Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-07-2009 - 5aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. 5 -a SUBJECT: Orange County's Proposed 2009 Legislative Agenda DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) I Ye. ATTACHMENT(S): Public Hearing Notice 3130109 Background Memo and Materials Regarding Proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules Position Statement UNDER SEPARATE COVER Alphabetical Index of Potential Legislative Issues Subject Area Index of Potential Legislative Issues Proposed Orange County 2009 Legislative Package — Legislative Matters Resolution and Exhibits, INFORMATION CONTACT: Commissioner Valerie Foushee Commissioner Barry Jacobs PURPOSE: To 1) Hold a public hearing on* Orange County's potential legislative items for the 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session; 2) Review and discuss potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session including the proposed Jordan Lake Rules position statement; 3) Approve the legislative matters resolution with 'exhibits based on the public hearing and Board discussion; and 4) Consider identifying three to five specific items from the entire package to highlight for priority discussion at the April 20, 2009 meeting with Orange County's legislative delegation. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina General Assembly convened on Wednesday, January 28, 2009. In past years the Board of Commissioners has appointed two Commissioners to serve on a Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG) to work with staff to develop a proposed legislative package for the County. Based on the work of the LIWG, the BOCC has then reviewed and approved packages of legislative items to pursue for the respective North Carolina General Assembly sessions. At the Board's February 10, 2009 work session, Commissioners Valerie Foushee and Barry Jacobs were selected for the 2009 LIWG and work began immediately on a proposed 2009 legislative package. At its March 17, 2009 regular meeting the Board approved an item on the Consent agenda authorizing a public hearing on Orange County's proposed 2009 legislative agenda during N tonight's regular meeting (see attached public hearing notice which was published in four different newspapers). An attachment to this abstract is a memorandum and background materials related to the proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules. A draft position statement on the proposed Jordan Lake Rules as developed by the LIWG is included with these materials. (It should be noted that the draft position statement is also duplicated as Item #24 in the proposed legislative matters resolution.) The memo and materials should provide a framework for the Board to discuss and approve language for the County's position statement on the proposed Jordan Lake Rules. The Board needs to hold the public hearing on County's proposed 2009 legislative package items. The Board should then review and discuss these and any other items 'as. may be addressed during the public hearing, including the Jordan Lake Rules position statement as part of the legislative matters resolution. The Board should then approve the legislative matters resolution with exhibits based on the public hearing and Board discussion. Lastly, in preparation for its April 20, 2009 meeting with Orange County's legislative delegation, the Board may also want to identify three to five specific items from the entire package to highlight for priority discussion. It should be noted that the work of the Legislative Issues Work Group to this point is based on the current information available for the 2009 General Assembly Session. The issues addressed by the Group may evolve and change over the session and require additional attention by the Group and Board of Commissioners. New issues may also arise necessitating additional review. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact with holding a public hearing other than the newspaper advertisement costs (approximately $320) which will be addressed within the approved FY2008-09 budget. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1) Hold the public hearing as advertised on Orange County's potential legislative items for the 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session; 2) Review and discuss potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session, including the Jordan Lake Rules position statement as part of the legislative matters resolution; 3) Approve the legislative matters resolution with exhibits based on the public hearing and Board discussion; and. 4) . Consider identifying three to five specific items from the entire package to highlight for priority discussion at the April 20, 2009 meeting with Orange County's legislative delegation. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HARING NOTICE FOR TUESDAY, April 7, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M* A public hearing will be held on Grange County's potential legislative agenda for the 2009 North Carolina General Assembly Session. The issue areas to be addressed include: + Human Services + Public Education + Justice and Public Safety + Revenue and Taxation + Environment + Agriculture + Transportation + :energy 4 Planning + Solid Waste + Economic Development The Board of Commissioners welcomes all continents on all items as may be introduced or addressed at the public hearing. The meeting is open to the public and will be held on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at the Central Orange Senior Center at 103 Meadowlands Drive in Hillsborough, beginning at 7:00 p.m. If you need additional information, please call Greg Wilder at 245-2314. 4 elf, Orange County Environment & Resource Conservation `06--A Reverc Road / PO Rax 81,81- H91-SID0.1-oucri l 'n INC 272-I S ?I on c: (919) 24 D _12, '--'�590, Fa.-.\-: (91.9) ( )44 - DD51 TO: Laura Blackmon, County Manager FROM: David stanch, Environment and Resource Conservation Director DATE: March 30, 2009 RE: Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules - Position Statement This memorandum is designed to serve in a support or background capacity as the Board considers adopting a position statement on the' B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules. As you know, the Board has received requests for support from different organizations and local governments, and there are several bills in the current session of the N.C. General Assembly that would discard the recommended rules. The B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules were approved by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in late 2008, and are currently awaiting enaction into law by the N.C. General Assembly. Bills in opposition to the rules have been introduced in_ both the State House of Representatives and Sena . te. In brief, the rules address ' mechan isms to reduce nutrient loading in Jordan Lake. The basis for the rules is the federal Clean Water Act and the (long-anticipated) deterioration of Jordan Lake water due to algal growth from nutrients. Nutrient levels in the lake (primarily nitrogen a - nd phosphorus) have contributed to high levels of chlorophyll-a and algal growth, impacting water quality. There are two sub-watersheds with different planned rules and reduction standards. The Upper New Hope Arm of the lake (which includes the Rural Buffer, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, southern Durham, northeast Chatham and a portion of eastern Wake County) will be required to implement a 35% reduction in nitrogen loading and a 5% reduction in phosphorus loading to the lake. The Haw 5 River Arm, which includes the Mebane area, the southwestern portion of Orange County and remainder of the watershed upstream to Greensboro) must reduce nitrogen loading by 8% and phosphorus by 5%. The rules include provisions that relate to: • Stormwater management from new development • Stormwater from existing development Agriculture Protection of stream and riparian buffers, Water quality/nutrient trading options, and Other nutrient applications (including biosolids) Many of the rules are proposed to be implemented over a 10-year period. At the March 26 Assembly of Governments meeting, the elected boards discussed the Jordan Lake rules and several proposed position statements and resolutions from other jurisdictions and organizations, ranging from full support of the rules to considerable opposition to components of the rules. At the same time, a Board Legislative Work Group has been meeting over the past few months to develop legislative position statements, and has developed a draft potential position statement regarding the Jordan Lake Rules. This draft position statement is built around the County's longstanding support for watershed protection, but also addresses the "unfunded mandate' nature of the impact that addressing existing stormwater measures will have on local governments (some estimates of -the cost of complying with the existing development portion of the rule to exceed $500 million for all jurisdictions over the next decade). The City of Durham has projected that amount for their jurisdiction alone. Orange County has few stormwater control impoundments within the Upper New Hope Arm of the lake in its jurisdiction, but there could still be costs associated with addressing existing -stormwater (especially if percentage-based reductions are still required for low loading rates). The position statement reiterates the need for State financial assistance for any such undertaking, which in itself addresses a larger, regional issue. The statement also asks for recognition of the fact that jurisdictions that have been proactive about watershed protection prior to 2001, such as Orange County, are not well served by a baseline that treats all actions prior to that year as existing conditions. While the County's exact loading rate for nitrogen and phosphorus is not yet calculated, it is anticipated that the actual loading rate from the County's jurisdiction is quite low, since New Hope Creek for example includes large stretches of forested stream buffers and very low density residential development. In this case, meeting a percentage based reduction standard (such as the planned 35% reduction in nitrogen)- may be a difficult if not impossible task. Other statements and resolutions have been received to date from the Haw River Assembly, Chatham County and the City of Durham, and these materials are provided as attachments to this 'memorandum. - Durham's resolution differs considerably from that proposed by the Haw River Assembly and Chatham County, which support the rules. This topic was briefly considered at the Board's March 17 meeting. One citizen spoke in favor of implementation of the Jordan Lake rules. Previously, the Board received a presentation on the status. or the rules on January 27. As a part of that presentation, several potential key topics or points were identified (some of which are addressed above), including: The cost of implementing the proposed rules in terms of retrofitting existing development is largely unknown until the jurisdiction assessment is conducted (and this would occur after the rules are implemented, as currently planned), ■ With the County's expected low nitrogen loading rate in its jurisdiction, decreasing by a fixed 35% in the Upper New Hope may be challenging (effectively creating a penalty for jurisdictions which pursued conservation measures prior to the 2001 baseline year), Nutrient trading possibilities that are made possible under the rules may be promising, and should be pursued with the urban jurisdictions on conservation and wetlands projects in the Upper New Hope Arm (Rural Buffer), thus allowing the towns another option for meeting their reduction needs. However, it should, be noted that deletion of the existing development rule would reduce incentives for nutrient trading with the urban jurisdictions. • The need for State funding assistance to deal with the costs of implementing the rules has been noted by many local governments, and • The County has a long history of watershed protection dating to 1981 and notes that the current water quality issues have been long-anticipated. Finally, as noted by the Town of Chapel Hill and OWASA, an "adaptive managemently approach to the rules implementation has been cited as an important component, providing needed flexibility as more is learned about the effectiveness of some provisions and technical aspects of the rules. The State Division of Water Quality has indicated conceptual support for this practice as the rules proceed, although not directly addressed in the current rules. Financial Impacts The cost of implementing the Jordan Lake nutrient management rules varies considerably depending on the source. Much of the cost to local governments would come from the existing development provisions. Compliance with these actions have been estimated at up to $550 million ($900 million by some groups) for all local governments and utility providers in the Jordan Lake watershed, and 7 would be incurred over a 1 G-year period. The estimated cost to Orange County government of these rules is not known, since the first action required under the rules is an assessment that would result in nutrient loading rates and thus, more concrete cost estimates. Since development in the County's jurisdiction has been more rural in nature, with fewer structural ponds and stormwater devices, it is anticipated that the County will be less impacted financially than its surrounding urban jurisdictions. However, there still may be unknown costs associated with new measures that may be required to achieve the percentage-based nitrogen reduction, since the County's projected loading rate is already anticipated to be low, and additional reductions may require funding for new conservation/stream restoration activities (or nutrient trading funding assistance from other jurisdictions). These costs would also be determined under the initial assessment by each jurisdiction, to occur after implementation. Implementation of the rules would require a variety of both traditional and non- traditional responses to stormwater management for the County. This would include the resources of the Erosion Control Division of the Planning and Inspections Department, the Water Resources Coordinator and Land Conservation Manager from ERCD, and staff from the Orange Soil and Water District. Activities likely to be needed to accomplish the rules include on-site stormwater management, stream buffer enhancement, riparian land conservation and forestation, wetlands creation and other non-structural methods. I have also attached a copy of the planned timetable for implementation for the Jordan Lake rules. I hope this information is useful as the Board considers the position statement. Please let me know if I may provide any additional information. Attachments DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT g Draft Orange Cop n Le 'dative Issues word. Orou Position Statement on B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Jordan. Labe Nutrient Management Rules (Duplicate of Items #24 m Legislative Resolution) B. Everett Jordan 'Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules -- Orange County has a long history of supporting and implementing watershed protection measures such as those proposed for Jordan Lake, often to the benefit of communities outside Orange County. while Orange County does not support Mouse Bill 3 or any other legislation which would eliminate the B. Everett Jordan. Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules entirely, as currently written., the Rules do not recognize Orange County's past efforts and in effect penalize good stewards such as Orange County. The Rules (herein. referred to as the "Jordan Lake Rules ") that have been promulgated by the Environmental Management Co ssion and are currently before the N.C. General Assembly for enaction should recognize these past efforts prior to the baseline year of 2001. Additionally, counties do not typically own or operate stormwater management systems, except for those associated with ' property they own.. Orange County does not support making counties responsible for such systems, for the retrofitting of such systems or the addition of new such systems on already developed, land or existing farmland. Orange County is willing and able to adopt and enforce additional watershed protections applicable to new uses of 'land, new development of laud and the redevelopment of land for which protections are reasonably necessary to reduce the impacts to Jordan Lake resulting from nutrient levels. It is Orange County's view that modifications to the Jordaf. Lake Rules are necessary, consistent with this position statement. Further, consistent with Orange County's comments at the July 2007 public hearings on the rules, if existing development provisions are enacted, the State of North Carolina should provide funding for the cost of implementing the Jordan Lake Rules to the extent they will require local governments to be the designer, builder and manager of watershed protection measures required by the Jordan Lake Rules. DURHAM 1 $ CITY OF DURHAM coP�F OFFICE of THE MAYOR MAYOR mr 01 101 CITY HALL. PLAZA 4 DURHAM, NC 27 x' 919. 560.4333 �& fax 919.560.4801 www.durhamnc.gov March 19, 2009 Dear Elected Officials and Managers of local govemments in Orange County, I w:Lite to encourage you to enact a resolution in support of a compromise on the contested. Jordan. Rules. Life the City of Durham, you have probably received a request fiworn the Cbatham County Commissioners to support all of the proposed. Jordan fake Mules. Durham's City Council has declined to do that. histead, our Council believes that the most reasonable approach to the Jordan. Rubs must involve a substantial modification to the existing development rule. we hope you will agree, and adopt official positions similar to Durbam's. Durham has been proactive in many environmental initiatives over the years. However, our Council cannot support the Jordan. Rules, given the questionable science and assumptions behind the rules and their immense economic* impact. They target a 'rater body that, in the main, is functioning well, especially in light of the dire predictions made when it was created.. In particular, they impose unreasonable costs on the Upper New ,dope governments and their citizens. The Upper New, Hope, arm plays a valu able ' rote in reducing pollutants that would otherwise be reaching the Lower New Hope ann.. Requiring our m-m to meet the same water quality standards that more "pristine" water sources meet males no sense. If you are interested in reviewing more materials regarding the Jordan Rules, Durham's* web site at littp,,://www.durhamne-gov/dppartrngpla/wniTordan lake rules.cfpa contains a number of useful resources, including an informative engineering article regarding the lake's history. The Durham. City Council has approved a resolution that we believe' sets forth a reasonably: cony. .p romise on the Jordan. Rules. Y attach it for your' consideration and support. Although our position is. a compromise, in no way do we believe that it compromises the health of the lake. The tight restrictions on wastewater and on now development will ensure that local governments, ratepaying citizens, and private sector developers will be contributing significant resources toward the goal of continuing to protect the health. of Jordan. Lake. It is important that Triangle governments speak up immediately, with one voice, with regard to the Jordan Rules. Alternative legislation to the total disapproval bills already submitted by lewslators is in the wo oks. These alternatives may not make the changes heeded to existing development roan s les a act in concert. Good Things Are Hgppening In Durham iff RESOLUTION #9626 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING T14E ADOPTION OF GENERAL LEGISLATION TO MODIFY THE JORDAN, LAKE RULES wI EREA.S, the City of Durham and its citizens have been leaders over the years in protecting the environment in wastewater treatment, water quality, land use regulation, buffer protection, open space preservation, and stormwater regulation; WHEREAS, since the impouiidment of Jordan Lake in 1953, Durham's citizens have sustained special and extraordinary costs to prevent nutrients front reaching Jordan Lake, such costs including over 40 million dollars over the last fifteen years to •educe nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater and over 30 million dollars to address stormwater pollution; WHEREAS, Rules adapted for Jordan Lake in 2005 by the Environmental Management Commission are unprecedented in the state in mandating that the City of Durham and a few other local governments reduce nitrogen from "existing development" by 35% and phosphorus by 5 %, with a time frame for achieving Such reductions; WHEREAS., cost estimates of the inz fact of those Mules, using reliable data from state experts, show that Durham's citizens will pay at least 570 million dollars over the next 20 years to fund retrofits to comply with the Rules, In addition to costs they will pay for additional nutrient reductions in wastewater treat ment,, WHEREAS, compliance with the existing development requirement will cause Durham's stormwater rates to increase at least seven- -fold, with rates far smaller homes increasing from $26 a year to $200 a year, and for larger homes from $54 a year to $416 a year; WHEREAS, these costs are unnecessary for protection of the Lake, will not achieve expected results, will cause signil'tcant hardship to Durham's citizens, and will hamper further l economic devel opmeiit; WHEREAS, AS mandates to reduce nutrients a '''sting development could also force the City to condenin private p rope •ty, aid would result iz considerable valuable residential and commercial property being removed from the City's tax base, WHEREAS, prior to construction of Jordan Lake by the Army Corps of Engineers, water ■ r quality ty problems were predicted by scientists f ronn UNC- •Chapel Hill, NC State, and Duke, by q �� � � � concerns led to �v�des �•ead conservationists, and by many local governments and these o p opposition in the 1960's and 1970's to the construction of the Lake; WHEREAS, in fact Jordan Lake performs better than' predicted, in part because local governme its and authorities in the Upper NeVv I lope arm — Durham City, Durham County, and the Orange water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) _- have funded approximately 100' million dollars of wastewater treatment upgrades to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in the Labe; WHEREAS, Jordan Lake. functions well for all of its 'Intended uses — flood control, improved downstream water quality, conservation of fish and wildlife, dri�ak i�zg water supply, 11 and recreation -- even though 'its suitability for uses such as drinking water were doubted at the tinge of the Lake's creation: WHEREAS., studies have shown that nitrogen loads have declined in the Upper New 1-lope and Haw fiver arms • over the last t .N.wenty years and • further declines will occur without imposition of the existing development rule; WHEREAS, the . Jordan Rules Were promulgated based on limited sampling of Chlorophyll a, an imperfect predictor, with samples taken in years influenced by drought and unusual weather conditions, and the consultant responsible for the Lake model noted the "considerable analytic uncertainty" in the measurements used; WHEREAS, S, under, the Mules, Jurisdictions in the Upper New Hope arm, including; the City of Durham, will be required to impose the strictest limits on nutrient runoff for new development that exist anywhere in Forth Carolina; WHERE-AS, the City needs time to "optimize" its South Durham plant and to study, plan, bid, and contract for additional nitrogen and phosphorus upgrades, and the date of 2016 proposed in the Rules that were originally published by the State allows for such tinge; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 7"HE CITY OF DURHAM THAT: 1. The Council opposes portions of the Jordan Rifles as enacted by the Environmental Mariagement Conlrnission, in pa •titular, a. the mandate to reduce nutrient runoff from - existing development; h. implementation of new' nitrogen limits for pant sources prior to 2016; c. enforcement of the buffer requirements of the Rules by local governments rather than by the State, as has been done in the Meuse and Tar Pamlico progranns; d. identification of the Jordan Basin its a `critical water supply watershed." 2. The Council supports further reducing nutrients in Riordan Lake through, among other measures, further reduction of nutrients in wastewater plant discharges to all arms of-the-Lake., ..__ implementation of buffers; additional controls on new development; including projects controlled by local governments, DOT, and the state; mandatory changes in agricultural practices; changes in fertilizer content and application practices; implementation of "Phase 2" stormwater programs throughout the ,Jordan Basin; and expected reductions in atmospheric nitrogen. �. The Council urges the General Assembly to modify requirements relating to existing development for the Jordan Basin so that, at most, they parallel what was implemented in the Tar -PEI Ilico and Neuse Basins, watersheds with water bodies that have more severe pollution problems than does Jordan Lake. 4. The Council authorizes the Mayor and City staff" to talk all necessary steps to implement the above objectives, including, where necessary, supporting compromises that 1 achieve the general objectives of this Resolution. Resolution is effective upon adoption. _ _ : •f �. "l ~ISIS •' ' • • • . �'1 • • .+ It . • .. v�� AJri-em 4 . � r 12 a COUNY COMMIONE RS ; COU W MANAGER Gems Luder, Char CWIe ftme SaDy KoA Vice Chair M90CMSS Calf 7win n Tern Vandebe& R CL Sax jM, pflsborvt NC 27=24M thane: (gig) 54Z=O Fax (919) 542-8272 Februaxy 18,2009 w w r ■ i FCB 20 2009 � ■ I • � w • R■ �rr j iR w Laura B! c1n.0n., County Ma.n.ag& y.►.tr PO BOX 8181 sborough, NC 27278 Re: Attached resolution: Jordan Lake Rules D a ar Laura, On February 16 2009 at their regular board meeting tho Board of Co sioners adopted the attached resolution. As you will see upon. re it, the resolution comes a response to the introduction of House Pill. 3 titled., 'Tisapprove Jordan. .s a re ides". The Board is encoura. ' g the General .Assembly to Deep Jordan Lake Lake � ' and, continue the to implement those rules. As part of their Rules � place p co- .zne n is le a.din. g to adoption the board requested us to send the resolution to `urisda.ction.s which have a vital interest in keeping Jordan. Lake 'water quality high. 3 We hope that your jurisdiction . will consider a similar resolution. Please pass.the resolution along to your Mayor and council. Sin rely Charlie Horne, County Manager RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CHATHAM COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED JORDAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT STRATEGY RULES 15A NCAC 02B4O262-,0273 &,0311 WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir lies almost entirely within the boundaries of Chatham County; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir i W s a popular recreation destination for over 1 million visitors each year including residents of Chatham; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is a major drinking water source for Chatham County as well as for Cary and other cities and towns; and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina first directed local governments to reduce nitrogen in waters that flow to the Jordan Lake Reservoir in 1997 under the Clean water Responsibility Act; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is on the EPA 303(4) list of impaired waters due to excessive nutrients from point and non -point sources, and has been since 2002; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules were developed by the NC Division of Water Quality through a lengthy stakeholder process and were adopted by the NC Environmental Management Commission (FMC) on May 8, 2008 and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 1 1, 2008; and WLIEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules are based on sound scientific monitoring and modeling to apportion decreases in the nutrient load from all point and non -point sources in the Jordan Lake watershed in order to improve water quality; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir cannot meet water quality standards unless nutrient loads from all current and future sources are reduced, including those from wastewater, and from stormwater from existing and new development; and WHEREAS, the threat to the water quality in the Jordan Lake Reservoir and the drinking water supply of Chatham. County and other drinking water users, as well as recreations users will continue until all sections of the rules are approved by the NC General Assembly; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF CCDMMISISONERS that members of the North Carolina General Assembly are herby requested to approve the Jordan Labe Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules in their entirety in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of Chatham County and other residents of North Carolina. .Adopted, this the 16`h day of February, 2009. George Lucier, Chairman A=ST: Sandra B. Sublett, CMC, Clerk to the Board Chatham County Board of Corr=i ssioners 13 14 P.O.* Box 187 Bynum NC 27228 (919) 542 -5790 info @hawnwer.org February 12, 2009 Dear Chairwoman Foushee, and Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners: The Jordan Lake Rules were approved by the NC Rules Review Commission on. November 20, 2008. This brings to a close a very long recess that started with DWQ convening a stakeholder g rY g P grou p to craft the rules *in 2003, a long public comment period, and the Environmental Management Co sion (EMC) adopting them earlier in 2048. The rules that have emerged from this process are strong, fair and sensitive to economic conditions. The work is not over however - the rules will now have to be passed as law by the NC General Assembly due to continued objections led by Burlington, Greensboro, Durham and certain homebuilder and realty lobbies. Supporting the rules are many of the local governments that know just what is at stare for their residents if we don't clean up Jordan. Lake a vitally im ortant resource for drinking water and recreation in our area. we are aslong Chatham p County, e County, Chapel Mill, Carrboro, Pittsboro, Cary, Apex, wake County and Orange Morrisville to pass resolutions in favor of the current rules adopted by the EMC. We urge Orange County to join. the many citizens and other local governments who are supporting these new rules to reduce pollution m Jordan Lake. we believe the rules are fair and pP g proportional, and will result in cleaner water not only in Jordan Fake, but in all the tributaries that are upstream of it. we urge you to pass a resolution directed to members of the General Assembly in favor of the rules that were adopted by the EMC and approved by the RRC: What are the proposed rules? To develo p the rules, the state estimated the total nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that Jordan Labe can absorb and still be healthy. The state then calculated how much pollution is currently flowing into the lake -- and its much more than the lake can take.. Jordan Lake operates as three distinct sections -- so the reductions needed are based on which part of the lake the pollution flows to as measured for the 2002 model) Nitrogen will need to be reduced by 8% in the Haw River arm and 35% in. the Upper New Hope arm. Phosphorus will need to be reduced by 5% in each arm.. The rules spread the needed reductions in nutrients among all the sources of pollution: * wastewater treatment plants. The proposed rules require wastewater treatment plants to reduce ph9sphorus one year after the rules tape effect, and to reduce nitrogen by 2014. Wastewater treatment plants contribute approximately 32% of total nitrogen delivered to the 15 te improvements to both the lake and the lake. Reductions from this source will result in edia im AV aired streams that are the first "receivers" of the effluent — such as Morgan Creek. Existing development. This is one of the most controversial and misunderstood parts of the rules. Jordan Lake cannot become healthy again unless local governments take steps to control polluted runoff from existing development The proposed rules have lengthy timeline that begins with a three and a half year period for local governments to write plan for projects to reduce one-half of the excess nutrient pollution within . 10 years. The rules support alternative stormwater practices that also increase water conservation and groundwater re-charge -- like rain barrels, cisterns, and raingardens - as well as stream restoration and new fertilizer and pet waste ordinances. These are all practices that will make streams in developed and urban areas, ■ before their waters ever reach Jordan Lake. Local governments can receive credits for documented BW's and storm water practices put *in place'after the base period of 2001 and before the rules become effective. New development, Stream buffers The rules require new development to limit pollution released upstream from the lake by better controlling stormwater runoff and leaving buffers along creeks and streams. Many local governments in the Haw River basin already have riparian ■ buffers stronger than the 50' required in these rules, but these rules will ensure buffers throughout the watershed. Agriculture. The rules require farmers in the Jordan Lake watershed to work together to adopt best management practices to keep nitrogen and phosphorus out of rivers - and creeks upstream from the lake. Similar rules have worked successfully in the Neuse and Tar-P ico, river basins without placing a noticeable burden on farmers. The rules also require training and plan for fertilizer applications on crops, golf courses, landscaping nurseries, etc. *NC Department of Transportation. The proposed rules will require the state Department of Transportation and other state and federal entities to take modest steps to control polluted runoff from existing and new projects. rove Nutrient Trading. To finp flexibility and lower costs, the rules also allow the various contributors to 'trade' pollution reductions -- so, if a farmer can cheaply reduce nitrogen, even beyond their required reduction, they can sell that reduction to a wastewater treatment plant or local government. The Haw River Assembly urges the members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to join other local governments in adopting a resolution to the General Assembly letting them know that you want to see strong rules passed to protect Jordan Lake Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Elaine Chiosso Haw RIVERKEEPER- www.hawtiver.org 16 DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR: A RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTYBOARD OF COYMUSSIONERS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED JORDAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT .STRATEGY RULES 15A NCAC 02D *0262-,0273 &,0311 W REAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is a popular recreation destination for over I million visitors each year including residents of Orange County; and Triangle; ti� and REAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is a major ! rinking water - source for residents in the M[EREAS the State of North Carolina first directed local governments to reduce nitrogen in i waters that flow to the Jordan Lake Reservoir n 1997 under the Clean Water Responsibility Act; and AREAS , the Jordan Lake Reservoir is on - the EPA 3 03 (d) list of impaired waters due to excessive nutrients from point and non-point sources, and, has been since 2002; and RE AS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules were developed by the NC. Division of Water Quality through a lengthy stakeholder process and were adopted by the NC Environmental ' Management Commission (EMC) on May 8, 2008 and approved by the Rules Review Commission (R_RC) on November 11, 2008-, and H EREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules are based on sound scientific monitoring and modeling to apportion decreases in the nutrient load from all point and non-point sources IR m the Jordan Lake watershed in order to improve water quality; and H F.REAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir cannot meet water quality standards unless nutrient loads from all current and future sources are reduced, including those from wastewater, and from stormwater from existing and new development; and REAS, the threat to the water quality, in the Jordan Lake Reservoir and 9 water users, as well as recreations, users will continue until all sections of the, rules are approved by the NC General Assembly; REAS,, Orange County supports protection of waters within its own boundaries that now to the Haw River and to the Jordan Lake Reservoir; NOW, T REFORE9 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COARMSSIONERS that members of the North Carolina General Assembly are hereby requested to vote to approve the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules in their. entirety, as adopted by the EMC. and approved by the RRC, in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of Orange bounty and other residents of North Carolina. Adopted, this the -day of 20 ATTEST: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GENE gAL ASSEMEBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 I H I HOUSE BILL 3 Short Title: Disapprove Jordan Lake Rules* (J?u311c) Cole, and Sponsors: Representatives AJ1red, McCormick (Primary S ons . ors); Blast West. Referred to Rules, Calendar, and operations of the House., . . . ............... ............ January 29, 2009 A BELL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DISAPPROVE RULES ADOPTED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL NIANAGEMENT CONMSSION AND APPROVED BY THE RULES REVIEW COMMISSIONO The General Assembly 'of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1, pursuant to G.S. 150B.21.3(bl)g 15A NCAC 02B .0264 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Agriculture).-� 15A NCAC 02B .0268 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Mitigation for Existing Riparian Buffers), 15A NCAC 02B .0269 (Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fees to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program), 15A NCAC 02B .0270 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Stmt egy: Wastewater Discharge Requirements), 15A NCAC 02B .0271 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stormwater Requirements for State and Federal tntities), 15A NCAC 02B .0272 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Fertilizer Management), 15A NCAC 02B '0273 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: , Options for Offsetting Nutrient Loads), as adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on May 8, 2001, and approved by the Rules Review Commission ono 16, 2008, are disapproved. G.S. 150B-21.3(bl)p 15A NCAC 02B .0262 (Jordan SECTION 2. Pursuant to dan Water Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Purpose and Scope), 15A NCAC 02B .0263 (Jor Supply Nutrient Strategy: Definitions), 15A NCAC 02B .0265 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stormwater Management for New Development), 15A NCAC 02B .0266 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stonnwater Management for Existing Development), 15A NCAC 02B .0267 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers), as adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on May 8. 2008, and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 20, 2008, are disapproved. SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 0 SOUSE BILL 239 • - Jordan fake Rules. (Public) Short Title. Disapprove Jo Sponsors: Representatives Allen, Gibson Bordsen (Primary Sponsors ); A Alexander and Faison. Referred to: Environment and Natural Resources, if favorable, Judiciary I. February 23, 2009 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DISAPPROVE THE JORDAN WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT STRATEGY RULES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Pursuant to G.S. 150B_21.3 (b 1), 15A NCAC 02B .0264 (Jordan SECTION L. water Supply Nutrient ' Strategy: Agriculture), 15A NCAC 02B .0268 [Jordan water Supply gy �' • Mitigation for Riparian Buffers), 15A NCAC D2B .0269 [Riparian Buffer Nutrient Strategy. 111I�tgat�on p ) 1VI Ecosystem Enhancement Program), 15A NCAC 02B .0270 (Jordan Mitigation Pees to the NC F.c y 1 wastewater Discharge Requirements), 15A NCAC 02B .027 Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: (Jordan water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stormwater Requi HK GENERAL ASSEMEBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 I H HOUSE BILL 350 Short Title: Disapprove Jordan Lake Rule: Tech Amendment. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Allred; and Blackwood. 10. Referred to: Environment and Natural Resources, if favorable, Judiciary 1. March 2, 2009 I A BILL TO BE.ENTITLED 2 AN ACT TO 15ISAPPROVE A RULE 'ADOPTED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA MSSION AND APPROVED BY THE 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CON 4 RULES REVIEW CONMUSSION. 5 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 6 -SECTION 1. Pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3(bl), 15A NCAC 02B .0311 (Cape Fear 7 River Basin), as adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on 8 May 8, 2008, and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 20, 2008, is 9 disapproved. 10 SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law. 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S GENERAL ASSEMIBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 SENATE BILL 166 I Short Title: Disapprove Jordan Lake Rules. (Public) Sponsors: Senators Foriest; and Vaughan. Referred to: Agriculture/Enviromment/Natural Resources, February 16, 2009 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DISAPPROVE RULES ADOPTED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONNffiNTAL MANAGEMENT. COMMISSION AND APPROVED BY THE RULES REVIEW COMMISSION. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION I. . Pursuant to G.S. 15OB-21.3(b1), 15A NCAC 02B .0264 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Agriculture), 15A NCAC 02B .0268 (Jordan Water. Supply Nutrient Strategy: Mitigation for Existing Riparian Buffers), 15A NCAC 02B .0269 (Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fees to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program), I 5A NCAC 02B .0270 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Wastewater Discharge Requirements), 15A NCAC 02B .0271 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stormwater Requirements for State and Federal Entities), 15A NCAC 02B .0272 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Fertilizer Management), and 15A NCAC 02B .0273 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Options for Offsetting Nutrient Loads), as adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on May 8, 2008, and approved by the Rules Review Commission on October 16, 2008, are disapproved. SECTION 2. Pursuant to G.S. 150B-�13(b1), 15A NCAC 02B .0262 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Purpose and Scope), 15A NCAC 029 .0263 (Jordan water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Definitions), 15A NCAC 02B .0265 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Stormwater Management for New Development), 15A NCAC 02B .0266 (Jordan Water S ly Nutrient Strategy: Stonnwater Management for Existing 15A ''Upp . a NCAC 02B .0267 (Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers), and 15A NCAC 02B .0311 (Cape Fear River Basin), as adopted by t he North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on May 8, 2008, and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 20, 2008, are disapproved. SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law. 6 6 20 0, 0 0 CD co cz 4mil""A CD -1--# 0 cn CZ E-` �o .0 .., 0 co 0 0 E CZ co _CV. cn 0 cz cn 1. cn cz cn CD cm 0 0 CM 0 co CZ 0 cz co >-' cz co CD -0--o r.... > CD Q. 0 0 0 E cn o CD CD CD 0 0.1, cz CD cz cD, CD goo C15 CD 0 0 0 co K cn 0 > cn 0 w 0 CD W..., W CO Cif c C= a cz C) ,�,,, CD cz. w co o CD. • 0 0 E cr cn -0 CD 'CZ w Uj A14 cz Ja . cn cz C:) cD CL co E cL R CD cz cz cz cD ow '0 > cn, CZ > CD E cmmo -,i cn CD cz E. Ca 0 w LU cz -1c cn cn C� S. 0 0 co om tmNrl g4 3 AV --� k4 It MT -NNEZIPI tl-k MEOW K dk Lp K! -.� f ;�+�� �: � � �� i ��� 4wl�h�C � .. •.�.....� +r,,,• I '�'�r l�r;.t � � � ^ •F rte, M� r ». �• Y•'• ^"'- •:,+ :••� ���i � ��15;1 IF PW4.t- 99-11 M." ,W#­N­J C\j 0 cz '(D' .10 0, co cz ""moo cz E 0. > E 0,= C3 C. 0, U.J Co 4NEE-0 WEENNEEMEN CD O cn D > 'CD CD cz 2'- 0 WNC3 E _FENNEP. co ENE-P wrr CD > E 4 .0 L. + L C.3 co tom.` o. c, cn o.' cn 0 MPMmw o.: C\J CD > C= 0 ,. > 0, f=L*, CD ENEMs co, o # CZ sue.. ,] . tr] �r - , , co COME CZ va 0 3trw E '.CZ WWO CONN' 0 ENINNN­f CD 1. w in 0 cz El'P 0 co QD cz QD 0 C.) 0 C= > CD > 0 cn C: cz E C:L CL E E 4ENNER cn (DO-0 co 0 cn x CD of.— C- E c) 0 E CD ` "00 > "NOD 0 COWN IMENE QD cz -0 4MMmo cz CD U) > m 0 m E E -o QD E c) So WOMEN" 0 E cz co CD v� QD C3) 0.j ` 0 E *No cz !y/ i, v N:;'S i. 'Ira ».....» ...... . .................... .. w.,, IL •ILN- %7 Z.Wi f L 0, mi. � Im x cz 0 C.) 0 C= CZ E-0 CD > 0 cn C: cz E C:L CL C) E cz (DO-0 co 0 rwrrrrr WENOWNWE"' W 0 . a) -0 co C) c) 0, (1) "00 > 2E LiLi 0 co 0 n 0 U) 0 m cz 0 CD QD E c) 0 0 E !y/ i, v N:;'S i. 'Ira ».....» ...... . .................... .. w.,, IL •ILN- %7 Z.Wi f L 0, mi. � Im x C\j i CZ U) C= co 0 =3 we ON= ■EFENE"I E 0 co C) co 0 E 0 IMMENNEEM, 0 U) d CZ 0 n 0 0 m 0. OWED QD E ENIENNEN Mp C) m 0 E E co NO > C:) om E !y/ i, v N:;'S i. 'Ira ».....» ...... . .................... .. w.,, IL •ILN- %7 Z.Wi f L 0, mi. � Im x cn C= 0 E .E CD co co co !y/ i, v N:;'S i. 'Ira ».....» ...... . .................... .. w.,, IL •ILN- %7 Z.Wi f L 0, mi. � Im x ter; ;s , �' ,• �.; ..f ... ,.•k • r CIS CZ LU cn C.) CZ (3) C3 moo 4 iM /Ipr+r� ■ 1111�� ' - ` .• n f f' irrrN �� �r C� 1"i = CD i cz cz CES CZ 10'. -0-AAAAf CD CD . 0. 4-Asm, OD CD N �N. � i�w/wlllllw�lls ■ .�. : ; Y,� M. .; :. '..: r E. A. E cD .0 AAA--, uj 0 CD � � a�'"""'� - *"'r � cz E r �r QD cz y; ( .�, ,,.. t� ! _ ". [LLB 0 CIO E cO 0 0'-E -0 CD - 0' E -E c;) E CIO 1 CIO %. E cz 0 � � � ".3 L .. ' `' "" sue- .�� ..�� 5.. ...�.J .s o ...:.J L,... �...� L.. ,j cz rtv. �V i � �+ 0 , L.� , T 0 cz W. �. c CD CD ta.... 0 ,. C) r �• N MIwMMI► • 3 .h � y s. �� � � � rNrrw ' cz _ LAU CD CL CD 141 m VOF cn CO �, �, K .�• dr. ' n � w wrrr�w CO . ' .; .: _ ,• . e A- cz E cD Al , — CD QD t\J C\l LO LO s • `Ph A .. «•x' ,n • R"� w .; i+r'L. . r� a =.{K• .F]w.+ti,• � rr t C�•wi. :": '> h•' . ma3sF ...T ►. �:i :•.•k, . : p � �„ .�,n.5 ►s es,y .+Y i w' • •'ffr ,r., � �' �„e`k ,� r,J , .;(.„ . * t. •�.. e•�* • ,. �'.. 2�r a�� „t�:r l �Yi•' �' ��• n�• -� • • t � !i'` '% ` Y rti i 1 . y•y ,� } = ' + L • f Yxf ,: .�� i� rS' " Wri i y r t� �','r r, ,4: rt' ' "' 1' ."�' ► r��' ,F; w..1. ' n"� .�,.7,�"„�g T L '} y "tf" ,7 ►."• r' °k ' ��� , '"'4';Y.= 'r,y w •'�F • ' ,1 ^�,� ,� € •� Fj�`�- ' a+a• s t ' � yr��r .t �ti �i"' `k~ -•:" ���� [ ��, �'' }?:�e1� �W . Y t "i:'"`rF f.r .,�.'�•,'LA'��•""' =� +.Mt .. r t+ t'a. ;�r j i �' ! , �i'�• r +, "i :'# "� ' +„w^� +..: • ' + �',F� f;.i�' "` is sr �ir�w rrs } i �'A�''e 's ` 7�' +. !k i�'a�i•� •' i "* ! + f rw�.F'3� ;�`'�1€f"N ,.� "� '��r,; •s- 1G'"'" 'i" 2.:; ^r'.r � r�� w i"x �. '� }� i fIf �"'` u i� ��'4�i"fi. YtRt�w "� s� d�sf: f?.g`� ,t,. �`�� KIr •.�•tii.}' l.•1� 3� +; t.!«'���:• �'�"'}jrw.s�.i.:•� • ' ,1, �+• f.,.t.r �: � +k. � "•,r'•..:r: ++ ..., 't . •r• • s ..�� ;��y +-.,.`''�.�;• �. ' ;���"'��•' .'� ��'x� : y�,�.�_ y t+. r.c's s►.1i1; ••',.y. y,;,�..R ` •.� � r �. r.. a.: -k•' � 'r �;.. r � •s �'�' ''[� �� w •x ':" y � .. �,�f�r•.�... �.'�. ..�.�lZ:.:t� ..,:.. S» ».sl:.e`L•r.��� CY � M�?�.'�:. T'':... _..,...... ��.....' ..a .. .............. .. .. «». .. ..,_..... «�....»....... .».....:..5...�'.�. - - - �....�c.,e�..r.:.• �a- ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED JORDAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT STRATEGY RULES 15A NCA 02B.0262-.0273 &.0311 WHEREAS, House Bill 3 has been introduced for consideration by the General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would disapprove Jordan Lake Management rules as promulgated and approved by the Environmental Management Commission and the Rules Review Commission; and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina first directed local governments to reduce nitrogen in waters that flow to the Jordan Lake Reservoir in 1997 under the Clean Water Responsibility Act; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is on the EPA 303(d) list of impaired waters due to the excessive nutrients from point and non -point sources,. and has been since 2002; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules were developed by the NC Division of Water Quality through a lengthy stakeholder process and were adopted by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on May 8, 2008 and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules are based on sound scientific monitoring and modeling to apportion decreases in the nutrient load from all point and non -point sources in the Jordan Lake watershed in order to improve water quality; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir cannot meet water quality standards unless nutrient loads form all current and future sources are reduced, including those from wastewater, and from stormwater from existing and new development; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS that members of the North Carolina General Assembly are hereby requested to approve the Jordan lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of Orange County and other residents of North Carolina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Orange County believes the rules should recognize Orange County's watershed protection efforts prior to the baseline year of 2001, lest the new regulations fail to recognize good stewards such as Orange County, and that the State provide funding to retrofit existing development to the extent it will require local governments to become the designer, builder and manager of watershed protection measures required by the Jordan Lake rules. Adopted, this the 7th day of April, 2009. Valerie Foushee, C air Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: aq&A��� Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board Orange County Board of Commissioners �a- ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED JORDAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT STRATEGY RULES 15A NCA 02B.0262-.0273 &.0311 WHEREAS, House Bill 3 has been introduced for consideration by the General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would disapprove Jordan Lake Management rules as promulgated and approved by the Environmental Management Commission and the Rules Review Commission; and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina first directed local governments to reduce nitrogen in waters that flow to the Jordan Lake Reservoir in 1997 under the Clean Water Responsibility Act; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir is on the EPA 303(d) list of impaired waters due to the excessive nutrients from point and non -point sources,. and has been since 2002; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules were developed by the NC Division of Water Quality through a lengthy stakeholder process and were adopted by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on May 8, 2008 and approved by the Rules Review Commission on November 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules are based on sound scientific monitoring and modeling to apportion decreases in the nutrient load from all point and non -point sources in the Jordan Lake watershed in order to improve water quality; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Lake Reservoir cannot meet water quality standards unless nutrient loads form all current and future sources are reduced, including those from wastewater, and from stormwater from existing and new development; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS that members of the North Carolina General Assembly are hereby requested to approve the Jordan lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of Orange County and other residents of North Carolina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Orange County believes the rules should recognize Orange County's watershed protection efforts prior to the baseline year of 2001, lest the new regulations fail to recognize good stewards such as Orange County, and that the State provide funding to retrofit existing development to the extent it will require local governments to become the designer, builder and manager of watershed protection measures required by the Jordan Lake rules. Adopted, this the 7th day of April, 2009. Valerie Foushee, C air Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: aq&A��� Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board Orange County Board of Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERS BE.IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and Representatives representing Orange County take the following position on legislation regarding the following matters: 1) Revenue Options for Local Government - Support legislation that authorizes a variety of revenue options for local governments to fund local government services. An overarching principle is that any local government revenue source that is presently available to one or more local governments in the state should be available to all local governments uniformly throughout the state. All local governments should, on a reasonable basis, have the authority to levy local option sales taxes, apply impact fees and /or taxes, utilize real estate transfer fees and /or taxes, etc. Orange County specifically notes its support for the ability of all local governments to apply impact fees and /or taxes and to implement real estate transfer fees and /or taxes; E 2) Medicaid Relief - The Medicaid Relief /Sales Tax Swap action by the North Carolina General Assembly during the 2007 session continues to cause significant adverse financial impacts to Orange County. As depicted in the charts provided at Exhibit A, Orange County is experiencing a substantial decrease in sales tax revenue. Orange County asks that the 2009 General Assembly protect the $500,000 in "hold harmless" funding to the County as designated in the 2007 legislation. Any efforts to reduce or eliminate this funding further exacerbates the on -going negative financial impacts of the 2007 legislation on the County; 3) Sales Tax Exemption - Support legislation to exempt counties, cities, school boards, community colleges, and the Orange Water & Sewer Authority from payment of state and local sales taxes on purchases within North Carolina. The legislation should contain a provision permitting the state to repay the last refund over a multi -year period to minimize state budget impacts. Alternatively, Orange County supports legislation to fully restore public schools' access to sales tax 3 refunds. For schools, Orange County specifically notes support for House Bill 299 - Reinstate LEA Sales Tax Refund. For community colleges, Orange County specifically notes support for House Bill 228 - Community College Sales Tax Refund; 4) School Construction - Support legislation to provide state assistance to local governments to meet school construction needs caused by increased enrollment and mandated reductions in class size through .a statewide referendum on a bond issue and /or through authority for counties to raise additional revenues to meet school facility needs; 5) North Carolina Housing Trust Fund - Support legislation providing appropriations by the General Assembly authorizing recurring funds for the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund to provide new home ownership opportunities and affordable rental homes for those qualified under the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund, while looking to enhance federal funding opportunities where appropriate; 4 6) Land for Tomorrow /Land and Water Conservation Trust Funds - Support legislative actions which seek to enhance appropriations and /or safeguard existing trust funds established for the protection of the state's land, water, and special places, before they are irreversibly lost, and which enjoin the Governor from sequestering these funds; 7) Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP) Continuation Funding (from Current Non-Recurring Status) - Support legislative and other actions to provide reliable full funding for this Program as it saves money in the long term for both state and local governments. Orange County understands that the Department of Juvenile Justice /Delinquency Prevention is, as are all State agencies, grappling with a 7% decrease in funding this fiscal year. The Governor's Recommended Budget includes another loo decrease. The County acknowledges how difficult these adjustments are to achieve but appreciates the Department's commitment to sustaining the majority of direct services to North Carolina's children and families. The County encourages the State to avail itself of any new 5 developments in the use of economic recovery package dollars or other federal initiatives to maintain the stability of programming, facilities, and staff vital to the safety and security of troubled youth in their own communities. (See Exhibit B - March 18, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Adopted Resolution Regarding Continuation of Criminal Justice Partnership Program Funding) ; 8) Fire Protection - Additional State Funding for State - Owned Buildings - Support House Bill 355 and any other similar legislation to provide additional State compensation to municipalities and local fire districts providing fire protection to state -owned buildings; 9) Funding for a Piedmont Regional Value -Added Shared Use Food and Agricultural Processing Center - Orange County forged a regional public - private partnership for a potential Piedmont Regional Shared Use Value -Added Processing Center. Four counties (Alamance, Chatham, Durham, and Orange) and two private businesses (Weaver Street Market and Whole Foods) partnered together and secured the necessary funds for a feasibility study C:7 conducted by the Mars Hill College Center for Assessment and Research Analyses. The study report included information on potential site needs for a Center, potential product lines, marketing opportunities, and numerous other factors. A Center would enable farmers from the region to meet local market demand for year -round locally -grown products and would also operate in a complementary fashion with the regional meat processing center in Caswell County. The partners have already been awarded $132,000 from the NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, $479,000 from the Tobacco Trust Fund Commission, and $250,000 from the North Carolina Golden Leaf Foundation for the Center. For the 2009 General Assembly session and on behalf of its five partners, Orange County requests $250,000, including any funds available from the federal stimulus package for this "shovel- ready" project, for the construction, start -up, and operation of a Piedmont Regional Value -Added Shared Use Food and Agricultural Processing Center; 10) E -911 Funds - Orange County supports House Bill 59 - An Act Expanding Permitted Uses of 911 Funds in Franklin County - and requests that Orange County be added to this bill; 11) Builders' Inventory Tax - Oppose House Bill 852 - Defer Tax on Builders' Inventory - and any other similar legislation as being particularly erosive to the already eroded tax base and oppose any efforts to exempt or to exclude from taxation any property that might be construed to be builders' inventory; 12) Homestead Exemption Revision - Support Homestead Exemption provisions of the Machinery Act to provide greater opportunities for low - income seniors to remain in their homes and not be displaced due to property tax burdens, eliminate the discriminatory features of the exemption provisions relating to couples, and address the ineffectiveness of the exemption provisions in communities where property values increase at substantial rates over short periods of time; E-5 13) Court Facility Fees - Orange County expresses support for the authority to institute Court Facility Fees to allow counties to collect additional facilities fees to help fund capital, operational and other needs associated with ever - increasing judicial activities; 14) Entertainment Transportation fee to be cl entertainment shared by the dedicated to transportation and Sports Event Fee to Support Needs - Support legislation to permit a Zarged on tickets purchased for large and sports events, with the revenue respective government jurisdictions and the support of public transit and programs; 15) Regional Transportation Fund - Support House Bill 148 - Congestion Relief /Intermodal Transport Fund - and any other similar legislation which attempts to address the state's public transportation needs and represents the recommendations of the 21st Century Transportation Committee. Among the components of House Bill 148 is a local - option sales tax for counties to address public transportation needs. The bill allows Wake, Durham, Orange, Forsyth and Guilford to hold a referendum on a half -cent sales tax for public transportation. The tax can only be levied by a county if approved by the voters in its county and if the board of commissioners and the relevant local transportation authority - Triangle Transit Authority or Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) - have adopted a financial plan for the proceeds. The bill also allows Alamance, Davidson, Davie, Randolph, Rockingham, Surry, Stokes and Yadkin counties, which are also members of PART, to hold referendums on a quarter -cent sales tax for public transportation. The referendums must pass in each county before it can be adopted by a Board of Commissioners. The bill also gives any other county the authority to hold a referendum on a quarter -cent sales tax for public transportation and gives to all counties the ability to institute a county vehicle registration tax not to exceed $7. If a county authorizes the registration tax but does not charge the maximum $7, a city within that county can also enact the vehicle registration tax for the remaining amount. The combined taxes cannot exceed $7 per car, and the proceeds must be used "for the operation of a public transportation 10 system and used only for financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining a public transportation system (see Exhibit C for additional information); 16) Carolina North Transportation Funding - Support the allocation of both State and University of North Carolina funding to address the regional transportation impacts that the University's new Carolina North campus will create. The University of North Carolina's new proposed Carolina North campus will have tremendous impacts on traffic in Chapel Hill, throughout Orange County, and the region. A majority of the University's staff already travel from outside Orange County, impacting the County's limited transportation infrastructure. The transportation demands and increased traffic counts created by Carolina North will be substantial and the State and University should provide funding to address these impacts; 17) County Responsibility for Roads - Oppose Senate Bill 758 - Transfer Secondary Roads to Counties - and any other efforts to delegate secondary road improvement, 11 maintenance, and costs (or the sharing of these secondary road improvement or maintenance responsibilities) to county governments. Orange County specifically emphasizes the undesirability of counties bearing or sharing the costs of secondary road improvements and /or maintenance. However, if the responsibility or the sharing of responsibility for secondary road improvements and /or the maintenance of roads is foisted upon county governments, then Orange County requests that counties also be given the authority to levy fees, tolls, and other charges as may be necessary to provide funding to address this new responsibility. A new responsibility should include new revenue opportunities to accomplish the identified needs; 18) Mental Health - Support Mental Health Reform and seek legislation that assures local capacity to serve the needs of citizens. The state must support local government, both financially and statutorily, to equip itself with adequate tools for crisis intervention and appropriate housing for the mentally ill to allow their 12 integration into local communities. Orange County also expresses support for increased allocations by the State which may be available in the current fiscal year as a result of the Federal Stimulus Package to strengthen community -based mental health services; i.e., Club Nova (Carrboro) and KidsCope (Hillsborough) that have required recent supplemental financial support from Orange County government; 19) Mental Health Custody - Oppose House Bill 243 - Mental Health /Law Enforcement Custody - in its current form and any other similar legislation addressing the treatment of individuals who are being transported to medical facilities on an involuntary commitment order. The bill as written places undue financial burdens upon the law enforcement agency if in the course of custody a prisoner is discovered to have a medical condition that needs treatment. These unforeseeable costs are extremely problematic and Orange County urges any expectation or demand that local governments absorb this expense be removed; 13 20) Paternity Set -Aside - Oppose any legislative proposals that would allow fathers to petition the court for a paternity test even after paternity has been established by court order or an affidavit of parentage that fails to address two important areas of concern: (1) How the upfront costs would be paid (Counties should not be held liable for the fiscal consequences. Orange County Child Support Enforcement estimates, if 25% of its caseload evoked this privilege, the cost would be $39,060.); and (2) The best interests of the child are not considered (Orange County has always encouraged paternity testing before any documentation is signed with explanation given about the consequences of not conducting a paternity test. Children continue to need the protection that orders and affidavits provide in the legal system.); 21) Smoking - Prohibit in Public Places - Support House Bill 2 - Prohibit Smoking in Public & Work Places - and, any other similar legislation which would limit or prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment or would permit local governments to limit 14 or prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment; 22) Wastewater System Classifications for Volunteer Fire Departments - Support actions to change North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) wastewater system classification rules which currently classify a spray irrigation system such as one utilized by volunteer fire departments as "commercial ". This classification is appropriate when floor drains or other sources of non - domestic wastewater are present. However, when the flow generated by the system is domestic quality /non- industrial process wastewater, the system should be held to the same monitoring and testing standards as a residential wastewater system under DWQ jurisdiction. In the alternative, volunteer fire departments should be excluded entirely from the "commercial" classification. The annual inspections and testing costs associated with a "commercial" designation for a spray irrigation system serving a volunteer fire department can be several thousands of dollars. Accounting for the type of flow actually treated by a system rather than assigning a blanket "commercial" 15 designation would significantly reduce a volunteer fire department's annual cost; 23) Euthanasia of Sheltered Animals - Support House Bill 6 - Davie's Law /Humane Euthanasia in Shelters - or any other similar legislation which directs the use of sodium pentobarbital or its equivalent in the unfortunate event euthanasia is necessary for a sheltered animal, and precludes the use of carbon monoxide or other gas for euthanasia purposes for sheltered animals; 24) B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules-- Orange County requests that members of the North Carolina General Assembly approve the Jordan lake Reservoir Nutrient Strategy rules in order to protect the public health and welfare of the citizens of Orange County and other residents of North Carolina. The County does believe the rules should recognize Orange County's watershed protection efforts prior to the baseline year of 2001, lest the new regulations fail to recognize good stewards such as Orange County, and that the State should provide funding to retrofit existing 16 development to the extent it will require local governments to become the designer, builder and manager of watershed protection measures required by the Jordan Lake rules (See Exhibit D - April 7, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Adopted Resolution in Support of the Proposed Jordan Reservoir Water Supply Nutrient Strategy Rules 15A NCA 02B.0262 -.0273 & .0311); 25) Bio- solids Disposal - Support legislation which provides county governments some opportunity to regulate and /or have input into, but not prohibit, sludge application activities, including the acceptable "classes" of sludge for application and the prohibition of sludge application in certain environmentally sensitive areas such as critical watersheds. Orange County is not seeking to eliminate the appropriate application of bio- solids for agricultural use, but believes counties should play a role in the process. (See Exhibit E for additional information); 26) Open Burning /Burning Permits - Support amending the statutes (G.S. 113- 60.31) related to open burning to remove the open burning prohibition exemption that is 17 currently available during periods of hazardous forest fire conditions, during drought periods, or during air pollution episodes; or, in the alternative, granting local governments the authority to prohibit open burning without the State's declaration of a hazardous condition since local fire authorities are best suited to assess local conditions and determine the best courses of action related to burning activities; 27) Herbicide Use Limitations for Utility Company Right of Way Maintenance - Support legislation that would further regulate or prohibit the use of herbicides for the clearing and maintenance of easements and rights of way by utility companies; 28) Outdoor Advertising Vegetation Removal - Oppose any efforts to revise provisions governing vegetation removal for outdoor advertising purposes that would expand the opportunities for additional vegetation removal along interstate and other road right -of -ways. Orange County believes that the scenic beauty of the state is significantly harmed by outdoor advertising signs in general and further diminished with the associated vegetation removal. The County opposes any efforts to permit additional outdoor advertising signs and any relaxation of the rules limiting vegetation removal for new or existing signs; 29) Development Incentives in Exchange for Reductions in Energy Consumption - Seek and /or support legislation (such as Senate Bill 1597 (2007 -08)) to allow cities and counties to adopt ordinances to grant a density bonus, make adjustments to otherwise applicable development requirements, or provide other incentives to a developer within a local government's planning jurisdiction if the developer agrees to construct new development or reconstruct existing development in a manner that the local government determines, based on generally recognized standards established for such purposes, makes a significant contribution to the reduction of energy consumption; 30) Monetary Exactions for Developments - Oppose Senate Bill 447 and any other similar legislation which would preclude local governments from requiring a monetary contribution for the impact of development that is not 19 expressly authorized by law. This bill could impact a local government adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) ; 31) Development Moratoria Authority - Oppose Senate Bill 117 and any other similar legislation which would prohibit a county from imposing a time - limited building moratorium while it develops or revises a development ordinance; 32) Energy Efficiency Standards in Local Building Codes - Support changes in State law to allow local governments to include standards for energy efficiency in local building codes that are higher than those contained in the State Building Code; 33) Solid Waste Services - Oppose any legislation to further weaken the authority and /or ability of local governments to operate and administer Solid Waste services, including opposition to legislation similar to Senate Bill 951 (2006) and any other legislation that would limit local governments' opportunities in their solid waste service delivery to reduce costs, 20 improve the quality of service, and /or meet local waste reduction goals; 34) Construction and Demolition Landfill - Change in Operations - Support legislative assistance to change the State rules /statutes regarding the origin of materials and not the material use in connection with C & D landfill disposal. Orange County continues to challenge the change in State rules /statutes. The effect is that considerable C & D materials are now required to be placed in the County Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill using valuable space, raising costs, and creating operational difficulties for field supervisors. For many years the State did not apply a rigid interpretation and related enforcement. Orange County, while fully compliant, maintains this rule is expensive, unnecessary, and detrimental to waste reduction goals. The cost of losing 3 months of capacity in the MSW landfill due to the shift of C &D materials is estimated at $240,000 per month or a total of $720,000. Moreover the increased cost to the Solid Waste Sanitation Division for delivering C & D like 21 materials to the MSW landfill is approximately $5,239, with $1,310 for each additional month thereafter. The State can impose a maximum administrative penalty of $15,000 per day for non - compliance with the C & D definition. See Exhibit F - April 18, 2008 Memorandum Regarding Change in Landfill Operations; 35) Broadband - Orange County supports legislation, funding, and other efforts made to expand broadband capability to the rural areas of the state to enhance quality of life as well as expand opportunities for small business and farm enterprise growth; 36) Bicycle Safety Education - Support legislation to increase the emphasis on bicycle safety issues in drivers' education courses and on the State drivers' license examination; 37) Employment Anti- Discrimination Legislation (Statewide) - Support legislation creating a statewide employment anti - discrimination law and providing for local 22 government enforcement through memoranda of understanding or other appropriate mechanisms; 38) Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage - Oppose any proposed Constitutional amendment which limits or defines marriage as only the union of a man and a woman or provides that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union recognized in North Carolina; 39) North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) Legislative Goals - Support NCACC's Legislative Goals, many elements of which were and are initiatives of Orange County, and noting the additional Orange County explanatory language included in Bold Italic where appropriate (See Exhibit G); 40) Triangle J Council of Governments 2009 Regional Legislative Agenda - Support legislation that would accomplish the Triangle J Council of Governments 2009 Regional Legislative Agenda, which is Exhibit H to this Resolution, many elements of which were and are initiatives of Orange County. 23 Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner s�t' , the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 7th day of April, 2009. I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on April 7, 2009 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2009. Clerk to he oard of Commissioner