HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-17-2009 - 6dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Action Age a
Item No. ^
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of Proposal Regarding No Fault Privately-Owned Weli
Repair Policy for Properties Near the Orange County Landfill
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Orange County Solid Waste Landfill Impact
Zone - No Fault Privately Owned Well
Repair Policy (Proposal)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245-2300
Orange County Landfill Area 2008 with
3,000 Foot Buffer Selection
PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an opportunity to review and discuss a proposal
regarding a no fault privately-owned well repair policy for properties near the Orange County
Landfill and provide feedback and direction to staff.
BACKGROUND: In 1999, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro and
the Town of Hillsborough entered into agreement whereby Orange County (subject to the terms
of the agreement) assumed the solid waste management responsibility for the disposal of solid
waste county-wide. Among the many items covered in detail with the agreement were
provisions for the County to address various improvements within the `area' neighboring the
landfill property at the time the agreement was established.
Since the County has assumed the responsibility for managing the Solid Waste Landfill property
and its functions, residents have expressed concerns pertaining to several issues including
unconfirmed or documented failures of personal, privately-owned wells and septic systems
serving individual residents within the general area of the landfill.
In 2002, the Orange County Board of Public Health and the Orange County Board of
Commissioners adopted a No Fault Well Repair Fund Policy as part of resolving issues
associated with a .mining operation conducted by Martin Marietta elsewhere within Orange
County. Circumstances differ substantially from .that of the Solid Waste Landfill operation but
the parameters of this policy do align with the general aspects of addressing failed or failing
personally owned private wells and septic systems.
Similar in concept to the policy established in 2002 referenced above a well repair fund could be
established that would be funded via revenues generated by the Solid Waste operations. If the
Board supports this approach to addressing the well problems of residents within an impact
area (3,000 feet of the landfill's boundary) of the existing landfill operation, staff can formulate
the policy; meet with the landfill partners to assure concurrence; and once approved by the
Board, initiate contact with residents within the impact area served by a non public water supply.
If the BOCC concurs with this approach, staff will initiate the actions necessary to bring a formal
policy back to the Board for consideration and approval. There are several steps to be pursued.
Since many of the basic parameters for this effort have been addressed within the scope of the
program currently in place related to the Martin Marietta quarry project, a timely response and
follow up should occur.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with review and discussion of
this item and providing feedback and direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and discuss the
proposal regarding a no fault privately-owned well repair policy for properties near the Orange
County Landfill and provide feedback and direction to staff.
3
ol~Atic~>•: ct~t~~T~r St~LIn ~~vASTE I.~~I}FILi. It1PA~T zt~iv>/ -NU ~~.~~~'
PRIVATELY C1WNF,D VVFLL REPAIR POLICI' (PRt?P()S.~L)
In 19y9, Oran~:e County, the To~,~~n of'Chapel hill, the Tc~~~n of Carrboro and the Ta1vn
~~f ;`Iillsbaraugh entered into ~~~reement ~vherebv Change County (.subject. to the terms cwt
the as~reen~ent) assumed the solid caste maria~e~nent responsibility for the disposal csf
solid ~~aste county-tivide.
~~mong the elan}- items caverci in detail 1~ith that agreement ti~c~re pn~visions for the
taunt}~ to address various improvements within the 'area° neighhtirin`:; the land fill
property at the tinge the agreement was established.
Page ~}- i 0 of the agrcen~etit provides:
PART 6. The County will finance ctimtznunit~ benefits frtrm system funds tti the
extent legaIIy permissible.
"I'he .Parties will cooperate to provide Public benefits to the com~unif~ of residents
end property owners in the neighborhood of the existing landfill.
The Parties note the expected forthcoming report of the Landfill Benefits
Committee that has been stud}~ing the question of community benefits. Upon the
release of the report, each Fart shall provide for its Governing Board to discuss the
working group's proposal for community benefits, and shalt provide for such IegaJl
and other staff analysis of the proposed list as it may deem appropriate (especially
including legal analysis concerning the use of System funds to pay the costs of such
benefits). after each Party has completed its own analysis, the Parties shall ~i°ork
together, diligently and in good Faith, to reach an agreement as to con~munitti•
.benefits to be provided. The purpose of determining community benefits shall
continue to include participation by persons belonging to the relevant communih~.
Final determinations of the public benefits to be provided, the sources of financing
;end the mechanisms for providing the benefits. however, shall be made only h~'
further agreement of all the Parties.
The Parties state their preference that benefits be financed froze System funds to the
extent permitted by law. To the extent permitted by law and by generally accepted
accounting principles, to the extent determined by the Parties and notwithstanding
any other provision of this Agreement, the costs of providing public benefits as
described in this Part b may be treated as an expense ctf the System and may be paid.
from System Revenues.
The public benefits contem.~tated by this Section are to be considered as separate
and distinct from any compensation de-termined to be owed for any "taking' of axt
interest in property as deternzizacd by State ar Fcdcr:zl law.
4
Action taken to address any issue determined to fall within the scope of the agreerneni of
the Parties is subject to revenues attributed. to the operation of the landfill or the
willingness of the Parties to fund improvements beyond the scope bf landfill revenues.
THE ISSUE FAR CUNSII?ERATIC}N:
Since the County has assumed. the responsibility for managing the Solid waste Landfill
property anti its functions, over the years various citizens have complained about several
issues including anconfired or documented failures of personal. privately owned wells
and septic s~ stems serving individual residents ~=ithin the general area of the landfill,
It must be noted that the current landfill and its operations meet ail established federal
and state standards. There arc numerous monitoring wells and various other
environmental management activities in place that support the fact that the landfill has
not been found to have had any direct impact on either the privately owned wells or
septic systems within the area identified as being impacted by the landfill's location,
1`lumerous other factors could. be impacting upoxt whether or not the privately owned
~velis and. septic systems cti~ithin the vicinity of the landfill meet established public health
standards. Factors such as the age and uses applied to those systems; the depth of wells
and techniques used in their initial. installations as well as the location of wells and septic
system. ~~ itl~irl a close proximity; along with many ether issues all could be factors
resulting in individual failures of either or both s~~steins at any particular location.. Wells
That are up-,gradient from landfill operations Iikely are impacted by factors other than the
landfill itself.
Surveys conducted by these other than. the County's Public Health. Department. have
presented evidence that individually owned wells within the neighborhoods near the
landfill are not performing at acceptable public health standards. Knowledge of this fact.
does place the Board. of Commissioners in a position ref responsibility to pursue action
aimed t corrective measures to ensure public health standards are met.
An unxelated set of circumstances may provide an example for use in establishing a
course of action that could address the situations) outlined above in a manner consistent
with the intent of the Parties to Solid Waste Management agreement of 1999.
In 20C}, the Orange County Board of Public Health and the (,lrange County Board of
Commissioners adopted a. N£} FAULT WELL REP.4~IR FUNI3 PQGICY as part of
resolving issues associated with a mining; operation conducted by Martin. Marietta
elsewhere within. Qrange County, Circumstances differ substantially from that ofthe
Solid Waste Landfill operation but the parameters of this policy do alz"gn with the general
aspects of addressing failed or failing personally owned private wells and septic systems,
5
PAST EFFORTS AT SOLUTIUNS
L;ff-orts have: been made fly local governments to address the extensi~}n of'ptif~lic ti~ater
and see;er systems in the general area. of the Solid ~~'aste Landfill. Several factors make
the further extension. of these pub}ic facilities both unlikelti and prohibitively etipensive:
1. ~l`his is a sparser populated area impacting upon the cost per customer serviced
'~. Iv1an~ ofthese residential units are on large tracts of land located soma: distance front
public rights of v4~ay meaning the cost of extending lines across private propert}~ could ~e
a hurdle to providing sere tees
~. These areas border or tixist in portions of the county where by a~reemcnt public
utilities extensions may be prohibited.
~. Them may be issues associated ~~~ith the continuing monthly user tests to households
for obtaining these public, utility services and paving for them.
>, E3ased on the age of'structures and phtmbing fixtures within, service pressures from
public tivater systems could require either pressure reducing equipment or replacement of
plumbing within impacted structures.
6, Potential ft~r rezoning, land use changes or the subdivision. of larger parcels could.
impact the location i~1~ti~fhere utilities are to be extended.
~, '1"he Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is committed to fund the on-going maintenance of
the irtndfill fc7r a period of thirty (3(}} ~ gars post closure. ~I~IIt: S~'ll~~ can not pro~~icle
significantly large outlay of funding. to support construction of an extensive public ~v°ater
and se«~er system for the area surrounding the landf`t~ll.
3. Other issues.
YARAI~IETF.I2S OF A i~Q FAULf)~ WE:LI, REPAIR FLIi~D 1'OLt~Y
Similar in concept. to the polio}• established. in 2(}p? referenced above a well repair fund
could be established that would be funded via revenues generated by the Solid ~~'astc
operations It is important that these issues be addressed sooner than later in that the
actual operation of the landfill is scheduled to end within a short period of time. After
that time, depending upon the course of action authorized by the Orange Count}< Board of
Commissioners, the revenue stream that supports the landfill operation ma}~ be drastically
reduced. White. the participating towns and county remain liable for the long term
aspects of'the landfills maintenance: for ~0 years after the landfill closes, budgetary
constraints could impact upon positive responses to addressing these issues in the future.
ICthe Board ofC`ommissioners supports this approach to addressing the well problems o
residents tivithit~ an impact area {30(}O feet of the landfill's boundary:} of the existing
landfill operation, staff can forn~ulate the policy; meet with the Iandtill partners to assure
concurrence,. and, once approved by the Board of Commissioners initiatE contact with
reside nts ~~ ithitx the impact area served by a non public water supply..
In i;ach case:, the County Public l le;alth Department ~~'ould be involved in testing. the wells
and confirming the need for repair. Inmost cases, the County`s effort would focus on
repair c>r replaeeanent of an ~tistin~,~ ~~ell. Il~, site conciitit~ns and or other eonditic~ns do
not allow #~or a repair ar r~;placemelit of Fui existing failed (failing} residential w'e11.
6
consideration could ~+~ given to the passibility ofextendin~; a connection to ~ public water
source if available, Those instances would be analyzed. on a case by case basis and only
pursued with agreement of the property owner with an understanding that the property
ow~rter ar water user would have future responsibility far any user costs ante the
installation was complete,
SUMMARY
if the Board of omissioners concurs whit this approach, staff will initiate the actions
necessary to bring a formal policy back to the Board for consideration and approval,
There are several steps to be pursued., Since many of the basic parameters for this effort
have been addressed within. the scope of the pragra~n currently in place related to the
Martin Marietta quarry project a timely response and fallow up should occur.
Drank , Clifton, :Tr.
County Ivlanaer
11!319
/ ::%:..
o
o %o
. .............
a
................... ..... a/ °~
.............. o
% ~ ~. ° °
.... .. ....... 9L, o o
e. ~ n~ . :p/o : :~ o
... .... .. .. .. ... . .
' 0 °/ % °a
................ ~ ~o, Q. d/a ..~ o
0
............ ,... /o z.. ~~
....::::::::: o ~ .. ...
°o aoo % % % . ~a
of %,,,
O~ Vp~ ~~~~'~ ~~ ~ N o
5000` ~ ~~~ E °/a
°/d
map prepared by IT-GIS Sept. 30, 2009 ~ ~ °%.
OC020H/IC:/MXDs/LandfilULandfill 3008 Buffer small.mxd 1 120
~ %o o~ a/ a
4 ~°%
.:6': o o~
0
a o .: /o p
°
ro % _
/o
' ° ~ % % .%
°%~ °
%