Agenda - 09-21-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

potential C &D landfill sites was conducted by solid waste staff pursuant to LOG criteria. The primary criteria guiding the search was: ➢ The site must be freely offered for sale (initial criteria) ➢ The site must be relatively inexpensive ➢ The site should not be located in the rural buffer (an exception was made for the Eubanks Rd. site) After the LOG, who initially led the siting process, was unable to agree on the first site recommended by staff (Site #1), the three (elected) member C &D Task Force was established to guide the process of site identification. The Task Force was briefed on most of the twenty seven sites listed below (except Site #1) over three separate meetings and indicated their preferences from among those not sold, taken off of the market, or otherwise found to be inadequate by the solid waste staff or Joyce Engineering. A real estate agent was utilized by staff so that all available properties were identified. Joyce Engineering was asked to conduct on -site walkovers to assess each site considered by staff to be promising candidates. It should be noted that we also placed advertisements in local newspapers that local governments were looking for property on which to develop a C&D facility. We were not contacted by anyone wishing to have their property considered. The attached table presents the sites that were evaluated by solid waste staff and reviewed by the Task Force. All of the sites were visited by staff, with the most promising sites also examined by Joyce Engineering. Initially, Site #1 was recommended to the LOG, which could not agree to approve the site primarily due to an perceived unreasonable asking price. This site was also formally discussed by the three elected boards, but abandoned due to lack of consensus. Negotiations to reduce the price were not successful. Secondly, Site #12 was recommended by staff to the Task Force, who requested that staff obtain an option to purchase. The owner subsequently decided to take it off the market, presumably preferring it not become a C&D landfill. Once Site #12 was removed from consideration, Site #8 became the Task Force's preferred site. Given the screening criteria, few other good potential sites were identified and available for serious consideration. An option was obtained on this property. Site #27 also became an option when Duke University agree to supply site buffer areas and regulators indicated this would be acceptable. The LOG already owns about 20% of this site. Responses to Questions 7 Joyce Engineering, Inc.