Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br /> 1 4. Notify haulers that the Board is removing from options under consideration the <br /> 2 franchising system. <br /> 3 Chair Jacobs clarified that options 2, 3, and 4 were related to a countywide tax <br /> 4 district; staff will provide pros and cons, with costs and revenue sources for each option, <br /> 5 and a timetable for implementation of each option. <br /> 6 Commissioner Gordon asked what was done with option 7, and Chair Jacobs said this <br /> 7 option only-addresses cost effectiveness and how to pay for things, without being an option in <br /> 8 and of itself. <br /> 9 Commissioner Gordon noted the statement of the motion should include the pros and <br /> 10 cons, with costs and revenue sources, for each option, as the Chair previously said. <br /> 11 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not understand of cost effectiveness and how this <br /> 12 can be interpreted. <br /> 13 Frank Clifton said that looking at the system as it is now, but there are cost efficiencies <br /> 14 that could be acquired to deliver the same service or an expanded service, because of <br /> 15 methodology used. He gave the example of an automated system with roliout cans providing <br /> 16 labor and equipment savings that allow for a larger service district for the same cost. <br /> 17 ' Commissioner Pelissier said this means that it is really more about efficiency in how <br /> 18 things are done, rather than how charges or taxes are done. <br /> 19 Frank Clifton noted that the least costly system for the county is to have more drop off <br /> 20 sites as this eliminates drivers and trucks. He said that even this has pros and cons and all of <br /> 21 these will have to be looked at. <br /> 22 Chair Jacobs asked if it made sense to substitute efficiency for effectiveness in the <br /> 23 motion. <br /> 24 Commissioner Dorosin accepted this as a friendly amendment and Commissioner Rich <br /> 25 seconded. <br /> 26 Gayle Wilson asked if the discussion is regarding efficiency in rural and urban curbside. <br /> 27 Chair Jacobs said that this discussion is related to recycling. <br /> 28 Vote was taken on the following motion, which included the friendly amendment: <br /> 29 <br /> 30 1. Adopting 5 goals related to recycling and solid waste: <br /> 31 a. Want a system that is cost efficient; <br /> 32 b. Want a system that maximizes recycling; <br /> 33 c. Want a system that maximizes equity; <br /> 34 d. Want a system that is fair to staff and private haulers; <br /> 35 e. Want a system that advances the possibility of comprehensive waste <br /> 36 reduction in partnership with the towns. <br /> 37 2. Consider options 2, 3, 4 permutated into one option; consider option 1 for a solid <br /> 38 waste authority for either a long term or alternative option; and leave on the table <br /> 39 option 8 that would have a 3-R fee with no curbside recycling. <br /> 40 3. Hold a public hearing on April 23 where the three options will be presented. <br /> 41 4. Notify haulers that the Board is removing from options under consideration the <br /> 42 franchising system. <br />