HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-26-2012 - 4 i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 26, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. �_
SUBJECT: Historic Rogers Road Community
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Rogers Road Area Mitigation Options Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245-
and Landfill Closure Impacts Abstract 2300
dated 10/4/11 Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste
Attachments can be found @ Management Director, 968-2885
http://www.co.oranqe.nc.us/occlerks/ Michael Talbert,
1110048a.pdf Assistant County Manager, 245-2308
2. Solid Waste — Rogers Road
Community Abstract dated 5/17/11
Attachments can be found @
http://www.co.oranqe.nc.us/occlerks/
1105178a.pdf
3. May 17, 2011 Recommended
Actions Document from the Rogers-
Eubanks Neighborhood Association
4. Letter dated 2/18/92 from the
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
5. Map — 3/ Mile Buffer from Specific
Landfill Area
6. Map — OWASA Water Service in the
Rogers Road Vicinity as of
September 2011
PURPOSE: To review requests from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and
remediation improvements completed in the Historic Rogers Road Community.
BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1972 the landfill was opened by the Town of Chapel Hill and in
1999 Orange County assumed ownership and operation of the Eubanks Road Landfill. The
Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with the Orange County Landfill for 40 years. The
Community is geographically split by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Orange County as
the current owner/operator of the Landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to
the Historic Rogers Road Community.
2
On May 17, 2011 the Board received a plan from RENA recommending actions to mitigate the
long and short term impacts of Orange County's Landfill and Solid Waste operations on the health,
safety and welfare of the Historic Rogers Road — Eubanks Road Community.
On October 4, 2011 the Board reviewed a variety of possible public improvements to the Historic
Rogers Road Community.
A number of local government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in
the Rogers Road Community and they are as follows:
1. The Solid Waste fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange Water
and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area.
2. Solid Waste installed gas flares to reduce odors.
3. Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road.
4. Solid Waste has initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells
remaining in the adjoining neighborhoods.
5. The Board of County Commissioners approved the appropriation of $750,000 from the
Solid Waste Fund Balance to Establish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund.
6. On July 1, 2011 the Board of County Commissioners established a $5.00 tipping fee
surcharge and a plan to incrementally increase the tipping fee each fiscal year by a
minimum $2 per ton as long and the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road
Remediation Reserve Fund.
7. The Landfill Gas to Energy Project commenced operations on January 6, 2012 and will
likely have an immediate and noticeable impact on the odor created by the operation of the
landfill. The project will further provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC,
reducing dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions.
On October 4, the Board authorized the staff to proceed with a `one-time' effort to clean-up illegal
dump site within three-fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary, at no cost to the individual
property owners. This process has started, but due to the complicated legal issues surrounding
both County and individual property owner's liability, the final release forms and procedures have
not been completed. Staff has discovered one non-conforming solid waste disposal site that was
owned and operated by a Historic Rogers Road resident since 1992; see the attached letter from
the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Staff will bring back to the
Board a recommendation regarding illegal dump sites by the March 22, 2012 regular meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of remediation in the Rogers Road Community could
be considerable for Orange County and the Interlocal Agreement partners (as well as other users).
The landfill is currently projected to close by June 30, 2013. The current Landfill tipping fee
surcharge could generate $480,000 over finro years. Combined with the $750,000 initial
contribution from the Solid Waste Fund Balance, total revenues of $1,230,000 could be
established for the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
and Town Boards provide guidance to staff regarding:
Requests from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA), with knowledge
that not all of those requests can be linked to the landfill or the proposed Remediation
Reserve Fund (regardless of the merit of those requests otherwise).
3
Since this area clearly lies within or next to the municipal boundaries of the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it would seem reasonable both towns might extend additional
resources to address needs not directly/indirectly attributed to the landfill's location.
Previous studies suggest that the direct involvement of the municipalities will be essential to
success. (Municipal matching funds could be used to meet specific demands,)
����ner�,�� 4
Ct�1�Y �
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGEND/� ITEM ABSTRACT
� Meeting Date: October 4, 2011
Action Agenda
Item Na. �-Q
SUBJECT• Rogers Road Area Mitigation Options And Landfill Closure [mpact�
DEPARTMEN�: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFI�RMATION CONTACT:
1) Map— Roger�-Road Histaric Area— Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245-
Main Structures Befofe 1972 2300
2) August 17, 1999 Agreement for Solid Michael Talbert, Interim Assistant
Waste Management County Manager, 245-2153
3) May 17, 2011 Recommend�d Actions John Roberts, County Attorney, 245-
Qocument from Rogers Road 231$
Community
4) �ables—Estima#ed Costs to Provide
Public Water for Three Areas in
Rogers Road Vicinity
5) Map— OWASA Water Service in the
Rogers Road Vicinity
6) September 20, 2011 County Attorney
Memorandum Regarding Landfill Post-
Closure Costs and Liability
7) Proposed �olution for Solid Was#e
lllegal Dump Sites Proposal and Map
8) MSW Landfill Expansion Capacit�
Proposaf
9) MSW Landfi(I Closure and Post-
Closure Cost Estimate
10) C&D Landfill Closure and Post-
Closure Cost Estimate
11) Solid Waste—Calculation of
� Fund/Reserve Balance—June 30,
2011
PURPOSE: To receive from County staff(based on previous Board direction) a comprehensive
response to requests for the County to design and implement a mitigation plan to address
impacts perceived to have been created by the proximity of the Orange County Landfill in
relation to the historic Rogers Road Area-(Attachment 1); to address specific requests made by
representatives of the Rogers Road community; and to highlight other critical matters that relate
to how the County, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Towns of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro miyht be involved in a comprehensive solution-oriented approach.
5
BACKGROUND: Orange County assumed operational control of solid was�e disposal functions
as the result of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns and County (Attachment 2).
The location of the landfill and its operations v��ere well established at the time the agreement
was consummated. (Elements of the agreement are discussed further in this abstract.)
Over many years, residents representing the �Rogers Road area complained- of various
operational elements associated �nrith the landfill. The County and Towns did come together to
act upon some of those requests. Those actions included: improved landfill operations,
extensiQn of public water lines and limi�ed transit service extensions into the surrounding
neighborhood. tmprovements fell short of a comprehensive response to the issues raised by
the community, but were positive steps taken to address-some more common complaints.
At the May 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners, represer►�atives of the
Rogers Road .Community presented a list of "Recommended Actions to Mitiqate the Lonq and
Short Term Impacts of Oranqe County's Landfill and Solid Waste Operations on the Health,
Safietv and Welfare of the-Historic Roqers Road— Eubanks Road Communitv" (Attach�ment 3).
The Board of Commissioners directed staff to pursue a response to that request. This report is
an attempt to address a complicated set of issues in a comprehensive manner, ar�d give each
item detail, recogn'rzing financial, political and legal constraints on the County impede actions
fully ix� Gne with all of the requests from the comrriunity.
The County as the landfll operator does assume a prioritized role in the process,.but the
Towns and OWASA also have direct involvement. The following summary addresses a
number of critical aspects, each important to a final resolution of these matters.
Mav 17, 2011 Recommended Actions (Roqers/Eubank Roads) ReauestlResponse
WATER SERVICES —The Towns, OWASA and County have conducted a tfiorough analysis of
the Ragers Raad area, developing `estimated' costs for providing public water services to the
historic Rogers Road communiijr and an isolated area of hames west of Rogers Road located
within the town limits of Carrboro (Fox Meadow vicinity). Those estimates are contained in
Tables 1,2 and 3 (Attact�ment 4) and include `all' costs associated with extending public water
lines and individual service to the `property line' of each parcel inclusive of connection,
availability and meter charges collected by OWASA. Properfy owners would be responsible for
extending water lines from the property line to individual structures. Maps highlighting the areas
where water lines exist and need to be extended are provided at Attachment 5. The estimated
eost for provisiofl of water services totals $4,077,587.
The Town� and County StaffslAttorneys agree (at this point) that #unding these costs from
fandfill operational revenues is consistent with past actions and is applicable wifh environmental
concerRS (now or future) that may be linked to the location of the landfill. The financial impact of
using landfill revenues is addressed later in this abstract.
SEWER SERVICES — Town Staffs/Attorneys conclude that the use of landfill revenues to
address the extension of sewer service to the Rogers/Eubanks Road community is not
consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and woufd subject the local governments to
legal challenges and potentially substantial liability. Unfortunately, the County must agree with
that position. If the Couniy and Towns were to proceed, a third parly could challenge the
6
legality of the action; or i�the County were to proceed without agreement of the Towns, one or
more Towns might pursue legal actian against the County. (Attachment 6)
Since this issue was determined to be one of potential conflict between the County and Towns,
a full financial estimate of providing sewer services was not pursued. Earlier estimates placed
those costs in the $3-4 million range and did not include the Fox Meadow vicinity.
iLLEGAL DUMP SITES — Within the general area of the landfill, there are reportedly several
individual `illegal' dump sites either used-by inclividual property owners or the general public to
`illegatly' dispose of fefuse (all types) rather than use the Eubanks Road Convenience Center.
(This is not an issue isolated to the Rogers�Eubanks Road area within Orange County.)
To ad��ress this issue County Staff has developed a proposed `one-time' effort to clean up sites
within three-fourths af one mile of the landfill boundary at no cost to individual property owners.
Details of this proposal and a map of the area are provided (Attachment 7).
Signage and enforcement efforts to prohibit further illegal dumping can be incorporated into an
operations plan for the landfi(1 and, alon� with the clean-up proposed, be addressed via landfill
tipping fee revenues.
Some lando�►rners and residents of the area have a historic practice of using burn piles to
dispose of their individual refuse. There is a pending enforcement case at this time. After any
publicly funded clean-up of these sites is complete, strict enforcement procedures would be
standard practice.
COMMUNtTY AND CULTURAL CENTER — This is a request from the Rogers/Eubanks Rvad
community that would not be a proper expense utilizing landfill revenues.
This request can be addressed by the County or Towns via other non�estricted
governmental reve-nues similar to how local government� now support otMer non-profit
agencies with�n Orange County. liowever, for this report no action is proposed.
TAX ABATEMENT PR�GI�AlVIS — Nothing within existing North Carolina (aw would alfow a
reduction or abatement of taxes as proposed or requested by the Rogers/Eubanks Road group.
There are voluntary pragrams that could be pursued that might impact the taxation of individual
properties. Each of those programs requires specific criteria to be met. Further research of
available alternatives can be pursued by individuals with the assistance of the County Tax
Administrator.
LANDFILL OPERAT[ONAL ACTIVITY MITIGATION — County staff is pursuing various aspects
of those items detailed in the request_
Odor control efforts are being pursued both on a short-term and long-term basis. Odor
masking agents are being evaluated for use and the UNC Methane Gas project should act to
reduce odor emissions once in operation_
A barrier wall concept is not a feasible option. However, fencing gaps are being addressed
and additional planting materials will be placed along the landfill fence lines to further increase
vegetation shielding. A closure plan and post closure activities should address this issue in
more detail_
7
The request for speed bumps will be directed to North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) via the .County and Towns as may be appropriate based upon
jurisdictional authority.
COUNTY ADVOCACY WITH THE TOWNS — Expanded communication between the
neighborhood and the Towns and County could be beneficial. However, jurisdictional and
political boundaries do place independent authority and responsibility with corresponding local
governments. T�ie neighborhood has been split by agreement between the two towns. It is
ut�likely that situation will c�iange. Carrboro has acted ta annex area west of Rogers Road. The
area east of Rogers Road is within the Chapel Hill planning boundary subject to annexation at
some point in the-future.
Political leadership within the Towns and County should ultimately resolve a coordinated
and collaf�orative response if it is to occur. The community needs to continue to interact
with tha# poCtical leadership in seeking resolution to its concerns.
LANDFILL �fFESPAN, CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE — The expenditures outlined within
this abstra�t that address the concems raised revenues (Water, Dump Sites and OperatiQnal
lmprovements) are dependent to a lar�e part upon the availability of landfill for funding. A
proposal to the State of North Carolina to allow modification to #he steepness of landfil! slopes
(Attachment 8) which would increase the useful life of the landfill has yet to be pursued. If tf�at-
proposal�is not sought or approved, the landfill is projected to close in the spring of 2013. If it is
approved the landfill use can be e�ended up to 2017 (possibly longer} at the `exclusive' option
of the Board of Commissioners.
There is a call among area residents and others to close the landfitl as soon as possible.
Doing so limits the availability of landfill tipping fee revenues to fund the requested
improvements.
There is also the i�nherited liability the County assumed in taking ownership of the Municipal
Solid Waste (MSV1n landfill for closure and post closure costs. Closure costs and post closur.e
costs are currently estimated at-$7,941,275 (Attachment 9)_ Closure and post closure costs for
the Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill are estimated at $4,025,326 (Attachment 10).
The C&D landfill will continue to operate several years after the MSW landfill closes. It is located
no�th of Eubanks Road where the solid waste maintenance and operational center is sited.
The Greene Tract is a 164-acre parcel owned jointly by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange
County. An Interlocal Agreement from 1999, and amended in 2000, provides guidance for the
division of the prop�erty. A Greene Tract Work Group that included representatives from all the
pa�ties to the Interlocal Agreement met in 2001 and discussed proposed uses of affordable
housing, open space and recreation space. Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County adopted
resolutions supporting three basic uses in concept:
18.1 acres on the northwest portion of the site adjacent to the Purefoy Road
neighborhood would be reserved forAffordable Housing
85.9 acres would be reserved for open space
�
60 acres has been conveyed to Orange County for solid waste management
pu rposes.
The County and Towns are entering the fourth year (FY 2011/12) of a five-year payback plan ta
reimburse the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for 104 acres of the Greene Tract. The 104 acres of
the Greene Tract are no longer considered a Solid Was�e asset, and there has been
considerable discussion concerning the best use of that acreage. The final use of this jointly
owned asset will be determined collectively by Chapet Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. The
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund retains 60 acres as a valuable asset that could be utilized to hefp
satis#y the future closure and post closure liability.
_County rinancial Staff is in the process _of analyzing the re.serves within the Solid Waste
Ent�rp-rise �und available for closure/post closure costs of the MSW landfill, along with any
commitments to Rogers/�ubanks Road mitigation efforts detailed above and ultimate
responsibilities for the C&D closure and post closure expenses.
Reserve funding does exist within the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. It is not sufficient to
address all of the items defined above "without" and extension in the fife of the MSW landfill
AND increases in fhe tipping fees charged at the landfill. As of June 30, 2011 the total Solid
Waste Fund reserves are $12,541,905 which includes funds needed for closure costs and post
elosure costs of bott�the MSW ($7,941,275) and t�he Constraction and Demolition (C&D) landfill
($4,025,326). Other current and long term (iabi(ities, including capital lease and debt
_obligations, post employee health care o6ligations, and compensated absences al( have to be
taken into account to calculate available reserves. The Sofid Waste enterprise fund, without the
considering the sale of any assets, is $4,073,276 short of ineeting all long-term liabilities as of
June 30, 2011 (Attachment 11).
A Reminder — Once the MSW landfill ceases operation, "no" revenue stream associated
with househoid solid waste disposal will exist. There is no provision for a County operated
solid waste collection point (transfer station} in Orange County, and municipal solid waste will be
transported elsewhere by the Towns, County and others involved in waste collection. The
County would cease to be directly involved with MSW disposal activities except its own waste
stream.
The summation under FINANCIAL IMPACT below provides various considerations that
need to be acknowledged in an�final decision.
The current landfill agreerraent (Attachment 2) does not require any future liability for the
Towns with regards to the landfill once it closes. The County under current iaw is required
to maintain `full' resportsibility for the landfill's environmental impacts for a period of not less than
thirly years after closure. (If problems were to occur in later years, as long as the County owns
the landfill site, it would retain any financial obligations associated with that effort.) All financial
estimates of post-closure costs are based upon current federal and state environmer�#al
standards that could change pending new science or evaluations that might occur within the
thirty year post c{osure time frame.
IMPORTANT TO THESE DISCUSSIONS --While the County is restricted in how it may use
Solid Waste Enterprise Funds to address the RogerslEubanks Road community
mitigation issues (sewer, in particular), that same limitation does not apply to the Towns.
9
The Towns maintain (justifiably) that Solid Waste Enterprise Funds `must' by law be used in
connection to mitigation issues having linkage to the landfill location. The County and Towns
adopted a well repair/replacement program funded with solid waste enterprise revenues. There
is consensus that public water service extension does extend to a landfill related enviror�mental
concern.
It is difficuft to find an environmental [ink between the landfill and failing individual septic
tanks in the Ragers/Eubanks Road area. No scientific study has been pursued on this issue
due to the unlikeliness of linking the landfill's location to septic tank failures.
The County is restricted in how it may use landf�ll revenues (Enter�rise Funds). The
Towns use their indididual General -Funds to expense out residential solid waste
collect�ori progra�ms. The Towns do not charge separately for household solict waste
aallection. It is a service the Towns provide via-the municipal tax rate and other local revenues.
The landfill t�p.pingfees paid to the Count� by the Towns are Town General Fund expenditures.
Thus, the Towns have greater funding latitude accordingly.
The longer the current County operated landfitl stays open, the longer the Towns can
defer the addedexpense of transporting their collected MSW to another location (Durham
or elsewh�re). Estimates of that savings do not appear in any calculation of the County's
closure/post closure costs. More recent estimates put the annual savings to Chapel HiCI at
-about $350,000-$400,000 and at $100,000-$150,OOQ annually for Carrboro. (Changes to
equipment and-other efficiency efforts varould impact these estimates_)
FINANCIAL [MPACT: The County is restricted in its use of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
revenues or reserves. Per previously noted estimates, closure/post closure expense is
estimated at $7,941,275 (update analysis is being pursued). The Water Service extension
propasal outlined earlier is estimated to cost $4,077,587. The Dump Sites clean-up proposal
has an estimated cost of $50,000 without verification of the number of sites within a 3/ mile
range of the landfill. MSW Lan�fill Enterprise Reserve Funding is $7,403,190 as of June 30,
2011.
The current landfill agreement befinreen the County and Towns limits the County's ability
to raise tipping fees to a 10% annual adjustment with a 6U days written notice. Currently,
the base Iandfill tipping fee is$57 per ton.
The County will need to increase tipping fees according to the direction taken in
addressing the items outlined above. The lifecycle of the landfill (remaining months of
operation) wili dictate anticipated revenues, assuming the volume of waste remains consistent
as tipping fees rise.
RECOMMENDATION(S}: The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Direct staff to initiate the Water Service improvements as outlined. Further
refinement of those estimates, engineering and construction would be scheduled
accordingly and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds be the source of funding for these
projects. The Board of Commissioners w�uld approve each project and OWASA
would be the contract administrator.
2. Authorize the Dump Sites clean-up program as proposed. Solid Waste
Enterprise Funds would be the source of funding for this effort. Solid Waste Staff
10
will oversee the work and monitor the contractors authorized to perform to
activities.
3. Recognize and authorize appropriate annual increases in the MSW tipping
fee. Increases will occur in accordance with financial projections that support the
proposals outlined above and clos�re and post closure fiaancial obligations. The
current agreement allows a 10% ann�al increase. The current rate is $57 per ton
�MSW.
4. Select an appropriate-.Glosing date for the landfitl as a funetioning operation.
The estimated closure dates as proposed in �he attachments and discussed earlier
in ihis abstract are approximate in nature. As the lar�dfill ages solid waste
compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a
variable_ The Board has the op.tion to extend the (ife of the landfill and add
availabl� funds-for the proposals outlined above along with securing reserves for
closur_e and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit
e�ension,_and the lanclfil4 is scheduled to close in the spring 2013. If the Board
chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it will need to direct staff to file the
appropriate permit applications.
5. Encourage the Towns through conversations with elected leadership tn
become more involved irr the future. of the Rogers/Eubank Road
neigF�bo�hood. The improvements not eligible for funding via the So(id Waste
Enterprise Fund (Sewer, community development activities, etc.) can be
addressed via other revenues sources. The longer the landfill stays open the
greater savings the Towns experience in waste transportation costs to a MSW
landfill or transfer station elsewhere. The Towns and County could jaintly address
these issues collectively to lessen the financial burden upon any one government.
6. Convene a rr�eeting with the Towns to discuss the future of MSW in Orange
County. There has been a limited municipal response to taking future MSW to the
City of Durham's MSVV transfer station. Alternative MSW disposal options being
pursued by the Towns thus far have not produced viable results. A new interlocal
agreement is necessary to address both future MSW disposal and closure. and
post-closure costs and liability.
Summary
Prior efforts by the County and Towns did not fully address the locational impacts of the landfill
upon the neighborhood after the original site decision was made. Moving forward requi�es a
dedication by the Towns and County (together} to act appropriately in bringing some finality to
these issues. Not al( of the req�ests made by the Rogers/Eubanks, Road neighborhood exist
because of the landfi(I, but many are a direct result of its location and operation. The MSW
landfil! may close in the next few years, but the C&D landfill operations wilt continue for many
-years to come and those impacts will be ongoing.
��� °� 11
����
ORANGE COUNTY
� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. $ Ct,
SUBJECT• Sotid Waste— Rogers Raad Communify
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBL(C HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): tNFORMATION CONTACT:
A (�,nu-�+•�-'���-=-b.tS��IC-�O�GS--�O�� FF��1{C-�ilJftnn� ('nt�nfii Q�c�l-1,������
Planning Area 2300
B. 10-19-95 Recommendations to The Gayle Wilson, Solid waste Management
Landfill Owners Group Director, 968-2885
C. 1997 Report of the Landfill Owners Michael Talbert, lnterim Assistant
Group/Landfill Neighborhood County Manager, 245-2153
Working Group "Recommendations"
D. 5-1-08 Rogers Road Community Task •
Force— Recommendations
E. 8-18-09 Rogers Road Area: Cross-
Reference of Town and County Task
Force Reports
F. 2-8-11 OWASA Sewer Extension
Estimates— Rogers Road Area
G. 4-25-11 Estimated Tonnage Solid
Waste Delivered to Landfill by Source
FY 2009-10
PURPOSE: To review and consider:
• A plan for the remediation of the impact of the landfill operations on the Rogers Road
community:
1. Creation of an oversight Committee to make recommendations to the Board.
2. Plan of action approved by the Board.
3. Funding Sources for Remediation.
• Three options for scheduling the closure the Orange County Landfill.
BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1972 with the initial opening of the County landfilf and extending
to the present, the expected fife of the landfill has evolved. In 1989 the expected life of the
landfill was projected to be through 1997.
Rogers Road Neighborhood
On August 18, 2009 the Board received Attachment E, "Rogers Road Area: Cross Reference of
Town and County Task Force Reports. This agenda item abstract summarizes the results from
the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force and the County Historic Rogers Road Community
Enhancement Plan Task Force reports from 2009, but did not recommend that the County take
12
any action. These two pians are the most recent in a series of committees, task force and
plans compieted since the landfill opened in 1972. A number of local government initiatives
have been implemented to improve the quality of life in the Rogers Road Community and they
are as fo(fows:
1. The Solid Waste fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange Water
and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area. As of July 2010, water was
available to 166 parcels and 71 have connected.
2. Solid Waste has instafled gas flares to reduce odors. A landfill gas to energy project
(Orange County and UNC) will be completed within the year. The project wifl further
reduce air odor problems, provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC reducing
dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions.
3. Town of Chapel Hi(I initiated bus service on Rogers Road.
4. Solid Waste has initiated a no-fault well poficy to deal with failing drinking water wells
rPmain__,_inn in th��d}O't11tt1�'�bb0[f�onrl - -
Resolution proposed by Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA)
On April, 5, 2011 the Board received numerous public comments regarding the three options
presented to extend the life of the landfil{. RENA presented a resolution requesting that the
Board take actions on behalf of the Rogers Road Communify.
1. Immediately designate $2.50 per ton or 5% of the landfill tipping fee to fund remediation
for the Rogers Road Communify, proceeds to be paid in full to RENA, who is the
designated agent for this historic community.
2_ Set a County priority to seek alternative methods of waste disposal in order to close the ;
landfill as soon as possible but not beyond 2016.
Landfill Gas to Energy Project
This Landfill Gas to Energy Project is not yet operational and therefore difficult to project the
impact on Solid Waste Fund. This issue will be revisited at a later date.
Landfill Operations �
There are numerous variables involved with the continually changing capacity expectations and
projections_ Disposal volumes have varied over the past 40 years. Changes in regulations,
changes in operationa! best management practices, equipment and techniques, effectiveness
of recycling and waste reduction programs, pub(ic environmental knowledge and awareness,
state and local bans, increasing tipping fees, evolving regional disposal options, etc. have all
contributed to extending the life of the facility. There is difficulty with predicting the landfill
biodegradation process at work that varies due to the types of waste, moisture content, age of
waste, compaction, etc. Moving forward there are fewer opportunities to significantly extend the
life of the facility as the above variables will have a diminishing impact.
Upon the hiring a new engineering consultant (HDR Engineering, Inc.) last summer, County
staff asked that the landfill facility be given a thorough evaluation to prepare for facility closure
and any final possibilities for obtaining further capacity, without expansion of the facility
footprint. Staff recommended extending landfill life to approximately January 2017. The Board
requested additional information concerning a plan for the remediation of the impact of Iandfill
operations on the Rogers Road community.
REVISED Item 8-a
Abstract—Page 3 Only 13
May 17,2011 BOCC Meeting
On April, 5, 2011 the concept of instituting a tipping fee surcharge with the intent of generating
funds over the remaining life of the landfill for neighborhood improvements was discussed. Within
life remaining in the Orange County Landfill, there is limited time to fund meaningful reserves for
remediation. Currently the FY 2011/12 projection of municipal solid waste tonnage is 48,000 tons
per year. This means that each dollar on the tipping fee would generate about $48,000 annually.
The County Manager recommends a tipping fee surcharge of $5.00 per ton. This recommended
increase would generate $240,000 in the first year to be reserved for neighborhood
improvements. To immediately fund reserves for neighborhood improvements, an initial
contribution of $750,000 is recommended to be appropriated from the Solid Waste Fund Balance.
This would bring the reserve for neighborhood improvements balance to $990,000 as of June 30,
2012. Incremental annual increases in the tipping fee surcharge of $2 per ton per year would
generate total revenues shown below.
Pro'ected Revenues from an increasin Ti in Fee Surchar e
Fiscal Year Tipping Annual Revenue Total Revenues
Fee
Surcharge
Fund Balance Ap ro riation $750,000 $750,000
2011/2012 $5.00 $240,000 $990,000
2012/2013 $7.00 $336,000 $1,326,000
2013/2014 $9.00 $432,000 $1,758,000
2014/2015 $11.00 $528,000 $2,286,000
O tion 1 close 1/1/2016 $11.00 $264,000 $2,550,000
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of extending landfill capacity could be considerable for
Orange County and the Interlocal Agreement partners (as well as other users). The landfill is
currently rojected to reach capacity about June 30, 2013.
The Landfill tipping fee surcharge could generate $1,800,000 over five years. Combined with the
$750,000 initial contribution from the Solid Waste Fund Balance, total revenues of $2,550,000
could be established for the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund.
The extension of time provides an opportunity to build reserves from a tipping fee surcharge as
outlined in the Background. Additionally, extension of landfill life would delay incurring the
additional expenses by all Interlocal Agreement partners related to the hauling of waste to the City
of Durham Transfer Station (undetermined but substantial).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide guidance to staff
with regard to the staff proposal related landfill capacity issues.
Provide guidance to staff on a plan for the Remediation of the Historic Rogers Road
Communiiy including but not limited to the following elements:
14
1. Establish a Rogers Road Over-Sight Committee to advise and make recommendations
to the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
2. Appaint an eight (8) member Over-Sight Committee as follows; (3) members from the .
Towns, (3) members from the Rogers Road Community, (1) member from the County,
and (1) member from OWASA.
3. Empower the Over-Sight Committee to accomplish the fo(lowing:
. a) Define the boundaries of the Rogers Road Community.
b) Identify remediation needs in the Rogers Road Community that are related to the
operation of the Orange County Landfill since 1972.
c) Prioritize needs in the Rogers Road Community that are related to the operation
of the Orange County Landfill since 1972 achievable within available funding
limits.
d) Make recommendations to the Board
4. Beginning July 1, 2011, establish a $5.00 tipping fee surcharge that incrementally
�ucreas�a�h�'is�al-�r h��+�i��r��per-#�--as-loAy-�;�„e-I�nd#il�-i�eper-attet�a;=
to fund a Solid Waste Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. Funds will be
maintained in the Solid Waste Fund and used for remediation of the Rogers Road
Community as directed by the Board.
5. Effective Jufy 1, 2011, appropriate $750,000 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance to
Establish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund.
Other/ssues/Concerns:
1. Those representing the Rogers Road Community (RENA) and others have made
numerous requests and put forth a variety of service demands that may not have any
direct or indirect relationship to the landfill or its location. Not all of those requests can
be linked to the landfill or the proposed Remediation Reserve Fund (regardless of the
merit of those requests othenivise).
It is intended as noted above that some thought and acceptance be devefoped toward a
'priority IisY of actions for which the Remediation Reserve Fund be specifically dedicated
to finance. The legality of some uses proposed by RENA and others could lead to
successful challenges that cause delays to implementing important irnprovements.
A clear, concise list of priorities should be a first step to action.
Since this area clearly lies within or next to the municipal boundaries of the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it would seem reasonable both towns might extend additional
resources to address needs not directlyrndirectly attributed to the landfill's location.
Previous studies suggest that the direct invalvement of the municipalities will be essential
to success. (Municipal matching funds could be used to meet specific demands,)
2. The Board of Commissioners has full authority to close the landfill at `its' option.
Extending the landfill's closure date allows the accumulation of financial resources to
address some but not all needs within the Rogers Road area.
It is suggested the Board of Commissioners clearly declare a closure date to finally
resolve the issue of how long the landfill remains open. At least a six-month notice
needs to be provided all users. If desired the landfill could be closed as early as the end
of 2011. �
� 15
3. There may be alternative disposal methods available for so(id waste management at
some future date_ Regardless of technology, those alternative methods will come at a
. higher cost AND still involve the transport of large volumes of waste to a specific location.
This will remain a county-wide issue BUT not sole[y a county government problem.
Legitimate, forthright discussions need to occur involving the disposa[ of municipal sofid
waste. Method to be selected, how to fund the associated costs and where to place
facilities remain to be proper(y addressed. The process should be transparent but
focused. NO neighborhood, urban or rural, wants to host such a facility. Addressing
those localized concerns will be a difficult and troubling task.
4. Recycling remains a high priority in Orange County. The County has taken the lead role
in providing these services county-wide. The County must continue to focus on
Pffi�iPnriP� in bofih th fix d dm�-o_� ff l�cations and �r�___r_h�idP s rvi P PlemPntG of i-hi�
program. Automation and compaction of recyclables will help contain costs BUT those ,
costs will increase. .
Recycling �also includes debris and yard waste services along with demolition waste
disposal. Those residing in the Rogers/Eubanks Road area should recognize and
understand that Eubanks Road will remain home to the County's demolition debris
disposal efforts and solid waste equipment storage and maintenance functions long after
the municipal solid waste iandfill closure.
There are no current plans to relocate that facility or site a new similar facility elsewhere
in Orange County for the foreseeab(e future.
5. Summarizing: Extending the lifespan current municipal solid waste landfill can provide a
revenue stream to address some but not al! Rogers Road area needs. Determining what
needs are addressed is a role for community/government collaboration but the final
decision and responsibility for action rests with the Board of Commissianers in
conjunction with municipal cooperation. Moving forward will bring some closure to many
long standing issues (besides just the landfilf). It will not resolve or address all
community concerns or desi�ed outcomes. Those goals will require on-going efforts and
commitments among all of those with a vested interest in Orange County's future.
ATTACHMENT 3 16
May 17,2011
Recommended rlctions toMitigate the Long and Short Term Impacts of Orange County`s
LandfiIl and Solid Waste Operations on the Health,Safety and Welfare o�
the Historic Rogers Road-Eubanks Road Community
1. Connect water and sewer service to all homes listed in the"ROGERS-EUBANKS ROAD AREf10F
CONCERN FOR THE REQUESTED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT SURVEY
(occupied properties on well/septic systems that w�re buiit before the Orange County Landfill
was sited on�ubanks Road)",including Ms.Nann's property,at no cost to any of the residEnts
-including alI OWA�A water and sewer connections and OWASA impact fees for these
connections. Residents will pay monthly user fees for water and sewer.
2. Ciean up the illegal dumpsites within 3%4 mile around the perimeter of the landfill-some of
� which are in the headwaters of the Bolin-C-reek watez-shed.
a. Clean up shall be made at na cost to anq resident of the community and alI residents
and property owners shall be held harmless from an�costs,fees,liens,assessments,
damages,penalties or any other Iiabiiity for the remediation or mi�igation necessary to
clean and remove iIlegal trash sites that have been created on their land.
b. Close access points to stop continued and active illegal dumping.
c. Install additional"No Littering°signs in the RENA community near the landfill.
d: Expand the hours of the landfill and convenience centers with no additional�ees,to
�iiscourage illegal dumping.
e. Tnitiate ongoing aggressive enforcement of existing dumping ordinances.
3. Establish a community and cuItural center including recreational facilities and park that
honors the history of the Rogers-Eubanks community,which dates back to the 1700s.
a. Highlight the story of this African-American community,which transcended sla��ery,and
faced continual challenges to land-ownership and community for over two centuries.
b. Until the community and cultural center is built,the County and Towns shall pay an annual
fee of$50,000 to cover the operating expenses for interim operations at#he RENA
community center.
4. Institute a program to constrain property tax increases to protect homeowners from predatory
development This applies to county and town taxes(in the event of annexation). Overlay
zoning,a ta�r abatement program or alternatives should be considered.The program could be
limited to the historic families participating in the water/sewer program.
17
5. Take immediate actions to mitigate the direct impacts of the landfill.
a. Reduce the odor from the landfill asing a technology that surpasses the masl�ng agent
atomization for the landfill worldng face. In addition to benefits derived from the
landfill gas program,utilize best management practices for landfill cover that helps
control odor.
b. Build an impervious barrier wall (beginning below the surface of the ground}to
impede/stop vermin from leav�-ng or entering the landfill and to decrease noise,and
improve air quatity.
c. Plant additional trees a�d vegetation for additional odor buffer and to obscure the
visual impact of the landfill mountain.
d. Add traffic-cal�ning bumps on Rogers Roac�,redirect commercial traffic("no
commercial traffic"signage on Rogers Road)and decrease the speed limitto 3(j mph.
6. Advocate on our behalf with the towns-especially for maldng this commur�ity to be in one
unifying municipal or government jurisdiction(instead of 3),and for sidewalks,and bike lanes,
on Kogers Road, Eubanks Road, Purefoy Road,Edgar Street,and Homestead Road,and to
improve connectivity of bus service and other town services.
These actions will be the terms of a written,enforceable,and binding agreement-which will be
funded and included in the count�s committed capital plans. The agreement will include damages
for non-performance. The agreement will be supported by a committed work plan,which includes
tasks,responsibilities,timelines and deliverabl�es-alang with cost estimates;which include.a
contingency for project risk. The work plan will be designed to assur-e that al1 improvements will
be completed by 2016.
The plan will be funded by the solid waste tipping fee,revenues from the UNC landfill gas project,
reserves,and/or other sources that the county deems appropriate.Since the county will earn
millions of dollars of additional revenue by extending the life of the landfill beyond the planned
closure date of 2012,these additional funds will be applied to mitigation items before the county
can use these funds for other purposes.
The agreement-and the supporting work-plan and funding for completing these mitigation
requests-shall be-developed and approved before the county authorizes e�ending the life af the
landfill.
— „:�z�o ���Mt,,,.� �' 18
j � �-�. � ,
� � ��� � s ..
� ��
; .���,.
�
' � State of North Carolina
1 Department of Environrnent, Health, and Natural Resources
_ Division af Solid Waste Management
' South Central 12egional Office • 225 Green Street, Suite 601 • Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301 '
' Telephone: (919) 486-1191 Fax:(919) 486-1791
i
; James G.Martin, Governor Wi{liam L. Meyer
: William W. Cobey,)r., Secrerary Director
- February 18, 1992
,
�
�Tohn Rogers
� 'I90fi Rogers Road
, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
Re: WARNTNG LETTER
Dear Mr. Rogers:
� On Januarg 28, 1992, I investigated a non-confarming solid waste dispasal
, site owned and operated by you beside your residence an Rogers Road in
, �range County, N.C. My investigation revealed approximately 100 cubic yards
; of canstructian type was#e has been disposed of on� the back side of your "
property. �On January 29, 1992, I called you and directed yau to discontinue
' any dumping and to remove the waste and dispose of it in the Orange Cflunty
Landfill #68-�1 on Eul�anks Road.
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B
; .0201(a) states that no person shall establish or otherwise treat, store or
- dispose of solid waste unless a permit for the facility has heen obtained from
� the Division.
� Please note that pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A=22(a) and 15A N.C. Admin.
i
Code 13B Section .U701-.0707, an administrative penalty of up to $5,000.00 per
day may be assessed for violation of the Solid Waste Law or Regulatians.
Tf you have any questions concerning ihis matter, please contact me at
(919) 486-1191.
Sincerely,
, �
.
.�,;�� �'"j. .�y� '
- Ma k S. Fry
. VQaste Management Specialist
Salid Waste Section
MSF/wlf
;-•�;.�;:
cc: Terry Dover �.'��-`` �
M� �
J
NEW;/� V�
HOLLY�
���• TRL�
�EAN� � IRVIN�CIR
S ET �N o = s
- ��p
o a
:: wAY � • H tl3�ARK Z �O V `�
,,,;;
�v e'��i'•a �_
.... .� . .._ y
�:::::
�0 .... , :: :::::i.. - LL=HO C;. �
_..................... ..� . .: ....� " ' '- �c:::::� . ���. p„�L•E�M`SRD
. ...
...
...................... . .� ..... .. S UOAR RD
• .. ..
...................... ..
. ..................... �OD MOUNTaN Rp y ..
..................................._. .......
...........
........................................... ••::.::::......... .p1��OKIRK L•N
MANOR pR '�"'
......................... ........
.............. ....
y..
BRUIN TRL � ��
� CL•YQE�RD
..... . ......_..
........ � . ......._..
- N
t0:: W�E
S
I
��/
................................ .
........................... . .
........................... � p� ..
s
-v ..
��;;���< F �'� FXjj��
- ��'"��'3�i'' ?ss ��
� �r�:it;t�`� 4 Z
x�r-. a�.�s »a /
......................
�n���*e��'�"`�`�t.�n w 0�:�� '�O
�-
:..x��.,��z��, . O :.�. d'a+:/Q '�O
�;���,.�` X .i�tp` O.�
W .. ::
p� ;�:::�6's
� a
m �pJ�XS�. � c 'y`?����`'�5
�':w m� ����,I ��� I� �or S� m
� ,;; `�' � �;`�" N I ''�i ��ii�aGINKG' �
����«� ,, ; I� 0 � c�c`NORr
G ' r°,�t : t �R
a EUBqNKS R� ;;� A�� ���,+� OLD LARk_ N s � y���o
�Yo
O '��.����, ,��;` C O ,QoQ' °P
'� �H� AUTUMN'�N
�'� D �� f f I�� �
Q 'G -i�WFAVER�DAIRY:RD,EXi�
CT�
3 � ° `� oN� tR
_ D �p s W �Q ��s ��FMOH•
�N . � ` L'IZZIE��LN O i �QP C'�
+. O
..........................
..........................
...._................ .
� y a ROWE� �
�yLYNO 4 EpOY DR Z � :� MADD RY CT•°�•�►�IO�.
eVGGE CT � Q� J � �Q- 9(•AFOX��` (%j�'�
: : � �� a m �� Z �
�sr�r ,�� �� i
::J � _ `�CT t�� Q Z o� V �� m
Y ��;`. Z I�,P � � No e� N 3 � '�iRKSIDE�pR y
...... _. .. ......
...... iQ ._..
�o: 0 2 •:::: Q �3+
�� � Q�GE�LN 'po`�.. ... �,� G�� .ZQO.� Z5 V��OW
LEGENDS:WAY �• �� � �� �
H�ANHILIS•RD W �: �4 'Tj B�L'�ABONG LN_CC C� P'y � �
2 WHITMOit
��G,��iF�lho ��&BAGK��SSING DR y�y = P
.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,
��v,�� �� � Z ,� n S�r':: L E G E N D
�OGP,�n��pJG.MEA�Wg;RO�Q4' R<1 CLPy��� �C�
i ....
— � ,
'
S � � �� W�oos� z � �� �����R�o� Streets
�io ��- �s. �� � � �
W �s�� �o � Inclusive Parcels (544)
3/4 Mile Buffer from 9��N�N y „a � Parcels
Specific Landfill Area � ��w�►.5�,�. ����,NK. �anaF�u
Map prepared by IT-GIS January 19,2012 �y'�,E.yV�e��:y� �RD
<Q:UTVulaps�Landfill Buffer 2012.mxd> �"� ' x 3/4 �VIII�@ BUff2�
� � � ' � • ' • . • . �"
�-
��� '0 � — �
� � � / � � �
��
� �o�
�►� ..■-. 1..
,,�����,; , . . a��� �I
► �,,,,,,u. '�+� /
� �i%'�i% ���004���. �
'''%%,i o ������ �
%�;��% �000 0���,, �� �
��%r/'f� �i
��% �i�r_, _
,/%�'/ � //i�/ i�i,//%/ O�"���i���'
\,�;�� � '/�''��,/,//i�� a► �� �
i i� ����i/ � �z f i//ii/�oii��o.�/�/,/ �
�l�,�//i �%////i'.,� �`*, "'...,. i�%i%�i��/���/%��f j �O�
%/�i � ��is�° � // i i�/ / %i '
�" /,�r , i�r�� , ,„ �,i, �a a
':�'��i��t �� Gf/% �i/�i�%��,��/ i���ii
%�/ /��i %% � i / � �/ � �
����1 /y/�ii�%// i "ti � �%'%%� i!%//i� � �
r/"fr Y ���� �i� i�//// 1%�',� � � �
//i��� // c ////. i�.
�:�/ �%/i /�� �//'��j��,��//j�/./r/
� ' � i/ %/���� �
� �r// �i�� � �//i/i%j��i/'/�/fi/%� � �'�
/�i�"J� ''y' //, �l/�/� . /..,.� i / ii �
� i�//� i �- /�% �Y/ �� �(- fs� i:$ y� I
�' ' ,�ry %� ,�� „�: ��L � ��
;�i�,�, � �„% ,� J��
� '��f�=�l
:�� �f` ��r ... �� '�a" `y;� �,I�ja � ���II
� !/!'i'�%%�/%��%� �aii// �� �I�//1 � 'Qr��l
�
� �, :� ,!% � � ��,� ,, ; � � 1 '1
�;� f
%�%: i�r/ / � CIY
. � //� �. ����.tM ai/�r� �/.j 1%��� �� �
_ j.%% . / �i/;�/��/�%�� ��// �/
� i,/s i,i i �
/.
r i/ ��-..j j�/�:/t iiy � �
i
,w .,,s � %5 �, j�i%//ri � �i/ / / �%///% • O.
�v . ���/ . . / 9'/f%i/ fj�e/' �%��i ' i � �' � O.,O
� � , � � �,.�, .. �
. �
_ .� �n �. � , , , , � , � .
rv
� u. �
� �� x-� � x / �i �r'�,, , <
�, .„ � `�,, . �
3 � � �,� : �����f,,. ,��," /� j ���,, � �
ra � �
��e � ��� ��i, �'�� ���i
i ,. � � � m `�% �
� � � � � �� � ° ���° ���� ',��� �' ►a00000��� ;
, ,,,/, �,
�ae��. � s i, �, i� � � � a � ,.
�, a, � � � �.. ,� , /i/ /' ' �y, „ �
�!� ;,c /�' s+ �> p g
�� ��,�i�"��'���� �:15 � t �°�I������ ''''`�% „�5,���j � �\ �°�� il�
, j`i j, . � �J•��' .
�� � �„� �'��, � :0 o ii/��'. �:.- :��,��'' �
� � � . :��i1���� ;,/��„�; � �� :
.`� � . '��� � ;i��/ ��e� ' Ql�' �
� ���� � �� ,,� �_ J ��
► -a .!• � - ��— � �
' � '� '/,!'!` �`'�'
'� � � � ��� '', � `"b► � i<
� ��� ���" �r�� ,i� ,
I _. . � �����1��!�� �' �, ,,, ,
�►�� �� ��► �� �� I�
�_ _ . . „ � ��.
,,
. . .. . , � .. .. ��,�,
-� a �'� , . , :, ������� � ���� .° � � ,
'� ` � — — ���' - � � � �3 �
� ,,; .►���,�� � �►� � �� �� � �
. . .
� � : _ ,���d� �' �1�,�►�'1►� �� •� �
_ _
�/��•� , � ��►�� �I��►������ ��I��•�d �
i���. -------�.�