Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
L N: Have you identified all the suitable potential <br />and how did you reach the conclusion that these 4 sites <br />others and why is the testing information important? <br />9 <br />sites in Orange <br />are better than <br />SWER: Susan Doverbarger stated that the sites were identified based <br />on selection criteria developed under the direction of the consultant. Those <br />criteria took into account government restrictions and land size. The minimal <br />range for size was 300 - 500 acres. She has wondered if they should go back <br />and take another look. Was there something they had missed? She stated she <br />does not know if they have identified all the suitable potential sites. She <br />noted that the only site that the committee has agreed upon unanimously did <br />not appear on the original list of sites that came out of the screening <br />process. At their November meeting the committee voted site by site without <br />knowing how each other was going to vote. What they decided on were sites OC9 <br />and OC17. At that point they decided to go back and vote again site by <br />site. At that point OC2 and OC11 went back on the list by a very narrow <br />margin. At the February meeting, they decided they wanted to take another <br />vote. At this time they added OC3 and removed OC9, OC11 and OC2. At the end <br />of that meeting they decided to drill on two sites, OC3 and OC17 with OC17 <br />being a unanimous vote. They convened in March and was told that OC3 was not <br />an option and at that point they reconsidered their original charge to put <br />forth more than one site for geotechnical drilling. One committee member was <br />absent. They took a 6-5 vote to add OC2, OC9, and OC11. If that committee <br />member had been present that motion would not have passed. Testing <br />information was covered by Mr. Joyce and Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Mann noted that <br />they think they have identified all the suitable potential sites. <br />QUESTION: The LSSC has obviously divided along north/south lines. When you <br />get 6-5 votes on a committee like this, which is supposed to be objectively <br />selecting a landfill site, it is evident that the decision. has become <br />political -- not objective. This means that 6 people in Orange County will <br />be making an important recommendation that will have serious consequences for <br />every citizen. Isn't this an indication that we need to reexamine the <br />process? <br />ANSWER: Mr. Mann noted that this has been a tough decision. They have been <br />following this concept of majority rules and there have been a number of <br />questions that were close but they have never felt that because it is a 6-5 <br />vote, that they should negate that vote. <br />ADDITIONAL OIIESTIONS AND ANSWERS <br />Commissioner Gordon stated that she requested a report in June which <br />would take the original site selection criteria and justify each criteria and <br />explain how the final eliminations were made as well as which sites were <br />retained at each stage and why. She would like complete details including any <br />available records on this entire process. She thinks she heard the committee <br />say they couldn't do this because it was a group process. She thought that <br />there would be a report from the committee that would go over some of these <br />details. She emphasized that it would be helpful if she had a report listing <br />the advantages and disadvantages of each site and reasons for voting for or <br />against a site. Also, she would like a report of what criteria they feel is <br />most important and how that criteria eliminated the sites that were eliminated <br />