|
. 5/ 26/ 99
<br /> = t '^xzeY,pw '-ro�:>`a . 'x^ • ;:.swsx...,-, „"r':ir»• .-.o"%y ' ' tee".". ' Y:rzk;pycz;:: ^^.r„"8 <i�'�'W�"os?o.'. .�">� "Tz
<br /> ... :ne .. .es:, '. *•.ex:•x -wx:s .<. .. ... „ fz. . ,as4.. .-.� ;x .sr.>>ai_w' ve:�.y;: r ' g:':e "`::.£;a< :`.':T :".^s't'z•(w"pf` _:41v . t.> � _- ":'� `-.`# � - ,P'it;•.
<br /> - .. . e. . . , . 3 r . ._ . . , , ->.T,.xs ,_.o.. ..*,.. - _ _ ., t . :e.r,. ,..-s ' -5:^ a . ^:. `.r:g• < F, •=;:.;ax>:': .z-sit. -....,.: .x: :�.,...,....>. .. ` .. _ :�. < - t 4.-+ -- •-;s;r - P ,: £.,.'. <- f°3=.m '4'c'` :q'''„',?'w
<br /> i., ; { <.C:t.: , Ec ,c,{' � „'.. ,:. , „a • -�°:st . ..,F,:.""P; cd :�;«,:e;g.s,,',-`.
<br /> i Y'/'' • Rn`n
<br /> ..F . - > � t -.�.-` .2 .:'.'%. _ i - tn-;7 . . -._h: .. . y{ „ NMa .i - .�.:.. •�c- e.7a.i.
<br /> 4.
<br /> v Air . � : � rP• _� e s �:
<br /> .x-..,.:.'.t`xRP..§tz;,.taao.:m., fFfa '•:CFF'`�'`... ;:, zT • . . _• ..,. .. -,::£".e ^:r`ss.3::.i:. fik: :A. :.a�.:.',-.'.. 'f„�i.::;:ai.z'.-...,.:P.95r` .'i&:;.T.�:rs.m.a:�:::�3;: � ". ti«csw:r'a:'�waacir'.` e"k' 'xc'sxa-' :.'.'.<'s=`,z`.'.,Y.i"z,'..:x:
<br /> A . Development Exactions for Recreation . ' in Orange
<br /> County
<br /> Population growth overthe - past thirty years has forced a reassessment of .
<br /> the traditional means of acquiring public park and recreation areas .
<br /> Increasing pressures on , funds generated from the ' traditional property tax
<br /> levy and from bond referenda have challenged fundamental Ideas on paying
<br /> for parks and recreation . - Public officials have been encouraged to consider
<br /> alternatives to the negotiated purchase of park land and sole reliance on the
<br /> property tax base and bond funds .- ' Alternatives to purchase and dedications
<br /> include payment- in - lieu and impact fee programs .
<br /> The Work Group has recognized that all local government jurisdictions .in
<br /> Orange County have recreation requirements in their own Subdivision
<br /> Regulations or Land ' Use Ordinances which mandate that land be dedicated ,
<br /> private recreation facilities ' provided , or a combination . thereof. . These
<br /> requirements fall under the statutory regulatory/ police authority of local
<br /> governments to protect the health , safety , and welfare of their . communities.
<br /> These recreation requirements are legally acceptable under this authority ,,.
<br /> similar to roads , utilities , and other public improvements required as .
<br /> conditions for- subdivision approval . The North Carolina Supreme Court
<br /> affirmed this authority in Messer v . Town of Chapel Hill , 297 S . E . 2d 632
<br /> ( 1982 )1, . in holding that the - Town ordinance , within the statutory powers
<br /> given to a city , could exact recreation -land or facilities wand even require the .
<br /> particular site within the subdivision to provide adequate recreation needs .
<br /> B . .Definition of Payment- in - Lieu and . Impact Fee .
<br /> Programs
<br /> L Payment- in - Lieu
<br /> A more recent tool for providing recreation facilities has been the
<br /> inclusion of a payment- in - lieu program under this same general
<br /> statutory . power. In this program , a subdivision developer pays a fee
<br /> related to the jurisdiction 's cost of acquiring commensurate recreation
<br /> lands , of the type it could have required the developer to dedicate .
<br /> These fees then help provide recreation - facilities within the , immediate
<br /> area of the development . If the developer Is provided the option . to
<br /> meet the jurisdiction 's . requirements or make some commensurate
<br /> payment - in - lieu of recreation facilities , the Our is empowered
<br /> under its existing statutory owers . Payment-
<br /> to accept the payment g ry p
<br /> in - lieu fees must . be geographically designated • within the mmediate
<br /> area of the development , spent within :a - reasonable amount of time ,
<br /> and supplemented with ' other funds .
<br />
|