Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-16-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 09-16-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 09-16-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2015 9:54:43 AM
Creation date
9/15/2014 8:23:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/16/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-a
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-16-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
I <br />1 • Inclusion of the University as a party to the agreement (could be a secondary priority to be <br />2 pursued at a later date) <br />3 The more fundamental issues of an agreement could be incorporated and adopted in the short <br />4 term (by July 1), with other issues to be resolved through a mutually agreeable process among <br />5 the parties (or by a new advisory group) over the next several months. Alternatively, a final and <br />6 comprehensive agreement could be pursued regardless of the time necessary and the parties <br />7 could continue in an informal manner until a final agreement is executed. There may also be <br />8 other options for proceeding. <br />9 Michael Talbert said there are issues to be resolved with the towns. He said, at this <br />10 point the towns have received this agreement, but neither board has discussed it yet. <br />11 Chair Jacobs said it would be helpful to just highlight the points of contention instead of <br />12 the entire agreement the next time this is presented. He said this would allow for better focus <br />13 on these issues. He said the Mayor of Chapel Hill assured him that the transfer station is not a <br />14 problem, but staff seems to think it is. <br />15 John Roberts said he wanted the full agreement read, rather than the outline. He said <br />16 staff was not able to agree on issues that he feels would be more appropriately discussed and <br />17 decided by elected officials. <br />18 Commissioner McKee asked for elaboration on the issue with the transfer stations. <br />19 Gayle Wilson said town staffs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro seemed to have received <br />20 instruction to downplay or not include any provisions in the agreement that would provide for <br />21 serious consideration of County utilization of a town transfer station. He said he has not talked <br />22 with the town managers or elected officials about this, but that was the impression he was given <br />23 by staff. <br />24 Commissioner McKee asked if there were reasons given. <br />25 Gayle Wilson said no, but it seemed their staff had been given that guidance. <br />26 Commissioner Dorosin said it seems to him that this, as written, is very limited. He said <br />27 if there is going to be an agreement on solid waste there should be discussion about the <br />28 possibility of future landfills and transfer stations, in addition to recycling. He thinks that there <br />29 may be a flaw in the idea of having staff put this together without more direction. He feels that, <br />30 as a body, the officials need to decide whether to move forward collectively. He said this <br />31 document seems to be ignoring issues that need to be addressed. He finds some of the <br />32 language troubling, such as the section regarding County use of the transfer station. He said <br />33 this seems like an afterthought. <br />34 Commissioner Gordon said this draft is a start, but it is not complete. She said this was <br />35 brought back to the Board because that was what was planned for this time. She said the 1999 <br />36 agreement took a lot of negotiations and discussions, and it was very comprehensive. She said <br />37 it is structurally not possible to do a comprehensive interlocal agreement by July 1, 2014, but it <br />38 is still important to put in motion some type of agreement to allow services to start by July 1St <br />39 She does not know if it is wise to negotiate part of an agreement and not the whole agreement, <br />40 but she is interested in knowing what their professionals say about how this might be done for a <br />41 limited section. <br />42 John Roberts said this is a very basic and broad document that is presented as the only <br />43 thing that could possibly get approved by July 1St. He said there are key portions of this, such <br />44 as recycling, where major decisions still have to be made. He said whatever is done with this <br />45 document or another document, key aspects will need to be amended in the future. He said <br />46 this is not something that can be done comprehensively between now and July 1St <br />47 Commissioner Pelissier asked what needs to be done to be sure recycling can be in <br />48 place by next year. <br />49 Chair Jacobs said this could be considered a preliminary interlocal agreement, which <br />50 means it is a starting point. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.