Agenda - 01-20-1998 - 10a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~'1TT~1mt~ ~L.L'"~ j ~- ~ ~- MEMORANDUM TO; Csrrboro 1vlayor and Board of A]dermen FROM: Michael 8. Brough ~~ DATE: October 8,1947 gF: Benefits to Neighbors of Existing Landfill The Aoud hu requested that ! addrsss the sepal issues surrounding the recomrneradatioas of the ].,andfalt Owraets Grouprl.andf:tl Neighbors Wortcing Group w provide certain benefiu to the nag]abors of the existing landfill. Of the eleven recoantttetadations in the report that i rtviewed, significant legal issues art presestted only br the fim two: extending wear and Sewer aaaaiais to the area and paying for all or a poruoa of the costs (primarily. OWASA foes) associated with atukiag connections to these utility lines. White ehert is no doubt thst utiiiry lines can be extended to the era in question u pnblie expense. the priaxapat question is whether and to whatt acteat t~everaua gerteratod by landt'li foes cart be used to pty for such extet:sioas. The main obstscte is N.C.G.S. 153A-292, which states; "'The board of covriry oomanissioaaexsmesy impose a fee for the rise of a disposst facility provided by the ooatnty. The fee for tae nay not exceed the t,~trr of opsra~ing rhs jaciliry sad tt3ay be imposod Doty on those who asst tlta facility." (Emphasis sdded~. T]aerefore, in order to be able to use taadflt funds derived from "tipping fees" io par for utility axtatsions or ooraraeaions~. it would be necessary to demonatrste sleet such extensions or connectiotu arc naessary m the operstioat of the lardfll. While the matter is isardty tree from doubt. ! bctieve a g~ :r~;aureat caa; be m:dt tint the cast of extcndittg water iint3 to neithbocittg Qr~opatics rant be }usti~ed as aA operadvna! cost of the Iandtili under what may be chasact~tciud as the "insurance theory " The azgttrtterzt is that. if narby propatlrs acre on welts, the existence of the itutdfiit crates the posst~ility of eontxtninzdort of those wells, which rtught wbjact slat taradfi]t do nuisance snits thu could potentially result in sigaiftcartt darnaga or other injunctive relief that would iaterfera with or perhaps tutu prevent tIx tandfiii's opctatioa Payutg for the extension of water lines to atllow aeighboria~ag properties to caru+ect to the public water system: is taratarssount to providing insuuranct ageless such poteatiai sepal diffictt]tiet Evdt assuming the basin theory is sound, two po:~ntia] probtents slaoaald be oaruider+ed. The first is whether there is any factual basis for the concern over the pollution of wells, The second is whether them is any relationship bctweert ttte arras that have beta selected to roaive bencflu and the concern over west pollution, t have rto infomZation about either matter The payment of sewer line extensions out of landfill funds is more problematic. Appueatty the extension of a sewer line to stet landfall can bt justified as an operating cost becaaase reputations require that the ligcaid that troches tanm the lan~ll be removed from the site