WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 697

Creating Caregiver Tax Credit Act

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Kevan Bartlett and 5 co-sponsors

Codifies the Lake Norman Marine Commission as a statutory five-member body to coordinate water quality, safety, and lake planning across four counties; counties may withdraw.

To Finance
#taxation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 697

SB 697 — Lake Norman Marine Commission (North Carolina) — Bill Summary

Status: Introduced Feb 21, 2025 — Withdrawn from committee (per provided status)
Primary sponsors (original): Senators Sawyer and Alexander

Purpose / Intent

SB 697 would codify and reconstitute the Lake Norman Marine Commission in statute (new Article 6B in Chapter 77, G.S.) to provide an ongoing, joint local-government body with authority and procedures to coordinate stewardship of Lake Norman. The stated goals are to improve operational and administrative governance of the lake to protect water quality, public safety for recreational users, and regional economic and public health interests.

Key provisions

  • Creates a statutory Article (Article 6B) establishing the Lake Norman Marine Commission and setting out definitions, membership, organization, powers, and procedures.
  • Geographic scope: Lake Norman is defined as the impounded portion of the Catawba River within the four counties (from Lookout Shoals Dam base/bridge crossing near Rural Road 1004 downstream to Cowans Ford Dam) and the shoreline area is defined (later drafts narrow the zone landward to a 50‑foot contour from the lake elevation; earlier drafts used “within one mile” — the bill text records amendments on this point).
  • Governance: a five‑member governing board (the “Commission”) appointed by the four participating counties (Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg). Appointments are staggered to create overlapping five‑year terms with a specified initial rotation; vacancy appointments are made by the appointing county.
  • Membership mechanics: initial appointment allocations and a multi‑year rotation schedule are specified; the bill includes eligibility, terms, and removal/fill‑vacancy rules.
  • Operational rules: commissioners elect officers (one‑year terms), adopt rules, and may form committees.
  • Powers and administration: within available funds, the Commission may hire staff, contract with consultants and public agencies, lease or acquire property, and carry out programs consistent with its duties (subject to joint resolution and budgetary requirements).
  • Withdrawal and dissolution: a participating county/local government may withdraw (mechanism includes notice and mediation; a 90‑day informal settlement period is specified). If fewer than three participating governments remain, the Commission dissolves and assets are distributed equitably among participating local governments or public agencies.
  • Applicability: actions by the Commission regarding the shoreline area apply only within counties that remain participating local governments.

Who is affected

  • Local governments: Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg counties (and other eligible local governments that choose to participate).
  • Lake users and shoreline property owners: recreational boaters, marinas, businesses, and residents around Lake Norman would be affected by rules, programs, and any Commission initiatives on water quality and safety.
  • State agencies: potential contracting and coordination with state agencies (e.g., NC Wildlife Resources Commission) for enforcement, monitoring, or technical support.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The bill text appears through multiple committee drafts and editions (committee substitute versions refined membership, shoreline definition, and withdrawal procedures).
  • Per the header provided, SB 697 was withdrawn from committee after introduction; other legislative logs in the packet include later-stage activity for different bills with the same number in other jurisdictions — those are separate measures and not part of this North Carolina bill.
  • If reintroduced or advanced, the bill would require local joint resolutions by participating counties to create the Commission under the statutory framework.

Potential impacts

  • Positive: creates a stable, statutory framework for inter‑jurisdictional coordination on lake management, which could improve consistent water‑quality programs, boating safety, and regional planning.
  • Considerations: fiscal and staffing needs would depend on the Commission’s budget and whether participating counties commit funding or in‑kind support; local governments retain the ability to withdraw (with mediation), which may affect long‑term continuity.

If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side comparison of the bill’s three main draft editions (membership, shoreline definition, and withdrawal language) or extract the exact statutory language proposed for specific sections (e.g., §77‑89.2–§77‑89.6).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.