Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• Bulky Item Fee (for furniture, white goods, tires, etc.) <br /> • Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT per bag for MSW) <br /> • Gate Fee (flat fee to utilize center for non-recycling disposal related activities) <br /> • Shifting funding of some recycling related services to the 3-R Fee (such as clean metal, <br /> white goods, tires, yard waste, etc.) <br /> • Convenience Center District Tax <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> Tony Blake, with Orange County Voice, presented a hand out for the next three people. <br /> Speaker 1: Tony Blake <br /> "After reading the County's report and sitting in the most of the Solid Waste Work <br /> Group meetings over the last three months, we find ourselves questioning the role, charter, <br /> and cost of this committee particularly with respect to the rural community. We respectfully ask <br /> the Board to consider disbanding it or minimally redirect it to focus on in town issues. If you <br /> choose to allow it to continue, please clarify its mission and how it is expected to complement <br /> the work of SWAB and the County's SW department. <br /> Concerns: <br /> - Important guiding principles are being taken literally by staff as tangible goals to be <br /> achieved at any cost. Platitudes like 61% waste recovery, operational safety, and <br /> cost effective are used to justify arbitrary decision-making and reckless spending. <br /> Our recycling recovery rate is the highest in the state and our solid waste operations <br /> are safe and appear to be undergoing healthy scrutiny of spending. What problem <br /> is the workgroup trying to solve? <br /> - The rural community is not represented on the 15-25 member work group <br /> o One rural representative sits on SWAB and he has not attended the <br /> workgroup meetings where the unincorporated areas were discussed. The <br /> remaining members are town and county officials, and citizens representing <br /> the towns. <br /> o Given their broader responsibilities to the BOCC and the county-at-large, <br /> Commissioners Jacobs and Yuhasz are able to provide insight but unable to <br /> fully advocate for rural residents. Mayor Chilton has offered similar <br /> advocacy. This is sincere but insufficient representation. <br /> - Given the representation, the workgroup should be redirected to in-town issues <br /> where 80% of the trash is generated and there are better opportunities to improve <br /> recycling. Although —with no landfill, one must question whether the workgroup is <br /> relevant at all. <br /> - If the workgroup does continue, can it be directed to shift from anecdote and <br /> innuendo to a strategic analysis of facts, figures, and alternatives? Plus, shouldn't <br /> meeting minutes and internal memos be posted on the county's website? <br /> - Given the current fiscal situation, might it make more sense to focus the workgroup <br /> and/or SWAB on the 3-5 year disposal solution, legacy operations, <br /> decommissioning and monitoring of the Eubanks landfill? <br /> Plus, please consider a broader question. Does SWWG or SWAB have the right mix of skills <br /> to find the solid waste solutions for our future? Are they equipped to evaluate long term <br /> alternatives, which could include regional solutions and public/private partnerships?" <br />