Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 12-08-1998 - 5c
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Issues DEPARTMENT: Manager/Public Works ATTACHMENT(S): Listed in body of abstract Action Agenda Item No. e PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To discuss outstanding solid waste management issues and provide direction to staff on needed followup action. BACKGROUND: During a series of regular meetings and work sessions throughout 1998, the Board of Commissioners has discussed options available to the County and its municipal partners for governance and the development of facilities for future solid waste management throughout Orange County. This work session provides an opportunity to discuss the following specific topics: County Proposal to Assume Overall Responsibility for Solid Waste Management The Board of Commissioners transmitted a proposal to the Towns in August 1998 whereby the County would, under specific terms and conditions, take the lead role in the governance, financing, operations, and facility siting of countywide solid waste management. During Fall 1998, the Towns have developed responses and suggested modifications to the conditions under which the County might assume the lead role. At their November 17 meeting, the Board reviewed a table prepared by staff that compares the elements of the County's August proposal with the specific responses from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Staff has prepared a draft of proposed "principles" to govern the possible assumption by the County of overall solid waste management responsibility. These principles are distilled from the Commissioners' August proposal, the Towns' responses, and relevant discussion that has taken place since. The Chapel Hill Town Council is slated to consider a resolution proposed by Mayor Waldorf at their December 7 meeting that would agree to the County assuming responsibility, subject to a few stipulations. The Board may wish to discuss the current state of the Towns' responses to the County's August proposal, and provide direction to staff on next steps. 2 Related Documents Attachment 1— 8111198 BOCC "Proposal for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations " Attachment 2 - 11117198 Comparison of County Proposal and Town Responses Attachment 3 — 12/8/98 Proposal " Principles for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management" Attachment 4 — 12/7/98 Proposal and Resolution from Mayor Waldorf MRF, C &D, and Transfer Station Siting Options The LOG and its member governments have been deliberating about the need for certain new or replacement solid waste management facilities, and their possible location, timing, and sequencing. At the October 8 LOG meeting, the LOG staff presented a creative proposal that through reconfiguration of the Eubanks Road landfill property, could accommodate construction of a materials recovery facility and transfer station. County and LOG staff have also examined options that could be considered to extend, for a few years at least, a construction and demolition disposal capability at Eubanks Road. LOG staff have also examined other potential C &D disposal sites that have recently been identified elsewhere in the County. Background materials prepared for the December 10 LOG meeting provide more detail on this issue. Related Documents Attachment S — 1018198 Gayle Wilson Memo, "Material Recovery Facility Siting" Attachment 6 - 12110198 Gayle Wilson Memo, "Additional C&D Disposal Options" Solid Waste Alternative Finance Committee Since Spring of 1998, this subcommittee has met regularly to discuss the options for ensuring that adequate revenues will be in place to develop and operate the facilities and programs necessary to achieve the waste reduction goals laid out in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. There has been extensive discussion about the possible use of availability fees to finance most or all of the recycling and waste reduction programs, but the Committee has not reached a point where it is ready to recommend the use of that specific mechanism. The next meeting of this group is likely to take place during the third or fourth week of January 1999. Background materials from the Committee's most recent meeting are included for the Board's information. The Committee requested that each governing board review and comment on option III, namely that each jurisdiction would take responsibility for establishing and implementing its own revenue mechanism(s) for its share of recycling and waste reduction programs. Related Documents Attachment 7 — 11124198 Gayle Wilson Memo, "Availability Fees and Other Financing Mechanisms " In addition to County staff, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson will be available to respond to questions the Board may have about these, or other, solid waste issues. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the solid waste management issues identified in the abstract, and provide appropriate direction to staff. CO e-PF-Pff- A-NDPo-rsr�rnA-t-, W6,z-� 1,,R-t-76 looatro n5 AT prox.mi+e- 4 'yrt5 Ho+- 100 3321e_ ^' Selected Parcels PROPERTY MAP This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within ^� Orange County, and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, and other public Background Info records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The County and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. N w E Map Scale : 1" = 800' DATE: 08 Dec 9816:34:30 Tuesday Prepared By Orange County Central Land Records /GIS Office ld -e -9V Selected Parcels PROPERTY MAP This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within ^� Orange County, and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, and other public Background Info records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The County and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. N w 5 DATE: 08 Dec 9816:39:43 Tuesday Prepared By Orange County Central Land Records /GIS Office 13 B 98 [36CG. W.'k s-w, Orange County Board of Commissioners Proposal for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations August 11, 1998 I. Vision/Goals A. The Board confirmed its commitment to the solid waste goals as adopted in December 1995. B. The Board confirmed its adherence to the six principles it identified in November 1997 (with minor modifications noted where applicable in the sections that follow). Those principles are: 1. Enterprise fund operation (i.e. revenues must meet or exceed expenditures). 2. The Greene Tract remains a landfill asset. 3. No restrictions on acquisition of additional acreage at the current landfill. 4. Whoever is responsible for countywide solid waste system needs committed partners to make an enterprise operation economically viable. 5. All community benefits to be provided through the landfill enterprise. 6. Seek a solution in which reduction of solid waste and the economic viability of the solid waste facility are in concert — right now, when solid waste is reduced, the landfill suffers financially. U. Community Benefits A. With regard to principle #5 (Section I -B) and the financing of water line extensions to neighborhoods adjacent to the Eubanks Road landfill, the Board indicated its preference that the County and Towns share the cost using one cent sales tax revenue based on each jurisdiction's share of that revenue source (Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro shares are roughly 65 %- 26 % -9 %, per Attachment 3 to the Manager's August 11 report). If agreement cannot be reached to use this revenue source, then the water line extensions should be funded using LOG resources. III. Governance/Management A. If agreement with the Towns is reached on points as noted, the County will assume solid waste management responsibility no earlier than October 1, 1999, to include current and future operations. B. The County will accept transfer of all Chapel Hill solid waste management positions that exist as of September 30, 1998. C. If the County assumes the lead role, the Board of Commissioners shall approve the 1999 -2000 solid waste management operating budget. D. All parties will sign the Interlocal Agreement after it has been revised to incorporate modifications. E. With regard to principle #4 (section I -B), the Board emphasized the importance of having committed partners. F. Until the County assumes responsibility, the LOG shall continue to direct solid waste management, as in the past, including operating by consensus. G. 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 (no later than July 1, 1999). H. The Board re- emphasized that solid waste collection/transportation decisions would remain the prerogative of each local government entity. I. It is important that UNC -CH representatives sit at the table, even if the University chooses not to commit to participation in the solid waste management system. IV. Facilities, Services, & Programs A. With regard to principle #2 (Section I -B), sixty acres of the Greene Tract should be set aside for use by the County in future solid waste management activities, with the balance of the Greene Tract to remain under the ownership of the current owners, who shall determine its future use. If this course of action is followed, the Town of Chapel Hill is expected to rezone the property for appropriate solid waste uses. If the Towns disagree with this approach, they should offer counterproposals that are reasonable and cost effective. Failing agreement within 12 months, the Greene Tract would become a landfill asset with the lead entity making siting decisions and assuming control of the property as a landfill asset. B. Local governments shall continue to work, through the LOG, to site a transfer station and work to develop options for materials recovery and construction & demolition disposal. The Board acknowledged the need for siting decisions, but believes that those decisions should be considered comprehensively rather than piecemeal. Review of options should include the pros and cons of co- locating major solid waste facilities; and review of information to be gathered by County and LOG staffs regarding model solid waste facilities from across the nation that are viewed positively in their communities. C. The Board formally indicated its intent not to seek a new MSW landfill in Orange County. D. The Board affirmed its intent not to use eminent domain to acquire an MSW landfill site, but acknowledged that decision is not binding upon future Boards of Commissioners. The Board also indicated a willingness to consider the use of eminent domain as a last resort, with regard to other types of solid waste facilities. V. Financing A. As part of the financing mechanism, all boards endorse implementation of a "Chapel Hill- Carrboro- Hillsborough- Orange County Solid Waste Availability Fee" for all county residents. B. Solid waste operations shall continue to operate as an enterprise fund after the County assumes responsibility. The County shall have the option of implementing other fees, and shall not be required to use general funds for solid waste management activities. C. Any interlocal agreement must allow the lead entity unilaterally to raise fees by up to 10% annually (this provision is in the most recent version of the draft interlocal agreement). D. The Board endorsed a conceptual revenue structure that: 1. finances core operations (MRF, MSW and C &D Landfills) through tipping fees 2. finances collection/transportation activities through property taxes and collection charges 3. finances reduction/recycling through tipping fees to the extent practical, with the balance from availability fees E. The Board indicated its willingness to consider pay - per -throw as a revenue and waste reduction tool. F. It is important that an indirect cost study be accomplished, if the County assumes the lead role, so that administrative cost allocations for required County support (personnel, finance, purchasing, budget, attorney, etc) can be accurately determined. 9ozc PROPOSAL 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; 3. There are no restrictions on acquisition of additional acreage at the current landfill; 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. All community benefits are paid 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); 7. Reduction of solid waste and the economic viability of solid waste facilities/operations are made compatible; 8. All parties approve an Interlocal Agreement after the current draft has been revised to incorporate modifications (negotiated by representatives of each governing board); 9. The County retains the freedom to implement fees; and 10. The County is not expected to use general funds to underwrite overall solid waste management activities: 1 M_,1W 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 noL to commit to participation in the solid waste management system. 8. The County will pursue a conceptual revenue structure that: • finances core operations (MRF, 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 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. CADEPTSTUBWORMSMswch1117.doc 1 Printed: 12/04/98 I. Vision /Goals The Board confirmed its commitment to the We support the solid waste goals solid waste goals as adopted in December adopted in December 1995. 1995. The board confirmed its adherence to the six principles it identified in November 1997 (with minor modifications noted where applicable in the sections that follow). These principles are: • Enterprise fund operation (i.e., revenues We believe it desirable to operate solid must meet or exceed expenditures). waste management as an enterprise fund. • The Greene Tract remains a landfill asset. See response section IV A. We reiterate the Council resolution of July 2, 1998 stating: "Recognize the need to begin discussions on whether to keep the Greene Tract as publicly owned land, and if so, what if any uses would be suitable. Recognize that a decision about the Greene Tract should not delay the transfer of governance." The Council asks for clarification about the difference between the proposal in this section that the "Greene Tract remains a landfill asset" and the proposal in the section of facilities, etc., that only 60 acres be used for solid waste management activities. • No restrictions on acquisition of additional The Council opposes the acquisition of acreage at the current landfill. Mrs. Blackwood's and Mrs. Nunn's properties adjacent to the landfill property north of Eubanks Road, but does not oppose acquisition of other properties. • Whoever is responsible for countywide We believe that cooperation among solid waste system needs committed committed partners is essential for the partners to make an enterprise operation success of the solid waste management economically viable. in Orange County; and we believe that adoption of an Interlocal Agreement would formalize the commitment among the parties. CADEPTSTUBWORMSMswch1117.doc 1 Printed: 12/04/98 • All community benefits to be provided through the landfill enterprise. • Seek a solution in which reduction of waste and the economic viability of the solid waste facility are in concert — right now, when solid waste is reduced, the landfill suffers financially. CADEPTS \PUB WORMSMswch1117.doc appears not to be an appropriate source of funds for community improvements unless there is some causative relationship between the landfill operations and the water problems experienced by the neighbors. The Council also opposes use of LOG funds because of the double taxation issue. The Council supports a countywide source of revenue as the most equitable means of funding for the extension of water to the Rogers Road neighborhood. The Council remains committed to the financing of solid waste operations which supports waste reduction yet maintains the economic vitality of all solid waste facilities. We are open to all ideas, but we are uncommitted as to how that can be accomplished until hearing the recommendation of the LOG Finance Committee. We agree with the waste reduction goals of 45% by 2001 and 61 % by 2006, as adopted by all four governing boards. We support including a commitment to the implementation of the County-wide integrated solid waste management plan, as adopted by all four Orange County jurisdictions, into the Interlocal Agreement. Printed: 12/04/98 D CADEPTS\PUBWORKSWAswch1117.doc 3 Printed: 12/04/98 5 II. Community Benefits With regard to principle #5 (Section 1 -B) and (a) The Board of Aldermen maintains its We reiterate that we believe that the the financing of water line extentions to position that water lines should be issue of double taxation is an important neighborhoods adjacent to the Eubanks Road extended to the Mill House Road one which the one -cent sales tax landfill, the board indicated its preference that neighborhood. proposal does not resolve. We believe the County and towns share the cost using one that all County residents should share cent sales tax revenue based on each (b) The Carrboro Board of Aldermen prefers equally in the funding of any water jurisdiction's share of that revenue source using LOG resources to fund water line service lines provided to the community (Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro shares improvements. We accept, however, the around the landfill, using the principle of are roughly 65 %- 26 % -9 %, per Attachment 3 to possibility of using a 1 o sales tax revenue one person /one tax. The Council the Manager's August 11 report). If agreement as a viable alternative with Orange County opposes using the one cent sales tax for cannot be reached to use this revenue source, financing the project with repayment over a providing benefits as double taxation then the water line extensions should be three -year period. and supports a countywide source of funded using LOG resources. revenue. III. Governance /Management If agreement with the Towns is reached on We think it desirable that when the points as noted, the County will assume solid County assumes operational control that waste management responsibility no earlier it becomes responsible for the budget at than October 1, 1999 to include current and the same time. The Council remains future operations. committed to its July 2 resolution that all of the solid waste issues now pending be resolved before any agreement on change in governance is made. This include siting of a construction and demolition waste facility and a material recovery facility by the fall of 1998, identifying locations for the transfer station and resolution of future financing methods for solid waste operations. Therefore the Council defers action on this condition until after these decisions have been made. The County will accept transfer of all Chapel We suggest the wording provided in the Hill solid waste management positions that Interlocal Agreement: exist as of September 30, 1998. "All of the system employees will be transferred to the County and become County employees subject to the supervision of the County Manager in the same fashion as other County employees." CADEPTS\PUBWORKSWAswch1117.doc 3 Printed: 12/04/98 If the County assumes the lead role, the Board We believe it would be necessary for the of Commissioners shall approve the 1999- Chapel Hill Town Council to formally 2000 solid waste management operating adopt the budget; however, the budget budget. could be developed by the County Manager and reviewed and approved by the County Commissioners before action by the Town Council. All parties will sign the Interlocal Agreement We agree that the Carrboro Board of after it has been revised to incorporate Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, modifications. and the Orange County Board of Commissioners must sign the Interlocal Agreement in order to execute the transfer of ownership and responsibility. With regard to principle #4 (section 1 -13), the We agree on the need for a local Board emphasized the importance of having commitment to efficient, responsible, committed partners. and progressive solid waste management activities. The Interlocal Agreement would provide the legal basis for the commitment of the partners to the system. Until the County assumes responsibility, the The Landfill Owner's Group is an LOG shall continue to direct solid waste advisory body to the three member management, as in the past, including governments and does not direct solid operating by consensus. waste management operation. The Town of Chapel Hill is currently responsible for administration of the Landfill Fund and the Solid Waste Management Department. We would expect this situation to continue until the revised Interlocal Agreement is executed and implemented. The Council recognizes the LOG's right to set and operate by its own rules as established in January of 1997. These rules included decision by majority rule. The Council supports this LOG decision. C: ADEPTS \PUBW0RKS \SW\swch1117.doc 4 Printed: 12/04/98 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 (no later than July 1, 1999). The Board re- emphasized that solid was collection /transportation decisions would remain the prerogative of each local government entity. It is important that UNC -CH representatives sit at the table, even if the University chooses not to commit to participation in the solid waste management system. Members of the new Solid Waste Advisory Commission should be appointed according to Article VI 6.03 of the latest draft of the Interlocal Agreement. We understand that solid waste collection decisions should be the responsibility of each jurisdiction, as contained in Article V of the latest draft of the Interlocal Agreement. We believe it would be useful for the University to monitor /participate in all proceedings and that we should encourage their participation. Our understanding is that the law does not allow the University to be a signatory to an Interlocal Agreement. CADEPTSTUBWORMSWlswch1117.doc 5 Printed: 12/04/98 IV. Facilities, Services & Programs With regard to principle #2 (Section 1 -13), sixty (a) Carrboro acquiesces to using no more We reiterate the Council resolution of acres of the Greene Tract should be set aside than 60 acres of the Greene tract for solid July 2, 1998 stating: "Recognize the for use by the County in future solid waste waste - related activities. need to begin discussions on whether to management activities, with the balance of the keep the Greene Tract as publicly Greene Tract to remain under the ownership of Additionally, an easement should be owned land, and if so, what if any uses the current owners, who shall determine its placed on the property precluding the would be suitable. Recognize that a future use. If this course of action is followed, siting of a MSW landfill on this tract. decision about the Greene Tract should the Town of Chapel Hill is expected to rezone not delay the transfer of governance." the property for appropriate solid waste uses. (b) Additionally, Carrboro proposes that the The council opposes the use of the If the Towns disagree with this approach, they reminder of the Greene tract be divided as Greene Tract for a construction and should offer counterproposals that are follows: demolition waste facility and requests reasonable and cost effective. Failing that the Commissioners specify what agreement within 12 months, the Greene Tract (1) Affordable Housing /Land Trust solid waste management activities it would become a landfill asset with the lead contemplates on the Greene Tract as entity making siting decisions and assuming Twenty (20) acres should be placed into a well as where on the Green Tract. control of the property as a landfill asset. land trust for development of housing. (2) Conservation Park The remaining acreage should be set as a conservation park. Additionally, it is our position that, if reasonable possible, the conservation area should be set aside in such a manner as to buffer existing neighbors. Local governments shall continue to work, The only property, which the Carrboro Board of The council continues to support the through the LOG, to site a transfer station and Aldermen would consider agreeing to the July 2 resolution that siting a MRF and C work to develop options for materials recovery purchase of by the LOG are properties tax & D waste facility have priority and favor and construction & demolition disposal. The map references as: 7.18..27, 7.18.27E, and these decisions being made by fall of Board acknowledged the need for siting 7.18.27F. These properties must be offered 1998. The Council further supports decisions, but believes that those decisions freely for purchase and the properties, if working with the MRF consultant to help should be considered comprehensively rather purchased, are to be used only for a transfer in identifying criteria for selecting a site, than piecemeal. Review of options should station and /or materials recovery facility using already identified sites as include the pros and cons of co- locating major and /or buffering. candidates. The Council supports solid waste facilities: and review of information identifying possible locations for a to be gathered by County and LOG staffs transfer station during the process of regarding model solid waste facilities from siting a MRF. across the nation that are viewed positively in their communities. C :MEPTS\PUBW0RKS %SWlswch1117.doc 6 Printed: 12/04/98 The Board formally indicated its intent not to We continue to believe that a locally owned or seek a new MSW landfill in Orange County. controlled MSW disposal facility is still desirable, given the potential future financial and public health risk of depending on distant facility and commercial vendors. The Council position of July 2 remains the same, i.e., "Acknowledge at this time that there will be no search for a future landfill site recognizing that this will not be binding on any future government." The Board affirmed its intent not to use We believe that eminent domain should be eminent domain to acquire an MSW landfill used if necessary to obtain land needed for the site, but acknowledged that decision is not community's solid waste management binding upon future Boards of Commissioners. facilities. The Board also indicated a willingness to consider the use of eminent domain as a last resort, with regard to other types of solid waste facilities. V. Financing As part of the financing mechanism, all boards The case has yet to be made that additional The Council recognizes that all boards will endorse implementation of a "Chapel Hill- funding sources are unavoidable. The LOG need to endorse a revenue generating Carrboro - Hillsborough- Orange County Solid financing committee has yet to finish its work, instrument to supplement tipping fees. As Waste Availability Fee" for all county residents. and we cannot take a firm position on this previously states, before endorsing any issue until more, information is available. funding mechanism we want to have the benefit of the report from the LOG finance The Carrboro Board of Aldermen believes Committee. We remain committed to a quite strongly, however, that if it does become funding mechanism that supports waste necessary to implement an availability fee, that reduction and is equitable for all generators of only a "progressive" fee will be acceptable. waste. If a countywide fee is implemented, the The fee structures outlines in the County report Council does not support including the names were regressive in nature. of the municipalities in identifying the fee. The citizens of the municipalities are residents of Orange County. Solid waste operations shall continue to operate as an enterprise fund after the County assumes responsibility. The County shall have the option of implementing other fees, and shall not be required to use general funds for solid waste management activities. Any interlocal agreement must allow the lead entity unilaterally to raise feels by up to 10% annually (this provision is the most recent version of the draft interlocal agreement.) C ADEPTS \PUBW0RKS\SWlswch1117.doc 7 Printed: 12/04/98 The Board endorsed a conceptual revenue structure that: 1. finances core operation W, MSW and C & D Landfills) through tipping fees 2. finances collection/transportation activities through property taxes and collection charges 3. finances reduction/recycling through tipping fees to the extent practical, with the balance from availability fees The Board indicated it willingness to consider We support pay -as- you -throw as a means of pay - per -throw as a revenue and waste regulation resulting in significant waste reduction tool. reduction, as contained in the County -wide solid waste management plan. Pay- as -you- throw as a financing mechanism may be most suitable for financing waste collection and disposal services. We also believe that the financing of collection and disposal costs should be left up to each jurisdiction. It is important that an indirect cost study be We recommend that the County begin using accomplished, if the County assumes the lead the existing administrative overhead formula role, so that administrative cost allocations for and, once they gain experience, conduct an required County support (personnel, finance, analysis of their real costs and make purchasing, budget, attorney, etc.) can be adjustments as necessary. accurately determined. Additional Comments: We recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Orange county Board of Commissioners conclude remaining issues concerning governing with the establishment of a conference committee made up of 2 representatives of each jurisdiction. Such a committee would try to resolve all differences, identify any areas of disagreement remaining and revise the draft Interlocal Agreement. CADEPTSIPUBWORKSWAswch1117.doc 8 Printed: 12/04/98 ., Town of Chapel Hill Fax :919- 967 -8406 Dec 3 '98 1354 P.02f05 Ia/8 /J) a t 1A1aelL'V-SS16n AA 5c� AGENDA #10 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council Members FROM: . Mayor Waldorf SUBJECT: Proposed Response to Orange County Commissioners' Proposal for Governance and Management of Solid Waste Operations in (range County DATE: December ?,1998 As you recall, we discussed the Commissioners' August I Ith proposal for transfer of solid waste governance on October 12, and passed a resolution that evening that raised questions and identified points of difference between Chapel ITill and Orange County. In the Interim, I have had several conversations with the Commissioners, Mayor Nelson, Mayor Johnson, and many of you on the Council. The strong message to me has been a widespread desire to move the governance issue to conclusion. I am offering a resolution for your consideration that I hope would bring us all nearer to this conclusion. It seemed to me that a critical interest of many on the Council was, to be certain that the Greene Tract would not be.. turned into. a Construction and Demolition facility. Four of the Commissioners have agreed to this condition, and the attached resolution specifies that this condition be part of any final interlocal. agreement. I hope the Council will adopt this resolution; and request that I write'a transmittal letter which: Expresses our appreciation for the County's willingness to assume governance of solid waste operations; Establishes the condition that the Greene Tract not be used for C &D burial; Strongly recommends that a C &D facility be identified and -put into operation.to meet the service need of citizens, and then, provide revenue to support recycling costs; Strongly urges that the transfer station and MRF be located neat the Municipalities to allow reasonable hauling costs, and endorses the site near the landfill that, our staff has identified; States our objection to any condemnation of properties owned by Mrs. Blackwood and Mrs_ Nunn; Town of Chapel Hill Fax:919 -%7 -8406 Dec 3 198 13:55 P.03/05 2 } ti Notes that community benefit issues are not addressed in the resolution because those matters are separate from governance, and will be. addressed by a special committee on December 14. The LOG this year has done excellent work with strung staff and consultant support to bring us to a point where these decisions can be made. However, I believe as others have said, that. these . decisions won't be made until the governance .issue is settled. I hope you will support this resolution. Town of Chapel Hill Fax :919- 967 -8406 Dec 3 '98 1355 P.04/05 3 A RESOUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE FINAL DETAILS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT .REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE BY ORANGE COUNTY (99-12- 7/R -17) WHEREAS, in 1972 the governments of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill together bought a 202 -acre site on both sides of Eubanks Road to serve as a landfill for solid waste from Orange County; and WHEREAS, the governments of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel dill agreed by contract in 1972 that Chapel dill would operate the landfill; and WHEREAS, since 1972 the management of solid. waste has developed into a much more complex and expensive operation; including federally regulated lined landfills, waste reduction and recycling programs, and the need for a variety of.facilities beyond a landfill; and WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners' Group has recommended that the owners of the landfill and the Town of Hillsborough work together to develop another form of governance of the management of solid waste within Orange County; and ViMEREAS, representatives of these four governments have been working since the Landfill Reorganization Work Group began meeting in April 1995, on various approaches; and WIIEEREAS, at the request of the November 1996 Assembly of Governments, another group of representatives from each of the four governments began meeting with an attorney to prepare a draft interlocal agreement; and WHEREAS, the eighth draft of the Interlocal Agreement was presented to the local governing bodies in the summer of 1997, proposing that one. government own and operate the solid waste management system with the advice of representatives'of the four local governments; and WHEREAS, in June 1997, all four governing bodies adopted and submitted to the .State the outline of an integrated solid waste management plan which included waste reduction and recycling programs; and WHEREAS, sites have been identified for a materials recovery facility and a transfer station on the current landfill site, and more than one .potentially viable site for a construction and.. demolition waste facility have also been identified; and WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners' Group has concluded that the present system of tipping fees will not generate enough revenue to fund the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan and appointed an Alternative Finance Commiftee to explore other means of financing; and WHEREAS; the Committee has identified an availability fee and use of the .General Fund as potential complements to the tipping fees, both of which would be most:. efficiently and effectively handled by the County, Town of Chapel Hill Fax:919 -%7 -8406 Dec 3 '98 1356 P.05/05 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Commissioners, with the advice of a Solid Waste Advisory Commission, set policy, raise revenue and implement the Solid Waste Management Plan throughout Orange County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests the partners set . up a work group composed of the Mayors and Chair or .other single representatives chosen by the governing bodies, and the Managers to negotiate the revision of the eighth draft of the Interlocal Agreement to reflect the organization described above, intended to implement the Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the governing bodies and submitted to the State of North Carolina in July 1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council urges that this work group begin no later than February, report to the governing bodies in March and be ready for final governmental action in April. BE Tr FURTHER RESOLVED that a condition of the Interlocal Agreement achieve the following: that no more than 60 acres of the Greene Tract be set aside for use by the County in solid waste management activities, or as an asset of the Landfill, Fund, and that such area will not be used as a construction and demolition disposal facility. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council .believes a construction and demolition (C & D) facility is very important for services to citizens and to. generate revenue, with net. revenue projected for 1998 -99 being approximately $1,004,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council: • urges the County to locate a transfer_ station near the municipalities in southern Orange. County to avoid having the public pay. very high hauling costs, • endorses a site on or near the landfill for a transfer station and a materials recovery facility, • -urges that the properties of Mrs. Julia Blackwood; and Mrs. Gertrude Nunn not be purchased for solid waste management purposes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the transfer of the solid waste operations be accomplished by October 1, 1999,. with the transfer to the County of all Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department employees and assets of the Landfill Fund. This the 7"' day of December, 199$_ /an e0cr- w%C. sezenon AGEMA #5 Memorandum To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Material Recovery Facility Siting Date: October 8, 1998 This memorandum reviews siting options for a materials recovery facility (MRF) in Orange County. As discussed in Agenda #3, the MRF is the fundamental solid waste system component of the county -wide solid waste management plan. Reaching our 61$ waste reduction goal will be virtually impossible without a facility to process the significant increase of recyclable materials created by expanded collection programs and various waste reduction programs. Over the past several months the Landfill Owners Group has discussed several options for locating a materials recovery facility. Some of the sites mentioned have also been considered for a transfer station or as a co- location for both facilities. p .9 There are some advantages to co- 1Qcating a MRF and a transfer station, particularly as regards capitalization of a single, unified structure providing for both operations as well as some operational advantages. Locally, however, the ability to construct a single structure is constrained by the timing of the need for the two facilities. A MRF site is needed as soon as possible in order to proceed with the procurement process and solid waste plan implementation. A transfer station will be needed in about 2005/06, once the current municipal solid waste landfill is full. Therefore, we have several years before a transfer station site is needed.and do not consider it critical to determine a site at this time. Following are locations that have been considered as possible sites for a MRF and some key points for each: * Greene tract no cost for property acquisition continued impact to already impacted neighborhoods lack of agreement. ainong'the.three governmental owners on future use of property near recyclable generation centers, minimizing transportation costs * Economic Development District - I- 85 /Buckhorn Road - would result in additional transportation costs due to distance from recyclable generation centers - property probably more expensive that non -EDD options (est. $20,000- $30,000 acre) - would move a solid waste operation to a different neighborhood - development ordinance would need to be amended to allow facility - would not contribute to notion of integrating solid waste facilities * Economic Development District - I -40 /01d Highway 86 - would result in additional transportation costs due to distance from recyclable generation centers; however, this EDD is the most convenient to the recyclable waste generation centers of the three EDD's - property probably more expensive that non -EDD options (est. $20,000- $30,000 acre) - would move a solid waste operation to a different neighborhood - development ordinance would need to be amended -to allow facility would not contribute to notion of integrating solid waste facilities * Economic Development District - I -85 /US Highway 70 - would result in additional transportation costs due to distance from recyclable generation centers - property probably more expensive -that non -EDD options (est. $20,000 - $30,000 acre) - would move a solid waste operation' to a different neighborhood - development ordinance would need to be amended to allow facility - would not contribute to notion of integrating solid waste facilities * Eubanks Road site (3 parcels directly west of North Eubanks Road landfill property) - Original Staff Recommendation - would integrate into current operations - continued impact to already impacted neighborhoods - near recyclable generation centers, minimizing transportation costs - estimated moderate land cost (est. $13,000- $15,000 acre) - provides most flexibility for design and operation - would require some use or threat of eminent domain for one or;two of the three parcels * Closed North Eubanks landfill (Agenda #10a) - would integrate into current operations - continued impact to already impacted neighborhoods - near recyclable generation centers, minimizing transportation costs - due to special design and construction techniques would likely cost about $400,000 more than other options - regulatory uncertainty - possible ongoing MRF operation problems or post- closure landfill.problems - would not require the purchase of additional property * North Eubanks Landfill [includes 1 parcel (7.18..27E - 3.62 acres), directly west of North Eubanks Road landfill property] - Revised Staff Recommendation - new option - would integrate into current operations - continued impact to already impacted neighborhoods - near recyclable generation centers, minimizing transportation costs - would allow use of generally unusable area of current landfill would allow for proceeding immediately with solid waste plan implementation and MRF procurement process - would require the purchase of one 3.62 acre parcel for about $45,000 - $50,000 This site has not been previously discussed and came to our attention as a result of our investigations into locating a transfer station on the closed North Eubanks Road landfill. A Chapel Hill council member initiated the closed landfill inquiry. This site (attachment 1) is located between the closed disposal area and the existing tire disposal /white goods processing area on the north side of Eubanks Road where the yard waste /mulch processing is now located. It would require relocating the existing yard waste processing area, using a considerable amount of structural fill material to fill in a ravine, and installing a pipe there to channel storm drainage beneath the site. It does not require any of the special engineering techniques discussed in Agenda #10a. It would require the identification of a new area for yard waste processing; that could be satisfied by acquiring only the eastern -most parcel (7.18..27E - 3.62 acres) of the three properties contained in our original recommendation. A recent appraisal on an adjacent parcel would indicate a value of approximately $45,000 - $50,000 for the recommended parcel. In order to proceed with planning for the procurement of the MRF and the full implementation of the solid waste plan, a site for the MRF needs to be identified as soon'as- possible. There has been significant citizen involvement and considerable discussions by the governing boards regarding the facility as a key element of the county -wide solid waste management plan. ��;;', I '! 7r �i Two resolutions are provided for your consideration: • Resolution A would recommend to the governing boards the acquisition of a specific site (not currently owned by the LOG) for property on which to develop a Materials Recovery Facility, utilizing landfill reserve funds. (Specific site to be inserted into resolution depend upon final choice.) If resolution A is preferred, we would suggest that the LOG direct the staff to negotiate for a suitable parcel at the location of choice, entering into a conditional offer to purchase contract (based on a recent appraisal or other market instrument), and returning at the November LOG meeting for consideration of resolution A. At that time, the LOG would be made aware of the specific price, if negotiations were successful, for the property being recommended to the boards for purchase. • Resolution B would recommend to the governing boards that a currently owned site be utilized on which to develop a Materials Recovery Facility. _ If resolution B below is preferred, we would suggest that we immediately forward the Owners Group recommendation for governing board consideration and authorize the Chapel Hill Town Manager to begin negotiations for the single parcel to be used for the - relocated yard waste /mulch processing area (Greene tract option does not require purchase of single parcel). Additionally, while reviewing our current North Eubanks landfill site that led to our discovery of the new MRF site option, we also discovered a possible location for a transfer station, if certain other landfill operations, are relocated. This new possible transfer station site is located in the area of the county convenience center and equipment yard, to the right (east) of the scales (see attachment 1). The convenience center could be relocated across the road since the south side will be closed when the transfer facility is needed. If the LOG would like additional information on the possible new transfer station site, we could provide it at the November LOG meeting. Recommendation: That the Landfill Owners Group select a site from the above list of candidate sites, or other sites as identified, for the location of the new Orange County Materials Recovery Facility. Our revised recommendation is the North Eubanks Road site (Resolution B), which would include the acquisition of 1 parcel (7.18..27E - 3.62 acres) directly west of the North Eubanks Road landfill (Greene tract option -does not - require purchase of single parcel) . Resolution A A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL, AUTHORIZE THE USE OF LANDFILL RESERVE FUNDS TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY TO DEVELOP A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY, USING EMINENT DOMAIN AS NECESSARY. WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Board of Orange County Commissioners, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Hillsborough Town Board approved and submitted a Solid Waste Plan to the State; WHEREAS, the Solid- Waste Plan includes the development of a Materials Recovery Facility which would allow local governments to significantly expand their recycling and waste reduction programs to meet aggressive waste reduction goals; WHEREAS, the Orange County Governments have received expressions of interest from Chatham County and the City of Durham regarding shared use of a MRF in Orange County; WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Management Department has advertised for professional assistance in developing a Materials Recovery Facility procurement process including preparation of a Request for Proposals to Construct and Operate the facility; WHEREAS, the site must be designated on which to develop the facility before the procurement process can go forward; WHEREAS, planning for the facility Cannot be completed without a designated site; WHEREAS, the funds for the purchase of the property can be provided from Landfill Fund Reserve Fund for Acquisitions and Construction; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Owners Group recommends that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, authorize the acquisition of to be funded from the landfill by the Landfill Owners Group that the Board of County Commissioners, and the Chapel Hill Town Council- reserve funds. This the 12th day of November, 1998. Resolution B A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL, TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY TO DEVELOP A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Board of Orange County Commissioners, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Hillsborough Town Board approved and submitted a Solid Waste Plan to the State; WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Plan includes the development of a Materials Recovery Facility which would allow local governments to significantly expand their recycling and waste reduction programs to meet aggressive waste reduction goals; WHEREAS, the Orange County Governments have received expressions of interest from Chatham County and the City of Durham regarding shared use of a MRF in Orange County; WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Management Department has advertised for professional assistance in developing a Materials Recovery Facility procurement process including preparation of a Request for Proposals to Construct and Operate the facility; WHEREAS, the site must be designated on which to develop the facility before the procurement process can go forward; WHEREAS, planning for the facility cannot be completed without a designated site; WHEREAS, the site is currently owned by the Landfill Owners Group member governments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Landfill Owners Group that the Owners Group recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Chapel Hill Town Council authorize , as the location designated for the construction of the Material Recovery Facility. Be it further resolved that the Landfill Owners Group recommends that the boards authorize the Chapel Hill Town Manager to purchase a 3.62 acre property (7.18..27E) located directly adjacent to and west of landfill property, utilizing funds from Landfill Fund - Reserve Fund for Acquisitions and Construction. This the 8th day of October, 1998. (: / r •`' ,r/ /f I (!r f III( 111�/� ' \ '♦ `N t ` / , r / , /// ✓rte, ,. � J, . / � II 1 1 . �:. IIIi 1� I' �' J ' '1�•,�A� � ';:. ' . + �. °�^,.r,w ,�`+...._..__..._..._._....� �,.r/ / /• ! / '' // // i � �/ y { 1ti'_�.•�`� -'�. ,`v` :,,y �;,,�� \ {� \ \ {�\ ... \, �• r _....._. ~^ ,•r^ J y jrl� /!�'/rr,,..' NN Z= \ \ {``� •j`r,`:: N.,,';� .�__'L•Eq LsAroDFILt• "� • "�. r: =% :'!�!:':: % /�':'' %': y /�rr!�: ==z ��� II4\ 'I. �� \�•; �\����•� '~`11� ,!r �/ / /r! / ! /! /j /�/ /fir -- -o� ' _ •/ ^ � � rte/ / / - ....,,,,,�. ...,,•...,...._,. � .=`� ..` / 'lrlir /', !// / /rr ' 'i "'-.+. ' rr r t i l I 1 \ ,'��.' - .:.Elp_ .. /' " ' Jr I� ��/ r �� ��; ;� I111 \ � , � ��� \�'��1 •- _... �. -.-�__ - .., -�, rrr // r' / / / /// / - — _ // ,/ / /'' /�`� ~ ^a/ r� y -, � •;,// `II( \\ II III till /l I II: t ~ ,/ � !•� � / � ��1 �i�^ �r '�T1 �� :•� _.1111 i 1 (�� �_ '- - - "`r/ /i` (1% ! / / /% %i r 7j r in 1z I x}11 � �. 11 { {�\ � •. PRQd .T NO, NORTH EUBANKS LANDFILL ��i��i■I '' ` ' N.'%;�..• ' 229:48 CONCEPTUAL TRANSFER FACILITY LAYOUT DATE: 09/25/98 a 19911 Joyoa Emaho iny, Inc. Al rights re �I G- �R �`AL-� ' ' • /� J�, of �' f' BLDG. I \\ \�) �•ll i /! /ell / /! I - . '.1 . //, O ' 900 r! IY I •/ . �-- — v i .•dC p /. `�.. ". %•' � :.. 1 r�`ry��i0 ���r'-�l •� ""-iy rr' /r� f � � / / /ice �:'•4�'^ A ' ' 11/1111 /ilrrrir• +1 . ,'%Y /r%�" �• rr` !. I 111 ..••:!,ry?:••;•... �� ,=-f r. rrr ;,, r -: I ( /r 1111 /I /1 !(��r � / — /' 1i t I 1 1 (1 r�/ /Il�jlll \ • rr•'' •���" -�i {� � 1 � f! � rills {I r ; `, I� { / /rlfllrl�J1 %r � �••" _` r rI // � � {�t iii r �a1a— `li i ,/ ! j J 1 �► 1fi�Ji� 14 � � S 5��. T• � / r// 111 I II 1111/ / // I! / "-- � r,. •r:,•,�..',u.•�.;.,,,:e0 ,.;r.• /f /- fr I 11� II 111 1j14\ / J(11J111!/1 /,l/ •, /� /� /�� PRQd .T NO, NORTH EUBANKS LANDFILL ��i��i■I '' ` ' N.'%;�..• ' 229:48 CONCEPTUAL TRANSFER FACILITY LAYOUT DATE: 09/25/98 a 19911 Joyoa Emaho iny, Inc. Al rights re • ` icy��` j `i' BCr_C Af+ AGENDA #8b MEMORANDUM To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Additional C&D Disposal Options Date: December 10, 1998 For the past two years the Owners Group has been considering options for continuing the management of construction and demolition materials. Among those options has been the need for replacement disposal capacity once our existing C&D landfill reaches capacity in late 1999 or early 2000. Two public hearings and numerous board and Owners Group discussions have been held over this two year period to discuss C&D management options. Three disposal site options for C&D have evolved from' earlier investigations and have been the focus of considerable discussion by the Landfill Owners Group: * Old Hwy. 86 (Drawing #1) - 133 acres, located along the east side of Old Highway 86, north and west of Duke University property * Greene Tract (Drawing #2, inclusion of transfer station /MFZF on Neville on drawing is from previous report and should be ignored for purposes of this report) - 60 acres of the publicly owned 169 acre tract, located adjacent to the Neville Tract at the southeast corner of the South Eubanks Road landfill * Blackwood Property (Drawing #3) - a 60 -acre northern expansion of the existing C&D facility onto part of the adjacent Blackwood land and two other properties We have not included a detailed discussion-of these three options because of previous in -depth discussions (Attachment 2) and our belief that the Owners Group has a relatively thorough understanding of the issues surrounding these sites. We are prepared to provide further information as necessary regarding these three sites. Due to the lack of agreement among the Owners Group members and their respective boards regarding the above three sites, we have continued to look throughout the county for other suitable sites. We have found five additional siting options for your consideration: At the request of the Orange County Manager we have evaluated other properties adjacent to the existing landfill and as a result we have developed one potential site option. This option (Drawing 4) would utilize the western portion of the LOG owned Johnson property, the three properties directly adjacent to the Johnson property owned or optioned by Ms. Ding (about 14 acres), and a 200 foot easement (for a required buffer) located on property owned by Duke University (about 12 acres). This site would have an estimated life of about 12 -13 years; a period we would still consider temporary or interim, but would provide substantial time in which to locate a more permanent location. This site would assume that both Ms. Ding and Duke Univ. would be willing to negotiate for the sale of the needed property. Key Points - existing ground water monitoring system would provide extensive additional monitoring capability' - only one residence within proximity to site (about 600 /feet across Eubanks Road) - moderate cost for the total acreage necessary for purchase, including minimal development cost - integrates well with our other solid waste management activities on Eubanks Road relies on willingness of Ms. Ding and Duke Univ. to sell property, or on willingness of governing bodies to utilize eminent domain (eminent domain will be necessary.on single.,.:: property optioned by Ms. Ding due to difficulty of locating multiple heirs) limited capacity of 12 -13 years - would eliminate option of relocating yard waste management area to this location in the event that a MRF is sited on the existing yard waste area of the North Eubanks Road facility; no other areas exist (except the Neville.and Greene tracts) for this activity - does not provide space for expanded C&D recycling operations Note: The locations of new candidate sites CD -8, CD -12, CD -18, and CD -21 are identified on Drawing 5. Our information on these sites result from a visual characterization of the properties; subsurface investigations have not been done to determine the technical qualities of the sites. All four of the sites would would appear to provide a minimum of 40 years of capacity and significant buffer areas. This site consists of two unconnected parcels, (Drawing 6) each containing areas potentially suitable for disposal. Access would be Route 57 to Guess Road (Drawing 7). The 178 -acre property is currently on the market for $554,000 ($3,112 /acre). Key Points - about 15 miles from the current landfill - most direct haul route from southern Orange County would be through Hillsborough This site (Drawing 8) consists of 169 acres located in the northwest corner of the County, with its northern boundary being the Caswell County line. Access would be off Highway 86 (Drawing 9). The property is currently on the market for $439,400 ($2,600 /acre) . Key Points - about 20 miles from the current landfill - most direct haul route from southern Orange County would,be through Hillsborough -•. •� =Wax This site (Drawing 10) consists of 118 acres located in the western part of the County, about a mile northeast of the Town of Mebane. Access (Drawing li) would be off Exit 157 of Interstate 40/85, following Buckhorn Road to N. Frazier Road to Lebanon Road to Mill Creed Road. The property is currently on the market for $350,000 ($2,975 /acre). This site appears to be the most technically suitable of-the four remote sites discussed in this report. Key Points - most direct haul route is on the Interstate Highway to Exit 157, then three turns into site" - about 15 miles from the current landfill This site (Drawing 12) consists of 67 acres located in the northeast part of the County, north of Little River Church Road. Access (Drawing 13) would be directly off of Little River Church Road. The property is currently on the market for #320,340 ($4,750 /acre). Key Points - most direct haul route from southern Orange County is through Hillsborough - about 20 miles from the current landfill The 5-_potential C&D sites above are presented as additional possibilities for your consideration. In general, when compared with the other in- county options, these sites offer larger acreage and lower costs per acre balanced by significant increases in travel time /expense for most of the generators in Orange County of C&D wastes. Howeever, these sites offer significantly reduced travel time /expense over the existing out -of- county options. We have been recently informed that the previously discussed Holly - Springs C&D landfill will reach capacity next year. We would be pleased to provide you additional information on any of these options. Additionally, as requested at the October LOG meeting, we are including information on current C&D landfill users (Attachment 1) . Enclosures \ � \ \ \ \\ \ \ � � � /\\ � ----~| \ . / C � wr . ^/ . . � ( � ~~' � � | ~. / k � � DRAWING N[).1 ' / / / 1.4- 1 \ \ AT^ \ SCALE PROJEcT No. L 500 229.46 . .. ' \ \ . . / \\ \ � \ \ � - \ � / / / ( / . / \ \ / . . r / ' - l ` ` \ \\ / \ \ \ \ \ .\ \ / / / � .. .' � Zu/c, %�u—/ OLD HIGHWAY 86 ORANGE COUNTY' NORTH CAROLINA %Xcs SF TV P",Cvss vi&I 16 104 .00' oo 'o.rawilms 2 , N. lop: OM V. . I -k- , :229.45' oxv 1 41 ----------- LAS OPW COSCEP-T xL 01FILl- op-Tlu too. to c I-W �� 1 t North Eubanks Western Expansion Drawing 4 Propery Lire I t I 1 \ 200' Whet n9t�-� r i I 1 1 o� it &01112 ` r Y • ' � `st.`•. �t. .� � • , � � C &1N12 � .t •t��� •'• „%jam ._ � ``; � � y ' - ;� " •�' l _ ... , . � T is f �"' • ..��'', .�. •�' 1> s ...f � � �'is;� � , 1 I f:r fti ''r• � ' fix' / / t ". j311'atUUl� (. 1 . .: '+� r ,C,�`�' • :.¢;. t 'f:• • �,�,; � ��' t.�: } "�L4j� ` �� �" . �! /Fc'- % �s 'v - -4r• ) =. � (•. ,+^�3 , ' � .i a ^d � .: .. 'man •. �y .i'. � f� �,ti;• 5 � '1-` � �ii.+"�L , r , y ��Jl T7 Jit V. KU all IFIII Y CM oo L4 It LEI :4b] It"6 13 s N"P -Y 00 k1l Z— to) I'd 0-1 Vjllk- �Al RI)I Nl� A�ll mzz J1, QN .......... ,. ',� , - / %', 1�- ;=�=�; f, ?? '. c• �,C. --.;�, l r �A,'• —,. � .'-��� a w �p� : �Ir - -��.'. _ a �? - �� 1 . ��" � �!N/'T''"'a `f �. �. ' i .� �,�: �;�.( _J„.j ♦ i y - +� �: r 4. - ..1.._ •+_.. ( ll.�`�'(} �_y�`-S \j,. . \•Ni l {q ` '`� r-. \'' j4, f� \� C. �a�iv- ' •� . owl •i- (i'Trsa i\ ° t! �( .. /r•- -� esr•c_^ _ /�,.` �j � ? y � �.- ck.,, � � J(/" c �. / h rwi `/ � �¢`=Y�,A i • h 1 t� / //, /) �`• • JJ•- •'"_�V.�._ �' n �. ?�� a Lj f �' �• N' \ .'�.., 1 ° °,1+ s ;:s� rl JO y �� s C, / �1� :•w�_ i t�io-xs 4 \) r , _!,\ �- °y ° ; +.• V I1 � � •'�M �\ � � � "� _ �,� ! � • _�+a ` //''�••• � to � •A�, ny �,� � . 4 . ` c-•.1 � s filet ,t }' :�7� L!.�'��,j .��i•� � \`'�� ../"�S. -} t'vl V �' .•`�?r"` * �. tl�1ss�JJ N ~ � �vi;� \tl� �C�.rV�l,�`� "/� t -7 Jl v \l y, AC {\,/•'�/� nm °% `i �' �1 • !J 1 �/� e`�' \+) ��� \,,)x r _ ¢' r�r •,� n r ` i' �1) \"t• - N pp ,._° �""tsi t M... s �.�� bi {y .�� 1� -`� `�` r '�a ' jr �. ' j� `? {�� I'''` (iii `\ }�FL, a p � � � >�'. '•f� �� � •� � _ ( � ,j �. � � '.lip 1 �.".��•. �� � a • � -' N».^ �.` �. p I / ?`• 1:r }, l.;il t � � + .� / ��•a� {� ! � s� i 1 r. �` /q ` •.� Syr'• -.�.• r'y: .. `h ) �S,V � �,k; •,;�. ��� \ (} - • --•-'� � o.a, ► � �• ,1 0 "��ZFY'y �_,l�� �> / �•• � r a� �'' ....,�''�•.. ..r � \ � . V ` .� "riN ur /� �� '•�. }'•• '!- �l � %� (p �^�'�9 r�J `/�+• "' �✓' /"`.% aN�'�� i " ".`."i• �,:, � ' �_'`����\�`� �( D �� %�a� f�' �S +i $� 3 fi 7:.1, ..} , J �p \! � ) °)� K �f?x `°' •r�`:a�,m �,,�; N /'-• "'f �_. 1' p : -�y� - ` � \,i ��� • `{ l +•�) �.1 _;� , ,r''`��� -�� �'-' } a \0 � i.� (`. � , n ;��•' ~t d k ( `l !} • '��.� � r'� � �a° V U' ` �s } .y � f J � -J � � . . i ' � �` - �'�.�: • =.,,r 'f `t ��✓•,� y ..O L °u �� f "" ...� s � � • / / / � � W k kg. i `l l'';c, `«-J ( O , •}+h ;.. vt :i . ` }}rye�' / \ .- ..%P.- •x!.';'..f �p p49 ' Ar • 'f rl t'i l�%`�''�i Ja = CP t: .n . . • 1-. f \.r- �'i r 11, \, `! `,`1 /`fir. iQ' � � �..• t: r D ` 1 / 91 an �.� �... rK! (� ^- } � (r'�r' -• ]�_ '� ate• Cdr � rt `' pf ' -- -ter^."' a. � � ep (� t ) � \ ,\ �� _ -.. �.a".+ -.1 r';' �. ' _ ,� ,� ` �l \�,,� % e� X J-- { "may. / \ !�...'t_._ ��•ptp �1 ��n �f f � J � �,1 ' ^o �J'.� •-, `ti�� Flo � �.����1... -�� •� i. (fit ";tom ,�--� ,�A ti (��j_> \ ti�� �,�, ' �... ;� � �'��. 'R `• , tt.. �� ��� � at - 'yip I,, Ott {,•_c:Cil A --� `" {� �� � V -�''.• '. P �u .',.•� �� ` �•J � `' ���... ��(. ':i= - �. "�: rk�9��•'.•'.,�� .a--� �':.'t a � i �,��� \��o �3 J �,�`1/'\ ��� {,� �� Rs ��} 11i `' :)1j �� jar✓ � fit• _ )r (f ��' i t 'ti +,, ar f f Ir r• ` ,,1 .�,,• /.:_. (� - ,,f•: ,i;:. r . f�. , i/ � (/ �,i tl� r ^ _tom! f ',i\ ) ,i � b /+.,r".' �p' Apr^ t. , /.,•� • �� (r" I � t! _�- .:1' `+ \'_ �'• � �• ' t•i, ( N � p wewl PROSPECT ! C &D #12 HILL s3 ' 49 U I � 1 � MONK Rp 86 I d .a o I o MeruupCh IV 1 — � I. CAR ' I R D e © 1 Ago ! 0 1 0 I e ` NA I • . McDADE i Ts s. t _ oAtR Y z.l &0 •• - Q 99 CAR f CEDAR lROVE HARMONY DEER RUN Zc_ T ACRES GOVERNOR S M WARnIM I -GROVE a DI�1 ff- 1p u ' ' I 1 • _ I 1 � ARROWHEAD ' — ` 8 = HCRf -IC RIOGe� CT - no 21$ I � 4c "so'r`I GFO sGjCAL SL RVFT PRIOR a134 / I •�.... gr?• `f' / r 1 C&D • , �� {\i mil, •• �\�,� •-% �j /� i r/',,.y�, ti,� _' ' �,,"- �- •�`•y�••\, � .N '�- j i J !' -. ti 1, ' � � •`' � '�.� � . }`°6�� � ��...' _•'' '� ;�� r 7 i ,\ � �a �� \� > ` \ -`� �„� . �^ �.• i g-111 NN /VVV kv •,. '"t ,1 '� � 'd� , -.,,� /% " : ..�, -,1 ,�••�l; %ice a ' --^"`_ �:►.: , ."�� -_ .. • '� ...•- �� �yll � / /.. -��... } ..� f �r �� %�. .:.^• \ �U'• r �q5� +•� �./' `���...•.��t �y..� !r F L.� /' r' v - ��*°C' .300• ;�` 1�'`_. J�^.'.t, ( � t;;,�•, f,,-'� 1 ! '�jf i�� {� '�{ ' `� \ ` �,�• ..':'_- '' ^' °- ` °-^�." j — J4?) ' � ` / . �✓ "' ��y„C1� -,•. � •i r `S�`."•- L'8 -:i. �� � t* 7M � `nt\ .•�•if `/ � .. �$ \ _ • :.i'1;;,, • XIS 1 �� �'' ^g� � r �-• -' f`� �� �• ��� e / (I'� A(l �*� 14�,• � �' '' -r. , � • �+sas • 1 ti+ •� ��• � % -+•- �^'_.""�.e a>a =ate ...•3 \ 1 i�� 1310 • } �,� � G •` '` ham/ •Z • � �(\` ' {t / � l./ ' -� ° fir= •�,(;�,��`� ' `�\ �} � r COO�f;OrgcL+ i'f: +� 130 - • •. s'� ---�' ' ti� -- -:'tea sa'°a "''— i• g -• �.,••w�K� ' a =� �ti, _ ;�'"'; e� g��1� `--' , ffn�u�s � .. •�,ri• ��'�� '�_ =a. G`„'yejje///�^^^/ �fi f wr�, r,1 �: • d ! � ''� q ''\ _''r \ rt. ,�... v+np;� � ...'.sio � �., •� �� ��-�� -',j % . • ..� `''� ,/:' :s ifj �, `,'C l,� ._.- �,•�,—"'� 1 /�'' \'•. ;••� n� � /�'q i .nom+ .� q V � f••�L„� �: � j 1�•- -.'•.• .,% t i � ..+'� . ^•++. p9• a sc�� - ' -`..�- / �. � !( f t lr^ ! � • • - "n'•+•�+ ,../'-fig �'r � •�• \ ,'� .� � � •� .•�� ''� ` \ry '� /,y /% �7 ( / \j n • . y. it Q, �.�.\.� ._ e �I pit O », .y A Cobb cp 0 two ___ ',.�..,. ., ... .�� i Cola• ..._. • I - .r` w�Y�+ �, L. ... • Q Ocb I �°ir.r - •. " ".� i 0_ O i t 70 I m Y - :. HARMONY r e D 119 ACRES e AH RES pica ra Y { _ p Y. ON LA r HYDEAWAY FORES »s C&D##18 ` r BUCK RUN I •� pVAN N I S \ I ow �8 I FOREST PAR I t °1" 10 ACRES RD • •N N � INS � swwr I CENTERI /j ILI I I I e ' '. •I � 219 F A =STi K gll LT >R _ ° \ ER Y I LEE I \ �•• Cry y , fQJ EAST I BA i 6 ACRE `'5 _�. ..� 1 .r ,(� �� 1'' N .,I.,. �1(�(l •1 . ,/• 1 �r ..� � y �},i) �% � i.'.< , ','' t l(Ij1t , t. - -•' ,: � 1, 1 � •.� s � � ( • '!i:. I / j) � � 1 , "' _m•n ` l . �r.rs�e •� � / (./- v s �t,:'� 1 � 1� :'' � 1 ���• � I � •" ` ° �l1 �a`�° t � ` ) 1 �•i I �: :.i �` i � � (1 1 1/ .. � � I 1 z z `�� � 1 1 •y ; ,. , o, _ ` :,.1 0' �� 4 , � ../ fib,, , � ' . � I � , •) "•� �' a ' /l. I, r ( l �' , j � 1 j � ~•�z •� 11 �� ''1` r • ,'1 •,�� 1+ , I• �• b/j • I M ) @" ',\i� .i ...� . t / • 1 .. k�.tll ' _ � •� � 1 �m�= e�•ratL � \ / � 'C. 1 / ` , ' �� N •�•"� l / L1 •1 / '- i'�wa�./ ��. , ,� ,,zt ' I r i •I�I,I ,, , , �` .o•. _� `tl . ar.� " (p � �On.• � •�� /I )r 1 / / ^•' /' jl�� (. �� '� �f ( :, .\;li I, 1 i/ �II 11, 1• '� i -' ..3f". f � M (.t .'an -•zo �� , / ��:' � r �, ) rep t t r jI ` � ' s (,atf! I y ..}, s ` r +' A 1 r � ! n, (: r � 1 I �.. �.J •�""- I' ' • �` �� � ''Iv 1' � � �\ 1 /' +/y (i i � r ,' •' - lam. -''�• e 1• � „ r 1 � I / 1 J� � - �•1;1.:•j_...;" p wj \�•j .. �,1` r s Cry �- -c- a.: •t,e- % 'i1 `'� i•z 1 p ~ Ito IN lb _ i _ — • _ i, --- ,-�� :r -- ter— G' - -�' -.— � —�� v �, 1 � — i I ,`) /,•�.� + � '�.�� r, �� �; • I �� / .,�y � I/. \ ,�'t.a 1 f � � t•./ f i \,. � �� . N�.1 '' . ' . � �� ••�.� � tr r :� \1 (�',a ;„ ' 1• i 1 0) � I � 1 • rl, J /� � � `) i!; ~'-LV \l'�� '� I r ( } t � ' ; t.�� � l�_•� r ��. -,,: : J! N cs� _I� `pg�' .,1 I `�.. '•�.\' .. ' ( - / ` ^�.J e,• �. `) Q •/ \ (• 1il /� Via• r • a . p n • /.' � / pA: ra• I ) (!�„\ � \, ' � � � .1 \ p� �� � � ' •� , ' II � t , `I f" ,1 We w•I '1i t � tl.t• I ,' �,�� 1 s__o � � 1 \\ �� '•, ) I ��yf ��,•t � •�, I� ,;'(�. 1 � 1 1_ '�••'9� /�)..��1! ! /..•. '',�� •e I. '"' � .l . � (• v ,' ��„ / !'• t` } y (\ \ \\ , � �J � � J, 1.1�. , � !` —,\tCj l'� I ( � .J•;" ; . a ...).� \ ../ ' NO _ ��� 'Ve' 3U � �� `, �\...�, t',._. It.\ ') � _ Vl '1 I I � I 1' j'�� I •ti zr ' to 'ritrqg I ) p ' f N % `r, i N• ,-` •. ' // \ •I , ( � i, `'zp pi: �! .1; j •�..`. z II• I;l `. b .'�,.�.1\` r '� (I,,' I)• •Ir I. z .��1 _: �� (Ja 14�g " ; ( (• `• ' y/' .1 •�a�l � l� �-''\`."�._.� �� j f` j �-\. 1.1 1, t I �,e ( ` ( ) z •1 z� zp ! r . • . 'y � y a e / � � � �.I `'� 1_ ' •'.'�., ,1 \ \�J % r b : - 1_'`a • f ' z. 1 .. I N I�•aa.r•ar* ;`.d�_ -.�+ .•1 �.,�A� � <.ierm �'��' �` \�/1�'• r (,�•�� •- ) 1•i• 's 'I •� (L '4`� zs \�,� () �)1 �:IAI� i 1 f /• t 1 o p' ) \' _ •rt n / /'l -{ J! j \v� y - p "\ $ zs$a:'t n ` ) •) _ � e"p' � 4'% ���'�'� /J,`,J�\J�N. ^��/ �••;.•`.., �_,\.. � I � •`••r r� /' ' \ . �9� 1. a 1 '�K t :/ ( / if . p •� / ) �,y \ ��, (. ��L X3.0 •x'•11.• /.�;7 �- � • ) , `•' � � ' r• 1 �/ � 1 1 S ') 1(1' ; (v /iY�. • �• , \ � ��� ` 6\ \ �'� �, ��:�. "y:� s •vz f I!' 11. z � ; y ,I •� j 1 •- r '� I �� I+ / {�'`t! /'�`z/ ,.a ��1,��', 1� I\ \. 1 {• ,p, ( ,,..•zz I, � I _ u V$ ` u \ �. 157 '• g � r.raw 3 ! �J MD (Y / t ° ' I 222 UWE RTORE RD- I - ' 157 . , - C &D #21 i ca,LDw- RD YW Im _ j •, Y _ ►..:. ._.. - RR/ER CHURCH _ _MUAR � -- RD II «tE Rp, eR LITTLE' —GEORGE AcR J OK E Csi __. SPRING CREST MEADOWS _ or 00 THOMAS K BACON JR O rn.re u PL" SCHL RCR{EY ,. r 57 223 R "LEY A O .4 �` •` � � 221=i .f •• i t Mkt ` 4w e14 -�- / To: Gavle Wilson From: Edward Pullan Date: June 29, 1998 Re: C&D Tickets from May 1998; and Construction and Demolition Waste Survey C &D Tickets from May.1998 A preliminary review of the C&D deliveries for the month of May, 1998 show that there had been 2,089 C&D deliveries to the landfill during the calendar month, the majority of those coming from smaller loads. Of 2,089 total C&D deliveries; 1,255 (60.1 %) were less than one -ton. In terms of the number of customers potentially impacted: 116 different landfill customers delivered C&D waste to the landfill during the month and 80 (69.0 0/6) has deliveries of 1-ton or less. The greatest number of small loads were received, not unexpectedly, from "Miscellaneous Cash Customer" and "Orange County." . Customer (Cult. Total Loads Less than 1 -ton Misc. Cash Customers (044) 908 662 (72.9 %) . Orange County (107) — .. 325 286 (88.0 %) . Other landfill accounts that appear likely to deliver smaller C&D loads include public agencies and smaller non- pr ofit organizations: -r ....... �.. - . . Customer (Cast. #fl Total Loads Less than 1-40n, Town of Chapel Hill '' 62 59 (95.2 %) Carrboro 21 12(57.1%) UNC and Hospital 42 19 (45.2 %) CH- Carrboro YMCA 4 4(100%) PTA Thrift Shop 5 4 (80.0 %) It would appear that the absence of a "local' C&D disposal facility would most heavily impact customers with smaller loads of C&D waste to dispose of, as the additional cost and distance to transport that waste to a distant facility would be most burdensome and add to their costs of oper4tions. Construction and Demolition Waste Survev A survey of all in- coming loads of C&D waste was conducted at the landfill between Friday and Tuesday (June 26'` to 30t'), consisting of the questions and possible responses outlined below. The responses to each question have been tabulated to show the raw number of each type of response and the percentage of particular responses to each question. -page 2 uestion 1: What is the origin of this load? In addition to these questions, the survey allowed the respondent to provide any additional information which they cared to, or to clarify their response of "other" concerning what would they do if there were no C8 D landfill within Orange County. In re<zewing those free -form responses, they were grouped into the categories shown below, with the number of responses and percentage of those providing comments shown for each. Other # of Response Responses it of Response Percentage Responses: remodeling a fisting home 82 37.27% 19.42 new home construction 23 10.45 Rent dumpsters / have someone else haul it General residentail cleanup 77 35.00 12 Commercial contractor, small 16 7.27 6.80 Commercial contractor, large 8 3.6`1' Other 14 6.36 Total 220 99.99 Question 2: Estimated Number of Annual Trips to this Landfill? (Responses were permitted in an open format, but for convenience of tabulation, the responses have been'grouped into the following categories.) Responses it of Response Percentage . - -- Responses: 1 to 2 41 18.64% 3 to 5 25 11.36 6 to 10 25 11.36 11 to 20 25 11.36 21 to 50 - 42 19.09 51 to 100 :. 25 11.36 , 101 + . 37 16.82 Totals 220 99.99% estion 3: What would hauler do if there were no C &D landfill in Orange County and the nearest permitted facility was 35 miles away? Responses 9 of Response Percentage Responses: drive to adjacent county 99 45.00 don't know 35 15.91 other 86 39.09 Totals 220 100.00% . .- .. In addition to these questions, the survey allowed the respondent to provide any additional information which they cared to, or to clarify their response of "other" concerning what would they do if there were no C8 D landfill within Orange County. In re<zewing those free -form responses, they were grouped into the categories shown below, with the number of responses and percentage of those providing comments shown for each. Other # of Response Percentage Responses: Bum it 23 22.33% Dump it (illegal) '20 19.42 Bury/Dump it on property 7 6.80 Rent dumpsters / have someone else haul it 12 11.65 Stop hauling / Go out of Business 12 11.65 increase prices / pass it along 7 6.80 lalsIgs Bocr Y0,L�<-=S101n A�ewdo- *$z sc., A441 -r MEMORANDUM TO: Alternative Finance Committee FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director SUBJECT: Availability Fees and other Financing Mechanisms DATE: November 24, 1998 This report and accompanying tables and graphs are intended to answer questions raised at the Alternative Finance Committee meeting on October 20. BACKGROUND The objectives in the creation of the Alternative Finance Committee were to examine the need for additional funding sources to provide for the expansion of recycling programs called for in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, to examine the risks inherent in the current funding scheme which relies solely on tipping fee revenues, and the inequities in the current funding scheme. Excerpts from HDR's report "Alternative Financing Strategies for Solid Waste Management Programs, Final Report" include the following: • LOG program funding needs will increase substantially in future years, as new programs are implemented to reach the 61% waste reduction/recycling goal adopted in the Solid Waste Management Plan. • A number of local governments in North Carolina have implemented "Availability Fees" to pay for solid waste disposal facilities as well as waste reduction and recycling programs. • The LOG should consider the use of Availability Fees to fund current and/or future LOG waste reduction and recycling programs. During the Committee's discussion of the consultant's report, the following questions were raised. 1. If only tipping fee revenues were used to finance solid waste management activities, what would the tipping fees needs to be, and what would be the impact on property taxes? 2. What would be the impact on property taxes if the full costs were covered directly by property taxes? 3. What are the issues raised by each jurisdiction establishing, implementing and administering its own fees? 4. What are the issues raised by non -taxed properties? 2 The committee also asked to reconsider the elements of the Solid Waste Management Plan. That Discussion is not included in this report. DISCUSSION Graph 1 identifies the total revenue requirements for each year to finance implementation of the SWMP and the corresponding "stabilized" availability fee that has been recommended for that year. ( "Stabilized" fees have been adjusted so that they do not rise and fall steeply from year to year; i.e., the fees in one year may be set slightly higher than needed that year to offset the relatively high needs projected for the following year.) In each of the different scenarios presented here, we have assumed that the same amount of revenue needs to be raised, because the costs of implementing the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) do not change. We have presented the projected cost to the average homeowner of each scenario for comparison. For this purpose, we have defined the "average homeowner" as the owner of a home assessed for tax purposes at $140,000. Graph 2 displays the cost to the average homeowner of each option for raising the additional revenue. I. - Tinning Fee Increases needed if only tipping fee revenue were used. Table 1 shows tipping fee revenues as they would be to fully fund solid waste management activities, assuming: • no change in the relative tonnage delivered to the landfill from current waste generators; • a modest increase in waste generated (1/2 %) annually; and • impact of the projected effects of waste reduction and recycling programs during each year of the forecast. Table 1 also makes an estimate of the impact on the property tax rate in each jurisdiction, assuming that would be the method to finance this increased tipping fees. We believe that the private waste haulers, who now represent 49% of all waste deposited at the Orange Regional Landfill, will not continue to take their waste to our landfill if the tipping fees there are significantly higher than those of other facilities. While the local governments can agree among themselves to take all of their waste to the Orange facility, it has been ruled unconstitutional for a government to require waste haulers to use a particular facility. Table 2 is an attempt to assess the effects of diminishing in -bound tonnage from private haulers and generators due to the effect of the tipping fee increases necessary to pay for all future waste reduction program enhancements. In Table 2, we examined the possibility that private waste haulers would have the economic incentive to use alternate disposal facilities, because the differential in tipping fees between the Orange Regional Landfill and the alternate site would more than compensate the hauler for the costs of transporting the waste further. The alternate disposal facilities considered in Table 2 are 3 the Waste Management transfer station of Wake County (near RDU Airport, 23 miles away) and the Republic Industries landfill located in Person County (east of Roxboro, 49 miles away). Table 2 addresses the possible diversion of waste to both of these facilities. We have used the general rule recommended by HDR, Inc. to project at which point a private waste hauler or generator would decide to use a more distant facility with a lower tipping fee: every additional $1.50 disparity in tipping fee between the Orange Regional Landfill and another landfill would justify a private hauler transporting his waste an additional 1 mile. To explain this method of analysis through an example, we consider below a scenario where a front - loading refuse truck, with a payload of 10.5 tons is travelling to the Waste Management transfer station near the RDU Airport, 23 miles distant from the Orange County Landfill. Description 1) The "per mile" differential times 2) additional distance to alternate disposal .facility divided by 3) truck payload (in tons) Formula $1.50 times (one -way distance x 2) divided by truck payload In summary, $1.50 x 46 miles = 69 and 69 divided by 10.5 tons = $6.57. Example $1.50 times (23 mi. x 2 = 46 mi.) divided by 10.5 tons $6.57 This example suggests that, if the Orange Regional Landfill tipping fee were at least $6.57 greater than the fee of the Waste Management transfer station near RDU, a waste hauler would probably haul the waste to the more distant disposal facility, because the savings in tipping fees would compensate for the increased transportation costs. In each of those scenarios the added travelling distance to the alternate disposal facility, measured from the Orange Regional Landfill, and the projected tipping fee differential data are used to project what size payload would provide the economic incentive to use the alternate facility. We have examined the MSW loads delivered to the Orange Regional Landfill from private haulers during October, 1998 to determine the range of waste payloads used, so we could estimate the number of tons that would be diverted to each facility. The estimated loss of MSW tonnage and tipping fee revenue to the Orange Regional Landfill due to diversion of that waste to alternate disposal sites would need to be accommodated by an increase in the tipping fees already projected. Further revising the tipping fee upward to accommodate that loss of revenue would drive additional tonnage from the landfill, because ►1 more haulers would have the incentive to use an alternate site: thus, a spiral of increasing tipping fees and lost tonnage would continue to feed upon itself. Table 2 estimates the loss of tonnage and tipping fee revenue each year, if the tipping fee were revised to provide the revenue necessary to implement the SWMP; it does not attempt to project the rest of the spiral of continued diversion. Table 2 also shows what the tipping fees would need to be, assuming the first wave of diversion, to finance the Solid Waste Management Plan. Raising the necessary revenue for the SWMP implementation solely through the increase in tipping fees was initially considered untenable by the Landfill Owners Group and was the basis for the formation of the Alternative Finance Committee to study other options. Points for Discussion • If the jurisdictions continue to fund the full cost of tipping fees through property taxes, then the system will continue to lose any potential revenue from tax - exempt properties which are receiving waste reduction services. • The increase in the cost to the local governments of the higher tipping fees would be the equivalent of the following in terms of pennies on the tax rate for FY 1999 -2000. 1. Carrboro 2. Chapel Hill 3. Hillsborough 4. Orange County Assuming no loss of tonnage Assuming loss of tonnage $0.02048 $0.04331 0.01972 0.04170 0.03983 0.00416 0.08401 0.00880 • One difficulty revealed through this mechanism is that each jurisdiction will adjust its own tax rates to fund the increased tipping fees. Orange County would be spreading its increased tipping fee cost over a tax base that encompasses both . the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Thus, residents of incorporated Carrboro, Hillsborough and Chapel Hill would be paying twice, through their county taxes and through their municipal taxes. This situation exists now. • Through their tipping fees, privatelcommercial haulers now contribute to the cost of waste reduction programs.. But, when tipping fees rise high enough for commercial waste to be diverted to other disposal facilities, then individual taxpayers would be subsidizing the costs for commercial waste reduction and recycling programs. H. - Property taxes as sole source of fmancine. The Committee asked what the impact on property taxes would be if that were the sole support of the Solid Waste Management Plan implementation. Because the plan was developed as a unified countywide plan we have assumed that the question refers to the impact on Orange County taxes. In this way, all Orange County residents would be charged for solid waste 5 management on the same basis, and would be charged only once. (If municipal taxes were used along with County taxes, municipal residents would pay twice.) The means of implementing the SWMP from revenues raised through property taxes presented in Table 3, assumes that the Orange County property tax rate would be increased to raise the additional revenue. The assumptions made in Table 3 show the FY 1998 -99 Countywide property tax base of $6,009,267,349. The revenue required in each year of the forecast is the same as that presented in previous models, and the property tax base against which an assessment would be placed is assumed to increase at 1.5% per year. Points for Discussion • The SWMP funds would not have the financial support of tax- exempt properties which could receive waste reduction services, allowing tax- exempt properties to be subsidized by other sectors. • By raising the necessary revenue through property taxes, undeveloped properties not receiving any services under the SWMP would be subsidizing those properties receiving services. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the largest tax exempt property owner. It currently funds its own recycling and waste reduction programs. • Among the alternatives considered here, this would be the easiest one to administer. • Increasing property tax rate to fund implementation of the SWMP would make this increased cost to the property owner tax deductible, whereas the Availability Fee would not be tax deductible. M. - Each Jurisdiction establishes, implements and collects its own fees. This approach would provide for the greatest degree of autonomy in allowing each jurisdiction to provide the additional necessary funds for the recycling program expansion by whatever method each thinks most appropriate. It is also inconsistent with the notion of a unified and integrated plan for all jurisdictions of Orange County. Table 4 displays the additional sum that would be required of each community during FY 1998- 99. Table 4a. specifies the additional sums needed from each community through the remaining years of this forecast, based on the same calculation method established in Table 4. The figures were derived from examining the costs attributable to each property in the jurisdiction based on the type of services received, and the number of each type of property in that jurisdiction. Points for Discussion. • Contrary to the notion of an integrated Solid Waste Management system. C1 • Over time, this method could result in individual jurisdictions, in order to reduce their obligation, trying to negotiate reductions in services which would impact other components of the Solid Waste system and potentially reduce the achievable solid waste reduction goals. IV. - Availability Fee. The use of an Availability Fee makes a direct connection between the level of service provided or available to various waste generators and the cost that is assessed against them for that service. The HDR report of October 20, 1998, titled "Alternative Financing Strategies for Solid Waste Management Programs, Final Report", provides further information about availability fees, and the staff memorandum of October 20th to the Committee, reviews how the concept would translate to specific prices in Orange County. Table 5 shows for each year of the forecast period, the recommended levels of Availability Fees, the user base (current and projected number of beneficiaries) in each sector, and the total revenue generated by each sector and total aggregate revenue. These availability fees would generate the revenue required to fund the solid waste system cost not covered by tipping fees, including the costs associated with the SWMP, and the level of funding that must be matched by any other revenue tool that is being considered. Throughout the analysis presented here, the "stabilized" availability fee is used as the benchmark for the revenue requirements of the waste reduction programs. The Availability Fee is shown in both the "actual" and "stabilized" form. The "stabilized' fee has been modified to reduce the volatility from year to year. By charging a little more in a year in which revenue needs are lower, it is possible to charge a little less in a year when revenue needs are higher, easing both budgeting and public acceptance.. Graph 1 displays both the total "actual" and total "stabilized" availability fees over time to show the effect of fee leveling from year to year. Groh 2 examines the effect of the various funding scenarios discussed here on the average residential property owner (assessed value $140,000). In that graph, the majority of the difference between the "Availability Fee" (top line) and the "County Tax Rate" (2" line), is explained by the fact that the county tax rate would apply to non- developed properties, which comprise nearly -7.5% of the total tax base, but which do not receive service under the SWMP. This inclusion of undeveloped properties would lower the assessment against other beneficiaries. Points for Discussion • Because an Availability Fee relates to the level of services or benefits received, revenues to support the SWMP are provided without consideration of "ability to pay;" therefore, waste reduction and recycling services are addressed as any other utility service might be. . • Availability Fees, unlike local taxes, are not deductible for purposes of federal income taxes. V. - Issues Related to Tax - exempt Properties. If the Alternative Finance Committee were to recommend implementation of the Availability Fee, the fee would also include an assessment against tax- exempt, developed properties within Orange County. Because these properties are exempt from property taxes, the Orange County Assessor does not have the requisite information on these properties for the needs of this study. It would be necessary to conduct a field survey of tax- exempt properties to determine which of those sites are developed and into what tier of the commercial properties' price structure each should be placed. The inclusion of developed, tax- exempt properties would serve to lower the availability fee levied against commercial and residential properties, but the amount of the lower assessment cannot be established without first determining which of the tax- exempt properties would be subject to an Availability Fee assessment. A review of the owners of record of these tax- exempt properties reveals that of the total 1,630 tax- exempt properties, 1,118 (or 68.6 %) are held by various local, state or national governmental agencies, the University of North Carolina or Duke University. VI. - Solid Waste Management Plan. The implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan is intended to reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. This reduction would reduce the waste disposal costs to the various communities, and might also reduce the waste collection costs as well. Waste disposal cost savings can be more readily estimated. based on per household generation rates and the tonnage records from the last few years. Table 6 displays: • C &D and MSW waste tonnage estimates under the proposed SWMP compared with a recycling program which remains static (based on the FY 1998 program) throughout the forecast period; • the level of waste reduction which each jurisdiction might anticipate through implementation of the SWMP; and • estimated cost savings in tipping fees to each jurisdiction. Estimates of the potential for savings in waste collection are far more arguable, because there is no ready way to estimate savings from the several possible modifications in waste collection methods: re- routing of collections, reduced collection crew size, reduced collection frequency, etc. There is anecdotal evidence from several solid waste collection programs that there might be ample opportunity for cost - savings, such as commercial waste dumpsters which are collected twice each week but are nearly half- empty. However, no attempt has been made to estimate potential collection cost savings through the implementation of the SWMP. N. CONCLUSIONS Without modification of the Solid Waste Management Plan and its implementation schedule, any financing mechanism would be required to raise between $1.8 and $3.8 million each year for the next decade to supplement the revenue of the present landfill tipping fees. The financing options considered above vary most significantly in which portions of the community may subsidize other portions. For example, the use of the tax rate would allow tax- exempt properties to be subsidized by others. The tipping fee may require subsidy by waste generators that do not receive recycling and waste reduction services. The use of an availability fee may be set to include or exclude tax- exempt properties and/or undeveloped properties. Graph 2 suggests that the Availability Fee and an added assessment on the Orange County tax rate would be the most efficient means to finance the SWMP; that is, the impact on the average homeowner is the least. We believe that the Availability Fee provides greater flexibility in setting charges against businesses and multi- family developments of varying sizes, while use of the County Tax Rate would provide a level of administrative ease. SWMP Funded through MSW 1 $60.031 $64.62 $69.391 $76.381 $87.161 $93.631 $98.011 $102.33 S116-391 111 Q nni 5121.33 C &D 1 $60.031 $64.621 $69.391 $76.381 $87.161 $93.63 $98.011 $102.331 $105.391 $108.001 $110.33 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 1 2005 -06 1 2006 -07 1 2007 -08 1 2008 -09 Oranee Countv Tax Base $6,009,267,349 $6,099,406,359 $6,190,897,455 56,283,760,916 $6.378.017.3301 $6,473,687,590 $6,570,792,904 $6,669,354,798 $6,769,395,120 56,870,936,046 $6,974,000,087 Increase in Tax Rate $0.00377 $0.004161 $0.004581 WOMI $0.005161 $0.005651 $0.005871 $0.00608 $0.00612 $0.00612 $0.00608 Average Homeowner Impact $5.271 $5.881 $6.531 $7.101 $7.521 $8.311 $8.721 $9.121 $9.28 $9.37 $9.40 Carrboro Tax Base 1 $772,100,9531 $783,682,4671 $795.437,7041 $807.369.2701 $819.479.8091 N31.772.0061 $844.248.5861 $856,912,315 $869,766,000 5882,812,490 $896,054,677 Increase in Tax Rate $0.01855 $0.02048 $0.02253 $0.02410 $0.02488 50.02722 $0.02827 50.02925 $0.02947 $0.019431 $0.02924 Average Homeowner Impact $25.971 $28.96 $32.181 $34.761 $36.241 $40.05 $42.01 $43.90 $44.681 $45.071 $45.21 • Hillsboron h Tax Base $267,601,3391 $271,615,3591 $275,689,5891 $279,824,933 $284,022,3071 $288.282.6421 $292.606.8821 $296,995,985 5301,450,925 $305,972,688 5310,562,279 Increase in Tax Rate $0.03607 $0.03983 50.04381 $0.04680 $0.04814 $0.05267 $0.05470 $0.05659 $0.05702 $ 0.05694 $0.05656 Average Homeowner Impact 50.50 $56.2 62.56 67.50 $70.13 $77.50 81.29 84.94 $86.44 87.19 87.46 Chanel Hill Tax Base $2,480,839,996 $2,518,052,596 $2,555,823,385 $2,594,160,736 $2,633,073,147 $2,672,569,244 $2,712;657,783 $2,753,347,649 $2,794,647,864 S2, 836,567,582 $2,879,116,096 Increase in Tax Rate $0.01786 $0.01972 $0.02169 $0.02325 $0.02413 $0.02641 $0.02743 $0.02838 $0.028601 50.02838 Average Homeowner Impact $25.00 $27.88 $30.98 $33.54 $35.16 Non- Governmental $38.86 $40.76 $42.60 $43.361 $43.89 MSW Tonnage 16,346 16,388 16,451 15,083 12,381 12,403 12,424 12,445': 12,466 12,487 12,508 C&D Tonnage 26,268 26,400 26,532 26,664 26,798 26,932 27,066 27,201 27,338 27,474 27,612 Total Added Cost $938,696 $1,053,604 $1,177,137 $1,351,730 $1,612,575 $1,794,841 $1,896,024 $1,995,541 $2,045,521 $2,078,019 $2,099,625 Total MSW Tonn a 55,883 56,028 56,242 51,566 42,328 42,401 42,474 42,547 42,619 42,690 42,762 Total C &D Tonnage 28,000 28,140 28,281 28,422 28,564 28,707 28,851 ' 289995 29,140 29,285 29,432 Totall MSW+CD Tormagge 83,883 84,1681 84,5221 79,9881 70,8921 71,1081 71,325 71,541 719758 71,976 72,194 Total Add'l Cost $1,847,746 $2,072,527 $2,314,761 $2,589,904 $2,917,888 $3,244,715 $3,424,484 $3,600,9021 $3,6879676 $3.742,7911 $3,778,189 Assumptions for Table 1. 1) The total tonnage of waste would vary according to forecasts of waste generation rates and the effects pf the enhanced recycling program; 2) the relative percemage of waste generated by each jurisdiction and private haulers would remain constant based on tonnage generation in FY 1997 -98; 3) the tax base in each jurisdiction wil increase by 1- percent per year during the forecast period; and 4) the tax cost increase to the "average" homeowner is based on a developed residential property which is currently assessed at $140,000 (source: Orange County Tax Assessor). Revised: 11/19/98 - 3:11 PM S WMP Funding Options Avail_Fee_Est / TaxOptions $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 b d d z. a' $2,000,000 9' v a $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Total Revenue Needs 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 Fiscal Year of Analysis —* —Total Revenue Requicen mts —M —Total "Stabilized" Fee Revised: 11/19/98 — 3:11 PM SWMP Fending Options Avail_Fee_Est / TaxOptions Prevailing Tip Fee $39.95 $41.15 $42.38 $43.65 $44.96 $46.31 $47.70 $49.13 $50.61 $52.13 $53.69 Orange LF ri Fee $60.03 $64.62 $69.39 $76.38 $87.16 $93.63 $98.01 $102.33 $116.39 $119.00 $121.33 Actual Tip Fee Differential $20.08 $23.48 $27.00 $32.72 $42.20 $47.32 $50.31 $53.20 $65.78 $66.87 $67.64 Justifies Using new facility for loads larger than: 3.44 3.03 2.71 2.30 1.84 1.69 1.64 1.60 1.33 1.35 1.37 Projected Tonnage Loss ' 15,646 16,264 16,576 16,842 17,039 17,060 17,079 17,079 17,279 17,279 17,263 Projected Revenue Loss' $939,177 $1,051,0161 $1,150,1531 $1,286,3781 $1,485,0801 $1,597,2961 $1,674,0041 $1,747,7971 $2,011,1101 $2,056,2171 $2,094,556 Re ublic Industries Landrdt Person Count Fiscal Year 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 1 2002-03 1 2003 -04 1 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Footnote: Calculations on the loss of overall tonnage and revenue, and its impact on the tipping fee assumes that waste diversion will be evenly divided between these two alternative disposal facilities. Revised: 11/19/98 - 4:50 PM SWMP Funding Options Avail Fee_Est / TaxOptions Taxes Revised 11/19/98 — 3:14 PM SWMP Funding Options Avail_Fee_Est / Taxpptions Table 4a. Pro ected Cha to Jurisdiction FY 1998 -2009 Jurisdiction 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Orange Count $590,420 $678,405 $767,255 $872,073 $982,470 $1,080,680 $1,163,906 $1,219,135 $1,236,590 $1,248,133 $1,255,005 Carrboro $329,264 $361,332 $397,312 $437,260 $489,497 $543,732 $563,761 $589,169 $603,120 $612,646 $621,175 Hillsborough $140,793 $158,245 $177,427 $198,363 $225,097 $253,806 $269,459 $288,590 $299,904 $306,084 $308,245 Chapel HM $787,269 $873,058 $969,400 $1,076,448 $1,212,187 $1,354,680 $1,412,168 $1,485,637 $1,526,935 $1,552,010 $1,567,023 Totals $1,847,746 $2,071,040 $2,311,394 $2,584,144 $2,909,251 $3,232,8981 $3,409,2951 $3,582,5301 $37666,548 $3,718,873 $3,751,448 Revised: 11/19/98 - 3:14 PM SWMP Funding Options Avail_Fee Est / Taxoptions Total tab z Fee $266,000.001 $280,696.501 $295,533.321 $310,511.481 $339,200.041 $368,167.72 $383,712.581 $399,403.691 WU,321.4 11 ml- 1,31x.32 s4sssa�.tra Total 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 User Base 1,06UI 1,U631 1,071 1,076 1,081 1,087 1,0341 1,0391 ,044 1,0441- 1,0501 1,0551 To Stab ize Fee $310,200.00 $ 363,709.50 $417,746.34 $472,314.46 $548,514.52 $636,065.88 $724,479.03 $824,467.80 $887,775.14 $919,250.81 $923,847.06 Total "Actual Fee URBAN CURBSIDE $542,464.22 $558,820.721 $633,017.12 $1,256,243.38 $1,264,587.19 $1,268,253.51 $1,133,638.15 $1,308,663.20 $1,120,071.91 $1,141,268.95 $1,155,846.46 RURAL CURBSIDE $207,435.78 $213,742.45 $278,445.04 $1,008,469.40 $1,119,131.93 $1,119,281.53 $977,448.60 $1,152,864.82 $954,311.23 $971,169.58 $980,991.15 MULTIFAMILY $236,700.00 $243,801.75 $251,634.501 $285,591.20 $341,014.18 $350,935.07 $359,903.70 $371,974.41 $381,075.77 $392,396.01 $403,990.32 COMMERCIAL $99,009.001 $272,815.51 $272,736.441 $477,848.94 $646,834.55 $730,132.70 $736,968.00 $765,354.81 $771,074.13 $795,743.86 $826,248.61 18.75% 11.38% 110.90% 11.34% 2.88% -7.51% 12.19% - 10.35% 1.29% 1 2.01% Percent Increase n/a Total "Stabilized" Fee URBAN CURBSIDE $751,026.00 $828,779.281 $922,164.95 $1,031,411.74 $1,156,750.69 $1,283,317.25 $1,289,733.83 $1,311,431.71 $1,317,988.87 $1,324,578.81 51,331,201.70 RURAL CURBSIDE $520,520.00 $599,341.601 $679,316.241 $775,665.93 $873,422.65 $957,163.97 $1,026,558.35 $1,065,598.68 $1,073,590.67 $1,081,642.60 $1,089,754.92 MULTIFAMILY $266,000.00 $280,696.50 $295,533.321 $310,511.48 $339,200.04 $368,167.72 $383,712.58 $399,403.69 $408 ,321.41 $417,318.32 $433,385.08 COMMERCIAL $310,200.00 $ 363 ,709.50 $417,746.34 $472,314.46 $548,514.52 $636,065.88 $724,479.03 $824,467.80 $887,775.14 $919,250.81 $923,847.06 11.89% 12.66% 11.20% 5.54% 5.15% 2.41% 1.49% 0.95% Percent Increase n/a 12.17% 11.69% Total Revenue R ui $1,085,609.00 $1,289,180.42 $1,435,833.10 $3,028,152.93 $3,371,567.85 $3,468,602.81 $3,207,958.45 $3,598,857.24 $3,226,533.05 $3,300,578.40 $3,367,076.55 Total 1 $1,847,746.00 $2,072,526.88 $2,314,760.85 $2,589,903.61 $2,917,887.91 1 $3,244,714.81 $3,424,483.80 $3,600,901.87 n weer_ $3,687,676.09 o 12na_ $3,742,790.54 o ma. $3,778,188.76 a 2raL Contingency Percentage Revised: 11/19/98 — 3:11 PM 7U.2U9b oD.U59b OJ.00ao 47A"w — ..- SWMP Funding Options Avail_Fee_Est /TaxOptions Graph 2. SWAP Implementation Funding Options, Impact on Average Homeowner $14000 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006.07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Tip Fee, tax equivalent (assumes loss of tonnage) $53.20 $58.66 $68.96 $90.19 ' $98.13 $102.79 �$ $117.12 $118.73 $119.92 Availability Fee (stabilized) P$22.03 9 $62.00 $69.00 $77.00 $85.00 $85.00 d $86.00 $86.00 $86.00 Coup Tax Rate 8 $52.88 $58.58 $65.35 $71.96 $75.20 $78.30 $79.40 $79.80 8 ip Fee, tax equivalent (assume n loss of tonnage) $24.62 $27.39 $32.38 .5 $45.63 $48.01 F $51.39 $52.00 $52.33 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000-01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 200405 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Fiscal Year of Implementation -:- Tip Fee, tax equivalent (assumes loss of tonnage) - 0 Availability Fee (stabilized) --*-County Tax Rate --t -Tip Fee, tax equivalent (assume no loss of tonnage) $120.00 100.00 . $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 Average Homeowner Comparison 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006.07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Tip Fee, tax equivalent (assumes loss of tonnage) $53.20 $58.66 $68.96 $90.19 ' $98.13 $102.79 $107.18 $117.12 $118.73 $119.92 Availability Fee (stabilized) P$22.03 Average Homeowner Comparison 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006.07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Tip Fee, tax equivalent (assumes loss of tonnage) $53.20 $58.66 $68.96 $90.19 ' $98.13 $102.79 $107.18 $117.12 $118.73 $119.92 Availability Fee (stabilized) P$22.03 $56.00 $62.00 $69.00 $77.00 $85.00 $85.00 $86.00 $86.00 $86.00 $86.00 Coup Tax Rate $47.81 $52.88 $58.58 $65.35 $71.96 $75.20 $78.30 $79.40 $79.80 $79.76 ip Fee, tax equivalent (assume n loss of tonnage) $24.62 $27.39 $32.38 $41.16 $45.63 $48.01 $50.33 $51.39 $52.00 $52.33 Fiscal Year 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 200405 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 ;gected SWMP Tonnage 83,8831 84,1681 522 79,9881 70,8921 71,1081 71,3251 71,541 71,758 71,976 72,194 —I OA vee I oc IA'71 Rc q7*11 R6 not I RI; All I R6R631 87.2971 87.7341 88,173 nrusooroa n Tonne a Reduction 0 11 16 404 1,148 1,165 1,182 1,198 1,215 1,233 1,250 Total SWMPSavings $0 $421 $661 $17,755 $52,819 $55,9.11 $59,076 $62,316 $78,999 $82,578 $86,235 Ratable Tax Base 267,601,339 271,615,359 275,689,589 279,824,933 284,022,307 288,282,642 292,606,882 296,995,985 301,450,925 305,972,688 310,562,279 Increase in Tax Rate $0.00000 $0.00016 $0.00024 $0.00635 $0.01860 $0.01939 $0.02019 $0.02098 $0.02621 $0.02699 $0.02777 Average Homeowner Impact $0.000 $0.219 $0.342 $9.152 $27.092 $28.537 $30.004 $31.494 $39.729 $41.324 $42.941 uee: Ratable Tax Base per jurisdiction is supplied by Orange County Tax Assessor sumption: growth in all ratable tax bases is 1.5% per year acre: Average value of individual residential property supplied by Orange County Tax Asessor. 1 Revised: 11/19/98 – 4:35 PM Avail–Fee–Est / SWMP Town of Chapel Hill Fax:919- 967 -8406 Dec 8 '98 1456 P.01/05 G� 0 R TOWN OF ( Post -WO brand fax transmittal memo 7671 +� of v ■s■s lo . Te / GK `--�f Rren► Co. Co. Fax M / [ i U C)o �- Fax N 306 NoRni COLumb'A a 1 K=A CHAPEL BILL, NoRTH CAROLINA 27516 Or.FLCE OP THE MAYOR December 8,1998 Margaret Brown., Chair Board of Orange County Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Margaret: (919j968 -2714 FAX (919) 967 -8406 I. write to forward to you and the Board the resolution adopted last night by the Chapel Hill Town Council regarding the management of solid wasteiin orange County. I also want to express the appreciation of the 'Town Council for the willingness of the Board of Orange County Commissioners to assume the governance of solid waste management in Orange County. As you can see from the resolution, there are a number of concerns, which the Council wanted to transmit to the Board. Important among them is the Council's condition that the Greene tract not be used for the burial of construction and demolition (C & D) waste. The Council, however, strongly recommends that a C & D facility be identified soon and put into operation, both to meet the needs of our citizens, and to provide significant revenue to support recycling programs. The Council also strongly urges that a transfer station and a materials recovery facility be located near the municipalities so that hauling costs may be kept reasonable. In fact, we endorse the site near the landfill that our staff has identified. Finally, I.would emphasize our objection to any condemnation of properties owned by Mrs. Blackwood and Mrs. Nunn. This resolution does not address community benefit issues, because we believe that these matters are separate from governance and will be address by a special committee which we understand will meet on December 14. We in Orange County have been discussing this topic for several. years. Now that there are replies to the proposal of the County Commissioners from both Carrboro and Chapel Hill, I hope that we will begin to take the final practical steps needed to transfer the full responsibility and authority to the County for this very important area of public service. Town of Chapel Hill Fax:919 -967 -8406 Dec 8 '98 14 :57 P.02/05 Page 2. All of the governments in the county have adopted very ambitious waste reduction goals, as well as a solid waste management plan designed to help us meet those goals. The interlocal agreement referenced in the Council's resolution and, I believe, contemplated by the other local governments, is based on implementing that plan. With this work in place; I have every confidence that the Board of Commissioners will lead the entire county toward: the most efficient and effective management of solid:waste possible. I will wait to hear from you regarding the next steps needed to effect the transition. Sincerely, ?/0 sc4 Rosemary Waldorf Mayor cc: Chapel Hill Town Council Mayor Horace Johnson Mayor Michael Nelson Town of Chapel Hill Fax :919 -967 -8406 Dec 8 '98 14:57 P.03/05 I, Joyce A. Smith, CMC, Interim Town Clerk of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, hereby certify that the :attached is a- true and correct copy of Resolution (98- 12 -71R 17) adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council on December 7,1998. This the 8"' of December, 1998. Jo A. Smith, CMC Interim Town Clerk Town of Chapel Hill Fax:919 -96? -8406 Dec 8 198 14:57 P.04f05 A RESOUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE FINAL DETAILS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE BY ORANGE COUNTY (98- 12- 7/R -17) WHEREAS, in 1972 the governments of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill together bought a 202 -acre site on both sides of Eubanks Road to serve as a landfill for solid waste from Orange County; and WHEREAS, the governments of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel frill agreed by contract in 1972 that Chapel Hill would operate the landfill; and WHEREAS, since 1972 the management of solid waste has developed into a much more complex and expensive operation, including federally regulated lined landfills, waste reduction and recycling programs, and the need for a variety of facilities beyond a landfill; and WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners' Group has recommended that the owners of the landfill and the Town of Hillsborough. work together to develop another form of governance of the management of solid waste within Orange County; and WHEREAS, representatives of these four governments have been working since the Landfill Reorganization Work Group began meeting in April 1995, on various approaches; and . WHEREAS, at the request of the November 1996 Assembly of Governments, another group of representatives from each of the four governments began meeting with an attorney to prepare a draft interlocal agreement; and WHEREAS, the eighth draft of the Interlocal ,Agreement was presented to the local governing bodies in the summer of 1997, proposing that one government own and operate the solid waste management system with the advice of representatives of the four local governments; .and WHEREAS, in June 1997, all four governing bodies adopted and submitted to the State the outline of an integrated solid waste management plan which included waste reduction and recycling programs; and WHEREAS, sites have been identified for a materials recovery facility and a transfer station on the current landfill site, and more than one potentially viable site for a eoastruction and demolition waste facility have also been identified; and WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners' Group has concluded that the. present system of tipping fees will not generate enough revenue to fund the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan and appointed an Alternative Finance Committee to explore other means of financing; and ,WHEREAS, the Committee has identified an availability fee and use of the General Fund as potential complements to the tipping fees, both of which would be most efficiently and effectively handled by the County; Fax:919- 967 -8406 Dec 8 '98 14:58 P.05/05 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Commissioners, with the advice of a Solid Waste Advisory Commission, set policy, raise revenue and implement the Solid Waste Management Plan throughout Orange County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests the partners set up a work group composed of the Mayors and Chair or other single representatives chosen by the governing bodies, and the Managers to negotiate the revision of the eighth draft of the Interlocal Agreement to reflect the organization described above, intended to implement the Solid Waste. Management Plan adopted by the governing bodies and submitted to the State of North Carolina in July 1997. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the Council urges that this work: group begin no later than February, report to the governing bodies in March, and be ready for final governmental action in April. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a condition of the Interlocal Agreement achieve the following: that no more than 60 acres of the Greene Tract be set aside for use by the County in solid waste management activities, or as an asset of the Landfill Fund, and that such area will not be used as a construction and demolition landfill facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council believes a construction and demolition (C & D) ant facility is very import for services to citizens and to generate revenue, with net revenue projected for 1998 -99 being approximately $1,000,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council: • urges the County to locate a transfer station near the municipalities in southern Orange County to avoid having the public pay very high, hauling costs; • endorses a site on or near the landfill for a transfer station and a materials recovery facility, • urges that the properties of Mrs. Julia Blackwood and Mrs. Gertrude Nunn not be purchased for solid waste management purposes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the transfer of the solid waste operations be accomplished by October 1, 1999, with the transfer to the County of all Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department employees and assets of the Landfill Fund. This the 7d day of December, 1998.