Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Discussion of expanding operating hours, expanding materials collected at the sites, capitalizing <br /> possible improvements at convenience centers and developing predictable, sustainable and. <br /> reliable sources of funds to operate the convenience centers began to take a more prominent role <br /> as the County's general fund fmancial picture worsened in 2008-09. Once the MSW landfill <br /> closes in early to mid 2013,hauling e�ciency will become a very important element in a11 <br /> decision-making for the County controlled wastes. With no changes in hauling practices, costs <br /> will increase a projected $135,000 to $140,000 per year just for hauling waste from the <br /> convenience centers to Durham's Transfer Station. Increasing that efficiency is a paramownt <br /> efFort in the next two years so it is ready when the landfill closes. Hauling as we do now, l��ads of <br /> 1 to 2 tons of bulky wastes in rolloff containers or even six to seven ton loads in underused front <br /> end loaders that have ten tons of capacity will have to be supplanted by more efficient mea�ns of <br /> hauling. <br /> Much of the past two years' Work Group planning effort has focused on the unincorporated area <br /> including detailed discussions of franchising waste collection, expansion of recycling and <br /> renovation of the Solid Waste Convenience Centers. In September the Work Group develo�ped a <br /> recommendation to the Board of Orange County Coxnxnissioners, on improving the SWCC's and <br /> financing those improvements. The details of the issues around siting, design, operation an.d <br /> financing of convenience centers, including work group recommendations, will be present��d and <br /> discussed with the BOCC over the next few months. Recommendations on the related issues of <br /> franchising waste collection or expanding curbside recycling may be determined during th��next <br /> planning period. <br /> Movin�Ahead <br /> The overall joint solid waste planning process is very deliberate and has worked in a manner <br /> designed to gather ongoing input not only from the local governments but from citizens and <br /> citizen groups. The amount of attention that solid waste issues generate has resulted in ongoing <br /> debate over almost every aspect of solid waste planning and consequently few recommendations <br /> or decisions in the past five years since inception of the Work Group. This process while <br /> cumbersome has resulted in development of some highly refined technical analyses that wiill be <br /> helpful in future decision making. <br /> While the County continues to make steady numerical progress towards its 61%waste reduction <br /> goal and new programs such as the rigid plastics at drop off sites are actively publicly embraced, <br /> a number of significant issues remain that could impact solid waste services and programs. <br /> Noting that there has previously been considerable technical detailed analysis and reportin;g on <br /> waste management in the unincorporated areas and commercial recycling and that a <br /> comprehensive solid waste financial model is still in the works and that many other decisic►ns are <br /> pending,the overarching suggested direction for this plan update is to acknowledge the need for <br /> future consideration of these program elements <br /> Annotated List of Solid Waste Issues <br /> • Commercial recYcling_ this element of the waste stream retains the largest potential. for <br /> waste reduction,without a more systematic approach to reducing commercial wastf;we <br /> will be challenged in meeting our waste reduction goal. By increasing collection <br /> efficiency in the past two years, the County has managed to provide over 250 busin�esses <br /> with recycling services but has reached its limit under currently configured staffing and <br /> 43 <br />