HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080916 - Transfer Station 1 APPROVED 10/21/2008
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION
5 September 16, 2008
6 5:30 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work
9 Session on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center
10 in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
13 Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
17 Managers Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Call to Order/Introductions/Opening Comments
24 Chair Jacobs pointed out the materials available to the public. He said that the first item
25 was to Receive and Discuss Findings and Background Information on the Application of the
26 Approved Exclusionary and Technical Criteria in the Selection of a Transfer Station Site in
27 Orange County, and the Identification of Sites Recommended for Preliminary Community-
28 Specific Criteria Evaluation. He asked for comments from the Board on the process. He said
29 that this is not the process that he thought the County was supposed to follow. He thinks that
30 tonight the County Commissioners will get the process back on the track that they told the public
31 it was on. He does not want to leave this room until the process is fixed.
32 Commissioner Foushee said that she was under the impression that the County
33 Commissioners would apply the community-specific criteria prior to the community meetings.
34 She would like to do this tonight. Chair Jacobs agreed.
35 Commissioner Carey said that this is the County's process and not the contractor's
36 process. The County Commissioners know what should happen tonight, and that is what
37 should be done. He agreed that he would like to see the Community-Specific Criteria applied
38 before anything is taken out to the public, because it would further reduce the amount of sites.
39 He does not see any reason to unnecessarily excite people about a site if it is not going to be
40 among the final few sites that are going to be considered.
41 Commissioner Gordon said that it is within the County Commissioners' purview to have
42 the community-specific criteria applied, since the Commissioners approve them in June. She
43 thought that the consultant was going to bring back the results of the exclusionary and technical
44 criteria to see if they were applied correctly.
45 Commissioner Nelson agreed with everyone's comment.
46 Chair Jacobs suggested having the consultant go through the sites and then the Board
47 will act regarding the community-specific criteria before public comment is received.
48
49 2. Receive and Discuss Findings and Background Information on the Application of
50 BOCC Adopted Exclusionary and Technical Criteria in the Selection of a Transfer
51 Station Site in Orange County, and the Identification of Sites Recommended for
1 Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria Evaluation (Agenda Abstract, Including
2 Exhibits 1-6)
3
4
5 Lewis Watts from Olver, Inc. introduced Sandy Warner, Professional Geologist, and Ron
6 Singleton, Senior Civil Engineer, who were involved in applying technical criteria to the sites.
7 He made a PowerPoint presentation.
8
9 Summary of Siting Process
10 1. Establish Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Sites
11 • Develop Criteria Prior to Identifying Potential Sites
12 2. Three Categories of Criteria:
13 • Exclusionary
14 • Technical
15 • Community-Specific
16 3. Establish each Criterion's Relative Weight and Importance
17 4. Identify Potential Sites based upon Exclusionary Criteria
18 5. Evaluation of Potential Sites with Respect to Final Technical Criteria and Weighting
19 Factors
20 6. Determination of Final Candidate Sites
21 7. Evaluation of Final Candidate Sites based upon Final Community-Specific Criteria and
22 Weighting Factors
23 8. Final Ranking of Candidate Sites
24 9. Site Selection
25
26 Progress Overview
27 1. Completed Development and Approval of Criteria
28 • Exclusionary Criteria
29 • Technical Criteria and Weighting Factors
30 • Community-Specific Criteria and Weighting Factors
31 2. Conducted Initial Phase of the Site Selection Process
32 • Purpose— Identify Potential Sites for Technical Evaluation
33 3. Applied Exclusionary Criteria to Identify Sites having >_25 Acres of Unencumbered Site
34 Area
35 4. Conducted Initial Phase of the Site Selection Process (continued)
36 • County GIS data was used to identify sites
37 • 379 parcels > 25 acres
38 • Applied Protected Watershed Criteria —242 parcels > 25 acres
39 • Screened 242 parcels with respect to technical suitability— identified most
40 favorable sites
41 • Selected 10 Potential Sites for Technical Evaluation
42
43 Progress Overview
44 1. Completed Technical Evaluation Phase
45 • Purpose— Ranking of Potential Sites and Selection of Final Candidate Sites
46 for Community-Specific Evaluation Phase
47 2. Ordinal Ranking of Sites with Respect to each Technical Criteria
48 3. Computation of Site Point Totals
49 • Based upon Ordinal Rank and Criteria Weighting Factor
50
1 Progress Overview
2 1. Selection of Final Candidate Sites for Community-Specific Evaluation
3 • Based upon Technical Evaluation 6 Sites are Recommended as Candidate
4 Sites for Community-Specific Evaluation
5
6 Technical Site Evaluation Summary
7
8 Next Phase
9 1. Upon Approval by BOCC Conduct Public Input Meetings for Recommended
10 Candidate Sites
11 2. Public Input Meeting
12 • Presentation and Discussion of Technical Evaluation
13 • Receive Community-Specific Evaluation Input from the Public regarding the
14 Proposed Candidate Sites
15 3. Conduct Community-Specific Evaluation of Candidate Sites
16 4. Prepare Initial Ranking of Candidate Sites
17 5. Present Results to BOCC at October 21, 2008 Work Session
18
19
20 Bob Sallach of Olver explained that site 304 had an amendment file that would exclude
21 development of the site, so it was removed.
22 The ten sites that were chosen are shown on Exhibit 2. According to the rankings and
23 scoring, the top two sites are very highly ranked in comparison to the other sites. There is
24 another break at sites five and six. He is asking that the community-specific criteria be applied
25 to the top six sites. If the Board approves these six sites, then the sites will be taken to three
26 community meetings to receive public input.
27
28 Commissioner Nelson said that three of the sites were dropped from consideration —826,
29 717, and 010. He asked why these were dropped. Bob Sallach made reference to the point
30 totals in terms of total points. The top two sites were in the mid 600's and then there was a
31 band of four sites that were very close in total points.
32 Commissioner Nelson verified that this was a subjective decision and a logical break
33 point.
34 In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Bob Sallach made reference to the
35 project schedule and meeting timeline and said that the process is being followed. He thinks
36 that the process should be redefined before going forward, because everyone is not on the
37 same page as anticipated.
38 Commissioner Nelson said that there was a lot of public input on the creation of the
39 community-specific criteria and he feels that this is a good package. He thinks that they should
40 be applied before the sites are taken out to public hearing. He thinks that this goal has been
41 accomplished.
42 Chair Jacobs said that it does not make sense to him to solicit public comment, give
43 values to the community-specific criteria, and then not apply them before going out into the
44 community. The logic to him is to take the ten sites that are remaining, not six, and apply the
45 criteria to all of them. He thinks that the ordering of the ten would be significantly different if this
46 were done. He does not want a process that will prolong people's discomfort, anger, and sense
47 of betrayal by the Board of County Commissioners.
48 Bob Sallach said that he would like to move forward with defining the process that the
49 County Commissioners want the consultants to follow, from this point on.
50 Commissioner Carey said that he would like to ask the consultants to apply the
51 community-specific criteria, but the question becomes what to take to the public for comment.
1 He thinks that once the community-specific criteria are applied, it will be clear that the ranking
2 will change. He does not propose taking all ten to the community for consideration. He would
3 propose only taking three or four sites to the community.
4 Chair Jacobs said that there is another Transfer Station Siting Committee meeting on
5 October 21st. So even though it will delay the overall process by five weeks, the way he
6 understood the process was that the community-specific criteria would be applied by the
7 consultants, and this would come back to the County Commissioners and they would decide
8 where the cutoff point is before going back to the public. He wants to take ownership from now
9 on and be clear that nothing leaves the room until the County Commissioners feel comfortable.
10 Lewis Watts said that what they know now is that all of the sites are "technically" suitable.
11 Chair Jacobs said that the Board could have both sets of scores and decide how to regard
12 those. Commissioner Carey agreed.
13 Chair Jacobs summarized what he has heard from the County Commissioners: To have
14 the consultants apply the community-specific criteria; have the results listed side-by-side with
15 the total points from the technical and exclusionary criteria for the ten sites; have this come back
16 to the Board on October 21St; and decide where the cutoff point is before it goes back out to the
17 community for further comment.
18 Commissioner Nelson said that this is fine with him, but he would like input from the
19 consultant regarding a reasonable cutoff point so that the decision is based on evidence and
20 input from experts. The Board agreed.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson that:
22 1) The Consultant apply the community-specific criteria to all ten sites;
23 2) That this be reported side-by-side with the application of the total points for the
24 technical criteria;
25 3) That the Board of County Commissioners would decide the number of sites, which
26 would go forward to the public for comment and consideration;
27 4) That the Consultant would make a recommendation as to a cutoff point that makes
28 sense based on the entire process;
29 5) And that this meeting would be held on October 21, 2008 at the Southern Human
30 Services Center at 5:30 p.m.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32 3.Receive Public Comment on Sites Recommended for Preliminary Community-
33 Specific Criteria Evaluation and the Proposal for Obtaining Initial Public Input
34
35 PUBLIC COMMENT:
36 Rev. Robert Campbell said that he wants to apply the community-specific criteria. He also
37 invited the County Commissioners to an Orange County Organizing Committee assembly at St.
38 Thomas Moore on October 29th for community input.
39 Rev. Richard Edens is one of the pastors at United Church of Chapel Hill and is also a
40 member of the Orange County Organizing Committee. He asked those connected with OCOC
41 to stand. He said that 45 years ago, Martin Luther King spoke his "I have a dream" speech at
42 the Lincoln Memorial about arriving in Washington with an uncashed check; a promissory note.
43 He said that the OCOC joins neighbors at Eubanks and Rogers Road in coming to the County
44 Commissioners with an uncashed check, that they would not bear being a neighbor to a landfill
45 into eternity or alone. He said that they are heartened to see that the selection criteria includes
46 environmental justice considerations, but they were disappointed to see that the Eubanks site
47 remains on the list of possible sites. He said that the people of Rogers and Eubanks Road were
48 promised explicitly or implicitly that they would not be impacted disproportionately forever. He
49 said that this organizing committee is still forming and is composed of 27 congregations,
50 institutions, and associations. He applauded the County Commissioners for their work thus far.
51 He asked them to site the transfer station elsewhere.
1 Steve Wing is on the faculty of the UNC School of Public Health faculty and he has been
2 looking at environmental justice issues in public health. He said that the United States as a
3 whole is experiencing increasing production of waste, and this is a problem in counties all over
4 the country. He said that North Carolina is the only state of the Union where there is published
5 research showing convincingly that communities of color and low-income communities bear a
6 disproportionate burden of solid waste facilities. This includes transfer stations. He said that
7 wealthy communities in this country contribute a highly disproportionate amount of solid waste
8 because they consume more. If these communities can put their waste in low-income
9 communities and communities of color that lack political clout, it breaks the feedback loop that
10 would lead them to want to do something about reducing the amount of waste produced. He
11 said that this is the basic important policy message about environmental justice. If wealthy
12 communities have to deal with waste, they will find ways to deal with it and will have the political
13 clout to make those changes. He said that the School of Public Health has worked with the
14 Rogers Road community for years. He said that one of his classes worked with this community
15 and there are clearly exposures to landfill gases near there. He urged the County
16 Commissioners to strike the Eubanks Road site from the list.
17 Neloa Jones offered some of the same insights, critical observations, and comments that
18 have been made at the beginning of this process. She said that she has been disturbed about
19 the subjective nature of the weighting factors. She was disturbed about the flawed matter in
20 which the criteria have been applied. She said that, both the EPA and the National Justice
21 Advisory Council have indicated that, with the exception of the exclusionary criteria, all other
22 criteria should be applied to all remaining potential sites. In addition, it is recommended that no
23 site be revealed or eliminated before all criteria have been applied. She quoted, "Once
24 unsuitable areas are eliminated, the technical criteria and community-specific criteria are
25 applied to all remaining options." This was on page 18, EPA Waste Transfer Station Manual.
26 She said that this process has not occurred in Orange County. She pointed out North Carolina
27 Senate Bill 1492, which has now given the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural
28 Resources the authority to deny permits for transfer stations when, "the cumulative impact
29 would have a disproportionate adverse impact on a minority or low-income community." She
30 said that the cumulative impact of hosting landfills for 36 years is disproportionately adverse.
31 She is confident that, had the criteria been applied appropriately, the Eubanks Road site would
32 certainly not be on this list. She asked the Board to vote tonight to remove Eubanks Road from
33 this list of possible sites for a transfer station.
34 Rev. Robert Campbell said that he just turned in 240 community-specific criteria input
35 forms. He said that members of this community and other organizations have come together
36 tonight with one voice to say that 36 years of dumping Orange County garbage in their
37 community is enough. He said that it is time for historic change and it needs to begin here. He
38 said that they all make this urgent request to take the Eubanks Road site off the list. He said
39 that they have suffered 36 years of foul-smelling air, contaminated groundwater, aggressive
40 flocks of birds and buzzards, rats, and wild dogs. He said that to place the transfer station on
41 Eubanks Road means once again that there is no environmental justice for this community.
42 Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mike Gering said that the Town Board has not reviewed
43 this information but the two top candidate sites are in Hillsborough's Economic Development
44 District. He said that his board will be reviewing this information and he would like to have
45 access to information to determine how the technical criteria evaluation resulted in the scores
46 for these sites.
47 John Kizer said that his home is on site 696 and this site is #7. He is concerned that his
48 home is identified as a potential site. In light of the comments from the County Commissioners
49 at the beginning of the meeting, he will wait until the next meeting to make his comments to see
50 if his property remains on the list.
51 Ralph Warren deferred his comments until the next meeting also.
1 Myra Gwin Summers said that, with the hard work of the Hillsborough Arts Council, local
2 businesses, Hillsborough government, and countless individuals, Hillsborough has become a
3 destination for tourism, shopping, and eating out. Last Fridays have been a huge success. For
4 visitors coming to Hillsborough, the I-85/old NC 86 interchange has been ugly, disorganized,
5 and clogged with traffic. This has been the face of Hillsborough for years. The Orange County
6 government has identified the four quadrants of 1-40 as being economic development land.
7 There are opportunities to do thoughtful economic development that is in the interest of
8 Hillsborough and Orange County. This could promote tourism and local businesses. She said
9 that Hillsborough is one of the few historic areas in the country that is more than 250 years old
10 and has so many preserved historic properties. She wanted to alert the Board of County
11 Commissioners that the technical evaluation does not factor in the negative impact of putting the
12 transfer station at sites 857 and 573. She suspects that these sites are ranked #1 and #2
13 because it looks like it is not in anyone's backyard. She pointed out that this is Hillsborough's
14 backyard and it would be a huge mistake to put the transfer station here.
15 Nathan Robinson is a resident of Orange County and an environmental engineer. He said
16 that he has been involved in the design and closure of many landfills, etc. He said that he has
17 gone through the report and, as a professional, he was struck by the subjective nature of the
18 rankings. In his experience, he would view site 669 as underscored while other sites are over-
19 scored. He recognizes a lot of social injustices. He said that his comments are limited to his
20 review of the technical report from an engineering standpoint. Regarding item #2, Access to
21 Major Transportation Routes, Eubanks ranks near the bottom even though it is right across from
22 1-40. There is a UPS distribution center and a park-and-ride. He does not understand how it is
23 possible that the major transportation routes can rank so low. He pointed out several other
24 reasons that Eubanks should be ranked high on the list of technical criteria. He said that maybe
25 there is a public perception that when the landfill is closed in 2011, then there will be a pristine
26 meadow and the social injustice will be completely eradicated. He said that the reality is that
27 people will be living next to a closed landfill. The question is how social justice can be enacted.
28 He said that the meeting minutes contain nothing about the economics that everyone will incur
29 to build a new facility at any of the sites. He said that municipal services should not have to
30 sprawl into such a zone as an EDD in Hillsborough when the Eubanks Road site has an existing
31 facility with other government entities around it. He said that there is a social equity problem. In
32 his experiences, site relocation is not the only way to enact social equality. He said that, given
33 the millions of dollars it will take to develop another site, he thinks that the County could invest
34 heavily into the neighborhood surrounding Eubanks Road. He suggested property tax
35 incentives, etc. He asked the County Commissioners to clarify the technical, the environmental,
36 the land use, the cost factors, and to use them to create social justice for everyone.
37 Jim Ciao represents The Stratford Company. The Stratford Company manages a land
38 fund that owns the Waterstone development near site 573. He said that he just recently was
39 made aware of this site. He said that they just put in $28 million of infrastructure to create a
40 mixed-use development where Orange County said that it wanted economic development. He
41 fears that if the transfer station goes in here, it could impact the ability to attract development
42 and ultimate users of the tract.
43 Stephanie Perry from Orange County Organizing Committee said that social justice and
44 environmental justice should be just as heavily weighted as economic impact. She said that at
45 some point everyone needs to look deep and realize that people, the water, and children are
46 more important than economic impact.
47 Jo Soulier lives in Hillsborough. She said that the County Commissioners need to take
48 into account how others see things. In Hillsborough, the 40 and 86 interchange has been touted
49 as the "Gateway into Hillsborough." She said that this is not the best interchange to be putting a
50 transfer station. There are already too many trucks coming into Hillsborough.
1 Paul Dunn lives in Cornwallis Hills subdivision and said that every truck that passes along
2 1-40, he can hear. He said that a transfer station in Hillsborough would be extra noise for the
3 community.
4 Ken Reardon lives off of the Rogers Road area. He said that he has a PhD in
5 Environmental Economics and Policy and he also works for an environmental consulting
6 company. He has mixed opinions. He said that, as a consultant, he views his role as providing
7 input to the client. Secondly, in his economics background, he thinks that there is a real danger
8 about using economics as a hammer and forgetting about all the other issues in life. He said
9 that this is a tough decision. He asked the County Commissioners to take everything into
10 account.
11 Kevin Wolff is running for County Commissioner this year. He said that he opposes the
12 transfer station being on Eubanks Road. He said that sometimes you have to look beyond the
13 economics. He challenged the community to be thinking about the cost impact and the
14 environmental impact of shipping garbage a long way from here to another community. He
15 thinks that the County should reconsider this.
16 Katherine Hathaway said that she has two grandparents living in her house over 90 and
17 her father has built on multiple additions to their house.
18
19 Chair Jacobs said that all of this information can be accessed through the County's
20 website. The Manager's Office phone number is 919-245-2300. Also, when the Board comes
21 back on October 21St, the next step will be to schedule community meetings regarding the sites
22 that remain.
23
24
25 4. Adopt the County Manager's Recommendation (outlined on Agenda Abstract),
26 including any additional guidance or direction to County management and Olver,
27 Inc.
28 Deferred
29
30 5. Adjourn
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
33 adjourn the meeting at 6:53 pm.
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 Barry Jacobs, Chair
37
38 Donna S. Baker, CMC
39 Clerk to the Board