Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> January 8 , 2004 <br /> Approved February 12, 2004 <br /> additions would be incremental to accommodate growth . Overall , we are doing well <br /> with waste reduction . Our preliminary calculation of where we are now, which is not <br /> ready for publication, is 46 % per capita . <br /> Sassaman states that we strongly endorsed the old plan at least twice and specifically <br /> called for the MRF . In reading this , there is clearly no MRF . We have to decide as a <br /> board to go along with the Commissioners or whether it is in the county ' s interest to <br /> proceed more aggressively in the solid waste arena . <br /> Vickers states that it is imperative for the SWAB to recognize the financial decision the <br /> BOCC is making but also push the reinitiation of the goal of 61 % and the plan to get <br /> there . <br /> Rehm asks has the State goal for the 10 - year plan been changed ? How has the 10 - year <br /> plan been massaged so that without a MRF we can still achieve that ? <br /> Wilson states that it hasn' t been . <br /> Rehm states that to say that you are going to have a goal and undermine the efforts to <br /> achieve it is double talk . <br /> Pollock states that we are the best in the state . In their perspective we meet the state <br /> goal . <br /> Sassaman states that the SWAB and BOCC are not on the same wavelength . <br /> Wilson states that this will go forward to the Commissioners hopefully on January 26 <br /> or February 3 meeting . We will ask them to call a public hearing at their next <br /> meeting . At the public hearing we ask them to endorse it so that we can take it to the <br /> Towns . Let them have their public hearing and endorse it so that we can turn it into <br /> the state . You all made a strong statement in the letter you sent . It ' s not absolutely <br /> necessary that you do anything . <br /> Sassaman states that in listening to the group it appears that we want to endorse the <br /> plan but raise some issues . <br /> Vickers moves to endorse the basic tenets of the plan but [says that] we have <br /> reservation on the elimination of the defined mechanism to obtain the 61 % goal since <br /> there are no defined mechanisms . The MRF has been eliminated there has to be an <br /> alternate mechanism to get there . Until that is done, no progress will be made . <br /> Rehm asks if we need to endorse the plan ? <br /> 3 <br />