Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
the landfill siting. As a fairly wealthy county, it could be tempting <br />to find a poorer county to receive our waste. This is neither fair <br />nor responsible as it is proven to be easier to ignore the <br />consequences of waste if it is not disposed of in the community of <br />origin. <br />Gayle Wilson mentioned that data was gathered on the racial and <br />income composition of the census block group for six out-of-county and <br />Orange County's in-county landfill facilities. The Owners Group had <br />agreed that income and race are key criteria with respect to social <br />equity. He mentioned that the options for centralized waste disposal <br />were centralized composting, construction/demolition waste, transfer <br />landfill space and sludge and mixed paper composting. <br />Mayor Kinnaird mentioned that a social issue with regard to <br />privatization is that salaries and benefits paid to the employees of <br />the private companies are often significantly lower than that of the <br />local governments. That needs to be considered. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis attended the Composting in the Carolina's <br />conference in Charlotte and was intrigued by the efforts in North <br />Carolina. Orange County is not a part of that effort and they need to <br />be more involved. <br />Blair Pollock presented a status report on the Integrated <br />Solid Waste Study. This group has been researching ways in which this <br />community can work together to develop a plan incorporating waste <br />prevention, collection processing and final disposal. Options were <br />studied for prevention, collection of recyclable, compostables and <br />waste and then final disposal options. The first two steps of this <br />study have been completed. A set of evaluation criteria for the <br />different methods of meeting objectives was established as well as <br />ways to actually meet the objectives. The third phase will be an <br />evaluation of the three systems for waste prevention, collection and <br />processing. This report, in its entirety, is in the permanent agenda <br />file in the Clerk's office. <br />Council Member Protzman mentioned that it has been suggested that <br />citizens could pay for collection by a unit measurement rather than <br />through property taxes. The assumption is that the economic incentive <br />would make people want to throw away less trash. This study shows <br />that pay-as-you-throw falls behind public education and non-economic <br />incentives in terms of diverting materials from the waste stream. How <br />should this information be taken into account as decisions are made in <br />regard to trash collection and payment methods? Will a recommendation <br />be forthcoming on whether or not a pay-as-you-throw collection system <br />should be implemented? <br />Blair Pollock indicated that the cost of implementation and <br />expected amount of waste diversion will be made clear. He recommended <br />looking at the report for the tables of percentages of diversion as <br />well as looking at the scores. Items other than percentage of <br />diversion received points as well. Issues such as social equity, ease <br />of implementation and public opposition were taken into account. <br />