Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-06-2010 - 7c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2010
>
Agenda - 12-06-2010 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 12-06-2010 - 7c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2015 2:55:24 PM
Creation date
12/3/2010 11:56:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/6/2010
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7c
Document Relationships
Minutes 12-06-2010
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2010
RES-2010-092 Resolution Adopting the Three-Year-Solid Waste Management Plan Update to be Submitted to the State of North Carolina
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Alex Castro: I have seen in the press where Chatham County is looking at establishing a solid <br /> waste landfill and I wondering if the County is in contact with them. Are they participatin€;in <br /> any discussions with them concerning this? Also has anything been done in that regard wiith <br /> Alamance County and the use of their solid landfill. Are you looking at establishing a regional <br /> landfill that might be used by all the counties in the immediate area? <br /> Wilson responds that we are aware of what Chatham County is doing and try to keep up with it a <br /> good deal. It is my understanding they're in the process of deciding what they're going to do, if <br /> they are going to build a transfer station or a landfill or whatever. We're in ongoing <br /> communication with them at the staff level,but I don't know what's going on at the highei• <br /> levels. As far as Alamance, I speak to my counterpart there regularly. Four years ago their <br /> elected officials conveyed that their citizens did not want our waste brought into their County. <br /> "We don't really want your out of County waste coming over here."In Randolph County they <br /> have decided to site a new landfill. Randolph is not quite as convenient,but it's not that far away <br /> either. We do try to maintain awareness of what's going on in other communities around uis. <br /> Stan Cheren: As a resident of rural Orange County I'd like to take the curbside recycling idea <br /> that was brought up earlier and expand on it. Rural recycling pickup is a great service but only <br /> in town where people have trash collection[meaning curbside recycling,not `rural' as stal;ed]. <br /> Similarly if you live in a rural area and you take your trash to the convenience centers it is�most <br /> convenient to also take your recycling. Rura1 [curbside] recycling is not an effective servi.ce for <br /> most rural residents. Because it is not advancing the County's recycling goals we ask that you <br /> modify the plan and replace the option of expanding recycling with the option of turning it into a <br /> voluntary service. <br /> For comparison we found benclunarks on rural recycling for unincorporated areas for two� other <br /> counties—Catawba and Forsyth,both only offer curbside recycling to residents who recei;ve <br /> curbside trash collection. In Catawba County residents who use curbside recycling receive a$4 <br /> per month discount in their curbside collection fees. In Forsyth County where they are looking <br /> at the service now Commissioners are considering whether to make it voluntary. <br /> In rural Orange County you've reported that only 5,000 out of 21,000 households use curbside <br /> service for trash. Yet the curbside recycling service is already mandatory [meaning the ff;e is, <br /> not the service per se] for 13,500 households along with the mandatory$38 fee whether the <br /> service is used or not. Only 60% of the residents that get the service use it and most of thiem use <br /> convenience centers too. <br /> Given that the service is marginally effective,why do we want to extend curbside recycling to <br /> 14,500 and ultimately 19,000 households? Rura1 residents are strongly committed to rec.ycling <br /> but not the curbside service. There are many services that are not funded and we'd like to see <br /> t�es and fees spent on services that are critical. We ask the language in the plan about <br /> expanding [curbside) recycling be removed and replaced with language that suggests the Couniy <br /> explore making the service voluntary, so that only residents that want the service receive it and <br /> pay for it. <br /> Steve Graf: As a resident of the county the services you provide are the most tangible be,nefit <br /> that I get from my property taxes. Thank you for allowing us to participate in the Solid`JVaste <br /> Work Group meeting two weeks ago. We were pleased to see expanded convenience ce:nter <br /> hours to the Work Group report,but disappointed that the commitment wasn't added to the three- <br /> year plan update. I understand it is import for the county to spend time and effort to upgrade the <br /> 63 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.