Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
034 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda v <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. 1 <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITI24 ABSTRACT <br /> METING DATE 5/'+/87 <br /> Subject: PUBLIC-PRIVATE CONFERENCE <br /> IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( Public Hearing: Yes I no <br /> Attachments: Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshal <br /> None Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, <br /> 227-0231 <br /> PURPOSE: To report on and develop recommendations for ongoing participation in <br /> Public-Private Conference. <br /> BACKGROUND: The conference, as before, was stimulating. It is worthwhile and <br /> educational to be in an informal setting with leaders from many facets of community <br /> life. Several brief conversations identified concerns of others with county policies, <br /> actions or directions that will be followed up by me with one-on-one meetings. <br /> Sponsored by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce it is not surprising that <br /> conference objectives and interests are centered in Chapel Hill-Carrboro and that the <br /> County is perceived as a prime actor only as it interacts with this sector. Mayor <br /> Sheffield, School Board Chair Lindsey Efland and I have agreed to meet, inviting <br /> Economic Development Commission Chair John McKee and Sylvia Price to discuss how we <br /> might build from this experience and initiate an intergovernmental economic/planning <br /> strategy effort between the County and the Town of Hillsborough. <br /> • Mayor Upchurch attended the entire conference and Mayor Gulley the last session. <br /> The larger developing Metro-region, with the I-40 corridor and Research Triangle Park <br /> at its core, has a need for intergovernmental dialogue and interaction -- a study of and <br /> recommendation for a plan for stategic planning on this larger metro area is to be <br /> referred to as the Institute for Private Enterprise at UNC-CH. <br /> On the local intergovernmental level it has been recommended that the "13-point" <br /> committee continue in existence though no clearly defined (nor even not-clearly <br /> defined) agenda has been identified for action. During the course of the meetings <br /> the. "turf" issue was raised again. In that context it is evident that there is still <br /> no understanding that the county's unwillingness to extend extra-territorial juris- <br /> diction is one of unwillingness to deprive county citizens of this franchise rather <br /> than to give up territory. Nor is it understood that within the joint planning <br /> context that it is the county only that gives up authority while the municipalities <br /> assume added responsibility while giving up nothing. <br />