Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
,~ <br />2. Please consider - as a priority -partially restoring hours at convenience centers - <br />add Sundays back and open Walnut Grove and Eubanks 6 days a week. Even with <br />the added cost to haul to Durham, a small increase to the base 3R fee will cover <br />everything and we expect you will find rural residents accepting of a small fee for a <br />service that is so highly valued. <br />3. Please don't believe that, as the plan suggests, that the convenience center <br />upgrades and fees are the highest priority. As Commissioner Gordon suggested, <br />none of this is relevant until the Board is fully informed on the full impact of closing <br />the landfill -including the revenue loss of $3 million which is roughly 1/3 of the SW <br />budget. If you intend to seriously consider the upgrades, please start asking hard <br />questions about cost, utility, and fees -and please include rural residents in the <br />discussion. <br />4. Because of public pressure, the plan is now non-specific about mandatory rural <br />recycling and fees. Please open a meaningful dialog on a voluntary program rather <br />than expanding a service that is expensive to deliver and today is used by only 60% <br />of the residents. <br />Here's a question: would you support rural recycling if it was funded by the general <br />fund? Is it escaping your scrutiny because it's a separate fee? <br />5. A small policy point: please ask the SW department to drop the discussion on <br />waste franchises in our rural communities. Private waste haulers serve less than <br />25% of the rural community. Do we really need the County to "manage the <br />vendors" and burden the residents with even more solid waste fees? <br />6. If you are serious about the County's recycling goals, please focus on education not <br />infrastructure. Education is inexpensive and effective. The County's composting <br />outreach program and the partnership with St. Thomas Moore Catholic Church are <br />examples of two wonderful programs that can take us a long way to the 61 <br />recycling goal or more. There are others. <br />7. For rural residents, we support single stream recycling - at the convenience <br />centers. <br />Here's the irony. For once -the citizens are asking for less - a lot less than the County <br />wants to offer. <br />In its current form, the SW plan does not set a cost effective program for reducing <br />waste and keeping our rural communities clean and healthy. Tonight we look to the Board to <br />set a direction that is meaningful and that we can afford." <br />Chair Pelissier made reference to page 13 and the Financial Planning and Appendix I, <br />which has a financial plan discussion that makes reference to having financial analysis over <br />the summer and fall of 2010. She said that the large question she has is when they would get <br />financial information about to deal with the landfill closure. <br />Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that staff is now working on getting reliable <br />projections. They have been distracted by finishing the plan. This would be probably in the <br />next six months. The closure of the landfill is the trigger for the financial analysis. The date for <br />closure keeps changing. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked about the significance of passing the Solid Waste Plan <br />for subsequent decisions. She said that it appeared that this document does not commit the <br />Board of County Commissioners to any important decisions and that this was just a framework. <br />19 <br />