3. Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation. ;;. .k 39 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE JOINT MASTER RECREATION AND PARS PLAN WORE GROUP REPORT AS A GENERAL PLANNING DOCUMENT (2000-04-10/R 14a)) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter-jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and WHEREAS, representatives from all governmental jurisdictions in Orange County have worked toward and developed a report on issues surrounding the provision of recreation and pazk services within the County; and WHEREAS, this report provides recommendations for the Chapel Hill Town Council to cpnsider in regazd to future improvement of recreation and pazk services for the Town; and WHEREAS, the Greenways and Pazks and Recreation Commissions have reviewed the report and provided comment to the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as a general planning document. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby adopts the following recommendations of the report: • Adoption of an Open Facilities Policy • Expenditure of the remaining $2.89 million in Orange County Pazks land acquisition bonds for the purchase ofpazk lands as soon as possible in order to maximize value of existing funds and options for selection of sites • Inter jurisdictional work ©n joint siting, design, and management of school and pazk sites across jurisdictions • Pursuit of partnerships with groups such as OWASA and UNC in order to expand pazks and recreation opportunities in the azea • Pursuit of opportunities for coordinated expenditures for land acquisition on a case- by-case basis until such time as the idea for more formalized coordination of land acquisition funds can be explored BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends to the County that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations concerning the following issues: Consideration of a proposed Inter-Governmental Task Force. Re-examination of the issue of adopting County-wide standazds Examination of how to assure equitable distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions 40 • Examination of the level of County funding to the Town's Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared to County's use of Town programs and facilities This the 10th day of April, 2000. Amended April 11, 2000 x 11 RESOLUTION B A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT SUPPORTING AN OPEN FACILITIES POLICY (2000-03-27/R 17b) WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide services to citizens in their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the location and type of many pazks and facilities is such that residents of adjacent jurisdictions aze in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the spirit of inter-jurisdictional coordination and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments, OWASA and the school systems; and WHEREAS, attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing jurisdictions would hinder community building and inter-local efforts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boazds of all local governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an Open Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed by the member local governments of the County be open to use by all County and Town citizens, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon adoption of this resolution by the elected boards of governments in Orange- County, the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy, BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED fi~iat the local governments agree to explore opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to _~larify and explore modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North Cazolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University. This the 27th day of Mazch, 2000. 12 RESOLUTION C A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE JOINT MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN WORK GROUP REPORT AS WRITTEN (2000-03-27/R 17c) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter- jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and WHEREAS, representatives from all governmental jurisdictions in Orange County have worked toward and developed a report on issues surrounding the provision of recreation and park services within the County; and WHEREAS, this report provides recommendations for the Chapel Hill Town Council to consider in regard to future improvement of recreation and park services for the Town; and WHEREAS, ,the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions have reviewed. the report and provided comment to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council agrees with all recommendations as written contained in the report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report as written. This the 27th day of March, 2000., ,k . ~. 42 13 RESOLUTION D A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CHAPEL HILL AS A PARTNER IN A JOINT PARKS AND LANDS USE COUNCIL (2000-03-27/R-17d) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter- jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Council agrees with all recommendations aswritten contained in the report; and WHEREAS, the formation of a Parks and Lands Use Council was called for in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan Work Group Report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby establishes Chapel Hill as a partner in a joint Parks and Lands Use Council. This the 27th day of March, 2000. l .~ ~} 43 44 Y ATTACbIMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Greenways Commission Mark Broadwell, Chair SUBJECT: Recommendation on Report of the Orange County Joint Master Recreation and Parks Master Plan Work Group DATE: February 9, 2000 .The Greenways Commission met on December 8, 1999 .and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Report of the Orange County Joint Master Recreation and Parks Master Plan Work Group. ,: 3` •Y ,~ iy 4: CHAPEL HILL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 200 PLANT ROAD, CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 VOICE/TTD4(919) 968-2784 FAx:-(919) 932-2923 ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Waldorf and Council FROM: Dianne Lemasters, Chair, Pazks and Recreation Commission RE: Recommendation Regazding the Joint Master Recreation and Pazks Work Group Report DATE: February 3, 2000 At its December 8, 1999 and,February 2, 2000 meetings, the Commission discussed the Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. On February 2, 2000 the Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend that the Council adopt the Report of the Orange County Master Recreation and Pazks Plan Work Group as a general planning tool. However, the Commission-expressed concern over several ideas in the Report including the reciprocal relationship between jurisdictions for participation in programs, the development of unified recreation standards, and lighting of playing fields. The Commission applauds the Work Group's efforts in collecting an inventory of all recreation and park resources in Orange County and believes that the Work Group has laid a strong framework for Carrboro, Orange County, and Chapel Hill working cooperatively. The notions of joint siting and management of sites and coordinated opportunities with~OWASA, UNC, and Duke University aze very positive. The Work Group did not resolve some k;~y issues, chiefly the concept of unified standards. It maybe that no one set of standards is applicable for X11 azeas of Orange. County. While we believe the creation of a "Parks and Resource Lands Council" is 'a good idea, we are not confident the Council's charge has been fully articulated. We believe staff should work to develop a formal list of agreed upon responsibilities before elected officials approve the concept. The Open Facilities Policy proposed in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report is consistent with current reciprocal agreements. We believe it should be noted that virtually all facilities currently being operated in the County aze in fact in Chapel Hill. While we do not propose restricting participation, we believe Town of Chapel Hill residents should receive priority registration in Town programs. This concept is not inconsistent with the proposed Open Facilities Policy. We understand that the funding Orange County provides to the Town of Chapel Hill for parks and recreation operation amounts to less than 5% of the department's operating costs. Yet almost 20% of overall participants in organized department activities are County, non-Town residents. Staffrecords indicate that for some programs almost 40% of fee waiver applicants are County, non-Town residents. We believe the County's contribution should be equitable at least to County, non-Town resident usage. 46 And that is not even taking into account that virtually all Town of Chapel Hill residents also reside in Orange County. The Commission believes the need for lighted athletic playing fields is great. We urge all jurisdictions to include lighting in all future-field development. We also believe existing fields should be retrofitted for lighting. ,,~ ~~ 4~ Orange County Commission for the Environment Orange County ERCD P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 P)tone: (919) 245-2597 Fax: (919) 644-3002 Email: ccrawford@co.oran~e.nc.us Memorandum TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Alice Gordon, Chair From: Kris Price, Chair Commission for the Environment Date: November 9, 1999 Re: Comments on the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report On October 11 and November 8, the Commission for the Environment considered the report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. The Commission is supportive of the findings and recommendations of the report, and commerkds the Work Group for its diligence and thoughtful approach to future parks needs. The Commission .concurs with the Work Group's interest in beginning to land-bank for future parks. With this in mind, we would share the following comments and recommendations regarding our future role: - The Commission for the Environment stands ready and willing to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on the preservation and acquisition of natural areas, wildlife habitat and riparian buffers -consistent with the charge to the Commission to advise the Board on matters concerning the environment. - The Commission would like to have significant representation on the proposed Parks Council, in regard to the expressed interest in protecting natural areas and wildlife habitat in a more- comprehensive parks concept. 48 - If the Parks Council is involved in recommending parks that include preservation of natural., or other environmentally-sensitive areas, the Commission for the Environment would like to be consulted and involved . in the decision process. In particular, the Commission would like to be ~ involved in the design of the park (i.e., access, facilities, etc.) so that careful consideration is given to limiting access to significant. natural areas, as well as commenting on other environmental considerations. - The Commission for the Environment wishes to continue to reserve the right to recommend and advise. the Board of Commissioners on preservation and acquisition of important natural areas, wildlife habitat and riparian buffers, whether within or outside of a park concept. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this excellent report. s: . ~.. i ~. Copies: John Link, County Manager David Stancil, ERC Director 4~ Resolution -Open Facilities Policx An Open Facilities Policy for Recreation Facilities in Orange County WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County have developed parks and recreation facilities to provide service to citizens in their jurisdictions, and WHEREAS, the location and type of many parks and facilities is such that residents of adjacent jurisdictions are in close proximity to parks of a different jurisdiction or desirous of use of the facilities, and WHEREAS, the spirit of inter jurisdictional coordination on current and future recreation programs and facilities has been furthered in recent years with cooperative ventures between local governments, OWASA and the school systems, and WHEREAS, attempting to tie use of recreation facilities to users only of the providing .jurisdictions would be complicated administratively and would hinder community- building and inter-local efforts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County be encouraged to adopt this resolution for an Open Facilities Policy, which would provide that all public recreation facilities constructed by the member local governments of the County be open to use by all County citizens. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, upon adoption of this resolution by the elected boards of all local governments in Orange County, the resolution be transmitted to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, the Orange County Board of Education, and the Board of Directors of the Orange'~Water and Sewer Authority, asking their endorsement of the concept of an Open Facilities Policy; ~. AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the local governments agree to explore opportunities, at a later appropriate date, to clarify and explore a modification of an open facilities arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University. This, the _ day of , 2000 Need N. BY DONALp Too often in .benefits- ~s if there were E.F. Schumacher wrote:."In the Curren are few words as final and conclusive as the word uneconomic. If an activity has been branded as ' economic, its right to existence. is not merel tinned but energetically denied." In an atte ` recent years to overcome this bias, some hav troduced the concepts of "cost-effectiv_ ' "cost-benefit analysis;' which are sub us to show how valuable, what w ments, are intangibles such as health. But it is a cure worse than cost-effectiveness. has come to mean red is priceless to some azbitrary price. _ Consider one aspect of enviro provides value to everyone in this co es of green and expanses of ecosyste states and communities and the fede as parks. California parks alone rec~i ' ~ 6 million visitors annually who spend nor -" an $1.6 billion and support 62,000 jobs, but'to talk of them in these terms is to reduce them from priceless trea- sures to commodities in the mazketplace. To justify outdoor recreation and conservation, the current economic paradigm demands that we place them within the framework of an economic system that they transcend. We must resist this tendenry. It's time for a different way of looking at parks-fora per- spective that will focus on those values intrinsic to human existence, values that are sufficient unto themselves. Parks are not merely pretty places with fences around them. Parks, as the embodiment of outdoor recreation and conservation, represent economy of a higher scale. This cosmic economy (or, if y` , masher, "meta-economy") res~o , 30 • The Amicus Journal world are vital for us because they facilitate the tr. fer of information. Evolutionary biologists are ploring the notion that we are created by' information we absorb. Quantum physicists az proposing that information shapes who we are level of the subatomic particle. This does no merely that we are influenced by informati w~ fed via the media. It means information ' ~o forms: the twinkle of a staz, the feel of past one's, face, tlti~n of being an ~M~- 50 p t.uauy re- process f~ for the p ~ of us v me at we are see kc~k ~ s or species, of mere monet seeking to protect the disse ' mation-through the often hidde humans make each time they walls in _ , ' - ten to a stream, inhale the aroma deep within ared- woodforest, or feel the snow upon their brow These connections between human beings and their world generate energy that sustains the living universe. When you understand this, it becomes ludicrous to think of a park in the context of the current eco- nomic paradigm; it becomes ludicrous to assume that parks can be priced and purchased in the mar- ketplace. We must not subordinate the very creative for . o e u , to a. system that is simply one s u `.~ To do so,eatens to ou'~'~ks, or that parks will be commercialized. at people fear, and rightly so, is not simply that s - ,parking, or guidebooks will cost too _ they fear the loss of the human con- ' the creative force of life itself. moment about how your own expe- have shaped you. How have you grown and ,.: v ~ y ` con ness? How have you become o ? is: through connections. - ur pazents, with your fam- ' t with the world around trip, or a walk in the e first time. You felt n your face. You test- - p or an azduous hike. e cess by which an individual erirut not only the re-creation of the dually the creation of and move- ' e nsciousness. The boxer George Fo ded for a life of crime in Houston when, at eighteen, he joined the Job Corps. He was transferred to Grants Pass in Oregon. Looking back on the experience yeazs later he said, "I'd never seen streams and all the beautiful trees. It changed my life, and for the first time I saw there was another part of the world." It may be azgued by some that everything has its price, and that if something is of value it can be bought; and further that many of our most valuable lands have been bought for a price. I submit that that is a perversion, and it ought not be. Just as we do not place a monetary value on our children, our spouses, or our freedom, we should not place a monetary value on our natural and cultural re- sources. Some things are just too precious. • ~a co ,mat only ~ 't ex- ~D, " ld is the author of several books and the '` f te; or of California State Parks. ~ ~ ~~y " ;__~. ~: . ~~,. `j~- _ ~ ' -~ ° Summer 1998.31 51