Agenda - 03-15-2006-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

collection options were tabled. Report on administrative cost of PAYT was submitted with no presentation. October Report on residential recycling options dual- stream v, single- stream /automated v, semi - automated. Report on commercial recycling options delivered but not presented orally, Commercial recycling waste stream analysis and options presented. November Clarification of commercial waste analysis, PAYT cost presentation, landfill v. transfer station, and solid waste collection in Orange County. Other informational staff reports have also been prepared but not presented addressing drop -off sites and rural waste collection. At the November meeting, the Work Group realized they had been presented with a significant amount of information and had given staff and SWAB some feedback and direction. They stated their ° next step would be to have staff prepare some analyses of possible program options. Through December, January and February, the SWAB continued to receive informational reports about aspects of the current system including rural garbage collection, multifamily recycling, regulatory mechanisms for increasing recycling and controlling waste, transfer station development, development of MRF and landfill siting guidelines. The remaining Work Group members can readily review these presentations and the minutes of the subsequent discussions to further their decision - making effectiveness. The initially planned trajectory was for the Work Group to reconvene once the recycling programs' technical analysis had been completed and there was some substantive information to review. At the December SWAB meeting, the SWAB requested a `decision- points' memorandum to make explicit the types of'decisions needed to build a solid waste plan. That memorandum and questionnaire on the decision points was distributed to the Work Group March 2 (attachment 3). Preliminary results of the questionnaire will be compiled and discussed in April then used again when discussing the analysis in subsequent meetings. Having a preliminary set of preferences and comparing them to a second set once the technical data are available may sharpen the decision making process. It now appears the analyses will be completed in late April and presented at the following Work Group meeting. Discussion Through preparation of the previous solid waste plan update in 2003, there was dissection among the jurisdictions on a number of key issues including whether to consider an in- County materials recovery facility and how to go about achieving the 61% waste reduction goal. A significant outcome was that the Town of Chapel Hill did not endorse the 2003 plan update. Another key outcome was that the County, as lead agency, did not firmly commit to a strategy to achieve the goal and, notably, removed its previous at least tacit support for a materials processing center as integral to meeting the waste reduction goal. As the various jurisdictions and the Solid Waste Advisory Board re- engage, the intent is to produce the statutorily required three year update of the State - required ten year solid waste plan, as well as develop a consensus around a workable, practical plan that achieves the waste 3