Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2016 7:58:38 AM
Creation date
5/2/2014 2:38:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/8/2014
Meeting Type
Budget Sessions
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-08-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
11 <br /> 1 developments outside towns, and the rural areas all recycle, though they do recycling <br /> 2 differently. She said the towns and the County are poised to sign an agreement for curbside <br /> 3 recycling, and this is a result of conversations between staff, town managers, councils and <br /> 4 officials. She said this is a good fit for the town and the County, and the agreement appears to <br /> 5 be made in good faith. She said the public hearings have affirmed the importance of recycling <br /> 6 outside of the towns. She said curbside recycling is good for suburban developments that sit <br /> 7 just outside of towns. She asked, rather than funding this with a tax district, why the County <br /> 8 does not work with haulers already providing service to the towns, to include the suburban <br /> 9 communities for a fee. She said this would not require a special district. She said the County <br /> 10 has not respected the way rural households address recycling. She said only a third of those in <br /> 11 the rural area use curbside service. She said the curbside with a tax district should be rejected. <br /> 12 She said the Commissioners are the only voice that the rural residents have, and she asked <br /> 13 that the Board reject this district and re-visit the issue with the rural stakeholders. <br /> 14 Quentin Phillips said he lives on Orange Grove Road. He asked for clarification on the <br /> 15 revenue generated by the sale of recyclables. He asked why that cannot be self supporting. <br /> 16 He asked how this tax can be legal if the residents have not voted on it. He said he pays more <br /> 17 taxes in Orange County than he does in Alamance County. <br /> 18 David Neal is a member of the Commission for the Environment. He said the <br /> 19 commission's interest in this issue is environmental. He said there is benefit in the reduced <br /> 20 energy use created through recycling. He said, given the two options, the commission <br /> 21 identified the service district as the option that is least disruptive to the existing successful <br /> 22 program. He said a subscription service would be inefficient, difficult to manage, and <br /> 23 expensive. He agrees that in a real world, curbside recycling would be best in denser areas; <br /> 24 but because of the constraints requiring a contiguous district, this does not work. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Joe Phelps said he is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He said he would also like <br /> 27 to see the amount of revenue generated from the sale of recyclables. He said the opt-out <br /> 28 service should be an option, and if there is a fee, it should be a flat fee for all participants. He <br /> 29 feels the Board is incorrect in thinking that an opt-out program would reduce recycling <br /> 30 participation. He questioned why only part of the County was included in the program and why <br /> 31 the service was not offered to everyone. He does not believe this should be based upon tax <br /> 32 value. <br /> 33 Bonnie Hauser said she lives across the street from the proposed district, but she cares <br /> 34 about this issue. She said it is apparent that everyone involved cares about waste reduction, <br /> 35 but everyone does not do it the same way. She said there are many options that provide choice <br /> 36 and good service that have not been explored. She said the service district tax is not a fair or <br /> 37 equitable solution for the County. She said she has been supportive of the subscription fee, but <br /> 38 it seems there may be an issue of viability with this option. She said there needs to be more <br /> 39 time allowed to review the options, and a short term solution needs to be found, while options <br /> 40 for a long time solution can be sorted out. She asked the Board to delay all capital expenses, <br /> 41 including convenience center upgrades and roll carts until a decision is made on how to handle <br /> 42 this service in the long term. <br /> 43 Ben Lloyd said he is an Efland resident. He said he understands that this proposed tax <br /> 44 would apply to residents and open land, regardless if you create waste or not. He owns several <br /> 45 hundred acres of open land that produces no waste, and he feels it is unfair to make him pay a <br /> 46 tax for this land. He said the current convenience centers are the best and fairest options. He <br /> 47 does not mind paying for his sins and his service, but he resents paying for the sins and <br /> 48 services of other people. He said he was taught not to mess with something that is working, <br /> 49 and the convenience centers are working. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.