HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-17-1998 - 9dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:
November 17, 1998
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Issues
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Public Works
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/l~
BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/1~
ATTACHMENT(S):
8/11/98 BOCC Solid Waste Proposal
9/22/98 Letter from Carrboro Mayor Nelson
10/6/98 Letter from Carrboro Manager Morgan
10/26/98 Letter from CH Mayor Waldorf
Table -Comparison of Responses
INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300; Wilbert
McAdoo or Wayne Fenton, ext 2625
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss the County Commissioners' possible courses of action, in light of responses
from the governing boards of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to the Commissioners' August 1998 proposal for
future solid waste management responsibilities.
BACKGROUND: At their August 11, 1998 work session, the Orange County Commissioners
developed a "Proposal for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations". This
proposal was transmitted to the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill for their
review and deliberation. Both municipal governing boards have provided written responses. There are
numerous points of consensus, but several important matters remain to be resolved. These include, but
are not limited to: 1) the siting of several key solid waste management facilities; 2) the financing
mechanisms for the construction, development, and operation of those facilities; 3) the specifics of the
future governance/organization of solid waste management in Orange County; and 4) the timing and
sequencing of decisions about governance and facility siting.
The Board may wish to review the points of consensus and differences between the three governing
boards, and to discuss whether/how some or all of those differences may be overcome. Additional
discussion on this topic could be scheduled for the Board's bimonthly work session on December 8, or a
subsequent Commissioners' meeting.
Chapel Hill Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson will be available to respond to any questions the Board
may have about future solid waste management facilities, and specifically, about a creative proposal
presented at the most recent LOG meeting that could result in several solid waste facilities being
accommodated on LOG owned property at the Eubanks Road landfill.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the responses from the
municipal governing boards; and provide direction regarding a framework that staff would work with to
prepare for subsequent Board discussion on solid waste management issues.
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.
II. 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 Boazd 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-Canboro
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 Boazd 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).
~,
4
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. Financin8
A. As part of the financing mechanism, all boards endorse implementation of a "Chapel Hill-Canboro-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.
1
TOWN OF CARRBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
September 22, 1998
Ms. Margaret Brown, Chair
grange County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
~ r~~~od~ 5
SEP z 4 1998 II II
NJ
Dear Margaret: - -
It is my pleasure to inform you that the Carrhoro Boazd of Aldermen and I have
completed our responses to your most recent memo. Generally speaking, there appeared
to be support for your proposals. There were, however, several items the Boazd decided
needed to be fine-tuned. The following reflects our proposed changes:
L GREENS TRACT __
(a) Carrboro acquiesces to using no more than 60 acres of the Greene tract for
solid waste-related activities.
Additionally, an easement should be placed on the property precluding the
siting of a MSW landfill on this tract.
(b) Additionally, Carrboro proposes that the remainder of the Greene tract
be divided as follows:
(1) Affordable HousinJLand Trust
Twenty (20) acres should be placed into a land trust for
development of housing.
(2) Conservation Park
The remaining acreaje should be set aside as a conservation park.
Additionally, it is our position that, if reasonably possible, the conservation
area should be set aside in such a manner as to buffer existing neighbors.
301 svEST MAIN STREET CARR90R0 NG 27510 19191 912 8511 SAX 19191 96a~7737 TDO 19191 9687717
Paoe 2
Margazet Brown
September 22, 1993
II. COI~ENSATION
(a) The Board of Aldermen maintains its position that water lines should be
extended to the Mill House Road neighborhood.
(b) The Carrboro Board of Aldermen prefers using LOG resources to fund
- water line improvements. We accept, however, the possibility of using a
1 ~ sales tax revenue as a viable alternative with Orange County financing
the project with repayment over athree-year period.
III. FINANCING ISSUES
The-case has yet to be made that additional funding sources are unavoidable. The
LOG financing committee has yet to finish its work, and we cannot take a firm
position on this issue until more information is available.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen believes quite strongly, however, that if it does
become necessary to implement an availability fee, that only a "progressive" fee
will be acceptable. The fee structures outlined in the County report were
regressive in nature. _
IV. ADDITIONAL LAND PURCHASES
The only property, which the Carrboro Board of Aldermen would consider
agreeing to the purchase of by the LOG are properties tax map referenced as:
7.18..27, 7.18.27E, and 7.18.27F. These properties must be offered freely for
purchase and the properties, if purchased, are to be used only for a transfer station
and/or materials recovery facility and/or buffering.
We look forward to working with you and the County Commissioners on this endeavor.
Sincerely,
~.. ~..
~,
Michael R. Nelson
Mayor
_cc: Members, Orange County Board of Commissioners
John Link
6
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
Members, Chapel Hill Town Council
Cal Horton
TOWN OF CARRBORO ~
October 26, 1998
Mr. John Link
County Manager
Orange County
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mr. Horton:
NORTH CAROLINA n ~ ~ ~ a
V
OCT 2 g 1,'3
The Carrboro Mayor and Boazd of Alderman requested that I notify you and the Commissioners
of action that they took on October 6, 1998. At this regular Boazd meeting, a motion was made by
Alderman Gist and seconded by Alderman McDuffee that the Town of Carrboro Board of
Aldermen recommends that the Nunn and Blackwood properties off of Eubanks Road, not be
considered for any landfill operations activity. This was approved unanimously by those Boazd
members present.
If you have any questions please contact me at 968-7706.
Sincerely,
%Robert W. Morgan
Town Manager
301 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRBORO, NC 27510 • 19191 942.8541 • FAX 19191 968-7737 • TDD 19191 968-7717
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
`~.~ 3L q~ ~
~ ~~
a 1]i
~~ •I
~' `'.
?~h ~Ax~~
TOwx of CxApEL HILL
3OC) NORTH COLUMBU STREET
Cx.~EL Hn.l.. NORTH CwROUNA 27516
OtaFtce of Tern Mwroa
October 26, 1998
(914)96A-2714
FAX (919) 967.8406
Mugaret Brower Chair _ _ -
Board of Orange County Corianission+xs
PO' Box 8181
I~bocough, NC 27278
• r
n~ Muc~e -
Enclosed phase find a copy of the resolution that. the: ChaQd HiD Town Council adopted at our October 12
meeting.. This resolution is the result of s lengthy and aomplcx diswssion,. and the full Council has not yet
;PPr'~'~ ~ with the fiormai adoption of the minutes of tbatng. Ncvestlultss, I forward ii to you now,
.. because I larow that the Cormmissioners and the rat ofthe elected officials ia~ ~ y . - .
OraagCounty arc eagerto
ttsolvc issue af'governaace so that we can fow3 on the actual management of solid waste:
I trust that you will .5nd asuch in this docus:u~t that is is concert with the ideal and tksires~ of the
_ Conuaissioner5. I also trust the Board will bo open to discussioe noel equitable resolution of the rtmainia~g
. We uaderswod your p~ ~ ~ a proposal for negotiation, and we vary much woof
conversation to continue soon, -
The last stctian of the resolution suggests that rtprtstatativcs of each of the owners of the landfill. convent
to help resolve rar~aiQ,ing issuts, specifically, to finalize our iaterloeal a~greaneat I lode forward to
with you and Mayor Ncison to establish such a. body and to amve~uiddy toward tilt tad of this. .
discussion. -
Sincxrdy,
/ a ,7 -
Rosemary Waldorf
Mayor
cc: rows Covrcil
Board of Conuaissioncrs
A RESOLUTION OFFERIYG COlVT11~1ENTS TO THE ORANGE CO~y gO~D OF
COMIVIIISSIONE~ RECARpING 'T1riEIR AUGUST. 11, 1998 PROPOSAL FOR
ASSL'1-'1IlYG RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMEN'z' OPERATIONS
(98-1Q-121R-1Z)
WT~EREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is one of throe governments-which own the
Orange Regional Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill, under the 1972 agreement, administers landfill operations;
and
W~REAS, the three owners of the landfill have raised signif cast questions about future. means of
= reducing and disposing of solid waste}and about future governance and financing of solid waste
management in Orange County; and
WI~REAS, the Town of Chapel idill is ~ committed to
reaching aggressive waste reduction goals _
through implementation of the County-wide integrated solid waste management plan; -
NOW, TOE gE IT RESOLVED by the.Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council adopts the following statemcats in response to an a Coon
~8 , ty p~noposal of August 20,
1998 regarding transferring govetna~e of the Orange Regional Landfill to Orange County:
_.__ ~_ -. ~ ~ - Vision/Goals _
1. We support the solid waste goals adopted in December 1995... N~_» .
2. We believe it desirable to operate solid waste management as as enterprise fund.
3. We reiterate the Council resolution of 7uly 2; 1998 stating:. "Recognise the nerd to begin
discussions on whether to keep the Greene Tract as publicly owned land, and if so, wh$t if nay
uses would be suitable. Recognise-that a decision about the Greene Tract should not delay the
transfer of governance."
The Council asks-for clarification about the difference betzareen the proposal in this section that the
"Greene Tract remains a landfill asset" and the proposal is the section on facr~Ir'ties, etc., that only. 60
acrzs be used for solid .waste management activities. .
4. The Council opposes the acquisition of Mrs. Blackwood's and Mr. Nunn's properties adjacent
to the landfill property north of Eubanks Road, .but dots not oppox acquisition. of other
Properties.
5. We believe that cooperation among committed partners is essential for the success of the solid
waste management in O~anAe Copy; ~~ ~ believe that adoption of as Intcrlocal
Agrccuicnt would formalize the commitmcat ~~ng the parties. ~ ~ .
4, We believe that the Landfill Fund 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 ncighbors_ 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.
10
7. The Council remairLS committed to the financing of the solid waste operations which supports
waste reduction yet maintains the economic vitality of all solid waste facilities. We are opts to
all ideas, but we are uncommitted as to how that can be accomplished until hearing the
recommendation of the LOG Finance Committee. -
_ 8. We agree with thz waste reduction goals of 45% by 241 and 61 % by 20(x, as adopted by all
four governing boards. -
9. We support including a commitment to the implementation of the County-wide integrated solid
waste management plan, as adopted by all four Qraage County jurisdictions, into the Interiocal -
Agrrement. --- -.
Community Benefits -
1. We reiterate that we believe that the issue ~of double taxation is as important one which the one-
. cent sales tax.praposal does. not resolve. 4Vc believe that all County residcaLS should share.
.~ equally in the futlding of any water service lines provided to the cammuituiy arotuid the Yaadfill,
using the principle of one personlone tax The Council opposes using the one cent salts tax for
providing benefits as double taxation and suppoits a countywide source of reveaiu see #~ _
above). -
Governaace/Mana~ernent .
1. We think it desirable that when the County assumzes operational contra? that it .becomes
responsible for the budget at the same time. ?ht Council remains committed to'its July 2
_ resolution that. all of the solid waste issues now. pending be resolved before any agrecmmt on
change is governance is made. Thtse~ncltuie siting of s construction and demolition waste
facility and a tnatcrial recovery facility by the fall of 1998, fdcntifying locations for the transfer
. station and resolution of fiuuiz financing methods for solid waste operations.. Therefore the
Council defers action on this condition until after these decisions have been made.
2. _
We suggest the wording provided in.the Intcrlocal.Agrecrnent _
"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."
3
11
3- We believe it would be necessary for the Chapel I-lill Town Council to formally adopt the
budget; however, the budget could be developed by the County Manager and reviewed and
approved by the County Commissioners before action by the Town Council;
4. We agree that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel FiiIl Town Council, and the Orange
County Boazd of Commissioners must sign tEie Intedocal Agreement in order to execute the
transfer of ownership and responsibility.
5- We agree on the nerd for a local commitment to efficient, res nsible and
waste management activities. The Intcrlocal A meat would PrnSressive solid
~ Provide the lcga.l basis for the
commitment ofihe partners to the system.
6. The Landfill Qyvncrs' Group is an advisory body to the three member ov
not direct solid waste maaa ement o 8 ~~ aad does
B perarions. The Towa of Chapel Hill is currently
responsible for administration of the Landfill: Fund and the Solid Waste Manag
Dcpartaieat. We would a emrnt
xpect this situation to contiaue uatiI the revised Interlocal Agreement.
is exccute~ and implemented. The Council recognizes the LOG's right.to set and o -
own rules as established in January of 1997. Thcsc rules included decision b P~ ~ l~
Tize Council supports this LOG decision. y majority rule.
7. Members of the new Solid Waste. Advisory, Commission should be appointed according. to .
Article VI 6.03 of the latest draft of the Interlocsl AgreGraent ~ -
. - 8- `-~~derstarid• that solid waste collection decisions should be the -. nsioili .
.jurisdiction, as contained is Article V of the latest dra$ of the Interlocal Agreement, t7' of ~~.~~ --
9. We believe it would be useful for the Unive~ity to motiitorlparticipate in aII proceedings and
that-we should eneotuage their participation. ~ Our understaciding is that the law does not allow
the University to be a signatory to ati Intctlocal Agreement.
Facilities Services -
L We reiterate the Couacil resolution of July .2,. 1998 stating:. "Rxogniac the -need to begin
discussions oa whether tQ keep the Greene Tract as publicly owned load, and if so, what if aay -
uses would be suitable. Recognize that a derision about the Greene Tract should riot delay the
transfer of governance." The Council opposes the use of the. Grecae Tract for a construction
and demolition waste facility and requests t}sat the Commissioners specify what solid waste
management activities it coritemplatcs on the Greene Tract as well as where on the_Greenc
Tract
2., 3., 4. The council continues to support the July 2 resolution that siting a MRF and C & D waste
facility have priority anti favor these decisions bring .made by fall of 1998.. The Council further
supports working with the MRF consultant to help is identifying criteria for selecting a site, using
already identified sites as candidates. The Council supports identifying possible ,locations for a
transfer station during the process of siting a MRF. .
4
5. We continue to believe that a locally owned or controlled MS W disposal facility is still
desirable, given the potential future financial and public health risk of depending on distant
facilities and commercial vendors. The Council position of July 2 remains the same, i_e.,
"Acknowledge at this time that them will be no starch for a future landfill site recognizing that
this will not be binding on any future governments."
6. We believe that eminent domain should be used if necessary to obtain land needed for the
community's solid waste management facilities.
Financing
12
1. T'hc Council recognizes that all boazds will need to endorse a revenue, generating instrument to
supplement tipping fees. As previously stated, before endorsing any funding mechanism we
want tv have the benefit of the report from the LOG Finance Committee. We rcma4n
_ committed to a funding mechanism that supports waste reduction and is' equitable for all
generators of waste. If a countywide fcc is implcrriented, the Council does not support
including the names of the municipalities is identifying the frt. The citizens of the
municipalities arc residents of Orange County.
2. We supportpay-as-you-throw as a- meaas..of regulation resulting in significant waste reduction,
as contained is 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 lc$ up to
each jurisdiction. -
3. We recommend that the County. begin using the c2dstiag administrative ovcrhea,d foimula and,
once they gain experience, conduct an analysis of their real costs and make adjustmerns as
neccssazy. - _
Process
1. We reconuncad that the Carrbom Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners conclude remaining issues concerning govcming with
the establishment of a conference committee made up of 2 representative of each jurisdiction.
Such a committee would try to resolve a1Z differences, identify any areas of disagreement
remaining and revise the draft Interlocal Agreement.
This the 12'~ day of October, 1998.
ORAI�G�CCtUNTY PRQPQ�SAI. TC11NN Q�C��FtB+�i�Q F�E�3 .�S ' T41Ai����'�I�I��L.l�1�.1,[�.E�PUNS� '' .
1.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 Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen The Council opposes the acquisition of
acreage at the current landfill. recommends that the Nunn and Blackwood Mrs. Blackwood's and Mrs. Nunn's
properties off of Eubanks Road, not be properties adjacent to the landfill
considered for any landfill operations activity. 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.
�
w
C�.V+BSTRACT98-99VNOV98\swch1117.doc 1 Printed: 11/12/98 �
�RANGE GOUNTY PROPOSAL '; TQWN OF CARR��t�Q i���1��A��SE ;'�Q�1�FN O�GHAP�1.t#I�.1.RESPQNSE
• All community benefits to be provided We believe that the Landfill Fund
through the landfill enterprise. 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.
�
• Seek a solution in which reduction of landfill suffers financially The Council remains committed to the
waste and the economic viability of the financing of solid waste operations
solid waste facility are in concert—right which supports waste reduction yet
now, when solid waste is reduced, the. 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°/a 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.
�
�
C:\windowsUemp\11-06-98.DOC Z Printed: 11/12/98
iDRANGE GQUNTY PR�POSAL. TC1WM�iF CARF���F�t}RE��(J��'iE ' TQVII�f3F CH,APEL HILI.'R�SP�NSE .
11.Community Benefits
Wth 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� 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 wasta 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."
�
�
C1windows\tempN t-O6-9B.DOC 3 Printed: 11/12/98
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 Chapet Hilt 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-B), the We agree on the need for a local
Board emphasized the impo�tance of having commitment to e�cient, 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. �
�
o�
� C.lwindows\temp\tt-06-98.DOC 4 Printed: 11/12/98 �
Each government shall appoint two Members of the new Solid Waste
representatives to a Solid Waste Management Advisory Commission should be
Advisory Commission, pursuant to an adopted appointed according to Article VI 6.03 of
Interlocal Agreement,which shall succeed the the latest draft of the Interlocal
LOG and begin meeting after adoption of the Agreement.
1999-2000 budget(no later than July 1, 1999).
The Board re-emphasized that solid waste We understand that solid waste
collection/transportation decisions would collection decisions should be the
remain the prerogative of each local responsibility of each jurisdiction, as
government entity. contained in Article V of the latest draft
of the Interlocal Agreement.
It is important that UNC-CH representatives sit We believe it would be useful for the
at the table, even if the University chooses not University to monitor/participate in all
to commit to participation in the solid waste proceedings and that we should
management system. encourage their participation. Our
understanding is that the law does not
allow the Universi:y to be a signatory to
an Interlocal Agreement.
r
v
C:\windows\temp\11-06-98.DOC 5 Printed: 11/12/98
GIRAMGE C(�UNTY PROPtJSAL TQWN QF CARRBClRI��S���l..E' T4WN'f��'Ct#AFEL HtLC RESP�JI�SE
IV. Facilities, Services 8 Programs
With regard to principle#2 (Section 1-B), 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 transiar 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�.\windows\temp\11-06-98.DOC F> Printed: 11/12/98 �
ORANGE CQUNTY PRfJPfJSAL T�WN(�F CA�RB�RC?RE�F'C�h��iE, ' �'Qi�llP�f,�F G P�L HI�.L F��SPUNSE '
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
Was te Avai la bi li ty Fee"for a l l coun ty resi den ts. an d 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 regre�sive 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 Counry
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.)
�
�o
C 1windows\temp\11-06-98.DOC 7 Printed: 11/12/98
t�F�ANGE CG1UNTlf PROP�SAL TQ�1M�1 t�F:CARR��iR�t I��P�N�E fiQWN OF�H�►►PEL HILI FtESP4NS� ''
The Board endorsed a conceptual revenue
structure that:
1. finances core operation(MRF,MSW and
C&D Landfillsj through tipping fees
2. fmances 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 I
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.
N
C
C.\windows\lemp�l1-06-98.DOC 8 Printed: 11/12/98 �