Parks & Rec Advisory Board Special Meeting

[clears throat]

Trying to play catch up on everything all the time it feels like.

In this area? In Wake County kind of area?

Uh this area, uh Chapel Hill.

Okay. know.

Mhm.

policy.

And I'm going to wind it.

[clears throat]

All right, let's get started. Guys, you guys ready? What? Good evening, everyone. Uh I'd like to welcome you to and call to order the Apex Parks and Recreation Advisory Board special meeting for July 29th, 2026. Um we always start off with uh moment of invocation. Thank you all. Next, the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Right.

Next, we will have the approval of the And I think we can group these together. We could do Can we group them together or do we need to do them both?

I would separately.

Okay. So, first let's do the May 27th, 2026 meeting minutes. We always send them ahead to us in our emails, so if you had a chance to take a look at those, um we just need a motion to approve those minutes for May 27th, 2026.

I'll make a motion to approve the May 27th meeting minutes.

I'll second.

A motion and properly second. All in favor?

I.

Any opposed? Motion carried. And then we'll do the same for the June 24th, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll make a motion for that to approve the June 24th meeting minutes.

I second.

Motion and properly second. All in favor?

I.

Any opposed? Motion carried. I'm going to move on to um old business with a discussion and possible motion to update the parks, recreation, and cultural resources program and fee study.

Okay. So, I am winging this because

Jamila just said that she's going to be out sick. So, I am just going to jump right into it. So, this pricing policy is something that that we adopted um in the fall of last year. So, I don't know if y'all recall this. Uh, once we started putting in information into not only the, um, I guess the the matrix of what we had for through the, um, through our, uh, consultant pros, we started finding that there were a lot of discrepancies and and things where prices were really jumping high for for different programs that we have. So, um, we did a reassessment of of what the policy had, uh, kind of turned out from from pro- pros perspective. And basically what there were a lot of determinations or a lot of different determinations that we made, um, that needed to be changed. So, um, I'll jump in first and tell you that we received a quite a few questions about this particular presentation. So, if you open your folder, we'll start here. Um, we have a lot of responses to questions in your folder. Uh, you'll see the green responses, the sheet with the green responses. And then over to number two, parks, recreation program and fee study. Um, so, I mean, a lot of these questions we're going to be covered by Jamila. So, I'll just go down and go through the questions that that were asked, um, via a member of the board. So, for us, what are we requesting tonight? So, we made some changes within the policy. So, we're actually recommending that the changes that we've made in the policies, um, be recommended be changed to council. Um, so, that's the recommendation, just generally speaking. Um, so, we are are not asking the board

to approve individual program or rental fees, approve annual fee schedules, or approve, um, only the highlighted revisions. We're asking the board to recommend the changes that we've made throughout the document. Um, with that being said, um, some significant changes that we did make within the policy, one of which is the very next question, um, about non-resident program surcharges. Originally, we're going with a $25 base non-resident fee. Um, after having conversations with our neighbors, after referencing our national standards, um, the base fee was not something that was equitable across the board. Um, the majority of people do use a percentage-based surcharge when it comes to non-resident fees. So, um, we looked around our area and determined 35% was the best, um, in comparison to our neighboring municipalities. So, um, what we've done is we saw that that was not equitable to do a $25 base charge. And an example I would give is if we have a $5 class, and a non-resident comes in for a $5 class, and we've got 10 openings, and we're making them pay $30 for a $5 class, they wouldn't they wouldn't come in and, uh, take part in that particular class. Special populations goes and bowls. We have a $10, $15 fee for them to go bowl with a group. You add a $25 fee to that particular class, they wouldn't take part in that that particular program because you can bowl for less than that, um, without joining in a group. So, uh, for us, um, it to explain it, yes, lower cost programs will see a smaller surcharge, um, from the previous policy, while higher cost programs, including camps, will have a

higher surcharge. And and for us, that's the most equitable way to do it. We didn't do a cap on the the percentage for any type of programming because we wanted it to be consistent throughout our program. So, um that's kind of the second question that was posed. Um we did change our like our entertainment exemption scope. originally when we were talking about entertainment, it it was really strictly geared more towards um the Cultural Arts Center uh because of the performances and and things like that. But, now we've been kind of given this new objective to start doing more entertainment services, whether it's concerts, whether it's plays, uh whether it's movies, things of that nature. So, when you when you look at that, um it it expands beyond the exemption beyond traditional ticketed uh performances and it recognizes the variety of entertainment offerings provided by the department. Um related programs, um it's it's just different from our actual um programming that we have within the facilities when it comes to uh ballet or dance classes and things of that nature because it's more of an entertainment-based function. So, you don't have non-resident fees attached to that either. So, um that's why we we changed it from strictly the Cultural Arts Center because we are being pushed to do more entertainment stuff and it's going to be outside of the Cultural Arts Center. Um so, with that, it gives us some flexibility in that space. Um another question about field and gymnasiums. So, for us, we needed to clarify within the policy because gymnasium was listed prior to in the old policy um as being uh, one of the regular reservation sites. Well, field and gyms

are totally different ball game when it comes to to rental in comparison to our room rental fees. Um, and with that, I kind of speak to that within here. Um, the fields and courts and gyms do have a unique market condition. Uh, we have a lot of people that we compete with in the area as well for rental purposes. So, the operational demands and regional competition, they kind of drove us to to put this into the policy. Um, and then rather than applying a fixed surcharge through the policy, uh, 1.7.6 within the policy requires these rental rates to be evaluated annually through the market because we want to stay in the market with our competitors because we do compete with other folks. Um, so we don't want to lose that um, uh, flexibility and ability to change where we need to. Um, let's see. Long-term rental fees. Um, so

[sighs]

when we talk about long-term rental fees, we're talking about like a lot of the athletic fields that we have, we do long-term rentals with them. So, we needed to to really clarify what that meant. And so, um, changing to a 7-day deadline, it was intentional to do that. Um, reducing the payment deadline provides greater flexibility for recurring users while still allowing sufficient time for staff to identify unpaid reservations and reallocate space when necessary. Um, the existing procedures, uh, regarding cancellations, unpaid balances management remain in place and will continue to govern how we, how recurring reservations are administered. So, um, that's that piece. Um, after-hours facility rentals, so we get requests for after-hours facility rentals not consistently, but we need to be in a position where we can recoup some of those expenses. And so, there was a

question about which facilities can can be rented after hours. Administratively, we make that decision whether or not we can staff it or not is a huge deal for us um because if we can't staff after hours, we wouldn't allow the rental to occur. So, it really it affects our facilities more so than our outdoor facilities because we don't typically get requests after hours for our outdoor facilities unless we have a tournament in the space. So, for us after hours rentals um that's why we pretty much specified the different things for the attendant fees which is noted in the the policy as well and making that applicable attendant and staffing fees to recover some of those costs. Trying to think about anything else that we really changed. So, we really focused cuz there was a question in the original policy we had a a graph that kind of showed the different levels of um percentages of how different things were going to fall in the top right hand corner in the policy. By doing so, it kind of restricted us in where we kind of placed our our different programs. And for us, we wanted to sure with the revised policy that we really focused on our classification as a staff and where we thought they fell. Um Some people with our other policy that we presented, it was very specific in some of the classes that were present in it and it made it so that you couldn't be flexible where you actually spaced and put those which would put some of the classes in a range where we couldn't compete with our competitors. So, we needed to be flexible in the space and really focus on the core, enhanced, and specialized classifications. But, in doing so, you really have to

take a look at what's the benefit of a a group in comparison to an individual. And so, our staff has that knowledge because they know what their programs are all about. So, we went back, we did the classifications for the core, enhanced, and specialized classifications. And um we we ensured that the programs won't be out-priced with our our market and our uh and our and our neighbors. Um and we also ensured that our non-resident fees are are not astronomical in comparison to our neighbors as well. So, I know it was a lot. Um I'm winging this, so uh I'm more than happy to answer additional questions. I think the primary takeaways for what we've actually changed that for y'all to really be focused on were the non-resident rate, uh going from a $25 non-resident fee to the 35% um change. Um I think uh having a more of a focus on the entertainment side and showing that via the Cultural Arts Center uh facility and then us having um some guidance to start looking at more entertainment options and opening that up for the policy. Um and then having a a focus of individual benefit compared to group benefit and and how that affects pricing um for our different programs. So, those are kind of the three highlighted areas that I would say are are the primary things that we're changing.

Correct, you said the 35% non-resident is better than neighbors.

It's it's either equal to or less than in some cases. Um 35% is is kind of the range where 30% is more so what a lot of people do in our area, but we felt like with our demand of our programs because we fill up so fast, we feel like our demand is higher and so for us the 35% seemed a better fit for

what we do in the programs that we offer in general terms because of our spacing constraints, too.

Other questions? Follow up statements? So as I understand it Craig, you need us to just make a recommendation a motion for this revised policy to go to town council for approval.

Yes. Yeah.

So if we could get a motion if if everybody is is is okay with that.

And I will say because there were some comments about some general editorial things that needed to change. So we're going to clean up the editorial pieces and that's there's a note in there about that as well. So as part of the motion will will change those editorial pieces so you may want to make a comment about the the editorial things.

So a motion for recommendation of the revised policy to town council for approval and editorial and formatting conduct.

Yes.

Yeah. So that's what we need.

I'll make a motion. To uh move this along to town council with the editorial edits.

Second.

It's been motioned and properly seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Motion carried. Thank you, Craig. And next up we'll move over to our new business.

All right, good evening. Um The first item of new business is the North Salem Street mixed-use plan development. Um it's a project that is

32.35 acres comprised of 14 tracks on the west side of North Salem Street and south of Allwheel Drive, north of Brittley Way and the Hadden Place subdivision. So, you kind of see it sort of outside of the peak way in downtown, and then we'll get you a little bit closer in. Um the applicant proposes to rezone from residential agricultural agriculture and rural residential and planned commercial um conditional use mixed-use zoning um well, two mixed-use pud conditional zoning. That's a mouthful. Um the proposal includes a maximum combination of 460 units with um right now the target is 175 single-family attached units and 285 multi-family units. Um as you can see, a portion of this property, which we estimate to be about 1.5 acres, falls within one of our um land Parkland search areas. And so, we did have discussions with the applicant about the potential of land dedication. Um if they were based on our calculations and requirements of the UDO, if they were to dedicate them minimum required based on their unit count, it would be 9.5 acres. But, in this location um and based on what they're proposing, that would be a substantial impact to the project um um, being able to proceed as it would take up almost a third of the parcel. Um, so while we looked at a potential dedication or partial dedication, um, which is something that was allowed, um, it would be 1.5 acres. It was also something that, um, it wouldn't we wouldn't want it to be this little sliver of land because there's, um, all wheel drive runs through here and this purple line is, um, follows that um, side path in this map, but also aligns with a future road connection that would

follow out to the Carolina Bell Road, um, through these, um, under developed parcels. And so there is a road here, um, and so right of way would need to be dedicated to complete that. It would eat into that and then it would be a little sliver of less than probably 1 acre of land, um, not ideal for us to create anything with that. Um, so that was part of the reason why we wouldn't just identify the land that's within the zone. Uh, the other thing is there's, uh, existing pond on the site, um, there was concerns from our water resources staff in evaluating that about that pond, um, and the dam and it needing to be drained and potentially rebuilt. So, uh, while that pond was in a part of consideration for dedication, um, it's something that if we were looking at the land around it that takes up acreage, it doesn't count towards dedication. And so, also was something that would impact the idea of any dedication in this property. We also, uh, talked to the applicant as they were looking, you can see some, uh, what we call under developed, meaning the development pattern around this is either higher density or this is the Crossroads Ford. And so those parcels to the west appear under developed and so in a sense um they talked to the property owner um there's several in this location that um about a offsite dedication and whether or not some of that would be feasible. But again, between the road alignment, um ponds, and stream buffers, RCA requirements, road building, there's connections potentially from here up, um some of the offsite that we could consider here didn't meet our dedication requirements in the ordinance. So, there's things like ponds don't count, um protected buffers, steep slopes don't count, and so offsite land that was

potentially available that they might be able to purchase to do offsite dedication didn't comply and wouldn't have met our requirements for a partial dedication. With the proximity to the Hunter Street Park, um and the, you know, indoor recreation facilities that we have um at Town Hall and our community center, um senior center, Salem Pond Park is right up here off Davis Drive and Old Chapel Hill Road, and so it's not too far from other park facilities. And so after evaluating all of the alternatives, um it was determined by staff and the applicant agreed that it seemed like fee in lieu um for this project, even though we were like always looking for something close to downtown, was probably the best fit for the site. So, um our recommendation is for a fee in lieu for this project. And um as we always tell you, if this project were to be approved, um the rezoning approved by Town Council during this year, um the rates are set um for 2026, and that is $2,564.75 per multi-family unit and $2,912.97 for single family attached residential unit. If for some reason this project were delayed and not reviewed or approved by council in um 2026, then it would go with the 2027 rates, which we reset on January 1st. So, I'm open for any questions. Applicant and agent of the applicant are here if you have any questions for them.

I'm just curious. Why is the pond not part of the RCA? Like what

Well, the the pond pond they're likely to include that in their RCA, um which is resource conservation area required by the um subdivision ordinance. But, RCA does not count as park land.

And water does not count as part of dedicated land because while it might be amenity, it might be something nice to look at, um there's no land value for that in our legislation is for land dedication. So, if someone were to dedicate 3 acres and in the middle of that was a half an acre pond, um if all the land were flat to that pond, then they would get credit for the land, 2 and 1/2 acres, not the half acre pond. So, the dedication ordinance is for us to be able to develop usable park land and water isn't considered usable park land by the ordinance or by the legislation.

Depends on if you have a fishing pole.

It could be an amenity within the park.

Right.

You could boat on it or kayak, but but but by the ordinance and by the fact that it's land dedication, you couldn't park a vehicle and someone couldn't give you a half acre pond and say, "Well, there's your dedication." So, it's clear in in the language that while it might be amenity, um I think when they did investigation of it after the water resource concerns, I think their thought is they would have to drain the pond anyway. Um so, if we were looking at some way of combining parkland adjacent to their RCA, um, that will be in the buffer area around the pond and stuff, then it still didn't become the amenity that we might have hoped for if it had been a pond remained a pond.

I'm a little disappointed. I live in Haddon Hall, so I would like to have seen some kind of you know, parks or something for that area.

I

But the fee in lieu kind of, you know, I would I would go over better, but Sorry, that's my

Yep.

biased opinion. But that's all I had.

Other thoughts?

So excluding this, uh, one question. When you exclude this, does it uh, like devalue it for future or how how would does it get a separate new PUD number

for this excluded land?

Are you talking about the for the acreage within within this

Yeah.

limit?

Uh, you know, the when we did the master plan, one of the things that we evaluated across the town was the ability or the distance between residential development and parks. So we look at a a 10-minute walk and a 5-minute drive. And our plan identified areas that were not able to access parks, um, within the 10-minute drive because we didn't have the kind of connectivity in place to you or 5-minute drive versus a 10-minute walk. Um, that was a choice we made while we evaluated both the these search areas. And I prefer to go back to this to show like across the town. These were areas that at the time in 2023, they're substantially under developed, meaning that, um, there might be new development around it. There was no parks dedicated or um land purchased for future parks within those circles. And so, these were the areas that we identified that were deficient. Um the the need for land is still there. Um we're going to talk about that a little bit more in our level of service as a part of the fee study that we're providing tonight. Um but in a sense, if you look at this area, I'm going to see if I can zoom in up here just to show you. But I think this warrants part of that discussion is that it's probably when you look at this circle in that area, the target of land that we're really looking for is this larger area of undeveloped land that's north of 64. Um and so, while like the edge of it touches existing Salem Pond Park and the edge of it touches this property, it it's kind of clear in that that that

that this was trying to provide property and you know, access for park land uh north of 64. Would it if it had been further into this parcel, if this parcel had been cross roads for maybe we would have looked at it differently. But um so, it doesn't change the the project as it's being presented for our review and for um council to consider is that um they're doing a planned unit development for mixed use which includes not only residential but non-residential. And so, um um it falls within our standard policy of making a land dedication requirement. I think a lot of times we might not have even looked at a little sliver and tried to make that work. Um but because we've always sort of been trying to as land near downtown um is being redeveloped, we are we just really take a hard look on any project that's uh anywhere close, even though we don't necessarily today have something that's in our downtown area as identified. It's just always been sort of a written note that if we can find downtown gathering space, we're going to try to try to pursue that.

Do we know what the non-residential plans are?

Um at the stage of the rezoning, we don't have that information and and in detail. Um I they work with planning on the requirements for being compliant with the land use plan and their mix of uses. Um so square footage requirements or that and what type of um businesses or operations might be a part of that mixed-use, we don't really look into in that um for for our staff, all we're allowed to do is make recommendations related to residential. Our our ordinance only that article 14 that we're guided by says anyone who subdivides land for residential, so so in that sense, all we're really allowed to assess is the residential component.

I think especially with this particular parcel of land, I think you have to take into account the proximity to where Hunter Street is, too. Um which which is why the bubble's higher, right? I mean, Hunter Street is sitting pretty much just below that area to the east.

Or in Salem.

Yeah.

Yeah, so here's here's Hunter Street. I mean, it's it's directly between two parks. And would meet the the 10 5-minute drive in both directions to either one of those parks. Um but again, we we're looking at um we're we're I I say it because this is close to downtown as one target, but um at this stage, and again, I'll mention it more in detail, is as we boom in population and we don't acquire either through dedication or acquisition additional park land. And while we have two parks that are land banked for future development, um we're not keeping pace and so we're we're considering every project. Um the difference is if we have five one-acre or half 10 half-acre parks spread around town, they're more like parks that are serving We don't usually have parking in them. They're serving the residents nearby. And a lot of the the neighborhoods in this one will probably offer uh internal amenities, swimming pool, playgrounds, um walking trails. There's a number of things that are already being provided, especially in planned unit developments. So, the residents within that area will have access to that, but it wouldn't necessarily be public. Um and so that's sort of, you know, a shift of whether or not we want to start taking on numerous little park lands or whether not we can assemble and accept fees that we can use to purchase additional park land. Which is what we used to purchase Pleasant Park, um part of Wimberley Road, and um Olive Farm. So, and we have about 90

acres sitting between those two to to to develop and no funds to develop them. So, it's a balancing act, but

Is there a a greenway?

Uh there is not um the purple that you see is side path, which means it's a transportation requirement that follows the transportation plan and runs along the road. It is a 10-ft wide path. So, there would be a 10-ft wide path as a part of that side side path as a part of the transportation plan. And there's side path along Salem in the future, so those are all future, you know, connections.

Is there any bike value to having a greenway into that area?

Uh again, it's not in our plan and um you know, we're we're we're evaluating this. We completed a feasibility study of the Hadden Hall.

Right.

Um it's going to council at a work session to discuss what's the next step and the priority of that related to the other projects that are in the pipeline getting plans drawn up. Um so we're you know, if there was a direct connection that we thought was easy and feasible to connect the two, but I don't know. I think when we looked there wasn't really a corridor that would connect the two and anything else would be you know, a very short distance and equivalent to, you know, a sidewalk between cuz there isn't really a significant land or other feature that it would travel through to keep it off the street.

Can you tell I'm trying?

I do. I appreciate it. I'm sure they appreciate hearing what they might have already heard in other meetings with the neighbors, but um you know, we're we we look at all of that to see what we can do. We talked, I mean, in in depth about the RCA and whether or not there could be a you know, if they provided the RCA with a natural surface path within that area, um but you know, the RCA is not regulated by Parks and Rec. It's by Planning and so there are rules to what we're allowed to do in RCA

and it would be their RCA, so you know, taking it over would just put the same the burden of responsibility be on the town. It would be the same piece of property. And so in this case it will be there whether or not it's protected or used is is dependent on their plans.

Thank you, Angela. Uh so yeah, we just would need no more questions or follow up a motion for the sign recommended fee in lieu dedication based on the Post 7 Street plan unit development.

I'll make a motion to recommend the fee in lieu for the Salem Street beauty going to council.

I'll second it.

It's been motioned and properly seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carried.

All right. This is a little different project to present. Um this is Crestmont um and Green Moor are two subdivisions that are in the sort of northwest part of Apex. Um they're both east of Green Level Road and south of Green Level West. They uh um approximately uh the bridges and trails in this area of Crestmont were built in 2015 to '17. They were brand new when I first started, didn't have anything to do with the plans, but I got to approve them being constructed. And then this Green Moor segment is um just south, so it connects when they're down here. This is where the Green Moor um plan is. And there's a bridge here. Um our staff went out um at some point during the year. They do routine inspections of the structures along our greenway trail, so that's any of your boardwalks and bridges. They had some concerns about what they were seeing in this bridge in particular. And so um came to us and

we're talking about whether or not they could start doing some repairs and what we thought those should be. Um we talked to our building inspections um folks and decided that it would be best for us to um engage a structural engineer to to take a look at that. Um Wetherill Engineering is someone who's done a lot of um study for us in the past. We have that uh uh master services on-call agreement with them, so we reached out to them. They'd done studies of Beaver Creek and Hadon in some of our older greenways. And so, um they engaged their structural engineering team and um came out and assessed these um four uh bridges and boardwalk sections. Uh so, as a result of that, um there's uh two bridges that uh we had some significant concerns about. Uh those two what we're working with them is to to come up with full um design plans on what needs to be done. They're likely that the work is substantial enough that we might need to remove the bridges and have them rebuilt entirely or that will be an outcome of the study. The other two bridges just had some, you know, some repairs and replacements that we can um do in-house with our park operations team. So, what we're what we're sort of doing is just sharing with you that we do these um surveys and analyses and we contract these firms um to take it beyond what we have is um staff capacity or knowledge to to do. We do identify when we see concerns, but we may not be able to fully re-engineer a design. And it may be that the design that was done isn't the best for that location. Um And so, uh with all the water flow in this area, I think there was just some need for some of the support structures and that to be reworked. So, what we're presenting is is not necessarily a rec We don't need a recommendation. Um we're advising you that um you you see sometimes there's social media,

there's information out um there. We think we caught this before it is a problem. We don't need to shut the bridges or boardwalks down. Um and so, we're monitoring them. If we had a big storm like we had the other day, our crews go out there and take a look right away just to see if there's any significant change from the last time they were out there. And we are um having two of the um bridges uh we're doing geotech work. going to get a geotech on board to do a study of sort of the walls that are there and whether or not those can be reworked or whether or not they need to be removed and then have new walls put in. And so, this is not this part is a budgeted something that we are prepared to to manage depending on the results of what happens from the the two bridge plans that we received. We don't have a budget set aside for that in this year's budget. plan for it and if it's significant enough in cost, then we'll probably be looking to look for funds or do a budget amendment to to move funds to cover those projects because we want to make sure that our patrons are safe when they're using our greenway trails. So, we're just advising you on this but wanted you to to know sort of what we are up up to these days. So, are there any questions about this?

I um do you think that they are mostly a result from the impact environmental impacts as far as you said like storm events and additional flow or or do you think it's kind of original engineering cuz like what 9 years 9 years doesn't seem that long or is it a material deterioration or

They're they they were designed and built by two different groups. So, different home builder groups, different design engineers, different contractors. I'm more inclined to say that that it's it's a change in in what we're seeing in water flow in the area. Obviously, they

were built and the development around them has greatly increased. And so, one of the areas this particular section of Clark Branch which feeds White Oak Creek, I'm getting really in the weeds about FEMA and that but it's an unmapped segment of the FEMA floodway, and um there was a bridge built upstream that didn't get a certified letter of map revision when it was built, and so um it became a FEMA non-compliance issue for the developer. Um obviously the town has a flood plain manager, and so we had to get involved in and make sure that they understood that it was It's not a mapped floodway and was presumed to not have the sort of um flow that would require all of that all that study to happen, and so I do think that maybe when it was designed, especially the like the one this one along here was that when they it was designed that we didn't know what what was being looked at. It was also built, again, prior to me being here in 2000 and this this right hand side. Um to say

level of like construction standards that we

We didn't have standard specs and details that I created in the first few years that I was here, and so um some of that has like over 8% with handrail and no landings, and so some of that area um even the asphalt edges, we don't have concrete approaches, and so I I do think that they were maybe under-designed based on the information that we have. And so um I'm sort of surprised about this one just in the sense of it's pretty small, but it is a really deep channel, and um I'm not sure that there was a full geotech report that kind of went with it. It was a design that was done

um and approved through our inspections department, but I I think when we're we're putting our hands and eyes on them now, we want all of that information before it goes for a permit. So, um but that one's not in the FEMA floodway. So, it didn't require that extra review um through any other agency.

Okay. Well, thanks.

And we've already started the the ones that we can we can handle and maintain.

Uh we're we have the report um we got a couple weeks ago, so we're that's on the schedule for our park ops team to do the repairs. That it's mostly like just timber timber work and and that is pretty common on those sorts of things. I think it was more the underpinnings of the one that really caught their attention. Um but it's good I feel like it's good to know that they're going out there and identifying it and bringing it up and not assuming that it will be fine there. We're We're working through that, so we definitely have a process for that.

And is it usually the inspection staff within the town that finds these based on like a certain standard of inspection or is it residents using them or

Um in this case, it's our park operations staff. They do um inspections of all the greenways on a to the extent possible on a schedule. Um so, it's something that we're working more to to have a better plan for that including sort of the projected, you know, lifetime of these. When when should we start to be looking at a full replacement or an upgrade or a change in material um if we update our standard specs and details in some manner, are these ones that would qualify or that we should really consider doing in the new standards? So, I think it's something that as we've developed a a team over the last 10 years, we're we're better prepared, um but the first initial inspections are always done by our staff. And it's it's parks and recreation staff, not our building and inspection staff. They permit the the bridges, but all they usually look at is footers. They don't

come out. We get a structural engineer who signs off on the the design for the contractor um builder, and who also write a report that say that it meets its structurally intent when it when they turn it over to us. But, our, um, our building inspections team don't really, um, they just make sure that the engineering documents are in order and that it's stamped and sealed. They don't go out and do those inspections except for the footers.

You said we go out there and inspect after like a big storm event or something just to kind of check it.

Yeah. I mean, especially these right now we're we're we're keeping an eye on. Um, and if we had any concern about closures, we would do that. And where we have some areas that are flooding, um, you'll see posting on our like the updates where we're like we're closing a section of Beaver Creek. Um, we're working on that project too, but, um, we do that to make sure that we're, um, keeping up with knowing what's happening out there, especially in areas that are that These are all usually boardwalks and bridges are there because it's flood prone areas and that's where our greenways tend to be. So, um, we're also looking at whether or not we need to look at where we're located and make some recommendations about changing that as well. We like to be down in these beautiful natural areas, but we're maybe too close to the water. And so, we're we're also assessing that as something that we might be able to change in the future to get us a little farther away and protect those areas a little bit better.

So, need nothing from us, just we're aware and we support what you guys are doing. Thank you.

We like your support.

[laughter]

And for you to know what we're working on. So. This is our big fun our fun one. So, um, I'm quickly going to go back that in two 2023 we adopted our parks master plan. Um, it was about a year and a half worth of work I think to really get it to that adoption place. And one of the recommendations of that, which is

something staff had been indicating we needed was uh update to our Parkland dedication and fee in lieu study or study of that um and what we have for that. Um So, this study, what it does is recalculate Apex's park fee in lieu fees for new residential development based on population growth, land values, level of service, and statutory requirements. Um tonight we're presenting the high-level findings from the draft report that we don't have the final one until we um go to the next um level of review. Um this is just an outline of those recommendations. So, the last fee study was undertaken by Duncan and Associates in 2008. So, it's been quite a long time. Um since then, the town's population grew from 35,000 residents in our 2010 census um to what we're estimating as 85,700 in 2026. Um this resident number of 85,000 plus exceeds the number of residents that we anticipated for the 10-year horizon at the time of the adoption of the parks master plan in 2023. So, for those of you that were on the board in 2023, we had 10 years where we projected a population growth, and we just took a fast sweep upward and exceeded the 10-year plan already in two year well, two and a half three years. Um since the study in 2008, Parkland acreage increased from about 377 acres to what we're calculating now is 699 acres. So, we've added a lot since 2008, um but maybe not enough. Uh the changing trends in population, that steep growth, uh the increase in property values, and Parkland acreage um that we've added, but that we also need created the need to study the value of land as well as the fee in lieu rates that we charge for residential developments. Um

when we present, like we just did earlier tonight, we're talking about land dedication or fee in lieu, um it's the values that we're discussing, those fees that we charge that we're looking at in this study. So, um and most of that is what we are um guided by when we talk about why we accept one thing or the other or what we're allowed to ask for, that all comes out of the unified ordinance in article 14, um which we gave you a copy of, the most recent draft of it. Um and as we have a lot of new members, I just would ask that if you are so inclined to take some time to read through it and um maybe let us know if it would be beneficial for us to um set a time to kind of give you that sometimes it's legal language that says you shall do this and it may be clear in your mind what that means, but um we'll get an interpretation from our legal staff and that's the rule, that's what we follow. And so, the decisions that we make in the presentations and and recommendations that we provide are guided by that, not if we think it would be nice to have, we're still guided by what that ordinance directs us. Um so, figure this is a good time to say this is where this is all going to reside in that ordinance. Um and so, um we're guided by what we're allowed to do and not between that and state legislation and basically article 14 implements legislation that we have um for the town to be able to um require land dedication for subdivision. So, um the metric used for calculating a fee in lieu rates is based on an achieved level of service, which is a measurement of parkland acres per 1,000 residents. At the time of the park's master plan in 2023, we had a level service of 10 acres per 1,000 residents.

The significant population increase in the last 3 years has this metric now achieved at a level of 8.6 acres per 1,000 residents. So, that's considered a loss in the sense of a decrease in level of service because now there are only 8 acres per 1,000 residents versus 10 acres. So, we're growing faster than we're able to secure land to try to maintain that 10 acres. Um that 10 acre is a value that's considered like acceptable across national standards. And so, we were pretty close to it. We were happy that we were there, and we would like to maintain there, but there are rules about whether or not we can just make people achieve more in a project. Um so, we'll kind of get into that, but just so you know, 10 acres per 1,000 was better than 8.16, and um there are limits to what we're allowed to require.

Speaks to the fact that God's not making any more land. Right.

Which is why we're, you know, constantly looking. All right. So, the increase of residents without proportional addition of park land creates a gap between level of service both in what was codified in 2008 study, and at the time of the master plan, which indicates the need for the fee study update. The current level of service level of service achieved for the metric of 8.16 acres of park land per resident results in park land acres per dwelling unit that falls below the desired metrics adopted in the master plan, providing less park land for residents. So, this is acres per dwelling unit. So, currently from the 2008 what we had was these numbers, which when we talk about dedication and we do a calculation, these are the current numbers that we're using to create the dedication value. Based on the current level of service, we can only

require based on these numbers, which means in a sense, we're getting less per project because we have to have more units to get an acre of land because our level of service falls below. I know that's a lot. Um Yes, yes. Yes, the trend is going down, but because of that, it we have to we can't just simply say, "Well, we want to be at 10." We'd have to buy land to reestablish ourselves at that 10 units per resident or 1,000 residents at the pace that we are growing in population. And we are not legally allowed to say, "Well, we want to use these units at 10." We we have to use where our level of service resides. And so, we're going to be working with these new numbers. And so, when we if we adopt this, and there's a reason why we should, um then we're going to be using the new numbers. So, this is that calculated into units. Um since we're only allowed to require dedication or a fee in lieu that achieves the current level of service, we have to work with these new numbers. The gap between what is required in the UDO versus level of parkland that the town has achieved results in the need for us to update the land dedication numbers as shown. So, we went from 1/30th or basically, it takes 30 single-family units to get an acre of land. Now, it's going to take 41 units of single-family residential to get an acre of land. Um So, that's that's just an example. Obviously, it goes Each one is categorized by single family attached is what you usually see as townhomes, and multi-family is apartments or condos. Or um assisted living facilities still fall into multi-family.

The fee study also established the basis of an updated land cost value that responds to the current market conditions. Based on previous land purchases, so these are all the ones that we purchased for Parkland and um property that we evaluated um for future purchase. Um and appraisals for those, the average land purchase price is calculated to be 320,000 per acre. So, these are parklands that we purchased. This was property that we looked at to purchase. Um these are properties that the town had recent appraisals on, potentially that we own um for other purposes, but that are town-owned property. And so, um these were more recent, but you get an idea of kind of again that when we average those together, we're at 320,000 per acre. Um these prices are um something that's consistent with the range of property value seen by our town's real estate staff. We work with them when we identify a property that we can we would consider buying or that we hear is on the market or that's near something. Um we reach out to them if we know we need to secure an easement, and so they're engaged with us. We have monthly meetings where we talk to the real estate team about all the purchase things needed in across the town. And so, when those decisions are made, this falls within the range of property that they were seeing, and for the most part, current values in their mind are between 270 and 350, depending on very other specific things about the site, but those in an appraisal setting could be valued up or down. So, if like think about if you have a property that's way on the west side of town and there's no access to water or sewer at this point, that value of that land is some of what values it is that you're going to have to pay to try to get those services to it. A property that's in right in downtown or like this one we just sold on Salem Street is probably on the higher end of that because all the services are right there. It's the last

property to be developed. So, based on the assumption of the average land purchase price being 320,000 per acre with a level of service of 8.16 acres per 1,000 residents, the land cost per resident is 2,611 and 20 cents. Pretty simple math. And that matters because um when we utilize the Apex census data, we have the indicated residents per unit that's shown here. So, based on our data, single-family detached homes have a average resident per unit of three per dwelling unit. Um and you might have some that are higher or lower, but that's what our census data shows, and so we're we use this information. We don't manipulate it or adjust it. It's what we're given. Um and if you multiply that times the total cost per resident based on that 320 land value, these would be your new calculated fees. Much higher than what we're getting today. The thing that that does is balance the table of when someone says, "Well, I could basically for this, it's about 120, 130,000 an acre, but I'm paying 300,000 per acre. I don't want to give you the $300,000 an acre piece. I want to pay my 120 and and you know, be out the door." Um and so one of the reasons that we were seeing so many people not willing to provide is because they couldn't balance the the cost of what they were paying against the fees that they would pay. So, while the level of service in the land has to adjust, we also now could recoup additional funds to get us to that 320 an acre for those projects that paid fee. So, we'll be if this were to be approved, would be where we would be either getting an acre that's equal to

the fee that they pay. So, the decision for a development is is not a wow, don't want to give cuz it's going to be cheaper to pay. It levels that out closer. And the thing just to add as a note for people who do math cuz I always like to double-check things. Um, if we averaged in a sense, if we multiplied this back by 41, this by the 55, this by the 82, we end up with an average of $319,660 per acre. So, we're right at the 320 that we calculated completely differently. And so, um, these are the single-family detached is a little higher. Um, the single-family attached is in the middle and this is because you're multiplying times much different numbers. So, it sets us back where everything is pretty much on the level playing field. Doesn't matter what type of development, there's no rationale for why, although more units per acre, they're still in our world, the fees and the dedication and the unit type is going to be level across the playing field.

Math is math.

Math is math in this case.

[laughter]

And how often do we do this analysis?

So, we last did it in 2008. We do have a recommendation for how we will move forward and that will come in a little bit, but I'll get you on that one. All right. So, we never do this in a bubble, so we did a comparison to some of our local jurisdictions in the county and that we often compare our metrics to. And there's some outliers in this, so understand that we do comparisons, but some people don't play in the same area, have different legislation or do things in a different way. So, kind of point out those, but for the most part a lot have done these in very more recent years. This is our 2008

where we were sitting. Garner did theirs in 2020. Holly Springs just did theirs and Wake Forest just did theirs. Now, why are there several that have not applicable? Those agencies might not do a per acre value standard. They can simply use a appraisal for every project. That is something that we as a philosophy didn't choose to do in 2008 and we've been operating without doing that and it's been successful for us. So, we're sort of maybe not ready to to dive into changing our policy or our procedures because it's working and it falls within our legislation. So, doing it with a set fee rate maybe updating it more often would help keep us in balance. Something where you see an impact fee means that they charge differently and just so that you know, City of Raleigh is currently undergoing their own fee study. So, their out date like all right, out date is going to get caught up and we'll we don't have what that sits like or what they're looking like, but they'll probably be doing what we're doing and comparing and looking at their land value. And I see that they would probably even though they do it as an impact fee, they will um come back with some sort of massive adjustment on their end. Uh why does one look so high or so different? Um Town of Roseville not only does a land dedication fee in lieu, they also do a a development fee. So, they are charging not only for like land, but they are charging for facilities. Um that's something that we haven't like considered. I think we just had a general conversation and that might um take this number from I think 7,000 to I think it was 9 or 13. 13. So, we would be going from 4,000 to 13,000 if we decided to do both a fee land dedication and a facility fee.

Um and we maybe think we're kind of really showing people a different number. We might not want to go another $6,000 more um at this point. So,

Like you said, we have these parcels of park land, but we don't have the money to develop them.

Right. So, um So, there there's um that. Uh let's see there's any other comparisons. I mean, we sit pretty much in the the middle of our adjacent communities. There are other things that um that happen in the way that uh we we do credit for construction. Not all agencies do credit for construction, so we're we're saying fee in lieu and then they get credit to construct Greenway. Basically, if they [clears throat] have a million dollars in fees owed and they build us $500,000 in Greenway, they don't pay us a million dollars and build the Greenway. They pay us in the Greenway construction and then the balance. So, that in that case, so that math it would be $500,000 they pay in fees and we give them the credit up front and there's a timeline in the ordinance that says when all the work has to be done, approved, accepted by the town. They have guarantees that have to be in place. And so, um all of that means that we're getting what that we're they're committed to doing and what they're required to do per our approvals, and we're getting that infrastructure built. And the only thing I say is that they usually can do it less than what would cost us to design and bid and build it because it's a public bid, so it's more competitive in that sense, and they're doing a big project. And if they're grading a whole neighborhood with roads and streets and sidewalks and utilities to put a another piece of equipment on the site to grade out the greenway when they're already out there or they're paving all the roads to do the the trail, they're building other things to get a contractor out there to do boardwalks is not as impactful as a contract to do that all independently. So, um so we see their their cost to

construct are less than ours, but we're held to the public bid process, and so that's all we can do. We can't say, "Well, if they did it cheaper for that developer, um because we don't aren't able to do that." All right. Next steps. Um oh, wait, there was another question. Um currently, [clears throat] we talked about a little bit earlier, but um our ordinance in 17.17 14.17b adjustment says that um every year on January 1st, we will update our fees based on the consumer price index. And so, basically, um sometime, usually about January 14th, it's published the the annual consumer price index average is in published, and our finance department notifies us that it's been published, and we calculate that percentage, and that increases our rates. So, whatever we set our rates at, um or whatever they are in the end of the year, they're adjusted that amount and we adopt that automatically. It doesn't have to go to council. It's automatic because our ordinance already adopted that plan. So, we have been increasing year over year. It just hasn't paced with all of the other cost increases. And so, um the first concept for us that we would kind of look at is we don't want to change that because it's been successful and it's simple and everyone knows if you get a project approved you know, December 31st, then you're in that year's rate and if you do January 1st, we may not be able to tell you the exact rate, but we know it's going to be adjusted and we'll give them that rate as soon as possible. We've never had a I mean, there's not usually a council meeting that happens between those two times. So, um we're able to tell people um that that's what's the plan and they are

all made aware of it months in advance and especially those projects that are coming to you guys in like October, November, December, um they're being advised that they're going to council in the next year and so we usually pretty much know where their rates are going to be if they're going to be in the end of one year or the beginning of the next. So, that's worked for us. Based on the timeline of us getting this report, um we are presenting it to town council in a work session on August 13th. Um you are welcome to come. It's a public thing. It's the work session is just parks and recreation. We're presenting this study, the same information to them. We are also um providing them updates on some of the projects, capital projects that you guys have heard about like Kids Town, um the Haddon Hall feasibility study. We're asking for some direction. Trying to get some feedback from them on prioritization of our projects because starting in October we're presenting capital project budgets. And so, we're presenting and getting feedback on um where they see us, what projects they see as priorities, um what they would like to see out of what we're doing to implement the master plan. Um and then we'll go back and see them hopefully in January as we get into the budget cycle of saying this is where those projects have moved to, have we met all your goals and objectives, have we implemented master plan and strategic goals. So, um that's part of the next step. Um and then uh so, we'll be asking them about that January schedule, too, but thinking if they see this as a work session, we also have to take this through a public hearing process because changing the 1/30 of an acre for single family to 1/40 41st of a unit um means that the ordinance has to change because all of that is written into that document. And so, uh we do have some ordinance work that will have to happen. It will also the current ordinance um language says when the um this was

originally adopted and the rates were adopted in 2010, um we would change that to say the original rates that they're setting of that 320,000 an acre is being set as of whatever date that they set, which could be and we would recommend it be January 1st of 2027. That gives us time to get all of those things through town council public hearings, get public information, get feedback. Um and so, that timeline works for us. We're probably a little bit ahead of it, but that would get us in line where they would know those fees are set at that point, and then they'd be able to use those in those numbers in calculating projected income for our recreation fees um in the coming year, which would goes into the budget. Um the other piece you asked about is how often um our recommendation and that comes from the study and our consultant as well is that um we create a plan that these studies are done no longer than 5 years apart. So, sort of an every 5 year, but not starting in 5 years, like by the 5th year it's done. So that we don't get too far ahead or too far behind and so you know, we'll see if things are if development is happening fast and we're not acquiring land and our level of service is changing, but if that's happening land values go up so we might recapture value or it slows and we are able to purchase land, but then the value of the land might I'm not saying it will decrease greatly, but it might slow down that rapid increase of the value of an acre of land. But as we get more built out then there's less land to to purchase or develop and so then that maintains some of that value. So, the the study indicates that we would want to have it no longer than every 5 years. So, again, I mentioned we're going to council for work session on August 13th. It will also be televised if you can't make it, but you want to hear the conversation, love to have you listen in and be able to let us know if you have

any concerns or questions that come out of that. Um and then again, we're proposing these be implemented by January 1st, 2027. Let's see what else we can cover.

What time is that the 13th?

Uh 3:30 to 5:30. It's usually work sessions. It's usually upstairs in this building. So, third floor. They kind of sit in a U facing a TV and there's space behind and they it's more of a kind of conversation that will go to a public hearing that will be in a this space which you know, that you can they have the rules about who can speak and how and so I think sometimes just having them know that you support it Um, which leads to the second part of our next steps. Wait, I went the wrong way. Maybe. Nope. Okay.

Angela, one

Yes.

I have a couple questions. Um, just in the spirit of like development in general, you know, the certain residents have concerns with this the rate of development and the residents and then there's us thinking about well, we need fees and funds to support you know, who's here and who's coming and things like that. Um, I'm curious like if um, if the kind of reassessing the fees is partially to yes, we need to bank funds to be able to support um, parks programs and lands, but also is there like an element of like let's control the rate of development too. Like how often does a developer come in and say um, the fees, you know, the fees or the park land dedication requirements are just too much and they back off. I guess I'm just thinking about like the balancing of you know,

So, good question. I

There's a lot there, too. I was thinking as I was asking it.

No, um, so so I think I think there's a couple things to think about. Um, we are

not one with the only sort of department that has some requirement when development comes in. We also have, you know, there's there's sewer requirements and water line, you know, they have to extend roads and sewer and water to developments. They're also um, they have to do storm water ponds to that meet state requirements and town requirements. There's also um, we now have affordable housing requirements and we have affordable housing projects that sometimes say we'll wave those fees. Like the park fees. There's there isn't a way to do that because there's a land dedication um, legislation and we have an ordinance that says it's required. Um they do have a ability to offset the fees through the affordable housing fund, which they've done on a couple of projects where the the project came to the town to the affordable housing folks and said, "We're trying to make these as affordable as possible and these fees are something that that like impacts those costs, right? Because they're per unit." Um in the sense of protecting parkland and park services, there's some thought that the people that are in affordable housing um would benefit from having access to all of the town's recreation, like, you know, being on a greenway is a free opportunity for residents. Um being able to come to our free programs is coming into our facility at a discounted rate over or sending a child to our camps that are less expensive than, you know, for-profit organizations. And so, um having this and ensuring that we're able to continue to to implement our best effort of staying to standards that we determined were the best for this

community. Um is something that we did look at and balance. Um everything that we have that we're recommending doesn't necessarily slow down or um encourage somebody not to develop. Um every time we do a land dedication within a project, um that's an amenity even if it's open space land that's available immediately to residents that are in that community or to the town as a whole. It's, you know, it's more than it protects trees or it protects a creek or it provides access to those things. So, um they do often consider them amenities to their neighborhood. Um and of course, if we build a park right in the middle, even if 5 acres or whatever in the middle of a neighborhood, it's a benefit to those neighbors. And a lot of times, the builders and developers see that positive. We're just trying to again level the field of which option if we're pursuing that we think is the best based on our plan and our planning efforts that they that there's not a a better option for them. They're equal. They just have to choose which one for whatever reason works better or what we are working with them to decide what's the best case for the they and community as a whole. Um the other thing is development happens at development's pace. So, if there's people that want to be here and the developers have the land and they can make the numbers work, it continues to happen. And in most cases, staff are not in a position to be able to sort of encourage or discourage because the ordinances and the rules are set up that only allow us the ability to to implement. And so, um we have a I think a really good um document that guides us that's pretty fair. Um and the one thing we haven't talked about is there is

one provision in the ordinance um where if um someone were to come in and the agreement was or the decision and recommendation from both the the town staff and the applicant were for fee in lieu, and they felt that their or they had reason to believe through appraisals, purchase price, maybe they got a deal and they paid 80,000 per acre. And they came to us with an appraisal that showed that this land was only worth 80,000 an acre. Um we have a provision that it would allow them to pay fees based on that. So, if there was special cases or places where someone felt discouraged or encouraged by um the value of that per acre price, they would be able to come in with the fees and say and provide that and there's a step by it. And if we don't agree, then we can hire a separate appraiser and then there's a whole process. So, it's in there as fair market value under the fee in lieu section of the ordinance. So, there are provisions that if you know, someone was was working within or were high in particular area of town, then then um those people are protected from paying more than their fair market value. So, that's another piece. Um does that give you Okay.

that's really helpful. Yeah.

Um

I'm glad that this is taking place. It seems like it's really necessary.

Yeah, we're excited to get it implemented because I think it it definitely will help us a little bit in sort of refilling that tank um for projects. Uh so, what we've got on this screen is uh generally sort of an option menu of recommendations. We are not required. We don't have to have a recommendation for me in this evening. So, if it's something as a board or individuals of the board you would like to say, "Let's

talk and have answer questions and come back to us after the town work session town council work session." That's a possibility. Um what we would like to have, if nothing else, is feedback that we can use in our presentation to them to say we've presented it to this board. If the board felt so inclined, you could recommend all findings and proposals of the fee study and that um you know, that you tell it that message is to town council, we want this, so we want you guys to to discuss it and then let it go to public hearing and adopt it. Um you could take it in pieces and sort of adopt or recommend pieces of it. Um but these are the sort of the the main the first is just you like what you hear, it all makes sense, ready to move it forward. Um the other could be any or like adopt the land value so that we're using that as the basis and everyone generally agrees. Um this section computation of size of area required for dedication, that's a change that has to happen to the ordinance because right now we're at 130, 145, 151. So the ordinance has to be amended, which will again happen with uh with town council action at a public hearing. Um adoption of the implementation of January 1st, just that helps guide us in the time line so that we're making, you know, we can all kind of feel like that makes sense to what the ordinance requires now and it would be consistent with when we next expect the rates to change anyway. Um the thing of maintaining the 17.17B just says that's, you know, that process will happen um on January 1st when this is implemented or that we continue to use that January 1st date with the CIP or CPI every year. So we're we're asking sort of both of those. One to set the new date and two to make sure that we're continuing to use that annual adjustment method. And

then the last is that while it wouldn't be necessarily in the ordinance because that doesn't sort of fit with the legislation, is just that we're kind of provided with a directive of this is important that we make sure we don't let this go this long in the future and that um look at the drastic difference of the value and what we might have captured if we had been able to do this more often. So, those are possible actions. Again, one action could be we just finish the discussion or you give us some general points that we'd like us to share. Um we're open to all of that. We uh we're just excited that we're at this point and have some information to take forward and um present to council and hopefully you know get get their feedback and then um sort of work the plan. If if we don't do anything and either way we come back in August, we're going to tell you about the work session. Um we're going to you know if there was something that that they asked us to go back and look at or they asked us to they don't agree with the land value. I there you know there could be any number of things that could happen. Um and so we we have another [clears throat] opportunity before it would go to public hearing for sure before you'd see at least some of that feedback.

That That's the only quick question I have. As you guys pre- prepared to present and you prepare for battle so to say, what what are you concerned or what concerns do you think you may get pushed back from or challenges when presenting this?

I I think the things when we were waiting for the the information to come to us, we were like, what if what if the value is really high and the fees, you know, they're almost double you know, in in some cases or even double. And so um when when this goes to the public, when it goes to the Home Builders Association and the and the public as these are the new fee rates that are coming in January um you know, is there a likelihood that there'll be a lot of pushback? I think

it would be hard for somebody to to sort of say, well now our level service is decreasing. That that's you can't dispute that. It's it's by you know number. Um we have all these appraisals and land purchase values. So, this is not at the top end and it's not at the bottom. It's in the middle. So, we feel like that's defendable. Um, it may be high.

yeah, to Holly Springs into to you know, some of our surrounding communities, look at where we even with the um, increase, look at where we still sit relative to like Cary and Morrisville and Holly Springs and and all those other

sit in the middle. I think if someone said, "We don't agree with this and we want to charge more." There are That's why I'm like there are some limitations in the fact that we just can't say we want a level of service 10. So, we're going to charge at a level of service 10. We That That is something that we're not allowed to do. We have to You can only charge to your current level of service. So, if we want to have a level of service 10, we're going to have to buy enough acreage to to have that. Um, there are other ways we can get acreage and there are some things that are happening where we have land that's going to be utilized um, in park purposes, but it is not park land. Those are hard to calculate. For example, um, we have the linear park that's along It's a projected linear park along Old US 1. Um, sort of out towards New Hill where the right-of-way between the railroad track and Old US 1 is very narrow. One of the projects that was approved years ago in a rezoning, the condition was that they had to dedicate everything between the road and the railroad to the town or had to re- reserve it as RCA for their project. That was a condition of their rezoning. That's in the area that we have as a linear park. But, a greenway trail can go through that RCA. So, they can dedicate that RCA to us and we can provide greenway trail

as a part of a linear park. We just can't do any other development that's not permitted within the RCA

RCA

RCA's protected, but you can put greenway trails in RCA. That's a provision that we have the rights to do in the ordinance today. So, that land doesn't count as parkland owned by the town. It is RCA and it it goes to other town metrics of open space and protected land. But, it is there things like that that are happening where we're getting access to property that helps implement our plan. It just is in a different way. That area might be not ideal for putting a parking lot or playground equipment anyway, but it is at least we are able to capture I'd hate to have like a linear park that had a gap because it was RCA. Um so, so we are we're working with our other departments to ensure that that we're getting land, but maybe in a a different way or we're getting connections that are that are made through side path that link two greenway corridors to each other. So, we're we're making the connections or we're creating that bike ped facility, but we're doing it through shared resources versus it simply being parkland. So, while we might not have the numbers, we're still providing those services where we can in in different manners. So.

Yeah, I was just going to say um I think everything sounds reasonable and logical and I think it's us kind of caught up and I like seeing that, you know, we're going to re-evaluate this every 5 years just because our development um atmosphere changes so quickly and our we're experiencing such rapid growth. Um and I do think that it it aligns with I mean, what we're here for is for the quality of parks and recreation for the public and the and the greater good of the the town. So, um I I I would be fine with making a recommendation for accepting, but I want to, you know, make sure that if we want to have we want to table it and then

hear um kind of what the feedback is from council, then

[clears throat]

yeah, the two to you all to to weigh in, but

Yeah, and I and I think like what's presented here today, I mean, the study and all getting all this is super impressive. And I I think that if you guys have confidence in that, you know, we would I would be supportive of that. I'm going to try to make it on the 13th. I don't know how much help I'll be, but to be, you know, there in support. That's a Thursday. It sounds like a Thursday. It's a Thursday.

afternoon.

Um so But yeah, I'm right there with Lisa. You guys are the experts, right? You guys brought the information and so the way it's presented here seems like it makes sense and logical. And you've also taken a preventive measure so this doesn't happen again, right? So now let's go every 5 years versus the long gap that we've had. So even in your study, you found a way for this not to, you know, recur. So yeah.

Well, and like you said that we we do have park land that we have already achieved that those acquisitions of like Wimberley Road. And we don't have the money to, you know, take like a bond or something to be able to develop those. So right now we we have trouble even getting that land because we don't have the value that developers see our current fees. And then it's like, well, it's a lot cheaper just pay the fee, but how are we going to get the land because we're competing against the land prices

Right.

that's um so yes, I think it I think it'll make sense.

Are there's like spending restrictions on these funds at all or are they tied

Uh yes, when they go to the recreation reserve, they are only allowed to um purchase land or improve like do park improvements. So for example, you wouldn't be able to renovate an existing Greenway trail with recreation funds. They call it rec reserve. Like they put it into that account. They're deposited into that account. And then they're allocated out to projects. So it can be land purchase, which is the primary purpose of it, but it also can develop new facilities. So, um that money gets moved into accounts

and projects, and if we have a project that's completed that's under budget, that remaining funds still can only be allocated for new projects.

Could these funds good for example be used to develop Wimberley?

Yes. Yes. Money in that that goes from fees accepted could go to develop Wimberley. Um and some of it was purchased like the Pleasant Park as an example, we we worked with the land conservancy. They bought the property, and then we had a loan with them, and and for the years that we owed them money, 50% of the fees that we collected each year at the end of like June, they they calculated how much we'd collected for a full fiscal year, and we paid them half back. Half of the fees we collected back, so we could still do some projects or secure land, but that's what paid for um buying Pleasant Park.

I think you guys have done a really thorough job and kind of answered all the questions that I was having as you were doing the proposal, but I'd be in support and recommend all the findings, too.

So, I'll make a motion to recommend that um we approve all the findings and proposals of the fee studies that can move forward through to council with our with our support.

Second.

It's been motioned and properly second.

I do have a question on um on this land value. So, these numbers were based on the uh assessment made in 2008?

Yep.

Is that correct?

The the 200,230,000 is based on these these particular properties. They took a sampling of land that we had purchased for um park land. So, these are purchases that we made. We added a parcel to Wimberley Road in 2023. That was the land value of that was at 625. And so, these are properties that we purchased, acreage that we

purchased more recently. Um these future plan purchases, these were properties um that we had like we sometimes we look at a particular tract to consider purchase. We might have been negotiating. Um it could have been several properties, different properties these um for whatever reason we either weren't able to buy them, they were um deemed too expensive because our land value basis was so much lower. So, um they add those in because those are things that we have documents on and then um these are land appraisals that were done for the town on property um either that's town-owned or um that the town for you know, other other town services purchased. And so, um usually what they do is they just collect a random sampling sort of a this to kind of establish a value because any single property could be worth a different value. And so, you you're assembling recent values, not something from 2008 or 2010. We purchased a lot of Wimberley Road land because you see there's only um 2.46 acres here. We purchased the substantial part of it years ago. Um and so, those aren't calculated here because they would skew this much lower than you know, these are all within the last 3 years. So, um that's kind of you know, what we've we've kind of been looking at.

So, in the ballpark, how much this number is not going to be too much away from the fair market value?

And what we can establish, yes. And and in the land that our um real estate team has either engaged or purchased, um they're seeing numbers that are between 270 and 350. Sounds good. Um, and I think these maybe all of farm seem like they're a little lower maybe than what you're seeing on the other properties. They are, you know, some of that is smaller acreage and um, in the case of both of these, these were the

two corner lots. So, all of farm there are two corner lots that were single family homes. Um, we have we'd been talking to them since we bought the original 20 plus acres from from the Olive family. And um, we just continued to say if you're considering selling, please let us know and um, ultimately those did come around in 2025 and we took the opportunity to um, make sure that we got those secured. So.

Thank you.

Good to go?

Yeah.

I guess.

So, the motion and motion still stands on the floor.

Motion.

Seconded.

The motion is properly seconded. Um, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? What? Motion carried. Thank you, Angela.

Thank you, Angela. And that's it.

All we need now is motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.

That's part

They didn't they just put that there.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.