Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
II <br /> Jordan Lake Partnership <br /> January 27 Comments and Questions <br /> January 27 Comment or Question Information from Staff <br /> Process needs an elected official structure Comment transmitted to Partnership <br /> for policy issues—too staff-driven facilitator and lead staff—potential addition <br /> to MOU? Spell out more explicit role for <br /> elected boards. May also be addressed by <br /> interlocal agreement or other existing joint <br /> committee mechanism (please see below) <br /> Need to address growth management and The proposed MOU is a technical <br /> planning/water policy issues document built around water supply and <br /> infrastructure planning, and may not be the <br /> most practical place to address these <br /> important issues. Several options to address <br /> this topic may exist, including 1) Create <br /> separate interlocal agreement with <br /> appropriate jurisdictions as needed; and/or <br /> 2) work through existing TJCOG <br /> development and Infrastructure Committee <br /> for policy dialogue; or others as the Board <br /> identifies. <br /> Inter-basin transfers (IBT) should be One option to avoid the potential for IBT's <br /> addressed and avoided if possible. is to indicate future service areas that are <br /> within the Cape Fear(Jordan Lake basin) <br /> and/or discharge wastewater within the <br /> basin to avoid IBT. Staff will prepare an <br /> issue paper on this topic for subsequent <br /> discussion. <br /> Role of City of Durham as lead entity Durham has indicated that it sees its role as <br /> administrative lead and contracting agent, <br /> and would not undertake Partnership tasks <br /> or duties without the consent of the <br /> signatories (and their policy-making <br /> bodies). This could be made explicit in the <br /> MOU through an additional sentence? <br />