Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Nelson said that, in looking at the community-specific and technical criteria, <br /> it seems that there is a fairly clean break between the top four sites and the fifth site. <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 759, 779, and 056, 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 161h, 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 /> 4 <br />