Commissioners table $50,000 conservation request for Dykes Tract amid active litigation

Person County commissioners on Aug. 3 heard a presentation from the Tar River Land Conservancy proposing to acquire a 166‑acre property known as the Dykes Tract and protect it with a conservation easement, but they voted 3–2 to table the county’s $50,000 contribution until litigation tied to the parcel is resolved.

The conservancy’s representative described the site as mostly wooded with tributaries to the Flat River and said partners in Raleigh and Durham had committed the bulk of the purchase and development funding. The presenter said the landowner had offered a below‑market sale price of $1.1 million, that outside watershed programs and donations covered roughly 97% of near‑term costs, and asked the board to (a) appropriate $50,000 from the stormwater fund and (b) have the county hold the conservation easement. “We are 97% of the way of covering all of those line item costs,” the presenter said during the pitch.

Several commissioners pressed for more documentation after learning that a recent appraisal valued the property at about $1,744,000 — a figure much higher than the county’s most recent revaluation and the property’s early‑2000s purchase price. Commissioner Wilburn — who raised the appraisal and tax‑revenue concerns — warned against using county funds while the estate tied to the parcel remains a plaintiff in active litigation against the county. “My fiduciary responsibility to the county would not allow me to contribute public funds…to a property owner that has a lawsuit against the county active,” Wilburn said.

County Attorney T. C. Morphis Jr. told the board the estate of the late James Russell Dykes remains a named plaintiff in litigation challenging rezoning for the nearby Mariah Energy Center and listed the plaintiffs and defendants by name, noting an appellate briefing is pending and additional court activity is likely next year. Morphis said a sale to the conservancy could change the estate’s standing in the suit, but he cautioned that the case remains active.

After debate about the appraisal, potential tax revenue forgone by placing the land in permanent conservation, and the open litigation, the board voted to table the item for up to six months pending review of the litigation and asked staff to notify commissioners if the legal status changes so the matter can be reheard. The motion was approved 3–2.

Clarifying details from the record: the conservancy reported an owner offer of $1.1 million; an appraisal mentioned in conversation valued the land at about $1,744,000; the conservancy said outside grants and donations accounted for roughly 97% of the identified line items; the county’s requested contribution was $50,000 from the stormwater fund but, if approved, would require a budget amendment to allocate the amount from existing fund balance.

The board directed the county manager and county attorney to keep commissioners informed of litigation developments and to return the item for consideration if the legal circumstances change.