Chairman Paisley said that item 5c was pulled from the last agenda because NCDOT had poorly written those easements, and the county could not execute them.
Chairman Paisley asked County Attorney Stevens if the NCDOT had corrected the improvements or revisions. County Attorney Stevens said he had spoken with the NCDOT contractor about the issues they had discussed. He commented that NCDOT had made some of the requested changes.
Chairman Paisley inquired if, with three rights of way, ingress, and egress, they did not have a legal description of the property for which the county was granted an easement.
County Attorney Stevens explained that NCDOT had its own way of drafting these documents that is different than what normally transpired in a land taking. They also have their own statutory framework for the process they have to undertake these takings. And so they have indicated to me in conversation this week that if the county chooses not to accept their formatting, they will not make changes on our behalf and will proceed with filing suit and taking the land.
Chairman Paisley said if they do that, then, under the procedure, they could take the land statutorily, and then the county would have hearings as to the valuation of the taking. County Attorney Stevens answered that was correct. Chairman Paisley asked if he thought doing that was in the county's best interest.
County Attorney Stevens offered that the county could rebut the assertion that the land is potentially for public use and public interest. He did not think they could make that argument successfully based on the land that is actually being acquired. He explained that the real argument they would have is for the value, and he said that based on the value the county was being paid, he thought the county was being paid fairly. He mentioned that any argument to the contrary would be difficult for them to make.
Chairman Paisley asked if County Attorney Stevens had confirmed with the state bar whether the drafters of the documents were not licensed attorneys.
County Attorney Stevens explained that NCDOT purports to have authority for their employees, who are non-attorney staff, to draft the deeds and the easements. Then they have attorneys with the Attorney General's Office who review documents. He said that he would not comment on whether or not their review was sufficient, but this is what the county was left with, and this was the only option.
Chairman Paisley said no one was arguing with the taking or the money being offered. He continued that the deeds were so poorly written and insufficient. He said that it must be in the county's best interest to go ahead and execute the deeds. County Attorney Stevens agreed.
Chairman Paisley said he would leave this on the consent agenda and approve it.