AGENDA #5b
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Flooding at the Umstead Park Play Area
DATE: March 5, 2001
This report responds to the request of a Council member for information related to repeated loss of sand beneath the play structure at Umstead Park due to flooding.
Umstead Park is one of our most popular neighborhood parks and appears to have the second most heavily used play area. (The newer and more challenging play equipment at Community Center Park receives the most use among all our play areas). A play structure has been located at Umstead Park in about the same location for at least the past 25 years. The current play structure, which was designed with multiple ramps in order to make the upper decks entirely wheelchair accessible, was installed in the early 1990s.
The park also contains a large grass play area, 2 picnic shelters, trails, a basketball court, a small ballfield, and a tennis court. The layout of the park favors use by families with small children, and is used extensively by groups of pre-school and school-aged children.
The fall surface beneath the play structure, has suffered significant flood damage on at least six occasions over the past 20 years, three of those floods being in the past 5 years. The play structure is located 15 feet from the edge of Bolin Creek and is within the stream’s floodway and the Town’s Resource Conservation District (RCD). The structure appears to be located in the creek’s area of maximum flood scouring. Federal and local flood plain laws and regulations would make it impossible to locate the play structure in its current location if the project were proposed today.
Each major flood event in Umstead Park has resulted in the almost complete loss of sand beneath the play structure. We estimate that the cost of replacing sand after each flood at about $5,000 per occurrence. Sand is used as a shock-absorbing fall surface to prevent injuries.
We believe that options are limited by several factors including:
· Limited capital improvement program funds anticipated to be available in FY 2001-02.
· Current configuration of the park.
· Topography of the site.
· Size and extent of the Resource Conservation District, which encompasses almost the entire park site.
· Extensive area that is heavily scoured during each flood event. This area includes the play structure, one picnic shelter, the grass play area, and the parking lot.
· Umstead Drive splits the park and reduces options.
With these constraints in mind we have considered the following possible approaches:
1. Remove the play equipment: We could remove the play structure and convert the area to a more natural state.
This option would have the following benefits:
· An obstruction would be removed from the Bolin Creek floodway.
· The need to replenish sand after each flood event would be eliminated.
· The environment of the stream would likely be improved by the addition of plant material near the edge of the bank.
The option would have the following costs:
· Current use patterns in the park would be severely curtailed. The biggest user groups at Umstead Park are families and groups of pre-school and school age children. Removal of the equipment would eliminate the park’s main attraction.
· Removal of the Umstead Park play equipment would increase use at other already over crowded play structures. We are particularly concerned about greater use of the Community Center play structure, which is already at or beyond capacity on some days.
· We have no other play structure with the same degree of handicap accessibility.
2. Move play equipment to another location in Umstead Park: We could move the play structure to another location within the park. However, the only area large and level enough, outside the area of maximum flood scouring, is the ballfield on the opposite side of Umstead Drive.
This option would have the following benefits:
· An obstruction would be removed from the Bolin Creek floodway. The structure would still be within the Resource Conservation District, but outside the floodway and in a location that would not be subject to rapidly moving water.
· The need to replenish sand after each flood event would be eliminated.
· The environment of the stream would likely be improved because of the addition of plant material near the edge of the bank.
The option would have the following costs:
· The estimated cost of moving the structure is approximately $20,000. If parts are bent or broken during the move the cost would increase.
· We currently rely on the ballfield for our Pee Wee baseball/softball programs.
· Umstead Drive separates the parking area from the ballfield. We believe that, for safety reasons, if the play equipment were moved to the site of the ballfield we should provide a second parking lot.
3. Relocate the play structure to another park: It may be possible to move the structure to another park. The best candidates for a host site are probably the future Southern Community Park or Cedar Falls Park. The Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee has started its work and could consider the possibility of moving the structure to the new park. The current play equipment at Cedar Falls Park does not meet modern safety standards and is relatively small in size. We believe that it should be replaced in the near future or we could move the Umstead Park equipment to this location. We believe that moving the equipment may be a good long-term solution.
This option would have the following benefits:
· An obstruction would be removed from the Bolin Creek floodway.
· The need to replenish sand after each flood event would be eliminated.
· The environment of the stream would likely be improved by the addition of plant material near the edge of the bank.
· We might be able to reuse the equipment in a better setting.
The option would have the following costs:
· The cost of moving the structure to another park would likely exceed $20,000 because of transportation, grading and drainage issues.
· The move would leave Umstead Park without a play structure, which would primarily impact families and groups of pre-school and school age children.
· Removal of the Umstead Park play equipment would increase use at other already over crowded play structures.
4. Redesign Umstead Park: Perhaps the best long-term solution would be to totally redesign and rebuild the park. It may be possible to relocate all of the park features and Umstead Drive in such a way that most park amenities are outside of the floodway and the area of heavy flood scouring.
This option would have the following benefits:
· We could redesign the park in such a way that future floods do not damage park amenities.
· A more natural streamside environment could be reestablished.
· We could reexamine the site and determine the best park program.
· Umstead Drive could be reconstructed in a manner that would increase safety for both drivers and park users.
The option would have the following costs:
· We do not have cost estimates, but experience indicates that any redesign and reconstruction would certainly represent a major capital cost. We believe that the Council will have limited capital improvement program funds available in the coming year.
5. Continue current approach: With this option we would continue to maintain the sand fall surface and replace it after each major flood.
This option would have the following benefits:
· We could continue to operate the Town’s largest wheelchair accessible play structure.
· Families and groups would continue to have access to the current play structure.
· This option involves no large capital costs.
The option would have the following costs:
· The cost of this option is entirely dependent on the frequency of flooding. We continue to estimate that to replace the sand each major flood event will cost approximately $5,000. Based on the experience of the past five years, the cost would be $3,000 per year.
The best long-term solution might be a site analysis, redesign and reconstruction of Umstead Park. This would allow us to move park elements, including the play equipment, to more logical locations. However, this would be a major capital expense; and, we believe that the shortage of capital improvement program funds available in FY 2001-02 and the over next few years will severely limit the short-term options available to the Council.
Moving the structure to another place at Umstead or to another park would cost a minimum of $20,000 and could damage the structure.
Because of our limited capital resources and because of the heavy use the structure experiences in its present location, we believe we should continue to operate the play structure where it is and replace the sand when necessary after severe flood events. Before the structure needs to be replaced we would want to analyze the park site for a better location.
If the Council wishes us to approach this situation in another manner, we would be grateful for the guidance.