Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />APPROVED 6 -29 -92 <br />MINUTES <br />ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />MAY 19, 1992 <br />The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on <br />Tuesday, May 19, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the OWASA meeting room on Jones Ferry <br />Road in Carrboro, North Carolina. <br />COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and <br />Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don <br />Willhoit. <br />COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill <br />STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County <br />Manager Albert Kittrell, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy <br />Clerk Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken <br />Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, <br />Budget Director Sally Kost, Recreation and Parks Director MaryAnne Moore and <br />Fire Marshall Mike Tapp. <br />I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA <br />Two additional names were added to the Appointments. <br />A resolution was added changing the place of the May 21st Special <br />Meeting to Superior Courtroom. <br />Item 8 -A was deleted <br />A request to support H916 introduced by Representative Anne Barnes <br />was added as item 4 -D. <br />11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS <br />A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA <br />Chair Carey stated that those citizens who have indicated a desire <br />to speak on an item on the printed agenda will be recognized at the <br />appropriate time. <br />B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA <br />Bruce Kohorn read a prepared statement from citizens against site <br />eleven. In summary the letter stated that they are dissatisfied with the <br />search process for Orange County's next landfill. They ask for an <br />investigation of the voting process which led to the selection of landfill <br />sites 11, 2, 9 and 17 for geotechnical drilling. They feel the sites were <br />chosen by a process heavily influenced by an angry public and not by sound <br />public policy and scientific reasoning. They do not understand why site 3 <br />or even part of site 3 was eliminated. They feel that site 3 should not be <br />eliminated until the fate of the airport is determined. They want the <br />selection process to be scientifically sound and politically just. They are <br />against spending $60,000 to drill four sites. The asked that site 17 be <br />drilled and if not suitable drill one more site. <br />PUBLIC CHARGE <br />