Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-14-1998 - 2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 14, 1998 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Matters DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Personnel /Public PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Works ATTACHMENT(S): 1 -CH Solid Waste Dept Organization Chart 2 -CH Solid Waste Position List 3 - Employee Transition from CH to OC Employment 4 - 2/20/98 BOCC Chair Letter to Mayors 5 - 3/30/98 Carrboro Mayor Letter 6 - 4/3/98 Chapel Hill Mayor Letter BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) INFORMATION CONTACT: Rod Visser, ext 2300; Elaine Holmes, ext 2550; Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To discuss matters related to the possible assumption by Orange County of overall responsibility for the management of solid waste (excluding collection) throughout the County; and to discuss responses from municipal governing boards to the Board of Commissioners' views and questions about proposed community benefits for the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road landfill. BACKGROUND: Solid Waste Management - Governance Issues One of the major issues facing the local governments in Orange County is deciding a governance structure for the future management of solid waste. One scenario is that the County assume overall solid waste management responsibility. The Board may wish to discuss further at this work session some of the parameters under which the County would be willing to assume that responsibility. A framework for such discussion is suggested below: A. Financing of Solid Waste Operations The Board may wish to discuss, and confirm or amend, a number of assumptions and suggestions that have been made regarding the financing of future solid waste operations: Each local government will maintain responsibility for the operation and financing of solid waste collection within its own jurisdiction 2 2. Financing of other solid waste operations should remain tipping fee based, to the maximum extent possible. As needed, supplemental revenue from user fees, solid waste availability fees, solid waste service district(s), or the like could be considered. 3. Legislative changes by the General Assembly should be sought if needed to make permissible the best combination of financing mechanisms. 4. Should Orange County assume overall solid waste management responsibility, the County general fund would not underwrite overall solid waste operations or be a source of supplemental revenue. 5. Costs of proposed community benefits that cannot legally be borne by the Landfill Fund should be shared by the jurisdictions (for example, on the basis of ownership stake in the landfill) - if not through property taxes, then perhaps through sales taxes. The towns have suggested that the County bear the costs through bonds. Impact of this on County debt structure would need to be considered. 6. Indirect cost charges to the Landfill Fund should the County assume solid waste operations would likely be higher. It appears that the Town of Chapel Hill has not been fully reimbursed over the years for its cost of administering solid waste operations. An outside consultant should be retained to do an impartial analysis of the indirect costs that should be reimbursed to the County if it assumed overall responsibility. 7. Landfill funds would need to be budgeted for planning of new solid waste operations related to a materials recovery facility (MRF), transfer station, new landfill, or the like(depending on which processing and disposal mechanisms are ultimately selected. 8. If a decision were made to consider a new landfill site, it should be done through a proactive search proces§ that solicits voluntary sale of property, and not through a process that would lead to condemnation of property for a new landfill. 9. There will be additional operating costs above the current level during the period of overlap when both current landfill operations continue and future solid waste management activities (whatever they may be) are phased in. B. Administration of Solid Waste Operations If the County assumes overall solid waste management, the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department would be transferred in its entirety and become a new County department. The existing Solid Waste Management Director would become a County department head, reporting directly to the County Manager. This position, paid by the landfill fund, would have a working title of Assistant to the Manager for Solid Waste. Organization Attachment 1 shows the current organization for the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department. The department is made up of two main areas: Landfill operations and recycling. The Solid Waste Management Director heads the department and reports to the Assistant Town Manager. Staffing • Attachment 2 lists the current Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste positions. For each of the 26 permanent positions and two temporary positions, it shows the approximate percentage of time each position spends in the major functional areas of landfill, recycling, administration and planning for future needs. Upon the Solid Waste Department becoming an Orange County organization, each of the current employees, both permanent and temporary, would become an Orange County employee. At the time of this transition, the functions of the Solid Waste Department would continue as presently structured and the employees' duties and responsibilities would continue as presently assigned. The Personnel Department has on hand position descriptions for each Solid Waste position, which are available for review by Commissioners upon request. • If the County Solid Waste functions should change in the future such as through implementation of a transfer station or materials recovery facility, the County would handle any need for fewer staff or different staff through attrition or reassignment of existing staff rather than through layoff. • Transition Attachment 3 describes staff efforts to date, and those that will be necessary in the future, regarding transfer of employees, should the County assume overall solid waste management responsibility. An extensive list of transition issues in addition to personnel - including finance, budget, information technology, insurance, purchasing, solid waste billing and collection, office space, and the like has been prepared and previously provided to the Board. Much preliminary work has been done on these issues, but additional work will be required if a formal decision is made that the County will assume overall solid waste management responsibility. C. Timing of Solid Waste Management Transfer A substantial amount of lead time would be required to accomplish the transition tasks that have been identified to date, and others that may yet become necessary. If the County does assume overall solid waste management responsibility, a target implementation date would be sometime in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999 -2000, but no sooner than July 1, 1999. It would be useful to develop a set of implementation milestones to ensure that all major tasks necessary to a successful transition between the Town and County are accomplished in a timely manner. 4 Proposed Community Benefits to Neighborhoods in the Vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill Following the Board's February 10, 1998 work session on solid waste issues, the Chair sent a letter to the Mayors of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. The letter summarized the Commissioners' discussion on proposed community benefits and solicited comments from the municipal governing boards concerning the Commissioners' conclusions and recommendations. The letter to Mayor Waldorf also included a section (I3) seeking information about the Town of Chapel Hill's experience in managing the landfill and other solid waste activities. That information has been addressed in various attachments to this abstract, and in Mayor Waldorfs return letter. The Board may wish to review and discuss the responses to Commissioner Brown's February 20, 1998 letter that have been received from Mayor Nelson and Mayor Waldorf, and consider possible next steps regarding the proposed community benefits. R.ECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss issues surrounding the possible assumption by the County of overall solid waste management responsibility, and possible next steps related to community benefits; and provide appropriate direction to the Manager and staff. Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department Program Manager Specialist I Keeper II Sanitation Equipment Operator III Recycling Specialist II (3) Town Manager istant Town Manager Solid Waste Management Director Secretary II Secretary I nlmstrative rnvironmen Analyst Engineer A 1 1 i" k- orIIVICIV 1 -1 pril6, 19981 Landfill Manager Operations Supervisor Equipment Operator (6) Inspectors( -) Weighmaster (2) Landfill Materials Handler Mechanic II Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Positions Town Title FTE Major Function Landfill Recycling Administration Planning for Future Needs/Programs I Administrative Analyst 1.0 85% 15% 2 Environmental Engineer 1.0 100% 3 Groundskeeper II 1.0 100% 4 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 5 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 6 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 7 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 8 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 9 Landfill Equipment Operator 1.0 100% 10 Landfill Inspector 1.0 100% 11 Landfill Inspector 1.0 100 % 12 Landfill Manager 1.0 100% 13 Landfill Materials Handler 1.0 10% 90% 14 Landfill Operations Supervisor 1.0 100% 15 Mechanic 11 1.0 100% 16 Recycling Program Manager 1.0 50% 20% 30% 17 Recycling Specialist I 1.0 100% 18 Recycling Specialist II 1.0 90% 10% 19 Recycling Specialist II 1.0 100% 20 Recycling Specialist II 1.0 100% 21 Sanitation Equipment Operator III 1.0 100% 22 Secretary 1 1.0 100% 23 Secretary II 1.0 100% 24 Solid Waste Management Director 1.0 25% 15% 30% 30% 25 Weighmaster 1.0 100% 26 Weighmaster 1.0 100% 27 Temporary — Landfill Equip Op N/A 100% 28 Temporary — Landfill Equip Op N/A 100% Total Permanent Positions By Major Function 14.35 7.45 3.35 .85 f. \e \sw l .doc April 6, 1998 D n M z --i I Attachment 3 4/14/98 Employee Transition from Town of Chapel Hill to Orange County Employment 1. Over the last year, Orange County Personnel staff and Town of Chapel Hill staff have completed a number of activities related to identifying, assessing and working through transition issues involved if the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste employees became Orange County employees. Activities completed include: a. Drafting of requests for proposals and contracting with two consultants to assist in the transition issues. This included: (1) Selection of a consultant to identify and recommend the appropriate classification and salary grade assignment for the involved Town positions within the Orange County classification and pay plan. (2) Selection of a consultant to compare the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County employee benefits, analyze the differences and recommend the benefits and pay to maintain the current total compensation package for each employee at a substantially equivalent level. b. Completion of the classification study by the consultant. This included receipt of updated position descriptions, review of the results with County and Town personnel staff and the Solid Waste Management Director and resolution of concerns. c. Review and detailed comparison of the Town and County benefits by the consultant, analysis of the results, and identification of recommended handling. 2. There are a number of activities remaining to complete any employee transition to Orange County employment including: a. Updating of the classification, pay and benefits analysis done earlier, and reviewing the final outcomes of the classification, pay and benefits review with the County Manager and Town Manager. b. Reporting on the proposed pay and benefits handling to the Board of Commissioners and requesting approval for the classification plan amendments and benefits handling necessary for the proposed pay and benefits package. c. Extensive employee communications including group and individual meetings to explain the planned handling, to provide each employee with a full and individualized information package and to respond to questions. I Upon the transition and with the pay and benefits handling approved to provide a substantially equivalent total compensation package for the employees, the employees would become Orange County employees and be covered by the County's personnel policies and benefits programs. U"Taw W. Broww.. Chair suphea K Heaiot* K" CAMW M"M Cara, .rr MMM L Croaker Arke K Cordow Orange County Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 200 S Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 2 72 78 February 20, 1998 The Honorable Rosemary L. Waldorf Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill 306 North Columbia Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Dear Rosemary: ATTACHMENT 4 ice= \�r During our February I0, 1998 work session, the Board of Commissioners discussed the proposed community benefits to the neighborhoods around the Eubanks Road Landfill. The Board reached consensus on a number of conclusions and/or recommendations concerning those of the proposed fourteen community benefits not already addressed by the local governments in Orange County. The following letter outlines the results of our discussion, and in many cases, solicits your board's views about our conclusions/recommendations. Also note Attachments 1 -14, which provide a concise summary of the status, as we understand it, of each of the- fourteen proposed community benefits. A. Benefit #1 -Water Extensions: Well Testing and Use of LOG Funds 1. The Board of Commissioners confirmed its view that sewer line extensions should not be considered as a community benefit because no direct or indirect impact from the landfill related to a need for sewer service has been identified, and because of their prohibitive cost. Does your jurisdiction share that view? 2. Testing data,from drinking water wells throughout Orange County indicates that water quality imweUs:in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road Landfill is not dissimilar to that in wells elsevyice'in the County (see Attachment i A). Does your governing board interpret the data in the same way? 3. Based on water testing, the County Engineer's review of potential blasting impacts and technical reports received to date (see Attachments 1B. 1C, and 1D), there does not seem to be a causative relationship between landfill operations and water quality concerns that led to the proposal to extend water lines. How does your jurisdiction view this assessment? You Count In Orange County AREA CODE (919) 732 -8181: 968 -4501 : 688 -7331 : 227 -2031: FAX (919) 644-3004 F-7d. 2130 4. The_ individual, opinions of the County and Town Attorneys (Attachments IE, 1F, and 1 G) indicate that landfill funds can be used for community benefits only to the extent that the need for those benefits is related to landfill operations. Based on conclusions A2 and A3, it would. appear that funds other than landfill tipping fees must be used if the governing boards elect to pursue water line extensions. The Board of Commissioners believes fiords other than landfill fiords should be used. Does your jurisdiction concur in this assessment? B. Benefit #1 - Water /Sewer Extensions: Potential Approaches At its February 10 meeting, the Board of Commissioners considered two potential approaches to the water quality issue. 1. The County Engineer's analysis provides estimates of water line extension and connection costs on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. If all neighborhoods are included, the total cost for construction, plumbing connections, acreage fees, and the like is estimated at $2,889,000. The Board of Commissioners believes that the "historical" Rogers Road neighborhood (outlined in the Engineer's report, Attachment 1 D) should be included in any benefit related to water quality, and that any other neighborhoods in the area with homes that pre -date the construction of the landfill should also receive priority consideration. Our attorney's opinion is that the focus of benefits must be on neighborhoods, rather than individual homes. 2. The Board of Commissioners received information (see Attachment 1H) from Environmental Health Director Ron Holdway concerning several kinds of water filtration systems. These systems are deemed to be quite effective at removing the most common contaminants from well water, and are roughly estimated to cost between S 1,500 42,000 per well (possibly more, depending on the nature and complexity of contamination in any particular well).. 3. The Board of Commissioners would like to explore the quicker solution of individual water filtration systems as another option to extending water lines. What does your governing:board think about which neighborhoods should be included in any benefit related to:_,water quality; which approaches should be pursued, and for which aeighborfioods? C. Benefit #1 - Water /Sewer Extensions: Cost Allocation If conclusions A2, A3, and A4 are reached, and all costs are seen as properly borne using public funds, there are differing estimated one time equivalent tax rate impacts for the County and Towns, depending on the basis used for allocating the share of costs between jurisdictions. The County Attorney expressed his opinion in the following excerpts from his January 12, 1998 letter to the Board of Commissioners, that all jurisdictions can participate in the provision of community benefits: Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro all have the power to spend general fund revenue to provide public water and sewer to the citizens in their jurisdictions (municipal boundaries for the towns; outside of munt Oal boundaries for the County). Further, it is reasonable to assume aMe rmon by the towns of their respective transition areas. The towns can provide public water and serer in their transition areas Furthermore, and in my opinion significantly. the entire identified community can be served with public water and sewer using the general fund revenue of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in a joint undertaking. This would allow a -blurring" of jurisdictional lines by reasonable assumptions concerning financial contribution to the enterprise. l think there could be quite a bit of latitude in these assumptions given that the enterprise in question would be one of constructing public water and sewer utilities and not their operation thereafter. The operation of these utilities would presumably fall to OWA.SA once they were constructed Fees for connection to the water and sewer utilities can be justified if they are all to be paic4 on the same basis as the line extensions themselves. However, if only those fees associated with homes owned by persons with low and moderate income am to be paid then landfill enterprise funds would not be available. Low and moderate income homeowners' fees can be paid by the local governments under the community development programs and activities power of the County. Carrboro and Chapel Hill found in N. C. Gen Star SJ I S3A -316 and 16OA- 456... The Board of Commissioners considered three approaches for allocating costs - landfill ownership interest; population; and waste generation rates (details are included in Attachment 11). Costs are based on the assumption that all neighborhoods would be included; costs to each jurisdiction would be less if fewer properties are included or if water filtration systems are pursued rather than water line extensions. Are there other methods that should be considered for assessing the shares of the public costs of water line extensions? D. Benefit #1 - Water /Sewer Extensions: Other Issues 1. The Board of Commissioners believes that water lines should not be extended into the rural buffer (for example, the Millhouse Road area) at this time, but a tipping fee supported contingency account should be established and funded in the upcoming Landfill budget to immediately address any potential future contamination of wells that is caused by leachate from the landfill. How does your board feel about this proposal? 2. As noted in paragraph B3 above, installation of water filtration systems could help some or all'homeowners in the ultimate benefit area achieve quicker relief from their water quality problems... A public information education effort should be initiated to provide homeow=sin the vicinity of the landfill with e.,zplanations of the pros and cons of water filtration systems compared to water line extensions. The Board would support a survey (if landfill neighbors are receptive to the idea) to ascertain which residents could benefit from the installation of water filtration systems. Does your board support these initiatives? E. Benefit 92 - Financial Assistance for Water and Sewer Connections 1. The Board of Commissioners addressed financial assistance for water quality improvements in two ways: 1) a proposal that OWASA be asked to waive its facility fees for connections to any water lines extended to a benefit area; and 2) that grants for water connections should be provided to homeowners in the benefit area in a manner consistent with the income eligibility requirements that are applicable to applicants for CDBG grants. - How does your governing board feel about these proposals? 2. What does your board think about which costs should be covered with public funds (e.g. main water lines) and which costs (e.g. acreage/facility fees, plumbing connections) if any, should be bome by private property owners? F. Benefit #11 - Activities Related to Planning Boundaries_ The Board of Commissioners sees any possible redefinition of the Carrboro and Chapel Hill transition areas as primarily a matter to be resolved by the two Town governing boards, although certainly it would need to be addressed in the context of the Joint Planning Area agreement. The Chair would be happy to assist the Towns in any way they see as helpful to the process. G. Benefit #12 - Post - Closure Use of the Landfill I. The Board of Commissioners does not believe that it is prudent to pursue construction of a recreation facility on a closed landfill. Alternative recreation options should be considered, including an examination of how the Northern Chapel Hill Park, in conjunction with a smaller neighborhood park closer to the residents near the landfill, might better serve the area's recreation facility needs. The Board of Commissioners believes it is premature to designate any portion of the Greene Tract for any specific purpose, until further determinations are made about future solid waste management facilities and processes. 2. In view of their interest in keeping options open regarding the future use of the Greene Tract, and in view of the conclusions of the February 4, 1998 report from Joyce Engineering (Attachment 12A), the Commissioners are interested in exploring the development of one or more of the following facilities on the Greene Tract: • construction 8t demolition landfill • mixed solid waste landfill • materials recovery facility • transfer station Does your board have an interest in considering one or more of these facilities for possible siting on the Greene Tract? If not, does your board have proposals for where these facilities could be located? H. Benefit 913 - Expansion of Landfill The Board of Commissioners is opposed to any determination, at this point in time, that would rule out land acquisitions for any possible solid waste management functions. All options should be kept open as decisions are being made about roles, responsibilities, and approaches to solid waste management for the future. I. Other Solid Waste Issues Some of these questions are not directly related to community benefits, but your board's view about the issues involved are also of interest to the Board of Commissioners: 1. Does your board wish to undertake a new landfill siting process? If so, what should that process involve and what should be the targeted duration of the process? 2. Does your governing board have an interest in conducting additional testing (for leachate contamination, for example) of wells in the vicinity of the landfill, assuming owner permission (see Attachments 15 and 16)? If so, who should conduct the testing and how should the testing be fimded? 3. Can your staff provide us with a written description of issues we should be aware of, and the costs involved with, the transfer and administration of the landfill operation? County staff will coordinate with Town staff to ascertain relevant information that we may already have, but at a minimum the following considerations would be helpful to us: • a list of all positions, with job descriptions, involved in LOG funded solid waste activities (landfill, recycling, etc.) • organizational chart (or description of reporting/working relationships) for all such positions • estimate of percentage of time each position spends on major functions (e.g. landfill operations vs. recycling vs. planning vs. administrative support, etc.) • all costs of administering all current programs (including indirect costs, and to the e=xtent possible, estimates of the costs absorbed by the Town through allocation of time of non -LOG fimded employees to LOG related business - this could be Manager, Assistant Manager, Attorney, etc. commitments) . I think that the Board of Commissioners made significant progress at, the February 10 meeting. We look forward.to your feedback - as soon as you deem possible, about our discussions and -the questions we have posed. as our boards continue progress towards resolving our mutual solid waste management challenges. Sincerely. Margaret . Brown Chair Attachments - see list ATTACHMENT 5 TOWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA March 30, 1998 . Ms. Margaret Brown, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Margaret: The Carrboro Board of Aldermen met in a special worksession on Thursday, March 26, 1998 to discuss solid waste management issues. The Board made the following responses to your letter dated February 20, _.1998 concerning proposed community benefits to the neighborhoods around the Eubanks Road Landfill: Benefit #1 Water /Sewer Extensions Potential Approaches Cost Allocation. and Other Issues SEWE The Board reconfirms its willingness to compromise on the issue of sewer connections. However, the Board believes that the three governments, under the leadership of the County, should explore the possibility of extending sewer lines to the historic Rogers Road community. Options such as CDBG funds or a bond referenda could be explored. (Question A -1) WATER The Board reconfirms its position that installation of water lines serves as insurance in terms of future potential litigation. (A -2) Because of this, our attorney advises us that tipping fees (A4) could be used for community benefits, including water extensions. We are interested in keeping all options open at this time, including CDBG and a bond referenda. It is our opinion that the county government, which represents all taxpayers, should take the lead on this. (C) With regard to the area to be served with water, the Board concurs with the County that the historic Rogers Road neighborhood should be included in any benefit related to waxer quality. (B) 301 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRSORO. NC 27510 . 19191 9428541 - FAX 19191 9687737 • TOO 19191 9667717 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 2 March 30, 1998 Orange County Board of Commissioners In addition, the Board feels that water lines should be extended to those residences in the Millhouse Road neighborhood that were constructed prior to 1972. Millhouse Road residents are in closest proximity to the landfill of any residents considered. Neighbors have suffered significant degradation of quality of life for an extended period of time as a result of living in close proximity to activities associated with a public enterprise in the form of the Orange County landfill for over 25 years. It should be recognized that this action is a specific remedy to correct this unique hardship to residents who have specifically suffered and to insure these residents against potential health hazards. resulting from past, present and future landfill- associated activities. The Board believes that, because this neighborhood is downhill from the landfill and because contaminants have been found already in one well, an exception should be made. However, in order to protect the integrity of the rural buffer, which we care deeply about, the water lines should be carefully sized to serve only the residents intended. The Board would not support a survey to ascertain which residents could benefit from the installation of water filtration systems. Benefit 42 — Financial Assistance for Water and Sewer Connections The Board is interested in exploring reduction in fees, fee waivers and alternative funding sources as a means of addressing financial assistance for water quality improvements, if legal. 2. The Board feels that main water lines should be paid for with as yet undetermined funds. Acreage/facility fees and plumbing connections might be paid for, based on need, with CDBG funds, bonds, etc. The Board would like to do whatever possible to facilitate use of the water lines. Benefit #11 — Activities Related to Planning Boundaries The Board will work with the Town of Chapel Hill in redefining the Carrboro and Chapel Hill transition areas. Benefit # 12 — Post - Closure Use of the Landfill The Board agrees that it is not prudent to construct a recreation facility on a closed landfill. 2. The Board agrees with the most recent position of the LOG that the Greene Tract not be used for: ➢ Construction and demolition landfill ➢ Mixed solid waste landfill ➢ Materials recovery facility Page 3 March 30, 1998 Orange County Board of Commissioners ➢ Transfer station The Board will have proposals in the future addressing where these facilities could be located following a thorough Board discussion of this matter. Benefit #13 — Ex ion of Landfill The Board does not support expanding the current landfill by purchasing land for landfilling activities, but the Board is open to purchasing land for other solid waste activities. Other Solid Waste Issues 1. The Board does not want to close the door on a new landfill siting process, and would like to keep that option at this time. We would like to extend the life of the existing landfill by shipping some waste and exploring options to reduce waste flow. 2. The Board would not be interest in conducting additional testing of wells in the vicinity of the landfill at this time. Thank you for passing this information along to the County Commissioners for consideration. Sincerely, Michael R Nelson O`j Mayor ATTACHMENT 6 An0 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUINSIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 OMca OF THE MAYOR (919) 968 -2714 April 3, 1998 FAX (919) 967 -8406 WPM W. Brown, Cbair Orange County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 On March 23, 1998, the Town Council discussed the issues raised in your letter of February 20, 1998. While the C mcil was not tmananous on all points, we did reach cotw1usions . Below I have restated the questions as we understand them and provided the Council's answers as you have requested. Liar =I 1117-Im A Issue: Benefit #I - Water/Sewer Extensions: Well Testing and Use of LOG Funds L Isms ug: Does the Council agree with the County determination that sewer hoe aderL ions should not be considered as a benefit because no direct or indirect impact from the landfill has been identified? Coment: We believe that landfill operations have not created a need that would be met by construction of sewer lines to save private properties. 2. Uwe: Does the Council agree with the County's analysis of well test data indicating that the Eubanks Road neighborhoods drinlang water is similar to that elsewhere in Orange County? Comment: We understand that the County Health Department has developed data and conducted an analysis of the drinlang water wells both m the vicinity of the landfill and throughout Orange County, and than they have reached the conclusion stated above. We have no basis on which to disagree with the concluions of County staff We have not conducted an independent assessment. 2 Issue: Does the Council agree with the Cou*s assessment that there does not seem to be a causative relationship between landffi blasting activities and water quality concerns in the landfill neighborhood? Comment: We agree with the County Engineer's view that the available data does not support any causative relationship between landfill blasting activities and assertions of water quality impacts. Landfill monitoring wdls located close to the blasting events show no evidence of impacts. Seismic monitoring of blasting events demonstrated that they were well within US Bureau of Mines protection limits. 4. j sue: Given the Countys, coniclusions in 2. and 3. above, and the previous opinions of the County and Town Attorneys indicating that landfill funds carviot be utilized to fiord camrruuIIty benefits not related to landfill operations, does the Council agree that any benefits provided should not be financed by the landfill fi3nd? Comnmt: As we understand it, North Carolina law, as established by both Gezi d Staunes and Appellate Cart decisions, limits landfill tipping foes to those reasonably necessary to provide the services which the foes are mtcoded to support North Carolina Court decisions indicate that a municipality may charge fns 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 f tcffity -" Therefore, the Landfill Fund appears not to be an appropriate source of fiends for commiin. improvements. The governing bodies could appropriately spend other public fiords on community benefits in this area B. 1 ,slue: Bentfit #1 -Waxer /Sewer Extensions: Potential Approaches r : Wbich neighborhoods, if any, does the Coumi think should be included in any benefit related. to water quality? What approach should be pursued m these neighborhoods, including the consideration of individual home water filtration systems? Co : The "Groundwater Risk Assessment" prepared by Buxton Environmental, Tnc. dated November 17, 1997 concludes that there are no residential driniang wells that would be at risk of contamination by the landfill. The Buxton Environmental report shows the area (map attached) estimated by the consultant to be m the leacbate flow zone if there were a release of lewhate from the north side of the landfill. We believe the consultants' conclusion that none of the neighborhoods surrounding the landfill are at risk is reasonable. We also believe that any release from the south side is extremeiy improbable because that area of the landfill is constructed with a modern composite liner and leachate collection system. -r._ . 3 The Council consensus is that the "ffistoric Rogers Road Neighborhood" and the Nuns property to the east of the south Eubanks Road cells should be included m any nc�ghborhood benefits. We would generally define this Neghborbood as those rCS along Rogers Road between Tally Ho Trail. and Eubanks Road and adcading east to the Greene tract. The Council also concluded that we would not be interested in installing water filters; a public water system extension would be more effective and efficient. C. Issue: Bent #1- Water /Sewer Extensions: Cost Allocation The County has suggested three options for allocating costs for any water service benefit rely pied - landfill ownxsWp interest; population; and waste generation rates. Are there other methods that should be considered for assessing the shares of the public costs of water line extensions? Comment: We discuss the fiutdiug scenarios presented by the County separatdy: — Q! a thin Interest Proportion The kaxig ownership interest method would assign costs as follows: 43% Chapel Hill, 43% County, and 14 °/9 Carrboro. Under this method Chapel Sill residents would pay twice; once in Chapel EM taxes and once in Orange County taxes. — Waste Deposited Proportion Under this method the County argues that proportions of cost would be simil to proportions of waste delivered by each community: 52.6% Chapel HA 302% Orange County, and 17.2'/9 Casboro. However, only 44.We of waste delivered to the landfill is brought directly by the governmental entities, with the rest from private haulers. Of the total amount delivered to the landfill, the governments' portions are 25.3% Chapel 11i[l, 11.9°/9 Orange County, 7.6'/9 Canboro; and private hauler contribute the remaining 55r /o. — Population PrMrdm Th= are two methods that would be based on population In the first, we would divide the population according to municipal boundaries and unincorporated areas. Chapel Hill would pay 43.1°/9, Orange County 42.3 %, and Carrboro 14.6 %. It is our opinion that all Conroy residents should share equally in &urdiing of any water service lines provided, using the principle of one personlone tax. To avoid double taxation of municipal taxpayers, the County would need to fund the improvements. We support the County either paying from its operating budget or financing the costs through bonds or other instruments. If there is tver any at&'bk evidence of a causative relationship between the landfill and the water quality problems, then we would rewn maid considering using landfill _ . _ . sr . , .. . 4 finds to provide water Regardless of the method of finanaag, the County should decide who will receive the service and how water service benefits should be financed. D. fie: B=fit #1- Water /Sewer Extensions: Other Issues 1. Tom: Does the Council agree that a tipping- fee - supported contingency account should be established to address any potential firture coon of wells, including those m the rural buffer, caused by landfill leachate? fit: We believe that a upping -fee supported contingency account should be established . 2. Torte: Would the Council support a survey of landfill neighbors to ascertain which its could benefit from the installation of water filtration systems? : We do not support the provision of water filtration systems, so we do not support a survey on this topic. E. t : Benefit #2 - Fina,naal Assistance for Water and Sews` Connections 1. Lam: Does the Council fed that 1) OWASA should be asked to waivc its f mility foes Sor connections to any. water lines extended to a benefit arcs and 2) grants for water connections should be provided to homeowners in the benefit area similar to that which are applicable to applicants for CDBG grants? We feel that an irquiry should be made to OWASA to explore financial assistance alternatives. We believe is would be appropriate for the gov=meatal bodies to seek grant assistance for persons meeting Comdr Devdopment Block Grant incaome guidelines. Application by a consortium of governments would be best. 2. Ike: What does the C=xR think about which costs should be covered with public funds (c.g. main water lines) and which costs (e.g. arrea$di tctlity fees, plumbing connections) if any, should be borne by private property owners? Comment: Please refer to C. above, which suggests that the County be responsible for main water lines. Connection foes and laterals for low income people could be paid; for through Comity Development Block Grant funds or from the County general fund. Those property owners who do not qualify as low income should be asked to pay for costs associated with laterals and possibly OWASA fees. Issue: Benefit #10: Extension of Transit Service to Rogers Road Comment: The Council referred the question of extension of transit service. to the F - Issue: Benrefit #11- Actinides Related to Planning Boundaries Do the Towns need any assisraoce from the Chair in resolving issues related to the planning boundaries between Chapel Hill and Carrboro? The Council befieves that fiutber conversation could be valuable, but that it is not urgent. G Issue: Benefit 12 - Post- Clostue Use of the Landfill 1. IW : Does the Council agree that it is imprudent to pursue consbuctma of a reawlion fadity on a dosed landfill? In 1989 new rules governing landfill design, construction, opecatioa and do=e came into effect. The rules require the disposal cell arras of both old and new latdfills to be monitored for methane gas and groundwater contamination for 30 years after doge. Tie nde requires devdopn wt of a series of gas and groundwater wells for this purpose. Where a leachate collection system edsts, such as on the South Eubanks area, le adhate waist be coflected and treated. Additionally, the closed disposal odes are required to be covered with an engineered cappmg system that must be mairntainaed and protected for a minitrurm of 30 years_ These caps will also wain a Methane gas venting system- Given the array of post - closure activities required and the relatively small amount of the total acreage unarm by these requirements, little of the property is available without significant restrictions. Therefore, we agree that reaction would not be a prudent use of the landfill site dier the landfill is dosed 2. i : Does the Council have an interest in considering the following facilities for possible siting on the Greene Tract: * construction & demolition lamfm • mined solid waste landfill * materials recovery qty * transfer station ff not, does the Council have proposals for where these facilities could be located? Co : The Council has no interest in siting any of the four facilities mentioned on the Greene tract. The governing boards have made no decision on whether to proceed to locate an m- countY site for a new mixed solid waste disposal facility. We befieve that it is unWcdy 0 that a decision can be reached on whether to seek a new site for a landfill until decisions have been made about governance of a solid waste managernent organization. Ii IMuee: Benefit #13 - Expansion oflandfiIl Does the Council agree that all options should be kept open regarding land acquisitions for any possible solid waste fimctions? We agree that options should be kept open until the issue of governance of solid waste management is settled. It is our opinion that the issue of governance practically prechxks the malting of key. decisions £wing the local govenuncuts in Orange County, indudimg decisions about future disposal and processing fscilitics. We believe that each significant delay in settling govc=nce isms reduces options available for the junsdictwn ultimately given the reRmsb * for solid waste management. We recommend that within the next few months, by July if possible, that either Orange County or Chapel M be designated to as== responsibility for solid waste management and fimctions. Such demon would have multiple bens ft including: + facalitating resolution of issues regarding waste processing, recycling and disposal reducing staff time now allocated to administrative issues associated with serving four 8n"erning bodies * resohxtion of issues important to the .26 employees of the Solid Waste Management Department in regard to their firwre employment and careers_ Other L Issue: Other Sold Waste Issues 1. Issue: Does your board wish to undertake a new landfill siting process? If so, what should that process involve and what should be the targeted duration of the process? Comment: We believe governance issues should be resolved before any new siting process is considered. As discussed in K above, we believe that the goverment that accepts management and ownership responsbilitiex should make the final decisions on provision of long-term disposal capacity and other key solid waste decisions. The Council decided by vote of 5-4 that there should be a landfill in Orange County. There was full consensus that if it is decided that a new landfill should be located in Orange County, and once the governance issue is resolved, the land£11 should be sited, owned and operated by the governing agency. 7 2. lei : Does the Council have an interest m conducting additional testing of wells in the vicinity of the landfill? If $o, who should conduct the testimg and how should the testing be funded? Cam: We believe that such testing is unnecessary if it is decided that public water fines should be eatentded. 3. Issue: Can the Council provide us with a written description of issues we should be aware og and the costs involved with, the transfer and administration of the landfill operation? This k6rMatian could include: a) a fist of all positions, with job descriptions, k"Ived in LOG funded solid waste activities b) organintional dart for all such positions c) estimate of percentage of time each position spends on major functions d) all costs of administering all current programs Significant work has already been completed by a transition team owed to evaluate issues related to the transfer of the Solid Waste Management Department to Oratage County. The team began meeting is late 1996 and created a comprehensive list of about 90 issues related to a transfer of solid waste functions to Orange County. Staff members from each jurisdiction were delegated to work on relevant issues, such as automation, employee, persormd, financial systemtgeneral ledger, assets, operations, IeVVMSU;rancVliabilities, organization, and other. A memorandum from Elaine Holmes, Orange County Personnel Director (attached) presents a status update as of October 21, 1997 on personnel issues related to a transfer. Speci$c ally, a comprehensive employee dass&cation analysis, a comprehensive pay and benefits analysis, and a comprehensive comparative aonly= of the benefits and oornpertsation between Orange County and Chapel 10 were conducted. These work products provide the information requested in a) and c) above, including multi -page position desmpbons and the consultant reports. In response to b) above, we have attached an organizational chart. In response to d) above, the Town utilizes a cost allocation formula to assign administrative overhead costs to the Landfill Fund. The fomwla is similar to that used by the federal government for public than z projects and has been rom mnended for use in the Landfill Fund by the Chapel HA Finance Director. The Chapel FLIT General Fund receives annual payments of 13.55% of full time salary costs. This has proven reasonable compensation for financial, personnel, and general administrative services, however, this formula may not represent the entire array of costs relevant to managing the finid. 8 We do not think it provides adequate reimbursement for the time of the Town Attomey and Town Manager- These time commitments arc intermittent and are at least partially the result of our existing organization structure and the difficulty involved in managing our joint arrangement. A unified and consolidated organization most Mmly wM not require such a high level of eve involvement. Since the Landfill Fund is operated as an enterprise W we believe that all other costs are fully accounted for within the Landfill Fund Budget We appreciate the involvement of the Board in these issues. We are most willing to answer other questions and discuss whatever matters reinain, or to consider any specific County proposals, m order to resolve the fimue management of solid waste in Orange County. We urge you to move ahead in your dchberatioos so that the important community issues can be resolved. Tune is of the essence. I believe that we will in= real costs, both in dollars and opportunities, if we do not expeditiously settle the governance and solid waste management issues before us. Please lct me know if the believe a joint meeting with the Council is needed. cc: Mayor M ke Nelson Mayor Horace Johnson Sincerely, G eG:.x Ro L Wald rf� Mayor ATTA,CEMENTS I . Map of LandM Area I Orange County Mem&Employee Transfer Status Update 3. Solid Waste Management Dept Organizational Chart