Minutes - 19751209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1~~ 2. Noise -- garbage trucks and other vehicles coming and going early and late, daily. 3. Pests -- with this type of operation proposed, we feel that it will continue to serve as a breeding ground for rats and other rodents. It will open the area to all types of unacceptable odors which will constitute a health hazard. With rats will came flies and snakes. 4. This area will grow and be a credit to this section of Orange County with the construction of decent homes. With this type of facility, growth will be cut off. "~nTe refuse tc sacrifice our stand on this matter, and feel, since the Commissioners seemingly are not sympathetic to the feelings and wishes of a segment of the voting population in this area, we are wasting time and taxpayers' money to entertain any further discussion on the matter, but want the record to show that this group of Commissioners and County Officials ran roughshod over their electorate without proper consideration." Mr. Crowder stated that the feelings of the citizens from that area had not changed, the people would not compromise. Mr. Crowder and his group then left the meeting. Commissioner Norman Walker moved that the Board accept Site #1 for the construction of the Vehicle Maintenance Garage with the Building running in an east-west direction and facing a north-south direction. Commissioner Gustavesan seconded this motion. Discussion ensued concerning the best direction in which the building should be placed on the site. Commissioner Walker amended his motion to stated that Site #1 be used for the construction of the Vehicle Maintenance Garq'ge and that - the Building be placed on the site in the manner which is best suited for the garage. The Chairman called for the vote. Voting aye were Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker and Whitted. Voting nay was Commissioner Garrett. The Chairman declared the motion passed. The Chairman referred to Item #2 on the Agenda: Interviews with four architectural firms prior to selection of an architect to conduct the County Facility Study. The County Administrator introduced to the Board representatives from the Firm of Haken and Corley of Chapel Hill. Mr. Joseph Haken present to the Board various features of his Facility Study proposal. He stated that his Chapel Hill firm was an in-house firm which handled all of its awn services. Mr. Haken stated that his firm usually proceeded with a Facility - Study by first studying the present uses of the existing buildings; _ secondly, define if the space is being used effectively and thirdly, how should each function be used and what changes would be provided thru the study. He stated the need of studying the expansion for _- the next 15 years. Mr. Haken stated that his firm would provide a solid, concrete proposal of what the Board should do. The architect stated that the architectual fee is based on a number of cents per square foot. Construction cost was estimated at $15.00 per square foot. Chairman Garrett inquired of Mr. Haken if his firm could propose answers in regard to the jail and the court system. Mr. Haken assured the Board that he would make very definite re- commendations for all functions of the Ccunty.