Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 100506
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
SWAB minutes 100506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 3:52:36 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 2:58:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/5/2006
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> October 5, 2006 <br /> Approved November 2, 2006 <br /> Wilson states that it would be hard to meet the criteria previously discussed . <br /> Pollock states that once the data is returned in sequence it will be folded back into a <br /> redo of the report . That you will see again and there will be an opportunity to take <br /> that forward . The procedure hasn' t been determined in terms of how it will work, <br /> whether every board will see it and we will redact all their comments and then the <br /> public will see that version which will go to the County Board . There are also other <br /> pieces out there including the rural solid waste study, the transfer station issues and <br /> side stream issues like the commercial recycling task force, so how long do we want <br /> this process to go and how many times will we iterate before it goes to the BOCC for <br /> final action . <br /> Sassaman states that it would behoove us to have the elected officials that are part of <br /> the work group have frequent input into the order in which this is revealed . <br /> Wilson says there should be some feedback from the elected officials before we take it <br /> on the road . If we take it on the road before the elected officials see it, then they may <br /> not like what the public has said it wants . <br /> Sassaman asks if the participation of the elected officials on the work group is <br /> sufficient . <br /> Pollock notes that there was little feedback from the elected on the work group as they <br /> did not stay until the end of the meeting . <br /> Schedule/Next Steps Pollock states that what' s coming next is the RFPs and then the <br /> public input . <br /> Clayton states that if they [the RFPs] go out in order the earliest we could see it <br /> would be March . <br /> Pollock agrees . <br /> Pollock notes that there . is a long lead time for the RFPs and if we don' t meet for six <br /> months we lose the continuity but there is not a lot of substance to meet about . <br /> Clayton suggests that there is an opportunity to meet on mixed paper . <br /> Elected Board Updates Wilson states that whether the work group meets in November <br /> or not there needs to be some formal written board update and give some detail of <br /> where things are and the next steps . The written update will make sure everyone' s <br /> brought along at the same level . <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.