P-0240 - Public Private Partnership Steering Committee 05-04-1987-G1

Browse Search

i n o~ c~~s A,~o>~r nc>~ r.~ aas~cr ~ DA'tB ~I41137~ „_____-__ l~b~ect~ , PURL 1 C-PR 1 VATl`C~1F~R ,~P,,f U~9 A~ti~ ate. »a ~~,..~ De~rtmeat; BDA12D OF COl`gff8SI0iliStiS Public Hearing: Yes Attac2nments; In~ormstit~ Contact: Shirley E. Marshal None phone Btaabers: 73~818t, 968-k5O1, 221T-0231 ~= 7o report on and develop recommendations for ongoing participation in Public-Private Conference. 6ACK6ROUND: .The conference, as before, was stimulating. I.t is worthwhile and educational to be in an informal setting with leaders fram many facets of community • life. Several brief Conversations identified concerns of others with county policies, actions or directions that will be followed up by me with one-on-one meetings. Sponsored by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce it is not s~urprising~that conference objectives. and interests are centered in Chapel Hill-Carrboro•and that the County is perceived as a prime actor only as it interacts with this sector. Mayor Sheffield, School Board Chair Lindsey Efland and I have agreed to meet, inviting Economic Aevelopment Commission Chair John McKee and Sylvia Price to discuss how we might build from this experience and initiate an intergovernmental economic/planning strategy effort between the County and the Town of Hillsborough. Mayor Upchurch attended the entire conference and Mayor Gulley the last session. The larger developing Metro-region, with the t-40 corridor and Research Triangle Park at its core, has a need for intergovernmental dialogue and interaction -- a study of and recommendation for a plan for stategic planning on this larger metro area is to be referred to as the Institute for Private Enterprise at UNC-CH. On the local intergovernmental level.it has been recommended that the "13-point" conriiittee continue in existence though no clearly defined (nor even not-clearly defined) agenda has been identified for action. During the course of the meetings the:'"turf!!..issue was raised again. In that context it is evident that there is still no understanding that the county's unwillingness to extend extra-territorial juris- • diction is one of unwillingness to deprive county citizens of this franchise rather than to give up territory. Nor is it understood that within the joint planning context that it is the count only that gives up authority while the municipalities assume added responsibility while giving up nothing.