Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-1998 - 5ds~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO; FROM: County Commissioners Margaret Brown COMPANY: DATE: 10/06/98 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 20 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Proposed Resolution to be Added to Tonight's Meeting Agenda ^ URGENT D FOR REVIEW ^ PLEASE COMMENT ^ PLEASE REPLY ^ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: I would like the -Board to consider adding the accompanying resolution to the "Resolutions/Proclamations" section of tonight's agenda. I'm sorry about the timing, but this relates to matters that w171 be considered by the LOG at its meeting this Thursday. The LOG agenda became available this weekend, and after reviewing it, I feel it is important that the Board consider adopting a resolution which Steve and I can present to the LOG Thursday night that reinforces the County's previously stated view that arty solid waste facility siting decisions should be taken comprehensively, rather than piecemeal. There are a number of attachments accompanying this cover sheet. Some you have seen before; others have been extracted fromOctober 8 LOG agenda items to provide some context for the elements of the proposed resolution. The portions of those extracts that are directly related to paragraphs in the proposed resolution are denoted by underlining/asterisks. ^ Proposed resolution (pages 2-3) ^ Commissioners' 8/11/98 Solid Waste Proposal (pages 45) ^ Carrboro's 9/22/98 response to that proposal (pages 6-7) ^ LOG agenda item #4 extract (pages 8-11) ^ LOG agenda item #5 extract (pages 12-15) ^ LOG agenda item #6 extract (pages 16-19) ^ LOG agenda item # 3 extract (page 20) Please let me or John Link know of arty questions you may have about this proposed resolution. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE LANDFILL OWNERS .GROUP AND ITS MEMBER GOVERNMENTS ADDRESS THE SITING OF FUTURE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES IN A COMPREHENSIVE FASHION WHEREAS, the member governments of the Landfill Owners' Group (LOG) have been discussing important future solid waste management issues, including examination of disposal options and the possible need for facilities such as a materials recovery facility (MRF), transfer station, and/or a construction and demolition (C&D) handling or disposal facility; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners transmitted to the other LOG members an August 1 1, 1998 "Proposal for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations"; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has received a written response to that proposal from the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and anticipates receiving a written response from the Chapel Hill Town Council following the October 12`h meeting of that body; and WHEREAS, element IV-B of the Orange County Board of Commissioners' August 11 proposal encouraged the member governments to "continue to work, through the LOG, to site a transfer station and work to develop options for materials recovery and construction & demolition disposal", "acknowledged the need for siting decisions", but emphasized that "those decisions should be considered comprehensively rather than piecemeal"; and WHEREAS, one proposal by the Orange County Board of Commissioners was the setting aside of 60 acres of the Greene Tract for future solid waste management activities, which could include some or all of the aforementioned solid waste facilities; and WHEREAS, the Carrboro response to the County proposal "acquiesces to using no more than 60 acres of the Greene tract for solid waste-related activities" and limits Carrboro's consideration of additional land acquisition to the three parcels immediately west of the North Eubanks Road landfill and west of the Johnson Tract (previously acquired by the LOG); and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Alternative Finance Committee is expected to make its report to the LOG at the November 12, 1998 meeting of the LOG; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners believes it is important that the financing approach(es) for facility operation as well as facility acquisition/development be resolved prior to the major commitment of capital funds; and WHEREAS, item #4 on the scheduled LOG meeting agenda for October 8, 1998 contemplates the ~ adoption by individual member governments of ordinances that would regulate the separation of C&D materials and reduce the amount of C&D waste ultimately landfilled; and WHEREAS, items #5 and #6 on the scheduled LOG meeting agenda for October 8, 1998 meeting include possible action to pursue siting of a MRF and a C&D disposal facility; and O WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners views any LOG action on October 8, 1998 that would lead to initiation of siting any specific solid waste facility oii any specific parcel(s) of land as premature in that such actions would ostensibly be taken in a piecemeal, rather than comprehensive, approach and without a clear financing plan for both facility development and facility operation in place; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that it supports the staff recommendation in agenda item #4 of the scheduled LOG meeting agenda for October 8, 1998 that all member governments consider the concept of using a C&D materials separation ordinance and solid waste plan ordinance to reduce C&D waste landfilled; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports the recommendation in agenda item #3 of the scheduled LOG meeting agenda for October 8, 1998 that following conclusion of negotiations with the MRF consultant, that work on development of that facility begin in November with a series of meetings involving LOG members, staff, consultants, and the public to discuss specific MRF concepts; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby urge the LOG to take no action at their October 8, 1998 meeting that would lead to acquisition or identification of any specific site for any specific solid waste facility, pending completion of discussions by the Chapel Hill Town Council of the County's August 1 ~, 1998 proposal, and pending examination of options (including use of a portion of the Greene Tract, and/or use of the new MRF site on LOG owned property that has been identified in item #5 of the scheduled LOG meeting agenda for October 8, 1998) that would reflect a comprehensive approach to solid waste facility siting. This, the 6t1i day of October, 1998. 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 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 eac-Fi 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 develoQoptions for materials recovery and construction & demolition disposal. The Board acknowledged the need for srtma 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. TOWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA September 22, 1998 Ms. Margaret Brown, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. -Box 8181 Hillsborough N. C. 27278 Dear Margaret: p ~c~~ue~ SEP 2 4 1998 D It is my pleasure to inform you that the Carrboro Board 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 Board 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 or 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 acreage 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. J 30i '+vES' M;,w STREET CraRR80R0 n+C '_75.0 ~9i9~ 9a_85=~ FaX X9141 96H-7737 TDD t9~9i 968.7717 Page 2 Margaret B rown September 22, 1998 II. COMPENSATION (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. FI'i TANCING 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 onl roe 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 T ese properties must e o eyed freely for purchase and the properties, if purchased, are to be used only for a transfer station an or materials recovery facility an or u enng. We look forward to working with you and the County Commissioners on this endeavor. Sincerely, i ~',_,' . i _~ , Michael R. Nelson Mayor cc: Members, Orange County Board of Commissioners John Link Mayor Rosemary Waldorf Members, Chapel Hill Town Council Cal Horton l__J AGENDA #4 Memorandum To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Duector Subject: Regulating Construction and Demolition Wastes for Reduction Date: October 8, 1998 The attached resolution recommends that the- Owners Group request the local governments to consider the concept of regulating construction and demolition wastes to reduce generation of this waste within Orange County and its municipalities. Regulation would take place through a combination of solid waste plan requirements imposed on developers and builders and direct regulation of construction waste generators and haulers. ' Background The construction-and demolition waste area of the landfill will be full in less than eighteen months. The Owners. Group has not yet selected a new site for managing construction and demolition waste nor determined the methods for managing thes~- materials. If we wish to achieve our adopted solid waste reduction goals and extend life of the existing landfill, as well as of any future facilities, further consideration of ways to reduce landfilling of construction and demolition waste is necessary. Over the past two years, the Owners Group has considered a variety of approaches to reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste landfilled in Orange County including regulations, economic incentives, and establishment. of centralized construction and demolition waste recycling and recovery activities. In February 1997, the Owners Group resolved to take no further action on construction and demolition waste itself, but passed a resolution (attachment 1) that each of the jurisdictions consider both a solid waste planning requirement and a construction and demolition materials separation ordinance. The local governments have taken no action on that resolution. The Solid Waste Management Department staff held discussions with the various Building Inspection and Planning Departments' staff throughout the County regarding methods for implementation of such an ordinance, but there was no further action at the time. Solid Waste Management staff proposed funding; the enforcement of a materials separation ordinance with building inspection fees. The Town of Chapel Hill attorney determined that the original concept of using building inspection fees to finance enforcement personnel was not closely enough connected to the purpose of building inspections to be legal. In 1992, the Town of Chapel Hill passed a Solid Waste Plan amendment to its Development Ordinance (attachment 1, last page) that requires submittal of a solid waste plan. The effectiveness of this requirement has been somewhat limited in diverting materials for reuse or recycling primarily because there are no enforcement or inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance with the plan once it is submitted. The plan requirement has been, we believe, a useful mechanism for educating local builders, architects and developers on segregation of construction and demolition materials and on how to provide recycling storage space for managing materials once the structure is occupied. The local governments have taken no further action to regulate construction and demolition wastes in order to ensure they are reduced or recycled. However we understand that consideration is now being given to a county ordinance that could prohibit on-site burning of wood waste. Open burning is already prohibited within Town limits. The prohibition in the unincorporated areas might have the consequence of wood wastes being either mulched on-site, used elsewhere or delivezed to the landfill as separated clean wood wastes suitable for recycling. Discussion Concepts behind an ordinance re~ulatin construction and demolition waste During the past year, Solid Waste Department and Town of Chapel Hill legal staff developed a draft construction and demolition waste ordinance that would require -- separation of construction and demolition waste wood, metal, cardboard and other recyclable materials. According to this draft, enforcement of the sepazations requirement would be accomplished in the following ways: Generators of the material would be required to separate recyclable or reusable construction and demolition materials. Generators would be subject to inspection to verify materials are properly separated. Improperly separated materials would be prohibited from being removed from the job site until they are properly sorted, and 2. The generator would be required to use. a licensed hauler to transport the materials, and 3. Any licensed hauler of construction and demolition materials in the jurisdiction regulating the materials would be prohibited from hauling improperly separated materials as a condition of his/her locally-issued hauling license, and 4. Orange Regional Landfill could extend its penalty for inclusion of corrugated cardboard in mixed commercial loads to include penalties for inclusion of other designated recyclable types of construction waste such as wood, metal or drywall. More research would be required to determine the exact methods and conditions for licensing and regulation of the haulers and generators of construction and demolition wastes. For example, we could determine if the County government could issue a single license that would apply within the municipalities as well as the unincorporated areas. This research could be conducted by the staff if the Owners Group and its members ~~\ ' g truction and demolition waste is a ~-~ government determine that requirm~ separation of cons fruitful way to reduce the landfilling of these materials. Existing Town of Chapel Hill Soild Waste Plan Ordinance The Town of Chapel Hill now has a section of its development ordinance whose concepts could also be adopted by the other member governments as the Owners Group recommended in its February 1997 resolution. This ordinance requires, among other things, that developers state how they would handle construction and demolition wastes. Such an ordinance, if adopted by other governments, would be a first step in the process of reducing construction and demolition waste. It is primarily an educational requirement at this point except for the requirement that the developers provide space for outdoor storage of recyclables. Solid Waste Management Department staff would be able to assist the other member governments, as needed, in preparation of such an ordinance. We could tailor any ordinance to the format of each jurisdiction but would strive to maintain the same content as in the Town of Chapel Hill development ordinance text amendment. A solid waste plan ordinance could be considered separately from a materials separation ordinance or as part of a package of regulations designed to reduce construction and demolition wastes. Difference of Existing Ordinance from Proposed Materials Separation Ordinance The materials separation ordinance has more of a police power orientation and would require separation with financial penalties for generators and the threat of suspending the haulers' collection licenses for non-compliance. We recognize that the level of regulation proposed in the ordinance is significant. Advantages of Materials Separation Ordinance Approach This separation ordinance presents a method to divert substantial additional construction waste without a large capital investment at this time. We believe, based on our 1996 waste characterization, that about 20% to 30% of construction and demolition waste is readily recyclable or reusable. The diversion program would be most successful if the Orange Regional Landfill provides a "market" or destination for those materials. We could handle additional wood and metal with little more than the current salvage effort. If drywall were included, a small transfer facility would be required to ensure material quality and optimal loading through inspection and subsequent compaction before transport. These facilities would probably be based at the current landfill site. The draft ordinance regulating construction and demolition waste separation and hauling, as it is now structured, has the further advantage of "capturing" those generators and haulers who would presume to avoid regulation by shipping their materials out of Orange County. The ordinance requires on-site separation and requires haulers to haul only properly separated materials; it is more than simply regulation at the landfill gate. Thus flow control issues are not raised because the ordinance does not dictate destination of materials hauled. 3 /1 i~ Disadvantaee of Materials Separation Ordinance Effectiveness of this ordinance would be determined by rigorous enforcement which could require additional personnel and legal time. Recommendation That the Owners Group pass the attached resolution recommending that all the member governments consider the concept of using a construction and demolition materials separation or finance and solid waste plan ordinance to reduce construction and emo ition wastes andfiiled. If the member governments agree with the need for these regulations, they could direct their attorneys, building inspection, solid waste, planning and other relevant staff to review the concept of a materials separation ordinance and solid waste plan ordinance and develop. an implementation plan. 4 AGENDA #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. Background As discussed in Agenda #3, the MRF is the fundamental solid waste system component of the county-wide solid waste management plan. Reaching our 61o 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. -- Discussion There are some advantages to co-locating 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 among 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/Old 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 #l0a) - 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 erect y west o ort u an s oa an fill property - Revise to Recommen anon - 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 1 andf i 11 - 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 a en ion as a resu o our roves iga ions 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. /~f 0 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. 'T'his 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, or e oca ion o t e new Orange County Materials Recovery r~aciiiLy. 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) . Memorandum AGENDA #6 To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director _ Subject: Construction and Demolition Facility Siting Date: October 8, 1998 This memorandum presents options for proceeding to finalize the selection of a site for our future construction & demolition disposal and recycling facility. _ Backgrround When the siting process was initiated in early 1990 for a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill, it was assumed that such a site, when identified and acquired, would also provide an area for the disposal of construction & demolition materials (C&D). As the process became protracted and it became likely that a new MSW facility would not be acquired, we initiated a dialogue with the Landfill Owners Group regarding the need for a C&D facility prior to solving our MSW capacity problem. In the summer of 1996 we began discussing C&D management options with the LOG. In December 1996, we prepared a comprehensive report (attachment 1) discussing a wide range of options and advising that about 2 1/2 years of capacity remained. (Since that time we have made some operational adjustments that has given us 6-8 months of additional capacity, with the estimated new full capacity date of early 2000.) The LOG sponsored a public forum on five distinct options in January 1997: • no new landfill or facility of any kind • landfill only, no waste reduction • transfer station to ship waste out • manual waste reduction facility . • semi-automated waste reduction facility Following the forum, the LOG examined the options and decided not to build any facility for C&D, but to pursue an ordinance meant to reduce C&D waste at the landfill. The LOG has spoken of C&D on several occasions since the early 1997 decision to not develop a facility to recycle or reduce C&D, as the uncertainty of what would happen when we reached capacity persisted. In February, 1998 the LOG asked the staff to initiate a site search for freely offered property for purchase within Orange County, suitable for a C&D disposal facility. The search for freely offered sites culminated in a May, 1998 report (attachment 2) which discussed the search process and its results. The only suitable site remaining among those discussed in the report is the site on Old NC 86, which happened to be considered the best site among the original five finalists and was recommended by staff. The LOG was unable to agree to acquire this site. We believe that the inability to negotiate without the benefit of the potential of using eminent domain as leverage resulted in an asking price which exceeded current market value. On September 10, 1998 the LOG and the governing boards of Carrboro and Chapel Hill sponsored a public hearing on the county's need for C&D management and, on possible locations for siting a management facility. A diversity of viewpoints were expressed at the hearing. We are now awaiting advice from the LOG on how C&D materials might be managed in the future. ,~ - page 2 - Discussion C&D waste disposal differs from MSW waste disposal in several ways: Generally less potential for groundwater contamination, therefore no requirement for a liner be used or leachate collection • Lack of the odors generally associated with MSW facilities • Less hauling of soil due to less frequent covering operations (once/weekly versus daily for MSW) resulting in less noise of equipment operating and less dust • No food waste to attract animals to scavenge. • Higher proportion of small vehicles (pickup trucks) • Cannot accept MSW wastes • No restrictions on minimum distance from airport C&D waste disposal facilities are also similar to MSW facilities in several ways: • .Generate traffic • Similaz siting regulatory guidelines • Require scheduled groundwater monitoring • Generally perceived as an undesirable land use • A MSW landfill can also accept C&D wastes Current C&D Site Options The following three sites aze currently under consideration. We also provide some key points for each: Old NC 86, located along the east side of Old Highway 86, north and west of Duke University property (attachment 3) Key Points - Most costly option to purchase. Use of eminent domain probably would reduce cost. . - Fewest neighbors impacted. - Lazge buffer areas. - Could not be physically integrated with remainder of LOG facilities.- - Would shift to a new neighborhood the responsibility of hosting the facility. A northern expansion of the existing C&D facility onto the adjacent Blackwood land and two other properties (attachment 4) Key Points - Least amount of development and operational cost because it is adjacent to the existing C&D landfill and could be easily integrated into existing operations. - Would be necessary to use eminent domain to acquire property. A 60 acre portion of the publicly owned Greene tract, located adjacent. to the southeast corner of the South Eubanks Road landfill (attachment 5) This option represents a modification from the original entire Greene tract option based upon a proposal made by Orange County that only a portion (60 acres) be used. !$ - page 3 - Key Points - We believe that 60 acres, as outlined in the enclosed drawing, would provide suitable space for a C&D disposal facility. -Property is already owned by owners of the landfill. - Entrance would be from Eubanks Road through an easement on the western portion of the Neville tract. - The railroad easement. would provide additional buffer on the eastern side. The required 30' easement would separate this site from the Neville tract, however, the entire Neville tract could be considered essentially buffer. As drawn, about 500' would separate the site from the western property line. Other buffers are shown at the required 200' minimum. -Site is adjacent to existing facilities and could be fully integrated with other solid waste operations. - Highest number of residences impacted. Summary Table of Site Options Old N.C. 86 Blackwood E ansion Greene Tract (***) Total Site Area (acres) 133 59 60 Estimated Purchase Price $1,300,000 (**) $885,000 (*) 0 Max. Yeazs of Ca aci 40 42 40 Residences within 1,000 of Pro e 9 18 59 Notes: (*) = Assuming $15,000 per acre; (**) = Assuming asking price of $10,000 per acre; and (***) = Revised per 60-acre option presented by Orange County. Decision Process Options We believe that there are three primary options for resolving the issue of future C&D management in Orange County. Other options may also possible. Select one of the current three site options (Blackwood expansion, Old NC 86, and Greene tract). The three options presented on page three above, represent 3 viable and diverse site options. We believe that sufficient technical information and input from the public has been presented in order to make an informed decision from among these choices. We believe that the Blackwood expansion and the Old NC 86 site would require use of eminent domain. - Conduct another county-wide site search for freely offered land for sale using original or new screening criteria. We conducted acounty-wide search this past spring at the direction of the LOG and identified 5 parcels which met our screening criteria. An on-site engineering evaluation of the five sites resulted in the elimination of two because of water or rock concerns. Over the period of LOG discussions, two more were sold. Only one site remains from that siting process -Old NC 86, originally estimated to be the most suitable among the five. Instituting another similar process could result >n additional sites being identified. It would cost approximately $20,000 and take a minimum of 90 days. Of course, there is no guarantee that a site more favorable that the one on Old NC 86 would be identified. -page 4 - Conduct a full C&D landfill siting process (similar to unsuccessful one conducted for an NISW site). It is possible to implement a comprehensive county-wide C&D landfill site search process. Such a process could be initiated within 30 days, however, from experience it is difficult to predict the duration. We had initially estimated the 1990 site search to be completed in 18 months. It could cost $100,000-$150,000 to have an engineering firm conduct the search. The LOG would be heavily involved in establishment of screening and ranking criteria, and the review of information. Alternatively, a citizens committee could be formed to lead the search; this would likely prolong the process. Our present C&D facility will be full by early 2000. Conclusion None of the sites currently identified are without problems or drawbacks. We believe there are no sites in Orange County that would be found to be without problems. Regardless of the process used to identify sites, the final decision will adversely affect or be perceived to adversely affect someone. We believe that it is imperative that a decision be made soon regarding future C&.D management for Oran County. Not on y is ere a nee or spos o unrecyc a e was es, u so a nee or an area waste represents one-tturd of our waste stream. ~%~ Recommendation: We recommend the Old NC 86 site as the most suitable location for the new facili .The ac oo srte or a reeve tract wo so be suita le. We further recommend that the LOG consider a comprehensive C&D ordinance ro osal which would si cants reduce the C&D waste available for dis oral, as described in a en a e e 'eve at such an or mance s ou a augmented by recycling/salvage operations located at the ispos site at wo manage a maten ui uce rom a waste stream. ~~~g/9g ~=~= Next Steps As soon as negotiations are concluded with the materials recovery facility consultant, we would like to begin work on development of the facility and believe that could start as soon as later ,October or early November with a series of meetings of Owners Group member governments, staff, consultants and the public to discuss specific materials recovery facility concepts. This could coincide with siting efforts for the facility. According to North Carolina's solid waste plan requirement, regardless of where waste generated in Orange County is disposed of, it will count against us in measuring our progress towards waste reduction goals. Therefore, we believe it is also in our interest to determine a location for a construction and demolition waste management facility so we would have a location for any construction and demolition recycling and recovery facilities that we would need to meet this component of our waste reduction goals. Local ownership of such a facility would also enable sound management of these types of wastes. Following receipt of the finance committee's recommendations, the Owners Group could begin the process of determining the means to finance implementation of the waste reduction and recycling elements of the plan. Recommendation We recommend that the Owners Group adopt the timetable and elements proposed in the resolution for implementation of the solid waste plan. attachments (4) Memorandum from Joyce Brown Table comparing Waste Reduction Goals Memorandum to Owners Group May 8,1998 Timetable for implementation of plan ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER PROPOSING LEGISLATION OF STATEWIDE APPLICABILITY ON CERTAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE 1999 SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly will convene in January 1999 to consider legislative matters during its Long Session; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners will consider and adopt a slate of legislative goals that will serve as the basis for various pieces of draft legislation, applicable on a statewide basis, to be presented for consideration by the General Assembly in 1999; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has identified a number of legislative changes that, if adopted, it believes will contribute to the public good and benefit the citizens of Orange County specifically and the State of North Carolina generally; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that it does hereby convey to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners its request that its legislative concerns, as enumerated below, be incorporated into draft legislation applicable to counties throughout North Carolina, and be presented to the North Carolina General Assembly within the timeframes established by that body for consideration in 1999; ^ Opposition to measures to restrict annual increase in the valuation of real property to 2% ^ Require utility providers to gain county approval for utility route selections ^ County authority to levy land transfer taxes ^ Expanded menu of county revenue sources ^ Authority for counties to levy additional sales taxes ^ Increased State role in paying the costs of Medicaid ^ Restoring growth in reimbursements for lost local property tax revenue ^ State funding for increased school utility costs ^ Local government exemption from State sales taxes (to supplant current reimbursement approach) ^ Increased court fees to provide counties with revenue for court facilities ^ Increased Medicare reimbursements for County EMS bills ^ Streamline the design and bidding processes for new school construction AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chair is authorized to convey this resolution to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners by means of a letter which elaborates on Orange County's concerns and recommendations, to the extent the Chair deems that necessary and appropriate. This, the 6~' day of October, 1998.