Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Oconee County advances changes to Conservation Bank ordinance amid strong public objections

3720335 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Oconee County Council moved forward on second reading with ordinance 2025-12 to amend the Oconee County Conservation Bank, while public speakers and stakeholders urged the council to preserve donor-restricted funds for permanent land protection and asked the county to return Duke Energy’s restricted contributions.

Oconee County Council on Tuesday advanced an amendment to the county's Conservation Bank ordinance (ordinance 2025-12) on second reading after an extended public comment period in which local landowners, conservation groups and stakeholders urged the council to keep previously donated funds restricted to permanent land protection.

The measure would amend Oconee County Code sections 2-398 through 2-409 governing the Oconee County Conservation Bank (OCCB). Dozens of residents and representatives of nonprofit stakeholders, including Upstate Forever and advocates involved in the Keowee-Toxaway relicensing, told council members the OCCB was established and funded by private donations specifically for conservation easements and fee-simple land protection.

Those speakers said redirecting bank funds to a broader list of activities would breach donors' expectations and could jeopardize future contributions from major donors such as Duke Energy. "It is incumbent upon this council to respect and uphold the restrictions donors understood to be true when contributing to the bank," said Chris Starker, speaking on behalf of Upstate Forever.

Why it matters: several speakers tied the bank's original funding to negotiations around the Keowee-Toxaway (KT) hydroelectric relicensing and a negotiated contribution from Duke Energy. Stakeholders said those contributions were intended for permanent land conservation; several warned that changing the ordinance could put future funding at risk and asked that any Duke funds be segregated or returned.

Public comment and stakeholder warnings

Emily…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans