HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080211 - Transfer Station APPROVED 3118108
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Reconvened Regular Meeting from February 5, 2008
February 11, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners reconvened the regular meeting from
February 5, 2008 to Monday, February 11, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human
Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr.,
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Barry Jacobs
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Goof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Commissioner Foushee was the acting Chair.
1. Resolutions Providing Comments Regarding Draft 2009-2015 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln said
that the purpose of this item is to provide comments regarding the draft 2009-2015 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The first resolution is to NCDOT, and the
second one is to the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. The TIP is a seven-year program of funds
that is updated every two years. There will be two public hearings on the draft. NCDOT
will hold a public information meeting for all of Division 7 on February 20th from 2-4 p.m.
at the Seymour Center. The TAC of DCHC-MPO will hold a public hearing on the draft
Metropolitan TIP on February 13th at 7:00 p.m. at the Durham City Hall. The OUTBoard
reviewed the draft TIP and recommended comments, which are incorporated into the
resolution. She also reviewed two comments (both listed as #2 on the resolutions),
which she had recently added to the resolutions. She read these comments as listed on
the resolutions.
Commissioner Gordon asked what language is needed about the EDD funding
with respect to the priority list. Karen Lincoln said that the Buckhorn Road widening was
the number one priority outside of the metropolitan area boundary, as shown on page
25.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon to approve the resolutions providing comments regarding the Draft 2009-2015
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Resolution providing
comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee
regarding the Draft 2009-2015 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGARDING THE
DRAFT 2009 —2015 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DIVISION 7 PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Orange County welcomes the opportunity to participate in
development of the 2009-2015 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program,
and
WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs in the vicinity
of schools, on existing roads and bridges, to other transportation projects that encourage
alternatives to automobile travel, to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the
natural environment and cultural sites, and to those projects that foster economic
development in the designated Economic Development Districts; and
WHEREAS, Orange County has submitted a Priority List of transportation
projects for inclusion in the 2009 —2015 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has released the
Draft 2009— 2015 STIP for public comment; and
WHEREAS, Orange County, as a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
(DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has submitted comments to the
Transportation Advisory Committee of the DCHC MPO regarding transportation projects
within the Metropolitan Area Boundary, which are attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation is the sole approving
authority for the STIP for areas of the State outside Metropolitan Area Boundaries; and
WHEREAS, a large portion of Orange County lies outside the DCHC MPO MAB;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that Orange County submits the following comments regarding
transportation projects in areas of the County outside the DCHC MPO MAB, as
submitted in the attached recommendation of the Orange County Unified Transportation
Board, for consideration by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in
development of the 2009— 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program:
1 . Orange County is concerned that cuts in appropriated federal transportation funds to
North Carolina coupled with the rapid increase in construction costs have reduced
funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects in order to prevent further delay
of highway projects. Orange County supports greater funding for alternative modes
for transportation, particularly for independent bicycle projects and improvements
that make bicycling safer on County roads.
2. Orange County requests that the NCDOT consider TIP economic development
funding to assist widening Buckhorn Road(SR 1114) from US 70 to West Ten Road
(SR 1144) to a multilane facility with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This stretch of
roadway borders the western boundary of the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic
Development District(EDD), which is experiencing development pressures.
3. Orange County requests that the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation consider funding an independent bicycle project to construct 4-ft.
paved shoulders along Dairy land Road to accommodate bicycle traffic from Union
Grove Church Road (SR 1111) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). This area
experiences high levels of bicycle traffic from Carrboro and Chapel Hill to rural
routes. This route is a portion of the number 3 priority listed in Orange County's
Priority List for the 2009-2015 TIP for projects outside the MAB. The entire project
would connect the urbanized areas of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to Efland and
Mebane via Dairy land Road, Orange Grove Road, and Buckhorn Road. The portion
of Dairyland Road from Rocky Ridge Road to Orange Grove Road is part of a loop
that has been designated as a North Carolina Scenic Corridor. NCDOT, through the
Moving Ahead Program and the Resurfacing Program has included provisions for 2—
ft. paved shoulders on Orange Grove Road that will improve conditions for bicyclists
on that road. (Moving Ahead provided 2-ft. paved shoulders on SR 1006 from Old
NC 86 to SR 1199, Tree Farm Rd.; 2008 Resurfacing Program will provide 2-ft.
shoulders along SR 1006 from SR 1199 to SR 1102, Dodson's Crossroads and
resurface and provide 2-ft. paved shoulders on SR 1006 from Dodson's Crossroads
to SR 1177, Dairy land Road.)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Orange County, while acknowledging that
cuts in appropriated federal transportation funds to North Carolina coupled with the rapid
increase in construction costs make it unlikely that the NCDOT can add new projects to
the STIP in this update, the County requests that the NCDOT consider all funding
possibilities for priority needs identified in the Orange County Priority List for the 2009-
2015 Transportation Improvement Program.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-
CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THE
DRAFT 2009 —2015 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Orange County, as a member of the DCHC MPO, has participated in
the development of the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Priority List
for the 2009 —2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has released the
Draft 2009—2015 STIP for public comment; and
WHEREAS, the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) is
charged with the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
(MTIP) consistent with the STIP, and has released the draft MTIP for public comment;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the draft 2009-
2015 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that the Orange County submits the following comments to the DCHC
Transportation Advisory Committee to be considered in the development of the final
2009—2015 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program:
1 . Orange County is concerned that cuts in appropriated federal transportation funds to
North Carolina coupled with the rapid increase in construction costs have reduced
funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects in order to prevent further delay
of highway projects. Orange County supports increasing funding for alternative
modes for transportation, particularly for improvements that make bicycling safer on
County roads.
2. TIP Project B-4218, Replace Bridge No. 108 over New Hope Creek on SR 1730,
Turkey Farm Road. The draft 2009-2015 TIP schedules construction for 2008.
Orange County requests that NCDO T further review and receive public comment
regarding the design of the bridge from an environmental perspective. The current
design calls for an interior bent and three associated 3.5-foot diameter drilled piers
land placement of a 55-foot long rip rap causeway placed in the stream bed. This
reach of New Hope Creek stream is home to six species listed with the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, three of which are designated as endangered.
NCDOT has previously responded to concerns of the local jurisdictions and citizens
regarding the design of the US 15-501 bridge over New Hope Creek in Durham
County based on the uniqueness of the corridor and State-Local community
partnership that has invested much time, energy and funding to protect the New
Hope Creek Corridor and preserve it as a natural asset.
3. TIP Project E-4980, a pedestrian bridge on Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) over 1-40,
continues to be the County's number one priority. Orange County requests that the
NCDOT proceed without delay to execute a feasibility study for this project.
4. Phase TIP Project 1-0305, 1-85, widen to six lanes and reconstruct interchanges and
structures from 1-40 at Hillsborough to Durham County: Program in phases, with
Phase A being reconstruction of the interchanges followed by widening in Phase B.
a. Use the funding programmed for right-of-way acquisition in FY 11 and FY 12 for
right-of-way acquisition needed for the interchanges.
b. Orange County would also like to know the status of the environmental study for
this project, and be consulted during the study as well as during the design
process as stated in comments previously submitted by Orange County.
4. Correct the funding split for TIP Project C-4932. The project funds for C-4932 come
from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding apportioned to the
DCHC MPO and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO), according
to an agreement between those two organizations and the NCDOT. The Draft 2009-
2015 STIP shows funding for C-4932A (the DHCD MPO apportionment) of $41,000
for each year for FY 09-11. A later agreement assigns all funding for FY 09-11 to the
TARPO CMAQ apportionment; so all funding for this project for years FY 09-011,
$99,000 each year, should come from the TARPO apportionment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Foushee mentioned that Chair Jacobs was unable to attend this
meeting.
2. Adjourn
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson
to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 pm (BOCC Transfer Station Siting Work Session to
Follow Adjournment of this Meeting).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 3/18/2008 MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION
February 11, 2008
7:45 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work
Session on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in
Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee,
Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Barry Jacobs
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers
Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will
be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the meeting will be to present a resolution, drafted by County
management, for adoption stating the Board's desire to ensure a fair, open, and
fundamentally sound siting process and to emphasize the Board's commitment to
public participation throughout. A revised transfer station siting process flow schematic
and schedule reflecting public meetings as currently established by the BOCC will also
be presented for adoption.
In addition, information regarding the selection of exclusionary criteria, technical
criteria, and proposed public participation elements will be presented for discussion,
feedback, direction and public comment.
AGENDA (ORDER OF BUSINESS):
• Synopsis of Previous Meeting
• Recommend Adoption of Public Participation Resolution
• Recommend Adoption of Transfer Station Siting Process Flow Schematic and Schedule
• Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Public Participation Program
• Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Exclusionary Criteria
• Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Technical Criteria
• Public Comment Period
• Further Comment, Direction, and Feedback as desired by the Board to Olver, Inc and/or
County Management
1. Recommend Adoption of Public Participation Resolution (Exhibit 1)
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt
the resolution of Public Participation.
Commissioner Gordon said that the Board does not usually approve things in work
sessions, and there would not be any public comment on this before they pass the resolution.
Laura Blackmon said that, because of the unique circumstances, these are basically
special meetings and in some instances the Board may discuss and then hear public comment
and then vote at the next meeting; and with other instances, the Board will vote as needed.
Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to work this out so the public has a chance to
comment. She said that the Board may or may not want to have public comment at the end of
the meeting. She wants to make it clear that the public will be able to comment before the
Commissioners vote. Laura Blackmon said that the resolution references more of the siting
schedule. She said that the public comment is at the end so that the public can speak on what
the Board has discussed.
Laura Blackmon said that normally this type of meeting would not be done by the Board of
County Commissioners but would be done by the staff.
Commissioner Carey said that most of the items the Board makes a decision on would be
voted on at a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner Nelson suggested voting on the resolution after the public comment.
This item was tabled until the end of the meeting.
2. Recommend Adoption of Transfer Station Siting Process Flow Schematic and
Schedule (Exhibits 2 and 3)
SYNOPSIS
• January 29th Meeting
• Proposed Siting Process & Schedule
. Milestone Decisions
• BOCC Meeting Schedule
• Site Size
• BOCC Direction
• Revise Schedule — 11/18/2008 Completion
• Incorporate Public Input Session into each Meeting
• Site Size — Greater than 25 Acres
• Site Ownership
. Consider all Properties
. Heavily Weight Freely Offered Parcels
• Meeting Additions to BOCC Calendar
• Focus Items
• Adoption of Public Participation Resolution
• Adoption of Siting Process
• Key Public Participation Elements of Siting Process
• Exclusionary Criteria Discussion
• Technical Criteria Discussion
TRANSFER STATION SITING PROCESS
• Process
Establish Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Sites
• Develop Criteria Prior to Identifying Potential Sites
Three Categories of Criteria:
• Exclusionary
• Technical
• Community-Specific
Establish each Criterion's Relative Weight and Importance
Identify Potential Sites based upon Exclusionary Criteria
Evaluation of Potential Sites with Respect to Final Technical Criteria and Weighting
Factors
Determination of Final Candidate Sites
4> Evaluation of Final Candidate Sites based upon Final Community-Specific Criteria and
Weighting Factors
Final Ranking of Candidate Sites
Site Selection
Bob Sallach said that changes have been made to the meeting timeline based on the
comments from the Board. The other issue that was discussed at length was the size and the
use of the site. He said that he interpreted the Board's recommendation to be to revise the
schedule based on completing the siting process by November 18th, to incorporate public
participation and input sessions into each meeting, and to look at sites greater than 25 acres.
Also, all parcels would be considered, but there would be a heavy weighting towards the freely
offered parcel. The other direction received was basically to amend the County Commissioners'
calendar to include the special meetings required to accomplish the siting by November 18th
He made reference to Exhibit 2, Revised Transfer Station Siting — Process Flow
Schematic, and reviewed it. He said that there is an opportunity for public input on each of the
major items prior to any decisions being made. For this meeting, the decisions are for the
approval of the siting process and the schedule. There will also be discussion of the
exclusionary criteria, public participation, and preliminary discussions on the technical criteria.
He said that there are a series of three sets of meetings for public participation outside of
work sessions and regular County Commissioners' meetings. The key decisions are with
regard to the exclusionary criteria, the technical and community-specific criteria, and then the
final candidate sites. There will be a public participation and comment process after that
decision. There would then be a ranking of the sites by the Board of County Commissioners,
another public meeting, and then the final selection of the site.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the flow chart and said that sometimes the
decisions are at the beginning of a meeting and sometimes at the end of a meeting, and it would
be helpful if the template were adjusted. She also suggested that "Board direction" is not the
same as "Board decision". She thinks that the point that the Board is trying to convey to the
public is that it will really consider public input before making decisions.
Commissioner Carey asked about the components of the public comment meetings.
Bob Sallach said that the public input meetings would be augmented and would be
advertised public meetings. The input would be received on the criteria. He said that it would
be prudent to have two public meetings — one to address technical criteria and one to address
community-specific criteria. Those two meetings would have to be scheduled between March
18th and April 15th. An information packet would be put on the website, citizen advisory groups
would be notified, etc.
Commissioner Carey verified that the Board of County Commissioners would come as a
member of the audience and the consultants would summarize the results and present it to the
Board. Bob Sallach said that there would be an official record of the meeting and comments
would be given to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
Bob Sallach made reference to the flow schematic and said that they are trying to screen
sites to keep them at a minimum of ten sites, apply technical criteria to these sites and rank
them, and then develop a final listing of candidate sites. He continued reviewing the specifics of
the flow schematic. There are three major public participant processes outside the meetings of
discussion.
Commissioner Gordon asked how the technical screening criteria would come in and if the
community specific criteria will come in after the technical screening and Bob Sallach said yes.
There is a narrowing of the number of sites through the technical screening process.
3. Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Public Participation Program (Reference -
Exhibit 2)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Public Input Period during each Meeting
• Exclusionary Criteria — Public Input Session
• Technical Criteria and Weighting Factors — Public Information and Input Meeting
• Community Specific Criteria and Weighting Factors — Public Information and Input Meeting
• Candidate Sites — Neighborhood Information and Input Meetings
• Preliminary Ranking of Candidate Sites —Public Information and Input Meeting
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/INPUT FORMAT
• Special Public Meetings
• Informational Literature
• Direct Mailings with Project Updates
• Web Site
• County Commission Presentations
• Presentations to Civic and Environmental Groups
• Presentations to Neighborhood Groups
• Community Education Program and Workshops
• Reading Files Located in Libraries or Community Centers that Document Process
Bob Sallach said that all information that is made available to the County Commissioners
would be available on the website. He showed a general outline of the proposed website.
Commissioner Carey said that it looks comprehensive to him and it should be clearly
identified on the website when any decisions are to be made by the Board of County
Commissioners, as well as when and where the public comment meetings are to be held.
Commissioner Gordon said that the flow schematic could be clearer and she suggested
taking out the arrow between Finalize Exclusionary Criteria and Develop Preliminary Technical
Screening Criteria. She said that she would like this schematic on the website as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Foushee said that it might be helpful to have a narrative to go along with
the schematic on the web.
4. Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Exclusionary Criteria (Exhibit 4 —
Resources - Exhibits 5 and 6)
PROPOSED EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
• Wetlands and Floodplains
• Endangered and Protected Flora and Fauna Habitats
• Protected Sites of Historical, Archeological, or Cultural Significance
• Parks and Preserves
• Sites of Less than 25 Acres
• Sites not Under Orange County Jurisdiction
• Site Located Greater than 3 Miles from a Major Transportation Arterial
Bob Sallach said that the first four are clear cut. He said that he understood that 25
acres would be the proposed minimum area in which a transfer station could function.
He asked for direction on the exclusionary criteria of sites not under Orange County's
jurisdiction. This needs to be qualified.
Commissioner Carey said that he would not consider any sites outside of Orange
County's jurisdictional lines.
Commissioner Nelson said that he thinks that sites should be within Orange County's
planning jurisdiction, because if they have to go through someone else's zoning process, then it
will be delayed, etc., and the County is facing a situation in which it has to handle the waste in
48 months.
Commissioner Gordon said that if they were thinking of any partnerships with the towns,
then there might be a co-location possibility and it might affect the site size, etc.
Commissioner Nelson said that maybe the solution is in the weighting criteria and not
exclusionary.
Bob Sallach made reference to Exhibit 7 on page 2 and said that there is a proposed
criteria that does not include this issue. Laura Blackmon suggested not being too restrictive up
front.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to wetlands and floodplains and said that there
was mention before of including protected watersheds in the exclusionary criteria. She thinks
that this has merit, except for the places within the protected watersheds that are zoned non-
residential.
Bob Sallach made reference to the watershed map and said that they were looking to
use the critical watershed boundaries as exclusionary criteria. He asked if protected
watersheds should be under technical criteria.
Commissioner Foushee asked staff to look into what Commissioner Gordon is asking on
how to consider protected watershed areas. Commissioner Gordon said to exclude protected
watersheds except for the sections that are non-residential areas.
Geof Gledhill said that he would caution against doing this because there is nothing in
this siting process that precludes re-zoning.
Commissioner Gordon said that she was referring to the land use map and that it has
non-residential areas including activity nodes. The zoning can be changed easily, but the land
use cannot. Laura Blackmon said that staff could look at protected watersheds and how this
relates to land use.
Geof Gledhill verified that Commissioner Gordon wanted to exclude everything in
Orange County on the land use map that was designated protected watershed except for non-
residential from siting consideration. Geof Gledhill said that this would be hard for staff to
determine since the Board has proposed not to exclude the towns.
Laura Blackmon said that part of the process is to have the siting process pretty broad
and the Board should adopt some exclusionary criteria and then revise those as needed.
Commissioner Gordon said that it is a high value to eliminate protected watersheds.
Laura Blackmon said that the technical criteria would narrow the sites even further.
Commissioner Nelson asked why Bob Sallach chose a three-mile radius from a major
transportation arterial as opposed to two miles. Bob Sallach said that a three-mile radius would
be a maximum. Commissioner Nelson wants this to be the maximum. He would like the site to
be closer to the transportation arterial.
Commissioner Nelson said that proximity to a rail line should be included. He also said
that the Board was discussing carbon emissions and that this should be taken into consideration
and weighted. Bob Sallach said that he suggested the carbon footprint could be a technical
criteria.
Bob Sallach reviewed the exclusionary criteria and said that the proposed criteria would
exclude sites less than 25 acres, sites more than a 3-mile radius of a transportation arterial or
rail line, and possibly sites within the protected watersheds.
The Board agreed.
Bob Sallach said that on February 19th, there will be public comment on this and then
there would be a decision on March 18th. The Board agreed with this timeline.
Commissioner Gordon said that she did agree with Commissioner Nelson, in that if there
is another jurisdiction that had a possible partnership site and the other one is not interested,
then it should be taken off.
Laura Blackmon said that the towns will have to pay for hauling and they may want to
partner.
5. Discussion, Feedback, and Direction on Technical Criteria (Exhibit 7)
TECHNICAL CRITERIA
• Central Location to Collection Routes
• Access to Major Transportation Routes
• Site Size Requirements
• Sufficient Space for Onsite Roadways, Queuing, and Parking
• Truck and Traffic Compatibility
• Ability for Expansion
• Space for Recycling, Composting, and Public Education
• Buffer Space
• Gently Sloping Topography
• Access to Utilities
• Zoning Designations and Requirements
• Carbon Footprint Impact
Bob Sallach made reference to the site size and said that the transfer of waste to a larger
vehicle to enable disposal affects the size of the site. He said that the key factors of the site
size are the entry and exit to the site. Queuing of parking is also an issue. There are two forms
of queuing —the ability to stage transfer vehicles and the ability to stage incoming collection
vehicles. There also has to be employee parking and accommodation of vehicles on site. He
suggested a counterclockwise formation.
He continued to review the technical criteria as listed above.
He made reference to the Buffer Space criterion and said that the type of transfer station
that is being considered is totally enclosed.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Gently Sloping Topography criterion and
said that steep slopes should probably be eliminated. Bob Sallach agreed. Commissioner
Gordon suggested having a category for topography and then having a preference stated within
it that eliminates steep slopes. Bob Sallach said that this could be factored in as part of the
weighting factors.
Bob Sallach asked for any other criterion from the Board.
Commissioner Gordon asked how the costs were factored in. Bob Sallach suggested
putting the costs under community-specific criteria.
Commissioner Carey said that as weighting criteria is applied to this list, costs will be at
least subjectively factored in.
6. Public Comment Period (15 Minutes)
Yonnie Chapman said that he finds this discussion of technical and exclusionary criteria to
be not to the point, and these are things that anyone deciding on a facility would need to
discuss. He said that the Board has expressed very strongly the desire for public input, and this
was not evident in the March decision. He said that there was not any place for public shaping
of the process. He said that the Coalition to End Environmental Racism has called for public
participation in the form of a citizen advisory board that would meet as equals with other
partners. He said that social injustice should be at the beginning of the process. He said that,
at the same time the Board is calling for public comment, there has been a tremendous amount
of public comment on the issue of environmental injustice, and the Board has refused to talk
about this. He finds this insulting and disheartening. He asked the Board to reconsider
discussing this.
Robert Campbell said that if there are going to be public meetings, then the residents
need to be polled to help determine the time of the meetings. He said that the meetings should
not be when everyone is at work. He recommends that for any site that is near any water
source, that the water should be tested before construction starts, during construction, and after
construction. He said that water contamination from construction happens and this should be
part of the criteria. He said that in order for a decision to be true, public input should shape and
be a part of the selection process.
Dara Mendez said that she is a concerned citizen of Chapel Hill, a graduate of UNC-CH in
Public Health, and a member of the Sierra Club. She said that she is concerned about the
current process of locating the transfer station in Orange County. She said that her first concern
is the issue of community input and public participation. She said that most public input on this
issue is minimized to 15 minutes at the end of a meeting. She said that this format does not
allow for dialogue and discussion. The public comment meetings occur after critical decisions
have already been made. She said that she appreciates the resolution for public participation;
however, the suggestion for an advisory panel is not fully realized in the resolution or timeline.
Her second concern relates to the criteria. The criteria has mention of plant life, but no mention
of the adverse impacts on living, breathing humans. As a public health professional, she feels
that this is an important issue. She asked the following questions:
1) In what ways will the disproportionate burden on the Rogers Road community be
reflected in the criteria as well as the weighting factor?
2) How can this process bridge what seems to be a gap in discussion and
community participation?
3) What algorithm would be used, if any, in deciding what weighting factors are
going into this process?
Chris Heaney said that it becomes evident that this is a difficult and technical process
and the Board of County Commissioners are not entirely certain about the best way to go
through this. He made reference to the issue of zoning and not going outside the extraterritorial
jurisdiction and asked if this also means outside of the joint planning agreement. He said that
the residents are confused and do not know what is going on. He said that these discussions
need to happen in a more equitable, interactive way. He suggested having an advisory board of
residents that have been disproportionately affected for over 35 years, and also of residents
from other parts of the County where other sites might be selected.
7. Further Comment, Direction, and Feedback as desired by the Board to Diver, Inc
and/or County Manaqement
Commissioner Gordon asked Geof Gledhill to explain his stance on the administrative
complaint and Geof Gledhill said that there has been a Title VI complaint filed alleging
discrimination because of the history of solid waste activities in the Rogers Road community.
He said that Title VI is federal law, which provides for administrative remedies, provides for the
Department of the Justice to bring a civil action seeking money damages against the municipal
government, and also provides civil actions brought by individuals against governments alleging
discrimination. Title VI is a federal law, which generally applies to discrimination by
governments and involves instances where the federal government has provided money to the
governments that are being charged. Title VI is clearly a federal law that allows for remedies,
and because the County is now engaged in a Title VI investigation by the federal government,
he has advised the Board of County Commissioners to not discuss the community that is the
basis of the Title VI complaint, including to not remove it from the sites under consideration.
The process has not reached this point yet, but between now and when the process reaches
this point, things could develop that would cause him to change his mind. It is still his view to
not discuss the Rogers Road site nor to remove it from the list.
Commissioner Foushee asked about the time for the public meetings and the locations.
Laura Blackmon said that this could be determined by the Board of County
Commissioners and most meetings would be held at night.
Commissioner Foushee made reference to the concept of environmental injustice, and
said that there was a reference in the HRC polls about the County's view on this, and before the
Board adopts this resolution, she would like to consider the statement that is included in that
draft document. She would like the wording from the draft document be reflected in this
resolution. She suggested not adopting the resolution at this meeting.
Chris Heaney clarified that the Title VI complaint deals with Executive Order 12 8 9 8 on
Environmental Justice, which was passed in 1994. This discusses disproportionate and
adverse impacts of activities by government agencies on a community. He said that the entire
basis of the complaint is the disproportionate and adverse impact of the activities and the history
of those activities in the community.
Commissioner Foushee said that the Board would take all comments under advisement.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
adopt the timeline and flow schematic as presented with revisions (arrows on the schematic
design to be removed and decision items to be placed so that public comment can be
considered) as suggested by Commissioner Gordon, and the narrative on the website as
suggested by Commissioner Foushee).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
adjourn the meeting at 9:43 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board