Orange County NC Website
1 Progress Overview <br /> 2 1. Selection of Final Candidate Sites for Community-Specific Evaluation <br /> 3 • Based upon Technical Evaluation 6 Sites are Recommended as Candidate <br /> 4 Sites for Community-Specific Evaluation <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Technical Site Evaluation Summary <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Next Phase <br /> 9 1. Upon Approval by BOCC Conduct Public Input Meetings for Recommended <br /> 10 Candidate Sites <br /> 11 2. Public Input Meeting <br /> 12 • Presentation and Discussion of Technical Evaluation <br /> 13 • Receive Community-Specific Evaluation Input from the Public regarding the <br /> 14 Proposed Candidate Sites <br /> 15 3. Conduct Community-Specific Evaluation of Candidate Sites <br /> 16 4. Prepare Initial Ranking of Candidate Sites <br /> 17 5. Present Results to BOCC at October 21, 2008 Work Session <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Bob Sallach of Olver explained that site 304 had an amendment file that would exclude <br /> 21 development of the site, so it was removed. <br /> 22 The ten sites that were chosen are shown on Exhibit 2. According to the rankings and <br /> 23 scoring, the top two sites are very highly ranked in comparison to the other sites. There is <br /> 24 another break at sites five and six. He is asking that the community-specific criteria be applied <br /> 25 to the top six sites. If the Board approves these six sites, then the sites will be taken to three <br /> 26 community meetings to receive public input. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Commissioner Nelson said that three of the sites were dropped from consideration —826, <br /> 29 717, and 010. He asked why these were dropped. Bob Sallach made reference to the point <br /> 30 totals in terms of total points. The top two sites were in the mid 600's and then there was a <br /> 31 band of four sites that were very close in total points. <br /> 32 Commissioner Nelson verified that this was a subjective decision and a logical break <br /> 33 point. <br /> 34 In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Bob Sallach made reference to the <br /> 35 project schedule and meeting timeline and said that the process is being followed. He thinks <br /> 36 that the process should be redefined before going forward, because everyone is not on the <br /> 37 same page as anticipated. <br /> 38 Commissioner Nelson said that there was a lot of public input on the creation of the <br /> 39 community-specific criteria and he feels that this is a good package. He thinks that they should <br /> 40 be applied before the sites are taken out to public hearing. He thinks that this goal has been <br /> 41 accomplished. <br /> 42 Chair Jacobs said that it does not make sense to him to solicit public comment, give <br /> 43 values to the community-specific criteria, and then not apply them before going out into the <br /> 44 community. The logic to him is to take the ten sites that are remaining, not six, and apply the <br /> 45 criteria to all of them. He thinks that the ordering of the ten would be significantly different if this <br /> 46 were done. He does not want a process that will prolong people's discomfort, anger, and sense <br /> 47 of betrayal by the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> 48 Bob Sallach said that he would like to move forward with defining the process that the <br /> 49 County Commissioners want the consultants to follow, from this point on. <br /> 50 Commissioner Carey said that he would like to ask the consultants to apply the <br /> 51 community-specific criteria, but the question becomes what to take to the public for comment. <br />