Minutes - 19970522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1 person. Additional reduction to meet the 50% goal by 2006 would require improvements in 2 recycling and waste prevention programs such as those described in the plan framework. A 3 means of paying for increased waste reduction programs would also have to be determined. The 4 Owners Group has adopted a goal of reducing solid waste landfilled per capita by 33% by 2001 5 and 50% by 2006. They also have the framework of a plan for meeting those waste reduction 6 goals. The waste reduction plan framework for mixed solid waste includes the following elements: 7 8 • Waste Prevention: This would include public education, differential landfill fees, non-economic 9 incentives, mandatory recycling and volume-based fees. 0 Collection: Urban areas would be served by universal recycling collection for residential, 1 commercial and apartments as well as for commercial recycling in unincorporated areas. For 2 the remainder of the unincorporated areas curbside recycling in relatively densely settled 3 subdivisions would continue. The current system of sanitation sites for solid waste and 4 recycling collection would also continue. He mentioned that universal commercial recycling 5 does not currently exist. It would be the biggest single new collection expense and also have 6 the greatest potential for increasing recycling. Solid waste collection would continue to be 7 under local government control. 8 Processina: If the amount and types of recyclables is increased significantly to reach the 50% 9 goal, then Orange County would need a processing facility to sort out the recyclables and 0 make them market-ready. Sorting and processing are especially important if we are ever to 1 achieve along-term stable market for mixed paper. 2 • Construction and demolition waste: Construction waste makes up approximately one-third of 3 the material that is landfilled. There is enormous potential in reducing the amount of 4 construction waste through recycling. The Owner's Group is recommending a 4% reduction 5 goal in this area by 2001. It will be necessary to open a sorting facility if the goal of 50% 6 reduction is to be reached by 2006. 7 • Financing_ Saving landfill space and conserving resources represent a significant financial 8 expense. Both the recycling and education programs are costly. These costs will likely be paid 9 by a combination of public and private funds. Private financing sources include tipping fees 0 and user fees paid by private waste haulers. The Owners Group is also recommending that 1 the materials recovery facility, and possibly a construction waste recovery facility be 2 constructed and operated by a private company under contract to Orange County. Possible 3 public financing sources include tipping fees paid by local governments, availability fees 4 assessed to County residents, and user fees paid either directly by County residents or by local 5 governments on behalf of their residents. This must be decided by local governments. If, as 6 expected, Orange County government assumes control of solid waste recycling and waste 7 reduction activities and responsibility for implementing the approved plan, the County 8 government would have primary responsibility for making these decisions. Municipal 9 governments would have a voice in these decisions through the solid waste advisory 0 committee. Municipal government would also retain the authority to make funding decisions 1 with regards to solid waste collection. 2 3 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: 4 5 B.B. Olive, a resident of Mount Sinai Road, Chapel Hill stated that the Landfill Owners 6 Group needs the public to understand and support the Solid Waste Plan. They also need to 7 satisfy the legal requirement to hold this Public Hearing. He made a request that the phrase