News article

[barbmarz]

FROM THE DAILY ADVANCE

Several bills affecting Currituck fall by wayside

By Cindy Beamon

The Daily Advance

Thursday, June 23, 2011

As law-making ends this session in the General Assembly, a few failed
bills with potential impact to the region will be washed away with the
outgoing tide.
One of the bills would have cut funds for rural roads in favor of urban highways.
Another would have allowed county governments to advertise meetings
online rather than in newspapers. The issue ignited a broader debate on
the best way to keep government meetings open.
Another bill would have banned counties from regulating digital
billboards. The bill became law, but not before that controversial
section was axed. Now the bill allows sign companies to clear more land
around their signs to make them more visible.
House Bill 635 would have altered the state’s “equity formula” for road
construction, shifting more funds toward the state’s high-population
areas. The change would have cut funding in half for northeastern North
Carolina, said Jerry Jennings, Division 1 engineer for the N.C.
Department of Transportation.
At risk would have been road-widening projects for U.S. Highways 64,
158 and 17. The road-widening projects are part of an intrastate network
that is about 78 percent complete. Four-laning has been completed in
most urban areas while most of the unfinished work remains in rural
areas.
State Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, said another challenge to the
state funding formula is likely in the future. Lawmakers in urban areas
are expected to gain more political strength after legislative districts
are redrawn later this summer.
House Bill 472 would have allowed municipalities and county governments
statewide to advertise public meetings on their Web pages rather than
in newspapers.
Currituck commissioners sponsored a similar local bill that was voted
down earlier in the legislative session. The two bills pitted the N.C.
League of Municipalities against the N.C. Press Association in a debate
over which practice would best benefit the public.
The county argued it could save taxpayer money and could reach just a
many people by posting notices in public buildings and on its Web page.
The N.C. Press Association said the bill had broader implications for
holding local government accountable to the public. Information may be
difficult to access or hard to find, the NCPA argued. In addition, “it
allows government to police itself,” by removing an important check in
making sure that public business is conducted openly, NCPA said.
Owens said he would not be able to introduce another local bill like
Currituck’s for another two years. Legislators could opt to re-introduce
a statewide bill, but Owens said he will not be a sponsor. He said he
only backed the statewide bill because he was sponsoring the local bill
at the request of Currituck commissioners.
Senate Bill 183 on outdoor billboards also affected Currituck, where a
digital display in Jarvisburg has been outlawed. That billboard is tied
up in a three-year-old court battle between the county and Lamar
Advertising with no quick resolution in sight. Had the legislation
passed as initially proposed, the county would have lost authority to
prohibit the digital sign and others like it.
The removal of that provision from the bill was a victory for the N.C.
League of Municipalities which lobbied against counties losing their
regulatory powers over billboards.
After several changes, a revised billboard law was adopted that expands
the amount of land billboard companies may clear of trees and other
vegetation so that billboards can be seen from farther away. Some
environmental groups remain concerned, however, that the new law may
result in heavy clearing of trees on state highways.