1. 1 Presented by: In association with: ETC Institute Leisure Vision Nationally Recognized….Uniquely Local March 2008

2. 2  Connecting people to opportunities and places within Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Services  Three Key Themes: ▪ Conservation and Stewardship ▪ Parks and Greenways ▪ Recreation Programs and Facilities

3. 3  Seek community input to guide Department direction  Update Nature Preserves Plan  Update Greenways Plan  Identify GAPS in parks and recreation facilities across the County and in Towns  Identify remaining pieces of land that could be acquired for park and nature preserves  Establish what to do with “land banked” properties

4. 4  Development of a Program Plan for the Department to implement  Establish park, facility and amenity standards and needs across the County  Establish a Capital Improvement Plan for existing assets, new parks, recreation facilities, and land  Coordinate the needs of Towns in the County with the MCPR Master Plan as one plan

5. 5  Focus groups, stakeholder interviews, household survey  Analysis of existing master planning documents  Greenprinting process to identify available land and gaps based on a weighted criteria built on community values for natural areas, neighborhood parks, community parks, and regional parks

6. 6 Citizen Survey Results

7. 7 Mecklenburg County Citizen Survey  Questions on full range of usage, customer satisfaction, needs, unmet needs, and priorities questions  Goal of 1,000 completed surveys.  Actually completed 1033 surveys. Results have 95% level of confidence with margin of error of +/-3%

8. 8 Finding #1: Usage of Parks is High with Good Satisfaction

9. 9 Finding #2: Participation in Programs is Lower with Good Satisfaction

10. 10 Finding #3: Mecklenburg County is Prime Provider of Services

11. 11 Finding #6: Residents Have a Need for a Wide Range of Parks and Recreation Facilities

12. 12 Finding #8: Walking and Biking Trails and Outdoor Swimming Pools Are Most Important Facilities

13. 13 Finding #9: Respondents Have a Need for a Wide Range of Programs

14. 14 Finding #13: 50% of Respondents Do Not Feel There Are Sufficient Parks and Green Space Areas Within Walking Distance of Their Residence, With 11% Not Sure

15. 15 Finding #14: Using Greenways for Environmental Protection and Major Connected Network of Trails Are Very Important

16. 16 Finding #16: Purchase Land to Preserve Open/Green Space, Use Floodplain Greenways to Develop Trails/Facilities, and Develop New & Connect Existing Walking/Biking Trails Are Most Important Actions

17. 17 Finding #16: Purchase Land to Preserve Open/Green Space, Use Floodplain Greenways to Develop Trails/Facilities, and Develop New & Connect Existing Walking/Biking Trails Are Most Important Actions 44% 34% 28% 25% 22% 18% 17% 13% 12% 10% 9% 6% 5% 4% 1% 4% Purchase land to preserve open/green space Use floodplain greenways to develop trails/facil Develop new & connect existing walk/biking trails Fix-up/repair older park buildings/recreation ctrs Upgrade existing neighborhood/community parks Develop new nature trails/nature centers Develop new indoor recreation centers Develop special events park for festivals/concerts Purchase land to protect the environment Purchase land to develop athletic fields/rec facil Develop multi-purpose indoor athletic/activity ctr Upgrade existing youth/adult athletic fields Develop new off-leash dog parks Develop new fieldhouse at Grandy Cole Center site Develop new outdoor spray pools Develop a new 50 meter competitive pool Develop skate parks Develop soap box derby Other 0%20%40%60% 1st Choice2nd Choice3rd Choice4th Choice Q17. Actions Respondents Would Be Most Willing to Fund With Their County Tax Dollars Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2008) by percentage of respondents who selected it as one of their top four choices

18. 18 Finding #17: Over 75% of Respondents Would Vote in Favor or Might Vote in Favor of a Bond Referendum to Fund the Acquisition, Improvement and Development of the Parks, Trails and Facilities Most Important to Their Households

19. 19 Summary of Overall Findings  Usage of parks is high with good satisfaction  Participation in programs is lower with good satisfaction  Mecklenburg County Parks is the prime provider of services

20. 20 Summary of Overall Findings  Enjoyment of the outdoors and close to our home/residence are prime reasons for usage  Market reach of web site is high with opportunities to improve overall marketing  There is a wide range of needs and unmet needs for outdoor and indoor parks, trails, recreation facilities and programs

21. 21 Summary of Overall Findings  Walking and biking trails are the most important facilities, followed by small neighborhood parks, and large community and regional parks  Special events/festivals and adult fitness and wellness programs are most important programs

22. 22 Summary of Overall Findings  Market opportunities exist to grow programs of high importance at Mecklenburg County facilities  50% of household respondents do not feel there are sufficient parks and green space areas within walking distances of their residence, with 11% not sure

23. 23 Summary of Overall Findings  88% or more of households feel it is important to use Mecklenburg County Greenways for environmental protection and a major connected network of walking, biking and nature trails

24. 24 Summary of Overall Findings  Purchase land to preserve open/green space, use floodplain greenways to develop trails/facilities, and develop new and connect existing walking and biking trails are most important actions respondents would support with tax dollars

25. 25

26. 26 Park and Facilities Standards

27. 27 Park and Facilities Standards

28. 28 Park and Facilities Standards

29. 29

30. Greenprinting: 2-stage process 1.Resource Analysis Top-down conservation assessment 2.Parcel Prioritization Bottom-up acquisition analysis

31. 5% Forested Habitat 5% Early Successional Habitat 5% Wetland Habitat 5% Riparian Habitat 5% Natural Heritage Sites 25% Buffer zones adjacent to identified unique/rare habitats and NHSs 10% Wildlife Corridors 10% Endangered, Rare, and Species of Concern 5% Critical Watersheds 25% Large Unbroken Natural Areas *Relative weights indicate strategic importance for acquisition

32. Requirements:  Must be greater than 5 acres  Must contain a critical natural resource Scoring Criteria:  Total area of natural or pervious cover  Cultural resource present: farmland or historic site  Adjacent to an existing Nature Preserve  Targeted for acquisition (MIL Corridor property or 2007 Natural Areas Needs Assessment property)  Significant for water quality protection  Adjacent to existing park or greenway  Adjacent to other natural areas (CLC lands)  No Nature Preserve within a 3 mile radius

33. Tier 1 60 properties 3,578 acres Tier 2 28 additional properties 2,591 additional acres Tier 1 and Tier 2 - Priority Lands for Natural Area Protection

34. Tier 1 60 properties 3,578 acres Tier 2 28 additional properties 2,591 additional acres Tier 3 85 additional properties 6,991 additional acres Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 - Priority Lands for Natural Area Protection

35. Rate of Development

36. 36 Land Banked Properties - Nature Preserves Stevens Creek Nature Preserve Berryhill Nature Preserve Oehler Nature Preserve Gateway Nature Preserve & Community Park Davis Farm Nature Preserve (N. side of Hucks Road) Sherman Branch – to be determined / remain land-banked

37. 37 Land Banked Properties - Neighborhood, Community & Regional Parks Neighborhood Parks Teddington Drive Crossridge Road Eagles Landing property Lincoln Heights property Mayerling Drive Prosperity Church property Reid Park property Community Parks Capps property Ezzel Farm property Belt Road property Pineville property Reddman property Gateway property Hucks Road property Regional Parks Back Creek Church Road property Eastfield property Sherman Branch – to be determined / remain land-banked

38. 38 7-1. Master Planning: Is the recreation center identified in the 2008 Parks Master Plan? [Y=2, N=0] 7-2. Property Ownership: Does the county, or partnering entity, currently own all parcels necessary for recreation center development? [Y=6, N=0] 7-3. Service Gap: Are there any developed recreation centers within a 2.5 mile radius? [Y=0, N=3] 7-4. Expansion: Does the project expand the current scope of programming at the recreation center? [Y=1, N=0] 7-5. Partnership Opportunity: Has a school, senior center, church, and / or library partnership opportunity been identified? [Y=5, N=0] Have outside funding sources been identified? [Y=3, N=0] Is the recreation center adjacent to a school, senior center, church, and / or library facility? [Y=1, N=0] 7-6. Linkages: Is the recreation center adjacent to a planned and / or developed greenway? [Y=1, N=0] Is the recreation center adjacent to a planned and / or developed park? [Y=1, N=0] 7-7. Mass Transit: Is the recreation center within a 0.5 mile radius of a public transportation station / depot? [Y=1, N=0] Nature Center Methodology

39. 39

40. 40 Nature Center - Service Area Analysis

41. 41 Greenway Action Plan Primary Creek Corridors  Minor Modifications – Town additions, citizen input, partnership opportunities 5 Year Development Plan  Focus trail development on County land  Apply ranking criteria to prioritize trail development Improvements to Existing Facilities Overland Connections – coordination with CDOT 10 Year Development Plan  5 Year Acquisition Plan  Previous 10 year CNA  Ranking Criteria

42. 42 Primary Greenway Corridors  Back Creek  Back Creek Tributary  Barton Creek  Briar Creek  Caldwell Station Creek  Campbell Creek  Cane Creek  Clarke Creek, South Prong  Clark’s Creek  Clark’s Creek Tributary  Clem’s Branch  Coffey Creek  Dixon Branch  Doby Creek  Edward’s Branch  Flat Branch  Four Mile Creek  Gum Branch  Irvins Creek  Irwin Creek  Kings Branch  Little Hope Creek  Little Sugar Creek  Long Creek  Mallard Creek  Mallard Creek Tributary  McAlpine Creek  McDowell Creek  McIntyre Creek  McKees Creek  McMullen Creek  Paw Creek  Polk Ditch  Ramah Creek  Reedy Creek  Reedy Creek Tributary  Rocky River  Rocky River, North Prong  Rocky River, South Prong  Rocky River, West Branch  Six Mile Creek  Steele Creek  Stewart Creek  Stewart Creek – Lakewood Tributary  Sugar Creek  Toby Creek  Torrence Creek  Torrence Creek Tributaries  Walker Branch

43. 43 Greenways Trail Development Methodology Trail Development – Ranking Criteria  No Significant Barrier to Construction  Developed Miles Per Park District ▪ 50% 0 points  Project Partnerships ▪ 10 points per mile – public or private partnerships. No $ necessarily tied to development  Funding Partnerships ▪ 1 point per $10,000  Located in Surrounding Town  Listed in Other Adopted Plans or Studies  Linkages -- Connectivity ▪ School, park or greenway facility, planned regional trail, destination, college/library, mixed-use development, transit, office or commercial area, neighborhood access  Land Acquisition Multiplier

44. 44 5 Year Results Trail Development  42.8 miles of trail ($46.8M), 12.8 of which is currently funded  68 miles of trail by 2013!  Distributed across the County  Focus on Partnerships  Trail development in parks and nature preserves Improvements to existing – 22 projects, $5.2M Overland Connections – further collaboration with CDOT Planning Process Update  Stakeholder process on the front end  Town plans are the county plans Recommendations – Ordinance review, Development Efficiencies

45. 45 10 Year Results 5 Year Acquisition Plan Trail Development  Complete Little Sugar Creek Greenway  Complete Mallard Creek Greenway  Regional Connections  CDOT Connections  61.9 miles – total of 129 miles!

46. 46

47. 47 2-stage process: 1.Capacity Service Area Analysis Existing assets - map service areas based on facility capacity 2.Gap Analysis and Parcel Prioritization Identify opportunities for new facilities in service gaps: »Size »Access via frontage on a major or minor thoroughfare »Partnership via adjacency to a school, library »Linkages to greenways »Linkages to developed parks »Residential population within new service area »Public transit accessibility Park Facilities Gaps and Needs Analysis

48. 48 Park Facilities Methodology 6-1. Master Planning: Is the project identified in the 2008 Parks Master Plan? [Y=2, N=0] Does the project have its own approved Master Plan? [Y=2, N=0] 6-2. Service Gap: Are there any parks within the project’s intended service radius? [Y=0, N=4] 6-3. Residential Population: What is the residential population within the intended project’s service radius of the project (normalized to 0.5 mile radius)? [Add 1 point for each 10,000 persons] 6-4. Expansion: Does the project expand the current scope of programming at the facility (i.e. additional phase of development)? [Y=1, N=0] 6-5. Partnership Opportunity: Is project adjacent to a school and / or library? [Y=1, N=0] Has a public and / or private partnership been identified? [Y=1, N=0] Has an outside funding source been identified? [Y=2, N=0] 6-6. Linkages: Is project adjacent to a planned and / or developed greenway? [Y=1, N=0] Is the project adjacent to a planned and / or developed nature center? [Y=1, N=0] Is project adjacent to a planned and / or developed recreation center? [Y=1, N=0] 6-7. Mass Transit: Is the project within a 0.5 mile radius of a public transportation station / depot? [Y=1, N=0]

49. 49 Neighborhood parks are 2 to 20 acres Neighborhood parks service radius is density based upon 3 acres per 1000 people

50. 50 Neighborhood Parks - 10 Year CMS Elementary School Plan

51. 51 Community parks are 20 to 100 acres Community parks service radius is density based upon 4 acres per 1000 people

52. 52 Community Parks - 10 Year CMS High School Plan

53. 53 Regional parks are 100 acres and up. Regional parks service radius is density based upon 5 acres per 1000 people

54. 54 Community and Regional Parks Combined - Service Area Analysis

55. 55 8-1. New Amenity: Does the project provide an amenity and / or recreation activity not currently available? [Y=3, N=0] Does the project produce a new and / or enhanced revenue-generating program? [Y=1, N=0] 8-2. Special Program: Has a unique population (i.e. inner city youth) been identified as beneficiaries of the project? [Y=3, N=0] Does the project expand program offerings that address one of the following needs: (A) drowning prevention, (B) youth obesity, or (C) crime prevention? [Y=2, N=0] 8-3. Partnership Opportunity: Has a private and / or public partnership opportunity been identified? [Y=2, N=0] Will taxpayer dollars be saved via an identified partnership? [Y=2, N=0] Have outside funding sources been identified? [Y=3, N=0] 8-4. Linkages: Is project adjacent to a planned and / or developed greenway? [Y=1, N=0] Is the project adjacent to a planned and / or developed nature center? [Y=1, N=0] Is project adjacent to a planned and / or developed recreation center? [Y=1, N=0] Is the project adjacent to a planned and / or developed park? [Y=1, N=0] 8-5. Mass Transit: Is the recreation center within a 0.5 mile radius of a public transportation station / depot? [Y=1, N=0] Aquatic Facility Methodology

56. 56

57. 57

58. 58 Athletic Field Capacity-Demand Methodology Capacity - amount of hours a field can be played on and still maintain the integrity of a safe play surface. Factors influencing the capacity of a field include: Irrigation improves the capacity of turf to regenerate. Engineering improves the soils and the ability for fields to withstand wear. Synthetic surfaces greatly expand the amount of play a field can withstand. Length of growing season and when play occurs. Softball/baseball fields can withstand more play because much of the play is on a non grass surface.

59. 59 Athletic Field Capacity-Demand Methodology (cont.) Demand - amount of hours (practices and games) that all the leagues and users are putting on fields. Factors impacting demand: Number of participants in leagues. Number of teams. Number of preseason games and practices. Number of regular season games and practices. Number of post season games and practices. Tournaments and special events. Demand is broken down into three main seasons: Quartile 1 - March 1 to May 31 Quartile 2 - June 1 to August 31 Quartile 3 - September 1 to November 30 Quartile 4 – December 1 to February 28 was not analyzed due to limited play.

60. 60 Athletic Field Capacity-Demand Findings The park system is well balanced with a majority of the athletic fields in community and regional parks supporting leagues and tournaments. Field usage by quartile: In the first quartile, 147 of the 189 fields are in use. In the second quartile, 138 of the 189 fields are in use. In the third quartile, 125 of the 189 fields are in use. In all three quartiles, over 100 of the fields are being programmed above recommended capacity. Fields require rest and maintenance and all fields should not be in use during any quartile. A percentage of them should be rested or closed for maintenance. Most fields are being programmed at double the recommeded capacity. 26 of the 30 large multipurpose fields in the first and third quartile are being used above capacity. 39 of the 48 large softball fields in the first and second quartile are being used above capacity.

61. 61 Athletic Field Capacity-Demand Recommendations Develop Two New Policies: Develop a use, rest and preventative maintenance policy that dictates when assets should be off line. Establish a priority use policy based upon entity participation. To Enhance Amateur Sports Opportunities: Develop a 6-8 field youth/fast pitch softball complex. Develop an 8-10 field large multipurpose field complex. Build a field house with multiple courts. Evaluate existing multipurpose field usage for consideration of converting to synthetic surfaces. The need for additional fields based upon current demand: Softball field, 200 foot fence – 5 additional fields. Softball field, 300 foot fence – 1 additional field. Multipurpose field, small – 2 additional fields. Multipurpose field, large – 9 additional fields needed.

62. 62 Athletic Fields Coming Online From 2004 Bonds Adult Baseball Southwest Park 2 Softball fields, 200 foot fence – 5 additional fields needed Berewick 3 Shuffletown 2 Winget 1 Softball fields, 300 foot fence – 1 additional field needed Eastway 2 Bradford Park 5 Multipurpose field, small – 2 additional fields needed Robert L Smith 1 Multipurpose field, large – 9 additional fields needed. Clanton Park 2 Harrisburg 2 Matthews Sportsplex 5 Bradford Park 3 Eastway Park 2 Robert L Smith 2

63. 63 Athletic Fields Planned But Not Funded Softball field, 200 foot fence Berewick 6 Col. Beatty 2 Flat Branch 2 Bradford 2 Mallard Creek 4 Balantyne 3 Winget 3 Softball field, 300 foot fence Col. Beatty 1 Eastway 2 Shuffletown 5 521 Park 4 Balantyne 4 Multipurpose field, small Balantyne 3 Multipurpose field, large Harrisburg 11 Matthews Sportsplex 7 Bradford Park 3 Eastway Park 7 Berewick 7 521 Park 8 Flat Branch 1

64. 64 7-1. Master Planning: Is the recreation center identified in the 2008 Parks Master Plan? [Y=2, N=0] 7-2. Property Ownership: Does the county, or partnering entity, currently own all parcels necessary for recreation center development? [Y=6, N=0] 7-3. Service Gap: Are there any developed recreation centers within a 2.5 mile radius? [Y=0, N=3] 7-4. Expansion: Does the project expand the current scope of programming at the recreation center? [Y=1, N=0] 7-5. Partnership Opportunity: Has a school, senior center, church, and / or library partnership opportunity been identified? [Y=5, N=0] Have outside funding sources been identified? [Y=3, N=0] Is the recreation center adjacent to a school, senior center, church, and / or library facility? [Y=1, N=0] 7-6. Linkages: Is the recreation center adjacent to a planned and / or developed greenway? [Y=1, N=0] Is the recreation center adjacent to a planned and / or developed park? [Y=1, N=0] 7-7. Mass Transit: Is the recreation center within a 0.5 mile radius of a public transportation station / depot? [Y=1, N=0] Recreation Center Methodology

65. 65

66. 66 Assessment of all program services provided by to the County. Assessment of other community suppliers including towns and YMCAs that provided information. Gap analysis of programs not being served adequately in the County with recommendation for enhancing existing services and building new core services. Program Plan Methodology

67. 67 Program Development Recommendations  Offer core programs outlined in the program plan with high cost recovery levels  Utilize training and performance measures to create consistency  Employ partners and volunteers to support program operations and build advocacy for the County recreation program brand  Stronger efforts are necessary in programming existing recreation centers  Theme some centers to attract stronger user participation  Better efforts are necessary to market the services provided

68. 68 Program Development Recommendations, continued  Continue the following core program areas that are already in existence:  Aquatics Programs  Environmental Education  Therapeutic Recreation programs  Athletics for adults and youth  4 ‐ H programs  Golf Services  Senior Adult services

69. 69 Program Development Recommendations, Continued  Develop new core programs in the following areas:  Adventure Sports  Community ‐ wide Special Events  Active Adult Program for 50 to 65 year olds  Fitness and Wellness Programs  Summer Camps and After School Programs  Performing Arts and Fine Arts Programs in conjunction with ASC

70. 70  Evaluate staffing needs to meet core program needs based on the hours required to produce the programs desired and missing in the County  Develop consistent program standards and program development process used for all core programs offered to provide consistency in delivery of services  Implement the Sports Tourism Plan as it applies to developing traditional and nontraditional events in the County to promote the region and create economic impact for the County  Develop a pricing policy based on the true cost of services tied to the level of exclusivity a user receives over a general taxpayer and based on ability to pay Program Development Strategies

71. 71  Develop a marketing strategy for recreation and program services to increase the level of participation by the community from 19% to 30% over the next five years  Develop partnership agreements with measurable outcomes for all special interest groups involved with the County  Develop program partnership agreements with the local towns to maximize each other’s resources and meet the community’s unmet need  Develop program policies on public/public partnerships, public/private partnerships and public/not ‐ for profit partnerships  Develop a specific branding program for program services across the County Program Development Strategies

72. 72

73. 73 Renovations to Existing Facilities Methodology 4-1. Facility Condition: What is the Facility Condition Index Rating of the project? [Facility Condition Index Score] 4-2. Safety: Does the project correct a safety concern? [Y=.05, N=0] 4-3. Accessibility: Does the project improve ADA accessibility to an existing program component? [Y=.05, N=0] 4-4. Visitation: 4-5. Security: Does the project improve security? [Y=.05, N=0] 4-6. Operation and Maintenance Costs: Does the project impact operation and maintenance costs in a positive manner [Y=.05, N=0] 4-7. Operational Support: Does the project have potential to generate revenue or partnerships? [Y=.05, N=0] 4-8. Citywide Citizen Survey: Does the project meet priorities identified in the citywide customer survey? [Y=.05, N=0]

74. 74 Total Maintenance & Repair Costs

75. 75 Facility /Amenity2008 - 2012Score Aquatic Center $ 2,482,8860.24 Reedy Creek Indoor Shelter $ 82,2920.13 East AOB $ 124,6100.10 Grady Cole Center/Memorial Stadium $ 546,3990.09 Reedy Creek Nature Center $ 134,8320.09 Mallard Creek Recreation Center $ 280,6230.09 Southview Recreation Center $ 280,9500.09 Playgrounds $ 686,7530.09 Tennis Courts $ 834,0520.09 521 Park Recreation Center $ 243,6740.08 Marion Diehl Recreation Center $ 513,6680.08 Greenville Recreation Center $ 227,4710.08 Tuckaseegee Recreation Center $ 149,2120.08 Jetton Indoor Shelter $ 39,2640.08 Armory Building $ 171,0990.08 Veterans Indoor Shelter $ 60,4630.08 Col. Francis Beatty Indoor Shelter $ 54,2930.08 Central AOB $ 99,5290.08 Naomi Drenan Recreation Center $ 147,2080.08 West Charlotte Recreation Center $ 139,1570.07 Facility /Amenity2008 - 2012Score Amay James Recreation Center $ 212,3490.07 Arbor Glen Recreation Center $ 196,8680.07 W. R. Davie Indoor Shelter $ 42,4090.06 Methodist Home Recreation Center $ 113,8580.06 Admin. Office Building $ 802,5230.06 Hawthorne Recreation Center $ 133,0900.06 Sugaw Creek Recreation Center $ 109,8650.06 Shelters,well houses,storage areas $ 1,164,7440.06 Caretakers, restrooms, Freedom NC $ 1,396,7600.06 Basketball Courts $ 85,8440.06 Ballfields- Back stops and fencing $ 374,3580.06 Boat Docks $ 166,4000.06 Historic Sites $ 89,9020.06 Mahlon Adams Pavilion $ 32,7290.05 Albemarle Recreation Center $ 156,8620.05 Ray's Splash Planet $ 122,2910.05 Grady Cole Center/Memorial Stadium $ 281,3760.05 Latta Nature Center $ 46,5120.05 W. R. Davie Indoor Shelter $ 30,3050.05 Waymer Recreation Center $ 70,1940.04 Total Maintenance & Repair Costs 2008-2012

76. 76 Facility /Amenity2008 - 2012Score Greenville Recreation Center $ 173,2870.04 Playgrounds $ 457,1910.04 Caretakers, restrooms, Freedom NC $ 929,8650.04 Basketball Courts $ 60,6810.04 Historic Sites $ 64,5300.04 Latta Recreation Center $ 136,5590.04 McDowell Nature Center $ 37,0520.03 Barns and Sheds $ 214,6100.04 Irrigation Systems $ 248,1670.04 Athletic Court Lighting Systems $ 660,2180.04 Ballfield Lighting Systems $ 1,826,1360.04 Shoreline Stabilization $ 94,0990.04 Skateparks $ 30,0000.04 Reedy Creek Nature Center $ 48,5760.03 Methodist Home Recreation Center $ 86,3340.03 Hawthorne Recreation Center $ 59,0220.03 Bette Rae Thomas Recreation Center $ 138,2640.02 Veterans Indoor Shelter $ 16,5430.02 Facility /Amenity2008 - 2012Score Horticulture Compound $ 16,2450.02 Latta Nature Center $ 16,7970.02 Hickory Grove Recreation Center $ 55,7940.02 Shelters,well houses,storage areas $ 755,1950.02 Barns and Sheds $ 98,1860.02 Tennis Courts $ 569,7260.02 Ballfields- Back stops and fencing $ 255,7180.02 Irrigation Systems $ 169,5190.02 Athletic Court Lighting Systems $ 428,0710.02 Ballfield Lighting Systems $ 1,184,0290.02 Skateparks $ 35,0970.02 521 Park Recreation Center $ 32,1910.01 Oaklawn Recreation Center $ 50,3150.01 Tom Sykes Recreation Center $ 32,5140.01 Latta Recreation Center $ 16,5010.01 TOTAL $21,924,7060.14 Total Maintenance & Repair Costs 2008-2012 (cont.)

77. 77 Facility/Amenity2013 - 2017Score Col. Francis Beatty Indoor Shelter $ 107,0190.15 Jetton Indoor Shelter $ 67,4430.13 Albemarle Recreation Center $ 394,4900.13 McDowell Nature Center $ 126,1760.12 West Charlotte Recreation Center $ 325,0630.11 Latta Nature Center $ 109,9480.11 Methodist Home Recreation Center $ 315,0300.11 W. R. Davie Indoor Shelter $ 70,2840.11 Amay James Recreation Center $ 446,5280.10 Mahlon Adams Pavilion $ 61,1030.10 Synthetic Turf Fields $ 7,242,9470.09 Naomi Drenan Recreation Center $ 252,6950.09 Tom Sykes Recreation Center $ 282,2110.08 Hickory Grove Recreation Center $ 276,9990.08 Oaklawn Recreation Center $ 399,4730.08 Admin. Office Building $ 902,6480.07 Aquatic Center $ 751,9970.07 Boat Docks $ 202,4480.07 Armory Building $ 213,9440.07 Facility/Amenity2013 - 2017Score East AOB $ 78,8590.07 Sugaw Creek Recreation Center $ 196,3550.06 Tuckaseegee Recreation Center $ 180,4930.06 Ray's Splash Planet $ 299,1510.06 Playgrounds $ 1,391,7660.06 Caretakers, restrooms and Freedom NC $ 2,830,6620.06 Basketball Courts $ 173,9710.06 Tennis Courts $ 1,690,2820.06 Spraygrounds/Outdoor Pools $ 347,6470.06 521 Park Recreation Center $ 174,9250.06 Bette Rae Thomas Recreation Center $ 347,0120.06 Horticulture Compound $ 51,8680.06 Reedy Creek Nature Center $ 85,1850.06 Southview Recreation Center $ 248,7570.06 Reedy Creek Indoor Shelter $ 32,6450.05 Hawthorne Recreation Center $ 112,0190.05 Arbor Glen Recreation Center $ 137,5980.05 Mallard Creek Recreation Center $ 208,5450.05 Marion Diehl Recreation Center $ 258,6320.05 Total Maintenance & Repair Costs 2013-2017

78. 78 Facility/Amenity2013 - 2017Score Shelters, well houses and storage areas $ 2,385,0500.04 Barns and sheds $ 434,9280.04 Ballfields - Back stops and fencing $ 766,5740.04 Irrigation Systems $ 508,1720.04 Athletic Field Lighting Systems $ 1,324,0580.04 Ballfield Lighting Systems $ 3,662,2830.04 Shoreline Stabilization $ 224,9210.04 Skateparks $ 321,1610.04 Historic Sites $ 187,8870.04 Central AOB $ 41,5470.03 Veterans Indoor Shelter $ 22,3170.03 Grady Cole Center/Memorial Stadium $ 276,7640.02 Greenville Recreation Center $ 76,8190.02 Latta Recreation Center $ 26,0930.01 Total $31,653,392 Total Maintenance & Repair Costs 2013-2017 (cont.)

79. 79 Total Preliminary Capital Costs

80. 80 Total Preliminary Capital Costs 2008-2017

81. 81  Questions and Comments?