Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-22-1997 - a ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA G3�a�C3h¢d ow. MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John Link, County Manager DATE: October 21, 1997 RE: Background Materials for Assembly of Governments Meeting Attached are 3 documents which provide additional background material for the Assembly of Governments meeting tomorrow night: 1) 10/22/97 Chapel Hill Town Manager's Memo which describes the status of the landfill site search and solid waste reorganization. 2) Attorney Bob Jessup's wrateup on"How the Remaining Pieces Fit To and draft language that could be inserted in the interlodat agreement to-cover the ,4�pomts on community benefits, or a process for reaching agreement on those bfertelfits 3) A study prepared by K6iin&Sawyer;on behalf of OWASA, estimating the costs of extending water and sewer to the Eubanks Road Vld ll ne ghbOrlwods�-, AREA CODE(919)732-8181 •968-4501 • 688-7331 • (910) 227-2031 • FAX(919)644-3004 Ext. 2300 a NEMOxANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: W. Calvin Norton, Town Manager SUBJECT: Landfill Matters DATE: October 22, 1997 This report describes the status of our landfill site search and solid waste management reorganization efforts and presents options for the Council's next steps. Background The search for a new landfill site began in 1990 with a committee of 13 citizens representing all parts of the county: The eonunittee and,its consulting engineers reviewed the entire county and identified potential sites The committee then developed criteria and standards with which to evaluate each site. The process has resulted its the governing bodies of Chapel Mli, Hillsborough and.Orange County identifying Site 917 as the preferred landfill site among those identified and evaluated by the citizens Landfill Site Search Committee. ..About a dozen tracts makeup Site#17,the largest of which is owned by Duke University. Please see the attached map_ Duke University is among the several landowners that have informed us that they did not want the public to acquire their land for use as a landfill. In 1995, Duke granted an easement to the Department of Energy that covered 93 acres, and let us know a week later. We immediately confirmed with our consulting engineers that a laadir-ill could be sited on Site 417 without using those 93 acres. Duke University later granted another easement to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration over all of its land in Site #17. Although this easement was apparently granted in June 1996, Duke did not inform us until we notified them of our plans to conduct subsurface tests this fall on Duke land. This easement is important because local governments do not have the power of eminent domain over the federal government. While it may be possible to gain access to Duke Lind for test borings, it is highly unlikely that NASA would find that a landfill would be consistent with the federal easement. Even though the easement is for only a five-year i terms, we believe that Duke could extend that term as long as necessary to block the siting of a landfill there. Discussion Main Options 1. We could request that Duke reconsider its stand, particularly considering that our interests lie in only a portion of their land, and that portion could be located so as to avoid certain areas. However, representatives of Duke have been uncompromising in their opposition, and.have recently restated their opposition. 2. We could ask NASA for an administrative release of the easement for the purposes of geologic testing and subsequent development of a landfill on a portion of the Duke land, with the understanding that the site would be condemned by the local government managing the landfill. We believe that it would be very difficult to get timely consideration of this request, and that we might very likely receive an unfavorable answer. We. could ask for assistance with obtaining a release through the offices of Congressman price and Senators J.-Icims and Faircloth. Pursuant to your dnrection on October 13, we have written to the US Attorney requesting information about NASA's interests and providing infien nation about our Planned subsurface testing. A copy of the letter is attached. 3. We could initiate legal proceedings to On access to the property using the power of eminent domain. We believe that mould result in immediate legal steps by Duke that would begin a multi-year court process. 4. We could eliminate Site #17 from further-consideration. This would require us to reconsider next steps in providing capacity after 2005 for disposal of this community's solid waste. 5. We could pursue two or more of these options at once, such as asking Duke to reconsider, exploring an administrative release from NASA, and beginning to consider other possibilities. Our Partners It would be difficult to proceed without agreement on key issues from our partners, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Orange County. The working group of elected officials 3 covisioned reaching agreement on an Imerlocal Agreement Coacerning Solid Waste Management Matters,which would include: I. Agreement on a new governance arrangement among the four governments for the management of solid waste in Orange County. 2. Agreement on either a specific list of benefits for the neighbors of the present landfill or a process to reach that agreement. 3. Agreement on a process to provide benefits to the neighbors of a new land& 4. Agreement oa a process for disposing of the Greene tract. 5. Agreement on the details of the transfer of employees to the County government. 6. Agreement on the site of a new landfflL We would need a determination by the governing boards as to how to proceed if Site#17 is eliainated as a possible new landfill site. The boards could continue to work together or could decide to proceed separately or in-a. group smaller�than four. We suggest that thin issue be discussed at the Assembly of Governments meeting, with the intent of identifying the direction of next.steps We would add, however, that, even if the decision is for each government to proceed separately,, the governments stfil could.consider the issue of benefits to the'neighbors of the present landfill. Need for a Solid Waste Maaastement Facility We estimate that the:capacity of our present landfill will be exhausted no later than 2005, based on present policies. If we dispose of construction and demolition waste (C&D) in the lined landfill when the present C&D area is.full next year,then it wilt reach capacity a couple of years earlier. If we initiate`very strong measures banning some materials, it may be possible to move that deadline later in the year. We.could probably postpone the closing date ftuther by banning all commercial haulers; bat, that would present a significant hardship to all those now dependent on them, and would raise costs substantially for individual customers and for all the local governments. Therefore, are think it would be prudent to assume that this community has no solid waste.disposal capacity beyond 2005. In addition to a landfill, we believe the community needs a materials recovery facility (MRk) in order to make any significant increase in our recycling and reuse programming, regardless of whether the next landfill is located in Orange County or elsewhere. 4 We will need a transfer station if a landfill site is not identified in Orange County. Even if a site is identified in Orange County, a temporary transfer station may be necessary if the new land€11 is not operational when the present Iandfill reaches capacity. Given these conditions, we believe the community will aced to acquire land for some type of solid waste management,�ta`lity, somewhere in Orange County, whether the facility is a landfill, a transfer station or some other type of waste management facility. Alternatives to a Traditional Landfill for Orange County In 1986 the Regional Solid Waste Task Force was.established by the Mayors of Chapel Ell and Durham to explore altemasive schuions to solid waste management problems, with attention to opportunities for regional solutions. Alamance County participated briefly. The task force's consultant study concluded that a single landfill to serve both Orange and Durham Counties would not be feasible, because a largt enough site did not appear to be available in.either county. In 1989, the task force reconimended to the Town Council that each county develop a recycling plan that each initiate a landfill site.search and, that more study be conducted on regional refuse derived fuel, regional waste..to energy and compostllandfrll facilities, and a comprehensive waste management plan. Refuse derived fuel was found to be impractical for Orange County because of the lack of Potential buyers.of the-fuel within a reasonable distance. Little or no interest was found in a potential regional waste to energy project A comprehensive plan was developed over several years and submitted to the state in July 1997. The Landfill Owners Group has considered alternatives and complements to land$lling. Listed below are the methods of solid waste management considered since ' 1989; attachment Z includes brief descriptions of the specific studies conducted and a summary of their conclusions. - waste prevention/reduction at the source - materials separation - recycling - incineration, including mass-burn/waste to energy and refuse derived fuel - ,pyrolysis - bio-coriversian,including composting, co-disposal with selvage sludge and anaerobic digestion - dcasification, including baling and shredding - landfilling - alternative lowly cover for landfill - landfill mining r . We believe that the cutting edge of the relevant technologies will always be changing and that there always will be new information to consider. However, we also believe that all of the available, proven, practical,, and economic measures for solid waste management have received- fair consideration during the past eight years. In our opinion, the best course now is to move ahead with the process of establishing a solid waste management facility to meet the needs of all Orange County residents. Ncxt St= The issues- outlined by the proposed Interlocal Agreement Concerning Solid Waste Management Matters still await consideration by the Council and the governing boards of Carrboro, F@Isborough and Orange County. We recommend that these issues be a main focus of the October 224 .meeting,. along with consideration of proposed benefits for neighbors of the present landfill. Key questions for consideration include: 1. Should the governments move ahead toward adoption of the Inzeriocal.Agreement? If so, can-the present schedule assuming adoption by December. 'I be maintained? 2. .Should Site #17 be eliminated from consideration as the site for a new solid waste management facility? If so, what.process should be followed to select a new site? A new-site.will be needed by 2045; engineering, development and legal process may take more than seven years for completion. We will do our best to provide whatever additional information or evaluation may be desired by the Council as it undertakes resolution of these important conmiunity issues. Attachments 1. Map of Site#-17 2. Oct. 14, 1997 letter to US Attorney requesting meeting with NASA and Dept. of Energy officials 3. Research of the LOG into alternatives to conventional landfilling How The Remaining Pieces Fit Together for. what's left of ht a Agreement if Site 11 is considered �navailablel The Interlocal Agreement was never intended solely as a landfill siting agreement. Instead, the Agreement addresses a broad range of issues that, taken together, provide for a comprehensive reorganization of solid waste management for Orange County. Along with the reorganization of operational and policy responsibilities, the agreement also covers important related issues necessary for the agreement to be comprehensive, including the siting of a new disposal facility,community benefits issues and the future of the Greene Tract. The most recent drafts of the Interlocal Agreement have included the following basic points for agreement among the parties: 1. The County becomes the local government with primary authority and responsibility over operational and policy matters related the solid waste system, subject to the limitations imposed by the Agreement. 2. In its capacity as the system operator, the County agrees to establish and maintain a new disposal facility, and in return for access to disposal capacities the Towns agree to provide their solid waste and recyclables to the County system. 3. The parties jointly agree on the location for that new disposal facility. 4. The parties agree on benefits or benefits processes related to the communities (a) in the area of the existing landfill and(b) in the area of the new disposal facility. 5. The parties agree on some treatment of the Greene Tract. Of these, only Point 3 can no longer be accomplished by the December 1 deadline. I would suggest that if Point 3 cannot be accomplished, it would be reasonable also to delete from the agreement those parts of Point 2 that relate to time periods beyond the useful life of the current landfill. Of course, the County certainly could choose to undertake the burden of providing the new facility if the Towns would undertake the burden of committing solid waste and recyciables, although I would think the County would then also need discretion over the type and location of the new facility. alternatively, the parties could wait for the County to propose a new facility and site, and then could determine whether to exchange a commitment to maintain a disposal facility for a commitment to provide solid waste and recyelables. In any event, Point 1, Point 4 and Point 5 can certainly be accomplished now. l._T ion - It appears to me, based on the comments I have heard over recent months, that the parties would still like to accomplish Point 1, and would like to accomplish Point 1 by December 1. At the same time, it appears to me that Point 1 cannot be accomplished unless Point 4 and Point 5 also are accomplishcd. I believe the County has indicated it will not agree to assume the leadership role unless its concerns about Greene Tract are resolved to its satisfaction, and there is much strong feeling that some resolution of the community benefits issues needs to be part of any agreement on these matters. This is why the AOG meeting has as its goal completing agreement on Point 4 and Point S. As to Point 4(b), we may readily find agreement on the approach to this issue contained in the current draft agreement, or something close to it especially because the current text retains the requirement that all parties eventually agree on the benefits to be provided. As for Point 4(a), we at least have an agreement to discuss this issue based on the 14 points memo, and in particular on the basis of whether public water and sewer should be provided to all or some of the affected community, and if so, how it should be paid for (I understand there are other items on the list which raise some concerns, but most comments seem to focus on water and sewer as the items of overriding concern). That is not to say that a final agreement is by any means assured. As for Point 5, we have an agreement that the Greene Tract is a major community resource.that needs to be approached in a thoughtful manner. There also seems to be some agreement that it makes sense at least now to begin the process of planning for the use or disposition of the Greene Tract, even if the best thinking now turns out to be to wait five years and then take another look. Finally, there also seems to be some agreement that the current owners should not take action on the Greene Tract outside the scope of this Agreement. What is not agreed is whether the County alone or all owners together should be the ones responsible for determining the Tract's ultimate fate. I am not even sure I completely understand the views of the several County Conunissioners on this point. If this planning is to be a cooperative process, it is also not agreed as to whether there should be a deadline for an agreement (which parties could extend by mutual action) after which the property would automatically be sold- Although no one seems to like the current Interlocal Agreement draft text, that text does set out one approach to a compromises of the various views. Another compromise approach would be to start a cooperative planning process now, without changing the form of the ownership, and to require each co-owner to take no action to sell its interest in the property or to sell or divide the property without 90 days notice to the others. From a legal perspective I still think this agreement would still need a time limitation, even if the limitation were 20 years. Exhibit The 14 pQint,S, mittcn to appear in the jnteriocal Ageement 3.02. Benefits to Communities. (a) Existing Landfill Site — (i) Chapel Hill, as managing agent for the Parties, shall enter into appropriate agreements with OWASA for OWASA (at the expense of the Parties, as described below) to install such water mains, sewer mains and other facilities (including, without limitation, water supply facilities and water and sewer pumping facilities) as it deems reasonable and appropriate to make public water and sewer service available to the property designated on Map 1. Chapel Hill, as the managing agent for the Parties, shall act diligently and in good faith, and shall use its reasonabfe best efforts, to cause OWASA to complete the Water and Sewer Service Project by June 30,2003. To the extent permitted by law, the County shall pay all Project Costs from System Revenues. As Chapel Hill receives payment requests from OWASA, from OWASA contractors and others for Project Costs, Chapel Hill, in its capacity as managing agent, shall review such payment requests promptly and immediately thereafter transmit to the County those payment requests which Chapel Hill has approved for payment. Within five business days of its receipt of such payment requests, the County shall determine the amount of Project Costs . included'in such invoices that is legally eligible to be paid from System Revenues, will inform Chapel Hill and Catrboro of its determination, and then shall pay the amount so determined to Chapel Hill for payment to OWASA or others, as appropriate. Any amount not so paid by the County from System Revenues shall be paid by the Three Owners in accordance with their Proportionate Shares. All payments shall be paid to Chapel Hill in immediately available funds, within 15 days of the notice from the County referenced above, to such account or place as Chapel Hill shall from time to time designate. Chapel Hill will account to other Parties for payments for Project Costs in such times and fashions as any Party may reasonably request. In return for its services as managing agent for the Water and Sewer Service Project, Chapel Hill shall receive an administrative and management fee equal to _% of total Project Costs, which fee Chapel Hill shall bill as a Project Cost in accordance with the procedure described in the preceding paragraph. Chapel Hill will bill such fee not more frequently than quarterly, based on total invoices for Project Costs submitted by Chapel Hill to the County in the previous quarter. (ii) The Three Owners shall contribute to Connection Costs for low income Map 1 Households. The Three Owners shall pay (A) 75% of Connection Costs for Map 1 Households the income of which is less than 30% of Orange County Median, (B) 50% of Connection Costs for Map 1 Households the income of which is less than 100% of Orange County Median, and (C) 100% of Connection Costs for 2-Vap 1 Households the income of which is less than _% of Orange County Median['very low income"not defined in the 14 point memo]. Chapel Hill shall serve as the managing agent for the Three Parties in carrying out this program of assistance with Connection Costs. Chapel Hill, as managing agent, shall verify the qualifying income of an applicant for assistance, in such manner as it may reasonably determine in its discretion, at the time assistance payments are made or committed. The required contributions of the Three Parties to Connection Costs shall be paid from System Revenues, in the first instance and to the extent permitted by law. Any amount not paid from System Revenues shall be paid by the Three Patties in their Proportionate Shares. In the billing and payment for the required contributions of the Three Parties to Connection Costs, the procedure provided for in Section 3.02(a)(i) for Project Costs shall apply, with modifications appropriate to this particular program. The Parties shall cooperate with one another to seek public and private grants or other assistance to reduce theii required contributions to Connection Costs, and any funds acquired by any one shall, to the extent not prohibited by the terms of such assistance, accrue to the common benefit of the Three Owners on the basis of the Proportionate Share. To the extent permitted by law, as the County shall determine in its reasonable discretion, the County shall provide Map 2 Households with low-interest loans[meaning what?] for terms up to 50 years [determined. how?] to pay the Connection Costs for such Map 2 Households. (iii) - The County shall adopt a Solid Waste Management Policy that requires the covering of loads of Solid Waste being. brought to the Existing Landfill. Such Policy shall provide that loads which are not covered shall be subject to a fine, provided that (A) such Policy may provide for a grace period of warnings in lieu of fines for up to three months from the adoption of such Policy, and (B) such Policy may provide that non-commercial first-time offenders shall be offered the option of purchasing a tarp (to be made available for sale by the County at the Existing Landfill)to cover their loads in lieu of paying a fine. (iv) The County shall adopt a Solid Waste Management Policy that requires the covering of loads of mulch leaving the Existing Landfill. (1s this also something that should provide a fine for non-compliance?] Such Policy may provide for a grace period of warnings in lieu of fines for up to three months from the,adoption of such Policy. During any grace period incorporated in such Policy, the County shall provide for the education of mulch purchasers concczming the changing policy. In addition, the County shall make available for sale at the Existing Landfill tarps of various sizes for purchase by mulch purchasers for covering their loads. (v) The County shall adopt a Solid Waste Management Policy that provides for litter pickup on Eubanks Road east of the entrance to the Existing Landfill at least twice weekly, on Eubanks Road west of the entrance to the Existing Landfill at least six times annually, and on Rogers Road at least eight times annually. .W z.iagoN dTS : T0 C.6 GT 100 (vi) The County shall adopt a Solid Waste Management Policy concerning construction at the Existing Landfill that is designed to mitigate, to the extent reasonably practicable, adverse effects on Landfill Neighbors from such matters as nighttime construction, blasting and noise. Such Policy shall provide that construction generally shall not take place between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and that the County shall take reasonable efforts to notify Landfill Neighbors as far in advance as reasonably practicable when circumstances dictate that construction activities are unavoidable during such restricted hours. Such Policy shall also provide that at least one week prior to the commencement of any new construction project at the Existing Landfill, the County shall post notices describing the construction project, estimating its duration and describing any special construction activities which may impact Landfill Neighbors. The County shall post such notices at the north end of Millhouse Road, at the south end of Rogers Road and at both ends of Eubanks Road. 'The County shall provide for all its contractors for construction projects at the Existing Landfill to comply with the County's noise ordinance as in effect from time to time. (vii) The County shall provide for additional no littering" signs to be erected in the neighborhoods near the Existing Landfill. [Map 2 property? iWap 1 property?] (are we concerned.with how many, or about being any more precise abort where they go?] (viii) The County shall provide for perimeter fencing to be installed around the Existing Landfill not later than June 30, 1999. Prior.to completion of such installation, the County shall notify the Director of the County APS [do we mean the Animal .Protection Society or Orange County Animal Control?] of such impending completion, and request such Director take actions to ensure that no large animals are trapped inside the fence. (ix) The County shall erect "Children Playing" and "School Bus Stop" signs on Rogers Road. The County shall determine appropriate locations for such signs after soliciting and considering advice from residents of the Rogers Road Neighborhood. (x) Chapel Hill shall re-route, to serve Rogers Road, the North-South connector bus line of its Chapel Hill Transit System on either its northbound or southbound trip, effective not later than July 1, 1998 [for how long?]. Prior to the effective date of such re-routing, Chapel Hill shall designate the Rogers Road Neighborhood as a "Shared Ride Feeder Zonc," but only if Chapel Hill determines in its reasonable discretion that such action can be accomplished within adopted budgets and available resources. (xi) The Three Owners shall sponsor a public information meeting (when?) regarding the location of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro planning boundary. At the meeting, all Rogers Road Neighborhood Households shall be given the opportunity to cast a ballot as to their respective preferences for the location of such planning boundary. The ballot shall offer a selection among the following alternatives: (A) leaving the planning boundary as it is, along Rogers Road; (B) shifting the planning boundary east, and thereby placing the entire Rogers Road Neighborhood in Carrboro's future annexation area; (C) shifting the planning boundary west, and thereby placing _ .� Pq = I0 L6 L I 'ZOO the entire Rogers Road Neighborhood in Chapel Hill's future annexation area; and (D) such other options as may be identified and requested at such meeting. Each of the Three Owners agrees that after the ballots have been tallied, it will consider the preferences expressed in the ballots cast and will promptly consider taking the corporate action necessary and appropriate to put into effect the option, if any, designated as the preferred option on a clear majority [can we define that more precisely?] of the ballots cast. In entering into this Agreement, the Three Owners express their current intent to put into effect any change in the planning boundary designated as the preferred option on a clear majority of the ballots cast., while at the same time recognizing that any such future action would be legislative in nature and that no such commitment made in this Agreement can be binding on any future Governing Body. (xii) The Parties shall cooperate in a process to determine the post-closure use of the Existing Landfill. This process shall include facilitated discussions among persons who are Landfill Neighbors, members of the Advisory . Commission selected by the Advisory Commission and other County residents selected by the County.. This working group shall, not later than July 1, 2002, make specific recommendations to the County for such post-closure use. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties express their current intent to use portions of the Existing Landfill following its closure (as permitted by applicable law and regulation), the Neville Tract and at least 50 acres of the Greene Tract for recreational purposes, while at the same time recognizing that any such future action would be legislative in nature and that no such commitment made in this Agreement can be binding on any future Governing Body. (xiii) The County shall make no expansion of the disposal areas for solid waste of the Existing Landfill (beyond the existing permitted disposal capacity7. The County shall make no incremental land acquisition for System purposes at the site of the Existing Landfill. Changes to other sections— In Section 6.02, concerning the Advisory Commission's procedures, add another provision to the following effect: The Advisory Commission, with the assistance of the County Manager and other County staff, shall investigate the possibilities for local ordinances to impose civil penalties for illegal dumping, in order to make it easier to prosecute people for illegal dumping. The Advisory Commission shall make recommendations concerning possible action by ordinance to the County's Governing Board. The Advisory Commission shall provide for the publication of the names of those convicted of illegal dumping at System Management Facilities. (From Point 7) In Section 6.02, concerning the Advisory Commission's procedures, make it a responsibility of the Advisory Commission to identify at least three Landfill Neighbors to receive mailings and information received by members of the Advisory Commission in any way related to the Existing Landfill that are otherwise public records. Also provide that it is the Advisory ^ ia_aoN, J2q : TO �L6 LT 100 Commission's responsibility to maintain a list of other Landfill Neighbors that want to receive such information, and to provide for them to get it. (From Point 14] In Section 4.02(a), add a proviso to the effect that the County can only change the policies provided for in Section 3.02 upon prior approval by at least a 75% vote of the Advisory Commission or three of the four Parties, and can't change any policies affecting (i) or (ii) above without the consent of all the Parties. In Section 5.13, concerning fee increases not subject to the 10% annual limit, add a new subsection to make it clear that any increases imposed to pay for community benefits determined in accordance with Section 3.02 are also not subject to the annual limit. In Section 5.10, add a provision to clarify that the County is required to use general funds to meet its Proportionate Share obligations under subsections(i) and (ii) of Section 3.02(x). c1V1'aps and Definitions To Be Added-- Map I. The area to be provided with water and sewer service, as described in Point 1,-more precisely as follows: the entire length of Rogers Road, Millhouse Road from Eubanks Road to New Jericho Road; and other side streets off these main roads (including, but not limited to, Purefoy Drive, Rusch Road, Priscilla Lane, Sandberg Lane, Meadow Run Court, Manor Drive, Manor Court and Blackwood Mountain Road). Map 2. The area designated for special loan assistance for connection costs, as described in Point 2, more precisely as follows: the area bounded by the Existing Landfill, Eubanks Road, and the University Railway. Map 3. The Rogers Road Neighborhood, as referenced in Points 9, 10 and 11. Connection Costs means all tap, connection and similar fees and all other costs of connecting a particular building to public water and sewer services. Landfill Neighbors means all persons residing from time to time within the area designated on Map 1. Xfap I Households means those families occupying, for residential purposes, residential- type structures located on the property designated on M. ap 1, which structures were in existence on September 18, 1997, and which were being used for residential purposes on such date or which had been so used at any time on or after September 19, 1.996 (in any event regardless of when any particular family began to make use of any particular structure). Map 2 Households means those families occupying, for residential purposes, residential- type structures located on the property designated on Map 2, which structures were in existence on September 18, 1997, and which were being used for residential purposes on such date or which had been so used at any time on or after September 19, 1996 (in any event regardless of when any particular family began to make use of any particular structure). ' Neville Tract means [to come.] Orange County Median means median family income for the County as most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. OWASA means Orange Water and Sewer Authority, or any successor organization. Project Costs means all costs reasonably incurred in connection with the Water and Sewer Service Project, including (without limitation) (a) costs of the acquisition of personal property or real property (or interests therein, such as easements or rights-of-way), (b) physical construction, installation and testing, including costs of labor, materials, supplies and services, (c)-architectural, engineering, legal, accounting and other professional fees and expenses, (d) premiums for insurance policies contracted specifically with respect to the Water and Sewer Service Project, and (e) expenses incurred in pursuing remedies against any contractors or suppliers,but Project Costs shall in no event include any Connection Costs- -Proportionate Share means the following proportions: Carrboro, 14%; Chapel Hill, 43%; and the County,43%. Rogers Road Neighborhood means the area designated on Map 3. Rogers Road Neighborhood Households means, for any relevant time, those families occupying, for residential purposes, residential-type structures located on the property designated on Map 3. Three Owners means,together, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the County. Water and Sewer Service Project means the provision of water supply and sewer service to make public water and sewer service available in the area designated on Map 1, to be carried out by OWASA as contemplated by Section 3.02(a)(i). �C dnssaC -W zJagoa dt+S = I0 LG LI 100 1�zhibit D Possible "Process" re-write of echo 02 concP.I7ling community benefits 3.02. Bench s to Communities. (a) Existing Landfill Site — The Parties have cooperated in beginning a process to provide public benefits to the community of residents and property owners in the neighborhood of the existing landfill. This process has included consultation between members of Governing Boards and persons belonging to such community. This process has produced a proposed list of public benefits to be provided. The existing proposed list of benefits shall be referred to a working group consisting of each Party's manager and attorney. This working group shall provide to the Parties a joint analysis of the proposed list, to include (without limitation) (i) an analysis of the estimated costs and schedules for providing particular benefits, (ii) an analysis of the legality of using System Revenues, or any portion thereof, to provide particular benefits, (iii) a recommendation of benefits to be provided, and (iv) a recommendation as to a means for carrying out recommended benefits Each Party shall then provide for its Governing Board to discuss the proposed list and the joint analysis. After this discussion, the Parties shall provide for a working group consisting of selected members of each Governing Board to meet to discuss the respective views of each Governing Board. Through this working group and continued discussion by the Governing Boards, the Parties shall work together, diligently and in good faith, to reach an agreement as to community benefits to be provided. The process of determining community benefits shall continue to include participation by persons belonging to the relevant community, in substantially the same manner as has been occurring. Final determinations of the public benefits to be provided, the sources for their payment and the mechanisms for providing the benefits shall be made only by agreement of all the Parties. (b) New Solid Waste Management Site — The Parties shall cooperate to provide reasonable public benefits to the community of residents and property owners in the neighborhood of the New Solid Waste Management Site, in recognition of the effects that operation of a landfill or other solid waste management or disposal site may be perceived to have on such community. This process shall be substantially the same as that described in subsection (a) above, and shall include participation by persons belonging to such community. The Commission shall be responsible for providing for such participation and for reporting on the views of community members to the Governing Boards and the working groups. Final determinations of the public benefits to be provided, the sources far their payment and the mechanisms for providing the benefits shall be made only by agreement of all the Parties. (c) In General—The public benefits contemplated by this Section 3.02 are to be considered as separate and distinct from any compensation determined to be owed for any "taking" of an interest in property, as determined under applicable State or federal law. To the extent permitted by law, by this Agreement and by generally accepted accounting principles, and to the extent determined by the Parties, the costs of providing public benefits as described in this Section may be treated as an expense of the Solid Waste System and may be paid from System Revenues.