Orange County NC Website
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> October 4, 2007 <br /> Approved December 6, 2007 <br /> Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Bonnie Norwood, Remus Smith, Al Vickers, Linda <br /> Bowerman and Michelle Grunwald <br /> Staff: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, and Wanda McCain <br /> 1 . Adoption of Minutes from September 6 SWAB meeting Norwood moves to accept. <br /> Bowerman 2nd. Passes unanimously <br /> 2 . Board Member Comments Norwood asks to continue to water Eubanks . <br /> 3 . Solid Waste Management Planning - Interim State Report Pollock states that the <br /> cover memo is similar to the one you saw at the September meeting. The difference <br /> is that we have prepared a resolution and the outline of the aspects of the plan <br /> where we flesh out the important details . It suggests to the Board of Commissioners <br /> that they authorize us to go ahead with the interim plan, It is important that we stay <br /> compliant with the State statue that states that you have to have a three-year update <br /> to the plan. Not being in compliance keeps us off the grant list. We have been very <br /> successful in getting various grants from the State ' s Division of Pollution Prevention . <br /> They will have much more money next year from the new landfill surcharge . Our <br /> permit for the transfer station may be somewhat jeopardized without being in <br /> compliance with the plan requirement. There is a catalog of projects we' ve <br /> accomplished over the past three and a half years that we want to list and also we' ll <br /> present a sketch outline of what we plan to do in the planning process . <br /> Grunwald asks if the interim plan will have dates or will it be open-ended . <br /> Pollock states that they don ' t require any dates . We had a waste reduction of 45 % by <br /> 2001 and we met that and we had a goal of 61 % by 2006 but as it became clear we <br /> wouldn' t meet it, we kept the goal and dropped the timeline . There will be more of <br /> a sequence than a timeline . <br /> Wilson states that the plan will not speculate what the outcome will be but outline <br /> the process and show what we are looking at. <br /> Smith asks if there needs to be a motion to move forward . <br /> Sassaman states that the resolution is attached . <br /> Norwood states that in the memo it states " We understand that there may be some <br /> risk in developing an interim solid waste plan update " . . . is there something that you <br /> can explain easier than this . My understanding is that someone not having all the <br /> facts may jump on an issue that' s not relevant. <br /> 1 <br />