By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously on Tuesday to move forward with an agreement with UNC for a gas-recovery project at the Orange County Landfill.
In January, the board voted to enter into a 90-day agreement with UNC to explore the feasibility of a landfill gas-recovery project. Commissioners and county officials had said they would like to launch the project at the landfill as a way of reducing greenhouse gases. County staff had recommended in November that the commissioners request proposals from private firms as well as the university, but university officials said they would not bid against private firms.
At the close of the feasibility study, university representatives said they would like to move forward with the project. County and university officials estimate construction costs of the gas-recovery system at about $5.5 million, and expect the facility to be complete in 2010.
“We do believe that this will be a win-win for the university and for the county,†said Ray DuBose, director of energy services at UNC.
County staff also recommended moving forward with the project.
“This has been a very extensive team effort,†said Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey.
Commissioner Mike Nelson cautioned that the county should be careful with legal language in the project contract.
“We need to make sure we’re protecting the county’s interest and the taxpayer’s interest,†he said.
Board Chair Barry Jacobs said he looked forward to the partnership.
“We know this has been a sometimes frustrating process, but it sounds like we’re still communicating well, still moving forward and moving toward a partnership that will be mutually beneficial, which is what this is all about,†Jacobs said.
County and UNC officials will develop a contract for the project and present it to the commissioners on August 19.
Once again, no one is asking for a cost-benefit analysis. Gee, I wonder why. We should send a note to the Governor asking if this is going to be done. It is, after all, public money being spent.
As I recall, this has been looked at before and was not cost effective. I wonder what has changed?