HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-30-1997 - 2 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 30, 1997
Action Agenda
Item No. Z
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Issues
DEPARTMENT: Manager/Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/l)
ATTACHMENT(S):
Chronology - Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement INFORMATION CONTACT:
10/27/97 Finance Director Memo Rod Visser, ext 2300
(w/attachments) Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625
Report of LOG/Landfill Neighbors Work Group
Minutes -Various Commissioner and Assembly TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
of Governments Meetings Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
r
PURPOSE: To discuss issues related to the future management of solid waste in the jurisdictions
of Orange County.
BACKGROUND: At the Assembly of Governments meeting on October 22, 1997, members of
the Orange County Board of Commissioners indicated to elected officials from the municipal
governments that they need additional information and deliberation on a range of issues related to
the proposed interlocal agreement on solid waste management. The following topics are slated
specifically for discussion at the October 30 work session:
Chronology of Key Events Related to Proposed Interlocal Agreement
Staff have prepared a brief chronology of events related to the development of the proposed
interlocal agreement, beginning with the two "Solid Waste Summits" during Fall 1996, through the
most recent Assembly of Governments meeting. Copies of minutes, or extracts from minutes, of
some of the key meetings on the timeline are included for historical reference.
Landfill Enterprise Fund Financial Condition
County Finance Director Ken Chavious has consulted with Chapel Hill Town staff, and has
reviewed the audit of the 1996-97 Landfill Fund activities (part of the audit of all Town of Chapel
Hill financial operations, which is near completion). As indicated in his memo with attachments,
the Landfill Fund is in sound financial condition. The Finance Director will be available to
comment on the information provided. County staff are working with Chapel Hill Town staff on
additional specifics regarding programmed future uses of landfill reserve funds, and will provide
this information as it becomes available.
2
Community Benefits for Current Landfill Neighborhoods
The three governing boards reached agreement on nine of the fourteen points included in the list of
community benefits developed by the Landfill Owners' Group/Landfill Neighbors Working Group.
The Board may wish to discuss further those items on the list(in bold text on attachment) about
which agreement has not yet been reached by the jurisdictions.
Brainstorming of Solid Waste Management Options
The Board may wish to allocate some time during the work session to discuss solid waste disposal
options
Disposition of the Greene Tract
The Board has made it clear to the other jurisdictions that it views the Greene Tract as an important
landfill asset that should be transferred to the County, should the Board of Commissioners agree at
some point to take on overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange County, under
this or a revised version of the proposed interlocal agreement. The Board may wish to discuss
further its views concerning options for the future disposition of the Greene Tract.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the issues outlined
in the abstract, along with any other relevant solid waste management matters; and provide
appropriate direction to the Manager and Attorney.
3
10/27/97
Chronology of Events for Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for
Solid Waste Management
• September 30, 1996 Solid Waste Summit I: Member Governments met in joint
session at Assembly of Governments meeting. Governments discussed landfill
reorganization options, meeting adjourned with further discussion required and
scheduling of another Assembly of Governments meeting for November 13, 1996
(see minutes).
• October 1, 1996: House Bill 859 takes effect,placing new responsibilities on North
Carolina local governments regarding collection, disposal, and management of solid
waste within their own jurisdictions.
• November 13, 1996 - Solid Waste Summit II Assembly of Governments meeting.
Governments reached a consensus on General Principles for reorganization. Each
board appointed the Landfill reorganization workgroup which consisted of a
maximum of two elected officials and managers to draft a Interlocal Agreement to be
presented to member governments. The Board of County Commissioners reached
consensus on the management structure which called for County control of both
budget and policy with Advisory Council (see minutes).
• January 16, 1997 - Board of County Commissioner's bi-monthly work session. The
Board of County Commissioners discussed Solid Waste issues including Landfill
reorganization. Consensus that a procedure needs to be developed to address
compensation rates and ensure communication with Landfill neighbors. The next
step would be to site Landfill and to establish the new management structure. There
was general agreement to have Orange County be in charge of waste disposal system
in the future (see extract from minutes).
• February 18, 1997 -Bob Jessup was retained to work with the appointed Interlocal
Agreement workgroup on development of Interlocal Agreement draft.
• April 17, 1997 - Assembly of Governments meeting held. Interlocal Agreement draft
was presented to all governing boards by the Landfill Reorganization Workgroup and
Attorney Bob Jessup (see minutes).
• June 5, 1997 - Board of County Commissioner's Solid Waste Work Session. Board
of County Commissioners discussed April 11, 1997 draft of Interlocal Agreement;
provided feedback to Landfill Reorganization Workgroup on the agreement for their
June 23rd meeting(see extract of draft minutes).
• August 7, 1997 -Board of County Commissioner's work session. Board of County
Commissioners discussed Interlocal Agreement. Consensus of the Board was that
issues needed further discussion and that the Greene Tract remain a Landfill asset(see
extract of draft minutes).
4
10/27/97
• September 18, 1997 -Landfill Owners' Group/Landfill Neighbors Working Group
completed list of fourteen points of community benefits it recommends that local
governments approve for the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road
Landfill. This culminated a series of facilitated community meetings begun in June
1997.
• October 6, 1997 -Regular Board of County Commissioner's meeting. Board
discussed Solid Waste Management issues including December 1, 1997 deadline;
Community benefits; public hearing site selection; Greene Tract discussions.
• October 20, 1997 -In report prepared by Hazen and Sawyer, OWASA provides cost
estimates (approximately $10.5 million) for water and sewer extensions to
neighborhoods in the vicinity of the current landfill.
• October 21, 1997 - Board of County Commissioner's regular meeting. Board of
County Commissioners discussed Landfill Neighbors' report on community benefits
and County Attorney and County Staff review of benefits; discussed draft 8 of
Interlocal Agreement.
• October 22, 1997 -Assembly of Governments meeting. Governments discussed
Landfill neighbors' proposed community benefits package, and conditions and
process for agreement and adoption of the Interlocal Agreement.
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
FROM: Ken Chavious, Finance Director
DATE: October 27, 1997
SUBJECT: Landfill Financial Condition and Issues.
I have reviewed a draft of the audited financial statements for the Landfill for the year
ended June 30, 1997. These statements have not been presented to the Chapel Hill Town
Council, however the audit has been completed and the final documents are being
prepared.
The financial statements for the Landfill are contained in the Town of Chapel Hill's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR) as an enterprise fund, as required by
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Landfill's statements and internal
controls are subject to the same stringent guidelines and requirements as those placed
upon the County and the Town. The Town has received the Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting for twelve consecutive years. This includes the
financial reports of the Landfill fund. The Town did not have any audit exceptions
related to the Landfill. Information relative to the Landfill's financial condition for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 1997 is contained on the attached statements which will be
incorporated into the Town's 1997 CAFR.
The following information summarizes some of the noteworthy data contained on the
financial statements.
Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Attachment A
• Total revenues exceeded total expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997
by $1.473 million. Usage fees collected exceeded budget expectations by $620,000,
due largely to Hurricane Fran debris.
• Expenditures for recycling include $269,000 in the personnel category and $952,000
recorded in other operational categories on the statement. These expenses were
financed in total by usage fees.
6
• After the required accounting adjustments for depreciation and other non-cash items,
the income (revenues in excess of expenses) from Landfill operations for FY 1996-
97 is about$564,000.
Balance Sheet-Attachment B
• Cash and investments at year end totaled$5 million. This represents an increase of
approximately $1.3 million over the prior year.
• Current liabilities for the Landfill were about$175,000 at year-end.
• Cumulative retained earnings (since inception of the Landfill Fund) at year end were
approximately $7.4 million.
• The Landfill has no installment purchase or bond related debt. The $1.9 million
reported on the balance sheet represents required accounting entries to record the
estimated future landfill closure costs and the estimated amount to pay accrued
vacation leave.
Fund Balance and Financial Condition
Since the landfill is reported as an enterprise operation on the financial statements, it is
difficult for an individual without accounting knowledge to determine the fund balance
position at year end. Total fund balance or fund equity on the attached balance sheet is
reported as $7.6 million. How much of this is undesignated and what is the true financial
condition at year end? This is determined as follows:
Cash and Investments $5,002,861
Less Current Liabilities (174,745)
Equals Fund Balance Available $4,828,116
Of the amount of fund balance available, $4,278,863 is being reserved or appropriated
for subsequent fiscal years. A listing of the reservations are included on Attachment C.
This leaves the total undesignated and unreserved amount of fund balance at $549,253.
This amount is 17.6 % of expenditures at year-end, which is more than twice the amount
recommended by the Local Government Commission for financial stability.
The Landfill Fund is in sound financial condition.
7
Fund Balance Reserves and Designations -Attachment C
As mentioned above, the Landfill has dedicated much of its available fund balance to pay
for certain items in subsequent years. These details are contained on Attachment C.
Funds held in reserve or designated will be used in future years to develop and construct
an additional lined cell and to purchase capital equipment and make other capital
improvements. Reserving funds in this manner will eliminate the need for excessive
increases in tipping fees and/or the incurrence of debt to fund the major capital items
mentioned. Over the next six years it is estimated that the funds reserved and designated
annually will total approximately $13.2 million
Conclusion
The Landfill Fund is a financially sound, debt free operation. The funds reserved will
pay for capital items needed in the future and eliminate the need for debt incurrance or
significant increases in tip fees. In addition,this fund is audited annually as required by
the general statutes and has received no audit exceptions.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need more information.
e �
Exhibit 7
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES-BUDGET AND ACTUAL
CHAPEL HILL-ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO LANDFILL FUND
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL AMOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996
1997 1996
a ance-
Favorable
Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual
REVENUES:
Usage fees ; 3,498,600 ; 4,119,095 ; (620,495) ; 3,585,319
Interest on investments 160,000 236,616 (76,616) 173,161
Other 289,700 245,700 44,000 372,074
Total revenues 3,948,300 4,601,411 (653,111) 4,130,554
EXPENDITURES:
Personnel 1,056,741 971,695 85,046 851,187
Indirect costs 107,000 97,493 9,507 87,967
Maintenance and Repairs 93,551 94,100 (549) 61,085
Nondepartmental 30,000 25,928 4,072 21,325
Other 2,555,005 1,938,954 616,051 1,655,911
Total expenditures 3,842,297 3,128,170 714,127 2,677,475
EXCESS OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENDITURES 106,003 1,473,241 (1,367,238) 1,453,079
BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS:
Capital outlay (586,671) (586,671)
Equipment and land reserve (573,000) (573,000)
Appropriated fund balance 1,053,668 1,053,668
Total budgetary appropriations (106,003) (106,003)
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF
REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES
AND BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS ; ; 1,473,241 ; (1,473,241) ; 1,453,079
RECONCILIATION OF MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS TO FULL ACCRUAL BASIS-
CHAPEL HILL-ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO LANDFILL FUND
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
Excess of revenues over expenditures and
budgetary appropriations-modified
accrual basis ; 1,473,241
Increase In accrued compensated absences (4,834)
Increase in closure costs (194,255)
Depreciation and amortization (710,111)
Income before operating transfers-accrual basis ; 564,041
r
f . 9
Exhibit 7
BALANCE SHEET-
CHAPEL HILL-ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO LANDFILL
JUNE 30, 1997 WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS AT JUNE 30, 1996
1997 1996
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalentsAnvestments $ 5,002,861 $ 3,744,086
Other 285,322 342,260
Total current assets 5,288,183 4,086,346
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT:
Land,land improvements and buildings 4,468,229 4,343,630
Equipment 2,728,653 2,933,134
Construction in progress 98,367
—7,796,79-T— 7,375,131
Less accumulated depreciation (2,716,905) (2,473,138)
4,479,977 4,901,993
TOTAL ASSETS $ 9,768,160 S 8,988,339
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable $ 1301090 $ 123,159
Accrued liabilities 44,655 34,895
Total current liabilities 174,745 158,054
LONGTERM DEBT 1,948,111 1,749,022
Total liabilities 2,122,856 1,907,076
FUND EQUITY:
Contributed capital 279,850 279,850
Retained earnings 7,365,454 6,801,413
Total fund equity 7,645,304 7,081,263
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY $ 9,768,160 $ 8,988,339
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS-
CHAPEL HILL-ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO LANDFILL
YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1996
Income transferred to retained earnings. $ 564,041 $ 398,722
Retained earnings,beginning of year 6,801,413 6,402,691
Retained earnings,end of year $ 7,365,454 $ 6,801,413
LANDFILL FUND BALANCE RESERVED AND DESIGNATED io
JUNE 30,1997
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Reserved for Future Acquisition and Construction 528,550
Reserved for Equipment 80,900
Reserved for Construction 188,500
Designated for Year-end Encumbrances 365,913
Designated for Equipment(Equipment Replacement) 601,000
Designated for Construction (improvements to current site) 1,550,000
Designated for Construction (Building Improvements) 309,000
Designated for 97-98 Operating Expenditures 655,000
TOTAL RESERVED AND DESIGNATED 4,278,863
NOTE: 'Reserved" indicates items beyond the 1997-98 Fiscal Year.
"Designated" indicates items planned for the 1997-98 Fiscal year.
Page 1
- 11
Report of the Landfill Owners Group/Landfill Neighbors Working Group
The following recommendations of this Working Group should be incorporated into the
inter-local agreement transferring ownership and operation of the Orange Regional
Landfill to Orange County. The recommendations should be incorporated in such a way
as to be legally binding on the signatories to the inter-local agreement.
In no way should these recommendations be interpreted as compensation for siting of a
future landfill in the Eubanks Road area--rather they are solely meant to address the
compensation of neighbors for having lived near the current landfill.
Recommendations for Improvements around the Orange Regional Landfill
1. The Working Group recommends that water and sewer mains be extended to
provide service to the area along the entire length of Rogers Road,Millhouse Road
from Eubanks Road to New Jericho Road; and serving households on other side
streets off these main roads (including, but not limited to,Purefoy Drive,Rusch Road,
Priscilla Lane, Sandberg Lane,Meadow Run Court,Manor Court, and Blackwood
Mountain Road).
These improvements should be provided by the completion of the 2002-2003 fiscal year.
The costs of providing these improvements should be paid for by landfill funds to the
extent allowed by North Carolina law. The remaining costs of these improvements
should be divided among the owners of the Orange Regional Landfill on the same
basis as their ownership (Le., Orange County 43 %, Town of Chapel Hill 43 %, Town
of Carrboro 14%).
The Working Group recommends that the Town of Chapel Hill act as the coordinating
agency in carrying out these improvements.
2. The Working Group recommends that Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro provide assistance to low-income residents in the areas where water and
sewer service are to be extended in paying the costs of connecting to water and sewer.
This assistance can take the form of Community Development Block Grants, other
grants, or local funds where allowed by state law,
"Assistance to low-income residents"is defined as paying for at least 75% of the cost
of water and sewer hookups to households whose income is less than 80% of the
median income in Orange County for a family of four; and providing at least 50% of
the cost of hookups for households whose income is between 80% and 100% of the
median income in Orange County for a family of four. Very low-income residents in
these areas should
12
receive 100% of the costs of hookups.
In recognition of the special burden placed on persons living closest to the landfill,
households within the area bounded by the landfill, the Greene tract, Eubanks Road,
and the University Railway will be eligible for long-term (up to 50 years), low-interest
loans from the landfill fund to pay the costs of hooking up to water service.
3. The Landfill Owners Group will prepare and recommend a policy for adoption by
the Chapel Hill Town Council which will require loads of waste (MSW and Construction
and Demolition waste)being brought to the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered.
Under the policy, loads which are not covered would be subject to fine. The fines would
become effective after a three month grace period. Non-commercial first-time offenders
should be offered the option of purchasing a tarp at the landfill in lieu of paying the fine.
4. The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which requires loads of mulch
leaving the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. The Landfill will make available for
sale tarps of various sizes for purchasers of mulch to cover their loads. This policy will
become effective after a three month grace period, during which time education will be
provided to mulch purchasers at the landfill.
5. The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which doubles the frequency of
litter pickup on roads surrounding the Orange Regional Landfill. This will result in
litter pickup on Eubanks Road east of the landfill entrance at least twice weekly, on
Eubanks Road west of the landfill entrance at least six times annually, and on Rogers
Road at least eight times annually. Future modifications of these pickup frequencies shall
be made only by the Landfill Owners Group or its successor.
6. The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy governing construction at the
Orange Regional Landfill. This policy will govern issues affecting neighboring residents,
including nighttime construction,blasting, and noise. The policy will identify ways to
mitigate or eliminate adverse effects on landfill neighbors, and will require all neighbors
(those living in the areas to be provided with water and sewer service)to be notified one
week in advance of the start of construction. Such notification shall include the estimated
duration of construction, and a description of any special construction activities
which may impact neighbors. Notification will, at a minimum, include posting of signs
on the four roadway entrances into these neighborhoods (the north end of Millhouse
Road, both ends of Eubanks Road, and the south end of Rogers Road).
Under ordinary circumstances, the LOG and its contractors will avoid construction
between the hours of 11:00 pm and 6:00 am, and will provide for immediate notification
of neighbors when emergency circumstances dictate that construction activities are
unavoidable during these hours. The LOG will ensure that any contractors carrying out
construction at the landfill follow the Orange County noise ordinance.
13
7. The Working Group recommends that residents living near the Orange Regional
Landfill take initiative in identifying perpetrators of illegal dumping near the landfill to
assist in successful prosecutions. Identification of vehicles, license tags, drivers, and/or
types of articles discarded should be made when possible.
The Landfill Owners Group will investigate with the Orange County Attorney the
possibility of enacting legislation which would provide for civil penalties for illegal
dumping, to make it easier to penalize people who litter. In addition, the LOG will
publicize the names of those convicted of illegal dumping.
The Working Group recommends that additional "No Littering" signs be erected in the
neighborhoods near the landfill.
8. The Landfill Owners Group will budget for the installation of perimeter fencing
around the Orange Regional Landfill no later than the 1998-1999 budget year. Prior to
completion of the fence,the Director of the Orange County APS shall be notified to
ensure that no large animals are trapped inside the fence.
9. The Working Group recommends that Orange County erect "Children Playing"
and"School Bus Stop" signs on Rogers Road. Residents of the Rogers Road
neighborhood will identify appropriate locations for these signs.
10. The Working Group recommends that Chapel Hill Transit re-route the North-
South connector bus line to serve Rogers Road on either its northbound or southbound
trip, starting with the 1998-99 service year. For the duration of the 1997-1998 service
year, the Rogers Road area should be designated as a Shared Ride Feeder Zone if this can
be accomplished within adopted budgets and available resources.
11. The Landfill Owners Group will work with the Orange County, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro planning departments to sponsor a public information meeting regarding the
planning boundary (future annexation boundary) between Chapel Hill and Carrboro
A 'ballot"should be prepared identifying at least three options:
1. Leave the planning boundary as it is, along Rogers Road.
Z Move the plain boundary east,placing the entire Rogers Road neighborhood in
Carrboro's future annexation area.
3. Move the planning boundary west,placing the entire Rogers Road
neighborhood in Chapel Hill's future annexation area.
(See the attached map showing the possible changes to the planning boundary.)
Additional options may be identified and added to the ballot. All households in the
area which may potentially be shifted shall be given the opportunity to submit one
ballot selecting their preferred option.
14
The Working Group recommends that after the ballots have been tallied, the local
governments take the necessary action to adopt the option favored by a majority of
local residents within one year. If no single option is favored by a clear majority, the
Working Group recommends that no action be taken.
12. The Working Group recommends that following the closure of the Eubanks
Road
landfill,portions of the landfill(as allowed-by regulations), the Neville tract, and at
least 50 acres of the Greene tract will be used for recreation facilities.
The Landfill Owners Group or its successor will appoint an advisory group to make
specific recommendations about the post-closure use of the landfill. This group will
convene and make recommendations at least two years prior to the expected closure of
the Eubanks Road landfill. The advisory group will be composed of LOG members,
residents near the Eubanks Road landfill, and other Orange County citizens.
13. The Working Group recommends that no expansion (beyond the existing
permitted disposal capacity) of the disposal areas (MSW or Construction and
Demolition) of the Eubanks Road Landfill occur.
The Working Group recommends that the Landfill Owners Group or its successor
make no incremental land acquisition at the Eubanks Road Landfill.
14. The Working Group recommends that three residents of the area near the Eubanks
Road landfill (two in the Rogers Road area and one in the Millhouse Road area) be
identified to receive all mailings and information sent to members of the Landfill Owners
Group or its successor agency. This information should be made available to all residents
of the area.
Any resident who requests to receive mailings of the Landfill Owners Group shall receive
such mailings.
Epilogue
Nothing in this report should be interpreted as indicating that this Working Group favors
or acquiesces to any particular site for a future landfill in Orange County. Neighborhood
members and LOG members of the Working Group did not agree as to whether a future
landfill site was an appropriate topic for discussion for the Working Group. Neighbors
insisted that the only adequate compensation for living next to the landfill for 25 years is
to have no new landfill sited in the area.
The Working Group acknowledges that individual elected officials in 1972 made
promises regarding water and sewer service in the area of the Eubanks Road Landfill, and
regarding the siting of future landfills, some of which were in writing. None of these
15
promises were officially adopted by any elected body, even though these officials
represented these elected bodies. Neighborhood members and some LOG members of
the Working Group did not agree as to the legal validity of these promises.
The Working Group acknowledges that having a landfill in a neighborhood is an
undesirable land use that has a negative impact on the surrounding residents. Further, the
Working Group acknowledges that the current Eubanks Road Landfill has been an
undesirable neighbor for the residents in the area for over two decades, having been sited
there in the early 1970's against the will of the local residents.
Adopted, this the 18th day of September, 1997.
APPROVED 11/4/96 16
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Hillsborough Board of Commissioners, Carrboro
Board of Aldermen, and the Chapel Hill Town Council met in joint session for the Assembly of Governments
meeting on Monday, September 30, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Homestead Community Center, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and
members William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, and Don Willhoit.
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, and members
Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joseph Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, and Lee Pavao.
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Michael Nelson, and members Hank Anderson, Jay
Bryan, Hilliard Caldwell, Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffee and Alex Zaffon.
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Mayor Horace Johnson
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Kenneth Chavious, Evelyn
Lloyd, Catherine Martin, Richard Simpson and Remus Smith.
Andy Sachs, with the Dispute Settlement Center, called the meeting to order and reviewed the
agenda. The agenda was approved and the meeting was opened for comments.
Council member Andresen requested that the following issues be thoroughly discussed: 1) the
anticipated cost of siting the landfill; and, 2) consideration and analysis of other plans. She stated that a
referendum would be an acceptable way for the final decision to be made. She felt that the management
issues would be difficult to decide unless these other issues were discussed first.
Alderman Gist stated that the LOG decided to start with the reorganization to simplify the process.
There will be ample opportunity for discussion of all other issues.
Mayor Waldorf asked if it was true that all four units of government would agree to each decision
prior to implementation.
Commissioner Crowther said he feels that if a new management model is approved that the current
management needs to be asked if they would accept the new model.
Mark Chilton highlighted the issues of concern as well as the current LOG proposal.
Those issues are:
1) A lack of leadership on solid waste issues resulting from a cumbersome decision making process. Every
decision needs to go to all four elected Boards, be decided , renegotiated and frequently returned again to
the Boards. Decisions are being made by default.
2) Each of the three Boards which invested in the landfill funds have veto power which is crippling to the
process.
3) The issue of who the LOG staff is responsible to continues to be unresolved. They actually report to the
Chapel Hill Town Manager which causes Chapel Hill to have more of an influence than the other units of
Government.
4) There is a perception that these decisions do not affect Hillsborough. The reality is that Hillsborough is
actually critical to the process.
5) The tip fee is influenced by all units of government but the landfill budget can be changed by the Chapel
Hill Town officials which gives them more influence than other parties..
PROPOSAL
17
2
The new management model as proposed by the LOG would have the staff be responsible to an
eight member board made up of two elected officials from each Board. At a later time, the membership
could shift to one elected official and one citizen. Decisions would be made using majority rule with a
super-majority being required for certain decisions. The Board would govern the staff at the landfill and the
staff would operate as a department of County Government.
Mayor Waldorf expressed concern about how the citizens would hold the Board accountable for its
decisions.
There was a lengthy discussion about assuring that the newly created Board is accountable to the
citizens that they will be serving. Elected officials may need to serve on this Board indefinitely.
Chair Carey indicated that the need for this Board to address substantial debt must be resolved.
Council Member Chilton mentioned that the model being suggested by the LOG could not issue
bonds, however, it could issue Certificates of Participation or Special Revenue Bonds. One of the local
governments could use its authority to support a solid waste bond.
Council Member Franck repeated that one major concern with the current model is that there is no
avenue for citizen input.
CLARITY OF PROPOSAL.
In response to questions and comments from the participants the following information was presented.
1) Decisions about staff salary would be the responsibility of the new Board.
2) This model would create a totally independent Board
3) The Elected Boards would have to decide about funding. Currently the tip fee is the only source of
income. There could be a discussion about a municipal/county tax to generate income.
4) The issue of Board stipend would need to be decided.
5) Would this function appear on the County's audit and would it be an enterprise fund?
There was discussion about the structure of other Boards which handle solid waste in their
communities. There are three in North Carolina. The Coastal Region, Albemarle and Tricounty
Management Authority.
The super-majority vote would be required when the tipping fee is suggested to be increased for
more than 10% and when contracting for an obligation in excess of$1 million dollars.
Although the 6-2 vote could shut out one unit of government so that their concerns were not
addressed, it also would eliminate the problem of one unit of government stopping the process.
Chilton indicated that the newly formed organization could dip into reserves to pay debt but would be
more likely to turn to the elected officials for additional funding.
A discussion of participant's interests followed. Some of those interests are:
• elected officials make all of the decisions
• accountability between decisions makers and staff
• accountability between members of board to other elected boards and to citizens.
• fair treatment of residents around the landfill
• a mission statement needs to be clearly stated and highly publicized.
• a decision making process that is efficient
• a structure which empowers reaching consensus wherever possible
3 18
r Alderman Caldwell asked that the School Boards be included in future discussions of this issue. It is
important that all elected officials be a part of this process.
Council member Capowski indicated the importance of the cost being shared fairly between all units
of government.
The Durham County residents who live in Chapel Hill must be protected as well.
There was a lengthy discussion about costs being shared and decisions reflecting the financial state
of the various parties. Also, that staff maintain their current level of benefits.
This needs to be discussed in light of regional considerations. Short term fiscal decisions must not
take more weight than long term environmental, social and long range fiscal issues. The management for
the newly created structure needs to be open to new developments in technology. Economic
considerations need to be included in waste reduction planning.
The meeting broke into small-groups in order to brainstorm. The following issues were identified.
• Decision-makers need to be accountable to citizens/customers, governing board staff, as well as
individual governing boards.
• Cost needs to be fair across jurisdictions by assuring that it is reasonable to citizens and is in proportion
to other government expenses and maintains individual government budgetary soundness.
• All parties need to be included in the decision making process. The financial situation of each entity
needs to be considered.
• There will be no loss of benefits to any effected employees.
• Consensus should be the preferred option to resolve issues.
• Access to decision makers by citizens must be assured
• There needs to be a "back door" should the structure be unworkable after it is established.
• Management needs to keep up with new advances in technology
• A vision for the future needs to be maintained.
• Must be responsible to the environment
• Residents near landfill must be treated fairly.
• Health and welfare concerns of near residents must be considered
• Public private ventures need to be pursued
• Regional issues must be considered
• Develop a simple, cost effective solid waste plan.
There was discussion about the importance of the elected officials creating a mission statement
which will be used to guide this structure.
During a discussion of problems/concerns with the current proposal the following issues were
mentioned.
• Decision making process does not reflect the financial situation of all elected bodies.
• The 4 x 2 representation does not reflect the approximate amount of waste generated by the entities.
• Carrboro does not want Chapel Hill to have more power in any area that affects Carrboro's budget
• It is important that a level playing field be created so that policy is created because it is the best idea
and not because it is in one entities best interest.
• The influence could be said to be weighted toward the board members of the smallest town. This would
be a rate setting board which tends to give members a great deal of influence in smaller communities.
• An additional member could be added to the board. This member would Chair the board and vote only
in the event of a tie.
19
4
The financial issue could be divided into the tipping fee vs. long range issues such as the Greene tract
and ownership of the landfill.
• Another option is to have only citizens on the Board
• Some decisions could be made by the four Boards.
• This could be an advisory board which was accountable to the Board of County Commissioners
The following options were open for consideration.
1. Accept the option as presented by the L.O.G
2. Accept the option as presented by the L.O.G. and add one additional member who would vote only to
break a tie.
3. Establish consensus and when that was not possible use a weighted vote
4. Votes weighted according to the amount of waste generated
5. Appoint citizens to serve on the Board
6. Have the Board of County Commissioners serve as the Board
7. Send large decisions to the elected Boards with other decisions being made by the new Board
8. Have an advisory board which reports to the Board of County Commissioners
There was a lengthy discussion on which of these options would be the most effective way to govern
the landfill. Each unit of Government discussed the issue among themselves and reported as follows.
Mayor Johnson, Town of Hillsborough, stated that Hillsborough has already passed a Resolution
requesting that the Board of Commissioners take over the landfill operations. If that option is not
implemented, Hillsborough will consider having their solid waste removed from the county.
Commissioner Crowther stated that the Board of Commissioners favored the creation of a
Department of County Government to oversee operation of the landfill along with an Advisory Board which
made recommendations to the Commissioners.
Mayor Waldorf indicated that Chapel Hill did not have a consensus. Five Council members favored
the L.O.G. proposal as modified to be like the Board of Health with a 9th member added. She and Pat
Evans had questions about the County having significant control over the Town of Chapel Hill's budget as
well as the County's ability to balance the cost and benefits of rural vs urban solid waste programs.
Mayor Nelson indicated that the Town of Carrboro did not reach consensus. They were split among
several of the options.
It was decided to hold another Assembly of Governments meeting to allow further discussion prior to
resolving this issue. The next meeting of the Assembly of Governments was not officially scheduled.
However, the date of October 29, 1996 will be considered.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker
20
APPROVED 12/2/96
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
SOLID WASTE SUMMIT If
November 13, 1996
MINUTES
The meeting was convened by Chair Carey, Jr. He welcomed the elected
officials and announced that the Economic Development Center's State of the
Economy breakfast would be held in the morning at the Friday Center.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses
Carey, Jr., and members William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, and
Don Willhoit.
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rosemary
Waldorf, and members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joseph Capowski, Mark Chilton,
Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Edith Wiggins and Lee Pavao.
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRESENT: Mayor Michael Nelson, and
members Hank Anderson, Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffee and Alex
Zaffon.
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN ABSENT: Hilliard Caldwell
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Mayor Horace Johnson
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners
Kenneth Chavious, Evelyn Lloyd, Catherine Martin, Richard Simpson and Remus
Smith.
The meeting was turned over to Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center.
He stated that the intention for this meeting was to identify a preferred management
model for solid waste management in Orange County. He explained the agenda and
asked for additions and changes.
The options for management structure which were created at the September 30th
Assembly of Governments' meeting are listed below:
• Orange County Government would control the budget and set policy with the help
of an Advisory Panel
• Orange County Government would control the budget with the help of an
independent policy and decision making panel.
• A Board independent of County Government would set both budget and policy
Suggestions from the September 30th Assembly of Government's meeting for
how the policy and/or decision making Board would be structured are listed below:
• Four units of government would each have two members
• Four units of government would each have two members with one additional
member whose appointment would rotate between Orange County and Chapel Hill
• Four units of government would each have two members with one additional
member whose appointment would rotate between Orange County and Chapel Hill.
The rotating member would vote only to break a tie vote.
2 21
• No new management structure until neighbors' concerns are resolved fairly and
commitments are made to 50% reduction in waste.
The following needs were identified at the last Assembly of Government
meeting:
• an effective decision making structure for solid waste issues
• provisions for waste disposal after the current landfill closes
• units of government need to have a role in decision making which is commensurate
with the fiscal impact of the decision on each jurisdiction
• clear accountability of decision makers to each of the local jurisdictions
• clear accountability of decision makers to citizens
• neighbors of new landfill taken seriously; concerns resolved fairly
• implementation of steps toward 50% reduction in waste generated
• ongoing working relationship among the jurisdictions
• the ability to raise funds and to incur substantial debt
• accountability of staff to the waste decision makers
• balance short term fiscal impacts and long term environmental, social and fiscal
impacts
• preserving employee benefits for staff
• keep up with changes in technology
• coordinate regionally
• elected officials have to be held accountable
Commissioner Gordon felt that elected officials need to be held accountable for
decisions of this scope.
Council member Brown suggested that there might be another way to assure
the accountability of the elected officials other than to have them be on the Board
created to make decisions about solid waste.
Andy Sachs suggested that each Board give a status report on where they are
as a Board.
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL:
Council Member Andresen stated that the Council met to discuss options and
voted to support Option 2 in Cal Horton's October 28th letter. That option would
support County Government ownership with a policy making board. The powers of the
policy making board are listed in the October 28th letter which is incorporated herein by
reference.
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN:
Mike Nelson stated that Carrboro has reached consensus regarding the County
having control of solid waste management. However, they have interests which he
reviewed. Those interests are listed and explained in a document titled "A Proposal For
County Responsibility for Solid Waste Management". That document is incorporated
herein by reference and is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3 22
Chair Carey indicated that the Board of Commissioners have not taken formal
action, however, they have reached consensus on the management structure they
prefer. That structure would call for County control of both the budget and policy with
the help of an advisory board.
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Mayor Horace Johnson indicated that the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
has voted to approve the County having ownership and management of the landfill.
Hillsborough would like to have a 20 year contract with a 5 year renewable clause.
They are also committed to the neighbors being treated fairly.
Commissioner Willhoit referred to the tiered decision making process which he
felt would be a bridge between the concepts being presented. That approach would be
as follows:
• Policy, Budget, Solid Waste Management (SWM) maintenance plans developed by
one Board. "SWM Council'
• County adopts, selects and purchases sites.
• Jurisdictions comment within 30 days.
• Increases >5% (unless debt service) approved by jurisdictions.
• Local issues left to local jurisdictions.
This approach would call for the County to make decisions unless the issue in
question was one that called for another level of decision making. The Board of County
Commissioners would make decisions with the advice of a Solid Waste Council. Sign
off by the individual Boards would be required for increases of more than five (5%) per
cent. The incurring of debt would require an interlocal agreement. The County would
take care of solid waste through a contractual agreement with the other Governments.
Those units of government could make other arrangements if they so chose.
Commission Crowther supported the proposal mentioned by Commissioner
Willhoit.
Council Member Brown repeated that the Town Council is not willing to give up
its decision making authority.
Council member Chilton pointed out that although it would be legal for local
governments to make other arrangements for their solid waste, it would not be prudent.
If the County is responsible for the disposal of solid waste they are going to need to
have the cooperation of the other elected boards.
Alderman Gist asked if language could be put into an interlocal agreement that
would protect the neighbors. Alderman Bryan assured the group that the neighbors
could be protected in that way.
Council member Chilton asked Commissioner Willhoit to elaborate on the tiered
approach to decision making. Commissioner Willhoit replied that the elected officials
would have to decide which issues would go into the tiers.
4 23
Council member Andresen felt that it was important to remember that the
County cannot enter into a process for dealing with solid waste until there is an
agreement that the waste is going to be managed by one entity.
Alderman Zaffron stated that Carrboro's decision is based on the relationship
between the County and Carrboro being contractual. He felt that Commissioner
Willhoit's proposal for the interlocal agreement does not address Carrboro's concerns.
He did not envision this as a long term interlocal agreement but rather as a contractual
agreement.
Council member Andresen also felt that a contract would make it easier for an
elected body to opt out of the agreement.
Commissioner Gordon commented that one of the major problems is that all
four governments have to agree in order for the process to move forward. That
agreement has not been forthcoming. To move at least one step forward, she asked if
the elected officials would consider having all four units of government being a part of
the decision making process with only three units being required to make a decision.
The responsibilities of the LOG could be put into written form. She also suggested that
Duke be contacted to request their involvement in this process.
Alderman Gist mentioned that the mission, goals and responsibilities of the LOG
have been spelled out and that information is available.
Council member Franck commented that setting recycling goals and having
input on the tip fee was important to him.
Mayor Nelson said he wanted there to be local control of collection issues.
Council member Chilton mentioned that he did not want to give up all of the
control of the tip fee.
Council member Evans wanted to be assured that advances in the area of
waste disposal would be considered.
Alderman Bryan suggested that a smaller grpup be formed consisting of
representatives of each unit of government. This group could be asked to respond to
both Commissioner Gordon's proposal and Commissioner Willhoit's proposal.
Chair Carey suggested that the staff and attorney for each unit of government
be requested to work together and draft a solid waste management plan and an
interlocal agreement.
Several members of the group agreed with this suggestion but others thought
such a step would be premature.
The meeting was divided into small groups to discuss who should make
decisions using a tiered model: The Jurisdictions, The County, or the SWM Council
(Board). The outcomes of those decisions are listed below:
5
24
GROUP ONE
JURISDICTIONS COUNTY BOARD
(Large Decisions) (Medium Decisions) (Small Decisions)
• Decisions on policies by • Issue Government • Incorporate Mission
3 out of 4 governing Bonds with Interior-a[ Statement & Goals
bodies Agreement (already developed)
• Siting Landfill • Administrator(CAO) • Develop Policies
accountable to County
Manager and Board
• Integrated Solid Waste • make small decisions
Management Plan & (to be defined
changes to the plan
• Tipping Fees Increases
(19)
GROUP TWO
JURISDICTIONS COUNTY COUNCIL
• Approve SWMP (3 of 4) • Staff: Co. Manager with • Policy & Programs
recom. from Council
• Tip Fee over 5% (4) • Budget with rec. from • Propose amendments
council to SWMP
• Dec. to incur debt (4) • Tip Fee less than 5% • decision to incur debt
• disposition of current • issue bonds, acquire
assets property with recom.
from council
• • landfill siting
GROUP THREE
JURISDICTIONS COUNTY BOARD
• Appoint board members • appoint director& staff • *citizens
• *citizens . administration/operation • services & programs
• tip fee over 5% • bonds
• legal services
• *citizens
budget
*Note: Citizens can petition to all three tiers
GROUP FOUR
JURISDICTIONS COUNTY BOARD
• Solid Waste . tip fee (small) • allocation with in
Management Plan budget
(SWMP)
• Disposal Method (i.e. in • property acquisition • hire/fire solid waste
county vs. Out of Administrator(CAO)
county, land fill siting)
• 6
25
• debt • budget categories
• compensation •
• tip fee (lg) •
• Interlocal agreement •
GROUP FIVE
JURISDICTIONS COUNTY BOARD
• collection decisions • final budget approval • keeps up w/technology
• enter into contracts or . debt issuance (not • recommends on solid
interlocal agreements General Obligation waste services/policy
bonds)
• transfer assets • ownership and • hears from citizens
acquisition of
land/facilities
• Large Tip Fee • user tax authority
increases (over 5% or
fixed amount{cpi})
• hears from citizens . authority to negotiate
land with neighboring
jurisdiction or
landowner
• Methods to reduce • administration
volume (unit based
pricing vs. Collection
bans)
• hears from citizens
• Smaller tip fees
The options above were reviewed. It was decided to have a maximum of two
elected members of each Board, along with whatever staff they choose, meet to
review these suggestions. They will draft a preferred management model for solid
waste management in Orange County to be presented to the elected boards. Chapel
Hill Town Manager Cal Horton will convene the meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular
meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners will be held on Tuesday,
November 19, 1996 at the OWASA Community Meeting Room, Jones Ferry Road,
Carrboro, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
L%�fTJ C,1
1
APPROVED FEBRUARY 18. 1997 26
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BI-MONTHLY WORK SESSION
JANUARY 16, 1997
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, January 16, 1997
in the meeting room of the Government Services Center at 7:30 p.m. in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William L. Crowther and Commissioners Margaret
W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod
Visser and Albert Kittrell and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE N THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S QFFICE. ALL RECORDING TAPES OF THE
MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR FIVE j5j YEARS.
Chair Crowther welcomed everyone to the meeting. The agenda listed six items as stated below:
1. Solid Waste Management
2. Report on the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement Process
3. Development Impact Assessment Model
4. Capital Needs Advisory Task Force Appointments
5. Proclamation for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Orange County
6. Review and approval of Topics for Future Work Sessions
F SOLD WASTE MANAGEMENT
This item was presented so the County Commissioners could review the status of several
major solid waste management issues, and provide direction to staff on how to proceed.
John Link made reference to the Landfill Reorganization process and said that there is a
general consensus that a procedure needs to be developed to address compensation issues and ensure
communication with those who live in the area of the proposed landfill. The next step would then be to site
the landfill and to then establish the new organizational management system. There was also general
agreement to have Orange County be in charge of the waste disposal system in the future.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he is against a management plan which would give some
other government entity the power to hire and fire.
Chair Crowther indicated that one of the functions for a new constituted board could be
advisory for hiring and firing.
John Link noted that he would still make the final decision for hiring and firing of personnel.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that it may be best to leave the solid waste division with Chapel
Hill and let them assume responsibility for disposal of solid waste.
Commissioner Halkiotis noted that Hillsborough is studying privatization of trash collection
which may be a concern because the County could not require the collector to use the County's landfill.
Commissioner Gordon said that Carrboro had said that they want all the present employees to
keep all their benefits that they now have being employed by Chapel Hill . The only difference is that Chapel
Hill provides a contribution to 401 K.
27
2
Commissioner Carey feels that if agreement could be reached on the responsibility issue that
they could move the integrated plan along. Key decisions need to be made to move the process along.
John Link said that running a landfill has fixed costs and when waste is reduced, the tipping
fees must increase to take care of that fixed cost.
Commissioner Gordon said that they need to figure out that when the tonnage goes down, it is
a financial advantage.
There was a consensus that the County Commissioners are committed to waste reduction.
Wilbert McAdoo reported that the convenience centers are operating efficiently. The people
in the northern part of the county prefer the convenience centers while people in the center and southern part
of Orange County like the curbside collection.
The Board discussed the financing options and it was decided to go with the "Pay-as-you-
throw Fees" for everything except recycables. This would be staying with the same systems that are in
place.
L__�
2. REPORT ON THE WATER AND SEWER BOUNDARY AGREEMENT PROCESS
County Engineer Paul Thames said that for nearly three years, the Water and Sewer
Boundary Task Force has been working to develop a water and sewer utility service area boundary
agreement. The purpose of this agreement has been to: (1) develop a map showing the limits of the service
areas of the various water and sewer utilities; (2) address local land use planning concerns related to the
location and extension of water and sewer utilities; (3) provide a framework for the role of various local
governments and utility providers in dealing with the failure of on-site private and community utilities; and (4)
to address equity issues related to the expenditure of public funds for utility expansion to serve essential
public facilities, public health situations, economic development, etc.
Paul Thames said that the equity issues have been the most difficult to achieve consensus.
At the last meeting, they asked that the attorneys review a draft framework for resolving those equity issues.
Moses Carey, member of this Task Force, said that they are at the point of drawing boundary
lines which is something he fully supports doing. He feels that the land use and equity issues can be
addressed through the Joint Planning Agreement.
The Board discussed the value of drawing the boundary lines and all County Commissioners
except Commissioner Brown said that they feel this would be of some value. They agreed that there are still
some equity issues with replacing failing systems and making improvements for new systems that need to be
addressed.
3- DEVELOPMENT IMPAQT ASSESSMENT MODEL
The Board received a report from Planning Director Marvin Collins on a Development Impact
Assessment Model. They are presently doing a fiscal impact analysis on subdivision of 10 or more lots. This
new Assessment Model would give them additional information on impacts from traffic and increased student
population. He made reference to a Development impact Handbook and said that this process is more
comprehensive based on factors which are basically standards. He suggested that he work with Ted
Abernathy and the two school systems to come up with standards which he would bring back to the Board
for their input and approval. These standards would then be reviewed on an annual basis. This is a written
goal which has been adopted by the Board. The timeline indicates that he will come back to them in June
with standards for their consideration.
A. CAPITA L NEEDS ADVISORY TASK FORCE, APPOINTMENTS
The Board appointed the following people to this Task Force:
Robert Bateman Orange County Schools
Susan Dovenbarger Orange County Schools
1 28
APPROVED JUNE 2, 1997
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
APRIL 17, 1997
MINUTES
The regularly scheduled Assembly of Governments meeting was held on Thursday, April
17, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. at the OWASA Community meeting room, Jones Ferry Road,
Carrboro, North Carolina.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William
Crowther and members Stephen Halkiotis, Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice Gordon
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
and members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joseph Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat
Evans, Lee Pavao, Edith Wiggins and Richard Franck.
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRESENT: Mayor Mike Nelson and members
Hank Anderson, Jay Bryan, Hilliard Caldwell, Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffie and Alex
Zaffron.
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Horace Johnson.
Chair Crowther convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed the
assembled elected officials.
SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S FUTURE TASK FORCE - UPDATE- Council
member Joyce Brown reported on the progress that this Task Forces is making. She
mentioned that they have recently divided into geographic committees and that the
members have an extraordinary level of interest and commitment. They are currently
planning four(4) community meetings as well as developing a comprehensive list of
resources. Also a survey has been developed which will run in three local newspapers
introducing the Task Force and what they are doing. At the present time they are
meeting two times a month and have scheduled speakers such as Fleming Bell with the
Institute of Government. Attendance at these meetings is exceptional with upwards of
85-90% attendance at each meeting.
COOPERATIVE PROJECTS - UPDATES ON SUCCESSES: Chair Crowther asked for
discussion and comment on recent successful cooperative projects.
Hargraves Gymnasium: This project, which was the result of cooperation between
Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, has been a great success. The ground
was recently broken for this gymnasium.
Chanel Hill/Chatham County: Mayor Waldorf reported that a meeting between the Town
and the County of Chatham is scheduled. This is the culmination of almost a year of
relationship building. In March they met to discuss transportation issues as well as the
process for continuing communication. Chatham County wants Chapel Hill to contract
for bus service into Chatham. Information on this planning process will be sent to all
2 29
..
elected officials. Chatham County officials have suggested forming an interlocal work
group, consisting of themselves, Chapel Hill, Orange County, and Carrboro. Chatham &
Chapel Hill will meet again on May 6th to discuss this further.
Alderman Gist suggested that since many of UNC's staff live in Chatham it would make
sense for the University to be involved in these discussions. Mayor Waldorf agreed to
follow through on this.
Northwest Transition Area: Alderman Bryan mentioned that on Saturday, May 31st
Carrboro, Chapel Hill & Orange County will meet to discuss the Northwest Transition
area.
Land Use Council: Commissioner Gordon reported that each unit of government has
recommended members to serve on this Council, with the exception of the Chapel Hill
Carrboro Schools System. This group would work on recommending a model for
cooperation among the units of government. It might discuss the Meadowmont school
site upon request.
Council member Capowski asked for an update on the status of discussion
regarding Meadowmont and the possibility of its having a school site.
Town Manager Horton indicated that they have reviewed the site with the School
Board and school administrators are now reviewing it. The initial review is favorable.
The land was conveyed by Fee Simple Title and the Special Use Permit conditions
would be set by the Town Council.
Commissioner Halkiotis voiced his concern about using the bottom area for the
playing fields. Those areas are frequently flooded and do not make good playing fields
unless they are filled-in prior to construction. He offered the schools the services of the
County Engineer to help determine the suitability of this land for playing fields.
Martin Marietta Ag-areaate:
Alderman Gist reported that Martin Marietta Aggregate and its neighbors have
reached a general agreement. They will meet soon to work out the details of the
agreement.
Hillsborough Park & Native American Village: Mayor Johnson reported Hillsborough
and Orange County have been working together on this project. Plans are moving
ahead and within the near future there will be both a park and a Native American Village
on this site.
Soccer Fields: Mayor Johnson reported that EuroSport is interested in donating several
soccer fields and asked that Orange County continue to discuss the possibility of
working with Hillsborough on this project.
Greater Triangle Regional World Class Conference This conference is scheduled for
December 17, 1997. All elected officials are requested to put this on their calendars.
COOPERATIVE PROJECTS - UPDATES ON AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
3 30
Chair Crowther mentioned that the issue of a gymnasium at Southern Village is an
example of a breakdown in communication.
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the request for this gymnasium was received by
the Commissioners on February 18 and was discussed at their March 5th meeting. She
indicated that a copy of that section of the minutes would be distributed to all elected
officials.
Councilmember Andresen suggested a coordinated and cooperative approach to
recreational planning for the county as a whole.
County Manager Link mentioned that the first draft of a document entitled "Cooperative
Recreational Planning would soon be distributed to each unit of government for their
review and comments.
UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES: Chair Crowther indicated that the current draft
of the "Interlocal Agreement Concerning Solid Waste Management Matters" would be
reviewed and discussed.
Mayor Nelson commented that he would suggest using one-third of the Greene
Tract as a park and another third for housing, preferably low income. The final portion
of the tract would be sold with the proceeds being put into a trust.
Alderman Anderson asked about the possibility that a school would be built on
this land. Mayor Nelson replied that there has been no communication from the school
system indicating that they would like to have that land for a school site.
Councilmember Brown requested that the preservation of this tract of land be
fully considered. She felt that the people of Chapel Hill have indicated a strong
preference for preserving open space. Mayor Nelson suggested that one option to
consider could be selling the land to the Nature Conservancy.
Alderman Zaffron asked if there were suggestions regarding the money that
would be generated which would go into the general Landfill fund. Also, how would the
remaining land be governed.
Alderman Hank Anderson mentioned that the recreation study has shown a need
for a district park of at least 100 acres. This would be a very good location for such a
park.
Mayor Waldorf mentioned that this tract could be set aside for a school/park
facility with the final decision being made at some future time.
Commissioner Gordon agreed. However, she pointed out that the land is an
asset of the landfill and she felt that there had been agreement that the revenues from
this land would be used to offset the cost of the landfill.
4 31
Councilmember Chilton stated that he did not believe that the revenue from the
Greene Tract should remain in the landfill fund. It has been discussed and there may be
a legal requirement to do so, however, he disagrees with that interpretation.
Councilmember Andresen asked if the school system was interested in the site
for a school?
Chair Crowther suggested that he and the Mayors meet and craft a final
resolution for consideration by each unit of government.
Mayor Waldorf mentioned that each of the Boards could also discuss what to do
with this tract of land prior to receiving the resolution.
Councilmember Brown stated that she preferred that the entire group discuss
and craft the resolution.
Mayor Waldorf commented that in any case each unit of government would need
to discuss this issue separately.
Alderman Zaffron suggested that the proposal in its current form be discussed by
each unit of government. Then comments could be forwarded for discussion at the
Mayor's meeting.
Commissioner Carey requested that it be determined if, in fact, the Greene Tract
is legally an asset of the Landfill. If it is, a decision would need to be made that it
would not be an asset of the fund before considering other options.
B. ADJACENT LANDOWNERS MEETING: Alderman Gist mentioned that the
neighbors need to be treated fairly. She felt that the concept that "someone has to
sacrifice for the good of the whole" is not necessarily valid. She requested that the
decision about compensation be made objectively without the assumption that someone
was going to have to sacrifice. There will be a meeting with representatives of the LOG
and adjacent landowner on June 2nd. This meeting will be facilitated by Andy Sachs of
the Dispute Settlement Center. She mentioned that it was important that the outcome of
this meeting be respected by the individual units of government.
C. SITE SELECTION: Chair Crowther mentioned that the public hearing
requirements for siting a new solid waste facility have been fulfilled.
Commissioner Carey mentioned that the LOG and three of four units of
government have already decided which site to select.
Councilmember Chilton mentioned that this was a preliminary agreement only,
and there remain legal questions to be answered.
Alderman Anderson commented that there continue to be unresolved issues,
including the structure of the reorganized L.O.G.. He mentioned that he personally is
beginning to have second thoughts about where to site this landfill.
5 32
In response to a questions, Mayor Waldorf mentioned that July 1st has been
mentioned as a possible date for a final decision to be made.
D. REORGANIZATION: Mayor Waldorf reported that these meetings got off to a
good start with Mayor Nelson providing a list of ideas on which consensus had already
been reached. They intend to meet one final time to make additional revisions prior to
sending the reorganization recommendation to the elected officials for discussion and
action. There were comments, questions and discussion as follows:
• In order for the landfill to be financially stable it must be a requirement that
units of government use landfill.
• No taxes will be levied for a landfill, however, there could be a fee for service
to the towns which could come from the General Fund.
• Reduction in the amount of solid waste going to the landfill will eventually
cause increases in tipping fees because of a decrease in revenues.
• Chapel Hill officials have a commitment to assuring that their constituents do
not pay twice for solid waste disposal by paying for their own disposal as well
as a portion of Orange County's.
• The draft agreement indicated that the administrative costs of the system can
be charged back to the system.
• After adoption of the new plan, the benefits and liabilities will belong to the
County. For example, if it is discovered, after the transfer that something
illegal was occurring prior to the transfer, the towns will look first to the
County to solve the problem. It would be possible at that time that the EPA
would determine that all units of government continue to bear responsibility.
• Operating the landfill would be the responsibility of the County. Each unit of
government would be required to use the landfill.
In response to a question, Bob Jessup, the attorney who is working with the
L.O.G. indicated that if an environmental disaster was discovered to have existed prior
to the transfer the County would be responsible for using system revenue only. If a
problem needs to be fixed it would be possible to raise money or to finance and recover
the debt service. EPA would also look to the parties who disposed of that waste in the
landfill. He also pointed out that the agreement does not transfer the Greene Tract to
the County, nor does it address the future of the Greene Tract.
In response to a question regarding the cost of recycling Mr. Jessup indicated
that Article 5.8 discusses Other Fees , how they would be raised, and what the
procedure would be if the County recommended a change and the proposed Solid
Waste Commission rejected that recommendation.
The possibility of using a district tax was mentioned.
It was also suggested that it is not appropriate to use an Interlocal Agreement to
determine that General Tax Funds would not be used for collection in non-urban areas.
That would be unnecessarily limiting the County.
Geoff Gledhill indicated that an agreement that limits the county's ability to use
tax revenue is not legally binding and should not be in this agreement.
6 32a
Commissioner Gordon requested clarification of section 7.02 Withdrawal of a
Party. Mr. Jessup indicated that although a party could withdraw from the agreement,
they would still be required to deliver their solid waste to the landfill.
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE PLAN: Councilmember Franck reported that the
comments of each unit of government were received and reviewed. The solid waste
staff has been charged with developing the framework of this plan. It will be presented
to the Landfill Owners Group on May 8th for discussion and recommended changes.
The approved draft will be presented at Public Hearing on May 22nd. On May 28th the
Landfill Owners Group will meet and hopefully approve the Integrated Solid Waste Plan
which will then be forwarded to each unit of government for approval. The plan will
indicate various services as well as suggested costs for those services. The LOG has
recently met to review the 1997-1998 fiscal year.
Commission Gordon asked if this is the same Solid Waste Plan that the State is
requiring to be forwarded to them. Councilmember Franck indicated that they have
decided that it will be the same plan.
Commissioner Gordon also mentioned that she did not believe that there was
agreement on the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and asked that it not be included in
the plan. She requested additional information on this type of facility.
Councilmember Franck mentioned that when the LOG makes its
recommendations there will be only one month to adopt the plan in order to meet the
State's requirements. All units need to be able to approve the plan within the next
month in order to meet the July 1 st deadline.
Councilmember Chilton indicated that the agreement says that the County
should operate consistent with the adopted plan. The county will need to adhere to the
agreement.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. The next Assembly
of Government meeting will be held on September 25, 1997 at the Homestead
Community Center, Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
William L. Crowther, Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
["J"ir ZA F T K. 33
1 . MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 WORKSESSION ON SOLID WASTE
4 JUNE 5, 1997
5
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for the purpose of holding a work session
8 on solid waste matters on June 5, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of the Government
9 Services Building in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
0
1 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William L. Crowther, and Commissioners
2 Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis and Margaret Brown.
3
4 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr.
5
6 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
7
8 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Assistant County
9 Manager Rod Visser, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy
0 Baker.
1
2 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: Assistant County Manager Rod Visser
3 reported that the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) unanimously recommended to the governing
4 boards that they adopt a framework that will satisfy the need to provide a solid waste plan to the
5 State by July 1, 1997. It is also the framework for the Integrated Solid Waste Study. In many
6 ways this plan is similar to the previous drafts which include segments on waste prevention,
7 collection, and processing. The LOG has requested that each of the Boards review, discuss and
8 adopt this plan prior to July 1, 1997, so that it can be sent to the State by the deadline.
9
0 The following questions, comments and suggestions were made during the ensuing
1 conversation.
2
3 • Disposal is a separate issue apart from this plan and will be handled subsequently. The
4 current disposal plan will be submitted with this Plan. When that site has reached capacity,
5 then a new plan will be established.
6 • Council member Franck was commended for the leadership he has displayed during this
7 process.
8 • The LOG deferred discussion of the composting facility until a later time. There are regional
9 efforts under way and the Board of Commissioners may want to participate in them.
0 . Construction/demolition debris has been added to the revised draft of this plan.
1 • The figures for the breakdown of reduction by jurisdiction has not been captured. The 37%
2 reduction of waste from 1991-92 is countywide and would be difficult to capture by jurisdiction
3 due to the fact that there is only one disposal facility.
4 • The 37% reduction is a recalculated figure based on 1991-92 figures. In years past Orange
5 County has used 1988-89 as the base year. The State has notified us that they are using
6 1991-92 so the decision was made to use that year also.
DRAFT 34
1 The State has been figuring coal ash in the reduction into this figure. If coal ash ceased to be
2 recycled they would add it into our calculations regardless of where it was landfilled.
3 There is currently no penalty for not reaching the State's goal by the year 2006, however,
4 eventually they will implement penalties. In any case, they would not hold Orange County to its
5 higher goal of 66% reduction by 2006.
6 • The cost to reach the State of 40% reduction would be 1.3 million dollars.
7 • The additional cost to reach Orange County's goal of 61% would be an additional 2 million
8 dollars plus $600,000 per year. This figure includes all components of the plan. A processing
9 facility would be built using private funds and everyone who used the facility would pay a
0 tipping fee.
1 • The financing for the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) could be tailored to an agreement
2 crafted by the Board of Commissioners. For example, Charlotte has established a plan that
3 splits the revenue.
4 • Local government in Charlotte actually constructed the MRF facility, bought the equipment and
5 purchased the land. They then hired a company to run the facility. Another method of
6 financing would be for a private facility to pay for the construction of the building and run the
7 facility for a period of 10 years. Then they could deed the facility to the County and charge a
8 tipping fee.
9 • Using a MRF to process construction waste is a possibility, however, it would require different
0 equipment.
1 • The estimated cost of$775,000 per year is based upon an estimate of 25,000 tons at $30.00
2 per ton.
3 • If a MRF were constructed in Orange County, a living wage would be paid to the employees.
4 This is very hard work in difficult surroundings and Orange County would need to assure that
5 the employees were treated well. Air quality would also have to be protected.
6 • The estimated salary for these employees would be between $7.50 and $8.00 per hour.
7 • The MRF facilities which have the sorting tables in protected areas create a much more
8 employee friendly environment and could be designed into a local facility.
9 . The current recycling budget for all of Orange County is 1.272 million dollars. This funds all
0 programs (curb side pickup, household hazardous waste collection, urban collection, and
1 multifamily collection). The difference between that amount and the 2 million dollar projected
2 increase would be to provide collection to the currently unserved commercial sector. This
3 would provide universal service.
4 • The tipping fee will not be sufficient to fully fund the proposed program. The current tip fee of
5 $35.00 would need to be increased an additional $20.00 to fund the entire program. One of
6 the major challenges faced by local government will be how to raise this additional money.
7 • Alamance County passed the legislation to ban all recyclables at the landfill, however, they did
8 not accept responsibility for providing alternatives to disposal of those recyclables. They also
9 have a high tolerance for overlooking recyclables being disposed of in the landfill.
0 • The issue of raising the 2 million dollars is addressed in the proposed plan by indicating that
1 those methods need to be developed. One concept for funding would be a government
2 recycling fee.
3 Local units of government who commit to this framework are not committing their governments
4 to any particular method of payment.
5 The framework is based on achieving solid waste goals that the jurisdictions and the LOG have
6 already set.
DRAFT 35
1 When the issue of how to fund this effort is discussed, staff will provide several options to be y
2 discussed.
3 The State is requiring this plan, however, there will not be significant consequences for not
4 reaching those goals in the time frame indicated
5 If several counties joined in the effort to finance a MRF and then committed to using the facility
6 it would be less expensive for both units of government.
7 If Orange County committed to building a MRF there would be very little difference for the
8 citizen except that they would be able to recycle more items for pickup. We are currently
9 limited by the number of sections each truck has for sorting. The MRF would have all sorting
0 done at the facility.
1 • It is yet to be decided who would own the trucks. The LOG members have discussed leaving
2 residential as it is being handled now and then provide collection themselves to the commercial
3 sites.
4 • The cost of additions and expansions on page 25 of the Solid Waste Management Plan were
5 reviewed and discussed.
6 • Having deposits on bottles, if it were instituted by the Legislature, would add up very soon.
7 However, the bottle deposit requirement would have to be statewide in order to be effective.
8 • Endorsing this proposed plan would be an endorsement for rural curbside pickup where that
9 would be feasible. That feasibility would be determined by analyzing the housing patterns and
0 transportation routes. It is assumed that the convenience centers will continue to be staffed.
1 • It is important to analyze the expansion so that there is clarity about the point of diminishing
2 returns. It would not be feasible to recycle at each individual home.
3
4 There was no action taken on adoption of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.
5 There will be further discussion at either the next regular Board of Commissioners meeting on
6 June 30th or at one of the earlier budget worksessions.
7
8 SOLID WASTE REORGANIZATION: John Link mentioned that the Reorganization Work Group
9 will meet at the end of the month to discuss reorganization in light of the comments made at this
0 meeting. The following comments, suggestions and questions were presented:
1
2 Chapel Hill currently manages the landfill operations as an enterprise fund which is held
3 separate from the General Fund. The Town Manager has been responsible for managing the
4 collection and the Town of Chapel Hill has funded part of his salary for that purpose. Last July
5 they created a new department and removed the responsibility for garbage collection from the
6 Manager's Office. This has always been a debt of the Town but it has been held separately.
7 • All revenues come from tipping fees, interest on reserve funds, or revenues from recyclables.
8 • There are four Reserve Funds which have the following balances: Acquisition & Construction -
9 $830,550; 2) Reserve for Eubanks Construction $1.4 Million. This will be spent this year for a
0 new cell; 3) Equipment Replacement - $417,000, and 4) Undesignated or Contingency Fund -
1 $568,000.
2 • The Town of Chapel Hill owns the operations facility and UNC owns the property. At some
3 point in the future the location will probably change. Then Chapel Hill would pay their portion
4 of the transfer. It will continue to be an enterprise fund.
5 • The equipment is worth between 2 and 2 /12 Million dollars
6 • The Town of Chapel Hill's Council is primarily involved in this through the budget process.
DRAFT 36
1 The percentages of waste generated between governments is Carrboro 6.5%, Hillsborough
2 3.5%, Orange County 12%, and Chapel Hill 21%. The remainder is generated by UNC and
3 private haulers.
4 The current recommendation is that the Greene Track be dealt with separately and not as a
5 part of this reorganization plan. It was paid for using landfill funds but it is actually owned by
6 the three jurisdictions.
7 An equipment maintenance facility has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners
8 for the Johnson tract.
9 In response to a question about the significance of having the right of way between the Neville
0 property and the Greene Tract it was pointed out that access needs to be through the landfill.
1 That request is currently being considered.
2 • The Wilson Tract is used as a buffer.
3 • A MRF could be funded through a General Obligation Bond, however, it is more likely that a
4 Special Obligation Bond would be used. However all parties would pay for their share. Each
5 jurisdiction using the facility would pay an availability fee. It would not be incurred as a County
6 debt. It would be an Enterprise Fund and would be the result of an Interlocal Agreement.
7 • If a Special Obligation Bond were established it would be charged against Orange County's
8 limit of 8% indebtedness.
9 • If Orange County does take over the liabilities of the Landfill, they would need to be assured
0 that they could charge a large enough tipping fee to cover the cost. It is not the County's
1 responsibility to pay for this out of taxes.
2 • There is concern that the Greene Tract, which is the best asset of the landfill, is being severed
3 from the landfill.
4 • Article 5.12 addresses the concerns related to guarantees that the operating unit of
5 government will not have to finance any costs out of their operating budget. This Article
6 provides for the ability to set fees to cover all costs, both those known now and unexpected or
7 catastrophic environmental costs.
8 • If the Operating Unit df Government determined that an amount of money was needed to
9 purchase equipment, or for some other needed capital expenditure, and the other governments
0 did not agree, cost cutting measures would be instituted and services would be cut back.
1 Everyone benefits and /or suffers consequences equally in the provisions of this plan.
2 • The Northwest Small Area Group's most recent discussion for the Eubanks Road area called
3 for the Greene Tract to have housing, including multifamily, a large park and a core area of
4 businesses and small shops. It also called for a transportation corridor leading from Eubanks
5 to the downtown area. An employment campus of small commercial uses was also discussed.
6 They have halted their discussion pending a decision on the Greene Tract and/or the new
7 landfill.
8 There are members of the Board of Commissioners who are concerned about the future of the
9 Greene Tract and are not satisfied with the financial implications of severing it from the landfill.
0
1 CLOSED SESSION Personnel Matter. Authority: 9.S. Section 143-318.11(a)(
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to go
4 into Closed Session:
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
DRAFT �k��-�°."
37
1 John Link clarified that if the $11.8 Million Dollar bond is approved, it would more than likely
2 include the additional $3 million. This project should be discussed and decided upon in the near
3 future because it is currently in the planning stage.
4
5 Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that his concern was that the integrity of the bond process
6 be preserved by keeping the $3 million separate from the $11.8 million.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
0 The County Capital Project Ordinances were reviewed and discussed. John Link
1 mentioned that the $500,000 for the Skill Development Center reflects anticipated private
2 placement. It is not pay-as-you go funds. One of the potential options in terms of how the public
3 building bond proceeds would be used would have a part of the proceeds going toward the Skill
4 Development Center. In either case, the $500,000 is not pay as you go funds.
5
6 Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the $300,000 for emergency preparedness. Rod
7 Visser mentioned that this amount results from the discussion regarding installing permanent
8 generators at two high schools. He pointed out that there were lower end options which would cost
9 around $25,000 for each school. It was suggested that county staff work with the school staff and
0 return several, lower-end options to the Commissioners at a later date.
1
2 Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that having a Strategic Automation category requesting
3 $425,000 and a Human Services Automation requesting $105,000. He asked why these were not
4 combined in one category. John Link indicated that the Human Service portion was more than the
5 Master Client Index. It is actually the Human Service piece of the I.S. Strategic Plan. He
6 mentioned that having them separate was actually in order to gain all possible state and federal
7 reimbursement that relates to Human Services.
8
9 The Criminal Justice Study item, which amounted to $75,000 was discussed. This money
0 is being recommended to complete a study on long range strategic plans.
1
2 Commissioner Carey pointed out that the design of jail facilities influence the long term cost
3 of running the facility for its entire life cycle. He stated that the operating costs of the current
4 facilities will greatly increase if those facilities are used for the long term. The recommended
5 amount was decreased to $25,000. A report on the original committees recommendation will be
6 presented to the Commissioners, along with comments on the current situation. A charge will be
7 established for the future task force.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adopt
0 the Capital Project Ordinances as recommended with the four (4) exceptions listed.
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 Q. Solid Waste Matters
4 Chair Crowther mentioned that the Solid Waste Plan has been sent to the State. He also
5 mentioned that the Landfill Reorganization Work Group has completed its work and has been
6 disbanded. The report dated June 27, 1997, and titled Interlocal Agreement Concerning Solid
7 Waste Management Matters was drafted by that group. John Link indicated that the Interlocal
DRAFT 38
1 Agreement would be the focus of this discussion. After discussion, the open matters in this report
2 need to be resolved by all involved units of government prior to December 1, 1997. If this
3 resolution is not reached the Agreement will dissolve.
4
5 Mr. Jessup indicated that the Reorganization Work Group arrived at the decision to have a
6 deadline for adoption because they felt that if current Boards couldn't come to an agreement, then
7 new local Boards should have their own opportunity to design a plan.
8
9 Commissioner Carey pointed out that another reason to resolve this issue is so that the
0 adjacent landowners of the current land fill can have their concerns resolved. That cannot be
1 done until someone is actually responsible for the area.
2
3 Commissioner Gordon stated that her understanding was that everything had to be agreed
4 upon before anything went into effect. Mr. Jessup stated that if the open issues are not settled,
5 then the entire agreement will need to be completely rewritten. The open matters are 1) selecting
6 the new Solid Waste Management Site, 2) settling on a process for providing community benefits
7 to residents of the new landfill site, 3) and Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the County must complete the
8 transfer of solid waste system operational control, assets and liabilities. The Reorganization Work
9 Group decided that the process for the new waste management center needed to be in place by
0 December 1st, but the local agreement will not be in place unless a schedule has been created
1 about benefits to the community surrounding the current landfill.
2
3 Commissioner Halkiotis stated for the record that he wanted to be very careful what was
4 promised to the residents of the Eubanks Road area. He is sworn to uphold the constitution of the
5 United States and North Carolina. The offers and suggested benefits for the residents of this area
6 must be legal and in keeping with what is actually possible for local governments to accomplish.
7
8 John Link stated that a conclusion must be reached regarding how to address the disposal
9 of solid waste within a matter of months and not years. There needs to be a management
0 structure put into place that can be supported by all local officials.
1
2 Commissioner Carey mentioned that local officials need to be very careful about the
3 promises made and solutions recommended. There may very well be other nearby, but not
4 abutting, landowners who will come forward with requests for compensation. The responsible unit
5 of government needs to be careful that they not make promises that would be impossible to keep.
6
7 Chair Crowther mentioned some of the possible benefits to adjacent landowners. He also
8 mentioned that there is a group of local residents who have stated that they would give up all
9 compensation if they were assured that no future landfill would be sited in their area.
0
1 Geoffrey Gledhill pointed out that there is no compensation issue on the table with regard to
2 the residents living near the existing landfill. These are not actually compensation issues, but
3 rather they are matters of public policy. For example, building a park or determine an area for
4 water and sewer or changing a speed limit. The only entitlement is the one that would be created
5 by the Interlocal Agreement. He mentioned that it would be legal to agree to a process but
6 particular reparations may not be legal compensations. Another issue to consider is that the
DRAFT
39
1 process of deciding on benefits will take much longer than the several months allowed for the
2 adoption of this Agreement.
3
4 Gayle Wilson reported that the monitoring of local well water shows absolutely no
5 contamination of those wells.
6
7 Commissioner Carey felt that the Greene Tract is not a part of the assets as set out in this
8 agreement. He felt that this would have the County have all the responsibility but not all of the
9 assets.
0
1 John Link mentioned that the Town Managers have indicated that their elected officials
2 would be reluctant to transfer their portion of the Greene Tract with the Landfill.
3
4 Chair Crowther asserted that the County needs to state its position on the document first so
5 that the other jurisdictions will be able to respond to that position.
6
7 Commissioner Carey felt that the overall approach is good. The parts that concern im, and
8 several of the other Commissioners, are the disposition of the Greene Tract and how we go about
9 determining the community benefits and what are they going to include. He asked for clarification
0 regard 2.04 of the Agreement. Mr. Jessup said that there is a general requirement to bring all
1 solid waste to the County facility. "Other recyclables" refers to things that the County is not
2 recycling but which one of the twns is recycling.
3
4 Commissioner Gordon stated that having the County take over total responsibility in the
5 current scenario is problematic because of some of the details. She felt that there would need to
6 be something very close to consensus among the governing bodies in order for the disposal
7 system to be effective. In particular, she felt that the disposition of the Greene Tract is a problem.
8
9 Commissioner Halkiotis felt that others do not understand what it means for the Green Tract
0 to be an asset. He feels that it is unproductive to have the elected officials continue to come
1 together once a month because of the intense philoshopical diversity of the combined Boards.
2 The agreement has merit but he has a problem with the disposition of the Greene Tract..
3
4 Commissioner Brown stated that she did not have a problem with the document, but she
5 questioned why the "open issues" couldn't be addressed and the adoption of the document could
6 be done after those issues are addressed. The disposition of the Greene Tract is also a problem
7 for her. She questioned Section 7.02. The Withdrawal of a Party. Mr. Jessup explained that if an
8 entity withdrew, and there was no debt on the landfill, they would not have to bring their trash to
9 the facility or send representatives to the advisory board.
0
1 Chair Crowther summarized that the conseesus of the Boards is that this issue needs
2 further discussion.
3
4 Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the Greene Tract remain, in perpetuity, as an asset
5 of the Landfill, as it was originally established. He wants it to stay in the same state that it is in
6 currently.
7
DRAFT 40
1 Commissioner Carey felt that this tract could be used for something. He is not committed
2 that it remain in its present state. It could return to private ownership, however, it is currently an
3 asset of the landfill.
4
5 There was consensus that it is unacceptable to the Board of Commissioners for the Greene
6 Tract to be removed from this agreement. Its disposition must remain with this agreement.
7
8 John Link suggested that Mr. Jessup discuss this issue with the other municipalities. He
9 also felt that there needs to be another plan in the event that this agreement is not adopted by
0 December 1st.
1
2 D Additions to the State Transportation Improvement Program
3
4 Commissioner Gordon reported that the Board of Transportation has added two
5 Transportation Improvement Program projects in Orange County without consulting either the
6 Board of Commissioners or the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for the areas in
7 question. She felt that this is not needed or wanted by the people in the area and requested that
8 the Commissioners support writing to the Department of Transportation requesting that they stop
9 plans for this project.
0
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to
2 authorize a letter be written, and signed by the Chair, requesting that this project be stopped.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5
6 E Information Systems Strategic Automation Plan
7 John Link suggested that the Strategic Automation Plan be reviewed and a decision made
8 so the Plan can be finalized and implementation begun.
9
0 Commissioner Halkiotis and Commission Brown suggested the names of several additional
1 members. It was suggested that the group not be extremely large and that the members of this
2 task force be allowed to somewhat determine the direction they take. They do not need to be told
3 exactly what to do. Also, a mission statement and general charge, is important. This group does
4 not need to be constrained by arbitrary deadlines.
5
6 John Link suggested that this could be returned to the Commissioners at their August 20th
7 meeting.
8
9 ADJOURN
0 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to
1 adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on
2 Wednesday, August 20, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. in the Chapel Hill Town Council Chambers, 306 North
3 Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
4
5 Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk