Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-07-2020; 8-a - Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2020
>
Agenda - 12-07-20 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 12-07-2020; 8-a - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2020 3:31:50 PM
Creation date
12/3/2020 3:48:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/7/2020
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8-a
Document Relationships
Agenda 12-07-2020 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2020\Agenda - 12-07-20 Virtual Business Meeting
Minutes 12-07-2020 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2020's\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
23 <br /> 1 Commissioner Bedford said counties were notified that they could send an alignment <br /> 2 preference to the NCACC, and there were guidelines from the Deputy Secretary that said there <br /> 3 could be no inducement to change or maintain affiliation with MCOs. <br /> 4 Commissioner Greene asked if Trey Sutton could respond, as this $500,000 sounds like <br /> 5 an inducement. <br /> 6 Trey Sutton said he was happy to speak with Cardinal Innovations Board. He said this <br /> 7 was a parameter of the board's decision. <br /> 8 Commissioner Greene said Trey Sutton has said he will honor the pledge, but that is <br /> 9 likely not within his authority. <br /> 10 Trey Sutton said it is not, and he will have to talk to his board. <br /> 11 Commissioner Greene said this is why she would like to notice a public hearing within <br /> 12 the next 30 days, and hear from the public. <br /> 13 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call). <br /> 14 <br /> 15 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, <br /> 16 and Chair Rich); Nayes, 3 (Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Marcoplos, and <br /> 17 Commissioner Price) <br /> 18 <br /> 19 MOTION PASSES 4-3 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 7. Reports <br /> 22 <br /> 23 a. Interim Alternative Implementation Approach (IAIA) — Upper Neuse River Basin <br /> 24 Association (Falls Lake Rules) <br /> 25 The Board received information on joining the Upper Neuse River Basin Associations <br /> 26 (UNRBA's) planned and coordinate multi-jurisdictional implementation approach to <br /> 27 implementing Stage 1 of the Falls Lake Watershed Rules, promulgated by the N.C. Division of <br /> 28 Water Resources and consider voting to authorize Commissioner Greene to indicate Orange <br /> 29 County's intent to participate in the I.A.I.A. at the November 18, 2020 UNRBA Board meeting, <br /> 30 with formal approval and action to be forthcoming in 2021. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 David Stancil, Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and <br /> 33 Recreation (DEAPR), reviewed the item below: <br /> 34 <br /> 35 BACKGROUND: Orange County was a founding member of the UNRBA, which was created in <br /> 36 the 1990's to coordinate mandatory watershed protection efforts among the jurisdictions of the <br /> 37 Falls Lake watershed. Falls Lake (henceforth, "the Lake"), located in Durham and Wake <br /> 38 counties, serves as the primary water supply source for Raleigh and many Wake County <br /> 39 municipalities. Most of central, eastern and northeastern Orange County is located within the <br /> 40 Falls Lake watershed (please see Attachments 2 and 3). <br /> 41 <br /> 42 As the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (henceforth, "the Rules") was adopted in 2011 <br /> 43 to address nutrient loading in the Lake (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), the UNRBA began <br /> 44 to work as a coordinating entity among the jurisdictions to address this effort and to pursue a <br /> 45 reexamination of the Rules. Implementation of the Rules, which would occur in two stages, has <br /> 46 been estimated to cost the combined watershed jurisdictions over $1.5 billion in total to address. <br /> 47 In addition, evaluation of the Rules by water quality consultants has determined that the <br /> 48 proposed reductions as originally adopted are not technically feasible and that a new method is <br /> 49 needed. (Prior estimates of Orange County's likely costs to address the Rules, if it acted on its <br /> 50 own, have ranged as high as $46 million over a 10-year period.) <br /> 51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.