AGENDA #11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Orange County Draft Policy Statement on Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects
DATE: January 28, 2002
This memorandum addresses recommendations in the Orange County draft policy statement on use of County funds for parks and open space projects in Chapel Hill. The attached resolution would authorize Mayor Foy and Council Member Strom to continue to work with the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to develop a mutually acceptable policy for County participation in any Town project using County funds for consideration by the Commissioners and the Council.
In April 2000, the Council adopted a resolution recommending to the County that a Working Committee be established to draft recommendations concerning the following issues:
· Re-examination of the issue of adopting County-wide standards
· Examination of how to assure equitable distribution of land purchases and facilities commensurate to contributions
· Examination of the level of County funding to the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department operating budget compared to County’s use of Town programs and facilities
The Work Group was created, however, the other identified issues have not yet been addressed.
In September 2001, the Council received a draft policy statement from the Orange County Board of Commissioners entitled “Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects.” Please see attached copy of the draft policy. The Council referred the County draft policy statement to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Manager for comment.
On November 26, the Council referred the draft policy statement to the Greenways Commission for comment.
On November 26, the Council considered a resolution to create an intergovernmental short-term work group to refine the proposed policy so as to protect County interests and develop a review process that is smooth and does not cause unnecessary delay. No action was taken on this resolution.
We believe that the best hope for a strong parks and recreation program lies in partnerships and collaboration, inter-jurisdictional and otherwise. Recent efforts, most notably the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, and its predecessor the Joint Master Plan Work Group are strong, positive steps. We agree that a policy for use of County funds for joint projects should be developed. The policy should represent both Town and County interests and ensure that the citizen leisure demands are met in an expedient and efficient fashion.
DRAFT COUNTY POLICY
The County’s draft policy statement for use of County funds for joint parks and open space projects lists several objectives and refers to criteria that have already been adopted by the Commissioners for project approval. The policy statement also includes a proposed process for project planning and development and a proposed process for determining use of a facility once it is operational. Listed below is our analysis of how the County’s proposed policy and adopted criteria might affect the construction and operations of facilities. The projects listed in the County’s 2001 Parks bond would be exempt from some of the requirements. We have noted those exemptions below.
Policy Objective #1: This describes a proposed application process for possible County funding. This process would not be used for the projects funded through the 2001 Orange County Parks bond. The process would include:
Staff Comment: We believe that these steps are reasonable and appropriate. We believe that it is especially important to involve the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group at an early stage in the life of any parks project using County funding.
Policy Objective #2: This objective ties funding with criteria adopted by the County in 1999 and revised in 2000. Please see the attached Orange County Joint Parks Guidelines and Criteria. This process would not be used for the projects funded through the 2001 Orange County bond. Staff Comment: We believe that most of these criteria are responsible and Homestead Aquatics Center and Southern Community Park might be partially exempt, because the design process for each project is already well underway. However, we do note a few potential issues.
Potential issues include:
Matching Funds – The criteria includes an expectation of at least 1:1 matching funds. We believe that this may be limiting for a wide range of projects. We note that, if these criteria were applied to the projects approved by the voters in 2001, the Town could not produce evidence of a 1:1 match except possibly in the case of the Greenways project. We suggest that the match be lowered or the language changed to allow greater flexibility.
Geographic Location – The criteria suggest that facilities be centrally located. We believe that there is little flexibility for siting new facilities within the urbanized areas of the County. We are sometimes forced to build facilities in locations that are not central simply because there are no suitable options.
Policy Objective #3: This objective would require the Town to sign an agreement that would guarantee a high level of involvement in the planning and construction process by the Board of County Commissioners.
Staff Comment: Design firms have already been hired for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center and Southern Community Park projects. The Council has already approved a conceptual plan for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center. The conceptual plan report for the Southern Community Park has been accepted by the Council and referred to Boards, staff, the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the County Commissioners. The impact of this proposed policy on these conceptual plan efforts is not clear at this time.
We have the following questions and comments concerning specific proposals in this section of the draft policy:
Joint Approval of Concept Plan Committee Appointments - We believe that the Commissioners should have representation on any such committee involved with a project that uses County funds and should be free to appoint any person(s) they desire. However, we question whether it would be fair or efficient for the County to be involved in approving all members of any such committee working on Town projects. What would happen if the County disagreed with the appointment of one or more members? Would all appointments need to await a meeting of the County Commissioners before they could be finalized? Might it streamline the process and promote a broad representation of citizens for the County to be given a certain number of seats on any committee based on their financial commitment?
Joint Approval of Hiring Consultants – Currently, the Town has a carefully specified procedure for selecting consultants. The attached pages of the Council Procedures Manual include the Council’s policy regarding selection of architects and engineers. In addition, the attached pages of the Town Code include the article on Energy Conservation in Design and Construction and its requirements for selection of these professionals, including the participation of a recognized energy professional nominated by the Citizen’s Energy Task Force and additional qualifications required of the professionals.
Staff typically assembles a committee of advisory board members, staff, and other interested parties to interview candidates who wish to be the primary architects for a given project. The Manager usually decides which consultant to hire after reviewing the committee’s recommendations. In some circumstances the Council has selected the consultant. What would happen if the County Commissioners did not agree with the choice made by the Town? Does the Board of Commissioners agree with the selection criteria and process set out in the Town ordinance and policy? Would it be acceptable to the County to guarantee the County a number of seat(s) on any architect review committee based on their financial contribution? Would this amendment to the process be less unwieldy by keeping the selection an administrative matter guided by policies of the elected officials?
The policy implies that any consultant might have to be hired after joint review. We note that most projects have a number of consultants that work on a variety of issues including floodway engineering, wetlands delineation, soils, and other specialties. How could we avoid such a joint selection process for each of these consultants from seriously slowing any project?
Joint Approval of the Concept Plan – We believe that this should be the key to cooperative planning and implementation of jointly funded projects. We would also suggest that a general phasing plan be included in this plan and its approval.
Joint Approval of the Timetable – Currently the staff manages schedules based on conditions. Timetables tend to be unreliable at the beginning of any project and are often changed depending on types of conditions and the number of problems encountered. Would projects be delayed if the County Commissioners have to approve schedule changes?
Joint Approval of Site Plans and Construction Phasing – With the exception of projects that require a Special Use Permit, these aspects are currently performed by Town staff. We believe that they should continue to be a Town staff function. The current system has worked well, keeps projects on course, and allows for a streamlined process.
Policy Objective #4: This objective states that 2001 bond projects are considered to have received “conditional approval” and that the process outlined in Policy Objective #3 should be followed as closely as possible.
Staff Comment: We believe that the granting of “conditional approval” for 2001 Parks bond projects makes sense. However, we note concerns with the provisions listed in Objective #3. Please see the comments above.
Policy Objective #5: This would allow the County to provide a separate consultation process to oversee any and all elements of a project’s design and construction.
Staff Comment: Currently, we hire an architect who works with the staff to design a project that meets the intent of the Council’s approved conceptual plan. If required, the consultant also works to prepare and present a Special Use Permit which allows the Council additional opportunities for oversight in the design phase.
Once a project is designed, the architect guides the process of bidding and then becomes responsible for construction contract administration. The architect must manage disputes between owner and contractor and must often make determinations that can affect payments. At its recent retreat, the Council discussed the value of seeking proposals from value engineering consultants to assist the Town in all elements of construction planning and management.
Would a separate oversight consultant hired by the County lead to confusion, delays, and potential legal complications? Should tax funds be used to oversee the work of other tax-funded consultants? If the Town enhances its own construction management capacity, would it be efficient for taxpayers to fund another separate such function?
Policy Objective #6: The Town would be expected to provide for operation and maintenance of the facilities upon completion.
Staff Comment: We believe that this is generally reasonable. We note that in a few years, the operation and maintenance costs become significantly higher than the capital costs to construct a facility.
Policy Objective #7: This objective deals with the use of the facility once it has been constructed. The policy would require that the facility be open to all County residents. In addition, the Commissioners could reserve the right to approve any leases of the facility for exclusive operation by any operation. Any agreement could also restrict the ability of the Town to schedule facilities in certain circumstances without County approval.
Staff Comments:
Residency - We currently open all of our programs and facilities to non-Chapel Hill County residents on the same basis as Town residents.
Exclusive Leasing – The only Town parks facility that currently is exclusively leased is the Chapel Hill Skate Park and Batting Cage. We believe that the process could be more efficiently handled through the Council. Would it be satisfactory for any agreement between the County and the Town to mandate that any exclusive leasing opportunities include a requirement that the organization leasing keep the facility open to all Orange County residents?
Scheduling – We currently rent a number of facilities to private groups and organizations. This is especially true of athletic fields. Almost all field use is through rental to soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey groups, and appears to be. a good way to address the greatest need and to best manage these fields. We expect that any fields built at the Southern Community Park would also be rented to groups. Is it possible for the leagues who currently rent our fields to provide organized play without having field time that they can count on throughout the season? Would approval of all leases complicate an already complicated and competitive rental situation? Would policies regarding leasing and other operational issues be sufficient to guide our operating personnel and allow them to be more responsive to residents? How could we help facility managers make operational decisions, when all leases would need to go through the County?
SUMMARY
We support the general intent of the draft policy that would regulate agreements for joint parks projects. The proposed draft policy would establish steps that both parties could follow to assure that both County and Town interests are met.
We believe that some policy should be adopted by both the Council and the Board of Commissioners that would provide the County a measurable role in any project paid partially with their bond funds. We recommend that the Council ask its representatives to work with the Intergovernmental Work Group to consider making the following changes:
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission is scheduled to review the Commissioners’ draft policy statement at its January 24, 2002 meeting.
Parks and Recreation Commission: On January 16, 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend that the Council work with the County Board of Commissioners to develop a mutually acceptable policy that would be both inclusive in representing all jurisdictions’ goals and efficient in developing parks, facilities, and greenways in a timely fashion to meet existing and future demand.
Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Mayor Kevin Foy and Council member Bill Strom to continue to work with the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to develop a mutually acceptable policy for consideration by both the County Commissioners and the Town Council.
1. Orange County Draft Policy Statement on Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects (p. 9).
2. Orange County Joint Parks Guidelines and Criteria (p. 12).
3. Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation (p. 13).
4. Greenways Commission recommendations to follow after January 23 meeting (p. 14).
5. “Selection of Architectural and Engineering Professional Services” – excerpted from
Council Procedures Manual (p. 15).
6. “Energy Conservation in Design and Construction” – excerpted from Town Code (p. 20).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND STROM TO WORK WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARKS WORK GROUP TO DEVELOP A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE POLICY THAT WOULD INCLUDE APPROPRIATE COUNTY INPUT AND OVERSIGHT FOR ANY PROJECT USING COUNTY FUNDS (2002-01-28/R-12)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter-jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and
WHEREAS, this the recently approved bond referendum includes County funding for several projects designated in the Town of Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to meet the community’s leisure demands in an expedient fashion; and
WHEREAS, the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions have reviewed the County draft policy statement on use of County funds for joint parks and open space projects and provided comment to the Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes Council Member Bateman and Council Member Strom to continue to work with the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group to develop a mutually acceptable policy for consideration by both the County Commissioners and the Town Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends consideration of the following changes to the draft policy:
This the 28th day of January, 2002.