Agenda - 02-21-2012 - 8d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 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 accur in accordance with financial projections that support the proposals outlined above and closure and post closure fiqancial obligations. The current agreement allows a 10% annUal increase. The current rate is $57 per ton �MSW. 4. Select an appropriate-.cJosing date for the landfitl as a functioning operation. The estimated c(osure dates as proposed in t-he attachments and discussed earlier in il�s abstraet are approximate in nature. As the landfill ages solid waste compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a variable. The Board has the option fo extend the life of the landfill and add available funds-for the proposals out(ined above along w�th securing reserves for closuce and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit extension,_and the landfil� is scheduled to close in the spring 2013. If tfie Board chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it wilt need to direct staff to file the appropriate permit applications. 5. Encourage the Towns through conversa�ions with elected leadership tQ become more involved in the future of the Rogers/Eubank Road neigF�borhood. The improvements not eligible for funding via the Sofid 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 jointly address these issues collectively to lessen the financial burden upon any one government. 6_ Convene a meeting 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 oi Durham's MSW 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 locationa( 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 all of the req�ests made by the Rogers/Eubanks, Road neighborhood exist because of the landfifl, but many are a direct result of its location and operation. The MSW landfill may c(ose in the next few years, but the C&D landfill operations will continue for many -years to come and those impacts will be ongoing.