HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-21-2012 - 8d i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. �- d
SUBJECT: Direction for Historic Rogers Road Communit Improvements
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.orange.nc.us/occlerks/ Michael Talbert, Assistant County
1110048a.pdf 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. Greene Tract Work Group Resolution
Approved on December 10, 2002
5. Historic Rogers Road Community
Abstract Dated 1/26/12
Attachments can be found @
http://www.co.oranqe.nc.us/OCCLER
KS/1201264.pdf
PURPOSE: To review requests from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and
discuss issues from the Solid Waste/Rogers Road joint work session on January 26, 2012.
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.
At the January 26, 2012 joint work session, the Board and the Town Boards discussed the
extension of sewer service and a community center for the Historic Rogers Road Community.
County and Town Attorneys have concluded that utilization of Solid Waste reserves to extend
sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina
General Statutes and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. Funding for a
community center does not have a relationship to Solid Waste and could not be funded from Solid
Waste reserves. Therefore, funding for either the extension of sewer services and/or a community
center will have to come from the County's and Towns' other general revenue sources.
There was also significant discussion on January 26 regarding the possibility of both the extension
of sewer service and funds for a community center. The creation of a Historic Rogers Road Task
Force was discussed, including the possible composition of such a Task Force. Representation
from the County, Towns, and RENA were deliberated. No motions were made and no votes were
taken. Staff requests direction from the Board on the following:
The Creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Task Force to address sewer service and a
community center:
a. Composition of the Task Force — 2 members appointed by each Town (Chapel
Hill and Carrboro); 2 members appointed from the County; and 2 members
appointed from RENA.
b. Charge of the Task Force to address sewer service and a community center.
c. Timeline for the Task Force — Appointments to be made by or before the March
22, 2012 BOCC Regular meeting and the Task Force to report back at the
Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012.
d. Utilization of part of the 104 acre Greene Tract for the Historic Rogers Road
Community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of funding improvements in the Historic Rogers Road
Community is uncertain until direction is provided by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide guidance regarding
the creation of a Historic Rogers Road Task Force, its composition, charge, and timeline to report
its findings/recommendations.
/��-��-.� 3
ORANGE COUNTY
C��� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGEND T
Meeting Date. October 4, 2011
Action Agenda
Item Na. �-(�
SUBJECT: Rogers Road Area Mitigation Options And Landfill Closure Impact�
DEPARTMEId�: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INF,DRMATION CONTACT:
1) Map— Rogers�-Road Histaric Area— Frank Clifton, Coun�jr Manager, 245-
Main Structures Befofe 1972 2300
2) August 17, 1999 Agreement for Solid Michael Talbert, Interim Assistant
Waste Managemen# County Manager, 245-2153
3) May 17, 2011 Recommended Actions John Roberts, County Attomey, 245- ,
Dacument from Rogers Road 2318
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 Cos#s and Liability
7) Proposed �olution for Solid Was�e
illegal Dump Sites Proposal and Map
8) MSW Landfifl txpansion Capacity
Proposal
9} MSW Landfll Closure and Post-
Closure Cost Estimate
10) C&D Landfill Closure and Post-
Closure Cost Estimate
11) Solid Waste—Calcufation of
Fund/Reserve Balance—June 30,
2D11
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 might be involved in a comprehensive solution-oriented approach.
4
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
operatio�al elements associated uvith the landfill. The County and Towns did come together to
act upon some of those requests. Those actions included: improved landfill operations,
extensiQn of pubfic water lines and fimited transit service extensions into the surrounding
neighborhood. i�mprovements fell shc�rt of a compreh�ensive response to the issues raised by
the community, but were positive step�taken to address-same more common complaints.
At the May 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners, represeritatives of the
Rogers Road .Community presented a list of"Recommended Actions to Mitiqate the Lonq and
S#�ort Term lmpacts of Oranqe Countv'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�r! give each
item detail, recogn'rzing financial, pofitical and legal constraints on the County impede actions
fully i�n Gne with all of the requests from the comrrwnity.
T�e County as the landfill 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 resolutian of these matters.
May 17, 2011 Recommended Actions (Roqers/Eubank Roads) RequestlResponse
WATER SERVtCES —The Towns, OWASA and County have conducted a thorough analysis of
the Ragers Road area, developing `estimated' costs for providing public water services to the
historic Rogers Road communify and an isolated area of homes west of Rogers Road located
within the town limits of Carrboro (Fox Meadow vicinity). Those estimates are contained in
Tables 1,2 and 3 (Attackxnent 4) and include `all' costs associated with extending public water
lines and individual service to the `property line' of each parcel inclusive of connection,
availabifity and meter charges collected by OWASA. Property owners would be responsible for
extending water lines from the property line#o individual structures. Maps highiighting the areas
where water lines exist anti need to be extended are provided at Attachment 5. The estimated
cost for provisio� of water services totals $4,077,587.
The Towns and County Staffs/Attorneys agree (at this point) that funding these costs from
landfill operational revenues is consistent with past actions and is applicable wifh environmental
concerns (now or future) that may be linked to the location of the landfill. The financial impact of
using landffl revenues is addressed later in this abstract.
SEWER SERVlCES — 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 woutd subject the local governments to
legal challenges and potentially substantial liability. Unfortunately, the County must agree with
that position. If the County and Towns were to proceed, a third party could challenge the
5
legality of the action; or ii the County were to proceed without agreement of the Towns, one or
more Towns might pursue legal action 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 miflion rar�ge 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 usea by individual property owners or the general public to
`illegafly' dispose of refuse (all #ypes) rather than use the Ec�banks Road Convenience Center.
(This is not an issue isolated to the Rogers��Eubanks Road area within Orange County.)
To ardc�fess this issue County Staff has developed a proposed `one-time' effort to clean up sites
within three-four�hs of one mile of the landfifl 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 fu�ther illegal dumping can be incorporated into an
operations plan for the landfifl and, along �nrrth� the clean-ap proposed, be addressed via landfill
tipping fEe revenues.
Some landouvners 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. Af#er any
publicly funded clean-up of these sites is complete, �trict enforcement procedures would be
standard practice. �
COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER — This is a request from the Rogers/Eubanks Road
community that would not be a proper expense utilizing landfil! 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 other non-profit
agencies withan Orange County. Kowever, for this report no action is proposed.
TAX ABATEMENT PROGF�AlVIS — Nothing within existing North Carolina !aw would allow a
reduction or abatement of taxes as proposed or requested by the Rogers/Eubanks Road group.
There are voluntary programs that could be pursued that might impact the taxation of individual
properties. Each of thos�e programs requires specific criteria ta be met. Further research of
available alternatives can be pursued by individuals with the assis#ance of the Countjr Tax
Administrator.
LANDFILL OPERATIONAL ACTIVtTY 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 wal[ concept is not a feasible option. However, fencing gaps are being addressed
and additiona! planting materials will be placed along the landfill fence {ines to further increase
vegetation shielding_ A closure plan and post closure activities should address this issue in
more detaiL
6
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 upan
jurisdictional auth�rity.
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 focal
governments. T�e neighborhood has been split by agreement between the fwo towns. It is
unlikely that situation will change. 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 uftimately resolve a coordinated
and collafiorative response if i� is to occur. The community needs to continue to interact
with fhat pofitical leadership in seeking resolution to its concerns.
LANDFILL [�IFESPAN, CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE — The expenditures outlined within
this abstra�t that address the concerns raised revenues (Water, Dump Sites and Operatic�naf
Improvements) are dependent to a lar�e part upon the availabili#y of landfill for funding. A
proposal to th� State of North Carolina to allow madification to the steepness of landfill slopes
(Attachment 8) which would increase the useful life of the landfill has yet to be pursued. If t1�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 extended 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 it�herited liabifity the County assumed in taking ownership of the Municipal
Solid Waste (MS1/1� landfill for cfosure and post closure costs. Closure costs a�d post closure
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
north 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 property. A Greene Tract Work Group that included representatives from all the
parties to the Interlocal Agreement met in 2001 and discussed proposed uses of affordable
housing, open space and recreation space. Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Ora�ge Couniy adopted
resolutions supporting three basic uses in concept:
18.1 acres on the nor�hwest portion of the site adjacent to the Purefoy Road
neighborhood would be reserved forAffordable Housing
85.9 acres would be reserved for open space
7
60 acres has been conveyed to Orange County for so(id waste management
purposes.
The Counfy and Towns are entering the fourth year (FY 2011/12) of a five-year payback plan to
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 So[id Waste asset, and there has been
considerable discussion conceming the best use of that acreage_ The final use of this jointly
owned asset will be determined collectively by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. The
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund retains 6Q acres as a va(uable asset that could be utilized to hefp
satisfy the future closure and post closure liability.
_County -Financial Staff is in the process _of analyzing the reserves within the Solid Waste
Ent�e;p.rise �und available for closurelpost closure costs of the MSW landfi(I, along with any
commitments to Rogers/-Eubanks Road mitigation efforts detailed above and ultimate
respons�bilities for the C�D closure and post closure expenses.
Reserve funding does exist within the Sofid Waste Enterprise Fund. It is not sufficient to
address all of the items defined above "without" and extension in the life of the MSW landfill
AND increases in the 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 the Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill
($4,025,326). Other current and long term liabilities, including capital lease and debt
_r�bfigations, post employee health care o6ligations, and compensated absences all have to be
taken into account to calculate available reserves. The Solid Waste enterprise fund, without the
considering the sale of any assets, is $4,Q73,276 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 household 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
Counfy 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 any final decision.
The current landfill agreerr�ent (Attachment 2j 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' resportsibifity for the fandfifl's environmental impacts for a period of not less than
th�rty years after c(osure. (If problems were to occur in later years, as long as the County owns
the landfill site, it would retain any financia! 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 past closure time frame.
IMPORTANT TO THESE DISCUSSIONS --While the County is restricted in how it may use
Solid Waste Enterprise Funds to address the Rogers/Eubanks Road community
mitigation issues (sewer, in particular), that same limitation does not apply to the Towns.
8
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 enviro�mental
concern.
6
It is difficult to ftnd an environmental [ink between the landfill and failing indivislual 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 sepfic tank failures.
The County is restricted in how it may use landfll revenues (Enter�rise Funds). The
Towns use their indididual General -Funds to expense out residential solid waste
collect�oa� programs. The Towns do not charge separately for household solicf waste
a�llection. It is a service the Towns pravide via the municipal tax rate and other local revenues.
The landfill t:pping-fees 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 landfill 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 Hifl at
-about $350,000-$400,000 and at $100,000-$150,Oa0 annually for Carrb�ro. (Changes to
equi.pment and�other efficiency efforts varould impact these estimate�)
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
propo�al 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. M�W Lanc�fill Enterprise Reserve Funding is $7,403,190 as of June 30,
2011.
The current landfilt agreement between the County and Towns limits the County's ability
to raise tipping fees to a 10% annual adjustment with a 60 days written notice. Current(y,
the base landfill tipping fee is $57 per ton.
The County will need to increase tipping fees according to the direction taken in
addressing the ite�ms outlined above. The lifecycle of the Iandfill (remaining months of
operation) will dictate anticipated revenues, assuming the volume of waste remains consistent
as tipping fees rise.
RECOMMENDATION(S): TF�e 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 schedufed
accordingly and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds be the source of funding for these
projects. The Board of Commissioners would 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
9
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 accur in accordance with financial projections that support the
proposals outlined above and closure and post closure fiqancial obligations. The
current agreement allows a 10% annUal increase. The current rate is $57 per ton
�MSW.
4. Select an appropriate-.cJosing date for the landfitl as a functioning operation.
The estimated c(osure dates as proposed in t-he attachments and discussed earlier
in il�s abstraet are approximate in nature. As the landfill ages solid waste
compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a
variable. The Board has the option fo extend the life of the landfill and add
available funds-for the proposals out(ined above along w�th securing reserves for
closuce and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit
extension,_and the landfil� is scheduled to close in the spring 2013. If tfie Board
chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it wilt need to direct staff to file the
appropriate permit applications.
5. Encourage the Towns through conversa�ions with elected leadership tQ
become more involved in the future of the Rogers/Eubank Road
neigF�borhood. The improvements not eligible for funding via the Sofid 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 jointly address
these issues collectively to lessen the financial burden upon any one government.
6_ Convene a meeting 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 oi Durham's MSW 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 locationa( 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 all of the req�ests made by the Rogers/Eubanks, Road neighborhood exist
because of the landfifl, but many are a direct result of its location and operation. The MSW
landfill may c(ose in the next few years, but the C&D landfill operations will continue for many
-years to come and those impacts will be ongoing.
t�t��kv�e.�—o� 10
ORANGE COUNTY
���� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA "
Meeting Date: ay 17, 2011
Action Agenda
ftem No. S— C�,
SUBJECT: Solid Waste— Rogers Road Community
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
�,.r�ur�t�MaY _ klisto�i�2ager�--Rv..a� �ra��i#�;�ou�Ma�-ag�x,2�
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, Interim 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 Repo�ts
F. 2-8-11 OWASA Sewer Extension
Estimates— Rogers Road Area
G. 4-25-11 Estimated Tonnage Solid
Waste Delivered to Landf II 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 life of the landfil( 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 Refe�ence of
Tawn 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
11
any action. These two plans are the most recent in a series of committees, task force and
plans completed since the landfill opened in 1972. A number of (ocal 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. As of July 2010, water was
available to 166 parcels and 71 have connected.
2. Solid Waste has installed gas flares to reduce odors. A landfill gas to energy project
(Orange County and UNC) will be completed within the year. The project will further
reduce air odar 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 Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road.
4. Solid Waste has initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells
� �]�-��01A1X1�--q@1�kl�Ll��nnriC,
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 #he life of the landfill. RENA presented a resolution requesting that the
Board take actions on behalf of the Rogers Road Community.
1. fmmediately designate $2.5Q per ton or 5% of the landfill tipping fee to fund remediation
for the Rogers Road Community, 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 cfose the ;
landfill as soon as possibfe but not beyond 2016.
Landfi/I 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 invo{ved with the continually changing capacity expectations and
projections. Disposal volumes have varied over the past 40 years. Changes in regulations,
changes in operational best management practices, equipment and techniques, effectiveness
of recycling and waste reduction programs, public environmental knowledge and awareness,
state and local bans, increasing tipping fees, evolving regianal 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 facilify
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 landfill
operations on the Rogers Road community.
RE'VISED Ttem 8-a 1 2
Ai�stract—Page 3 �niy
May 17,2411 BOCC Meefing
On April, 5, 2�11 the concept of instituting a tipping fee surcharga with the intent of generafing
funds over the remaining life of the landfiil for neighborhood improvemenfs was discussed. Within
life remaining in the �range County Landfi[t, there is limi�ed time fo fund meanjng€ul reserves for
remediafion. Currentfy fhe FY 2011/92 prajection of municipal solid waste tonnage is 48,OOp tons
per year. This means thaf each dollar on the tipping fee would generafe about $48,400 annually.
The County Manager recommends a fipping fee surcharge of$5.00 per ton. This recommended
increase wou(d generate $240,Q00 in the first year to be resenred for neighborhood improvements.
To immediately fund reserves for neighborhood improvements, an initia! contribution of $750,000
is recommended to be appropriated fram the Solid Wasfe Fund Balance. This wouid bring the
reserve for neighborhood improvements ba[anee to $990,000 as of June 30, 2Q12. lncrementa[
annua( increases in the tipping fee surcharge af$2 per ton per year would generate tota! revenues
shown below.
. _ Pro'ectecf Revenues from an increas[n Tippin Fee Surchar e
Fisca( Year Tipping Annua[ Revenue Tofiaf Revenues
' Fee •
S�rchar e
Fund Balance A ra riafion $750,OD0 $750,D00
2014/20'f 2 $5.00 $24Q,000 $990,040 •
2012l2013 $7.Q0 $336,000 $1,326,000
20'I3120't4 $9.0Q $432,000 $9 758,000
20'l4/20'!5 $19.Od $528,000 $2,286 DOQ
0 t�on 1 close 'if'1120'[6 $11�0 $264,OOQ $2,550,OQ0
Ff�[ANCfAL fMPACT: The financia( impac# of extencting landfslf capacify could be considerable for
Orange Counfy and the fnterlocal Agreement partne�s (as well as other users). The landfill is
current(y�ra'ected fo reach capaci � abaut June_ 30, 20'(3. F���'o����i�r e��e,�`��..u��
�il(�a�� _ii��c�n�l �:`ti��:��f��. �Z['d � � eserv #`or4�cl�s �I �� cs -�r� �� ��`�i �re
f �- � �::~�:-���: ��-��.�.�.�x -,.T��.P. ����� �sfs:an�c���� ,����:�
�Jr�i,�r����:i�������R#ron���andr�.���;a. _ ��b�!�a�a.��.+-���-.��r.e����3��on;°��w��d���e�eT a�Z�ti�
F � '_+X" �� ��. ���' ? s:'+ �•�i' �'" aS.� �ye •"t�`/L���.y.A,�^F^C�����r�
� �t�io��:�f�a ��ht��ia�t'i�pd �=�o�-���t���a���`os�i-ref��os�i�s re=�-�� ��r� �cQ�i��'
.�-�'Y . •f���. c..r:�� �•�w^�.�,�-�^�. Y�- $-��s�?���� .�,.� �rv� c�t`s��t}+�''�:?Ld- 4�x,�'t.
�a� �u �
a�- '������,3�-' "�"ar�`:�tO '��7i-,���- � -���ir:a���a��� -.�iffa�'���'ira`I� r�...'d�# a��:.-/Y,,-} y�,
',k.�-c, '�TF�isX.�tF„Z�r`e.c�.�'�v+,�..��=r-'-e:a:��.3!,� ,��� : fi� _s� ..�..�. ���lqx1.9�
� r t.. ..<�.� �t.�'�''�= .�',..-Y�� .� �.�4 .�^e .�..i� r.s-.my..
-�"d�=���.�,�QS�t�: ����_�osu�e�os_ :'a�_ ���l.a.'���su�:��`��'�. „ou• :,:.:��.:.. �.
The Landfi!( fipping fee surcharge cou(d generate $1,800,Q00 over five years. Combined witFr the �
� $750,000 initial confribution from the Solid Waste Fund Baiance, #otal "reve�zues af $2,550,000 �
could be esfablished far tf�e Rogers Road Remediatiar� Reserve Fund. �
- �
The exfension- of time provides an oppor��uniiy fo build reserves from a tipping fee surcharge as
outiined in �he Background. Addifionai(y, exfension of (anditll life would delay incurring the
addi�ionat expenses by afl lnterEocal Agreement partners related ta fhe hauling of waste to the City
of Durham Transfer Station (undetermined but substantial}. .
REGOMMENDATfON{Sj: The Manager recommends that the Board provide g�tidance to staff
with rega�c# to the staf#praposal reEated landfli capacity issues.
Provide guiafance fo sfaff on a plan for the Rem�ciiatian of the Historic Rogers Road
Cammunity including but nof tirrtifed ta ffte follawing elements: I
;
13
1. Estabiish 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) memberfrom OWASA_
3. Empower the Over-Sight Committee to accomplish the folfowing:
. 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 refated 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 $5.00 tipping fee surcharge that incrementally
in �al vc�r hv � m�Fllf�Nl�i2 p@f--�BR--aS-�Qf-1�-$R����&R��f��-FS-6��uiivriai
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 Bafance to
Estab(ish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund.
Ofher Issues/Concerns:
1. Those representing the Rogers Road Community {RENA) and others have made
numerous requests and put forth a variefy of service demands that may not have any
direct or indirect re(ationship to the landfill or its location. Not afl of those requests can
be linked to the landfilf or the proposed Remediation Reserve Fund (regardless of the
merit of those requests otherwise).
It is intended as noted above that some thought and acceptance be developed toward a
`priority list' 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 improvements.
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 Tawns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it would seem reasonable both towns might extend additional
resources to address needs not directly�ndirectly attributed to the landfill's lacation.
Previous studies suggest that the direct involvement of the municipafities 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 accumuiation 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 ear{y as the end
of 2011.
14
3_ There may be alternative disposal methods available for solid 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 caunty-wide issue BUT not solely a county government problem.
Legitimate, forEhright discussions need to occur involving the disposa{ of municipal solid
waste. Method to be selected, how to fund the associated costs and where to place
facilities remain to be properly 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 troubfing 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 �
Pfftc.ienrieS in bnth the fixed dr�n-off locations �nd c�rbsid� S�MCP el�ment� of thi�
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 demolitian debris
disposal effo�ts and solid waste equipment storage and maintenance functions long after
the municipal solid waste landfill closure.
There are no current plans to relocate that facility or site a new similar facility elsewhere
in Orange County for the foreseeable future.
5. Summarizing: Extending the lifespan current municipal solid waste landfill can provide a
revenue stream to address some but not a!I 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 Commissioners in
conjunction with municipal cooperation. Moving fonrvard will bring some closure to many
long standing issues (besides just the landfill). It will not resolve or address all
community concerns or desired outcomes. Those goals will require on-going efforts and
commitments among all of those with a vested interest in Orange County's future.
15
ATTACNMENT 3
. Map 17,2012
Recommended z4ctions to Mitigate the Long and Short Term Im.pacts of Orange County's .
LandSil and Solid Waste Operations on the Health,Safety and WeIfare of-
the Historic Rogers Road-�abanks Road Community
1. Gonnect water and sewer service to all homes listed in the"ROGERS-EUBANKS ROAD ARE�I OF
CONCERN FOR THE REQUESTED ORAPdGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT SURVEY
[occupied properties on weIl/septic sp�tem.s that w�re bui�t before the Orange County Landfill
was sited on Eubank�Road)s,includi.ng�Is.N�nn's property,at no cost to any of the residents
-including alI OWt�`;A water and sewer connections and OWASA impact fees for these
corinections. Residents will pay monthlp user fees for water and sewer.
2. Clean up the iIiegal dumpsites within 3%4 mile around the perimeter of the landfill-some of
� which are in the headwaters of the Bolin C-re�ek wa�ershed.
a. C1ean up shall be made at na cost to an'y resident of the cvmmunity and all residents
and prop�rty owners shall be held harmless from any costs,fees,liens,assessments,
damages,penalties or any other liability for the remediation or mi�g,aiaon necessary to
clean and re�nove iIlegal trash sites that have been created on their Ianci.
b. Close access points to stop continued and active illegaI dumping
c. Install additional"No Littering"signs in the RENA community near the landfiIl.
c� F�pand the hours of the landfill and convenience centers with no additionaiiees,to
�iscourage iIlegal dumping. .
e. Initiate ongoing aggressive enforcement of existing dumping ordinances.
3_ Establish a community and cultural center including recreational facilities and park that
honors the�istory of the Rogers-Eubanks community,which dates back to the 1700s.
a Highlight the story of this African-American community,which transcended slac;erp,and
faced continual challenges to Iand�wnership and community for over two centuries.
b. Until the community and cultural center is built,the County and Towns shali pay an annual
fee of$SO,OQO to cover the operating expenses for znterim operations at the 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 a€annexation). Overlay
zoning,a tax abatement program or alternatives should be considered.The program could be
Iimited to the historic families participating in�ie water/sewer program.
� � 16
5. Take immediate actions to mitigate the direct impacts of the landfiIL
a. Reduce the odor fi-om the landfiIl using a technology that surpasses the masking agent
atomization far the landfill worl�ng face. In addition to benefits derived from t�e
landfill gas program,utilize best management practices for Iandfill cover that helps
controI odor.
b. Build an impervious barrier walt(beginning below the surface of the graund)to
impedeJstop vermin from leav:ng or entering the landfill and to decrease noise,and
improve air quaIity. :
c. Plant additional trees a�d vegetation for additionat odor huffer and to obscure the
visu�l impact of the landfill mountai� . � �
d. Add traffic-ca�ing bumps on Rogers�Roac�,redirecC commercial traffic["no .
� commercial trafficn signage on Rogers Road) and decrease the speed limitto 30-mgh.
6. Advocate on onr behaIf with the towns-es}�ecially for mal�ng this commw�ity to be in one
unifying municipal ar gover�ment jurisdiction(instead of 3),and for sidewalks,and bike lan.es,
on Rogers Road,Euhanks Road,Purefoy Road,Edgar Stree�and Homestead Road,and to
unprove connectivity of bus service and other town services.
These actions will be the terms of a written,enforceable,and binding agreement-wIuch will be
funded and incIuded in the county's committed capital plans. The agreement will include damages
for non-performance. The agreement will be supported bp a committed wark plan,which includes
iasks,responsibilities,timelines and deliverab!`es-along with cost esti�nates;which include a
contingency for project risl� The work plan will be designed to assure that a11 improvements will
be completed by 2016.
'The glan 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 wiIl earn
uullions of doliars of additional revenue by e�rtending the life of the landfill beyond the planned
closure date of Z 012,these additionaI funds will be applied to mitigation items before the county
can use these funds for other purposes. �
The agreement-and the supporting work-pIan and funding for completing these mitigation
requests-shall be-developed and approved before the county authorizes extend.ing the life of the
landfill.
��-j�,�•� L.�, 17
ti�uc.in
APPROVED
GREENE TRACT WORK GROUP
A RESOLUTION RERORTING THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE
PORTION OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT REMAINS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property
known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system;
and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000
under provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management"; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in
good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine
the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the end date of the"bargaining period"as defined in the agreement was April 17,
2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility
for solid waste management in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing
boards, comments from interested citizens and organizations, and information developed by
staff in response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the
balance of the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March
21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a cancept plan providing for
approximately 78 acres to be earmarked for open.space protected by conservation easeme�ts
and approximateiy 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached
agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended in that March 21, 2002 resolution that the
following additional steps be taken: �
• The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a
conservation easement between appropriate parties
• The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting its 60 acre portion of the
Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party
• The Chapel Hill Town Council should consider initiating a small area planning process to
examine desirable land uses for the Purefoy Road area
• The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as
the headwaters for three important streams (Bolin Creek, Old Field Creek, and Booker
Creek)
. The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general
vicinity of the Greene Tract, as cataloged in an accompanying table; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the
bargaining period beyond April17, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group
additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the
approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and
. 18
APPROVED
WHEREAS, the Work Group received a technical report from the County Engineer outlining the
basic alternatives availab{e and approximate costs for providing sewer service to a portion of the
Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded by consensus that"the carrying capacity of the land"
should be the determining factor in estabtishing how much of the unresolved 11 acres should be
earmarked for specific purposes, and that the ridge fine reflected on the accompanying concept
map determines the portion (approximately one-third)of the 11 acres that can practically be
used for affordable housing served by a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via
Purefoy Road:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby
recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the Work Group's
consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded
exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by
conservation easements approximating 85.90 acres and the acreage for affordable housing
approximating 18.10 acres;
BE fT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three goveming boards that the acreage for affordable housing be placed in the Land Trust;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three goveming boards that the Managers investigate options for reimbursement of the Solid
Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for affordable housing and
apen space; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism for reimbursement to the Solid
Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund should be forma!action taken by all three boards to approve
conservation easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking
effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005.
This, the 26'�day of June, 2002.
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chair
Greene Tract Work Group
� � � � � • • � .
i •• • -� • . • • • • • . 1
�� �
„ •
r �' �
� I
���� �. �,
_ �=�' _� ��-
. � �." � �r � ��
�� �� � �� 1
�► �,
� �
. .
����
� - �� ��
�:, �� s �' .
� ��,,,'�"�
� � �
�� _� ��i�► �'�i
� �� -
�� ,�.-
�- µ�� -� „
, �� } ' ���� +,�,
}:��� +4��,���� '"�i
� � ;,���` r �� •
�
,�; ��''s�����
� '� , �•�. � �����j� -
?�� ���r ��
� � ; I�� i `� � �� ����
� • � � ' � ��� � ����Gi����,a
� � y } � r �v
�� �� �� •.��'���� —� �i��� �::����_,� :s ���'��/� r�
,
- .. �.��
�''���%�, ���� ...._�ii�G� ;�� .����, ��4� ��;����,��'
��� � � -� , `, . �,� ;:;� � �':��r��
1� �,�' �� I -�; ;��� a'�
�� ����� �� ;�; �'- �. ��
����; � �� , ;,t ,��� �_� � ,�
��►�'�1�� .� 'r� � �: ���'�'�����
, ';.;- �/ � ��! ���� ; Mt,
� ���� ��� �� "'i� /� 1�I/��I��:N �+`
M;�-�..�'''��+� *� �
� � +" �`� � "��� _
� ���'`.�� .�� l� 3 -,.a'�+�7" '�• +
��� �,W� � ����� �
� ������ ; �
��,�.1�''��'.� :
��a ��� �l,� ����
t� !�"�'���r►��'� ► � � , , - _ '-�s -
������`3���'.,,
� ��liil����r':� � ai�s 9 t '� �.i
�' - A� � ._-__` _� - -- _- ' � �
♦ '���+�����.t ��1�11�i�J�����i it�.�;.��=
�b��5.i���_ � _ _' "
- � ' � � - • � � • - � • . 1• 1 �_ 1' 11
��w�e��� 2 0
���� ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGEND
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 C(ifton, 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.orange.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.orange.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 landfifl 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.
21 .
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 loca! government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in
the Rogers Road Community and they are as folEows:
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 instafled gas flares to reduce odors.
3. Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road.
4. Solid Waste has initiated a no-fau(t 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 ftscal year by a
minimum $2 per ton as fong and the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road
Remediation Reserve Fund.
7. The Landfill Gas to Energy Praject 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 ta 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 so(id 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 wilt bring back to the
Board a recommendation regarding iflegal 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 two years. Combined with the $750,000 initial
contribution from the Solid Waste Fund Balance, total revenues of $1,230,000 could be
es#ablished for the Rogers Road Remediation Resenre Fund.
RECOMMENDATION(Sj: 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 a(I of those requests can be linked to the landfill or the proposed Remediation
Reserve Fund (regardless of the merit of those requests otherwise).
22
Since this area clearly lies within or next to the municipal boundaries af the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it would seem reasonable bath 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,)