|
Draft
<br /> 4/ 28/ 99
<br /> . . .. ,.>. ,, a-; <y.. ,.:rx -,k,,•,.y....>rw.<r•wrw:�;^rW sm ==,xy: :r";,,y.:.rr:s• t : ,: :axw ;£:,•F-:`" r.?=•„s=t:>c'sm.;y:yf;r;.;a:.ix•' t::.< .y;rm: : '?-�'.. .^ .'r:.='., ..x
<br /> :,. ..zv,•.s..,......�..«r _:.... �. ,,......rz"t•,'LSv; ' :rs: » : ;.i"t`» :i:.? ;•t.
<br /> .<.. - . Cs. .. , . . _.._ .. ,:. ._ . .. . re.. .. ..._ :- . . - i ... ... . . . .. .. ,._ . . . . ._ :;,.:_ . .- ..yr � °y:� •:Y'Ysi:^M.. ,- > rs;r;:.
<br /> :>:< 4: .3_r ..rr ` .:: `S -.._'1 .. ;.. .. »'i2e .•:3'::r;;, 'Y`:'" Fr`f;-:`: :="r''.$., :. ; �;� �:%9
<br /> • rr
<br /> .. . . _ . . . . .. : . . . .. . .. P Roy
<br /> u . .
<br /> . . . .., n,- . . •- . > T_< .. s �.. .��.� . . " ... ..,_ .,.. . . . s - - .i3hSz.:.m.«:.i`n. :r"r..`x: :... ....r_<:'i`,a rir::;'; iai ..:;�..
<br /> .�f
<br /> < < Note: This section will be re-combined and " cleaned up *
<br /> Is
<br /> after April 28. The section will be completed after hearing from
<br /> Rich Ducker on payment-in -lieu alternatives. > >
<br /> One method for accumulating funds to purchase land for parks and
<br /> recreation is to require new developments to make , payments into a
<br /> dedicated fund . Under most versions of this system - which is called a
<br /> " payment in lieu " - local governments try to determine the
<br /> recreational impact a new development will generate , and on that
<br /> basis require the development either to donate land or to make a
<br /> payment in lieu of making the donation .
<br /> Appendix F indicates the way in which Orange County and
<br /> Carrboro calculate this payment . Chapel Hill negotiates based on
<br /> individual development proposals ; Hillsborough seeks dedication of
<br /> land , not payments in lieu . The appendix also shows the efforts of
<br /> other selected jurisdictions in acquiring land .
<br /> It has been difficult for the governments to 4quantify how well the
<br /> current system works , Carrboro reports that its fee structure is
<br /> sufficient that many developments choose to provide private recreation
<br /> facilities rather than making the payment . Carrboro has collected
<br /> $ 453 , 000 to date . Chapel Hill does not have detailed central records of
<br /> what the results of negotiated fees or land donations has been .
<br /> Hillsborough does not have details on payments for recreation
<br /> purposes . Orange County has required payments since 1988 , and has
<br /> accumulated these payments in a fund . The fund has brought in
<br /> $ 425 , 0000 It is clear in a broad overview , however , that the current system
<br /> of land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens ' needs . Part of
<br /> the problem is that, while recreational facilities may be developed
<br /> privately , these are not open to the public . Also , - small parcels of land
<br /> that are donated for public use often end up being of use neither to the
<br /> public nor to the development itself, since their size and location
<br /> makes them difficult to use .
<br /> Orange County residents have long enjoyed the private open
<br /> vided by agricultural and forestry uses . In particular ,
<br /> space that is pro
<br /> residents have used Duke Forest land for recreational purposes .
<br /> County governments , however , have not uniformly kept pace with
<br /> demand , as measured by national indicators .
<br /> 27
<br />
|