Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br />Framework for a Comprehensive Plan for Solid Waste Management <br />Chair Brown made reference to the one page outline in the agenda which is attachment #1. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that the first issue to be decided is who is in charge, who will govern. The <br />interlocal agreement would actually cross over some of the lines of the comprehensive plan, <br />defining all the roles of the partners. Part of the interlocal agreement would be fees. Once the <br />nature of solid waste in Orange County is determined, those decisions need to be folded into the <br />plan which would be a living document. The plan will need to conform to the decisions that the <br />governments make. The financial plan would essentially say how you would pay for solid waste <br />management in Orange County and the two options are access fees and tipping fees. An access <br />fee is a fee charged regardless if you use the landfill or not. The transportation plan would have two <br />elements - getting waste to the facility and moving it out. Moving it in could be by road. Moving it <br />out could be by road, by rail or by plane. Geoffrey Gledhill made reference to #6 and said that a <br />Solid Waste Management Ordinance would have a lot of policy parts to it. If it is to become part of a <br />comprehensive plan, it would need to be adopted by all governing boards. Regarding #7, this <br />Ordinance Concerning Disposal of Solid Waste would be a separate ordinance that Orange County <br />would adopt and a lot of this would be redundant. We may need to incorporate some of this into the <br />Solid Waste Management Ordinance. <br />Chair Margaret Brown made reference to the governance issue and said that Attachment #5 <br />"Possible Solid Waste Management Scenarios" will give us some guidance on governance as well <br />as the interlocal agreement. <br />Regarding the points of consensus, John Link said that there is not a consensus on the use <br />of the Greene Tract. His understanding is that Chapel Hill will respond to the Board's letter sent to <br />them in April indicating their desires on certain issues. <br />John Link said that one of the larger issues is governance. There were six scenarios <br />presented in December as attachment 5. He asked the Board if they want to proceed with a landfill <br />that has only 10 years left or spend their time to develop a new way to handle solid waste. The <br />Town could continue operating the present landfill with the County proceeding with future initiatives <br />on handling solid waste. Another area which there was not a consensus was treatment of present <br />staff. This will probably take care of itself because they would continue to operate the landfill with <br />the County developing a new structure with new staff. This is not to say that some of the present <br />landfill staff would not continue in their jobs. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that there is not a consensus on the use of the Greene Tract. <br />Other governments do not agree. This is a major sticking point. She feels we need to have an <br />integrated plan and present it as the County plan. <br />Chair Brown said that she would like to do a pro and con paper on all aspects of solid waste <br />management. <br />Commissioner Carey said that he feels we need to decide what we want to do and for what <br />we want to be responsible. He has no problem with the Town being responsible for the existing <br />landfill with the County's focus on developing a new process and inviting the towns to participate. <br />Whatever we do will probably need the participation of the Towns in order to be feasible. If we <br />move ahead, maybe the future of the Greene Tract will become clear. None of us have the goal to <br />use the Greene Tract for disposal of solid waste but it should be an asset of whoever is going to be <br />responsible for the new process.