Agenda - 10-30-2000-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Potential Joint Capital Funding for Parks Summary — October 30, 2000 Earlier this year, each elected board adopted resolutions asking that, in follow -up to the 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks (JMRP) Work Group Report, the Managers from each jurisdiction develop a report on potential for joint capital funding for parks needs. Three reports in the past five years have explored different aspects of parks and recreation facilities and service in the County. All of the reports have pointed to a mechanism that establishes Orange County in a coordinating role for parks and recreation initiatives. In addition, the Memoranda of Agreement between the school boards and the local governments provide an important precedent for collaboration in this area. Having identified parks needs in the 1999 JMRP report, the current park projects in the Capital Improvement Plans (CIP's) for each jurisdiction were examined. In general, while significant headway has been made, there are identified parks and recreation needs in the County and Town C1P's totaling $63 million. Only 25% of those projects are funded at this point in time, leaving $47 million in unfunded parks projects. There are several potential sources of funding for parks needs, ranging from bonds to State and Federal grants to special reserve funds and even impact fees (not currently implemented, but authorized by the General Assembly). Orange County's new Lands Legacy Program was developed concurrently with the 1999 JMRP report, and the potential may exist for using the County's Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan process to 1) identify parks projects that are collaborative opportunities for multiple jurisdictions and 2) pursue acquisition of parkland needed for the project in question. The Memoranda of Agreement on co- location between the schools and local governments, and the new School Capital Funding Policy, offer significant opportunities to explore joint projects. In considering parks projects that are most appropriate for joint ventures, the previously - mentioned Memoranda of Agreement provides a frame of reference in determining when co- location may be desirable. In addition, the Board of Commissioners has noted that the most - appropriate types of joint park ventures are larger -scale parks that provide a broad range of opportunities and can serve both rural and Town populations. In reviewing the parks and recreation reports, there may be an emergent delineation of roles for joint park projects. The Towns currently expend substantial capital and operating funds on an annual basis to operate and maintain existing parks, and are often challenged to provide capital funds for new park facilities. Orange County, in its 1997 Parks bond, attempted to address both Town and County by allocating bond money to parks projects inside Chapel Hill and in western Orange County. Even so, the County's burgeoning population (currently estimated at 111,000) makes the need for land- banking for parks a pressing one, as illustrated by the unfunded parks needs. With this being the case, the County may be in the best position to provide capital funding for parkland acquisition and facility development for larger -scale joint parks.