Can North Carolina's Parks and Recreation Trust Fund give grants to towns and counties for park master plans, site plans, comprehensive system plans, or citizen surveys, or only for actually buying land and building park facilities?

Plain-English summary

Philip McKnelly, Director of the N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation, asked whether the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority (NCPRA) could allocate Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) monies to local governments for comprehensive park plans, master plans, site plans, and citizen surveys.

Senior Deputy AG Daniel Oakley and Assistant AG David Berry said no.

The PARTF allocation framework. § 113-44.15 establishes PARTF as a nonreverting special revenue fund. Money comes in from gifts and grants, a portion of the revenue tax on deeds, and other legislative appropriations. Money goes out in three streams: the State Parks System, local government units, and the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program. § 113-44.15(b)(2) says local governments get 30% "to provide matching funds to local government units on a dollar-for-dollar basis for local park and recreation purposes." That percentage is allocated by the NCPRA "based on criteria patterned after the Open Project Selection Process established for the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior."

The federal cross-reference doing the work. The "patterned after the Open Project Selection Process" language is the linchpin of the opinion's reasoning. The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants Manual's Open Project Selection Process (in Chapters 660.4 and 660.5) evaluates land acquisition and development proposals. It does not address local-government planning proposals because LWCF planning grants under the federal program are restricted to the state agency that administers the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (under LWCF Grants Manual Chapter 630.2(4)).

Because the General Assembly tied PARTF's local-government allocation criteria to the federal Open Project Selection Process, and that federal process does not cover local planning, the AG read the cross-reference as legislative intent to exclude local planning from PARTF eligibility.

Reading the two statutes together. § 143B-313.1 sets out the NCPRA's powers. It expressly grants the NCPRA the power to:

• allocate funds for land acquisition from PARTF
• allocate funds for repairs, renovations, improvements, construction and other capital improvements from PARTF

Planning is conspicuously absent from that enumerated list. Under the canon that statutes on the same subject must be read in pari materia (Bd. of Adjmt. of Swansboro), the absence is significant. The two statutes most reasonably harmonize by reading the NCPRA's allocating power as limited to land acquisition and capital improvements only.

Two narrow exceptions. The introductory clause of § 113-44.15(b) reads "unless otherwise specified by the General Assembly or the terms and conditions of a gift or grant." So the NCPRA could allocate PARTF money for local planning if:

• The General Assembly amended § 113-44.15 or passed a specific appropriations directive authorizing planning grants, or
• A specific gift or grant to PARTF came with terms earmarking it for planning.

Absent those, planning is out of bounds.

The path forward. The opinion encouraged the NCPRA to seek legislation if it wanted to allocate PARTF monies to local planning, and offered AG assistance in drafting the legislation. That's the standard "if you want to do this, here's the legislative path" closer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. PARTF has been restructured several times since 1997, including changes to its funding sources and allocations, and the consolidation of various conservation trust funds into the Land and Water Fund. Local governments should check the current statutory text, the current PARTF grant manual, and any current NCPRA policy before applying or relying on the 1997 framework.

Background and statutory framework

The Parks and Recreation Trust Fund was created by the General Assembly in 1994 to provide a stable funding source for state and local park and recreation development. The 30% local-government allocation under § 113-44.15(b)(2) became one of the major recurring sources of competitive grant funding for North Carolina towns and counties to build public parks, ballfields, greenways, and the like.

The deliberate cross-reference to the federal LWCF Open Project Selection Process tied the state's local-grant program tightly to a federal model. LWCF, established in 1965, has been the dominant federal source of state-and-local conservation grants. Its grants manual lays out evaluation criteria, eligibility rules, and project scopes. North Carolina's legislative drafters could have written original criteria; instead they pointed at the federal manual. That choice anchored PARTF local grants to LWCF's project scope, which is acquisition and development, not planning.

The opinion's surplusage analysis is technically careful. Under Porsh Builders, statutes are presumed not to contain mere surplusage; every clause must be given meaning. If the AG had read the "local park and recreation purposes" phrase to include planning, the subsequent reference to LWCF Open Project Selection criteria would be meaningless (because LWCF's criteria do not address planning). The only reading that gives effect to both clauses is the narrower one: "local park and recreation purposes" in this context means LWCF-eligible purposes, i.e., acquisition and capital improvements.

The opinion's structural recommendation, that the General Assembly amend the statute if it wanted local planning funded, was a clear signal. The Division could either (a) live within the acquisition-and-capital framing and use state-agency staff or other federal sources to support local planning, or (b) seek legislation. Local governments themselves could fund planning through local revenues, the Community Development Block Grant program, or other federal grants outside PARTF.

Common questions

Could a town use a PARTF acquisition grant to fund the appraisal and feasibility work that precedes a purchase?

The opinion does not directly address pre-acquisition costs. In practice, PARTF program guidance has typically allowed certain pre-acquisition costs (appraisals, survey work, environmental assessments) to be included in the project budget as costs of acquisition rather than as standalone planning. The line between acquisition-related costs and freestanding planning depends on the grant manual's current treatment, not on this opinion.

What about master plans that lead to specific acquisition or capital projects?

The opinion forecloses freestanding master plans. A master plan that is part of a specific PARTF-funded acquisition or capital project (showing where the new park facilities will be sited, for example) might be funded as part of that project's design phase. The boundary depends on the project's structure and the grant manual.

Could a local government use other state grants for park planning?

Yes. Other state grant programs (the Community Development Block Grant, Department of Commerce planning grants, various Department of Transportation greenway grants) have at different times funded local park planning. The opinion's narrow conclusion was only about PARTF, not about all state funding sources.

Could a private foundation give PARTF money earmarked for planning grants?

Yes. The introductory clause of § 113-44.15(b) carves out gifts or grants with their own terms. A private foundation could give PARTF money with a planning-grant restriction, and the NCPRA could allocate those specific funds for that specific purpose.

Did this opinion address citizen survey funding specifically?

The opinion references "citizen surveys" in the request and treats them under the same general "planning" category. Surveys conducted by a local government as part of needs assessment or master planning are planning expenditures, which the opinion excludes from PARTF eligibility absent legislative change or earmarked gift.

What happened in practice after this opinion?

The opinion does not say. The General Assembly has reformed PARTF several times since 1997. The current statutory text and PARTF Grants Manual should be checked to see whether subsequent legislation has authorized any planning-grant component or whether the 1997 framework remains.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/authority-to-allocate-parks-and-recreation-trust-fund-monies/

Citations

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1
• Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 451 S.E.2d 284 (1994)
• Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hosp., 318 N.C. 76, 347 S.E.2d 824 (1986)
• Turlington v. McLeod, 323 N.C. 591, 374 S.E.2d 394 (1988)
• HCA Crossroads Residential Centers, Inc. v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 327 N.C. 573, 398 S.E.2d 466 (1990)
• Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem, 302 N.C. 550, 276 S.E.2d 443 (1981)
• Bd. of Adjmt. of the Town of Swansboro v. Town of Swansboro, 334 N.C. 421, 432 S.E.2d 310 (1993)

Original opinion text

February 14, 1997

Mr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687

SUBJECT: Advisory Opinion – Power of the N.C. Parks and Recreation Authority to Allocate Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Monies for Local Planning Purposes, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.14(b)(2) and § 143B-313.1

Dear Mr. McKnelly:

You have asked for an advisory opinion as to whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) and § 143B-313.1 authorize the N.C. Parks and Recreation Authority ("NCPRA") to allocate Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ("PARTF" or "Fund") monies to local governments for assistance in preparing comprehensive system-wide local park and recreation plans, master plans, site plans, and citizen surveys.

SUMMARY

We conclude that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1 do not authorize the NCPRA to allocate PARTF monies to local governments for planning purposes, unless such purposes are otherwise specified by the General Assembly or the terms of a gift or grant to the PARTF. If the NCPRA wishes to allocate PARTF monies for local planning purposes, we suggest that it seek legislation expressly granting such power. We can assist the NCPRA in drafting appropriate legislation if requested.

ANALYSIS

To answer your inquiry, both N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15, which establishes the PARTF, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1, which sets forth the NCPRA's powers, must be analyzed. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15 establishes the PARTF as a nonreverting special revenue fund consisting of gifts and grants to the Fund, monies credited to the Fund from the revenue tax on deeds, and other monies appropriated by the General Assembly. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15 further provides that PARTF monies should be allocated among three entities–the State Parks System, local government units, and the Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) specifically addresses allocations to local governments and provides, in pertinent part, that:

". . . unless otherwise specified by the General Assembly or the terms and conditions of a gift or grant, [funds] shall be allocated and used as follows:

(2) Thirty percent (30%) to provide matching funds to local government units on a dollar-for-dollar basis for local park and recreation purposes. These funds shall be allocated by the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority based on criteria patterned after the Open Project Selection Process established for the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior."

When construing a statute, the primary goal is to give effect to the legislative intent. Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 451 S.E.2d 284 (1994). In ascertaining this intent, the statute as a whole must be considered, weighing the language of the statute, its spirit, and what it seeks to accomplish. Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hosp., 318 N.C. 76, 347 S.E.2d 824 (1986). The language of a statute should be given its "natural and ordinary meaning unless the context requires otherwise." Turlington v. McLeod, 323 N.C. 591, 594, 374 S.E.2d 394 (1988).

The first sentence of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) states that thirty percent (30%) of the funds are to be allocated for "local park and recreation purposes." It does not appear that the legislature intended that this general reference to "local park and recreation purposes" include allocations for local planning because of the specific provision which follows. The statute further provides that funds shall be allocated "based on criteria patterned after the Open Project Selection Process" established for the National Park Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF"). By adding this additional provision, it appears that the legislature intended that the NCPRA evaluate proposed local government projects according to similar criteria used under the National Park Service's LWCF program.

The criteria used in the LWCF program generally examines how proposals for land acquisition and/or development of outdoor park and recreation areas will be evaluated and ranked for eligible federal funding through the LWCF. See, Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants Manual, Chapters 660.4 and 660.5. Since local governments cannot obtain LWCF assistance for planning, the LWCF's Open Project Selection Process criteria does not address local government planning proposals. Although LWCF grants can be obtained for planning purposes, the only eligible applicant is the designated state agency responsible for administering the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. See, Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants Manual, Chapter 630.2(4).

Therefore, it appears that the legislature did not intend for the NCPRA to allocate PARTF monies for local planning, since particular proposals are to be evaluated under criteria patterned after the LWCF's Open Project Selection Process. A contrary interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) would render the last sentence of the statute meaningless. "A statute must be construed, if possible, to give meaning and effect to all of its provisions." HCA Crossroads Residential Centers, Inc. v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 327 N.C. 573, 578, 398 S.E.2d 466, 470 (1990). It is presumed that the legislature did not intend any provision to be "mere surplusage." Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem, 302 N.C. 550, 556, 276 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1981). The only exceptions to this limitation on the purposes for which allocations may be made are found in the introductory language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b), which provides that the General Assembly, or the terms and conditions of a gift or grant to the Fund, may set forth another allocation purpose.

Construing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) so as not to authorize local planning allocations is also consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1, the statute creating the NCPRA. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1 vests the NCPRA with the following powers, inter alia:

(2) to allocate funds for land acquisition from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund; and
(3) to allocate funds for repairs, renovations, improvements, construction and other capital improvements from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund.

(emphasis supplied)

"Statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia and harmonized, if possible, to give effect to each." Bd. of Adjmt. of the Town of Swansboro v. Town of Swansboro, 334 N.C. 421, 427, 432 S.E.2d 310, reh'g denied, 335 N.C. 182, 436 S.E.2d 369 (1993). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1, the NCPRA has the express power to allocate funds for land acquisition and capital improvements, but not for planning purposes. Since the statute does not expressly grant the NCPRA the power to allocate funds for local planning purposes, it must be presumed that the legislature did not intend to grant such power. The two statutes, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-44.15(b)(2) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-313.1, can most reasonably be harmonized by limiting the NCPRA's power to allocate PARTF monies to local governments for land acquisition and capital improvement purposes only; unless, the specific terms of a gift or grant to the Fund, or subsequent legislation by the General Assembly, specify otherwise.

If you have any questions or need further assistance please let us know.

Daniel C. Oakley
Senior Deputy Attorney General

David W. Berry
Assistant Attorney General