Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
will be as much as 400 to 500 feet. UNC has been in contact with Chris Moran, Executive <br /> Director of the Interfaith Council (IFC) and the IFC architectural consultant, Josh Gurlitz, to <br /> begin discussion of mutual compliance and compatibility issues. To date, no substantial <br /> problems have been identified for the planned relocation of the IFC Men's Shelter relative to <br /> the planned transmission lines or associated LFG facilities. <br /> 2) Why is there any ability to put landfill gas lines through the Greene Tract, but <br /> inability to put water and sewer lines through the Greene Tract? <br /> Orange County, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and the Orange Water and Sewer <br /> Authority are parties to a Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement <br /> (the "Water and Sewer Agreement"). This Agreement, among other things, places limitations <br /> on extension of water and sewer service in certain areas of the County. The Greene Tract is <br /> located within an OWASA Primary Service Area as defined in the Water and Sewer <br /> Agreement. The Water and Sewer Agreement permits extension of water and sewer service <br /> through the Greene Tract. In fact, the Town of Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan <br /> Task Force recommendations anticipate these utilities will be made available to the jointly <br /> owned portion of the Greene Tract (no development of the County owned portion of the <br /> Greene Tract is now contemplated). <br /> 3) What are the potential uses for the new revenues to the County from UNC for <br /> landfill gas? <br /> The timeline of implementation for the project make it unlikely that any substantive revenue will <br /> be received from this project for perhaps 3-5 years. Moreover, significant additional <br /> expenditures from the enterprise fund are coming up and require funding, including: <br /> - Landfill closure costs and new operations center debt service <br /> - Costs of possible implementation of the Solid Waste Planning Work Group <br /> recommendations (expected in late spring 2009) <br /> - Transfer station land acquisition and development costs (including potential new <br /> expenditures generated by the new transfer station community advisory group) <br /> - Significantly increased operating costs associated with operating a remote waste <br /> transfer facility including hauling and disposal costs. <br /> In addition, recyclable material markets have recently experienced significant reductions in <br /> prices paid resulting in less revenue to offset operational expenses. It is therefore unlikely <br /> there will be surplus revenues to fund new ventures or obligations and more than likely the <br /> solid waste enterprise fund will be challenged to maintain financial integrity through its current <br /> landfill to transfer station transition period. <br /> Staff believes that there are three alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners: <br /> 1) The BOCC may approve the Proposed Agreement "as is" (attached) with <br /> understanding, acceptance, and tolerance for the level of risk and exposure. <br /> 2) Do not approve the Proposed Agreement and direct County staff to pursue with <br /> UNC a final compromise proposal, to be formally developed by the County Attorney, <br /> to satisfactorily address the legal risks associated with the Proposed Agreement. <br /> 3) Do not approve the Proposed Agreement and direct County staff to return on <br /> February 17, 2009 with an alternative approach for seeking competitive bids for <br />