Browse
Search
Minutes - 20061024
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2000's
>
2006
>
Minutes - 20061024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2008 1:50:37 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 2:45:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/24/2006
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 10-24-2006-1
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2006\Agenda - 10-24-2006
Agenda - 10-24-2006-3
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2006\Agenda - 10-24-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
was thinking about bringing forward. Tara Fikes said that most of the issues are related to the <br />bond policy. Another issue relates to the amount of time that non-profits are allowed to end the <br />projects once the property has been acquired. The other piece is the reporting aspect and if <br />reports should be made annually orsemi-annually. <br />Commissioner Carey said that it is reasonable that the County Commissioners stay <br />informed about projects that are partially publicly funded. He said that the Board has been <br />informed in the past and he knows that the staff has been requesting information from <br />everybody. He does not think that everything needs to be brought at the level of the County <br />Commissioners. He supports revisiting the five-year limit because same things do not need five <br />years and others may need more than five years. For tonight, he thinks that the overall policy <br />and process should be separated from the Habitat project far decision-making purposes. <br />Chair Jacobs asked about the timetable for the AHAB bringing back recommendations <br />and Tara Fikes said that the plan is over the next couple of months. Chair Jacobs suggested <br />addressing this at the January retreat. <br />2. Solid Waste Matters <br />Rod Visser said that the last time the Board had a work session on solid waste matters <br />was in March 2006. The first issue relates to transfer station options. After the landfill reaches <br />capacity in 2010, there will not be a landfill in Orange County. At the February 8, 2005 Solid <br />Waste Matter Joint Work Session with the Solid Waste Advisory Board, the staff and SWAB <br />were encouraged to look at where transfer stations might be located. The SWAB adopted a <br />resolution recommending that the transfer station be located on current landfill property on <br />Eubanks Road. The consensus of the Board was that, before a commitment is made, other <br />potential options would be considered. The main one was to discuss with Durham what <br />facilities might be used. Durham expressed interest in working with the County, but there is no <br />capacity at this time. <br />The second topic is the Solid Waste Management Plan update. This is a process with <br />the State every three years. The update was due in June 2006, but a request was submitted to <br />extend this deadline because the process involves municipalities. <br />The third topic is related to landfill gas opportunities. This is also a follow up to a <br />discussion in March about the prospects far recovering methane gas from the landfill on <br />Eubanks Road. Since that time, staff has worked with the County's consulting engineer to <br />conduct analyses of the feasibility and the economics of having County and school facilities to <br />use the landfill gas and also haw the Carolina North development might be able to use it as a <br />supplemental energy source. <br />The fourth topic is an update on the Solid Waste Operations Center. The Board <br />approved the design for this at the August 22nd meeting. <br />The fifth topic is landfill post-closure uses. This issue was raised at the Commission for <br />the Environment meeting. <br />a) Transfer Station Options <br />Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson gave some history of the transfer station issue. In <br />2005, the staff talked to Alamance County about the possibility of taking Orange County's <br />waste. Ultimately, this did not work out because Alamance County decided that it would not <br />take waste from other entities. In 2006, the SWAB recommended Eubanks Road as a site of <br />the transfer station. Regarding the possibility of working with Durham, the Durham transfer <br />station is located 17.1 miles from the intersection of Columbia and Franklin Streets in Chapel <br />Hill. Once the tipping fee of $6 is counted, the total impact will be $500,000 for Chapel Hill; <br />$100,000 for Carrboro; and $170,000 for Orange County. Based on economics, it is a very <br />costly option. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.