Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 110509
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2009
>
SWAB minutes 110509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:43:51 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:43:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
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.
/
14
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 /> November 5 , 2009 <br /> Approved December 3, 2009 <br /> Vickers states that whatever the Board does on the issue of how or what are the <br /> functions of the Solid Waste Department is - providing convenience centers, <br /> collection or franchise, the commissioners will ask the SWAB at some point for a <br /> recommendation on a funding mechanism . <br /> Sassaman states that then it becomes our responsibility, but I don' t think it is at this <br /> point. It seems that a recommendation along the lines of we like to see convenience <br /> centers such that they are maximally exposed to the population and we recognize that <br /> needs to be funded . <br /> Vickers states that the issue that hasn' t been discussed much is the unmanned <br /> convenience centers [dropoff sites] . We have a lot of drop- off sites and the question is <br /> are they placed strategically, are there too many or too few? <br /> Sassaman states that that is a different animal . <br /> Bowerman states that regarding the funding I don' t think it should be specific . I don' t <br /> think we should have people buy in, where some can get stickers and others can' t. I <br /> think it should be open to everybody, even if they only need it once . I ' d rather them <br /> have it than dump it on the side of the road . Everyone should have access however <br /> it' s paid . <br /> Sassaman agrees and that access should be equal and funding mechanism should be <br /> applied to everybody . <br /> Vickers states that the Task group [Work Group] came to the conclusion that access <br /> had to be available to everyone . The issue came up that because the Towns currently <br /> ith municipal garbage disposal and the county budget pays for <br /> pay for solid waste w <br /> the municipal waste disposed [from] outside the county (sic) [the Towns] , shouldn' t it <br /> be shared -- that the non-urban residents pay directly for their garbage disposal vs . <br /> the county (sic) urban residents ? How you work out some system is the question . <br /> Sassaman states that there is a simple argument for that. One way is to have a two - <br /> tier pay system . The other counter-argument is for the Towns to say once you fill up <br /> your bin, you either hold your extra garbage until the next week or use the <br /> convenience center or you pay extra if you have too much . If I have too much I put it <br /> in a bag and take it to the convenience center along with broken furniture or junk . <br /> Some things aren t appropriate for the PTA [Thrift Shop] but are appropriate to the <br /> salvage sheds . <br /> Vickers states that the Task Force [Work Group] was clear that the access had to be <br /> county wide - urban and rural . The issue of equity and funding on garbage disposal <br /> and PAYT and how that was treated was left to be discussed at a later time . <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.