Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080415 - Transfer Station 1 APPROVED 5/20/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION April 15, 2008 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work Session on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager 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 stated purpose of the meeting is to finalize and adopt the exclusionary criteria, with further detail and illustrative maps being presented at that time. Additionally, the consultants are scheduled to present for discussion, feedback and direction a summary of public comments from the transfer station siting information sessions. The Chair of the Human Relations Commission and Director of the Human Rights and Relations Office will brief the BOCC on their draft definition of"Environmental Justice". Further information regarding the preliminary technical criteria and community-specific criteria will also be presented for discussion, feedback, and direction as time permits. Chair Jacobs asked if any Board of County Commissioners wanted to make comments about the process or materials. Commissioner Gordon said that she did attend the most recent public information session. At that session the citizens indicated they wanted more opportunity to speak than had been allotted on tonight's printed agenda. In terms of agenda materials for this and other transfer station siting meetings, she urged Olver and the staff to provide complete agenda materials. That has not been done. She also said that in previous meetings, Commissioners have requested that, when they make a comment or ask for information, it should be recorded and then presented at the following meetings. If comments or suggestions are made with respect to an exhibit, the comments should be noted at the bottom of the exhibit. Commissioner Gordon said that the public asked good questions about the definitions. She would like to know how the consultants planned to score the criteria, such as the technical criteria. She knows that the criteria will be ranked, but they also have to be weighted. She said they were told that when Olver gets the top sites based on technical criteria, there will be a fairly detailed analysis of those sites. She thinks that the County Commissioners need more information from Olver in response to the questions that have been asked. They particularly need to know how Olver plans to score and weight criteria. WV 2 Commissioner Foushee said that she went through the minutes of the last two meetings so that she could get an idea how this agenda fit into the process. She said that she clearly remembers the Board asking that the comments that the Board of County Commissioners makes be included in the information packet for the agenda, and again they are not included. She also thinks that it would be helpful for those Commissioners that could not attend the public information session to get written information on what was covered. Commissioner Carey said that the last few comments of Commissioner Foushee summed up his concerns. He said that he was expecting to get a summary of these public sessions as well as responses from Olver. Bob Sallach said that two public meetings have been conducted, as well as one meeting with the Human Relations Commission, and they are in the process of compiling information to bring back to the Board of County Commissioners. He will provide the summary of the questions and answers from the public sessions. He said that a lot of good feedback was received. He said that he would like to go through an interactive presentation of how these criteria are applied. He said that he is still in the process of assembling data and it may be premature to adopt the exclusionary criteria tonight. He said that the public would like the ability to speak on the criteria at the end of this meeting. 1) Presentation and Discussion of Public Comments from Transfer Station Siting Information Sessions 2) Review and Discussion to Finalize Exclusionary Criteria (Exhibit 1) Bob Sallach read the definitions as follows: EXHIBIT 1 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITING Preliminary Exclusionary Criteria FOOTNOTES PAGE A. This background map shows the four planning jurisdictions within the entire county. Development regulations and processes are likely different in each. B.1. Protected Watershed/Overlay Districts are defined in Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as, "Land that drains to existing reservoirs which are public water supplies or potential reservoir sites or stream intakes which have been designated for protection. All such lands have been classified by the [North Carolina] Environmental Management Commission as WS-II, WS-III or WS-IV watersheds and require protection in accordance with the State Mandate." Bob Sallach showed this area on a map and said that the dark green areas would be excluded. B.2. `Critical Areas Overlay District' (within Protected Watershed) is defined in Section 4.2.27 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as, "The land area within one-half mile of 3 the normal pool of an existing or proposed water supply impoundment, or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less." C. The roads noted are major transportation routes where a 3-mile buffer is created on either side of the centerline. The road miles for the 12-mile distance do not use back roads in this version. Bob Sallach said that the transportation corridors have been recently defined as US 15- 501, NC 54, NC 86 (excluding the area north of Hillsborough), US 70, 1-40, and 1-85. Commissioner Gordon said that this criterion should be broken into two parts, (1) what is the area that is within three miles from the major transportation corridors and, (2) how to measure the centroid. She made reference to the map of the major transportation corridors. She asked for an explanation of the red marks for the centroid calculations. Bob Sallach said that the centroid calculations were going from the centroid out, a distance of 12 miles out from these major truck routes that have been referenced. Commissioner Gordon reiterated that there should be two different criteria —the major transportation corridors and the way the distance from the centroid is calculated. She would like a map to distinguish between these two things. Bob Sallach said that the transportation arterials that were previously identified were used to establish the 3-mile corridor. There has to be some sort of methodology to establish what is 12 miles from the centroid. He asked for clarification on what Commissioner Gordon wanted. Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted clarity on the differences between the areas that are three miles from the major transportation corridors and the areas that are 12 miles from the centroid, along the major truck routes. She thinks that the major truck routes should be specified. Bob Sallach said that he would break those elements into two criteria, as well as specify the truck routes. Commissioner Carey said that he remembered the discussion about the 12-mile radius, but he does not remember how the Board arrived at the three-mile limit from major transportation corridors. Bob Sallach said that, according to the public comment, there were requests to expand the corridor further than 12 miles and not to look just in the 3-mile corridor, but beyond it. Commissioner Carey asked about Olver's recommendation and Bob Sallach said that they would recommend to still look at the 12-mile radius and the 3-mile corridor. Chair Jacobs said that he recalls asking for information from the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Public Works and Orange County's Solid Waste staff as to the reasonableness of the 12 miles, and he thought that this information was coming back. Ultimately, the Board decided on this as a compromised number, but there needs to be some basis related to the vehicles that the municipalities are using. He asked that this information be available at the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board did ask for that information and for the maximum number of miles that collection trucks can travel. She said that she looked back in the minutes, and there was a point in the minutes where Mr. Schuffler said collection trucks could travel 15-17 miles. Bob Sallach said that they did not pursue this because he misunderstood and thought that there was a vote to proceed with the 12 miles. He will get this information. Chair Jacobs said that the Board listened to the range and compromised on 12 miles, but Board wanted it to be tested out to be sure that the vehicle was designed for that. Bob Sallach said that he would follow up on this. Bob Sallach continued with the criteria. 4 D.1. Wetlands —As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: "Including, but not limited to, streams, creeks, ponds, reservoirs, stormwater management facilities for watershed protection purposes, and adjoining land areas identified as part of: 0 The National Wetlands Inventory Maps for the county, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see LUE page 2.2.15, 1981); 0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (1977); 0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats," as prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy; 0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study; 0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement; and/or 0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect or land planner using data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." Wetlands are further defined in Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as, "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Definition taken from EPA regulations at 40 CFR Section 230.3(t) and COE Regulations at 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), as of July 2"d, 2002.) D.2. Floodplain — As defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, "Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source." Floodplains in Orange County are delineated on an official map of Orange County, issued by FEMA, on which FEMA has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Areas and the floodways. This official map is a supplement to and shall be used in conjunction with the Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective February 2, 2007, and as amended from time to time by Letters of Map Amendment and Letters of Map Revision. E. Steep Slopes—As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: Those [slopes- topographic gradient] greater than 15 percent, identified as part of: 0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (1977); Commissioner Gordon verified that Olver was using 15 percent slopes. F. Natural Areas, and Wildlife Habitats [PKA Endangered and Protected F & F Habitants] -- As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: [Those areas] "identified as part of: 5 0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County," as prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy in coordination with the NC Natural Heritage Program (see LUE Map page 2.2.36 and Table 2-2.38-40) [1988]; 0 The habitats are rated significant integrity and threat. 0 These areas are lands designated as... containing sensitive environmental resources...(part of LUE RPA definitions page 3.3.3). G. Historic and Archaeological Sites [includes cultural] --As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: [Those properties] "listed on the National Register of Historic Places or included on the state's national register study list, designated as a local historic landmark, designated as a local historic district, and/or identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains as part of: 0 The "Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report" (1992); 0 The "Orange County Multiple Property Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange County" (1993); 0 "An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, N.C."; 0 [2.2.49] Commissioner Gordon asked if the historical districts were designated on maps. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the local historic districts on the Land Use Element are marked by small circles representing possible historic houses or cemeteries. Other historic districts could include crossroads communities, such as Cedar Grove or White Cross, and are designated by larger circles. Commissioner Gordon asked if these were local land use designations as opposed to National Register of Historic Places. Craig Benedict said that they could be on a study list as potential sites for the registry. Commissioner Gordon asked that these criteria be further clarified before we decided whether or not to include them. H. Bob Sallach said that this refers to County-owned land designated as park preserves. This definition is ongoing and information will be brought back to the Board. This definition may be modified based on input from the BOCC and the status of future park or county property master plans The Board asked several questions about this criterion. I. This exclusion is explained in two different ways: (1) exclude residential areas within protected watershed overlay districts, and (2) include non-residential activity nodes within Protected Watershed Overlay District. Bob Sallach noted that the Buckhorn EDD area was beyond the 12-mile distance from the centroid of waste generation. J. 25-acre parcels may be unencumbered in some manner by these exclusions. Craig Benedict said that properties less than 25 acres have a dark outline on the map, and properties over 25 acres do not have a dark outline. 6 Bob Sallach made reference to the 25-acre parcels and said that, as they look at the criteria, they are saying that the majority of the parcels should be unencumbered by one of these exclusionary criteria. There should be a significant buffer of about 12.5 acres. Commissioner Gordon said that there were citizens at the information session that wanted to go farther than the 3 miles from the major transportation corridors and more than 12 miles from the centroid, along the truck collection routes because they wanted more territory included. Also, people wanted land to be zoned correctly in commercial or industrial areas. There are not very many commercial or industrial areas in Orange County's planning jurisdiction, and not all of them are within the 12-mile distance from the centroid of waste generation. Commissioner Nelson asked when the County Commissioners would be getting the public comments and Bob Sallach said that they are not prepared to provide these comments tonight in writing. The comments will be received before the next Transfer Station Siting Work Session. Commissioner Gordon said that the public also said that they wanted maps and figures large enough that they could read them. Chair Jacobs suggested that if people want to comment on the exclusionary criteria, then they can comment at the end of this meeting since nothing is being adopted tonight. A citizen asked how the public would be able to see the comments from the public information session before the next meeting and it was answered that the comments would be available on the website and at the next meeting, where there will be discussion and the opportunity for public comment before the vote. Commissioner Carey said that, in view of the fact that this meeting was advertised as a meeting where the Board would hear at least a summary of comments from the public meeting, and then he thinks that these should be heard and then followed up with the written public documents from those meetings along with the consultant's recommendations in response. He requested a brief summary. Bob Sallach summarized his notes from the public information sessions. The public expressed that some of the criteria were overlapping, particularly the ones dealing with future space and additions. Another aspect was the relative importance of the criteria. Regarding the community-specific criteria, the comments were that there needs to be more ability to assign different levels of importance to those criteria. Three levels of importance were suggested at the sessions— important, very important, and extremely important. Another important factor in the discussions was, once the technical criteria evaluation is completed and candidate sites are selected, this is not carried into the community-specific evaluation. The community-specific starts all over again. There was also significant feedback on environmental justice and how that would be defined. 3) Adoption of Final Exclusionary Criteria- DEFERRED 4) HRC Presentation re: Environmental Justice Human Relations Commission Chair Bill Hendrickson said that the commission was asked by several members of the community of the Eubanks Road site to become involved in this because of the justice part of the issue. The County Commissioners asked the HRC to come up with a definition of environmental justice. He thanked Shoshannah Smith for all of the hard work on this. Human Rights and Relations Director Shoshannah Smith made this presentation. She introduced members of the HRC. Margot Lester read the definition as shown below, and Shoshannah Smith went over the remainder of the handout. To: Orange County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) 7 From: Orange County Human Relations Commission (HRC) Re: Environmental Justice in the Transfer Station Siting Process Meeting: Work Session, 4/15/2008, 5:30 PM, Southern Human Services Center The following items were unanimously adopted by the HRC at the April 14, 2008 monthly meeting. Definition of Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Making Environmentally Just Decisions: The BOCC should ask the following questions about each decision it makes: 1. What are the environmental justice implications of this decision? 2. If this decision has environmental justice implications, have all Orange County residents been given adequate notice of the issue, relevant information, and opportunities to give meaningful input before the final decision is made? 3. Does a proposed solution have a potentially cumulative environmental impact on a specific community or neighborhood? 4. If a proposed solution may be environmentally unjust, is there an alternative resolution that would have a less disparate impact while still accomplishing our core purpose? Siting Criteria: Due to social justice considerations, the HRC voted to support the highest possible weighting against the following siting criteria: Technical Criteria: • Zoning Designations and Requirements—Overburdening or clustering of industrial facilities adjacent to low income or minority areas. Community-Specific Criteria: • Environmental Justice Considerations • Proximity to Schools, Churches, Recreation Sites, and Residences • Adjacent Land Uses • Impact on Non-Protected Neighborhood Character Commissioner Nelson asked what was meant by "impact on non—protected neighborhood character." Bob Sallach said that they want to make sure that the character of existing neighborhoods is not significantly impacted. Commissioner Nelson asked how this would be applied in a justice sense, since anyone can say that their neighborhood has a specific character, and anyone will be able to argue that siting any facility next to their neighborhood is going to harm the character of their neighborhood. He does not understand how this gets applied. Shoshannah Smith said that an example would be a historically Latino and Hispanic community, and putting this facility in the middle of that neighborhood would ghettoize or disperse the population. Commissioner Nelson said that this item is too abstract for it to be of real use. 8 Chair Jacobs suggested taking out "non—protected". Every neighborhood has character, but there should be more sensitivity to some neighborhoods because of the character. Shoshannah Smith said that the 4-step process above already encompasses the impact on non-protected neighborhoods, so it may be redundant. Commissioner Foushee agreed. 5) Discussion, Feedback, and Comment on Preliminary Technical Criteria and Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) Commissioner Gordon said that the Board could not get too far on this since there is no information from the public information session. She said that at the Commissioners' places there is a letter from the OUTBoard suggesting that the technical criteria include language pertaining to bicycle corridors and rail lines. Memo below. April 8, 2008 Chair Barry Jacobs and Orange County Board of County Commissioners 200 Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina Dear Commissioners: The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), at its meeting on March 19, 2008, discussed the solid waste transfer station site process, and voted to forward the following comments regarding station siting technical criteria to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. The OUTBoard requests that technical criteria for locating the solid waste transfer station should take Orange County's Bicycle Transportation Plan into consideration, and not place a transfer station on a priority bicycle route. Additionally, the route to the transfer station should minimize proximity to any bicycle route and avoid travel over a priority bicycle route. The OUTBoard also requests that technical criteria include preference for station sites that would allow transfer of solid waste out of the County via rail. Please submit these comments to Olver, Inc. for the public information session Olver is conducting on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill on April 10, 2008. Thank you for your consideration of these comments when developing the final site selection criteria and weighting factors for technical issues. Sincerely, Sam Lasris, Chair Orange Unified Transportation Board 9 Commissioner Gordon's said that it is her understanding that Olver wants to end up with a ranking of sites. She asked how this would be done. Bob Sallach said that they are proposing that the sites would be ranked with respect to each other and the criteria. Commissioner Gordon suggested a ranking based on some measurable points for each criterion. Bob Sallach said that he would look at this, and that he was trying to make this as objective as possible. Commissioner Carey said that he thought the technical criteria and attached values would determine which sites are the highest, and then the top 10 would be laid out physically. Bob Sallach said that Olver's intent was that 10 sites would be taken from the exclusionary criteria and 4 sites would be carried forward to the community-specific evaluation. The Commissioners had some further questions. Chair Jacobs suggested taking a hypothetical site and showing the County Commissioners how the criteria would work. 6) Public Comment Period Sean Anderson said that he is a non-traditional senior at UNC-Chapel Hill, and he brings a perspective of someone from a very diverse university, and he thinks the staff, the faculty, the undergraduate body, and all of the employees on his campus believe what has transpired historically is that dumps and sewers were placed on impoverished, minority communities that do not have the power to unseat the elected officials. He knows the County Commissioners are in a tough dilemma, but in his opinion Orange County is in violation of the 1948 Human Rights that were signed and ratified by the United States and the United Nations. He recommended adoption of the criteria. Regarding the impact on existing neighborhoods, he said that primarily in this country the biggest investment people make is their home, especially with impoverished, minority communities. He said that he read the Government Office of Accountability Report, and it states that traditionally, our country as a whole has done this —counties dumping on minority communities. He said that this is wrong. It is the County Commissioners' responsibility to make sure that this does not happen. If it does impact an existing neighborhood, then it should impact a white, affluent neighborhood or a neighborhood of people other than minority and impoverished. He said that UNC-Chapel Hill does not stand up for discrimination —existing or past. He begged the County Commissioners to be a beacon of light and not put a transfer station in a minority, impoverished community. Barry Katz thanked the Board for its consideration of this issue. He sees that the Board is about to take the time necessary to make the right decision and not be rushed into any kind of action. He is grateful for how the Board has handled this meeting tonight. He said that he was very disappointed at the presentation that Olver made regarding the materials that they were expected to prepare tonight. He read a prepared statement. "The Board is acting on behalf of the public and has a duty to let us know what you know as soon as you know it. I think the Board ought to decide whether any current activities would continue at the present landfill site and let the public know as early in this process as possible. Otherwise, the Board might appear disingenuous during a process that demands clarity. Once you decide exactly what you intend to do on the new WTS site, the BOCC can decide how large a tract it is seeking within narrower limits. This would help tremendously in choosing serious site candidates and it would minimize distracting public anxiety. I have a few comments on a potential exclusionary criterion and other specific criteria. Absent from the Technical Criteria list is any concern for water. At a minimum, the WTS site will have the transfer station which will require frequent washing for obvious sanitary and public health reasons. Substantial quantities of water would be used to wash this facility and washing might well occur every day. I don't know. 10 After particulate filtration and de-greasing, this wash water will contain various dissolved organic matter, metal salts, toxins, and microorganisms. Each day's garbage haul would potentially be different in the range and concentration of such matter. However, it would always contain both animal and human fecal material and microbes. It would always contain a substantial nutrient pool of rotting food, dissolved medicinals, leaked batteries, etc. The microbial concentration, including coliform bacteria would be extremely high. These microbes are aggressively digesting all this great stuff. That is why it smells. So, the water used to wash down the Transfer Facility would need to be disposed of safely and surely. The alternatives are either via a municipal sewer system or by collection and cartage from the site. Olver has suggested that carting tanker trucks of wash water is a viable option and would leave non-sewered sites available for consideration. However, trucking this water has several problems: The water has to be stored, it has to be transferred into a tanker truck and it has to be driven to a release or dumping site. Storage and transfer offer significant leakage risk, and tanker transfer is both a risk and an additional diesel fuel expense. Carting wash water adds to the site upkeep costs as long as the site is in operation. Remember, the very first leak of sewer-quality water will cause a huge uproar, with a likely cry for a sewer line in order to avoid a repeat mishap. This kind of secondary fix would really be expensive and call into question the credibility of the BOCC. I suggest you seriously consider adding among your criteria: 'Access to Municipal Sewer and Water', and weigh this as a 'Ten.- Fred Stang said that he was speaking on behalf of Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth, a group based in Orange County. He said that last Thursday's public information session was very informative on the siting process. He said that the consultants indicated that the criteria were not set in stone and that they were actively soliciting constructive suggestions from citizens about how the process might be tailored to reflect the will of the public. The attendees were unanimous that some site other than the Eubanks Road site be bound to the transfer station and made several worthy suggestions. The first suggestion was that the environmental justice component of the community-specific criteria be more heavily weighted and move to a position where it will be considered earlier in the process. Secondly, that a criterion be included that weights past history of association with the landfill as a factor that lowers the ranking of a potential site. Thirdly, that heavier consideration be given to the fact that continued heavy truck traffic along Eubanks Road, in light of the new schools being sited in the area, is undesirable. Lastly, that among the exclusionary criteria, the potential site location distances be increased to within 5 miles of major highways and within 15 miles of the projected waste generation centroid. The goal of these suggestions is to eliminate the Eubanks Road site from consideration and increase the chance that an alternative site would be chosen. He said that Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth stands in support of the Rogers/Eubanks Coalition to End Environmental Racism and the Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Association, as well as many Orange County citizens in calling for the Board of County Commissioners to site the transfer station elsewhere. Reverend Robert Campbell read a letter. "Dear Chairman Jacobs and County Commissioners, On June 6, 2007, residents of the Rogers-Eubanks community began working with the Historic Rogers Road Community Enhancement Plan and Development and Monitoring Task Force. The Task Force was established by the Board of County Commissioners to address concerns related to the long-term presence of solid waste facilities in the community. Members of the community worked in good faith through the summer and fall of 2007 with representatives of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County to reach agreement on the priorities for the community. 11 Since the last Task Force meeting on November 12, 2007, there has been no action by the BOCC. As a matter of fact, Chair Moses Carey indicated that the Board's decision to reopen the site search for the transfer station might negatively impact the County's willingness to provide basic public services. (See attached meeting notes.) Has Orange County not worked in good faith on behalf of the community by now tying long-promised basic public services to the siting of a new transfer station? Is the Task Force to be yet another failed effort in the long history of promises made, expectations raised, and resolution denied? The BOCC has now also made it clear that the Title VI civil rights administrative complaint filed by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association with the Coordination and Review Section in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice precludes any further work toward reaching a settlement. The community challenges such reasoning. The administrative complaint asserts that discrimination occurred and that necessary procedures were not followed in the past to the detriment of the Rogers-Eubanks Road community. To follow proper procedures now and to continue the work of the Task Force going forward does not reflect on the past or the disposition of that administrative complaint. To use the Title VI administrative complaint as an excuse not to address the concerns of the community appears to be just another evasive tactic. The Rogers-Eubanks Road community stands ready to continue working with the BOCC and specifically wants to focus at this time on the most pressing and most easily remedied issue before the BOCC, the issue of the siting of the Waste Transfer Station. Specifically, we seek the immediate removal of the Rogers-Eubanks Road vicinity from consideration as a site for the Waste Transfer Station. This matter can be resolved quickly with the prompt passage of a BOCC resolution that takes a determined stand for environmental justice. We have attached a recommended resolution for your consideration. The Task Force and the good faith efforts of the Rogers-Eubanks community should not become another sad milestone in the long history of expectations raised and hopes denied. We stand ready to continue the work and look forward to your prompt and unanimous passage of the proposed resolution. Thank You. Robert Campbell and Neloa Jones Co-Chairs of the Rogers-Eubanks Coalition to End Environmental Racism" 7) Further Comment and Feedback as desired by the Board to Olver, Inc. and/or County Management Chair Jacobs clarified that the Board has asked for further information including a written summary of the public session comments, a hypothetical site with criteria applied, and further testing based on comments from Public Works staffs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro of the 12-mile limit. He also suggested that there be a modified environmental justice goal without the points. Commissioner Gordon said Olver also agreed to divide one of the exclusionary criteria into two parts, thereby making two exclusionary criteria: (1) the area twelve miles from the centroid along major truck routes and (2) the area three miles from the major transportation corridors. There were also other points concerning the community specific criteria that are to be addressed by the consultants. The Board also asked for a definitions for all technical criteria, community specific criteria, and exclusionary criteria, with some indication for how these would be measured. 12 Gwen Harvey reviewed her notes: Finalize the definition of parks and preserves, amend the footnote pages regarding the wetlands and steep slopes, and write down the rule of thumb regarding the majority of the site when it comes to evaluating the exclusionary criteria. Chair Jacobs suggested that the staff and consultants review the minutes of the previous meetings to find all of the points the Commissioners had discussed. Commissioner Gordon said that comments from the County Commissioners should be written on the criteria pages ( including all the exhibits) so that they are not lost. The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board