Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
reference to a handout that was distributed and indicated that on page 4 under Waste Prevention, the LOG <br />favored (1) differential landfill fees, (2) non-economic incentives, and (3) public education. Under unit-based <br />pricing, it was their feeling that each citizen should pay for the solid waste system. <br />Discussion ensued which resulted in the following recommendations to the LOG: <br />1. The LOG should adopt the five waste prevention options as suggested, including: <br />a. Collection bans <br />b. Differential landfill fees <br />c. NonEconomic incentives <br />d. Public education regarding solid waste issues including disposal, recycling and <br />waste reduction <br />e. Unit-based pricing (pay as your throw plans) or Universal collection of waste and <br />recyclables except no rural yard waste collections (the decision on these <br />alternatives will be made later) <br />2. The Board of Commissioners strongly supported unit-based pricing as a waste reduction <br />tool. They suggested that a pay-as-you-throw plan for solid waste disposal only (not to include recycling <br />related services) would constitute a strong economic incentive for citizens to reduce solid waste generation <br />and increase recycling participation. <br />3. The Board of County Commissioners stated that the focus of the solid waste collection <br />program should be on the form and content of materials to be delivered to disposal/landfill facilities and <br />processing/Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Focus on form and content of materials places emphasis <br />on separation of recyclables and solid waste prior to delivery to the appropriate facility and that the <br />mode/method of collection and delivery is not a priority at this time. <br />4. The Board of County Commissioners recommended that the County's waste reduction and <br />recycling program concentrate on reducing and recycling materials that will provide the greatest impact on <br />waste reduction at the landfill. These would include the following: <br />a. Commercial waste sector - commercially-generated mixed paper, old corrugated <br />cardboard (OCC) and old newspaper (ONP) <br />b. Single-family and multi-family residential sectors - mixed paper <br />5. Consider interim arrangements to extend current landfill capacity <br />Commissioner Willhoit said that when talking about universal collection, the emphasis is on <br />collection and not the form and content of the waste that is delivered and not how it is picked up. <br />Commissioner Crowther mentioned that there could be a charge for waste but not for <br />recyclables. <br />Commissioner Gordon feels it is important to have some cost felt by everyone for all solid <br />waste garbage and not for recyclables which would provide the incentive to recycle. <br />John Link said that these principal elements will be conveyed to the other municipalities and <br />he will ask that County staff come up with some alternatives on how to use universal collection or <br />convenience centers or combination of both. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to <br />forward to the LOG the recommendations as listed above. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to <br />authorize the staff to develop options on the pay-as-you-throw option and the universal collection option. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />D. DISCUSSION OF LANDFILL REORGANIZATION WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS <br />This item was delayed to August 5, 1996. <br />E. DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY OPEN SPACE DESIGN GUIDEBOOK <br />This item was delayed to August 5, 1996. <br />F. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - EFFECTIVE DATE <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to reconsider the <br />decision on the amendment to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance that was taken on June 3, <br />1996.