Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-18-2008 - Transfer 1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 11-18-2008
>
Agenda - 11-18-2008 - Transfer 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2013 10:44:14 AM
Creation date
11/14/2008 3:08:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/18/2008
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20081118 - Transfer Station
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />10 <br />Additionally, all four of the sites rank within the top half from the technical criteria. His point is <br />that there is a clean break between the top four and ones below them. He suggested breaking <br />the sites at this point and eliminating the remainder of the sites. <br />Gwen Harvey said that Olver, Inc. has discussed, in looking at the comparison between <br />the technical and community-specific criteria, that there is an apparent correlation with certain <br />sites that Bob Sallach is prepared to address. This may be helpful in the Board coming to a <br />decision about how to achieve a manageable number of sites. <br />Bob Sallach pointed out the top five sites in the technical criteria and said that there is a <br />tie between #5 and #6. The top four sites are 759, 056, 779, and 573. He pointed out the sites <br />on the map: <br />573 — off of 1-40 <br />779 — West NC 54 <br />056 — adjacent to 779 (freely offered site for sale) <br />759 — NC 54 (OWASA site) <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to the top four for the community-specific criteria <br />along with the technical criteria, and this would leave three sites. <br />Chair Jacobs said that if you take the technical and community-specific criteria, then two <br />sites really jump out — 779 and 759. He said that it is clear that these two rank higher than the <br />others. Also, it is clear that at least three rank significantly lower than any others, and that is <br />717, 010, and 826. The Board agreed. <br />Chair Jacobs also suggested eliminating site 669. The Board agreed. <br />Commissioner Foushee said that she also considers that one of the sites is currently used <br />for a public purpose. The other site now has a willing seller. She would think that these facts <br />should be considered also. <br />Geof Gledhill said that it may look like this is an exclusionary criteria applied after the fact, <br />and he does not think that this is a good idea. He said that the availability is part of the <br />technical criteria and that is weighted in the methodology. <br />Commissioner Nelson said that three of the top four in the community-specific criteria — <br />759, 779, and 056 — rank significantly higher than the sites that fall below them and there seems <br />to be a natural break there. He would feel comfortable with these three sites. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that as the Board was going through the criteria, the original <br />idea was to do the exclusionary first, then technical, and then community-specific. She said <br />that these three sites would follow this process. <br />The proposal is 769, 779, and 066, based on the fact that these are the likeliest sites <br />based on both sides of the criteria. <br />The Board agreed. <br />4. Discuss Proposed Strategies for Public Participation in Moving Forward with <br />Candidate Site(s) <br />Chair Jacobs said that there was a proposed process on September 16th, which called <br />upon the consultant to solicit comment from the community surrounding all ten sites. The Board <br />of County Commissioners saw some problems with that process, so it was decided to use this <br />process for public comment. The discussion now moves to how the Board will receive public <br />comment and what the public process will be. <br />. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that June 24th was when the Board adopted the final <br />community-specific criteria. <br />Gwen Harvey said that at last week's work session, there was a discussion of alternate <br />proposals for public participation and the impact that the participation would have on moving <br />forward with the project timelines, which was to be in a position for the Board to make a <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.