Agenda - 04-16-1997 - 9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 2 Any solid waste system adopted will also include a provision for final disposal of residues and materials that are not recycled or composted. The location or ownership of the disposal element has not been determined and was not part of the cost analyses conducted during the integrated study. Responses from the Local Governments The Owners Group has received formal written responses regarding the plan from Orange County in a memorandum dated July 2, 1996 (see attachment 2) and Carrboro in a memorandum dated February 4, 1997 (see attachment 3). Discussion of the integrated plan was on the Town of Chapel Hill's March 24 Council agenda. The Town of Hillsborough received information on the integrated solid waste plan at their March 11, 1997 meeting and is in the process of developing recommendations for the Owners Group. In addition to their July 2 memorandum, the Orange County Board of Commissioners discussed solid waste management at their mid-year retreat on December 7, 1996. While they took no formal action, the County Manager's office reported that the Board favored retaining the solid waste convenience centers in some form as a means for collection of residential wastes in unincorporated Orange County. At their January 16, 1997 work session, the Orange County" Board of Commissioners reviewed information from the County staff about citizen preferences for the current system of solid waste convenience centers in unincorporated Orange County. That preference is shown in the revised system in attachment 2. Curbside collection is preferred by citizens in the County's more urban areas. The Board of Commissioners prefers volume- based collection fees as an incentive for solid waste reduction except for recyclables. Based on previous Owners' Group meetings, there appears to be an informal consensus among the member governments that they do not wish to relinquish or share control of collection of municipal solid waste. Thus, as part of the initial implementation process, solid waste collection would not be considered as an area for integration. Each government would decide independently how it wishes to regulate solid waste in order to achieve reduction. Therefore, there would initially be no joint consideration of volume-based fees or collection bans (mandatory recycling) by the governments. Each would pursue the strategies it believes most effective in each sector within its jurisdiction. DISCUSSION The staff prepared planning level estimates on the potential costs of implementing components of the integrated solid waste management plan which are summarized in Attachment 4. The cost estimates do not include all prevention, collection and processing elements of the proposed integrated plan. Specifically we have not included cost estimates for implementing collection bans or volume-based fees, universal solid waste collection, special waste centers or organics composting. The Owners Group stated in their February meeting that they would consider adding local ordinances for construction waste reduction planning to the overall integrated plan when that was considered. None of the costs associated with implementation of those types of programs is included in the implementation estimates shown in attachment 4. The construction waste reduction ordinances could be incorporated into a larger construction waste management plan.