Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-29-2012 - Abstract of ItemsORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL JOINT MEETING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Joint Meetina Discussion Items DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Town PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No Manager /County Economic Development/Asset Management/Finance and Administrative Services ATTACHMENT(S): As noted in "Background" section INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Clifton, 245 -2300; Roger Stancil, 968 -2743; Steve Brantley, 245 -2325; Michael Talbert, 245 -2300; Pam Jones, 245 -2650; Clarence Grier, 245 -2450; Greg Wilder, 245 -2300 PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest between the governing boards of Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. BACKGROUND: 1. Economic Development Updates a) Town of Chapel Hill b) Orange County While Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill each operate their own economic development programs, the two entities have developed a collaborative working relationship that is mutually beneficial, which is intended to benefit the residents of the community as a whole. Although each of the programs has developed a focus unique to its goals and objectives, there are also common opportunities to collaborate. Several of these opportunities include: ♦ Search for incubator space — The Town and the County have been working on the development of incubator sites to facilitate innovation growth, both from the University and local entrepreneurs. Over the past year, Town and County economic development staff have met regularly to assess various potential site locations, and talked with potential investors and incubator space operators. Also, the County's Economic Development Department recently sponsored a study conducted in 2011 by UNC's Department of City and Regional Planning to 4 evaluate the real estate needs of University entrepreneurs. The final report included recommendations for development of innovation space in a variety of campus and non - campus locations within Orange County, with specific site suggestions recommended within the Town of Chapel Hill. One of the primary goals of the County's study with UNC was to determine how to reverse the trend where many hi -tech startup firms that originate out of the University eventually move away to adjacent counties. Pursuit of this objective should remain a priority for the Town and County in the coming year. ♦ Small business loans to Town businesses — Orange County's Small Business Loan fund is a resource available to eligible small businesses located within the County and its municipalities. Several Chapel Hill companies have utilized this unique County funded resource, to include the Chapel Hill -based firm "ServiceMaster by Santosha ", which is a commercial cleaning business. In addition, the County has pending loans with two (2) other Chapel Hill firms, and one of these loans, to an information technology services provider, was disbursed in the last two weeks. ♦ Joint promotion of tourism and the arts — The Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitors Bureau ( CHOCVB), located at 501 W. Franklin Street, represents a very positive, productive and longstanding good partnership between the County and Town. Led by Laurie Paolicelli, this office and staff are a part of the Orange County Economic Development Department. The attached CHOCVB document outlines the encouraging economic impact this joint Town /County agency contributed to the local economy during 2011. ♦ Ongoing communication - both formal and informal — Economic Development staff from the Town and the County have made regular communication a priority to ensure that each office is working with current information when potential business investment prospects make inquiries. Staff members from both departments participate in regular partner meetings that include Economic Development professionals from affiliated organizations (to include the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitors Bureau), as well as hosting one -on -one meetings during each month with Town and County staff participating. ♦ New project collaboration — Although the County and Town may receive new project opportunities from independent sources, such prospects are routinely shared among the economic development professionals from the County and Town in order to best meet the specific needs of the potential client. Such shared information includes a joint review of potential real estate locations, financing options, regulatory assistance, and other levels of cooperation to promote collaboration among staff, and ultimately, the recruitment of new business. ♦ Existing business collaboration — As with the joint effort to work collaboratively to seek new businesses, the Town and the County have also had the opportunity to work together to respond to the expansion and retention needs of existing businesses in a variety of ways, from assistance in finding a larger facility space to providing regulatory guidance. One current example involves the County and 3 Town meeting with a local software related firm that has excellent growth potential to create additional high -tech employment in the Town. ♦ Transition support — The County's Economic Development staff can provide support, as requested by the Town, during upcoming economic development staff transitions, and /or with specific business recruitment and retention issues that may develop in the interim. Orange County's Economic Development Department looks forward to continuing a close relationship with Chapel Hill's economic development office in 2012 and beyond. The attached document provides additional background information for the discussion. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. Attachment 1— Visitors Bureau Tourism Program in Conjunction for Town of Chapel Hill 2. Solid Waste Issues a) Update from the Town of Chapel Hill Town staff provided the attachment which addresses several issues related to solid waste, the Orange County Landfill, Rogers Road, and future solid waste disposal. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. Attachment 2 -a — January 23, 2012 Chapel Hill Town Council Agenda Materials — Information Report on Landfill Related Items b) Greene Tract The Greene Tract (164 acres) was acquired in 1984 for $608,000 and came to Orange County as an asset in the Solid Waste Fund. As a result of the Inter Local Agreement, 60 acres of the Greene Tract was conveyed to Orange County for "Solid Waste management purposes ". The Inter Local Agreement (amended April 12, 2000) provided for the three owning partners to determine, over a two -year period, the ultimate disposition of the remaining 104 jointly held acres. A Greene Tract Work Group that included representatives of all parties to the Inter Local Agreement began meeting in 2001 and presented Recommendations on March 21, 2002. A Greene Tract Work Group Resolution, making recommendation on the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, was approved by the BOCC on December 10, 2002. The Agenda Abstract and Resolution from the December 10, 2002 Board of Commissioners' meeting are provided as an attachment. The remaining 60 acres of the Greene Tract continues to be owned as an asset in the Solid Waste Fund. A five -year payment plan for the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro was approved by all parties to the Inter Local Agreement. Fiscal Year 2011/12 is the 4th year of the five year plan. As of June 30, 2012, the end of the fourth year of the payment 4 plan, a total of $842,488 will have been paid to the Solid Waste Fund from Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Final payments will be made in Fiscal Year 2012/13. The attachments also include an agenda abstract that was published for an April 29, 2008 Joint Greene Tract Work Session (The Meeting was subsequently canceled; however, the documents provide a brief history of activities related to the Greene Tract.) Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. Attachment 2 -b -1 — April 29, 2008 Joint Greene Tract Work Session Agenda Abstract Attachment 2 -b -2 — December 10, 2002 BOCC Agenda Abstract — Approval of Recommendations from the Greene Tract Work Group Attachment 2 -b -3 — June 26, 2002 Greene Tract Concept Plan c) Town Update on Rogers Road Small Area Plan Attachment 2 -a provides information related to this item. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. No Additional Attachments 3. County Planning for Southern Human Services Center Property In 1992 the County purchased 34.1 acres at 2500 Homestead Road on which to develop a County campus for service offerings in southern Orange County. To date, two buildings have been built on the site — the Southern Human Services Center and the Seymour Senior Center. The Board of Commissioners approved a conceptual site master plan in 2006 — a copy of supporting materials for that action is attached. Funding for a formal master plan of the Southern Human Services campus is included in the current year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Proposals have been received from potential consultants and a recommendation will be presented to the Board of Commissioners in April 2012. Recent discussions with County departments regarding their future programming needs in southern Orange reflect a variety of potential uses for the site. An updated study of current and future County -wide space needs will be conducted within the next year and will more accurately identify and prioritize development that may be appropriate for the Homestead Road campus. In the meantime, at such time the Board of Commissioners has reviewed and approved the final master plan from the consultant, the County may choose to move forward with some type of request to the Town to begin preliminary site work on building locations identified in the Master Plan. Staff will briefly discuss the existing approved master plan at the meeting and respond to questions from Council members and Commissioners. The governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. Attachment 3 — October 3, 2006 BOCC Agenda Abstract and Attachments — Homestead Road Campus Master Plan Approval G 4. County Update on Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Elementary #11 Construction Elementary School #11 will be located in the Northside community between Caldwell and McMasters Streets. The multi -story building design is proposed to accommodate 585 students and will be built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold specifications. Sanford Contractors has completed deconstruction of existing onsite buildings. Over 70% of the building materials from the former buildings were recycled. Additionally, Habitat for Humanity had previously removed windows, doors, mirrors, bulletin boards, and light fixtures for reuse in their projects. Site grading is currently underway, with rocks and unsuitable soils being removed and the building grade being reached. Bordeaux Construction Company has been awarded the contract to build the new school. Bordeaux is currently mobilizing and has established a presence onsite. The project schedule calls for a construction period of 15 months beginning in March 2012 and completing in May 2013. Furniture and equipment would then be delivered and installed, with the school scheduled to open in August 2013. Elementary School #11 will be funded with the issuance of $21.5 million of Limited Obligation Bonds. The limited obligation bonds will be underwritten by Branch Banking & Trust (BB &T) and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The financing has been approved by the Local Government Commission and will closed on March 29, 2012. The annual debt service for the new school will be approximately $1,725,000 annually. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. No Attachments FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of these topics. There are no action items requiring formal decisions. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend the governing boards discuss the topics listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs. 41"r-o�j- s WITH /` CARRBORO & HILLSBOROUGH Date: March 15, 2012 Re: Visitors Bureau Tourism Programs in conjunction for Town of Chapel Hill Year -to -date Review and Program Value According to February bookings, the Visitors Bureau has originated 35 bookings into area hotels and meeting facilities, which will bring 4,489 delegates to Chapel Hill. Conference visitors will use 2,648 room nights and spend and estimated $1.5 million. Additionally these conference delegates have requested123 boxes of guides and materials to distribute at their meetings in Chapel facilities. Other Conference and Visitor Services Provided Year to Date to Chapel Hill Est. Value Operation of Franklin Street Visitors Center six days /300 guests per month $15,000.00 Chapel Hill NEW photographic library of 150 Chapel Hill images $5,000.00 Chapel Hill "Visit" ads for graduation and festivals $2,000.00 Chapel Hill ads in Charlotte, Our State and Southern Living mags $3,000.00 Chapel Hill merchandise, shirts, post cards, key rings, caps $2,500.00 Money Magazine Promotion (25 room nights booked; national publicity) $2,000.00 Chapel Hill 3 minute video for Channel 14 and You Tube $1,500.00 national promotion securing Chapel Hill a "Dozen Distinctive Destination" on National Trust for Historic Preservation list $2,500.00 Travel press invited to Chapel Hill for TERA VITA event $1,000.00 Sponsorship North Carolina High School Athletics $5,000.00 Ads created on Chapel Hill for the Chapel Hill Herald $1,000.00 Flier designed and distributed "Top things to do in Chapel Hill in summer" $700.00 Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau (919) 968 -2060 501 West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Serving Orange County, North Carolina Launch of Chapel Hill Mobile Phone app (increase business to Chapel Hill) $5,000.00 Launch of Explore Chapel Hill Arts, new master ARTS Calendar $4,500.00 Production of 2012 Visitors Guide for fulfillment $5,500.00 Travel Writer hosting resulting in national media on Chapel Hill $2,500.00 New "Edge of the Triangle" Chapel Hill ad campaign /media and placement $75,000.00 Media on -line, print, conference publications. YTD marketing expenditures: $133,700.00 Conventions booked into hotels: $1.5 million Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau (919) 968 -2060 501 West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Serving Orange County, North Carolina 7 123 A #ackm' ) - 43 • TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 1/23/2012 AGENDA #12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title of Agenda Item: Information Report on Landfill Related Items. Background: This memorandum provides a summary of the information in the attached reports relative to the status of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan, landfill and solid waste issues resulting from the impending closure of the Rogers Road Landfill, and the financial and legal implications of potential changes moving forward. This information is being provided in part as a primer for the meeting with Orange County officials to discuss solid waste issued scheduled for January 26. Fiscal Note: A change in land use or current solid waste disposal methods in or around the Rogers Road area will result in future fiscal impacts to the Town. Recommendations: That the Council receive this report and its attachments in preperation for the January 26, 2012 Joint Meeting on Solid Waste. ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat. Manager Cover Memorandum Status Report on Rogers Road Small Area Plan Letter dated March 11, 2011 from Chapel Hill Mayor to Carrboro and Orange County Letter dated March 31, 2011 from Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Information about Changes to Annexation Law N.C. League of Municipalities Memo dated August 4, 2011 Orange County Landfill Financial Analysis Comparison of Balance Sheet FY1999 and FY2011 Status Report on Future Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options 124 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager SUBJECT: Information Report on Landfill Related Items DATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the information in the attached reports relative to the status of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan, landfill and solid waste issues resulting from the impending closure of the Rogers Road Landfill, and the financial and legal implications of potential changes moving forward. This information is being provided in part as a primer for the meeting with Orange County officials to discuss solid waste issued scheduled for January 26. DISCUSSION Rogers Road Small Area Plan The Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report is a document that provides recommendations for the Rogers Road neighborhood in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. The recommendations of the Task Force address future land uses, infrastructure investment, community preservation, transportation improvements, and open space and recreation improvements. The Task Force Report and discussions with Orange County and Carrboro identified issues to be addressed before the small area plan could be adopted and implemented. Because of these multi - jurisdictional issues, at the time we recommended that an inter -local work group comprised of elected officials be convened to develop strategies for these issues prior to endorsement of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan. Topics identified that could be addressed by such a workgroup included: • The recommended future land uses for the Greene Tract. • The preferred way to consider Joint Land Use Plan Amendments in the area. • The recommendations of the Rogers Road Task Force that impact multiple jurisdictions. As part of the current Chapel Hill 2020 process, the Chapel Hill community will be evaluating future growth and change scenarios. In February 2012, a community visioning charette may identify additional interest and opportunities for the Greene Tract and the northern area of Chapel Hill. Rogers Road and Changes to Annexation Law 125 10 The Rogers Road study area is located in Orange County in the northwestern area of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction adjacent to the Town of Carrboro. The study area is located in the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area, an area which is anticipated to become part of the Town of Chapel Hill. The boundary for the Joint Planning Area was drawn as part of the 1988 Joint Planning Agreement between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. Land uses proposed by the Rogers Road Small Area Plan would require a modification to both the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, the latter requiring approval by all boards following a Joint Public Hearing. It should also be noted that the North Carolina General Assembly rewrote the laws pertaining to city - initiated annexations. Under the new law, if a municipality determines that an area qualifies for annexation by virtue of its development and population density, prepares an annexation report so demonstrating and enacts an ordinance to annex the property, the owners of 60 per cent of the parcels included in the annexation may now by petition veto the annexation. In addition, if an annexation is made effective, under the new law additional responsibilities are imposed upon the municipality with respect to the provision of water and sewer services. Orange County Landfill Financial Analysis The County's October 4, 2011 agenda item titled "Roger's Road Area Mitigation Options and Landfill Closure Impacts" states that "the Solid Waste enterprise fund, without considering the sale of any assets, is $4,073,276 short of meeting all long -term obligations." The Town staff review of the County's audited financial statements show the difference between current assets and all liabilities (current and non - current) to be $3,568,461. We need to reconcile any difference in assumptions between these two numbers. In addition, the following factors should be considered in assessing the adequacy of the Solid Waste Fund resources to meet future obligations: • The closure of the landfill will provide an opportunity to liquidate some fixed assets associated with landfill operations that can provide additional funding for long -term costs. • The costs associated with post closure care ($4,336,913) will be paid out over 30 years. During that time the fund should have sufficient current assets to generate significant interest earnings over the 30 year period. • The C &D landfill is expected to stay open beyond 2013, providing an opportunity to generate additional funding toward closure and post closure costs. • There appears to be $2.4 million of unexplained corrective action costs associated with the closure of the C &D landfill. The total estimate for C &D corrective action costs of $3.0 million seems out of proportion to corrective action cost of the MSW Landfill. • OPEB liability costs may decrease as a result of employees leaving landfill operations when the landfills are closed. Also, if other operations accounted for in the Solid Waste Fund, Recycling Operations and Sanitation and Convenience Center Operations, continue 126 11 to operate after the closure of the landfills, revenues associated with those operations will be available to pay fund obligations. Future Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options The Interlocal Agreement obligates the County to provide the Town with two year's notice to terminate the Agreement. To date, the Town has not received official notice. The Orange County Commissioners have expressed their intent to close the landfill as early as the spring of 2013, which, in the absence of an alternative provided by the County (for example, a transfer station), would effectively constitute a termination of the Agreement as to solid waste. In light of this development, the Town has begun proactively exploring alternative options for solid waste disposal, as well as ways of increasing efficiency with solid waste collection. To that end, The Public Works Department put out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide the Town with a Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options in November 2011. We hope to select a vendor by mid - February 2012. Additionally, in anticipation of the potential need to haul our solid waste to the Durham Transfer Station, Town staff also conducted a two -week pilot program transporting residential and commercial solid waste to the Durham Transfer Station. Key findings of the pilot program are as follows: The average travel distance to and from the transfer station is approximately 18 miles one -way, adding about an hour of off -route travel time per trip. During peak hours the wait time at the transfer station may be slightly greater than those experienced during the pilot. The vehicles participating in the pilot program experienced no maintenance issues on the way to or from the Durham Transfer Station. We believe that the programmed allowance for additional maintenance associated with the mileage is still reasonable at this time. Total additional costs moving forward will depend on decisions made relative to collection and disposal options. If we begin hauling solid waste to Durham, estimated additional annual costs resulting from the increase in hauling distance would be between $500,000 and $600,000. An additional consideration is the increased safety risk to our employees and the liability to the Town of placing fully loaded solid waste vehicles and drivers on an interstate highway. RECOMMENDATION That the Council receive this report and its attachments. 127 12 ATTACHMENTS 1) Status Report on Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report a. Letter dated March 11, 2011 from Chapel Hill Mayor to Carrboro and Orange County b. Letter dated March 31, 2011 from Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair 2) Information about Changes to Annexation Law a. N.C. League of Municipalities Memo dated August 4, 2011 3) Orange County Landfill Financial Analysis a. Comparison of Balance Sheet FYI 999 and FY2011 4) Status Report on Future Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options 128 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Manager Garrett Davis, Planner II SUBJECT: Status Report on Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report DATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE The purpose of the memorandum is to provide a status report on the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report for the upcoming joint solid waste meeting. BACKGROUND The Rogers Road study area is located in Orange County in the northwestern area of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction adjacent to the Town of Carrboro. The study area is located in the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area, an area which is anticipated to become part of the Town of Chapel Hill. The boundary for the Joint Planning Area was drawn as part of the 1988 Joint Planning Agreement between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. Land uses proposed by the Rogers Road Small Area Plan would require a modification to both the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, the latter requiring approval by all boards following a Joint Public Hearing. Chronology of Events: December 4, 2006: The Council adopted a resolution to set the schedule for the process and composition of the Task Force and identified the following topics to be addressed: • Desirable Land Uses and a Revision to the Land Use Plan • Water and Sewer Extension Plan • Roadway Network • Transit Service Plan • Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment June 2007: The Task Force presented an interim report to the Council. June 2008: The Town hired the Durham Area Designers to lead a community design workshop. February 2009: The Task Force endorsed a final report. March 2009 to November 2009: The Council received the Task Force report and referred the 129 14 document to advisory boards and local government agencies. It was also a topic of discussion at the March 26, 2009 Assembly of Governments meeting. November 16, 2009: The Council opened a Public Hearing regarding the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Report. Council referred the report to Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools. May 18, 2010: The Chapel Hill Manager wrote to Orange County and Carrboro Managers to request a meeting to discuss the relationship of the Task Force Report and the Greene Tract and ideas for how to look at the issues differently. The meeting occurred in June of 2010. January 24, 2011: The Council received a report following the public hearing which included comments from Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools. The Council adopted a resolution forwarding the draft Rogers Road Small Area Plan to a Joint Public Hearing and requesting the establishment of an inter -local work group composed of elected officials from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. March 11, 2011: The January 24, 2011 resolution was forwarded to the Carrboro Mayor and Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair with the request for an inter -local workgroup to begin work as early as April followed by a Joint Public Hearing in the fall (letter attached). March 31, 2011: Response received from Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair that recommended that the identified issues in the resolution of January, 2011 be brought before an existing elected officials work group formed in 2009 (letter attached) and suggesting that if a joint hearing is needed in the fall of 2011, that it take place at the fall Assembly of Governments meeting. SUMMARY The Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report is a document that provides recommendations for the Rogers Road neighborhood in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. The recommendations of the Task Force address future land uses, infrastructure investment, community preservation, transportation improvements, and open space and recreation improvements. The Task Force Report and discussions with Orange County and Carrboro identified issues to be addressed before the small area plan could be adopted and implemented. Because of these multi - jurisdictional issues, at the time we recommended that an inter -local work group comprised of elected officials be convened to develop strategies for these issues prior to endorsement of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan. Topics identified that could be addressed by such a workgroup included: • The recommended future land uses for the Greene Tract, • The preferred way to consider Joint Land Use Plan Amendments in the area, and • The recommendations of the Rogers Road Task Force that impact multiple jurisdictions. 130 15 As part of the current Chapel Hill 2020 process, the Chapel Hill community will be evaluating future growth and change scenarios. In February 2012, a community visioning charette may identify additional interest and opportunities for the Greene Tract and the northern area of Chapel Hill. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter dated March 11, 2011 from Chapel Hill Mayor to Carrboro and Orange County 2. Letter dated March 31, 2011 from Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair b 131 � N of March 11, 2011 Chair Bernadette Pelissier Board of County Commissioners 200 S. Cameron St Hillsborough NC, 27270 Dear Chair Pelissier, OFFICE OF MAYOR KLEINSCHMIDT Town of Chapel FIIII 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Frill, NC 27514 Phone (919) 968 -2714 fax (919) 969 -2063 www.townofchape%iLorg On January 24, 2011, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a resolution requesting a Joint Public Hearing and requesting to convene an inter -local workgroup regarding the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Report prepared by a Chapel Hill initiated Task Force. We request that a Joint Public Hearing be held in the fall of 2011. It is our hope that the workgroup could begin in April of 2011 and expect they will address the following topics. • Identify recommended future land uses for the Greene Tract, • Develop a preferred way to consider Joint Land Use Plan Amendments, • Consider the recommendations of the Rogers Road Task Force that impact multiple jurisdictions. This workgroup will rely on staff to present background materials and any requested information. Chapel Hill requests support from your board for this effort. Please consider appointing one member and an alternate to be a representative for this workgroup. Once you provide us with those names we will bring the group together. Please also let us know how to confirm a date for the Fall 2011 Joint Public Hearing. My office will be in contact with you shortly to arrange a date in April. Sincerely, Ma r �arkschm�idt Attachment: Chapel Hill Town Council January 24, 2011 Memorandum and adopted Resolution CC: Town Manager Roger Stancil, Town of Chapel Hill Town Manager Steven Stewart, Town of Carrboro County Manager Frank Clifton, Orange County H1.1 132 17 . OFFICE OF MAYOR I LEINSC JMlDT Town of Chapel FO 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel FM NC 27514 pboar(919) 968 -2714 fmc (919) 969 -2063 . www.townakhapellaorg March 11, 2011 Mayor Mark Chilton Town Hall, 301 W. Main St Carrboro NC, 27510 Dear Mayor Chilton On January 24, 2011, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a resolution requesting a Joint Public Hearing and requesting to convene an inter -local workgroup regarding the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Report prepared by a Chapel Hill initiated Task Force. We request that a Joint Public Hearing be held in the Fall of 2011. It is our hope that the workgroup could begin in April of 2011 and expect they will address the following topics. • Identify recommended future land uses for the Greene Tract, • Develop a preferred way to consider Joint Land Use Plan Amendments, • Consider the recommendations of the Rogers Road Task Force that impact multiple jurisdictions. This workgroup would rely on staff to present background materials and any requested information. Chapel Hill requests support from your board for this effort. Please consider appointing one member and an alternate to be a representative for this workgroup. Once you provide us with those names we will bring the group together. We will notify you again when a date is confirmed for the Fall 2011 Joint Public Hearing. My office will be in contact with you shortly to arrange a date in April. Sinc ely, May ark Kleinschmidt Attachment: Chapel Hill Town Council January 24, 2011 Memorandum and Resolution CC: . Town Manager Roger Stancil, Town of Chapel Hill Town Manager Steven Stewart, Town of Carrboro County Manager Frank Clifton, Orange County 133 A _RESOLUTION REQUESTING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONVENE AN INTERLOCAL WORKGROUP REGARDING THE ROGERS ROAD SMALL AREA PLAN TASK FORCE REPORT (2011-01-24/R-12) WHEREAS, The Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force has completed a planning study and made recommendations regarding the future development of the area; WHEREAS, 104 acres of the study area is the Greene Tract, an undeveloped property jointly owned by the towns of Chapel. Hill, and Carrboro, and Orange County; WHEREAS, the owners of the Greene Tract established a workgroup in 2002 to agree on future land use of the property including that 18 acres be set aside for affordable housing; and 86 acres be set aside for open space: and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School System has identified the Greene Tract as a potential location for a new school in the future. NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chapel Hill Town Council refers the draft Rogers Road Small Area Plan to the Carrboro Board of Alderman and the Orange County Board of Commissioners with a request that the report be scheduled for review at a Joint Public Hearing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chapel Hill Town Council requests that members of the Carrboro Board of Alderman and Orange County Board of Commissioners appoint a member to an Interlocal Work Group that would review the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Report, the work of the Greene Tract Workgroup of 2002, and the following topics and report back to their respective boards. - Identify recommended future land uses for the Greene Tract, - Develop a preferred way to consider Joint Land Use Plan Amendments, - Consider the recommendations of the Rogers Road Task Force that impact multiple jurisdictions. This the 20- day of January, 2011. :.' 134 BERnuoErrEP�sSIER.Ci�arR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS s� rR F111, urc6CF4arR POST OFFICE BOX 818 i u A CerM. FOUL �. ' fiL/CEM, GORDON PAMHEMAWWWR 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET FARRr ✓acoes HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 2'7278 March 31, 2011 Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther IGnk-Blvd. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dear Mayor Kleinschmidt, I received your letter of March 11, 2011 requesting that the . � 9 County. .along. with the Town of Chapel Hill and the_ Town of Carrboro, appoint a Commissioner and alternate to a newly proposed inter- local.work group regarding .the Rogers Road. Small Area Plan Task Force Report prepared by a .past Chapel Hill initiated task force. Upon discussion with Vice Chair Steve Yuhasz, County Manager Frank Clifton and staff, it was brought to my attention.that a similar elected officials group was formed in early 2009 (this idea came out of an Assembly of Governments meeting) whose mission was to develop a goal for•funding a phasing -in plan for, and access to, water and sewer services for the Rogers Road area. The members included are below, Town of Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton/Alde'rman Gist Orange County Commissioner Yuhasz' and BOCC:Nelghborhood Rep. David Caldwell Town of Chapel Hill Ex- Council Member -James Merritt It would be our suggestion to try and incorporate the topicstfunction of your proposed interloaal work group into this already existing elected officials work group, with the additional elected officialslaltemates to be-appointed as needed. As for the third topic listed in your letter; we are.interested in knowing whether Chapel Hill has any specific issues that are intended to be discussed. ' If a Joint Public Hearing. ,is. needed for Fall 2011; it would also be our suggestion that this joint hearing take place at our already scheduled Assembly of Governments Meeting, on Thursday, October 271h at 7:00pm at Southern Human Services Center: We will wait to hear from you about how to proceed on the Town`s. request - Sincerely, Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners - Cc: Board of Commissioners Mayor Mark -Chilton, Town of Carrboro Town Manager. Steve Stewart, Town of Carrboro:.. ✓Town Manager Roger Stancil, Town of Chapel Hill County Manager Prank Clifton www.�o.orange.nc.us' I Protecting and preserving — People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange. County, North Carolina - You Count! (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (9 19) 644-0246 •a i i 135 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager FROM: Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director SUBJECT: Information about Changes to Annexation Law DATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE The purpose of the memorandum is to provide information about recent changes to annexation law for the upcoming joint solid waste meeting. BACKGROUND The attached memorandum from the N.C. League of Municipalities provides a detailed summary of the substantial changes that occurred in 2011 to the statutes governing municipal annexation capabilities. 33 ' The North Carolina General Assembly rewrote the laws pertaining to city - initiated annexations. Under the new law, if a municipality determines that an area qualifies for annexation by virtue of its development and population density, prepares an annexation report so demonstrating and enacts an ordinance to annex the property, the owners of 60 per cent of the parcels included in the annexation may now by petition veto the annexation. In addition, if an annexation is made effective, under the new law additional responsibilities are imposed upon the municipality with respect to the provision of water and sewer services. ATTACHMENT 1. N.C. League of Municipalities Memo dated August 4, 2011 136 21 RA aGn�n1 C 276 3 STRGLT te ��TG�i, ATC a76o3 /±,��,� NCRA�jUE F MUNICIPAL IniES Posy Omce Box 3069 I 276o2-3oN Good government. Great hometowns.. 919 -715 -4000 1 s+x:919- 733 -9519 W W W.NCLM.ORG To: Managers /Administrators /Clerks /Attorneys /Planners From: Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel Date: August 4, 2011 Re: Substantial Changes to the Annexation Laws The 2011 General Assembly made sweeping changes to the statutes governing the municipal annexation process. The changes are contained in a series of acts, each of which is discussed in its appropriate subject matter categories below: HB 845 - Annexation Reform Act of 2011 (SL 2011 -396) HB 56 - Local Annexations Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -177) SB 27 - Local Annexations Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -173) HB 168 - Farms Exempt from City Annexation & ETJ (SL 2011 -363) HB 171 - Municipal Self - Annexations (SL 2011 -57) Collectively, the legislation implements a property owner "veto petition" process that can terminate a city - initiated annexation; subjects certain previously completed annexations to the veto process; requires "no cost" extension of water and sewer lines all the way to the home /structure in city - initiated and some types of voluntary annexations; allows, and in some cases compels, the annexation of distressed areas with less than a 100% petition; and exempts "bona fide farms" from being annexed without consent. Be aware that the legislation is unclear in some respects and will require significant legal analysis and interpretation. It also raises a number of questions that will perhaps only be answered by the courts. For example, the requirement to use public funds to make infrastructure improvements to private property may raise constitutional concerns. CHANGES TO THE CITY - INITIATED ANNEXATION PROCESS HB 845 - Annexation Reform Act of 2011 (SL 2011 -396) makes several fundamental changes to city - initiated annexation statutes, as well as numerous procedural changes summarized below. 137 22 I. Water and Sewer Extensions When municipalities initiate an annexation, they no longer have the discretion to set the terms of financial participation by annexed property owners in the extension of water and sewer infrastructure. Instead the act implements a new "opt -in" process and cost limitations for those services. Municipal financial responsibility for water and sewer extensions is dramatically increased as a result Opting in. The city's obligation to provide water and sewer extensions is triggered if the owners of a majority of the properties in the annexation area request the extensions. In addition to the major infrastructure, individual water and sewer lines must be provided all the way to the structures on the requesting properties. Once the opt -in threshold has been met, the municipality must provide the extensions at no cost (other than user. fees) to all properties that request it by the deadline, and at a reduced cost on a sliding scale to those requesting it at a later time. In order for lines to be installed to structures on the individual properties, the property owners must provide installment easements. Following installation of the lines, the property owner takes ownership of them and becomes responsible for their maintenance and repair. Who requests. The property owners that are eligible to sign up for water and sewer extensions at no cost are those who own the property as of the date of the combined notice of the public informational meeting and public hearing. Procedure. The municipality must begin the water and sewer sign -up process within five business days of the resolution of intent by notifying property owners, in writing, of the opportunity to have water and sewer lines and connections installed at no cost. The property owners are allowed 65 days from the passage of the resolution of intent to respond yes or no to this opportunity. A majority of the property owners of a single parcel of real property must respond favorably before the parcel can be counted as a "yes." Any owners of parcels that already receive the municipality's water or sewer, whether provided by the municipality or by a third party under contract with the municipality, are deemed to respond favorably. Successful opt -in. If after 65 days, the property owners of a majority of the parcels respond favorably, those that responded favorably receive the right to have lines and connections installed at no cost, a right that runs with the land. The municipality must notify, within five days, those property owners who failed to respond, or who responded negatively, that water and sewer will be extended to the area and offer a second, 30 -day opportunity for that property owner to sign up. Those property owners responding favorably to this second opportunity also receive water and sewer extensions at no cost. 138 23 If the opt -in threshold is met, property owners who fail to respond favorably during the sign -up period may request service in the future and the municipality may charge them for a percentage of the average cost of installation (based on the cost of residential installations from curb to residence, including connection and tap fees, in the area described in the annexation ordinance). The proportion that may be charged to latecomers is on a sliding scale for five years, after which the city may charge any properties requesting service according to the city's policy. If owners do not opt in. If the owners of a majority of the parcels do not request extension of water and sewer services, the municipality may proceed with the annexation and is not required to provide water and sewer services to any property owners in the annexation area. [If it nonetheless decides to provide the services, the act sets out a sliding scale of the amount that a requesting property owner can be charged for the connection during the first five years after the effective date; after that the city can charge according to its policy.] No fees to non - customers. The city may not require the payment of capacity charges, availability fees, or any other similar charge from property owners in the annexed area who do not choose to become customers of the water or sewer system. Time for completion of infrastructure. Any required water and sewer infrastructure must be in place within 3.5 years of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. If the municipality is unable to provide the services within that timeframe due to permitting delays through no fault of its own, the municipality may petition the Local Government Commission for a reasonable time extension. Applicability. The requirement to extend water and sewer applies to municipalities that already provide water or sewer service to customers within their existing boundaries. If the municipality does not provide water or sewer, but its existing residents are served by a public water or sewer system (or by a combination of a public water or sewer system and one or more nonprofit entities providing service by contract with the public system), the city could be exempt from financial responsibility for the extension of service to the annexed area. The exemption applies only if the annexed area is served by the public water or sewer system and the municipality has no responsibility through an agreement with the public water or sewer system to pay for the extension of lines to annexation area. "Public water or sewer system" in this context means a water or sewer authority, a metropolitan water or sewerage district, a county water or sewer district, a sanitary district, a county -owned water or sewer system; a municipally -owned water or sewer system; a water or sewer utility created by an act of the General Assembly; or a joint agency providing a water or sewer system by interlocal agreement. 139 24 II. Veto (Denial) Petition The act institutes a veto petition process by which the owners of 60 percent of the parcels in the annexation area can terminate the annexation. Procedure. Within five days following the adoption of the annexation ordinance, the municipality sends the county tax assessor a list of owners of real property within the annexation area. The assessor in turn forwards a list of parcels to the county board of elections, and the board of elections prepares petition forms for each of the properties with each owner listed individually, a signature line for each owner, and a statement that the person signing is petitioning to deny the annexation. The board of elections then mails a petition to the address of record for those property owners within five business days of receipt from the assessor. Who signs. If there is a change in ownership of real property after the date of the resolution of consideration until 30 days after the date of the adoption of the annexation ordinance, the new owner of the real property is to be considered the eligible owner of the property. A majority of the property owners of a single parcel of real property must sign the petition before the board of elections may count that parcel as having submitted a petition to deny annexation. Submitting Petitions. The signed petition may be submitted to the board of elections in person or by mail. If the signature on the petition form is not the same as the preprinted name on the form, then the signed petition must be notarized and accompanied by a copy of the legal authority for the signature of the person signing a petition. The board of elections also must accept signatures signed on a petition form prepared by the board of elections, but collected by another person. The act does not specify whether this form can include the signatures of the owners of more than one property, but it does require the petition form to be returned to the board of elections in a sealed container. Results. The denial petition signature process closes 130 days after the adoption of the annexation ordinance and the board of elections must certify the results within 10 business days. The determination of the results must be observed by three property owners from the area proposed for annexation, chosen by lot by the board of elections from among those who request to serve in this role, and three persons designated by the municipality. The act does not specify the criteria that should be used to determine if a petition is valid. The municipality is required to reimburse the board of elections for its costs related to the denial petition process. Effect of successful petition. If the property owners of at least 60 percent of the parcels submit denial petitions, then the annexation terminates and the municipality may not 140 25 adopt a resolution of consideration for the area described in the annexation ordinance for at least 36 months. Applicability. The veto petition process does not apply to any owner of real property located within any part of the annexation area that is completely surrounded by the municipality's primary corporate limits (a "doughnut hole "). III. Farm Property HB 168 - Farms Exempt from City Annexation & ETJ (SL 2011 -363) makes a significant additional amendment to the city - initiated annexation statutes. It provides that property that is being used for "bona fide farm purposes" on the date of the "resolution of intent to consider annexation' may not be annexed without the written consent of the owner or owners. [It is not clear whether the General Assembly meant the resolution of consideration or the resolution of intent.] The change applies to annexations of property used for bona fide farm purposes that were initiated on or after June 27, 2011 or are pending on that date. Previously the annexation statutes implemented a "delayed annexation" process for agricultural property subject to present use value taxation that allowed those lands to be included in an annexation area for setting boundaries and for land use authority, but not for taxation or other purposes until the property lost its use value status. Those provisions were removed from the statutes by HB 845. The new protections for farms are much broader. Land used for a qualifying bona fide farm purpose may not be included in the annexation area for any purpose unless the owner consents. Because the definition of bona fide farm is very broad, we anticipate a great deal of uncertainty in application and more difficulty in avoiding the creation of doughnut holes. (Please see the League's memo on Land Use for further discussion on the definition of bona fide farms.) IV. General Procedural Changes in City - Initiated Annexations • The city - initiated annexation statutes are now one - size -fits -all. There is no longer a distinction based on population of the municipality. • The annexation process must begin with a resolution of consideration, followed by a resolution of intent at least one year later. There is no longer an option to begin with the resolution of intent and delay the effective date. 141 W • Density and contiguity standards generally did not change, although doughnut holes can now be annexed without the need to meet the density standards. • Annexation ordinances must become effective on the first or second June 30th following adoption. • The act codifies, in part, case law prohibiting "shoestring" annexations by clarifying that contiguity cannot be established by a connecting corridor that consists solely of the length of a street or street right -of -way. • The act prohibits the splitting of parcels. If any portion of a parcel of property is proposed for annexation, the entire parcel as recorded in the deed transferring the title is to be included. • There are several changes to notification procedure. Mail notice to property owners and publication are now required after passage of the resolution of consideration. As to notices following the resolution of intent, the combined notice of the public informational meeting and public hearing must contain several additional information items and must be mailed within five business days of the resolution of intent in addition to publication. • There are changes to the timeline and contents of the public meetings. The public hearing may not take place until 30 days after the water and sewer sign -up period is complete. The public information meeting must now include an explanation of the provision of major municipal services; how to request water or sewer service to individual lots; the average cost of a residential connection to the water and sewer system; and an explanation of the opportunity for installation of a residential connection. V. Appeals and Remedies Services. The city must report to the Local Government Commission regarding its delivery of services. If the LGC determines that the municipality failed to deliver any required police, fire, solid waste, and street maintenance services within 30 days of the effective date, the residents of the annexation area are not included in its population of the municipality for state, federal, or county funding distributions based on population until all of the services are provided. During the period from 30 days until 15 months after the effective date, property owners may also seek a writ of mandamus if services are not being provided. The city must also report to the LGC as to whether it has completed installation of water and sewer lines. Reports are required within six months of the effective date of the annexation, and again within 3.5 years or upon completion of 142 27 the installation, whichever is sooner. If the LGC finds that the city has failed to deliver the water and sewer services within 3.5 years, the municipality must halt any other annexation in progress and must restart a stopped annexation from the beginning once water and sewer services are provided. Appeals. The filing period for lawsuits challenging an annexation is moved to 60 days after the close of the veto petition signature period. The court must set the effective date for an annexation as the first June 30 at least six months after the final judgment or following the date upon which a municipality takes any required action to conform to the court's remand instructions. Attorneys' Fees. The court now may award attorney's fees to a property owner if a final court order is issued against the municipality. VI. Effective Date and Applicability The changes in HB 845 are effective July 1, 2011 and apply to city - initiated annexations for which no ordinance has been adopted as of that date. For city - initiated annexations begun prior to July 1, 2011, but which had not reached the point of adopting the ordinance by that date, the city can reinitiate the annexation, but it must comply with the new provisions. The act does not apply to any city with a charter provision requiring a owner consent or a referendum in city - initiated annexations. VII. Voting Rights Counti es Cities located within one of the forty Voting Rights counties need to include within their plans and timelines the additional step of obtaining preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice. If using the new city - initiated method, we believe preclearance will be needed for both the veto petition process and for the annexation itself. The petition process is so closely analogous to a referendum that municipalities should submit it for preclearance before the veto petition process begins. A letter from the Attorney General's office to one of our member cities supports that stance. Existing statutes place the responsibility for preclearance submissions on the municipal attorney. CERTAIN COMPLETED ANNEXATIONS SUBJECT TO VETO PETITION Although the annexation reform provisions in HB 845 do not apply to annexations for which an ordinance was adopted before July 1, 2011, two additional acts apply the veto petition process retroactively to specified annexations in nine municipalities. Under HB 56 - Local Annexations Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -177) and SB 27 - Local Annexations Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -173), the affected cities and towns are Asheville, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Kinston, Lexington, Marvin, Rocky Mount, Southport, and Wilmington. All of the annexations in question had ordinances in place, many had 143 28 already been upheld by the appellate courts, and one had been effective for almost three years (with millions of dollars in public expenditures toward the water and sewer infrastructure). Nonetheless, the two acts require these particular annexations to reopen the process and go through a veto petition procedure similar to that in HB 845. If the property owners of at least 60% of the parcels in the annexation area sign a petition to deny the annexation, the annexation is terminated (or, in the case of the one that had become effective, it is repealed) and the municipality may not adopt a resolution of consideration for the area for at least 36 months. These acts raise a number of questions and set a disturbing precedent. They were effective June 18, 2001 and require the county board of elections to mail petitions to property owners within 30 days thereafter. Affected cities in Voting Rights counties have been made aware of preclearance needs (see Voting Rights in Sec. VII above), adding a logistical issue to the other concerns with the legislation. CHANGES TO THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PROCESS HB 845 - Annexation Reform Act of 2011 (SL 2011 -396) also amends the statutes on voluntary annexation. The act provides for two new types of voluntary contiguous annexations that allow annexation with less than a 100% petition. For one of these types, the city retains discretion on whether to annex but for the other the municipality is required to annex under specified circumstances. I. Distressed Areas. Applicability. The new types of voluntary annexation are applicable only to certain high poverty areas. These are defined as areas in which at least 51% of the households have incomes that are 200% or less than the most recently published U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds. For both of the new types of voluntary annexation, the petitioners are required to submit reasonable evidence to demonstrate that the area meets the poverty thresholds. The evidence presented may include Census Bureau data, signed affidavits by at least one adult resident of the household attesting to the household size and income level, or any other documentation verifying the incomes for a majority of the households within the petitioning area. Petitioners may elect to submit the names, addresses, and social security numbers of persons in the area to the city clerk for confidential submission to the Department of Revenue. This information is not a public record. The Department uses the list to provide the city with a summary report of income for households in the petitioning area that can serve as evidence that the poverty thresholds are met. Discretionary annexation. A municipality pLay annex a distressed area when an adult resident in at least two- thirds of the households in the area has signed a petition. If an 144 29 ordinance is adopted in response to such a petition, the effective date must be within 24 months of adoption. Mandatory annexation. The city is required to annex a distressed area if the owners of at least 75% of the parcels have signed the petition. To qualify, the area must be at least one - eighth contiguous to the city's boundaries and it can be no larger than 10 percent of the city's existing land area. Upon determining that a petition meets the requirements for a mandatory annexation, the municipality has 60 days to determine whether the estimated annual debt service payment that would be required to extend water and sewer to all properties in the annexed area is less than five percent of the annual revenues of the city's water and sewer system. If so, the city must adopt an annexation ordinance within 30 days and set an effective date within 24 months of the adoption. If not, the city may decline to annex the area, provided the LGC certifies its cost estimates. If the city declines, it must make ongoing good faith efforts during the three years following the certification to secure Community Development Block Grants or other grant funding for extending water and sewer service to all parcels in the areas covered by the petition. If sufficient funding is secured so that the estimated capital cost for extension, less the funds secured, would result in an annual debt service cost of less than five percent of the annual water and sewer systems revenue for the most recent fiscal year, the governing body has 30 days to adopt an annexation ordinance for the area with an effective date no later than 24 months after the adoption of the ordinance. In any event, a city is not required to approve more than one annexation petition submitted under this provision within a 36 -month period. Services. For both of these new types of voluntary annexation, services must be provided to the area after the effective date of the annexation "in the same manner and according to the same schedules" as apply to city - initiated annexations. This appears to mean that the water and sewer opt -in process and the "no cost" provisions would apply. II. Other Changes to the Voluntary Process Ordinance effective date. In voluntary contiguous annexations other than those for distressed areas, the city may make the annexation ordinance effective immediately or on the first or second June 30 following the ordinance's passage. No shoestrings. The act applies the concept of prohibitions on "shoestrings" to voluntary annexation. It specifies that a connecting corridor consisting solely of a street or street right -of -way cannot be used to establish contiguity. It further clarifies the definition of contiguity by allowing the property to be considered contiguous if it is separated from the municipal boundary by the width of a street or street right -of -way. 145 30 State - maintained streets. HB 171 - Municipal Self- Annexations (SL 2011 -57) makes changes to both the contiguous and the satellite voluntary annexation statutes intended to restrict the annexation of state - maintained streets on the city's own volition. It specifies that a city has no authority to adopt a resolution or to petition itself for voluntary annexation of property it does not own or have a legal interest in. It then states that, for purposes of the prohibition, a city has no legal interest in a state - maintained street unless it owns the underlying fee rather than an easement. The act also amends the satellite annexation statute to provide that a satellite petition is not valid if it is unsigned; signed by the city for the annexation of property the city does not own or have a legal interest in; or it is for the annexation of property for which a signature is not required and the property owner objects to the annexation. The act was effective April 28, 2011. III. Effective Date Aside from the provisions on state - maintained streets mentioned above, the changes to the voluntary process were effective July 1, 2011 and apply to petitions for annexation presented on or after that date. CHANGES APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF STATUTORY ANNEXATION Recordation of agreements. HB 845 requires any written agreement regarding annexation between a municipality and a person having a freehold interest in real property to be recorded in the register of deeds office in the county where the property is located in order for the agreement to be enforceable. State fund priority. HB 845 requires that Community Development Block Grant, Wastewater Reserve, and Drinking Water Reserve funding guidelines give priority to projects located in areas annexed by a municipality in order to provide water or sewer services to low- income residents. Low - income residents are those with a family income that is 80% or less of median family income. (This is applicable regardless of the type of annexation process but may be of more interest for the high poverty petitioned areas.) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The legislation significantly alters the authority of municipalities to annex, and it is important to review your municipality's practices to ensure that they reflect these changes. Assess the status of annexations in progress. It is important to first determine whether the municipality has any city - initiated annexations currently underway and where they are in the process. Based upon the effective date of the changes (see Sec. VI above), 146 31 some annexations may need to be reinitiated. For a small number of cities, even a completed annexation must be retroactively run through the veto petition process. (See "Certain Completed Annexations Subject to Veto Petition" above.) Review local policies. In light of these changes, we strongly recommend that you begin to review any policies or procedures you have established regarding annexation and consider any necessary or appropriate changes. Cities may wish, for example, to consider whether or not to continue extending water and sewer lines outside of their corporate limits in the future. Emphasize public information build understanding. In city - initiated annexations, the municipality must as a practical matter prepare to convince a sizable portion of the property owners of the value of becoming a part of the municipality. It is now more important than ever to be able to articulate the advantages of annexation to citizens in a proposed annexation area, to existing city residents, and to legislative decision - makers. Resources. In many cities and towns, the professionals in the planning department and management staff can advise on needed changes to policies and procedures. Throughout the process of review and consideration of changes, we urge you to consult with your city or town attorney. Remember that this area of the law is often litigated, and may be more so in the future, so you should act prudently with the benefit of legal advice. The League and the School of Government can provide general information and guidance regarding the annexation statutes and possible interpretations. Two recent School of Government postings discuss the annexation changes: hgp: / /sog yeb.sog.unc.edu /blo s/g localgovt / ?p =4494 http: / /so eb.sog.unc.edu /blo s/g local ovt / ?p =5000. 147 32 MEMORANDUM TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager FROM: Kenneth C. Pennoyer, Director of Business Management SUBJECT: Orange County Landfill Financial Analysis DATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE To review the financial information provided by the County concerning the financial position of the Solid Waste Landfill Fund and the impact of the pending closure of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Orange County Regional Landfill was established in 1972 as a joint venture among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro to facilitate the management of solid waste disposal in Orange County. The agreement established initial investment and ownership of the landfill at 43% for Orange County, 43% for Chapel Hill and 14% for Carrboro, with a combined initial investment for the three entities of $409,840. Under the agreement, the Town of Chapel Hill was designated as the administrator of the landfill operations and was responsible for the financial records of the joint venture. All users of the landfill, including the parties to the agreement, pay user charges based on proportional use. The joint venture operated until April 6, 2000, at which time the Town transferred all regional landfill assets and liabilities and the role of administrator to Orange County. Segment information for the period July 1, 1999 through April 16, 2000 is as follows: Operating Revenues $3,024,714 Operating Expenses 2,970,778 Operating Income 53,936 Non - operating Income $ 149,900 Depreciation Expense $ 610,798 Total Assets $10,284,701 Closure and Post Closure Liability 2,507,149 Total Equity $ 7,478,161 In addition to physical assets (land & equipment) that had a depreciated value of about $5.6 million, the Town transferred $4.17 million in cash, net of adjustments, as part of the transfer. RM 33 Comparative balance sheets for FYI 999 and FY2011, the last full year the landfill was under Town of Chapel Hill administration and the latest available financial information from Orange County, are shown in Attachment 1. Please note that due to changes in the government financial reporting model that went into effect in 2003, some of the assets and liabilities are categorized differently. Landfill operations are accounted for as an enterprise fund, so that in addition to financial assets and current liabilities that would be presented in a typical governmental fund, the landfill fund reporting also includes economic assets such as land and capital equipment as well as long -term liabilities such as the non - current portion of debt. Also, as an enterprise fund, depreciation is recorded on fund fixed assets. The fund has grown significantly over the comparison period. Cash and cash equivalents increased from $4.4 million to $12.9 million. This is similar to the increase in the post closure liability, which is the amount set -aside to pay for the closure of the landfill and 30 years of subsequent monitoring and maintenance. The landfill closure and post closure care liability, which is discussed further below, increased from $2.3 million to $11.9 million. Despite the overall growth in the fund, the net assets — the theoretical value of the fund's assets after all liabilities are paid off— decreased from $6.9 million to $3.5 million, due to the increase in liabilities, including OPEB which was not recognized in 1999. Landfill closure and post closure care costs Landfills are financially responsible for the costs of closing the site at the end of its useful life and the cost to monitor and maintain the site for 30 years after closure. These costs are recognized over the useful life of the landfill and are comprised of the following three elements: • The cost equipment and facilities that will be acquired for the purpose of post closure care and monitoring. • The cost of applying the final cover. • The cost of post closure care and monitoring. Estimated costs are adjusted annually to reflect inflation and any changes in technology or regulations and are calculated based on current costs. An annual expense related to closure and post closure costs is calculated using a formula that recognizes the amount of capacity used during the period and any adjustments to prior costs. The accumulated costs are shown as a liability in the Landfill's Statement of Net Assets. As of June 30, 2011 the estimated cost of closure and post closure costs are shown as $11,966,601 in the County's financial statements. The calculations for this cost estimate are 149 34 shown below. There are two sets of calculations, one for the MSW Landfill which is slated for closure in 2013 and another for the C &D Landfill that will remain open well past 2013. Closure and Post Closure Costs Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill* Closure Costs $ 3,11 6,720 Post Closure Care Costs 4,241,544 Corrective Action 583,011 Total MSW $ 7,941,275 * Per HRD October 28, 2010 (revised Feb 3, 2011) Report Closure and Post Closure Costs Construction & Demolition (C &D) Landfill* Closure Costs $ 929,957 Post Closure Care Costs 95,369 Corrective Action ** 3,000,000 Total MSW $ 4,025,326 * Per Draper Arden Assoc. July 6, 2011 Report ** The engineer's report details corrective action cost of $661,598, leaving $2,338,402 of unsupported corrective action cost. The total of the two calculations above is $11,966,601, which is also reflected in the Notes to the Financial Section of Orange County's June 30, 2011 financial statements along with the following information: Costs during the monitoring period are estimated to be $95,000 per year. Total liability per financial statements represents a cumulative amount based on 85% capacity used. There is an additional $1.3 million of closure costs and care that will be recognized in future years. The FY2011 Financial Statements As of June 20, 2011 the Landfill Fund had current assets of $13.4 million, non - current assets of $6.4 million and total assets of $19.8 million. The fund also had current liabilities of $1.4 million, non- current liabilities of $15.6 million and total liabilities of $17.0 million. Total assets exceed liabilities by almost $3 million; however this net asset number is made up of two components. The first is investments in capital assets of $3.5 million that represents value of the 150 35 County's equity in fund fixed assets. The second is negative unrestricted assets of ($0.7 million) that represent an excess of liabilities over liquid assets (cash). SUMMARY The County's October 4, 2011 agenda item titled "Roger's Road Area Mitigation Options and Landfill Closure Impacts" states that "the Solid Waste enterprise fund, without considering the sale of any assets, is $4,073,276 short of meeting all long -term obligations." The Town staff review of the County's audited financial statements show the difference between current assets and all liabilities (current and non - current) to be $3,568,461. We need to reconcile any difference in assumptions between these two numbers. In addition, the following factors should be considered in assessing the adequacy of the Solid Waste Fund resources to meet future obligations: • The closure of the landfill will provide an opportunity to liquidate some fixed assets associated with landfill operations that can provide additional funding for long -term costs. • The costs associated with post closure care ($4,336,913) will be paid out over 30 years. During that time the fund should have sufficient current assets to generate significant interest earnings over the 30 year period. • The C &D landfill is expected to stay open beyond 2013, providing an opportunity to generate additional funding toward closure and post closure costs. • There appears to be $2.4 million of unexplained corrective action costs associated with the closure of the C &D landfill. The total estimate for C &D corrective action costs of $3.0 million seems out of proportion to corrective action cost of the MSW Landfill. • OPEB liability costs may decrease as a result of employees leaving landfill operations when the landfills are closed. Also, if other operations accounted for in the Solid Waste Fund, Recycling Operations and Sanitation and Convenience Center Operations, continue to operate after the closure of the landfills, revenues associated with those operations will be available to pay fund obligations. ATTACHMENT 1) Comparison of Balance Sheet FYI 999 and FY2011 151 W LANDFILL FUND COMPARISON OF BALANCE SHEET FY1999 AND STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS FY2011 LIABILITIES Current liabilities Accounts payable 1999* 2011 Accrued liabilities Town County ASSETS - 147,355 Current assets - 87,314 Cash and cash equivalents /investments $ 4,446,721 $ 12,941,892 Accounts receivable, state - 67,486 Accounts receivable, other - 422,157 Other 120,379 - Total current assets 4,567,100 13,431,535 Noncurrent assets: 2,372,362 115966,601 Land, land improvements & Bldgs 4,560,435 - Equipment 3,808,086 - Construction in Progress 1,281,256 - Non- depreciable Assets 2,687,198 1,617,824 Capital assets net of depreciation - 4,806,084 Accumulated Depreciation (4,255,354) - Total noncurrent assets 5,394,423 6,423,908 Total assets 9,961,523 19,855,443 LIABILITIES Current liabilities Accounts payable 250,706 432,282 Accrued liabilities 64,130 24,247 Employee taxes and related withholdings - 147,355 Accrued interest - 87,314 Current portion of long -term debt - 549,784 Compensated absences, current portion - 1495773 Total current liabilities 314,836 15390,755 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences - 99,850 Post Closing Liability 2,372,362 115966,601 OPEB Liability - 1,197,787 Long -term Debt - 2,345,003 Total noncurrent liabilities 2,372,362 15,609,241 Total liabilities 2,687,198 16,9995996 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets - 3,529,121 Unrestricted - (673,674) Contributed Capital 279,850 - Retained Earnings 6,994,475 - Total net assets $ 6,994,475 $ 3,529,121 * The format for reporting enterprise fund balance sheet information changed to a net assets presentation in 2003, therefore asset and liability categories may not be equivalent. The above information is provided to show proportional changes over -time and may not represent strict apple to apple comparisons. 152 37 MEMORANDUM TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager FROM: Lance Norris, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Status Report on Future Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options DATE: January 23, 2012 PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to provide Council with an update on the Town's solid waste collection and disposal options for the future. In light of recent developments, namely the possible closure of the Orange County Landfill by the spring of 2013, the Town is exploring alternative sustainable and viable options for solid waste collection and disposal. This memo summarizes the Town's efforts, to date, to begin exploring options for solid waste collection and disposal, which are as follows: 1.. An Independent Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options. 2. A Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Pilot Program to Durham. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Interlocal Agreement obligates the County to provide the Town with two year's notice to terminate the Agreement. To date, the Town has not received official notice. The Orange County Commissioners have expressed their intent to close the landfill as early as the spring of 2013, which, in the absence of an alternative provided by the County (for example, a transfer station), would effectively constitute a termination of the Agreement as to solid waste. In light of this development, the Town has begun proactively exploring alternative options for solid waste disposal, as well as ways of increasing efficiency with solid waste collection. Wendy Simmons, the Town's new Solid Waste Services Superintendent, will play a central role in overseeing these projects going forward. Wendy has a Masters Degree in Environmental Management from Duke University. She has many years of work experience in the field of solid waste management, including tenure with NCDENR and most recently with the City of Asheville, where she was the Solid Waste Manager. The Town will continue to explore additional innovative and realistic opportunities for solid waste management that align with our organizational values and commitments to sustainability, economic vitality and cost - effectiveness. 153 M Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options Consultant Project The Public Works Department put out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide the Town with a Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options on November 16, 2011. The primary goals of this project are to: 1. Conduct a complete review of the Town of Chapel Hill's current solid waste collection and disposal practices, including residential waste, commercial waste, white goods, yard waste, and brush. 2. Present a comprehensive set of options for the Town's future management of solid waste collection and disposal. These options should include opportunities for enhancing and/or streamlining the Town's current solid waste disposal and collection activities, as well as those the Town does not currently manage, such as recycling and energy conversion (including waste -to- energy). 3. Identify opportunities for public - private partnership (i.e. waste to energy), including specific partners, for the implementation of an enhanced solid waste management system. The Town received proposals from seven firms by the December 5t' deadline, and will interview in late January two consulting firms who meet the criteria established in the RFQ and have the required diversity of experience and expertise in solid waste management. The staff anticipates making a selection of the firm by mid - February and receiving sufficient information that will allow for decisions as it relates to the impact on the budget for FY 2013. Solid Waste Pilot Program to Durham In an effort to begin actively exploring alternatives for solid waste disposal options, the Town conducted a two -week pilot program transporting residential and commercial solid waste to the Durham Transfer Station. The Town staff is in the process of evaluating the results of the pilot program. Our preliminary review of the results are consistent with our earlier fiscal impact estimates, based on the current method of providing the in -house services. Key findings of the pilot program are as follows: The average travel distance to and from the transfer station is approximately 18 miles one -way, adding about an hour of off -route travel time per trip. During peak hours the wait time at the transfer station may be slightly greater than those experienced during the pilot. The vehicles participating in the pilot program experienced no maintenance issues on the way to or from the Durham Transfer Station. We believe that the programmed allowance for additional maintenance associated with the mileage is still reasonable at this time. 154 39 Total additional costs moving forward will depend on decisions made relative to collection and disposal options. If we begin hauling solid waste to Durham, estimated additional annual costs resulting from the increase in hauling distance would be between $500,000 and $600,000. An additional consideration is the increased safety risk to our employees and the liability to the Town of placing fully loaded solid waste vehicles and drivers on an interstate highway. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council receive this report. AxL11r J co)-�"° 40 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL PyJOINT GREENE TRACT WORK SESSION ACTION AGEND CT Meeting Date: (,April 29, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Greene Tract Development and Conservation — Summary of Issues for Joint Discussion DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Solid Waste Management Inter Local Agreement 2. Inter Local Agreement Amendment 3. Greene Tract Work Group Resolution & Concept Map 4. County Attorney Memo to the BOCC 5. BOCC Greene Tract Minutes 6. BOCC Greene Tract Correspondence 7. Greene Tract Environmental Assessment 8. Sewer Service to Greene Tract 9. Report from Affordable Housing Partners re: Greene Tract 10. School Site Selection Report re: Greene Tract INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Blackmon, County Manager, 245- 2300 Gwen Harvey, Assistant Manager Craig Benedict, Director, Planning David Stancil, Director, ERCD Tara Fikes, Director, H /CD Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney PURPOSE: To present for discussion among the jurisdictions a summary of various aspects and alternatives associated with the development and conservation of the Greene Tract, and receive input and direction as may be desired on next steps. BACKGROUND: Inter Local Agreement The use of the Greene Tract is subject to the Solid Waste Inter Local Agreement (ILA) of 1999, as Amended 2000 to incorporate technical changes. The ILA describes ownership and land use of the Greene Tract and the reimbursement formula. A work group was subsequently established by the County and Towns to reach agreement on the ultimate disposition of the property in joint ownership. The Greene Tract Work Group presented its resolution reporting its recommendations to the County and Towns in June 2002. Its recommendations and concept map offered the following guidance: 41 2 Tract 1: Orange County — 60 acres that "the County should consider protecting" by conservation easement; Tract 2: Joint Affordable Housing — 18.1 acres; Tract 3: Joint Open Space — 85.9 acres. The BOCC adopted the ILA on September 29, 1999; the ILA Amendment on March 14, 2000; but there are no records to indicate that the Green Tract Work Group Resolution was ever formally adopted by the BOCC. Subcommittee of Elected Officials and Management Discussion and development of the Greene Tract has come up regularly at the Assembly of Governments (AOG). In spring 2007, however, the AOG agreed to use a subcommittee of the Chair, Mayors, and Managers to examine more vigorously issues prerequisite and surrounding the development and preservation of the Greene Tract. This was deemed especially important since the Town of Chapel Hill was about to initiate its Small Area Plan of the Rogers Road community whose boundaries embrace the Greene Tract. Two meetings were convened by County and Town elected and management officials — October 3, 2007 and February 14, 2008 — to re- examine development feasibility options and reimbursement to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. County, Town, and OWASA staff were tasked with drafting various options and opportunities for locating the affordable housing on site and providing road entry and sewer services as background to the work of the elected officials and managers between meetings. At the February meeting, County staff presented the results of joint staff discussions on land use and ownership, environmental /natural features /preservation parameters, utilities — existing and proposed, transportation and access, and affordable housing tract development alternatives. Discussion arose on a proposed school site for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City School District and its impact on acreage reserved for conservation and /or affordable housing. County staff was asked to draft a set of guiding principles and parameters for enacting conservation easements in anticipation of greater discussion on or before the AOG meeting on March 31, and what limitations might prevail for affordable housing. After County staff review of the guiding principles and parameters for conservation purposes, the County Attorney prepared a memorandum to the BOCC stating that nothing in the language of the ILA contemplated or provided for the Greene Tract portion under County ownership to be used for other than solid waste system purposes. There was insufficient time for consideration of the Greene Tract item and its component parts at the AOG meeting on March 31, therefore it was agreed to schedule the topic for a previously scheduled joint meeting set on April 29. The BOCC, in preparation during a work session on April 8, reviewed the updated information postponed from the AOG meeting, and began a preliminary discussion of the development and conservation issues previously identified by the joint staffs. County staff was then asked to research and provide additional information for the joint meeting on April 29. Those issues are addressed in Attachments 5 -10. County staff will provide a presentation on the development and conservation issues and respond to any questions at the meeting on April 29. 42 FINANCIAL IMPACT: For the Greene Tract in joint ownership, the respective share of reimbursement to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is: Orange County;43% of 104 acres - $404,901; Chapel Hill, 43 % of 104 acres - $404,901; and Carrboro, 14% of 104 acres - $131,828. Assuming repayment over a 5 -year term at six percent interest, beginning July 1, 2008, the annual payment would be: Orange County - $90,549; Chapel Hill - $90549; and Carrboro - $29,524. RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC and its municipal partners receive the presentation and provide any policy direction and feedback as may be desired. AST oz��° of 43 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEND Meeting Date: December 10, 200 Action Agenda Item No. %—I SUBJECT: Approval of Recommendations from the Greene Tract Work Group DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): 6/26102 Work Group Resolution (incorporates Map of Concept Plan) INFORMATION CONTACT: Rod Visser, 245 -2308 Dave Stancil, 245 -2598 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336 -227 -2031 PURPOSE: To consider formal approval of the recommendations from the Greene Tract Work Group regarding the disposition of the 104 acres of the Greene Tract that remain in joint ownership. BACKGROUND: The solid waste management interlocal agreement signed by the County and Towns in September 1999 and amended in March 2000 lays out parameters under which the Greene Tract owners are to resolve the ultimate disposition of the approximately 104 acres of that parcel that remain in joint ownership. The agreement also addresses how the Solid Waste /Landfill Enterprise Fund is to be reimbursed if the property is put to uses that are not related to the solid waste enterprise. The interlocal agreement anticipated that the Greene Tract owners would reach agreement on the disposition of the property during a bargaining period that concluded on April 17, 2002 (the two year anniversary of the effective date upon which Orange County assumed overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange County). The Greene Tract Work Group provided an interim report to the three governing boards in the form of a resolution dated March 21, 2002. That resolution requested that each of the three governing boards approve an extension to the bargaining period to allow the completion of discussions that could lead to consensus on a concept plan for the remainder of the Greene Tract. All three governing boards approved an extension of the bargaining period, which led to the Work Group (with Commissioners Brown and Carey representing the BOCC) reaching consensus on a concept plan for the ultimate disposition of the 104 acres of the Greene Tract remaining under joint ownership. The accompanying resolution and concept plan map reflect the Work Group's recommendations. The BOCC received a report on the Work Group recommendations at the October 15, 2002 meeting, and indicated general concurrence with the Work Group recommendations. Since that time, the governing boards of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have both acted to accept the Work 44 2 Group recommendations. This agenda item provides the BOCC with the opportunity to take formal action to accept the Work Group recommendations, as outlined in the accompanying Work Group resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated directly with the discussion of the resolution. However, the County and Towns will be obliged to reimburse the Landfill Enterprise Fund for the original 1984 purchase price of $608,000, plus interest, if, as recommended by the Work Group, the Greene Tract is used for purposes other than those of the solid waste system. As directed by the Board at the October 15 meeting, the Manager will confer with the Carrboro and Chapel Hill Town Managers to develop recommendations by March 2003 back to the respective governing boards regarding the structure, timing, and source of reimbursement funding to the Landfill Enterprise Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the recommendations outlined in the accompanying Greene Tract Work Group resolution. 45 APPROVED 4 GREENE TRACT WORK GROUP A RESOLUTION REPORTING THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PORTION OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT REMAINS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system; and WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000 under provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management "; and WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement was April 17, 2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing boards, comments from interested citizens and organizations, and information developed by staff in response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the balance of the Greene Tract; and WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March 21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a concept plan providing for approximately 78 acres to be earmarked for open.space protected by conservation easements and approximately 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended in that March 21, 2002 resolution that the following additional steps be taken: • The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a conservation easement between appropriate parties • The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting its 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party • The Chapel Hill Town Council should consider initiating a small area planning process to examine desirable land uses for the Purefoy Road area • The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as the headwaters for three important streams (Bolin Creek, Old Field Creek, and Booker Creek) • The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general vicinity of the Greene Tract, as cataloged in an accompanying table; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the bargaining period beyond April17, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and APPROVED t: WHEREAS, the Work Group received a technical report from the County Engineer outlining the basic alternatives available and approximate costs for providing sewer service to a portion of the Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded by consensus that "the carrying capacity of the land" should be the determining factor in establishing how much of the unresolved 11 acres should be earmarked for specific purposes, and that the ridge line reflected on the accompanying concept map determines the portion (approximately one - third) of the 11 acres that can practically be used for affordable housing served by a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via Purefoy Road: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the Work Group's consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by conservation easements approximating 85.90 acres and the acreage for affordable housing approximating 18.10 acres; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the acreage for affordable housing be placed in the Land Trust; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the Managers investigate options for reimbursement of the Solid Waste /Landfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for affordable housing and open space; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism for reimbursement to the Solid Waste /Landfill Enterprise Fund should be formal action taken by all three boards to approve conservation easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005. This, the 26"' day of June, 2002. Moses Carey, Jr. Chair Greene Tract Work Group 46 Page 1 of 1 0/47 Greene Tract Concept Plan Approved by the Greene Tract VWorkgroup, 6/26/02 file:// H:\ DEPTS\ SolidWaste\ GreeneTract \WorkGroup \conceptplan062502 jpg 12/04/2002 Greene Tract concept Plan -s 0-6-3 48 Approved by the Greene Tract Workgrow. 6/26102 eels Ire Bewrurx �,+`�,� RMIrooe . ; b+ r Walr Llrx Steams t Conbur Lhes Pads MM 81rucl Tres. O ramp! C ounly Lana l`ntl pse Atbremle Hcuslrg 18.10 Awes IM alien SPacc Wso Acre s IT 300. 0 300.600 Feet 4 } x.- Orange County Environment& Resource Conservation Department June 27 2002 B, Young 49 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COPYACTION AGEND Meeting Date: October 3, 2006 Action AgenAa Item No. - L SUBJECT: Homestead Road Campus Master Plan Approval DEPARTMENT: Purchasing, ERCD, Planning ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Unadopted 1998 SHSC Master Plan 2) 2006 Proposed Master Plan Map 3) Site Pros /Cons 4) Cultural & Archaeological Survey Map 5) Cultural & Archaeological Executive Summary PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones, Purchasing & Central Services, 245 -2652 David Stancil, ERCD, 245 -2590 Craig Benedict, Planning, 245 -2592 PURPOSE: To consider approving a conceptual master plan for the Southern Human Services Center (SHSC) property. BACKGROUND: In 1992, the County purchased 34.1 acres of property at 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill to serve as the County campus in southern Orange County. The most compelling need at the time was the consolidation of County human services departments located in various buildings throughout Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Under an approved Special Use Permit issued by the Town of Chapel Hill in 1994, the County built an approximately 28,500 square foot building and co- located the departments of Health, Social Services, Housing and Child Support Enforcement. The concept master plan presented to the Board previously . indicates that there is an expansion area to the east of this building, sufficient to essentially double the size of the building in a two -level addition. (Attachment #1: Bldg Area #5) Further, there is a smaller footprint to the south of the building for the addition of a. Dental Clinic (Attachment #1: Bldg area 6) In 1995, the Interfaith Council (IFC) approached the County requesting land upon which to construct Project Homestar, which provides alternatives for homeless families. in transition and battered women seeking refuge. The County granted a 25 -year lease for three acres of property in the northwest corner of the site, upon which I_FC constructed these facilities. A modification of the County's SUP was approved by the Town of Chapel Hill at the time of this construction. In 2004, the Board considered alternatives in the siting of the Seymour Senior Center on this campus. At that time, the conceptual master plan reflected four potential available building sites. However, during the deliberations regarding the senior center, the Board agreed to establish nature conservation areas in the southwest comer of the site in order to preserve valuable hardwoods (Attachment 1: Former Building Area #1 and #2) This eliminated two 50 2 potential sites for smaller buildings, thereby bringing the available number of additional building sites to two, plus the area around the residence. The Board ultimately selected one of the remaining two sites as the location for the senior center (Attachment 1: Bldg Area #4) An assessment conducted by ERCD in 2004 indicates that additional construction in the area around the residence of the previous property owner would require that the mature hardwoods around the residence be removed. (Attachment 1: Existing House) Previous studies regarding additional facilities on this campus have recommended that the house be retrofitted and reused in lieu of replacement with a new and larger structure. The sole remaining site is located east of the access drive and between the existing Southern Human Services Center and the new Seymour Center (Attachment 1: Bldg Area #3) The estimated footprint will accommodate approximately 22,000 square feet of ground level building construction. Although no formal allocation of function has been attached to this site,_ the County's mandated responsibilities to provide court and court related functions has been a focus of previous conversations. At this time, the Town of Chapel Hill allows the use of the Old Post Office on Franklin Street as the location of courtrooms, with the balance of the current court needs addressed by space leased by the County in Carrboro (Public Defender at Carr Mill Mail, other court offices at the Moody Building on Laurel Ave). Presumably, the County would continue to consolidate new buildings for County and court obligations to the Homestead Road site. In summary, the recommended master plan of the Southern Orange Homestead Road Campus would include: • Building Areas #1 and #2 shall remain undisturbed as a nature conservation area on the site; • Building Area #3 shall be reserved to maintain flexibility in the location of future county /court operations; • Building Area #4 is designated for the Seymour Senior Center; • Building Area #5 shall be reserved for the expansion of the current human services building. • Building Area #6 shall be reserved for future expansion of the Health Department, specifically for the Dental Clinic; and • Existing House and the natural areas surrounding it, shall remain undisturbed, except for the renovation /upfrt of the existing structure for County use as may be recommended in the upcoming space study update; As a final note, upon Board recommendation, a cultural and archaeological study was conducted on the campus in areas where future construction could occur to ensure that future development would not destroy hidden artifacts that may have been of value. A recently received report, summarizing the findings of the assessment conducted over the summer, indicates no remarkable findings and recommends no further study of the site (Attachment #5: Executive Summary). FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends that the Board receive the information, discuss as necessary, and approve the master plan as cited. _ . . . - . • • ' - ' . , � � - ' . v w � �,���_ � ��-�,.��,.r _��:���,- �l►1L:i�_1C��_./'/.f/.�"..�� - 7;a�r�:.�=�w , �, ``�E�.�.Z►�i��tt�/�'s---�„=- '� �.�tir � � - ��, =CTi� ��1�s�%�i:����7r�1` � �� i � �� ' �� " � i j r � - �-- "� ( , � _ _- � �7�► � , � - _,_ � � _ � - �'J� _�J�� . ' h�- � �� � � Jp•� �I�`� �� '�,� �,�:n� , •..,,,- ,/� -�� �.�,���,,���t �� ����t(����1;�..,'_.,�: � � � �� � _t/' L '�...,...�^��V1•±)q� �` � ��"����� ,''" �%��� �- �z;,. �!� � �����������LL �l;\�= a�,;!�� . ' �'�� ��l ����. -:i.1�, .�. �����.��./%����'���;� ��� '.Im``I jryyl��\��'1� ��1�f„��. - �+ ' � '� _�S�ti, ,+I � � l.,. ��-- :�f.\�1��; *�`�';���i`'�:`� � •.'i,\����r� , �j`� ��t`t`, ���,�r,�r�!;��1-. . ���i�� � ,.,��,�� ''J�}i 1`'1��� >>� ;�+✓1�`•�� ��;y�`�.'��'�� ' -:-- � �� _�` �i; ` , ���.__��!/� �,i�.��: l♦ `�"__—� ��::�;, 'I ,..e>•. �.`� �� ►i,,..�.Jl,.�, � � �'r='�'`'� r ����r_a�� ������/ __ � `" � — -•\�i\n a r`� �y i ^��:t/�1�� �w�' !' ��— .;�: � ,����_ Y`;��:�i�i� ;��-. . ;,�.. ,� :._� �_. ,•- ;v ,�..-�. �• j�'� ,�,,��[ �.�i_,;,��� :��'U� `f;�:��"f`;�;1l�,�r,y,� ���������?�; � ` ����• � : �. - � . � l ,��� ���.� � :��, � � _- ....•r,,� ��:�/.�,•;'..�_ `� f.�� _ � t� �, .\�� .f;..: �,�. I .��i�,.�5 .1,-. .�.r.ti�,,�_-�� 3 t t� '. -.I..;,/,� _��iuti..,l � ��,i�..f— t��; � ���:��I`� iI•� J`� ) �►:. �s-.���;- � a1 :ii� :�� ,; •"- �;,��,.:;;;{��'�'�'_�=..r , , ;� � �,,�;. M.�;:.__;,,�..� �,.1,,�,1:,_'� �I ,f,��,,;� ��•�< ���a •,�,ra;,,..r,� -5�;= �ie,�r `�:��;;�"rT.,1,!-,.�:,J% �I;,:_� �� f! � -49�;1/` � �r..a.►'+ _ ..� � .- �1 � �`,� � . , _.��,��a •y�'���.�I�n�� P►�i�•:j i���l.ir-�� '�r�� _.: j `��.1�,�'J `�?,�\.`�������il�� ;��n.,�,, �.L�Y:r%:r,`�,���+;�.=':[l�r,. � �� � �._r�� fi �,\ �:\I.".-���:.t��t�Jc������� aljl�1���✓� �T�`.%i)`�►�� irl�'�`�G; �.�f�' • � �f ���`�' �, ,=l - L: ` � r.... As`� !��A�� ,�����yL_�\��dlu.`' 'Z' c�< I:�1��[/ <<�Q(Js���`-�� ������� .� �� �� 'ti''1n ��:1��U� � i��r. � ��R_ � C.. /// ii' i• ti �"`� r � l. �1� �� ����\``��`\�� //(/ r t �.� j3�1\l� L\,''��` �~� 1t�•,� �1`■_,t, 't"�1:�'' //�H]/I �:��'�i�:� r��`t�lr ���r� ��`i : �-- j�',���� _47)r��/1(f il!l,-lT� i�.r'; `I�1��T r � .%�'tjtl�������"�..us1 ` �il),~ �� � 1 �°!i c.i� � r�`- �T, � f`� �s �i'E :����:,i���= ���,.,. �.,. f. -�:��_' ��� ��}��., �,,,..�. ���+,► T�� � W[l.1f111� , �� �� '�•��� ;�:',,�'�� ����/� ��. , !'���� ��\\�'���� � J!�• ` �' ����""'�;� Fs��\`�\ '��T---�*��t :�t�� ���//Ll,�,��...�._ .�.�y'� �,\ � ��� ��a#�:i a�`� �`��� � ���I.R,.�.�:/1'� �II�,l� �� _ �C � � + � 1 �s+��''E.: �' �� ! '+� � �►'1+� � _ �� - �'7r'�������,��, �C1;4�! � - � .,,���1'`� �������� �/i 1yr(�1+„�a:� .. � J __ /"r�'%�� I� ,w t.• ! , � '�11r � + °'�� � ��� ��. -���-��� ,,. f��rj r I)1�� ^��� ��. �� �1%1: _ - _ _ � �'���JL; ���1� � J�%' ' ��_* �� '�� i, z�iii -�► �i�r�_ „`- � `iF� '�e �� :.`:i�j, ' _ _ � � :��' ��� .r-." / � ���� , ��:_ ,•r . �� � � �� , 3 �� ��� "1�':`:-;-'�`l��' •�r �,'����Q�`�� �� ; ,: I`1_!I���..;�/� �� �` � ' �Ir'`�I�= -� 1!' � �� ` i"_ -`,'"' „����=„�----"`--, 'A � i����lv�� '�i � �r� rS:I��.�,,.�..���r�— tt�� . � � � �'Gchm�f � ��t Pr�oposed 20�fi Master Ptan Southern Human Services Campus �. i�'`' . a,�`r�.�`3`°', � � ,•r : ' �,;� ' ���i.�,z,�"°�G�_ _ ��`<� ''����. . � ,:�"`��'�, . � ° . � .. .Y �s`'. .! �a�`,r.AyrF,,��� ��;���.y,N;y.,.r���"��-.._�,,,'"G' �'_ . "�r+�'`b`.,,.a °t$ - � atii - � T�" 'R..�-ic"ss''�n.�.� 11 ��.:.,,../�,,�Y rv �,` f �. -. ��� . �.. ...R.,+„� e .' #�i..�4�,����,i...�,_�. i-7' � s• .:.�F„ ��. � ,�- . � . �, '^-�,ti� f`ii -. �����. ,. :,�-�- . �,�yc ��k4 �.,; � ea �"-� .k ,x� . .t�, i�-`� ,•r"�'{r-icts ��;�, . � � �,�ijj,�e;�, �, t ��`iK'�.� . � � ,. ��� ,�,$f ��,- .: �.t� 2... -�-.�^ -..,,. �� � �'���2Ct *""i"? X . a i� �4 . � �. £ �� "�..'�,-�•, . �"i*�r,�„`'��t.�r, . -.- _ ' .~� _ �'--�-���t�rt ' �� �''�4-n- � _ ' , � � , .��.�,-,,� ,� �-.._-.<.H � ¢ . �. � ?3 . �y�xq�3'ss '� � � y���^•.uY ,�t .r . �r O 5�. . K SC'[IrOJ�C.EhtE7?����.'�w.�„}�.r���n„�, ' � �-',Ea'r��T�,� � .� —"`� :+�s!��T-w,•�e�.�, ' . ..r, �` UnderCanstructlnn �.�i ..:,Y.. ' '� -' !,S ,� ,Tt ��.� �34 �t,a"` °�� r +'w .rr �'_Ar�` <'_ ���,`m'i`.rF,�- � . 'r -, :..,�,�. '�! ������� ��� G . �^ �� .3��E !;/ �s'^�`�'���`4 { I . S � 'f � 4; ��� S'- .. "5 � y S� Y � � .rt.� 4.y,,,. .,�an� z. ��a,�, � ' r � e<�^^� 3,` q .,�.. ,,�, .,� .<e• ::�s.#£�"���4^.s r��r ��v! ��i r'�+-�'"iS�i +�*.�- .s T3` � y.�' '�� � +Y � �7 s ��c'y��Jr`3 �"w�.r ..,rt7' ,-'-�.. +��!�,t-•� x � � �. � -� r y h 4t...r.• 4s ..3x --< + ��:. i ��^�:� a��..i`r� ��-�--� .?�-� s �(e� .c . . .n' � �.�� ..-'— fi k E"� f. � '- '�w ���-��aT'���'t1� 'a^�..�>yy�c'%�""�` '`s� � � � t ..'r �'it ;,r.,B����lCa�.fs. r rvw��.y ���✓ �_.,1�L^+.`�`x, ♦...!� e �, '.�u K y .'� _�,�.� f p .� 7 ��ica s„i-c�Ar' T.. .� yr . �,�.,r .�. ��.-� ,,i. �' � : S-���-7' -.:?°i v r � .'�� 3 rry �`'� .'. `'. , � �: E �t` r�-�.k.�.�w �,v e^nr,n•�� 1 y" i' � � µ y "'z'' � � e �.� a,,� � � - k' �r•,�' '�;r' f• Y�-'�+ -^^ ✓ ,Sc 5' 3. ..� ' ' , � 6'�'- L � ��,,�„lW.,�,g�"} .+f t ? n t .. .� �rr '� a_ ..? F �Y 7 �; .s � { n .t`'"^� �'��,��-yr."�`� �,r r : ,Fa -w .� r ,a.� ,� � f i �" ���.,,��3" r .i� A ^y3 � �w'r� .r�.° � � s �."'°�� � y"3 a �fi'�3? ,+.. 'S"' �_� ��'< """�' �.�r'k:. � e' 1 ..,€�"" h ..- ,�-r� p' s � _ r � �� >� r �7":.. h. .,. �},-ar € - 7-��r 3'r�,�'.'a�i� . � ~ 5•�i �, �-,�' X �.��d .� � ✓ . r. *$� .�'�-�'� ' ��.an3, i r k �i�`-e+-�.'�''3 � tov� ,r� �� � � y^ .,-r 4't � ,'' 'u"-v ,7�J'.``� ✓ �K.4(,..w-..lY y r �>f{" ��a�R �'�, � ♦ ,s . i" . -}� r .�. � ..�.t � y. >,'Z,ti,. -L• "s],F: � '�4��4i�-��.x���if� �� {� -y ,�-1�..�`�'�Z�-q� ? . r - r<-.� i ' ��.8�,U �.��,�., .�� ��-4'�,� . ����". �_�s4....k :.��A aVT¢ � .+.�7 � +.-r �` t�� _ . �,,,�{�TS, ?"SS rr �+�v ��:,#-+G � . 7 -'s'�+���t� . � t �' .. t�t � �'i� � v rn� '`� r����Zi``"� `y.� +r�"_ f _ � y '`"'' '� ':� 4 �TV �.v��� ,. .�%% x� �. ���i'ti,��c ',., `-rx-it r�^r .�� y1 � �'� m� <., r..EXIStIl1 r HOl1sE t . `�.'.d.. � �^v-�"-�°`�, s. r +F���. �-v r .,�� �C ,i x r -. 9 - �� ,sr�. � �'v.. i�� - �"� "' :4Y�..rti i i,a... .; � 4" ;. 5 .:: r ; .J� t - '�A��' .` -. s �- , �.�-�-t��f'��1'� i-�� *�, z. s � 1 '� � �(,w l`� _ r � / � �-^- "� -� -44'.N�"�"�����: i' r 1� 2 s "°> ��� ��'^� .s � � '�'�"^' � ��'ai��'-"����"�"'- �'{' °����-r�-��"c 3�r'_, r' ' _ -.� . M� - .��X..+->b�f ��+-� dt",�:3_ir �.ti "` `. [ .� � .� -�� rt�,..3� . ��� ,�,,.�-�x�`rr�'�� � - . . -a = �� �r ;' ��-'.,�.'�"";,c-^`r £_ �o � .. f it �„'. - , . ' .: i�. .a ���..r�, y. '�, ,�r �- .'� - T � f�. , �� . ' 1!4 .�(l�.,Ln` '�.,P"1T.d -� F�G -4e' .'? ..�s�", � � ^}-;��*.� _ .,.. � ��a,.,�. . . . .t� - ,. + �- c. �4 �i ,-;x. � '^ �����g'.�+�- "' � :ti � 1 ��� 1�a� ,,;�5.r ��.-� •- �`�� �. e., s+� s r''w`'.-�- __. r �,� -y �i�� � �'.�„��_ ,�7 �r� � aeF ��e .�la r y�� "�31L!��- �- � ��-5. _� _ �.��- ��r�`- ��:r--�a, rv� � 'i .'� iF"" � � - t-: �}jqs, ;5��''�7Cf�� �. �<„ ° �„"`+E.«'�.,��x., h` .� �'ii�� .. -�-C�tt. �_. s,.. .. -• ..,�,,. � � :.� �i"r"�l _ ,. . .. . ��� .M � •� .� .. �.+-�---��- �{s -. �'-+,_...�"'-r-�-,+,+�`�."�,--' "'�"M�`"' .�.C�arr �'1-^P+ '� ' '" ..�cw... r"�-- `•� - rs,;,.a ,m'�c - .itr�c--- c'�sn.'}t�':^�'y�'�s-•--'i'`�r�T �.� T s-`�i . , E .��.: �'�' p� � ry_ " ��-is�'�� 'N�}c:J�! .-,�_'�'�'� u .. :- ,.: C.��'.'. t�k y i k ...�.'wz +^ v. �� ^� � .r � e` � �t �..,� �-�....y��iYi �' ,N.> s^' * ...3: .a, �� . 1 s° � ,,�_ �,. ,a • �1'.!'�-r "+a-'''�"} ��"h"�, ' �"^z."7..,�, +t'T- +^J "�'-::i . �''�js;-� ����z�-� ,��'r` `"a��,,�,�,�'�`I-.�, q � _ �.: t _ � . �#..z�. �,,,� '?'g,��, �� - ��a . ._.. � -.�+ �_� �� _i.�.�[._,.r,. .31�.G.,r,"�sl; � �����a}� �.. �4 e�.S� _ _ '» r� .a+ -cK �L��..��� ��� �c � ="�l4C�b�!Sn r'��. �lL'LiL.���'"�!� �J S '- � 4 ' _ � . '�,, �T�� 3 � .. : - T ..,r� F. � � � y. g�' �?tN"� 1'�� � d . yn ' ��`,�. � f I rL � � E 1 r�'��s7 ,�i3' i7.+�— +� 'i . W� �C° � r� �Y ' � � ,.i srit',f[.-.� �74' ,+�? u :;r'� ,�-5' i� �'�r, �� � .;� � v.. ' ,,,'3. S'' M � , ��' *.� :x�� �S . _L � . � ,�� -r �FQ_fiRel' �ti.rr..R.�s_-a�u : t. 4.;�� . _��� � �`.���ig.Are.�'��._._i�:l-�-'-.:�jzSffr� `�. ":���-:''- -' � -+�'�.,s,.Y� -�.,,; �� `'k� „-v^;3�?f5'_"_�`�`� ��--�.i�- � F:: Z �_�� .�- M. .� �,,e �� `'J u'll�� y� „�rw"`!'.�Y ��''`- ''� ! 1 `�k�.q S � � �.�y�� � >+� �-,•� , .. '4-�Y �"�� �sr. . . �SJ�'" � . f �I-' t�-.,'-�a..-.. :`'.at; -�,H.�--�_._.�'� - - - ` - '� �f�_� '�.�i� q. '°�i z . J�,.I V -i�•, X+� ESj� �. l y � Lege.ndx���� } �4 , f � r *, �_ �' �,' �. '�•� �"t nC 7 .+i.: F _ " ...E'i'_ tx.': S_y - . �� 9 P��en�al Sdes i 8 acres] � ' . i A , �.N' Y�'6C 'F'4. j S -J�i ' �. .. .., 1\1 1 V OrmpeCwntyPlannnpa�CLSprbansDepa*mml �`7`�5eniorCenterUndec�onstr�ct�o�{ ..4acres� � GIS Mm e�xAaretl nY R4rian Cdanml�Oaaba 12 2D�6 �^ ._r f .�� �_ . { t .. ,� . 'ii t: t P.v�caon:Nan CoraGna Sre Pmix ikGi 1� .Ex�st�ng� �6�cr�es� � � D��m:Narn r.c�eri an 10.43 �N�...s �r :.3>' �� i „ 4'Envlronr,neptai Consi�amts{,'8 acres)� _ 53- Southern Human Services Center Property 0 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill Pros and Cons of Potential Building Sites Former Area's 1 and 2 Pros Cons Site 3 Pros Cons Site 4 Pros Cons • Fairly level topography • Adjacent to existing parking area • Would not disrupt current on -site traffic pattern • Small size (about 1 acre) • Would encroach on mature hardwood forest located west of site • Would disrupt newly established walking trails • Least environmentally sensitive site (abandoned farm field and young pine trees) • Large size ( >6 acres) • Adjacent to existing facilities and infrastructure • Would not.be overly disruptive of current on -site traffic pattern • Moderately sloped topography • Slight disruption of vista • Primarily pine trees (would not need to remove mature hardwoods) • Good access and visibility from Homestead Road • Small size (about 1.2 acres) and moderate slope • Would disrupt current on -site traffic pattern (No comments regarding site #5, which is the expansion area for SHSC.) Site 6 Pros Coils Existing House Pros • Level topography • Adjacent to existing facilities and infrastructure • Primarily pine trees (would not need to remove mature hardwoods) • Unusual location; access and visibility would be challenge. . • Level topography • Central location on property • Could expand existing parking area to accommodate this site Cons • Would lose opportunity to reuse former farmhouse as small conference center • Would have to cut down existing mature hardwood trees around the house • Small size (just under 1 acre) Ad-,�5 0 INUNAGEMENT SITMMARY Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) conducted an intensive archaeological investigation of the Southern Human Services Campus (SHSC), located on approximately 34 acres in Orange County, North Carolina, in August 2006. This investigation was conducted for the Orange County to comply with local policies on County development projects. All fieldwork was designed to comply with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States. Orange County has proposed to construct additional improvements to the SHSC off Homestead Road, just north of the town limits of Chapel Hill in Orange County, North Carolina. Orange County has requested that an intensive archaeological survey be conducted in the areas of proposed ground. disturbance. (Areas 1 and 2). In addition, it was requested that ESI conduct a limited field reconnaissance of the remainder of the parcel where no construction is currently planned (Areas 3 and 4). Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA). Field investigations consisted of pedestrian investigation and shovel testing. Areas of clear visibility, including eroded or exposed ground surfaces and unpaved roads within the survey area were inspected for historic structures, artifacts, and other. signs of prehistoric or historic cultural activity: All shovel tests (n =25) were approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and dug to sterile subsoil; no shovel testing was conducted outside the project area. Intensive archaeological investigation of Areas 1 and 2 recorded one archaeological site (31OR584 * *; Table A). This late nineteenth to early twentieth century domestic site yielded few artifacts and expressed little archaeological integrity. It is recommended not eligible for the National Register. No further work is necessary in Areas 1 and 2, and it is recommended that work be allowed to proceed in these areas without concern for impacts to significant cultural resources. Table A: Summary of Site Data Site Number Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations 31 OR584** Late 19"-Early 20' Cen. Domestic Not Eligible — NFW* *No Further Work A reconnaissance of Areas 3 and 4 found that these areas have a low potential to contain significant cultural resources. A pedestrian inspection of these areas did not observe any cultural resources on the ground surface. Limited shovel testing did not yield any cultural materials and revealed a thin, partially eroded soil profile. Areas 3 and 4 also encompass previously developed areas, moderately steep slopes, and the headwaters of ephemeral drainages, landforms that do not typically contain significant archaeological sites. It is recommended that no additional archaeological investigations occur in Areas 3 and 4, based on the results of the reconnaissance investigation.