Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-21-2013 - 4
1 ORANGE COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 21, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A) Rogers Road Small Area Plan Michael Talbert, Interim County Manager, B) Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood 245-2308 Task Force Report Dated 9/17/13 C) Town of Carrboro Resolution Dated June 18, 2013 PURPOSE: To discuss the recommendations from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force, updates from Local Governments and potential next steps to implement improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1972 the landfill was opened by the Town of Chapel Hill, and in 1999, Orange County assumed ownership and operation of the Eubanks Road Landfill. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with the Orange County Landfill for 40 years. The Community is geographically split by the Orange County and Carrboro. Orange County as the current owner/operator of the Landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road Community. Timeline: On May 17, 2011 the Board of Commissioners received a plan from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) recommending actions to mitigate the long and short term impacts of Orange County's Landfill and Solid Waste operations on the health, safety and welfare of the Historic Rogers Road — Eubanks Road Community. On January 26, 2012 the Board of Commissioners and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service and a community center for the Historic Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys have concluded that utilization of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. Therefore, funding for either the extension of sewer services and/or a community center would have to come from the County's and Towns other general revenue sources. 2 On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the Creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to address sewer service and a community center and approved the Charge The composition of the Task Force was to include two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Charge of the Original Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and the financial impact to the County & Towns, for the following: 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously approved public water connections in the area. 2. A Neighborhood Community Center. The Task force is also directed to: a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of August, 2012 and; b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012. On December 6, 2012 the Assembly of Governments received an interim report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and held a lengthy discussion on the accomplishments of the Task Force. One of the recommendations from the Task Force was that the Task Force continue to meet for an additional 6 months to address the Charge with the original composition of the Task Force. On February 5, 2013 the County Board of Commissioners authorized the continuation of a reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and approved the Charge of the Task Force. The composition of the Task Force includes two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Charge of the Reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 1. Request that the towns confirm the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint members to the Task force; 2. Confirm the appointment of Commissioners Rich and Price as the County's members on the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force; 3 3. Request that the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association confirm the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint two members to the Task Force; 4. Confirm the charge and a timeline for the Task force as specified by the motion approved at the January 24 meeting: • To continue the Task Force for six (6) months; • To have the Task Force consider the final costs, provision and installation of water and sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the Historic Rogers Road community; • Consider options to address gentrification; • Consider Chapel Hill's most recent Small Area Plan; • Consider funding options, including the Greene Tract. 5. Specify that the Task Force provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners no later than the Board's September 17th meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 17, 2013 1. That that the Cost associated with the Community Center and Sewer Improvements will be shared 14% Carrboro, 43% Chapel Hill and 43% Orange County. 2. That the Sewer Concept Plan presented by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) in 2012 to serve 86 parcels at an estimated cost of $5.8 million should be funded by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County in proportion to the recommended cost sharing. The first phase of the construction should include segments 5, 6, and 8 at an estimated cost of $3.7 million, serving 67 parcels. Funding recommended to be included in the Fiscal 2014/2015 Budgets, with the remaining 19 parcels to be constructed in the second phase and included in the Fiscal 2015/2016 Budgets 3. That the Task Force prefers the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 to serve 86 parcels at an estimated cost of $5.8 million. First this concept will provide sewer improvements to the entire Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood; secondly, this proposal will enable all of the partners, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro, to equally share the costs of the Community Center and Sewer Improvements in proportion to their responsibilities. If either the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Chapel Hill Town Council do not favor the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 or cannot agree on the concept of an Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) for 4 the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, the Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 including only segments 5, 6, and 8 to serve 67 parcels at an estimated cost of $3.7 million should be funded. 4. That the County petition the Town of Chapel Hill to annex all County Owned Property in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. 5. That the Task Force requests that the Managers explore the collaborative approach to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as outlined in February 25, 2013 memo to Elected Officials and report back to the Task Force on August 21, 2013. 6. That the Managers meet and talk about the options related to connecting the residents of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood to sewer. 7. That funding is identified for the cost of connecting from the OWASA infrastructure to the home in addition to applying for grants for low-to-moderate income persons. It is a priority of the Task Force to identify funding not only for the installation of sewer infrastructure but also cost of connections to homeowners and the Task Force recommends that the County and Towns set up a fund specifically for people in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood and to fund the cost of the connections from the home to the main. Orange County Update: On April 9, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners was presented the schematic design of the Rogers Road Community Center and authorized the Manager to award the bid for construction in an amount not to exceed $650,000. The Town of Chapel Hill expedited the site plan review, permitting and other associated processes for the project as well as waived all associated Town fees related to those processes, normally estimated to be $25,000. Bids were received for the Community Center in September with all bids over budget and the bids were rejected. The project will be rebid as soon as plans have been revised and approved by the Town of Chapel Hill... Town of Chapel Hill Update: On October 21, 2013, the Chapel Hill Town Council voted to receive the Final Report of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and acknowledge the work of the delegates to the Task Force. The Report provides recommendations for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro regarding extension of sewer to the Rogers Road area. The Chapel Hill Town Council asked the Town Manager to begin to develop a rough plan and time line for how the governments might move forward with a plan for sewer for the Rogers Road area including recommendations for how to pay for sewer extension. 5 Town of Carrboro Updates: On September 18, 2012 the Town of Carrboro approved the Town's intention to contribute not more than $900,000 for the Town's 14% portion of the $650,000 Community Center and estimated $5.8 million cost of the Sewer Project. On June 18, 2013 the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a Resolution (Attachment 2) to Provide Comment on Alternatives Discussed by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force. The Town has also appropriated $450,000 (112 of the $900,000 the Town has committed to Rogers Road) in the Fiscal 201312014, for both a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements. Summary: There has been some progress to mitigate the long and short-term impacts of the Orange County Solid Waste Operations on the health, safety and welfare of the Historic Rogers Road-Eubanks Road Community. • The Landfill was closed on June 30, 2013. • A County Water Fund was established to assist pay residents tap fees and connection fees for OWASA water • Illegal dump sites within 3/4 mile around the perimeter of the landfill have been cleaned up with the permission of the property owners. • A Community Center is being redesign after initial bid received were over budget and rejected. The Community Center original drawings are being redrawn and the project will be rebid. The recommendations from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force will have little chance of implementation if there is not a multijurisdictional comprehensive Implementation strategy. Task Force Recommendations provide an excellent starting point, but gentrification, Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan and the future of the Greene Tract were not addressed by the Task Force. Multiple strategies could be engaged to make a difference in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Chapel Hill Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Final Report included an implementation strategy but was never executed. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accepted an administrative complaint filed against Orange County Planning and Inspections Department (OCPID) received on April 18, 2011 and is conducting an investigation of the complaint. Possible Next Steps and (Considerations): 1. Provide directions to the County & Town Managers to iimplement the Recommendations of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force: (1) Costs Sharing for Rogers Road Improvements (Multiple Jurisdictions, Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) — Chapel Hill, Joint Planning) (2) & (3) Sewer for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood (EPA Investigation, Include Water and a Larger Utility District) (4) That the County petition the Town of Chapel Hill to annex all County Owned Property in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood (ETJ, Joint Planning, Future Development) 6 (5) & (6) That the Managers meet and talk about the options related to connecting the residents of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood to sewer and explore the collaborative approach to the development of Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood (Multiple Jurisdictions, Community Development Block Grants, Low-to-moderate income) (7) That funding is identified for the cost of connecting from the OWASA infrastructure to the home in addition to applying for grants for low-to-moderate income persons. It is a priority of the Task Force to identify funding not only for the installation of sewer infrastructure but also cost of connections to homeowners and the Task Force recommends that the County and Towns set up a fund specifically for people in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood and to fund the cost of the connections from the home to the main. (Costs Sharing for Multiple Jurisdictions, Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) — Chapel VIII, Joint Planning) 2. Provide directions to the County & Town Managers to create an implementation strategy that would address the Charge of the Task Force including a comprehensive development plan for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood: • Consideration of the final costs, provision and installation of water and sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the Historic Rogers Road community; • Consideration of options to address gentrification; • Consideration of Chapel Hill's most recent Small Area Plan; • Consideration of funding options, including the Greene Tract. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of funding improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Community is uncertain until direction if provided by the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends that the Boards discuss the recommendations from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and provide direction to staff. Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force 7 ATTACHMENT A Final Report Prepared by the Rogers Road Task Force ` 3 .,r "f 8 Task Force Members Delores Bailey ROGERS . . , STUDY AREA Joal Hall Broun D Robert Campbell Moses Carey Robert Dowling CHAPEL HILL Barbara Hopkins CARRBORO Neloa Barbee Jones Susan Levy Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt Bonnie Norwood Council Member Bill Strom James Stroud Ruby Sinreich Tom Tucker Laura Wenzel 9 Page Introduction 4 Background Timeline Location History Development and Infrastructure Concepts 10 Concepts for Sewer Extension Expanding Road Access The Greene Tract Land Use Exercise Community Design Workshop 15 Task Force Recommendations 20 Implementation 22 Attachment 1 27-28 NC Water and Wastewater Funding Sources Appendix 1 Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Interim Report -June 2007 Appendix 2 Recommendations for the Rogers Road Small Area Plan -A report by the Durham Area Designers © Rogers Road Task Force Report 10 Introduction The Rogers Road Small Area Plan Report summarizes the activities and recommen- At the initial meetings of the Task Force, members reviewed background dations of the Chapel Hill Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force.The information information about existing conditions and infrastructure within and included in this Report represents work undertaken by the Task Force to identify adjacent to the study area. The Task Force met a total of six times between key issues and prepare a small area plan intended to address those issues.The February 15,2007 and the submission of an interim Report to the Town Report draws from the interim report from June of 2007 (Appendix 1) and the Council on June 21, 2007. Subsequent meetings of the Task Force included Urban Design Workshop held in June 2008(Appendix 2). two consultant-led workshops with the Rogers Road Urban Design Assistance Team during the summer of 2008.The workshops produced a draft land use The Rogers Road Task Force was created by the Chapel Hill Town Council on plan and recommendations for policies to support the proposed land uses. December 4,2006 and held its initial meeting in February of 2007. In establishing Final meetings of the Task Force focused on gathering feedback for the the Rogers Road Task Force,the Council identified the following topics to be ad- consultant's work and reviewing a range of implementation strategies. dressed. This Report begins with a review of background information about the study area and relevant planning efforts. The following sections detail information Desirable Land Uses and a Revision to the Land Use presented to the Task Force about concepts for new development and - Plan infrastructure in the area.The last sections include the final recommenda- tions of the Task Force and the suggested course for implementation of the Water and Sewer Extension Plan Rogers Road Small Area Plan. Roadway Network Transit Service Plan Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment Report Rogers Road Task Force Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Timeline Joint Planning Agreement Petition to Carrboro and Orange Resolution 2006-12-04/R-15 First meeting of The Town partnered with Final draft reports by the Task Force endorsed between Chapel Hill, Council to County appoint f sets schedule the Rogers the Durham Area Design Assistance a final report for T ,� review b Council and Carrboro,and Orange initiate a small officials to serve as G3 Small Area Plan process Q Road Small Area N Design Group.The G Team are completed O y Countyfor Greene and area plan for Rogers 1 membersoftheTask jans d composi tionofthe N Plan Task Force Q Rogers Road Urban and available for ! Advisory Boards Neville Tracts Road Community Force. k Force Design Assistance Team comment.facilitated a planning workshop on June 7 2005 00 00 O� Habitat for Humanity submitted Council resolution appointed Prelim inary staff Qb TownSponsered Interim Report The Design Assistance Task Force meeting to 04> concept plan for the Rusch Bill Strom and Mark discussions Rogers Road open b Council Q^ Team presented the 0§0 review and comment 10 Hollow Subdivision QN Kleinschmidt as represent- Qb house at Faith O� Task Force with three on the Town Staff's p itavesforthe creation O m Tabernacle0asis N -Council refered plans which emerged suggested course for �t ofasmallareaplanfor N t of Love ^ Interim Reponto N from the June N implementation F the Rogers Road ^ v Carrboro and y workshop, \� Q� area,including the 0 FF Q Orange County �r emphasizing common 1J Greene Tract 1 yJ 1 elements ofeach Q design 12 Location The Joint Planning Agreement of 1987 The Rogers Road study area is approximately 330 acres. It is bounded by the Nor- In 1984,the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County entered into a Joint folk and Southern Railroad to the east,the existing residential neighborhood of Planning Agreement that called for the development of a Land Use Plan for the Billabong Road and Homestead Place to the south, Rogers Road to the west,and areas immediately surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro, but located outside the the Orange County Landfill to the north.The Rogers Road study area is located in extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the two towns.These areas outside of each Orange County northwest of the municipal boundary of the Town of Chapel Hill Towns's respective corporate limits and planning jurisdiction were known as Joint and northeast of the Carrboro Municipal Boundary(Figure 2). It is also located in Planning"Transition Areas." Initially,the Town of Carrboro was not a party to the the Chapel Hill Transition Area,which includes areas planned to become part of Joint Planning Agreement. the Town of Chapel Hill and within the Town's Urban Service Boundary.The Transi- tion Areas of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro were established with Orange The staffs and Planning Boards of Chapel Hill and Orange County prepared a Land County in 1987 though the Joint Planning Agreement(Figure 1). Use Plan.The Town Carrboro was also updating its Land use Plan and began to participate in the Joint Planning process.A public information meeting was held in Almost half of the study area (164 acres) consists of the jointly owned Greene November of 1985.The results of this meeting combined with public Tract. Approximately 60 acres was deeded exclusively to Orange County pursuant hearings in January and April of 1986 were merged to produce the Joint Planning to the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management."The remain- Area Land use Plan.The Plan was adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council and the ing 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange County,the Town of Chapel Hill and the Orange County Board of Commissioners on October 13, 1986. Town of Carrboro.The Greene Tract was originally purchased in 1984 as a potential future landfill and is located southeast of the existing Orange County landfill. A Following efforts to streamline the review process for developments located in concept plan prepared by a Greene Tract Workgroup'was approved by the joint transition areas,the Town of Carrboro joined Chapel Hill and Orange County in owners in late 2002.This plan identifies that 18.1 acres of the jointly owned por- adopting a new Joint Planning Agreement on November 2, 1987. lion will be developed for housing and the remaining acres of the jointly owned portion will be preserved and managed as open space. The Town of Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan,a long range plan for future development of the Town reflects the Joint Planning Agreement and identifies an The remaining portion of the study area consists of approximately 80 lots and Urban Services Boundary. This boundary defines the future town limits in which it tracts in the historic Rogers Road neighborhood.The properties are primarily ac- is intended that the Town will grow and provide typical urban services.The Rogers cessed via Purefoy Drive off Rogers Road. Road Study Area is within this boundary. 'The Greene Tract Work Group was comprised of elected officials.They met in 2002 to determine the use forth e re- maining 109 acres of the of the Greene Tract and to discuss the disposition of the property. The Work Group agreed that the three public purposes of open space,affordable housing,and recreation were the uses to be programmed for these 109 acres. Rogers Road Task Force Report 13 Map of Planning Areas N C 2000 0 2000 Ft GIS Map prepared by 2 Chapel Hill Planning C, December,2008 w6, d 8orlara ew Joint Ho e Gr R I Mt Sinai Rd R I B er tes rthur Minni Review 6 a Area Rural Buffer �c Ro ers Rd Study Area hitfield Ro rn r-� Eubanks pel Hi C rrboro Transitio Tr sition II Durham n Hom ste d d/ Este 0e l E NC 64 Wes m C, ( z` ral B ffer m c Id Gre nsb o Dur ni rsity ters ed� a Fen o d h Rd r7 J Oran e C — ° a � atham Co H Otd�y I Bu er ransitio Chapel Hill Planning Areas Me County,Chapel Hill,Carrhoro Chapel Hill City Limits Joint Planning Agreement(JPA) 0 Chapel Hill ETJ Q Chapel Hill Urban Services Area 0 Carrboro Transition Area 1 0 Rural Buffer,Orange County Carrboro Planning Areas 0 Carrboro Transition Area 2 Joint Courtesy Review Area _ Carrboro City Limits 0 Chapel Hill Transition Area University Lake Watershed Carrboro ETJ Figure 1 - Planning Jurisdiction in Orange County �I P Rogers Road Small Area Plan MEN, a Context Ilk 'I Larks ur ■ Orange Co. \ �-, •�, , • ������������i 1 Northwood V ■ � ,,■ ; -111: 11 � � � �I, ��.rl', ■� 78 Acres .�= Eat Affordable Housing .•,,•�. , '.�''"' .. 86 Acres Open Space g . �-■.-- ������� .. Parksldell 19c RAI ������_ �, ,I■ I. i �� Iii — . �■ ��:G town of ^ ��� • ���►�,�� \� / ��/ MIKE= � � Chapel Hill • '�` ,,, . , ' t\��r -► /one and .. Er ' � � ,�• ,'` I�� . I I I •.,. ,�,,r`I� ,, / Square fI1 1►�� ��,"�,, , i�� ��•,• 1 Homestead � / i 1,'�I,,•, �•`�',,'' �� Village Orange Co. Property Duke Forest Property Pr UNC Property Study Area r r Eli ``` Chapel`Hill ' Services 111�� High School ] Horace Williams Tra Boundary 11111111111\• / muuv / (Carolina North) �� 0 0.1 es 8 15 History Residents of Rogers and Eubanks Roads can trace their family landholdings back to .: y`'.' ;'k r - - �;• r- ti �- the 1700s when some of the earliest families in Orange County, such as the Hogans and Blackwoods,settled in the area. After emancipation,African American families, like the Rogers and Nunns, began farming in the area,taking their crops for sale at the Durham farmer's market and enduring the Great Depression. During the development boom experienced by Orange County in the 1960s and 1970s, more families joined the Rogers/Eubanks Road neighborhood.The area slowly lost its agricultural focus as properties were divided among siblings and new housing was IT built. k OLD LANDFILL In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill k to serve Orange County. This was the first permitted solid waste disposal site in s, Orange County and was constructed to lesser standards than the 1995 Landfill C&D Landfill expansion on the southside of Eubanks Road. As a result of their proximity to the =.. ..; ° landfill, residents in the Rogers Road Study area have endured several decades of negative impacts associated with modern solid waste disposal practices.These Orange Co.Landfill include increased truck traffic, illegal dumping, a putrid stench, contaminated wells, �- rats and vultures. Ja . .�F�.tq,z.. '.y X11. iy��• '. r^ :4:. . .. irange county bona Waste Facilities ,ear Eubanks Rd. Fee` o boo i,000 z,000 N Figure 3-Aerial Image of Orange County Landfills Rogers Road Task Force Report 16 Development and Infrastructure Concepts The early meetings of the Rogers Road Task Force addressed the manner in which tory of Carrboro. They differ in that Concept A serves the Neville Tract and the adjoining new infrastructure such as sanitary sewer and additional road access could be 24 acre Harris property from a new line to the north that ties onto the extension for the provided in association with new developments, particularly on the Greene Tract. Orange County Landfill. Concept A has greater potential to facilitate subdivision of the Har- The Task Force also developed a set of guiding principles and recommendations. ris property. Construction is estimated to cost$2.9 million'in 2007 dollars. This section describes the findings of the Task Force prior to the community design workshop in June of 2008. Concept B serves the same properties via a new line to the west. Construction is estimated to cost$ 2.5 million'in 2007 dollars. Neither Concept A or B serve properties off Sandberg Concepts for Sewer Extension Lane or 3 lots off Merin Road. Concept C shows how gravity sewer could be provided Most of the Rogers Road study area is served with water by the Orange Water and to those lots not served by A or B via a new line along Billabong Lane. Billabong Lane is Sewer Authority(OWASA). Water lines extend eastward from Rogers Road. OWASA beyond the study area.A third concept,Concept C,would add $1.3 million'in 2007 dollars sanitary sewer has been extended into the southwestern part of the study area. to the construction cost of Concepts A or B and extend service to the properties in the OWASA policy is to utilize gravity flow rather than pumping stations. Pumps are southeastern corner of the study area. not desirable because they may fail during storms and they involve operating costs for electricity and maintenance. In accordance with existing OWASA policies, benefiting properties would bear the cost of extending water and sewer lines. The Task Force also reviewed the assessment process In March 2007, as part of the Rogers Road Task Force discussions, OWASA staff for neighborhoods pursuing water and sewer service.Task Force members expressed great presented a conceptual layout of a sanitary sewer network that could provide concern over the ability of existing homeowners to bear the cost of installing main lines, service to existing lots within the Rogers Road study area. The conceptual layout hooking up to services and paying utility bills,thereby decreasing the affordability of low- identifies new lines that would need to be constructed and an existing line extend- cost housing that currently exists in the study area. ed to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to existing lots.This includes extending the existing line from the southwest, a new line to Eubanks Road in the northeast and a new line to the west which could be provided in cooperation with the Town of Carrboro. Figure 4 on page 11 is the existing and conceptual sewer network plan for the study area.There is one concept for the Rogers Road study area with two versions 2 The proposed sewer and water lines are preliminary configurations provided by OWASA(Orange Water and Sewer Authority). If the Town decides to pursue these or other concepts,additional engineering and (A and B). Both rely On the extension Of Sealer mains Into the northeastern terrl- professional services will be needed to provide site-level detail and overall determination of project feasibility. These estimates do not include the additional cost for connecting individual properties to the sewer system. Rogers Road Task Force Report Rogers Road and Surrounding Area ' Existing and Conceptual • Sewer L_ Extension Adjusted for Inflation from 2007 Estimate . ' Concept Extension for Landfill - .•• Concepts A and B are Concept C $1,393,200 Concepts A+C $4,503,600 extends sewer to the Concepts B+C $4,082,400 properties west of the Neville Tract. OWASA Proposed Sewer IM GravitySewerMains Proposed Landfill Gas Pipe Routing ■ � � I �,• Rogers Road Study Area Future Extension . "' ■ ��,♦ •��� go MEN AVON nm mwmu�ll�11 Chapel Hill EMN awl Fil • \�•, rM� Ls Concept C ���,.n,„�n�� 77 18 Transportation Improvements HS Route Proposed Extension Most properties in the study area are accessed from Purefoy Drive off Rogers Road. Rogers Road is a two lane facility currently classified as a collector street by the EUBANKS RD N North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).The traffic volume in 2007 A ER DA RD was approximately 5,000 vehicles per day,a rise from 3,000 vehicles per day in c$P J 1990. (In general traffic on Rogers Road has increased by 4 to 6 percent per year.) s� UREFOY DR Purefoy Drive as currently constructed is sufficient to accommodate 500- 1,500 R vehicle trips per day. HOMESTEAD D The Task Force recommendations propose that new development in the study area may require expansion or upgrade of existing streets. The Task Force identified the CHOOLR p C. .H.S need for additional access to the neighborhood and more internal road connec- r Smith Middle y m lions (See Figure 6) In particular they identified the need to have a north-south r p Sea well Ele—+ 2 N � roadway connection through the study area to connect to Eubanks Road. W r o N 2 ESTES DR Orange County owns approximately 70 percent of the property with frontage on o Eubanks Road including the landfill site,the solid waste operations center and the 'vR ss'�s animal shelter. The Task Force considered options to provide an east to west road connection to the neighborhood through the Greene Tract. ° m of �u ti Transit Service Currently,the Rogers Road area is served by Chapel Hill Transit paratransit and G Share-a-Ride services. Chapel Hill Transit has received funding to revise existing Legend `N transit service in the Rogers Road area. It is anticipated that this expansion of tran- . Stops sit service will be implemented by the end of the second quarter of 2009. Figure 5 Proposed Extension a �0 HS Route shows one option for extending transit service along Rogers Road. Until additional Streets 9� operational and funding details are finalized,this route remains conceptual in nature. Source: Chapel Hill Transit 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Date: 5/27/08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 5 - HS Route Proposed Extension ® Rogers Road Task Force Report �- .,.��. '�s �}: .,. `a'i'm!. ':- '...• ■ JE- JIL . Greene Tract - jref. 1 Dr®I� 00 rA Rogers Road Small Area Plan Billabong Ln. • • Road Network Options o zas ago 94Feet N -��� Figure 6- Road Connections ® Rogers Road Task Force Report 20 Development and Infrastructure Concepts The Greene and Neville Tracts The Greene Tract The Task Force received information from the Director of the Orange County Neville Environment and Resource Conservation Department concerning the Tract Orange County Orange County environmental sensitivity and importance of the Greene Tract. The 2002 Greene Tract Concept Plan was adopted by Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro.The plan's sole component is a map that delineates the acreage of the jointly owned Greene Tract would be used for Affordable Housing and Open Space (Figure 7). Chapel H///, Carrboro, Open Space Orange County 85.9 Acres Current Parcel Ownership Greene Tract Concept Plan Land Use Visioning Exercises 2002 Prior to the interim Report,the Task Force took part in a land use visioning exer- cise in which they explored different building types,arrangement, and density. \ Members expressed a preliminary preference for residential densities between The Greene and 1-8 Units/Acre, recreational, and small commercial land uses in the Rogers Road Neville Tracts study area. Additionally,Town staff utilized 3-D modeling software to convey the scale of the proposed Habitat for Humanity project adjacent to Purefoy Road. CHAPEL HILL 0 CARRBORO Current Zoning Landuse Acreage RT Institutional 1 � i, (Jointly Owned) 14.8 (Neville Tract) 60.8 (Orange County Figure 7 -Greene and Neville Tracts 21 Community Design Workshop For the Task Force to further develop its vision, the Town contracted with the Durham From the analysis of the different schemes developed at the design workshop,the Area Designers (DAD)to host a workshop in the Summer of 2008.The information Urban Design Assistance Team proposed a plan for both land use and open space from early Task Force meetings provided a foundation for this interactive process.The as well as written recommendations.This work was presented to the task force and community design workshop was on Saturday,June 7, 2008.The objective was to find a workshop attendees at a meeting on July 31, 2008, at which time the findings and the community consensus for components of the proposed small area plan. proposed land use plan were presented for discussion and approval.The final land use plan (Figure 9)and recommendations are presented in the next section. The Components of a small area plan include: • Land use guidelines • Appearance guidelines •An expanded multi-modal transportation network • Infrastructure improvements • Community development strategies The workshop included a presentation describing the community and introduced tools and concepts for use during the workshop. Attendees divided into three teams desig- nated A, B, and C.Two members of the DAD Urban Design Assistance Team were at each team table to facilitate the work and provide design assistance for visualizing the team a . . members' ideas. The workshop included two design sessions at which each team developed ideas.These r ideas included a new road and trail network, suggestions for types of development in specific areas of the community, and plans for preservation of Rogers Road's unique cultural heritage. After each of the design sessions, each team shared its ideas with the group.This process allowed ideas to become the property of each team as it molded its conceptual plan of future development in the Rogers Road community.The individual plans developed by each team are included in Figure 8 on page 16. a . Team 1 Team 2 Areas of Commonality 1 Connection north to Eubanks Road 2 Connection across the railroad track on Weaver Dairy Extension using Purefoy Road 3 Two plans and possibly the third show an east-west road to the north of Purefoy,connecting to Rogers Road 4 Cross-roads at the center of the area to become a community center with mixed-use development;might include a community center/library 5 School near the center of the area 6 Buffer on the north side of study area to shield the area from the landfill site 7 The historic house is retained in all plans and made part of the proposed Church complex r 8 Greater density of development to lessen the individual cost of sewer;at the same time,areas near Rogers Road and along the north side of area seen as less dense to retain the current feel of the area 9 Farmers'market and community gardens 10 The community needs to write a cultural history and create a plan to preserve Team 3 its cultural heritage 16 23 Land Use Master Plan Once the community design workshop was com- pleted,the Durham Area Design Group merged key concepts from the plans of each team into a composite Land Use Master Plan Y DESIGN ROAD ° ASSISTANCE (Figure 9).The Master Plan and associated °° TEAM o 0 road network is meant to be conceptual ;❑ a LEQEMO in nature. If this report is adopted as a -- 9 p component of Chapel Hill's Comprehensive Plan,this land use plan would serve as a ■rr■ guide for Chapel Hill and Joint Planning Area Land Use Map amendments. Figure -44- 10 is the Task Force's Land Use Plan in a o _� ` format prepared by Town staff. ° o `� � `mss_ ,�_ F- ` The Rogers Road Master Plan also s d .... suggests potential alignments for new ❑ o o q o o Q o 9 roads recommended by the Task Force. ° ------ i n � Figure 11 "Conceptual Street Network with ❑- ❑ g q Existing Streets" is meant to be concep- a 0 all„ 8 o p � ooa �+ q o of I tual in nature. It is intended to be viewed 4- ❑ °4 a ° a a p B ❑ oQ°� q °� as a guide for future development rather ❑ ROOERS Roan coop f5 SMALL AREA v v b n PLAN than definitive alignments endorsed by the oo o p d o O WORKSHOP D � o OCTOBER,2008 Task Force.The Task Force believes that RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN LAND USE any new development should adhere to Figure 9 - Composite Land Use Plan prepared by the Durham Area principles of connectivity and utilize a grid Designers street pattern in more densely developed areas. Report Rogers Road Task Force .......,,�, ,� ■■ p �� reene Tract Concept Plan ■ MEN������ 1 Chapel Urban ��/j •• � ■: --i 1111111�IIIIII11�1 �r� ■ 11���� ��� mm 1 • ... -. - �r,,s .,ill � lu- �� � 78 Animal Services Selected Existing a? Center LANDFILL Streets ; A'' �c�' Conceptual Street Study Area ,;' Rail Corridor Map by Chapel Hill Planning • Road Design by Rogers Road Task Force Eubany -� : Connection to Eubanks Lg Connecdon CLL- Propose At-Grade Rail Cro sing Purefo Rd. i' . .; �- _�..� . �: . 1 S O n •t� ?t Rogers Road Small Area Plan Conce tual Street Network p 0 410 820 1,640 N with Existing Streets Feet Figure 11- Conceptual Street Network with Existing Streets 26 Rogers Road Task Force Recommendations Transportation and Infrastructure - Bus service should be provided to the existing community and bus service should be extended as the community develops. - Improve transportation access through all modes(vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian,transit). - New points of ingress and egress to the community should be established. -A road should be built that connects the neighborhood to Weaver Dairy Rd. -Water and sanitary sewer mains should be exteneded to the community. -The Towns of Chapel Hill,Carrboro, Hillsborough,and Orange County should collaborate to identify and secure funds to be used for financing the entire cost of OWASA water and sewer connections for individual homes within the Historic Rogers-Eubanks community as part of the compensation for the 37 years of hosting the Orange County Landfill and other solid waste facilities.Attachment 1 provides a list of available funding sources at the state and federal levels. Open Space and Recreation -Active recreation opportunities need to be provided for the Rogers Road community. - Passive recreation opportunities such as trails should be constructed on the Greene Tract. In order to do so,the Greene Tract Concept Plan should be revised by the local governments to reflect changing conditions along with this plan. - If a school is built in the community,explicit facility sharing relationships should be established prior to construction. Design and Land Use -The Recommended Master Plan on page 17 should become the basis for a future land use plan amendment for the Rogers Road area. -The Town should take the lead in initiating intergovernmental land use discussions(as required by the Joint Planning Agreement) by articulating a new vision for growth in the area. - New development should be compact and offer a range of housing types.This will facilitate the development for a neighborhood core in the eastern part of the study area,as will the presence of a school and a neighborhood commercial district. - Minimum setback requirements for new development should reflect the Task Force's desire to have a front porch community where life meets the street. Houses should be built close to sidewalks. -The Task Force desires that the currently developed areas near Rogers Road and the peripheries of the study area maintain their current densities.This would allow this part of the community to maintain its rural feel. Report Rogers Road Task Force 27 Rogers Road Task Force Recommendations Design and Land Use - New roads near the neighborhood core should have curb and gutter. -A maximum building height of 45' is recommended to maintain the community's character. Community Preservation -The two remaining historic buildings in the study area should be preserved and integrated into future community facilities. -The Town should explore options similar to the Homestead Exemption that would enable current property owners, particularly long-time residents, Habitat residents,and descendants of the Historic Community,to retain ownership of their property. - Local governments should collaborate with the community to develop strategies that help ensure that the majority of the housing stock be affordable to those making at or below 80%of the Area Median Income. - Residents need to be informed of development pressures and opportunities in the Rogers Road area.This could happen through information sessions periodically hosted by the Town. -The Town and the Community should collaborate to find innovative ways to rehabilitate declining residential properties in the area. - Local governments with jurisdiction should revisit ordinances pertaining to the replacement of manufactured housing and strive to develop rules to allow existing housing to remain in place. -The Town and the Rogers Road community should maintain the type of meaningful dialogue that was made possible by the efforts of the Task Force and by the work done during the design workshop. ® Rogers Road Task Force Report 28 Implementation The Rogers Road Task Force developed a long-range vision for future land uses and A: Task Force to provide the Rogers Road Task Force Report to the Town Council desirable community enhancements. The proposed Rogers Road Small Area Plan with a request that the report be adopted as a component of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and with an associated amendment to the Chapel Hill Implementation Plan supports the Task Force vision and addresses the related social, Land Use Plan. economic, and environmental issues that affect the Rogers Road Community. Because of Joint Planning Jurisdiction, collaboration between the Towns of Chapel Hill and B: Town Council to initiate the Joint Planning process to amend the Joint Land Use Plan. Carrboro,along with Orange County,will be necessary to implement many of the Task Force recommendations. Outlined below are a series of implementation actions C: Establish a work group of elected officials and appointed staff from each and preliminary implementation schedule intended to achieve the recommendations jurisdiction and OWASA to identify responsibilities that Chapel Hill, Carrboro, of the Task Force. Figure 12 on pages 24-25 is a proposed implementation schedule. Orange County, and OWASA would need to assume to implement the Rogers Road Small Area Plan vision. C,: Work group to develop a utility funding and phasing plan for water and sewer connections for review by the three local governments. Cz: Work group to identify transportation and traffic calming projects and funding options consistent with the recommendations of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan. - C3: Review Greene Tract agreement and related Concept Plan to incorporate the recommendations of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan 4. k ` r. D: Town Council to ask the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools to determine the facility needs to construct an elementary school in the Greene Tract. E: Town Council to ask the Greenways Commission to prepare an update of the Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan to reflect the trail system proposed by the Task Force,for Council consideration. _ y F: Town staff to develop an annexation strategy for the Rogers Road area reflecting the final water and sewer implementation plan (developed - ._ - .. :J[4a's-•:_s;'�i�.ar�:T:a�=s.:r:'Rir��•�i�:•�°itrr. M'•"�_-�'S.a.:Y�.:u�:.: by work group established through C) and the provision of additional The Task Force suggested that this log cabin,located in the Rogers Road Study Area,could be a focal pointfor a Community Garden or a Farmers Market in thefuture. Town services.This strategy should include land loss prevention measures intended to keep existing residents in their homes. 29 Implementation F: Town staff to facilitate dialogue about annexation with the residents through the work group established in action C. G: Town Council to establish a Community Preservation Steering Committee to assess the feasibility of restoring the historically significant buildings of the Rogers Road study area, preserving the cemetery, and addressing other issues of historical significance. H: The Town staff to host a development information workshop at which town staff, developers, and property owners could discuss market trends and potential development options. I: The Town staff to work with residents to identify appropriate sites for a community garden project in the Rogers Road area. J: The Town should explore options similar to the Homestead Exemption that would enable current property owners, particularly long-time residents, Habitat residents,and descendants of the Historic Community,to retain ownership of their property. ® Rogers Road Task Force Report Chapel Hill Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Council receives and refers Rogers road Report to Chapel Hill Advisory Boards fore review -Adopt Task Force Report as component of Comprehensive Plan • -Amend Chapel Hill Land Use Plan Initiate discussions with Chapel Hill- • Carrboro City Schools with regard to proposed school site on the Greene Tract. Town to assist in establishment of a • preservation steering committee Work with Greenways Commission to update Greenways Masterplan Develop annexation stategy that incorporates land loss prevention strategies Rogers Road development work • group The Town should explore options that would help current property owners, particularly long-time residents,Habitat residents,and descendants of the Historic Community preserve their property. -1 - 1 .1- 1 1 , , . -1. 1 1 1 - 1. 1 1/1 -6 I - I 1- • • - . 24 Rogers Road Task Force Report • • • Joint Planning Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Refer Rogefs Road Task Force Report to Orange County,Carrboro,OWASA,and 0 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Amend Joint-Land Use Plan Assembly of Governments Meetings • Establish local government work group • Develop funding and phasing plan for water and sewer service Identify transportation and traffic calming projects -• - • ••• -• • .•• - • •" .•" of • I •- • • I .•-• • 8. 25 32 Acknowledaements Town of Chapel Hill Planning Staff J.B. Culpepper- Director David Bonk- Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager Garrett Davis- Long Range Planner Scott Simmons-Graphics Specialist Orange Water and Sewer Authority Ed Holland- Director of Planning Joe Leo- Engineering Technician Orange County Craig Benedict- Director Perdita Holtz- Planning Systems Coordinator/Planner III Town of Carrboro Roy Williford- Director Report Rogers Road Task Force NC Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Funding Sources Attachmeff I Compiled by UNC EFC June 2008 Organization Program Purpose or Use of Funds Application Dates Website Contact North Carolina Gloria Nance-Sims,Director Department of Community Development To improve housing and economic gnance-sims @nccommerce.com Typically,spring through htommunw.nccommerce.com/en/ Commerce,Division of Block Grants(CDBG) development for low and moderate 919 733-2850;919 733-5262(fax) the year's end. CommunitySe vices/ Community Assistance (HUD funds) income communities 4313 Mail Service Center (DCA) Raleigh,NC 27699 Roger Davis,Program Director Water and Wastewater Loans Funds are for eligible community Applications received wvvw.rurdev.usda.gov/ roger.davis @nc.usda.gov and Grants water,sewer,storm sewer,and year round. nc/wwd.htm (919)873-2061 solid waste projects. 4405 Bland Road Raleigh,NC 27609 These grants may be available to Roger Davis,Program Director eligible rural communities in event Contact NC State office. roger.davis @nc.usda.gov Emergency Community Water of natural disaster or other acts Applications received � /w .usda.gov/ (919)873-2061 Assistance Grants that cause significant damage to a year round. nc/wwd.htm htm 4405 Bland Road water or sewer system. Raleigh,NC 27609 USDA Rural Development Very Low-Income Housing 504 REPAIR LOANS AND Mel Ellis,NC Program Director GRANTS-Single Family Housing Contact a local USDA mel.ellis @nc.usda.gov Repair Loans and Grants makes loans and grants to provide Rural Development wvvw.rurdev.usda.gov/nc/ (919)873-2060 (Section 504) rural residents with safe and Office. 504rep.htm Area contacts listed atwvvw.rurdev.usda.gov/nc/do- affordable homes. list.htm Roger Davis,Program Director Water and Wastewater Loans Funds are for eligible community Applications received www.rurdev.usda.gov/ roger.davis @nc.usda.gov and Grants water,sewer,storm sewer,and year round. nc/wwd.htm (919)873-2061 solid waste projects. 4405 Bland Road Raleigh,NC 27609 Philip Trader Economic Development ptrader @eda.doc.gov Public Works and These grants support projects that (404)730-3017 Administration, Development Facilities Grant promote economic development in Proposals are accepted ww.eda.gov Economic Development Administration Department of Program economically distressed areas. on a continuing basis. 401 West Peachtree Street NW Commerce Suite 1820 Atlanta,GA,30308-3510 Sid Harrell Planning,designing,and sid.harrell @ncmail.net Public Water Supply Section- construction for the purpose of DWSRF application (919)715-3216 INC Division of Drinking ater SRF Loan upgrading,expanding,extending, is September 30 www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/srf/i Public Water Su Section Environmental Health g g' p . ndexhtm Program rehabilitating or consolidating each year. Division of Environmental Health 1634 Mail water systems. Service Center Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Grants fund projects to protect Beth McGee,Deputy Director and restore surface water quality, beth.mcgee @cwmtf.net Clean Water such as stormwater management, (919)716-0055 Management Trust stream restoration,wetland Application deadline is �cwmff.net Clean Water Management Fund(CWMTF)Grants acquisition,and improvements or March 1 each year. Trust Fund repairs to wastewater treatment 1651 Mail Service Center systems. Raleigh,NC 27699-1651 ulvca ww.efcunc.etlu Information compiletl bVH6Anvimnmenta1 Finance Center in€0-2007.Please contact program man3ya Ether,up-to-tlate information. NC Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Funding Sources Attachawt 1 Compiled by UNC EFC June 2008 Organization Program Purpose or Use of Funds Application Dates Webs ite Contact Daniel Blaisdell,Chief Applicants must be daniel.blaisdell @ncmail.net North Carolina The CWSRF program is available (919)715-6211 Construction Grants Clean Water State Revolving to fund a wide variety of water scheduled on Priority www.nccgl.neUfap/cwsrf/ DENR Construction Grants and Loans Section Fund quality projects. Funding List before ndex.html and Loans Section March 31 st. 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC 27399-1633 ARC offers Community Olivia Collier,Appalachian Program Manager Appalachian Regional Supplements to Other Federal Development Supplemental Contact your state ARC ocollier @nccommerce.com (919)733-2853 ext.252 Commission(ARC) Grants Grants for water projects in the program manager for www.arc.gov Appalachian Regional Commission Grant Program designated Appalachian regions in more information. 1307 Glenwood Avenue 13 eastern states. Raleigh,NC 27699-4313 The Rural Center administers Julie Haigler Cubeta,Senior Director,Physical grant programs to help rural Infrastructure Office Application deadlines are Supplemental Grants communities develop the water jhaiglercubeta @ncruralcenter.org 5:00 p.m.on the last www.ncruralcenter.org/ Program,Capacity Building and sewer systems they need to business days of March grants/water.htm (919)250-4314,(919)250-4325(fax) Grants Program support local economic growth and September. N.C.Rural Economic Development Center and ensure a reliable supply of 4021 Carya Drive clean water. Raleigh,NC 27610 INC Rural Economic Development Center Julie Haigler Cubeta,Senior Director,Physical Grant funds are used to generate Infrastructure Office new jobs in rural or urban, jhaiglercubeta @ncruralcenter.org Economic Infrastructure economically distressed Pre-applications taken on wwastruc ure/ ter.org/ (919)250-4314,(919)250-4325(fax) Grants communities through water and a rolling basis. infrastructure/ N.C.Rural Economic Development Center wastewater improvement projects. 4021 Carya Drive Raleigh,NC 27610 Section 319 funds support projects designed to reduce Kim Nimmer,Grant Program Coordinator nonpoint source distribution.The (919) 33-5 83 ext. mail.net Proposals will be (919)733-5083 ext.582 Clean Water Act Section NC Division seeks Base Funded accepted for about three http:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/ Water Quality Section 319(h)Grants Proposals(funding for education Section_319_G rant_Program. and demonstration of innovative months beginning in Htm Division of Water Quality best management practices)and November 2007. NC P.O.Box .Box Incremental Funded Proposals (water quality restoration funding). Raleigh,NC C 2 27 7626-0535 North Carolina Division of Water Quality Grant program was established to Heather Boyette provide funding for efforts to curb Applications accepted heather.boyette @ncmail.net Section 319 Nonpoint Source nonpoint source(NPS)pollution, between February 13 and http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/Sec 919-733-5083,ext.357 Grant Program including that which occurs though May 15,the year prior. tion_319_Grant_Program.htm 512 West Salisbury Street stormwater runoff Raleigh,NC 27604 Shelly Miller North Carolina Division To reduce the input of nonpoint shelly.miller @ncmail.net of Soil and Water Community Conservation source pollution through best http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/p 919-715-6107 Conservation Assistance Program management practices ages/ccap_program.html Division of Soil and Water Conservation 1614 Mail Service Center C Raleigh,NC 27699-1614 ` in rn�.iwnrrcecerrca ww n imnm sec m t date infurmauun. w.efc.0 c.edu Information compiled Env' e.tal Finance Center in S.O.,2007.Plea ..tact program an3a�erfurther,up-.- Attachment B Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force Final Report September 17, 2013 Prepared by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Reappointment of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 2 Charge of the Reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 2 Recommendations 3 Sewer Infrastructure 2012 OWASA Sewer Concept Plan 4 2013 OWASA Utility District Concept Plan 6 2013 OWASA Sewer Compromise Concept Plan 14 Homeowners Connections 14 Community Center 17 Gentrification, Chapel Hill's Small Area Plan, and The Greene Tract: 18 APPENDICES A. County and Town Attorneys Opinions B. Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force Report- December 6, 2013 C. Town of Chapel Hill Memo to Elected Officials February 25, 2013 D. North Carolina General Statutes 153A-376; 160A-456 E. Lease Agreement between Habitat for Humanity and Orange County F. Operations Agreement: Rogers Road Community Center 37 INTRODUCTION In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill operated by the Town of Chapel Hill. Orange County assumed operational control of the landfill as the result of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) and the County. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with this landfill for 40 years. Over many years, residents representing the Rogers Road area have voiced concerns about various operational elements associated with the landfill and the impact on the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Neighborhood is geographically split by the Orange County and Carrboro. Orange County, as the current owner of the landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road Community. A number of local government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in the Rogers Road Community and they are as follows- 1. The Solid Waste Fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area. 2. Solid Waste installed gas flares to reduce odors. 3. The Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road. 4. Orange County initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells remaining in the adjoining neighborhoods. 5. Orange County approved the appropriation of$750,000 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance to establish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. 6. On July 1, 2011 Orange County established a $5.00 tipping fee surcharge and a plan to incrementally increase the tipping fee each fiscal year by a minimum $2 per ton as long as the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. 7. A partnership with Orange County and the University of North Carolina created a Landfill Gas to Energy Project that commenced operation on January 6, 2012 and will have an immediate and noticeable impact on the odor created by the operation of the landfill. The project will further provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC, reducing dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions. 8. On October 4, 2011 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with a "one-time" effort to clean-up illegal dump sites within three-fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary, at no cost to the individual property owners. At the January 26, 2012 Assembly of Governments meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service and a community center for the Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys (Appendix A) have concluded that use of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. As such, a community 1 38 center does not have a relationship to Solid Waste and could not be funded from Solid Waste reserves. Therefore, funding for either the extension of sewer services and/or a community center will have to come from the County's and Towns' other general revenue sources. There was discussion on January 26 regarding the creation of a task force to address the issues. On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Task Force to address sewer service and a community center. The composition of the Task Force was to include two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Appendix B is the Original Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force's Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012 Reappointment of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force On February 5, 2013 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the continuation of a reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and approved the Charge of the Task Force. The composition of the Task Force includes two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Appointed Task Force Members: David Caldwell: RENA Robert Campbell: RENA Penny Rich: Orange County Renee Price: Orange County Michelle Johnson: Carrboro Sammy Slade: Carrboro Lee Storrow: Chapel Hill James Ward: Chapel Hill Charge of the Reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 1. Request that the towns confirm the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint members to the Task force; 2. Confirm the appointment of Commissioners Rich and Price as the County's members on the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force; z 39 3. Request that the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association confirm the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint two members to the Task Force; 4. Confirm the charge and a timeline for the Task force as specified by the motion approved at the January 24 meeting: To continue the Task Force for six (6) months; To have the Task Force consider the final costs, provision and installation of water and sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the Historic Rogers Road community; Consider options to address gentrification; Consider Chapel Hill's most recent Small Area Plan, Consider funding options, including the Greene Tract. 5. Specify that the Task Force provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners no later than the Board's September 17th meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Cost associated with the Community Center and Sewer Improvements will be shared 14% Carrboro, 43% Chapel Hill and 43% Orange County. 2. That the Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 to serve 86 parcels at an estimated cost of $5.8 million should be funded by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County in proportion to the recommended cost sharing. The first phase of the construction should include segments 5, 6, and 8 at an estimated cost of $3.7 million, serving 67 parcels. Funding recommended to be included in the Fiscal 2014/2015 Budgets, with the remaining 19 parcels to be constructed in the second phase and included in the Fiscal 2015/2016 Budgets 3. That the Task Force prefers the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 to serve 86 parcels at an estimated cost of $5.8 million. First this concept will provide sewer improvements to the entire Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood; secondly, this proposal will enable all of the partners, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and The Town of Carrboro, to equally share the costs of the Community Center and Sewer Improvements in proportion to their responsibilities. If either the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Chapel Hill Town Council do not favor the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 or cannot agree on the concept of an ETJ for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, the Sewer 3 40 Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 including only segments 5, 6, and 8 to serve 67 parcels at an estimated cost of$3.7 million should be funded. 4. That the county petition the Town of Chapel Hill to annex all County Owned Property in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. 5. That the Task Force requests that the Managers explore the collaborative approach to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as outlined in February 25, 2013 Memo to Elected Officials (Appendix C) and report back to the Task Force on August 21, 2013. 6. That the Managers meet and talk about the options related to connecting the residents of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood to sewer. 7. That funding is identified for the cost of connecting from the OWASA infrastructure to the home in addition to applying for grants for low-to-moderate income persons. It is a priority of the Task Force to identify funding not only for the installation of sewer infrastructure but also cost of connections to homeowners. The Task Force recommends that the County and Towns set up a fund specifically for people in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood and to fund the cost of the connections from the home to the utility main SEWER SERVICE 2012 OWASA Sewer Concept Plan: OWASA is the water & sewer utility for the area and as such, it investigated the concept of providing sewer service as part of the Town of Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan. On February 8, 2011 OWASA provided an updated concept plan and cost estimate, for the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Study Area for $3.4 million. This early concept plan was completed based on the Chapel Hill Small Area Plan which is a geographically different area than the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood sewer concept. There is also some difference in routing some of the main outfalls. In the current estimate, OWASA needed to avoid the area of contamination coming out from the Carrboro section that required more line with deeper excavation. Most importantly, in the earlier estimates neither the availabilities fees was included nor the cost of extending a lateral from the main line to the properties. OWASA provided a concept plan, layout, and cost estimate for providing sewer service to the area that was delineated by the Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force at the April 30, 2012 meeting. The concept plan is the most efficient way to serve the defined 4 41 Rogers Road Neighborhood and does not consider adjoining neighborhoods. The Reappointed Task Force reviewed the concept on March 20, 2013. See below, Exhibit 1, the Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer Concept May, 2012 Map. All the green areas show where sewer service is already available. The dark green areas are parcels that have connected to the OWASA service. The light green areas have not connected. The 86 parcels in yellow are the properties that would be served by the conceptual sewer layout. The concept map also breaks down the sewer service into 8 sub-areas with the number of parcels served and cost per parcel. The 8 red lines represent the possible sub-areas of the sewer infrastructure that could be considered, if the entire concept project is not feasible. The sewer infrastructure routing was estimated based on the topography taken from maps rather than from any field work. In order to get to a greater level of detail or certainty on the cost, some field work would be required. There are two brown areas on the map that the County has identified as some subsurface disposal or some suspected contamination. Without any further investigation, the sewer line has been routed no closer than 100 feet of that margin. Exhibit 1 Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer Concept-_- "� �\ ""7 N May 2012 I n Parcels Cost Per t Area Total Cost Served Parcel 1 $468,780 2 $234,390 2 $786,234 6 $131,039 £ — 3 $106,313 1 $106,313 ' 4 $546,860 8 $68,357 o �rpr, 5 $826,022 1 17 $48,590 g oan9ecnnmw� 6 $848,919 5 $169,784 7 $349,191 2 $174,596 I 'f l-- 8 $1,855,900 45 $41,242 n $5,788,217 86 $67,305 :\ ,� € WmntawnersmP� C2 5 42 The total construction and installation cost for the sewer concept is currently estimated to be $5.8 million. See the table below. It would serve 86 additional parcels of land. The concept costs include construction, engineering design, administration and contingency for possible rock. The topography of the neighborhood is complex and the land falls in several different directions. This concept plan does not include the costs of any property acquisitions or easement acquisitions. The availability hookup charge for each of the parcels is based on an assumed average house size of 2,500 square feet. When a customer connects to the OWASA water and sewer system, there is a one-time fee that is estimated to be $4,300 per parcel for the concept plan. Cost estimate Summary: Engineering, Design and Permitting 376,350 Construction Cost 3,763,506 Construction Administration 188,175 Construction Inspection 188,175 20%Contingency 903,241 Sub Total 5,419,447 Service Availability Fees 368,768 Total 5,788,215 The concept does not include the cost to actually connect individual homes to the sewer system. Those costs will vary depending on the configuration of the lot and the distance from the house to the main sewer line. Those costs are typically the costs of the homeowner and are estimated to be about $20/foot. The connections to an individual house would be provided by a private plumbing contractor. 2013 OWASA Utility District Concept Plan: The Task Force reconvened in 2013 and there was discussion about a larger district that would include sewer and water that encompasses a much greater area and would bring many more potential property owners to the table, in terms of sharing the cost and the potential to serve a lot more people. There are a couple of options that the Task 6 43 Force considered. One was a larger district including other properties outside of Rogers Road that can contribute to the cost that otherwise would be paid by the Rogers Road area. The other option would be having Task Force recommend funding solely for the 2012 Sewer Concept for the Rogers Road area and that would represent a larger per- property cost. If a Utility District is created, it would be a separate governmental entity, so everyone within that governmental entity would have the same opportunity. Even with the creation of a Utility District the County would be responsible for funding and operating the district. The district could issue bonds to raise the funds, or more likely, the County would issue some sort of General Obligation Bond. There are several legal ways to raise the money; it will come down to the political choice of which legal way the County would choose. Either way, the County would take the lead to finance a Utility District. A Utility District would be located outside the corporate limits of the Town of Chapel Hill. A legal concern is whether the Town of Chapel Hill could spend money outside of the town limits. There are a couple of potential ways under which that could occur. The first option is that Chapel Hill could annex either all or some of that district. In order to do so it would require a majority vote of the residents. The second option allows the extension of water and sewer lines through a community development program. The extension of utility lines can occur within a Town's corporate limits but also within the ETJ [Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction]. The district could be created, but there is no basis for the Town of Chapel Hill to be able to make a contribution, in the absence of either a community development program in the ETJ or annexation. The County can create a service district. Carrboro can contribute because it has areas in the service district that are within the town limits, but Chapel Hill does not. On November 14, 2012 the Historic Rogers Road Task Force recommended that the County & Town Managers explore the creation of a County Sewer District for all property owners in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. This concept evolved from 2012 Sewer concept presented by OWASA, with the total cost of about $5.8 million that would serve 86 parcels, with an average cost of $67,000 per parcel. The Task Force asked the Managers to look at water and sewer options and see what might work; what might be a better solution or was the best solution. The planning staffs from Carrboro and Chapel Hill looked at the sewer district and identified areas that the sewer lines go through that aren't being served by the proposed sewer. Staff identified parcels that could be served by new sewer infrastructure but also considered parcels that are not served by water. Consideration for a Proposed Utility District started with the boundaries of Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. Adjacent properties that fell into the category of either existing development that was not currently 44 being served or areas that could be expected to request sewer service as the property develops in the future were included in the Proposed Utility District. Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions outlines the existing jurisdictions, Carrboro Town Limits, Chapel Hill Town Limits, Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area, Carrboro Joint Planning Transition Area 2, and the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. The thick purple line shows the possible expanded Utility district that OWASA was asked to propose as a Utility District. The blue line identifies the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the Task Force. Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions i CH TOC 4 Sp -=Ruraf Buffer Rural Buffer (orange co,) (Oran go Co) L 4X a m r Nar#hwood Carrbnro Chapel Hill Joint Planning ,loin[Panning � � - f � Transition Area s Transition-Area 2— t` J .. e .. Furefay:➢r Greene 7'Mcr 71 ,# Carrboro + City Limits 9 City Limits ++ :� 'M +-■ W M a * i fir 8F�Ieby19 Ln :. . ._ ..: __ ■ ■-M a■.-W-*:4 1 11 Legend —JL Carrbora ,7 r 5 J{ Nomesftd-Rd Pa nRial R4gerS Rd Ufilily DIsffitl -aJnr PrlrtllrsY riansr;lon 4 f , M'`�Hlstoric Rogera Rd Nelghbarhoad ONpel FIN Town Llmlls GES Map ppraParatl — ' Chapol FIIII Urban Services Ame Ghepel NIII Rlarming Dept. '• — C.tlTrhmo Town Llmils January-2ti13 d 544 1,900 2,oP0 -- I.—' —-- Carrboro Transition Area 2 8 45 The Proposed Utility District above is broken down between Water and Sewer Costs. The Total Cost of the proposed Utility District is outlined below: Proposed Utility District Total Water and Sewer Cost Construction Cost $ 11,226,913 Engineering, Design and Permitting 10% $ 1,122,691 Construction Administration 5% $ 561,346 Construction Inspection 5% $ 561,346 20%Contingency $ 2,694,459 Sub Total $ 16,166,755 Service Availability Fees $ 1,414,908 Meter Cost $ 26,400 Tota 1 $ 17,608,063 Cost Per Parcel (220) $ 80,037 The Sewer only cost estimate is outlined below and shown on Exhibit 3 (Sewer Map). Existing OWASA-owned public sewer is shown in thin green lines. The Proposed Utility District for sewer infrastructure is shown with a thick red line with black dots, representing the manholes for the new extension. Proposed Utility District Total Sewer Cost Construction Cost $ 7,441,188 Engineering, Design and Permitting 10% $ 744,119 Construction Administration 5% $ 372,059 Construction Inspection 5% $ 372,059 20%Contingency $ 1,785,886 Sub Total $ 10,715,311 Service Availability Fees $ 973,500 Total $ 11,688,811 Number of parcels served 220 Cost Per Parcel $ 53,131 9 46 Exhibit 3 Sewer Map A s 1Jei91e Traet 1�9e��1 Greere Trdd s s f GfHene T-t AM dams i C` z 8 upne •a o lase en- -ec 1M — Dlwd,w.w•...•.";� r n re � t a; The water cost estimate is outlined below and shown on Exhibit 4 (Water Map). The water map is the same as sewer, except with thin blue lines identify existing mains and the new mains are the thick red lines, with red squares as proposed fire hydrant locations. 10 Proposed District Total • Construction Cost Design and Permitting 10% $ 383,572 Construction Administration :. Construction Inspection :. 1'. Contingency $ 920,575 • Total 5,523,443 Availability Service 441,408 Meter Cost $ 26,400 • Number of parcels served Cost Per Parcel $ 45,388 Exhibit Water • Y! _ 1 7 � �� 111!1► � � ' ��1_�■-������ ��� �,�� � �� ���� is ► �� 48 All parcels that already have access to water and/or sewer on the maps are identified in a black crosshatch; some of these parcels are currently connected to OWASA's system and some are not. The Proposed Utility District would extend water and sewer to all parcels within the purple boundary. The newly Proposed Utility District almost doubles the amount of sewer that would need to be installed from what was proposed in May 2012. This expanded area increased the lineal feet of sewer extension required from 3.6 miles to 6.8 miles and added 4.4 miles of water main extension. The conceptual layouts for sewer and water are based on the parcel boundaries as they are currently configured and whether or not a structure or multiple structures are currently located on a parcel was not considered. The Proposed Utility District includes all parcels and the cost per parcel in some areas will be much greater than others. Exhibit 5 (High Cost Areas) identifies 5 areas where the cost of new water and/or sewer infrastructure/parcel will be the highest. If the high cost areas are removed until additional development occurs in the Proposed Utility District the initial cost of the Utility District would go from $17.6 million to $13.4 million. This represents a 24% decrease in the initial cost, which could be the final phase of the Utility District, and would eliminate water and/or sewer service to 22 parcels. The cost for the High Cost Areas is outlined below: Proposed Utility District Less High Cost Areas Total Water Cost Less High Cost Areas Total Overall Cost for Water $ 5,991,251 Minus High Cost Areas for Water $ 1,826,331 Total Water $ 4,164,920 Total Sewer Cost Minus High Cost Areas Total Overall CostforSewer $ 11,688,811 Minus High Cost Areas for Sewer $ 2,465,767 Total Sewer $ 9,223,044 Total Water& Sewer Cost Minus High Cost Areas $ 13,387,964 12 49 Exhibit 5 Print file(Ctrl+P) Nigh Cost Areas A � 3 LOTS HLw9le Tfdc[ (9rdn9e CvM1Y7 GRene Trod I' _ � c❑ 1 L I I AREA 7 5LOT5 i- G2 Tr= [ddA OmdslilP] tN i i r it 4. ar r 6 M.— _ r eKn-gym - 5 The 2012 Sewer concept presented by OWASA had a total estimated cost of $5.8 million that would serve 86 parcels, with an average cost of $67,000 per parcel. The Proposed Utility District which evolved from the 2012 Sewer concept has an estimated total cost of $17.6 million. With an expanded service area, the cost of sewer only is $11.6 million. If the sewer component of the Proposed Utility District is broken out, sewer would serve 220 sewer parcels, with an average cost of$53,131 per parcel. 13 50 OWASA estimates include extending one sewer service lateral from the main sewer line to the edge of the right-of-way, with a clean out, and extending one water service lateral, setting a meter box and meter at the edge of the right-of-way. This estimate does not consider any cost for hooking up those parcels that have sewer available to them now. If they already have sewer or water available to them, it's not included in the cost estimate. The costs associated with acquiring the easements that will be necessary before any construction work can begin are not included. However, whenever it was feasible to do so, proposed utilities are inside the right-of-way to minimize the number of easements that must be obtained. 2013 OWASA Sewer Compromise Concept: On June 12, 2013 the Task Force was presented a Compromise Sewer Concept based on the 2012 OWASA Sewer Concept The intent of the concept is to bring focus on the target core of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood considering cost, efficiency and expediency to serve this Neighborhood. The original 2012 Sewer Concept serves the Rogers Road Neighborhood by constructing 8 different segments at a total estimated cost of $5.8 million. Exhibit 1, the Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer Concept May, 2012 Map shows the 8 different segments and 86 parcels that would be served with this concept. Segments 5, 6, & 8 could serve 67 parcels and are the most cost effective to construct. This concept could also be constructed as the first phase of a larger Proposed Sewer District. The Compromise Concept would serve 67 of the 86 original parcels or 77.9% and cost an estimated $3.7 million or 64.1% of the original cost estimate. This concept could serve the core of Rogers Road, but not everyone. Homeowner Connections: Homeowners subsidize connection: The County and the Towns have statutory authority to pay for or subsidize connection costs for the benefit of low and moderate income persons within their territorial jurisdiction. (Appendix D - G.S. 153A-376; 160A-456). Pursuant to this authority a program could be established whereby grants or loans are issued to persons who meet 14 51 designated criteria to assist those persons with the cost of connecting to a water or sewer system. It remains to be determined whether each unit of local government would operate its own program or whether a joint program would be established. A method to fund individual homeowner connections to water and/or sewer infrastructure is to create a community development fund, set up for the benefit of low-moderate income individual. If a utility district is created, one of the benefits is that the availability of community development funds could be limited to property owners within the district. The District could not distinguish between or have differential sliding scales based on how long a resident has lived in the Rogers Road Neighborhood. After establishing a policy that makes funds available for individuals to connect to water and/or sewer utilities, for low- to-moderate income homeowners, individuals could apply for grants and/or loans to pay for utility connection charges. No one would be forced to connect to the system, but in any case the qualifying criteria would not be limited to residents of the District. Connection cost: The Proposed Utility District has not yet been formed and a fees structure has not yet been considered. The current OWASA fee structure could be used as an example of the fees a new Utility District customer would be expected to pay. A new sewer customer will be expected to pay for a sewer service lateral, a clean out and service availability fee; a water customer will be expected to pay for a water service lateral, meter box, meter, and service availability fee. The estimates are based on a 2,500 sq. ft. house, pumping out and abandoning a septic tank, a private lateral 150' long, and no internal plumbing modifications. Exhibit 6 (Historic Rogers Road Area Estimate Schematic) provides a detail breakdown of what an individual home owner could expect to pay to connect to both OWASA water and sewer. In this example, the fees paid to OWASA would be $11 ,495 and the estimated cost of a private plumber is $10,850. 15 52 Exhibit 6 Historic Rogers Road Area Cost Estimate Schematic 1.1 C --- -- �, F-1 ti 4 SEWER COST ESTIMATE PER LOT WATER COST ESTIMATE PER LOT Item Cost item Colt A-Sewer Main Extension $TBD A-Water Alain Extension 5TBD B-Sewer Sef vice Lateral,Clean out $6,925 B-Watef Service Lateral,Meter Box, $4,570 and Service Availability Fee" Meter and Service Availability Fee* C•private plumbing 7 X50 C-Private Plumbing a bu Tvtarr$TO 70ta1:$TBD Private Plumbing Assumptions: Private Plumbing Assumptions! All materials and workman;hip per plumbing code •All materials and workmansf ip per plumbing code •Clearicut installed at edge of ROt of Way •Meter box and meter installed at edge of RiMht of Way •Septic Tank pumped out and abandoned Well disconnected from home plumbing,not abandoned { Horne can I e served �y gravity lno sump or pump) • Private lateral is 156'long •Private lateral is 150'long •Includes pressure Red ucing Valve installation,but no No internal plumbing modifications required other internal plumbing modifications •Assumes trenching will not require disturbance of ,Assumes trenching will not require disturbafice of sidewalk, driveway or landscaping sidewalk,driveway or landscaping Service Availability Fee charge assumes 2,500 ft2 borne *Service Availability Fee charge assumes 2,500 ft2 home 16 53 COMMUNITY CENTER: On April 9, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners was presented the schematic design of the Rogers Road Community Center and authorized the manager to award the bid for construction in an amount not to exceed $650,000. The project was bid in August, 2013. The Town of Chapel Hill has expedited the site plan review, permitting and other associated processes for the project as well as waived all associated Town fees related to those processes, normally estimated to be $25,000. A Lease Agreement (Appendix E) between the County and Habitat for Humanity to lease two lots in the Phoenix Place Subdivision for an initial term of 20 years has been approved. Appendix F, an Operating Agreement between Orange County and the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) has been drafted and is scheduled to be presented to the Board on September 17, 2013. The agreement contracts with RENA to provide programs and activities that take place at the Community Center, and that all such programs and activities shall be open to the general public. The County Attorney will be drafting a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and Towns to outline a capital contribution from the Towns for the construction of the Rogers Road Community Center not to exceed $650,000. The MOU will also provide that the County will be ultimately responsible for the cost of operating and maintaining the Community Center and that the financial participation by Carrboro and Chapel Hill will be limited to the capital contributions identified below. Costs sharing percentages are the same as identified in the 1972 Landfill Agreement, 43% for Orange County, 43% for the Town of Chapel Hill, and 14% for the Town of Carrboro. The County will construct the Community Center and reimbursement from the Towns could begin in Fiscal 2013/2014. Budget for the Community Center: $650,000 Shared Costs: Orange County 43% $279,500 Town of Chapel Hill 43% $279,500 Town of Carrboro 14% $ 91,000 17 54 GENTRIFICATION, CHAPEL HILL'S SMALL AREA PLAN, AND THE GREENE TRACT: The Task Force highlights part of the charge to the reappointed Task Force (5 Feb 2013) — "To have the Task Force consider options to address gentrification", indicating that it has not been adequately discussed by the Task Force, nor have options been identified to address this concern, yet it remains a critical issue. Therefore, the Task Force requests that the staffs from each jurisdiction continue to work together with RENA and the other partners identified in Manager's February 25, 2013 memo to Elected Officials (Self-Help, Jackson Center, OWASA, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools), to identify challenges and craft an action plan which addresses the issue of gentrification and allied concerns. And that the progress reports/recommendations be submitted and discussed at all future Assembly of Government meetings until sufficiently resolved. On April 17, 2013 the Managers and Attorneys presented recommendation from their meeting on April 11, 2013, Appendix G. The County & Town Managers, and Attorneys support the concept of a multijurisdictional Development Agreement that will address utilities, gentrification and the Greene Tract for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, Including: • The concept of an expanded geographic region for a Utility District to promote water and sewer for the Rogers Road Neighborhood • That the County would be the unit of government to create, finance, and operate a County Utility District for a geographic region that would include the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood parcels that are not currently served by a municipal water & sewer system. • The concept of the joint development of the Greene Tract for affordable housing, schools, and open space should be an integral part of a development plan for the Rogers Road Neighborhood. 18 55 Appendix A MEMORANDUM Memorandum to: Carrboro Mayor and Board of Aldermen From: Mike Brough Subject: Rogers Road Proposts Date: November 7,2012 County Attorney John Roberts, Chapel Hill Attorney Ralph Karpinos, and I met November 6a`to discuss the managers' October 16,2012 recommendations for constructing a Community Center to serve the Rogers Road area and to extend sewer lines into this area. We also discussed Mark Dorosin's October 23, 2012 letter recommending that, not only should sewer lines be extended into this areas, but that homes should be connected to the sewer lines at public expense. We agreed on the conclusions set forth below in paragraphs 1-5. The thoughts set forth in paragraph 6 did not occur to me until after our meeting, and therefore have not been endorsed by the other attorneys.: 1. Statutory authority exists for the towns and the county to cooperate in operating and funding a community center located in the Rogers Road area, and there are a number of ways in which this could be accomplished. However, as we understand it,the current proposal is that the county and/or the towns would pay Habitat$500,000 to'construct the facility, on land provided by Habitat, and then Habitat would lease the center.to RENA, who would operate it presumably in accordance with RENA Neighborhood Center Business Plan (Attachment B to the Agenda Item). The attorneys do not believe it is legally permissible for the county or the towns to expend public funds to fund the construction of a building on land the county does not own, under circumstances where the building would then be leased to a private organization that would use the facility to run programs of its choosing. The county could, of course,construct a community center on land it owned or leased, but it would have to put the project out for bids in accordance with applicable statutes. The operation of a community center would require annual appropriations. The county could provide staffing through its own employees or it could contract with an organization such as RENA to run programs,but these would have to be open to the general. public. In short, there are many options for Iegally accomplishing the objective of providing a community center that would benefit the residents of Rogers Road, but the current proposal is not one of them. 2. Orange County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill, as owners of the Greene Tract, and the County, as owner of other property used for solid waste disposal, could petition Chapel Hill to annex any properties owned by these governmental entities within the portion of the Rogers Road area that is located in Chapel Hill's ETJ or Joint Planning Area, and Chapel Hill could do so (subject to the possible exception that, if the area to be annexed was not contiguous to the existing town limits, than no lots within a subdivision could be annexed unless the entire subdivision was annexed). However,this would enable Chapel Hill to extend sewer lines only to those areas so annexed. 56 I The $900,000 that Chapel MII, Carrboro, and Orange County agreed to pay to the Landfill Fund for the 100+acres of the Greene Tract that were not conveyed to Orange County cannot be used to pay for-either the construction of a community center or the extension of sewer lines to the Rogers Road area_ The Green Tract was acquired using landfill funds, and the $900,000 is being paid back to this enterprise fund. Such funds can only be expended to cover the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the landfill. 4. Proceeds from the sale of the 100+ acre portion of the Greene Tract now owned jointly by OC, CB, and CH can be used in the same manner as other unrestricted general funds. Thus, Carrboro could use.these funds to extend sewer lines to unserved areas within Carrboro's corporate limits. S. The towns and the county could appropriate funds to subsidize the cost of actually connecting homes to a sewer line, once.that line has been constructed. In order to be able to point to specific statutory authority to provide such subsidies,it would be preferable to Iimit the availability of such subsidies to low and moderate income property owners. The attorn eys do not recommend that the contractor engaged by the county and/or the towns to extend the lines be directed to construct lines connecting individual properties to the public lines because this work involves actually getting into the plumbing systems within individual homes' and poses significant risks of unexpected complications and claims of damages. 6. The managers propose that a"County Sewer District"be created for the Rogers Road area as well as. adjoining areas that do not have sewer, and that the district use the special assessment process to recoup some of the costs of extending sewer service to these areas_ Presumably, the proposal is referring to a County Water and Sewer District created pursuant to Article 6 of CT.S. Chapter 162A. Such a district would be a legally separate municipal corporation, but the governing body of the district would be the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Such a district could issue its own bonds to raise the capital to cover the cost of extending the lines. Assessments could be based on various criteria listed in G.S. 153A-186„ including "the area of land served...at an equal rate per unit of area," which would mean that Properties with greater development or redevelopment potential would pay more than.smaller properties, but the statute does not provide a way to exempt from the assessments specific properties based on criteria not listed in the statute. Thus,if the objective is to extend sewer lines at little or no cost to the longstanding owners of properties in the Rogers Road area, but to recapture some of the cost of extending the lines when properties in this area are developed or redeveloped,the special assessment process appears to be a useful tool. An alternative might be to establish.the District and have the District issue its bonds to raise the cost of extending the lines. Carrboro could contract with the District to pay for the cost of extending the lines to serve properties that are within the town. The District would contract with OWASA to operate and maintain the lines and to bill the customers in the same manner as other OWASA customers. (An amendment to the WSNIPBA would probably be needed). Then the District could establish a fee—call it a service line extension fee—that would be designed to recoup some of the costs incurred by the District in extending the lines. (OWASA has an "availability fee"that is designed to recoup the cost of the treatment plant and major outfalls,but ------ 57 this fee does not cover the service lines because those are typically installed at the developer's expense). This fee would be paid at the same time as QWWASA's availability fee — When a connection is made. The District's policy could provide that the service line extension fee would be waived for the first-connection made to any property existing as of a specified date. 58 431 E' .tea- . ® GE COUNTY Office of the County P.O. FOX 8181 _ Attorney 200 S. CAMERON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NC 2727 *r . To: Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Pam Hem-minger, Vice Chair Valerie Foushee Alice M. Gordon Barry Jacobs -Earl McKee Steve Yuhasz CC: Frank Clifton, County Manager Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board From: John Roberts Date: November 12, 2012 Re: Rogers Road Area Improvement Funding I met with the attorneys for Chapel Hill and Carrboro on November 6th to discuss various proposals to extend sanitary sewer lines into, and the construction of a community center in, the Rogers Road area (the "Neighborhood"). l will address the various proposals separately. USE OF THE $900,000 LANDFILL RESERVES TO FUND SEWER LINE EXTENSION By law enterprise fund dollars cannot be used for purposes other than the direct and indirect costs of operating and maintaining the landfill. it is highly unlikely landfill operations could be tied to septic system failures in the Neighborhood. It is my understanding the $900,000 was generated through tipping fees rather than reimbursable contributions. Assuming that is the case the$900,000 is a part of the enterprise fund and may not be used for non-landfill operations related purposes. For these reasons the Town attorneys and I are in agreement the $900,000 cannot be used for the extension of sewer lines. CONTRIBUTIONS TO SEWER EXTENSION COSTS BY THE TOWNS OF CARRBORO AND CHAPEL HILL The primary issue for contributions by the Towns to sewer line extension appears to be the limitation of Town expenditures to their own jurisdictions. Both Town attorneys agreed that in order for the Towns to fund some portion of the cost of sewer line extensions the sections of sewer lines funded must be within the Town limits. For this reason annexation of some areas may be necessary. An additional issue is the requirement that if a part of a planned subdivision is to be annexed the entire subdivision must be annexed. Because annexation is not a county issue I will rely on the Town attorneys to further explain other restrictions related to annexation. 59 Once annexation concerns are addressed one source of funds for these extensions could be proceeds from a sale of the Greene tract. Should the decision be made to sell this property -proceeds could be used for any statutorily authorized purpose. SUBSIDIZING THE COST OF CONNECTING HOMES TO EXTENDED SEWER LINES The Town attorneys and I are in agreement that the County and Towns have limited statutory authority to pay for or subsidize connection costs. Additionally, without adequate upgrades connecting older home plumbing systems to modem water and sewer systems could result in internal damages to the connected structure. This represents a substantial exposure of liability to the County and Towns. For that reason the Town attorneys and I are in agreement that direct connections to the system should not.-be provided by the County or Towns. NCGS 153A-376 authorizes counties to engage in health and welfare programs for the benefit of low and moderate income persons. Pursuant to this authority a program could be established whereby grants or loans are issued to persons who meet designated criteria to assist those persons with paying'the costs of connecting to a water or sewer system. The qualifying criteria-would apply county-wide and could not be limited to residents of the Neighborhood. So if an individual with access to a sewer line in Efland or Mebane met the criteria they also could participate in the program. A program of this nature would not work to connect every home to'a sewer system but it would be legally defensible. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMUNITY CENTER The current proposal appears to be that the County and/or Towns pay Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat") approximately $650,000 to construct a community center("Center") in the Neighborhood that, once constructed, Habitat would contract with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association to operate, and the Co-unty would help fund through some master lease agreement. The Town attorneys and I concur that this method of funding the Center is not legally defensible. One method the Town attorneys and I are in agreement on is for Habitat to donate the land for the Center or lease the land to the County, the County could then, through the bidding process, bid out construction of the facility and enter into various agreements for the operation of the Center. We also agree there may be several other options for getting the Center constructed and operating. Another method that occurred to me after my meeting with the other attorneys is the possibility of a community development grant or loan. Just as with the sewer connection program discussed above through NCGS 153A-376 counties have authority to issue grants and loans. Those grants and loans may be made for the restoration or preservation of older neighborhoods. Counties may contract with corporations for carrying out this restoration or preservation of older neighborhoods,and such contracts may be for the purpose of providing recreation facilities. As it relates to the construction of the facility I believe the NO bidding statutes would still apply. Should this option be given consideration additional research would be needed to fully determine the process whereby it is accomplished. Regardless of the manner in which the Center is funded it must be open to the general public. Appendix B Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force Report December 6, 2012 Prepared by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force 2 Boundaries of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood 3 Sewer Service 3 Assessment of Septic System Service in Rogers Road Neighborhood 4 OWASA Sewer Concept Plan 4 Grant Opportunities for Sewer Infrastructure 7 Neighborhood Community Center 9 Hogan-Rogers House 9 Construction of a New Facility 10 Financial Impact and Costs Sharing Options 11 Recommendations to the Assembly of Governments 14 APPENDICES A. Report of the Rogers-Eubanks Area Survey Well and Septic System Assessment B. Hogan-Rogers House Preservation Project C. Habitat for Humanity Letter Dated May 14, 2012 62 63 INTRODUCTION In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill operated by the Town of Chapel Hill. Orange County assumed operational control of the landfill as the result of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) and the County. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with this landfill for 40 years. Over many years, residents representing the Rogers Road area have voiced concerns about various operational elements associated with the landfill and the impact on the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Neighborhood is geographically split by the Orange County and Carrboro. Orange County, as the current owner of the landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road Community. A number of local government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in the Rogers Road Community and they are as follows: 1. The Solid Waste Fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area. 2. Solid Waste installed gas flares to reduce odors. 3. The Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road. 4. Orange County initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells remaining in the adjoining neighborhoods. 5. Orange County approved the appropriation of$750,000 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance to establish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. 6. On July 1, 2011 Orange County established a $5.00 tipping fee surcharge and a plan to incrementally increase the tipping fee each fiscal year by a minimum $2 per ton as long as the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. 7. A partnership with Orange County and the University of North Carolina created a Landfill Gas to Energy Project that commenced operation on January 6, 2012 and will have an immediate and noticeable impact on the odor created by the operation of the landfill. The project will further provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC, reducing dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions. 8. On October 4, 2011 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with a "one-time" effort to clean-up illegal dump sites within three-fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary, at no cost to the individual property owners. At the January 26, 2012 Assembly of Governments meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service and a community center for the Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys have concluded that use of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. As such, a community center does not have a relationship to Solid Waste and could not be funded from Solid Waste reserves. 1 64 Therefore, funding for either the extension of sewer services and/or a community center will have to come from the County's and Towns' other general revenue sources. There was also significant discussion on January 26 regarding the creation of a task force to address the issues. On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Task Force to address sewer service and a community center. The composition of the Task Force was to include two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Appointed Task Force Members: David Caldwell: RENA Robert Campbell: RENA Valerie Foushee: Orange County Pam Hemminger: Orange County -Michelle Johnson: Carrboro Sammy Slade: Carrboro Penny Rich: Chapel Hill James Ward: Chapel Hill Charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force: The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and the financial impact to the County & Towns, for the following: 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously approved public water connections in the area. 2. A Neighborhood Community Center. The Task force is also directed to: a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of August, 2012 and; b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 21, 2012 2 65 Boundaries of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood: For the purposes of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force, the Neighborhood will be defined as the area identified by the September, 2011 map identifying available water service and approved for water service improvements by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on October 4, 2011. See below, Exhibit 1, OWASA Water Service in Rogers Road Vicinity as of September, 2011 Map. Exhibit 1 _ .. .... ........._..... ...... .._ �.......... . a _ � � W. OW.ASA Water Service in the Rogers Road Vicinity _ as of September 2011 ^7 t __... t :, "' .S. p•, f as CMmh:, ''T C ' � K t S < 1✓^ r °+ .( _ tt ,, sue.. . x 7 � s r� j" J� �{ S / S - zvt,• `r i4,7 "4 y _ rl x i i 4 v�T 1 01 I f i$.. A x ✓' .t .,. v F..v 2 J -�� e..n.-tt 9m` i �1t � 1 �r : 4 r �s } SEWER SERVICE The first task of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate the possibility of providing sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously approved public water connections in the area. Assessment of Septic System Service in the Rogers Road Neighborhood: The County completed a survey of the Rogers Road Neighborhood in February, 2010. See Appendix A. The Orange County Health Department, along with RENA, the UNC School of Public Health, and Engineers Without Borders, participated in a survey of 3 66 wells and septic systems. There were forty-five (45) septic systems included in the survey, and twelve (12) were failing at that time. Of the twelve malfunctioning septic systems, seven (7) were further classified as maintenance-related failures, while five (5) were found to be end-of-life failures. Further investigation revealed that for the five end- of-Fife failures, there was no suitable soil for an on-site repair. The Environmental Health Division of the Health Department revisited the five properties and discovered that two of the properties are vacant, two are seasonal failures, and one has had patchwork done on it, but not a long-term solution. All of the five septic systems identified would benefit from the installation of a public sewer system. In 2011, Orange County received $75,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the infrastructure hookups in the Rogers Road Neighborhood. In order to receive connection, the homes had to be close enough to an existing water and/or sewer line so that no extension of service lines would be required for connection. Additionally, homeowners had to meet certain income eligibility requirements. There have been five homes connected to Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) sewer as a result of this grant. OWASA Sewer Concept Plan: OWASA is the water & sewer utility for the area and as such,it investigated the concept of providing sewer service as part of the Town of Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan. On February 8, 2011 OWASA provided an updated concept plan and cost estimate, for the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Study Area for $3.4 million. This early concept plan was completed based on the Chapel Hill Small Area Plan which is a geographically different area than the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood sewer concept. There is also some difference in routing some of the main outfalls. In the current estimate, OWASA needed to avoid the area of contamination coming out from the Carrboro section that required more line with deeper excavation. Most importantly, in the earlier estimates neither the availabilities fees were included nor cost of extending a lateral from the main line to the properties. OWASA provided a concept plan, layout, and cost estimate for providing sewer service to the area that was delineated by the Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force at the April 30, 2012 meeting. The concept plan is the most efficient way to serve the defined Rogers Road Neighborhood and does not consider adjoining neighborhoods. See below, Exhibit 2, the Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer Concept May, 2012 Map. All the green areas show where sewer service is already available. The dark green areas are parcels that have connected to the OWASA service. The light green areas 4 67 have not connected. The 86 parcels in yellow are the properties that would be served by the conceptual sewer layout. The concept map also breaks down the sewer service into 8 sub-areas with the number of parcels served and cost per parcel. The 8 red lines represent the possible sub-areas of the sewer infrastructure that could be considered, if the entire concept project is not feasible. The sewer infrastructure routing was estimated based on the topography taken from maps rather than from any field work. In 'Order to get to a greater level of detail or certainty- on the cost, some field work would be required. There are two brown areas on the map that the County has identified as some subsurface disposal or some suspected contamination. Without any further investigation, the sewer line has been routed no closer than 100 feet of that margin. Exhibit 2 Historic Rogers grad`Araa, r on _ ;-- May 2012 T -- Pa,cell Cast Per \ Area efial Cost ' Served a ceE S $468,750 1 2 —$234,390 £ 2 $756;234 I 6 $131,639 €.. n-.. 106,313 �. 51(16 315 \ 4 $546,960 5, 5826;022 17 848,590 awm xt tt a 8 �sno m l { $848,919 �r 169,784 h � i 7 3::4°,191 2 $ 74,56 }; $1,555.900 45 $42 24 Total $5,788,217 86 $67,30P fj37 £ jp 1 - Flr,aiERwnrxsGMp} + tr s Jl 02) y y 0may r , The total construction and installation cost for the sewer concept is current estimated to be $5.8 million. See the table below. It would serve 86 additional parcels of land. The concept costs include construction, engineering design, administration and contingency 5 68 for possible rock. The topography of the neighborhood is complex and the land falls in several different directions. This concept plan does not include the costs of any property acquisitions or easement acquisitions. The availability hookup charge for each of the parcels is based on an assumed average house size of 2,500 square feet. When a customer connects to the OWASA water and sewer system, there is a one-time fee that is estimated to be $4,300 per parcel for the concept plan. Cost estimate Summary: Engineering, Design and Permitting 376,350 Construction Cost 3,763,506 Construction Administration 188.175 Construction Inspection 188,175_ 20%Contingency 903,241 Sub Total 5,419,447 Service Availability Fees 368,768 Total 5,788,215 The concept does not include the cost to actually connect individual homes to the sewer system. Those costs will vary depending on the configuration of the lot and the distance from the house to the main sewer line. Those costs are typically the costs of the homeowner and are estimated to be about $20 1foot. The connections to an individual house would be provided by a private plumbing contractor. 6 69 Grant Opportunities for Sewer Infrastructure: The Task Force explored several grant opportunities to fund the sewer improvement for the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Task Force was furnished a list of possible grant -opportunities from RENA including the following: Community Development Block Grants Department of Health and -Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Funds Clean Water Trust Fund Bernard Allen Fund These are mostly federal grant opportunities which are administered through the State. After reviewing all of the grant opportunities the Task Force was able to identify only two possible grants to fund sewer infrastructure, a Community Development Block Grant or a Clean Water Trust Fund Grant. Community Development Block Grant Orange County has to access Community Development -Block Grant (CDBG) dollars through the State of North Carolina. That is a competitive process. Within the CDBG grant program, there is a category known as "Infrastructure Program". In that category, funding is available up to $1 million to communities that have infrastructure needs. The operative word is "need". To access those funds, because they are competitive, any application will have to be able to demonstrate need. Another issue is that the State has focused on water projects, which it considers to be a priority over sewer. Where it does fund sewer projects there has to be a demonstrated need for connection to a public sewer system. Someone would have to document that need in the community. The State primarily looks to the local environmental health department to make that assessment. When talking about sewer projects, normally there is some documentation of a major problem such as with failing septic systems. To qualify to compete for CDBG funds, a letter of interest will be due in early February 2013. The letter must include the engineering report and project documentation defining the needs of the community. That letter, along with a list of committed local government funding sources to complete the project, are necessary before submitting the CDBG application. The amount of local government matching funds required varies from county to county. The CDBG process evaluates the local government's perceived 70 ability to pay. A low-wealth county would have a lower ability to pay versus what the state perceives to be a high-wealth county. The county's employment rate and the per capita income are important components in a highly competitive grant process. However, early information from CDBG for the coming grant year is that individual grants of up_to $750,000 dollars may be available. Last year, Orange County applied for and received funds for individual residential hookups in the Rogers Road Neighborhood ($7-5,000). Since that time, some water and sewer connections were completed, but the County was able to do that only because water and sewer infrastructure was already in place. There were a few houses in the community that were adjacent to existing water or sewer lines that were connected, and the occupants were low-income. (They had an income of less than 50% of area median income). It will be difficult for Orange County to compete for these resources; resources will depend on the completion in any given year and the pool of funding available funds. All other things equal, Orange County would have difficulty competing with other areas because the County is considered a wealthy county and is not economically distressed. To-qualify today, the families or individuals that live in this area have to meet an income standard which is 50% of the median family income. (For example: the median annual income for a family of four is around $64,000, so to qualify a family in this area would have to have an annual income of no more than $32,000). The County has basically funded most of the individuals that meet that standard, and have already connected them to water and sewer. Finding additional property owners that meet that income cutoff would be difficult. There are not that many home owners in the Rogers Road Neighborhood that are going to meet that income qualification. The Task Force is looking at a total project cost of $5.8 million. A CDBG could cover roughly twelve percent of the total estimated costs. The CDBG of $750,000 will require 5% matching funds of $37,500. In the community development criteria, the areas that CDBG's are willing to fund are water first and sewer second. A CDBG is much more inclined to fund a collaborative effort between units of local government, such as this project. This collaboration would have a higher priority than any one government acting independently. There are some pre-grant application costs that would be incurred on the front end of the process. The Task Force is searching for local funding of $5 million even if the project could qualify for a CDBG. 8 71 Clean Water Trust Fund Grant: The North Carolina General Assembly has expressed an interest in funding more water and sewer projects, and has designated $17 million for infrastructure projects. The maximum grant amount per project is $750,000. There will likely be some consideration to raising that limit for future years because most projects cost a million dollars or more, although this year it remains at $750,000. The priorities will be for projects that have the severest need. The State looks at percent of low/moderate income benefit in a project area; with the minimum benefit being 70%. At least 70% of the residents in any designated area must be low or moderate income. The residents living in the Rogers Road Neighborhood that need public sewer service will not likely meet the income requirements to qualify for this grant. Dedicated Federal Funding: Congressman David Price's office has been contacted about a possible Economic Development Incentive (EDI) grant or a Stag Grant. Orange County utilized such a grant for the Efland sewer project. Several years ago, the County was eligible to apply for $500,000 dollars or more through that type of process. At this time, however, the rules have changed and ED[ grants are not allowing for infrastructure projects. These grants can no longer be earmarked for a specific project, which was done for the Efland sewer project. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CENTER: The second task of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate the possibility of providing a Neighborhood Community Center to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. Hogan-Rogers House: The Preservation Society of Chapel Hill compiled a report telling the story of the historic Hogan-Rogers House as a potential Neighborhood Community Center for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. The St. Paul A.M.E. Church has purchased the Hogan-Rogers House and property surrounding it in order to build a new church complex on the site. Plans call for demolition of this historic house in late 2012. The Preservation Society began working with the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association, St. Paul Church, and Habitat for Humanity to relocate and restore this home that holds over 170 years of history for Chapel Hill's white and black community. Currently, the house is listed on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation survey conducted in 1999. Habitat for Humanity has graciously donated two lots to relocate the home, but funding for the home's 9 72 relocation and restoration is dependent on funds allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood as part of the overall remediation plan. Blake Moving Company, Inc. presented an estimate of $740,499 to relocate the Hogan- Rogers home to Purefoy Drive. Habitat has determined that the first two lots in the Phoenix Place subdivision, which are at the corner of Purefoy Drive and Edgar Street, would be the best site for the relocation of the structure. Blake presented examples of historical structures that the company has successfully moved. Blake's assessment of the historic home is that the structure is sound, some repairs need to be made after it is moved, and there will not be any issues with the relocation of the home. An architect/engineer will have to be engaged to design the foundation of the relocated structure and remodeling of the interior of the home. St. Paul A.M.E. Church is completing the permitting and compliance phase of the project and anticipates getting through that process by late fall. The Church will go through the bidding process to select a site work contractor probably in late August/early September. The site work would start the latter part of the year depending on the weather. The phasing for building and construction for the buildings will not start until the first of the next year. The Church will work with- the Rogers Road Neighborhood to relocate the Hogan- Rogers House. Gloria Shealy, Project Manager has requested a timeline to relocate to the adjacent site. Because the Church is anxious to begin construction as soon as possible, time is of the essence to relocate the Hogan-Rogers House. Construction of a New Facility: If it is not feasible or practicable to move and restore the Hogan-Rogers House, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is investigating the possibility of constructing a new Community Center on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will support the construction of a new facility if the facility is used as a center for neighborhood programs and activities. The donated site could support a facility of up to 4,000 Sq. Ft. with an estimated construction budget of $750,000. Habitat's support for the community center will be contingent on a commitment of funding allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood to complete the project. A proposed community center must meet NC State Building Code and obtain a Building Permit. The Town of Chapel Hill advises consulting an architect/design professional on the cost and specific code requirements. In addition, the site layout must receive zoning approval and meet the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance requirements regarding site layout and process. 10 73 FINANCIAL IMPACT AND COSTS SHARING OPTIONS The Task Force has consensus that there are needs in the Rogers Road Neighborhood that should be addressed by the Task Force. The Task Force has investigated two possible solutions in the Rogers Road Community and the estimated costs are as follows: Installing sewer infrastructure for 86 defined parcels in the Rogers Road Neighborhood $ 5,788,215 Estimated Cost to construct a new 4,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Community Center $ 700,000 Total Financial Impact $6,488,215 The Task Force initially investigated and evaluated five different cost sharing options for the Rogers Road Neighborhood as outlined be-low: 1. The first option is based on the Municipal Solid Waste (tonnage) delivered to the Landfill by each municipality during Fiscal 2010/11. 2. The second option is based on the original Landfill Agreement between the Towns and the County dated November 30, 1972. 3. The third possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This is the method the Board of County Commissioners has selected to distribute Sales Tax revenues between the County and the Towns. 4. The fourth option is based on County and Town Ad Valorem Property Taxes Levied by each municipality for Fiscal 2011/12. This is an alternative method the Board of County Commissioners could consider to distribute Sales Tax revenues between the County and the Towns. 5. The fifth possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This method is not weighted. 11 74 See the Spreadsheet Below; Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force Cost Sharing Options 8/22/2012 1 Fiscal 2010/11 2 1972 MSW Volume Landfill Agreement Annual Tons/Yr_ Percent Payment Percent Carrboro 6,650 19% $ 29,524 14 9/6. Chapel Hill 15,008 42% $ 90,549 43% Hillsborough 3185 9% Orange County 10,497 30% $ 90,549 43% Total 35,340 100% $ 210,622 1001% 3 County Population Est. 4 Fiscal 2012/13 Sale's Tax Distribution Ad Valorem Property Tax '. Method Property Popu-lation Percent Tax Levy Percent Carrboro 19,665 9% 11,611,958 5% Chapel Hill 54,582 25% 34,116,234 16% Special Districts 235,387 0% Durham 30 0% 49,416 0% Hillsborough 6,113 3% 4,705,799 2% Mebane 1,801 1% 1,114,495 1% Orange County 134,325 62% 136,382,728 64% School District 19,260,309 9% Fire Districts - _ 3,979,116 2% Total 216,516 100% 211,455,442 100% 5 County Population Est. Fiscal 2012/13 Population Percent Carrboro 19,66S 15% Chapel Hill 54,582 41% Durham 30 0% Hillsborough 6,113 5% Mebane 1,801 1% Orange County 52,134 39% Total 134,325 1001% 12 75 6. The Town of Carrboro presented an alternative costs share option based on equal weights for Municipal Solid Waste and Population. See the Spreadsheet Below: MSW Volume Carrboro 6,650 19% Weight Assumption Chapel Hill 15,008 42% MSW Input(Responsibility) 0.5' Hillsborough 3,185 9% Sales Tax Revenue(Population) 0.5` Orange County 10,497 30% Ad Valorem Value(Ability to Pay) Total 35340 100'% Cost Distribution Normalized Population for Sales Tax Distribution Carrboro3. 5% 14.06% Carrboro 19,665 9% Chapel Hill3 .8 'Ya 33.94% Chapel Hill 54,582 25% Hillsborough :9 °! 6.02% Durham 30 0% Orange County 57°J 45.98% Hillsborough 6,113 3% 99.58% 100.00% Mebane 1:801 1% Total Incorporated 82,191 Cost of Sewer Project $ 5,788,215 Total County 134,325 62% Community Center $ 500,000 Sales Tax Population 216,516 Carrboro $ Chapel Hill Ad Valorem Value Hillsborough $ ` .`375777 Carrboro $ 11,611,958 5% Orange County Chapel Hill $ 34,116,234 16% CH Special District $ 235,387 0% Durham $ 49,416 0% Hillsborough $ 4,705,799 2% Carrboro Mebane $ 1,114,495 1% Cost Sharing Option Orange County $136,382,728 64% CH-C School District $ 19,260,309 9% Fire Districts $ 3,979,116 2% Total Ad Valorem $211,455,442 100% 13 76 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force December 6, 2012 Recommendations: 1. That the costs of both a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements be shared by the local governments, at the same costs sharing percentages as outlined in the 1972 Landfill Agreement, 43% for Orange County, 43% for The Town of Chapel Hill and 14% for The Town of Carrboro. 2. That the Managers and Attorneys originate a Memorandum of Understanding between Habitat, Orange County, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill for the construction of a new Rogers Road Community Center. The budget will not exceed $700,000 and the project will be bid in compliance with North Carolina public bidding requirements. Orange County will finance the-project with -reimbursement from the Towns as outlined in (1) above. 3. That the governing boards continue to appropriate funds, as previously budgeted, to reimburse the Solid Waste fund for the purchase of the Greene Tract, for both a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements. Funds budgeted in Fiscal 2012/2013 for the Greene Tract are as follows; $90,549 for Orange County, $90,549 for The Town of Chapel Hill and $29,524 for The Town of Carrboro. The governing boards are also encouraged to locate other funding sources for a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements. 4. That the Hogan-Rogers House no longer be considered as an option for a Neighborhood Community Center. The St Paul's AME Church is working with the Chapel Hill Preservation Society to save the structure. 5. That the Task Force continue to meet, to address the Charge of the Task Force, for an additional 6 months with the original composition of the Task Force. The composition of the Task Force originally included two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). 14 77 Recommendations, Never Finalized: Rogers Road 'Neighborhood Community Center: That the County create Memorandum of Understanding for the operations of the Community Center with the County, Habitat, and the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association all being a party to the agreement. The agreement shall provide for the operation & maintenance of a new Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center including services, programs & activities to be provided in the Center. County Sewer District: 1. That the Managers explore the creation of a County Sewer District for all property owners in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood that are not currently served by a municipal sewer system and would benefit from the installation of sewer infrastructure to serve the Rogers Road Neighborhood. a. That the towns participate with the- possible creation of a County Sewer District, which could overlap town boundaries. b. That a County Sewer District would make special assessments against benefited property within the district to cover the costs of constructing, extending or improving sewage disposal system. The basis of any special assessment would be determined at a later date after investigating development potential and the number of possible dwelling units. A special assessment would share the costs of the sewer system with current benefited property (homeowners) and undeveloped land for future development. c. That the Managers work with the Attorneys to create criteria that would enable homeowners, that have lived in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood before 1972, to connect from the sewer system free of charge and recommend a sliding scale fee structure for homeowners that moved to the Neighborhood between 1972 and 2012. 15 78 Appendix C MEMORANDUM TO: Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County Elected Officials FROM: Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County Managers SUBJECT: Collaborative Approach to Rogers Road DATE: February 25, 2013 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the collaborative approach the Managers of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County are pursuing to ensure an inclusive process for determining how best to address the identified needs of the Rogers Road area,particularly those related to the extension of water and sewer service and the potential creation of a utilities service district. BACKGROUND As stated in a memo to the Orange County BOCC dated January 24, 2013: "Sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, as defined by the-previously approved public water connections in the area,has proven to be an expensive and complicated issue to resolve. The creation of a County Sewer District for all property owners in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood that are not currently served by a municipal sewer system is being investigated. Participation by the Towns in a Sewer District located outside of the Towns jurisdictions presents legal challenges for both the Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) could be the service provider for the creation of a County Sewer District. Contract terms and policy standards for governmental projects would have to be discussed before a Sewer District could be established." To that end,the Managers of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County have held meetings with their key staffs and each other to discuss these issues and address them collaboratively. The Managers have also met with leaders from other local organizations to develop strategic partnerships as we move forward in the decision making process. DISCUSSION Planning staff from the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro met several times in late 2012 and early 2013 to share inforrnation on the area in order to gain a better understanding of the potential for development of the jointly-owned public land in the area, including options for water and sewer extensions. The Planning staffs then met with the Managers to present their findings and discuss some options for moving forward, including creation of a utilities service district. 79 During the same time period, the Managers identified other potential stakeholder organizations and met with their leadership independently to discuss prospects for strategic partnerships moving forward. These organizations included OWASA, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Self-Help Credit Union and the Jackson Center. OWASA was identified because of their role as water and sewer service provider, and for their assistance in developing a business model to establish a utilities service district. OWASA is envisioned as a contract service provider in the establishment of the district. Eventually the infrastructure would become part of OWASA's system and managed directly by them. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools was identified as strategic partner in light of their plans to build a new school in the vicinity of the Roger Road area,which will be a major component of how the area is developed in the future. The school administration has an interest in partnering with the other local governments to integrate the planning for the school with our planning for the community. Self-Help Credit Union has been a critical partner in the Town's efforts to think differently about the Northside neighborhood. Because of the direct and indirect connections between the two neighborhoods,they are interested in partnering in this effort to seek ways to maximize the publicly-owned land into new solutions for community space and infrastructure. The Jackson Center has used its community-building experience in Chapel Hill's Northside Neighborhood to make a difference in the communications with landowners in the area. They are also attracted by the historical connections between the Rogers Road community and Northside. The Managers plan to continue meeting regularly with each other to share information and strategize how best to address the water and sewer needs of the Rogers Road area and community. We will also continue to work with the identified strategic partners to ensure an inclusive and innovative process moving forward. RECOMMENDATION That the Town of Chapel Hill Council, Town of Carrboro Board of Alderman and Orange County Board of Commissioners receive this memorandum,jointly drafted by their Managers. GS 153A-376 80 Appendix D Part 5. Community Development. § 153A-376. Community development programs and activities. (a) Any county is authorized to engage in, to accept federal and State grants and loans for, and to appropriate and expend funds for community development programs and activities. In undertaking community development programs and activities,in addition to other authority granted by law, a county may engage in the following activities: (1) Programs of assistance and financing of rehabilitation of private buildings principally for the benefit of low and moderate income persons, or for the restoration or preservation of older neighborhoods or properties, including direct repair,the making of grants or loans,the subsidization of interest payments on loans, and the guaranty of loans; (2) Programs concerned with employment, economic development, crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, and welfare needs of persons of low and moderate income. (b) Any board of county commissioners may exercise directly those powers granted by law to county redevelopment commissions and those powers granted by law to county housing authorities. Any board of county commissioners desiring to do so may delegate to redevelopment commission or to any housing authority the responsibility of undertaking or carrying out any specified community development activities. Any board of county commissioners and any municipal governing body may by agreement undertake or carry out for each other any specified community development activities. Any board of county commissioners may contract with any person, association, or corporation in undertaking any specified community development activities_ Any county or.city board of health, county board of social services, or county or city board of education, may by agreement undertake or carry out for any- board of county commissioners any specified community development activities. (c) Any board of county commissioners undertaking community development programs or activities may create one or more advisory committees to advise it and to make recommendations concerning such programs or activities. (d) Any board of county commissioners proposing to undertake any loan guaranty or similar program for rehabilitation of private buildings is authorized to submit to its voters the question whether such program shall be undertaken, such referendum to be conducted pursuant to the general and local laws applicable to special elections in such county. (e) No state or local taxes shall be appropriated or expended by a county pursuant to this section for any purpose not expressly authorized by G.S. 153A-149, unless the same is first submitted to a vote of the people as therein provided. (f) All program income from Economic Development Grants from the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program may be retained by recipient "economically distressed counties", as defined in G.S. 143B-437.01 for the purposes of creating local economic development revolving loan funds. Such program income derived through the use by counties of Small Cities Community Development Block Grant money includes but is not limited to: (i) payment of principal and interest on loans made by the county using Community Development Block Grant Funds; (ii) proceeds from the lease or disposition of real property acquired with Community Development Block Grant Funds; and (iii) any late fees associated with loan or lease payments in (i) and (ii) above. The local economic development revolving loan fund set up by the county shall fund only those activities eligible under Title I of the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-383), and shall meet at least one of the three national objectives of the Housing and Community Development Act. Any expiration of G.S. 143B-437.01 or G.S. 105-129.3 shall not affect this subsection as to designations of economically distressed counties made prior to its expiration. (g) Any county may receive and dispense funds from the Community Development Block Grant Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, Subpart M, 24 CFR 570.700 et seq., either through application to http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=153A-... 6/7/2013 GS_153A-376 81 the North Carolina Department of Commerce or directly from the federal government, in accordance with State and federal laws governing these funds. Any county that receives these funds directly from the federal government may pledge current and future CDBG funds -for use as loan guarantees in accordance with State and federal laws governing these funds. A county may implement the receipt, dispensing, and pledging of CDBG funds under this subsection by borrowing CDBG funds and lending all or a portion of those funds to a third party in accordance with applicable laws governing the CDBG program. Any county that has pledged current or future CDBG fiends for use as loan guarantees prior to the enactment of this subsection is authorized to have taken such action. A pledge of future CDBG funds under this subsection is not a debt or liability of the State or any political subdivision of the State or a pledge of the faith and credit of the State-or any political subdivision of the State. The pledging of future CDBG-funds=under this-subsection does not directly, indirectly; or contingently obligate"the State"or-any political subdivision of the State to levy or to pledge any taxes. (1975, c. 435, s. 2; c. 689, s. 2; .1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 992, s. 1; 1995, c. 310, s. 2; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), C. 575, s. 2; 1996, 2nd Ex. Sess., c. 13, s. 3.8; 2006-259, s. 27(a).) http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=153A-... 6/7/2013 GS-1 60A-456 Page 1 of 282 Part 8. Miscellaneous Powers. § 160A-456. Community development programs and activities. (a) Any city is authorized to engage in, to accept federal and State grants and loans for, and to appropriate and expend funds for community development programs and activities. In undertaking community development programs and activities, in addition to other authority granted by law, a city may engage in the following activities: (1) Programs of assistance and financing of rehabilitation of private buildings principally for the benefit of low and moderate income persons, or for the restoration or preservation of older neighborhoods or properties, including direct repair, the making of grants or loans, the subsidization of interest payments on loans, and the guaranty of loans; (2) Programs concerned with employment, economic development, crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, and welfare needs of persons of low and moderate income. (b) Any city council may exercise directly those powers granted by law to municipal redevelopment commissions and those powers granted by law to municipal housing authorities, and may do so whether or not a redevelopment commission or housing authority is in existence in such city. Any city council desiring to do so may delegate to any redevelopment commission or to any housing authority the responsibility of undertaking or carrying out any specified community development activities. Any city council and any board of county commissioners may by agreement undertake or carry out for each other any specified community development activities. Any city council may contract with any person, association, or corporation in undertaking any specified community development activities. Any county or city board of health, county board of social services, or county or city board of education, may by agreement undertake or carry out for any city council any specified community development activities. (c) Any city council undertaking community development programs or activities may create one or more advisory committees to advise it and to make recommendations concerning such programs or activities. (d) Any city council proposing to undertake any loan guaranty or similar program for rehabilitation of private buildings is authorized to submit to its voters the question whether such program shall be undertaken, such referendum to be conducted pursuant to the general and local laws applicable to special elections in such city. (dl) Any city may receive and dispense funds from the Community Development Block Grant Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, Subpart M, 24 CFR 570.700 et seq., either through application to the North Carolina Department of Commerce or directly from the federal government, in accordance with State and federal laws governing these funds. Any city that receives these funds directly from the federal government may pledge current and future CDBG funds for use as loan guarantees in accordance with State and federal laws governing these funds. A city may implement the receipt, dispensing, and pledging of CDBG funds under this subsection by borrowing CDBG funds and lending all or a portion of those funds to a third party in accordance with applicable laws governing the CDBG program. Any city that has pledged current or future CDBG funds for use as loan guarantees prior to the enactment of this subsection is authorized to have taken such action. A pledge of future CDBG funds under this subsection is not a debt or liability of the State or any political subdivision of the State or a pledge of the faith and credit of the State or any political subdivision of the State. The pledging of future CDBG funds under this subsection does not directly, indirectly, or contingently obligate the State or any political subdivision of the State to levy or to pledge any taxes. (e) Repealed by Session Laws 1985, c. 665, s. 5. (el) All program income from Economic Development Grants from the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program may be retained by recipient cities in "economically distressed counties", as defined in G.S. 14313-437.01, for the purposes of creating local economic development revolving loan funds. Such program income derived through the use by cities of Small Cities http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=160A-456 8/28/2013 GS-160A-456 Page 2 of 283 Community Development Block Grant money includes but is not limited to: (i) payment of principal and interest on loans made by the county using Community Development Block Grant Funds; (ii) proceeds from the lease or disposition of real property acquired with Community Development Block Grant Funds; and(iii) any late fees associated with loan or lease payments in(i) and(ii) above. The local economic development revolving loan fund set up by the city shall fund only those activities eligible under Title I of the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93- 383), and shall meet at least one of the three national objectives of the Housing and Community Development Act. Any expiration of G.S. 143B-437.01 or G.S. 105-129.3 shall not affect this subsection as to designations of economically distressed counties made prior to its expiration. (1975, c. 435, s. 1; c. 689, s. 1; c. 879, s. 46; 1983, c. 908, s. 4; 1985, c. 665, s. 5; 1987, c. 464, s. 10; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 992, s. 2; 1995, c. 310, s. 3; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 13, s. 3.9; c. 575, s. 3; 2006-259, s. 27(b).) http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=160A-456 8/28/2013 84 Appendix E STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA LEASE AGREEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE i THIS LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease"), made and entered into as of the last date set forth in the notary acknowledgments below (the "Effective Date"), by and between HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, ORANGE COUNTY, N.C., INC., a nonprofit corporation registered in North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor" and ORANGE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee." Lessor and Lessee are at times collectively referred to hereinafter as the"Parties"or individually as the"Parry." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the board of directors of Habitat for Humanity, Orange County NC, Incorporated ("Habitat") has authorized and approved the execution of this Lease for the purposes herein specified; and WHEREAS, the execution of this Lease for and on behalf of Lessor has been duly approved by Habitat at a meeting held in the City of North Carolina, on the day of , 2013; and WHEREAS, the Parties have mutually agreed to the terms_of this Lease as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, as described herein, and the promises and covenants contained in the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Lessor does hereby rent, lease and demise unto Lessee, for and during the term and under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, that certain Premises, with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LEASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Premises. The "Premises" shall consist of that certain parcel or tract of land lying and being in the Township, Orange County, North Carolina, containing acres, more or less, being more particularly shown and described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and having PINS and 2. Term. The term of this Lease shall commence on the Effective Date, and unless sooner terminated, extended, or renewed as provided herein, shall expire on the twentieth (20ffi) anniversary of the Effective Date at 2400 hours (the "Term"). 3. Rent. Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rental for the Premises the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) for the Term. 85 4. Condition of Premises. Lessor agrees to deliver the Premises to Lessee in its present condition. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Lessee acknowledges that the Premises is being delivered "as is", that Lessee has performed preliminary investigations and reviews and has concluded on its own judgment that the Premises are suitable for the purposes intended, without any representations or warranties of any kind (including, without limitation, any express or implied warranties of merchantability, fitness or habitability) from Lessor or any agent of Lessor. Lessees's entry into possession shall constitute conclusive evidence that as of the date thereof the Premises were in good order and satisfactory condition. Lessee further acknowledges that this Lease is subordinate to all existing easements and rights of way encumbering the Premises, including any easements benefiting adjacent land owned by Lessor. 5. Use of Premises and Leasehold Improvements. The Premises shall be used by Lessee for the construction, maintenance and operation of a public community and recreation facility together with other accessories and appurtenances related thereto, as said facility is more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (said facility and all fixtures, accessories and appurtenances constructed or installed on the Premises in connection therewith are collectively referred to herein as the "Leasehold Improvements''). If Lessee ceases to use the Premises for the purposes herein described or makes other uses of the Premises without the express written consent of Lessor, Lessor may terminate this Lease and reenter and take possession of the Premises. 6. Construction of Leasehold Improvements. The Premises shall be developed and the Leasehold Improvements shall be constructed by Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, in compliance with all the applicable governmental laws and regulations. Construction of the Leasehold Improvements shall be deemed to have commenced when Lessee begins site grading or site preparation. All such Leasehold Improvements shall be and remain the property of Lessee. 7. Maintenance and Repair. During the Term, Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in thorough repair and in good and safe condition the Premises and the Leasehold Improvements. Lessee's maintenance obligations shall include, without limitation, such stormwater system(s) on the Premises as may be required by local or state ordinances and regulations. 8. Utilities. Lessee shall be responsible for all charges, fees and expenses associated with the provision of utilities necessary for its construction and use of the Leasehold Improvements and for its occupancy and possession of the Premises. 9. Insurance and Liability. 9.1 Lessee Insurance. Lessee shall obtain adequate insurance coverage in accordance with all applicable laws for (i) general liability, (ii) automobile liability, and (iv) fire and extended coverage with regard to the Lessee's operations on or about Premises and the Leasehold Improvements located thereon. Lessee shall require any of its contractors or agents entering the Premises to obtain and keep in place with well rated insurers, authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina, adequate insurance coverage, as applicable, for (i) statutory workers' compensation including, employers' liability; (ii) comprehensive general 86 liability including, personal injury, broad form property damage, independent contractor, XCU (explosion, collapse, underground) and products/completed operations; (iii) automobile liability; and (iv) fire and extended coverage insurance. Evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements set out in this provision shall be provided to Lessor prior to commencement of improvements on the Premises. 9.2 Insurance Requirements. All policies maintained by Lessee shall be purchased only from insurers who are authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina, who comply with the requirements thereof, and who carry an A.M. Best Company rating of"A" or"A+." 9.3 Lessee's Liability. As between Lessee and Lessor, Lessee, subject to the terms of this Lease, shall be primarily liable for the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of its agents, contractors or employees. As to third parties, Lessee agrees to save Lessor harmless from and against any and all loss, damage, claim, demand, liability, or expense, including reasonable attorney fees, by reason of damage to person or property on or about the Premises, which may arise or be claimed to have arisen as a result of the possession, occupation, use or operation of the Premises by Lessee, its agents or employees, except where such loss or damage arises from the willful or negligent misconduct of Lessor, its agents or employees. It is the intent of this section that Lessee shall hold Lessor harmless and indemnify Lessor to the extent allowed under North Carolina law. 10. Casually. In the event the Premises and the Leasehold Improvements, or a substantial part thereof, shall be damaged by fire or other casualty, Lessee may, at its option, terminate this Lease or cause the Premises and the Leasehold Improvements to be repaired or renovated. If Lessee determines to make the necessary repairs or renovations, any proceeds from fire or casualty insurance shall belong to Lessee. In such event, Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause the repairs and renovations to be made in a good and workmanlike manner, without unreasonably delay, and in compliance with all applicable governmental laws and regulations and the Approved Plans. If Lessee determines not to make the necessary repairs or renovations, then this Lease shall terminate and Lessee, at Lessor's option, shall cause the Premises to be restored to a condition reasonably approximating that existing at the Effective Date and any proceeds from fire or other casualty insurance, less payment for any permitted indebtedness thereon, payment to Lessee for its personal property located on the Premises and any payment necessary to restore the Premises, shall belong to Lessor. Lessee's determination concerning repair as stated in this Section shall be given to Lessor in writing within ninety (90) days of the fire or casualty causing the damage. 11. Hazardous Materials. 11.1 Definitions. For purposes of this Lease: (i) "Hazardous Material" or "Hazardous Materials" means and includes, without limitation, (a) solid or hazardous waste, as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1980, or in any applicable state or local law or regulation, (b) hazardous substances, as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), or in any applicable state or local law or regulation, (c) gasoline, or any other petroleum product or by-product, (d) toxic substances, or rodenticides, as defined in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1975, or in any applicable state or local law or regulation, as each such Act, statute, or regulation may be 87 amended from time to time; (ii) "Release" shall have the meaning given such term, in Environmental Laws, including, without limitation, CERCLA; and (iii) `Environmental Law" or "Environmental Laws" shall mean "Super Fund" or "Super Lien" law or any other federal, state, or local statute, law, ordinance, or code, regulating, relating to or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning any Hazardous Materials as may now or at any time hereafter be legally in effect, including, without limitation, the following, as same may be amended or replaced from time to time, and all regulations promulgated and officially adopted thereunder or in connection therewith: Super Fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"); The Clean Air Act ("CAA"); the Clean Water Act("CWA"); the Toxic Substance Control Act ("TSCA"); the Solid Waste Disposal Act ("SWDA"), as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"); the Hazardous Waste Management System; and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ("OSHA"). All obligations and liabilities arising under this Section 14 which arise out of events or actions occurring prior to the expiration or termination of this Lease shall survive the assignment of this Lease and the expiration, termination, cancellation or release of record of this Lease. 11.2 Lessee Not Liable for Hazardous Materials. Lessee shall not be responsible for any damage, loss, or expense resulting from the prior existence on the Premises of any Hazardous Material. Lessee shall be responsible for any damage, loss, or expense resulting from the existence on the Premises of any Hazardous Material generated, stored, disposed of or transported to or over the Premises resulting from Lessee's improvements made to the Premises. 11.3 Lessee's Obligations. Lessee shall give Lessor immediate written notice of any problem, Release, threatened Release or discovery of any Hazardous Materials on or about the Premises or claim thereof. If such problem, Release, threatened Release or discovery was caused by Lessee, its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees, this notice shall include a description of measures taken or proposed to be taken by Lessee to contain and/or remediate the Release of Hazardous Materials and any resultant damage to or impact on property, persons and/or the environment (which term includes, without limitation, soil, surface water or groundwater) on, under or about the Premises. In the event of a Release caused solely by Lessee and at Lessee's own expense, Lessee shall promptly take all steps necessary to clean up or remediate any Release of Hazardous Materials, comply with all Environmental Laws and otherwise report and/or coordinate with Lessor and all appropriate governmental agencies. 11.4 Liability. To the extent allowed by North Carolina law Lessor agrees to save Lessee harmless from and against any and all liens, demands, defenses, suits, proceedings, disbursements, liabilities, losses, litigation, damages,judgments, obligations, penalties, injuries, costs, expense (including, without limitation, attorneys' and experts' fees) and claims of any and every kind of whatsoever paid, incurred, suffered by, or asserted against Lessee with respect to, or as a direct or indirect result of the violation of any Environmental Laws applicable to the Premises, to the extent that such violation is caused by the activities of Lessor or any predecessor in interest to Lessor. To the extent allowed by North Carolina law Lessee agrees to save Lessor harmless from and against any and all liens, demands, defenses, suits, proceedings, disbursements, liabilities, losses, litigation, damages,judgments, obligations, penalties, injuries, costs, expense (including, without limitation, attorneys' and experts' fees) and claims of any and 88 every kind of whatsoever paid, incurred, suffered by, or asserted against Lessor with respect to, or as a direct or indirect result of the violation of any Environmental Laws applicable to the Premises,to the extent that such violation is caused by the activities of Lessee. 12. Waste/Interference. Lessee shall not use the Premises in any manner that will constitute waste. 13. Compliance. Lessee agrees to comply, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, with all governmental laws, rules,_ordinances and regulations applicable to the Premises or Lessee's use and occupancy thereof. 14. Liens. Lessee agrees to pay all lawful claims associated with the construction of the Leasehold Improvements on a timely basis and shall save Lessor harmless from and against any and all claims by third parties and contractors arising out of the construction of the Leasehold Improvements. Lessee shall not encumber the Premises with any mortgages or permit any mechanic's, materialman's, contractor's, subcontractor's or other similar lien arising from any work of improvement performed by or on behalf of Lessee, however it may arise, to stand against the Premises. In the event the Premises are encumbered by any such lien, Lessee may in good faith contest the claim underlying such lien 15. Events of Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by Lessee (an"Event of Default"): 15.1 Vacation / Abandonment. Lessee ceases to occupy, abandons or vacates the Premises for the purposes of this Lease before the expiration of the Term. 15.2 Unlawful Purpose. If Lessee allows the Premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. 15.3 Use by Habitat Homeowners. Lessee causes the Premises to be unavailable for the use and enjoyment of Habitat for Humanity Homeowners residing in Orange County, North Carolina, and their families and invitees. 16. Lessor's Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default or failure by Lessee to perform any obligation of Lessee under this Lease, which failure is not cured within the specific time periods provided in this Lease or if no specific time period is provided, then within one hundred eighty(180) days after written notice to Lessee (or if such failure cannot be cured within one hundred eighty (180) days, then within a reasonable period of time, provided Lessee proceeds promptly and diligently to cure such breach), whichever occurs first, then Lessor, at its option may (i) terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Premises at any time by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises to Lessor; and/or (ii) pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to Lessor under North Carolina law. 17. Right of Lessor to Re-Enter. In the event of any termination of this Lease by Lessor or 89 the enforcement of any other remedy by Lessor under this Lease, Lessor shall have the immediate right to enter upon and repossess the Premises and remove or store Lessee's personal property and Leasehold Improvements in accordance with the terms of Section 19. Lessee hereby waives all claims arising from Lessor's re-entering and taking possession of the Premises and removing and storing the property of Lessee as permitted under this Lease and will save and hold Lessor harmless from all losses, costs or damages occasioned Lessor thereby. No such reentry shall be- considered or construed to be a forcible entry by Lessor. 18. Legal Costs. In the event of any breach each Party shall be solely responsible for that Party's own legal costs and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees. . 19. Ownership of Leasehold Improvements; Surrender of Premises. During the Term, ownership of the Leasehold Improvements shall be in Lessee. At the expiration of the Term or the earlier termination of this Lease, Lessee shall promptly quit and surrender the Premises in good order, condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted. The Leasehold Improvements shall remain the property of Lessee for a period of ninety (90) days. The Parties shall work together to remove such Leasehold Improvements from the premises within a reasonable time with such removal being at the sole expense of the Lessee. At the termination of this Lease, Lessee shall remove any and all of Lessee's personal property, trade fixtures and equipment from the Premises. All leasehold improvements and such personal property, trade fixtures and equipment not so removed by Lessee and remaining on the Premises ninety (90) days after the termination of this Lease shall, at Lessor's option, become the property of Lessor or Lessor may have the property removed or stored, at Lessee's expense. 20. Holdover. In the event Lessee remains in possession of the Premises after the expiration -of the Term and without an extension, renewal, or-the execution of a new lease, Lessee shall occupy the Premises as a tenancy at sufferance subject to all of the conditions of this Lease insofar as consistent with such a tenancy. However, either Party shall give not less than sixty (60) days written notice to terminate the tenancy. 21. Miscellaneous. 21.1 Binding Effect.ffect. This Lease shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties, their successors and permitted assigns. 21.2 Authoritv. Each person executing this Lease on behalf of Lessee does hereby represent and warrant that that this Lease was duly approved by the governing body of Lessee, that this Lease is the act and deed of Lessee, that Lessee has full lawful right and authority to enter into this Lease and to perform all of its obligations hereunder, and that each person signing this Lease on behalf of Lessee is duly and validly authorized to do so. Each person executing this Lease on behalf of Lessor does hereby represent and warrant that that this Lease was duly approved by the governing body of Lessor, that this Lease is the act and deed of Lessor, that Lessor has full lawful right and authority to enter into this Lease and to perform all of its obligations hereunder, and that each person signing this Lease on behalf of Lessor is duly and validly authorized to do so. 21.3 Relationship Between Parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed to render 90 the Lessor in any way or for any purpose a partner,joint venturer, or associate in any relationship with Lessee other than that of Lessor and Lessee, nor shall this Lease be construed to authorize either to act as agent for the other. 21.4 Applicable Law. This Lease shall be governed by, construed under and interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina, regardless of conflict of law principles. 21.5 Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and no statement, premise, inducement, representation or prior agreement which is not contained in this written Lease shall be valid or binding. 21.6 Amendment. No amendment, modification, alteration, renewal, extension, or revision of this Lease shall be valid and binding unless made in writing and signed by Lessee and Lessor. 21.7 Construction of Language. The terms "lease," "lease agreement" or "agreement" shall be inclusive of each other, and also shall include renewals, extensions, or modifications of this Lease. Words of any gender used in this Lease shall be held to include any other gender, and words of the singular shall be held to include the plural and the plural to include the singular when the sense requires. The section or paragraph headings and the titles are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction and interpretation of any part hereof. 21.8 Terms. Capitalized terms used in this Lease shall have the meanings ascribed to them at the point where first defined, irrespective of where their use occurs, with the same effect as-if the definitions of such terms were set forth in full and at length every time such terms are used. 21.9 Effect of Waiver or Forbearance. No covenant or condition of this Lease can be waived except by written consent of the Parties. A waiver of any covenant or condition on one occasion shall not be deemed a waiver of said covenant or condition on any subsequent occasion unless such fact is specifically stated in the waiver. Forbearance or indulgence by Lessor in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed by Lessee, and until Lessee has completely performed all covenants and conditions of this Lease, Lessor shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to Lessor under this Lease or any law or equity despite such forbearance or indulgence. 21.10 Survival. All obligations accruing prior to expiration of the term of this Lease shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Lease. 21.11 Lessor's Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of Lessor specified in this Lease shall be cumulative and in addition to any other rights and/or remedies otherwise available, whether or not specified in this Lease. 21.12 Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Lease shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, 91 illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof and this Lease shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 21.13 Construction. No provision of this Lease shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any Party by any court or other governmental or judicial authority by reason of such Party's having or being deemed to have prepared or imposed such provision. 21.14 Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,and all of such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 21.15 Renewal. At the option of Lessee this Lease may be renewed for up to four (4) twenty(20) year terms. 21.16 Memorandum of Lease for Recording. At the request of either Party, Lessor and Lessee shall execute a memorandum of this Lease for recording in the public records at the requesting Party's sole cost and expense. The memorandum of Lease shall set forth the Parties, provide a description of the Premises, specify the Term and incorporate this Lease by reference. 21.17 Notices. All notices herein provided to be given, or to which may be given, by either Party_to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: To Lessor: Habitat for Humanity, Orange County,N.C., Inc. Attn: Susan Levy, Executive Director 88 Vilcom Center Drive, L110 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 To Lessee: Orange County Attn: County Manager Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 The address to which notices shall be mailed as aforesaid to either Party may be changed by written notice. [signatures begin on following page] 92 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Lessor has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by , attested by , and its corporate seal affixed hereto, by authority duly given; and Lessee has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by its Chair of the Board of Commissioners or County Manager, attested, by its Clerk and its County seal hereto affixed by authority duly given, all as of the dates set forth in the notary acknowledgments below. LESSEE: ORANGE COUNTY By: Print Name: Title: ATTEST: (Seal) Clerk STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF I, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and State do hereby certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is Clerk of the Orange County and that by authority duly given and as an act of the Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed by its attested by himself/herself as Clerk and sealed with the common seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this the day of , 2013. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Print Name: 93 LESSOR: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, ORANGE COUNTY,N.C., INC. By: Director ATTEST: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, , a Notary Public in and for Orange county and State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that , personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is , and that by authority duly given and as the act of Habitat for Humanity, Orange County, N.C., Inc., the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by , sealed with the corporate seal, and attested by herself as IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this the day of , 2013. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Print Name: 94 EXHIBIT A Description of Premises Lying and being in Town of Hillsborough, Orange County, Forth Carolina and being more particularly described as follows: 95 EXHIBIT B Leasehold Improvements 96 Appendix F OPERATIONS AGREEMENT: ROGERS ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER This Operations Agreement (the "Agreement")for the operation of the community and recreation center at (hereinafter the "Center") is made and entered into this _ day of 2013, between Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, a North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation (hereinafter "RENA") and Orange County (hereinafter the "County") referred to jointly hereafter as "Parties". The Parties hereby agree as follows: I. Term The term of this Agreement shall be from the day and date first recorded above and shall continue for a period of five (5) years. The Agreement may be renewed as provided herein. 2. Use and Operations a) Rena Shall: i. Provide a full schedule and updates, as they become available, of all activities and programs at the Center. ii. Operate and staff the Center Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday from 10:00.a.m. to 60th p m. -' ....__...:........................... ..................................... iii. Immediately notify County of the closure,`delayed opening, or early closing of the Center for any reason. iv. Provide quarterly analysis report to Center ion enrollment, trends, and timing for RENA class, program,_and activity-sessions_. V. Enforce County policies, including but not hrnited to-the no smoking policy, while using anti operating the Center. vi. Maintain worker's compensation insurance covering its personnel working at the Center- vii. Maintain general liability insurance coverage as outlined in Section 4 of this Agreement :; viii. Appoint a 14sbn to communicate with the County regarding all matters related to this Agreement ix. Maintain the Center facilities in a clean and orderly state. RENA may arrange furniture as may be needed to provide for the orderly operation of the Center. X. At the conclusion of each day clean and restore the Center kitchen, bathrooms, and activity rooms to the same state and condition in which they existed prior to use by RENA's volunteers and employees or the public. A. Reimburse County promptly for any damage caused to Center facilities, including but not limited to furniture, kitchen furnishings and/or utilities, computers and other technology equipment, by RENA staff, customers, guests, or invitees. xii. The Center shall be used for the operation of a community and recreation center open to the general public and all other uses reasonably related thereto. xiii. Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations. xiv. May, upon receiving appropriate permitting, serve meals as part of designated programs. 1 97 xv. May, upon receiving appropriate permitting and authorization as required by law and written authorization from the County Manager, serve alcohol as part of approved events. b) RENA and Orange County hereby covenant and agree that in conjunction with the operation and use of the Center: i. RENA shall operate the Center in accordance with County policies, including facility access, without discrimination and regardless place of residence, to all residents of Orange County; ii. RENA shall not enact policies that have the effect of denying use of the Center by any Orange County residents; iii. RENA shall continuously operate the Center during the term of this Agreement subject to closures due to County-recognized holidays, casualty, condemnation, events of force majeure, pr"closures caused by any act or omission by County, its agents, employeesoontractors, or subcontractors; iv. RENA shall provide janitorial servib&'Ao the`Center and shall maintain the Center in a clean and safe condition free from Hazard; V. RENA shall maintain records related to the operations of the Center including accounting and operations records and all such Center records shall remain the property of County and shall be subject to the disclosure provisions of applicable federal and state statutes and regulations and,shall be furnished to Orange County upon request; vi. Any and all fixtures purchased by RENA from Center operations funds for use or consumption at the -Center are and shall remain property of the County. For purposes of this section the term fixtures includes any kitchen or other appliances. Personal,pro perty:,purchased by RENA shall remain the property of RENA; vii. RENA may charge fees`foi programs and services at or involving the Center. Any such fees shall not exceed the cosh of providing such programs and services. viii. RENA is responsible for any and all repairs that amount to less than two hundred dollars ($200) per repair or incident. County is responsible for any and all repairs that amount to two hundred dollars ($200) or more per repair or incident. ix. RENA shall contract with a private hauler for the provision of roll out carts and/or other individual containers for municipal solid waste and recycling. RENA mai hot seek dumpster infrastructure and service through Chapel Hill or Orange County. X. Q range County shall provide appropriate screening for such roll out carts or other individual containers. xi. RENA'shall maintain such roll out carts or other individual containers in the appropriat6-screened location and shall at due times deliver the roll out carts or individual containers to the curb for collection and return them to their screened locations after collection. xii. RENA shall incorporate standard municipal solid waste and recycling rules and procedures within its operations protocols. 3. Facility Use Guidelines By this Agreement, the County authorizes the use of the Center only to the extent permitted by the terms of this Agreement. The County does not incur any liability to RENA or any member of the public for RENA's operation and/or use of County property under this agreement and RENA shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County from and against any and all claims 2 98 related to RENA's operation, use of, or presence at Center facilities. RENA staff and members of the public will abide by County policies while on County property. The County's facility use policy will serve as the guiding document for operations of the Center. Smoking is prohibited. No staff or visitor shall be permitted under any circumstances to use tobacco products in or on the grounds of any County property including the Center. The use of open flames, gambling, and alcoholic beverages are also prohibited unless appropriately permitted and/or approved in writing by the County Manager as may be required by law. Absolutely no weapons of any kind are allowed on the Center premises. 4. Insurance Requirements RENA shall provide evidence of general liability insurance to the County by way of a certificate prior to operation and use of the Center. Orange County shall be named as additional insured to RENA's general liability endorsed policy. RENA shall maintain combined single limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence with aggregate limits not less than $2,000,000 per year. RENA shall provide notice to the County not -less:Phan 30 days prior to any cancellation or reduction of any liability coverage and annually.provide the County with an updated certificate of insurance on or before each policy renewal data'.,,.,RENA shall secure liability insurance suitable for any kitchen operations. All such insurance policies and coverages must be approved by the Orange-County Risk Manager. The certificate of liability insurance shall be addressed and sent to: Orange County Attention: Director of Risk Management Services 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 272 8 5. Access to CountiFaeilities RENA shall provide a list of volunteers and employees who will be assigned to the Center to the County within five days of the:Aate of signing of this agreement or prior to the employee's or volunteer's first day of work at the Center. 'Cotitty reserves the right to prohibit any individual employee or volunteer of RENA from accessing or providing services on County property, including the Center, or at County eJents,,if County determines, in its sole discretion, that such employee poses a threat to the safety Orwell-being of County employees, guests, customers, or invitees. RENA shall conduct criminal background checks on each of its employees who will be employed or volunteering at the Center. RENA shall provide documentation that criminal background checks were conducted on each of its employees and/or volunteers prior to assigning them to the Center, and shall refuse employment or volunteer positions in its Center programs to any person convicted of a felony or any other crime that indicates the person poses a threat to the physical safety of County employees, guests, customers, or invitees. Such check shall include an annual check of the State Sex Offender and Public Protection Registration Program, the State Sexually Violent Predator Registration Program, and the National Sex Offender Registry. RENA shall not assign any employee or volunteer to staff the Center pursuant to this Agreement if (1) said worker appears on any of the listed registries; (2) said worker has been convicted of a felony; (3) said worker has been convicted of any felony involving sexual misconduct, violence, or drugs; (4) any misdemeanor involving sexual misconduct; or (5) said worker has engaged in any crime or conduct indicating that the worker may pose a threat to the safety or well-being of County employees, guests, customers, or 3 99 invitees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, RENA may allow nonviolent juvenile misdemeanants required to perform community service by a court of law or other state mandated program to volunteer at the Center. 6. Observation and Documentation County staff may observe, photograph, videotape, or audiotape any RENA volunteers or employees, County employees, guests, customers, or invitees. RENA shall secure necessary releases, which authorize County to publish such photographs, videotapes, or audiotapes. Any media coverage of RENA operations of the Center must receive prior authorization from the County Manager. RENA agrees to indemnify and hold County harmless for the failure by RENA to secure necessary releases-pursuant to the terms of Section 8 herein. 7. Evaluation Both RENA and County agree to hold annual evaluation review meetings to assess the success and direction of the operation of the Center. 8. Indemnification RENA shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless County, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against all claims, actions, demands, costs, damages, losses and/or expenses of any kind whatsoever, in whole or in part, resulting from or connected with any acts of RENA employees or program participants or from the omission of,commission of any act, lawful or unlawful, by RENA, its agents and/or employees, including 'but not limited to court costs and attorney's fees incurred by County in connection with the defense of said matters. 9. Rental Rate and Administrative Fees Rental rates and administrative fees shall be consistent with the Orange County Facilities Use Policy. County shall designate wbioh;!,if any rooms within the Center may be available for rent to the public or to local community groups.- Any such rental shall comply with the Orange County Facilities Use Policy and, shall be approved by the Orange County Facilities Management Director. RENA shall pay the County an annual $25.00 administrative fee. 10. Termination and Renewal Upon the expiration of the initial term this Agreement may be renewed for up to four (4) additional five (5) year terms only by joint written agreement of both Parties. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the Parties. At any time, County may terminate this Agreement and any renewal thereof immediately and without prior notice to RENA if County determines in its sole discretion that the health, safety, or well-being of County employees, guests, customers, or invitees are jeopardized by RENA's operation of the Center. 11. Reorganization or Dissolution Should RENA undergo a corporate reorganization, restructuring, or voluntary or involuntary dissolution this Agreement shall immediately terminate and RENA will vacate the Center premises. 12. Relationship of the Parties 4 100 RENA is a contractor of County. RENA is not a partner, agent, employee, or joint venture of County and neither Party shall hold itself out contrary to these terms by advertising or otherwise. Neither Party shall be bound by any representation, act, or omission whatsoever of the other. 13. Approvals, Amendments, Notices. Any approval or notice required by the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by the appropriate party. This Agreement may be amended only by written amendments duly executed by and between both Parties. 14. North-Carolina-Law. North Carolina law will govern the interpretation and constr"�#ion of this Agreement. 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes and expresses the entire agreement'' nd understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. This document and any other document incorporated in this Agreement by reference supersede all prior and contemporaneous discussions, promises, representations, agreements and understandings relative to the subject matter of this Agreement. 16. Severability. If-any provision of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 5 101 Signers for RENA and the County certify that they are authorized to enter this agreement. RENA-President Printed Name Date Orange County-Chair Printed Name Date 6 102 ATTACHMENT C �fl�TACAR S�� A motion was made by Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Slade, that this resolution be approved. A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE COMA ENT ON ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED BY THE HISTORIC ROGERS ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE WHEREAS, for more than 40 years,the people of Orange County have burdened the Rogers Road community by disposing of municipal solid waste in the nearby landfill; and WHEREAS,the Board of Aldermer.r believes that Orange County,the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill should work in partnership to equitably, and in proportion to their responsibility,share the costs of providing a community center and sewer improvements in the Historic.Rogers Road Neighborhood,just as the partners snare the privilege of owning, operating, and using the landfill; and WHEREAS, on November 14,20-12, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force unanimously recommended to the Assembly of Governments "that the costs-of both a New Community=_Center and J Sewer Improvements be shared by the local governments, at the same costs sharing percentages as outlined in the 1972 Landfill Agreement, 43%for Orange County, 43%for The Town of Chapel Hill and 14%for The Town of Carrboro"; and WHEREAS, 14% of the estimated cost of providing a community center and sewer improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood is approximately$900,000; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2012,the Board of Aldermen unanimously adopted the following statement: "The Town of Carrboro has the intention of contributing not more than$900,000 for the town's portion of the community center and cost of the sewer project. The town manager shall research funding sources. Town staff shall also investigate how the town can recoup the sewer line investment costs from developers. The board expresses its appreciation to the county for their commitment to the project and requests that the Town of Chapel Hill consider their share of the contribution"; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2013, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force discussed two alternative plans for sewer improvements in the neighborhood and requested comment on those plans from the Board of Aldermen,the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, alternative 1 involves construction of a sewer project to serve 78% of the parcels in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood(segments 5, 6, and 8 on the Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer 103 Concept May 2012 Map) at an estimated cost of approximately$3.7 million. Under this alternative,the Town of Carrboro would contribute $900,000 toward the cost of the sewer project, and Orange County would contribute the remaining$2.8 million. The Town of Chapel Hill would not contribute to the sewer project but would reimburse Orange County for the cost of constructing the community center (estimated at$650,000); and WHEREAS; alternative-2 involves constru ction-of:a-sewerproje-ct-to serve-100%0 of the parcels-in the Historic Rogers-Road Neighborhood(segments 1 through 8 on the Historic Rogers Road Area Sewer Concept May 2012 Map) at an estimated cost of approximately$5.8 million. Under this alternative,the Town of Carrboro would contribute up to $900,000 toward the cost of the community center and the sewer project, and Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill would contribute the remaining amount. This alternative would require the Town of Chapel Hill to initiate a request for extraterritorial jurisdiction and Orange County to approve the request so that the Town of Chapel Hill can contribute funds for its share of the community center and the sewer project in proportion to its responsibility; and WHEREAS,the attachment to this resolution shows the costs and potential cost sharing associated with each of the alternatives; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. The Board of Aldermen prefers alternative 2 for two reasons. First,this alternative will provide sewer improvements to the entire Historic Rogers Road-Neighborhood. Second,this alternative will enable all of the partners—Orange County,the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill to equitably share the costs of the community center and sewer improvements in proportion to their responsibility. SECTION 2. If the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council do not favor pursuing alternative 2,the Board of Aldermen is willing to explore alternative 1 and remains committed to contributing not more than $900,000 for the town's portion of the community center and sewer improvements. SECTION 3. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the mayor of the Town of Chapel Hill, and the members of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force. ATTACHMENT TO THE RESOLUTION Alternative 1 Costs • Sewer: $3,700,000 • Community center: $650,000 • Total: $4,350,000 Cost Share Among the Partners • Carrboro: $900,000 (20.7%) • Chapel Hill: $650,000 (14.9%) • Orange County: $2,800,000 (64.4%) Alternative 2 104 Costs • Sewer: $5,800,000 • Community center: $650,000 • Total: $6,450,000 Cost Share Among the Partners • Carrboro: $900,000 (14.0%) • Chapel-Hilh share-to-bedetermined-($2 775,000.[43.0%]) • Orange County: share to be determined($2,775,000 [43.0%]) This the 18t"day of June,2013. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Mayor Chilton,Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven-O'Donnell,Alderman Johnson, Alderman Lavelle,AIderman Slade and Alderman Seils I ataerrnWilson.,Tm(irk for the Tmm of Carrtyoro,NIC do herby rfy ftt the foregoing is a tine and correct eopy of a resolut on adapted by the Canboro Board of Ald=m. ° xvtt�r,rramrr e Town Clerk- PV