Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
-The preparation of a real site plan. <br /> -IPA application to the USACOE and NCDENR for wetlands mitigation. <br /> -Submittal of a driveway permit application to NCDOT to determine whether a driveway <br /> for municipal trucks will be permitted at the Howell site, and the extent of the <br /> improvements to NC 54 that will be required. <br /> -Surveys for significant species on the site and directly downstream <br /> You might also ask—when all is said and done — is it possible that we cannot develop the site at <br /> all without incurring significant additional unplanned expenses and delays? <br /> If you ask the right questions now, we can avoid inevitable delays and overruns. If you ask the <br /> right questions now, you may decide that a WTS in Bingham Township is not in the interest of <br /> any citizen of Orange County." <br /> Tony Blake read a prepared statement and was also from Orange County Voice. <br /> "As a citizen, it is important to get accurate information to the community and board. It's <br /> concerning to me that the County and its consultant took it upon themselves to make significant <br /> changes to the scope and function of this important resource without highlighting this change, its <br /> reasons and impacts. <br /> Olver's estimate to build the WTS in Bingham is now $4.77 million — including land and <br /> building. It's a lot lower than the $7-10 million estimate from last December and took some effort <br /> to uncover and understand the differences. SWAB members asked important questions which <br /> you may want to ask tonight: <br /> One SWAB member asked: what impact did shrinking the facility have? Olver <br /> explained on April 2nd: <br /> -The facility was reduced from two bays to one which some say eliminates the space <br /> needed to recover recycling from household trash <br /> -The educational facility has been eliminated <br /> -We have heard opinions that the one bay facility serves the County's needs just fine <br /> Q: Which is true? Why would we invest in a 20-year facility that doesn't support the <br /> County and its municipal customer objectives? <br /> Q: Don't these factors impact the selection criteria as well? If a smaller facility works, <br /> wouldn't a smaller parcel— say 5 acres— work too? <br /> If the reduced facility serves the need, then this is a good example of fiscal responsibility <br /> and we should consider it— if we move the facility closer to town, to a site with water and sewer, <br /> which would further lower costs to build the facility. Plus it would save the municipalities at least <br /> $5 million for hauling over the next 20 years. <br /> Land purchase estimates are confusing too. Olver now estimates $375,000 for land. <br /> Even if they used reassessed market value instead of the $3 million "willing seller" price, the <br /> County will pay at a minimum $935,000 —there is no arguable basis to assume less unless you <br /> are throwing out the "willing seller" criteria that was the deciding factor for selecting the site in the <br /> first place. <br /> Q: What number is the accurate estimate for land? <br />