Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
entering into a landfill gas-to-energy development agreement under more secure <br /> terms and conditions on project implementation. <br /> David Meezan, the County's legal representative, said that the two parties have worked <br /> very hard but they have reached a basic disconnect on the potential risks that the County may <br /> be undertaking regarding the termination rights. There is a disagreement on the five-year time <br /> period. UNC is saying that the five years would begin on the day the last permit was issued <br /> before the project was constructed and the clock would not start running when the agreement <br /> was signed. When he learned this, there was concern at staff level because the risk to the <br /> County is that the gas is indefinitely tied up. There are many ways to remedy this. <br /> Carolyn Efland, Associate Vice-Chancellor of Campus Services at UNC, made <br /> reference to page 91, which is what she believes the Board was presented on December 111h <br /> She said that this says that the termination is, "the date of the issuance of the last Approval <br /> necessary to construct the Gas Conversion System." She thought that this was what was <br /> agreed upon, but County staff does not think this. She said that there is very little difference <br /> financially between flaring the gas and having the conversion system implemented. She thinks <br /> that there is a compromise position. On #82, she suggested changing this language to say, <br /> "effective date", which is now defined as the date the agreement is entered into. UNC wants to <br /> use this gas for fuel, but it requires a gas pipeline. <br /> Laura Blackmon said that the biggest complication that UNC has is building the gas <br /> line. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz asked if any flaring could be done without installation of a <br /> pipeline and Carolyn Efland said yes. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the economic <br /> benefit to UNC for just flaring. Carolyn Efland spoke about an economic analysis of the <br /> benefits. The agreement has been all along that the benefits would be split with the County <br /> 50-50 from the start. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz asked about paragraph 94 and the liability for escaping gas, <br /> which it put all on Orange County. He asked why UNC could not be responsible for the claims <br /> related to offsite migration due to negligent operation and installation, etc. <br /> Chair Foushee asked County staff to respond to the same questions that <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz asked. <br /> Carolyn Efland said that UNC could be liable for this. <br /> David Meezan said that the risk that remains for the County is that the collection system <br /> does not get built. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said that she thinks that the Town of Chapel Hill is going to be <br /> vested in this as well. She said that the potential hold up on the conversion would be the fact <br /> that the easement would go through a conservation district and a special use permit. She <br /> would think that the Town of Chapel Hill would be as motivated as UNC to do this, so she sees <br /> this as an acceptable risk. <br /> Commissioner Nelson said that he really appreciates the work of the legal staff and <br /> County staff on this project. In his opinion, this has been discussed for over a year and the <br /> County went into this knowing there would be risks. The County Commissioners also knew that <br /> the negotiations would be lengthy. In this year, gas has evaporated, a year's worth of <br /> opportunity to get revenue has been lost, and the gas is peaking. This is a needed revenue <br /> stream. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson to approve the agreement tentatively with <br /> the compromise and ask staff to come back with it at the next meeting. <br />