Browse
Search
JMRPWG agenda 042899
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group
>
JMRPWG agenda 042899
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2020 4:59:08 PM
Creation date
2/5/2020 4:56:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Draft <br /> 4/ 28/ 99 <br /> Dedication and Payment Provisions <br /> <<Check against Carrboro section and recombine after 4/28>> <br /> Population growth over the past thirty years has forced a reassessment of the traditional <br /> means of acquiring public park and recreation areas, items they are statutorily mandated <br /> to provide . Increasing pressures on funds generated from traditional property tax levy <br /> and bond referendums have challenged fundamental ideas on paying for parks and <br /> recreation, encouraging public officials to consider alternatives . A more recent tool has <br /> been the inclusion of a payment in lieu of process under this same general statutory <br /> power . The payment in lieu of process — payment in lieu of providing private recreation <br /> facilities or required dedication by of land — has been confused with impact fees . If the <br /> developer is provided the option to meet the particular jurisdiction ' s requirements or <br /> make some commiserate payment in lieu of doing so , the jurisdiction is empowered to <br /> accept the payment under its existing statutory powers . All jurisdictions accept payment <br /> iao n . lieu on a similar, if not exact, basis . In contrast, an impact fee is a cash payment based <br /> onthe impact created by a development to a particular service and requires special <br /> enabling legislation. There must be exhibited a strong correlation showing the ( 1 ) actual <br /> need created by the impact of the development and (2) benefits provided to the particular <br /> subdivision. <br /> Currently, state ordinances limit the spending of the money gathered through the payment <br /> in lieu option to the immediate area. A switch to an impact fee would . . . <br /> • Allow the money to be pooled and serve a larger area. <br /> • Would provide for greater planning and control for the positioning and <br /> infrastructure of the parks. <br /> But . . . <br /> • It would become integral to show a direct benefit to those from whom the fee <br /> is gathered. <br /> • Who actually uses parks ? - must have a defensible answer <br /> • A change to an impact fee structure would take a lot of initial work to <br /> develop and implement. <br /> • Would also require enabling legislation. <br /> State Ordinances <br /> Below are the corresponding state provisions for counties and <br /> cities/towns to require either dedication or Payment - in - Lieu to <br /> subdivision developers . Both ordinances restrict the use of the <br /> land/funds for the immediate area . Also , both refer to the option being <br /> the developers . The formulas can be set - up in such a way , however, <br /> to make one option more attractive. <br /> 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.