HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 2017 01-23AGENDA
i
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301
Wilmington, NC
WOODY WHITE, CHAIRMAN - SKIP WATKINS, VICE - CHAIRMAN
JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR., COMMISSIONER - PATRICIA KUSEK, COMMISSIONER - ROB ZAPPLE, COMMISSIONER
CHRIS COUDRIET, COUNTY MANAGER - WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY - KYM CROWELL, CLERK TO THE BOARD
JANUARY 23, 2017 9:00 AM
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Woody White)
INVOCATION (Reverend Michael Singer, Interim Rector, Church of the Servant Episcopal
Church)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Vice- Chairman Skip Watkins)
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
2. Approval to Submit an Application for FY18 Courthouse Security
Upgrade to the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission in the Amount of
$24,500
3. Approval of Release of the Levy for Tax Year 2006
4. Adoption of Budget Amendments
ESTIMATED
MINUTES
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
10
5.
Presentation of Service Awards
20
6.
Public Hearing for Economic Development Appropriation
10
7.
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority 2016 Annual Report
10
8.
Presentation of the Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/2016
10
9.
Presentation on Progress To Date for the Purchase and Installation
of In- Vessel Composting Equipment
10
10.
Consideration of a Resolution of Support for Pedestrian and Safety
Improvements Along Carolina Beach Road Near Monkey Junction
10
11.
Ratification of Urgent Repair Program Grant Application
20
12.
Presentation of Parks and Gardens Department Ten -Year Master
Plan
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MINUTES
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
10 13. Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
ESTIMATED CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MINUTES
14. Closed Session to Consider a Personnel Matter Pursuant to N.C.G.S.
143- 318.11(a)(6)
15. ADJOURN
Note: Minutes listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board
will move forward until the agenda is completed.
Mission
New Hanover County is committed to progressive public policy, superior
service, courteous contact, judicious exercise of authority, and sound fiscal
management to meet the needs and concerns of our citizens today and tomorrow.
Vision
A vibrant prosperous, diverse coastal community,
committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come.
Core Values
Integrity - Accountability - Professionalism - Innovation - Stewardship
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Kym Crowell, Clerk to the Board
CONTACT(S): Kym Crowell
SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the following meetings:
Agenda Review Meeting held on January 5, 2017
Regular Meeting held on January 9, 2017
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Keep the public informed on important information
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Chief Kenneth Sarvis
CONTACT(S): Corporal Sara Fox
SUBJECT:
Approval to Submit an Application for FY18 Courthouse Security Upgrade to the N.C. Governor's
Crime Commission in the Amount of $24,500
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Sheriffs Office wishes to apply for a grant from the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission for FY18
Courthouse Security Upgrade. The amount of the application is $24,500, which is the maximum we can
apply for. Funds will be used to purchase a new X -Ray inspection system for the courthouse. The existing x-
ray system is old, and is increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. In 2015, visitors to the courthouse
attempted to bring in over 1,900 weapons. Ensuring the ability of the courthouse security personnel to find
those weapons in the initial screening is paramount to ensuring the safety of everyone in the courthouse. The
entire package which includes the X -Ray inspection system, including the advanced software package,
advanced contents tracking software, roller table, installation, and freight charges totals $35,394.06. The
additional amount needed above the grant amount is $10,894.06. This amount will be submitted with the FY
17 -18 Sheriffs Office budget request.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Increase public safety and crime prevention
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve submission of application to N.C. Governor's Crime Commission for FY18 Courthouse Security
Upgrade in the amount of $24,500.
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Application Evaluation Form
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Grant Application Evaluation Form
L
",Cr /-1 -nIcc
Lead Department:
Date:
Sheriffs Office
1/9/2017
Department Head:
Focus Area:
Sheriff Ed McMahon
Courthouse Security
Co- Applicants / Other Participating Departments/ Agencies /Community Organizations:
Grant Title:
2017 Courthouse Security Upgrade
Funding Organization:
North Carolina Governor's Crime Commission
Fiscal Year.
Grant Amount:
XNew Grant ❑Recurring Grant
2017
$24,500
Multi -Year Grant? ❑Yes XNo
Matching Funds? ❑Yes
If Yes, Amount:
❑In Kind
XNo
$
❑Cash
❑Other
Application Due Date:
1/31/2017
Briefly describe the purpose of the grant.
The purpose of the grant is to purchase a new X -ray Inspection System for the courthouse. The
existing x -ray system is old, and is increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. In 2015, visitors to
the courthouse attempted to bring in over 1900 weapons. Ensuring the ability of the courthouse
security personnel to fmd those weapons in the initial screening is paramount to ensuring the safety
of everyone in the courthouse.
If known: Are any other NHC Departments eligible for this funding? ❑Yes XNo ❑Possibly
Specify, which one(s)?
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
❑Yesry XNo ❑Possibly
Will this project in any way duplicate or compete with another service or
program provided by NHC, another local agency or community organization?
Will this grant provide support for a mandated service?
XYes ❑No
Can we capitalize on this funding to meet current and/or future equipment or
XYes ❑No
facility needs?
Does the grantor agency accept indirect costs as an allowable expense?
❑Yes XNo
If Yes, what dollar or percentage is allowed?
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
Can the proposal be completed within grant time frame allotted? I XYes ❑No ❑Possibly
Can the requirements of this grant be met with current staffing levels? I XYes ❑No ❑Possibly
Will new positions be requested (or expiring grant funded positions extended)? I ❑Yes XNo
If Yes, how many new positions will be funded by the grant? I new positions
How many existing positions will be funded by the grant? existing positions
Will the grant create a program or require any County commitment for funding I ❑Yes XNo
after grant funding ends?
Does this program fit well with and enhance a current department or County XYes ❑No
program / initiative / service? If Yes, please explain:
Courthouse Security
Does sufficient administrative support exist to make the grant worth pursuing? I XYes ❑No
Description of items or services to be purchased with funds:
The grant will offset the price of the X -Ray Inspection System by Smith's Detection, including the
advanced software package, Advanced contents tracking software, roller table, installation, and
freight charges. The entire package comes to $35,394.06. The grant will offset the price so the county
will only pay $10,894.06 for the system. The Governor's Crime Commission grant maximum is
$24,500.
Are matching funds in the current budget or does the match require additional ❑Available
funding? ❑Additional Needed
No matching funds, but an additional $10,894.06 is required to purchase XN /A- No matching funds
the system. required/requested
Does the grant extend beyond the fiscal year (7/1 to 6/30)? ❑Yes XNo
Is funding received in advance or on a reimbursement basis? I ❑In Advance
XReimbursement
I have read, and am familiar with, the Grant Policy (AM 13 -001). I acknowledge that as the
Department Head, I am agreeing to be responsible for the administration of this grant and will ensure all
requirements are fully met in a timely manner.
r 9 -W,��� _ .
IT Director (required if computer /technology related)
Date
-� q ❑Approved (�
Grants & Project Analyst )tequires BOCC Date
(approval (agenda date)
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: Tax PRESENTER(S): Trina Lewis, Collections Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Trina Lewis
SUBJECT:
Approval of Release of the Levy for Tax Year 2006
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners release the levy for the tax year 2006
from the charge as the 10 -year statute of limitations prohibits the Collector from using forced collection
measures to collect theses taxes. The total for New Hanover County and the Fire District is $360,512.45. For
all municipalities it is $157,190.58. Grand total overall is $517,703.13.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Keep the public informed on important information
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Release the levy for tax year 2006.
ATTACHMENTS:
Write Off Request
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 3
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
TAX DEPARTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 190
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1671
TELEPHONE (910)798 -7300
FAX (910)- 798 -7310
Pursuant to NC GS 105 -378 Limitation on use of remedies.
Allison Snell
Tax Administrator
Scott Saunders
Asst. Tax Administrator
(a) Use of Remedies Barred. — No county or municipality may maintain an action or procedure
to enforce any remedy provided by law for the collection of taxes or the enforcement of any tax liens
(whether the taxes or tax liens are evidenced by the original tax receipts, tax sales certificates, or
otherwise) unless the action or procedure is instituted within 10 years from the date the taxes became
due.
Therefore, on this the 23rd day of January 2017, Collector of Revenue, Allison Snell, asks the New
Hanover County Board of County Commissioner's to release the levy for tax year 2006 from the charge
as the 10th year Statute of limitations prohibits the Collector from using forced collection measures to
collect these taxes. These amounts are deemed insolvent and uncollectible.
2006
Real Estate
Personal
Property
Motor Vehicles
Total
New Hanover
$7,116.53
$150,809.81
$191,415.79
$349,342.13
Fire District
$264.45
$4,743.05
$6,162.82
$11,170.32
Carolina Beach
$366.07
$5,370.32
$3,821.29
$9,557.68
Kure Beach
$2.95
$462.74
$1,137.51
$1,603.20
Wilmington
$2,449.06
$54,140.09
$88,028.12
$144,617.27
Wrightsville Beach
$0.00
$1,034.88
$377.65
$1,412.53
Grad Total $517,703.13
As requested the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioner's does hereby release the levy
for tax year 2006 as stated above from the charge as the 10th year Statute of limitations prohibits the
Collector from using forced collection measures to collect these taxes. These amounts are deemed
insolvent and uncollectible.
Woody White, Chairman
New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: Strategy & Budget PRESENTER(S): Elizabeth M. Schrader, Chief Strategy & Budget
Officer
CONTACT(S): Elizabeth M. Schrader
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Budget Amendments
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The following budget amendments amend the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2017:
Museum 17 -043
Sheriffs Office 17 -044, 17 -045
Planning & Land Use 17 -046
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Strong Financial Performance
• Control costs and manage to the budget
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the ordinances for the budget amendments listed.
ATTACHMENTS:
BA 17 -043
BA 17 -044
BA 17 -045
BA 17 -046
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 4
AGENDA: January 23, 2017
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
that the following Budget Amendment(s) be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2017.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment
Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
Strategic Objective(s): Support programs to improve educational performance
Fund: General
Department: Museum
Revenue:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 17 -043 NC Science Museums Grant
$ 51,913
$ 51,913
BA 17 -043 Escrow
$ (51,913)
$ (51,913)
Total
$ (51,913)1
$ 51,913
1 $ -
Prior to Actions Total if Actions
To ay Taken
Departmental Budget $ 1,121,783 $ 1,121,783
Section 2: Explanation
BA17 -043 budgets a contribution from the Cape Fear Museum Associates. The associates were awarded
the North Carolina Science Museums Grant. The primary objective of the grant is to further the goals of
science museums and expand science education and outreach throughout the state. Funds will be used to
pay for salaries and fringes for one existing full -time and one existing part-time Museum Educator and
replace Escrow Fund dollars (unexpended Grassroots Science grant funds from previous fiscal years).
The Museum Educators are responsible for developing and implementing Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) based educational and outreach programs (e.g., Star Party and Pi
Day) for school children and their families. Escrow funds will be used to fund the positions for the
remainder of the fiscal year once NC Science Museums grant funds are depleted. No County match is
rennired
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment(s) 17 -043 amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, is adopted.
Adopted, this 23rd day of January, 2017.
(SEAL)
Woody White, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1
AGENDA: January 23, 2017
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
that the following Budget Amendment(s) be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2017.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment
Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
Strategic Objective(s): Increase public safety / crime prevention
Fund: Federal Forfeited Property
Department: Sheriffs Office
Ex enditure:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 17 -044 Transfer to Capital Pro' -CSI Bldg
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
BA 17 -044 Supplies
$ (25,000)
1 $ 24,205
$ (25,000)
BA 17 -044 Capital Outlay
$ (795)
$ (795)
Total
$ (25,795)
$ 50,000
$ 24,205
Revenue:
Decrease
I Increase 11
Total
BA 17 -044 Federal Forfeited Property
1 $ 24,20511
$ 24,205
$ -
1 $ 24,205
$ 24,205
Prior to Actions Total if Actions
Todav Taken
Departmental Budget $ 176,246 $ 200,451
Section 2: Explanation
BA 17 -044 budgets Federal Forfeited Property receipts of 12/19 and 12/21/16 in the amount of $24,205.
This budget amendment is also transferring funds from Supplies and Capital Outlay to the "Transfer to
Capital Project" line item. These funds will go towards the CSI Evidence Room Expansion Capital
Project.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment(s) 17 -044 amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, is adopted.
Adopted this 23rd day of January, 2017.
(SEAL)
Woody White, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 1
AGENDA: January 23, 2017
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
that the following Budget Amendment(s) be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2017.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment
Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
Strategic Objective(s): Increase public safety / crime prevention
Fund: General
Department: Sheriffs Office
Ex enditure:
Decrease
increase
Total
BA 17 -045 2017 LEL Grant
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
Total
$ -
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
Revenue:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 17 -045 2017 LEL Grant
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
Total
$ -
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
Prior to Actions Total if Actions
Today Taken
Departmental Budget $ 45,622,062 $ 45,662 062
Section 2: Explanation
BA 17 -045 budgets $40,000 for the 2017 Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) grant awarded from the NC
Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP). $20,000 of this money will be used for in -state and out -of-
state travel reimbursements for personnel that will assist in gathering statistics and coordinating the
initiatives of "Booze It and Lose It" and "Click It or Ticket" campaigns and training. This was approved
by the Board of Commissioners at their February 15, 2016 meeting. The GHSP also included another
$20,000 for the purchase of a seat belt convincer that will be used by New Hanover and surrounding
counties, since the current seat belt convincer is out of date. There is no County match.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment(s) 17 -045 amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, is adopted.
Adopted, this 23rd day of January, 2017.
(SEAL)
Woody White, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk tote Board
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 4 - 3 - 1
AGENDA: January 23, 2017
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
that the following Budget Amendment(s) be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2017.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment
Strategic Focus Area: Effective County Management
Strategic Objective(s): Increase efficiency / quality of key business processes
Fund: General
Department: Planning and Land Use
Ex enditure:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 17 -046 Planning & Inspections
$ (1,924,423)
BA 17 -046 Planning & Land Use
$ 1,924,423
Total
$ (1,924,423 )1
$ 1,924,423
$ -
Section 2: Explanation
BA 17 -046 This budget amendment is required due to movement of budgeted funds from the Public
Safety function to the General Government function. This is an administrative move for record keeping.
There is no net change. The annual budget ordinance that was adopted for fiscal year ending June 30,
2017 included funding for Planning and Inspections as part of the Public Safety function. With the
separation of these two services into the Department of Building Safety and Planning and Land Use, it is
also necessary to separate the associated budget. The Department of Building Safety remains in the
Public Safety function, while Planning and Land Use will be categorized in the General Government
function. This budget amendment completes the movement of previously appropriated budget for
Planning and Land Use.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment(s) 17 -046 amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, is adopted.
Adopted, this 23rd day of January, 2017.
(SEAL)
Woody White, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 4 - 4 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources PRESENTER(S): Commissioners and Chris Coudriet, County
Manager
CONTACT(S): Bo Dean, Human Resources Analyst
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Service Awards
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Service awards will be presented to retirees and employees.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Effective County Management
• Hire, develop and retain talented people
• Recognize and reward contribution
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Present service awards.
ATTACHMENTS:
January 2017 Service Awards
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Present service awards.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Presented service awards.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Strategy & Budget PRESENTER(S): Jennifer Rigby, Strategy and Policy Coordinator
and Ed Wolverton, Wilmington Downtown Inc.
CONTACT(S): Jennifer Rigby, Strategy and Policy Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing for Economic Development Appropriation
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County owns an entire block in downtown Wilmington bordered by 3rd Street, Chestnut
Street, 2nd Street, and Grace Street. The site is approximately 3 acres in size and public uses on the site
include the Central Library, Story Park, an EMS facility, a 650 -space parking deck, and 3 surface parking
lots. The Register of Deeds was located here prior to moving to the 320 Chestnut Building and the former
building is now vacant.
Because downtown Wilmington is experiencing tremendous economic growth and activity, it has been
determined that this block is potentially underutilized and that redevelopment of this block that includes all
existing public uses could attract new private investment to further grow the economy.
Wilmington Downtown, Inc. is uniquely positioned and qualified to serve as the County's project manager in
developing a feasibility study of this site. A feasibility study with the understanding that all existing public
uses remain on the block would include a market analysis, site analysis, and potential investor recruitment.
On behalf of NHC, the WDI Board released a request for proposals to conduct a feasibility study for this site.
Twelve firms submitted proposals and the top three firms were interviewed by WDI representatives and
NHC staff. The selection committee unanimously selected Benchmark Planning and Kimley -Horn to conduct
a feasibility analysis.
If authorized by the New Hanover County Commissioners, work on the study would begin immediately and
be completed in late spring. At this point, the New Hanover County Commissioners would have
approximately 3 alternatives to consider for future development.
The appropriation for the Feasibility Study would be for $47,750 and come from the General Fund in the
unspecified economic development line item leaving a balance of $52,250.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Intelligent Growth and Economic Development
• Attract and retain new and expanding businesses
• Enhance and add recreational, cultural and enrichment amenities
• Deliver value for taxpayer money
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6
Conduct Public Hearing. Make a motion to approve the economic development appropriation and
expenditure based on the finding that the appropriation and expenditure will attract and retain new and
expanding businesses, enhance and add cultural and enrichment amenities, and deliver value for taxpayer
money.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum from WDI
Contract
Addendum A
Benchmark Proposal
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Conducted public hearing. Approved the appropriation 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
To: Jennifer Rigby, Strategy and Policy Coordinator
From: Colin Tarrant, Chair
Ed Wolverton, President
wilmington downtown inc
Date: January 10, 2017
RE: Recommendation for Market Demand and Site Analysis — Project Grace
New Hanover County recently asked WDI to direct a project to evaluate development opportunities for
the block bounded by Grace, Chestnut, 2nd and 3rd Streets. To start the process, WDI developed and
issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to conduct a market
demand analysis and a site analysis to identify new, potential uses in this block. The following is an
overview of the RFP process a vendor recommendation.
Overview: With input from WDI board members, committee members and New Hanover County
leaders, WDI issued an RFP on November 1, 2016. The RFP defined project parameters and had a
response deadline of December 2.
WDI distributed the RFP to local and regional architects and urban planners. We also posted the
information on various websites geared to professionals specializing in this type of work such as the
International Downtown Association, American Planning Association, American Institute of Architects
and the North Carolina Downtown Development Association. The RFP was also posted on forums
hosted by the North Carolina Planning Association and the North Carolina Economic Development
Association. Additionally, staff sent the RFP to other local economic development groups including the
Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington Business Development, the NC Biotech Center and the State
Department of Commerce. The RFP also received significant coverage from local media outlets.
WDI received a total of 12 responses to the RFP. The responses were submitted by local, regional and
national firms with fees ranging from $30,000 (site analysis only) to $175,000. Most respondents were
comprised of multi - disciplinary teams.
WDI then created a task force to review the submissions and select a prospective vendor. The group
included Dream Committee Chair Steve Whitney, Vice Chair Tom Davis, Board member Jeff Hovis,
Board member Erris Dunston and President Ed Wolverton. Play Committee Chair Dane Scalise was also
involved but withdrew from the group due to other work commitments. Jenifer Rigby with New Hanover
County was an ex officio member.
Over the course of multiple meetings, reference checks and additional reviews, the group ultimately
narrowed the list to 3 finalists and conducted face to face interviews. The interview panel was augmented
by County Manager Chris Coudriet and Chief Strategy Officer Beth Schrader. Based on the interviews,
the panel unanimously recommended that the WDI Executive Committee select the team led by
Benchmark Planning from Charlotte, NC, to perform the work.
Recommendation: The WDI Executive Committee examined the recommendation and voted to
unanimously to select the team of Benchmark Planning, Kimley Horn Associates and Moser Mayer
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 1
Phoenix at a price of $47,750 to complete the project. Further, the WDI Executive Committee
recommends that New Hanover County approve funding for the project.
Each member of the recommended team has offices in North Carolina. In both the RFP submission and
interview, team members demonstrated superior skills, knowledge and ability to successfully complete
both the market demand analysis and the site review. The firms have also completed a number of similar
projects in other urban districts including Raleigh, High Point, Greensboro, Charlotte and Rock Hill,
South Carolina as well as other communities. The team also has strong presentation skills and past
experience working in the Wilmington market.
Pending action by the County Commission, WDI would then enter into a contract with New Hanover
County to implement the project. WDI would receive no compensation for managing this project. WDI
would enter into a separate agreement with Benchmark Planning to move forward with the work for
completion in June 2017.
Please advise.
cc: Chris Coudriet, County Manager
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 2
New Hanover County Contract 917 -0240
NORTH CAROLINA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
2017 by and between NEW HANOVER COUNTY a political subdivision of
the State of North Carolina, hereto referred to "County"; and WILMINGTON
DOWNTOWN, INC., a North Carolina non- profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Professional."
WITNESSETH:
That Professional, for the consideration hereinafter fully set out, hereby agrees
with County as follows:
1. Scope of Service. County shall hire Professional to serve as project
manager for a market study and site analysis for potential redevelopment of County
owned property in the block of downtown Wilmington that is bordered by 2,,d, 31d, Grace
and Chestnut Streets and to provide recommendations on viability of redevelopment, as
more specifically described the Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. Payment. County agrees to pay Professional, for the full and faithful
performance of this Contract, an amount not to exceed Forty -Seven Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty ($47,750) Dollars, upon the full performance of the contracted services to
County's satisfaction. Expenditures shall only be used for direct project expenses and
upon approval by County Commissioners.
3. Time of Performance. Professional shall begin services on your
receipt of Notice to Proceed and all services shall be completed within one (1) year as
more specifically described in Exhibit A.
4. Extra Services. County and Professional shall negotiate and agree
upon the value of any extra services beyond those described in Exhibit A prior to the
issuance of a County Change Order or Renewal /Amendment (CRA) form covering said
extra services. Such Change Order or CRA shall set forth the corresponding adjustment,
if any, to the Contract Price and Contract Time.
5. I_ndemnitV. Professional shall indemnify and hold County, its
officers, officials, agents, and employees, harmless against any and all claims, demands,
dm
�cc 11008270- 700710
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 1
Page 1 of 6
g406055
New Hanover County Contract 417 -0240
causes of action, or other liability, including attorney fees, for any property damages,
personal injuries or death arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the negligence, willful
act, or omission of Professional, its agents, employees and subcontractors in the
performance of work or services.
6. Independent Contractor. The parties hereto mutually agree that
Professional is an independent contractor and not an agent of County. Professional
shall not be entitled to any County employment benefits, including, but not limited to,
vacation, sick leave, insurance, worker's compensation, or pension and retirement
benefits.
7. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
7.1. Professional Liability Insurance
7.1 Professional shall maintain in force for the duration of
this Contract professional liability or errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate
to Professional's profession. Coverage as required in this paragraph shall apply to liability
for a professional error, act, negligence, or omission arising out of the scope of
Professional's services as defined in this Contract. Coverage shall be written subject to
limits of not less than $1,000,000 per loss.
7.2 If coverage in this Contract is on a claims -made basis,
Professional warrants that any retroactive date applicable to coverage under the policy
precedes the effective date of this Contract, and that continuous coverage will be
maintained or an extended discovery period will be exercised for a period of two (2) years
beginning from the time that services under the Contract are complete.
8. Standard of Care. Professional shall exercise reasonable care and
skill as might be expected from similarly situated professionals performing services of the
kind required under this Contract at the time-and the place where the services are
rendered. The staff of and subcontracted professionals engaged by Professional shall
possess the experience, knowledge and character necessary to qualify them to perform
the particular duties to which they are assigned.
9. Default and Termination. If Professional fails to prosecute the
services with such diligence as will insure its completion within the Contract time, or if
Professional breaches any one of the terms and conditions contained in this Contract and
fails to cure said breach within five (5) days of County mailing Notice of Default, County
dm
11008270-700710
Board Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 2
Page 2 of 6
6055
New Hanover County Contract #17 -0240
may terminate this Contract at the expiration of the fifth day after mailing such Notice of
Default.
10. Termination for Convenience. County may terminate this Contract
for convenience at any time and without cause upon thirty (30) days prior written notice.
Upon receipt of notice, Professional shall immediately discontinue the services and, If
applicable, placing of orders for materials, facilities, and supplies in connection with the
performance of this Contract.
11. Non - appropriation. All funds for payment by County under this
Contract are subject to the availability of all annual appropriation by the Board of
Commissioners. In the event of non- appropriation of funds by the Board of
Commissioners for the services provided under the Contract, County will terminate the
Contract, without termination charge or liability, on the last day of the then - current fiscal
year or when the appropriation made for then - current year for the services /items covered
by this Contract is spent, whichever occurs first. If at any time funds are not appropriated
for the continuance of this Contract, cancellation shall be accepted by Professional upon
three (3) days prior written notice, but failure to give such notice shall be of no effect and
County shall not be obligated under this Contract beyond the date of termination.
12. Subcontracts. The Professional shall utilize no subcontractors for
performing the services to be performed under this Contract without the prior written
approval of the County.
of the parties.
13. Entire Contract. This Contract constitutes the entire understanding
14. Binding Effect. This Contract shall be binding upon the parties
hereto, and their heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns.
15. Severability. If any provision of this Contract is held unenforceable,
all remaining provisions of this Contract shall remain in full force and effect.
16. Inclusive Terms- Use of the masculine herein shall include the
feminine and neuter, and the singular shall include the plural.
17. Governing Law. All of the terms and conditions contained herein
shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina.
18. E-Verify Compliance. Pursuant to S.L. 2015 -294, Professional shall
dm
�A cc 11008270- 700710
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 3
Page 3 of 6
�,t 6055
New IIanover County Contract #17 -0240
fully comply with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee legal status E-
Verify requirements for itself and all its subcontractors. Violation of the provision, unless
timely cured, shall constitute a breach of Contract.
Iran Divestment ct of 2016 Compliance Pursuant to N.C.G.S.
_ ,omp „l,_,._,.
147 -86.55 et. seq. The Act requires that the State, a North Carolina local government,
or any other political subdivision of the State of North Carolina must not utilize any
Professional or subcontractor found on the State Treasurer's Final Divestment List.
Professional certifies that it or its subcontractors are not listed on the Final Divestment
List created by the North Carolina State Treasurer pursuant to N.C.G.S. 147 - 85.60. The
State Treasurer's Final Divestment List can be found on the State Treasurer's website at
the address www.nctreasurer.com /iran and will be updated every 180 days.
20. Notices. All notices required hereunder to be sent to either party
shall be sent to the following designated addresses, or to such other address or
addresses as may hereafter be designated by either party by mailing of written notice of
such change of address, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested:
To County:
New Hanover County
Attn-. Chris Coudriet, County Manager
230 Government Center Drive --- Ste. 195
Wilmington, NC 28405
To Professional:
Wilmington Downtown, Inc.
Attn: Ed Wolverton
221 N. Front Street, Ste. 102
Wilmington, NC 28401
21. Assignability. The parties hereto agree that this Contract is not
transferable and shall not be assigned by either party without the written consent of the
other party to this Contract.
22. Contract Under Seal. The parties hereto expressly agree to create
a Contract under seal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their hands and seals,
the day and year first above written and by authority duly given.
dry
yet.# 11009270-700710
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 4
Page 4 of 6
�t. 6055
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Secretary
This instrument has been pre -
audited in the manner required
by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
County Finance Officer
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
New Hanover County Contract #17 -0240
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
County Manager
WILMINGTON ❑OWNTO N, INC.
(SEAL)
Title��
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
I, , a Notary Public of the State
and County aforesaid, certify that Kymberleigh G. Crowell acknowledged that she is Cleric
to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, and that by authority duly given
and as the act of the Board, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its
Manager, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by herself as its Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of
My commission expires:
dm
11008-270-700710
, 2017.
Notary Public
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 5
Page 5 of 6
deg #26055
New Hanover County Contract #17 -0240
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
1, , a Notary Public of the State
and County aforesaid, certify that , came before me this day
and acknowledged that (s)he is of WILMINGTON
DOWNTOWN, INC., a North Carolina non - profit corporation, and that by authority duly
given and as the act of the corporation, the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed
in its name as its
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of
, 2017.
My commission expires:
dm
�icct# 11008270- 700710
Notary Public
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 6
Page 6 of 6
g"6055
Draft Project Grace Overview
Updated 12119116
Downtown Wilmington is experiencing tremendous economic growth and activity. New Hanover
County controls a key block that has tremendous redevelopment potential that could attract new
private investment to further grow the economy. With this key asset and the potential interest by
the development community, the County Commission could consider a project to define the
redevelopment potential of the site and potentially partner with private investors to attract new
investment that would grow the tax base and strengthen County facilities at this site.
Site Overview: New Hanover County owns an entire block in Downtown Wilmington bordered by
3rd Street, Chestnut Street, 2nd Street and Grace Street. The site is about 3 acres in size and public
uses on this block include the Central Library, Library Park, an EMS facility, a 650 -space parking
deck and 3 surface parking lots. The Register of Deeds was located here prior to moving to the 320
Chestnut Building and the former building is now vacant.
l
es �
f �'tir
in
s
I is
r+
Project Overview: In analyzing development trends and activities, leaders with Wilmington
Downtown Incorporated (WDI) believe that this County -owned block provides an exceptional
opportunity to expand the tax base and stimulate new economic growth. Keys to this assessment
are the surface parking lots along Grace Street, expanded plaza space along 3rd Street and the
County parking deck.
In short, the surface parking lots and plaza area could be leased or sold to a private investor to
construct new buildings for commercial or residential uses. As the land is adjacent to the County
parking deck, this key piece of infrastructure is already in place to serve new users on the block —
thereby making the site more appealing as parking is already addressed and available.
1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 1
To move forward, the Commissioners could consider authorizing a project for WDI to guide a pre -
development assessment of this County -owned land. The project would include the following
components:
(1) Real Estate and Market Demand Analysis: With the growth in Downtown and across the
community, the public would benefit by determining the highest and best use for the property and
the market demand for new uses. This phase would study and define the supply and demand for
potential private uses at the site, including residential, office, retail and hospitality. Public uses to
remain at the site include parking, library, park and EMS; however, some users could be
incorporated into new buildings proposed at the site.
(2) Site Analysis: With an understanding of the best potential uses, this phase would examine the
physical constraints of the site to determine the density, orientation, and potential massing
limitations. Additionally, the work would examine building and land use codes to include height
limits and connectivity to the parking deck. This would lead to a pro -forma analysis modeling the
development costs and the projected cash flows of the public and private facilities to ensure the
viability of the project for private investors.
(3) Investor Recruitment: Pending results of the analyses and authorization by the County
Commission, the final phase would be marketing the project to attract interest from private investors
to redevelop the site. This would include creating and issuing a Request for Qualification and /or
Request for Proposals with specific outcomes for the County and the respondents to address,
including the ownership and use of property at the site. Given the complexity of this review, WDI
and County leaders will evaluate the timeframe and whether additional services are needed to
develop and launch the Investor Recruitment phase.
Upon issuing and reviewing submissions, the Commission could ultimately select a developer to
partner on a redevelopment project. Developers responding to a solicitation would need to submit
proposed plans that are viable, will best serve public interests, and can be completed in a reasonable
time frame. Staff envisions respondents with following traits:
• A multi - disciplined and knowledgeable development team;
• A proven track record of developing mixed -use projects and public — private partnerships;
• Strong architecture and design urban skills;
• Demonstrated ability and timing to obtain funding to execute a project of similar scale and
complexity in a reasonable timeframe.
Project Management: As an existing economic development partner of New Hanover County,
WDI is uniquely positioned to guide this process. Its 37- member Board of Directors and
professional staff have direct experience and knowledge with a variety of development projects in
Downtown. WDI envisions serving as a project manager with up to 5 members serving on the
management oversite team with one County staff member filling an ex officio role.
Process: WDI, with input from County staff and other constituents, would develop and issue a
Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals to obtain professional services to conduct the Real
Estate and Market Demand Analysis and the Site Analysis. The RFQ /RFP would require
respondents to describe specific skills and experiences with similar projects, identify key personnel
devoted to this project and the cost of services. Because the deliverables are distinct yet
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 2
interrelated, the RFQ /RFP would allow respondents to submit for conducting one or both elements
of the project. The RFQ /RFP will be advertised locally, regionally and nationally.
The management oversite team would evaluate the RFQ /RFP submissions and recommend the
firm(s) to conduct the Real Estate and Market Demand Analysis and the Site Analysis. The
recommendation will be provided to the County Commission for review and consideration.
Submissions will be evaluated based on knowledge of local commercial and residential real estate
market, understanding of current and proposed development projects in New Hanover County,
experience in obtaining and interpreting demographic data, understanding of regional construction
costs, experience with architecture planning in urban districts, and construction cost estimating.
Term: The project is expected to take approximately nine months. Ideally, the RFQ /RFP would be
issued in November 2016. WDI would recommend additional service providers to be hired by New
Hanover County in December 2016. The initial draft findings would be delivered by March 2017
with final recommendations completed by May 2017.
Deliverables: Include reports and other documentation to support the redevelopment proposal. The
RFQ /RFP would also be a deliverable.
Proposed Budget: The final budget would be driven by the fees for professional services. WDI
anticipates that this cost would be in the $50,000 to $75,000 range.
Add Alternate: The County Commission could consider expanding the project beyond Grace
Street and 3rd Street corridors to consider the redevelopment of the Central Library building. While
keeping Story Park and the central library in Downtown is crucial for area residents, the library may
have more space than it currently needs. The building is functional; however, the property is a
converted department store that may lack some desired efficiencies and amenities for modern
libraries. Additional review by County Staff and Commissioners would be required to expand the
project to include a new mixed use building at the site that includes space for the library and keeps
the existing park, provided that library service remains at the project site.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 3
Current Conditions
r
Hampton Inn �r
opening Oct.
. - - -0 4 #
I Grace Street Elevat, Access
,- t&
T
r�
r'
5 Elevator
Access
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 4
if
4
Potential Development Options
a a
- - Ida
or
`era
M
- S
IMP
4�A'
¢� e
d°
P
Site B
Ad ;4 � 1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 5
Notes:
Site A: EMS use to remain on
site; potential condo owner or
tenant for new, mixed -use
building. Be aware of
elevator access.
Site B: Could be a separate
stand alone development or
combined with Site A. Be
aware of elevator access.
Site C— Add Alternate: Library
use to remain at site.
Potential condo owner or
tenant for new, mixed -use
building, provided that
operations are uninterrupted.
Site D: Story Park to remain.
Parking deck could remain in
County ownership or
potentially sold to investor.
5
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 1
BENCHMARK
The Art + Science of Planning
December 2, 2016
Ed Wolverton
President & CEO
Wilmington Downtown Incorporated
221 N. Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
RE: Market Demand Analysis and Site Analysis, New Hanover County Block
Dear Mr. Wolverton and Selection Committee,
On behalf of Benchmark, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our
statement of qualifications and proposal for your consideration as DWI and New
Hanover County begins the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the requested
analysis for the County Block in downtown.
Our team consists of a unique group of urban designers, land use planners, economic
developers and architects who have extensive experience in both the preparation and
successful implementation of similar plans throughout the country and internationally.
Our team focuses on the larger scale, examining groups of buildings, streets and public
spaces, with the goal of making urban areas functional, attractive, and sustainable within
their surrounding context. We are uniquely positioned to assist with this project, bringing
a combination of national experience and a passion for downtown development.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal in more detail with you.
If you have any questions or need additional information that is not covered in the
proposal, please contact me by telephone at 800.650.3925 ext. 106 or by email at
jepley @benchmarkplanning.com.
Respectfully,
Jason M. Epley, AICP
President
Benchmark CMR, Inc.
BENCHMARK PLANNING • 1 & -Ai@l5fDemi lis "r."em 0k4ro gg8Z&2Qg0 • Charlotte, NC 28262
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 2
r
W1 % N
3
BENCHMARK PLANNING
Benchmark is a full- service planning firm with over 30 years
of experience serving a diverse client base, with a particular
emphasis on the public sector. With offices in Charlotte,
NC and St. Louis, MO, the Benchmark team has a national
planning practice thatisfocusedon comprehensive planning,
urban design, land use regulations, downtown development
and military planning. Our team of veteran planners has
a breadth of experience that provides our clients with the
innovative ideas and solutions that are necessary to solve
complex problems and develop plans that are grounded in
reality and focused on implementation.
Dan Douglas, AICP will serve as the Project Director. Dan has
led and facilitated several award - winning community- driven
strategic planning and downtown master planning efforts in
the Carolinas, throughout the US and Internationally. Dan's
relevant work experience includes:
• Director of Urban Design with KlingStubbins Architects
In this position, Dan led the creation of a new Urban
Design Plan and Development Framework for
Downtown Chapel Hill. The plan identified new infill
development opportunities through a downtown
market study, conducted an infrastructure analysis
to determine downtown's capacity to support new
development and leveraged an existing parking study
to define demand for new parking. The plan illustrated
three key public investments - a missing greenway
connection, a new transit terminal and a new town
square designed to incent targeted redevelopment
on existing infill sites with improved access /visibility
and a low resistance to change.
• Southeast Director of Urban Planning for JACOBS
With JACOBS, Dan led an economic redevelopment
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 3
study of Hillsborough Street in Raleigh. Hillsborough Street
is the "Main Street" for NC State University. With over 1,500
new apartments built in recent years and an expanding
retail /service sector, Hillsborough Street functions like a small
downtown adjacent to the core of Raleigh's business district.
The study looked at redevelopment options for six sites. Each
site's economic feasibility and development pro -forma
were studied under two rezoning scenarios. Both scenarios
were then rendered in Sketch -Up to communicate to the
stakeholders how zoning decisions affect both the visual and
economic success of the district.
• Director of the City of Raleigh Urban Design Center (UDC)
Dan shepherded the Downtown Raleigh Livable Streets Plan
involving hundreds of citizens and generating an action
plan with over 130 strategies in 10 broad categories. In the 9
years since the plan was adopted, the UDC coordinated the
implementation of 120 of the actions, leveraging over $3.25
billion of new investment. The plan won the 2004 NCAPA
award for implementation.
Specifically related to this project, as the Director of Urban Design
Center in Raleigh and in private practice, Dan conducted many
internal feasibility and highest /best use studies for city and privately
owned property in downtown and town center sites in North and
South Carolina. Sample projects include:
1. Parking Deck Wrap for Wake County
Worked with the county facilities manager to create a site, a fiscal
impact analysis and some development concepts for a potential
residential liner building to wrap a proposed parking structure. The
county agreed with the concept and today a 90 unit apartment
building currently occupies the site.
2. Hillsborough Street Hotel
For a private client, explored the potential for a new boutique hotel
and small parking structure on property owned by North Carolina
State University. Another developer was ultimately selected and
built a new Aloft hotel that opened last year.
2 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 4
• 1 1
LA
11
Yl �
i
yh
T
I
f 1 �
4 7
As seen in the first photo above, as part of implementation on the
Parking Deck project in downtown Raleigh, Dan Douglas also helped
orchestrate the installation of public art to help soften the concrete
facade of the parking structure until the "L" apartment building was
constructed as seen in the second photograph.
3. NC State University
In partnership with the NCSU Real Estate office and a private
developer, explored the redevelopment potential of a 6 acre site on
Hillsborough Street for new student housing, retail, townhouses and a
shared parking structure.
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 3
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 5
The first image above displays the conceptual plans for the Hillsborough
Street Hotel with the second image depicting the Aloft Hotel that opened
in 2015 on the planned site.
4 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 6
4. Town of Chapel Hill - Eubanks Road
For the Chapel Hill Economic Development Office - Explored the
redevelopment potential of one of the largest remaining undeveloped
parcels in the Town of Chapel Hill. Eyed as a site for big box shopping, our
concept integrated a park and ride parking structure to create a higher
density mixed use development centered around a new public square
- out of what would have normally been just a big box shopping center.
5. City of Rock Hill, SC
In concert with the city's Economic Development Department, explored
the redevelopment of two city owned sites adjacent to an existing parking
structure. Proposed small live /work and office condos to allow local real
estate investors the opportunity to take part in downtown's revitalization.
6. Moore Square Parking and Transit Center
Studied the use of air rights over the entrances to the existing Moore
Square Transit Center as a potential site for new affordable housing.
The project opportunities included leveraging the existing parking deck
to lower the cost of parking and using the existing elevators to provide
additional vertical circulation for the housing component.
7. Nash Square Opportunity
Explored a series of options for the redevelopment of three city properties,
one fronting on Nash Square in downtown Raleigh. Involved the demolition
of an old city fire station, a small office annex and an existing surface
parking lot to create a hotel site and parking structure near the future
Train Station.
8. Person Street Economic Development Strategy
For the Downtown Raleigh Alliance, proposed a redevelopment strategy
for two privately held sites in the Person Street corridor. The concept
included demolition of a vacant strip shopping center and small retail
box to create new rental housing for the recently gender integrated
William Peace University.
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 5
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 7
Assisting Mr. Douglas with the management of the project will be Benchmark's President
Jason Epley, AICP, who, in addition to his consulting practice, serves as the Executive
Director of the North Carolina Downtown Development Association. Rounding out the
senior level assistance from Benchmark include Kevin Adams, PhD, AICP and Kris Krider,
AICP. Additional Benchmark staff will provide technical assistance to support the overall
project efforts.
SUBCONSULTANT TEAM MEMBERS
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES
In addition to Benchmark staff assigned to this project, we have engaged Kimley- Horn's
Jessica Rossi, who leads their Real Estate and Economic Development Adviosry Services.
Ms. Rossi offers real estate and economic development consulting to a broad spectrum
of public, private, and nonprofit clients. She specializes in identifying and quantifying
market opportunities for real estate developments and acquisitions, forecasting land
demand for comprehensive planning initiatives, and conducting cost /benefit analyses
for local governments. Ms. Rossi will lead the market demand analysis portion of this
project.
MOSER MAYER PHOENIX ASSOCIATES
Moser Mayer Phoenix Associates, PA (MMPA) was established in 1986 in Greensboro, N.C.
and is a full- service design firm led by William D. Moser, Jr. AIA NCARB, Kenneth C. Mayer,
Jr. FAIA LEED AP, Thomas H. Phoenix, PE LEED AP, and J. Alan Cox, AIA. These principals
oversee a skilled team of architects, engineers, interior designers and support staff, as
well as a vast array of specialized consultants. MMPA will assist with the identification
of any potential issues related to the integration of the existing built environment with
the urban design and development concepts and alternatives to ensure any potential
building code challenges associated with any proposed uses and new structures are
identified early in the process.
6 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 8
Daniel T. Douglas, AICP
PROJECT DIRECTOR I BENCHMARK
URBAN DESIGNER
Education:
Master of City and Regional Planning, Clemson University
BS Architecture, Clemson University
Mr. Douglas is the Director of Urban Design for Benchmark Planning.
Dan has prepared master plans for downtowns across the country
and internationally including Raleigh, Chapel Hill and Concord,
NC, Long Beach, CA, Anchorage, AK, Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
In the public sector, Dan founded and served as Director of
Raleigh's Urban Design Center. While in this leadership position,
Dan led the city's downtown planning effort that leveraged over
$2.5 billion dollars of private investment. In 2008, Mr. Douglas was
honored to receive the first ever Downtown Advocate Award from
the Downtown Raleigh Alliance.
In private practice, Dan founded the Urban Planning and Design
Studio for KlingStubbins Architects. He led the southeast practice
for the Jacobs Advance Planning Group. Recently Dan has gained
significant international planning experience working on large
scale new city projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
Kingdom of Morocco.
Dan is a sought after speaker on the topic of urban revitalization.
He has been a guest on NPR's The State of Things. He has spoken
at over 20 conferences - locally, nationally and internationally. In
2007, Dan won a prestigious Eisenhower Fellowship - spending 8
weeks traveling throughout Europe- studying sustainable economic
development, the effects of the introduction of high speed rail on
urban centers and the influence of the creative class in European
city centers.
Dan's projects have won numerous local, state and national
awards from leading urban associations - International Downtown
Association, American Planning Association, the International
City /County Management Association, the American Council of
Engineering Companies and the American Society of Landscape
Architects.
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 9
RELEVANT PROJECTS
Urban Design Plan
Concord, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Chapel Hill, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Raleigh, NC
Downtown /Waterfront Plan
Anchorage, AK
Hillsborough Street Plan
Raleigh, NC
Downtown Retail Vision
Long Beach, CA
City Plaza /Public Art Plan
Raleigh, NC
Commercial District Master Plan
Wrightsville Beach, NC
Fayetteville Street
Urban Design Plan
Raleigh, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Suffolk, VA
Livable Streets Plan
Raleigh, NC
Cultural District Master Plan
Raleigh, NC
7
Jason M. Epley, AICP, CPM
PLANNER I BENCHMARK
Mr. Epley brings 21 years of national experience in the planning
profession to Benchmark's consulting team. Currently the President
of Benchmark CMR, Inc., Jason's past positions have included
working with municipal, county, regional and state government
planning programs throughout North Carolina. He specializes in
comprehensive planning, military planning, urban design, public
involvement, and meeting facilitation. Jason brings additional
expertise and experience with downtown development and
design, and currently serves in the role of Executive Director of
the North Carolina Downtown Development Association. He has
a wealth of experience helping communities develop meaningful
plans and sound implementation strategies through ordinance
preparation and adoption, with project experience in well over 150
communities across the country.
Education:
Master of City and Regional Planning, Clemson University
BA Geography, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Certifications /Memberships:
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Member, American Planning Association
Executive Director, NC Downtown Development Association
Member, National Society of Certified Public Managers
Member, National Trust for Historic Preservation
RELEVANT PROJECTS
Urban Design Plan
Concord, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Suffolk, VA
Commercial District Master Plan
Wrightsville Beach, NC
Urban Design Plan /WFU Area
Winston - Salem, NC
South Main Street Plan
High Point, NC
Centerpiece Design Charrette
Salisbury, NC
Comprehensive Plan
Shepherdstown, WV
Comprehensive Plan
Blowing Rock, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Elizabethtown, NC
Urban Design Plan /Lawndale Dr
Greensboro, NC
Bike & Pedestrian Master Plans
Clinton, NC
Statewide Industrial Site Selection
NC Railroad Company
8 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 10
o Kevin Adams, Ph.D., AICP
URBAN DESIGNER BENCHMARK
Mr. Adams has recently joined Benchmark Planning, bringing over
15 years of urban design, planning and economic development
experience to the team. Mr. Adams experience spans a broad
range of planning research and practical experience from
projects in the Philadelphia and Atlanta metro areas. Mr. Adams
is an engaging speaker and skilled facilitator, who helps his client
communities understand complex urban design and planning
issues. Currently, Mr. Adams' primary assignment is the Nags Head
Comprehensive Plan.
Education:
Ph.D., Urban Design & Planning, University of Maryland
MS Urban Design, Georgia Institute of Technology
MS Real Estate Development, Columbia University
BA International Studies, Southwestern University
Certifications /Memberships:
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Member, American Planning Association
RELEVANT PROJECTS
Urban Design Plan
Concord, NC
Downtown Master Plan
Suffolk, VA
Urban Design Study
Nashville, TN
Coastal Resiliency Study
East Savannah, GA
Community Design Charrette
Philadelphia, PA
Comprehensive Plan
Nags Head, NC
Regional Manufacturing Study
Delaware Valley RPC
Philadelphia, PA
Economic Analysis
Delaware Valley RPC
Philadelphia, PA
Cathedral Square Design
Tulsa, OK
People in the Park Toolkit
Adirondack Park Region, NY
Urban Design & Sea Level Rise
Georgia Conservancy
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 9
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 11
Kris Krider, AICP
URBAN DESIGNER I BENCHMARK
Mr. Krider brings more than 25 years of national public and private
planning and design experience to the Benchmark team. A member
of the Benchmark team since 2011, Kris currently directs the Urban
Design and Research Division in the Arlington County, Virginia
Planning Department. Prior to joining Benchmark, Kris served as the
Planning Director in the Town of Davidson, North Carolina where he
led a number of high profile urban design projects, including the
planning and development of the Griffith Street corridor at Exit 30
on Interstate 77, and numerous downtown development projects in
the town's historic business district, which is also home to Davidson
College. Prior to his tenure in Davidson, Mr. Krider served as Senior
Urban Designer for two nationally recognized design firms in San
Francisco after receiving his graduate training in architecture from
the University of California - Berkeley.
Education:
MA Architecture, University of California at Berkeley
BA Architecture, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Certifications /Memberships:
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Member, American Planning Association
LEED Green Associate
RELEVANT PROJECTS
Courthouse Square Sector Plan
Arlington County, VA
Walnut Hills Redevelopment Plan
Cincinnati, OH
Oak to 9th Development Plan
Oakland, CA
NC 73 Land Use & Economic Plan
Davidson, NC
Comprehensive Plan
Shepherdstown, WV
Comprehensive Plan
Blowing Rock, NC
Huntington Main Street Plan
Huntington, WV
Comprehensive Plan
Weaverville, NC
Bicentennial Master Plan
Lawrenceburg, IN
Small Area /Urban Design Plan
Greensboro, NC
Downtown Workshop
Mayodan, NC
Small Area /Urban Design Plan
Winston - Salem, NC
10 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 -4-12
Jessica S. Rossi, AICP
PLANNER & MARKET ANALYST I KIMLEY -HORN
With more than 12 years of real estate market research and planning experience, Jessica brings
a comprehensive perspective to all consulting assignments. Her involvement provides clients with
detailed insights into demographic and development trends as well as the fiscal implications of
different growth scenarios.
She works on a wide variety of comprehensive planning and economic development assignments for
local governments and regional agencies. Developer and investor clients also rely on Jessica's insight
to determine demand for commercial and residential projects and to choose specific concepts to
maximize marketability and value. As a national resource for Kimley -Horn, Jessica participates in
assignments across the United States.
Jessica served as project manager or provided market analysis, economic development, and /or return
on investment services for the following projects:
• Wilmington Rail Relocation — Wilmington, NC
• Downtown Market Analysis — Kannapolis, NC
• Allen Bennett Hospital Redevelopment Analysis — Greer, SC
• Downtown Village District Plan — Holly Springs, NC
• Downtown Master Plan and Market Analysis — Monroe, NC
• Largo Mall Infill Opportunities Special Area Plan — Largo, FL
• City Block Apartment Market Analysis — Wilmington, NC
• Downtown Plan and Market Analysis — Rutherfordton, NC
• Downtown & NC 115 Master Plan — Statesville, NC
• Downtown Community Redevelopment Area — Lakeland, FL
• North Tryon Revitalization Plan — Charlotte, NC
• Baxter Village Market Feasibility Study — Fort Mill, SC
• Town Center Residential Market Analysis — The Woodlands, TX
• NoDa Mils Apartment Feasibility Assessment — Charlotte, NC
• Woolworth Site Redevelopment Opportunities —Rock Hill, SC
• Town Center Improvement District — Cobb County, GA
• Livable Communities Initiative Plan — Chamblee, GA
Education:
2005 - MA Community & Regional Planning - Univ. of Rhode Island
2002 - BA Environmental Studies & Political Science - Alfred University
Certifications /Memberships:
American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association
Commercial Real Estate Women (CREW)
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 11
ITEM: 6 -4-13
l '
or
Lktl
William D. Moser, AIA, NCARB
Principal, MMPA
North Carolina State University
Bachelorof Environmental Design in Architecture
Master of Architecture
Bill has over 40 years of design leadership
experience including numerous local
government projects. He founded the firm in
1986. Bill's philosophy of working "with" rather
than "for" the client through the engagement
of all stakeholders has proven to be successful
in sustaining the firm for the past 30 years. His
specialty areas include local government,
workshop facilitation and parks and recreation
facility design.
Relevant Project Experience
Design Workshops with Benchmark, Planning:
• Design /Link Workshops for Yanceyville, Elkin,
High Point, Greensboro and Winston -Salem
City of High Point, NC
• High Point Museum Little Red School House
• High Point Library Site Improvements
• High Point Police Department Training Facility
City of Burlington, NC
Multiple Recreation / Parks
• Downtown Streetscapes Program
• Company Shops Station (NCRR)
• Company Shops Market
Kenneth C. Mayer, Jr., FAIA, LEED AP
Principal, MMPA
North Carolina State University
Bachelorof Environmental Design in Architecture
Bachelor of Architecture
Ken Mayer has more than 30 years of design
leadership experience and has been a
Principal at MMPA since 1987. Ken's specialty
areas include higher education, heath care
facilities, public intermodal transit passenger
and maintenance facilities, historic renovation/
adaptive reuse and LEED Certified design. Ken
was the 2015 President of the North Carolina
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
Relevant Project Experience
City of High Point, NC
• Broad Avenue Transit Facility
City of Greensboro, NC
• Intermodal Transportation Center Feasibility
Study
• and Project Improvement Plan
• Visioning and Design Management for
LeBauer Park
• Visioning Plan Downtown Greensboro
• Visioning Plan Downtown Greenway
• NewBridge Bank Baseball Park
City of Asheville, NC
• Asheville Downtown Transit Center
City of Concord, NC
• Intermodal Transportation Center
City of Greenville, NC
• Intermodal Transportation Center Feasibility
Study, Site Selection and Conceptual Design
12 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 -4-14
k
URBAN DESIGN PLAN & DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
CONCORD, NC
Concord, NC (pop. 78,066) commissioned Benchmark to
prepare a Downtown Urban Design Plan and final master plan
document. Concord is on the northern border of Charlotte, NC
and is home to several large tourism draws including the Lowes
Motor Speedway, Dragway, Concord Mills Mall, and Great
Wolf Lodge. Concord is also the proud home of Carolina's
Medical Center and an array of related medical operations
facilities. In addition, Concord continues to grow its economy
with industrial and distribution facilities being located in its
International Business Park.
The Master Plan, adopted in August 2016, was based upon
significant stakeholder and focus group outreach that included
a week -long design charrette. The plan process examined
existing conditions, previous studies, market potential and a
recent parking study. Recommendations were developed
for conceptual streetscape improvements with development
recommendations and a return on investment analysis for
opportunity sites in order to establish a clear framework for
investment in the city's thriving downtown.
REFERENCE
City of Concord
Steve Osborne
Deputy Planning Director
704.920.5132
Project Budget: $65,000
http: / /www.designconcordnc.com/
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 13
ITEM: 6 -4-15
kin
4�,
k
URBAN DESIGN PLAN & DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
CONCORD, NC
Concord, NC (pop. 78,066) commissioned Benchmark to
prepare a Downtown Urban Design Plan and final master plan
document. Concord is on the northern border of Charlotte, NC
and is home to several large tourism draws including the Lowes
Motor Speedway, Dragway, Concord Mills Mall, and Great
Wolf Lodge. Concord is also the proud home of Carolina's
Medical Center and an array of related medical operations
facilities. In addition, Concord continues to grow its economy
with industrial and distribution facilities being located in its
International Business Park.
The Master Plan, adopted in August 2016, was based upon
significant stakeholder and focus group outreach that included
a week -long design charrette. The plan process examined
existing conditions, previous studies, market potential and a
recent parking study. Recommendations were developed
for conceptual streetscape improvements with development
recommendations and a return on investment analysis for
opportunity sites in order to establish a clear framework for
investment in the city's thriving downtown.
REFERENCE
City of Concord
Steve Osborne
Deputy Planning Director
704.920.5132
Project Budget: $65,000
http: / /www.designconcordnc.com/
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 13
ITEM: 6 -4-15
SOUTH MAIN STREET URBAN DESIGN PLAN
HIGH POINT, NC
In High Point (pop. 107,741), Benchmark and Moser Mayer
Phoenix Associates facilitated a process that involved small group
discussions with business owners, neighborhood associations,
college officials, elected leaders and others to prepare a vision
and urban design plan for the Southside Arts District (SoSi)
located along South Main Street. Benchmark also assisted with
the market analysis and prepared digital renderings to help
the community develop the vision. The area is anchored by
the growing Guilford Technical Community College High Point
Campus. The positive influence of GTCC -High Point, is helping
to energize this small area as it seeks to improve, connect and
revitalize the community. Several recommendations from the
charrette, including pedestrian improvements have already
been implemented.
https:// www .highpointnc.gov /documentcenter /view /l 986
ALLEN BENNETT HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
GREER, SC
Greenville Hospital System gifted the 10 -acre Allen Bennett
Memorial Hospital site to the City of Greer in 2010. Except for the
Greenville County EMS operation, the buildings were otherwise
vacant. While the buildings were structurally sound, they were
also functionally obsolete. Given the site's prominent location on
Wade Hampton Boulevard, the City of Greer sought guidance
on the highest and best uses for the property, including ways to
best position the property in respect to building demolition or
repurposing.
Kimley -Horn prepared a market analysis for the for a variety of
potential uses on the site, including residential, retail, office, and
hospitality. Local market conditions were analyzed, including
market trends and employment and demographics for the City
of Greer, as well as the larger Greenville- Spartanburg Combined
Statistical Area.
Based on the market analysis, Kimley -Horn provided guidance on
the types of uses by size that could be supported on the Allen
Bennett Memorial Hospital site. We worked directly with a local
architect to determine the potential for the existing buildings to
accommodate the candidate uses. Ultimately, the analysis was
used by the City of Greer information that can be used to make
an informed decision about their repurposing. The hospital build-
ings have since been torn down, and the City released a Request
for Proposals for acquisition and development earlier in 2016.
REFERENCE
Randy Hemann
Assistant City Manager
City of High Point
336.883.8547
randy.hemann @highpointnc.gov
Project Budget Estimate: $40,000*
*This project was one of 6 design
projects that Benchmark and
MMPA collaborated on through
the regional sustainability
planning effort sponsored by
PART through CCE.
REFERENCE (KIMLEY -HORN)
Mr. Ed Driggers
City Administrator
City of Greer, SC
864.848.5387
edriggers @cityofgreer.org
Project Budget: $18,400
http: / /www.cityofgreer.org /docs/ Administration /Bids /Allen Bennett Final 20150204.pdf
14 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 -4-16
DOWNTOWN MARKET ANALYSIS
KANNAPOLIS, NC
Downtown Kannapolis was once the commercial, economic, and social center of a community built
around Cannon Mills. Following the closure of the Mills in 2003, Castle & Cooke purchased not only the
Mill property, but also a significant portion of downtown. Ultimately, the downtown was re- imagined
as a center of nutrition, agriculture, and human health, anchored by the North Carolina research
Campus (NCRC).
As part of the Kimley -Horn analysis, an overview of existing economic, real estate, and demographic
conditions were prepared. Extensive interviews were conducted with community leaders, area
businesses, property owners, and local non - profit organizations to identify development opportunities
and potential civic anchor uses. Kimley -Horn analyzed market trends for residential, retail, hospitality
and office uses, and forecasts were prepared for the supportable amount of residential units, hotel
keys, and retail and office square footage. Specific catalyst site recommendations were provided.
Funding sources, incentives, and other implementation measures were identified and described to
accelerate private investment.
The City of Kannapolis has followed through on two specific recommendations that came out of the
analysis, resulting in direct private investment. The City of Kannapolis utilized public funds to purchase
key tracts from Castle & Cooke in the main core of downtown, allowing for increased control over
development opportunities and growth. The City recently selected a development group that is
planning a $60 million investment to catalyze enthusiasm. The City will make an investment in the
parking structure while the developer will invest in purchasing the land from the City and constructing
the other buildings. The City is also investigating the potential to move the Kannapolis Intimidators,
a Class A minor - league baseball team, from their location close to an interstate, into downtown, a
recommendation made in the market analysis.
REFERENCE (KIMLEY -HORN)
Ms. Irene Sacks
Director of Economic Development
City of Kannapolis, NC
704.920.4326
isacks @kannapolisnc.gov
Project Budget: $32,000
DAN DOUGLAS REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
RALEIGH, NC
REFERENCE
Downtown Raleigh
David Diaz, President
Downtown Raleigh Alliance
919.744.0940
daviddiaz @downtownraleigh.org
BENCHMARK PLANNING Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 15
ITEM: 6 -4-17
PROJECT SCOPE AND BUDGET
We have reviewed all work tasks identified in the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for
the Market Demand Analysis and Site Analysis for the New Hanover County Block in Downtown
Wilmington. We have developed four key work tasks below with associated time frame and
lump sum cost that is inclusive of all related labor, travel and other costs to complete this
project in an efficient and timely manner.
Work Task
- Frame
Cost
1. Project Initiation
• Meeting with WDI Staff
Dec 2016 / Jan 2017
$2,050
• Meeting with Task Force
2. Background Research & Stakeholder Input
• Complete Market Analysis Tasks
• Complete Site Analysis Tasks
• Conduct Stakeholder Interviews
Jan 2017 - March 2017
$33,750
- Investors, developers, architects,
contractors, key local government staff
members, others as identified by WDI
3. Prepare and Present Preliminary Findings
• Meeting with WDI Staff and Task Force
End of March 2017
$2,800
• Feedback to be provided by WDI to
consultant within 2 weeks
4. Prepare and Present Final Report
May 2017
$9,150
TOTAL COST
$47,750
16 Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017 BENCHMARK PLANNING
ITEM: 6 -4-18
e
BENCHMARK
%4
enchma ;kplanning.com
CHARLOTTE I ST. LOUIS
rs - January 23, 2017
-4 -19
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Jim Flechtner, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
Executive Director
CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager
SUBJECT:
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority 2016 Annual Report
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Jim Flechtner will provide the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority 2016 Annual Report.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Keep the public informed on important information
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear report.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear report.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 7
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): April Adams, Partner, Cherry Bekaert LLP
CONTACT(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Chief Financial Officer; Martha Wayne, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Presentation of the Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/2016
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended 6/30/2016 is
completed. The results of the audit and financial report will be presented by April Adams, Audit Partner with
Cherry Bekaert LLP. The audit resulted in an unmodified opinion, meaning the auditors concur that the
financial statements are free from any material misstatements.
The general fund expenses exceeded revenues by $330,239 for the year. The general fund balance at June 30,
2016 was $96,177,330, of which $61,151,680 was unassigned or not restricted for a particular purpose. The
unassigned fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenses represented 21.1 %, which slightly exceeds
our policy goal of 21 %.
In the fire services fund, expenses exceeded revenues by $1,277,686 leaving fund balance at June 30, 2016 of
$3,139,206. The environmental management fund increased its fund balance by $2,473,452. There is no
policy goal for fund balance in these funds.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Strong Financial Perfonnance
• Enhance and maintain effective policies
• Deliver value for taxpayer money
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Request Commissioners listen to the presentation and approve the New Hanover County Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended 6/30/2016.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation and approved the Annual Audit Report 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Management PRESENTER(S): Joe Suleyman, Environmental Management
Director
CONTACT(S): Joe Suleyman
SUBJECT:
Presentation on Progress To Date for the Purchase and Installation of In- Vessel Composting
Equipment
BRIEF SUMMARY:
A Request for Bid (RFB) was initiated for the purchase and installation of in- vessel composting equipment
for a pilot demonstration. After due advertisement, bids were received from a total of four (4) bidders.
The composting equipment would be used during the demonstration period (ending August 15, 2017) to
process pre - consumer food waste from UNCW's Wagoner Dining Hall, along with vegetative debris
collected at the NHC Landfill, to generate commercial -grade compost. Finished compost will be available for
use by county departments, such as NHC Parks & Gardens, the Arboretum, and Environmental
Management. The NHC Landfill has the ability to consume the vast majority of the finished compost during
ongoing cell closure projects as part of the final cap.
Food waste represents a very large portion of the waste disposed of in the NHC Landfill. Nationally, 52% of
food grown in the United States is disposed of. Reducing the amount of food waste disposed of in the NHC
landfill will reduce landfill gas emissions (methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon
dioxide) and preserve valuable landfill space. Food waste is an untapped resource that can be converted to
nutrient -rich compost for use in landscaping and agricultural applications.
An innovative composting operation at the NHC Landfill would leverage state -of -the -art technology to
address the long -term impacts of food waste in our community. This pilot program will demonstrate the
effectiveness of composting as a key part of a larger solid waste management strategy. The Environmental
Management Department selected the in- vessel method of composting versus the traditional static pile
method for several reasons: the in- vessel method requires a fraction of the space required, produces finished
compost in one third of the time (4 weeks as compared to 90 days), and contains offensive odors and liquid
wastes within a sealed system.
Environmental Management Department staff reviewed the RFB's based upon the following criteria: price,
warranty, references, experience, production throughput, training, support, and the minimum bid
requirements. The two (2) highest -rated products were further evaluated, and prices were adjusted for the
addition of equipment options determined by staff as necessary to maximize productivity. Of the two (2)
finalists, the lowest and best bid was that of DariTech Inc., with a total cost of $369,884. The amount
budgeted for this purchase in FY17 was $340,000, including $15,000 in grant funds awarded by the State of
North Carolina's Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service. This grant was approved as
part of the adopted FY17 budget. Remaining funds for the purchase are available in the Environmental
Management Department's adopted budget for FY17.
If the Board agrees with proof of concept, staff will present a recommendation for approval of the bid award
for in- vessel composting equipment at a future meeting.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 9
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Effective County Management
• Leverage technology and information to enable performance
• Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation and provide staff direction.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Provide direction to staff.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation and provided direction to staff.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 9
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director
CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe and Tara Duckworth, Parks Director
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a Resolution of Support for Pedestrian and Safety improvements Along Carolina
Beach Road Near Monkey Junction
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has identified a portion of Carolina Beach Road as having
significant safety problems, especially for pedestrians trying to navigate their way around Monkey Junction.
The state provides Highway Safety Funding for qualifying projects that have identified safety concerns. The
Department of Transportation has funding, pending local support, to begin design work and construction on a
project to address the safety concerns along this portion of Carolina Beach Road. After the project is
constructed the County will be required to take over maintenance for the fencing, sidewalk, and lighting.
Annual maintenance costs are estimated to be $6000. Construction of the project should take place beginning
this summer. The Parks Department is prepared to assume maintenance of the improvements once they are
completed. Following is a summary of pedestrian incidents that have occurred and a list of the proposed
improvements:
Crash Summary year period):
10 pedestrian crashes in most recent 5 -year period
5 fatal crashes, l A -class crash, 3 B -class crashes, and 1 C -class crash
9 of 10 crashes occurred during dark conditions (515 fatal crashes)
9 of 10 crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections or mid -block
Project Scope:
Sidewalk on the southern/western side of US 421 from —100' north of the northernmost Walmart
entrance to the overhead sign structure in front of Burger King
Sidewalk on the northern/eastern side of US 421 from Willoughby Park Road to the overhead sign
structure in front of Burger King
Black aluminum fence in the median from —200' north of Willoughby Park Road to College Road
(tapered shorter at the intersections for sight- distance)
High - visibility crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads on all four legs of US 421 @ Antoinette Drive
Signals with high - visibility crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads at the northernmost Walmart
entrance
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 10
Overhead lighting (for the crosswalks) at Antoinette Drive and the northernmost Walmart entrance
The goal of the project is to "funnel" pedestrians to marked, signalized, lighted crosswalks in order to safely
cross the 4 -lane median- divided section. NCDOT will provide the County with an MOU for maintenance of
the project when the project nears the design phase.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Increase public safety and crime prevention
• Provide health and wellness education, programs, and services
• Understand and act on citizen needs
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution of Support
Crash Locations Map
Project Scope
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 10
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S EFFORTS TO CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG US 421 (CAROLINA BEACH ROAD) FROM NORTH OF
WILLOUGHBY PARK ROAD TO US 117/NC 132 (COLLEGE ROAD)
WHEREAS, New Hanover County, in collaboration with the City of Wilmington, the
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and North Carolina Department of
Transportation, strives to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes within New
Hanover County and throughout the Wilmington Urban Area MPO boundary; and
WHEREAS, along US 421 (Carolina Beach Road) from SR 1197 (Silver Lake Road) to US
117/NC 132 (College Road), the Crash Summary (5 -year period) indicates ten (10) pedestrian
crashes have occurred: 5 of 10 crashes were fatal, 9 of 10 crashes occurred during dark
conditions (515 fatal crashes), and 9 of 10 crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections or mid -
block; and
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners recognizes the need to improve
pedestrian safety along US 421 (Carolina Beach Road) near Monkey Junction; and
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners understands that the County
will be responsible for maintenance of the safety improvements within the unincorporated
portions of New Hanover County; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is seeking New
Hanover County's support for improving safety along US 421 (Carolina Beach Road) from north
of Willoughby Park Road to US 117/NC 132 (College Road).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners hereby supports the North Carolina Department of Transportation's efforts to
construct pedestrian safety improvements along US 421 (Carolina Beach Road) from north of
Willoughby Park Road to US 117/NC 132 (College Road).
ADOPTED this the 23rd day of January, 2017.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Woody White, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 10- 1 - 1
6
ORWEp
P i
do
+
w o .
�WL
i
1 ■
if wr a
■
i
i.
w �
y
r-I
0
'
Cry
0
U')
L
—j
�
V�
L
L
y
.`
CDL_
CD
CL
i
�y
1"J
0
..
r
m
Ln
0
J
0
0
V
=
u
j
l►1
l++j
U-
Y
+I
LrS
0
0
—
L
"--
V'7
-
Q)
fjy
Q�
m
• L
-•I- -+
CL
+-
{
L
Q]
6
ORWEp
P i
do
+
w o .
�WL
i
1 ■
if wr a
■
i
i.
w �
y
r-I
0
'
Cry
0
U')
L
—j
�
V�
L
L
y
.`
CDL_
CD
CL
i
�y
1"J
6
ORWEp
P i
do
+
w o .
�WL
i
1 ■
if wr a
■
i
i.
w �
y
'
Cry
0
U')
IL
.`
CDL_
CD
i
�y
1"J
0
..
r
J
0
0
V
=
6
ORWEp
P i
do
+
w o .
�WL
i
1 ■
if wr a
■
i
i.
w �
y
�•
C1� O LPL Q) r—I V) C) C�
4--j Cry _ f l un V Fn
L.r-r 0 i
1--
co
Ln
r—I
f :1 %. N _ All '
40 r—I Vry] Cry
0)
cn %A r
C}.
F
� V'S
Q) Q) v) u- Q�
- 0
�\ C) F gip.
un
[4-0j"� .
p Q) ci
r-1 O i aJ
' FA
� a
F
}
U C:) v �+
h
tC
CA 4-1 un
0+ �-
CD
�
` - un � u .,
LA
+-d Q) Q)
U.) —
Lr, —
0
L r) Cry —
LA QJ [
0
i
Z
0
0
j
0
U-
LrS
0
0
—
Q1
"--
V'7
-
Q)
fjy
Q�
CL
+-
�•
C1� O LPL Q) r—I V) C) C�
4--j Cry _ f l un V Fn
L.r-r 0 i
1--
co
Ln
r—I
f :1 %. N _ All '
40 r—I Vry] Cry
0)
cn %A r
C}.
F
� V'S
Q) Q) v) u- Q�
- 0
�\ C) F gip.
un
[4-0j"� .
p Q) ci
r-1 O i aJ
' FA
� a
F
}
U C:) v �+
h
tC
CA 4-1 un
0+ �-
CD
�
` - un � u .,
LA
+-d Q) Q)
U.) —
Lr, —
0
L r) Cry —
LA QJ [
0
i
r
a
s
r.
e i
#-
lk AMU_
\\ TM 4
rLi
LL k
in
•
. Q m 1
y fZ# 1
a � _ r
IL
AL
L
J
... -
i
1;
I
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Julia Moeller, Community Development Planner;
and Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director
CONTACT(S): Julia Moeller; Ken Vafier; Planning Manager; and Chris O'Keefe
SUBJECT:
Ratification of Urgent Repair Program Grant Application
BRIEF SUMMARY:
A total of $3.5 million has been made available to local governments and non - governmental organizations
under the 2017 cycle of the Urgent Repair Program (URP 17). This program provides grant funding to assist
low- income households with urgent home repairs. The grant is administered by the North Carolina Housing
Finance Agency (HFA). We will be applying for $56,000 and will serve a minimum of 7 households in the
unincorporated County. The maximum amount of funding that can be allocated to each household is $8,000.
There is no match requirement for this grant.
Over the past four months, we have received several inquiries for urgent housing repair assistance and have
been unable to help due to lack of resources. Having been one of the counties affected by Hurricane
Matthew, we will be given additional consideration during the scoring and ranking process performed by the
HFA. This will give us a competitive edge over other counties. If our application is selected for funding, the
Planning and Land Use Department, along with the help of Finance, Building Safety, Legal, and Property
Management, has the internal capacity to administer such a grant.
Of the incorporated municipalities within the County, Wilmington and Carolina Beach are eligible to apply
for URP17. Wilmington is electing not to apply and Carolina Beach is undecided. Kure Beach and
Wrightsville Beach are not eligible to apply because they do not meet all of the program criteria.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Increase public safety and crime prevention
• Understand and act on citizen needs
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify submission of grant application for the Urgent Repair Program Grant.
ATTACHMENTS:
Funds Available Letter
URP17 Application Form
Service Area Map
Client Relations
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11
Applicant Capacity
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend ratification of the grant application.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Ratified grant application 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11
Potential applicants are encouraged to register for the URP 17 Application Guideline Webinar,
,!hick will be prese ,tcd on Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:00 PM. You can register 0.1- thIC
URP17 Application Guideline Webinar on the Agency's website at www.nchfa.com under the
Urgent Repair Program section. Please register for the Webinar no later than 3:00 PM,
December 16, 2016.
Application forms and guidelines will be available on the Agency's website at www.nchfa.com
after November 29, 2016. Completed applications must be received at the Agency by 5:00 PM
January 23, 2016. For more information, please call Mike Handley, 919- 877 -5627, Chuck
Dopler, 919- 981 -5008, Donna Coleman, 919 -981 -5006, or Dan McFarland, 919- 875 -3753.
A. Robert Kucab, Executive Director
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11-1 -1
l
JNA
�1
HOUSING
FINANCE
AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
A self-supporting
TO: Interested Parties
public xgeacy
FROM: A. Robert Kucab, Executive Director
A. Robes Kucah
DATE: November 29, 2016
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Notice of Funds Available under the Urgent Repair Program
I am pleased to announce that the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (the Agency)
Po Box 28066
proposes to make a total of $3.5 million available for the 2017 Urgent Repair Program (URP17).
Ralewh. NC
Program funding enables recipient organizations to provide deferred, forgiven loans of up to
276ll -8066
$8,000 for emergency home repairs and modifications to very low- income owner - occupied
homes. Eligible households are those with one or more fulltime household members with special
needs (e.g., elderly, disabled, and /or Veteran fulltime household members or a child 6 or under
3508 Bush Streel
with an elevated blood -lead level). Household incomes cannot exceed 50% of area median
Raleigh, NC
income.
27009-7509
Nonprofit organizations, local governments and regional councils of government with the
technical capacity to manage residential construction projects are eligible to apply. Eligible
919 -s7� -57x1
applicants must cover service areas with a population of 5,000 or greater. Additional
FAX.
y'`' a.com
consideration will be given to service areas affected by Hurricane Matthew.
WV
www.nenfa:ccnn
The maximum funding amount is $200,000 for projects serving two or more counties in their
entirety, and $100,000 for projects serving a single county. The maximum funding for large
CDBG Entitlement Cities is $50,000.
Potential applicants are encouraged to register for the URP 17 Application Guideline Webinar,
,!hick will be prese ,tcd on Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:00 PM. You can register 0.1- thIC
URP17 Application Guideline Webinar on the Agency's website at www.nchfa.com under the
Urgent Repair Program section. Please register for the Webinar no later than 3:00 PM,
December 16, 2016.
Application forms and guidelines will be available on the Agency's website at www.nchfa.com
after November 29, 2016. Completed applications must be received at the Agency by 5:00 PM
January 23, 2016. For more information, please call Mike Handley, 919- 877 -5627, Chuck
Dopler, 919- 981 -5008, Donna Coleman, 919 -981 -5006, or Dan McFarland, 919- 875 -3753.
A. Robert Kucab, Executive Director
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11-1 -1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11- 2 -1
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
Application for Funding
2017 Urgent Repair Program
(URP17)
I.
Program Applicant
A.
Applicant Organization:
1.
Legal Name New Hanover County
2.
Street Address 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
3.
Mailing Address 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
4.
City Wilmington, NC ZIP 28403
5.
Fax Number 910- 798 -7053 6. Federal Tax ID 56- 6000324
7.
DUNS Number 04- 002 -9563
8.
Website address nhcgov.com
B.
Chief Administrative Official:
1.
Name Chris Coudriet 2. Title County Manager
3.
Phone Number (910) 798 -7184 4. Email CCoudrietAnhcgov.com
C.
Contracted Administrator Information: (Consultingfirm, COG, etc., if applicable)
1.
Organization Name N/A
2.
Mailing Address N/A
3.
City N/A ZIP N/A
4.
Fax Number N/A
5.
Chief Operating Officer N/A
D.
Project Contact Person: (Who should NCHFA contact for URP project details ?)
1.
Name Julia Moeller 2. Title Community Development Planner
3.
Phone Number 910- 798 -7442 4. Email imoeller(&nhcg xom
E.
Type of Applicant:
1.
Community Action Agency......... 2. Other Nonprofit Corporation...... .
3.
Public Housing Authority.......... 4. Other Public Agency .............
5.
Local Government ................ X 6. Regional Council............... .
F.
Brief Description of your Organization (Non Government Organizations ONLY)
G.
Funding Requested:
1.
Total amount of Program funds requested ............................ $56,000
2.
Total number of dwelling units targeted for Program assistance ................... 7
THIS SECTION FOR NCHFA USE ONLY
Date received
Ap. No.
Fee enclosed
No. copies
Thresh.
Score
Cap.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11- 2 -1
URP17 APPLICATION FOR FUNDING
II. Project Design
A. Service Area: In all cases, "service area" is defined as the geographic area or areas in which homeowners are
equally eligible to apply for assistance. Recipients may choose to accept applications on a first -come, first -
served basis from throughout the service area, while adhering to section 6 (Eligible households) of the
Application Guidelines, or to allocate equitable portions of the grant to all eligible localities within the service
area. Otherwise homeowners' applications must be rated and prioritized without regard to the applicant's specific
locality within the service area.
Please define your service area in specific terms:
The project will serve the entire unincorporated County using a priority rating system in which
funding will be allocated to applicants in the order of highest to lowest points. The County will
advertise the grant on its website, its social media platforms, on NHCTV, and in the local
newspaper.
2. Complete the following matrix to define your proposed service area by county, population,
number of dwelling units targeted for assistance and amount of Program funds projected to be
spent in each county. If the service area comprises an entire county or city use the July 2015
population estimates from the North Carolina State Data Center available at
httys: / /ncosbm.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public /demog /countygrowth cert 2015.html
Use the July 2015 population column. Applications for grants exceeding $100,000 must serve
multiple counties in their entirety.
County(s) in which service area is located
Population of
service area
Proposed
# of units
Program funds
a. New Hanover County
90,297
7
$56,000
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9-
h.
i. Totals =
90,297
7
$56,000
3. If the service area contains other than an entire city or county, attach a map clearly delineating the proposed
service area boundaries, and service area population. Label the map "Exhibit II A 2 ".
Board of Commissione2s - January 23, 2017
URP17 Application for Funding
1I. Project Design (continued)
B. Beneficiary Targeting:
Do not submit your proposed project assistance policy with this application for funding. If your
project is selected for funding, you will be requested to submit your assistance policy with the post
approval documentation.
C. Client Relations:
Linking special needs households to services beyond housing is viewed as an integral part of the
Urgent Repair Program. Explain in detail the system which will be used to screen and refer
households for other needed services (list services) and describe the roles of those involved in the
process. Be sure to explain the screening/referral roles of any URP project staff in detail. Please limit
the narrative to one 8 -1/2" x 11" attachment (min 11 font) labeled II. C in the upper right hand corner.
Attachments should be attached in the order that they were requested, at the back of the application.
D. Proposed procurement and construction:
Indicate which of the following will be used to effect your URP funded work.
Yes No
1. Private - sector construction contractors ....... ............................... x
2. Competitive sealed bids ................... ............................... x
3. Competitive negotiation ................... ............................... x
4. Telephone bid solicitation ................. ............................... x
5. Non - competitive negotiation ............... ............................... x
6. Work crews employed by the applicant organization ............................ x
7. Weatherization contractor procured under WAP guidelines ...................... x
E. Other resources to be used with URP funds for Hard Costs only:
Yes I No Value /Amt.
1. Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds ................. x
2. Heating Appliance Repair & Replacement Program (HARRP) funds.. x
3. Independent Living Center funds ............................. x
4. Council on Aging funds ..... ............................... x
5. USDA -Rural Development Section 504 loans ................... x
6. Volunteer labor* ........... ............................... x
7. Donated materials* ......... ............................... x
8. Matching local funds* ...... ............................... x
9.
*Attach documentation of matching contributions listed on lines 6, 7 and /or 8, above. Label as
Exhibit II.E. Matching contributions on those lines must be used for eligible URP Hard Costs only.
Other resources may be used for program support, but those contributions will provide no competitive
advantage in URP application rankings.
Board of Commissione{s - January 23, 2017
II.
F.
III.
URP17 Application for Funding
Project Design (continued)
Project Schedule:
Assuming a maximum of 18 months from funding agreement until close -out and a hypothetical
starting date of July 1, 2017, please indicate below your projected project progress, in terms of
dwelling units repaired or modified with Program assistance during each calendar quarter. (Note: All
Program funds must be obligated within 18 months. Recipient will have an additional forty -five (45)
days to complete all units and submit closeout documentation). Please complete a proposed schedule
for your project.
Quarter
1. 7/1/17 - 9/30/17.... .
2. 10/1/17 - 12/31/17....
3. 1/1/18 - 3/31/18.....
Applicant Capacity
Unit Completions
0
0
2
A. Rehabilitation/Repair Program Experience and Status:
Quarter 1
4. 4/1/18 - 6/30/18........ .
5. 7/1/18 - 9/30/18........ .
6. 10/1/18 - 12/31/18.......
Total =
J nit
2
2
1
7
For each home repair, urgent repair or comprehensive housing rehabilitation grant received by the
applicant since July 1, 2012, provide the information indicated below. If more than six separate grants
were received during this 5 -year period, copy page 6 and attach as page 6 A. Funding sources to list
here include Community Development Block Grant ( "CDBG "), HOME Investment Partnership
Program ( "HOME ") allocations from a local government or consortium, Single - Family Rehabilitation
Program (SFR) grants, USDA -Rural Development Housing Preservation Grant Program ( "HPG ")
funds, Weatherization Assistance Program ( "WAP ") funds, Urgent Repair Program grants, minor
home repair project, local emergency repair programs, etc. Please list the oldest grantfirst.
B. We prefer that the following tables be used to record the applicants rehab /repair experience and
current status of funding related to units which may be targeted for rehabilitation. However, for some
applicants it may be more appropriate to provide a narrative which speaks to the capacity of the
applicant to carry out comprehensive rehabilitation of owner - occupied units. If so, please limit the
narrative to one 8 -1/2" x 11" attachment (min 11 font) labeled III. B in the upper right hand corner.
Attachments should be attached in the order that they were requested, at the back of the application.
The narrative should detail the applicants housing rehabilitation experience including the number of
units comprehensively rehabilitated in the past five years, (broken out by year), the average amount of
funding per unit (including volunteer labor, materials and donated materials) and any other
information relevant to documenting the applicants capacity to affectively perform comprehensive
housing rehabilitation.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 114 2 - 4
URP17 Application for Funding
III. Applicant Capacity (continued)
A. Rehabilitation/Repair Program Experience and Status: (continued)
Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) .............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant/Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline ................................... ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation/repair budget (hard costs only) .. ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation/ repairs ........................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date .................. ...............................
j. Number of rehabilitation/repair jobs under contract at present .....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ........ ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
2. Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) .............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant/Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline ................................... ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation/repair budget (hard costs only) .. ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation/ repairs ........................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date .................. ...............................
j. Number of rehabilitation/repair jobs under contract at present .....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ........ ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
3. Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) .............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant/Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline ................................... ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation/repair budget (hard costs only) .. ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation/ repairs ........................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date .................. ...............................
j. Number of rehabilitation/repair jobs under contract at present .....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ........ ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
URP17 Application for Funding
III. Applicant Capacity (continued)
A. Rehabilitation /Repair Program Experience and Status: (continued)
4. Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) ............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant /Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline .................................. ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation /repair budget (hard costs only) . ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation /repairs .......................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date ................. ...............................
J. Number of rehabilitation /repair jobs under contract at present ....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ....... ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
5. Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) .............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant /Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline .................................. ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation /repair budget (hard costs only) . ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation /repairs .......................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date ................. ...............................
J. Number of rehabilitation /repair jobs under contract at present ....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ....... ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
6. Program name (use standard abbreviations as shown above ) .............................
a. Funding cycle (2012, 2013, etc.) .................................... ...............................
b. Date of award or project commencement date ............... ...............................
c. Grant /Funding Agreement number ................................. ...............................
d. Project close -out date or deadline .................................. ...............................
e. Total grant allocation amount ......................................... ...............................
f. Matching funds /local contribution ................................. ...............................
g. Program rehabilitation /repair budget (hard costs only) . ...............................
h. Number of dwelling units targeted for rehabilitation /repairs .......................
i. Number of dwelling units completed to date ................. ...............................
j. Number of rehabilitation /repair jobs under contract at present ....................
k. Average hard cost per unit completed (all sources) ....... ...............................
1. Current status of grant ............................... Closed-out ..............
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 116 2 - 6
URP17 Application for Funding
III. Applicant Capacity (continued)
C. Staff Qualifications and Experience:
Identify key personnel below according to their roles in implementing the URP project. Attach a
current resume for each individual listed. Label resumes as "Exhibit III C ". It is especially
important that the resumes of technical staff - those responsible for the urgent repair management,
work write -ups, etc. - list all relevant training workshops and seminars along with technical
credentials such as building inspector certifications, contractor licenses, lead paint certification, etc.
Project Role
Name/Position Title
1. URP project administration ..............
Name
Chris O'Keefe
Title
Planning & Land Use Director
2. Financial management ..................
Name
Teresa Hewett
Title
Grants and Project Analyst
3. Construction oversight ..................
Name
Hans E. Schult
Title
Plan Review Compliance Supervisor
4. Work write - ups /cost estimates............
Name
Edward McCaleb
Title
Senior Code Enforcement Official
5. Interim inspections of work ..............
Name
Andrew Bankowski
Title
Senior Code Enforcement Official
6. Final inspections of work ................
Name
Andrew Bankowski
Title
Senior Code Enforcement Official
7. Applicant intake /eligibility ...............
Name
Julia Moeller
Title
Community Development Planner
8. Client counseling /referrals ...............
Name
Julia Moeller
Title
Community Development Planner
9. Legal services, recording, etc .............
Name
Kemp Burpeau
Title
Deputy County Attorney
Applicants proposing to act as general contractor and use member - employed work crews and/or
volunteers to facilitate the related rehabilitation work must demonstrate satisfactory capacity to
fulfill this role. To do this applicants must, in part, have capable construction supervisory
personnel on the job site. If applicable, please identify key construction supervisory personnel
below according to their roles. Attach a current resume, including a list of all relevant training,
workshops, seminars, and technical credentials, for each individual listed below.
9. Construction Supervisor ................. Name N/A
Title
10. Job Site Volunteer Foreman ............. Name N/A
Title
Board of Com
URP17 Application for Funding
IV. Certifications
The applicant hereby certifies that:
A. The information in this application is complete and accurate and the applicant possesses the
legal authority to apply for and receive the Program funds and the person signing the application
has the proper authority to do so; and,
B. The applicant agrees that the Agency may conduct its own independent review of the information
herein and the attachments, and may verify information from any source; and,
C. The applicant understands that the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency will not be responsible
for any costs incurred by the applicant in developing and submitting this application, and that all
applications submitted become the property of the Agency; and,
D. The applicant is under no administrative restrictions from federal, state or local sources to receive
funding; and,
E. The applicant, if funded, will comply with the applicable provisions of General Statute 143 -6.1
related to conflicts of interest.
Attest (signature)
Typed Name
Title
Date
Chief Administrative Official (Signature)
Chris Coudriet
Typed Name
County Manager
Title
Date
Applications must be received by the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency by 5:00 pm, January 23, 2017.
Mail or deliver to:
The Strategic Investment Group
North Carolina Housing Finance Agency
3508 Bush Street
Raleigh, NC 27609 -7509
Submit one original signature version and one copy of your application. All applications must be accompanied
by an application fee ($75.00). Make checks payable to the N.C. Housing Finance Agency.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
II. C
URP17 Application for Funding: Client Relations
New Hanover County and the Wilmington area have many programs and non - profit organizations that
help special needs households with the challenges they face. New Hanover County's Community
Development Planner (CDP) is responsible for screening and referring these households for additional
services. The screening process begins with a face -to -face consultation, initiated by the client. During
the consultation, the CDP will ask the client a series of questions to determine the type and severity of
the client's needs. If the CDP determines that the client would benefit from services beyond what can
be provided by the New Hanover County Planning and Land Use Department, the CDP will recommend
alternative departments, agencies, and NGOs that provide the needed resources and /or services. The
CDP will provide the client with a detailed list of contacts and phone numbers for organizations that fit
their needs. The CDP will also contact the departments, agencies, and NGOs to alert them that the
client may reach out to them. The CDP will follow up with the client 7 days after the initial referral to
ensure they received the assistance that was needed. The CDP will maintain a record of all referred
clients, with the clients' permission. New Hanover County Department of Social Services also provides
many services, such as employment assistance, medical assistance, child care assistance, child and
adult protective services, foster care, adult day care, at -risk case management, Medicaid and work
transportation, among others. Moreover, New Hanover County is fortunate to have NGOs and
nonprofits that provide additional services, which are described below. The CDP keeps in contact with
many of these organizations.
Services:
Food Pantries and Meal Services— Good Shepherd Soup Kitchen, The Salvation Army of Wilmington,
Wrightsboro United Methodist Church, Myrtle Grove Food Pantry, Open Hands Food Bank
Health and Medical Services— Cape Fear Clinic, Good Shepherd Clinic, Lifeline Pregnancy Center, New
Hanover Community Health Center, New Hanover County Health Department, Planned Parenthood
Mental Health /Substance Abuse Services — Carolina Supportive Services, New Hanover County
Department of Social Services, Coastal Region Deaf & Hard of Hearing Services, The Harbor, Physical
Alliance for Mental Health, PORT Human Services, Recovery Resource Center, Inc.
Intellectual, Development, and Physical Disability Services — The Arc of NC, disability Resource Center,
First in Families of Southeastern Carolina
Transportation — Ivory's Accessible Transport Services, Inc, Wave Transit, Dial a Ride (DART)
Veterans Services — Cape Fear Community College Veterans Resources, New Hanover County Veterans
Services
Homeless Shelters —Good Shepherd Center, Gospel Rescue Mission, Mercy House, Open House Youth
Shelter, Salvation Army, Wilmington interfaith Hospitality Network
Job Placement— JobLink Career Centers
Education Services— Cape Fear Literacy Council
Senior Services— New Hanover County Senior Resource Center (nutrition, life enrichment,
transportation, etc.)
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11-4 -1
DW..
URP17 Application for Funding: Applicant Capacity
New Hanover County (NHC) has not received any new funding sources or grants since 2012. This is in
part due to the County's classification as a Tier 3 community, which makes us ineligible for some grant
assistance. Additionally, NHC is not an entitlement community, so it does not receive annual CDBG or
HOME funds. This does not mean that the County does not have a need for funding or the capacity to
administer funding. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity of incomes in NHC, and as a result the
County's need for funding is not reflected by its Tier classification. The disparity is more accurately
reflected by assessing the County's housing affordability, cost burden, and housing stock. According to
the American Community Survey published by the U.S. Census Bureau, 35.7% of households in NHC
earn less than $35,000 annually. The median monthly housing costs for owner- occupied housing total
$1,190. In order to afford the median house in NHC, a household must earn $47,600 annually. This
means that more than 36% of residents are unable to afford the median - priced house and as a result,
some may be living in substandard housing conditions. In fact, 38% of households in NHC are
considered housing cost - burdened.
NHC has the capacity to administer Urgent Repair Program funds. The County currently administers a
loan program funded with i00% local government funds. The Water /Sewer Revolving Loan Program
provides zero percent interest loans to low- income households in need of water, sewer, and other
plumbing repairs. The loan program is administered by Julia Moeller, the Community Development
Planner. Julia works with the NHC Finance and Legal Departments to administer the loans. This
program has been in place since January 3, 1994 and continues to be successful today. The County also
has experience administering CDBG- Economic Development and Scattered Site Housing grants, most
recently awarded in 2010.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 11- 5 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2017
REGULAR
DEPARTMENT: Parks PRESENTER(S): Tara Duckworth, Parks & Gardens Director and
Art Thatcher, GreenPlay, LLC
CONTACT(S): Tara Duckworth
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Parks and Gardens Department Ten -Year Master Plan
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Parks and Gardens Department engaged GreenPlay, LLC in the development of a ten -year master plan.
The process was conducted from November 2015 to October 2016 and resulted in the delivery of key
elements to guide both policymakers and staff over the next ten years as it relates to the upkeep and
development of parks and recreation amenities in New Hanover County. The ten -year master plan was
presented to the Parks Advisory Board on October 5, 2016 and received unanimous support and
approval. The project consisted of the following tasks: Community and stakeholder engagement and
statistically valid survey; comprehensive facility inventory; needs assessment; operational and marketing
analysis; and recommendations. Four key goals were established during the process: 1) Continue to improve
organizational efficiencies, 2) Increase financial grant opportunities, 3) Continue to improve programs and
service delivery, and 4) Maintain and improve facilities and amenities.
The adoption of this document will help guide the department in the creation of goals and recommendations
regarding investments in parks facilities and recreational services into the future as well as provide support
for grants and other funding opportunities.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Superior Public Health, Safety and Education
• Provide health and wellness education, programs, and services
• Market and promote New Hanover County assets
• Understand and act on citizen needs
• Deliver value for taxpayer money
Intelligent Growth and Economic Development
• Attract and retain new and expanding businesses
• Enhance and add recreational, cultural and enrichment amenities
• Build and maintain infrastructure
• Innovate programs to protect the environment
• Implement plans for land use, economic development, infrastructure and environmental programs
• Understand and act on citizen needs
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adoption of Parks and Gardens Ten -Year Master Plan.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12
ATTACHMENTS:
Executive Summary
Draft Master Plan
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption of the master plan.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation and adopted the master plan 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12
Executive Summary
Introduction
New Hanover County recognizes the key role its system of parks, recreation amenities, and open
spaces serves in providing a high quality of life for residents. The Parks and Gardens Master
Plan serves as a guiding document for the provision of public parks and recreation services to
residents of the County. This Plan builds off previous efforts and provides updated information
about the County's population, current trends in recreation, and a detailed evaluation of the
existing system of the County parks and recreation amenities. This information, along with
significant feedback from stakeholders, public input, local and national trends, and a level of
service and inventory analysis served as the basis for the development of goals and
recommendations for guiding investment in parks facilities and recreational services into the
future.
New Hanover County Overview
New Hanover County covers approximately 192 square miles or 122,880 acres. The
development in New Hanover County reflects a hub and spur pattern with residential
development increasing around Wilmington, the central municipality in the area. The residential
growth is predominately concentrated in the northern part of the County due to the availability of
land both in area and in cost. The southern portions of New Hanover County are growing at a
comparatively slower rate. As this growth continues, the demand for recreational resources in
the northern part of the County will increase. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the
distribution of the parks within the geographic limits of the County and provide an evaluation on
the equality of these facilities in terms of access by the populations they aim to serve.
Community Survey and Feedback
During the planning process, significant feedback from stakeholders and the public were
solicited. In addition, several community survey methods were conducted to include a
statistically valid survey in conjunction with the City of Wilmington and an open -link online
survey for anyone not in the random mailing. A total of 3,500 surveys were randomly
distributed to residents with 511 respondents for a 14% return rate. A total of 1,703 residents
completed the open -link on line survey. The following are top priorities from the focus groups
and stakeholders:
• Maintain existing facilities to include increasing facilities
• Trail connectivity between neighborhoods and businesses
• Increase awareness and outreach
• Solicit sponsorships
• Additional rectangular fields with lights, trails, parks, lighting on existing fields
• Major sports complex for hosting tournaments
• Wi -Fi access in the parks
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 1 - 1
Inventory Assessment Summary
In general, the overall impression of New Hanover County Parks is as follows:
• County has (15) Parks and Garden sites; (4) large, well -used regional parks
• Smaller parks are lost in the neighborhoods
• Athletic facilities are aging and showing signs of over usage
• Basic park maintenance is performed at a high level
• Connectivity from parks to residential areas is primarily by vehicle; pedestrian access is limited
based on locations and existing infrastructure
• Playground equipment and distribution is clustered
Key Issues Identified and Recurring Themes
• Maintain and improve existing facilities
• Increase public access to waterfronts
• Focus on trails and connectivity
• Address deferred maintenance and level of service gaps
• Balance between active and passive recreation
• Solicit sponsorships and funding sources
Recommendations and Next Steps
After analyzing the findings from the planning process the following key elements are the
consultants recommended goals and objectives. These recommendations will provide guidance
and consideration of how to improve park facilities, parks programs and services while
enhancing the level of service and quality of life in New Hanover County.
Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
• Establish and maintain a level of service quality to citizens
• Develop a marketing plan and review annually
• Enhance internal and external communication regarding dept. services
• Increase partnerships within the community
• Staff appropriately to meet current demands and maintain quality of service
2. Increase Financial Opportunities
• Explore additional funding opportunities to include sponsorships, grants, and
philanthropic opportunities
• Explore a Best Practice Pricing Philosophy
3. Program and Service Delivery
• Explore opportunities to increase recreational opportunities and community
events based on demand and trends
• Work with other service providers to develop programs and services to meet
demand and trends
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 1 - 2
4. Facilities and Amenities
• Continue to maintain and improve existing facilities
• Expand greenways, bike paths and trails connectivity
• Develop additional recreational facilities and amenities
• Develop individual Park Master Plans
• Create a plan that addresses development, acquisition and use of vacant land
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 1 - 3
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Parks and Gardens Master Plan
Final Report - DRAFT
January 2017
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 2
Acknowledgements
New Hanover Board of Commissioners
Woody White, Chairman
Skip Watkins, Vice - Chairman
Jonathan Barfield, Jr.
Rob Zapple
Patricia Kusek
Parks Advisory Board
Bruce Shell, Chairman
Nicole Zeldin, Vice Chair
Frank Amoroso
Patrick O'Mohony
Rebecca Powell
Linda Reece
Shawn Spencer
Project Team
Tara Duckworth, Director of Parks and Gardens
Andy Johnson, Assistant Director of Parks and Gardens
Jodi Rich, Program Coordinator
Consultant Team
Green Play, LLC
DHM Design
RRC Associates
For more information about this document, contact Green Play, LLC
At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N
Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone: 303 - 439 -8369
Email: info @greenplavllc.com ww.greenplayllc.com
Parks and Gardens Master Plan T
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 3
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................. ..............................1
Introduction....................................................................................................... ..............................1
New Hanover County Vision Statement .......................................................... ..............................1
NewHanover County Overview ........................................................................ ..............................1
NewHanover County Mission .......................................................................... ..............................1
Planning Process Summary ................................................................................ ..............................1
Key Issues and Recurring Themes Summary .................................................... ...............................
2
Inventory Assessment Summary ...................................................................... ...............................
2
Recommendations............................................................................................ ...............................
3
II. The Master Planning Context ................................................................... ..............................7
A. Introduction .................................................................................................. ...............................
7
New Hanover County Vision Statement .......................................................... ..............................7
B. New Hanover County Overview .................................................................... ..............................7
NewHanover County Mission .......................................................................... ..............................7
C. Timeline for Completing the Master Plan ..................................................... ..............................8
III. Our Community and Identified Needs New Hanover County Demographic Profile ..................9
A. New Hanover County Population and Demographic Trends ........................ ..............................9
B. Current Trends .............................................................................................. .............................15
C. Community and Stakeholder Input ............................................................... .............................18
D. Summary of Community Survey ................................................................... .............................19
IV. What We Have Now — Programs and Spaces ........................................... .............................31
A. Existing Park System ..................................................................................... .............................31
B. Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... .............................34
C. Level of Service Recommendations .............................................................. .............................55
V. Great Things to Come — Recommendations and Action Plans ................ ...............................
57
TheAction Plan ................................................................................................. .............................62
Appendix A: Public Input Summary ............................................................. .............................69
Appendix B: Level of Service Report ......................................................... ...............................
79
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 4
Table of Tables
Table 1: Summary Demographics for New Hanover County, North Carolina — 2015 .........................9
Table 2: New Hanover County Population Projections, 2000 -- 2025 .................... .............................10
Table 3: New Hanover County Educational Attainment, 2015 ............................. .............................13
Table 4: New Hanover County Housing Statistics ................................................. .............................14
Table 5: Summary of Parks per Jurisdiction ......................................................... .............................36
Table 6: Park Amenity Benchmarks ...................................................................... .............................37
Table 7: Parkland Summary to Population based on 2015 population estimates ............................38
Table 8: Park Amenities Provided ......................................................................... .............................41
Table 9: New Hanover County and Benchmarked Communities ......................... .............................43
Table 10: Park Distribution Summary ................................................................... .............................46
List of Figures
Figure 1: New Hanover County Population Growth Trend .................................. .............................10
Figure 2: New Hanover County Population Age Distribution for the Years 2010, 2015, and 2020 ..11
Figure 3: New Hanover County Race /Ethnicity Statistics (2010, 2015, 2020) ...... .............................12
Figure 4: Snapshot of unemployment rates for New Hanover County and North Carolina from.....
13
Figure 5: Annual Household Income Distribution Comparison (2015 - 2020) ..... .............................14
Figure 6: Importance of Local Recreation Opportunities ..................................... .............................21
Figure 7: Importance of Facilities Operated by New Hanover Parks and Gardens Department ......23
Figure 8: Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix for Existing Parks and Recreation Amenities ...............24
Figure 9: Top Recreation Components that should be Added or Expanded ........ .............................26
Figure 10: Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix for Existing Parks and Recreation Programs .............27
Figure 11: Household Need for Recreation Programs and Special Events ........... .............................28
Figure 12: Map of Publicly Owned Park Facilities within New Hanover County .. .............................33
Figure 13: Existing Park Distribution by Percentage of Acreage .......................... .............................40
Figure 14: Service Area Analysis- New Hanover Parks Department Facilities ..... .............................45
Figure 15: Analysis Driving Distance to New Hanover Parks ............................... .............................47
Figure 16: Service Areas of Publicly Owned Park Facilities .................................. .............................48
Figure 17: NW corner of the County .................................................................... .............................50
Figure 18: NE corner of the County ...................................................................... .............................51
Figure 19: South area of the County ..................................................................... .............................52
Figure 20: Sports Fields Distribution Based on Drive Distance ............................ .............................54
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 5
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 6
L Executive Summary
Introduction
New Hanover County recognizes the key role its system of
parks, recreation amenities, and open spaces serves in
providing a high quality of life for residents. The Parks and
Gardens Master Plan serves as a guiding document for the
provision of public parks and recreation services to
residents of the County. This Plan builds off previous
efforts and provides updated information about the
County's population, current trends in recreation, and a
detailed evaluation of the existing system of the County
parks and recreation amenities. This information, along with significant feedback from stakeholders and
the public, served as the basis for the development of goals and recommendations for guiding
investment in parks facilities and recreational services into the future.
New Hanover County Overview
New Hanover County covers approximately 192 square
miles or 122,880 acres. The development in New Hanover
County reflects a hub and spur pattern with residential
development increasing around Wilmington, the central
municipality in the area. The residential growth is
predominately concentrated in the northern part of the
County due to the availability of land both in area and in
cost. The southern portions of New Hanover County are
growing at a comparatively slower rate.
As this growth continues, the demand for recreational
resources in the northern part of the County will increase.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the distribution of
the parks within the geographic limits of the County and
provide an evaluation on the equality of these facilities in
terms of access by the populations they aim to serve.
Planning Process Summary
A project team that included County staff has guided this project. This team provided input to the
consultant team throughout the planning process. This collaborative effort creates a plan that fully
utilizes the consultants' expertise and incorporates the local knowledge and institutional history that
only community members can provide.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 7
The project consisted of the following tasks:
Community /Stakeholder Engagement and Statically -Valid Survey
Comprehensive Facility Inventory and Level of Service Analysis
Assessment and Analysis
Needs Assessment
Operational and Marketing Analysis
Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan
It is important to utilize various methods for gathering input and assessing community needs while
developing a master plan. Each piece is vital to the process and should be looked at collectively.
Communities that gather input via open forums and surveys, statistically -valid surveys, and national
standards tend to get a more accurate depiction of needs.
Key Issues and Recurring Themes Summary
During the initial stages of the project, the following Key Issues were identified for focus around the
following aspects of service provision:
Organizational
Programs and Service Delivery
Facilities and Amenities
Level of Service (LOS)
Finance
Inventory Assessment Summary
Inventory Summary
In general, the overall impression of the County's park system is as follows:
• County has four large, well -used regional parks.
• Smaller parks are "lost" in the neighborhoods.
• Athletic facilities are aging and are showing signs of overuse.
• Basic park maintenance is performed at a high level of care.
• Playground equipment and distribution is clustered.
• Connectivity from parks to residential areas is primarily by car.
• Pedestrian access is limited based on locations and existing infrastructure.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 8
Recommendations
After analyzing the Findings that resulted from this process (including the Key Issues Matrix, a summary
of all research, the qualitative and quantitative data, inventory, LOS analyses, and input assembled for
this study), a variety of recommendations have emerged to provide guidance in consideration of how to
improve parks and recreation services and facilities in New Hanover County. Recommendations have
been suggested to enhance the level of service and the quality of life with improvement through
organizational efficiencies, financial opportunities, improved programming and service delivery, and
maintenance and improvements to facilities and amenities. Details are provided in Section V.
Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 1.1— Establish and maintain a level of service goal.
In consideration of the overall park system, the prioritization of park improvements and expansion
should be assessed against program requests. The maintenance and operation of sports -only facilities
should be examined to determine if there are opportunities to enhance these single -use sites to provide
additional recreational value to residents without requiring significant investments in additional land.
The existing condition of the facilities within the park system should be reviewed in order to focus the
next phase of Repair and Renovation funds to improve the uniform quality of all facilities that are
currently at a "meets expectations" ranking or below.
Objective 1.2 — Enhance and improve communications regarding Department activities and services.
The Parks and Gardens Department should develop a Marketing Plan that will guide its efforts in
communicating and promoting activities and facilities. As part of the Marketing Plan, the Parks and
Gardens Department should evaluate directional and Wayfinding signage to facilities on roadway,
pathways, and within parks. The Department should develop signage standards for parks and update
existing park signs as parks are renovated to meet the new standard. Additionally, the Marketing Plan
should be updated every five years and should include marketing strategies that incorporate the efforts
of partner departments and projects.
Objective 1.3 — Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities.
The Department should continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities and amenities as well as
address low scoring components through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally, the
Department should develop both a Fixed Asset Replacement and a Deferred Maintenance Plan. Facility
maintenance performed by third party vendors should be assessed bi- annually to ensure that standards
are being followed and park quality is being maintained economically.
Objective 1.4 — Increase appropriate partnerships within the community.
The New Hanover County Parks and Gardens Department currently partners with a number of agencies
to provide programs and activities to the community. The Department should continue to explore
additional opportunities as well as build on its existing partnerships.
Objective 1.5 — Staff to meet current demand and maintain established quality of service.
It is important to evaluate staffing levels to maintain current performance standards. This may require
new positions in the Department.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 9
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1— Explore Additional Funding Options.
The Department should continue to explore opportunities and develop strategies to seek alternative
funding sources that include donations, grants, and sponsorships.
Objective 2.2 — Establish a Best Practice Cost Recovery and Pricing Philosophy and Practice.
The Department currently has a fee schedule, but it varies based on the different service areas. The
Parks and Gardens Department should consider a pricing methodology to determine a consistent
method of pricing activities and services throughout the Department. The new resource allocation and
cost recovery philosophy, model, and policy should be grounded in the values, vision, and mission of
New Hanover County, while generating adequate revenues to sustain New Hanover County facilities,
parks, programs, and services. It should be reviewed annually.
Objective 2.3 — Explore opportunities to increase sponsorships.
The Department should continue to explore additional sponsorship opportunities and build on existing
sponsorships.
Objective 2.4 — Determine if and when it may be appropriate to finance particular projects within the
long -term Master Plan.
Project financing would depend of project priority, cost, and the County's overall capacity for debt at
that given time.
Objective 2.5 — Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities.
The Parks and Gardens Department should continue to pursue any and all grant opportunities at the
federal, state, regional, and local levels.
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1— Explore opportunities to increase recreational opportunities based on demand and
trends.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand recreational programs and
activities based on community demand and current trends. As new programs and services are
developed and implemented, continue to create a balance between passive and active recreation.
Objective 3.2 — Explore opportunities to increase the number of community events based on demand
and trends.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand community special events.
Objective 3.3 — Work with other service providers to develop programs and service to meet demand
and trends.
Continue to look for opportunities to expand programs while working with Other Service Providers
within the County, and formalize these agreements in writing.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 10
Goal 4: Maintain and Improve Facilities and Amenities
Objective 4.1— Maintain and improve existing facilities.
The Department should continue to implement existing plans, the CIP, and the Master Plan.
Additionally, through a Deferred Maintenance Plan, the Department needs to address the backlog of
maintenance that will address low scoring components identified as part of the inventory.
Objective 4.2 — Expand greenways, bike paths, trails, and connectivity.
The Department should continue to implement the existing Comprehensive Greenway Plan and update
as needed based on annual reviews.
Objective 4.3 — Develop additional recreational facilities and amenities.
The Department should continue to explore opportunities to add additional indoor recreation space
through partnerships, purchase of an existing facility, or construction of a Community Center or
Fieldhouse. Another area for expansion identified by the community was opportunities to provide non-
traditional recreation opportunities such as pickleball, stand -up paddle boarding, or expanded
equestrian services.
Objective 4.4 — Develop new amenities at existing parks based on level of service analysis.
The Department should look for opportunities to add parks and greenways, bike paths, and trails in new
growth areas. In addition, based on the Level of Service analysis, the Department should look for
opportunities to add new components at existing parks where the level of service is below threshold.
Objective 4.5 — Develop individual Park Master Plans.
Based on the Inventory and Level of Service recommendations in the Master Plan, develop individual
park master plans to address low scoring components and repurpose spaces for better usage.
Objective 4.6 — Improve parking at parks and popular venues.
The Department should continue to monitor parking during peak usage times and explore the need to
improve or develop parking plans to accommodate events.
Objective 4.7 — Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities.
Parks and Gardens does not currently have an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan, which identifies needed
changes during a self - evaluation process. The Department needs to conduct a self - evaluation and
develop a comprehensive transition plan.
Objective 4.8 — Upgrade convenience and customer service amenities to existing facilities.
As the Department is making upgrades to and improving existing facilities, it should explore
opportunities to add shade, storage, security lighting, synthetic turf, and other amenities appropriately
at existing facility.
Objective 4.9 — Identify gaps that are in need of service.
Based on population growth and loss of developable land, the Department needs to continue to assess
opportunities for future park development.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 11
Objective 4.10 — Create plans that addresses development, acquisition, and use of vacant spaces.
Develop a plan to identify the current inventory of available, developable parkland for future expansion.
The plan should address the current inventory of available, unused, or under -used facilities for future
redevelopment, expansion, repurpose, or sale for other uses. A plan should also be developed that
inventories all the existing pathways, trails, greenways, and blueways to identify possible connections as
well as gaps in connectivity.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 12
II. The Master Planning Context
A. Introduction
New Hanover County recognizes the key role its system of parks, recreation amenities, and open spaces
serves in providing a high quality of life for residents. The Parks and Gardens Master Plan serves as a
guiding document for the provision of public parks and recreation services to residents of the County.
This Plan builds off previous efforts and provides updated information about the County's population,
current trends in recreation, and a detailed evaluation of the existing system of the County parks and
recreation amenities. This information, along with significant feedback from stakeholders and the public,
served as the basis for the development of goals and recommendations for guiding investment in parks,
facilities, and recreational services into the future.
B. New Hanover County Overview
New Hanover County covers approximately 192 square miles
or 122,880 acres. The development in New Hanover County
reflects a hub and spur pattern with residential development
increasing around Wilmington, the central municipality in the
area. The residential growth is predominately concentrated in
the northern part of the County due to the availability of land
both in area and in cost. The southern portions of New
Hanover County are growing at a comparatively slower rate.
As this growth continues, the demand for recreational
resources in the northern part of the County will increase. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the distribution of the
parks within the geographic limits of the County and provide
an evaluation on the equality of these facilities in terms of
access by the populations it aims to serve.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 13
C. Timeline for Completing the Master Plan
Start -up
Community Input Process
Inventory and Assessment of Existing Facilities
Demographic and Trends Analysis and Projections
Community Needs Assessment Survey
Findings Compilation Report and Presentation
Draft Master Plan Recommendations
Draft Master Plan
Adoption by the Board of County Commissioners
October 2015
November 2015
November 2015
January- February 2016
February -April 2016
March 2016
May 2016
September 2016
November 2016
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 14
III. Our Community and Identified Needs
New Hanover County Demographic Profile
Understanding community demographics and needs is an important component of master planning for
the New Hanover County Parks and Gardens Master Plan Update. The population data used in this
demographic profile comes from Esri Business Information Solutions, and U.S. Census data. A summary
of demographic highlights is followed by more detailed demographic analysis.
Table 1: Summary Demographics for New Hanover County, North Carolina — 2015
. - ...
Population 214,261
Number of Households
91,398
Avg. Household Size
2.27
Median Age
38.4
Median Household Income
$50,504
Key demographic trends to reference for future park and recreation planning efforts in New Hanover
County are summarized below.
• According to Esri, the estimated median household income for New Hanover County residents in
2015 was $50,504.
• The median age for New Hanover County in 2015 was 38.4, higher than the median age (37.9)
for the United States.
• Gender distribution for New Hanover County is 48.7 percent male and 51.3 percent female.
• The annual growth rate for New Hanover County between 2015 and 2020 is projected at 1.38
percent compared to 1.10 percent for the State of North Carolina.
A. New Hanover County Population and Demographic Trends
Population Projections
Although future population growth cannot be predicted with certainty, it is helpful to make growth
projections for planning purposes. Table 2 contains 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census population figures for
New Hanover County, Esri population estimate for 2015, and projected population in 2020. Based on
this data, the County's annual population growth rate from 2000 through 2010 was 0.82 percent. Esri
projected growth rate for 2015 through 2020 is 1.38 percent for New Hanover County. This is higher
than the projected 2015 through 2020 annual growth rate of 1.1 percent for the State of North Carolina,
and 0.75 percent for the United States as a whole. Based on this projected rate of growth for the
County, by 2025, the population is anticipated to be approximately 244,663. The population growth
trend is represented in Figure 1.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 15
Table 2: New Hanover County Population Projections, 2000 - -2025
Population
2000 Census 160,307
2010 Census
202,667
2015 Estimate
214,261
2020 Projection
229,462
2025 Projection
244,663
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Esri Business Analyst
Figure 1: New Hanover County Population Growth Trend
300,000
250,000
200,000
c
0
150,000
0
a
100,000
50,000
2000 Census 2010 Census 2015 Estimate 2020 Projection 2025 Projection
Source: Esri Business Information Solutions
Population Age Distribution
A comparison of the estimated population break down by age for New Hanover County from 2010 to
2020 is shown in Figure 2. The gender distribution in 2015 was 48.7 percent male to 51.8 percent
female. The median age projected for the County by Esri in 2015 was 38.4.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 16
Figure 2: New Hanover County Population Age Distribution for the Years 2010, 2015, and 2020
16.0%
14.0
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 -4 5 -9 10- 15- 20- 25- 35- 45- 55- 65- 75- 85+
14 19 24 34 44 54 64 74 84
■ 2010
■ 2015
■ 2020
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, 2015 estimates and 2020 forecasts provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions.
The age demographics from age 0 -14 are projected to remain at about 16 percent of the population
during the 10 -year period from 2010 to 2020, while the percentage of residents in the 15 -24 age range
is expected to decline by about two percent during this period to represent 13.6 percent of the
population in 2020. The cohort with the largest population percentage in New Hanover County is 25 -34,
which peaked at 15 percent of the population in 2015 and is expected to represent 14.1 percent of the
population in 2020.
New Hanover County seniors (age 65 -85 +) are expected to experience a significant percentage growth
of 4.3 percent over this time period to represent 18.2 percent of the population in 2020, with the 65 -74
age cohort (9.5 percent in 2015) experiencing the greatest percentage growth in this time frame, from
7.7 percent in 2010 to 10.7 percent in 2020.
Race /Ethnicity
Figure 3 reflects the racial /ethnic population distribution for New Hanover County, North Carolina. Esri
estimates that 78.8 percent of the population in 2015 was Caucasian, with an African American
population at 14.2 percent and an Asian population at 1.5 percent.
The population of Hispanic origin provides a separate look at the population, irrespective of race.
Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth of the person or
the person's parents or ancestors before arriving in the United States. In the U.S. Census, people who
identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race and are included in all of the race categories.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 17
Figure 3 illustrates the population of Hispanic Origin for New Hanover County, as recorded in the U.S.
Census. This population was estimated at 5.6 percent of the population in 2015.
• The Caucasian population percentage is trending slightly downward from 79.1 percent in 2010
to a predicted 78.3 percent in 2020.
• African American percentages are expected to decline from 14.8 percent in 2010 to 13.7
percent in 2020; Asian population percentages are increasing very slightly from 2010 to 2020
(from 1.2 percent to 1.9 percent).
• The population of Hispanic origin (irrespective of race), at 5.3 percent in 2010, is expected to
represent 5.9 percent of the population by 2020.
Figure 3: New Hanover County Race /Ethnicity Statistics (2010, 2015, 2020)
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
K, Ie Ie IQ, �e 'e `e�
P P P P P P
ah\a�
a °t
t``a� �ae�
awe �e P \�a ec °t�` \ao�
e
fit`` cc Qa cc a�
■ 2010
■ 2015
❑ 2020
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, 2015 estimates and 2020 forecasts provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions.
Educational Attainment
As shown in Table 3, the highest ranking educational cohorts in New Hanover County are those with a
Bachelor's degree (24.8 %), those with some college, no degree (22.0 %), and high school graduates
(17.5 %), followed by those with a graduate or professional degree (13.7 %). According to a census
study, education levels had more effect on earnings over a 40 -year span in the workforce than any
other demographic factor, such as gender, race, and ethnic origin.'
1 Tiffany Julian and Robert Kominski, "Education and Synthetic Work -Life Earnings Estimates" American Community Survey
Reports, US Census Bureau, http: / /www. census .gov /prod /2011pubs /acs- 14.pdf, September 2011.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 18
Table 3: New Hanover County Educational Attainment, 2015
Education
Less than 91h grade
Area Percentage
2.8%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
5.8%
High school graduate
17.5%
GED /Alternative Credential
3.6%
Some college, no degree
22.0%
Associate's degree
9.9%
Bachelor's degree
24.8%
Graduate or professional degree
13.7%
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions 2015 estimate based on the 2010 U.S. Census.
Employment
Figure 4 provides a snapshot of the unemployment rate from December 2006 through December
2014 for New Hanover County and for the State of North Carolina as a whole. The unemployment
rate for North Carolina was 5.6 percent, and for New Hanover County, it was 5.2 percent in December
2015.
Figure 4: Snapshot of unemployment rates for New Hanover County and North Carolina from
2006-2014
12.0%
10.3
10.0%
8.5
9.5
8.0% 8.7
7.7 5.7
6.0% 4.8
4.0% 4.7
3.6
2.0%
0.0%
Dec.2006 Dec.2008 Dec.2010 Dec.2012 Dec.2014
--*-New Hanover County --*--North Carolina
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Household Information
As reflected in Table 4, in 2015, New Hanover County had 107,675 housing units with a 48.6 percent
owner - occupied housing rate, compared to a 36.3 percent renter - occupied rate. The owner - occupied
and renter occupied housing rates have remained relatively steady since 2010, with a somewhat higher
owner- occupied occupancy rate of 55.4 percent in 2000. The average household size in 2015 was 2.27.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 19
Table 4: New Hanover County Housing Statistics
Total housing units
0
79,616
�` . -u
101,436
107,675
0
115,110
Percent owner occupied
55.4%
50.7%
48.6%
48.6%
Percent renter occupied
30.2%
34.1%
36.3%
36.6%
Percent vacant
14.4%
15.2%
15.1%
14.8%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census; 2015 estimates and 2020 forecasts provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions.
Household Income
The estimated 2015 median household income for residents of New Hanover County was $50,504, and it
is expected to grow to $56,010 by 2020. Figure 5 illustrates the full income distribution estimated for
New Hanover County in 2015 and projected for 2020.
• In 2015, the largest income cohort was in the $50,000 — $74,999 income range (19.1 %);
followed by the $35,000 — $49,999 income range (14.6 %).
• Income distribution in the $50,000 through $200,000+ income range is expected to grow by a
total of 6.4 percent from 2015 to 2020.
Figure 5: Annual Household Income Distribution Comparison (2015 - 2020)
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
000 0C� 0°�0 �i°�O oi°�O 000 �C� �°�� O0
yc�, ,Lp t)"
�N X45 000
00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0 01
0, X000
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2015.
■ 2015
■ 2020
Health Ranking
The United Health Foundation has ranked North Carolina 31St in its "State Health Rankings" in 2015, up
from 37th in 2014. The State's biggest strengths include:
• Low prevalence of excessive drinking
• High immunization among adolescent females for HPV
• High immunization coverage among children
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 20
Some of the challenges the State faces include:
Large disparity in health status by education level
Low per capita public health funding
High infant mortality rate
Obesity levels in North Carolina vary by age. According to the United Health Foundation, 26.2 percent of
those in the 18 -44 age range are obese, with this percentage rising to 35.5 percent for the 45 -64 age
range, and dropping again to 25.7 percent for the 65+ age range. A report entitled "The State of Obesity
in North Carolina," found that in 2011 the obesity rate for 2- 4- year -olds from low- income families was
15.4 percent, while the rate was 16.1 percent for 10- 17- year -olds and 12.5 percent for high school
students . 2
In the 2015 North Carolina County Health Rankings (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
countyhealthrankings.org), New Hanover County ranked 8th out of 100 counties for health outcomes and
12th for health factors. As explained in the Health Ranking Report, health outcomes represent how
healthy a county is based on, "how long people live and how healthy people feel while alive," while
health factors represent what influences the health of the County. The Health Factor ranks are based on
four measures, "health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic, and physical environment factors . ,,3
B. Current Trends
It is a challenge and an opportunity for parks and recreation providing agencies to continue to
understand and respond to the changing recreation interests of serviced populations. In this fast -paced
society, it is important to stay on top of current trends. The following information highlights relevant
regional and national outdoor recreation trends from various sources that may influence New Hanover
County parks, recreation, and gardens planning for the next several years. The full trends report relevant
to New Hanover County has been provided as a staff resource document.
Demographic Trends
• Millennials lead structured lives filled with rules and regulations. Less accustomed to
unstructured play than previous generations and apprehensive of the outdoors, they spend
most of their time indoors, leaving home primarily to socialize with friends and families. With an
upbeat and with a can -do attitude, this generation is more optimistic and tech -savvy than its
elders.
• With varied life experiences, values, and expectations, Baby Boomers are predicted to redefine
the meaning of recreation and leisure programming for mature adults. Boomers are second only
to Gen Y /Millennials (born between 1980 and 1999) in participation in fitness and outdoor
sports. Boomers will reinvent what being a 65- year -old means.
• As Baby Boomers enter retirement, they will be looking for opportunities in fitness, sports,
outdoors, arts and cultural events, and other activities that suit their lifestyles.
z Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America's Health, "The State of Obesity in North Carolina ",
http: / /stateofobesity.org /states /nc /,accessed August, 2015.
3 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, "County Health Rankings and Roadmaps: 2015 Rankings— North Carolina ",
http: / /www.countyhealthranki ngs.org /app /north -carol ina /2015 /rankings /new -ha nover /county /outcomes/
overall /snapshot, accessed on March 9, 2016.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 21
• In our country, Hispanic participants and nonparticipants alike cite a lack of access to nearby
places to participate in outdoor activities as a barrier to participation more often than other
ethnicities.
• The most popular outdoor activities among African - Americans are running and jogging; fishing;
and road, mountain, and BMX biking.
• Technology use for finding outdoor recreation opportunities is highest among Asian /Pacific
Islander populations. The most popular outdoor activities among Asian /Pacific Islanders are
running and jogging; road, mountain, and BMX biking; hiking; and camping (car, backyard, and
RV).
• Young adults engage in mobile data applications at much higher rates than adults in age
brackets 30 and older. It is also a fact that minority Americans lead the way when it comes to
mobile internet access.
Facility Trends
• Design of a community's infrastructure is directly linked to physical activity — where
environments are built with bicyclists and pedestrians in mind, more people bike and walk.
Higher levels of bicycling and walking also coincide with increased bicycle and pedestrian safety
and higher levels of physical activity. Increasing bicycling and walking make a big impact on
improving public health and life expectancy.
• In 2014, dog parks were the top planned addition to parks and recreational facilities in the
country for the third consecutive year. Dog parks can be as simple as a gated area, or more
elaborate with "designed- for - dogs" amenities like water fountains, agility equipment, and pet
wash stations, to name a few.
• Communities around the country are considering adding shade structures as well as shade trees
to their parks, playgrounds, and pools, in response to raising concerns of skin cancer.
• A connected system of trails increases the level of physical activity in a community has been
scientifically demonstrated through the Trails for Health initiative of the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC). Trails can provide a wide variety of opportunities for being physically active.
• Park and recreation agencies have begun installing "outdoor gyms," with equipment
comparable to what would be found in an indoor workout facility, such as leg and chest presses,
elliptical trainers, pull down trainers, etc. Such equipment can increase the usage of parks, trails,
and other outdoor amenities, while helping to fight the obesity epidemic and increase the
community's interaction with nature.
• There is an increasing trend toward indoor leisure and therapeutic pools. Additional amenities
such as spray pads or interactive fountains are becoming increasingly popular as well. These
amenities are defined as an artificially constructed depression or basin for use by children, into
which potable water is sprayed but not allowed to accumulate in the bottom.
Programming Trends
• Figures from the Association for Interpretative Naturalists demonstrate that nature -based
programs are on the rise. The growth of these programs is thought to come from replacing
grandparents as the teacher about the "great outdoors." It is also speculated that a return to
natural roots and renewed interest in life's basic elements was spurred as a response to
September 11, 2001.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 22
• Participation in walking for pleasure and family gatherings outdoors were the two of the most
popular activities for the U.S. population as a whole as reported in a 2012 report. These outdoor
activities were followed closely in popularity by viewing /photographing wildlife, boating, fishing,
and swimming. There has been a growing momentum in participation in sightseeing, birding,
and wildlife watching in recent years.
• In the context of urban development, from the early 198Os, there has been a process that can
be characterized as "festivalization," which has been linked to the economic restructuring of
towns and cities, and the drive to develop communities as large -scale platforms for the creation
and consumption of "cultural experience." There are also a growing number of smaller, more
local, community -based festivals and events in communities, most often supported by local
councils that have been spawned partly as a reaction to larger festivals that have become prime
economic - drivers. These community -based festivals will often re -claim cultural ground based on
their social, educational, and participative value. For more information on the values of festivals
and events, see the CRC Sustainable Tourism research guide on this topic.
• Some of the top ten athletic activities ranked by total participation in the U.S. include exercise
walking, swimming, exercising with equipment, camping, and bicycle riding.
• Nationally, the top five outdoor activities with an increase in participation percentage in the
past three years (2014 Topline Report) include adventure racing, triathlon (off- road), stand -up
paddle boarding, kayak fishing, and recreational kayaking.
• A national trend in the delivery of parks and recreation systems reflects more partnerships and
contractual agreements reaching out to the edges of the community to support specialized
services.
• The majority of Americans agree that preserving undeveloped land for outdoor recreation is
important. A large percentage of outdoor participants also believe that developing local parks
and hiking and walking trails is important and that there should be more outdoor education and
activities during the school day.
Funding Trends
• According to Recreation Management magazine's 2015 State of the Industry Report, survey
respondents from parks and recreation departments /districts reporting about their revenues
from 2012 through 2014 indicated a continued recovery from the impact of the Recession of
2008. From 2013 to 2014, 44.1 percent of respondents reported that their revenues had
increased, and another 44.1 percent reported revenues staying steady. About 48.7 percent of
respondents said they expected revenues to continue to increase in 2015, while 44 percent
expected no change.
4 Ben Janeczko, Trevor Mules, Brent Ritchie, "Estimating the Economic Impacts of Festivals and Events: A Research Guide,"
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, 2002,
http: / /www.susta i nabletourismonl ine.com /1005 /events /esti mati ng- the - economic -i m pacts- of- festiva Is- and - events- a -resea rch-
guide, accessed October 2012.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 23
Marketing Trends
Mobile marketing is a growing trend. Social websites and apps are among the most used
features on mobile phones. Popular social media marketing tools include Facebook,
SocialWhirled, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Tagged, and Linkedln. Private messaging apps such
as Snapchat and WhatsApp are being used more and more for live media coverages
C. Community and Stakeholder Input
Public input was held in November of 2015 at various locations within New Hanover County. There were
a total of nine meetings with focus groups, staff, and teens, in which 75 individuals that participated to
give their input.
The meetings entailed focus groups, staff meetings, meetings with stakeholders, and an open public
forum. Focus groups were by invitation extended via the Parks and Gardens staff with the idea of mixing
area residents and stakeholders with differing points of view to solicit broad -based perspectives. Each
meeting was approximately 90 minutes long. A series of questions were facilitated by GreenPlay to
ensure that adequate input was received from all attendees.
Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement
The residents of New Hanover County enjoy great diversity of parks and associated amenities. They are
generally well distributed geographically and have a variety of amenities at each location, with a small
portion of underserved areas. A significant strength of the park system is Airlie Gardens. Many focus
group participants remarked on how fortunate the County is to have such a wonderful facility.
Moreover, those same participants were very complimentary of the Parks and Gardens staff. The
citizens feel that the staff is very accommodating, schedules the facilities well, and communicates well.
Conversely, there is some displeasure with the condition of some park amenities, specifically athletic
fields. This should not be confused with the quality, though. Many of the athletic fields have reached the
end of their life cycle and are in need of significant renovations. Given the County's coastal location,
athletic field drainage is a major source of consternation. General items such as lack of parking,
restrooms, connectivity, and safety were all identified as opportunities for improvement. Along with
physical improvements, improvement of communication and availability of information is also important
to users.
Programming and locations
New Hanover County Parks and Gardens offers a very limited number of programs on its own, though
they are very well received by the citizens. Programs like Wellness Walks, Food Truck Rodeo, and the
various environmental education programs at Airlie are extremely popular. The Department works
cooperatively with many nonprofit associations to administer a comprehensive youth sports program,
serving primarily as a facility scheduler. Traditional recreational offerings such as group fitness, swim
lessons, and after - school enrichment programming are facilitated by private organizations or
neighboring localities. Although they are generally satisfied, they do have an apparent demand for more
program offerings. Included among the additional programs are more events like the Food Truck Rodeo,
pickleball, exercise /fitness classes, and a County -run introductory youth sports program. As new
programs are developed, participants wanted to create a balance between passive and active
recreation.
5 Jacqueline Woerner, "The 7 Social Media Trends Dominating 2015," Emarsys Blog,
http: / /www.emarsys.com /en/ resources /blog/ the -7- social- media - trends - dominating- 2015/, accessed February 26, 2015.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 24
New facilities
When asked to "dream big" the following were suggestions for new parks and recreation facilities in the
County:
• Renovate existing parks and amenities first
• Additional multiuse paths and trails that link parks
• WiFi access in parks
• More public access to the water (river, ocean)
• Synthetic athletic fields
• Athletic field lights
• Additional playgrounds
Values
New Hanover County residents value their parks system and feel like they get very good service from
staff. Users would like to see an increased focus on safety within the parks as well as greater parking and
accessibility, both in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the general connectivity of parks.
Citizens value a healthy, active lifestyle and wish for the Department to continue to be forward thinking,
keeping up with current trends and community conditions. The Department's commitment to the
outdoors and sustainability is also greatly valued by the community.
D. Summary of Community Survey
Introduction & Methodology
The purpose of this study was to gather public feedback on
New Hanover County parks and recreation facilities,
services, and programs. This survey research effort and
subsequent analysis were designed to assist New Hanover
County's Parks and Gardens Department in updating the
Parks and Gardens Master Plan for future enhancements to
existing and new facilities and services.
This community survey section is a
summary of the survey results.
Many survey result charts and
statements are utilized throughout
this document. The complete survey
results including the open -ended
comments were provided as a
separate staff resource document
due to the large number of pages.
The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1)
a mail -back survey, 2) an online, invitation -only web survey to further encourage response from those
residents already within the defined invitation sample, and 3) an open -link online survey for members of
the public who were not part of the invitation sample. The analysis herein primarily focuses on
responses from the invitation sample. However, open link responses are additionally analyzed and
discussed in a separate section of the report, highlighting differences from the invitation sample. It is
important to understand how the characteristics of these two sample groups differ, because their
response patterns contrast on various questions. It should be noted that generally speaking, the open
link respondents are more involved in parks and recreation and may have special interests, whereas the
invitation respondents may not be familiar with conditions within the parks and may be making
judgments based on their assumptions.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 25
A total of 3,750 surveys were mailed to a random sample of New Hanover County residents in February
2016. After accounting for undeliverable addresses (28 total), 3,722 survey mailings were delivered and
511 responses were received, resulting in a relatively high response rate of 13.8 percent. The margin of
error for the 511 statistically -valid responses is approximately +/- 4.3 percentage points calculated for
questions at 50 percent response .6 Additionally, the open link survey received 1,034 completed
responses.
Summary of Selected Findings
A brief overview of key findings in the survey. The summary focuses primarily on the statistically -valid
invitation sample.
• Familiarity with parks and recreation offerings is relatively strong. A majority of invitation
respondents reported that they are at least somewhat familiar with New Hanover County parks
and recreation offerings.
Top priorities include pathway and trail connectivity, maintaining and improving existing
amenities, and public water access. Throughout the survey results, both quantitative and
qualitative, a few priorities emerged as the most important areas of focus for New Hanover
County Parks and Gardens. Respondents frequently identified pathways and trails, maintaining
and improving existing amenities, and public water access /boat ramps as important amenities
to their households, but amenities that require attention in order to more adequately meet
community needs. The prioritization of these three areas was reinforced through the open -
ended comments. Generally, respondents who live in a family household allocated a larger sum
of money toward expanding aquatics, an indoor sports complex, and adding outdoor athletic
fields and courts than those without children at home. In contrast, respondents without children
were more likely to allocate funds toward making improvements /renovating existing park
facilities and adding more pathways and trails. Ogden residents allocated the most money on
average toward pathways and trails and expanding aquatics, while those in unincorporated
north county put funding toward renovating and maintaining existing park facilities.
• Safety and security is a concern. Safety came up as an issue multiple times when respondents
considered the most important areas that New Hanover County should address going forward.
Lighting for trails and outdoor facilities was also rated to be highly important. Many respondents
took the opportunity in the comment sections to mention that safety and security should be a
priority.
• Local media, the Internet, and email are the most effective forms of communication. Roughly
half of invitation respondents indicated that more communication from parks and recreation
would help encourage them to use the County's offerings more frequently. Local media, the
Internet /New Hanover County Parks and Gardens website, and email were identified as the best
forms of communication for this purpose.
6For the total invitation sample size of 511, margin of error is +/- 4.3 percent calculated for questions at 50% response (if the response for a
particular question is "50 %" —the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the larger margin, which occurs for responses at 50 %).
Note that the margin of error is different for every single question response on the survey depending on the resultant sample sizes, proportion
of responses, and number of answer categories for each question. Comparison of differences in the data between various segments, therefore,
should take into consideration these factors. As a general comment, it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends
and patterns in the data rather than on the individual percentages.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 26
Respondents are relatively supportive of additional user fees or bond referendum, but less
supportive of taxes. Invitation respondents showed moderate support for increased user fees or
a bond referendum. However, conversely, respondents lack support for new or updated taxes
and some respondents voiced their concern about additional taxes in their open -ended
comments, which conflicts with the notion of a bond referendum, which would require an
increase in taxes for the payment of the debt.
• Open link respondents are more involved in parks and recreation, have special interests, and are
more willing financially to support the services. Open link respondents were more familiar with
parks and recreation offerings in the County. Due to the dominant presence of family
households in the sample, they showed particularly strong support for athletic fields and youth
sports. Open link respondents were also more likely than invitation respondents to support all
funding mechanisms.
Current Programs and Facilities
Respondents to the statistically -valid survey were asked to indicate the importance of the availability of
local parks and recreation opportunities to their household on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "not at
all important" and 5 meaning "very important." As indicated in Figure 6, invitation respondents
generally noted that local parks and recreation is highly important to their household, with most
respondents (85 percent) providing a 114" or "5" rating and an average rating of 4.4.
Figure 6: Importance of Local Recreation Opportunities
Invitation Sample
1 -Not at all important 12%
Importance of °
Availability of 2 1% Average
Local Parks and 3- Neutral 11% 4.4
Recreation 4 26%
Opportunities
5 -Very important
1 -Not at all familiar 12%
Familiarity with ° Avera e
Parks and 2 6/0 38
Recreation 3- Neutral 28%
Programs/ 4 43%
Services
5 -Very familiar 21%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Respondents
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Respondents were also asked to rate their level of familiarity with current New Hanover County Parks
and Gardens facilities, programs, and services on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "not at all familiar"
and 5 means "very familiar." Familiarity ratings were somewhat lower than importance ratings, with 64
percent of invitation sample respondents indicating that they are familiar with NHCPG offerings
(providing a "4" or "5" rating) and a 3.8 average rating.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 27
Facilities and Amenities
Responses to the statistically -valid survey indicated that residents' recreation facility needs are mostly
met by the current County inventory of athletic fields, ball fields, community parks, playgrounds, and
picnic shelters. Conversely, respondents indicated that their needs were generally not well met for
aquatics and BMX facilities.
As illustrated in Figure 7, amenities rated as most important by survey respondents included:
• Community parks • Community Gardens
• Pathways /Trails • Picnic Shelters
• Beach Parks • Athletic Fields
• Performance /Festival Space • Boat Ramps
• Playgrounds
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 28
Figure 7: Importance of Facilities Operated by New Hanover Parks and Gardens Department
Community parks
■ 1= NotatAll Important
'9%
26% '
2
3= Neutral
Pathways /trails
4
■ 5 =Very Important
I
27% •'
Beach parks
' 11%
24%
Performance /festival
'
19%
29%
space
Community gardens
'
26%
32%
Playgrounds
16%
25%
Picnic shelters
F%
28%
35%
Boat ramps
M
20%
18%
Athletic fields (soccer,
lacrosse,
M 9%
21%
17% •'
etc.)
Dog parks
09%
22%
22%
Aquatics
29%
21%
Ball fields
/softball,
28%
19%
(baseball etc.)
Tennis courts
®
27%
26%
Outdoor basketball
®
25%
18%
courts
Volleyball courts
®12%
28%
19%
Skate parks
®
26%
14%
Disc golf
•'
27%
15 %,
BMX facilities 29% '
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Plotting and comparing the facility ratings for level of importance and degree to which community
needs are being met using an "Importance vs. Needs -Met" matrix is a useful exercise. Ratings are
displayed in the matrix in Figure 8. Using the midpoints for both questions to divide into four quadrants.
The Importance scale midpoint was 3.5 (the median importance rating across all facilities); the Needs -
Met midpoint was 3.4.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 29
Figure 8: Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix for Existing Parks and Recreation Amenities
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
d
3.4
Q
23.2
0
s
m
0 3.0
2
O
2.8
v
C
0 2.6
CL
E
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
High Importance/ High Importance/
Low Needs Met High Needs Met
Pathways /trails
I Community parks
Beach parks
•
Aquatics
Performance /festival space
Playgrounds
Commuo gardens
PicnidSfS•
elters
Boat ramps i Athletic fields (soccer, lacrosse, etc.)
Dog parks
Ball fields (baseball /softball, etc.)
Outdoor basketcourts i
Tennis courts
Volleyball courts
41ate parks
•
Disc golf
is
BMX facilities
Low Importance/ Low Importance/
1.6 Low Needs Met High Needs Met
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating)
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 30
The upper right quadrant depicts facilities that have high importance to households in New Hanover
County and also adequately meet community needs. As these facilities are important to most
respondents, they should be monitored and maintained in coming years, but the average resident feels
their needs are currently being met:
• Community parks
• Beach parks
• Playgrounds
• Picnic shelters
• Athletic Fields
• Community gardens (on the cusp of low needs met)
Facilities located in the upper left quadrant have a high level of importance but a relatively lower level of
needs being met, indicating that these are potential areas for enhancements. Improving these facilities
would likely positively affect the degree to which community needs are met overall:
• Pathways /trails
• Boat ramps
• Performance /festival space (on the cusp of high needs met)
Shown in the lower right quadrant are facilities that are less important to most households, yet are
meeting the needs of the community well. Future discussions evaluating whether the resources
supporting these facilities outweigh the benefits may be constructive:
• Ball fields
• Tennis courts
• Dog parks (on the cusp of low needs met)
Finally, facilities found in the lower left quadrant do not meet community needs well but are also
important to a smaller part of the community. Deemed "niche" facilities, these amenities have a smaller
but passionate following, so measurements of participation in discussions of future improvements may
prove to be valuable:
• Aquatics
• Outdoor basketball courts
• Volleyball courts
• Skate parks
• Disc golf
• BMX facilities
As displayed in Figure 9, the top priorities for adding or expanding recreation amenities noted by survey
respondents included pathways and trails, improved boat ramps, botanical /community gardens,
improved park amenities, lights for trails, and an indoor aquatics facility. Two facilities were rated
considerably lower as priorities for enhancement. These facilities were pickleball courts and horse/
equestrian facility /trails.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 31
Figure 9: Top Recreation Components that should be Added or Expanded
Invitation Sample
Pathways & trails
Boat ramps 1 5% 27%
Botanical /community gardens 10% 25%
Improved park amenities 8% 25%
Lights for trails M 8% 21%
Indoor aquatics facility 4% 20%
Playgrounds •'. 7% 17%
Lights for outdoor facilities 8% 17%
Outdoor amphitheater /concert venue -'. 6% 16%
Indoor sports complex •'. 5% 14%
Exercise stations along trails in parks 7% 14%
Dog parks �►'�' . 3% 13%
New parks 3% 12%
Shade structures in parks Q 6% 10%
Indoor courts � 9%
Parking at recreational facilities 5%
12%=42%
Other indoor or outdoor facility - 5% 0 First Priority to Add /Expand /Improve
■ Second Priority to Add /Expand /Improve
Pickleball courts 4% Third Priority to Add /Ex and /Im rove
Horse /equestrian facility /trails 1 2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Percent of Respondents
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Programs
When evaluating the degree to which community needs are currently being met by programs,
respondents provided moderate ratings, with only a slim range between the top -rated and bottom -
rated programs. The programs that were identified as best meeting needs include youth sports, senior
programs, and special events.
Respondents provided fairly moderate importance ratings for all of the listed programs, with
educational programs, and special events topping the list. Youth sports, cultural programs, and youth
programs also received relatively high importance ratings. The lowest -rated programs in terms of
relative importance were senior programs, adult sports, and adult programs, though again, the ratings
were very similar for all of the programs.
The "Importance vs. Needs -Met" matrix illustrated in Figure 10 provides a comparison of programs
based on level of importance and degree to which community needs are being met.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 32
Figure 10: Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix for Existing Parks and Recreation Programs
High Importance/ High Importance/
Low Needs Met High Needs Met
4.0
3.9 Educational programs
Special events
3.8
c
r
N�
LL
d
� 3.7
Cultural programs
>
Q Youth sports
............................................. ............................,,, ..
O
N 3.6 •
3
O Youth programs; (non - sports)
2
O
r
d 3.5
Senior programs
O
C •
3.4 •Adult sports
Adult programs (non- sports)
3.3
3.2
Low Importance/ Low Importance/
Low Needs Met High Needs Met
3.1
3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 3.40 3.45
How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating)
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Programs located in the upper right quadrant are identified as having a high level of importance and are
also perceived to be meeting community needs adequately. While improvements are less of an
immediate priority for these programs, they are important to monitor so that community satisfaction
stays strong:
• Educational programs
• Special events
• Youth sports
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 33
Depicted in the upper left quadrant are programs that are generally important to households but have a
lower level of community need being met. Therefore, enhancements to these programs may boost the
degree to which respondents feel their overall community needs are being met:
• Cultural programs: dance, music, arts, heritage, poetry, etc.
The programs in the lower right quadrant are less important to respondents, but are also currently
meeting the needs of the community. An evaluation of allocated resources for these programs may be
beneficial to ensure that funding is best spent to support community needs:
• Senior programs
Finally, lower left quadrant programs have a low level of meeting community needs even though they
are only important to a smaller group of households. These "niche" programs are not typically critical for
the satisfaction of the whole community, but should be monitored to understand whether or not
improvements would be constructive:
• Youth programs
• Adult sports
• Adult programs
As noted in Figure 11 respondents indicated whether their household has a need for various programs
and events. The top two programs needed by far are community events (79 %) and fitness and wellness
programs (75 %), with a myriad of additional programs and activities following with support from smaller
shares of respondents.
Figure 11: Household Need for Recreation Programs and Special Events
Invitation Sample
Community events 79%
Fitness and wellness programs 75%
Volunteer opportunities 46%
Environmental education classes 44%
Adult programs (non- sports) 43%
Family programs 40%
Athletic leagues - youth 38%
Senior programs 34%
Athletic leagues - adult 33%
Other E 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent of Respondents
Source: New Hanover County Parks & Gardens Master Plan Survey Final Results, March 2016
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 34
Comparison of Invitation Sample and Open Link Sample
Open link respondents were generally similar to the invitation sample responses across most topics.
However, there were some minor differences noted in the open link responses.
• Higher familiarity with New Hanover County parks and recreation opportunities.
• Strong commitment to athletic fields. Many respondents noted that drainage on athletic fields
needed to be addressed. Open link respondents also allocated twice as much on average to
adding outdoor athletic fields and courts.
• Tendency to emphasize youth sports in importance and needs met ratings.
• Top three priorities for future facilities vary. While pathways and trails was the top facility to be
added for both open link and invitation samples, open link respondents more commonly
prioritized lights for outdoor facilities, an indoor sports complex, and new parks. Invitation only
respondents placed greater preference on pathways and trails, boat ramps,
botanical /community gardens, lights for trails, playgrounds, and exercise stations along trails in
parks.
• Email is best communication method.
• More supportive of additional financial burdens.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 35
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 36
IV. What We Have Now - Programs and Spaces
A. Existing Park System
The New Hanover County Parks and Gardens Department manages over 2,900 acres of green space,
sporting areas, boat ramps, fishing areas, public spaces, and walking trails as well as non -park
properties, including historic Airlie Gardens and the New Hanover County Executive Development
Center. Of these parks and facilities, nine are dedicated sports field complexes, either stand -alone or
part of larger school complex. Airlie Gardens is the primary ornamental garden maintained by the
department. The Cape Fear Museum Park is an educational garden with outdoor exhibit /art spaces
utilized by the museum.
The average park acreage is 55 acres. The smallest park is Riverside Park at under one acre. Veterans
Park is the largest county owned park at 199 acres.' The existing parks properties can be divided into
three major categories — regional park, neighborhood park, and sports complex, which reflect the type
of development and the user demand for each County facility. Trails End Park and River Road Park
reflect a subset of parks focused on water access with some additional recreational capacity.
The neighborhood parks that New Hanover County manages are located in the older neighborhoods
within the County. These parks provide the immediate neighborhood with greenspace, playground
equipment, and in some cases, a picnic area. Organized sports fields /team play areas are limited. The
neighborhood parks are Kings Grant, Parkwood, and Monterey Heights. The condition of these parks are
reviewed in the summary section located at the end of this chapter.
Ogden, Northern Regional Park, Veterans Park, and Hugh MacRae are the regional parks maintained by
New Hanover County. Hugh MacRae is centrally located within the City of Wilmington. The Northern
Regional Park and Ogden are located in the northern portion of the county, while Veterans Park is
located southwest in the county. All four parks have similar base assets. The Level of Service Inventory
illustrates the dissimilarities between these regional parks. Hugh MacRae provides the largest variation
of park assets including a dog park, garden, fitness loop, and even an equestrian ring. Hugh MacRae is
most popular among general use due to the central location. The other sites provide similar capacity in
terms of athletic fields.
New Hanover County is unique in North Carolina, as it is one of the coastal counties that has access to
the intercostal waterway and the Cape Fear River, as well as coastal shoreline. A large portion of the
population utilizes these water resources for recreational activities. Trails End and River Road Park
provide fishing and boat access. Supplemental sites providing water access are managed by the Coastal
Area Management Authority and several smaller municipalities within the County; however, this level of
access will be discussed in the summary findings. The demand for water access will continue to increase
as the population increases.
7 Areas per New Hanover GIs department, ParkPts dataset, 2016.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 37
Map 1: Existing County Parks and Garden Properties
Existing County Parks and Gardens
New Hanover County
___ -__ -- - „Blue Clay Bike Park
-------- `- ,Trask MS
Riverside Park
-- -
Northern Regional-- - -.___
-- - -- - ___ :-Smith Creek Park
- ;-Parkwood Park
Ogden Park
- /BCC
/
/
Kings Grant Park -
Hugh MacRae Park
WILMINGTON—
Arrowhead Park k- - - _
River Road Par,, -- - -
Veterans Park, .
CAROLINA BEACH.,
KURE BEACH,
Legend
New Hanover County Parks
Hydrology
Municipal Areas
New Hanover County
Major Roads
Miles
00 -51 2 3
Source: New Hanover GIS, 2016 ParksPoly layer
i Summer
Rest Trail
r
.- Airlie Gardens
i
IJVRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
- Trails End Park
Myrtle Grove MS
Monterey Heights Park
- -- -Snows Cut Park
HHM HESIGN ° n�_1T�,iG1,� w
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 38
Figure 12: Map of Publicly Owned Park Facilities within New Hanover County
Existing Parks by Jurisdiction
New Hanover County
WILMI
Legend
Parks by Jurisdiction
• New Hanover County
• CAMA Beach Access
• State Parks
• Wilmington Parks
Wrightsville Beach Parks
Bike routes
Greenways
Hydrology
Major Roads
- - Miles
00.51 2 3
•
•
s
•
• r \
t �
•
ILLS BEACH
nACnLIKIA BEACH
BEACH
HM QESIGN
URBAN D
U (FSLP� LAND UNNING
PLANNING
d ,0 :!.i ^I I Awe:. 152H
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 39
B. Level of Service Analysis
Information in this section of the plan is from the Level of Service Analysis completed for the County's
parks and recreation system. The full report is found in Appendix B.
Inventory Overview
The inventory of the existing park system is vital for this planning process to understand the physical
condition of the target parks and gardens. This inventory builds off the existing county geographic
information database looking at each park in terms of park quality, park location, and park size.
Inventory Evaluation Criteria
The quality of each park within the overall county system is important in evaluating the current level of
service. Parks that are not properly maintained or do not provide a certain quality of experience to the
user will not attract park visitors. By examining how each park compares to one another, park
management staff can evaluate and prioritize park improvement projects and identify gaps in coverage
across the park system.
The park quality assessment occurred during the physical inventory. The following factors are the
primary categories reviewed during the inventory:
1. Age of park
2. General condition of park amenities
3. Verification of park amenities
4. Review of park access
a. Pedestrian connectivity
b. Vehicular connectivity
5. Connection to surrounding context
6. Wayfinding
These factors are recorded into a matrix that is used to evaluate park scores and provide a ranking for
each park across the entire system. The overall matrix is provided in the appendix of this document. A
summary of the findings is discussed later within this section.
For each park, a score is assigned to the observed components within the park. These scores are
qualitative in nature and are determined based on the observations of the personnel conducting the
field inventory and compared to opinions formulated during the user surveys. The following scoring was
provided:
• Poor (0) — the component or facility is not functional or able to function in regards to program
intended.
• Below Expectations (1) — the component does not meet the expectation in terms of intended
function or existing condition. This can be influenced by equipment's age, intensity of use, and
age.
• Meeting expectations (2) —the component was functional and in average condition when
observed.
• Exceeding expectations (3) — the component is of high level of quality, function, well above the
baseline program requirements.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 40
These categories were evaluated based on the individual park's condition as opposed to overall system
during the inventory. If the equipment /facility was noted to exist in a condition well below that of
similar equipment within other parks, then it was noted within the matrix as such. The number values
then were used to provide a numerical score for the park based on the number of opportunities and
quality of opportunities offered.
Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Reviewing the level of service, or ability of the parks system to serve its population, requires an analysis
that compares multiple factors together to identify trends and gaps in coverage. This level of service
analysis will focus on the following relationships:
1) Distance to nearest park (walkable and vehicular)
2) Distribution of park quality
3) Distribution of total open space
4) Availability of park amenities
1. Distance to nearest park: Distance to the nearest park is an important gauge for understanding
the balance between access and convenience of a given park to the target population.
Traditionally, this relationship was mapped as a service area for the park using a radial
dimension. Utilizing GIS, this study compares actual road travel distance to determine the
distance from residential parcels to parks. A reverse of this approach is also conducted using
distance from park entry points outward into the community to generate a service area map
that reflects the travel distances along the road infrastructure in a more realistic way. Both allow
for a comparison of average distance to park as well as the closest and farthest an individual
resident may have to travel.
2. Distribution of park quality: Using the service areas defined above, the next step in analysis is to
compare the quality of parks and how they are distributed across the County. This is done by
weighting the parks based on the number and quality of amenities to allow for an evaluation of
where the highest quality parks are in comparison to the residential centers within the County.
Distribution of total open space: Using the service area approach, a comparison of the amount
of parkland available per person within the respective service area will help evaluate if the
current facilities are large enough to adequately service the users. This is accomplished by
comparing the service area to the underlying population estimates as derived from the US
Census Bureau projections.
4. Availability of park amenities: The Inventory of Existing Parks utilizes park planning standards to
compare the total aggregate of park elements to the overall population. Analyzing projected
population growth can further determine what changes are needed in the future.
Park Standards
While there is not a single industry standard for evaluating park systems, the National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA) collects and analyzes park system data from hundreds of communities
nationwide and conducts yearly evaluations with findings being distributed to parks and recreation
professionals. The primary tool for this data collection and analysis is the PRORAGIS system. The
PRORAGIS system is a voluntary program within which parks administrators register and then input the
key metrics of their respective park system including total land managed, budgets, staff totals, and
amenity offerings.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 41
Based on the 2016 Field Report, the current average nationwide is 9.5 acres of park land per 1,000
residents. This is based on the overall average of all participants within PRORAGIS. New Hanover County
has an estimated population density of approximately 1,058 people per square mile .$ When looking at
just the counties similar to the size and density of New Hanover County, the park land per 1,000 people
ranges from 3.9 acres to 14.9 acres. The median for these communities is 7.4 acres.9
For New Hanover County, a long -term management goal would be to maintain the current level of
service provided across the county. Beyond a maintenance approach, expanding the provided
recreational opportunities to meet and exceed the average amount of parks and recreation
opportunities offered by peer counties to New Hanover would have tangible benefits in terms of
community retention and increased growth.
Within New Hanover County, there are park systems managed City of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure
Beach, and Wrightsville Beach in addition to the facilities operated by the County. These other municipal
offerings have been reviewed in conjunction to land area evaluations in order to provide a more realistic
assessment of the available opportunities within the County for its residents. Table 5 provides a
summary of parks and recreation opportunities available to residents within New Hanover County.
Table 5: Summary of Parks per Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction ���IllAcreage
Wilmington
646
Parks
42
Beach Access
River Access/lCWW
3
Wrightsville Beach
16.65
7
44
1
Kure Beach
3
20
State of North Carolina
644
2
2
2
Carolina Beach
32
4
32
1
New Hanover
1228
15
3
Total
2,566.65
73
98
10
*ICCW is the Intracoastal Waterway
Table 6 provides a summary of the park and recreation facilities based on the number of amenities
recommended per a given population ratio. In addition to determining the count of amenities, this table
also provides a guideline for travel distance that is recommended to provide access to these amenities.
8 Population Density https: / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ New _Hanover_County,_North_Carolina
9 Acres of Park Land per 1,000 Residents,
http: / /www.nrpa.org /uploaded Files /nrpa.org /Publications_ and_ Research /Research /Field - Report.pdf
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 42
Table 6: Park Amenity Benchmarks10
_Venve
Travel
Ratio Recommended
Basketball
% mile
1 court per 5,000
Generally, indoors,
should have mix
Tennis
% mile
1 court per 2000
Lighted courts
Volleyball
% mile
1 per 5000
Locate at multi-
purpose sites
Baseball
% mile
1 per 5000 (1 per
Generally, part of
30,000 lighted)
larger complex
Football
15 -30- minute travel
1 per 20,000
Recommended as part
of complex
Soccer
1 -2 miles
1 per 10,000
Depends on popularity,
youth soccer on
smaller fields near
schools and
neighborhood parks
%mile running track
15 -30- minute travel
1 per 20,000
Locate at community
parks
Softball
%2 mile
1 per 5,000
Can share with little
league
Swimming Pools
15 -30- minute travel
1 per 20,000
Combination of indoor
time
and outdoor
This table is provided only as one tool for evaluating the level of service. This analysis also utilizes the
comparison analysis information provided by NRPA PRORAGIS. When utilized together, both evaluations
will help identify areas of potential improvement as well as guide prioritization based on need.
Methodology for Measuring Access
The existing park system has been mapped utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The data is
analyzed in GIS to review the relationships between parks and the served populations to determine if
residents have access to the available open space. GIS is also utilized to identify gaps in service areas
between parks.
The inventory of data measured to determine park access is as follows:
1. Park locations provided by New Hanover County Information Technology GIS Department
2. Park sites during field visits
3. Park access points added /moved to correspond with existing conditions
4. Residential properties compiled from parcel data within the land use dataset
io Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines..http://www.prm.nau.edu/prm423/recreation standards.htm.
Original source: Lancaster, R.A. (Ed.). (1990). Recreation. Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Ashburn, VA:
National Recreation and Park Association.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 43
5. Service areas using the verified access points and residential parcels
a. Service area mapping includes barriers for pedestrian mapping
i. Barriers included railroads, high speed vehicular roads, and property boundaries
b. Pedestrian service areas are based on road network. Roads above 35 mph are not
included as these represent larger thoroughfares that pose both a physical and mental
barrier.
6. Total acreage per parcel within % mile to determine equality of park distribution
7. Gaps in coverage identified between parks. All parks are mapped using % mile and 1 -mile service
areas. These represent a 15- minute walk and 5 -10- minute drive time for most park users.
Summary of Findings for Parks
Park Condition Summary
The existing parks within New Hanover County, when compared to similarly sized systems across the
state, will meet or exceed expectations in terms of opportunities and amenities the parks provide
residents. This study has evaluated the parks within the County to each other in order to identify where
improvements or efficiencies can be realized. In general, several trends were identified:
1. Large variety of age and condition of parks within system.
2. Improvements are focused at Northern Regional Park and Ogden Park.
3. Sports complexes show wide range of variability.
4. The number of amenities recommended for the population represent potential for significant
capital improvement costs.
The age of the parks follows the development pattern of New Hanover County. Due to aging facilities,
improvements will be needed to upgrade the existing facilities to meet modern recommendations for
playground equipment. Kings Grant and Monterey Heights should be assessed to identify the value of
play vs. cost to maintain. How these parks may be utilized to provide additional park amenities will be
discussed in the summary of amenities subsection.
The regional parks are the focus of the parks department for upgrades and providing locations for new
amenities. The exception to this trend is Arrowhead Park, which is a community - scaled park larger than
Kings Grant. These regional parks have a higher recreation value because of the greater number and
variety of activities they can provide which draw more users to them.
Provided Parkland
Comparing overall park land to total population, New Hanover County provides over 89 percent of the
total recommended parkland. If the acreage for the City of Wilmington, local municipalities, and State of
North Carolina park areas are added in, this percentage is even higher. This type of comparison is
important in planning for future park growth as it allows the park system to be compared to peer
communities. This will help maximize opportunities provided, while limiting the amount of capital
needed to close the gap in acreage as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Parkland Summary to Population based on 2015 population estimates
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 44
rrojecrion of 14 percenr growrn, or rougniy z4.�P,uuu people oy zuz�.
Looking at the table above, there appears to be a relatively high level of managed parkland available for
the residents of New Hanover County. Based on current population projections, there are roughly 12
acres per person of active parkland when all of the publicly owned active parks are included. Looking at
just New Hanover County parks, the ratio drops to 5.51 acres per person. The current national average is
7.3 acres per 1,000 people per the 2016 annual report issued by the NRPA. Looking at a policy of
maintaining the existing level of service, by 2025, a minimum of 167.95 acres will need to be added
within the County to maintain the 5.51 acre per 1,000 population rate. If County leaders shift from a
maintaining stance to one of being more competitive with peer counties, then a countywide goal of
adding a minimum of 368.1 acres should be targeted.
Currently, the parks are concentrated in clusters within the county; this is a combined result of locating
facilities where population growth was occurring and where available land was both economical as well
as developable. As the park system is expanded in the future, it will be important to consider the
following points:
1. Athletic field access is predominately found in the north portion of the county.
2. The county maintains small neighborhood parks in several neighborhoods; low usage was
recorded during on -site inventory.
3. Consider need for facilities in northeast portion of county near Porter's Neck vicinity.
4. Future athletic facility construction needs to be evaluated based on improving geographic
distribution of fields around the county to better serve the populations based on the road
infrastructure.
5. Transportation to the park sites is predominately car based.
A different way of looking at this is illustrated in Figure 13, which shows the distribution of park acreage
across the whole county. The symbols are scaled to represent the percentage of the total park
maintained by the County. This allows for a visual comparison of the park area across the county. As
shown in the dots, the majority of park land operated by the County is located in the northern part of
the County. This distribution is further defined when looking at how the service areas overlap the
specific clusters of parks based on the current access routes.
11 Population modelling reported on Star News, August 2016. http: / /www.starnewsonline.com /news /20160827 /firm - projects-
new- hanover -wil I- grow -8- percent -by -2020
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 45
Figure 13: Existing Park Distribution by Percentage of Acreage
Distribution of Park Area
Symbol by Size in Acres
4
Riverside Park
Northern Regional
- Blue Clay Bike Park
F
Trask MS
Smith Creek Park
Ogden Park
Parkwood Park EDC
Kings Grant Park
Airlie Gardens
Hugh MacRae Park
:
Trails End Park
Arrowhead Park 0
River Grove MS
Road Park
Monterey Heights
Veterans Park
,I
Snows Cut Park
i
s
Legend
Acreage of Park ! Total Park System
• 0.00-0570
• 0.571 - 2.38
2.37 - 5.37
538 -13.0
0111171
Roads
Major Roads
/ Hydrology
County Boundary
HHM �E�� N ` " JanDuary T NORTH os o� zM�ieS
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 46
Provided Amenities
Using the guidelines listed in the section above, the total provided amenities have been compared to
both the estimated 2015 and 2025 populations. These are the two estimates provided by the U.S.
Census Bureau. Table 8 summarizes the total amenities provided within the County compared to park
guidelines initially published by the National Recreation and Park Association (Lancaster 1990).
These figures are provided as a loose guideline only using historical NRPA findings, these numbers do
not reflect the capacities maintained by peer communities to New Hanover County. The intent of this
table is to provide a neutral comparison of the current level of service provided to residents of New
Hanover County.
Table 8: Park Amenities Provided
L
Est. 2015
Est. 2025
Total
Lighted
Total
Publicly
public
220,261
245,000
Population
Owned
field /court
within NHC
Amenity type
Ratio
Recommended
Provided
+Surplus/
+Surplus/
(element)
- Deficiency
- Deficiency
1/4 Mile
1 per 20,000
11
15
+4.0
+2.0
Track
Baseball
1 per 5,000
44
21
19
-22
-28
Basketball
1 per 5,000
44
34.5
-8.5
-14.5
Dog Park
5
+5
+5
Fishing access
1 per 10,000
22
8
-14
-17
Football
1 per 20,000
11
14
8
+3
+1
Frisbee Golf
1 per 20,000
11
3
-8.0
-10
Golf
1 per 50,000
4
1
-3.0
-4
Kayak Access
1 per 50,000
4
9
+5
+4
Motor Boat
1 per 50,000
0
7
+7
+7
Access
Mountain
1 per 10,000
22
9
-13
-16
Bike Trail
Skate Park
1 per 20,000
11
3
-8
-10
(coming
2016/2017)
Soccer
1 per 10,000
22
29.5
12.5
+7.5
+4.5
Softball
1 per 5,000
44
21
-22
-28
Swimming
1 per 20,000
11
3
-8
-10
Pool
Tennis
1 per 2,000
110
79
60
-28
-44
While Table 8 illustrates a number of potential deficiencies in terms of facilities provided to population,
New Hanover County meets and exceeds several peer counties in terms of facilities provided and overall
open space area.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 47
The largest issues are with how the ratios are determined, in a county like New Hanover where the
population is predominately middle aged or older with a lower under 18 population, these ratios do not
coincide with the survey results conducted as part of the site assessment and public outreach part of the
master plan process.
A key example of shortcomings for ratio -based evaluations is regarding the quantity of soccer and
baseball fields. Using a straight ratio method, over 44 baseball fields and 22 soccer fields are needed.
This ratio does not account for the use of lighting, which can greatly increase play times /service
windows for each field. Based on current needs and projected demand, there is a need for at least 10 of
the existing fields to be lighted in order to increase capacity. In addition, the need for adding new fields
should also be considered in order to continue to meet current population growth and increased
program use by both the schools and the recreational users. Increasing the playability of the fields
through the conversion of natural turf fields to synthetic turf fields will also further improve on the
capacity by reducing /eliminating the impact that seasonal rain can have on the availability of the field.
In contrast, the survey showed that the general users felt there were enough athletic fields for soccer
and baseball ranked as high needs and of being met adequately. The quality of the current fields and
their usability during periods of seasonal rain and at evening hours was an issue that results in a higher
demand than the number of facilities can provide. This is based both on the drainage capacity of a
number of the existing fields as well as the hours of access available based on current shared use
schedules as well as whether or not the fields are lit providing extended evening play during fall and
winter months.
Table 9 provides a comparison of how the New Hanover park system compares to county peers on
PRORAGIS. When looking at this table, it is of note that New Hanover matches or exceeds Cabarrus in
terms of parks maintained and acreage provided. In other areas, based on the data reporting from
PRORAGIS, New Hanover is deficient in programming and amenities when compared to these listings.
Additional categories have New Hanover in a top three of providers.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 48
Table 9: New Hanover County and Benchmarked Communities
GENERAL PARK SITES -VFr
General Data
New Hanover
.-
Cabarrus
Frederick
Total number of parks maintained
15
3
20
76
33
Total acres of parks maintained (do
not include non -park sites)
1,228
691
2,096
1,521
25,100
Percentage of total parkland acres
that are developed
49.0%
97.9%
85.0%
45.0%
5.3%
Total acres of developed parkland
that your agency maintains
1,182
1,750
682
Park Facilities
22
Aquatics - outdoor
Beaches
0
0
19
0
Boat Ramps /Water Entry
3
0
24
1
Splash Pads
1
0
1
0
Swimming Pools
1
0
2
0
Basketball Courts
11
2
5
23
1
Basketball Courts - half courts
1
0
Tennis Courts - poured surface
38
10
34
0
Athletic Fields
Diamonds
Baseball - Youth
12w /lights
11
9
0
Baseball Adult
4 (3 w /lights)
5
1
0
Softball Fields -Youth
3 w /lights
12
14
0
Softball fields - Adult
2 (1 w /lights)
4
12
14
0
Tee -Ball
0
0
2
0
Rectangular Fields
Multi- purpose Rectangular Fields
27.5 (12.5
w /lights)
10
24
0
Cricket Field
1
Field Hockey Field
Football Field
11 (8 w /lights)
4
0
Soccer field - Adult
27 (12 w /lights)
11
19
0
Winter Facilities
Ice rink (outdoor only)
1
0
Sledding Hill
3
1
1
Skate Park
1
4
0
Playgrounds
10
10
24
26
0
# of Accessible
1
2
2
Totlots
2
0
3
0
BMX track
Archery range
4
0
Picnic tables
154
186
520
426
Picnic shelters
22
21
31
144
Restrooms (Restroom buildings)
21
3
26
56
Parking spaces
424
897
2,800
4,982
Concessions (Concession buildings)
6
3
2
16
0
Multi -use trails
7/4.5 miles
4
17
11
Dog Park
2
1
0
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 49
Park Quality
The difference in facility condition among the sports complexes is evident. This difference in condition is
likely linked to age and type of facility. The sports facilities located at Northern Regional Park and at
Veterans Park exceed expectations for a park system of this size. Each of the regional parks has a unique
character while providing the same level of service overall. Veterans Park is mostly used as a multi -sport
complex with facilities distributed amongst the fields. The fields, both soccer and baseball, were
designed for positive drainage and walkways connect the main competition fields to the parking areas.
Parking is spread around the perimeter of the park, providing uniform coverage to the baseball and
central soccer fields.
Northern Regional Park recently finished an expansion project that adds capacity to the soccer fields. It
is a popular park for the playground and picnic shelters within the shaded /wooded areas of the park.
The Frisbee golf course is well known in the area and is very popular when it is not flooded out due to
rain.
In contrast, the Myrtle Grove Athletic complex is a much older facility that provides a level of service
much lower to that of the athletic fields of the regional parks. Myrtle Grove is located behind the school
that shares its name with access to parking at a remote location. The fields are well -used and appear
ready for renovation to improve drainage. The dugouts, while serviceable, are not on the same level as
those at Veterans Park.
Based on specific user input, the capacity of the soccer fields within New Hanover that are managed by
the parks department are overloaded. This is based on information provided by the Cape Fear Soccer
League. This experience is a culmination of both available field resources and the conditions of the
existing fields. At the time of inspection, a large number of the fields visited exhibited signs of excessive
wear in the center of the playing fields as well as potential drainage issues as noted in the detailed site
inventories. Refer to the appendices section for the detailed photo inventories and park score sheets.
Park Accessibility
Utilizing the GIS based service area analysis; both the vehicular and pedestrian service areas were
evaluated. The development pattern of New Hanover County has followed a hub and spur approach,
which translates to large thoroughfares connecting the major population nodes within the County.
Connectivity between these population nodes is limited by the fractured nature of the road network,
creating longer drive times and resulting "costs" to reach park areas. Costs represent both a
commitment of time and resources necessary to reach the facilities.
Based on the vehicular service area, the majority of park land is located in the northern half of the
County. Considering all of the park and athletic complexes, residential areas to the northeast and to the
southeast of county are not within existing park service areas. Figure 14 illustrates the vehicular service
and pedestrian service areas combined. Wilmington parks are not included in this analysis and would
provide coverage within the City limits.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 50
Figure 14: Service Area Analysis- New Hanover Parks Department Facilities
Legend
4iaiar Roans
QPark Access N,l N
_ New Hanaaer Ca IM Parks
Par®la
Hyd.bQy
C My B—dn ry
S.,!— Area.
- 0.01 -0.50 Mlles
® a r - 1 90 Miles
1 �i 2 90 Milea
0 —Miles
00-51
Park Service Area Coverage
New Hanover County
NdI�Si A °5 AfLC}IITEL7URE
D M �1 � 1 DESIGN i LAN 1) PLANNING
v IC AL PLANNING
- :R5
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 51
The service area analysis helps illustrate the gaps in coverage when using the travel distance as the
means to develop the area each park serves. Based on the symbology, the darkest purple represents the
recommended distance to most of the park amenities represented by the park standards. If just the dark
purple is isolated, the preliminary gaps in coverage are focused in the south and the northeast of the
County. The northeast of the County also shows signs of insufficient coverage if residential development
continues to occur in this area. The northwest portion of the county near 421 is primarily industrial lands
intermixed with some light commercial and a large amount of undevelopable wetlands.
Using the same data, a second analysis has been completed to show the relationship of park land to
residential properties regardless of the set service area distance. Table 10 shows the average drive time
and average distance from residential parcels to the nearest park. This table also shows the maximum
distance to the nearest park.
Table 10: Park Distribution Summary
While this coverage is very good in comparison to similar counties as noted in Table 10 above,
conducting the same analysis with all of the parks in New Hanover County including those in
Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Coastal Area Management Access points, and State
Parks provides a complete look of the resources available to the residents within the County. The
locations of these additional parks were added to the base service area analysis with driveway entry
points verified by current aerial photography.
The overall depiction of distance between residential parcels to nearest parks is shown in Figure 15. This
figure utilizes ArcGIS to measure the distance and travel time along the road network. The importance
of this map is that it shows where there are concentrations of underserved populations.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 52
�
Driving time to nearest park
Average
3.6 mins
Maximum
77278777m7 ins
Distance to nearest park
2.34 miles
19.3 miles
While this coverage is very good in comparison to similar counties as noted in Table 10 above,
conducting the same analysis with all of the parks in New Hanover County including those in
Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Coastal Area Management Access points, and State
Parks provides a complete look of the resources available to the residents within the County. The
locations of these additional parks were added to the base service area analysis with driveway entry
points verified by current aerial photography.
The overall depiction of distance between residential parcels to nearest parks is shown in Figure 15. This
figure utilizes ArcGIS to measure the distance and travel time along the road network. The importance
of this map is that it shows where there are concentrations of underserved populations.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 52
Figure 15: Analysis Driving Distance to New Hanover Parks
Legenc
Distanc
00
10
® 2,0
- 4.0
Backgr
_ NP
PE
M
Hy _.
County
0 —Miles
0 0.5 1 2 3
Gap Analysis
New Hanover County
HM E�lGN �1L,S�,,,I -'['- ND-1E
u,,.�.vPr >IC,1.— nNOaiaNwN,
ECOLOGI A PLINKING
A 1. ;1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 53
As another means of evaluating the access of residents to park areas, the gap mapping of additional
park areas. The study facilities in Figure 16 shows the overall access of parks by residents within the
County. This map assumes driving to the parks based on the overall transportation complexion of the
County.
Figure 16: Service Areas of Publicly Owned Park Facilities
Park Service Areas - Composite of All Parks
New Hanover County
WILMINGTON
Legend
Parks
1111111 New Hanover County
O CAMA Beach Access
., State Parks
C-) Wilmington Parks
• Wrightsville Beach Parks
Major Roads
Service Areas
- 0-.49 miles
0,5 -0.99 miles
1 mile
Residential Parcels
Hydrology
Municipal Areas
r Miles
00.51 2 3
9
r
NA BEACH
zACH
UHM DESIGN r.pS�gPEnn�1111'L_
J'.LlrN 7E:iG\ ' -1,71L1NNl \G
COL0G1L -L PLAN \ ll1
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 54
Using 1 mile as a cutoff, Figures 17, 18, and 19 depict the relationship of existing parks to residential
parcels. This method quickly depicts graphically where residential areas are adjacent to parks, but based
on the road infrastructure available, shows that physical access can create a perceptive barrier for users
of the park. If the drive to the park requires more effort than the value of the activity, then users will not
utilize the park resource. This mostly impacts parks that are isolated like Flemington Soccer Park and
Riverside Park. Shared facilities like Trask MS help provide coverage, but due to limitations in hours of
operation and restricted assets, the limited recreational value would cause it to be looked at as a gap in
coverage for anything but soccer /sports users.
Conversely, as shown in Figure 17, the Hugh McRae Park is a highly valuable park in terms of
recreational opportunities and it has a high level of residences around it that can utilize the road
network to access the park. Further improving the pedestrian connectivity would improve its capacity by
connecting users that do not want to have the cost of driving to the park negates the value of using the
park.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 55
Figure 17: NW corner of the County
Legend
Major Roads
Park Access Points
- New Hanover County Parks
- Residential Parcels within 1 Mile
Residential Parcels
Parcels
Hydrology
Municipal Areas
Ca rty Boundary
—Miles
0 C.b 1
{
Park Service Area Coverage - Northwest
New Hanover County
Riverside Park
' Northern Regional
�•w
Blue Clay Bike Park
rask MS
Sill
Smith Creek Fark '
+� +, Pa rkwood Park
_. Kings Grant Park
"T "e
i #'ll MacRae Park
MEL
I
, LLI PIA
.If:.:gi %'l F!FSI[.t\ - n,NC] PI AN JIVE
�ULoJL AL PL- 'VNING
. <.z.a ses
50 New Hanover County, North Carolina
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 56
Figure 18 shows the clustering of Ogden, Kings Grant, Smith Creek, and Parkwood Parks. The residences
have a high level of access to these parks, which is a stark comparison when looking at to the residences
along the intercostal waterway. The need for connectivity and or a new recreational offering may be
warranted to provide service to residences in the northeastern portion of this map as shown.
Figure 18: NE corner of the County
Park Service Area Coverage - Northeast
New Hanover County
luonnern Regional
91ue Clay 9ike Park
�WVA
"Trask MS '
Smith Creek Park -
1 1 Pi kwaod Park
f Ogden "i1
yKngs Grant Park
7Wl.1
Legend
Major Roads
Park Access Points
New Hanauer County Parks
— Residential Parcels within 1 Mile
Reaidenlial Parcels
Parcels
Hydrelegy
Wlunicipal Areas
County 13 -ndary
�11
EDC
PSI
S M R t T all
�. •AL
Airlie Ga
H H M D ES I G N i .LDULAIL 114 iN661
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 57
Figure 19: South area of the County
Legend
Major Roads
Park Access Points
New Hanover County Parks
_ Residential Parcels within 1 Mile
Residential Parcels
Parcels
Hydrology
_ Municipal Areas
County 8aundary
-Miles
0 0.5 1
Park Service Area Coverage - South
New Hanover County
Myrtle Gmve MS
Arrowhead Park
I
River Road Park1��
Nlanterey Heigh
-MeVeterans Par, 4
1
1E
/' Sliovds Cue Park
HHM RESIGN =nN� =1 U_IL�L
�c�oer.�.� hl.vrllntt;
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 58
The southern portion of the County is comprised of several jurisdictions including the City of
Wilmington, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, as well as un- incorporated areas. Unlike the northern portions
of the campus, the parks within this part of the County are more uniformly distributed within the
residential areas. There is facility clustering between Veterans Park, Monterey Heights, and River Road
Park. All three of these parks provide users with a variety of activities. Trails End Park is a water access
point that provides recreational value to county residents, but is limited to providing waterfront access.
The same is similar for Myrtle Grove, which provides recreational fields but does not provide access to
other activities such as playgrounds or walking trails.
A large component of the New Hanover Parks and Gardens Department is providing athletic fields for
use by residents and sports groups. Figure 19 depicts the distribution of sports fields in relation to
residential areas using service areas generated by 2.5 and 5 miles respectively. The pattern that emerges
from this map is the clustering of sports fields in the northern portion of the County. The south is served
by Veterans Park in comparison to the north having service from Northern Regional, Ogden, and several
shared use facilities. This service area map includes Flemington Soccer Complex, which is a privately
owned facility. It also shows coverage including Cape Fear Optimist Park, which is operated by a non-
profit organization.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 59
Figure 20: Sports Fields Distribution Based on Drive Distance
WILM
Legend
Major Roads
• Spots Cn'mplexes
Distance by Road
0 -2.49 Miles (5 -10 min drkve)
2 ,5 -5.0 Miles (10-15 min drive)
Residential Parcels
Hydrology
Municipal Areas
Miles
000, 5 1 2 3
r1� IT
a;
i 4
•
i
Sports Field Access
New Hanover County
4*
,
+�.aR
Y�
4k'.
J
LLE BEACH
H1:1014101-11:1161s
---KURE BEACH
H M f] E S I G N F KHAN DESIGN NLNND If L.4 ,,ING
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 60
C. Level of Service Recommendations
Upon review of the Level of Service Analysis, it can be determined that New Hanover County has a
comprehensive park system. Immediate issues are focused primarily on providing a variety of amenities
and deferred maintenance.
Recommendations for Existing Facilities
1. Soccer fields are heavily used by soccer league and will need renovation.
Improvements to drainage may allow for higher capacity of play to existing facilities.
Parking improvements and access improvements may allow for a higher capacity of
users.
2. ADA access to amenities should be addressed during individual park Capital Improvement
Projects.
3. ADA compliant facilities, including playgrounds, should be incorporated into individual Capital
Improvement Projects.
Renovation of joint sites to improve functionality will better utilize current assets.
Recommendations for Additions /Future Facilities
1. Water access to river and intercostal waterways should be increased.
Based on inventory findings, there are multiple beach access points within the County
that are maintained by the other municipalities including the Coastal Area Management
Authority. Providing additional boat access for both motorized craft and paddle craft
would improve facility capacity to keep up with user demand by both residents and
tourists. The boat access points should be distributed between the river as well as the
intercostal waterway.
2. Accessible playgrounds that are equally spread around the county.
The County recently developed an all access playground for children of varied capabilities at
Hugh MacRae Park. In addition to this project, improving existing park facilities to meet
Americans with Disabilities Act Standards of 2012 requirements. This includes smaller
projects such as modernization of bleachers and accessible routes. The County also co-
developed an accessible playground with the City of Wilmington at Olsen Park.
Renovation or transfer of neighborhood park management may improve operations and
maintenance within system.
The County needs to determine Parks and Gardens core services and evaluate existing
facilities for providing these services. Current park development is focused on enhancing the
regional parks by adding additional facilities and improving on capacity. The neighborhood
parks are not large draws for users that are not located within the immediate vicinity and
may be better managed by Home Owners Associations, repurposed or sold. If County
leadership wants to continue operating the neighborhood parks, expanding on park facilities
at each park may improve user volume.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 61
4. Designation of joint ownership facilities to improve in public input.
The joint use facilities, specifically the school parks /fields are clearly identified for park users.
Improvements should look at better wayfinding to direct users to access points, designated
parking areas, and park hours.
5. Additional lighted soccer and multi - purpose fields are recommended.
While the County provides a large number of fields, the current trends reflect a high community
demand for soccer programs. Based on current field conditions and distribution, additional
fields are recommended to better improve the availability of facilities and flexibility of
scheduling. As many of the fields were not lit for night play, increasing the number of lit fields
will further expand the capacity of existing facilities to assist in demand.
Based on the participation of users within the County, as new fields are developed, distribution
of fields should be considered to close the service gaps in the southern portion of county was
well as northeastern portion of the county. Currently the locations are densely clustered in the
central portion of the County with difficulty accessing during peak travel times.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 62
V. Great Things to Come - Recommendations and
Action Plans
After analyzing the findings that resulted from this process (including the Key Issues Matrix, a summary
of all research, the qualitative and quantitative data, inventory, LOS analyses, and input assembled for
this study), a variety of recommendations have emerged to provide guidance in consideration of how to
improve parks and recreation services and facilities in New Hanover County. This section describes ways
to enhance the level of service and the quality of life with improvement through organizational
efficiencies, financial opportunities, improved programming and service delivery, and maintenance and
improvements to facilities and amenities.
Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 1.1— Establish and maintain a level of service goal.
New Hanover County currently has a Level of Service of just under six acres of active park land per 1,000
population. Based on the level of service analysis, park land provided by the municipalities within the
county, and state parks is meeting the majority of the needs of the community. With the potential for a
County population of 244,663 by 2025, maintaining the current level of service provided through park
acreage should be established as a management goal. A minimum of 167.95 additional acres of park
land will be needed. Included within this acreage should be the development of additional large multi-
purpose fields that will facilitate current and expanded athletic programs within the county.
Currently, the County does not provide an existing county maintained beach access. These access points
are maintained by the shore communities within the County and the Coastal Area Management
Authority (CAMA). Additionally, where the population density will support it (East of 1 -40), the County
should update and expand connectivity between parks and residential areas to ensure walkability for
users within .5 -.75 miles of each park.
In consideration of the overall park system, the prioritization of park improvements and expansion
should be assessed against program requests. The maintenance and operation of sports -only facilities
should be examined to determine if there are opportunities to enhance these single use sites to provide
additional recreational value to residents without requiring significant investments in additional land.
Reviewing the existing condition of the facilities within the park system, internal policy should be
studied in order to focus the next phase of Repair and Renovation funds to improve the uniform quality
of all facilities that are currently ranked as "meeting expectations" or below. The focus should be to
improve uniformity of park quality at each park. During this process, it is also recommended to consider
options for the isolated neighborhood parks and how these may be supplemented through
neighborhood groups or joint ventures, or sold for future residential development.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 63
Objective 1.2 — Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding Department
activities and services.
The Parks and Gardens Department should develop a Marketing Plan that will guide its efforts in
communicating and promoting its activities and facilities. This will create great awareness and should
include all the recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, and facility upgrades. As part
of the Marketing Plan, the Parks and Gardens Department should evaluate directional and wayfinding
signage to facilities on roadways, pathways, and within parks. The Department should develop signage
standards for parks and update existing park signs as parks are renovated to meet the new standard.
Improved Wayfinding signage will contribute to a greater connectivity of parks, facilities, and pathways.
Additionally, the Marketing Plan should be updated every five years and include marketing strategies
that incorporate the efforts of partner departments and projects.
Objective 1.3 — Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities.
There was a great public response to make sure that Parks and Gardens maintains and improves existing
facilities. The Department should continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities and amenities as
well as addressing low scoring components through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally,
the Department should develop both a Fixed Asset Replacement and a Deferred Maintenance Plan. The
Department would then continue to maintain and update their Deferred Maintenance Plan to ensure
consistent application of maintenance standards and cost efficiencies.
Objective 1.4 — Increase appropriate partnerships within the community.
The New Hanover County Parks and Gardens Department currently partners with a number of agencies
to provide programs and activities to the community. The Department should continue to explore
additional opportunities as well as build on their existing partnerships. Where not already in place, the
Department should ensure that all existing and future partnerships are accurately portrayed in a signed
partnership agreement (Sample Partnership Policy has been provided as a staff document).
Objective 1.5 — Staff appropriately to meet current demand and maintain established quality of
service.
As recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, new facilities, greenways, bike paths
and trails, parks, and facility upgrades are implemented, it is important to evaluate staffing levels to
maintain current performance standards. This may require new positions in the Department.
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1— Explore Additional Funding Options.
The Department should continue to explore opportunities and develop strategies to seek alternative
funding sources that include donations, grants, and sponsorships.
Objective 2.2 — Establish a Best Practice Cost Recovery and Pricing Philosophy and Practice.
The Department currently has a fee schedule, but it varies based on the different service areas. The
Parks and Gardens Department should consider a pricing methodology to determine a consistent
method of pricing activities and services throughout the Department. The new resource allocation and
cost recovery philosophy, model, and policy should be grounded in the values, vision, and mission of
New Hanover County, while generating adequate revenues to sustain New Hanover County facilities,
parks, programs, and services. It should be reviewed annually.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 64
Objective 2.3 — Explore opportunities to increase sponsorships.
The Department currently has sponsorship arrangements for special events and activities, and it should
continue to explore additional sponsorship opportunities and build on existing sponsorships. All existing
and future sponsorships should be evaluated to ensure that they are accurately portrayed in a signed
sponsorship agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy has been provided as a staff document).
Objective 2.4 — Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities.
The Department currently takes advantage of grant opportunities available for facility improvements.
Within the last year, the Department has secured a grant from Trillium Health Resources (inclusive
playground) and the Tony Hawk Foundation, and initiated an IndieGoGo crowdfunding effort (Skate
Park). The Parks and Gardens Department should continue to pursue any and all grant opportunities at
the federal, state, regional, and local levels.
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1— Explore opportunities to increase recreational opportunities based on demand and
trends.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand recreational programs and
activities based on community demand and current trends. The community would like to see additional
programs for all ages as well as more special events. As new programs are developed, continue to
monitor recreational trends to stay current with programming and demand. As popularity in program
offerings and activities increases, continue to look for opportunities to expand programs around working
hours and commuting citizen's schedules. As new programs and services are developed and
implemented, continue to create a balance between passive and active recreation.
Objective 3.2 — Explore opportunities to increase the number of community events based on demand
and trends.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand community special events. In order
to ensure that events reflect the diversity of the community, the Department should engage the
community in event development. Community events like the Food Truck Rodeo have been very well
received and attended.
Objective 3.3 — Work with other service providers to develop programs and service to meet demand
and trends.
As popularity in program offerings and activities increases, continue to look for opportunities to expand
programs while working with other service providers within the County, and formalize these agreements
in writing.
Goal 4: Maintain and Improve Facilities and Amenities
Objective 4.1— Maintain and improve existing facilities.
The Department should continue to implement existing plans, the CIP and the Master Plan. Additionally,
through a Deferred Maintenance Plan, the Department needs to address the backlog that will address
low scoring components identified as part of the inventory. Priority should be given to parks that serve
the highest number of residential units. These plans should be reviewed annually and updated as
needed.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 65
Objective 4.2 — Expand greenways, bike paths, trails, and connectivity.
The Department should continue to implement the existing Comprehensive Greenway Plan and update
as needed based on annual reviews. Expansion of greenways, bikeways, and blue ways will help improve
the service areas of the individual park sites and as a result improve the level of service provided to the
residents. As new and existing greenways, bike paths, and trails are designed and renovated, the
Department should consider appropriate surface materials and construction methods. Crossings at
major thoroughfares should be studied in conjunction with NCDOT CIP plans in order to improve the
pedestrian experience at Hugh MacRae Park as well as at Ogden Park.
Objective 4.3 — Develop additional recreational facilities and amenities.
Based on feedback from focus group participants and the survey results, there is a need for additional
indoor recreation space. The Department should continue to explore opportunities to add additional
indoor recreation space through partnerships, purchase of an existing facility, or construction of a
Community Center or Fieldhouse. The community also had an interest in an indoor aquatic facility. An
opportunity exists to develop a partnership with the YMCA and UNC- Wilmington to construct and
operate a County indoor aquatic facility. Also based on popularity and success, the County should
continue to find opportunities to install Splash Pads at existing facilities. Through the success of the
Trillium grant program, the addition of accessible playgrounds will improve the social and physical
accessibility of the overall park system. Additional existing sites should be evaluated for future grant
opportunities with a goal of having an accessible playground at each major park within the county
corresponding with the overall population distribution.
Objective 4.4 — Develop new amenities at existing parks based on level of service analysis.
Demand for usage of New Hanover County parks and athletic facilities continues to grow, and the
Department should look for opportunities to add new amenities to enhance the experience for users. As
New Hanover County continues to grow, the Department should look for opportunities to add parks and
greenways, bike paths, and trails in those new growth areas. In addition, based on the Level of Service
analysis, the Department should look for opportunities to add new components at existing parks where
the level of service is below threshold. Where existing trails are available in parks, the County should
look to add outdoor fitness equipment as well as playgrounds to enhance family recreational
opportunities. Pickleball is one of the fastest growing sports in the nation; focus group participants
indicated a need for dedicated pickleball courts in the County. Northern Regional Park would be a good
location to develop pickleball courts for both recreational play as well as possibly hosting tournaments.
Objective 4.5 — Develop individual Park Master Plans.
Based on the Inventory and Level of Service recommendations in the Master Plan, develop individual
park master plans to address low scoring components and repurpose spaces for better usage
Objective 4.6 — Improve parking at parks and popular venues.
Parking was an issue that was identified at most of the focus groups. The Department should continue
to monitor parking during peak usage times and explore the need to improve or develop parking plans
to accommodate events. Another consideration would be to explore alternative transportation options
to reduce parking demand.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 66
Objective 4.7 — Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities.
According to the ADA.gov website, "Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title 11 of the ADA requires
State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities...
One important way to ensure that Title 11's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self -
evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self - evaluation enables local governments to
pinpoint the facilities, programs, and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local
governments are complying with the ADA."
Parks and Gardens currently does not have an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan, which identifies needed
changes during a self - evaluation process. The Department needs to conduct a self - evaluation and
develop a comprehensive transition plan. Once the ADA Transition Plan is developed and adopted, it
should be updated at least every five (5) years.
Objective 4.8 — Upgrade convenience and customer service amenities to existing facilities.
As the Department is making upgrades to and improving existing facilities, it should explore
opportunities to add shade, storage, security lighting, synthetic turf, and other amenities appropriately
at existing facility.
Objective 4.9 — Identify gaps that are in need of service.
The Department needs to continue to find and purchase additional land for future park development.
Focus should be given to areas experiencing additional residential development in the northeast of the
County and the south. The southern portion of the County is experiencing rapid development of the
large remaining land tracks and should be considered as a priority. The northern end of the County is
also undergoing development along the eastern edge in association with the coastal access points, as
opportunities arise the County should look to provide additional water access. The Nature Preserves
within the County provide opportunities to maintain water quality while increasing open space for
County residents with the installation of Nature Trails for passive recreation.
Objective 4.10 — Create plans that addresses development, acquisition, and use of vacant spaces.
Develop a plan to identify the current inventory of available, developable parkland for future expansion.
The plan should address the current inventory of available, unused, or under -used facilities for future
redevelopment or expansion. A plan should also be developed that inventories all the existing pathways,
trails, greenways and blueways to identify possible connections as well as gaps in connectivity.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 67
The Action Plan
The following Goals, Objectives, and Action Items for the recommendations are drawn from the public
input, inventory, level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all of the information gathered during
the master planning process. The primary focus is maintaining, sustaining, and improving New Hanover
County parks, gardens, recreation, and greenways /trails /bike paths. All cost estimates are in 2016
figures where applicable. Most costs are dependent on the extent of the enhancements and
improvements determined.
Timeframe to complete is designated as:
• Short -term (up to 3 years)
• Mid -term (4 -6 years)
• Long -term (7 -10 years)
• Ongoing (occurs on a continuous basis)
Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 1.1:
Establish and maintain a level of service quality to citizens
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
1.1.a Purchase and
Continue maintaining the park acreage /1,000 development of Staff Time Mid -Term
population ratio. 168 acres by 2025
1.1.b
Where population densities will support it, consider a
Level of Service Standard that accounts for
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
components within parks and a radius of .5 miles per
component.
Objective 1.2:
Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding department activities and services
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
1.2.a
$0 Staff Time Short -Term
Develop a Marketing Plan.
1.2.16
Review Marketing Plan annually. Update the
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
Marketing Plan every five years.
1.2.c
Consider contracting with or creating an internal
% of successful
position for greater resource development and
Potential Matching
donations /$40 000
Short -Term
outreach. Contractor /position could also contribute
Funds TBD
- $50,000 annually
Mid -Term
to the Department's donation efforts.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 68
Objective 1.3:
Maintain existing facilities and amenities
Operational Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
1.3.a
Continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities
and amenities as well as to address low scoring See CIP Plan Staff Time Short -Term
components through the CIP, Fixed Asset
Replacement.
1.3.b
Develop a Deferred Maintenance Plan to insure
Based on Deferred
Staff Time
Ongoing
consistent application of maintenance standards and
Maintenance Plan
cost efficiencies.
Objective 1.4:
Increase appropriate partnerships within the community
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
Staff Time
1.4.a TBD
Explore additional partnership o pportunities as well $0 Potential
Ongoing
increased revenue
as build on existing partnerships.
or decreased
expenses
1.4.b
Continue to ensure that all existing and future
partnerships are accurately portrayed in a signed
$0
Staff Time
Short
agreement. Examples of those currently being used
-Term
are in -kind, collaborative, intergovernmental, MOU,
facility use, and youth sports provider.
Objective 1.5:
Staff appropriately to meet current demand and maintain established
quality of service
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget ..
1.5.a
Hire, conduct orientation with, and train staff for
$0
TBD Ongoing
current and future park, facilities, beaches, and
greenway /trails /bike path maintenance demands.
1.5.b
Hire, conduct orientation with, and train staff for
$0
TBD Ongoing
current and future recreation programming and
facility usage demands.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 69
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1
Explore Additional Funding Options
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
2.1.a
Continue to seek alternative funding sources that $0 Staff Time Short -Term
includes donations, grants, and others.
Objective 2.2:
Establish a Best Practice Pricing Philosophy
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
2.2.a
Develop a resource allocation and pricing
$0 Staff Time Short -Term
philosophy model that is grounded in the values,
vision, and mission of New Hanover County.
2.2.b
Establish a pricing methodology that continuously
reflects community values, while generating
$0
Staff Time
Short -Term
adequate revenues to sustain New Hanover County
facilities, parks, gardens, programs, and services.
Reviewed annually.
Objective 2.3
Explore opportunities to increase sponsorships
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
Staff Time
2.3.a TBD
Explore additional sponsorship opportunities and $0 Potential Ongoing
increased revenue
build on existing sponsorships.
or decreased
expenses
2.3.b
Ensure all existing and future sponsorships are
accurately portrayed in a signed sponsorship
$0
Staff Time
Short -Term
agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy provided as
a staff document).
Objective 2.4:
Pursue funding for Parks and Gardens Facility Improvements
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
2.4.a
Determine needs, timing, and cost estimate by park
$0 Staff Time Short -Term
project for the long -term needs of the park system
with those projects being prioritized.
2.4.b
Explore options of financing, including pay go,
Short -Term
where needed including determining what the
$0
Staff Time
County's overall debt capacity is projected to be in
On going
the future.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 70
Objective 2.5:
Pursue arant and
ities
2.5.a
Continue to pursue grant opportunities and
philanthropic donations.
$0
Staff Time
Short -Term
Mid -Term
2.S.b
Operational
3.1.a
Consider contracting with a dedicated grant writer
Potential
% of successful
Expand program opportunities for fitness /wellness,
to research, submit, and track federal, regional,
Matching Funds
grants TBD
Short -Term
state, and local grants.
TBD
programs.
2.5.c
Contracted
of successful
3.1.b
Consider contracting with or creating an internal
Potential
donations /$40,00
Short -Term
position for greater resource development and
Matching Funds
0- $50,000
Mid -Term
outreach. Contractor /position could also contribute
TBD
passive and active recreation.
to the Department's marketing efforts.
annually
Objective 3.2:
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1:
Explore opportunities to increase recreational opportunities based on demand and trends
Actions
Capital Cost
Operational
3.1.a
Estimate
Budget ..
Varies based on
Expand program opportunities for fitness /wellness,
$0
programs
Short -Term
environmental education, and adult non -sport
Paid staff or
programs.
Contracted
3.1.b
As new programs and services are developed and
$0
$0
Ongoing
implemented, continue to create a balance between
passive and active recreation.
Objective 3.2:
Explore opportunities to increase the number of community events based on demand and trends
Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget ..
3.2.a
Varies based on
Continue to look for opportunities to expand $0
events and event Ongoing
community special events throughout the County.
management
Objective 3.3:
Work with other service providers to develop programs and service to meet demand and trends
Capital Cost
Operational
3.3.a
Budget Impact
Continue to look for opportunities to expand programs
$0
$0 Ongoing
while working with the Other Service Providers within
the County, and formalize these agreements in writing.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 71
Goal 4: Improve Facilities and Amenities
Objective 4.1
Maintain and improve existing facilities
Actions
Capital Cost
Operational
4.1.a
Estimate
Budget ..
Continue to implement existing plans, CIP, Master
Plan, and, through the development of a Deferred
TBD
Staff time
Ongoing
Maintenance Plan, address maintenance backlog for
low scoring components.
Objective 4.2:
Expand greenways, bike paths and trails connectivity
Actions
Capital Cost
Operational
Estimate
Will vary based on
Budget ..
4.2.a
material and
Based on length
Continue working with other County Departments
Short -Term
and partner agencies to develop and expand
construction
added- Additional
Mid -Term
Range is $125-
staff /contract
greenways, bike paths, and trails to connect
$170 per linear
maintenance costs
Long -Term
communities, neighborhoods, and parks.
foot
Objective 43:
Develop additional recreational facilities and amenities
Actions
Capital Cost
Operational
Estimate
Budget Impact
Complete
4.3.a
$110- 135.00
Mid -Term
Explore partnership opportunities to provide
square foot
Long -Term
additional indoor recreation space.
4.3.b
50,000 sq. ft.
$280 -$320 per
Explore the opportunity to partner with the YMCA
square foot cost
Mid -Term
and UNC- Wilmington to construct an additional
(highly variable
Long -Term
indoor aquatic facility.
based on features)
4.3.c
Additional staff
Explore opportunities to provide additional lighted
Varies based on
time and
Mid -Term
land costs
Long -Term
multipurpose rectangular fields.
maintenance
4.3.d
Varies based on
Additional staff
Explore opportunities to increase public waterfront
type and location
time
Long -Term
access.
4.3.e
$300,000-
$500,000
$1,500 year
Short -Term
Install additional Splash Pads at existing parks,
Based on site and
maintenance
Mid -Term
especially at Ogden Park.
utilities
$500,000 -
4.3.f
$750,000 per field
Explore opportunities to provide additional lighted
should be
Short -Term
Mid -Term
baseball /softball fields.
budgeted based
on site
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 72
Objective 4.4:
Develop new amenities at existing parks based on current level of service analysis
Actions
Capital Cost
Operational
Estimate
Budget ..
Reduces cost of
$2 -3 per square foot
maintenance and
4.4.a
for drainage repairs
scale of mowing
Look for opportunities to transition some natural
and $5 -6 per square
needs
Increased play
Short -Term
Mid -Term
turf multipurpose rectangular fields to synthetic
foot for turf
time reducing
fields at regional parks.
Plan for $800k-
demand for
$1,000,000 per field
new /additional
fields.
4.4.b
Look for opportunities to add additional lights to
$120 -$160k per field
$2,000- $5,000 per
Short- Term
parks and athletic fields, especially at Eaton,
field annually
Mid -Term
Veteran's, and Hugh MacRae Parks.
Will vary based on
4.4.c
material and
Additional staff
Look for opportunities to increase connectivity
construction
time and
Short -Term
between public spaces through the development of
Range is $125 -$170
maintenance
Mid -Term
greenways /bike paths /trails.
per linear foot
4.4.d
$10,000-$20,000
Staff Time +
Install outdoor fitness equipment at existing parks
depending o n kits
depending o s
needed
Short -Term
with fitness trails.
maintenance
Staff time + $500 -
4.4.e
$200, 000,
000 per court for 1
,
Construct lighted pickle ball courts at Northern
tournament needs
maintenance and
Short -Term
Regional Park for recreational play as well
6 -8 courts
long term
Mid -Term
tournament play.
renovation
Objective 4.5:
Develop individual Park Master Plans
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.5.a Varies based on
Based on the Inventory, develop individual park project estimate
Staff Time Short -Term
$15,000 for small Sta
master plans to address low scoring components and park up to $50,000 Mid -Term
repurpose spaces for better usage. per large park
4.S.b
Continue to verify that Other Service Providers are
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
not filling gaps in LOS.
Objective 4.6:
Improve parking at parks and popular venues
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.6.a Varies based on
Short -Term
Explore the need to improve and potentially add project. $3,500- $0
Mid -Term
more parking at appropriate parks and amenities. $5,200 per space.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 73
Objective 4.7:
Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.7.a $80- $100,000 Staff time +
Develop and implement an ADA Accessibility planning fees monitoring and Short -Term
Transition Plan. reporting
4.7.b
Update the ADA Accessibility Transition Plan every
$15,000 - $20,000
Staff Time
Ongoing
five years.
Objective 4.8:
Upgrade convenience and customer service amenities to existing facilities
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.8.a
Explore opportunities to add shade, storage, public Varies based on Ongoing
Ongoing
art, security lighting, seating, etc. appropriately at project maintenance
existing facilities.
Objective 4.9:
Identify gaps that are need of service
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.9.a
Continue to assess available land for future park Varies based on
$0 Ongoing
property
development.
4.9.b
Look at Nature Preserves for opportunities to
increase open space and passive recreation through
Varies based on
Staff Time and
Short -Term
the development of Nature Trails (i.e., Smith Creek
project
maintenance
Park, Peterson parcel, Skipper parcel, and River Road
properties.
Objective 4.10:
Create a plan that addresses development, acquisition and use of vacant spaces
Operational Actions Capital Cost
Budget Estimate ..
4.10.a
Develop a plan to identify the current inventory of $0 Staff Time Short -Term
available, developable parkland for future expansion.
4.10.b
Develop a plan to address the current inventory of
$0
Staff Time
Short -Term
available, unused or under used facilities for future
sale, redevelopment, or expansion.
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 74
Appendix A: Public Input Summary
New Hanover County Public Engagement Sessions
New Hanover County Parks and Gardens Master Plan
Engagement Sessions Introduction
Public engagement sessions were organized by the consultants in conjunction with Parks and Gardens
staff. They were held primarily in the County's Executive Development Center. One session, geared
toward teens, was held at Hoggard High School and another session, as well as the public report out,
was held in the County's Government Center. The sessions were held at a variety of times in an effort to
solicit as much participation as possible. Participants were asked at each meeting to sign in with their
name and email address.
This Public Engagement Summary is a synopsis of issues that were identified during nine meetings with
the public, staff, and teens. There were a total of 75 individuals that participated to give their input.
Questions were developed by GreenPlay with assistance from New Hanover County Parks and Gardens
staff. The input listed below is a summary of comments made in focus group meetings. Participants in
the focus groups expressed general agreement with this input.
Public Engagement Meeting Schedule:
Main Public Meetings
• Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 9:00 AM — Executive Development Center
• Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 2:00 PM — Executive Development Center
• Tuesday, November 17, 2015 @ 10:30 AM — Executive Development Center
• Tuesday, November 17, 2015 @ 5:30 PM — County Government Center
Stakeholder Meetings
■ Local Jurisdictions — Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 10:30 AM — Executive Development
Center
• UNC Wilmington — Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 11:30 AM — Executive Development
Center
• Teens — Tuesday, November 17, 2015 @ 3:30 PM — Hoggard High School
County Employees Meetings
• Parks and Gardens Staff — Tuesday, November 17, 2015 @ 7:30 AM — Executive
Development Center
• Project Team — Wednesday, November 18, 2015 @ 8:30 AM — County Government
Center
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 75
Meeting Attendance
• November 16, 9:00 AM — Executive Development Center: 6
• November 16, 10:30 AM — Executive Development Center: 6
• November 16, 2:00 PM — Executive Development Center: 4
• November 16, 11:30 AM — Executive Development Center: 3
• November 17, 7:30 AM — Executive Development Center: 10
• November 17, 10:30 AM — Executive Development Center: 6
• November 17, 3:30 PM — Hoggard High School: 19
• November 17 — County Government Center: 16
• November 18 — County Government Center: 5
Total Public Attendance: 60
Total Staff Attendance: 15
Engagement Topics
The same set of 18 questions were asked at each pubic engagement meeting to facilitate discussion and
get a sense of community needs, opinions, ideas, and desires. The questions were as follows:
1) How long have you been a resident of New Hanover County?
<5 years
5 -9 years
10 -19 years
20+ years
Not a resident but use programs /facilities
2) What are the strengths of the Parks and Gardens Department that should be continued over the
next several years?
3) Conversely, what are the major weaknesses that need to be addressed through the Parks and
Gardens Master Plan?
4) How satisfied are you with the quality of current programs offered? Why?
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
5) What additional programs or activities do you feel the Parks and Gardens Department should
offer that are currently not available?
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 76
6) How satisfied are you with the overall quality of the existing park and recreation facilities
provided by the Parks and Gardens Department? Why?
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
7) How would you rate the overall level of maintenance at the facilities owned or operated by the
Department? Please identify the location and specifics of any maintenance concerns.
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
8) What improvements are needed at existing facilities? Where are these improvements needed?
9) Are there any portions of the community that are underserved? Please explain (i.e., where and
what type of amenities are needed, what market segment needs more attention, etc.).
10) What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see the community provide?
11) Are there any facilities and /or programs currently available that should be eliminated? If so,
which ones and why?
12) How would you rate the quality of customer service provided by the Parks and Recreation staff?
Please elaborate.
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
13) How effective is the Department in seeking feedback from the community and users on
improving its performance?
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 77
14) The Parks and Gardens Department's programs and facilities are currently funded through a
combination of revenue sources, including General Fund, User Fees, Impact Fees, and
Partnerships. Do you think this is an appropriate way to fund the department?
Yes
No
Do Not Know
15) Who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community concerning assisting with the
implementation of this plan?
16) What are the key issues and values in the New Hanover community that need to be considered
while developing this Master Plan Update?
17) Are there any political sensitivities we should be aware of that could impact the success of the
Parks and Gardens Department's planning efforts?
18) During the next 5 -10 years, what are the top parks, recreation and culture priorities for the
Parks and Gardens Department?
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 78
General Community Response —All Engagement Meetings
Each meeting was conducted by at least two members of the consultant team. One would facilitate the
meeting and the other would note the public input and responses. One document of notes compiled all
the public feedback and the responses to each question were either emphasized or added on over the
course of all of the engagement meetings. The following question responses were the most prevalent
and consistently recurring comments voiced across all engagement meetings. They represent the
strongest opinions, concerns, needs, ideas, and desires of the citizenry county wide. Items followed by
one or more asterisks ( *) were mentioned that number of times throughout the public meetings. This
does not include County Staff, Committee members, and stakeholder feedback, only New Hanover
County Residents who attended the engagement meetings. Please refer to notes and reference
materials for County employees' feedback and responses.
1) How long have you been a resident of New Hanover County?
1 <5 years
2 5 -9 years
6 10 -19 years
6 20+ years
1 Not a resident but use programs /facilities
2) What are the strengths of the Parks and Gardens Department that should be continued over the
next several years?
Staff is accommodating
Good facility scheduling
Diversity of parks and amenities *
Staff listens to different user groups /good communication*
Accessibility
Cleanliness and safety*
Arboretum / Airlie
Variety of opportunities / amenities / user groups / distribution **
Balance between active and passive recreation
Number of parks
Affordability
3) Conversely, what are the major weaknesses that need to be addressed through the Parks and
Gardens Master Plan?
Lack of a dedicated softball complex
Budget constraints, lack of funding
Size of the area, no new land
Knowing the difference between what's city and what's county
Lack of adequate facility for youth football
County resources spent on schools
Scheduling of school facilities, general communication
Limited field space, overused*
Drainage /condition of the fields*
Lack of a facility to accommodate large tournaments indoor and outdoor*
Lack of athletic field lighting*
Adequate staff to maintain current facilities
Marketing /Communication
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 79
No synthetic fields
Lack of variety of amenities for all ages and user groups
Contention with NHPS
Overlap between City and County
4) How satisfied are you with the quality of current programs offered? Why?
7 5 Excellent
9 4 Very Good
3 Good
1 2 Fair
1 Poor
5) What additional programs or activities do you feel the Parks and Gardens Department should
offer that are currently not available?
Pickleball **
Additional environmental education programs
Exercise /Fitness
Events /Drop in programs /demonstrations
More food truck events and events like it
County -run introduction youth sports leagues
6) How satisfied are you with the overall quality of the existing park and recreation facilities
provided by the Parks and Gardens Department? Why?
1 5 Excellent
2 4 Very Good
6 3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
7) How would you rate the overall level of maintenance at the facilities owned or operated by the
Department? Please identify the location and specifics of any maintenance concerns.
5 Excellent
8 4 Very Good
1 3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 80
8) What improvements are needed at existing facilities? Where are these improvements needed?
Rotate scheduled use for increased maintenance
Improve field turf*
Better enforcement of park rules —field closures
Drainage on fields * **
Lights **
Concessions
Restrooms
Bleachers /seating
Parking: better, improved
Shade structures
9) Are there any portions of the community that are underserved? Please explain (i.e., where and
what type of amenities are needed, what market segment needs more attention, etc.).
Public water access — beaches, backwater, non - motorized, etc.
Southern County
Central County
Downtown Wilmington kids
10) What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see the community provide?
Rectangular fields * * * **
Softball complex*
Water access /boat launch*
Indoor recreation facility*
More lighted facilities*
Synthetic*
Splash pads
Swimming pool — outdoor
Indoor tennis courts
Trails /sidewalks /bike paths
11) Are there any facilities and /or programs currently available that should be eliminated? If so,
which ones and why?
Low participation sports facilities repurposed for higher participation sports
facilities
Spend money on bricks, mortar, maintenance and not programs offered by
others
12) How would you rate the quality of customer service provided by the Parks and Recreation staff?
Please elaborate.
4 5 Excellent
5 4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 81
13) How effective is the Department in seeking feedback from the community and users on
improving its performance?
2 5 Excellent
5 4 Very Good
2 3 Good
2 Fair
1 Poor
14) The Parks and Gardens Department's programs and facilities are currently funded through a
combination of revenue sources, including General Fund, User Fees, Impact Fees, and
Partnerships. Do you think this is an appropriate way to fund the department?
9 Yes
No
Do Not Know
User fees at the same level for all users for use of fields
Field maintenance fee per player
Additional markets that could be tapped into
Educating the community about true costs of services
Review payment structures for tournaments /field use /race entry fees
Standardize facility rentals /usage fees within the region **
15) Who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community with regards to assisting with the
implementation of this plan?
City of Wilmington
Business community * **
Medical community
UNCW
Friends groups
Youth and adult sports associations*
Local land trust
Cape Fear Community College
Land Trust
Individual donors
Grants and foundations
Board of Commissioners
Youth /teens /community service /Boy & Girl Scouts
Senior groups
Service organizations
Water sports associations
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 82
16) What are the key issues and values in the New Hanover community that need to be considered
while developing this Master Plan Update?
Taxes — ability to pay for things
Safety
Location
Accessibility
Parking
Restrooms, concessions
Committed to the outdoors
Sustainability
Forward thinking /staying current with trends
Community health /activities
Connectivity
Mixed use development in the County; live, work and play
17) Are there any political sensitivities we should be aware of that could impact the success of the
Parks and Gardens Department's planning efforts?
City of Wilmington/ City /County "They don't play nice "*
Budget
Cave to pressure /sticking with decisions
Good old boy network /perception of power /sense of entitlement
Inclusion /diversity
Taxes
18) During the next 5 -10 years, what are the top parks, recreation and culture priorities for the
Parks and Gardens Department?
Increase facilities **
Increase awareness and outreach to use facilities
Relationship with NHPS
Solicit sponsorships
Trail connectivity between localities * /neighborhood /businesses
Playgrounds, amenities
Additional parks, trails
Additional rectangular fields with lights * **
Lights on existing fields
Major sports complex for hosting tournaments
WiFi access in parks
New Hanover County Parks app
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 83
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 84
Appendix B: Level of Service Report
Board of Commissioners - January 23, 2017
ITEM: 12- 2 - 85