Orange County NC Website
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 /> determination about the final site at the meeting on November 18th. There were three <br /> proposals. <br /> The first proposal would involve the Board choosing five candidate sites at this meeting, <br /> then conducting one or more public hearings around those five potential sites from the ten <br /> candidate sites, and then making a decision on November 18th <br /> The second proposal would have been for the Board to decide a manageable number of <br /> sites, maybe less than five, and then Olver, Inc. would take the sites out for public listening <br /> sessions. The Board would then have a public comment period and make its determination at <br /> that time to move forward. <br /> The third proposal was for the Board to possibly choose one site at this meeting and then <br /> have public information and education sessions take place out in the community concerning that <br /> one site and come back on November 18th with the opportunity for further public discussion <br /> before the Board made its decision. <br /> The Board agreed at the work session to narrow the list down to three sites, which it has <br /> just done. The Board also decided to have the Board receive public comment directly as <br /> opposed to having Olver, Inc. serve as the interface in the community. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that the Board is trying to operate under constraints such as the fact <br /> that the landfill will close in 2011. Also, the Board was trying to make decisions before it added <br /> three new County Commissioners on December 1St <br /> He explained the public comment process for tonight. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that there is only one more meeting before December 1St and <br /> she would like to take due process. She suggested having one more meeting to discuss this. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that the Board has a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 p.m. and <br /> there are 45 people signed up to speak. He said that this list could be taken to the next public <br /> meeting. He asked that people with written comments give them to the Clerk. <br /> 5. Receive Public Comment on Results of Technical Criteria and Community-Specific <br /> Criteria and Proposals for Public Participation <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> Chris Cole said that quality of life is a community issue and not a technical issue. He said <br /> that a transfer station is not a long-term solution. He said that there should be a parallel track <br /> focusing on recycling. He said that there are other green solutions than shipping the trash <br /> somewhere else. He said that it is a concern to him that the County is looking at such large <br /> parcels of land when the future use of the balance of the land has not been determined or <br /> disclosed. He said that moving the site away from where the trash is generated is not <br /> environmental justice either. <br /> Gayane Chambless read a prepared statement and submitted 585 signatures expressing <br /> concern for environmental, economic, and the site selection process. <br /> "Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to be heard. After the disclosure of the <br /> potential sites just one month ago, I began a mission to learn more in order to understand what <br /> you were looking at. What I found was a number of inconsistencies which began to alarm me. <br /> One of these was that Olver, Inc. introduced Community Input Forms, and touted them (on their <br /> website and in meetings) as if they were with your full knowledge and approval. So much so, <br /> that a group submitted them to you at the September 16th meeting. I am aware that numerous <br /> people wanted to submit forms and posed questions to County staff and/or Olver. It was not <br /> until nearly a month later that a press release from you was issued stating it was not with your <br /> 5 <br />