Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
37 <br /> Ms. Hemminger said we all did ourselves a disservice by not publishing the next steps out of the <br /> MMC meetings. Because the steps weren't published, the community didn't know about them <br /> and the community demanded this meeting in July. We were not prepared staff-wise for it and <br /> it disrupted our trajectory. <br /> Ms. Rich added the town also had a community meeting and the partners weren't there. <br /> County staff and some stakeholders were present, but the town didn't have any elected <br /> officials [from the county]. <br /> Ms. Hemminger elaborated she didn't call the meeting, but got invited because she was <br /> bringing some stakeholders who had come in to talk. She said she was sorry that whole <br /> meeting happened —she indicated she didn't know what she didn't know about the rules of <br /> engagement on these things. At the MMC meetings, we need to document the steps we've <br /> agreed to and share with boards and the public so they know what the plan is. She noted she <br /> feels like what we are really disagreeing about is the timeline. I think we have the same goal <br /> list, but it might not happen in the time frame, but it will happen. We all want it to happen. Ms. <br /> Rich added she disagreed and didn't think it was just about the timeline. <br /> Ms. Price reflected she would like the group to think more positively and assume we are all <br /> trying to do something good. She said positive thinking will help dispel suspicions and <br /> conspiracy theories. <br /> Ms. Hammersley added in response to the draft of the governance document the county <br /> provided, it was her understanding the reason for it was because this isn't the first time there <br /> have been challenges. This has also happened back in the 2000s when we were moving forward <br /> and it stopped because we couldn't get in agreement. With the governance document, if we <br /> can't move forward, there's a way for us to turn our back on it and not just leave it. I don't <br /> know how you put that in a positive light when it's more or less a mediation document. It's also <br /> a draft and if it can be written in a more positive manner, make a proposal. We were asked to <br /> put it together by the group so that's what we did. As Travis said a number of times during that <br /> meeting, it's fine if you want to throw this draft away, but we do ultimately need a document. <br /> The first agreement doesn't give anybody information about what to do if we all don't agree. <br /> We're sorry if we offended anybody by it being negative. We hope it's going to work out, but if <br /> it doesn't, what do we do as partners? <br /> Mr. Jones reflected that was why he thought it was a good first step, noting even if we disagree <br /> with some elements of it, this is an opportunity to respond back. Ms. Hammersley added it's up <br /> to the attorneys to work it out. <br /> Ms. Rich elaborated it's important to remember when the collaborative started, the Greene <br /> Tract was not in the ETJ. The history of the Greene Tract was Ralph Karpinos would not let <br /> Chapel Hill spend any money on Rogers Road or the Greene Tract, unless it was in the ETJ. No <br /> one wanted it to happen, but it got put in because that was the only way Chapel Hill could <br /> spend money on sewer,the community house and on affordable housing on the Greene Tract. <br /> Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 10 <br />