Agenda - 01-26-2012 - 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 will oversee the work and monitor the contractors authorized to perform to activities. 3. Recognize and authorize appropriate annual increases in the MSW tipping fee. Increases will occur in accordance with financial projections that support the proposals outlined above and clos�re and post closure fiaancial obligations. The current agreement allows a 10% ann�al increase. The current rate is $57 per ton �MSW. 4. Select an appropriate-.Glosing date for the landfitl as a funetioning operation. The estimated closure dates as proposed in �he attachments and discussed earlier in ihis abstract are approximate in nature. As the lar�dfill ages solid waste compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a variable_ The Board has the op.tion to extend the (ife of the landfill and add availabl� funds-for the proposals outlined above along with securing reserves for closur_e and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit e�ension,_and the lanclfil4 is scheduled to close in the spring 2013. If the Board chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it will need to direct staff to file the appropriate permit applications. 5. Encourage the Towns through conversations with elected leadership tn become more involved irr the future. of the Rogers/Eubank Road neigF�bo�hood. The improvements not eligible for funding via the So(id Waste Enterprise Fund (Sewer, community development activities, etc.) can be addressed via other revenues sources. The longer the landfill stays open the greater savings the Towns experience in waste transportation costs to a MSW landfill or transfer station elsewhere. The Towns and County could jaintly address these issues collectively to lessen the financial burden upon any one government. 6. Convene a rr�eeting with the Towns to discuss the future of MSW in Orange County. There has been a limited municipal response to taking future MSW to the City of Durham's MSVV transfer station. Alternative MSW disposal options being pursued by the Towns thus far have not produced viable results. A new interlocal agreement is necessary to address both future MSW disposal and closure. and post-closure costs and liability. Summary Prior efforts by the County and Towns did not fully address the locational impacts of the landfill upon the neighborhood after the original site decision was made. Moving forward requi�es a dedication by the Towns and County (together} to act appropriately in bringing some finality to these issues. Not al( of the req�ests made by the Rogers/Eubanks, Road neighborhood exist because of the landfi(I, but many are a direct result of its location and operation. The MSW landfil! may close in the next few years, but the C&D landfill operations wilt continue for many -years to come and those impacts will be ongoing.