Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19971022APPROVED 12/16/97 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS OCTOBER 22, 1997 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Assembly of Governments meeting was held on Wednesday, October 22, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the OWASA Community meeting room, Jones Ferry Road, Carrboro, North Carolina. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William L. Crowther and members Stephen H. Halkiotis, Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf and members Joyce Brown, Joseph Capowski (arrived at 8:45), Mark Chilton, Pat Evans (arrived at 8:30), Lee Pavao, Edith Wiggins, and Richard Franck. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRESENT: Mayor Mike Nelson and members Hank Anderson, Hilliard Caldwell, Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffee and Alex Zaffron. HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Horace Johnson and members Kenneth Chavious, Richard Simpson, Catherine Martin, and Evelyn Lloyd. Chair Crowther convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed the elected officials and citizens. He mentioned that this meeting had been called primarily to discuss community benefits. He stated that the meeting would start with an update on the Interlocal Agreement prior to the main discussion MAYOR'S COMMENTS: Mayor Johnson commented that Hillsborough would take a wait and see attitude about these topics as this matter does not directly affect the Town of Hillsborough. Mayor Waldorf indicated that Chapel Hill wanted to discuss community benefits at this meeting. She pointed out that at the March Assembly of Government's meeting it was agreed that delegates from each of the four (4) elected Boards would work on the Interlocal Agreement. The outcome of these discussions was that the main responsibility for solid waste disposal and management would be turned over to the County. Mayor Nelson stated that he and the other members of the Carrboro Board wanted to proceed with the Interlocal Agreement. They are committed to this situation being handled swiftly. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT UPDATE: Attorney Bob Jessup referred to the document entitled "How the Remaining Pieces Fit together" (Exhibit A) There are five (5) key points in this document. He indicated that he had attempted to identify how these agreements fit together given that Site #17 may no longer be available and/or that the specifics of a new facility may not be agreed upon by December 1, 1997. If agreement cannot be reached on all five (5) points, then a decision must be made regarding which, if any, need to be decided upon. Those points are: 1. The County becomes the local government with primary authority and responsibility over operational and policy matters related to the solid waste system, subject to the limitations imposed by the Agreement. 2. In its capacity as the system operator, the County agrees to establish and maintain a new disposal facility, and in return for access to disposal capacities the Towns agree to provide their solid waste and recyclables to the County system. 3. The parties jointly agree on the location of that new disposal facility. 4. The parties agree on benefits or benefits processes related to the communities (a) in the area of the existing landfill and (b) in the area of the new disposal facility. 5. The parties agree on some treatment of the Greene Tract. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS: Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the County Commissioners need additional financial information before proceeding with this process. Chair Crowther stated that the Board of Commissioners voted that meeting the deadline of December 1, 1997 was not achievable because a site cannot be chosen before the end of November. They also agree that they need more information regarding the business and finances of the Landfill. The Board of Commissioners is not willing to move forward until a site is selected. Council member Franck pointed out that the agreement did not refer to siting a landfill. It referred to establishing a solid waste management facility. Commissioner Carey stated that he thought that one of the conditions of this agreement was that the three units of government would agree on a site. Mayor Nelson stated that if the County Commissioners felt that there had been agreement that all three units of government would participate in the siting of the landfill, that stipulation could be written into the agreement. Council member Chilton suggested that if the County wanted the wording to be changed that could be accomplished. The Agreement could say that "agreement will be reached on siting a disposal facility at a later time. Then we could move forward with other parts of this agreement. Chair Crowther stated that the Commissioners do not want to take responsibility for the current landfill with the next site undecided and continue to be responsible to an Agreement that states that all parties must agree to the siting of the facility. Council member Chilton stated that the current procedure is unworkable. A new procedure has been redesigned so that the decision making would be in the hand of the County Commissioners. Now it seems that they are saying that they do not want the authority. The landfill will close soon and, in the meantime, even if a transfer station is decided upon, it will take time to have that type of facility up and running. It is not possible to make the next decisions under the current system. We need to have someone take control of this situation. Council member Brown stated that there had been some successes under the current LOG management, including adoption of the integrated solid waste management plan. Council member Pavao asked why the Board of Commissioners could not select a site and inform the other units of government. The Agreement could stipulate that as a part of the process. Chapel Hill feels that the County should be in charge of this situation. Alderman Gist stated that siting and operating a landfill is the flash point for many other issues of class/race/tax/politics. These are emotional issues. An Interlocal Agreement was developed because the County said that they would have to take over the landfill because they were ultimately responsible. She suggested that the three units agree to help site the landfill and have that written into the agreement. This could be done by December 1st with a paragraph inserted into the Interlocal Agreement which agreed that the current owners of the landfill would share in the responsibility for siting a new solid waste disposal facility. Commissioner Carey stated that the law has changed since the beginning of this process. Now each unit of government is responsible for the disposal of their solid waste, although he does believe that the County is the best entity to manage the facility. The Interlocal Agreement does need to be revised so that some of the conditions are changed, especially if Site 17 is not a possibility. Perhaps the business information that Commission Gordon requested has been available, but it has not been studied thoroughly by each of our members. Commissioner Gordon stated that it is important to the County that since Site 17 no longer appears to be available as Commissioner Carey said, each jurisdiction is responsible for their own solid waste. The Commissioners have just recently received an update on the finances but we need further clarification. The fact that the reserve is only 2 million dollars after current expenses are paid was a surprise to the Board of Commissioners. Orange County does not have the legal responsibility to manage solid waste for the entire County nor is the County ready to do so at this time. This is a land use planning issue and each entity has their own land use issues. This is a very difficult task and all jurisdictions need to persuade their citizens to change their behavior with respect to solid waste and also to pay for it. Cooperation is essential. Mayor Waldorf stated that it was essential that decisions be made. In 2005 the landfill will be at capacity. It will take years to get anything in place, including the MRF. She does not understand why more time is needed to decide on this. If The County isn't going to work with them, or take this over, Chapel Hill may have to make its own decisions. Alderman Zaffron stated that after having agreed to a procedure, people are now changing their minds. He felt that the reasons being given do not actually impact on what is in the Interlocal Agreement. He asked that the elected officials take a second look at their current positions on this issue. Chair Crowther stated that the County Attorney has made certain recommendations. He has stated that if the County were to have jurisdiction of managing everyone's solid waste, it would have to be responsible for siting a disposal facility with no veto power on the part of the other jurisdictions. The Greene Tract is also an issue for the County. If Orange County took over the landfill it would need to have responsibility for the future of the Greene Tract. Orange County considers the Greene Tract an asset of the landfill. Commissioner Halkiotis asked the other elected officials if they wouldn't also have serious reservations if they were considering taking over the management of the landfill. He commented that Council member Chilton said that the operations would "largely be in the hands of the Board of Commissioners". The word "largely" puts fear into the hearts of the Commissioners. In the last three weeks he has gotten different perspectives and answers about the reserve funds. He, and the other Commissioners, need a clear picture of the funds. He asked if the reserve fund is being used to pay for recycling? He also needs a commitment that the Greene Tract would be an asset of the landfill. Council member Chilton asked that the Board of Commissions keep in mind that the Town of Chapel Hill owns 43% of the landfill fund, including property and other assets. They would be agreeing to give that away which is also a big commitment on their part. Giving all of this to Orange county has the potential to make him nervous as well. Also, Chapel Hill would be agreeing to be a customer of huge proportions. Alderman Gist stated that she had been under the impression that there was agreement on these issues. Clearly that is not so. She suggested moving ahead with the discussion of community benefits. She asked that the Work Group meet again and report back to the Assembly of Governments in February of 1998. Attorney Jessup stated that if the County feels that it needs more information then one thing that could be done would be to get mutual agreements on when that information would be received and reviewed. Then the December date could be replaced with another date. He asked that everyone keep in mind that the feedback loop has an impact on everyone's desires and willingness to agree on this process. EUBANKS ROAD LANDFILL COMMUNITY BENEFITS (DECISION ITEMS) Chair Crowther introduced this matter. He indicated that all three Boards had to agree on an Item in order for it to be adopted. A majority of each Board would need to vote in the affirmative in order for the item to pass. It was decided to discuss and vote on each of the items listed as Exhibit C of "How the Remaining Pieces Fit Together" starting with Item Fourteen (xiv) and then work backwards. This information is located in the October 1997 Hazen and Sawyer report and is incorporated herein by reference as Attachment I. ITEM FOURTEEN (xiv): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that three residents of the area near the Eubanks Road landfill (two in the Rogers Road area, an one in the Millhouse Road area) be identified to receive all mailings and information sent to members of the Landfill Owners Group or its successor agency. This information should be made available to all residents of the area. A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded to Alderman Gist, to approve this item as written. VOTE: MOTION PASSED ITEM THIRTEEN (xiii) This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that no expansion (beyond the existing permitted disposal capacity) of the disposal areas (MSW or Construction and Demolition) of the Eubanks Road landfill occur. The Working Group recommends that the Landfill Owners Group or its successor make no incremental land acquisitions at the Eubanks Road Landfill. Council member Franck argued against the inclusion of the sentence which would deny the County the right to make incremental land acquisitions for system purposes at the site of the existing landfill. He felt that there would be benefits to the community by deleting this sentence. Council member Chilton also disagreed with including this paragraph. The facility owner needs to have the right to purchase additional land if it should be needed or if adjacent landowners want to sell their property. A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to adopt this item as written. VOTE: MOTION FAILED ITEM TWELVE (xii): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that following the closure of The Eubanks Road landfill, portions of the landfill (as allowed by regulations), the Neville tract, and at least 50 acres of the Green tract will be used for recreation facilities. The Landfill Owners Group or its successor will appoint an advisory group to make specific recommendations about the post-closure use of the landfill. This group will convene and make recommendations at least two years prior to the expected closure of the Eubanks Road landfill. The advisory group will be composed of LOG members, residents near the Eubanks Road landfill and other Orange County citizens. Council member Chilton stated that the park portion of this agreement is a strong moral commitment to establish the park. The capped landfill may not be suitable for recreation purposes. The use of the Greene Tract would be a way of fulfilling a moral commitment. Council member Brown stated that she agreed that there is a moral commitment to a park but she would like to have further clarification sometime in the future regarding where the park would actually be sited. Council member Chilton stated that the Neville tract would in all likelihood be greatly changed by the time this portion of the agreement would go into effect. Council member Brown stated that she supports this but has reservations about the wording. Commissioner Carey stated that he also agreed with Council Member Brown's concerns. He felt that the language was too restrictive. Town Commissioner Chavious stated this during his investigation of other landfills that have been turned into park sites it has been clear that they were not particularly satisfactory because of gas emissions, unstable earth and sinkage problems. He wants to see a park in this area, however, those problems need to be taken into account. Council member Chilton stated that this agreement would not mandate a particular type of park because of those very issues raised by Mr. Chavious. It could be that a golf driving range would be the only possibility. That is why a portion of the Greene Tract is being suggested to fulfill this recreation component. Council member Brown pointed out that this item suggest using portions of the landfill as well. A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to approve this item, as written. Vote: Motion Did Not Pass ITEM ELEVEN (xi): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will work with the Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro planning departments to sponsor a public information meeting regarding the planning boundary (future annexation boundary) between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. A "ballot" should be prepared identifying at least three options: 1. Leave the planning boundary as it is, along Rogers Road, 2. Move the planning boundary east, placing the entire Rogers Road neighborhood in Carrboro's future annexation area. 3. Move the planning boundary west, placing the entire Rogers Road neighborhood in Chapel Hill's future annexation area (see Hazen and Sawyer report for map). Additional options may be identified and added to the ballot. All households in the area which may potentially be shifted shall be given the opportunity to submit one ballot selecting their preferred option. The Working Group recommends that after the ballots have been tallied, the local governments take the necessary action to adopt the option favored by a majority of local residents within one year. If no single option is favored by a clear majority, the Working Group recommends that no action be taken. A motion was made by Alderman Zaffron, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to approve as written. Council member Chilton stated that this was not a recommendation for a legal process. This was created by the Work Group as an information process so that the neighbors could let the units of government know of their preferences. Commissioner Brown asked if agreeing to these recommendations would preclude creating a special district sometime in the future. County Attorney Gledhill stated that this does not preclude any type of joint planning decisions. This area is currently a part of the joint planning area. This is an informal straw ballot which would be circulated in the community. The results would not be binding. The decision could be changed by the units of government only through their voting process. In his opinion, there is no legal problem with this clause. Commissioner Gordon stated that the information from Cal Horton and Ralph Karpinos which was directed to the Chapel Hill Town Council suggested using the normal process for gaining public opinion about an issue (i.e. public hearings or forums). She suggested that if the ballot idea does not pass, it would be possible to incorporate the idea of a public forum. Alderman Zaffron stated that the process of public hearings mentioned by Commissioner Gordon would be necessary to make changes to the Joint Planning Area. This clause is intended only to gather information from the community. Council member Chilton stated that this suggestion originated from a group of neighbors regarding how they would like to pass their ideas onto their elected officials. Commissioner Gordon stated that it needs to be rewritten so that it does not appear to be binding. VOTE: Motion Did Not Pass ITEM TEN (x): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that Chapel Hill Transit re-route the North-South connector bus line to serve Rogers Road on either its northbound or southbound trip, starting with the 1998-1999 service year. For the duration of the 1997-1998 service year, the Rogers Road area should be designated as a Shared Ride Feeder Zone if this can be accomplished within adopted budgets and available resources. Council member Franck stated that changing the bus route would be a "zero" cost option from a budgetary viewpoint. It will have a slight cost from a transit operation standpoint. This was not the first choice of Manager Cal Horton who recommended an alternative route. A motion was made by Council member Franck, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to approve Item Ten. VOTE: Motion Passed ITEM NINE (ix): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that Orange County erect "Children Playing" and "School Bus Stop" signs on Rogers Road. Residents of the Rogers Road neighborhood will identify appropriate locations for these signs. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the Department of Transportation had declined this request. Council member Chilton said that they had declined, however, the Town of Chapel Hill would provide these signs. A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve this item as presented. VOTE: Motion Passed ITEM EIGHT (viii): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will budget for the installation of perimeter fencing around the Orange Regional Landfill no later than the 1998-1999 Budget Year. Prior to completion of the fence, the Director of the Orange County APS shall be notified to ensure that no large animals are trapped inside the fence. Commissioner Gordon requested clarification regarding the concerns staff had about providing this perimeter fencing. County Manager Link indicated that staff had questions about whether a 6' fence was adequate given that deer could jump over a fence that high. Council member Chilton stated that the neighbors were concerned about animals going into and out of the area, in particular dogs and vermin. The construction of a fence designed to control animals would be approximately $50,000 more expensive than the cost of the original fence which was approximately $150,000. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the height and mesh needed to be adequate to keep out both vermin and deer. A motion was made by Mayor Nelson, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve this item as presented. VOTE: Motion Passed ITEM SEVEN (vii): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that residents living near the Orange Regional Landfill take initiative in identifying perpetrators of illegal dumping near the landfill to assist in successful prosecutions. Identification of vehicles, license tags, drivers, and/or types of articles discarded should be made when possible. The Landfill Owners Group will investigate with the Orange County Attorney the possibility of enacting legislation which would provide for civil penalties for illegal dumping, to make it easier to penalize people who litter. In addition, the LOG will publicize the names of those convicted of illegal dumping. The Working Group recommends that additional "No Littering" signs be erected in the neighborhoods near the landfill. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve Number Seven. VOTE: Motion Passed ITEM SIX NO: This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy governing construction at the Orange Regional Landfill. This policy will govern issues affecting neighboring residents, including nighttime construction, blasting, and noise. The policy will identify ways to mitigate or eliminate adverse effects on landfill neighbors, and will require all neighbors (those living in the areas to be provided with water and sewer service) to be notified one week in advance of the start of construction. Such notification shall include the estimated duration of construction, and a description of any special construction activities which may impact neighbors. Notification will, at a minimum, include posting of signs on the four roadway entrances into these neighborhoods (the north end of Millhouse Road, both ends of Eubanks Road, and the south end of Rogers Road). Under ordinary circumstances, the LOG and its contractors will avoid construction between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 am and will provide for immediate notification of neighbors when emergency circumstances dictate that construction activities are unavoidable during these hours. The LOG will ensure that any contractors carrying out construction at the landfill follow the Orange County Noise Ordinance. Council member Chilton stated that Chapel Hill staff's assessment was that construction would most likely be happening all of the time, which would mean that signs would be posted all of the time. A motion was made by Alderman Zaffron, seconded by Mayor Nelson, to approve Number Six of this agreement. VOTE: Motion Passed. ITEM FIVE (v): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which doubles the minimum frequency of litter pickup on roads surrounding the Orange Regional Landfill. This will result in litter pickup on Eubanks Road east of the landfill entrance at least twice weekly, on Eubanks Road west of the landfill entrance at least six times annually, and on Rogers Road at least eight times annually. Future modifications of these pickup frequencies shall be made only by the Landfill Owners Group or its successors. A motion was made by Council member Franck, seconded by Alderman Zaffron, to approve this item. VOTE: Motion Passed. ITEM FOUR (iv): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which requires loads of mulch leaving the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. The Landfill will make available for sale tarps of various sizes for purchasers of mulch to cover their loads. This policy will become effective after a three month grace period, during which time education will be provided to mulch purchasers at the landfill. A motion was made by Alderman McDuffee, seconded by Council member Franck, to approve this item. VOTE: Motion Passed ITEM THREE (iii): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will prepare and recommend a policy for adoption by the Chapel Hill Town Council which will require loads of waste (MSW and Construction and Demolition waste) being brought to the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. Under the policy, loads which are not covered would be subject to fine. The fines would become effective after a three month grace period. Non-commercial first-time offenders should be offered the option of purchasing a tarp at the landfill in lieu of paying the fine. Council Member Chilton stated that there is already a state law to this effect but it is not as stringent as this requirement would be. A motion was made by Council member Pavao, seconded by Alderman Zaffron, to approve this item. VOTE: Motion Passed It was decided to address Item One at this time rather than Item Two. ITEM ONE (i): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that water and sewer mains be extended to provide service to the area along the entire length of Rogers Road, Millhouse Road from Eubanks Road to New Jericho Road, and serving households on other side streets off these main roads (including, but not limited to Purefoy Drive, Rusch Road, Priscilla Lane, Sandberg Lane, Meadow Run Court, Manor Drive, Manor Court and Blackwood Mountain Road). These improvements would be provided by the completion of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The costs of providing these improvements should be paid for by landfill funds to the extent allowed by North Carolina law. The remaining costs of these improvements should be divided among the owners of the Regional Landfill on the same basis as their ownership (i.e. Orange County 43%, Town of Chapel Hill 43%, Town of Carrboro 14%). The Working Group recommends that the Town of Chapel Hill act as the coordinating agency in carrying out these improvements. A motion was made by Mayor Waldorf, seconded by Alderman Gist to approve this item as presented. VOTE: Motion Did Not Pass A substitute motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Zaffron, to approve this item with the removal of the words "and sewer" so that only water would be provided in this area. Alderman Gist stated that the water is not potable. She referred to the October 21, 1997 report from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources regarding the Old Mill House Road property belonging to Mr. Kirschner. A copy of that letter is incorporated herein by reference. County Attorney Gledhill stated that if this could not be justified as a landfill expense it could be justified as a joint enterprise expense. The elected boards are in a position to define what constitutes a community. What needs to be determined is whether or not the situation with the water is a result of the landfill. The well which is contaminated could be coincidental to its proximity to the landfill. The Rural Buffer issue is that the Joint Planning Land Use Plan strongly discourages public water and sewer in the rural buffer. The Orange County Water and Sewer Policy states that water and sewer will be extended into the rural buffer for water and sewer emergencies or essential public facilities only. There are two planning hurdles to providing water to this community. Commissioner Gordon asked if, in fact, this would be against the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy. She also asked if this property could be removed from the rural buffer in order to provide water. County Attorney Gledhill indicated that voting for this would be against the Water and Sewer Policy. Removing this property from the Rural Buffer could possibly be a solution. Council member Chilton suggested an additional amendment to this motion. He suggested that the properties included be limited to #1-11 and 29-52 as listed in Table 1 of the Hazen and Sawyer report dated October 1997. The cost of these projects would then be 2.2 Million dollars. Alderman Gist accepted this amendment. Commissioner Gordon stated that she felt that there was merit to this suggestion but is troubled about the Rural Buffer. She asked if the amendment could say that this would be in Carrboro or Chapel Hill's Transition area? Alderman Gist spoke in opposition to that possibility and stated that it was considered acceptable to put the landfill in the Rural Buffer. She did not see why providing water should be a large problem. Council member Capowski stated that his understanding was that in the entire area there were 330 homes. He asked if that was correct? There is only one clear case of contamination with no clearly identifiable cause for the contamination. Council member Franck stated that there is one clear case of contamination of a well and no clear indication of the cause. However, although the wells are not contaminated by Health Department standards, the water is not pleasant to drink. Council member Capowski stated that he has a well and determined prior to installing this well that he did not want to pay OWASA for water on a monthly basis when he could have good water from a well. He stated that no one with a healthy well would tap onto this line. He wanted to be certain that a significant amount of money would not be spent and then only a few people would choose to tap on. Council member Franck requested that the elected officials not underestimate the potential future effects of an unlined landfill. He asked Mr. David Caldwell, a resident of the area, to speak to the question of how many potential customers are affected. Citizen David Caldwell stated that there are close to 300 homes in this area. The residents of this area have bad water and don't use it for drinking or for laundry purposes. Council member Franck stated that the section that is in the rural buffer is a smaller portion immediately to the left of the inactive (capped portion) and active landfill. The landfill funds will be used in the areas where the issue is public health protection. Those are the areas which slope downward from the Landfill. If part of the concern is for potential future water contamination, that would be to the north into the Rural Buffer. Commissioner Carey asked what portion would be paid out of landfill funds? Council member Franck indicated that the wording of the motion on the floor says "to the extent allowed by law". We would have to look at which wells could possibly be contaminated and those would be the ones paid for out of the landfill fund. Commissioner Gordon stated that she was interested in supporting this general concept, but was not ready to vote for approval at this time. She asked if it could be added into the first paragraph that "the obligation to extend such water mains into the rural buffer will only take effect when the areas currently in the Rural Buffer become a part of a transition area of either Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Council member Chilton indicated that he had developed the wording which suggested how to fund those situations not covered by the landfill funds. He indicated that this may not be the proper use of those funds. There are issues concerning whether it is proper for Chapel Hill to pay for water in an area that will not be included within Chapel Hill's boundary. The language should be changed to delete the 43%-43%-14% formula and substitute the wording "in a manner consistent with North Carolina law." Alderman Gist stated that this discussion is about compensation. She did not feel that including this in the Town of Carrboro's jurisdiction was a valid argument. Alderman Zaffron stated that he understood the concerns about the precedent for not putting this into the Rural Buffer. The Water and Sewer Policy says that water or sewer may not be extended except in the event of a public health emergency. He asked if the definition of public health emergency could be changed to include Landfill within the definition of causes of public health emergency. Mayor Waldorf asked to what extent had it been determined where the contamination was coming from? She asked about contamination of other wells in proximity to the Landfill. Also, was there any presumption about whether other hook-ups along the line would be allowed? Attorney Gledhill stated that his interpretation is that if water were provided, it would be provided to serve everyone in that area who chose to connect. Council member Capowski asked attorney Karpinos for clarification about how much money he would be voting to spend if he voted in favor of this motion. He asked the attorney to discuss Chapel Hill's role in helping people who will never be annexed by Chapel Hill. He commented that the motion on the floor does not address how the three units of government would pay for the portion not covered by the Landfill funds. 10 Attorney Karpinos stated that this vote would not commit Chapel Hill funds at this point. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that he wanted to help Mr. Caldwell and his neighbors, but did not feel the same way about helping the new developments in the area. He felt that this plan needs additional attention. Commissioner Brown stated that it is clear that everyone wants to do this but the Board of Commissioners has not had an opportunity to look at this in enough detail. She suggested that they adopt in principle that water services will be provided to this area. They need to understand its effect on the Rural Buffer and other issues (i.e. annexation) before committing further. Also, the County needs to thoroughly understand the fiscal implications of this. Commissioner Carey stated that he is concerned that if he votes for the motion that the portion not covered by the landfill fund would comply strictly with the formula in this document, i.e. the 43%- 43%-14% formula. The original substitute motion made by Alderman Gist, and seconded by Alderman Zaffron, was clarified as follows: Item One would be approved as written with the words "and sewer" deleted and the properties included would be only #1 through 11 and 29 through 52 as listed in Table 1 of the Hazel and Sawyer report dated October, 1997. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to table this item to be returned to the Assembly of Governments no sooner than November 5 and no later than December 15. Council member Brown asked for a straw vote on Item 2 as presented in Alderman Gist's motion. Council member Wiggens stated that she supported the motion to table because she had the expectations that the Boards would deal with this matter in a positive way at the next Assembly of Government's meeting. She felt that Chapel Hill needed to consider the "just" thing to do here in an area where they were willing to dispose of their garbage. Where the new landfill is located is not relevant to this issue unless the offer of water was really appeasement. She requested the straw vote be taken. Commissioner Carey stated that he is not opposed to Orange County paying a portion, however if the Town of Chapel Hill is not accepting responsibility here, then he is concerned. Town Commissioner Lloyd indicated that she felt that it was very important that these people be given water. VOTE: Motion To Table Did Not Pass The original motion made by Alderman Gist to pass this item with the exclusion of the words "and sewer" and to include only the homes listed in Table #1 as 1 through 11 and 29 through 52, was then considered. Council member Chilton offered a friendly amendment to Alderman Gist's motion, He referred to the second paragraph where it says that the remaining costs of these improvements shall be divided among the owners of the Orange Regional Landfill and then it defines a basis for doing that. He suggested that it be changed to read "in a manner consistent with North Carolina Law. He suggested that would have everyone agree in principle that the burden be shared. That would also exclude Hillsborough from the responsibility. In the first paragraph he suggested that language be included that say "to the extent that the area is in the Rural Buffer, transition or annexation areas of Chapel Hill or Carrboro or that it is in the potential Landfill leakage impact area." He was making a statement that would have it be clear that there is an, as yet, undefined potential landfill leakage area. We could just say that we are going to extend it to those people. It would be consistent with the Rural Buffer because it addresses a potential public health problem. This addition to the motion was accepted by Alderman Gist. Alderman Zaffron asked if in order for this to occur it would be necessary to make changes to the Joint Planning Area Agreement. Council member Chilton stated that it leaves open whether changes would be made to the transition area and/or the annexation area. He stated that what part of the Rural buffer is in the potential Landfill leakage area is the real question. He indicated that this would be an agreement to have this inserted into the Interlocal Agreement. VOTE: Motion Did Not Pass A motion to adjourn was made by Alderman Anderson, seconded by Alderman Gist. The motion was withdrawn by Aldermen Anderson and Gist. 11 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board of Commissioners outline their concerns and that all of the Boards meet again on November 20, 1997 to discuss the remaining unresolved issues. A motion to adjourn this meeting was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis. VOTE: Motion Passed The next regular meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners will be held on Thursday, October 30, 1997 for a regularly scheduled bi-monthly worksession. This meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center, Cameron Street, Hillsborough, NC. William L. Crowther. Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk