Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT 38 <br /> 1 Agreement would be the focus of this discussion. After discussion, the open matters in this report <br /> 2 need to be resolved by all involved units of government prior to December 1, 1997. If this <br /> 3 resolution is not reached the Agreement will dissolve. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Mr. Jessup indicated that the Reorganization Work Group arrived at the decision to have a <br /> 6 deadline for adoption because they felt that if current Boards couldn't come to an agreement, then <br /> 7 new local Boards should have their own opportunity to design a plan. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Commissioner Carey pointed out that another reason to resolve this issue is so that the <br /> 0 adjacent landowners of the current land fill can have their concerns resolved. That cannot be <br /> 1 done until someone is actually responsible for the area. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Commissioner Gordon stated that her understanding was that everything had to be agreed <br /> 4 upon before anything went into effect. Mr. Jessup stated that if the open issues are not settled, <br /> 5 then the entire agreement will need to be completely rewritten. The open matters are 1) selecting <br /> 6 the new Solid Waste Management Site, 2) settling on a process for providing community benefits <br /> 7 to residents of the new landfill site, 3) and Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the County must complete the <br /> 8 transfer of solid waste system operational control, assets and liabilities. The Reorganization Work <br /> 9 Group decided that the process for the new waste management center needed to be in place by <br /> 0 December 1st, but the local agreement will not be in place unless a schedule has been created <br /> 1 about benefits to the community surrounding the current landfill. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Commissioner Halkiotis stated for the record that he wanted to be very careful what was <br /> 4 promised to the residents of the Eubanks Road area. He is sworn to uphold the constitution of the <br /> 5 United States and North Carolina. The offers and suggested benefits for the residents of this area <br /> 6 must be legal and in keeping with what is actually possible for local governments to accomplish. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 John Link stated that a conclusion must be reached regarding how to address the disposal <br /> 9 of solid waste within a matter of months and not years. There needs to be a management <br /> 0 structure put into place that can be supported by all local officials. <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Commissioner Carey mentioned that local officials need to be very careful about the <br /> 3 promises made and solutions recommended. There may very well be other nearby, but not <br /> 4 abutting, landowners who will come forward with requests for compensation. The responsible unit <br /> 5 of government needs to be careful that they not make promises that would be impossible to keep. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Chair Crowther mentioned some of the possible benefits to adjacent landowners. He also <br /> 8 mentioned that there is a group of local residents who have stated that they would give up all <br /> 9 compensation if they were assured that no future landfill would be sited in their area. <br /> 0 <br /> 1 Geoffrey Gledhill pointed out that there is no compensation issue on the table with regard to <br /> 2 the residents living near the existing landfill. These are not actually compensation issues, but <br /> 3 rather they are matters of public policy. For example, building a park or determine an area for <br /> 4 water and sewer or changing a speed limit. The only entitlement is the one that would be created <br /> 5 by the Interlocal Agreement. He mentioned that it would be legal to agree to a process but <br /> 6 particular reparations may not be legal compensations. Another issue to consider is that the <br />