Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
distinguish between permanent full-time and time-limited full-time. He asked that this <br /> differentiation be made. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares this concern. Commissioner Pelissier also <br /> agreed. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> authorize the creation of two Income Maintenance Caseworker I positions through September <br /> 2010 upon receipt of a funding authorization for the costs, and that the Board extend the four <br /> time-limited positions in the Work First Demonstration project through June 30, 2010 <br /> dependent on receiving funds to support these positions. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 5. Public Hearings <br /> a. Orange County's Proposed 2009 Legislative Agenda <br /> The Board held a public hearing on Orange County's potential legislative items for the <br /> 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session, reviewed and discussed potential items for <br /> inclusion, and considered three to five specific items to highlight for priority. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that there was discussion about meeting one more time to <br /> talk about some federal rules and the staff will be polled about this item before they meet. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> Kathy Buck distributed a letter to the Board of County Commissioners from the Haw <br /> River Assembly (shown below). <br /> "Dear Chairwoman Foushee, and Members of the Orange County Board of <br /> Commissioners: <br /> The Haw River Assembly was formed in 1982 by citizens who had worked with a broad <br /> coalition to stop the damming of the Haw River by the Army Corps of Engineers, to build <br /> Jordan Lake. Twenty-seven years later, we now find ourselves in the difficult position of <br /> advocating rules to clean up the water quality in Jordan Lake to local governments that never <br /> wanted to see it built. We understand the concerns of Orange County that it has been <br /> proactive in protecting the environment and water quality, and believing that they are being <br /> asked to bear an unfair and costly burden to reduce nutrient pollution in Jordan Lake. <br /> But we believe that there is good information that supports the passage of the Jordan <br /> Lake rules that has not been adequately heard, and I'd like to share that with you. <br /> Cost estimates for the Existing Development Rule have been inflated: <br /> The estimates being used by opponents of the current rules are greatly exaggerated. <br /> High cost projections by Durham and Greensboro have been based on two very arbitrary <br /> calculations: <br /> 1. Using the cost of the most expensive solutions for existing development, such <br /> as buying land in urban areas for large retention ponds, instead of lower cost <br /> alternatives such as rain gardens, rainwater capture, or new ordinances that would <br /> reduce the use of fertilizer on public land or a "scoop the poop" ordinance for pet <br /> walking. Clearly, a local government would create plans to reduce nutrient pollution <br /> that uses the most inexpensive stormwater practices, and ones that would enhance <br /> the water quality in the local creeks. <br /> 2. Using a timeline of 20 years to reach the reduction targets —when in reality, the <br /> rules have NO final deadline for total reductions. The rules assume that half the <br />