TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2021  TOWN OF SAWMILLS ANNUAL BUDGET RETREAT  9:00 AM  COUNCIL PRESENT Johnnie Greene Clay Wilson Rebecca Johnson Melissa Curtis COUNCIL ABSENT Keith Warren Joe Wesson 9:06am.  STAFF PRESENT Chase Winebarger Julie A Good Terry Taylor  CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Johnny Greene called the meeting to order at approximately  INVOCATION: Town Manager Chase Winebarger gave the invocation.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Johnnie Greene led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPT AGENDA: Mayor Johnnie Greene asked for ai motion to adopt the February 9, 2021 Rebecca Johnson made a motion, and Clay Wilson seconded, to adopt the February 9, 2021  Budget Retreat Agenda.  Budget Retreat Agenda. All were in favor.  FINANCIAL UPDATES: FINANCIAL UPDATE: Town Finance Officer Karen Clontz presented to the council the following financial information for the Town Council.  1-A Attached is the summary sheet for revenues and expenditures year to date - 12/31/2020 - for all funds. The budget total is $2,966,769 with $1,908,838 budgeted for the General Fund and $1,057,931 for the Utility Fund. *General Fund includes the $19,000 budget amendment for paving, original budget =  $1,889,838 Revenue Expenditures Under  Annual Budget YTD. Actual Remaining Budget %  $1,908,838 $1,908,838  $1,167,470 $796,233 $371,237  38% 58%  2-Cash Balance and Budget by Fund asc of12/31/2019:    February 9, 2021 Budget Retreat  A. Cash Balance by Fund Summary General Fund Balance - Unassigned Powell Bill Fund Balance- Restricted/Streets Utility Fund Net Assets-Unassigned Capital Reserve Fund - Restricted  $6,335,860 $ 475,523 $4,588,746 $ 374,000 $11,774,129  Total:  Attached is a breakdown of the cash on hand and investments for each fund. The outline also compares the current fiscal year to the same time last year. Interest  rates remain low.  B. Budget by Fund Summary: General Fund Revenue Expenditure Over/Under Powell Bill Fund Revenue-State Revenue-Reserve Expenditure  Budget20/21 $1,908,838 $1,908,838  Dec 2020YTD Remaining Budget9 %  $ 1,167,470 $796,233 371,237  38% 58%  Budget 20/21 $130,000 $0 $37,000  Dec 2020YTD Remaining Budget %  $137,230 $0 $13,166  -5% 0% 64%  Regarding the Powell Bill cash balance - the Town's cash reserve must stay below the total sum ofthe past 5 years in revenue received from the State of North Carolina Department ofTransportation. This is a: result ofHB 200 changes to GS 136-41.1 through 136-41.3. In summary, towns with a population over 5,000 cannot have a total reserve in excess oft the five-year total revenue received.  UtilityFund Revenue Expenditure Over/Under  Budget20/21 $1,057,931 $1,057,931  Dec 2020YTD Remaining Budget%  $762,637 $ 415,629 $ 347,008  28% 61%  Utility Fund revenues continue to remain steady.    February 9, 2021 Budget Retreat  DISCUSSION:  2020/21 PROJECTS COMPLETED: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that even during the pandemic, the Town got many projects completed. Those projects are as follows:  Increased Employee Longevity Pay; Increased Vacation Accruals; Salary Increase 3% Cola 2% Merit; Phase II Stormwater Mapping; Power at Farmers Market; PASystem; New Server; Cameras;  Social Media Outsourced; Paving in Doe Run; Increased sanitation by $2;  Absorbed recreation programs from Optimist;  Implemented year 10 of the NCRWA Water Rate study;  This year we are potentially going to partner with the FD for Ham Day  2020/21 PROJECTS NOT COMPLETED: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that with the pandemic, there were certain items that the Town could not get completed during this  budget year. Those projects are as follows: Spring clean-up and shred day; LCD sign and Flower planters; Parking concerns; New logo/Branding; ADA Assessment Plan; Town Hall  2020/21 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION DURING 2021/2022 FY: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that there were some projects that he would like to discuss for the  2021/2022 FY. Those items are as follows:  Meter Service Contract: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that he had received a quote from MeterSys for a yearly contract in the amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00). Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town can call MeterSys without a yearly contract and they will bill the Town hourly. Town    February 9, 2021 Budget Retreat  Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town could wait aj year to see ifa contract Inhouse Planning: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town of Sawmills is paying the Western Piedmont Council of Governments approximately sixty dollars ($60.00) an hour for only eight (8) hours a week. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town has need for an inhouse Planner. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that all of the Town Ordinances need to be updated, which takes more time than a contracted Planner can give. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that he would get a full job description together and get back to Council with EDC-Sales Tax Reinvestment: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the EDC Sales Tax Reinvestment is up for renewal this year. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that Council will need to vote on the renewal during a regular Additional Parking Lot at Veterans Park: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that in the lease of project lands between the' Town and Duke Power for Veterans Park, an additional parking lot was to be built by the Town. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that he would get with Town Public Works Director Ronnie Coffey and Town Engineer Todd Poteet with West and Consultants to discuss the parking lot Multipurpose paved area at Baird Park: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town could possibly use an overfill parking lot at Baird Park. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that when the parking lot was not needed for overflow parking that the Town could build it to have additional uses, such as al basketball court Charging Landlords a Deposit: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that he had been discussing deposit with staff and referred the topic to' Town Clerk Julie A Good. Town Clerk Julie A Good stated that everyone within the Town pays a deposit for water, sewer and sanitation, with the exception of a landlord, the only deposit a landlord has to pay right now is for sanitation. Town Clerk Julie A Good stated that the Town defines landlord as, "aj person who owns a property and leases that property to another person." A landlord cannot live in the home. Town Clerk Julie A Good stated that all a landlord has to do is fill out an application and ask for the water to be turned on. Town Clerk Julie A Good stated that when the landlord then leases the property and the new customer puts the property in their name, that the Town has no money toj put against any outstanding bills and, in some instances, the landlord has not paid, but then can get more water pout in their name as long as it is not the same address. Town Clerk Julie A Good stated that staff has talked about this issue and Fee Schedule: for Recreation: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that the Town recently took over the ball programs from the Optimist, and along with that, himself and Recreation Director Tanner Greene have been researching field rental fees, registration fees, and other fees associated with the recreation department. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that what they had found, among other issues, was  ist needed.  more details.  scheduled Council meeting at a later time.  and bring plans back to Council during the next budget meeting.  or some other type of outside activity.  would like for Council to add landlords in the deposit policy.    February 9, 2021 Budget Retreat  that our base line fees for field rentals were too low. Town Manger Chase Winebarger stated that Recreation Director Tanner Greene would prepare new fees for Council for the fee schedule. Town Manager Chase Winebarger also stated that baseball signups have started and that Council would need to vote on a registration fee during the regularly scheduled February 16, 2021 Town Council meeting. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that this fee would normally also be on the fee schedule, but with the Town taking over the ball programs during the middle of a fiscal year, that an amount would need to be agreed upon now and in future years it would be on the fee schedule. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that himself and Recreation Director Tanner Greene had researched the registration fees for this area and they would likely propose a forty ($40.00) registration fee, which would include a jersey, the equipment, the umpires, ballfield lights, and trophies, among other items. Police: Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that he wanted Councils direction on what to do about looking into the Town starting a Police Department. Town Manager Chase Winebarger stated that some members of the Public had asked him about a  Police Department.  UPDATES:  LEGAL UPDATES: Town Attorney Terry Taylor gave Council a handout (which is attached to the minutes) pertaining to Changing Property Values in a Pandemic. Town Attorney Terry Taylor gave Council a handout (which is attached to the minutes) pertaining to May Nonresidents be Precluded from Enjoying Recreation Facilities? COUNCIL ADJOURN: Mayor Johnnie Greene asked fora a motion to adjourn. Clay Wilson made a motion, and Rebecca Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. All  were in favor.  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:59pm.  EAL To)  Mayor  gefou  Gaig  COB ARAA    Coates' Canons NCLocal GovemmentLaw tpslzanonasoguneeou  UNC SCHOOL    OF GOVERNMENT  Coates' Canons Blog: Changing Property Tax' Values in al Pandemic Article: htps:lcanons.sogune-edulchangingeropery-tar-values-in-a-pandemic' This entry was posted on December 01, 2020 and! Is flied under Finance &1 Tax, Property Taxes  By Chris McLaughlin  How should the pandemic affect property tax values for 2021? The answer depends on (1) whether the property is personal or real and (2) whether the county is conducting a real property reappraisal in 2021. Read ont for the details. First, a quick primer on when and! howi local governments appraise property for properly taxes. The goal for all tax appraisals is tos set the appraisal at the property's "true value inr money," in other words, at market value. GS, 105-283. All taxable property is appraised att the county level except for property owned! by' "public service" companies (airlines, rallroads, power companles, etc.), which is appraised annually by the state Department of Revenue. Personal property (cars, boats, planes, business equipment, basically everything other than land and buildings) are appraised annually bye every county, GS 105-285(b). The most common example oft the annual personal property appraisal process ist the' "Invitation to Renew" that we receive from the Division ofMotor Vehicles eachy year for our cars and trucks. That invitation is really al bill for both the annuall license plate renewal fee as well as for city and county property taxes on the vehicle. The properly tax portion of that bill will show both thel local tax rates and the new tax value ofthe vehicle. That tax value will usuaily! be lower than the previous year's value, because personal property usually Real property (land and buildings) is appraised at least every eight years. GS 105-286. Counties are free to appraise their real property more frequently than every eight years, and many do. Lots of counties are on 4-year reappraisal cycles, and atl least one (Durham County) is on a 3-year cycle. Inbetween county-wide reappraisals, the tax value ofi real properly may be changed only inali limited number of circumstances. Most commonly those circumstances include physical changes to the properly (new construction, fire damage, etc.) ora change in the legally permitted use of the property (e.g., rèzoning to allow commercial use as well as residential). Much more ont this topic below. Whenever property is reappraised, those new tax values are determined as of. January 1 oft the year of reappraisal. GS 105-285. For property being reappraised in 2021, the tax value shouldr match the true market value oft thep property on that January 1,2 2021. This datei is set six months before the tax year begins on July 1 so that local govemments know their tax bases when they begin the annual budgeting process each spring. (Special rules apply to tax appraisals for registered Now, back toi the question at hand: how should the pandemic affect property tax valués? As discussed, tax values shouid reflectr market Values. Many residential property markets inl North Carolina have done exceptionally well in 2020 despite the pandemic. The Research Triangle area, for example, saw the number of residential sales increase by more than 20% in October 2020 as compared to ay year ago. And the vacation home market from the mountains to the beaches has been bonkers. Butt the commercial real estate market in North Carolina faces great uncertainty, Many restaurants have closed permanently: and hotels suffered a drop ofnearly 50% in occupancy rates over the summer, while demand for office space Assuming that property values have changed over the pasty year, then the assessor needs to address personal property As mentioned. above, all personal property is reappraised annually. Ifthe market value for personal property has changed, the tax value oft that property should also change. It's possible that the market might be flooded with used restaurant equipment, for example. Ifso, then presumably the market valuet for such equipment would have dropped. Tax values A more difficult question is how to value property owned bya a business that has closed due to the pandemic. Thei fact that  depreciates in value over time.  motor vehicles, which Pll avoid discussing here to minimize confusion.)  remained reasonablyheallhy In some areas of thes state.  differently from real property.  should also.  Copyrighte @: 2009 lop presents Schodlo of Govemmnentall thel University ofNorth Carlina, Aighisr reserved,  Page    Coates' Canons NCI Local Government Law tpslcanonsseguncean  UNC SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  M  al business has closed does not mean its personal property is worthless to other potential users. At forklift, for example, probably has a strong secondary market. But restaurant furnishings that were custam ordered for a particular space might be ofl littey value to other users. Assessors would! havet tol lower the value of that property to account for the costs a new With real property, therei is another important question to ask: is 2021 a reappraisal year for the county? If so, then all changes in market value as of January 1,2021 should be reflected int the new: 2021 real property tax values. If2021 is not ar reappraisal year for the county, the assessor's ability to change tax values is dramatically more limited. Real property tax values cannot be changed in ar non-reappraisal year due toe economic issues affecting the counly generally. GS 105-287. Pandemic-driven market value fluctuations for different types of real property should not! be reflected in: 2021 real property tax values. Those market changes will be captured ini the county's next reappraisal. There is one legalj justification for changes to real property tax values in a non-reappraisal year that might bet triggered by the pandemic. GS 105-287(a)2c) states that at tax value may be changed ina non-reappraisal year to' "recognize an increase or decrease in the value ofthe property resulting from a change int the legally permitted use of the property."A As mentioned above, this provision usually applies to zoning changes. But coulds state or local public health orders that restrict how: some businesses may operate also justify a change int tax value inar non-reappraisal year? North Carolina's COVID restrictions began in March and remain atl least partially in place today. As of late November 2020, North Carolina was in "Phase 3" oft the govemor's COVID response plan. Restrictions on business activity under Phase 31 include 30% capacity restrictions for bars, movie theaters, and amusement parks as well as 11:00 p.m. curfews Do these public health-related restrictions constitute changes in the legally-permited use" of the affected properties under GS 105-287? Ifso, andi ift they depressed the market values oft those properties, then the restrictions couldj justify lower tax This is a difficult question to answer. GS 105-287 does not define what type of changes tot the legal use ofap property may justify a tax value change in a non-reappraisal year. Nor have the Property Tax Commission or the state courts opined on Clearly these publici health restrictions affect how these businesses operate. Butifal bar is no longer permitted to sell alcohol after 11:00 p.m. due to public health restrictions, is that a substantial enough change in the "legally-permited use" of the property that cquld justify a change in tax value under GS 105-2877Oris the fact that the property can still be legally used as al bar (albelt one with ane earlier last cally) mean that GS 105-287 is not satisfied and the tax value may not Icould make a good argument for either position. Buti it may not matter. Because even ifwe conclude that the COVID restrictions constitute a change int the legally permitted use of the property under GS 105-287, that statute also requires that the change inl legally permitted usel be the cause oft the change int the property's market value. I'm not: sure that is the Remember, these restrictions are temporary. Given that vaccines and the end of public health restrictions are (hopefully) on the horizon, owners of previously successfull bars orr restaurants seem unlikely to accept materially less to sell their And even iftherei is evidence of suppressed market prices for bars, restaurants, and other businesses affected by public health restrictions, itwould be: almost impossible tol know! how much of that drop were due to the restrictions and how much were related to generally sluggish economic conditlons. GS 105-287 doesn't permit changes int tax values duet to  userwould incurt to remove the property and repurpose ite elsewhere.  on alcohol sales in bars and restaurants.  values for those properties even if2021 were not ar reappraisal year fori the counly,  thisi issue.  be changed in ar non-reappraisal year?  case.  businesses todayt than they would have back in February.  economic concems ini non-reappraisal, years.  The bottom line:  Copyighte20091 lop presen! School ofd Govemmenl: all thet Univarsily ofNorth Caralina. Allrights reserved.  Page    Coates" Canons NCLocal Government! Law tps/canons.sog.uneeau  UNC SCHOOL  M  OF GOVERNMENT  2021 tax values for real property in countles conducing reappraisals in 2021 and all personal property should be changed 2021 tax values for real property in counties thata are not conducting reappraisals in 2021 should not be changed to reflect changes Inr market value due to general economic factors caused by the pandemic. GS 105-287 limits real properly tax value changes inr non-reappraisal years to very! limited circumstances such as clerical or mathematical errors, appraisal errors made int the lasty year of reappraisal, physical changes to the property, and changes to the legally permitted use of. Itisp possible that public health restrictions on the hours, capacity and other operational details of certain commercial activities could constitute changes int thel legally permitted uses of certain commercial properties. Ifso, then under 105- 287(a)(2c) the 2021 tax values oft these properties could bel lowered to reflect the limitation onl legally permitted uses. But this may occur only ifthere is evidence that the properties suffered changesi inr market value due tot those temporary restrictions andr not duet to general economic conditions, This is high bar lo clear, meaning in most cases real property tax  tor reflect the Impact dfCOVID-19 and other factors ont their market value as of January 1, 2021,  the property.  values should remain unchanged for 2021 in counties not conducting reappraisals.  Links  ww.deggwenscedlaoméHLirororbpademchpLIadr wwwndegpwEnacladagsaiosePoF8admnchap.105.68.105286p.dr ww.noeggwEnaciadlagpsaoSaarOréecinchapec.1106.6.105286pdf chariomteledger.substack.compmevacaion-home-market-s-bonkers wwwgasipngarat.e.comnewa,22002alspanonweypn.cmmmerca-realeslale www.newsobserver.com/lvingrood-drnwartclo242743881.htm!  www.langlemls.comkemntupbaca/MLSAManetX20Tendslocan20Markerkarker20Uplales/020.0/0ct4202020Enti www.newsohserver.cm'hewscoronana4inuslartde24635715hem#-ltox-Coromainusk3Av0latesto420newsAte Mt-Holeh420ocaupane/20mA20.ys20npowdesk20dauank20bork20hosplalit/k2Dcompanies. www.wralechwire.com2020800hmungeahedfiespasedawnghiseadis-ppandemioreakesiatesewass wwwnceggpwEnacledalegaonssurorOFbyadtanchapw.er_105/6S.10528/,pdt  e-Tnange-Regionpd  provider-says/  www.megewcve-9siayngaheaccurve  This slogr post is publisheda landy posted onlinat by! tha Schoplafd Govemmen! loa address lsstbs ofinlerestl lo govemmant affclals. Tiat bkgp pastk la fareducalional: andi infoimational usea andmayk bat usedfort those purposes wlhoutp permission by providinga acknowiedgmenic afliss source. Used ofihisb blagp posi for commercial purposasi is prohibited. Tob browses ac complele calalogo ofSchool ofG Govemmenl publicalions, plessev visitthe Schaol's wabsile: atyAw.ang. unc.edu or conlaci lheE Bookslore, Schoolof Govemment, 919,962.2707. CBH 3330 Knapp- Sanders Bulding. UNC ChapelH His, Chapel HI4, NC2 27509-3330; e-mails sales@sogunc.edu, lelaphone 915.88.4110;orfx  Page    Coates' Canons NCI Local Govemment Law ntpscaponasogunceau  UNC SCHOOL OP GOVERNMENT  M  Coates' Canons Blog: Local Residents Only: May Nonresidents be Precluded from Enjoying  Public Recreation Facilities? By Rebecca Badgett recreation-faeiites  Article: psleamonsogunaanaaawyyewymstmtePnd.saadtomaneynouli-  This entry Was posted on December 01, 2020 andi is filed under General Local Government (Miscellaneous)  At town recently constructed a recreational center that offers ani indoor pool, exercise equipment, and fitness classes. Several town residents have asked the town council tol limit use oft the facility tot town residents and their invited guests. Ther residents are concerned that the center willl become overcrowded if nonresidents can joint the facility. Because the town funded the construction oft the recreational center with local taxes, the council has agreed to restrict membership to town residents to ensure that theyr may fully enjoy the space. May thet town legally restrict the new facilityin this way? Like many legal questions, the best answer tot the above hypothetical may be, it depends. G.S. 160A-353 grants cities and counties authorily to establish supervised recreational programs and set apart land for recreation centers and similar recreational facilities. However, neither the statute nor our courts indicate whether al local government may exclude nonresidents from enjoying locally-funded recreational facilities. Nonetheless, local officials do sometimes differentiate between resldents and nonresidents in providing access tos some right, privilege, or benefit. For example, locai governments often distinguish between residents and nonresidents by charging nonresidents higher fees than residents fort the privilege ofe engaging in local recreational activities. The term' "recreation" has been defined to include any activity that promotes entertainment, pleasure, relaxation, instruction, or cultural development, including using ar recreation facility, arp participating ina a class ora activity. G.S.S 160A-352. As such, nonresidents could theoretically! be charged more to reserve ar room ina a public fibrary, swim at an aquatic facility, or participate inas sport, class, or lesson offered ata public recreation center. The Supreme Court has held that iti is' "noti ini itselfi invidious or unconstitutional" to impose ar reasonable differential inc cost between residents and nonresidents to engage in state-funded recreational Most challenges to classifications that distinguish between residents and nonresidents are brought on equal protection grounds. For a residency classification toi be upheld, al local government must satisfy the rational basis test by demonstrating a reasonable relationship! between the residency classlfication and al legitimate governmental interest. Cily of Cleburne, Tex. V. Cleburne. Living Ctr., 4731 U.S. 432 (1985). Additionally, residency classifications may not violate other constitutional mandates, such as the First Amendment or the privileges andi immunities clause, Further, an ordinance will be void lifitarbitrarily or unreasonably discriminales against nonresidents or has a disparate impact ona There is case law in other jurisdictions (albeit limited) that suggests that a local govemment mays sometimes distinguish between residents and nonresidents wheni it comes to using local recreational facilities. Int these cases, the courts focused on the limited capacity oft the respective recreational facility as the primary basis to uphold the residency classification. However, itwas also important that the recreational facilities at issue were developed and maintained through local taxes financed by residents and the facilities were never dedicated to or intended for general public use. For example, in Zaroogian V. Town of Narragansett, 701 F. Supp. 302 (D.R.I. 1988), a Rhode Island state statute enabled at town to operate a general beacha and bathhouse business for the benefit of the publio. Accardingly, the town granted the public full access tot the beach, rest rooms, and concessions, Pursuant toa" "resident priority policy," the town reserved the use ofthe shower rooms and the rental of! beach cabanas for town residents. Whent the resident priority policy was challenged on equai protection grounds, the district court upheld the policy, concluding it was a "reasonable rule and regulation" because thet facilities ati issue were maintained through local taxes and were never intended for use by the general public. Further, the beach cabanas and shower rooms were a' "scarce resource" for which the "very nature oft the  activifies. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S.371, 390 (1978).  protected class, such as race or nationality. 51 McQuillin Mun. Corp. $ 19:25 (3de ed.).  Residency Classifications and Recreational Activities  Copyrightez 2009 top pramen! Schoolo ofGovemment atthel Universityof) North Carolina. All rightsr reserved.  Page    Coates" Canons NC Local Govemment Law mtpalcanons.sog.umeau  T  UNC SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  use require(ed] exclusion."  Similarly, in Vani Ness V. Borough of Deal, 367 A.2d 1191 (App. Div. 1976), al New Jersey court heldt that there was no equal protection violation when a city adopted ar residency classificationi to excluder nanresidents from joining ar municipai- owned beach club that consisted ofa 350-car parking lot, a large pool, 484 changing facilities, a snack bar, and recreational facilities including shuffleboard, ping pong, andl basketball. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the construction of the facility was financed by a bond issue and subsequent improvements were financed by municipal revenues. Further, there was evidence that facility was fully utilized by residents, and there had been a tendency toward over-utlization inr recenty years. Thus, because the club was a' "limited capacity facillty" that hadr never been dedicated for public use, the townh had al legitimate interest ini reserving membership to town residents who' "contributed to its creation Public parks are generally not the type of recreational spaces that may be reserved for use byl local residents. Instead, land held by al local government for park purposes Is" "held for the benefit of the peaple oft the state atl large and not only for the benefit ofl local inhabltants." '64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations S 1996. Thisi is! because public parks are used for purposes of assembly and as locations for free expression, making them traditional public forums for First Amendment purposes. And a residency-based classification that excludes nonresidents from visiting a public park will likely raise First Amendment concerns, Kunz V. People of State of New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951). When a residency classification! is challenged on First Amendment grounds, the regulation must pass strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires al local govemment to demonstrate that the regulation serves a compelling govemmental interest and that itis narrowly drawn to This principle isi illustrated in Leydon V. Town of Greenwich, 257 Conn. 318 (2001), where the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down at town ordinance that imposed a residency requirement to visit Greenwich Point, a 147-acre facility witha small beachfront area, picnic shelters, a marina, ponds, walkways, trails, and a public library! book drop. The town argued the residency classification served a compelling government interest because, foremost, the town funded and operated the facility for the benefit ofl local residents, and, secondly, thel limited capacity att the small beachfront area madei it difficult for residents to enjoy the space. The court was not persuaded. Ito overturned the ordinance on the basis thatt the town failed to show a compelling govemmental interest ine excluding nonresidents from this park, a traditional, public forum. It also held that thec ordinance was substantially overbroad because it bareda a large class of people, namely all nonresidents, from visiting the publict forum and engaging in" "a multitude ofe expressive and associational activitiesi." Id.at The public trust doctrine protects the public's right tot the unobstructed access to the state's natural waters, including oceans, river, andl lakes, for purposes of commerce, navigation, or to enjoy recreational activities, such as, boating, swimming, and others shore activities. Fish House, Inc. V. Clarke, 204 N.C. App. 130, 134 (2010) (the public trust doctrine protects the public's access to all navigable walercourses, whether tidal ori inland, for" "all purposes ofp pleasure or profiti.). Implicit int the public trust doctrine is a duty not to discriminate belween residents and nonresidents when it comes tot the enjoyment oft thes state's waters. As such, nonresidents may not be charged higher fees than residents to access or enjoy the state's navigable waterways. Andl local governments may not prefer its residents when providing access to public Fore example, State V. Town ofLinn, 556 N.W.2d 394 (Ct. App. 1996), a court struck down a village ordinance that reserved most parking spaces at a public boat launch for village residents on thel basis that the public trust doctrine mandated! that access to navigable waterways must be equally available to all users--residents and nonresidents alike needed to park at! the boat launch to! be able to enjoy the water. Extending this logic, itwould similarly violate the publlc trust doctrine ifal local government were to preclude nonresidents from using a public boat rampi to launch watercraft into Whilet these cases do not necessarily predict how North Carolina courts wouldr rule in a case involving a residency-based classification, some standards can be derived from these decisions. Foremost, courts will probably consider the nature of  and continueled to contribute toi its maintenance." Residency Classifications and Public Parks  achieve that interest. This is a difficult burdent to satisfy.  347.  Residency Classifications and Access tol Navigable Waters  waterways.  navigable waters. Key" Takeaways  Copyrighie2000 lop presen!s Schoolo ofGovemnan!: allhel Universily ofNorth Carolina. Ailrights reserved.  Page    Coates* Canons NCLocal GovermentLaw naps/caronssog.ncecu  TT UNC  1  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  the use ofar recreational facility, as well as Its overall capacity, in determining whether a classification that excludes nonresidents from enjaying a recreational facility is reasonable. The funding source for the construction and ongoing maintenance ofaf facility is also ani important factor. Finally, the extent tov which the facility was dedicated for general public use is alsoi important, as would be any conduct to byt the local govemment to suggests ani intent to holdt the facility ini trust for thel benefit of the public. See! 57 A.L.R.3d 998. Ifar recreational facility has limited capacity and local residents contribute significantly to the costsi incurred int the construction andior maintenance oft the recreation space, there isa greater chance that ar residency classification willy withstand an equal protection challenge. However theset factors probably would not be sufficient to survive the strict scrutiny that courts apply to First Amendment challenges, but those challenges usually arise with public parks or other public forums not recreation centers or other limited-use facilities.  Thist blog postis publishede landp posted online by the Schoold of Govemmen!! los addressi issuns ofinterest lop govemmenl nfliclals. Thist blogp postlsf fore educallonala andk Infommational usea andr may! bau used for thosep purposes withouty perisslon! byprovidinge acknowedgmentc afhas sourca. Used ofihisb blogr posl for commeraialp purposes! ls prohlbiled. Tob browser acomplele calalog ofSchoolo ofG Govemment publicallons, please visk the! Sphool'sv wehsilas atv wwwisogunceduore contaci! lheB Bockslore, Schodlot Govemment, CB# 3330 Knapp-Sanders! Bullding, UNC Chapal) Hul, Chapel HIL, NC2 27599-3330; e-mal sales@sog. uncedusk lelephone 919.966.4119; orfax  918.962.2707.  Page