Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br /> and an MOU or preliminary agreement about the EIS would be preferable. In response, Ms. <br /> Johnson suggested the group could have a preliminary MOU for the EIS, which would be a fairly <br /> simple document, while working concurrently on the overall MOU. <br /> Ms. Hemminger clarified when talking about the Environmental Study, the group is really <br /> discussing an Environmental Impact study. [Up to this point in the conversation, terms had been <br /> used interchangeably, though the notes refer to EIS only for the sake of clarity.] Consistent <br /> terminology is important for the group moving forward, she said. Chapel Hill always has an outside <br /> company conduct these studies so that the town can stress to residents that an impartial <br /> professional group conducted the study. Historically, the community is accepting of studies from <br /> third-party groups. <br /> Ms. McGuire explained the group did not have an MOU in 2011 when the Greene Tract work <br /> began, but there was direction from the Boards to eventually create the Historic Rogers Road Task <br /> Force. The group then developed a memorandum to frame next steps. First there was one for <br /> Mapping Our Future Communities work and then there was one for the sewer project and a <br /> different one for obtaining the sewer connections. Ms. McGuire explained the memorandum <br /> have been developed along the way and agreed that the EIS agreement does need to be framed in <br /> an MOU so all parties can know the details, such as who is approving the RFP, how the RFP is <br /> approved, and who is selecting and contracting with the consultants. She suggested that the two <br /> documents could be made in parallel, with the details about the EIS being a subset of the overall <br /> MOU. <br /> Ms. Hemminger recommended building on precedence of the three groups working together as <br /> the new agreement is developed for the Greene Tract partnership. Ms. Hemminger shared she <br /> loves when the staff are in alignment, working together collaboratively on the details of the <br /> project. <br /> Ms. Hammersley highlighted the difference between the Greene Tract and the Rogers Road <br /> properties, noting members of this group are owners of the Greene Tract whereas they were not <br /> owners of Rogers Road. She explained that using a third party is not always viewed as being <br /> objective by members of the community. What matters is who is paying the consultant, and we <br /> will need to be clear who is doing that. An agreement about everything moving forward is <br /> important for perception. The group deals with perception, not necessarily reality. <br /> Ms. Lavelle said she liked the idea of having a limited preliminary agreement on the EIS, while <br /> starting the conversation about the overall MOU/Governance Document. Ms. Lavelle also shared <br /> the importance of specifying what acreage the group is discussing, as Mr. Karpinos brought up <br /> earlier. <br /> Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 5 <br />