HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-1998 - Additional Information4 ,
Y
AGENDA #9
913311-19". Z11110
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Orange County Commissioners' Solid Waste Proposal
DATE: September 28, 1998
This memorandum introduces a staff report regarding the proposal from the Board of Orange
County Commissioners outlining the principles and conditions under which the Board would agree
to assume responsibility for solid waste management operations.
BACKGROUND
On April 30, 1998 the Board of County Commissioners asked the Town Council a number of
questions related to solid waste management in Orange County. In July, the Council responded. In
August the County Commissioners sent a proposal of how they would accept the responsibility for
managing solid waste in Orange County and requested the Council's response.
At the Council's August 29 retreat, the Council began discussing its response and used a
memorandum from Council Member Joyce Brown to organize its discussion. At the end of that
meeting the Council requested the Manager to complete his report on the Commissioners' proposal
and to schedule additional discussion time for the Council on this matter.
DISCUSSION
We have included several documents that the Council may find useful 'as it continues its discussion:
Agenda #9a - August 20, 1998 proposal from Chair Margaret Brown
Agenda #9b - August 21 memorandum to the Mayor and Council from Council Member Joyce
Brown
Agenda #9c - Draft Minutes of August 29, Town Council Work Session
Agenda #9d - Manager's September 28 Report to Council (with attachments)
1. July 8 letter from Mayor Waldorf to Chair Margaret Brown
2. Eighth draft of Interlocal Agreement dated November 1, 1997
3. Landfill Owners' Group Procedural Guidelines
OA
Our comments follow the order of the list of issues in the Commissioners' proposal.
Once the Council concludes its discussion on this latest proposal, we will transmit its comments to
the County Commissioners. We recommend that, in order for the governing boards to narrow their
differences, a conference committee composed of two representatives from each of the three
governing bodies should prepare a revised draft Interlocal Agreement.
We believe it critical to remain engaged in our search for sites for construction and demolition
disposal and a materials recovery facility and to not postpone an agreement on reorganization to
finalize either of these two matters.
AGENDA -?*' 9a
August 20, 1998
«Title» «First Namea> aL,ast Name»
Organizatiow)
<cAddressl»
«Address2»
(<City)), ((State* «Zip»
Dear ((First —Name)):
As I noted in my letter last week, on August 11 the Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work
session to discuss the future of solid waste management in Orange County. The Board reached consensus
concerning a concrete proposal under which the County would assume responsibility for overall solid waste
management in the next fiscal year.
The Board's discussion at the work session followed the organization of a report prepared by the County
Manager. based on the conceptual framework approved by the Commissioners in mid -June a countywide
solid waste management plan. The Commissioners' proposal to the Towns for assumption by the County of
solid waste responsibility is attached in Exhibit 1. It is laid out in accordance with the major headings of the
Manager's proposal of August 11, the outline of which presentation accompanies this letter as Exhibit 2.
I hope that you and your board will review this proposal carefully and let us know within sixty days whether the
Town feels we can move forward with this framework for solid waste management oversight I know that all
jurisdictions would like to resolve the remaining open matters as soon as possible, and trost that a spirit of
rnsonable compromise will help our respective jurisdictions reach final agreement. The Board of
Commissioners looks forward to your thoughts about our proposal.
Sincerely,
Margaret W. Brown
Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Proposal for Assuming Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations
August 11, 1995
L Visio_ n/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 additionai acrezge at the current landfill.
4. Whoever is responsible for countywide solid waste system needs committed partners to make an enterprise
operation economically viable.
S. 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.
LL Community Benef4ts
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 rougniy 65"/.- 26 %-y%, per Attachment 3 to the Manager's August i 1 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, 19k 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 Interloeal Agreement after it has been revised to incorporate modifications.
E. With regard to principle 44 (section I -B), the Board emphasized the importance of having committed partners.
F. Until the County assumes responsibility, the LOG shall continue to direct solid waste management, as in the past,
including operating by consensus.
G. Each government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management Advisory Commission, pursuant to
an adopted Interlocal Agreement, which shall succeed the LOG and begin meeting after adoption of the 1999 -2000
budget (no later than July 1, 1999).
H. The Board re- emphasized that solid waste collection /transportation decisions would remain the prerogative of each
local government entity.
I. It is important that UNC -CH representatives sit at the table, even if the University chooses not to commit to
participation in the solid waste management systerr..
M Facilities. Services. & Proomms
A. With regard to principle ;#2 (Section 1 -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 assurning 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 unnn filtu*r.Bpar&,of.0 %rr misvic PT —T-be B_s-d 2kp ,31ndicated a willingness = ._;:de- •l._
use of eminent domain as a last resort, with regard to other types of solid waste facilities.
V. Financ: a'n
A. As part of the financing mechanism, all boards endorse implementation of a "Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Hillsbamugh-
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 interiocal 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. f==ces 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.
AGENDA* 9b
Memo to: Mayor and Council
From: Joyce Brown, Chair, Landfill Owners Group
Subject: Solid Waste Matters
Date: August 21, 1998
As you are aware, the Orange County Commissioners recently completed discussions on
solid waste matters and will issue a final report to all local governments soon. Following
is the ten point proposal as discussed on August 1 Ith by the Commissioners. - It is my
understanding that this proposal was approved with minor changes and a few additions. It
seemed appropriate to use this as a vehicle to bring the Council an update on LOG matters
as requested by the Council, as well as comment on the proposal and compare it with the
Council's July 2nd discussion and Resolution where appropriate. The County's ten points
are in quotation marks with my comments directly following. From my reading of the
Council's July 2nd action and the County's proposal, there are area of agreement as well
as disagreement between the Council's and County's positions. It is my hope that this
memo will provide information and be a part of our continued discussions on solid waste
matters and help in giving guidance to the Council's LOG representatives for the LOG's
September 10th meeting which will include the Orange County Commission's report.
wi;i assume solid writ: mana?cmerrt r sponzibil ry C4.tobe, 1, I: ^3 to include
current and fixture operations."
COMMENT: An appropriate time to agree to this would be after all differences have
been resolved.
"County will accept transfer of all Chapel Bill (I believe the phrase "the number of
positions" was added into this proposal) solid waste management personnel who are on
staff as of September 30, 1998."
COIv N=: This is in keeping with the Council's July 2nd suggestion that all of the
system employees will be transferred to the County. It would be helpful for future
discussions, however, to know what additional personnel and administrative costs are
contemnlared. 1 his would be consistent with the Council's suggestion that administratiave
costs will not substantially increase.
"County shall approve the 1999 -2000 solid waste management operating budget. "
COMMENT: This is consistent with the present practice of final approval of the solid
waste budget by Chapel Dill, with the major difference being that-all local governments
now have considerable influence on the budget through the LOG. All elected officials in
Orange County need to realize that this will be a significant change. While there have
been many complaints about the LOG, there has always been a budget which has
satisfactorily me the solid waste needs of locsLt govt. -nmc,, s and Orange County citizens.
'us oudget ha, been generated by staff dism=sed by the LOG with some give and take
on all sides. The LOG then makes recommendations with the final budget included in the
Chapel Hill Town Council budget.
"As part of financing mechanism, all boards endorse implementation of a 'Chapel Hi11-
Carrboro-Orange County (and I believe Hillsborough was added) Solid Waste Availability
Fee' for all county residents."
COMMENT: Currently there is a LOG committee working with a consultant to
determine the best means of funding current and future solid waste operations in Orange
County. A great deal of time, expert thought, discussion by elected officials and staff, as
well as tax dollars have been put into this effort. Before agreeing to any funding
mechanism, it would seem best to at least have the benefit of the information gathered
and recommendation(s) from this committee. The next meeting of this LOG committee is
on Thursday, September 17, at 8:30 AM in the Chapel Bill public library meeting room.
"Solid waste operations shall continue to operate as an enterprise fund to the extent
Possible after the County assumes responsibility, but the County shall have the option of
implementing other fees, and shall not be required to use general fiuuds for solid waste
management activities."
COMMENT: This needs some clarification as to what is meant by other
fees," Does this mean fees other than the recommendations) that will come from the
LOG Finance Committee and endorsed by all local governments. Earlier the Council
supported continuing solid waste operations as an enterprise fund.
".,U] p:rues will sign the Interiocal Agreement after it has been revised tc incorporate
modifications."
COMMIl NT: On July 2nd, the Council suggested that before any agreement on
governance is made, that solid waste issues, including a C&D site, a MRF site, a transfer
station site and future financing methods be resolved.
"Sixty acres of the Greene Tract shall be set aside for use by the County in future solid
waste management activities. The balance of the Greene Tract shall remain under the
ownership of the current owners, who shall determine its future use."
COMMENT: There is a difference between the Council's and County's positions. Our
suggestion was that we needed to begin discussions on whether to keep the Greene Tract
as publically owned land, and if so, what if any uses would be suitable. The Council also
indicated that a decision about the Greene Tract should not delay the transfer of
governance.. We all probably have our preferences for the Greene Tract, but agreeing to
set aside such a large portion of this tract for unspecified future solid waste management
activities without discussions about a wide range of possible uses and the financial,
environmental8ndlocial implications #or each potential uses, and without-public input,
seems contrary to our July resolution. Also there is no indication about what solid waste
management activities were contemplated in this proposal. We need to have some
specifics about what this means.
"Local governments shall continue to work, through the LOG, to site a transfer station
and work to develop options for materials recovery and construction and demolition
disposal."
COM IEENT: There is also a difference here between the Council's July 2nd position and
the County's.
TRANSFER STATION: The Council's position was to plan for a transfer station
(meaning in Orange County) if no regional alternatives could be found. Sites in Orange
that have been mentioned for this facility include the three properties on the north side of
Eubanks (Mrs. Deng - Johnson`s parcels and the one in between), the Greene Tract and the
Economic Development Districts. The LOG staff is in the process of getting information
on the possibility of use of the Durham transfer station. This will include information on
whether the Durham transfer station could accommodate Orange garbage as well as
additional costs to local governments for hauling garbage to the Durham station. A
presentation on this will be made to the LOG at its September 10th meeting. The
Council's July 2nd resolution acknowledged that there will be no search for a future
landfill site at this time. There seemed to be a recognition that while we need to work on a
transfer station, this issue was not as critical at this time as the MRF and C&D sites.
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY: The County's position of woridng to develop
options for a materials recovery facility is another area of difference. The Council's July
2nd position was that we need to acquire a site (or use an existing LOG owned property)
for a MRF by fall. There is a much more immediate need for a MRF than a transfer
station The LOG already has options for a MRF. There will be a staff report at the
, ptember 10th LCG meeting on tiie Economic Development Districts in the County and
costs associated with using those sites for a MRF and transfer station. We also have
under consideration the three tracts of land on the north side of Eubanks Road as well as
the Greene Tract. Funds for a MRF consultant were allocated in ,last year's solid waste
budget and presumably will be reappropriated in this year's budget. The staff has just
completed a search, selected a consultant and is in contract negotiations now. When this
work is finalized in the near future, there will be a need, certainly within a short time, for a
chosen site for the consultant, in order to work with the LOG, all other elected officials,
the public and the staff; to develop plans for the facility. We have a variety of options for
a site and and on July 2nd the Council acknowledged the need to make a selection and
move forward.
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SITE: Once again there is a difference
between the Council's and the County's positions. The staff calculates that our present
facility has possibly 18 months of life left. This does create a need to move ahead with
siting a replacement facility or face the possibility of not having a C&D facility in Orange
County. The LOG i has three sites under consideration, including the Greene Tract, Mrs.
Blackwood's property and the site on Old 86. A public hearing on these sites as well as
the need for a C&D facility was set by the LOG and endorsed by the Council. The time
for that public hearing is September 10th, at 7:30 PM after the LOG meeting. This will be
h--.d in the Orange County Humaz Resource.- Building on Homestead Roan.
rol
"Until the County assumes responsibility the LOG shall continue to direct solid waste
management, as in the past, including operating by consensus."
CONIIv1ENT. This is in general agreement with the Council's position with the exception
of "operating by consensus ". The Council made no suggestion about this because it was
not an issue on July 2nd. For over a year and a hall; the LOG has been operating by
majority rule. This was agreed to by all LOG members, including the County
representatives. With County participation, this has been the way LOG has made
decisions since that time. It is my opinion that it would be difficult to move forward now
if we operated by consensus. One important example is the C&D public hearing. We
would not now be holding a public hearing regarding construction and demolition waste
and possible sites because the vote was not unanimous. I would hope that the Council
would recognise the need for the LOG to set its own rules as it did when making decisions
by majority rule was established.
"Each government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management
Advisory Commission, pursuant to the Intedocal Agreement, which shall succeed the
LOG and begin meeting on July 1."
CON0 ENT: It would be helpful to have some demon sbod the Council's role in an
advisory commission.
As a final comment, neither the Council nor the County mentioned the Integrated Solid
Waste Plan or the goals, both of which have been adopted by all four governing bodies. It
would be helpful to have a reaffirmation of both the plan and goals. If we are going to
meet ou, wane reduction goals and implement the Integrated Solid Waste Plan, we can't
continue to delay siting the facilities necessary to achieve those goals, particularly a NIRF
and C&D facility. The MRF consultant should be ready to begin work soon. Regarding
C&D waste, the LOG requested that the staff develop an ordinance for possible adoption
by all four governments which would address the issue of C&D waste reduction in a
meaningful fashion. This should be coming to the LOG this fall. If we don't have a C&D
waste facility ready and functioning when the present facility is full, then this type of
ordinance would be less effective. We would also have no way to set policies that would
reduce C&D waste. We need to hear from our staff about our ability to meet our solid
waste reduction goals without these facilities.
As one of your LOG representatives I hope that this memo will stimulate discussion which
would help your LOG representatives in discussions with our solid waste partners.
cc: Cal Horton
Sonna Loewenthal
Gayle Wilson
DRAFT MINUTES OF AUGUST 29; 1998
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA #9c
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Mr. Horton noted that a staff report would be prepared for the September 28`h Council meeting.
Council Member Brown asked if the Council was still in agreement with the resolution passed on
July 2 "d. She then went over the points she had made in her memorandum to the Council:
1. County assumes solid waste management responsibility on October 1, 1999 to include
current and future operations.
Mr. Horton suggested that July 1, the beginning of budget year, or January 1 would make more
sense than an October 1 deadline. He noted the October 1 date would require a second audit be
conducted. Mr. Horton added it would mean that the Town would oversee three months of the
budget with the County overseeing the remaining nine months.
2. County will accept transfer of all Chapel Hill solid waste management positions that exists as of
September 30, 1998.
Mayor Waldorf expressed concern that the word "positions" does not guarantee the actual
employees would be transferred, just the positions themselves.
Council Member Foy stated that personnel should be transferred, not positions.
3. CLdaty *, ^:11 approve the 1999 -2000 solid waste management operation budget.
The Council agreed that clarification was needed indicating that the County will prepare the 1999-
2000 budget and it will not be considered as part of the Town's budget next spring
4. As part of financing mechanism, all boards endorse implementation of a Chapel Hill- Carrboro-
Orange County Solid Waste Availability Fee for all County residents.
Council Member Foy commented this could mean a new tax for County residents.
Mayor Waldorf stated that the Landfill Owners' Group had engaged a consultant to study all aspects
of these recommendations.
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted such a fee should be a County -wide fee, not a Chapel Hill-
Carrboro- County fee.
5. Solid waste operations shall continue to operate as an enterprise. fund to.the extent possible after
the County assume responsibility, but the County shall have the option of implementing other
fees, and shall not be required to use general funds for solid waste management activities.
Mayor Waldorf noted her concern that the phrase implementing other fees does not mean additional
tip ices placed on municipalities without the municipality's permission. Mr. Horton noted that the
fund should continue as an enterprise fund to assure that funds going into the system are used solely
R
for the appropriate solid waste management, so the phrase "to the extent possible" should be
deleted.
Council Member Brown stated she was concerned that the option of implementing fees would not
mean that a new fee could be added, as well as an "availability fee ".
Mayor Waldorf noted the Council needed clarification on what "other fees" entails.
6. All parties will sign the Interlocal Agreement after it has been revised to incorporate
modifications.
(Council Member Edith Wiggins left at 2:50 p.m.)
7. Sixty acres of the Greene Tract shall be set aside for use by the County in future solid waste
management activities.
Council Member Evans noted she had reservations regarding the need for sixty acres. She stated
the value of this land is such that some could be sold and the money used to purchase land to build a
construction and demolition facility and have funds Ieft over. Mr. Wilson noted that about 14 acres
would be necessary to build a MRF or a transfer station.
8. Local governments shall continue to work, through the LOG, to site a transfer station and work
to develop options for materials recovery and construction and demolition disposal.
9. Until the County assumes responsibility the LOG shall continue to direct solid waste
management, as in the past, including operating by consensus.
10. Each government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management Advisory
Commission, pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, which shall succeed the LOG and begin
meeting on July 1.
UPDATES
Mr. Waldon gave a brief update on Comprehensive Plan issues and indicated staff reports will be
presented to the Council in September and October.
Mr. Waldon also gave a brief update on the Horace Williams Zoning district. He noted this is
scheduled for discussion at the Public Hearing on September 14th.
Mayor Waldorf said Orange .County Commissioners Chair Margaret -Brown had proposed that a
tour be organized to tour sites under construction to observe sedimentation and erosion control
practices.
Mayor Waldorf doted that OWASA will be asking all constituent governments to attend a Water
Summit regarding water quality in Jordan Lake.
AGENDA #9d
ul u•;- a11i1►Tii
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Orange County Board of Commissioners Proposal for Assuming
Responsibility for Solid Waste Management Operations
DATE: September 28, 1998
This memorandum presents a discussion of the issues raised in a letter from the Chair of the County
Commissioners, dated August 20, 1998. (Please see attachment to cover memorandum.)
BACKGROUND
On April 30, 1998 Margaret Brown, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, forwarded a
letter to the Town Council that asked the Council its opinion on certain matters and solicited the
Council's thoughts on how to move to closure on the major solid waste issues facing local
governments in Orange County. This letter included questions related to the transfer of
responsibility for solid waste operations.
On July 8, 1998 Mayor Waldorf, based on the Council discussion of July 2, sent a response
(Attachment 1).
On August 20, 1998 Ms. Brown forwarded a proposal to the Mayor and Council expressing how
Orange County might assume responsibility for overall solid waste management. Ms. Brown
requested that the Council review the proposal carefully and respond within 60 days.
DISCUSSION
We offer our thoughts on the issues raised in the August 20 letter and propose that we prepare a
response to the Commissioners based on the Council's guidance. It is our recommendation that the
draft Interlocal Agreement (Attachment 2 - draft of Oct. 7, 1997) be utilized to the extent possible
and modified as necessary to record the understandings among the parties. Below we follow the
order of issues presented in the County's working paper of August 20, 1998, offering our comments
on each issue.
2
Vision/Goals
A. Commitment to the solid waste goals adopted in December 1995
The Council adopted the goals of December 1995.
B. Six principles
1. Enterprise fund operation
In previous discussions the Council has agreed on the desirability of operating solid waste
management as an enterprise fund.
2. Greene tract
In a resolution approved July 2, 1998, the Council stated:
"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. "
3. Acquisition of additional acreage at the current landfill
We believe that the jurisdiction which ultimately assumes responsibility for solid waste
management should be free to acquire additional acreage as necessary.
4. Need for committed partners
We believe that cooperation among committed partners is essential for the success of solid
waste management in Orange County. We finther believe that adoption of an Interlocal
Agreement would formalize the commitment among the parties.
5. All community benefits to be provided by the landfill fund
As we understand it, North Carolina law, as established by both General Statutes and
Appellate Court decisions, limits landfill tipping fees to those reasonably necessary to
provide the services which the fees are intended to support. North Carolina Court decisions
indicate that a municipality may charge fees reasonably associated with operations,
depreciation and actual or anticipated capital costs of a public enterprise. A statutory
provision expressly states that a County landfill fee "may not exceed the cost of operating
the facility. "
Based on the advice of the Town Attorney, 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
3
neighbors. We believe the governing bodies could appropriately spend other public funds
on community benefits in this area.
6. Seek an economically viable system where waste reduction does not result in a financial
hardship for the remainder of the operations
We agree that waste reduction is a desirable goal and that we must provide adequate
financing for all operations. We believe that an independent source of enterprise fund
revenues, such as an availability fee, should be considered. The Landfill Owners Group
Finance Committee is scheduled to make a report to the LOG at the November meeting
regarding the issue of alternative financing.
Community Benefits
A. Financing water line extensions to landfill neighbors through the one -cent sales tax revenue,
or alternatively, funding the water service through LOG resources
We reiterate that we believe that the issue of double taxation is an important one which the
one -cent sales tax proposal does not resolve. We believe that all county residents should
share equally in the funding of any water service lines provided to the community around
the landfill, using the principle of one person/one tax. Several means of County funding
could avoid the double taxation of municipal taxpayers. We support the County either
paying from its operating budget or financing the costs through bonds or other instruments
of debt. The use of County sales tax revenues would also avoid municipal taxpayers paying
twice. The use of any resources of the municipalities would constitute double taxation, in
our opinion.
Only if there is credible evidence of a causative relationship between the landfill and the
water quality problems would we recommend considering using landfill funds to provide
water service. Even then we would suggest using landfill funds only if financially feasible,
given the other demands on the fund. In our opinion, it would also be improper to use the
proceeds from a solid waste availability fee to fund neighborhood benefits, based upon the
same rationale which restricts how tipping fee revenues can be used.
Governance/Management
A. If agreement is reached on other points. the County could assume responsibility no earlier
than October 1. 1999
We think it desirable that the County assume operational control concurrent with becoming
responsible for the budget. It would be difficult for one manager to be responsible for the
budget and the other for operations. From a budgetary perspective, July 1 would be the
most desirable time to implement the transfer. From a personnel perspective, January 1
would likely be the most desirable. However, we agree that an October 1 st transfer of
operations is feasible.
C.
to
E.
ra
4
Whenever the transfer is implemented, a comprehensive audit would be necessary so that
each party would know the exact status of the fund at the time of the transfer.
Transfer of existing; employees
We suggest the wording provided in the Interlocal Agreement:
"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."
Board of Commissioners should approve 1999/2000 landfill budget
G. S. 159.11 requires that a budget officer prepare and present the budget for consideration
by a governing board, which then adopts a budget ordinance. According to this statute, it
appears that a single governing board must be responsible for the budget.
We believe it would be necessary for the Chapel Hill 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.
All parties will sign the Interlocal Agreement
We agree that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners must sign the Interlocal Agreement in order to
execute the transfer of ownership and responsibility.
Importance of Having Committed Partners
Local- commitment to efficient, responsible, and progressive solid waste management in
Orange County is fundamental to the all future waste management activities. The Interlocal
Agreement would provide the legal basis for the commitment of the partners to the system.
LOG to continue to direct solid waste management, by consensus until Countv assumes
responsibility
The Landfill Owners Group is an advisory body to the three member governments and
does not direct solid waste management operations. The Town of Chapel Hill is currently
responsible for administration of the Landfill Fund and the Solid Waste Management
Department.
In January 1997, the Landfill Owners Group adopted a set of procedural guidelines
(Attachment 3) for the conduct of business. These guidelines provide an agreed upon
process of voting:
5
"One vote per jurisdiction"
"An evenly split jurisdictional vote is not to be counted"
The draft Interlocal Agreement (Art. VI 6.04,(b)) contains a section on the Solid Waste
Advisory Commission (the new LOG) which also describes a procedure for decisions being
made by majority vote.
G. Each member eovernment shall appoint two representatives to the Solid Waste Advisory
Commission, which will replace the LOG as an advisory body
Article VI of the draft Interlocal Agreement includes a section on the appointment of
members to the Commission.
H. Solid waste collection/transportation decisions would be the responsibility of each
jurisdicti on
We understand this to be a principle agreed to by all of the member boards. Additionally,
Art. V 5.01(d) of the draft Interlocal Agreement asserts this prerogative for each member
government.
I. It is important for UNC -CH to sit at the table
We think it would be useful for the University to monitor /participate in all proceedings and
that we should encourage their participation. It is our understanding of the law that the
University cannot be a party in the Interlocal Agreement. The University may be willing to
participate in the Solid Waste Advisory Commission.
Facilities. Services, & Proemms
A. Use of a portion of the Greene Tract for solid waste activities
The future use of the Greene tract is a public policy decision to be made by the governing
boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County.
Background
The Council has not stated a plan for future use of this land. The Northwest Small Area
Plan, which includes the Greene tract, presents a comprehensive recommendation for the
future development of this property. This plan, prepared by a citizens work group, has not
received an endorsement from the Council.
The Northwest Small Area Plan was presented to the Council in December, 1994. At the
time, the Council decided to await the outcome of the landfill siting process that included a
candidate site near the Greene tract. The siting process was unsuccessfully concluded in the
T
summer of 1997. By this time, a process to consider reorganization of landfill operations
was underway. The Greene.property was a key issue.
General Options
We still believe the uses contemplated in the Northwest Small Area Plan would be
reasonable. However, the Council could agree to other uses. Below are options for the
Council's consideration:
• Maintain current use/ownership until all three governments agree on its use.
• Force a division of the property so that each government would control its own portion.
• Transfer ownership of the entire tract to the jurisdiction that is selected to manage solid
waste operations in the future and consider the property a landfill asset.
• The three owning jurisdictions could reimburse the landfill fund for the purchase price
of the property, plus interest, and decide the future of the property outside the solid
waste arena.
• Sell the property and distribute the proceeds proportionally among the owners or to the
landfill fund and allow private or public development according to regulatory guidelines.
Reservation of 60 Acres for Solid Waste Management
We also agree that, as the County's suggestion is viable of dedicating 60 acres of the 169
acre tract to solid waste management activities, with the other 109 acres remaining under
joint ownership for future determinations of its use. We believe that an area of this size may
be suitable for a construction and demolition (C &D) disposal facility with a capacity in
excess of 30 years. If a transfer station were also to be located on this same 60 acres, the life
of the C &D facility would be reduced by about 5 years. Additional acreage would be
required for any C &D recycling and recovery operations. We believe that this acreage
would provide the minimum regulatory buffers of 200' to adjacent properties. Larger
buffers would either significantly reduce capacity or require additional acreage.
If 60 acres of the Greene tract is to be used for a construction and demolition
disposal/recycling facility or other solid waste use, this could be acknowledged and
incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement. The Town Attorney has indicated that a Special
Use Permit may not be necessary if the land is developed as a C &D facility, so long as no
buildings are contemplated.
B. Issues of siting a transfer station and developing options for materials recovery and
construction & demolition disposal
Transfer Station
We continue to recommend a site consisting of three small parcels, located directly adjacent
to and west of the current North Eubanks Road facility as the most appropriate location for a
transfer station. Others sites have been discussed and may be suitable options. A transfer
station will not be needed until about 2006 and will take about 18 months to plan and
construct.
Construction and Demolition
We have previously recommended a site on Old Highway 86 as the most appropriate site for
a new construction and demolition (C &D) facility. Other potentially suitable sites have also
been discussed for C &D. We feel it is essential to move ahead on a site for C &D. We have
less than 18 months remaining in our existing C&D site. There is a clear need for a new
facility. While there may be quays to reuse and recycle a portion of C&D waste, there will
always be a significant portion remaining that must be landfilled. We think there is
adequate and substantial information already available to allow informed decisions
regarding siting issues.
Materials Recovery Facility
We continue to recommend a site consisting of three small parcels, located directly adjacent
to and west of the current North Eubanks road facility for a MRF. Other sites have been
discussed and may be suitable options. We feel it is essential to move ahead on a site for a
MRF in order to proceed with implementation of the countywide solid waste plan.
We are currently finalizing negotiations with a consultant selected to assist us with
procurement of a materials recovery facility, which would become the fundamental
component of the County -wide solid waste plan. Little progress can be made toward
procurement without identifying a site. Implementation of the solid waste plan and its
desired impact on reducing the waste stream will be delayed until the issue of a MRF site is
resolved. Furthermore, without a MRF site, we are hindered in our discussions with
Chatham County, the University, and the City of Durham regarding the potential of sharing
our facility.
It is important with regard to both the MRF and the C &D facilities, that we soon select a
site. Each of these facilities are key elements of our integrated solid waste management
plan; we cannot meet our waste reduction goals without them both.
C. Formal intent not to seek a new MSW landfill in Orange County
We believe that a locally owned or controlled MSW disposal facility is still desirable, given
the potential future financial and public health risk of depending on distant facilities and
commercial vendors.
D. No eminent domain to acquire an MSW facility but could be considered for other solid
waste facilities
We believe that eminent domain should be used if necessary to obtain land needed for the
community's solid waste management facilities.
8
Financing
A. All boards should endorse the implementation of an availability fee
We believe that an availability fee would be a reliable method of financing future solid
waste expenditures that cannot be supported by tipping fees. While all of the boards could
endorse the available fee, the draft Interlocal Agreement seems to provide a contractual
basis (Article V 5.05 of attachment 2) in addition to a statutory basis for imposing such a
fee. It would be somewhat unwieldy to call such a fee the "Chapel Hill- Carrboro-
Hillsborough- Orange County Solid Waste Availability Fee ".
B. The County will operate solid waste operations as an enterprise fund, without the use of
Co= general funds
The draft Interlocal Agreement would continue solid waste operations through an enterprise
fund. The Interlocal Agreement (Article V) provides for the utilization of other fees.
C. Interlocal Aereement should allow the lead agency to raise fees by up to 10 o
Article V of the Interlocal Agreement provides for the limitations on tipping fee increases.
"The County may not, however, increase the Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee during or at
the beginning of any Fiscal Year by more than 10% without the prior consent of all the
other Parties. "
D. The Commissioners endorse in concept:
a) financing core operations through tipping fees
We support the concept of financing ore operations through tipping fees to the extent
possible.
b) financing solid waste collection/transportation through property taxes and collection
charges
We support the concept, contained within the draft Interlocal Agreement, that individual
governments may organize and fund solid waste collection operations as they choose.
c) financing reduction and recycling through tipping fees as possible, and availability fees
where necessary
We support the concept of financing waste reduction, recycling, and processing through
tipping fees as possible and through availability fees where necessary.
6
E. Willingness to consider gay -as -you -throw (PAYT) as a revenue and waste reduction tool
PAYT may be a suitable financing method for waste collection and disposal services;
however, this is the business of each local government. The Interlocal Agreement does not
allow for the imposition of a PAYT funding system on individual jurisdictions, although
each jurisdiction has the option of using PAYT and/or mandatory recycling as waste
reduction tools. These regulatory waste reduction methodologies are contained in the
County -wide solid waste management plan. We believe that the financing of collection and
disposal costs should be left up to each jurisdiction.
F. Recommends an indirect cost study prior to assuming lead role
The Town utilizes a cost allocation formula to assign administrative overhead costs to the
Landfill Fund. The formula is based on that allowed by the federal government for local
government projects and has been used by the Landfill Fund for several years upon
recommendation of the Chapel Hill Finance Director. The Chapel IMI General Fund
receives annual payments of 13.55% of full -time salary costs (currently $114,000). This has
proven reasonable compensation for financial, personnel, and general administrative
services.
We think the current allocation occasionally may not provide adequate reimbursement for
the time of the Town Manager and Town Attorney; however, these time commitments are
intermittent and are at least partially the result of our existing organizational structure and
the difficulty involved in managing our joint arrangement. A unified and consolidated
organization would not require such a high level of administrative involvement.
The County could use the percentage of overhead we have used; or use the percentage they
already use on federal contracts. We would suggest that the County begin using such a
method and, once they gain experience, conduct an analysis of real costs and make
adjustments as necessary. We believe that no pronounced differences in costs will be
encountered.
CONCLUSION
We believe the lack of agreement on governance has made it difficult to make decisions effectively
and in a timely manner. It has created unnecessary and time - consuming steps for all the elected
officials to go through. Staffing these extra steps has taken time away from the business of
managing the current operations.
We have reached a point where decisions regarding a construction and demolition disposal and
recycling site and the site for a materials recovery facility need to be made. We believe that these
decisions should not wait until the Interlocal Agreement is concluded to be resolved, but should be
made now and incorporated into the agreement. Additionally, we believe the implementation of the
solid waste management plan for Orange County must proceed now if we are to meet our adopted
goals of per capita waste reduction.
10
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council discuss the issues addressed in this memorandum and prepare a
response to the County's proposal that includes the following objectives:
1. Use the most recent draft of the Interlocal Agreement as the starting point for the final
agreement between the three member governments.
2. Acquire a site for a construction and demolition landfill now, and incorporate the
commitment to use a specific location into the Interlocal Agreement. We still believe the site
on Old 86 is the most favorable.
3. Acquire a site for a materials recovery facility now and proceed to plan and build it. The
commitment to use a specific location should be incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement.
We recommend the site next to the landfill on the north side of Eubanks Road.
4. Include a commitment to the implementation of the county -wide integrated solid waste
management plan, as adopted by all four Orange Couily jurisdictions, into the Interlocal
Agreement.
5. Finalize an alternative method of financing future solid waste programs which cannot be
financed through tipping fees. We believe a countywide availability fee to be the most
suitable.
6. 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 areas of disagreement remaining and revise the draft Interlocal
Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. July 8 letter from Mayor Waldorf to Chair Margaret Brown (begin new page 1)
2. Eighth draft of Interlocal Agreement dated November 1, 1997 (begin new page 1)
3. Landfill Owners' Group Procedural Guidelines
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516
July 8, 1998
Margaret Brown
Board of Orange County Commissioners
1509 Smith Level Road
Chapel Hill., N.C. 17516
Dear Ms. Brown:
ATTACHMENT 1
Telephone (919) 965 -2700
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of April 30, 1998 regarding a series of issues related to solid
waste management. The Council has discussed these issues at some length on June 22 and July 2 and
we send our comments to you. We have organized our response around the questions that you raised.
In addition to the discussion below, I enclose a copy of the resolution the Council adopted giving
guidance to the Chapel Hill representatives on the Landfill Owners Group. Also enclosed is a copy of
a proposal for governance of the solid waste system. The Council voted to endorse it as a proposal
that the Council would like to consider and to forward it to the governing bodies of Orange County,
Canboro and Hillsborough. I am doing so along with copies of this letter and the accompanying
resolution.
Financing Solid Waste Operations
Point Al: Local responslbility for collection of garbage
The Commissioners support the principle that each governing board would retain its responsibility for
collection of solid waste. The adopted solid Waste Management Plan contemplates the same division
of responsibility for garbage collection as well as the centralized collection and processing of
recyclables.
Point A2-4• Use of tipping fee to maximum extent possible
We agree that the tipping fee should be used to the extent possible to support county -wide solid waste
management operations. However, we also agree with the Landfill Owners Group's admonition that
the tipping fee may become inadequate to do that. As waste reduction and waste recycling programs
succeed, the volume of waste disposed in the landfill decreases. However, landfill tipping fees support
the cost of waste reduction and waste recycling programs. If the tipping fees are increased to cover the
increasing costs of waste reduction and recycling, volumes delivered to the landfill decrease partly
because of the success of the other programs and partly because tipping fees become prohibitive. The
Orange Regional Landfill tipping fees are now close to the top of the range of landfills in surrounding
counties.
Margaret Brown
Page 2
Therefore, we believe that it would be prudent to establish alternative funding to be incorporated into
the Fiscal 1999/00 landfill budget. A necessary step before recycling can be substantially increased is
the siting, building and operation of a materials recovery facility. The siting and development of a
construction and demolition landfill is needed now to help extend the life of the mixed solid waste
landfill- A transfer station may be needed in 2005 -06 when the current landO is M. Therefore, we
believe it is advisable to initiate additional funding sources as soon as possible to begin accumulating
needed capital funds.
A LOG committee is currently exploring financing methods in addition to the tip fee. until that work
in completed this sun mw, we would not want to exclude the use of any potential financial source,
including pay -as- you -throw fees and the General Fund of any of the governmental bodies.
Presently the solid waste operation is an enterprise fimd. It is assumed from this section that the
County intends to continue to deal with solid waste matters in the same way, but this is not clearly
stated. It would be helpful to have the County say that it intends to continue the solid waste operations
as an enterprise fiord. Also a LOG financing committee has been at work for several months and will
make recommendations in the fimture to the LOG for review and consideration for all the governing
bodies in Orange County. It would be helpful for the County to acknowledge this committee and let us
know how it plans to use these recommendations.
Point A5: Participation of Carrboro and Chanel Frill in financing community benefits
We continue to believe that the issue of double taxation is an important one. We believe that all county
residents should share equally in the funding of any water service Imes provided to the community
around the present landfill, using the principle of one person/one tax. Several means of County finding
could avoid the double taxation of municipal taxpayers. We support the County either paying from its
operating budget or financing the costs thorough bonds or other instruments of debt. The use of
County sales tax revenues would also avoid municipal taxpayers paying twice. We would emphasize
that the use of any resources of the municipalities would constitute double taxation.
Point A6: Analysis of indirect costs to be chargeed against the Landfill Fund
We are not sure of the benefit of an independent analysis of the indirect costs of administering the solid
waste operations. It appears that the County believes that the $115,000 (FY 98/99) that the Landfill
Fund pays to the Chapel Frill General Fund for such costs would not be sufficient should the County be
the administrator of the landfill.
Over the past 26 years, the wort: of the Solid Waste Management Department has grown significantly,
but gradually. Therefore, Landfill Fund administration has been gradually incorporated into the jobs of
many Town employees, including such positions as revenue collector, payroll clerk, personnel analyst,
Purchasing agent, finance director, personnel director and the like. Such work has also become a part
of the jobs of the Town Attorney, Assistant Town Manager and the Town Manager' None of these
Positions exist solely to serve Solid Waste and in no case does Landfill Fund - related work comprise the
full work; of any position outside of those positions that are part of the Solid Waste Department.
We believe that the existing cost allocation formula that assigns administrative overhead costs to the
Landfill Fund generally provides reasonable compensation for financial, personnel, and general
administrative services.
Margaret Brown
Page 3
Point AT Direction of reserve funds to the planning and development of new facilities
Landfill Fund reserve accounts have been established to provide for part of the costs of planning and
establishing new facilities, as follows:
• The Equipment Reserve is intended to provide for the equipment needed for daily
operations.
• The Eubanks Road Reserve is intended to pay for the planning and construction of the
remaining cell of the Eubanks Road landfill, as well as the final cover and closing of that
facility.
The Land Acquisition and Construction Reserve is available and sufficient for the
acquisition of land for a material recovery facrti'ty (MRF), a transfer station and a
construction and demolition disposal facility.
,Operating funds have been appropriated for the planning for a MRF, with the understanding that the
MRF would be designed, built and operated by a private party. If the governments decide that it is
advantageous for the Landfill Owners Group to retain ownership of the building itself and/or the
equipment within, this reserve fund could also contribute, as funds are available, to this expense. The
attached tables (Attachment 5) demonstrate how the present reserves could, with continued annual
contributions, finance site acquisition and development of the needed additional facilities.
The Finance Committee of the Landfill Owners Group will be discussing financing issues for all
contemplated facilities and programs over the summer, reporting back to the full Owners Group. We
anticipate that the Landfill Owners Group will further discuss financing issues this fall following the
Finance Committee's work
We agree that discussion among the two stags would be helpfiil in developing options for the future
disposition of the administration building currently located in the Chapel Dill Public Works yard. In this
regard, we note that it is likely that sufficient property could result from proposed land acquisition for
some of the above mentioned facilities to site a new or relocated administration building.
Margaret Brown
Page 4
Point A8: _ No use of the power of eminent domain for acouiring land for a sanitary landfill
We would request that the Commissioners clarify whether this policy would apply also to acquisition of
land for other solid waste management facilities, such as a construction and demolition waste landfill,
materials recovery facility or a transfer station. We believe that it would be difficult, maybe
impossible, to site one of these facilities without the possibility of using eminent domain.
We believe that it is unlikely that a new sanitary landfill could be acquired in Orange County without
the use of eminent domain proceedings.
Regardless, it appears that a decision has been passively made not to have another mixed solid waste
landfill in Orange County. There is no effort now being made to identify a site for a landfill. There is no
discussion of initiating a process to do so. The present landfill wr11 be fun in 2005 -06, and it takes
about 5 years from the point of transfer of title to disposal of the first bag of garbage in a new landfill.
Therefore, we believe that the community should be planning for a transfer station, including searching
for a site.
Point A9: Hither costs of operating muhinle
We anticipate that a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill and a materials recovery facility
(MRF) will need to operate mnultaneously with either a mixed solid waste landfill or a transfer station.
The two former facilities are necessary to minimize the solid waste that must be either landfilled or
transported out of county to a final disposal fatality.
The attached March 12 memorandum from the Solid Waste Director to the Landfill Owners Group
explains the issues related to the simultaneous operation of a landfill and a transfer station and why we
do not recommend it. The key points are:
• fixed costs of landfill operation are such that reducing the volumes received would not
reduce the costs significantly
• building and operating a transfer station is expensive, especially because our waste stream
is relatively small; reducing the waste stream would likely increase the unit costs of transfer
and transportation
We would recommend operating a transfer station only if it were necessary to fill the time interval
between the closing of the present landfill and the opening of another, or if the decision is made to
avoid an in- county landfill in the firture.
The simultaneous operation of a MRF and either a landfill or a transfer station is a key point of the
integrated solid waste management plan. The MRF would be necessary to maximize recycling and,
therefore, to reduce to the greatest extent possible the waste either being iandfilled in Orange County
or needing transportation to an out -of- county landfill.
As noted in the discussion above of the Landfill Fund's reserves, we believe that existing reserves and
future landfill revenues, if continued as currently projected, could fund the acquisition of property for a
Margaret Brown
Page 5
construction and demolition facility and for a transfer station/materials recovery facility, and pay for the
construction of the transfer station in 20005 -06 (assuming a construction and demolition management
facility site can be developed, preventing C&D wastes from shifting to the lined landfill). The
construction and demolition facility could pay for all C&D operations and, in addition, could probably
fund post - closure expenses for the required thirty years for the Eubanks Road landfill.
It is also our opinion that current and future landfill revenues will be insufficient to fund all the new
costs related to the implementation of the solid waste plan Additionally, revenues from the transfer
station would be needed to fund the waste transfer operation, with little or none left over for funding of
recycling or waste reduction programs. Once the landfiIl reaches capacity, those existing recycfpg and
waste reduction programs being funded from landfill revenues would also need to receive other
funding.
In summary, we believe that the main financial issue is how to fiord county wide recycling, processing
and waste reduction programs. Other programs could probably be self -sustiinitig. These issues will be
discussed in detail by the Landfill Owners Group and its Finance Committee.
Administration
Attached is a copy of the Town's policy on reduction in force. However, we cannot comment now on
what the Town would do if it finds that a reduced waste stream would allow a decrease in solid waste
staff. It would depend on the situation in the rest of the Town's organization and exactly which
positions were not needed.
We do not envision a significantly reduced waste steam in the near future. Rather, we expect a major
shift of waste materials from disposal to recycling, and shift of resources from landfill to recycling and
waste reduction activities. If the adopted solid waste management plan is implemented, recycling and
waste reduction services for the county will be expanded-
Thing of Potential Transfer of Responsibility for Solid Waste Operati ons
The County _Commissioners note that it would take a year for the County to assume administration of
solid waste management activities after an agreement on governance is concluded. The Town can
continue to manage solid waste operations indefinitely, but we believe that a decision must be made.
We are especially concerned about the stress being experienced by landfill employees, who, for several
years have had no certainty about their future employer or their firture employment. We would
emphasize our sense of urgency about the County completing a proposal this fall so that we might
resolve issues of governance and be able to focus on the solid waste management needs of the
community.
Community Benefits
We agree with the resolution of the Landfill Owners Group adopted unanimously on February 18,
1998, that the Greene tract not be used for C&D, MRF, or transfer station operations. In addition,
State regulations would not allow its use for a mixed solid waste landfill because of its proximity to
Horace Williams Airport.
We would not object to asking OWASA to consider a means of waiving or reducing its fees to help
fund neighborhood benefits.
Margaret Brown
Page 6
The Council has also supported the extension of water lines to the area surrounding the landfill,
assuming that an equitable way to share the cost can be developed.
We believe that a special reserve fund to help defray the costs of any firture water he extensions is
unnecessary for the following reasons:
1. The fill area is surrounded by 21 monitoring wells meant to detect any contamination coming
from the waste before it reaches the property line of the landfill Therefore, it should be possible
for the first indications of any contamination from the fill area to be detected and mitigated before
such contamination can reach the property line.
2. Even with all the precautions followed in designing, building and operating the landfill, it is
theoretically possible for contamination to occur. There is an undesignated fund balance available
at all times for true emergencies.
3. The entity that is ultimately responsible for solid waste management should decide if such a reserve
fund is prudent.
The Town Attorney also notes that any neighborhood benefits need to follow a general policy, rather
that distinguishing among landowners based on their individual histories. We would also point out that
the area designated by the County as the "historical Rogers Road neighborhood" excludes the land of
Gertrude Nunn, next to the eastern boundary of the landfill.
CONCLUSION
The life of our present mixed solid waste landfill is expected to end in 2005-06. As we move closer to
that point, it will become more difficult to make decisions and provide services in the most efficient
and effective way possible.
As time goes by,, the commrurity's options will become more and more restricted. Remaining space in
both the construction and demolition and the municipal solid waste landfills diminishes with each day of
operation. This community may be forced to negotiate agreements with out -of- county landfills and
operators of other solid waste facilities when the predictable end of our disposal capacity puts us in a
very poor negotiating position.
We believe that we need to maximize the fife of the landfill even while we prepare to replace it, be the
replacement in- county or out -of- county. To this end we believe the following steps are needed:
Acquire a site for a construction and demolition waste landfill now. About one third of our
waste stream is construction and demolition (C&D)waste. The current C&D landfill space will be
full in 18 months; if no alternative has been identified and developed by that time, C&D waste will
have to go into the lined municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. Such placement-would cut about 2
vears from the remaining life of the MSW landfill. Simple refusal by the landfill to accept C&D
waste would leave about 550 customers a week with a choice of travelling to Holly Springs (a
facility that is predicted to close in 2 years) or farther, or dumping in the woods or the side of the
road. Finally, because handling C&D costs less than the revenue it generates, the lack of a C&D
landfill would cause the loss of about $400,000- 500,000 per year of net revenue.
Margaret Brown
Page '7
Three potential sites are before the Landfill Owners Group now: a) an extension of the present
C&D site onto land owned primarily by Ms. Blackwood, b) the Greene tract, and 3) a site within 2
miles of the present landfill whose owner wishes to keep the location confidential.
a) The Blackwood site would be the most efficient and economical to operate, because it would be an
extension of present operations. The same scales, equipment, access road and supervision could
continue to be used. No land would need to be acquired for a buffer where it adjoins the present
landfill. However, it would come close to the home of Ms. Blackwood and of Mr. Nunn, and Ms.
Blackwood has recently repeated her refusal to sell her land for use as a landfill.
b) The Greene tract would have the lowest acquisition costs: it is presently owned by the three landfill
partners. It could use the same scales, equipment and supervision. However, it is surrounded by
developed neighborhoods. The Landfill Owners Group unanimously adopted a resolution on
February 18 recommending to the governing boards that the Greene tract not be used for a C&D
landfill, a materials recovery facility or a transfer station. And, we believe that the land is too
valuable to use this way, both in terms of the market price and in terms of the role it could play in
creating a village center, a park, affordable housing, and/or other elements of the Council's vision
for the northern part of our planning area.
c) The third site has the advantages of being well- buffered from the closest house and being freely
offered for sale. It is also close enough to the mixed solid waste landfill to minimize inconvenience
to customers who have to be redirected to the C&D landfill, and close enough for supervision and
some equipment to be shared. It is the only site found preliminarily to be suitable for a C&D
landfill after a county wide search for land freely offered for sale. Its total price may be higher than
we would expect to pay for the smaller parcels owned by Ms. Blackwood and an out of town
owner, but we believe its isolation f Tom ne bbors and the bat that it is voluntarily offered for sale
are worth the price.
We discuss below how the acquisition of these sites could be financed.
Acquire a site for a material recovery facility (N RF) now and proceed to plan and build it.
Such a facility is necessary for a siggnificant increase in recycling and concomitant reduction in
municipal solid waste going into the mixed solid waste landfill. The three parcels directly west of
the current landfill property on the north side of Eubanks Road together make an excellent site.
The power of eminent domain should be used if necessary. It would take about three years to
design, permit and build a materials recovery facility, once the site has been acquired.
Use the Landfill Fund reserves to fmance the acquisition of both sites. There is enough in
reserve for the acquisition of sites for both a materials recovery facility and a C&D landfill, as well
as for the development of the rest of the present mixed solid waste landfill and its closure.
Attachment 5 includes tables detailing the present and projected status of the reserve funds
ass mm that the recommended sites for the materials recovery facility and the C&D landfill are
acquired in 1998 -99.
?. Conciude issues concerning governance. Lack of agreement on governance has made it difficult
to make decisions effectively and in a timely manner. It has created unnecessary and time-
consuming steps for all the elected officials to go through. Staffing these extra steps has taken time
awav from the business of manaoinv the current operations.
Margaret Brown
Page 8
We would add three other items which are important to the Town Council
1. We believe that all current Solid Waste Department employees should be transferred to the
County, where they would become County employees subject to the supervision of the County
Manager.
2. We caution that the administrati�,e cost factor not substantially increase. It is currently based on
13.5% of the salaries of Solid Waste employees.
3. We believe that all ofthe solid waste issues now pending should be resolved before any agreement
on changes in governance, including the need for a construction and demolition waste landfill,
siting a construction and demolition landfill, sting a materials recovery facility, siting a transfer
station and the resolution of firture financing methods for solid waste operations.
We in Chapel Bill look forward to receiving your proposed agreement in the fall and recognize that,
whoever nms solid waste operations, we will all need to work together to make these decisions.
Continued cooperation among the governments win serve the welfare of the residents of this
community.
Sincerely,
Rosemary I. Waldorf
Mayor
enclosw es
cc: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Mayor and Canboro Board of Aldermen
Mayor and IElsborough Board of Commissioners
RIW:ddh
A RESOLUTION OFFERING SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THE COUNTY ASSUMING
ADMINISTRATION OF SOLID WASTE MATTERS FOR ORANGE COUN'T'Y WITH A
REQUEST FOR A REPLY (98- 7- 2/R -1)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Dill is one of three governments which own the
Orange Regional landfill; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the governing body of each owner form the Landfill Owners Group,
which advises the governments on matters of solid waste management; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel IUL under the 1972 agreement, operates the landfill; and
WHEREAS, the three owners of the landfill have raised significant questions about future means of
reducing and disposing of solid waste, and about finure governance of solid waste management in
Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Bin that its
representatives on the Landfill Owners Group are requested to pursue the following objectives:
1. Join with the other Landfill Owners Group members to hold a public hearing in September on the
three sites presently under consideration by the Landfill Owners Group. Acquire a site for a
construction and demolition waste landfill by fall of 1998. Continue to be open to other possibilities .
that may arise.
2. Acquire a site, if acquisition is necessary, for a materials recovery fiucility by fall of 1998 and proceed
to plan and build it. The site next to the landfill on the north side of Eubanks Road is one possible site
and the power of eminent domain should be used if necessary; the Greene Tract is another possible site
which would not require acquisition_ Continue to be open to other possibilities that may arise.
3. Plan for a transfer station if no alternatives, including use of exstmg transfer stations in other
locations, can be found. Begin to identify possible locations. The site next to the landfill on north
site of Eubanks Road is one possible site and the Greene Tract is another possible site.
4. Use the Landfill Fund reserves to finance the acquisition of sites for and construction of solid waste
facilities.
5. Acknowledge at this time that there will be no search for a firture landfill site recognizing that this
will not be binding on any future governments.
6. We desire a quick resolution to governance issues.
7. Recognize that a decision about the Greene Tract should not delay the transfer of governance.
8. In all finance issues, be sensitive to the issue of double taxation.
This the 2nd day of July, 1998
July 2, 1998
Memo to: Council Members
From: Mayor Waldorf
Re: A proposal for governance of the solid waste system
I offer the following proposal for governance of future solid waste management
operations for your consideration. It is an option that has been mentioned, but never
much discussed, at Council meetings. You will see that it is rather general, but I
believe it is quite workable if our partners can agree to it, or to some variation of it. I
have told both Mayor Nelson and Chairman Brown that I would probably offer this
suggestion to Council today, and asked them directly if they would in any way take
offense: Both assured me that they would not. Let me state emphatically that it is not
my intent to create any division among the partners, or to prolong this process. I am
searching for an approach that will move the process forward.
ACTION STEPS
Step 1. Conclude site selections for a C &D disposal facility and a MRF and transfer
station. The LOG is attempting to do this now. Acquire the properties, using landfill
reserves. These decisions, which would be ratified by all the LOG partners, would
settle key policy and operational issues.
Step 2. Agree that Chapel Hill will administer future solid waste management
operations, specifically:
-- Operate the landfill until it is closed, and assume responsibility for post- closure
monitoring. -
-- Construct and operate a new C &D facility indefinitely.
-- Supervise design of a MRF; negotiate contract with a private company to build
and operate a MRF. (I recommend that we pin down our minimum predictable
recyclables stream before we make this large financial commitment. For a MRF,
more recyclables are better; in fact, it's hard to have enough. )
-- Supervise design and construction of a transfer station. Negotiate contract
with an out of county hauler and disposer. Manage the transfer station
operation indefinitely.
Step 3. Agree on dimension of shared budget oversight, and whether we should have
an advisory board. (Accomplish these steps quickly.)
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Peesonnel: Qualified solid waste management staff would retain their jobs, as
emnicvaes of the town of Chapel Hill. Our manager, assistant manager and at:omey
would continue to provide management and legal advice.
Collection: Collection method would remain a decision made by each local
government.
Annual budget: Chapel Hill staff would develop the annual budget for solid
waste operations. The annual budget must be reviewed by Board of Commissioners,
Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and Hillsborough Town Board. These elected boards
need some specific budget authorities regarding system costs that directly affect their
town or county budgets. I do not have details to offer here, but I believe we should
return to the draft Interlocal Agreement. It has some very reasonable stipulations on
this point, and it was worked out in great detail. (In addition, the landfill fund paid an
attorney, Bob Jessup, a handsome fee to draft this proposal. I hope we will not throw it
away; instead, I hope we will mine it for its good features.) Clearly, the 1972 interlocal
agreement needs updating.
Sources of revenue: Tip fees will be charged for both C &D and MSW
disposal. It is clear to everyone that another source of revenue will be needed in the
future. Equity requires that this be a county -wide source of revenue. Law requires that
any county -wide source of revenue must be imposed by the commissioners, and can
only be imposed by the commissioners. I would hope that Orange County would enact
a non - regressive revenue - generating instrument for long -term solid waste
management, to provide the necessary supplement to tip fees -- necessary if we are
going to meet our solid waste reduction goals. (For the part of Chapel Hill that is in
Durham County, Chapel Hill might need to capture this revenue.)
Solid Waste Management Plan: All 4 governing bodies adopted this plan,
and adopted the same set of waste reduction goals. As policy, this plan is in force for
our system, though not fully implemented. Our planning, to date, is predicated on this
Plan, because this plan is policy.
Community Benefits: This issue has been successfully severed (I hope and
believe) from the governance issue. Several requested benefits have already been
provided. Data to help determine where the water lines should go is being studied by
an Orange County intem, under the direction of Margaret Brown. An Orange County -
Chapel Hill - Carrboro committee has been appointed to recommend how water
provision should be financed. I think we all hope this committee will complete its
charge over the summer.
"OPEN MATTERS"
Bob Jessup, the attorney hired to draft the Interlocal Agreement, used this
elegant phrase to refer to matters undecided, and not essential to executing an
interlocal agreement. As open matters, I would put forth a preliminary list of 2:
Advisory Board. Perhaps we need a citizen advisory board with
representation from each of the 4 jurisdictions. I am very flexible, and could happily
live with or without such a board. (Again, the draft Interlocal Agreement has some
good and painstakingly worked out standards on this subject.)
The Greene Tract. I would suggest that Chapel Hill be willing to commit to
administer solid waste management operations without requiring that the Greene Tract
be a landfill asset. I am content to say, for now, that it is a public asset, and to let its
future be determined LaW by the three owners. I tear the Greene Tract's future may
stand in the way of getting the important siting and govemance decisions made.
Thank you for considering my proposal. As I see it, the Council could do any of the
following:
1. Politely thank me for this proposal and reject it.
2. Endorse it as an option the Council would like to consider, and forward it to Orange
County, Carrboro and Hillsborough, for their consideration and comment
. 3. Embrace it warmly, wfth smiles all round, and urge it on our partners.
I have resolved to go home happy, no matter how my proposal is dealt with, but gently
remind us all that these issues need to be put to bed soon.
ATTACHMENT 2
Eighth draft, dated October 7, 1997
Marked to show changes from the draft of September 22
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
CONCERNING SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT MATTERS
Dated as of Oerab 1Voyember 1, 1997
Among
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TOWN OF CARR.BORO, NORTH CAROLINA
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
CONCERNING SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT MATTERS
This Interlocal Agreement Concerning Solid Waste Management Matters is dated as of
Qeteber November 1, 1997, and is by and among ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, the TOWN OF CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, the TOWN OF
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, and the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH
CAROLINA.
WHEREAS, the parties have worked together over a period of years to develop an
effective, comprehensive approach to the solid waste management issues confronting them, and
have reached this Agreement to address those issues;
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
1.01. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the Parties' agreement
to transfer operational control to the County of the solid waste management system serving the
County and the Towns, and to establish the terms for the management of such solid waste
management system under which the Towns will participate in formulating solid waste
management policy for their own jurisdiction and for Orange County as a whole.
1.02. Conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,
(a) no provision of this Agreement, other than the requirement to bargain as described
in Section 1.03, shall become effective until the Parties have selected the New Solid Waste
Management Site � red dei�e�Lhe— pr-eee�sses described -i See�ie s ^ "a APF
- r)1%{1a3; and
(b) the asset and liability transfer contemplated by Article 11, and the transfer of
operational control contemplated by Article V, shall not take place until Carrboro, Chapel Hill
and the County have executed and delivered the Transfer Agreement, as contemplated by
Sections 2.01 and 2.07.
The selection of the New Solid Waste Management Site, the _ `~ ..
the approval by the Governing Boards of Carrboro. Chanel Hill and the County of a
substantially final form of the Transfer Agreement are referred to in this Agreement as the
"Open Matters."
1.03. Diligent Good Faith Bargai The Parties shall bargain together in good
faith and with all due diligence, and shall use their respective best efforts, to reach final
affeefeeni en resolution of the Open Matters.
1.04. Deadline for Negotiations. This Agreement shall automatically terminate on
December 1, 1997, unless each Party's Governing Board has adopted an appropriate resolution
referencing this Agreement and stating that the Open Matters have been resolved to such Party's
satisfaction.
ARTICLE II
2.01. County's Acquisition: Consideration. In consideration for the transfer of
assets described in Section 2.02, and in consideration for the other undertakings of the Towns in
this Agreement (including the undertakings set forth in Section 2.05), but without additional
monetary compensation, the County agrees to assume the liabilities described in Section 2.04 and
to undertake the other obligations imposed on it by this Agreement. The Transfer will be
consummated pursuant to a separate transfer agreement (the "Transfer Agreement's to be
negotiated among the County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill, which agreement shall be subject to
approval in its substantially final form by the respective Governing Boards of those three
Parties.
2.02. Erris,>Ging System Assets. (a) Under the Transfer Agreement,
Carrboro and Chapel Hill shall transfer all of their respective right, title and interest in and to all
of the Existing System Assets to the County.
(b) The Parties agree that they do not intend, by the Transfer, to revive any easement
across the Greene Tract for the benefit of the property known as the "Neville Tract."
2.03. Greene Tract. (a) The Parties agree that neither the Transfer nor any
other provision of this Agreement shall or does effect any change in the status of the ownership
of the Greene Tract.
(b) Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the County, as the current owners of the Greene Tract,
agree to bargain together in good faith and with all due diligence, and to use their respective best
efforts, to determine an ultimate use or disposition of the Greene Tract before January 1, 3499
IM. During this period, no Party shall take any action to force any sale or division of the
Greene Tract, nor shall any Parry take any action to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer all or any
part of its ownership interest in the Greene Tract.
(c) If the owners of the Greene Tract have not reached an agreement as to the ultimate
use or disposition of the Greene Tract by Ianuary 1, 2000, then the County, for itself and as agent
for the other owners, shall forthwith proceed to offer and sell all the Greene Tract in fee simple
for cash to the highest bidder therefore, in such manner as the County may determine in its
reasonable discretion.
(d) The County shall promptly apply the proceeds of any stea- sale made
pursuant to subsection (c) above in the following manner.
(i) First, to pay the expenses of the sale;
(ii) Second, to pay to the Solid Waste System enterprise fund then maintained
by the County pursuant to Section 5.04, the sum of (a) $608,823, being the original purchase
price of the Greene Tract, plus (Rol uncompounded interest on such amount at the annual rate
of 6% from March 30, 1984, to the closing date of any sale; and
(iii) Any remainder shall be distributed in the following proportions:
(A) To Carrboro, 14 %;
(B) To Chapel Hill, 43 %; and
(C) To the County, 43 %.
2.04. Liabilities. (a) Under the Transfer Agreement, the County shall assume all
liabilities, including environmental liabilities, related to the ownership of the Solid Waste
System, including, to the extent permitted by law, all liabilities related to the ownership of
Existing System Assets which may have accrued prior to the Closing.
(b) Under the Transfer Agreement, the Parties shall retain their individual liability, if
any, under environmental laws and otherwise, related to their respective use of the Solid Waste
System both before and after the Closing (as, for example, any liability arising from their
delivering, or causing to be delivered, Solid Waste to System Management Facilities).
(c) The Parries acknowledge that the County's assumption of certain liabilities
pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, as described in subsection (a) above, will not limit, and is
not intended to limit, the ability of any governmental authority to impose, or to seek to impose,
environmental or other liability directly on a Party (as, for example, any liability accruing to the
current owners of the Existing System Assets as a result of their status as owners prior to the
Closing).
(d) The County shall not assume any indebtedness of Carrboro or Chapel Hill.
Furthermore, by this Agreement and the County's agreement to acquire assets and assume
liabilities as provided in Section 2.01, the County does not assume any indebtedness of Carrboro
or Chapel Hill.
2.05. Delivery of Solid Waste and Recyclables. (a) As additional consideration
for the Parties' respective and mutual undertakings under this Agreement and the Transfer
Agreement, the County and the Towns all agree to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to System
Management Facilities for disposal or processing, respectively, all Solid Waste and County
Recyclables under their respective control, including (without limitation) all Solid Waste and
County Recyclables collected by any Party's employees, solid waste collection contractors, solid
waste collection licensees or solid waste collection franchisees; provided, however, that there
shall be no such obli gation to deliver Other Recyclables to System Management Facilities.
(b) All Solid Waste and County Recyclables delivered to System Management
Facilities, or to County employees, solid waste collection contractors, solid waste collection
licensees or solid waste collection franchisees, shall be the property of the County upon such
delivery. After Recyclables have been placed in a designated container at a convenience center,
the Recyclables are the County's property.
2.06. Treatment of Solid Waste Syjtem Employees. (a) 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.
(b) - The Parties acknowledge that it is an important objective of this Agreement that
the current total compensation package for System Employees be maintained at a substantially
equivalent level through the Transfer, although the combination of salary and benefits for any
employee may change. The Parties recognize that all components of compensation to System
Employees after the Transfer will be subject to changes in salaries and benefits in the same
fashion as other County employees. The County and Chapel Hill shall develop a detailed
schedule comparing the total pre - Transfer and post - Transfer compensation for each System
Employee in connection with the Transfer Agreement. Chapel Hill shall send a copy of such
schedule to Carrboro when the schedule is complete.
2.07. Closing Procednre. (a) The Transfer Agreement shall provide for the
appropriate parties to execute and deliver at the Closing the documents and instruments listed on
Exhibit C to carry out the Transfer, all of which documents and instruments shall be in form and
substance reasonably acceptable to the County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
(b) The Transfer Agreement shall transfer all Existing System Assets on an as -is,
where -is basis, without warranty of title, condition or any other kind; provided, however, (i) that
0
real property shall be transferred pursuant to general warranty deed as described in paragraph (a)
of Exhibit C, (ii) that vehicles subject to State motor vehicle titling requirements shall be
transferred by endorsement and delivery of title certificates as described in paragraph (b) of
Exhibit C, and (iii) that Chapel Hill shall provide such evidence of title to all other transferring
equipment as it may have reasonably available in its business records.
(c) In the Transfer Agreement, the County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill shall make
appropriate representations and warranties with respect to (i) their respective authority to enter
into the Transfer Agreement and consummate the Transfer and (ii) the absence of conflicts with
agreements and applicable laws.
ARTICLE III
3.01. Selection of New Solid Waste Management Site. (a) The Parties shall work
together to select a New Solid Waste Management Site within Orange County.
(b) For the purposes of this Agreement, 25elee4ea ,.r `he selecting a New Solid
Waste Management Site" means (i) completion of all public meetings or hearings required by
law or regulation prior to the filing of an application for a State permit to construct a solid waste
landfill and (ii) the adoption by each Governing Board of a resolution designating a single
the same real property as the del real proovem as to which such permit
should be sought.
3.02. Benefits to Communities. (a) Existing Land= Site — fTo come.]
(b) New Solid baste Management Site -- The Parties shall n•e&- `egether- `e develep -a
g cooperate to provide reasonable public benefits to
the community of residents and property owners in the neighborhood of the New Solid Waste
Management Site, in recognition of the effects that operation of a landfill or other solid waste
management or disposal site may be perceived to have on i
.,a s ; ,e-- *^ These _ .�.' =•,.a such community.
resik These re li -
This process shall include facilitated discussions among persons belonging to such
eommunin members of the Advisory Commission selected by the Advisory Commission
and at least one member of each Governing Board (as each Governing Board shall
magnate for itself) who is not a member of the Advisoa Commission This working croup
shall determine a ploposed list of community benefits to be provided
Each Party shall then provide for its Governing Board to discuss the proposed list.
and shall Provide for such legal and other staff analvsis of the proposed list as it may deem
appropriate After each Governing Board has held its own discussions of the proposed list
to its o-s-n satisfaction the Parties shall provide for selected members of each Governing
Board (as each Governing Boards all designate for itself) to meet a a working group to
discuss the respective views of the Governing Boards. Throu -Z thi working group and
continued discussion by the Governing BoaMs the Parties shall work together di igently
and in good faith. to reach an agreement as to community benefits to be provided The
process of determining community benefits shall continue to include participation by
persons belon: ng to the relevant community.
Final determinations of the public benefits to be provided, the sources for their
payment and the mechanisms for providing the benefits shall be made only by agreement
of all the Parties.
(c) In General — The public benefits contemplated by this Section 3.02 are to be
considered as separate and distinct from any compensation determined to be owed for any
"taking" of an interest in property, as determined under applicable State or federal law. The
eeemaiaR`y. To the extent permitted by law, by s AeFeeme and by generally accepted
accounting principles, and to the extent determined by the Parties and notwithstanding any
other provision of this A=eement the costs of providing : le public benefits as
described in this Section _ ._-' _ _ 95,51em an
in", be paid fFem System PCOVOMWer.
ewaem L- the , landfill..
eMeat r
• a -
may be treated as an expense of the Solid Waste System and may be paid from
System Revenues.
ARTICLE lV
Development of Solid Waste Management Policy
4.01. Previous Cooperation in Policy Development. All the Parties have joined in
a solid waste management plan designed to comply with cer'n State regulatory requirements.
This plan incorporates a solid waste plan framework (attached as Exhibit E) which reflects
agreements in principle reached by representatives of the Parties.
4.02. Future Policy, Development. (a) upon the resolution of the Open
Matters, the County, as the operator of the Solid Waste System, shall have the ongoing authority
and responsibility in its discretion (i) to administer and operate the Solid Waste System in
accordance with the Solid Waste Management Xa-a policies and (ii) to determine and modify
from time to time the Solid Waste Management Nen Policies.
(b) The County agrees, however, to consult with the other Parties and the Advisor
Commission, frequently and consistently, to determine on an on -going basis their respective
views on the Solid Waste Management Xce Policies and possible changes thereto.
(C) Notwithstanding
the provisions
of
subsection
(a)
above.
the
County shall not
out into effect any
"Material
Financial Change."
as defined
in
subsection
(d) below. unless
the County shall
first obtain the
consent of
all
Parties.
(d) A "Material Financial Change" means a change. or series of related changes,
made by the County to the Solid Waste Management Policies that, in the determination of
any Town (provided that the Advisory Commission must verify such determination if so
requested by the Coun+vl would have the effect of increasing by more than 15% the direct
monetary cost to such Town of all its solid waste management activities (such as solid waste
collection) when comparing (i) the expected cost of such activities for the first full Fiscal
Year following the effective date of the Material Financial Change to (ii) the total cost for
the F►st-ai veer mnct recentiv comnleted prior to the effective date of the Material Financial
N
T 1
i, IT 1:17771M is X ►&P
ARTICLE V
County's Operation of the Solid Waste System
,
5.01. Solid Waste System Operation. (a) The County shall establish and
enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing the operation and use of the Solid Waste
System, operate the Solid Waste System in an efficient and economical manner, and maintain the
properties constituting the Solid Waste System in good repair and in sound operating condition
for so long as the same are necessary for the operation of the Solid Waste System.
(b) As part of its responsibility to operate the Solid Waste System, the County shall
provide System Management Facilities suitable for the disposition of Solid Waste by the County,
M
the Towns and the persons and organizations within their jurisdictions. The County shall have
the right to refuse to accept for disposal at System Management Facilities any material or
substance which the County reasonably determines is barred from such disposal by the Solid
Waste Management P4ap. policies or any applicable law or regulation.
(c) The existing landfill, as well as any successor thereto, shall be designated to
accept solid waste generated exclusively by residents, businesses and other institutions located in
Orange County and that portion of Chapel Hill located within Durham County, North Carolina.
(d) The Parties in all events retain the right to determine their own- systems and
procedures for the collection of Solid Waste and related matters, provided that such systems and
procedures are reasonably designed to be consistent and compatible with the provisions of the
Solid Waste Management _RUa Policies concerning Solid Waste disposal and processing of
County Recyclables.
5.02. Compliance with Law. The County shall comply with, or cause there to be
compliance with, all applicable laws, orders, rules, regulations and requirements of any
• governmental authority relating to the construction, use and operation of the Solid Waste System.
Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall prevent the County from contesting in good faith the
applicability or validity of any such law or other requirement, so long as the County's failure to
comply with the same during the period of such contest will not materially impair the operation
or revenue - producing capability of the Solid Waste System.
5.03. Budget The County shall annually adopt a separate budget for the Solid
Waste System in accordance with the County's usual budgetary process.
5.04. Records Accounts and Audits: Other Reports. (a) The County shall
segregate for accounting purposes all the accounts, moneys and investments of the Solid Waste
System.
(b) The County shall keep accurate records and accounts of all items of costs and of
all expenditures relating to the Solid Waste System, and of the System Revenues collected and
the application of System Revenues. Such records and accounts shall be open to any Party's
inspection at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice. The County shall provide for the
assets, liabilities and results of operations of the Solid Waste System to be presented in the
County's annual audit as a separate enterprise fund, in accordance with generally accepting
accounting principles.
(c) The County shall make, or cause to be made, any additional reports or audits
relating to the Solid Waste System as may be required by law. The County, as often as may
reasonably be requested, shall furnish such other information as the County may have reasonably
available concerning the Solid Waste System or its operation as the Advisory Commission or
any Pam' may reasonably request.
m
5.05. Rates. Fees and Charges: (a) The County shall establish and maintain a
system of rates, fees and charges for the use of, and for the services provided by, the Solid Waste
System which is reasonably designed to pay in full all the costs (and only the costs) of carrying
out the County's responsibilities under this Agreement and the Solid Waste Management
policies, including, without limitation, (i) costs of disposing of Solid Waste, (ii) costs of
collecting, processing and disposing of Recyclables, (iii) to the extent permitted by law, costs of
providing public benefits determined to be provided pursuant to Section 3.02, and (iv) costs of
solid waste reduction activities.
(b) Subject to the limitations of Sections 5.06, 5.07 and 5.08, the County may revise
any rates, fees and charges at any time and as often as it shall deem appropriate, and shall not be
limited in the number of times in any Fiscal Year that it changes any rate, fee or charge.
5.06. Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee. (a) The County may increase the Mixed
Solid Waste Tipping Fee from time to time in its discretion with at least 30 days' notice of the
increase to all other Parties. The County may not, however, increase the Mixed Solid Waste
Tipping Fee during or at the beginning of any Fiscal Year to a fee that exceeds the Mixed Solid
Waste Tipping Fee in effect at the end of the preceding Fiscal Year by more than 10 %, without
the prior consent of all the other Parties. Further, the Parties intend and agree that the County
shall endeavor to adjust the Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee only annually, with changes
becoming effective only at the beginning of a Fiscal Year.
(b) The County may decrease the Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee from time to time
in its discretion, without prior notice to or action by any other Patty. The County shall promptly
notify the other Parties of any decrease in the Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee.
5.07. Other Governmental Fees (a) For the purposes of this Agreement, a
"Governmental Fee" shall mean any fee related to activities of the Solid Waste System that is
imposed. directly and solely on the Parties themselves, other than the Mixed Solid Waste Tipping
Fee.
(b) If the County determines that it is or may be advisable to create and impose any
Governmental Fee, then the County shall give at least 30 days' notice of the proposed
Governmental Fee to the other Parties. A Governmental Fee may then be imposed only if the
creation and imposition of such Governmental Fee is subsequently approved by the County and
at least two other Parties (except that approval by any two Parties shall be required at any time
there are less than four Parties to this Agreement). A new Governmental Fee shall take effect at
the end of the notice period or, if later, the date of the last Governing Body approval necessary
for it to take effect.
(c) The County may increase any individual Governmental Fee from time to time in
its discretion with at least 30 days' notice of the increase to all other Parties. The County may
not, however, increase any individual Governmental Fee during or at the beginning of any Fiscal
Year to a fee that exceeds the fee in effect at the end of the preceding Fiscal Year by more than
10 %, without the prior consent of all the other Parties. The Parties intend and agree that the
County shall endeavor to adjust any and all Governmental Fees only annually, with changes
becoming effective only at the beginning of a Fiscal Year.
(d) The County may decrease any Governmental Fee from time to time in its
discretion, without prior notice to or action by any other Parry. The County shall promptly notify
the other Parties of any decrease in any Governmental Fee.
5.08. Other Fees. If the County determines that it is or may be advisable to create,
increase or decrease any other rate, fee or charge, including any charges by the County for the
sale of goods (for example; mulch) or services, then the County shall give at least 30 days' notice
of the proposed change to the other Parties, and the County shall request that the Advisory
Commission consider the proposed change. If the Advisory Commission recommends that the
change be approved, then the change may take effect if it is subsequently approved by the
County. If the Advisory Commission recommends that the change not be approved, then the
change may take effect only if the change is subsequently approved by the County and at Ieast
two other Parties (except that approval by any two Parties shall be required at any time there are
less than four Parties to this Agreement). A change shall take effect at the end of the notice
period or, if later, the date of the last Governing Body approval necessary for it to take effect.
5.09. Time Limitation on Fee Change Approvals. Any approvals given by a
Party to the imposition or increase of any fee, pursuant to the approval requirements in Sections
5.06, 5.07 and 5.08, shall be of no further effect after 90 days from the date of the action granting
approval (or after such shorter or longer period as may be made part of the action granting
approval), if the imposition or increase so approved has not by such time received all approvals
required for its effectiveness.
5.10. Use of System Revenges and County General Fnnds. (a) The County
shall use System Revenues solely to carry out the Solid Waste Management Nes Policies and
solely for the benefit of the Solid Waste System, including (i) to pay costs of disposing of Solid
Waste, (ii) to pay costs of collecting, processing and disposing of Recyclables, (iii) to the extent
permitted by law, to pay costs of providing public benefits determined to be provided pursuant to
Section 3.02, and (iv) to pay costs of solid waste reduction activities. The County shall not use
System Revenues to pay costs of collecting Solid Waste in unincorporated areas of the County.
(b) The County shall in no event be required to use assets or funds other than those of
the Solid Waste System to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, including its obligations
under Section 2.04(a) but excluding its obligations under Section 2.05.
5.11. Risk Management. The County covenants that it will maintain a practical
program of insurance and risk management, with reasonable terms, conditions, provisions and
costs, which the County determines (a) will afford the County adequate protection against loss
caused by damage to or destruction of the Solid Waste System or any part thereof and (b) will
provide reasonable liability protection for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the
construction or operation of the Solid Waste System.
1'_
Any such insurance policies contracted by the County to provide for the risk coverages
required by this Section shall be carried with one or more responsible insurance companies
authorized and qualified to assume the risks thereof. The County shall have the right to provide
for the risk coverages required by this Section, in whole or in part, by means of a reasonable and
prudent program of self-insurance, pooled risk coverages or other alternative means of risk
managements
All insurance polices and other risk coverages provided for in this Section shall be for the
County's benefit, and the County shall have the exclusive right to receive any amounts
recoverable under such coverages. The County shall apply any amounts recovered under such
coverages (net of any expenses of collection) in its discretion for the benefit of the Solid Waste
System.
5.12. Solid Waste Reporting: Similar Matters. The County and the Towns shall
cooperate in preparing and submitting any reports that a Party may be required to file with
governmental authorities, such as the State's Division of Waste Management. The County shall
also be generally responsible for solid waste reporting, planning, regulatory compliance and
similar matters.
5.13. Reservation of County's Rights, Notwithstanding any provision of the Solid
Waste Management P4&a Policies or this Agreement to the contrary, the County shall in all
events be entitled to operate the Solid Waste System and all its facilities, and may adjust any and
all rates, fees and charges, as it may in its reasonable discretion deem reasonably necessary (a) to
comply with any requirements of any applicable law or regulation or any court order,
administrative decree or similar order of any judicial or regulatory authority, (b) to comply with
the requirements of any contracts, instruments or other agreements at any time securing
Outstanding System Debt, (c) to pay unfinanceable costs related to the acquisition of the New
Solid Waste Management Site, or (d) to pay costs of remediating any adverse environmental
conditions at-any time existing with respect to the Solid Waste System.
ARTICLE VI
Solid Waste Management Advisory Commission
6.01. Establishment There is hereby established the "Orange County Solid
Waste Management Advisory Commission."
6.02. Advisory Commission's Responsibilities, The Advisory Commission shall
advise the County's Governing Board on matters related to the Solid Waste System and the Solid
Waste Management Xaaa Policies, The Advisory Commission's responsibilities include the
following:
(a) To recommend programs, policies, expansions and reductions of services, and
other matters related to the operation of the Solid Waste System;
(b) To suggest amendments to the Solid Waste Management PUa policies;
(c) To provide advice to the County Manager for use in the County Manager's
developing the proposed annual budget for the Solid Waste System, to review the budget for the
Solid Waste System as proposed by the County Manager to the County's Governing Board, and
to provide recommendations to the County's Governing Board for the approval or amendment of
the proposed budget;
(d) To receive and interpret for the County public input concerning the Solid Waste
System and the Solid Waste Management Nes policies;
(e) To further such mission and goals for the Solid Waste System as the Governing
Boards may together adopt from time to time (a copy of the current version of the mission
statement and goals appears as Exhibit D);
(f) To advise the County Manager on the hiring of any subsequent department head
for the Solid Waste System;
(g) To provide promptly to the County's Governing Body a recommendation
concerning any proposal for a change to rates, fees and charges forwarded to the Advisory
Commission pursuant to Section 5.08; and
(h) Such other matters as the Advisory Commission may deem appropriate or which
may be requested by any Governing Board or the County Manager.
6.03. Anointment of Members; Terms. (a) Each Governing Board shall appoint
two members to the Advisory Commission. All appointments shall be made within 45 days of
the Parties' reaching final agreement on the Open Matters, and each Party shall notify all the
other Parties of its appointments within 10 days of making such appointments.
(b) Advisory Commission members shall serve staggered three -year terms. To
provide for the staggered terms of the members, the initial appointments by the Parties shall be
for the following terms:
County: Member A. 3 years
Member B. 2 years
Carrboro: Member A. 2 years
Member B. 3 years
Chapel Hill: Member A. 3 years
Member B. 1 year
14
Hillsborough: Member A. 1 year
Member B. 2 years
(c) The first year of the term of each initial member of the Advisory Commission
shall be deemed to expire on December 31, 1998. Thereafter, each year of the term of an
Advisory Commission member shall run from January 1 through the subsequent December 31,
but each member shall continue to serve until such member's successor has been duly appointed
and qualified for office.
(d) Each Party may establish its own rules and procedures for selecting and
appointing Advisory Commission members, except that no staff member of a Party may be
appointed as a Advisoa Commission member. This Agreement in no way requires that any
member be an elected official of the appointing Party. Any elected official of a Party appointed
to the Advisory Commission shall be deemed to be serving on the Advisory Commission as a
part of the individual's duties of office, and shall not be considered to be serving in a separate
office. Any elected official of a Party appointed to the Advisory Commission shall cease to be a
member of the Advisory Commission upon such individual's cessation of service as an elected
official of such Party, whether or not such member's successor shall be been appointed and
qualified for office. Each member of the Advisory Commission (including elected officials)
serves at the pleasure of the appointing Party, and may be removed at any time by the appointing
Party, with or without cause.
(e) Any vacancy on the Advisory Commission shall be Oed by the Governing
Board that appointed the person who vacated the Advisory Commission seat. In the case of a
vacancy created during the term of a member, the appointment to fill the vacancy shall be made
for the remaining portion of the term in order to preserve the staggered -term pattern.
6.04. Advisory Commission's Procedures. The Advisory Commission may adopt its
own rules of procedure not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, but the Advisory
Commission's procedures shall include the following provisions:
(a) Each member of the Advisory Commission shall have one vote, except that in the
event of the absence of a member, the other member appointed by the same Party as the absent
member shall be entitled to cast two votes.
(b) A number of affirmative votes equal to a majority of the authorized number of
Advisory Commission members shall be necessary to take any action.
(c) The Advisory Commission's presiding officer shall vote as a member of the
advisory Commission, but shall have no additional or tie - breaking vote.
(d) Representatives of a Party that has given notice of withdrawal as provided in
Section 7.02 shall have no vote on any matters that will affect the Solid Waste System beyond
14;
the effective date of such Party's withdrawal, and as to any such matters such members shall not
be deemed to be within the authorized number of Advisory Commission members for the
purposes of subsection (b) above.
ARTICLE VII
Perm of Agreement: Withdrawal
7.01. Term- This Agreement (a) shall take effect immediately upon its execution and
delivery by all the Parties, and (b) shall continue in effect so long as there are at least two Parties
to the Agreement, in each case subject to the provisions of Section 1.02.
7.02. Withdrawal of a Party. (a) Any Party may withdraw from this
Agreement (and thereby cease to be a Party to this Agreement) upon notice given to all the other
Parties and subject to the other provisions of this Section.
(b) A withdrawal may be effective only upon the beginning of a Fiscal Year. A Town
may withdraw only with at least one year's notice. The County may withdraw only with at least
two years' notice.
(c) No withdrawal shall relieve a Party of its obligations under Section 2.05 so long
as there is System Debt Outstanding; provided, however, that System Debt first issued or
contracted after the date a Party gives notice of withdrawal shall be disregarded for the purposes
of this subsection.
(d) No withdrawal shall relieve any Party of its individual liability, if any, under
environmental laws or otherwise, related to its respective use or ownership of the Solid Waste
System which may accrue or which has accrued prior to the effective date of such Party's
withdrawal.
ARTICLE VIII
* 7 M, - - n. -- n -- . � 47
The Parties hereby represent and warrant, one to each other, but each only as to itself, as
follows:
(a) Valid Existence: Due Authorization. The Party is a public body validly
organized and existing under State law, has full power to enter into this Agreement and has duly
authorized, executed and delivered this Agreement.
(b) Valid Obligation, This Agreement, when executed and delivered by the Party
and assuming its due authorization, execution and delivery by each other Patty, will be the legal,
V
valid and binding obligation of the Party, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except to the
extent the same may be limited by the application of insolvency and similar general laws and by
the application of equitable principles.
(c) No Breach of Law or Contract Neither the execution and delivery of this
Agreement nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of
or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, (i) to the best of the Parry's
knowledge, constitutes a violation of any provision of law, rule or regulation governing the
Party, or (ii) results in a breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any contract, lease or
other agreement or any order, decree or judgment to which the Party is a party or by which the
Party is bound.
(d) No Litigation. There is no litigation or any governmental administrative
proceeding to which the Party (or any ofncial thereof in an official capacity) is a parry that is
pending or, to the best of the Party's knowledge after reasonable investigation, threatened with
respect to (i) the Patty's organization or existence, (ii) its authority to execute and deliver this
Agreement or to comply with the terms of this Agreement, (iii) the validity or enforceability of
this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, (iv) the title of the Party officers who
executed this Agreement, (v) any proceedings relating to the Party's authorization, execution,
delivery or performance of this Agreement, or (vi) the undertaking of the transactions
contemplated by this Agreement. To the best of the Party's knowledge, there is no reasonable
basis existing for any such litigation.
(e) No WsreFresentation. No representation, covenant or warranty by the Party in
this Agreement is false or misleading in any material respect.
ARTICLE IX
9.01. Amendments, This Agreement may not be modified or amended unless such
amendment is approved by all Parties, is in writing and is signed on behalf of all the Parties.
9.02. Definitions: Rules of Construction. All capitalized terms used in this
Agreement and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in Exhibit A.
This Agreement and its terms shall be construed using the rules of construction set forth in
Exhibit B.
9.03. Notices.
(a) Any notice or other communication required or permitted by this
Agreement must be in writing.
(b) Any notice or other communication shall be deemed given (i) on the date
delivered by hand or (ii) on the date it is received by mail, as evidenced by the date shown on a
United States mail registered mail receipt, in any case addressed as follows:
(A) If to the County, as follows:
Orange County
Attn: County Manager
200 South Cameron St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(B) If to Carrboro, as follows:
Town of Carrboro
Attn: Town Manager
301 West Main St.
Carrboro, NC 27510
(C) If to Chapel Hill, as follows:
Town of Chapel Hill
Attn: Town Manager
306 North Columbia St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(D) If to Hillsborough, as follows:
Town of Hillsborough
Attn: Town Manager
137 North Churton St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
When this Agreement requires that notice be given to more than one Party, the effective date of
the notice shall belhe last date on which notice is deemed given to any required Parry.
(c) Any Party may designate a different address for communications by notice given
under this Section to each other Party.
(d) A Party may also designate, by notice to each -other Party under this Section,
additional addresses to which copies of required notices shall be given. Each Parry shall- make a
good faith effort to send required notices to such additional addressees, but no failure to deliver
any such additional notices shall affect the validity of notices properly given to the address
designated in subsection (a) or its successor address.
is
(e) Whenever in this Agreement the giving of notice is required, the giving of such
notice may be waived in writing by the Party entitled to receive such notice, and in any such case
the giving or receipt of such notice shall not be a condition precedent to the validity of any action
taken in reliance upon such waiver.
9.04. Further Instruments. upon any Party's request, the Parties shall execute,
acknowledge and deliver such further instruments as may be reasonably desired by any Pam to
carry out more effectively the purposes and intents of this Agreement.
9.05. Limitation of Rights. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement
shall give any person other than the Parties any rights to enforce any provision of this
Agreement. There are no intended third -parry beneficiaries of this Agreement.
9.06. Non - Business Days. When any action is provided in this Agreement to be done
on a designated day or within a designated time period, and the designated day or the last day of
the designated period is not a Business Day, the action may be done on the next Business Day,
with the same effect as if done on the designated day.
9.07. Survival of Covenants All covenants,
representations and warranties made by the Parties in this Agreement shall survive the delivery
of this Agreement.
9.08. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement; provided, however, that upon the election
of any Parry, this Agreement shall immediately become void and of no further effect upon such
election (except that the provisions of Section 2.05 and Section 7.02(c) shall continue in effect,
unless either such Section is among the Sections held unenforceable) if any provisions of Section
2.02, Section 2.04, Section 2.05, Section 5.10 or Article VII are among those held unenforceable.
9.09. Governing Law. The parties intend that this Agreement and all rights and
obligations provided for in this Agreement, including matters of construction, validity and
performance, shall be governed by North Carolina law.
9.10. Entire Contract. This Agreement, including the Exhibits, constitutes the
entire agreement between the Parties with respect to its subject matter.
9.11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in several counterparts,
including separate counterparts. Each shall be an original, but all of them together constitute the
same instrument.
9.12. Recordable Form. As this Agreement limits the Parties' rights to dispose of
their respective ownership interests in the Greene Tract, any Parry may cause this Agreement to
be filed in the real property records in the office of the Register of Deed Deeds of Orange
County.
m
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be
executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers, all as of the date first above
written.
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of Commissioners
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Town Clerk
Town Clerk
By:
By:
Chair, Board of Commissioners
TOWN OF CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Mayor
TOWN OF CHAPEL HII.L,
NORTH CAROLINA
Br.
Mayor
By.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH,
NORTH CAROLINA
Mayor
jInterlocal Agreement Concerning, Solid Waste Management Matters Dated as of November 1. 19971
20
For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings,
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
"Advisory Commission" means the Orange County Solid Waste Management
Advisory Commission created pnrsnant to Article VI.
"Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement Concerning Solid Waste Management
Matters, as it may be duly amended and supplemented from time to time.
"Business Day" means any day (a) other than a day on which national banks are required
or authorized to close and (b) on which the New York Stock Exchange is not closed.
"Carrboro "means the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina.
"Chapel Sill" means the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
"Closing" means the consummation of the Transfer by the execution and delivery of the
Transfer Agreement.
pursuams so 4n*k ;Q
"County" means Orange County, North Carolina.
"County Manager" means the County's chief administrative officer.
"County Recyclables" means all materials processed by the County for recycling and not
disposed of at System Management Facilities, as the same shall be established and amended from
time to time under the Solid Waste Management Ran Policies.
"Existing System Assets" means all assets of the Solid Waste System existing as of the
Closing, including, without limitation, the existing landfill, all other land and buildings, all
equipment, including rolling stock, all licenses, permits and other governmental authorizations,
all contracts, all customer records, all bank and other business records, and all cash and
investments, including the capital reserve account currently maintained by Chapel Hill on behalf
of the Landfill Owners' Group, but expressly excluding any interest in the Greene Tract.
"Fiscal Year" means the County's fiscal year beginning July 1, or such other fiscal year
as the County may lawfully establish.
21
"Governing Board" means, for any Pty, its governing board of elected officials.
"Greene Tract" means the parcel of land comprising approximately 169 acres lving south
of Eubanks Road described in Plat Book 14, Page 143 and Plat Book 15, Page 138, Orange
County Registry, as more specifically described in Exhibit F.
"Hillsborough" means the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Invil
"Mixed Solid Waste Tipping Fee" means the fee of that name assessed for disposing
mixed solid waste at the existing landfill, or any successor to that fee.
"New Solid Waste Management Site" means the location of the new System
Management Facilities which are expected to be needed to serve the solid waste disposal needs
of the County, the Towns and all persons and organizations within their jurisdictions.
"Open Matters" has the meaning assigned in Section 1.02.
"Other Recyclables" means materials which would otherwise constitute Solid Waste, but
which are to be delivered to some other entity and processed for recycling. For any material to
constitute Other Recyclables, however, the entity to which the material is to be delivered must
represent that such materials are intended to be processed for use in new products. Material will
not constitute Other Recyclables, for example, if the entity to which it is to be delivered intends
to re- deliver the material to some other disposal facility (such as a landfill or incinerator),
whether or not such material is intended to be subject to further processing before disposal.
"Parties" means, collectively, the County and the Towns, and "Party" means any one of
them individually.
"Solid Waste" means all materials accepted by the County for disposal at System
Management Facilities, as the same shall be established and amended from time to time under
the Solid Waste Management Xm Policies (subject to the provisions of Section 5.01(b)), which
therefore does not include County Recyclables.
"Solid Waste Management 44am 'Policies' means, collectively, all policies related to the
Solid Waste System and coordinated solid waste management for the County, the towns and the
persons and organizations in their jurisdictions, as the same may exist from time to time; it
includes, as of the date of this Agreement, all such policies now in place and the policies
incorporated in the framework attached as Exhibit E.
"Solid Waste Svstem" means all assets, including both real and personal property, used
from time to time in the conduct of the functions of collecting and processing Recyclables,
reducing solid waste, disposing of Solid Waste and mulching, composting and re -using Solid
Waste, and includes both (a) the Existing System Assets and (b) all moneys and investments
related to such functions.
"State" means the State of North Carolina.
"System Debt" means all obligations incurred or assumed by the County in connection
with the ownership or operation of the System for payments of principal and interest with respect
to borrowed money, without regard to the form of the transaction, and specifically including
leases or similar financing agreements which are required to be capitalized in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. System Debt is "Outstanding" at all times after it is
issued or contracted until it is paid.
"System Employees" means employees of Chapel Hill directly engaged in carrying out
the business of the Solid Waste System (but expressly not including employees of Chapel Hill's
sanitation department).
"System Management Facilities" means those assets of the Solid Waste System used to
provide final disposal of solid waste, such as landfills.
"System Revenues" means all amounts derived by the County from the imposition of
rates, fees and charges for the use of, and for the services furnished by, the Solid Waste System.
"Towns" means, collectively, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.
"Transfer" means the conveyance of the Existing System Assets to the County pursuant
to the Transfer Agreement in accordance with Article H.
"Transfer Agreement" has the meaning assigned in Section 2.01.
2;
. s
For all purposes of this Agreement, unless the context clearly requires otherwise,
(a) an accounting term not otherwise defined has the meaning assigned to it in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
Agreement;
(b) references to Articles and Sections are to the Articles and Sections of this
(c) words importing the singular shall include the plural and vice versa;
(d) the headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference; the
headings shall not constitute a part of this Agreement, nor shall they affect its meanings,
construction or effect;
(e) all references to any Party shall be deemed to include any successor to the
general functions, powers and properties of such Party; and
(f) any references to approvals or other actions by any Party shall be deemed
to be references to actions taken by the Party's Governing Board or taken pursuant to express,
specific direction given by the Party's Governing Board.
24
120i4#�
(a) General warranty deed for the transfer of Carrboro's and Chapel Hill's real
property interests in Existing System Assets;
(b) Titles to vehicles that are subject to State titling laws, properly endorsed for
transfer;
(c) Bills of Sale to convey all ownership rights in all other personal property
constituting any portion of Existing System Assets;
(d) An Assignment and Assumption Agreement, transferring to the County all rights
under existing contracts that constitute any portion of the Existing System Assets;
(e) All instruments necessary and appropriate to transfer to the County all permits,
licenses and other governmental authorizations now being utilized in connection with the
operation of the System;
(i) A detailed listing of the assets being transferred; and
(g) Such other documents and instruments as any Party may reasonably request.
2;
13MOVII
.1.1
36
r
ATTACHMENT 3
Landfill Owners Group
Procedural Guidelines
.. Follow-up on issues re;'_:-red to the governing boards.
a: LOG Chair will . forward a letter to all governing board members cleark, static+._ the LOG request.
attaching copies of resolutions (if adopted).
b'! LOG members representing each respective governing board will be responsible for follow -u^
with their boards and for reporting back to the LOG the results of discussions and/or decisions
made.
c i Staff reports sent to any one jurisdiction are to be sent to all jurisdictions.
=. Minutes of meetings.
A summary of each meeting will be prepared, highlighting actions taken, including the identity" of the
members who moved and seconded each motion and the tabulations of the voting. The summary wjil
contain as attachments copies of resolutions acted on.
MembershipNoting
al Membership is as follows:
1. Carrborc 3 members
2. Chapel Hill 3 members
3. Hillsborough 1 member
4. Orange County 2 members
b) Each governing board appoints and removes its own representatives.
C) One vote per Jurisdiction.
dj An evenly split jurisdictional vote is not to be counted.
4. Setting Agendas
a) LOG members have the opportunity to put items on future agendas at the end of any regular LOG
meeting, as pa:, of reviewing the list of pending work items. or with sufficient notice tz-) the Chair
and staff.
b) Staff prepares a draft agenda and forwards to the Chair.
c ) Chair revises; app roves.
d) Chair receives individual member's agenda addition and/or change requests.
Role of the Chair
a) A Chaff is appointed by the Owners Group annually at the last meeting in December. A V, =-
chair is simiiariy appointed and will serve in the absence of the Chair.
b1 The Chair will run all meetings of the Owners Group.
c) The chair will approve agendas.
d,i The Chair may call special meetings as necessary.
o. Agendas
The agendas will contain the following:
a; A list of the items to be discussed at the meeting.
b) A notice of the meeting date. time. any iocatio
i A summary of current scheduied and unscheduled work items to include:
1. nurne of item:fohow -ur
2. whose responsibility
next step /status
Adonted 11_2!97, revised 1'19,197
Reorganization - Draft Lnteriocal Agreement Status: It was reported that an outside attorney had been
hired to prepare a draft in e7iozal ag-reement which would tikeiy be discussed by the goveminc boards at
the next Assemble of Go% -e..menu meeting.
FL.TLRE MEETLNGS
The Owners Group has set the following meeting schedule:
• Wednesday. March 26.6:00 p.m.. Carrboro Town Hall
• Wednesday. April 16.::30 p.m.. Budget Work Session. Chapel Hill Library
• Thursday. May 22. -:00 p.m.. Public Meeting on Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
MATTERS BY ELECTED OFFICL-kL.S
No other matters were presented by the elected officials. A motion to adjourn passed unanimously
(McDufiee moved. Gist seconded').
:s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the Chair and Clerk,
respectively, of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, and that by
authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, North Carolina, the foregoing instrument
was signed in the County's name by such Chair, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by
such Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of , 1997.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
• My commission expires:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the Mayor and Town Clerk,
respectively; of the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina, and that by authority duly given and as
the act of"such Town, the foregoing instrument was signed in the Town's name by such Mayor,
sealed with its corporate seal and attested by such Town Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of , 1997.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
My commission expires:
29
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the Mayor and Town Clerk,
respectively, of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and that by authority duly given and as
the act of such Town, the foregoing instrument was signed in the Town's name by such Mayor,
sealed with its corporate seal and attested by such Town Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of , 1997.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
My commission expires:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the Mayor and Town Clerk,
respectively,-of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, and that by authority duly given and
as the act of such Town, the foregoing instrument was signed in the Town's name by such
Mayor, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by such Town Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of , 1997.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
My commission expires: