HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20081014 - Work Session APPROVED 11/18/2008
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
October 14, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Wednesday,
October 14, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
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 Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (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. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE
KEPT FOR 5 YEARS.
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:29 pm.
1. Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II
Chair Jacobs said that he would like for Tom Altieri to walk the Board through the
document and highlight substantial changes and issues raised by other entities.
Chapter 1
Tom Altieri made reference to Attachment 1.3 on page 41 and said that one of the
comments received during the public hearing was that there needs to be a more complete
definition of sustainability. Most of the information about sustainability is from a prior County
report. The Planning Board determined that it would try and use a report that was already in
existence. This was one of the big ticket items.
There was some considerable discussion about Item #5, Growth Opportunity Areas.
This term was new and had been defined previously and was stricken because it meant high-
residential density.
Another question from the June work session was that some of the tables in the plan
include information that is countywide— municipalities all together in the data and in other cases
the table splits out to the County's planning jurisdiction. There has been language added in
different places in the plan, a general description that, unless it is noted otherwise, the table
includes the municipality and the numbers within that data set.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 1-3. This is 1.2.1, What is the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan? She said that it seems that environmental protection should be
added to this statement: "Ranging from land use, to economic development, to housing, to
public facilities, to environmental protection, and beyond."
On page 1-7 and 1-8 and 1.3, Land Use, and asked about the "strategic growth and
resource conservation program." Tom Altieri said that this is new terminology for transfer of
development rights.
Chair Jacobs asked that the Transfer of Development Rights Program be put in
parentheses so that people will know what this means.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 1-12 and the annual retreat, and said to
take out "January".
Chapter 2
Tom Altieri said that there are no Planning Board proposed revisions for Chapter 2.
There was some discussion by the Board of County Commissioners about principle#3 and
energy. This could possibly split up into two separate principles.
Commissioner Gordon said that it started out as, "promote both air quality, protection,
and the development of an effective transportation system," and then encouraging energy
efficiency was added on. She said that they are separate.
Chair Jacobs suggested writing out that the County Commissioners have suggestions
instead of trying to craft something now.
Chapter 3
Tom Altieri said that there were some questions on a few of the tables in the economic
development element. There were a number of different counties listed and a few of the tables
were inconsistent. These changes have been made so that the tables are consistent.
A description of tourism has been added on page 12 of the agenda abstract.
He also pointed out items 14 and 18 in the Planning Board's Table of Proposed
Revisions.
Chair Jacobs asked if the language on item 14 was meant to be nebulous. Tom Altieri
said that it was meant to be somewhat nebulous.
Commissioner Carey said that the language seems flexible, but also communicates a
desire to work with others to try to attract and retain businesses.
Item 18 was rewritten to include other universities in the area.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 3-1 on the background and said that the
university should be named.
Also, on page 3-16, line 30, she suggested adding "and sustainable" to the statement,
"development Strategy to attract and promote a vibrant and sustainable...."
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 3-22, line 43, "Select industrial sites on the basis
of supporting systems such as water and sewer lines, good highway..." and suggested
reinserting "public transit or rail access."
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 3-14, line 45, and pointed out that Orange County
was the highest in the region at 41%.
Chapter 4
Tom Altieri said that a description of the Affordable Housing Bond Program has been
added on page 14, item 2.
There is a new objective that has been added on page 15 (shaded item).
On page 16, item 10 was rewritten not to specifically reference the County Ten-Year
Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
Also, item 13 has the word "tax" deleted with regard to assistance for elderly
households.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 16, item 12 and said that other places in
the document have "mobile homes" and should be changed to, "permit HUD code-compliant
manufactured housing."
Chapter 5
Tom Altieri said that a bullet has been added to the description of the significant land use
programs that have come into effect. Specifically referenced is the adoption of watershed
protection zoning in Orange County and the year in which Cheek Township was zoned.
The description of the Hillsborough/Orange County Strategic Growth Plan has been
updated. The Pantry Study description was added, as well as the 1991 Efland Area Study.
There was some question at the June 10th work session about the land use categories
and the descriptions. Staff has matched this update exactly to the land use categories presently
listed in the 1981 plan.
Also, the subdivision data that was previously in the land use element has been
updated.
On page 22, item 33, a new objective has been proposed that would address reviewing
the County's development plans in response to potential new developments such as Carolina
North and possible relocation of the Horace Williams Airport.
He said that there was considerable discussion by the Planning Board and also at one of
the County Commissioners' meetings regarding community building. There is a new objective
regarding this.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 23, line 37, and "manmade emergency
events." She suggested gender neutral language.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5-37, Objective LU-1.1, lines 4-7, and
suggested taking out the things to avoid and saying, "while avoiding areas with protected natural
and cultural resources." She also found the other reference to mobile homes on page 5-40, LU-
4.1. Also, on this same item on page 22, she suggested deleting, "and permitting of solid waste
management facilities in appropriate locations."
Chair Jacobs said that somewhere he wanted to track something that was brought up at
a County Commissioners' retreat a few years ago, which was to develop standards to limit
future subdivision of lots platted through the Exempt Subdivision process.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5-37, Objective LU-2.1, and said that
sometimes throughout the document it says "as designated on the future land use plan" and
sometimes it says "as designated on the land use plan." She suggested getting rid of "future"
throughout the document.
Chapter 6
Tom Altieri said that there are a lot of revisions here and most of them are clarifying
language and providing some additional information. He pointed out some of the revisions for
Chapter 6, which were listed on pages 23-32.
Commissioner Gordon said that everywhere that there is a reference to "non-attainment"
it should say "maintenance." Staff will double check this designation.
Tom Altieri said that there is a new objective on page 30, item 49, "Provide for a user-
friendly public input access for systematic acquisition of and contribution to information about
cultural resources."
He also pointed out page 32, item 62, which states that the advisory boards were
confused with the wording suggested by Clarion. Staff recommendation is to delete lines 29-33
of this text.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the first sentence not be deleted. The Board agreed to
delete the last two sentences and leave the first sentence in lines 29-33.
Chair Jacobs made reference to 6-6, lines 10-11 and the large populations of Native
Americans. He asked if they could be identified by tribe instead of just calling them Native
Americans.
Chair Jacobs said that there was some confusion on 6-10 about bright leaf tobacco and
flue cured tobacco and there was a footnote about it that they are interchangeable. He asked
that this be clarified so that it is consistent.
On 6-15, line 23, and the importance of preserving agricultural land, he suggested
encouraging the private preservation of open space.
Chair Jacobs asked if anything was added on 6-22 about forestry practices and not
burning on ozone alert days, notification of adjoining property owners before a controlled burn or
clear cut. It was answered no, and Chair Jacobs asked that this be added.
At the bottom of page 6-42, footnote#40, he asked if Mebane was included. It was
answered no. Staff will add Mebane to this and that it does not have a historic district. This
should also be reflected on 6-51, lines 15-16, about Historic District Commissions.
On 6-50, green building, he asked if there was any discussion on the advantages of
deconstruction versus demolition. It was answered that this was mentioned.
Chair Jacobs asked about 6-77, line 16, and that stream buffers are 65 feet on both
sides of the stream. He asked if it was a total of 130 feet or 65 feet, bisected by the stream. It
was answered that it was 65 feet on each side of the stream. Staff will clarify this language.
On 6-86, he asked if there was some discussion on objective WR2 and WR3 about
stormwater credits.
On 6-95, he asked if it was mentioned that Orange County has worked with Durham
County, Triangle Land Conservancy, and Eno River Association.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 6-7 and asked to flag this for clarification
— a balance of cultural and natural resources or an appreciation of cultural and natural
resources.
Chapter 7
Commissioner Gordon made reference to 7-13, PR5-1, #19 and asked about islands of
habitat. The staff will research this.
Chair Jacobs made reference to 7-4, key issues, and said that one of the relevant things
is that the County has already spent some money assisting with Little River Regional Park to
achieve the master plan, but it is not mentioned here. The Little River Regional Park was also
achieved with two non-profit land trusts, and that is not indicated.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the New Hope Creek Preserve and that it should
mention Triangle Land Conservancy and a neighborhood organization as partners.
Chair Jacobs said that he has a question about whether some of the other properties
that have been purchased but have no adopted plans will be added. Examples are Blackwood
Farm at New Hope, Julia Blackwood Farm, and Schley/Mincey Road property. He thinks that
they ought to be listed.
Commissioner Carey left at 8:26 pm.
Chair Jacobs made reference to 7-13, line 33, and linear parks, or wildlife corridors, or
greenways. He asked if these were interchangeable terms and it was answered yes.
Chapter 8
Tom Altieri said that a brief discussion has been added of the one million gallon per day
allocation of water held within Jordan Lake to Orange County.
There was also a new objective added, PS-T-8, "Maintain a radio communication system
that ensures reliable notification and control of emergency assets throughout Orange County."
Commissioner Gordon asked what "control of emergency assets" means. Planning
Director Craig Benedict said that this could be telecommunication towers that are part of the
emergency system.
Commissioner Nelson said that there should be clarifying language that makes it clear
what the assets are.
Commissioner Foushee suggested changing the word "control" to "oversight."
Tom Altieri said that he would change it to "oversight" and come back with a list of what
is meant by "emergency assets."
Tom Altieri said that the Planning Board discussed the description of the two school
systems in the County. It seemed that there was some sort of competition in describing the two
school systems. The Planning Board ended up going back and revising the descriptions and
taking out the self-congratulatory language given by CHCCS. The amendment is provided as
Attachment 8.4.6.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 33, Services and Community Facilities
Goal 1, and suggested adding, `joint planning agreements, and future agreements..."
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 35, #16, Objective L-5, "Provide
additional library services to the people in the northwest area of the County centered on Cedar
Grove Township." She would like to add, "and to the southwest part of the County centered on
Carrboro and Bingham Township."
Commissioner Gordon made reference to PS-T-6 and said that there are two of those.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the summary on page 8-1 and asked that these be
changed so that they are in alphabetical order and asked that Animal Control and Services be
added as a function.
On 8-2, line 6, Public Education, Durham Technical Community College should be
mentioned.
On 8-3, line 31, "efficient and effective public safety, including police, fire,
telecommunications, emergency," and he suggested adding, "and animal services."
Chair Jacobs asked about Orange-Alamance Water System. He did not realize that
there was an adopted master plan where the service area was defined. He thought that
Orange-Alamance had asked for money from Orange County to do this. This document refers
to the master plan several times. Also, on page 8-11, Objectives WW-3 and WW-4 should
mention Orange-Alamance in the existing plans or cooperative arrangements. He suggested
adding language about coordination with Orange-Alamance to develop a master plan.
On page 8-24, Objective SW-2 in line 22, Chair Jacobs suggested that this might be a
good place to mention deconstruction.
On page 8-36, line 14, it should mention Durham Technical Community College.
On page 8-37, lines 46-47 and adequate public facilities, there is a memorandum of
understanding with the two school districts and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chair
Jacobs pointed out that there is also an MOU with the Town of Hillsborough.
On page 8-38, regarding the discussion of school merger, there were three other
outcomes. One was the production of the Grumet Report detailing the strengths and
weaknesses of both school systems, one was an efficiency study of both school systems, and
one was the establishment of collaboration meetings between the chairs and the vice-chairs of
the three respective boards.
On page 8-46, regarding library services, there has also been discussion about better
coordination between the two systems in terms of interoperability and other efficiencies.
Chair Jacobs said that he had flagged the objective on page 23 about community
building, which said, "Evaluate and consider the community building recommendations of the
Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force." He said that he had made a pitch for calling this
whole chapter something besides Service and Facilities Element and trying to create a
framework for talking about sustainable government and that community building was more
suited to talking about sustainable government. He thinks that one of the emerging issues is
how to make government sustainable financially and better reflective of community needs and
interests. He realizes that there are sustainable elements all through here, but there is no place
in the document that puts it in a framework. There should be an overarching concept to the way
in which facilities and services are provided, that has to do with meeting needs within the
means.
He said that if the Board is interested, then he will work with Tom Altieri in coming up
with something. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 8-12, Objective WW-9. She suggested
going back and finding out the names of the respective joint planning agreements.
Chapter 9
Tom Altieri said that the Planning Board has some proposed revisions to the body text of
the Orange Unified Transportation Board proposal based on its review of the public hearing
draft. The Planning Board did not incorporate any of the proposed changes or new goals and
objectives that were proposed by the OUT Board. These changes more accurately describe
how transportation is planned in the County— better descriptions of the MPO, RPO, and other
organizations.
Commissioner Gordon said that she read over what the Planning Board said and she
thought it might be possible to go through and follow the template and the original purpose of
the draft, while still incorporating more of the OUT Board's suggestions. The Planning Board
said that some of what had been in the original goals was now missing, so pages 9-21 through
9-23 were not recommended. She said that she tried to come up with things that took the best
of both recommendations (pink sheet). She summarized the memorandum, which is shown
below:
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners, County Manager,
and Clerk to the Board
From: Alice Gordon
Subject: Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element- Goals and Objectives
Date: October 12, 2008
This is a revised version of the Goals and Objectives Section of the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan (pages 9-21 through 9-23). As you know, the Planning Board
members suggested that the Commissioners read the minutes of their meeting on September
10 to address this section of the Transportation Element.
The intent of this proposed revision is to integrate the comments of the Planning Board and the
proposed revisions of the OUTBoard and others, including my suggested revisions, while
maintaining the basic template and purpose of the original draft.
CHAPTER 9: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Pages 9-21 through 9-23
9.5 GOALS
The following transportation goals will guide future policy and implementation strategies for the
County.
Transportation Overarching Goal:
An efficient and balanced transportation system that uses multiple motorized and non-motorized
modes of transportation and for which the planning, design, and implementation will be guided
by the following overarching qualities:
A. Protects air quality, water quality and quantity, soil quality, and biological resources
B. Promotes public health and safety
C. Encourages sustainable economic development
D. Provides equal access to all users
E. Is highly modally and inter-modally integrated and connected
F. Fosters sustainable and efficient use of all kinds of resources, including financial and natural
resources
G. Enhances the natural and cultural heritage
H. Uses creative and well-designed infrastructure
I. Is attractive, user-friendly, and easy to understand because of factors such as signage,
brochures, and web pages
J. Respects privacy and citizen rights.
(Note to reader: The overarching qualities are based on OUTBoard suggestions.)
Transportation Goal 1:
An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural
environment and community character.
Transportation Goal 2:
A multi-modal transportation system that is affordable, available, and accessible to all users and
that promotes public health and safety.
Transportation Goal 3:
Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development,
supports future development, and is consistent with the county's land use plans which include
provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character.
Transportation Goal 4:
A countywide and regionally-integrated multi-modal transportation planning process that is
comprehensive, creative and effective.
9.6 OBJECTIVES
The intent of this plan is that this list of objectives will help guide regular and ongoing decision-
making by the County related to transportation initiatives. Each objective has a recommended
timeline for completion. (Definition of timelines provided in Section 1.4 Adminstration and
Implementation Guidelines.)
Transportation Goal 1:
An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural
environment and community character.
Objective T-1.1: (Ongoing)
Increase the occupancy of automobiles through ridesharing and other means; and expand the
use of public transit (including bus and rail), walking, and biking as primary modes of travel.
(Note to reader: This is the first part of current Objective T-1.1, expanded)
Objective T-1.2: (Ongoing)
Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system that is more energy-
efficient, reduces carbon emissions, and reduces the use of fossil fuels while promoting the use
of local renewable and sustainable fuels.
(Note to reader: This is the second part of current Objective T-1.1, expanded)
Objective T-1.3: (Ongoing)
Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or at least minimizes
negative impacts on the natural environment, including air quality, water resources, biological
resources, and wildlife habitat.
(Note to reader: This is the first part of current Objective T-1.2, expanded)
Objective T-1.4: (Ongoing)
Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or at least minimizes
negative impacts on the community, including historical or cultural assets, existing
neighborhoods, schools and recreational facilities, and the overall rural character in Orange
County.
(Note to reader: This is the second part of current Objective T-1.2, expanded.)
Objective T-1.5: (Medium Term)
Identify prime viewsheds along major transportation corridors and protect these areas for their
scenic and natural resource values.
(Note to reader: This is current Objective T-1.4)
Objective T-1.6: (Long Tern)
Expand the availability and use of public transportation (including bus and rail) throughout the
County to provide better connections between employment centers, shopping and service
locations, and other key points of interest in both urban and rural areas, particularly for the
County's senior and disabled populations and others without access to automobiles.
Transportation Goal 2:
A multi-modal transportation system that is affordable, available, and accessible to all users and
that promotes public health and safety.
Objective T-2.1: (Ongoing)
Increase the provision of bikeways and walkways, and also increase supportive facilities such
as bicycle parking zones.
Objective T-2.2: (Ongoing)
Evaluate and serve special transportation needs of the senior population, youth, the
economically disadvantaged and the disabled, including both everyday needs and disaster
transit provision.
Objective T-2.3: (Ongoing)
Increase county-wide access for emergency vehicles, including ways to improve response
times, both for existing and new developments.
Objective T-2.4: (Ongoing)
Improve the provision of public transit facilities and services, and also increase supportive
facilities for transit, such as park and ride lots.
Objective T-2.5: (Short Term)
Improve public education and advertising of existing transit services.
Objective T-2.6: (Ongoing)
Increase safety awareness between car drivers and bicycle riders, and increase safety for
pedestrians.
(Note to reader: This is a modification of current Objective T-1.3)
Objective T-2.7: (Long Term)
Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County that will make cycling for transportation purposes
safer, more convenient, and more efficient.
(Note to reader: This is current Objective T-1.7)
Transportation Goal 3:
Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development,
supports future development, and is consistent with the county's land use plans which include
provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character.
Objective T-3.1: (Ongoing)
Improve the county's transportation system by first enhancing existing facilities as opposed to
developing new facilities.
Objective T-3.2: (Short Term)
Create and implement an Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan that provides the
framework for a comprehensive and connected transportation system supporting a mix of all
transportation modes, including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, bus and rail transit facilities, and
highways. The plan should be coordinated with the goals and objectives of this Comprehensive
Plan and seek to maintain and enhance community character and the natural environment.
Objective T-3.3: (Short Term)
Determine the policies to guide connectivity within and between residential development based
on their impact on neighborhood character.
Objective T-3.4: (Long Term)
Direct development to higher density mixed-use districts along transit corridors and make
necessary multi-modal transportation improvements to service lands that are slated for future
intense development, such as Economic Development Districts.
Objective T-3.5: (Medium Term)
Use innovative techniques to increase mobility and reduce rush hour congestion.
(Note to reader: This is a new objective which is related to OUTBoard suggestions.)
Transportation Goal 4:
A countywide and regionally-integrated multi-modal transportation planning process and
strategy for services that will be comprehensive, creative and effective.
Objective T-4.1: (Ongoing)
Work with nearby jurisdictions to integrate the County's transportation plans with those of other
transportation planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the Triangle
region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect regional goals and
objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce congestion and reliance on single
occupancy vehicles.
Objective T-4.2: (Ongoing)
Plan and integrate the County's multi-modal transportation routes and services with regional
transportation agencies and transit service providers, agencies and transit providers in
neighboring counties, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and the North
Carolina Railroad.
Objective T-4.3: (Long Term)
Revive rail transportation in Orange County and the Triangle region.
General Note to Reader: This proposed revision does not include the references to other plan
elements, nor does it evaluate the proposed timelines.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 9-5 and the listing of the countywide road
network, which does not mention 15/501. He made reference to page 9-9, line 5; 9-13, line 32;
and 9-14, line 19 and said that all of the discussions about the bicycle plan are inconsistent.
The Board discussed this recently that the OUT Board is recommending bicycle priorities that
are totally inconsistent with the adopted bicycle plan, which is a commuter work bicycle plan,
and most of the biking mentioned by the OUT Board is recreational. He said that the Board
voted to revisit this. This is also referred to on page 9-20, line 46.
Chair Jacobs thanked the Planning Board members present and asked them to thank
their colleagues for all of their work.
Chair Jacobs asked Tom Altieri to make a separate table for what was discussed tonight
instead of including it in the existing table.
The Board will vote on this at the next meeting that it comes to the Board in November.
2. Lands Legacy Action Plan for FY 2008-10
Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that this is
something that is done every two years in the fall — bring back a draft action plan for the next
two fiscal years. The purpose is to hear from the County Commissioners about the priorities
that have been identified by the staff and advisory boards. He noted that staff is very conscious
of what has been going on in the global economy in the last few months. The plan is to fund the
document with the existing resources. He said that the purpose of the action plan is to make
the priorities operational during the two-year period and the five different categories that Lands
Legacy operates—farmland, natural areas, wildlife habitat and prime forests, watershed riparian
buffers, future parks and open space, and cultural resources lands.
There has been a lot of work to have a large amount of information to pull from. At the
earlier part of the decade, there was an effort to create a "green print." He showed a map with
important areas in the County and surrounding areas. The document is consistent with the
long-term plans that have been created over the years.
Rich Shaw reviewed the contents of the document. He specifically went over the Priority
List for July 2008-2010, which includes Bingham Township Park, farmland easements, Jordan
Lake Macrosite, Seven Mile Creek Preserve, Upper Eno Riparian Buffers, Hall's Mill Historic
Area, Crawford Mountain, Bolin Creek Corridor, Mountains to Sea Trail, Meadow Flats Natural
Area, and Currie Hill Natural Area. He made reference to Appendix 2, which is the Potential
Expansion of the Nature Preserves Concept. The idea is to protect strategic areas between
what the County already has. Staff would like feedback and direction from the Board on this
issue.
Chair Jacobs suggested starting with the action plan and seeing if anyone has questions
or comments.
Commissioner Gordon said that the action plan seems fairly similar to what the County
had before. She said that the specifics should probably be discussed.
Chair Jacobs suggested working with Cooperative Extension to see if linkages could be
created to train new farmers.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the Historic Preservation Commission and the costs
associated with preserving historic structures on acquired properties. He thinks that this is an
area where some creative thinking could come into play. He thinks that there should be some
statement that the County has talked about over time that it should make a commitment to
maintain these properties and take responsibility for an asset.
Dave Stancil said that the staff has been doing some creative thinking about the existing
assets.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the County were to pursue the Mountains to Sea Trail,
would it have to come up with additional money. Dave Stancil said yes, or appropriate some
existing funds to it as opposed to an existing project. He said that the Board will always be
making case-by-case decisions.
Commissioner Nelson said that the country is already in a recession and facing tough
economic times in the next year or two. The County is not going to be able to spend money in
the next couple of years like it has the last couple of years. He said that he is wondering why
the County is buying land when it cannot even afford the basics.
Dave Stancil said that one of the beauties of the Lands Legacy is that it can function at a
very low level, such as $20,000; or a very high level, such as $20 million.
Chair Jacobs said that one suggestion would be to not work on any new priorities, but
focus only on the priorities that have already been established.
Commissioner Foushee made reference to the second page of Appendix 3, where it
addresses the methods that might be established to determine how property is acquired. She
asked how and when these methods would be honed down.
Dave Stancil said that he and Rich Shaw would be going to Raleigh tomorrow to meet
with the State Parks to talk about the Mountains to Sea Trail. The key issue is the role that the
State is going to play. Commissioner Foushee would like the State's role to be defined before
the Board of County Commissioners talks about it.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County should give priority to the existing projects.
She would take a cautious approach and try to accomplish things that are already on the table.
Laura Blackmon said that this is a plan and putting the projects into the plan does not
mean that funds will be allocated.
Chair Jacobs suggested adding a second tier along with the existing priorities. He said
that there is $2 million in bond money that the voters have approved for these uses and there is
$400,000 in payment-in-lieu funds that could relate directly.
Commissioner Nelson said that he is going to be hesitant to issue any more debt that is
not absolutely necessary. He said that all governments will be operating differently in the next
five to ten years.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 8 and the notion of a land trust and open space
authority. He said that this idea has been floating around for years and it should be either
fleshed out or dropped.
Chair Jacobs asked Dave Stancil what staff envisioned in talking about the Upper Eno.
Dave Stancil said that the Seven Mile Creek Preserve is in the existing program. For this issue,
staff was looking at what else was going on in the corridor. This may be a concept that
emerges over a period of time. There could be a linear nature preserve along the Eno,
including Seven Mile Creek.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the staff work on the nomenclature regarding preserves.
This item will come back on an agenda for adoption of the plan.
Chair Jacobs suggested either advancing or removing the idea of a land trust.
Commissioner Nelson asked that the priorities on the Mountains to the Sea Trail be
flagged.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 10:00 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board