Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 120309
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2009
>
SWAB minutes 120309
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:44:54 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:43:51 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.
/
21
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 /> December 3, 2009 <br /> Approved January 11, 2010 <br /> In the slide of frequently disposed of materials, for those who also pay but who have <br /> in-town curbside recycling, the graph might have been flipped because they may not <br /> use it on a regular basis for recycling and cardboard but it ' s probably valuable for <br /> them that have the occasional dead couch, refrigerator or tires . They may not use it as <br /> often but what is important to them may be a little different. I am curious as to why <br /> folks would oppose curbside garbage collection if it is voluntary subscription service . <br /> Hauser states that we are not an urban community . We don' t have networks into the <br /> towns, but we would be happy, our survey is on Constant Contact, to give it to you <br /> and you could run an m town survey so you could have that data . I also want to <br /> clarify on the disposal chart that is not a convenience center chart it is just the <br /> frequency of items people dispose of regardless of how they dispose of it. On the <br /> community centers it would be nice if those bulletin boards became community <br /> bulletin boards . <br /> K Hoffman states that the in-town citizens are equally important and we are not in <br /> any way disparaging their right to have input and the importance of listening to them . <br /> We were focused on the rural community because the changes right now that are <br /> being considered are focused on services for the unincorporated parts of the county <br /> and there was a very tight timeframe . It would be terrific to hear from people <br /> throughout the county . I think that would be a very valuable thing to do . We weren' t <br /> uninterested in their input, we just couldri t manage a survey of that size and that <br /> complexity in this amount of time . <br /> Sassaman states that understanding where you are coming from, my point is that the <br /> other residents of the county are equal stakeholders . <br /> Harvey states that I know you all spent a lot time on this and I applaud and <br /> appreciate that. In the chart of disposal of common household items , it doesn t show <br /> the frequency of household garbage [disposal] . Is it because the assumption is the 742 <br /> people who said they come to recycle, those same 742 respondents are bringing their <br /> household garbage ? <br /> Hauser states that we just didn' t ask that quite that way . <br /> Harvey replies so I shouldri t imply that. The other thing is on page 6 in the back of <br /> the Appendix the question is " Do you use the county' s biweekly recycling pickup <br /> service ? , if no why don' t you use the recycling pickup service check all that apply " . <br /> You give the number of responses . I was particularly interested in the one that says " I <br /> take my household garbage and recycling to a convenience center at the same time . " <br /> You give the number of response to be 147 . Then it says a total of 881 . When I add it <br /> up it comes to 268 . I wonder what the other 500 people said . <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.