Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 1~~ A~ ~ cordon, Cbair Stephen X. HoGciotis, V&x Cbair Morgaret W. Brown Moses Corry, Jr. Burry Jacobs The Honorable Rosemary L. Waldorf Mayor, Town of Chapel H~1 306 N. Columbia Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Dear Rosemary: Orange County Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 200 S Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 December 15, 1998 het°. On Tuesday night, December 8, the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a productive work session dealing with solid waste management issues. We have been very encouraged by the~responses from the Towns that support a framework for the assumption by Orange County of overall solid waste management responsibility next year. We have also been encouraged by the effort of all governing boards to bridge our differences of opinion. We are optimistic that we are collectively nearing a thorough and satisfactory resolution to important. sues involving organization and governance of solid waste management throughout Orange County. The Board received a presentation from Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson regarding the potential development of sites for a MRF, transfer station, and continuing C&D disposal capacity. The Board expressed its appreciation to County and LOG stafffor examining additional alternatives that may help resolve the facility siting challenges we face. Follow-up actions to be taken and/or information that we expect will be provided to all governing boards as a result of this discussion include: ^ Gayle Wilson will develop a "master site plan" of the LOG's Eubanks Road property and adjacent property to ensure that contemplated sites for MRF, transfer station, and C&D disposal can physically be accommodated ^ informal discussions will be pursued with Duke University and Mrs. Deng to ascertain their willingness to make property available for a potential C&D facility and related buffering ^ the staff will review the acreage requirements for each of the major solid waste management facilities under consideration ^ the staffwill review the potential funding sources for operation of each of these major facilities ^ the staff will review opportunities and constraints involved in pursuing higher rates of diversion/recycling of C&D waste materials ^ the. staff will review and report back the findings of the LOG subcommittee that was established to review recycling markets The Board of Commissioners reviewed the Towns' responses to the County's August 1998 proposal, and 'iscussed ways to move forward in resolving the remaining differences of opinion. Specific points made included: / I~QCn~1 _t~. L3pGG 1JUc~r~c'_ ~`.~ ~oy~ ~~~~19~ You Count In Orange County AREA CODE (9l9) 732-8181: 968-4501: 688-7331: 227-2031: FAX (919) 644-3004 EYt 2130 -. Page 2 ~ece~nber I5, 1998 The Board continues to support, and appreciates, the Towns' willingness to set aside 60 acres of the Greene Tract for possible solid waste activities. The Board is optimistic that the three owners will be able to amicably conclude plans for the future use of the remainder of the Greene Tract within a reasonable timeframe. The Board also acknowledges the concerns of the Chapel Dill Town Council that the Greene Tract not be used for the burial of C&D waste. While no sitting governing board can restrict the policy decisions of future governing boards, the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to bury C&D waste on the Greene Tract either. We are optimistic that the potential sites for C&D waste presented by Mr. Wilson will fulfill short term C&D needs. The Board continues to see the importance of preserving the option to acquire additional acreage in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill. The Board also acknowledges the concerns of the governing boards of both Carrboro and Chapel Dill that the Blackwood and Nunn properties not be acquired. While no sitting governing board can restrict the policy decisions of future governing boards, the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to pursue use of the Blackwood. or Nunn properties. ^ The Board favors the use of enterprise revenue to finance the provision of landfill community benefits. Given the general agreement among the governing boards that community benefits will be provided, this issue is not one on which an interlocal agreement on solid waste management should founder. The County is willing to make the decisions on financing community benefits if this matter is not fully resolved before a change in governance. The Board continues to support the conceptual revenue structure laid out in the August proposal (and reiterated here): ^ .finance core operations (MRF operations, MSW and C & D Landfills) through tipping fees ^ ~ finance collection/transportation activities through property taxes and collection charges ^ finance reduction/recycling through tipping. fees to the extent practical, with the balance from availability fees ^ The Board wants to refine the current draft of the Interlocal Agreement and reach resolution on it as soon as itis possible to do so next year. The Board supports Mayor WaldorFs proposal for a working group to achieve this end, though the exact make-up of this group is still to be discussed. The Board discussed the importance of the LOG reaching decisions by consensus for the remainder of its existence. The Board of Commissioners maybe placed in an untenable position if it is expected to ultimately assume responsibility for implementing/overseeing solid waste management decisions that it does not support. , The Board confirmed the importance of IJNC's active participation in solid waste decision-making and recycling. ._ . Page 3 lecember 1 S, 1998 The Board did not have sufficient time to work through every outstanding issue, and did not complete its review of the attached list of "Principles for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management". I expect that the Board will discuss this list further during January, but in the meantime we commend it to the municipal governing boards for their consideration. Sincerely, ae:. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners Principles for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management December 8, 1998 IF 1. Solid waste continues to be managed as an enterprise operation; 2. The Greene Tract remains a landfill asset (with acknowledgement that the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to bury mixed solid waste (MSW) or construction and demolition (C&D) waste on this property); 3. There are no restrictions on acquisition of additional acreage at the current landfill (with acknowledgement that the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to use the Blackwood and Nunn properties); 4. All entities continue to work through the LOG until such time as the County assumes overall responsibility for solid waste management to develop options for: materials recovery, construction & demolition disposal, and a transfer station (to include examination of reconfiguring property at the Eubanks Road landfill to accommodate one or more of these facilities); 5. The Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough remain committed partners to make an enterprise operation economically viable; 6. Reduction of solid waste and the economic viability of solid waste facilities/operations are made compatible; 7. All parties approve an Interlocal Agreement after the current draft has been revised to incorporate modifications (negotiated by representatives of each governing board); 8. The County retains the freedom to implement fees; and 9. The County is not expected to use general funds to underwrite overall solid waste management activities: ~~EN 1. The County will assume solid waste management responsibility no earlier than October 1, 1999, to include current and future operations; 2. The County will accept transfer of all Chapel Hill solid waste management employees; 3. The Board of Commissioners shall approve the 1999-2000 solid waste management operating budget in June, 1999; 4. Until the County assumes responsibility, the LOG shall continue to direct solid waste management, as in the past, including operating by consensus; 5. Each government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management Advisory Commission, pursuant to an adopted Interlocal Agreement, which shall succeed the LOG and begin meeting after adoption of the 1999-2000 budget; 6. Solid waste collection/transportation decisions will remain the prerogative of each local government entity; 7. University representatives will be invited to participate in discussions about planning and operation of the solid waste management system and facilities, even if the University chooses not to commit to participation in the solid waste management system; 8. The County will pursue a conceptual revenue structure that: ^ finances core operations (MItF, MSW and C&D Landfills) through tipping fees ^ finances collection/transportation activities through property taxes and collection charges ^ finances reduction/recycling through tipping fees to the extent practical, with the balance from availability fees 9. The County will finance community benefits through the landfill enterprise (unless Carrboro and Chapel Hill agree to earmark a portion of one cent sales taxes for their share of community benefits). FURTHERMORE The County is willing to entertain assumption by any of the other municipal partners of the lead role in solid waste management subject to the principles and conditions enumerated above.